by Sabre » Sat Jun 28, 2008 1:52 pm
Better? worse? what's the standard?
Is high tempo better than slow tempo?
I haven't definite answers for that. In my book higher tempo is not better than slow tempo nor viceversa, but in England high tempo and rythm is part of your football identity. I rather prefer to use high tempo or slow tempo at will!
For instance, in those games in which we crush against a wall once and again, instead of trying the same 3 things until one works out I'd use a slower tempo. Have your opposition running after the ball and getting tired physically and mentally, be patient with the ball until you find the gap. That is, acknowledging that there are games for Gerrard and Torres in which those will win you the game, but acknowledge aswell that there are games in which you could use Alonso better.
But that's just me. My point, Xavi is better than Fabregas or viceversa depending on WHAT you want of the team. Fabregas against Italy could have been as uneffective as Arshavin was against us. Arshavin didn't forget about football against us, we just managed to mark him zonally with a simple rule: if the man of the zone loses the marking, the CB will be close enough to make a tackle. That's simple to say, but hard to do.
But if you look at that game ARshavin was only allowed to receive far from goal, otherwise he was chased by Senna (sometimes Ramos depending the zone). The 2 or 3 times that managed to lose Senna, Puyol and Marchena were there. Easy tactic, difficult implementation.
In a nut shell: I don't know telling you who's better Xavi or Fabregas, the answer would be: depending on the team.
Last edited by
Sabre on Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SOS member #1499
Drummerphil, never forgotten.