Capello In A Nutshell - Goal.Com Article (good stuff) (1 Viewer)

Respaul · Jun 22, 2005

Dan,

Whilst on the face of it the article comes off as a decent piece, When looking a bit further i see a fairly straight forward script of the capello supporters club... Which i fail to see how it as you claim dispels even one of those 'myths'.

You failed to argue against any of the real arguments others have against these points, jus giving your own reason why that view is 'wrong'

Even looking to the likes of xt... you can see the exact same viewpoints you make... and you can also see them shot down.

I wonder whether you have actually looked at the opposing view at all...
An inclusion and response to the other view would have made this a very good article... even if still leaving it as merely jus an opinion.

Looking at whether cap was a traitor... you focus solely on his lack of pay... but you dont mention even a few of the other arguments... such as the fact he stated he would never sign for juve... how us one week before he left he assured the roma fans he would be their manager the next season and talked of his plans for romas future...
Or how he even in his last days was making plans for the off season and the pre season (costing roma alot of money).. or how he didnt even tell sensi he was leaving... or how he brought players in under false pretence that he would be their manager in his last moments at the club.... etc etc... these arguments for the prosecution go on and on

You use the most basic of arguments to dispelk the idea that he plays defensive football... we scored a decent amount of goals...

Purleez... How many goals we scored has no bearing on the mode of football we played...
There is absolutely no doubt we played a counter attack system... as such we played a defensive system... whether we scored or not has no bearing on this...
You also look at the our general play and it is clear to all that everything is built from the back rather than the midfield based sytems of the attacking teams like barca.

Virtually the whole world is in agreement that chelsea played defensive football thjis season... which they did (another counter based team, built from the back) but look at the amount of goals they scored... does scoring cchange the fact they played in a defensive mode? of course not!

We can then look abit further back....

Rappan and herreras teams are hailed as the absolute temple of defensive football for all since to be judged against....

So tell me... was their goal record good or bad ?? So if the two recognised most defensive teams in history happened to score a fair amount of goals... does that mean they were not actually defensive as you state...

So in essence you are rewriting the whole of football as we know it.

Number 3 i wont comment on as its jus an endless argument that cannot be proved one way or another... personally i go the opposite of you... but thats jus my opinion based on a few of my own thoughts

Does he dislike dp ?
You say he doesnt jus cause he played well against milan after being subbed so many times previously....
Again its pretty much a no win argument for most of the points...

But you did in my opinion leave so much out... you never mentioned his good start to the campaign where he was still subbed.. you miss the fact he had the best goals per minute ratio for most of the season... The simple fact that at season end he was the clubs highest scorer with little playing time, you didnt look at any of the available stats that show him in goodstead against all his rival spots throughout the season etc etc

Do you ask the question whether he treated all players the same (if they played badly they were replaced) ? eg. nedved who had a very poor season but pretty much never was subbed even though we had adequate cover on the bench...
When zlatan played badly... did he get subbed?? The answer to that is again a resounding NO... He had his fair share of bad games yet many times he would stay on for 90 and his strike partner would come off even though they had been the better player.... All relevant issues to the argument!

You also judge purely from on the field in the latter part of the season... Did for instance as m,any that have voiced opinions on this issue.. ever for example goto a training session and see the different ways he treats players during training? Something that has been leveled at him throughout his career etc etc

There are so many variables yet you hang on too one point and say that proves the point.... It doesnt!

If you had gone alittle deeper... could have been a great article...

Dan · Jun 22, 2005

First of all, thanks for giving good critism

Second, allow me to address some points:

1) It is likely Juventus contacted him a week previous- but frankly, we do not know the details of his contact but soley it was done during the off season. I will have to also think closer to why Capello stated he would never coach Juventus- perhaps this was from the board of directors at Juventus telling him this, by why would he want to screw them over without personal gain in the situation? Even though, ill get back to you on that. It admittedly sounds fishy, but there is no good reason he would want to backstab Roma without personal gain in the situation.

