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

> I reckon we'll draw with Turkey, hammer all the rest, and finish top.

WAY off-topic .. stick to the subject and stop crossposting to so many groups

FRANCE wil win world cup 2002 and euro 2004


"CeeJay" <use...@ceejay.cjb.REMOVEnet> wrote in message
news:3c55c27f$0$251$edf...@dspool01.news.tele.dk...
> > I reckon we'll draw with Turkey, hammer all the rest, and finish top.
>
> WAY off-topic .. stick to the subject and stop crossposting to so many
groups
>
>

In article <4gk...@4ax.com>, drsquare wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 22:28:50 +0100, in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,
>  ("CeeJay" <use...@ceejay.cjb.REMOVEnet>) wrote:
> 
>>> I reckon we'll draw with Turkey, hammer all the rest, and finish top.
>>
>>WAY off-topic 
> 
> Football is NEVER off-topic.
> 

of course not... if theres ascii art too

obascii:


                             |    
                             |    
                             |   _    |
                             |  <_>   |
                             |        |
                             |        |
                              `-._    |
                                 |`-._|
                                 |
                                 |
_________________________________|____
  `-._           `-._            |
      `-._           `-._        |
kat       `-._           `-._

-- 
|  A___A                 _/_ /_ _  /  _ _/_  _   ,_  _
| ( @ @ ) (/(/ (/(/ (/(/.(  / /(-'/< (_\( . (_) /  `(_)
|  \_^_/      katATthekatDOTorg                    ._/

drsquare <now...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote in 
news:jgk...@4ax.com:

>>FRANCE wil win world cup 2002 and euro 2004
> 
> You must be fucking joking. It won't be anywhere near as easy this time.
> 
> 

Simple points about France:

in WC 98
barely knocked out Paraguay
barely knocked out Italy
met weakest of remaining 3 semifinalists
final opponent didn't show

in Euro 2000
barely knocked out Spain
barely knocked out Portugal
lost 99.9% of the final game

In the last seven major competitive matches we've seen, there has been 
literally no dominance of a worthy opponent.

for WC 2002
did not have to qualify ... rusty?

They've been coasting on luck for too long. I look for them to seriously 
falter in the first round ... not that their opponents are worthy 
(Senegal!!?? c'mon ...) ... 

Smart money's on Italy. Ugly football, to be sure, but the best current 
difference between odds and likelihood out there (market value versus P-E 
ratio, so to speak).

Football is always on topic.

On 28 Jan 2002 23:09:33 GMT, the kat <nospam@127.0.0.1> tried to confuse everyone
with this message:

>In article <4gk...@4ax.com>, drsquare wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 22:28:50 +0100, in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,
>>  ("CeeJay" <use...@ceejay.cjb.REMOVEnet>) wrote:
>> 
>>>> I reckon we'll draw with Turkey, hammer all the rest, and finish top.
>>>
>>>WAY off-topic 
>> 
>> Football is NEVER off-topic.
>> 
>
>of course not... if theres ascii art too
>


England will of course qualify. And France too. Not sure about Russia. You never
can be sure about russian football. But in my Championship Manager russian team
won Euro-2004 :).

Obascii: David Seaman
             ______________________________________________
            | \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ |.
            |_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_||
           |\ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ /\
           |\|/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ /|||\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \|/'.
          .'/|\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \q O O p\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/|\_|
          | \\/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ | ) |_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \|/ \
          |_/ |_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ __//o\\___/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_//\_'.
         |/ \_| \_/ \_,--._,-"         `-._,--. \_/ \_/ |_/ \|
         |\_/ |_/ \_/ \__/_,-"|       |`-._\__/_/ \_/ \_| \_/\
        |_/ \_\ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_|       | \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ /_/ \'.
        | \_/ \|/ \_/ \_/ \_//   /\   \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \|/ \_/ |
       .'_/ \_/|\_/ \_/ \_/ /   /  \   \\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/|\_/ \_\
       |/ \_/__\___________/   /____\   \_______________\ \_/ '.
       |\_,-'           __/___/      \___\__             `-.__/|
       //              /_____/        \_____\              Gr `\



