Spain vs Chile - 8pm (BBC1 & RTE2)

Seaneh

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Nobody said it would be better

If it's not better, it's not "evolution".

SlickRic

I'll say it now.

If they're dogmatic about tiki-taka, we won't see Spain or Barcelona hit the heights of the Pep years again.

SlickRic

also, AIG, you're using the word "evolution" instead of "rebuilding" to make what's happening sound more grand than it actually is.

Andersonisgod

Seaneh wrote: »

If it's not better, it's not "evolution".

I'm afraid for that you will need to have a frank discussion with Dempsey. Here's his definition of evolution:

"Evolution: A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form."

I just argue what I see. If I really wanted to I probably could make a case for my point against your definition of evolution too but I am more than content with the one I've already done tonight. So I will settle for these simple sentiments:

Evolution is a mystery
A small change that no one sees.
Clock makes a fool of history .
Yesterday's so long ago, don't agree with what I know .
Tomorrow becomes a place to be.

Dempsey

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Oh no, I'm intrigued and thus I will reply to your comment.

More complex or better. Not "more complex and better." If you take what is generally considered to be the beginning of tiki taka, that being the period after Spain's elimination at World Cup 2006 up to their Euro 2008 victory under Luis Aragones. The original shape started out as something resembling a 4-4-2, with Villa and Torres more often than not being the two strikers in tandem. 4-4-2 I think we can all agree has been the default formation in football in the western hemisphere for quite some time, I'd go into it a bit more but I think most of us have read "Inverting The Pyramid" so I feel no need to re-hash facts. Even if you don't agree that 4-4-2 isn't the dominate formation you can't deny that for that last 15-20 years it's been one of the pre-dominant formations in football, as such, it's very basic. Most Sunday league teams will play it, you will often see it used in the Premier League. Of course it's just a shape and movements of that shape and how the players operating in it are told to play deviate. But, at it's core, 4-4-2 is basic.

Guardiola's opening season as Barcelona coach. A student of Johan Cruyff, the embodiment of the beautiful 1992 European Champions side, he will utilise this possession based philosophy but take it on even further, developing different shapes, movements, strategies and ultimately differing playing styles for this philosophy, thus evolution. His first season he sets up in a 4-3-3, Messi, Eto'o and Henry are his regular front 3. Eto'o, a striker who plays on the shoulder, and Messi and Henry playing as inverted wingers, or inside forwards if you want to be more technical.

Guardiola's second season see's Eto'o leave and a target man, Ibrahimovic, brought in. Ultimately the ploy fails, Barcelona win the league but Ibrahimovic's contributions don't measure up to expectations. There are issues with him occupying space in a side that is becoming increasingly reliant on Messi. In any case, Guardiola has attempted to evolve the playing style, while keeping the core basic of tiki taka he has tried to find more complex solutions to, what he sees as problems for the side and he wishes to avoid stagnation and becoming predictable.

Guardiola in later seasons will dabble with 3 at the back, he will introduce Villa as an inside forward, he will introduce Sanchez as a diagonal running threat from the flank and, most famously, he will develop Messi as his false 9. All the time the side is changing, morphing and evolving. From first season to last the shape of the side, the actual implementation of the philosophy (though the core of the philosophy does not change) and many of the personnel implementing Guardiola's ideas (which, in itself will naturally bring about a change) have changed. Guardiola has continuously evolved the squad while not up-heaving personnel or core ideas each season.

Now onto Lucho. The squad isn't necessarily being gutted nor is the core philosophy changing, it is simply undergoing complex changes. The addition of a recognised centre back at the heart of the defence to partner Pique. The introduction of Rakitic and Rafinha add a much more physical element to the midfield, something Guardiola changed when he opted for Busquets over Yaya Toure at the base of the midfield and the gradual marginalizing of Seydou Keita. The pursuit of a target man to play as a number 9. All deviations, all changes, all evolution in the ultimate possession-obsessed framework.

Nobody said it would be better, obviously that can't be said one way or another as Lucho's team have yet to play a match, friendly or otherwise. However the evolution of the squad under Guardiola, Tata (for better or worse) and now Lucho is clear to see. I highlight this evolution as I believe that the changes that Lucho and the club are now making will bring Barcelona closer to what it was under Pep, rather than drifting further and further away as they were under Tata.

I hope this has helped to clarify my position and reasoning. No problem.

tl:dr

You think im going to read that verbal diarrhea?

Try being concise

Andersonisgod

SlickRic wrote: »

also, AIG, you're using the word "evolution" instead of "rebuilding" to make what's happening sound more grand than it actually is.

Roughly an hour ago I basically said what you just said. I said that there is no point in arguing semantics because it is pedantic. However somebody pressed the point, Dempsey seemed rather eager and thus I was forced to respond and, after my response, we've arrived back at my original point. That it's basically semantics.

Andersonisgod

Dempsey wrote: »

tl:dr

You think im going to read that verbal diarrhea?

Try being concise

I think you've already read it and that is as concise as I am willing to be. You posed a question, I gave you an answer, enjoy.

SlickRic

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Roughly an hour ago I basically said what you just said. I said that there is no point in arguing semantics because it is pedantic. However somebody pressed the point, Dempsey seemed rather eager and thus I was forced to respond and, after my response, we've arrived back at my original point. That it's basically semantics.

I know, and you're using semantics to make the end of this cycle, and the rebuilding about to take place, sound very grand indeed.

would you have called Utd's process post-Fergie an evolution for instance?

MisterAnarchy

I think alot of people turned on the Spanish style of play after Del Bosque introduced his false 9 tactic and played with no striker.
The Spanish football team changed their philosophy at this point,they became less attacking and more negative .
Originally they used possession primarily in order to attack and win games but in later years they used possession primarily as a way not to lose.

It was this change in style as well as players getting older and deteriorating in performance that primarily led to Spain's early exit tonight.
Only having one summer off in 7 didnt help either ,Spain should have sent a B team to the Confederations Cup last summer.

Dempsey

Andersonisgod wrote: »

I think you've already read it and that is as concise as I am willing to be. You posed a question, I gave you an answer, enjoy.

I didnt read it. If you needed that many words to answer it I think you're clutching at straws and badly at that.

Seaneh

SlickRic wrote: »

also, AIG, you're using the word "evolution" instead of "rebuilding" to make what's happening sound more grand than it actually is.

I don't even think rebuilding is accurate, overhaul is better. The team that was is dead and the stop the rot they need to cut out the wood worm completely overhaul the hull.

Andersonisgod

SlickRic wrote: »

I know, and you're using semantics to make the end of this cycle, and the rebuilding about to take place, sound very grand indeed.

would you have called Utd's process post-Fergie an evolution for instance?

I didn't realise the word "evolution" had connotations of such grandeur attached to it.

Well if I am to use Dempsey's definition of evolution, which I've decided that I quite like, then yes it is evolution. Whether that evolution had a positive or negative effect on results is irrelevant because significant and complex change occurred. The result was ultimately negative but so too was Pep's Ibrahimovic experiment and that too was evolution of the squad and playing style.

Seaneh

Dempsey wrote: »

If you needed that many words to answer it I think you're clutching at straws and badly at that.

I think he thinks that if he crams as many words as possible into a sentence nobody will notice that he's talking absolute sh*te.

Seaneh

Andersonisgod wrote: »

I didn't realise the word "evolution" had connotations of such grandeur attached to it.

Well if I am to use Dempsey's definition of evolution, which I've decided that I quite like, then yes it is evolution. Whether that evolution had a positive or negative effect on results is irrelevant because significant and complex change occurred. The result was ultimately negative but so too was Pep's Ibrahimovic experiment and that too was evolution of the squad and playing style.

It can't BE evolution if it DOESN'T have a positive effect!
A negative effect would be devolution and devolution leads to extinction.

Andersonisgod

Dempsey wrote: »

I didnt read it. If you needed that many words to answer it I think you're clutching at straws and badly at that.

