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.

As I said after van Basten got inured Capello decided to become defensive. JW completely overlooks this fact. Look I've read the book and you are just regurgitating it. I watched Milan and I know what I saw. I thought they were better and they were more consistent under Capello. Never said Capello was better than Saachi, obviously Saachi laid the groundwork, it's just a bit annoying when people just say that Capello is a pure reductionist coach. He is a coach that works with what he has.

He didn't become more defensive simply due to van Basten's injury. That's something you are completely overlooking. Capello completely changed the outlook of Milan's team. He was more pragmatic and preferred to contain the opposition instead of pressing. He knew his strength was in the defense and built around it. That's why when Capello had the superstar attackers, he would play through them. When he didn't, he would play through his defense.

Capello regularly rotated his star attackers. He preferred graft over craft. When JPP fell off and Gullit walked out on Capello, only to excel with Sampdoria in the next season, Capello had few options. Capello himself said that he valued the result more than anything, the polar opposite from Sacchi.

I'm not "just regurgitating the book". I've actually seen both teams play many times. Sacchi's side was less specialized, Capello's side was more structured. It's just that Sacchi's team is more renowned for his revolutionary style, Capello's isn't. Because for every innovative manager, there are 20 practical managers.

Thanks Pippo. Much appreciated.

Nice stuff Pippo . It's in my plans to read that book as well. I've always left it for tomorrow for some reason.

I think countries and leagues get into trouble when they get stubborn with a certain style that they feel defines them... and then don't adjust to the evolution of the game. I think you're seeing the beginnings of the same thing in Spain.

sportsczy wrote:I think countries and leagues get into trouble when they get stubborn with a certain style that they feel defines them...  and then don't adjust to the evolution of the game.  I think you're seeing the beginnings of the same thing in Spain.

well i am not sure if it's happening to Spain in general lines but i do agree with that, if football history has anything to say is that everybody should have the need to adapt and adjust according to the new standards that the game demands through it's evolution as time goes by. But such a step is something that isn't always clear in the beginnings of it and even from recent history anybody can see it takes time to move on from certain elements that used to define said teams and especially for the majority to embrace .

It's somewhat easy to say the Spanish way may have to deal with this at some point , but the reality is , how do you even dare to change something that won you so much ? That made them play some of the best football they could have , possibly the best they could have. It's not easy and most take their fair share of time to move on and make their adjustments to meet new and sometimes different criteria , whatever the style and methods used were that defined them.

I can't pretend to know Spain's future but one thing is for sure , the Spaniards will always love to have the ball , whatever ways ," philosophies " and methods they use .

I don't think the last part offered anything of actual significance, so I'll just relate my findings to Neville's original article.

They were characteristics of our game, the attributes that made up the British footballing identity:

the speed of the play
Originally an English facet of play (see Wunderteam vs England, 1932) but improved thanks to the Soviets and Russians from 1945 to 1954.

the tempo of passing
A development from Latin America in the 1920s.

sprinting to the ball and getting out of the box quickly to play offside.
A creation of Osvaldo Zubeldía and his Estudiantes side of 1967-1970.

Pep Guardiola plays in a style that is very British - with a high line, lots of work rate and lots of pressing
An amalgamation of Soviet, Argentinian, and Dutch styles.

The irony is that the best modern European coaches are pushing their defences up high; they’re encouraging their players to chase down the opposition very high up the pitch, rather than drop deep; they’re harrying the opposition all the time. And it’s the essence of the British game.
Pressing high up the pitch is the creation of a Soviet coach. Pushing the defensive line higher is the creation of an Argentinian coach. Harrying the opposition all the time is the development of a Ukrainian and Dutch coach.

If you look at the high defensive line Real Madrid or Barcelona play, you can’t help but think of Steve Bould and Tony Adams pushing up at Arsenal.
The high-defensive line originates from Argentina.

When you think of the athleticism and energy of the Bayern Munich and Borussia Dortmund midfields, you think of Roy Keane, Patrick Vieira Steven Gerrard or Michael Essien at their best.
Or Arrigo Sacchi's Milan, Boris Arkadiev's Dinamo, Osvaldo Zubeldía's Estudiantes, etc.

Across Europe teams are adopting the high defensive line that was Arsenal's trademark.
Across Europe, teams are adopting the high defensive line which originated from the Latin, that the English used to great effect.

The modern identity of a British team shouldn’t change.

It should have a tough back four that tackles hard and pushes up
The 4-man defense originates from Brazil or Ukraine. The high defensive line originates from Argentina.

It should have midfielders who get to the ball and win it back
Pressing originates from the Soviet Union and Hungary.

wide players who sprint backwards as quickly as they do forwards.
Hard-working wingers originates from Brazil, Holland, and the Soviet Union.

A British team should be built on tempo and speed of play.
Innovated from Hungary and Argentina.

Pippo

why the fcuk was i banned? was it a mistake? i honestly have no idea.

^^
bullshit, what you did there was quote random countries like its fact.. english football has always.. ALWAYS.. defended from the front. a random coach from russia etc might refine it, but it doesnt mean it originated from there.
barca are the masters of tika taka.. did they invent it? no. Dutch total football.
Does that mean i can belittle their style by saying cruyff / holland lolz?
Theres a reason why foreigners to a man quote englands uniqueness when they move to the premiership..

football hipsters

when the phrase "originated in 1920" comes into play, its time to stop reading..

The Soviet Union contributed quite a bit according to what Pippo wrote...

cyberman wrote:bullshit, what you did there was quote random countries like its fact.. english football has always.. ALWAYS.. defended from the front. a random coach from russia etc might refine it, but it doesnt mean it originated from there.

From the 13th of November: 'I can't say that it will "confirm" the validity of many subjects, but it is as close as you will get.' So no, I did not purport anything as fact, but it is infinitely more reputable than the ramblings of a moron such as yourself. Prove that the English always defended from the front. Unless you call brain-dead sprinting for the ball in the same vein as little children playing five-a-side, there is actually no documented evidence that an English team began organised pressing in football. Do you want to know why? Because the English simply ripped it from other football styles and morphed it into something unrecogniseable. That's why when Tottenham ripped the Hungarian style in the 50s and 60s, they were seen as revolutionary in England. That's why when Watford ripped the Soviet style in the 80s, they were seen as revolutionary in England.

cyberman wrote:barca are the masters of tika taka.. did they invent it? no. Dutch total football.
Does that mean i can belittle their style by saying cruyff / holland lolz?

That’s essentially caveman logic. Any knowledgeable football fan knows that Barça did not invent total football. Any knowledgeable football fan knows that tiki-taka is a deviation of total football. Are you going to belittle their style by saying Cruijff, the manager of the original dream-team who laid the foundations at Barça with this style? That makes no sense at all, “lolz”.

cyberman wrote:Theres a reason why foreigners to a man quote englands uniqueness when they move to the premiership..

By uniqueness, you mean kick-and-rush, right? I could have sworn that the majority of Spanish players talk about the competitiveness and the atmosphere of the league – Fàbregas also detailed that aspect in his interview.

cyberman wrote:when the phrase "originated in 1920" comes into play, its time to stop reading..

Without the innovations of the rest of the world, England would have been stuck playing the 2-3-5 and the W-M.

Not to sidetrack, Chapman's W-M formation was probably one of the best around in the 1930s tbf

Pippo wrote:Sacchi on what is more important -- the result or the style? Sacchi picks both:

‘For me, La Grande Inter had great players, but it was a team that had just one objective: winning. But if you want to go down in history you don’t just need to win, you have to entertain.’

Are you Xavi in disguise!

No, but seriously seem's like Xavi was right

Last time i checked Le Grande Inter went down in history pretty well. Matter of fact we're talking about them 50 years later

I saw this recently, I thought some of you might be interested in reading this. Eric Batty of World Soccer, talking about how the English method of coaching is different from the Continental method of coaching, from August 1961. These are large images, by the way.

First Page

Spoiler:

Second Page

Spoiler:

A funny excerpt from the second page: "The Continental criticism levelled against the English is that they lack the understanding, the imagination, the adaptability of the best Continental players." Kick-and-run, anyone?  

Pippo wrote:I saw this recently, I thought some of you might be interested in reading this. Eric Batty of World Soccer, talking about how the English method of coaching is different from the Continental method of coaching, from August 1961. These are large images, by the way.

First Page

Spoiler:

Second Page

Spoiler:

A funny excerpt from the second page: "The Continental criticism levelled against the English is that they lack the understanding, the imagination, the adaptability of the best Continental players." Kick-and-run, anyone?  

To be honest english teams are very intimidating when they play with wingers and attack the goal at a fast pace. Maybe the answer is more of the top teams should be playing a 4-4-2 or 4-3-3?

I also find this interesting. Topic is about training methods, from 1976. Long image warning.

Spoiler:

I agree with Gary Neville ( it often happens) anyway . Always respected very much English football.

p.s. England is the country to have given more CL winners ( 5 , Liverpool,Manchester United, Chelsea, Nottingham Forest, Aston Villa ) , Italy  3 ( Milan , Inter, Juventus ) , Spain just 2 (Real and Barca) and same Germany(Bayern and Dortmund ) , well this is enough to not underrate their contribution .

Neville's article was factually incorrect. It was a bizarre attempt to claim the continental clubs' tactical successes and innovations of that time as resurrected British strategies. His historical analysis is incomplete and exists only to prosecute his argument. I had a read through the rest of this thread and I was reminded of Jonathan Wilson's excellent work on the evolution of football tactics, "Inverting the Pyramid". In stark contrast to Neville's article, Wilson's book matches its ambitious scope with deep insight and rigorous research that the topic of historical football tactics demands.