2) If you are talking about players bought under false pretences- Ie Mexes, look at it this way. If Capello told Mexes when they had lunch (as I read) that he wouldnt be there next season- how likely would it of been that Mexes would of signed on? He actually did that for the good of Roma- if you were Mexes and the coach told you he was leaving, how would you feel? This was probably a ploy to get him to sign. If capello wanted, he could of just as easily told Mexes to wait for contact from Juventus.

3) The arguement I use is valid- Capello's stlye IS a balanced style, as the end product is goals and not conceding goals. Its a forumla that works and brings the maximum out of either end- so the ends justify the means in this situation. Whilst its obvious Juventus did play catious backfoot- they by no means did not hold off in attack. That is what I like- its a style that brings goals and does not concede any, thus is a balanced style.
Chelsea are just another balanced team.

4) Del piero had a pretty average start to the campaign, and was thus substituted. Capello is not an idiot- he leaves him in if he is influecing the game in a positive way. When Del Piero improved his game- he stayed on. That is impossible to deny. If capello hated Del Piero, would he not pull him off regardless of how he was playing?

Thats basically all I can argue against here. Im not afraid to admit you are more knowledgeable then me- heck why would I ask you about Catenaccio if I didnt want to fill my holes about football in?

Im only 15 years old, and for an article from a 15 year old I think it was pretty decent. You bring up a good few points I cant address or argue with though. Thanks- its decent as it gets me thinking on a different tanget and can only better my knowledge.

Juve_Kosova · Jun 23, 2005

Forza Capello !

Vinman · Jun 23, 2005

I tend to agree with Paul's points

However, I will say that the good that came out of Cap's limited use of DP is that this is the first season I can remember that DP wasnt injured

Lawnchair Bes · Jun 23, 2005

he actually did get injured

Martin · Jun 23, 2005

Someone posted your piece on the juve mailing list, to which I replied

the response came:

Dan · Jun 23, 2005

So true about the second setence

Yeah, well it was an article to show how good he was. I obviously could of tried to be objective, but it was a pesuasion and not be objective.

Geof · Jun 23, 2005

who's James?

Vinman · Jun 24, 2005

refresh my memory, Don...I cant remember...

but if he did, it wasnt for very long (like every other season)

swag · Jun 24, 2005

It wasn't for very long. There was DP's classic mid-Fall injury spell where he was out at least a couple of weeks. More recently were his injuries that lead to questions about his ability to start leading up to the final Milan game.

Eaglesnake_1 · Jun 24, 2005

I reemember something about a tendinitis problems that take him off for 3 or 4 games.....

inferis · Jun 24, 2005

nice one, dan... (seriously tring to blow his head off)...

your writing's basically good, although one still can argue about the balanced style of formation.... me, honestly still think that capello plays a little bit defensively cautious... but one thing that obvious is, juve is easily satisfied with 1-0 result... lacking the hunger to put the killer blow... but hey, that's only one opinion from me and maybe capello is comfortable that way but the last time i remember, i thought it was an attacking roma when he was there...

and for the CL humiliated exit, i think the whole team was at fault and truly, liverpool deserved the result... never mind the alex' ruled-out goal, we still didnt have the spirit of a team who needs to score badly...

and i have no say about the traitor thing... i leave that to others...

but once again, i agree with martin about goal.com....

Martin · Jun 24, 2005

Obviously I guess that many are waiting for some kind of reaction from my
side to this article - including Andrew`s invitation ;-)

As in everything, its expected that people see the same situation from a
different perspective, which gives the rise for different and at times
totally contrasting opinions. The problem though arises when starts mixing
up what are opinions and what should be facts with the end result that
reader will read the opinions and take them as facts. In this context, I
really don`t agree with the section which refers to the famous
Juventus-Liverpool.

>3) It was Capello's fault we were knocked out to Liverpool
>
>When Capello deployed a 4-4-2 against Liverpool on the first leg at
>Anfield, Juventus were 2-0 down with 20 minutes on the clock. Yes, that
>was a tactical error- he was using a formula that had been successful so
>far, and he obviously saw that needed change in the second leg. Cannavaro
>was fortunate enough to have a header spilled by the keeper, which gave
>Juventus a lifeline and making them need only one goal in the next leg.
>Capello had 3 choices- deploy his standard 4-4-2 as in Anfield which had
>no positive results- play a 4-3-3 like against Madrid, but be subject to a
>counter attack much easier- or play a new experimental tactic against
>Liverpool.
>Capello's tactic was out there, but it was obvious the 4-4-2 was not
>working and a 4-4-3 would not do much better.

