Ribery: Pep lacks experience

When people say Pep is a genius they are talking about tactical things that no other coach does to change games.

He did similar things at Barca, people go Lerl Messi but go back and watch those games and he did many tactical things which gave them an edge to make them great.

That's not to say he's not faultless because he quite clearly is but he quite clearly does things from a tactical point of view that most coaches wouldn't even think about and when they come off it looks great.

I'd argue that Ancelotti and Simeone have similar traits but in different ways. It's not always about winning, for example Capello won more than Sacchi but Sacchi gets more credit because he did creative things from a tactical point of view that made them great.

That isn't exactly a new thing really, creative coaches with new/updated idea always get praise. People did the same with Klopp at Dortmund. Not sure why that annoys anybody lol.

Casciavit wrote:

futbol wrote:

Casciavit wrote:

Yes, he did build a GOAT team. Who was it that built the midfield around Xavi and Iniesta when it was widely regarded by the media, that they couldn't co-exist with one another in the midfield? Aragones.

Who binned all the bad influences and gave Messi the primary attacking responsibility? Messi himself.

Who turned Pique into a CB who many regarded as one of the best in the world? Many are stupid.

Who called up Busquets and made him a starter? Pep.

Who put Messi into the false 9? Messi.

Who made a scrub like Pedro look like an actual footballer? La Masia. (:

---

But nah, let me guess any other coach would have done that, silly me. When things go wrong it's on the coach, when things go well it's because of the players.

Just proves why you are one of the worst posters on the forum. See yourself out son.

Fixed.

There is a difference between Aragones playing Iniesta as a LM and Xavi as a RCM in a 4-4-2 and them playing as interiors in Barca's 4-3-3. Barca was playing 4-3-3 and people used to say Xavi and Iniesta couldn't play as interiors together. I'm not making this shit up, you know it as well. The fact of the matter is, that's a step Pep took to building his team.

Messi wanted his friends like Deco, Dinho, and co. to stay. He was pissed about them leaving and his relationship with Pep was off to a rocky start until Pep let him go to the olympics. Another step Pep took. I'm not making this up, you know it's true as well.

Pique was highly praised when Pep was coaching the team. You guys used to call him Piquenbauer ffs. I'm not sure why you dislike him he was really good for you guys in 2015.

Pedro starting ahead of Henry in 2010 rather than Barca signing a big money signing was also done by Pep. His 5-game goalscoring streak which gave the illusion that he's WC ( Futbol), happened under Pep's reign, didn't it?

I don't get what was so outrageous with that post. I'm not sure if every coach would have done the same thing, but those are the steps he took and they played out wonders.

My post was obviously a joke but on a serious note, I don't believe that Pep was responsible for Messi being less injury-prone. Yeah, I know it was reported how Pep introduced a different diet and that's fine and all that. But that's gossip news as far as I'm concerned. As if pro athletes worth multi millions of dollars aren't under the watch of various physicians, nutricionists, specialists etc. who are the best in the business. And they all fail to keep Messi healthy but then Pep walks in, says: "Healthier food you must eat, young padawan, here is your new diet", and Messi turns from a fragile glassman into a cyborg who never gets injured? Meh ... Pls.
Iniesta under Pep remained as injury-prone as ever, why did Pep not fix him? Why could Pep not fix the entire Bayern squad?
Young, explosive players getting injured a lot isn't a big surprise. An 18 year old's body is still developing. Players also get a better feeling for their own bodies with time and know how to pace themselves - unless they are stupid like Alba or Sanchez and go full sprint all the time for lost causes. So for all we know there were completely different reasons for Messi becoming less injury-prone and not a simple "healthier food diet" which Pep prescribed.

