The 'English' Football Stereotype....

[Anonymous]

Been meaning to revisit this thread but not had a chance until now...so, I've had quite a long and interesting exchange of PM's with Damocles, for which I have to thank him. There's too much to repost but some really interesting quotes he pointed me in the direction of which could possibly spark debate:

"I don't know why English clubs have been so fixated for years on playing the 4-4-2. I seldom play it. I learnt to play with one striker up front when I was a player. I was a striker, but I lost my pace, so I decided to drop off the front. I found that nobody was picking me up and I had the time to play the passes that I wanted to make.

When I became manager of St. Mirren, I implemented this system and I remember the players saying "What kind of system is this?" I had a big argument with the directors.
Later, at Aberdeen, I had Steve Archibald up front and Joe Harper dropping off. Then I got [Mark] McGhee and Archibald would drop in behind. It was the same story at United. We had Mark Hughes and Brian McClair, then Mark Hughes and Eric Cantona, then Andy Cole and Eric Cantona, then Andy Cole or Dwight Yorke and Teddy Sheringham....What English teams did was always predictable. It's stupid to say "you have to always have two up the top of the park". If you do that, you only have one point of attack, whereas, if you have one guydropping off, you have two points of attack."

Slur Alex 2007.

"In England, they are convinced that they are the masters of football. Football is XYZ and there is one proper way of doing it. And they do the same thing, over and over again, whether it is something that they have been told to do or something that they have figured out themselves. Once they pick a path which they believe in, thye don't deviate.
In Italy, our minds are different. We also believe that we are wrong, that there is a better way of doing things that we haven't yet discovered so we spend most of our time criticising the status quo. However, htis makes our players more capable of critical thinking, their brains livlier, more open to change and dialogue. When we see that something isn't working, we'll try something differe. And this is down from the managers to the players, the tactics and the coaches. I think that our mindset is beneficial but history has taught us that you can pay a high price for it."

Marcello Lippi

"Roberto said that English players are different to other players. He can tell people to run into a brick wall at full pace, and they will do so, ten times over, because he has asked them to do it and he is the manager. They respect authority there. Back at Inter, our team would say "sure, but you show us how it is done first.."

Siniša Mihajlović (talking about Roberto a few months back.

Imagine two amateur boxers, each aspiring to turn professional one day.

Boxer A is aggressive and direct. His stance isn't affected by his need to defend his self; rather, it's a point of attack. He keeps his gloves low, or wide, or forward, depending on how he wants to plant his next blow. Because this is what it's all about - pummelling the opponent, and if he gets hit, so be it. The ability to withstand punishment is, after all, a mark of pride. It's about been the last man standing and giving everything that you have. Otherwise, what is the point of it? Why would you give less than full throttle?
Boxer B sees it as a question of survival. For him too, it's about been the last man standing, which is precisely why he wants to make sure that he is covered and his guard is high at all times. He knows that, as long as he is on his feet and has the necessary energy, he has the chance to deliver the knockout blow. That's why he is so patient; he's in no rush to win. Staying alive is enough for him. In the meantime, he waits for the right moment: the opponents mistake, the one glimspe of daylight that allows him the chance to land his blow. He knows all about the yin and the yang, about strike and counterstrike, about how to use his opponent's force to his advantage.

Boxer A is fearless. His sport may one day become his livelihood, but he knows that defeat is part of the game and has learnt to accept it. As long as he gives everything in the ring, he can live with defeat because he knows that most likely, he will fight again. And, even if he doesn't, well, it's only a sport. He doesn't worry about his opponent or what he is going to do. Why should he? His opponent, like him, is just another fighter and if he is stronger than his adversary, he will win.

Boxer B is congentially insecure. The fear of defeat keeps him up at night. It terrifies him. He simply cannot contemplate it. He was worked so hard to become a boxer that he cannot afford to slip up and see his dream of turning professional slip away. Boxing is about survival and to survive you need every edge that you can find. Boxer B studies his opponent manically, pushes himself to the edge in training, constantl;y second guesses himsef. Is his strategy sound? Is he training hard enough? Does his opponent have something up his sleeve? He plays out every possible scenario before he steps into the ring. The fight is often won before the timekeepers bell has rung, and if he is smarter than his adversary, he will win.

