The Football Thread; transfer hype + stuff

[Ginga]

I was ripping into Mourinho last night for his tactics, but I don't really blame Ancelotti that much tonight because if you do have a proper go at a Guardiola side you can end up getting embarrassed, unfortunately it's the how the majority of teams (in Europe at least) play against him now, so then you get the dimwits who like to claim that his sides play boring football, when the reality is his teams usually have to try and break down 11 men, one of the hardest, most frustrating and, for the spectator, most boring tasks in football. And at least Madrid were really looking for a goal on the counter tonight, they should have had more than the one, Chelsea last night were simply not interested in having the ball at any time, which Mourinho himself admitted. That to me is indefensible.

The sad thing about these kind of tactics is that it doesn't even bring very much success, the only two defensive teams to win the CL in recent years were Inter under Mourinho (vs this Bayern side at the very beginning of their rejuvenation) and Chelsea under Di Matteo, and honestly, if you played that campaign out a thousand times they would probably never win it again. Then you've got Barca twice under Gaurdiola, and obviously a rampaging Bayern last season, and United if you want to go back that far.[/quote]


So what you're saying is the pressing and passing game has yielded 3 wins and the defensive 2.

A 3:2 ratio. Hardly a damning statistic is it?

It's the same nonsense trotted out by the same people.

Yes, 3:2.
Well, apart from the dozens of other teams that have won the European Cup since its inception.

[Denster]

Oh sorry - i thought we were talking only about those that play the 'right way' and the 'wrong way'. Not all the others who play a mixture of the two.

Oh and if that sounds ridiculous it is. Like this discussion.

[Denster]

Oh and Since United in 2008 were mentioned.

In the Semi finals against Barca - we drew 0-0 away (like Chelsea) and won 1-0 at home (like Madrid) opting to defend well and hit them on the counter.

[Psychic]

I'm not sure basing judgement of a style solely on who has won the European Cup in recent seasons using which system is going to be the best way to judge. It's clearly more difficult to implement a passing and pressing style than it is to organise a team to defend and counter efficently. If more teams are favouring the defensive approach first and foremost but passing and pressing teams are still winning more tournaments overall, surely that's another plus point for the possession based style? That's the way I see it anyway.

[Ginga]

Oh sorry - i thought we were talking only about those that play the 'right way' and the 'wrong way'. Not all the others who play a mixture of the two.

Oh and if that sounds ridiculous it is. Like this discussion.

A mixture of wrong and right. There have been less than half a dozen teams who have successfully won the European Cup playing Catenaccio but you can't really base much on that. I'd say the recent examples (Chelsea and Inter Milan) are substantially less enjoyable to watch than Herrera's sides. That's just from hours spent harassing a video tape, though. I can't claim to have watched them live. I'm not anywhere near that old, although this argument certainly is.

[Denster]

That's the whole point though surely. That their isn't one right way to play. Yet the whole discussion started because of a 'purist' attitude that teams should just cater to Bayern's style (or Barca's) rather than trying to combat it.

I'll always prefer attacking football. Always. But i do admire a good defensive display as well.

[Luboluke]

Well I suppose we'll see in the coming years. The other thing I will say is that teams that play positive football can build dynasties on it i.e Barca, Bayern, United. Whereas the ultra defensive brand of success is usually short lived, i.e Greece, Inter. Mourinho is really the only one who can seemingly make a career out of it, and he's usually got the best players in the world to play with. Even his Madrid side couldn't win the CL, only domestically, which is where he let them express themselves.

[Denster]

I'm going to bed. I can't keep posting the point that you keep missing.

[Psychic]

Yet the whole discussion started because of a 'purist' attitude that teams should just cater to Bayern's style (or Barca's) rather than trying to combat it.

I've not seen anyone say this in the thread tonight.

[Denster]

Bork.

[chalkitdown]

Your first problem is paying attention to Bork.

Your second problem is getting into an argument with Bork.

[Psychic]

Bork.

Nah, he said he thought Real weren't entertaining tonight, that he prefers teams who play passing football and it escalated from there. The only person who seems to have mentioned any right or wrong way to play football was glowy with an accusation towards bork. Should've guessed that cheeky scamp would be involved in an argument in here.

If you're in any doubt, he posted this yesterday. Perfect opportunity to take a swing at Mourinho's wrong way of playing/anti-football/negative tactics/etc but he seems fairly pragmatic about it. Allardyce will do that to a man I guess.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the style, but it's effective at what he's setting out to do. I'd love to see a game of passing football, with attacking intent from both sides, but at the end of the day it's a results business and Chelsea couldn't give a flying strawberry float if they end up winning the Champions League by being defensive to get there.

[darksideby182]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27136704
Funny that.

[Denster]

No, but I enjoy watching football that entertains. When you pay money for a match live or to watch on television I want to see entertaining football, watching a side sit back and defend for 90 minutes, winning 1-0 thanks to the counter isn't enjoyable. People criticise Spain for being boring, but have you ever thought that if sides of equal quality actually went toe to toe, then the match would be much more entertaining as a result. The Euro 2012 final was an example of this, yes Italy got beaten badly, but it was a good game of football because they had a go, much more enjoyable than the World Cup finals of 2010 or 2006 where teams set out not to lose.


(Bork 2014.)

Bolded. It's ok to get dicked as long as you play the right way. A philisophy utilised by no successful team ever.
he also said that Real Madrid were like West Ham but with better players.

I find that similiar to saying a vauxhall and a Ferrari are the same because they have four wheels, an engine and are made of metal.

[Harry Ola]

There's more than one way to play football. There's even more than one way to play attractive football.

Personally I find tiki taki (or whatever it is called) soporific. Give me fast breaking wingers playing counter attacking football any day of the week to get the heart racing.

It is even possible to find entertainment from defensive football. The most obvious one for me is the job Inter did to Barcelona a while back. I thought their performance was so well done that you had to appreciate the skill involved in it.

[RogueLeader]

Glad to see one of my favourite non Arsene-related managers beat one of my least favourite last night. Maybe Pep should take another career break, he has been working hard for a whole year, after all.

[RogueLeader]

It is even possible to find entertainment from defensive football. The most obvious one for me is the job Inter did to Barcelona a while back. I thought their performance was so well done that you had to appreciate the skill involved in it.

True. Also, people seem to forget that Busquets peek-a-boo'd and got an Inter player sent off, forcing them to retreat even further. Barca's cheating led to their own downfall.

[rudderless]

I think there's a big difference between the defensive display of Chelsea and that of Real last night. One of the two semis was a turgid, tedious affair, chiefly thanks to one team's brand of stifling anti-football. The other was a fascinating clash between two very different tactical approaches. Bayern had tons of possession, but Real could and perhaps should have finished the first leg at least two goals ahead, if not three. They were defensive for the most part, yes, but broke with pace and purpose. It was a thoroughly absorbing match.

[Skippy]

Exactly, Chelsea never attacked with any purpose.

[Tomous]

I would totally agree with Rudderless.

Real should have won 3-0 really. Because their approach meant they created so many good chances. They were trying to win the game, whereas Chelsea were trying not to lose it. Hence the appreciation of one style, and the criticism of the other.