Thing is football in general was averse to change even more than it is nowadays. From the begining the accepted "plan" was universal, two big f'backs, either side of a big c'half, a playmaker winghalf, a mobile hardman w'half, battering ram c/f wingers who never left the touch-line and "tricky inside-forwards (Scottish quite often). Tactics were rarely mentioned, so when City and it's Revie plan came along it was a major talking point, even more so than having no dedicated striker. Breaking the mould does that, whether it's "inverted f'backs" or sweeper-keepers, some people hate some praise. Most of the goals using the Revie plan we would have scored anyway, same as the false-nine set-up, both definitely created goals/chances, but not that many to win leagues and cups. On some of the small pitches at the time, the revie plan was virtually undetectable, at MR it was obvious. In conclusion the similarities are clear, not just on the pitch but in the willingness to lead the way, not tag along. That's Pep to a tee.
