warspite1
Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
quote:
ORIGINAL: warspite1
So why did Chelsea win the Champions League against Bayern Munich in 2012? How did Steaua Bucharest ever become champions instead of Barcelona in 1986? How did Holland lose the 1974 World Cup? How did Germany ever beat Hungary in 1954? How did Leeds United lose to Sunderland in the 1973 FA Cup Final? When Barcelona were going through their "unbeatable" phase why did they only win the Champions League twice?
You could have perfectly said that Inter also defeated this great Barcelona and went to win the Champions League. I have said more than once on this thread: winning is never guaranteed. Let's use other words then: 8 out of 10 times Barcelona would have won that match 
And you are trying to compare current "parking the bus" Chelsea with the old teams (as if that tactic had worked on the past, as if you were the devil's advocate, as if it had existed in the first place!  ). Those teams (victors), did not, repeat, did not park the bus. In the old days, everyone *attacked*, or if you prefer, no one refused to attack.
Do this empirical test: there are plenty of old, classic matches on youtube (any WC, just name it). Watch them...
Used (as we are) to modern football, it's striking. First thing which shocks you: the loneliness of the GK! You can barely see 1, 2 or 3 defenders near. And they quickly disappear to err... attack! That emptiness seems scary to modern eyes.
The pattern is almost always the same: I attack - you attack - I attack - you attack - I attack - I attack - you attack etc. etc. etc.
Counter-attack would be I attack - I attack - you attack (side which counter-attacks) - I attack - I attack - you attack etc. etc.
Mourinho versus a strong squad?  I attack - I attack - I attack - I attack - I attack - I attack - you (Mourinho) attack 
What I said, do the empirical test, let your eyes see them play 
warspite1
But this has nothing to do with parking the bus. You said:
quote:
It's actually really simple: the teams with the best players tend to win. If you gather the best creative players they will destroy any opposition...
Well that statement is manifestly false - because football isn't always like that. You CANNOT - you never have been able to - turn up with 11 better players than the opposition and guarantee you will win the game. Tactics, fitness, psychology are all important.
There is more than one way to win a football match - always has been and always will be. The managerial failures have not understood this - or not been able to do anything about it.
Look at Sunday. How that match was played, who did what, in what manner, in what style, would have meant absolutely NOTHING 5 minutes after the match finished - if Liverpool had not lost. Why?
Because Rodgers did not have to win. He had to not lose. If he did that then the Championship would remain in Liverpool's hands. But, knowing this, and knowing how Mourinho would set out to play, he did not change his tactics. He went out in the same cavalier style that has served him well for most of the season ....and lost to a sucker-punch from a tactical genius.
Ask ANY true Liverpool fan what they would have preferred. Sitting through a boring, tedious, mind-numbing 0-0 in which both sides parked the bus - and Liverpool come out of it still having the title in their hands. Or trying to win a game they did not need to win and handing the initiative to Manchester City? And yes, that is a rhetorical question....
< Message edited by warspite1 -- 4/29/2014 6:59:08 PM >
_____________________________
England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805  |
Printable Version
RE: European Championships - 
Because a second goal might follow a first goal... And that's game over. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread