Everything you thought about Jose Mourinho was wrong (now he’s boss of Man United)… plus how kids like Scott McTominay, Demarai Gray and Phil Foden can thrive with brave managers

Ah yes, that classic 1993 World Cup. That was a real barnstormer. Not as good as 1994 though. Filbo, London.

Enjoy the column Martin although not sure why you treat us to random music selections. What's the point of that? Sonicboom 208, Southampton.

Filbo is the point of that, Sonic; or the catalyst for it, at least. Let me explain. To make the column work, I read the comments section. As I’m sure you know, it’s a mixed bag. Some wisdom, some foolishness, much that is in between, most of it partisan. 


Manchester United fans used to mock Jose Mourinho for regarding the Community Shield as a cup when he was at Chelsea – now they routinely talk of him having won three trophies since coming to Old Trafford. Hey ho. I get it. Everyone thinks they have the prettiest wife at home, as Arsene Wenger said. 

Manchester United won the Community Shield not long after Jose Mourinho took charge

Manchester United won the Community Shield not long after Jose Mourinho took charge

But in the midst of it all there are posters like Filbo, who just get on your wick. Like Filbo, who genuinely thinks that I wouldn’t know the World Cup is played in even years. Here’s what I wrote in a piece about Michail Antonio, earlier this week. 'In 1993, as France played Bulgaria, with the scores tied at 1-1 and the clock ticking down, David Ginola over-hit a cross meant for Eric Cantona. Bulgaria broke, scored, and France went out of the World Cup.'

Now it was fairly obvious to me, and to anyone who knows football, at what stage France went out of the World Cup. I wouldn’t insult your intelligence by specifically stating: in the qualifiers. It was a fairly famous incident anyway. But Filbo, thinking it would make him appear clever, spotted his opportunity. And you’re right Filbo, there was no 1993 World Cup. But there were World Cup qualifiers, just as in 2017 we are playing the qualifiers for the 2018 World Cup. And I really shouldn’t have needed to make that plain.

So what has this to do with the music, Sonic? Well, from the start I wanted to make use of the Debate’s online format. I thought we could play the odd tune for people to listen to as they read. It became a bit of a running joke, shoe-horning in songs that I liked to a conversation about football, particularly as I haven’t got what might be termed mainstream tastes. The Daily Mail plays the Butthole Surfers has a certain mischievous appeal. 

But as the column has gone along, the music has increasingly become the fun part, too. Because, believe me, Sonic, once you’ve read the 100th post claiming you have a vendetta against Mourinho, often from the same people that said you were in his pocket when he was at Chelsea, you look forward to the little interludes. 

I don’t know many other columns that combine football and crate-digging. I’d even go so far as to say it’s the unique selling point. And, as I’ve said before, if one person hears something different that they like, well I’m chuffed. Like Mark-Almond. Not Marc Almond, although there was nothing wrong with Soft Cell. Jon Mark and Johnny Almond. English folk-jazz-rock group from the early 1970s. Stick with it until 8 minutes 30 at least, Sonic. Like this column, it won’t necessarily go where you think. Five points next.

Point one: quotas and the youth of today.

I think to have a minimum of seven homegrown players in each squad of 18, for every match day, would be sufficient, with a minimum of two homegrown spots to be players 21 years or under. It would ensure clubs give opportunities to their most talented young players, while keeping the quality of international imports high, key to making players better. The current quota system is not strict enough in making sure homegrown players are actually involved in match-day squads, especially at bigger clubs like Chelsea. Tailz22, Bedford.

I appreciate your argument, Tailz, but I don’t think we need quotas – we need braver managers. I saw what strict quotas did to Manchester United’s Champions League campaigns early on under Sir Alex Ferguson and I didn’t think it was right then. Your proposal could, in some circumstances, potentially be as harmful to development at clubs in difficult circumstances. Take Everton. David Unsworth put young players in the team against Leicester on Sunday and it went wrong for him, and them. He may need to make changes against Watford, take the pressure off the youth. He has to be free to do that and not be made to throw them into an increasingly tense relegation battle, to sink or swim. 

