One thing I don't fully understand is why Ibrahimovic played as a withdrawn striker, especially after Sweden conceded the 2nd goal. Of course he played his part well today, creating opportunities for his country, but I was under the impression that the Swedes needed someone to finish off an attack. There were a few good opportunities at the end of the game, but players' crosshairs were a little skewed.
We hade some success with him playing as a 10, but the way Sweden played against Ukraine, I'm speechless. Never seen a team so scared of the ball and making so many rookie mistakes (the two goals prime examples).
Zlatan was good - and it's probably the first time he is in a great shape (esp physically) in a Championship. Such a waste.
Our coach had an offensive strategy and they played defense all game. Hamrén obviously a bit naive, trusting them to tiki-taka the way he wants.
Bleh. And bleh. Deserved win though, even if the two goals were big mistakes.
I don't know why, but he's unreal at receiving passes and taking control of the ball when heavily marked. If they pass him and he's in a situation where most players walk away with the ball 4/10, he does so like 8/10. So they might have put him in that roll to win the first ball, and in first hand just get the ball out on one of the wingers that sends a cross into the box. They put Mellberg up as a striker, normally a defender who is good in the air, so I guess that was their plan.
Sweden have fancy play syndrome. They should just do it 94 style. Put up a a semi-decent defensive line with boring as people who plays it safe and delivers some semi-decent crosses from time to time, then put 3 "defensive" midfielder with great conditioning that just runs a lot and leave the creativity to Zlatan (94 we had Brolin, he's decent at poker now). Then put in a bunch of one trick ponies as attackers. Elmander fits the "runs a lot"-part and then someone who's either talls as fuck or someone who just tends to get shit done in the box.
Then defend for 85 min and try to send the ball flying and to hit something cool.
1
qwerty67890 New Zealand. Jun 12 2012 02:39. Posts 14026
I'm glad I'm on a poker forum because watching England today the perfect metaphor for our strategy presented itself: Shortstacking. If I were to stake someone in a game where nearly everyone is better than him, I would give him 20bbs, a preflop hand chart and some basic postflop instructions. If his opponents have just the slightest slip in discipline he could very easily be a winner in quite a difficult game. But he can never be a big winner, 20bbs is not much, but unlike poker, football is not about the size of a win, just the win. And that's the really important difference.
In that sense, tactically, I think England's approach is totally legitimate, but it's such a depressing dead-end because it can only take you so far. And it's a great shame, because though England aren't the greatest (and may be competitors for the thickest most unintelligent and inflexible team at the championships), we have some pretty neat players that could aim far higher. Greece shortstacking was totally legitimate, and though England are without Wilshere and Rooney who can both be really very exciting, we have a few reasonably exciting players when on form (Oxlade-Chamberlain, Walcott, Ashley Cole, definitely not fucking Gerrard) and extremely solid defenders to mop up behind them (Terry, cunt that he is, Lescott and Ferdinand though he's not playing because Terry is a cunt) and could be extremely interesting going for it.
Hodgson seems a lovely guy personally, but why oh why not Redknapp? In my fantasy land I'd like to see an England managed by Bielsa with Wilshere uninjured as the heart of the team and Gerrard out for constantly shoving in 100bbs on gutshots and being a hero when it hits. Sadly, I just can't cheer for an England team which contains, and soaks up the mindset of, vile scum like John Terry.
Tactically I enjoyed this article if anyone is interested - I think Jonathan Wilson is brilliant.
Researchers used brain scans to show that when straight men looked at pictures of women in bikinis, areas of the brain that normally light up in anticipation of using tools, like spanners and screwdrivers, were activated.
I don't get why Walcott didn't join the game much earlier. France were attacking with 9 players so a guy like him would be a HUGE asset in counter-attacks. He joined the game in the 87th minute and that was a big mistake imo. I will be very interested to see how England plays against Ukraine and Sweden. Are they going to play as defensively as today or what..? If Premierleague had no games around Christmas and New Years Eve english players would have a chance at winning a big championship. Right now they are plain tired and so I believe their tactics against France was the best choice in order to save stamina for later stages.
