cause theyre spanish

Fußball wrote:Average positioning Atletico vs. Barca:



Average positioning Chelsea 2012 vs. Barca:



The comparison is just daft.

The daft comparison here is comparing 2012 Barca to the current Barca.

Because Atletico didn't spend 800 million pounds at expense of lives of thousands of innocent Russian men and women, in order to to assemble the squad and style of play that they do play.

I think the question is already answered in this thread. The reasons why Atletico aren't accused of playing "anti-football" is an amalgamation of various reasons:

1. They are currently considered as underdogs. They have achieved nothing so far, but if they attain sustained success, there will be critics.

2. They play in La Liga, where the teams other than the top 3 are weaker than their counterparts, and hence, they are able to score  a lot of goals. Heck, Mourinho's Real Madrid broke the La Liga goal-scoring record ffs. :lol:Would Atletico score 72 goals in the EPL? Would Chelsea score just 66 goals in La Liga? In CL, Chelsea and Atletico have scored the same number of goals from open play; however, the latter massively leads in goals scored from set pieces with 9, which is the highest.

3.

Natalie Portman wrote:Because Atletico didn't spend 800 million pounds at expense of lives of thousands of innocent Russian men and women, in order to to assemble the squad and style of play that they do play.

Park the bus means Chelsea in their CL win style that year, or Inter vs Barca in their win that year, those are best examples I think. Atletico dont do that, they have so much more, they press high up and play right from the front when they win the ball and attack in numbers when they can. Some similarities in that they are so physical and defense so well as a unit, but its throughout the pitch, not just in their own penalty box.

In Spain, they are considered to be a very defensive team, but they get a free pass because of their underdog status.

Oh and don't tell me that Atleti are not a defensive side just because of the amount of goals that they have scored this season. Chelsea under mou, I don't remember what season, they broke the record of the amount of goals scored in the PL history IIRC. That doesn't mean that they were not defensive. Imo, that only proves that they are offensive when they play against inferior teams, but once they face teams that are at their level or are superior, they put 10 men behind the ball and counter-attack. Which is exactly what Atleti has done this season..

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:Firstly there's no such thing as anti-football.

Secondly there is difference between packing your box with the entire team like Chelsea did and what Atletico did.

Look at that average positions graphic ffs... Felipe Luis a f*cking LB is beyond the half way line comfortably.

Atletico are very aggressive, organised and direct but they do not play anything like what " anti-football" supposedly is.

According to the logic of this thread, Dortmund in their peak  were supposedly anti-football as well

I wouldn't call it anti-football, but that was why I never really liked Dortmunds football. I hate it when team's intentionally give the ball to the opponent just so that you can counter-attack.

It's one of the reason why I am so proud of my NT, Chile. It does not matter if we are playing Germany, Spain, England or if we are playing Peru, Turkey or whatever, we always want the ball and attack. We never set out to defend with 10 men just so that we can counter-attack..

harhar11 wrote:In Spain, they are considered to be a very defensive team, but they get a free pass because of their underdog status.

Oh and don't tell me that Atleti are not a defensive side just because of the amount of goals that they have scored this season. Chelsea under mou, I don't remember what season, they broke the record of the amount of goals scored in the PL history IIRC. That doesn't mean that they were not defensive. Imo, that only proves that they are offensive when they play against inferior teams, but once they face teams that are at their level or are superior, they put 10 men behind the ball and counter-attack. Which is exactly what Atleti has done this season..

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:Firstly there's no such thing as anti-football.

Secondly there is difference between packing your box with the entire team like Chelsea did and what Atletico did.

Look at that average positions graphic ffs... Felipe Luis a f*cking LB is beyond the half way line comfortably.

Atletico are very aggressive, organised and direct but they do not play anything like what " anti-football" supposedly is.

According to the logic of this thread, Dortmund in their peak  were supposedly anti-football as well

I wouldn't call it anti-football, but that was why I never really liked Dortmunds football. I hate it when team's intentionally give the ball to the opponent just so that you can counter-attack.

It's one of the reason why I am so proud of my NT, Chile. It does not matter if we are playing Germany, Spain, England or if we are playing Peru, Turkey or whatever, we always want the ball and attack. We never set out to defend with 10 men just so that we can counter-attack..

Puh-lease.

Atleti were the much better team against both RM and Barca. And it was not only due to their defensive prowess but also due to their quick break up play, and ability to use possession efficiently. Also, I find it hilarious that they are considered defensive because they "play 10 behind the ball" when Barca's whole philosophy is to maintain possession because when they defend they do it with all their team.

Whenever Barca losses the ball, they go deep and try to retrieve it. The only difference between that and parking the bus (which is terrible term in itself) is that Barca manages to maintain the ball longer than those other teams.

In fact, this whole dichotomy of Defensive vs. Offensive football is bloody stupid. Which can be emphasized by the blame Barca fans put on their defense every time they lose. Forgetting the fact that their CL winning teams where as strong defensively (both in players and as a unit) as they were offensively.

Lord Spencer wrote:Puh-lease.

Atleti were the much better team against both RM and Barca. And it was not only due to their defensive prowess but also due to their quick break up play, and ability to use possession efficiently. Also, I find it hilarious that they are considered defensive because they "play 10 behind the ball" when Barca's whole philosophy is to maintain possession because when they defend they do it with all their team.

Whenever Barca losses the ball, they go deep and try to retrieve it. The only difference between that and parking the bus (which is terrible term in itself) is that Barca manages to maintain the ball longer than those other teams.

In fact, this whole dichotomy of Defensive vs. Offensive football is bloody stupid. Which can be emphasized by the blame Barca fans put on their defense every time they lose. Forgetting the fact that their CL winning teams where as strong defensively (both in players and as a unit) as they were offensively.

Ok, please, go ahead and tell me where I implied that Barça were better than Atleti in the game? Go ahead, I will wait..

Atleti are a defensive minded team when they face teams with a "bigger" name. They defend deep and then hit the counter-attack. Which they did brilliantly because they should have been up by atleast 3 goals in the first 20 minutes. Now tell me, am I wrong?

And also, I never said that they parked the bus, cause that's not what they did. When someone parks a bus, they haven no intention of attacking, like Inter did against us in 2010 and NOT what atleti did against us..


FFS, parking the bus is not the only way to be defensive..

Edit: The reason why Barça are not called a defensive team but atleti is, it's because Barça's first intention is to score of goals. Now they can't convert possession into clear goalscoring opportunities as well as they did before, because of the fact that alot of teams put 10 men behind the wall to stop them from creating chances, like Atleti, and because they are not as good as they were before when it comes to breaking down a 10 man wall..

Atleti on the other hand is the opposite. Their main intention is to stop the opposite to create chances and then go on the counter..

harhar11 wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:Puh-lease.

Atleti were the much better team against both RM and Barca. And it was not only due to their defensive prowess but also due to their quick break up play, and ability to use possession efficiently. Also, I find it hilarious that they are considered defensive because they "play 10 behind the ball" when Barca's whole philosophy is to maintain possession because when they defend they do it with all their team.

Whenever Barca losses the ball, they go deep and try to retrieve it. The only difference between that and parking the bus (which is terrible term in itself) is that Barca manages to maintain the ball longer than those other teams.

In fact, this whole dichotomy of Defensive vs. Offensive football is bloody stupid. Which can be emphasized by the blame Barca fans put on their defense every time they lose. Forgetting the fact that their CL winning teams where as strong defensively (both in players and as a unit) as they were offensively.

Ok, please, go ahead and tell me where I implied that Barça were better than Atleti in the game? Go ahead, I will wait..

Atleti are a defensive minded team when they face teams with a "bigger" name. They defend deep and then hit the counter-attack. Which they did brilliantly because they should have been up by atleast 3 goals in the first 20 minutes. Now tell me, am I wrong?