I don’t think it is right to tie managers’ hands on team selection. I’m not saying that at some clubs there won’t be benefits – but given the 3-0 defeat in Rome on Tuesday, would Chelsea’s kids, for instance, thrive on the pressure of Sunday’s match with Manchester United? That’s why I think the answer lies, not with quotas, but with managers who are prepared to introduce the young players when the time is right – as Mourinho did at Manchester United on Tuesday, starting Scott McTominay against Benfica. 

David Unsworth gave Everton's youngsters a run against Leicester last weekend

David Unsworth gave Everton's youngsters a run against Leicester last weekend

I would be very disappointed, for instance, if Phil Foden did not start in Manchester City’s next Carabao Cup game, away to Leicester. Demarai Gray’s elevation under Claude Puel on Sunday was also well-timed. I think the only depressing thing about England’s Under-17 World Cup win was reading English managers like Alan Pardew and Sam Allardyce doubting whether those kids could get game time. If Mauricio Pochettino can do it at Tottenham, why can’t they? And if Allardyce’s reaction is just more world-weary scepticism, he isn’t the right man for Everton, where youth development is probably the most successful arm of the club.

Point two: Ivan Gazidis – now that’s a bonus.

I think the fact Arsenal chief executive Gazidis got a £919,000 bonus highlights the issue Arsenal have. The guy running it is incentivised to make a profit, not to run a winning football club. Arsenal should be capable of winning the league once or twice a decade as history has shown, but have not looked like contenders since 2008 when William Gallas threw a strop against Birmingham. Gazidis, however, deserves the bonus for delivering what his boss asked of him. DHRR, London.

The Gazidis bonus may have been insensitively timed, but in his defence he is the one senior executive at Arsenal who consistently talks about change. I know talking and doing are very different, but he needs the backing of the owner to make changes and there clearly wasn’t any desire to move on from Arsene Wenger last season. Once Wenger stays it will be on his terms – and he doesn’t want many of the changes Gazidis deems important. So Gazidis takes his bonus for the rest of it – good financial numbers and the success of another FA Cup win – and waits. He will really earn that bonus when the Wenger regime ends; then will we see the worth or otherwise of his ideas.

Point three: a return to Ipswich.

You use Ipswich and Mick McCarthy as a reference point in an article but it wouldn’t actually be your job to research what you’re writing about? That makes sense. You have that many arguments that go round in circles, Martin, it looks like you’re making it up as you go along. Richard, Northamptonshire.

Martin, you state that you don’t watch Ipswich but their fans should be satisfied with their position, given the players. Watching from afar – and I include armchair Ipswich fans in this – it is easy to say a 1-0 home win is a good result, but when you are there you want entertainment. I am a Derby fan. Steve McClaren is generally ridiculed around the country but the football we played under his reign was exhilarating to watch. When Paul Clement took us on, it was possession above all else. Although we were fifth in the league I was happy when he was sacked. It was really boring football, played all in our own half. I went to a Blackburn away game under Clement. It was 0-0 and the worst I have seen, yet on the forums all the armchair fans said ‘good away point’. League table – yes; fan satisfaction – no. Steve1000, Nottingham.

Steve, one of the reasons I always make it plain that I do not regularly attend Championship football matches is because of guys like you. I may have disagreed with the Ipswich supporters about Mick McCarthy, but I wasn’t going to pretend I was across the club as they are. I see Ipswich on television which was why I addressed their situation in general terms rather than arguing specifics about, for instance, players being used out of position. Those details are for people who watch regularly and I don’t know enough about the minutiae of every club to call it. 

I do know, however, that if there are 18 teams in a 24-team league with a bigger wage budget than yours, the chances are you won’t be the division’s promotion candidates – or its great entertainers. That was my only thought – that those who follow Ipswich have to be realistic about their club’s potential given its current circumstances, rather than its history. Just as Richard has to be realistic about how much time I should devote to a one paragraph response regarding Ipswich in an online debate. I have a very clearly defined role at this newspaper and it is not best served spending two months watching Ipswich Town for research purposes. This doesn’t mean, though, that I cannot distinguish between the team McCarthy has now and the team Sir Bobby Robson had, to which it was being compared. 

