What's new

Spurs fans should fear four years of Mourinho’s small-minded cynicism

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Jun 7, 2004
18,106
45,030
I'm normally a fan of Liew's writing, but that is a pile of steaming tabloid snideness, based not on fact but on mischief.

He conveniently fails to mention any of Mourinho's list of trophies and achievements with multiple clubs. Funny, that: you'd think he was describing Tony Pulis, FFS.

The article is unadulterated bollocks, the more so because of the multiple occasions when Pochettino adopted similar sit-deep-and-hit-'em-on-the-break tactics in the absence of Harry Kane, notably against Man City.
 

jolsnogross

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2005
3,730
5,431
I'm normally a fan of Liew's writing, but that is a pile of steaming tabloid snideness, based not on fact but on mischief.

He conveniently fails to mention any of Mourinho's list of trophies and achievements with multiple clubs. Funny, that: you'd think he was describing Tony Pulis, FFS.

The article is unadulterated bollocks, the more so because of the multiple occasions when Pochettino adopted similar sit-deep-and-hit-'em-on-the-break tactics in the absence of Harry Kane, notably against Man City.
In the broader scheme of things, what do you think the outlook is for us under Mourinho, David?

Do you reckon Spurs strategic approach (Poch's "philosophy") has changed dramatically now with Mourinho?

I think that argument has merit, that Mourinho tends to be a reactive manager rather than adhere to a particular vision of how to play. That switch could be fraught with difficulty at Spurs because it didn't work at United where the purse strings aren't as tight. And it represents a danger to us over the longer term because a big shift in philosophy (not sticking to a 'type') can end up with such a muddled outcome.

I'll be quite happy if he can achieve what Poch did, although I'm skeptical that a reactive approach can work. It has worked previously, albeit often with the side with the strongest purchasing power in the league at that time. Even then, he succeeded with Inter and Madrid against more technical teams, but it is usually pretty cynical stuff.

My main concern, because it doesn't matter that I'm not a fan of him personality wise, is I reckon footy has moved on and more fluid teams that don't play deep and don't need a pivotal number 9 have a strong edge.
 

thelak

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
2,166
6,950
One of the worst articles I have read

Has this guy seen us play this season

had this guy seen Liverpool play this season

seems like they hired a 15 year old on work experience to write this. Proper click bait

No wonder the guardian are begging for donations on their site
 

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2005
46,680
104,957
Agree with everyone else. It’s just a terrible article. I bet it’s been sat in his drafts since we appointed Mourinho. Hopefully when we adopt it against Man City we get something from the game. Not that that will shut them up.
 

mawspurs

Staff
Jun 29, 2003
35,069
17,740
The author of the article has taken many of Jose comments out of context, twisted them and made them fit his agenda. For example Jose's comments about us collapsing if we played the same way the whole game were based around Lamela and Lo Ceslo's fitness levels, Jose was saying they are not yet fit enough to play the whole 90 minutes. If they were we may well have started how we finished and finished how we started.
 

Dennism

Well-Known Member
Dec 23, 2006
1,225
2,712
The Guardian seem to have it in for Spurs. The success Jose has had proves this is rubbish. Was this guy writing this stuff when he was winning at Chelsea? Even at United he was more success than anybody else after Ferguson.
 

rupsmith

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2006
1,714
2,328
Wow that was extraordinarily poor. This Liew guy normally articulates his thoughts quite clearly and objectively. That was tabloid trash. I mean "small minded cynicism". A truly wtf reaction.

Whether someone likes him or not - as a person, or based on his so called "style of play" (which I think is a stereotype based on probably his Inter side) - Jose Mourinho is one of the most successful managers in the history of football.

To not give him credit for that in his assessment of managerial quality is disappointingly poor sports journalism. Poor stuff from the Guardian letting that through editorial and quality control. Almost "Trump" like poor quality of commentary
 
Last edited:

whitelightwhiteheat

SC Supporter
Jul 21, 2006
6,517
3,195
Nobody would have complained if we didn't miss the three gilt-edged chances that we had and won the game. Take two of them and we win the game.

Also if Winks wasn't so stupid as to let himself get drawn in and let a basic throw in go over his head. The kind of shit you coach a 10 year old to not fall for - We'd have at least got a draw.

Jose needs opportunities to a) Work with the shit we've got and b) Bring in his own players. We can judge where we're at once those things have happened. Maybe it'll be shit, maybe it won't.
 

double0

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2006
14,423
12,258
Mourinho was right to play that tactic against Liverpool and if we'd have taken our chances people will hale him. The problem was we lost. If we'd have gone for Liverpool without our top shooter they'd have slaughtered us imo with that front three. I seriously was fearing another Bayern Munich score.
 

BENNO

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2005
791
3,233
Until Jose became our manager i was completely unaware of just how many journalists want to see him fail and will go out of their way to twist the things he's said or blow out of all proportion something he's done. I've listened to a few podcasts and read various reports on him and Spurs and the way some journalists have twisted things is absolutely amazing - they clearly dislike him and are actively trying to turn Spurs fans against him (and i'm sure they did the same when he was at United but obviously i wasn't as aware of quite how bad it was).

Fwiw, apart from the 'but i was rude to an idiot' quote - which was hardly terrible - i have thoroughly enjoyed every Mourinho press conference (due to him actually answering the questions) and i have very much liked his overall demeanour and how he has come across as our manager. He's been very respectful and represented our club well, and has also spoken well about the players (the ''NDombele is always injured'' quotes are another example of something being blown up and twisted, as he actually spoke very highly of NDombele and was rueing the opportunity of having him playing week in week out, rather than having a dig at him).

As for the playing side of things i feel there is absolutely no point in really judging Mourinho's set up or tactics until the start of next season or at the very least until NDombele gets a clear run in the team and Kane is back.
 

Japhet

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2010
19,232
57,392
Negative approach that would have worked had it not been for the wastefulness of his players?
Yup, makes sense.

To be fair, if we'd put away our chances and Liverpool had put their'e away, it would have finished something like 2 - 6.
 

whitelightwhiteheat

SC Supporter
Jul 21, 2006
6,517
3,195
To be fair, if we'd put away our chances and Liverpool had put their'e away, it would have finished something like 2 - 6.

They didn't have as much as their possession suggested, not clear cut anyway. They had that moment in the first minute, fair enough. They had the Van Dijk header, which I think he'd have been flagged offside had he put the ball in the net. That's about it. Gazza made some saves but nothing you'd expect him to have been beaten by.

We had more clear cut chances.
 

sebo_sek

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2005
6,023
5,168
To be fair, if we'd put away our chances and Liverpool had put their'e away, it would have finished something like 2 - 6.
Erm, no. We had 2-3 sitters in the first half, and 3 in the last 15 minutes alone.
 
Last edited:

gusrowe

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2005
836
809
Rubbish. He went for a defensive line up to protect our injured squad from a potential pasting. His tactics worked and I feel we deserved a point.Bearing in mind he has only been in charge for 8 weeks and the injuries I feel he has done a good job so far and we will get better.
 

E17yid

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2013
16,985
30,495
No mention of him starting Tangaga either which was a brave call which paid off as he was great.
 

Japhet

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2010
19,232
57,392
No mention of him starting Tangaga either which was a brave call which paid off as he was great.

Should have started him before now IMO when you consider how badly Vertonghen has dropped off. Same for Skipp. They were both really good in pre season.
 

Chedozie

Well-Known Member
May 19, 2005
2,625
2,646
Rubbish. He went for a defensive line up to protect our injured squad from a potential pasting. His tactics worked and I feel we deserved a point.Bearing in mind he has only been in charge for 8 weeks and the injuries I feel he has done a good job so far and we will get better.

I agree, i think he’s doing a good job, we’re not a pressing side under him, but we’ve had four years of that and won nothing. Last season, when we didn’t press, we got to the European cup final, which was the most success we had under Poch.
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Jun 7, 2004
18,106
45,030
In the broader scheme of things, what do you think the outlook is for us under Mourinho, David?

Do you reckon Spurs strategic approach (Poch's "philosophy") has changed dramatically now with Mourinho?

