Support NeoGAF

[Raist]

Nope... the people who don't have a bias, the casual fans, tuning in and expecting 4-4 in every game and some breathtaking attacking play are doing football wrong. There's as much brilliance in a great defensive performance as there is Messi running past 5 players and scoring. I didn't think it was dull because I appreciated that the England defence were doing a good job. I'd understand if you think its boring if you watch Barcelona 4 times a season and thats it.

Never found the "you have to be an expert/true fan (like me)" kind of argument very compelling. Whatever man, let's just agree to disagree.

Our motto for this tournament so far seems to be "We suck at the field, but at least we didn't fuck up the organization!". So yeah, morale in Poland is low, but frankly we never ever win anything in football anyway and I seriously don't understand why is it still considered national sport, when we have top-notch volleyball and handball teams.

Well, they're not anywhere near as popular (and lucrative) as football unfortunately. Both completely underappreciated sports it's a shame really.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Nope... the people who don't have a bias, the casual fans, tuning in and expecting 4-4 in every game and some breathtaking attacking play are doing football wrong. There's as much brilliance in a great defensive performance as there is Messi running past 5 players and scoring. I didn't think it was dull because I appreciated that the England defence were doing a good job. I'd understand if you think its boring if you watch Barcelona 4 times a season and thats it.

This is always a side effect of international tournaments. Casuals come in expecting tippy tappy one touch football of the likes of Barca and are unable to appreciate a solid defensive display. Every team deserves the scoreline. The Netherlands deserved to lose because they didn't have the cutting edge and neither England nor France deserved a win because neither attack could break down the other's defence.

England's match may not have been attractive or entertaining, but it sure was solid and I very much doubt there are many England fans grumbling this morning given that England were expected to lose quite heavily before the game. French fans should be livid that their super attack amounted to very little in the face of solid defending. Against Italy or Germany they would get ripped to pieces.

 

[Deleted member 81567]

I don't see how you can be a fan if the only thing you truly care about is the result.

Not entirely true. When your team plays against bigger teams than them, you just expect a good result.

 

[Wilbur]

Never found the "you have to be an expert/true fan (like me)" kind of argument very compelling. Whatever man, let's just agree to disagree.

I'm not saying I'm an expert or a true fan. I'm saying that if you watch football just to expect attacking masterclasses, you're doing it wrong and shouldn't expect that at all.

 

[Gustav]

Guys, help me send some good vibes to Poland. We need to do this.

Poland <3

 

[Divius]

I'm excited for the POL - RUS match tonight. Hopefully Russia will be playing as well as they did last time, and I expect them to win.

Not expecting much from the GRE - CZH match, both kinda sucked previous games. I also have no idea who will win it, what do you guys think?

 

[ErasureAcer]

Guess I should get my picks in for the second set of games.

Czech Republic 2 - Greece 0
Russia 3 - Poland 1
Portugal 1 - Denmark 0
Netherlands 1 - Germany 1
Italy 2 - Croatia 0
Ireland 1 - Spain 0
France 2 - Ukraine 0
Sweden 2 - England 1

 

[Clegg]

I think you have it all backwards, Meus. While fans want to see their team play attractive football they would much rather see them win trophies.

Arsenal have played some very attractive football over the last 7 years and have won absolutely nothing. Is it any wonder that some Arsenal fans are now very annoyed at Wenger? Roy Hodgson has built a career on being a safety first manager and thats won him a lot of trophies. Inter Milan won a bloody treble by being the best defensive team in Europe and Chelsea won the Champions League through the commitment of the entire team to defend with their lives. Italy won World Cups taking this approach. You can be damn sure that those sets of fans couldn't give a shit about how they won their games.

If you can win by playing pretty football then thats great. But a defensive minded "ugly" approach is just as effective and deserves as much praise.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

Not entirely true. When your team plays against bigger teams than them, you just expect a good result.

In certain contexts, especially in knock out competition, yeah the result is the most important thing for your team. But if given two options

1. Win. Don't care how
2. Win playing positive football

In fear of being called arrogant, I would expect almost all of them to choose the second option.

 

[patapuf]

Nope... the people who don't have a bias, the casual fans, tuning in and expecting 4-4 in every game and some breathtaking attacking play are doing football wrong. There's as much brilliance in a great defensive performance as there is Messi running past 5 players and scoring. I didn't think it was dull because I appreciated that the England defence were doing a good job. I'd understand if you think its boring if you watch Barcelona 4 times a season and thats it.

I dunno, some teams play defensively and still manage to have a gameplan for the offensive (or just for when you have possession) that amounts to more than hoping for a lucky punch. Inter for example was much more intersting to watch than Chelsea in the year they won the CL imo. Italy played an interesting game despite being on the defense most of the time a few days ago.

watching a team try to completely destroy the gameflow is only intersting when the offensive team is competent at attacking, which the french weren't. So we saw a bad offence run into a well organized defense that made few attempts at countering. This made for a static - and imo boring (tactically and in terms of spectacle) - game to watch.

edit: some games are interesting just because of the setting. for the french and the english the game was a derby and there was enough tension to make the game intersting. And winning is always the priority.

 

[Tr4nce]

Absolutely brilliant seeing ex-player from my favorite and hometown club FC Groningen, Andreas Granqvist playing yesterday for Sweden. This man is a true hero, a great football player with the right kind of mind set and attitude. Always working hard, even scoring a few goals. Great CD. He now plays for Genoa, but we still miss him here. Great player.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

In certain contexts, especially in knock out competition, yeah the result is the most important thing for your team. But if given two options

1. Win. Don't care how
2. Win playing positive football

In fear of being called arrogant, I would expect almost all of them to choose the second option.

Sure, but if my team wasn't blessed with players to play positive football and the chances of winning with the second option were much lower than the first I would choose the first.

Frankly, not all teams have the squad to play like Arsenal, Spurs or City, but that doesn't make them any less a football team. Stoke have done very well playing rugby and I'm certain their fans are more than happy with the results and their continued presence in the Premier League.

If both choices had an equal chance of victory then of course the second choice is preferable.

 

[gate777]

&#913;&#920;&#913;&#925;&#913;&#932;&#927;&#921;

&#917;&#923;&#923;&#913;&#931; &#927;&#917; &#927;&#917;!!!

 

[Meus Renaissance]

I think you have it all backwards, Meus. While fans want to see their team play attractive football they would much rather see them win trophies.

Arsenal have played some very attractive football over the last 7 years and have won absolutely nothing. Is it any wonder that some Arsenal fans are now very annoyed at Wenger? Roy Hodgson has built a career on being a safety first manager and thats won him a lot of trophies. Inter Milan won a bloody treble by being the best defensive team in Europe and Chelsea won the Champions League through the commitment of the entire team to defend with their lives. You can be damn sure that those sets of fans couldn't give a shit about how they won their games.

Arsenal were also successful playing positive football, and Barcelona have rubbished the idea that you cant win playing pretty. It's not the style that is the reason behind Arsenal's failures. Every team should inspire to be the best and play the best.

If you can win by playing pretty football then thats great.

As I said already, success is more important but its a thin line. If Chelsea fans saw the type of defensive approach they took against Bayern throughout the Premier League campaign, and got success at the end of it, I think most of them would complain about this approach. It's one thing to do it in individual games in a KO competition, but generally speaking, no I don't think it is acceptable because ultimately it isn't really enjoyable to watch and follow; that's what fans do; watch and enjoy.

But a defensive minded "ugly" approach is just as effective and deserves as much praise

Nope. It is really sad that you think that.

Sure, but if my team wasn't blessed with players to play positive football and the chances of winning with the second option were much lower than the first I would choose the first.

Frankly, not all teams have the squad to play like Arsenal, Spurs or City, but that doesn't make them any less a football team. Stoke have done very well playing rugby and I'm certain their fans are more than happy with the results and their continued presence in the Premier League.

If both choices had an equal chance of victory then of course the second choice is preferable.

Right. That's why I have no complaints when lower league teams do it, but the central point to my criticism over Chelsea was that they had the players to win playing positive; they have plenty of technical players.

England, not so much. Bless 'em

 

[zomgbbqftw]

I dunno, some teams play defensively and still manage to have a gameplan for the offensive (or just for when you have possession) that amounts to more than hoping for a lucky punch. Inter for example was much more intersting to watch than Chelsea in the year they won the CL imo. Italy played an interesting game despite being on the defense most of the time a few days ago.

watching a team try to completely destroy the gameflow is only intersting when the offensive team is competent at attacking, which the french weren't. So we saw a bad offence run into a well organized defense that made few attempts at countering. This made for a static - and imo boring (tactically and in terms of spectacle) - game to watch.

edit: some games are interesting just because of the setting. for the french and the english the game was a derby and there was enough tension to make the game intersting.