Equally, I certainly can’t claim to have seen as much of Derby as you, Steve – but I do remember the play-off defeat by Queens Park Rangers and I thought they were dreadfully unlucky that day and played good football. I’ll take your word that the football under McClaren was better than under Clement, but it won’t alter my opinion that Clement is a good coach and that, with more time, his possession-based football might have become more expansive and entertaining to watch. It takes time to learn to play that way; Clement was sacked on February 8 of his first season, with the team in fifth place. And, no, I wasn’t paying to watch them every week, so I respect the views of those that were – but from my armchair I still reckon it doesn’t need six months of research to conclude that Clement may have merited more time. He’s done a very solid job at Swansea.

Paul Clement is now on the big stage with Swansea after his spell at derby was cut short

Paul Clement is now on the big stage with Swansea after his spell at derby was cut short

Point four: the Football League rules. And some thanks.

Sorry Mr Samuel, your interpretation of the rules regarding an additional substitute in the EFL Cup seems wrong. The term ‘match’ is used 101 times in the rules of the competition. By reading the whole rules it becomes very clear that ‘match’ means the whole game being played, not just the 90 minutes before extra time. With your interpretation you would need extra officials for extra time (Rule 16 doesn´t refer to extra time officials), special extra time reports (Rule 19 doesn’t mention extra time reports) and substitutes will not even be allowed to warm up since Rule 10.3 allows warming up only during the ‘match’ and so on. ‘Additional’ is the plural word you were looking for in Rule 10.2. RuedigerS, Berlin.

However…

No, you're wrong and Martin is right. It’s set out in Laws 7 and 10 of FIFA’s Laws of the Game and the rules Martin refers to have to be read in conjunction with the Laws of the Game. Law 7 sets out that a match is two equal 45 minute halves (unless a shorter period is agreed and is within the competition rules) plus allowance for time lost, determined by the referee. Law 10 is determining the outcome of a match; 10.1 says that if both teams score no, or the same number, of goals the match is drawn; 10.2 says that if the competition requires a winning team after the match or a home and away tie, then it goes down to the away goals rule, two equal periods of extra time or penalties, or a combination of these. So the two periods of extra time, according to the Laws of the Game, are after, not during, the match. Stephen, Canberra.

Clearly the officials are there for an entire match, including extra time. But in this context there is a definition between the ‘match’ of 90 minutes, and then the ‘extra-time’ (it says: ‘not more than three substitutes may take part in the match’). The next rule, 10.2, then states: ‘Where any match goes to extra time..........each Club participating in that match will be permitted to use an additional substitute (in extra time only)’. The definition between the 90 minutes of the ‘match’ and the ‘extra-time’ allowance, could hardly be plainer. BaggsyB, Luxembourg.

The EFL had to clarify that ‘Clubs may use three of those seven substitutes at any time in a match (including extra time)’. This is not included in the rules. And ‘additional’ is not the word you need to point out. As Samuel noted it is ‘substitute’, which is singular. ParanoidisAndroid, Leeds.

Look, I’m not going to get involved in this again. I devoted 900 or so words to it in the column last week, so maybe we can just agree that if the Football League presume to organise tournaments, they should at least make their rulebook clear and free of grey areas or loopholes. This was more to say thank you. I do appreciate those who take the time to contribute constructively, particularly those like the posters here, who take it upon themselves to lead the debate with something more than a raspberry. Thank you all.

Point five: everything you thought about Jose Mourinho was wrong (now he’s manager of Manchester United).

Will this journalist ever stop attacking Mourinho? There are some managers that won absolutely nothing last year, some that have already been knocked out of cup competitions and some that celebrate a home draw with West Brom. This journalist doesn't care about that, though. His bitter hatred for Mourinho is what gets him up in the morning. KingAnarchyThe8th, Manchester.

