Holland played that game in front of a very favorable crowd, in a tourney they co-hosted, playing up a man for over 90 minutes, and awarded two BS PKs by a referee who was absolute $hit. They still could not manage to win. In fact, on the actual field of play, without the benefit of PKs, it could be argued that Italy had better chances, especially in the overtime. That said, did Holland deserve to win? If that were my team, and they could not win with everything going in their favor, I would be utterly embarassed. What about Italy's qualifying would you like to "enquire" about? We are leading the group by a 4 point margin.
you mentioned that Delvecchio's shot in extra time was the best chance either side had AND I 'm asking, what about those other even more gilt-edged opportunities compared to this other chance you're talking about? especially the penalties wasted by De Boer and Kluivert.
No, its about Rijkaard's tactical ineptitude period. He did a bad job of putting out a side who could win that game and was spared his blushes by Zambrotta's suicidal "tackling". Interesting, by the by, how far Zambrotta has come. Incidentally, did he have the Dutch practice penalties? Just wondering, since I know England managers have always thought it was a "waste".
De Boer's first penalty wasn't "wasted" - it was a brilliant save by a keeper on the form of his life. That being said, my point isn't that Holland didn't have more chances. Of course they did - they were playing a man up at home. The point is, however, that despite all that the Italians almost won the game before penalties because...........Rijkaard's not overly concerned with all this "defense" stuff. Barcelona are an excellent team, but their rise to the top of LaLiga has corresponded with the decline of the other 3 major title challengers in Spain over the past 5-7 years. Yes, I know, other teams have "filled in the gap", but Villareal, while an excellent team, simply doesn't have the firepower to compete with Real or Barca over a whole season the way that Valencia or Depor did. Rijkaard's going to have to sort out that defense if he wants to keep winning, seeing as how all he's bought thus far are - more attacking players. Barcelona really is becoming the Spanish version of Arsenal. Although they sure are fun to watch.
I can see why you think that as a Chelsea supporter, but in general its the attack-minded sides that have dominated the EPL. The trend only changed cuz of Roman's money, otherwise Arsenal would have won again last season. And as long as Barca get 84 points in a season, Valencia and Depor will not likely be able to compete. Take your pick of any Valencia or Depor side from anytime in the recent past and the 2004/05 Barca team still crush them (maybe not head-to-head, but certainly in the final table).
First of all, what has this got to do with what Johan said. Then, Holland is a country with a number of inhabitants of 16 million, without a doubt a lot less then Italy. We have had some players Italy sure as hell are jealous of. I guess that makes them a bit more then football dwarfs. About Italy winning most of the time against us, I hope you are happy because I sure as hell do not care. Maybe someone else doesd care but this once again has got nothing to do with what Johan said. About the succes Italy has had, I hope you are very happy with a WC practicly handed to you because the world was scared of Mussolini. I am proud of what Holland has achieved, clearly you are proud of the succes of your nation too. But I do not feel the need to say another country sucks because they have won less. I guess that sets us apart. Actually they play more often conservatively then they do offensively.
JOSE MOURINHO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! JOSE MOURINHO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! JOSE MOURINHO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! JOSE MOURINHO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! JOSE MOURINHO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm sure that is how he would respond also.
I'm not belittling Holland's achievements. My argument was that it is foolish to constantly criticize the football of a nation who has had significantly more success than your own and outdone your country in direct encounters. Further, the Mussolini comment was so ridiculous it does not warrant a response. Finally, re: Brazil, if you are going to tell me that Brazil, who recently fielded Kaka, Ronaldinho, Robinho, and Adriano all at the same time, play conservatively, then we need look no further into your knowledge of football.
Ofcourse I can, I can also critisize England or Brazil, both have won more then Holland. So if Brazil would lose to Peru 4-0 I shouldn't be able to critisize them? So much for freedom of speach. Brazil plays conservatively in a way that they prefer to have posession, but most of the time not use it in an attacking way. They wait for their opponement to lose their concentration and then attack. yes, I call it conservatively.
- "outdone (Holland) in direct encounters"? Okay. - "(Italy) has had significantly more success than (Holland)"? Nonsense. Both have one Euro Cup. And in the world cup, since nations began sending their best players (1950's onward), both have lost two finals and Italy won one versus Holland's zero. Is that so significant??
Every team is subject to criticism, but you have to pick and choose the appropriate spots. This guy is constantly criticizing us so I took the liberty of telling him just how much more success we have had than his country; that's all. I still do not agree with you Brazil comments. Every attacking team can be said to do the same. Nobody attacks for 90 minutes; teams select the proper time to attack, and go forward. Brazil usually play with the personnel and mentality to suggest they intend to attack. For instance, you'll never see them go out with a 5-4-1 and contain the other team for the majority of the game.
