The Conte Thread

[OhForAGreavsie 6,077]

45 minutes ago, Blue_Fox_ said:

And what will happen when Hazard & co will get tired of Conte's, very similar to José's, methods? History is our teacher.

It remains to be seen if I am right but I suspect, or should I say hope, that our players have had a chastening lesson and must now realise what Jose, and plenty of us, knew all along; they ain't as good as they think that they are. The newly enlightened squad will not therefore be giving Conte any trouble. If they do then, in the words of The Special One, they must need IQ tests.

[Belgiannutt 3,201]

6 minutes ago, Blue_Fox_ said:

Rightly, wrongly? That has been discussed at length and I won't change my mind about it. Not sure about others, as they seem to change their minds depending from which direction the wind blows.

Funny, because that latter part of your post is the same kind of poison that's been puked over these last few days about Conte's Italy. No doubt I've to be prepared to read the same cookie cutter posts over and over for yet another season, should we fail to bring in our targets. Because I assure, without reinforcements, Conte will make this team play the same kind of football as José did.
And what will happen when Hazard & co will get tired of Conte's, very similar to José's, methods? History is our teacher.

Don't agree with that. While there are similarities between Conte and Mourinho there are some significant differences on a tactical level. Conte wants his teams to build from the back while Mourinho's teams rarely do.

Conte also clearly drills his players on what to do when attacking and what off the ball runs to make in certain situations. His teams seem a lot better synced with each other. Our team, under Mourinho, has always looked like they were improvising everything when they were attacking.

When up against a defensive team plan A always seemed to be just pass it to Hazard and hope he does something with it. Rather then trying to break them down by an organised team effort Mourinho seemed to rely heavily on individual moments of brilliance.

Then there's also the defensive side where Conte seemed to prefer keeping a higher line and actually pressing the opposition while Mourinho is more then happy to have his team sit deep in front of their own goal.

Mourinho coaches his team well on the defensive side but not much on the attacking side while Conte coaches his team as ferociously on the defensive side as he does on the attacking side.

Maybe you and other people will have a different view on this but when i look at Conte's team they attack as a team, they defend as a team and they press as a team. Under Mourinho i never saw that even in the first half of our title winning season.

 

[Blue_Fox_ 2,086]

9 minutes ago, Belgiannutt said:

Don't agree with that. While there are similarities between Conte and Mourinho there are some significant differences on a tactical level. Conte wants his teams to build from the back while Mourinho's teams rarely do.

Conte also clearly drills his players on what to do when attacking and what off the ball runs to make in certain situations. His teams seem a lot better synced with each other. Our team, under Mourinho, has always looked like they were improvising everything when they were attacking.

When up against a defensive team plan A always seemed to be just pass it to Hazard and hope he does something with it. Rather then trying to break them down by an organised team effort Mourinho seemed to rely heavily on individual moments of brilliance.

Then there's also the defensive side where Conte seemed to prefer keeping a higher line and actually pressing the opposition while Mourinho is more then happy to have his team sit deep in front of their own goal.

Mourinho coaches his team well on the defensive side but not much on the attacking side while Conte coaches his team as ferociously on the defensive side as he does on the attacking side.

Maybe you and other people will have a different view on this but when i look at Conte's team they attack as a team, they defend as a team and they press as a team. Under Mourinho i never saw that even in the first half of our title winning season.

 

I will take all that into real consideration when both managers will have managed the same exact 25 men squad.
Obviously there are differences on a tactical level, I would argue there are not two managers in the world of football with the exact same tactical idea. Similar? Yes Exact? No.
Having made that premise.
1) & 4) Conte has at his disposal Bonucci, Chiellini, Barzagli. José for the past 3 years has had, aged JT, Cahill, Luiz (!!!) and an up and coming Zouma, with whom José seemed to prefer a higher line, given his pace.
2) I can agree with this, that doesn't mean José doesn't coach it, simply you can see Conte's hand much more easily.
3) You're only remembering this past season and the latter part of our title winning season, when opposition figured out our tactics and we didn't have (we still don't) have personnel to vary our approach.(Granted it wasn't really fluid but serviceable at the very least.)
5) Any good winning coach knows that the defensive side comes first. Without a solid defence (Which we have lacked from several seasons) you can have the fiercest attack you want but you'll always be vulnerable. Ultimately it's defence and midfield that wins you stuff. If Conte won't have a new proper CB come the beginning of the season, expect him to play a low block and not that fierce pressing you can see, at times, with Italy.
Both he and a few others know that football isn't there to be entertaining, football is there to be won. If you have the means to win while being entertaining then all for the better.

Conte's teams play as a team because it is built as a team.
Our side is not. Our side is comprised of 18 footballers randomly collected in the same team with no clear direction. Which José nonetheless managed to carry over the finishing line and winning a title with it.

But hey, if I would want to see only the negatives in someone's work I could do it also. 

[Belgiannutt 3,201]

26 minutes ago, Blue_Fox_ said:

I will take all that into real consideration when both managers will have managed the same exact 25 men squad.
Obviously there are differences on a tactical level, I would argue there are not two managers in the world of football with the exact same tactical idea. Similar? Yes Exact? No.
Having made that premise.
1) & 4) Conte has at his disposal Bonucci, Chiellini, Barzagli. José for the past 3 years has had, aged JT, Cahill, Luiz (!!!) and an up and coming Zouma, with whom José seemed to prefer a higher line, given his pace.
2) I can agree with this, that doesn't mean José doesn't coach it, simply you can see Conte's hand much more easily.
3) You're only remembering this past season and the latter part of our title winning season, when opposition figured out our tactics and we didn't have (we still don't) have personnel to vary our approach.(Granted it wasn't really fluid but serviceable at the very least.)
5) Any good winning coach knows that the defensive side comes first. Without a solid defence (Which we have lacked from several seasons) you can have the fiercest attack you want but you'll always be vulnerable. Ultimately it's defence and midfield that wins you stuff. If Conte won't have a new proper CB come the beginning of the season, expect him to play a low block and not that fierce pressing you can see, at times, with Italy.
Both he and a few others know that football isn't there to be entertaining, football is there to be won. If you have the means to win while being entertaining then all for the better.

Conte's teams play as a team because it is built as a team.
Our side is not. Our side is comprised of 18 footballers randomly collected in the same team with no clear direction. Which José nonetheless managed to carry over the finishing line and winning a title with it.

But hey, if I would want to see only the negatives in someone's work I could do it also. 

Mourinho could have strenghted our defence he chose not to and to focus on our right wing as we made mutiple signing for our right wing. Mourinho seemed quite content with our defence at the time. ( We bought Filipe Luis yet Mourinho didn't see any need to get Ivanovic out of the lineup and switch Azpi to the other side.)

I didn't see anything recognisable in our attack that made me think "this has been drilled ". It all seemed so random. Players just improvising on the spot.

A solid defence and midfield is important but Mourinho neglected our attack far too much imo. He seemed more concerned with covering up our weaknesses rather then actually attacking the opponents weaknesses.

Azpi and Ivanovic on the fullback positions, Willian on the right wing basically playing right wing back to cover Ivanovic, Oscar a defensive 10 to cover for Fabregas playing in our midfield. All defensive decisions that hus us in attack.

 

 He managed to win the title because Hazard was in the form of his life and dragged us across the finish line. In the second part of our title winning season we were completely dependent on Hazard carrying our attack.

 

The negatives are pretty obvious to see especially when you don't have your head in the sand.

[Blue_Fox_ 2,086]

35 minutes ago, Belgiannutt said:

Mourinho could have strenghted our defence he chose not to and to focus on our right wing as we made mutiple signing for our right wing. Mourinho seemed quite content with our defence at the time. ( We bought Filipe Luis yet Mourinho didn't see any need to get Ivanovic out of the lineup and switch Azpi to the other side.)

I didn't see anything recognisable in our attack that made me think "this has been drilled ". It all seemed so random. Players just improvising on the spot.

A solid defence and midfield is important but Mourinho neglected our attack far too much imo. He seemed more concerned with covering up our weaknesses rather then actually attacking the opponents weaknesses.

Azpi and Ivanovic on the fullback positions, Willian on the right wing basically playing right wing back to cover Ivanovic, Oscar a defensive 10 to cover for Fabregas playing in our midfield. All defensive decisions that hus us in attack.

 

 He managed to win the title because Hazard was in the form of his life and dragged us across the finish line. In the second part of our title winning season we were completely dependent on Hazard carrying our attack.

 

The negatives are pretty obvious to see especially when you don't have your head in the sand.

Eh, after a few, interesting I might add, posts, we went back to blindly pointing fingers in hate and the witch hunt. Shame.
About signings, to this day we don't have a clear idea as to whom brings people in or out. Also we wanted Stones for a whole summer, surely José wanted another CB I'm inclined to believe.
1) Filipe Luis was given chances but he never truly impressed, he was a little out of his depth during those, extensive, runs in the team; at the time our system was working and we were on course to win a title, don't change something that is almost working when you're so close to the finishing line. (Shame we sold him though. One of the few players I really regret having sold.)
2) I already told you mine about it. And I partially agree.
3) & 4) Our weaknesses were/are far more debilitating. It was all needed at the time and I'm sure Conte would do almost the same. The only way this team could have won anything.
As soon as rival teams understood our glaring weaknesses, we started leaking points. At that point José went with the low block.
4) 1 player doesn't win you anything. If we're looking for players who really won us the title, then we should all thank Fabregas and Diego. That title was won in the first 5 months. Subsequently we kept winning only because of Jose's, much hated, tactics, which ironically highlighted Hazard's form.

