All things Football (soccer) related

[TulliusDetritus]

You see, Americans may get many things wrong (in sports: ie the commercials)... but they also get it right sometimes [;)]

24 seconds rule in basketball anyone? Imagine this rule was applied to football. Some *guys* would lose their job in no time... oops, parking the bus [:D]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I think you have a selective memory. Barcelona did not always win playing beautiful football did they? And why do you say Mourinho had the most expensive Real Madrid team ever? Really? I've not checked but I suspect other managers have spent just as lavishly, if not more so. Who bought Zidane, Figo, Ronaldo?

I don't think I have a selective memory. Barcelona have been playing this sort of football since the early 90s (Holland school via Cruyff to be more precise).

This is how football has always been played (except some teams on the last 2 decades). You have players, go for the jugular, attack (or counter-attack if you prefer). Parking the bus IS the anomaly. And I am talking about STRONG squads. And to avoid confusions, I refuse to put Mourinho in the pure counter-attack camp. There's attacking football, there's counter-attacking football... and then there's Mourinho [;)]

The classic Italian defensive teams (counter-attack) had well defined 3 lines (let's say 4-4-2). They were NOT defending near their box. Those Serie A matches saw a lot of fight in the midfield (and Mourinho systematically gives up that portion when he faces strong squads: "everyone protect the GK! Everyone pull back!").

An article I had read said Mourinho's RM was the richest RM ever. Because they had the most expensive squad ever. I assume that guy did his homework.

warspite1

Big assumption, unless he's not allowing for inflation. The early 2000's saw Real Madrid field players such as Zinédine Zidane, Ronaldo, Luís Figo, Roberto Carlos, Raúl, Fabio Cannavaro and David Beckham. How much did they cost and what did they win exactly?

Brendan Rodgers has been receiving rave reviews this season, but the common view amongst football journalists and sports writers is that he was made to look a bit of a muppet on Sunday and carping about parking the bus was just childish.

Firstly, Mourinho had most of his first team out,
Secondly they were playing away against the most potent team in the premiership,
Thirdly it was up to Mourinho how he would set out his formation - just as it was up to Rodgers to come up with a plan to beat it,
Fourthly, Rodgers sulkily moaned "anyone can defend their own area" - well almost 100 goals scored by Liverpool this season suggests that is not exactly true....
Fifthly, how do you differentiate between counter-attack and parking the bus?? If Mourinho did not intend to counter-attack, how come they scored two goals??

If you gather the best creative players they will destroy any opposition... Think about Barcelona.

Re selective memory:
So why did Chelsea win the Champions League against Bayern Munich in 2012? How did Steaua Bucharest ever become champions instead of Barcelona in 1986? How did Holland lose the 1974 World Cup? How did Germany ever beat Hungary in 1954? How did Leeds United lose to Sunderland in the 1973 FA Cup Final? When Barcelona were going through their "unbeatable" phase why did they only win the Champions League twice?

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
So why did Chelsea win the Champions League against Bayern Munich in 2012? How did Steaua Bucharest ever become champions instead of Barcelona in 1986? How did Holland lose the 1974 World Cup? How did Germany ever beat Hungary in 1954? How did Leeds United lose to Sunderland in the 1973 FA Cup Final? When Barcelona were going through their "unbeatable" phase why did they only win the Champions League twice?

You could have perfectly said that Inter also defeated this great Barcelona and went to win the Champions League. I have said more than once on this thread: winning is never guaranteed. Let's use other words then: 8 out of 10 times Barcelona would have won that match [;)]

And you are trying to compare current "parking the bus" Chelsea with the old teams (as if that tactic had worked on the past, as if you were the devil's advocate, as if it had existed in the first place! [:)]). Those teams (victors), did not, repeat, did not park the bus. In the old days, everyone *attacked*, or if you prefer, no one refused to attack.

Do this empirical test: there are plenty of old, classic matches on youtube (any WC, just name it). Watch them...

Used (as we are) to modern football, it's striking. First thing which shocks you: the loneliness of the GK! You can barely see 1, 2 or 3 defenders near. And they quickly disappear to err... attack! That emptiness seems scary to modern eyes.

The pattern is almost always the same: I attack - you attack - I attack - you attack - I attack - I attack - you attack etc. etc. etc.

Counter-attack would be I attack - I attack - you attack (side which counter-attacks) - I attack - I attack - you attack etc. etc.

Mourinho versus a strong squad? I attack - I attack - I attack - I attack - I attack - I attack - you (Mourinho) attack [:D]

What I said, do the empirical test, let your eyes see them play [8D]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: warspite1
So why did Chelsea win the Champions League against Bayern Munich in 2012? How did Steaua Bucharest ever become champions instead of Barcelona in 1986? How did Holland lose the 1974 World Cup? How did Germany ever beat Hungary in 1954? How did Leeds United lose to Sunderland in the 1973 FA Cup Final? When Barcelona were going through their "unbeatable" phase why did they only win the Champions League twice?

