- Click here for the complete
Should a Soccer Team Play Well And Not Winning or Play In Any Manner to Get the 3 Points?
By Anna Italia
Much have been said about Brazil's "jogo bonito," (playing beautiful) and how they used to win displaying a nice football. Just this week, I read in UEFA.com a declaration from Holland coach Marco Van Basten saying, 'We try to play well, but in football nowadays all that matters is the three points."
I admit liking the philosophy "all that matters is to get the 3 points." In the sense of not playing well but winning.
I will not agree with referees favoring a team. A team should demonstrate on the pitch the will to win for the love of their country (amor a la camiseta) or commitment with their local clubs, not just to be an ornament on the pitch while getting paid thousands, if not millions. Referees should not be the protagonists on the pitch, but the players.
However, I also prefer a team to play well and winning convincingly than just by one single goal. For example, Van Basten has been criticized for his narrow wins against Bulgaria and Albania, yet he got what he needed: "the famous 3 points."
Similar case is with Italy which usually win with one goal and not playing that well. Needless to talk about Brazil and their "rarely jogo bonito," that seems a thing of the past. Now, the one team playing consistently well and winning convincingly might be Argentina. Still, this can be arguably.
Yet, you may tell me that in the 2007 Copa America Argentina played well during the whole tournament and Brazil played bad, still defeating Argentina in penalties. I will not disagree in this regard. This is why I ask, what is more important to play well risking not winning or playing badly and winning to get the 3 points?
After all, I agree with Van Basten, "nowadays all that matters is the three points." I rather go home with the 3 points than empty-handed having played so beautifully. Ideally, I can go home with the 3 points having played beautifully and winning convincingly.
How about you?
I admit liking the philosophy "all that matters is to get the 3 points." In the sense of not playing well but winning.
I will not agree with referees favoring a team. A team should demonstrate on the pitch the will to win for the love of their country (amor a la camiseta) or commitment with their local clubs, not just to be an ornament on the pitch while getting paid thousands, if not millions. Referees should not be the protagonists on the pitch, but the players.
However, I also prefer a team to play well and winning convincingly than just by one single goal. For example, Van Basten has been criticized for his narrow wins against Bulgaria and Albania, yet he got what he needed: "the famous 3 points."
Similar case is with Italy which usually win with one goal and not playing that well. Needless to talk about Brazil and their "rarely jogo bonito," that seems a thing of the past. Now, the one team playing consistently well and winning convincingly might be Argentina. Still, this can be arguably.
Yet, you may tell me that in the 2007 Copa America Argentina played well during the whole tournament and Brazil played bad, still defeating Argentina in penalties. I will not disagree in this regard. This is why I ask, what is more important to play well risking not winning or playing badly and winning to get the 3 points?
After all, I agree with Van Basten, "nowadays all that matters is the three points." I rather go home with the 3 points than empty-handed having played so beautifully. Ideally, I can go home with the 3 points having played beautifully and winning convincingly.
How about you?
A difficult question but i agree what it matters at the end is who gets the 3 points.
Reply to this
I'd rather my team to play well and lose than cheat to win. Thats not Milan or Argentina nor Brasil all my faves play well and they don't cheat
Reply to this