Why football is beautiful
mili...@gmail.com
by the interaction of the two teams, and a team is the interaction
among its players. You can't say: "The team with player X will win no
matter which are the teammates", or "The team Y will win against any
other team". So, here we have *complexity*, the same that you find in
chaos theory and in the ancient game of go: every factor can change the
result in a non-linear way.
Or, maybe, football's complexity is a peculiar form of complexity,
because in football interactions (between teams and among teammates)
involve *many skills*: dribbling, passing, shooting, tackling, etc.
So, the beauty of football is this: it's complex and unpredictable
because it involves many players with many different skills.
This is the conclusion of many different problems I have talked about:
objective methods to evaluate single players, fantasy football,
football board game, Benny's world class players. Practically, the main
part of my posts on rss:
http://groups.google.it/group/rec.sport.soccer/search?enc_author=Y4JZJBMAAABSJM_i77wgdIfLMDtoen4uWMj6vob75xS36mXc24h6ww
Now, the next theoretical question is: how many skills do a sport need
to involve, to reach the complexity of football? Two, three, how many?
Naturally, this is a really theoretical problem, because in reality
it's not possible to distinguish and quantify skills.
milivella
Goldmund
statements, that football has got and other team sports don't have...?
mili...@gmail.com
> what is exactly, in your
> statements, that football has got and other team sports don't have...?
I didn't say that only football has these features, but I know that the
same fact that I only cited football means, in some sense, that it
should have a special status to me.
The problem is that I don't know the other sports enough to speak about
them. However, it seems to me that:
- Baseball: there isn't a real team, but only a sum of different
players.
- Volley: There isn't much interaction among players.
- Basket: 1992 Dream Team (best player in his position in the world)
couldn't lose, Perez Real Madrid (the Dream Team of football) could,
and in fact did it.
- In general: in my experience (but, again, I don't know much about
other sports), in football the effects "Mendieta" (a player is good in
a certain team, not in another) and "Italy-Brazil 1982" (teams stronger
than I would lose against B, but the gamestyle of I neutralizes B) are
stronger.
I'd like to hear the opinion of persons more competent than me (anyone
in this newsgroup, I guess).
milivella
Goldmund
>- Volley: There isn't much interaction among players.
The interaction there is determinant. The most evident with the
setter, because any spiker or centre must know what the setter will
do.
Also in defense and in blocking the interaction is important.
>- Basket: 1992 Dream Team (best player in his position in the world)
>couldn't lose, Perez Real Madrid (the Dream Team of football) could,
>and in fact did it.
That is bound to a basical difference of football with other sports:
low scoring.
With few goals per game, since scoring is quite difficult, the
probabilities of a strong team not scroing to a weak team, or
viceversa, are quite high.
In most of other sports, the amount of points per match is high, it's
very difficult that a weaker team can stop the stronger more often
than the stronger can.
mili...@gmail.com
> The interaction there is determinant.
> With few goals per game, since scoring is quite difficult, the
> probabilities of a strong team not scroing to a weak team, or
> viceversa, are quite high.
I must think about these interesting statements.
For the moment, I only add a question: is in football the division of
players in different roles more blurred than in other team sports? This
could be another difference.
milivella
mili...@gmail.com
1. Thank you for the feedback.
2. I'll reply with some questions. They are real questions, not
rhetorical ones, so I hope that you, and whoever is interested, will
reply!
> >- Volley: There isn't much interaction among players.
> The interaction there is determinant. The most evident with the
> setter, because any spiker or centre must know what the setter will
> do.
Do you mean that the best spiker in the world could play better with
(say) the third setter in the world than with the first, if the former
have a certain style of play and the latter another one? (I'm assuming
that the spiker played the same nuber of matches with the two setters,
so it's not a question of experience of playing together.)
> Also in defense and in blocking the interaction is important.
Do you think that a spiker should have a better strategy than "attack
on the worst defender"? (Maybe the same question could be valid for
football, but, even if Roberto Carlos were not good in tackling, it
would be dangerous to attack on his side, 'cause if he takes the ball
he can hurts in counter-attack; in volley, it shouldn't be possible.)
> With few goals per game, since scoring is quite difficult, the
> probabilities of a strong team not scroing to a weak team, or
> viceversa, are quite high.