Gianluca Vialli in his autobiography talking about the difference between English and Italian football.

So - having had the discussion with Damocles and done a bit more reading I have to say that I'm still unsure where I stand on the subject. Do I agree with Vialli's boxing analogy - well, it fits - but there's been plenty of big punchers who have gone to be champions so it's not the only way and it's not the only way to be successful.

Fergie' quote about 442 is a tacit acknowledgment that on some level CC was right in what he was saying.

The Lippi one for me reinforces the stereotypes people have about English football whereas I think now we have a league which is much more fluid and has many varied styles an systems of play within it.

Dax - thanks for your questions - I'd say that of the points you raised, the second one about Spurs is the most relevant. They're considered a one dimensional long ball team by many people - and as much as I admit that some of that comes from straight up jealousy from our own supporters because they pipped us to 4th, there is still also the ignorant belief by some that because they play with Crouch/Lennon/Bale - that is the only way they play. Fergie's quote above is probably quite similar I imagine to the way Rednapp approaches setting up his teams...

Anyway, if anyone's interested and wants to wade in - feel free...

 

[ifiwasarichfan]

I think it's been a really good thread thats been able to meander and weave about and throw up lots of interesting points.

Sidetracking again; this is something I have asked before and it concerns one of our major rivals now Spurs.

Billy has just referred to how we see them as; and for want of a better word "Direct" out wide to Bale and Lennon and then long for Crouch/ Pav'chenko.

Why do they never seem to get overrun in Midfield when it's just Defoe or Huddlestone or Sandro with only Modric who although skillful is distinctly Lightweight in the Centre of Midfield? How do they make this work?

I have not seen this answered yet on the Forum as any discussion over Spurs generally reduces into attacks on their very unsavoury Manager; the Media frenzy and plaudits that surround them and resentments going back to the 1981 Cup Final.

Why are Spurs now sitting at the top table?

I want to know what makes their system work.

 

[ST Coleridge]

Dax - thanks for your questions - I'd say that of the points you raised, the second one about Spurs is the most relevant. They're considered a one dimensional long ball team by many people - and as much as I admit that some of that comes from straight up jealousy from our own supporters because they pipped us to 4th, there is still also the ignorant belief by some that because they play with Crouch/Lennon/Bale - that is the only way they play. Fergie's quote above is probably quite similar I imagine to the way Rednapp approaches setting up his teams...

Anyway, if anyone's interested and wants to wade in - feel free...

Hey Billy.

I'd say that the Spurs point is actually understated - did you watch the WHL leg of the Milan game? The Crouch nod-down was attempted at least 15 times, it was literally their only plan of attack. The crosses themselves came from fullbacks in deep positions, for the most part, and not Lennon on the by-line. But that's just Redknapp's interpretation of sitting on a lead.
I don't see VDV as a Ferguson-preferred hole player - rather, he gets on the end of these nod-downs, or he gets on the end of the crosses himself, or he drifts across and helps the winger to manufacture space for a cross. He's not a Cantona or Sheringham.

More generally, when Spurs play their 'nicer' stuff, it's still the result of quick counters, and/or Bale skinning three players.

I think that an English 'stereotype' is still readily available - whether it's the gung-ho of Spurs or Blackpool, or the long-ball caginess of Stoke, it remains a league typified by big strong boys playing at a fair old pace.<br /><br />-- Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:06 pm --<br /><br />

I think it's been a really good thread thats been able to meander and weave about and throw up lots of interesting points.

Sidetracking again; this is something I have asked before and it concerns one of our major rivals now Spurs.

Billy has just referred to how we see them as; and for want of a better word "Direct" out wide to Bale and Lennon and then long for Crouch/ Pav'chenko.

Why do they never seem to get overrun in Midfield when it's just Defoe or Huddlestone or Sandro with only Modric who although skillful is distinctly Lightweight in the Centre of Midfield? How do they make this work?