I hadn't realised that in order to achieve clarity I needed to abide by a word limit. Just to address future confusion could you please inform me of what the word limit is?

If anything I thought my post could have been more detailed, how wrong I was apparently.

Seaneh

Andersonisgod wrote: »

I hadn't realised that in order to achieve clarity I needed to abide by a word limit. Just to address future confusion could you please inform me of what the word limit is?

In academic papers there are strict word counts because being able to portray an idea in a concise, efficient, coherent way is just as important as the point you are trying to make.

The fact that you are incapable of doing this only highlights the reality that you're talking out your backside.

Andersonisgod

Seaneh wrote: »

It can't BE evolution if it DOESN'T have a positive effect!
A negative effect would be devolution and devolution leads to extinction.

I don't have a dictionary within reach at the moment so I am working with the definition I have been given, that definition was provided, most kindly, by Dempsey. As I've already said, if you have a problem with my working definition then please address Dempsey as he provided it.

Seaneh

Andersonisgod wrote: »

I don't have a dictionary within reach at the moment so I am working with the definition I have been given, that definition was provided, most kindly, by Dempsey. As I've already said, if you have a problem with my working definition then please address Dempsey as he provided it.

The definition provided was nothing like what you're trying to shoe horn your nonsense into. You're posting either from a smart phone or a computer, there are umpteen free on-line dictionaries, so your excuse really doesn't fly.

eagle eye

Dempsey wrote: »

I didnt read it. If you needed that many words to answer it I think you're clutching at straws and badly at that.

Its an enjoyable read even if you don't like it. Sad that you would get involved in a discussion and then not read a response.

Da Shins Kelly

Sad to see the end of Spain, but Chile played really well. Delighted to see them go through. I have money on them too, so I'm happy!

symbolic

Seaneh wrote: »

The definition provided was nothing like what you're trying to shoe horn your nonsense into. You're posting either from a smart phone or a computer, there are umpteen free on-line dictionaries, so your excuse really doesn't fly.

From what I gather AIG is saying Dempsey's definition stated that evolution involved complex change. AIG is saying that they are undergoing complex change. And that United were also undergoing complex change.

Seaneh

symbolic wrote: »

From what I gather Dempsey's definition stated that evolution involved complex change. AIG is saying that they are undergoing complex change. And that United were also undergoing complex change.

AIG claimed that even if it's not beneficial, it's still evolution. That defies not only the definition of the word used, it defies logic and plain auld cop on.

To say he's grasping at straws would be putting it lightly.

Andersonisgod

Seaneh wrote: »

The definition provided was nothing like what you're trying to shoe horn your nonsense into. You're posting either from a smart phone or a computer, there are umpteen free on-line dictionaries, so your excuse really doesn't fly.

This is the definition I was given in this thread by Dempsey:

"Evolution: A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form."

I've written 701 words based on this definition. I could probably stretch that to 1,500 if needs be but I suspect some people wont enjoy reading that many words. If you can find a flaw in my 701 words where I haven't properly enforced this definition then please do tell me.

Why would I look it up in an online dictionary? I explicitly trust Dempsey so when he gives me a definition of evolution, it is gospel to me.

Seaneh

701 words of absolute ****, to be perfectly honest.

eagle eye

Andersonisgod wrote: »

This is the definition I was given in this thread by Dempsey:

"Evolution: A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form."

I've written 701 words based on this definition. I could probably stretch that to 1,500 if needs be but I suspect some people wont enjoy reading that many words. If you can find a flaw in my 701 words where I haven't properly enforced this definition then please do tell me.

Why would I look it up in an online dictionary? I explicitly trust Dempsey so when he gives me a definition of evolution, it is gospel to me.

Don't mind the negative responses either. Some people just don't like to read a well written post by somebody who has a strong belief in what they are talking about.

Seaneh

eagle eye wrote: »

Don't mind the negative responses either. Some people just don't like to read a well written post by somebody who has a strong belief in what they are talking about.

