EPT2011-2012 football (soccer) thread - Page 299
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Sated
England4983 Posts
| ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On April 19 2012 18:53 Sated wrote: Barcelona do not play attacking football, that is a myth. They play possession football. They keep the ball and hope that the opponent makes a mistake that they can exploit. It can result in a lot of goals because Barcelona have players who are so good that even the slightest mistake can result in a goal being conceded, but the number of goals they score are not the result of an aggressive, attacking style. They are the result of a patient, possession-based style. Barcelona are the Thorzain of football. Whether you find that entertaining or not is entirely an opinion and not worth debating. Why would you say thats not attacking ? The way you say possession football implies that they spend all their time passing it around in front of their goal which is just not true. They spend the majority of the time in the opponents half and the only reason its not in the final third is because the other team is shutting up shop. I mean what the fuck ? Every team when they have the ball is trying to look for mistakes they can exploit. Whats that even supposed to suggest. The style is intrinsically very aggressive. Your saying things like "hope the opponent makes a mistake". Well fuck that everyone can do that. Aggression doesnt mean people running end to end chasing the ball. I feel like your idea of aggression is warped and skewed toward open games. Again Barcelona is not the team that relies on playing in tight spaces. They do it "inspite" of that. To overcome the lack of space available. The margins for teams defending them are so small means that they are always attacking.. The mere fact that teams drop back is because they will get picked apart. That is called attacking. The Thorzain factor comes in as a response to not having any space to work with. It is not inherent to the way they would like to play. Even if you point to tiki taka, the priority in tiki taka is passing forward. Otherwise you choose the best option available without losing the ball. Whats better. Keeping the ball or making a bad pass that gives it back to the other team ? Yeah exactly. It is no myth. This is a poor justification that apologists point to for parking the bus. | ||
|
SEA KarMa
Australia452 Posts
| ||
|
Sated
England4983 Posts
| ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
On April 19 2012 18:53 Sated wrote: Barcelona do not play attacking football, that is a myth. They play possession football. They keep the ball and hope that the opponent makes a mistake that they can exploit. It can result in a lot of goals because Barcelona have players who are so good that even the slightest mistake can result in a goal being conceded, but the number of goals they score are not the result of an aggressive, attacking style. They are the result of a patient, possession-based style. Barcelona are the Thorzain of football. Whether you find that entertaining or not is entirely an opinion and not worth debating. It's patient aggresion then xD Much more aggresive than walling and throwing the bus for sure. Btw Chels didn't make big mistakes but could have gotten 4 goals easily (against them). | ||
|
La1
United Kingdom659 Posts
On April 19 2012 19:55 Sated wrote: I'm going to re-iterate because you don't seem to understand. You're also so zealous in your defence of Barcelona that I at times wonder if you're reading what is written: Barcelona play a very passive/patient style of football that results in a lot of goals because they are very, very good at exploiting the defensive mistakes that their opponent's make. Although any team can "hope the opponent makes a mistake", it takes a very, very good player to exploit mistakes as small as the ones Barcelona exploit. However, the fact that they play a very passive/patient style of football means - by definition - that they cannot play an aggressive/attacking style of football. It is entirely impossible to be passive/patient and aggressive/attacking at the same time. ------------------- Now, onto what you've said: "The way you say possession football implies that they spend all their time passing it around in front of their goal which is just not true." - I never said that they spend all their time passing it around in front of their goal. Don't put words into my mouth and then argue them. It's pathetic. "Every team when they have the ball is trying to look for mistakes they can exploit. Whats that even supposed to suggest." - An aggressive/attacking style attempts to force the other team into making mistakes by attacking them even when there isn't an obvious weakness to exploit. Barcelona do not do that, they rarely take chances (something that the commentators alluded to constantly last night); they instead wait for a mistake or a gap to exploit and then attack it. This is the opposite of an aggressive/attacking philosophy. Your saying things like "hope the opponent makes a mistake". Well fuck that everyone can do that. - Yes, everyone can do that. But it takes a very, very good side to know that they don't need to force a mistake because they're capable of exploiting even the smallest mistake - that's what Barcelona know about themselves, and that's why they don't need to be aggressive/attacking. The margins for teams defending them are so small means that they are always attacking - Having the ball in the opponent's half is not the same as being aggressive/attacking. Barcelona know that they don't need to attack until the moment is right, so they don't - they knock it around and wait for a gap. It's very, very passive. The mere fact that teams drop back is because they will get