The UEFA Champions League 2011/12 Thread

[Sir Calumn]

This debate needed xifio.

 

[Xifio]

I'm not going to waste my time defending a bunch of straw men your mind has created out of my simple and obvious statements.

If you think that defending a fast moving attack is "on no account" harder than defending a slow moving attack then I challenge you to a game of 1 on 1 basketball, however when you have the ball you are only allowed to walk. I eagerly await you demonstrating your point. If you think 1 on 1 basketball isn't fair, I'm willing to play 5 a side soccer against a team only allowed to walk when in possession. Barca is so deadly because they are so fast. Ditto for the counter attack game that is all the rage right now. Slow Italian attacks are pathetic to watch and easy to defend.

seems like you have misunderstood things I have said, and thus arrived at an irrelevant analogy ...

firstly, I said "no, it's not, on all counts" in specifically denying all 3 premises of your 'faster' argument ... i.e., "on all counts" refers to a discrete variable from the limited domain containing the 3 elements you stated ... but you read that as "on no account", which would be a continuous variable, on the unlimited domain of all real elements of possibility ... clearly, the two statements are not equivalent (since one is a specific response, and the other a generalization) ...

then, you continue to assume that when I say 'faster isn't always better', I mean 'slower is better', which is again untrue ... methodical precision demands a mix of measured build-up, and opportune execution ... this may involve moments of acceleration of either the player or the ball, but is not overall a "faster is better" approach ... this is what I like to see ...

suffice it to say your 1-on-1 basketball analogy [unsurprisingly] misses the mark of what I was trying to say by quite some distance ...

"Something" isn't making me laugh. Your once again absurd arguments are making me laugh. I love how you always resort to a little insult when you inevitably start losing your cool, though.

losing my cool? uh, you gave me sh!t, and I gave it right back ... preeetty straightforward ...

 

[ShiftyPowers]

seems like you have misunderstood things I have said, and thus arrived at an irrelevant analogy ...

firstly, I said "no, it's not, on all counts" in specifically denying all 3 premises of your 'faster' argument ... i.e., "on all counts" refers to a discrete variable from the limited domain containing the 3 elements you stated ... but you read that as "on no account", which would be a continuous variable, on the unlimited domain of all real elements of possibility ... clearly, the two statements are not equivalent (since one is a specific response, and the other a generalization) ...

Bravo. Of course, the three points were 1) it's harder to play faster, 2) it's harder to defend fast play, 3) therefore it is smarter to play faster (if you are capable).

So while I only explicitly defended point 2 in my last post, it still disproves your contention of "no on all 3 accounts".

The problem seems to be that you equate "fast" with "mindless", ignoring several key factors. The first, of course, is that the best teams play the fastest i.e. Barcelona. It takes way more skill to play a blistering possession game with tiki taka than to keep possession in one's defensive line and play out the game. Second, is simply that defenders have to react, so they are always "behind" the attacker in a sense, unless they can correctly anticipate what the attacker will do every time (which is not realistic). To gain the most advantage from this a team, or individual, must go faster. This is why Ronaldo and Messi are so fantastic and Riquelme often has difficulty. Technically, Riquelme is better, tactically, Riquelme is better, but the speed advantage is why Ronaldo and Messi are the best in the world. Third, it's simply harder to judge the path of, and control, a faster moving ball, which is why kick and rush can be effective at times (see every desperation goal ever, but my favorite was France's in the Euro 2000 final). None of these points have been disputed, so I wonder what you are really arguing against.

I also think its not fair to judge the English league by their historic tactical limitations. You said yourself that there are only a few English managers in the Premier League (for a reason) and some who are around are actually decent (Brendan Rodgers). The Premiership isn't a kick and rush game. It is faster and more athletic and more physical, which means guys have less time to do step overs and pirouettes, but I think that helps true brilliance really shine through.