And also, I never said that they parked the bus, cause that's not what they did. When someone parks a bus, they haven no intention of attacking, like Inter did against us in 2010 and NOT what atleti did against us..


FFS, parking the bus is not the only way to be defensive..

Ok then, what is in your opinion a "defensive" side, and what is an "attacking" side.

Lord Spencer wrote:Ok then, what is in your opinion a "defensive" side, and what is an "attacking" side.

Well, the easiest explanation would be an attacking team thinks first of scoring goals and then defending, where as a defensive team thinks first of defending and then attacking.

Barça is the former, while Atleti(when they play big teams only) are the latter.

And then you have parking the bus, where the only intention that you have is to defend. You have no intention of attacking..

harhar11 wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:Ok then, what is in your opinion a "defensive" side, and what is an "attacking" side.

Well, the easiest explanation would be an attacking team thinks first of scoring goals and then defending, where as a defensive team thinks first of defending and then attacking.

Barça is the former, while Atleti(when they play big teams only) are the latter.

And then you have parking the bus, where the only intention that you have is to defend. You have no intention of attacking..

By that definition Guardiola is a defensive coach

Try again

jibers wrote:

harhar11 wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:Ok then, what is in your opinion a "defensive" side, and what is an "attacking" side.

Well, the easiest explanation would be an attacking team thinks first of scoring goals and then defending, where as a defensive team thinks first of defending and then attacking.

Barça is the former, while Atleti(when they play big teams only) are the latter.

And then you have parking the bus, where the only intention that you have is to defend. You have no intention of attacking..

By that definition Guardiola is a defensive coach

Try again

I don't know how he is now with Bayern, he might very well be like that now, but when he was here at Barça, attacking always came first and defending came 2nd. I mean, a high defence line doesn't really help the defensive side of football, does it? And everyone always said that our weakness was our defence, even when everyone, including Messi, was pressing like a mad dog.

harhar11 wrote:

jibers wrote:

harhar11 wrote:

Well, the easiest explanation would be an attacking team thinks first of scoring goals and then defending, where as a defensive team thinks first of defending and then attacking.

Barça is the former, while Atleti(when they play big teams only) are the latter.

And then you have parking the bus, where the only intention that you have is to defend. You have no intention of attacking..

By that definition Guardiola is a defensive coach

Try again

I don't know how he is now with Bayern, he might very well be like that now, but when he was here at Barça, attacking always came first and defending came 2nd. I mean, a high defence line doesn't really help the defensive side of football, does it? And everyone always said that our weakness was our defence, even when everyone, including Messi, was pressing like a mad dog.

Nope but keeing the ball was used for defensive purposes. In fact that is were he is different with Cruyff. Cruyff dint give a shit about the defensive phase and wanted to outscoere opposition. Guardiola doesn't want his team to concede at all. That is the base of his philosphy, prevent other teams from attacking and keep the ball till you find the right time to attack. That is defensive first before attack. He even said it in his book and said it in Messi Biography. Words from his own mouth so try again

And if I remember correctly, weren't Atletico more concerned with smashing you in the return cl leg? While your team sat back running for their lives? I agree with Spencer completely on this.

jibers wrote:Nope but keeing the ball was used for defensive purposes. In fact that is were he is different with Cruyff. Cruyff dint give a shit about the defensive phase and wanted to outscoere opposition. Guardiola doesn't want his team to concede at all. That is the base of his philosphy, prevent other teams from attacking and keep the ball till you find the right time to attack. That is defensive first before attack. He even said it in his book and said it in Messi Biography. Words from his own mouth so try again

And if I remember correctly, weren't Atletico more concerned with smashing you in the return cl leg? While your team sat back running for their lives? I agree with Spencer completely on this.

Did you even read what I said?

I said that Barça's first priorities were to attack and then defend. Not that they only had attacking intention.

Now, let's look and see how ridiculous your claim is.

