His football doesn't have such a deep intellectual ideological divide

>his football doesn't have such a deep intellectual ideological divide
plebs

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Be6QHHvsgNY
youtube.com/watch?v=jnoz4NuYMU8
theantiquefootball.com/post/105629110568/menotti-vs-bilardo-the-battle-for-the-soul-of
youtube.com/watch?v=gPo4LqPtPGQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

> Cappa
The primordial choker. It's like Cúper had been possessed by Ballack's spirit and tried to go forward in time but failed as usual and went back in time.

Also a pedant bordering Valdano's levels of faux prolixity.

Pretty sure Larry David is a liberal

Get that political shit put and put fancy on the left and functional on the right side

this 'ideological rivalry' is literally a meme

Style matters more than results? What kind of retarded nonsense is this stupid yuropoor sport?

It's poorly phrased, but it means "play well and the results will come naturally".

As opposed to?

where does Bauza fit on this scale

as opposed to defend well and be clinical that we will win 1-0

I don't see how "playing well" and "defending well" are mutually exclusive

this and using dirty tactics, like murderball, antigame stuff

¿Bielsa no era de izquierda?

Check your flag.

Bauza is Bilardist, while someone like Tite is Menottist.

i think he means more 'your system' like the patriots or the spurs. commit to your style, to how you intend to win, and never waver regardless of whether you win right away or not, or you are hitting rough spots. stick to your philosophy and find players that fit and buy in, regardless if they are the best talents.

Is it true that every great argentine manager is from boca?

youtube.com/watch?v=Be6QHHvsgNY
something like this match with less luck involved


Think like the Detroits in 89-90, they were never a stylish team or a high creativy team, but because they defended well and had a good team cohesion, plus murderball, they managed to win back to back

check your flag's crime rates

I still don't get it. The closest comparison I can think of is like how a few baseball teams like the Phillies and Braves refuse to rely on advanced statistics and stick with personal scouting, but even that is mostly in regards to team building not play strategy, once you have the players you want you just let them play

Maybe it's just because my main sport is baseball but the idea that there's not a more efficient way to play kind of sounds like baloney invented by purists who refuse to adopt modern playing styles, and not a legitimate ideological conflict

this doesn't make sense, bauza played with 4 and even 5 strikers in argentina, also tite's pressing and set pieces are not the likes of a menottist, this is just argie bullshit

couln't name a single one to be honest

bianchi's from vélez, basile from rasing, menotti from central, bielsa from newell's, simeone, cappa and sampaoli river, bilardo estudiantes

it's not even about that, every one should commit to a playing style that guarantees fun and pleasure for the viewer no matter what, every team that does not meet this impossible criteria is disregarded as antifootball by some elitist faggots

you dumb mate? or you are just trying to be an elitist because you watch the "so different " cultured baseball while the rest of common people watch nfl or basketball?


Sometimes when you defend well, trim down ego of their players and convince everyone to act as a collective you got a result, sometimes when you do the opposite and let the individual creativy you got a better result, or not, it is not black or white and depends on what type of person you and your players are

It's not complex. Menotti's philosophy whould be something like "play beautifully and the victories will come naturally". That would be the Barcelona way of playing: lots of passes, control and creativity. Bilardo's way would be football with rigid tactics: simply put, get the ball away from your goal at all costs while trying to score in the meantime.

Tite used to suck Menotti's dick all the time. Bauza was pretty much Bilardo 2.0 when training San Lorenzo.

For clueless europeans, you can compare them to Guardiola and Mourinho

>elitist because you watch the "so different " cultured baseball

Nobody actually thinks that way about baseball in america, that's how hipsters think about soccer

>simply put, get the ball away from your goal at all costs while trying to score in the meantime

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding but how is this not the goal for every team, every game.

>at all costs
>all
>fucking
>costs

Again, how is this not the goal

If a manager of an america team said "we don't try to win at all costs" they would be laughed at and fired and never work in any competitive thing again

Unless by "all costs" you mean breaking the law

>by "all costs" you mean breaking the law
Now you're finally thinking. I'm done.

