The Awesome Berbaslug!!! wrote:


I've read something along those lines recently but thought it was by Jonathan Wilson.

Thought so, here it is.

Jesus Christ, you are nuts. That was the worst bit of all

jasoñ voorhees wrote:


Zizou was an incredible player - a one man midfield and attack. Xavi and Iniesta keep possession for Spain by passing to each other. Zidane kept possession for France by passing the ball to his left leg and back to his right leg again.

But it helps when you have a back line of Lizarazu, Blanc, Desailly and Thuram. That was an unbelievable back four, probably the best that international football has ever seen.

The comments of Doraemon a few posts ago might make sense. Perhaps Spain aren't as good as we think they are. They have to play this way to cover up their weaknesses. But not giving a striker like Llorente a single minute of play is the thing I don't get. I don't see how it wouldn't improve them.

That France team from 1998-2001 was one of the most complete all-round teams we will ever see and if I had a time machine I'd love to see them play against this Spain team. Xabi Alonso would have never scored that header, for starters.

I would word this slightly differently personally. Spain allow their opponents to focus entirely on RECOVERING their position, plus the rest.

They will pull you all out of shape if you let them, but because their progress from front to back is usually so measured then it allows teams to get out of shape but often recover.

It has the effect of feeling like a training exercise, Spanish attack vs Opposition defence from 40 yards out. Defence tries to stop attack getting through and when it succeeds, they just throw them the ball and the exercise begins again. The 75 yards of the pitch from Casillas forwards is almost irrelevant to the game.

Whether you like it aesthetically or not is one issue, quite aside from that is just how at odds it is from the rest of the modern game. Because organisation and shape at the lower end gets better and the physical gap between fittest and least fit narrows too, the focus is on counter attacking and trying to gain a numerical advantage over opponents. Spain and Barcelona utterly go against the grain of accepted modern tactical wisdom. Their desire to plough their own furrow is at least commendable.




If you pick a centre forward in the traditional sense then you are losing control and unpredictability. You know where he has to play, I mean he might drift out wide on occasions but as you say, by default he is there to get among the central defenders.

This means that your opponents can control where he plays. If their defence pushes up the pitch, then the striker is pushed deep. If they sit at the edge of their own box, the striker has to be high up the pitch.

This has the net effect of stretching your team too. The centre forward moves as much in line with the opposing defenders than he does based around the movement of his own teammates. Now one of the core aims of this Barcelona and Spain side is to have as short a distance between front and back as possible.

This is why they favour ball playing defenders who could play midfield for most sides, also why they favour forwards who can drop deeper and play as auxiliary midfielders. They create a narrow strip of pitch with all outfield players crammed into it, they know that no other team can knock the ball about congested areas like they do and this reduced area of play cuts down the work they have to do when they want to win the ball back through pressing.

That's the theory behind it all and personally I have no issue with it in principle. In practice I have my doubts at the moment though. It works with Messi so well because he can do anything, anywhere.

He can drop deep and can play pass and go's, but he has the pace to run on to them. Similarly, if he is tracked he has the skill to beat players at will and overman the opposition.

Fabregas is a fine player but he cannot really do either of these things. There is no-one in this Spain squad who can and I think this is the only real issue they have to address. Calls for Llorente would not help this, he is perhaps the answer to a different and much less significant problem.

The best metaphor I have seen for describing Spain's play is death by a thousand cuts. Every pass, every exchange, every touch inflicts a small amount of damage or physical and mental fatigue on their opponents. After so many minutes and so many passes of this, the cumulative effect adds up and their opponents weaken. It's almost like bullfighting in concept.

If you pick a centre forward in the traditional sense then you are losing control and unpredictability. You know where he has to play, I mean he might drift out wide on occasions but as you say, by default he is there to get among the central defenders.

no you are not losing unpredictability. The current way that spain play is entirely predictable. You are discussing this as though it isn't completely unreasonable, extreme, and ultimately stupid.

And there's no point in talking about spain's past record of success to justify this, as those competitions were won with 2 and 1 strikers. This idea that they would be betraying principles to play with a forward is to rewrite history and ignoring that they are becoming increasingly ideological and extreme.

No, you do lose unpredictability. You give opposition defenders an obvious target to mark and by the nature of being a centre forward, he is not going to roam extensively.

Spain is all about dragging people around, late runs into the box, making opponents uncertain who they should be covering, marking and tracking.

It is all a bit theoretical anyway. Teams are defending so deep against them that there is next to no space to play in whether you are a centre forward, a false number nine or a midfield runner. They just keep rotating the ball around knowing that opponents will be worn down eventually.