Sheer tempo is the key to Spurs' success, coupled with talented players.

With regard to midfield-outnumbering, VDV or Defoe will drop back onto the opposition's DM, so it's usually 3 vs 3. Opposition fullbacks tend to venture upfield less too, when up against the pace of Lennon & Bale.
I'd argue that Sandro, Palacios, Huddlestone and Jenas are big/experienced enough not to be considered 'lightweight', and Modric and Pienaar are smaller but extremely busy.

 

[Anonymous]

I think it's been a really good thread thats been able to meander and weave about and throw up lots of interesting points.

Sidetracking again; this is something I have asked before and it concerns one of our major rivals now Spurs.

Billy has just referred to how we see them as; and for want of a better word "Direct" out wide to Bale and Lennon and then long for Crouch/ Pav'chenko.

Why do they never seem to get overrun in Midfield when it's just Defoe or Huddlestone or Sandro with only Modric who although skillful is distinctly Lightweight in the Centre of Midfield? How do they make this work?

I have not seen this answered yet on the Forum as any discussion over Spurs generally reduces into attacks on their very unsavoury Manager; the Media frenzy and plaudits that surround them and resentments going back to the 1981 Cup Final.

Why are Spurs now sitting at the top table?

I want to know what makes their system work.

That's a very good question and one which I don't fully have the answer to. They certainly have conceded ten more goals than us this season, and have scored the same amount as us so it shows that is does weaken them defensively and doesn't necessarily lead to a shitload more goals than we score. However their success for me is getting results consistently, whilst consistently playing in a way which is far far more open than the way we play for example. That's not a criticism of us - but honestly, most teams who try and play that way in the premiership really struggle. West Brom went down trying to play like that...you need top players who work hard and who collectively understand what their jobs are.<br /><br />-- Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:28 pm --<br /><br />

Sheer tempo is the key to Spurs' success, coupled with talented players.

Doesn't that fly in the face of your assertion that they are a long ball team?

Anyway, your post above. To be honest, I think using the Milan game as an example is massively disingenuous. This doesn't particularly prove much, but it's an interesting stat. When Spurs played the rags at home they attempted 503 passes of which 378 were successful. When we played the rags at home we attempted 542 passes of which 433 were successful. Food for thought.

Regarding how VDV plays - you seem to be massively downplaying how influential he is to that team and what he offers. For me his is exactly the kind of player Fergie would have as his number 10 - without question. In fact most rags I know have said this season that Fergie dropped a massive bollock in not signing him...

 

[taconinja]

The Spurs-Milan set is interesting in that Milan's midfield was depleted of its creative sources. This is not to say Spurs wouldn't still have been successful. It's just not an indictment or confirmation of their system.

 

[persvenality cult]

Dax - thanks for your questions - I'd say that of the points you raised, the second one about Spurs is the most relevant. They're considered a one dimensional long ball team by many people - and as much as I admit that some of that comes from straight up jealousy from our own supporters because they pipped us to 4th, there is still also the ignorant belief by some that because they play with Crouch/Lennon/Bale - that is the only way they play. Fergie's quote above is probably quite similar I imagine to the way Rednapp approaches setting up his teams...

Anyway, if anyone's interested and wants to wade in - feel free...

Hey Billy.

I'd say that the Spurs point is actually understated - did you watch the WHL leg of the Milan game? The Crouch nod-down was attempted at least 15 times, it was literally their only plan of attack. The crosses themselves came from fullbacks in deep positions, for the most part, and not Lennon on the by-line. But that's just Redknapp's interpretation of sitting on a lead.
I don't see VDV as a Ferguson-preferred hole player - rather, he gets on the end of these nod-downs, or he gets on the end of the crosses himself, or he drifts across and helps the winger to manufacture space for a cross. He's not a Cantona or Sheringham.

More generally, when Spurs play their 'nicer' stuff, it's still the result of quick counters, and/or Bale skinning three players.

I think that an English 'stereotype' is still readily available - whether it's the gung-ho of Spurs or Blackpool, or the long-ball caginess of Stoke, it remains a league typified by big strong boys playing at a fair old pace.

