[Tiste Simeon]

Gorefest, on 03 July 2018 - 09:37 PM, said:

Alas, football is passion, not friendly pats on the back and a heartfelt ‘well done’. I have no objectivity about teams that i support, no matter how crap, but i have little patience in general for teams that play just not to lose. Like Iceland or Sweden. It is negative and horrible to look at. I was brought up in the belief that in football it is better to go down in a glorious blaze than reach finals with drab unwatchable antifootball. So i have no respect whatsoever for teams that only show up to frustrate, even though i fully appreciate it is the only way for them to achieve success. I understnad it, but I dont respect it or enjoy it.

Yeah cos beautiful football has worked so well for the Dutch... 🙄

[Gorefest]

People remember the team from 1974. Even though they lost. Because it was glorious. Same with 1978. Or 1998 with Bergkamp. We apologise for 2010 and 2014. You can blame us for a lot but not for antifootball.

Plus i would argue that three world cup finals and one European Championship is nor bad at all for a small nation.

This post has been edited by Gorefest: 03 July 2018 - 11:19 PM

[Malankazooie]

All the European countries use the defensive posture tactic. It's a hold over from the Germany way of playing the game. You won't see any of the team's from the Americas using that tactic. Germany has become more progressive, and have decided that being on attack mode (or maybe muted somewhat when ahead) is the progressive way to play the game. I will say I was pissed when Sweden decided to to go into complete defense (deny them a goal) strategy. It almost backfired on them. England did it too and they got through on PKs. So I will agree with you on that point, but don't act like the Dutch don't do it. Every country in Europe is chasing the way Germany is playing the game. So they now just realized keeping the pressure on, offensively, when you are up is the way to go.

[Gorefest]

You do realise that Germany is actually copying the Dutch playing style, not the other way around? After a slow spell in the early 2000s they revamped their youth academy to mimic the Dutch School of play, around the same time that the Netherlands actually let this slip in favour of a more German (i.e.organised and dfensive) style. The ‘classic’ Dutch total football playing style is what Barcelona has been doing for the past 10-15 years, which was introduced there by johan Cruyff in the early nineties and then cultivated by his predecessors and mentees such as Rijkaard and Guardiola. Teams like Barcelona, bayern Munich and now Manchester City are playing a more modern equivalent of it, but the founding principles are the same. It is total football. It breathes Cruyff and Michels.

[Gorefest]

The sad thing is that the Netherlands has actually stepped away from this in recent years, partly, due to a dry spell in talented players, but the hope is that under Koeman (who is also a Cruyff adept) they might be able to rebuild this slightly. The sad reality though is that there is little money in the Dutch league these days so talent is not really coming through anymore, or they leave much to early to go play (and fail) abroad.

[Malankazooie]

I always liked Arjen Robben. Thought he was a dynamic player in his prime and really had a great career. Robin van Persie just disappointed more then anything else (maybe had a moment here or there, but yeah, disappointing overall). Wesley Sneijder was the little dude who could. Sure, he stepped it up here and there and made all of the "fan-atics" lose their minds. But at the end of the day, too small and too unathletic. A lot of grit to that little guy though, a scrapper.

See, here's the deal in any sport. You need your super star. The guy who transcends all others with abilities in physicality and skill. And then you need to surround him with talent, enough so that he can maximize those talents to take you to victory. It's why Argentina and Portugal are going home (Ronaldo and Messi not surrounded with enough skilled players). Whereas Brazil, Belgium, England, Uruguay, and France are looking pretty good with this formula. Russia, Croatia, and Sweden, not so much.

[Mentalist]

Malankazooie, on 04 July 2018 - 01:28 AM, said:

See, here's the deal in any sport. You need your super star. The guy who transcends all others with abilities in physicality and skill. And then you need to surround him with talent, enough so that he can maximize those talents to take you to victory. It's why Argentina and Portugal are going home (Ronaldo and Messi not surrounded with enough skilled players). Whereas Brazil, Belgium, England, Uruguay, and France are looking pretty good with this formula. Russia, Croatia, and Sweden, not so much.

Sooo.... who was the German superstar in 2014?

[EmperorMagus]

I'm going to interrupt the lovely discussion with a rather pointless anecdote.

