Sport Today

Daniele

You have a team who lost the exact same way vs Croatia and the tactic is
justifiable ? Italy had chances vs Croatia too. But the problem is that if
you concede space to your opponent you concede mental ascendancy AND you
also build a siege complex that even a referee will be influenced by.

To me its pretty simple. if you have the better footballers why not create a
system that arrogantly supposes you can aggressively outplay them ?

WHen Italy attacked were they not more dangerous ?

: To me its pretty simple. if you have the better footballers why not
: create a system that arrogantly supposes you can aggressively outplay
: them ?

You mean, like Argentina?

I'm getting tired of the total cluelessness of the catenaccio bashers.
You know what? Despite a natural tendency to support Brasil against
European teams, I'm starting to think that an English victory (which,
to me, is the most likely outcome) would make a great service to world
football. Unless Felipao goes back to his roots and stops trying to
make happy all the idiots writing columns back home.

-- Marcelo

You support Uruguay and have the gall to take this stance ESPECIALLY given
the tactical cowardice shown by Pua against a ten man France.

I dont see why you have to look to the English. There is always the US side,
a side which has performed a more tactically impressive feat in shutting
down both Mexico and Portugal, playing in the same style. Why isnt a victory
for the US seen as a victory for world football. If Italy scored first vs
Mexico they would have been proud to execute the plan like the US did.

The problem isnt just the coaches, obssessed by systems which in effect
serve to constrict the game to precise moments (ie England and set pieces
and counterattacks), its also the fans, who are convinced that the only way
to win is by building around tactics that assume the opposition must be
stopped, rather than enforcing their game on them.

The Argie team of 1990 would revel in this new tactical rennaissance.

personally I hope the US chokes the life out of the rest of the teams and
win it all.

That'll be the lesson for you deep thinkers who somehow believe that South
Korea playing 4 people up front is JUST tactical naivety.

: At what point did Argentina go recklessly in abandon attacking all
: before them. Argentina paid for its shortcomings. Not having an
: effective playmaker of any sort and not having mobility up front or
: at the back.

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.

: 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?

-- Marcelo

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
teams.

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.

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.

: The problem is that Bielsa believed in the system so much he stopped
: examining the form and quality of the players.

Indeed. The Argentinean media realized the poor form, but they thought
that as soon as these players would wear the NT shirt, they would
recover. Just magic. Bielsa is much clever than that, but given the
choice between using the same players that had adapted to his system,
in poor form, or using untested players in top form, he went for the
former. In the end, he was too stubborn to admit changes to his system.
But most of the changes people are claiming in hindsight, point to a
LESS OFFENSIVE team.

: > 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.)

: What advantage did South Korea gain from attacking Portugal when they
: could have sat back and still qualified?

You cannot compare Uruguay to South Korea. First, being at home makes
a big difference in the way you need to face your games. But, more
importantly, despite not having won anything of relevance in recent
times, the pressure the Uruguayan team has to endure at home (media,
fans) is only comparable to what other WC winning teams suffer. Take
this comparison: Ecuador finished the WCQ campaign in second place,
Uruguay was 5th. So, on the face of it, it would seem that Ecuadoreans
should demand more from their team. They put a shameful display against
Italy (not because of the 0-2, but because they were terrified,
something that the Uruguayan fan would never accept), then defended
most of the game against Mexico, a familiar team which they shouldn't
fear, and lose, and finally they need to score 3 on Croatia to have a
chance, but they are happy with scoring one and winning. They are
welcomed back home as heroes. In a similar situation, the Uruguayans
would return directly to Europe to avoid facing fans and media. You can
claim that Ecuador were playing their first WC ever, but so were all the
Uruguayans players: how does it help Recoba the fact that Rocha played
in 4 WC's? At least the Ecuador coach had already been at the WC with
Colombia! On the Uruguayan side, there was only the keeper trainer,
Mazurkiewicz, with three WC's on his back. To sum it up: it's very hard
to for a foreigner to understand the kind of pressure a Uruguayan
national team goes through, similar to Argentina or Brasil but without
the players, of course...

-- Marcelo