[WC 14] GROUP B: Australia, Chile, Netherlands & Spain

[dfens]

Not to mention a high press exists since at least the 70s

Yes, I know about it, but it wasn't used so agressively and cohesively partly because it was rarely used in a combination with a ruthless possession game created to starve the adversary. Also, you can't compare the 70s with the 00s as defenses are completely different and thus pressing is completely different. I can't believe I'm arguing that tiki-taka is a unique brand of football. Might as well say that the ball is round since the 19th century.

[DAF86]

so what would of been a hard path? play against that brasil? play against no defense argentina? play against ghana? usa? england? mexico? south korea?

Arguably they had almost the hardest possible path. Here's why.
The teams that lost in the 1/8 are: south korea, usa, slovakia, chile, mexico, england, japan and portugal. Out of these portugal was (almost easily) the best team.
The teams that lost in the 1/4 are: paraguay, argentina, brazil, ghana. I might say that brazil looked stronger but not by much.
the teams that lost in the 1/2 are: germany, uruguay. Clearly they beat the best team.
Netherlands in the finals.

So that's the best possible 1/8 opponent, the second best 1/4 opponent, the best SF opponent and NED no2 elo/fifa rankings in the finals.

HOW THE IS THAT AN EASY PATH?

the lowest scoring champ because all the other teams were dominated and thus parked the bus to prevent conceding. Why not mention of the best defenses of all time helped by tiki-takanacio.
@the only big game they won was with a puyol header on a corner so the finals is not a big game??? Not to mention that vs germany they outclassed them and forced löw to publicly declare they were beaten by a better team.


cmon son if you want to debate at least come with something reasonable, this is garbage.

Dude, you're talking bull after another. I already proved that Portugal was a mediocre team, Chile was clearly better than them, same with England, in fact no team that lost in the 1/8 stage was clearly worst than Portugal.

And lol at Paraguay being better than Argentina.

[dfens]

The are you talking about? Portugal won just 1 game, that being North Korea, one of the worst teams to be a part of the WC in recent memory.

they also got draws with brazil and a strong ivory coast(prime drogba, kalou, keita, toure, gervinho) in what everybody dubbed the group of death. Not bad by any means.

These are the teams that qualified in the knock out stage in 2010 other than portugal. Bold means clearly better than portugal. Italic means arguably on the same level, normal is clearly worse.
uruguay, south korea, usa, ghana, netherlands, slovakia, brasil, chile, argentina, mexico, germany, england, paraguay, japan, spain
with uruguay being better(not clearly) because they were on a roll.
So you can argue that portugal was the in the 5-7 best teams at the tournament. That's a great team imo.

[dfens]

Dude, you're talking bull after another. I already proved that Portugal was a mediocre team, Chile was clearly better than them, same with England, in fact no team that lost in the 1/8 stage was clearly worst than Portugal.

And lol at Paraguay being better than Argentina.

I don't see any proof.

England that came second in a group with algeria slovenia and usa and got curbstomped by the germans. Are you nuts?
Chile were a bad match for spain, against a different good team they suffered badly. Portugal would of gave netherlands a run for their money. It doesn't matter as spain beat both teams.
Japan/sout korea. really? I mean REALLY?
slovakia that drawed with new zealand, got beaten clearly by paraguay and beat lolitaly? For real?
usa ?
I'll concede mexico on a GREAT day were about the same as portugal on a normal day.

stop being sour. Paraguay could defend, argentina could not, and it matters, as we can see from the qualification group for 2010 wc where they had 5 more points than argentia and the head to head results were 1-1 and a 1-0 for paraguay. Reality check son.

[DAF86]

they also got draws with brazil and a strong ivory coast(prime drogba, kalou, keita, toure, gervinho) in what everybody dubbed the group of death. Not bad by any means.

These are the teams that qualified in the knock out stage in 2010 other than portugal. Bold means clearly better than portugal. Italic means arguably on the same level, normal is clearly worse.
uruguay, south korea, usa, ghana, netherlands, slovakia, brasil, chile, argentina, mexico, germany, england, paraguay, japan, spain
with uruguay being better(not clearly) because they were on a roll.
So you can argue that portugal was the in the 5-7 best teams at the tournament. That's a great team imo.

I quoted you because you said Portugal was a "great team", nothing that you say there screams "great" to me.

[Franklin]

Spain = S-Pain, tbh

[DAF86]

I don't see any proof.

England that came second in a group with algeria slovenia and usa and got curbstomped by the germans. Are you nuts?
Chile were a bad match for spain, against a different good team they suffered badly. Portugal would of gave netherlands a run for their money. It doesn't matter as spain beat both teams.
Japan/sout korea. really? I mean REALLY?
slovakia that drawed with new zealand, got beaten clearly by paraguay and beat lolitaly? For real?
usa ?
I'll concede mexico on a GREAT day were about the same as portugal on a normal day.

stop being sour. Paraguay could defend, argentina could not, and it matters, as we can see from the qualification group for 2010 wc where they had 5 more points than argentia and the head to head results were 1-1 and a 1-0 for paraguay. Reality check son.

England got ed against Germany. If they call that clear goal who knows what would happen. Dude, you said Portugal was a great team, they weren't. Just accept it.

[dfens]

England got ed against Germany. If they call that clear goal who knows what would happen. Dude, you said Portugal was a great team, they weren't. Just accept it.

you can only be great compared to your compe ion. I did not say an "all-time-great". A team ranked 5-7 team in the world is a great team, isn't it? Sure, it wasn't netherlands level, but it played some great football.

And what's this with england? Don't you remember the shameful way they qualified from the group, that they played NOTHING in the easiest imaginable group in the last 20 years? That tactically they played some of the most horrendous offense? That wasn't a team, it was a collection of players. If you can't win a group with algeria/usa/slovenia you can't pretend you are a top 10 side. It doesn't matter that you get ed on a single call. They would of still lost the game vs germany, it was plain obvious the germans were the superior side. One side was playing football and the other was just kicking it upfront. Even the arrogant and delusional english media said it.

[it's me]

[diego]

so what would of been a hard path? play against that brasil? play against no defense argentina? play against ghana? usa? england? mexico? south korea?

Arguably they had almost the hardest possible path. Here's why.
The teams that lost in the 1/8 are: south korea, usa, slovakia, chile, mexico, england, japan and portugal. Out of these portugal was (almost easily) the best team.
The teams that lost in the 1/4 are: paraguay, argentina, brazil, ghana. I might say that brazil looked stronger but not by much.
the teams that lost in the 1/2 are: germany, uruguay. Clearly they beat the best team.
Netherlands in the finals.

So that's the best possible 1/8 opponent, the second best 1/4 opponent, the best SF opponent and NED no2 elo/fifa rankings in the finals.

HOW THE IS THAT AN EASY PATH?

the lowest scoring champ because all the other teams were dominated and thus parked the bus to prevent conceding. Why not mention of the best defenses of all time helped by tiki-takanacio.
@the only big game they won was with a puyol header on a corner so the finals is not a big game??? Not to mention that vs germany they outclassed them and forced löw to publicly declare they were beaten by a better team.


cmon son if you want to debate at least come with something reasonable, this is garbage.

Even if I concede that the had the hardest possible path (they didn't, outside of Germany they played nothing but ), that doesn't make them a goat team and it doesn't make tiki taka some kind of revolutionary concept. They were lucky to win the WC, getting out of their group thanks to a huge blunder by the chile goalie, bad Reffing vs paraguay, and a pathetic holland team in the final. If you read any match reviews from the time, be it Spanish or English press all of it was how disappointing spain was especially compared to the prior euros; after they won the revisionists like you got started. Tough luck they got on and now you can't twist it back. Blaming Costa when they were barely able to muster 5 chances in two games is a joke. And now you are twisting it into them having a great defense! What offensive power houses did they shut down? Gmafb. They won and I can't discredit that, in 2010 they seized their opportunity, but youll never convince me they are a goat team.

