There are many fans that are desperate to see Jose Mourinho back in the home dugout at Stamford Bridge, where they argue he belongs and his affinity with the club is undeniable but there are those that believe that it may not necessarily be a good idea to go back and questions some aspects of Mourinho’s personality.
No one has forgotten Mourinho’s success in West London during his first stint, particularly the back-to-back Premier League titles he won with the Blues during his first two seasons in charge. But it would also be a mistake to forget that it all went sour for the self proclaimed ‘Special One’ and Roman Abramovich has long been held accountable for the man who made all the mistakes, but Rory Smith of The Times argues that the club are still suffering problems that Mourinho caused whilst at Chelsea.
Smith was speaking to BT’s Life’s a Pitch website and you can view the video here:
“I did an interview with Didier Drogba in Istanbul and his logic is that Mourinho is still close to the [Chelsea] players, he’s the man the fans want, he will calm things down.
“There is a huge amount of revisionism [about Mourinho at Chelsea], and in the media we’re probably about as guilty as the fans. When Mourinho left, he was just trouble – he was an incubus of discord throughout the club. He caused a lot of the problems that they’re now still paying for, in terms of empowering the players.”
“Absence has made the heart grow a lot fonder. José Mourinho is great copy for us [sports journalists], but largely he’s just a massive pain in the neck for everyone – especially the people he works for. Maybe he is the man to sort Chelsea out. But it comes at a price.”
I don’t think even the most ardent Mourinho fanatic can deny that there has definitely been an element of player power at the club, it’s been a problem from his reign and it has cost us ever since. The most obvious example was the case of Andre Villas-Boas, who was forced out of the club by the senior players that he was asked to phase out.
But it also happened to Luiz Felipe Scolari as he implied that certain individuals were unwilling to do things his way and Carlo Ancelotti was let down massively by his squad, who staged a miraculous recovery after suffering a ‘bad moment’ for months, and recently have I truly appreciated how big a mistake Chelsea made by not backing the Italian.
However, even though Jose may have started this culture at the club with the players he regarded as untouchables, the board have allowed it to continue, encouraged it and made things worse. So I think it would be harsh to hold Mourinho accountable for it alone. He may have even been a victim of player power himself as Claude Makelele suggested in his autobiography ‘Tout Simplement’.
Whether it’s his fault or not is irrelevant should he return as he would be in charge of stabilising the club, being a figure of authority and continuing the club’s vision. I’d like to think that Mourinho has learned some things since he went off on his travels and has the appetite for the job, we certainly know his hunger for success is endless but surely he yearns to do something long-term, develop talent and be part of a longer lasting legacy like his friend Sir Alex Ferguson?
I’m sure these sorts of things will be discussed between Abramovich, Mourinho and the Chelsea hierarchy should the Real Madrid boss be interviewed for the job, if he hasn’t already, but both sides will need to give assurances. Mourinho will naturally want more authority than any manager has enjoyed since he left, whereas Abramovich will not want to forsake player development and expansive football after investing so much into it. In fairness both sides would be right to make such demands as the manager must be an authority otherwise players can continue to walk all over them and we cannot waste our young talent or put the shackles on exciting players like Eden Hazard and Juan Mata, it would be criminal.
I have heard plenty of good for and against arguments in relation to Jose’s potential return, but I would like to know what your thoughts are on the matter.