Jose Mourinho is missing the thing he needs most from his Manchester United team

This season, Manchester United manager Jose Mourinho appears to be missing many things. A twinkle in his eye. A skip in his step. Even the tiniest amount of joie de vivre. And, of course, a football team that pleases the eye, raises the neck hairs, and tingles the soul.

He's also missing something that, unlike all of the above, he seems to need: A settled defence. Though not sufficient alone for a Mourinho title win, an established group at the back does seem to be one of the necessary factors. John Terry, Ricardo Carvalho, and William Gallas at Chelsea the first time around; Walter Samuel, Lucio, and Maicon at Internazionale; Marcelo, Pepe, Sergio Ramos, and Alvaro Arbeloa at Real Madrid. This reached almost sarcastic proportions when he returned to Chelsea: Terry and Branislav Ivanovic played all 38 league games on the way to the 2014-15 title, and Gary Cahill only missed five.

The contrast between these successful seasons and United's current defence is a stark one. United's only established defender is Antonio Valencia, either at right-back or right-wingback. Beyond him, it's a rotating cast, according to injury, form, favour, and formation. Phil Jones and Eric Bailly have probably been the most impressive central options, though the former has struggled for fitness and the latter will miss several months. Victor Lindelof, Marcos Rojo, and Chris Smalling have all had good moments and bad, while out on the left flank, Ashley Young — a 32-year-old converted midfielder — has comfortably outperformed Matteo Darmian and the despised-of-Mourinho Luke Shaw.

It is, in short, a bit of a mess. And while United's defensive record this season is generally decent — along with Burnley and City, they've only conceded 12 in the league — there’s been a strange theme of un-Mourinho-like mistakes. From the loose marking against Stoke that led to United's first dropped points of the league season, to the mysterious failure to notice Chelsea’s Alvaro Morata, to the general shoddiness against City ... it’s not so much that the defence always looks like conceding, more that the defence occasionally just ceases to exist.

Photo by Shaun Botterill/Getty Images

Mourinho isn't the only manager who would like an established, injury-free defence, of course. Nobody wants to muck around too much. But we might wonder if Mourinho’s style of football is particularly vulnerable to disruption or inadequacy at the back. Diego Torres' account of Mourinho's time in Madrid outlines his principles for games against decent opposition, and though the book's subject disputes much of its content, these at least ring true:

1. The game is won by the team who commits fewer errors.
2. Football favours whoever provokes more errors in the opposition.
3. Away from home, instead of trying to be superior to the opposition, it’s better to encourage their mistakes.
4. Whoever has the ball is more likely to make a mistake.
5. Whoever renounces possession reduces the possibility of making a mistake.
6. Whoever has the ball has fear.
7. Whoever does not have it is thereby stronger.

We should probably note here that there are plenty of coaches who disagree with Mourinho’s principles. The most obvious is, inevitably, Pep Guardiola, whose Barcelona side were, in his own words, “a horrible team without the ball.” It’s a game of opinions. Or maybe of different teams.

Anyway, Mourinho’s recipe for winning football matches by letting the opposition mess up the football is often derided as cowardly. But there is courage there, in certain circumstances. As a principle, "Whoever has the ball is more likely to make a mistake" is debatable. But even when it might be true, it is contingent upon the solidity of the team rejecting the ball. It is, at heart, an expression of faith in his own side's organisation.

Photo by Shaun Botterill/Getty Images

The question surrounding this United side, then, is whether this solidity and organization can be expected from a team that doesn't know its best defensive lineup, hasn't worked out its best defensive shape, and is constantly improvising from one injury to the next. Letting the other lot have the ball when Walter Samuel and Lucio are waiting for them might well be a little craven. When it's a semi-fit Marcos Rojo and an out-of-favour Daley Blind, that's almost suicidally bold.

United's defence, like United's attack, is an odd thing. The numbers are generally good, and the team as a whole is performing better than at any time since Alex Ferguson left, and yet the entire edifice occasionally falls over. And not just against the big teams. Perhaps this is, in part, a question of appearances. Mistakes are intensified by the tedious psychodramas of Mourinho's public presence, magnified by the size of the club, and cast in an unflattering light by Manchester City, who may have conceded the same number but seem to have had a lot more fun doing it.

But that last point reveals one of the fundamental trade-offs of pragmatism: if a team is going to lead with its defence, and win titles in the process, then it has to be near-perfect. Otherwise they’re boring and vulnerable, a frankly appalling exchange. Whether the solution lies in the transfer market, in the treatment room, or on the training ground, United need to find themselves an established defensive unit, then build from there. Mourinho is at Old Trafford to win titles. That doesn’t seem to happen unless he knows who's in charge at the back.