Jose Mourinho is as mischievous as ever at Manchester United but not the master of his Chelsea days

Mourinho's rebellious streak chimed with mid-2000s Chelsea, a club punching its way up, but it is only another reason to question his suitability at a struggling United

It is difficult to argue that Jose Mourinho has lost some of his old malevolence when he faces punishment for staring down a television camera after the remarkable comeback against Newcastle United and allegedly telling the millions watching worldwide: “F*** off sons of b******.”

To be fair, the exact alleged words were “fodas filhos de puta” – the same obscenity, only in Portuguese – and it was most likely aimed at his critics, mainly the little men in the media. Mourinho also wagged his little finger, as if to suggest something about us little men, though we will leave any further interpretation down to the reader.

Yet even allowing for the relief he must have felt at that moment, it was improper conduct whichever way you slice it. Pending a potential appeal, Mourinho will be reprimanded by The Football Association, who decided such behaviour is not befitting the manager of Manchester United, let alone a 55-year-old grown man.

The incident is all a little reminiscent of Mourinho’s first and arguably his worst transgression – questioning referee Anders Frisk’s integrity without evidence to support his claims – if only because that led Uefa’s then-head of communications to tell Mourinho to take more responsibility for his words and actions.

“Coaches are role models for the players and the fans,” William Gaillard said. “He must remember what position he is in.”

This was early 2005, though. Many of us still had time for a cocksure, insouciant but fundamentally talented Mourinho. Frisk would retire with immediate effect, scared for his family’s safety, but there was still little sympathy for Gaillard's attempt to suppress a captivating young coach.

And this attention-hungry talent with a healthy mistrust of authority was, of course, the perfect manager for Roman Abramovich’s Chelsea. United’s opponents on Saturday were then English football’s nouveau riche, tearing down a two-team establishment in lockstep with their manager.

It is well remembered that Alex Ferguson’s United and Arséne Wenger’s Arsenal finished as the Premier League’s top two in five of the six seasons before Abramovich’s arrival, though more easily forgotten that the pair have not joined each other at the summit of the table in 15 years since.

The oligarch’s money made that possible but it was Mourinho, driven by the conviction he could do things better and differently, who broke the back of Ferguson and Wenger’s early-2000s duopoly.

It was around this time when, as Patrick Barclay notes in his biography Mourinho: Anatomy of a Winner, Mourinho would explain away any questionable moments of misconduct by “confusing himself with a star player”.

The weekend after the Frisk incident, he celebrated a Steven Gerrard own goal in the League Cup final by ‘shushing’ Liverpool supporters – behaviour that would barely pass comment today, but it resulted in significant controversy and Mourinho being ejected from the touchline.

The Chelsea manager defended his actions by comparing himself to Adriano, the former Internazionale striker, who celebrated his goals in a similar fashion to zero fuss. If Adriano could celebrate in that way, why not him too? He was the protagonist here and had no plans to “remember what position he is in,” thank you very much.

But for all that Mourinho was a scourge of the established order back then, he was always enamoured by it too. As a budding player who struggled to become a professional, as an aspiring coach dismissed as ‘the translator’, he wanted to prove himself - to beat them, ostentatiously toss his winners’ medal into the crowd, then join them. Why was the Manchester United job such a long-held ambition for him? Because it meant acceptance.

The problem is the United that Mourinho joined is not the Chelsea of 2005. It is a club that is used to being in the headlines but would prefer to not willfully create them. It is not seeking to build a new order but restore an old one. Despite a proud and often neglected radical tradition, it quite likes the establishment now. It has made a lot of friends there.

Mourinho's charisma won him friends early on (Getty)

The bottom line is, though Mourinho's rebellious streak suited mid-2000s Chelsea down to the ground, it is only another reason to question him when all is not well at Old Trafford. And with every new controversy, the words of Bobby Charlton in a 2012 interview with The Guardian’s Jamie Jackson lose no relevance.

Referring to Mourinho gauging the eye of the late Tito Vilanova, Charlton said: “A United manager wouldn’t do that.” He is “a really good coach”, the former midfielder would add, “but that’s as far as I would go really.” Ferguson, he claimed, “doesn’t like him too much”.

It is unlikely those words came up in conversation when Charlton welcomed Mourinho to Carrington two years ago but they remain in the public domain, recorded from the mouth of United’s moral compass and strongest link to its illustrious past, hanging over Mourinho at his every wrong turn.

Nobody expects him to change. Hounding referees, criticising his own players, decrying a “man-hunt”. These tactics may now grate us after the last 14 years, but they are his defence mechanisms. Mourinho has lived fast – sure, lived too bloody fast sometimes – and is happy to die old disgracefully.

No, he certainly has not lost the old malevolence or the sense of mischief. But this return to Stamford Bridge reminds us of a time when was easier to look past it, when such behaviour was new and suited a club punching its way up, and when his teams regularly proved why he held himself in such high regard.

These days though, Mourinho is missing the results to back it all up.