Inter 2-0 Bayern: Milito the master of Madrid
Inter have deservedly won the Champions League – beating this season’s champions of England, Spain and then Germany on the way to collecting the trophy. Jose Mourinho has conquered Europe again, Inter have won the treble for the first time in the history of Italian football, and Italy retains its four Champions League places ahead of Germany.
There were no surprises in the starting XIs – they were as predicted by ZM in the preview. Inter went with their 4-2-3-1, with Goran Pandev and Samuel Eto’o on the flanks very deep and Wesley Sneijder in the hole. Javier Zanetti was deployed in midfield, Christian Chivu at left-back, despite suggestions they could be the other way around.
Bayern also played their standard shape, a 4-4-2 / 4-2-3-1, with Arjen Robben hugging the touchline looking to come inside, and Hamit Altintop playing a slightly more central position on the opposite flank. Thomas Muller played behind Ivica Olic.
Sneijder key in the first half
The most notable feature of the game was how close Wesley Sneijder played to Diego Milito. Some have occasionally questioned why Inter’s shape is termed as a 4-2-3-1 rather than a 4-3-3 (the difference can often be subtle) but tonight showed why, because Sneijder spent the night ahead of the two wide players. Indeed, the shape often looked more like a 4-4-1-1, because whilst Pandev and Eto’o had strict defensive jobs, Sneijder had something approaching a free role.
His role is something sides have become slightly unaccustomed to facing; as outlined here before, there is a distinct lack of ‘classic’ No 10s in European football at the moment. Sneijder’s movement in behind the main striker caused Bayern no end of problems, which started because Bayern had a numerical disadvantage in midfield, 3 v 2. If Mark van Bommel got goalside of Sneijder, it would mean that Bastian Schweinsteiger would be forced to compete with Javier Zanetti and Esteban Cambiasso, conceding the midfield to Inter. Therefore, van Bommel was forced to step up ahead of Sneijder, meaning he and Schweinsteiger cancelled out Zanetti and Cambiasso, who (whilst not particularly creative players anyway) didn’t influence the game much in an offensive sense.
Sneijder, therefore, was left to be picked up by Martin Demichelis and Daniel van Buyten – who were preoccupied with stopping Diego Milito, one of those forwards with a tremendous ability to occupy two centre-halves at once. For the first goal, van Buyten got himself far too deep behind Demichelis. His positioning was actually OK if Bayern were simply dealing with Milito as the only threat, but Sneijder’s position so high up the pitch meant that van Buyten’s ‘covering’ position left Sneijder with space, and he passed the ball easily for Milito to finish brilliantly. A not dissimilar situation occurred just before half-time when the Dutchman shot straight at Butt in one-on-one situation – Bayern simply couldn’t cope with Sneijder.
Bayern struggle in the final third
Bayern dominated possession – Inter were fairly happy to let them have the ball in deep positions, and had a system of ‘casual’ pressing rather than the intense style used by Barcelona at points in this Champions League run. Bayern worked the ball well in wide areas, and whilst Eto’o and Pandev were doing good defensive jobs, Bayern’s wingers were dropping deep and their full-backs were pushing on, meaning Inter’s full-backs and wingers were sometimes forced to swap around. Not an ideal scenario for Inter, and Bayern had plenty of crossing opportunities.
Bayern were unable to take advantage of this, though. With neither Olic nor Muller great aerial targets at the best of times, let alone against Lucio and Walter Samuel, Bayern were slightly too keen to come inside and try and play through the congested centre of the pitch. When the wingers and full-backs did get down the line they often found themselves in great positions, but Arjen Robben, Philip Lahm and Hamit Altintop all wasted chances to put a killer ball in. In the case of Robben and Altintop, this is perhaps the price you pay for fielding inverted wingers – they can shoot, but they often find it difficult to cross.
Javier Zanetti lifted the trophy after his 700th appearance for Inter
Interestingly, the one time a Bayern player found himself free in a dangerous position was Mark van Bommel’s dragged shot wide in stoppage time at the end of the first half – not the player you’d expect to be causing an immediate goal threat. There is a sense that a ’surprise’ player in an attacking position is the best way to open up Inter when they’re defending solidly within their own area – against Barcelona, for example, they coped with everything Barca could throw at them, until Gerard Pique came up from the back and there appeared to be confusion about how to deal with him.
Muller wastes chances
That said, Bayern did create. Three decent chances fell to Thomas Muller, but the young forward was unable to convert them. Firstly a half-chance at the near post in the first ten minutes, secondly a clear one-on-one that he played straight at Julio Cesar, thirdly a volley he hit into the ground when in space on the penalty spot.
In terms of positioning, movement and work rate, Muller is excellent and is widely recognized as being a tremendous talent, but tonight showed that in front of goal, he’s not yet up to scratch. He has scored in just one game in this Champions League run – against Maccabi Haifa on the opening day – and has often failed to make things happen for Bayern in the penalty box, particularly against Fiorentina and against Manchester United when Bayern were slightly fortunate to progress.
His opportunities were no more presentable than Milito’s, both of which were dispatched excellently. The man signed from Genoa last summer wrapped the game up with his 70th minute strike, as Inter got the ball to him in space, allowing him to run at the hapless van Buyten. Samuel Eto’o will be praised for his defensive role, but he was a key part in the second goal. First he held off Badstuber, luring him into a crazy challenge he was never going to win. Then, he despatched the pass into feet for Milito. Finally, he got himself level with Milito and into the box, forcing Martin Demichelis to track him, rather than ’sweeping’ behind van Buyten. All this may sound fairly basic, but it is partly the fact that Eto’o is a forward playing out wide that helped him hold off the challenge, and then have the determination to get himself into the box. A winger may not have done the same.
Inter see the game out
As we have come to expect, Inter defended solidly and brilliantly within their own area. The two defensive midfielders sat extremely deep and never looked to get remotely forward in the second half, even when the more attack-minded Dejan Stankovic was brought on. Muller (dropping deep) and Schweinsteiger (moving forward) struggled to find space in that zone, and so the ball was generally held in wide areas. Bayern still struggled to test Inter too much considering the amount of possession they had, despite the arrival of Mario Gomez and Miroslav Klose, two players who like crosses. It was surprising that van Gaal did not opt to use Danijel Pranjic, a good crosser of the ball, who could have replaced Badstuber, a full-back reluctant to attack.
There was a feeling that if Inter scored the first goal, they would win the game. And so it proved – Lucio, Samuel and Cambiasso were absolutely superb, and whilst Mourinho should be rightly praised for organising his defence so well, we should not forget that Inter’s defenders are naturally superb players. Defensive organisation is vital in winning trophies but individual performances have shone through against Barcelona and Bayern – further emphasized by van Buyten’s nightmare at the other end.
Inter deserved European champions
The tie against Barcelona was ridiculously tight and could have gone either way, but it’s hard to fault Inter. Despatching the best teams from the three other major European leagues along the way, whilst wining their own domestic league, would suggest that this is a fitting triumph.
What is different from last year, where Mourinho’s Inter crumbled against Manchester United? Half the team. Of Mourinho’s favoured XI in the second half of the season, the five furthest forward players – Thiago Motta, Wesley Sneijder, Samuel Eto’o, Goran Pandev and Diego Milito, as well as Lucio, the centre-back, are all in their first season at the club. That’s 6 out of 11 players – last year’s side was not “Mourinho’s”, it was the players he had inherited. Creating such a successful side with so many new recruits is a remarkable achievement, as is managing to transform goal-hungry forwards like Eto’o and Pandev into hard-workers defensively, even if some will complain that this is robbing the world of some exciting attacking play. But Mourinho’s brief was to win the Champions League, and he has done that.
The final question about Inter: are they a defensive side? It’s easy to say that they are, especially considering the reputation of both Mourinho and Italian football in general. This has slightly clouded the judgement of many who haven’t watched them on a regular basis – they have played some excellent football, and characterizing a side as ‘defensive’ when they regularly play a Sneijder-Pandev-Eto’o-Milito quartet is rather harsh. Yet in the final three matches of this Champions League run they have had less than 35% of possession in each; Jonathan Wilson has discussed whether this (successful) approach will be a turning point in football.
The answer to that might have to wait for a few years, but the acclaim for Inter can begin immediately. Defensively brilliant, ruthless in the penalty area, and possessing some of the best players in the world, this is a superb Inter side that have equalled the achievements of the much-praised Barcelona side of last season.
Check out the passing statistics from the game here
Inter 2-0 Bayern: Milito the master of Madrid
Well it has to be said, albeit reluctantly, well done mourinho and inter, for coming up with a plan and for putting it into practice. But, to echo a remark from the itv commentary team – conspicuous by its profundity – their way is the easy way.
The question still remains – is the nature of their plan, and the nature of their performance, vindicated by the fact that it achieved the desired result? For you inter and mourinho lovers, no doubt it was – perhaps the question is even lost on you? But for those who are objective enough to see the bigger picture, those who passionately believe that football is about more than just the winning, the fact that mourinho’s style has again proved effective feels like a demoralising defeat.
The way inter were set up to play solely on the counter-attack reminded me of gatecrashers at a party, just waiting for the hosts to get merry enough so that they could sneak their way in unnoticed, and steal everything for themselves. Ought we to admire these gatecrashers; their preparation, their patience, their cunning, their sense of timing, their opportunism, their organisation? Rather, I feel, we should point out that if everyone behaved like them, everyone would ultimately be worse off – partygoers and hosts/fans and players alike.
Once again, watching inter win has made me feel proud and fortunate to be an arsenal fan during wenger’s reign. I know that if we are eventually successful, it will feel so good because of the way we will have achieved it. I can honestly say though, that if we never win anything ever again, I’ll have a zillion times more respect for wenger than I will for mourinho, given the ‘spirit’ in which his teams are instructed to play.
In 1982, italy famously stopped brazil from winning the world cup. In 2010, inter famously stopped barcelona from winning the champions league. That is how this inter team will be remembered.
Unfortunately, the 2010 champions league final will barely be remembered next week. Thank goodness there’s the world cup to look forward to, where I pray that a team whose mentality is to attack rather than counter-attack, to create rather than destroy, to entertain rather than win at all costs, is victorious – because football at the very top level deserves a deserving team.
Every time the easier route brings success, the harder the harder route will be to take, and teams like Barcelona, and managers like Louis van Gaal, will become extinct. Football at the highest level will be all about who scores first, and therefore teams will be so scared of conceding that they will decide not to attack.
Goodness that was quick!
was so depressed by it all, i had to get it off my chest straight after the final whsitle! will be interested to read that Wilson article you mention – i sincerely hope the future isn’t teams being rewarded for not having the ball. great match report ZM as always
I feel you my friend, I feel you
Amen, Steve. Gooner fan here, and I’ll be honest, there was no better moment for me, as a fan of football, then Iniesta scoring in the last second last year, to push Barsa through in the semis. I might have even shed a small tear. It felt like everything that had been wrong in the world, was gonna be good again. Sure, it might be all about winning and tactics to someone who never tasted victory, but to really enjoy yourself as a player, and to become immortal as a coach, you wanna win with style, passing and scoring. Go Gunners, go Barsa – screw the mercenaries…
I feel for the zero title season
Hear hear!
Although I do admire Mourinho, his brand of football is very much like fusion jazz – it’s technically brilliant, the performers are amazingly skilled and their playing is almost seamlessly coordinated.
But it don’t mean thing ’cause it ain’t got that swing.
It’s not about who scores first. Bayern could have easily won this match with better tactics and decision making. To start with, they hardly ever took shots on goal, and seemed to be satisfied with their effort despite being down 2 goals.
And such a very tiresome argument…
what do you mean tiresome? i take tiresome to mean somehow trivial – do you think its a trivial matter, how teams are sent out to play? or is it tiresome because you can’t think of a counter-argument?
This Inter team wins games by scoring goals, just like everybody else. The biggest issue I had with this match was the constant diving — a far bigger problem than good defending.
i haven’t read anyone writing that good defending is a problem. stoke score a lot of goals from long throw ins – do they “win games by scoring goals, just like everybody else” as well?
completely agree about the diving, something has to be done, although i thought webb handled it ok, certainly didnt fool for everything
I just find the whole “we played pretty football so we deserve to win blah blah blah” argument to be so, well, tiresome (which does not mean trivial). You’re an Arsenal fan – are you ashamed of winning the 2005 FA Cup, would you have railed against your manager’s mentality if you’d won the 2006 Champions league on that free kick from a blatant dive from Eboue, do you not count the titles won under George Graham, when Arsenal were one of the most negative teams in England? I doubt you are, and you should not be.
If you think the way Inter played is easier than attacking, then I suggest you watch more football. What they did this year in the champions league is as impressive as what Barca did last year, and Manchester United the year before that.
And by the way, is building a team around a teenager you poached from another team the “right” way of doing things?
1) things are often considered tiresome because they are trivial. i wanted to establish if that was what you meant, since you didnt say what you meant.
2) in the 2005 fa cup arsenal played badly, they didnt set out negatively. i seem to remember a host of injuries, and having to adjust to who was available.
3) i hate to see arsenal players diving, and don’t want us to score through cheating, unless the opposition have themselves cheated throughout the match.
4) of course i still count the george graham titles. i was still an arsenal fan then, just not so much a fan of the football he played
5) i watch a great deal of football, and defending with world class players is most certainly, without a shadow of a doubt, easier than attacking with world class players. see arrigho sacchi’s well-known training drill with his milan squad. it is made especially easier if you set out to defend.
6) if a young arsenal talent was taken by a foreign club because we had forgotten to sort his contract out properly, i would certainly hold nothing against that club for doing so.
7) i believe i’ve had a similar chat with you before jonathan. the point i’m making is not pretty vs ugly, or defence vs attack, its about a positive/pro-active mentality vs negative reactivity
Ha, I thought we’d debated this before but I wasn’t sure. Cheers.
I agree it comes down to a different view on what we consider positive vs. negative mentality. I don’t think positive automatically means attack and negative automatically means defense. Or maybe they do, but in that case I don’t see a positive mentality as inherently good or a negative mentality as inherently bad. What I desire to see is a team playing to the height of their collective abilities regardless if it is positive or negative. And I feel there is a fundamental difference between playing the way Inter did in the second leg against Barca or the way they did the second half today, and the way some smaller clubs do when they play Arsenal, or Man Utd, or Madrid, etc. This Inter team was not really reactive, I think they were positive in the sense that they put their squad out there and absolutely controlled the match.
Don’t think we’ll ever fully agree on this topic. But that’s okay. Different strokes and all that.
Wed, Feb 24 2010
Inter – Chelsea 2-1
-Inter didn`t play their best match of the season, but you can`t say they played negative. They played to win, they protect the lead last 10-15 minutes with ultra-defensive approach and they succeded, they set the field for “what should be” best game of their lifes three weeks from then.
Tue, Mar 16 2010
Chelsea – Inter 0-1
-Best match that Inter played (i`m watching them almost every game for 15 years), they weren`t (again) negative, they were tactically perfect and they were dangerous on almost every possesion. They isolate all of the Chelsea players and they exploit all of their oponent weeknesses.
Tue, Apr 20 2010
Inter – FC Barcelona 3-1
-Yes they have awfull ball possesion, and they were compleatly outpassed… but “negative” play? defensive football? They score three goals after falling behind, they were attacking Barcelona like no one before in 2 intervals of around 15 minutes. Again at the end they defend with 11 players in the box… but can you blame them after scoring 3 goals versus (now past)european champions?
Wed, Apr 28 2010
FC Barcelona – Inter 1-0
-Again, tell me the team that can play pro-active football against Barcelona with 10 man for about 70 minutes… Arsenal try with 11 players, and not that they look ridiculous but they also suffered one of the heaviest defeats (even after scoring first), letting one (well yes- wonderboy) player to score 4 goals. (Also remember how Man Utd play against Bayern when they lose player)
Inter decide to defend, and that was one of the best defensive games from the team that i see all my life. The team that undoubtly play most pro-active couldn`t shot on Inter goal, they couldn`t find space to even try to create chance. I`m biased, but no one can deny that Inter defense was pure art that night.