I also don't see a big difference in Aragones making it work or Pep making it work with Xavi and Iniesta together. The main principle is the same: a bunch of physically weak players dominating the game. Whether it's called 4-4-2 or 4-3-3, what does it really matter? Midgets like Iniesta, Xavi and Silva with only Marcos Senna providing some physicallity + 2 strikers. Aragones made it work with physical weaklings long before Pep.

urbaNRoots wrote:

Donuts wrote:if anything mourinho was praised at real madrid for reaching the semi finals three years running lol

http://www.goallegacy.net/t30006-mourinho-has-failed

pls

sportsczy wrote:Not a failure. 1 La Liga, 3 straight CL semis, 1 CDR and still some things to play for in 3 years is good considering what a mess we were before him. It's nothing special for Real Madrid historically... but it's good.

My big problem with him is that he's distracted the team this year on his own + our playing style is not easy on the eyes. Mou is just not a very classy person. Very good manager though if you're into underdog tactics and results.

i mean not even three posts into it and someone proved my point

For a more serious talk on what I think about Pep and why I rate the other 2 above him:

@Mole

These tactical changes by Pep are great, and its the aspect I like most about football. But its not unique, all of these top managers do it.

In my opinion Pep sometimes goes overboad with his experiments just for the sake of trying something new; which, while interesting, doesn't necessarily give his team the best chance at winning the game. For all his experiments he seems inflexible when it comes to taking a safe approach.

2 aspects that he seems incapable (or unwilling) of introducing in his games that I find absolutely key are: 1) closing a game and 2) administering the flow of play.

When has Pep decided that its better to secure the victory or goal-margin instead of continuing with his usual plan? That was a big fault in the Juve-Bayern game this year when we came back from 0-2. Its not always right to close shop, but its SOMETIMES right, and with Pep it never seems to be an option.

On managing the flow of play, his teams seem absolutely hell bent on plan A. He prepares the game, he teaches the moves, and then he pushes plan A for 90 minutes like no one else. His plan A is usually great, but he is unchanging about it. At Barca it was about having 99.9% of the ball at all times, it was great until some teams started to figure out how to defend and counter against it. Maybe it would be better to concede some of the ball and invite mistakes, but no, always the same.

At Bayern it became all out attack to a ridiculous extent, they attacked like Pep would kill them if they just slowed down for 2 minutes. It was like watching a machine gun fire, but then if the opposition had a tank (like Atleti) then it looks a bit ridiculous to me. Changing the pace, changing the tactics, sit back at certain times, counter, these things could have helped in Turin or Madrid but no chance with him. He would try 1000 formations and experiments but when the game started it was always full blast from 1 to 90 minutes.

On the finer things like positional changes and new ideas, Carlo famously made Pirlo a regista, implemented his highly effective Christmas tree formation, brought Di Maria back to midfield, got the best of Kaka, etc. Simeone brought Torres back to life and made a bunch of players no one rated seem like GOATs.

Its the very reason I love watching Juve with Allegri, but I dont rate him as a the best for it (not yet... ). His weird mix of a 3-5-2 and a 4-4-2 where Barzagli ended up beasting as a right back vs City. His usage of Cuadrado in a loopsided formation was awesome. Giving Pogba a much more free role. Changing forth and back between the back 3 and a 4-3-1-2 as the game demanded (ex.: switching to a back 3 in Dortmund which destroyed them on the counter 0-3). Going to Munich with a bunch of injuries and changing the system to a 4-3-3 we had never played and using Alex Sandro as a LW, giving his debut to Sturaro in the semifinal against Real Madrid and starting him again in the same role against City in our season CL opener. All these to very successful results.

All great managers do it, Pep just doesn't stop with the experimenting while at the same time, being unwilling to manage and interpret a game as its played.

Donuts wrote:

urbaNRoots wrote:

Donuts wrote:if anything mourinho was praised at real madrid for reaching the semi finals three years running lol

http://www.goallegacy.net/t30006-mourinho-has-failed

pls

sportsczy wrote:Not a failure. 1 La Liga, 3 straight CL semis, 1 CDR and still some things to play for in 3 years is good considering what a mess we were before him. It's nothing special for Real Madrid historically... but it's good.

My big problem with him is that he's distracted the team this year on his own + our playing style is not easy on the eyes. Mou is just not a very classy person. Very good manager though if you're into underdog tactics and results.

i mean not even three posts into it and someone proved my point

Yeah but Mourinho does deserve to be lauded for taking Real to consecutive CL semifinals, because before him Real got kicked out of 1/16 something like 8 years in a row.
They had a veritable CL failure complex.

