Is winning really the ultimate goal?
+16
Shed
Robespierre
El Gunner
Abramovich
mr-r34
harhar11
Blue Barrett
zigra
Rebelles.REUS.rex
Art Morte
Lupi
izzy
DeletedUser#1
MaraVilla
El Chelsea Fuerte
sree999
20 posters
Page 1 of 2
Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2 
Is winning really the ultimate goal?
by sree999 Tue Apr 29, 2014 6:02 am
On Sunday evening, Chelsea left Anfield with three points and the host’s title dream perhaps in tatters.
Afterwards, the talk was once again of Jose Mourinho and a tactical masterclass, which was a bit bizarre when you considered the circumstances.
Chelsea had arrived needing nothing less than victory to keep its title hopes alive.
A draw would have been enough for Liverpool to control its own destiny. Yet, from the outset, there was only one team making a concerted effort to win the game.
Chelsea, with one eye on the Champions League semifinal second leg on Wednesday night, had rested some of its stalwarts, and those on the pitch started wasting time as early as the fourth minute. That was a recurring theme throughout, as Chelsea took an age over goal kicks, throw-ins and free kicks.
That this tactical ‘masterclass’ produced a result was down to a huge error late in the first half, as Steven Gerrard first miscontrolled the ball and then slipped. It had nothing to do with the formation that Mourinho put out or the quality of Chelsea’s play.
Football is not ballet or figure skating and no team gets points for aesthetics. Chelsea’s two banks of four succeeded in stifling Liverpool’s potent forward line, and it got it a result. A football manager’s job is to get those, and Mourinho will say that he isn’t in the entertainment business. But such an unimaginative display from an expensively assembled squad made one wonder whether winning really is everything.
Are trophies a team’s only legacy? I’m not so sure. Let’s look at two Brazilian teams separated by just over a decade. In 1994, the Selecao won the World Cup, 3-2 on penalty kicks, after a goalless draw against Italy in the final. In its seven games, it scored 11 goals and conceded just three. Apart from a 3-2 win over the Netherlands in the quarterfinal though, there’s not one performance that really sticks in the memory, not one display that makes fans sigh wistfully decades later.
Contrast that with Brazil 1982. In the group stages alone, it scored 10, with the highlight being a 4-1 trouncing of a formidable Scottish team. The performance was best described by Hugh McIllvanney when he wrote: “The hurt [Scotland] feel over the four goals dazzlingly inflicted on them by Brazil should be no more tinged with shame than the sense of inadequacy experienced by every golfer who has been buried under a flood of birdies from Jack Nicklaus, every fighter overwhelmed by Sugar Ray Robinson or all the Grand Prix drivers who have ever had Juan Fangio’s exhaust fumes blowing in their faces. When you lose to the best, self-recrimination is a graceless irrelevance.”
In the next phase, it thrashed Argentina 3-1. Only a draw was needed against Italy. Twice it trailed, the second time after a disastrous square ball from Toninho Cerezo. Twice, it fought back, with magnificent goals from Socrates and Falcao. There was still time, though, for Paolo Rossi to complete his hat-trick after a scramble in the penalty box. Brazil and Tele Santana’s thrilling philosophy of all-out attack were out. Zico called it “the day football died”.
Socrates, who captained that immortal side, died two years ago. He was candid in his assessment of the change that defeat brought about.
“It may have been the last side to represent Brazil in a World Cup that epitomised the country,” he said in an interview. “It was irreverent, joyful, creative, free-flowing.”
It also made millions of young people fall in love with the game. I know, because I was one of them.
All these years later, it’s not Dunga’s team of 1994 that we get nostalgic about. It’s the heroes of 1982. They didn’t win any medals or trophies that year, but they captivated millions. In that sense, they left behind a far greater legacy.
You could say the same of Ferenc Puskas and his Magic Magyars in 1954, and the Dutch side captained by Johan Cruyff two decades later. Not champions, but two champion sides that elevated watching football to something beyond the mundane.
Socrates, an iconoclast till the end, put it best when he said: “Beauty comes first. Victory is secondary. What matters is joy.”