You could have perfectly said that Inter also defeated this great Barcelona and went to win the Champions League. I have said more than once on this thread: winning is never guaranteed. Let's use other words then: 8 out of 10 times Barcelona would have won that match [;)]

And you are trying to compare current "parking the bus" Chelsea with the old teams (as if that tactic had worked on the past, as if you were the devil's advocate, as if it had existed in the first place! [:)]). Those teams (victors), did not, repeat, did not park the bus. In the old days, everyone *attacked*, or if you prefer, no one refused to attack.

Do this empirical test: there are plenty of old, classic matches on youtube (any WC, just name it). Watch them...

Used (as we are) to modern football, it's striking. First thing which shocks you: the loneliness of the GK! You can barely see 1, 2 or 3 defenders near. And they quickly disappear to err... attack! That emptiness seems scary to modern eyes.

The pattern is almost always the same: I attack - you attack - I attack - you attack - I attack - I attack - you attack etc. etc. etc.

Counter-attack would be I attack - I attack - you attack (side which counter-attacks) - I attack - I attack - you attack etc. etc.

Mourinho versus a strong squad? I attack - I attack - I attack - I attack - I attack - I attack - you (Mourinho) attack [:D]

What I said, do the empirical test, let your eyes see them play [8D]

warspite1

But this has nothing to do with parking the bus. You said:

It's actually really simple: the teams with the best players tend to win. If you gather the best creative players they will destroy any opposition...

Well that statement is manifestly false - because football isn't always like that. You CANNOT - you never have been able to - turn up with 11 better players than the opposition and guarantee you will win the game. Tactics, fitness, psychology are all important.

There is more than one way to win a football match - always has been and always will be. The managerial failures have not understood this - or not been able to do anything about it.

Look at Sunday. How that match was played, who did what, in what manner, in what style, would have meant absolutely NOTHING 5 minutes after the match finished - if Liverpool had not lost. Why?

Because Rodgers did not have to win. He had to not lose. If he did that then the Championship would remain in Liverpool's hands. But, knowing this, and knowing how Mourinho would set out to play, he did not change his tactics. He went out in the same cavalier style that has served him well for most of the season ....and lost to a sucker-punch from a tactical genius.

Ask ANY true Liverpool fan what they would have preferred. Sitting through a boring, tedious, mind-numbing 0-0 in which both sides parked the bus - and Liverpool come out of it still having the title in their hands. Or trying to win a game they did not need to win and handing the initiative to Manchester City? And yes, that is a rhetorical question....

[TulliusDetritus]

Mourinho did really well against the top four. If I am not mistaken he's won all of them. And twice! But that might not be enough: the league (any league) rewards the most regular team. Losing to weak sides could stop Chelsea from winning.

And I think you make a mistake: thinking that parking the bus, defensive football will automatically guarantee you a victory (or avoid a defeat minimum). This you never know. How did Mourinho feel when he was trashed 5-0? Do you think he expected it? Sure, we know what Mourinho (or any other coach) has won. Maybe the defensive football gave him titles. But have you thought about this: how many titles did he lose because of these tactics? [;)] In the end he's won first of all because he HAD great players. I don't care if they were allowed to show their skills or to destroy the game of the opponent. They are great players and such guys tend to deliver.

Liverpool are doing the right thing. You have to have a plan and -above all- stick to it. And it looks like a sound plan = if it wasn't they would not be on the top in the first place. Last time they won this title? 20 years ago?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

And I think you make a mistake: thinking that parking the bus, defensive football will automatically guarantee you a victory (or avoid a defeat)

warspite1

Except of course I said nothing of the sort.....In fact quite the opposite - many teams tried to stop Liverpool but were thrashed anyway.....

[warspite1]

Well regardless of whether Chelsea win, lose or draw tonight, here is an excellent article that puts Jose's achievements this season into proper perspective.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... LIANT.html

[warspite1]

Right then, who is interested in a World Cup predictions competition? - along the lines of the one we did for the European Championship two years ago (exact format to be decided).

We had seven last time (see below) although we seem to have lost redcoat from the forum. Would be good to get at least ten. Anyone interested then please put your name down?

Dixie
Orm
Redcoat
Rogo727
Zeta 16
british exil
Warspite1

[TulliusDetritus]

Count me in. I am not that good at making predictions though: see above how Bayern was supposed to lift the champions league trophy thing [:'(]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Count me in. I am not that good at making predictions though: see above how Bayern was supposed to lift the champions league trophy thing [:'(]

warspite1

Good man. Yes I was going to mention that prediction if Chelsea won tonight? [;)]

[warspite1]

So it's a 4th straight defeat in the semi-finals of the Champions League for Mourinho. As a Spurs fan I can't be disappointed with Chelsea losing. Pleased for Atletico too - I know what it's like to be the capital's poor relations [;)]

[TulliusDetritus]

Chelsea 1 - 3 Atletico

And Chelsea kaputt.