So are Inter pro-active? Absolutely… not pro-active like Barcelona or Real or Arsenal or Bayern… But when they needed goals they played very good (attacking) football. Problem with teams like Barcelona, Real, Arsenal or Bayern is playing on their strengts (that is attack) to compensate their weeknesses (that is defense). This teams play pro-active football because it will be “suicide” if they try to defend. Man Utd, Chelsea, Inter, Milan, Roma or Inter are more balanced and all of them play “negative” football when they think that is the best way to win the game… but you can`t generalize and say they all play “negative” football all the time.
I respect your opinion, and I understand it, we all want to see football games who are fast, open, attractive and full of pace… But would that work in reallity? Real and Barcelona played 2 times this year, and from 180 minutes total I enjoyed only about 40 minutes of it, rest was totally desorientated game-time with lot of mistakes, forced attacking play and pathetic defensive decisions… If Messi or Ronaldo should be called best footbalers (or most pro-active players) playing against poor defenders doesn`t help. Messi didn`t make lot against Inter, Drogba didn`t make impact also, Ronaldo couldn`t do his magic against Lyon and Fabregas couldn`t show his brilliance against Man Utd or Chelsea or Barcelona. Were they stopped by “negative” oponent approach? No! They were stopped by organized and strong defense which is true foundation of game of football.
It depends on how you define organized and strong defense. If it’s Gentile, Scirea, Cabrini etc. cattenacio style, where six guys park it in front of the goal, well it blows, and it is negative – there’s no intention of scoring. If it’s Messi, Ibra, Pedro etc. running like mad men up the pitch and not allowing the opponents to pass the midfield, then grabbing the ball and scoring right away – yeah, I’m all for it…
And if you combine both? Full-court press with a low and strong defense? Jesus, most of you are embarrassing yourselves. You’re only making excuses and stupid accusations. You score in the way that suits you best. Most of the Barcelona players have practiced their style of play for more than ten years. Can you honestly think that team that has been managed by a manager for two years and where half the starting line-up arrived last summer would play the same brand of football that takes years and years of practice to perfect?
I’m a Madrid fan and personally, I’d rather play beautiful and lose 3-4 than win 1-0 but it doesn’t mean I should shun defensive tactics. I think Inter did the right thing. They defended hella good and countered perfectly. That’s admirable too.
OK Filip I am at loss hear man…Are games won by 0-0 draws? I dont get it when you say “no intent to score” Inter scored a total of 8 goals against the champs of England, Spain & Germany; while conceding 3. How is that not an intent to score?
Have you ever noticed that even with that “negative” play, teams which are well balanced always manage to win.
and you know WHY they win ?
Cuz they still score goals.
Raaaaight. so, playing on the counter and defending brilliantly, aren’t a part of football now ?
“to echo a remark from the itv commentary team – conspicuous by its profundity – their way is the easy way”
I don’t understand what is wrong about the “easy” way?
i think when van Gaal talked about his way being not that easy, he talked about teaching his players. it is much easier to develop a good defence, but during the game both ways are difficult to play (the discipline in both styles). if Bayern had one or two fresh ideas in attack against the “easy Mounrinho way”, Inter would have been in trouble. (Maybe, at this point we could talk about Ribery having this anarchistic ideas and creating some space in the centre, etc. etc. but … a red card is a red card)
Van Gaal, said it is easier to defend in a small space (like 30 meters), than on the whole pitch. And if you look at the goals, you’ll see 3 or 4 defenders against 2 or 3 attackers*, but that is not the whole defendig work of Bayern. It’s only the last step of defending, the first step starts with the strikers. *(and two times a mismatch: “yellow card” Demichelis, and “high-speed” van Buyten)
The problem with van Gaal’s philisophy is that if you play agains a team like Inter, a team that makes no mistakes in the defence, you need briliant players and a brilliant team play to produce holes and space.
The difference was: Inter made the goal, and Bayern not. And if you are 0:1 (or 0:2) behind, you need more good chances, more shots on goal. especially if you have the van Gaal philosophy.
congratulations to Inter Milan the team and staff, the better and smarter team won.
three or four defenders? more like seven to nine.
you ought to see the game again.
or get your eyes checked.
or learn to count.
bayern played against 8 or 9 defenders.
don’t think Sneijder and Milito played against 7 men when they scored the first and Eto’o and Milito had to beat maybe 3 men at the second goal.
but bayern defends on the whole pitch so the question is how got Eto’o the ball and why had he time to play that pass? etc.
“Good write” Steve…as much as I want to agree with you, i’d rather not. My reasoning, is to attack is to defend. Since you quoted Arsenal, I’ll use them as an example: What good does it do the gooners to get to the mouth of the opposing goal & continue exchanging passes before attempting to shot on target? Now a resolute well balanced side, will have the tactical sense to know that in that kind of forward position, loosing the ball could be very detrimental. BAlance becomes the word of the day. In my opinion a team that goes into a game thinking “…I will concede 10 but score 11…” is a lousy unbalanced side. No, Inter is not a boring team. Watch the Seria A or ask anyone who “HONESTLY” does: and they will concede Inter plays the most attractive attacking football in Italy. Look at how they routed Juventus, AC Milan, AS Roma & other big names in Italy this season…and no, they didnt do it by sitting back! They did it by a tactical genius of balancing attack & defense. When you are up against a team like Barca, playing 10-11 & with a 2 goal lead…YOU DEFEND THAT SCORE! If Wenger tells you otherwise, then ask your board to fire him that same DAY! Bayern Munich was extinguished at mid field. I mean common, both Barcelona & Chelsea were beaten hands down in open games (Chelsea at both the home & away) Barcelona at the away game! In my opinion, INter deserved their victory. There is no such thing as anti football (or whatever the english press calls it these days)
Agree with you Alex
i can’t agree with you any more
The lack of a proper left back hurt Bayern tonight I think. Badstuber kept getting into offensive positions and seemed to end up passing the ball backwards every time instead of trying to take on his man/get a cross in.
Excellent article again by ZM.
Congratulations to Inter, thier players, fans and of course their manager on thier win. As ZM rightly point out they have beaten the champions of England Italy and Spain on their way to the title.
My question would be now that it has been proven that playing without the ball can win the Champions League, will UEFA bother supplying one for games in next seasons competition?
Mourinho seemed especially keen to take one back with him – maybe he wanted to remind the Inter players of what it looked like?
I can’t recall whether it was Oliver Kay, or Rory Smith who retweeted a comment from a follower, but the pithy observation was that while Inter don’t dominate possession – or, at any rate, they are will to relinquish it- they are extremely adept at controlling the space.
This was quite apparent tonight, and against Barcelona in the 2nd leg.
Edit: It was, in fact, Rory Smith retweeting the comment made by a certain Varsky Mundial (an Argentinian journalist, I believe).
Rather similar to the line from this site’s Barca v Inter review – “The result was a 4-5-0 where Wesley Sneijder was generally the furthest forward player, rather than the two strikers who often found themselves defending deep in their own full-back zones. In this respect, Inter were not controlling the ball, but they were still controlling the space.”
Just ignore/delete this, I pressed reply but then realised you’d answered my question below. Stupid me!
As I have said here (or somewhere) before, controlling possession is not the same as controlling the game. Controlling the spaces and therefore the time is what leads to controlling the game. You can do that by being superior with the ball and player movement (Barca) or by denying space in the channels and scoring area (Inter). To say that Inter’s way is easier is simultaneously both correct and incorrect. It is less physically demanding than ball circulation, and it is a simple concept. But training it on the field time and again and getting the precision necessary at the top level to pull it off is VERY difficult.
i find it really funny when you guys hate Mou’s tactics so much =))
LOL cracking point! Great wit as well as fantastic tactical analysis, is there no end to ZM’s talents?
On a serious note, having read Jonathan Wilson’s article on “Inside Out Wingers” I noticed that against Barca and again against Bayern, Inter coped very well with the wide players cutting in. I was suprised that neither Guardiola nor Van Gaal (both of whom I am big fans of) didn’t try to play their wingers on their “natural/traditional” side for a stint when they were getting no joy.
Do you think Inter are uniquely good at defending the wide player cutting in or is it just the case that they are so good defensively that it doesn’t matter?
Two thoughts in response.
1) Neither Barca nor Bayern tried to switch things for the simple reason that neither club was going to have much success in the air against Inter’s back line. Plus, absent Ribery, Bayern only rally had one winger throughout the match and pushing him off to the left would have made it even easier for Inter to defend, and I’m also sure Van Gaal would have been worried asking Robben to track Maicon’s forward runs. With Barca, it be much the same, Messi is fairly average on the left and putting someone like Pedro on the right would have blunted Alves’s advances down the right wing.
2) The most effective way to defend against wingers cutting in is to funnel the winger into a waiting defensive midfielder. Playing with two deeper midfielders to cover the space, as Inter did against Barca and Bayern, and clubs like Man Utd and Chelsea have done successfully against Messi and Barcelona over the last few years is the most effective way to blunt the inverted wingers effectiveness.
I take your points Jonathan particularly about Robben tracking back and the 2 defensive midfielders.
I wasn’t thinking about success in the air though (Bayern got plenty of crosses in without playing wingers on thier correct sides as ZM points out in the article) I was thinking more about if one of the wide players could beat his man on his natural foot and get a decent pull back across goal. Robben did it once in the 1st half when he wasn’t doubled up, thought he may have had a chance to do it on his natural side, although ZM is right to say Bayern haven’t done it all year so weren’t gonna change in the final!
Again I think ZM is correct to say Bayern were too keen to come inside towards Inter’s strength.
I agree Messi isn’t always great on the left although he has had some success from inside left positions attacking the defence.
I understand your points. I think at the end of it all, there’s pluses and minuses to both options. I think Inter would have been fine with showing the wingers to the end line and dealing with the crosses or pullbacks. Orthodox wingers can work, but I think to completely switch things in a final when your entire formation is set around Robben cutting in and Lahm overlapping (the main reason he switched to the right this season) would be a huge gamble I wouldn’t expect to pay off. Plus Robben’s never been the most unselfish player so I don’t know how he’d take asking to supply balls rather than getting to shoot on sight…
Fair enough, once again I can’t fault your thinking, I just would have been tempted to try something different as Guardiola did when he switched Messi to the left at Stamford Bridge last year leading to the goal(although in fairness the teams shape had totally changed due to Abidal’s red card). I guess that’s the fun of a site like this…
You are so right about robben as well. There was a point in the 1st half when Altintop was totally unmarked on the right hand side of the area, anyone else would have played him in but not Arjen. Although I suppose after what he’s done for Bayern not too many people will be having a go at him in the dressing room…
The interesting thing about Bayern’s use of inverted wingers is that they haven’t been used on their ‘correct’ sides all season, so in that sense it wasn’t a surprise that they weren’t switched, although your point is certainly valid.
Interesting question – hard to say. The use of two very defensive midfield players means that it’s relatively easy for one of them to ‘double up’ against a winger looking to come inside, though, whereas if the winger goes down the line it’s slightly more tricky.
Hard to fault Maico-Lucio-Samuel-Chivu/Zanetti as a back four, though. Inter can field the best ‘defensive’ XI in the world, surely. Check their XI that finished the Coppa game against Fiorentina: http://www.zonalmarking.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/fiorentina-0-1-inter-etoo2.jpg – and that doesn’t even include Samuel!
Here we go again with the “inverted wingers” argument…
Nah only kidding ZM
That’s a valid point. Robben is the de facto right winger for Bayern and Ribery on the left. It has always been that way this season. In one light, Bayern almost played into Inter’s hands. Which goes to prove my point in the other article that Van Gaal is not really a tactician in the sense that he changes things according to circumstance. Mourinho does, to a degree, and gets better results.
Indeed McGie, that final point was backed up tonight, I would say.
In a sense tonight’s game was completely non-tactical, in that both sides pretty much played how they have done all season, for the entire 90 mins.
all the talk seems to focus these days on Inside out wingers and how to stop them. Did anybody else notice that Inter lined up with their centra midfielders playing on their wrong sides Zanetti on the right, Cambiasso on the left.
As soon as Robben cut inside Cambiasso was there to confront/pressure him. Right foot vs left foot. This was happening loads until the opening goal, once Inter went ahead Pandev and Eto’o dropped deeper to create the double team on the winger with DM looming just behind them to sweep up.
“Inter rely on Milito for treble win”
When did defence become something to be derided? Inter put Bayern where they wanted them at all times tonight, through hard work and tactical efficiency. It’s not as beautiful as Barca at their best, but their defensive mindfulness (is that a word?) was football played at its very best – clinical, precise and lethal. They scored 2 good goals too, but I’m sure that will be overlooked.
Good article ZM, a hard-fought final and a good read.
However, I’m not so sure about this stigma around Inter and being ‘tactically brilliant’. I mean, is what Mourinho does really tactically brilliant? Stick 8 men behind the the ball for me, doesn’t really represent my idea of good tactical play. Granted, Inter are well drilled and well organised, but you could pretty much take and lower league side and with the correct motivational skills as well as training, replicate Inter’s display of stubborn defence, and give them Wesley Sniejder with Diego Milito and you could probably drill a devastating counter attack into practise as well. For me, what Mourinho does – although he’s damn good at it, don’t get me wrong, simply is not tactical brilliance, as sticking 8 men behind the ball and relying on the break is not only rather simple(and I do admire the discipline of his sides by the way), yet is also an extremely reactive style of football – you achieve no ‘multiplier effect’ on the player’s talents as Sacchi once said, it’s reactive to circumstance, not proactive to make your side better.
For me, tactical brilliance is about actively seeking to distort your opposition, to continuously find multiple ways of breaking through their defence, not only on the counter as Inter do. Tactical brilliance is Rinus Michel’s Dutch side of the 70’s, utilising ‘pass and move’ on a level never seen before, Guardiola’s Barcelona, Sacchi’s Milan. If you watched Barcelona play Arsenal at the Camp Nou earlier this season, that was tactical brilliance. The way in which Maxwell was seen at left-back one minute, central midfield the next to confuse Wenger’s side, while Messi floated throughout the final third, Alves rampaging down the right to create space for him, movement in general throughout the park to liberate Xavi – that is tactical brilliance. It’s about manipulating your side’s movement and positioning to expose the opposition, and side’s which do this best, generally, generally, yield the most success. Inter for me, are simply a well disciplined, organised machine, and that quite simply, is all I see to them – there manner of winning is simply far too average to be tactically brilliant. They don’t actively look to expose the opponent, and that for me, is what tactics should be about. It’s this perception that defensive football goes hand in hand with good tactics which quite aggravates me about the modern game. Football’s a low scoring game which suggests defending is it’s easiest task – it’s how a side can actively force their way through an opposition which should be the measure of ‘tactical brilliance.’
Tactical brilliance is about controlling the space on the pitch and controlling the tempo and style of a match. And that’s what Inter have done throughout this tournament. They’ve controlled every match they played in the knockout round, save maybe the first leg at home to Chelsea.
And I appreciate what Barca have done tactically over the last few years (although I think it’s more individual brilliance and squad training that have been more important), but using the match against a tactically inept and technically out-classed Arsenal isn’t a great example. There was nothing tactically brilliant about that match, simply a great team beating a distinctly average team.
Can’t really see how what Barca do is down to individual brilliance though. Granted, Messi, Xavi and Iniesta are excellent but without Sneijder Inter would struggle massively. I think its a huge misjudgement to suggest Barcelona are based on individuals – they’re the most collective side of recent times for me. They’re manner of attacking together as a unit, with flexibility throughout the pitch in terms of positioning, as well as their defensive compactness and pressure is simply breathtaking in full flow.
true – the world’s best team is always gonna thrash an inexperienced side with half their players missing – tactics not very relevant here. but it is precisely barca’s tactics which have enabled their individuals to perform so well, as Sacchian rightly points out. the way in which they defend so positively, in particular, is admirable – they cherish the ball, and want it back as soon as possible when they haven’t got it.
Very true. I meant more the specific match tactics, but I didn’t explain that. Barca’s tactics from the standpoint of how they train to retain the ball and press when they lose it are fantastic. But it doesn’t hurt when you have Xavi and Iniesta hitting a lot of those passes. Personally I think an on-form Iniesta was the main reason they were so successful last year, especially in the CL Final, as he provided a driving link between a deeper Xavi and Eto’o and Messi up front. I think they sorely missed him this year against Inter.
yeah definitely, iniesta a massive loss. and i understand and respect your admiration for the way inter control matches through their positioning, teamwork and seemingly telepathic understanding – these are remarkable qualities. i must admit i was really hoping bayern would score, but not for one second did i believe they would.
it would be fascinating though to see inter go a goal behind to a quality team who would then sit back. would they have the same collective understanding in an attacking sense? i suppose we’ll never know, as it seems mourinho is off to spain. do you reckon the madrid fans will accept him owning the space, and not the ball?
Well, it wasn’t the same Inter squad, but they did have to attack last year when they lost to Manchester United in the second leg of their Round of 16 tie following a scoreless draw at the San Siro, a match that. Vidic scored after just a few minutes and then Ronaldo scored following the interval to put through 2-0 on aggregate. Inter played well, but their finishing wasn’t great and United were fairly comfortable winners in the end.
err.
they DID go a goal behind against Barca and scored 3 after that.
but of course, none of you “purists” would remember that, would you ?
“You could pretty much take and lower league side and with the correct motivational skills as well as training, replicate Inter’s display of stubborn defence, and give them Wesley Sniejder with Diego Milito and you could probably drill a devastating counter attack into practise as well.”
But would that not be tactical brilliance? Surely it would be, getting a lower league side to beat Bayern?! If it was that easy, then more sides would do it.
“They don’t actively look to expose the opponent, and that for me, is what tactics should be about.”
Perhaps, but in any two-player game where you have a direct influence on the opposition’s play, stopping the opposition from exposing you is equally as important as exposing the opponent, especially in a cup tie.
Tactical brilliance is not only to create openings in the opposition but also the ability to spot the opposition tactics.While Wenger is bamboozled by the attacking movement of Barca’s players, Mourinho simply dealt with it.He handled the Barca as they should be and won against Bayern to claim the cup.To say any half witted guy with a team full of stars can win a Champions League Cup is ridiculous.Ask Avram Grant,Scolari,Pellegrini and countless other Galactico Managers.
And I would say any body who can count can win La Liga with Barcelona[:P]…
Anyone who says that what Inter and Mourinho did is easy is simply not being fair. As football fans we can sometimes allow this brilliant but arrogant manager’s actions to cloud our judgements.
Defending like Inter did against Barca is not easy and takes great discipline, work rate and concetration and their ability to pull off thier game plan against some fine sides is pretty remarkable.
Having said that I have to agree with Ruud Gullit who frequently states that “it is easier to destroy a house than it is to build one.” Anyone who has played football at any level would (I hope) at least concede that it is easier to take the ball off an opponent/make a tackle/use space to guide a player down a blind alley than it is to create a flowing move ending in a goal/dribble past several opponents and stick it in the back of the net. From that point of view I think that trying to win things playing creative football is harder than playing from a primarly destructive set up.
Whilst many people may prefer to watch Barca rather than watch Inter, it is simply not true that what Inter do is easy.
We also ought to remember that these things are decided by very fine margins. Last season a penalty here or there or Didier Drogba sticking away his chances at Stamford Bridge/Pique not making an awesome last ditch tackle to deny Park a goal in the opening minutes of last years final and Barca may not have won it all.
Similarly a penalty for chelsea in the San Siro/the ref not spotting Toure’s handball in the build up to Bojan’s goal/Howard Webb spotting Maicon’s handball/Mueller finishing his chance off and Mourinho is not a tactical genius but another in the long line that failed to deliver the European cup to Inter.
Fine lines…
True,
but we have to remember that despite that “destructive” setup, Inter managaed to win games.
albeit with the “fine lines”, that you talk about.
But they did.
I totally agree. My point was not to take anything away from Inter, just that to the victor goes the spoils.
Next year if Inter play the same way and don’t get the breaks and fail to retain the trophy people will criticise their style and say they failed to develop. Just like this year when the breaks didn’t go thier way Barca were accused of having no plan b (whatever that means)
All too often today’s tactical genius very quickly becomes tomorrow’s tactical dunce in the eyes of many.
This game was not won on tactics, but by superior play. Milito handled both his finishes brilliantly, as well as set up his first goal with a perfectly placed header directly to Sneijder’s feet off an 80 yard clearance. Bayern had as many good chances and just did not finish well (and who knows how the game would have went had a PK been awarded for Maicon’s clear hand ball).
My one tactical question is what was Bayern doing with only Robben and Lahm on the right side of the pitch up front (*in the first half, at least; I noticed because the camera was on this side of the pitch; not sure what the positioning was in the second half). Robben generally had only one pass (to Lahm) available, and his movement was predictably going to be a lateral run against the 2-3 defenders marking him. I was surprised that none of the Bayern players camped on the trap line on the left side of the box made a move to come into the gaping space between the left side and Robben. Doing so would have made a much more problematic situation for the defenders marking Robben, with the extra player having plenty of room to run and shoot himself, or giving the ball back to Robben on the run. It’s as if the decision was “give Robben the right side by himself, and let him create his own chances.” He certainly was able to make a few good opportunities, but I think it would have been more productive with another player coming to fill the empty space in support.
I love how people talk about Inter like if they play to just score a goal and retort to defend. I mean, they were losing 1-0 against Barça in the Semifinal and managed to win 3-1. Is that a defensive team to you? Is that a team that just goes “the easy way”?
Bayern Munich had the chance to tie the game 1-1 in the beginning of the second half. But their attacker missed it entirely… also, Cambiasso made a tremendous save (with a header) during the second half as well. Bayern knew how to attack, well somewhat… but lacked effectiveness… something that Inter didn’t lack…
And well, Ribery’s absence also was a factor, I think. Perhaps if he played the result would be different… but then again, the fact that Ribery wasn’t playing in the final is not Inter’s fault…
Fact is: Inter, just like the Italian national team, knows how to attack and play offensive… however, their strategy is more defensive and less spectacular…
“Is that a team that just goes the easy way?”. YES! it’s much easier to organise established, world-class players, (many of whom you’ve payed millions and millions of pounds for) to counter-attack than it is to train them to be technically/creatively good enough to compete for the ball.
think of the different theories for how the universe began. it’s much easier to sit back and criticise these than to come up with a substantial account of one’s own. it’s easier toread a book than to write one, easier to watch a film than direct one. it’s easier to win being mourinho’s inter than it is being guardiola’s barca
I must say, a very well constructed argument!
The difference is that playing to counter-attack is actually doing something. Is actually an strategy and something that requires patience and planning to do well. Not any team knows how to perform counter-attack… you need fast players for that, you need to organize the counter-attack as well, and, of course, you need a solid defense for that strategy to work.
I mean, if you have a bad defense then playing to counter-attack is, obviously, a bad idea. And that’s exactly Inter’s accomplishment… not any team can go to play against Barça in Camp Nou and just receive one goal. Not any team can play against Bayern, give them the ball possession and not receive one goal (although, they were somewhat lucky that Bayern didn’t score once).
Not to mention that Inter defends without having to use fouls and fake injuries… in fact, Bayern committed more fouls than Inter. That speaks quite a lot about how Inter knows how to defend. If they retorted to fouls and doing time then I would agree with you… but they don’t… they defend and do it quite well.
That is not spectacular or attractive in a football match, but it has it’s own merit.
“Not to mention that Inter defends without having to use fouls and fake injuries”
Really? I seem to remember Samuel hacking Robben down in the first 30 seconds of tonights game and a pretty bad 2 footed tackle from sneijder, not to mention the shirt pulling by Samuel against both Chelsea and Barca, he actually ripped Ibrahimovic’s shirt off as I recall and there was plenty of time wasting by Inter at the Camp Nou.
Deserved winners that they are, lets not pretend that Inter are also saints!!
it clearly has its merit – it produces results. just like going into someone’s house and stealing their stuff has its merits – that also produces results, and also requires organisation and patience and planning and teamwork to pull off.
doesn’t cahnge the fact that it’s the easiest way to get rich, as opposed to earning a living.
Okay, if Inter bought the referees and the rivals then your example would be comparable… but until then, it’s ridiculous.
have you ever really played footy, mate ?
The last time i played, it was tough defending against a good attack.
Tougher than scoring against a good defence.
The two things are not mutually exclusive. Without Sneider and Milito’s attacking brilliance we’d maybe have different headlines today. Surely they are equally valid aspects of the game?
Last time I checked, those millions and millions of pounds were available to Inter only because they fleeced the “good guys” of football – barcelona for that choker Ibrahimovic.
..the win was deserved so congratulation Inter! Milito is a killer with 2 goals from one and a half chances.
This time the (more effective) team with the more defensive strategy won, but I don’t think the LvGs or other coaches preferring a more attacking style will extinct. Bayern has a young team, with LvG they will work hard to improve and to avoid the mistakes that led to the goals and I’m confident they will play a major role in European soccer in the next years. Next time it might be again a Barcelona or Bayern or another attacking team that will succeed over a more defensive team….
Ribery was missed (I guess Mourinho was quite happy that he didn’t play), he just signed for the next 4 years with Bayern and the German Cup final showed that he is on his way back…
Mourinho will leave Inter: it will be interesting to watch whether he will be succesful with RM too…..
I’ve enjoyed seeing a well-organized counterattacking Italian side reach the final for the first time in awhile.
And while Mourinho is unquestionably brilliant, for once I’d like to see a quality side that scores first on one of his sides sit back and play on the counter, rather than continuing to attack, a-la-Barcelona. Hopefully that will be Guardiola’s Plan C next season–continuing to attack a Mourinho side when you have the lead strikes me as a bit naive.
Man Utd did it last year in the second leg of their Euro tie.
I guess discussing on whether it’s easier to train a team to defend or to attack is rather pointless. I propose you the following game: on the hypothetical case of a match facing two squads of comparable level, neutral field, first goal wins the match, which approach would you prefer for your team?
(i) seek for possession, mostly facing attacking situations of 6/7 attackers vs. 8/9 defenders, making a strong press when possession is lost mixed with a high defensive line, and having a strong commitment of players to make the offense to defense transition if this pressing isn’t capable of restoring possession on the opponent’s side (how Barcelona plays)or,
(ii) hand possession over, constantly putting 8/9 field players between the ball and the goal, having to maintain complete defensive concentration throughout the game, placing your defense on the edge of the box or even inside it, and counter attacking commonly facing attacking situations of 2/3 attackers against 3/4 defenders (how Inter played the recent final).
Bottom line, given that Bayern aren’t a squad whose players are definitely more dangerous and technically capable than Inter’s (specially given that Ribery couldn’t play), do you believe playing the final as Mourinho did is the option that maximized his chances of winning it?
ZM, I don’t know if you have the chance of making polls in this site (or even if you’re interested in it), but this may be an interesting one.
Yes I have same opinion, if you have better chance to win by sticking to your best strategy so why not!
Bayern Munich’s mistake was to go all offensive since the beginning. If you already know that your opponent is gonna play to counter-attack, then don’t give them the open spaces they are looking for.
This is gonna make them play a little bit more offensive (Inter surely wasn’t looking for a 0-0 result and a penalty shootout) and therefore make the game a little bit more open.
Germany did this against Italy in the 2006 World Cup Semifinal and almost worked. Italy, in fact, didn’t get to play defensive and retort to counter-attacking, as many expected. And Italy won thanks to a corner kick… the second goal was just the result of Germany’s desperation. And it was a wonderful counter-attack. That’s why I love that tactic. =)
As usual when defending is an important key to a major victory we have the moral majority of fans feeling all upset.
That’s okay if they feel what they watched didn’t please them aesthetically. Didn’t entertain them. Then it’s just a matter of taste. More on that later.
But what I fully agree on from an earlier comment, becomes really tiresome is when these fans then go on to completely disrespect that winning defensive team. Either calling it easy, like one poster did in an absurd comment saying lower divisions sides could just copy it.
You sir obviously need to immediately seek contact to all the Bundesliga and La Liga teams who came out, and failed, with defensive tactics each week against Bayern and Barcelona this season. They are just not defensive enough, just play like Inter, it’s easy! Right… If you watched Barcelona games at all since Guardiola took over, including scoring 150 goals last season against a large majority of teams playing defensively, you should know differently.
But what is even worse than fans simply neglecting the skill involved in defensive contributions achieving an objective, is the large group almost flat out denying that defensive tactics are even valid. Instead they’re something dirty and distasteful and certainly a winner playing defensive is never a deserving one.
I’ll call these fans “beautiful game fundamentalists” and with the risk of entering into some tedious high brow territory dangerously flirting with over analyzing (you have been warned) I could divide my way of seeing football and theirs (the moral majority) into religion and art.
I think that finding different ways to win, play to your own strengths and exploit opponent weaknesses, that is the true art form, no matter if its defensive or attacking, winning is the art form, while on the other hand the moral majority fan exclusively respecting, having room in his narrow mind only for one style of playing, believing in that no matter what and strongly disliking or worse disrespecting everything else, anything different, that’s when clinging to attacking football becomes almost religious fundamentalism.
Football as religion or football as art then? I definitely prefer the art. Seeing it like that as opposed to blindly worshiping it as religion also has a tendency to leave more room for actual thinking, for analyzing, which this site is a great example of. This site I suspect didn’t spring from a religious fanaticism…
But say you’re one of them religious nuts reading this, why not open your mind. Realize that football is about getting the needed result and the team consistently giving itself the best chance to do so match after match, that is the best team. Why be close minded and limit what you like about football to whoever passes the ball around the most or who will make the occasional flashy dribble.
Football is so much more than that and the sooner more people realize it, the less bitter they’d be following every other match not living up to their misguided expectations.
The less bitter they would also be when a team by winning the ultimate prize in club football prove to their holy faces that real football quality perhaps isn’t exactly what they thought it was. That there is more to it. Maybe even quality not directly involving the ball (ah!). Whether that’s Inter winning the Champions League making that case (a case of course made many times by many teams already) or say the Italy World Cup triumph four years ago.
Another feat widely disrespected by the moral majority fans despite Italy arguably being the best balanced side of the tournament having not only the best defense but really performance wise the best attack as well.
And yes despite popular myth making, it is indeed possible to have the best attack without it being a possession game based on pretty looking short passing.
Italy as well as Inter I’m guessing consistently created the most real goalscoring chances in their matches and ultimately I think, that’s how a team’s attack should be judged.
Finally just to emphasize, I’m not slamming the individual taste of every fan enjoying attacking football. I enjoy it very much myself. And even if that fan, unlike me, only likes attacking football, or maybe just the goals(!), that’s okay too. I think it’s a shame but that’s just different levels of fandom or taste.
Taste which even I the non-believer have, and which for an example is definitely a big part of why I like Juventus or Italy and not Stoke or Drillo-Norway.
Aesthetically (which is very important in art over religion) true commitment to winning as an art form just looks (and ideally functions) a lot better when certain skills at the highest level also are involved.
But the difference seems to be that while I can definitely appreciate a Drillo or a Rehagel team (they’re obviously very different but you can insert a Mourinho team as well) achieving results, many fans will always call it ugly and undeserved. The “anti” to their “one” kind of football. The only kind they have room for in their minds.
So who is actually more anti-football? Coaches and players trying to win or fans similar to what I’ve described above not really trying the sport of football at all, their minds so caught up in so called positive football that ironically they attack everything they see as different, not least resulting in spending a whole lot of time being negative.
I completely agree with you, particularly on your argument on what should de deemed as a better offense. Having agreed oh this, I believe further discussions should be focused on (as sated on a previous post) on wether we believe Mourinho actually maximized his chances of winning by facing the game as he did. I, for one, believe that having the kind of players he has, and given that Bayern aren’t Barca, he did not. Do you?
Brilliant post.
Great stuff. I think Mourinho has always been unfairly criticized for playing defensive football. I don’t think that Porto, Chelsea or Inter have been defensive sides, just good at defending.
you seem to equate being critical of a particular philosphy with narrow-mindedness. perhaps if i were to eat some broccoli, and then criticise the taste of it, would you accuse me of being narrow-minded, of lacking taste in cuisine, of failing to recognise how delicious it is? maybe some people just don’t like broccolli, and just maybe they’re free to express that opinion, providing reasons why they don’t like it.
it strikes me that your attitude is the religious fundamentalist one. you seem to think that if a team obeys the one and only commandment – ‘Thou shallt win’ – then they are beyond all criticism – that all teams who win are worthy of the same respect. you seem to accuse anyone who dares go against the grain, and refuses to say “well done you played to your strengths and you won”, of being ignorant, as if somehow they’re missing something, they’re just not getting it.
well i’m not missing anything when i watch inter’s displays. i see the organisation, i see the team spirit and understanding, the communication, the patience. of course very few teams could play like this. but the question is, would many teams with absloutley world class talent want to play like this? with the brilliance of players like maicon, lucio, zanetti, sneijder, milito and eto’o, inter could play effectively by adopting any one of a number of strategies.
certainly, there are many ways of winning, and no-one wants to see all teams playing the same way. at the forthcoming world cup, i’m particularly looking forward to seeing spain, brazil, holland, argentina, germany and france, all of whom attack in different ways, not all of whom adopt “pretty looking short passing”. i dont ‘attack’ anything i see as different, i attack what i see as immoral. and religion has absolutely nothing to do with morality, and neither does art nor aesthetics.
i think the best way to describe inter is parasitic. perhaps this is why anyone who tries to defend mourinho’s tactics does so with such aggression – they recognise the inferiority of such a style of play, and wish they didn’t. or maybe i’ll just play the card you played, and say “you just don’t get it”
Perhaps you should try reading his comment again. He actually refers to it being a matter of taste in the second sentence!
“That’s okay if they feel what they watched didn’t please them aesthetically. Didn’t entertain them. Then it’s just a matter of taste.”
What’s wrong is to suggest that it’s not a legitimate way to play. That it’s somehow cheating.
“Perhaps you should try reading his comment again. He actually refers to it being a matter of taste in the second sentence!”
He does indeed, but then unfairly criticises those who point out that inter’s style is not to their tastes:
“Why be close minded and limit what you like about football to whoever passes the ball around the most or who will make the occasional flashy dribble.”
I was pointing out that, speaking for myself, it’s got nothing to do with closed-mindedness or just liking flashy dribbles and short passing. it’s about something deeper than aesthetics.
There’s a massive difference between saying a way of playing is illegitimate/cheating, and saying it’s morally objectionable.
“i think the best way to describe inter is parasitic. perhaps this is why anyone who tries to defend mourinho’s tactics does so with such aggression – they recognise the inferiority of such a style of play, and wish they didn’t. or maybe i’ll just play the card you played, and say “you just don’t get it””
I’d suggest that those who attempt to defend Mourinho’s tactics only respond with aggression because of the fact that they have to defend his tactics in the first place. We should all just agree that there is more than one way to win and be thankful for this fact. If there was a single and right way to do this football/winning thing then we’d either have the best practitioners win all the time or have zero predictability to the game (I don’t know which, I suspect the former).
Then again, I suppose each fan is entitled to their opinions on the matter. I just know that acknowledging and accepting the different ways in which teams win games is the only way I can live with myself as a sports bigamist. My favorite teams are Internazionale and Arsenal (in that order) and it’s been a dramatic and eye-opening year for me from tactical standpoint.
As for passing a verdict on Mourinho’s tactical approach, I’ll just say that the man set his team up to beat what was in front of them. I watched enough Inter games this year (and last) to know that Mourinho did not employ the same approach against every team. Hell, Inter even dominated possession in games against weaker opposition (ask Milan). My preferred style would be the Barcasenal method, but every approach has its flaws. After all, Barcelona managed to beat Inter in the group stages…
Football as art suggests it’s down to a few geniuses winning games. Perhaps a better analogy would be to science, or a craft. Or, befitting a tactics site, warfare…
Also, there are some elements of the game, often attributed to the defensive minded sides, which should worry any neutral observer – cynical fouling, dangerous tackles, time-wasting and other types of gamesmanship.
I actually often find the defensive game much more interesting to think about than attacking, as it is down to tactics, organisation, concentration, etc. Rather than a brilliant solo player cutting through a defence and scoring.
On the point of Jonathan Wilson’s possession theory, take a look at this great little article on the most recent rugby Tri Nations series. Very interesting even if you’re not a fan of rugby…
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/2010-resolution-beat-the-saffa-gameplan/
Bayern were made to look naive, barring the first minute of the second half when they carved Inter up. One of the best examples of their naivety was the moment straight after Butt had saved Sneijder’s shot in the first half when Milito had scored 5 mins beforehand. They should have gone straight on the attack, but ponderously built up play from the back. They simply didn’t realise their opportunity.
ZM, would love to know your thoughts on who would be likely to test out the lack of possession tactic in a month’s time in South Africa by the way. Have Italy been adopting much of this tactic recently?
I think the first time I heard about tactics like these was in a Sven Göran Eriksson interview on Swedish tv while he was at Lazio where he talked about the challenges each week dueling with other Serie A coaches.
He mentioned, with more than a hint of provocation in his voice, that if the other team was in defensive position with everyone basically behind the ball and with clear intentions of relying on transition against his more skilled players, that if his team didn’t have a transition opportunity themselves, it would be better to just refuse to play into those opponents plans and just deliver direct longer balls, he liked to use Veron for this, seeking his forwards in the final third and see if they could create something on their own, since both committing players to go forward in support and passing the ball around risking losing it in a dangerous area, would be playing into the opponent’s transition plans.
Trying to be even more provocative he also mentioned just kicking it out of the park giving the opponents throw ins in their own half or straight out giving their defenders the ball, which would often be the result anyway, so it would be them, not him, with the ball and vulnerable to transition.
You can’t get counter attacked if you never have the ball!
Of course this was just him trying to make a point, maybe even humor the interviewer, but it was definitely something that back then I had never thought about. Actively handing over possession to the opponents! Quite the eye opener, and opposite of typical simplified keep the ball football logic, even if he was just using somewhat extreme examples in trying to make a point that possession alone isn’t everything, and you have to actually be effective with it, one way or other.
that’s interesting .. and probably quite a fun interview.
I just wonder what happens after this ’success’ of reactionist football. Some others already pointed out teams in the World Cup may adopt it and they may be successful …
As we have seen pro-active teams like Barcelona and Bayern found it very difficult to beat a reactionist team … admittedly one that is structured extremely well and executed perfectly .. but also Barcelona and Bayern are the best teams of their kind (at least this year).
Now if more teams adopt a reactionist style and a pro-active approach is not too promising against them, teams will look for a good answer to reactionist football. Sven Göran Eriksson exaggerated (probably intentionally), but he certainly has a point: “You can’t get counter attacked if you never have the ball!” …
It’s just that most likely this *really* is something no one wants to see:
Two reactionist teams playing each other, or a reactionist one and one that replies.
Actually, I can appreciate watching Barca vs Inter (or something similar) just to see whether one can outdo the other. But if I had to imagine two teams ‘reacting’ it would be endlessly boring (however, if they start “kicking it out of the park giving the opponents throw ins in their own half” and other ways to force the other team into possession although they don’t like, it may be get entertaining ..
).
So I just hope rather sooner than later a pro-active team is very successful and no reactionist movement in football starts. If once in a while (say once every ten years) such a team wins it all (because they were prepared excellently and executed perfectly) I can live with it.
Very good to bring up the rugby point, I remember Shaun Edwards saying last year that South Africa are the best team in the world partly beacuse they kick the ball away so well. I hope we do not get to a stage in football where not having the ball is the best way to win otherwise what is the point? if we take the ball out of the game do we just change its name to foot??
I wonder if anyone on here watches Ice Hockey, I’m not a massice fan but have seen a few games and the way Inter defended especially against Barca reminds me of how ice hockey teams defend when they are shorthanded in a power play. I wonder if Mourinho is a secret NHL fan!
“…ponderously built up play from the back…”
I’m a Barca fan and love possession football, but watching Bayern Saturday, I agree their possession seemed “ponderous.” There was no zing to it, the way Barca has when playing its best. The advantage to playing the ball quickly is that each new ball position gives a new array of attacking chances. If the new position is closed down, then quickly move the ball elsewhere to give a new set of chances. In essence, by sitting on the ball 4 seconds when there are open passes available is a waste of half the opportunities that one gets when holding the ball for only 2 seconds.
quick movement also keeps the opposition off-balance as well, having to defend from a new angle every time the ball is shifted. It’s the constant shifts that reveal where defensive cracks may be. When the defensive has double the time to readjust, they have double the time to fix any developing holes.
I don’t think it was necessarily the best way to win. The best way to win might have been if Inter’s (easy to forget now) opening minutes onslaught had continued where they put Bayern under quite a lot of pressure.
Style-wise, albeit just briefly and not to the same brutal extent, kind of similar to how Manchester United put the Bayern defenders under pressure right from the beginning at Old Trafford. It resulted in Inter being right on the brink of some very good chances in the beginning, but some Milito slipping/sliding and Sneijder for once not being close enough to him to receive what looked like a perfect chest-pass that would have resulted in a clear path to goal, prevented them from happening.
But just like against Manchester United I don’t think Bayern’s qualities should be underrated in passing their way into the game so to speak. Playing to clearly one of their strengths. And with that brining a clear Inter into play which is clearly dealing with that defensively, to their credit, cause this was kind of what the Bayern-United game(s) turned into also, better than United did.
I just think that with Bayern showing similar patience as they did against United (there is the tactic/saying “resting with the ball” which I think Van Gaal is a believer in) this game with both team’s characteristics in mind would almost inevitably turn into this and then what Inter did, while perhaps not the optimal way to win, became one way to win. One way, you could say, they unlike United and many other Bayern opponents this season executed really well.
I don’t really think Mourinho intended them to be pushed as far back as they were at times in the second half. This wasn’t 10 men fighting for their lives against an even better team like Barca, but when pushed that far back they dealt with it well, not least exemplified in Eto’s great defensive efforts.
Being able to react or adjust to different situations and flow in a game, that’s also a sign of a very good team, and perhaps not least a very good coach behind it literally pulling the defensive strings.
Now is Eto’o still a better attacking player than a defensive one and is a team better of having him attack more than he defends? Without a doubt, YES.
But with Mourinho having installed this kind of defensive discipline into these attacking players, Pandev and Eto’o (with Mancini and Quaresma he or rather they failed) he is really giving his team some tremendous two-way play options. They’ll defend when needed and at the same time are guaranteed transition threats the other way. Not all players defending can make that claim, just like all attacking players can’t claim to defend very well, and I think it’s extremely valuable in keeping pressure on the opponent. That they have something to worry about both ways.
Eto’o being as known for prolific goalscoring as he is must be the most noteworthy example of this in the Mourinho 4-3-3 variation, but Sneijder too has done things I didn’t think he was really capable of. Most importantly in the home game against Xavi who he marked very effectively while crucially managing to be a tremendously skilled orchestrator of the transition game the other way, executing splendid one touch passes, and with that, with two-way play you could say, got the better of, outplayed even, Xavi’s more or less one-way play.
That’s a great weapon to have. A weapon Mourinho perhaps even deserves credit for, if not creating, then at least installing, and definitely key to that game I thought.
Why does Mourinho want to go to Real Madrid anyway? They won’t let him pick his team, they’ll just get whoever is the costliest player at the time and stuff it to him just like the Shevchenko incident at Chelsea. Besides if he thinks he’s going to transform the circus into something respectable, well that will be his biggest achievement of all.
He should make sure he signs on a 100 million pound severance fee because of the rotating coach system there.
Mourinho seems to have perfected the art, if you can call it that,(I empathisize with all of Steve’s comments above) of defending with 8 men and attacking with 2 or at the most 3 players at a time.
The first goal was the perfect example of the old 1-2-3. The breakdown of the passing statistics is interesting. I am quite interested to know exactly how many passes Sneijder made or even attempted to make to Zanetti, Cambiasso or to any of the defenders. I am guessing the figure will be less than 3. What Inter do effectively is cut out the opposition midfield from the game. One wonders how they will survive against a team which scores first against them, i.e a team which is not Barça and is content to sit back and defend after a goal. The 2 midfielders Zanetti and Cambiasso never move high up the pitch except for the one Zanetti jinking run (that I look out for) in every game.
Bayern showed that their formation was too flat and had no structural capacity for the creation of passing triangles. I have felt this before in the earlier games too although in those the effect was slightly offset by the frequency with which Ribery and Robben passed to each other thus switching flanks and changing the focus of attack. Bayern had only Muller making runs to creat any disturbance in the Inter defense and the Inter defense seemed to ignore those after a certain point. What Bayern seemed to lack was an attacking midfielder who can occupy a position in front of the Inter defense. Van Gaal took off one of his best players in Altentop to further compound his lack of attacking options.
If Barça’s treble last year illustrated the capacity of attacking football and possession of the ball, Inter’s success this year has been achieved largely by relinquishing the ball and controlling space.
Sneijder’s passing breakdown:
Attempted 38
Completed 25
To:
Cesar 0
Zanetti 4
Lucio 1
Etoo 7
Maicon 4
Cambiasso 3
Milito 4
Samuel 0
Chivu 2
Pandev 5
Thanks, I guess the number I suggested was a bit exaggerated but it still illustrates just how direct Inter’s game is. Essentially they try to cut out the midfield both in offense and defense.
“What Bayern seemed to lack was an attacking midfielder who can occupy a position in front of the Inter defense.” Actually Van Gaal is working on it. They get Kroos back from Leverkusen, a young no.10 who really made an impact last season. I expect them to line up most of the time like this next year:
…………Butt………………
Lahm-Demichelis-Badstuber-Contento
…..Schweinsteiger-Van Bommel….
……..Robben-Kroos-Ribery…….
…………..Gomez…………..
Kroos should make a big impact. Would have been interesting had he fired Leverkusen to the title…
…..the match was won by Sneijder and Milito outplaying Demichelis and van Buytan … for the first goal Demichelis let Milito head the ball to Sneijder, then Demichelis was to slow when the ball came back to Milito… the second goal was the result of a similar situation plus a brilliant finish from Milito…
…both goals a result of quite simple and efficient football and the right moves at the right time and a brilliant finish….Bayern did not much wrong, just 2 mistakes too much….
Bayern don’t deserve to be in the final. It’s nice to see them beaten.
huh?
I think he means they were quite fortunate to get through, at times. I think Inter v Barca was the ‘real’ final.
I’ve see some comment up there which more like “fanboy” point-of-view. I respect some people who love to watch more attacking tactics vs attacking tactics, just like my respect for Arsenal who held their style against Barcelona even though they were flooded 4 goals and had another trophy-less for life period.
But mocking other team tactics (which more suited to the team) is quite off-rail opinion. Even further, saying how easier to train to be defensive than offensive, that’s really absent-minded argument. Is it a crime now using your best suited tactics? You have great back and defensive-instict midfielder but just few creative player and one sharpshooter striker – so why you don’t utilize that to fully potential?!