I caught the tail end of the England v. Columbia game in sitting in a random lobby/cafe at my university. Almost everyone there was wholly focused on the game, and interestingly, everyone (with the sole exception of me) was rooting for England. And they were so strangely elated when the English won.

I guess it could be because Canada is a commonwealth country and people felt closer to the English speaking ... English compared to the Columbians. But it did bring up a question: have any of you guys encountered this weird situation were a group of people who have no concrete reason to root one way or another all choose to root for team X rather than Y?

[Mentalist]

With Canada, there's a few things to it, the Commonwealth being a part of it.

There's also the fact that the EPL is the most widely commercially broadcast national league; and (most importantly, I feel), all the soccer TV commentators in Canada are inevitably British, with distinct accent; All the current world Cup commentators on TSN are openly English fans, who are openly rooting for England to win the World Cup. So, for "soccer laymen", who only ever tune in to watch the World Cup, it's easy to perceive England as the "home Team"

I've also often encountered situation where people pick a team based on a single "star" they recognize, because they happen to be a fan of the team where that player plays their club football.

[amphibian]

Malankazooie, on 04 July 2018 - 01:28 AM, said:

I always liked Arjen Robben. Thought he was a dynamic player in his prime and really had a great career. Robin van Persie just disappointed more then anything else (maybe had a moment here or there, but yeah, disappointing overall). Wesley Sneijder was the little dude who could. Sure, he stepped it up here and there and made all of the "fan-atics" lose their minds. But at the end of the day, too small and too unathletic. A lot of grit to that little guy though, a scrapper.

See, here's the deal in any sport. You need your super star. The guy who transcends all others with abilities in physicality and skill. And then you need to surround him with talent, enough so that he can maximize those talents to take you to victory. It's why Argentina and Portugal are going home (Ronaldo and Messi not surrounded with enough skilled players). Whereas Brazil, Belgium, England, Uruguay, and France are looking pretty good with this formula. Russia, Croatia, and Sweden, not so much.

You don't need a superstar to succeed in soccer. They help considerably in any sport, but soccer of the last fifteen years is too much a team sport for a Maradona type to succeed anymore. Messi did the closest thing I've ever seen in 2014, but he still had a few very good players with him and a favorable draw.

What's needed is a base level that's mostly superior talent. Not necessarily superstar level, but a team like Germany 2014 that had almost every player being a top twenty five player in the world at their position is the ideal situation.

Without the players who are faster and smarter than the opponent's general level, the system either has to be perfect (Spain 2010 being the best example of this) or it's going to have to be Greece Euro 2000 ultra defensive style play.

Soccer is a game of small advantages adding up to goals. A team has to beat another team to spots over and over for big chunks of a game and athleticism is the hardest yet easiest way to achieve that. An interception off a surprisingly fast close defensively turns into a counter turns into a slicing pass up field to a faster than the defense runner etc. It's why Spain lost just now - they don't have a handful of players who can move that fast and that well. Busquets and Ramos also can't distribute from the back like Xabi Alonso could. Iniesta lost his legs months ago. Koke isn't accurate enough. These players have played on an elite level so long that their wheels are falling off, they're injured, and frankly, I think they're a bit too comfortable with their system to actually take the smart risks that they did ten years ago.

They should have gone with Thiago as a starter and tried to play younger, faster up front when dealing with the bunker style defense. Isco tried, but he's one person and not who the team is built around. But expectations and team dynamics probably mean that benching Iniesta and the other senior players after Lopetegui got fired was a political no no.

That's why I picked France to win before the tournament started. They have the young legs that are faster than everyone else and in a tournament where there isn't really time for teams made up of pros who play different styles in their pro careers to gel quickly, athleticism makes itself known much quicker. They have an athletic defense, as opposed to Spain's or Argentina'. Plus they have a couple superstars in Pogba and Kante. I don't know yet if Mbappe is such a player that he's as good as Kante, but he and Griezmann are such a tough combo to play against.

I thought Germany would do much better though. They didn't have a resplendent Kroos or Ozil, but they have enough talent everywhere that they could beat most teams to spots. Maybe they just wanted vacations instead of another run at the title. Not everyone is built to repeat time after time for many years straight.

