From: Mart van de Wege on
"Bob" <Bob(a)> writes:

> Binder Dundat wrote:
>> On Jul 19, 11:49 am, "Bob" <B...(a)> wrote:
>>> Playing possession ball (an offensive tactics) has always lead to
>>> stronger defense, way before the words tiki taka were pronounced for
>>> the first time. Spare us the senseless negative spin.
>> I think the best defensive weapon is attacking every time you have the
>> ball, keeping it away from the opponent and scoring on each attack. I
>> know it is purely a defensive tactic but it can work! I mean if you
>> could score every time you have possession and continuously attack and
>> the other team never has the ball you stand a better than 50% chance
>> of at least getting a draw?
> pretty much ;)
I agree with one qualification: when possession football takes the shape
of endless back and square passing between the defenders, DMs and
goalkeeper, it *is* a boring and defensive tactic.

And trust me, if you watch Dutch football a lot, you get a *lot* of
matches like that. Which are still hailed in our local press as 'great
combinations' or 'offensive football'.

"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
From: higgs on
On Jul 20, 5:20 am, Mehdi <Be...(a)> wrote:
>  > Subject : Most mediocre teams to win the WC
>  > From : zelig9...(a)
> > I find it amusing how you can think any team could give Spain a
> > footballing lesson. They have played just about everyone over the last
> > 4 years and it's been the other way around. Including when they played
> > Italy.
> They won on penalties. That's not giving them a footballing lesson nor
> is winning 1-0 nor is getting most of the calls from the refs.

I dunno if your memory is going, or whether it's just convenience, but
Italy won on pens in 2006.
Against 10 men.

And it went to extra time in the semi versus Germany.

If you're going to give people lessons, at least get your facts right
From: Bruce D. Scott on
higgs (kenhiggs8(a) wrote:

: I'm still waiting for someone to give me a reasonable explanation as
: to how England cheated in 1966.

They didn't cheat. They got help. Not really explicitly of course but
just a matter of "understanding". No better and no worse than Argentina
in 1978. Google past threads if you are really interested it. Do your
own legwork.

If you are interested in "debate class" then you can worry about
substantiating the nonsense the Anglo media wrote about Argentina 1978
which you and a couple of others keep repeating.

From my point of view, no host was perfectly clean in those days but the
level of implicit help they received was not different from case to case.


drift wave turbulence:
From: higgs on
On Jul 20, 4:00 pm, Italian Mike <italian.mik...(a)> wrote:
> Mehdi wrote:
> > > Subject : Most mediocre teams to win the WC
> >  > From : italian.mik...(a)
> > > Anyone who jumps on bandwagons will do this, true. After 2002 I saw so
> > > many people who were not Brazilian wearing Brazil jersey's, same with
> > > Italian jerseys after 2006. Already I've seen an increase in Spanish
> > > jersey's. I'm not surprised. Most people want to be winners.
> > It's not jumping on the bandwagon that I have issues with, the issue is
> > the manner of victory. We both know had Italy won 2006 playing the style
> > of football Brazil played in 1994, almost kicking their way to victory
> > or Spain in 2010 with a tedious and again cynical style of football not
> > to mention the worst diving and playacting by any team in a tournament
> > since 1990 it would have been hailed as the death of football. Spain
> > score one goal more than Greece in 2004, having played a game more, yet
> > they're still a great 'attacking' side. The hypocrisy is astounding but
> > if nothing else it provides plenty of ammunition against the many
> > detractors of calcio.
> The hypocrisy used to bother me, but it doesn't anymore, and there is
> nothing else I can add to what you say here. I agree.
> That said, I do believe Spain and Brazil were the best teams in this
> world cup, inspite of how they played, they were the most complete. I
> have no argument for or against anything anyone wants to say about
> Italy really. They didn't deserve to go any further than they did
> based on their play overall. But again, I agree. I don't know where
> the pundits or critics, whatever you want to call them, can claim
> Spain was the offensive juggernaut that they say. They possessed the
> ball, and often it didn't lead to anything significant, which is why I
> stand by my assessment that it was primarily a good defensive strategy.

I'd agree that Spain aren't the offensive juggernaut that people
claim. After all, they can boast 3 world class forwards in Torres,
Villa and Fabregas. To go through the tournament winning their games
1-0 borders on the criminal.
((apart, of course from the one they lost....)

But what makes you think Brazil were so good?

Reputations count for nothing in WCs

From: higgs on
On Jul 20, 1:13 am, JCQ <zelig9...(a)> wrote:
> On Jul 19, 6:38 am, b...(a) (Bruce D. Scott) wrote:
> > Clarkoo (gabl...(a) wrote:
> > : In my lifetime Italy 2006 definetely and Brasil 94. I'm also told that
> > : Argentina 78 were pretty bad and they needed "an extra push" (if you
> > : know what I'm saying" to win that WC.
> > Were Argentina 78 really worse than England 66?
> > In the Anglo media, when South American teams get help from the referee
> > it's, well, you know, their culture and their politics and dictators and
> > all that.  When England get help from the referee it is, well, you know,
> > the referee understands the game like he should do and as you all know
> > England is the land of fair play and they're all heroes and no one would
> > ever do anything, well, you know, untoward, no really.
> > --
> > ciao,
> > Bruce
> > drift wave turbulence:
> Well said. There is always a double standard. Just imagine if a player
> from Argentina or Uruguay gave a Kung Fu kick like the one in the
> final against Alonso. There is a huge double standard in Europe and
> especially with the English media against all South American teams
> except Brazil.

I'd suggest that, had a SAmerican player made that sort of tackle,
we'd have had people like you saying that it was actually a reasonable
tackle, the guy who was on the receiving end was at fault for ducking
into it and that (had the referee had the temerity to act upon it) the
ref was biased and a cheat.