Here's the thing; Blackpool don't have any pace. They just play as if every time they take possession it's the 90th minute and this is their last counter attack. The chances they take just getting the ball out of defence into the midfield are mind-blowing. Every so often it pays off and they score. I think technically, in the midfield at least, they are very, very close to Aston Villa, say, and they play all out on that strength. Holloway has been able to get most of these boys on the cheap because they are either rather unathletic, in last chance saloon, or both. This style of play isn't unique to England at all; Inter did something rather similair at Bayern. It reminds me of Real on a good day ;)

The Spurs conundrum keeps awake up at night. It's just impossible for me to answer without seeming bitter. I've seen a lot of their games and recognise the give it to Crouchy stereotype, but there is a bit more to it than that. I think it's a slight exaggeration to say they are eating at the top table, unless we say that applies to Shaktar Donetsk and all the other teams who have made it to the quarter finals over the years.

Spurs get a good press because they attack, counter-attack and always seem to raise themselves and come out on top in big games. Redknapp rotates stringently to maximise his chances in said games, obviously at the expense of regular results.

They've had a little fortune on the way in facing an Inter team that was ripe for implosion (and pithily unarsed about how the games would affect their qualification), and a Milan side without the creative fulcrum to their midfield and their three January purchases.

Their style emphasises the pace of the wingers and forwards. It requires an extremely high intensity that is difficult for any team to deal with, even more so the aging Milanese clubs. Crouch was heavily used because whilst Milan's defenders are both exceptional footballers, they are shorter than average for the position.

I wonder if it's too demanding a style for teams expected to compete on three fronts to adapt; their injury list is legendary. In that regard Redknapp is lucky that he can jettison the FA Cup. Maybe it's done for Bale as well, his injury struck me as the result of over-use, because I was astonished that a player putting himself under such strain in each and every match made so many consecutive appearances, at the time of his injury, more than any other outfielder in the country. I'm fascinated to see how he comes back; he's already refused to be subbed on once after feeling something whilst warming up, and looked extremely tentative on his other appearance.

I believe Redknapp also has an advantage in that he has more of his own purchases in reserve than we do. He's signed 14 players, by my reckoning.

There you go; sour grapes or what?

 

[Didsbury Dave]

A superb post, Billy, and some very interesting quotes. The vialli one was particularly interesting and relevant to mcfc.

Just watched the espn coverage when I got back and Brian kidd said this at half time. Obviously his words come straight from Mancini's mouth:

" we just need to keep our shape and stay solid. We'll get a chance. If we can put that away and get to extra time then we can win the game"

Hugely telling.

 

[intheknow!]

The reason Arsenal don't win anything is not because they try to play the Barcelona way in England, it's the quality of their players. When Arsenal had Bergkamp, Henry, Viera, Petit, Cole, Pires, Seaman, Keown etc they were playing the 'Barcelona way' and wining trophies, titles and even going unbeaten. What has changed is the quality of their players ie Denilson, Risicky, Diaby, Bendtner, Squillacci, Clichy. They have talent like Van Persie but he is nowhere near Bergkamp or Henry. Fabregas is very good but young and now succumbing to injury.

So my view is that Barcelona has provided the blueprint but it's about the quality and ability of the players playing that system. Arsenal have tweaked it a little bit adding the directness and pace of Walcott. Who BTW although gets a lot of stick is absolutely essential to their counter attacks. Since he has been injured they lack pace and are just passing with no real chances. Also most of RVP goals are when Theo is playing alongside him.<br /><br />-- Thu Mar 17, 2011 11:39 pm --<br /><br />What makes me laugh these days about people deriding 'English football' is that our League is made up of mainly FOREIGN MANAGERS. So if the EPL is all about Long Ball etc then it's not English managers implementing this style.

If anything the problem with English football is actually the number of SCOTTISH managers in lower leagues like the Championship. They really do play the long ball, stoke crappy football.

 

[joep16]

I'm currently conductign research that analysis the impact foreign player have had on the Premier League, the clubs and fans.

Would love to get the views of football fans about this.