I don't know. Let's take the 1994 Champions Cup final: AC Milan -
Barcelona 4-0. Here we have not low scoring - at least for football
matches -. And I think that nobody can say that, in terms of "absolute"
value, AC Milan was so stronger than Barcelona: i.e. that, if AC Milan
won 3-0 against a team, then Barcelona had to draw with that team. I
think that, in that case, besides the accidental factors
(one-night-form) and the psychological factors (probably after 2-0
Barcelona's moral dropped), the difference was made by the tactical
factor, i.e. AC Milan could defend against Romario and Stoichkov, while
Barcelona was not good for an (atypical?) attack like
Boban-Savicevic-Massaro. I dont't know, though, if everyone agrees with
this analysis.
milivella
Goldmund
>For the moment, I only add a question: is in football the division of
>players in different roles more blurred than in other team sports? This
>could be another difference.
I don't think there's a basic difference here with other sports: roles
that are quite different aren't exchangeable; a striker would never
play as defender, as a spiker wouldn't play as setter or a pivot as
playmaker.
Though there are certainly more similar roles and here we can have a
full back who can play as wing, or an advanced midfielder that can
play as a forward.
But also in basket a power forward can play as a pivot, or in volley a
spiker as outside hitter.
Goldmund
>2. I'll reply with some questions. They are real questions, not
>rhetorical ones, so I hope that you, and whoever is interested, will
>reply!
Sure, I give you my point of view based on what I know.
>> >- Volley: There isn't much interaction among players.
>
>> The interaction there is determinant. The most evident with the
>> setter, because any spiker or centre must know what the setter will
>> do.
>
>Do you mean that the best spiker in the world could play better with
>(say) the third setter in the world than with the first, if the former
>have a certain style of play and the latter another one? (I'm assuming
>that the spiker played the same nuber of matches with the two setters,
>so it's not a question of experience of playing together.)
No, here I meant basically the experience of playing together, which
imo is more determinant than in other sports, because every attack is
a sharp combination among the players
To answer your question, though, a good setter will find the best way
to serve a spiker, and a better setter will serve him better.
But what makes the difference among top setters is not the techincs,
but tactics: any top setter can give a nice ball to an attacker,
though the most important thing at high level is choosing the right
play.
>> Also in defense and in blocking the interaction is important.
>
>Do you think that a spiker should have a better strategy than "attack
>on the worst defender"? (Maybe the same question could be valid for
>football, but, even if Roberto Carlos were not good in tackling, it
>would be dangerous to attack on his side, 'cause if he takes the ball
>he can hurts in counter-attack; in volley, it shouldn't be possible.)
Well, the first aim of an attack is that the opponent can't return the
ball; this is not always playing on the worst defender, because first
of all there aren't really bad defenders. If a player is not good in
defense won't be in the defense line.
Then, when an attack is reapeated on and on becomes expected, and so
the probabilities of making a point decrease; it's always very
important to have a variety in attacking schemes.
>> With few goals per game, since scoring is quite difficult, the
>> probabilities of a strong team not scroing to a weak team, or
>> viceversa, are quite high.
>
>I don't know. Let's take the 1994 Champions Cup final: AC Milan -
>Barcelona 4-0. Here we have not low scoring - at least for football
>matches -. And I think that nobody can say that, in terms of "absolute"
>value, AC Milan was so stronger than Barcelona: i.e. that, if AC Milan
>won 3-0 against a team, then Barcelona had to draw with that team. I
>think that, in that case, besides the accidental factors
>(one-night-form) and the psychological factors (probably after 2-0
>Barcelona's moral dropped), the difference was made by the tactical
>factor, i.e. AC Milan could defend against Romario and Stoichkov, while
>Barcelona was not good for an (atypical?) attack like
>Boban-Savicevic-Massaro. I dont't know, though, if everyone agrees with
>this analysis.
Ok, but how many teams end this way? I mean, the average amount of
points is low, and the same about the chances.
In basket a team scores an average of 40-50 times per match, with
scroing average around 50%; luck has a low impact on the game.
In volley the number of points and the percentage of scoring is even
higher.
In football the points are usually 1-2-3 in the game, with a much
lower shooting and scoring percentage. Hitting the post may change
your result, while in basket or volley this happens almost never.
mili...@gmail.com
> >is in football the division of
> >players in different roles more blurred than in other team sports?
> I don't think there's a basic difference here with other sports: roles
> that are quite different aren't exchangeable; a striker would never
> play as defender
I have in mind some examples of players that, in different moments of
their career, played in quite different roles:
- Massaro: from fullback (1982) to most advanced forward (1994)
- Pirlo: from trequartista to defensive playmaker
- Matthaeus
- Beckenbauer
But maybe these are isolated cases, or there are similar examples in
other sports.
However, what i meant is this:
> there are certainly more similar roles and here we can have a
> full back who can play as wing, or an advanced midfielder that can
> play as a forward.
And I accept your answer:
> But also in basket a power forward can play as a pivot, or in volley a
> spiker as outside hitter.
---
> here I meant basically the experience of playing together
> a good setter will find the best way
> to serve a spiker, and a better setter will serve him better.
