Raiders:
his Ego is not torn to shreds. A coach like him will not have any problem getting a coaching job soon in a top club. He remains one of the best coach in the world. The problem with chelsea is the players and nothing will change until chelsea gets new players because they are all getting old.

jtjohn:
I fell 4 him........i know some players were against him dats the reason why they keep losing every matches.........I believe chelsea we rise again to regain their lost glory......*Team chelsea*

raffite:


As soccer fans let's not be sentimental. Jose is a great achiever and has achieved more than Wenger. I am happy you said that Mourinho made an impact with the team he met at Chelsea. You must also accept the fact that he had already succeeded (at the highest level of European football) with Porto that didn't have the kind of money that Chelsea has. He repeated the same feat with Inter that did not have the kind of money Chelsea has. When Wenger had the best team at his disposal, what did he achieve? At best, he won an EPL title but failed in Europe. Jose may have his shortcomings in his attitude but you must regard his achievements as first rate as the great Ferguson rightly said.

raffite:


Who were they before they left: what did they win with Arsenal before they left? Nothing.

TheGoodJoe:


Arsene Wenger might not have won the champions league but his performance was amazing. They reached the finals, knocked out a star studded Real Madrid. They went a man down early in the finals against Barcelona, the best team in the world with the likes of Deco, Eto'o and Ronaldinho.

Despite the red card in the game, they still went ahead. So do not say he failed. Wenger's champions league performance can not receive the failure tag.

At Inter, Mourinho still used an expensive squad and the team won the Italian league three times back to back. It was not a small team he used.

At Porto, he did well although there was still an influx of players like Derlei and Valente to build the squad.

Mouronho is a good coach but he is not as great as you guys make him. You know if Arsene Wenger blows the kind of Money Mourinho blows on player he would do better.

raffite:


Sentiments can make us close our eyes to well seen facts. After all your analysis of Wenger's UCL performance he didn't win it. So what is the point? Why think that the one that tried but failed is greater than the one that tried and won.

At Inter or Porto, Jose never had the class of players that Wenger had in the "invincibles" squad. Yet he won the UCL along with the league titles but Wenger couldn't.

TheGoodJoe:


Arsene Wenger might not have won the champions league but his performance was amazing. They reached the finals, knocked out a star studded Real Madrid. They went a man down early in the finals against Barcelona, the best team in the world with the likes of Deco, Eto'o and Ronaldinho.

Despite the red card in the game, they still went ahead. So do not say he failed. Wenger's champions league performance can not receive the failure tag.

At Inter, Mourinho still used an expensive squad and the team won the Italian league three times back to back. It was not a small team he used.

At Porto, he did well although there was still an influx of players like Derlei and Valente to build the squad.

Mouronho is a good coach but he is not as great as you guys make him. You know if Arsene Wenger blows the kind of Money Mourinho blows on player he would do better.

WARRIBLOOD:
Afa baba

TheGoodJoe:


Do not say that again. Invincibles squad are not as good as Mourinho's Inter Squad. I disagree. Cambiasso, Zanetti, Chivu, Walter Samuel, Lucio, Sneijder, Eto'o, Pandev, Milito, Thiago Motta, Dejan Stankovic, Balotelli.

I take that team over that Invincibles team.

Arsene Wenger did well. Mourinho had the Volcano that caused Barca to travel by road. He also was lucky when the referee wrongly disallowed Bojan's goal that would have knocked out Inter.

Luck follows. That is why you can not say Wenger failed or Mourinho won. Is how good did the team perform. Ancelotti did not win the Champions League in 2010 with Chelsea but I was very impressed with his performance.

raffite:


Very funny, to say the least. It is amazing how you judge success here. Mourinho wins: it was luck. He had the best team. Wenger failed: he tried and almost got there. His performance was superb.

Jose made the inter squad look extraordinary. Immediately he left, the story changed. Even if you don't want to accept that, can you still make a more biased claim of "the invisibles" and Porto that Mourinho won the UCL league with?

You can bring in your personal sentiments but you can't argue against facts.
1. Mourinho has a better winning rate than Wenger.
2. Mourinho has more UCL league titles than Wenger
3. Mourinho has a far better head to head record than Wenger. This is an overwhelming show of superiority
3. FIFA has acknowledged Mourinho as the best coach of the year twice but Wenger is zero. I know your sentiments can also make you dispute the highest body of football experts

These are key issues but Wenger could not hold his head high in any of these. All these are based on results achieved not some "he almost got it but was unlucky" claims.

