🇮🇹 Roberto Di Matteo

[Tomo 21,751]

If Robbie ever gets sacked, only Mourinho's return would probably end up winning the fans back in favor of the board

Regarding what Bad Boy said, i don't think its solely trophies Roman is looking at winning next season, if we win nothing but their is genuine signs of progression (IE solid 3rd place finish, intergretion of younger squad, strong shot at retaining the CL), then i can't see RDM getting sacked. AVB, Carlo and Scolari got sacked for the way we were appeared to be heading under their leadership more than the fact we won nothing in their tenure's at the club (AVB and Scolari) and during his last season (Carlo).

If next season brings positive signs that RDM is taking us in the right direction then he won't get sacked, if we stagnate again then that's a different matter altogether.

[Badboy 1,526]

I don't think many people understand my point of view. I want us to have an established structure were we have a manager for a good 5-10 years at this club. Chelsea has had too much uncertainty in recent years and we need to give the manager the full reign while knowing he ain't going to get the sack if doesn't win the league or THE TEAM loses a few games. This merry go round of managers is damaging this club and I don't care how much money we've got we'll struggle and that's the reality. I don't believe that ALL the managers we've sacked in recent years have been lacking I just think it was because of other factors so we have to stop this culture of sacking managers when the going gets tough. Alex Ferguson had 5 years before he won a league title at United and in that 5 years he was able to establish the culture of bringing in young players and establishing his philosophy on the pitch. We don't have a culture at this club and that's because if a manager doesn't win the world cup then he's not good enough even though Chelsea can't compete in the world cup. Sometimes in life you have to sacrifice for a better tomorrow and this is the time we have to sacrifice so we can have a club philosophy !

[KonohasOrangeFlash 2,607]

this is the time we have to sacrifice so we can have a club philosophy !

We already have a philosophy and that is to win things.

[Badboy 1,526]

We already have a philosophy and that is to win things.

That's not a philosophy you clown that's a target. I'm talking about a football philosophy that runs through the club from the youth to the first team.

[Tomo 21,751]

We should not look for a set manager for 10 years just for the sake of longevity, if one comes along that fits that bracket and manages us for the long haul then great and hopefully that man will be RDM.

BadBoy i do however see where you are coming from and fully agree, it will be nice to see a manager in for the long haul.

[The Skipper 20,609]

That's not a philosophy you clown that's a target. I'm talking about a football philosophy that runs through the club from the youth to the first team.

That doesn't come automatically with managerial stability. Wtf do you think Roman wants to do? Why the fuck do you think he hired Ancelotti and AVB? Because he wants our club to have a philoshophy.

Would you really say Man Utd have a solid philosophy? They vary their tactics to suit their opponent. They play to win things.

It's something that comes from top down and it takes longer than a decade to really become the soul of the club.

[Badboy 1,526]

That doesn't come automatically with managerial stability. Wtf do you think Roman wants to do? Why the fuck do you think he hired Ancelotti and AVB? Because he wants our club to have a philoshophy.

Would you really say Man Utd have a solid philosophy? They vary their tactics to suit their opponent. They play to win things.

It's something that comes from top down and it takes longer than a decade to really become the soul of the club.

Yes Man Utd do have a philosophy and its clear as day what it is. Man Utd use the size of the pitch through wide players to create pockets of space for their central players. They will dominate play against weaker opposition while still maintaining lightning counter attacks if the opportunity arrives. They will conform to a pure counter attacking game against some of the bigger sides because its a low risk strategy but the spreading of the play to the wide area's will always remain. I admire the way they use the pitch to their advantage because it opens up the game and that is the reason why they score a lot of goals that come from crosses.

[The Skipper 20,609]

Yes Man Utd do have a philosophy and its clear as day what it is. Man Utd use the size of the pitch through wide players to create pockets of space for their central players. They will dominate play against weaker opposition while still maintaining lightning counter attacks if the opportunity arrives. They will conform to a pure counter attacking game against some of the bigger sides because its a low risk strategy but the spreading of the play to the wide area's will always remain.

More tactics than philosophy to me. It's funny how when Mourinho basically introduced the 4-3-3 into the PL that Man Utd decided to adopt the tactics too. They went from 4-4-2 to 4-3-3 to a more recent 4-4-1-1/4-2-3-1.

It hasn't always been pace from the wide areas under Ferguson. Prime example: the David Beckham years.

Philosophy is Barcelona-esque. Milan under Carlotti. Just examples.

Not many clubs have an actual consistant philosophy, it is quite rare to see.

