(QF) England (p)1-1 Switzerland - Saturday 6th July, 2024

[Gunnersaurus]

4 hours ago, MUFC said:

Kane has to be dropped for Watkins and drop Foden for Cole Palmer.

Risky. Watkins has never played in the champions league. Never really played in high pressure games. Starting him in a European championship semi final might be to much for him 

[MUFC]

7 minutes ago, Gunnersaurus said:

Risky. Watkins has never played in the champions league. Never really played in high pressure games. Starting him in a European championship semi final might be to much for him 

But in the Euros Kane hasn't started as a striker. He's been in the CB position for most of it.

[Spike]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Look mate I’m not advocating the way we’re going to play.

Southgate was basically a failed club manager that got a second chance as the England U21 manager and after the many failures at England manager he’s been the best at getting results from England.

I think his tactics are at best abysmal and at worst totally fucking clueless. But at the same time this dogshit football is getting us further in the knockouts than we typically get in international football.

But it’s international football, it’s not the first time I’ve seen the most cowardly tactics work well or even lead to wins. So it’s not exactly new and I think some of the people who seem wound up by it are being a bit weird just because it’s England.

No, any country that has a deeper history and pedigree than Australia that plays like England and France are this tournament, I think are bringing shame to their football culture and history. 
I am hardline on this, and I know what coaches and managers throughout history agree with me, this isn’t some flippant ‘fuck England’ statement, this is an ideologically purity that I believe in from grassroots to professional international.

I understand why people in club football accept the negativity as the existence of a club is held at ransoms to money, but this isn’t true at all for international and international teams should strive to play at a high level that goes beyond simply getting a trophy.

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

That's you contradicting your own post a on this very side, when you mentioned Greece and Portugal as an example for a teams not caring what style they were winning with,. Either you use these teams as a reference, but then your arguing you always want to compete is indeed arrogance, or you count England to the teams with long and rich heritage- but then you can't use these both teams, especially Greece, as an excuse.

Brazil 2002. Don’t think they cared too much and nobody, not even Germany, has the footballing pedigree of Brazil.

[Dr. Gonzo]

13 minutes ago, Spike said:

No, any country that has a deeper history and pedigree than Australia that plays like England and France are this tournament, I think are bringing shame to their football culture and history. 
I am hardline on this, and I know what coaches and managers throughout history agree with me, this isn’t some flippant ‘fuck England’ statement, this is an ideologically purity that I believe in from grassroots to professional international.

I understand why people in club football accept the negativity as the existence of a club is held at ransoms to money, but this isn’t true at all for international and international teams should strive to play at a high level that goes beyond simply getting a trophy.

If international teams should strive to play at a high level, I don’t think it’s shown that often. It’s pretty rare to see a truly world class international side that plays football that just wows the world and those sides are basically generational. So they’re always remembered.

But the vast majority of it is big standard and you end up just remembering the winners and the best matches if they’re a truly world class match.

[Spike]

5 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Brazil 2002. Don’t think they cared too much and nobody, not even Germany, has the footballing pedigree of Brazil.

https://amp.theguardian.com/football/2002/may/30/worldcupfootball2002.sport12

[Rucksackfranzose]

10 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Brazil 2002. Don’t think they cared too much and nobody, not even Germany, has the footballing pedigree of Brazil.

Agree fully.

 

7 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

If international teams should strive to play at a high level, I don’t think it’s shown that often. It’s pretty rare to see a truly world class international side that plays football that just wows the world and those sides are basically generational. So they’re always remembered.

But the vast majority of it is big standard and you end up just remembering the winners and the best matches if they’re a truly world class match.

Although that's true, there's one point that's falling a bit short here: The aim of football is defined as scoring more goals than the opposing team not as conceding less. From this point of view it's debatable whether that sport, granted both France and England, play can still be called football, regardless if it should show to be successful or not.

Edited July 7 by Rucksackfranzose

[Spike]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

If international teams should strive to play at a high level, I don’t think it’s shown that often. It’s pretty rare to see a truly world class international side that plays football that just wows the world and those sides are basically generational. So they’re always remembered.

But the vast majority of it is big standard and you end up just remembering the winners and the best matches if they’re a truly world class match.

I think it’s shown at every single tournament, I’m not asking for elite playing but positive playing, playing to win and not playing to have the other team lose. the Pragmatism and defence sucking the life out of the sport is one of the greatest tragedies, easily amongst the formation of the Premier League and the proliferation of sugar daddy clubs.

[Rucksackfranzose]

4 minutes ago, Spike said:

I think it’s shown at every single tournament, I’m not asking for elite playing but positive playing, playing to win and not playing to have the other team lose. the Pragmatism and defence sucking the life out of the sport is one of the greatest tragedies, easily amongst the formation of the Premier League and the proliferation of sugar daddy clubs.

To be fair, while England and France are practizing it in this tournaments, that's a much older phenomenom. Thanks for catanaccio Italy!

 

[Spike]

3 minutes ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

To be fair, while England and France are practizing it in this tournaments, that's a much older phenomenom. Thanks for catanaccio Italy!

 

Grazie Helenio Herrera

[Gunnersaurus]

@Spike If you care about playing great football more than winning that's fine and that's your choice. But if someone cares about winning more that's their choice as well 

[Spike]

1 minute ago, Gunnersaurus said:

@Spike If you care about playing great football more than winning that's fine and that's your choice. But if someone cares about winning more that's their choice as well 

Nope. Playing great football and winning are equal. Two sides of the same coin, to strive for one is to strive for both.

[El Profesor]

1 hour ago, Spike said:

I think it’s shown at every single tournament, I’m not asking for elite playing but positive playing, playing to win and not playing to have the other team lose. the Pragmatism and defence sucking the life out of the sport is one of the greatest tragedies, easily amongst the formation of the Premier League and the proliferation of sugar daddy clubs.

 

I completely agree, Spike.

But, in my opinion, the main culprits of sucking the life of football in the last decade aren´t traditional pragmatists like Mourinho, Simeone and Deschamps. Those type of coaches have always been there, such as Helenio Herrera, as you have mentioned.   

I blame the "Juego de Posicón" crowd, which Guardiola is the main exponent. Those dudes are control freaks, directing every little movement from their players and using ball possession to completely control the game and minimize any threats opponents would pose.

Grealish, for example, went from a creative, inventive player at Aston Villa to a robot that it´s afraid to take on defenders and lose the ball.

Traditional pragmatists don´t control the flow of the game, they let the other team do it. This is why I believe they are way less harmful.

I will go to my grave saying 2010 Spain is one of the biggest disgraces in the history of football. The general public was gaslighted into accepting that team played attacking football, when they were the most negative and boring world champion I´ve ever seen.

 

Another aspect I would like to point out is the early specialization. Palmeiras, for example, recently handed out a big contract to a 10-year old child! Those children, by all means, are already professional footballers. 

Football is the only sport they practice from a very young age and in consequence they don´t develop a variety of skills and movements. The result, at least here in Brazil, is a bunch of players with great physical skills but who can´t improvise and dribble in short spaces.

 

Maybe what all I am saying is bollocks, I am not a professional coach or scout, but those are some of the problems that in my view are hurting modern football.

 

 

Edited July 7 by El Profesor

[Gunnersaurus]

2 minutes ago, Spike said:

Nope. Playing great football and winning are equal. Two sides of the same coin, to strive for one is to strive for both.

It's an entirely subjective matter. You're trying to make something subjective objective which it's not. Elite athletes go out to win. If they can do it in style great but if not winning is the most important thing to them. Managers are the same. They go out to win.  If they have the means to win and play great football they will. I'm pretty certain if Cruyff wasn't getting the results and his job was in danger be would soon change his style 

[Spike]

16 minutes ago, El Profesor said:

 

I completely agree, Spike.

But, in my opinion, the main culprits of sucking the life of football in the last decade aren´t traditional pragmatists like Mourinho, Simeone and Deschamps. Those type of coaches have always been there, such as Helenio Herrera, as you have mentioned.   

I blame the "Juego de Posicón" crowd, which Guardiola is the main exponent. Those dudes are control freaks, directing every little movement from their players and using ball possession to completely control the game and minimize any threats opponents would pose.

