Greatest fucking game of football you will ever see

4 of those 11 people have no use in the game. Those are:

the left back
the right back
the secondary shooter (if he shoots, everyone is pissed at him for not letting the primary shooter shoot)
the dude in the middle, since the moment you pass to him you know he is gonna get raped

-.-'
rofl no use?...
You don't watch alot of football do you?
Neither do I, but I have played some.. usually I was left back and I find it offence it you say something like that, I used to save alot of hostile goal attempts!! D:

That means the inner left back is a noob.

Boomlala wrote:Neither AE or BE is better. What is better though, is to use the words with the least amount of ambiguity. Soccer has less ambiguity than football, so soccer would be a better word for it.

Dude, it's called FOOTball because you play FOOTball with your FEET. Soccer is MORE ambiguous than football.

4 of those 11 people have no use in the game. Those are:

the left back
the right back
the secondary shooter (if he shoots, everyone is pissed at him for not letting the primary shooter shoot)
the dude in the middle, since the moment you pass to him you know he is gonna get raped

Never try to analyze football again, thanks.

Failure on so many levels.

Shit you stole my words Haldir, I was SO going to write that.

Boomlala wrote:4 of those 11 people have no use in the game. Those are:

the left back
the right back
the secondary shooter (if he shoots, everyone is pissed at him for not letting the primary shooter shoot)
the dude in the middle, since the moment you pass to him you know he is gonna get raped

You are a fucking idiot.

Left back = stops wingers on the Left Wing
Right Back = Same except on right wing
The OTHER FORWARD is up there to support the other forward.
The midfielders = feed the ball to forwards, which then becomes a goal.

Dont say football is shit when you have no fucking clue about it. and inner left back? Its called Center Back or Full Back

Haldir wrote:

Boomlala wrote:

4 of those 11 people have no use in the game. Those are:

the left back
the right back
the secondary shooter (if he shoots, everyone is pissed at him for not letting the primary shooter shoot)
the dude in the middle, since the moment you pass to him you know he is gonna get raped

Never try to analyze football again, thanks.

Failure on so many levels.

ROTFL SO TRUE
Yeah, cuz the holding midfielder really has no purpose

How can soccer be MORE ambiguous than football, seeing how football refers to 2 sports and soccer to only one?

As to my football analysation (sp?), I still think it is correct.

The wing defenders only need to keep pressure on the wing midfielders or one of the shooters if it's a 4-3-3 or derivative formation. They only need to keep their man from having a full view on the box. If a wing defender in any case is a goal-stopper or key defender, that means 1) there was a dead ball situation where things got funky 2) the center defender got lured out of his position or failed to keep his man. In case 2 that main back is useless so the equation "4 man are equal" stands correct.

The other forward needs to support the main forward: what is support in soccer anyway? If the main dude is trying to go Maradona style and then gets his ass kicked, then the other forward needs to clean up after him, and he immediately finds himself in the near vicinity of the defense squad since Maradona-dude lured all the defenders to the backside.

I was not talking about the entire midfield range, I'm talking about the dude who stands in the center of the midfield. Sure, if he is any good, he can place those magic lob balls right onto the tip of the foot of the main forward, but you don't see that happening much. Most of the time he is the guy who immediately forwards the ball when he gets it, otherwise he loses the ball to the midfield who shares his domain. Most of the time I see teams going through the wing.

Besides, the midfield is kind of useless in a way. Maybe the Belgian team is shit, but all they do is place long balls which almost always ends up them losing the ball, or they go passing mode and fail horribly at creating Argentinian plays and they lose the ball.

I am not fucking reading that.

Boomlala wrote:How can soccer be MORE ambiguous than football, seeing how football refers to 2 sports and soccer to only one?

The term 'American football' shouldn't even exist. Football is pretty fucking obviously referring to 'soccer' since you use your feet, hence football. If you want to call American football football, call it American football - don't call it soccer because its clearly ridiculous.

Boomlala wrote:
As to my football analysation (sp?), I still think it is correct.

The wing defenders only need to keep pressure on the wing midfielders or one of the shooters if it's a 4-3-3 or derivative formation. They only need to keep their man from having a full view on the box. If a wing defender in any case is a goal-stopper or key defender, that means 1) there was a dead ball situation where things got funky 2) the center defender got lured out of his position or failed to keep his man. In case 2 that main back is useless so the equation "4 man are equal" stands correct.

