goon wrote:
Tactics wrote:
Monaco and Dortmund had the 2nd best squads in a 1 man league. That 1 man does cock up once in a while, that's how the Monacos, Dortmunds win their leagues.
That's the same with any underdog. You don't see them doing it regularly regardless of style. Big boys will always go back to winning.
Our teams in our title winning seasons were of comparable quality to those at Man United IMO. And we actually played an even more adventurous style post 2005 (that switch was Wenger's biggest mistake IMO).
Disagree completely there. I actually think his biggest mistake has been attempting to be tactical rather than sticking to producing fluid football.
Yes Liverpool 'nearly' won it, Monaco 'nearly' won it etc That's how it mostly ends, their adventurous style almost always cost them in the end.
Again, this can be said for many underdogs. Atletico 'nearly' won the champions league twice. Ultimately it comes down to how well you do your thing.
Not all underdogs are forced back my default, we went to places like Old Trafford, Stamford Bridge etc and played them off the park but returned home with 0 points and no goals scored.
Which goes back to my earlier point that playing attractive football doesn't mean you have to be naive. You could sit back and play on the counter and still be considered both attacking and attractive. It all comes down to what you do when you have the ball.
Back to my main point, I was obviously talking about a situation wherein you have a couple of teams with better players, it's extremely difficult IMO to play an attacking brand of football and expect to win a big trophy at the expense of those teams.I can't imagine an attacking side doing what Greece did at Euro 2004 for example.
I hate to say 'nearly' again, but we nearly did it in the 2006 CL run. It's the perfect example of what I mean when I say an attacking side looking to play attractive football doesn't have to play naive football. We knew our limitations and built our ideals around it in a way that works for us.
Haha our style was in no way considered 'attacking' during that CL run. It was a style based on a deep defensive block and quick counters , no different to what other 'negative' sides like Leicester, Porto, Greece, and countless Mourinho teams did in the past.
The football that we played around 2006-2010 was completely different, it was a dominant, possession based style mostly played in the opposition half (with a very high line ). That is the most difficult way to play football and win matches at the highest level IMO. It only makes sense to play this way when you have the best squad in the league (see City for example), it's the main reason why I don't think Guardiola for example is a good fit for us despite him being a brilliant offensive coach.
Do you disagree our title winning sides were of comparable quality to those at Man United ?
Yes Atletico nearly won the CL but they still won other trophies (you can't always win them all), how many did Liverpool win ?
