Winning major tournaments with attacking football

[Nalis]

Seems to be a hot topic on here spread across a few different places so thought it deserves it's on thread. How much does it matter to you and would it taint a tournament victory for your country?

 

Brazil 2002 and Germany 2014 are probably the only exceptions to the last 20 years of euro and world cup winners so it doesnt happen that often.

 

I would be interested to get the thoughts of anyone on here from France, Spain, Greece or Portugal on here. Did you even care that you won your respective tournaments in the last 20 years playing with a reserved style or did you feel your victories were tainted a little due to being more reserved? 

 

As someone from Norn Iron, obviously given our lack of resources I'd take complete shithousery to get to a final of a major tournament let alone win one 

[Blue ROI]

I'd say we didn't care too much that we won the league grinding out a few 1-0 victories along the way.

 

Win by any means necessary.

[Stinkenzo]

Why is it we admire the traditional Italian style of play? Some of us sound like West Ham fans 

[z-layrex]

51 minutes ago, Nalis said:

Seems to be a hot topic on here spread across a few different places so thought it deserves it's on thread. How much does it matter to you and would it taint a tournament victory for your country?

 

Brazil 2002 and Germany 2014 are probably the only exceptions to the last 20 years of euro and world cup winners so it doesnt happen that often.

 

I would be interested to get the thoughts of anyone on here from France, Spain, Greece or Portugal on here. Did you even care that you won your respective tournaments in the last 20 years playing with a reserved style or did you feel your victories were tainted a little due to being more reserved? 

 

As someone from Norn Iron, obviously given our lack of resources I'd take complete shithousery to get to a final of a major tournament let alone win one 

Being married to a Portuguese lady, I can tell you their Euro win meant everything to them.

[Sharpe's Fox]

Southgate has obviously found a way of playing that he is happy with. After decades of managers showhorning in players and having one eye on all times on what newspapers are saying thats refreshing. I think looking back wanting Foden, Mount and Grealish forced into the team was way too much. The only manager who i think can effectively coach having one holding midfielder and two number tens in front of him is Guardiola who is a workaholic genius and will become regarded as the greatest of all time. If you think a manager whose last club job was failing at Middleborough 15 years ago its too much to expect him to coach that system with an international side.

[Lionator]

I think this is a bit harsh on Spain, that side from 08-12 was one of the greatest attacking sides of all time. If they'd have had a truly world class striker they'd have been the GOAT.

 

But I think it shows how important being a cohesive unit is and that you can't just throw together good club players from your country and expect to win tournaments aka England from 2002 to 2006.

[deejdeej]

12 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I think this is a bit harsh on Spain, that side from 08-12 was one of the greatest attacking sides of all time. If they'd have had a truly world class striker they'd have been the GOAT.

 

But I think it shows how important being a cohesive unit is and that you can't just throw together good club players from your country and expect to win tournaments aka England from 2002 to 2006.

David Villa wasn't far from world class for me, neither was Torres in 08. But 2012 I don't think they even played a striker which was weird!

[davieG]

Perhaps the more you win something the more you want to do it style, so if you've never won something or it's been years since you did I'm sure you wouldn't care how you won it.

[Corky]

The group stage was dull. The majority of the Germany match was dull. The final 15 minutes of that match, plus pretty much all of yesterday's, were much more entertaining and ruthless.

 

Ultimately, winning is all that matters. But I want a team to be clinical and go for it when they can. Look at yesterday- game is over with 40 minutes to play and you can rest and rotate. 

[Guest StevieLynex]

2 minutes ago, davieG said:

Perhaps the more you win something the more you want to do it style, so if you've never won something or it's been years since you did I'm sure you wouldn't care how you won it.

Applies to our FA Cup final approach - let's be honest, it wasn't the greatest display of footballing skills we have ever seen

[davieG]

1 minute ago, StevieLynex said:

Applies to our FA Cup final approach - let's be honest, it wasn't the greatest display of footballing skills we have ever seen

For sure but even my suggestion is tainted by how much money is at stake which in most cases has replaced prestige as the main driving force hence why finishing top 4 has become more important than winning the FA Cup for many fans.

[Guest StevieLynex]

Just now, davieG said:

For sure but even my suggestion is tainted by how much money is at stake which in most cases has replaced prestige as the main driving force hence why finishing top 4 has become more important than winning the FA Cup for many fans.

