Jose Mourinho's style fits Man United?

The question that has dominated the last few months has finally been answered, and Jose Mourinho is at last taking over Manchester United -- but that very development just leads to a spate of other questions.

A series of long-held debates are now going to be given definitive answers. The divisive nature of the Portuguese's personality and career mean he is usually discussed in a more black-and-white manner than other managers, but is that fair?

Here, we investigate the key issues ahead of his time at Old Trafford:

Will Mourinho play a style of football acceptable to Manchester United?

Anytime it was put to Mourinho over the past few years that he is a defensive manager, he always had the same ready-made answer. The Portuguese would instantly recall his 2011-12 Real Madrid team, who broke the Spanish league goal-scoring record by hitting 121 goals in 38 games. That is quite a response. It is also a rather reductive response, since it omits how often his Cristiano Ronaldo-fired attack would catch grossly inferior sides on the break once 1-0 up, but then so much of this argument has been reductive too.

In truth, it is wrong to describe Mourinho as a defensive coach. He is just an ultra-pragmatic one, perhaps the most pragmatic coach there has been, even more so than Sir Alex Ferguson. Mourinho will try whatever tactic is required to win and has used many approaches. There is an argument that his teams look duller than they actually are because he first of all ensures his defences are ultra-solid, but they are capable of aesthetically pleasing styles like the exhilarating counterattacking of Inter Milan 2009-10, or the open possession of Chelsea 2014-15.

Ferguson wilfully used such variation in resetting the traditions for the modern United -- including a cast-iron defence between 2007 and 2009 -- so pragmatism is something Old Trafford should be used to. There are still a few important differences between Sir Alex and Mourinho, however. When things are going against him, Mourinho's inherent response is to not gamble or take a risk, while Ferguson made that approach his great virtue. Mourinho seeks to minimise risk, to defensively lock things down. There have also been testimonies from his training grounds that Mourinho's attacking coaching is the one part of his management that isn't especially sophisticated, meaning his sides can be unimaginative when the attackers are not in good form. That is also when he tends to lock it down. Old Trafford will likely still see some very lively games, then, but will probably have to get used to a greater proportion of "controlled" matches.

Will Mourinho give youth the type of opportunities that have been unique to United's history?

The question is what will happen to so many of the young players who were given time by recently sacked manager Louis Van Gaal, such as Timothy Fosu-Mensah and Marcus Rashford, and the fear is that many will be sent on loan or discarded.

Again, it's not quite that simple. Sources say Mourinho has already been gushing to those close to him about Rashford and sees a place for him in the team. That should be encouraging, but it also encapsulates the Portuguese's attitude to youth. As anyone can see, Rashford is more than ready for first-team football, and Mourinho has never had any problems putting in young players who illustrate that.

"You don't need five matches in a row," the 53-year-old said of judging academy graduates during his time at Chelsea. "You need 10 minutes."

The one concern those at United should have is that this philosophy runs contrary to their approach of giving young players the space to develop in the team, of gradually getting them used to it so they feel sufficient trust to perform. Contrast it with one of Ferguson's most famous statements: "That's the trouble with potential. People don't identify potential. They're very poor at it. I've identified all my life the potential in young people. I know potential. I know how to develop and have faith in it. And young people surprise you when given the opportunity. That's what this club is all about."

That is not quite what Mourinho is all about, even if he will give youth more opportunities than expected.

Will Mourinho's controversies prove to be a problem?

Throughout his time at Chelsea, there were many times when Mourinho would make a conscious effort to be magnanimous at a news conference -- until an opponent's comment was put to him. Then, something instantly changed. He would snap, as if he just couldn't help himself. The "specialist in failure" comment about Arsene Wenger in February 2014 was a case in point. Chelsea sources also say that, despite the perception that Mourinho's statements were calculated, there were more than a few moments when he would regret saying things.

This is the grand difference with Ferguson. In the last few days, many have pointed to how the Scot got himself involved in as many controversies as Mourinho, but they were very rarely a result of impulse. Ferguson almost always knew exactly what he was doing, right down to the famous stories of practicing feigning anger. Mourinho was not feigning anger when he was critical of Sky or referees. He was genuinely infuriated, and perhaps inflated these issues beyond what they were worth. That is something United are going to have to rein in. It perhaps doesn't help that, with Pep Guardiola joining managers like Arsene Wenger in the Premier League, Mourinho will be competing directly with more of his old foes than ever before.

Will Mourinho last longer than three years?

This question has brought out more ire in Mourinho than any other, especially as he so wanted to create a dynasty at Chelsea. He commonly pointed to how there were different circumstances with each departure, and that it was little more than coincidence that he hasn't lasted more than three years at a club.

At Porto and Inter, he decided to leave because he had taken the clubs as far as he could. The others? "My third season at Chelsea the first time, I won the FA Cup and the Carling Cup, and I played the Champions League semifinals," he argued back in September. "The third season in Real Madrid I won the Super Cup, lost the cup final, and I went to the Champions League semifinals. These are my third seasons. So click Google instead of asking stupid questions."

The problem was his third season at Chelsea this time. The way it transpired seemed to prove all the old debates -- that the intensity that fires the initial success eventually burns out. The fact that it all exploded in this third season, though, raises another concern that is directly related to his longevity...

Is Mourinho past his best?

This is perhaps the biggest question of all -- whether United are appointing Mourinho too late and whether he's the manager he used to be. The argument is exaggerated by the scale of the collapse at Chelsea, but it has been rumbling for some time due to one stark stat. Between 2002 and his peak of 2010, Mourinho won 14 major trophies in just 10 years. Between 2010 and 2016, that has dropped to four in six.

The context of competitive situations at Real Madrid and Chelsea complicate that, but there have been occasions when the Portuguese's team didn't quite have the same fire as earlier in his career, or the same sophistication to approach. The unique nature of the Chelsea situation makes it difficult to tell how much was specifically Mourinho's fault and how decisive any problems here are -- but will be revealed by whether anything is repeated at Old Trafford

 ESPNFC