Liverpool FC Forum

davo_LFC wrote:I felt if they had played slightly deeper and not held such a high line, brazilwould have struggled. The high line of the ghana defence made it easy for brazil to get through; if they'd played deeper brazil would have fopund it alot tougher to score because:
A.) they couldn't get the ball off ghana for long periods
B.) they would have had to play through acompact team rather than going over the top which made it easy for them.

john craig wrote:there's not outstanding pace in the Brazil side this year, especially up front, so if you play the offside trap well you should be fine.  The trouble is that Ghana didn't have the quality or the organisation at the back to do this well.  But the better sides do and this is the way they should play Brazil imo.



As for referees leaning towards the favoured teams, it's not new is it?

JC , no  matter how organised your "offside trap" may be , with the decisions that have been made in this world cup ,relying on such a ploy against Brasil is a bit of a lottery, Especially when the linesman is all starry eyed at the spectacle of some buck toothed Brasilian grinning at him .

woof woof ! wrote:JC , no  matter how organised your "offside trap" may be , with the decisions that have been made in this world cup ,relying on such a ploy against Brasil is a bit of a lottery, Especially when the linesman is all starry eyed at the spectacle of some buck toothed Brasilian grinning at him .

I actually can't tell if Ronaldinho is grinning or whincing sometimes.  But hey, I bet he still gets all the birds

woof woof ! wrote:    

I reckon the best way to beat Brasil is to forget the offside trap .instruct your fullbacks to stay wide and give them both  a bunch of carrots , this will surely draw the likes of Ronaldo , Adriano and Ronaldhino away from our goal .

 

If I was a dentist I'd be setting up my business in Rio, you'd make a fecking killing

john craig wrote:

davo_LFC wrote:I felt if they had played slightly deeper and not held such a high line, brazilwould have struggled. The high line of the ghana defence made it easy for brazil to get through; if they'd played deeper brazil would have fopund it alot tougher to score because:
A.) they couldn't get the ball off ghana for long periods
B.) they would have had to play through acompact team rather than going over the top which made it easy for them.

If you defend deep against Brazil you get killed, because Kaka and Ronaldinho dominate the midfield and pick holes in your defence.  Defending high up the pitch is the only way for a team like Ghana to beat Brazil because you naturally get more of a foothold in midfield when you play that way.  It nearly worked for Ghana against Italy which is why they defended high again today.  It so happens though that Ghana just don't have the quality at the back and they paid for it in the end, but I still think it was the right thing to do.  If they'd dropped deep it would have been Brazil dominating possession and although Ghana may only have lost by the odd goal that way, they wouldn't have been in the game as much as they were today and certainly wouldn't have come as close to winning the game as they did in the first half today.

davo_LFC wrote:

john craig wrote:

davo_LFC wrote:I felt if they had played slightly deeper and not held such a high line, brazilwould have struggled. The high line of the ghana defence made it easy for brazil to get through; if they'd played deeper brazil would have fopund it alot tougher to score because:
A.) they couldn't get the ball off ghana for long periods
B.) they would have had to play through acompact team rather than going over the top which made it easy for them.

If you defend deep against Brazil you get killed, because Kaka and Ronaldinho dominate the midfield and pick holes in your defence.  Defending high up the pitch is the only way for a team like Ghana to beat Brazil because you naturally get more of a foothold in midfield when you play that way.  It nearly worked for Ghana against Italy which is why they defended high again today.  It so happens though that Ghana just don't have the quality at the back and they paid for it in the end, but I still think it was the right thing to do.  If they'd dropped deep it would have been Brazil dominating possession and although Ghana may only have lost by the odd goal that way, they wouldn't have been in the game as much as they were today and certainly wouldn't have come as close to winning the game as they did in the first half today.

I understand what your saying but the offside trap is very dangerous against the likes of brasil, especially when non-active runners come into play. For at least 2 of brasils goals there was players coming back from offside positions whilst runners from deep were getting in, the ghana defence didnt know wether it was coming or going so i think the rules should be changed regarding that. Look at spain tonight, they were playing it and the exact same thing cost them a goal. I noticed in the second half they dropped slightly deeper due to the goal in the first half.

I was thinking that if ghana kept tight to ronaldinho and kaka whilst letting the defence have the ball and close them down in certain areas of the field but not as to get out of position, then brasil would have found it tough to break through like they did against croatia and the aussies. I know ghana had to play high up the pitch in order to keep brasil penned back but i think they were using the offside trap at the wrong times. Too many times brazil were approaching the half way line with the ghana defence no more than 20 or so yards away, it was a dangerous tactic to employ the defensive line that far up the pitch especially with runners coming from their own half like cafu and carlos.

woof woof ! wrote:Once again the BIG team gets the benefit of doubt . 2nd goal offside but hey it's Brasil so give them the decision.
Earlier ,Ronaldhino boots a Ghanain squarely on the shin ,commentatators say what the officials are obviously thinking "Well Ronaldhino always has his eye on the ball , that wasn't intentional" ! Bollox ! if he hadn't been wearing a Brasil shirt it would have been an instant yellow .