[Kostas 1,468]

If our managerial merry-go-round keeps damaging the club while it wins leagues and cups in contrast to Arsenal's philosophy then so be it.

We had a man who enjoyed stability at a probably more important position than the managers and was brought to implement a specific philosophy. He had control over the 2 things that shape a clubs visible future: the Academy and the scouting network. I don't remember much of a revolt when we lost that stability yet we constantly go nuts over the risk of losing stop gap managers like Scolari, Ancelotti, AVB and Di Matteo.

[Badboy 1,526]

If our managerial merry-go-round keeps damaging the club while it wins leagues and cups in contrast to Arsenal's philosophy then so be it.

We had a man who enjoyed stability at a probably more important position than the managers and was brought to implement a specific philosophy. He had control over the 2 things that shape a clubs visible future: the Academy and the scouting network. I don't remember much of a revolt when we lost that stability yet we constantly go nuts over the risk of losing stop gap managers like Scolari, Ancelotti, AVB and Di Matteo.

What you fail to understand is the whole thing becomes unsustainable if the merry go round continues. The benefit of having a long term management system is much better because I believe the ends will justify the means. The fact that you view RDM as a ''stop gap manager'' worries me because that was exactly what i fear. If doesn't win the league then another manager comes in with another set of back room staff and we start all over again. Young players don't get a look in because the new manager is under pressure to produce a miracle then he gets sacked then start all over again.

[Wxgba 306]

Badboy's evidently a Man United fan...

[Kostas 1,468]

What you fail to understand is the whole thing becomes unsustainable if the merry go round continues. The benefit of having a long term management system is much better because I believe the ends will justify the means. The fact that you view RDM as a ''stop gap manager'' worries me because that was exactly what i fear. If doesn't win the league then another manager comes in with another set of back room staff and we start all over again. Young players don't get a look in because the new manager is under pressure to produce a miracle then he gets sacked then start all over again.

If the unsustainable argument is about the managerial pay-offs our accounts are encumbered with each year that can be dealt with smarter contracts and less impulse moves.

You believe maintaining the backroom staff (apart from the manager) to be more important than maintaining the people that are in the Football Board? I don't think that's even arguable.

While the argument about a long-term manager being beneficial to young players is true you have to keep in mind the hypocrisy of the whole young players issue at Chelsea. The last player who managed to genuinely break his way into the team had more negative posts in his thread this season than Torres and the one before him is considered by some to be the midfield equivalent of Kalou and even more think he should be treated as one. Besides while it is widely considered to be the case, the career-wise well-being of the players who are trying to be a real part of the team does not equal the well being of the club and thus should not represent an end in itself.

RDM was initially appointed as a stop-gap. After the contract announcement that ceased to be true on an official level but as I said in the past it will take a tremendous step up in quality for my skepticism to be gone. On many levels Hazard's transfer was and will represent a more important sign for the club's future than RDM's contract.

Edit: The starting over factor (which is your main/strongest point) was but shackles that the club (the owner?) has been forcing onto the "permanent" manager. Once those shackles were removed we saw tremendous improvement that brought us to previous levels of quality (see Hiddink's and RDM's few months).

Edited June 29, 2012 by Kostas

[KonohasOrangeFlash 2,607]

Yes Man Utd do have a philosophy and its clear as day what it is. Man Utd use the size of the pitch through wide players to create pockets of space for their central players. They will dominate play against weaker opposition while still maintaining lightning counter attacks if the opportunity arrives. They will conform to a pure counter attacking game against some of the bigger sides because its a low risk strategy but the spreading of the play to the wide area's will always remain. I admire the way they use the pitch to their advantage because it opens up the game and that is the reason why they score a lot of goals that come from crosses.

Those are tactics you clown.

[Badboy 1,526]

Those are tactics you clown.

Yes exactly tactical philosophy and they sign players to fit in with their tactical philosophy which is an inbuilt culture within the club now. Alex Ferguson has always used the pitch to their advantage and its worked wonders for them and its been a consistent strategy, in the last 8 years we've gone from playing with 2 world class wide players to playing a diamond to playing strikers out wide.

[Badboy 1,526]

If the unsustainable argument is about the managerial pay-offs our accounts are encumbered with each year that can be dealt with smarter contracts and less impulse moves.

You believe maintaining the backroom staff (apart from the manager) to be more important than maintaining the people that are in the Football Board? I don't think that's even arguable.

