How Guardiola is revolutionizing English football

[cic old boy]

Your question should be what's stopping Pep from doing his revolution at West Ham or West Brom, for instance?

You go and top your class at Harvard and people claim you should try it at Adekunle Ajasin University.

[benteke]

You just have to laugh at some of these things

Instead of laughing, you may want to watch Gundoghan for City. You can even watch last night's final and count the number of times he gave the ball away. I take back my average comment. He is below average. In mitigation, we can agree that too many injuries have affected him.

Gundogan may not play well in some games for various reasons, but he is not an average player, that i refuse.

[metalalloy]

Getting back to the article. Interesting POV and Micheal Cox knows his marbles. Its quite simple, has anyone else used two No. 10's and a B2B CM for so long in the EPL up to this point with success? I'm trying hard to think of a team and I cant yet. I know that they haven't won the league in a while, but my guess would be Arsenal using Ozil and Santi together with a DM. I think Santi played as a no 10 in 2012. Has this happened on a consistent basis?

The point in all this is to ask if Pep is the first manager in EPL history to use two players in a role that is not their natural position with success.
If this is the first time that a manager has converted two player and succeeded in EPL, then Pep is a revolutionary.

No. That is NOT the point. The author clearly laid out his thesis and defended it.

But we should be appreciating the fact that Guardiola has achieved something remarkable: winning the Premier League without any concession in his style of play, without taking a backwards step and introducing an enforcer, a little extra midfield steel. Guardiola's Manchester City will win the Premier League with a three-man midfield featuring a box-to-box player and two natural No. 10s, something no one would have dreamt of before his arrival in England in 2016.

Do you have any evidence that he is wrong?

[cic old boy]

Many people are taxed about the "revolutionizing" comment. Some are mixing up "revolutionizing" with winning. You can win without "revolutionizing". You can "revolutionize" without winning. One of the most "revolutionizing" coaches is Marcelo Bielsa and he doesn't have that may titles to his name. "Revolutionizing" is about changing the way the game is played - stuff like sweepers were brought in by "revolutionizing" coaches, overlapping fullbacks, wing-backs, etc, building from the back with the goalie, defensive high line, high press, etc are about "revolutionizing". If you "revolutionize" and win, many will copy you.

Wenger was a "revolutionizing" coach in England when he first came.

[cic old boy]

Gundogan may not play well in some games for various reasons, but he is not an average player, that i refuse.

He has played badly in England more than he has played well.

[benteke]

Getting back to the article. Interesting POV and Micheal Cox knows his marbles. Its quite simple, has anyone else used two No. 10's and a B2B CM for so long in the EPL up to this point with success? I'm trying hard to think of a team and I cant yet. I know that they haven't won the league in a while, but my guess would be Arsenal using Ozil and Santi together with a DM. I think Santi played as a no 10 in 2012. Has this happened on a consistent basis?

The point in all this is to ask if Pep is the first manager in EPL history to use two players in a role that is not their natural position with success.
If this is the first time that a manager has converted two player and succeeded in EPL, then Pep is a revolutionary.

No. That is NOT the point. The author clearly laid out his thesis and defended it.

But we should be appreciating the fact that Guardiola has achieved something remarkable: winning the Premier League without any concession in his style of play, without taking a backwards step and introducing an enforcer, a little extra midfield steel. Guardiola's Manchester City will win the Premier League with a three-man midfield featuring a box-to-box player and two natural No. 10s, something no one would have dreamt of before his arrival in England in 2016.

Do you have any evidence that he is wrong?

I am asking a simple question

Is Pep Guardiola the first manager ever to dream about converting 2/3 players and playing them in unfamiliar positions with success.

If so, then i can agree that indeed football is being revolutionised, things are happening.

[metalalloy]

The answer to your question is most likely No. However, your question is as relevant to Michael Cox's article as a question about the weather in Mbarara, Uganda at the moment.