No, the centre backs deal with the front men. The holding midfielder also does that job. More often than not, the wing backs push forward to support the wingers themselves as well as do their defensive duties.
You don't play 4 centre backs, you use your wing backs to stop opposition wingers. They also cut inside to help out defensive duties with the centre backs. Having 2 centre backs trying to stop 2 strikers is absurd. Not only do wing backs stop wingers and provide cover on the flanks, they provide assistance to the centre backs - particularly at set pieces, and bomb forward to support the wingers. They need to do this so the wingers have support and/or overlap on the flanks when they go forward, so that if they're closed down they can pass the ball either back or forward to keep the attack going without having to cut inside. No player in football is useless. You need two centre backs to a) stop shots down the middle b) clear crosses/set pieces/blocks c) provide cover for the goalkeeper d) provide through-balls for the centre mids.
You need wing backs for a) providing support for forward wing play b) stopping opposition wingers c) acting as centre backs in dead ball situations and open play.

So basically, no.

Boomlala wrote:
The other forward needs to support the main forward: what is support in soccer anyway? If the main dude is trying to go Maradona style and then gets his ass kicked, then the other forward needs to clean up after him, and he immediately finds himself in the near vicinity of the defense squad since Maradona-dude lured all the defenders to the backside.

Mopping up is exactly what the other striker does. Rebounds for example. If one striker hits the bar, the other should be in a better position than said striker to tap in rebounds and follow up. If the 'main dude' does a 'Maradona' and 'gets his ass kicked' then the other striker picks up, either has an immediate shot if he has a couple of yards, plays a quick 1-2 with a forward midfielder, switches the ball to the wing or plays it back into midfielder to prep another attack at goal. Not only is this the case in open play but at set balls. Having two decent players with experience in front of goal is better than one in any situation - especially if they're good with their head. If I draw your eye to Newcastle vs Spurs about 4 months ago in the Carling Cup, you have a dead ball situation (free kick) taken from the right hand side by Bentley. Launch two strikers at it - if one (Bent in this case) misses, the other one (Pavlyuchenko) can follow up and knock it in; which is exactly what he did. Now thats only one specific example. Also look at Robbie Keane and Dimitar Berbatov during the 2007/2008 season at Spurs. Both strikers and both adept at playing off each other. They offer a prime example of key link up play between the strikers, providing through balls and 1-2s which turn defenders inside out. It is often the case that this is not possible with a midfielder, as strikers are better suited at working with each other; they play the same type of forward game and thus are in a better position to play piercing link up play which would otherwise not be possible with a midfielder. MOREOVER, if one striker is off form; playing two strikers is beneficial. The team as a whole may work better in 4-4-2 (which is VERY common) with the need to use two strikers. Even if one is off-form and not scoring, they can still do their link up play - leaving the other one who is in form to tap in the goals eg Defoe/Kanoute 2005/2006.

Boomlala wrote:
I was not talking about the entire midfield range, I'm talking about the dude who stands in the center of the midfield. Sure, if he is any good, he can place those magic lob balls right onto the tip of the foot of the main forward, but you don't see that happening much. Most of the time he is the guy who immediately forwards the ball when he gets it, otherwise he loses the ball to the midfield who shares his domain. Most of the time I see teams going through the wing.

Two words; Michael Carrick.
Do some googling, watch some games.

Boomlala wrote:
Besides, the midfield is kind of useless in a way. Maybe the Belgian team is shit, but all they do is place long balls which almost always ends up them losing the ball, or they go passing mode and fail horribly at creating Argentinian plays and they lose the ball.

And? How is that relevant. Belgium are shit at football. Doesn't mean to say the midfield is useless. Look at Arsenal for example. Even though I dislike them, they're midfield play is sometimes flawless. Look at how you can use the midfield to
a) track back and help the defense b) draw men from defense into the midfield to close up the gap then play dummy long balls over the top c) create passes that draw men out of position, which creates gaps for through balls to be played d) provide crosses from the wing - which is the best place to cross from e) look at Frank Lampard - 24 goals from midfield last season. Many teams have players like Frank Lampard eg Liverpool and Gerrard, Spurs and Huddlestone.

SO, next time you talk like you know football inside-out, watch a game or two first.

American football. In that game they also shoot the ball with their feet sometimes... Don't ask me why, but I've seen them doing it. Am I right? Or is this rugby >_> ridiculous all those names....

And you say football isnt fast paced?

Watch the recent Celtic vs Man U game...just watch how Man U run at celtics box every 10 fucking seconds

How often do they score though?

C2G Shadman133 wrote:How often do they score though?

Basketball has people scoring points multiple times a minute, and it's boring as f u c k....Hockey games can go the same way...if you have something happen too often, it loses it's appeal. Besides, the goals aren't the only interesting part.

Go Matt!

I am god at letting threads become popular.

In American football, the game starts with a kick. Hence the football. Wether or not it's a correct name is not the matter, but football is more ambiguous than soccer, since football refers to 2 sports, and soccer to only one.

Alright, about the Wing Back:

The Wing Back's main goal is to oppose the wing attackers. So the Wing Back has to disrupt their forward motion and prevent them from lobbing. Their use is rather psychological than physical, since a good wingman will use bait-and-switch to keep the defender from going full out and creating dead ball situations. I have rarely seen a lob which got blocked by a wing defender, unless they were in a close encounter of the gay kind. They're other use is to support offensive wing play, but that boils down to Argentinian plays wherein a team just passes all the way back and forth between the offenders and the defenders.

