son they did us dirty more than once tbh.
come on son don't be an uppity beans tbh. I said that italy's style was largely based on a short initial rush and then on preserving the result. You could see it in the baggio teams, you could see it in the 70s teams, you could see it in the early catennacio teams and you could see it as late as pirlo/totti/inzaghi/vieri. So they weren't always all out defense.
And lmao saying they lost to a truly elite team after they played the GOAT overtime in the game of the century, these s were tired as ... kinda ignorant on your part son, even many 70s brasil players regularly mention this small "detail". Imo 70 brasil is crazy overrated, besides england and a dog tired italy they beat (uruguay included).
I agree you play to win, as long as it is by the letter of the law. There is no objectively liking or disliking a legal football style (total football, tiki-taka, catennacio, overlapping wings, counter attacking, kick and run etc), it's a matter of subjective aesthetics. On the other hand
1. one can objectively like the degree of skill required by a footballing style (tiki taka, total football >>>>>> kick and run). Tiki taka shows more footballing skill (technically & tactically) than kick and run, thus I like it more, objectively, as a football fan.
2. liking or disliking a cheating style is not subjective at all. If you are a real football fan you can't like:
- small cheats (henry scoring with his hand vs ireland, france winning over germany with that foodstamp penaldo)
- abusers (the spanish NT/barca/real rushing the ref with all the team)
- career cheats (italy running a flop training, regularly fouling for the sake of breaking bones, constantly being unsportsmanlike)
.... well, unless you come from a country where stealing is the law
You got poor takes son tbh.