Football Purists

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27179252

Having listened to Brendan Rodgers piss his pants about Chelsea "playing six at the back", I was just wondering what people's thoughts were on the brand of tactics Mourinho has been employing recently?

He has been dubbed "the enemy of football" by some critics http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/mick-dennis/471648/Chelsea-s-Jose-Mourinho-is-the-enemy-of-football although the term was first coined in 2005 by Uefa referees' committee chairman Volker Roth.

If indeed he is the enemy of football, he's certainly the friend of incredible football results, trophies and titles.

What do you make of it all?

Here are some other choice quotes about the Chelsea Manager... http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/3277/la-liga/2011/01/16/2308397/top-10-insults-of-jose-mourinho-hes-a-cold-killer-enemy-of

 

Could it be argued that Sam Allardyce is in the same 'stable' as Mourinho, but simply doesn't have the same caliber of player available to him?

 

I wouldn't let Allardyce in the same stable as my horse.

 

Chelsea are fluent at home and dogged away. Nothing wrong with having more than one string to your bow.

Rodgers had a "plan b" for games such as these but chose to sell it to West Ham.

 

An excellent point, I remember thinking during the game how useful it would be if Andy Carroll was available to the bin-dippers.

Overly purist Rodgers?

 

Definitely. Same as Wenger, Arsenal set up 4-2-3-1 with tika-taka football no matter who the opposition and it's the reason they've won nothing for pretty much the last decade.

I mean how can you line up in exactly the same way against a Norwich/Stoke/Palace at home as you do against a Barcelona/Bayern Munich away from home.

Very naive from both managers.

 

It's not a style of football that I'd want to see my team play every week, or even very often, but it does have its place. Football can be beautiful in defence as well as in attack. If it were as simple as playing a 6 man defence then every team would be able to avoid defeats to good teams. It's not that simple though. If one team plays 6 at the back then you need to be good enough to break them down by taking advantage of the extra space elsewhere on the pitch, playing patient football to draw the defence out of position. Either Liverpool weren't good enough to do that today or Chelsea were too good to let them. I suspect that if we try it on the final day it would look like a cricket score because our players and our organisation would not be up to the same standard.

I don't have an issue with teams playing negative football, even though I'd not want us to do it. Time wasting falls into the same category for me too. If it is dead ball time wasting then its up to the ref to stamp it out. A lot of pundits these days refer to time wasting when the ball is not dead though. There is no such thing in live play though. If you want the ball then be good enough to win it back. It's great when football is attacking and flowing, but no team has the right to expect the opposition to let them play as they want.

Good on Mourinho and Chelsea I say.

 

No difference between fat Sam doing it
Its about winning as its been mentioned he can play attacking stuff or sit back and protect what you have got.
He just becomes a cock by bitching about others doing the same

 

Mourinho doesn't care, its all about winning. I think people get too carried away when you go to either extreme. I like watching Liverpool. The attacking side of the game is the more beautiful. However you also have to admire the art of defending and tactical countering of attacking play. It is also part of the game. Goalkeepers and defenders have always got a raw deal for me. They do their job well and its spoiling basically? Utter bollocks. Chelsea have been great to watch at various stages. When they are the stronger side, they attack and throw caution to the wind. When he feels that the opposition have too much fire power, they go a bit tighter. Simeone is the same at Athletico. I've watched a fair bbit of them and they are similarily adaptable. Nothing wrong with that.

I also admire Rodgers for adapting his style, and don't think he is overly purist. At one point at Swansea I felt he was, they'd pass for the sake of praise of their pass stats. They were strictly 433 and boring. He has adapted at Liverpool to be more changeable. They have played a variety this season from 3-5-2, 3-4-1-1, 4-4-2, 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1 depending on who is available. He has learnt that there must be penetration to go with all the passes. Possession is still key and should always be sought, but you have to do something with the ball. They were unfortunate yesterday that an individual error led to a defeat. That's football and it happens at the cruelist times. I understand him having a moan too, its very frustrating after working so hard to get into that position, only to find some **** has a solution to the problem every other team has crumbled trying to solve.

Allardyce is different. He sets out to do that every game. his first and last thought is stopping the opposition and playing direct football. He has gone too far to one extreme.

It takes all sorts but its about balance for me. Certainly in terms of what I want to watch. I'll openly admit it, I find Guardiola's sides very boring to watch. Its an absolute snooze fest the majority of the time. There are highlights of supreme quality and you can't knock the success of it. Would I want to watch it every week, I'm not sure. Bayern were infinitely more exciting under Heynckes.

 

How do you find Pardew's sides to watch?

 

Wildy inconsistent. Earlier in the season, we held possession well, had a good attacking threat, and basically adapted to the opposition very well. The 2nd half of the season has been the polar opposite. We look clueless reardless of opposition, we have no defensive solidity, no attacking threat, no cohesion, can't hold possession and its never fun watching your team get spanked. This season has been like a micro version of the previous two. First full season, fantastic. Played some lovely stuff, and got a great top 5 finish. Last season, absolutely woeful, played poor football and got a terrible near relegation finish.

For that reason he needs to go. We haven't progressed. It can be argued we haven't progressed because we work on a lower half of the championship budget. It certainly plays a part. However he struggles to arrest poor form, has been wildly inconsistent and crumbles under pressure. Given we are working on such a poor budget in relation to our competitors, you will always be under pressure here. Therefore he is a bad fit for the club. We need a manager who can be creative with the resources available. We also need someone the fans actually like. Sounds silly, but fans surely have a right to feel connected to the club. The fanbase is so disconnected from him now, it is pointless continuing. Yes the ill feeling quells when good results come along, but is that really a healthy way to operate? Its the same with the players, many fans have become disillusioned with this bunch of players. They have been disconnected since Nolan and Barton etc left. They have fleetingly felt connected for short periods i.e. when the french 5 or so arrived in Jan 13 there was an embracing of them. However it has quickly disappeared, now more and more people are saying they want some players from these shores who they can connect with better.

 

I found Chelsea terrible to watch yesterday, they where completely afraid to try a little bit of Football. Liverpool where a little bit of a let down, Suarez would drop deep a little too often, Gerrard failed to rise to the challenge mentally, Liverpool where just not aggressive enough but at least they tried to display a game of football, chelsea would not.

 

I for one thought Chelsea were excellent yesterday.

 

Mourinho set his side up to stop Liverpool scoring, the fact that Rodgers and his players were unable to adapt and break down Chelsea is his failure, bleating about it just highlights his tactical failure to change what his players were doing, I thought that Ba showed his quality as a striker by calmly taking the one slip up and scoring, a lot of players have messed up when given these sort of opportunities. Mourinho has kept his team in the hunt for the PL and CL, he aint worried about how he gets there just that he gets there, as fans the Chelsea lads and lasses go with him, I don't like the way he deals with certain issues but he brings a lot to the PL, he doesn't do small clubs cause he knows that without the big bankroll and big players it wouldn't work.

 

Have to agree with the majority of posters here.. It has its place and it is up to the opposition to be able to overcome it.

I wouldn't want us to play like that every week ala Fat Sam, but at times its needed and justified (even if we are incapable of a Mourinhuo style 'solid-sit back')

Personally I find it tedious to watch, (very occasionally there is a cracking Attack vs Defense match, though I am struggling to think of one. .......10 holding onto a lead vs 11 matches are probably the best in terms of entertainment). That, said, I also can find Barcelona Ticky-tacky dull too, but can apprecaite both styles for what 'they is'

 

I think anti-football is an admission that your team aren't as good as the opposition, but I think there's obviously a place in football for it. To me, Jose made a massive statement about what he thinks of his players, and that's quite simply that they aren't that good.

It's refreshing when two teams come out and have a go, but it's usually suicidal for one of those teams. You're pretty much f***ed as a manager whether you have a go or don't, because your supporters are going to chastise you for not going about things the other way if the game is lost, so Mourinho must be congratulated on choosing the right option this time.

 

It is naive to think trophies can be won by constantly playing all-out attacking football, unless you have 6 of the best players in the world. I wouldn't say sitting back is admitting you're the poorer side. Jose went to Anfield yesterday knowing he was facing a side who blow teams away in the first 20 mins of a game. He HAD to stop that from happening, and did.

Surely Chelsea played the absolute perfect game yesterday? I've said it a few times this season - if Chelsea had a Suarez they'd surely have won the league already? IMO they're only 1-2 players (strikers) away from being the best side in the world because they will have the perfect blend, and they can change it when they need to.

I've become bored of Barca's tipyy-tappy rubbish and I'm already bored of Bayern's. Although it has to be said that Bayern certainly know how to defend.

As said by others on this threat - it is the opposing team's fault if they cannot break you down. Every team starts with 11 players on the pitch. Chelsea don't have 'special' powers or tactics to prevent teams from scoring, they're just very, very organized.

 

Yes, he knew he'd be blown away if he matched up with them, as others have tried and failed to do. I see that as an admission they aren't as good!

 

Does it really matter how Chelsea beat Liverpool.
History will show The Master Tactician Mourinho outwitted The Pupil Rodgers, which could ultimately lead to Man City or Chelsea being crowned Champions.

If Rodgers had any sense, he'd have sent out Liverpool to play a cagey game, make sure they didn't lose.
FFS all Liverpool had to do was draw and they'd still be in the driving seat to be the Champions.

A touch of Ferguson outwitting opposition manager after manager, including KK.

 

To be fair Rodgers did do that. He played Lucas which he hasn't been. Neither did anything wrong, Gerrard just dropped a clanger. **** happens.