RedQueen wrote:I own that book, I know the take it reports about that incident. I'd simply like to hear for once an account (preferably one that gives a source) of the incident independently from that book. I have nothing against that book, but I'm well aware that it was written with the intention of making Pep looking good. Hence I'm not taking everything that's written there as gospel.
silberkreuz wrote:Yes Pep plays passing football, yes he plays a high line. Is anyone really surprised? That brand of football is exactly why Guardiola was hired in the first place!
johndear wrote:silberkreuz wrote:Yes Pep plays passing football, yes he plays a high line. Is anyone really surprised? That brand of football is exactly why Guardiola was hired in the first place!
Nobody is asking for defensive game but if you play football you know playing fire will burn you alive. it is not like a trick or secret.
I don't think KHR want to see high line to hire Pep.... if he wants to see high line he could have stick with LVG......
fashiondesign_guru wrote:Nobody denied it. If I was working with you and then said something about RedQueen influencing me in making such and such decision and it wasn't true, you would definitely come forward and say something right? Not even Sammer or other club officials denied anything.
You say the comments about Ribery bothers you as you clearly take it as truth but deny this.
Obviously things go down behind the scenes that we don't know about and for a period of time, Perarnau's account is the as close to truth as it gets unless someone denies it or we get new information. He was with the staff and the players day in and day out. He was given full access to everything.
RedQueen wrote:sws wrote:Which hearsays are you talking about?
Nothing but rumours from people who claim that it didn't quite happen as described in Perarnau book.Anyways, going back to Pep Confidential, other than just his narrative there are direct quotes from different people, including a detailed interview with Kalle. Are you questioning the validity of those too?
Kalle:Essentially it happened because he changed some aspects of his approach without being 100% sure. He made some choices that were not really his and was furious with himself for failing to stick to his own ideas. He was very clear about that. He deserted the middle of the pitch and opted for much more direct football. He had allowed himself to be influenced by the result of the away game in the Bernabéu [as opposed to Bayern’s performance that day]. And I’ll tell you something, the criticism he received for his tactics that day were completely unfair.
I own that book, I know the take it reports about that incident. I'd simply like to hear for once an account (preferably one that gives a source) of the incident independently from that book. I have nothing against that book, but I'm well aware that it was written with the intention of making Pep looking good. Hence I'm not taking everything that's written there as gospel.
"We're very disappointed because we set our sights high, but suddenly we were 2-0 down after 20 minutes from two set-pieces," Lahm said on the Bayern website.
"That really leaves a bitter taste. I don't think we played well tactically in the first half. The game was too open.
"It was the opposite of the first leg when we controlled the play. I know they hit us on the break last week, but (on Tuesday) it was end-to-end stuff in the first half.
"That's fundamentally not the way we play our football, but it's what Real really like. It totally played into their hands."
"Wir hatten praktisch vier Mann (Ribéry, Müller, Mandzukic, Robben; d. Red.) vorne auf einer Linie, und im Mittelfeld waren wir in manchen Situationen in Unterzahl. Normal spielen wir's ja umgekehrt: Da stehen zwei ganz vorne, und die anderen machen das Zentrum dicht."
sws wrote:I'm sorry but what exactly are you questioning here? ...
pyrasur wrote:Not even getting on my "pro-Pep" horse here, seriously want to know if we are going to entertain statements from "people" as fact.
prasun77 wrote:Well to put it in a nutshell..
There's no second source going against it..neither a concrete second source in favour of it!Much like the existence of ghosts..
believe what you want to!
RedQueen wrote:Same here. Unless there is a second independent source, it's all about "believing", and my point is that there's a difference between believing something and knowing something for a fact.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests