Euro: Group E: Spain vs. Sweden, 6/14/2021

[koyvoo]

I am not entertained watching something like Greece in 2004. Would rather watch a Church Choir on mute.

What about if you were Greek? Nothing feels like, or is as historically relevant as winning. There was no other style of play that would have saw Greece win. Do they and their fans not have a right to feel the ecstasy of winning a title just because they can’t do it with 3-0 scoreline’s?

Are you not a fan of Finnish hockey? Would you care if Finland won Olympic gold by choking the life out of a gane with a more talented Canadian team?

 

[keonsbitterness]

What about if you were Greek? Nothing feels like, or is as historically relevant as winning. There was no other style of play that would have saw Greece win. Do they and their fans not have a right to feel the ecstasy of winning a title just because they can’t do it with 3-0 scoreline’s?

Are you not a fan of Finnish hockey? Would you care if Finland won Olympic gold by choking the life out of a gane with a more talented Canadian team?

As a totally biased fan, I thoroughly enjoyed 2004!

Their group games were passable. No one was bored by the Portugal game.

France and Portugal knockout games were dull, but the Czech game had a good finish. And not just the goal. Greece dominated the Czechs in extra time.

And you can always change the channel.

 

[TheGreenTBer]

You cannot fault the Swedes for playing defensively. If they attempted to get into a track meet with Spain the results would have likely been very different.

 

[les Habs]

Thank goodness most of the pro athletes we watch take the spirit of competition seriously. Could you imagine the atmosphere of games all being like those charity/all star games that showcase nutmegs.

Who said anything about charity or all star games much less showcase nutmegs? Oh yeah, no one did. As for pro athletes, the likes of Jordan and Messi come to mind. Entertaining and take the spirit of competition seriously. Imagine that.

That makes it even worse at the club level. A dozen teams in all of Europe have the advantage to be able to to build squads that on paper, 99% of the rest of the clubs can’t compete with.

Then when the matches are played, these lesser clubs are not supposed to put up the best resistance they can to turn a result in their favour? Their supposed to play in a way that allows these super teams to just walk through them for the benefit of more thorough balks and nutmegs? That’s what’s good for the game? Give me a break.

The numbers are similar at NT level despite transfer budgets not being involved. Regardless, the club in question being Atleti and the fact that transfer spend doesn't always equate to success means it's not set in stone.

"The best resistance" is entirely subjective and plenty of teams who put up presumably "their best resistance" don't always get the results they could have had had they played otherwise. And again, no one mentioned "through balls" or "nutmegs". But hey, teams shouldn't bother trying to playing entertaining unless they're the best team because they'll automatically lose otherwise.

 

[koyvoo]

If 2004 Greece had a great generation of players who earned everyone’s admiration with scintillating play and lost a heartbreaker in the semi, they’d be virtually forgotten. Their fans would never know the joy of winning a major tournament.

Denmark in 1986 put on one of the greatest shows in a World Cup but went out early. They’re remembered, but not nearly as much as if they had won. The goal of the sport firstly to win. Again, if it was to be pretty, it would be a judged sport, like gymnastics.

There are far more games that see unevenly matches teams in terms of talent than there are teams that stack up to each other. A match starts, the team with more quality controls the ball. If the lesser team takes chances, they’d only find themselves conceding more scoring chances. But that’s the route they’re supposed to take rather than kill the game, because joie de vie?

From my perspective it makes no sense for players, managers, sporting directors, club presidents and owners to put anything ahead of winning vas the main initiative.

 

[keonsbitterness]

Who said anything about charity or all star games much less showcase nutmegs? Oh yeah, no one did. As for pro athletes, the likes of Jordan and Messi come to mind. Entertaining and take the spirit of competition seriously. Imagine that.

Sure, but players with that level of talent and drive are the exception, not the rule. And a pretty extreme exception.

 

[les Habs]

Sure, but players with that level of talent and drive are the exception, not the rule. And a pretty extreme exception.

The point stands regardless.

 

[keonsbitterness]

The point stands regardless.

