The College Dropout

His teams are exactly like you say, counter-attacking teams. Score the first goal and they'll sit back and wait to kill the game by counter-attacking. Good manager, but horrible philosophy (does get him the results though) in my opinion. Funny how his aging Chelsea side broke the PL goals record on the way to winning the double. Now SAF's retired Carlo's the very best manager on the planet. Total class act as a person, too. He's talking guff Ronaldo. Difference between me and you is that you're point comes from watching a Chelsea side playing one season, while my opinion comes from watching Milan throughout the last decade because my brothers are big Milan fans as well as watching Ibra and PSG on tv every week because that's all that goes on Swedish tv nowadays. I said the same about Mancini and got a lot of s***. Not necessarily comparing their style of play, but none of them have their team playing any attacking creative football. You're talking guff. I know you're talking guff because your time periods are all wrong. If you don't remember Kaka playing alongside Rui Costa when Inzaghi got crocked then you don't know your Serie A. ANCELOTTI IS THE ANTITHESIS OF MANCINI. Except the narrow thing.

Wow, what a point, you could field 10 offensive players and still not play an offensive creative football. Look at Mourinho and Real. CRonaldo, Benzema, Di Maria, Marcelo, Özil all played there and absolutely battered teams, still, it wasn't a offensive and creative team in that sense they were just individually more superior than most of their opposition. Mardid are a far harder working team than that Milan. That Milan played one way and it's pretty attacking. Very bad at having to grind out results or defend leads. Hence, Istanbul and Depor overturning a 4-1 deficit. Much like Chelsea, when they beat teams - they bloody beat em 3 or 4. No team with 1 #9 and 4 natural #10's in the same side is going to lack creativity like you have claimed mate. So just shut up and take this L. 4 #10 in the same side. Ambrossini, Gattuso and Pirlo (which one of them are the #10 you are talking about?). Rui Costa was a bench player when Kaka arrived, and Seedorf became more and more a midfielder than an attacking. He gave support to Kaka and Sheva up top. You don't have any idea what you are talking about. I also haven't said they lacked creativity individually, but as a team they were more of a counter-attacking team which were deadly in front of goal. To suggest they played a creative style of football not only shows complete ignorance but also a lack of knowledge. Pirlo's a natural #10. He went back on loan to Brescia but the manager converted him to a deeplying playmaker. Seedorf adapted his game slightly but once again to take advantage of his athleticism, natural playmaker. This is the '03 CL winning side. 3 playmakers - 2 out and out strikers. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Juventus_vs_Milan_2003-05-28.svg The team that won the league after Juve were stripped had Kaka AND Rui Costa in. That team got dumped on by Depor and got pegged back at Istanbul. They brought in Ambrosini for Rui Costa for some bite and continued with one up top. Such a team will not be counter-attacking all day. You're painting Ancelotti as a typcial Italian Catenaccio manager and its far from true. It doesn't even make sense.

His teams are exactly like you say, counter-attacking teams. Score the first goal and they'll sit back and wait to kill the game by counter-attacking. Good manager, but horrible philosophy (does get him the results though) in my opinion. Funny how his aging Chelsea side broke the PL goals record on the way to winning the double. Now SAF's retired Carlo's the very best manager on the planet. Total class act as a person, too. He's talking guff Ronaldo.

Enough with KK man. Let his legacy live and rest ffs.

Do you have hypothetical hindsight ? What a gift. Wait. You're having a go at me for giving a hypothetical response to a hypothetical statement? Piss off.

Agreed.

Wow, what a point, you could field 10 offensive players and still not play an offensive creative football. Look at Mourinho and Real. CRonaldo, Benzema, Di Maria, Marcelo, Özil all played there and absolutely battered teams, still, it wasn't a offensive and creative team in that sense they were just individually more superior than most of their opposition. Mardid are a far harder working team than that Milan. That Milan played one way and it's pretty attacking. Very bad at having to grind out results or defend leads. Hence, Istanbul and Depor overturning a 4-1 deficit. Much like Chelsea, when they beat teams - they bloody beat em 3 or 4. No team with 1 #9 and 4 natural #10's in the same side is going to lack creativity like you have claimed mate. So just shut up and take this L.

They would've also dumped him a good few years earlier than we did.

Also his Milan side fielded the most attacking/creative players i've ever seen. Shevchenko, Rui Costa, Kaka, Seedorf, Pirlo, Cafu all in the one team. Often playing 3 playmakers in the one side. They rarely won the league under him as defensively they where not strong enough. Not enough tackle in midfield if you will.

