The mainstream football media are convinced that there is a ‘new Mourinho’ at Chelsea. Although I’m inclined to agree, I’m not entirely sure who this ‘new Mourinho’ actually is.
Of course, to even ask who this ‘new Mourinho’ is implies a form, a Mourinho, from whom to begin. José Mourinho was a Chelsea manager, young, Portuguese, poached from Porto after a blistering season domestically and in Europe, who was expected to grasp a small but ambitious club by the horns and haul it that final step which it couldn’t take under its previous (Italian) coach.
However, for this new subject to follow its form, it must follow its path both to and from the point at which they most strikingly overlap. In other words, the ‘new Mourinho’ can’t just arrive in similar circumstances; he must replicate the latter’s success, emulate him to the point of absurdity. The trouble is that last time, that wasn’t enough for Roman Abramovich. Mourinho brought the Premier League, the F.A. Cup and the League Cup but just didn’t quite make it to the Champions’ League Final. Combined with his prickly nature, his ultimate failure to deliver Europe’s grandest prize meant that Europe’s most demanding owner outside of Italy felt obliged to oust him.
Though you wouldn’t think it, Chelsea have hardly gone backwards since Mourinho departed. The perennially unloved Avram Grant, he of the hangdog expression and poor reputation, took them to a Champions’ League final, and the recently sacked Carlo Ancelotti regained the title fourteen months ago before a bizarre mid-season collapse saw his side drop back to second last season. His win ratio during his tenure was higher than Mourinho’s. Indeed, people forget that Mourinho actually left during what might otherwise have been Chelsea’s worst season since the Abramovich takeover and that since that messy affair, they have done quite well—particularly if we consider the sudden lack of investment in players from their previously profligate patron last summer.
It seems to follow, therefore, that the idea of ‘who’ follows a form—‘what’. The ‘new Mourinho’ is a return to an idea, the idea fostered by José during his tenure that he and only he could bring Chelsea the success their fanbase, football’s nouveaux riches, so desperately craved.
‘Mourinho’ as a concept works better than the man because the man is inherently—and loveably, at least in England—flawed; the man is arrogant, proud, and sometimes base in his poorly-veiled press conference insults. The man, however, feeds the myth: the infamous ‘us-versus-them’ mentality, the melodramatic swinging about of the arms at the ‘injustice’ of poor refereeing decisions, even the benevolent humour when things are going well, all serve to create the idea of the club as an impregnable fortress. This fortress is built on victories, of course—and in this sense the man and the myth are inseparable, because Mourinho delivers victories everywhere he goes, but the ultimate difference between the man and the myth is that whilst the man can fall (and he has fallen in the past), his failure serves only to fuel the fervour of the myth. It’s classic dictatorship; whilst the man, the leader, is fallible, the idea only gains in strength from his failure because expectations are so high and the individual observer’s dependency on them are so great that said failure is interpreted as nothing less than tragedy. Tragedy, by definition, affects the great. With Mourinho, Chelsea were great.
This is why it’s so important that Chelsea have a ‘new Mourinho’. The man, as he is keen to point out, is not that similar to his predecessor; though he shares Mourinho’s enjoyment of manipulating the media, he does not thrive on conflict. He does not build fortresses. His problem (or, potentially, the problem for Mourinho’s legacy) is that he has walked straight into a ready-made fortress. It’s in a bit of a state from the pounding it’s taken recently, but under the right leadership it can once again be great. Fortress Mourinho has haunted Chelsea since he left; it is Fortress Mourinho that makes it look as though Chelsea have been in crisis for years.
The idea of the doppelganger, or Double, has troubled Western culture for centuries. As an expression of the deepest insecurities of identity and self, the Double, as represented in Western literature, is always the superior manifestation of what the individual can never be. In Poe and Wilde, he represents conscience; in Dostoyevsky and Kafka, he is the emblem of a society from which the protagonist feels alienated and excluded. The protagonist is always egotistical—he must be, for the activation of the ‘double’ idea has to come from some form of insecurity, and insecurity is rooted in the positive ideas of self, subjectivity and individuality. It is egotism as internal conflict which annihilates him.