>Unless by "all costs" you mean breaking the law
It does

A true Menottists wouldn't celebrate Maradona's handgoal vs England. Bilardo loved it

mennotist doesn't even mean to play like menotti, it's all about talking and not really a playing style, no competent manager can commit to that and be succesful, not even menotti who played borderline murderball in 1978.
bauza got lost in the way

because each team is different, some teams like to pass around, set the pace, tire down the opposition , others prefer to get a quick offense, with 2-3 touches at the ball at most.

if you really care about it try to watch the barcelona vs juventus match, they are very different teams, there were moments where Mandzukic went all the way back to defend, while Neymar/Messi didn't once in the entire match.
Like i said, it is not black or white, sometimes something works and sometimes they don't

What laws can soccer managers even break? Other than doping which every sport does

Faking injuries, diving, waste time, scoring hand goals, try to hit the opponent as much as you can't when the ref isn't watching, etc

Playing as dirty as you need to win

Nigga I meant actual laws, of course they're gonna stretch the rules, every team does that

kidnapping and threatening Cruyff to not show up in the world cup

Not that much, it's more like "winning even if it hurts to watch the team play", playing anti-football tactics, defending with 11 men once you score 1 goal, playing gay tactics like offside trap, focusing more in defense than attack, focusing more in dead balls than passing plays, etc

you shouldn't even reply to him, the only sport he watches is baseball where the only strategy is going up picking a bat and swinging, if you manage to hit you run a little bit

That makes sense, but I don't see how that constitutes an ideological difference, like why would passing more be considered more "beautiful" then playing defending more heavily?

>playing anti-football tactics

See, this kind of thing just sounds like the baseball GMs who would say "we trust statistics, but we also trust our eyes"

And why would it every hurt to watch your team win?

he was great in Perfect Strangers

I think this semen slurping sport might not be for you. Stick to Baseball or Handegg.
Ameridoops will never grasp The Beautiful Game™

>That makes sense, but I don't see how that constitutes an ideological difference, like why would passing more be considered more "beautiful" then playing defending more heavily?


It is subjective, for example i am a corinthians supporter, and i would rather take a 1-0 hard win over a 5-4 win with a lot of beatiful goals and stuff like that anytime.

some countries have an ideology like that, or individual clubs, Italy for example have the fame of being a very defensive nation with a good team structure.It is a cultural thing at the end of day.

But if you are a casual i think watching a team with high chemistry, a lot of team goals etc it is more impressive than watching a team scoring from corners all the day.
youtube.com/watch?v=jnoz4NuYMU8

Mexico/Mexican league has Lavolpismo and Lapuentismo. But it's just a bastardization of Menottismo and Bilardismo.

Who /celsoroth/ here?

>play weird and stupid defensive systems
>make stupid decisions during the game
>blame the team if you lose
>calls supporters stupid for disliking your methods

>why would passing more be considered more "beautiful" then playing defending more heavily?
Because the mass media pushed the meme that sideways passing is the most beautiful way of playing football during the last decade and casual followers fell for it

ironically, it's not bullshit

the political ideologies of all those coaches align perfectly

there's a correlation between political ideology and football ideology in Argentina

nonono

Menotti is literally an extremist

He says that losing and playing beautifully is better because football is supposed to be poetry and all kinds of things like that

No joke. He says things like if people care about results they should look at spreadsheets and not the game.

we have two different schools in Italy too
the more traditional one, started by Rocco* and carried on by the likes of Capello and Trapattoni and nowadays Allegri, which focuses hard on results and cares very little about style
basically, catenaccio

the Sacchi school, heavily influenced by Dutch total football, whose most prominent are Zeman and now Sarri

needless to say the first has been immensly more successful and is by far the dominant one here

*fun quote by Rocco: ahead of many matches, when a journalist said to him the usual prematch formula "may the best team win" he answered "damn, i hope not"

doesn't allegri have 100x more style than any eplel managers

who /anarchist/ here

>owe millions to some casino
>don't care about your job just keep hopping from team to team and getting fired in 3 months
>going on TV just to say Pepe Guardiola is a fraud and every coach copied him
>talk shit to the reporters

> No pekerman
> No poch

Shit list desu

Can someone please fucking explain to me why style would EVER matter more than results?

Take Mourinho for example (and ignore the fact that he is currently shite with Man U).

When he was winning at Chelsea people would say "but his football is ugly! It's boring to watch! They just park the bus!"

...so? You're literally just jealous that they're winning and you're not.

Sure as fans we all want to watch exciting football, but as a manger, if you prioritise "beautiful football" above winning, then you're a fucking idiot.

What's his style?

Things I have literally heard them say:

>it's a game bro, if you don't allow yourself to enjoy a game then you are living wrong

>football is poetry, it's for the enjoyment of the people, it's a work of art

>this is the football that people love, winning playing ugly is meaningless

>pekerman
center-left

>poch
he says he isn't argentinian anymore :^)

You've been fooled by a taringuero m8 (spic reddit users)

Style over results is not necessarily good football. Mourinho bus parking is still an style. Style over results advocates to not let a game outcome to be the final verdict of your style. If your team was "better" then you should work in the aspects that failed ("only care about your team") to go further. You can't always rely on the results, if you do so you are like a dog chasing his tail, since there is so many things that can go wrong (for both sides) in a football game.

This bilardism vs menottism is just a journalism invention (that was encouraged just because Bilardo and Menotti really hate each other) and a travesty to what they actually believed.

>hurr le evil journalism invented it

the divide is real as fuck

and the quotes are literal

>And why would it every hurt to watch your team win?
You must understand that the "anti-football" allegation is usually made by jealous fans of opposing teams to the one that is successful.

Jose Mourinho and Jurgen Klopp are probably two good examples of opposing philosophies.

Mourinho wants to win at all costs. People accuse him of playing boring football because he parks the bus a lot.

Klopp's famous meme is "gegenpressing" which basically means "always pressing / attacking". He always says he likes "rock and roll" football, very attacking football, and that he cares about putting on a show for the fans.

I guess it is a bit odd because Klopp could think to himself "why the fuck do I care what the fans think, I just need to win if I want to keep my job" - BUT, I think Klopp has developed this style because it has brought him success, and that's why he sticks with it. I think he thinks that the crowd's support, for example, is key to success, and when you play attacking and exciting football, the crowd get amped up, and they passionately support the players, which spurs them on.

So yeah I guess it's just different styles that managers have developed in order to be successful. If Klopp had won lots of matches with a colder, more cynical, more defensive style of play then he would probably employ that. I am guessing that he uses his attacking style because that's what gave him his greatest successes - Dortmund, where he's had his biggest successes, is a team with a very passionate, dedicated fanbase. Arguably Chelsea (where Mourinho managed) is less dedicated; lots of Chelsea supporters are rich twats who aren't dedicated at all. So that might be why Klopp relies on a style that involves the crowd more, in order to spur the players' performances. Purely because that's what has given him the most success.

do you understand what a travesty is mr quints?

If you play good you won't lose too much desu
Become anal about results and you eventually become england

You know what's the real meme? This attempt to deny that such a thing exists is the real meme.
>le we have evolved past that silly dichotomy!
No we did not. Simeone is proud of Bilardo and Sampaoli is proud of Menotti and highly dislikes Bilardo

Exactly, this stuff is fucking stupid

The way you've written it, I don't know what the difference is.

>Style over results is not necessarily good football. Mourinho bus parking is still an style. Style over results advocates to not let a game outcome to be the final verdict of your style. If your team was "better" then you should work in the aspects that failed ("only care about your team") to go further. You can't always rely on the results, if you do so you are like a dog chasing his tail, since there is so many things that can go wrong (for both sides) in a football game.
If Mourinho is still on the "style over results" side, which you suggest he is by saying that his style is still a style, then who would be an example of someone who cares more about results?

Harsh m8

>>le we have evolved past that silly dichotomy!
I never said such dichotomy didn't exist. I'm stating that such ideologies came from bastardizations of Menotti & Bilardo.
It's not like bad interpretations of others people's' ideas aren't able to gain followers.

I think it's something on the lines of Sacchi's phylosophy: "you dont only have to win, you have to win convincingly"
Of course going the extreme way and putting flair over results is stupid tho

>then who would be an example of someone who cares more about results
There is none. At least not successful ones. What I meant was that this dichotomy (at least in its theoretical expression) isn't real, and are not mutually exclusive when you understand what people actually meant when they explained it.

