Since the other thread was unfortunately ruined and the prophet of Bielsa refused to share his wisdom with us and time is money, here we will solve the mystery of why Bielsa doesn't play with traditional fullbacks.
The question is not whether he likes fullbacks or doesn't like fullbacks, the issue at hand is that a) except for Brazil, most other South American countries are rather dire in modern fullbacks(Argentina famously still relies on Zanetti and Heinze as no one else is coming up, Uruguay had Lugano and Diogo, both makeshift fullbacks, even Brazil has a draught etc.)
b) he doesn't need them in his system actually.
Regarding a) the reason is pretty simple and straightforward. A whole generation of South American players grew up in 3-5-2 systems and until 98, until Passarella, Argentina still played with 3 in the back. So when Bielsa took over in 98, he didn't have great fullbacks available at all.
They were either those who never passed the midfield and hence useless for him or they were not actually fullbacks but offensive wingers.
Further generations of coaches in Argentina's youth went for back 4s(Pekerman and also Batista) but overall, there were not too many fullbacks to choose from, so it seemed more sensible to play with 3.
But the bigger issue is b) he didn't need one. Below you can find a diagram of his teams starting formation and when they defend
As it's pretty visible, the team plays advanced and high up pressing. The third centerback plays a bit more advanced, sort of like a sweeper in front of the defense, the two wingers, depending on the opponent are either stuck on the wing or help out the defensive midfielder.
Now, the main issues of Bielsa's football are pressing and winning back possesion, and then keeping possesion until an attack is finished. That's why he always relied on one tall center forward who could work as a reference point, hold the ball well and play pressing. That's why Saviola and Riquelme, who have workrate zero and play no pressing, never played under his leadership.
When the team wins possesion back, it happens like a switch, the ball is played to the center forward and the lines push up. Whereever the opponent has left a void, it's attacked by both the winger and the forward of that side and you have on the flank an advantage in numbers with the added forward and the "half-forward" you have always either 2x1, 3x2 or 4x3 and you are, in theory, always one player more.
In defense, the philosophy is similar. The ball is always tried to won back in midfield. If somehow the ball passes midfield, the idea is also always to be in advantage in defense and have 2 players against 1. So overall, he just doesn't need fullbacks. The flanks are occupied by the forwards and the wingers so whatever system the opponent plays, they are handled. The forwards press the fullbacks, the wingers attack and make the wingers, trequartistas, whatever defend too, and if hit on the counterattack, which shouldn't happen, there should always be more players in defense thanks to the centerback and one of the right or leftbacks.
These ideas are the fundamentals of the dutch school and Bielsa was strongly influenced by Van Gaal and Cruyff, which given that Argentina has a dogma of either Menotti or Bilardo, was a third way that could have led to bear fruits. It was a way built on fair play, methodology, offensive attacking football and everything else. But, it wasn't supposed to be.
Hugely at fault was the World Cup in 2002 and Argentina not making it out of the first round. The problem for Argentina was that Bielsa's system was hugely intensive and required high levels of fitness but the players coming in were simply too tired and didn't have the right stamina.
Things should be different however now with Chile.
Anyway, that's basically an explanation on why Bielsa is some sort of a God of football or at least a pioneer who given the right environment can turn shit to Gold. He is also one of the groundbreaking thinkers of the game and had his Argentina won in 2002, football would be a different game and Argentinian football too.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Now, the reason I posted this is to once again demonstrate that someone has no fucking clue about football, and even if he has, he is too dumb to put it down in 2 sentences and explain it, because he either doesn't understand it himself or is a cretin. Just dropping a name and trying to suck up is not impressing anyone. So if you can't explain why someone is a God, just be quiet and let others do the work you can't do better anyway. It was just a reminder that as long as you can't do the work better than we do, you better do not dare to say anything about the work people do on this site. It's also an unfortunate fact that he as a troll doesn't get banned while other members get banned. Real pity!
