“This is definitely a battle that is being fought in the mind. Without a shadow of a doubt.” —Dan Mason, ESPN Soccernet Podcast, April 25, 2011
“Tomorrow at 8:45 we will play a match on the field. Outside of the field, he has won the entire year, the entire season and in the future (it will be the same). He can have his personal Champions League outside the field. Fine. Let him enjoy it, I’ll give him that.” —Pep Guardiola, April 26, 2011
Listening to the most recent ESPN Soccernet Podcast seemed to confirm the notion that there is a persistent, perhaps all-too-British, unreconstructed lapdog approach to covering Jose Mourinho. The host Dan Mason and his guests wheeled out the somewhat tired clichés about “mind games” as evidence that Barcelona and Pep Guardiola in particular were ground down to a quivering, hysterical puddle of human debris, powerless in the face of the Special One’s Jedi mind tricks. There are (were?) very good reasons to think that Real Madrid would advance to the Champions League Final at the expense of Barcelona. Injury, fatigue, a perilously thin squad, and the fact that Barcelona has to fight on two fronts in order to guarantee silverware this year were all plausible reasons to doubt their passage to the final. Neither Mason nor his guests mention any of this, however. Instead, we are told “Ecce Puto Amo.” Behold, the fucking boss.
The figure of Mourinho and his ability to psychologically wind-up his opponents is put forward as the only significant variable when considering which team has the edge going into the tie. Sure, tactics and recent results are mentioned, but they are drowned out by strength of character and mental edge, of which Mourinho always already has more of than his opponent. It’s a great wonder that he ever loses.
Perhaps the breathless toadying of Mason and co. says more about the kind of journalists and pundits they are than the sport they cover. Fawning passed off as learned commentary is simply to be expected among certain English-speaking journalists still aflutter after Mourinho’s charm offensive while he was at Chelsea. Or maybe because journalism and punditry are professions that require instant commentary stereotypes like “mind games” provide useful shortcuts when imagination fails. Critical rigor takes time and arguably autonomy from corporate interests, and is thus usually found in blogs like this one, or in independent rags like When Saturday Comes or Jonathan Wilson’s The Blizzard. In other words, it isn’t obsequiousness but lazy corporate journalism beset by deadlines that is to be blamed.
Either way, the question I find myself asking is what are these commentators left with when mind games, and by extension the Mourinho factor, doesn’t work?
One reaction might be to suggest that Mourinho’s opposite is actually the mind master. In other words, Guardiola’s sweary outburst in the pre-match press conference was actually a calculated mind parry to Mourinho’s thrust. Sid Lowe suggests something close to this in his post-match comments and articles, although he is more critical than not regarding the usefulness of mental skullduggery, which he says tends to be confirmed only in cases when the supposed mind master’s team wins.
The other obvious option is to restrain all the talk of mind games and focus on the action on the field and tactical battles that often make the difference in matches, especially those over two legs. This doesn’t entail completely ignoring intangibles like mental toughness or psychological momentum. (After all, how might we even begin to consider covering Arsenal in a post-mental discursive universe?) It might not even require that we entirely dispense with the concept of mind games. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater?
We ought to ask, as Brian does here, how moments of interlocution between rivals play out in the context of all that’s going on within and between clubs. That is, focus on the mind game between rivals. This requires that we don’t reify the power of certain sexy or knightly figures like Mourinho and Sir Alex Ferguson as if their every utterance sends their rival to the proverbial booby hatch, drooling and cursing their way to capitulation. In postmodern jargon, it requires that we cease to consider the words of certain agents as performative or materially efficacious irrespective of context. It requires that we analyze the moments after provocation and response that put flesh on the psychological bones of mere speech acts. Like when Pep Guardiola was given a standing ovation from his team after he “exploded” at Mourinho’s mind games, thereby perhaps giving Barcelona a psychological edge in the tie.
It also requires us to cease talking about mind games as if they are things managers and players have rather than do. Psychology matters, but attempts at manipulating psychology are precarious by nature, and their effects are at best unpredictable. And to state the condescendingly obvious, the game is also won on the field, and no amount of brutally snide remarks can contend with moments like Messi’s fantasy dash for his second of the night.
Sam Fayyaz is a PhD student at UMASS, Amherst where he studies political science when he’s not anoraking about soccer.
