It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Absolutely, haha!
You seem to be under the impression that I argue every team in the world should try to play attractive football. That is not the point. However if no one did you would see interest in the game fizzle out rather quickly. No matter how much you like good defending some one has to attack for it to happen. A brilliant counter attack requires that you infact are on "the break", that there is space to run into. (Something often forgotten when Pep's Barca, Spain and other dominant teams were critisized for not counter attacking more. When did they ever get the chance to do that?) For football's massive appeal to remain what it is it is vital that more people are interested in watching a game between, lets say France and England than the English and French only. There has to be an incentive other than simply seeing who is winning. Or do you suspect all those hundreds of millions who pop on El Clasico every year, or the WC final every fourth, are passionate supporters of either teams?
It is a reason we refer to it as 'the beautiful game'. At its best it is a form of art. It is interesting that you continously compare good football to a form of circus or trivial tricks. For me it is much more valuable than that. So much of the fascination of football for so many people lies in the quality of the game, to see the best teams perform it at the highest level. That is why winning with style and grace creates a legacy far greater than simply winning by all costs.
Yes, what transcends football from other entertainments is that you care deeply about the result, but what transcends it from other team games like hockey, rugby or basketball is its unique esthetiques. The magic of the beautiful game will always lie in the blend of passion and esthetiques. Its artistic value should be cherished, not undermined or trivialized.
please rewatch the semi final of the Euro16 between France and Germany and then tell me that the better of the two team has won or the team that played more attractively. In fact, Germany dominated the French team during the 90 minutes and were just too stupid to score a single goal whereas the equipe tricolour scored a lucky penalty and a late counter goal.
Th telegraph wrote: "Deschamps has built a fine unit but it is a far from perfect side, with Germany unlucky not to score on numerous occasions."
I also think it is a mystery that Southern American teams play more attractive football. They usually have a much more aggressive way of playing football. Look at Uruguay and Chile for example. Often matches with teams are very unattractive.
I certainly don't min the German national team. My regret is that Portugal and Chile represented Europe and South America respectively in the Confed, as champions of each kontinent. They don't represent the kind of football i want to watch and succeed. To watch all the promising french talents would have been far more interesting than watching this bland Portuguese side.
And some teams in South America indeed play attractive football. Argentina has one of the most technically gifted squads in the world, and Colombia as well are a lot of fun. Brazil has a promising generation of new stars looming. Chile represent the most cynical and aggressive physical play you can find in South America, which is why I regret the fact that they won. Argentina and France could at least have given the German reserve team a more interesting fight...
I dont think I ever said you should only attack and not defend but to prioritise one at the expense of the other is tactically naive and if you call that entertaining you should go and watch school football where it finishes 10-9 every match. Yes of course we'd all prefer our team to play like Brazil 70 every week but not Brazil 82 because of the key fundamental difference between the teams in terms of success. You can claim some ephemeral moral high ground for playing stylishly and with flair but it seems a hollow consolation to hang onto when youve just been knocked out.
And what you say about being a legend is largely true to be fair. You can be a legend by only playing attractively and without winning anything. But if you play unattractively you have to win otherwise no one will remember you (see Mourinho).
Its interesting you select the World Cup final as a match of genuine interest to the casual viewer who wants to be entertained..? Are these always the most entertaining matches? The last one that can have a claim to that is 1986 where the Argies went 2-0 up before the Germans clawed it back only for the Argies to nick it with 5 mins to go.
Since then there have been 10 goals in 7 finals and only one where both teams have scored. Is this entertainment? 2006 was interesting (and I would say entertaining) due to the Zidane situation but anyone claiming people watch the World Cup final for entertaining free flowing football is talking rubbish frankly. Its usually the worst match of the tournament. So there must be another reason they watch it? Presumably because of what is at stake. Or is it just out of hope that someone will deliver a Brazil 70 performance?
I agree with this. But as you claimed a victory a couple of posts ago when I admitted style was important I now call touche as you are now admitting 'winning with style and grace creates a legacy far greater than simply winning by all costs'? Because your initial position which started all this off seemed to suggest that playing with style was in itself enough:
So are you now admitting winning is actually important ?
Agree entirely with this. But never forget that football is a blend of science and art (which is probably why it affects the soul so much). Science is boring and utilitarian and art is beautiful and cool but if you have the science without the art youre watching a Jose Mourinho team and if you have art without the science youre watching Brazil 82 and neither of those are ideal.
Artistic, stylish football that tears sides to shreds without letting in more goals than you score is what we all should be striving for. The trouble is its very difficult to attain and with the money and pressure in the game its a lot easier to go down the scientific route than the artistic route if you want to keep your job.
But that wasnt how you worded your original statement:
You seemed to be implying that Portugal and Chile didnt deserve their titles because they didnt play entertaining football. Thats why all this started. That your statement might actually be true is irrelevant. If you only play entertaining football but dont win you may well go down as legends in decades to come but at the time you have questions to answer. If you win a tournament you immediately justify your approach and make yourself criticism proof.
You misinterpret my posts so much that I have to wonder if it is deliberate? I never claimed winning was not important, that statement is your own little invention. However I argue that it is not, as you claim it to be, "everything that matters". That should have been clear from the start and absolutely obvious by now... You are never guaranteed to win in football no matter what, and I much prefer those who try to entertain both their own fans and casual viewers in their quest for glory. That way, even if they lose like Holland 74' or Brazil 82', they have still contributed something. I don't claim they have the 'moral high ground', another of your inventions, I just would much rather support them, like, would you believe (gasp, shock, horror), most other football fans.
When I say France and Argentina should have won their respective finals (and I am obviously refering to the Copa America here for those who are not able to understand...) it is because they outplayed their opponents, not because they have a 'moral right' to win. When I imply I'd much prefer if they had won, it is my personal preference largely based on style and philosophy. It should not be difficult to understand (unless you don't want to...) and it shouldn't be a shock to anyone...
well but the Confedcup is for the winners of the 6 confederation torunements, the winner of the world cup and the host of the next WC. It is a small tournament with a limited scope and meaning. The stakes are not as high and so the teams are probably less focussed on this tournament. Germany sent a B team, however, the German team was very motivated because they saw it as a big chance. Chile was extremely motivated since it was the first time they participated. Many fans from Chile actually even travelled to Russia in order to watch the games. Portugal was also very motivated and Ronaldo saw it as a matter rof course to participate. We do not know how i.e. France or Argentina would have seen that tournament. Messi already stated that he is not really interested anymore in the national team. And I remember the world and European champion Spain in the last Confedcup being bored and uninterested in the matches despite all the stars.
I would not take the Confedcup so very seriously. It is a bit like a collection of friendly matches. This year, I have only sene a very few matches. Next year will be more decisive.
And one final argument in favour of teams like Greece who won the EC in 2004. They might not be your hero but probably the hero of all Greece people. The victory means so much more for them than any world cup has ever meant for a Brazilian or German team. And that is what also matters in football.
Leicester was the winner of the PL in 2015/2016. Most people really enjoyed this result, not because Leicester played the most attractive football but because it showed that everything is possible in this wonderfull game.
Again people make a much bigger deal of my initial statement than they should. Of course I don't care massively about the Confed. (Although I remember it was a lot of fun back in 2005 when Brazil sent a team of Ronaldinho, Ronaldo, Kaka, Juninho, Roberto Carlos, Adriano and Cafu. Those were the days!) I care more about the Copa America and the Euro Cup though where i felt Argentina especially, and, to a lesser extent, France were very hard done by.
And of course there can be some charm in an underdog victory. But there are a lot of examples of teams worth billions who have won playing like underdogs. Chelsea in 2012 comes to mind...
And ro reiterate ones again... just to make it completely clear ones and for all... my point was never that a defensive side cannot deserve to win. I however react very strongly to the notion that playing entertaining, enterprizing and creative football is worthless as was claimed by another poster.
I dont think I ever said it was worthless. But its less important than winning.
In any event what constitutes 'entertaining' football exactly? A team which romps home 3-0 every match would soon become very dull. Given your Barca affiliations I presume you consider tiki taka entertaining but I have to say watching Spain and Barca passing it from side to side for an hour before one moment of brilliance is almost as boring as watching Greece. I can appreciate the quality of technique and touch on show but one team having 80% possession is extremely boring whichever team wins.
Entertainment was Keegan's Newcastle. Swashbuckling, unpredictable and results all over the place. But would anyone claim that to be a fine example of football? Its exceptionally rare that an entertaining match is a good example of technically good football because to get a 4-3 there are inevitably mistakes and neither team is fully in control of their destiny.
