From: Italian Mike on
Bob wrote:
> Italian Mike wrote:
> > Bob wrote:
> >> Italian Mike wrote:
> >>> Bob wrote:
> >>>> Italian Mike wrote:
> >>>>> Bob wrote:
> >>>>>> Binder Dundat wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 19, 11:49 am, "Bob" <B...(a)> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Italian Mike wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Mehdi wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Subject : Most mediocre teams to win the WC
> >>>>>>>>>>> From : italian.mik...(a)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Exactly, the praise this team has earned in the media just
> >>>>>>>>>>> reveals the quality of the double standards that exist.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> While this is true I also think this WC will be forgotten
> >>>>>>>>>> about very quickly. There wasn't a single all time great at
> >>>>>>>>>> this tournament, there were three players that would have
> >>>>>>>>>> reached that status had they won the competition i.e.
> >>>>>>>>>> Maicon, Lucio and Messi.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It may be forgotten, or seen as it really was by seasoned
> >>>>>>>>> viewers who know what they are watching, but the typical World
> >>>>>>>>> Cup fan every four years is going to repeat what they are
> >>>>>>>>> told, and Spain being one of the greatest attacking teams of
> >>>>>>>>> all time is likely what they'll be repeating. I've heard it
> >>>>>>>>> already being echoed around my parts and it's hardly a
> >>>>>>>>> soccer/football mad city.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Anyway, whoever said that Spains Tiki-Taka was a defensive
> >>>>>>>>> weapon was bang on. I'll be honest, it was a good defensive
> >>>>>>>>> weapon too, but nothing more than that. Other goals came on
> >>>>>>>>> desperation plays, set pieces, and direct football, no square
> >>>>>>>>> or triangle passing into the net at all.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Spain outshot their opponents by 33-50% (except for Chile).
> >>>>>>>> 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 ;)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Man this group goes down hill during the summer, too bad there
> >>>>>>> wasn't some football event they could plan to keep people
> >>>>>>> occupied during June and July?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now can someone please analyze the best shoe laces to use on a
> >>>>>>> wet pitch! Or how about the stats on curly haired players
> >>>>>>> accuracy on headers vs bald headed players?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Spain deserved to win the WM, plain and simple.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That's a fact the negative spinmeisters can't contest, but
> >>>>>> they'll try to tarnish that win as much as they can.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Tarnish what? Here's another example of assaulting the messenger,
> >>>>> not the message. If you have a counter argument, make it,
> >>>>> otherwise you've failed to say anything significant.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have already made my argument but you'd rather ignore it than
> >>>> answer it.
> >>>
> >>> You'll have to forgive me Bob. I haven't tracked down all your
> >>> arguments pro or con. I responded to the statement you made directly
> >>> to me which was void of any argument really.
> >>
> >> Just above, I said that Spain outshot their opponents by a wide
> >> margin (my numbers were a gross underestimate of reality too), which
> >> tend to show they were likely the most offensive team of the
> >> tournament. I also said, and Binder suggested it much more
> >> humorously than I did, that it is ludicrous (Orwellian, really) to
> >> claim that maintaining possession and attacking incessantly is a
> >> defensive tactics.
> >
> > You're not reading what I say properly, or purposely misreading what I
> > say. Either way, I'm not going to repeat what I said because I'm
> > starting to see it's a fruitless endeavor with you. I believe you're
> > going to make negligible references to certain statements and then
> > spin it how you believe anyway.
> I believe you are backing down from claiming that Spain used defensive
> tactics

You've revealed quite a few beliefs that have little to do with what
I've said already.

>because you have nothing sensical to reply to my comments.

It's the other way around. I give you a specific example, and you
attack me personally. Or create some weird association with another
poster, both of which are just trolling and have nothing related to
what I've said.

This appears to be your only tactic, and I would argue it's a typical
one when someone is lost to counter real arguments.

> >> Spain defensive strategy may be to play
> >> possession ball but it isn't implemented through the use of defensive
> >> tactics like you and your new pal Benny (Mehdi) are claiming.

> > If you want me to respond to you based on something *I* said, then
> > refer to what I say. Don't be to concerned with what others are
> > saying.

> wether you say it or agree with someone saying it (as there are several
> posts of your doing so in this very thread), doesn't make a whole lot of
> difference to me.

On the contrary, you're the only one making an issue of it.

> >>>>> Keeping possession is a brilliant defensive strategy, especially
> >>>>> when you can't triangle pass the ball in the net. These are facts
> >>>>> that are quite easily observable when you watch Spain play. I also
> >>>>> said they were probably the best team in the tournament aside from
> >>>>> Brazil. Where's the negative spin in that?
> >>>>
> >>>> Because you know that teams with offensive tactics are more highly
> >>>> regarded by today's fans
> >>>
> >>> So they say.
> >
> >> Just on this board most people want to see offensive football
> >
> > Go watch pick up soccer on the weekend. There are plenty of fields
> > that play offensive, no defense football

> do you have any other strawmen you could throw around?