Guardiola in Barça, used to have a very high defensive line, so high that the CB, who themselves are not really that fast, alot of the times were around the halfway line. He always had very attacking fullbacks(the only defensive fullback that we had was Abidal), which would mean that the CB were exposed, and the only help they had was Busquets. And if that is not enough, alot of the times, Pique would sometimes go up and help with the attack, meaning that there were times when the only players who were defending was Puyol/Mascherano and Busquets i.e 2 players, none of whom is really fast. Basically, a simple long ball and the opposite team had a 1 on 1 vs Valdes.

Would someone who priorities defending, have at times only 2 players in a defensive position? Does that sound as if the defensive side of the games were his priorities?

Oh and btw, Cruyff was more defensive than Guardiola. There were times, especially in the Bernabeu, when he would basically do what Atleti did, just not to the same extent..

harhar11 wrote:

jibers wrote:Nope but keeing the ball was used for defensive purposes. In fact that is were he is different with Cruyff. Cruyff dint give a shit about the defensive phase and wanted to outscoere opposition. Guardiola doesn't want his team to concede at all. That is the base of his philosphy, prevent other teams from attacking and keep the ball till you find the right time to attack. That is defensive first before attack. He even said it in his book and said it in Messi Biography. Words from his own mouth so try again

And if I remember correctly, weren't Atletico more concerned with smashing you in the return cl leg? While your team sat back running for their lives? I agree with Spencer completely on this.

Did you even read what I said?

I said that Barça's first priorities were to attack and then defend. Not that they only had attacking intention.

Now, let's look and see how ridiculous your claim is.

Guardiola in Barça, used to have a very high defensive line, so high that the CB, who themselves are not really that fast, alot of the times were around the halfway line. He always had very attacking fullbacks(the only defensive fullback that we had was Abidal), which would mean that the CB were exposed, and the only help they had was Busquets. And if that is not enough, alot of the times, Pique would sometimes go up and help with the attack, meaning that there were times when the only players who were defending was Puyol/Mascherano and Busquets i.e 2 players, none of whom is really fast. Basically, a simple long ball and the opposite team had a 1 on 1 vs Valdes.

Would someone who priorities defending, have at times only 2 players in a defensive position? Does that sound as if the defensive side of the games were his priorities?

Oh and btw, Cruyff was more defensive than Guardiola. There were times, especially in the Bernabeu, when he would basically do what Atleti did, just not to the same extent..

No because you are looking at Barcelonas defending as conventional. Guardiolas Barcelona used ball retention as a defensive phase. The positioning of the cbs was to ensure that they could recover the ball as high up as possible which is why the pressing was there. The ball retention was used so as to prevent the opposition from doing anything. That is defensive in itself. And Cruyff wanted his team to outscore the opposition. Koeman even said that in training they did no defensive work, it was all about positioning, sergi said that is the biggest difference between Pep and Cruyff...so...yea...

A simple on on one? It must have been so easy eh, that's why most teams were able to do it...o wait, that's right, it was rare...HareHare please....

jibers wrote:No because you are looking at Barcelonas defending as conventional. Guardiolas Barcelona used ball retention as a defensive phase. The positioning of the cbs was to ensure that they could recover the ball as high up as possible which is why the pressing was there. The ball retention was used so as to prevent the opposition from doing anything. That is defensive in itself. And Cruyff wanted his team to outscore the opposition. Koeman even said that in training they did no defensive work, it was all about positioning, sergi said that is the biggest difference between Pep and Cruyff...so...yea...

A simple on on one? It must have been so easy eh, that's why most teams were able to do it...o wait, that's right, it was rare...HareHare please....

Barça used ball retention as a defensive phase, agreed, but that was NOT THE MAINT PRIORITY. The main priority was always to score goals, goals and then 3 more goals. And I never said that Guardiola never thought about the defensive side of the game, ffs!

But if Guardiola was a manager that thought about the defensive side of the game before the attacking side, then he was obviously a moron. I mean, like I said, there were times when we only had 2 players in a defensive position, and the reason for that was to help the attack at the cost of the defensive side. And what defensive manager would do that when they are not losing?

