Is there a future for attacking football ?

I think in my entire lifetime as a football fan I have never been less excited about the Semis of the CL than this year

the thought of ultra-defensive Liverpool playing ultra-defensive (if fast and physical) Chelsea fills me as well as most neutrals with dread

Bochum vs Cottbus sounds tentalizing in comparison

ManU have the reputation of being attacking in the EPL, and now a 7:1 to their name in the CL, but take away the return Roma game and this year they scored fewer goals internationally than many an Italian team

which brings us to Milan

kudos to them for defeating Bayern, converting their TWO chances of the match (one an off-side goal)

typical Italian pragmatism at its best

meanwhile, the World Cup final was won by ultra-defensive Italy, who defeated the miserly French

Portugal and Germany, the world's great entertainers fought for bronze only

at the European Cup the uncreative , pragmatic, super-well-organized Greeks throttled the life out of Scolari's Portuguese

meanwhile, the Bundesliga leaders are not Bremen, Europe's great entertainers, but Schalke, the pragmatists, despite having the worse squad

so back to the original question

Is there a future for attacking football ?

I was going to ask the same question.

It seems now, success = physical/direct football.

Man Utd have played the best attacking football in the Premiership this season but Chelsea could still easily win the league.

Teams like Barcelona/Man Utd/Milan/Roma/Arsenal/Bremen need there key players to be on form to be successful because of there style of play.

Teams that don't play free flowing attacking football don't have to worry so much about the form of there key players IMO because there success is based on being organised, physical/difficult to play against, strong defensively, etc...

Otto, you have always been a (not so secret) admirer of ultra defensive Rumpelfußball yourself, that's why you ask this question in first place. And that's why you can't see what Bayern's game has been lacking foremost, creativity, because for you, that's not really important. That's why you dislike Thomas Schaaf, that's why you will never be a true Werder fan either.

Batman wrote:I was going to ask the same question.

It seems now, success = physical/direct football.

Man Utd have played the best attacking football in the Premiership this season but Chelsea could still easily win the league.

Teams like Barcelona/Man Utd/Milan/Roma/Arsenal/Bremen need there key players to be on form to be successful because of there style of play.

Teams that don't play free flowing attacking football don't have to worry so much about the form of there key players IMO because there success is based on being organised, physical/difficult to play against, strong defensively, etc...

As newcastle showed you, the best attacking side doesn't always equate to being the best team. You have to be strong in both attack and defence as they are both part of football. Was it interesting to watch real madrid and its galacticos attack without defending properly?

In any case manu have played defensively against arsenal, chelsea and liverpool this season, so how do you consider yourself an attacking team and chelsea and liverpool defensive?

blutgraetsche wrote:Otto, you have always been a (not so secret) admirer of ultra defensive Rumpelfußball yourself, that's why you ask this question in first place. And that's why you can't see what Bayern's game has been lacking foremost, creativity, because for you, that's not really important. That's why you dislike Thomas Schaaf, that's why you will never be a true Werder fan either.

YEEEAAAHHHH THE BLUT!! Well said, well said.

I think this:

(me) Zick. Zack. Zauber. Has Otto been ranting yet?

(chrissi) Yeah, he already called me a traitor and praised Klose and himself of course.

deserves a wider audience as an elegant if understated putdown of Otto.

That said, I do fear he has a point, particularly when you articulate it as Batman has.

But the positive way forward is of course not the easiest way, certainly not in the short term. Since you never nail your colours to any particular mast for more than about five minutes Otto, it's easier to take potshots at everyone and everything else...

"Dieser Weg wird steinig und schwer."

But we can never give up on it, for how can we justify following football if it never lift the soul?

Otto der Schweinehund wrote:I think in my entire lifetime as a football fan I have never been less excited about the Semis of the CL than this year

the thought of ultra-defensive Liverpool playing ultra-defensive (if fast and physical) Chelsea fills me as well as most neutrals with dread

Bochum vs Cottbus sounds tentalizing in comparison

ManU have the reputation of being attacking in the EPL, and now a 7:1 to their name in the CL, but take away the return Roma game and this year they scored fewer goals internationally than many an Italian team

which brings us to Milan

kudos to them for defeating Bayern, converting their TWO chances of the match (one an off-side goal)

typical Italian pragmatism at its best

meanwhile, the World Cup final was won by ultra-defensive Italy, who defeated the miserly French

Portugal and Germany, the world's great entertainers fought for bronze only

at the European Cup the uncreative , pragmatic, super-well-organized Greeks throttled the life out of Scolari's Portuguese

meanwhile, the Bundesliga leaders are not Bremen, Europe's great entertainers, but Schalke, the pragmatists, despite having the worse squad

so back to the original question

Is there a future for attacking football ?