Disclaimer: I am not a Chelsea fan

TheGoodJoe:


All these does not show that If Mourinho worked on a tight budget, he would have done better than Wenger. He had Demba Ba, Eto'o and Torres in his club and still cried he did not have a striker.

This season, he could not perform because the club did not spend hundreds of millions despite have one of the most expensive squads in football.

He needs money to succeed. Wenger operating on a tight budget is the reason why he does not have their kind of accolades.

Note I am not an Arsenal fan. I am a Cityzen.

raffite:


One thing is clear: Mourinho did it with Porto. It has been reported that that is the "cheapest" team used to win the UCL since then. And you have not been able to tell us what Wenger achieved with a "tight budget". That is the blindness in it. Your argument would have made a lot of sense if you are saying Wenger achieved as much or nearly as much as Mourinho with a tight budget. Anybody can fail working on a tight budget. What did he achieve with his "tight budget"?

TheGoodJoe:


Mourinho won the Champions League with cheapest team used, does that mean that Arsene Wenger must win with a tight budget?

It would have made sense if you are saying Arsene Wenger did not win with the most expensive squad. But, to say he should have won with a cheap squad is ridiculous because the odds are stacked against him.

Simple, if Arsene Wenger had the kind of money Mourinho had at his disposal in his career, Arsene Wenger would have achieved more. That is a fact.

Mourinho must be the coach that has taken the most "expensive squad in the history of football" to one point above relegation. Imagine what he would do with a tight budget career.

raffite:


Your sentiments show you are not arguing based on results. I have listed what José achieved at Chelsea and Porto, big and small money involved. What did Wenger achieve on small money?

TheGoodJoe:


[b]Before the building of the stadium started, Arsene Wenger was one of the best coaches in Europe. They were amazing. His transfers were shrewd and brilliant.

They dominated and caused a lot of teams havoc. It was clear the priority of taking funds slowed him down. So saying Mourinho did this and Mourinho did that does not change facts.

Mouriho has never been in a position to sell players he wished he could keep. This went on season after season at Arsenal and he still kept Arsenal in the top four and competitive in the champions league.

Is people like you who only feel only trophies matter. There is more to football than that.

Pellegrini did not have trophies in Europe but he guided a newly promoted team in the La Liga to the top of the La Liga and the Champions league semi finals.

He guided Malaga who was last on the La Liga table to a team who reached the quater finals of the Champions league.

Arsene worked on a tight budget and kept on selling his best players but he kept Arsenal doing well. That is very difficult.

Titles is not the only result that a coach can achieve. [/b]

raffite:


I am happy you are not judging based on trophies and awards but I am judging on those grounds. I have never seen awards in football for dominating and causing havoc without winning the trophy. Sorry, it's not known in football.

TheGoodJoe:


Do you think Man City appointed Pellegrini based on the trophies he won, since he was trophyless in Europe?

raffite:


Is that Wenger's achievement?

JeffreyJamez:


Hahaha see this one.... you're used to mediocrity you don't even know failure when it's staring you in the face... hear talk...he build stadium, he build elite team that couldn't win trophy for 9 years..... Mou came to England, won it back to back, left, toured europeknow,won 2 champions league, came back and won epl again.... your wenger still no see EPL rope wear for neck..not to talk of UCL FINAL .you dey here dey tell me, "he build elite team,he build stadium "....oga go sleep.

TheGoodJoe:


I thought you just said only trophies count. Now you are saying Wenger's achievement.

Wenger Kept Arsenal in the top four and regularly getting to the knock out stages of the champions league despite running a tight budget and losing some of his best players in different seasons.

So judging Wenger by trophies does not tell the full story.

Arsenate:
if you observed in my post I said as a Chelsea fan you are not likely to understand what I'm saying. Chelsea fans are the most shallow around...

raffite:


Thanks for showing us Wenger's achievement: shrewd and brilliant transfers, dominate and cause team's havoc all to end in top four and qualify for knockout stage. Very funny. Every loser got something to be proud of.

I have checked the profile of great coaches according to the premier League website, I didn't see any of such as their honours and achievements but only trophies and awards won. Even if they are, your claim that the one who finished fourth has done better than the one who came first is laughable; that the one who qualified for the knockout stage is greater than the one who won the title. It is very awkward.

