> Which means that it doesn't matter what style you use: the game is about
> both creating scoring opportunities and denying the opponent, and
> different styles of doing it suit different teams. Bielsa is a very
> remarkable individual, but his main mistake was to rely on a single
> tactic. Not all games should be played the same way.
I beg to differ. The problem is that Bielsa believed in the system so much
he stopped examining the form and quality of the players. It sounds similar
to what you say but there were players better than those who played on that
field for Argentina. Mobility, not height and strength was always going to
be key in a WC where the conditions mitigate against defenders remaining in
ascendancy for 890 minutes.
Hence when the game is going on and Bielsda swaps Batistuta for Crespo, it
doesnt matter what system they are playing. He is switching a powerful slow
striker for a....powerful slow striker. No improvement.
Argentina played three good games but they did not put out three very good
And I am yet to hear the argument that Italy couldnt trade body shots with
Korea and beat them. Korea may be fitter but they do not have the ability to
deal with a team that isolates their defenders.
> : You support Uruguay and have the gall to take this stance ESPECIALLY
> : given the tactical cowardice shown by Pua against a ten man France.
> Someone still needs to explain to me how a more attacking Uruguay team
> against France would have been a clever idea. Why would you risk to lose
> (and get eliminated) when what you might gain instead doesn't make any
> difference? (Hint: winning or tying was immaterial to Uruguay: in both
> cases they needed to beat Senegal by just one goal.) Besides, Pua never
> went for a defensive formation, just look at the line-up. If you want to
> blame someone, just blame the players for their lack of self-confidence.
> Indirectly, I would also blame the media for undermining said self-
> confidence: it doesn't help when you are told day after day that you
> are the worst in the world. The funny thing is that the same media that
> bashes the players, then cries "failure!" when they don't succeed in
> a tough group. I mean: if the players are the worst in the world, why
> would this performance be a failure?
What advantage did South Korea gain from attacking Portugal when they could
have sat back and still qualified ? They gained confidence from beating one
of the best teams around (whether hyped or not). That confidence went with
them into the Italy game. Uruguay may and should have beaten Senegal, but it
doesnt take away from the fact that had they beaten France, the likelihood
that they would have been down 3 zip vs Senegal by halftime might have been
lower (ok its conjecture).
What is revealing is that take Korea apart and you see fitness, speed and a
decent level of on the ball skills. Nothing else. Yet all the teams they
have played have conceded ascendancy to them very quickly.
Personally football has become ruined by the obbsession with tactics that
misses the point of what is essentially a simple game. A superior team is
less likely to need a constricting tactical system than a weaker one, no
matter how effective it is.
Therefore I can accept the US playing how they do, but I have no sympathy
for Italy and England playing how they do.
Believe it or not the day will come when teams like Mali or Trinidad will
play the same way and then we will really see what a little brawn and skill
combined with a tight plan can REALLY do.
> -- Marcelo