Yes, no problem. I made a photocopy of it ---> upload below. I've also received the 1993 piece now, which is really excellent. Yes indeed ---> I'll try to formulate some ideas tomorrow or the next week. Here's that 1993 GS article. This is imho a good piece, with the right context, placement, distance and no hyperboles (almost not). Good description and observation.
Yes I mean that. I mean it as a question mark or something like "it is not wildly off, but depends on how you look." I can understand some points about Sacchi not doing something of note before or after the great Milan team (by 1998 he had returned in 1996-97 to Milan with disastrous effects). This gives credence to the idea the tactics and subsequent league wide effect/adaptation were more a product of the Cruijff guided* players at Milan, rather than genius mastermind Sacchi (ofc a team without manager doesn't work). It is really only after 1987-1988 that Serie A became a dominant league, with the tactical shifts and adaptations. * above 1993 piece calls him literally a "prompter" - the disguised whisperer in a theater. But - as you say - estimating managers is even harder as players. Furthermore, where does one look at in estimating 'the best'? The most trophies? Certainly not. Gets a manager bonus points when their team doesn't boast unanimous top 50 all-timers or the unanimous best player of his generation? If so, both the likes of Ferguson and Cruijff will fare relatively well. In what should a coach be the best? Defensive organization? Then one starts to look at the Herrera, Trapattoni, Capello, Mourinho lineage. Reactivity and flexibility? Ancelotti, Mourinho etc. (Mourinho teams in their 2nd year could nullify many teams). How important is longevity? Probably it is important for a manager to re-new after 5 or 10 years, and it is possible to argue Ferguson stayed relevant because he moved away from the field during his final 10 years, and also that Cruijff his role as an executive is an extension and strengthening of his time as coach. 10 more years as a coach hadn't generated the same legacy, just as Ferguson started to delegate even more to Quiroz etc. (subsequently, Quiroz became immediately headhunted as the manager of Real Madrid, indicating the big role he had as a 'mere' assistant - in some respects he was already the de facto manager) Is Guardiola still the best manager of his generation when it comes down to defensive organization and dealing with flipper balls (second balls). Certainly a flexible manager - the idea to use full-backs as tucked-in midfielders is an improved version of what the Dream Team did - but can or wants he to be a defensively flexible manager? So for 'best manager' the glasses you put on are important. However, you can point at certain (exceptional) things at the micro level and from a more top down perspective. Which Ferguson himself also pointed out as what set Cruijff apart from the bunch of elite managers: exceptional at the details and exceptional at the wider picture - mostly inhibited by time constraints. As a detail, Ferguson provided the example of studying and determining - when called upon - the ideal grass composition and ideal grass height. Something at the micro level would be actively popularizing and designing training methods. The most famous example has become the 'rondo', because it is so easy to explain, see and understand - but it is unquestionably not the only thing (see e.g. comments by Vitor Frade). For the question "how good is a manager?" this is a plus. The more so: staying relevant for multiple decades. At meso level (intermediate level) would be that there are specific moments where he publicly indicated things that he didn't like. Some, with reason, didn't like him for this but this makes it possible to see the subsequent effects. If he says unequivocally at euro 2000: 1) the unbeatable sides will be passing sides and 2) "I like Paul Scholes" while glancing through his notes - then we can match/compare it to the effects later on. Here another example (in January 2000: "I'm involved in getting projects in Spain and the Netherlands from the ground."). By an large it is also possible to see the effects when they did not listen to him or followed his advises (e.g. Barcelona 1998 - 2003; Dutch FA post-2008 vs Belgian FA post-2005; La Masia post-2010 - the midfield is still leaning enormously on the form of Busquets). At macro level you see a direct or indirect involvement with 10+ Ballon d'Or winners. To my knowledge no other figure is close in this respect. You also happen to see many players he got involved with who became improved players. The more so if they're from countries who are less likely to produce world beaters (Bulgaria, Denmark, mainland/continental Portugal), and they're bought quite cheap (for ex. Stoichkov, Laudrup and Figo were all cheap). At those three levels there are some more good points to make, but it still remains that "best manager" is not only very hard to establish, but also depends on the glasses one uses. In a number of respects Sam Allardyce was markedly better than the 'rigid' Wenger will ever be (probably, quite possibly). Something Allardyce himself was keen on to point out.