Mourinho will probably scoff at that. But there are millions of us who cherish that idea.
http://www.thehindu.com/sport/football/is-winning-really-the-ultimate-goal/article5957076.ece
Afterwards, the talk was once again of Jose Mourinho and a tactical masterclass, which was a bit bizarre when you considered the circumstances.
Chelsea had arrived needing nothing less than victory to keep its title hopes alive.
A draw would have been enough for Liverpool to control its own destiny. Yet, from the outset, there was only one team making a concerted effort to win the game.
Chelsea, with one eye on the Champions League semifinal second leg on Wednesday night, had rested some of its stalwarts, and those on the pitch started wasting time as early as the fourth minute. That was a recurring theme throughout, as Chelsea took an age over goal kicks, throw-ins and free kicks.
That this tactical ‘masterclass’ produced a result was down to a huge error late in the first half, as Steven Gerrard first miscontrolled the ball and then slipped. It had nothing to do with the formation that Mourinho put out or the quality of Chelsea’s play.
Football is not ballet or figure skating and no team gets points for aesthetics. Chelsea’s two banks of four succeeded in stifling Liverpool’s potent forward line, and it got it a result. A football manager’s job is to get those, and Mourinho will say that he isn’t in the entertainment business. But such an unimaginative display from an expensively assembled squad made one wonder whether winning really is everything.
Are trophies a team’s only legacy? I’m not so sure. Let’s look at two Brazilian teams separated by just over a decade. In 1994, the Selecao won the World Cup, 3-2 on penalty kicks, after a goalless draw against Italy in the final. In its seven games, it scored 11 goals and conceded just three. Apart from a 3-2 win over the Netherlands in the quarterfinal though, there’s not one performance that really sticks in the memory, not one display that makes fans sigh wistfully decades later.
Contrast that with Brazil 1982. In the group stages alone, it scored 10, with the highlight being a 4-1 trouncing of a formidable Scottish team. The performance was best described by Hugh McIllvanney when he wrote: “The hurt [Scotland] feel over the four goals dazzlingly inflicted on them by Brazil should be no more tinged with shame than the sense of inadequacy experienced by every golfer who has been buried under a flood of birdies from Jack Nicklaus, every fighter overwhelmed by Sugar Ray Robinson or all the Grand Prix drivers who have ever had Juan Fangio’s exhaust fumes blowing in their faces. When you lose to the best, self-recrimination is a graceless irrelevance.”
In the next phase, it thrashed Argentina 3-1. Only a draw was needed against Italy. Twice it trailed, the second time after a disastrous square ball from Toninho Cerezo. Twice, it fought back, with magnificent goals from Socrates and Falcao. There was still time, though, for Paolo Rossi to complete his hat-trick after a scramble in the penalty box. Brazil and Tele Santana’s thrilling philosophy of all-out attack were out. Zico called it “the day football died”.
Socrates, who captained that immortal side, died two years ago. He was candid in his assessment of the change that defeat brought about.
“It may have been the last side to represent Brazil in a World Cup that epitomised the country,” he said in an interview. “It was irreverent, joyful, creative, free-flowing.”
It also made millions of young people fall in love with the game. I know, because I was one of them.
All these years later, it’s not Dunga’s team of 1994 that we get nostalgic about. It’s the heroes of 1982. They didn’t win any medals or trophies that year, but they captivated millions. In that sense, they left behind a far greater legacy.
You could say the same of Ferenc Puskas and his Magic Magyars in 1954, and the Dutch side captained by Johan Cruyff two decades later. Not champions, but two champion sides that elevated watching football to something beyond the mundane.
Socrates, an iconoclast till the end, put it best when he said: “Beauty comes first. Victory is secondary. What matters is joy.”
Mourinho will probably scoff at that. But there are millions of us who cherish that idea.
http://www.thehindu.com/sport/football/is-winning-really-the-ultimate-goal/article5957076.ece
sree999- Hot Prospect
- Posts : 286
Join date : 2012-06-23
Re: Is winning really the ultimate goal?
by El Chelsea Fuerte Tue Apr 29, 2014 6:03 am
Yes, winning is the ultimate goal.
El Chelsea Fuerte- Fan Favorite
- Club Supported :
Posts : 5952
Join date : 2011-06-05
Re: Is winning really the ultimate goal?
by MaraVilla Tue Apr 29, 2014 6:35 am
absolutely not, its all about how much profit your club generates.
MaraVilla- First Team
- Club Supported :
Posts : 2001
Join date : 2011-06-06
Re: Is winning really the ultimate goal?
by DeletedUser#1 Tue Apr 29, 2014 6:41 am
Shame that Chelsea won't be winning anything this season then. Anti-football May have won that battle Sre9999, but im glad that attacking real football will be the real winner in PL this season as the title will be so by either City/Liverpool 95%. Fair play to Mou though, to time waste after 53 seconds and allow the ball to be in play for only 50 minutes of 90 is a total master class. It's not even football, it's another sport. As I said, I'm happy the the eventual champion of PL will be a real footballing team in either citizens or the reds, and Mourinho (with some help from Simeone and La Decima) will be the "trophiless one" for the second year running despite having a Squad of billions at his disposal.
DeletedUser#1- Fan Favorite
- Club Supported :
Posts : 5155
Join date : 2012-12-06
Re: Is winning really the ultimate goal?
by izzy Tue Apr 29, 2014 6:57 am
You anti-football guys have to be some of the biggest sore losers I've ever come across.
My God, just shut up.
My God, just shut up.
izzy- Fan Favorite
- Club Supported :
Posts : 6130
Join date : 2011-06-05
Age : 26
Re: Is winning really the ultimate goal?
by DeletedUser#1 Tue Apr 29, 2014 7:08 am
^ funny how us anti-footballists are the sore losers, when it's The anti-football team which will end the season trophiless most likely . You know your football Izzy and Palace and R.Madrid play some really good footy especially at home, so you should be in our camp ffs.
. You know your football Izzy and Palace and R.Madrid play some really good footy especially at home, so you should be in our camp ffs.
DeletedUser#1- Fan Favorite
- Club Supported :
Posts : 5155
Join date : 2012-12-06
Re: Is winning really the ultimate goal?
by Lupi Tue Apr 29, 2014 7:18 am
"Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder"
The purpose of the game is ultimately to pass the ball from the opponent goal line and at the same time preventing the opponent so do so. There are many tactics ,formations, strategies to do that. All of them depends on knowing the team strength and weaknesses and using them to break the other team. As far as pure board tactics IMO is like chess. a good chess player knows 5 move ahead so a good manager.
That however is for managers to deal with, As for me is to watch Romans conquer the world
The purpose of the game is ultimately to pass the ball from the opponent goal line and at the same time preventing the opponent so do so. There are many tactics ,formations, strategies to do that. All of them depends on knowing the team strength and weaknesses and using them to break the other team. As far as pure board tactics IMO is like chess. a good chess player knows 5 move ahead so a good manager.
That however is for managers to deal with, As for me is to watch Romans conquer the world
Lupi- First Team
- Club Supported :
Posts : 2519
Join date : 2012-11-28
Age : 40
Re: Is winning really the ultimate goal?
by izzy Tue Apr 29, 2014 7:21 am
There is no camp imo. Just a bunch of butthurt babies whining and crying.
Get over it.
You guys continue to complain about what is the right and wrong way to play football, somehow not realizing that you guys running around preaching about how football should be played is just as detrimental to the sport imo.
There is no right way to play this game.
Get over it.
You guys continue to complain about what is the right and wrong way to play football, somehow not realizing that you guys running around preaching about how football should be played is just as detrimental to the sport imo.
There is no right way to play this game.
izzy- Fan Favorite
- Club Supported :
Posts : 6130
Join date : 2011-06-05
Age : 26
Re: Is winning really the ultimate goal?
by Art Morte Tue Apr 29, 2014 8:08 am
Winning is the ultimate goal, of course.