While the argument about a long-term manager being beneficial to young players is true you have to keep in mind the hypocrisy of the whole young players issue at Chelsea. The last player who managed to genuinely break his way into the team had more negative posts in his thread this season than Torres and the one before him is considered by some to be the midfield equivalent of Kalou and even more think he should be treated as one. Besides while it is widely considered to be the case, the career-wise well-being of the players who are trying to be a real part of the team does not equal the well being of the club and thus should not represent an end in itself.

RDM was initially appointed as a stop-gap. After the contract announcement that ceased to be true on an official level but as I said in the past it will take a tremendous step up in quality for my skepticism to be gone. On many levels Hazard's transfer was and will represent a more important sign for the club's future than RDM's contract.

Edit: The starting over factor (which is your main/strongest point) was but shackles that the club (the owner?) has been forcing onto the "permanent" manager. Once those shackles were removed we saw tremendous improvement that brought us to previous levels of quality (see Hiddink's and RDM's few months).

My point about being unsustainable was partly to do with the contract issue but also to do with the fact that different coaches demand different things from players which just causes confusion if there is a merry go round. This is what I believe will damage us in the future because each coach will want to sign a different type of player. Just because AVB and Pep might want to play pass and move football does not mean they would prefer the same types of players. When coaches sign players they look at off the ball movements as well as on the ball ability !

[Tomo 21,751]

Yes exactly tactical philosophy and they sign players to fit in with their tactical philosophy which is an inbuilt culture within the club now. Alex Ferguson has always used the pitch to their advantage and its worked wonders for them and its been a consistent strategy, in the last 8 years we've gone from playing with 2 world class wide players to playing a diamond to playing strikers out wide.

Sometimes consistent tactics has worked against them, especially in Europe.

In 05/06 our wing play was getting predictable and teams were starting to get results against us so Jose responded by scrapping the wing play and putting Crespo and Drogba up front together and we stormed to the title.

Same with Carlo in 09/10 his diamond was getting found out so we went 4-3-3 and we ended up scoring 7 or more in a match 4 times on the way to breaking the scoring record.

Their has to be a bit of tactical flexibility because sticking to the same tactic will mean eventually some team will know how to counter it perfectly.

[Melanicus 5,208]

Comparing Roberto Di Matteo's "anti-football" to Spain's Tiki Taka

Chelsea and Roberto Di Matteo have been cast in a very negative light by some due to the style with which they won the Champions League title*. Chelsea sat deep, absorbed pressure, forced their opponents to over-commit to the attack, and then hit them on the counter attack. Neutral fans often described this tactic as boring "anti-football". Clubs like Barcelona and players like Messi even go so far as to say they'd rather lose with their beautiful Tiki Taka than subject their fans to such a negative brand of football.

*Did you know that Chelsea are Champions of Europe?

I've always been curious just what Barcelona's Tiki Taka would look like without the services of the great Lionel Messi, as frankly the basic goals of Tiki Taka and Di Matteo's anti-football are virtually the same in my eyes. "Anti-football" has a deep lying, compact defense that doesn't allow opponents time on the ball as they approach a dangerous area. Discipline is the key to holding the correct shape to make this work, shots and goals come when the opposition over-commit and get pulled out of good defensive position.

Tiki Taka works on the same basic principle, but approaches it from an entirely different angle. Spacing is key in Tiki Taka as well, as when in possession of the ball the Tiki Taka players will hold tight triangles. They'll wait for the defense to make a mistake before taking a risk, often racking up enormous short, safe passing numbers in the process. This allows them to quickly converge on the ball when they turn it over, always leaving them in great defensive position. Often the best attacks come after the Tiki Taka team turns it over, as their proximity to the ball often results in them regaining possession while the opponent is attempting to transition to attack. The Tiki Taka team will be exposed when they turn the ball over in space, as was exploited several time by Chelsea in the Champions League semi-final.

There should be no question that Barcelona are more exciting in their basic approach than Di Matteo's Chelsea side, but my contention is that it's due entirely to the presence of Lionel Messi. Without Messi or a similar out of this world player, I don't believe that Tiki Taka is any more "attacking" in nature than the "anti-football" that is so loathed by all. Unfortunately we've never had to see the current Barca side play in a knockout tournament without Messi for an extended period, so I've never really been able to test that theory.

Luckily for me though, the Spain national team are a pretty similar squad to Barcelona without Messi. They also try to emulate the Tiki Taka system employed by Barcelona, although that may be due as much to Vincente del Bosque just not being a very creative manager as anything else. Barcelona had to play much of the season without the services of a traditional center forward due to injury issues, and del Bosque has seemingly decided to copy their plan despite having respectable options at the position. Best of all, the Spanish national team plays in a knockout tournament so we can really compare the 2 styles.

