Is There A "Correct" Way To Play Football?

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.

True, that Italy squad was awesome but Ronaldo was just out of this world back then.

Sushi Master wrote:

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.

True, that Italy squad was awesome but Ronaldo was just out of this world back then.

And Rivaldo

Giggity5313 wrote:
Brazil has insane amount of talent attacking wise

Your point, Italy has insane amount of talent in defending...

Buffon, Zoff
Maldini, Nesta, Canavaro, Chiellini, Baresi, Scriea, shall I go on?
The likes of Gattuso...

I still believe Italy would of won in 2002 if we were not screwed...

Thread starter has "beautiful football" as number one choice, but I find that I have to select the second option because I also care about tactics etc? Beautiful football for me is a mix of those two, just like what I saw from Italy against Spain in the recent friendly!

The Madrid One wrote:there are many ways to play the game sushi, and no way will beat the other 100 percent of the time. but you got to look at the most complete way and ask your self..

how are you going to win against a team you cant score against?

Guys, I'm not saying attacking football > defensive football.

I'm only countering the guys who say defensive football's best, because if you're that good at attacking, it doesn't matter.

My point is you play to your strengths and both styles are not frowned upon by me unless they are the extremes.

Eivindo wrote:Thread starter has "beautiful football" as number one choice, but I find that I have to select the second option because I also care about tactics etc? Beautiful football for me is a mix of those two, just like what I saw from Italy against Spain in the recent friendly!

i didnt explain my self enough, choice 1 pertains to you only classifying great football as football that is visually beautiful. meaning that defensive football you dont like...

The Madrid One wrote:

Eivindo wrote:Thread starter has "beautiful football" as number one choice, but I find that I have to select the second option because I also care about tactics etc? Beautiful football for me is a mix of those two, just like what I saw from Italy against Spain in the recent friendly!

i didnt explain my self enough, choice 1 pertains to you only classifying great football as football that is visually beautiful. meaning that defensive football you dont like...

This thread is clearly aimed to support your opinions and all other opinions are wrong shown by the polls.

Either you like Attacking football or hate defensive football?

LOL

Platini said it best.

The whole premise of this thread is so wrong.

You need an excellent defense to win consecutive titles. What makes a winning combination is the excellent defense along with effective attack. Just like what Arquitecto said.

Barcelona's defending is incredible. Do you guys think defending is done only by the four player at the back and the GK? That is so wrong. Without Barcelona's defending, i doubt they would have won so much!

kiranr wrote:The whole premise of this thread is so wrong.

You need an excellent defense to win consecutive titles. What makes a winning combination is the excellent defense along with effective attack. Just like what Arquitecto said.

Barcelona's defending is incredible. Do you guys think defending is done only by the four player at the back and the GK? That is so wrong. Without Barcelona's defending, i doubt they would have won so much!

Exactly, plain and simple.

Immaculate_Mole wrote:

The Madrid One wrote:

Eivindo wrote:Thread starter has "beautiful football" as number one choice, but I find that I have to select the second option because I also care about tactics etc? Beautiful football for me is a mix of those two, just like what I saw from Italy against Spain in the recent friendly!

i didnt explain my self enough, choice 1 pertains to you only classifying great football as football that is visually beautiful. meaning that defensive football you dont like...

This thread is clearly aimed to support your opinions and all other opinions are wrong shown by the polls.

Either you like Attacking football or hate defensive football?

LOL

you still dont understand my points? at no point was it made to be a comparison between football styles, it was made to make it clear that the term anti football shouldnt exist. and people agree.

if you dont get it then you dont.

you think im talking about defensive football > attacking football.. i made such comparisons to explain that you can use many styles to win a match, regardless of how it looks.

you dissapoint me if you dont understand mole, that just means you dont want to.

kiranr wrote:The whole premise of this thread is so wrong.

You need an excellent defense to win consecutive titles. What makes a winning combination is the excellent defense along with effective attack. Just like what Arquitecto said.

Barcelona's defending is incredible. Do you guys think defending is done only by the four player at the back and the GK? That is so wrong. Without Barcelona's defending, i doubt they would have won so much!

you are misunderstanding the "premise" of the thread, just like your barcelona friend mole here, you guys seem to understand things differently and decide to take a defensive stance on all this. youre arguing about something which the thread was never about.

Athletico Madrid is the best example. they have the best forwards yet they fail to compete with Valencia and Villareal.

So many people here are defending defensive football.

Surely, we can all agree that football is played for the fans. And when you do a survey and see that over 95% of fans prefer offensive back and forth football with lots of scoring chances, you will ask yourself why you defended defensive football.

You can use any style you want to! There are no issues.

But if you can, like Barcelona, find a winning combination of attack and defense, then that is the BEST result.

Nobody is really saying anti-football here except you TMO and Xavi :p

The poll is hard to misunderstand, its just that the selection is crap. Being tactically smart along with playing great passes/dribbles etc is visually beautiful to me, its not like you can only play visually beautiful by playing like Arsenal, with jack sh1t for a tactical approach and defense.

_LMG_10_ wrote:So many people here are defending defensive football.

Surely, we can all agree that football is played for the fans. And when you do a survey and see that over 95% of fans prefer offensive back and forth football with lots of scoring chances, you will ask yourself why you defended defensive football.

if you cant score you cant win, again we are not defending defensive football, we are defending football in general from bs, saying that one way is anti football and the other is the correct way of playing football.

The Madrid One wrote:

Immaculate_Mole wrote:

The Madrid One wrote:

Eivindo wrote:Thread starter has "beautiful football" as number one choice, but I find that I have to select the second option because I also care about tactics etc? Beautiful football for me is a mix of those two, just like what I saw from Italy against Spain in the recent friendly!

i didnt explain my self enough, choice 1 pertains to you only classifying great football as football that is visually beautiful. meaning that defensive football you dont like...