-- 
#__|___|_/########\___|__###############################################
#|___|#######O#O####|___|# Timofei Shatrov aka Grue (grue -> mail.ru)  #
#__|__\###########/___|__#           http://grue3.tripod.com           #
#|___|_\#########/__|__Gr#########################################[4*72]

I gots a question, man. What the hell IS that thing that's showing up after
your name? Is that a pokemon? Heheh, I really have no idea. Do tell...*turns
the post upside down and tries to figure it out*

-Parnomanic

"drsquare" <now...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4gk...@4ax.com...

>      '.              .'     .               .
>        '.           :       :            .''
>          :         :       :          .'
>           :       :       : :       .'
>            :     :        : : : :  :
>             :   :' ' ' . :  : : : :
>              : :        :   :  : :
>               : .'''.   :  .    .:
>               : : ` :  : .       :
>               '.'...'.'          :
>                :'''''  '         :
>                :      .         :
>                 :     :        :
>                  '.....:......'
>

Parn Akuma wrote in message <7wA58.356$Ss6...@news2.randori.com>...
>I gots a question, man. What the hell IS that thing that's showing up after
>your name? Is that a pokemon? Heheh, I really have no idea. Do tell...*turns
>the post upside down and tries to figure it out*

Hint - It's meant to be his d!ck

--
Graeme Porter

   -^-_  _
   / [_][_]_:_  Proud owner of a 1978
  /|  _||_  v   Pearl Fiberglass Shell kit
   | /    \ |
-=/=\\____//=\=jaa

All taht you say is that france is lucky because they are the first team to
win a world cup and a euro in a row ?
AHAHAHAHAHAH
Is it luck to lose only 3-2 against holland with bench players ?
France was lucky to be in final of the olympic games in basket ball, this is
true, but not in football.


"FinaliDentity" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns91A4ED850F225finald@207.217.77.26...
> drsquare <now...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote in
> news:jgk...@4ax.com:
>
> >>FRANCE wil win world cup 2002 and euro 2004
> >
> > You must be fucking joking. It won't be anywhere near as easy this time.
> >
> >
>
> Simple points about France:
>
> in WC 98
> barely knocked out Paraguay
> barely knocked out Italy
> met weakest of remaining 3 semifinalists
> final opponent didn't show
>
> in Euro 2000
> barely knocked out Spain
> barely knocked out Portugal
> lost 99.9% of the final game
>
> In the last seven major competitive matches we've seen, there has been
> literally no dominance of a worthy opponent.
>
> for WC 2002
> did not have to qualify ... rusty?
>
> They've been coasting on luck for too long. I look for them to seriously
> falter in the first round ... not that their opponents are worthy
> (Senegal!!?? c'mon ...) ...
>
> Smart money's on Italy. Ugly football, to be sure, but the best current
> difference between odds and likelihood out there (market value versus P-E
> ratio, so to speak).
>
> Football is always on topic.

"Mirak" <kar...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in
news:3c56e685$0$206$626...@news.free.fr: 

> All taht you say is that france is lucky because they are the first
> team to win a world cup and a euro in a row ?
> AHAHAHAHAHAH
> Is it luck to lose only 3-2 against holland with bench players ?
> 

Let's see, Holland, so "great" a footballing power that ...

THEY DIDN'T QUALIFY FOR THE WORLD CUP???!!! Geez, you'd think you could 
come up with a better example than THAT! :)

Now, seriously, I believe France have a very good side -- maybe the best 
midfield general playing today (Zidane), definitely a very deep side 
(during Fr98 a full 20 players saw at least 90 minutes on the pitch). But I 
don't believe their recent FINAL success (to actually WIN the tourney) is 
representative of their ability. If they breeze through the qualifying 
rounds of JK02, nuke their round-of-16 opponents, and easily reach another 
Final Game, I'll change my tune. For now, however, the evidence is spotty. 
Yes, they won -- but are they really THAT dominant?