And that's why most of the times when the opposition had a goalscoring opportunity, it almost always tended to a a one-on-one. The only reason why they didn't have more was because of the pressing from the forwards and midfielders..

Cruyff wanted to outscore the opposition, like Guardiola wants to outscore the opposition, but there were times when Cruyff would go to the Bernabeu and play with a more defensive approach..

harhar11 wrote:

jibers wrote:No because you are looking at Barcelonas defending as conventional. Guardiolas Barcelona used ball retention as a defensive phase. The positioning of the cbs was to ensure that they could recover the ball as high up as possible which is why the pressing was there. The ball retention was used so as to prevent the opposition from doing anything. That is defensive in itself. And Cruyff wanted his team to outscore the opposition. Koeman even said that in training they did no defensive work, it was all about positioning, sergi said that is the biggest difference between Pep and Cruyff...so...yea...

A simple on on one? It must have been so easy eh, that's why most teams were able to do it...o wait, that's right, it was rare...HareHare please....

Barça used ball retention as a defensive phase, agreed, but that was NOT THE MAINT PRIORITY. The main priority was always to score goals, goals and then 3 more goals.

Read what I said. I said that Barça's priority was to attack and then defend. I never said that they never thought about the defensive side of the game.

But if Guardiola's was a manager that thought about the defensive side of the game before the attacking side, then he was obviously a moron. I mean, like I said, there were times when we only had 2 players in a defensive position.

And that's why most of the times when the opposition had a goalscoring opportunity, it almost always tended to a a one-on-one. The only reason why they didn't have more was because of the pressing from the forwards and midfielders..

Cruyff wanted to outscore the opposition, like Guardiola wants to outscore the opposition, but there were times when Cruyff would go to the Bernabeu and play with a more defensive approach..

Again, if you have the ball the opposition cannot attack...so it was attacking when Barcelona just passed sideways and back to the GK when they couldn't find passig options forward? Attacking and defending where equal. Your cbs were rarely isolated because of how quickly the ball was recovered so quickly. My point is attacking and defensive football is meaningless. You have to score to win. Again in the first half of that return leg were atletico suddenly an attacking team? Because they gave Barcelona the worst battering I have seen in a while. DAT DEFENSIVENESS!

jibers wrote:Again, if you have the ball the opposition cannot attack...so it was attacking when Barcelona just passed sideways and back to the GK when they couldn't find passig options forward? Attacking and defending where equal. Your cbs were rarely isolated because of how quickly the ball was recovered so quickly. My point is attacking and defensive football is meaningless. You have to score to win. Again in the first half of that return leg were atletico suddenly an attacking team? Because they gave Barcelona the worst battering I have seen in a while. DAT DEFENSIVENESS!

No, the attacking and defending were not equal. The possession could be used as a defensive tool, but the main priority of it was to score goals.

And like I said, Atleti in the first 20 minutes were like a team on a mission, should have been atleast up by 3 goals. But what happend after those 20 minute? What happend was that they started to defend deep and hit the counter-attack, i.e their normal style of play in the big games.

harhar11 wrote:

jibers wrote:Again, if you have the ball the opposition cannot attack...so it was attacking when Barcelona just passed sideways and back to the GK when they couldn't find passig options forward? Attacking and defending where equal. Your cbs were rarely isolated because of how quickly the ball was recovered so quickly. My point is attacking and defensive football is meaningless. You have to score to win. Again in the first half of that return leg were atletico suddenly an attacking team? Because they gave Barcelona the worst battering I have seen in a while. DAT DEFENSIVENESS!

No, the attacking and defending were not equal. The possession could be used as a defensive tool, but the main priority of it was to score goals.

And like I said, Atleti in the first 20 minutes were like a team on a mission, should have been atleast up by 3 goals. But what happend after those 20 minute? What happend was that they started to defend deep and hit the counter-attack, i.e their normal style of play in the big games.

Again what happened when they played MAdrid at home? They pinned Madrid back for most of that game? So basically against Barca? Counter attacking is  now defensive which makes BVB defensive

That makes almost every team under SAF a defensive team

HareHare I am suffering under this realisation...

jibers wrote:Again what happened when they played MAdrid at home? They pinned Madrid back for most of that game? So basically against Barca? Counter attacking is  now defensive which makes BVB defensive

That makes almost every team under SAF a defensive team

HareHare I am suffering under this realisation...

Are you talking about the 2-2 game?

If you are. Atletico were better than Real Madrid, but they didn't pinned them back.

Here are the stats from the game

Atletico      -    Real Madrid

36% Possession 64%
11      Shots       15
4      on Target    6


As you can see, it's the same thing. They defended deep and then hit them in the counter-attack and, again, for me they were much better than Real Madrid.

harhar11 wrote:

jibers wrote:Again what happened when they played MAdrid at home? They pinned Madrid back for most of that game? So basically against Barca? Counter attacking is  now defensive which makes BVB defensive

That makes almost every team under SAF a defensive team

HareHare I am suffering under this realisation...

Are you talking about the 2-2 game?

If you are. Atletico were better than Real Madrid, but they didn't pinned them back.

Here are the stats from the game

Atletico      -    Real Madrid

36% Possession 64%
11      Shots       15
4      on Target    6


As you can see, it's the same thing. They defended deep and then hit them in the counter-attack..

Towards the end yes but a big portion of that game Real were sitting back. Either way this defensive football nonsense is daft seeing as teams have to score. They always try to win. I'm not really a fan of using the term attacking and defensive sides although I understand your reasoning. Honestly, I don't even know what we are arguing about anymore

No point in continuing this debate (jibers and harhar)...I think harhar is making valid points, but now you're both arguing your ideas of offensive and defensive perceptions. Quite pointless if you asked me as it's clear to me that neither of you are going to budge. Me personal opinion is that retaining the ball is a form of offense that can also take some pressure off the defense (in my opinion that is more offensive oriented). You can't apply that style of football to any team; especially not one with more defensive minded players.

I have to agree with jibers.
Absolutely right, for Pep possession is used to deny the opponent any way of playing.
If you have 80% possession, as we do, which is 72 minutes of the game, yet you win only 2:0 you can hardly say all we do it attacking


In a way, Pep is the ultimate king of anti-football, and I love it.

Hapless_Hans wrote:I have to agree with jibers.
Absolutely right, for Pep possession is used to deny the opponent any way of playing.
If you have 80% possession, as we do, which is 72 minutes of the game, yet you win only 2:0 you can hardly say all we do it attacking


In a way, Pep is the ultimate king of anti-football, and I love it.

Exactly

Hapless

jibers wrote:

harhar11 wrote:

jibers wrote:Again what happened when they played MAdrid at home? They pinned Madrid back for most of that game? So basically against Barca? Counter attacking is  now defensive which makes BVB defensive

That makes almost every team under SAF a defensive team

HareHare I am suffering under this realisation...

Are you talking about the 2-2 game?

If you are. Atletico were better than Real Madrid, but they didn't pinned them back.

Here are the stats from the game

Atletico      -    Real Madrid

36% Possession 64%
11      Shots       15
4      on Target    6


As you can see, it's the same thing. They defended deep and then hit them in the counter-attack..

Towards the end yes but a big portion of that game Real were sitting back. Either way this defensive football nonsense is daft seeing as teams have to score. They always try to win. I'm not really a fan of using the term attacking and defensive sides although I understand your reasoning. Honestly, I don't even know what we are arguing about anymore

I know what you mean, but there are different ways to win a game. Some teams set out with a mentality to stop the opposition from scoring as their main priority and then counter, and then there is the "you score 3, we score 4 goals" mentality etc..

But anyway, ranDOM 10 is probably right.

Yes, but are you referring to Pep with Bayern? harhar as already mentioned that he has not watched Bayern under Pep and he is referring to how Pep played while coaching Barcelona. Any who, this all comes down to how each person perceives a team that plays to keep possession.