Sure, if you're lucky enough to draft a generational talent or rich enough to develop/buy one.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

I am not entertained watching something like Greece in 2004. Would rather watch a Church Choir on mute.

My final words on this topic.

Football is FAR more entertaining when there is competition involved. This despite all the teams that play boring football in the belief that they would gain a competitive edge. And they are well within their right to do that.

Football would be significantly less popular if the only thing that was played would be friendlies with half-assed players, trying to play entertaining football. Because that is what you are asking for.

 

[gary69]

The question is, a team playing, a club, is that their main initiative? To entertain? Should it be? It’s great to win pretty, but to me of a coach puts that ahead of winning, he’s inherently a loser. Naturally.

Carlos Alberto Parreira famously told his Brazil squad in 1994 after a 24 year drought “you wanna win? F**** joga bonito. Let someone else sorting about making the crowd squeal in delight. We’ll worry about the trophy”. They won. He’s a winner.

Brazil already went anti jogo bonito in 1990 and were crucified for it. They got better at it by 1994 and football world had gotten used to by then and didn't expect Brazil to be the most entertaining team or players to watch any more.

Brazil largely won because Dunga was allowed to commit professional fouls (bringing opponents down dozens of times per match without any consequences and thus stopping most attacks before they even started). I was kind of happy that Brazil won, since I liked Romario and Brazil was a good team nevertheless. But even at the time they weren't particularly worshipped neither in Brazil nor internationally. While many were happy that they won, pretty much everyone immediately followed up that it would have been better if WC 1982 or 1986 Brazilian team had won instead.

 

[koyvoo]

Brazil already went anti jogo bonito in 1990 and were crucified for it. They got better at it by 1994 and football world had gotten used to by then and didn't expect Brazil to be the most entertaining team or players to watch any more.

Brazil largely won because Dunga was allowed to commit professional fouls (bringing opponents down dozens of times per match without any consequences and thus stopping most attacks before they even started). I was kind of happy that Brazil won, since I liked Romario and Brazil was a good team nevertheless. But even at the time they weren't particularly worshipped neither in Brazil nor internationally. While many were happy that they won, pretty much everyone immediately followed up that it would have been better if WC 1982 or 1986 Brazilian team had won instead.

Right, I agree. But at the end of the day, not getting it done in 1982 and 86 with stylish teams lead to a change in philosophy. Because they value winning as the main objective, as they should. Sure, they probably lost some of their international fanbase, but they didn’t let the way of chasing the proper objective.

 

[les Habs]

My final words on this topic.

Football is FAR more entertaining when there is competition involved. This despite all the teams that play boring football in the belief that they would gain a competitive edge. And they are well within their right to do that.

Football would be significantly less popular if the only thing that was played would be friendlies with half-assed players, trying to play entertaining football. Because that is what you are asking for.

Friendlies are completely irrelevant, and no, that is not what anyone is asking for.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

Friendlies are completely irrelevant, and no, that is not what anyone is asking for.

How does one expect every team in a competitive setting to play entertaining then? It's impossible.

 

[gary69]

Not sure if it was e.g the heat, but I think almost every team at WC 1994 was entertaining. Don't really remember the Greek play, but other countries had entertaining games despite the difference in skill level between them,

 

[cgf]

That makes it even worse at the club level. A dozen teams in all of Europe have the advantage to be able to to build squads that on paper, 99% of the rest of the clubs can’t compete with.

Then when the matches are played, these lesser clubs are not supposed to put up the best resistance they can to turn a result in their favour? Their supposed to play in a way that allows these super teams to just walk through them for the benefit of more thorough balks and nutmegs? That’s what’s good for the game? Give me a break.

I don't blame the swedes for playing defensively given the opponent & their personnel...even if I critiqued them for not starting a third CB or midfielder instead of going with two up front.

But I have to disagree that bunkering is the best resistance when you are out-gunned. It can be if that's where your personnel excels, and since they are less sought after by big clubs, that kind of personnel is more available...and it takes less time to install...but the beautiful thing about this game is that teams have overcome talent deficits by playing all sorts of different ways and teams can beat "better" teams with their skill & bravado as well as their grit / compactness.

