The Conte Thread

[Reddish-Blue 2,505]

7 hours ago, Jason said:

When on earth did we play the same way against Arsenal like we did at the weekend? Yes, we were passive and negative against City but against Arsenal, we certainly tried to take more initiative. But the main issue was, we came up against an inspired Arsenal (can't believe that actually happened) and we just couldn't break them down. We didn't play well enough to win on that day and we were by no means negative against Arsenal like we were against City.

To be fair to Arsenal, ever since Mourinho left, they seem to fancy their chances against us. 

I just wish we had another creative winger/inside forward type player in the squad.  Someone that is capable of changing the game (i.e. Mahrez or even James would have been a brilliant pickup)

Let's just compare our options to our rivals: Chelsea (Hazard, Willian, Pedro)

City (Sterling, Sane, Bernardo, David Silva, De Bruyne)

United (Miki, Mata, Lingard, Pogba, Martial, Fellaini)

Spurs (Alli, Eriksen, Son)

Basically we have no depth in attack.  

[Antonio8 736]

there is no depht in the whole roaster 

the board is happy so enjoy 

 

[Jase 43,479]

7 hours ago, BlueLyon said:

They were pressing us well and we had problems with that. Obviously we didnt play as negative as against city, but neither was there big desire to win that game. We only put real pressure on them in later stages, but then Luiz got that red card and that was it. It was game at SB and we should have them in full control, but they were as close to winning that game as we did. It wasnt as bad as city, but we could have done much more to win the game, it was realistic to take 3 points. Games like these will decide if we will fight for title.

Really? We tried to make things happen throughout the game and Conte even switched things up at HT but we just didn't have enough to break Arsenal down on that day. It can happen and it will happen again.

7 hours ago, BlueLyon said:

We have players very capable of playing offensive and attractive football. Against Atletico, I was inspired that Conte made subs indicating we want to win that game. Away at one of best teams in europe. Thats the kind of phylosophy you want. And it paid off. Only to see it all blow to city.

We were able to impose ourselves against Atletico because they are not a team capable of passing the opposition off the park. If they were, do you think we would have taken the game to them? You might have read too much into Conte's subs. Replacing Morata, Hazard and Fabregas with Batshuayi, Willian and Christensen respectively hardly screamed ambition. Two of them were like-for-like changes and the other a defensive one. We barely attacked in the last 10 minutes or so and seemed content to sit back and take the point. The winner just happened to have come from a free kick we won late on.

[Jase 43,479]

5 hours ago, Strike said:

Between Atleti on Wednesday and City on Saturday, who were pressing high and energetically, wouldn't you think Pedro or Willian who played little or no part in Spain, should start here?  

Either one could have but that would have meant we play a 2-man midfield and risk getting overrun in midfield. Okay, the 3-5-2 didn't work out in the end for various reasons but Conte had to make a tactical choice, he went for it and it so happened that it didn't work out the way we wanted.

5 hours ago, Strike said:

Also, when Morata was substituted for Willian, it was too tentative, almost negative for me. I know Batshuayi isn't everyone's good idea of a super sub but he is the best we have right now and bringing Willian on was a sign that Chelsea were there to contain City.

Well, that I don't disagree. We had a plan from the start but god knows why Conte decided to change things completely after Morata went off.

[El P. 1,354]

Saying that we can't win the league is not knee jerking. United and City have better players than we do (actually, City has A LOT better players, and this is Mou's second season, no need to say more about that), Spurs are on the same level as us, Arsenal and Liverpool somewhat behind.

It was the case last season - City had no defense, United couldn't score goal to save their lives. But now? City got themselves decent GK, also Walker and Mendy. It's not easy to break them down. United got Lukaku, they are scoring for fun, and got some other good players in their team. So don't tell me "yada yada, we were in same situation last year after this many games". NO, we weren't. Yes - points wise maybe. We had good chance to get ourselves to top last season because others were just not good enough. It's not the case this season, and don't be deluded saying City played great at the start of last season too. They got Walker and Mendy, we got Zappacosta and Drinkwater, they won't back down.