picked apart. That is called attacking. - Nope, it's not attacking. Teams drop back to reduce the chances that they will make a mistake, not because Barcelona are aggressively forcing them backwards. The Thorzain factor comes in as a response to not having any space to work with. It is not inherent to the way they would like to play. - No team should ever have any space to work with regardless of what system the other team is playing. Therefore, the Thorzain analogy is incredibly valid: Barcelona play like this because they want to and they want to because they know they can pick the very best teams apart by doing so. They know that they don't have to be aggressive/attacking and so aren't. Whats better. Keeping the ball or making a bad pass that gives it back to the other team ? Yeah exactly. - I never said that Barcelona's style of football is "bad", I said that it isn't aggressive/attacking. I even said right at the end of my post that whether or not being passive is good/entertaining/whatever is entirely down to personal opinion and thus not worth debating. Don't put words into my mouth and then argue them. It's pathetic. I'm going to make this clear one more time so that you will maybe be less defensive: I am not saying that there is anything wrong with Barcelona's style, I am simply pointing out that it isn't aggressive/attacking. Stop acting as if I am saying that being passive/patient makes Barcelona a bad team, because I am not. Can i just say this was the best counter argument to his stupid post ive seen in ages, Kudos to you I would like to back your post up by stating that a lot of top premiership teams like man utd are agressive because they FORCE the play. If you ever watch man utd they get down the wing, and put a cross in, they try probing balls and often loose the ball a lot more because of this.. However i also think man utd create chances where barca would not. I agree that barca are very good however they play keep ball, and try to wait for the perfect chance and pounce on a mistake, there was a point where alves got down the wing and got the ball on line with the pen spot with nobody marking him.. he didnt cross, instead he chipped the ball back into midfield to keep the ball / passing going.. if that was Evra, Or Cole or any EPL player they would of thrown a cross in hoping somebody could get on the end of it. People also say 24 attempts at goal however most of these where shots from a far so i would not class the attempts as very good. My 2c Mark | ||
|
popzags
Poland604 Posts
Sated has a point; Barca's style isn't, in fact, attacking. Messi's style is. When he has a bad day, Barca struggles. Maybe it would be different if they really had a midfielder who can shoot on goal while being outside the peanlty area. But Iniesta, Xavi and Fabregas aren't too suited for this. Barcelona played sub-par game, Chelsea played good game, thus the result. Oh wait: I forgot to add the luck factor: something you better have on your side when playing the best team in the world. Chelsea's luck is called Petr Cech. Period. | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
DEFENSIVE MASTERCLASS - ITALIANS GIVE DEFENSIVE BLUEPRINT TO DEFEAT SPANISH BRILLIANCE .... or something along those lines. Barcelona didn't play badly, Chelsea played phenomenally well. All their players were on form. Terry and Cahill were monstrous at the back, Ashley Cole had his best game for a long time, the midfielders tracked and worked all day. I am in no means a Chelsea fan but I have to admire the way they set their team up and the work rate they gave last night. Having said all that home advantage is huge in the Champions League. Fatigue makes a big difference at this level of football and getting on a plane is never easy. I don't think Chelsea will win this tie overall because going to the Nou camp and playing that tight will be so much more difficult; bordering on impossible. I think Chelsea need to score first and somehow limit Barcelona to 2 goals. That way they will go through on away goals. On April 19 2012 20:12 popzags wrote: Hey, guys, relax. Chelsea haven't won anything yet. They are up 1:0, but with 100k fans on Camp Nou and on wide pitch with no rain forecast, they may as well go 0:4 in rematch. There's no real difference in pitch size. Wikipedia has it as .3 of a yard difference. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6257 Posts
On April 19 2012 19:55 Sated wrote: I'm going to re-iterate because you don't seem to understand. You're also so zealous in your defence of Barcelona that I at times wonder if you're reading what is written: Barcelona play a very passive/patient style of football that results in a lot of goals because they are very, very good at exploiting the defensive mistakes that their opponent's make. Although any team can "hope the opponent makes a mistake", it takes a very, very good player to exploit mistakes as small as the ones Barcelona exploit. However, the fact that they play a very passive/patient style of football means - by definition - that they cannot play an aggressive/attacking style of football. It is entirely impossible to be passive/patient and aggressive/attacking at the same time. ------------------- Now, onto what you've said: "The way you say possession football implies that they spend all their time passing it around in front of their goal which is just not true." - I never said that they spend all their time passing it around in front of their goal. Don't put words into my mouth and then argue them. It's pathetic. "Every team when they have the ball is trying to look for mistakes they can exploit. Whats that even supposed to suggest." - An aggressive/attacking style attempts to force the other team into making mistakes by attacking them even when there