 

[keonsbitterness]

Not sure if it was e.g the heat, but I think almost every team at WC 1994 was entertaining. Don't really remember the Greek play, but other countries had entertaining games despite the difference in skill level between them,

Greece's contributions in '94 were three bad losses without scoring a goal, and Maradona's infamous reaction. He was kicked out of the World Cup after this game for failing a drug test. Who could have guessed?

 

[RorschachWJK]

My final words on this topic.

Football is FAR more entertaining when there is competition involved. This despite all the teams that play boring football in the belief that they would gain a competitive edge. And they are well within their right to do that.

Football would be significantly less popular if the only thing that was played would be friendlies with half-assed players, trying to play entertaining football. Because that is what you are asking for.

That's not what I am asking for. What I am saying is that I am not entertained by parking the bus tactics. End of story.

 

[Eye of Ra]

They beat the hosts with offensive football in the opener.

we will play more offensive against slovakia and poland, you get that right? its probaly gonna be close in possession, 55-45 something

 

[Eye of Ra]

lol, glad you handle your team sucking well. Let me show you how it's done after France kicks our ass today

look mate, i like germany and i know sweden is not a top team, but saying we suck, you are just bashing us. i dont see how slovakia and poland is better than us. then they suck also?

we will play more offensive against slovakia and poland. its a big boost for us if kulusevski comes back.

 

[Eye of Ra]

Not sure if it was e.g the heat, but I think almost every team at WC 1994 was entertaining. Don't really remember the Greek play, but other countries had entertaining games despite the difference in skill level between them,

sweden won bronze in that wc. our best generation ever. jonas thern, stefan schwarts, patrik andersson, joachim björklund, henrik larsson, tomas brolin, roland nilsson, klas ingesson, kenneth andersson, martin dahlin....so many good players.

 

[AB13]

sweden won bronze in that wc. our best generation ever. jonas thern, stefan schwarts, patrik andersson, joachim björklund, henrik larsson, tomas brolin, roland nilsson, klas ingesson, kenneth andersson, martin dahlin....so many good players.

We also scored the most goals by quite a large margin. That was a very entertaining side.

 

[Eye of Ra]

We also scored the most goals by quite a large margin. That was a very entertaining side.

kenneth andersson must have been one of the best players ever with his head.

other players i think should be mention aswell is roger ljung (better winger than edman and agustinsson) and håkan mild who was bat shit crazy on the pitch. hard not like a player playing with high grit. jesper blomqvist was a good one too, but too much injuries. Anders Limpar was a magican.

i never got the hype about ravelli thought. Isaksson and ronnie Hellström is the best we had.

 

[AB13]

kenneth andersson must have been one of the best players ever with his head.

other players i think should be mention aswell is roger ljung (better winger than edman and agustinsson) and håkan mild who was bat shit crazy on the pitch. hard not like a player playing with high grit. jesper blomqvist was a good one too, but too much injuries. Anders Limpar was a magican.

i never got the hype about ravelli thought. Isaksson and ronnie Hellström is the best we had.

Isaksson was probably just as good as Ravelli but Ravelli was just so so clutch. For his great big game performances his national team legacy is much bigger.

 

[cgf]

look mate, i like germany and i know sweden is not a top team, but saying we suck, you are just bashing us. i dont see how slovakia and poland is better than us. then they suck also?

we will play more offensive against slovakia and poland. its a big boost for us if kulusevski comes back.

Oh I don't actually think you guys actually suck. I just figured that since I was being accused of hating, I should actually say something that was directly negative...especially since the main thrust of that post was to make a self-depricating joke about France kicking our ass.

 

[Eye of Ra]

Isaksson was probably just as good as Ravelli but Ravelli was just so so clutch. For his great big game performances his national team legacy is much bigger.

what do you think of robin olsen? is he close to isaksson/ravelli level?