Jose vs Conte - who did a better job for us?

[hughy]

Really? This I don't agree with. Yes, Jose has more charisma but his football is the worst i've seen in my 35 years supporting spurs.

Pretty much park the bus, get it to Kane or Tanguy hope they do something good to create a chance on the counter. Apart from that we had literally no other plan on the ball. The centre backs would continuely just pass it among themselves before running out of ideas and launching it to no one. So painful to watch.

Conte's team played some exhilarating stuff last season. Yes it was counter attacking football but more of the type where we drew the opposition in and then passed around them with over loads on the flanks and good movement. So refreshing to see us with a variation of patterns of play to get the ball from the centrebacks to the attacking line.

Everything here (apart from the Tanguy mention) can be said about us under Conte towards the end too.

Let's not forget we had some decent form under Jose too. The run at the beginning of the 20/21 season where we went 11 or 12 unbeaten had us top of the table, and included some really exciting games.

Let's be honest neither were great, but I fully back Jose over Conte in this debate.

 

[wrd]

One got us Champions League after losing a lot of season to Nuno and inherited a team that suffered the downward trajectory of Jose's Tenure. The other inherited a team that was going through a difficult spell mentally after coming close to Champions League glory but had been a team full of belief, quality and attacking guile. The team that Conte inherited compared to the team that the new guy inherited is night and day.

In the long run, Conte's time here will reveal itself to have been beneficial, he took several players out of their comfort zone and suffered their underperformance as they learnt new ways of playing. Hopefully the new manager now allows the players to do what they do best but they'll have a more well rounded game through the discomfort of working in Conte's methods. I think ultimately when a manager only has a short stay, the quality of their job can only be truly seen by how the club develops under the next manager and even though relies on making an appointment that is a step forward not backwards.

 

[skiba]

Conte for me. That period under him when we got top four gave me genuine belief that we could do something special under him. I never got the same feeling under Jose and even when we were top under him, in a lot of ways it felt very similar to this season where the results were unsustainable considering our performances.

 

[HildoSpur]

Easily Conte

 

[fishhhandaricecake]

75 votes for Conte 48 for Jose so far. 49% vs 31%.

About what I expected tbh given Conte got us into the CL but I do think that misses the overall context a bit because Jose took us over from a worse starting league position and he also got us to a cup final.

For me I felt that if things had gone differently we could've won something under Jose whereas I never really felt like there was a chance at all that we could win anything under Conte however our league form was slightly better overall.

 

[fishhhandaricecake]

One got us Champions League after losing a lot of season to Nuno and inherited a team that suffered the downward trajectory of Jose's Tenure. The other inherited a team that was going through a difficult spell mentally after coming close to Champions League glory but had been a team full of belief, quality and attacking guile. The team that Conte inherited compared to the team that the new guy inherited is night and day.

In the long run, Conte's time here will reveal itself to have been beneficial, he took several players out of their comfort zone and suffered their underperformance as they learnt new ways of playing. Hopefully the new manager now allows the players to do what they do best but they'll have a more well rounded game through the discomfort of working in Conte's methods. I think ultimately when a manager only has a short stay, the quality of their job can only be truly seen by how the club develops under the next manager and even though relies on making an appointment that is a step forward not backwards.

Good points mate but to balance that out Conte was given more money and backing and better signings, he also failed miserably in all cup competitions whereas Jose got us to a final and barring a crazy collapse in Europe possibly would've got us to a 2nd final.

Agree with your final point that at times you don't always see how good a bad a job a manager has done until the next person has take over and has either benefited or had to re-build following the previous persons work.

Ultimately both were a bad fit for us but for me Jose edges it overall but not surprised to see Conte get more votes based on the fact he got us CL if 'one' looks at that in isolation without context.

 

[homer hotspur]

Multiple votes are allowed??

 

[wrd]

Good points mate but to balance that out Conte was given more money and backing and better signings, he also failed miserably in all cup competitions whereas Jose got us to a final and barring a crazy collapse in Europe possibly would've got us to a 2nd final.

Agree with your final point that at times you don't always see how good a bad a job a manager has done until the next person has take over and has either benefited or had to re-build following the previous persons work.

Ultimately both were a bad fit for us but for me Jose edges it overall but not surprised to see Conte get more votes based on the fact he got us CL if 'one' looks at that in isolation without context.

I think the context needs to be applied to that run to the league cup final also though, we were handed a bye against Leyton Orient, we beat Chelsea on penalties which is a good result and then we beat Stoke and Brentford before they were in the prem. It was a very favourable run so I don't value that against what was accomplished in order to make top4 last season and I'd argue that looking at it as Jose got us to a final is looking at the result without context where as the context in the manner we achieved top4 is vastly more significiant.

The level of improvement we showed was significant under Conte during those final 10-12 games, we finally seemed to produce a coherent style of football. That was off of the back of two January signings. That 3 or so month period was the best under either manager and I don't think anything else under either came close. Conte performed poorly in the cups, certainly agree with that, particular that week with Sheffield and the shambles that was that home tie vs Milan but I don't think Jose got anywhere near it.

Jose didn't get as much investment but I don't particularly see that as the best metric because investments often don't pay dividends in the season they're acquired. He was certainly backed more than Jose and the fact that he seemingly had a more functional team before the summer investment is pretty damning for Conte and his 2nd season. However there's lots of other variables to be considered in that 2nd season, namely the death of a friend and integral staff member, a couple of other friends passing away, a surgery and for whatever reason a breakdown in relationship between Conte and Levy in relation to the investments. Jose having to deal with the pandemic to me is pretty redundant because it was something faced by all the teams so any impact can't be considered a factor in performance when it's the same for all competitors. I imagine that investment relative to competitors during covid is quite similar in terms of gap between spurs and rivals as a % also.

 

[fishhhandaricecake]

I think the context needs to be applied to that run to the league cup final also though, we were handed a bye against Leyton Orient, we beat Chelsea on penalties which is a good result and then we beat Stoke and Brentford before they were in the prem. It was a very favourable run so I don't value that against what was accomplished in order to make top4 last season and I'd argue that looking at it as Jose got us to a final is looking at the result without context where as the context in the manner we achieved top4 is vastly more significiant.

The level of improvement we showed was significant under Conte during those final 10-12 games, we finally seemed to produce a coherent style of football. That was off of the back of two January signings. That 3 or so month period was the best under either manager and I don't think anything else under either came close. Conte performed poorly in the cups, certainly agree with that, particular that week with Sheffield and the shambles that was that home tie vs Milan but I don't think Jose got anywhere near it.

Jose didn't get as much investment but I don't particularly see that as the best metric because investments often don't pay dividends in the season they're acquired. He was certainly backed more than Jose and the fact that he seemingly had a more functional team before the summer investment is pretty damning for Conte and his 2nd season. However there's lots of other variables to be considered in that 2nd season, namely the death of a friend and integral staff member, a couple of other friends passing away, a surgery and for whatever reason a breakdown in relationship between Conte and Levy in relation to the investments. Jose having to deal with the pandemic to me is pretty redundant because it was something faced by all the teams so any impact can't be considered a factor in performance when it's the same for all competitors.

Yes and no, you say the run to the final was easy but we beat Chelsea sen Brentford whereas under Conte we went out of cups to : N.Forest, Sheff Utd etc.

Agree Conte’s transformation at end of last season was impressive but then again once Jose had got his teeth into us we beat Man.U 6-1 and Southampton 5-1 both away I believe and we looked for a while very very good.

Also you say financial spend isn’t an immediate indicator of performance, sure not always but last season the signings of Kulu and Bentancur in Jan absolutely transformed us there is really no denying that and Jose never got given 2 players of that quality, the closest he got was Bale who was only ever fit for about half a match at a time.

Agree as per my OP that contes personal circumstances effected his 2nd season with us unfortunately.

I just feel like he was too stubborn and for example against AC Milan we just never looked like we ever had a chance because we just didn’t attack whereas under Jose although we parked the bus at times we generally tried to win every game and it was more defensive lapses that meant we collapsed leads such as 3-0 vs west ham to 3-3 or being a goal ahead in the European cup tie against the team with the manager in prison but collapsing mostly due to Sanchez and Dier brain farts whereas under Conte we at times didn’t look like scoring so just had no chance at all in certain games.

 

[wrd]

Yes and no, you say the run to the final was easy but we beat Chelsea sen Brentford whereas under Conte we went out of cups to : N.Forest, Sheff Utd etc.

Agree Conte’s transformation at end of last season was impressive but then again once Jose had got his teeth into us we beat Man.U 6-1 and Southampton 5-1 both away I believe and we looked for a while very very good.

