That’s exactly how I feel, denco. A great summary, btw.
There’s been an interesting discussion on the list. Basically, when you have individual players bailing you out, back off by reverting to a defensive formation at the very 1st test with essentially the same team bar only 2 new insertions, what do those imply tactically? The first conclusion drawn is that the touted 4-2-3-1, contrary to theory, doesn’t suit us in reality. Granted it may be too early to say that but I particularly dislike the way Lippi handled Roma. When you consider that he resorted to a negative formation (something like a 4-3-2-1/4-5-1) that’s not even tried-and-tested (the usual 4-3-1-2), it doesn’t really makes sense when you see that he discarded a ‘new’ solution for another ‘new’ solution; how prudent is that? Not speaking on hindsight here because when I saw the lineup, the message conveyed was that we were too scared of the opposition, reactive all the way right from the outset and thereby always a step behind and like denco said, inviting trouble.
Secondly, I think the criticism of Trez in particular is too 1-dimensional though justified to a certain extent. Trez’s substitution is just part of the overall problem of Juve retreating even further from where they already did. DV was almost as invisible so Juve had a general problem with strikers, not a particular individual. Is our main man up there too isolated? Let’s be fair to Trez who’s living off the service/scraps of the supporting trio. Ideally, I see him as a diversion, to occupy a marker or 2 at all times (fine), pull them all over the place (failed) and perhaps nick in a goal or 2 by himself (ok) This creates space for the attacking trio to have a real go at any openings. This has always been a thankless task for the modern lone-striker systems. Just as a more popular beneficiary will get most of the credit as scorer, the vultures are always perched to slag Trez off. Loose claims like any half-decent striker would have scored as many bloody beggars belief. We saw it with the WC-winning France of 98’, between Dugarry, Guivarch, Henry and Trez. None were spared the rollicking despite Jacquet’s tactical explanation. Why oh why? For the simple reason that it didn’t ‘conform’ to convention : a big strong lad, good on the turn, holds the ball well, dribbles half the field and scores bucketloads. People are obsessed and content to diss at face value. Consider workrate similarly and laziness isn’t as conveniently applicable anymore. I assure you that the Frenchman is fully capable of great attacking linkup play but the environment dictates otherwise.
It is true we should not underestimate the absence of DP and Miccoli. However, whenever I see Tach and hell, even Tudor preferred to Maresca in the same CLUELESS and technically deficient midfield, its clear the problem isn’t as simple as we see it. It makes you wonder if depth/quality is really the bottleneck coming off last season’s concerns. With the exception of Miccoli, the new guys have all the experience that’s needed in topflight Serie A football. What’s the excuse? As far as I’m concerned, apart from a 2nd half blitz against the giants called Empoli and sporadic 10-15mins of flowing football in rest, this team still haven't any idea of how to build an attack properly compared to the class of 96-98. Lippi should go do some revision in technique, movement and buildup from earlier years or simply watch Deportivo for a current equivalent. We have all it takes to do so so it isn’t coz we can’t but rather won’t for some infuriating reason.
Btw, good to see you back denco!
Buy on AliExpress.com
