Historians and political scientists will tell you that a decommissioned army is a dangerous thing.

Peace arrives and young men - who are trained to fight and thrive on aggression and adrenaline - find themselves with nothing to do, uncomfortable and unprepared for an environment with no enemy and no clear and present danger.

It's as good a theory as any to explain Jose Mourinho. His Chelsea side sit atop the Premier League having taken 16 of a possible 18 points. And they've scored more goals than anyone, and by some margin. And yet, again, he's on the warpath. Or maybe it's not war, exactly, but a constant state of simmering aggression. On Friday, he hit the trifecta.

Kick It Out call for the "Rooney Rule" to help boost the number of black managers which currently reads two out of 92 league clubs?

Nope. No racism here. Football's a meritocracy: "There is no racism in football. If you are good, you are good. If you are good, you get the job. If you are good, you prove that you deserve the job. Football is not stupid to close the doors to top people. If you are top, you are top."

Spain boss Vicente Del Bosque calls up Diego Costa, his centre forward? How dare they. Don't they knew he needs a rest (even though he'll be starting today against Arsenal)?

"I think three matches in a week is too much... I'm not going to rest him so he's in perfect condition for the national team," he said. "So I will pay the consequences of that, as all clubs will after the international period."

And then there's Arsene Wenger, today's adversary. Last year, after the Arsenal boss spoke about some clubs having a "fear of failure," Mourinho called him a "specialist in failure".

Did he feel like apologising? Did he heck. No, because Wenger started it. "It was a consequence of something," Mourinho said. "It was not a deliberate first option to say something, it was a consequence. I did not get an apology and I have not apologised."

He went on to say he's prepared to "forget about it" and his relationship with Wenger was "normal". After 20 years in the game though, you'd imagine he'd know his words would further fuel the feud with the man he once called a "voyeur".

Wenger, Del Bosque, Kick It Out … another week, another set of targets. Some think it's part of the secret of his success. Maybe he knows no other way. Whatever the case, it's working for him.

So who's been more disappointing? Manchester United or Everton? Louis van Gaal's crew were seventh going into the weekend, which is where they finished last season. The Toffees 15th, 10 places lower than where they finished.

United went on a £150 million summer spending spree and boast a far higher wage bill than Everton. On the other hand, Roberto Martinez's spending was, by Goodison standards, equally huge.

But then you look at who they've played. United have faced the three promoted teams, West Ham, Sunderland and Swansea. Everton have crossed swords with Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool. Plus, they've had European jaunts to places like Krasnodar. How you assess the above determines the answer to the question. But whichever way you go, defeat is bound to have magnified consequences.

Everton risk slipping in the direction of the relegation zone, United would find their forward progress once again stalled. And in the case of Van Gaal, it certainly matters, given that he's the one who asked, at the start of the season, to be judged after three months.

Counting today, that's five games away. Everton, Chelsea and Crystal Palace at Old Trafford, West Brom and City on the road. Not a straight- forward run. What would constitute belief and confidence in Van Gaal's project at that stage?

At the very least, a substantial improvement over David Moyes. That would mean getting at least 12 points from those five fixtures. And, frankly, given the quality of opposition, it looks improbable even if they do beat Everton today, and downright impossible if they don't.

What's more, their first match after that run of games is Arsenal away, so things won't get much easier very quickly.

Speaking of the "Rooney Rule", the fact that Art Rooney, the NFL owner after whom it's named, said last week that English football would have "nothing to lose" by implementing it has brought renewed calls for its introduction. For those who don't know, it requires any club looking to hire a new head coach to interview at least one member of an ethnic minority.

The idea is that - if they meet enough quality minority candidates - owners will eventually hire them. Supporters point to the fact that, since its introduction, the number of minority head coaches in the NFL has more than doubled.

There are several problems with this. The first is that, while the percentage has increased, we've gone from two to five. In absolute terms it's not much to write about. It has been as high as seven and as low as three since the Rooney Rule came into effect in 2003.

Another is that the landscape in the NFL back in 2003 was very different from the one in English football today. Back then, there were plenty of talented, high-profile assistant coaches. They were respected and nobody could figure out why many of them failed to make that last step into becoming head coaches.

That's not where we're at in the Premier League. Assistant coaches are often low-profile guys (unless you're Roy Keane at Aston Villa). And the majority of them are white. The challenge ought to be how to increase the pool of black ex-pros who become assistants and thereby get on to the management ladder, rather than simply interviewing the same old faces.

Most problematic is the "nothing to lose" argument. There is something to lose. Merely by interviewing minority candidates football may think it has solved the problem, particularly since most clubs don't hire managers by holding a string of interviews. Without change elsewhere, a Rooney Rule in football would mean black managers getting interviews for jobs that are, effectively, already filled, and for which they had no shot anyway.