Milan beat Bayern in all aspects.

Bayern looked absolutely clueless in attack.

Italy were just as attacking as Germany. We played with 4 strikers in extra-time against you!!!!!

that's cos you knew what was going to happen otherwise...

110% wrote:

Batman wrote:I was going to ask the same question.

It seems now, success = physical/direct football.

Man Utd have played the best attacking football in the Premiership this season but Chelsea could still easily win the league.

Teams like Barcelona/Man Utd/Milan/Roma/Arsenal/Bremen need there key players to be on form to be successful because of there style of play.

Teams that don't play free flowing attacking football don't have to worry so much about the form of there key players IMO because there success is based on being organised, physical/difficult to play against, strong defensively, etc...

As newcastle showed you, the best attacking side doesn't always equate to being the best team. You have to be strong in both attack and defence as they are both part of football. Was it interesting to watch real madrid and its galacticos attack without defending properly?

In any case manu have played defensively against arsenal, chelsea and liverpool this season, so how do you consider yourself an attacking team and chelsea and liverpool defensive?

Ofcourse it was, maybe not from a Madridista point of view, as the bad defending could lead to a heart attack, but regardless i found the philopshopy of "Outscoring your opponents" delightful to watch, 90 Mins of attacking football, the team "camping" outside the oppositions box. Fluid football at it's best, with the likes of Ronaldo, Figo, Zidane, Raul all in their prime.

But you're right you have to be good at the back, but negative tactics employed by some teams, playing 5 across midfield and playing on the counter is hardly mouthwatering in comparison to Galactico football.

@Otto,

Good post, I agree with alot of your posts, apart from united.

united are pretty boring away from home in the CL, I admit that, but at OT we play fast attacking football. look at our results this season:

United 3 Celtic 2
United 4 Copenhagen 0
United 3 Benfica 1
United 1 Lille 0
United 7 Rome 1

So we have scored 18 goals at home, I dont think any other team as entertained, its home fans, the way we do.

Besides united have the most exciting player in the world at the moment in Ronaldo and Rooney, Giggs and saha are pretty good to watch. When we play our prem style football in CL (which we do at home) our full backs are constantly overlapping the wingers and the whole team goes for the jugular. I would say we play good attacking football.

110% wrote:

Batman wrote:I was going to ask the same question.

It seems now, success = physical/direct football.

Man Utd have played the best attacking football in the Premiership this season but Chelsea could still easily win the league.

Teams like Barcelona/Man Utd/Milan/Roma/Arsenal/Bremen need there key players to be on form to be successful because of there style of play.

Teams that don't play free flowing attacking football don't have to worry so much about the form of there key players IMO because there success is based on being organised, physical/difficult to play against, strong defensively, etc...

As newcastle showed you, the best attacking side doesn't always equate to being the best team. You have to be strong in both attack and defence as they are both part of football. Was it interesting to watch real madrid and its galacticos attack without defending properly?

In any case manu have played defensively against arsenal, chelsea and liverpool this season, so how do you consider yourself an attacking team and chelsea and liverpool defensive?

Because i am sure like most people he watches the games and you can quite easily see this. The way the team plays football, the amount of goals it scores also shows you this. the dm is a creative midfielder ffs.

Chelsea is a solid lets win 1-0 team. and liverpool underbenitez have always been clean sheet first. Of course there is exceptions for whatever reason.

The attacking real madrid team was great to watch yes.

@ Rez

That's more tactics imo than poor performances. Fair enough away from home MU haven't looked half the side at home, and on some occassions poor.

But i don't really think SAF sets his stall out to score goals galore away from home, apart from nicking the odd goal, as they know they can do the business at home.

Have we really seen "Galactico football" since 2002, or 2003 at the latest? When we beat you in the Bernabeu, even a colleague of mine who doean't really follow football was saying "watching Real Madrid was like watching your fantasy World Cup team... from about 2000 [Zizou, Ronaldo, Roberto Carlos, Beckham etc...]" – it scarcely equated to free-flowing attacking self-expression, looked more like a failed marketing tool. Not what Otto is driving at I think.

Forza Italia!Forza Milan! wrote:
Italy were just as attacking as Germany. We played with 4 strikers in extra-time against you!!!!!

