|
|
樓主 |
發表於 2008-6-21 00:33:35
|
顯示全部樓層
http://www.guardian.co.uk/footba ... s&feed=football
...............................略
One of the great fallacies of football history is the notion that the Ajax and Holland of the early Seventies was all about self-expression, while Lobanovskyi's Dynamo Kyiv was some kind of mechanistic monster. Yes, Lobanovskyi imposed his style of play upon his squad, while Rinus Michels watched his grow up almost organically among an extraordinary group of talented players who had played together for so long that they came to have an almost preternatural understanding of one another's games, but the central tenets of both were the same. Dynamo and Ajax both played a high offside line, both pressed the opposition in possession, both thrived on rapid passing and the interchange of positions. Most fundamentally, both were about the performance of the individual within the system.
Football has evolved since, but the fundamentals of the Dutch and Russian games have remained similar, which probably goes a long way towards explaining why the only two foreign coaches really to have succeeded in Russia - Hiddink and Dick Advocaat - are both Dutch.
Which raises the question of why that style of play grew up in two such seemingly different countries. The term "Total Football", which Michels never liked, was coined after the 1974 World Cup and was derived from the writings of the architectural theorist Jacob Bakema, who was a keen proponent of "Total Urbanisation" and "Total Regeneration".
"To understand things," he said in a lecture given in 1974, "you have to understand the relationship between things ... Once the highest image of interrelationship in society was indicated by the word 'God' and man was allowed to use earth and universal space under condition that he should care for what he used. But we have to actualise this kind of care and respect since man came by his awareness nearer the phenomenon of interrelationship called the relation of atoms. Man became aware of his being part of a total energy system." As in architecture, a similar structuralism took hold across a range of disciplines at the time - the semiological theory of Roland Barthes, the anthropological theory of Claude Lévi-Strauss, the psychoanalytic theory of Jacques Lacan - so in football.
Authority was no longer top-down, but was derived by individuals from their relationship within the system. Players, so long as they respected the needs of the system, had autonomy to construct their own meaning. Perhaps this is mischievous intellectual game-playing, but it is a beguiling coincidence that of the two countries in which the use of system as an attacking force was most advanced, one - the USSR - was overtly atheistical, and the other, the Netherlands, underwent a process of rapid secularisation in the aftermath of the upheavals of 1968. So next time you see a foreign team overlapping and interchanging at jaw-dropping speed and wonder why England never do that, blame the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Much has been made of Van Basten's Holland rediscovering the joys of total football, but that is misleading. Yes, they are fluid and good to watch, but they are a more direct, counter-attacking side than their forebears of 30 years ago. Russia, arguably, given their commitment to attack, are rather closer in ethos to Michels' side, but the resemblance is largely superficial. For one thing, neither side operates with a libero; for another, neither plays in the 4-3-3 (or, more accurately, 1-3-3-3) shape Johan Cruyff always insisted was essential for total football.
The context, equally, is very different. Part of the reason for the impact of Michels' and Lobaonvskyi's sides were that they were pressing and playing an aggressive offside trap in an era when nobody else was. Everybody presses now. In their commitment to fluidity Russia and the Netherlands can probably claim to play a form of the game as close to total football as is possible in the modern age, but it should not be forgotten that for Russia that means pursuing their own tradition as much as adapting their approach to suit the heritage of their manager.
Saturday's quarter-final could be a festival of flowing football, it may even determine which side plays the most attractive passing football in Europe, but it is not a struggle to be total football's torch-bearers. It is rather an encounter of the modern avatars of two similar but distinct traditions.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com ... 19/euros/index.html
...............................略
Kudos to Marco van Basten. But if you even begin to suggest that the Netherlands have anything to do with "Total Football," you either don't know what you're talking about or you haven't seen the Dutch play. Just because the players wear orange and score lots of goals doesn't make it Total Football. That was a very specific system of play developed by Rinus Michels and then Stefan Kovacs.
The next time some fool tells you van Basten's team is playing "Total Football," tell them to go watch the 1972 European Cup Final between Ajax and Inter Milan. That was the highest expression of "Total Football."
Does this Dutch side defend high up the pitch and rely heavily on the offside trap? No. Do both fullbacks bomb forward? No. Are the central defenders contributing to the attacks? No. Are the central midfielders coming forward and switching positions with the front men? No. Does the side press collectively? No. So it's not "Total Football" -- case closed.
Van Basten's Netherlands is a very effective counterattacking team that masks its weaknesses very well and exploits its strengths. Which is what good teams do. In fact, it's what the Dutch did when they won the Euros back in 1988, when they were coached by Michels.
Yes, the guy who invented "Total Football" realized some 20 years ago that his own scheme was outdated and came up with a way of playing which allowed the Netherlands to win major silverware. Van Basten may not be a managerial genius like Michels (not yet anyway), but he is clever enough to know that what he's doing has nothing to do with Total Football.
http://betting.betfair.com/footb ... be_quiet_about.html
...............................略
Given their flexibility and movement - underlined by the fact that both goals were laid on by full-backs - we wondered, could it be that it is Guus Hiddink's side rather than Marco van Basten's Dutch who are the true carriers of Total Football's torch?
One of the most annoying compliments paid to this Netherlands side is that they play in the Total Football tradition; they may be just as exciting to watch, but tactically they are utterly different. Russia, though, with their high offside line and obsession with creativity from wide as well as through Andrei Arshavin through the middle, seem genuine purveyors of the tradition. Saturday's quarter-final between the two promises to be a feast to match Lorenzini's tagliatelle.
原帖由 spurs_timduncan 於 2008-6-19 03:42 AM 發表 
我好想睇下告魯夫講依隊俄羅斯.....
Co Adriaanse:
想教國家隊
典型荷蘭足球應該各方面都展現
對雲巴士頓的結果,風結驚訝
1)依隊側重反擊多於係對方半場控制
2)太少邊線球員,senijder,kuijt無荷蘭典型風格,2個太重防守
-------------------------------------
琴日告魯夫講完野
結果係被人插同將個重點放落下任教練到
[ 本帖最後由 spurs_timduncan 於 2008-6-22 05:32 AM 編輯 ] |
|
IP卡
狗仔卡
顯身å¡
發表於 2008-6-20 18:23:13
發表於 2008-6-21 06:21:08