{{ searchResult.errors[0] }}
amir_keal
8 years ago
Well at least he's honest about things. He was brave to come out with the truth. Pep's biggest mistake was going City. He should of came Arsenal, that way he wouldn't have flopped as hard as he did.
Dynastian98
8 years ago
Him being one dimensional is just enough proof that he is not one of the great managers of todays game. A great manager has the ability to adopt, ability to change, to learn, to always get the best out of his teams. He's not able to do that, and you seem to agree with that going by your post. So how can you claim that he's not overrated, yet agree with all these statements?
I don't agree with all those statements. Guardiola certainly knows how to get the best of his players. Players such as Messi, Xavi, Iniesta, Pique, Muller, Lewandowski, Thiago, Costa, Boateng, etc have all peaked under Guardiola. You can't argue against that.
Moreover, I disagree that a great manager must be able to adapt and change. That is a quality possessed by many great managers, but it isn't a necessity. A great manager is one who achieves extraordinary amounts of success. Guardiola has won 21 trophies in 7 years of managing at the top level. That's astonishingly good.
Unless you're actually uninformed, do not know just how high Guardiola is rated by the majority of those involved with football.
I'm well aware many consider Guardiola to be one of the finest managers in the modern game. I was also fortunate enough to watch Guardiola's Barcelona at its fluid and illustrious peak in 2011, something you don't seem to acknowledge. He is praised for being a great manager because of how he led his team to dominate the world. It is not blind praise.
You're trying to overreach, please as many opinions as possible. Trying to sit on two chairs with one ass. Make up your mind, buddy. Don't let that 'moderator' tag mess with you so much ;)
Lol.
tuan_jinn
8 years ago
Completely agree with everything @SunFlash said!!!
SunFlash
8 years ago
Okie, not the same success, let him just win the treble again, Do you guys think he can do it?
My point is if he can't repeat the success or at least treble again, is the the group of players or him? I don't mean he's a bad coach or terrible coach, I can see how fluid man city is playing on their day.
Eh, I don't know. The world had to come up with a way to beat tiki taka, and for a long time, about 4-5 years, it simply couldn't. While the WC 2014 Spanish performance is what will probably be looked back on in history as when the new style of countering exposed the slow passing game (and therefore slow passers), in reality it happened a few years before that.
I am reluctant to say Pep's been "figured out" as tiki taka still has tremendous reliability, but nevertheless it will never be as powerful as it was when he first unleashed it.
Dynastian98
8 years ago
I believe Mourinho's Inter Milan was the first team to successfully figure out tiki-taka and beat them. Then Heynckes' Bayern went ahead and showed the world how to demolish tiki-taka. Ancelotti's Madrid did the same to Pep's Bayern as well.
raimondo90
8 years ago
Edited
I believe there are a lot of factors as to why City is underperforming in the league. First of Chelsea are flying high crushing everyone; without them the rest of the teams are neck to neck. From tottenham (2nd) to United (6th) there is only 5 point difference. City are currently 5th on 42 points. If they pull of a win against Spurs they will be leveled on points. This alone tells you that they aren't far off the rest of the competition. Chelsea is just miles ahead of everyone; not just City.
Second there is a new current in England which is the change of formation to a 3-5-2 or some variants. English teams aren't really accustomed to it yet since they have been regularly using 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 for the past 5+ years. This new system leaves tactically weak teams very exposed and its been working out great for Conte and if we examine this weekend alone there were a total of 5 matches which one or both teams adapted a 3-5-2( or variant) formation. Tottenham crushed West Brom 4-0 with it, West Ham crushed Crystal 3-0 with it, Watford and Middlesbrough met at a deadlock both using the formation, Chelsea killed Leicester with both teams using it and finally Everton smacked City with it. This isn't coincidence. The previous weekend only Tottenham and Chelsea had utilized this formation.edit: Hull used a 3 at the back both weekends The rest stuck to a 4 at the back formation.
This really deserves its own thread to properly discuss its impact on the league.
Lastly, Pep is dealing with a squad of players who had a lackluster performance last season and most of the starting 11 wouldn't feature on any of the top 3 teams. Pep needs at least one season to bring in the right players and develop the system he sees best for the opponents in the league. Keep in mind City did thoroughly smack Barca on the second match and if they can put in those performances with more regularity then they will be at the top with Chelsea.
I believe there are a lot of factors as to why City is underperforming in the league. First of Chelsea are flying high crushing everyone; without them the rest of the teams are neck to neck. From tottenham (2nd) to United (6th) there is only 5 point difference. City are currently 5th on 42 points. If they pull of a win against Spurs they will be leveled on points. This alone tells you that they aren't far off the rest of the competition. Chelsea is just miles ahead of everyone; not just City.
Second there is a new current in England which is the change of formation to a 3-5-2 or some variants. English teams aren't really accustomed to it yet since they have been regularly using 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 for the past 5+ years. This new system leaves tactically weak teams very exposed and its been working out great for Conte and if we examine this weekend alone there were a total of 5 matches which one or both teams adapted a 3-5-2( or variant) formation. Tottenham crushed West Brom 4-0 with it, West Ham crushed Crystal 3-0 with it, Watford and Middlesbrough met at a deadlock both using the formation, Chelsea killed Leicester with both teams using it and finally Everton smacked City with it. This isn't coincidence. The previous weekend only Tottenham and Chelsea had utilized this formation. The rest stuck to a 4 at the back formation.