Defensive more easy?! I’ve spent years seeing in my local league some team use defensive style and what happen? They still get relegated and become “goal bank” for other team.
I think that I do slightly disagree with inter being a strictly defensive team I think with the ball they are 1 of the best attacking teams in the world, I don’t think their counter attacking quality can be bettered by any team in the world. In possession they are very positive in all areas of the park, they are very direct with the passing and play perfectly to the attacking qualities of their players. Out of possession they make them selves hard to break down I just think that is intelligent play, surely out of possession every team is defensive, maybe inter bring more players back to defend but so what. I think if anything it is harder to attack the way they do with the precision, speed and quality after commiting so many players back. I’m a arsenal fan who has seen my team beaten in much the same way many times this season against Chelsea, man united and even man city; I love the beautiful football we are capable of playing, and obviously barca but also I’m amazed at the counter attacking of Inter as a team, which is no less amazing to watch. Also milito yesterday his hold up play and tireless running was outstanding. He is an absolute expert in what we would say would be making it stick. He is always an option for sneijder and aside from his 2 goals and with cambiasso was the best player for inter yesterday.
Great analysis as always. I agree that Inter are fully deserved winners. Mourinho deserves utmost respect for this remarkable triumph. And I’d add one more reason they’ve been so good this season: they do not have Zlatan Ibrahimovic. When they had him, they could not attack properly, had no coherence going forward and had to rely on hitting the ball towards him and hoping he’d Kung-Fu it into the net. With the mediocrity of most Serie A teams in the last few seasons, he managed to do this a lot. Inter also had a good defense and defensive midfielders, so they were very solid at the back. But they had no proper attacking plan or coherence going forward. Still, that was enough for them to beat enough mediocre Serie A side to secure the title. But every time they’d come up against solid Champions League teams, their woeful attack is exposed, Zlatan bottles it and his Kung-Fu kick end up being more like a pantomime performance on the futility of life in football.
With Zlatan gone and replaced by the hard-working Eto’o and Milito, and with the genius Sneijder in place, Inter have developed a proper attacking team that has won everything.
I’ll give one more whip to this dead horse: the Zlatan/Eto’o transfer was the best/worst transfer in football history for Inter/Barca. Barca paid 45m Euros and lost Eto’o in order to get a Zlatan who choked in the big games and didn’t fit with their gameplan, while Inter got rid of Zlatan, developed a proper gameplan, and got Eto’o, Milito, Sneijder, Pnadcev, and Motta with that cash.
I’ve read all the above comments and also all the online newspaper stories around Mourinho this morning, and its very clear to me that people see Mourinho as a “win first, entertain second” type of manager (which is probably very true) and see other managers like Van Gaal and Wenger as “entertain first, hope we then win” (as Van Gaal sees himself) type of manager. Regardless of whether people believe football should be played in an open, attacking style, or a defensive, mug-them-on-the-break style, we should consider only one thing when talking about the job Mourinho has done at Inter; His brief at the club was to WIN the Champions League.
His brief was NOT to entertain the Inter fans and the rest of the world with the beautiful game, thereby earning a place in people’s hearts in the process, but to simply make sure that at the end of a Champions League final, it was the captain of Internazionale who would be lifting the trophy aloft (the reason I say A Champions League final and not THIS Champions League final is because his brief at the start of his time with Inter did not stipulate that he had to win the Champions League at the end of THIS season – if he did not win it this year then he may well have stayed on at Inter and had another crack at it next year – maybe not, but things have all worked out well for him…..). The fact that he HAS done it in his second season with Inter makes it all the more remarkable.
It’s also interesting that with all of Mourinho’s talk of Barcalona’s “Obsession” (as Mourinho put it) with lifting the Champions League Trophy at Real Madrid’s home ground, Mourinho has been a part of another similar “Obsession” at Inter: namely, Massimo Morratti’s “Obsession” with emulating his father’s success at Inter by winning the Champions League for the first time in 45 years.
We should not criticise Mourinho for applying very defensive tactics at Inter, as that was what he thought was the best way to achieve, with the players he had at the club and the players he could get last year, what he’d been brought in to do: i.e. win the Champions League.
Real Madrid, however, is a very different proposition to Inter, with the majority of players now at the club being World-Class attacking players who don’t like to – or know how to – defend. If Mourinho achieves the same levels of success at Real Madrid by turning them into a defensive-oriented team (like Inter) then I would not begrudge anyone critisising Mourinho for being a functional, dour, park-the-bus type of manager (even though it again would have proven highly successful) as that is the type of manager he would prove to be. But, it will be VERY interesting to see what he does with the team and how he goes about trying to make them win. I, for one, hope he can make them perform in a brilliantly balanced way, attacking with the flair and fluidity of Barca/Arsenal/1970Brazil, but defending like we know he can make a team defend. With the players already there and the money he’ll have to spend, he could create the GREATEST football team of all time……let’s see what happens, and reserve judgment on his style of football until then………..
very true and insightful – you’re right, mourinho did achieve what was asked of him, within a short amount of time too. that shouldn’t be taken away from him.
i agree that it will be fascinating to see who madrid buy, and how they play, under mourinho next season. maybe he’ll shock us and get a squad of galacticos together, playing expansive football but with the same teamwork and understanding as his inter side. that would be something
http://www.goal.com/en/news/1717/editorial/2010/05/23/1938145/cl-comment-play-like-barcelona-win-like-barcelona-lose-like
ZM edit: If pasting an article that long, can you leave a hyperlink instead? Many thanks.
great comment
Great comment. Can I copy this?
so you agree then papyrus, that “It’s tough to win a Champions League final, and even harder to do it with flair…”, despite your earlier post?
(“saying how easier to train to be defensive than offensive, that’s really absent-minded argument”)
great copy/pasting from goal.com
http://www.goal.com/en/news/1717/editorial/2010/05/23/1938145/cl-comment-play-like-barcelona-win-like-barcelona-lose-like
I think Bayern were a bit unlucky…i thought they start outplaying Inter around 30th minute mark and Inter were really in troubles at that time…Bayern didn’t create any chances but I thought they would score soon if they would keep what they were doing…and then came Inter’s goal in 35th minute – not some well played actione either, Julio Cesar “clearing” the ball far away and then nice work from Milito and Sneijder and a mistake by Bayern’s defense… in 2nd half again Bayern pressured them, created some chances, and I thought they were going to get a goal before the end of the match if they could keep it up and then Inter scored in one of their rare chances in the 2nd half
I think Inter were more “clever” than Bayern and they were fortunate to score at the right moments…they used their chances and Bayern did not and they are deserved winners
mourinho’s the future of football then: both teams coming away from a match with 16% possession each and the rest split between various ballboys. players from both sides shunning the ball as if it were a leper. can’t wait.
sounds like great fun.
or why not train exclusively by practicing penalties and then let one of the keepers keep the ball for 120 minutes. both sides have a chance of winning, but if you’ve assembled and trained a squad of great penalty takers then you’re playing to your strengths, and should win. this is a different way of playing so we dare not criticise it, for fear of being labelled a religious fundamentalist (see lippi-kai-yay earlier)
“i think the best way to describe inter is parasitic. perhaps this is why anyone who tries to defend mourinho’s tactics does so with such aggression – they recognise the inferiority of such a style of play, and wish they didn’t. or maybe i’ll just play the card you played, and say “you just don’t get it””
I’d suggest that those who attempt to defend Mourinho’s tactics only respond with aggression because of the fact that they have to defend his tactics in the first place. We should all just agree that there is more than one way to win and be thankful for this fact. If there was a single and right way to do this football/winning thing then we’d either have the best practitioners win all the time or have zero predictability to the game (I don’t know which, I suspect the former).
Then again, I suppose each fan is entitled to their opinions on the matter. I just know that acknowledging and accepting the different ways in which teams win games is the only way I can live with myself as a sports bigamist. My favorite teams are Internazionale and Arsenal (in that order) and it’s been a dramatic and eye-opening year for me from tactical standpoint.
As for passing a verdict on Mourinho’s tactical approach, I’ll just say that the man set his team up to beat what was in front of them. I watched enough Inter games this year (and last) to know that Mourinho did not employ the same approach against every team. Hell, Inter even dominated possession in games against weaker opposition (ask Milan). My preferred style would be the Barcasenal method, but every approach has its flaws. After all, Barcelona managed to beat Inter in the group stages…
This is a great point, because people assume that Mourinho just plays to score a goal and then defend… which is false. I watched many Inter’s games at the Serie A in this season, and I can certainly say that they also play offensive and “positive”. Take the game against Chievo Verona for example, where they won 4-3. They started losing 1-0, then managed to get the score to 4-1 and they relaxed somewhat (big mistake from Inter) and Verona approached the tie with other 2 goals, making the score 4-3.
How did Inter respond to Chievo Verona’s rise? Easy, they attacked… they started to possess the ball… and yes, they played in Chievo Verona’s field… and it worked fine for them. Verona didn’t create another dangerous opportunity… and Inter had the chance to score the 5-3…
Same happened against Siena… Siena in fact, played quite defensively against Inter (or perhaps they didn’t have another alternative, who knows?)… Inter was looking for the goal to get the Championship (specially after Roma scored their goal against Verona) and they managed to get it. After that, yes, Inter stopped pressing and played more defensive… but that doesn’t mean that they gave up on ball possession… in fact, Inter had the chance to score another goal, but it wasn’t accomplished.
At the end of the game, they defended by possessing the ball in Siena’s field…
Surely, that’s quite different from what they showed at the Champions… but it shows that they know how to manage different styles and tactics… and that Mourinho does not just rely on “score a goal and park the bus” style.
Once again, I should restate that Inter was losing 1-0 against Barcelona and they managed to score 3 goals against. They surely didn’t score those 3 goals by parking the bus.
Look at the third goal of Inter in that Semifinal leg… they scored that goal after pressing Barça’s defense… it wasn’t a counter-attack. The first goal of Inter in that game was a good offensive play… and yes, Inter’s second goal was a counter-attack… can you blame them for that?
it’s just a moot point to discuss games against teams like siena and chievo – inter have some of the very very best, most experienced, most technically gifted and most creative footballers on the planet. of course they are going to dominate against weaker teams in their own league.
inter’s goals against barca/bayern came either as a direct or indirect result of completely giving up the initiative, and prying on the opposition’s willingness to try and take the initiative themselves. circumstance dictated that the third goal was needed against barca, as well as the 2nd goal against chelsea – they’d conceded an away goal. let’s not pretend that it was mourinho playing with joie de vivre. he knew a one goal lead was enough to sut up shop vs chelsea, but he needed a two goal advantage to park the bus at camp nou.
it’s clear that most people couldn’t care less whether mpourinho’s team play with joie de vivre, and good luck to you. doesn’t mean i and a few others aren’t allowed to disagree though does it?
Well, knowing how to manage the circumstances of the game is also part of football and tactics. And yes, they knew that just 1 goal of advantage against Barça wasn’t enough, but in order to get that third goal, they had to go forward… they had to play more openly… in fact, that game was quite entertaining… that’s my point. They took the “hard way” to get that advantage.
I didn’t say that Inter’s style was the best or the only valid one (nor that you aren’t allowed to dislike Inter’s tactics and therefore disagree)… Barça’s and Bayern’s style are quite good as well and they win Championships as well… but I’m saying that Inter’s style is also good, valid (because some people compare it to cheating) and certainly isn’t easy to manage.
Every style has it’s advantages and flaws… in this case, Inter’s style against Barça and Bayern has the flaw that it isn’t planned to stop defenders/midfielders on the offensive. Pique’s goal and Van Bommel’s shot shows this.
Problem is that you’re not merely disagreeing, though. You’re actually dismissing Mourinho and Inter’s achievements as being “easy” and “anyone can do that”. But you’re very, very wrong. Playing in the counter-attacking style takes great coaching and great playing. It is just as difficult to train counter-attacking and defensive football as it is to train circulation football. Circulation football is only harder to play because it is riskier. But it’s not harder to COACH. It has different difficulties to counter-attacking play, but both styles are difficult nonetheless.
didnt once say it was easy, didnt once say anyone could do it. show me where i’ve said that.
what i’ve said is that adopting a reactive as opposed to positive mindset is the easier way of doing things – not as in it’s easier to prepare tactics in this way, but that it’s the easier road or approach to adopt – prying on your opponents willingness to attack/create/entertain is easier than trying to do those things yourself.
it is parasitic. being a parasite isnt easy, but it’s just easier to choose to feed off of others.
Not to be tactically naive or anything… but what about Bayern’s new kit? Awful design.
I’ll co-sign you on that one. It’s an anniversary commemoration year and the kit is supposed to reflect that. The problem with harkening back to past designs is that those cool/old designs often lacked the extraneous crap like sponsors, logos (beyond the badge) and the trefoil stripes (with one awesome exception being the 70’s Holland strip).
It’s rank, and changing your kit to next year’s one for the final is a bit rubbish, I think. You should play the season-defining game in the kit you’ve worn all season. Ditto Chelsea FA Cup final. Marketing nonsense.
All in all I think Inter played a bad game, but their defenders, especially Julio Cesar, Lucio, Samuel, and Cambiasso bailed the team out.
First off, there was no question that Chivu could not handle Robben. The Dutchman was too fast and skilled for him. The yellow card in 1st half was a sure sign of this. The other defenders did well to stop Robben and Lahm creating any end product, but with better strikers Bayern should have scored.
Second, this is Bayern Munich, not FC Barcelona, and yet Inter conceded more possessions than necessary. With Cambiasso and Zanetti in midfield, they did not have to drop so close near their box. ZM suggested that Inter’s numerical advantage allowed Sneijder to have more free space, but it rarely showed. The first goal was more of a lapse in defense than a tactical issue. There was no excuse for offering Sneijder that much free space.
Actually the first goal exposed that Inter was losing the battle of midfield. Bayern dominated possession, and although they rarely threatened Julio Cesar into action, Inter did not create anything either until a good kick from Cesar that Milito did well to head to Sneijder. There was no build up involved in the first goal. And the reason of Inter losing midfield? Well, Thiago Motta’s absence played a big part. Cambiasso and Zanetti were both very defensive minded and both were not great passers. They dropped far too deep, and as a result Inter had trouble transitioning from defense to offense build up.
And lastly, Goran Pandev conceded possession too cheaply. He had plenty of the ball, but most of the time he either drew a foul or lost the ball. In short, he made it even harder for Inter to build up an offense.
In the end though, Inter needed no buildup to score goals. Milito’s brilliant finish was enough to win them the game, but one could always wonder if Bayern had better central defenders, the story might have been different.
I’ll concede that Inter was also lucky in the game. Not because of Ribery’s absence (that was his fault and Bayern’s mistake), but because Bayern had the chance to score the 1-1 at the start of the Second Half and yes, the referee didn’t rule a penalty for Bayern on the first half.
But then again, tell me a Champion that wasn’t a bit lucky along the road. Many praise Barça for their Treble in the past season, but seem to forget that the referee’s errors helped them to get past the Semifinal against Chelsea.
Not to mention that Bayern also had their luck towards their way to the final. The Second Goal against Fiorentina in Munich for example. Which was a clear offside.
Hail an accurate reading of the Inter midfield.
Inter’s individuals played terribly, but defended fantastically as a team. Pandev kept losing the ball, and Chivu kept losing Robben; Inter’s entire right flank, consisting of such terrifying players in attack as Maicon & Eto’o, completely disappeared during the game (although, to be fair, so did Badstuber and Altintop). Milito did manage to get the ball from punts upfield, but didn’t manage much with it (I refrain from commenting on his slipping). Zanetti attempted to drag the ball upfield, so dire was their buildup…
message for steve: Thanks very much for your reply to my comment earlier on, I truly appreciate your acknowledgment. Having read your comments throughout this forum I will give you my opinion on a couple of things you said:
Firstly, your opening comment regarding the “party Gatecrashers” did not work, in my opinion – I quote: “Ought we to admire these gatecrashers; their preparation, their patience, their cunning, their sense of timing, their opportunism, their organisation?”
