Why Roma, Juve and Man C, etc. continue to struggle in Europe?

Agreed. Provinciale school.

Robespierre wrote:Agreed. Provinciale school.

it's not as bad as the provencial school in france .


" your team must  win by a two goal margin ?  you need to play with 3 defensive midfielders !! "

they lack winning pedigree in europe... and is so focused at just doing well domestically and underestimate europe... with all due respect.

Tomwin Lannister wrote:Because the whole league bar a couple of teams ends up mirroring Juve with players who are absolutely shit

Teams have no wingers, no pace and end up using wing backs themselves

We have no pace, no direct play and a shit, static attack. That doesn't matter when you're playing against slow motion serie A fodder teams who are just a much weaker reflection of yourselves.

Even in Serie A it looks terrible at times but we just grind teams down

Lichtsteiner a 30 year old full back with a crap offensive skillset is always in the final 3rd on the ball

Asamoah a *bleep* CM is playing LWB-LW and is similarly shit offensively.

We play with an extra defender, yet when Barzagli is out it's pointless as at least 2 of our 3 other CBs at any given time are a liability

And finally we have no creativity to speak of

Add a pair of decent wingers, and an actual left back who's not 50 years old to Juve and you have a different team entirely, assuming the mentality changes along with the formation

It doesn't even have to be an expensive transfer window to sort Juve out for Europe. Just need to stop buying *bleep* 11th choice CMs and going after 19th choice CBs and buy some *bleep* pacey, direct players.

Great post.

Would Roma even be mentioned in this thread if we had lost 2-1 instead of 7-1?

McLewis wrote:Would Roma even be mentioned in this thread if we had lost 2-1 instead of 7-1?

No. And 2-1 or 7-1 makes no difference for the group.
They're 2nd place in a tough group, ahead of the Premier league champions, that's not really struggling.

Short version.

Juve lack pace, directness and creativity.

Roma are not good enough. Gervinho is their star, washed up Cole is tasked to stop Robben, Totti is starting high intensity CL games with 38 and Molecastle legend Mbiwa is holding the defense together. Says it all.

City are unlucky with the draws and their 4-4-2 sucks. 2 man midfield with Yaya in there = no midfield. Kompany is perceived to be a top 10 defender when in reality he battles with Pique to make it into the top 50 if they try hard.

Having said that, City are certainly the most disappointing. No excuses to give away a 2 goal lead to ZSKA.

I'm not that familiar with man city but judging by what i,ve seen so far the main problem is lack of creativity in the middle park.

Roma's problem are injuries and inexperience, apart from few players the rest had little to non CL experience. That's the same for Garcia as well

Juve also lack attacking threats. They have Tevez, whose European record has always been poor, but apart from that they only have the B-Graders: Morata, Giovinco, Llorente, etc. The goals have always come from their exceptionally talented group of central midfielders - Pogba, Vidal, Marchisio, Pirlo. Sometimes you just need a bloody poacher to finish that shit off when you get the chances, because we all know that with 5 midfielders controlling the game, maintaining possession is not the problem.

As explained by me many times before; the problem with Juventus is that they have not adapted to the needs and struts in how to provide a concise vector that most successful teams in the CL, use.

In Europe it is currently a trend to deploy a linear formation which ticks in the marks in terms of:
-Pace
-Pace used in the wide pockets to stretch teams
-Vectors meaning to align the best ways possible to get the ball (built from the defence) to the attack in the most efficient way possible.
-Midfielders who can protect the fullbacks
-Ability to transition from dead slow pace on one zone to fast pace in another, contract the opposition in one zone while leaving the opposite exposed, pace then is applied off the ball.


Modern formations such as 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3, 4-4-2 modifications yet these are all formations, the idea what Juventus do not understand is that what may work in Serie A does not work in Europe.

In Serie A formations that adjust to pace in which complexity, elaboration and intricacy are prioritized given it is a chess game than a battle of linear football in Europe.

With the pace of the game in Europe, with its now increasingly unpredictable plastic balls, shorter (and wetter grass) attacking fullbacks, use of pace and a general plethora of the combination of all ideas; Serie A will fall behind.

Not because it cannot compete, but the lack of adaptation in swiftly transitioning Serie A tactics to CL is the bane of their ability to compete subsequently.

Conte's system failed vs Bayern for the reasons being:
-He switched his 3-5-2 in pushing the wing backs deeper, leaving two already offensively average wing backs deeper in positions to which they do not prefer to anchor their wide zone.
-Pushing Pirlo back into a defensive midfield role, leaving him utterly useless and only to protect the defence while pinging balls forward to an already isolated attack.
-Marchisio in an advanced SS role to which he is not comfortable with given he likes to measure space from deep and THEN run on (or off) the ball into tight spaces
-Not playing their game.

Under Allegri Juventus are more vertical, yet prefer a slower build-up along with prioritizing possession. Yet the semantic is essentially similar as it looks a team without a spark on when to defend and when to attack; their mentality strains under seeing teams with a different tactical outlet then them, causing lack of cohesion, deeper shifts into their own half and the attack being isolated.

-Currently you have wing backs who do not produce enough in the final third.
-A Pirlo who is completely unfit after being out with a delimitating injury for months
-A striker in Fernando Llorente who like Mario Balotelli or Zlatan Ibrahimovic at Barça is being played in a role to which is done based only on his physique. His play beginning of the season was exquisite yet now has reduced into a CF completely lost and out of confidence given that the sacrificial role of his has not allowed him enough space to score; now a shadow of his best and out of confidence completely.
-A cavernous gap between the midfield and attack, Tevez prefers to make runs from deep off the ball while Llorente is devoid of a role at the moment, Marchisio is busy performing several roles at once while Pirlo-Vidal are considerably deep.

It is no coincidence that Juventus when playing a 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 while tactically look less in depth, play far better in Europe and at times within Serie A compared to a system to which has run its cycle and course.

Critics are harsh to point out their losses considering facing Atleti in the Calderon is a nightmare while Olympiakos in Greece for years have been an even greater one for big teams yet in both instances, Juventus changed formation to 4-2-3-1 from 75+ onwards and dominated the opposition, versus Olympiakos looking a team in a surge of attack after attack; fortunately to be saved by the heroics of Roberto.

How have solid tacticians in Conte and Allegri not seen this? Is it to preserve the tactical implementation in Serie A? It goes beyond just an accusation of cowardice and into the stubbornness in general within Italian managers; Conte being a large example while Allegri a man who simply does not have enough belief in ideas while promising, only to be ditched.

It is funny considering how much Italian managers emphasize Calculus to improve their tactical nous (Ancelotti, Allegri, Trap, Mazzone, Lippi) yet do not understand the role of linearity in Europe.

Outputs such as an Implementation thesis or something similar to an SAP format (in theory) yet none of it applied since the pragmatism in Serie A costs them in Europe.

Roma?

It comes down to Rudi Garcia. Even in his excellent Lille when it came to the big teams in Europe, he abandoned his ideas in reactivity to a more pragmatic husk of his system (both teams) to which already has his semantic of no use given it regresses on how Lille and Roma WANTED to play (not used to). Until Rudi does not flinch in the prospect of large teams, they will next make the next step. This is not to say that he is a big game flop (quite the contrary) as in small sample sizes versus big teams his system when unaltered has yielded magnificent results.

It went beyond deploying an unfit De Rossi, or Cole out of his senses after a stellar performance vs Man City or the fact that their midfield was devoid of any role.

It came down to how they were awed much too much by the occasion, giving to much respect to the fantastic Bayern and not applying their own ideas with conviction.

Both parallels in teams while minor on a larger scale will continue to haunt them if they cannot differentiate or at least be dynamic tactically when it counts.

I disagree a out Garcia Arqi... his problem at Lille was that the turnover was very bigh each season on the attack and it took the new guys a couple of months to get the system down. Lille just couldn't score enough in the early season and they usually fell behind in Ligue 1 and failed in CL pool play. Lille would get roling in November usually, which was often too late for CL.

Garcia always played his style regardless. Very Wneger-like in that regard.

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:City isn't a question of quality, it's a question of versatility and adaptation. They have a squad which is heavily been built with the PLs strengths and weaknesses in mind.

Now they struggle because they can't adapt to a different style of play, problem is if they did get players to help them adapt to CL style of play they would lose something in the league.

It's a deep rooted issue which is not easily solved.

Could you explain what exactly you mean by this? How they're tailored for the PL and not the CL? I'm genuinely curious as I've been confused myself about City in Europe.

Midfield play and tactics are too dummied down... that's what Mole means. Other than Yaya, no creativity or technical ability. In CL, they take Yaya out and City stall. They can get away with it in EPL, but not in Europe.

Other issue i've seen with all the EPL teams and not just City... the defense sits so low that the opposition strikers don't really have to worry about getting caught offsides. The biggest problem is that defenders are far too often asked to make a defensive play in the box... and that's very, very dangerous and limiting. You don't want defenders facing attacking players near or in the box.

Wow, quality posts, so thx to everyone for the great opinions and its great too see.

I hope I understood most of them, just have 2 questions:

1） Similarly by Man C built and playing style suitable for EPL rather than CL, meaning less focus on midfield and defense, with attack more simple and direct (as someone said before just more gung ho?) than would be successful in Europe correct? (My English isnt great so hope I dont cross across being too simple ) If thats true, then I also believe even more Pellegrini is limited in that hes style is just too attacking and less intricate need for Europe.

2）What did the word linear Arq mean which is the EU CL style teams tend to play or is the nature of it? As in smooth transitions?

Funny reading about Juve, didnt realise them and the league is that bad in terms of pace or that everyone just mimics them and gets overpowered

I think really the posts Ive come to realise just how important the manager is, and how hard Europe can be.

juve are unable to get away with their cheating ways in cl. we've seen this movie before.
ladri always