Kita-Hinode wrote:Well, usually in sports movies, you have a team that is undeniably villainous. They're either too arrogant, too much of troublemakers to properly play the game fairly, yet they get a good shake to their side because they're apparently in cahoots with somebody. I believe that, in TV Tropes, they call it something like East Germany, because they were... well, communists and a former war opponent. So it was either them or the Soviet Union that got the treatment. Switzerland has been pretty much... you know, the villains.
I see, thanks. However, I disagree somewhat. Switzerland were a large part of the reason I enjoyed watching them play Brazil... they were only villains in the sense they had Brazil's number the whole match.
Also, as to the too many UEFA teams issue... actually, it's the South American sides who are over-represented and the so called "excess" of European teams should, in theory, have been occupied by traditionally strong teams like Italy or the Netherlands. The issue here, naturally, is that you can either have a sporting event or you can foster development. If you want the former, you want to stack your competition with European and South American sides. If you want the latter, you be more proportional. If you want to be both... you expand the cup.
Shofercia wrote:Forsher wrote:Why are you talking about this, though? Playing for a draw means you don't think you can win so you don't attack full bore. You know, how Russia approached the game against Spain. They set up with a defensive formation and played defensively, but when they had the opportunity to attack they still did so as well as they were able. And eventually they thought, "Hang on, tiki taka is still boring and now it's also ineffective, we might grab a goal here" so made some substitutions... but it ended up on penalties, which is what they were looking for when the match started.
Saudi Arabia wanted a draw from the game against Russia? I am not sure about that. But they were so bad in that match it's really quite fruitless to try and infer what Saudi Arabia wanted from it.
Russia wasn't looking to win on penalties when the match started. I think Akinfeev said that the tactic was employed after the 65th minute. Even if that's not the case, there's nothing wrong with defending, forcing the other team to attack, and hitting them with counterattacks.
We'll have to disagree about Russia's intentions. Teams in their situation rarely play to win and teams who field a back five with one at front are likewise rarely trying to win. (Of course, sometimes the back three is a back five... and most teams play one up front these days, I believe.)
No, there is not. Indeed, it might be said that counter-attacking soccer is more exciting than most alternatives... especially if it is practised by teams who aren't great at defending. But you haven't explained what was confusing
Saudi Arabia tried playing your average soccer game, but were just outclassed. As for being unable to imply what they did, Fartsniffage seems to have done that quite easily
Fartsniffage has indeed summed up Saudi Arabia's intentions, unfortunately Saudi Arabia were so bad it's really not possible to contradict other such summaries.
Yaana Noore wrote:His subs were more just throwing guys onto the pitch and hoping some magic happened in the style of Roy Hodgson at Euro 2016 when he used to sub three strikers on and pray England scored. Fortunately for Martinez Fellaini and Chadli did score but this wasn't tactical genius, they had no gameplan except for 'we have to attack now' and it just about worked. The last goal was all down to the brilliance of De Bruyne and a nice flick by Lukaku who had otherwise had a poor game, missing some good chances. Looking forward to Friday, I'd expect Belgium/Brazil to have some goals in it considering the strength of the two attacks. Roll on tomorrow where I foresee... two games less exciting than most of the thrillers we have been treated to at this Second Round so far.
I disagree. I was watching this game and thinking, "The reason Belgium are losing is because they haven't got Fellaini on"... of course, this didn't require any degree of thought (hence, does not indicate tactical genius) but it does suggest that something more than "we have to attack now" was what was going on.
I was also surprised at Belgium's poor defending.