[EmperorMagus]

Mentalist, on 04 July 2018 - 03:30 AM, said:

With Canada, there's a few things to it, the Commonwealth being a part of it.

There's also the fact that the EPL is the most widely commercially broadcast national league; and (most importantly, I feel), all the soccer TV commentators in Canada are inevitably British, with distinct accent; All the current world Cup commentators on TSN are openly English fans, who are openly rooting for England to win the World Cup. So, for "soccer laymen", who only ever tune in to watch the World Cup, it's easy to perceive England as the "home Team"

I've also often encountered situation where people pick a team based on a single "star" they recognize, because they happen to be a fan of the team where that player plays their club football.

Fair enough.

It's still very strange to see Canadians of every stripe (including a girl with a distinctly Kenyan accent and a couple of Chinese speaking dudes) start cheering in the middle of the day on campus because England won a game. Definitely a surreal moment.

[Khazduk]

Ahem.
Sweden: 3 WC medals - silver 1958, bronze 1950 and 1994.
England : 1 WC medal - gold 1966.

Well, maybe time for some resurgence from the fossilized three lions.

[Tapper]

Malankazooie, on 04 July 2018 - 12:05 AM, said:

All the European countries use the defensive posture tactic. It's a hold over from the Germany way of playing the game. You won't see any of the team's from the Americas using that tactic.

You must watch different American teams . Uruguay for the last few tournaments has been a classic deep 4-4-2.
Mexico sat back and countered over the flanks against Germany and Brazil (in which Brazil didn't play Marcelo to keep that flank covered) and Colombia was also best playing the counter from deep. And why not? The reasons for it are pretty convincing at the international level.

Collapsing to a deep 4-5-1/4-4-2 is fantastic when playing teams that do not have the automatisms that are required to consistently create runs and passing opportunities between the lines. That's basically any all national side. Even Spain demonstrated they were not capable of slicing through Russia's two banks. Iniesta, Isco and Koke would be able to cope with parking the bus in club football, because they'd know X would now make a run that would pull that opponent out of positon, followed by Y occupying that space, but the positioning and personell is much different in international football.

To continue with the Russia-Spain game: Diego Costa was doing exactly what was required of him: dragging defenders out of position all game, moving towards the ball, then away to make himself open, but Spain's playmakers never found him because his timing was different from theirs - even if he plays with Koke at Atletico. Nor did anyone use the space to run into, which was probably what was expected of Asensio.
Of course, it wasn't just the passing: Spain also didn't run at Russia. When Isco did, he'd break off sideways instead of passing deep and the receiver would then generally go sideways instead of exploiting the space, unless Isco was coming from the left, where Alba would overlap, creating a passing lane which the Russians would turn into a dead end at the byline.

Secondly, the deep formation also creates space behind the opponent's defense for a quick counter: most teams feature at the least one fast, skilled forward or they rely on the break not so much to score from open play, but to generate set pieces high up the pitch, like Iceland.

Quote

Germany has become more progressive, and have decided that being on attack mode (or maybe muted somewhat when ahead) is the progressive way to play the game. I will say I was pissed when Sweden decided to to go into complete defense (deny them a goal) strategy. It almost backfired on them. England did it too and they got through on PKs. So I will agree with you on that point, but don't act like the Dutch don't do it. Every country in Europe is chasing the way Germany is playing the game. So they now just realized keeping the pressure on, offensively, when you are up is the way to go.

Sorry, but the Dutch beg to differ .


The Dutch "Total Football" was a mid-70s man-orientated press that was further developed by then-coach Michels and Cruyff (plus, his successors and pupils and Van Gaal, who was neither), most prominently Rijkaard at Barcelona.

Of course, Total Football was in a different time with a vastly different pace of play and a different offside rule, but still, it is a tactical school that also held sway in the international game. When the speed of play increased, Michels, Cruyff and Van Gaal modified the system into 4-3-3 with a fairly high defensive line, also in the club game. That 4-3-3 wasn't so much about pressing (that's a German/Bielsa/Guardiola trend) but still constituted a narrowing of the playing room for the opponent with plenty of room behind the defense (unlike the Mourinho 4-3-3 which sort of collapses into a 4-5-1 at the edge of their own box), and featured a striker and the central attacking midfielder running at the center backs to break the build-up play.
The notable exceptions are Van Marwijks 2010 team (which was built around the Ajax players who moved abroad, most specifically Sneijder, who then played for Mourinho's Inter) and Van Gaals 5-3-2 in Brazil 2014, when the Dutch lacked creativity in central midfield.

