We had talented midfielders and attackers but never played possession football. When we went for a slower playmaker like Veron, it didn't really work.It probably didn't take a season, but the effectiveness of play of those sides dropped massively the year following their title wins, leading to Mourinho's sack.
On the bolded, huh? This is absolutely news to me. What were we doing with all that talent in midfield and attack then?
His ex players turned coaches... None turned out half as good as SAF. Not a slight on them, but counter-attacking football is the bread and butter of a lot of average coaches (and a few elite ones), so no surprises there.
Mourinho does not set teams up to play on the counter. He literally only did that against Barcelona who were perhaps the best possession-oriented side ever. Mourinhos teams play direct football, he doesn’t care if it’s on the ground or in the air he wants to reach the goal as simplistically and quickly as possible… Then time wastes when he is winning.I think counter attacking can still be decent football. Mourinho scored a lot of goals at Chelsea and Real and we never played much possession under Ferguson.
Yeah, good post. I suppose all teams are somewhere on a counter attacking spectrum even if it’s a small part of their approach. The height of the defensive line often shifts from game to game and within games so there’s a propensity for every team to swing up and down the counter-attacking spectrum.No manager is 100% possession-based or 100% counter-attacking. Mourinho is often considered the quintessential counter-attacking coach, but he only has a counter-attacking formation when faced with strong(er) teams or when in the lead with 20-30 minutes to go. And Pep, the quintessential possession-based coach, will of course have his team counter-attack if they intercept the ball and see big openings up front.
I think the difference between a counter-attacking style and a possesssion-based style can be summarized in two questions:
1. How high is your defensive line?
2. What do you primarily do with the ball when you intercept it?
A counter-attacking style is pretty much dependent on a low defensive line, so the first point is easy enough to grasp. Number 2 is where it gets more tricky. Both styles will mix things up, but it goes without saying that counter-attacking teams will try to counter or go for the long ball more often, even when it's the suboptimal option. I think this is one of the reasons for why people dislike counter-attacking. It seems more desperate and lacking in elegance.
Another reason for why people don't like counter-attacking is because of the message it sends. You sort of admit that the other team is "better at football"(overly simplified, but you get my point). It comes across as less brave, basically. Both teams can't counter attack. The stronger team on paper will almost always be on the front foot.
Personally I have no issue with counter-attacking football. I think it can be quite entertaining and I don't think it symbolizes weakness. I also don't think counter-attacking is easy. It's an art form just like good possession-based football. I can understand the appeal of both styles. I do prefer to be on the front foot rather than reactive, but I also like it when coaches are able to adjust and not just stick to one style. That's why I enjoyed watching Real in the CL last season. To me that was beautiful, and I would have loved to see us win the CL in a similar manner.
By “distinct style” you mean what, exactly? No one here is advocating “park the bus” tactics vs all opposition. What we are saying is that quick passing moves with relatively few passes more commonly produce a goal than long elaborate 20+ pass possessions. There is a lot of research that shows that fast attacks with 5 passes or less produce more goals (2x more) than longer possessions of 6+ passes. This is the basis behind gegenpressing — few progressive passes before the defense is in position, but after the ball is lost, quick recovery of the ball and relatively few passes to unlock a scoring opportunity.Implementing a defensive game style in a one off game isn't a problem. It's a problem when that's pretty much your way to go against any big opposition. Madrid might have played a defensive game here and there but that's not the way they approach all big games.
You are right that results come first and foremost. However style of play is what brings consistent results. Playing defensive football gives you short term results but eventually it's not sustainable and when it will start failing to bring you results, you will have nothing left to praise in the team.
You have to play with a distinct style and with offensive mindset if you ultimately want consistent results. We have been at this multiple times before.
I don’t know mate. In 2008-9 we won the league with 90 points and the CL. SAF was famous for setting up a team on a game-by-game basis. At times, we would put out a very attacking lineup, and against other opponents, a more conservative approach. We averaged 54% possession in the league that year. He was an incredible squad builder and had players that would allow him to alter the team’s attacking style to fit the situation, a multitude of arrows in his quiver, if you will.To be able to win the CL you have to qualify for it first. And all this point a reactive counter attacking team in the PL is not going to qualify for the CL ahead or City, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal. I’m not including Spurs because they are a counter attacking side but they have got very good personnel and a manager who completely embraces that type of football. If results and few cups are what we needed then it would have made sense to go for Conte last January.
As we said multiple times, no one is against counter attacking. We are against it being your only way to score goals, which has been the case for Man United in a long time. It's an additional tactic to have once you cut the ball or against certain opposition but it shouldn't be your main way of attacking, because even if you grind results with it, eventually you will get exposed.By “distinct style” you mean what, exactly? No one here is advocating “park the bus” tactics vs all opposition. What we are saying is that quick passing moves with relatively few passes more commonly produce a goal than long elaborate 20+ pass possessions. There is a lot of research that shows that fast attacks with 5 passes or less produce more goals (2x more) than longer possessions of 6+ passes. This is the basis behind gegenpressing — few progressive passes before the defense is in position, but after the ball is lost, quick recovery of the ball and relatively few passes to unlock a scoring opportunity.
Seems to me the Caf has decided that counterattacking football = park the bus which IS NOT ACCURATE. I agree that to win the league you should have an offensive mindset, but what does that mean? Possession for the sake of possession (Van Gaal) or Pep-style possession, very attacking with a high line, or Klopp style Gegenpressing possession, a high line with low percentage crosses and balls into the box from the fullbacks.
Out of curiosity, what would you say was SAF’s distinct style of play?
Eh. I think football evolves, but there are too many examples of pragmatic, tactically flexible managers winning plenty of trophies. What is Ancelotti’s distinct style? He doesn’t have one. He also has a claim as the greatest manager ever. Gaultier doesn’t have a distinctive style. The true purists tend to have mediocre managerial careers: Bielsa, Rangnick, Gasperini. Of course, Pep is the exception, but he also was employed by 3 of the 5 biggest clubs in the world.As we said multiple times, no one is against counter attacking. We are against it being your only way to score goals, which has been the case for Man United in a long time. It's an additional tactic to have once you cut the ball or against certain opposition but it shouldn't be your main way of attacking, because even if you grind results with it, eventually you will get exposed.
The football has moved on from Fergie days. The current league works different. It was fine back then to not have a distinct style of play and play with game on game basis. The current league favors having a certain, distinctive system implemented in your team to manage amount of points enough to win the league. That has been the case ever since Pep came to England. He changed the landscape of Premier League football forever.
Man City have spent a lot of money and won few league titles before Pep arrived. They have been funded by UAE way before he came. However they have never managed such level of dominance over domestic trophies before him. He's the main reason they managed to reach such current level. Pep's first league title had him win it with 100 points. He is the one who set the bar of +95 points or so to have a shot at winning the league (and even in one year that wasn't enough for his competitor).Eh. I think football evolves, but there are too many examples of pragmatic, tactically flexible managers winning plenty of trophies. What is Ancelotti’s distinct style? He doesn’t have one. He also has a claim as the greatest manager ever. Gaultier doesn’t have a distinctive style. The true purists tend to have mediocre managerial careers: Bielsa, Rangnick, Gasperini. Of course, Pep is the exception, but he also was employed by 3 of the 5 biggest clubs in the world.
If anything, SAF was always about having high quality wing play. In the 90s it was Beckham and Giggs, the 00’s was Ronaldo and Giggs. He usually had a traditional CF that could hold up play, was a fox in the box and a great finisher (RvN, Berbetov, RvP) and he had a gritty, tough spine.
‘Pep hasn’t changed the landscape of the PL forever. Once the PL decided it was okay for foreign countries’ sovereign funds to own football clubs, that’s what changed the PL. The money and quality of players has jumped incredibly in the last two decades — which is great. Someday Pep will leave Man City, they will go out and find they next big manager, give him an astronomical salary and a blank check to build a squad.
How is that not counter attacking football? Direct football and time wasting.Mourinho does not set teams up to play on the counter. He literally only did that against Barcelona who were perhaps the best possession-oriented side ever. Mourinhos teams play direct football, he doesn’t care if it’s on the ground or in the air he wants to reach the goal as simplistically and quickly as possible… Then time wastes when he is winning.
Typical Mourinho teams have a forward thinking midfielder who works in combination with a lone striker. Lampard/Drogba, Sneijder/Milito, Fabregas/Costa, Pogba/Ibra. It only slightly differed at Spuds and Madrid being Benzema/Ronaldo and Son/Kane.
We definitely need 90+ points to win the league. The discussion we are having now is, can Pep be beat in the league by a team managed by a pragmatist. I agree with you that it’s not LIKELY, but it is possible. Pep’s big game record isn’t exactly perfect. Because his response to every tactical adjustment is to double down on possession, play an even higher line, search for more overloads, it really puts him at a disadvantage vs top teams who have equally talented players.Man City have spent a lot of money and won few league titles before Pep arrived. They have been funded by UAE way before he came. However they have never managed such level of dominance over domestic trophies before him. He's the main reason they managed to reach such current level. Pep's first league title had him win it with 100 points. He is the one who set the bar of +95 points or so to have a shot at winning the league (and even in one year that wasn't enough for his competitor).
You can't achieve this kinds of high points tally without ridiculously high level of consistency which is only achievable in case of having a distinctive system that the play memorize and implement every game, in my opinion.
Carlo might beat Pep a CL tie or a one game but I honestly doubt he can win a league title from Guardiola at the moment. Whatever we like it or not, that's the current league we are competing in and that's our opponent. If we want to defeat him one day, we will have to evolve and rise to the standards he put.