...and also in the whole tournament we scored with ten different players, including two fullbacks; it's a feat that a team which only care about defense shouldn't achieve easily ;-)

Otto - the usual tired cliches. 'ultra-defensive Liverpool'?

Really? We've got the second highest number of shots in the EPL this year. It's only our strikers lack of accuracy that means we're fourth (just behind Arsenal) on goals.

Attacking football, like defensive football, will always have a future. Last year, two attacking teams, Barcelona and Sevilla, won both European cups. Last year that is, not decades ago.

It has always been more difficult to create a great attacking team than a defensive one, but it doesn't mean that attacking football's only purpose is to entertain. Attacking football to win must be the goal, and it can and always will be done.

The most attcking national team on this planet is the historically most successful one. Football will never be one-sided, this game is so important and huge, that there will always be room for more than just one dominant philosophy.

Target Man wrote:

110% wrote:

Batman wrote:I was going to ask the same question.

It seems now, success = physical/direct football.

Man Utd have played the best attacking football in the Premiership this season but Chelsea could still easily win the league.

Teams like Barcelona/Man Utd/Milan/Roma/Arsenal/Bremen need there key players to be on form to be successful because of there style of play.

Teams that don't play free flowing attacking football don't have to worry so much about the form of there key players IMO because there success is based on being organised, physical/difficult to play against, strong defensively, etc...

As newcastle showed you, the best attacking side doesn't always equate to being the best team. You have to be strong in both attack and defence as they are both part of football. Was it interesting to watch real madrid and its galacticos attack without defending properly?

In any case manu have played defensively against arsenal, chelsea and liverpool this season, so how do you consider yourself an attacking team and chelsea and liverpool defensive?

Ofcourse it was, maybe not from a Madridista point of view, as the bad defending could lead to a heart attack, but regardless i found the philopshopy of "Outscoring your opponents" delightful to watch, 90 Mins of attacking football, the team "camping" outside the oppositions box. Fluid football at it's best, with the likes of Ronaldo, Figo, Zidane, Raul all in their prime.

But you're right you have to be good at the back, but negative tactics employed by some teams, playing 5 across midfield and playing on the counter is hardly mouthwatering in comparison to Galactico football.

Very true, Madrid used to be awesome to watch, they played beautiful football. For me its not just about results, you have to try and entertain as well. That team might not have won much, but I would rather watch them any day than a team that parks the bus, hoping to score of a set piece ala Greece Euro 2004.

What is the best attacking formation; i would always think: 4-2-4 ?

@Allez

Otto was at his best again yesterday, he still found a way to belittle Diego after the match, simply unbelievable.

Rez wrote:

Target Man wrote:

110% wrote:

Batman wrote:I was going to ask the same question.

It seems now, success = physical/direct football.

Man Utd have played the best attacking football in the Premiership this season but Chelsea could still easily win the league.

Teams like Barcelona/Man Utd/Milan/Roma/Arsenal/Bremen need there key players to be on form to be successful because of there style of play.

Teams that don't play free flowing attacking football don't have to worry so much about the form of there key players IMO because there success is based on being organised, physical/difficult to play against, strong defensively, etc...

As newcastle showed you, the best attacking side doesn't always equate to being the best team. You have to be strong in both attack and defence as they are both part of football. Was it interesting to watch real madrid and its galacticos attack without defending properly?

In any case manu have played defensively against arsenal, chelsea and liverpool this season, so how do you consider yourself an attacking team and chelsea and liverpool defensive?

Ofcourse it was, maybe not from a Madridista point of view, as the bad defending could lead to a heart attack, but regardless i found the philopshopy of "Outscoring your opponents" delightful to watch, 90 Mins of attacking football, the team "camping" outside the oppositions box. Fluid football at it's best, with the likes of Ronaldo, Figo, Zidane, Raul all in their prime.

But you're right you have to be good at the back, but negative tactics employed by some teams, playing 5 across midfield and playing on the counter is hardly mouthwatering in comparison to Galactico football.

Very true, Madrid used to be awesome to watch, they played beautiful football. For me its not just about results, you have to try and entertain as well. That team might not have won much, but I would rather watch them any day than a team that parks the bus, hoping to score of a set piece ala Greece Euro 2004.

Pity signing becks really unbalanced the team, although you can't fault David - 100% commitment, we only really had Cambassio/Guti as a defensive midfielder, the incomptent coaches and our stars began to age.

Did someone really just say was it interesting to watch Real Madrid attack with there Galatico's, even if they couldn't defend that well?

blutgraetsche wrote:Attacking football, like defensive football, will always have a future. Last year, two attacking teams, Barcelona and Sevilla, won both European cups. Last year that is, not decades ago.

It has always been more difficult to create a great attacking team than a defensive one, but it doesn't mean that attacking football's only purpose is to entertain. Attacking football to win must be the goal, and it can and always will be done.

The most attcking national team on this planet is the historically most successful one. Football will never be one-sided, this game is so important and huge, that there will always be room for more than just one dominant philosophy.

blutgraetsche wrote:Attacking football, like defensive football, will always have a future. Last year, two attacking teams, Barcelona and Sevilla, won both European cups. Last year that is, not decades ago.

It has always been more difficult to create a great attacking team than a defensive one, but it doesn't mean that attacking football's only purpose is to entertain. Attacking football to win must be the goal, and it can and always will be done.

The most attcking national team on this planet is the historically most successful one. Football will never be one-sided, this game is so important and huge, that there will always be room for more than just one dominant philosophy.

did you see barca last year. they didnt play their game in europe they played tactics. in the league they played with one DM in europe they played with two if i remember. also they used their defensive fullbacks. on top of that they simply didnt play that entertaining. sevilla i didnt see many games so i dont know.

and yes it was great to watch Real play without defending much but it didnt get that exposed because they almost all able to hold the ball. if we were good enough i would rather we played that way then try copying other teams in europe being balanced.

I know that you are huge rivals, but come on now, questioning the fact that Barcelona is an attacking team takes the cake. If Barça is not attacking, who is?

Capello's Madrid

This thread is ridiculous really, personally I think the semi's of this year are set to be one of this competitions best

blutgraetsche wrote:@Allez

Otto was at his best again yesterday, he still found a way to belittle Diego after the match, simply unbelievable.

I did notice that, yes. Stunning weren't they, perfect Diego cross for typical magisterial Klose header, elegant little assist from Klose for stylish Diego finish.

Otto talks exquisite calculated drivel, mingled in with the odd gem of truth (sometimes more), spun together into the most delightfully eloquent, exaggerated propaganda. He's the dream debating coach.

An indispensable Euroboard legend, I feel.

(I just though there was something so quintessentially characteristic about "praised Klose and himself" that I had to keep repeating it...)

Forza Italia!Forza Milan! wrote:Italy were just as attacking as Germany. We played with 4 strikers in extra-time against you!!!!!

Lippi is a wise man. He knew you would have lost the penalty shoot-out...

There is no one like otto, no doubt.

I especially loved the last goal by Diego (posted a link in the matchday thread). Almeida with a nice back heel pass to start it off, Diego and Klose with some "Zick Zack Zauberfußball" to unsettle the AZ defence. Reminded me of the first half of the season, hope we can conserve this form for the upcoming weeks, now that Borowski and Baumann are back.

blut/allez

it must have occurred to you Bremen/Arsenal fans that despite the best entertainment in the world on the pitch, your club's cleaning ladies ain't all the busy polishing them silverware

why do you think Bayern "Duselfussball" Munich are so successful

why do you think Rudi "Rumpelfussball" Voeller got our B-team into a World Cup Final when Juergen " Zick, Zack, Zauber" Klinsmann did not lead Germany to the Altar (at home), let alone say " Yes, I do" ?

I love football fireworks as much as the next man, but the TRUTH is that entertaining sides only win when they have exceptionally brilliant teams, and when everything just goes right, night after night after night until the players get their hands on the Cup

Barca , already this season, choke

Arsenal always do

ditto Bremen (with the exception of the double year)

Germany in 72 and 74 were successful because they had a criminally brilliant team

blut/allez

just a hint: substance >>> style

don't go for the drop-dead gorgeous , but dumb supermodel

go for the merely pretty one, who can fry an egg as well

in other words:

Heike Makatsch >>>> Naomi Campbell

You can have both otto, substance and style. But you will never understand that, because for you, both seem to be mutually exclusive. Being a HSV fan, I can see where you are coming from though...

Germany of 1972 and 1974 is the benchmark for any German national team, that's German football at its best, that's the essence of German football, not the excuse of football played under Rudi Völler. Even the 1954 team was attacking and scored a ton of goals, and compared to other teams in 1990 (e.g. the Argentinians in the final), Germany was one of the more attacking sides in 1990 also.

The most successful German national teams always combined style (Littbarski, Schuster, Netzer, etc. pp.) and substance (Beckenbauer (who had a lot of style as well), Matthäus, Sammer etc. pp.). Time to smell the coffee, being away from the Vaterland for so long seems to have blurred your senses.