This thread is clearly aimed to support your opinions and all other opinions are wrong shown by the polls.

Either you like Attacking football or hate defensive football?

LOL

you still dont understand my points? at no point was it made to be a comparison between football styles, it was made to make it clear that the term anti football shouldnt exist. and people agree.

if you dont get it then you dont.

you think im talking about defensive football > attacking football.. i made such comparisons to explain that you can use many styles to win a match, regardless of how it looks.

you dissapoint me if you dont understand mole, that just means you dont want to.

I question the same with you tbh.

Because the way you reply to my posts is like you did'nt even read them.

Eivindo wrote:The poll is hard to misunderstand, its just that the selection is crap. Being tactically smart along with playing great passes/dribbles etc is visually beautiful to me, its not like you can only play visually beautiful by playing like Arsenal, with jack sh1t for a tactical approach and defense.

well if that drives you nuts go look at the discussion, the poll is meant to discuss whether the belief that anti-football exists is justified, not whether one way is better than the other because you always do indeed need a good defense to win.

Immaculate_Mole wrote:

The Madrid One wrote:

Immaculate_Mole wrote:

The Madrid One wrote:

Eivindo wrote:Thread starter has "beautiful football" as number one choice, but I find that I have to select the second option because I also care about tactics etc? Beautiful football for me is a mix of those two, just like what I saw from Italy against Spain in the recent friendly!

i didnt explain my self enough, choice 1 pertains to you only classifying great football as football that is visually beautiful. meaning that defensive football you dont like...

This thread is clearly aimed to support your opinions and all other opinions are wrong shown by the polls.

Either you like Attacking football or hate defensive football?

LOL

you still dont understand my points? at no point was it made to be a comparison between football styles, it was made to make it clear that the term anti football shouldnt exist. and people agree.

if you dont get it then you dont.

you think im talking about defensive football > attacking football.. i made such comparisons to explain that you can use many styles to win a match, regardless of how it looks.

you dissapoint me if you dont understand mole, that just means you dont want to.

I question the same with you tbh.

Because the way you reply to my posts is like you did'nt even read them.

weve talked about everything and anything, we are not discussing why or how defensive or attacking football is better, we are discussing the use of terms "anti-football" and how people percieve the game SHOULD be played. you dont even understand the topic.

The Madrid One wrote:

Eivindo wrote:The poll is hard to misunderstand, its just that the selection is crap. Being tactically smart along with playing great passes/dribbles etc is visually beautiful to me, its not like you can only play visually beautiful by playing like Arsenal, with jack sh1t for a tactical approach and defense.

well if that drives you nuts go look at the discussion, the poll is meant to discuss whether the belief that anti-football exists is justified, not whether one way is better than the other because you always do indeed need a good defense to win.

Oh well, still frustrating not to choose both:)

kiranr wrote:You can use any style you want to! There are no issues.

But if you can, like Barcelona, find a winning combination of attack and defense, then that is the BEST result.

Nobody is really saying anti-football here except you TMO and Xavi :p

people get angry if a team like chelsea,inter,madrid, sit back and do nothing but counter attack and score a "lucky" goal, because thats not "football" its anti football to "give up" or not take full advantage of your "quality" and that view into it doesnt make sense.

can you not understand that we are not saying you cant use any style or that any style is better than the other? if anything this thread is made to help everyone understand that the philosophy and tactics are that matter, this isnt a defensive football vs attacking football thread. you,mole,franchise decide to try to defend your football, make discussion out of things that im not discussing, and basically dont understand the argument.

Eivindo wrote:

The Madrid One wrote:

Eivindo wrote:The poll is hard to misunderstand, its just that the selection is crap. Being tactically smart along with playing great passes/dribbles etc is visually beautiful to me, its not like you can only play visually beautiful by playing like Arsenal, with jack sh1t for a tactical approach and defense.

well if that drives you nuts go look at the discussion, the poll is meant to discuss whether the belief that anti-football exists is justified, not whether one way is better than the other because you always do indeed need a good defense to win.

Oh well, still frustrating not to choose both:)

dont see how, i still think you see the votes as attacking football or defensive footbal, your argument is why choose one or the other when you can use both, but that is FAR way from the actual point being discussed.

Actually i do, because i said many times every style has its place in football and would prefer to see goals than a stalemate

Would'nt anybody?

Anti-football does'nt exist outside the brain of Xavi, majority of Barca fans have never branded defensive football anti-football atleast on this forum anyway.

You are reading things in the media and jumping to conclusions, when infact as i said the term "anti-football" only exists in Xavi's mind.

There are many different ways to play the game and they all have thier place and there is not one correct and absolute way to play football.

Also how have i tried to defend Barca's football? i never did that once

The Madrid One wrote:

Eivindo wrote:

The Madrid One wrote:

Eivindo wrote:The poll is hard to misunderstand, its just that the selection is crap. Being tactically smart along with playing great passes/dribbles etc is visually beautiful to me, its not like you can only play visually beautiful by playing like Arsenal, with jack sh1t for a tactical approach and defense.

well if that drives you nuts go look at the discussion, the poll is meant to discuss whether the belief that anti-football exists is justified, not whether one way is better than the other because you always do indeed need a good defense to win.

Oh well, still frustrating not to choose both:)

dont see how, i still think you see the votes as attacking football or defensive footbal, your argument is why choose one or the other when you can use both, but that is FAR way from the actual point being discussed.

Ye, I should have explained further. I just like to vote on something when I see it in a thread, but it didnt work this time because of how u put it.