You answered your wonderment (if it was wonderment. I kinda lost where you at). The reason they park the bus is because thats the best tactic against such superteams. They would got destroyed if they were trying to outplay them and thats testimonial to citys power rather than everyone else's weakness, imo. Nothingam forrest would do the same or else would got blown away.
I believe this an ideal example that even being fully comitted into tackles is still not a solution to stop him: It's fine line between lax defending and careful defending.. it's down too preferences i guess
Ok mate. I'll leave it here I think as hadn't wanted to get into long debates for sure, but as I sometimes do just randomly felt like posting an example. We can agree it's not really possible to come to factual agreement on a lot of these things I guess anyway. For example whether I'd be wrong to think that that Forest side, theoretically in this era, would be able to at least play a positive game and make chances against Man City (irrespective of result). Of course Liverpool of this season did have some success against City when attacking. Maybe mid-table teams of today just lack in collective/individual skills and ideas, but I know you feel that maybe they can be just as good as that Forest team for example, and it is Man City being better than any English team of that era that is the reality (I certainly feel anyway that Man Utd of 93/94 could at least take them on, even if feasibly they might still struggle for possession due to City's gameplay and formation). And I think, pausing at 1:19 is an example of where a defender might feel "I could have done better there - at least get some block on the ball if not a tackle" on the Messi CDR goal, and then maybe the one behind can anticipate more and maybe the goalie can do better at his near post (given it looks like Messi will shoot there and doesn't have other options to score with a shot at that point really). Maybe we can just agree to disagree, but I suppose I'd ask that you look at defending on Pele goals the same as on that one if you know what I mean. Such as the one from 1:12 here in a similar game (Cup Final) from Brazil: Whether they change your mind to any extent on defending from previous eras I don't know but a nice video for Bobby Moore and Baresi here (in big games): I suppose also I could use those to say "current defenders are so unskilled" or something, but it could obviously be 'cherry-picking' to be fair lol!
Now you sound like a child who have no respect towards the older generation. This Real Madrid squad would have scored at least seven or eight goals against the likes of Dynamo Dresden, Cska Sofia, Ujpesti Dozsa, Magdeburg and Ararat Yerevan... Teams that Bayern have faced on their way to winning the European Cups mid-70s. But you can't compare between today football and the past, you just cant, it's stupid because the timetable is evolving, better tactic, better dribbling, better control, top speed etc. Messi learn from Maradona, Maradona learn from Rivelino Ronaldo learn from Zico, Zico learn from Pele Cruijff learn alot from Di Stefano, the next generations learn alot from Cruijff among them your countryman Modric, one man invented a Cruijff turn and the other just did it with a better version, big difference Beckenbauer was the best libero ever, but this would not have been happened if Beckenbauer did not watch Facchetti games etc. Every generation learns from the generation that precedes it. Watch Garrincha in WC58 who is regarded as one of the best players in history, he lose control many times still man of the match in the final. Brazil reached the final, semifinal and becoming the champions because they are the best in their time, Brazil have the best team and the best players in the world at the time, the rest did not reach this level yet in 1958, get it, respect that? By now, I do not expect through your current way of thinking very soon but when you grow up enough you will learn to give respect to the past generations starting with Opus???
I think in essence you two actually agree with each other on quite a bit lol! But I can see obviously you are very keen on the respect thing re: previous generations and do make good points in terms of players learning from other players. I've posted too many times on similar topics before lol, but where I tend to have some disagreement with you both is in terms of the idea that past players were in literal terms way inferior (the gradual inevitable improvement, evolution kind of idea). I don't say there is nothing in it, in terms of training, tactics etc. But when you say the control, dribbling etc was worse I would dispute that for a lot of past greats, and also comparing some eras in general for world class players to this current one. Maybe I don't want to get too much into it (as I keep hinting lol, and then posting again!) but I would say in this instance we could use defenders even, and those videos I posted - is there a current player who has as great passing and control over the game as Bobby Moore was showing or who combines skill and speed like Baresi was doing currently (I would say no, but that's no disgrace as they are all-time greats precisely because they are so hard to match)? Just going back to the Betis thing for Sexy Beast, if I was using Forest examples (from seasons they came outside the top 6), maybe I'd have been better showing these, especially as there is overlap with style of play (albeit not quite so slow/careful - it was and perhaps still is not usual for an English team to play at a slow pace, even when using a passing game): What we don't have very much in this era (though not so long ago Zenit had a very good team for example) is great club teams from outside the main footballing nations. Like Red Star Belgrade from 1990/91 or Dynamo Kiev from 85/86: I am certain in fact that in general we now have much less in terms of skilful and generally good players from the former Yugoslav nations and former Soviet nations than we had at those respective times. Of course that is an unfair comparison as it is cherry-picking from the best eras those nations had, but at least it can be an argument against the idea that everything always improves IMHO. Just like Sexy Beast, I am using the 'eye test' method for teams/individuals, so I guess people could disagree in theory although it does seem fairly clear-cut to me in these examples.
