Debate: Great teams don't change their styles when the stakes get high

Well when a team specifically needs to completely revamp their play to compete with the big dogs, they aren't great imo.

I think some people here do not get changing styles and changing tactics or tweaking the team.

In my opinion great teams do not change their style. If you change your style,you are not that great. You can be winner, you can be the best at that moment, but not great because you are not true to yourself.

I guess if you have to make a list of great teams and list of wining good teams it will be too disproportional.

eelir wrote:I think some people here do not get changing styles and changing tactics or tweaking the team.

In my opinion great teams do not change their style. If you change your style,you are not that great. You can be winner, you can be the best at that moment, but not great because you are not true to yourself.

I guess if you have to make a list of great teams and list of wining good teams it will be too disproportional.

Well said.

uhhhm so is Barcelona's systematic diving/play-acting against opposition(s) that even dare to defend(god forbid!).....a change of style?

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

buddytaller wrote:The logic is simple the only objective measure of greatness in football is trophies, the Netherlands squad of 74 was largely composed of the Ajax team that had won the European Cup in 71,72 and 73. And they made it as far as the final of the World Cup, any random team that plays beautiful and get knocked out at the first round of a world cup will not be counted as great.

The Madrid of the 50's, the Milan of the 80's the Liverpool of the 70's and the present Barcelona have one thing in common they have won a lot of football honours! It may not be the sole measure of greatness but it is the most accurate.

But that's not true to some other teams. Was the Brazil of '82, which is remembered more than the winner, full of players from one club that won a lot? What about the Mighty Magyars? I think there is a distinct difference between teams that win a lot, and teams that win a lot in a distinct style and thus take ownership. Not every team that has gone through a great winning streak is remembered fondly or even as great, yet these didn't at all and are.

Most would take Italy 82 over Brazil of 82 unless u are happy to be a loser . Arsenal play great flowing football . Are they considered a great team ? You are remembered for what you won not how you play .

If Ajax havent won 3 CLs no one would have considered total football as a revolutionary thing rather would have been considered as a useless tactic which is not good enough .

Its what you won that defines a team not how you play . Great teams adopt how they play to win trophies .

Seppuku wrote:uhhhm so is Barcelona's systematic diving/play-acting against opposition(s) that even dare to defend(god forbid!).....a change of style?

Yes it would be, the reason barcelona used those tactics was in order to gain an advantage through a facet that was not their competitive edge, IE not believing in your competitive edge enough.

Lionel Messi wrote:Well when a team specifically needs to completely revamp their play to compete with the big dogs, they aren't great imo.

So if the Current Madrid team win 5 consecutive CLs in next 5 years by adopting tactics they wont still be considered a great team ?

BeautifulGame wrote:

Lionel Messi wrote:Well when a team specifically needs to completely revamp their play to compete with the big dogs, they aren't great imo.

So if the Current Madrid team win 5 consecutive CLs in next 5 years by adopting tactics they wont still be considered a great team ?

No, unless changing tactics is their skill or competitive edge. Which very much seems to be the direction the team wants to head towards.

eelir wrote:I think some people here do not get changing styles and changing tactics or tweaking the team.

In my opinion great teams do not change their style. If you change your style,you are not that great. You can be winner, you can be the best at that moment, but not great because you are not true to yourself.

I guess if you have to make a list of great teams and list of wining good teams it will be too disproportional.

How would you say a particular team is exactly great or not ?

eelir wrote:I think some people here do not get changing styles and changing tactics or tweaking the team.

In my opinion great teams do not change their style. If you change your style,you are not that great. You can be winner, you can be the best at that moment, but not great because you are not true to yourself.

I guess if you have to make a list of great teams and list of wining good teams it will be too disproportional.

I'd like to hear your differentiation between style and tactics.

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

BeautifulGame wrote:

Lionel Messi wrote:Well when a team specifically needs to completely revamp their play to compete with the big dogs, they aren't great imo.

So if the Current Madrid team win 5 consecutive CLs in next 5 years by adopting tactics they wont still be considered a great team ?

No, unless changing tactics is their skill or competitive edge. Which very much seems to be the direction the team wants to head towards.

So how do you the great Bayern or Madrid team didnt adopt their tactics on their way to 3 CL wins ? Did you know whether they play the same tactics against every opposition they met ?

How are u sure they never changed their tactics to adopt to different teams during their glory years ?

I'll pose the question to anyone then. How do you differentiate between style and tactics. Either there aren't any differences, or I'm just completely missing the fine line between the two.

BeautifulGame wrote:

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

BeautifulGame wrote:

Lionel Messi wrote:Well when a team specifically needs to completely revamp their play to compete with the big dogs, they aren't great imo.

So if the Current Madrid team win 5 consecutive CLs in next 5 years by adopting tactics they wont still be considered a great team ?

No, unless changing tactics is their skill or competitive edge. Which very much seems to be the direction the team wants to head towards.

So how do you the great Bayern or Madrid team didnt adopt their tactics on their way to 3 CL wins ? Did you know whether they play the same tactics against every opposition they met ?

How are u sure they never changed their tactics to adopt to different teams during their glory years ?

Im confused, which team do you mean?

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

Seppuku wrote:uhhhm so is Barcelona's systematic diving/play-acting against opposition(s) that even dare to defend(god forbid!).....a change of style?

Yes it would be, the reason barcelona used those tactics was in order to gain an advantage through a facet that was not their competitive edge, IE not believing in your competitive edge enough.

So by choosing the Yes option in the poll I would be naturally affirming that this Barcelona =/= great team?

poolsupporter wrote:I'll pose the question to anyone then. How do you differentiate between style and tactics. Either there aren't any differences, or I'm just completely missing the fine line between the two.

For me I beleive there are three levels, going from the most specific and real to the most abstract and general. Formation --> Tactics ---> Philosophy/Style. Some differences in tactics can be justified to not break with the philosophy/style, while others cannot. Its a matter of personal judgement on these matters really.

Was playing 5 defenders against madrid in april 2010 just a change in formation and tactics or did it break with the philosophy/style? Was playing a static deep backline as compared to a usual dynamic back four and trying to influence the outcome of the game through referee decisions a just a break in tactics or was it also a break in philosophy/style? Thats up to personal judgement really.

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

BeautifulGame wrote:

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

BeautifulGame wrote:

Lionel Messi wrote:Well when a team specifically needs to completely revamp their play to compete with the big dogs, they aren't great imo.

So if the Current Madrid team win 5 consecutive CLs in next 5 years by adopting tactics they wont still be considered a great team ?

No, unless changing tactics is their skill or competitive edge. Which very much seems to be the direction the team wants to head towards.

So how do you the great Bayern or Madrid team didnt adopt their tactics on their way to 3 CL wins ? Did you know whether they play the same tactics against every opposition they met ?

How are u sure they never changed their tactics to adopt to different teams during their glory years ?

Im confused, which team do you mean?

No i am asking a simple question not about the current teams but about great teams from the past?

Do you surely know the great Bayern or Madrid team didnt adopt their tactics on their way to 3 CL wins ?

Did you know whether they play the same tactics against every opposition they met ?

How are u sure they never changed their tactics to adopt to different teams during their glory years ?

Thats what I meant, are you mentioning the bayern team of the 70s and the madrid team of the 90s?

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

poolsupporter wrote:I'll pose the question to anyone then. How do you differentiate between style and tactics. Either there aren't any differences, or I'm just completely missing the fine line between the two.

For me I beleive there are three levels, going from the most specific and real to the most abstract and general. Formation --> Tactics ---> Philosophy/Style. Some differences in tactics can be justified to not break with the philosophy/style, while others cannot. Its a matter of personal judgement on these matters really.

Was playing 5 defenders against madrid in april 2010 just a change in formation and tactics or did it break with the philosophy/style? Was playing a static deep backline as compared to a usual dynamic back four and trying to influence the outcome of the game through referee decisions a just a break in tactics or was it also a break in philosophy/style? Thats up to personal judgement really.

So would you consider something like pass and move a style/philosophy, or would that be a tactic for you?

Give me an example of style that isn't total football.