So, the purpose of the paragraph is to prove Capello`s innocence. If we
look at the game in Anfield, in which the author claims a tactical error by
Capello due to the 2-0 scoreline after 20 minutes, I dare say that apart
from being 2-0 down due to poor marking from a set-piece and a freak 35
metre goal which Buffon could have maybe done better, in those 45 minutes
we had more chances than we had in the whole game in Turin - Zlatan`s post,
Del Piero`s disallowed goal, etc.

The author then tries an analysis of the return leg, and in my opinion the
first mistake is comparing the game against Liverpool with that against
Real. While against Real, Juve had to be very cautious because they failed
to score in Madrid, in the Liverpool tie Juve had an away goal to their
credit, so they could risk a bit more. Apart from that, I think that the
author first mentions three possibilities which Capello could have used,
but then fails to underline which tactic was actually used. It is obvious
though that a 4-4-3 would not work, because their would either be no
keeper, or else the ref would stop the game

> During the course of the match, I remember 3 clear chances- Cannavaro's
> header which hit the post, Zlatan's miss from Zambrotta's bouncing cross,
> and Zlatan's earlier miss from a Thuram chip. The tactic nullified
> Liverpool's counter attack, as I remember the only chances they had came
> from Zebina mistake. A goal in Turin against Juventus, that would have
> been curtains.

So, do three chances in 90 minutes in the most important game of the season
and in a must-win situation justify the coach`s tactics ? Why does the
author fail to mention the mistake of using Olivera in centre midfield, and
the consequent mistake to try to counter that of swapping Olivera`s
position with Camoranesi and hence losing our only valid wing attacker
? Besides, and here is a big slip, can the author explain which Liverpool
chances can be attributed to a misake by ZEBINA in the second leg ? Where
was Zebina playing on that day ? Feel free to check the lineups, but in my
opinion, while opinions are personal, facts can be verified, both by the
readers and most important by the author.

>Can anyone blame Capello for looking for one goal yet still staying on the
>back pedal?

In the first part of the game one can understand that, but from that point
onwards, losing 1-0 and drawing 0-0 would have meant the same thing. Lets
not forget that against Real Madrid Juve used the same kind of approach.

> If Cannavaro had jumped 2 inches more to the right, Juventus would of
> been at least in the Semis.
Yes, and if that Ronaldo shot was a few inches more to the right, or maybe
that header been a bit lower, it could have been a case of more than 50%
and a few inches that Juve would have failed to qualify for the quarter
finals, right ? Inches are part of the game unfortunately

> I call this an unfortunate circumstance- as Capello set out for a 0-1-
> in which he got 50% right, and perhaps if one takes into consideration
> how close that header was, it is more like 50% and a matter of inches,
> but such is football.

If it was a lotto ticket, you play for a 0-1 and the result is 0-0, yes,
you got 50% right. If its the Liverpool game you got 0% right...or 100%
wrong. The aim of that game was just one : that of qualifying...fullstop.
There is no half way success rate - its either a pass or a fail. Playing
with numbers to give the impression that Capello was closer to success or
that he managed to achieve part of what he wanted does not make sense. It
could have been 3-1 just as it could have been 1-0...the bottom line was to
QUALIFY. The example of the 1-0 and the 50% right is valid in a game such
as that against Milan at the Delle Alpi where not conceeding the goal was
just as important (if not more) as scoring one. In that game, yes, the 0-0
meant that Capello was at least 50% right (I would say 75% right on the day).

>Should Capello be blamed? No. He had the correct idea, but Liverpool
>defended well, and Juventus were unlucky with their chances.
Had Juve dominated the game, one could argue in favour of that, but looking
at the game itself, Capello has to be blamed...ok, maybe not 100%, but
surely he didn`t have the correct idea if the other coach had a better idea
than him.

>Myth Dispelled
That`s an opinion which the author can rightly so have but which I don`t share.

>4) Capello hates Del Piero
>
>Possibly one of the worst myths of them all. .......
>However, what people seem to forget is that when Del Piero played well he
>stayed on- thus when Del Piero now
>plays well, he stays on the pitch and avoids the dissatisfaction of not
>playing. Del Piero now must play well- like all the other forwards in
>Juventus- to earn himself a match without substitution.

Whether that conclusion is true or not, I will leave it to the rest of the
list. Unlike many readers on that website, we see a lot of Juve games and
not just the highlights, so trying to convince us (or at least me) that :
(a) when Del Piero played well he wasn`t substituted and
(b) that all other forwards at Juve are subbed when they are playing badly

will not suceed. Its like trying to convince an England fan that Maradona
never touched the ball with this hand.

>Myth Dispelled.
Same as above though.

>Capello has finally found a brilliant Camorenesi, who used to be the
>frustration vent for the Juventini with several calls to be sold.
>Zlatan Ibrahimovic exceeded everyone's expectations under Capello-
>Cannavaro found his vigour again under Capello, and Del Piero started
>playing well for the first time in a while under Capello.

Yes, and the sun started to shine every morning in Turin under Capello, the
grass started to grow greener, the Po started to flow cleaner .... all
under Capello. Honestly, how many of those examples mentioned can be
attributed to Capello ? Camoranesi : we all knew he had those skills, the
problem is that he wasn`t used to 50 games a season. Cannavaro: considering
what he had showed at Parma and with the national team, I guess that after
his Inter period, even under Zeman he would have been able to find that
vigour. Ibrahimovic`s performances can be attributed to Capello... but what
about Blasi ? Wasn`t he also Capello`s bet ? And what happened to
Tacchinardi ? Is it also Capello`s credit ?

Anyway, to sum things up, for the casual Juve fan, that article is nice to
read and enjoy (and hopefully would make him feel better). In my case
though, it doesn`t . I could keep on going - for example in the traitor
paragraph, while the contract probably had the option in Capello`s favour,
we can never say what kind of gentleman`s agreement was made between the
two parts, apart from the fact that one of the main episodes why Roma call
him a traitor is that famous "I will never coach Juve", which the author
fails to mention, or the "Capello no doubt played a big hand in developing
Cassano, and to some extent finding the perfect place for Totti to play in
" which I guess everybody can judge - but as I said, everybody has the
right to have his own opinion and everbody is free to write about it.

JAMES

Acies · Jun 24, 2005

Still doesn't solve anything IMO

Acies · Jun 24, 2005

dan dispelled:

a) last year
All of you, including little Dan, seem to believe that last season was a disaster. Granted, Juve didn't win anything and their defensive record was horrible. Nevertheless I do recall Juventus ending up third in the league. Third isn't all that bad, you know. Capello hardly changed a goldfish into a shark. He made Juventus better, but he did have some basics to start with. As opposed to what some of you seem to believe.

b) traitor?
Definitely. Both to himself and to AS Roma. Every single one of us has heard Capello say over and over again how going to Juventus would mean changing his lifestyle and that he wasn't prepared to do that. To make things worse, he even assured Roma he wasn't going anywhere. Totti might be a tug, but his criticism for Capello was just. About the wages: Capello never had to assure Roma he was staying. If he hadn't assured Roma, he could have left without this mess. It's simple: Capello's a lying scumbag. Not that that's necessarily bad, but we don't have to hide the truth.

c) defensive football?
I'm afraid so. A lot of goals are created on counter attacks, you know that Dan. So the number of goals scored has nothing to do with it. There's simply no denying in the fact that under Lippi Juve were a more attacking side. And in 2002/2003 it paid off. I still believe Juve should be a more daring and attacking side to have a real shot at the Champions League.

d) CL = Capello's fault?
Yes. It was. Why gamble when you're the better team? Don't play like that when you can score three goals as well. Why hoping that Zlatan or Cannavaro puts a hard chance away, when you can create a lot of those chances? Don't wait and see, don't try to win 1-0, try to win 3-0 instead.
And for crying out loud, pulling Camoranesi off in the last two minutes? What good was that going to do?

e) Capello hates Del Piero?
Yep. It's pretty obvious really. Even when Del Piero was the best player out there, and I'm not saying that happened a lot, he was pulled off. Capello didn't make Del Piero play better in the end, Del Piero did. He was vital to our season, as prove his statistics, yet was substituted so many times. Besides that, we all know what Capello thinks of small forwards.

It's all pretty simple really: Capello's a selfish tug that will be succesful at times, but at this moment is too blinded to create an outstanding team. Perhaps the imminent departure of Del Piero and the arrival of Cassano will change Capello's tactics, but I doubt so.

Nicole · Jun 24, 2005

++ [ originally posted by Acies ] ++

b) traitor?
Definitely. Both to himself and to AS Roma. Every single one of us has heard Capello say over and over again how going to Juventus would mean changing his lifestyle and that he wasn't prepared to do that. To make things worse, he even assured Roma he wasn't going anywhere. Totti might be a tug, but his criticism for Capello was just. About the wages: Capello never had to assure Roma he was staying. If he hadn't assured Roma, he could have left without this mess. It's simple: Capello's a lying scumbag. Not that that's necessarily bad, but we don't have to hide the truth.

I like you Acies

baggio · Jun 24, 2005

Do you like me as well Nicole?

tassard · Jun 24, 2005

++ [ originally posted by Acies ] ++
dan dispelled:

a) last year
All of you, including little Dan, seem to believe that last season was a disaster. Granted, Juve didn't win anything and their defensive record was horrible. Nevertheless I do recall Juventus ending up third in the league. Third isn't all that bad, you know. Capello hardly changed a goldfish into a shark. He made Juventus better, but he did have some basics to start with. As opposed to what some of you seem to believe.

b) traitor?
Definitely. Both to himself and to AS Roma. Every single one of us has heard Capello say over and over again how going to Juventus would mean changing his lifestyle and that he wasn't prepared to do that. To make things worse, he even assured Roma he wasn't going anywhere. Totti might be a tug, but his criticism for Capello was just. About the wages: Capello never had to assure Roma he was staying. If he hadn't assured Roma, he could have left without this mess. It's simple: Capello's a lying scumbag. Not that that's necessarily bad, but we don't have to hide the truth.

c) defensive football?
I'm afraid so. A lot of goals are created on counter attacks, you know that Dan. So the number of goals scored has nothing to do with it. There's simply no denying in the fact that under Lippi Juve were a more attacking side. And in 2002/2003 it paid off. I still believe Juve should be a more daring and attacking side to have a real shot at the Champions League.

d) CL = Capello's fault?
Yes. It was. Why gamble when you're the better team? Don't play like that when you can score three goals as well. Why hoping that Zlatan or Cannavaro puts a hard chance away, when you can create a lot of those chances? Don't wait and see, don't try to win 1-0, try to win 3-0 instead.
And for crying out loud, pulling Camoranesi off in the last two minutes? What good was that going to do?

e) Capello hates Del Piero?
Yep. It's pretty obvious really. Even when Del Piero was the best player out there, and I'm not saying that happened a lot, he was pulled off. Capello didn't make Del Piero play better in the end, Del Piero did. He was vital to our season, as prove his statistics, yet was substituted so many times. Besides that, we all know what Capello thinks of small forwards.

It's all pretty simple really: Capello's a selfish tug that will be succesful at times, but at this moment is too blinded to create an outstanding team. Perhaps the imminent departure of Del Piero and the arrival of Cassano will change Capello's tactics, but I doubt so.dan dispelled

Interesting opinions though.But do you say these because you belive these or just because you dislike Capello?

Nicole · Jun 24, 2005

Who are you?

Acies · Jun 24, 2005

I dislike Capello because I believe these opinions

.

Capello In A Nutshell - Goal.Com Article (good stuff) (1 Viewer)

Senior Member

Back &amp; Quack

★ ★ ★

2013 Prediction Cup Champ

The Loser

Senior Member

Back &amp; Quack

Senior Member

2013 Prediction Cup Champ

L'autista

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Junior Member

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Back & Quack

Back & Quack