[banterman86]

You know who the modern day Brian Clough is? Jose Mourinho, both darn good for a sound bite. And both won the continents premier competition with unlikely sides.


But which achievement was better?

Clough with Forest, twice no less.

or

Mourinho with Porto, in an era of "Big 5" domination?


Discuss, or just wait for Miko or Perthshirebell to post and disgaree with them.

[banterman86]

perthshirebell, on 16 March 2010 - 16:58, said:

It's not funny.

[Cowden til i die]

I think Div should administer some sort of IQ test in order to enter this part of the forum.

[chub]

perthshirebell, on 16 March 2010 - 17:13, said:

The membership of the board would drop by about 90%. I can't believe how daft the folk are on here at times.

[Skyline Drifter]

Clough.

Easily. Though only when he had Peter Taylor by his side. Alone he wasn't nearly as good.

Mourinho's achievement with Porto was good and he crossed national borders to have further success but his further success was acquired with massive funds, something Clough didn't generally have despite the headline grabbing Trevor Francis signing. Clough also brought two relatively small clubs from the second tier of English football to win the top division in quick succession and went on to conquer Europe with one of them and probably would have with the other had they not been highly suspiciously "helped" out of Europe by Juventus in a semi final.

This post has been edited by Skyline Drifter: 16 March 2010 - 20:37

[bingbongbilly]

It's Clough by a mile. Absolutley no contest.

Porto were one Europe's leading sides when Mourinho took over. Clough took Forest from Second Division obscurity to two European Cups. Unbelievable really.

Mourinho is a Phil Collins fan as well which is a little unsettling.

[vlad is the man]

Skyline Drifter, on 16 March 2010 - 17:25, said:

Clough.

Easily. Though only when he had Peter Taylor by his side. Alone he wasn't nearly as good.

Mourinho's achievement with Porto was good and he crossed national borders to have further success but his further success was acquired with massive funds, something Clough didn't generally have despite the headline grabbing Trevor Francis signing. Clough also brought to relatively small clubs from the second tier of English football to win the top division in quick succession and went on to conquer Europe with one of them and probably would have with the other had they not been highly suspiciously "helped" out of Europe by Juventus in a semi final.

It was a few years back so can't exactly remember how every team were doing but it did seem a lot of the big(ger) teams were on a decline or in the middle of transition. Chelsea for example. You only have to look at the fact it was a Porto v Monaco final. Take nothing away from Mourinho he did fantastically well.

[Thistle_do_nicely]

banterman86, on 16 March 2010 - 16:55, said:

You know who the modern day Brian Clough is? Jose Mourinho, both darn good for a sound bite. And both won the continents premier competition with unlikely sides.


But which achievement was better?

Clough with Forest, twice no less.

or

Mourinho with Porto, in an era of "Big 5" domination?


Discuss, or just wait for Miko or Perthshirebell to post and disgaree with them.

Have a green pointy thingy for the bolded bit.

[Monkey Tennis]

Clough I'd say.

What Mourinho achieved with Porto in Europe was obviously very impressive; in an era when Champions are only meant to come from one of three big countries.

It's the unlikely domestic success that Clough created twice that sets him apart though. His European Cup wins are almost incidental on top of those.

Nothing Mourinho has won since Porto can really count - Chisholm would have won stuff with that kind of budget.

[Joey]

Finding it hard to choose dispassionately or compare Clough to anyone in the modern era. Detested Clough's arrogance back in the day, never liked the man and still don't, recent film glorified the b*****d imo. That said can not deny him his achievements. Mourinho still has a lot of time on his side and I think this razor sharp brain will win out in the final analysis. He may have a certain seeming arrogance but, Mourinho is more human than Clough and I could certainly enjoy a beer with him, whereas I could not stand to be in the same room as Clough.

[seamus]

To say that Clough did not spend money is nonsense.I wonder if he would have been able to win the European cup in its current format with that squad of players.
IMHO winning the English title was a far better achievement than winning the European cup in Cloughs era.Clough was a master tactician and better than that cheat Mourhino.

[Willie Gray Ate My Hamster]

seamus, on 16 March 2010 - 23:38, said:

To say that Clough did not spend money is nonsense.I wonder if he would have been able to win the European cup in its current format with that squad of players.

Yep he spent a fair bit which people seem to forget and also without Taylor he was found out as Forrest never hit the same heights after Taylor retired.

This post has been edited by Willie Gray Ate My Hamster: 17 March 2010 - 10:53

[wunfellaff]

Spent the first milion on a player, Francis, before his first European Cup. He did spend a chunk or two.

For my tuppence i would go with Jose, his home record is phenonomal (currently 131 according to Wiki) and he has achieved with a variety of clubs. Cloughy it could be argued, only really achieved with Forrest.

This post has been edited by wunfellaff: 17 March 2010 - 07:14

[the jambo-rocker]

Skyline Drifter, on 16 March 2010 - 17:25, said:

Clough.

