“The best way to defend is far, far away from your own goal” | BluesJr sings about the Blues

[SwansonsTache]

I don't want possession football, but I want pressing football.

We stand off far too much, when we play teams you always see them harassing the one on our team carrying the ball, meanwhile we just stand off.

I get that we need to keep our structure and not get pulled open, but there has to be something in between our style and Liverpool's style that would work.

 

[Rhyme Animal]

van Gaal had a similar approach...

Anyone remember watching that?

 

[cyberman]

Its also why they run the risk of getting smashed when a European powerhouse takes it to the heart of their defence imo.

 

[Di Maria's angel]

What was football even like before Pep?

 

[Snow]

Imo its not van gaal fault that our player was crap and our transfer budget didn't reach half of city back then
van gaal also didn't have the ball to drop rooney ( bad first touch = no tiki taka )

Van gaal was actually Pep Teacher, Pep got his idea of football from van gaal, their antics also similar
to execute their football you need set of world class player with world class stamina and energy, give LVG city squad and he would dominate the league as well

Yes it was his fault when he scolds players for doing something outside the system like Herrera making a run forward or a player dribbling instead of passing. Our football was soulless and robotic under LvG.

 

[Rozay]

Which is why I said we did not grow from 2013 to 16 , instead regressed. We expect Jose to do miracles when in truth the job in hand is much more hard than people are expecting. Yes Jose has his flaws and for the present situation he may not be the answer but unfortunately for him City peaked at the time his team also started looking somewhat good. This is why people keep on saying on any other season we would have had a great shout at the title.

Having said that now the club has to decide where to go next. Jose anyways would not stay for that long, what next. If we want to play certain brand of football then appoint such manager, scout such players rather than overpaying for ordinary players. I was very happy this summer when we did not blindly buy James from madrid. Lvg or moyes would have gone for that route and got him without any plan. Again proving my original point fo how we did not grow from 2013-16.

Agreed. Although regarding James, I see little difference with our pursuit of Griezmann. I was always vocal in my objection in the Griezmann thread. We had our best run last season with Carrick in the team in a 3 man midfield. Then we saw a star player we could possibly get and went for him, although he did not fit. This is part of the problem.

 

[ryadmahrez]

cruyff is more like his idol / role model , pep never receive football knowledge from him directly, meanwhile he played under van gaal for few years as barca captain and executing LVG tactic with his own feet & brain on the field.
Van Gaal style of football actually worked with decent player ( we had lot of possession and press high but create low number of chance more because our player were crap )
and if he wasn't such an annoying tw*t that made player dislike him

You are clueless mate. Cruyff gave him his debut at Barca and by all accounts held a close relationship throughout the years. The way he plays/talk football is more Cruyff than Van Gaal. Van Gaal is just a bad copy of Cruyff.

http://www.dw.com/en/pep-guardiola-johan-cruyff-taught-me-how-to-understand-football/a-19143304

 

[Adam-Utd]

Agree 100%

I've said it in other threads, every single time we sit off and let teams come at us, throwing in crosses and putting us under pressure we concede or look shaky.

Keep the ball in their half, battle them at the half way line if needs be. The further the ball is away from our goal the better, why jose thinks it's a good idea to sit so deep on a lead is frustrating.

 

[AllezLesDiables]

There’s a bit more to this, but as someone who has coached top level athletes (different sport) counter attacking is important, but the limitations for a counter attacker are almost always the same and it’s the inability to have consistency on attack or run into a better counter attacker.

When you are constantly attacking you put enormous pressure in the opponent to make quick decisions relative to their strengths and weaknesses. Having to make quick decisions is what typically causes the problems because good counter attacks rely on good planning barring exceptional athletes who can adapt on the fly.


Mourinho had one of the two correct strategies to game plan for City in the last derby. The problem is that the strategy he selected does not allow much room for error and requires precise finishing on limited chances.