[benteke]

Many people are taxed about the "revolutionizing" comment. Some are mixing up "revolutionizing" with winning. You can win without "revolutionizing". You can "revolutionize" without winning. One of the most "revolutionizing" coaches is Marcelo Bielsa and he doesn't have that may titles to his name. "Revolutionizing" is about changing the way the game is played - stuff like sweepers were brought in by "revolutionizing" coaches, overlapping fullbacks, wing-backs, etc, building from the back with the goalie, defensive high line, high press, etc are about "revolutionizing". If you "revolutionize" and win, many will copy you.

Wenger was a "revolutionizing" coach in England when he first came.

We are together on this one, i am also trying to get that point.

I remember last season there were some who were starting to say that Conte is revolutionising EPL with his 3-4-3 formation that he was blowing teams away with.
Pochettino addressed that issue and mentioned that he uses it all the time. So since Pochettino won nothing, it would mean all the glory goes Conte.

[metalalloy]

Many people are taxed about the "revolutionizing" comment. Some are mixing up "revolutionizing" with winning. You can win without "revolutionizing". You can "revolutionize" without winning. One of the most "revolutionizing" coaches is Marcelo Bielsa and he doesn't have that may titles to his name. "Revolutionizing" is about changing the way the game is played - stuff like sweepers were brought in by "revolutionizing" coaches, overlapping fullbacks, wing-backs, etc, building from the back with the goalie, defensive high line, high press, etc are about "revolutionizing". If you "revolutionize" and win, many will copy you.

Wenger was a "revolutionizing" coach in England when he first came.

We are together on this one, i am also trying to get that point.

I remember last season there were some who were starting to say that Conte is revolutionising EPL with his 3-4-3 formation that he was blowing teams away with.
Pochettino addressed that issue and mentioned that he uses it all the time. So since Pochettino won nothing, it would mean all the glory goes Conte.

The definition of revolutionary is someone involving or causing a complete or dramatic change. If most teams started employing the 3-4-3 after Conte's arrival, wouldn't he fit the definition of a revolutionary since his arrival cause the dramatic change rather than a manager who sporadically may have played three in the back?

Before Conte, in the EPL, most teams used the 4-2-3-1 (which IIRC mourinho made popular), 4-4-2 and 433. His arrival healded the 3-4-3 in the EPL.

[benteke]

The answer to your question is most likely No. However, your question is as relevant to Michael Cox's article as a question about the weather in Mbarara, Uganda at the moment.

I asked because i remember Ferguson sucessfully turned Scholes from and attacking midfielder into a deep lying playmaker with success. I think he even started off as a striker if I'm not mistaken. The likes of Giggs a pure winger used in midfield with varying success and at the same time Valencia turned into a fullback all of this with trophies won. Many managers do this all the time

If you are choosing to stick to and dwell on two no.10s converted to central midfield as a revolution that will be copied by others, then so be it, but i am of the opinion that converting players depending on available resources is nothing new and this won't be the last time we see such a thing.

[metalalloy]

The answer to your question is most likely No. However, your question is as relevant to Michael Cox's article as a question about the weather in Mbarara, Uganda at the moment.

I asked because i remember Ferguson sucessfully turned Scholes from and attacking midfielder into a deep lying playmaker with success. I think he even started off as a striker if I'm not mistaken. The likes of Giggs a pure winger used in midfield with varying success and at the same time Valencia turned into a fullback all of this with trophies won. Many managers do this all the time

If you are choosing to stick to and dwell on two no.10s converted to central midfield as a revolution that will be copied by others, then so be it, but i am of the opinion that converting players depending on available resources is nothing new and this won't be the last time we see such a thing.

No one will dispute the highlighted. As you pointed out, he is not the first nor will he be the last to convert players from different positions depending on available resources.

Whether other teams will try to emulate the (dual 10's approach) is up for debate. I think it will be suicidal for most teams to use a lightweight midfield without the personnel with KDB's skill set.

[wiseone]

"English football is generally suspicious of too much technical quality" - yes that is why Bergkamp, Cantona, Zola, Gullit, Giggs, Ginola, and Robert were gracing English football 20+ years ago, and why the best players in EPL times are KDB, David Silva, Ozil, Sanchez, Eriksen, Salah, and Coutinho.

[benteke]

Many people are taxed about the "revolutionizing" comment. Some are mixing up "revolutionizing" with winning. You can win without "revolutionizing". You can "revolutionize" without winning. One of the most "revolutionizing" coaches is Marcelo Bielsa and he doesn't have that may titles to his name. "Revolutionizing" is about changing the way the game is played - stuff like sweepers were brought in by "revolutionizing" coaches, overlapping fullbacks, wing-backs, etc, building from the back with the goalie, defensive high line, high press, etc are about "revolutionizing". If you "revolutionize" and win, many will copy you.

Wenger was a "revolutionizing" coach in England when he first came.

We are together on this one, i am also trying to get that point.

I remember last season there were some who were starting to say that Conte is revolutionising EPL with his 3-4-3 formation that he was blowing teams away with.
Pochettino addressed that issue and mentioned that he uses it all the time. So since Pochettino won nothing, it would mean all the glory goes Conte.

The definition of revolutionary is someone involving or causing a complete or dramatic change. If most teams started employing the 3-4-3 after Conte's arrival, wouldn't he fit the definition of a revolutionary since his arrival cause the dramatic change rather than a manager who sporadically may have played three in the back?

Before Conte, in the EPL, most teams used the 4-2-3-1 (which IIRC mourinho made popular), 4-4-2 and 433. His arrival healded the 3-4-3 in the EPL.

Well, agian you might have a point on this one.

But i remember at some point last season there was a lot of talk about this 3-4-3 revolution when Conte was running away with the title.
Arsenal fans can correct me if i am wrong, but 3-4-3 was Wenger's main formation in most games last season from the beginning, the same season that Conte arrived and started implementing it later on. I'm not sure if Wenger had already started using it the season before in some games.
At this point I'm no longer sure this 3-4-3 in it's different variations was something that some teams were using before Conte came and pundits used to ignore because some of those teams won nothing, or maybe they were really inspired by Conte and started using it more from her onwards.

[txj]

Getting back to the article. Interesting POV and Micheal Cox knows his marbles. Its quite simple, has anyone else used two No. 10's and a B2B CM for so long in the EPL up to this point with success? I'm trying hard to think of a team and I cant yet. I know that they haven't won the league in a while, but my guess would be Arsenal using Ozil and Santi together with a DM. I think Santi played as a no 10 in 2012. Has this happened on a consistent basis?

The point in all this is to ask if Pep is the first manager in EPL history to use two players in a role that is not their natural position with success.
If this is the first time that a manager has converted two player and succeeded in EPL, then Pep is a revolutionary.

You clearly lack the tools to drill down to the fundamental issues raised in the article. Its not simply a matter of using players in 'unatural positions', it is about redefining the use of, and the number of offensive players in a manner that still maintains defensive integrity, while still playing within the framework of the possession-based attacking game.

And this from a man who years before now, had redefined the time space dynamics in the game.

The key is that he is doing this in an environment that thrives on stasis and medieval traditions.

By the time this is over, Coach might have to find a new phrase for describing Stoke

[Chief Ogbunigwe]

Na real revolution.

If it was winning Championships, Sir Ferguson did nothing.
Spending huge bucks, Jose did nothing
Playing good football, Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal, SPURS and Liverpool didn't do any of that before Pep joined the league.

Did you read the article or you're just guessing and playing to the gallery?

Diaper duty don scramble your mind. How's our baby?

You mean Balo don hang again? At this rate you go cantab Mr Dolly o

[Mr. Piffington]

Your question should be what's stopping Pep from doing his revolution at West Ham or West Brom, for instance?

You go and top your class at Harvard and people claim you should try it at Adekunle Ajasin University.

cicob,

If there's one thing that I've learned it's that football fans are irrational. There is a talking point that pops up and everybody just goes with it. The guy is bitchslapping the best league in the world and people are still making excuses.

[Chief Ogbunigwe]

Your question should be what's stopping Pep from doing his revolution at West Ham or West Brom, for instance?