Spot on. The best team I saw was the 1982 Brazil one in the world cup, from an entertainment point of view, and yet they went out to Italy

[Arriba Los Zorros]

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

I think this is a bit harsh on Spain, that side from 08-12 was one of the greatest attacking sides of all time. If they'd have had a truly world class striker they'd have been the GOAT.

 

But I think it shows how important being a cohesive unit is and that you can't just throw together good club players from your country and expect to win tournaments aka England from 2002 to 2006.

Agreed I wouldn't call those great Spanish sides defensive in any way shape or form, they tended to have most the team camped around the opposition box in lots of games!

 

[Nalis]

2 hours ago, Lionator said:

I think this is a bit harsh on Spain, that side from 08-12 was one of the greatest attacking sides of all time. If they'd have had a truly world class striker they'd have been the GOAT.

 

But I think it shows how important being a cohesive unit is and that you can't just throw together good club players from your country and expect to win tournaments aka England from 2002 to 2006.

I'm sorry but that's a complete myth. The Spanish team was basically defensive by holding onto the ball very well and by not really create many chances nor risk to losing the ball. They had barely any intent on scoring more than a goal to win a game with the exception of when the opposition is really poor or the other team were down to 10 a la Italy in 2012. 

 

Possession teams who attack with intent such as Man City and Barcelona 2010 are a different kettle of fish however.

Edited 4 July 2021 by Nalis

[Footballwipe]

17 hours ago, Nalis said:

I'm sorry but that's a complete myth. The Spanish team was basically defensive by holding onto the ball very well and by not really create many chances nor risk to losing the ball. They had barely any intent on scoring more than a goal to win a game with the exception of when the opposition is really poor or the other team were down to 10 a la Italy in 2012. 

 

Possession teams who attack with intent such as Man City and Barcelona 2010 are a different kettle of fish however.

Spain's 2010 World Cup run. Just think at how this country would've wet itself after the majority of those results, especially losing to Switzerland in the first game...

 

[lanefox]

20 hours ago, Lionator said:

I think this is a bit harsh on Spain, that side from 08-12 was one of the greatest attacking sides of all time. If they'd have had a truly world class striker they'd have been the GOAT.

 

But I think it shows how important being a cohesive unit is and that you can't just throw together good club players from your country and expect to win tournaments aka England from 2002 to 2006.

People really forget how boring their world cup win was, only scored more than 1 goal in 2 games , Honduras 2-0 and beating a 10 man Chile 2-1 

[Finnegan]

18 hours ago, Nalis said:

I'm sorry but that's a complete myth. The Spanish team was basically defensive by holding onto the ball very well and by not really create many chances nor risk to losing the ball. They had barely any intent on scoring more than a goal to win a game with the exception of when the opposition is really poor or the other team were down to 10 a la Italy in 2012. 

 

Possession teams who attack with intent such as Man City and Barcelona 2010 are a different kettle of fish however.

 

Sorry mate but I think you're wide of the mark with this. 

 

Spain dominated football for years playing quality football with a genuine attacking intent. Most criticisms of them that they were boring were ultimately the result of teams reaponding to their dominance by parking the bus. 

 

We saw in that era a template established that would end up being typical of a lot of modern football, games of attack vs defence with a hyper possession focused side squaring up against an insanely low block. 

 

Tiki taka is a philosophy that is built to be defensively secure, sure, but to call it a defensive system is patently false. 

 

I can only really think of Portugal and Greece that shit housed their way to major tournament wins playing utterly shit football?

[Sampson]

13 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

Sorry mate but I think you're wide of the mark with this. 

 

Spain dominated football for years playing quality football with a genuine attacking intent. Most criticisms of them that they were boring were ultimately the result of teams reaponding to their dominance by parking the bus. 

 

We saw in that era a template established that would end up being typical of a lot of modern football, games of attack vs defence with a hyper possession focused side squaring up against an insanely low block. 

 

Tiki taka is a philosophy that is built to be defensively secure, sure, but to call it a defensive system is patently false. 

 

I can only really think of Portugal and Greece that shit housed their way to major tournament wins playing utterly shit football?

Could not disagree more.

 

Do you genuinely believe Claude Puel played exciting attacking football just because the played possession football? Because that was 100% what Spain under Del Bosque were.

 

I can appreciate possession football fine, but there's a clear difference here between two types of possession football and I've never been so bored by a tournament winning team of 2010 and 2012. It was way more boring than the much maligned Greece side.