Mourinho broke that spell. That's not nothing.

Situation at Bayern of course different, before Pep Bayern was in 3 FINALS in 4 seasons, then obviously 3 semifinals aren't that impressive, no doubt.

Yet still I'd argue this is a very superficial look at what constitute achievement or failure.

so mou should get praised for having shat managers before him despite spending half a billion dollars on that squad

but pep can't get praised because he had a cl choker finally win it a year before he got there?

my point is not about failure or not it's about the ridiculous expecations put on pep
like i said he's 6/7 in league titles and 2/7 in champions league

if a more likable person had that stat say some english guy in the epl he'd be praised like no other lmao

If you join a team that dominates the league, won the trebble the year before, and has been to 3 CL finals in 4 years, then you are gonna have expectations.

If he wants a chill ride he should go back to Brescia and see what he can do.

The biggest stroke of tactical genius from Pep was positionally unleashing Xavi. He realized as soon as he came in that Xavi was waiting to be unleashed and he allowed Xavi the freedom of the entire pitch. It was visionary and it was this move which laid the foundations of our historic success.
Barca midfielders are postionally constrained. They have freedom in their vertical movement but not too much in their horizontal movement. Pep changed that and allowed Xavi complete postional freedom(both horizontal and vertical). The beast in Xavi was awakened and we went on to dominate game after game for 4 years.
You needed other tactical elements to compensate for the enhanced positional freedom of the CM's but Pep made sure of that.
Thats where his genius comes in.

I would urge people to watch our games from then and now. The difference is night and day.

Hapless_Hans wrote:

zigra wrote:That Inter team was amazing. Ripped Barcelona apart, made Bayern look like a 3rd division team etc. Best team of the current century so far.

You are out of your mind.

Stop hating. It's not even very close.

futbol wrote:

Casciavit wrote:

futbol wrote:

Fixed.

There is a difference between Aragones playing Iniesta as a LM and Xavi as a RCM in a 4-4-2 and them playing as interiors in Barca's 4-3-3. Barca was playing 4-3-3 and people used to say Xavi and Iniesta couldn't play as interiors together. I'm not making this shit up, you know it as well. The fact of the matter is, that's a step Pep took to building his team.

Messi wanted his friends like Deco, Dinho, and co. to stay. He was pissed about them leaving and his relationship with Pep was off to a rocky start until Pep let him go to the olympics. Another step Pep took. I'm not making this up, you know it's true as well.

Pique was highly praised when Pep was coaching the team. You guys used to call him Piquenbauer ffs. I'm not sure why you dislike him he was really good for you guys in 2015.

Pedro starting ahead of Henry in 2010 rather than Barca signing a big money signing was also done by Pep. His 5-game goalscoring streak which gave the illusion that he's WC ( Futbol), happened under Pep's reign, didn't it?

I don't get what was so outrageous with that post. I'm not sure if every coach would have done the same thing, but those are the steps he took and they played out wonders.

My post was obviously a joke but on a serious note, I don't believe that Pep was responsible for Messi being less injury-prone. Yeah, I know it was reported how Pep introduced a different diet and that's fine and all that. But that's gossip news as far as I'm concerned. As if pro athletes worth multi millions of dollars aren't under the watch of various physicians, nutricionists, specialists etc. who are the best in the business. And they all fail to keep Messi healthy but then Pep walks in, says: "Healthier food you must eat, young padawan, here is your new diet", and Messi turns from a fragile glassman into a cyborg who never gets injured? Meh ... Pls.
Iniesta under Pep remained as injury-prone as ever, why did Pep not fix him? Why could Pep not fix the entire Bayern squad?
Young, explosive players getting injured a lot isn't a big surprise. An 18 year old's body is still developing. Players also get a better feeling for their own bodies with time and know how to pace themselves - unless they are stupid like Alba or Sanchez and go full sprint all the time for lost causes. So for all we know there were completely different reasons for Messi becoming less injury-prone and not a simple "healthier food diet" which Pep prescribed.