– the reason I don’t think your analogy works is because these “Gatecrashers” are not supposed to have anything to do with the “party” at all; they turn up uninvited and unwanted and proceed to commit actions which are nothing short of Illegal (you mentioned them “stealing”). Inter, however, were wholly justified to be a part of the final last night, having qualified for it legally (within football’s own rules of course). The fact that they chose to conduct themselves in an arrogant way (by letting Bayern have the ball and exposing their over-exuberance by penetrating the space they left behind – i.e. a posh way of saying they played on the counter-attack) was their own choice (well, Mourinho’s choice) based on their belief that it would be the best way for them to win the match (which turned out to be the case, as my original comment pointed out). I hope you don’t take too much offence at me saying that, I’m just being honest…..(anyway, read on…..)
I do feel, however, another comment you made later on was quite brilliant. I quote:
“think of the different theories for how the universe began. it’s much easier to sit back and criticise these than to come up with a substantial account of one’s own. it’s easier to read a book than to write one, easier to watch a film than direct one. it’s easier to win being mourinho’s inter than it is being guardiola’s barca”
I definitely think that if Mourinho had tried to play “the beautiful game” with the players he has at Inter, then he would have been beaten somewhere along the way by either Chelsea/Barca or Bayern, because the players at Inter are not quite good enough to beat other World-Class attacking teams at their own game. Again, and I’m sure you’ll agree with me on this point, the fact that Mourinho DID find a way to beat these teams using the players he had at Inter is a highly impressive feat in itself, and any praise due Mourinho (and his players) “shouldn’t be taken away from him.” (I’ve quoted you again there).
Now he’s got his chance at a club where he doesn’t have to be pragmatic with whats available (i.e. Real Madrid) lets hope he doesn’t take the easy option and actually tries to play football from another planet……cheers steve.
again, almost completely in agreement with you my friend. yes the party analogy was rather silly – but i am still tempted to get on my high horse and say that while there are legal laws, there are also moral laws and duties which i wish people felt obliged towards, even if the law doesnt oblige them.
also, don’t you think the likes of maicon, zanetti, lucio, sneijder, eto’o and milito are right up there with the very best in the world? i bet mourinho would love to take them with him to real. i reckon with those players he could have overwhelmed bayern by playing in a very attacking way, with a high defensive line, and with the very same players he sent out.
good chatting with you
I think Milito probably isn’t quite a “World-Class” striker (I don’t think he’s in the same class as Drogba/Torres/Rooney), even though he did a very good job of looking like one last night. Zanetti’s too old now for Real Madrid, I don’t think Lucio would be a success at Real Madrid (see calvin’s comment at 6:26pm), maybe Sneijder would go back – would the Real fans want Eto’o (ex Barca)? Maicon should definitely go (although Real have Sergio Ramos at right-back who I think is good in that position)……my thought at this moment is that Mourinho should play Ronaldo up front, that would limit the amount of defensive work he would be required to do (how many times did we see him, at Man Utd, lose the ball, stand still and just throw his arms in the air, instead of trying to win it back)…..all of todays papers are saying Mourinho is going to go for Steven Gerrard…..what do you reckon?
Milito looks like one of the most intelligent strikers in the game today. As someone above said Milito has the ability to occupy both central defenders and still find the space to finish or assist a goal.
Personally, I am praying Maradona starts him ahead of Palermo, Tevez, Aguero and Higuain.
Well, most reports mention that Mourinho’s wishlist includes Maicon, Kolarov (left-back from Lazio), a midfielder, a winger plus a target-man striker.
In the case of the midfielder and the striker, it seems that Mourinho is trying to convince the Madrid hierarchy to sign veterans in the form of Lampard/Gerrard and Drogba/Milito, which flies in the face of Perez’s modus operandi.
It also seems that player sales will be needed to finance part of Mourinho’s acquisitions. The most lucrative sales (for Madrid) would be those of Kaka and Higuain, though for obvious reasons Perez would be most reluctant and egg-faced at having to relinquish a flagship signing. COnversely, Higuain has never been the president’s player, has been shabbily treated by Florentino’s house organ ‘Marca’ and is still highly valued around Europe (by any objective observer). What is jarring however, is that surely Higuain represents the kind of attacking player Mourinho would love to have – he is selfless, and can do a job in many a position. YOu could see Higuain diligently filling in the Etoo/Pandev role as per yesterday’s game.
truthandinsight
I agree on Milito not quite the world class striker. He has scored a bucket full of goals because he gets plenty of space and time under Jose’s counter attcking game plan. But when he plays for Argentina, he won’t have the same luxury as he will be operating in a morr crowded space. It is not that he has suddenly developed rapidly at such late in his career. It is just due to Jose’s tactical organisation that allows his to flourish.
good spot calvin – I definitely agree with you. I think Maradona has to play Tevez in South Africa – I think he is a “World-Class” forward…..
Milito’s scored a bucket full of goals everywhere he’s been — five out of the last six seasons he’s scored twenty or more. How many other strikers can say that?
You can’t complain about being compared to (not called, just compared to) a religious zealot when you start attaching claims of objective moral worth to what is actually just your preferred tactical set-up. Football’s only commandments are the rules of the game, and for anything that “ungentlemanly conduct” doesn’t take care of – feigning injury, diving, hassling the ref, kicking players out of the game all fall here – it is meet and right so to do, if I may maintain the religious tone.
When winning becomes secondary, sport becomes boring. The more impressive the style with which you win, the better – the more you’ll be loved by neutrals, the greater your name will stand in history – but once winning’s not the principal objective, all we’re watching is figure-skating – pretty patterns for pretty patterns sake.
Team sport’s about winning. It’s why, for all the opprobrium sent Inter’s way, everyone cheers the plucky FA Cup underdogs – because even when they scrap, even when they cede your “moral” victory, they can still claim the only victory that counts.
Personally, as I believe I’ve said to you before, I much preferred the Arsenal teams that used to counter-attack, rather than play the percentages. If you look up any “greatest Arsenal goals” compilations, it would seem to be a widely-held opinion. Henry, Bergkamp, Pires, Ljunberg tearing teams apart in 5 passes was just beautiful. But it wasn’t morally superior: if it never worked, I’d expect them to stop doing it.
“say you’re one of them religious nuts reading this” – doesn’t seem like a comparison to me.
i’m not attaching objective moral worth to anything, i’m saying i believe that we see football, as we do everything in life, through our own subjective moral standards, in the same way as we all see different aesthetic value in things.
so why can’t i say how i see mourinho’s intentions in a moral sense? what on earth has that got to do with religion, or fundamentalism? i accept everyone doesn’t share my moral outlook, and i don’t expect them to.
i disagree that team sport’s about winning first and foremost. i think it’s about how you compete first and foremost. that’s not to say winning isn’t important – i desperately want to see the team who competes in what i consider the right way succeed, and that’s why i was so dissappointed that inter beat barca and bayern.
again, i’m not saying everyone has to be dissappointed, or share my views about what’s the right way to compete. some people, and you seem to be one of them, think the only right way is to obey the laws of the game. fair enough.
on the fa cup, the point is that the underdogs aren’t competing on the same level. we wouldn’t criticise people who were starving through no fault of their own, for stealing a rich man’s food, for instance. but in the champions league, and especially a team like inter with all its millions and all its talent, the playing field is level.
on the arsenal team that counter-attacked, they were simply incomparable with mourinho’s inter. they cherished the ball just like the current arsenal side, but were just better at winning at back when they lost it, and more dangerous when they won it back.
Folks
Allow me to present my 2 cents worth of opinion on the 2 issues.
1. Inter the deserving winner ?
Football rules say that the team that scores the most goals win the game.As such, there’s no disputing the fact that Inter’s the deserving and worthy winner, irrespective of their tactical approach.
The only way we can question the winning team is when they win with a questionable goal(s) and/or using illegal tactics.In this case we surely cannot argue about the scoreline, Inter scored two superbly crafted and executed goals of supreme skill.
However, on the other hand football is the most popular sports in the world and dubbed as the beautiful game for providing the fans far more than the bottomline result. If football is all about result, then football would never be as popular.
The Brazil team of 1982 and the Dutch team of 1974, for example, are fondly remembered by many of us despite not winning any major trophies.
As such, Jose’s negative approach can only augers poorly for football. I m not against good defending but when you are putting 9 to 10 players behind the ball for 90 minutes, that’s not football.
2. Jose the master tactician ?
I enjoy reading ZM’s articles, which are far more insightful and objective than the inane commentaries by TV pundits and clueless journalists who fill pages after page of utter nonsense.
However, I think there is a common misunderstanding among I some people here and elsewhere about Jose’s supposed tactical mastery.
I think we need to separate the team orientation and tactics. I would term team orientation as the approach or philosophy and the tactics as something more specific that could vary depending on specific situation, opponents, etc.
With Inter and many of his previous teams, Jose’s orientation was defensive. There is a huge difference between choosing a defensive orientation and a defensive tactics. The team that choose the defensive orientation is structured such way that the entire team is a single cohesive,defensive unit including the strikers.
This is very different from a team that choses to defend for a particular (for example, an away game) by fielding a more defensive players and instructing the other players to do more defending.
But it is much harder even for a team like Barcelona to beat a defensively orientated team than a team that chooses defensive tactics for that particular occasion. This is because the former has been well drilled for months in the art of distruptive (or perhaps destructive) football, just like Inter under Jose.
When you have 9 or 10 players behind the ball who had been drilled for months to play a defensive formation, you don’t have to be a tactical mastermind to snuff out even very good teams like FCB, Chelsea or Bayern. The only thing you need is a few players of pace and skills to counter attack and score.
While many people had been singing praise of Sneijder and Milito, we need to take cognizance of the fact that the reason they have excelled and scored is that they had been given much space by their more offensive opponents.
Make no mistake, both of them are excellent players but they are no better than Messi,Robben or Ribery and many other players. If these players had been given the same space and time as the Inter duo, I am sure they would have scored even more goals.
The reason the Inter due had not been as succesful before coming to Inter is also due to the same reason. So dubbing Milito as world’s best striker is rather overstating it.
So while Jose’s ability to turn Inter into European Champions are commendable, but this has to do more with his defensive orientation and his ability in drilling his team in closing the space and maintaining tactical discipline than a mastery of tactics.
really liked this post calvin, your distinction between orientation and tactics really highlights the issue. i think the way a team defends becomes more tactical, the more attacking their orientation is.
that’s why it’s so ironic that when people point out and question wholly defensive orientations, they are accused of not being interested in/ aware of tactics
1.
Inter score 17 goals in this year Championship League
Barcelona score 20 goals
Bayern Munchen score 20 goals
When you put it like this is not that big difference, right?
“negative” approach? Thats subjective category. Except from second leg of Barcelona-Inter (which by the way was 11 against 10 players for 70 minutes), Inter played all their games in balanced and “we want to win (by scoring more goals than you)” mentallity. Yes somethimes they were 9 men behiind the ball, but recall some 10-15 minutes intervals in matches against Chelsea, Barcelona and Bayern when they were pressing their opponents and making chances or forcing corners and free-kicks.
Plus is it Inter fault that they rarely went goal behind? Can you say they don`t play almost 70 minutes attacking like crazy against Dinamo Kiev? Or against CSKA? When they needed goals? Can you say they play “negative” after falling 0-1 behind against Barcelona?
That is why this category is subjective. Who knows how would Inter played yesterday if Bayern scored first goal, would you bet that Inter would keep waiting for open space and counter -attacks or that they would press Bayern players on their own half? It could go both ways… we`ll never know.
“That`s not football” (your words)
Maybe not to you, but Inter are champions of the Europe, and Mourinho is next manager of Real Madrid (team who play attacking football all season and failed to get any results that really matters). Also look at world headlines, no one called Inter “negative” tactical team, instead Inter are this year praised as most-cunning, most-intelligent and most-stronger side in the Europe with highly-recognized defense system plus arguably one of the best strikers in the world and longly expected world class trequartista. You can call all of them lunatics, or you can correct yourself and admit that playing against top sides/players in the world is not all about beautifull style of play but also outsmarting them… which Inter undoubtedly do it.
2.
I can agree with you that Inter use defensive orientation, but rest o your text is just ridiculous.
Are you aware of styles of play? Italian football teams use defensive orientation from beggining of football, English teams use long balls and Spanish teams use passing football and “defending with ball”. Yes styles are mixed nowdays, but main characteristics remains in some shape. We still say that “you can`t score with header against english teams”; or “hideing the ball- like Barcelona, Brazil or Spain play”; and we know “that Italian teams play tough defense and they can defend with all their players”.
“When you have 9 or 10 players behind the ball who had been drilled for months to play a defensive formation, you don’t have to be a tactical mastermind to snuff out even very good teams like FCB, Chelsea or Bayern. The only thing you need is a few players of pace and skills to counter attack and score.” (your words)
This is probably the most ridiculous part of your text. So why Inter were 45 years without CL? Were managers like Trapattoni, Suárez, Hodgson, Simoni, Lippi, Cúper, Zaccheroni, Mancini unaware of that? Play total defense and just buy few players of pace and skills (Recoba, Ibrahimović, Ronaldo, Sosa, Crespo, Klinsmann, Djorkaeff, Bergkamp, Baggio, Seedorf, Verón, van der Meyde, Batistuta, Kily González). If you came up earlier with this brilliant suggestion, you would save Moratti some bilion of euros. Fact is that is not that simple like you put it. None of the former managers get even close to what Mourinho done this year with Inter (to be exact, no Italian team done what Inter done this year, treble… never). If you doubt Mourinho as master-tactician that speak more about you instead of him.
Daniel
1. That’s why I mentioned that Inter only adopts an offensive style against weaker teams and also when they needed goals.When facing stronger teams, they retract to their shells and erect their human wall.
2. Don’t misunderstand my comments for I have nothing against teams using defensive tactics or orientations. But as a nuetral, football loving fan I certainly prefer a more attacking and attractive team (not necessarily a team that has an offensive orientation since offensive does not always equate to attractive). If football were to put result above everything,like in business, that would surely kill the game. Football would become a game to be endured than enjoyed.
I am certainly aware of the Italian traditions on defensive orientation and tactics. But I am sure you know that since the 90s such tradition and tactics no longer widely adopted and the Italians have reverted to a move positive and attractive style of play. I am sure that using an entirely a defensive orientation that the olden Italian teams adopted long ago is accetable to most fans in Italy.That’s why even Inter did not utilise such approach before. Jose. What Jose did was a reversion (or regression, depending on how you see it) to the old Italian tradition. That’s why even in Italy while Inter’s success is admired but unloved by the nuetral fans.
as a neutral fan, i was awed at the way Inter were defending against barcelona.
Total respect is what i have for that team.
And calvin, they did score 3 against Barca.
They’ve attacked when they’ve needed to and defended when required.
You dont go on an all out attack when yo have a 2-goal lead and you’re playing away.
you protect that lead, and thats what Inter did.
Here’s my opinion on this:
- Inter won the Champions League, which leads to 1) the players getting more famous and raise their market value, 2) mourinho getting even more famous and having another chance to say whatever he wants (BECAUSE HE WON), 3) another trophy to Inter, that lifts them in the rankings;
- If you say that it’s easier to win using a defensive tactic, then why didn’t the teams inter faced use the same defensive tactics ? That way the outcome could be different;
- Winning games brings money and fame, “playing well by fanboys standards” brings joy to the minds of those who lose, as it is always an excuse;
- Those guys on the field are paid for winning games, not for “playing well”. While we are sitting in front of the computer, making up excuses to hide the fact that our dream would be winning the Champions League (even if we had to play by Inter’s Mourinho standards).
