Catenaccio vs Parking the bus

dani, excellent post.

I will put it this way - Winning with style > Winning without style > Losing with style > Losing without style

In other words I'd take a functional winning Inter Milan over an aesthetically pleasing losing Arsenal. However a Barcelona who does both for me is way better than either. At the same time a losing Arsenal is still better than a losing Chelsea of 2010-11.

In international football for example Cruyff's team is recalled more than Beckenbauer's but I am sure Beckenbauer feels greater happiness at having won the world cup than Cruyff feels at having lost it closely. Neither can compare to the stature that Pele is given however. Hence there is no substitute to winning with style.

In my view this is what Real Madrid are doing currently. Let's recall in 2006-07 they hired Capello to get back the winning habit. Once they got that they wanted to recover their style as well. Right now once again they are desperate to win. They know Mourinho won't stay for long. So they want to use his time to get the team back to winning big and the minute he leaves the next coach they hire will be asked to rediscover their style while maintaining the winning.

One question we can ask ourselves is why Capello was fired and Mourinho has been garlanded. I can suggest a few reasons. One is that Mourinho uses a horses for courses approach. That means only when he faces a definitively superior team like Barcelona he goes for cynicism and negativity but against weaker teams he allows the players to play freely. Capello forced them to play in one way all the time. Maybe Mourinho has learned from what happened to Capello in spite of the title win. Then again in Capello's defense his team had much less quality than Mourinho's has and La Liga then had other strong teams. Sevilla especially were going great guns in the days of Juande Ramos. The other, possibly even bigger reason, is that for all his winning mentality, Capello failed badly in UCL. It has actually been probably the biggest blemish in his illustrious career that he has not done that well in knock out competition for many years. Mourinho on the other hand is a knock out and UCL specialist as he continues to demonstrate.

Really liked this line in your post which is also on the lines of my signature - "in which individual greatness, team collectivity and breathtaking football was the key"

the problem here is that you guys are the ones that brand it as "anti-football" and you contradict your selves by not understanding the game.

but thats the mentality of your club and your philospohy and of course you think like that. i as a person think a different way and therefore i am a fan of another type of football, football that you brand as incorrect.

i do agree with the arsenal part, they have no philospohy and thus not substance, but if you blind your self into thinking your way of football is the best, then that will be your ultimate distruction

i know you call me crazy but those who dont adapt and blind themselves are those who lose.

if you cant score against a team that sits back and defends, you call it incorrect.. but under what law, if they are the WINNERS? what defines a winner? you define it by beauty but what if you didnt have the strong enough philospohy?

if you free your self and open your self you will be open to end less possibilities. and that isnt possible by what ive seen with you guys, its either YOUR brand of football or the highway.

messixaviesta wrote:dani, excellent post.

I will put it this way - Winning with style > Winning without style > Losing with style > Losing without style

In other words I'd take a functional winning Inter Milan over an aesthetically pleasing losing Arsenal. However a Barcelona who does both for me is way better than either. At the same time a losing Arsenal is still better than a losing Chelsea of 2010-11.

In international football for example Cruyff's team is recalled more than Beckenbauer's but I am sure Beckenbauer feels greater happiness at having won the world cup than Cruyff feels at having lost it closely. Neither can compare to the stature that Pele is given however. Hence there is no substitute to winning with style.

In my view this is what Real Madrid are doing currently. Let's recall in 2006-07 they hired Capello to get back the winning habit. Once they got that they wanted to recover their style as well. Right now once again they are desperate to win. They know Mourinho won't stay for long. So they want to use his time to get the team back to winning big and the minute he leaves the next coach they hire will be asked to rediscover their style while maintaining the winning.

One question we can ask ourselves is why Capello was fired and Mourinho has been garlanded. I can suggest a few reasons. One is that Mourinho uses a horses for courses approach. That means only when he faces a definitively superior team like Barcelona he goes for cynicism and negativity but against weaker teams he allows the players to play freely. Capello forced them to play in one way all the time. Maybe Mourinho has learned from what happened to Capello in spite of the title win. Then again in Capello's defense his team had much less quality than Mourinho's has and La Liga then had other strong teams. Sevilla especially were going great guns in the days of Juande Ramos. The other, possibly even bigger reason, is that for all his winning mentality, Capello failed badly in UCL. It has actually been probably the biggest blemish in his illustrious career that he has not done that well in knock out competition for many years. Mourinho on the other hand is a knock out and UCL specialist as he continues to demonstrate.