For a critique of this tendency among British journalists, see Barry Glendenning’s April 28 and April 29, 2010 contributions to the Guardian’s “Fiver.” Glendenning pulls off what film critic David Denby refers to as “high snark” to perfection, as he barracks the British press by likening them to spit-licking geeks forever in awe of a Mourinho whom he depicts as neither funny nor clever, but, on the contrary, a little weird.
Read More: Barcelona, José Mourinho, Real Madrid
by Sam Fayyaz · May 2, 2011
In a way, a Madrid-United final would have exposed us all to endless piles of lazy journalism about the SAF-Mou mindgames within mindgames. So kudos to Barca for that.
Coincidentally (or perhaps not – I’ll let the conspiracy theorists decide) one of today’s headlines in the Guardian is the return of Fergie’s “mind games”*. Which strikes me as amusing: apparently that incessant droning on about referees, which has been a background thrum to the entire, is actually a masterful psychological ploy now that we have a title decider coming up
Good article. Although I do read both WSC and The Blizzard (plus, of course, this blog). I’m beginning to think that I may be a middle-class pseudo-intellectual
* http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/may/02/sir-alex-ferguson-manchester-united-arsenal
The problem in that sort of journalism isn’t the discussion of “mind games”. The problem is the sort of mysticism that’s wrapped around it without any real sort of analysis, any probing of cause and effect.
If you look at the match, the mental state of the teams certainly played a huge factor: Pepe’s red card tackle was senseless and unnecessary. It occurred in Barcelona’s third of the pitch when Barca had no threat of a counter attack. Furthermore, Pepe had teammates behind the ball should some kind of a break have sprung.
After Pepe’s sending-off, Mourinho surprisingly did nothing to change his formation or tactics. He seemingly gave up on the match, and against ten men Guardiola was able to bring on Afellay for Villa. Against eleven men, Guardiola would likely not have switched a goal-scorer for a provider, but against ten the opportunity arrived.
So, yes, “mind games” and poise were a huge factor in the match, but one shouldn’t think of mind games as something absurd and pointless like coaches batting some psychic ball of energy across the net. It’s important to be able to translate the mental state and character of someone to actual consequential and observable events.
If anyone is interested on a more in-depth match narrative please visit my website.
The only reason mind games exist is because the press insist on publishing the drivel that comes out of the mouths of players, managers, and team “insiders”. If we ignored it, it would go away.
@Gaurav Thanks for the comment. And your website is??
@Sam Fayyaz
My website is
dhargaurav.blogspot.com
The most recent post about the last game is at
http://dhargaurav.blogspot.com/2011/04/barca-madrid-3-it-all-becomes-too-much.html
Sorry, I thought it had hovered over my name.
Mourinho displays the attributes of a psychopath.
Manipulative, duplicitous, remorseless.
Ostensibly anodyne to those he needs to win over.
Delivering psychic death-barbs at those who stand in his way.
Pivoting from hurt to untouchable with such blatant affect that makes me doubt he believes in anything that comes out of his mouth.
“You’ve got to believe what I tell you but if you don’t I could care less.”
Entertaining, but a cancerous personality.
I really don’t think mind games in any sport are that complicated. If you look at club football, MLB, NBA, NFL, mind games are always employed by the most egotistical coaches and managers. I think it’s really as simple as that. The media soaks it up and creates storylines to inflate expectations surrounding any rivalry , whether it’s Barca and RM, or Jets and Patriots.
The only plausible effect I’ve heard that mind games accomplish is for the coach to draw attention away from his players, presumably to allow them to focus on the task at hand. Even that idea, espoused by NFL writers everywhere in evaluating Rex Ryan’s media antics, is suspect as the entire Jets team were dragged into the fray, in most cases voluntarily.
To me it’s as simple as loud mouthed managers having far too much confidence in their “psychological tactics” and what those might accomplish. In Mourinho’s case, if it’s not about him, he makes it so. I also think that in any true rivalry (which in football run deeper than all but a few of America’s rivalries) any mind games are inconsequential as the passion of the players and fans usually prevail. I think that the most recent Clasico is one of the only times I can remember where a rivalry draped in nonsense and controversy didn’t redeem itself on the playing field. It seems to me that in most clashes of true rivals the back stories are forgotten and we can simply enjoy the passion of the game at it’s highest level.
@Benderinho It’s funny to me that for how lovingly Mourinho is painted as a thoughtful, nuanced and brilliant mind, he is either unable or unwilling to see both sides of an issue in which he has a stake. To me, that suggests that his ‘brilliance’ is actually in servitude to a more selfish, immature, hypocritical and, yes, psychopathic motivation.
Ok, I’m a Madrid fan (as you can probably tell by the picture), but not necessarily a Mou fan. What I have noticed this season is that Mourinho does two things, and he does these two things very well:
1) Tactics. Yeah, pretty self explanatory and basic. He can read the other team and read his own and adjust accordingly.
2) “Mind Games.” He’s good at pissing other coaches, players and fans off. Really good. He makes these previously calm individuals think: “Wait, he said what? What kind of snobby, prick could ever think anything so outrageously unfounded and pretentious?! What a di-k!”
He now secretly celebrates internally, as he has drawn attention away from players on the team and has singlehandedly centered the spotlight on himself. As Pete has pointed out, Mourinho probably believes that this allows players to focus on the task at hand (whether or not it does – I have no idea, but it makes sense to me). No one really cares as much about Xabi’s account of the high wave of motivation currently flowing through the locker room, people and readers care about the tactics and opinions of Mourinho, because usually what he has to say is controversial. Unexpected controversy is usually more entertaining for the reader than than the expected quote. More entertainment means more readers, which means more popularity, which in turn encourages commentators focus more on Mourinho in an endless loop that will continue eternally. Like the endless cycle of non-fulfillment, but Mou flavored.
I don’t think Mourinho is in real life unlikeable, nearly all of his past and present players love him, he gets along well with his training staff, and he has a wife (I believe, so he can’t be THAT hard to live with…) which all seem to indicate he’s a pretty nice guy. Personally I think he just believes putting on the persona of an paranoid freak is a necessary part of the job. Pre-game press conferences have no purpose, and post-game press conferences are often too filled with emotion. A nice and concise statement on the club’s website would be better…
Great article by the way, you write and think well…
@Miguel Conner It’s an interesting situation how Mou seems to almost systematically endear himself with all the players and staff he’s surrounded with at each club he joins….almost out of necessity as his intentions are inevitably to provoke everyone else in order to create the siege mentality he seems to enjoy so much, he needs the utmost loyalty of his players in order to succeed.
Your opinion on his “real-life” personality depends on whom you ask I suppose, as Ottmar Hitzfeld recently said “Luckily, Mourinho’s destructive tactics, aimed solely at provoking and destroying the opposition’s gameplan, did not work. Such a way of playing does not relate to the demands of Real, it’s really shameful for Real Madrid. It harms the good name and image of this legendary club. I’ve met him [Mourinho] at Uefa meetings and his behaviour is faithful to his image: arrogant, haughty, chewing gum and somewhat of a boor. Barça should make him pay on the pitch.”
Mind games always reminds me of Kevin Keegan losing it in a Sky Sports interview after Ferguson’s needling. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Yenzdq5g6o&NR=1
One incidence of Mourinho using media manoeuvring to great effect, was creating a siege mentality at Chelsea, where he managed to convince his team that everyone was against them, the Premier League, the Media, UEFA, tho whole lot, which certainly seemed to galvanize them metally down the final stretches of each season.
I don’t mind his posturing and theatrics I have to say, but then I’m a Man United fan so I’m familiar with a manager who manipulates the media when he can and is somewhat blinkered in how he sees the game and his team’s position in the grand scheme of things. Guardiola handled it well, as the quote used at the top of this article testifies. He knew his team had the edge on the pitch and so Mourinho could have all the headlines and limelight he wanted.
While I do get some of the “mind games” that the football managers play, I am curious to know how does it work in American sports. For example – did someone like Phil Jackson play mind games ? Some insight to that would be nice to know
@Abhishek Definitely. American coaches sometimes have to be more circumspect because they face fairly significant monetary fines for, e.g., criticizing the officials. But they definitely mess with each other in the media, and as in soccer, there are coaches who develop reputations for being really good at mind games, although those reputations tend to go by default to any coach who gives good quotes and also wins a lot of games.
Thinking it over, it strikes me that American coaches and players also wage more public mind-games battles with people in their own organizations, although that might just be my impression.
f the aim of the game is to win, then Mour is the master. If it’s to play beautifully then he certainly is not.
@arazis Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Imo it’s good that there is more than one style of soccer that can be successful. If the only proper way to play the game is to play it like Barcelona, then by default you have just one real club and a large number of copies with various degrees of imperfection.