Footy & Hoops : Defense first

On the back of yet another loss to the more popular and prestigious white side of the Spanish capital, the question I have is should Simeone be "under pressure"? Now, I have to explain why I think this is a valid discussion. I'll give both pros and cons, but from a perspective that incorporates a different sport altogether.

The obvious rebuttal to anyone questioning Simeone, or really any cult type coach, is that "he's Atleti" and more or less saying he's the only person that could've gotten them to heights unimaginable. Honestly, that is fair, to an extent. I actually have a pretty good comparison that directly relates to something I've experienced first hand.

For anyone who doesn't know, my college (uni) degree is from UVA. Like most American schools, we're big into "handegg" and basketball here. I've followed the gridiron team loosely all my life, being from Charlottesville, and they've never come close to winning anything of importance. In fact, for the longest time, something like 16 or 18 years, the football team had lost every single time to our arch rivals, Virginia Tech. Basketball was much the same as I was growing up, and the truth is I was a UNC fan until my senior year of high school. I was influenced by my brother-in-law, a big time Tar Heel fan (thanks to Michael Jordan). I also played basketball, not football (concussions), so that was always my preference out of the two. Anyway, the point is, UVA basketball was also irrelevant until Tony Bennett showed up. Having arrived in 2009, the team was subpar until 2011/12, making the NCAA tournament. It's actually pretty cool how similar the story of coach Bennett and Cholo Simeone are, in that they're nearly the same age (52 and 51, respectively), known for a defensive style of play, and have been with their current team (that they're synonymous with) for 10+ years now. I enrolled in 2012 and was on the same floor as some of the first year hoopers, so it was awesome to get to know a few of them. Two of my friends and I went to every home game, and I even made it to the UNC away game thanks to my sis and bro-in-law giving my dad and I tickets.

Here's my take as someone who lived it as a match-going student/fan. The first year was awful. We went from making the tournament with Mike Scott to barely being able to score, and it ended up in an NIT appearance. To put this in perspective real quick, every year after that the team has made the big dance. However, I'd honestly say that was my second favorite season of UVA basketball. 2013/14 is #1 by a long shot, and the Championship season is tied at #2 since I only went to the season opener. With UVA basketball, you just have to realize that it's not your typical fanbase. Let's put it this way; in the first two years of coach Bennett and the 8 prior, they made the NCAA tournament once. Since he showed up the team has made it 8 times. Keep in mind that 2019/20 there was no tournament.

Onto the style discussion. This is where things get a little, shall we say, muddled. You see, there's this saying in football, and I suppose basketball as well, that winning trumps style. Of course, you love to see a team like LeBron's Heat or Curry's Warriors demolishing the NBA en route to the finals, much like Barcelona in their prime or current Bayern/Man City in football. However, you also have the pragmatism side of things. If it works, it works. The spectacle is objectively worse, but winning is what matters. I also have to say there's a massive difference watching games at the venue versus on TV. I'm not sure as much from a football perspective, since I've never had a season ticket, but it's 100% the case with basketball. Going back to how I rank those seasons of UVA basketball, I know for a fact that the nostalgia is there way more for the seasons when I went to pretty much every home game. I'd also caveat that by saying I was literal peers and even friends/acquaintances with the players, so you just relate to things way more. One of them set me and my boy up of a semi-formal with these random sorority girls once. Another got us into parties where my friends got blackout drunk. You just feel so much more invested in teams that feature people you know. It's like having hometown or academy guys in the squad in top flight footy. That was a bit of a tangent, but the point is you think much less about the actual "product" on the field/court when you have a strong connection with the team, rather than random people you've never met representing your school/town.

Going off of that, I'll now explain how things have changed now that I'm no longer a student and don't know anyone on the team. That change was completed in 2020 actually, but it was a long time coming. I dated a girl who lived in the same building as Mamadi Diakite during their first year, and since he redshirted, he was there a good 4 years after I'd graduated. I met him a couple times and he's a good dude, so I'm happy for his success both on grounds and with the Bucks. In terms of my direct peers, that would have occurred in 2017 when London Perrantes left. It was him and Devon Hall really, in that I had a psych class with Devon and a music class with London. I'd also seen London on nights out a few times and chatted briefly, so I'd definitely say I was "closer" to him, but not really either in any kind of intimate way. That was around the time I was solely watching games on TV and my level of investment dropped. The team was still really good, by the way. In terms of seeding in the NCAA tournament, starting in 2014, it reads 1,2,1,5,1,1,N/A,4. That's sick. You often see on ESPN or whatever when either Gonzaga, Houston, or UVA play that they're the top three programs over the past few years in terms of wins. Not Duke, not UNC, not Kentucky, not UCLA. Success at the expense of a "good product". The team has never been known for being particularly fun to watch. In fact, due to the lack of fast breaks most of the time, our fanbase is known for getting more excited for shot-clock violations by the opposition than high-flying dunks. Not to say that there are never roof-raising jams, it's just that the slow pace coach Bennett emphasizes limits the end-to-end nature of many college basketball programs.

I've still yet to properly explain what the issue is, and how it mirrors Atleti. Basically, starting in 2012 with Mike Scott, the program has produced a substantial number of guys that went on to play at least a few games in the NBA. That means the team has the talent to compete with the best. It's the same with Simeone. People expect underdog teams to try and find an edge any way they can, and one way is creating a system that controls games by stifling the opposition. However, when you get talent at your disposal and are the hunted rather than the hunter, the expectation is that they system will evolve and become more expansive. Chelsea and Juventus are textbook cases of this. The reality is the progression hasn't really happened with UVA or Atleti. My personal philosophy is that if I have the players to win in style, let's do it. Why drag down the excitement when you have better players than most of the teams you'll face? I also find there's an element of psychology involved. It's incredibly difficult to go from "parking the bus", or almost playing not to lose, in games against equal or better opponents, to then having to dominate game against lesser sides. I see it more than ever this season for UVA, and Atleti actually for that matter. The foundation of defending is reliant on trust and cohesion amongst players. In football, players drop off due to age or leave for a new "challenge" (aka money), like what happened for Atleti a couple seasons with Godin, Juanfran and Filipe Luis. Add Gabi and Tiago a while before, plus the revolving doors of strikers (Aguero, Torres, Villa, Costa, Griezmann...) and it's hard to have continuity over such a long period. The best defensive team at UVA was 2014/15, a group of 7 future NBA players, and they allowed 51 points per game. I don't think it's a coincidence, however, that the team that actually won the damn thing was the highest scoring team coach Bennett has had.

That brings me to the present. My personal opinion, and quite possibly the main rhetoric as to why either of these coaches is questioned, is the general lack of progression from an attacking perspective. To me, the perfect time to switch things up is during a retool/rebuild period. That would have been post-Championship for UVA, aka 2019/20, and around the same time actually for Atleti. The reasoning for the latter is Felix and Suarez joined in consecutive summers, and that's enough fire power IMO for a permanent change in philosophy. As in, looking at the team now, there is no defensive solidity. Part of that is the midfield, which now is filled with technicians instead of workhorses, but the defenders themselves have objectively declined. Felipe was good for a few months and has been trash since, plus he's not young. Gimenez has declined. Hermoso isn't at the level Lucas Hernandez is/was. Trippier is the only RB and has injury problems. Lodi isn't trusted and Carrasco isn't an LB. This also brings up recruitment, which hasn't helped either coach. I tweeted earlier that it's almost criminal to have the fullback situation so dire at Atleti. Why bring in two more forwards when literally the rest of the team lacks depth? On the UVA side, I don't like a few trends. Basically, it's become a transfer world in college basketball. This means guys will be leaving and coming in at an increased rate compared to the past. Not to mention guys leaving for the NBA (Trey Murphy). Point is, and this is just an example, but you see what Scott Drew did at Baylor with transfers. That team, and maybe even this year's, is better pound for pound as a defensive unit than any UVA team I've seen. And the fact is, they also score the ball (83 for vs 65 against and 84 PF vs 56 PA). That brings me to the last point.

One of the main problems with playing a style that forces close games is that variance will come for you. For instance, with Atleti, there's that cognitive dissonance of being the team in the league that controls games while other teams park the bus, but then they go in Europe and embarrass themselves by camping in their own half all game against any half decent English side despite having top attacking talent. Or with UVA, you become the first ever 1 seed to lose to a 16 because your most talented player gets injured, you can't hit the broadside of a barn and the community college team hits three after three. I look at the Championship season, especially that run, with warranted nostalgia, but I also can't dismiss the amount of bounces that went our way. I even remember the first game against Gardner-Webb when it looked like they might do the unthinkable and lose AGAIN to a 16 seed. They were literally down 6 at halftime, and I want to say it got as bad as 10 or 12 at one point. Two of the games went to overtime (Purdue with the Clark to Diakite pass and the final against Texas Tech), while the Auburn game was decided by that foul on Kyle Guy when he was shooting a 3 down 2. Hell, the Oregon game they won by 4, and that was a pretty average NCAA tournament team. The point is, it takes a crazy amount of destiny and frankly luck to win in this fashion. It's also why Simeone has stagnated at Atleti and explains their regression in Europe.

So, what is the takeaway? Personally, I don't see either coach leaving anytime soon. There's the fear of what to do in terms of a replacement, and neither situation is anywhere near bad enough for either to fear for his job. They're practically worshipped for bringing success to unfancied institutions. That doesn't mean for a second that their methods are perfect or immune to criticism. Personally, I hate that coach Bennett keeps insisting with this lineup that has a total of zero natural shooters from distance, when there are at least two capable guys on the bench. This team can't score, or defend for that matter, and the losses are racking up before conference play has even started. That said, the conference is relatively weak this season, so I could see them doing their usual run once they hit a stride. The worry with Atleti is actually the same, in that they're conceding way too many goals and also struggling to score. The Champions League is 50/50; as in, they could draw Bayern or City and pretty much kiss it goodbye once again, or stumble up a mediocre side like Juventus or Lille and be deemed favorites to progress. Then again, they struggle against defensive teams, so maybe a juggernaut would be better in a twisted way. Either way, they're nowhere near Madrid in La Liga, and nobody cares about the Copa, so it's pretty much secure top four as the goal. As they say, winning cures all, and both won recently enough to have plenty of good will in the bank.