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

by Yuri Yukuv Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:02 am

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.

by FilipeFerreira Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:07 am

Great teams are considered Great teams by what they won, or what they almost won.

I'm 22 years old, I wasn't alive before 1989. I know of the great teams before 1989, But i don't know how they played, or how well they played, hell I wasn't alive to see it. I know they are great because of what they won, and because of what people say.

If your facing a team which has a style that's superior to yours and your pretty sure your gonna lose, you have to change the way you play to beat it.

by Mr Nick09 Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:09 am

poolsupporter wrote:
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.

Interesting question. I have to admit the line can be blur sometimes, and this is one case.

First of, we need to identify what we define as styles, and how many of those exist out there. It's easier to identify possession football as a phylosophy as regardless of how you line up on the pitch, there is a master idea behind the way you play.

So in that regard, according to what you described, i think it's more of a change in style, specially if you change the way you used to play. I.e. going from a direct style to a counter attacking style.

I do not make the same 3 phase separation Yuri does on the pitch. Tactica belongs more to the way you line up on the pitch to me. Using 2 wingers or wide midfielders, playing a trivote or tridente etc...

by Mr Nick09 Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:12 am

FilipeFerreira wrote:Great teams are considered Great teams by what they won, or what they almost won.

I'm 22 years old, I wasn't alive before 1989. I know of the great teams before 1989, But i don't know how they played, or how well they played, hell I wasn't alive to see it. I know they are great because of what they won, and because of what people say.

If your facing a team which has a style that's superior to yours and your pretty sure your gonna lose, you have to change the way you play to beat it.

Yup, great teams are considered great bcause they overcome adversity, and achieve things, reach and exceed exceptation.

Sure the style with which you do things add more panache to the way you win, but the idea that you have "invent" a new way of playing to become great is a bit silly.

It's as if you say that unless a player has the talent level of Messi, he cant be considered as being great.

by Seth Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:14 am

Depends on how you define "great teams" really.

by Yuri Yukuv Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:15 am

poolsupporter wrote:
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.?

Formations and tactics are expressions of style, not really a part of them. Style is in the mind, tactics are movements in the physical world while formations are objects. A style/philosphy's expressions (formations, tactics) being a sucess in the real world is contingent on the availability of skills that can carry out that philosophy as well as the external environment being ripe for exploitation by it.

Its just like if you have a corporation, it has a vision, a strategy and specified operations. The latter is an expression of the former which is created in order to materialize it; this materialization cannot happen without the required skillsets, motivation and hospitable environments. The end goal of a vision is a financial gain and branding for continued business, which are mirrored in football with winning and reputation.

by BeautifulGame Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:18 am

Yuri Yukuv wrote:
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.

Exactly my point . We only remember the finals and semis matches from great teams . We dont have a clue whether they changed their tactics to adopt to different teams in a 2nd round knock-out match . Do we ? They didnt win every game 3-0 we can be sure of that?

The point i am making if this current Madrid team wins 5 consecutive CL in next 5 years then they will be considered as one of the greatest teams regardless of formation . In 20 years not many will remember how Madrid played 3 DMs in a particular match against Barca but everyone will remember they won 5 consecutive CL .

At the end of the day you are remembered as a great team for what u have won not how u played . Otherwise current Arsenal team would be one of the greatest in history.

by FilipeFerreira Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:19 am

BeautifulGame wrote:
Yuri Yukuv wrote:
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.

Exactly my point . We only remember the finals and semis matches from great teams . We dont have a clue whether they changed their tactics to adopt to different teams in a 2nd round knock-out match . Do we ? They didnt win every game 3-0 we can be sure of that?

The point i am making if this current Madrid team wins 5 consecutive CL in next 5 years then they will be considered as one of the greatest teams regardless of formation . In 20 years not many will remember how Madrid played 3 DMs in a particular match against Barca but everyone will remember they won 5 consecutive CL .

At the end of the day you are remembered as a great team for what u have won not how u played . Otherwise current Arsenal team would be one of the greatest in history.

QFT. Rep up good sir. Exactly what I wanted to say but didn't know how to say it.

by poolsupporter Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:22 am

St_Nick09_of_Goal wrote:
poolsupporter wrote:
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.