A wing defender will never be a crucial defender (exception is: the rare example when they take those strange lob-goals), unless the center back flunked.

About the Secondary Shooter:

I think I might need to clear that up. I am referring to the dude who stands between the midfield and the primary shooter in a something-something-1-1 formation. It is rare nowadays (I think), but that formation doesn't make any sense. That secondary shooter has really no use. If the primary shooter loses his ball, then that means defenders are around him and the secondary man ain't gonna be able to magically take the ball from defenders who are in a clear numerical advantage. That secondary shooter plays either as a midfielder up front, which means he is closer to the defenders than he really should be, or he is a shooter up back, in which he won't really get key plays. The only thing he can do is make those running passes, but since he is straight behind the shooter he needs to shoot really sharp making the ball quite easily obtainable by the center backs or the keeper (since the shooter is up front and the keeper ain't static).

About the Middle Man:

The middle man might have a good center position on it all (albeit heavily pressured), but when compared to the wing midfielders he has a weakness: he can't bait and switch. Wing midfielders can run alongside the lines of the field, making the defenders unable to really go all out for the kill/ball. They have a good view on the forwards without any objects in the way (the diagonals of the offensive half form a good cutting way).

About the Midfield:

Point taken. But in Belgian football they seem to stand around jerking off. They always go for the long balls from defenders to attackers, or fail horribly at creating passing attacks.


I don't know football inside-out (I don't watch a game much due to getting bored), but these things (especially the secondary shooter) strike me as being lesser forms of another player out on the field. Wingbacker as opposed to centerback, secondary shooter to primary shooter, and middle man as opposed to wing-midfielder.

Finally, about Carrick:

I watched a compilation video, and he is a good player. Old-school, cutting passes, and he seems to have a knack at shooting goals too. But several of the plays aren't really in the midfield spot though. He also seems to be able to shoot goals in front of the center backs. That's nasty (for the other team).

And with this joyeous picture, I end my rant.



NOPE, NOT FUNNY. HA HA!

"they take those strange lob-goals"
Why is that strange? xD..
Gawd you never played football yourself did you?

It looks weird: it's curly and it just magically ends up inside a goal.

And I've played soccer myself.

well you know, that is something you can't learn from wikipedia and in the books. ;P
Why'd you stop playing football? :O
( I stopped because schedule changed to 20:30 practice in winter, f u c k that! xD )

I meant at school. Never in a club.

aah I see.
And don't you enjoy it with friends? :O
Its fun with friends, you can tackle eachother all you like lol. xD

Nay. I don't enjoy soccer, and neither do my friends.

Basketball however, is a totally different ball game... And it is! (man my jokes are getting bad)

Too bad!
So... in gym.. do you play basketball?
because then only 10 people can play and usually they mix up little classess ( I don't think that a class with 8 hours of math is filled to the limit )

Tony* wrote:well you know, that is something you can't learn from wikipedia and in the books. ;P
Why'd you stop playing football? :O
( I stopped because schedule changed to 20:30 practice in winter, f u c k that! xD )

I get up at 8am on sundays so i can just reach my teams ground on time.

Where to begin.. hmm.

Boomlala wrote:
I think I might need to clear that up. I am referring to the dude who stands between the midfield and the primary shooter in a something-something-1-1 formation. It is rare nowadays (I think), but that formation doesn't make any sense. That secondary shooter has really no use. If the primary shooter loses his ball, then that means defenders are around him and the secondary man ain't gonna be able to magically take the ball from defenders who are in a clear numerical advantage. That secondary shooter plays either as a midfielder up front, which means he is closer to the defenders than he really should be, or he is a shooter up back, in which he won't really get key plays. The only thing he can do is make those running passes, but since he is straight behind the shooter he needs to shoot really sharp making the ball quite easily obtainable by the center backs or the keeper (since the shooter is up front and the keeper ain't static).