And yet one just need use google to see which manager won us our last two trophies  And has had a hand in every trophy won in the last 10 years.
But since your only interest here is discredit TSO and glorify Hazard, I'm done.

[Belgiannutt 3,201]

3 minutes ago, Blue_Fox_ said:

Eh, after a few, interesting I might add, posts, we went back to blindly pointing fingers in hate and the witch hunt. Shame.
About signings, to this day we don't have a clear idea as to whom brings people in or out.
1) Filipe Luis was given chances but he never truly impressed, he was a little out of his depth during those, extensive, runs in the team; at the time our system was working and we were on course to win a title, don't change something that is almost working when you're so close to the finishing line. (Shame we sold him though. One of the few players I really regret having sold.)
2) I already told you mine about it. And I partially agree.
3) & 4) Our weaknesses were/are far more debilitating. It was all needed at the time and I'm sure Conte would do almost the same. The only way this team could have won anything.
As soon as rival teams understood our glaring weaknesses, we started leaking points. At that point José went with the low block.
4) 1 player doesn't win you anything. If we're looking for players who really won us the title, then we should all thank Fabregas and Diego. That title was won in the first 5 months. Subsequently we kept winning only because of Jose's, much hated, tactics, which ironically highlighted Hazard's form.

And yet one just need use google to see which manager won us our last two trophies  And has had a hand in every trophy won in the last 10 years.
But since your only interest here is discredit TSO and glorify Hazard, I'm done.

1 player doesn't win you anything but 1 manager according to you is apparently the main reason we won the title.

Mourinho's tactics in the second half of the season ,which was parking the bus, wouldn't have worked without Hazard.

Hazard was vital to us winning the title that's not glorifying that's just stating a fact.

We won 2 trophies but there were plenty of negatives which you seem to be unable to accept.

"And has had a hand in every trophy won in the last 10 years."  Now who's doing the glorifying.

Pretty sure the managers and players that were actually here when we won those trophies had more to do with it then Mourinho did.

TSO, christ just call him Mourinho he hasn't been TSO for quite some time.

 

 

 

 

[Blue_Fox_ 2,086]

24 minutes ago, Belgiannutt said:

1 player doesn't win you anything but 1 manager according to you is apparently the main reason we won the title.

Mourinho's tactics in the second half of the season ,which was parking the bus, wouldn't have worked without Hazard.

Hazard was vital to us winning the title that's not glorifying that's just stating a fact.

We won 2 trophies but there were plenty of negatives which you seem to be unable to accept.

"And has had a hand in every trophy won in the last 10 years."  Now who's doing the glorifying.

Pretty sure the managers and players that were actually here when we won those trophies had more to do with it then Mourinho did.

TSO, christ just call him Mourinho he hasn't been TSO for quite some time.

That's football 101 actually. Managers are THE crucial factor in any team, of course good players help a great deal, but managers are those turning good players in great players, and great players into excellent players.
1 example: Liverpool before and after Klopp. Why did they reach two cup finals?
Vital? That can be argued, I could argue any other winger with good flair and in good form could have carried our attack. Could any other manager carried us over the finishing line? Very few. The fact that Hazard was our winger with good flair and in form is only by pure chance.
I acknowledged the negatives in our team, I only explained you why there were negatives  Grasp the difference?
"That's just stating a fact."
Sure, that's why I didn't say TSO had a "major" hand.

This "conversation" has gone sour now,if you want to discredit TSO and glorify Hazard that's fine, just don't push it down people's throat.

[Belgiannutt 3,201]

1 hour ago, Blue_Fox_ said:

That's football 101 actually. Managers are THE crucial factor in any team, of course good players help a great deal, but managers are those turning good players in great players, and great players into excellent players.
1 example: Liverpool before and after Klopp. Why did they reach two cup finals?
Vital? That can be argued, I could argue any other winger with good flair and in good form could have carried our attack. Could any other manager carried us over the finishing line? Very few. The fact that Hazard was our winger with good flair and in form is only by pure chance.
I acknowledged the negatives in our team, I only explained you why there were negatives  Grasp the difference?
"That's just stating a fact."
Sure, that's why I didn't say TSO had a "major" hand.

This "conversation" has gone sour now,if you want to discredit TSO and glorify Hazard that's fine, just don't push it down people's throat.

Just ridiculous how you belittle the role Hazard and basically every player that's played under Mourinho had in winning those trophies. 

A manager is important but it's the players that win trophies on the field not the manager.

I see no point in continuing this. Freaking delusional.

[Tomo 21,751]

It's pretty simple really.

