hjperdeath

yeah I knew that was coming when I said Willian and Schurrle, but think Willian should after not playing against Schalke.

and thanks to everyone else too. many people seem to be confused about this, but you can also find this piece on three other places. I'll make sure that this is added to future pieces starting from the Manchester City report. My blog for the first link and others for independent sites- http://scoutaficionado.tumblr.com/post/64853191309/torres-epitomizes-mourinhos-european-tactical-master http://chelseafc360.com/2013/10/23/torres-epitomizes-mourinhos-european-tactical-master-piece/ http://www.vavel.com/en/football/premier-league/chelsea-fc/273129-torres-epitomizes-mourinhos-european-tactical-master-piece.html

110% agree with the bolded part. Sadly I realised too late, but no way in hell am I putting him on my blocked list. Could definitely talk about this with my fellow staff and have a laugh. Thanks though man, appreciate it.

Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. As this is more of personal, than on topic for you, you win father. Mourinho's a clown, Guardiola's the greatest manager on the planet and Roman's going to sack Mourinho.

Schurrle, Bertrand, Eto'o and Willian for me.

Clearly I'm the one with the false information cause I have true facts from researches? You clearly know nothing about Biesla. Neither about Ferguson, and neither about any of the manager's I mentioned. Is there a direct quote for this stylish attacking football? All Mourinho has said that he is here to build a legacy, which I'm sure he will. The passing Chelsea showed in the first few games was nowhere near what we have seen before. You can't judge after we've gone just a few games into the season. Roman doesn't seem to have a problem yet, neither does the board. Surprising that you, the knowledgeable one , should think it would come back to bite. Relevance to the issue. What the actual fuck? That has 0 sense to what you're first post was all about. " Guardiola is better than Mourinho, "Guardiola's tactics are harder to read than Mourinho's " . Pick a topic son. One triangle for a goal and Chelsea used Cruijfiian triangles before Mourinho came? Hopefully the other German's don't see this. I haven't insulted you yet, but you're asking for it. Please don't call me son, I would be highly ashamed if I was yours.

Insert the exact same first sentence you inserted. Sorry but I'm not ready to insult a person again on this thread. It does have everything to do with adopting players to certain tactics. Guardiola needed players who would work as a unit, another basic principle of total football. Something the 3 said players couldn't. It has everything to do with tactics, but yes as you said combined with the fact that they had up and coming players from the La Masia that could be fit in with future in mind. No the reality is he made the players play in his own style, which made Barcelona what it is as he had the perfect players at his disposal. Read the book, and you shall know more - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pep-Guardiola-Another-Winning-Biography/dp/1409129462/ref=pd_sim_b_2 and this as well - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Barca-Making-Greatest-Team-World/dp/0956497152/ref=pd_sim_b_8 Isn't that what your debate was about? Why did Ferguson choose or buy players of a particular style? Why couldn't he buy players from the market and adapt to their skill set? Isn't that what your rebuttal was all about again? And a proper analyst would also tell you it's a work in progress. The way Chelsea created triangles in the first few games was never ever ever seen at the Bridge. One step at a time. Rushing things and with every step you take, you take two back. Misusing the resources he has? Those players are given to him. he didn't have the freedom to choose them. Chelsea is a top club, they will have to fit into the side. Ribery and Robben were not meant to play the way like they do under Guardiola. They are much different. The same goes for Lahm, Alaba and Mandzukic. With what you are saying, isn't that misusing of resources as well? Another insult. Running out of fingers here. Also you seem to have dropped the topic of Jose being easily read. Nothing to say about that?