isn't an obvious weakness to exploit. Barcelona do not do that, they rarely take chances (something that the commentators alluded to constantly last night); they instead wait for a mistake or a gap to exploit and then attack it. This is the opposite of an aggressive/attacking philosophy. Your saying things like "hope the opponent makes a mistake". Well fuck that everyone can do that. - Yes, everyone can do that. But it takes a very, very good side to know that they don't need to force a mistake because they're capable of exploiting even the smallest mistake - that's what Barcelona know about themselves, and that's why they don't need to be aggressive/attacking. The margins for teams defending them are so small means that they are always attacking - Having the ball in the opponent's half is not the same as being aggressive/attacking. Barcelona know that they don't need to attack until the moment is right, so they don't - they knock it around and wait for a gap. It's very, very passive. The mere fact that teams drop back is because they will get picked apart. That is called attacking. - Nope, it's not attacking. Teams drop back to reduce the chances that they will make a mistake, not because Barcelona are aggressively forcing them backwards. The Thorzain factor comes in as a response to not having any space to work with. It is not inherent to the way they would like to play. - No team should ever have any space to work with regardless of what system the other team is playing. Therefore, the Thorzain analogy is incredibly valid: Barcelona play like this because they want to and they want to because they know they can pick the very best teams apart by doing so. They know that they don't have to be aggressive/attacking and so aren't. Whats better. Keeping the ball or making a bad pass that gives it back to the other team ? Yeah exactly. - I never said that Barcelona's style of football is "bad", I said that it isn't aggressive/attacking. I even said right at the end of my post that whether or not being passive is good/entertaining/whatever is entirely down to personal opinion and thus not worth debating. Don't put words into my mouth and then argue them. It's pathetic. I'm going to make this clear one more time so that you will maybe be less defensive: I am not saying that there is anything wrong with Barcelona's style, I am simply pointing out that it isn't aggressive/attacking. Stop acting as if I am saying that being passive/patient makes Barcelona a bad team, because I am not. Barcelona's playstyle IS about forcing opponents to make mistakes. Barca is constantly passing not to find space but to create space, by passing the ball they are forcing the opponent to move, and in the space they create by moving, another barca player steps in and passes it to the next barca player. They can only do this by extreme discipline and trying to have everyone involved in the passing game including the last line. | ||
|
Stimp
South Africa780 Posts
On April 19 2012 20:12 popzags wrote:Oh wait: I forgot to add the luck factor: something you better have on your side when playing the best team in the world. Chelsea's luck is called Petr Cech. Period. If its because of Petr Cech its because of good goalkeeping, not luck. The rest of the 'luck' also included some stunning defending. There were some moments, like sanchez hitting the bar and pedro(was it pedro?) fluffing his strike at the end, and fabregas fluffing his chance but is it luck or just not finishing chances. The rest was good defending and some great blocks/ last ditch tackles. | ||
|
hns
Germany609 Posts
On April 19 2012 19:55 Sated wrote: The mere fact that teams drop back is because they will get picked apart. That is called attacking. - Nope, it's not attacking. Teams drop back to reduce the chances that they will make a mistake, not because Barcelona are aggressively forcing them backwards. Honestly I think you're somewhat nitpicking with all that "agressive is this and passive is that and there's nothing in between". You simply decide to exclude the way Barcelona is playing from "aggressive play" by calling it "passive" and then proceed to explain that, clearly, aggressive and passive contradict each other and thus Barcelona can not play "aggressively". I for myself would actually call it aggressive play to pull the strings in such a way that you are able to exploit any weakness that the other team displays, but I can understand if you don't want to call that aggressive. However, you call being constantly in the other team's face with the ball just out of their reach with the opportunity to score a goal at any time there's a hole in the defense "passive". That doesn't seem right to me. (Edit: Also, what RvB said. :-)) That being said, I don't want to tell either of you guys that you are right or wrong or whatever. Just accept that you seem to have different definitions of what is an attacking play and what is not; there's no objective way to decide who's wrong or who's right as every explanation ultimately relies on the definition of attacking or passive or whatever it is that each one of you has. | ||
|
popzags
Poland604 Posts
By the way, I'm not bashing Chelsea defenders. Hell, they deserve credit - especially Cahill. | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
I just said it was an implication, thats not quoting or putting words in your mouth and you just clarified thanks. An aggressive/attacking style attempts to force the other team into making mistakes by attacking them even when there isn't an obvious weakness to exploit. Barcelona do not do that, they rarely take chances (something that the commentators alluded to constantly last night); they instead wait for a mistake or a gap to exploit and then attack it. This is the opposite of an aggressive/attacking philosophy. Rubbish, they are always trying to "force mistakes". Lobbing the ball into unlikely spots and "hope" the defenders mess up is not as ideal. Your looking at it wrong. How is it not attacking. They could just as easily try to do that with just their forward line. Yet the entire team is encroaching the opponents half and trying to force errors and find space. As far as I can see your idea of attacking is making passes or plays that are unlikely to work and "hope" people screw up. Thats no more forcing a mistake than trying to break them through passing it and looking for gaps. They are both forms of attacking. One is just designed to be more efficient. As far as obvious weakness is concerned. How often do Barca actually pry open 'obvious' weaknesses. Hell even yesterday most of the chances they made were in huge traffic. Weakness is a very very relative term. Yes, everyone can do that. But it takes a very, very good side to know that they don't need to force a mistake because they're capable of exploiting even the smallest mistake - that's what Barcelona know about themselves, and that's why they don't need to be aggressive/attacking. Again this is the same as the point above.. Having the ball in the opponent's half is not the same as being aggressive/attacking. Barcelona know that they don't need to attack until the moment is right, so they don't - they knock it around and wait for a gap. It's very, very passive. Yes keeping the ball in the other side of the pitch isnt attacking at all. Its quite the opposite. Stop playing with semantics. Always looking for a weakness and trying to pry the opponent open is attacking get that through your head already. - Nope, it's not attacking. Teams drop back to reduce the chances that they will make a mistake, not because Barcelona are aggressively forcing them backwards. Mistakes, mistakes, mistakes. Jesus this is pure nitpicking and irrelevant. Your just miopically justifying the other perspective. This doesnt make any sense at all. Teams drop back to reduce chances ,,,,,, Why do they do that I wonder ? Its because they are being attacked. God. No team should ever have any space to work with regardless of what system the other team is playing. Therefore, the Thorzain analogy is incredibly valid: Barcelona play like this because they want to and they want to because they know they can pick the very best teams apart by doing so. They know that they don't have to be aggressive/attacking and so aren't. Again very aggressive, very attacking. Thorzain plays that way regardless of how strong a position he is in. You think if Barca has an opening or an advantage theyll still pass it around back in forth ? No you dont. Infact thats precisely what your saying. The ball will move forward and goals will be scored. Your analogy is invalid. Im not arguing the point that the style is bad or good. Im arguing that it is infact very attacking. Everything about their play is attacking. They attack with the ball and without. It seems we cant see eye to eye on this since we obviously have different idea of what attacking football is. As for the passive/aggressive. Im not even going to go there. People already addressed it. Funnily enough I'm not the one making accusations of blindly "doing" anything either. Thats a cheap way to discredit someone when you start off a comment with words like that. I never said that Barcelona's style of football is "bad", I said that it isn't aggressive/attacking. I even said right at the end of my post that whether or not being passive is good/entertaining/whatever is entirely down to personal opinion and thus not worth debating. Don't put words into my mouth and then argue them. It's pathetic. As for me claiming you called Barcelona a bad team... Im sorry where is it even implicit ? Quoting me out of context to score points eh.. good job. Everything has revolved around wether they play attacking football or not. Your accusation is false. You are being overly defensive Clutching at straws and looking for anything to make it sound like Im being unfair in my assesment. From a "bad pass to loose the ball < good pass to keep the ball" perspective in tiki taka football, passing favourably is the better option. This has nothing to do with whether Barcelona is a bad team or not. I dont know where you got that. Project much ? That is pathetic. Your accusing me of doing things that have nothing to do with the conversation. Its not me bringing it up. Its you. Perhaps I could word it better. But calling me pathetic with weak arguments like this doesn't say much about you either. Gotta do better. On April 19 2012 20:08 La1 wrote: he didnt cross, instead he chipped the ball back into midfield to keep the ball / passing going.. if that was Evra, Or Cole or any EPL player they would of thrown a cross in hoping somebody could get on the end of it. Yes that is an example of attacking football, but again as I mentioned your "hoping" when you do that, which is fine. But that doesnt mean that what Barcelona do isnt attacking either. Honestly you guys are just playing with words trying to justify people being defensive by sayings "its not us, its Barca." As for United creating chances where Barca wouldnt.. yea absolutely. I said that aswell. Go look back a page. Its right there same club, same comment. Thats why I agree Barca do not play an undoubtedly "superior" brand of football. Whatever floats your boat. Ill just let them make their own case. I have nothing more to say on this. Clearly conventional wisdom suggesting its attacking football wont convince anyone. I'm naive in thinking that I could. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/feb/11/xavi-barcelona-spain-interview | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
