Guardiola Ball is NOT the Way

[Scrumpys Dietary Advisor..]

17 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

You could not highlighted even ONE pattern of build up from the Keeper . 

What is O'learys role in the 3-4-2 -1 Bristol City DON'T play?

 

And that is exactly the problem with modern football. Over complicated with mumbo jumbo to make it sound hard

Football however is a very simple game. The fundamentals are very basic, constant movement and pass to a player in space, within the pattern of play that you chose (and practice in training)

I dread to think what (2 times European Cup winner) Brian Clough would have made of the upside down, inverted camshaft formation. Now that truly is a load of bollox...

p.s. Max's role is to keep the ball out of the net ..

 

Edited January 2 by Scrumpys Dietary Advisor..

[Numero Uno]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Eileen “B”rewery!!

Short, back and sides please Eileen.........(if you know)

[Wade Wilson]

2 minutes ago, Scrumpys Dietary Advisor.. said:

 

I dread to think what (2 times European Cup winner) Brian Clough would have made of the upside down, inverted camshaft formation. Now that truly us a load of bollox...

 

 

If someone said “Inverted wingback” to Clough he’d deck them. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

It isn't Guardiola or bust.

Can think of a few others in recent years who flourished with underlying principles of 4-3-3, yes good possession but not always possession obsessed, intensity etc. 

As well as the obvious Man City and Liverpool.

Napoli were pretty excellent for most of last season under Spalletti. Blew up a bit towards the end, which coat them in the CL at least the chance of a run to the final and 100 pts in Serie A but won the title and reached their record CL position- Spalletti walking seems to have done them in.

De Zerbi at Brighton, Silva at Fulham and Iraola all play iterations of 4-3-3, none of them are dull.

I also thought Leeds under Bielsa could with a combination of less injuries and a genuine 4-3-3 could have gone up a notch.

Lower down, Frank at Brentford at times vs similar sides and lower, and at home injuries permitting can be quite positive with his 4-3-3. Like us they have quite a thin squad..he switches between a back 4 and a baxk 3, more possession v counter and physical, home v away etc.

Slightly surprising entry but for a time Italy under Mancini were very positive, lots of possession and shots- most games at the Euros all but one and the 2.5 years that preceded it they tended to dominate tbh. 4-3-3 and yes a fair bit of possession but shots an indication of attacking intent too.

[Cowshed]

Just now, Scrumpys Dietary Advisor.. said:

And that is exactly the problem with modern football. Over complicated with mumbo jumbo to make it sound hard

Football however is a very simple game. The fundamentals are very basic constant movement and pass to a player in space, within the pattern if play that you chose (and practice in training)

I dread to think what (2 times European Cup winner) Brian Clough would have made of the upside down, inverted camshaft formation. Now that truly us a load of bollox...

 

 

You have been asked a simple question based upon your own assertion. You still have not been able to answer it.

What are BCFC's build up patterns if they are trying to emulate Man City? Why are BCFC not actually attempting to play like Zerbi's Brighton? Or Ash Morgans Keynsham Town?

All play variants of possession football. 

[Scrumpys Dietary Advisor..]

Just now, Cowshed said:

You have been asked a simple question based upon your own assertion. You still have not been able to answer it.

What are BCFC's build up patterns if they are trying to emulate Man City? Why are BCFC not actually attempting to play like Zerbi's Brighton? Or Ash Morgans Keynsham Town?

All play variants of possession football. 

No, I have chosen not to answer it because I have no interest in discussing the merits of 8-1-1 v 2-6-2 add infinitum. The manager will decide what system he wants to play and what we say won't change that

You can dress it up however you like but what it boils down to endless recycling of the ball, are you going to argue that point ..?

I go back to my original post where my point is that copying possession based, constant recycling of the ball with no risks (like Man City do) is what will kill off the game we love as a spectator support because it is as boring as f__k...

 

 

[Cowshed]

15 minutes ago, Scrumpys Dietary Advisor.. said:

p.s. Max's role is to keep the ball out of the net ..

 

 

57 minutes ago, Scrumpys Dietary Advisor.. said:

And you've just validated my point. 

You have just validated a point.

Man City dis not recruit Ederson to solely keep the ball out of the net 90% and frequently a higher proportion of his role in games is to distribute the football to his team mates.    

 

 

[Scrumpys Dietary Advisor..]

1 minute ago, Cowshed said:

 

You have just validated a point.

Man City dis not recruit Ederson to solely keep the ball out of the net 90% and frequently a higher proportion of his role in games is to distribute the football to his team mates.    

 

 

I believe that is also part of Max's job description but the clue is in the title "goal keeper"

Edited January 2 by Scrumpys Dietary Advisor..

[Silvio Dante]

The comparison to Pep is lazy and has come about in the main because Manning has come from the CFG. He has articulated a lot of “coach speak” by way of behaviours, process etc - a lot of which people wouldn’t disagree with if he articulated them a little less robotically.

A good case in point is where he talks about being “emotional” - from a coaching sense, I recognise this - we’ve all heard the shout “still 0-0 lads” - and that’s really all it means. Play the game the same way. The issue is that by using the word emotional Manning gives the impression he’s emotionless and indicates emotion is a bad thing - when football is a hugely emotive game.

(In essence he’s a pretty poor communicator publicly)

This means that people see “process” and “emotion” as things they’re not. They are, however, things that Pep would stress (but in a different way) just as Alan Dicks would have just as Neil Warnock would have - it’s the same stuff articulated differently.

So, when Manning talks about “process” he means the way we play. And the only similarity to Man City is the philosophy that if we have the ball the other team can’t score. However, Pep doesn’t play across the back four for no reason - there is purpose, intent and pace. Those things are all missing.

It’s not Pep ball people hate. It’s a side playing a very very poor facsimile of that in one aspect where the articulation adds to the frustration. And the articulation then indicates the coach is coaching a certain way because of the “CFG” book. But it’s not the way Pep plays!

 

[DaveInSA]

I was reminiscing about the Premier league over lunch. I don't watch much of it and when the amazon had games last week I excitedly tuned in to watch Arsenal against West Ham.

Which, in my opinion was one of the dullest games I've ever seen. You could have played for three days and Arsenal wouldn't have scored. I was bored to tears. So much so that I put together some IKEA furniture at the same time. That was my opinion at any rate. Then I went looking for some analysis of the game, and found this : https://www.cannonstats.com/p/arsenal-vs-west-ham-delayed-reaction

These stats presented a game that I thought I didn't watch

Sometimes it just doesn't come off. Arsenal played well (at least statistically - ignoring the lack of goals). And West Ham just nicked the game.  

[The Original OTIB]

2 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

The comparison to Pep is lazy and has come about in the main because Manning has come from the CFG. He has articulated a lot of “coach speak” by way of behaviours, process etc - a lot of which people wouldn’t disagree with if he articulated them a little less robotically.

A good case in point is where he talks about being “emotional” - from a coaching sense, I recognise this - we’ve all heard the shout “still 0-0 lads” - and that’s really all it means. Play the game the same way. The issue is that by using the word emotional Manning gives the impression he’s emotionless and indicates emotion is a bad thing - when football is a hugely emotive game.

(In essence he’s a pretty poor communicator publicly)

This means that people see “process” and “emotion” as things they’re not. They are, however, things that Pep would stress (but in a different way) just as Alan Dicks would have just as Neil Warnock would have - it’s the same stuff articulated differently.

So, when Manning talks about “process” he means the way we play. And the only similarity to Man City is the philosophy that if we have the ball the other team can’t score. However, Pep doesn’t play across the back four for no reason - there is purpose, intent and pace. Those things are all missing.

It’s not Pep ball people hate. It’s a side playing a very very poor facsimile of that in one aspect where the articulation adds to the frustration. And the articulation then indicates the coach is coaching a certain way because of the “CFG” book. But it’s not the way Pep plays!

 

All the right words but not neccessarily in the right order then.

[Silvio Dante]

3 minutes ago, The Original OTIB said:

All the right words but not neccessarily in the right order then.

I’m not sure it’s even Andre Previn.

It’s the wrong words and possibly to the wrong players for those words.

But yeah, I don’t think he helps himself externally in how he communicates even though it isn’t really anything earth shattering.