The other strategy is to bring the game to City in the same manner as they attack opponents. The problem with this strategy is that you have to be able beat City’s will to impose and catch them early to frustrate them and you cannot bunker with a small lead absent the last couple of minutes.

 

[RooneyLegend]

He's wrong, the best way to defend in this era of football IMO is the way Jupps Bayern used to defend, or the way atletico defend. Those teams are never vulnerable to any sort of attacking the opposition while against his teams if a team cam build up well and has pace up top they'll be in trouble. He's tried it vs clubs like Madrid and Barca and collapsed badly despite coaching a quality side like Bayern. Its flawed in its own way, but its really hard to find its its flaws if your team doesn't have certain qualities to a high level.

 

[Sky1981]

Winner is always right. Suck it up boys.

When you're winning you can say anything you want

 

[Cal?]

No, that is an interview where he states that he wants his team to play well which he goes on to define as having more possession "even against the likes of Barcelona".

No, having more possession than Barcelona is not the definition of playing well. I'm sure if the sole aim is to out possess them, you can have your players just passing the ball around at the back after they go 3-0 up.

Clearly he meant that he wanted them to play well, outscore the opposition and would be nice to out possess Barca just to rub it in. Given a choice of outscoring or out-possessing Barca, I think we all know what he'd prefer.

 

[Theonas]

No, having more possession than Barcelona is not the definition of playing well. I'm sure if the sole aim is to out possess them, you can have your players just passing the ball around at the back after they go 3-0 up.

Clearly he meant that he wanted them to play well, outscore the opposition and would be nice to out possess Barca just to rub it in. Given a choice of outscoring or out-possessing Barca, I think we all know what he'd prefer.

Obviously it is not the sole aim, why does this notion keep floating around? I mean is there anyone who seriously thinks a manager, let's not forget, a man whose livelihood depends directly on results, will ever value anything above you guessed it; results? What is even crazier is fans think they, who have nothing but emotional investment in a team are somehow more concerned with the result than the man whose job relies on it.

No manager in the history of the game has ever valued anything whether it is possession or whatever before actually winning. The idea is what is the best way to win. Some believe that each game is a small battle to be negotiated on its own terms. Another view which is becoming more predominant due to the success of Barcelona, is that a better way of winning is to become extremely good at certain areas; one of them is possession. The theory is that if you marry a higher level of passing and ball circulation at advanced areas of the pitch with the speed and technique of high quality individuals, results will be the natural consequence over a long run. Those coaches understand that on any given day, playing that way can backfire because football in unpredictable, but over a season or more, the wins will vastly outweigh the negatives.

This is what Zidane and many working coaches working today are aiming for. This is not because they believe there is one way of winning which is another cliché we keep hearing about, but because they believe it has a higher ceiling and who knows maybe for people in the profession, it is more rewarding to see a vision being achieved to such extent. The question that is fair to ask is how realistic this aim is? And how far should a coach go out to achieve it? Considering how much time and resources as well as that arguably very few have actually succeeded following such approach, it is totally fair to argue that it is high reward high risk and that some coaches overvalue their qualities making it more of a risk than anything. That would be a fair point but this endless and frankly dull juxtaposition that it is either; possession for the sake of possession vs results are all that matter, is really misguided.

 

[Cal?]

Obviously it is not the sole aim, why does this notion keep floating around? I mean is there anyone who seriously thinks a manager, let's not forget, a man whose livelihood depends directly on results, will ever value anything above you guessed it; results? What is even crazier is fans think they, who have nothing but emotional investment in a team are somehow more concerned with the result than the man whose job relies on it.

No manager in the history of the game has ever valued anything whether it is possession or whatever before actually winning. The idea is what is the best way to win. Some believe that each game is a small battle to be negotiated on its own terms. Another view which is becoming more predominant due to the success of Barcelona, is that a better way of winning is to become extremely good at certain areas; one of them is possession. The theory is that if you marry a higher level of passing and ball circulation at advanced areas of the pitch with the speed and technique of high quality individuals, results will be the natural consequence over a long run. Those coaches understand that on any given day, playing that way can backfire because football in unpredictable, but over a season or more, the wins will vastly outweigh the negatives.

