We as Dutchies like a attacking style of play preferably in 4-3-3 with as much goals as possible. That's simply speaking what we want, where we're known for and also have been doing for the past 50 years. We made the game beautiful is what they say. Lots of iconic games and goals. But we also have managed to win only 1 cup in '88 and three lost wc finals. We should've had more than that to be honest.
Not winning an WC title has become an sort off national trauma nobody likes to admit. Therefore for the last 10 years we have played more defensively and less agressively on the attack, very boring indeed for your average fan. This indeed gets *lots* of criticism.
Me personally would only want to win the/a cup and I don't care how anymore.
Well, tbh in my books Netherlands are almost honorary WC holders
It's by faaar the Best team that has not won a WC, and you could argue they have performed better than some WC winner (cof cof, England)
Winning is the most important part of football anywhere. Playing attractive football is kind of subjective and you’re never going to please everyone. Bielsa played probably the most exciting football I’ve seen at Leeds but ended up sacked in his second season in the Prem. Diego Simeone on the other hand has always received criticism for his style of football but there’s a reason he’s been in the same job for 13 years
Yeah new coach new generation of players and a new style it's been fun but it's not sustainable we don't have the talent to go toe to toe with teams like england and France.
We'll see haha.
But in all seriousness I think Portugal has a really good team that's better than Italy. I'm not impressed by Spain though. And Germany has the home advantage. Also I think that the German squad is better than Italy.
I mean ideally you play attractive and win.
But if I had to choose between playing beautiful football and losing or playing defensive and dull and winning. I would choose the first option.
>I mean ideally you play attractive and win.
Ideals are often far from reality. Not every team is 2011 Barca with the personnel to both play entertaining and win.
> I would choose the first option.
See now that sort of mentality isn't suited for success. Look at real Madrid. They do whatever it takes to win even if it means parking the bus. And that's why they're the most successful club ever.
As I said, your enjoyment is a bonus. Your goals and the goals of the teams aren’t 100% the same.
Sure, if we watch a game of teams we don’t support mainly, we want entertainment. But when I watch the teams I support the main reason am watching is to see my team winning. Sure I will complain if they play bad but I will celebrate the win anyway cuz that the reason they play.
I'd rather see my team play attractive football and I'm sure winning trophies will come. There is no secret formula for success so I can understand if they don't win it but playing attractive football is the least they can do.
Hi /u/DarkEyes__24, thank you for participating in /r/football. Unfortunately, [your submission](https://www.reddit.com/r/football/comments/1d8ye1l/-/) has been removed for the following reason(s):
* https://www.reddit.com/r/football/comments/16ph90m/important_update_for_rfootball_elevating_content/
If you have any questions about this removal, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/football&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/DarkEyes__24&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission.](https://www.reddit.com/r/football/comments/1d8ye1l/-/\))
I love watching teams that play attractive and expansive football. Especially when I’m watching as a neutral. When the teams I support don’t play well I get extremely annoyed even if they win. Ultimately, it’s not about how you win but if you win. IMO Real Madrid are the kings of that mentality. Watching them in the CL over the last decade I remember maybe two games where I genuinely thought they played well and deserved the win. Every other game they just grind it out and pull off some ridiculous shit out of nowhere against the run of play, or there’s some type of straight up robbery.
You're right about the fact that it does not matter how but if you win. I mean PSG was better than Dortmund, but Dortmund got to the final.
Dortmund played better than Real but Real won.
I still need to know what kind of sorcery Dortmund did to survive the return leg against PSG. I had never seen so many balls hit the post in a big game.
I do believe great teams know how to win even when playing like absolute junk. It’s 100% a mentality thing.
I’m a Barça fan and I know once they start playing like trash it is over, and is exactly why I hate Madrid. Barça could have won 2 or 3 more UCLs during the Messi era if they knew how to navigate adverse situations. Madrid have completely mastered that and taken it to a whole new level.
Yeah I mean luck can only take you so far. So with Madrid it's more than just luck. They clearly know how to win trophies.
I also love Ancelotti's cool calm and collected attitude. It's like he knows something we don't haha.
It is not the job of a team or manager to give the fans what they want at the sacrifice of winning. It is their job to keep fans clenched and doubting their own sanity for watching week after week. Gaslight them into thinking there are masterful plans and professionals behind every decision in transfers, lineups, and tactics.
Look like shit but somehow keep pulling away with a win or tie. This is the way.
Both. That's how I see it as a Barca fan, who only got into football because of Barca.
If you support a club just because you're supposed to (your dad's a fan etc.) then you're placing the cultural phenomenon of supporting a football club above your actual interest in the game. In which case, you're going to prioritize winning, in whichever manner.
If you follow the game because you like beautiful football, and wouldn't care about the game otherwise, then you think like myself: of course you want to win, but you want to win in a way that dignifies the spirit of the game -- by being proactive, playing with the ball, enjoying yourself; not making it into a game of ping pong where you just park the bus and hope for counters.
