Re: Gary Neville: We've forgotten just what made British football great

by free_cat Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:35 pm

cyberman wrote:the 92 barca team had how many spaniards?
I'll wait..

Like 18....

by BarrileteCosmico Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:46 pm

Pippo wrote:Football did not begin in the mid-80s, and even by the mid-80s if "British football" was high pressing and high tempo, then that means the British have just ripped off from other nations like Austria, Hungary, and Brazil. He is only giving mid-80s examples because I can assure you that if he went even further back, he will have learned something about the Mighty Magyars.

That's irrelevant because Neville is not saying "England invented pressing" or "England pressed before anyone else", he's saying "By the 90s high tempo and pressing were part of the English style, now teams have moved away from that and they should recover those values"

by andiii Thu Oct 10, 2013 1:19 pm

what makes british football great is excellent media coverage and foreign players. due to this i cant be bothered to read his no doubt ridiculous speech

by S Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:17 pm

Dont know if this is the right thread to post this,but i'll post it here anyway.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24467371

State of the Game: Premier League now less than one third English

English footballers account for less than a third of all the minutes played in the Premier League, a State of the Game study for BBC Sport has found.

by harhar11 Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:25 pm

KennethCole wrote:
The Franchise wrote:Im still trying to get my head around the part where Pardew subbed Ben Arfa at half time for not tracking back Baines? Is that true?

Poor Mole.
Thats a bit hypocritical coming from a barca fan, no?

Everyone at Barca tracks back ... Oder?

You would have a point if anyone at barca was subbed because he didnt track back. But to this day it hasnt happend, ever. Heck, the player that tracks back the least is the player that plays the most..

by cyberman Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:51 pm

If the opposition are raiding down the same side non stop due to the wideman not helping the fullback while not contributing overly to the attack, of course hell be subbed off

by Pip Thu Oct 10, 2013 5:47 pm

cyberman wrote:The galaticos how many spaniards, the 92 barca team had how many spaniards?
I'll wait..

In 2001, Real Madrid had 16 Spaniards in their team. In 2002, it was 15 Spaniards. In 2003, it was 13 Spaniards. In 2004, it was 15 Spaniards.

Cruijff's 1992 Barcelona team had 15 Spaniards. No English Champions League-winning side had more English footballers than Barcelona had Spaniards until now. Even in 1999, Manchester United had 14 Englishmen in their side.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:That's irrelevant because Neville is not saying "England invented pressing" or "England pressed before anyone else", he's saying "By the 90s high tempo and pressing were part of the English style, now teams have moved away from that and they should recover those values"

Neville does not state that, though. He repeatedly claims at multiple points during the article that British football is based on attributes such as tempo, and speed of play. But that is not true, at all. Neville has the audacity to claim that Josep Guardiola is playing a "very British" style, when in reality he is not -- it is an adaptation of the Brazilian style. It essentially roots to the general gist that he is attempting to convey in the article: If you have hard workers in your team, you are playing a very British style. He claims that for Barcelona, Bayern München, and Borussia Dortmund. It's far from it. He goes on to claim that continental football is attempting to become more British. It's far from it. Look at where English clubs have been plundering footballers from for the past couple of years -- from countries with teams that do not play this "British football". Neville can say that British sides used high tempo and pressing to great success, but he cannot possibly say that these tactics are British in style, because they aren't. The irony is that his concept of the modern British football identity is one created by two Hungarians and a Brazilian.

by The Franchise Thu Oct 10, 2013 7:45 pm

cyberman wrote:If the opposition are raiding down the same side non stop due to the wideman not helping the fullback while not contributing overly to the attack, of course hell be subbed off

Or you could just use common sense and have your team keep the ball better?

Or at least move him middle..considering he is far and away the best player on the team.

by El Jefe Mon Oct 14, 2013 9:31 pm

zizzle wrote:when was British football great anyway ?

