I would like to edit and add Manchester United here too.

Sorry I have to take Chelsea as the subject here (although it applies to Manchester United too). But let's hear your opinion on this style?

I take it as you already known the fuzz going around between Chelsea (Conte) vs. Gary and Redknapp... (Gary and redknaap slammed Chelsea for their anti-football and ultra-defensive approach, and Conte hit back).

Redknapp went further and described Chelsea performance: 'crime against football'

I would like to take this opportunity to talk about this kind of tactic and why sometimes some people wowww-wonder it and for the same style, slam it.

For the record, I hate the SAME style when Mou's (MU) uses it against big elite teams. (The opinions are the more comment idea from fans)

1. Chelsea 1 - 1 Barcelona (WOOOWWW, master class)
2. Man City 1 - 0 Chelsea (anti-football)

IMO, in both games, Chelsea played the same style, ultra defensive and tried to hit hard on counter.

• The difference is, Man City didn't let them to have the ball and completely blocked the attack. Barca sucked and wasn't as good, so Chelsea had their fair chances of attacking.
• In both games, Chelsea didn't see much of the ball, and parked the bus.

Please dont say that, Chelsea approached both game in different ways (like: against Man City, Chelsea came in and didn't want to attack, against Barca they wanted to attack). NO, they played the same, only Man City did better.

So, why do you fans keep saying Chelsea played beautifully and embrace the tactic, while in another game saying it was anti-football and coward tactic?

To be honest, ultra-defensive and hit on counter is a bit of a small team mentality, they play their skin out again bigger teams (super motivated), then choke from time to time... I dont say Chelsea or Manchester United are small teams, but this kind of football is.

For those who want to read about the fight:

Conte hit back:
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/mar/04/antonio-conte-chelsea-jamie-redknapp-gary-neville-sky-sports

I haven't seen much of Manchester and Chelsea games aside of the big games. Mourinho is known for his counter-attacking football since his inter days. Till this date, my favorite Real madrid was during the Mou era, we were deadly on the counter, We didnt have much possession in most games but we utilized our possession as if every time we had the ball, we must score. We ended up scoring the most goals those years. It's not only about the tactics, but the players themselves, Mourinho can't force his team to play how he wants, cause they arent cut out for it. He needs to get the best out of his team, no new players, just the right plan. If he wants to sit back and hit hard, he should play Martial/Lingard/Rashford more, and make pogba work his ass off. When it come's to counter attacking, the midfield should excel in high pressing and long balls. The forwards should move quick with dribbles and one-touch passing. The full backs should be fast enough to run down the flanks supporting the forwards. and the defenders should be on their toes at all times.

Chelsea had in-form Willian and Kante. Two excellent players to have for counter attacking. But Hazard up front was weird, he should've dropped him deep and let Morata or Giroud up front with Hazard/Pedro/Willian supporting. The thing with counterattacking is that its exhausting mentally and physically, if the Players arent 110% fully fit and dont have the spirit to fight for every ball even if they are a couple goals down, its only going to hurt themselves.

It doesn't always has to be the tactics that's the problem, it's the coach that couldn't get the team fit for the tactic. Reason why Guardiola excels in all of his teams he managed is cause he can make any player no matter who to fall under his command and play exactly like how he wants. The reason he fails in some games is that if a manager can get a his team to play high pressing and counter attacking against guardiola perfectly, he can easily beat them. That's how Liverpool stole 3 points. Counter-attacking can beat any playing style, only weak factor is that if the player's arent 110% in the zone, they lose.

@rayrex Agreed with what you say, clearly, counter-attacking is a very good playing style but you need to chose the right player and to have them in the good mindset. Also, Conte is right, his strategy might have been called anti-football by pundit but at least he didn't take 3 goal in 30 minute like Arsenal did. Obviously, defending a lot, especially when you don't have the ball doesn't make your team look good, but at least, he stil was closer to a draw against City than Arsenal in their two last game against City. I think considering how good City form has been, 1-0 isn't a terrible results.

Chelsea played the same way more or less vs Barcelona and Man City and it didn't work.
Failed tactic overall as it didn't bring any results, Barcelona came to try and get an away goal and they did it, Chelsea lost to Man City, in those games Chelsea scored 1 goal only and Hazard playing as the top striker didn't work out.

But Chelsea didn't really parked the buss, playing defensive football against big teams is the norm, unless you are Arsenal and think you can play however you want and then you get 3:nilled in 2 games in a matter of days, Man City also played defensive football after they scored the goal, that doesn't mean they parked the buss either.

