2015 - 2016 Football Thread - Page 378

On May 25 2016 08:22 Espers wrote:
2011 was Pep's best team and Enrique's side certainly isn't as good to me

On May 24 2016 19:58 DucK- wrote:


I always felt that mourinho isn't as anti football as his critics paint him to be. His Madrid team was a very high scoring team that counter attacked at breathtaking pace. I think most of these opinions were due to his approach against bigger oppositions.

I recall his first Chelsea team had a bulldozing style. They don't tear teams apart with flair like barca, but they overwhelm with strength. I don't remember not liking that Chelsea team.

His second Chelsea team though was simply not filled with his kind of players. The centre midfield were way too soft. There were too many lightweight players. The team was unsuited to counter attacking football. Them and mourinho were just not a good fit and hence the results.

On May 25 2016 08:58 nayumi wrote:

People have been living in the illusion that Mourinho is anti-football primarily because of his games against Barcelona. It's not fair because every single team that goes up against Barcelona does the exact same thing, those who don't often end up getting eaten alive. If anything I personally find Pep's Barcelona is the most anti-football team ever existed. To me football is about both attacking and defending, you attack and score, if you fail the other team attacks and you defend, rinse and repeat. I just don't buy the whole "if you can't attack, just pass the ball around until you see a chance" mentality that Pep adopted. Sure it worked wonder, and I'm not saying it was an easy thing to pull off but that doesn't make football any more exciting, at least from my own point of view.

As an United fan I'm not concerned about Mourinho's football. He tends to build a solid defense and midfield and fast wingers to control the pace and run over opponents with few chances. People didn't seem to mind the infamous Ferguson's 1-0 wins during his last couple of years at United, I don't see how it's fair not to judge Mourinho on the same basis. However, he seriously needs to tone down a bit on how he handles other conflicts, especially off pitch. He often created unnecessary conflict which in turn put much more pressure on the team and himself.

Also Mourinho needs money and decision making power to get and play the players that he wants. In Real and Chelsea cases, the clubs owners often interfered with whom to buy and to field. But you didn't see that during his Inter Milan's days, hence the Champions League title.

On May 25 2016 08:25 Rebs wrote:


That was Peak Barca, and no one is saying that its better. Just not much better.

Just because English teams suck doesnt mean that other teams didnt get better. CL is still CL.

On May 25 2016 11:24 WillyWanker wrote:

Best year indeed <3 I remember how the Villa signing made so much sense you could already predict a big domination that year.

For me Luis Enrique's Barça is just a tiny bit inferior to Pep's. Pep could change his tactics when things weren't going well or to secure a game (like fielding Keita to strengthen the midfield). He played 4-3-3 but also 3-3-4, 3-4-3, even sometimes 5 forwards. I think that diversity allowed Barça to always have an answer.

Luis Enrique is betting on the 3 front guys + Iniesta to simply crush every defense they face. It's been working well until now though (thanks Busquets) xD Even when they lost or got eliminated, they always had many chances and just lacked efficiency. His strength is also that he managed to control the ego of Messi, Suarez and Neymar, which I had no hope for before last season. I wonder if that's going to last though, that's my biggest fear for that team... For me they're still a level above the rest.

On May 25 2016 09:11 Rebs wrote:


wooooaooo hold on.. are you seriously making the argument that if a team doesnt find any openings then they should give the ball away? Because what else are you supposed to do ? Just chuck it up and pray that a Fellaini will get you knockdowns into the arms of a waiting Rooney (see how well thats worked the last 2 years?)


Its not like they slow the pace of the game down on purpose. If a team wont press and overload and try to win the ball back then the progress will naturally be slower. There is a reason they offer so much space on the counter attack. They arent exactly passing it back and forth in their final third. Its extremely high risk. How can you possibly call playing "with the ball" in an aggressive capacity anti football ?

I can see why people may dislike that style and thats fine, but you cant sit there and say that the team that is trying to keep the ball and score is NOT the protagonist. Infact current Barca is often route 1ish because they sometimes go into Italian mode of chucking it up to their front 3 and letting them win games by themselves. But really that just means they bought into the pragmatism and while trying to keep their identity.

A great example of the sort of game where neither team did nothing was Ajax and Atletico Madrid. It was 120 minutes of the most painful football you can imagine thats what footy is like when teams arent kick and rush and arent exactly offensively inclined.

Also with respect to winning the CL at Inter, he won the CL because he is a good coach and his style of play giving the way he sets his teams up will win every so often. Nothing more nothing less. He could easily have won with his other clubs, sometimes it just doesn't work out.

And on the point of Ferguson, Fergies famous 1-0's were the result of a bad team over performing because they had an RVP or Rooney that carried them for half a season and then they managed to hit a hot streak. He knew it wasnt going to last so he bounced. He gets credit for getting a bad team to play above its level. Thats why people dont mind it, people arent stupid.

Mourinho has been consistently responsible for squeezing the flair out of some great prospects. Just look at Oscar, his first years he was so Brazillian it wasnt even funny, it was scary how good he could have been, and then he got systemed into a jobber. Mata didnt and got cut.

The only entertaining team Mou ever made was the first half of his second coming at Chelsea. That team played. The previous ones were just over talented man beasts running people over with discipline and the occasional bout of aggression.

On May 25 2016 13:56 evilfatsh1t wrote:
i consider mou to be a defensive coach because of the way he sets his teams up against strong opposition, like some people have already said. he may be able to get his teams to play much more effectively than van gaal does, but his teams dont play with the flair and aggression that saf's teams were known for. not even mou's rm played with saf-esque flair. it was a quick, effective yet systematic counter attacking team.

On May 25 2016 14:23 nayumi wrote:
Look I'm not saying Pep's style is wrong, it's just not what I'd like to turn on my TV every now and then to enjoy and thus not football by my own definition. If there is no opening, you force your way through it (yes even if that means you try your luck with a long cross and hope that your forwards get the ball), you just don't pass it around and wait. That's pretty much similar to how Mayweather boxed against Pacman, or like how Alliance dominated an era of Dota with split push. Don't get me wrong I consider Pep's Barcelona to be one of the best squad to ever walk this earth. Like Mayweather and Alliance, they actually figured out the game (at least during that period) and be the best at it. But that doesn't mean it's entertaining, at least in my book. Maybe I used the term "anti-football" a bit loose in that context.

On May 25 2016 09:11 Rebs wrote:

A great example of the sort of game where either team did nothing was PSV and Atletico Madrid. It was 120 minutes of the most painful football you can imagine thats what footy is like when teams arent kick and rush and arent exactly offensively inclined.

On May 25 2016 14:52 WillyWanker wrote:

If you make the comparison between Mayweather, Alliance and Guardiola's team, you're not making the right one I believe.
Mayweather would be the catenaccio style (at least this fight), where he defends perfectly and scores just 1 goal to win. Alliance's "rat style" would be considered defensive/counter-attack too. Guardiola's style is very offensive, creative, and entertaining.