|
The Argentina team you are referring to is certainly the most negative team to have reached a World cup final. However, they knew well in advance that they didn't have a particularly great team, except the magnificent Diego Maradona. They knew they had a good team, defensively, and so they played to their strengths. Besides, in that final against the Germans they had five(!) of their regular starters suspended for yellow and red cards, so of course they took their chance on the game going to penalties. They had no choice.
The reason they got to the finale can be summed up in two factors: Maradona, and the lack of ability on the part of their opponents. Against Brazil in that match I never felt that Brazil were going to win it. Why? Because they weren't good enough. When Argentina won that particular game, I felt not an inkling of pity for the Brazilians. Why? Because they weren't good enough. They knew that the only offensive weapons Argentina had were Maradona and Caniggia, and they knew they'd try to counter attack them at some stage in the game, starting from deep within their own half and playing off Maradona through the middle, using Caniggia's speed to break down their own rather slow central defensive line. They knew that, and they weren't good enough to stop it. In addition, they weren't good enough to score more goals than the Argies. Conclusion: They lost deservedly, and they weren't good enough.
The '90 WC is a bit particular, and as you're well aware it brought along a significant change after the tournament: The abolishment of the backpass rule and the introduction of the 7-second-rule for the goalie. That in itself was enough to rid football of the negative tendencies of Italia'90, and as you saw four years later, the USA WC was another thing altogether.
Had Argentina played with nine players (they frequently did play with less players on the field in that World Cup - they had five or six red cards throughout the tournament) it wouldn't have made an ounce of difference. With fewer players the Argentinians would've opted to take away two offensive players from their team and put out an even more negative game. It would not have changed anything. The only difference between a team playing a 4-5-1 formation and one playing a 4-3-1 is that they aren't able to go into pressure with their midfield to the same degree. But then again, if the opposition had only nine players also, the equilibrium would not have changed.
Defending well is not easy. In fact, defending the goal of an inferior team is certainly (to my mind) a lot more difficult than playing in attack for a smashingly great team. Although I too was annoyed that Argentina managed to squeeze themselves into the final (although not on account of their match against a Brazilian team which was the most hyped-up team of their entire generation), one cannot call them a crap team just for playing negative football. And with the rules of today, they wouldn't have stood a chance.
Anyhow. Yes, absolutely - Germany v England was a classic. But where was the difference? The English, too, took the consequence of having a couple of central players out suspended and waited in defence for the Germans to come at them, taking their chances on counterattacks instead. It was a great game simply because neither the English nor the German defence was as good as the Argentinian, and both the teams' attack was a lot better than the Argentinian. But that doesn't change the fact that both team's philosophy was a lot like the Argentinians: Safety first. Why safety first? Well of bloody course: They were playing a semi final in a World Cup, for goodness' sake.
I don't understand your argument. Being creative is a lot more difficult in itself than is being destructive, although I give credit to the Argentinian defence. What pissed me off about their team was the time-wasting. That is one aspect that is now a whole lot more difficult, what with no backpass, keeper can only keep the ball for 7 seconds, deliberately kicking the ball away being a yellow card offence. Like I say, the Argies of 1990 would have been chanceless today.
The Germans, against the US in last years' WC, got the goal and then waited out the game, because they understood how to stop the Americans and didn't bother putting more effort into it than they had to. And bar a couple of efforts, you never came close. Against Brazil in the final, if you will remember, the Germans had two massive chances in the first half (as well as Neuville's 30 yard free kick that hit the post after the break) before Brazil had even got off their arses. Just before Brazil got their first I actually felt that Germany had them under control.
Arguing that just because Brazil have Ronaldo and Rivaldo means they automatically deserve to win the Final against Germany is just silly. Certainly, they are great players, but if they can't perform against Germany's defenders and midfielders, themselves among the finest in Europe, they can't make any claim to winning the big prize. Per definition.
I have to correct you on something: The fact is that the vast majority of football teams continue attacking even when they have the lead. The reason for this is obvious: It is highly risky to lie back and try to secure a 1-0-lead, since you give away all possession and time on the ball to your opponents, and I could refer you to thousands of examples where, when a team has had the elad and pulled back into their own box, they've been punished for it by actually losing the game. Why? Because, if you're holding back in defence for one hour, and the opposition scores, you'd need to get back in attack to get another goal. You will have had to have played football for some years until you realise how difficult it is to suddenly change the mentality, tactic and rhythm of your game like that. Trust me, it's not easy. Doing it more often than not results in conceding another goal and losing the game. The average league football game in Europe has between 3-5 goals in it, so in saying that it's only the African teams playing cavalier football, attacking "even when they have the lead", you are completely misinformed. And besides, the only reason as to why ie. Cameroon throw people in attack at all stages of a game (more so than many other national teams competing in the world cup) is, naturally, that they have a crap defence, but a reasonable attack, and that they know it themselves.
The substitution argument is plain silly. We actually have that rule as an experiment in the lower divisions in Norway (from division 3 to division 8, where I play). Do you know what the consequence is? Some teams have two complete line-ups, which they switch halfway in the first half and halfway in the second. For regular squads such as mine (we have 14 players), that's just ridiculous, since when, after 60 minutes of battling and struggling, we have to face a completely new team with fresh legs. So what has happened four or five times this season is: We lead 1-0, 2-0 or 3-1, something like that, until half an hour remain. Then, a completely fresh team come onto the pitch against our 11 tired pairs of legs, and score 3-4 goals in the remaining half hour. Is that fair? Even our football federation has come to realise that this is completely ridiculous: they're now about to abolish it and going over to a maximum of three substitutions, which is the rule in the higher leagues and which, of course, makes a lot more sense.
Like I've said; I think that, to understand the value of defensive stability on the extreme level that is the World Cup (which you keep referring to) you need to have football culture. Americans, although you are keen about football these days, do not have that yet. For my own part I'd be pissed off if my team were leading 2-0 or even 2-1 in an extremely important match, and still sent five or six players chasing upfield? Why? Because it's naive, stupid and risky to do so, and because the opposition most likely will establish pressure, and get goalscoring opportunities in any case. If you want cavalier football, you'd probably name Real Madrid as the prime example. You're right! - Real is without doubt the greatest team on the planet, but not even they are so stupid as to have six players in the attack when they are leading!
The art of football requires excellence in defending, attacking, adhering to tactics, keeping pressure and counterattacking. And like I'm saying, it's all about understanding the finer aspects of the game. It is my opinion that people who define football solely as entertainment where one should see 8, 9 or ten goals a match, have no clue what they're on about and should probably find another hobby, because football is a lot more refined than that. If that's the case, stick to basketball, if seeing games finishing in two or three digits is the only thing that matters.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