This really deserves its own thread to properly discuss its impact on the league.
Lastly, Pep is dealing with a squad of players who had a lackluster performance last season and most of the starting 11 wouldn't feature on any of the top 3 teams. Pep needs at least one season to bring in the right players and develop the system he sees best for the opponents in the league. Keep in mind City did thoroughly smack Barca on the second match and if they can put in those performances with more regularity then they will be at the top with Chelsea.
Amerr30
8 years ago
Edited
@SunFlash, you are right that Guardiola's Barcelona dominated the games to an extend that Enrique's Barca couldn't even comprehend, let alone repeat.
However, when you compare the teams, the players both manager's possessed - it is clear to see that the credit does not belong to any one manager. Hell, consider this. Only a fraction of Guardiola's Barca still play for Barcelona. A fraction of that team with Enrique is 'good enough' to practically reach the same heights that Guardiolas Barcelona did. If anything, one would have to praise Enrique.
The reason I do not, cannot, will not, rate/praise Guardiola is that to me it is so clear, cut and dry, that he contributed nothing to the success of Barcelona. That success would've come either way. I think that however, any great manager, would have been able to get 2 champions league titles with in a row with such a team - and really write their name in the history books. As great as that team was, Guardiola simply did not take them far enough. That team was capable of being remembered as one of the greatest 11 ever assembled in club football (probably will still be), but they did not achieve anything that really transcends any other 'great team', prove that they have been the best ever club team assembled.
This, on top of the fact that Guardiola simply has not been able to 'repeat' that success even though he was given enough time, enough finances, and enough talent at Bayern Munich. Heynckes hands off a treble winning team to Guardiola, to which he makes improvements in terms of adding even more talent without selling. And, season after season, he gets outclassed by better managers.
Mourinho for instance, he won the CL with the lowly Porto. Nobody gave them chance, it was like a Leicester Cinderella story. Then what did he do? He proved that he wasn't a fluke. He won a treble with Inter Milan. Then he came to Real Madrid and ended Barcelona's monopoly. Sure, his attitude and tactics are less than classy, less than respectable. But he got results. That is why Mourinho is listed at UEFA website under a feature called "Coaching greats in profile" but not Guardiola.
The fact is, Guardiola is really the result of being at the right place, in the right time. Nothing more than that.
And he has proven that is all that the Guardiola phenomenon ever was, year after year and a failure after failure following his departure from Barcelona.
I feel bad for those who see him as anything more than that. With so much evidence to the contrary, either ignoring it or unable to see it, I do not know how they're capable of surviving in this World. But I guess the World needs simpletons, we can't all be thinkers.
@SunFlash, you are right that Guardiola's Barcelona dominated the games to an extend that Enrique's Guardiola couldn't even comprehend, let alone repeat.
However, when you compare the teams, the players both manager's possessed - it is clear to see that the credit does not belong to any one manager. Hell, consider this. Only a fraction of Guardiola's Barca still play for Barcelona. A fraction of that team with Enrique is 'good enough' to practically reach the same heights that Guardiolas Barcelona did. If anything, one would have to praise Enrique.
The reason I do not, cannot, will not, rate/praise Guardiola is that to me it is so clear, cut and dry, that he contributed nothing to the success of Barcelona. That success would've come either way. I think that however, any great manager, would have been able to get 2 champions league titles with in a row with such a team - and really write their name in the history books. As great as that team was, Guardiola simply did not take them far enough. That team was capable of being remembered as one of the greatest 11 ever assembled in club football (probably will still be), but they did not achieve anything that really transcends any other 'great team', prove that they have been the best ever club team assembled.
This, on top of the fact that Guardiola simply has not been able to 'repeat' that success even though he was given enough time, enough finances, and enough talent at Bayern Munich. Heynckes hands off a treble winning team to Guardiola, to which he makes improvements in terms of adding even more talent without selling. And, season after season, he gets outclassed by better managers.
Mourinho for instance, he won the CL with the lowly Porto. Nobody gave them chance, it was like a Leicester Cinderella story. Then what did he do? He proved that he wasn't a fluke. He won a treble with Inter Milan. Then he came to Real Madrid and ended Barcelona's monopoly. Sure, his attitude and tactics are less than classy, less than respectable. But he got results. That is why Mourinho is listed at UEFA website under a feature called "Coaching greats in profile"
The fact is, Guardiola is really the result of being at the right place, in the right time. Nothing more than that.
And he has proven that is all that the Guardiola phenomenon ever was, year after year and a failure after failure following his departure from Barcelona.
I feel bad for those who see him as anything more than that. With so much evidence to the contrary, either ignoring it or unable to see it, I do not know how they're capable of surviving in this World. But I guess the World needs simpletons, we can't all be thinkers.
@SunFlash, you are right that Guardiola's Barcelona dominated the games to an extend that Enrique's Barca couldn't even comprehend, let alone repeat.