So do you agree with this assertion: "In football, more than in any
other sports, putting together the best players doesn't always make the
best team."?
---
> Ok, but how many teams end this way? I mean, the average amount of
> points is low, and the same about the chances.
It's evident. I don't deny this point. I only ask if this is the only
factor that brings to "odd results". Counter-examples, like AC Milan -
Barcelona, could show that there are other factors.
---
milivella
Bruce Scott TOK
A colleague in the US said he liked basketball because when you don't
score it is a mistake, while in football when you do score it's a
mistake (by the defense, usually).
I agreed but said that's why football was better :-)
--
ciao,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
Goldmund
>So do you agree with this assertion: "In football, more than in any
>other sports, putting together the best players doesn't always make the
>best team."?
In this sense yes, actually we may say this: the lineup in football is
less rigid than in other sports, that's why.
In volley you have 1 setter, 1 outside hitter, 2 spikers and 2
centres, that's it.
Similar cases, to my knowledge, in waterpolo, handball and hockey.
In basket you have more freedom.
In footnall you have even more, so if your team plays counterattacks,
a good quick forward may be more useful to the team than a better
striker, strong in headers, who wouldn't receive a single cross. And
so on.
>> Ok, but how many teams end this way? I mean, the average amount of
>> points is low, and the same about the chances.
>
>It's evident. I don't deny this point. I only ask if this is the only
>factor that brings to "odd results". Counter-examples, like AC Milan -
>Barcelona, could show that there are other factors.
The question is: if the match is played 10 times again, how would it
end?
In basket the stornger team would win again 8-9 times, in volley 9-10.
In football? Maybe 5, 3 draws and 2 loss.
mili...@gmail.com
football, you have:
- less rigid line-up -> the best team is not simply the best players
together (football beauty #1)
- low scoring + different tactics (related to less rigid line-up above)
-> the stronger team doesn't always win (football beauty #2)
The questions now are:
- why do we have not-rigid line-ups? (maybe it's related to my first
question: which skills create the complexity of football?)
- why there is low scoring? (the answer, I think, must be historical:
before 1960, there were more goals)
milivella
FairFootball
And that's a good thing ? IMO, as no doubt you're aware, this is bad,
very bad.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To see how the refs messed up World Cup 2006, visit
http://www.FairFootball.com
Clément
> A simple and banal truth: the result of a football match is determined
> by the interaction of the two teams, and a team is the interaction
> among its players. You can't say: "The team with player X will win no
> matter which are the teammates", or "The team Y will win against any
> other team". So, here we have *complexity*, the same that you find in
> chaos theory and in the ancient game of go: every factor can change the
> result in a non-linear way.
>
> Or, maybe, football's complexity is a peculiar form of complexity,
> because in football interactions (between teams and among teammates)
> involve *many skills*: dribbling, passing, shooting, tackling, etc.
>
> So, the beauty of football is this: it's complex and unpredictable
> because it involves many players with many different skills.
And very importantly, the way those many variables and facets interact
can hardly be described as "scientific" or anything like that.
True, football training and managing has a huge body of knowledge as a
field, as you wold expect. But the thing is, in many other sports, I
feel like it is possible to build a reliably winning team using "only"
the body of knowledge you have available (from player development to
game tactics). I feel that in football it takes way more than that
(although technical knowledge is still essencial).
Also, it is this kind of complexity that puts many people away from
football, IMHO. Some people are strongly attracted by complexity, while
other people jus can't deal with it (and I'm not making any value
judgment here).
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
mili...@gmail.com
> > So, the beauty of football is this: it's complex and unpredictable
> > because it involves many players with many different skills.
> And very importantly, the way those many variables and facets interact
> can hardly be described as "scientific" or anything like that.
Certainly. I only don't understand if you put "if you play
counterattacks, then it's better to have a quick forward" among the
interactions:
- if yes, this is a principle that, although not scientific, is
knowable, demonstrable.
- if no (as your statement "in football it takes way more than that
[knowlegde of player development, game tactics, etc.]"), I would ask
you: how do you think that variables interact? Do you think that a
fundamental role is played by emotions? enviromental conditions? luck?
something other? all these together?
> But the thing is, in many other sports, I
> feel like it is possible to build a reliably winning team using "only"
> the body of knowledge you have available
> I feel that in football it takes way more than that
Exactly what I think, and said better than I can.
milivella
Goldmund
<FAIRFOOT...@domainsbyproxy.com> wrote:
>Goldmund wrote:
>> On 8 Nov 2006 10:42:14 -0800, mili...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> In most of other sports, the amount of points per match is high, it's
>> very difficult that a weaker team can stop the stronger more often
>> than the stronger can.