I also don't see a big difference in Aragones making it work or Pep making it work with Xavi and Iniesta together. The main principle is the same: a bunch of physically weak players dominating the game. Whether it's called 4-4-2 or 4-3-3, what does it really matter? Midgets like Iniesta, Xavi and Silva with only Marcos Senna providing some physicallity + 2 strikers. Aragones made it work with physical weaklings long before Pep.

I don't know, when it comes to Messi can we really say the diet didn't have an effect? His 2 injury-prone years were from 2006-2008 and 2013-2014, and once he stopped getting injured the first time, it was said that Pep put him on a specific diet and the second time he started seeing a nutritionist (which he confirmed).

The main reason Messi stopped getting injured, diet aside, was that Pep told him to stop running. The first of the Cruyff rules is don't run pointlessly. As you said, he learnt to pace himself and he took that advice a little too literally a few years later. One of the first things Pep tells his attacking players is "stay in your position, the midfielders will get the ball to you guys in advantageous positions." I mean is it just a coincidence he started getting injured a lot as soon as Tata came in and told him he wanted him to press intensely (at the beginning)?

It's a bit different between Messi and Iniesta, no? One plays in central midfield, so he isn't given the same leisure that Messi is. Iniesta can't rest himself in games and run 7KM per game like Messi does. Bayern doesn't have a player like Messi, so there isn't a player who is given the leisure that Messi was given. I mean when you come to think of it, the only injury prone player who Pep actually had a hand in stopping him from getting injured was Messi. The main reason was because he gave Messi the leisure to run 7Km per game.

If we exclude 'other measures (inb4 harmonica)', a strict diet and running 7km per game seems like a decent reason why he stopped getting injured.

As for Bayern, injury prone players were still injury prone under his reign. If we exclude freak injuries like a player falling on Alaba's knee during the international break, or Lahm breaking his ankle in training, the likes of Badstuber, Robben, Ribery, and Benatia were regularly injured under him, before him, and will get injured after him. Robben got injured in a preseason match a week ago. And these players got older under his watch, so recovery time is naturally going to be longer.

I've read a theory that Bayern has a dodgy training pitch which the players hate and it was installed in 2014 (i think). I think it was removed during the summer. Hans can shed more light on that. Also, if City continually deal with injuries, then it will have something to do with Pep's methods, but if Ancelotti's Bayern constantly gets injured and Pep's City rarely does so, then it has more to do with the players and medics rather than the coaches.

I was a big fan of Aragones' 2008 Spain, but what other options did he have in midfield? They were all small technical players lol. I'm sure Spain's Euro 2008 win gave Pep more conviction to go ahead and build the midfield around Xavi and Iniesta, but the guy was saying they should be Barca's starting interiors before that. He used to write weekly columns in 2007, in which he would say Xavi and Iniesta need to play together and that they both need the creative freedom to do their thing. It isn't anything revolutionary, though. The entire Cruyffian school of thought is about picking the players who can make the best decisions in the smallest of spaces, regardless of physicality. At the end of the day, Pep was the one who went with that decision and his Barca is widely regarded as the GOAT team.

Bayern players might not be as physically fit as usual because of a mix of age, fatigue and the fact that Dr. Mueller-Wohlfahrt is no long with the club (one of the best physical doctors in sports, today) after some brawl with ze Pep. One very dodgy decision made after the medical staff was blamed (?!) after a Porto away loss.

Anyways, Pep's Bayern run is still pretty warm to me. Not hot, not cold, but definitely didn't get the blood flowing as it should. I sure as hell ain't bashing his coaching expertise, (HE'S A GOOD COACH) but as a Bayern fan I surely expected more. Highly unrealistic and too ambitious, perhaps? Sure. But that's what he was sold as from the beginning. The hype ain't all that but he's sure as hell a solid coach. Which is a very positive statement, that's pretty much the highest praise I can give a coach. There is no magical fix-it-all coach or trophy magnet guy or team builder all in one. They all have their strengths and their weaknesses.