Basically what your saying is that in the 4-4-1-1, the 1 who sits in front of the 4 and behind the other 1 has no purpose. How much football do you watch? How many Croatia, Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Tottenham do you watch?
PRIME EXAMPLE: Luca Modric for Spurs/Croatia plays in that exact role. Watch one of his matches during Euro and tell me that he is useless. Likewise, what Liverpool when they play Gerrard in that role and tell me he's useless. His role is hard to explain in words - like almost all of football - so watch a game. The problem with you is that you don't watch the best league(s) in the world week in week out, with both pre match and post match punditry from former managers and players who analayse key positions during matches. What your doing is trying to list the roles of the players; almost envisioning that football is a static game where each player does eeeexactly the role he's meant to. Football, is of course, not like that. Football is dynamic, players are dynamic - they play at their own pace in their own way. Hence why 4-4-1-1 only works in some teams like Croatia whilst a 4-4-2 may be suited to other groups of players with different skills. Besides, that bloke isn't normally used as a secondary striker, but a midfielder. If you know how a 4-4-1-1 works (which from reading ur previous post, you dont) then you would realise that in certain situations a 4-4-1-1 serves a very different, but more important service than a 4-4-2 or a 4-3-3. The main focus of every player is to 'do their job' but their job is not a fixed thing. You line up different players with different qualities to do different things in different matches. You can start with a fast wing back to bomb on with forwards if you want; or a solid wing back to deal with wingers, depending on who your playing etc. "he is straight behind the shooter" <--- often the point of a 4-4-1-1 is to let that link up player roam freely. Watch how Luca Modric plays and you'll understand. This is also evident in Gerrard and Lampard, who when given the chance to play in a 4-4-1-1 will prefer to roam around doing a semi-sweeper job in front of the middle 4.

Boomlala wrote:The Wing Back's main goal is to oppose the wing attackers. So the Wing Back has to disrupt their forward motion and prevent them from lobbing. Their use is rather psychological than physical, since a good wingman will use bait-and-switch to keep the defender from going full out and creating dead ball situations. I have rarely seen a lob which got blocked by a wing defender, unless they were in a close encounter of the gay kind. They're other use is to support offensive wing play, but that boils down to Argentinian plays wherein a team just passes all the way back and forth between the offenders and the defenders.

A wing defender will never be a crucial defender (exception is: the rare example when they take those strange lob-goals), unless the center back flunked.

No. For a start, wingers do not 'lob' balls into the box. If they're good wingers (which you would expect them to be) they'll either a) run to the touchline and cut a ball inside on the ground into a strikers path or across goal (ie Aaron Lennon, Shaun Wright Philips) OR b) Drift a ball on towards the six yard box (Beckham/Bentley/Downing etc etc). They do not lob balls. If you lob a ball in, it makes for an easy catch/clearance.
OK, now that we got that out the way, I can rip into your 'analysis' more.
"They're other use is to support offensive wing play, but that boils down to Argentinian plays wherein a team just passes all the way back and forth between the offenders and the defenders." HAVE YOU NEVER watched the EPL or La Liga? It is SO common to find wing backs OVERLAPPING the winger to provide width towards the touch line. Yes, they do pass backwards at times, but so many times do you see a winger like Ashley Cole or Patrice Evra bomb on forward infront of the winger; SWP and Ronaldo respectively. This causes trouble for many defences, who have to deal with two wingers instead of one. THAT is supportive wing play.

Alright, where was I?
Ah yes, in terms of defensive wing play, have you seen a case where a wing back tackles a winger? Ever heard of it? There job is not only psychological, they provide a physical presence. Not only do they tackle wingers to stop them putting in crosses, they are useful to pass to for clearances down the wing. Centre backs will often use wing backs to help them clear a ball if it's too dangerous to do so down the middle. Furthermore, wingers are often quite light-weight; to balance their pace. This means that full backs can 'muscle' their opponent off the ball (see Micah Richards). This happens week in week out, virtually every match, without fouls being commited. Of course, in your pussy European leagues, if the winger goes down like he's been shot, then they'll get the free kick; but in physical leagues (how football was originally and therefore meant to be played) the full back provides a good physical presence against oncoming wingers. So no, the wing back's defensive duties are not only psychological, but physical as well. Combine this with their forward play and it is clear that their position really isn't as useless as you claim it to be.

Boomlala wrote:The middle man might have a good center position on it all (albeit heavily pressured), but when compared to the wing midfielders he has a weakness: he can't bait and switch. Wing midfielders can run alongside the lines of the field, making the defenders unable to really go all out for the kill/ball. They have a good view on the forwards without any objects in the way (the diagonals of the offensive half form a good cutting way).

But that doesn't make his position redundant at all. Yes, it makes it redundant when talking about wing play, but it's like saying the goalkeeper is useless 'cause he can't score goals from set play. The method of playing down the centre is entirely different to playing on the wing; but both serve an equally important purpose both defensively and in attacking play.

Boomlala wrote:Point taken. But in Belgian football they seem to stand around jerking off. They always go for the long balls from defenders to attackers, or fail horribly at creating passing attacks.

Well it is Belgium afterall, so I'll give you that.

Boomlala wrote:Finally, about Carrick:

I watched a compilation video, and he is a good player. Old-school, cutting passes, and he seems to have a knack at shooting goals too. But several of the plays aren't really in the midfield spot though. He also seems to be able to shoot goals in front of the center backs. That's nasty (for the other team).

Yes. Carrick isn't the only example either; there are loads - he just does his job better than most.

OK.