Sick and tired of big teams and "star" names getting preferential treatment.

john craig wrote:

davo_LFC wrote:

john craig wrote:

davo_LFC wrote:I felt if they had played slightly deeper and not held such a high line, brazilwould have struggled. The high line of the ghana defence made it easy for brazil to get through; if they'd played deeper brazil would have fopund it alot tougher to score because:
A.) they couldn't get the ball off ghana for long periods
B.) they would have had to play through acompact team rather than going over the top which made it easy for them.

If you defend deep against Brazil you get killed, because Kaka and Ronaldinho dominate the midfield and pick holes in your defence.  Defending high up the pitch is the only way for a team like Ghana to beat Brazil because you naturally get more of a foothold in midfield when you play that way.  It nearly worked for Ghana against Italy which is why they defended high again today.  It so happens though that Ghana just don't have the quality at the back and they paid for it in the end, but I still think it was the right thing to do.  If they'd dropped deep it would have been Brazil dominating possession and although Ghana may only have lost by the odd goal that way, they wouldn't have been in the game as much as they were today and certainly wouldn't have come as close to winning the game as they did in the first half today.

I understand what your saying but the offside trap is very dangerous against the likes of brasil, especially when non-active runners come into play. For at least 2 of brasils goals there was players coming back from offside positions whilst runners from deep were getting in, the ghana defence didnt know wether it was coming or going so i think the rules should be changed regarding that. Look at spain tonight, they were playing it and the exact same thing cost them a goal. I noticed in the second half they dropped slightly deeper due to the goal in the first half.

I was thinking that if ghana kept tight to ronaldinho and kaka whilst letting the defence have the ball and close them down in certain areas of the field but not as to get out of position, then brasil would have found it tough to break through like they did against croatia and the aussies. I know ghana had to play high up the pitch in order to keep brasil penned back but i think they were using the offside trap at the wrong times. Too many times brazil were approaching the half way line with the ghana defence no more than 20 or so yards away, it was a dangerous tactic to employ the defensive line that far up the pitch especially with runners coming from their own half like cafu and carlos.

I accept what you're saying mate.  Personally i agree that the non-interfering with play offside rule is a joke.  If you're offside then you're offside and that should be the end of it as it's a nightmare to defend. 

Against most teams I wouldn't dream of playing that high up the pitch defensively because as you say the runners from deep are very dangerous.  But where I disagree is that Brazil are especially dangerous to play this way against, I think that a side like France or Italy should definitely defend high up the pitch against Brazil.  It keeps Kaka and Ronaldinho's threat to a minimum and Brazil really don't have that many quick players anymore to spring the offside trap - only Roberto Carlos maybe, Cafu looks to have slowed a lot.  Whilst Ghana's decision to play that way today was obviously a gamble that didn't pay off, I understand why they did it and I would have been tempted to do the same as their coach.  Anyway, I'll be interested to see how the French play them in the quarters...

The thing that killed ghana off though was not necassarily the pace of brasils players but more the cleverness of their runs. They would run from deep whilst the ghana defenders stepped up.

I would think that italy and france would play deeper rather than a high line because they have players that are capable of containing the likes of kaka and ronaldinho to an extent whereas ghana unfortunately didn't. Teams like italy could prehaps keep it tight at the back and sneak a goal against brasil. France played quite deep tonight i thought even though gallas and thuram arnt slow coaches, perhaps that was because they were able to stop villa and torres when the ball was played to feet. Alot of the time france allowed spain to pass the ball in front of them whilst not pressing too aggressively. I have a feeling they may do the same against brasil and i think they may snide a victory 

woof woof ! wrote:

davo_LFC wrote:The thing that killed ghana off though was not necassarily the pace of brasils players but more the cleverness of their runs.

Blah , blah , blah ............ If you pulled your heads out of yer respective ar'ses you would have seen that what really "killed Ghana off though" was a f'ucking blatantly offside second goal !

True. I love your gracious nature 

supersub wrote:"look at his smile...just look at his smile"

No tar. Hes got brown teeth. 

woof woof ! wrote:

davo_LFC wrote:The thing that killed ghana off though was not necassarily the pace of brasils players but more the cleverness of their runs.

Blah , blah , blah ............ If you pulled your heads out of yer respective ar'ses you would have seen that what really "killed Ghana off though" was a f'ucking blatantly offside second goal !