England did try and break on a number of occasions but were cynically fouled by Cabaye and the ref continually turned a blind eye to this.

Anyway, England - France is not much of a derby game, just because the commentator talked about Agincourt and Waterloo beforehand this is leagues below Germany or Argentina in terms of national importance and being a derby. This is a derby like Arsenal vs Fulham in that they are nearby but the rivalry isn't all that great and neither team cares that much. It's no Arsenal vs Spurs or United vs City.

 

[Pacbois]

I was in bar yesterday for FRA-ENG so I didn't saw all of the game, but seeing that shots on target stat, wow, Joe Hart is a good GK...

Changed almost all of my Fantasy Football team after only winning 28 pts on Matchday one. Hoping to score huge with russian & croatian players...

 

[Wilbur]

I dunno, some teams play defensively and still manage to have a gameplan for the offensive (or just for when you have possession) that amounts to more than hoping for a lucky punch. Inter for example was much more intersting to watch than Chelsea in the year they won the CL imo. Italy played an interesting game despite being on the defense most of the time a few days ago.

watching a team try to completely destroy the gameflow is only intersting when the offensive team is competent at attacking, which the french weren't. So we saw a bad offence run into a well organized defense that made few attempts at countering. This made for a static - and imo boring (tactically and in terms of spectacle) - game to watch.

edit: some games are interesting just because of the setting. for the french and the english the game was a derby and there was enough tension to make the game intersting.

I think England countered effectively a few times when they had the ball, they were nowhere near as defensive as Chelsea were. The point I'm making is that there's more than one way to play football, and circumstances matter. If we play defensive reactive football against Ukraine and Sweden I'll be disappointed. As it stands I'm perfectly happy it was used against France.

 

[Jeff Albertson]

Don't let your Italian gf read this lol

(she is Italian....right?)

She is but she's my wife so it's ok

 

[Divius]

I was in bar yesterday for FRA-ENG so I didn't saw all of the game, but seeing that shots on target stat, wow, Joe Hart is a good GK...

He did have a few decent saves but overall he looked kinda flaky.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Nope

Meus, this is why Arsenal haven't won a trophy for 7 seasons now.

Right. That's why I have no complaints when lower league teams do it, but the central point to my criticism over Chelsea was that they had the players to win playing positive; they have plenty of technical players.

England, not so much. Bless 'em

What?!?! Chelsea won two league titles with Mou playing like that, winning ugly, grinding out 1-0 victories. Every Chelsea fan would take Mourinho back in a heart beat!

 

[Wilbur]

Meus, this is why Arsenal haven't won a trophy for 7 seasons now.



What?!?! Chelsea won two league titles with Mou playing like that, winning ugly, grinding out 1-0 victories. Every Chelsea fan would take Mourinho back in a heart beat!

Chelsea under Mourinho is ridiculously exaggerated as a defensive team. They didn't let in many goals, knew when to go 2-0 up and conserve energy, but grinding and defensive football is wildly overstated. Robben and Duff used to cause havoc and they used to score 4 every week.

 

[Clegg]

As I said already, success is more important but its a thin line. If Chelsea fans saw the type of defensive approach they took against Bayern throughout the Premier League campaign, and got success at the end of it, I think most of them would complain about this approach. It's one thing to do it in individual games in a KO competition, but generally speaking, no I don't think it is acceptable because ultimately it isn't really enjoyable to watch and follow; that's what fans do; watch and enjoy.


Nope. It is really sad that you think that.



Right. That's why I have no complaints when lower league teams do it, but the central point to my criticism over Chelsea was that they had the players to win playing positive; they have plenty of technical players.

England, not so much. Bless 'em

Enough with the snideness, Meus. There is absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying a good defensive performance. Chelsea were magnificent against Barcelona and Bayern. They rightly assessed that they would be beaten if they tried to play an open game so they set up a system whereby they would invite pressure onto themselves and try to hit teams on the counter attack. It took an incredible amount of courage and patience to implement to adhere to this system and its paid off.

Why is enjoying a good defensive approach "sad"? You've bought into the Barcelona approach so much that you can no longer enjoy other methods of playing football. I think thats pretty sad tbh.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

Meus, this is why Arsenal haven't won a trophy for 7 seasons now.

Because we obviously hoofed the ball 50 yards to go unbeaten 49 games and win trophies before that right? Anyone who has watched Arsenal over the past few years will realise it wasn't the football that was the problem but weaknesses in the defence and GK.

What?!?! Chelsea won two league titles with Mou playing like that, winning ugly, grinding out 1-0 victories. Every Chelsea fan would take Mourinho back in a heart beat!

Chelsea would sit back after getting a lead - something that I too moaned about, but there is no contrast to the way they played in 05-08 with how they did against Bayern. The signings of Martin, Hulk and Hazard and Mata over the past 12 months - agile, technical flair players in the midfield, seems to be addressing this and it is exciting.

 

[patapuf]

I think England countered effectively a few times when they had the ball, they were nowhere near as defensive as Chelsea were. The point I'm making is that there's more than one way to play football, and circumstances matter. If we play defensive reactive football against Ukraine and Sweden I'll be disappointed. As it stands I'm perfectly happy it was used against France.

I agree that it would have been dumb of the english to play attacking football, they used the right tactics. It just wasn't all that interesting to watch as a neutral, there are games like that in every tournament.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

I don't quite understand why soccer is structured to reward unattractive play. I can't really blame Greece for doing what works, but I do wish soccer had undertaken some of the reforms other sports had I. The name of making the game more entertaining. Matches like yesterday's remind me of nothing so much as the pre-shot clock NBA. Purists and die-hards cried foul when American football introduced the forward pass, but the game was better for it. I'm not quite sure what an analogue would be- make it 9-on-9 with 6 subs a side? But I wish that there was something to help the beautiful game reach its full potential.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Because we obviously hoofed the ball 50 yards to go unbeaten 49 games and win trophies before that right? Anyone who has watched Arsenal over the past few years will realise it wasn't the football that was the problem but weaknesses in the defence and GK.



Chelsea would sit back after getting a lead - something that I too moaned about, but there is no contrast to the way they played in 05-08 with how they did against Bayern. The signings of Martin, Hulk and Hazard and Mata over the past 12 months - agile, technical flair players in the midfield, seems to be addressing this and it is exciting.

But that's the problem, Arsenal have underinvested in defence over the last few seasons in hope of chasing Barca in the attractive football league and it leave Arsenal very vulnerable to teams that keep it tight and organised at the back and counter attack with speed. A lot of teams have figured out how to beat Arsenal, especially without a decent combative midfielder like Vieira to protect the back four (the reason Arsenal went on a 49 match unbeaten run).

Chelsea would go up north and grind out 1-0 wins and bring three points back to London. Spurs and Arsenal would go up north and try and play total football and get beat. Sucks for Spurs and Arsenal fans, however, Spurs learned their lessons and now go up there and keep it tight at the back, invite pressure and counter attack, Arsenal have yet to learn this lesson.

 

[Vivalaraza]

England played a very boring and poor game yesterday IMO (though tactically smart) but it seems nobody is getting on France's back. I thought they were quite poor too and hardly ever put their foot down and tried to speed up the tempo or really get behind the English defence (deep though it was). It was a very easy defensive game for England, everything in front of them, slow, side to side, long shots.

England were boring without the ball and France were boring with it.

Was a very poor game I thought.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

Enough with the snideness, Meus. There is absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying a good defensive performance. Chelsea were magnificent against Barcelona and Bayern. They rightly assessed that they would be beaten if they tried to play an open game so they set up a system whereby they would invite pressure onto themselves and try to hit teams on the counter attack. It took an incredible amount of courage and patience to implement to adhere to this system and its paid off.

Why is enjoying a good defensive approach "sad"? You've bought into the Barcelona approach so much that you can no longer enjoy other methods of playing football. I think thats pretty sad tbh.

My views on football have been this way from the start. The only relevance and significance Barcelona have in this debate is that they have proved, conclusively, wrong the cliche that you cannot win playing expansive football. The question now is if, like you say, both approaches can be effective then why would you opt to win through your defence rather than your midfield/attack? That's the crux of it all.

In regards to this 'Barcelona style', don't confuse me for implying that their style is the correct one. Barca, Bilbao and Spurs are amongst the teams that have played the best football this year. Different styles but still all exciting positive play; that is the correct approach

Edit: I'm sorry if anything I said came across as snide. I didn't mean to offend you Clegg

 

[kitch9]

I think England countered effectively a few times when they had the ball, they were nowhere near as defensive as Chelsea were. The point I'm making is that there's more than one way to play football, and circumstances matter. If we play defensive reactive football against Ukraine and Sweden I'll be disappointed. As it stands I'm perfectly happy it was used against France.

I don't think Roy factored in that the French would just kick our wingers in the heels when we did break and be allowed to get away with it though....

