Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: Ivo Stas on January 05, 2016, 08:39:06 PM
-
I've been reading an article about Mourinho's approach to winning matches, particularly when playing against better teams (such as he did in his early days in Portugal where he got some minnow up as high as 3rd in their League, or when his Inter Milan played Barcelona over two legs in a semi-final, etc). Mourinho has this to say:
“The more the ball circulates in midfield, the more likely it is that the other team will dispossess us.”
"If you don’t play counter-attack then it’s because you are stupid. Because counter-attack is a fantastic item of football."
“People talk about style and flair but what is that? Sometimes I ask myself about the future, and maybe the future of football is a beautiful green grass carpet without goals, where the team with more ball possession wins the game. The way people analyse style and flair is to take the goals off the pitch.”
Also, according to a biographer (Diego Torres), Mourinho has a simple seven-point plan for winning games:
1) The game is won by the team who commits fewer errors.
2) Football favours whoever provokes more errors in the opposition.
3) Away from home, instead of trying to be superior to the opposition, it’s better to encourage their mistakes.
4) Whoever has the ball is more likely to make a mistake.
5) Whoever renounces possession reduces the possibility of making a mistake.
6) Whoever has the ball has fear.
7) Whoever does not have it is thereby stronger.
This got me thinking about how we keep losing possession in midfield and conceding goals (a classic example being that Arsenal goal scored by Ramsey). And that got me thinking about how both under (late period) Lambert, Sherwood and Garde, we keep trying to play out from the back and through midfield without success. Our 'best' (least worst) period post-O'Neill, I would argue, was mid-period Lambert when we were a counter-attacking side. The classic example being that 3-2 win away at Southampton where we had something like 20% possession (or that that home win against Man City, or away wins at Liverpool).
-
I would agree with counter attacking, however you need pace, energy and a decent forward who knows where the back of the net is.
-
I think this is where we're in danger of overestimating the impact of managers or their tactics. We pulled some results out under Lambert and Sherwood because we had a world-class big bastard of a striker and the odd midfielder who could occasionally get the ball to him quickly.
For whatever reason, be it mental, physical or both, Garde has a team full of wallflowers/ne'erdowells/theatre props/the shellshocked/up-and-comers who can't win a game on their own(like Benteke could).
We're beyond a tweak of the tactics.
-
We're beyond a tweak of the tactics.
I'm still reading about Mourinho. He also has this to say:
“Coaching is about recognising the good qualities of the opponents and recognising the fragilities of the opponent, and, more than that, it’s to recognise the good qualities of my team – and the bad qualities of my team. Because my team also has bad qualities, and it’s very important that me and my players, we recognise our bad qualities. One of the secrets of good coaching is, ‘Can you hide your bad qualities from your opponents and even from the pundits?’”
Trying to outplay opponents with worse players seems like a 'bad quality' to me. How often do we get stuck in midfield, facing opponents defending in two lines, running out of ideas and going side-to-side until someone (Gana) gets dispossessed or passes the ball to an opponent (Sanchez) or dribbling into trouble (Sinclair) whilst we have players (especially full backs) committed forward. And thus we have a situation whereby our weak defence (bad quality number two) is left facing opponents running at us whilst we are definitely not organised into our two banks of four...
-
The simple fact is - give Villa the ball and they will find a way to fuck it up. That's why teams are happy with us having possession. We do fuck all with the ball except cause ourselves problems.
-
In fairness I think we should be more counter attacking, but lack the pace to do it. For a long time we have needed a couple of pacey options up front.
-
Of our Pacey options, gabby is frozen out and obviously hasn't bust a gut to impress the new manager and force his way into the team, add a bad attidude to his existing limitations and its game over for him really. Nzogbia, ditto, plus doesn't play with his head up enough to make the most of the little possession we'd have.
Sinclair doesn't link with other players well enough for counter attack either I don't think, and doesn't take shots on enough. Adama is worth a go but checks too often to try and beat his man, rather than just using his pace.
That just leaves Ayew really who you can rely on. Same as any formation of style we play. We're fucked. Even if we had mourinho we'd be fucked.
-
In fairness I think we should be more counter attacking, but lack the pace to do it. For a long time we have needed a couple of pacey options up front.
I would say Leicester are a good example of a counter attacking team this season. Get numbers back when defending, but then have players with pace to break forward quickly. It involves a lot of hard work and desire though, two things the majority our players sadly lack.
-
And it was always one of the main things that people used to bellyache about us for when MON was here.
-
And it was always one of the main things that people used to bellyache about us for when MON was here.
I think the main gripe about O'Neill was that he tried to employ those tactics at home as well as away, which didn't really work if teams sat back (which they invariably did against us back then).
-
And it was always one of the main things that people used to bellyache about us for when MON was here.
I think the main gripe about O'Neill was that he tried to employ those tactics at home as well as away, which didn't really work if teams sat back (which they invariably did against us back then).
I get that, but Leicester do the same thing now.
Then again Leicester haven't spent the money MON did. I get it, it's just that those days seem somewhat halcyon from the bottom of the table, despite the legitimate grumbles at the time and since.
-
And it was always one of the main things that people used to bellyache about us for when MON was here.
I think the main gripe about O'Neill was that he tried to employ those tactics at home as well as away, which didn't really work if teams sat back (which they invariably did against us back then).
I get that, but Leicester do the same thing now.
Then again Leicester haven't spent the money MON did. I get it, it's just that those days seem somewhat halcyon from the bottom of the table, despite the legitimate grumbles at the time and since.
