Having a extremely good defense is not a quality, is just an alternative when your team lacks talent, once the offensiveness and the goals are what football is all about. Look at Greece and Once Caldas. I feel sorry for who is proud of having a bad offense, but a good defense. I am proud brazil dont need to have a coward coach and a bunch of tough midfielders to be the best team in the world.
I understand your point but do not fully agree with you. Take Greece's case for example, decent squad but with no exceptional talent. If they had played more attractive attacking football during Euro 04, they would have probably been knocked out at the group stage, they just played the tactic which best suited their strengths. It wasn't the best football to watch but they won the tournament, something that not many people at all would have predicted. Its probably totaly alien to a Brazilian to even think about defensive tactics, but then again you haven't much need for it.
Italy and England have not been really putting up the results for their defenses. But once Rio gets fully back into the swing of things, his play with Sol Campbell ought to take care of that. I'd have to go for Greece during Euro2004, though they have not done as well since.
GREAT POST!!! Right on. Once again, I'll reiterate that defensively Greece has one exceptional talent(RB Seitaridis), one very good player (CB Dellas), an above average keeper (Nikopolidis), and a fairly ordinary CB (Kapsis) and LB (Fyssas), although Fyssas does have a nice touch and technique. IMO, Greece's primary defensive strength is the ability of their midfield to maintain possession (not necessarily go forward), primarily via one and two touch passes. Zagorakis, Giannakopoulos, Basinas, and Karagounis are all very adept at this. It thus takes a great deal of pressure off their back four. Additionally, defensive midfielder Kostas Katsouranis often plays far withdrawn as a twin stopper with Kapsis. One must not discount the effect a teams midfield has on their overall defensive performance. I'm not sure that Greece ranks with Argentina or England on a player by player basis (arguable, but I'm not certain), but the results tend to say otherwise.
I dont think what you said goes against what I said, because actually I agree with you. As I said, for teams like Greece, that lacks talent, the defense is the only alternative to win a match against a top side. But I think for a team like Italy, for example, it wouldnt be so necessary, once, in my mind, they have plenty of talent to be an offensive team. For a team with talents like Del Piero, Totti, Cassano, and good players like Inzaghi and Vieri, I would say the way they are playing is almost coward.
in the euros they played more attacking, against sweden zambrotta and panucci spent more time attacking then defending.
You probably haven't watched Italy since Euro 2004. There is a real drive towards attacking football. The thing is that it is hard to switch from defense driven playing to attack driven overnight. WC2006 qualifiers is a testament to this as the team has hit some snags.
Oh ye of little memory. As recently as 1994 Brazil did the exact thing yoi talk about. And that wasn't the first time.. Point being, you play to the stengths of your talent pool and sometimes your talent will be at the back rather than in offense.
i thought brasil did have adequate attacking ability in '94, even though CAP was more inclined towards a defensive game...i.e. the team was not overly loaded with defensive players..... romario,bebeto,the teenage ronaldo,rai,paolo cesar(sp), viola and even leonardo(as wingback) were there..
You have to admit though that they had a formidable backline and set of Dm's, absolutely rock solid. And because the attack was so clinical and would take any chance that came their way it made the system perfect. I agree that team could have been an atacking force if they were allowed to go all out in attack but, what we saw of them was a cunning unit who surpressed the opposition more with defence then with attack. Without that victory and the fact it brought Brazil their first WC in 24yrs would we have seen them playing the attacking football of '98 and '02 ? I think it was because of that team bringing home the cup, albeit in a fashion that was not acceptable to the purist, that Brazil could play as they pleased again with less pressure on them then Brazilian teams in say the 80's.
Agree absolutely! and even up to this day I still wonder why reticent CAP did not bring in Ronaldo.....!!!!him instead of Viola in the final against turbid Italy!
colombia by far with ivan ramiro cordoba, mario yepes, orozco, amaranto perea, bedoya and many other great international defenders
England has the best defence i think. Thier deffence in order from best to worst player: 1.Ferdinand 2.King 3.Terry 4.Campbell 5.Johnsen 6.Bridge 7.A.Cole 8.Southgate 9.Woodgate 10.G.Nevilie What a deffence this will be: Johnsen Ferdinand King Cole/Bridge
Yes the best defenses do on occasion give up PKs and free kicks. Everybody does. But if that is your criteria you can rule out England. Just look at that defensive fiasco vs France in Euro04. Paraguay in 98 had one hell of a defense and did not not give up many set pieces. I remember hearing that Gamarra played the whole tournamnent without commiting a foul.
this is one awful orderof best to worst, sol campbell is definitely their best and ashley cole is probably the best left back in the world.
The difference between England against France and the set pieces Argentina conceded in '02 are paramount. England's fouls were commited because of moronic plays by a forward and a midfielder and not defence itself. Contrast this to the Argentines bringing down Owen in the box - a CB did that - and the FK conceded...therefore, the criteria remains intact. The best defences make few mistakes..it is common knowledge that if a player is fast and tricky and runs into the Argentine box he can draw a foul from 2of their defenders. Ayala and Zanetti are not prone to this rarely exposed weakness but, Samuel and Heinze/Sorin will commit..as it is the type of player they are. Argentina are good at avoiding the situation most times but I''d never rule it out in the biggest games against tricky and fast strikers. I can't believe I forgot about Paraguay. That defense was indeed awesome.
Well, what does it say about the defense if they needed a forward all the way back there to help them. And this France is not the one of a few years ago. However I do think your analysis of the individual Arg defenders is pretty good.
C'mon, there are only a handful of strikers in world football who have any business attempting to tackle just outside their own penalty area in a big WC game and...Emile Heskey is not one of them...and the back pass from Gerrard is again something that you cannot excuse. That imo, does not reflect on the defence but on those who made the errors. If they had been defenders then it would have gone back to them not being built for the big pressure games. But as it wasn't, I think it's hard to put that down to the defence.
Bump Some hilarious stuff here. Sol is England's 4th best defender?? Try best and you'd be closer. You have Woodgate at 9th as well. Jebus H..