All the ‘new Mourinho’ has to do is succeed, and Chelsea will become his fortress. The tools are certainly there; whilst the principal conductors of the Mourinho machine—the likes of John Terry, Frank Lampard, Michael Essien, Didier Drogba—are in their late careers, additions have been made to the squad which make it more than a match for anyone else in Europe. David Luiz has the potential to be one of the finest central defenders of his generation, his former team-mate at Benfica, Ramires, is slowly settling in, and of course there’s the potential for Fernando Torres to suddenly explode into form. There will be more signings—quite possibly from last season’s all-conquering Porto side—and the ‘new Mourinho’ is already well-acquainted with the club and its infrastructure. All he needs to do is win, and his almost comical similarity to his predecessor will ensure that Chelsea will at last be able to look away from the haunting spectre of Mourinho.
In essence, the end of the persona could be the beginning of new life at Chelsea whose stagnant air appears to be wrapped in that Portuguese idea of saudade—the unresolved longing for a mythologised past—instilled the moment Mourinho left. It’s ironic that it took the arrival of someone so intimately related to Mourinho to revive the club. The ‘new Mourinho’ has the chance to make Chelsea great again, and in his own image. Whether his image is nothing more than that of Mourinho is difficult to say.
What can be said, however, is that there has already been a break with tradition. The ‘new Mourinho’ has been fast-tracked on the back of the success of his predecessor—he did the ‘brilliant first season’ part, but he did not have the chance to lead Porto in the Champions’ League. Chances are he would have taken his side into the second round or possibly the quarterfinals and then been dispatched by Barcelona, or even Mourinho himself at Real Madrid. His stock this summer was the highest it will ever be, and Chelsea bought it. He worked with Mourinho, everything about him is like Mourinho, he must be as good as Mourinho. Maybe he is. He’s certainly ‘made it’ quicker.
Is Mourinho’s doppelganger to be the haunting alter-ego of the flawed protagonist? Will he take Chelsea to new heights in a manner more pleasing, less abrasive, than old José’s? Or will he crash and burn, overwhelmed by a two-year jump from Académica in the nether regions of Portugal’s Liga Sagres to Chelsea at the pinnacle of the European game? Either way, Mourinho loses: any victory will replace Mourinho’s image with that of his ‘successor’; any defeat will strip the ‘new Mourinho’ of any individuality and make his failure a failure of the ‘Mourinho’ idea. If the rivalry with Barcelona didn’t mean José needed that Champions’ League trophy with Real badly enough already, he has Double the reason now.
Augusto Neto strings thirty passes together and hits the post at www.soccerlens.com.
Even Massimo Moratti didn’t do that. But then, Mourinho won him the Champions’ League and two Scudetti.
Indeed, one might argue that they have been—in terms of identity. The Abramovich effect was so great that the Chelsea of old more or less ceased to exist; all that spending was harnessed into an image by the strength of Mourinho’s personality. No coach, not even Phil Scolari, has ever come close to matching it.
Mourinho’s countryman and namesake, José Saramago, plays on this idea slightly in his ‘O Homem Duplicado’, transliterated as ‘The Duplicated Man’, but sadly it does not count among the finer literary achievements of Portugal’s only Nobel Prize winner. A better choice would be ‘All The Names,’ a reflection on the inhumanity of the bureaucratic cataloguing of individual lives whose chief protagonist is a certain Senhor José…
Mourinho’s feelings about his successor might be slightly reminiscent of the bureaucratic envy cursing through Doestoyevsky’s novel.
Read More: André Villas-Boas, Chelsea, José Mourinho
by Augusto Neto · August 2, 2011
Fucking brilliant. I’m pretty sure those MCAT or GRE test makers should get their verbal passages from essays like this.
right on, it seems like a reading comprehension exam passage, though honestly i don’t share the enjoyment of that. no offense to the contributors for this site who provide free reading material, but it’s really turned into something that resembles the one-upmanship of Graduate Student Instructors trying to impress their professor. is there any room for actual (and perhaps, tactical) discussion of soccer here anymore? what’s lost in this whole New Mourinho-doppelengager philosophical warbling is that AVB (in a short time) has already burst onto the scene displaying an extremely sharp, vibrant personality (completely independent of Mourinho comparisons). this article could have been so interesting if it just focused on AVB, and his tactics. instead it hardly talks about soccer at all. now, there’s little chance of another AVB-related article here anytime soon. and btw, Ramires slowly adjusted last season; by the end of the season, he was one of the best players on the team.
