Quincy Abeyie wrote:
Klaus wrote:
Worked better for who, exactly?
For those who use it of course. They probably went from two forwards to one for the same reason as they once went from four forwards to two. To increase their chances of winning. Do you not believe that is the reason?
Of course I don't. It's a compromise to suit the dominant system of the last 8 years. If the game just evolved to copy what's successful you'd see plenty of Messis around, but it doesn't. It evolves as a reaction to what's successful.
The reason most teams went from two strikers to one is because European clubs started to prioritise movement off the ball instead of skills on it. That's your best bet to stop an opponent you can't match for quality. You run longer, tackle harder, and nullify the space on the field. Athleticism and hard workers are always going to be more important than outstanding quality to teams like that. The second striker was removed and people started sticking a midfielder as a playmaker up there instead. To compensate they also put an extra defensive midfielder in the Makelele role in the other end, whose sole job was to sweep up anything that got inside his little 10x10 feet square.
As a consequence both second strikers and central midfielders are on the brink of extinction. And for the most part it has left us with less creative and much less entertaining football. It has also completely killed the development of top strikers in Europe. The ones who aren't physical enough to cut it up front alone get stuck on the flank where their attributes are usually wasted. Meanwhile the transfer fees for any half decent goalscorer out there are through the roof. It's pretty much the definition of painting yourself into a corner.
