A video exists of Bielsa explaining his man marking in some detail.
I haven't mentioned it before because I simply can't find it (I've spent days looking for it) it was on twitter in Spanish with English subtitles.
It isn't recent, may even have been as far back as before he arrived when I saw it.
The idea is that yes everyone has a man to mark and press and get tight to to a degree probably larger than other managers.
But you aren't meant to follow your man to daft areas (which was a huge issue I had with it, it was illogical at times).
You are meant to pass him on (which I think Weasel tried to explain tbf) when it gets to a silly level of tracking (Ayling isn't meant to follow his winger to the left side of the pitch near the opposition corner flag). And also to team up in the press (as again I think Weasel said) in areas where it is possible (like when you see Raph join Bamford pressing the cb).
I think in MB's mind another player is meant to engage eventually and you then resume your natural role to try and maintain some degree of shape.
You also are meant to try and funnel the play into congested areas (usually near where the spare man is at the back) in order to try and create an overload to win it back) This is linked to the shuttle runs Bamford does between the 2 cbs, henis trying to funnel the pass towards the area of the pitch which is more congested.
Problem is and as Bielsa has mentioned on numerous occasions, he has never ever been able to make this work in practice how he imagines in his mind with any degree of consistency.
So in that sense the system is flawed and then the system in practice is flawed, that is what he means I think.
And it goes back to the famous "if players were robots I would win everything" quote.
As a concept the man to man with all this tactical nuance is probably a very effective system.
But it doesn't leave enough room for human error, speed of thought, natural instincts to not want to leave your man unmarked etc.
And so usually this passing on concept doesn't happen and if that doesn't happen the funnelling idea can't happen because someone has to move to cover the deserted area of the pitch and another space emerges and everything gets open and stretched.
But because Bielsa is a total idealist he has persisted with this concept his whole career whereas most managers would have abandoned it or tweaked it to make it more workable for the players (as Pep and Co have done).
I wish I could find this clip, it is probably this frustration that has impacted my mood and frustration with this thread
It was definitely an older clip because Bielsa wasn't grey and had longer hair. But I saw it I think around the time he joined us which makes sense because I was looking for as much as I could on his tactics at that time.
So in short yes we did absolutely go man for man to a degree almost no other manager does which is a risky style anyway.
But it had nuances and tweaks that in theory made it a more manageable and logical concept.
Unfortunately the idea rarely ever worked in practice how it did in MB's mind. It left no room for human error and whatnot and because of the risky nature of the man to man style in general without the application of the nuances it often descended into chaos.
Hence MB saying it was flawed.
Man to man is flawed in open play as we saw, the passing on aspect was meant to alleviate those flaws but it rarely ever happened.
Bielsa imo should have tweaked it but that isn't what an idealist does I suppose.
The whole thing is linked to the concept of the best form of defence is attack, its an aggressive, intense defensive concept designed to win the ball back quickly to launch an attack.
Excellent post Cjay and I think we have finally found the common ground. Like you mentioned Bielsa said something along the lines of if football was played by robots he'd win every match and I think that is true. The human error factor, as you pointed out, is why people see the man marking and go, "Oh my god why is he following him there," as has happened on a few occasions, not every match just a handful of occasions accross a season.
I think Bielsa does make tweaks but usually they are fairly subtle so it isn't noticeable straightaway. Also worth noting that this was the longest he'd been at a club so he probably felt these players were more capable of adapting to his tweaks - the only problem there being that 3 of the players who had been with him from the start were all out injured (Cooper, KP and Bamford). You then also have Klich who has lost a bit of pace so when man marking can easily find himself having lost his man and not able to get back.
So for me the man marking was to blame, the shifitng of focus (funneling) was to blame, the zonal positiong was to blame. Namely though the failing was in the starting XI not being good enough no matter what shape, formation, tactics we played. We may have achieved some better results playing a different way but would also have achieved some worse results. That however was always going to be the biggest factor as most promoted teams either get relegated in their first season back up or the 2nd (not for me a second season syndrome but more a fact of you did really well to survive in the first season but all it takes is 1 or 2 key players from season 1 being injured, maybe a bit of luck going against you, a couple of players starting to decline and also a little bit of teams knowing how to play against you). Last season we saw Fulham and WBA, of the promoted teams, go down and similarly this season it looks like Norwich and Watford will go down (and I would fancy Brentford to go down next season 2 as they were sinking fast until Eriksen arrived). It takes time to catch up to established premier league sides in terms of squad depth and strength and that is the overriding biggest weakness not the part of our game which featured man marking.