Lots of words != well written.

Andersonisgod

eagle eye wrote: »

Don't mind the negative responses either. Some people just don't like to read a well written post by somebody who has a strong belief in what they are talking about.

Judging by the comment above yours I think "some people" feel very strongly against what I wrote, even if "701 words of absolute ****, to be perfectly honest" isn't exactly pin-point analysis or a compelling critique.

Dempsey

Andersonisgod wrote: »

I hadn't realised that in order to achieve clarity I needed to abide by a word limit. Just to address future confusion could you please inform me of what the word limit is?

If anything I thought my post could have been more detailed, how wrong I was apparently.

No word limit at all. Just I know your posting style. It takes you a paragraph to say something that takes most only a sentence.

Its safe to say most of that information dump you had was irrelevant or could have been boiled down to key points.

That preaching style of posting gets you nowhere

symbolic

Seaneh wrote: »

AIG claimed that even if it's not beneficial, it's still evolution. That defies not only the definition of the word used, it defies logic and plain auld cop on.

To say he's grasping at straws would be putting it lightly.

Yeah fair enough.

But I guess a team must face defeat to evolve? What else could drive the evolution of a team?

Andersonisgod

Dempsey wrote: »

No word limit at all. Just I know your posting style. It takes you a paragraph to say something that takes most only a sentence.

Its safe to say most of that information dump you had was irrelevant or could have been boiled down to key points.

That preaching style of posting gets you nowhere

1. Point well taken.

2. In future, when I engage you in conversation I will do so in bullet point form so as to avoid this kind of confusion again.

Dempsey

symbolic wrote: »

Yeah fair enough.

But I guess a team must face defeat to evolve? What else could drive the evolution of a team?

Certainly not the gutting of a squad

kevpants

Verbose romantic ****. Graham Hunter would be proud.

Dempsey

Andersonisgod wrote: »

1. Point well taken.

2. In future, when I engage you in conversation I will do so in bullet point form so as to avoid this kind of confusion again.

I'd say your head would explode if you had to use bullet points.

symbolic

Dempsey wrote: »

Certainly not the gutting of a squad

True! Cause then it's not even the same people!

AIG - I think evolution is the wrong word

Paul Tergat

Chile played really well. Spain got what they deserved. Were poor in both games and have been found out

Paulie1987

Seaneh wrote: »

In European club football for the last two years and in international football since the end of the last Euros, yup, found out, nullified and surpassed.

Tiki-taka is dead.

Found out when they've done probably what no international team has achieved before? The last truly important international game before this World Cup for Spain was 2 years ago when they won the European championship..you don't know what you're talking about...surpassed by whom?..bayern were hammered themselves this year by a Spanish team that included Alonso, Ramos, etc..it's impossible to sustain that level of intensity at the top level year in year out when you are involved in so many big games that the likes of xavi, iniesta etc have been..champions league finals, euro finals, world finals, confederations cup they'r a jaded team

Andersonisgod

Dempsey wrote: »

I'd say your head would explode if you had to use bullet points.

- I admit that this is already proving difficult. I am unsure of how many sentences are allowed per bullet point.

Hank Scorpio

Somehow I think Andersonisgod enjoys the reactions his weird provocative posting style provokes. Its very strange though, his threads/posts in other forums are totally normal.

Seaneh

nuxxx wrote: »

Somehow I think Andersonisgod enjoys the reactions his weird provocative posting style provokes. Its very strange though, his threads/posts in other forums are totally normal.

It's painfully transparent what he's doing, to be perfectly honest.

Cienciano

This thread is hilarious, the demise of Barca, collapse of spain and Ronaldo overtaking Messi as worlds best player is really taking it's toll on Andersonisgod

Andersonisgod

symbolic wrote: »

True! Cause then it's not even the same people!

AIG - I think evolution is the wrong word

:P I'm going to sleep so the chances of me producing another 701 words is slim. However I will end with this, I said nearly 2 hours ago that it's semantics and basically unimportant. Some people weren't satisfied with that, Dempsey told me what evolution is, I then explained why, by his own definition, my use of the word "evolution" was correct.

Now there may be other definitions for the word "evolution" frankly, I shudder at the thought. I am now going to stop talking about evolution in case people confuse this for the atheism forum rather than the soccer forum.

"It's painfully transparent what he's doing, to be perfectly honest."

Yes, painfully transparent what I'm doing. I was just going to make a point on how Barcelona are combating this decline, I used the word "evolution" you, and others, took issue with the word, as a result I've vigorously had to defend the use of a word on a football forum for the better part of 2 hours. I didn't randomly start talking about the various definitions of the word "evolution" you took issue with a non-issue and I've addressed it as thoroughly as I've been forced to. So yes, it's painfully transparent what's going on for anyone who reads the thread fully.

Dempsey

symbolic wrote: »

True! Cause then it's not even the same people!

AIG - I think evolution is the wrong word

I think you and AIG need to read some football history about what invariably happens great sides at the end of an era/squad overhauls. History is repeating itself, nothing more nothing less

tigger123

Everything comes to an end, but nobody expected Spain to crash out so dramatically.

Didn't see the match but caught bits of this thread, they sound like they were awful.

Poor Juan Mata :-(

symbolic

Dempsey wrote: »

I think you and AIG need to read some football history about what invariably happens great sides at the end of an era/squad overhauls. History is repeating itself, nothing more nothing less

No I meant I agreed with you. It ain't evolution on any level.

mike65

.

Retweeted by G FUNKSTER
SM @stevounited
·
2h

80m worth of Chelsea strikers kept quiet by a midfielder from Cardiff & a right back released by Nottingham Forest, both playing centre half

Turtwig

Evolution means change over time. Nothing more complex than that. The change itself can either be negative or positive. In terms of biology all generally that matters is the new trait has a better chance of reproduction even if the organism's lifespan is halved.

Spain, will be back. All cycles end but if you're going to be pedantic about evolution at least show an understanding of the term. It generally doesn't have to be a benefit to anything just likelihood to reproduce. Sometimes in the cases of certain genetic illness it's incredibly complex and **** to people!

Back on topic, delighted Chile won. Expected Spain and Chile to get out of the group. Didn't expect Spain to win the cup. Would love if Chile Holland, Mexico or Croatia won it.

Oh and Belgium because that will get me money

Nuri Sahin

This thread is brilliant. That is all.

Richard Hillman

Spain during Euro 2012 was like watching Geoffrey Boycott hit 100 off 400 balls. It was excellent but I could have changed the TV over for half an hour, switched back and nothing would have happened.

That was when I lost any enthusiasm for them. I'm so glad they are out although they were more aggressive in this tournament to be fair to them. I just hope death by a thousand passes is done with.

chrissb8

Spain showed an arrogance in their way of playing. Absolutely no adaptation. They thought the opposition stupid to tiki taka and their elegant ways. I couldn't believe they went in with the same play as before. Of course they would be found out as Barcelona who were the masters of tiki taka have been done over many times since 2010. I honestly think an uncreative stupid attitude was adopted my del bosque. Football evolves and Spain need to go back to the drawing board. Staying behind the ball and being more physically robust is the way to counter Spain and their back four can't get dirty or really down with what proper backs against the wall defending. Defence is everything. All good teams start from the back and Spain certainly need to build that.

dfx-

Seaneh wrote: »

In European club football for the last two years and in international football since the end of the last Euros, yup, found out, nullified and surpassed.

Tiki-taka is dead.

Hasn't tiki-taka always been dead though? It refers to over-passing, which has never been very successful.

That is very different to how Barcelona/Spain played until 2011. The 08/09 aggressive, incisive Barcelona would still wipe the floor with 95% of opposition, as they did then. 2008 Spain would too.

The incisiveness is gone, the desire is gone, the hunger is gone. Most of the side have won it all, in most cases multiple times and that's a large proportion of the advantage opposition sides have now. Ultimately, they only three tournaments in a row.