The high press is simply too complicated to be used in the international game. A coach has three to five weeks at the end of a season to prep the team for the tournament. Add in the time for resting, travel, set piece instructions, team chemistry and implementing opponent-specific match plans. Installing the muscle memory of the shifts of marking assignments, tells of who presses whom, when, where and how long and towards which zone go far beyond regular zonal marking. Knowledge players already have from their club level do not carry over, either. Finally, the risks when it goes wrong are significant.

The best teams can do is condense the space in midfield around traditional playmakers, but this tournament also features plenty of diagonal passes to the flanks, where inside forwards like Hazard, Ronaldo, Neymar, Mane or Lozano roam, not always checked by wing backs either.

[Tattersail_]

Gorefest, on 04 July 2018 - 12:56 AM, said:

The sad thing is that the Netherlands has actually stepped away from this in recent years, partly, due to a dry spell in talented players, but the hope is that under Koeman (who is also a Cruyff adept) they might be able to rebuild this slightly. The sad reality though is that there is little money in the Dutch league these days so talent is not really coming through anymore, or they leave much to early to go play (and fail) abroad.

I'd argue that two of your better players play for Liverpool. They are awesome. If Kluivert does well at Roma? Then your National side will have a solid spine. Much better than trying to qualify for this WC with Sneijder, Babel, Kuyt or whoever hasbeens.

[Tattersail_]

Malankazooie, on 04 July 2018 - 01:28 AM, said:

I always liked Arjen Robben. Thought he was a dynamic player in his prime and really had a great career. Robin van Persie just disappointed more then anything else (maybe had a moment here or there, but yeah, disappointing overall). Wesley Sneijder was the little dude who could. Sure, he stepped it up here and there and made all of the "fan-atics" lose their minds. But at the end of the day, too small and too unathletic. A lot of grit to that little guy though, a scrapper.

See, here's the deal in any sport. You need your super star. The guy who transcends all others with abilities in physicality and skill. And then you need to surround him with talent, enough so that he can maximize those talents to take you to victory. It's why Argentina and Portugal are going home (Ronaldo and Messi not surrounded with enough skilled players). Whereas Brazil, Belgium, England, Uruguay, and France are looking pretty good with this formula. Russia, Croatia, and Sweden, not so much.

I agree with needing some sort of Superstar but I disagree with using both Portugal and Argentina in the same bracket. Portugal were a good team built with and around Ronaldo but did not solely rely on his skills. They worked well as a team but were unlucky to draw one of the best sides in the tournament. You see Uruguay are not only a good solid team they have multiple superstars. Cavani, Suarez and Godin. You see the work rate from front to back and they gel. Argentina could be said to have too many superstars, Messi, Dybala, Aguero, Higuin, Di Maria but they do not work well as a team, and Messi himself dictates who plays, where they play and what system they play otherwise they spit their dummies out. They left Icardi? at home when he was probably their most prolific striker but him and Messi had a massive falling out due to Icardi stealing Maxi Lopez's wife/gf. Basically the politics within the team were a mess. Compare that to Brazil who all get on like a house on fire, love the game and they have their superstars as well, Neymar, Coutinho, Willian, Firmino, Alisson, Silva, Casemiro they have the biggest stars of the lot AND they gel. What a team. Yet they come up against a team of superstars who gel also. De Bruyne, Hazard, Mertens, Vertonghen, Courtois to name a few who seem to have good charisma. They even had the gal to leave arguably their best center midfielder at home in Nainggolan.

We are seeing an awesome world cup, that has seen actual teams progressing with good team spirit and mentality with that little touch of class. 6 teams can realistically win it at this stage, my head says Brazil/Uruguay my heart says England.

