goon wrote:
Tactics wrote:
Let me put ithe this way, do you know of any underdog/unfancied team in the history of the game that has gone on to win big trophies whilst playing attacking football?
All the underdogs that I know of (Greece, Denmark, Porto, Leicester, Portugal etc) that won big trophies didn't play an attacking brand of football.
Well Monaco and Dortmund won their domestic leagues despite being underdogs. So did we. Liverpool nearly won it under Rodgers despite having an appalling defence purely by going gung ho in attack.
Porto won the CL but they beat a fairly attacking underdog in the final.
By default, underdogs will be forced to play more defensive football against better sides. There's nothing wrong with that, it's called being smart. But there's a big difference to say how we beat Barcelona, probably the best team I've ever seen, in that CL game than how the likes of Mourinho or Simeone would approach it. When we have the ball, I want us to play.
Monaco and Dortmund had the 2nd best squads in a 1 man league. That 1 man does cock up once in a while, that's how the Monacos, Dortmunds win their leagues.
Our teams in our title winning seasons were of comparable quality to those at Man United IMO. And we actually played an even more adventurous style post 2005 (that switch was Wenger's biggest mistake IMO).
Yes Liverpool 'nearly' won it, Monaco 'nearly' won it etc That's how it mostly ends, their adventurous style almost always cost them in the end.
Not all underdogs are forced back my default, we went to places like Old Trafford, Stamford Bridge etc and played them off the park but returned home with 0 points and no goals scored.
Back to my main point, I was obviously talking about a situation wherein you have a couple of teams with better players, it's extremely difficult IMO to play an attacking brand of football and expect to win a big trophy at the expense of those teams.I can't imagine an attacking side doing what Greece did at Euro 2004 for example.