Really liked this line in your post which is also on the lines of my signature - "in which individual greatness, team collectivity and breathtaking football was the key"

your a very smart guy, and when you talk about your team you sound very smart, because you believe in that, but when you talk about things that you cant understand its laughable to someone like me really...

Yeah, steal our Italians Tactics...

sciacca wrote:Yeah, steal our "Italians Tactics" ...

the "italian tactics" are their worst enemy, and it shows =, in many many ways.

The Madrid One wrote:

sciacca wrote:Yeah, steal our "Italians Tactics" ...

the "italian tactics" are their worst enemy, and it shows =, in many many ways.

Agreed.

I dont think anyone in this thread has said anti-football other than TMO.

There is no question that winning while showing individual greatness, collective football is better than any other style.

For all the attacking quality shown by this Barcelona side, they have been winning because of their defending and the tactical ability of Pep.

So much for TMO's theory about football being played in the mind (wtf?)!

The Madrid One wrote:imo the way you come off here it shows that by even suggesting that the way you guys think is not completely correct makes you reply in a bit of a defensive manner.

now why wouldnt people remember the teams who won using such systems, dont you enjoy a bit of tactical beauty as well? you didnt mention inter of the 60's in there, you only use it to try to revoke a point which in the first place you didnt even understand.

bla bla bla say what you may about the rememberence i dont care, i wont change your mind and you wont change mine.

and what are you implying that i am a bandwagoner of mourinho? because you have bitten at me before expressing how you think i idolize him.. i just think similarily,to tell you the truth i cant care less for what happend to valdano, without believe there is not change and not even cryuff as a manager walked into barcelona doing what he wanted, mou understand that to win here and change the mentality of the club he needed more power, and valdano was something stopping him.

you just find my way of thinking and MOU'S AS well wrong dont you...

tactical brilliance will always beat anything and everything, no matter how it's expressed in the field when it comes to aesthetics. why would you point at mou and call it anti-football? he is a coach and as a coach he is entitled to think of a way to face any enemy and beat them no matter how you play.

you cant seem to understand that i am not saying that ugly football is the answer, but that the way the football is thought of in the mind is the important thing, regardless of how "beautiful" it turns out to be. aesthetics could only be a draw back for a team if it keeps it from reaching a system or way of playing that can make them hard to beat.

if the opponents cannot score a goal, they cannot win the match

You see, Barcelona have found a way to play beautiful football while being tactically adept and defensively strong whereas Mourinho against Barcelona uses a functional approach where he only cares about winning.

The former is harder than the latter. That is why Barcelona's approach requires multiple stages, right from La Masia to the first team. It is true that it is hard for Mourinho to replicate this in a club as he only stays for a limited period, so in that context, what Mourinho does is great.

However, when viewed absolutely, Barcelona are playing a brand of football that is pleasing to the eye while implementing excellent tactics and defending in numbers. That is what we are rating above anyone else's brand of football.

bhends wrote:Parking the bus gets thrown around far too often...

Parking the bus implies panic, chaos...11 people behind the ball, pushed back very closely to their own net running frantically (often with little regard for tactics) trying to protect their own goal and hoofing the ball as far as it can possibly go being their main objective....i.e Inter vs Barca minutes 70ish-90 (except with 10 people)

I disagree, PTB doesn't mean that at all. It means to defend with at least 9 men, very deep, in a purely zonal display, pressing scarcely and in a low tempo, crowding the middle of the pitch, and tryng to do 2vs1 at the opposition, and once you get the ball, to hoof it to the other area. (mostly what Dani explained in the OP).