This is what Zidane and many working coaches working today are aiming for. This is not because they believe there is one way of winning which is another cliché we keep hearing about, but because they believe it has a higher ceiling and who knows maybe for people in the profession, it is more rewarding to see a vision being achieved to such extent. The question that is fair to ask is how realistic this aim is? And how far should a coach go out to achieve it? Considering how much time and resources as well as that arguably very few have actually succeeded following such approach, it is totally fair to argue that it is high reward high risk and that some coaches overvalue their qualities making it more of a risk than anything. That would be a fair point but this endless and frankly dull juxtaposition that it is either; possession for the sake of possession vs results are all that matter, is really misguided.

Don’t know about you, but to me, it sure did seem LvG wanted possession for the sake of possession.

For all the admiration that Barca got with their tiki taka, it was Real who became the first team to retain the CL.

Their direct style seems the best way to success and if they can get even more possession, that’d make them almost unbeatable.

 

[adexkola]

Don’t know about you, but to me, it sure did seem LvG wanted possession for the sake of possession.

For all the admiration that Barca got with their tiki taka, it was Real who became the first team to retain the CL.

Their direct style seems the best way to success and if they can get even more possession, that’d make them almost unbeatable.

I'm not sure why LVG's name is being mentioned. I'm not mentioning Pulis when a conversation on direct football comes up.

Not that it matters either, but Barcelona are currently running away with their league, City are running away in England, and Napoli currently top the Serie A. Not bad for a less direct style eh?

 

[Cal?]

I'm not sure why LVG's name is being mentioned. I'm not mentioning Pulis when a conversation on direct football comes up.

Not that it matters either, but Barcelona are currently running away with their league, City are running away in England, and Napoli currently top the Serie A. Not bad for a less direct style eh?

We will See who wins the CL come May/June

 

[Stocar]

Their direct style seems the best way to success and if they can get even more possession, that’d make them almost unbeatable.

Then how come Barca are so dominant in their league, including direct encounters?

 

[BBRBB]

When you're a top team, you absolutely have to be comfortable with most of the possession because most of the lesser teams will sit back against you.

Between evenly matched top teams recent results aren't conclusive at all about possession being a better strategy.

 

[Theonas]

Don’t know about you, but to me, it sure did seem LvG wanted possession for the sake of possession.

For all the admiration that Barca got with their tiki taka, it was Real who became the first team to retain the CL.

Their direct style seems the best way to success and if they can get even more possession, that’d make them almost unbeatable.

Why is that your criteria? You realise one of those wins was a penalty shoot-out; do you think such a random incident has anything to do with their footballing style? Surely a better barometer to judge a team should be based on a bigger sample? One team has won every league title in a decade bar 3 (I am sticking my neck out here and predicting they will win this season's), the other won 2. One won 2 trebles and another CL title, the other did not. Their head to head includes 6/2, 4/0 and a 3/0 and that's away from home. There was another 5/0 that is viewed by many football fans as the greatest footballing performance in recent memory. Let's not even get into the other obvious little detail of how one sided their games have been over the past decade. With all these facts, would you say it sounds like you are more than a little bit cherry picking your criteria?

I am not even comparing the two to prove a point about styles as there are clearly other factors involved, one of them being that bloke called Messi. As I said in the previous post, the theory of focusing on a specific way of playing to the point of mastering it with the intention that results will follow as a natural consequence of that expertise, is not without its flaws. Not many teams or managers have the medals to show for it. To argue as you are doing however, that even when it works to such extent as it was with Barcelona, it is not all that great, is just missing the obvious, which is that that Barcelona side reached a unique footballing level that is rightly considered as the best side in recent times.

