This is a little bit of a double thread really however here goes and I'll keep it shortish. I have shouted at the screen for years when any pundit (or manager) has said you have to play a different way in Europe (or England in tournaments) than in the English leagues. I have always said they should just play the fast paced attack attack attack English game in Europe just as English clubs did through the seventies and eighties and the result back then? (The Liverpools, Forests etc.) Foreign teams could not cope with English teams playing the English game. Alex Ferguson's first attempts in Europe followed these lines by changing tactics to the slower more careful and patient game in Europe and failed miserably. I remember the 4-0 hammering at the Nou camp back then, but after a couple of years he reverted to playing the exact tactics in europe as in the league. You cannot argue with the record since doing so over the past 15 years or so. Now other sides carried on with this 'change' in Europe albeit in the main with foreign managers. Then last year Tottenham went into Europe and played the English game. If it were not for them being a couple of players short in the quality department at that level they could well have gone a lot further than they did and they did really well. Again playing Fast paced English football in Europe. Now I can't stand Chelsea. I do not support them in Europe because they bore me however Di Matteo comes in. He knows English football. Do not understand why West Brom sacked him. 2 weeks ago AVB changes to the slow patient continental game and they get thrashed. Di Matteo comes in, plays good old fast paced English football and Napoli cannot cope with it. Anyone think I am completely wrong?
Di Matteo is a great manager for them and they played an excellent game today against a very good team, but the style Chelsea play in the league is a very European style anyway, with the old 4-2-3-1 formation. A lot of people say that you can't win trophies anymore with the traditional English 4-4-2, but I disagree. United use it and I think that is proof enough. The same should go for internationals, because England play such a slow tempo right now and it really bugs me. Just play a simple 4-4-2 and rely on pace and stamina while being solid at the back. You have to play to your strengths and those are ours.
Impssaint: not wrong but simplifying it a bit sez I. Occasionally you can get away with the gung-ho approach, but it's just as likely to fail if the opposition is skilful on the ball. And Chelsea's "English game" tonight was played by players brought up in a non-English school!
Your thoughtful post deserves a thoughtful response ... so let's see. Basically in any sport, players like to play a system/style that suits them. How often do we hear that team x looked happier once they reverted to their usual 442. We've all seen coaches try to be clever and play Christmas trees, pancakes and bloody hot cross buns! In the end players like to play in their favoured positions and use tactics with which they are familiar. The "throw the sink at 'em" style suits English players and that this gets abandoned each time they pull on the 3 lions shirt is, imo, one of the reasons why we look so awful at international level. By extension, this has to be true of English clubs in Europe, albeit with non-English players. So, yeah, agreed!
I said similar earlier. Without going too in-depth, I'm a big Di Matteo fan, and I rate him as a manager too. If Adkins ever leaves us, which at some point he will, I'd certainly consider Di Matteo and would happily accept him as Manager if he was appointed. Some may disagree. I guess it also depends on where we are and who is interested, but there we go.
I know Chelsea and all Prem teams have players that weren't schooled in England however most do play a more English style than Continental in the league. Chelsea were playing a continental style and were losing with it. Di matteo was playing for Chelsea when they played English style and seems to have carried that into management. Arsenal were playing a more continental style the past seasons and much of this season however are now playing very fast paced direct (but skilful and on the ground) attacking football and are looking better. Redknapp's Tottenham have played that way for 2 years and done very well. A couple of additions and they may well challenge. Man City are playing an English style. Man Utd always have and the records speaks for itself. All of the above play a very fast paced game in England whether they have (or still do) play a differing formation or not however some of them slow it down for Europe and don't do as well as Man U have for the past 15+ years. You may notice I didn't mention a formation in my first post. I am talking about style. What I mean is the pace and the power, not what formation they put on paper. Saying Man U play 4-4-2 is all very well when looking at a graphic before the game however when you watch they don't play 4-4-2. You could say with the ball they play 4-3-3 and without the ball they play 4-5-1 however it's the actual pace and power I mean. Saints play with pace and power. That we do play slower and a little more patient than others is quite real however we do not slow it down to the extent that managers seem to think you have to play in Europe. We still go for the opposition at every opportunity just like Man U do. Suggesting that the 'foreign players were not schooled in England' renders my argument incorrect is contradicted when we talk about derbies. They are fiesty still with players who have not grown up knowing the meaning of the rivalries. I may well be wrong and yes a simplified explanation however I am just talking about an 'ethos' and not an actual formation.
Chelsea got rid of that useless "manager" AVB and of course,their results have improved and will continue to do so because they've got a good manager in Di Matteo that knows the engish game well and knows how to get Chelsea playing to their strengths and not to their weaknesses like AVB did by trying to radically change the way they play by using the same tactics he used at Porto,he should of known better really.