Yep, Bortolatti is like more right today than in 1997. But yes, it depends on the glasses you put on/ angle from which you see things. And coaching some stars, a mid-table or supposedly 'weak team' is not the same job. It's not the same to manage a NT neither. Then, about how much exactly costed Stoichkov, Figo, Laudrup (so beyond the question of the 'official transfert fee'), I don't know. So personally I won't go further on this. Say that, globally it is just about the fact that when he needed a precise type of player (and already of quality, he can be developped but still, it is that there is a interesting or even huge potential, so there are some other clubs that want to enroll this one), it was naturally easier for him at Barça to get him compared to other clubs or more probable (he could sign any Spanish player to start with, they were not all from the Masia still at the time, there was still much Basque players, into that late 80s-90s football, who could play but also who were in general strong or good runners/ so it goes back to the question of the attractiveness of one club, what also very possibly includes for an important part in this case the attractiveness of its coach, here not only because he was a great player but also because he had already proven things as a coach...so yes it's not like he 'stole the players' but it's a bit easier though...in the meantime coaching such a big club is not that easy...imposing, generalizing a system in the club, it's not everybody who can do that too. Even though playing like this was in the Barça ADN since the 50s...then there is an evolution but the basic principles were already there. There's a missing link between the 50s and Cruijff the coach's era, 30 years, but that 'game philosophy' as they say was already there. Not la Masia though, which is since '79). Now, globally, I just agree with/ follow well the points you have developped (then, from there on, more points can be made as you have precised, yes ofc). Just, on the composition of the grass I'm not sure, but about the height of it, a coach like Guy Roux was a true maniac with that as well. It must be an old stuff. That I don't know. I don't know anything about Allardyce. Except for what recently happened with him. As for Wenger he can look like a rigid person by appearance but as a coach, I don't think so, even though he'll always prefer to play in a system made for the attack rather than the opposite, even against stronger opponents. So rather than trying to securize his team, well in general. But I think that it is simply because he has not the players to do otherwise, most of all at a defensive level (it's more about a lack of defensive qualities among his players, every line included, than having super quality in attack), so instead of waiting and concede a goal that will like inevitably happen, he prefers trying to score. Since the era Keown, Adams and Vieira is over, there are not many players like that on the market and he just can't afford them as it became a rare commodity (a Mascherano was at Barça, Kanté signed at Chelsea...for example). Still, Arsenal can attack a bit. But a balance of the same quality as before became just impossible to find (if Lassana Diarra was not a d***head, he could have helped in that way but he did not stay long...). I think that if Wenger was truelly a rigid person, he could not work with young players and develop them as he does. Even though it must become harder and harder. Because he's getting old for sure (maybe it will be soon time to take the French NT? Why not...finally...but Deschamps is able to reach a s/f...) and also because the young players' mentality has not improved in general. I've started this from the point that would be that Wenger never changes the maneer to make play his team, but maybe that it was not your point? "Rigid". How exactly, if you'd like to elaborate? And how is Allardyce better (I have no clue about him), in what aspects/ respects? Thanks.
Well, he became popularly known as the first manager to use data (ProZone in particular) in a reactive and long ball sense. What I mean can be summed up by this passage (his own comments). 'Wenger seemed to want a rule where Arsenal should be allowed to do what they wanted with the ball, without us being allowed to tackle them, Allardyce said. 'There was no credit [from the media] for the fact we'd spent all week studying how to nullify their skillful players and not let them have a second on the ball. It was a skill finding their weakness and how to exploit them.' 'There are two type of coaches. There's coaches like me who weigh up the opposition and ask the team to adjust. Fergie was similar, José [Mourinho] is similar. Then there's Arsène, who won't adjust. There's Brendan [Rodgers], who looks like he won't adjust. There's Manuel Pellegrini, who looks like he won't adjust... their philosophy is different to ours. Ours is more about who are we playing against. Their philosophy is more, "We always play this way", and they won't change, they carry on doing the same thing. That's why you can beat them.' ..... I'll come back to the other things later.
Although I placed a soft question mark (post #853) I´ll adress a few points; In buying players there was notable competition from Italy, and also Real Madrid, as comme's recent thread again underlines. In the same season Stoichkov was bought (more or less completing the 'dream') Real Madrid acquired Hagi for more money, and even bought Milla - for more money than Stoichkov - directly from Barcelona as a statement. Schuster, Milla, Nando, Laudrup and later Figo were all - under differing circumstances and phases of their career - directly acquired from Barcelona. Barcelona only acquired directly Luis Enrique in 1996 (one of Cruijff's last acts). This direct between-clubs movement is an indicator. With regards to the 0-4; that is only one game. Ferguson also wrote in his book that over two matches you have more control as a manager than one match. This 0-4 game was the only time the referee was replaced before the final; and both teams agreed that the English replacement favored Milan's approach. Also that the Athens pitch wasn't mowed or sprayed (as Milan wanted). Milan had three weeks rest and FCB two/three days. FCB definitely looked tired and not as fit. Dietrich Schulze Marmeling deals with this blot in this way: "At the time, this nightmare for the Dream Team was interpreted as more than a defeat, seeming a definitive rejection of Cruyff's philosophy. Nothing could have been further from the truth. The next year, his old club, Ajax, defeated Milan in the UEFA Champions League final. The most influential player in that talented young side was Rijkaard [...]." Is the 0-4 more telling (or Guardiola's past season 5-0 defeat against Koeman's Everton?) or is the complete European record? His teams reached finals in 1987, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1994. His team also reached a sixth final in 1988, when he quit the club mid-season (above IFFHS link correctly does not count this; at the same time managers who step in for a few games are immediately recognized as winning manager). They lost after extra time 3-2 on aggregate against the eventual finalist in 1990, and 4-3 on aggregate against the eventual winner in 1996 (defeated by Otto Rehhagel in the semis). In 10.5 years of coaching I think that is a strong record, particularly for that time. Finally, it is ironic that (imperfect) ClubElo lists 'Italian clubs' among the ones he was particularly strong against - just behind 'German teams' and 'Ukrainian teams'. ------ some brief points on your other post later. Of course for 'defensive' and reactive coaches you tend to look at Trapattoni for example.
NT management is indeed different, although I think (I don't have definitive proof) there are more successful club coaches who have done fine/good for a national team, than national team managers doing the opposite (think of Mario Zagallo). I do think he has the 'second sentence' covered, and fairly clearly so with distinction. He has played and coached with distinction at both superstar and 'weak' or small teams, and was recognized as such. At markedly different circumstances and cultures (football cultures, societal cultures) too. How does that conceptually look during the Daucik and Helenio Herrera years? There was already 4-3-3/3-4-3, emphasis on ball possession, sweeper keeper etc.? Youth formation? Helenio Herrera is, of course, primarily known as a defensive coach, a reputation he strengthened later at Inter (notorious Inter, for the various dirty tricks). At the same time, we shouldn't underestimate the political circumstances in the 1940s (that famous 1943 match...) and the early 1960s to 1980s (as Arsene Wenger elaborated upon in his 'Greatest Teams' series). They should've won two more titles in 1978 and foremost in 1977, for ex. Yes, it is not unique or new but I meant it (Ferguson meant in his book) as an example of being strong at the details - when necessary - and the big picture. *) not denying Helenio Herrera is also an option for "best manager" in a way. Probably the first international superstar manager.
Impossible to know how much exactly costed Stoichkov though. The official/ declared transfert fees are one thing. Then we must add the 'behind the scenes' dealings and/ or bribes and of course it will never be known. Maybe it's till less than a Hagi, maybe equal myabe more, imossible to know. Moreover Real Madrid always had and still has to pay more than the other clubs would have to for the same player, if they could sign him. That's what happens to PSG now (moreover maybe because PSG is not sportively that attractive so they really need to put more money, so in addition to the fact that it is known that they have immense or even unlimited ressources). In gross the transfert fees are inflated for Real. I agree that it is only one game ofc and I also think that it is evident that the Barça players were tired. Especially Romario who is like about to vomit on the pitch just after his first duel in the match against Desailly (who played tough on this one but it is normal for a defender to do this in the first or two first duels of a match, it's part of the game). Now, Cruyff certainly made errors too. Talking about flexibility in the sense that a coach can adapt to different match-ups (as about Wenger in our previous posts) : in '92 Cruyff had adapted to his opponents, the Italians of Sampdoria (against them it's a 3-5-2 or 5-3-2, anyway...) : Barça wins in the extra-time thanks to a long-rage free-kick by Koeman. 1-0 (i.e, translation : not by playing wonderfully, ok. I know everybody understands buts I make the precision though). In '94 against Milan, he totally underestimated his opponent (because they had less stars than before, the injured or suspended players?) and he did the stuff that he liked to do more in 4-3-3, 3-4-3 or something (a bit a mix of the two maybe). If better fit probably that his players would have played it better, and that with a Romario in form thay would have scored but what actually happened is that it has permitted to a player like Savicevic to play between the Barça's lines. My theory is that after the short win of '92 in a style that had not much to do with his principles/ ideal he wanted here to make his masterpiece. No van Basten anymore, no Baresi,no Baresi-Costacurta the usual central pairing, hey, no problem! So he had the same plans as if he was playing against Cadiz. He even announced that he would destroy Milan, didn't he? So he played in his more personal system but without Laudrup this time. Laudrup did not play well in '92. But in '92 he was clearly a midfielder, and that it was the choice of Cruijff, and Laudrup was not at his ease in that role in the '92 final. So in the '94 final it is another genius player who decided of the game, what an irony? Savicevic. It is obvioulsy bad faith from Cruyff when he says that his team played better that night, against Milan. Not only because they lost but also because they never developped their game and were well dominated. But he certainly believed it. By passing look at the reaction of the bench when Milan scores the first goal : Rexach turns his head in direction of Cruyff like saying "so what now, what we do?" and Cruyff doesn't even look at him and stays like the satue of the thinker, and change nothing. Rexach does not insist and stop looking at him like saying "ok as you want but we may have some fun tonight". Later, at Real, Laudrup was finally used in his best position : just behind the centre forward. Of course it is well known that Laudrup left Barça or Cruyff let him go, both things, as they were unable to work together anymore...so Real said hey, welcome!. Cruyff wanted Laudrup to be like him as a player or even an idealized version of himself, and probably that the Dane could not do it or just did not want to, to start with, because Cruyff was Cruyff and Laudrup was Laudrup, simply. In League games he played him in attack by periods but in Europe he absolutely wanted him at midfield (at midfield-midfield really, the mark of the real world class players stuff as he explained later, and even deeper on the pitch than that). Against some opponents it did not work for Laudrup (like in the '92 final) and he was finally punished in '94 more than anything else for he did not meet the expectations of his coach. Similar thing as what happened with Messi and Maradona at the 2010 World Cup. I won't refute the arguments you brang for all of that. I accept them at the same time. Once again, yes there are different angles and I think that all the arguments, say "pro" or "against" can all be right, don't necessarily cancel each others. So, in my opinion (I just say my opinion, I don't adress this to somebody in particular as if there was a debate on this even if it can be...just, it would be my answer to Bortolotti...but if somebody then disagrees or want to discuss this here on this board of course it's possible), saying that Cruijff had a huge influence on the game : I say like everybody (I hope), yes that's right (from the early 70s as a player until right now looking at things in their ensemble and grosso modo, passing by his Ajax years as a coach if we start to go into details. Is he one of the best coaches ever ? Still, yes. Now the best, one of the best, hard to judge once again for the reasons we evoked or hinted both of us PvH and I. But playing the game by judging on what he has exactly done, what he has not done, his successes, his failures (because imo they exist), not that I want to rank him at an exact place but I won't make him the coaching god as manys do with him. That being said, every coaches in history have failures to not say embarassing moments/ facts.There's no coaching god of course, he does not exist. So in the end of day, as Bortolatti did, it's for sure about rating coaches who were actually good, it's the minimum requirement, but most of all about what we sometimes call, to speak about their principles in the game, a ''philosophy''. An ideal in sum. Rarely demonstrated on the pitch in big games, or never even (or in specific circumstances as for the '70 final). Or maybe with that Barça of the ''early 2010s'' or even 2015 even though it was a bit different...but they never faced a team like Milan, even the one of '94 (as they were in the final) if we want to start the nickpicking. Chelsea maybe, at the semi-finals stage but anyway, was their toughest opponent. Was it as good as a Milan as they were in the 1994 final, I don't know. Yes, No. I mean probably they were even better finally. But for sure Barça played better in the different finals from 2006 to 2015 than they did in 1994. That's an evolution. Cruyff is at the base of it, was still around when it finally worked but when he was in charge of the team he made mistakes (only three defenders against Milan, even if they were in theory diminished, and slow ones, to face a Savicevic not completely by hazard on fire that night. It's in the big games that we see the great players but also the great coaches). Also it finally worked in a quite different era with more protection of the attackers. But that was not really what causes his defeat in 1994. Milan had played quite hard, putted the pressure. It was not anymore the very elaborate pressing like during the best Sacchi years but more about commitment, and it stood correct. And about exploiting some faults, as already shown. In the defence of Cruijff, again, maybe that some of his star players were not in full form too. But if his system was so good, why it has not worked ? It's a vicious circle I agree. But he should have re-adjust something imo. (I re-take my breath before continuing just a bit on a few last other points)
Yes, absolutely agree with the thing in bold. In 1997 the 'finals reached' table looked as this (includes the Fairs Cup though, but not the Supercup). Trapattoni - 6 Cruijff - 5 (+ 1 in 1988?) Goethals - 5 Happel - 5 Lattek - 5 Munoz - 5 Rocco - 5 Herrera - 4 Paisley - 4 Revie - 4 Villalonga - 4 Capello - 3 Eriksson - 3 Scala - 3 Currently it is: Ferguson - 6 Trapattoni - 6 Cruijff - 5 Eriksson - 5 Goethals - 5 Happel - 5 Lattek - 5 Lippi - 5 Munoz - 5 Rocco - 5 Ancelotti - 4 Benitez - 4 Herrera - 4 Heynckes - 4 Hitzfeld - 4 Mourinho - 4 Paisley - 4 Revie - 4 Van Gaal - 4 Villalonga - 4 The list with coaches who did it at multiple clubs/settings/players and 'from scratch' (so to speak) is a much shorter one (i.e. Paisley wouldn't score so well then, neither does Van Gaal ----> Rinus Michels too in fact).
Couple of good points there. Yes I agree that the 'backroom' things are a factor and it's one of the things making the stature of coaches and also players more difficult to establish. It's not something we should be blind of (Rosell got exposed with the Neymar transfer, but Rosell never belonged to 'the camp'). Therefore I mentioned the direct transfers and player movements between FCB and RMA, as a direct and visible sign of the balance between the clubs. There was anyway also competition from Italy for sure. This is interesting what you say. Since it is also very often said that now Manchester United doesn't play (guaranteed) Champions League any more, that they have to pay higher sums. Similarly, the fact that there aren't many clubs where players have a realistic chance to win the Champions League gives Real Madrid a stronger bargaining position. I think you are also right on managers often wanting to win in a 'big' way after the first victory was not 'big' (especially the ones who set very high and idealistic standards). Ferguson himself admitted that in the 2009 and 2011 finals they didn't play compact like the 2008 semi finals. After winning fortunately in 1999 and 2008 he wanted to win "our way", which made him clash with the ageing Rio Ferdinand (who didn't want to look bad and out-sprinted of course). Hence he deployed a two man midfield in both finals, because it was "our way", despite the limitations already being shown in full glory during the 1994-95 encounters. "We might have done that again [defend deep and more men in midfield] in the 2009 and 2011 finals, had I not been determined to win those games our way." After the lucky escapes in 1999 and 2008, he wanted to add another flavor before he retired. .... to be continued...
Yes, can't think of a single counter-example at the moment. Right. The Ajax that he has coached proved to be not 'weak' but was for sure young though (so more capable in the Cups than in the League too - even though champion in '85 so in the beginning, when that was not already with all the youngs). As a player, the weak teams he played for were Levante during a little while and the NASL franchises, by the end of his career, so that has not really counted. Except for his bank account. Of course not, no it was not the same systems. But about emphasis on the possession rightly so, and about multiplicating the attacks camping before the opponent's box, it was already that. With Daucik until Herrera included. Herrera has arguably teached one or two dirty tricks to his defenders but he was still not playing the catenaccio, even played offensively. Herrera played the Spanish way in Spain and the Italian way in Italy (and won like that). Whatever the formation is, at any time, with Barça, you'll always see 5 offensive players in action near the box. Recently the front-three + Xavi and Iniesta, before the ''classic front-5'' but not stereotypical as in a strict WM, but with more combinations, a flexible ''WM'' or just say ''5-5'' with a Kubala who, whatever was his theorical initial position was playing a bit everywhere in attack. That has not changed for me. They made roll the ball and tried, tried, tried. And the higher on the pitch you are the better it is. Then there is of course that big difference between the two eras which has to do with the full-backs and the goalkeepers (so there can be even 6 or 7 attackers now, not counting the importance of the gk when he distributes the ball). The two positions and roles that have known the most considerable evolution indeed for sure. And apart from that, useless to talk about the evolution of the pace at which the game can be played. Even though there was quick players at the time, for their time, like there are quick players today. Obviously too. Nor overestimate. I mean, I'm not really into the ''they should have won'' things to be honest, to start with. Or at least not with a big ''should''. Nantes should have won in 1979...but no, it was Strasbourg. Well, to be honest I feel a bit sorry to say that, given the period in History that is in question. But not completely. Because. Then also, when Barça talks about the History of Catalonia, it sounds too much like a selling argument. That is indecent. Damn, they sound like a sect, it's unbearable to me. Franco was not fought to make Barça to win, I mean. Then, I've read about that that many Republicans were not angry with the great Zamora while this one appeared in different occasions by Franco's side. And another thing. The reality of the true Barcelona people today is that they must leave their flats of the centre of the city so are forced to move in elsewhere, further ways, as the appartments are now destined to the foreign people with money or more generally to tourists. So what is made of the History with that, as the sons or grandsons of the ones who fought are displaced? 'Mes que un club' and all of that, the slogans, what does it mean? Barça is just another multinational coporation, this is the obvious truth. So something destructive. So the sympathy I can have for the ordinary Catalan people, I won't mix it with the FCB. Was FCB only a victim during the Francoism years, maybe not. They always existed together, Real without Barça is not Real and vice-versa. Were the Barça directors opponents to Franco? I don't know. Not sure. So really I won't go into that. It's their delirium. Except that they know exactly what they do. The directors, people of financial power, when they talk about all of that...well, they're just putting the people to sleep and selling them their products, that is Barça or anything else. When I look at the Barça model with La Masia etc., I see more something Spartan rather than something that would be the experimentation for more democracy. When I hear Xavi or Guardiola I have the impression to hear somebody who lives in a sect since he was a very young child. It's not like they did not benefitof the system too (as they surely still do), but even without that. Anyway. Sorry. No, in gross, I think we can't remake history, whatever truely happened on both sides and between them, I mean here Real and Barça. That's their buisness. Then in general, if I dare to say, anywhhere anytime, when a title is revoked it is revoked and then it is not, it is not. That happens (or not) for different reasons. And does the second truely deserves to be declared champion? Yep I understood. Was just joking in fact. Maybe not evident, most of all through the internet or you understoood that I was joking a bit, not evident for me in the other way to really know, and just take the occasion to precise again your idea. Ok. Thanks for the excerpt btw (have not ever read it for now). The list with coaches who did it at multiple clubs/settings/players and 'from scratch' (so to speak) is a much shorter one (i.e. Paisley wouldn't score so well then, neither does Van Gaal ----> Rinus Michels too in fact).[/QUOTE] Ok good stuff. As you very probably know, I was not thinking about it at all but only about the fact that you evoked : about the influence Cruyff had after his coaching career, as an advisor, still then as an inspirator... what finally is in the continuity of his coaching career, which was itself in the continuity of his playing career and blablabla... so I even can agree more with what I wrote now, ok! Always good to precise things (and develop some points). But now when re-thinking about it, I'm not sure if I was very clear about what I think of that Barça-Real stuff. Because it is not a very clear story probably. Would need more investigations. I have just a bad feeling with those clubs and other 'big clubs'. At Nantes, it is less complicated. Edit : + only see your last post now. Interesting on Ferguson (I had never heard about that nor imagine that).
Hopefully you allow me the time to respond to all this; Possibly there were mistakes but people assume this by default. You say that he played with three defenders, and this was a mistake (and probably you've taken/adopted this from somewhere else). Spielverlagerung (Rene Maric) claims he played with four defenders (even saying this in boldfaced), and calls this a mistake. They were just too tired/unfit. People then assume that there had to be big mistakes, struggle to differentiate between a three men and four men defense (exactly because they were immobile) - and call both options a mistake. The simple fact that (tactical) analysis of this famous game actually differ hugely, on a simple fact as the number of defenders, speaks for the coach. That there were no glaring mistakes and this is assumed by default, the over-explanation is built in by spielverlagerung and such. I still think there were probably mistakes, but I also observe clearly that this classic and famous game has been analysed, and already differ on a basic thing as three/four defenders. "Three defenders was a mistake", "four defenders was a mistake" (in boldfaced letters). Which only lends credence to the "too tired and unfit" theory. No he didn't. Many of this has been made up and exaggerated over time, because it makes a good story. Also pulled out of context, and with quotes by his assistants wrongly attributed to him. He never said that *he* would "destroy" Milan. He did not say this. He clearly said Milan won deserved. It's an assumption made up by inane journalists and sponsor shills as Sad Lowe. Probably Milan was underestimated, but is that enormously strange? Milan had an enormous difficulty to score goals (ever since MvB got injured halfway 1992-93); Milan did reach the final after beating only 'weak' opposition (a Monaco and Werder Bremen finishing 8th and 9th in their own league - whereas in previous seasons Milan beat many champions); Milan had suspensions in their defense, on which they were leaning (and not the attack); and for the first time in five years they were prematurely eliminated in the Coppa Italia. Only shortly before the final it was decided to not 'clean' the grass, replace the match ball even, and replace the referee with an English referee promoting physical duels (btw, at many crucial moments in his career he had bad experiences with British referees; euro76 semi final for example). The Laudrup at Barcelona was the best Laudrup, with the possible exception of Laudrup in his first Real Madrid season (Don Balon shows him as 'only' third best for his position in 1994-95 though, so it is arguable). Laudrup was suddenly a world beater against Italian teams, something which surprised Guerin Sportivo. It shouldn't be compared with how Maradona manhandled many of his players. Then you are taking it too far in my opinion. Yes indeed, and this works in both ways. I cannot say with absolute knowledge and confidence he was "much better" than Brian Clough, Ernst Happel or Trapattoni. Sam Allardyce too, like I said. Someone like Brian Clough has just a very different profile, very different from Ferguson too. But is telling though that Capello has always expressed his admiration for the player and coach Cruijff - "without doubt the greatest (European) talent of the 20th century" (also "most important talent"). Trapattoni as well actually. Maybe because Capello knows exactly how the dices roll in the world of football. To RAI television: In the press altered to as: "E stato il talento europeo più importante del Novecento. Ha fatto la differenza, prima come giocatore e poi come allenatore. È stato un leader." * Trapattoni also when he was still a top coach and Cruijff still living. ------ will try to address some things on post #861 later.
I say 3 because Sergi played high on the pitch. That's all, simple as that. As for the differential between analysis (from other people) is that thay don't see that the Cruyff's Barça was made to be proteiform, could transform from a 4-3-3 to a 3-4-3 and vice-versa during a match with Sergi as almost a midfielder. On the right Ferrer (who could attack too was more man-marker alongside CH Koeman. Nadal, next to Koeman was too slow, another problem). So in theory, yes it speaks for the coach, it is a system made to be very mobile and to propose diverse solutions. But as you say, once again I agree, they were too tired, and it did not work as it is a system which demands much to the players. But seeing the state of form of his players, he could have tried something else. But he probably did not had real solutions on the bench and he did with what he had. So he changed nothing. But I maintain that he took Milan a bit for ''jamones'' though. What can have multiplicated the Milan players motivation too. In gross I agree about the fatigue factor ( and that his system was a complex one), but for me it's not the only explanation for the defeat. No I don't pretend that he said ''I'' and employed the verb ''destroy''. It was just a maneer to speak. But he was sure to win imo, that's what I meant. And again, by scoring more than 1 goal. It was not meant to be a quote at all I precise now. Just a last parenthesis with some last precisons. Now I'll just wait for the following + the continuation of the post #860.
