Borussia said:
Impressive points all around Rebaljo. True, although there has always been a certain amount of fortress defense tactics for decades. Yes, not to the degree of today, but the 'good old days' were far from blissful regarding beautiful attacking strategies.
I agree with your points. Yet, it is not stupid to understand a team's strength and also a team's weaknesses and tactically implement the game plan.
I mean, I hear what you're saying..although please don't be naive enough to think that a team that is weak in technical ability and passing will just go out and play a attack oriented passing game against a team of far superior quality because it's 'good for the game of football' ,etc.
The goal is to win. Sometimes it can be easy, sometimes very difficult...
...Point being, is you play with what you have and try to be as tactically aware as possible.
Italy has won world cups doing this. Is it always nice to watch? No, although it is reality.
Borussia - Thanks for the kind words, mate. I wasn't claiming that every team in the "good old days" played beautiful attacking football, just that theprevailingphilosophies of the
better / topteams were far more open and attack-minded than those of the
better / top"modern-era" sides. That's why I said that watching Spain is like watching the
best quality football from the past.
Sorry for any ambiguity. Don't worry, I'm not naive enough to think that teams with inferior technical ability and passing will or shouldattack a superior opponent because it's "good for the game of football".
With regard to the Netherlands' approach, of course their goal was to win and they employed tactics which they believed would get them the desired result -
however, the Dutch are far from a limited technical side and they would have gaineda lotmore credit (in my humble opinion) and maybe improved their chances by having a go at playing some open football.
A team can play positive football and still be physical (which is the classic British approach I always admired growing up), yet the Dutch overwhelmingly chose the latter, believing that if they could squeak their way through to a penalty shootout then their chances of ultimate victory would be even.
Let's face it - this was the World Cup final, contested by the two "best' teams, so Spain weren't exactly playing helpless mugs like North Korea, China, or India,but a top European side renowned for attacking play. The Netherlands had the likes of Arjen Robben, Wesley Sneijder, Robin van Persie, Dirk Kuyt and Rafael van der Vaart at their disposal, so one cannot make the excuse that they did not haveclassy attacking options of their own. Sure, Spain possessed by far the better team, but the Dutch had the tools to make it a more interesting (and, as a consequence, more entertaining) match.If they lost trying to attack, well, the result would have ultimately been the same (but the score might not
). As things went, they didn't cop the red cards which they deserved in the first half - otherwise, the game would have been over within the ninety minutes.
Excessively defensive play has always been a part of football, but the "fortress defense tactics" that You referred to used to be employed by the far weaker teams, not the better teams which were out to win things, as opposed to survive relegation, et cetera (with very notable exceptions such as Helenio Herrera's Internazionale of the 1960s - the fact that Herrera's approach was so controversiallyunpopular speaks volumes about the general footballing climate in which it was utilised
).Italy's infamous historical catenaccio and zona mistadefensive tacticswere always relative to the style of play employed by their opponents. What wastermed "defensive" in the sixties, seventies, and early eighties would, unfortunately,be labelled rather debonair from the early nineties onwards, when the "fear of losing" mentality took hold of pretty much
all teams
.
Don't get me wrong, I'm aware that football was much rougher in the past (being the fanatic that I was, I've watched every bit of old footage I could ever find and, believe me, that's an awfullot...
) and Ihave no problem with that aspect as, to quote Graeme Souness, "Intimidation is part of the game".Legendary enforcers like "Chopper" Harris and Tommy Smith were able to do over opponents in a far more lenient atmosphere than that which exists today, but their teams (Chelsea and Liverpool) weren't simply out to kick people into the terraces and constantly stifle play - they were attacking sides which wanted to put as many goals past the other team as they could within the ninety minutes. That's the difference between
then and
today. In the"good old days", the game was much harder, much more skillful, much more open,and much more entertaining, without the current"wow, he's fast (er, too bad he can't control the ball - well, we won't worry about
that, let's sign him and pay him 100,000 quid a week)" philosophy.Contrary to what the media tells everyone, most of today's obscenely-paid poofters (especially the artificially-promoted blacks) wouldn't have cut the mustard back in the eras I refer to. I remember Johan Cruyff commenting about the young players in the game back when he was coaching Barcelona in theearly 1990s - he said that the level of skill had definitely declined since his playing days, lamenting that most players were one-footed as opposed to using both feet.That was about twenty years ago - I wonder what he thinks about the current crops of "stars"?
It says a lot that
any player who can actually dribble a bit and is willing to attack opponents directly is described as some kind of flair player - and is then generally viewed as some sort of liability, whose "work rate" isn't up to snuff. After all, he should be sprinting in straight lines, running past players with "speed" and "power",then bludgeoning in a simple square ball for some gap-toothed black lummox of a "striker" who has pushed in front of a lumbering black oaf of a "defender" to bundle it into the net in a stunning display of "modern professional football". Bloody top stuff...