I think pass and move is a bit too broad. Its more of a building block or base than anything (it was around alot longer than total football btw) It could include alot of philosophies really. One style I can remember is classic real madrid style which was 5-2-1-2/5-3-2 which involved alot of movement, attacking/hardworking full backs, technically good players, fast ball circulation. Sacchi also had a style, Fabio Capello had a style, etc. Barelona of today's style =/= Total football, they are way too different IMO (not relatively ofcourse, but in the sense of categorization)

Pass and move is more of a style, a philosophy you carry through no matter which formation you play. A lot of teams play possession oriented game yet their tactics and formations are completely different, Villarreal and Valencia as prominent example.

Yuri Yukuv wrote:Thats what I meant, are you mentioning the bayern team of the 70s and the madrid team of the 90s?

Bayern of 70s and Madrid of 50s .

St_Nick09_of_Goal wrote:Pass and move is more of a style, a philosophy you carry through no matter which formation you play. A lot of teams play possession oriented game yet their tactics and formations are completely different, Villarreal and Valencia as prominent example.

Take pass and move or even a more possession oriented game for example. Suppose the opposing team manages to successfully defend you out of the game. Or even manages to break up play and cut your possession down. So the team starts resorting to taking more risks and playing longer balls. Would that be a change in style or tactics?

Perhaps it's just me, but I'm failing to see much of a difference. Formations and tactics have distinct differences. I understand that.

Another "Madrid came to destroy football not to play thread"

Don't you get sick of everything being about this?

Yuri Yukuv wrote:I think pass and move is a bit too broad. Its more of a building block or base than anything (it was around alot longer than total football btw) It could include alot of philosophies really. One style I can remember is classic real madrid style which was 5-2-1-2/5-3-2 which involved alot of movement, attacking/hardworking full backs, technically good players, fast ball circulation. Sacchi also had a style, Fabio Capello had a style, etc. Barelona of today's style =/= Total football, they are way too different IMO (not relatively ofcourse, but in the sense of categorization)

This didn't really help in distinguish either. Are formations now part of the style? Being attacking or defensive is part of a tactic, IMO. (Or style if you see things my way) Let me put it this way. A team could theoretically use Barcelona's style of play/tactics. Whether they have the personnel to perform successfully upon utilization is another matter.

Or do you believe style in a function of formations, tactics, the kind of players you buy, etc.?

I hate myself for entering this conversation because I have an exam in a couple of hours I need to read over notes for, so I'll try and be quick.

I believe that under some circumstances a great team will change their 'style' if they are very specifically a great team who apart aren't exceptional players. A team doesn't necessarily have to be remembered for having champions in every position, otherwise this United side wouldn't be remotely thought of as one of the best, however with their record of winning it was a real possibility if they'd defeated Barcelona in the final.

In that sense then, I'm proposing that a team can be made great because they can adopt their structure to any situation to give themselves the greatest possible advantage.

Two teams of legends battling it out? If you didn't stick to your guns I'd be puzzled, but a great team doesn't always have to have the best players, they can just have a few key points and then build around that. A team might have only one player thought of as world class in his position and otherwise filled with strong players, but those who wouldn't really be remembered otherwise.

You might say that then they are admitting they aren't the best and are changing their style, however I believe that their flexibility can be their defining characteristic. Their style is to get the most out of the game in recognition of the opposition and if they can do that successfully then the team is great. If without this they wouldn't be a great team then I do believe we're getting into the realm of defining something as 'anti-football' which I disagree with.

If you then wish to rank the teams it depends partly on style but it would be unfair to downgrade a team who were flexible unless they wouldn't be able to compensate for their weaknesses by changing anyway.

BeautifulGame wrote:

Yuri Yukuv wrote:Thats what I meant, are you mentioning the bayern team of the 70s and the madrid team of the 90s?

Bayern of 70s and Madrid of 50s .

To be honest the madrid of the 50's Ive just watched the finals and some other important games (Semi's, etc), ive also read up alot especially di stefanos comments and the history around the way of play as I thought it could give me alot more insight. From those two sources I can say that they played the same style lethaly at every game, they never had problems of fearing the opposition or even worrying that they would lose they had fears about injuries alot more.

For bayern I didnt really watch many games except the finals. They seemed to be a confident team and more importantly a very mentally strong team. I cant say if they ever changed tactics/style/philosophy because frankly I do not know that much about them. I can only infer from the germany games I have watched (Which were alot more, of which bayern created the nucleus) that they might be more pragmatic than other great teams.