Can't plan for that.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

I think England countered effectively a few times when they had the ball, they were nowhere near as defensive as Chelsea were. The point I'm making is that there's more than one way to play football, and circumstances matter. If we play defensive reactive football against Ukraine and Sweden I'll be disappointed. As it stands I'm perfectly happy it was used against France.

I agree. I think the criticism of England is a little harsh. They didn't create many chances but then again they didn't have much of the ball. The chances they did create, however (through good play rather than long balls or something), were as equally if not more dangerous than the French ones.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

I agree. I think the criticism of England is a little harsh. They didn't create many chances but then again they didn't have much of the ball. The chances they did create, however (through good play rather than long balls or something), were as equally if not more dangerous than the French ones.

Yup, the best chance of the game was Young to Milner. Milner should have buried it.

 

[Wilbur]

I agree. I think the criticism of England is a little harsh. They didn't create many chances but then again they didn't have much of the ball. The chances they did create, however (through good play rather than long balls or something), were as equally if not more dangerous than the French ones.

I was delighted with the first half hour. I didn't see any long balls, the defence were playing the ball between themselves until Parker or Gerrard were making space.

 

[Freewheelin']

Meus: Even though I love the football of Barcelona, I appreciate Chelsea's performance against them. That was one of the best defensive plays I have ever seen. Not every team has to play like Barcelona and thats why I love football.

I would like Arsenal to win trophies playing attractive stuff but I also wouldn't mind them winning 1-0 every game.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

My views on football have been this way from the start. The only relevance and significance Barcelona have in this debate is that they have proved, conclusively, wrong the cliche that you cannot win playing expansive football. The question now is if, like you say, both approaches can be effective then why would you opt to win through your defence rather than your midfield/attack? That's the crux of it all.

In regards to this 'Barcelona style', don't confuse me for implying that their style is the correct one. Barca, Bilbao and Spurs are amongst the teams that have played the best football this year. Different styles but still all exciting positive play; that is the correct approach

The correct approach is the approach that wins. If you want to see more football like Spurs', change the rules of the game so teams like Spurs win more games. The NFL figured out that people liked high-flying passing games, so they've been constantly tweaking the rules to better protect recievers and quarterbacks. To a lesser extent, MLS realized that their flair players weren't having as big of an impact on the game as you'd like and now has a concerted effort to reduce the ability of physical players to throw them off their game.

If you dot want teams to put 10 men behind the ball at all times, change the rules so they can't do that any more.

 

[Overdoziz]

Absolutely brilliant seeing ex-player from my favorite and hometown club FC Groningen, Andreas Granqvist playing yesterday for Sweden. This man is a true hero, a great football player with the right kind of mind set and attitude. Always working hard, even scoring a few goals. Great CD. He now plays for Genoa, but we still miss him here. Great player.

Groningen represent.
This season has been awful though.

 

[miksar]

Russia will be the first to proceed to quarterfinals tonight.

 

[maliedoo]

Let's do this Croatia!

 

[Yurt]

Do it for him Czech!

And for the rest of the country I guess!

 

[Johnny Cage In The Shower]

Where's the Eggman? The Greece vs. Czech game is starting soon, No?


EDIT: Haha!

I have my dick ready.

 

[Deleted member 81567]

Where's the Eggman? The Greece vs. Czech game is starting soon, No?

I have my dick ready.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Let's do this Croatia!

Err?

 

[Arjen]

Counting on Czech to win this.

 

[pulga]

Let's do this *checks his fantasy list* Cech! Try not to let a shit fuckton of goals in this time.

 

[Deleted member 81567]

Counting on Czech to win this.

I hope Robben gets injured tomorrow.

 

[Johnny Cage In The Shower]

Oh I thought the kick off was at 11:45 Eastern Time for some reason, keep getting it mixed up with the afternoon matches (14:45 ET) So another 12 or so minutes eh lads?

 

[Arjen]

I hope Robben gets injured tomorrow.

No problem, then it's time for narsingh to shine.

 

[Kurtofan]

Go Greece!

 

[Deleted member 81567]

Go Greece!

.

 

[Arjen]

Oh I thought the kick off was at 11:45 Eastern Time for some reason, keep getting it mixed up with the afternoon matches (14:45 ET) So another 12 or so minutes eh lads?

yes!

 

[Sviatoslav]

Kerzhakov is gonna prove all the haters wrong tonight! He'll be so good tonight he will even will the Czechs to victory in the early game thus clinching the group for russia.