Over the years, much has been made in the media and by fans of Mourinho's modus operandi.
Critiques, on balance both positive and negative, have often praised his squad building, ability to rally and squeeze the best out of his troops, his organisational abilities, and his timing, whilst giving relatively short shrift in other areas, including his tactical nous and dynamism. Objectively, this might seem strange for a man who has consistently topped the tables and brought home trophies wherever he's been, but the criticism has stuck: tactically, pre- and in-game, his performance is pretty average.
Today we saw another counterexample, of which there have been several this season, challenging this view. Against Reading Jose employed for the first time this term, a 4-2-1-3 formation, with three forwards pushed high up the pitch and Mata sat behind in a free role without defensive duties.
This might've looked like a massive gamble; it left our midfield super-light and relatively immobile given the players selected to play centrally, and a huge space in the centre of the pitch.
But it worked perfectly. Reading, as he'd predicted, made no attempt to fill the midfield space, with their CMs pushing everything wide. Neither CM made an effort to run in behind, leaving their wingers without space to work in. Further, with Martial and Rashford deployed high up the field all game, Stam held his fullbacks for cover leaving his wingers isolated and completely ineffectual.
At the other end of the pitch, Mata was a problem for them. With two CMs there was nobody to pick him up, and he was free to find space and pick out runners or create room for Carrick to do the same.
Stam waited far too long to add a further CM, by which point the damage was done. To add insult to injury, once Stam switched to three in the centre, Jose replied, shifting United back to his preferred 4-1-2-3, stifling Reading's play through the centre, whilst retaining the expansive and pacy forward line that had caused their backline problems.
Credit to the manager. He got it bang on today, as he has in reshaping our default approach to 4-1-2-3 - which best suits out squad profile without a doubt, and prior to and in-game repeatedly this season.
He has made mistakes, no doubt; and I am not trying to cast him as a tactical mastermind. I thought it was just fair for us to appreciate that he deserves a little more credit for his tactical strategy and decision making than he often gets.
Jose's tactics
posted on 7/1/17
comment by Tiddles - Firminos manbun (U17634)
posted 47 minutes ago
Maybe defensively yeah, but offensively no one keeps the same formations. You have fullbacks bombing on, centre halves stepping into midfield, midfielders running beyond the striker/s, wingers cutting in, wingers running in behind etc.
My point is that a formation never stays the same, it's fluid and constantly changing. Defensively it will play a part but offensively it's the system employed that reaps rewards not the formation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some or all of those things you mentioned in your first paragraph happen on instruction.
Those patterns of play develop the attacking shape, and we see week in, week out, Carrick dropping to play as a de facto centreback when Valencia carries the ball wide right, for example.
The default shape does make a difference though, particularly when defending, and then, by extension, at the point at which attacks are launched. Our shape today dictated how Reading could play (key being their unwillingness to commit their fullbacks forward), and then how we were able to attack when we won the ball back, with Mata able to find space, and make room for Carrick to launch attacks from.
posted on 7/1/17
Good article Rosso.
I disagree about the City second half change though, that only worked for 15 minutes until Guardiola countered it with bringing on Fernando. Neither were particularly good management worth pointing out, just the obvious thing to do.
Mourinho has always been good at changing shape to suit particular opposition. I've never thought of him as a rigid manager in that regard. It's more the adherence to shape and role he wants from his players that I'm not a particular fan of.
posted on 7/1/17
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 59 minutes ago
Good article Rosso.
I disagree about the City second half change though, that only worked for 15 minutes until Guardiola countered it with bringing on Fernando. Neither were particularly good management worth pointing out, just the obvious thing to do.
Mourinho has always been good at changing shape to suit particular opposition. I've never thought of him as a rigid manager in that regard. It's more the adherence to shape and role he wants from his players that I'm not a particular fan of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheers melts.
I thought the change against you guys came a little late; it seemed fairly obvious that something needed to be done early on. But he made the right decision. It was about rebalancing rather than trying for the upper hand, and I thought it worked well.
Pep bringing on Fernando changed things again, but you didn't look nearly as potent as you did in the first quarter of the game.
I've said above he's made mistakes. One big one was how we set out in that game, which we weren't ready for. But credit was due to Pep also for giving De Bruyne the freedom to wander that line. We didn't have an answer at all until Herrera was put directly on him.
posted on 7/1/17
To be fair to Mourinho, he was expecting us to keep our fullbacks cutting in as we had done up to that point, we switched and kept them wide. He could have changed it in the first half though I agree (it's not as if he hasn't done it before).
After the Fernando change, we were counter attacking rather than controlling.
Mourinho is a very good tactical coach and always has been.
posted on 7/1/17
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
To be fair to Mourinho, he was expecting us to keep our fullbacks cutting in as we had done up to that point, we switched and kept them wide. He could have changed it in the first half though I agree (it's not as if he hasn't done it before).
After the Fernando change, we were counter attacking rather than controlling.
Mourinho is a very good tactical coach and always has been.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's actually proving to be better than I'd expected tactically, to be honest.
I'd thought we would see greater intensity and discipline in our play, and a more direct approach; but wasn't expecting him to shift from 4-2-3-1 or a counterattacking style as the default, or employ the range of setups and approaches we've seen.
That may be an LVG hangover though, having become used to seeing the philoshophy in action every week.
posted on 7/1/17
No, he will always do that. His reputation is more around when he does utilise a particular formation, he likes his players to clearly stick to that. That's not to say it can't be exciting or attacking as you are seeing in games recently, more that there's less fluidity in the positional aspect as its conformity to shape for all eleven.
Having read the whole thread, I think people are a bit confused about the differences between guardiola and Mourinho in that regard. Guardiola is very clear on underlying principles that his players have to adhere to, he will give some of them free reign though (and Henry was one at times - he got subbed in that game because he was one that had to stay out of the space for Xavi and Iniesta). He isn't rigid in shape without the call though or with it for most players.
They are both about control of space though, just in very different ways.
posted on 7/1/17
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 16 minutes ago
No, he will always do that. His reputation is more around when he does utilise a particular formation, he likes his players to clearly stick to that. That's not to say it can't be exciting or attacking as you are seeing in games recently, more that there's less fluidity in the positional aspect as its conformity to shape for all eleven.
Having read the whole thread, I think people are a bit confused about the differences between guardiola and Mourinho in that regard. Guardiola is very clear on underlying principles that his players have to adhere to, he will give some of them free reign though (and Henry was one at times - he got subbed in that game because he was one that had to stay out of the space for Xavi and Iniesta). He isn't rigid in shape without the call though or with it for most players.
They are both about control of space though, just in very different ways.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd suggest you could maybe differentiate the two by saying Guardiola is more about best use of space, whereas Mourinho is more about control of space.
Subtle difference I think.
posted on 8/1/17
Yep I'd agree with that to an extent. It gets into the realms of with and without the ball too with that.
posted on 8/1/17
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 12 minutes ago
Yep I'd agree with that to an extent. It gets into the realms of with and without the ball too with that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course.
It is partially press driven I'm sure, but I've quite enjoyed watching people first write Mourinho off until our recent run (lost his marbles, stuck in the past), and now round on Pep (tactically 'found out', can't cope with the pressure in England) in recent weeks.
It's all utter nonsense, but very predictable. People have very short memories.
posted on 8/1/17
The daft thing is the season has gone exactly how both of them said it would at the start anyway!