Pep's record in away legs of CL knockouts

giorno

Full Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2016
Messages
15,456
Supports
Real Madrid
I see we're back to giving managers waaaaaay too much importance and credit :lol:

Managers don't play. Players do. Most of the time a game's result isn't down to the manager getting things wrong or right
 

PedroMendez

Acolyte
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
8,900
Location
the other Santa Teresa
That's because you've got it exactly wrong. It's exactly the other way around.
It's not his lack of flexibility and pragmatism that hurts him in CL away games. On the contrary. What hurts him is that he changes a winning formula out of fear and respect for the occasion. He goes defensive in a way that corrodes the strength of his approach. He always, 'pragmatically', adds another (often defensive) midfielder instead of an attacker and gives up intensity in the search for safety.

He should be much less flexible and 'pragmatic', because his usual approach is successful and would also be so in difficult away matches.
spot on.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
40,521
Location
France
I see we're back to giving managers waaaaaay too much importance and credit :lol:

Managers don't play. Players do. Most of the time a game's result isn't down to the manager getting things wrong or right
Juventus-Real Madrid is an example of that. Allegri did nothing wrong, his players have just been really sloppy in the last third and the results didn't reflect the game.
 

Cristiano Lell

BANNED LOLZ
Joined
Nov 20, 2014
Messages
2,201
Location
Berlin
Supports
Bayern München
Btw, Bayern's first half against Juve away in 2016 was one of the best displays of football I have ever watched. Bayern went for it and made Juve look like a pub team in that first half. Their dominance was absolutely staggering.
And the Juve game was the one exception where he did NOT adapt his approach to be more defensive for an away game.

Compare the two formations between the Juve away game and the Atletico away game later in the competition. (images from spielverlagerung.de)


The approach against Atletico is more defensive, with an extra defensive midfielder, and it got a worse performance and result.
 

ZAGREB RED

Guest
When the second and third goals went in on Wednesday, it was noticeable how shell-shocked the City players looked, and they looked even more incapable of doing anything about it as the game progressed.
 

giorno

Full Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2016
Messages
15,456
Supports
Real Madrid
Btw, Bayern's first half against Juve away in 2016 was one of the best displays of football I have ever watched. Bayern went for it and made Juve look like a pub team in that first half. Their dominance was absolutely staggering.
They played 70 minutes of fantastic football in that game...

...and created fewer real goalscoring chances in those 70 minutes than juventus did in the final 20...
 

giorno

Full Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2016
Messages
15,456
Supports
Real Madrid
The approach against Atletico is more defensive, with an extra defensive midfielder, and it got a worse performance and result.
You played better and created more chances in the second half in madrid than you did in Turin. Were juventus had more chances than you
 

fcbforever

New Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Messages
4,077
Location
Merkellandia, the land of silent horrors
Supports
FC Bayern München
And the Juve game was the one exception where he did NOT adapt his approach to be more defensive for an away game.

Compare the two formations between the Juve away game and the Atletico away game later in the competition. (images from spielverlagerung.de)


The approach against Atletico is more defensive, with an extra defensive midfielder, and it got a worse performance and result.
Did it? We still couldn’t win against Juve, despite them being the worse team. I remember being quite angry after the Juventus match. It was, however Guardiolas only ever knock out progression against a European top team while with us. Congrats. It’s also ignoring the fact that despite being ravaged by injuries, Pep couldn’t actually go for a defensive setup for once. Everyone knew going into those semis that his system wouldn’t work (he even knew himself and has admitted as such in regards to the Real game), don’t act like those small adjustments where the problem here.
 

Treble

Full Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
10,643
They played 70 minutes of fantastic football in that game...

...and created fewer real goalscoring chances in those 70 minutes than juventus did in the final 20...
IIRC, Bayern had defensive issues because their first choice CBs were injured and the likes of Kimmich and Lahm played there.
 