And we? We played one great game this season, against ultra-defensive Atletico, and some good ones. That's it. Couldn't outplay Arsenal, Spurs, City and even some weaker sides.

It's not being pessimistic, neither not supporting your team. It's reality. We have great situation for developing squad and making all the right moves next summer, with no Costa disaster etc.

I personally will enjoy this season despite of maybe not winning trophies,  I'll enjoy in development of the squad, watching the players grow, winning some in UCL and going for domestic cup.

[AlesJuve 264]

4 hours ago, Antonio8 said:

there is no depht in the whole roaster 

the board is happy so enjoy 

 

But despite this, Conte will do everything to win the PL again. Poi che non salga nessuno su quel cazzo di carro(cit.) 

[Tomo 21,751]

6 hours ago, El P. said:

Saying that we can't win the league is not knee jerking. United and City have better players than we do (actually, City has A LOT better players, and this is Mou's second season, no need to say more about that), Spurs are on the same level as us, Arsenal and Liverpool somewhat behind.

It was the case last season - City had no defense, United couldn't score goal to save their lives. But now? City got themselves decent GK, also Walker and Mendy. It's not easy to break them down. United got Lukaku, they are scoring for fun, and got some other good players in their team. So don't tell me "yada yada, we were in same situation last year after this many games". NO, we weren't. Yes - points wise maybe. We had good chance to get ourselves to top last season because others were just not good enough. It's not the case this season, and don't be deluded saying City played great at the start of last season too. They got Walker and Mendy, we got Zappacosta and Drinkwater, they won't back down.

And we? We played one great game this season, against ultra-defensive Atletico, and some good ones. That's it. Couldn't outplay Arsenal, Spurs, City and even some weaker sides.

It's not being pessimistic, neither not supporting your team. It's reality. We have great situation for developing squad and making all the right moves next summer, with no Costa disaster etc.

I personally will enjoy this season despite of maybe not winning trophies,  I'll enjoy in development of the squad, watching the players grow, winning some in UCL and going for domestic cup.

Not saying you don't have a point (atleast about City, im still to be convinced United have the staying power over 38 games Jose's second season or not) but why are you comparing City's two star signing's to two of our squad fillers? I could counter that by comparing Morata and Bakayoko to Danilo and Douglas Luiz.

[petre.ispirescu 4,928]

9 hours ago, El P. said:

Saying that we can't win the league is not knee jerking. United and City have better players than we do (actually, City has A LOT better players, and this is Mou's second season, no need to say more about that), Spurs are on the same level as us, Arsenal and Liverpool somewhat behind.

It was the case last season - City had no defense, United couldn't score goal to save their lives. But now? City got themselves decent GK, also Walker and Mendy. It's not easy to break them down. United got Lukaku, they are scoring for fun, and got some other good players in their team. So don't tell me "yada yada, we were in same situation last year after this many games". NO, we weren't. Yes - points wise maybe. We had good chance to get ourselves to top last season because others were just not good enough. It's not the case this season, and don't be deluded saying City played great at the start of last season too. They got Walker and Mendy, we got Zappacosta and Drinkwater, they won't back down.

And we? We played one great game this season, against ultra-defensive Atletico, and some good ones. That's it. Couldn't outplay Arsenal, Spurs, City and even some weaker sides.

It's not being pessimistic, neither not supporting your team. It's reality. We have great situation for developing squad and making all the right moves next summer, with no Costa disaster etc.

I personally will enjoy this season despite of maybe not winning trophies,  I'll enjoy in development of the squad, watching the players grow, winning some in UCL and going for domestic cup.

 

No, Chelsea went back to the top after a poor start because of Conte and that glorious winning streak, not because others were poor. You don't get to win 13 on the bounce, score 30+ goals and keep 10 clean sheets in the process just because "others were just not good enough".

United had the exact same team last season, bar Lukaku, but Ibrahimovic up top. The difference this season is their easy run of fixtures so far. Swap any of the top sides with United and they would all be on the same points as United is now, if not better, with that fixture list. 

Liverpool, Spurs and Chelsea - three of the next four matches for United. Let's see after the Chelsea game how much they've improved. 

Nobody can predict the future so I find it irrelevant to draw any conclusions like most of you do now. But talking about the past, it has a tendency to repeat itself, so you never know...

Before Chelsea go to the Emirates on New Year's Eve, we get to play only two difficult matches until the end of the year - at home against United and away at Liverpool. 12 others are against lesser sides. And 7 out of these 12 matches are at home  

Think some of you should reconsider your thoughts now days after the City match. You might be in for a surprise before the Arsenal game on NYE when Chelsea will probably be way closer to the top than most of you would imagine.

[Henrique 9,133]

I think some people underestimate the impact of Azpi and Luiz in Conte's 3CB system. Both players are really good with the ball on their feet. When the team is under pressure they can cope well with the situation, and both can even create attacking opportunities out of nowhere. Even playing as CB we saw many times Azpi producing assists, and Luiz can also build attacking situations. In game against Atletico Luiz put Morata in front of the goal in 1st half, and he was the one that found Hazard in the left wing before the Belgian assisted Morata to the equalizer, not to Mention Luiz was the one that received the foul that resulte the last minute goal.

When Conte deployed Azpi to the right wing the team was essentially fucked. Rudiger and Cristensens are good CB, the with Cahill the team was left with a very heavy and non dynamic back 3, and lost the pace and physical power of Moses in the tight side of the pitch.

I think Conte worst decision against City was his 3CB choice.

[Fulham Broadway 17,313]

My view, (these are just our opinions folks) -One thing I think from this week is - if we are going to play 3 in CM, then I quite fancy the idea of a  back 3 of Azpi, Christensen and Rudi with Luiz moving in to midfield alongside Kante and Bakayoko.

[Tomo 21,751]

50 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

My view, (these are just our opinions folks) -One thing I think from this week is - if we are going to play 3 in CM, then I quite fancy the idea of a  back 3 of Azpi, Christensen and Rudi with Luiz moving in to midfield alongside Kante and Bakayoko.

Luiz in midfield is an option if we are playing strictly to contain and counter, but in games we set up to take the initiative (Atletico) or will be forced to due to the negative tactics of the opponent (ala Pulis sides, Leicester, United at home) he shouldn't be anywhere near midfield.

[Fulham Broadway 17,313]

47 minutes ago, Tomo said:

Luiz in midfield is an option if we are playing strictly to contain and counter, but in games we set up to take the initiative (Atletico) or will be forced to due to the negative tactics of the opponent (ala Pulis sides, Leicester, United at home) he shouldn't be anywhere near midfield.

To me he's adaptable enough to switch roles, him and azpi, can send long productive balls from the back. but are equally productive further up if the back 3 are solid enough

[El P. 1,354]

13 hours ago, petre.ispirescu said:

 

No, Chelsea went back to the top after a poor start because of Conte and that glorious winning streak, not because others were poor. You don't get to win 13 on the bounce, score 30+ goals and keep 10 clean sheets in the process just because "others were just not good enough".

If others weren't that poor, that winning streak wouldn't have happened. City was really poor in that 3:1 game, missing an open net to seal the game and conceding 3 from 3 shots, United in that 4:0 too, they were all over the place. Those would never happen again. That second half of a season showed different picture - United and Spurs dominated us and won the games.

Others were poor, no shame in admitting that, our biggest opponent was Tottenham and that says a lot. They played better than us in our encounters too.

I love that season, don't get me wrong, and think we did great. Also, consider we had massive luck with no injuries and there was no European games. Lot of things went our way in that period.

You can't win league if you don't dominate in at least half of those "big games". We didn't really dominate but we somehow won those games last season, yes, because others weren't good enough.

[petre.ispirescu 4,928]

1 hour ago, El P. said:

If others weren't that poor, that winning streak wouldn't have happened. City was really poor in that 3:1 game, missing an open net to seal the game and conceding 3 from 3 shots, United in that 4:0 too, they were all over the place. Those would never happen again. That second half of a season showed different picture - United and Spurs dominated us and won the games.

Others were poor, no shame in admitting that, our biggest opponent was Tottenham and that says a lot. They played better than us in our encounters too.

I love that season, don't get me wrong, and think we did great. Also, consider we had massive luck with no injuries and there was no European games. Lot of things went our way in that period.

You can't win league if you don't dominate in at least half of those "big games". We didn't really dominate but we somehow won those games last season, yes, because others weren't good enough.

Listen mate I do respect your opinion, but from my point of view last season was totally different than how you see it. Chelsea was the first top-flight team in history to win 30 games in a 38-game season and only one game away from breaking that record for wins in a row. Still, Chelsea is tied with Arsenal at 13. This has nothing to do with the opposition being weak IMHO. 

I would agree with you and anybody who would say that Chelsea had a massive advantage of not playing European nights. Lots of rest and time on the training ground for Conte to work on his drills and implement his style of play. 

But honestly, a league consisting of Guardiola at City, Mourinho at United assembling the most expensive squad in football history, Klopp at Liverpool and one of the best teams that Tottenham has ever had is no weak stuff if you ask me.

City with Mark Hughes, United with Moyes, Liverpool with Hodgson or Dalglish, the Spurs team of some years ago, yes that is weak opposition, but not now when you have a plethora of world class managers at the big clubs and a highly talented, stubborn, firing from all cylinders Spurs.

The way you put it then every season you can dismiss the league winners and say they've won it because they had no competition. Does not work like this for me to be honest. 

The City match was the last one from a series of 7 matches in 21 days, I know they are pro athletes, but still, it's no easy job to play a Guardiola team after a match against Stoke away from home and one in Madrid, having only a day to rest and prepare the match. Whereas City played relegation fodder Palace and Shakhtar, both at home.

You win some, you lose some. Our title rivals still have to play against each other, too. City won't play Huddersfield every week, nor will United batter Palace week in, week out. Plenty of time for the big teams to swap position between each other at the top of the table until May.

[Jase 43,479]

3 hours ago, El P. said:

If others weren't that poor, that winning streak wouldn't have happened. City was really poor in that 3:1 game, missing an open net to seal the game and conceding 3 from 3 shots, United in that 4:0 too, they were all over the place. Those would never happen again. That second half of a season showed different picture - United and Spurs dominated us and won the games.

Others were poor, no shame in admitting that, our biggest opponent was Tottenham and that says a lot. They played better than us in our encounters too.

I love that season, don't get me wrong, and think we did great. Also, consider we had massive luck with no injuries and there was no European games. Lot of things went our way in that period.

You can't win league if you don't dominate in at least half of those "big games". We didn't really dominate but we somehow won those games last season, yes, because others weren't good enough.

Christ! If you're suddenly gonna find fault with last season's achievement after one bad loss, then you might as well do it for every trophy we've won.

[El P. 1,354]

22 hours ago, Tomo said:

Not saying you don't have a point (atleast about City, im still to be convinced United have the staying power over 38 games Jose's second season or not) but why are you comparing City's two star signing's to two of our squad fillers? I could counter that by comparing Morata and Bakayoko to Danilo and Douglas Luiz.

Reason is obvious - Morata and Bakayoko are replacements for Costa and Matić, not really an improvements in our squad (maybe they will be some day, but not now). Walker and Mendy ARE clear improvements, they had Sagna, Clichy, Kolarov etc. I know what I'm talking about.

@Jason I am not doing that after this loss, I have done it since last season actually. I repeat, I think we've done really good last season. But not great. City or United could play and do better than we did last season, if any of them continue to play like they are now. They don't even need to win 90+ points to prove that, they have tougher opponents compared to what we had last season and are playing Europe.

[Leif 6,006]

Us winning the league last season was like when a boxer comes out of retirement & isn't expected to do anything significant due to his age. Yet, he ends up winning a title belt, because the quality of opponents have dropped so dramatically since he was in his prime.
But that's not a measure of how good that title-winning boxer is; it's a measure of how bad the general competition has become at that point. That was our scenario.

Now our scenario is different. It's more dangerous.
The quality of opponent has returned to normal, but the old boxer still considers himself good enough since he just won a belt last season. Well, the big boys aren't fighting while sick anymore, and the rookies are no longer rookies. He'll be losing that belt.