Nor do I. I was just stating that if he ever did/does, that RDM would certainly please me as an appointment. With what you said about AVB, I felt that, like with Scolari, he felt under a large amount of pressure to stamp himself all over the squad. I think when you make these huge appointments, and with AVB a process which cost them so much money, he felt the need to do it even more so. I am sure many disagree and will say there are far better CV's out there, and I would agree, but Di Matteo could be a stabilising, low-key appointment for Chelsea. As well as someone who already is popular at Stamford Bridge and has a connection with the fans. I'd like to see what he would put together with a bit of money. That said, if he got the Chelsea job he'd probably never end up at Saints!
On the topic of Managers, this one caught me by surprise. "Gary Megson set to take Wolves job" - http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/new...heffield-Wednesday-sacking-article878417.html
I agree r.e. AVB and Scolari. I think that is where Mourinho was very clever. He took a side that had already been built by Ranieri, who had already progressed them to second place. He just added a couple of players utilising the fact they had become much richer than any other club in England and took them from very close to the ultimate goal. You could maybe say that Adkins has been clever and have enough self belief to do the same. Yes Mourinho talked the talk and undoubtedly he is a good manager but he was confident enough in himself so wasn't bothered about saying 'It's all down to me' on the pitch. He did it 'tongue in cheek' before and after the games in the press conferences and interviews whilst moving what existed forward to that next step. I see Mourinho pretty much like Clarkson where he is very good at playing to the character that is portrayed in the media. I don't think either are actually like their public personas however playing the part increases their stock (Please lets not have loads of Clarkson posts now. lol)
This game doesn't disguise the fact that Chelsea are a shadow of their former selves. Whoever gets that job permanently has a hell of a lot of work on his hands.
Not sure I was watching the same game, I thought Chelsea were quite patient tonight, if anything it was Napoli who would push play through the pitch alot quicker than Chelsea. Andy Townsend said early on that Napoli were going at it more and that chelsea hadn't really shown the get up and go, but what I saw was Chelsea holding the ball well and dictating play, until their second goal at least.
Totally disagree. The English teams that have been succesful in Europe in the modern era (Man United 2008 i believe, and Liverpool 2005) Played a very 'continental style' with a lack of 'gung ho' approach, whilst Arsenal have tried to play the 'British way' And have only reached one final, in which they lost.
It's not so much the change in play style rather than change in formation and personnel. AVB for a ****ing idiot for continuing to play Torres over and over when he is dreadful. He wouldn't play Lampard as a regular which was incredibly stupid for not only team spirit but Lampard's always been a key goal scorer for Chelsea along with Drogba who he also didn't start regularly! If you don't pick your best goal scorers what do you expect? He also had one rigid game plan basically. AVB was an stubborn idiot.
Do you not think though that certain players play better in one type of formation than another. A certain formation suites their style of play better when they are doing more of what comes natural. Last nights game and style seemed to suite both teams as in my opinion Napoli didn't play that badly at times. I think a major difference between English and continental football is that they seem to play more zonal football. They pass to a zone rather than the player. Once inside the 30 yard line it still applies for width perhaps but they then need players moving in a different way so they will find the player. Slow build up has never suited the English way of doing things as we lose patience too quickly. This nonsense about the English not having the technical ability is a load of rubbish. Players have it but do not have to use it as they are constantly told by their managers to keep it simple. We the football critic and fan get frustrated when we build so slowly ask any Saints fan..........
I disagree Impsaint. For me the key subject missed out in all the above (unless I missed it) is "possession". Playing the English way nearly got Chelsea hammered last night. For the first twenty minutes Chelsea didn't string three passes together. In that period, Napoli had 3 good chances that had they taken one or two of, the tie could have been over. After that period Chelsea started to keep the ball ( at pace, yes) and that stopped Napoli playing and led to the first goal. Once the second goal was scored Napoli started getting more possession and used it at pace coming forward and eventually scored. Possession is the key to winning football matches. The mistake England oftenake is they play slow possession which isn't any good unless mixed up with lots of pace possession. Two of you said united play the English way. I don't agree. They play at pace with lots of possession. Saints play with lots of possession mixed with pace and power, which is similar to united. Lambert is key to our possession game as when it goes forward our Lacey or energetic players can support him quickly. It is not the English way. Gung Ho football will get undone by quick passing possession football 80% of the time, which is why England haven't won anything for years.
Agree with you FLT and would add that when Saints play with less speed they look far less threatening generally.
I agree that Saints look most threatening when they are passing quickly and it is also more pleasing to watch. Where English sides could do with a more continental approach is when they have a comfortable lead. In this situation, just keeping the ball, slowing it down, may not be as exciting as the blood and guts but it does tire out the opposition. Saints have done this on occasion and some of our support has become impatient and even a bit vocal. A very strange response as the opposition are denied possession and without that they can't score. So it's really about being able to mix it up, something which our manager seems rather good at.