The Madrid One wrote:imo the way you come off here it shows that by even suggesting that the way you guys think is not completely correct makes you reply in a bit of a defensive manner.

now why wouldnt people remember the teams who won using such systems, dont you enjoy a bit of tactical beauty as well? you didnt mention inter of the 60's in there, you only use it to try to revoke a point which in the first place you didnt even understand.

bla bla bla say what you may about the rememberence i dont care, i wont change your mind and you wont change mine.

and what are you implying that i am a bandwagoner of mourinho? because you have bitten at me before expressing how you think i idolize him.. i just think similarily,to tell you the truth i cant care less for what happend to valdano, without believe there is not change and not even cryuff as a manager walked into barcelona doing what he wanted, mou understand that to win here and change the mentality of the club he needed more power, and valdano was something stopping him.

you just find my way of thinking and MOU'S AS well wrong dont you...

tactical brilliance will always beat anything and everything, no matter how it's expressed in the field when it comes to aesthetics. why would you point at mou and call it anti-football? he is a coach and as a coach he is entitled to think of a way to face any enemy and beat them no matter how you play.

you cant seem to understand that i am not saying that ugly football is the answer, but that the way the football is thought of in the mind is the important thing, regardless of how "beautiful" it turns out to be. aesthetics could only be a draw back for a team if it keeps it from reaching a system or way of playing that can make them hard to beat.

if the opponents cannot score a goal, they cannot win the match

I am just telling you the facts, noone remembers that Inter side other then Inter and Italian fans. Its certainly an after thought compared to the teams I named.

As I said, name the best 5 teams in history..all of them are attacking teams.

Yeah, I think your a Mou bandwaggoner. Or more accurately, he is coach of Madrid and you will do anything to support him, evne if it means justifiying things that goes against the history of your club.

A sfor the rest of it, I have seen the asame form you before, nothing new.

I find it amazing this new batch of Madrid fans.

The Franchise wrote:

The Madrid One wrote:imo the way you come off here it shows that by even suggesting that the way you guys think is not completely correct makes you reply in a bit of a defensive manner.

now why wouldnt people remember the teams who won using such systems, dont you enjoy a bit of tactical beauty as well? you didnt mention inter of the 60's in there, you only use it to try to revoke a point which in the first place you didnt even understand.

bla bla bla say what you may about the rememberence i dont care, i wont change your mind and you wont change mine.

and what are you implying that i am a bandwagoner of mourinho? because you have bitten at me before expressing how you think i idolize him.. i just think similarily,to tell you the truth i cant care less for what happend to valdano, without believe there is not change and not even cryuff as a manager walked into barcelona doing what he wanted, mou understand that to win here and change the mentality of the club he needed more power, and valdano was something stopping him.

you just find my way of thinking and MOU'S AS well wrong dont you...

tactical brilliance will always beat anything and everything, no matter how it's expressed in the field when it comes to aesthetics. why would you point at mou and call it anti-football? he is a coach and as a coach he is entitled to think of a way to face any enemy and beat them no matter how you play.

you cant seem to understand that i am not saying that ugly football is the answer, but that the way the football is thought of in the mind is the important thing, regardless of how "beautiful" it turns out to be. aesthetics could only be a draw back for a team if it keeps it from reaching a system or way of playing that can make them hard to beat.

if the opponents cannot score a goal, they cannot win the match

I am just telling you the facts, noone remembers that Inter side other then Inter and Italian fans. Its certainly an after thought compared to the teams I named.

As I said, name the best 5 teams in history..all of them are attacking teams.

Yeah, I think your a Mou bandwaggoner. Or more accurately, he is coach of Madrid and you will do anything to support him, evne if it means justifiying things that goes against the history of your club.

A sfor the rest of it, I have seen the asame form you before, nothing new.

I find it amazing this new batch of Madrid fans.

Am I bandwaggoner too?

How would I know?

What do you have to do with this anyway?

The Franchise wrote:

The Madrid One wrote:imo the way you come off here it shows that by even suggesting that the way you guys think is not completely correct makes you reply in a bit of a defensive manner.

now why wouldnt people remember the teams who won using such systems, dont you enjoy a bit of tactical beauty as well? you didnt mention inter of the 60's in there, you only use it to try to revoke a point which in the first place you didnt even understand.

bla bla bla say what you may about the rememberence i dont care, i wont change your mind and you wont change mine.