Also you say financial spend isn’t an immediate indicator of performance, sure not always but last season the signings of Kulu and Bentancur in Jan absolutely transformed us there is really no denying that and Jose never got given 2 players of that quality, the closest he got was Bale who was only ever fit for about half a match at a time.

We beat Man United 6-1 because they hadn't had as long a pre-season as us, they were in a competition that meant their previous season went longer and so they started later than us, if you look at their start to the season, they were horrific.

Well it's what you do with them, he got Bergwijn for 28 million. He got Hojbjerg, I certainly prefer Kulu and Bentancur but I don't think the margin is that vast. It's easy to say this or that player wasn't of high quality upon reflection but this place thought we had pulled off a ridiculous deal when we got Bale and Reguilon for example That Jose failed to utilise players who were signed with perceived greater potential than Kulusevki and Bentancur reflects poorly on him. Where as Conte extracted a great deal from Kulusevki and Bentancur, look at the opinions of those signings when we got them, to suggest that it takes away from the job that Conte did as opposed to adds to it's credit is strange to me. Particular when the majority of players got worse under Jose and then improved under Conte, including Jose's signings of Hojbjerg, Doherty and Bergwijn.

 

[fishhhandaricecake]

We beat Man United 6-1 because they hadn't had as long a pre-season as us, they were in a competition that meant their previous season went longer and so they started later than us, if you look at their start to the season, they were horrific.

Well it's what you do with them, he got Bergwijn for 28 million. He got Hojbjerg, I certainly prefer Kulu and Bentancur but I don't think the margin is that vast. It's easy to say this or that player wasn't of high quality upon reflection but this place thought we had pulled off a ridiculous deal when we got Bale and Reguilon for example That Jose failed to utilise players who were signed with perceived greater potential than Kulusevki and Bentancur reflects poorly on him. Where as Conte extracted a great deal from Kulusevki and Bentancur, look at the opinions of those signings when we got them, to suggest that it takes away from the job that Conte did as opposed to adds to it's credit is strange to me. Particular when the majority of players got worse under Jose and then improved under Conte, including Jose's signings of Hojbjerg, Doherty and Bergwijn.

Ok thought it was a good debate but you’re very anti Jose pro conte which is fine you’re entitled to your opinion especially given your avatar

It’s semantics now and I think who did a better job is a close call especially if you micro analyse every point.

All an interesting debate anyways though and some great points from others posters too.

The poll slightly in favour of Conte was about what i expected.

 

[wrd]

Ok thought it was a good debate but you’re very anti Jose pro conte which is fine you’re entitled to your opinion especially given your avatar

It’s semantics now and I think who did a better job is a close call especially if you micro analyse every point.

All an interesting debate anyways though and some great points from others posters too.

The poll slightly in favour of Conte was about what i expected.

I haven't updated my avatar since we changed our avatars when trying to hire him, it's not a reflection of my feelings toward anything. I'd consider if perhaps the accusation of being pro/anti you've chucked my way is actually a reflection on your own feelings, especially given you started the thread. I took issue with your comment about people not looking at things in context and so it made me want to counter that point with the context's your argument ignored. Not a single argument I've made has made any judgement on who they are as people. So basically what I'm saying is that I think you should have just said you didn't want to debate the points anymore instead of chucking out a weakly premised accusation of bias.

 

[fishhhandaricecake]

I haven't updated my avatar since we changed our avatars when trying to hire him, it's not a reflection of my feelings toward anything. I'd consider if perhaps the accusation of being pro/anti you've chucked my way is actually a reflection on your own feelings, especially given you started the thread. I took issue with your comment about people not looking at things in context and so it made me want to counter that point with the context's your argument ignored. Not a single argument I've made has made any judgement on who they are as people. So basically what I'm saying is that I think you should have just said you didn't want to debate the points anymore instead of chucking out a weakly premised accusation of bias.

I think some crossed wires here mate, no hard feelings, its been a good thread and debate so lets move on and get back on topic.

 

[talkshowhost86]

One got us Champions League after losing a lot of season to Nuno and inherited a team that suffered the downward trajectory of Jose's Tenure. The other inherited a team that was going through a difficult spell mentally after coming close to Champions League glory but had been a team full of belief, quality and attacking guile. The team that Conte inherited compared to the team that the new guy inherited is night and day.