Gary Neville: We've forgotten just what made British football great - Page 3 Zzdti91661-3865066

3 in 5 seasons for Sir Bob. 4 in 8 seasons for Liverpool.

by Peccadillo Tue Oct 15, 2013 3:45 am

Pippo wrote:
cyberman wrote:The galaticos how many spaniards, the 92 barca team had how many spaniards?
I'll wait..
In 2001, Real Madrid had 16 Spaniards in their team. In 2002, it was 15 Spaniards. In 2003, it was 13 Spaniards. In 2004, it was 15 Spaniards.

Cruijff's 1992 Barcelona team had 15 Spaniards. No English Champions League-winning side had more English footballers than Barcelona had Spaniards until now. Even in 1999, Manchester United had 14 Englishmen in their side.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:That's irrelevant because Neville is not saying "England invented pressing" or "England pressed before anyone else", he's saying "By the 90s high tempo and pressing were part of the English style, now teams have moved away from that and they should recover those values"
Neville does not state that, though. He repeatedly claims at multiple points during the article that British football is based on attributes such as tempo, and speed of play. But that is not true, at all. Neville has the audacity to claim that Josep Guardiola is playing a "very British" style, when in reality he is not -- it is an adaptation of the Brazilian style. It essentially roots to the general gist that he is attempting to convey in the article: If you have hard workers in your team, you are playing a very British style. He claims that for Barcelona, Bayern München, and Borussia Dortmund. It's far from it. He goes on to claim that continental football is attempting to become more British. It's far from it. Look at where English clubs have been plundering footballers from for the past couple of years -- from countries with teams that do not play this "British football". Neville can say that British sides used high tempo and pressing to great success, but he cannot possibly say that these tactics are British in style, because they aren't. The irony is that his concept of the modern British football identity is one created by two Hungarians and a Brazilian.

To be fair, Spain often has a more talented pool of players to deal with so its not exactly surprising.. I am sure either RM or Barca would happily fill their squads with foreign talent if there weren't any better Spaniards.. but I agree with the basic premise of what you have said here. He's talking 99% crap. However... fast tempo is very much a feature of the British Style... you can't deny that - no one said its exclusively British.. Just like you can't say the "Spanish style" is purely Spanish.. A nation or leagues playing style is a concoction of various philosophies and an adaptation of a number of methods that have been integrated over a substantial period of time..

I do believe the English style is insanely exciting when it comes together in a match - even if relatively ineffective on the continent in the modern era.. It can also be painfully boring and even embarrassing at times with the long ball/park the bus tactics.. But I wouldn't discredit that side of the argument.. I don't know if it's just nostalgia with a hint of childhood naivety but I have the best memories of watching EPL games from the 90's.. nothing quite like it.

by Eivindo Tue Oct 15, 2013 11:07 am

andiii wrote:what makes british football great is excellent media coverage and foreign players. due to this i cant be bothered to read his no doubt ridiculous speech

by 1991 Wed Nov 06, 2013 4:26 am

Bump 'cause Klopp agree's with Gary

http://www.football365.com/news/21554/9008066/Klopp-Dortmund-Style-Of-Play-Is-English-Football-

Lol @ the haters acting like English football doesn't have an identity.

by Pip Wed Nov 06, 2013 8:52 am

1991 wrote:Bump 'cause Klopp agree's with Gary

http://www.football365.com/news/21554/9008066/Klopp-Dortmund-Style-Of-Play-Is-English-Football-

Lol @ the haters acting like English football doesn't have an identity.

With Klopp, there's 2 different ways you can go:
1] I play a more English style
2] Everything I learned comes from Sacchi

1] By English style, what does he mean? "Fighting football" -- i.e. blood and thunder, getting stuck in, fight for the shirt. Energy on and off-the-ball. Go back 10 seasons, how many English teams can you say have played a similar style to Dortmund? I'd say one, two if you compare them loosely. The only things reminiscent of "English" football has to be the stereotypical headless chicken running and directness, but Dortmund are incredibly co-ordinated with their pressing and they are very calculated with their attacking through Lewandowski. How many English teams can you say follow that statement? Not even a handful, to me. Klopp's own words bring Stoke to mind: "rainy day, heavy pitch, everybody is dirty in the face and they go home and can't play football for the next four weeks. This is Borussia." That's what he thinks of English football.