This link is:

<a class="postlink" href="http://freeonlinesurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?sid=7k06ib38n8oppus889838" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://freeonlinesurveys.com/rendersurv ... ppus889838</a>

Thanks.

 

[jay_mcfc]

BillyShears, seeing as you started this thread, could offer your opinion on my post?

Absolutely mate. I think it's full of sweeping generalizations and stereotypes about English football vs Continental football and it's exactly the kind of attitude which made me want to start this thread. You are trying to suggest that playing a 'continental' game or an 'english' game are finite positions, but they're not. A team can play with both. As I said in my original post, many teams do play that way. Bolton can play through the middle, from out wide, or go long. Same with Spurs. You say you're asked to play the Van der Vaart role but you'd rather play the Silva one. What's the difference? They are both excellent attacking midfield players who's forte is their range of passing and their vision. I suspect what you mean is that Van der Vaart is the 'little man' to Crouch's 'big man', but again, that's just a one dimensional view of a player who has a wide range of attributes which are utilized by Spurs...

I really hope that you're not offended by that post - its difficult to convey any emotion on a forum and I'm happy for you to set me straight if you think I'm misreading what you're saying.

You and Soulboy have said some strange things in this thread. Tottenham and Bolton do not in any way play a continental style just because they go through the middle. Continental style is all about patience, being strong and building from the back and hitting teams with sideways passing until the right option becomes available. Just because Bolton and Spurs are capable of stringing passes together, as all prem teams should, doesn't make them continental.

United nor Chelsea have not played 442 or used old fashioned wingers for years and as for some of soulboy's talk of English clubs 'success' in europe I'm flabbergasted! To top it off Barca shouldn't be the style to aim for?

And Billy, no Barca haven't learned to press press press from the English. They have a very famous 7 second rule and once the 7 seconds are up they sit in and get 11 men behind the ball if possible.

It's bedtime for me, I'll give more on this tomorrow.

 

[tomc]

Spurs use an out-ball. Not just against AC Milan....in every game I've seen then play. It mostly goes out to their left for Crouch or Bale. They don't put it to the right for the simple reason that Lennon's about 4 foot 6 and maybe their midfielders are mostly right-footed and like to hit right to left? The CB Dawson hits a good ball r to l. I'm not knocking it, they just use it. As do a lot of teams who prefer not to try keeping possession in front of their penalty area. City tend not to use it. They look for David Silva who's usually in a central position and so they will keep the ball longer in front of their penalty area or pass wide and back inside. I don't mean 20 yards out but in the middle bit of the pitch. It is without doubt a more 'Italian' way of playing. The out-ball is, if you like, the opposite of Barca's 7 second rule that everyone's going on about. If you're under pressure within x seconds, put it into area y for player z. But it has its uses in that if you lose it, you lose it out by the line and mostly high up the pitch and if you keep it, you've turned the other team around.

Spurs mix it up. They also have players who can pass and move well and use them and some very quick lads.

I think the out-ball is probably what people have in mind when they talk about an English style. Generally it's not seen as much on the Continent, imo because referees are quicker to blow for contact so the tackling is less fierce and most teams prefer to adjust rather than try to win the ball back with quick challenges. They get a bit more time to pass it.

Interestingly, the team everyone's banging on about, Barca, places a lot of emphasis on winning the ball quickly. They do it less by tackling and more by crowding out.

 

[Dax777]

Spurs use an out-ball. Not just against AC Milan....in every game I've seen then play. It mostly goes out to their left for Crouch or Bale. They don't put it to the right for the simple reason that Lennon's about 4 foot 6 and maybe their midfielders are mostly right-footed and like to hit right to left? The CB Dawson hits a good ball r to l. I'm not knocking it, they just use it. As do a lot of teams who prefer not to try keeping possession in front of their penalty area. City tend not to use it. They look for David Silva who's usually in a central position and so they will keep the ball longer in front of their penalty area or pass wide and back inside. I don't mean 20 yards out but in the middle bit of the pitch. It is without doubt a more 'Italian' way of playing. The out-ball is, if you like, the opposite of Barca's 7 second rule that everyone's going on about. If you're under pressure within x seconds, put it into area y for player z. But it has its uses in that if you lose it, you lose it out by the line and mostly high up the pitch and if you keep it, you've turned the other team around.

Spurs mix it up. They also have players who can pass and move well and use them and some very quick lads.

I think the out-ball is probably what people have in mind when they talk about an English style. Generally it's not seen as much on the Continent, imo because referees are quicker to blow for contact so the tackling is less fierce and most teams prefer to adjust rather than try to win the ball back with quick challenges. They get a bit more time to pass it.

Interestingly, the team everyone's banging on about, Barca, places a lot of emphasis on winning the ball quickly. They do it less by tackling and more by crowding out.

The accuracy of the comments above is SHOCKING! Frenchblue! hats off to you mate. Please post more often.

 

[jay_mcfc]

Whilst the premier league teams might now play a slightly more continental style due to the influx of foreign players and managers the same cannot be said of the fans so their mentality has not changed as much or as quickly as the league has.

Manchester United might have dominated the premiership over the last 18 years but since Jose Mourinho took over at Chelsea United have very rarely played 442. They've also played wide midfielders rather than wingers and even when they do play wingers (Giggs, Nani, Ronaldo) they change their game and cut inside more times than getting to the byline and whipping a ball in. United have been the absolute masters at changing their game to suit the premiership over the years which has never been proven as much as it has this year. Compared to seasons gone by they are playing pretty scruffy football this season that is not easy on the eye but very effective. They're built from a solid platform and play 3 central midfielders that all sit in and get behind the ball but what they do is distribute the ball quickly and very effectively.

They are set up to be a counter attacking team and that is the big difference between us and them. Our fans have been cursing a lack of pace all season but in reality pace isn't the problem. Yes we can move the ball quicker at times and yes there are times when a situation arises that we don't counter properly. This is because our philosophy is to control games, dictate the tempo and break teams down through possession, patience and skill. It involves spreading the play (a lot), getting the full backs to push forward and the centre backs being able to play on the ground. Fans think that when Silva or Tevez create something that it is totally out of the blue and if it weren't for the individual brilliance of either of those we wouldn't have scored. Whilst it's true to an extent (both are capable of sheer brilliance) it usually comes on the back of the rest of our philosophy working properly.

Throughout this whole season so far it's probably only properly worked 7/8 times which I guess in the grand scheme of things is quite frustrating but for me it's because we're really struggling with getting the right balance. Our best games have been when everything works together (sounds very simplistic I know) but too many of our games the midfield hasn't linked with attack or even at times the midfield hasn't helped in defence enough (Wolves away springs to mind, or any game De Jong hasn't played for that matter). We still need a midfielder who can link defence to attack (Fabregas!).

The best team in my generation was the Arsenal unbeaten team and that says to me that playing football the right way can work. Arsenal have fallen down because of the players that left without being replaced by players anywhere near good enough to fill their boots. The main difference between them and us is tempo and that is the big issue most fans have with Mancini and the way we play. I hope that will come with better balance within the team which goes back to the player in the middle who links defence to attack. Had we had Fabregas playing where Barry plays this season we'd have been challenging for the league imo.

Soulboy said that English football works because we regularly have 3 teams in the Champions league quarters but does that really tell you anything? The three teams are usually Arsenal, United and Chelsea who are full of the best foreigners in the world and who don't really play in a very English way. The lack of success over the last 50 years of English teams in Europe apart from Liverpool is an embarrassment considering the players, clubs, managers and money in the league. The English national team is just one disaster after the other and that in itself is the biggest indication that English football will never be anything other than also rans. Give me a footballer over an athlete any day of the week.

 

[Soulboy]

Absolutely mate. I think it's full of sweeping generalizations and stereotypes about English football vs Continental football and it's exactly the kind of attitude which made me want to start this thread. You are trying to suggest that playing a 'continental' game or an 'english' game are finite positions, but they're not. A team can play with both. As I said in my original post, many teams do play that way. Bolton can play through the middle, from out wide, or go long. Same with Spurs. You say you're asked to play the Van der Vaart role but you'd rather play the Silva one. What's the difference? They are both excellent attacking midfield players who's forte is their range of passing and their vision. I suspect what you mean is that Van der Vaart is the 'little man' to Crouch's 'big man', but again, that's just a one dimensional view of a player who has a wide range of attributes which are utilized by Spurs...

I really hope that you're not offended by that post - its difficult to convey any emotion on a forum and I'm happy for you to set me straight if you think I'm misreading what you're saying.

You and Soulboy have said some strange things in this thread. Tottenham and Bolton do not in any way play a continental style just because they go through the middle. Continental style is all about patience, being strong and building from the back and hitting teams with sideways passing until the right option becomes available. Just because Bolton and Spurs are capable of stringing passes together, as all prem teams should, doesn't make them continental.

United nor Chelsea have not played 442 or used old fashioned wingers for years and as for some of soulboy's talk of English clubs 'success' in europe I'm flabbergasted! To top it off Barca shouldn't be the style to aim for?

And Billy, no Barca haven't learned to press press press from the English. They have a very famous 7 second rule and once the 7 seconds are up they sit in and get 11 men behind the ball if possible.

It's bedtime for me, I'll give more on this tomorrow.

Eh?

Then if you think those are my views you are very much mistaken!

I have never ONCE intimated that Bolton or Spurs play a continental type game. I'm really not sure how you concluded that. Can you extract the bit where I say that... I'm not saying your making it up, but that certainly wasn't my intention.

As for the way the rags play... my point was that the rags play with width. They always have done, they (under Feguson) always will do. That was my point.

The most successful team in English football plays with width. And pace on the flanks. And I thought it might be a good idea if we replicated that.

I never said the rags play 442. They do sometimes. They also play with one upfront / 5 in the middle, they sometimes play 3 up top and 3 in the middle, they have a whole variety of styles to call upon... but ALWAYS with pace and width.

I stand by that.

As for "succes" in Europe... we have 3 clubs in the last 8, we often have 2 or 3 clubs in the semi, we regularly have a team in the finals. Just because Barcelona are a one-off at the present time should not underscore what the English clubs continue to achieve. Fuck, even Boro and Fulham have made the UEFA Cup finals!

Oh, and as for me saying "strange things" ... could that just be a different opinion that yours?

It's a bit condescending to suggest that your view is the pre-eminent and everybody's else's is somehow "strange".

But nice try all the same!

;-))

One final point... Over the past 50 years, Liverpool have been Champions 5 times, the Rags 3 times, Forest twice and Villa once. Numerous other finalists.

There is also a host of Cup Winners Cup and UEFA cups to hang our hats on.

In fact, I very much doubt that ANY nation has so many winners of European trophies as the English leagues.

In Spain, Italy even Germany, you'll find that a handful or maybe even only 2 or 3 win the big prizes.

I think you're becoming fixated by the style and success (and bearing in mind the travesty of their beating of Chelsea a couple of years back, their record would look far less impressive...) of one team, and football is cyclical.

As in management, there is no one best way.

 

[jay_mcfc]

I have never ONCE intimated that Bolton or Spurs play a continental type game. I'm really not sure how you concluded that. Can you extract the bit where I say that... I'm not saying your making it up, but that certainly wasn't my intention.

That part of the reply was to do with Billy, not meant for you. The strange things you were saying were about not trying to copy Barcelona and how tactics are not important. It's funny how you say tactics are not important but then respect United so much...they have become a very, very tactical team. You don't win so many games 1-0 without them.

As for the way the rags play... my point was that the rags play with width. They always have done, they (under Feguson) always will do. That was my point.

Every team in the prem plays with width to some extent depending upon circumstances. If Adam Johnson was fit we'd have been playing with more of it but as it is it is down to the full backs to provide it. I have covered pace in my last post, it just isn't as important to us in the way we set up compared to other teams. I guess it comes down to whether you want to be a counter attacking team like we were under Hughes or if we want to play a possession game like we are under Mancini. Of course there is probably somewhere in the middle that is capable of both and my hope is that if Mancini is here next season he understands that at times a bit of pace and directness is needed and works well in England.