Best money right now (greatest difference between available odds, and 
likely performance; aka, discrepancy between market-value and P-E ratio) 
Italy. Worst money right now, Argentina. The political unrest is bound to 
have an effect.

On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 19:20:47 GMT, FinaliDentity <n...@spam.com> wrote:

>"Mirak" <kar...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in
>news:3c56e685$0$206$626...@news.free.fr: 
>
>> All taht you say is that france is lucky because they are the first
>> team to win a world cup and a euro in a row ?
>> AHAHAHAHAHAH
>> Is it luck to lose only 3-2 against holland with bench players ?
>> 
>
>Let's see, Holland, so "great" a footballing power that ...
>
>THEY DIDN'T QUALIFY FOR THE WORLD CUP???!!! Geez, you'd think you could 
>come up with a better example than THAT! :)

Don't you think it's weird that Holland didn't qualify? Perhaps they
have too many stars which therefore splits the team.  
When playing their best, many believe (incl. me) Holland to be about
the best.  It's their team spirit/sum of egos that's their problem.


>
>Now, seriously, I believe France have a very good side -- maybe the best 
>midfield general playing today (Zidane), definitely a very deep side 
>(during Fr98 a full 20 players saw at least 90 minutes on the pitch). But I 
>don't believe their recent FINAL success (to actually WIN the tourney) is 
>representative of their ability. 

That is true.  They always seem to coast against teams not at their
best.  I have never seen them play really out of their skins.

> If they breeze through the qualifying 
>rounds of JK02, nuke their round-of-16 opponents, and easily reach another 
>Final Game, I'll change my tune. For now, however, the evidence is spotty. 
>Yes, they won -- but are they really THAT dominant?

They are one of the 4/5 teams likely to win.  Is any one team really
that dominant?

>
>Best money right now (greatest difference between available odds, and 
>likely performance; aka, discrepancy between market-value and P-E ratio) 
>Italy. Worst money right now, Argentina. The political unrest is bound to 
>have an effect.

I'll have to have a flutter on Italy.  The odds are going to better
where the bet is less popular (probably england where its legal to bet
and where england is the popular bet).

On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 11:58:56 +0100, bro...@ytp.net wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 19:20:47 GMT, FinaliDentity <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> 
>>"Mirak" <kar...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in
>>news:3c56e685$0$206$626...@news.free.fr:
>>
>>> All taht you say is that france is lucky because they are the first
>>> team to win a world cup and a euro in a row ? AHAHAHAHAHAH Is it luck
>>> to lose only 3-2 against holland with bench players ?
>>> 
>>> 
>>Let's see, Holland, so "great" a footballing power that ...
>>
>>THEY DIDN'T QUALIFY FOR THE WORLD CUP???!!! Geez, you'd think you could
>>come up with a better example than THAT! :)
> 
> Don't you think it's weird that Holland didn't qualify? Perhaps they
> have too many stars which therefore splits the team. When playing their
> best, many believe (incl. me) Holland to be about the best.  It's their
> team spirit/sum of egos that's their problem.
> 
<snip>

Ok, one off-topic x-post and I'll shut up. Apologies to all.

The problem with dutch teams, the national side included, is *mentality*.
We dutch fans, and by extension the coaches and players, like a carefully
structured, tactically intelligent passing game. For this you need a team
with good players (check), a smart coach (check) and good form (always a
variable).

The ego problem of too many stars and no team exists, but the major
problem is bad form. When the form isn't there, the team can't play its
favourite game, so then it would be time to just go in there and *fight*
for every mm of grass. Unfortunately, we don't have the players with the
right sort of mentality for that style, like the germans and the english.
In fact, teams and players that are able and willing to employ this style
of play are roundly boo-ed by both press and public. Only one major team
in our league has this as its 'house style', and unsurprisingly, it is
widely regarded as an 'ugly' team (Feyenoord Rotterdam).

Therefore, on good form, the Netherlands can beat anyone, on bad form they
in turn can be beaten by everyone.