Really? Jose's inability to adopt his tactics to skills of his players, instead of adopting player's skills to his tactics? Do tell me why Guardiola got rid of Ronaldinho , Eto'o and Deco? Simple and easy. They weren't hard working enough and couldn't fit into his system and wanted each and every player to feel equal. One way exit for them. In that sense, atleast Mourinho fights to set the spirit, confidence and ego right of the team. Also do tell this to Sir Alex Ferguson as well. The man who's always preferred wingers so that his players can play the 'United' way. Tell him to buy Sanchez or Pedro and let them play on the wings and wait for his response. Once again another insult . I'm loving this. Ignore, Spike. I haven't had any problem yet, if I do I'll let you guys know like before. Mourinho's tactics are simple to read? Jesus Christ. Sir Bobby Robson might turn in his grave if he read that. Guardiola, Martino or any other El Loco disciple employ a strategy or philosophy that is the most simplest to understand. Never in my case studies did I have to spend a lot of time on any of them than I had to on say Manuel Pellegrini (who also doesn't like to move away from his philosophy, another man who buys players to fit into his tactics rather than change his tactics to their skillset. The sole reason he bought Negredo, Fernandinho and Jovetic) , Jose himself, Brendan Rodgers. Bloody hell even Chris Hughton's tactical set up was tougher to read and understand than Guardiola's was. The truth is Guardiola has a fixed philosophy which he imbibes into his teams. He doesn't change at all, unless you count minute and negligible factors such as injury time substitutions or suspensions or lengthy injury list and so on. I've probably done over 20 analysis's on Jupp's Bayern, which was much much much more versatile and harder to read than Guardiola's present Bayern. I did the scouting report on Bayern before we faced them in the Super Cup by watching just 4 games. Going back to the Mourinho point. Mourinho's core philosophy is counter-attacking, the same way Guardiola's is possession football (with the Cruijjfian triangles and fake wingers) . The difference is Mourinho always always always has Plan B, or Plan C, or Plan D up his sleeve. He takes off left-backs and puts on strikers. He adjusts himself to the situation and always has tactical surprises that people don't understand. Guardiola on the other hand hardly finds it tough to face other teams as his own team is either technically superior or have a much much better philosophy, thanks to Biesla and Rinus Michels himself. Another reason why Barcelona suffered against an updated version of the Catenaccio (CC: Chelsea's bus, both the Milan clubs and PSG) . Not just them , but Biesla , Martino etc, would suffer the same if they had a top team facing a top team.

Mourinho is a clown cause he can adjust to situations be it tough or easy, and actually has a much wider view and knowledge on European football? Ignoring another childish insult. So ironic.

Tactics of mine? what? I read the way Mourinho played out his tactics. Helping people understand it if they can't or don't have the time to watch the game. Why are you bringing Guardiola into this? Let me know the reason and I can answer. But I think the question you are asking is would Pep's Bayern use the same strategy or philosophy against Schalke, and the answer is an obvious no. Bayern have a stringent philosophy with a firm foundation that adheres to particular principles. They don't adjust themselves to the opposition they are facing, be it a big team or a small team. There might be just a few deviations here and there, but the core philosophy remains the same. That is mainly down to Guardiola being a faithful Biesla disciple. I have an entire exercise to complete on Principal of Mathematical Induction, I need to study Redox reactions, and then I have a report to finalise for a local club. I'll move your 'homework assignment' to tomorrow, I'm free then.

Do you use chrome ? or do you access instagram from your phone?

brilliant. the Busman species. Great day to you too sir !

Oh damn it, I was on my phone. i think I wrote gys, and it autocorrected to girls. sorry.

Our attacking transitions heavily resemble a 4-3-3 already. Don't think Jose will make the switch on paper though.

I'm not sure whether you're serious or kidding, so I'm not really going to take an effort to answer it.

Haha clearly some of us are still dreaming . Thanks for the career advice once again , thankfully I have more people in my life , but I'll definitely take your advice into consideration.

Thanks uncle , good luck with unemployment !

One can dream .

The ones who actually know football.

Other half of the footballing world that clearly knows spelling and pronunciation is back again.

Girls, close your windows next time . Might want to get sound proof doors too.

A lot of people have asked me how I write down my points while watching the game, both here and outside. So not revealing anything but just a small look if anyone's interested . PS: It's written in copyright handwriting. Don't know how many people know that, but it's meant to be shabby -

Can anyone verify if this is true? 100 matches: Didier Drogba: 41 goals Fernando Torres: 39 goals

