Halfway between the Gutter and the Stars

By the Times Simon Barnes

Say the Football Association and Brian Barwick, its chief executive, could somehow be embarrassed into it. Say that the FA could be chivvied out of its safe-pair-of-hands, risk-averse world-view. And say that the man in question was not, after all, playing games while tarting about for Real Madrid. Just say that all those things happened – then ask yourself, what would it be like?

What would happen if José Mourinho was England manager? Would he actually be any good? What sort of trouble would he find (for all England managers find trouble)? And what weaknesses would he ultimately reveal? (It is one of sport’s eternal laws that every England manager must eventually stand before us exactly as he is.)

It all comes down to Mourinho’s colossal, almost ludicrous sense of self-esteem. That is his strength. It is also his weakness, of course, but let that go for a moment. Let us start at the beginning: the opening press conference, the first meeting with the team.

The job has been discredited by the appointment and subsequent failure of the hapless Steve McClaren, “the reductio ad absurdum of England managers” in Brian Glanville’s telling phrase. Mourinho would restore, in an instant, prestige to the position and, by extension, to the team. Both would be special again.

If I am doing the job, it must be one of the most important jobs in the world: Mourinho would bring that attitude with him and, at a stroke, everything to do with the England team would be important, serious, requiring total commitment. After all, everything that relates to Mourinho’s vanity is important.

The England team would become, in an instant of time, a wonderfully sexy thing. The effect of this, at least at first, would be inspirational. It would be a complete and radical relaunch for the England football team: exactly what is needed.

Now on to the actual football. Sven-Göran Eriksson, when England head coach, empowered his players by treating them as grown-ups, by allowing them to make their own decisions, by trust. Eriksson succeeded admirably, up to a certain point, that point being the quarter-finals of big tournaments.

Mourinho’s methods are radically different. Players are required to worship him, to do all they can to win his confidence. Could these methods secure England’s qualification for the World Cup of 2010? It would be surprising if Mourinho failed to pull it off. He has a capacity to win the loyalty of players at a profound level: very much a two-way street, as he established with his core players at Chelsea, his Untouchables. He can do hard slog; he can make a team who reliably beat the teams they bloody well ought to beat.

This same talent would work in tournament play, that unique form of football that club managers never have to worry about. Success at a World Cup is about getting on a roll. England did that, to an extent, at the World Cups of 2002 and 1990, reaching a level at which success began to seem logical and inevitable. Mourinho is capable of doing that with England, of doing as well as Eriksson.

There is no problem with Mourinho’s grasp of footballing reality. His tactics are never thrilling, but they are thought-out, clear and completely baked. He is consistent and has a comprehensible vision of what he wants a football team to do. That in itself would be a nice change.

He can read a match as it happens, too. His ability to make strong and telling substitutions has always been an aspect of his style. That was Eriksson’s weak spot and it was merely one of McClaren’s.

But Mourinho never lets I dare not wait upon I will. Occasionally this has undone him: throwing on three attackers at half-time, then losing a player through injury. When things go wrong with Mourinho’s tactics, it is generally when he has given in to vanity, preferring the flamboyant gesture to the correct solution – overplaying, in short, the part of himself.

So we have a manager who is strong tactically and capable of inspiring a team, of creating a group identity around his own epic personality. And there are more good things. The first is that he has never been caught in the wrong bed – not since he joined Chelsea, anyway. He is reported to have led a double life during his time in Portugal.

In this country, we are fascinated by the sexual doings of football managers. Eriksson’s ability to remove his trousers in Olympic qualifying time detracted from his authority and therefore, ultimately, from the effectiveness of his England team. Mourinho, so keen to present himself as an out-and-out family man, has avoided the temptations – or behaved with discretion – since he came to England.

He is also, it would seem, too canny, and too caught up in himself, to get involved with the sort of job-hunting on-the-job that Eriksson went in for. Mourinho is never flattered when people court him. He expects it. Most vain people have a thick streak of insecurity, which is why they need flattering. Mourinho simply doesn’t notice flattery, he is too secure in his own view of himself.

All these good things. But there are bad things too, of course. For example, a man as important, as special as Mourinho, has no truck with such inhibiting things as rules and conventions. The occasion when he defied a Fifa ban by sneaking in and out of the Chelsea dressing-room in a laundry basket is funny more than anything else, but it points to a man with contempt for the laws that govern other people’s lives. This is a worrying sign for a potential employer, particularly one as touchy about its image as the FA.

Then, of course, there is the tiresomeness, the endless posturing, the relentless striking of attitudes. His unthought-out criticism of the ambulance service after the injury to Petr Cech is a classic example. The use of inflammatory statements as a distraction from poor performances became tedious at Chelsea and would not stand up for five minutes in the much fiercer examination of the England job. His attention-seeking might yet destroy him.

I feel in my water that the FA will shy away from appointing Mourinho. There is something dangerous about him and anyone who employs him will have a few sleepless nights.

And that is precisely why he should get the job. England failed in the quarter-finals under Eriksson because, ultimately, Eriksson is a safe man. He lost his nerve at the highest level. England, by nature and by rights, are a quarter-final team. It will take something remarkable to get them beyond that. The problem is to make the England players believe that they have a right to win the biggest of big matches, to believe that they are truly special.

Mourinho might just be able to do that. He was able to win the European Cup with FC Porto, an achievement beyond the vision of the club and the abilities of their players. He might just be able to work the same miracle with England. Mourinho: the dangerous one.

For more from Simon Barnes click here