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'

without BUGS and being a Memory HOG, Windows IS THE BEST O/S....
but with the present given problems... ;)


"Mart van de Wege" <mvd...@drebbelstraat20.dyndns.org> wrote in
message news:kkt...@drebbelstraat20.dyndns.org...
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 11:58:56 +0100, bro...@ytp.net wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 19:20:47 GMT, FinaliDentity <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> >
> >>"Mirak" <kar...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in
> >>news:3c56e685$0$206$626...@news.free.fr:
> >>
> >>> All taht you say is that france is lucky because they are the first
> >>> team to win a world cup and a euro in a row ? AHAHAHAHAHAH Is it luck
> >>> to lose only 3-2 against holland with bench players ?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Let's see, Holland, so "great" a footballing power that ...
> >>
> >>THEY DIDN'T QUALIFY FOR THE WORLD CUP???!!! Geez, you'd think you could
> >>come up with a better example than THAT! :)
> >
> > Don't you think it's weird that Holland didn't qualify? Perhaps they
> > have too many stars which therefore splits the team. When playing their
> > best, many believe (incl. me) Holland to be about the best.  It's their
> > team spirit/sum of egos that's their problem.
> >
> <snip>
>
> Ok, one off-topic x-post and I'll shut up. Apologies to all.
>
> The problem with dutch teams, the national side included, is *mentality*.
> We dutch fans, and by extension the coaches and players, like a carefully
> structured, tactically intelligent passing game. For this you need a team
> with good players (check), a smart coach (check) and good form (always a
> variable).
>
> The ego problem of too many stars and no team exists, but the major
> problem is bad form. When the form isn't there, the team can't play its
> favourite game, so then it would be time to just go in there and *fight*
> for every mm of grass. Unfortunately, we don't have the players with the
> right sort of mentality for that style, like the germans and the english.
> In fact, teams and players that are able and willing to employ this style
> of play are roundly boo-ed by both press and public. Only one major team
> in our league has this as its 'house style', and unsurprisingly, it is
> widely regarded as an 'ugly' team (Feyenoord Rotterdam).
>
> Therefore, on good form, the Netherlands can beat anyone, on bad form they
> in turn can be beaten by everyone.
>
> 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'

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.

drsquare <now...@nowhere.co.uk> espoused:
>On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 19:19:36 +0100, in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,
> ("Mirak" <kar...@wanadoo.fr>) wrote:
>
>>All taht you say is that france is lucky because they are the first team to
>>win a world cup and a euro in a row ?
>>AHAHAHAHAHAH
>
>I would put luck down as a large contributer.
>
>>Is it luck to lose only 3-2 against holland with bench players ?
>
>That doesn't make any sense at all.
>
>>France was lucky to be in final of the olympic games in basket ball, this is
>>true, but not in football.
>
>Oh come on, they hardly had the most difficult path to the finals. Two
>golden goals? Penalties? 
>

France won the world cup and european cup because they had the best team.  
Simple.
What wouldn't any team pay for someone like Zidane (sp?)?

Still, I have high hopes for England in Japan/Korea and next European
cup - I think we have our best team for years at the moment.

-- 
Mark Kent
                                               Take out the ham to mail me.

Dear radiant,

as a rule I read e-mails only from trusted sources. I read your e-mail by 
pure accident. It is also my policy to respond only in a newsgroup 
where the discussion was inititated. So I am publishing this email 
together with my response

Have a nice day

vlad



>Although the Communist regimes were unsucessful, Europe is slipping as a

	Yes, they were . . .

>general trend into a socialist/ Communist trend. The government is taking
>away huge portions of earned income and using the money from it's working
>class taxpayers to support government programs such as social security, and
>health care. Money is free speech, and power. If the government takes the
>right to earn,and spend your money away from you, then its' communism.


>As for a democratic communist government, why would it not be possible. Do
>they have conflicting ideas, or methods of operating a government so
>different that they cannot coexist? In the very same way that capitalism can
>exist with democracy, communism can also exist with democracy.