Zep: When I said I feel obligated to troll, it was a figure of speech
my picks for today: goal-goal ; Poland - Russia - over 2.5 goals . I would say 2-1 for Chech Republic against Greece and Russia will beat 3-1 Poland. I hope I win some imaginary money gogogo
Zep: When I said I feel obligated to troll, it was a figure of speech
On June 12 2012 06:22 Oly wrote:
I'm glad I'm on a poker forum because watching England today the perfect metaphor for our strategy presented itself: Shortstacking. If I were to stake someone in a game where nearly everyone is better than him, I would give him 20bbs, a preflop hand chart and some basic postflop instructions. If his opponents have just the slightest slip in discipline he could very easily be a winner in quite a difficult game. But he can never be a big winner, 20bbs is not much, but unlike poker, football is not about the size of a win, just the win. And that's the really important difference.
In that sense, tactically, I think England's approach is totally legitimate, but it's such a depressing dead-end because it can only take you so far. And it's a great shame, because though England aren't the greatest (and may be competitors for the thickest most unintelligent and inflexible team at the championships), we have some pretty neat players that could aim far higher. Greece shortstacking was totally legitimate, and though England are without Wilshere and Rooney who can both be really very exciting, we have a few reasonably exciting players when on form (Oxlade-Chamberlain, Walcott, Ashley Cole, definitely not fucking Gerrard) and extremely solid defenders to mop up behind them (Terry, cunt that he is, Lescott and Ferdinand though he's not playing because Terry is a cunt) and could be extremely interesting going for it.
Hodgson seems a lovely guy personally, but why oh why not Redknapp? In my fantasy land I'd like to see an England managed by Bielsa with Wilshere uninjured as the heart of the team and Gerrard out for constantly shoving in 100bbs on gutshots and being a hero when it hits. Sadly, I just can't cheer for an England team which contains, and soaks up the mindset of, vile scum like John Terry.
Tactically I enjoyed this article if anyone is interested - I think Jonathan Wilson is brilliant.
When I compare Pirlo and Xavi I am talking about a mid player who plays as a deep lying play-maker.
If you are comparing Iniesta, Silva or other midfielders in a different roles with Xavi and Pirlo you do not have a deep understanding of the game. For example Iniesta is much more comparable to Zidane in his role. Xavi and Iniesta have two TOTALLY different role. You can compare Xavi with Thiago or Busquets much more than you can with Iniesta. And even with Thiago and Busquets it is still a stretch to compare them.
Just because in Fifa12 all mid players are green colored doesn't mean they are comparable in real life.
And yes Pirlo and Xavi are VERY similar in their roles as a deep lying player maker. Xavi does play closer to goal but that's mostly because of Barca style and his preference in short passes. Also these two are above everyone else in that role with a very large gap. Many teams do not even play with a deep lying play maker (Real Madrid for example) because it is such a difficult role and not many players can pull it off (or because they have other players like Ozil that are really good at something else so they use them).
Pirlo's dead ball deliveries are much better than Xavi and he also is better than Xavi in his long passes. Xavi is also superior to Pirlo in some aspects (keeping the tempo of the game, live touches, winning the ball back and etc). But IMO overall, in that specific role, Pirlo got a slight edge on Xavi.
Watch 1st goal to know why I can say he is better than Xavi. I know alot of this comes from the style of the team. But the style of team comes from the players abilities as well.
Only other person that still plays and comes to their class is Scholes. But in reality he is retired, so that's why I left him out.
PS: If you disagree with what I just said give reason. I know that I probably made a mistake by giving out reasons for my argument cause I believe that like every other topic on this site the level of knowledge of people on this forum is very shallow and limited to the depth of Wikipedia articles.
PPS: I have been playing football since I was born and I played on semi-pro level. Even now as a hobby I play 3-4 times a week.
In US everyone is happy as long as all the prices are rising. Unless its crude oil - Marc Faber
On June 11 2012 15:51 barbieman wrote:
ugh, sweden seems to be one of the worst teams this championship. Zlatan was great offensively, and pretty much was the only threat for the first 80min.
Unfortunately two mistakes by Zlatan that lead to the goals, same with Lustig. Especially on the corner goal, you have one thing to do and that is to take care of the 1st post.
Agree, pretty much everyone except Zlatan was terrible, especially in the first half. Can't really blame Zlatan for that corner goal either. The first zone is his job and it's pretty hard for him to catch Shevchenko when he comes running from behind. It's pretty amazing that none of the guys with "marking duty" picked up Shev though. Yeah, let's leave the guy who is famous for being good in the box unattended...
After all is said and done, more is said than done.
Greece are by far the weakest team in this tourney. They hardly create goal situations and are very weak in defense. I am pretty sure Russia would beat them by at least 2 goals in the last game, Chech Republic and Poland are kind of identical so I think a draw is the most logical. I love the Euro so far, great football, lots of great teams, goals in every game.
Zep: When I said I feel obligated to troll, it was a figure of speech
On June 12 2012 15:30 capaneo wrote:
When I compare Pirlo and Xavi I am talking about a mid player who plays as a deep lying play-maker.
If you are comparing Iniesta, Silva or other midfielders in a different roles with Xavi and Pirlo you do not have a deep understanding of the game. For example Iniesta is much more comparable to Zidane in his role. Xavi and Iniesta have two TOTALLY different role. You can compare Xavi with Thiago or Busquets much more than you can with Iniesta. And even with Thiago and Busquets it is still a stretch to compare them.
Just because in Fifa12 all mid players are green colored doesn't mean they are comparable in real life.
And yes Pirlo and Xavi are VERY similar in their roles as a deep lying player maker. Xavi does play closer to goal but that's mostly because of Barca style and his preference in short passes. Also these two are above everyone else in that role with a very large gap. Many teams do not even play with a deep lying play maker (Real Madrid for example) because it is such a difficult role and not many players can pull it off (or because they have other players like Ozil that are really good at something else so they use them).
Pirlo's dead ball deliveries are much better than Xavi and he also is better than Xavi in his long passes. Xavi is also superior to Pirlo in some aspects (keeping the tempo of the game, live touches, winning the ball back and etc). But IMO overall, in that specific role, Pirlo got a slight edge on Xavi.
Watch 1st goal to know why I can say he is better than Xavi. I know alot of this comes from the style of the team. But the style of team comes from the players abilities as well.
Only other person that still plays and comes to their class is Scholes. But in reality he is retired, so that's why I left him out.
PS: If you disagree with what I just said give reason. I know that I probably made a mistake by giving out reasons for my argument cause I believe that like every other topic on this site the level of knowledge of people on this forum is very shallow and limited to the depth of Wikipedia articles.
PPS: I have been playing football since I was born and I played on semi-pro level. Even now as a hobby I play 3-4 times a week.
hahah fucking hell you're arrogant...
Seems like you're mostly replying to my post, as I specifically mentioned Iniesta...so I'll just clarify my former post...
Your direct quote was
an arrogant guy wrote
Pirlo and Xavi are the only two mid players in the class of their own
Hence me replying with "Iniesta is better than Xavi"
so...
sure - you can add in hindsight that you're only talking about a quite limited very specialized position that only some teams play with, and say that Xavi and Pirlo are the best in the world in that specific position...
Just as I can claim that KrappyConnect is the best poker player in the world...
and then add after the whole world has told my i'm horribly wrong, that I was actually only referring to him being the best Razz player and that everyone that didn't 100% understand that are idiots and that in all likelihood they are shallow, stupid and their intellect level is limited to what they can find on wikipedia in a couple of minutes...
But of course that'd imply that I'm as arrogant as you come off...
So...
in regards to your original quote, that xavi and pirlo are the best "mid players"...
I still disagree and say that Iniesta is better than both...as he is by definition a "mid player", though he's not employing the accurate same specialized position that you were referring to...
PS: I don't play Fifa
PPS: Playing football does in no way give you any status of authority or in any way suggest you're more knowledgeable than anyone else when it comes to football...knowledge of football is not exclusive to those that played football on a semi-pro level or higher.
PPPS: I played football until I was a teenager and twice a week since...
Mig hefur alltaf langað til að vitna í sjálfan mig - Ég sjálfur
On June 12 2012 15:30 capaneo wrote:
When I compare Pirlo and Xavi I am talking about a mid player who plays as a deep lying play-maker.
If you are comparing Iniesta, Silva or other midfielders in a different roles with Xavi and Pirlo you do not have a deep understanding of the game. For example Iniesta is much more comparable to Zidane in his role. Xavi and Iniesta have two TOTALLY different role. You can compare Xavi with Thiago or Busquets much more than you can with Iniesta. And even with Thiago and Busquets it is still a stretch to compare them.