As for "success" in Europe... we have 3 clubs in the last 8, we often have 2 or 3 clubs in the semi, we regularly have a team in the finals. Just because Barcelona are a one-off at the present time should not underscore what the English clubs continue to achieve. Fuck, even Boro and Fulham have made the UEFA Cup finals!
One final point... Over the past 50 years, Liverpool have been Champions 5 times, the Rags 3 times, Forest twice and Villa once. Numerous other finalists.

There is also a host of Cup Winners Cup and UEFA cups to hang our hats on.

In fact, I very much doubt that ANY nation has so many winners of European trophies as the English leagues.

In Spain, Italy even Germany, you'll find that a handful or maybe even only 2 or 3 win the big prizes.

I was a bit hasty saying English clubs lack of success in europe is an embarrassment over 50 years, although I did say without Liverpool. But let's look at it another way; since the start of the premiership when the English league has widely been regarded as the best in the world, where the best players and managers want to work and where the most money is spent (apart from a couple of clubs around europe) English clubs have won the big prize 3 times. Arsenal and Chelsea who have spent hundreds and hundreds of millions on their squads yet still have not lifted the champions league. United have done it twice and Liverpool once and to me that is a poor reflection on the premiership. I might be going over board with this, other people might see the English clubs as being successful and I'm there to be shot at with it but I just think when you consider everything, English clubs in Europe are failures on the whole.

Back to Billy's initial point though, where he wondered if in the premier league outside the top clubs do they still play in a stereo typical English way and I would have to say yes. It has changed slightly in that one up top has become the norm and wingers (old fashioned ones) are a rarity but the irresponsible attitude to defending, end to end football and mistakes aplenty are still clear to see. It's what makes the premiership exciting but it's for these reasons that the English national team and the English players are seen as being technically poor. Everything that excites and entertains us in the premiership is everything that is wrong with the game there and until it changes the national team will continue to fail and the club teams will flatter to deceive in Europe.

I love the way Mancini is trying to make us play. It is entertaining and interesting in its own way but I think the ultimate question is will English supporters put up with it? Well, if it wins things they will and if it doesn't they won't but it's how much time they're prepared to give him before deciding we won't that is important. That is if the owners don't act before the fans think like that anyway.

 

[yerwot?]

great thread,fwiw i believe the lower leagues are more representative of english football.The prem teams that compete in europe have adjusted to the different refereeing,the two-legged ties etc,and play accordingly.From the championship down kick and rush rules,played by non-footballers,managed by older non-footballers who perpetuate the 'english stereotype'

 

[Deleted member 14625]

I've listened to people around the ground and some of my blue friends and am convinced that they would be happeist is we played schoolboy football where all 20 outfield players chased the ball all around the pitch in one big crowd.

That's exactly what Barcelona do. If it's good enough for the best team ever to chase and hunt the ball back in packs, then it's good enough for everyone to do. And I could have used quotation marks on my statement because that's exactly what Mick McCarthy said earlier on in the season as well.

 

[jay_mcfc]

That's exactly what Barcelona do. If it's good enough for the best team ever to chase and hunt the ball back in packs, then it's good enough for everyone to do. And I could have used quotation marks on my statement because that's exactly what Mick McCarthy said earlier on in the season as well.

No they don't!

 

[Deleted member 14625]

That's exactly what Barcelona do. If it's good enough for the best team ever to chase and hunt the ball back in packs, then it's good enough for everyone to do. And I could have used quotation marks on my statement because that's exactly what Mick McCarthy said earlier on in the season as well.

No they don't!

Of course they do. They are the best team in the world ever at surrounding the opposition player with the ball with 3 and 4 players at a time forcing a mistake and thus they get the ball back.

 

[jay_mcfc]

Of course they do. They are the best team in the world ever at surrounding the opposition player with the ball with 3 and 4 players at a time forcing a mistake and thus they get the ball back.

You make it sound like school boy tactics and it's the most simple thing in the world. Their 7 second rule is an art that is perfected at their training ground from the age of 4/5.