Not yet, but that's at least in part because he has inherited a squad shaped to play a particular way, even if that way has gone a bit off track over the past year.

Many people here (and in the press) have very oversimplified notions of how Mourinho's teams play football, as one can see by some rather brash and dopey posts on this thread. He's not a footballing idealist like Pochettino or AVB, with a theory-based approach leading to an idealised style of play. He's a pragmatic coach and tactician, more reactive than prescriptive, as you said, in the sense that he sets up his team to suit the opposition and the situation. He gets away with this because he has an unusually wide-ranging understanding of how opponents play - and I suspect he also has an unusually clear ability to convey instructions to his players.

That switch could be fraught with difficulty at Spurs because it didn't work at United where the purse strings aren't as tight. And it represents a danger to us over the longer term because a big shift in philosophy (not sticking to a 'type') can end up with such a muddled outcome.

I'll be quite happy if he can achieve what Poch did, although I'm skeptical that a reactive approach can work. It has worked previously, albeit often with the side with the strongest purchasing power in the league at that time. Even then, he succeeded with Inter and Madrid against more technical teams, but it is usually pretty cynical stuff.

I'm not clear how there is a connection being being a tactician and a reactive manager, as opposed to a purist, and requiring more money to deliver results. It's inconsistent with the [unjustified] accusations that his teams play hoof-ball or are otherwise anti-football, because that is more typical of managers who are stuck perpetually at middle-level clubs, e.g., Tony Pulis and Sam Allardyce, where limited tactics are adopted as a substitute for top players.

The purse-strings were pretty tight at Man Utd when Mourinho was there: he didn't get many of the key players he wanted.

I don't have a problem with direct football, as long as it is played with precision, e.g., Alderweireld's weighted aerial balls to Dele, as opposed to whacking the ball in a general upfield direction for a big striker to chase. I enjoy watching robust and organised defensive displays, too. But both need to be part of a toolbox that also includes skilful dribbling, passing and moving, vision and improvisation.

There's an argument that being pragmatic wins you trophies, because your teams can deal with a broader range of challenges, whereas a purist/theorist manager will stick to his principles, even when it means losing way too many semi-finals.

In the 3rd and 4th year of his tenure, Pochettino visibly realised that: we started to sit back and play counter-attacking football when it was needed, especially when Kane was injured. It was part of his development as a manager.

My main concern, because it doesn't matter that I'm not a fan of him personality wise, is I reckon footy has moved on and more fluid teams that don't play deep and don't need a pivotal number 9 have a strong edge.

I don't have a problem with his personality. He's acerbic and he doesn't speak in clichés, both of which are big pluses for me.

I don't know whether his approach has been left behind. I also don't know how much his approach has changed in the past few years. We'll just have to wait to find out.

Incidentally, I also don't buy the simplistic line that Pochettino was let down by our lack of player trading over a couple of summers. We had a dauntingly good squad and it was extremely difficult to attract anyone who would strengthen it meaningfully without paying salaries we could not afford, until we were established in a 60k stadium. The only players who should arguably have been replaced, but weren't, were the ones who left - Walker and Dembélé - but Pochettino thought we had a suitable replacement in Trippier and Dembélé is unique, which made him irreplaceable. I think people underestimate how much our best 2-3 seasons were due to Dembélé's influence.

My own theory of what went wrong for Pochettino is that he was unable to adjust to the differing demands of coaching a squad full of older, more experienced players. His combination of extreme control-freak and fatherly confidant works really well with talented 20-year-olds. If you're a player who has been in his team for 4-5 years and you're closer to 30 than 20, you expect to be treated differently and taken more seriously. It's notable that the older player who stayed fiercely loyal to Pochettino was Lloris, who was accorded more respect as captain.

I also think it likely that the rigours of his training methods are great for optimising the development of young players, but lead to wear and tear and exhaustion in older players. Here's a thought: it seems that Vertonghen and Rose, also Alderweireld to a lesser extent, are starting to slow down and lose their effectiveness at 30-32. That's relatively young. How much of that is the result of 4-5 years of extreme training?

Pochettino is not a flexible man. For all his overweening ego, Mourinho is.
 
Top