AMEN to that!
thanks mate.
thank god you dont speak for everyone
I just want your opinion about the second topic of my list, the one that says “If you say that (…)”.
because they stick to their principles, and want to do more than just win
So this concludes our discussion : we have very different points of view and each is equally valid. No need to argue more.
Thats a little bit like politics…
You say, the world is bad so I have to be bad myself. But then you are, at the same time, the reason for the world to be bad.
As a fan, i can decide which type of football i like. And so demand that from my team. there is nothing wrong with idealism. And if you say, it’s more important for you to win whatever it takes, you can’t complain that you’re not loved by all…
but I don’t complain, mate, neither does mourinho
hey, i dont love Barca, they cheat.
a LOT.
they dont stop play when someone’s injured … i cud go on all day.
No wonder they on 6 trophies last season.
I also disagree that Samuel and Lucio are outstanding players who had been developed into a formidable CB combination by Jose.
They have been outstanding because of the ultra defensive orientation of Jose’s Inter. By having the midfield play so close to the defence, Jose has put an additional protective shield and also narrowed the space where the opponents can play a pass. This has made Lucio and Samuel’s job much easier.
Lucio was known as an erratic defender when he was at Bayern and Bayer. He was outstanding going forward and scoring but exhibited poor tactical discipline and positioning.
In fact even this season when Inter played a more attacking game against weaker teams, one can see Lucio and Samuel making similar mistakes.
I completely agree, and thats why Mourinho did such a good job at Inter, because he made sure that his defenders weren’t put in a position where they were going to make mistakes that they were likely to make. Van Gaal, however, ultimately got it wrong, because by playing in such an open way he expsoed his defenders into making their own defensive mistakes (all through the season the top pundits on Television have been saying that the Bayern centre backs are dodgy, and its that exact weakness that has ended up costing them the Champions League). If Van Gaal had signed some better centre backs then they wouldn’t have let in the goals they did let in last night. If Van Gaal was not able to get any better centre backs, then its his own foolishness for setting up the team to play in a way that allowed those centre backs to make the mistakes they made. Inter only allowed Lucio and Samuel to be exposed against teams who did not have attackers with sufficient quality to take advantage of their defensive frailties (what you’ve labelled as “weaker teams”).
having just read what I’ve written above, I do think that Inter could have won if they had played in a more open style, but it would have given Bayern more chances to score goals…..therefore Mourinho played it “safe”, and played to percentages by saying to his team: “if we don’t let them score, then we’re bound to score at some point and we’ll win”, an attitude that I can see steve is not wholly averse to (or even partly averse to….). It definitely would have made a more entertaining final, which I think Inter could have still won, but Mourinho didn’t care about that, he just cared about not losing…….
good points, but lets not forget that it was LvG first season with Bayern and therefore the final was a great achievement. He changed style and promoted a lot of very young players (Mueller, Contendo, Alaba, Badstuber). E.g. Badstuber is a very talented CB and I’m sure that we will see him one day as a CB and not on the left….he changed Schweinsteiger’s (came also from Bayern’s youth like Philip Lahm) role to a DM and he played a great season… they have now a very good mixture of experienced and young players and with Toni Kroos another young talented player (could play the 10) from there own youth comes back (he was seconded to Leverkusen). Ribery had a catastrophic year (a lot of persistant injuries and I guess he went also through some identification processes
) but he is on his way back now…..
…it will be very intersting to watch this team the next season when LvG don’t have to start at zero…..
I totally agree with you on this. As said before about Inter being Mourinhos team this year, next year’s Bayern will be Van Gaal’s team.
In my opinion the whole game was decided by the errors made by Demichelis and van Buyten. With a little luck Bayern could have won it as well (penalty 1st half, Muller’s chance). It was really a 50:50 game. It was not an easy won final for Inter despite the weaknesses of the CBs. And I think this the really remarkable achievment of Van Gaal. He created a team that could play on par with the best teams in Europe. And as Van Gaal said himself, that this was only the beginning and that his team could play better than last season.
As to the future, I expect the German teams to return to the European stage. I am convinced that Werder Bremen,Schalke,Bayern and possibly Bayer Leverkusen will play a major role again.
I think having Toni Kroos is good but I am wondering where LvG going to fit him in in in the team as the team already have a settled look offensively. I like Kroos and he has a great future not only in Germany but international level as well. But I am also concerned that Bayern already have a misalignment between its defence/offence. By having Kroos it could make the balance even worse. LvG need to have more tactically flexible players who could play in a wider variety of roles and help the defence when Bayern lose the ball.
Bayern also need to revamp its defense and get rid of DeMichellis and/or Van Buyen and replace them with younger and quicker players. Badstuber is a natural choice but I am hoping they could get someone of the caliber of Vidic.
In midfield they are already strong but perhaps Schweinsteiger’s role need to finetuned. To me he’s an outstanding but often overlooked player. But the problem with him movement and passing. He must know when to pass the ball quicker as he has the tendency to slow down the game and this allows the opposition to close the space for the Bayern strikers quickly. Also for someone of his technique and shooting skills, he must be more adventourous and try to play one-two / dribble at the edge of the box and try to score from there more often.
And finally, Bayern must ditch Olic, Gomez and Klose and go for a quicker and younger strike force who are good on the air and feet with excellent techniques. Dzieko fits the bill perfectly and should spare no effort to get him.
Yes, couldn’t agree more with you. LvG should have known that the both CBs are accident prone and need better cover from midfield but didn’t do it. Surely he can’t blame Jose and Inter for his failings.
Look at the 1st goal, Demichellis should have known that there is no way he could match Milito on pace but allowed Milito to win the header meekly. Once he lost the header it is game over. The thing that many pundits failed to note is that how Milito able to direct his header with such precision at Sneijder as though there was some sort of telepathy between them. This only indicates how positionally aware the Inter duo were while both Bayern CBs were certainly caught not only sleeping but positionally poor. If I am a slow CB asked to mark much faster forward, one thing that I need to do is to have a much sharper eye, excellent positioning and a much heightened awareness.
I when Inter add 2 or three more trophies (idk if there is an italian supercup) then they have equalled barcelona, but as of now, they are not there yet.
Barca’s extra two trophies weren’t won in the 2008/09 season though.
Well, if Inter wins the remaining 3 cups: Supercoppa Italiana, Super UEFA Cup and the FIFA Club World Cup, they would have equalled Barça’s last year…
I’m honestly starting to think Steve and his friends are more confused about the understanding of a team with a defensive orientation & a team with a defensive tactics, first of all “orientation” is classification concept & “tactics” is a systematic concept, meaning there is no such a thing as a team with defense oriantantion, only a team with a system with a defence orientation, so anyone saying playing defensive does not require tactics is clearly not tactically inclined & does know much of football science. I honestly dont know what these critics expected Mourinho to do, it is evident b4 that when Motta is absent Inter tends to be more diffensive cause they are a young team & dont have replacements for key players like Sjneida & Motta.
People talk about defensive drills, I mean realy now, Madrid is the only team that doea not pack the bus against Barca, there was no Team that ever market Barca like that cause you could actually see the tactical awereness of each players in terms of closing the correct spaces to nutrilize Barca’s petterns, & it would really require some suprem intellecual with deep insights to football to prepair a team to play like that.
Byern could have only beaten Inter out of luck cause they dont have the players for that total football system, ironicly they needed a player like Wesley, then Inter would have been in BIG trouble. It was obviouse without Motta Byern would obviously be conforteble with pushing players foward cause Cambviasso/Zanneti are not good passers of the ball, so this forced Maurinho to make Eto & Pandev to play from very deep inorder to make passing easy for the DMs, cause a short pass is far easier than a long pass, as a result it was 10 man behind the ball most of the time. Now if this is not genius tactics then I give up, I will agree with the illogical and say football is only meant for the short & agile ball jugglers in Arsenal & Barcelona.
Majesa
I think probably you miunderstood why I was trying to say.
When a team takes a defensive orientation at systemic level, the whole team is set to defend including the strikers like Inter. That’s differnt from, say, Chelsea when they play Barca. Of course Chelsea would play using defensive tactics with their strikers asked to defend more and the midfielders and defenders less adventurous. But that’s not how Chelsea would play normally and they would try to dominate each game when faced with any other teams by adopting an offensive style of play. The accent is on style and attack.
But Inter is different in the sense that playing an attractive and attacking football takes a backseat to winning. That is, they would not attack unless they have to. While Chelsea would attack unless they can’t. It boils down to the fundamental footballing philosophy.
As for Bayern, their weakness is their defence and also ironically their attacking style. By committing more players to offense, they provide elss cover for the CBs which leaves them vulnerable to mobile and pacy counter attcks.
Further, both their CBs are slow. In fact DeMichellis was a defensive midfielder when he joined Bayern as I recall. Badstuber too is a CB rather than a fullback.
When faced with a team as defensively orientated as Inter, the only way to score is to have players who can play a quick combination to get through their last line of defence or shoot from distance. Bayern do not have such players.
What Bayern need to buy is a much younger and quicker CBs and a CF who is good on the air and on the feet. Certainly Olic, Gomez and Klose don’t fit the bill. Mueller might but I am still unconvinced.
Much of Robben’s and other Bayern players crosses were easily cut out not because of inaccuracy but because the physically of Inter players and there were just too many people in the box. It is as simple as that.
I will not like to put too much emphesis on the CB as Chelsea has one of the best defense in the world, yet they also conceded 2 goals in one match against Inter. The reason Barcelona plays with a high defensive line is to prevent the CB from being isolated, cause even with Cannavaro paired with Puyol would concede goals if Wesley was given so much space. The fact remains is that a DM should be with Wesley all the times. The problem with Total Football is players have to spread themselves wide in the pitch to force the opposition to create gaps in themselves, now the problem with this if you havnt studied the oppositions pettern good enough you get killed by accurate balls to the CF, whon drops it down to an on comming AM, who will have a lot of space to use since the entire team is spread out wide. The thing about football is you cant be everywhere at the sametime. Total Football teams are the easiest to play on a counter, which explains why Holland has never won the world cup. Byern was simple not coached good enough.
When Greece won the European championship against a flair Portugal team I was personally extremely disappointed and feared that Greece’s model would rule the football world.
Happily I was wrong in my fear as goals in games and attacking intent seemed to increase in the top European leagues (I don’t have the statistics at the moment to back it up but it was the feeling I got).
Similarly I believe the fear shown in this comment thread about Mourinho’s 10 men behind the ball being the future to be erroneous. As claimed above, it is no mean feat to play this way, to surrender possession willfully and close down areas. “Parking the bus” has been tried by countless sides against Arsenal, Man Utd, Barcelona and even Inter but it failed nearly every single time (a couple of notable exceptions which only confirm the rule).
Personally I don’t think Mourinho’s first season at Chelsea was dour, Robben and Duff making it an awesome spectacle to watch for example.
I can’t wait to see what Mourinho can do given fantastical talents like Real Madrid has, he has always taken the squad he had, added to it and produced an outstanding team. Why should that fail at Madrid?
Why should that fail at Madrid? Well, the reason number 1 is: because they are Real Madrid. They are a team whose destiny is to fail. LOL.
And reason number 2 is: because Real Madrid has literally no patience to their coachs. They want immediate results: you don’t win the Champions League, you are out. I think that Mourinho is very likely to fail at winning the Champions League with Madrid and he’s also likely to lose La Liga against Barça… perhaps he’ll win La Copa del Rey… however, how would Real Madrid’s managers react to that?
Will they have patience for Mourinho? Not only his style, but his personality as well.
I’m assuming Real know what they are getting, I also assume Mourinho made his conditions very clear.
He’ll probably get to flex his muscles in a way no other coach has been allowed to at Madrid.
I second your opinion. Mourinho is not a kid. He’s arguably the best manager around. He must have already made his demands clear and I am sure they have agreed to it. Madrid needs Mourinho more than the other way round.
hi all
hi steve
we did return a couple of friendly posts while i was very motivated after the barca – inter match…i think we finally agreed back then, it is a matter of taste, which soccer flavor smb prefers and that’s when i stopped posting, since i did no see the point of discussing preferences any further, especially with a stubborn intelligent fella as yourself…
now this is hopefully gonna be my only post, since i hate to prolong this debate:
my thoughts:
- first off i’m an Internazionale and Bayern Munich fan since 5-6 years old (i’m not italian, and i know i can be as impartial as a primate can be); i would not a have a problem with either-team being crowned last night; take this claim as sincere as possible…
- i have not followed Bayern’s progression in 2009-2010, but i have checked a lot of clips and interviews out…on the other hand i have followed the Inter’ progression closely this season, since it was a veeeeery intriguing story (them against everyone in Serie A)
- i’m not gonna try to repeat my barca-inter earlier lengthy posts…but i might want to refer to them…
-the whole past week i have been closely checking out the claim of both clans, interviews, and intrigued by Louis Van Gaal’s towel-throw to Mou to dare and produce a spectacle, rather a Chinese-wall situation…by the way, i had been telling all my friends that Inter would win very easy against Bayern…my conviction did not have a crystal-clear scenario, but after barca-inter, u could not convince me there’s another team in our galaxy able to defeat Inter…anyway, going back to Van Gaal’s towel-throw, that morning of the game, i had an idea why he threw that at Mou, i thought he wanted to provoke Inter to open up and crush-’em, but then i shrugged it as nonsense…interesting enough, after the game MOU in an interview said: “all the pre-match talk from Van Gaal was for me to get pressured to try convince the world by playing an all offensive/spectacular match so HE (this might be of special interest to steve and others) could PLAY COUNTER-ATTACKING BY LEAVING THE BALL-CONTROLLING TO US, but i didn’t fall for that; instead i told the team to do what WE DO BEST!!!
-now my question for steve and other peeps: would you have applaused a Bayern playing catenaccio against inter (independently from the score)? would you have found Van Gaal genius for trying a “wining strategy”?
-i think those are interesting Q to be asked…
-here’s another Q for anybody that thinks anything offensive=artistic (not mentioning the veeery poor statement on defending-made-easy): how do you like watching only qualifying matches like Anyteam vs Andorra/Lichtenstein/Malta when scores under 8:0 are considered a defending success for those poor little teams compared to 18:0 they usually succumb to??? r u telling me u would prefer watching a match like that rather a inter match, especially against Chelsea in London, which ended 0:1 but praised unanimously as a inter masterpice by every soccer expert i’ve talked to.
-as per the CL final itself, i won’t bother since ZM superbly broke it down…great work from almost everybody here with their insights, appart from Forza Juve, that keeps ditto-ing everything steve has to say…
-one last thing: Thiego Motta’s absence, is being underlooked, i would have loved to see him on the pitch…excellent midfielder, can equally help defend as strike and even score…that is a huge regret i have in the barca-inter game…with MOTTA still in the field, we could have seen inter do way more offensively, and (yes, i dare say it!!!) possibly score with a deadly conter-attack, when barca would desperatly open-up…and a lot of people would have talked differently afterwards…but lets not talk about IFs…
p.s. i am somehow concerned too, by the trend going aroung (definitely triggered by the amount of money being poured in this sport) with doing less, and winning more…i DO NOT think that Inter of 2009-2010 fits there thou; they have had defenders plaing in almost every different task, midfilders doing all four (play the ball, defend, attack and score) and the strikers score, play the ball and also defend…this is total football people, and if you don’t like or appreciate it, so be it.
I like this post.
nice work mate, esp abt the total football.
cheers !