Cristiano Lell

BANNED LOLZ
Joined
Nov 20, 2014
Messages
2,201
Location
Berlin
Supports
Bayern München
You played better and created more chances in the second half in madrid than you did in Turin. Were juventus had more chances than you
Allegri is a top tactician in his own right, and he showed it then with the changes he did after an hour.
 

giorno

Full Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2016
Messages
15,456
Supports
Real Madrid
IIRC, Bayern had defensive issues because their first choice CBs were injured and the likes of Kimmich and Lahm played there.
Sure. Still doesn't change the fact that as well as they played, they weren't able to create much, and as soon as juventus found themselves staring at elimination and threw everything they had left at them, the game turned on its head and in those 20 minutes juventus did more than bayern did in the previous 70...
 

Smores

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
19,626
I see we're back to giving managers waaaaaay too much importance and credit :lol:

Managers don't play. Players do. Most of the time a game's result isn't down to the manager getting things wrong or right
It's a common trend on here that disliked managers get all the blame and no recognition and the the likes of Poch the opposite.

The "playing as individuals" is just an extension of that.
 

Blackwidow

Full Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
6,226
IIRC, Bayern had defensive issues because their first choice CBs were injured and the likes of Kimmich and Lahm played there.
Kimmich and Alaba...

And the fitness level showed - a problem we often seem to have in that first February CL match because of the build up after the winter break. January/February usually starts very slow with just one match a week and the peak is needed in April. I think it even was an advantage this year that the first match against Besiktas was at home because of this.

What I recognized over the years is that it does not matter defensively if Bayern plays with 3 or 4 offensives. Actually I believe that the 2 midfielder version is even better for the defense as it is easier to play forward and it makes the opponent to be more cautions at the back and leave an additional player in defense. OK, it steals 1 or 2 per cent of ball possession... But it for sure makes the offense more effective. And it is not even a problem that started with Pep - it started with Heynckes and you could take that into the Ancelotti time, too. From September 2016 on in 16/17 with exception of one match when Augsburg let us counter attack we did not win a match away in the league when we played in a 4-3-3 - the wins were made when we either started with a 4-2-3-1 with hanging striker or when we switched into it after substitutions.

The story with Pep is that it was the same story in every away leg in the CL final stage. Yes, he had variations tactically in some of this matches - but that was a feature that stayed.

.
 

Siorac

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
16,306
Location
16th century
he's an idealist and stubborn in his philosophy

you could say he had too much faith in his players and system which is admirable and naive

you could say he underestimated Liverpool which is ridiculous considering they did the exact same thing in January
But... he actually changed his system and line-up. He introduced a fourth midfielder to give them more control. Not sticking to his usual team and usual line-up arguably backfired.
 

buckooo1978

Full Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
12,897
But... he actually changed his system and line-up. He introduced a fourth midfielder to give them more control. Not sticking to his usual team and usual line-up arguably backfired.
he did make slight adjustments in and fair enough on that but they weren't compact enough or didn't alter the style of play considerably

the pragmatism I'm talking about would have been playing with more numbers in deeper areas which is exactly how Liverpool have struggled this year.

instead and, even with the changes, City dominated possession and Liverpool always looked more likely to hurt them on the break. City looked blunt and players like Jesus barely had a kick all game. They were restricted to playing around Liverpool's box.

Pep should have taken a leaf out of Mourinho's book and played 1. not to concede 2. to hurt them on the break with Sane/Sterling

the game kinda reminded me of our recent win over Liverpool. We blew them away first half and controlled the game without the ball in the second. The only thing I would say is Liverpool looked more dangerous on the break.
 

Siorac

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
16,306
Location
16th century
he did make slight adjustments in and fair enough on that but they weren't compact enough or didn't alter the style of play considerably

the pragmatism I'm talking about would have been playing with more numbers in deeper areas which is exactly how Liverpool have struggled this year.

instead and, even with the changes, City dominated possession and Liverpool always looked more likely to hurt them on the break. City looked blunt and players like Jesus barely had a kick all game. They were restricted to playing around Liverpool's box.

Pep should have taken a leaf out of Mourinho's book and played 1. not to concede 2. to hurt them on the break with Sane/Sterling

the game kinda reminded me of our recent win over Liverpool. We blew them away first half and controlled the game without the ball in the second. The only thing I would say is Liverpool looked more dangerous on the break.
I'd say they considerably altered their formation and that was the problem. They should have played their usual game instead of worrying about what Liverpool can do. Without sufficient threat up front, without enough pace in behind Liverpool had little to worry about. If anything, they tried to be too defensive and paid the price for that.
 

Raees

Legal Guardian of the Football forums
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
27,801
I see we're back to giving managers waaaaaay too much importance and credit :lol:

Managers don't play. Players do. Most of the time a game's result isn't down to the manager getting things wrong or right
That is true but I do think in this instance it was definitely on Pep. The lack of width killed City's ability to counter and the fact they looked uncomfortable at playing in a different set up in what was their biggest game of the season tactically, comes down to the manager. Sometimes you just have to feel during the game whether it is more tactical issues or players themselves shitting the bed, in this instance definitely felt more tactical as City just didn't look right in terms of shape. Of course this in turn can then affect the players who will in turn lose confidence and go on to make errors they wouldn't usually make.
 

crappycraperson

"Resident cricket authority"
Scout
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
36,072
Location
Interweb
Bolded. Mourinho has a similar record as highlighted in this thread, and he's known as a so called "pragmatic" manager. Ditto with Simeone.

@mvpkennedy did the analysis for Allegri and deliberately ignored his Milan record. Heyneke's numbers only cover the past 2 years... surely there's more history?

I'd be interested in seeing the numbers for Ferguson, Lippi, Ancelotti, Wenger...

Also, it must be said that this analysis is heavily CL centric, it's a competition that introduces volatility and luck into results. Heynekes has great numbers based on the last 2 seasons in the competition, however this factors very little in how much I rate him compared to the other managers in Europe.
As others have already said, main purpose of this thread was to discuss Pep's record in away legs. I already gave some qualifiers in the opening post that the kind of super squad/teams he had and his status as the best manager of his generation, warrant closer scrutiny or discussion of this record.

If we come to Jose, he too deserves criticism of his poor record. At least for his team at Real. At Inter and Porto, he did not have the kind of teams Pep did. At Chelsea he got plenty of criticism for semi final defeats to Liverpool and also Chelsea's shit on a stick football. With Jose, he also is open his pragmatic approach to matches and hence does not put too much stock on playing the same way in away legs as home ones. Despite that if he had parked the bus at Liverpool in a CL tie and gotten a 3-0 result, he would have been blasted. As it is even for a 0-0 draw, he is called a coward.

For Simeone, I don't think it is the same as Pep at all given the respective squads/teams both manage.

All the rest manager are never routinely called the best manager about. Still their record should be spoken about too.

Just to be clear, this is not just another Pep bashing thread. I actually do believe that he is THE best manager in world football right now. Just like Fergie was for some time despite some poor results in Europe. But since his Barca days, this does seems a major chink in his record. I did not just call out plain numbers but also commented on their performances in such matches. For all his pontification about tactics and systems and playing the right way etc, he clearly struggles to play his beloved brand of football in tough away games. One would expect that after a decade he would have some other ideas to implement and fix the problem but we have not seen that yet.
 

buckooo1978

Full Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
12,897
I'd say they considerably altered their formation and that was the problem. They should have played their usual game instead of worrying about what Liverpool can do. Without sufficient threat up front, without enough pace in behind Liverpool had little to worry about. If anything, they tried to be too defensive and paid the price for that.
totally agree with this but how do you get pace in behind Liverpool? you draw them out.

How do you exploit weaknesses in defence with players like Arnold/Louvren- you isolate them.

in City playing possession football, Liverpool defended in numbers and looked solid enough. They pressed City well resulting in the first goal and they have enough quality to hurt a team that gives them space.

I think City changed their line-up and formation but they still played a possession based game which plays into Liverpool's hands.

it's no surprise to me that in spite of his faults, Mourinho has done very well defensively against Klopp. We've conceded a penalty and an own goal in four games after Pogba and Bailly brainfarts.
 

crappycraperson

"Resident cricket authority"
Scout
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
36,072
Location
Interweb
Btw, Bayern's first half against Juve away in 2016 was one of the best displays of football I have ever watched. Bayern went for it and made Juve look like a pub team in that first half. Their dominance was absolutely staggering.
Agreed, it was a great performances, for my money best one by a Pep team in a CL away leg but they still only got a 2-2 result. It reminded me of the time Barca did the same to Arsenal at Emirates and still could not get the win. Then you see Madrid go there and get a 3-0 result with a supremely clinical performance that may not be as pleasing to the eye but is clearly more effective. That has to count for something.