>
>And that's a good thing ? IMO, as no doubt you're aware, this is bad,
>very bad.
I didn't say it'sgood or bad. I just explained a fact.
FairFootball
I know, and I agree with the fact as you explained it. My question
wasn't addressed (only) to you but first of all to the OP who thinks,
if I'm not mistaken, that this is one of the things that make football
beautiful. Well, a surprise now and then might add to the
entertainment, but if you think that this actually means that major
tournament winners depend so much on luck, I'd say the bad part far
outweighs the good part. Wouldn't you say so ? This is a phrase
frequently used "that's why football is beautiful, you don't know the
result in advance", which IMO is rather superficial thinking. It's nice
to have surprises but they should happen when a team you previously
thought was weaker actually shows they are stronger, isn't it ? And my
guess is this would still happen if they managed to change things so
that more goals are scored. Especially at the top, there are now quite
a number of top teams that are very close to each other. There would no
doubt be less surprises, but of a better quality if you ask me.
I'd really like to hear some more opinions about this, I have brought
up the question before but nobody agreed nor disagreed. So I thought
this topic would be a very good opportunity.
Clément
Sorry for the delayed answer.
mili...@gmail.com escreveu:
> To Clément:
>
> > > So, the beauty of football is this: it's complex and unpredictable
> > > because it involves many players with many different skills.
>
> > And very importantly, the way those many variables and facets interact
> > can hardly be described as "scientific" or anything like that.
>
> Certainly. I only don't understand if you put "if you play
> counterattacks, then it's better to have a quick forward" among the
> interactions:
> - if yes, this is a principle that, although not scientific, is
> knowable, demonstrable.
Possibly, yes. I think such a principle would fall into what I called a
"body of technical knowledge" any sport probably has.
My point was more in the sense that you may have in place, for
instance, good defenders, a clever playmaker and a quick forward and
still not build a good counterattacking side.
(This is just an example, I'm not saying those three pieces are all
that you need to play counterattacks, nor even that those pieces are
indispensable at all.)
> - if no (as your statement "in football it takes way more than that
> [knowlegde of player development, game tactics, etc.]"), I would ask
> you: how do you think that variables interact? Do you think that a
> fundamental role is played by emotions? enviromental conditions? luck?
> something other? all these together?
I'd say yes to all, but most importantly I think that both
possibilities do not exclude each other. You can employ demonstrable
principles and still be subject to variables you can't control (or
didn't address in time) and that can make your effort fail.
I feel this is the point where I should try to elaborate on what these
variables are, but this is something I'd like to think carefully about.
A good starting point could be the question "why do teams with a lot of
good/great players fail?"
In football, this happens all the time, and the justifications (or
excuses) vary a lot. The answers may be demonstrably technical or not,
and the later are the ones that we would be more interested on.
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
mili...@gmail.com
football matches' unpredictability:
1. Interaction among teams, that depends on knowable factors (me):
good.
2. Unknowable factors (Luiz Mello): good.
3. Low scoring (Goldmund): not good (fairfootball)?
These elements bring to different problems:
(1, 2) Are the factors that produce a match result knowable or not? are
they general or particular? We could start with the question asked by
Luiz: "why do teams with a lot of good/great players fail?" I don't
know if this is true: if you think about the last seasons of Real
Madrid, yes, but - just an example - ask the people which is the
greatest national team ever: many will answer "Brazil 1970, *because it
had such a concentration of stars*".
(3) If a football match could have more goals, would it be better? In
any case, how could it be possible?
milivella
Clément
> Maybe we need a clarification. Here we have 3 different reasons of
> football matches' unpredictability:
> 1. Interaction among teams, that depends on knowable factors (me): good.
Agreed. Those knowable factors include, IMHO, technical and tactical
variables, as well as intangibles (which can be tracked and considered
when building a team, although I suspect that very often they are not
paid enough attention to).
> 2. Unknowable factors (Luiz Mello): good.
> 3. Low scoring (Goldmund): not good (fairfootball)?
I think that good or not good in both (2) and (3) depend on how we
define "unpredictability" here. We all know that football outcomes,
although rather prone to upsets, is far from random.
>From what I understood of FairFootball's post, their point was that
randomness and luck (only) prevailing over skill/training is not good.
In which case I agree with him.
However, I find it is a good thing that a weaker team may beat a
stronger one under certain circumstances that do not include look (or
are far of being limited by it).
And I do not mind low scoring, since football beauty and excitement is
not limited to scoring at all. Yet, I was really intrigued by the idea
that low scoring could be one of the objective factors that lend
unpredictability to football. I had never thought of this in these
terms and I am inclined to agree.