Arsenal do not have the quality to dominate, simple. On their second loss against City, they attacked and tried to dominate and control the game against City, a team that plays posession football, I don't even know what's in Wenger mind, they should've stayed cool and hit on the counter. City didnt had many chances but all of their chances were open goals, Arsenal are not a big team anymore, i mean no offense, but they have 6 good players from 22 players. Even Spurs have a better bench then Arsenal, Liverpool have a decent 11 and now with Keita, they are gonna be something else.They should stop hogging on useless possesion and start trying to counter-attack more. With Ozil-Auba-Mikhi, they have the pefect front 3 for counter attacking and with Lacazette, i dont even know what to say. Xhaka is an odd player, clearly clueless, Arsenal should get a player which can lead the team from the back to the front. Fabinho is an excellent DM for Arsenal if they can get Fabinho and Jorge, Monacao's Defensive Midfielders, they will improve Arsenals midfield immensely, and with Wilshere up front between the DM and forwards, i think Arsenal could be something else, of course with a different manager. If Arsene Wenger got Messi, Ronaldo and Neymar i would still think they would fight for top 4

Arsene is having the old mindset of the game, the game changed after his golden era, the game is more quicker, his playing style is long gone.

@Golazo By the way Golazo, I'm not trying to be smart or insulting, but its spelled bus, not buss.

@Rayrex7 Completely agreed, Arsenal still try to play dominating and possession football despite it being defended and countered a lot better nowaday. Arsene need to adapt his gameplan to his opponent, not alway try to play the same way.

@Emo sorry.

@Golazo111 Don't be, its not a problem, I just wanted you to know. :)

This is ridiculous. Chelsea just played arguably the two best teams on the planet back-to-back, and if not for a very unfortunate error from the defense/several post hits, would have split the games. While I am surprised Conte never tried to go for the City game, even when he was behind, I'm not going to sit here and pick on the overall tactical arrangement.

It all comes down to organizational priorities. I assume that winning is at the top of Chelsea's, and United's. Mourinho and Conte are both defensive coaches. This isn't a mystery of what they were going to do. This obsession with "beautiful soccer" which never mattered until the recent Barcelona side, is to me, a total farce. AC Milan played f*cking ugly. So did Bayern. So did Real. So did United. Go on, watch some games from 15 years ago. All those great and historic sides ground out results in ways so horrifically ugly by modern day standards fans would have a heart attack.

To me, a lot of this is the result of stagnation at the top of the leagues. Bayern will win the league every year, so they must do it beautifully now, that's the new criteria. Ditto Real/Barca. The top English teams feel the same way, United, Chelsea, and Arsenal. I'd ask what playing beautiful soccer has done for Arsenal, but we already know that. Chelsea has ALWAYS in my living memory been an ugly team, regardless of manager (see: every UCL semi and final they have literally ever been too, 2008 being the exception). United played ugly at times as well, for as good as Scholes, Giggs, Rooney, Ronaldo, Rio, Vidic, Tevez, etc were - one of my finest memories of United are the ugly semi-final they played against Barca in '08.

Since there appears to be no threat to the financial and commercial juggernauts of the top teams, fans expect not only winning, but entertainment as well. Speaking as someone who's side has gone through hard times recently, (not to mention my Italian friends who cry over Milan everyday). You are entitled and cannot even comprehend what is on the other side of this mountain. The organizations are not out of touch, they're trying to win. It's the fans who are wrong.

the game vs barcelona was spot on because messi is everything to barca's attack. in contrast, city play with wide wingers designed to disrupt chelsea wingbacks and hazard is isolated because the wingbacks are too busy keeping sane and bernardo in check while looking at de bruyne and silva's movement. you can't judge same tactics on different situation.

the game vs barcelona was spot on because messi is everything to barca's attack.

Not really true, leave Suarez open and he will score against any team he has been scoring pretty well this season, Barcelona doesn't score many goals in CL this season but it's not all about Messi.

Both Man City and Barcelona scored after a poor clearance of the ball, this is a clear sign that the tactic won't work as soon as the conditions of the defensive unit is changed and the back line is pressured.

@Golazo111 conte succeeded in isolating messi which is the reason why suarez don't get any support which means most of the attack is central. meanwhile city play with wingers which is the reason why alonso and moses can't support hazard and willian as freely as they did vs barca.

@the_bald_genius
It doesn't really matter if Chelsea worked well as a unit defending attacks from the middle, because like I said, as a defensive unit Chelsea failed as soon as the situation was different - the scenario when the back line had to take the ball out - or clear the ball, when it was faced with pressure resulted in a poor clearance - loose ball, which ended up as a goal; both in the match vs Barcelona and Man City.

So the tactic has a big loop hole that both teams were capable of exposing and scoring from it, Man City's goal was from a direct ball from the middle, to the main target man Aguero in the middle - poor clearance that resulted in a goal for Man City because the defensive unit didn't work as soon as Drinkwater/Fabregas were skipped, the backline suffered from pressure and was beaten to the ball.
Similar thing happened against Barcelona as well, the backline failed to clear out the ball due to pressure, made a mistake and that time Kante/Fabregas were unable to cover for the back line which resulted in an easy sequel of just one pass to Messi that scored.

So in conclusion, it doesn't really matter if Chelsea could work as a defensive unit for the majority of the game in both games, when Chelsea conseded goals from very shaky reactions of the back line as soon as they were put under pressure in a situation where the defensive midfielders weren't in front of them covering the flow of the game - meaning the ball coming through the middle.

Hazard had a poor game overall both vs Man City and Barcelona, he clearly isn't the best at playing a false 9 in attack, vs Barcelona as soon as Pedro came off for Morata in the 83'min Hazard suddenly even tired had the ball in his feet much more and was fouled at least twice by Barcelona players because of how dangerous he looked, even vs Man United where Chelsea also lost Hazard had Morata in front of him and managed to once again have the ball way more in his feet and assisted to Willian, while as a false 9 he couldn't create a chance for goal in a normal game flow situation, unless you want to count his pass after the corner kick to Willian outside the box that ended as a goal in the game vs Barcelona.

Conte failed to deliver with his tactic mainly because of the end result regardless of how well it may looked at times the players were unable to deliver and it showed how just a slight pressure ruined his whole tactic, when everything needs to be perfect you know that the tactic is not really winning you the game but maybe some individual factor mixed with a bit of luck - at the same time any individual error and the lack of luck destroys a weak tactic - which is exactly what happened in both games - vs Barcelona and Man City.

SunFlash nailed it, in my opinion. Before Barca and Tiki Taka, only Ajax played to such an attractive style of footy back in the day, and how successful were they in the grand scheme compared to grind out defensive teams?

Stripping the team of its world-class players, the best facilities, the most money, you have a team who is just trying to win games. A good coach will do his homework and plan a tactic that will help them succeed. More times than not, defenses win championships!

Parking the bus is a tactic. Not one I like much but that is beside the point. It is a tactic and it DOES work. Add in the counter-attack, when you have a quick strike player set, you can really do some damage to your opponent physically, and more so mentally.

We are spoiled fans. Think about the fact that we are rating a player or a coach, yet most have never played at a high level or coached higher than a youth team.

We have set the bar so high for our favorite teams and players, and when they don't average a goal a game for 40+ games, "They had an off season".

Footy is a game of human chess. You try to move your opponent around enough to be able to strike. You set a strategy and deploy the board to execute. A good coach and team will adapt to what is happening and change tactics on the fly.

Parking the bus is a tactic, just a very ugly one.

@DarthFooty

Footy is a game of human chess. You try to move your opponent around enough to be able to strike. You set a strategy and deploy the board to execute. A good coach and team will adapt to what is happening and change tactics on the fly.

I swear, the way you talk about football just make fall in love with the beautiful game all over. :)

Personally I'm not fan of heavy focus on defence and relying on a few chances. I rather have my team attack.

But there are managers who are active and others who are reactive. I'd lable Conte and Mou as reactive who adapt to the opponents and base their tactics on that. Pep and klop on the other hand are active, they impose their style of play regardless who they face.

Sunflash

+1. Bottles are popping and glasses are raised in your honor my friend.

@raimondo Agreed! I know I'm neutral so I don't have a thing to say, but I swear if I supported a team, I would hope it would be an attacking one.

Completely agree with Raimondo.

And No, wrong Barca did not invent beautiful play, there were many teams playing attractive Football. The best in History is Brazil 1970 with Zico and Sokratis. Barca of Pep is top 5 for sure. You had Milan of 90’s, Galactico of ZIdane and Ronaldo.....
After saying this, it depends on managers and teams DNA, if a defensive team could achieve big playing the way they do. I don’t see any problem. But it would be hypocritical not wanting your team to play attractive football. I fell asleep vs Malaga tonight while Valverde team is still undefeated in League and CL. But winning the way Pep or Klopp do is way more enjoyable. Saying that, a win is a win.

I apologize, I did not mean to say that certain teams didn't play attractive styles before Barca. What I did mean is that in this media-driven era, where people watch more youtube videos than actual games - attractiveness was never a CRITERIA until Pep's Barca. People went out to see their side win. Getting a win was entertaining enough. Now, for an increasing number of fans, it is not. There are Liverpool fans (and some United fans, sadly) who were saying on reddit that they would rather be in Liverpool's shoes, 5 points back in 3rd, than be United in 2nd, for the style of play alone. I cannot understand that, and based on your last sentence, you can't either.