It's also like being a boxer second-in-line for a title shot, but the guy first-in-line for that title shot, Mike Tyson, ended up getting malaria. So, he was weak all year, and we became the new #1 contender in his place, the new favourite, without earning it, simply because the real showstopper wasn't at full strength.

 

[Jase 43,479]

5 hours ago, El P. said:

@Jason I am not doing that after this loss, I have done it since last season actually. I repeat, I think we've done really good last season. But not great. City or United could play and do better than we did last season, if any of them continue to play like they are now. They don't even need to win 90+ points to prove that, they have tougher opponents compared to what we had last season and are playing Europe.

Every league season is different and to start comparing each team's achievement is just plain silly. How can you tell City/United have tougher opponents when the season is only 7 matches old? Would you say they are lucky if only those two challenged for the title come end of the season? We are still seeking consistency. Can't be sure what you're gonna get with Arsenal and Liverpool and god knows where Spurs will be if their Wembley issue continues. As much as it's great that the Premier League have 6 teams - on paper - that can win the title, there was never any season where all six were in it (or even 3-4), was there? There has always been only two - three on the rare occasion. You can only beat what's in front of you and do your job and if you end up 1st after 38 games, then you deserve to win the league, based on merit as well as consistency over the course of a season, not because of weak competition.

[communicate 2,703]

22 hours ago, El P. said:

If others weren't that poor, that winning streak wouldn't have happened. City was really poor in that 3:1 game, missing an open net to seal the game and conceding 3 from 3 shots, United in that 4:0 too, they were all over the place. Those would never happen again. That second half of a season showed different picture - United and Spurs dominated us and won the games.

Others were poor, no shame in admitting that, our biggest opponent was Tottenham and that says a lot. They played better than us in our encounters too.

I love that season, don't get me wrong, and think we did great. Also, consider we had massive luck with no injuries and there was no European games. Lot of things went our way in that period.

You can't win league if you don't dominate in at least half of those "big games". We didn't really dominate but we somehow won those games last season, yes, because others weren't good enough.

Saying that the others were poor last season is crazy. Do you realize we scored 93 points last year. 

But nobody with clear mind will say that we had better squad compare to united, spurs,arsenal and city last year.

So this season two teams with the best squad from last season (the two manchester squad)spend far more compare to the rest of the teams. So of course they are going to be better.

 

Losing to city after playing tough game against Atletico Away with one day less rest is not a shame result at all. People say we should have played moses. Maybe but Wb is the most demanding position in this team, to play the same player 3 straight games in one week will be tough for a wb. You can see fatigue in our team, Hamstring problem usually happen when muscle is overworked which I think the case for Morata who hasn't played regularly in his previous club.

[Leif 6,006]

Man City had their worst defence of their modern era last season, while United had their worst attacking output of their modern era last season. 

Arsenal perhaps had their worst season of the modern era last season, full stop.

It was just us and Tottenham; little Tottenham; and they played the better football too. If United didn't bend over, and Man City weren't shambolic at the back, we'd end the season level with Tottenham, them with the better goal difference. This is more a sign of failure from others, than a success of ours. Winning the title while scoring less goals than, and playing worse football than the next best, is like winning a boxing match by default due to the opponent revealing a severe arthritis in round 10, saying he can't go on, after having you beat every single round beforehand. You walk away with the title, not because you're great. But because, at the end, the opponent was in a poor state. A title's a title, but this one feels more hollow than the rest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Premier League and its top dogs have never been weaker. Otherwise, they wouldn't lose the title to Chelsea, with the new manager, with barely any new players, following a shambolic season of their own, relying on 1 striker. Not forgetting, these same apparently-not-poor teams, missed out to damn Leicester the season before, and that was without having to deal with us. 

Man City could make it 3 seasons without a significant trophy this time. I can't remember United's last PL title win. Tottenham are bottlers and will probably never win it. And these teams remain toothless in Europe, too.
So it's not like we beat an on-form Atletico Madrid, Juventus and PSG to the title last season. We must be more critical when we measure how much quality we actually have. And we can't measure ourselves against the muts around us. Measure us against the pure-breds elsewhere in Europe.