The response of the English press to the introduction of brash young Portuguese coach José Mourinho has been curious. For years Alex Ferguson has won the praise of critics for his incredible success at Manchester United. However, despite his achievements his style with the media has always been one of brazen manipulation. In my observation of him since 1997 he has always been one to point out referee's decisions against his team and bemoan decisions that weren't given in his favor. In a sense this is characteristic of all sports personalities, but Fergie takes this practice to its extreme, almost laughing in the face of glaring contradictions in logic. He'll only admit mistakes when there's no way they can hurt him. For example, in the recent United-Tottenham Premier League contest, United keeper Roy Carroll fumbled a ball well over the goal line, but no goal was given by the refs. The match ended a nil-nil draw, and obviously Tottenham were furious and demanded video replays. Ferguson seconded their claims, knowing this response a) could not take points away from his team, and b) would make him look all the more magnanimous. Despite these quirks he has remained a darling of the media, overcoming incidents such as his deteriorating relationship with David Beckham (culminating with him kicking a boot at the petulant superstar) and even being knighted for his accomplishments. Compare this to the other most successful manager in the Premiership, Arsenal's Arsene Wenger. Despite sharing many of the same traits as Ferguson and regularly engaging in psychological warfare with the United coach as their two teams vie for superiority, Wenger has routinely come out the loser. Both on the pitch as well as in the papers. There are a number of possible explanations for this, from national differences (Wenger is French) to the style of play of their sides.

Enter Mourinho, a rising star in coaching in Portugal where he led FC Porto to victories in the Champions League and Portuguese League in recent years. Hired to lead "moneybags Chelsea" to footballing glory to match their newfound wealth, he arrived on the scene and immediately ruffled feathers in the press. In short, he doesn't mince words in interviews. Mourinho tells it like he sees it. Like Ferguson these responses are undoubtedly calculated for the benefit of his team, but with Mourinho there's a coldness and lack of emotion to it. I've seen interviews with the man, he is downright intimidating. After Wednesday's first leg of the Carling Cup semifinal with Ferguson's United, Mourinho questioned the referee's second half performance as he'd seen Ferguson walk down the tunnel with the official at halftime. This is essentially asking the FA to charge him with "bringing the game into disrepute" (the most ridiculous concept in English football, in my opinion). But Mourinho could care less. Screw everyone else. Give me a touchline ban, see if i care.

The response of the media has been to mock Mourinho and question his decisions. Again, i'm not going to assign a reason to these actions as there are many possibilities ... the same national differences as with Wenger, Mourinho's refusal to play the media's game their way, or perhaps the unwillingness of the British footballing community to add Chelsea to the elite circle that was previously the sole domain of Manchester United and Arsenal. Mourinho's confidence in himself and his team invites comment from the media, but his response has been to continue to succeed. Where Claudio Ranieri failed in forming a cohesive unit from a collection of brilliant players, Mourinho has succeeded and is forging a memorable debut season in English football that could culminate in one or more trophies. Fans of Wenger and Ferguson like to highlight the arrogance of Mourinho. I prefer to think they're getting upset that the Portuguese newcomer is beating their generals at their own game.