Defence vs Attack

Which is the more important facet of a team's play?

Does a good enough attack outweigh a good defence or vice versa?

Is a 10 goal thriller between two teams with poor defences a better game than a goalless draw between two well-drilled machines?

and so on

it's a lot harder to go thru a season with conceding than without losing, ergo defence is the nobler art

"without conceding" cough

Otherwise known as discipline vs verve

Sparta vs Athens

Sad this isn't a poll tbh

thought about polling it but wanted yr actual discussion

As an American who occasionally has to defend football from accusations of inherent dullness, I think I'd actually prefer to see a nil-nil draw between two sides who nonetheless spend 90+ minutes sounding out each other's defenses than a 6-5 goalfest. Not that the latter isn't often thrilling, but it's not the same level of footballing competence imo.

n/p, I wouldn't have been able to make a choice anyway. I can enjoy good defending just as much as good attacking. Maybe I enjoy the former even more because it seems to happen less and less? Or is that "society in the gutter"/"lol I'm old" talk? Even the defense lines of some of the biggest clubs in the world can be shoddy, shaking an completely unreliable. Whereas in attack, that only goes for Torres tbh.

Seriously though, I would not be able to choose.

Is a 10 goal thriller between two teams with poor defences a better game than a goalless draw between two well-drilled machines?

All depends? I can enjoy super beautiful attacking deadly play (like PSV last year against Feyenoord, completely ripping them to shreds making it actually 10-0), but the well-drilled defensive machines too.

0-0s are fine with me as long as at least one and preferably both teams are actually trying to score and committing men to this purpose.

I do think that goals should mostly be hard to come buy, attained by a good move, a flash of genius, a swift counter, a period of relentless pressure etc

^ yes, that's the ideal imo. But if you can only have one, two sides with no defence are at least amusing whereas two sides who can't attack are plain boring, so attack's better.

super beautiful attacking deadly play

The 'deadly' is so important here though. There's nothing duller than a superior team easing up when the game's won - but that team going for the kill is thrilling (e.g. the 8-2 and 1-6). Not sure if that's just cos it's unusual, or if there's something more primal at work.

Once every 18' of play is about right for a goal, imo. Therefore 3-2 (or 2-3) is the perfect scoreline.

Ultimately, it has to be Attack. Vieira to Ljungberg to Bergkamp to Pires to Henry and boom, I've seen something beautiful. Defending rarely creates something beautiful. But I feel like even though I love Great Attacks more than Great Defending, I admire Great Defending more than I do the other. Great Defending is the secret when you once a decade hear about underdogs winning big trophies or going up 4 leagues in 4 seasons. Messi may not be a genius because so much of what he does is instinct, but if you are slow and have an awkward body and still can keep Messi in check for 90 minutes without fouling - then that is an act of genius to admire.

Or something.

pandemic otm

When you've seen a great attacking team tear another side up and then fail, in a subsequent game, to score, you can see the real value of a stingy defense. You can sense the attacking side's frustration.

Greece winning the Euros may not have been the most fun football ever, but it did make for a great overall narrative.

I broadly agree with this. Partly I admire great defending cos it feels as if a greater level of concentration is involved. Tho I'm probably underestimating how much concentration and attention to detail it takes for, say Xavi, to finally spot the perfect pass after a prolonged period of patient probing. I think forwards and attackers get greater scope to 'switch off' during a game, tho perhaps not from their managers.
xp to a hoy

When you've seen a great attacking team tear another side up and then fail, in a subsequent game, to score, you can see the real value of a stingy defense. You can sense the attacking side's frustration.

Agreed. This was Spain on Saturday against England.

Oh, you said subsequent game, soz

i started thinking about this and then i couldn't get near a computer and then i got tired but i think "Defence vs Attack" is perhaps not quite what I'm thinking about, tho it is a manifestation of it. Great defence represents the team functioning as a unit - concentration, as pandemic said, but also teamwork, communication, the ability to play to a plan. And whilst attack can require those things too, as a Platonic ideal i guess i consider attack to be about the moments of mercurial genius, the individual performing the unexpected.

so i think my question shd've been "collective technique vs individual flair" maybe, or at least that's a related consideration. do i like organisation better because i'm a control freak or a communist or a pragmatist? i dunno. but i do admire it more as a philosophy, however much elation the individual moments of brilliance might bring.

defending, at its best, is individual brilliance- a sol campbell heavyweight ballet tackle, paul mcgrath walking faster than any four italians can sprint.

Attacking, at its best, is a combination of the brilliance of talented individuals- rooney and nani on the counter vs arsenal, bale/lennon vs qpr, that brazilian goal in the 1970 final.

collective organisation v. amassed flair

imo.

pffft defending at its best should happen long before a last gasp sol campbell tackle.

the mindset of defence, as i'm arguing against it here, relates mainly to the midfield. It is an attitude of playing far within your ability, that which earned you the spotlight, in order to nullify the opponent.