	Up to now in all attempts to implement society on receipes of Marx
and Lenin (presumbaly "communism") democracy was first to go 
out of the window. Of course their ideology and propaganda machines were
propagating mith of democracy.

	There is something to think about it.

vlad 


>So the
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Vladimir Kuznetsov" <vla...@vlad.best.vwh.net>
>Newsgroups: alt.politics.socialism
>Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 4:14 PM
>Subject: Re: Democracy vs Communism?


>> In article <a2thf6$en7$1...@news.chatlink.com>,
>> radiant <rad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Democracy and Communism are not polar opposites of one another. Democracy
>is
>> >a social system of running the government. Communism is an economic
>>system.
>> >But they're all related, a economic system will affect the government,
>and
>> >vice versa.
>>
> The history of 20th century showed us that all attempts to build
> a cosiety based on principles of communism had as a result extremely
> undemocratic, dictatorial, opressive regimes. USSR, PRC, North Vietnam,
> Cuba - just to name a few.
>
> There is something to think about, is not it?
>
>
> >
> >It is possible however to have democracy and communism together, because
> >they do not necessarily have to be in conflict with one another in
ideals.
>
> And may I ask what makes you to think so? Is it just wishful
> thinking or you have some credentialis to show?
>
> >In fact, the only way to have true, pure democracy is to have a
socialist/
> >communist system, where everybody has the equal right, and vote
accordingly.
> Again, the historical experience of 20th century proves
> just the opposite.  Do you know something that we simple mortals
> do not know?
>
> This kind of posting shows that nowdays any idiot can post on the
> Internet, and unfortunately many do.
>
> vlad
>
>

On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:30:34 GMT, FinaliDentity <n...@spam.com> wrote:

Well, you wrote a lot, and well reasoned I might add. You have
a future as a sports commentator/analyst.

However I do wonder if you know this thread is cross posted to the following
Newsgroups: 
alt.ascii-art,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.politics.socialism,
alt.seduction.fast,comp.os.linux.advocacy

cheers

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'

Mart van de Wege <mvd...@drebbelstraat20.dyndns.org> espoused:
>On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 11:58:56 +0100, bro...@ytp.net wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 19:20:47 GMT, FinaliDentity <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>"Mirak" <kar...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in
>>>news:3c56e685$0$206$626...@news.free.fr:
>>>
>>>> All taht you say is that france is lucky because they are the first
>>>> team to win a world cup and a euro in a row ? AHAHAHAHAHAH Is it luck
>>>> to lose only 3-2 against holland with bench players ?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>Let's see, Holland, so "great" a footballing power that ...
>>>
>>>THEY DIDN'T QUALIFY FOR THE WORLD CUP???!!! Geez, you'd think you could
>>>come up with a better example than THAT! :)
>> 
>> Don't you think it's weird that Holland didn't qualify? Perhaps they
>> have too many stars which therefore splits the team. When playing their
>> best, many believe (incl. me) Holland to be about the best.  It's their
>> team spirit/sum of egos that's their problem.
>> 
><snip>
>
>Ok, one off-topic x-post and I'll shut up. Apologies to all.
>
>The problem with dutch teams, the national side included, is *mentality*.
>We dutch fans, and by extension the coaches and players, like a carefully
>structured, tactically intelligent passing game. For this you need a team
>with good players (check), a smart coach (check) and good form (always a
>variable).
>
>The ego problem of too many stars and no team exists, but the major
>problem is bad form. When the form isn't there, the team can't play its
>favourite game, so then it would be time to just go in there and *fight*
>for every mm of grass. Unfortunately, we don't have the players with the
>right sort of mentality for that style, like the germans and the english.
>In fact, teams and players that are able and willing to employ this style
>of play are roundly boo-ed by both press and public. Only one major team
>in our league has this as its 'house style', and unsurprisingly, it is
>widely regarded as an 'ugly' team (Feyenoord Rotterdam).
>
>Therefore, on good form, the Netherlands can beat anyone, on bad form they
>in turn can be beaten by everyone.
>

Netherlands are always a team to treat with caution and respect.  Seem
to fall down on penalty shoot-outs, though.