Interesting question. I have to admit the line can be blur sometimes, and this is one case.

First of, we need to identify what we define as styles, and how many of those exist out there. It's easier to identify possession football as a phylosophy as regardless of how you line up on the pitch, there is a master idea behind the way you play.

So in that regard, according to what you described, i think it's more of a change in style, specially if you change the way you used to play. I.e. going from a direct style to a counter attacking style.

I do not make the same 3 phase separation Yuri does on the pitch. Tactica belongs more to the way you line up on the pitch to me. Using 2 wingers or wide midfielders, playing a trivote or tridente etc...

That is exactly what blurs it for me. The definition of a team's style tends to be similar to those of tactics. Taking into account what you've just said confuses it even more for me as I see those as changes in tactics or style. I sort of see what you mean with the 'master idea' comment, but once again it's just confusing to distinguish.

by BarrileteCosmico Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:22 am

dostoevsky wrote: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.

Interesting. Very interesting. I agree that under those circumstances it make sense to adapt, but then the question becomes whether they're really great in the sense that I've been using the word. When I started this thread I had in mind those teams that are household names, but I suppose definitions vary and perhaps 'great' was an understatement for those teams.

What teams in the past do you think fit that possible kind of team?

PS: go study :coffee:

by Seth Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:25 am

BarrileteCosmico wrote:
dostoevsky wrote: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.

Interesting. Very interesting. I agree that under those circumstances it make sense to adapt, but then the question becomes whether they're really great in the sense that I've been using the word. When I started this thread I had in mind those teams that are household names, but I suppose definitions vary and perhaps 'great' was an understatement for those teams.

What teams in the past do you think fit that possible kind of team?

Won't Greece in Euro 2004 perfectly fits the description?

by Yuri Yukuv Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:28 am

BeautifulGame wrote:
Yuri Yukuv wrote:
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.

Exactly my point . We only remember the finals and semis matches from great teams . We dont have a clue whether they changed their tactics to adopt to different teams in a 2nd round knock-out match . Do we ? They didnt win every game 3-0 we can be sure of that?

The point i am making if this current Madrid team wins 5 consecutive CL in next 5 years then they will be considered as one of the greatest teams regardless of formation . In 20 years not many will remember how Madrid played 3 DMs in a particular match against Barca but everyone will remember they won 5 consecutive CL .

At the end of the day you are remembered as a great team for what u have won not how u played . Otherwise current Arsenal team would be one of the greatest in history.

I think you are right, I believe if teams are great then it probably means that they do not change their style as consecutively winning (beyond randomness) means they are the strongest around and have a strong and long term advantage (which may actually be the ability to change styles). Its not the other way around where your are great if you dont change your style.

In a way an advantage or philosophy is great because a winning team has stuck to it for a long period of time, its not that a team is great because it has stuck to a style.

One team that was great through changing styles was milan when it went from sacchi to capello. The team didnt lost its greatness at that time, sacchi's style was the one that lost some of its greatness because it lacked sustainability.

by Mr Nick09 Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:40 am

poolsupporter wrote:
St_Nick09_of_Goal wrote:
poolsupporter wrote:
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.

Interesting question. I have to admit the line can be blur sometimes, and this is one case.

First of, we need to identify what we define as styles, and how many of those exist out there. It's easier to identify possession football as a phylosophy as regardless of how you line up on the pitch, there is a master idea behind the way you play.

So in that regard, according to what you described, i think it's more of a change in style, specially if you change the way you used to play. I.e. going from a direct style to a counter attacking style.

I do not make the same 3 phase separation Yuri does on the pitch. Tactica belongs more to the way you line up on the pitch to me. Using 2 wingers or wide midfielders, playing a trivote or tridente etc...

That is exactly what blurs it for me. The definition of a team's style tends to be similar to those of tactics. Taking into account what you've just said confuses it even more for me as I see those as changes in tactics or style. I sort of see what you mean with the 'master idea' comment, but once again it's just confusing to distinguish.

I think even yuri put things quite well. Tactics are the expression of a style, it's the best way to look at things without making the confusion.