I had to go back and check the Manchester United-Tottenham match report to see what bitter hatred this could have been. Here’s my appraisal of United’s play. '…United handled it admirably. Ordinary for much of the first half – they started brightly but faded – United improved in the second and had shaded the game by the end.' Yes, I can see how you were so appalled. Saying United played quite well and deserved to win must have come as quite the shock. Maybe have a lie down. If you can’t handle that, I really don’t think anarchy’s for you.

Jose Mourinho delivered his message after the win over Tottenham at the weekend

Jose Mourinho delivered his message after the win over Tottenham at the weekend

I am surprised Martin thought Mourinho putting the finger to his lips was for Manchester United’s fans. You don’t need to be Einstein to know who he was shushing. It’s you, Martin Samuel, and other media folk who have been constantly criticising every decision he makes – like choosing to play for a draw at Liverpool. Mourinho right after the match said it’s for his critics. Martin Samuel is a well-known critic of Mourinho this season. Mourinho says shush; we all know you won’t though. Pslik, United States.

Well, no, because then I’d be the world’s greatest sap, if I stopped doing my job just because it did not meet with Jose, or any manager’s, approval. Anyway, I was in the press conference after the game. If Jose wished to take issue with me personally, or anyone in the room, he could have done. He was specifically asked if his words were meant for those he once called ‘the Einsteins’ and he only responded in general terms. I don’t know where you saw him saying it was for his critics, because he didn’t say that to Sky, MUTV, or any other outlet, because we monitor those at well. I have no doubt he is ticked off over the criticism of the Liverpool game. I have no doubt his tetchy interviews since have been a reaction to that. But he didn’t mention the media that day. Maybe you’ve got to be nearer than an ocean away to appreciate these nuances, though. Oh, and by the way, Mourinho says he didn’t play for a draw at Anfield; or did you not spot that, too?

Manchester United have never played like Barcelona. Even under Sir Alex Ferguson they had games where they set up defensively and played counter attack. Samuel seems to love picking on a manager who has achieved so much in the game. Vendetta or what? Smoke Dogg, United States.

I’d say what, rather than vendetta. I’ve been critical of United in one match, away at Liverpool, for reasons I have already explained exhaustively. As for Manchester United’s football in historic terms, I can only presume that you haven’t been watching long. I reported on Manchester United throughout the Ferguson years. At their best his teams, were every bit as ambitious as Barcelona, if different in style. I’m completely with Teddy Sheringham in his view that, 'the greatest sight in football is Manchester United chasing a game.' As someone who was there for Tottenham 3 Manchester United 5 in 2001, I can vouch for that. And I can count on the fingers of one hand the times they set up defensively. Having a good defence is not the same as setting up defensively. Making sure the midfield graft hard, is not the same as setting up defensively. If they weren’t always gung-ho at places like Anfield, they never sat back. It’s sad – you missed some great years. Not your fault. But rent a few DVDs before pronouncing on a team you clearly did not watch.

Martin, as I expected you have picked up on the shushing. The game was won, end of, move on. You should be talking about the £500m spent by Manchester City with zero return to date. Pep Guardiola should be the one under pressure, but no. As always you focus solely on Mourinho. United played beautifully at the start of the season and now, in a tight spell with multiple injuries, are keeping pace with City. What about Antonio Conte and Chelsea’s title defence? I don’t think you are being fair. S-Gee, United Kingdom.

When United played beautifully at the start of the season, I praised them, as did everybody. I thought they lost the momentum to keep pace with Manchester City in the game at Liverpool and still do. So this ‘vendetta’ amounts to a negative view of one match; why do you find that so hard to take? The bottom line? Manchester United are five points and 10 goals adrift of Manchester City and it’s only the end of October. That isn’t keeping pace, SG. If five points behind is keeping pace then Everton are keeping pace with Southampton and Watford are keeping pace with Tottenham. Yes? Anyway, that’s it for this week. For the crate diggers, here’s what became of ‘Mark’ from Mark-Almond. And if, like me, you’re not too big on the new age thing, there’s a nice dog in the video. Until next time.

 

 

The comments below have been moderated in advance.

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.