The proof is in the pudding, most of the older attacking players who don't have vested interests in protecting Barcelona (or whoever), talk about how much easier the game is now for attackers and sort of turn their nose up at how maybe they couldn't have played in the 70s. This should be a cliche in sports (and it is to everyone except you, it seems), but "anyone can do it at practice, it's who can do it in a game that matters." On the pitch it is the same thing. Anyone can look brilliant when they have tons of space and all day on the ball, but greatness comes out when they have to fight for every inch. That's what you get in England. The quality is definitely lower than it has been, but that's due to poorer players because of a number of factors (mostly the immediacy of the dollar, or pound I guess). The style, when guys aren't playing kick and rush (which they haven't for a good maybe 5 years now league wide minus bad teams and Stoke), is the best because it brings out the best.

 

[Xifio]

the best teams play the fastest i.e. Barcelona. It takes way more skill to play a blistering possession game with tiki taka than to keep possession in one's defensive line and play out the game.

I agree 100% with that second statement, but not the first ... Barça's tiki taka moves the ball very quickly between players ... but that does not mean that they move forward at breakneck speed, constantly looking to hit on the counter ... rather, they draw out the spaces with nigh-unbelievable precision possession, as they attempt to pass the ball into the opposition net ... this normal approach to goalscoring is interspersed with goals of individual brilliance, be it by necessity, or through opportunity ... that's how Barça operate ...

Second, is simply that defenders have to react, so they are always "behind" the attacker in a sense, unless they can correctly anticipate what the attacker will do every time (which is not realistic). To gain the most advantage from this a team, or individual, must go faster. This is why Ronaldo and Messi are so fantastic and Riquelme often has difficulty. Technically, Riquelme is better, tactically, Riquelme is better, but the speed advantage is why Ronaldo and Messi are the best in the world.

no, Riquelme failed to do what Xavi has done at Barça, despite both players possessing strengths in somewhat similar areas ... but still, Riquelme led an unfancied Villarreal to the Champions League semifinals ... and if he hadn't choked, who knows how that final might have turned out (despite it being against Rijkaard's Barça) ... so with Riquelme, it may be a question of temperament, and not being quite clutch enough ...

Second, is simply that defenders have to react, so they are always "behind" the attacker in a sense, unless they can correctly anticipate what the attacker will do every time (which is not realistic). To gain the most advantage from this a team, or individual, must go faster.

of course, in a foot race, if you are slower, then, unless you have taken preemptive action, you will lose ... the real tactic of counterattacking is not merely attacking at pace, but countering so rapidly that the ratio of attackers to defenders is, at worst, 1:1 ... it is a little cheap (IMO), but such moves can be executed beautifully (see the Dutchies at EURO 2008), and they are good to watch [on the odd occasion] ... my only problem is if such a tactic not only becomes the modus operandi, but the beauty is disposed of too, then what remains is, as you suggest, mere mindless athleticism ...

Third, it's simply harder to judge the path of, and control, a faster moving ball, which is why kick and rush can be effective at times (see every desperation goal ever, but my favorite was France's in the Euro 2000 final). None of these points have been disputed, so I wonder what you are really arguing against.

again, I agree that kick and rush can be very effective; I'm certainly not arguing against its [potential] effectiveness ...

but is merely being 'effective' entertaining? is winning enough? not for me ... there has to be more to the play than mere effectiveness: style AND substance ... but yes, style is very much subjective, so I cannot deny someone else their aesthetic preferences, even if that may be kick-and-rush ... but I certainly won't call it "better", coz it isn't for me ...

I also think its not fair to judge the English league by their historic tactical limitations. You said yourself that there are only a few English managers in the Premier League (for a reason) and some who are around are actually decent (Brendan Rodgers). The Premiership isn't a kick and rush game. It is faster and more athletic and more physical, which means guys have less time to do step overs and pirouettes, but I think that helps true brilliance really shine through.