A 3-0 away win against Schalke sends Chelsea to the top of their Champions League group. A resounding victory for the London club, despite not playing the way they were ‘expected to’. This was during Chelsea’s defensive transition. A 4-4-2, with 4 in midfield blocking off pass lanes and pressing low with the attacking midfielder and the striker pressing high on the back line. Chelsea didn’t want the ball, they only wanted to make it as tough as possible for Schalke to create a clear cut chance, which they did effectively. By playing a 4-4-2 (that wasn’t that deep), they pretty much had a particular opposition player being covered by one player in blue. A common misconception is that Chelsea were inviting Schalke into the defensive third. Wrong, cause if they were, Oscar wouldn’t be pressing high alongside Torres. Chelsea were forced deep, as Schalke kept the ball moving around quickly. Once the ball was retrieved, counter-attacks became a relatively easy option to take. Oscar receives the ball, and we already have two penetrable holes popping up. Interesting to note that Torres does drift sideways, allowing Oscar to carry the ball forward through the middle against two confused center-backs. He plays it to Schurrle, who wins the corner Chelsea end up scoring by. Schalke defend set-pieces using zonal marking, another reason Torres was able to win the header that ricocheted off the bar in the second half. To form a key, ones encircled in black are the one’s attacking the corner, the one encircled in blue messed up Schalke’s zonal system, the one encircled in red is ball watching and the one encircled in white ends up scoring. From the previous frame, we can see that Torres and Cahill are pretty much in the same zone of one Schalke player. The player encircled in red is adamant that he won’t have to block off Torres . As Cahill rushes inside, he takes one player away from his zone. Meanwhile, the player encircled in red has his eyes stuck on the ball as Ivanovic nods it back. His body language says it all. A horrible blunder and Chelsea are 1-0 up. I can’t stress how different the Chelsea side was when it came back for the start of the second half. Defensive transitions used the formation 4-4-2 in the first half were turned into a 4-5-1 in the second half. Oscar gave up his pressing. Meanwhile attacking transitions were usually a 4-2-4 in the second half. This was converted into a highly attack minded 2-5-3. After Torres grabbed his second of the night, the team reverted back to a 4-2-4. In the frame above we see Chelsea knocking the ball around in the middle. Oscar drops deep and forms an effective 4-3-3. The problem however is that the distance between the middle three and the front three needs to be reduced. This was a problem in the first half as well. Forget our sloppy passing, forget Lampard and Ramires having problems in creating passing triangles. Chelsea just couldn’t reduce the space between the attacking midfielders and the pivot. The 3 pushed up with Oscar on the ball. Instinctively both Torres and Hazard try to run behind their defenders. Chelsea began to be more assertive. They didn’t want the ball, but it wouldn’t look good if they ended up with possession stats that said below 30%. Here we see Chelsea pushing up, having 8 players up front. The 8th being Azpilciueta, just a little below the frame. The question is, what about the defenders? Considering that we are so upfront, there must be huge space for Schalke to exploit. Right? Wrong. We are going AVB mode. An effective 2-5-3. Chelsea are also employing an offside trap. It was far more effective in the first half, with the defenders playing deep, however the strategy continued till the final whistle. Now going back to the first half. This was quite a peculiar strategy Chelsea used, which involved the team acting as a well oiled unit, whose parts could only move in a direction relative to the other. In the first frame we have every Chelsea player on the pitch moving towards the ball. The white circle shows the Schalke wing-back’s head. Now this strategy has its advantages and disadvantages. Disadvantages first, and it can be easily shown here. There are a number of penetrable holes that pop up. A quick switch in flank and Schalke could actually cause Chelsea a huge problem. Advantage however is that it gives the full-backs a false incentive that they can push forward without any consequences. Torres’s second goal is an example, which we shall see. The ball is play to the center and Ivanovic along with Oscar start retreating back towards the flanks. Only two of them? Everyone moves towards the expected direction of the ball. What does this do on the other flank? You guessed it right! More open players with the wing-back having a false incentive that the can push forward while Schurrle can easily make a penetrable run if the ball is won back. Ball is switched back, and the wing-back is wide open . Football is bloody brilliant, isn’t it? Here we see an example of how it worked so well. Hazard has the ball, and Uchida pushed way too forward. We won the ball back and Hazard runs at the defense as Oscar , Ramires and Torres join him. The problem Uchida faces is that he needs to come back in time. We all know the answer to that. He clearly failed and paid the price. To summarise, this is the perfect example of setting up your philosophy for a must win European game. When Jose wrote up his game plan, he knew that it decided mainly on two factors. Please the crowd or win essential three points that put you on top of the table. Undoubtedly many people would think that the performance wasn’t good. True if you have your eyes glued at the possession bar. In a nutshell, Jose got it spot on with how he instructed his players to set themselves up. Score quick, defend well with lot of deceptions and take your chances. Two consecutive games where Chelsea’s strikers have scored. A crisis cannot get any better than this. Click here to view the article

True. Keller might be an innovative manager, but is very quick to shift around things. Oh well, even Mou tears up reports like this after every game !