2] Klopp is a Sacchi fanatic. He stated in an interview that everything he learned as a coach came from Sacchi. Sacchi's style of play was revolutionary. So if you take this train of thought, it leads you to a quote from Paolo Maldini: "each player was as important defensively as he was in attack, it was a side in which players and not positions were key." How many English teams could follow that statement? Not very many. Keep in mind that the flavour of the decade was "4-4-2, kick it to the touchline, whip it in to the big lad in the middle" for many teams. A team that comes to mind that could have fit that philosophy is Manchester United of the late 1990s period with the 4-4-2 of Giggs, Scholes, Keane, Beckham.

I don't think anyone here stated that British football has no identity. Neville is just way off the mark with his article. When he makes statements like this: "Across Europe teams are adopting the high defensive line that was Arsenal's trademark", I can't help but think that he is just as bad as Carragher is. The most ironic thing is that English teams are shifting to a more continental style that influenced this "British football" that Neville kept pandering on about, and he wants English teams to shift back to this "British football" that is not British at all. It's just attributed to Britain.

by Pip Wed Nov 06, 2013 9:12 am

Correct me if I am wrong, but Bob Paisley (and Liverpool's) success was built on the foundation of Bill Shankly and his Liverpool side. This is a quote from Shankly:

Bill Shankly wrote:“We realised at Liverpool that you can’t score a goal every time you get the ball. And we learned this from Europe, from the Latin people. When they play the ball from the back they play in little groups. The pattern of the opposition changes as they change. This leaves room for players like Ray Kennedy and Terry McDermott, who both played for Liverpool after I left, to sneak in for the final pass. So it’s cat and mouse for a while waiting for an opening to appear before the final ball is let loose. It’s simple and it’s effective … It’s also taken the spectators time to adjust to it.”

And then with a quote from Paisley:

Bob Paisley wrote:"We realised it was no use winning the ball if you finished up on your backside. The top Europeans showed us how to break out of defence effectively. The pace of their movement was dictated by their first pass. We had to learn how to be patient like that and think about the next two or three moves when we had the ball.”

England's most dominant side having key facets of their play learned from Europeans? Two of British football's greatest managers being inspired by continental football? Shocking development.

by Casciavit Wed Nov 06, 2013 12:03 pm

Pippo

by Swanhends Wed Nov 06, 2013 12:11 pm

GL in anti-British shocker Proud

by Forza Wed Nov 06, 2013 12:22 pm

Common sense prevails. One of the all-time great GL turnarounds.

by Pip Wed Nov 13, 2013 5:27 pm

I've been reading Inverting the Pyramid, the history of football tactics, written by Jonathan Wilson; much of his information is supplemented through historical publications and journals. I can't say that it will "confirm" the validity of many subjects, but it is as close as you will get. I'll only be quoting short passages. I will do this in three parts: the first being from the 1880s-1950s, the second part being from the 1960s-1980s, and the third part being from the 1990s-2000s. I'm assuming that some would be interested.

by Forza Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:22 am

Very interesting to see the historical development of tactics and formations in some select quotes. Thumbs up

by fatman123 Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:25 pm

Clowork oranje total football was invented by the Russian not the Dutch and the principles Barca base themselves on come from Maslov not Cruyff and co

Pls respond

by jibers Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:27 pm

Great book. Just read the updated version as well. Wasn't worth the money tbh.

by Pip Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:47 pm

jibers wrote:Great book. Just read the updated version as well. Wasn't worth the money tbh.

