I will admit to not having trusted in Löw. For one, I would often speak of him as the "Maharishi Jogi", the man with an unfathomable mind that was for the most part already made up and capable of bizarre tactical decisions. This would come to the fore in 2012 - and we all remember that - but would surface again not even a fortnight ago after the second round game against Algeria. The media reports would be about him sticking with the the 4-3-3, and keeping Lahm as DM "until the end" and "no matter what". This, to me, was the Maharishi Jogi at work - and I would say as such in my ongoing commentaries and video blogs. However, he would do a massive U-turn against France, where a far more stable looking team would progress into the last four. I would be heartened, but still not convinced. Then we would see the same lineup destroy Brazil. Even then, the years of conditioned doubt would leave me thinking what he was going to do next. Indeed, before the final I had this horrible nightmare about Lahm being employed to mark and watch Messi. But he stuck with the 4-2-3-1. Perhaps the biggest clincher for me though would take place around 30 minutes into the final. With Sami Khedira out and Christoph Kramer having been clattered by Garay's shoulder, it would be a massive moment. I would immediately see two options: The first, replacing Kramer with the versatile Matthias Ginter, was never going to happen. Imagine throwing a guy who hadn't played a minute of the tournament straight into the final? Not even in his maddest moment would Jogi have done that. The second option was to use this injury opportunity to replace Kramer with Mertesacker and move Jérôme Boateng back out to RB, and - you've guessed it - move Lahm into the DM. In fact, when Kramer was walking off I was waiting for the number seventeen to flash up on the official's board. Let's just say that I was happy to see the number nine, and there would also be applause from the crowd around me. This was a bold rather than reactive move by the coach, a sure sign that he had given up on his own pet theme in wanting to win this verdammt thing. It was positive, but not brainless. It was a far cry from what I might have otherwise have expected from the Maharishi Jogi. It was, for me, an epiphany. Will he continue with the 4-3-3 and playing Lahm in midfield? Undoubtedly. But what happened in Rio would finally win me over.
But this wasn't our biggest weakness, our biggest weakness was inconsistent pressing and how susceptible to counters we are, and Jogi did little tactically to address either. Dude just got lucky that Neuer, Mats and Boa were amazing at this tourney and the biggest threats all shit the bed in the group stages, Spain, Italy and Portugal. Anyway Jogi proved that if all our peers drop off we can hold off the lesser teams, hopefully that repeats itself two summers from now.
How are they our peers when they can't even get out of the group stages, and we dropped 1 point in the entire tournament? And one of them was completely dispatched by Germany in their first game of the Cup. I think you are one of the few people out there who has something negative to say about this team's pressing. Yes, they weren't perfect, and they gave up quite a few balls, especially in the final, but I thought they were fantastically aggressive for most of the tournament. I actually thought Germany's best game of the tournament was against France, when the French just never, ever looked like they were going to overcome Germany.
When you play offensively and press high, of course you're susceptible to counters. But that's what Neuer and our CBs are there for. But what's the alternative? Sitting back? Sure, you won't be on the receiving end of counter attacks, but you won't create chances either. And one bad set piece and you're trailing and you don't have the tools to do anything about it. Thing is, we have the players to play in the opposing half. We have the players to control the ball and the game. Sitting back would be a waste. And they're so good at it, that even Argentina with their fast paced strikers didn't get a lot of chances on the counter, the German pressing was just too good, most balls were intercepted. Spain at their peak was playing high upfield. They were susceptible to counter attacks. But you wouldn't know it (except for that Switzerland game in 2010) because they had the quality to do so, they prevented counter attacks before they even began. Playing high upfield is the only way to crack a tight defense. So unless you want to draw the game every time you face a proper defense, you have to risk giving up space behind your back four. Look at Argentina vs. Holland. Both played it "safe" but in the end one had to go home after penalties. Germany on the other hand took the fight to Argentina and thanks to the quality of the players it worked out before a penalty shoot out and without Argentina being able to shoot on target once.
