Is There A "Correct" Way To Play Football?

Immaculate_Mole wrote:Look there is no " correct way to play football" there are many different styles but iam against defensive football in all its forms.

Same with attacking football no is no one absolute in dominating attacking football and Catenaccio was not all out defense like Park the Bus is there was atleast an attacking plan involved in the tactics.

So to end this i am fine with all styles of football except the park the bus tactics where the team using it is only really aiming to get a 0-0 draw.

Note: I am talking the variation of parking the bus where the team is only focused on getting a 0-0 draw.

The Madrid One wrote:

Immaculate_Mole wrote:Look there is no " correct way to play football" there are many different styles but iam against defensive football in all its forms.

Same with attacking football no is no one absolute in dominating attacking football and Catenaccio was not all out defense like Park the Bus is there was atleast an attacking plan involved in the tactics.

So to end this i am fine with all styles of football except the park the bus tactics where the team using it is only really aiming to get a 0-0 draw.

Note: I am talking the variation of parking the bus where the team is only focused on getting a 0-0 draw.

point proven, you chose option 1. if you dont go for defensive football, then that means you dont think its winning football and you cant possibly role with option 2 more.

Sushi Master wrote:I do not mind defensive tactics at all if they are employed reasonably.

People also underestimate the sexyness of a well executed counter attack. 3 passes and then a goal (Inter in CL win, Germany in the WC) can be just as good as 100 short passes to the goal line (Barcelona, Arsenal).

As usual, the extremes are not good at all. Very negative football with long balls to nowhere or praying for a set piece goal can become a borefest. A 1000 sideways and backward passes with no real end to them can be as annoying as a fat cockblock.

I guess I'm just a football whore.

Immaculate_Mole wrote:

The Madrid One wrote:

Immaculate_Mole wrote:Look there is no " correct way to play football" there are many different styles but iam against defensive football in all its forms.

Same with attacking football no is no one absolute in dominating attacking football and Catenaccio was not all out defense like Park the Bus is there was atleast an attacking plan involved in the tactics.

So to end this i am fine with all styles of football except the park the bus tactics where the team using it is only really aiming to get a 0-0 draw.

Note: I am talking the variation of parking the bus where the team is only focused on getting a 0-0 draw.

point proven, you chose option 1. if you dont go for defensive football, then that means you dont think its winning football and you cant possibly role with option 2 more.

It's winning football aslong as there's an attacking plan involved with the defensive tactics and that i have no issues with.

It's the eleven men behind the ball only playing for a 0-0 draw is what i dont like and tbh i dont see how anyone can like that.

Arquitecto wrote:Balance, moderation and equilibrium.

These are the keys words that is the correct way of playing football as there is NO black and white.

Yes, football is meant to be pleasing to the eye... to an extent.

To the extent where the attractive football is installed and bred with tacts, intelligent play and strategy.

The ability to improvise, adapt and think on your feet. The ability to balance between defense and offense.

Examples of who mastered this?

Sacchi, Capello and Ancelotti's Milan. Lippi's Juve. Del Bosques' Spanish side. Brazil 2002.

Many more as I could go on.

The Madrid One wrote:

Sushi Master wrote:I do not mind defensive tactics at all if they are employed reasonably.

People also underestimate the sexyness of a well executed counter attack. 3 passes and then a goal (Inter in CL win, Germany in the WC) can be just as good as 100 short passes to the goal line (Barcelona, Arsenal).

As usual, the extremes are not good at all. Very negative football with long balls to nowhere or praying for a set piece goal can become a borefest. A 1000 sideways and backward passes with no real end to them can be as annoying as a fat cockblock.

I guess I'm just a football whore.

i think that defensive football can beat attacking football though.

michel platini is correct when he says that defense has always come on top of attack, chelsea,madrid, both victims of outside factrs, proving the only reason why they didnt win against barcelona. what did they label chelsea's and madrid's football as? anti football. my point is proven in every way just look down at history.

italy beat brazil
strategy can beat barcelona

and with the right mentality and good players people can rip spain into pieces.

(germany,italy)

Sushi Master wrote:

The Madrid One wrote:

Sushi Master wrote:I do not mind defensive tactics at all if they are employed reasonably.

People also underestimate the sexyness of a well executed counter attack. 3 passes and then a goal (Inter in CL win, Germany in the WC) can be just as good as 100 short passes to the goal line (Barcelona, Arsenal).

As usual, the extremes are not good at all. Very negative football with long balls to nowhere or praying for a set piece goal can become a borefest. A 1000 sideways and backward passes with no real end to them can be as annoying as a fat cockblock.

I guess I'm just a football whore.

i think that defensive football can beat attacking football though.

michel platini is correct when he says that defense has always come on top of attack, chelsea,madrid, both victims of outside factrs, proving the only reason why they didnt win against barcelona. what did they label chelsea's and madrid's football as? anti football. my point is proven in every way just look down at history.

italy beat brazil
strategy can beat barcelona

and with the right mentality and good players people can rip spain into pieces.