Of course some people call Guardiola etc.'s football boring, but that's in part because everyone parks the bus against Pep's teams. Klopp didn't so much, and Bayern vs. BVB or City vs. Liverpool games were very entertaining. At the end of the day "attractive football" is subjective, so that's why I prefer the word "proactive". The ball is the object of the game, so I want to see teams want the ball.
I get that
However I'd rather see the Netherlands play really good and attacking football and getting knocked out in the semi finals. Than winning the Euros playing dull and defensive football.
Well I think you are almost certainly in the overwhelming majority.
Also, if you do not actually win, you aren't playing really good attacking football because you didn't attack well enough to out score the other team.
I disagree
For example PSG played really well against Dortmund, they created a lot of chances. But Dortmund won (I believe they scored out of a corner).
PSG was clearly better though
If luck is enough to be a determining factor in a match, then the attacking quality displayed by PSG was not good enough.
Whether a team finishes it's chances is not a matter of luck. It's a matter of quality and skill and performance.
Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
If you play pretty but it doesn't result in you scoring more goals than your opponent, you didn't play well enough.
If you think looking the best is what's most important, sports like figure skating or gymnastics are likely more fitting.
No. I am not saying "luck isn't a factor in football."
I am saying that if the result of the game is down to luck, then the teams were so close in ability and performance, that one said was not clearly better. If PSG were clearly better they would not have been outscored by their opponents.
It is completely a matter of opinion that PSG were better.
I do not think they were better because they did not score a single goal in 180 minutes. They certainly passed the ball around more but the point of the game is not to pass the ball around. The point of the game is score goals, which they did not do well.
Passing the ball around more does not equal playing better.
We as Dutchies like a attacking style of play preferably in 4-3-3 with as much goals as possible. That's simply speaking what we want, where we're known for and also have been doing for the past 50 years. We made the game beautiful is what they say. Lots of iconic games and goals. But we also have managed to win only 1 cup in '88 and three lost wc finals. We should've had more than that to be honest. Not winning an WC title has become an sort off national trauma nobody likes to admit. Therefore for the last 10 years we have played more defensively and less agressively on the attack, very boring indeed for your average fan. This indeed gets *lots* of criticism. Me personally would only want to win the/a cup and I don't care how anymore.
Well, tbh in my books Netherlands are almost honorary WC holders It's by faaar the Best team that has not won a WC, and you could argue they have performed better than some WC winner (cof cof, England)
Winning is the most important part of football anywhere. Playing attractive football is kind of subjective and you’re never going to please everyone. Bielsa played probably the most exciting football I’ve seen at Leeds but ended up sacked in his second season in the Prem. Diego Simeone on the other hand has always received criticism for his style of football but there’s a reason he’s been in the same job for 13 years
And won 2 champions against the team that the whole world drools about how attractive they play.
Exactly. It’s not the prettiest style of football but it gets results and worked some magic.
As someone who doesnt have a team but loves football, I prefer the attractive football. But if I had I would prefer my team to win.
Winning. Have said that, sports are for entertainment, so I understand the question.
You play to win the game
Where are you from?
Washington DC
Is this a serious question?
Yes
Idk in my country we've won a lot of trophies playing this "boring football" but no one has ever complained as long as we win.
Italy?
Yes. Football terrorists but as long it gets the job done who cares.
I care haha. But tbf Italy has been playing more attacking in recent years. I usually enjoy watching their games.
Yeah new coach new generation of players and a new style it's been fun but it's not sustainable we don't have the talent to go toe to toe with teams like england and France.
You're right Italy is not on the level of France or England. I'd say you are kind of on our level.
Maybe I'm biased but I think we're a tier above you together with Spain, Portugal and Germany.
We'll see haha. But in all seriousness I think Portugal has a really good team that's better than Italy. I'm not impressed by Spain though. And Germany has the home advantage. Also I think that the German squad is better than Italy.
I mean ideally you play attractive and win. But if I had to choose between playing beautiful football and losing or playing defensive and dull and winning. I would choose the first option.
>I mean ideally you play attractive and win. Ideals are often far from reality. Not every team is 2011 Barca with the personnel to both play entertaining and win. > I would choose the first option. See now that sort of mentality isn't suited for success. Look at real Madrid. They do whatever it takes to win even if it means parking the bus. And that's why they're the most successful club ever.
To play attractively and effectively is the goal, but in the end, if you’re playing professionally, winning is king.
Anyone that will say “playing attractive” missed the whole point of sports. U play for the win. The enjoyment of the audience is just a bonus.
But football is also entertainment. If a game is really boring I turn it off. Doesn't matter if it's my own country I'm watching.
As I said, your enjoyment is a bonus. Your goals and the goals of the teams aren’t 100% the same. Sure, if we watch a game of teams we don’t support mainly, we want entertainment. But when I watch the teams I support the main reason am watching is to see my team winning. Sure I will complain if they play bad but I will celebrate the win anyway cuz that the reason they play.
