Would José have picked Rashford?

The more you listen to the noises coming out of Old Trafford — from Louis van Gaal, Ryan Giggs, Nicky Butt, Sir Alex Ferguson and even Ed Woodward — the harder it becomes to imagine Manchester United taking the plunge and appointing José Mourinho as their next manager.

All of them have been talking up the importance of youth, particularly since the sudden emergence of Marcus Rashford. The spectacular impact of the 18-year-old from Wythenshawe has seemingly helped to remind United of the commitment to youth that underpinned the club not just through the Ferguson era or even the Sir Matt Busby era but right back to the formation of the Manchester United Junior Athletic Club in the 1930s.

The big question is whether, after a dramatic shift towards commercial goals and ill-judged marquee signings over the past few years, this is more than mere lip service and, if so, where — or how — such a vision could possibly involve Mourinho, whose obvious qualities have never extended to a willingness to look beyond the next trophy.

Take Rashford, for example. His emergence has come about largely by happenstance, because of a lack of fit alternatives in an unbalanced squad, but it reflects Van Gaal’s willingness — whatever his failures at United in a wider sense — to give opportunities to young players. Ferguson was not quite so effusive about Van Gaal as some interpretations suggested, but he was right when he cited the number of youngsters that the Dutchman has blooded and that this is a club which “will always identify a Rashford and give them a chance”.

Would Rashford, talented but raw, have got that chance under Mourinho? Almost certainly not. As promising as he has looked during his first five weeks as a first-team player at United, this is a forward who shows the innocence of youth and who had barely figured for England at youth level before his recent call-up to the under-20 squad — in contrast to the Chelsea duo of Dominic Solanke and Isaiah Brown, both also born in 1997 but much more highly praised in academy circles and, unlike Rashford, long established in the national development teams.

These are highly talented youngsters whom Mourinho thought ill equipped to make up the numbers in Chelsea’s squad this season, instead signing an injury-ravaged Radamel Falcao and sending the kids on loan to Vitesse Arnhem, where they are said to be playing regularly and contributing well enough without giving the impression that their development has been greatly accelerated.

Solanke’s only taste of first-team football under Mourinho was a 17-minute run-out in a 6-0 win over Maribor in the Champions League last season. Even with the Barclays Premier League title sewn up with three games remaining, Brown only got 11 minutes away to West Bromwich Albion. Ruben Loftus-Cheek’s occasional run-outs usually ended with an early substitution and a wrap on the knuckles. “For a player to play in the Chelsea first team, they must be ready,” Mourinho said last year. “With this level of demand and responsibility and pressure, there is no space for a player that is not ready. For example, when did I play Solanke? While winning 5-0 against Maribor in a competition where we qualified easily in the group phase. I cannot play Solanke against Southampton with 30 minutes to go and the score 1-1. I can’t.”

In this single soundbite, Mourinho summed up why he will always be the man for the short term and never for the long term. Yes that pressure comes from the owner at Chelsea, but above all it came from Mourinho.

Two years of uninspiring results and even less inspiring football under Van Gaal mean there is an obvious need for change at United — and if the job spec is simply about dragging the club forward after a downturn under David Moyes and Van Gaal, and protecting the Glazers’ precious investment, then arguably there is nobody better. If, on the other hand, youth development and a tradition of cavalier football still matter to United and if they aspire to look beyond bottom-line success, as they did even at their most bloody-minded under Ferguson, then it is hard to see Mourinho as the right fit.

The ideal appointment for United would have been the man who will be rocking up across town this summer — and in part it is the prospect of seeing Manchester City galvanised by Pep Guardiola that has led United to give serious, prolonged consideration to Mourinho, his fiercest adversary and, among elite coaches, his philosophical opposite.

Given United’s straitened circumstances, it is hardly surprising that discussions have been held with Mourinho’s agent, Jorge Mendes, about the possibility of a summer appointment; as he has shown at Chelsea, Inter Milan and Real Madrid, Mourinho excels at delivering trophies at clubs where confusion reigns in the boardroom. Equally it is hardly surprising that some within the Old Trafford hierarchy should be cold on the idea; United have always aspired to something greater, as should Real, no matter how oppressive life in Barcelona’s shadow must feel.

The problem is that it keeps coming back to a question of alternatives. They missed out on Guardiola. Jürgen Klopp is at Liverpool. Laurent Blanc and Thomas Tuchel look happy at Paris Saint-Germain and Borussia Dortmund respectively. Giggs, for so long touted as the next in line, is a tantalising thought but would be a risky appointment, given a) his lack of experience and b) the size of the challenge, such has been the lack of progress in three seasons post-Ferguson.

The obvious alternative — and a figure genuinely and increasingly admired by the United hierarchy, according to reliable sources — is Mauricio Pochettino, whose reputation has been built around his trust in young talent. That Ferguson should have been so gushing about Pochettino, saying that he is “sure” that bigger clubs will be looking at the Tottenham Hotspur head coach, in an interview in which he also discussed the enduring importance of youth to United’s philosophy, seemed striking.

As Harry Redknapp asked on talkSPORT yesterday, though, why should Pochettino leave Tottenham when “whoever goes to United will have a massive rebuilding job on their hands”? United will always be a step up from Tottenham in certain respects, but it is hard to disagree with Redknapp.

What is certain, though, is that Pochettino would fit United’s philosophy in a way that Mourinho would not. It is equally certain that, if United were making this decision from a position of the slightest strength, Mourinho would not be their choice. If the job is to be his — and that still appears far from certain — it will be a marriage of convenience that requires some serious compromises.

Don’t blame the media for building up Alli

Even the most circumspect praise of a young English footballer leads to tiresome accusations on Twitter of “building them up to knock them down”, so it is interesting to note that the boldest statements about Dele Alli have come from wise voices within the game, rather than from the media. Roy Hodgson says that the Tottenham Hotspur youngster is such an all-rounder that he reminds him of Bryan Robson, while Sir Alex Ferguson says that Alli is “probably the best young midfielder I’ve seen in many years, probably I would go as far back as [Paul] Gascoigne”.

It is hard, even as part of this supposed build-them-up-to-knock-them-down industry, to embrace either sentiment fully. Alli is hugely talented, but he is not a true all-rounder and not really an obvious Robson type. As for being the best young midfielder since Gascoigne — and giving Ferguson the benefit of the doubt, he presumably meant English — yes he is more experienced and arguably more advanced than even Steven Gerrard and Paul Scholes were when they were about to turn 20, but it is early days to put him in that bracket. If anything, his impact can be most accurately likened to Jack Wilshere’s brilliant breakthrough season as a teenager at Arsenal in 2010-11. That alone should serve as a cautionary tale. Much of this hype, which is not media-driven, feels rather premature.