Tactics are the expression of a philosophy of football you envision. The best way to distinguish things is to look at spanish teams for example, from clubs to the NT, the expression of possession and passing football is quite different from one team to the next. Espanyol, Barca, RM (we used to), Villarreal, Valencia, the national teams, all guided by the same spirit of play, but applying it with different effect.

by poolsupporter Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:04 am

@nick - I guess that sort of explains things a little more. I think the whole discussion of changing styles clouded my judgement a bit.

Would you consider Catenaccio a style? Wikipedia for example refers to it as a 'tactical system'.

by Kev Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:58 am

Woah, some great stuff here. Yuri's analogy of a corporation was awesome!

Anyway, IMO, great teams become great by achieving great things. The way that they achieved great things is not of the utmost importance. In this instance, the end justifies the means. But, if the manner was extremely admirable, then the greatness of the team would undoubtedly be increased. A team that won CL by scoring 10 goals a game and conceding none will be greater than a team that progressed through penalties each time after 0-0 draws. Furthermore, the team that won CL by scoring 10 goals a game and conceding none will be greater than the team that won CL without changing their philosophy in any game (and achieved lesser results).

A formation/ tactic/ style/ philosophy should only be used if it's successful. There has been no formation/ tactic/ style/ philosophy in history that has been eternally successful. Every formation/ tactic/ style/ philosophy had its heyday, where it was revolutionary for its time, but eventually, other formations/ tactics/ styles/ philosophies became developed that defeated the previously aforementioned style.

Now, this raises a few points in today's football. Most of them are related to Barca. Right now, they've got a philosophy that works. They've got a formation that works. They've got a style that works. Seriously, it must be awesome to be Pep today. Each day in training, you order Xavi to practice making 100000 passes and a second and order Messi to practise dribbling past 10 defenders and score. In each game, your lineup Valdes, Alves, Pique, Puyol, Abidal, Busquets, Xavi, Iniesta, Messi, Pedro, Villa. You play the same tactic day in day out. Pep does not need to think at all these days.

But, one day, Pep will seriously need to earn his dough. Barca will face a style that tiki taka can't overcome. Mourinho's park- the- bus philosophy seems to be an emerging one. When this happens, will Barca stubbornly continue to play tiki taka and seal their losing fate? Or will they "lose their greatness", adapt, and ultimately win? IMO, if they chose option 2, their potential greatness would not be affected at all.

by Albiceleste Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:10 am

Kevacious wrote: Pep does not need to think at all these days.

Debate: Great teams don't change their styles when the stakes get high - Page 4 13079010

by honduran09 Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:26 am

winning and being great are two completely different things IMO because we dont even have to look that far to see two perfect examples of winning without changing your style and just plain winning.

First of all before we go any further I just show that the current Barcelona side IMO are consider great...

Anyways would you consider Atletico de Madrid as a great side (i think we all agree that they are not considering their infamous nickname)? I wouldnt yet they one the Europa League last year and from what i understand ( according to some of your arguments) this would be enough to show that they are great...

Now some of you might argue its the Europa League its not as illustrious as the Champions, but in five, ten years from now people can look back and say well Atletico won at least one trophy while teams like Real, Liverpool, Arsenal, and Milan did not win any trophies during that season. I still consider those teams greater than Atletico.

Please dont misunderstand this next statement twenty years from now not many people are going to remember that inter won last years Champions league instead they are going to remember Barcelona won the '09 and '11 possibly even the '12 champions league because of the style they did it in. Not discrediting inter's trophy because Im sure inter fans will be quick to point it out twenty years from now but the general consensus is that Barcelona was the great side that is going to be fondly remembered during these years.

So in answer to the OP no great teams do not change their styles because they are great their style is what got them to that greatness to begin with... I am sure the Brazil '82 is more fondly remembered than the Brazil of '94.

by BeautifulGame Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:38 am

honduran09 wrote:winning and being great are two completely different things IMO because we dont even have to look that far to see two perfect examples of winning without changing your style and just plain winning.

First of all before we go any further I just show that the current Barcelona side IMO are consider great...

Anyways would you consider Atletico de Madrid as a great side (i think we all agree that they are not considering their infamous nickname)? I wouldnt yet they one the Europa League last year and from what i understand ( according to some of your arguments) this would be enough to show that they are great...

Now some of you might argue its the Europa League its not as illustrious as the Champions, but in five, ten years from now people can look back and say well Atletico won at least one trophy while teams like Real, Liverpool, Arsenal, and Milan did not win any trophies during that season. I still consider those teams greater than Atletico.

Please dont misunderstand this next statement twenty years from now not many people are going to remember that inter won last years Champions league instead they are going to remember Barcelona won the '09 and '11 possibly even the '12 champions league because of the style they did it in. Not discrediting inter's trophy because Im sure inter fans will be quick to point it out twenty years from now but the general consensus is that Barcelona was the great side that is going to be fondly remembered during these years.

So in answer to the OP no great teams do not change their styles because they are great their style is what got them to that greatness to begin with... I am sure the Brazil '82 is more fondly remembered than the Brazil of '94.

No one will have remembered Barca as a great side if they just won the 2008 CL alone . They will be remembered as one of the great sides because they have CLs and probably win few more. If by chance ( i dont it will happen ) this Barca team doesnt win any more CL then they wont be considered among the Greatest sides in history .

As for your logic of Atletico then we have to consider this year's Porto team as one of the greatest in History .They played free flowing football and has won EL so are they among the greats ? Do you see how much of a hollow arguement this is ?

Also i cant understand why u are using the current Liverpool AC Milan teams in this arguements neither of them are among the greatest teams .

This isnt about which are the greatest clubs but about greatest sides in history . Huge difference there.

EDIT :

As for the Inter team they will probably remembered in the same way the United team of 2008 and Barca team of 2006 will be remembered .

by Mr Nick09 Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:39 am

poolsupporter wrote:@nick - I guess that sort of explains things a little more. I think the whole discussion of changing styles clouded my judgement a bit.

Would you consider Catenaccio a style? Wikipedia for example refers to it as a 'tactical system'.

IFrom the way i define things, i would call it a philosophy. The idea of shutting down the opposition by playing intense defense. I dont think from one team to the next the tactics were the same, but the idea of locking shop was something they all shared.

by Mr Nick09 Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:45 am

Kevacious wrote:
But, one day, Pep will seriously need to earn his dough. Barca will face a style that tiki taka can't overcome. Mourinho's park- the- bus philosophy seems to be an emerging one. When this happens, will Barca stubbornly continue to play tiki taka and seal their losing fate? Or will they "lose their greatness", adapt, and ultimately win? IMO, if they chose option 2, their potential greatness would not be affected at all.

I dont know if that will be the case to be honest. Park and bus philosophy is very much hit and miss, and it's more hit than miss. barcelona is more likely to stop themselves rather than seeing a new form that stop them. They are only so good because they have managed to put together a very exceptional group of people. The combination of Xavi and Messi pulling strings is monstruous. You can bet that as Xavi's body gets older, this barca wont the be same. Even Fabregas wont match that, not because he cant reach his level, but because he lacks the physical characteristic make Xavi so difficult to deal with. His shortness is actually one of greatest strength. His ability to work and move in the pocket is ridiculous, hence he touches the ball 2x as much as any playmaker around. That's exactly why barca fans want Thiago to be groomed into the new Xavi.

by honduran09 Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:11 am

BeautifulGame wrote:
honduran09 wrote:winning and being great are two completely different things IMO because we dont even have to look that far to see two perfect examples of winning without changing your style and just plain winning.

First of all before we go any further I just show that the current Barcelona side IMO are consider great...

Anyways would you consider Atletico de Madrid as a great side (i think we all agree that they are not considering their infamous nickname)? I wouldnt yet they one the Europa League last year and from what i understand ( according to some of your arguments) this would be enough to show that they are great...

Now some of you might argue its the Europa League its not as illustrious as the Champions, but in five, ten years from now people can look back and say well Atletico won at least one trophy while teams like Real, Liverpool, Arsenal, and Milan did not win any trophies during that season. I still consider those teams greater than Atletico.

Please dont misunderstand this next statement twenty years from now not many people are going to remember that inter won last years Champions league instead they are going to remember Barcelona won the '09 and '11 possibly even the '12 champions league because of the style they did it in. Not discrediting inter's trophy because Im sure inter fans will be quick to point it out twenty years from now but the general consensus is that Barcelona was the great side that is going to be fondly remembered during these years.

So in answer to the OP no great teams do not change their styles because they are great their style is what got them to that greatness to begin with... I am sure the Brazil '82 is more fondly remembered than the Brazil of '94.

No one will have remembered Barca as a great side if they just won the 2008 CL alone . They will be remembered as one of the great sides because they have CLs and probably win few more. If by chance ( i dont it will happen ) this Barca team doesnt win any more CL then they wont be considered among the Greatest sides in history .

As for your logic of Atletico then we have to consider this year's Porto team as one of the greatest in History .They played free flowing football and has won EL so are they among the greats ? Do you see how much of a hollow arguement this is ?

Also i cant understand why u are using the current Liverpool AC Milan teams in this arguements neither of them are among the greatest teams .

This isnt about which are the greatest clubs but about greatest sides in history . Huge difference there.

EDIT :

As for the Inter team they will probably remembered in the same way the United team of 2008 and Barca team of 2006 will be remembered .

I think you misunderstood my Atletico analogy im not saying that Atletico is great merely pointing out that some posters are saying that doing anything it takes to win is what makes a team great. Atletico did that they did whatever it took to win even if that meant going through on away goals... So make it clearer IMO opinion Atletico are not a great team or close to being good just because they won a trophy because many posters are saying trophies are what count which i disagree

I used the liverpool ac milan sides not because i consider them great but just because i think they are better than atletico and FYI i know this is about greatest sides not clubs because if you read what i wrote i did talk about national teams

So once again let me clarify what makes a great team great is in fact their style not their trophy cabinet even though i believe that a great style brings in trophies.

For instance everybody remembers the great holland sides of '74 and '78 and even though they didnt win the trophies they have forever etched their names into Football history with the the style that they played. I would even bet to argue that more ppl remember them as the glorious runner-ups than the actual winners of those tournaments who were germany and argentina respectively

by MacPhisto/MirrorBallMan Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:27 am

The Madrid One wrote:
great teams, and great managers adapt to sitations, to win.

That's what I think is needed in modern football, where there are more resources to scout opposition etc and different ways of thinking and analysing, and also more and more instances of innovation and breaking away from the norm.

by BeautifulGame Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:33 am

honduran09 wrote:
I think you misunderstood my Atletico analogy im not saying that Atletico is great merely pointing out that some posters are saying that doing anything it takes to win is what makes a team great. Atletico did that they did whatever it took to win even if that meant going through on away goals... So make it clearer IMO opinion Atletico are not a great team or close to being good just because they won a trophy because many posters are saying trophies are what count which i disagree

I used the liverpool ac milan sides not because i consider them great but just because i think they are better than atletico and FYI i know this is about greatest sides not clubs because if you read what i wrote i did talk about national teams

So once again let me clarify what makes a great team great is in fact their style not their trophy cabinet even though i believe that a great style brings in trophies.

For instance everybody remembers the great holland sides of '74 and '78 and even though they didnt win the trophies they have forever etched their names into Football history with the the style that they played. I would even bet to argue that more ppl remember them as the glorious runner-ups than the actual winners of those tournaments who were germany and argentina respectively

Just winning a Europa league doesnt give u any legacy . And 2010 Atletico was better than the Liverpool of 2010. They did beat us in the semi final that year.

As for Holland team 74 and 78 they were part of the legacy of Ajax of 70s . Just like German team of 70s was part of the legacy of Bayern.

If the Ajax team of 70s failed to win any CL then everyone would have said total football as new tactic which is a failure not something that created huge impact in football. WInning was what created the Total football legacy not just playing it.

Do you think this Arsenal team who play excellent free flowing football would be considered among the great sides ? NO.Because they havent won anything thats what ultimately defines great teams.

There was a Tottenham team in early 60 who played great attacking football and swept the league.Probably considered of the most attacking teams England has seen. How many remember that team today?

by gkamtu Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:46 am

but our team city change the style..that we move to next level..

by BeautifulGame Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:03 am

gkamtu wrote:
but our team city change the style..that we move to next level..

Cant argue with this . Only club in history of football to play 10 defensive midfielders.Some style. By the way arre City planning to buy anymore DM.U guys can have Poulsen for free whenever u want.

by Sponsored content

Do you agree with that statement?