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 07:30:35 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: alt.ascii-art,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.seduction.fast,comp.os.linux.advocacy Subject: OT: Re: What does everyone reckon our chances are for the Euro 2004 qualifying? From: FinaliDentity 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> Message-ID: User-Agent: Xnews/4.06.22 Lines: 86 Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:30:34 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.208.206.89 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 1012404634 63.208.206.89 (Wed, 30 Jan 2002 07:30:34 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 07:30:34 PST Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net X-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 07:30:34 PST (newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net) Xref: archiver1.google.com alt.ascii-art:14268 alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:35411 alt.politics.socialism:15032 alt.seduction.fast:74640 comp.os.linux.advocacy:183897 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.