[Tattersail_]

Mentalist, on 04 July 2018 - 02:52 AM, said:

Malankazooie, on 04 July 2018 - 01:28 AM, said:

See, here's the deal in any sport. You need your super star. The guy who transcends all others with abilities in physicality and skill. And then you need to surround him with talent, enough so that he can maximize those talents to take you to victory. It's why Argentina and Portugal are going home (Ronaldo and Messi not surrounded with enough skilled players). Whereas Brazil, Belgium, England, Uruguay, and France are looking pretty good with this formula. Russia, Croatia, and Sweden, not so much.

Sooo.... who was the German superstar in 2014?

Ha ha ha, are you joking?

Tony Kroos is one of the best midfielders to grace the game, Muller is a superstar, Lahm one of the greatest ever defenders, if not the best RB ever then definitely top 3. No one in the World was better than Neuer in goal and back then Sweinsteiger could control a game like there was no tomorrow. Khedira worked great with him as well box to box and they had a good understanding and togetherness. They blew Brazil away in the semi's 7-1 which is one of the shock resluts of world football ever.

[Tattersail_]

EmperorMagus, on 04 July 2018 - 03:11 AM, said:

I'm going to interrupt the lovely discussion with a rather pointless anecdote.

I caught the tail end of the England v. Columbia game in sitting in a random lobby/cafe at my university. Almost everyone there was wholly focused on the game, and interestingly, everyone (with the sole exception of me) was rooting for England. And they were so strangely elated when the English won.

I guess it could be because Canada is a commonwealth country and people felt closer to the English speaking ... English compared to the Columbians. But it did bring up a question: have any of you guys encountered this weird situation were a group of people who have no concrete reason to root one way or another all choose to root for team X rather than Y?

100% when Russia knocked out Spain I was elated. I'm a Liverpool supporter and cannot stand Sergio Ramos. To see him cry made me feel good the shit-house. I also enjoyed Aspas being the one to miss a penalty after that fucking corner.

My link

[Tattersail_]

Mentalist, on 04 July 2018 - 03:30 AM, said:

With Canada, there's a few things to it, the Commonwealth being a part of it.

There's also the fact that the EPL is the most widely commercially broadcast national league; and (most importantly, I feel), all the soccer TV commentators in Canada are inevitably British, with distinct accent; All the current world Cup commentators on TSN are openly English fans, who are openly rooting for England to win the World Cup. So, for "soccer laymen", who only ever tune in to watch the World Cup, it's easy to perceive England as the "home Team"

I've also often encountered situation where people pick a team based on a single "star" they recognize, because they happen to be a fan of the team where that player plays their club football.

When Canada, Usa and Mexico host the 2026 WC do all three automatically qualify?

[Tattersail_]

amphibian, on 04 July 2018 - 04:30 AM, said:

Malankazooie, on 04 July 2018 - 01:28 AM, said:

I always liked Arjen Robben. Thought he was a dynamic player in his prime and really had a great career. Robin van Persie just disappointed more then anything else (maybe had a moment here or there, but yeah, disappointing overall). Wesley Sneijder was the little dude who could. Sure, he stepped it up here and there and made all of the "fan-atics" lose their minds. But at the end of the day, too small and too unathletic. A lot of grit to that little guy though, a scrapper.

See, here's the deal in any sport. You need your super star. The guy who transcends all others with abilities in physicality and skill. And then you need to surround him with talent, enough so that he can maximize those talents to take you to victory. It's why Argentina and Portugal are going home (Ronaldo and Messi not surrounded with enough skilled players). Whereas Brazil, Belgium, England, Uruguay, and France are looking pretty good with this formula. Russia, Croatia, and Sweden, not so much.

You don't need a superstar to succeed in soccer. They help considerably in any sport, but soccer of the last fifteen years is too much a team sport for a Maradona type to succeed anymore. Messi did the closest thing I've ever seen in 2014, but he still had a few very good players with him and a favorable draw.

What's needed is a base level that's mostly superior talent. Not necessarily superstar level, but a team like Germany 2014 that had almost every player being a top twenty five player in the world at their position is the ideal situation.

Without the players who are faster and smarter than the opponent's general level, the system either has to be perfect (Spain 2010 being the best example of this) or it's going to have to be Greece Euro 2000 ultra defensive style play.