> You can't always rely on the results
> always

See? You can't ALWAYS rely on results, but if you have lost one way or another multiple times, maybe it's time to review your gamestyle. There is no successful manager in the world who doesn't know how to swap between different aspects of this doctrines (that have existed way before Bilardo & Menotti) when it's necessary. Bilardism & Menottism is just a way to categorize and summarize some general ideas, are not meant to straight up split the managers into two eternal groups.

>Sampaoli about to sign with Argentina and the AFA

Where does Sampaoli fall in place on the spectrum?

...

>sampaoli
>menotista

>rasing

juve is literally "score in the first 25 minutes and spend the rest of the match playing 8-2-0: the team"

Well, as someone who supports a team that never wins anything (West Brom), I had a lot more fun attending games when we were playing more positive football pre-Steve Clark than I do now

...

>Implying Monaco don't play exciting, team focus football

Jardim is the new Bielsa.

That line has nothing to do with beautifulness, even less with teamwork. Read the quotes

in Caruso we trust

manuel machado?
really?

Lel'd at Machado.

He'll never manage anything above a Moreirense-tier team and it's such a shame.

He managed V.Guimarães a few years back.
Perhaps his career highlight.

But he's the guy that clearly stands out from the rest of the managers in the picture.

God you're a fucking retard, do some reading instead of demanding for your ignorance to be spoonfed.

Machado deserves to go to Olympiakos to have the owner's wife suck his Tuga Cock, like she does

>tfw too good to Tugaball

I did read them, it's literally what it says. Monaco play the same regardless of who the opposition is, they just focus on outscoring them. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't but it's always stylish.

>Can someone please fucking explain to me why style would EVER matter more than results?
At the end, being a sportsman is being an entertainer. Style is better for entertainment, which is what draws the crowds

Some people are also ideologically drawn to what a sport should be like

>There are argentines on this board who never saw their country lift a trophy

>Football is beginning to be a lie well documented by the media.
>The coach proposes and the player disposes, but the limits that the tactics impose on us are every day obfuscating more the expression of new talents. A pity.
>The bacillus of efficiency has also attacked football, and some dare to ask what's the point in playing well. I feel tempted to tell about the time they dared to ask Borges what is poetry for, to which he answered: "What is a sunrise for? What are caresses for? What is the smell of coffee for?" Each question sounded like a sentence: they are for pleasure, for emotion, for living.
>Football is made up of subjective feeling, of suggestion - and, in that, Anfield is unbeatable. Put a stick with shit hanging from it in the middle of this passionate, crazy stadium and there are people who will tell you it's a work of art. It's not: it's shit hanging from a stick [...] if football is going the way Chelsea and Liverpool are taking it, we had better be ready to wave goodbye to any expression of the cleverness and talent we have enjoyed for a century
>Football is an excuse to make us happy.

Where does he fit in?

What about Valdano? It annoys me how underappreciated he is among football fans. He's actually one of the best philosophers of the sport, his quote comparing english football to shit on a stick is the best football quote I've ever heard.

>passionate, crazy stadium
>anfield

how do I learn more about this? I feel like I just discovered a subculture inside a subculture or something

99% of them

GOOD THREAD

theantiquefootball.com/post/105629110568/menotti-vs-bilardo-the-battle-for-the-soul-of

Sampaoli is self-declared Menottist and even had a fight with Bilardo

Fan of a shit first division team here.
I'll take literally anyone that can keep us from relegation, couldn't give a single fuck about playing beautiful football.

youtube.com/watch?v=gPo4LqPtPGQ

Great publicity about this division desu

Cappa = Play beautiful = Menotti = Moustache
Caruso = Win at all costs = Bilardo = Moustache+Goatee

Could Carusso save us from relegation to CONCACAF and give us a chance to qualify at least to "repechaje" to the new World Cup?

He probably could desu

He would get all the points in la altura + 1 point in every away game

>Sampaoli is self-declared Menottist and even had a fight with Bilardo

>le watch 5000 videos man
>menotist

He got that obsession from Bielsa though

that's why he's center-Menottist and not full blown Menottist like Basile who never cared about anything

this is the best thread I've ever been on

this man is right desu