Anyway, I don't want to make it seem like I am against the idea of players getting better/more skilful in principle! If Forest have just signed (or loaned with a view to buy in one case) what turn out to be their most creative and most effective players ever in literal terms (in my opinion and majority opinion) from Portugal I will not be complaining lol! Of course taking into account inflation (including especially football-inflation) they are probably not in effect the most expensive players the club ever bought in comparative terms (Trevor Francis would be more expensive, perhaps Stan Collymore would be arguably too even). But yeah, if I don't agree that skill (control, dribbling etc) has generally risen and that greats of the past don't compare I guess I tend to say so lol! But anyone can compare Glenn Hoddle to Jordan Hernderson for 'skill' (no offence to him of course, and perhaps in his closing down etc he does epitomise some advancement in fitness/tactics - not that a Neeskens all things being equal might not have been naturally better at it maybe for example) or look at how Johan Cruyff was playing in his last season at Feyenoord (against players nearly half his age in some cases) and understand my ideas about these things I guess.
That's exactly what i am saying. I believe that evolution of football is ongoing process of trial and error from which we all learn. I am not downplaying seriousness in the approach to football they had, it's just that they knew less and that's visible when you watch them play. i guess it should be further discussed which segments of the game were more or less affected by evolution, because it seems to me that, perhapse, dribbling evolved to its optimal already by the time Pele played,.. if you know what i mean? They weren't unskilled in all areas of football equally and simultaneously (which i guess one could conclude i thought based on posts). It seems like they've mastered some areas sooner, others later, but the difference of football remains clear in my eyes.. they didn't have all the tricks in the pocket. And farther in the past you go, less tricks they had and the difference is more expressive on the pitch.
After the 2014 World Cup I thought maybe modernists would stop claiming the tactical highground but no way. Brazil vs Germany 1-7 In that game we saw highly-trained professional footballers of the modern era showering their opponents with defensive blunders. People will no doubt watch highlights of that game in 40-50 years and will form their opinion "crap era". I am absolutely sure about that. Future modernists will consider this a high-scoring era full of defensive blunders not to be taken seriously, concluding "it's a different game today". http://outsideoftheboot.com/2014/07...7-germany-germany-run-riot-to-trounce-brazil/ An analysis of the defensive blunders It’s not all David Luiz’ fault. He had his issues, as did Fred, but Brazil, as a collective unit, were very poor. 3 of 4 German assists were concise, quick passes with swift movement inside the box that had David Luiz and Dante tied up in knots. Here’s a look at some of the defensive errors that led to the goal rout. Goal #1: Muller emerges unmarked from a Toni Kroos’ corner kick. Luiz is caught out of position. Goal #4: Luiz spectates as Khedira moves into free space ahead of him. Kroos gets the final touch for his second goal. Luiz loses the ball in midfield to a challenge by Hummels. Khedira holds his run at the edge of the box. Goal #5: Khedira loses Maicon, Özil plays him in and he scores. Goal #6: Lahm finds himself between Marcelo & Oscar creating a gap while Schürrle gets in between Luiz & Dante to score his first. Goal #7: Brazilian defence is caught off-guard. Yet again, Luiz is behind Schürrle which allows the latter to move unmarked into an empty box and score with his left foot.