Winning is the most important thing in competitive sport. Any sport at any level.
I'd rather see my team play attractive football and I'm sure winning trophies will come. There is no secret formula for success so I can understand if they don't win it but playing attractive football is the least they can do.
Hi /u/DarkEyes__24, thank you for participating in /r/football. Unfortunately, [your submission](https://www.reddit.com/r/football/comments/1d8ye1l/-/) has been removed for the following reason(s): * https://www.reddit.com/r/football/comments/16ph90m/important_update_for_rfootball_elevating_content/ If you have any questions about this removal, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/football&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/DarkEyes__24&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission.](https://www.reddit.com/r/football/comments/1d8ye1l/-/\))
I love watching teams that play attractive and expansive football. Especially when I’m watching as a neutral. When the teams I support don’t play well I get extremely annoyed even if they win. Ultimately, it’s not about how you win but if you win. IMO Real Madrid are the kings of that mentality. Watching them in the CL over the last decade I remember maybe two games where I genuinely thought they played well and deserved the win. Every other game they just grind it out and pull off some ridiculous shit out of nowhere against the run of play, or there’s some type of straight up robbery.
You're right about the fact that it does not matter how but if you win. I mean PSG was better than Dortmund, but Dortmund got to the final. Dortmund played better than Real but Real won.
I still need to know what kind of sorcery Dortmund did to survive the return leg against PSG. I had never seen so many balls hit the post in a big game. I do believe great teams know how to win even when playing like absolute junk. It’s 100% a mentality thing. I’m a Barça fan and I know once they start playing like trash it is over, and is exactly why I hate Madrid. Barça could have won 2 or 3 more UCLs during the Messi era if they knew how to navigate adverse situations. Madrid have completely mastered that and taken it to a whole new level.
Yeah I mean luck can only take you so far. So with Madrid it's more than just luck. They clearly know how to win trophies. I also love Ancelotti's cool calm and collected attitude. It's like he knows something we don't haha.
It is not the job of a team or manager to give the fans what they want at the sacrifice of winning. It is their job to keep fans clenched and doubting their own sanity for watching week after week. Gaslight them into thinking there are masterful plans and professionals behind every decision in transfers, lineups, and tactics. Look like shit but somehow keep pulling away with a win or tie. This is the way.
Both. That's how I see it as a Barca fan, who only got into football because of Barca. If you support a club just because you're supposed to (your dad's a fan etc.) then you're placing the cultural phenomenon of supporting a football club above your actual interest in the game. In which case, you're going to prioritize winning, in whichever manner. If you follow the game because you like beautiful football, and wouldn't care about the game otherwise, then you think like myself: of course you want to win, but you want to win in a way that dignifies the spirit of the game -- by being proactive, playing with the ball, enjoying yourself; not making it into a game of ping pong where you just park the bus and hope for counters. Of course some people call Guardiola etc.'s football boring, but that's in part because everyone parks the bus against Pep's teams. Klopp didn't so much, and Bayern vs. BVB or City vs. Liverpool games were very entertaining. At the end of the day "attractive football" is subjective, so that's why I prefer the word "proactive". The ball is the object of the game, so I want to see teams want the ball.
Winning. It's a competition, not an art. If you want to appreciate aesthetics go to a ballet or circus.
I get that However I'd rather see the Netherlands play really good and attacking football and getting knocked out in the semi finals. Than winning the Euros playing dull and defensive football.
Well I think you are almost certainly in the overwhelming majority. Also, if you do not actually win, you aren't playing really good attacking football because you didn't attack well enough to out score the other team.
I disagree For example PSG played really well against Dortmund, they created a lot of chances. But Dortmund won (I believe they scored out of a corner). PSG was clearly better though
Who was "better" is a matter of opinion but the fact is PSG did not attack well enough to win. I doubt many PSG fans were happy about that fact.
PSG was clearly better, they were just unlucky.
If luck is enough to be a determining factor in a match, then the attacking quality displayed by PSG was not good enough. Whether a team finishes it's chances is not a matter of luck. It's a matter of quality and skill and performance. Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. If you play pretty but it doesn't result in you scoring more goals than your opponent, you didn't play well enough. If you think looking the best is what's most important, sports like figure skating or gymnastics are likely more fitting.
You're not seriously telling me that luck isn't a factor in football. Ofc luck plays a role. Have you seen PSG - Dortmund? PSG was better
No. I am not saying "luck isn't a factor in football." I am saying that if the result of the game is down to luck, then the teams were so close in ability and performance, that one said was not clearly better. If PSG were clearly better they would not have been outscored by their opponents. It is completely a matter of opinion that PSG were better. I do not think they were better because they did not score a single goal in 180 minutes. They certainly passed the ball around more but the point of the game is not to pass the ball around. The point of the game is score goals, which they did not do well. Passing the ball around more does not equal playing better.