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

21–30 of 53 posts

Re: In praise of defensive football

#21

Post by 988747 »

shoto_io wrote: post #10
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…

It depends I'd say. Bayern played a lot like this in 2020, which also lead them winning the Champions League. The key difference to what you describe was that they circulated the ball waiting for a chance to play an extremely fast attacking leading to a goal. Like an explosion after a few rounds of slow passing.

The key thing here is: Bayern has the best striker in the world, Lewandowski. So they will keep passing the ball around, until the opportunity arises to pass to him, and he knows what to do with such gift. Spain in the Euro tried to play the same tactics, but they lack a good striker, making the whole game incredibly boring.

Re: In praise of defensive football

#22

Post by bodyfour »

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…

From wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_football#Duration_...

> Added time was introduced because of an incident which happened in 1891 during a match between Stoke and Aston Villa. Trailing 1–0 and with just two minutes remaining, Stoke were awarded a penalty. Villa's goalkeeper kicked the ball out of the ground, and by the time the ball had been recovered, the 90 minutes had elapsed and the game was over

If you didn't let the ref continue the game to their discretion it would make time-wasting tactics even worse. At least now if a team is adjudged to be taking the piss with the timewasting the ref can just mentally tack another minute or two onto the game. It's good that there isn't a "hard stop" that will end the game even if an attack is in full flow.

Re: In praise of defensive football

#23

Post by nemo44x »

bodyfour wrote: post #22
nemo44x wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

From wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_football#Duration_... > Added time was introduced because of an incident which happened in 1891 during a match between Stoke and Aston Villa. Trailing 1–0 and with just two minutes remaining, Stoke were awarded a penalty. Villa's goalkeeper kicked the ball out of the ground, and by the time the ball had been recovered, the 90 minutes had elapsed and the game w…

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.

Re: In praise of defensive football

#24

Post by bodyfour »

nemo44x wrote: post #23
bodyfour wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_football#Duration_... > Added time was introduced because of an incident which happened in 1891 during a match between Stoke and Aston Villa. Trailing 1–0 and with just two minutes remaining, Stoke were awarded a penalty. Villa's goalkeeper kicked the ball out of the ground, and by the time the ball had been recovered, the 90 minutes had elapsed and the game w…

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 like an eternity.

At least soccer's timekeeping has the benefit of being simple. It works the same way whether a match is being played in the park or in a huge stadium. Personally I prefer it to having a clock that stops and starts like other sports have.

Re: In praise of defensive football

#25

Post by bachmeier »

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, you open yourself to easy counterattacks. Possessing the ball in front of the other team's goalie is a different story, but of course that is many times harder to do.

Re: In praise of defensive football

#26

Post by protomyth »

duxup wrote: post #7
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…

There was a college hockey rivalry between North Dakota and Minnesota years ago that had this crazy contrast of styles. You'd have games with North Dakota with 12 shots on goal (crazy low numbers) and Minnesota with 40 or more shots on goal. The results, the games were still 3 to 4 and so on and very competitive. North Dakota would setup and just pass and pass. Minnesota would hang back defensively and wait for them…

Well, UND having Ed Belfour did help to keep the scoring down.

Re: In praise of defensive football

#27

Post by nemo44x »

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…

I think that's an apples to oranges comparison though. Clock management is part of the game in basketball and American football - teams are given timeouts and use tactics to stop the clock so they can setup a new play. In soccer, this doesn't exist and with an official clock that everyone could see and that the ref starts and stops (like they assumingely do today) the game would play like it does today. Just that the clock stops and restarts would be visible to everyone.

For instance, the ref wouldn't have to stop the clock for basic throw-ins, setting up corners, etc as that's part of the game. So long as it's done in a timely manner. But for flops/injuries, setting up bookings, substitutions, etc they could stop the clock and restart it when action resumes as they do privately today.

It just feels like having a single person secretly control the clock and make what appears to be arbitrary calls as to how much time is added and when play is officially over is odd.

I guess my point is the game could be played exactaly as it is today but there would be transparency on the game clock. The game isn't that tied to tradition using VAR after all.

Re: In praise of defensive football

#28

Post by Someone »

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.

Re: In praise of defensive football

#29

Post by jonwinstanley »

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…

Agreed, Barcelona between 2008-2012 had several of the greatest players on the planet at the time, and almost all had come through their own academy. Messi, Iniesta, Xavi, Puyol and Busquets. Plus in Guardiola, one of the greatest managers of all time.

Re: In praise of defensive football

#30

Post by jonwinstanley »

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…

It’s definitely been considered but football has some entrenched traditions and this change would be hard to get through. I don’t think fans would want it.

The rules state that the referee should add on any wasted time at the end, but it rarely seems to happen particularly accurately.

Post reply on HN