Well I think the main problem with his article is he assumes the biggest criticism of British football is that they work too hard, a bizarre conclusion indeed. The biggest criticism of British football is that the technical ability isn't good enough. His argument is that for British football to return to the top (debatable whether it ever was there to begin with) teams need to go back to working hard instead of focusing on technique. This is just flat out wrong. Prime Barcelona wasn't one of the best teams ever because they worked hard, they were the best because they had the best technical ability and coaching.

Teaching British children hard work and mindless running over technique is what led them to lag far behind in the eighties and nineties and gave them the reputation of hoofball. If anything, modern footballing success such as that of Bayern and Barca over English teams like Manchester United and Manchester City should show him that English teams just aren't technically good enough.

Concluding that teams need to reclaim the British trait of 'hard work' that is the key to the success of Barca, Bayern, and Real Madrid is very strange indeed.

The Sunday Times, 1995:

It had been a rhetorical question really, but Blackburn were good enough or rather bad enough to provide the answer anyway. Exactly a week after Terry Venables had queried whether dear old 4-4-2 and the traditional British power game were passe, England's champion club removed all reasonable doubt.

Once again the European Cup is demonstrating the extent to which English football has failed to keep pace with progress on the other side of the Channel. Blackburn, like Manchester United and Leeds before them, have been embarrassed in the Champions League, the latest continental master-class given by Spartak Moscow, whose 1-0 win at Ewood Park last Wednesday was just reward for a men-against-boys superiority, both in tactics and individual skills.

Those blinkered souls who would blame the defeat on another goalkeeping howler from Tim Flowers are deluding themselves and missing the point. One team passed and moved quickly, accurately and intelligently, and had a monopoly of spontaneity and inventiveness. The other team were Blackburn Rovers.

A look at their respective dispositions just prior to the kick-off said it all. Blackburn deployed in three straight lines, their unwavering 4-4-2 resembling a squad of guardsmen parading at open order. Spartak, in contrast, were the Russians of Le Carre, unfathomable in a labyrinthine 1-2-1-2-2-2, featuring twin sweepers.

Venables is on holiday, but how he will love dissecting the video when he gets back. Here was all the innovation and flexibility any coach could ask for, with the sweepers, Onopko and Nikiforov, taking it in turns to bring the ball out from the back at speed, instantly transforming defence into attack. Each time one set off on a run, the other slotted in to cover, so the last-line security of the spare man was never lost.

English attempts at the sweeper system, which tend to comprise three behemoth centre-halves in line abreast, appear positively antediluvian by comparison. Not that the Russians were preoccupied with defence. Far from it. Their defenders were more accomplished and dangerous on the ball than Blackburn's midfielders, their two orthodox midfield men, Piatnitski and Tsymbalar, were more creative than any who spring to mind in the Premier League and the wingers, Kulkov and Tikhonov, blended seamlessly into attack and midfield with a facility seemingly lost in England when Steve Coppell retired.

Rovers were stolid and predictable by anyone's standards, let alone these. Infants, their manager, Ray Harford, called them, and they were certainly taught a lesson.

Cruijf wrote:Well I think the main problem with his article is he assumes the biggest criticism of British football is that they work too hard, a bizarre conclusion indeed. The biggest criticism of British football is that the technical ability isn't good enough. His argument is that for British football to return to the top (debatable whether it ever was there to begin with) teams need to go back to working hard instead of focusing on technique. This is just flat out wrong. Prime Barcelona wasn't one of the best teams ever because they worked hard, they were the best because they had the best technical ability and coaching.

Teaching British children hard work and mindless running over technique is what led them to lag far behind in the eighties and nineties and gave them the reputation of hoofball. If anything, modern footballing success such as that of Bayern and Barca over English teams like Manchester United and Manchester City should show him that English teams just aren't technically good enough.

Concluding that teams need to reclaim the British trait of 'hard work' that is the key to the success of Barca, Bayern, and Real Madrid is very strange indeed.

Agreed. This sentiment that you point out is something that has been recognised from the 1980s to the 1990s to the 2000s to the 2010s.

And yet they're still up there playing the way they do. I'd say Neville is right but only to a certain extent. People who believe Tech is the most important aspect to win have stayed in the last millennium and haven't caught up in the times. You can attack England for not winning it more often but the current World Champion isn't a team that one would say won due to superior skill but have won mostly through a combination of iron will and a winning mentality.

Germany didn't have superior skill? They were by far the best team technically. Brazil doesn't even need to be mentioned and Holland and Argentina, the only other two serious competitors, were there only because of great coaching and individual brilliance. You can't say Germany wasn't the best team of the tournament in terms of technical ability. It's the same problem with saying Barcelona just stole the 'British' secret of working hard.

Yes, they and Germany worked very hard, but it was their technical superiority that gave them their success, not mindless hard work.

It was both!
/football revolution