[LondonBristolian]

9 minutes ago, Scrumpys Dietary Advisor.. said:

No, I have chosen not to answer it because I have no interest in discussing the merits of 8-1-1 v 2-6-2 add infinitum. The manager will decide what system he wants to play and what we say won't change that

You can dress it up however you like but what it boils down to endless recycling of the ball, are you going to argue that point ..?

I go back to my original post where my point is that copying possession based, constant recycling of the ball with no risks (like Man City do) is what will kill off the game we love as a spectator support because it is as boring as f__k...

 

 

That isn’t how Man City play though. And it isn’t how Guardiola’s teams have ever played, or at least played on a consistent basis. You seem to keep trying to tie an (admittedly dull) style of football to a manager who has never actually played that way.

[BCFC_Dan]

The complaint here is about a symptom of the problem, not the cause.

If the player on the ball can't see a progressive action that he likes the look of then he'll resort to the preferred fall-back of his manager. If his manager is a modern type, this is likely to be a safe pass to retain possession and hopefully lead to a better position. If his manager is more old school then he might just kick the ball forward anyway in the hope that something will turn up.

Either way it's reliant on hope and most of the time it won't work. The crowd sees either boring passing around the back, or a ball forward to nobody, and it doesn't like either of them.

It doesn't matter if the manager is Pep Guardiola or Tony Pulis. If a forward pass to a teammate can be made, it will be, and it will lead to "excitement". The difference is largely what happens when it can't.

The trick, therefore, is to make more viable forward passes available, and that requires movement, understanding between players, and ingenuity. It also needs the players to have the confidence to take risks when appropriate. If Manning can get that right, then it won't matter what style he wants to play because it'll be successful. If he can't, it won't matter if he just tells the players to lump it forward because the result will still be rubbish.

[LondonBristolian]

1 minute ago, BCFC_Dan said:

The complaint here is about a symptom of the problem, not the cause.

If the player on the ball can't see a progressive action that he likes the look of then he'll resort to the preferred fall-back of his manager. If his manager is a modern type, this is likely to be a safe pass to retain possession and hopefully lead to a better position. If his manager is more old school then he might just kick the ball forward anyway in the hope that something will turn up.

Either way it's reliant on hope and most of the time it won't work. The crowd sees either boring passing around the back, or a ball forward to nobody, and it doesn't like either of them.

It doesn't matter if the manager is Pep Guardiola or Tony Pulis. If a forward pass to a teammate can be made, it will be, and it will lead to "excitement". The difference is largely what happens when it can't.

The trick, therefore, is to make more viable forward passes available, and that requires movement, understanding between players, and ingenuity. It also needs the players to have the confidence to take risks when appropriate. If Manning can get that right, then it won't matter what style he wants to play because it'll be successful. If he can't, it won't matter if he just tells the players to lump it forward because the result will still be rubbish.

Excellent post.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Guardiola has stated in the past he hates passing around for the hell of it.

https://www.bundesliga.com/en/news/Bundesliga/0000301076.jsp

From his Bayern days presumably. I don't watch as much live football on TV as I used to, but his sides are incredibly intense out of possession, for a period at least.

When you have those phases of slower or more safe rather than slow passing yeah you can rest in possession and it is mentally and physically tiring for the opposition.

When you lose it..you go at them, you really hound them and it takes some bravery and skill or accuracy if a longer pass or 2 to beat that press.

In his Barcelona days he said they were horrible without the ball- a bit more bravery by some opponents and who knows but I was struck when they were at their apex, arguably just how good they were both with and without the ball.

December 2010, with and without they were pristine in possession local derby at Espanyol and the intensity when they lost the ball was quite something tbh.

[Cowshed]

Just now, Scrumpys Dietary Advisor.. said:

I believe that is also part of Max's job description 

Looking at your previous posts you didn't emphasise this role in a team that is attempting to emulate Man City's football.

3 minutes ago, Scrumpys Dietary Advisor.. said:

No, I have chosen not to answer it because

 

 

I don't think you can, or you do not understand the differences.

You cant highlight clear differences between BCFC, Brighton or Man City.

Bristol City are not attempting to play Guardiola ball. Liam Mannings build up play at this point does not share real similarity. 