Presumably Van Nistelroiy will be key part of next team?

-- 
Mark Kent
                                               Take out the ham to mail me.

FinaliDentity <n...@spam.com> espoused:
>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.
>

I thought you were going to describe the Wimbledon long-ball game,
there (the only tactic to have been mathematically proven...)

-- 
Mark Kent
                                               Take out the ham to mail me.

Followups to the one group of this bunch I actually read.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Parn Akuma
<par...@gru.net>
 wrote
on Tue, 29 Jan 2002 16:57:40 GMT
<7wA58.356$Ss6...@news2.randori.com>:
> I gots a question, man. What the hell IS that thing that's showing up after
> your name? Is that a pokemon? Heheh, I really have no idea. Do tell...*turns
> the post upside down and tries to figure it out*

It's his thing.  :-)

[rest snipped]

-- 
ewi...@aimnet.com -- aka pole, aka one-eyed jack, aka purple worm, ...
EAC code #191       32d:08h:26m actually running Linux.
                    No electrons were harmed during this message.

The Only difference between capitalism and communism is that with
capitalism, man exploits man...with communism ,it's  the other way
around.

Galactus went insane and wrote the following
on his bedroom wall with an old crayon:

>The Only difference between capitalism and communism is that with
>capitalism, man exploits man...with communism ,it's  the other way
>around.

LOL!

I once knew a Romanian man, who survived WW2 while working as a
forced laborer for the Germans.

He said to me "Terry, pah! communism is exactly the same as capitalism
because if you dont do what the communists tell you to do, they shoot
you, and if you dont do what the capitalists tell you to do, they send
you broke, and then you might as well be dead"

Terry
-- 
Sig currently feeding the reaperbots:-

dae...@hanmir.com del...@aol.com xli...@hotmail.com moy...@aol.com
kor...@lycos.co.kr hon...@home.com

Your missing the point you boring twit.  Human nature is pretty much
the same no matter what umbrella it is under.  Now take your small ,
baby boy penis and go back and fuck your plump ass wife and get the
hell out of our newsgroup.

Ok "Terry"?

Galactus went insane and wrote the following
on his bedroom wall with an old crayon:

>Your missing the point you boring twit.  Human nature is pretty much
>the same no matter what umbrella it is under.

That *was* the point, Einstein.

>  Now take your small ,
>baby boy penis and go back and fuck your plump ass wife and get the
>hell out of our newsgroup.

Try reading the "Newsgroups:" header, you gigantic moron.

I *am* posting from *my* newsgroup.

>
>Ok "Terry"?

I'm sorry to hear that you lack in the male endowment department,
and that you have an overweight wife, however the rest of the world
does not mirror your situation, do try and get over it.

I find it amusing that someone like yourself, with an admittedly
tiny penis would go by the name of "Galactus" !

Bwahahahahaahh!

Terry
-- 
Sig currently feeding the reaperbots:-

dae...@hanmir.com del...@aol.com xli...@hotmail.com moy...@aol.com
kor...@lycos.co.kr hon...@home.com

gal...@roadkillemail.com (Galactus) writes:

> The Only difference between capitalism and communism is that with
> capitalism, man exploits man...with communism ,it's  the other way
> around.

The only diffence I noted between Capitalism and Communism is
who GETS-THE-BUCKS...

We just had an 50 year long cold war to determine ....  What again???

It was a weird SOB folks and I'm glad it's over.

-- 
Charlie
http://24.94.230.113/Linux/intro.html
By 2005 Linux will be Dominate!
 

Look um ah..:"Terry"  (begins snickering).  People who wear hering
bone sport coats are not ALLOWED IN THIS NEWSGROUP!! So quit your
cross posting nonsense, update your wardrobe, hide your PHD
certificate from the the poly technic school that you attended, (where
you  presumably read Chaucer and got drunk while watching feeble
British porno movies) and DO THE STINKY!!!!