TheGoodJoe:


If only trophies and awards count, would Man City employ Pellegrini who was trophy less in Europe?

raffite:


Gosh. Was he employed to come and make shrewd and brilliant transfers and then win no trophies? Even FIFA, the highest soccer body does not give its awards based on some immeasurable, sentiments like making shrewd and brilliant transfers.

TheGoodJoe:


You have to weigh the factors before judging the coach as a failure. You do not expect Enrique to win the league whhen he coached Celta Vigo. They played good football but they were trophyless.

Barcelona still signed Enrique despite him winning no trophies with Cleta Vigo. The Barca board still considered Enrique a success.

Enrique came to Barca and he delivered multiple titles. With the amount of talent at his disposal and Barca, winning trophies can be a priority.

Arsene Wenger losing his best players regularly at Arsenal showed that what he did at Arsenal was special. Keeping them in the top four and having some fine performances in the Champions League.

raffite:


You seem to have lost focus here. The issue here is not whether Wenger is a bad coach or whether he achieved anything. Instead it is whether he has achieved as much as Mourinho. There is a great difference between appreciating one man's results in isolation and comparing him with another man.

Your example of Enrique is far from satisfactory. Enrique (and Celta Vigo) did not plan to go into the game, play "fine football" and then go trophyless. Otherwise, they won't feel devastated after losing any game. Going trophyless is not a pride to any side. Even if we are to respect a trophyless side, shouldn't we give a better honour to the winner?

By the way who said Celta Vigo can't win the trophy if they play well and got their tactics right? See Leicester on top of EPL. Who gave them the chance?

Moreso, your idea of fine football is something funny. The essence of playing fine football is to win. You can't claim to play fine football if you keep losing. You can't claim to have a finer performance than your opponent if he keeps beating you like in the case of Wenger and Mourinho. Please understand it and your heart that is filled with love and respect for Wenger will be filled with more love, admiration and respect for the "Special One" and the master tactician of all the major leagues in Europe - José Mário dos Santos Mourinho Felix.

raffite:


You seem to have lost focus here. The issue here is not whether Wenger is a bad coach or whether he achieved anything. Instead it is whether he has achieved as much as Mourinho. There is a great difference between appreciating one man's results in isolation and comparing him with another man.

Your example of Enrique is far from satisfactory. Enrique (and Celta Vigo) did not plan to go into the game, play "fine football" and then go trophyless. Otherwise, they won't feel devastated after losing any game. Going trophyless is not a pride to any side. Even if we are to respect a trophyless side, shouldn't we give a better honour to the winner?

By the way who said Celta Vigo can't win the trophy if they play well and got their tactics right? See Leicester on top of EPL. Who gave them the chance?

Moreso, your idea of fine football is something funny. The essence of playing fine football is to win. You can't claim to play fine football if you keep losing. You can't claim to have a finer performance than your opponent if he keeps beating you like in the case of Wenger and Mourinho. Please understand it and your heart that is filled with love and respect for Wenger will be filled with more love, admiration and respect for the "Special One" and the master tactician of all the major leagues in Europe - José Mário dos Santos Mourinho Felix.

TheGoodJoe:


How can Wenger achieve as much as Mourinho when Mourinho trots around with a blank cheque and mostly gets the players he wants. Arsene Wenger on the other hand loses his best players regularly.

It is impossible for him to achieve as much as Mourinho. That is why you can not tag Arsene Wenger a failure.

What Ranieri is doing with Leicester City is far difficult than whst Mourinho achieved last season despite the trophies because it is difficult to take a small team to achieve things like topping the table.

Emaprince:
at porto, was it also easy for mourinho to get any player he desired? The invincible squad at wenger's disposal were far better than the squad with which mou won the UCL same year. The likes of Deco became a big name after their heriocs in Europe.

You've been harping on about wenger loosing his best players as if its been like that since inception. Wenger started loosing his best players after the invincible squad died out. But then, what did he achieve in Europe with such a hugely talented squad? Mou came to England and toppled him. Eversince then, fourth place have been his only consolation.

Mou have proved himself already. He's been named the best coach in the world. Stop undermining his achievements do to your harmless hatred for him.

TheGoodJoe:



It is impossible for him to achieve as much as Mourinho. That is why you can not tag Arsene Wenger a failure.