Submitted by Gonzalo Munevar, Nov 16, 2007 01:03

Paul Gardner is right when he says that risk-averse coaches make their teams play boring games. I wonder where people got the idea that defense wins championships. It is true that defense makes for dreadful championship games, as the one that Argentina forced on the German national teaam and the viewing public during the 1990 World Cup final. But Germany, which had been a very offensive-minded team during the tournament, won anyway. So, let us see. Six teams have won the World Cup. Of the six, only Italy has ever won playing defense outright (and not every time). Brazil won four times playing attacking soccer -- wonderful, exciting, attacking soccer ('58, '62, and '70 in particular). It devoted itself to defense only in the '94 final, but still had plenty of excitement up front (remember Romario?). Argentina, so dreafful in '90, when it lost, played exquisite attacking soccer in '78, when it won. In '82, Bilardo made them play defense. But fortunately Maradona was able to compensate, and then some, on exciting offense. England won with an attacking team in '66 (4-2). And so did France in '98 (3-0). The other time Germany won, in '54, it was losing 0-2 to Hurngary, but it went all out on attack and won 3-2. As for Uruguay, the only other world champion, it defeated Argentina 4-2 in the first World Cup ever. The second time it won, in Brazin in '50, its registration for the tournament hit a roadblock because the Uruguayans had failed to appoint a coach! FIFA forced them to name a figure-head coach, who fortunately did not interfere with the play of that legendary team. Brazil had scored more goals during the tournament, but it only needed a tie to win the Cup. So it did not play its usual game. Uruguay did.

At the highest level, then, attacking soccer has won an overwhelming number of times. The coaches and television commentators have it backwards: It is offense that wins championships!

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.