An updated version? Interesting. I just found a downloadable .pdf copy online that I just copy passages from to post here. I would not pay money for the book, but it really is exceptional in terms of acquirable knowledge. So far, the part I have enjoyed the most has to be the story of Zubeldía and his Estudiantes side.

by M99 Fri Nov 15, 2013 6:47 am

jibers what's new in the updated version?

by urbaNRoots Fri Nov 15, 2013 7:45 am

Great job, Pippo. Really enjoyed the read. Keep it up.

by jibers Fri Nov 15, 2013 8:14 am

This is the reason why i didn't really take this book that seriously. I actually watched Milan under Capello and they were far better than they were under Saachi, winnig by 4 goals routinely. The defensive nature only came about the following season after van Basten got injured. The book is a good overview but is like a pop quiz. People need to watch the games themselves instead of just regurgitating stuff from books.

by Pip Fri Nov 15, 2013 9:07 am

But Milan did not win by four goals routinely. Under Capello's reign of five seasons (1991-1996), Milan won by four goals only 13 times:

1991-92: (74 goals, 34 matches)
- Matchday 15 | 5:0 vs Napoli (H) [Finished 4th]
- Matchday 27 | 5:1 vs Sampdoria (H) [Finished 6th]
- Matchday 33 | 4:0 vs Hellas Verona (H) [Finished 16th]
- Matchday 34 | 8:2 vs Foggia (A) [Finished 9th]

1992-93: (65 goals, 34 matches)
- Matchday 5 | 7:3 vs Fiorentina (A) [Finished 16th]
- Matchday 9 | 5:1 vs Napoli (A) [Finished 11th]
- Matchday 19 | 4:0 vs Pescara (H) [Finished 18th]
- Matchday 21 | 4:0 vs Sampdoria (H) [Finished 7th]

1993-94: (36 goals, 34 matches)

1994-95: (53 goals, 34 matches)
- Matchday 22 | 5:0 vs Brescia (A) [Finished 18th]
- Matchday 28 | 5:1 vs Torino (H) [Finished 11th]
- Matchday 29 | 4:0 vs Reggiana (A) [Finished 17th]

1995-96: (60 goals, 34 matches)
- Matchday 24 | 4:0 vs Vicenza (H) [Finished 9th]
- Matchday 34 | 7:1 vs Cremonese (H) [Finished 17th]

Sacchi's Milan won by at least four goals nine times in his four seasons as manager of Milan (1987-1991) -- 1 time in 1987-88, 5 times in 1988-89, 2 times in 1989-90, and 1 time in 1990-91.

In terms of offensive output, Capello's Milan was marginally better than Sacchi's Milan. Capello averaged about 1.69 goals scored per game (170 matches, 288 goals) with his Milan, whereas Sacchi averaged about 1.56 goals scored per game (132 matches, 206 goals) with his Milan. In terms of goals conceded, Sacchi's Milan was marginally better than Capello's Milan. Sacchi averaged about 0.64 goals conceded per game (132 matches, 85 goals) with his Milan, whereas Capello averaged about 0.73 goals conceded per game (170 matches, 124 goals).

I do think that Capello improved from Sacchi in terms of results, simply due to those available to him and those around him. van Basten had those two years with Sacchi, but Guillt pre-injury was the perfect footballer, and to this day my favourite footballer. However, Capello acquired Boban, Savicevic, Lentini, Desailly, and B. Laudrup to recreate his own offensive and defensive spine. His Rijkaard-Ancelotti was the Desailly-Albertini. His Gullit was Savicevic.

Sacchi already created his team beforehand. The famed back four behind Rijkaard-Ancelotti was legendary. Sacchi has an anecdote about Ancelotti that I will include at the end of this post, I found it very interesting to see how difficult and intensive it was to adapt to his system. Do I think Capello's Milan was a better side than Sacchi's? No. Simply because Sacchi was first, and he created the revolution. Capello merely followed him and made improvements.

by Sponsored content

Hitskin.com