OT: Re: What does everyone reckon our chances are for the Euro 2004 qualifying?

Mart van de Wege <mvd...@drebbelstraat20.dyndns.org> wrote in
news:kkt...@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.

Related ASCII art in the Gallery

Explore these categories from our collection of 11,000+ artworks:

 ,~~--~~-.
+      | |\
|| |~ |`,/-\
*\_) \_) `-'

 __
 \  \     _ _
  \**\ ___\/ \
X*#####*+^^\_\
  o/\  \
     \__\

.------------.
|\\//\\//\\//|
|//\\//\\//\\|
|\\//\\//\\//|
|//\\//\\//\\|
'------------'

   _______
 /` _____ `\;,
/__(^===^)__\';,
  /  :::  \   ,;
 |   :::   | ,;'
 '._______.'`jgs

 _  _
(o)(o)--.
 \../ (  )hjw
 m\/m--m'`--.

  _  _
/` \/ `\_  _
\     /` \/ `\
 '.  .\      /
   \/  '.  .'
         \/jgs

Make your own ASCII art

Turn images, text or 3D into ASCII, or draw your own – right in your browser.