Above post was the continuation of post #860 His first technical job was in 1980 as 'technical director' (that famous Twente game... correcting Beenhakker...). Ajax achieved promptly the first European semi final since 1973, losing in a close game against eventual winners Nottingham Forest. Then as head coach between 1985 and 1988 there was the first final and trophy since 1973. Barcelona was surely weakened in 1988 and 1989. There was the Hesperia mutiny which saw many players sacked and finances crippled. In 1989, his first season, he achieved 2nd place and won the Cup Winners Cup against Sampdoria. In the final eight new players were playing. That is undoubtedly a difficult circumstance to work with, which many elite managers don't want to face. A complete squad overhaul. In the most used XI of 1988-89 there were eight new players (only Zubizaretta, Lineker and Robert remained). The two next most used players were new too (Amor, Soler). In 1991 there was the championship - only the third in 31 years, including one with him as player. In 1995-96 his side had no recognized star, no FCB player scored more than 10 goals, and yet they finished third with 72 goals (third most of the league) and reached the UEFA Cup semi final (losing 3-4 on aggregate). They also had a memorable 3-0 game against their eternal rivals. I can go on with other years, but I think he achieved good results with both strong and weaker teams (without star really, and a young and cheap Figo does not count), with poor and richer teams (Ajax was next to PSV poor), in volatile and stable circumstances, in a familiar culture and less familiar foreign culture. Andsoforth. It is not without reason he lasted a record eight years as FCB manager. Ajax was of course structurally a weak team. As proven by the 1973 UEFA decision that resetted Holland back to Greece and Denmark level. By that point the number of entry tickets were already tied to the money UEFA handed out to clubs and countries. Ajax and Nottingham Forest are the only clubs to win the EC/CL with an average attendance below 30.000, and quite significantly so. Barcelona was also a relatively weak team compared to the star studded sides of Real Madrid and to a lesser extent Atletico Madrid and Valencia, although their results were more consistent than all of those sides (i.e. consistent semi finals in Europe and consistent 2nd places in the league). I really tend to disagree with this, because of the following reasons: 1) watching the available games and footage. I don't see it. But maybe it is possible to show illustrative statistics like this. If those stats exist, no problem to re-asses thoughts. 2) the analysis of those games (and whether they were representative) and the identified formation and player movement. For example here: http://spielverlagerung.de/2015/11/23/czibor-und-kocsis-verzweifeln-wieder-im-wankdorf/ https://universidadedofutebol.com.b...-campeoes-final-1961-benfica-3-x-2-barcelona/ 3) comments by Herrera himself (for ex. in 'Football against the Enemy'). Ironically, his Inter sides were high scoring. 4) research by journalists. For example Jimmy Burns. 5) research by actual qualified and certified coaches. https://books.google.nl/books?id=9t1VBgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT180&dq=helenio herrera playing deep&hl=nl&pg=PT180#v=onepage&q=helenio herrera playing deep&f=false OK, fair point and fair view. Though I think the 1977 ban cost FCB and additional championship (in the end, they lost by 1 point). I understand many of those points.... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...lona-barca-went-mes-que-un-club-just-another/ ....but I also believe he had genuine intentions and wanted to improve things step by step. In the modern age, humans are quick to call someone a 'social justice warrior', and no, even not Mandela and Gandhi were saints (not at all). Mother Theresa is not a saint in my book. They were humans, and with entering new areas there are also risks. But that is not an argument for inaction or not making a distinction with 100% macchiavellian people. He stepped on board of the 2018/2022 bid, but immediately said (with Gullit as the boss) "only if we do it my way". http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/3277...ses-clubs-shirt-sponsorship-?noBetaRedirect=1 http://www.espnfc.com/barcelona/story/2510162/barcelona-have-lost-their-values-says-johan-cruyff http://www.espnfc.com/barcelona/story/2509771/former-barcelona-coach-johan-cruyff-backing-laporta Rosell was of course a first class fraud. Dostoyevski his Grand Inquisitor, so to speak. If you know that story or Dostoyevski.
How important is head to head record vs other top class managers? Trapattoni scores very well there (for example), Ferguson a lot less so, against 'great' and successful managers.
Ok. Is that I thought that more was coming about Utd-Ferguson in particular. About Herrera at Inter, it's just that I wanted to make it short (but yes, I'm aware of the fact that Inter could play in an offensive maneer... otherwise they would not have won much. As for the possession percentages at Barça, they obvioulsy cannot be the same as the current ones but they played like that in the spirit, the origins of the origins). By the way, I'm not for the draws with arrows and with peculiar disposition of the players (like moving this one a bit more or a bit less on the right, on the left etcetera except if really indispensable : because it shows a team limited to one of its expressions. Of course that must be useful to a coach to explain what he wants to his players, or what the opponent can do but in the context of the presentation of a team in a retrospective maneer, I think that it results only into one cliché which is not the truth of a full-match so personally I prefer to stick to standard presentations and then make note of some particularities, modalities. In my opinion, these analysts with bizarre draws are to inclined to write nonsense once they have sticked their...bizarre draw. Like : '' look at how it is complex (so it must be true) but don't worry, I will explain it all to you''. But they forgot that football is a simple thing and most of the time that it is generally played with two teams. Anyway but personally I don't read these blogs, the best thing is always to watch the games in my opinion. I have not read it. But I can see. I have not read it more than the blogs we were talking about just a moment ago. But it may be more tempting. plus JC is the one.
OK. Other example is when Man City first came around as big spender. With that famous "34 years without trophy" banner by Manchester United supporters. It was seen as below their dignity to (fully) adapt to Manchester City. This resulted in e.g. 4-3 last minute wins and also the 6-2 defeat. Which he himself called and still calls the "most painful" and "worst defeat" of his career. Although managers don't work with the same material and caliber of players, he has a 4-7 record against Cruijff. His biggest win was 2-1, his biggest loss 4-0. Trapattoni has also suffered bad defeats. 7-0 with Red Bull Salzburg (after his prime though), and a number of matches in low scoring Serie A that he lost with four goals difference. This happened five times, with top teams. However, Trapattoni his record against other top class managers is pretty solid (but not without big defeats). This needs further research but would maybe make a good thread! Those things happened. Benitez is often seen as a boring but defensively solid manager. Strong defensive structures. Yet he suffered his biggest ever defeat with a big club against a Barcelona that was playing without Messi. In my view he perfected it (obviously) and took it to more extremes at Inter, but above excerpts are on his Spanish career. He only took it to more notorious levels at Inter, the dirty tricks too btw. I agree that e.g. spielverlagerung is overly complicated and with elegant but simplistic arrows, but those pieces are nevertheless useful for deciphering the things you/me talked about ('possesion emphasis', defending very deep, counter attacking etc.). Not sure he's either direction (i.e. as good as Trapattoni or especially bad against other good managers), but as said above it needs better research. Excluding supercups, he won 6 finals and lost 3.
