Hail_Of_Bullets wrote: N.G STATE OF MIND wrote: Hail_Of_Bullets wrote:
It has proved quite effective up until recently though. The same criticisms were levelled at Spain by some quarters after the world cup (saying they were boring), but they had just won the damn thing.
As World Cup winners, weren't Spain one of the lowest scoring teams ever?
When it comes to football, I find it exciting when teams create lots of chances and score lots of goals. Spain only scored something like 7 goals in the whole tournament. Compared to a team like Germany, who scored twice as many goals, playing a much more exciting style (in my opinion).
So yes, I think it's perfectly reasonable to describe Spain as boring; regardless of how effective their tactics proved to be.
Obviously, but like I said, there are a variety of ways of playing the game. Their way was the most successful in that tourny regardless of how many goals they scored. Do you think their supporters were bummed out because they didn't score 5 goals a game? Would you rather England got knocked out in the semis as long as they were entertaining on the way there or would you rather they won a competition for once by only scoring 7 goals, hell, even only creating 7 chances?
Yeah I think the point I was trying to make has shifted somewhat from the rant about Swansea...
You know when certain teams play with a route-one percentage football approach, and win a lot of games by a narrow margin; they receive widespread criticism for doing so? e.g Stoke, e.g Derby under Billy Davies, e.g Sheff Utd under Warnock / Blackwell. A team grabs a goal from a set piece and then defend for the remainder of the game? We hear phrases like 'negative' or 'anti-football' and that it isn't 'the right way'.
Yet, we have Swansea (to whom my original rant related to) who produce equally few chances, and produce equally low goal tallies, and spend just as much time in their own half.... but somehow the general consensus from much of the footballing community is that they are 'a pleasure to watch' and 'they do things the right way'. That blatant hypocrisy is what's bollocks, and that's what I disagree with.
Added: 12-04-2012 13:29:24
Obviously, but like I said, there are a variety of ways of playing the game. Their way was the most successful in that tourny regardless of how many goals they scored.
Well yes, they won the tournament so there is no way anybody can argue they weren't the best team. Would people still hype over their style of play if they hadn't have won? Yes, I think they probably would.
Just like the armchair fans say Arsenal play the "best football" despite the fact they haven't won anything for the best part of a decade. They spent the first half of the season kicking the ball around the half-way line and being boring as hell to watch, yet people still make these ridiculous statements about their style of play and how good / righteous it is.