Mole wrote:I can guarantee right now if Bayern don't win the CL, Ancelotti won't get anywhere near the same criticism and you'll sit there with a straight face trying to tell yourself that you are not judging Pep on a different level lol.

I honestly don't give two fracks about Pep anymore. I only enjoy pulling some people down to Earth when they Pep-wank. I sure won't compare him to Ancelotti. Ancelotti is pretty much the go-to coach for what Bayern are after: a CL. If he wins the CL, awesome. He might win the CL but lose the Buli to Dortmund. He'll get bitched at for that even with the CL. He might win BL, but fail again in the CL. More bitching. Guardiola won't even be mentioned, they'll all compare him to Heynckes and probably call both of them failures. It's normal at big clubs. Fans are big sissies. Coaches at big clubs will always be torn apart, no matter what. I don't see how people are hating more on Pep more than they've hated on other coaches.

If Ancelotti does win the CL, though, he'll inevitably be compared to Pep, overall. People will start wanking on Ancelotti and Pep's BAYERN TENURE will look worse than it was. I personally know I'll start bitching that as sweet and wonderful Pep's football was, Ancelotti's maybe more direct and stricter tactics were more suited to tournament football than Pep's tactics were. Not bashing on Pep, but a the end of the day, I'm a pragmatic and as long as the trophies come in, I don't care how they were earned. That's why I don't bitch about Inter or Chelsea CL wins, you don't have to play football only in the aesthetically pleasing way. I still remember how gung-ho Bayern were under Van Gaal, and while it was awesome seeing the goals fly, I'd rather a 1-0 than a 3-2 with the away goal rule taken into account.

He'll have enough hype as it is if he gets any measure of success with ManC under the legendary PL propaganda machine

rincon wrote:
On managing the flow of play, his teams seem absolutely hell bent on plan A. He prepares the game, he teaches the moves, and then he pushes plan A for 90 minutes like no one else. His plan A is usually great, but he is unchanging about it. At Barca it was about having 99.9% of the ball at all times, it was great until some teams started to figure out how to defend and counter against it. Maybe it would be better to concede some of the ball and invite mistakes, but no, always the same.

Excellent summary. Had a paragraph more or less detailing this on another thread. Glad to see an echo of it.

If you're the best team in the world at controlling the ball, why surrender it?

The guy has 21 titles in 7 years averaging 3 titles a season, while averaging a 73% win percentage. I wouldn't say he really needs a plan B.

Casciavit wrote:If you're the best team in the world at controlling the ball, why surrender it?

Does controlling the ball at all costs impact your defensive shape? Does all that pressing stretch your defensive line? Would maybe adding a little more risk to your game plan end up with better results?

Winter is Coming wrote:The guy has 21 titles in 7 years averaging 3 titles a season, while averaging a 73% win percentage. I wouldn't say he really needs a plan B.

So now statistics support stubbornness?

Everyone needs a plan B. Everyone. Every coach needs a plan B, C, D...

Even the legendary Guardiola had 'em, even if you did not notice them. He switched formations, varied players' positions, benched who he wanted to bench... And these are just small tactical tweaks, the overall aim of the game being the same.

There were times when the opposing team had setup their tactics just the way to make the team look like schoolboys, even with the 70% possession you adore. I know there is no perfect game plan, I know shit happens, I know sometimes it's blind luck. But I'm not mistaking resilience in your game plan to just plain stubbornness. And boy could he be stubborn (main weakness).

Sushi Master wrote:

Winter is Coming wrote:The guy has 21 titles in 7 years averaging 3 titles a season, while averaging a 73% win percentage. I wouldn't say he really needs a plan B.

So now statistics support stubbornness?

Everyone needs a plan B. Everyone. Every coach needs a plan B, C, D...

Even the legendary Guardiola had 'em, even if you did not notice them. He switched formations, varied players' positions, benched who he wanted to bench... And these are just small tactical tweaks, the overall aim of the game being the same.

There were times when the opposing team had setup their tactics just the way to make the team look like schoolboys, even with the 70% possession you adore. I know there is no perfect game plan, I know shit happens, I know sometimes it's blind luck. But I'm not mistaking resilience in your game plan to just plain stubbornness. And boy could he be stubborn (main weakness).

