₦airaland Forum

patrickmuf:
Record wins is trash, it doesn't count for anything except for those who have a thing for the Guinness book of records...League trophies in the Bundesliga with Bayern is akin to winning the Scottish leagie with Celtic.

YY, that's why ancelloti is getting sacked halfway into the season...Even Heyneckes didn't win the bundesliga thrice in a row

joeace2020:
Only a fool will try to twist this. I will pick this Ac Milan team any day anytime over this Madrid dross who have been so lucky.

The Madrid dross that has won 3 ucl in four years as compared to Milan that was playing second fiddle to inter Milan.... Hope this is not how u choose your girlfriends

patrickmuf:
League is local trophy...As good as this Milan team is, they were only able to win the UCL 1 time due to the competition on offer back then...I am happy you agree they are better than Madrid teams who have benefited from the obvious drop in quality opposition in recent times...

What are you saying like this... If it's a local league, why didn't Milan dominate for years. At least it should be easier to win a local league...

patrickmuf:
But Mourinho has done it at two different clubs with different players, his methods not just the players at work.

Pep can't do shit without Messi, Xavi and Iniesta

Pep holds the consecutive record win in the three leagues he has coached, he has won the league three times consecutively on two different occasions... Let Mourinho first last three years in a club before you compare

patrickmuf:
Care to compare their players?
Dida over Navas
Cafu over Carvajal
Stam over Varane or Pepe
Nesta over Ramos
Maldini over Marcelo
Gattuso over Casmeiro
Pirlo over Modric
Seedorf over Kroos
Kaka over Bale
Ronaldo over Crespo
Shevchenko over Benzema.

Let me see yours...

How many league titles did this team win... They were bested by inter Milan.... Good players, not the best of teams... The facts speak for themselves

elrony:
Miss me with the BS bruv!!!

You hop on my mention and assert that "Guardiola has effectively equaled mourinho's trophy haul in significantly less years " , a lie that you cannot prove in factual terms.

Here you are trying to concoct an aberration irrelevant to the discourse, and yet you speak of analogy and reasoning.

High time you stopped creating unnecessary arguments in your head manns, you've been running from pillar to post all day, over a goof which just happened to nullify your ("I am correct in my head narratives" )

I don't do back and forth projections, facts only.

Have a good night rest.

Keep holding to that line, no problem... People who are desperately in need of a lifeline tend to do that

Good night

patrickmuf:
Wow!!! Milan was average, Barcelona was average, Manchester United were average, The Galacticos were average, that Bayern team was average...Humor me more...The Juventus you have now won't stand a chance against the Del Piero, Nedved led Juventus.

This Atletico Madrid will be beaten blue black by that Milan team.

Don't try to switch mouths, u said Milan was better than the present Madrid team. Please explain

patrickmuf:
Is it not also foolhardy to consider Mourinho's early years as a coach? Is it not foolhardy to think Mourinho should have won more coaching moderately successful teams bar Madrid and now Manchester United who are only starting to rise after a slump occasioned by the retirement of Fergie?
Is it not foolhardy to talk about number of trophies won in relation to the number of years in the game without factoring in the amount spent in this period?

Why bar madrid? Why? So we should just ignore mourinho's biggest failure?

The fact is that guardiola has not tried to coach small teams and failed, so arguing from non existent circumstances...

Both of them have attempted roles in big clubs and guardiola did better by far

patrickmuf:
It shows you that the level of competition among peers is on a record high thus it is more difficult to have one individual dominate like we have now...That Milan team was better than this Madrid team but they couldn't win it twice in a row because you had others who were equally excellent.

Milan team was better than Madrid team? This has got to be a joke.

Milan that were in a league where inter, perpetual ucl flops were dominating?

patrickmuf:
It showed that we had more teams who were up to the standard. I am sure you don't enjoy the Bundesliga of recent...I am also sure you were happy to see Atletico Madrid challenging Real and Barcelona?
Back then, you had so many good teams that it was difficult for another to dominate completely...The competition was fiesty, a lot different fr what you have now.

Still trying to spin this narrative, i see. I wonder why u didn't answer my question...

That something is competitive doesn't mean it's quality... The Nigerian league is a case study for that...


During that time, Barca were not a superpower, and Madrid were in a mess... So it was not abundance of quality, rather it was paucity of quality and predominance of uniform averageness...

The only thing that has stopped athletico and juventus from multiple cl wins is the extraordinary brilliance of Barca and more recently Madrid...

When the best students in class are flopping, the average students who are naturally many would be forming activity but when the best students get their mojo back, it's back to business as usual

patrickmuf:
You come here saying Pep has won more in 10 years compared to Mou who has spent 18 years but when you are asked to also check how much each of them have spent you start jumping from pillar to post like a cursed gorilla...

Na here we dey, this is not your thread where you just type whatever you feel like for the likes, you go run last last...

I'm not jumping, am using my common sense like every other rational human being...

It's foolhardiness to insist that a million pounds today is the same value as a million pounds 15 years ago...

Ronaldo was bought for 80million in 2009, what would be the value of that deal in today's transfer market? That's how reasonable people think not adding raw numbers like clueless nursery school students

patrickmuf:
Lol Valencia reached the final in 2000 and 2001 so try another one.

