3 comments

• 

  Anonymous

  2 years ago

  Why is playing conservative soccer looked down upon so much? Sometimes a team needs to face reality and go for a the point against tougher opposition rather than risk playing for 3. For example, if either of my clubs, the LA Galaxy or Liverpool, are playing a tough team away and go for the draw (and are able to achieve it), that is usually a satisfying result. It really annoys me when people complain about unexciting football; it should only be the neutrals that do this, supporters of a team should be satisfied if their club gets a point rather than nothing against tough opposition.
  
  
  
  
  -Omar
  
  reply
• 

  Anonymous

  2 years ago

  Honestly, I think France's success in the 1998 World Cup and Euro 2000 playing this formation made it vogue. However, they had midfielders like Zidane and Vierra who understood their roles and would push up to create scoring opportunities. The 4-5-1 famously flopped for France in Korea/Japan 2002 when Zidane was injured and Djorkaeff played in the midfield. I think the US played the 4-5-1 in the 2006 World Cup because the US has used 5 or more midfielders in every World Cup match since losing to Brazil in 1994. England played the 4-5-1 because of injuries. At least I think that was the case.
  reply
• 

  Anonymous

  2 years ago

  Reading drew with United at home. When they went to OT, they played without fear and lost. Still an entertaining game, and I'll root for Reading (except when playing United, of course) because of it.
  reply