 

[NoLogo]

Then how come Barca are so dominant in their league, including direct encounters?

Barca isn't that dominant in terms of possession anymore, Valverde has given them a good mix of possession and directness very much like Real played over the last two or three years imo. They still manage around 60% in most games but so does Real. I feel a good team need to be comfortable with both, possession and fast transitions. Opponent sits deep, carve them up patiently until and opening shows up and then be lethal. Against equally good teams stay compact, don't overextend and be especially fast in transitions.

 

[breakout67]

Its strange that BluesJr has found the holy grail of football yet other teams are not following suit. Juventus and Athletico Madrid are clear examples of teams that do not follow your holy advice. And the team that they lost to did not follow this holy advice either.

In fact, when you look at the semi finals of last years champions league the teams were Real Madrid, Atleti Madrid, Juventus and Monaco. An amazing ZERO out of 4 of those teams plays a possession based, high line system. Juventus and Atleti play a counter attacking system, while Madrid and Monaco play a combination of counter attacking and possession.

If you go back another year, the semi finalists were R.Madrid, A.Madrid, Man City and Bayern Munich. A grand total of ONE out of four played the holy grail of football (Bayern Munich).

If you go back another year, the semi finalists were R.Madrid, Juventus, Barcelona and Bayern. Once again only ONE out of four played the holy grail of football (Bayern Munich).

The last time a team that used the holy grail of football won the CL was in 2010/11. Teams that win the CL are not so one dimensional to only be able to defend high up the pitch. Teams that win the CL can defend high up the pitch, as well as close to their goal and counter attack.

 

[BluesJr]

Its strange that BluesJr has found the holy grail of football yet other teams are not following suit. Juventus and Athletico Madrid are clear examples of teams that do not follow your holy advice. And the team that they lost to did not follow this holy advice either.

In fact, when you look at the semi finals of last years champions league the teams were Real Madrid, Atleti Madrid, Juventus and Monaco. An amazing ZERO out of 4 of those teams plays a possession based, high line system. Juventus and Atleti play a counter attacking system, while Madrid and Monaco play a combination of counter attacking and possession.

If you go back another year, the semi finalists were R.Madrid, A.Madrid, Man City and Bayern Munich. A grand total of ONE out of four played the holy grail of football (Bayern Munich).

If you go back another year, the semi finalists were R.Madrid, Juventus, Barcelona and Bayern. Once again only ONE out of four played the holy grail of football (Bayern Munich).

The last time a team that used the holy grail of football won the CL was in 2010/11. Teams that win the CL are not so one dimensional to only be able to defend high up the pitch. Teams that win the CL can defend high up the pitch, as well as close to their goal and counter attack.

All of those teams you mention implement a press. They do not allow space beyond a certain point, that point varies I agree. We sometimes seem so passive and just let things happen when we could avoid it if we squeezed a lot higher.

 

[breakout67]

All of those teams you mention implement a press. They do not allow space beyond a certain point, that point varies I agree. We sometimes seem so passive and just let things happen when we could avoid it if we squeezed a lot higher.

We implement a press in virtually every game we play. When the press is bypassed or we score a few goals we stop pressing and let teams come onto us and counter attack. Man City was the only game where we didn't press at all.

There is no best way to defend; in fact the best teams in the world are able to defend in all types of situations. High up the pitch and close to goal. The best teams do not need to restrict themselves to one way of defending.

Atletcio Madrid will part the bus against Levante and Eibar without a second thought. If you consider them a pressing team then you have to consider us a pressing team because we press at least as much as them.

 

[BluesJr]

We implement a press in virtually every game we play. When the press is bypassed or we score a few goals we stop pressing and let teams come onto us and counter attack. Man City was the only game where we didn't press at all.

There is no best way to defend; in fact the best teams in the world are able to defend in all types of situations. High up the pitch and close to goal. The best teams do not need to restrict themselves to one way of defending.

Atletcio Madrid will part the bus against Levante and Eibar without a second thought. If you consider them a pressing team then you have to consider us a pressing team because we press at least as much as them.

We don't press nearly high enough in my opinion, and in the games against our rivals it's bordering on ridiculous sometimes. We simply don't have dominant defenders that can handle it, we'd be far off actually trying to play football in those situations.

 

[donkeyfish]

Is this like that De Bruyne thread that wasn't about De Bruyne?

 

[breakout67]

We don't press nearly high enough in my opinion, and in the games against our rivals it's bordering on ridiculous sometimes. We simply don't have dominant defenders that can handle it, we'd be far off actually trying to play football in those situations.

Its fine if its your opinion; but I never said that it wasnt your opinion. What I'm challenging is your assertion that the best way to defend is the way you've said which is demonstrably wrong.

Juventus and Atletico Madrid are not high pressing teams that dominate possession (especially in big games). Madrid are a combination; they can sometimes high press and dominate possession, and also sit off and kill teams on the counter attack.

If you want the team to play in the way you've described its fair enough, but the notion that the best teams do that is simply false. Some teams dominate possession and high press; some teams sit off and counter attack; some teams do both.

Based on who the best teams have been in the last few years, there is no best way to defend; there are lots of ways to do it.

 

[BluesJr]

Its fine if its your opinion; but I never said that it wasnt your opinion. What I'm challenging is your assertion that the best way to defend is the way you've said which is demonstrably wrong.

Juventus and Atletico Madrid are not high pressing teams that dominate possession (especially in big games). Madrid are a combination; they can sometimes high press and dominate possession, and also sit off and kill teams on the counter attack.

If you want the team to play in the way you've described its fair enough, but the notion that the best teams do that is simply false. Some teams dominate possession and high press; some teams sit off and counter attack; some teams do both.

Based on who the best teams have been in the last few years, there is no best way to defend; there are lots of ways to do it.

It's also the opinion of the manager who has seen the best start to any PL season ever. We'll see how they handle the CL against decent sides, Napoli did get at them so hopefully others can too.

You obviously need the right personnel to achieve it but from watching peak Barcelona and now City in the PL I think it's hard to argue that is maybe the best way to play.

 

[breakout67]

It's also the opinion of the manager who has seen the best start to any PL season ever. We'll see how they handle the CL against decent sides, Napoli did get at them so hopefully others can too.

You obviously need the right personnel to achieve it but from watching peak Barcelona and now City in the PL I think it's hard to argue that is maybe the best way to play.

So you're basically only looking at teams that are doing well with it and then confirming your bias for it. Completely ignoring other teams that have had success with other styles and achieved more with those styles. Not to mention you've completely ignored that Napoli were humiliated in the CL implementing the style you think is the best.

If I was as generous as you were with definitions, I could very easily bring Dortmund into the equation who had Bosz as manager who implemented a high press and possession based system. They were 6th place and in the EL before he got sacked.

 

[BluesJr]

So you're basically only looking at teams that are doing well with it and then confirming your bias for it. Completely ignoring other teams that have had success with other styles and achieved more with those styles. Not to mention you've completely ignored that Napoli were humiliated in the CL implementing the style you think is the best.

If I was as generous as you were with definitions, I could very easily bring Dortmund into the equation who had Bosz as manager who implemented a high press and possession based system. They were 6th place and in the EL before he got sacked.

Well no, I was talking about optimum conditions. I'm not saying other styles aren't successful, but if the two styles met in an ideal match, the high press and possession game would win, that's just my opinion. In games like Leicester, I think it's really poor to concede 2/3rds of the pitch, I get the concept and we had the chances to kill the game by sitting that deep but if your players aren't clinical which they clearly aren't and our defence is shaky under pressure, which it very much is, I just don't see the point of playing that way.