Agree with that. I think Leicester will probably find it tougher in the second half of the season, as teams will go there with a much more defensive mindset. If teams put ten men behind the ball, I'm not sure they will have the quality to break them down.
-
And it was always one of the main things that people used to bellyache about us for when MON was here.
I think the main gripe about O'Neill was that he tried to employ those tactics at home as well as away, which didn't really work if teams sat back (which they invariably did against us back then).
I get that, but Leicester do the same thing now.
Then again Leicester haven't spent the money MON did. I get it, it's just that those days seem somewhat halcyon from the bottom of the table, despite the legitimate grumbles at the time and since.
Agree with that. I think Leicester will probably find it tougher in the second half of the season, as teams will go there with a much more defensive mindset. If teams put ten men behind the ball, I'm not sure they will have the quality to break them down.
And I agree with that. But you can't argue with 40 points at the turn of the year. Even if they finish as low(!) as eighth, what a season for them.
-
I feel sorry for Lambert, we were so close with our 20% possession strategy
-
And it was always one of the main things that people used to bellyache about us for when MON was here.
I think the main gripe about O'Neill was that he tried to employ those tactics at home as well as away, which didn't really work if teams sat back (which they invariably did against us back then).
I get that, but Leicester do the same thing now.
Then again Leicester haven't spent the money MON did. I get it, it's just that those days seem somewhat halcyon from the bottom of the table, despite the legitimate grumbles at the time and since.
Agree with that. I think Leicester will probably find it tougher in the second half of the season, as teams will go there with a much more defensive mindset. If teams put ten men behind the ball, I'm not sure they will have the quality to break them down.
And I agree with that. But you can't argue with 40 points at the turn of the year. Even if they finish as low(!) as eighth, what a season for them.
Yep and good luck to them. They've been massively reliant on the excellent form of Vardy and Mahrez, but they are a well organised, hard working and disciplined side. The very antithesis of what we are.
-
I feel sorry for Lambert, we were so close with our 20% possession strategy
No he changed it after he met with Pep. It's just that he left the meeting a few minutes before Pep revealed that he needed to ensure the new 60% possession was in the opponents half and not outside our own box.
-
Even if we had mourinho we'd be fucked.
Aitor Karanka is very much a Mourinho protégé. He was his assistant at Real Madrid. Using the methods learnt from Mourinho, Middlesborough have:
- the best defensive record in the Championshipt (only 12 goals conceded).
- clocked up 15 clean sheets in the league.
- recorded nine straight home league clean sheets.
- only conceded two league goals at home all season.
-
Even if we had mourinho we'd be fucked.
Aitor Karanka is very much a Mourinho protégé. He was his assistant at Real Madrid. Using the methods learnt from Mourinho, Middlesborough have:
- the best defensive record in the Championshipt (only 12 goals conceded).
- clocked up 15 clean sheets in the league.
- recorded nine straight home league clean sheets.
- only conceded two league goals at home all season.
He's done a good job there and it seems to given the club a massive lift. Chris Hughton deserves credit for the job he has done at Brighton since he has been there as well.
-
What happens when both sides play the same counter attacking football
-
Mourinho's teams have never been as entertaining as his press conferences.
Years ago, there were comparisons with Cloughie; both big personalities and both had regular run-ins with authority. But that is where the comparison ends for me. Old Big Ead was off the cuff, his idea of a good pre season was taking his players to the Red Light District in Amsterdam. Mourinho is probably the most organised manager in the game, relying on detailed dossiers even when his side have a plum FA Cup draw against Third Division opponents.
He is a safety conscious, risk averse manager. But I don't recall many of his sides consistently posting the same dismal possession stats as O'Neill's and Lambert's in particular.
You can be a counter attacking side and still appreciate the value of possession. Clough's sides were in that mould, they would draw sides in and then Clough jnr would pull them apart with a sharp pass. The Arsenal side with Henry, Pires and co were probably the best exponents of counter attacking football I have seen - to the point that sides would be wary of winning a corner against them.
But they would dominate possession too. They were just absolutely ruthless when they sensed even half a chance.
-
Apart from his time with Vittoria Guimares (I don't know for sure whether that's who he started with, or whether that's how you spell their name) he's always worked with the one of the biggest/richest teams in whichever league he's been in. His ideas just aren't relevant with a terrible squad like ours. At Inter, Porto, Chelsea etc you can be reasonably sure that the players you give instructions to will be able to carry them out.
[Cut to] Gestede, on all-fours, being hit square in the middle of the eyes by a frisbee[Cut away].
-
Counter attacking sides need players with the confidence, technique and vision to play the ball that tips the scales from defence to attack in a second. With the possible exception of Veretout we have nobody good enough to play the counter attacking game.
What we get, at best is Hutton galumphing forward and shovelling the ball across, at worst cross field passes in our own half until one of our players panics and gives the ball away or passes it back to Guzan to kick for the spot-the-ball photograph.
-
Counter attacking sides need to play with tempo.
Most of our players can't control or use a football at the slowest pace.
We have no hope.
-
What happens when both sides play the same counter attacking football
It becomes basketball.
-
You don't have to be Mouriniho to spot the bloody obvious.
I said all this on another thread weeks ago, ie we should get rid of the weaknesses in our team and style of play - shore up the defence with 3 in the centre. Do away with the full backs - play wing backs. Empty the midfield - 1 defensive midfielder. Then play with pace up front on the counetr attack.
Of course we would still have been shit - but at least we would have tried to address our obvious inability to play tip-tap football in the midfield which creates nothing and ultimately concedes possession to the opposition.
Now, where's my £100k per week?