So what qualifies as "attacking football"? What should we be looking at? Goals are obviously something to look at, as scoring is clearly the primary reason to attack. We should probably go a little further though, and look at shots. It seems logical that an "attacking" team would have more shots in general than an "anti-football" side, so we'll compare how many shots the two sides are getting. Finally we'll look at shots on target, as it will be interesting to see if there is anything to be gleaned about the quality of the chances the two opposing styles are creating.

Roberto Di Matteo took over in the knockout rounds of the Champions League and managed only 6 knockout games in the successful campaign. As the style of play and quality of competition is generally different in the knockout rounds than it is in group play, I decided for the purpose of this exercise to look only at Spain's performances in knockout play as well. I also averaged the totals in our 3 categories for a per 90 minute rate, as knockout games often end up going 120 minutes. Here's how the two teams compare:

This doesn't look all that different, does it? Spain average .25 more shots on target per 90 minutes than Di Matteo's Chelsea, average about 1.5 less total shots per game, and score at about 1/2 the frequency. If I had to make a judgement based on that data, I'd likely come to the conclusion that "anti-football" is actually a more "attacking" style than that of Tiki Taka.

In fairness, I'm making a judgement of Spain based on only 2 knockout games in Euro 2012. It would be nice if we had a 6 game sample with which to compare, wouldn't it? Oddly enough, when you add the 4 knockout games from the last World Cup to this year's Euros we have 6 games with which to compare the 2 teams. More interestingly, neither team actually lost a contest in that span, and both teams had 2 contests go to extra time with 1 resulting in an extra time winner and 1 resulting in a penalty win. Both are also now defending champions of the biggest competition they can play in. Kind of funny similarities, aren't they? Anyway, here's how the 2 stacked up after we looked at a 6 game sample from each:

Once again, this really doesn't look too different. Over 6 games, Spain have averaged a full shot on target per 90 minutes more than Chelsea. They've taken about 2/3 of a shot per 90 more than Chelsea, but still been substantially outscored. All in all though, I'd imagine these results are far different than what 99% of the football watching world would have expected to find. After all, Spain play Tiki Taka, and Tiki Taka is all about attack.

Chelsea and Spain go about winning in very different ways. Both have the same basic concepts though, as both focus on tight spacing, organization, and exploiting mistakes made by their opponent. Neither produce a ridiculous amount of shots, and neither produce eye popping numbers of goals. Both teams are focused on being brutally efficient machines, and both are current defending champions because of it. When you really look at the numbers, both are eerily similar in their attacking output. It's time to stop pretending that Tiki Taka is somehow morally superior to "anti-football", as neither approach is particularly adventurous by nature. Without Lionel Messi to make it pop, Tiki Taka is just another results before beauty system that's not overly exciting to watch. If Spain win Euro 2012, a strong case could be made that they actually "did a Chelsea".

Source: http://www.weaintgotnohistory.com/2012/6/28/3122024/comparing-roberto-di-matteos-anti-football-to-spains-tiki-taka

[Badboy 1,526]

Sometimes consistent tactics has worked against them, especially in Europe.

In 05/06 our wing play was getting predictable and teams were starting to get results against us so Jose responded by scrapping the wing play and putting Crespo and Drogba up front together and we stormed to the title.

Same with Carlo in 09/10 his diamond was getting found out so we went 4-3-3 and we ended up scoring 7 or more in a match 4 times on the way to breaking the scoring record.

Their has to be a bit of tactical flexibility because sticking to the same tactic will mean eventually some team will know how to counter it perfectly.

Yes I agree with that because you must also be flexible which is vital.

[Kostas 1,468]

..but also to do with the fact that different coaches demand different things from players which just causes confusion if there is a merry go round. This is what I believe will damage us in the future because each coach will want to sign a different type of player. Just because AVB and Pep might want to play pass and move football does not mean they would prefer the same types of players. When coaches sign players they look at off the ball movements as well as on the ball ability !

So you would agree that if we assume that the coach is not pivotal in transfer decisions having managerial stability becomes less of an issue?

[Badboy 1,526]

So you would agree that if we assume that the coach is not pivotal in transfer decisions having managerial stability becomes less of an issue?

See I'm a strong believer that the coach should be buying the players because at the end of the day he's the one who will be judged by their performances which is a sad reality. I don't like it when a club has a football director because the manager and the football director might like the same type of football but they might want to go about it in different ways tactically which can be an issue. Obviously the manager will have an input but history has shown that most managers feel very uncomfortable with other people at the club making any sort of power over him, you can look at Mourinho for that one.