and what are you implying that i am a bandwagoner of mourinho? because you have bitten at me before expressing how you think i idolize him.. i just think similarily,to tell you the truth i cant care less for what happend to valdano, without believe there is not change and not even cryuff as a manager walked into barcelona doing what he wanted, mou understand that to win here and change the mentality of the club he needed more power, and valdano was something stopping him.

you just find my way of thinking and MOU'S AS well wrong dont you...

tactical brilliance will always beat anything and everything, no matter how it's expressed in the field when it comes to aesthetics. why would you point at mou and call it anti-football? he is a coach and as a coach he is entitled to think of a way to face any enemy and beat them no matter how you play.

you cant seem to understand that i am not saying that ugly football is the answer, but that the way the football is thought of in the mind is the important thing, regardless of how "beautiful" it turns out to be. aesthetics could only be a draw back for a team if it keeps it from reaching a system or way of playing that can make them hard to beat.

if the opponents cannot score a goal, they cannot win the match

I am just telling you the facts, noone remembers that Inter side other then Inter and Italian fans. Its certainly an after thought compared to the teams I named.

As I said, name the best 5 teams in history..all of them are attacking teams.

Yeah, I think your a Mou bandwaggoner. Or more accurately, he is coach of Madrid and you will do anything to support him, evne if it means justifiying things that goes against the history of your club.

A sfor the rest of it, I have seen the asame form you before, nothing new.

I find it amazing this new batch of Madrid fans.

you will never undersand hellen keller had more vision ..

Whatever dude.

The fact you are yet to answer any of my points says all I need to know.

The Franchise wrote:Whatever dude.

The fact you are yet to answer any of my points says all I need to know.

I Can Say The Same About You.

Off-topic: Where is the "La Masia" Thread :O :O ??

The Madrid One wrote:

The Franchise wrote:Whatever dude.

The fact you are yet to answer any of my points says all I need to know.

I Can Say The Same About You.

Yes, apart from the fact you havent made any points to answer, your exactly right.

No idea Khaled.

Khaledbarca wrote:Off-topic: Where is the "La Masia" Thread :O :O ??

It's in general discussion :S

https://goallegacy.forumotion.com/t210-la-masia-barca-youth-thread

News is also missing, and other stickied threads?

I just don't understand how so many people can defend defensive football.
Attacking football > Defensive football because it entertains the fans more. That's all that matters really.

The Madrid One wrote:tactical brilliance will always beat anything and everything, no matter how it's expressed in the field when it comes to aesthetics.

you cant seem to understand that i am not saying that ugly football is the answer, but that the way the football is thought of in the mind is the important thing, regardless of how "beautiful" it turns out to be. aesthetics could only be a draw back for a team if it keeps it from reaching a system or way of playing that can make them hard to beat.

How naive of you to think there is no tactical brilliance behind what Barcelona do.

The Franchise wrote:
Yes, apart from the fact you havent made any points to answer, your exactly right.

I call that 'Checkmate'.

Aristotle Onassis wrote:
How naive of you to think there is no tactical brilliance behind what Barcelona do.

Spot on.

The Franchise wrote: Picchi of course wasnt stationed permantly behind the backline, this wouldnt make sense for all games.

Different teams, differeny systems, players on the pitch naturally adjusted. If Picchi saw moving forward was a more advantagous position, it only makes sense he would do so. But primarly his position was behind the back line defensively speaking (which is the main objective of this thread, the defensivel phase). Of course, as said, he had superb vision so him moving forward and playing long passes was of course common.

TMO how is Inter winning the titles in the 60s proof they would beat Barca? Thats outragous.

What does Milan in the 90s have to do with anything? They didnt play Catanaccio.

And your idea about football is well known and it cant be agreed with on here. Noone remember these functional winners who dont play good football.

Name the best sides in history? Call out names.

Everyon replies, Brazil 70's, Total football Holland, Milan of Sacchi, Hungarians in the 50's, Madrid of Di Stefano and co.....ALL sides known for attacking, pleasing football in which individual greatness, team collectivity and breathtaking football was the key.

Nobody cares nor remembers the dull, boring teams who might win but did so with negative football.

Milan best period is known as the time Sacchi was in charge, but in fact with Capello they won more things. Why is it despite them winning more and it being more recent, does nobody remember it and yet everyone still talks about Sacchis team?