I wonder how Villas-Boas feels about still living in the shadow when his body of work merits him a sliver of sunlight.
Hey, was it intentional that you omitted Andrè Villas Boas’ name through the whole article? Great one, by the way.
You know, this thing of him being perceived “Mourinho v 2.0″ has been sort of bugging me the whole summer through. I guess that, had he accepted an offer from Inter, we Italian football fans wouldn’t have read anything else on newspaper, from the moment of his hiring onwards.
Sports journalists here hate to admit it, but they miss Old Josè real hard. Ah, those were the good times, when every single word uttered by Mou ended right into our pop culture…
@Salvo Yes, the myth about Jose and Italy is that they hated each other, but I think secretly they were madly and passionately in love. Certainly he made more of an impact there than anywhere else.
I don’t think the author is a Chelsea fan, as most of them were over him long ago, as the chorus of f-off Mourinho when he returned with Inter demonstrated. A surprisingly high number were glad to see the back of him, fed up with his turgid football and obnoxious and narcissistic personality. Given the choice of Hiddink or Mourinho returning, a lot would prefer Hiddink. If AVB can equal Mourinho’s success but without the egomania most will be more than happy.
Outstanding piece. Bravo.
what was the point of this piece? for all the flowery language, nothing was said, similar to most pieces on this site.
sorry, no tenure for you.
I’ve been thinking a lot about literary doubles today, because I was reading an analysis of the Achilles-Patroclus pairing in the Iliad*. Patroclus goes on a mission to drive back the Trojans from the ships dressed as Achilles. The double is given the hero’s horses, armor, chariot, and charioteer. Not his spear though: Patroclus cannot pick up the semi-divine Achilles’ spear, as it is too heavy for a mere man like him.
Dressed like Achilles, he goes into battle, into his own doom. At first, believing him to be Achilles, the Trojans withdraw in panic. He enjoys tremendous success, running riot over the field of battle. But soon, the appointed hour comes for his death. The god Apollo strikes his immortal armor from his back, exposing his nakedness to a Trojan spear. He dies and is stripped of his armor. Only when his corpse is brought back to the Achaean camp does Achilles, struck with grief and fury at the loss of his friend, return to the field of battle.
Patroclus’ mission is to be a designated sacrifice to increase the honor of Achilles. Only by his death can the Iliad accomplish the goal of bringing Achilles back into the fight, raging, furious. He returns to battle and accomplishes what the double never could: the death of Hector. Achilles’ friend had to die in order for Achilles to win the honor and glory that was his due, that Zeus had ordained for him
Following the analogy, perhaps a catastrophic failure by the new Mourinho shows that there can be no such thing as a new Mourinho. He may have all the external accoutrements of a Mourinho, but he does not have the divine spark. He is not the real thing. The double’s failure would only increase the glory of Achilles/Mourinho.
I think Apollo, who hates Achilles personally, but whose killing of Patroclus is necessary for Achilles to win honor, may be Abramovich.
* The War That Killed Achilles – highly recommended
Actually, no, Abramovich would have to be Agamemnon, whose horrible leadership and arrogance are what drove Achilles away in the first place.
‘The Run of Play is a blog about the wonder and terror of soccer.
We left the window open during a match in October 2007 and a strange wind blew into the room.
Now we walk the forgotten byways of football with a lonely tread, searching for the beautiful, the bewildering, the haunting, and the absurd.’
Guys, I don’t see what the problem is here. Product performs exactly as advertised. If you want tactical analysis, news, or statistics, I’m sure there’s a bunch of other blogs out there for your perusal. I’d start with the Guardian’s top 100 for 2011 and go from there.
