What style of football do you find most aesthetically pleasing?

[Guest Nikica]

The dicsussion of Stoke's 'terrible' style made me wonder what sort of football people find most pleasing on here.

 

Do you like fast-paced counter-attacking football with lots of crosses and chances in an end-to-end game? Do you prefer the possession game: watching one team try to break down another in a patient, tactical, chess-like battle? Do you enjoy a brilliant defensive performance more than an attacking masterclass? Do you like the Dutch view of total football where every player can play in every position (linked to the possession style via Cruyff etc)?

 

I'm sure most of us have an appreciation to some degree for all these styles, but I thought I would ask. It's a very subjective thing but I'd be interested in people's views.

[marcus jones]

High pressing, high tempo, compressive from back to front, swift tactical alternating athletic keep ball players. Milan from 88-91, grew up looking at awe at this team consisting of Barresi, Tassoti, Van Basten, Gullit, Rijkard, Maldini, Ancelloti etc..... ask you a question though............. does your philosophy on football change with age? I was 14 when Milan won the European cup in 89, must admit a fondness to Tikki - Takka Barca style from last years Champions League final at 36 years of age!!!

[Guest Nikica]

High pressing, high tempo, compressive from back to front, swift tactical alternating athletic keep ball players. Milan from 88-91, grew up looking at awe at this team consisting of Barresi, Tassoti, Van Basten, Gullit, Rijkard, Maldini, Ancelloti etc..... ask you a question though............. does your philosophy on football change with age? I was 14 when Milan won the European cup in 89, must admit a fondness to Tikki - Takka Barca style from last years Champions League final at 36 years of age!!!

 

Seems I can post in here now.

 

Yeah, I agree that that Milan style was exceptional, even if I was still a bit young for them to influence me as much as later teams. They and Barca are the best sides of the last 25 years for me. Fairly different styles though - I'd love to see that match

 

I genuinely think it does mate. When I was a kid, I loved all the fast-paced flash football, with wingers constantly beating people and scoring spectacular goals. I still love that now, but when I hit my late teens I developed much more appreciation for patient, passing football, which has been perfected best in this era by Barcelona (other teams did it as well in other eras). I developed an appreciation for trequartistas and registas in particular (although didn't really understand what they were until later, but I liked what I was watching). This was in parallel to me as a player - I was a flash, fast winger as a kid who didn't pass much or think of team play, but when I hit about my mid to late teens I looked for the pass more and was really interested in team cohesion and passing football rather than trying to beat everyone myself. I think Juventus of the 90s were a big influence on this - they played very good passing football and left a big impression on me at ages 14-18 in the days of Nedved, Zidane, Del Piero, Conte, Davids, Inzaghi et al. Ajax played a part as well.

 

I turned 30 on the 14th of this month, so you could say that with age people's tastes become more sophisticated. It's understandable that the young kids love the flash players etc, but I do believe with age and experience we become more appreciative of different styles.

 

I remember Matt saying he wanted to post in here (when we were having issues with the site breaking), so I would love to hear what he and everyone else thinks.

Edited May 20, 2012 by Nikica

[Matt]

I like football - not Olympic diving, not hollywood acting... Football is a contact sport and im so sick and tired of people sneezing next to another and causing 3 players to drop to the floor like theyve been shot.

 

I also hate the spanish style of football, the boring the opposition to death with passes. Really irritates me that theyre considered the best when all they do is pass it 5 yards each time and whenever theres any physical pressure they roll around dying. Holland proved that they cant cope with pressure, not sure why people havent cottoned on. They play maybe 5-10minutes of exciting moves and if their football was like that the whole time, that would be my preferred style.

 

Overall, I prefer to see a mix of styles, just so long as its not hoofball. Long ball football is just frustrating.

 

I preferred my 1st response but lost it now

[Guest Nikica]

I also hate the spanish style of football, the boring the opposition to death with passes. Really irritates me that theyre considered the best when all they do is pass it 5 yards each time and whenever theres any physical pressure they roll around dying. Holland proved that they cant cope with pressure, not sure why people havent cottoned on. They play maybe 5-10minutes of exciting moves and if their football was like that the whole time, that would be my preferred style.

 

 

Fair enough, I couldn't disagree more though. 'Passing five yards' is such an over-simplification.Passing the ball and retaining possession is the most important aspect of football (other than scoring obviously, but you get what I mean). Spain do that partially for defensive reasons, yes, but moreso as a way to build attacks. They keep the ball, tiring the other team out, and when they spot a gap they change the entire pace and exploit said gap. Why exactly would they want to concede the ball? Keeping the ball is a massive part of football.

 

Sometimes I enjoy watching Spain or Barcelona play a team who plays defensively as well (although not to the extent of Chelsea this year) as I find it tactically fascinating - attack v defence, a chess match if you will. Think Spain v Germany 2010 semi.

 

Barcelona and (to a lesser extent) Spain play the best football in the world in my opinion. I've lost count of how many times I have been entertained by Barcelona. Some people prefer 'fast' end-to-end football like in the PL, where the only reason it's end-to-end is because each team is incapable of actually keeping possession. I enjoy that sort of thing too but, truthfully, for me it's not as entertaining as Barca or Spain's style, and it's also a much easier style of football to pull off. The passing game which the Dutch and more recently Spanish teams have played over the years is the pinnacle of the sport, in my eyes. It's the hardest style to master and the pinnacle of team play, as it requires the team to be extremely cohesive. It truly does result in some spectacular football.

 

I've heard this claim about Barca and Spain being boring before and it makes no sense to me. Why is keeping the ball, changing the pace of the game when needs be etc boring? Do you remember the first twenty minutes of Barca's CL QF against Arsenal at Emirates in 2010? They hammered Arsenal, peppering their goal with shot after shot (even though they didn't score). It was an amazing twenty minutes and I have seen nothing like it since, from another team. As you say, if they played like that the whole time it would be your preferred style, but it's impossible to sustain that over 90 mins - especially given the pressing work they do without the ball. That's why they don't do it constantly in each game.

 

As for your claim that Spain 'can't deal with pressure', I don't agree with that for a second and I don't think Holland proved anything, other than how to hack and kick your way to nearly winning the World Cup. Was horrible to see a Dutch team of all teams play the way they did in that final. Even Cruyff was disgusted by them. I've always had a major soft spot for Holland but they kicked Spain off the park that night. But, yes, it would have worked for them had Robben taken his chances.

 

Don't take offence to this by the way - it's nothing personal.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Nikica

[Dalziel Kane]

I've seen some few instances of soccer recently (I don't wish to disclose such teams) but you get the picture, where it was largely camp in your own half, stifle the opposition and the game with it, and get a result from a rare forage forward and largely soak up pressure, bore the crowd to death and try an attack for about 2 per cent of the game and get lucky with it, this is no way to win, and it fucks me off sometimes, it really does when any given team gets some production out of it, when really there should be no reward at all

 

More often than not, Teams that win soccer tourneys are never the best side, France 1998, Italy 2006, Denmark 1992, Greece 2004, West Germany 1990 even, but while there's not much anyone can do about it now, I always like to see some attacking play and worthy champs, teams that earn a success, Italy towards the latter stages in '82 and Brazil 1970 would be great examples of this as with Holland in 1988 most likely, the team that usually finishes as champs is not always the best side all said, I know soccer is a strange game someone once said, but I can't help but feel agitated when I look back sometimes.

[Guest Nikica]

I've seen some few instances of soccer recently (I don't wish to disclose such teams) but you get the picture, where it was largely camp in your own half, stifle the opposition and the game with it, and get a result from a rare forage forward and largely soak up pressure, bore the crowd to death and try an attack for about 2 per cent of the game and get lucky with it, this is no way to win, and it fucks me off sometimes, it really does when any given team gets some production out of it, when really there should be no reward at all

 

More often than not, Teams that win soccer tourneys are never the best side, France 1998, Italy 2006, Denmark 1992, Greece 2004, West Germany 1990 even, but while there's not much anyone can do about it now, I always like to see some attacking play and worthy champs, teams that earn a success, Italy towards the latter stages in '82 and Brazil 1970 would be great examples of this as with Holland in 1988 most likely, the team that usually finishes as champs is not always the best side all said, I know soccer is a strange game someone once said, but I can't help but feel agitated when I look back sometimes.

 

Aye. Packing the defensive third is the 'great equaliser' in football. Obviously Chelsea would have been stupid to try anything else against Barca, but it doesn't mean purists have to like it.

 

Read this comment elsewhere:

 

"barcelona won it last year playing the best football ever,puyol letting abidal collect the cup after recovering from cancer.and then you get chelsea playing the worst football ever,and terry crawling out of the sewers , and grovelling to go up for the cup."

Edited May 23, 2012 by Nikica

[Matt]

no worries mate, I understand your points and even agree with some of them, it can be exciting for small portions of the game. Overall though, for me its tedious. You can go and get a beer from the fridge come back and they'll still be passing it around. And they cant deal with physical contact, its clear as day. Theyre too eager to go down (wish my wife was as eager). Possession is a huge part of football but goals win games and bring the excitement - thats at least what I watch the game for. winning the World Cup with a record-low number of goals scored (8 goals in total). Though they also set a record of conceeding the fewest ever too, which backs your point up. But for me, they stopped people scoring (so missed on excitment there) and hardly scored themselves (missed out there too). Thats boring for me.

 

Anyway, think we both know where each other stands on this, each to their own