[Infinite_limit]

I also feel Spain's run is being currently overrated. I find Brazil 1994-2002 more impressive

2 x les
3 x Final

A complete team. No gimmicky offense

[dfens]

Even if I concede that the had the hardest possible path (they didn't, outside of Germany they played nothing but ), that doesn't make them a goat team and it doesn't make tiki taka some kind of revolutionary concept.

my friend, at each round they got the best possible team. Let's be reasonable, you win a world cup by beating your opposition. Sure there weren't 70's level of amazing teams as opponents but they still beat the best/2nd best team each round thus it was a hard path.

Again, all the ingredients were there (high pressing (old germany), short passing with bursts(france), a great ball retention game(brazil), interchanging of player roles (dutch total football)) but no team in history choked other teams out of football by using possession as a defensive measure.

They were lucky to win the WC, getting out of their group thanks to a huge blunder by the chile goalie, bad Reffing vs paraguay, and a pathetic holland team in the final. If you read any match reviews from the time, be it Spanish or English press all of it was how disappointing spain was especially compared to the prior euros; after they won the revisionists like you got started.

uncalled for.
All champions need a bit of luck. Even brasil 70s was lucky italy was dog tired after it's SF with germany.
If you remeber the 2010 wc people were dissapponited with spain not scoring more but a minority saw the beauty of their possession game as a prevention/defensive game. They controlled matches with that, that's why I said they were a great defensive side, not because they were great at defending (they were good, not great) but because you didn't get the ball to create chances against them. Ironically, tiki-taka is truly unique from a defensive standpoint, thus tiki-takanacio. It's pretty logical if you look at it this way and if the purpose is to win games it's an excellent system if you have the required players.

Tough luck they got on and now you can't twist it back. Blaming Costa when they were barely able to muster 5 chances in two games is a joke. And now you are twisting it into them having a great defense! What offensive power houses did they shut down? Gmafb. They won and I can't discredit that, in 2010 they seized their opportunity, but youll never convince me they are a goat team.

I don't want to twist anything. At this wc they sucked donkey and lolspain .
i don't blaim costa, I blaim del bosque for ing up tactics completely and not utilizing the game style that best fitted the players, in which they also had alot of experience. I actually find it unfair to blaim costa because his game is incompatible with what spain should have played. All the players looked lost out there and the coach is the logical answer for pointing fingers.

On the other hand they had a tremendous team in '10 that played a subtle brand of football which imo people really didn't understand.
germany (4 vs eng, 4 vs arg, 4 vs aus) , netherlands (3 vs uru, 2 vs brazil, 3 vs chile, won all games till final) , portugal (good games vs bra, vs ivory, rape vs north korea) were all good/very good attacking sides, scored none against spain.
euro, wc, euro is a goat side no matter how much you might dislike them.

[dfens]

I also feel Spain's run is being currently overrated. I find Brazil 1994-2002 more impressive

2 x les
3 x Final

A complete team. No gimmicky offense

wat?
two different teams as that 94 team and 2002 team had nothing in common in playstyle let alone team composition (ronaldo, carlos didn't play in 94, as far as I remember cafu was the only guy to play at all 3). Also, add copa americas.

That being said, great teams, I enjoyed watching those sides.

[velik_m]

Yeah, because how dare mighty European teams having problems against non European teams, right?

You really think that was the netherlands playing at 100%? You did watch them play at any time before this game?

[diego]

my friend, at each round they got the best possible team. Let's be reasonable, you win a world cup by beating your opposition. Sure there weren't 70's level of amazing teams as opponents but they still beat the best/2nd best team each round thus it was a hard path.

Again, all the ingredients were there (high pressing (old germany), short passing with bursts(france), a great ball retention game(brazil), interchanging of player roles (dutch total football)) but no team in history choked other teams out of football by using possession as a defensive measure.



uncalled for.
All champions need a bit of luck. Even brasil 70s was lucky italy was dog tired after it's SF with germany.
If you remeber the 2010 wc people were dissapponited with spain not scoring more but a minority saw the beauty of their possession game as a prevention/defensive game. They controlled matches with that, that's why I said they were a great defensive side, not because they were great at defending (they were good, not great) but because you didn't get the ball to create chances against them. Ironically, tiki-taka is truly unique from a defensive standpoint, thus tiki-takanacio. It's pretty logical if you look at it this way and if the purpose is to win games it's an excellent system if you have the required players.



I don't want to twist anything. At this wc they sucked donkey and lolspain .
i don't blaim costa, I blaim del bosque for ing up tactics completely and not utilizing the game style that best fitted the players, in which they also had alot of experience. I actually find it unfair to blaim costa because his game is incompatible with what spain should have played. All the players looked lost out there and the coach is the logical answer for pointing fingers.

On the other hand they had a tremendous team in '10 that played a subtle brand of football which imo people really didn't understand.
germany (4 vs eng, 4 vs arg, 4 vs aus) , netherlands (3 vs uru, 2 vs brazil, 3 vs chile, won all games till final) , portugal (good games vs bra, vs ivory, rape vs north korea) were all good/very good attacking sides, scored none against spain.
euro, wc, euro is a goat side no matter how much you might dislike them.

My whole point is that hardest path /= historically tough path. I can accept that 2010 Spain played best, but let me put it this way- are 2010 Brazil, germany, Italy, Argentina, holland, France top 3 in their respective histories? The answer is a resounding no.

Luck always plays a part, but 2010 Spain would have had a better argument for goat status if they had dominated their relatively weak opposition. But they didn't. (For ex maradona's Argentina teams were supremely lucky but they got past really great teams and that made them memorable, though not goat TEAMS imo).

Some of your attack numbers are wrong. Holland didn't play chile in 2010, that was Brazil. The 2 goals they scored vs Brazil, one was a pathetic unforced own goal, they got to Brazil's goal at most 4 times in the entire match. Look back at Hollands campaign and you will see they also were very fortunate, Japan for example gave them fits. As for Germany scoring 4 vs all those teams, those are all flawed teams and in Argentina and England's case once you are down in knock out you have to go out and look for the tie leaving space behind, like atletico this past UCL final or barca a year before. Thats not indicative of their real offensive weight. They went scoreless vs Serbia and had one goal vs Ghana (both games qualification still in doubt); are Serbia and Ghana great, all time great defensive sides too? The point remains, 2010 Germany didn't have a great attack, neither did Portugal, holland, or Paraguay.

I'm ready to agree to disagree. I can respect this Spain team for getting over their history of ting the bed every major compe ion but that doesn't put them with Cruyff holland or beckenbauer Germany or the Brazil super teams or even maradonas Argentina teams which were weaker overall but fun to watch. Tiki takanacio as you call it is imo terrible for the sport, at least catenaccio teams try to counter attack which is exciting. Lateral passes with no forwards is boring as .

[lefty]

diego dropping truth bombs IMO


Game, set and match

[dfens]

My whole point is that hardest path /= historically tough path. I can accept that 2010 Spain played best, but let me put it this way- are 2010 Brazil, germany, Italy, Argentina, holland, France top 3 in their respective histories? The answer is a resounding no.

Luck always plays a part, but 2010 Spain would have had a better argument for goat status if they had dominated their relatively weak opposition. But they didn't. (For ex maradona's Argentina teams were supremely lucky but they got past really great teams and that made them memorable, though not goat TEAMS imo).

I agree that they didn't go against GOAT teams, but usually there is no more than 1, max 2, goat team per tournament and this is getting increasingly rare due to modern marking making life very difficult even for stacked teams. These little ty ankle taps you see so much today led to tikitakanacio (and widespread diving) in the first place imo because a technical side these days is at a disadvantage with such being permitted. You either play physical or you need to play fast and keep the ball. You rarely see waltzing in midfield nowadays. Compare 10s game to the 90s and you'll be shocked at the differences in marking and the tactical problems that it bring for offenses.

I disagree on not dominating. Tikitakanacio sucks for the sport (unless you bet where it was GREAT) but is a tremendous system when played right which makes 1-0 look like 3-0s. In germany when we went 0-1 in 2010 we knew there was no chance in of coming back.

Some of your attack numbers are wrong. Holland didn't play chile in 2010, that was Brazil. The 2 goals they scored vs Brazil, one was a pathetic unforced own goal, they got to Brazil's goal at most 4 times in the entire match. Look back at Hollands campaign and you will see they also were very fortunate, Japan for example gave them fits. As for Germany scoring 4 vs all those teams, those are all flawed teams and in Argentina and England's case once you are down in knock out you have to go out and look for the tie leaving space behind, like atletico this past UCL final or barca a year before. Thats not indicative of their real offensive weight. They went scoreless vs Serbia and had one goal vs Ghana (both games qualification still in doubt); are Serbia and Ghana great, all time great defensive sides too? The point remains, 2010 Germany didn't have a great attack, neither did Portugal, holland, or Paraguay.

bold = dfens , brainfart
Again, I always judge given the compe ion, when I say great I mean compared to the other teams at the tournament not all time great.
I didn't say paraguay had a great attack. The rest were great/good compared to compe ion, not all-time-great.

Each champion won with some doubts. 2002 brasil had some really tough tight matches. 1998 france barely got by croatia. 1994 brasil had some tough games too. 1990 we won with alot of luck. 1986 is a miracle run by a goat player. And so on. If you imply it was a bad era it was so due to a leveling of the playing field imo. Japan/south korea were stingy teams that forced others to consume alot of energy. england had a super stacked team but that wasn't enough against the behemots of algeria/slovenia/usa. Since the 1990s the marking has changed alot and many non-eu, non-sa teams have evolved, look at the wc quarters and you'll see much more variety than 20 years ago.

I'm ready to agree to disagree. I can respect this Spain team for getting over their history of ting the bed every major compe ion but that doesn't put them with Cruyff holland or beckenbauer Germany or the Brazil super teams or even maradonas Argentina teams which were weaker overall but fun to watch. Tiki takanacio as you call it is imo terrible for the sport, at least catenaccio teams try to counter attack which is exciting. Lateral passes with no forwards is boring as .

from a "fun to watch, great for the sport" perspective you are totally right. But from a getting the job done perspective the 00s spain team was a monster, much like the 00s spurs, no glamor just sucking the life out of the game. Somebody best described tikitakanacio as "parking the bus and putting the ball under the bus". Yes, it sucked to watch for the casual fan and the free flowing game fan but from a tactical standpoint it was some cold blooded calculated that some fans like me adored (even from an aesthetic pov)

Regarding their GOAT status. Look at this run of matches in knock out stages:
2008: 0-0 vs italy (won penaldos), 3-0 vs russia (who beat a good netherlands side to get there), 1-0 germany
2010: 1-0 portugal, 1-0 paraguay, 1-0 germany, 1-0 netherlands
2012: 2-0 france, 0-0 portugal(won penaldos), 4-0 italy (unlucky italians with the injuries )
0 goals received in 10 knock out games, that's unheard of. while winning. That's domination, their luck was in no way greater or lesser then the luck of goat teams. Also the first team to win outside europe.

Cruyff netherlands were the ultimate arrogant losers imo. Ultra talented but couldn't get the job done because they weren't 100% mentally there. They were up and down because of of this and lost when it matterd most. IMO you can't be a GOAT team when you can't win a trophy. At least win a euro if not a wc.
The germany and brazil teams are uncontested GOATs.

great post

[Venti Quattro]

[Infinite_limit]

If you aren't good enough for Spain, why would Real keep him?

[Venti Quattro]

If you aren't good enough for Spain, why would Real keep him?

Because tactically he was a redundancy. Sergio could do what he's doing plus he isn't slow. But apparently the Spanish players hate the Madridistas. Him, Casillas and Arbeloa

[Infinite_limit]

Because tactically he was a redundancy. Sergio could do what he's doing plus he isn't slow. But apparently the Spanish players hate the Madridistas. Him, Casillas and Arbeloa

All 3 play for Real. Seems like bitterness to me

[Venti Quattro]

All 3 play for Real. Seems like bitterness to me

It's not like Madrid players are known for an exemplary at ude record.

[Infinite_limit]

Who do you guys like in Netherlands vs Chile?



Winner faces Mexico/Croatia [and then Italy]

2nd place faces Brazil

[Infinite_limit]

REMAINING GAMES
Chile vs Netherlands
Australia vs Spain

[Venti Quattro]

Spain is imploding and regas is showing his Chelsea blue

Yeah, good move not to re-sign this ****