Every goal that has ever been scored can be argued to come out of a defensive mistake, but that's not the point. I am not going to explain myself all over again. and how do you even dare to take that game as a representative of modern football? It's quite obviously not an ordinary match. That is "once in 50 years" match, clearly. We might never witness something like that ever again. If you ask me that only shows you have an agenda. You are not objective, nor it seems that you are looking to be objective. You just cant take Brazil's meltdown as an indicator of anything Btw, Germany did score 7 goals that game so if that game tells me something, it's that that would be a very common result throught whole wcs, if we transfered that German side to 50s, 60s. The thing with past football is that those mistakes have happened more often, it's just that they weren't exploited by oppositions as well as Germany did in that game. Such nonchalance in defense doesnt work in modern era (the match is proof), so rather than that game being a representative of how bad modern football is (which ain't because it's clearly an unique, exceptional match therefore invalid argument), it's better to think of it as a representative of how well would teams from past do in modern era. Thanks for mentioning it tho so i could further prove my case and illustrate differences.
I am so glad you mentioned it. That game shows exactly what would happen if we brought great teams from past up against modern superteams. They would got ripped apart in the same fashion. They just didn't have enough coordination and discipline in defense and that would cost them ... to add on PDG1978's discussion, are Luiz, Dante, Marcelo, etc individually bad players? No, but they did suffer horribly. It's because of that element of tactical discipline they lacked that much, it's the same thing that teams in past missed. So maybe Moore, individually wasnt inferior player, but he and others missed that team aspect of the game. That's what i am refering to whole this time There are two separate evolutions football underwent: 1. Individual: it reached it's optimal stage pretty soon 2 Team: it took decades of trial and errors to get us here. i might add more when more inspiration hits me
The 1970 semi between Germany and Italy was also not a representative game. It saw two European teams struggle in the Mexican heat and height, Brazil in 2014 had no excuse they played at home and were used to the climate. In 1970 Germany had just spent 120 minutes in stifling Mexican heat at noon facing a very capable and hard to beat English team. The Italians were generally not in great form in 1970 anyway. Both games could not have happened at the 1990 World Cup. A tactically obsessed football fan from 1990 would have dismissed our modern era after watching how Brazil conceded those 7 goals 24 years in the future. If such a game would not have been possible at the 1990 World Cup, how would that translate to the „constant linear progression“ theory of modernists, which basically means everything is getting better. My take is that things are getting more sophisticated and demanding but not necessarily better. More demanding = more prone to mistakes. Tactics getting more sophisticated is not a good thing by default. It demands higher level of concentration and that leads to more mistakes being made.
I have often pondered that question and it depends on the circumstances. We'll never know of course but to somehow make up for higher tactical evolution and fitness of the modern team, such a meeting of a modern super team with a past super team should be played twice. One game under the circumstances of the old team: 1) Referee from the same era as the old team 2) Old equipment for both teams 3) Pitch from the era of the old team All three points are vital to both team's performances. The forwards of the modern team are unlikely to be able to deal with the very rough treatment they would get. The defenders of the modern team would be very pleased by the leeway they get (but the old forwards are used to rough treatment anyway). The old equipment would make life very hard for the modern players. Wool shirts that scratch and are sweaty and warm, shoes that are not especially designed to fit their individual measurements and are heavy and harder to treat the ball with. Same negative characteristics with the ball itself. The old players have no problems dealing with that. Finally the pitch not being of very high-quality will make fluid low passing harder to succeed. The modern team will lose possession quite often due to that. I am quite positive about the old team having a good chance to beat the modern team under circumstances that they know. The second game could be played under modern circumstances. The old players would love the new pitch, the new shoes and shirts and the ball (after getting acquainted with it in training sessions). The old forwards would love the protection they get from the referee, the old defenders however would have a hard time changing their approach. I can see the old team finishing the game with less than 11 players due to a couple of their defenders getting sent-off .
