X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f4f17,15af5515548b5f51 X-Google-Attributes: gidf4f17,public X-Google-Thread: fc9f9,15af5515548b5f51 X-Google-Attributes: gidfc9f9,public X-Google-Thread: fe7ce,15af5515548b5f51 X-Google-Attributes: gidfe7ce,public X-Google-Thread: f996b,15af5515548b5f51 X-Google-Attributes: gidf996b,public X-Google-Thread: fcfb9,15af5515548b5f51 X-Google-Attributes: gidfcfb9,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-01-30 16:35:01 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!colt.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!btnet-peer0!btnet-feed5!btnet!news.btopenworld.com!mark From: mark@NOHAM.otford.kent.btinternet.co.uk (Mark Kent) Newsgroups: alt.ascii-art,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.seduction.fast,comp.os.linux.advocacy Subject: Re: OT: Re: What does everyone reckon our chances are for the Euro 2004 qualifying? Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 00:34:17 +0000 (UTC) Organization: BT Openworld Lines: 94 Message-ID: <0l2a3a.g2p.ln@192.168.1.1> References: <3c55c27f$0$251$edfadb0f@dspool01.news.tele.dk> <3c55c608$0$4617$626a54ce@news.free.fr> <3c56e685$0$206$626a54ce@news.free.fr> <3c57cfd0.3518600@news.dial.pipex.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.7.55.77 X-Trace: knossos.btinternet.com 1012437257 15522 62.7.55.77 (31 Jan 2002 00:34:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news-complaints@lists.btinternet.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 00:34:17 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: slrn/0.9.6.2 (Linux) Xref: archiver1.google.com alt.ascii-art:14287 alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:35459 alt.politics.socialism:15049 alt.seduction.fast:74662 comp.os.linux.advocacy:184343 FinaliDentity espoused: >Mart van de Wege wrote in >news:kkt83a.o7l.ln@drebbelstraat20.dyndns.org: > >> >> Therefore, on good form, the Netherlands can beat anyone, on bad form >> they in turn can be beaten by everyone. >> >> > >Interesting theory. I do understand what you're saying. In American English >usage, "on good form" and "on bad form" are a little misleading, so I'd >rephrase what you're saying. You are suggesting that, when Holland plays >well and to Holland's preferred style, Holland is nearly unbeatable; but >Holland is often unlikely to play Holland's best game. And I agree, to some >extent. > >But there are other nations which can perform well on some occasions, and >poorly on others. The Czech Republic is an excellent example -- twice now >eliminated from the Finals, both times as a very highly ranked nation. >Other countries fail at other stages. Spain, for example, consistently >fails to impress at the Finals despite their "on paper" value. And Mexico, >historically speaking, is even MORE adept at ruining their chances than >Spain. The idea that Holland has a particular national strategy that is not >conducive to international play is a tempting one, but it can't be all of >the picture. The other teams named here -- the Czechs, Spanish, Mexicans -- >aren't famous for choosing a national strategy that requires their team to >play a non-aggressive, generally tactical game. > >Essentially, you're suggesting that the Dutch squad is too smart to >succeed. I see how that might come about -- but I also see how that is only >a little bit of the picture, because at some level being "smart" is ONLY >about winning, no matter how ugly. > >Here's my theory. > >Teams which build an attacking strategy around long intelligent passing, >create for themselves a large number of scoring chances if they are good at >that type of passing. But the chances only allow for one shot on goal per >chance. The ball is likely to either be placed straight into the net >(beautifully!), or to careen a long long way away from the net, to a point >on the field where an entire new attack must be built. In other words, the >attack of that style will build up to a one-shot opportunity. > >In contrast, the historically "English" attack (for example) of using wing- >play to lump the ball into the penalty box, although much less attractive >and probably a lower percentage of likelihood of a score, provides for >attacking chances that lead to a LARGE NUMBER of shots on net. The ball >sits in front of the goal for a longer period of time. When a successful >attck reaches that phase during which the ball is close to the net, it >stays close to the net rather than careening off to where some midfielder >must start all over. Consequently, the only time an attack is ended is when >a shot actually MISSES the goal and goes across the by-line for a goal >kick. In the absence of someone striking the ball hard toward the net and >either (a) scoring (in an ugly manner) or (b) missing the net and so giving >up a goal kick, the ball will continue to be batted around, and several >almost-goal-attempts will be made. > >In short, the Dutch game offers a one-shot attack; while the English game >offers a many-shot attack. The traditional "German" game also offers a >many-shot attack, not so much because of wing play as because of strong >attacking midfielders who refuse to allow the ball to be retreated out of >the attacking area. But that tactic has a similar result -- more consistent >performances at the top level. > >It's a tactic that can, as well, be naturally installed quickly among >players who don't play often together. The players who are gathered for the >national squad often haven't played with one another for most of the eyar. >What is required is not so much something like mutual understanding, and >intelligence, as consistent dogged determination and simple-mindedness. >These styles are more easily implemented quickly, especially by gifted >athletes. > >So, although I think your explanation gets at the "core" of the problem >(Dutch style is not condusive to mediocre play) it misses the specifics >(Dutch style requires a long time to develop, and even then only allows for >few shots relative to total attacking possession). > >That whole issue, of national sides having to "lower" their level of >intelligence in order to play together, and in order to devolve to more >dogged, determined football, for international play, is why I generally >prefer to watch UEFA play. The greatest clubs in the world involve men (or >women; we haven't gotten to that point yet, but some day!) who know one >another intrinsically, and so don't need to "dumb down" their expectations >of one another. Champions' League later group play is, for me, the best >football to watch. > I thought you were going to describe the Wimbledon long-ball game, there (the only tactic to have been mathematically proven...) -- Mark Kent Take out the ham to mail me.