HAHAHA HAHA HAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what happens when you [Mourinho] does not want creative players... When you are losing AND are forced to *attack* (this time, to merely survive) there's no brain out there to organize your hordes...

That's what what I call falling on your sword! Enjoy the ride on your bus, Mou [:D]

[Frido1207]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Right then, who is interested in a World Cup predictions competition?

Ok I´m interested.

Btw. fantastic CL final. Hopefully Atletico will win it.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: th1207

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Right then, who is interested in a World Cup predictions competition?

Ok I´m interested.

Btw. fantastic CL final. Hopefully Atletico will win it.

warspite1

Great - thanks - and then there were 3 [:)]


I hope its Real [:)]

I would normally want the underdog, but I would like to see Gareth Bale get the success his talent deserves.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Chelsea 1 - 3 Atletico

And Chelsea kaputt.

HAHAHA HAHA HAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what happens when you [Mourinho] does not want creative players... When you are losing AND are forced to *attack* (this time, to merely survive) there's no brain out there to organize your hordes...

That's what what I call falling on your sword! Enjoy the ride on your bus, Mou [:D]

warspite1

Whereas if you play "beautiful football" you are guaranteed success - aren't you Mr Guardiola? [:D]

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Count me in. I am not that good at making predictions though: see above how Bayern was supposed to lift the champions league trophy thing [:'(]

I am a bit surprised you didn't comment on how nice it is to see a rich team play offensive football and crushing their opponents made it to the finals.

Opps! I was mistaken. It was the team playing both matches defensively that won and went to the finals. Surely their fans must be so angry now that they made the finals by playing defensive football instead of attacking football.

Or does this only apply when Mourinho is the manager?

----

Bayern was thoroughly crushed by Madrid and their counterattacking football. I wonder what would have happened if Bayern had played the same way. My bet is that both matches would have ended with 0-0 and that a penalty shootout would have decided things. A lot more boring but it would certainly have been a better result for Bayern.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Right then, who is interested in a World Cup predictions competition? - along the lines of the one we did for the European Championship two years ago (exact format to be decided).

We had seven last time (see below) although we seem to have lost redcoat from the forum. Would be good to get at least ten. Anyone interested then please put your name down?

Dixie
Orm
Redcoat
Rogo727
Zeta 16
british exil
Warspite1

Sign me up. I am sure that Ormster would like to participate as well. [;)]

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Count me in. I am not that good at making predictions though: see above how Bayern was supposed to lift the champions league trophy thing [:'(]

I am a bit surprised you didn't comment on how nice it is to see a rich team play offensive football and crushing their opponents made it to the finals.

Opps! I was mistaken. It was the team playing both matches defensively that won and went to the finals. Surely their fans must be so angry now that they made the finals by playing defensive football instead of attacking football.

Or does this only apply when Mourinho is the manager?

----

Bayern was thoroughly crushed by Madrid and their counterattacking football. I wonder what would have happened if Bayern had played the same way. My bet is that both matches would have ended with 0-0 and that a penalty shootout would have decided things. A lot more boring but it would certainly have been a better result for Bayern.

I think it's an insult to compare Mourinho with genuine Counter-Attacking football [:D] Mourinho is somewhere on the fringes of counter-attacking and pure lunacy. Millionaire team, Champions League semi final and yet yesterday at home he deployed 6 bloody defenders!

It's clownish.

Oh, and as per the Neanderthal plan, Etoo was [again] ordered to pull back and surprise surprise... provoked a penalty [:D]

Etoo v2.0 no doubt!

Next year Drogba in!

And yes, Bayern (a great team) was defeated by another great team (Real Madrid) which plays genuine counter-attacking football.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Whereas if you play "beautiful football" you are guaranteed success - aren't you Mr Guardiola? [:D]

You fail to see where the problem is [:)]

Mr Guardiola's team (but I could have mentioned other coaches as... Simeone) had clearly a bad day and deserved to lose so fair play.

Mourinho's teams have a lethal structural problem. If you put all your money on defence and only defence when you're losing you lack the players (the creative, attacking football guys) that create the chances to score! That's why his teams tend to struggle when they face weak, small teams that err... park the bus (the natural strategy when you face a superior squad).

Simeone is no fool. He also parks the bus when he faces superior teams. BUT he's got artillery aka creative players that can organize proper attacks if things go wrong and the team desperately needs to score.

It is well known. Mourinho got rid of the two creative players he had at RM (Ozil) and Chelsea (Mata).

Again, he is falling on his sword and it's HIS 100% fault this time.

The above explanation would not matter if he was *delivering*... tick tock tick tock...

[warspite1]

No sir, tis you that fail to see the problem [;)]

That's some structural problem that Mourinho has. Two Champions Leagues, seven Championships and numerous cups..... Wish he would manage Spurs....