|Originally posted by Taipan |
Sure, why not? Like I said earlier , if a team is up 2-0 , its very easy to go crazy. But all the while they kept a clean sheet. They played with a tight back line and why would you blame them if Malouda happened to hit incredible form?
So when you said "Ancelotti is a defensive coach who likes to preserve a 1-0 lead", you actually meant "Ancelotti is a defensive coach who likes to go 2-0 up and then encourage his team to 'go crazy' and score 5+ goals"? Glad we've cleared that up. While we're at it, can you clear up why, if it's so easy to "go crazy" when you're 2-0 up, Ancelotti's Chelsea (playing in a defensive side) broke numerous goalscoring records?
Jose Mourinho, by contrast, genuinely was a defensive manager who liked to preserve a lead. His Chelsea side routinely went 2-0 up and then completely shut the game down, playing unadventurous and safe passing football for the rest of the match as they didn't have to attack anymore. His team didn't try and "go crazy" at 2-0 because playing fast and open football like Ancelotti's Chelsea gives the opposition more chance of scoring and getting back into the game. This is why Mourinho's record win as Chelsea manager was only 5-1, why his team broke the record for fewest goals conceded in a league season and why his team only ever conceded three goals once in his reign (3-0 versus Middlesbrough). Ancelotti's side, by contrast, were prone to the occasional ridiculous loss, like 3-1 against Wigan, 2-4 at home to Man City and 0-3 at home to Sunderland.
In other words, your assertion that Chelsea under Ancelotti liked to "preserve a 1-0 lead, just like how the chelsea of old used to play" is just plain wrong. Ancelotti's Chelsea scored a lot more goals and conceded a lot more (an average of 40% more a season) than when Mourinho drilled them into a ruthless defensive unit.
Furthermore, AVB wasn't simply trying to make Chelsea more attacking. He was trying to alter the system away from the 4-3-3 established under Mourinho and largely dependent on the same spine of players (Terry, Lampard, Drogba), all of whom were hitting their 30s. He initially tried a high line and high press with more emphasis on possession, but that went badly wrong and from there he experimented with various systems, none of which worked. By the end he was just making up systems from game to game, as evidenced by a terrible 4-3-1-2 thing against Napoli, which resulted in Chelsea losing 3-1.
It's pretty clear that Abramovich wants to change the philosophy of the club, using academy graduates to balance the books and a more refined possession-based style, which is why he's interested in Guardiola. So it doesn't really matter if Guardiola is a poor fit for Chelsea as they are now. Although, again, I really wouldn't worry about it, because he won't go to Chelsea.
|My reasoning is simple. Guardiola is a Barca bred coach and is the perfect fit for Barca. I think he did a great job for Barca but I don't think he's very versatile which is why I think he's over rated. Don't make assumptions or put words in my mouth. |
This would imply that Guardiola is highly rated for his versatility, and given he's only ever managed one club and has caught flak recently because his side lacks a "Plan B" I would say that's a very strange suggestion. Who, exactly, has ever rated Pep as a versatile coach? Or do you generally judge people to be "super over rated" on qualities they aren't actually rated for in the first place? If so, I guess Guardiola is also super over rated as a DJ, and super over rated as a Republic presidential candidate.
By the way, if you don't want this to get personal, maybe you shouldn't have called me an asshole a few posts back, my friend.
> Live @ J00F Editions, 30.03.13 [Chill Out]
> Time & Space [Mixtape]
> Ain't Nothing Going On But The Funk [Breakbeat Classics]
> The Singularity [Drum & Bass]
> Distant Places [Progressive Trance]
I Am Not A Music Journalist.