 

The 2008 Spain side genuinely was exciting and attacking, but when Del Bosque took over, he turned it into the most defensive side with the ball who took zero risks and just passed it side to side and backwards despite having a squad head and shoulders above any other national team at the time.

 

We watched 2 years of Claude Puel football, we all know how boring possession football for the sake of possession woth zero intent - everything there was a counter-ttacking opportunity you didn't play thr through ball because anything under a 95% certainly of teaching your player is too risky.

 

That was how unbelievably frustrating it was watching Leicester under Puel - when there was a clear opening and counter-attacking opportunity, to see the player turn round and play the safe pass back to his full back every time. It was the same watching Spain under Del Bosque.

 

I'm not having the "they were only poor because teams camped in" argument when they refused to take any counter-attacking or risky opportunity.

 

Spain under Del Bosque were way more defensive, negative anti-football than any Tony Pulis side and were like watching paint dry, especially when you consider the talent they wasted. 

 

Spain under Aragones in 2008 were infinitely better to watch. Pretty much exactly like comparing Leicester under Puel and Rodgers- both aim for possession football, but one aimed for extremely rusk-free ultra-conservative football with the ball while the other allowed for counter-attacks and actually playing through balls and passes into space when it was warranted.

Edited 5 July 2021 by Sampson

[Dan]

Puel is going to win a World Cup somehow.

[KrefelderFox666]

9 hours ago, Sampson said:

Could not disagree more.

 

Do you genuinely believe Claude Puel played exciting attacking football just because the played possession football? Because that was 100% what Spain under Del Bosque were.

 

I can appreciate possession football fine, but there's a clear difference here between two types of possession football and I've never been so bored by a tournament winning team of 2010 and 2012. It was way more boring than the much maligned Greece side.

 

The 2008 Spain side genuinely was exciting and attacking, but when Del Bosque took over, he turned it into the most defensive side with the ball who took zero risks and just passed it side to side and backwards despite having a squad head and shoulders above any other national team at the time.

 

We watched 2 years of Claude Puel football, we all know how boring possession football for the sake of possession woth zero intent - everything there was a counter-ttacking opportunity you didn't play thr through ball because anything under a 95% certainly of teaching your player is too risky.

 

That was how unbelievably frustrating it was watching Leicester under Puel - when there was a clear opening and counter-attacking opportunity, to see the player turn round and play the safe pass back to his full back every time. It was the same watching Spain under Del Bosque.

 

I'm not having the "they were only poor because teams camped in" argument when they refused to take any counter-attacking or risky opportunity.

 

Spain under Del Bosque were way more defensive, negative anti-football than any Tony Pulis side and were like watching paint dry, especially when you consider the talent they wasted. 

 

Spain under Aragones in 2008 were infinitely better to watch. Pretty much exactly like comparing Leicester under Puel and Rodgers- both aim for possession football, but one aimed for extremely rusk-free ultra-conservative football with the ball while the other allowed for counter-attacks and actually playing through balls and passes into space when it was warranted.

I don't think anyone would moan (actually, yes they would) if we would have won the PL and FA Cup under Puel playing like that. 25 1-0 wins in the season.

 

Man City play that sort of football under Pep but it has been evolved a bit more to become more effective. Still, plenty of games where Man City don't destroy oppositions.

 

My priorities would be:

 

1. Win games/titles playing exciting football

2. Win games/titles playing boring football

3. Not winning playing exciting football

4. Not winning in other ways

[Sampson]

1 hour ago, KrefelderFox666 said:

I don't think anyone would moan (actually, yes they would) if we would have won the PL and FA Cup under Puel playing like that. 25 1-0 wins in the season.

 

Man City play that sort of football under Pep but it has been evolved a bit more to become more effective. Still, plenty of games where Man City don't destroy oppositions.

 

My priorities would be:

 

1. Win games/titles playing exciting football

2. Win games/titles playing boring football

3. Not winning playing exciting football

4. Not winning in other ways

100% agree,

I'm just not agreeing that Spain under Del Bosque played exciting attacking football. Under Aragones, sure, but the 2010 and 2012 sides were incredibly boring and conservative to watch and refused to take any attacking risks.

[Royston.]

Just gotta find an effective way of playing and winning in a short number of games in a short period of time.

No surprise its often the tedious,safe approach that works best.

[Foxxed]

I have a dim memory of watching Spain in a final. It was so dull I can only remember it in black and white. I think Spain won it too. It's coming home!