8 minutes ago, Scrumpys Dietary Advisor.. said:

You can dress it up however you like but what it boils down to endless recycling of the ball, are you going to argue that point ..?

 

Man City are not endlessly recycling the ball.

The 3-4-2-1 see CBs pushing up uniquely high like FB's. Edersons joins in outside the box acting as a distributing CB. Its absurdly brave. Man City move the ball frequently in the second third to create numerical superiority to progress it, Stones, Walker, Foden step in forming box midfields and diamonds of 3v 2, 4v3 etc, play is switched to unbalance the opposition to isolate opponents v wide players like Doku and Grealish. Again brave, high and wide and frequently with players from the back leaving what would be considered traditional roles - Stones, Walker, Ake etc push on into midfield leaving one CB and the Keeper to distribute.  

It is positional football. 

What are static rigid BCFC doing in the first third, or the second? Is it unique, or brave, or even similar?  The answer is no. BCFC are not playing like Guardiola. From the Keeper to Haaland. 

18 minutes ago, Scrumpys Dietary Advisor.. said:

I go back to my original post where my point is that copying possession based, constant recycling of the ball with no risks (like Man City do) i

 

 Bristol City don't play like Man City. 

[Silvio Dante]

4 minutes ago, BCFC_Dan said:

The complaint here is about a symptom of the problem, not the cause.

If the player on the ball can't see a progressive action that he likes the look of then he'll resort to the preferred fall-back of his manager. If his manager is a modern type, this is likely to be a safe pass to retain possession and hopefully lead to a better position. If his manager is more old school then he might just kick the ball forward anyway in the hope that something will turn up.

Either way it's reliant on hope and most of the time it won't work. The crowd sees either boring passing around the back, or a ball forward to nobody, and it doesn't like either of them.

It doesn't matter if the manager is Pep Guardiola or Tony Pulis. If a forward pass to a teammate can be made, it will be, and it will lead to "excitement". The difference is largely what happens when it can't.

The trick, therefore, is to make more viable forward passes available, and that requires movement, understanding between players, and ingenuity. It also needs the players to have the confidence to take risks when appropriate. If Manning can get that right, then it won't matter what style he wants to play because it'll be successful. If he can't, it won't matter if he just tells the players to lump it forward because the result will still be rubbish.

Spot on, particularly the bolded bit.

One of the things I think I’ve mentioned on here before is that football is fundamentally risk vs reward. The way we play currently is that we play a number of 90-10 risk passes in our favour - that’s unlikely to lead to progression but equally neither is the 10-90 hoof up the pitch you mention.

For me, we don’t play enough 60-40 (or even 70-30) balls. Take a bit of the risk to get the likely reward. It’s probably what LM refers to when he talks of being braver, but as has been said, that bravery comes from the tone of the manager primarily. And if you’re coaching to a 80-20 risk ratio at worst, you’re not going to be brave a lot of the time.

[LondonBristolian]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Guardiola has stated in the past he hates passing around for the hell of it.

https://www.bundesliga.com/en/news/Bundesliga/0000301076.jsp

From his Bayern days presumably. I don't watch as much live football on TV as I used to, but his sides are incredibly intense out of possession, for a period at least.

When you have those phases of slower or more safe rather than slow passing yeah you can rest in possession and it is mentally and physically tiring for the opposition.

When you lose it..you go at them, you really hound them and it takes some bravery and skill or accuracy if a longer pass or 2 to beat that press.

In his Barcelona days he said they were horrible without the ball- a bit more bravery by some opponents and who knows but I was struck when they were at their apex, arguably just how good they were both with and without the ball.

December 2010, with and without they were pristine in possession local derby at Espanyol and the intensity when they lost the ball was quite something tbh.

I think the key in that article as to WHY we don’t “play Guardiola ball” is the intent. As the article explains, Guardiola’s teams don’t knock the ball around in defence but retain possession in dangerous areas to pull the defence out of positions and then, if they lose possession, quickly win it back to take advantage of a defence out of position.

Nothing in what we do when we knock the ball around defence can be seen as being intended to pull the defence out of place. It is retaining possession due to an absence of options further up the pitch, which is in no way how or why Guardiola’s teams do it.

