Not sure when people started thinking that displaying trademark prick traits of offering backhanded 3rd person comments is an acceptable form of discourse.Originally Posted by serghei
Wolfe is one of those guys who don't think Mozart is a better musician than the best beatboxer because there's no such thing as better music. Just music.
Oh well. Gotta feel enlightened by that comparison of an art form to a simulated conflict.
Some are boring, some are not.
Oh, my... struck a nerve probably... Drop the Stanford University speech.
Do you have an actual point to make? Since you still haven't contributed anything besides a far reaching comparison of two wildly different things. Besides obvious provocatory tone that is.
Some are boring, some are not.
I just find it funny how you use the end result of a football game to build whatever narrative you want about how the game actually happened.
Well, you made it plainly obvious that you believe in using "good", "better" and "worse" on every level, while I made it clear I dislike the terms, because they're utterly relative in sports and many other activities. Nobody should be able to dictate a socially acceptable style of football. I don't tell you how to write your posts, I just reply to them. On a rare occasion I may throw the ball back at ya if it feels appropriate. But anyway!...
A game, and football is a game, is a concept at its core designed to have a winner and a loser, something humans came up with as a substitute to nullify the permanent effects of physical conflict. Do you only approve of a win if it's achieved with your criteria of superiority? Assuming there is no "cheating" involved of course.
Some are boring, some are not.
I use good, better, worse, mostly in situations where it's borderline common sense to use them. As in, it's better to win dominating the opponent, than to win by parking the bus and getting lucky.
No. I only intervene with arguments when X or Y try to turn the win (that's a fact, it's not even a question of approving it) into a broader point outside of that game or that competition in that season. Both the decisive games in the Bayern - Madrid ties have been hugely influenced by referees, usually in the same direction. So, of course, big conclusions based on key games that are influenced by outside factors to a very large extent are flawed.
Last edited by serghei; 3rd May 2018 at 10:01 PM.
I mean, you do know it's possible to dominate the opponent by not having a single shot on target while losing the ball every 10 seconds and simply stopping your opponent from scoring, right? If it suits the style of your players at a given moment, it's an absolutely viable winning strategy. And that's just one example. You seem really hesitant to accept football can be played in X different shades of grey. It's all relative.
Some are boring, some are not.
Sure, it's possible to put in a near perfectly drilled defensive block and deny chances. Rarely have seen it though. Chelsea 2012 wasn't that, Madrid 2018 wasn't that. Not even close. The purpose of a great defense is to block opponents from creating chances. Not to hope they miss the target with abysmal finishing.
I'd say Chelsea 2009 in England was close to the type of dominating performance you speak about. Inter on Camp Nou too.
No, I am not hesitant to accept football can be played in X different ways. Far from it. It's a fact. Teams have won big things in many different styles. Some styles are better than others, in the sense that they have more elements that are naturally viewed as more positive. It's part of human culture and it lends itself to sports too, as part of that culture. People naturally love great passes, cool dribbles, offensive play. That sort of thing.
Sure, if you want to have an ad-literam argument, everything is relative on this planet. But if you look at it from a socio-humanistic view, you'll see that society has a way of deciding and evaluating things, based on majoritar opinions that have become socially accepted truths.
Last edited by serghei; 3rd May 2018 at 10:21 PM.
Ok so to relate it back to Madrid again..
I agree, Madrid weren't dominant, I wasn't specifically trying to say they were an example of the above phenomenon. But they sure as hell didn't play like losers either, because they executed the best plan they had with the available team, almost to the letter. I was the guy who posted in the CL thread before the game saying people are underestimating Bayern. I actually recall you posted a LOL under a post where I voiced my concern prior to the game, maybe non-specifically related to the Lewandowski "hunch" I had. I suspected Bayern would do as well as they had, simply because we don't do well with this squad this season playing a return leg of a cup game with a positive scoreline. Applies to every single cup tie this year bar PSG and APOEL if you count group games.
That said, Madrid did what they went out to do with a calculated gamble that paid off. Same gamble didn't pay off against Juve, because dropping Benzema wasn't the right call for balance of the team, however overall absolutely deserved to go through given they won the tie in the first leg and planned for Juve to come back with vengeance after Roma just pulled a comeback. Zidane planned everything right and made every correct sub. Momentum was the original problem that couldn't be controlled. But they owned the tie and Juve did not manage to snatch it back. Same thing with the Bayern tie, Zidane prepared it right both times and despite them being more dominant, it doesn't mean they deserved to win, or even to progress.
Again, the "better styles" part is something I challenge, because it does not have to be a rule. Choosing to be assertive is not a worse style by default.
Popular perception doesn't define truth either. Fucking never, haha. People are sheep. If street ball was a competitive sport on the scale analogous to full-size pitch football nobody would watch the original version. That is agreed upon. Does that imply flair is the ultimate value of football? Then why bother keeping score? And if you keep score, why assume that all teams need to strive to achieve the same level of flair to be successful? Paint everything red, lol. Favourite colour of certain groups of people.
Some are boring, some are not.
Reports in Madrid press that Zidane will rest several starters in the Clasico.
It's not like the favorite color, which is completely arbitrary. And nobody is taking results out of the equation. Greatest teams all have won big things, they all had incredible achievements. Be it consecutive CLs, or trebles and doubles. The difference between great teams is made in other areas. Aesthetics, dominance level, legacy and influence. This is where all Madrid CL winning teams fall short. They win the CL and add to the club's glory in this competition, but neither is a truly great team that stands out in an unique way. They mostly prepare and are specialized in winning the CL. Most of the time they're very close wins in years when neither team stood out too much.
Liked by:
Last edited by serghei; 3rd May 2018 at 11:55 PM.
the ac milan side under sacchi are unanimously considered one of the best club teams ever assembled because they dismantled la liga champions real 5-0 in one of the most one sided CL semi final games ever. aside from the consecutive european cups, that side didn't win the league in those 2 years (granted it was one of the toughest leagues ever). great performances leave a very long lasting mark, and the greatness of pep's barca from 09-11 was typified by the 6-2 and 5-0 v real, 4-0 v bayern in 45 mins, and the beatdowns of man united in the finals.
real have had historic wins from a results standpoint, but not from a performance standpoint. that's why, even after 3 finals in a row, they aren't yet spoken of in glowing terms. they are great, probably all time great. but not the best ever. you need performances to match the historic results for that.
True, and being 0-3 down at home vs an ordinary Juve, being dominated 80% of the time by a injury ridden Bayern who should have had 3 penalties aren't exactly the type of performances to build a legacy in terms of performances.
Sure, they barely made it through both times. Great teams aren't remembered for that though. They are expected to outplay the opponent, often ridicule their rivals, show how inferior the other teams are by comparison. Make it a spectacle. Madrid don't do that. Can't even dominate a weaker Barca. Keep getting stuffed at Bernabeu. Conceded 10 goals in the last 3 La Liga games.
Last edited by serghei; 4th May 2018 at 12:04 AM.
I would argue we were a great side last season, but maybe thats just me.
As for "Real Madrid doesnt have any iconic performances waaah"-rant by this other guy, the way we ran all over Atletico last year, the way we completely took over the CL-final in the 2nd half vs Juventus, just a few.
Yes, i know you guys will just say "but those are weak teams, totally bended over" or something like that.
Last edited by Morten; 4th May 2018 at 12:17 AM.
not sure if you're referring to my post but I actually gave real more credit than you normally do on here
Reply With Quote