November 14th, Tate Modern, 3pm. Don't forget to bring an umbrella.
Ethered.
The question is not whether he likes fullbacks or doesn't like fullbacks, the issue at hand is that a) except for Brazil, most other South American countries are rather dire in modern fullbacks(Argentina famously still relies on Zanetti and Heinze as no one else is coming up, Uruguay had Lugano and Diogo, both makeshift fullbacks, even Brazil has a draught etc.)
b) he doesn't need them in his system actually.
Regarding a) the reason is pretty simple and straightforward. A whole generation of South American players grew up in 3-5-2 systems and until 98, until Passarella, Argentina still played with 3 in the back. So when Bielsa took over in 98, he didn't have great fullbacks available at all.
They were either those who never passed the midfield and hence useless for him or they were not actually fullbacks but offensive wingers.
Further generations of coaches in Argentina's youth went for back 4s(Pekerman and also Batista) but overall, there were not too many fullbacks to choose from, so it seemed more sensible to play with 3.
But the bigger issue is b) he didn't need one. Below you can find a diagram of his teams starting formation and when they defend
As it's pretty visible, the team plays advanced and high up pressing. The third centerback plays a bit more advanced, sort of like a sweeper in front of the defense, the two wingers, depending on the opponent are either stuck on the wing or help out the defensive midfielder.
Now, the main issues of Bielsa's football are pressing and winning back possesion, and then keeping possesion until an attack is finished. That's why he always relied on one tall center forward who could work as a reference point, hold the ball well and play pressing. That's why Saviola and Riquelme, who have workrate zero and play no pressing, never played under his leadership.
When the team wins possesion back, it happens like a switch, the ball is played to the center forward and the lines push up. Whereever the opponent has left a void, it's attacked by both the winger and the forward of that side and you have on the flank an advantage in numbers with the added forward and the "half-forward" you have always either 2x1, 3x2 or 4x3 and you are, in theory, always one player more.
In defense, the philosophy is similar. The ball is always tried to won back in midfield. If somehow the ball passes midfield, the idea is also always to be in advantage in defense and have 2 players against 1. So overall, he just doesn't need fullbacks. The flanks are occupied by the forwards and the wingers so whatever system the opponent plays, they are handled. The forwards press the fullbacks, the wingers attack and make the wingers, trequartistas, whatever defend too, and if hit on the counterattack, which shouldn't happen, there should always be more players in defense thanks to the centerback and one of the right or leftbacks.
These ideas are the fundamentals of the dutch school and Bielsa was strongly influenced by Van Gaal and Cruyff, which given that Argentina has a dogma of either Menotti or Bilardo, was a third way that could have led to bear fruits. It was a way built on fair play, methodology, offensive attacking football and everything else. But, it wasn't supposed to be.
Hugely at fault was the World Cup in 2002 and Argentina not making it out of the first round. The problem for Argentina was that Bielsa's system was hugely intensive and required high levels of fitness but the players coming in were simply too tired and didn't have the right stamina.
Things should be different however now with Chile.
Anyway, that's basically an explanation on why Bielsa is some sort of a God of football or at least a pioneer who given the right environment can turn shit to Gold. He is also one of the groundbreaking thinkers of the game and had his Argentina won in 2002, football would be a different game and Argentinian football too.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Now, the reason I posted this is to once again demonstrate that someone has no fucking clue about football, and even if he has, he is too dumb to put it down in 2 sentences and explain it, because he either doesn't understand it himself or is a cretin. Just dropping a name and trying to suck up is not impressing anyone. So if you can't explain why someone is a God, just be quiet and let others do the work you can't do better anyway. It was just a reminder that as long as you can't do the work better than we do, you better do not dare to say anything about the work people do on this site. It's also an unfortunate fact that he as a troll doesn't get banned while other members get banned. Real pity!
November 14th, Tate Modern, 3pm. Don't forget to bring an umbrella.
Ethered.
Last edited:
