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

On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:30:34 +0100, FinaliDentity wrote:

> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
Well, first one didn't go through, so I'll try again.

I think we better move this to an on-topic group. I don't know from where
you are posting, so I'll include the crosspost one more time, but
follow-ups have been set to rec.sport.soccer.

For the regulars in r.s.s, this started as a crossposted troll to
unrelated groups, but it is turning interesting and on-topic for you guys.
I'm breaking netiquette by barging in on a crosspost, so apologies to all.
For context see one of the groups listed in this message (I'm personally
following up from c.o.l.a).

> 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.
> 
Well,

I get most of my English-language football coverage from the BBC, so I
thought this idiom was correct. You'll see more 'Britishisms', e.g. my
habit of referring to the game as 'football'. 'Soccer' just doesn't sound
natural to me, sorry.

'Form' in this case refers of course to fitness. In general, this covers
not just physical fitness (essential to any sport), but mental fitness as
well. As football fans know, it is as much a physical as an intellectual
game ideally. The various accents are of course dependent on the style of
the team in question, but usually there is a national style to discern. It
is in the national style which determines what kind of form is the most
important.

For example:

German style is very physical. Although German teams have some tactical
smarts, mental fitness is primarily important for willpower, the will to
keep going as long as the body can keep up. Otherwise German teams prefer
to bank on their sheer physical fitness (thus the infamous 'German last
minute goal').

Dutch style is the opposite. It is played primarily on tactics.
Concentration is the main virtue of a Dutch player, although the ability
to concentrate on mental tasks (tactics) is of course bound to physical
stamina. It's hard to think when you're tired after all :)

Now, we all know those days when you just can't concentrate, because
you're not feeling well. Reasons are varied, perhaps a team dispute is
interfering (the Netherlands in the 1990 World Cup), or perhaps it's 'just
one of those days'. When key players have a bad day like this (they're not
'on form' mentally), the primarily tactical style of the Netherlands falls
apart. Passes go wrong, wingers start their runs early or late, strikers
miss the ball or a defender keeps hanging while his teammates try to
trigger the offside trap. This is a recipe for disaster, and as usual for
the Netherlands, disaster strikes :(
 
> 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.
> 
I didn't say that the Dutch strategy is not conducive to international
play, although it *is* hard to execute well. What is a problem is our
reliance on this particular strategy to be the *only* one. More on that
later.

> 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 the rub.

Dutch players, coaches and fans are so enamoured of the tactical style,
that they refuse to consider the physical style as an alternative. So,
when the team has an off-day, it has nothing to fall back on. They simply
give up. They may gamely struggle on, but once the first goal has fallen,
you'll usually see the team slump. There is no willingness to throw
overboard the tactics and just *fight*.

Again, the teams that *are* willing to do that in our national league, are
considered the black sheep of the league.

> 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.
>
Not entirely true. You're very close, but you're missing a few things IMO.

First, if carefully executed, a passing game can yield more than one-shot
opportunities. A core component of the Dutch style is 'pressure', trying
to recapture the ball as close as possible to the opponents goal, ideally
with your own players still in attacking positions, so that the attack can
resume, instead of having to be rebuilt from the beginning. Part of this
is that shots on goal should be placed such that a miss would result in
the attacker immediately regaining possesion as close to the goal as
possible, for example by forcing the keeper to parry instead of catching
the ball.

Of course, the downside is that teams on bad form will try to keep
posession as long as possible, aiming for that 100% sure shot instead of
just trying for that 75% opportunity. Hence you get this endless passing
back and forth with nothing happening. This may have shaped your
impression of only one shot per chance.

Otherwise, your analysis of the difference concurs with mine. I will have
a few words to say on specific weaknesses though.

> 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).
> 
I already covered the few shots relative to possession. I'll get into
detail as to the weaknesses of the Dutch style, very apparent in the
styles of the national side, Ajax Amsterdam, and FC Barcelona in the late
eighties/early nineties (under Cruyff).

There are two basic weaknesses in the style, one of them tactical, one of
them mental.

I already touched on the mental bit. When the game is against them, Dutch
teams have the bad habit of giving up. Only occasionally do we field teams
that have all three key capabilities, technical, tactical and mental. When
that happens, those teams are unstoppable. I'll name them, but you'll know
them already probably:

Feyenoord Rotterdam 	1969
Ajax Amsterdam 			1970-1972
National team			1972-1978
PSV Eindhoven			1988
National team			1988
Ajax Amsterdam			1991-1992

These teams had good players, but they also had fighters. These were the
teams that were able to press the opponent back to his own half and keep
him there, by fair means or foul. On the other hand, compare the national
team that won the EC in 1988 with the one that fell apart in internal
squabbles in 1990. What is important is that the style is heavily
dependent on willpower, and it has been remarked that that seems to be
lacking in the current national side. The German national side on the
other hand almost always seems to have abundant reservoirs of that.

Second, coaches seem to hate attacking on the break. Whenever a Dutch team
is under pressure and captures the ball, 9 times out of 10 you'll see them
start a slow build-up instead of breaking immediately. This is often
fatal.

Now, the tactical bit.

As I said, the Dutch defence is based on pinning the opponent in his own
half. Couple this with a style that wants to go forward, and emphasises
players taking over each others positions, while possession of the ball is
kept as long as possible. Now, imagine what happens if somewhere in the
middle of that build-up, with players moving out of their defensive
positions, someone loses the ball....

Like the English, the Dutch style is supremely vulnerable to defensive
teams that prefer to attack on the break. Primary example is of course the
good old 'cattenacio' style.

> 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.
> 
Agree that second round Champions' League is nice.

Nice discussion. Apologies again to the regulars of the other groups.

Mart


-- 
'Come not between the Nazgul and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn.
He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness,
where thy flesh shall be devoured, 
and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye'

Related ASCII art in the Gallery

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

  __      _
o'')}____//
 `_/      )
 (_(_/-(_/

[>====]

   ))
 .-#-----.
/_________\
 |[] _ []|
 |  |*|  |

  ,  ,  , , ,
 <(__)> | | |
 | \/ | \_|_/
 \^  ^/   |
 /\--/\  /|
/  \/  \/jgs

     /| __________
O|==|* >__________>
     \|

(    )
|\^^/|
(0::0)
 \\// 
 (oo) 
/ \/ \

Make your own ASCII art

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