While watching the Man U v. Stoke game this morning, i watched a Stoke side who played aggressivly and put pressure on any Man. U player everytime they touched the ball. Then the Commentater said that some people dislike that kind of aggressive pressure type play and that the game shouldn't be played that way. So my question is, How do you think the game should be played? MLS has an aggressive style to it, so are we playing the game wrong? I like the open style of play, but you can really see who is good or not when they have constant pressure on them.
How the game should be played. Everything else is just opinion and preference. Note: The link is a pdf.
The exact opposite of what the english league (and by extension the english national team) does. 87 minutes of long balls with one resulting in a goal sucks.
Subjective, as fans we tend to just desire to win, however it is done. If I am picky I prefer a possession style that emphasizes controlling the ball moving off and linking passes to break down a defense. It can be done on the break and with speed as well. Not a fan of long passes to target man that knocks it down leading to rapid change in possession and chopy play.
i'll second that, and throw in that i like a bit of fancy foot work that results in attacking players "breaking ankles".
Firstly soccer should be played fairly. Secondly, possession with quick inter passing as oppossed to long balls Thirdly, should be played to win within the boundaries of the law.
I'm assuming the only English football you've ever seen is a video of Sheffield United vs Wimbledon from around 1990.
From a neutral's perspective, everyone wants an entertaining game with creativity and flair but when your own team is playing, only the result should matter unless you team is winning regularly in a boring manner. Obviously, the game should be played within the rules of the game but the main focus should be to win. The people that you need to satisfy the most are your own fans, not the neutrals. We can all hope for every team to play beautiful football but it's impossible. Not everyone can produce great attacking talent like Brazil and Argentina. Every team must play to their strengths so if it's better for a team to play defensively, they should on the basis that it's the best way for them to get results. What's the point of trying to play attacking football if you haven't got the talent or the system to do so?
That's just about the most ignorant and old fashioned post that I have seen. It was rife in our game in the 70's and 80's (and even then not all teams) but we play a much more varied style now. Yes there are some long balls, but there is even more quick, one touch passing. You're just another bitter about the strength on the English game at the moment.
How should a meal be eaten? Will the carrots always be devoured before the steak, or will the best be saved for last? And how is the "best" determined? Will a spoon suffice, or will a fork be needed to aid in the annihilation of the meal? Such is football. Apart from a field and 22 players, every "way" has its home.
Teams can play smart, effective defense without resorting to taking down players and reckless tackles. There is an art to offensive football as there is to defenisve football without needing to foul or try to harm the player. Players like Nesta, Lahm, and even defensive mids like Lassana Diarra execute it well.
I agree that his comment was ignorant, but yours is just silly. Strength of the engerlish game? That game has been relegated to the championship. If there's been any improvement in the top level of the sport in engerland and a shift to a more varied, continental style...it isn't attributed to the english. The mass removal of Brits from the top flight is ironically what has strengthened the Premier League. english football is a cancer.
PLaying for the win. Playing for anthing else is just horrible. People lke to make excuses for teams that are recentlly promoted or teams with lesss quality, but Hoffenheim, Reading of two seasons ago, Gijon, Napoli are testamients to positive football. Hell Hoffenheim @ the Allianz, they attacked as if it were Karlsruhe. Thats how football should be played, not scared....
This would be the English team with a large percentage of non-English players and the England team that has an Italian coach?
Great point! I think you can clearly see if you go back to the 70/80s, when there were virtually no overseas players, just how weak the english league was back then, as well as the terrible football the likes of Liverpool and Nottingham Forest were known for.
Football should be played in a manner that entertains a team's specific set of fans. What fans want to see in England obviously differs from what fans want to see in the NL or Spain but one style isn't better than the other. The great thing about football indeed is that you get to watch a clash of styles. If everybody played exactly the same it'd be boring.
Yes, Stoke should sign those players immediately so they don't have to revert to physical football...
If the defense can't contain the attack without resorting to viscious tackles and taking players down then they shouldnt be on the same field (get red carded). Football is skill on the ball and skill winning the ball back, if this can't be done without hard fouls then it is not football anymore. Might as well play American Football that requires less skill/talent and more physicality.
I agree for the most part, but there's something special about a team clinging on for the last 10 minutes under immense pressure (and not resorting to excessive time wasting) and coming out with a result. The problems come when teams start out with that attitude.