[Numero Uno]

Interestingly Man City can be the most direct team in the country at times. Ederson has been known to hit the odd 70 yard pass..................

[Cowshed]

1 minute ago, Numero Uno said:

Interestingly Man City can be the most direct team in the country at times. Ederson has been known to hit the odd 70 yard pass..................

Because of the almost absurd width and depth the team plays with can stretch the opposition to create weakness and if the opposition go man for man at goal kicks attempting to stop Man City playing out, a goal kick up the park cleared by the CB drops into a deliberate overload created in midfield by Man City to win it back.

When Bristol City had LJ evidently trying to go all Pep Frankie was shanking it into the Dolman.   

[Scrumpys Dietary Advisor..]

13 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

You cant highlight clear differences between BCFC, Brighton or Man City

Yes I can, probably around £600m

[Scrumpys Dietary Advisor..]

16 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Man City are not endlessly recycling the ball.

I watched them do it first hand for 90+ mins against us and, that is EXACTLY what they did...

[Scrumpys Dietary Advisor..]

24 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Man City dis not recruit Ederson to solely keep the ball out of the net 90% and frequently a higher proportion of his role in games is to distribute the football to his team mates.    

Looking at your previous posts you didn't emphasise this role in a team that is attempting to emulate Man City's football

I think he would be booked and eventually sent off in trying to hang on to the ball for 90 minutes (but maybe there is something in this ..?)

Edited January 2 by Scrumpys Dietary Advisor..

[bearded_red]

[LondonBristolian]

1 hour ago, Scrumpys Dietary Advisor.. said:

I watched them do it first hand for 90+ mins against us and, that is EXACTLY what they did...

Are you talking about the game where they had 16 shots against us, the game where they had 28 shots against us or the game where they had 26 shots against us?

Edited January 2 by LondonBristolian

[Three Lions]

20 minutes ago, Scrumpys Dietary Advisor.. said:

I watched them do it first hand for 90+ mins against us and, that is EXACTLY what they did...

if their endlessly recycling the ball how do they score more goals than everybody else???

[W-S-M Seagull]

13 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

I think the key in that article as to WHY we don’t “play Guardiola ball” is the intent. As the article explains, Guardiola’s teams don’t knock the ball around in defence but retain possession in dangerous areas to pull the defence out of positions and then, if they lose possession, quickly win it back to take advantage of a defence out of position.

Nothing in what we do when we knock the ball around defence can be seen as being intended to pull the defence out of place. It is retaining possession due to an absence of options further up the pitch, which is in no way how or why Guardiola’s teams do it.

I watch quite a lot of Man City as my son is a 'fan' and I'm always baffled when people say we play a Man City style. 

Man City don't pass it around their cbs needlessly. Maybe by and large their cbs start the attacks, but they look to get the ball forward as quickly as possible to their more creative players. Their style is front foot football. Looking to score a goal with every attack. 

With Haaland in the team they play more direct. It is still very possesion heavy but they seem to make little tweaks to it each season. Stones inverting for example. I'd have to check the stats but with my naked eye, it doesn't seem like MC constantly have posession in their own half. 

We seem to play it around our cbs whilst looking for an opportunity, our cbs remind me of quarter backs in NFL. 

It's impossible for us to play the Guardiola way because we don't have the players for it and never will. It works for Man City, Leicester etc because in the majority of the games they play they have the better players. 

Burnley last season are a case and point. Had the better players so outclassed most teams. In the premier league they are now struggling as they are up against better opposition. 

[W-S-M Seagull]

4 minutes ago, Three Lions said:

if their endlessly recycling the ball how do they score more goals than everybody else???

They do recycle the ball but it's with a clear purpose. 

They don't pass it back to their cbs for their cbs to just pass it between themselves. 

They might go back to their cb to draw the other team out a bit, or to shift the ball to the other side for example. 

Their recycling of the ball will be more like going back to the cb for the cb to pass it to a midfielder. 

We don't do that. 

[Davefevs]

This thread resembles our play yesterday….

@Cowshed to @Scrumpys Dietary Advisor.. and back again, then onto @LondonBristolian at right back, before going back to @Cowshed, across to @Scrumpys Dietary Advisor.., then onto @Numero Uno at left back, before an aimless punt to @Silvio Dante