You go and top your class at Harvard and people claim you should try it at Adekunle Ajasin University.

cicob,

If there's one thing that I've learned it's that football fans are irrational. There is a talking point that pops up and everybody just goes with it. The guy is bitchslapping the best league in the world and people are still making excuses.

we just don't like him, his gorimapa head and pencil pants If he likes, he can win on Mars, the moons and Pluto

[Chief Ogbunigwe]

Actually, I challenge Pep. If he is as good as they claim, let him go and coach Arsenal.... Then we can talk about revolution.

[benteke]

The answer to your question is most likely No. However, your question is as relevant to Michael Cox's article as a question about the weather in Mbarara, Uganda at the moment.

I asked because i remember Ferguson sucessfully turned Scholes from and attacking midfielder into a deep lying playmaker with success. I think he even started off as a striker if I'm not mistaken. The likes of Giggs a pure winger used in midfield with varying success and at the same time Valencia turned into a fullback all of this with trophies won. Many managers do this all the time

If you are choosing to stick to and dwell on two no.10s converted to central midfield as a revolution that will be copied by others, then so be it, but i am of the opinion that converting players depending on available resources is nothing new and this won't be the last time we see such a thing.

No one will dispute the highlighted. As you pointed out, he is not the first nor will he be the last to convert players from different positions depending on available resources.

Whether other teams will try to emulate the (dual 10's approach) is up for debate. I think it will be suicidal for most teams to use a lightweight midfield without the personnel with KDB's skill set.

That is what it boils down to, having players like De Bruyne at your disposal.
De Bruyne and Silva do thrive in that position mostly because they are always ready to work b.loody hard when they don't have the ball, they really put in a good shift in that area.
Klopp could also afford to use Coutinho lately that way because he works hard off the ball.
We also saw Ferguson use Park ji Sung from attacking to central midfield, such hardworkers yet gifted, they allow a manager to try things.
But expecting tremendous workrate off the ball from attacking players is not a new thing, and sometimes it can be frowned upon when things are not going well.

Pep also has the luxury of proper quality full backs who are also usually tasked with helping in midfield, the whole thing is not about those two no.10s playing in central midfield, it's a bit of a complex one hence why people will mention the money and signings.

[YUJAM]

A lot of people are thinking with their hearts and not their heads.

All one has to do is see the way Pep's teams play to understand he is a special coach. Also his tactical variations show that he is an amazing football mind. There's nothing like him in world football.

And yes he's changing the English game. There is no doubt about this

[FATHER TIKO]

Your question should be what's stopping Pep from doing his revolution at West Ham or West Brom, for instance?

You go and top your class at Harvard and people claim you should try it at Adekunle Ajasin University.

No mind them...

Its the same tiresome argument used against Messi...the guy destroys the best defenses from every league (cue UCL), yet folks argue whether he could perform against Stoke or Burnley...

[Kabalega]

Conte came and won the EPL first season with a team that struggled to make top 10 we did not hear any noise,they said Pep's players were bedding in and finding their feet.

I shun unneccesary debates, but if you spend that obscene money and you dont win something ...sorry there is no need blowing kakaki trumptet winning something on the second try after even spending more.

I wont take anything away from him,but please reduce the noise level about him revolutionising EPL. Ki lo se ti enikan o se ri?
What exactly has he done that no one is yet to do? Even if he wins the champions league...so what even Di Matteo won it with Chelsea.

Ever since blogging became a lucrative job we have been bombarded by all manner of rushed conclusions.

Give credit where it's due.

More EPL teams now play from the back even those that should not.
Unfortunately, many still hoof the ball up front when they shouldn't.
Man City know when to punt the ball forward (did you see their goal in the Carabao cup) and when to pass it up close. The rest are playing catchup.

Chelsea could only catch up to the big teams by spending, so did Man City.
The likes of Bayern Munich, Real Madrid, Barça and ManU might not like it but it's reality.

[platinum]

A lot of people are thinking with their hearts and not their heads.

All one has to do is see the way Pep's teams play to understand he is a special coach. Also his tactical variations show that he is an amazing football mind. There's nothing like him in world football.

And yes he's changing the English game. There is no doubt about this

Sarri is doing special things in Italy. If I were voting for coach of the year, I'd tip him over Pep.