> These elements bring to different problems:
>
> (1, 2) Are the factors that produce a match result knowable or not? are
> they general or particular? We could start with the question asked by
> Luiz: "why do teams with a lot of good/great players fail?" I don't
> know if this is true: if you think about the last seasons of Real
> Madrid, yes, but - just an example - ask the people which is the
> greatest national team ever: many will answer "Brazil 1970, *because it
> had such a concentration of stars*".
You are completely correct. My apologies here, since I did not express
myself properly. What I meant was that many teams filled with great
players fail (not all of them). This is a fairly verifiable fact in
many levels (Real Madrid being just the first example that usually
comes to mind).
But yes, good players should be an integral part of any winning team.
> (3) If a football match could have more goals, would it be better? In
> any case, how could it be possible?
I think it's hard to tell. For starters, we would have to re-learn how
to evaluate, in the new context, what is good defense - and good
offense, for that matter.
For example, we recently had a Atlético-PR 6-4 Vasco outcome in
Brazil's Série A. It was a great match, not exactly because it had 10
goals, but because:
- there were *four* comebacks: 1-2, 3-2, 3-4, 5-4;
- both teams are performing well in the league, were on hot streaks,
and were fighting for a Libertadores spot;
- both wanted to win, and were not afraid to go for it.
Bottom line, it was a good football match. But it could as easily not
have been one. Whenever my team wins 6-4, I'll celebrate the wild win
for a moment, but then I'll ask myself what kind of defending we put on
the field. High scoring is not a synonym for good football.
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
mili...@gmail.com
> From what I understood of FairFootball's post, their point was that
> randomness and luck (only) prevailing over skill/training is not good.
> In which case I agree with him.
This (2. unknowable factors not random, 3. random) is a better division
than mine (2. unknowable factors, 3. low scoring). I set away low
scoring because Fairfootball talked only about it.
> > (1, 2) Are the factors that produce a match result knowable or not?
> What I meant was that many teams filled with great
> players fail (not all of them).
The right question here should be: do teams filled with great players
*that play in their position and are, in theory, tactically compatible
one with each other* go well? Such a question sets away Real Madrid
(Perez era): Zidane, Figo, Beckham were not compatible.
> > (3) If a football match could have more goals, would it be better? In
> > any case, how could it be possible?
> I think it's hard to tell. For starters, we would have to re-learn how
> to evaluate, in the new context, what is good defense - and good
> offense, for that matter.
I think that our idea of good defense is shaped by history. Football
has become more and more defensive. Look at the goals per game average
in past World Cups:
1958 3.82
1962 3.0
1966 3.875
1970 4.25
1974 2.0
1978 3.5
1982 4.25
1986 3.0
1990 2.06
1994 3.0
1998 2.75
2002 1.94
2006 1.875
Why is this happened? A more defensive approach gave more wins? An
answer could maybe bring us to your problem: "how to evaluate, in the
new context, what is good defense".
milivella
Clément
> To Luiz Mello:
>
> > What I meant was that many teams filled with great
> > players fail (not all of them).
>
> The right question here should be: do teams filled with great players
> *that play in their position and are, in theory, tactically compatible
> one with each other* go well? Such a question sets away Real Madrid
> (Perez era): Zidane, Figo, Beckham were not compatible.
Absolutely, you are correct. But then again, dressing together players
that don't really mesh together is one of the reasons why such teams
may fail. And more interesting, incompatibilities between players may
be of obvious technical or tactical nature, or may be completely
intangible, so that you only realise them after you made the wrong
signing choice.
> I think that our idea of good defense is shaped by history. Football
> has become more and more defensive.
(snip decreasing goal average in World Cups)
> Why is this happened? A more defensive approach gave more wins?
I'm inclined to think so. I believe that offense wins you games, but
defense wins you trophies.
If I was given a budget to build a team, I sure as hell would begin by
building a solid defense corps. It's cheaper and it's more likely to
pay off in the long run.
It doesn't mean that I would want to play defensively first and
foremost, just that defense has to be taken seriously if you want to be
a contender.
However, I see other explanation why goal average has decreased in
World Cups. As professionalism increases, more things are at stake out
there. The more you have to lose, more cautious your approach is.
Also, most players in a WC know each other fairly well, and play each
other on a regular basis. I'm young, but old enough to remember a time
when the WC had the extra appeal that we were going to watch a bunch of
famous players we mostly only heard about in the in-between years. This
is obviously not true anymore. We watch those guy play each other week
in week out. They know each other better than they know their moms. As
a result, competition is tighter. (And not necessarily there is an
increase in upsets, as we noticed in this last WC).
> An answer could maybe bring us to your problem: "how to evaluate,
> in the new context, what is good defense".
