The false betrayal of Mourinho | sports

The false betrayal of Mourinho | sports

No more false story of dismissal of Mourinho that of his betrayal in the style of Manchester United. If there was any betrayal, it corresponded to the club, which advertises attack football but chose a pragmatist of such caliber that it became what he most hates: a bard of pragmatism. Mourinho did not deceive anyone when he persecuted and let himself be chased by the most powerful team in England. It was the same demagogue, narcissistic and divisive character as always, but increasingly away from reality and closer to the parody that devours him as a coach.

All kinds of analysis and theories have been developed to justify Manchester United's decision, after two frustrating seasons for a team that ruled English football for 20 years. The club is so big and the coach so well known that the dismissal admits endless readings. A very popular has tried to exonerate Manchester United of its responsibility in a period that exceeds the mandate of Mourinho, third technician since the departure of Alex Ferguson in 2012.

It is never easy to manage the end of success and go into the territory of uncertainty. Manchester United chose David Moyes because he was a friend of Ferguson and as Scottish as he was. It did not work A Moyes, belonging to the old British school, came great club, team and the international drift of the Premier. Since then, Moyes goes from tumbo to tumbo. With Van Gaal was intended to give a continental touch to the team and rely on the good hand of the Dutch coach with the quarry, indisputable ingredient in the success of Ferguson with the generation of Giggs, Scholes, Beckham, Butt and the Neville brothers.

The opportunity came late to Van Gaal. He was no longer in a position to transform the team as he had 20 years ago with Ajax. I did not have the age, the patience and the energy to undertake a huge challenge. The Manchester United wanted titles immediately and Van Gaal did not get them, although during his interregnum emerged Rashford and Lingaard, two young and excellent strikers.

The signing of Mourinho was not due to any interest in perpetuating the Manchester United attacking football tradition, a tradition that is more than questionable, despite the publicity it has received since time immemorial. Mourinho arrived because Manchester United began to enter a state of panic after three irrelevant seasons in the league. The landing of Jurgen Klopp in Liverpool half a year ago and that of Pep Guardiola in Manchester City, that is to say, the great historical rival and the local adversary, exacerbated the insecurity in the club.

Mourinho was hired because his celebrity fit well with one of the most prestigious teams in the world and because he had a reputation as an incurable pragmatist. Mourinho is not registered for his aesthetic finesse, nor for the creativity of his teams. The problem is that Mourinho was no longer the ambitious and hungry coach who broke into Chelsea when in the Premier there were only five foreign technicians.

The Portuguese took advantage of this advantage against the dinosaurs that dominated the championship in 2004. This season, 15 of the 20 Premier League coaches are foreigners. Some of them are among the best and most innovative in history. It is not the case of Mourinho, whose regression is evident. Probably, your time has passed. It's been a long time since he has assured what he promised: reliability and success. To that, and nothing else, Manchester United was seized. As for the style, Mourinho did not deceive anyone. If someone committed a betrayal, it was Manchester United when he signed him.

Source link