The proof is in the pudding, most of the older attacking players who don't have vested interests in protecting Barcelona (or whoever), talk about how much easier the game is now for attackers and sort of turn their nose up at how maybe they couldn't have played in the 70s. This should be a cliche in sports (and it is to everyone except you, it seems), but "anyone can do it at practice, it's who can do it in a game that matters." On the pitch it is the same thing. Anyone can look brilliant when they have tons of space and all day on the ball, but greatness comes out when they have to fight for every inch. That's what you get in England. The quality is definitely lower than it has been, but that's due to poorer players because of a number of factors (mostly the immediacy of the dollar, or pound I guess). The style, when guys aren't playing kick and rush (which they haven't for a good maybe 5 years now league wide minus bad teams and Stoke), is the best because it brings out the best.

like I told Ebonix, I watch and follow English football -- it makes for a change ... I just don't find it better ...

athleticism, grit, and determination; technique, tactical nous, and dexterity ... I think you rate both sets of 3, but the first 3 over the latter 3 ... for me it is the converse ... I only get disgusted when people (not you, necessarily) champion the first set, and downplay the latter ...

defenders don't need to have a scrappy dogfight with attackers to deny them space to manoeuvre -- tightly closing down channels of passing, and constantly denying potential avenues of movement, forcing the ball to be moved away from goal, works just as well, and is more appealing to me ... but I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree there ...

 

[ShiftyPowers]

Athleticism, grit, and determination are like the definition of America.

 

[adedawson]

Here's some interesting stats, number of different teams, winner and runners up.

UK - 8
Liverpool
Manchester United
Nottingham Forest
Aston Villa
Leeds United
Arsenal
Chelsea
Celtic

Germany - 6
Bayern Munich
Hamburg
Borussia Dortmund
Eintracht Frankfurt
Borussia Mönchengladbach
Bayer Leverkusen

Italy - 6
Milan
Internazionale
Juventus
Fiorentina
Roma
Sampdoria

....

Spain - 4
Real Madrid
Barcelona
Valencia
Atlético Madrid

interesting if you then look at the world cup stats... The countries we stereotypically say have the strongest leagues i.e. the UK and Spain have only won the world cup once each. Even worse if you look at the wider stats of competing at the top level i.e. managed to finish within the top 4.


Team Total finishes in top four
Germany 12
Brazil 10
Italy 8
France 5
Uruguay 5
Netherlands 4
Sweden 4
Argentina 4
England 2
Spain 2

Basically, England and Spain blow. Must be due to the good domestic leagues with the money stealing players from other countries.

You could also look at the point Xifo keeps banging on about, the language barrier... Spanish and English being the too most popular languages worldwide, must be benefiting the leagues in terms of marketing.

Spanish/Portuguese being the most popular language with 740 million native speakers and English with around 365 (much higher if you include 2nd languages, you can add another 750 million ). Massive advantage for those leagues.

 

[ARIAGA II]

What period are those stats from? Last 20 years or 10 years or ?

Xifio's right about the language barrier, while there are more native Spanish speakers English is far more dispersed than Spanish...no one was touching Great Britannia.

 

[Jaboldinho]

I watch more EPL than La Liga, mostly because I can understand the commentary.

 

[Arnau]

What period are those stats from? Last 20 years or 10 years or ?

All times

 

[RobbieD_PL]

Of those teams listed only Sweden and Netherlands have never won the world cup

Plus the remaining teams that have made it to the top four more than once:

+ Czechoslovakia and Hungary have only lost their two final appearances (1934, 1962) (1938, 1954)
+ Poland has reached third place twice (1974, 1982)
+ Austria and Portugal have made third and fourth place once (1954, 1934) (1966, 2006)
+ Yugoslavia reached fourth place twice (1930, 1962)

 

[Mandieta6]

heyyy, I'm glad something is making you laugh, you special little guy ...



well, thought process of the manager too ... but yeah, if it doesn't for you, that sucks ... it does for me, and it's what I enjoy ... 'eye of the beholder', so pointless to argue about what is "better" ... to each his own ...

You're warping the argument. I never said it doesn't matter, nor did I say anything about the manager. I said the thought-process isn't something you can watch, so it's meaningless from an entertainment standpoint. If Xavi sits on the ball for 5 seconds evaluating a pass before passing it sideways to Busquets it looks no different than if Andorran League's John Smith takes 5 seconds to evaluate a pass before handing it sideways to a teammate. This is where you personality really shows, because you're trying to create the illusion that you see stuff where the common man (or even the extraordinary man) can't. You might as well say that you can taste all the wonderful shades of flavour in tap water, and make yourself sound superior because no else does.

Also, it is pointless to argue what is better in something so subjective, but, you opened the can:

cerebral > boorish

And before you try and warp the argument again. You were clearly insinuating that your preferred style, the 'tactical' possession game, i.e cerebral, is better than the box-to-box game, i.e boorish. Even the terms you use have positive and negative connotations respectively.

Actually, sorry, I misread your post. So disregard some of the first stuff about you warping the argument. You're saying that it does trascend to you? Really? Please explain, what do you see? I'd love to see how you're not full of crap.

 

[yoyo913]

I'm writing this from my cell and can't make a picture so I will use ASCIIX coding.

Practicing for debate class.

() ()
/)\ /(\
)). ((
Mandieta6
Xifio

But the debate season is over.


But seriously, different styles of football.

 

[Xifio]

you see stuff where the common man (or even the extraordinary man) can't. You might as well say that you can taste all the wonderful shades of flavour in tap water, and make yourself sound superior because no else does.

...

You're saying that it does trascend to you? Really? Please explain, what do you see? I'd love to see how you're not full of crap.

you are already biased against the person (full of crap, you believe) ... so why on earth would that person want to bother convincing you?

leaving that aside for a second, let us consider your analogy: you've been told by someone that he tastes something you don't ... you've established the things you supposedly don't taste it, and don't believe it ... that, unfortunately, is the end of the conversation ... there is no way to show you what someone else tastes; no amount of explaining will change what you can taste ... whatever opinion you choose to hold, is, regrettably, your only option ... ergo, do what you will ...

But seriously, different styles of football.

yup, 'nuff said ...

 

[Mandieta6]

Yeah, that's a nice way to avoid answering the question. Note that you're making it about MY opinion of view and MY taste when it's in fact about everyone. The water analogy is about 1 person claiming to taste what no one else does. And the analogy uses tap water specifically because it has no taste, you're just trying to twist it around into something it's not.

I am 100% honestly interested to see how those aspects we discussed transced to you, though. Please share, so we could all learn to be like you.

 

[Xifio]

haha, you can't taste tap water? are your taste buds so poor? guess having a sh!tty sense of taste is just another reason why it'd suck to be you ...

I can't help you to derive aesthetic pleasure from certain styles of football ... I'd tell you to google how to tactically analyze team and individual tactics, but since you speak for both yourself and everyone else, I guess you're better off being content with what you've got ...

 

[Mandieta6]

You're evading the question again, as you always do when you get caught out. And again, you're making it about something it's not.

Water has no flavour, end of. The fact that you're actually clinging to the analogy is ridiculous, not least because it's a ******* analogy and you're giving it far more weight than it has.

And the question was never about tactical analysis. You can find merit in tactics, but you were saying that you enjoyed watching players think with the ball and claim their thought-processes transceded the screen and you could appreciate it and enjoyed seeing that in action. I want to know how you do that, because there is no physicaly difference in seeing Xavi consider a pass than seeing a Wycombe player do the same, and therefor Xavi's superior thought-process is impercitible to a viewer and has no entertainment value. Please counter this point.

Also, you were the one to start by making global statements about the qualities of the different styles of football. Now that you've entered this realm of argumentation, it's a cop-out to use the 'different strokes' line.