Just because in Fifa12 all mid players are green colored doesn't mean they are comparable in real life.
And yes Pirlo and Xavi are VERY similar in their roles as a deep lying player maker. Xavi does play closer to goal but that's mostly because of Barca style and his preference in short passes. Also these two are above everyone else in that role with a very large gap. Many teams do not even play with a deep lying play maker (Real Madrid for example) because it is such a difficult role and not many players can pull it off (or because they have other players like Ozil that are really good at something else so they use them).
Pirlo's dead ball deliveries are much better than Xavi and he also is better than Xavi in his long passes. Xavi is also superior to Pirlo in some aspects (keeping the tempo of the game, live touches, winning the ball back and etc). But IMO overall, in that specific role, Pirlo got a slight edge on Xavi.
Watch 1st goal to know why I can say he is better than Xavi. I know alot of this comes from the style of the team. But the style of team comes from the players abilities as well.
Only other person that still plays and comes to their class is Scholes. But in reality he is retired, so that's why I left him out.
PS: If you disagree with what I just said give reason. I know that I probably made a mistake by giving out reasons for my argument cause I believe that like every other topic on this site the level of knowledge of people on this forum is very shallow and limited to the depth of Wikipedia articles.
PPS: I have been playing football since I was born and I played on semi-pro level. Even now as a hobby I play 3-4 times a week.
hahah fucking hell you're arrogant...
Seems like you're mostly replying to my post, as I specifically mentioned Iniesta...so I'll just clarify my former post...
Your direct quote was
an arrogant guy wrote
Pirlo and Xavi are the only two mid players in the class of their own
Hence me replying with "Iniesta is better than Xavi"
so...
sure - you can add in hindsight that you're only talking about a quite limited very specialized position that only some teams play with, and say that Xavi and Pirlo are the best in the world in that specific position...
Just as I can claim that KrappyConnect is the best poker player in the world...
and then add after the whole world has told my i'm horribly wrong, that I was actually only referring to him being the best Razz player and that everyone that didn't 100% understand that are idiots and that in all likelihood they are shallow, stupid and their intellect level is limited to what they can find on wikipedia in a couple of minutes...
But of course that'd imply that I'm as arrogant as you come off...
So...
in regards to your original quote, that xavi and pirlo are the best "mid players"...
I still disagree and say that Iniesta is better than both...as he is by definition a "mid player", though he's not employing the accurate same specialized position that you were referring to...
PS: I don't play Fifa
PPS: Playing football does in no way give you any status of authority or in any way suggest you're more knowledgeable than anyone else when it comes to football...knowledge of football is not exclusive to those that played football on a semi-pro level or higher.
PPPS: I played football until I was a teenager and twice a week since...
I wish there was a way I could block your posts from now on. Thanks for wasting my time reading the nothing you wrote.
Im gonna stop visiting this thread from now on like I should with this whole site.
In US everyone is happy as long as all the prices are rising. Unless its crude oil - Marc Faber
On June 11 2012 15:51 barbieman wrote:
ugh, sweden seems to be one of the worst teams this championship. Zlatan was great offensively, and pretty much was the only threat for the first 80min.
Unfortunately two mistakes by Zlatan that lead to the goals, same with Lustig. Especially on the corner goal, you have one thing to do and that is to take care of the 1st post.
Agree, pretty much everyone except Zlatan was terrible, especially in the first half. Can't really blame Zlatan for that corner goal either. The first zone is his job and it's pretty hard for him to catch Shevchenko when he comes running from behind. It's pretty amazing that none of the guys with "marking duty" picked up Shev though. Yeah, let's leave the guy who is famous for being good in the box unattended...
Schevchenko did a good job on both goals, not taking that away from him. Also, watching the replay on the first goal i meant Mellberg and not Lustig. He was supposed to pick up Schevchenko there but didn't, he was less than 0,5sec late but that was enough. Dunno about Zlatan's roll on the corner goal, but looked to me like he was supposed to have Schev, + again Schev did a good job getting that goal even if Swe definitely wasn't supposed to give that up.
Even if Lustig played a shit match and should've stopped the 1 - 2 goal by Ukraine, it's hard to be mad at a guy named "Hilarious". But I'll say this: "Fuck you, Hilarious."
Contact Users: 862 Active, 0 Logged in - Time: 08:33
,
,
,
,