As far as the piece itself goes, I’d have to agree with Ronit regarding the conclusion – though perhaps not as eloquently as his post reads, of course – I don’t think Mourinho loses if Villas-Boas does. I think that merely serves to heighten the sense that he has an undoubtedly winning formula that cannot be underestimated, regardless of whether the fans/owner were glad to see the back of him or not.
I think the real loser here, thanks to the fine gentlemen and scant ladies (I’m sure the Gray-Keys brain trust has an explanation) of the English media, is young Andre. It’s pretty obvious he’s tried to distance himself from comparisons, to little avail. If he does well and even wins the Champions’ League, they might say “He’s stepped out of Mourinho’s shadow” but that didn’t stop them from saying the words ‘Mourinho’s shadow’ in conjunction with Villas-Boas in order to sell copies, did it? And if he doesn’t do well, then he wasn’t as good as Mourinho.
@Varun i don’t think my or anyone else’s criticism is purely that this blog should only have “dry” (or in the case of the Guardian, “incompetent”) tactical analysis. just that what seemed to be the previous flavor of this site — tactical, or more broadly soccer-related analysis articulated in excellent writing — has now simply become an extended metaphor competition among grad students. obviously some people like you and Ronit enjoy that, as you are entitled to. on the other hand, i could not read more than one sentence of Ronit’s post w/o dozing off. again, that’s my taste and no disrespect to Ronit. but ultimately, the pieces on this site have deviated from eloquent but still cogent soccer analysis, to an elaborate nerdoff.
@dojo, fair enough. I only started reading this blog 2 months ago, so I never expected anything but what was in front of me (I didn’t really feel inclined to read previous articles). That’s why I mainly come here more to enjoy some articulate prose than for the footy talk, and rely on other sources for the latter. My apologies.
@dojo I concur. I feel as it the pieces have lost all substance and have devolved into fancy… ugh I can’t even fonish my sentence. LETS TALK ELOQUENTLY OF THE WONDER AND TERROR OF FOOTBALL, not talk eloquently about nothing at all (sorry, Augusto Neto).
Thanks!
@Xani Alves @dojo If you don’t like it, don’t read it. There’s a thousand blogs and places you can go to read tactical analysis and cute little human interest stories. How many places can you get an interesting philosophical perspective? None other, that I am aware of. The articles on here make the range from above average interest to brilliant. Not every one is a winner, for sure, but to criticize the whole like that is just stupid. If you don’t like it, can’t you go to a thousand other places to find something you don’t like? And if you can’t, start your own? And if you don’t want to, then shut up. A critic is like a eunuch in a harem.
@ Augusto Neto Awesome man. Keep on. Loved it.
@dojo Granted, I’ve been doing this for a long time, but I just have absolutely no memory of this tactical-flavored golden age you look back on so fondly.
EDIT: Wait, maybe it was this.
like most schollar papers, the sidenotes are even better than the text.
Sidenote #2 in particular is a post, all by itself.
@Brian Phillips no it was more like this: http://www.runofplay.com/2009/11/08/chelsea-1-0-manchester-united-you-can-scream-all-day/
perhaps my use of the word “tactical” was wrong. what i mean is, posts that referred to actual soccer. @Michael, i’m sorry if i got you so salty; i imagine you crumbling a scone on yourself in a huff, and straightening your New Yorker with a smug expression at your witty retort. in any case, i didn’t criticize the blog as a whole; i simply said that the current crop of posts seem to have gone from “eloquent soccer articles” to just “eloquent.” i also acknowledged that other people enjoy that, and i respect their right to. i still read the articles b/c if i didn’t, how would i know if i liked them? and since i used to enjoy the blog so much, i come back here to the site like a dog whose owners’ house has burned down. and, it’s called feedback so don’t tell me to shut up you nerdy philosophical wanker. peace!
@dojo While I like the initial article, I may like this post more. The top three things on this page:
1. Footnote number 2
2. your response to @Michael’s “If you don’t like it, don’t read it.”
3. the essay itself
Either way, Mourinho loses: any victory will replace Mourinho’s image with that of his ‘successor’; any defeat will strip the ‘new Mourinho’ of any individuality and make his failure a failure of the ‘Mourinho’ idea.