Are you still bragging about a World Cup 70 years ago that not only did Italy host but also needed four Argentinians to help them? Face it, holland are nowhere near the most overrated nation in football. They weren't all that highly rated to begin with until the 1970's. And since then, they've had their share of success.
Funny the speak of Argentinians needed by Italy to win when at least 50% of Argentinians claim Italian ancestry. Does that mean we get one of your two WCs? If so, we'll take the '78 WC where Maradona's hand was not needed to win. But, oh yeah, Argentina 1978 was also fixed.
Gus Hidding: WC semi final, EC semi final, club champion Scolari: WC WINNER, EC Finalist, club champion
We're not debating the better clubs, but rather better manager. Scolari had slightly more to work with coaching Brasil than Hiddink with South Korea.
No it does not. I mean, ancestry? We all have ancestry of some other country. That's nothing. I'm talking about players who played for Argentina in 1930 and then played for Italy in 1934. To be accurate, it was one match that was fixed not the 1978 World Cup altogether. Besides, if it wasn't fixed then Holland would have won a World Cup and your weak argument about Holland being the most overrated nation would be even weaker.
I take it this "guy" is me, since Johan is a "woman". My "criticism" had nothing to do with succes. So I do not know what you were trying to achieve with telling me how much succes your country has had. Finally a discussion about football. Attacking is subjective and if I may generalise. When I say attacking that is probably a lot more attacking then when you say attacking. When I define attacking it is pressure the opponement for 90 minutes. Not always in the same tempo, but this is not what Brazil does. Brazil has no problems with keeping posession and stay on their own half of the field and then launch a counter-attack when it is least expected. Actually they do this a lot more then playing full on the attack. You will only find a Brazilian team doing that when they are behind and need to score a goal. Otherwise Brazil almost always uses the above described tactic. Just a matter of subjectivity. And to react to what nice said about Rijkaard in Euro 2000. While you are right Rijkaard was way to inexperienced to coach Oranje at the time you cannot tell me you don't realise he has become a much better coach. The only real type of player his Barca is lacking is a killer, a Davids, in his midfield. Apart from that he has Giuly, Gio and Belleti who are not as good as the rest of the starting XI but do their job. What really is wrong with a team playing attacking football. You act like a team attacking will always, if the players are equally good, lose to a team that plays "negative tactics" if I may call it so.
ManUtd which has dominated the EPL is a far more balanced team than Arsenal or Barcelona. Its also why they still own Arsenal. Bad argument. If Valencia and Depor are better, they don't drop as many points to Barca, and Barca ends up with fewer points. Besides, you're completely wrong. Teams that win their league are almost always the ones with the best defensive record, not offensive record. Even when Arsenal won the league with their offense last season, most conveniently forget that they also had the best defensive record. Last year's Valencia, due to injuries and coaching, was a pale shadow of the team of the previous season. I'd take last season's Valencia over the course of a season over Barcelona.
MOre balanced, yes. But the Man United dynasty was known for their attack more than their defense. Well, I thought we were talking about positive attack minded versus negative attacks minded. That's different than offensive record and defensive records. For instance, in terms of goals for/goals against Barca '04/05 are almost identical to Valencia '03/04. But in reality, one team was very positive the other very negative. Well, you'd lose cuz Barca '04/05 is seven points better than Valencia '03/04. Even if Barca '04/05 had to play Valencia '03/04 instead of the '04/05 version and Barca loses BOTH matches, then they still end up with 80 points beating Valencia's 77 from a season earlier.
that was a great tournament, and IMHO the 2 best teams were in the final, italy were better than holland, maybe not attacking but dont you just love those cool italian defenders, i do anyway i thought zoff did well considering he had no strikers and an average mid rijkaard was ok but he didnt really bring anything new into the dutch team, their was no noticible new plan or system
i agree with that yes he has learnt a lot with his stint ar barca wonder is he at a crossroads now, will he get better or is this as far as he can go?
I disagree. Rijkaard has molded a very talented squad with one of the best players in the world into a fine offensive team with little regard for defense. His tactical ineptitude against Chelsea is proof of that. This doesn't make him a bad coach - its not easy to do what he has done with Barca offensively. But best in Europe? Not by a very, very long shot. Arf. NOTHING is wrong with playing an offensive game. Many things are wrong with playing an offensive game which ignores defense, which is my point. The best sides in the world have tradionally been balanced. No Rijkaard team I've ever seen has any.