Giant Green Rabbit
Posts: 1107
Joined: 13/2/2006
From: Cloud Cuckoo Land
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sexual Harassment Panda
quote:
ORIGINAL: Olaf
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sexual Harassment Panda
It's very defensive approach (no strikers in the starting line-up)
...they scored twelve goals in six games.
Should we not put those stats into context? 8 of those 12 goals you mention we're scored in two games, 4 against an awful Irish side, and 4 against an Italian side who weren't at their best and two of the goals were scored after Italy had gone down to 10 men and were failing to (but trying) to somehow get back into the final, an approach that often results in goals being conceded.
Take those away and they scored 1 goal per game, something you could easily relate to a defensive approach, try your hardest not to concede and hope you can get a goal. It's defensive football of a different nature, it's more sophisticated than parking the bus, but defensive none the less. Let's be honest here, they started with formations including no strikers and their and the tournaments top scorer was a substitute who came on towards the arse end of the games.
Firstly it's simply incorrect to argue that a striker-less formation makes a defensive team. Look at Luciano Spalleti's Roma for one of the first examples of striker-less teams; they scored a shedload of goals and if anything were vulnerable at the back (something Man Utd highlighted when they hit 7 past them in the Champions league). Formations dont tell you everything about a team. 4-3-3 on paper looks attack minded - but with the two wide forwards tracking back to mark the full-backs it turns into a defensive 4-5-1 formation. For another example look at Holland's matches - their move from a 4-2-3-1 to a 4-1-4-1 (van der vaart for van Bommel) should have led to a more attacking Dutch side. In fact it simply hampered their build-up play and they looked less potent than they did against the Danes.
Secondly, heed the lesson which tonight's match gave; what makes Spain seem defensive - is it their approach or the approach of the opposition? I'd say it's the opposition's approach and this is why: Euro 2008, contrary to your argument was a fabulous tournament with loads of quality attacking football. See how an adventorous (if counter-punching) Dutch side blew away France and Italy and were then themselves dismissed by an even more attacking Russia.
But check two games in particular - Russia v Spain in the Group stages and the semi-final. Spain in 2008 played only one holding player or pivot in Senna - so they were attacking. However Russia attacked them which is why in the first match against Russia three of Spain's goals came from counter-attacks themselves. Spain won 4-1. In the second match Russia had a more balanced approach but still went with an attack-minded approach. The talented Russian's who had beaten the sparkling Dutch 3-1 were themselves dismissed 3-0 even in the semi-final. It became clear that if you attack Spain, they will simply outplay you.
Fast forward to 2010 - the first match against Switzerland. Switzerland played anti-football with everyone behind the ball - spoilery stuff, scoring once on the break and sitting back. It was awful to watch and Spain came off worse 1-0. Spain had to guard against teams doing this and so they kept the ball more to ensure they couldn't be counter-attacked easily. Chile played against Spain in the following match and it resulted in one of the best matches of the tournament - a 2-1 Spain win if I'm not mistaken. After that teams sat back against them and you simply don't have the space in those instances to play penetrative football. So the tactic evolved - Spain would tire out opponents who wanted to park the bus. The sterile tiki-taka is a response to parking the bus, not the other way around.
To emphasise this look at Euro 2012. Italy were the only team who tried to attack Spain and play their own game. It made for two of the best three matches in the entire competition. Portugal played 120 minutes without a shot on target, France barely got an attack together even when behind and Croatia also completely altered their approach from the Italy match (in which they were proactive) to play a reactive game. No team can entertain against teams who park the bus or play reactively.
One thing has been consistent over the last three tournaments: Spain play proactively. They want to win each game and take the game to the opposition. Most teams play reactively - they wait for a team to attack and leave space in behind before attacking themselves. When two reactive teams come together the spectacle is awful (remember all those Chelsea-Liverpool games in the Benitez/Mourinho era). They are both set up to counter-punch and to ensure they cant be counter-punched themselves. Take two proactive teams and you have exhilarating matches such as tonight's game. The only problem is Spain are so good, that if you play pro-actively rather than countering their game, you simply lose.
Going back to the striker-less formation - tactically it's actually very proactive from the Spanish coach. The Spanish know teams will tend to play with more inherently defensive players, but a striker-less formation leaves those defence-minded players with nobody to mark. Thus a fluid set of passing moves risks drawing out those defenders out of their comfort zones, inviting them to also play a higher defensive line when they get the ball.
Euro 2012 has shown that Spain are ultimately an attacking proactive outfit - and that opposition will generally try to play them by adapting and neutralising. Euro 2012 has also shown via today's final is that if you go toe-to-toe against Spain, you risk being humiliated, because they simply pass and exploit space a lot better than any other national side, at least in Europe. The unfortunate consequence in the World Cup in 2014 is that teams will be more determined to park the bus against Spain and play reactively, because you simply cannot beat them playing your own game. The challenge for the rest of the world is produce talent that can do that.
_____________________________
Once there was a little bunny who had a little furry tail and a little shiny nose. But the electrodeath cloud of commerce strangled it and its foxhole was converted to a parking lot, a parking lot, a parking lot. Ample parking asphalted over bunny bones. Everyone everyone get in.
|
Printable Version
RE: EURO 2012 - Poland and Ukraine - 
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