There's no such thing as anti-football.
Playing for a 0 - 0 is not a tactical masterclass, but it can sometimes be the correct tactic to use.
There's no such thing as anti-football.
Playing for a 0 - 0 is not a tactical masterclass, but it can sometimes be the correct tactic to use.
Art Morte- Forum legendest
- Club Supported :
Posts : 18323
Join date : 2011-06-05
Age : 39
Re: Is winning really the ultimate goal?
by Rebelles.REUS.rex Tue Apr 29, 2014 8:27 am
Natalie Portman wrote:Shame that Chelsea won't be winning anything this season then. Anti-football May have won that battle Sre9999, but im glad that attacking real football will be the real winner in PL this season as the title will be so by either City/Liverpool 95%. Fair play to Mou though, to time waste after 53 seconds and allow the ball to be in play for only 50 minutes of 90 is a total master class. It's not even football, it's another sport. As I said, I'm happy the the eventual champion of PL will be a real footballing team in either citizens or the reds, and Mourinho (with some help from Simeone and La Decima) will be the "trophiless one" for the second year running despite having a Squad of billions at his disposal.
what really is anti-football is all that cheating that evolves your club: diving, referee's bias, FA protection, non-existing goals, etc!
Rebelles.REUS.rex- First Team
- Club Supported :
Posts : 1348
Join date : 2012-04-25
Age : 34
Re: Is winning really the ultimate goal?
by zigra Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:04 am
Well at the end of the day football has to entertain the fans. That's the single most important thing cause without people caring about it winning doesn't matter anything at all.
But a team playing ultra defensive - at least in key games - doesn't mean it's not entertaining. Some poeple won't like it. That's fine. Some people hate "tiki taka", some love it. Not a problem.
Btw 9 times out of 10 teams "park the bus" because they don't really have an alternative not because they love it. Well they have one but it's like "park the bus or lose 3-0". Losing 3-0 usually isn't exactly entertaining for the losing side.
But a team playing ultra defensive - at least in key games - doesn't mean it's not entertaining. Some poeple won't like it. That's fine. Some people hate "tiki taka", some love it. Not a problem.
Btw 9 times out of 10 teams "park the bus" because they don't really have an alternative not because they love it. Well they have one but it's like "park the bus or lose 3-0". Losing 3-0 usually isn't exactly entertaining for the losing side.
zigra- First Team
- Club Supported :
Posts : 4247
Join date : 2013-08-15
Re: Is winning really the ultimate goal?
by Blue Barrett Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:09 am
Its funny because Liverpool did this a lot in the 80's. And under Rafa. Even against Chelsea. The hypocrisy is bloody hilariousNatalie Portman wrote:Shame that Chelsea won't be winning anything this season then. Anti-football May have won that battle Sre9999, but im glad that attacking real football will be the real winner in PL this season as the title will be so by either City/Liverpool 95%. Fair play to Mou though, to time waste after 53 seconds and allow the ball to be in play for only 50 minutes of 90 is a total master class. It's not even football, it's another sport. As I said, I'm happy the the eventual champion of PL will be a real footballing team in either citizens or the reds, and Mourinho (with some help from Simeone and La Decima) will be the "trophiless one" for the second year running despite having a Squad of billions at his disposal.
No need to be so butthurt mate. Chin up and take the loss like a man after gloating for weeks about how you were going to shaft Chelsea
At least its good to see that you're alive and well. I'd been wondering if you were alright when we all didn't see your shadow 
Welcome back, Sepi.
Blue Barrett- World Class Contributor
- Club Supported :
Posts : 10353
Join date : 2012-03-03
Re: Is winning really the ultimate goal?
by harhar11 Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:12 am
Rebelles.REUS.rex wrote:Natalie Portman wrote:Shame that Chelsea won't be winning anything this season then. Anti-football May have won that battle Sre9999, but im glad that attacking real football will be the real winner in PL this season as the title will be so by either City/Liverpool 95%. Fair play to Mou though, to time waste after 53 seconds and allow the ball to be in play for only 50 minutes of 90 is a total master class. It's not even football, it's another sport. As I said, I'm happy the the eventual champion of PL will be a real footballing team in either citizens or the reds, and Mourinho (with some help from Simeone and La Decima) will be the "trophiless one" for the second year running despite having a Squad of billions at his disposal.
what really is anti-football is all that cheating that evolves your club: diving, referee's bias, FA protection, non-existing goals, etc!
You are a chelsea fan, right? If so, aren't you a big hypocrite saying that?
The last 4 times that we played, you outdived Barca. I still remember how Drogba was subbed in 09 because he was diving so much that he managed to fool his own manager that he was injured.
--
And yes, winning is the ultimate goal. But I think that top teams should strive to entertain their fans. I know I would hate it if my teams pays €500m, and me having to pay a fortune for me only having end up to see my team have 10 players inside their own penalty area and then hit the counter-attack, even if we win..
harhar11- First Team
- Club Supported :
Posts : 3646
Join date : 2011-06-11
Re: Is winning really the ultimate goal?
by Blue Barrett Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:16 am
^Wanting your team to entertain you no matter what is why Barca have been clueless in the CL the past couple of years. No plan B. Tiki taka or die.
But go on, entertain yourself.
But go on, entertain yourself.
Blue Barrett- World Class Contributor
- Club Supported :
Posts : 10353
Join date : 2012-03-03
Re: Is winning really the ultimate goal?
by mr-r34 Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:45 am
Blue Barrett wrote:
Its funny because Liverpool did this a lot in the 80's. And under Rafa. Even against Chelsea. The hypocrisy is bloody hilarious
Haha were did everyone hear this over the weekend lol.
mr-r34- First Team
- Club Supported :
Posts : 3377
Join date : 2011-06-06
Age : 33
Re: Is winning really the ultimate goal?
by harhar11 Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:08 am
Blue Barrett wrote:^Wanting your team to entertain you no matter what is why Barca have been clueless in the CL the past couple of years. No plan B. Tiki taka or die.
But go on, entertain yourself.
Did you even watch the video that you posted on the "what should the possession team do to break down a good defence"? Gary Neville basically said that Barça have been spot with their approach against a deep defence. So much for your clueless theory
harhar11- First Team
- Club Supported :
Posts : 3646
Join date : 2011-06-11
Re: Is winning really the ultimate goal?
by Blue Barrett Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:14 am
That wasn't uncommon knowledge. Would have posted it to a Liverpool fan if there was actually any of you guys(Liverpool fans) available to have a debate on Sunday, but understandably you were nowhere to be found. Everyone also knows Arsenal played like West Ham before Wenger came in(in reference to the 80's example). Again, these aren't uncommon knowledge. You do know, the Rafa examples were matches I actually watched?mr-r34 wrote:Blue Barrett wrote:
Its funny because Liverpool did this a lot in the 80's. And under Rafa. Even against Chelsea. The hypocrisy is bloody hilarious
Haha were did everyone hear this over the weekend lol.
Last edited by Blue Barrett on Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:17 am; edited 2 times in total
Blue Barrett- World Class Contributor
- Club Supported :
Posts : 10353
Join date : 2012-03-03
Re: Is winning really the ultimate goal?
by Blue Barrett Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:15 am
You have your answer in the other thread. No need to be making the same arguments in two different threads.harhar11 wrote:Blue Barrett wrote:^Wanting your team to entertain you no matter what is why Barca have been clueless in the CL the past couple of years. No plan B. Tiki taka or die.
But go on, entertain yourself.
Did you even watch the video that you posted on the "what should the possession team do to break down a good defence"? Gary Neville basically said that Barça have been spot with their approach against a deep defence. So much for your clueless theory
Blue Barrett- World Class Contributor
- Club Supported :
Posts : 10353
Join date : 2012-03-03
mr-r34- First Team
- Club Supported :
Posts : 3377
Join date : 2011-06-06
Age : 33
Re: Is winning really the ultimate goal?
by Abramovich Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:44 am
Say it time and time again, same for ALL sports.