Which one do you mean? I'll look, I haven't made of all a photo. The one about the 'number tens' ("nobody is as great" -> ok) and the 1993 article is already informative for how he was seen ("the prompter" etc.). In the meantime I have ordered two others dealing with this. One from 1995 and one from 2004 where he was put alongside Chapman as one of the few 'masters of the game'. Will certainly post those when I receive it. There is notably a lack of consensus on who are the greatest managers. Probably for the reasons we discussed http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1280365/Andy-Gray-My-20-managers-time.html (Andy Gray places him as the best manager to never coach in Britain) http://www.redcafe.net/threads/the-times-top-50-managers-of-all-times.170450/ http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/fo...er-Jose-Mourinho-Pep-Guardiola-sportgalleries
The #44, the article where he ranks players and to which Globo and Placar reacted to + where he writes this (must be in the #44 as well, in his players ranking write-up?) @PuckVanHeel
Sorry, I don't have that here any more at the moment (unlike photos of #47, which I kept). It was when he turned 50 in 1997. By that point Sacchi his career had tumbled while perceived proteges as Bergkamp and the opinionated Gullit (first black manager and first overseas manager) were regarded as transformative. I see now btw that rsssf made a mistake. Rocco did not reach five finals but four finals (rsssf table shows him with 3 CWC finals). Will have a look later on. As I said, there is notably a lack of consensus on who are great managers (compared to players). It is not as ironed out and ingrained over time.
So it actually should be this: Ferguson - 6 ** Trapattoni - 6 (- 1) * Cruijff - 5 (+ 1) ** Lattek - 5 (+ 1) ** Eriksson - 5 ** Happel - 5 ** Munoz - 5 Lippi - 5 (- 1?) Goethals - 5 (- 2?) ** Rocco - 4 (+ 1) Ancelotti - 4 ** Benitez - 4 ** Herrera - 4 ** Heynckes - 4 ** Hitzfeld - 4 * Mourinho - 4 ** Paisley - 4 Revie - 4 Van Gaal - 4 ** Villalonga - 4 * For example: Trapattoni managed AC Milan at the back end of the 1973-74 season (while Rocco left halfway at the end of February). AC Milan won the semi final 2-1 on agg, but lost 2-0 against Magdeburg of East Germany in the final. Hence "- 1" for Trapattoni (who has received the credential behind his name) and "+ 1" for Rocco (who has not, despite managing until February). This is to recognize managers who arrived/departed mid season. * (one star) denotes managers who reached a final with different teams ** (two stars) denotes managers who reached a final with different teams and in different countries. If Scotland and England are seen as one country, then Ferguson has ofc one star instead of two. How it looked in the summer of 1997: Spoiler (Move your mouse to the spoiler area to reveal the content) Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler Trapattoni - 6 (- 1) * Cruijff - 5 (+ 1) ** Lattek - 5 (+ 1) ** Happel - 5 ** Munoz - 5 Goethals - 5 (- 2) ** Rocco - 4 (+ 1) Herrera - 4 ** Paisley - 4 Revie - 4 Villalonga - 4 * Capello - 3 Eriksson - 3 ** Scala - 3 etc. (Van Gaal, among others)
But it is well Trapattoni who has beaten (no less than) M'gladbach in the semi-finals thus qualified Milan to the Final. Rocco had "only" passed through the Dinamo Zagreb, Rapid Wien and PAOK ''traps''. The word only placed into brackets because Trapattoni did not manage to avoid the Magdeburg "trap" though and because we know that all the matches are difficult... ...and yes, because winning three double-confrontations. But all in all in fact, I find that rsssf made no mistakes on this one.
It is a mistake because they give 1973-74 to both Rocco and Trapattoni. While in all other instances it is only one manager who receives the honours behind his name, just as UEFA does. A bit like how Roberto di Matteo is a Champions League winner and not Villas Boas, who was manager until early March 2012. Di Matteo was the manager for final two months (that season). Caretaker manager Avram Grant received a loser's medal in 2008 and not whoever might have been more appropriate. To what extent 'the closer' deserves all the credits and the manager doing the groundwork no credits is a different discussion in which I'm agnostic here. I don't change the "UEFA method", I merely show it between parentheses. So Di Matteo would be "1 (- 1)" and Villas Boas "1 (+ 1)" (since he's also a UEFA Cup winner, so "+ 1" for 2011-12).