However, when you compare the teams, the players both manager's possessed - it is clear to see that the credit does not belong to any one manager. Hell, consider this. Only a fraction of Guardiola's Barca still play for Barcelona. A fraction of that team with Enrique is 'good enough' to practically reach the same heights that Guardiolas Barcelona did. If anything, one would have to praise Enrique.
The reason I do not, cannot, will not, rate/praise Guardiola is that to me it is so clear, cut and dry, that he contributed nothing to the success of Barcelona. That success would've come either way. I think that however, any great manager, would have been able to get 2 champions league titles with in a row with such a team - and really write their name in the history books. As great as that team was, Guardiola simply did not take them far enough. That team was capable of being remembered as one of the greatest 11 ever assembled in club football (probably will still be), but they did not achieve anything that really transcends any other 'great team', prove that they have been the best ever club team assembled.
This, on top of the fact that Guardiola simply has not been able to 'repeat' that success even though he was given enough time, enough finances, and enough talent at Bayern Munich. Heynckes hands off a treble winning team to Guardiola, to which he makes improvements in terms of adding even more talent without selling. And, season after season, he gets outclassed by better managers.
Mourinho for instance, he won the CL with the lowly Porto. Nobody gave them chance, it was like a Leicester Cinderella story. Then what did he do? He proved that he wasn't a fluke. He won a treble with Inter Milan. Then he came to Real Madrid and ended Barcelona's monopoly. Sure, his attitude and tactics are less than classy, less than respectable. But he got results. That is why Mourinho is listed at UEFA website under a feature called "Coaching greats in profile"
The fact is, Guardiola is really the result of being at the right place, in the right time. Nothing more than that.
And he has proven that is all that the Guardiola phenomenon ever was, year after year and a failure after failure following his departure from Barcelona.
I feel bad for those who see him as anything more than that. With so much evidence to the contrary, either ignoring it or unable to see it, I do not know how they're capable of surviving in this World. But I guess the World needs simpletons, we can't all be thinkers.
SunFlash
8 years ago
@Amerr
Players alone don't win stuff. If that was the case, teams that spend big, such as United and City, should be wreaking the prem right now. Monaco would have become a world power. Valencia would have cruised last season.
Having great players is great. But those players by themselves are not the reason for highly successful teams. As with everything, it is a combination of factors, from the manager, to the fans, to the owner, and the administration in charge. Viewing a teams success based on their players alone only works when you're looking at a team like Watford, where the club is literally built to handle a multitude of managers.
Emobot7
8 years ago
Having great players is great. But those players by themselves are not the reason for highly successful teams.
Well, it can help a bit. XD
Dynastian98
8 years ago
Having great players is great. But those players by themselves are not the reason for highly successful teams. As with everything, it is a combination of factors, from the manager, to the fans, to the owner, and the administration in charge.
As someone who has claimed to have watched Real Madrid since the early 00's, @Amerr, I'd think that seeing Perez's first stint with the Galacticos would have convinced you that star players can't win anything on their own. They need managers and stability to guide them.
Emobot7
8 years ago
@Dynast And most of all, deal with all the ego's. :P
ashwin1729
8 years ago
I have always said this, and watching Pep over the past few seasons hasn't changed anything. Pep was an example of being at the right place at the right time. Any coach would have won the same amount of trophies (or close to it) in Barcelona with Messi, Xavi, Iniesta, Henry, and Eto. That team was out right insane. Since Pep himself was a Barcelona product, his philosophy of Tiki-Taka was on the same wavelength of the players' mindset. As a result, it worked so well with Barcelona.
For people saying that teams couldn't break down the Tiki-Taka, that's not totally true. Barcelona struggled against teams with quality DM's. United failed to beat Barcelona both the times as our DM's were injured for both games. Hargreaves in 09 and Fletcher in 2011. Although, I doubt having Fletcher in 2011 would have changed anything. That was the most fluid team I have seen since 2008 United team. Lets not forget that Barcelona owed their appearance in the final of 2009 to Overbo. Any other referee, they would have lost to CFC in 2009. In 2010, Mou's Inter (had both Cambiasso and Zanetti at CDM) broke down that Barcelona team. 2011 team fought a tightly contested match with Real, where Pepe was sent off. In 2012, they were defeated by Chelsea, which again had a quality DM.
Any ways, back to the argument, Pep's at Bayern-although he won a few trophies- was neither successful nor unsuccessful. He went to Bayern when Dortmund was horrible, and it was basically a one horse race. Bundesliga title was a guarantee. Winning it wasn't a success in my opinion. Since cups can be unpredictable, his wins in those is the only success he's had at Bayern. But the fact that he failed to win UCL in 3 years with the team he had, that's a big failure for me. For people crediting Pep with moving Lahm to CDM to make Bayern more attacking, Mou did it first at Inter with Javier. But thats another argument.