This is a question we already ask ourselves from time to time as the
game evolves. If the game rules suffered some kind of overhaul in order
to create more scoring, the great difference is that we would to ask
that question all of a sudden, applying it to the new reality. Some
historical marks also could lose their meaning entirely, for comparison
purposes.
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
Jesus Petry
RIP.
Tchau!
Jesus Petry
mili...@gmail.com
> incompatibilities between players may
> be of obvious technical or tactical nature, or may be completely
> intangible, so that you only realise them after you made the wrong
> signing choice.
Maybe it would be easier to talk about real cases: have you examples of
such intangible incompatibilities? They would be very interesting.
> I see other explanation why goal average has decreased in
> World Cups.
Your explanations sounded very good to me. But I thought: "Ok, but goal
average has decreased through the decades everywhere, not only in World
Cup". I din't know where to find these data, so I tried to make a
*little* sample, calculating the goal average of the most prolific
teams in Serie A every 10 years. And I discovered that... *it's not
true that today less goals are scored!*
1935-36 2,03 Inter
1945-46 2,50 Torino
1955-56 2,05 Milan
1965-66 2,05 Inter
1975-76 1,63 Torino
1985-86 1,70 Roma
1995-96 1,94 Lazio
2005-06 2,23 Milan
How is this possible? Is it caused by Serie A's history (16, 18 or 20
teams in the league, 2 or 3 points for the winner)? Is it not true
that, once upon a time, they played a more offensive football, with
formations such as 2-3-5? *What happened? Is football more defensive
now than before, or not?* I'd really appreciate an answer...
milivella
Lléo
news:1163776973.0...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Because of people like Puskas.
>
> RIP.
Very well put. RIP Puskas.
--
Lléo
joyo
passing (when it is played that way), vis a vis the earlier
Brazilians-which lead to goals and in that it is a mirror of and a
metaphor for life.
When it is played like they play in England, psuh, run lick, get stuck
in, then it becomes an ugly life.
But when they play like they do in spain, then its a beautiful life.
Clément
Very well said, my friend.
And it's also beautiful that such men are, in fact, immortal. Because
the beauty and joy they brought to our sport will remain in the fans'
hearts and minds long after we all are gone.
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
Clément
> To Luiz Mello:
>
> > incompatibilities between players may
> > be of obvious technical or tactical nature, or may be completely
> > intangible, so that you only realise them after you made the wrong
> > signing choice.
>
> Maybe it would be easier to talk about real cases: have you examples of
> such intangible incompatibilities? They would be very interesting.
I'm not really good at examples. I'll risk a few, though. None of them
are too unlikely, I believe:
- ego issues between two or more players you assembled tou build your
team;
- out-of-field adaptation issues for a key player;
- you hire a player who had a couple of astounding seasons, but turns
out it was a fluke because his performance depended on the leadership
or behavior of one or more role players at his last club.
(...)
> Your explanations sounded very good to me. But I thought: "Ok, but
> goal average has decreased through the decades everywhere, not only
> in World Cup". I din't know where to find these data, so I tried to make
> a *little* sample, calculating the goal average of the most prolific
> teams in Serie A every 10 years. And I discovered that... *it's not
> true that today less goals are scored!*
> 1935-36 2,03 Inter
> 1945-46 2,50 Torino
> 1955-56 2,05 Milan
> 1965-66 2,05 Inter
> 1975-76 1,63 Torino
> 1985-86 1,70 Roma
> 1995-96 1,94 Lazio
> 2005-06 2,23 Milan
> How is this possible? Is it caused by Serie A's history (16, 18 or 20
> teams in the league, 2 or 3 points for the winner)? Is it not true
> that, once upon a time, they played a more offensive football, with
> formations such as 2-3-5? *What happened? Is football more defensive
> now than before, or not?* I'd really appreciate an answer...
As defense improves, offense improves too. Maybe the main difference is
that today's football puts more emphasis on effectiveness than on
creativity?
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
mili...@gmail.com
> are too unlikely, I believe:
Your examples, that cover the psychological aspect of football, are
very good. Psychology is really an important factor. I don't know,
though, if specialists would consider psychological relations
"intangible" and "unknowable".
> > Is football more defensive
> > now than before, or not?
> As defense improves, offense improves too. Maybe the main difference is
> that today's football puts more emphasis on effectiveness than on
> creativity?
Don't know. If you see football videos about skills (Youtube, etc.),
there are mainly players of the last two decades. But the media
coverage is today way larger than before... Anyway, some beloved
players (Cristiano Ronaldo above all?) do spectacular tricks even if
they are not effective, so today creativity - or, maybe more precisely,
spectacle - is regarded.ù
milivella
Clément
> Your examples, that cover the psychological aspect of football, are
> very good. Psychology is really an important factor. I don't know,
> though, if specialists would consider psychological relations
> "intangible" and "unknowable".
Yeah, your question crossed my mind too. I was assuming that such
factors sometimes are not predictable. But, in this sense, how football
is different from other sports? Maybe my line of reasoning is deviating
from the original point.
Best,
Luiz Mello
mili...@gmail.com
It's good if new problems grow up. Even if psychological aspects are
important for every sport, it's worth discussing if they are in some
measure predictable. I thought "strange!" when I saw psychology among
the arguments treated "scientifically" by Ken Bray in his book "How to
score":
http://www.granta.com/shop/product?usca_p=t&product_id=2901
Bray says that there are some tricks that players do, and cite the
example of Dudek in 2004-05 Champions League final.
milivella
Clément
> important for every sport, it's worth discussing if they are in some
> measure predictable.
Absolutely. And I'm sure these aspects are predictable and very
workable with. Even if it's in an instinctive (i.e., not scientific)
level.
> I thought "strange!" when I saw psychology among
> the arguments treated "scientifically" by Ken Bray in his book "How to
> score":
> http://www.granta.com/shop/product?usca_p=t&product_id=2901
> Bray says that there are some tricks that players do, and cite the
> example of Dudek in 2004-05 Champions League final.
Nice hint. Thanks for that.
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
FairFootball
Clément wrote:
>
> However, I find it is a good thing that a weaker team may beat a
> stronger one under certain circumstances that do not include look (or
> are far of being limited by it).
I disagree. I think the ideal, by definition, is that the stronger one
always wins. "let the stronger one win", or something like it, was the
motto of the antique olympics, wasn't it ? And they were right. This is
the purpose of a match, and that's why it's called a match, to see
which one is stronger. If the stronger one wins the match succeeds, if
not the match fails. It's as simple as that.
Don't confuse this with real life situations where the stronger one,
"the bully", shouldn't get to beat the weaker one. This is a
competition, everybody trains, works and even lives for to win in the
end, so it's actually cruel and incorrect when, for no matter what
reason, the better one doesn't win. (As an aside, here the stronger one
and the better one mean exactly the same thing.)
This is also true for situations of type team A regularly beats B, B
regularly beats C but C regularly beats A (you know, C's style is not
suited for A). Such things are also bad and should be avoided as much
as possible. The ideal is when things are "normal" i.e. transitive,
and, I might add, they should last like they are for 1 year, or for the
time of the respective competition. And it must be ensured that all
teams have equal condition, i.e for instance all have time to recover
and be in good shape for every game. This is the only way the outcome
of a competition is entirely meaningful, everything else tends to
distort it.
As I said, surprises should only happen when a team previously thought
to be weaker prove that they are in fact stronger.
Of course this is the ideal, which cannot be achieved in practice, be
it only for the fact that some key player can injure himself and not be
able to play any longer. But unfortunately in football there are far
too many items that spoil this ideal.
Clément
> Clément wrote:
> >
> > However, I find it is a good thing that a weaker team may beat a
> > stronger one under certain circumstances that do not include look (or
> > are far of being limited by it).
Ouch, I obviously meant "luck" where I wrote "look". Sorry for that. =)
> I disagree. I think the ideal, by definition, is that the stronger one
> always wins.
Oh, ok! I had not fully understood your previous message. Fair enough.
However, this is one point we'll have to agree to disagree about. =)
The perspective of always having the stronger team winning, rather than
being a perfect scenario, strikes me as a very boring one.
I'm not trying to discuss your point, though, as you explained very
well your reasons. Just a matter of opinion here.
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
FairFootball
Clément wrote:
>
> The perspective of always having the stronger team winning, rather than
> being a perfect scenario, strikes me as a very boring one.
Think so ? I'm not so sure. I think we still wouldn't know for sure
who's going to win the World Cup or the UCL - until they've won it.
Portugal, Brazil, France or England might have been IMO the actual best
team this summer. It's likely to be the same situation in 4 years (not
necessarily these exact same 4 teams but probably some of them plus
maybe a few others).
Let's look at it from another angle then - do you like the idea that a
team other than the best one may win the World Cup (theoretically
speaking) ?
>From what I've heard, the best time in world football was when Brazil
was reigning supreme in the 60s. It was far from boring, they say.
Admittedly, things may be different now, but maybe not that different.
Anyway, as it is now, luck and other non-sporting factors have way too
much influence IMO.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clément
> Let's look at it from another angle then - do you like the idea that a
> team other than the best one may win the World Cup (theoretically
> speaking) ?