"no you are not losing unpredictability. The current way that spain play is entirely predictable."

You're going in circles because you overlooked the prefix "un".

I agree that Spain are predictable but does that make them easier to play against? Knowing where to cover is easier than being able to keep doing it for 120 minutes at the i8ntensity Spain can play (although Spain have not hit full intensity here yet).

It's also worth recalling that Spain were very laid back in the 2010 QF and had a scare.

Well, it looks like me, hobbes and Scratchmonkey in an interesting pro-Spain camp.

I watched the highlights and enjoyed them. Either ITV have got miraculous editors or it was a pretty good match. If it was the latter, 90% of Premiership matches on MOTD are just as boring. I mean the goal was caused by a headed goal from a cross which is the one thing I have missed about Spain's game. With the penalty they should have had in the first half, it could have been 3-0 and they were still attacking at the end to get the second goal

This anti-tiki-taka contrariness is getting as fetishised as any pro- argument. Personally, I think it is because Spain use pure technique and ability rather than any great tactics and tactics wonks realise that there is very little you can do tactically against such great technique.

If Portugal beat them in the next match (and I don't mind if they do), it will be because they outplayed Spain not because of any tactical strangulation. Having said that, of course, it could be a Nani-Busquets dive-fest

No, you do lose unpredictability. You give opposition defenders an obvious target to mark and by the nature of being a centre forward, he is not going to roam extensively.

But they're not going to plant him like a tree either. It's not an either or. Playing without a forward like this is ultimately blunting their attacking prowess, They already have three central midfielders and two narrow attacking midfielders. That's enough to hang onto the ball. Playing fabregas instead of a striker just gives them more of the same, and less of a threat up front.

I've read something along those lines recently but thought it was by Jonathan Wilson.

that would explain why I couldn't find it.

if this was a bullfight, spain would be booed off with the white hankies. a bullfighter is expected to entertain the crowd by at least appearing to take risks. spain just ponce about out of reach of the bull until it collapses with exhaustion.

one day they'll get their comeuppance. every so often a bullfighter slips and...



it's OK for barcelona to play this way because they've got messi to cut through the bullshit. when spain do it it's tedious. they might win three tournaments in a row and nobody will be able to remember any of their matches. i suspect we won't still be watching them with a smile 40 years later like we are jairzinho and those guys.

nobody disputes they're a great team but they're cold as a stone. any team that can make cristiano ronaldo look like a potential luke skywalker needs to take a look at itself.



brilliant

double post

And here I thought marriage would make you a less bitter man . . .

The other thing worth mentioning is that Zidane was the last player to score against Spain in the knockout stages of a tournament - the 2006 World Cup.

They have now managed 8 successive games over three competitions without conceding.



So how would you play them to forge something both successful and entertaining?

Spain are playing withouyt a forward because:

Villa is injured.
Torres is off-form.
Llorente is unsuited to their playing style as his inclusion would require other personnel changes.

Its is a matter of necessity rather than choice.

Bryaniek wrote:


Last night I was reading The Exploding Vole's piece in Power, Corruption, and Pies from a 1988 WSC about Wimbledon winning the FA Cup and how pissed people were because they thought beauty points should be awarded to Liverpool. Goals win games.

Llorente might be a beanpole striker but he's good with the ball at his feet, as he's shown with Bilbao.

The only way Llorente is unsuited to their playing style is in that there is no place at all for a striker in their insane 5-5-0 formation. He could be a cross between Zola and Batigol and they still wouldn't play him.

I am with dalliance. They got two yesterday, one from a penalty after an attack at the death and should have had another penalty in the first half. They know how to score goals.

Another thing is look at tonight's match. While some of you are getting pissed off with Spain's supposed lack of attack, it is nothing compared to how pissed off I get at a brilliant brilliant team like Italy committing unforced errors in giving possession away and shooting over the bar.

The one sublime player on the pitch, Pirlo, would fit straight into the present Spanish team.

I agree about Llorente but, it has to be said, at this stage, why would they put him on? Apart from the first game, they haven't really been troubled and, even then, it is hard to see how he would have improved it.

Some of the criticism of Spain here also reminds me of when people used to moan about Italian football being slow and obsessed with possession but the difference is that Italian teams passed it around the back whereas Spain and Barcelona pass it around further up the field

While I don't disagree with your point, I wonder who would win beauty points over Spain, presently? Portugal, perhaps. I love Germany but I am not sure they are more beautiful. On tonight's performance, neither England nor Italy are particularly aesthetic