Disagree tbh. They constantly got caught on the counter in the CL and against top sides. In the league winning season they scored over 100 league goals and routinely spanked teams 4-5-6 at the Bridge. You would expect CT teams to sometimes struggle to break sides at home and perhaps be very good away. But Ancelotti's teams steam rolled em at home but struggled away.

Ancelotti's Chelsea and Milan sides very creative.

- Weaknesses - Holding on to the ball - Aerial Duels -Offside awareness

Sounds like you think Bent has more attributes than Cisse. Do you think we could afford Bent? Would it be worth keeping Cisse as his understudy (in your opinion)? Why would I want Bent if we have Cisse? I've just said they're similar. I want someone with a different style to Cisse. Build-up play is key. Ideally a Berbatov type or Benteke Benteke i can see, he's done well and can seem to scare defenders without any help! Berbs, i don't know. We don't have MFs who break beyond the forwards so if someone like Berbs came deep, nice little lay off.......no one making the run into space. Problem. I see where you're coming from, a strong quick guy we can hit it direct to, maybe even a long diagonal and he can worry the defenders, maybe get us a corner or a throw in and the whole team can move up the pitch. Territorial advantage. I think Cisse exacerbates our midfield woes. With Berbatov, he's inviting you to give him the ball from feet - to chest height. That draws players' closer as well as him going deeper. Marv/HBA would love to play off him at least. Cisse too. Berbatovs the type to come a little deep with his back to goal, lay it off quickly, turn around and head to goal. Where as you WANT Cisse facing the goal at all times, he's looking for the penetrative ball which is more difficult. As a midfielder, that style doesn't invite you to get close to him as Cisse wants to run towards goal at all times. Do you get what i'm trying to say? With someone that can hold it up, they invite others into play. With Cisse/Bent/Owen types they want to run the other way from you so there's no point looking to make those runs.

Agreed.

Sounds like you think Bent has more attributes than Cisse. Do you think we could afford Bent? Would it be worth keeping Cisse as his understudy (in your opinion)? Why would I want Bent if we have Cisse? I've just said they're similar. I want someone with a different style to Cisse. Build-up play is key. Ideally a Berbatov type or Benteke

By the same token, due to having more pace and strength it's far easier to create chances for Bent. He can turn hopeful balls over the top to goal scoring opportunities. He's similar to Bent man and there's no shame in that. If he's so much better he would get 20-25 year-in year-out.

Unbelievable's been making excellent points and its pretty much the stuff i've been saying for months. You've been saying stuff like "Darren Bent MKII" which is complete and utter s****. I said the same thing, and I stand by it.. Could you link me to all of Darren Bent's spectacular goals please, cheers. You get more points for spectacular goals do you? Bent has scored 179 career goals at the age of 29. Hardly an insult to compare Cisse to him, seeing as they are quite similar players (poacher types who are best as a lone forward, and don't contribute much to general play). Eh? You're claiming they're almost the same player, I'm making the point that Bent doesn't score goals from nothing like Cisse, what the f*** do points have to do with anything? I don't see the relevance of Cisse's penchant for the spectacular as a reason to dismiss him being comparable to Bent. I haven't said they're the same player, I've argued they are similar, even though there are differences, for example Cisse scoring more spectacular goals from outside of the box, and Bent being more physical in taking on defenders. Doesn't change the fact they are essentially both poachers who are most suited to playing as a lone forward, spearheading the attack and not very good at bringing others into play. It's unbelievable that you have to explain this.

Stuart Pearce though. He's turrible.

Is Gouffran not a striker? Have we not signed Ba, Cisse and Gouff in the last couple seasons? When did Darren Bent become a shit footballer? He's proven if he can get 35 or so games he'll get 15-20 goals. There's not many strikers in the league that can claim that.

Wouldn't we then end up with a not so prolific striker playing up front on his own? Where would the goals come from? The idea is that the whole team moves up the pitch and has a greater chance of scoring.

I do think we lack size and strength tbh. A Pardew side certainly needs it.

We where in for him right? I hadn't seen him before hand but he's a very useful player. Reminds me of Bellamy in some ways.

I'd take a big man with a bit of pace. Doesn't have to be particularly prolific. I wouldn't like us returning to 4-4-2 though.

Unbelievable's been making excellent points and its pretty much the stuff i've been saying for months.

This si half the point. He doesn't contribute greatly to building up those chances and he doesn't create them himself. Suarez used to miss loads but he created at least 1/4 of them himself. If all your meant to do is get on the end of good opportunities, you need to be lethal at it. Or else you're just bringing the team down. If he's not scoring, he might work hard but really offers nowt to the team.