Manchester United’s manager has seemed too conscious of how he is expected to behave in his latest job, to the detriment of his team, but the petulant criticism of Antonio Conte was a sign the fire is returning

Sir Alex Ferguson’s Manchester United took some fearful hidings over the years. “Even in the most successful campaigns, there always seemed to be one match when it went horribly wrong,” wrote Gary Neville in his autobiography, Red. “A nightmare match that reminded you success never comes easily.” Such games would prompt an orgy of schadenfreude around the country.

At Ferguson’s United, the only laugh that mattered was the last one: his team won the title in various seasons despite losing 5-0 against Chelsea, 4-1 against Liverpool and Tottenham Hotspur – not to mention 5-0 against Newcastle United and 6-3 against Southampton in the same week. They made a virtue out of a crisis.

The extent of José Mourinho’s and United’s embarrassment at Stamford Bridge on Sunday might be similarly used – a line in the sand, after which he decides to succeed or fail on his terms. Since taking over at United, his dream job, he has looked subdued, weary and almost bored. Even the signs of the old Mourinho, the occasional crankiness and the delightfully contemptuous observation about football Einsteins, have felt a bit like a tribute act to himself.

Premier League: 10 talking points from the weekend's action Read more

It is possible, after all the talk of his unsuitability for the job, Mourinho is too conscious of how a United manager should be seen to behave, as if Sir Bobby Charlton is on his shoulder at all times. The cliche about what happens to a player if you take the fire out of their game also applies to Mourinho. It is very hard for him to excel without confrontation and a siege mentality – weapons which, despite the anti‑Mourinho rhetoric, Ferguson regularly used to spectacular effect. Mourinho’s petulant criticism of Antonio Conte may bode well for United. It was the first sign the monster may be stirring.

Mourinho has not looked like Mourinho, and United – with their ponderous attacking and scruffy defending – certainly have not looked like a Mourinho team. That’s because they aren’t. Unlike at Chelsea, Internazionale and Real Madrid, Mourinho did not inherit a solid base – he had to buy almost an entire spine in Eric Bailly, Paul Pogba and Zlatan Ibrahimovic. The frequent selection of Juan Mata, whom Mourinho sold when he was at Chelsea, is another reflection of how he feels about his squad.

All managers should have 12 months’ grace before judgment is passed. In the Premier League, in 2016, no one wants to play the long game. They barely want to play the short game. Had the same values existed in the late 1980s, Ferguson would have been sacked without winning a trophy and May 2017 might be the 50th anniversary of their last title win. It took Ferguson five years to build a side capable of even challenging for the title; his astonishing success after that should give his case study the power of a judicial precedent. Instead the opposite is true; despite being almost inherently counterproductive, the reset button is usually pressed at the first sign of trouble.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest José Mourinho accused the Chelsea manager, Antonio Conte, of trying to humiliate him during Manchester United’s 4-0 defeat at Stamford Bridge. Photograph: Leicester/BPI/Rex/Shutterstock

It could be Mourinho is past his best, that the dressing-room politics of Madrid and Chelsea have wearied him, and that age has diminished his chutzpah. To extrapolate all that from the evidence of nine Premier League games at United and an irrelevant half-season at Chelsea is not just irrational; it is idiotic. The non-specific hysteria is drowning out relevant discussion about the many issues at United, from the lack of pace in attack to the exclusion of Michael Carrick to what is eating Henrikh Mkhitaryan.

José Mourinho’s presence provokes Chelsea reaction as in the old days Read more

In many ways, Mourinho is reaping what he has sown. His precious success, and his lack of shyness about highlighting that success, means any failure will be magnified. And he antagonised so many people on the way up that coming down was never going to be an enjoyable journey. Yet if you view United as a long‑term project – which it is – Mourinho has already made some progress. He made four strong signings who, despite some false starts, should become excellent United players, and his handling of the enormous Wayne Rooney problem was unusually subtle.

Mourinho needs at least two more transfer windows to build his team. In the meantime he may have to use the cups – even the dreaded Europa League – as a form of damage limitation. The problem with the United squad is not just one of ability. The reaction to the defeat at Chelsea, with many smiling and swapping shirts as if they had just had a post-work game of five-a-side, was anathema to the winning mentality that has been the basis of all Mourinho’s success. There is a big difference between a winner and somebody who has won things.

In 2002, after a wretched defeat in the final Manchester derby at Maine Road, Ruud van Nistelrooy walked into the dressing room with a City shirt over his shoulder. Ferguson announced that anyone who swapped shirts in the future would never play for him again, before setting the hairdryer to maximum to appraise his team’s performance. He knew he would get the appropriate response because he had shaped the team in his image.

The Chelsea defeat should be Mourinho’s trigger to do the same as quickly as possible. If he does not, the last laugh is likely to be at his expense.