World Soccer Thread II

[Lawrence of Arabia]

When's the last time you saw it, LoA? The MLS has improved dramatically and, I'd say, are probably as good as the Mexican league. 10 years makes a load of difference.

last year - and i watched the first game too, so im in the know. yeah, its an improvment, but year 1 of MLS wasnt soccer, it was kickball. and mexican league is only marginally worse then MLS. in fact, lemme rephrase, mexican league soccer blows chunks. for 80 minutes, all you see are one on one dribbling action, no passing or teamwork at all. then in the last 10 minutes, they realize that they have to score to win, so they put together all of two passes. very boring.

mls is different because no one can dribble the way mexicans do. everyone cluster****s, no one settles the ball, defenders make stupid decisions and panic, wingers play poor cross balls, and the players never stop running to think, its always forward forward forward, attack, plus there is no creativity, and no 20+ meter shot threat, and no set play specialists.

[Imran Siddiqui]

VJ, MLS is Major League Soccer, the US's league. Like Maq, I must say it is better than a lot of league's football which focus on negative tactics. The MLS is very much influenced by England and thus to attacking football.

[Az]

La Liga

[Lawrence of Arabia]

ugh, just how young are they?

late teens, early 20s.

[Az]

I don't know about women, but men are already doing some serious damage at those years.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

VJ, MLS is Major League Soccer, the US's league. Like Maq, I must say it is better than a lot of league's football which focus on negative tactics. The MLS is very much influenced by England and thus to attacking football.

and how many times have the english won the WC? thats right once. what about the negative tactics of the italians? yeah, theyve won it a coupla times more. not to say it isnt boring, but all attack, all the time is not the way to win games.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


and how many times have the english won the WC? thats right once. what about the negative tactics of the italians? yeah, theyve won it a coupla times more. not to say it isnt boring, but all attack, all the time is not the way to win games.

Brazil?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Brazil?

even brazil doesnt play that way. the brazilians play keep away, and make millions of short passes back and forth in the middle of the field. its not all attack, all the time.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
even brazil doesnt play that way. the brazilians play keep away, and make millions of short passes back and forth in the middle of the field. its not all attack, all the time.

Neither do England play all attack, all game, and if you saw them against France in 2004 you wouldve seen how painfully true that is.

But also you only have to look back to their last 2 matches, they were having 60-70% possession versus Azerbaijan and sometimes N. Ireland too but there was always lots of sideways movement when there was no room for a low pass, its called controlling the game.

[Locutus]

English football isn't attacking. English football is blindly kicking the ball upfield and hoping some good will come out of it. There's no overall strategy behind it whatsoever

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Locutus
English football isn't attacking. English football is blindly kicking the ball upfield and hoping some good will come out of it. There's no overall strategy behind it whatsoever

It beats trying to pass it into the net. You've won the World Cup how many times?

[Krill]

Locutus, at least our national team talks to each other...

[Maquiladora]

You jest but its not far off the mark even now. I suppose its the best we could do when we had no one that could run past players with it. Now we have Gerrard, Lampard, Joe Cole, Rooney and Owen when he feels like not falling over, we should be able to beat players with more than a high boot upfield and a strong wind.

When we get nervous or sometimes randomly the old long ball tactic seems to come out still, even against Azerbaijan the full-backs were occaisionally doing it, when keeping it on the floor and hold of possession was the better plan.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
and how many times have the english won the WC? thats right once. what about the negative tactics of the italians? yeah, theyve won it a coupla times more. not to say it isnt boring, but all attack, all the time is not the way to win games.

And boring football is supposed to win fans in the US? The only way to get more fans is to make the football exciting. MLS isn't playing for the WC. The national team also is a very attacking team and are having success. If you wanted them to go to negative tactics to be more successful, that's an entirely different thing. They CAN actually compete for the WC.

We are talking about bringing fans into the game in the US and having something exciting to watch in soccer stadiums on Saturdays in this country.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by reds4ever
You've won the World Cup how many times?

If I have to choose between reaching 3 finals (of which 1 was won) and 5 semi finals on major tournaments in 40 years with the best football in the world, or 1 WC and 2 semi finals in the same amount of time with absolutely horrible football, I'll pick the Netherlands over England any day