No.

I don't believe in a plan B, nor do I think any coach actually has that. Every coach has their style of play or their idea of how they want their team to play, because they make certain subs, change formation or tactically changes doesn't really equal a plan B for me at least.

If Mou had a plan B he would've done a lot better at RM and Chelsea, Carlo wouldn't have gone 7 years with a great Milan side holding one league title and he wouldn't have drilled his RM squad to the ground in his final season.

The whole plan B thing is BS. Managers set up their team to play a certain way and then they play that way all of the time. Because your team is inferior to another team and has to adapt to not get blown out by a superior team does NOT mean you have a plan B. It means you have an inferior team to your opponent. I don't think there was ever a team that Pep faced with his Barca/Bayern that was inferior to his own, so of course he's going to let his team attempt to stamp their authority. Has he messed up due to this? Yeah, but again I don't think that has anything to do with "having a plan B", it means he got his tactics wrong vs teams like Madrid. Which he's admitted...

People talk about Simeone, how his teams have a plan B because they play differently against the likes of Granada vs Barca. Again, this isn't a plan B, this is because of the gulf in quality between the two teams. Atletico can impose themselves on Granada. Against the likes of Barca, Simeone prefers the more conservative approach. That's fair, and he's had some success with it.

On some other notes: as much as I love to defend Pep, Messi's injury prone-ness is not because of him. I find that a pretty ridiculous claim. He may have helped. Playing Iniesta and Xavi together wasn't Pep either. As Alex mentioned, the bigger change was tweaking the positional freedom of Xavi.

Plan B is not bullshit at all. This current Barca definitely has a plan B. Under Pep we would have never seen a picture book counterattacking goal like the one against Arsenal in Emirates for example. But at the same time we can still pull off 40 pass sequence goals as well, like against Real Madrid in the Bernabeu.

If Pep's Barca was:

possession: 10+
direct, counterattacking play: 3

Then Luis Enrique's Barca is:

possession: 8
direct, counterattacking play: 8

I prefer the latter but I also concede that at its very very best, when executed to absolute perfection, the 5-0 performance against Real Madrid will never be topped. This type of humiliation is just too much:



First time in my life where I actually felt sorry for an opponent.

Yep, Enrique made Barca really dangerous with the extra worry of their counters.

Same thing happened in the CL final vs Juve, just when we looked comfortable and confident after equalizing and pushing for the win, a counter killed us. It made it so hard to play against that team since you could get hit in any situation.

Mainly because he had Suarez, Neymar and Messi though, i doubt Pep wouldn't have changed if had those 3.

Hell his first year at Barca the team was very direct and hit counter attacks a lot with Henry, Eto'o and Messi. I mean Xavi had like 30 assists that year lol, wouldn't be possible if your team wasn't at least a little bit direct.

Yes but then he proceeded to change all that and spend years only getting players that did 100% his system, or turned them into ones that did.

Why not have a couple of subs with different characteristics that would allow you to shake it up and play more directly? He was the one that tailored his squad to do 1 thing, so player availability can't really be used as an argument.

Eh he did lol?

Hell he signed Ibra purely because he was concerned that people would figure his team out. Didn't work out, but he was purely signed for that reason.

The only type of different player he didn't have was a traditional #9 but that type of player never has and never will work with Xavi and Iniesta.

Lol yea, he signed Ibra and that lasted about half a season. Great example. No CF, no wingers, no physical mids, no alternatives.

False 9, inside forwards and AM/CM (Iniesta and Fabregas). That became the formula for everything.

A formula which backfired dramatically in the form of another Champions League win.

Yep.
Seven season of top level coaching, 6 league titles, 2 CLs, made CL semi in every season, a handful of cups on top.

Clearly his appraoch is deeply flawed and one-dimensional.

dostoevsky wrote:A formula which backfired dramatically in the form of another Champions League win.

That doesn't matter though. What matters is do you have plan B and can play different styles of football ala Mourinho.