Soccer is a game of small advantages adding up to goals. A team has to beat another team to spots over and over for big chunks of a game and athleticism is the hardest yet easiest way to achieve that. An interception off a surprisingly fast close defensively turns into a counter turns into a slicing pass up field to a faster than the defense runner etc. It's why Spain lost just now - they don't have a handful of players who can move that fast and that well. Busquets and Ramos also can't distribute from the back like Xabi Alonso could. Iniesta lost his legs months ago. Koke isn't accurate enough. These players have played on an elite level so long that their wheels are falling off, they're injured, and frankly, I think they're a bit too comfortable with their system to actually take the smart risks that they did ten years ago.

They should have gone with Thiago as a starter and tried to play younger, faster up front when dealing with the bunker style defense. Isco tried, but he's one person and not who the team is built around. But expectations and team dynamics probably mean that benching Iniesta and the other senior players after Lopetegui got fired was a political no no.

That's why I picked France to win before the tournament started. They have the young legs that are faster than everyone else and in a tournament where there isn't really time for teams made up of pros who play different styles in their pro careers to gel quickly, athleticism makes itself known much quicker. They have an athletic defense, as opposed to Spain's or Argentina'. Plus they have a couple superstars in Pogba and Kante. I don't know yet if Mbappe is such a player that he's as good as Kante, but he and Griezmann are such a tough combo to play against.

I thought Germany would do much better though. They didn't have a resplendent Kroos or Ozil, but they have enough talent everywhere that they could beat most teams to spots. Maybe they just wanted vacations instead of another run at the title. Not everyone is built to repeat time after time for many years straight.

First of all I agree with you on France, they do look good and Dangerous but so does Uruguay, Brazil and Belgium on that side of the draw. You wouldn't be surprised if any of them 4 make the final.

Yet there is no way the German players wanted an early holiday. Some decisions were crazy, like leaving Leray Sane out of their squad but I think their main problem was that the manager went for his trusty old guys rather than the form players like Southgate has done. Imagine sticking with Rooney just because of the name. Muller hasn;t had a good season whereas Draxler, Brandt, Sane had belters, they could have changed their system accordingly to suit the upcoming stars but they didn't adapt and probably thought they had an easy group.

[Mentalist]

Tattersail_, on 04 July 2018 - 01:29 PM, said:

Mentalist, on 04 July 2018 - 02:52 AM, said:

Malankazooie, on 04 July 2018 - 01:28 AM, said:

See, here's the deal in any sport. You need your super star. The guy who transcends all others with abilities in physicality and skill. And then you need to surround him with talent, enough so that he can maximize those talents to take you to victory. It's why Argentina and Portugal are going home (Ronaldo and Messi not surrounded with enough skilled players). Whereas Brazil, Belgium, England, Uruguay, and France are looking pretty good with this formula. Russia, Croatia, and Sweden, not so much.

Sooo.... who was the German superstar in 2014?

Ha ha ha, are you joking?

Tony Kroos is one of the best midfielders to grace the game, Muller is a superstar, Lahm one of the greatest ever defenders, if not the best RB ever then definitely top 3. No one in the World was better than Neuer in goal and back then Sweinsteiger could control a game like there was no tomorrow. Khedira worked great with him as well box to box and they had a good understanding and togetherness. They blew Brazil away in the semi's 7-1 which is one of the shock resluts of world football ever.

Shweinsteiger (iirc) didn't start in 2014, as he was past his prime.
I was half-joking: I'm aware Germany was an amazing squad (and Neuer deserved that golden glove), but that was just it: all of their solid players were top-ranked in their positions, but no one would really be called a "superstar" with the name recognition of Messi, Ronaldo, Suarez, Neymar, etc. Which was why I wanted Kazooie to answer that question,


Personally, I'm leaning towards Brazil or France to win it. Belgium has a shot if they can get an early lead on Brazil to shake their composure.

In the other bracket, England and Sweden seem pretty fairly matched up, from what I've seen of both teams: that one could go either way.

As someone who wants to see Russia out, but must grudgingly admit that their coach drilled them well in hard D (they've been playing like a less dynamic Iran), I was happy they got matched against Croatia, because that game would result in 50+ attempts on goal until eventually something goes in. I'd have been more worried of a Denmark/Russia pairing, because there'd be a higher chance of Russia advancing there, as both teams focus on defensive counters. Overall, Croatia's my one left-over dark horse in this tournament.