Discussion in 'World Cup 2010 South Africa' started by Dandred, Jul 7, 2010.
Oh, I dunno. Xavi, Iniesta, Busquets, Fabregas...
Looks good to me.
Like any country there are thinks I like about it, and things that I don't.
Look, not giving the ball away much doesn't make a team a good passing side. It certainly doesn't make them "immaculate". I think you'd be hard pressed to name more than 2 or 3 extended passages of play in which Spain have played well in this tournament. Portugal second half maybe? They did a good job against a dangerous Germany team. Otherwise?
that was a really odd game. not very nice to watch -the dutch deserved to loose imo they have fouled too much and too aggresively.
germany came third and that is what made me happy in this worldcup.
and congratulations to spain for managing to win it -yay! =
So you're pleased that Spain's tactics managed to turn what could have been an exciting, counter attacking battle royale on the pitch into what some might describe as a dull, thrill-untroubled, goal-rare pass-a-thon?
I know what you're saying. Pleased is the wrong word, but I admire the ability to do it. In an opposite, but similar way, I admired and enjoyed watching Greece soaking up the pressure in Euro 04 and winning with one breakaway goal. Maybe that makes me weird.
Do you ever go to live games? If you're in the crowd you want excitement, goals and thrills, not chess-like masterclasses in territorial possession and tactics designed to frustrate the opposition into fouling the other team.
Least that's what I go for.
If a team gives the ball away a lot does that make them a bad passing side?
I get the feeling this thread is proving just why British teams don't fare well internationally.
Used to. Not in the last few years. And I can think of little that would please me more than seeing my team pass around the opposition for 90 minutes. I used to watch Charlton about ten or so times a year. Seeing your team regularly unable to string more than three passes together in a whole game is very frustrating to watch. Gimme Spain any day.
You're playing that 'I know better than you card'. Hmmm.
@ Ed: don't you like seeing skill on the ball? I remember the first time I saw Ginola live –*he may have been a lazy arse, but finally, here was someone who could control the ball and pick a pass. That's what I want to see.
Depends how they're playing. Germany and Brazil both the ball away shitloads earlier in the tournament. I wouldn't say either set of players were bad passers of the ball, just playing to different instructions.
Anyway, just for old times sake...
Materazzi was racialist towards Zizou. Bate.
cause that's the only possible argument that could be going on here right? Ignorant hoofballists versus continental purists.
Would you agree with this:
The individual players of England are good passers. The English team can't pass to save its life.
I don't think passing was the problem with this England team, no.
Ok. Do you agree with this principle:
If the other team doesn't have the ball, they can't score.
Depends how literally you intend it. If you mean it 100% literally, then it's a ridiculously stupid question. I'm sure you've got some devastating conclusion to this round of rhetorical questioning, so get on with it, eh?
Sorry, I wasn't clear in the first post you quoted but didn't have time to clarify. Of course it's not that clear-cut, but it does seem there's a difference of priorities in terms of goals and 'intellectual' football (I dislike that term but I wanna go home!).
Some are arguing that there has to be an end product, whereas some are quite happy to watch a team pass and pass and pass and pass.
And I'm pretty much stating the obvioius
Of course there has to be an end product, otherwise watching the players warm up would be entertaining.
No need to get shirty.
The point is that a completed pass is pretty good evidence of a good passing side. Now, it may not mean that they are an incisive passing side or a dynamic passing side but you can't even graduate to that level without establishing the fundamental passing basis.
Basically my point is this - trying to argue that Spain are not a good passing side is a bit like arguing that Emile Heskey is a natural goalscorer.
It defies all logic and flies in the face of reason.
they'd prolly go out and get yet another marquee signing, after the next club elections....
Brilliant. Spain is now to be blamed for being hacked to pieces. I think an apology is due to all the Duth players who were forced to stamp their studs on sheens and chests alike for any stress the forced fouling might have caused them.
Funny how none of the other teams Spain has played felt provoked to try to kick them off the park.
That's semantic though. All you've established is that Spain are good at passing, to the extent that they can complete lots of short sideways passes in non-dangerous areas. It's a meaningless definition of the term.
I do think the Dutch lost it a bit. I think it was a mistake to spend the pre-match build-up talking about getting in their faces. Especially given that this Spanish side had shown no indication that they needed to be kicked off the pitch. They should have stuck to the same snide, play-disrupting fouls that Spain did to them.
oooh, a circus trick, brilliant.
This thread needs some
I'd say no side with De Jong and Van Bommel in it are ever gonna be subtle
I quite like watching spain, good control of the match, everybody is comfortable on the ball, moments of brilliance, almost the opposite of kick and rush.
Holland went out there to leave the foot in, wind them up and upset their rhythm, (tactics the u75 football team were no strangers to) and I kind of warmed to them as the underdogs. To be fair Webb could have sent someone off earlier, I think he chickened out a bit and it.
It's been a strange wc.
Separate names with a comma.