Mour from Ed and Jose

> Mourinho and Woodward must share responsibility for United’s troubles

I Nthe white-hot aftermath of Tottenham Hotspur’s victory at Old Trafford on Monday, Manchester United’s heaviest home defeat in four years, it was inevitable that the bulk of the blame would fall on Jose Mourinho.

Despite his best efforts to protect his reputation in his post-match press conference and remind the public of his “three Premierships”, Mourinho could do nothing to slow the growing sense that he will not see out the season in Manchester.

This was not the worst United performance of his tenure – that, arguably, came eight days earlier at Brighton – but it was the biggest home defeat of his managerial career and one that carried the hallmarks of that new phenomenon – ‘the Mourinho season’.

Players were culled on the basis of one poor performance. Those selected by Mourinho played with the fear that they would be next in the stocks. This was a performance of nervous energy, lacking the composure and coherence required to stave off an impending crisis.

For that, for his curious treatment of the club’s most naturally-talented players, for his growing list of failed signings and for his many other mistakes at Old Trafford so far, Mourinho deserves and is receiving plenty of criticism.

And yet, even as the news cycle positions him as the central figure in United’s malaise, he is right to feel he is not solely responsible.

Yet the context in which events at United have played out since 2005 should not excuse the most recent mistakes of the club’s present decisionmakers: namely, executive vice-chairman Ed Woodward, who opted to give Mourinho a contract extension just seven months ago.

It was a disconnect between Woodward and his manager that left United caught between two stools in the summer market. Mourinho sought experienced, expensive players who often came with a short shelf-life. Woodward was understandably sceptical.

Mourinho’s preference for peak-age professionals was hardly a secret, though, and it was certainly common knowledge when Woodward agreed to extend Mourinho’s contract to 2020 back in January, just four days after completing the signing of a 29-year-old Alexis Sanchez.

What changed over the months that followed? Did Sanchez’s underwhelming displays expose that strategy as a flawed one? Did the costs of this nominally ‘free’ transfer – with Sanchez earning approximately £300,000-a-week – dissuade Woodward from signing players of a similar profile?

If so, Mourinho seems to have been unaware of any such change in thinking and so come summer, he fairly expected support. As one of Mourinho’s predecessors might have told Woodward, “your job is to stand by the manager”.

There is an interesting counter- argument, here. Employing a manager does not mean accepting his every demand. If the club believes Mourinho to be wrong in his assessment of a particular player or situation, why should they not stand firm?

If the difficulties that come with his appointment were included as part of some kind of risk assessment – accepted as the price of working with a managerial great – then the club has little cause for complaint. If not, they simply did not do their homework.

The responsibility for the summer and the poor start to the season should be shared.

It is difficult to have sympathy with either the manager, as cantankerous and as stubborn a presence as ever, or the club’s hierarchy, who blindly walked into a civil partnership with him two years back and then renewed their vows in the winter.

If things do not improve, the two seemed headed for a messy divorce. – The Independent