Grealish, for example, went from a creative, inventive player at Aston Villa to a robot that it´s afraid to take on defenders and lose the ball.

Traditional pragmatists don´t control the flow of the game, they let the other team do it. This is why I believe they are way less harmful.

I will go to my grave saying 2010 Spain is one of the biggest disgraces in the history of football. The general public was gaslighted into accepting that team played attacking football, when they were the most negative and boring world champion I´ve ever seen.

 

Another aspect I would like to point out is the early specialization. Palmeiras, for example, recently handed out a big contract to a 10-year old child! Those children, by all means, are already professional footballers. 

Football is the only sport they practice from a very young age and in consequence they don´t develop a variety of skills and movements. The result, at least here in Brazil, is a bunch of players with great physical skills but who can´t improvise and dribble in short spaces.

 

Maybe what all I am saying is bollocks, I am not a professional coach or scout, but those are some of the problems that in my view are hurting modern football.

 

 

I agree with you, Guardiola and that Vincente Del Bosque Spain are/were practitioners of the ‘active defensive’ style. Which is that they defend with the ball, as opposed to attacking with it. I feel Guardiola has relented a little from this style but it’s still there as the current philosophical identity of modern football. You see this expressed even by Southgate’s England, it’s the aversion to risk and maximising control.

2010 Spain was horrendous compared to 2008 and 2012, the later a more aggressive expression from Del Bosque. Lacking a CF they had to rely being more aggressive than opportunistic. I still vividly remember the fullbacks eviscerating Italy in the final.

[Stan]

29 minutes ago, Spike said:

Nope. Playing great football and winning are equal. Two sides of the same coin, to strive for one is to strive for both.

Do you get the same output from both, though? 

If you play great football and lose a game, you still don't get any points, right? 

[Spike]

21 minutes ago, Gunnersaurus said:

It's an entirely subjective matter. You're trying to make something subjective objective which it's not. Elite athletes go out to win. If they can do it in style great but if not winning is the most important thing to them. Managers are the same. They go out to win.  If they have the means to win and play great football they will. I'm pretty certain if Cruyff wasn't getting the results and his job was in danger be would soon change his style 

It’s an objective fact that goals win games, and defending merely prevents a loss. 

Attacking is active, and defending is reactive. I’m happy with Cruyff, Menotti, and Clough over Herrera, Mourinho, and Simeone.

[Spike]

4 minutes ago, Stan said:

Do you get the same output from both, though? 

If you play great football and lose a game, you still don't get any points, right? 

I don’t think this is the gotcha you think it is mate, considering my statements on Australia earlier.

[Stan]

2 minutes ago, Spike said:

I don’t think this is the gotcha you think it is mate, considering my statements on Australia earlier.

There is no gotcha. I'm joining the conversation late and haven't read everything before. 

I'm not trying to corner you, just putting my point across. 

[Spike]

1 minute ago, Stan said:

There is no gotcha. I'm joining the conversation late and haven't read everything before. 

I'm not trying to corner you, just putting my point across. 

I think it’s better to try to win by actively engaging to win, than acquiescing to negativity. Especially when you have the tools to win triumphantly. 
 

I’d be more proud of Australia trying to beat France and failing, than England clawing and struggling to W against Switzerland.

[Gunnersaurus]

12 minutes ago, Spike said:

It’s an objective fact that goals win games, and defending merely prevents a loss. 

Attacking is active, and defending is reactive. I’m happy with Cruyff, Menotti, and Clough over Herrera, Mourinho, and Simeone.

Wow 

[Spike]

3 minutes ago, Gunnersaurus said:

Wow 

Wow indeed. I’m constantly surprised at the human capacity to accept rubbish and be thankful for it.

[Rucksackfranzose]

58 minutes ago, Stan said:

Do you get the same output from both, though? 

If you play great football and lose a game, you still don't get any points, right? 

Feel free to correct me, but you don't get points for games you're losing playing shite as well. Or did I miss a change in rules?

Edited July 7 by Rucksackfranzose

[Stan]

52 minutes ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

Feel free to correct me, but you don't get points for games you're losing playing shite as well. Or did I miss a change in rules?

No change in rules. But also not what I was implying or insinuating. 

[MUFC]

Euro 2024.