Mourinho did very well to adapt the tactics to make sure we don't suffer with results, very astute peice of management that won i us the title.

Hazard however was carrying us, as was Courtois, I can't recall many wins in that second half of 14/15 that wasn't owed to a big moment by one, if not both, of them.

To try and downplay the contributions of either (and Tibo) is just comical beyond reality, take one of them three out and City would have caught us it's as simple as that.

[Blue_Fox_ 2,086]

Just to clarify, because there is a lacking ability to read between the lines and carefully, without bias involved, reading a post.
 

53 minutes ago, Belgiannutt said:

Vital? That can be argued, I could argue any other winger with good flair and in good form could have carried our attack. Could any other manager carried us over the finishing line? Very few. The fact that Hazard was our winger with good flair and in form is only by pure chance.

How this downplays (belittles) Hazard's role? 
As I have said, him, Hazard, DID carry out our attack, that doesn't mean any other winger with good flair and in good form couldn't have done it, obviously tactics would have been modified to suit this other X winger.
And to be fair, I'm not downplaying anyone's role in the 14/15 team. Remy was crucial for a couple of games. I just don't  hold Hazard in godly regards as many seem to do.

[Muzchap 8,966]

Groan. Can we not live for the future instead of the past? 

What's done is done, we can only change the future and Conte is the choice - a decent choice it looks like. 

Lets hope the board backs him in the transfer market

[It's too big 625]

Talking about the past won't change the now or future. Conte is the future and this should be our focus. Anyway, change of topic, would you lot rather he won the Euros or lost to Spain and gets to business with the club asap? 

[Muzchap 8,966]

36 minutes ago, It's too big said:

Talking about the past won't change the now or future. Conte is the future and this should be our focus. Anyway, change of topic, would you lot rather he won the Euros or lost to Spain and gets to business with the club asap? 

Selfishly - I want him to come home early, but it might knock his confidence - it's a tough call

[Captain Ahmed 528]

Comments of Capo One-Ireland 1-0 Italy

Quote

The defeat suffered at the hands of Ireland is Antonio Conte’s first in a competitive match with Italy. It was an inconsequential loss that did not change the standings in the group, but the Azzurri need to forget about it as soon as possible because, starting from tomorrow, the focus needs to be on Spain: “To be honest, I have no complaints with our performance,” commented the Italy head coach, “it was a very physical game on a pitch which was not in the best of shape.” Conte made eight changes from the game against Sweden, a move which allowed him to assess those who played less in the first two games and think about alternative solutions for the round of 16: “I got the responses I was looking for, we conceded the goal when it seemed that we might take the lead. Now we have to recuperate ahead of Spain.”On the 27th June, the Azzurri will face Spain in Saint Denis in a replay of the Euro 2012 final which saw Italy ship four goals to La Roja. Spain also overcame the Group E winners in Euro 2008: “The lads are doing everything that they have to do”, said Conte at the press conference, “Hard work is in our DNA and we have to carry on doing what we’re doing and not let ourselves get nervous. The primary aim was to get to the last 16, now we’re playing against one of the favourites. If we played the match on paper, there’d be no contest but luckily there’s the pitch. We remember where we started from and we won’t be too worried but we need to approach Spain in the same way we approached Belgium who also seemed stronger than us. It’s certainly strange to win the group and find ourselves in the same half of the draw as Spain, Germany and France .”The game could have had a different outcome if Insigne’s shot had not hit the post a few minutes before Brady’s goal. Napoli’s attacking midfielder made his debut at this European Championship and proved that he can be a decisive influence when coming off the bench: “I made my contribution, I wanted to score but unfortunately I didn’t manage it. We had some bad luck but we gave our all on a pitch which was in very poor condition. We’re gutted about conceding the goal and losing the game but we now have to look ahead and focus on Spain. We gave our all today and we have no complaints with our performance.

VivoAzzuro

 

[manpe 10,861]

What's the deal with this "Capo One"?

[Captain Ahmed 528]

24 minutes ago, manpe said:

What's the deal with this "Capo One"?

Deal with this Capo One is that the deal is Capo One and Capo One is the deal

[Blue_Fox_ 2,086]

3 hours ago, Captain Ahmed said:

Deal with this Capo One is that the deal is Capo One and Capo One is the deal

Is not correct in both English and Italian. It would simply be "il capo" as in "the boss" or simply "boss" You don't go around saying "the boss one." It's just weird and incorrect.
After all just calling him Conte is fine.
 

[!Hazard! 3,394]

The game is only halfway through but so far Conte has delivered an absolute masterclass against Spain! 

[Alan Partridge 1,124]

Nice! Conte doing a great job 

[Igi26 346]

Oscar about to be on Messi level with Conte. Mikel will play like prime Makelele.