Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In praise of defensive football

popula.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 53 posts

Re: In praise of defensive football

#31

Post by jonwinstanley »

phamilton wrote: post #16
User23 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funny thing is that the name soccer is of English origin[1] and is the more precise term, since it's short for Association Football. However, when one just says football it could be any number of ball games that involve using the feet at least some of the time[2]. [1] https://www.lexico.com/explore/whats-the-origin-of-the-word-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_types_of_football

What's more fun is the theory that "football" is not about how one contacts the ball but more about how one plays on foot rather than on a horse. The term "football" was derisive towards the games peasants play vs nobility playing games like polo.

I like this theory but in England, the standardised game was played mostly by the wealthy nobility around the years 1850-1880.

Working class people, such as in the teams from mill towns like Preston, Darwin and Blackburn joined the FA cup later on.

Re: In praise of defensive football

#32

Post by pertymcpert »

dekervin wrote: post #8
dkarl wrote: post #5

Ironically, the most unrelentingly boring and defensive style of soccer is to be on offense most of the game, by maintaining possession and doing nothing with it. I say "ironically" because teams that maintain possession and "build slowly" usually receive credit for aspiring to play beautiful attacking football. When it works, and the offense circulates the ball around in nimble interchanges until they pounce on an a…

You can think of different football styles as differents areas of a multidimensional space. Depending on your players strength, an area is better suited for your team. But the thing is, each of those area has a local maxima. You excelently described barcelona style circa 2010. But to play it and expect to win you need Iniesta AND Xavi BOTH. because you have to be able to take advantage of those 4 to 8 opportunities i…

> You excelently described barcelona style circa 2010. But to play it and expect to win you need Iniesta AND Xavi BOTH.

I agree, although at the risk of extending this to the entire midfield/defence, a deeply technical holding midfielder to create the midfield passing triangles with Xavi/Iniesta in Busquets is crucial.

Re: In praise of defensive football

#33

Post by tomc1985 »

nemo44x wrote: post #14
heyheyhey wrote: post #12

I love watching defensive football, teams like Atletico Madrid defeating the Barcelona in the 15-16 Champions League finals. What I hate watching is the time-wasting, injury faking shenanigans that defensive teams also do. Unfortunately, it's a part of the game due to football's insistence on using a running clock, which makes zero sense from a competitive aspect and needs to be changed.

> Unfortunately, it's a part of the game due to football's insistence on using a running clock, which makes zero sense from a competitive aspect and needs to be changed Can anyone explain why this is, either than historic reasons like "it's the way it has always been done."? It seems a bit odd in today's world that they don't have a clock that everyone can see and the ref having the ability to signal to stop and star…

A starting and stopping clock is one of the things I absolutely can't stand about American football. Games last entirely too long because of it. One of the things I like most about soccer is that games start and end quickly, and I can do other things with the evening. When I was a student in Europe I could meet up with some friends at a bar after class and be home in time for dinner.

Re: In praise of defensive football

#34

Post by ardit33 »

unabridged wrote: post #11

I've always wanted to see soccer played with two balls on the field. I think it would be many times more interesting.

haha... that would be wild. I bet it would look more like a middle school kids game, with two groups of each team chasing the two different balls.

Re: In praise of defensive football

#35

Post by dzonga »

defensive football is beatiful no doubt. but there's certain coaches like Diego simone, who take it to the extreme and end up implementing terrorist football. end of day, I would rather watch a defensive team, with creative flair upfront. not the current state of football with endless passes while trying to retain possession.

Re: In praise of defensive football

#36

Post by jabl »

If anyone is interested in the historical development of football tactics there's a pretty good book that covers it called Inverting the Pyramid, by Jonathan Wilson.

The title of the book refers to the broad trend going from a few defenders and lots of strikers to the modern game with the opposite.

Re: In praise of defensive football

#37

Post by bmm6o »

bodyfour wrote: post #24
nemo44x wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right but what I’m saying is why can’t the ref just stop the clock with a hand signal when the ball isn’t in play and restart it when it is? Every other sport with a clock that I’m aware of does this.