This is impressive…Inter is the team that showcases more of the beauty of football & show superiour tactics to al teams in the world. Every Inter player can Create, Score & Defend, but in Barca only 4 players know anything about defending. Inter can play both offensive and defensive depending on the opponent, but Barca relies on the same trick over and over again irrespactive of the oponent, thats why Pep never even went to Italy to analyse how inter is playing, cause he know the plays the same way against any team. Now you teall who using tactics. Did anybody bother asking themselve where is Frank Rijkard, thats because Barca players are developed to play the sameway over and over again without much strategic acumen.
hi again druvar, in response:
i would have been mortified if bayern, and LvG, had resorted to playing how inter played. of course he knew the dangers of attacking against inter, he chose to ignore them, stick to his principles, and he lost. had he played defensively, with 9 behind the ball, perhaps neither side would have broken the other down and it would have gone to penalties.
if bayern had one this way, it seems as though the majority of people commenting here would have praised LvG. i wouldn’t. again i think he and his team command more respect in defeat, as they would have done in such a victory. it comes down to the age old question of whether winning is everything. i’m sorry if you, and others, find trying to answer this question boring, but i find it one of the most fascinating aspects of sport. perhaps no definitive answer can be found, but i still think it’s interesting to ask the question – i think it elevates questions about sport to questions about the nature of humanity, and the ability that sport has to make us ask questions of ourselves is part of why i love sport so much.
i really dont intend this to come across as a sort of holier than thou speech, i just find it interesting, in the same way as mourinho’s decisions to play cambiasso as the left of the 2 DMs, and to play a strongly left-footed full-back in chivu in the presence of an inverted winger, are interesting.
I would take it as a compliment if someone told me I played/coached the “easy way.” Isn’t the goal as a coach to make a competition as easy as possible for your players?
Barca’s approach makes the game easy for their players, because the style of play fits with the skills that have been developed in them for most of their playing careers. Inter’s approach makes the game easy for their players, because similarly, their style of play fits will with the skills of the squad at hand.
Inter just doesn’t have the personnel to be a championship-caliber team with a Barca-wannabe style of play. In fact, I daresay that anyone who plays like Barca will lose to Barca, as Barca does that style better than anyone because that style fits their players better than any other squad in Europe.
While I empathize fully with steve he’s forgetting that players and managers do not respond only to winning incentives- they also respond to challenge.
Attacking play is a challenge I agree, and there’s nothing professional sportsmen love more than challenge. Glorious attacking football will always be there, but in different and more refined forms.
Learn to appreciate the current aesthetic and worry less. It’s worth it.
I do not really understand the excitement and negative comments about different styles and philosophies. The game Barca vs. Inter was one of the most thrilling games exactely because of the different philosophies …. and it was close, very close… IMO without this variety of different styles football wouldn’t be so interesting….and history shows that different styles can be successful if the right team plays it….
Hi All,
Grt Website, read abt it on John Dykes Column, its love for the game which is spurring people along, Wesley Sneijder wud be a superb addition to Man Utd attack, imagining him with Rooney and Scholesey looks grt. Looking for more wonderful world cup analysis from ZM, grt work mate.
I’ve not seen much of Inter Milan this season, and maybe against inferior sides or sides they are confident about opening up against they have played attacking football (they have certainly scored a lot of goals), but they haven’t been in the last 2 rounds of the champions league. Looking at the results they have made the right decisions but while i think the tactics were right against Barca, maybe they could have played more against Bayern and still won…
Listing names and formations is all very well but its the mentality and attitude of the players that makes a team attacking or defensive. In the final you have ostensibly the wide right player in midfield more interested in defending and running back towards his own goal then getting forward. Just because its Eto doesn’t make it attacking, and it was like that all over the pitch. Inter weren’t attacking, even on the break they didn’t commit too many men forward.
It was pretty much risk free football, the biggest risk was whether they could score and once they did it was almost game over!
Overall I enjoyed the game… The problem comes when you get 2 sides playing the way Inter did… That I wouldn’t want to watch!
I may be being overly simplistic, but it looked to me like Bayern were a one-trick pony in this final. Yes, the trick is particularly amazing (Robben cutting in) as could be seen against Manchester, etc, but once Mourinho successfully took the danger out of Robben, there was *nothing* for Bayern to attack with. It is telling that Altintop had some good opportunities, although left-mid is not his forte at all.
The use of Cambiasso to eliminate Robben’s “danger” area while being an obvious move was decisive. He is a world class DM and Robben’s only real option every single time was to go 1 vs 2 against Chivu and Cambiasso. Robben was most successful when Lahm got forward at the right time to remove Chivu from the equation but still such was the tenacity of the Inter defensive unit, Robben could not get a shooting opportunity.
I felt a glaring hole once Altintop departed was the left flank. The entire Inter team was almost skewed towards Bayern’s right and therefore an unnatural amonut of space was apparent on Bayern left. Unfortunately the right footed Muller who in my opinion isn’t that creative (more of a destructive type) and the inexperienced/converted centre-half Badstuber neither could create a thing. This enormous black hole on the left cost Bayern the Cup.
Schweinsteger didn’t have his best game and equally was tempered well by Cambiasso/Zanetti.
Bayern were crying out for Ribery and in my opinion would have won with him. But in the end take nothing away from Mourinho who beat the best to get where Inter are now. It was a wonderful display of tactics and discipline and playing to strengths. Milito’s class was also apparent and perhaps Bayerns lack of class with the CB’s who were culpable for the first goal. Why did Van Buyten withdraw so far when the rest of the defensive line were so high? Badstuber also should’ve filled the hole but didn’t.
Mourinho’s Machiavellian masterclass.
As usual, great analysis. Regards. I made my analysis too.
http://esquemastaticos.blogspot.com/2010/05/bayern-0-x-2-inter-tatica-final.html
The end result of possession is what matters most.
Guardiola’s high energy system is meant to move the ball in a very specific manner for a very specific end result. It is obviously not merely possessing just to possess. He brought an energy with regard to pressing that was absent under Rijkaard. Guardiola has also emphasized quick circulation of the ball. Rijkaard was more content to let players dally. Under Guardiola, it is rare to see a player take any more than two touches- unless it is Messi or Iniesta- before moving the ball.
Against Inter, Barcelona was clearly lacking in the style that has made them successful. Inter was very well-organized, but Barcelona also did not do the things that has made it so successful over the last year. The ball movement was much too slow and the flanks much too neglected.
I still maintain that this Barcelona side is as close to unplayable as a team can get when Andres Iniesta, Xavi, Pique, Messi and Dani Alves are 100% healthy.
LvG should have played Tymoshchuk. The CBs (esp van Buyten) are too bad to cope with Milito + Sneijder, so one more defensive minded player in the entre would be great.
I thought I would add my 2 cents, before the whole discussion has dried. Since a lot has been said, I want to focus on what bugged me as a Bayern fan the most.
I think that it would be a fair assumption to say that not only the Bayern team had not their best day – as opposed to Inter who were fairly briliant, – but also that van Gaal simply blew it. I figured for myself a couple of points:
Line-up:
1. First and foremost the inclusion of all available CB’s which meant that Badstuber would inevitably act (or, rather, re-act) as LFB. One of my worst fears actually. Badstuber was found out hard way in this position (in its defensive part, that is) by Valencia in Manchester. The rest of the time he spent as LB during this season had shown that as LFB he has got no ability whatsoever to go forward (he misses everything – pace, passing, ability to deliever the ball into the box). All we have seen from him were backpasses. Never employed his offensive skills – because hasn’t got any. A really poor performance. By van Gaal. Contento should have played and added so much needed spice on the left, which would have made Eto’o more busy in defence and/or (possibly) Zannetti, too, which , in turn, would take a huge last from van Bommel-Schweinsteiger. As a side effect Snejder would be forced to do more defensive work, thus deminishing Inter’s offensive power. Maybe I put too much hope in Contento, but Bayern desperately lacked someone on the left side who could impose any danger.
Substitutes:
This is where I refuse to understand van Gaal. Bringing 2 strikers, none of whom is in any kind of form, nor has been an essential part of the team – Klose appeared only sporadically and failing to make any impact (if we forget the goal he scored against Monchengladbach in mid-April – his 5th and last of the season) and Gomez being almost completely out of rotation for 3 months – well, that was not a suicide, technically speaking, but when I saw Gomez ready to come in, I thought it was a surrender. With almost 20 minutes to go. Klose+Gomez=sign that van Gaal betted an high balls, something Bayern have never done this season. So why now, esps. if you haven’t got a single player on the pitch who could strike a decent high ball (never mind the fact that Gomez is just tall and never stood a chance against Lucio/Samuel).
Players I expected (and really hoped) to see were Contento instead of any of CB’s at the start of the 2nd half and Tymoschuk late in the game (maybe the time Gomez came in). That substitution could be crucial in some ways. For example, it could switch the balance in the midfield to bayern’s advantage in the las 20-25 minutes. With Tymo deeper than van Bommel and Schweinsteiger in front of Dutchman it could have helped to close the gap between Bayern’s deffence and midfield ZM writes about as well as put Schweinsteiger into position to impose himself in the area where he is the most dangerous for the opponents, namely 10-15 metres in front of the box with sudden runs into it, on the whole front of Bayern’s attack. The man is utterly useless as left back where he played the most of his to-date-career or as DM (his conctant 100+ something ball contacts tell nothing except most of his passes are directed to the nearest team mate and his defensive skills are nothing special either). His best and most memorable performances (against POrtugal and, partly, Turkey at Euro 08, against Russia in WC Quali in Dortmund, against Lyon in the 1st leg) were delievered when he had the freedom to play relatively up front, making sudden runs into the box, playing just outside of it. His 4:0 against Werder in this years’ Cup Finale shows what he is best at.
It would also have the sudden effect they needed to overcome Inter’s defence (see Pique’s goal).
Well, anyway it was never meant to be. As it it Inter was a better team and I am glad for them. Van Gaal’s decisions remain a huge disappointment, though. A big chance somewhat wasted. And why the hell didn’t he make a 3rd substitution? Questions….
P.S. Thanks a lot, ZM, your site makes for a great reading. I really enjoy browsing through your texts. Keep up a good work!
Actually I agree on some of your points.
I also kind of befuddled by LvG’s tactics. He might be a good coach but he shows a tactical inflexibility that is worrying.
I am hard pressed to understand why he selected the same line up vs Inter when he knew Inter’s ultra defensive approach.
This is my take :
1. Milito / Schnejder threat :
He should have played with 3 defenders with DeMichellis and Van Buyten dropped but Badstuber and Contento included with Lahm. Badstuber has the skills and pace to mark Milito while Contento or Tymoschuk taking care of Schnejder.
2. Bayern midfield :
I agree LvG should have pushed Schweinsteiger up and let Tymoschuk do the defensive and fetch and carry role instead. When playing against a side completely unconcerned about possession, why waste your best midfielder on such ineffective tasks ? Schweinsteiger has good dribbling skills and a powerful long range shot that would have come useful against the massed ranks of Inter.
3. Bayern strike force:
Here I think LvG doesn’t have much choice with Klose, Gomez and Olic not the kind of players fit to lead the attack for Bayern. I would have prefered to see LvG gamble on Mueller than on losers such as Gomez and Klose.
Well, to your first point:
I do not think that playing with just 3 defenders from the start would be a good idea. This would make up for a 3-5-2 or something of a kind, and last time Bayern played this formation in September and were really unlucky with it. 4-4-2 has proved to be a good enough tool for the squad. I do not think that playing this formation from the scratch would have been a good idea. However, that 3-5-2 is what i was hinting at when I wrote about Tymoschuk’s possible participation. While to risky from start on, I wished myself this formation for the last 20-25 minutes, esps. after 2-0. You have got to take risk being in that situation and take anyone of CD’s left(vanByuten/Demichelis/Badstuber, whoever) and bring TYmo in. By doing that you do not actually do much damage to your own defence (and anyway, what does it matter, when you’re 0-2 down in CL Finale, for God’s sake) and you can actually gain controll over central midfield as well as add some power and unpredictability to your front line.
Instead we got Gomez, who’s gradually lost any connection to the game over the last 3 months. I kind of can see why Klose, being experienced and all, but Gomez….oh my. Reminded me Euro’08 Finale, when Loew brought Kuranyi in. When managers go for that kind of trick, I always know – they are desperate, gambling on Sheringham/Solkjaer effect = wonder. Not to mention that neither of Gomez/Kuranyi is capable of stunt like that one.
I see your point and respect that.
My view is that though 3-5-2 is risky to start with, it will lure Inter to attack and try to exploit the defence. They would have to push up their midfielders to do this.This would allow Bayern to have more space to play their normal attacking game.
To me, Inter’s tactic is so simple. It is always focused on Sneijder and Milito and remove them, they will cease to be an attacking threat. I think having 4 defenders to comtain 2 attackers (actually 1 striker and one attacking midfieder) is an overkill.
As for Gomez, I can’t agree more. He’s completely useless player.I am not a German but I do catch some Bundesliga matches and other European leagues occasionally. To my limited exposure, it seems the German league has very few good strikers of German nationality. I hardly thing Loew has any decent strikers in the national team.
While the team has some really outstanding talents in defence and midfield, unless they can score goals I can’t see they progressing beyond the quarter finals.With Ballack out, there are even less players who can score goals.
However, I feel Ballack’s absence will force Loew to experiment with younger player and that could a blessing in disguise. I also hope he could push up Schweinsteiger a bit further up the field to have a more attacking punch.
Hi, I don’t think that Germany has no good strikers, in my opinion, their weaknesses are in the back line. The performances of a striker are depending on the teams tactics. At Stuttgart, Gomez became top scorer of the season, because the whole game was designed for him. At Bayern, the best players are Robben and Ribery, so the game is designed for them to shine (hard working strikers open up space for them). That would not be a problem at the national team. Löws gonna play like this (at least hopefully):
———Goalkeeper———-
Lahm–Mertesaker–Taski–Aogo
—Schweinsteiger-Khedira—-
—Kroos—Ozil—Podolski—
———Klose—————
So i’m more worried about conceding goals……
To bring things back to the kits again… I don’t have a problem with a team having a different kit for the whole European campaign (even if that is just a cash cow in itself) ala Man United in 1999. In fact, I thought that Bayern had the same policy this year with their all-white kit – as they made a point of it during the United games that they could not wear the white kit (for some reason – there were available combos which did not see colour clashes) during the United games.
Chelsea wore the next season’s kit for the first time when they lost to United in the CL final a couple of years back – dodgy precedent/curse (if you’re superstitious) for wearing new kits in the CL final?
And, on the Bayern one – I understand it’s an anniversary kit and it would’ve looked ok in a retro style, but combining those stripes with Adidas’ insistence on a complicated sleeve design made the kit an epileptic’s nightmare.
Usual Bayern marketing startegy thought out by Hoeness already in the late 70-s – each year a brand new kit. Home, away & one for european competitions (last 10 years or so). A cash-in I personally have no problem with – just a good way to earn money. What I do have problems with is that over the last 6-7 years Adidas’ decisions in design have been forking abysmal. Cannot remember the last decent Bayern kit – and Adidas is their strategical partner and one of only 2 sponsors -share-owners (along with Audi).
Not only those stripes on the sleeves are terrible, much worse are braces-like stripes on the back. Really poor.
On the other hand – it is just a kit.
…Inter play the same tactical strategy if decide to attack or if decide to control game, and it does brilliantly in Serie A…it’s just a question of chess game…in this case Internazionale decides to be black opponent…the only remedy for Bayern was to take the same part and try to balance the game, but they want attack…sorry!…game losted!
…sorry for my bad english!
…an “honest” Inter fan…
This is really a good one for Inter and Jose Mourinho.
they deserve the win after the good work.
More story and highlight available (in HD)
http://www.squidoo.com/uefa-champions-league-final
Sometime ago, in the review about the Inter vs Chelsea (or was it Chelsea vs Inter?), ZM said we have “yet to see the best of Inter” or something to that effect. Fast forward, Inter win the historic TREBLE that include the coveted 45-year-wait CL trophy. Very perceptive, ZM. Always a joy to read your articles.