 

[Coruja]

Hi, youre comments are really good, keep posting!











yeah, just wanted to do an impression of a bot.

 

[Xifio]

You're evading the question again, as you always do when you get caught out. And again, you're making it about something it's not.

Water has no flavour, end of. The fact that you're actually clinging to the analogy is ridiculous, not least because it's a ******* analogy and you're giving it far more weight than it has.

And the question was never about tactical analysis. You can find merit in tactics, but you were saying that you enjoyed watching players think with the ball and claim their thought-processes transceded the screen and you could appreciate it and enjoyed seeing that in action. I want to know how you do that, because there is no physicaly difference in seeing Xavi consider a pass than seeing a Wycombe player do the same, and therefor Xavi's superior thought-process is impercitible to a viewer and has no entertainment value. Please counter this point.

Also, you were the one to start by making global statements about the qualities of the different styles of football. Now that you've entered this realm of argumentation, it's a cop-out to use the 'different strokes' line.

oh, it's so much more fun this way ... but caught out? be serious ... have you never picked what you think is the perfect defence-splitting pass in your mind, and then see the player make that clutch pass? have you never seen a player on the ball show composure, vision, and assuredness in decision-making? have you never contrasted that to someone who dawdles on the ball, hesitates, or misses the obvious pass?

mental attributes are visible -- oh, sorry, they "transcend" ... and if you watch a certain player for long enough, you can tell what he's going to try to do to open up space, what pass he'd want to make, whether he'd want to shoot instead, etc. ... in a possession game, there is far more time to appreciate this facet of the players, the tactics, and thus the game as I'd like to have my teams play it ... and when you see it carried out at the highest level of the sport, against the toughest opposition, it makes you appreciate the style that much more ... unbelievable that this has to be explained to you ... c u next tuesday!


EDIT:

didn't quite address one thing in your post, about "making global statements about the qualities of the different styles of football" ... I was talking to Ebonix about the tv coverage of different leagues, and its effect on the perception of different leagues ... but when Shifty, as is typical, insulted Italian football by calling English football "better", I questioned what made it "better" ... so if you have an issue about "making global statements about the qualities of the different styles of football", take it up with the primary instigator ...

 

[Mandieta6]

You didn't question it, you said "cerebral > boorish". And I don't see why you'd give up on your 'different strokes' policy and go against it entirely just because someone else did it first.

All of what you said about seeing the players' decisions happens in box-to-box games as well, they just act on it faster (in the top levels, bad clubs will be just as poor in doing this whether they play a cautious or an aggressive game). What you're saying is you'd rather watch someone decide on a pass more than actually make the pass. You like it more when there's more time to see him decide what to do? Can you not appreciate tactical nuances if the match is of a fast pace? Hey, if you find this entertaining, that's fine, but that isn't a cerebral activity whatsoever.

 

[Xifio]

You didn't question it, you said "cerebral > boorish".

tsk tsk:

Xifio... Italy is awful. England is faster AND better than Italy.

faster? see Ebonix's post I quoted above ...

better? according to whom? and in what aspect?

All of what you said about seeing the players' decisions happens in box-to-box games as well, they just act on it faster (in the top levels, bad clubs will be just as poor in doing this whether they play a cautious or an aggressive game). What you're saying is you'd rather watch someone decide on a pass more than actually make the pass. You like it more when there's more time to see him decide what to do? Can you not appreciate tactical nuances if the match is of a fast pace?

yeah, which is why I acknowledged it when talking about the EURO 2008 Dutch display ... but usually, when build ups are more measured, there is a greater variety of attack creation that occurs, and greater passing options available and displayed, and a refinedness inherent in avoiding unnecessarily rushing ... like winetasting, as opposed to doing a keg stand ...

Hey, if you find this entertaining, that's fine, but that isn't a cerebral activity whatsoever.

alright, sounds good ...