That's an absurdly simplistic and quite frankly inaccurate view, Jez.
You're turning into Malcolm.
I don't think so. Mourinho won the CL with Porto, then the prem with Chelsea in his first season.. of course he spent a fortune, but turning them into a team in his first season was an awesome achievement.
That wasn't the point I was making, Jose Mourinho is a fantastic manager.
Whats the point you are making then? Mine is what Risso has pointed out, Mourinho has won everything all the big ones, MON has not but the way the media goes on you would have thought he has won it all!
This is not saying i dont want MON or think he is crap, before anyone gets all upset and kicks off at me!
My point is that that is an absurdly simplistic and quite frankly inaccurate view. It is simplistic because it compares diffenret types of things. It's like saying that that Cheddar isn't a very good blue cheese. In the end, both managers have made huge successes of every job they have been at. They have had different jobs, but both men have taken every club they have been at to the next level. Has O'Neill won the Premier League? No, but if he was managing Chelsea then he might have done. He may still. As a Villa fan, you ought to appreciate that the best managers aren't automatically the one the manage the best sides. Winning the league with Chelski is a slighly easier task than winning it with Leicester City - so to compare the two as if it's a level playing field is ridiculous.
It's innaccurate because the media like both managers, primarily because they are both palpably talented and succesful but also because they carry a little more character and interest than most PL bosses. If you can find me an article that says that O'Neill is a better manager than Mourinho then show it to me. The truth is, there isn't one. The media as a whole likes the pair of them, they do not try to 'hype up' one to be better than the other.