One of Jose Mourinho's main advantages over other coaches is that he's simply a better tactician than everyone else in the league. This is obviously useful, but it's not as useful as one might think -- there's only so much managing you can do from the sidelines mid-match without resorting to substitutions. Against Leicester, the manager was just as frustrated by the first half as the rest of us, and it was worse for him because he couldn't fix it:
I hope I am still in football when they give the coach the chance to stop the game during the first half once and during the second half because you can make the game much better. Imagine against Leicester, I would have stopped the game in the tenth minute! It would be interesting.
Louis Van Gaal in the World Cup, the ref stopped the game for the water break, and he changed the system of his team and managed to win the game. So maybe I will one day have the chance to stop the game in the first half and once in the second half.
I am generally in favour of water breaks for athlete safety reasons, but Mourinho is suggesting breaking up the flow of the game to give good tacticians (i.e. him) an advantage over other managers. Which is obviously a weird thing to suggest -- his justification of making the overall spectacle better runs into the obstacle of nobody wanting the game to have two extra breaks per team per match, which would help ruin the flow of the game.
I'm sure television folks would love it, though. Gotta sell those ads.