Yahoo Sport 
Jose Mourinho has brought his unique brand of confrontational leadership to Manchester United but is now running out of fights to pick
Is Mourinho creating disciples, as he did in his first spell at Chelsea, or dissenters, as he did in his second? Richard Jolly investigates.
They emerged from exile. They were the cause celebres, the missing men, the twin examples of Jose Mourinho’s ruthlessness. And then there they were, both on the bench, both back in favour to some degree. Henrikh Mkhitaryan and Bastian Schweinsteiger were both in the squad on Sunday. The Armenian had gone 78 days without a league start, the German 252 days without a Manchester United appearance of any variety.
Yet each ranked among Mourinho’s chosen men for the draw with West Ham. Neither was in the inner circle, the first 11, but this was confirmation that neither was a pariah any more. Yet as their fortunes rose, others’ fell. Anthony Martial, criticised by Mourinho three days before, and Luke Shaw, first faulted by the manager two months earlier, were not even in the matchday 18.
Each omission was remarkable in its own respect: Shaw because with United already shorn of the injured Chris Smalling and Eric Bailly, it felt as though he is now the eighth-choice defender and Martial because United made him football’s most expensive teenager and he was arguably their third-best player last season.
A prosaic explanation for United’s version of musical chairs is that Mourinho can only name 11 starters and seven substitutes from a squad bloated by several managers. It is true, but it also appears the Portuguese is intent upon falling out with several players at any one time.
If it is not Mkhitaryan and Schweinsteiger, it is Martial and Shaw. Or, seemingly, Smalling, whose commitment was questioned by his manager when he missed the Swansea game with a broken toe. Or Juan Mata, the substitute who was substituted in the Community Shield. Or Michael Carrick, who was strangely absent for much of the season before returning to the fold against Swansea. Or Morgan Schneiderlin, who has vanished now, falling behind Schweinsteiger in the pecking order.
Sometimes literally, sometimes not, Mourinho has long named and shamed his players. The public humiliation of an early substitution, something Joe Cole and Shaun Wright-Phillips experienced after just 26 minutes at Fulham in 2006, was echoed by the half-time departures of Jesse Lingard and Mkhitaryan in September’s Manchester derby.
Mourinho has legitimised his approach by talking of a strategy. He explained in a book, The Manager: “I called it confrontational leadership: confrontation not just inside, but also outside the group.” He added in 2015: “You are ready to provoke your players, to try and create some conflict, with the intention to bring the best out of them.”
It is a tactic he used with Zlatan Ibrahimovic at Inter. During his first spell at Chelsea, he said, he challenged Frank Lampard to become the best footballer on the planet and the midfielder, who figured second only to Ronaldinho in the 2005 World Player of the Year voting, almost obliged.
Yet that yielded the right sort of response whereas, while Mata and Carrick have displayed fine form since their returns to the United side, there has been no such tangible reward now. Moreover, Lampard was challenged, not criticised.
Now the culture appears to have changed. Mourinho may be accused of creating a scapegoat culture. It is confrontational, but is it just aggravating? Is Mourinho creating disciples, as he did in his first spell at Chelsea, or dissenters, as he did in his second?
Certainly it seems Mourinho has to be complaining about someone, and he is not settling simply for the referees and the footballing authorities. Siege mentalities are nothing new at Old Trafford but Sir Alex Ferguson tended to turn his guns on the outside world.
At Chelsea, Mourinho identified an enemy within, in Adrian Mutu, and rid himself of the Romanian. There has been no such successful purge at United. Instead his targets have changed. It feels more scattergun and yet more reflective of a wider dissatisfaction with the group at his disposal.
Mkhitaryan’s recall was overdue, Schweinsteiger’s surprising but welcomed by the United crowd yet Mourinho has not displayed the clarity and consistency of thought he once exhibited, just as his sides have not been as relentlessly reliable with their results.
Mourinho has argued it is not conflict for conflict’s sake, but a policy of perfectionism that was justified when his best Chelsea group showed genuine unity and were serial winners. Then it generated great loyalty towards him, just as he improved many a player. Yet now it can as though he is trapped in a cycle of internal battles while his strongest relationships now seem with Ibrahimovic and Paul Pogba, two to escape his disapproval.
Confrontational leadership may not suit the younger or more fragile characters, as some whispers from within the camp suggest. The placid pair of Carrick and Mata may be able to cope with demotions. Schweinsteiger reacted by posting pictures of him cheering on the team in implausibly enthusiastic moods. But the reality is that as he returned to the fold, Mourinho trained his sights on others. It highlights a growing trait in his management. He always seems to be blaming someone. It is confrontational, but is it the right sort of leadership?