Play to win, it's that simple.
Play to win, it's that simple.
Abramovich- Fan Favorite
- Club Supported :
Posts : 6544
Join date : 2011-06-06
Re: Is winning really the ultimate goal?
by El Gunner Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:46 am
I know what Mole's answer will be regarding Newcastle. 
El Gunner- An Oakland City Warrior
- Club Supported :
Posts : 23165
Join date : 2011-06-05
Age : 28
Re: Is winning really the ultimate goal?
by Robespierre Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:52 am
Brazil 82 is the biggest NT flop ever , stop fapping about it.
Robespierre- World Class Contributor
- Club Supported :
Posts : 17219
Join date : 2013-11-22
Age : 34
Re: Is winning really the ultimate goal?
by Shed Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:47 pm
This kind of thinking, as exhibited by even their own manager, is just a way for Liverpool fans to invent moral victories after failing utterly to obtain an actual one. Winning, not the be-all, end-all in football, nay sport altogether? Hilarious.
-
Ironically, if their manager hadn't been such an ideologue and set out more pragmatically, they very likely could have gotten the simple result that would have effectively won the title for them. Instead of owning it, it's evade and blame. Somebody else's fault. As usual.
-
Ironically, if their manager hadn't been such an ideologue and set out more pragmatically, they very likely could have gotten the simple result that would have effectively won the title for them. Instead of owning it, it's evade and blame. Somebody else's fault. As usual.
Shed- Ballon d'Or Contender
- Club Supported :
Posts : 23683
Join date : 2012-05-28
Age : 31
Re: Is winning really the ultimate goal?
by mr-r34 Tue Apr 29, 2014 1:37 pm
Shed wrote:This kind of thinking, as exhibited by even their own manager, is just a way for Liverpool fans to invent moral victories after failing utterly to obtain an actual one. Winning, not the be-all, end-all in football, nay sport altogether? Hilarious.
-
Ironically, if their manager hadn't been such an ideologue and set out more pragmatically, they very likely could have gotten the simple result that would have effectively won the title for them. Instead of owning it, it's evade and blame. Somebody else's fault. As usual.
Seriously sick of this shit.
mr-r34- First Team
- Club Supported :
Posts : 3377
Join date : 2011-06-06
Age : 33
Re: Is winning really the ultimate goal?
by Rebelles.REUS.rex Tue Apr 29, 2014 1:45 pm
Shed wrote:This kind of thinking, as exhibited by even their own manager, is just a way for Liverpool fans to invent moral victories after failing utterly to obtain an actual one. Winning, not the be-all, end-all in football, nay sport altogether? Hilarious.
-
Ironically, if their manager hadn't been such an ideologue and set out more pragmatically, they very likely could have gotten the simple result that would have effectively won the title for them. Instead of owning it, it's evade and blame. Somebody else's fault. As usual.
Rebelles.REUS.rex- First Team
- Club Supported :
Posts : 1348
Join date : 2012-04-25
Age : 34
Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Similar topics» Champions league first team (The ultimate showdown, big trouble in little Goal-legacy)
» Best Man City and Man United fan reactions to Aguero's winning goal
» The Ultimate Troll
» Is Patos goal the fastest goal in CL history?
» A goal in his debut,a goal in his last game:both wins
» Best Man City and Man United fan reactions to Aguero's winning goal
» The Ultimate Troll
» Is Patos goal the fastest goal in CL history?
» A goal in his debut,a goal in his last game:both wins
Page 1 of 2
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
» Premier League 2024/25
» Lamine Yamal Hype thread
» The US Politics Thread
» Julian Alvarez Appreciation Thread
» Raphinha's Ballon d'Or campaing
» Thiago Motta Sack Watch
» The Choo Choo Train: Aurelien Tchouameni
» Pep Guardiola - King of the Carabao Club
» Has Xavi declined alot?
» Arne Slot Sack Watch thread
» Enzo Maresca Sack Watch
» Would you finish your career with €200M & 0 titles or €50M but 5 UCL-titles & 10 league titles