His time at Manchester City will tell us if he is a great coach or a good coach. So far, he hasn't been spectacular. But then again, considering the motivation of some City players, I don't judge him yet. The squad has quality, but so did Mancini's and Pelligrini's. Pep's good at Tiki-taka, and there's no arguing that. But it doesn't suit the players in City. City have always been complacent, and if Pep can change that mindset, and win 1 EPL title and a UCL trophy in his 3 years there, then I'll say he's a great coach. Till then, he's just an overrated one in my view. I will also say that Pep's coaching it suited to Arsenal compared to Man City, and he would have a better chance at Arsenal to win both the league and UCL.
Dynastian98
8 years ago
Pepe sent off due to play-acting from Dani Alves**
ashwin1729
8 years ago
@Dynast: If I remember correctly, it was in the first leg and the game was even till he was sent off. And then Barcelona scored in the last 10 mins. Twice to kill of the tie. And don't forget Busquets who is the biggest drama queen. Any decent coach would have punished him.
Amerr30
8 years ago
I'll never forget the way Dani Alves jumped off the stretcher soon as he saw that Pepe was shown a red card. He was in agony, couldn't walk. Requested a stretcher to be carried off the field. Pepe gets a red card, and he jumps off the stretcher and goes right back into the game.
Barcelona have always been known to do this. Dani Alves and Sergio Busquets are the worst manipulators of the game. Their biggest contribution to any game is to influence ref to give them an advantage, and it's worked so many times. Which is why today, when I read the quotes by Pique about how ref treats them badly, all I do is laugh my ass off. It's like their culture. They always swarm the ref, and influence them to give Barcelona advantage.
Yet, at the same time, they always claim to be the best team in the World. How can anybody complain about the ref when the other team gets 2 players sent off and you're unable to win? I mean, what kind of a sportsmanship is that?
I would honestly be embarrassed to watch my team do that, game after game.
@ashwin: For once, we are in complete agreement. I don't think that's ever happened before, has it?
@Dynastian: It's a completely different thing. Barcelona's squad, their players, have played together since they were teenagers. They had chemistry, they knew each other. They knew each other style, what the other players were capable of, and etc, etc.
Perez' first Galactico era on the other hand, players were put together who have never played before. Yet still, they won 2 champions league titles, among with some league titles and cups. Two completely different scenarios. Your argument fails in every aspect. Aside from both teams having great players, everything else was different.
Lodatz
8 years ago
Edited
The world had to come up with a way to beat tiki taka, and for a long time, about 4-5 years, it simply couldn't.
I don't agree with that.
2009: Barcelona only made it past Chelsea thanks to the ref failing to award any one of 5 penalties, and although they were clearly superior against United in the final, really Chelsea had shut down everything Barcelona had tried, and had themselves played the better football.
2010: Mourinho showed that he also knew how to defeat Pep's system by shutting them down, and did so with Inter Milan, despite being a man down.
2012: Mourinho again managed to beat Barcelona in the league, and also win the league. Chelsea also defeated Barcelona in the CL, once again shutting down the best offensive team in the world.
2013 Bayern Munich destroyed Barca in Europe, using the same tactics that were used in 2014 by the Netherlands to rip Spain apart.
So, by the time Atletico Madrid got around to winning the league in 2014, and also defeating Barcelona in the CL, some critics and pundits acted as though some new tactical breakthrough had come about, which Simeone had figured out all by himself. In reality, he'd been watching Mourinho, Chelsea and Bayern, who had been the ones actually defeating tiki-taka while the entirety of the league had no answer at all.
It wasn't until 2015, with the arrival of Suarez to Barcelona and the ability to field the most frightening front 3 since Henry, Messi and Eto'o, that they regained their place at the top of the mountain, and are now much less reliant upon the type of tiki-taka that made them the best team in the world back between 2009-2011, since everyone knows now how best to get a result against it.
.
Edit: what ashwin said.
The world had to come up with a way to beat tiki taka, and for a long time, about 4-5 years, it simply couldn't.
I don't agree with that.
2009: Barcelona only made it past Chelsea thanks to the ref failing to award any one of 5 penalties, and although they were clearly superior against United in the final, really Chelsea had shut down everything Barcelona had tried.
2010: Mourinho showed that he knew how to defeat Pep's system, by doing so with Inter Milan, despite being a man down.
2012: Mourinho again managed to beat Barcelona in the league, and also win the league. Chelsea also defeated Barcelona in the CL.
2013 Bayern Munich destroyed Barca in Europe, using the same tactics that were used in 2014 by the Netherlands to rip Spain apart.
So by the time Atletico Madrid got around to winning the league in 2014, and also defeating Barcelona in the CL, some critics and pundits acted as though some new breakthrough had come about, which Simeone had figured out all by himself. In reality, he'd been watching Mourinho, and Chelsea, who had been the ones actually defeating tiki-taka while the entirety of the league had no answer at all.
It wasn't until 2015, with the arrival of Suarez to Barcelona and the ability to field the most frightening front 3 since Henry, Messi and Eto'o, that they regained their place at the top of the mountain.
The world had to come up with a way to beat tiki taka, and for a long time, about 4-5 years, it simply couldn't.
I don't agree with that.
2009: Barcelona only made it past Chelsea thanks to the ref failing to award any one of 5 penalties, and although they were clearly superior against United in the final, really Chelsea had shut down everything Barcelona had tried, and had themselves played the better football.