(germany,italy)

Sure, defensive football can beat offensive. Most of the time at least, and it's easier to implement nowadays with everyone being physical. But, if you're good enough at attacking, you can beat anything as Ajax and Barcelona have shown us. Most great sides have had a balance between offense and defense, though. Or at least incredible mental strength.

Spain can sure be taken down, but it's still a work in progress. Yesterday's defeat against Italy doesn't change anything. We'll see at the Euros and in Brazil.

The Madrid One wrote:

Immaculate_Mole wrote:

The Madrid One wrote:

Immaculate_Mole wrote:Look there is no " correct way to play football" there are many different styles but iam against defensive football in all its forms.

Same with attacking football no is no one absolute in dominating attacking football and Catenaccio was not all out defense like Park the Bus is there was atleast an attacking plan involved in the tactics.

So to end this i am fine with all styles of football except the park the bus tactics where the team using it is only really aiming to get a 0-0 draw.

Note: I am talking the variation of parking the bus where the team is only focused on getting a 0-0 draw.

point proven, you chose option 1. if you dont go for defensive football, then that means you dont think its winning football and you cant possibly role with option 2 more.

It's winning football aslong as there's an attacking plan involved with the defensive tactics and that i have no issues with.

It's the eleven men behind the ball only playing for a 0-0 draw is what i dont like and tbh i dont see how anyone can like that.

its part of strategy mole. if you go for a 0-0, and then for a 1-1 or, 1-0 victory over a 2 leg encounter, the football on the mind wins.

why do you think heleno herrira once said.

WE HAVE WON THE MATCH BEFORE EVEN GETTING OFf THE BUS.

giovanni trappatoni- catenaccio ruled our defeat as far as possible, but after all catenaccio is only a method to simply defend and counter attack, which has been proven to work, no matter what its name.

Immaculate_Mole wrote:

The Madrid One wrote:

Immaculate_Mole wrote:

The Madrid One wrote:

Immaculate_Mole wrote:Look there is no " correct way to play football" there are many different styles but iam against defensive football in all its forms.

Same with attacking football no is no one absolute in dominating attacking football and Catenaccio was not all out defense like Park the Bus is there was atleast an attacking plan involved in the tactics.

So to end this i am fine with all styles of football except the park the bus tactics where the team using it is only really aiming to get a 0-0 draw.

Note: I am talking the variation of parking the bus where the team is only focused on getting a 0-0 draw.

point proven, you chose option 1. if you dont go for defensive football, then that means you dont think its winning football and you cant possibly role with option 2 more.

It's winning football aslong as there's an attacking plan involved with the defensive tactics and that i have no issues with.

It's the eleven men behind the ball only playing for a 0-0 draw is what i dont like and tbh i dont see how anyone can like that.

its part of strategy mole. if you go for a 0-0, and then for a 1-1 or, 1-0 victory over a 2 leg encounter, the football on the mind wins.

why do you think heleno herrira once said.

WE HAVE WON THE MATCH BEFORE EVEN GETTING OFf THE BUS.

giovanni trappatoni- catenaccio ruled our defeat as far as possible, but after all catenaccio is only a method to simply defend and counter attack, which has been proven to work, no matter what its name.

2 legged encounter i agree, but i have seen occasions where teams set up to draw 0-0 from the start in one off games.

Which i dont agree with, we also have to realise that football is an entertainment business but having said defensive football can be entertaining if as i said theres an attacking plan involved with defensive tactics.

For example Inter v Barca at San Siro was entertaining, as i said i dont feel there's one absolute in football styles they all have thier place and time to be used.

I just dont agree with parking the bus for a 0-0 draw in a one off game.

Immaculate_Mole wrote:I did'nt say it should'nt be played i would just prefer to see defensive football with an attacking plan.

sciacca wrote:Defense > Attack

Italians do it best.

sciacca wrote:Defense > Attack

Italians do it best.

Sushi Master wrote:

sciacca wrote:Defense > Attack

Italians do it best.

What about Brazil, though? They're more an attack oriented side yet still very successful.

sciacca wrote:Platini: "Defense was always victorious against Attack"

1982: Italy vs Brazil = Defense Won
1994: Italy v Brazil = Shootouts won

Sushi Master wrote:

sciacca wrote:Platini: "Defense was always victorious against Attack"

1982: Italy vs Brazil = Defense Won
1994: Italy v Brazil = Shootouts won

Brazil: 5 WC
Italy: 4 WC



I'm not debating defensive football's strengths, just that if you're very frakking good at attacking, it has it's benefits.

JuvenelCuore wrote:

Sushi Master wrote:

sciacca wrote:Platini: "Defense was always victorious against Attack"

1982: Italy vs Brazil = Defense Won
1994: Italy v Brazil = Shootouts won

Brazil: 5 WC
Italy: 4 WC



I'm not debating defensive football's strengths, just that if you're very frakking good at attacking, it has it's benefits.

Admittedly 2002 was a toss-up due to Korea's cheating, so it could have gone either way realistically, but that is neither here nor there.