That Liverpool team came back from 3-0 down to win a final against an AC Milan team that had Maldini, Shevchenko, Seedorf, Cafu, Pirlo, Nesta, Gatti so, Crespo, Stam etc is the team you want to put down by their obvious failure to win a league title? Between, UCL is rated higher than league (local trophy)...

PSV have reached the Semi Finals, Same with Lyon, can't say same about the oil dollars bankrolled PSG.

Now, answer my question, when you talk about Mourinho's 18 years in the game, do you start counting from 2004?

All these shows is that underdogs had more of a chance in the past decade when compared to the present times...


If more people are winning a prize, is it more or less difficult to win that prize

elrony:
I can't remember this being the subject of our discuss.

It's called analogy... If your reasoning is logical then it should hold true for the Walcott statement to... Logic is consistent...

Therefore, if you cannot agree that Walcott is better than mbappe on the basis of him scoring more goals despite playing a lot more games, then your statement about 19 and 22 is wrong because it's the same underlying principle

elrony:
Lol, you never see anything, accept your goof and move on bro.

"Guardiola has effectively equaled mourinho's trophy haul in significantly less years " is not a fact, because he doesn't have 22 trophies in 9 years. (You have failed to prove otherwise)

I pray for you today that you'll never collect 19k as salary in place off 22k for your hard labour

By your logic, Walcott is better than mbappe, since he has more goals, right?

patrickmuf:
When you comfortably come type to type that Mourinho has been in the game for 18 years and Pep for 10 years, do you start counting from 2004?

Meanwhile, let me respond to your other lines, that Pool team were no pushovers, they made the finals in 2007 after winning it in 2005.

Oil Money? PSG has still not surpassed Lyon of those days.
Man City have not surpassed that Arsenal team.

Atletico Madrid have not Surpassed Valencia.

Milan was a force to be reckoned with.
Juventus were a force until Calciopoli happened.
PSV were very dangerous as was Ajax. Deporting with Valeron was also good.

Since you have decided to stick to ucl, I will play your game.

Athletico have made two finals and one semi in four years... That's better than Valencia did

How many times did Lyon or PSV or Ajax reach the ucl finals in the last decade

Liverpool had not won a league title for more than a decade yet they made the final twice... That Liverpool team would not make ucl finals today

So, inspite of your best efforts, you have still failed to prove that it was harder to win titles.. In fact, the facts suggest, it was easier for underdogs to win titles then as compared to now

hardeycute:
We are really going round in circles.

The season ends in May, by then we can have another go.

Good night

Good call... Sleep and mull over the question. Maybe by tomorrow you would have come up with an answer.

Good night

patrickmuf:
UCL winners
Last decade, the UCL recorded 8 different winners, Madrid, Bayern, Porto, Milan, Liverpool, Barcelona, Manchester United, Inter Milan.


2011 till date, we have just 4 winners...Facts only.

So you're a saying it was harder to win ucl in a decade where underdogs like Porto won.? Which Kain logic be that?

This only shows that the level of competition has increased such that, if you're not at the very top, you stand no chance

elrony:
Random strawman, you've been overtly desperate to rig your way outta your goof.

Facts only , "Guardiola has effectively equaled mourinho's trophy haul in significantly less years "

how is 19=22

Don't distort fact to suit your inconsequential narrative. Nowhere in this universe is 19 = 22.

Stop saying shiit you can't prove.

It's not a goof. Anybody with elementary understanding of figure of speech would see the point of hat statement...

And since you insist the number of years spent achieving something doesn't matter, lemme say a little prayer for you:

"The money your rivals make in 10 years, you will make it in 20 years"

I dare you to say amen

hardeycute:
Park the bus or not it is a tactical approach to a game
Not every manager has access to money like him or have been lucky to work with amazing players

I decide to eat my beans with yam while you preferred bread.Our common goal is satisfaction(winning) which i believe Mou has always achieved.

You don't like it,that is a problem for you.

Fifa has not release guidelines on how football should be played

Not every manager has access to money like him but Mourinho does. So why hasn't he been able to replicate that level of excellence with any of his teams

patrickmuf:
Back then, it was impossible to win the UCL back to back...
You had Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea, Barcelona, Juventus, the Great Milan team, Galactica Madrid etc Elsewhere, you had a very strong Lyon, PSV, Ajax and the likes...It's no surprise it was impossible to win the UCL back to back.

We are talking about 2004 here, not the dark ages... Barca still had only one ucl, athletico were still kings of Thursday league, there were no state sponsored teams who could buy any player they want, there were unlikely winners like Liverpool, Porto ... And if it was even difficult then, what about his stint at Madrid

elrony:
I'm not that bad at math, but no way 19 = 22, and that is a universal fact.

Next time you choose your words wisely.

Actually, you're terrible at maths if you can't see that 19 in 9 years is more impressive than 22 in 18 years.

So A player who scored 50 goals in one season is not better than one who scores 100 goals in 20 seasons

A student who scores 7/10 is worse than one who scores 8/20...