2010: Mourinho showed that he also knew how to defeat Pep's system by shutting them down, and did so with Inter Milan, despite being a man down.
2012: Mourinho again managed to beat Barcelona in the league, and also win the league. Chelsea also defeated Barcelona in the CL, once again shutting down the best offensive team in the world.
2013 Bayern Munich destroyed Barca in Europe, using the same tactics that were used in 2014 by the Netherlands to rip Spain apart.
So, by the time Atletico Madrid got around to winning the league in 2014, and also defeating Barcelona in the CL, some critics and pundits acted as though some new tactical breakthrough had come about, which Simeone had figured out all by himself. In reality, he'd been watching Mourinho, Chelsea and Bayern, who had been the ones actually defeating tiki-taka while the entirety of the league had no answer at all.
It wasn't until 2015, with the arrival of Suarez to Barcelona and the ability to field the most frightening front 3 since Henry, Messi and Eto'o, that they regained their place at the top of the mountain.
The world had to come up with a way to beat tiki taka, and for a long time, about 4-5 years, it simply couldn't.
I don't agree with that.
2009: Barcelona only made it past Chelsea thanks to the ref failing to award any one of 5 penalties, and although they were clearly superior against United in the final, really Chelsea had shut down everything Barcelona had tried, and had themselves played the better football.
2010: Mourinho showed that he also knew how to defeat Pep's system by shutting them down, and did so with Inter Milan, despite being a man down.
2012: Mourinho again managed to beat Barcelona in the league, and also win the league. Chelsea also defeated Barcelona in the CL, once again shutting down the best offensive team in the world.
2013 Bayern Munich destroyed Barca in Europe, using the same tactics that were used in 2014 by the Netherlands to rip Spain apart.
So, by the time Atletico Madrid got around to winning the league in 2014, and also defeating Barcelona in the CL, some critics and pundits acted as though some new tactical breakthrough had come about, which Simeone had figured out all by himself. In reality, he'd been watching Mourinho, Chelsea and Bayern, who had been the ones actually defeating tiki-taka while the entirety of the league had no answer at all.
It wasn't until 2015, with the arrival of Suarez to Barcelona and the ability to field the most frightening front 3 since Henry, Messi and Eto'o, that they regained their place at the top of the mountain, and are now much less reliant upon the type of tiki-taka that made them the best team in the world back between 2009-2011.
The world had to come up with a way to beat tiki taka, and for a long time, about 4-5 years, it simply couldn't.
I don't agree with that.
2009: Barcelona only made it past Chelsea thanks to the ref failing to award any one of 5 penalties, and although they were clearly superior against United in the final, really Chelsea had shut down everything Barcelona had tried, and had themselves played the better football.
2010: Mourinho showed that he also knew how to defeat Pep's system by shutting them down, and did so with Inter Milan, despite being a man down.
2012: Mourinho again managed to beat Barcelona in the league, and also win the league. Chelsea also defeated Barcelona in the CL, once again shutting down the best offensive team in the world.
2013 Bayern Munich destroyed Barca in Europe, using the same tactics that were used in 2014 by the Netherlands to rip Spain apart.
So, by the time Atletico Madrid got around to winning the league in 2014, and also defeating Barcelona in the CL, some critics and pundits acted as though some new tactical breakthrough had come about, which Simeone had figured out all by himself. In reality, he'd been watching Mourinho, Chelsea and Bayern, who had been the ones actually defeating tiki-taka while the entirety of the league had no answer at all.
It wasn't until 2015, with the arrival of Suarez to Barcelona and the ability to field the most frightening front 3 since Henry, Messi and Eto'o, that they regained their place at the top of the mountain, and are now much less reliant upon the type of tiki-taka that made them the best team in the world back between 2009-2011, since everyone knows now how best to get a result against it.
raimondo90
8 years ago
@lodatz so you mention how Barcelona only made it past Chelsea in 2009 because of the ref and then praise Inter for 2010 when Inter won because of the ref. You do recall the offside goal from Milito and the goal from Bojan (IIRC) ruled off?
Dynastian98
8 years ago
@Rai
Two can play that game. Pique only scored after Motta was sent off thanks to Busquets' play-acting.
Also, Milito was off-side by less than half a foot. Probably inches.
SunFlash
8 years ago
2009: Barcelona only made it past Chelsea thanks to the ref failing to award any one of 5 penalties, and although they were clearly superior against United in the final, really Chelsea had shut down everything Barcelona had tried, and had themselves played the better football.
2010: Mourinho showed that he also knew how to defeat Pep's system by shutting them down, and did so with Inter Milan, despite being a man down.
2012: Mourinho again managed to beat Barcelona in the league, and also win the league. Chelsea also defeated Barcelona in the CL, once again shutting down the best offensive team in the world.
2013 Bayern Munich destroyed Barca in Europe, using the same tactics that were used in 2014 by the Netherlands to rip Spain apart.
That 09 Barca v Chelsea game is the only game I've ever watched where I've been 100% certain of match-fixing. Chelsea got robbed, and in Drogba's own words, it was a disgrace. What tends to get overshadowed when looking at Chelsea of that time was just how stupidly good Petr Cech was, but the reality was that in that game Chelsea didn't really need him. Barca missed a myriad of chances, got into attacking positions better, yet couldn't hit the net to save their lives. That should've lost them the game, but you know, UEFAlona.
