|
The footy discussion thread (pg. 28)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Taipan
Sure, why not? Like I said earlier , if a team is up 2-0 , its very easy to go crazy. But all the while they kept a clean sheet. They played with a tight back line and why would you blame them if Malouda happened to hit incredible form? |
So when you said "Ancelotti is a defensive coach who likes to preserve a 1-0 lead", you actually meant "Ancelotti is a defensive coach who likes to go 2-0 up and then encourage his team to 'go crazy' and score 5+ goals"? Glad we've cleared that up. While we're at it, can you clear up why, if it's so easy to "go crazy" when you're 2-0 up, Ancelotti's Chelsea (playing in a defensive side) broke numerous goalscoring records?
Jose Mourinho, by contrast, genuinely was a defensive manager who liked to preserve a lead. His Chelsea side routinely went 2-0 up and then completely shut the game down, playing unadventurous and safe passing football for the rest of the match as they didn't have to attack anymore. His team didn't try and "go crazy" at 2-0 because playing fast and open football like Ancelotti's Chelsea gives the opposition more chance of scoring and getting back into the game. This is why Mourinho's record win as Chelsea manager was only 5-1, why his team broke the record for fewest goals conceded in a league season and why his team only ever conceded three goals once in his reign (3-0 versus Middlesbrough). Ancelotti's side, by contrast, were prone to the occasional ridiculous loss, like 3-1 against Wigan, 2-4 at home to Man City and 0-3 at home to Sunderland.
In other words, your assertion that Chelsea under Ancelotti liked to "preserve a 1-0 lead, just like how the chelsea of old used to play" is just plain wrong. Ancelotti's Chelsea scored a lot more goals and conceded a lot more (an average of 40% more a season) than when Mourinho drilled them into a ruthless defensive unit.
Furthermore, AVB wasn't simply trying to make Chelsea more attacking. He was trying to alter the system away from the 4-3-3 established under Mourinho and largely dependent on the same spine of players (Terry, Lampard, Drogba), all of whom were hitting their 30s. He initially tried a high line and high press with more emphasis on possession, but that went badly wrong and from there he experimented with various systems, none of which worked. By the end he was just making up systems from game to game, as evidenced by a terrible 4-3-1-2 thing against Napoli, which resulted in Chelsea losing 3-1.
It's pretty clear that Abramovich wants to change the philosophy of the club, using academy graduates to balance the books and a more refined possession-based style, which is why he's interested in Guardiola. So it doesn't really matter if Guardiola is a poor fit for Chelsea as they are now. Although, again, I really wouldn't worry about it, because he won't go to Chelsea.
| quote: | | My reasoning is simple. Guardiola is a Barca bred coach and is the perfect fit for Barca. I think he did a great job for Barca but I don't think he's very versatile which is why I think he's over rated. Don't make assumptions or put words in my mouth. |
This would imply that Guardiola is highly rated for his versatility, and given he's only ever managed one club and has caught flak recently because his side lacks a "Plan B" I would say that's a very strange suggestion. Who, exactly, has ever rated Pep as a versatile coach? Or do you generally judge people to be "super over rated" on qualities they aren't actually rated for in the first place? If so, I guess Guardiola is also super over rated as a DJ, and super over rated as a Republic presidential candidate.
By the way, if you don't want this to get personal, maybe you shouldn't have called me an a few posts back, my friend. |
|
|
| LAdazeNYnights |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
This would imply that Guardiola is highly rated for his versatility, and given he's only ever managed one club and has caught flak recently because his side lacks a "Plan B" I would say that's a very strange suggestion. Who, exactly, has ever rated Pep as a versatile coach? Or do you generally judge people to be "super over rated" on qualities they aren't actually rated for in the first place? If so, I guess Guardiola is also super over rated as a DJ, and super over rated as a Republic presidential candidate.
|
I think you may have missed the point here, J. He was suggesting that Pep isn't a world class coach and therefore doesn't deserve the credit he's given in that regard. I believe it to be true in any sport that when the suggestion is made that a manager is 'great' or 'among the worlds best' or what have you, the notion that they are 'versatile' [that is, capable of replicating success elsewhere] is implicit. As to whether Pep is overrated as a coach or not, I couldn't say. |
|
|
| Taipan |
| How about them Blues?! |
|
|
| Yohan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Taipan
How about them Blues?! |
it'll be interesting who Chelski signs to replace their aging players. And can't even go crazy like before, due to Fair Play laws coming into effect soon |
|
|
| Lagrangian |
what a bunch of honky rednecks, of course, how can i forget spanish was invented by mexicans and comes from south of the border. As does Soccer.
Right, well, good luck sinking in debt while you wait for the next draft, so you can fight for your third world country and die miserably along the way. Stupid yanks, don't know how to count, don't know how to read. They are better off learning mandarin as they are practically slaves for the Chinese. |
|
|
| Lagrangian |
oh yes, we can!
OUTSOURCE! |
|
|
| Taipan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yohan
it'll be interesting who Chelski signs to replace their aging players. And can't even go crazy like before, due to Fair Play laws coming into effect soon |
Hazard |
|
|
| Taipan |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
And I wouldn't worry about Pep being a bad fit, because there's no way in hell he'd ever go to Chelsea anyway. |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
And Guardiola is just not going to Chelsea. It hasn't happening. He's said so himself:
|
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
So it doesn't really matter if Guardiola is a poor fit for Chelsea as they are now. Although, again, I really wouldn't worry about it, because he won't go to Chelsea.
|
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I will continue to call your opinions clichéd because they have nothing to do with the facts and everything to do with popular misconceptions: Guardiola would be attracted by infinite transfer funds/salary. You quite simply aren't paying enough attention. |
Quote from Pep today
| quote: |
"For the next months I have to charge my batteries," he said. "I will rest and I will wait. I will be ready, if one club wants me, if they seduce me, I will train again."
|
"Outgoing Barcelona boss Pep Guardiola has given Liverpool and Chelsea hope by confirming he is open to approaches this summer."
"Champions League winners Chelsea are expected to have a better chance than Liverpool of enticing Guardiola, with owner Roman Abramovich reportedly an admirer."
Source: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/s...-summer?cc=5901
You simply aren't paying enough attention, buddy. |
|
|
| Taipan |
We can sit here and argue opinions all day long. But one thing is sure - odds don't lie.
Screenshot from www.willhill.com today May 25.
And even though RDM is the current favorite, it is assumed that the main reason Roman would want to keep him around is to hold out for Pep. So even though the odds for Pep to be the next chelsea manager are 2/1, the odds for him to be manager sometime in the next 2 years would probably be a lot higher. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| How the can you make odds on who will be the next manager? That's the most imbecilic support for an argument I've ever seen. |
|
|
| Taipan |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
How the can you make odds on who will be the next manager? That's the most imbecilic support for an argument I've ever seen. |
You have no idea what you're talking about. Betting on who will be the next manager is no different than betting on who will win the next match or even who will be the next president. Book makers create the odds, and if you think you know better, then you always have the option to put your money where your mouth is.
When having an argument on the likelihood of an event , if betting odds are available, they are the most objective and accurate. If they are flawed, you stand the chance to make a lot of money. |
|
|
|
|