You're reaching heights of absurdity to defend your standpoint... It shows desperation

hardeycute:
True.I call it "One club wonder"

You also need to mention that during that era,Madrid was badly managed
Winning Chelsea's first EPL title in 50yrs?adding the League cup in his first year?
Chelsea are relatively unknown in Europe so i don't expect him to do anything with the team.
The following year he successfully defended the EPL title and won a cup double in his last year

His Madrid career was above average,League title,CDR and UCL semifinalist consecutively for 3yrs
At Madrid,the Club does the purchase.
How much did he spent? Access and actual spending are two different things
Consistecy here is relative.

His trophy cabinet speaks for him

Mourinho had two immediate former world bests in the same team.. Was it Madrid that bought carvalho and adebayor? Your revisionist agenda has failed already...

Mourinho at Chelsea spent more than every other person and still didn't win the champions league, by your standard, that's failure... Any other conclusion is double standard

And yes consistency is relative. Therefore, guardiola is relatively more consistent than Mourinho

hardeycute:
Is Mourinho expected to allow his opponent(s) to run over him because you and I don't like his approach?

You even added "successful" so i think it is unwise to question his tactics.

"1000 ways to die".I don't expect a Coach to make his opponent comfortable but make ways to win

Playing defensive football is not very difficult, all the coaches who are at small teams- and who happen to be in the majority do it...

That's why not many coaches emulate guardiola's style because if it doesn't work, that's suicide....

It's okay if a coach has to resort to boring tactics to win. But don't compare him to a coach who plays fluid attacking football while still winning and recording more success

patrickmuf:
Wow!!! When it comes to amount spent we now put into context the years gone by but when it comes to trophies, you conveniently ignore the fact that back then, winning was a lot more difficult.

Back then winning was a lot more difficult?? Like, seriously, WTF!!

Please where's your proof... At least there is overwhelming proof that transfer fees are more expensive these days....

How can u even say winning was more difficult when fergie was acquiring epl titles at the rate fela was acquiring wives

hardeycute:
How?Pep spends less?
Had one of the "best crop of players" while at Barca with arguably the best player ITW?
Did nothing spectacular at Bayern?
Access to "slush" funds at City?
What all these afromentioned lacks is consistency
I don't fancy his playing style neither would i be foolish to berate him for the amount of success he has achieved

Yes, he had the best crop of players but they all played their best football under him and the club had their most successful era...

If guardiola did nothing spectacular at Bayern, then Mourinho too did nothing spectacular at Chelsea and Madrid.

Mourinho had access to slush funds at Madrid, Chelsea and now at man utd.

Speaking of consistency, Mourinho has NEVER had up to three successful consecutive seasons at a club. Is that consistency or INconsistency

patrickmuf:
Can we so delve a bit into how much each of them have spent?

You want to compare how much both have spent when the transfer record in 2004 was not up to 80million. Right now,the record is 222milion... More than times 3 of the record then...

That, sir, will be a statistical farce

hardeycute:
How much did he spend to go trophyless?

Mourinho at Inter and Porto spent how much?

Why do u keep displaying this selective forgetfulness?

So Mourinho achieved with smaller teams. So has Ranieri, Benitez, the guy who coached Greece in 2004. Does this mean all thee guys are better than Mourinho?

Mourinho is only successful when he can use his park the bus tactics and there is no pressure to attack- the definition of an underdog coach like Tony Pulis

MoR2:
is that you Dayo

Lol. Dayo for where? Why?

elrony:
You're fast changing mouth more than a teenager on menstruation changes sanitary pad.

You in all your majestic cluessness declared that "Guardiola has effectively equaled mourinho's trophy haul in significantly less years"

To prove it is now difficult for you like your getting an erection.

You are just trying to grasp at straws here because the facts are against you...

Mourinho has won 22 trophies in eighteen years, guardiola has won 19 in 9 years.

These are the facts and that's how people that have sense argue not trying to pick on some perceived error because they are incapable of rational discourse"

So if u have facts to tender logically to prove your point, then all good. But if all u have is this display of juvenile pettiness you're on your own

hardeycute:
Man also spends at a better faster ridiculously doping rate e than other managers

How much did he spend to win the sextuple?

During Mourinho's first stint at Chelsea, he spent more than everyone else, yet he didn't win champions league and didn't last up to three years...

elrony:
Can you prove the bolded now, or you'll start foaming in the mouth like odikporo-okuko! ?

Abeg, let's hear word. You know exactly what I mean... Guardiola wins trophies at a much faster rate than Mourinho. You can't argue against facts

elrony:
Oh na mistake?... sharap there!!!

Lemme correct ur muguism

Mourinho took Manchester United from Europa League with 1 trophy to champions league with 3 trophies, while Apari Baldiola took Man City from champions league semi final and crashed them out in the round of 16 while being trophyless at it.

Facts don't lie!!!

Stop following Fraudeuter like a goat that just ate salt!

Rant all you want.. The fact remains that guardiola has more pedigree and respect in the footballing world...

He has effectively equaled mourinho's trophy haul in significantly less years... Any sensible club today will choose guardiola over Mourinho... And that's what matters