A win is a win is a win
Before yesterday's match between England and T&T, i predicted the result to be a 0-0 tie, drawing from England's lifeless performance in the last round against Paraguay and T&T's solid defending, resolutely repelling the Swedish attack that contained famed strikers Zlatan and Larsson.
England's disjointed play and uninspiring attacks at the Trinidad goal for 84 minutes almost justified my belief that T&T would hold out, but alas, lady luck was with that balding goose, and England pulled through to the next round. They summarised the match that a win is a win.
Is a win a win then? How can we justify playing for a win, when the World Cup is a showcase for talent and genius in the sport? More importantly, should a team be satisfied with their results alone, or should they be concerned over the manner in which the results are achieved? Knowing well that if a team doesn't start playing well in the earlier stages of a tournament like this, they may never hit form in time to overcome rivals at the later stages.
In my opinion, every team must have a realistic assessment of their strengths and weaknesses, and play accordingly, as well as setting goals realistically. When S&M play Argentina tonight, it is very acceptable for them to start off defensively, slowly consolidating play and on occasions relying on quick counter attacks to break down the Argentinian defence. It is unrealistic for them to start of the match attacking a technically superior Argentinian side, when it only takes a pass from Riquelme to set a striker through on goal.
Back to the England game, it is true they have qualified and that takes pressure of them in the Sweden game, but it is their onus now to play good football; not necessarily attractive football but effective football, as is deserving from the talent in the team. With great passers like Lampard, Gerrard and Beckham, and Joe Cole to provide incisive runs, it is unacceptable that the football produced is as dull and uninspired as seen so far. It is true that a win is a win, but now they have to use the next game to ensure that the play produced by the players is enough for them to achieve a respectable final position in this World Cup. A second round knockout at the hands of underdogs Ecuador or the old enemy Germany would be a kick in the teeth to all the England fans overdosed on expectations that this team could be the team to produce the World Cup a second time. (Whether they play with or without Rooney doesn't matter, they are talented enough than to rely on him). A win may be a win now, but playing unproductively and unadventurously may result in losses and exit later on.
Maybe a question to be answered is who or what is more important in football: the talent and skills of the players or the tactical nous and cunning of the managers and captains? There may be no answer to this question.
After some thought, there is a factor that helps us find the answer. When we think of football, we think of 11 men vs 11 men trying to get the ball into the opponent's net more times than the opponent puts the ball in your net. In this case, we have to revert back to the strengths and weaknesses inherent in teams. If a team has a match winner far superior in skill and technique to any player in the opposition, then maybe the coach and the players will style their game to support this genius. On the other hand if the team has no natural flair player, or the better / more experienced players are more defensive minded, then the coach has to work out a system that can serve the team's strengths. In both cases, we must take into account the team's realistic targets and their strengths and weaknesses.
Thus i do not condemn defensive play, rather i find that if my team is playing with solid defensive players, and our strength is in compact defending and supporting, then why should we attack? Attacking will only expose our defence to unneccessary pressure by defending with fewer people.
Reminding me of a competion i once played in. RJC held a beach soccer competion as part of a fun day in sentosa. I was not signed up, but weian was keen on playing and since harry's team was short of players we joined them. Our team consisted of chia joo (keeper), me, harry, weian and daryl. We were the underdogs in every match, and didnt score a single goal in normal play. Due to our great defensive work we didnt concede a single goal either and won every match on penalties.
With our inferior skills when playing against teams made out of all soccer team first choice players, how could we be expected to attack? Thus our game plan was defence, and in each progressive game our defending grew better and more resolute. We were not going to let them shoot or pass and dribble freely. When they shot it was always well saved. We were more comfortable defending in numbers than attacking and risking being countered. Thus by playing to our strengths we were able to overcome all opposition.
To some a win is a win. In some cases the win may be a win now but a loss later. And in other cases a draw is a win, is the only win possible.
England's disjointed play and uninspiring attacks at the Trinidad goal for 84 minutes almost justified my belief that T&T would hold out, but alas, lady luck was with that balding goose, and England pulled through to the next round. They summarised the match that a win is a win.
Is a win a win then? How can we justify playing for a win, when the World Cup is a showcase for talent and genius in the sport? More importantly, should a team be satisfied with their results alone, or should they be concerned over the manner in which the results are achieved? Knowing well that if a team doesn't start playing well in the earlier stages of a tournament like this, they may never hit form in time to overcome rivals at the later stages.
In my opinion, every team must have a realistic assessment of their strengths and weaknesses, and play accordingly, as well as setting goals realistically. When S&M play Argentina tonight, it is very acceptable for them to start off defensively, slowly consolidating play and on occasions relying on quick counter attacks to break down the Argentinian defence. It is unrealistic for them to start of the match attacking a technically superior Argentinian side, when it only takes a pass from Riquelme to set a striker through on goal.
Back to the England game, it is true they have qualified and that takes pressure of them in the Sweden game, but it is their onus now to play good football; not necessarily attractive football but effective football, as is deserving from the talent in the team. With great passers like Lampard, Gerrard and Beckham, and Joe Cole to provide incisive runs, it is unacceptable that the football produced is as dull and uninspired as seen so far. It is true that a win is a win, but now they have to use the next game to ensure that the play produced by the players is enough for them to achieve a respectable final position in this World Cup. A second round knockout at the hands of underdogs Ecuador or the old enemy Germany would be a kick in the teeth to all the England fans overdosed on expectations that this team could be the team to produce the World Cup a second time. (Whether they play with or without Rooney doesn't matter, they are talented enough than to rely on him). A win may be a win now, but playing unproductively and unadventurously may result in losses and exit later on.
Maybe a question to be answered is who or what is more important in football: the talent and skills of the players or the tactical nous and cunning of the managers and captains? There may be no answer to this question.
After some thought, there is a factor that helps us find the answer. When we think of football, we think of 11 men vs 11 men trying to get the ball into the opponent's net more times than the opponent puts the ball in your net. In this case, we have to revert back to the strengths and weaknesses inherent in teams. If a team has a match winner far superior in skill and technique to any player in the opposition, then maybe the coach and the players will style their game to support this genius. On the other hand if the team has no natural flair player, or the better / more experienced players are more defensive minded, then the coach has to work out a system that can serve the team's strengths. In both cases, we must take into account the team's realistic targets and their strengths and weaknesses.
Thus i do not condemn defensive play, rather i find that if my team is playing with solid defensive players, and our strength is in compact defending and supporting, then why should we attack? Attacking will only expose our defence to unneccessary pressure by defending with fewer people.
Reminding me of a competion i once played in. RJC held a beach soccer competion as part of a fun day in sentosa. I was not signed up, but weian was keen on playing and since harry's team was short of players we joined them. Our team consisted of chia joo (keeper), me, harry, weian and daryl. We were the underdogs in every match, and didnt score a single goal in normal play. Due to our great defensive work we didnt concede a single goal either and won every match on penalties.
With our inferior skills when playing against teams made out of all soccer team first choice players, how could we be expected to attack? Thus our game plan was defence, and in each progressive game our defending grew better and more resolute. We were not going to let them shoot or pass and dribble freely. When they shot it was always well saved. We were more comfortable defending in numbers than attacking and risking being countered. Thus by playing to our strengths we were able to overcome all opposition.
To some a win is a win. In some cases the win may be a win now but a loss later. And in other cases a draw is a win, is the only win possible.
posted by daniel at 14:40
<< Home