 

[breakout67]

Well no, I was talking about optimum conditions. I'm not saying other styles aren't successful, but if the two styles met in an ideal match, the high press and possession game would win, that's just my opinion. In games like Leicester, I think it's really poor to concede 2/3rds of the pitch, I get the concept and we had the chances to kill the game by sitting that deep but if your players aren't clinical which they clearly aren't and our defence is shaky under pressure, which it very much is, I just don't see the point of playing that way.

Well the fact that optimum conditions have only been met under one manager in the modern game (Guardiola) suggests it probably has little to do with the system and more to do with the manager.

Even then, if optimum conditions come about so rarely; then this has to be taken into account. How often will you get a team like Barcelona 2008-2011? Considering they had one of the best players of all time, along with multiple once in a generation players, how much of that success is purely down to the system.

There is far too much evidence going against what youve said; because if their truly was a 'best' way to defend more teams would have implemented it. When one system is clearly superior to another system the footballing world starts using that system. But the possession vs counter attacking paradigm has been in football for a long time.

 

[BluesJr]

Well the fact that optimum conditions have only been met under one manager in the modern game (Guardiola) suggests it probably has little to do with the system and more to do with the manager.

Even then, if optimum conditions come about so rarely; then this has to be taken into account. How often will you get a team like Barcelona 2008-2011? Considering they had one of the best players of all time, along with multiple once in a generation players, how much of that success is purely down to the system.

There is far too much evidence going against what youve said; because if their truly was a 'best' way to defend more teams would have implemented it. When one system is clearly superior to another system the footballing world starts using that system. But the possession vs counter attacking paradigm has been in football for a long time.

The further the ball is away from the goal, the better. That's what I was basically saying and I still think it's the best way to go. You're right, there are many ways to do it but the system of keeping possession and guarding always against the counter (Peps whole system) I think is the best way to defend. There's more upsides to that system than there is any other. It's all opinion and stats show that both work, but in an ideal world that is how I'd like to see us play, or at least more towards that style.

 

[RuudTom83]

In a season and a half Jose has won a few trophies and taken a team from 5th/6th to 2nd*

Give the man a break!

If the job requirement is...win the league playing like Barca in no less than 2 seasons! Then we should all stop following football all together.

I know this isn’t entirely what the OP was asking, but the constant bashing of the way United play is ridiculous.

Remove City and United are scoring and conseeding the same or better than anyone else in the league.

Jose has lost something like 1 home game in 40 ffs!

 

[Walters_19_MuFc]

I've always liked possession football, so I would prefer us to go that way.

I think Van Gaal, despite being labelled boring was eventually going to lead us to a exciting, possession based team. Slow build up, with quality in the final third to take the game away from the opposition.

Often under Van Gaal, we became void of ideas. Apart from Martial, we had no one in the final third that could produce moments of magic. Well, on a consistent bases anyway, hence why he was quoted as saying 'we need fast wingers to get us to where we have to be', and to this day, we're still in the same predicament.

I think his downfall was going with a 4231 in his second season, and purchasing players for a 4231, despite us being better in a 433.

We looked really good in games we played a 433, especially against Liverpool, Spurs and City.

Having said that, as the old saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Jose, despite not always playing the most pleasing football on the eye, is a proven winner. He has won a numerous amount of trophies playing counter attacking football. Organised defensively and hard to beat.

Once he builds a team to his liking, I have no doubt we'll see even more trophies.

 

[Cal?]

Then how come Barca are so dominant in their league, including direct encounters?

Are they really? As below...

Why is that your criteria? You realise one of those wins was a penalty shoot-out; do you think such a random incident has anything to do with their footballing style? Surely a better barometer to judge a team should be based on a bigger sample? One team has won every league title in a decade bar 3 (I am sticking my neck out here and predicting they will win this season's), the other won 2. One won 2 trebles and another CL title, the other did not. Their head to head includes 6/2, 4/0 and a 3/0 and that's away from home. There was another 5/0 that is viewed by many football fans as the greatest footballing performance in recent memory. Let's not even get into the other obvious little detail of how one sided their games have been over the past decade. With all these facts, would you say it sounds like you are more than a little bit cherry picking your criteria?

I am not even comparing the two to prove a point about styles as there are clearly other factors involved, one of them being that bloke called Messi. As I said in the previous post, the theory of focusing on a specific way of playing to the point of mastering it with the intention that results will follow as a natural consequence of that expertise, is not without its flaws. Not many teams or managers have the medals to show for it. To argue as you are doing however, that even when it works to such extent as it was with Barcelona, it is not all that great, is just missing the obvious, which is that that Barcelona side reached a unique footballing level that is rightly considered as the best side in recent times.

That's true, only to the extent that the last decade include Barca's period of utter domination from 08-10/11.

If we look at their head to head since the 11/12 season: it reads Real win 9, draw 5, Barca win 10. It's true that Barca some times pull out big big wins against Real (last week for example), but purely in terms of number of wins, it's not one-sided at all.

Like I said before, tiki taka seems best suited to winning the league, consistently destroying lesser teams. However, the same cannot be said of head to head encounters against the top teams around Europe.

 

[Turnip]

Pretty sure City were playing this way last season and leaked their fair share of goals. Admitely they had awful keepers too.

 

[Theonas]

Pretty sure City were playing this way last season and leaked their fair share of goals. Admitely they had awful keepers too.

Obviously you don't just decide to play a certain way and will be good. You actually have to be very good at it for it work and last year they simply weren't there yet. The idea is comparing potentials and ceilings of how to play. No one is saying it's just a matter of picking a way of playing and all will take care of itself. Your point in fact is why Guardiola had his pick out of all the big clubs in Europe, he is unique in actually proving that he can make it work. Most fail somewhere, do not have the tools, or are not willing to take time risk.

 

[Turnip]

Obviously you don't just decide to play a certain way and will be good. You actually have to be very good at it for it work and last year they simply weren't there yet. The idea is comparing potentials and ceilings of how to play. No one is saying it's just a matter of picking a way of playing and all will take care of itself. Your point in fact is why Guardiola had his pick out of all the big clubs in Europe, he is unique in actually proving that he can make it work. Most fail somewhere, do not have the tools, or are not willing to take time risk.

That's my point. The best system in the world can underachieve without the right players, and an average system can overachieve with the right players. I'm not saying Pep's tactic is bad at all, it clearley isn't, but there are plenty of different systems which have had the same results in the past too.

 

[Theonas]

That's my point. The best system in the world can underachieve without the right players, and an average system can overachieve with the right players. I'm not saying Pep's tactic is bad at all, it clearley isn't, but there are plenty of different systems which have had the same results in the past too.

When he or others argue that this is the best way to defend, it usually refers to the ceiling of such systems. He would argue with the last part of your post that whereas teams can win and be successful in a variety of ways, the ceiling of his vision is higher and more likely to win. I myself find this a very difficult question to be honest with you although when seeing what Barcelona achieved and I don't just mean the trophies, but the sheer aura they exerted which was in full view when we started seeing Europe royalty like us or Real Madrid playing them the way Stoke play against superior teams. I personally have never seen a team being treated with such respect which I would suggest gives that argument more sway. The question however is how realistic and achievable it is to play that way and at which point it becomes nothing more than musings of a football theorist.

 

[Paxi]

van Gaal had a similar approach...

Anyone remember watching that?

Van Gaal said something like "if you have the ball, the opposition can not score" - true, but he didn't factor in that other team might not want to score. They might not want to concede.

 

[Rhyme Animal]

Van Gaal said something like "if you have the ball, the opposition can not score" - true, but he didn't factor in that other team might not want to score. They might not want to concede.

Abso-bloody-exactly. Hence all those dire 0-0 draws.

José's football is way better than what LvG served up. We've scored loadsa goals this season.

I just wish he'd stick with 3 in midfield now.