In general to further @Fortitude 's point, managers like Pep, Cryuff get a lot of praise for their 'philosophy' which is fair enough given the brand of football they can play at times. But then they also deserve criticism when they keep getting beat by same tactics over and over again in big games. IIRC even Cryuff chose to blame personnel rather than his system after 4-0 humiliation against Milan in CL final.
 

Thunderhead

Full Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2016
Messages
2,314
Supports
City
I'd say they considerably altered their formation and that was the problem. They should have played their usual game instead of worrying about what Liverpool can do. Without sufficient threat up front, without enough pace in behind Liverpool had little to worry about. If anything, they tried to be too defensive and paid the price for that.

I agree, once Sterling came on we looked far better but the damage was done by then, shame he didn't get the pen as 3-1 would have made the next game pretty interesting.
 

AR87

Full Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
2,957
Location
Wan-Bissaka SZN for the next 10 years
But... he actually changed his system and line-up. He introduced a fourth midfielder to give them more control. Not sticking to his usual team and usual line-up arguably backfired.
The issue is that the fundamental principles stay the same. He still wants to possess the ball in forward areas and play a high line. He's not really adapting much to his opponent except to have an extra man in midfield and therefore possessing less of an attacking threat.

Changing your approach is more akin to how SAF approached away ties towards the end of his time at United where we quite frequently sat in a low block and refused to commit numbers forward, even against lesser sides than us like Marseille -- Milan in 09/10 and Schalke in 10/11 are notable exceptions. Then at home we would be more progressive in our play, though against certain opposition like Real in 12/13 and Barca in 07/08 he'd remain very defensive and look to hit on the counter.

Pep struggling in away ties isn't necessarily all that big of a deal. As we've seen in this thread other top managers don't have amazing records in this situation as well. The difference is only how Pep is often portrayed as a visionar managerial messiah, so his record in that context is worthy of scrutiny and criticism. It, however, doesn't change the fact he is a great manager.
 

Fortitude

TV/Monitor Expert
Scout
Joined
Jul 10, 2004
Messages
11,516
Location
Inside right
Agreed, it was a great performances, for my money best one by a Pep team in a CL away leg but they still only got a 2-2 result. It reminded me of the time Barca did the same to Arsenal at Emirates and still could not get the win. Then you see Madrid go there and get a 3-0 result with a supremely clinical performance that may not be as pleasing to the eye but is clearly more effective. That has to count for something.

In general to further @Fortitude 's point, managers like Pep, Cryuff get a lot of praise for their 'philosophy' which is fair enough given the brand of football they can play at times. But then they also deserve criticism when they keep getting beat by same tactics over and over again in big games. IIRC even Cryuff chose to blame personnel rather than his system after 4-0 humiliation against Milan in CL final.
They become dutybound to stick to the 'philosophy' and go down with the ship rather than concede it's not working and needs to be altered.

Pep's been roasted a few times now and every time it happens he looks completely lost. It's becoming a thing with him by now and certainly something to look out for in the future because surely he can't go through the remainder of his career playing on such a fine line when he's as revered as he is.
 

adexkola

Arsenal supporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
37,446
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
As others have already said, main purpose of this thread was to discuss Pep's record in away legs. I already gave some qualifiers in the opening post that the kind of super squad/teams he had and his status as the best manager of his generation, warrant closer scrutiny or discussion of this record.

If we come to Jose, he too deserves criticism of his poor record. At least for his team at Real. At Inter and Porto, he did not have the kind of teams Pep did. At Chelsea he got plenty of criticism for semi final defeats to Liverpool and also Chelsea's shit on a stick football. With Jose, he also is open his pragmatic approach to matches and hence does not put too much stock on playing the same way in away legs as home ones. Despite that if he had parked the bus at Liverpool in a CL tie and gotten a 3-0 result, he would have been blasted. As it is even for a 0-0 draw, he is called a coward.

