supercity88 said:
Bodicoteblue said:
Well you created the hypothetical situation about the the place I live in where there is no car and no buses except the ones that don't go where I'm going and where their is no access to any other form of transport.
We could go on all night creating ever more ludicrous scenarios to try to prove points which are unprovable because they are matters of opinion and conjecture.
I didn't do Latin at school because it was a state run comp that didn't teach it , but I have never let that stop me from learning things , be they in dead languages or not. It broadens the mind and allows for the careful analysis and dissection of all sorts of situations and the application of alternative or complementary views to further debate.
If we had as you say 4 midfielders why was Demichelis being played out of position against one of the best midfields in the league and in Hazard one of the best players in that midfield where he was being ruthlessly exposed and when it was becoming so painfully obvious was nothing done about it?
Even if Milner and Rodwell were half fit they would have been more effective in stopping Chelsea just by weight of numbers if nothing else .
I just wanted to see some action taken to change the pattern of the game .
It's all very well to praise the free flowing, attacking football we've become happily accustomed to , but it's fairy tale stuff- two sides ( Bayern and Chelsea ) have both demonstrated how to beat that style - Palace nearly got a point at ours.
What happens when we get more injuries to key players - that is as sure as death and taxes- and other managers spot that whatever happens we will stick to the same system ? We will become more vulnerable and we lose more games .
I don't want to be Arsenal playing lovely football and winning nothing - I don't know how old you are but the Dutch side of the 70s was the best international side of its generation sweeping all before them in an orgy of sexy attacking football with flair and skill . What did they have to show for it - bugger all
So you are keen on learning and analysing things? Well how can I best teach you... hmmm. Let me start by telling you that Demichelis has played several times in that defensive midfield role. That he did a better job there than Rodwell who played centrally with Yaya against Watford and was removed when we were 2-0 down. We could play Milner who only trained for the first time that day and who may have caused himself greater injury. For all the talk of their excellent midfield, it was a pretty close game. I remember Messi playing for Barca last season in the Champions League. They rushed him back for a big game. He was anonymous and made no impact. A fully fit Demichelis playing in the same role he had done in the two previous games - at least in parts - was a better bet. I have explained numerous times why we were forced into playing the way we did. The other options were not viable. And we did change things second half. Pellegrini put Yaya further back and put Jovetic on so that we had more fluidity and movement in midfield. Watch the first 20 mins again, we could have been ahead.
Our goal is not to mimic the Dutch team of the 70s that didn't win things. Nor is it to mimic the Chelsea tactics in Europe of 2011/12. Or Greece or Denmark when they won the Euros. The Dutch sides attacking mentality was fantastic, it got them to two major finals and they are still talked about now as playing "total football". The Barca side that lost to Chelsea had already established themselves as one of, if not the, best club team in history. Bayern also lost to Chelsea but subsequently won the treble and have cemented their name in European club history. We all want to win things and be pragmatic. Had we had more options on Monday I would have been critical had Pellegrini not addressed our weaknesses but we didn't and those are the facts. But we are not going to follow the route of Chelsea and Mourinho's style that will leave no mark on football. I know that when we look back at the history books and we see Di Matteo's Chelsea in the Champions League winners list that it means the same as seeing Barca, Bayern and the great Ajax/Milan/Liverpool sides. But it doesn't. The same as when you talk about the Spain side that won the Euro's it leaves more of a mark than Denmark in 92 or Greece in 2004. Anything can happen in football, one team can beat another on any given day. But the great teams are those that look to win every game they play and leave a stamp on the sport. That is our ambition.
Great post, you make some excellent points. The sides you refer to: 2010's Barca, 70s Ajax. 70s/80s Liverpool, 80s/90s Milan all played different styles of football. The one constant? They won. In fact, they all won 3 or more European Cups.
Some of those teams (Barca and Ajax in particular) are remembered for a certain style of attractive, attacking football. I can't comment on Ajax as it was before my time. But the Barca side, I would agree seemed to stick to it's attacking, attractive philosophy, and were very successful.
The difference is though, Spain is essentially a 2 team league. You can afford to play open, attacking football, no matter how many injuries you have if you are Barcelona. The Premier League is a rather different proposition though.
Barca are clearly the model we are looking to emulate, and long term I think that is a fantastic thing for us to aspire to. Let's bear in mind, Barca started with their 433, tiki taka style throughout the club since Cruyff became manager in 1988. They have stuck to it almost every year since. The fruits of that was the incredible team that is still there today, with a core of players who have been brought up to play that way from being children.
That is the long term vision for us, and I'm absolutely delighted about that, and of course it should be supported and encouraged.
The other teams you mention, Milan and Liverpool, they took a rather more pragmatic approach. While capable of playing incredibly attractive, attacking football, they were also well known for being brilliant defensively, very hard to beat. Pragmatic. Winners.
Now, if we have to be practical and a little more cautious in some games while we are on the journey to becoming Barca 2.0, that's not necessarily a bad thing. If we have to be solid in some games when the players aren't available for open, attacking football, is that such a bad thing? Would we have lost a million fans in China and ruined our future if we'd lined up with one up front against Chelsea and Bayern, and come away with a better result? I don't think so.
The long term goal is to play like Barca, and that's fantastic. We are 6 months in to this new "philosophy". If we have to apply some of the solidity of a Milan or a Liverpool in the short term to get results and win trophies, it's not necessarily a bad thing.
Would you rather be remembered as the attack at all costs losers, or the winning machine that in 4 or 5 games a season played a bit more solid?
