Massimiliano Allegri (219 Viewers)
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
- Tags 15 minute man < pep > pep dai doesn't know football halma il4j doesn't know football pasta mourinho spaghetti mourinho subs coming in any min now time's up
Im sorry zach but thats just a bunch of biased bs. You just arbitrarily and selectively apply your logic to whomever you want. Two can play this game. Let me show you:
Lippi is a coach that was given a ridiculous amount of talent to work with, otherwise he wouldnt be succesful.
He won the CL and reached a number of finals and won a few serie a titles with a team that boasted the likes of Peruzzi, Davids, Deschamps, Zidane, a prime Del Piero. It was one of the best teams in Europe.
You will say but Fred, what about the Italian NT, surely that was a great job he did with the NT, they were nobodys favorites and he won the WC. Sure crapoy team that had a Prime Buffon, Cannavaro, Zambrotta, Pirlo and Gatusso at their best, Toni at the prime of his career and Del Piero, Totti and Camoranesi (many forget how great that team was)
See what i did there??
Plus if i asked you to compare players are you gonna tell me that a team that had an attack of Del Piero and Inzaghi and later the former and Trezeguet is less than an attack of Messi and Villa or Etoo. Especially taking into consideration that you dont think that highly of messi anyway and rate a prime DP above him. As for midfield youve always said that busquets was average, so we can establish that deschamps and later Conte were obviously better. Of course Zizou and Davids are better than Xavi and Iniesta. So really Lippi won the CL with a better squad than poop.
Then he went to Inter and couldnt adapt. Thats why i dont consider him a great coach.
Disclaimer: i dont believe any of what i said above. I am illustrating a point, that two can play Zacs game of just dismissing coaches achievements at will.
Lippi is a coach that was given a ridiculous amount of talent to work with, otherwise he wouldnt be succesful.
He won the CL and reached a number of finals and won a few serie a titles with a team that boasted the likes of Peruzzi, Davids, Deschamps, Zidane, a prime Del Piero. It was one of the best teams in Europe.
You will say but Fred, what about the Italian NT, surely that was a great job he did with the NT, they were nobodys favorites and he won the WC. Sure crapoy team that had a Prime Buffon, Cannavaro, Zambrotta, Pirlo and Gatusso at their best, Toni at the prime of his career and Del Piero, Totti and Camoranesi (many forget how great that team was)
See what i did there??
Plus if i asked you to compare players are you gonna tell me that a team that had an attack of Del Piero and Inzaghi and later the former and Trezeguet is less than an attack of Messi and Villa or Etoo. Especially taking into consideration that you dont think that highly of messi anyway and rate a prime DP above him. As for midfield youve always said that busquets was average, so we can establish that deschamps and later Conte were obviously better. Of course Zizou and Davids are better than Xavi and Iniesta. So really Lippi won the CL with a better squad than poop.
Then he went to Inter and couldnt adapt. Thats why i dont consider him a great coach.
Disclaimer: i dont believe any of what i said above. I am illustrating a point, that two can play Zacs game of just dismissing coaches achievements at will.
I don't necessarily disagree. But once you want to start playing this game of giving credit to coaches you like, and then dismissing others for similar achievements, it becomes a slippery slope.
Most coaches who are successful would naturally have the best teams or close to it. Lippi won things with the likes of Del Piero, Zidane, Inzaghi, Nedved, Deschamps, Davids, Montero, Zambrotta, Buffon and Peruzzi. Nobody can argue that Lippi's teams were one of the best in the world at the time, yet Zach doesn't want to give credit to Capello for winning the league with Roma, or the leagues he won with Milan. It doesn't make sense, you either give credit to a coach for managing to organize a group of strong individuals or you don't, but you can't have it both ways.
Most coaches who are successful would naturally have the best teams or close to it. Lippi won things with the likes of Del Piero, Zidane, Inzaghi, Nedved, Deschamps, Davids, Montero, Zambrotta, Buffon and Peruzzi. Nobody can argue that Lippi's teams were one of the best in the world at the time, yet Zach doesn't want to give credit to Capello for winning the league with Roma, or the leagues he won with Milan. It doesn't make sense, you either give credit to a coach for managing to organize a group of strong individuals or you don't, but you can't have it both ways.
Whatever the approaches may be, it seems to work for them. We can discuss different approaches all day long, but both Capello and Pep have won a shitload of trophies, to say they had amazing squads does not detract from the work that they've done. Lippi had just as good a squad as either of those two, yet people like Zach see it fit to give credit to Lippi, but not to the other two.
The even bigger problem is, if you really examine Zach's views, when the discussion is about managers, he would say Pep had an amazing squad and thats why he won so much with Barcelona. But if the discussion is about players, he would tell you that Del Piero at his prime was better than Messi, Zidane better than Xavi and Iniesta, Busquets is an average player, Pique is a poor defender. These are all valid opinions mind you I'm not saying they aren't, but you can't have it both ways. If Pep won so much at Barcelona because he had an amazing squad, yet when you compare individual players by his judgment Lippi had the better players. Therefore it follows that Zach has to think that Lippi isn't really a great manager, he only won so much because he had an amazing set of players.
The even bigger problem is, if you really examine Zach's views, when the discussion is about managers, he would say Pep had an amazing squad and thats why he won so much with Barcelona. But if the discussion is about players, he would tell you that Del Piero at his prime was better than Messi, Zidane better than Xavi and Iniesta, Busquets is an average player, Pique is a poor defender. These are all valid opinions mind you I'm not saying they aren't, but you can't have it both ways. If Pep won so much at Barcelona because he had an amazing squad, yet when you compare individual players by his judgment Lippi had the better players. Therefore it follows that Zach has to think that Lippi isn't really a great manager, he only won so much because he had an amazing set of players.
I think both of you are right. Doesnt make one better than the other though. I hate pep but he has a very seet system. He takes his style and forces other teams to stop it. That has to be respected to some extent. Allegri or some of the others like more to take your game away and exploit your weaknesses which is also respectable
Capello especially won league titles at three different clubs; Milan, Roma and Real Madrid. Those are two of the biggest leagues in the world, when he won it with both Roma and Real Madrid(the second time), the odds were stacked against him and he wasn't really expected to win. I don't know what your definition of limited is, but obviously the guy was able to win titles in different clubs and leagues.