Inter in 10 just dealt with it. gg wp
In 11, well, yeah.
As for the Chelsea game in 12, I doubt you'd find anyone who thought that Pep could've done anything more to win that game. I've never seen a team more wasteful with its chances than Barca in that fixture.
In 13, that's really when the game was up. The Germans found the weakspot, and punished it until tiki-taka's novelty was dead.
I guess I see the manager's job a bit differently. All a manager can really do is give his team a tactical advantage over their opponent. This is undoubtedly important (see United pre/post-Fergie) but the players still need to actually finish the chances that the manager/midfield has given them. In 09 and 12 against Chelsea, Barca couldn't finish to save their season, and Messi's showing in 12 was probably his worst game ever - I've never seen such a highly touted player miss that many golden chances in a single game. I find it hard to beat on Pep when his team had 3 times more attempts on goal, 70%+ possession, and a missed pk along with several sitters.
So, by the time Atletico Madrid got around to winning the league in 2014, and also defeating Barcelona in the CL, some critics and pundits acted as though some new tactical breakthrough had come about, which Simeone had figured out all by himself. In reality, he'd been watching Mourinho, Chelsea and Bayern, who had been the ones actually defeating tiki-taka while the entirety of the league had no answer at all.
I'm not sure anyone really replicated the way Mourinho defeated tiki-taka. The way Inter/Real under Mourinho played vs the way Bayern played was totally different. From what I recall, Mourinho defeated tiki-taka by having incredibly good defensive positioning with a destroyer CDM and a great counterattack. Bayern rejected that entirely, instead opting to yolo Barca whenever they thought they could win the ball and going on gung-ho counters - which from a tactics standpoint is totally different with the exception of the counter. Besides, Pep wasn't even managing Barca in 13.
I'm not sure Chelsea really ever tactically beat tiki-taka, they got VERY lucky in 12, and in 09 had to rely on a level of Barca finishing that a Sunday League team wouldn't have been proud of. While I agree that Barca should've lost that game, tactics were only a small reason why, as opposed to the massive mistakes that Pep would later go onto make with Bayern.
Lodatz
8 years ago
Edited
As for the Chelsea game in 12, I doubt you'd find anyone who thought that Pep could've done anything more to win that game. I've never seen a team more wasteful with its chances than Barca in that fixture.
I don't think they were wasteful, I think they just got shut down. Out of their 22 shots that night, only 5 were on target. Why? Because Chelsea limited them to mainly low-percentage opportunities and shots outside the box. Admittedly it's rare for Messi to miss a pen, but don't discount how fantastic a job that Chelsea team did in keeping Barcelona contained and frustrated in what shots they did have; one of the best defensive displays of all time, and with only 10 men (and zero recognized CBs on the field after Terry saw red).
In 13, that's really when the game was up. The Germans found the weakspot, and punished it until tiki-taka's novelty was dead.
I think the weak-spot was already discovered; Bayern were just ruthlessly efficient in a way that probably no-one else could have been at that precise time. Don't forget that in that 7-0 destruction Bayern still had only 37% possession. There are multiple ways to go about the same tactic; sometimes the fast-pressing works, sometimes not pressing at all works, but either way the effective strategy is clear: feel free to let them have the ball they want so badly, but shut down the avenues and limit what they can do with it. It doesn't always work, either, but as a strategy it's well-articulated, and Simeone has his own masterful version of it.
I find it hard to beat on Pep when his team had 3 times more attempts on goal, 70%+ possession, and a missed pk along with several sitters.
Well see that's the thing: Pep is proving at City that having possession and shots doesn't mean anything if you concede sloppy goals and/or can't get the ball over the line. The only stats which matter are the scoreline, and Chelsea not only had a 1-0 lead going into that game on aggregate, but proceeded to score the 2 best goals of the game in the Camp Nou. Even if Messi had converted that penalty, Chelsea would still have been victorious under such circumstances.
I'm not sure Chelsea really ever tactically beat tiki-taka, they got VERY lucky in 12,
I'm extremely sure that they beat Barcelona tactically. I find it's generally just not recognized as much because many people simply don't UNDERSTAND how Chelsea did it, or appreciate how hard it is to do. You can't just say: "Park the Bus!". You have to be incredibly disciplined and aware of the game-plan in order to pull it off against a team as great as Barcelona, especially with all the injury disadvantages they had.
and in 09 had to rely on a level of Barca finishing that a Sunday League team wouldn't have been proud of.
What? That's just not true. Barcelona got nowhere near Chelsea's goal to begin with, and had to rely on a fixed ref. Chelsea totally out-played them in that game. Iniesta's 93rd minute winner was, literally, their very first shot on target.
None of this is of course trying to say that Barcelona were NOT amazing and worthy of all their accolades, but the idea that no-one figured out an answer to tiki-taka until Bayern Munich is just false. Chelsea and Mourinho had been showing Europe the way for years before either Bayern or Simeone figured it out.