On April 19 2012 17:57 Rebs wrote: Im saying hating on a style is objectively speaking, wrong on the basis of "its not attacking and therefore boring". Especially in the case of Barca because thats practically the embodiment of attacking football. Either admit you put your foot in your mouth with that statement Seriously I think the Barca style is about as un-attacking as it's possible to be when you have your centre backs at the halfway line. Sure they put the ball in the opposition half and they dominate possession, but they don't make attacking moves 90% of the time, they just bounce the ball backwards and forwards out of the reach of the opponents. IT's the classic embodiment of keepaway, fifa style bullshit football and it just plain sucks to watch. The Americans take the piss out of football EXACTLY because of that style, just passing backwards and forwards with no reason other than tiring the other team out because they are chasing you because they want to play actual football and not some random game of keepaway in a park. (I get what you are saying about waiting for a weakness, but I seriously doubt that the players are always doing that from watching Barca, they always seem really focused on just making the triangles and getting space to pass) On April 19 2012 14:43 Rebs wrote: Otherwise feel free to dislike it as much as you want, because you cant stand teams winning a certain way. Another example of you not getting me. I couldn't give a shit if Barcelona were winning or losing every game and about to be relegated, I hate the style of play regardless of how successful it is, ie when Spain miserably failed to win a world cup with it until 2010. Like, I really like how some Spanish teams play because they are much more aggressive (and yes I know we disagree on this word but I mean putting it forward, whacking balls into the penalty box and generally quickly making an attacking movement once the ball gets into the final third, as opposed to waiting for an opportunity for like 1 minute in the final third), I really enjoy the Bilbao style and malaga, and valencia isn't bad and I like RM's play. Just Barca tiki taka pisses me off because it's so insanely delaying. For me our goal last night was pretty much my ideal aesthetic for a goal. 10 seconds from the halfway line to the back of the net. Perhaps why I enjoyed the Crouch goal so much. Anyway, all that's been happening here is me expressing my opinion and you telling me it's illogical. | ||
|
Ysellian
Netherlands9029 Posts
| ||
|
Enchanted
United States1609 Posts
On April 19 2012 22:27 Ysellian wrote: Any Portuguese care to commentate on the chances of Sporting against Bilbao? I'm quite familiar with Benfica and Porto, but I hardly see much of Sporting lately. They're 4th in the league which is pretty bad, but at the start of the season they had a terrible manager who was fired and ever since he was replaced they've been playing pretty well. Their new coach has never actually coached international matches but has managed to get them this far so it should be an entertaining match. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On April 19 2012 21:48 sc4k wrote: Seriously I think the Barca style is about as un-attacking as it's possible to be when you have your centre backs at the halfway line. Sure they put the ball in the opposition half and they dominate possession, but they don't make attacking moves 90% of the time, they just bounce the ball backwards and forwards out of the reach of the opponents. IT's the classic embodiment of keepaway, fifa style bullshit football and it just plain sucks to watch. The Americans take the piss out of football EXACTLY because of that style, just passing backwards and forwards with no reason other than tiring the other team out because they are chasing you because they want to play actual football and not some random game of keepaway in a park. (I get what you are saying about waiting for a weakness, but I seriously doubt that the players are always doing that from watching Barca, they always seem really focused on just making the triangles and getting space to pass) To be fair, Americans hate on soccer more because of the incessant diving you see from Spanish/Dutch/Italians. Although you do occassionally hear about how soccer is boring when you're over here. | ||
|
o3.power91
Bahrain5288 Posts
On April 19 2012 22:55 Megatronn wrote: They're 4th in the league which is pretty bad, but at the start of the season they had a terrible manager who was fired and ever since he was replaced they've been playing pretty well. Their new coach has never actually coached international matches but has managed to get them this far so it should be an entertaining match. Not to mention Sporting managed to knock out Manchester City from the Europa League in the Ro16 (on away goals). On the other hand, Bilbao managed to beat Manchester United both home and away. Personally, I'm gonna be cheering on Bilbao for this one. Their play against Man United on Old Trafford was really impressive and I want to see them through to the finals. | ||
|
Ysellian
Netherlands9029 Posts
On April 19 2012 23:57 o3.power91 wrote: Not to mention Sporting managed to knock out Manchester City from the Europa League in the Ro16 (on away goals). On the other hand, Bilbao managed to beat Manchester United both home and away. Personally, I'm gonna be cheering on Bilbao for this one. Their play against Man United on Old Trafford was really impressive and I want to see them through to the finals. Oh yeah! Sporting knocked out Man city  Should be a good match | ||
|
Argoth.
Germany1961 Posts
 Schalke will offer him a fare-well match against a Spanish team and will retire his No.7. Classy move, not like Real Madrid kicking their most beloved player out. | ||
| ||