In the long run, Conte's time here will reveal itself to have been beneficial, he took several players out of their comfort zone and suffered their underperformance as they learnt new ways of playing. Hopefully the new manager now allows the players to do what they do best but they'll have a more well rounded game through the discomfort of working in Conte's methods. I think ultimately when a manager only has a short stay, the quality of their job can only be truly seen by how the club develops under the next manager and even though relies on making an appointment that is a step forward not backwards.

I think attributing any potential future upturn in our performances based on what Conte did is wildly wildly generous

Although I do think Jacques Santini was the main reason we first qualified for the Champions League

 

[wrd]

I think attributing any potential future upturn in our performances based on what Conte did is wildly wildly generous

Although I do think Jacques Santini was the main reason we first qualified for the Champions League

There's a difference between benefitting from and seeing something as the main reason or attributing it as a key contributor. People often practice things and don't see the fruits of their labour until later down the road, I don't think it's going to be glaringly obvious benefits but small additions to players games such as the decisions they make in certain situations they wouldn't have previously seen to make.

 

[talkshowhost86]

There's a difference between benefitting from and seeing something as the main reason or attributing it as a key contributor. People often practice things and don't see the fruits of their labour until later down the road, I don't think it's going to be glaringly obvious benefits but small additions to players games such as the decisions they make in certain situations they wouldn't have previously seen to make.

Possibly

But I'll be honest it would have been nice if he'd improved any of them whilst he was actually at the club

 

[newbie]

So now the dust has settled a bit on us parting ways with Conte, it got me thinking as Spurs fans who do we think did a better job out of the two ‘Super Elite’ Managers that we sold our soul to the devil for during the last 3 years: Jose Mourinho or Antonio Conte?

Jose:
Played 86
Won 45
Drawn 17
Lost 24
GF ave 2.01
GA ave 1.28
1.77PPG
Highest finish 6th
Best cup result : League Cup Final (sacked before it)

Conte:
Played 76
Won 41
Drawn 12
Lost 23
GF ave 1.79
GA ave 1.12
PPG 1.78
Highest finish 4th
Best cup result : Rd of 16 in the CL

For me this is actually quite a close call.

Both managed us for about 500 days in total. The stats are on the whole pretty similar, Conte has marginally better PPG, Jose’s Spurs scored more goals but played in lesser European competition.

Conte was better in the league, Jose was better in the cups.

Jose arguably had a better squad when he took over but Conte got better financial backing with signings.

Jose alienated and cast aside players and the football at times was horrible to watch and we kept throwing away leads, Conte also alienated certain people and also the football was horrible at times and we often had terrible 1st halves and had to keep making big comebacks from 2/3-0 down.

When we were good under Conte at the end of his 1st season we thrashed Everton, Leicester, Norwich and got an epic win away at Man.City.

When we were good under Jose we pummelled Man.U 6-1 away? Put 5 past Southampton at their place beat Man.City and so on.

We also topped the table under Jose and under Conte we had our best ever PL start.

Jose took over when we were around 12th I think under Poch and got us to 6th, Conte took us over when we were around 9th under Nuno and got us to 4th.

Conte also had 3 personal tragedies and a health scare to deal with. Jose had a pandemic to deal with.

Both managers were stubborn and toxic and negative in different ways.

Both were motivational in ways at times.

For me it’s a very close call but I actually think that Jose did a better job, if he was given the cup final he might have won it and if we’d not thrown away that lead in Europe against that team with the Manager in jail I think he’d have got us to the final, he also didn’t get as much financial backing in the transfer market as Conte did and he took us over in a lower league position.

Close call and ups and downs with both and ultimately neither we’re a particularly good fit for us but for me I think Jose just about edges it.

Who do you think did a better job for us overall and why?

Jose did have a huge injury problem i wonder how Conte would have done without Son and Kane?

 

[mattdefoe]

Mourinho got us to a final and it wasn’t that bad when he got fired compared to now.

we’d likely have a cup if we’d stuck with Mourinho

 

[yojambo]

Its easy to say in hindsight but If Jose was given more time and backed with a new defense, i think we would have won something. Kane and Son were pretty much unstoppable on the counter under him.

Time heals all things so my memory of Jose has softened. But when i really think about it, the build up play was so laughably bad. The phrase "no patterns of play" was thrown around a lot.

 

[dontcallme]

Hard to say. Both joined midseason when we were in a bad patch then they turned things around well, but not to miraculous levels.

The next season was then a disappointment. I think Jose was just a very negative influence on the club while I think some of Conte's issues were health and personal related.

So I give the nod to Conte for circumstances out of his control playing a larger factor.