Hilarious. Portugal our peer? LOL. Low has beaten Portugal 3 times at major tournaments aggregates 8-2. Yes they are our peer. And who knocked out Portugal? Italy lost to Costa Rica. Next line We won because our peers Leicheistein, Azerbaijan and Comoros didnt qualify, if they were in Brazil no way Low would win
His arguments have peculiarly been just as hopeless as the character in his avatar. I almost wish he were just trolling here but he isn't. Face-saving chance wasted.
Because they are the teams who have bested us in recent tournaments, italy and spain, or been in our tier as top challengers to spain, portugal. Yes all three had terrible tournaments but those were the sides that would keep us from trophies, not a disjointed brazil being coached by a dinosaur, not an argentinian side who's only offensive idea was give the ball to messi, not a dutch side with a terrible defense. We beat the teams we should've beaten and luckily we didn't have to face any teams that should've beaten us, but that's not guaranteed to happen again. As for our pressing it was pretty sloppy, nice and aggressive, but france were very wasteful getting the ball forward and could've torn us up much more than they did had they been sharp as they were against the swiss. Plenty of teams that play high up the pitch also defend the counter the well and at points we did, but that involves shutting down the spaces in front of the CBs and having FBs that can cover defensively and don't leave the massive gaps that we did against ghana in the second half, algeria in the first half, and that howedes left for argentina early in the final. These are things that have fixes that would strengthen our playing style rather than making our playing style a double edged sword. Everyone who ever plays with the ball is susceptible to counters to a degree, but some teams also do a very good job of minimizing their exposure like BVB, Bayern and Spain do/did. Because they managed to go toe to toe with dynasty spain in tournament after tournament? And weren't blatantly outclassed when doing so like we were when we took our shots at spain? Again if all you're looking at is this tournament then sure they're not our peers, but not everyone on this board just started watching this game last month, so you should know better than to be that short sighted.
I don't really care what Portugal does against Spain, because they look blatantly outclassed every time they meet us. The last time Portugal won a competitive match against Germany was EURO2000. WC2006 3rd place match Ger 3-1 Por EC2008 Qrt Ger 3-2 Por EC2012 Group Ger 1-0 Por WC2014 Group Ger 4-0 Por They should be worried about us, not the other way around.
Who sent Portugal home? How many times has Low owned Portugal? Yeah Portugal our peers We should be worried about Swiss because they beat Spain last time too, And Holland since they just battered Spain
Then we're golden. If this marks the beginning of two decades of italian teams failing in the group stages you will not find a happier german than me. I dislike the azzuri more than I do the oranje. I just found the line of reasoning that because we hold a head to head advantage over hte portuguese that that rights off that they accomplished every bit as much as we did and came closer to doing more. Of course the same logic doesn't apply when it doesn't make our NT look good with respect to the italians though "because ******** you, that's why!" I guess.
Just because we didn't get a chance to rip Italy and Spain a new one, doesn't make Löw's and Germany's accomplishment any smaller. This reasoning of yours is admittedly befuddling. These teams sucked, and Germans beat much better teams in the end. Let's see both of them improve and actually deserve to meet us in the Euro's. If that won't happen, I won't lose sleep over it. The teams that gave us trouble no longer exist - what's with the media world constantly bringing up the past that never matters? Jeez. "European team never won in South America, therefore it will never happen" - what, like four attempts determine what's possible now? C'mon let's grow up and drop this history nonsense.
In 1954, 1974 and 1990 when we won the World cup, We only did because Brazil has been knocked out earlier If England didnt shit on themselves in the groups, we wouldnt have won
I think this campaign leaves few questions unanswered. We probably had the most difficult group + quality opponents throughout the knock-outs. Only Algeria could be seen as a minnow and they proved otherwise this WC. France was all of a sudden a big favorite before the quarters, Brazil the unbeaten home country and Argentina the perfect organization. It's not that we stumbled into the final à la 2002. It was sheer quality that got us there, both from the players as well as the coaching staff.
Now imagine what we can do when our players are in their prime with a healthy Reus, gundogan, benders and upcoming youngsters