Home
Bashmachkin wrote:Six wrote:
If you go to Leicester Square you can watch plenty of street performers showing off ball skills. Out of the context of a high quality high stakes football match it means nothing. You completely dismiss defending in your view of football, when it the art of defending which forces attackers to be more creative. Football should not be obsessed with attacking if it means narrowing the game's tactics or lowering its quality. You can't have one without the other, there is no entertainment without there being end-product. The moments of genius or ability mean nothing if they are done in the centre circle, nor is it the sign of a great player if they are not doing it consistently. If they are doing it consistently, then their team will be winning lots of matches and by extension, lots of trophies. You might want to watch some futsal, it seems more your thing.
There are a lot of assumptions in your post, which reduces what I've said across three posts - in which I was playing and theorising with regard to the judgements and distinctions we make about football, rather than explicating my views on attacking football - into an advocation of cheap tricks. I'm not dismissing defending, or the end product or consistency of players; on the other hand, you are implying that attacking football, or at least the type of football that I am advocating, is fundamentally tactically unsound.
Good attacking football is all about players being thoughtful, creative and often tactically astute - it is about players taking responsibility on the football pitch, constantly wanting the ball, and using it intelligently to build passing moves when they have it, or making runs off the ball when they do not; about players using their ingenuity to create space for themselves and opportunities for others, which involves quick feet, vision and tactical awareness. The obvious player to mention in this regard is Zidane; more specifically, I've mentioned Hugo Viana several times across the forums as one of the most intelligent passers of the ball I've seen, always making himself available and seeking to form triangles that progressed the play in his brief time at Newcastle.
A good attacking team will need to be just as much of an intelligent, cohesive unit as one that seeks to press its opponents, to contain them, or to defend and counter-attack. In this, following on from my initial post, it is illustrative to compare Kevin Keegan's Newcastle of the mid-90s with Rafa Benitez's Liverpool. Keegan's team was just as much of a unit as Benitez's, but his team was built to attack in every respect - that is, to be bold and proactive rather than reactive - and because of this, he is held as an example of a tactically naive manager, where Benitez is lauded as a tactical mastermind. It is harder to be proactive than it is to be reactive, but reactive football is considered to be tactically aware football. Defenders play an essential role for attacking teams - only, their role becomes not to contain the opposition, it becomes primarily to assist the attack; to win the ball when it is lost, but more to help the team keep possession through good positional and passing play, and to help it score goals.
Again, I think the best footballers, and the best football teams, are those who strive towards a type of attacking football, which football reaches its fulfillment in key moments of magic. Of course, it is better if players can pull off moments of magic on a consistent basis, and it is more satisfying if a moment of magic leads to a goal, but still it is the moment of magic that should be valued, and I think the value of such moments is overlooked in the push for consistency which often becomes like drudgery, and in the miserly pursuit of trophies.
That's a lot of paragraphs without really addressing what I said or adding anything new. I said you should not be obsessed with attacking IF it means narrowing your view on the game. I didn't say they were directly linked. The fact is you talk about football as if it is ballet, like it should all be choreographed for the most possible visual impact, but there is no beauty in the game if there is no competition. If all the teams care more about entertaining you (in whatever way it is you get enjoyment) then actually winning the matches, then that's the point when everything on the pitch becomes meaningless.
P.S. You do realise it's possible that Benitez is lauded because he has actually won a lot of trophies whilst Keegan was a glorious failure.
wrote:Andrew Cole 