Galactus went insane and wrote the following
on his bedroom wall with an old crayon:

>Look um ah..:"Terry"  (begins snickering).  People who wear hering
>bone sport coats are not ALLOWED IN THIS NEWSGROUP!!

And people who fabricate red herrings arent allowed in this one,
so take a hike bozo. 

> So quit your
>cross posting nonsense,

My follow up was to *your* cross posting nonsense, so after you, pal.

> update your wardrobe, hide your PHD
>certificate from the the poly technic school that you attended, (where
>you  presumably read Chaucer and got drunk while watching feeble
>British porno movies) and DO THE STINKY!!!!

Wrong again, perhaps amateur clairvoyance just isnt your forte,
have you considered locking your computer away until you get a clue,
rather than posting all over Usenet what a gormless twit you are ?


Terry
-- 
Sig currently feeding the reaperbots:-

dae...@hanmir.com del...@aol.com xli...@hotmail.com moy...@aol.com
kor...@lycos.co.kr hon...@home.com

gal...@roadkillemail.com (Galactus) said:

>The Only difference between capitalism and communism is that with
>capitalism, man exploits man...with communism ,it's  the other way
>around.

The only problem is that Amerika is not a capitalist country anymore.

DU BIST EINE FRUCHTBAR KIND!!!!

Now go back to your gourd farm !!

Fruchtbar??? Fertile/Fruitful/Useful???

Wie?? Was meinst du???

Ich habe das nicht verstanden... erklaren sie bitte...

?:)

"Galactus" <gal...@roadkillemail.com> wrote in message
news:994...@posting.google.com...
> DU BIST EINE FRUCHTBAR KIND!!!!
>
> Now go back to your gourd farm !!

On 3 Feb 2002 18:41:09 -0800, gal...@roadkillemail.com (Galactus)
wrote:

>DU BIST EINE FRUCHTBAR KIND!!!!

learn the languages you post in properly, sackgesicht!

>Now go back to your gourd farm !!


-- 
   '  +   `   . ,-------------.  +      .   `     .     *     '   \/
 *    . __  .  ( alt.ascii-art ) .        .    ,-----------. `   (oO)
-._'"- ( ,. _.' `-------------'        '      ( you said it )_,'  vv .
    `"  `-`       .     '    *      `       +  `-----------'    . JL

On Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:25:42 +0400, "Poster" <Pos...@NoSpam.net> wrote:

>Fruchtbar??? Fertile/Fruitful/Useful???
>
>Wie?? Was meinst du???
>
>Ich habe das nicht verstanden... erklaren sie bitte...
>
>?:)
>
>"Galactus" <gal...@roadkillemail.com> wrote in message
>news:994...@posting.google.com...
>> DU BIST EINE FRUCHTBAR KIND!!!!
>>
>> Now go back to your gourd farm !!
>

he said you are a fertile child

presumably he meand FURCHTBAR

in that case it says terrible child ..but then again.. not..

your german, poster, however is good. even ascii-compliant ;) [the '�'
in erkl�ren being 'a' .. you can write '�' as 'ae' tho]

-- 
   '  +   `   . ,-------------.  +      .   `     .     *     '   \/
 *    . __  .  ( alt.ascii-art ) .        .    ,-----------. `   (oO)
-._'"- ( ,. _.' `-------------'        '      ( you said it )_,'  vv .
    `"  `-`       .     '    *      `       +  `-----------'    . JL

Galactus went insane and wrote the following
on his bedroom wall with an old crayon:

>DU BIST EINE FRUCHTBAR KIND!!!!
>
>Now go back to your gourd farm !!

Sorry to see you couldn't last the distance, but what do you expect
from a man whose penis is so small, he has to post under the name
"Galactus" to try and compensate for natures little injustices ?

Perhaps you should try buying a Harley next ? 

The only thing that's galactic about you pal, is the
width and breadth of your ignorance.

-- 
Kind Regards from Terry
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux. Debian 2.2 kernel 2.2.20  
Free Micro burner: http://w3w.arafuraconnect.com.au/~tp/burn.html          
** Registration Number: 103931,  http://counter.li.org **