I disagree. It’s unfortunate that your wrap up a great article with a falsity! Thanks anyways.
@Joaq lol thanks man. and i hope i was clear that i respect the right of you and everyone to like whatever you like. in the same vein i just wanted to express my own opinion, to see if others relate and also as feedback for the people who write and administrate this site. it seems a couple people relate w/ me, others don’t. but we all love soccer/football, that’s what brings it together. joga bonito!
@dojo Bro this site isn’t about tactics. Plain and simple. I agree with all that your saying. Your analysis of this blog is true. But its exactly what makes this site worth reading (for me). It’s a unique and refreshing source of NOT INFO, BUT ANALYSIS, of the game we all love.
@Smith Well, it must be because a certain amount of time has passed from Mourinho’s Chelsea days… Inter fans, for one, still miss him.
Sure, anti-Inter fans (because remember, in 80% of situations us Italians are not football team/coach/player fans, but football team/coach/player haters) still take any given occasion to insult him, Inter and everything he’s done, but all in all a coach like him is bitterly missed, probably because he’s been the last spark of international-level important football we have seen for at least the next five to ten years. Speaking of which, it would be very interesting to me, as an Italian football fan, to know how our escapeless crisis is seen.
No creative midfielder means AVB is going to be the next Ancelotti.
Good post.
I’m just still not sure whether Mourinho goes to the point of designing his mediatic persona to include these personality flaws you mentioned , or if this is his true nature, as you seem to put it. People who know him well describe him as the antithesis of what he is to the footballing world. I see him as definitely intelligent enough to understand arrogance as an unwanted trait in one’s personality. I believe he sees arrogance as a weapon, and uses it willingly – perhaps to strengthen the “dictator” image, or only to divert “hate” towards him (and thus further strength as a “mythological” figure) .
By the way, and not wanting to sound pedantic or anything, on footnote 3 you mention José Saramago being “Portugal’s only Nobel Prize winner” – this is not true, Egas Moniz won the Nobel Prize for Medicine/Physiology in 1949.
@Salvo It was intentional, Salvo. Intellectual prostitution of the highest order
@DK I’ve also read a lot about Mourinho being an extremely friendly, selfless person outside of the media gaze but I couldn’t possibly comment. As some posters have slightly angrily pointed out, the article was about fictions as well as realities, and about characters rather than people. I was talking about Mourinho-the-character, not Mourinho-the-human-being.
As for Portuguese Nobel Prize-Winners, my apologies. I should have said Portugal’s only Nobel Prize Winner for Literature. Didn’t the chap who designed Braga’s (among others) new stadium win a Nobel recently too?
@dojo I’m not really sure what you mean about philosophical warbling. Though I never intended the piece to be a strict work of analysis (which would have been utterly dull), I tried to raise a lot of topics which I think are worthy of discussion. Part of the fun is letting people pull what they want from it rather than spoonfeeding them identikit paragraphs of tactical cliches and romanticised accounts of how people have come from ‘unique’ backgrounds and turned into stars. That’s why I enjoy posting articles here.
If you want a strict comparison between the coaches though, here goes:
- AVB worked for Mourinho and absorbed most of his working methodologies. Both are Anglophiles whose preferred tactical system is a classic European 4-3-3 with a holder, hard-working but creative all-round central midfielders, wide players who can score goals and a centre-forward. AVB prefers a brand of football slightly more balanced towards attack, Mourinho to defence, though Mourinho likes his full-backs a tad more adventurous than AVB.
AVB shares Mourinho’s prickly attitude, but not the egomaniacal public persona, nor does he seek confrontation (as mentioned in the article). He shares Mourinho’s understanding of how to manipulate a press conference or interview.
Neither had any success as a player. Both are big admirers of Sir Bobby Robson. Mourinho probably models himself on some imagined cross between Sir Bobby, Helenio Herrera and Valeri Lobanovsky, while AVB sees himself as being a little closer to Frank Rjkaard, but this is just personal opinion.
Both hold an irrational torch to Paulo Ferreira. Both enjoy good wine, but it’s more important to Mourinho. Both loathe Benfica, though Mourinho’s attitude has softened of late.
Both men had success at a smaller Portuguese club before joining Porto, but Mourinho’s experience before joining Chelsea was much more substantial: he followed a UEFA Cup win with a Champions’ League trophy. He also briefly managed Benfica before the club’s management played salary games with him and used the press to try to weaken his hand in negotiations. AVB has never managed a club of similar stature to Porto other than Chelsea.
I could do this for hours, but for me it makes for much less interesting reading..
@Augusto Neto I see what you did there
, very well played. you can’t imagine how much I, as an Inter fan, enjoyed that fateful press conference. Heck, good ol’ Specialone (as in “big special”) was not only the most brilliant coach we had in decades: he acted also as a memebase 
@Augusto Neto i did not say what i said in order to try and influence you or what you write. clearly you write what interests you, and i think i made it clear several times in my comments that i respect the right of anyone to enjoy what they like. my comment was directed at what i perceived to be a shift in the nature of the blog as a whole; some people agreed with me and others didn’t.
that said, i never indicated that i was looking for a “strict comparison” or dry analysis; the point was that to me this blog discussed soccer itself in a poetic way, and i felt that the subject matter has become secondary to the discourse. still, to contrast what you wrote w/ a completely dispassionate example of “tactical analysis” is just a straw man argument. what is or is not “utterly boring” is obviously a subjective thing, so to give an example of what you think is boring is a bit convenient. i already pointed to a Phillips article that was more along the lines of what i was referring to.
as for the AVB-Mourinho comparison, the forehead-smacking obviousness of the comparison has been and will be media fodder for years. what interests me more is how unique AVB has already distinguished his personality to be, in defiance of the obvious comparison. this personality is apparent not only in what he says, but also his “tactical” approach and what he is trying to instill in his players, despite the use of the (altogether common) 4-3-3 formation. if anything, my own interest lies not in the “strict comparison” with Mourinho, but in looking at AVB himself completely independent of Mourinho. but anyway, you wrote what you wanted to write about, and i respect that. my feedback was on the nature of the site. good luck to you, and good night.
@dojo I’m sorry you didn’t find anything worth taking from the article. The “forehead-smackingly obvious” comparison between Mourinho and AVB is obvious because, to a large extent, it’s actually true. Whilst AVB remains his own man (he could easily have followed Mourinho around for the rest of his career), the fact remains that he is remarkably similar to Mourinho. His tactics, as I mentioned, are similar; his personality, though much more moderate, is of a similar ilk; his rise to success has been very similar, and at the same club. There’s no getting away from it, and to write an article about AVB without mention of Mourinho would not only feel a little strained but would also simply not have that much interesting information to draw upon.
I was trying to use Mourinho to talk about AVB. Whilst talking lots about Mourinho and not even mentioning AVB by name, I thought I’d say a lot more about AVB – as well as Mourinho – than I would have done by dedicating an article to him. I it an interesting little avenue to pursue because for all the funny literary parallels, if you hold the two men up against each other you can read a lot into Chelsea as well as the two coaches.
Still, if you would have preferred something different, that’s up to you. If everybody thought my articles were wonderful I wouldn’t bother writing them, and whilst I think you may not have picked up on some of the ideas I was trying to express, I understand what you meant about the direction of the site (though, again, I’m inclined to disagree).
@Augusto Neto
I believe you refer to Eduardo Souto Moura, who won the Pritzker Architecture Prize, just like his master Siza Vieira before him. It is colloquialy referred to as “Architecture’s Nobel Prize” hence your confusion.
Rather ironically Souto Moura is considered the new Siza Vieira.
Augusto, I’d like to invite you to a portuguese website. Please send me an e-mail to joao.bexiga@letra1.com. I’d like to talk to you.
I agrree with Dojo ” i did not say what i said in order to try and influence you or what you write. clearly you write what interests you, and i think i made it clear several times in my comments that i respect the right of anyone to enjoy what they like. my comment was directed at what i perceived to be a shift in the nature of the blog as a whole; some people agreed with me and others didn’t.
“