He's down but not out.
One of the more interesting takes on the Manchester derby came from Eamon Dunphy. The notoriously outspoken pundit offered a withering assessment of Manchester United's performance under Mourinho on Sunday, claiming that the former Real Madrid and Chelsea manager has wasted the club's money on lavish signings in favour of establishing a clear identity, like what Pep Guardiola has done with Manchester City.
With a clear gulf in quality on display at Old Trafford on Sunday, Mourinho has come in for some stinging criticism. The consensus seems to be that, while United have produced solid results by and large this season, the progression under Mourinho has paled in comparison to what Guardiola has done with his City players.
Adding to the popular opinion that Guardiola has left Mourinho behind, Dunphy believes that the United boss' pragmatist tendencies make him comparable to Martin O'Neill and his predecessor as Republic of Ireland manager, Giovanni Trapattoni.
https://twitter.com/Malachians/status/940068082097176576
He has a point. While Guardiola sets his team out to attack and win without fail, Mourinho adjusts his gameplan in accordance to the opposition, what players he has available and so on. Against City, without influential midfielder Paul Pogba, Mourinho adopted a similarly defensive approach to the one we saw when United played Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal earlier this season.
Although United had Romelu Lukaku, Marcus Rashford, Anthony Martial and Jesse Lingard on the pitch, the ensuing display did not have a particular emphasis on attacking football. In that regard, you could say Mourinho is quite comparable to O'Neill.
The difference is the players the two managers have at their disposal.
While O'Neill has fielded Daryl Murphy in recent games, Mourinho has a €85 million striker in Lukaku, an exhilarating winger in Martial and one of the brightest prospects in English football in Rashford. In midfield, Mourinho can call on Pogba - not against City of course - while O'Neill has David Meyler. That's not to say Meyler is useless. Not by a long shot. But, with all due respect, he doesn't offer the same imagination and pizzazz as United's flamboyant Frenchman.
https://twitter.com/Malachians/status/940018381025026048
So, with such vastly superior personnel to O'Neill, why does Mourinho shun an attacking approach in favour of frustrating the other team when the opposition is someone like City? The answer is that he believes it's the best way to win. It's as simple as that. Whereas Guardiola sets City out to dominate every game, Mourinho prefers to stifle the Premier League's other heavyweights. It's not popular, but it has been effective (not including the City game obviously).
We saw it in its most extreme form against Arsenal. The difference between that game and the City clash was that United raced into an early two-goal lead at the Emirates, therefore they had something to protect. It was a different scenario against City. For one, United were at home. Secondly, at no point were they protecting a lead. However, Mourinho still refused to use the attacking weapons at his disposal to their full effect and engage toe-to-toe with Guardiola.
Despite what Louis van Gaal may believe, United have not regressed since Mourinho has taken over. They have still won two trophies, they are scoring more goals and playing more attractive football than the immensely dull possession-based brand espoused by the divisive Dutchman. They are also the team most likely to put a stop to the City machine, which is why it was disappointing to see such a defensive display against the runaway leaders.
The clear progression of several City players under Guardiola - John Stones and Raheem Sterling chief among them - has led many people to ponder what great things this United team could achieve under the Catalan tactician, but they've still achieved something under Mourinho.
The fact is that United are still eight points better off than they were at this point last season. Had they managed this season's tally after 16 games last year, it would be good enough to sit just five points behind Chelsea. Mourinho can't control what other teams do against City. He is powerless to stop City from scoring last-gasp winners like they have been doing. It leaves him fighting an uphill battle impossible to overcome if City aren't dropping points, but he does need to be braver when it comes to going up against them directly.
But it's still unfair to lump Mourinho into the same category as O'Neill or Tony Pulis, as some people have been doing lately. There is a reason he has won two Champions League titles, three Premier Leagues as well as league titles in Spain and Italy. Ultimately, Mourinho should be measured against those achievements. If he fails to return United to Premier League glory, then he has failed full stop. He hasn't failed yet but, as the anti-Mourinho brigade revel in United's inferiority to City, he now faces a fight to maintain his relevance.
Otherwise Mourinho defenders will have no leg to stand on.