I've learned quite a few from you, and it's a valid argument. You tell
me one team in the last 20 years that has won a world cup playing all
out attacking football? One example please.

> >> and from the
> >> amount of flak taken by defensive outfits, I think it is pretty safe
> >> to say that offensive football is what people value most.

> > People are about 40 years too late, and I'm guessing most of these
> > people you refer to aren't in their 50's or 60's, are they?

> I suspect the average age here is significantly less than that but fans are
> entitled to decide what they want to see.

Fan are entitled to their preference, but at some point reality has to
sink in.

> >>>> whereas teams with mostly defensive tactics aren't so much
> >>>> appreciated.
> >>>
> >>> So they say.
> >>>
> >>>>> When Spain needed a goal, it wasn't from triangle passing. It was
> >>>>> usually a direct assault on net, or a set play.
> >>>
> >>>> All teams faced with mostly defensive tactics have similar
> >>>> difficulty scoring in the modern game.
> >>>
> >>> It's not about having difficulty scoring, it was the manner in which
> >>> Spain found their goals that I'm specifically discussing.
> >>
> >> The manner (and number) is directly related to the tactics used by
> >> their opponents. All dominating teams are faced with the same
> >> dilemma in the modern game.
> >
> > You're not responding to anything I said. I've said that triangle
> > passing was a useless offensive weapon, and the evidence is in the
> > many times Spain tried to use this approach to generate offense. It
> > simply did not work. If you need, you can go and re-watch the games. I
> > often watched them twice, one for entertainment and the second time to
> > note what particular teams are doing, hence why I seem to be able to
> > discuss the specifics while you're going on vague generalities.

> They scored that way because passing the ball into the net rarely works with
> teams parking the bus but they did try.

Not all teams parked the bus, and that's such a cheap argument really.
It didn't work because it's a failure as an offensive weapon, but
keeping possession at half field is a great defensive one.

I don't know why that is causing so much grief for you.

> >>> Name one
> >>> time they triangle passed into a goal. The triangle passing strategy
> >>> that made up a bulk of Spain's display was, as I've already said,
> >>> good for keeping possession in the neutral area of the pitch hence
> >>> a good defensive strategy and largely useless in getting them
> >>> goals. Their goals came on much more direct approach or set plays.
> >>> As I said, if you have a counter argument to that, you can present
> >>> it.
> >>
> >> I have but you don't seem to realize that Spain's opponents mostly
> >> parked the bus making passing of the ball into the net almost
> >> impossible, although it wasn't for lack of trying.
> >
> > Chile did not. Triangle passing still failed there.

> pretty small sample

It's valid. Triangle passing failed to generate offense, on teams that
bunkered like Germany and on teams that did not like Chile.

Holland didn't necessarily bunker. They pressed higher to disrupt
Spain's typical tiki-taka at center pitch, and of course fouled like
mad men. There was an opportunity for you to get the idea of how
successful the Tiki-Taka had been at contributing to good overall
sound defensive strategy by Spain, but useless at generating offense.
Almost no offense in the final came from triangle passing. A defensive
blunder did it in. In the process, Holland's high pressing game plan
almost generated two goals for them. One if Robben could have released
the trigger a little earlier, and the other if Puyol didn't foul him.

So it appeared that Holland had figured out to not let Spain set up
their triangle passing at half pitch, it would cost them defensively
and that worked.

Please no references to anyone else if you want to comment on that,
and no attacking the messenger if you want to be taken seriously.

> >>>>> Counter that as an argument, if you can.
> >>>> LOL.

> >>> Ok, you chose not to, or are unable to. No difference to me. I've
> >>> made no qualitative argument for/againt Spain's play.

> >> May be, but you ought to stop agreeing with Benny because he is
> >> doing it,

> > Maybe you should evaluate my comments based on myself and not be so
> > overly concerned with whomever might agree with them or not. I'm not
> > accusing you of saying anything in particular because someone else may
> > have openly agreed with it.
> >
> > Focus on me, not your other adversaries.
> >
> >>> I've said
> >>> specifically where and why I think they used the approach they did.
> >>> You, on the other hand, have provided no substance whatsoever. No
> >>> better than trolling really.
> >
> >> People claiming that Spain used defensive tactics are clearly the
> >> trolls (and not very good ones at that)
> >
> > No trolls are those who can't make any specific argument and would
> > rather attack the messenger than the message, something I've seen you
> > do more of the former.