liked
this Twitter thread from football journalist Martin Rafelt:
Quote:
An unpleasant feature of the #EURO2024 is that two super-defensive teams made the semis which will enforce the idea that this is how you should approach a tournament. But actually they needed to survive penalties against inferior teams while the two most ambitious teams had to face each other (= 1 automatically eliminated) and overall performed much more solidely and got more secure wins before. Realistically, we saw a streak of success from more offensive football:
Germany & Spain had the most secure paths into the quarters. Switzerland, Romania, Austria, Turkey, Slovakia outperformed expectations with very or rather ambitious approaches. Scotland & Serbia quickly failed with very defensive ideas. When defensive approaches fail early, we don't talk much about the approach, but we talk about how the teams "just were bad", because this kind of strategy makes not only teams, but also the individual players look bad. Easier for coaches to hide behind their squad quality then. Brazil had a similar approach in the Copa, scored only 5 goals in 4 games and failed the penalties. Just defense is not "the safe option". Scoring goals helps winning games. There's a chance to get through in a tournament without scoring goals, but it isn't particularly great.
Why I'm posting this: Football journalists & people on social media should not enforce the idea that avoiding risks and playing defensive is a better way to approach a tournament (or the game in general). It will affect opinions and decisions and make the game worse and boring.
|
it sucks that football terrorists like Southgate and Deschamps have made it this far once again. Living off squad strength and luck in the penalties, but their approach has been nauseating again.