You keep claiming that your words are being misquoted but how is one supposed to interpret this other than you think some terrible injustice denied France and Argentina?
And if we're talking the Argies being robbed excuse me if I struggle to shed a tear. They've still got a long way to go before the balance sheet evens up.
He scored a lot of goals in France so i think he's a great signing for arsene's Arsenal arsenal of strikers. :)
A club-record deal which could rise to £52m over the course of his contract
Insane money.
Agreed, what about Alexis Sanchez reportedly looking for £400,000 a week?!!!!! Football wages are an absolute world unto themselves!!!
THAT is disgusting....get rid of him and get another player in...and i'm an Arsenal fan.
We will never be held to ransom and pay disgusting wages like that.
It's all over talk sport radio if you get chance to tune in? As well as the Lukaku story.
It's a lot, but if you look at the current market it's not ludicrous. Arsenal have just forked out £52m for a 26-year-old who, while being a proven finisher, has no track record in the Prem. A more difficult league than Ligue 1. That's not to say he won't transition, but it remains to be seen. Lukaku is a proven goal scorer in the Prem. Not only that, but his stats thus far are impressive. See below-
Club goals before age 23:
Ronaldo – 194
Raul – 145
Lionel Messi – 127
Sergio Aguero – 124
*Romelu Lukaku (with two months remaining) – 119*
Michael Owen – 111
Cristiano Ronaldo – 97
Fernando Torres – 87
Wayne Rooney – 94
Luis Suarez – 77
David Villa – 70
Zlatan Ibrahimovic – 69
Alan Shearer – 65
Thierry Henry – 57
Bear in mind people are slinging about valuations in the region of £100m for Mbappe. I think the money is silly, but it's certainly less risky (on paper) than forking out the wedge we did for Martial.
Everton have said they are in discussions but had formally turned down the offer? So I guess it's watch this space?
Like always they'll be holding out for more as they know we can afford it. It'll be down to Mourinho and whether he's happy to walk away from the deal.
So £75m for Lukaku then.
As for people keeping whining about the money. You're all quite welcome to cancel your Sky subscriptions and season tickets if it's so disgusting.
But of course none of us do because football is like religion - they know they've got you by the bollocks and will just keep on squeezing.
It's just too much. Only rumours so far this £400,000 wage demand, right? I do hope Arsenal have a list of names as replacements. The chances he'll leave is probably high too.
If he wants that wage then he can bugger off..we always have names lined up.
He needs to think about what he is doing,he could be making a big mistake,as Arsenal are showing determination to win big next season.
Arsenal already won big last season. The FA cup is a great trophy to win.
I reckon it's better than the Premier league winner's title.
And you beat Chelsea in the FA cup which was a great win.
Ridiculous.
As a Liverpool fan I remember gerrard's stunner in the final against West Ham in 2006 to draw level just on 90 minutes.
Unforgettable
What about Michael Owen's 2 goals late against Arsenal in 2001 after being 1 nil down.
Unforgettable
Do you remember those 2 great wins Wizzer ?
Indeed I do. What's your point though?
I'm sure there have been some spectacular wins in the Leyland DAF final too so is winning that better than the Premier League?
Most World Cup finals are dismally dull affairs does that make them less important than the FA cup?
If someone is willing to pay him that then he is worth it. A player is an asset to a club and if he delivers them success then it could be a small price to pay.
No one can point a finger at the player. The club employs them and decides their worth. If they are crazy enough to pay it then he had better deliver the goods.
Actors are paid millions, but if BO returns falter they are no longer worth it.
Supply and demand ( 'sell me this pen')
Well wiz don't you think playing in front of 90,000 , at Wembley and winning a final against the PL champions or whoever on the last day of the season , not a trophy but the most Historic football trophy in the world,The FA CUP is more Famous and Prestigious than the Epl championship.
Do you agree it's the most Historic Prestigious football trophy in England ?
10 4 Rubber Ducky
The Wizard's first rule of football debate: 'Anyone who uses the acronym 'EPL' automatically loses.'
No. I agree its the most historic trophy only. But then I'm one of those strange people who doesnt think football only started in 1992 and differentiates bewteen the League Championship and the Premier League. Its all just 'the league' and to win it means you are indisputably the best team in the land. And that is way more prestigious than winning a handful of games half of which will be against lower league opposition no matter how many fans cram into Wembley.