Printable View
After watching the Ivory Coast again tonight, you can't help thinking that the midfield and forward play of all the African teams is as good as anyone else (apart from Argentina!). They have all the skills, strength and athleticism but none of them can defend. No system, no discipline. no organisation, total naivety.
If any coach can crack their defensive shortcomings, several of those teams could make a serious challenge.
That word naivety is getting a bit old when being used to refer to the African teams. There are plenty of teams from Europe and South America in the draw that are **** poor at the back too yet we dont call them naive. Look at angola for example, didnt progress yet only concede two goals (Ghana have only conceded 2 also). 12 other non african teams have conceded more goals than them. And some of those teams have played a game less. So how is that naive? Im not going to accuse you of closet xenophobia like some of the media have been doing to commentators/pundits but I think its an easy generalisation with african teams. Free flowing football like that should be seen as a style of play not as a flawed attempt to win games
LR, I take the point and wouldn't disagree, but some of the European and South American teams that are ****poor at the back is not because they haven't got a good defensive system it is generally because they havent got good enough players. Yes there will always be individual mistakes, even by the best of teams and players, but generally these teams have a defensive system. We have seen that the African teams have the players, skillful, powerful and fast at the back but often look totally disorganised with none of the basic defence techniques like holding a line.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeixlipRed
The point I was making was not just to do with goals conceeded it was about general defensive play and about African teams generally. The free flowing football is great to watch but history tells us it is not successful because it is high risk and usually results in more goals conceeded than scored. I believe there is a balance to be struck between basic defensive techniques and free flowing football and the African teams are probably better placed to get it right than most others.
When European teams such as France & Switzerland cannot score goals no one calls them naive in attack.
You can use whatever clichés you want to describe the African teams - my own opinion is that they didn't do very well (and haven't done well for some time now in the World Cup) because African football's not very good. Ditto Asian football, by and large. Harsh but fair. They have some quality players, but strength in depth just isn't there.
LR, the first half of the Ghana v USA game today is a good example of the point I am making. Essien gets booked for a reckless challenge and is out of next game if they qualify. Good first goal for Ghana, controlling the game, nearly score another.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeixlipRed
Then have a look at the goal they give away which demonstrates lack of defensive discipline, ball watching. Then they march up the field and get a dodgy penalty and go 2-1 up.
But they held on to go through to the next round!!
The Ivory Coast conceded 2 goals within 20 minutes, 3 games in a row. We all know they have talent but that'll get you no where when you are as clueless at the back as they are
I@d still have any one of their centra halves ahead of BoumsongQuote:
Originally Posted by Soko
I didnt see that game today as I was watching the Italy game. However, i just think wheeling out the African specific cliches is poor journalism. Not accusing you of this superhoops as your entitled to call them naive without meaning it in a lazy, bigoted way. you very rarely see people using the same cliches with S. Americans or Asians. they just say they're poor. Not "naive" or as Mottie so brilliantly put it "gullible". I'm not arguing they're good at the back. My problem is that this style of play is attractive so do we really care and also that its closet racism when the media spout these lazy cliches. The Africans are rubbish at the back yes, but lets just enjoy the good aspects of the game and criticise the bad aspects. Leave out the "Ghanian gullibility" ****eQuote:
Originally Posted by Superhoops
Both the U.S. and the Czechs looked pretty naive at the back for some of the goals today.
From a neutral spectators point of view, Ghana and the Ivory Coast are great fun to watch, you always know there will be speed, skill and strength, some great midfield and forward play and some woeful defending. You just don't how it will turn out in the end. It could be anything!Quote:
Originally Posted by LeixlipRed
It would be good for football if Ghana went on to win it and would set up WC 2010 nicely!
"Don't be surprised if the next superpower in world football is an African country."Quote:
If any coach can crack their defensive shortcomings, several of those teams could make a serious challenge.
Or words to that effect - from Spain '82 after Cameroon's impressive debut, I believe...
wasnt it Algeria who did well in 1982? Beat Germany i believe and missed out on goal difference. Think Cameroon drew all their games. 2 of em 0-0