Well I guess my question would be are those sports really better for it? Anyone who has watched the fourth quarter of an American football game will know how paramount clock management is to that sport. Even more infuriating (for me) is basketball where the losing team is constantly stopping the clock with fouls to prevent the winning team from running down the final seconds... the last "minute" of the game can feel…

> Even more infuriating (for me) is basketball

The fact that a foul stops the clock isn't really the problem. The problem is the cost/benefit in that scenario favors stopping play with the intentional foul. Remember that the only reason stopping the clock even helps is because the foul (essentially) ends the opponent's possession. With a slightly different penalty (like a free throw but they keep the ball) that strategy is no longer viable.

Re: In praise of defensive football

#38

Post by dkarl »

Someone wrote: post #28
dkarl wrote: post #5

Ironically, the most unrelentingly boring and defensive style of soccer is to be on offense most of the game, by maintaining possession and doing nothing with it. I say "ironically" because teams that maintain possession and "build slowly" usually receive credit for aspiring to play beautiful attacking football. When it works, and the offense circulates the ball around in nimble interchanges until they pounce on an a…

I don’t see the continuous probing of a defense as “doing nothing”. A boxer will feint a zillion attacks, too, before going for the real one. That’s not “doing nothing”. It only becomes sterile if the team in possession of the ball plays the ball around without doing real probing. On the other hand, some probing may be so subtle that it takes an expert to see it.

True, my team might be compiling a detailed dossier of each opposing team's defensive weaknesses so we can make a clean sweep of the league next year.

If so, we are playing our cards very close to the chest.

Re: In praise of defensive football

#39

Post by barrkel »

bachmeier wrote: post #25
dkarl wrote: post #5

Ironically, the most unrelentingly boring and defensive style of soccer is to be on offense most of the game, by maintaining possession and doing nothing with it. I say "ironically" because teams that maintain possession and "build slowly" usually receive credit for aspiring to play beautiful attacking football. When it works, and the offense circulates the ball around in nimble interchanges until they pounce on an a…

> This is how Barcelona played some of the most beautiful football of all time. I'm going to go out on a limb and say having way more money than almost all of your opponents had something to do with it too. Oh, and having Messi might have been of some importance as well. I'd like to see some data that shows I'm wrong, but I haven't seen anything to suggest it's helpful to possess the ball at midfield. If anything, yo…

Possessing the ball in midfield isn't useful if the opposing team is entirely between you and the goal. If, however, you pass through the other team's forwards to your midfield, then it's different; you've taken some of the opposition out of the game for a time.

On the other hand, your midfield will be immediately under pressure and they have to do something with the ball. All too often, you see midfield players simply pass it back to the back four, resulting in a gradual press rather than risking an attack.

Re: In praise of defensive football

#40

Post by barrkel »

vp8989 wrote: post #19
lordnacho wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the key is that possession and attacking are not actually as connected as it seems to the casual observer. If you get the ball back in your own box, are you defending or attacking? My problem with the tiki-taka is exactly what you describe. Pass it around but do very little, wear out everyone's patience while you wait for a gap to open up. Even recent versions of Barca and Spain have felt this way at times, t…

The evolution from this seems to be to overload just one side of the pitch (or effectively just a quarter of it, instead of the entire opposition half) while leaving a wide attacker on the other side for a quick switch of play. The defending team is then forced into either committing more defenders into the overloaded side (and leaving 0 or 1 defenders to cover the lone winger) or staying symmetrical and thus likely…

Spinazzola was one of Italy's best players until he got injured. He practically acted like an extra player, converting from a back to a forward as the team pushed on. Again, overloading the left.

The Italy-Spain match was one of the best I've ever watched. But if Spinazzola hadn't gotten injured, I think Italy wouldn't have had to rely on penalties for Spain and England.

Post reply on HN