so you are saying Italy vs West Germany was at the same level of unexpectedness as 7-1? If you had to choose which one is better representative of an era, you would choose 7-1? you are just nit picking to get yourself out of oversight you had with 7-1 Where do i say it's linear? it's in weird leaps, my sketchy graph shows very rough example The reason why sophistication seemingly results in more mistakes it's because it's sophistication in defense as well as attack. Btw, not many teams play a fancy football. Just watch the likes of Peru, Denmark, Serbia, Sweden... there is hardly any sophistication, it's more of necessary defensive discipline that past didnt have. I agree, it would be interesting to see. Dont agree at all. They would be more comfortable, but would totally get exposed by intensity and sophistication. Just like 7-1 game
First, I think club games are always better to use as reference than national team games, in any era since 1945. Secondly, I highlighted the 7-1 to show how future modernists will look at this era. They will do the exact same thing that our current modernists are doing: look back at the past, pick a few highlights and declare arrogantly "whole era was crap". That is exactly what will happen with our current era. This 7-1 will get dissected by future modernists to prove that "Messi and C.Ronaldo era was crap". It's a ridiculous thing to do but that's exactly what current modernists are doing all of the time and what will happen with our current era, too. I did not highlight the 7-1 to claim that this game was represenative of the modern era. But! Glaring tactical blunders are being committed in high-profile games today (not just the 7-1!) when you'd think this would be an absolute rarity to happen, because these guys today are superhumanly trained and highly sophisticated. Ergo: modernists are overrating the effect increased tactical sophistication has on the number of mistakes being made by players. I can only repeat: easier tactics = less mistakes.
I have always held to the opinion that tactics in any game, where there are no major rule changes, would remain cyclical in nature. It is the most sensible outcome considering all other macro factors mostly remain constant. Consider, for instance, that a team manager comes up with a new tactic. As soon as said tactic is deployed by his team, considering that such a tactic would have a particular set of strengths and weaknesses, opposition teams and managers would tend to try and nullify said tactic. They would do this by attacking its weaknesses while neutering its strengths. This would lead to them coming up with another tactic which in turn would have its own set of strengths and weaknesses. This would go full circle till the first tactic which was used here, becomes useful again. For an example based on actual tactics, take the period from the early 2000s till date. The 4-4-2 with a defensive midfielder paired alongside an attacking midfielder in the center of midfield was the go-to tactical option for most teams, at the beginning of this time period i.e. the early 2000s. Teams started countering this by putting an additional man in the middle to nullify the opposition's main creative threat, which was the attacking midfielder, by using a 4-2-3-1 i.e. a formation which came in vogue in the mid to late 2000s. This formation in turn was countered by teams using the 4-3-3 with a heavy focus on possession, as the three man each midfield+attack combination created offensive overloads against the doubt pivot defensive midfield and four man defence of the opposition, allowing for periods of possession in the opponent's half which typically proved fruitful. The 4-3-3 thus became the favoured formation of the early 2010s. However, tacticians realized (or were already aware) that a flat 4-4-2 was useful in countering this kind of possession based midfield and attack. Thus they started using such flat 4-4-2s in a counter attacking fashion, which were not only able to soak up the possession based pressure without actually allowing many goals, but also worked to counter possession based teams when they were committed on attack. Right now, I believe we are in this transition of teams moving from 4-3-3 to a 4-4-2, post which the cycle might start again or maybe move into another direction depending on the type of players which show up on the world stage, as the volume and quality of no.10s which were operational in world football at the turn of the century and which kickstarted this particular cycle, might itself be a one-off phenomenon. Another way to look at such cycles with a more high level view, would be to consider them based on how many players are being used in attack by teams of an era. If we start with the Hungarian team of the 50s which used a WW or a 3-2-5, we can say that they attacked with 5 players. Then we move to the 4-2-4 of the 60s wherein teams attacked with 4 players, followed by the 4-3-3 of the 70s with teams having 3 attackers and the 4-4-2 which came after it which had 2 attackers and was popular during the 90s. From there, we again actually go up with 4 attackers in a 4-2-3-1 (though it was also often deployed with only 1 attacker, making it extremely defensive), followed by the 4-3-3 which could be considered to turn into a 2-3-5 when both full backs have pushed up, making it a formation with 5 attackers in the offensive third. Thus is the cycle completed and quite possibly, thus do we arrive at a period in time in the 21st century, when goal records from the mid-20th century i.e. from the 50s and 60s keep getting broken, since effectively both eras have the same number of attacking players being deployed by teams on offence. My 2 cents.
