11 - Raphinha

G

Gazzznigga

Active member
Maradona37 said:
Yes. People who say it's just about winning have an ok point, ultimately that goes down in the history books. But we now live in an era where everything is recorded - unlike the first half of the 20th century, the 90s onwards have so much footage that can be watched. Hence, people can educate themselves on who the most entertaining, dominant teams are and were.

Surely if you win by squeaking by you aren't really displaying your dominance or superiority as a team? You're 'winning', but not really showcasing that you are much better than other teams. The reason Barcelona were so good is because other teams were forced to bend to their will and compromise their own game to stop Barca, as you say. Whereas recent Real Madrid teams have won because the opponent wasn't scared to go toe to toe with them, and that allowed Real to expose space they left. No denying their counter-attacking ability but dominant possession teams (in big games) will always marvel more as they can dominate throughout a game rather than in spells and moments.

That Gazzznigga guy (I am loath to use his name as he's clearly a troll looking for attention and I am daftly giving him it) produced a post that proves he doesn't really get the essence of football. He basically said Greece '04 are remembered as much as teams that play great football, because the achievement was the same. Winning while playing wank football is empty and hollow (not so much for Greece as they were underdogs, but definitely for bigger teams who play attritional football) - I am sure players love looking at their medals when they do that, but deep down they know they weren't actually superior. Like I say, the Netherlands sides of '74 and' 78 and the Hungary side of '54 are looked upon more fondly than the teams that beat them in the respective World Cup Finals of those years. Everyone still remembers Portugal '66. Brazil '82 are more beloved in their homeland than the '94 and '02 victors. This is when football becomes art and more about leaving a legacy in the history of the game (as Hungarian and Dutch Total Football did, despite winning fuck all).

Guys like Gazzznigga will never understand that though. Football is emotionless to people like that, it isn't about art or aesthetics for him as it is for you and I. For him it's all about winning even if you do it in the most desperate manner. He doesn't understand that some of the great teams he gets to watch now were built on the foundations and principles of those past teams I reference that won fuck all. They were pioneers, and didn't have to win to be remembered.
Click to expand...
Lol...another rant full of incoherence, lies and stupidity. I stopped reading when he typed about Greece and misquoted my point just to table himself for more validations and some rub on the head again like a spoilt kid.

I also like that you admitted you are daft enough on football matters which has been long obvious for the discerning. Whoever labelled a serial winner a "lucky" player needs to find something else to do online. Your attention is worthless for me but your delusion is astounding.

He brought up a foolish and laughable point(to buttress his poor judgement on value)about the Chezch republic team being better remembered than the the Greek team of Euro 2004 because they played "beautifully" but lost to Greece in the semis. Whether recorded or not, the poster team for any competition are the champions, irrespective of how "ugly" they played. Those who watched the losers "loose" beautifully take the memorry to their graves. History often remembers the winners more when they are dead and buried. Winning a tournament can never be placed on a lower pedestal to someone who was defeated by the eventual winners. Such can only be equal in the eyes and minds of dafts. A winner is placed above the "pretty losers" in the ranking for a reason.

Brazil played beautifully against Uruguay in 1950 but little is remembered or said about that and even if anything is recalled, it can only be subversient to Uruguay being remembered more for winning the world cup, everything else is a matter of perception. Brazilian historians even hate to mention the World cup of 1950 despite the "beautiful" football displayed by their team in the run up to the final. Some of their players of 1950 died from depression induced by the shame of losing the world cup to Uruguay at home despite the "beautiful" football and the constant jibes they received in public. The 1950 was nearly a full century ago and was recorded too.

Go to any football history webiste and google 1974/1978 world cups and you would not see much bout how much "total football" was on display by the Dutch team but a lot more reverence will be given to W.Germany and Argentina as winners. In 40/50 years no one who watched and enjoyed the "total football" would still be alive but it is certain Germany and Argentina would continue to have the stars of those world cup on their jersies.

History is kinder to the victors. Given playing beautifully and losing vs playing terribly and winning as options, it is clear the one I will choose. One will be remembered more, the other is a matter of judgements or perception.
 
Last edited:
Maradona37

Maradona37

Well-known member
Two great goals. Honestly thought the chance might have gone with the first one but the extra touch got him by Neuer and opened up the goal again. Many players would have panicked and shot without that extra touch and had the shot saved. That's why he's a quality player.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Home of Barca Fans

Top