As for the Chelsea game in 12, I doubt you'd find anyone who thought that Pep could've done anything more to win that game. I've never seen a team more wasteful with its chances than Barca in that fixture.
I don't think they were wasteful, I think they just got shut down. Admittedly it's rare for Messi to miss a pen, but don't discount how fantastic a job that Chelsea team did in keeping Barcelona limited to shots they did have; one of the best defensive displays of all time, and with only 10 men (and zero recognized CBs on the field after Terry saw red).
In 13, that's really when the game was up. The Germans found the weakspot, and punished it until tiki-taka's novelty was dead.
I think the weak-spot was already discovered; Bayern were just ruthlessly efficient in a way that probably no-one else could have been at that precise time. Don't forget that in that 7-0 destruction Bayern still had only 37% possession There are multiple ways to go about the same tactic; sometimes the fast-pressing works, sometimes not pressing at all works. Either way, so long as you shut down the avenues, you can essentially defeat tiki-taka by letting them have the ball; just limit what they can do with it.
I find it hard to beat on Pep when his team had 3 times more attempts on goal, 70%+ possession, and a missed pk along with several sitters.
Well see that's the thing: Pep is proving at City that having possession and shots doesn't mean anything if you concede sloppy goals and/or can't get the ball over the line. The only stats which matter are the scoreline, and Chelsea not only had a 1-0 lead going into that game on aggregate, but proceeded to score the 2 best goals of the game. Even if Messi had converted that penalty, Chelsea would still have been victorious.
I'm not sure Chelsea really ever tactically beat tiki-taka, they got VERY lucky in 12,
I'm extremely sure that they beat Barcelona tactically. I find it's generally just not recognized as much because many people simply don't UNDERSTAND how Chelsea did it, or how hard it is to do. You can't just say: "Park the Bus!". You have to be incredibly disciplined and aware of the game-plan in order to pull it off against a team as great as Barcelona.
and in 09 had to rely on a level of Barca finishing that a Sunday League team wouldn't have been proud of.
What? That's just not true. Barcelona got nowhere near Chelsea's goal to begin with, and had to rely on a fixed ref. Chelsea totally out-played them in that game.
None of this is of course trying to say that Barcelona were NOT amazing and worthy of all their accolades, but the idea that no-one figured out an answer to tiki-taka until Bayern Munich is just false. Chelsea and Mourinho had been showing Europe the way for years before either Bayern or Simeone figured it out.
As for the Chelsea game in 12, I doubt you'd find anyone who thought that Pep could've done anything more to win that game. I've never seen a team more wasteful with its chances than Barca in that fixture.
I don't think they were wasteful, I think they just got shut down. Admittedly it's rare for Messi to miss a pen, but don't discount how fantastic a job that Chelsea team did in keeping Barcelona limited to shots they did have; one of the best defensive displays of all time, and with only 10 men (and zero recognized CBs on the field after Terry saw red).
In 13, that's really when the game was up. The Germans found the weakspot, and punished it until tiki-taka's novelty was dead.
I think the weak-spot was already discovered; Bayern were just ruthlessly efficient in a way that probably no-one else could have been at that precise time. Don't forget that in that 7-0 destruction Bayern still had only 37% possession There are multiple ways to go about the same tactic; sometimes the fast-pressing works, sometimes not pressing at all works. Either way, so long as you shut down the avenues, you can essentially defeat tiki-taka by letting them have the ball; just limit what they can do with it.
I find it hard to beat on Pep when his team had 3 times more attempts on goal, 70%+ possession, and a missed pk along with several sitters.
Well see that's the thing: Pep is proving at City that having possession and shots doesn't mean anything if you concede sloppy goals and/or can't get the ball over the line. The only stats which matter are the scoreline, and Chelsea not only had a 1-0 lead going into that game on aggregate, but proceeded to score the 2 best goals of the game in the Camp Nou. Even if Messi had converted that penalty, Chelsea would still have been victorious under such circumstances.
I'm not sure Chelsea really ever tactically beat tiki-taka, they got VERY lucky in 12,
I'm extremely sure that they beat Barcelona tactically. I find it's generally just not recognized as much because many people simply don't UNDERSTAND how Chelsea did it, or appreciate how hard it is to do. You can't just say: "Park the Bus!". You have to be incredibly disciplined and aware of the game-plan in order to pull it off against a team as great as Barcelona, especially with all the injury disadvantages they had.
and in 09 had to rely on a level of Barca finishing that a Sunday League team wouldn't have been proud of.
What? That's just not true. Barcelona got nowhere near Chelsea's goal to begin with, and had to rely on a fixed ref. Chelsea totally out-played them in that game.
None of this is of course trying to say that Barcelona were NOT amazing and worthy of all their accolades, but the idea that no-one figured out an answer to tiki-taka until Bayern Munich is just false. Chelsea and Mourinho had been showing Europe the way for years before either Bayern or Simeone figured it out.
As for the Chelsea game in 12, I doubt you'd find anyone who thought that Pep could've done anything more to win that game. I've never seen a team more wasteful with its chances than Barca in that fixture.