Fair enough, there will always be such irrational people. I am not interested in logical fallacies atm so future modernists dont matter. I am arguing as truthfully and as objectively as i can to get to the bottom of some things. This is not an opinion i formed the other day seeing a single Pele compilation. I've been thinking about this ever since, well, we got access to old clips on youtube.. i will always remember, before even talking to anyone about past football, seeing it, my initial response was: "woah, something is odd here", so i am trying to understand exactly what triggered the response. What makes you think having less mistakes is an optimal way of playing football? It's like suggesting you should attempt to shot basketball fewer times, because shoting it increases possibility of missing a field goal, but if you don't attempt, you can't score.. do you see where i am going at? It's not self evident that cutting on mistakes, by not risking at all, is necessarly a victorious strategy. So yeah maybe more sophicticated tactics result in more mistakes by default, but if done right, their net contribution, might still be in positive, which i believe is the case There is this concept in evolutionary biology called "survival of the fittest" that i think applies to evolution of football. What i mean is basically that the reason why sophisticated tactics are being played out today is because they are the best (the fittest), they've "survived" up till this point. If unsophisticated tactics were better, then, at their timeline, they would have crashed new upcoming sophisticated tactics and end up being the most successful strategies of time and that way they would remain active in modern football (i recommend pondering on this cuze i didnt explain it well). Since that's not the case: sophistication > unsophistication, regardless of what sophistication might bring as (like more mistakes)
How is 4-3-3 weak for a 4-4-2? Ask Mourinho or Ferguson (on the receiving end) on how 4-3-3 is great for playing against a 4-4-2. For both Mourinho and Guardiola it is their favorite 'formation' against a 4-4-2 telephone number. In Jose Mourinho his words: "‘Look, if I have a triangle in midfield – Claude Makelele behind and two others just in front – I will always have an advantage against a pure 4-4-2 where the central midfielders are side by side. That’s because I will always have an extra man. It starts with Makelele, who is between the lines. If nobody comes to him he can see the whole pitch and has time. If he gets closed down it means one of the two other central midfielders is open. If they are closed down and the other team’s wingers come inside to help, it means there is space now for us on the flank, either for our own wingers or for our full-backs. There is nothing a pure 4-4-2 can do to stop things’." Unless the 4-4-2 plays without wing players, if that is what you mean with "flat", but imho that has been only moderately successful. A classic ploy against a three men midfield is to go with 3-5-2/5-3-2.
I am not sure if Ferguson ever played counter attacking 4-4-2s which sat back deep, like the current Atletico do when faced against the likes of Barcelona. As for Mourinho, from what I have seen, he mostly went with a 5 man midfield against 4-4-2s, or at least had his wide players defend quite deep, even if they were forwards, thus having 5 men defending across his midfield line even if 2 of them were technically (wide) forwards. Agreed, the flat 4-4-2 has only been moderately successful vs the 4-3-3, probably since it has a specific requirement in terms of the type of players that it needs. Also agree that the classic ploy is to go with a 3-5-2, like the way Italy did vs Spain in Euro 16, but teams seem to be worried about not being able to defend well enough with 3 CBs against the 4-3-3, causing them to not play with such a setup.
Also managers learn from what has come before. Only one in ~50 crosses are successful in the top leagues (including rebounds and scrambles), managers learn, and we see less of a classic crossing game. Even the best 'defensive' players had a one in four (Clodoaldo, 81%, 21 attempts) or one in five (Beckenbauer, 71%, 57 attempts over 3 tournaments) fail rate in dribbles (min 20 dribbles), which is risky, so in that department we have seen changes and positional tweaks too over the decades. Managers learn from what has come before and have the advantage of having seen the limits of what was humanly possible (even for the best).
Also Netherlands played clearly and undeniably 3-5-2/5-3-2 against Spain in 2014, but of course, that isn't remembered as well. The global Big Six media are masters in erasing unwanted elements from the story arc... At any rate, it is a classic formation against a 4-3-3 telephone number. Already back in the 1980s.
