Is attacking football the only entertaining football?

Question

I hate it when people use the term anti-football etc.

There are movies I thought were terrible, and music I despise, it doesnt mean noone else liked it, or that they are disgraces.

Why do some fans preach free thought when someone disagrees with their opinion on a player or manager, but when it comes to the game itself, they are quick to brandish a style of play boring?

Answer 1

I agree. Some football fans seem to think "beauty" is an objective concept. They think it translates into "lots of short passes".



Well it doesn't. It's subjective, and just because the majority find lots of short passes 'beautiful', it doesn't mean the minority are wrong not to. For example, I could think 50 yard hoofs are beautiful. Somebody prove me wrong.





Ltg:



Think of it this way:



Goalkeeper rolls the ball to centre-back; centre back passes to fullback; fullback passes back to centre-back; centre-back passes to centre-midfielder; centre-midfielder passes back to centre-back; centre-back passes to other full-back; full-back passes to winger; winger passes to centre-midfielder; centre-midfielder passes to fellow centre-midfielder; centre-midfielder passes back to winger; winger passes to forward; forward passes to centre-midfielder; centre-midfielder passes to other winger; winger passes to full-back; full-back loses ball.



Repeat slight variations of this process for 90 minutes.



Where's the entertainment value in that?

Answer 2

I never said attacking football is the only entertaining football. You're ASSuming..



Defensive games can be entertaining as long as you don't park the bus or play with no intention of attacking. There has to be a balance between the both and most of you don't get it...



I'll use Barcelona since they're more often than not used as the model of what's considered entertaining. When Barça play they currently do two things better than anyone and that's movement and passing but they also play some of the best defense by trapping the player with the ball, getting it back quickly and holding on to possession. They also play the same style with minor variations whether the opposing team is worth £50M or £500M.



As per what's consider anti-football think of it this way, when a team is in the CL that is worth close to £200M (Inter in 2009-10) and £300 (Chelsea in 2008-09) and they choose to park the bus for one lousy point then that's anti-football. The CL is about the best teams competing for the biggest prize in club football. There should be no reason why a team of that caliber should be playing negative football for a lousy point...



I've made it very clear that defensive football is not anti-football. Refusing to play any attacking football while at the same packing your side with all your players including the ones that get paid to attack is anti-football...



@ Bizarre: What you just describe is when Barça or Arsenal play opposition who's parking the bus... Now watch Arsenal v Barça from last year or Barça v Real Madrid and tell me if it's what you just describe...

Answer 3

Because you look at football and see attack. How can there be football without attack. Think about it...



Is the ball gonna get to the other side via a magic tunnel inside Mourinho's belly button? No.



You can have football without defense, it would be bad but it can be done. But how can you have football without attack? How? It just doesn't cross my mind. So to focus on defense and allow Attacking football to take a backseat does seem a bit anti-football (knowing as the concept is to attack and score) However, I think for some teams it's the only way to win/ draw. I can understand if a small team does it against a big one (Switzerland vs Spain) but I just can't grasp why a team that can go out there and attack because they have the quality wouldn't... simply to play it safe (Germany vs Spain) Yes counter attack so exciting blah blah blah. The roots of football are both sides attacking... but that seems to be changing.



To ME defensive football is boring, dull, frustrating, a bit cowardly too.

And others might like it but in a way it is a bit anti the football concept

Answer 4

Attacking football is entertaining, regardless of results (in reason), but effective football that wins games and leagues is the most entertaining, as at the end of the day you have paid the £5-£50 to see your team win, not play well and lose

Answer 5

This is what majority of football lovers love to see:



Fluid passing , from defence to attack and search for ways to get past defence either by keeping the ball on ground or using aerial balls on occasions (chips , crosses ), using your team chemistry to find ways to pass to break thru defences through through balls or a quick one two to release a player.Now that's what people pay to see.



Inability to keep possession for more than a few seconds , lobbing the ball from defence to the opponents defence all the time with a new concept called Aerial possession of close to 30 percent are instant turn offs.

Don't forget the innumerable time wasting tactics and constant fouling to disrupt play are all called anti-football



There is a reason why neutral love watching Arsenal or Barcelona.When they watch they are certain to see quality football.

As for other teams you need to be a fan to watch the team.

Answer 6

well defending all the time like the european countries(not including france,hollad,spain,portugal, germany and england) is boring but its not anti football cause if italy won 4 world cups and ac milan won 7 uefa cups,inter 3 and juventus 2 by playing a great defensive game then who are we to gudge???? african teams play an exciting attacking style but look how cameroon and nigeria did in the world cup. they need to work defensivley to. and brazilian fans dont want to call up pato,adriano, ronaldinho because they dont play an attacking brazilian style and play more normal.

Answer 7

Lool, this is anti-soccer in my eyes, enjoying genuinely everyone at the back of the ball and arranged them to screw up so which you would be waiting to create of undertaking isn't beneficial for me. guy U and Arsenal do no longer play counter-attacking soccer, do no longer arise with a stupid remark like that. They dominate each and every interest, fairly Arsenal, guy U in basic terms play protecting soccer against Arsenal. Edit: definite, that objective got here precisely from what i become speaking approximately, Barca misplaced the ball in midfield and rapid one 2 between Marcelo and Di Maria then it become flow, objective, thats counter-attack for you.

Answer 8

really think of it this way nick...keeper has the ball...kicks it up field, finds a striker and he either scores or its a goal kick...the opposition keeper takes the ball and repeats the same routine.... that continues for 90mins the ball never settle on the ground...where is the entertainment value? thats why i cant stand it

Answer 9

i debate that every day with my mates if you not playing barca or brazilian football its anti- football what wrong with a ball from keeper to central striker and goal

Answer 10

yes germany's style was very entertaining.. while spains style had me changing the channel/.. usa style is at least some what enteratining

Answer 11

I like stories

Answer 12

lol is this really a question???? You must be Chel$ki or Liverpool fan...