Well, this is a catchy question... Since we are all good sports, it's
expected that we always want the best sides to win! =)
But my point is, I like the idea that the best teams have to earn their
money. Since upsets are kind of likely in football, teams that are
supposed to be the best have to show up every day, or they seriously
risk losing. Am I making sense here?
On the other hand I really like the idea that an underdog, if they play
really hard and manage to outwork a big gun, have a legitimate chance
to claim a big win. I don't see anything wrong with this and, in fact,
I think it's terrific.
Obviously we may both arrive to the conclusion that, if an underdog
managed to outplay a big gun in a given night, then the underdog was
the best team *that night*, and hence the best team actually won in the
end. Maybe it's all about how we define "best". That's fine.
What I mean by "best" is "best on paper" (i.e., having the best
players), or "being one of the favorites", or "having greater
tradition", for example. And what I enjoy is the fact that a team other
than the "best" is capable of winning, because I don't like the idea
that a stronger team may go out there, underperform, and get away with
it unpunished.
> From what I've heard, the best time in world football was when Brazil
> was reigning supreme in the 60s. It was far from boring, they say.
> Admittedly, things may be different now, but maybe not that different.
> Anyway, as it is now, luck and other non-sporting factors have way too
> much influence IMO.
Well, we totally agree on this last bit. Granted, luck plays a part in
every facet of our lives, and there's not much running away from it.
Howerver, I don't like outcomes in which luck or randomness played a
major part either. It reflects, for instance, on the games I play in my
leisure time. I tend to favour strategy and reasoning games, as opposed
to games that rely too much on dice, for example. But that's me, and
that's no different from how I appreciate sports.
I don't believe football is too random, though. Take the World Cups as
an example. In eighteen tournaments, only seven different nations got
to win the whole thing. It's far from a random (or luck depending)
pattern. The same case could be made if you pick up national leagues.
Even if you find ou an example in which the trophies are regularly
spread among many teams, further investigation is likely to tell us
that it's because of a very level play field (as it is in the case of
the Brazilian League), and not because of luck.
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
mili...@gmail.com
I want to remember that, in the original discussion, we said something
like: team A may be the best, and may be better than B and C, but the
style of play and the tactics of team D cause problems to A, so D wins
6 times out of 10 against A. So *A is the best team, but it doesn't
mean that it's right that it wins every match*.
And I think (this is a repetition): *this (among other reasons) makes
football beautiful.*
milivella
FairFootball
What I mean by "best" is "best on paper" (i.e., having the best
players), or "being one of the favorites", or "having greater
tradition", for example. And what I enjoy is the fact that a team other
than the "best" is capable of winning, because I don't like the idea
that a stronger team may go out there, underperform, and get away with
it unpunished.
OK, we clearly aren't talking about the same thing here. And I have to
say I think what I'm talking about is more meaningful. That is, about
the team that actually is best, not "on paper" or "by tradition". The
problem here is luck (which in this discussion I take to include other
non-sporting factors, for shortness) vs. sheer sporting value.
Of course I agree that it's OK that the underdogs have a chance to win,
if they actually play that game better. I don't like it, however, if
they win by luck.
Luiz Mello wrote:
I don't believe football is too random, though. Take the World Cups as
an example. In eighteen tournaments, only seven different nations got
to win the whole thing. It's far from a random (or luck depending)
pattern.
If only things were so simple.
For one thing, there's the effect of the refs siding (maybe
unintentionally) with the best team, and here I mean best like in "best
on paper". ;) This is part of what I call luck, but it doesn't show as
a random pattern, on the contrary.
Most importantly, there are 4 - 5 very good teams every year who
actually compete for the Cup, and among these luck plays a too big
role. I don't think this can be disputed. As I wrote in another
message, starting with Italy '90 there has been no Cup in which the
winner hasn't been obviously lucky, either by PKs or favored by lucky
games (such as Argentina eliminating Brazil in '90), except for Brazil
4 years ago, and even then we can't be sure what would have happened
had Italy and Spain been able to compete on a fair basis.
Plus there's the problem of too many players getting injured, which is
also part of (bad) luck. And don't tell me there's nothing that can be
done about it, there is, not eliminate it completely but reduce it - by
discouraging fouling. Rules should be much stricter and much more
strictly applied than they are now IMO.
football beautiful*
As I said, I don't agrree with this. This is one thing that makes
matters confusing from the start and prone to luck. So, if a tournament
includes only A, B and C (plus other much weaker teams) then the
obvious winner is A, but if team D shows up, then A might or might not
be the deserved winner. More importantly, in this case the winner
depends on how the teams are drawn against each other. Of course, this
can happen and there's not much that can be done about it, except not
to like it.