First you did not ignore when the comparison was done via Messi vs Pele about the current era vs 60s. Now you ignore Anyway, even though Messi was mentioned by name, the point was the hardness of current football vs 60s but you had better still ignore. *smoking*
Although you've made some points that i could have adressed, i didnt because i knew where the conversation would derail to because of your intentions (Messi vs Pele debate) and that is such unnecessary debate atm when we are trying to get to the bottom of some things first so i cut our discussion short already in roots. If you want my opinion on the two. Pele is the greatest of all time, meaning he was the most "out of this world" player relative to others in his era, Messi is the best of all time, meaning he has literally reached the highest level of football. Now whether Pele would surpass his level if he was born in this era, i don't know and nobody knows so that's no convo i am willing to have,... maybe for fun, but this place is nothing but hostile environment where light hearted conversations are impossible to have without someone getting offended or starts offending others.
It's often wondered by people in the field whether individual scientists "change perspective", since what effectively happens is that they make inevitable discoveries earlier than what otherwise had happened. So what the most brilliant scientists do is taking eventual discoveries to much earlier points in time, sometimes decades earlier, rather than later in history. The most common analogy of a brilliant sportsman like Cruijff is not one with scientists but with artists like Picasso (e.g. Feldstein, Burns) or Mozart (e.g. Ruiz, Szymanski). Those can indeed unquestionably "change perspective", in the way that they don't necessarily work with ideas that have come before, or ideas in the same direction (i.e. Niels Bohr). After all you can say the thinking on concepts and the inter-relation between them was mostly creative in type. Artists and painters use scientific advances to make new things, but they aren't scientists. Clockwork Orange, Danish Dynamite, the Dream Team with their positional play (juego de posicion) is closer to an artistic expression - like so many things in the entertainment industries - than to science. The whole thing of art, while they use technological improvements, is that there is in itself no objective improvement, although in case of sport you can say: hey, the Danes have much better results than they should. This makes recognition for 'artists' (even scientists!) a tricky thing. That's why countries set up institutes like the British Council and Goethe Institute to advance and maintain the fame. Picasso his fame is not only leaning on his brilliance, but also on him being from the right country, right linguistic zone and a culturally powerful hemisphere. Rembrandt van Rijn his global fame is a product of French efforts in the mid 19th century; Kierkegaard his fame rose 100 years after his death as a result of British and Prussian efforts; Johannes Vermeer was largely forgotten until the Prussian gentry discovered him at the second half of the 19th century. The past decades Cruijff his fame was largely leaning on recognition by his peers (ex-players, managers, trainers, coaches) and clearly not primarily leaning on the larger public, the sport politicians, the pseudo-historians, the corporate media, the sponsor machines, the Cambridge Analytica henchmen of this world. It's not unthinkable his peers and fame will fade, his intellectual products gets appropriated as their own (is already happening; cannot stand that Juanma Lillo dude championed by the Spanish hemisphere), and he then goes down as an also-run in football history, sadly. It's already happening a bit. It's more art than science. --------------- A Magic Mannschaft Moment: When Buchwald was better than Cruyff @fussballchef https://t.co/kvGwg4nORP— Bundesliga FANatic (@Bundesliga4u) June 15, 2018 (First class nazi that Rick Joshua dude. A bavarian son of hitler who has made websites glorifying WW2 generals and figures and glorifying the tanks and boats)
honestly i don`t understand what you are arguing with me for. ultimately,the debate is about whether footballers today are better then they were in the past simply because time has gone by and there is assumption that professional footballers progress as technology progresses. when i say that germany went back to the fundamanetals of the past, that means their philosophy of the game concentrated on technical skills and playing in a collective manner that emphasis technical football over brute force. obviously there is no exclusivity in going back to the roots of germany if you actually believe that every single thing was exactly mimicked back then as it is today. i made the point that football teams are in flux. they go up and down. one cannot say that footballers are and will infinitely become better simply because time has gone by. these things have happen to great teams as italy, germany, and brazil national teams