I don't think they were wasteful, I think they just got shut down. Admittedly it's rare for Messi to miss a pen, but don't discount how fantastic a job that Chelsea team did in keeping Barcelona limited to shots they did have; one of the best defensive displays of all time, and with only 10 men (and zero recognized CBs on the field after Terry saw red).
In 13, that's really when the game was up. The Germans found the weakspot, and punished it until tiki-taka's novelty was dead.
I think the weak-spot was already discovered; Bayern were just ruthlessly efficient in a way that probably no-one else could have been at that precise time. Don't forget that in that 7-0 destruction Bayern still had only 37% possession There are multiple ways to go about the same tactic; sometimes the fast-pressing works, sometimes not pressing at all works. Either way, so long as you shut down the avenues, you can essentially defeat tiki-taka by letting them have the ball; just limit what they can do with it.
I find it hard to beat on Pep when his team had 3 times more attempts on goal, 70%+ possession, and a missed pk along with several sitters.
Well see that's the thing: Pep is proving at City that having possession and shots doesn't mean anything if you concede sloppy goals and/or can't get the ball over the line. The only stats which matter are the scoreline, and Chelsea not only had a 1-0 lead going into that game on aggregate, but proceeded to score the 2 best goals of the game in the Camp Nou. Even if Messi had converted that penalty, Chelsea would still have been victorious under such circumstances.
I'm not sure Chelsea really ever tactically beat tiki-taka, they got VERY lucky in 12,
I'm extremely sure that they beat Barcelona tactically. I find it's generally just not recognized as much because many people simply don't UNDERSTAND how Chelsea did it, or appreciate how hard it is to do. You can't just say: "Park the Bus!". You have to be incredibly disciplined and aware of the game-plan in order to pull it off against a team as great as Barcelona, especially with all the injury disadvantages they had.
and in 09 had to rely on a level of Barca finishing that a Sunday League team wouldn't have been proud of.
What? That's just not true. Barcelona got nowhere near Chelsea's goal to begin with, and had to rely on a fixed ref. Chelsea totally out-played them in that game. Iniesta's 93rd minute winner was, literally, their very first shot on target.
None of this is of course trying to say that Barcelona were NOT amazing and worthy of all their accolades, but the idea that no-one figured out an answer to tiki-taka until Bayern Munich is just false. Chelsea and Mourinho had been showing Europe the way for years before either Bayern or Simeone figured it out.
As for the Chelsea game in 12, I doubt you'd find anyone who thought that Pep could've done anything more to win that game. I've never seen a team more wasteful with its chances than Barca in that fixture.
I don't think they were wasteful, I think they just got shut down. Out of their 22 shots that night, only 5 were on target. Why? Because Chelsea limited them to mainly low-percentage opportunities and shots outside the box. Admittedly it's rare for Messi to miss a pen, but don't discount how fantastic a job that Chelsea team did in keeping Barcelona contained and frustrated in what shots they did have; one of the best defensive displays of all time, and with only 10 men (and zero recognized CBs on the field after Terry saw red).
In 13, that's really when the game was up. The Germans found the weakspot, and punished it until tiki-taka's novelty was dead.
I think the weak-spot was already discovered; Bayern were just ruthlessly efficient in a way that probably no-one else could have been at that precise time. Don't forget that in that 7-0 destruction Bayern still had only 37% possession There are multiple ways to go about the same tactic; sometimes the fast-pressing works, sometimes not pressing at all works. Either way, so long as you shut down the avenues, you can essentially defeat tiki-taka by letting them have the ball; just limit what they can do with it.
I find it hard to beat on Pep when his team had 3 times more attempts on goal, 70%+ possession, and a missed pk along with several sitters.
Well see that's the thing: Pep is proving at City that having possession and shots doesn't mean anything if you concede sloppy goals and/or can't get the ball over the line. The only stats which matter are the scoreline, and Chelsea not only had a 1-0 lead going into that game on aggregate, but proceeded to score the 2 best goals of the game in the Camp Nou. Even if Messi had converted that penalty, Chelsea would still have been victorious under such circumstances.
I'm not sure Chelsea really ever tactically beat tiki-taka, they got VERY lucky in 12,
I'm extremely sure that they beat Barcelona tactically. I find it's generally just not recognized as much because many people simply don't UNDERSTAND how Chelsea did it, or appreciate how hard it is to do. You can't just say: "Park the Bus!". You have to be incredibly disciplined and aware of the game-plan in order to pull it off against a team as great as Barcelona, especially with all the injury disadvantages they had.
and in 09 had to rely on a level of Barca finishing that a Sunday League team wouldn't have been proud of.
What? That's just not true. Barcelona got nowhere near Chelsea's goal to begin with, and had to rely on a fixed ref. Chelsea totally out-played them in that game. Iniesta's 93rd minute winner was, literally, their very first shot on target.
None of this is of course trying to say that Barcelona were NOT amazing and worthy of all their accolades, but the idea that no-one figured out an answer to tiki-taka until Bayern Munich is just false. Chelsea and Mourinho had been showing Europe the way for years before either Bayern or Simeone figured it out.
This thread might piss some people but that's what I believe. He's a good one but no where near the level he is rated. One of the most overrated coach.