For Simeone, I don't think it is the same as Pep at all given the respective squads/teams both manage.

All the rest manager are never routinely called the best manager about. Still their record should be spoken about too.

Just to be clear, this is not just another Pep bashing thread. I actually do believe that he is THE best manager in world football right now. Just like Fergie was for some time despite some poor results in Europe. But since his Barca days, this does seems a major chink in his record. I did not just call out plain numbers but also commented on their performances in such matches. For all his pontification about tactics and systems and playing the right way etc, he clearly struggles to play his beloved brand of football in tough away games. One would expect that after a decade he would have some other ideas to implement and fix the problem but we have not seen that yet.
It warrants closer scrutiny for sure, but I'm not sure what conclusions you can draw from the numbers that have been posted in this thread. Can anyone use these numbers to seriously rate a manager, or confidently state that they need to be more "pragmatic"? I'm coming closer to the conclusion that it's a seriously idiotic term to use for the purpose of categorizing how managers set up their teams.

For example, Jose, who some consider the best, most tactically astute manager in the world (which is not far from the truth IMO), has an appalling record. Forget Porto and Inter. I'm talking about his record with Chelsea (both times) and with us this season. In most of his recent defeats in the competition, it can be argued that his refusal to change his methods from a more conservative approach burnt his teams multiple times in the competition.

But then you have managers like Simeone who have overachieved in Europe on the back of highly aggressive play in midfield despite maintaining excellent defensive shape. Or Klopp who took Dortmund and Liverpool to European finals with very impressive attacking play.

The narrative of needing to be more "pragmatic" to win in Europe is overplayed and washed out.

As for Guardiola, as others have mentioned, some of his problems away from home have arose from overly compensating to the nature of the opposition (which violates the idea of him not being "pragmatic"). Or injuries. Or just being up against the odds of playing on home grounds against great teams. Again I just don't see how this poor record applies as a black mark uniquely on Guardiola as opposed to other players.
 

giorno

Full Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2016
Messages
15,456
Supports
Real Madrid
So let's make it clear:

Liverpool's entire volume of attack in the first 20 minutes was...the two goals. They barely held onto the ball in city's half outside those two plays. So let's look at the two plays

First goal: corner kick for city. Ball comes out, Sane plays the kind of pass that if he were 28 instead of 22 would have seen Guardiola sell him at half time, liverpool start a counter attack thanks to it, salah is not flagged for offside, firmino wins a duel on the ball with kompany, shoots at ederson, the rebound goes straight into walker and catches him flat-footed allowing firmino to nick it towards salah, who shoots straight at fernandinho but luckily ederson gets a finger on it and deflects it away from the brazilian. 1-0.

Second goal: city trying to build up from the back, good pressing by liverpool, henderson manages to get the ball off silva, milner squares it to an open ox who controls and shots from 30 yards. 2-0

....how was guardiola's lineup at fault exactly? Would it have been different with a more pragmatic approach? Maybe sane and silva would have booted the ball into row Z in both situations, which would prevented those goals. That's cool. But that approach is what got them 84 points in 31 games in the league. It's what makes them so good. Change it because you face an opponent that's very good at countering it means you don't believe in your team. And would city even be able to play differently? With those players?

You can fault him for waiting too long to bring on sterling in the second half. You can fault him for city's appalling mental fragility. You can't fault him for his initial lineup selection. Or his philosophy. Neither are the reason city were 2-0 down after 20 minutes
 

crappycraperson

"Resident cricket authority"
Scout
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
36,072
Location
Interweb
So let's make it clear:

Liverpool's entire volume of attack in the first 20 minutes was...the two goals. They barely held onto the ball in city's half outside those two plays. So let's look at the two plays

First goal: corner kick for city. Ball comes out, Sane plays the kind of pass that if he were 28 instead of 22 would have seen Guardiola sell him at half time, liverpool start a counter attack thanks to it, salah is not flagged for offside, firmino wins a duel on the ball with kompany, shoots at ederson, the rebound goes straight into walker and catches him flat-footed allowing firmino to nick it towards salah, who shoots straight at fernandinho but luckily ederson gets a finger on it and deflects it away from the brazilian. 1-0.

Second goal: city trying to build up from the back, good pressing by liverpool, henderson manages to get the ball off silva, milner squares it to an open ox who controls and shots from 30 yards. 2-0

....how was guardiola's lineup at fault exactly? Would it have been different with a more pragmatic approach? Maybe sane and silva would have booted the ball into row Z in both situations, which would prevented those goals. That's cool. But that approach is what got them 84 points in 31 games in the league. It's what makes them so good. Change it because you face an opponent that's very good at countering it means you don't believe in your team. And would city even be able to play differently? With those players?

You can fault him for waiting too long to bring on sterling in the second half. You can fault him for city's appalling mental fragility. You can't fault him for his initial lineup selection. Or his philosophy. Neither are the reason city were 2-0 down after 20 minutes
You can make same kind of excuses for defeat earlier this season at Anfield, last season at Monaco, against Madrid at home etc. It can’t just be the team fecking up every time. His starting line up compromised likes of Walker and Sane and had no defined role for Gundogan. It was a feck up no doubt about it
 

crappycraperson

"Resident cricket authority"
Scout
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
36,072
Location
Interweb
It warrants closer scrutiny for sure, but I'm not sure what conclusions you can draw from the numbers that have been posted in this thread. Can anyone use these numbers to seriously rate a manager, or confidently state that they need to be more "pragmatic"? I'm coming closer to the conclusion that it's a seriously idiotic term to use for the purpose of categorizing how managers set up their teams.

For example, Jose, who some consider the best, most tactically astute manager in the world (which is not far from the truth IMO), has an appalling record. Forget Porto and Inter. I'm talking about his record with Chelsea (both times) and with us this season. In most of his recent defeats in the competition, it can be argued that his refusal to change his methods from a more conservative approach burnt his teams multiple times in the competition.

But then you have managers like Simeone who have overachieved in Europe on the back of highly aggressive play in midfield despite maintaining excellent defensive shape. Or Klopp who took Dortmund and Liverpool to European finals with very impressive attacking play.

The narrative of needing to be more "pragmatic" to win in Europe is overplayed and washed out.

As for Guardiola, as others have mentioned, some of his problems away from home have arose from overly compensating to the nature of the opposition (which violates the idea of him not being "pragmatic"). Or injuries. Or just being up against the odds of playing on home grounds against great teams. Again I just don't see how this poor record applies as a black mark uniquely on Guardiola as opposed to other players.
I have never actually talked about him being pragmatic but it is clear that he has no plan B. That can’t just be down to the players at all these clubs.
 

AR87

Full Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
2,957
Location
Wan-Bissaka SZN for the next 10 years
You can make same kind of excuses for defeat earlier this season at Anfield, last season at Monaco, against Madrid at home etc. It can’t just be the team fecking up every time. His starting line up compromised likes of Walker and Sane and had no defined role for Gundogan. It was a feck up no doubt about it
Right and it's not so much about the scoreline, it's that City were absolutely toothless in attack as. That speaks to his tactics making them impotent. All they did was play it to Sane and hope he could create something. Not exactly inspiring strategy. Even when they brought Sterling on they barely looked to get him involved.
 

Andycoleno9

Full Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
9,802
Location
Croatia
The few times he did win away in a big CL game, the referee did more than he ever did.

The scandal of Stamford Bridge, the scandal of Bernabeu... :nono:
Exactly. He has 2 CL but he won them with help of the refs. Other results are described in OP. In one word- fraud
 

Keeps It tidy

Hates Messi
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
17,639
Location
New York
It usually comes down to X coach being unwilling to launch long balls towards a target man late in the game.
And he dropped Sterling for Gundogan so this was his "plan B"

Also, in the second leg against Inter in 2010 he did play Pique up front late on.
 

giorno

Full Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2016
Messages
15,456
Supports
Real Madrid
You can make same kind of excuses for defeat earlier this season at Anfield, last season at Monaco, against Madrid at home etc. It can’t just be the team fecking up every time. His starting line up compromised likes of Walker and Sane and had no defined role for Gundogan. It was a feck up no doubt about it
Of course it is! Guardiola's not going on the pitch is he? By definition it is the team's fault. Guardiola is part of the team.

Of course he was at fault for the defeat. It's part of his job to make sure his players are mentally ready. To give them the best possible tools to succeed. City collapsed after going down 2-0. That's (partially) on Guardiola. City had no idea what to do to break down liverpool's low block in the second half. Again, that's (partially) on Guardiola. Sane having a two minutes meltdown, gifting liverpool a goal and then wasting a colossal chance to equalize, was that guardiola's fault? Ox scoring the goal of his life, that was guardiola's fault?(maybe you could blame him for his team's mistake in losing the ball? Maybe it is his fault indeed. Maybe it was just players making mistakes)

Bottom line is, Guardiola did not lose the game. Klopp did not win the game. Liverpool won the game. Manchester City lost the game. Teams don't win and lose based soley, or mostly, on what the managers do. At the most, a manager's impact on any given game, in terms of tactics, selections, substitutions, etc, can be 50%. At most, and only in extremely rare cases. This wasn't it, to be clear
 

Keeps It tidy

Hates Messi
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
17,639
Location
New York
Of course it is! Guardiola's not going on the pitch is he? By definition it is the team's fault. Guardiola is part of the team.

Of course he was at fault for the defeat. It's part of his job to make sure his players are mentally ready. To give them the best possible tools to succeed. City collapsed after going down 2-0. That's (partially) on Guardiola. City had no idea what to do to break down liverpool's low block in the second half. Again, that's (partially) on Guardiola. Sane having a two minutes meltdown, gifting liverpool a goal and then wasting a colossal chance to equalize, was that guardiola's fault? Ox scoring the goal of his life, that was guardiola's fault?(maybe you could blame him for his team's mistake in losing the ball? Maybe it is his fault indeed. Maybe it was just players making mistakes)

Bottom line is, Guardiola did not lose the game. Klopp did not win the game. Liverpool won the game. Manchester City lost the game. Teams don't win and lose based soley, or mostly, on what the managers do. At the most, a manager's impact on any given game, in terms of tactics, selections, substitutions, etc, can be 50%. At most, and only in extremely rare cases. This wasn't it, to be clear
While I think Pep made some mistakes (Gundogan, Laporte) but, because of the intense focus on managers there is always going to be over the top reactions when one of the anointed managers sides has a disappointing result like this.
 

JDoe

Full Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
347
Supports
Bayern
Of course it is! Guardiola's not going on the pitch is he? By definition it is the team's fault. Guardiola is part of the team.

Of course he was at fault for the defeat. It's part of his job to make sure his players are mentally ready. To give them the best possible tools to succeed. City collapsed after going down 2-0. That's (partially) on Guardiola. City had no idea what to do to break down liverpool's low block in the second half. Again, that's (partially) on Guardiola. Sane having a two minutes meltdown, gifting liverpool a goal and then wasting a colossal chance to equalize, was that guardiola's fault? Ox scoring the goal of his life, that was guardiola's fault?(maybe you could blame him for his team's mistake in losing the ball? Maybe it is his fault indeed. Maybe it was just players making mistakes)

Bottom line is, Guardiola did not lose the game. Klopp did not win the game. Liverpool won the game. Manchester City lost the game. Teams don't win and lose based soley, or mostly, on what the managers do. At the most, a manager's impact on any given game, in terms of tactics, selections, substitutions, etc, can be 50%. At most, and only in extremely rare cases. This wasn't it, to be clear
Of course it is not completely his fault and there is always a chance that his approach works when the team performs. A manager's job in a knockout tie however is to setup the team in a way that maximizes the chances of the team going through. I don't think that there was any Bayern fan back then demanding us to go through against Madrid and especially Barcelona when we played them. The thing is however that in those ties, especially the first Madrid game when we only lost by one goal and the first Barcelona game where we got smashed 3-0, we were set up in a way that both our opponents created much, much better chances to score than we did and we never even LOOKED as if we had a chance.

Against Madrid we arguably had the better team before the game, we could have sat back/played a bit more pragmatically to make them attack us. Instead we opted to go full possession mode, created feck all the whole game (not a single half decent chance), Madrid had exactly the same counter situations that Liverpool had in the first half against City but because of our defense/GK/Madrid's wastefulness, we only conceded one.

Against Barca it was even worse. I repeat, I've never expected us to win that tie against them, we had a bunch of injured players just coming back, but we looked so much out of place it was a miracle and due to a world-class performance from Neuer who saved 3-4 1v1s which should all have been goals that we somehow managed to keep the score 0-0 until we collapsed. We had more possession than Barca in the Camp Nou (!!!) and Pep tried to play with three defenders ffs. Even under Ancelotti when our squad got much worse due to age already, we still somehow stood a chance against Madrid albeit eventually deservingly going out in extra time. This was NEVER the case with Pep with a much better squad when we played a team on our level that had fast attackers. The only tie where we played really well under Pep against a strong opponent was against Atletico. They do not have quick wingers and play fast transition football (like Madrid/Enriques Barca/Klopp's Pool) though and we still got kicked out despite going in as clear favourites.
 

Blackwidow

Full Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
6,226
....how was guardiola's lineup at fault exactly? Would it have been different with a more pragmatic approach? Maybe sane and silva would have booted the ball into row Z in both situations, which would prevented those goals. That's cool. But that approach is what got them 84 points in 31 games in the league. It's what makes them so good. Change it because you face an opponent that's very good at countering it means you don't believe in your team. And would city even be able to play differently? With those players?
You know - I have read excuses like this even in the last away matches at Bayern. It could have worked out, we did not look bad, we had the most possession and a lot chances (just that there was not really big chances but a lot shots from distance or non surprising things), nobody tells that it would have worked the other way...

I do not even just take the big matches against Real, Barca or even Atletico - it was the same in all but one away match in the first leg he had with Bayern. Bayern has three offensives that are 3rd, 4th and 7th in the historic goals in the final stages (atleast until this season - I do not know if somebody caught Robben on 7th). We have the players that can decide. All of this were done in a shape with four offensives bar a penalty. There even just was only one assist of one of the offensives in one of this 6 or 7 matches. Real or Barca do not let CR7 or Messi toothless in that matches but try to give them the best conditions.

But as it was - we struggled to get goals even against teams like Donezk, Porto or Moyes' United - and against the good teams conceded atleast one goals because there is always that odd mistake that happens that good teams can convert.
 

giorno

Full Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2016
Messages
15,456
Supports
Real Madrid
To be clear i'm not defending guardiola. I do agree that his tactics played a part in bayern's lucky 1-0 loss at the bernabeu(should have been a lot worse, and would have if cristiano was fit or Bale didn't miss the game entirely) or their demolition at the camp nou

Just pointing out that tactics or formations or selections weren't the reason they went 3-0 against liverpool at half time

Just as much was made, including by guardiola himself, about getting his tactics wrong in the second leg against us in '14 - maybe he did get his tactics wrong, but we scores twice in 20 minutes from set pieces. That was a tactical problem indeed, it meant he made a bad job of working on defending set pieces. Little to do with playing the formation and lineup the players wanted though.
 

elmo

Can never have too many Eevees
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
7,352
Location
AKA: Slapanut Goat Smuggla
Pep's basically Wenger with a better team plus a much bigger transfer budget.

Their teams only play one style and it's great when everything clicks. Once they face problems, it's always because their opponents are being anti-football and never their fault.
 

tomaldinho1

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
4,349
More about players' mentalities and ability to deal with pressure than Pep's tactics. City beat LPool 5-0 early in the season, I doubt their tactics were that different to the loss the other day.

Pressing them into mistakes rattled them - that's why teams who sit off City always suffer because they have a stupidly good squad technically and offensively. Press them high up the pitch - none of Kompany, Otamendi or Walker are particularly good on the ball. If they get it out to the CMs LPool showed you can still swarm KDB and Silva - they're only human.