This prioritisation of conservation of possession is a necessary and laudable trait in the goalkeeper, in the centre-half, in your midfield screen, in cases where the opposition is strong then in your fullbacks and maybe beyond to the pure attackers, depending on the relative abilities of the combatants.

To play with this attitude against a team that's close to your equal in ability is a copout imo, but there's times it needs done- building a new team from the back, for instance, or where you are very limited indeed in terms of the player you have at your disposal.

To play with this attitude against a team of inferior ability is a bewildering slavishness to form vs creativity.

To play with this attitude regardless of the opponent renders the whole thing pointless for me as a spectator and fan of football.

The stakes of losing form and concentration are far worse for the defense than for the attack. You can be a little bit off for a whole game in attack and still get lucky or at least get a draw, whereas one slip in defense can mean the whole game.

the old line about the best place to defend being the edge of the opposition's area is relevant here, i'm not thinking of defence as purely dogged negation. but in league competition especially there's much to be said for a system bigger than any individual player, and group creativity can be as much of a force as individual.

was thinking about the difference between a play-maker and a trequartista, the difference between having a central cog around which the machine moves vs a machine designed purely in the service of one talent, maybe?

Enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y0OVXEcM7Q

Is that from Rafa's website

can't say my spanish was quite up to all of that but :)

xp. No just a random Youtube clip.

I had a go translating it but I guess it's pretty obvious what's going on.

the difference between having a central cog around which the machine moves vs a machine designed purely in the service of one talent, maybe?

Like Zidane compared to Drogba?

1. sorry to say but idgaf as long as my team wins

2. there is something to be said for simply scoring more than the other team instead of resorting to shutting everything down completely and being negative, but really, see #1

like I dunno if you guys are into NHL hockey at all but my first exposure to "catenaccio" was actually the 1995 stanley cup finals when new jersey played the "left wing lock" because they weren't good enough to skate/score/hang with the red wings -- worst fucking series ever, although I'm really only saying that because I'm a wings fan

I suppose it's nice if you have the players, time, dedication etc to play like spain or barca but I don't follow spain or barca, I follow a team that has to grind and scratch out every win, and nobody plays pretty even a majority of the time in their league anyway

are there any truly great teams who have been massively imbalanced in their abilities to attack&defend? either can be executed effectively & still be p tedious, comparing great teams w/ great individuals is w/e

current barca, really, tho their possession capabilities are a means of defence

was thinking about this again this morning, decided that the truly great teams are all about the transition between defending/attacking and back again... p sure that's been said already so w/e

great tactical holding midfielder helps, your roy keane or your keith andrews

'defence vs attack' isn't even really the debate, tbh, the debate is 'trap out' because over-emphasis on either without the personnel justifying it (ie barca) is just bad management

it kind of is or isn't the debate. it's not a false binary cos nobody's saying they exist in opposition to each other or are mutually exclusive, i think it started more in response to thinking about the traditional Italian style of rigorous defence and then span off from there. of course one isn't "better", it's just that they represent different football ethoses and some of us prefer severe classicism to cheap flashy flamboyance :D

get fucked tho!

i love a cagey 0-0, that's yr real football right there

the majority of consistently great teams are built on a solid defensive foundation, but the greatest teams have attack as their focus

maybe if you want to measure greatness by something as tawdry as trophies

nah, nothing as tawdry. I'm measuring by the number of kids that run out into the street after a match inspired after each match, by the vide cassettes worn out from replaying moments of brilliance, from daydream recollections of the redondo flick 15 years later, the perfection of giggs-keane-scholes-beckham with TWO forwards ahead of them and the wonder of an english team that could toy with holland before killing them off.

Fuck trophies tbh

You'd never guess you were a Spurs fan

lol

for all the right reasons, too

Redondo was pretty defensive-minded from what I've seen, and Busquets is incredibly gifted technically, a defensive style doesn't preclude moments of brilliance.

fuckin does with andrews-whelan or fletcher-carrick tbph

What was Fletcher's last United goal?

Man Utd 1 Man City 6!

A cracker it was too

My point, however, is that his goal notwithstanding, it wasn't a great defensive performance from him, even w/o Carrick

Manchester United 2-3 Real Madrid

This is from the last-but-one Blizzard, about the match with the Redondo backheel. It's less a report than a review, and it's excellent. Somehow I'd never noticed Raul's 'Eureka!' moment when he saw Redondo bearing down on the shellshocked defence.

Redondo in that game. I mean, really?

barca's closing down & the speed they regain possession is p excellent defense imo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHRmXwLrpBI