Yeah if this Spanish team is overrated then I really dont know what do you call their rivals who were supposed to carry the beautiful football flag of this world banging teams 4 & 5 goals & yet played with all the team minus Klose behind the ball.
I really cant wait to hear your constructive criticism of that team.
Germany set out to play their usual counter-attacking style, a style I like a lot. They allowed themselves to be pinned back due to poor decision-making and a lack of composure on the break. They were beaten by a much better side.
And Spain is Villa dependent that they played their best game when Villa had his worst game in this world cup.
As I've already said, I think the introduction of Pedro improved Spain massively. It meant that Villa was moved into a role in which he was less effective, but Pedro's movement allowed Spain to attack with greater purpose as a team, rather than relying solely on Villa to provide a spark in the final third.
Teams tend to look to the easiest way out of problems same as every person in this world.
So if they have someone who can make em win faster then why this is a problem ?
Inter had Zlatan & they used him but as soon as he was gone they played even better.
You're arguing a completely different point here. Again, I was speaking about the general perception of a team's style, not about their effectiveness. What I was saying is that teams have been heavily criticised by the media and the public for being dependent on a single player - Inter being a prime example of that. Whether or not they're better without Ibrahimovic (although I agree that they are) is besides the point here.
And dont fool yourself , considering Messi or Villa Barca & Spain is plain ridiculous since their strength is Xavi + co & their impressive ability to force their style in 99% of the games they play.
Keep the core of both team & replace those Villa or Messi with any other good ST & you wont miss much but replace Xavi & co while keeping Villa then you wont have the same Spain.
If you must say then they are Xavi-Inie reliant than anything else.
I would never deny the importance of Spain's midfield. As you say, that's how they're able to impose themselves on matches, and in that way the midfielders create the circumstances for Villa to work his magic. What I'm arguing is that the possession they have is often directionless, and they haven't been opening teams up with their passing the way they're capable of doing. They're fantastic at getting the ball to 30 yards from goal and keeping it there, but before they brought in Pedro they tended to need Villa to do the rest on his own.
And how many movers you require in a team so you give you approval ?
8. What percentage of possession do you require a team to have for them to get approval? I want an exact figure.
It doesnt mean you know nothing but it means you are just taking a piss.
Criticizing a team for not playing entertaining football against a team who played with 10 men behind the ball scream blind biased than ignorant.
I cant wait for you to write examples about teams who simply destroy teams they play like what Milan used to do & what Spain is doing & yet the media & the public criticize.
You're obviously not very familiar with British pundits. On countless occasions over the years, British sides have come up against continental teams who keep the ball for 90 minutes, and as often as not commentators have dismissed them as slow and methodical. For large parts of last season, before the English media decided they loved them, Chelsea were criticised for playing with a lack of width and pace, and just trying to wear teams down.
When did Italy ever destroyed a team as big as Germany playing negative football like they did & yet got the shit ?
I mean you are gonna sit & tell me Italy 100% controlled a game having x6 times more chances vs a team with 10 men behind the ball & end up wining & yet ppl criticized em ?
What happened next ? your mom woke you up to go to school ?
I'd be happy to answer this if it had any relevance to what I've been talking about. All I've been saying is that Spain are an example of how preconceptions about a team's playing style affect the way the media and the fans perceive them.
The example of Italy was purely hypothetical. So I suppose you win, in the sense that you've proven that my hypothetical example wasn't a historical fact.
If you want a current example of the effect of preconceived ideas about a team's style, look at the way the British media have spoken about Uruguay in this World Cup. Uruguay have played with 3 strikers, and have generally taken a pretty positive approach in their matches. And yet because they were a team of savages a few decades ago, pundits still speak about them as no more than a dogged defensive side.
Then there's Germany. Germany played some beautiful stuff against England and Argentina. And yet they were still described as "ruthlessly efficient", based on nothing other than the stereotypical view of Germany's style. And yet Spain, who really have been ruthlessly efficient (and I admire them for it, despite the conclusions you seem to have jumped to), are viewed as the epitome of free-flowing, creative play.