Just wanted to point out, you give too much credit to Sacchi....He was most certainly a defensive minded coach

I'll elaborate on that more later but for now I have to go to work

S

I dont think I give too much credit, but I will await your reply.

All I said, or tried to say was, Sacchi team pressed high up the pitch and they had some excellent ball players in the team.

People know them as one of the best sides in history, sure they were very good defensively (Maldini, Baresi who wouldnt be) but they beat Steaua in a final 4 to nothing, they beat Real Madrid 6-1 on aggregate in a semi-final. That first year they were very convincing. I guess its slightly unfair, Capellos team in 92 scored almost 20 more goals then their nearest rival in Serie A, yet its Sacchis team who is better known for how they played football.

But overall whats clear is, even Maldini has said it, the Milan of Sacchi was superior to the Capello team despite them winning less.

The Franchise wrote:I dont think I give too much credit, but I will await your reply.

All I said, or tried to say was, Sacchi team pressed high up the pitch and they had some excellent ball players in the team.

People know them as one of the best sides in history, sure they were very good defensively (Maldini, Baresi who wouldnt be) but they beat Steaua in a final 4 to nothing, they beat Real Madrid 6-1 on aggregate in a semi-final. That first year they were very convincing. I guess its slightly unfair, Capellos team in 92 scored almost 20 more goals then their nearest rival in Serie A, yet its Sacchis team who is better known for how they played football.

[color=red]But overall whats clear is, even Maldini has said it, the Milan of Sacchi was superior to the Capello team despite them winning less.

My post didn't come out quite the way it was intended, must say I was in a rush..I did not mean that you gave him too much credit, he's one of the best coaches in history and deserves what credit he gets. What I meant was that I felt you were painting him as an attacking idealist, which I don't believe is an accurate assessment (at least thats how I read your post)

Think of the attacking talents playing for Milan under Sacchi...Van Basten, Gullit, Donadoni, Ancelotti...

And yet, never once under Sacchi did Milan ever score the most goals in Serie A, not even in the year they actually won the Scudetto

Sacchi was a pragmatist and a realist, and the soul of his team was his back line

Theres a famous story about how, during a training exercise, Sacchi wanted to show how his disciplined and organized back four could keep ten attacking players (who did not have a plan or direction) from scoring...So Sacchi threw out Tassotti, Costacurta, Baresi, Maldini and whoever the GK was at the time. He set the two teams against eachother, 10 attackers (including Van Basten, Gullit, Donadoni, Ancelotti, Rijkaard) against his back 4 and the keeper.....and after 15 minutes (I think? Could be 30 I can't remember) - the game had finished scoreless

Milan did indeed play some great attacking football at times, but In my opinion that was more the natural result of having a squad filled with such talented players, rather than some sort of attacking game plan pressed upon the team by Sacchi

As to the distinction between Sacchi's Milan and Capello's....I don't think that has anything to do with the "style" of football - Sacchi's is remembered as better known/remembered not because of how they played, but for the simple fact that they came first

If Rafa Benitez had won the CL with Inter immediately following Mourinho, it would always have been Mourinhos team that was remembered (even if Rafa's team played more attacking football) because people always view the team as "Mou's players"

Despite the fact that there was actually a decent turnover between the two teams (especially after 1993), Capello's success is still seen as almost "riding the coattails" of Sacchi

Sacchi did absolutely throttle some top European competition during his time at Milan (in Europe anyway...he was never able to translate that european dominance back to Italy) but I don't think the games you mentioned were a result of a beautiful display of attacking football (or whatever people say these days) but rather the natural result of having some of the best attacking players of the era on your team...Mourinho is a very defensive minded coach - but just as a result of the attacking talents he's had on some of his teams - he has still enjoyed his share of crushing victories

Sacchi won one single scudetto in his time at Milan....in a year where Maradona's Napoli scored twelve more goals....Why did they win? Because over 30 games they let in only 14 goals.....Twelve less than any other team in the league

All those attacking talent at his disposal, and his highest Serie A goal tally was 61... Capello scored 13 more than that using the same team a year later...

If Sacchi is remembered as an attacking coach it is because people focus their memory on the throttling of Steaua and Madrid...I don't think there is much else to support such a claim