Easily. Though only when he had Peter Taylor by his side. Alone he wasn't nearly as good.

Agreed. I'm pretty sure his track record without him would prove this.

wunfellaff, on 17 March 2010 - 07:12, said:

Cloughy it could be argued, only really achieved with Forrest.

He took derby county from the bottom of the old second division to the top league title in four seasons.

[Skyline Drifter]

wunfellaff, on 17 March 2010 - 07:12, said:

Cloughy it could be argued, only really achieved with Forrest.

Well it could. But only by an idiot who thinks he popped into existence when he took over at Forest and had no idea about the rest of his career.

[Skyline Drifter]

the jambo-rocker, on 17 March 2010 - 08:04, said:

Agreed. I'm pretty sure his track record without him would prove this.

He wasn't hopeless without Taylor. He did win a couple of League Cups and a Simod Cup without Taylor. He reached the FA Cup Final and another semi final, a semi final in Europe (where they undeniably WERE put out by bribery unlike the unproven allegation that Derby were by Juve previously) and had high league finishes.

But he wasn't as good, without question.

[the jambo-rocker]

Skyline Drifter, on 17 March 2010 - 09:09, said:

He wasn't hopeless without Taylor. He did win a couple of League Cups and a Simod Cup without Taylor. He reached the FA Cup Final and another semi final, a semi final in Europe (where they undeniably WERE put out by bribery unlike the unproven allegation that Derby were by Juve previously) and had high league finishes.

But he wasn't as good, without question.

I wasnt disagreeing mate, i was merely agreeing that he was not as good as was with taylor.

[Skyline Drifter]

the jambo-rocker, on 17 March 2010 - 09:16, said:

I wasnt disagreeing mate, i was merely agreeing that he was not as good as was with taylor.

Yeah, I know, sorry, I know you weren't. I was just emphasising the point. I should probably have quoted Willie Gray above you instead.

[Colin M]

bingbongbilly, on 16 March 2010 - 17:32, said:

Porto were one Europe's leading sides when Mourinho took over.

That's not strictly true though - when he took them over they were struggling and he raised them to 3rd in the league. At the time they were at a (relative) low. The speed which he turned them around was quite startling.

I do think Clough's achievement is incredible - probably just as much in making Forest English champions in the first place as the European success - at that time whoever won the English league would be likely winners of the European Cup! That's not to belittle that as an achievement, more an indication of how hard it would be to win the league.

[banterman86]

Colin M, on 17 March 2010 - 10:58, said:

I do think Clough's achievement is incredible - probably just as much in making Forest English champions in the first place as the European success - at that time whoever won the English league would be likely winners of the European Cup!

That's kind of my thinking to an extent. I'm not interested in comparing Mourinho and Clough in a wider sense, just their european triumphs with thes eteams.

[Colin M]

banterman86, on 17 March 2010 - 11:00, said:

That's kind of my thinking to an extent. I'm not interested in comparing Mourinho and Clough in a wider sense, just their european triumphs with thes eteams.

I think to retain the European Cup even at the time was incredible.

While I wouldn't belittle Porto's triumph, it was certainly a year where all the big guns fell short. If you look at the semi-finalists, they were probably favourites (this was pre-Mourinho obviously for Chelsea, and Abramovich had only been there a year). Now they did knock out Man Utd in that famous tie, but it seems unimagineable that even with that, a run to the trophy for Porto would be against Lyon - Deportivo - Monaco.

Again not to belittle the achievment, it was a fantastic team who thoroughly deserved their triumph, but I think it's fair to say circumstances were favourable for them.

[Jacksgranda]

Skyline Drifter, on 16 March 2010 - 17:25, said:

Clough.

Easily. Though only when he had Peter Taylor by his side. Alone he wasn't nearly as good.

Clough also brought two relatively small clubs from the second tier of English football to win the top division in quick succession and went on to conquer Europe with one of them and probably would have with the other had they not been highly suspiciously "helped" out of Europe by Juventus in a semi final.

I would agree - although I would have said he wasn't "as good" without Taylor.

Clough started at Hartlepool and either got them promoted to Divison 3 (today's League One), - a great achievement for Hartlepool - or left them so that the next manager got them up.

Anyway, I think we are comparing apples with oranges, the financial situation is totally different between the 2 eras.

[wunfellaff]

the jambo-rocker, on 17 March 2010 - 08:04, said:

Agreed. I'm pretty sure his track record without him would prove this.





He took derby county from the bottom of the old second division to the top league title in four seasons.

Yep 'argued' , he moved them up 30 odd league places in a couple of years after record spending. Bought success in other words, won the title by default as other teams didnt win their last games and reached a semi of the European Cup. The following year he went backwards, and this was the learning process that he applied to Notts F, where he actually achieved in a better fashion, but again with the chequebook open.


Add this up and this is why i went for the special one. True he had money to spend at Chelsea and Inter, but at chelsea that was a hinderrance as he didnt want half the players that were signed.

All about opinion.