In his words: I do not think Greece winning is a backwards step for football. It's up to the more offensive teams to find the way through this system. They play like this and it's up to us to combat it Greece deserved their victory. But it is also a failure of attacking football. I don't think many teams can score against such a disciplined defense. Is it good or bad for football? Similar problem is facing chess game. Many people fear that one day human will not be able to beat computers. I know it sounds far-fetched to compare fooball with chess. Just to make the point. I hope attacking football will develop to cope with Greece defence.
Um, well, I'm not sure about Scolari's qualities as a coach (although he's probably better than most, I admit) but he's right. Then again, you just have to find a good, new way to play attacking football. Every system has its weakness, and so has Greek defense.
This shows the difference between Rehhagael and Scolari. Scolari wants ways to be devised so that attacking football can combat such negative defensive tactics. Never did he think that, "wait-a-minute, that style works. Why don't I adopt it?" On the other hand, Rehhagael will contemplate of more ways by which attacking football is impeded. The footballing world would be so much better off with the Scolaris rather than the Ottos.
Yet part of the solution may have been staring him in the face. I lost count of the occassons where Pauleta found himslef isolated at the front, totally sorrounded by three or four white shirts, and nary a red one within 10 metres. And until Rui Costa came on, each time a cross came into the Greece box, there was at most one player in a red shirt to attack the ball and, again, sorrounded by a swarm wearing white ones.
Did you ever hear about diplomacy? A public person like Scolari will always say only what the press wants to hear. Grow up, man!
The answer lies in applying pressure. The problem is developing a system (and having the players to execute it) that allows you to apply constant pressure in relative safety. In the end, no defense can be truly unbeatable. You can't stop the ball from moving. It has to go somewhere. As long as there is movement of the ball, there will be movement of players. There will always be a an opening, but it takes vision and discipline to find it.
These debates always arise after a tournament. There is no best way to play. Teams that best execute their game plan (assuming its a game plan that maximizes their potential), and get a break or two do well. They are thoroughly deserving winners, having beaten the hosts twice, the defending champion, and maybe the best attacking team in the tournament. They got a few breaks (the Nedved injury, Henry's numerous wide headers), and only faced one formidable attacking team (Czechs). As far as Scolari's comments, please remember that as coach of Palmeiras he basically played and championed the same sort of football -- heavy marking, defensive shape, and goals from set pieces and crosses into the box. He got bitten by an animal of his liking. If the tournament were to be replayed starting next week, how many of us would bet on Greece to win...or make the final again? Congrats to the Greek. Well deserved.
actually, scolari has a pretty strong record of saying precisely what the press (and fans) don't want to hear.
.................................................................................. Scolari made it so difficult for Portugal to play in ....10 players every game!! Unfortunatelly he 'mistakenelly' counted ..Pauletta as ...11!!!
Actually, I think it's quite simple. Maybe Germans or Italians could have shown the rest the way, as they are not so happy attacking. The game starts, you hear the whistle....you give them the ball, and let them play, set yourself to counter, score first, and watch them fly.
Absolute nonsense. Greece played the same way they've played the whole tournament. Its not as if they changed their style of play to a defensive one to win the final. Scolari knew what to expect. Why didnt he play 2 strikers (Nuno Gomes and Pauletta) from the start? How can you expect to beat a defensive team with one lone striker who has yet to score a goal in the entire tournament? Greece won by employing the correct tactics. Portugal lost for playing with one out of form striker who wasnt able to score in 6 games.
It's rude to criticise the opponent's game, this is unwritten rule. A man of his reputation will never say that.
Scolari is the man. Big Phil says what he means, and sticks to his guns. That may not always work or win him friends, but I like that sort of resolve. Besides that, he respects the game, and his post match comments were very gracious and timely. You have to respect that. His commentary about there being a great winner and a gracious loser is a sign of his respect for the game at its highest level. And also, isn't it just great to watch him isolated on camera on the sidelines, showing emotion at every turn? Big Phil, I salute you!!
Not saying bad things of somebody's ideas (tactics in this case) is a sign of respect for his oppinions, even if you don't agree with him. If I didn't make myself clear in the first place, I have all the respect for Scolari, because I think this is what he did.
Definitely not arguing with you Urs. In fact I agree with you completely. I was just kind of putting in my 2 cents worth (my opinion, that is) about Scolari. It will be interesting to see how Portugal performs under him in Germany in 2 years.
I'm sure Portugal will perform great under him but, unfortunately, they will lose the final with Romania.
Judging by this tournament, Romania are heavy underdogs considering that they've actually won a game in a major int'l tournament. Maldives is my choice in 06
I agree with all who say Greece deserved the victory. They played with great discipline and desire throughout the entire tournament. Sure, for the most, it wasn't the sort of football neutrals enjoy watching, but the Germans have done it that way for years - and if England could play that way and win, I wouldn't be complaining at all ! I love attacking football, but contrast on the pitch is what makes the game great. So, the tournament went the way of the defensively-minded this time - it'll swing back the other way again. Much more worrying is the fact that some of the greatest players in Europe have looked knackered over the past few weeks. Let's hope the authorities start sorting the the calender out.
everyone here says how greece played defensive so? so what really? what about those multimillion dollar players? they coudn't break an unrated teams defence? this shows the lack of the attack end of story how was the game all defence ?? i watched the game twice now, and i have to say the players of greece ran everywhere, when a ball moved the players moved, that is what SOCCER is about what do you want the players to sit there picking their butts and letting the attack through? give me a freeking break it's about DEFENCE AND OFFENCE and greece pulled it off by working both, scoring what they need and playing what they needed END Of freeking story don't forget greece's goalie NIKOPOLIDIS he stepped up to his game too OH WAIT let me guess some of you in here will say HE played to defencesively and should of the LET the goals in right? people need to give it up greece played like a TEAM and won end!
Amen. This is a post written by a person who is an Ajax supporter. It's as if this exert came from the Ajax textbook of football. Move the ball with intelligence, and no matter how many men you place in the box to defend, there is a way to get the ball into the net. And the more Otto Rehegal's in this world, the better. Why? Not because defensive football is great to watch, but the joy of football is penetrating a good defense and scoring a goal. If goals were easy to score, where would the joy of football be? With defensive tactics, there is a need to develop and refine offensive attacking systems. And with that, we'll eventually get better attacking football.