german football was the best brand i see in this entire WC.
Did you watch the Germany - Spain game?
spain actually got lucky, BC this should've been germany's WC, they lost muller and pedolsky for that game, had those two guys been able to play, spain woulda lose!!
Podolski played in the Spain game but that aside the most perplexing thing to me in this WC was the level of praise heaped on Germany. I feel that goals does make people bazodee. I felt that they were excellent from a tactical and execution standpoint but they were flattered by a slow England team and an Argentina team with no protection in front of the defence. I think the win aginst Australia was a open game where they took iniative and tore them apart but Australia just does not have the players to ramp with Germany. The Argentina and England games were about packing 9 men back and countering intelligently. A good plan and credit to them but very limited and it showed when they met Spain. And even Ghana and Serbia teams that played them as underdogs and did not leave space at the back nullified them.
I was happey to read some Jonathan Wilson columns recently that echoed my sentiment exactly.
From Jonathan Wilson's Guardian Blog
Which brings us to Germany. They too play a 4-2-3-1 and, although Philipp Lahm breaks forward occasionally, theirs is essentially a defensive set-up. Here again goals are the great betrayers; it was bewildering how much praise was heaped on their supposedly fresh, open approach just because they scored four goals in three games. This Germany was superb on the counterattack, and the interaction of the front four of Miroslav Klose, Thomas Müller, Lukas Podolski and Mesut Ozil was at times breathtaking. But this was reactive football.
In three games, Germany scored an early first goal against Argentina and England, it was essentially handed to them and in those games they ruthlessly took advantage of the space opponents left behind them as they chased an equaliser. England, Argentina and Australia all defended idiotically against them, and were severely punished. In the other three games, teams defended decently against them and the early goal didn't arrive surrounded by watercress on a silver salver. In those games Germany managed one goal, and that a wonder-strike from Ozil. Against Spain their poverty of ideas was such they ended up sending the lumbering centre-back Per Mertesacker forward as an auxiliary striker, an idea so bereft of subtlety that the only time I remember it working was when Dennis Smith once sent Gary Bennett forward for Sunderland against Oxford in 1990.
Which is a rehash of a column he did for SI.com
With a relatively young team, Germany did wonderfully well to reach the last four. Its ability on the counter was stunning, testament to the work Löw had done on the training ground with four attacking players: Mesut Ozil, who is young and surely destined for great things; Mueller, who is young and unproven; Miroslav Klose, who struggled for pitch time at Bayern Munich this season; and Lukas Podolski, who was offloaded by Bayern last summer. That this quartet could look so devastating shows what effort, teamwork and self-sacrifice can achieve.
They are, though, counterattackers, not attackers, and Germany's soccer, devastating as it has been, has largely been reactive in this tournament, delighting those who see goals as the be-all-and-end-all of football. Spain, meanwhile, is about control, and it controlled the semifinal as utterly as it did the final of Euro 2008 against Germany. Back then, in Vienna, the goal came relatively early, 33 minutes in, which allowed those who can't see beyond the score line to delight in the way it kept the ball from Germany in the final hour. In Durban, South Africa, on Wednesday, Spain kept the ball from Germany just as surely; it was just that the goal didn't arrive until the 73rd minute.
Cant agree with this breakdown. Every team has its DNA on how they are going to win games.... Germany is a good counter attacking side because they have the tools to do that, but to suggest that the England and Argentina game as about packing 9 men and counter attacking is a bit misleading.
The first goal agains Eng was a long punt by the keeper and klose muscle upast the defender and finish. Another one was a build up from the right back position and a finish in the 18 yard box. The other 2 was on the break because Eng was overcommiting, a good attacking team will make you pay.
Against Argentina, they got an early goal from a set piece, a good team will capitalize on set plays.. One goal came from a short corner with some nice exchanges and good composure in the 6 yard box and a good finish . Germany imo showed they could score in multiple scenarios.
Against stronger defenses the goals and opportunities will be harder to come by. Germany was totally outclassed by Spain who by the way,lost their first and sored 1 goal in a fair amt of their games... are we to then suggest that Spain is not a good attacking team? or that they are just good at possessing the ball. What this article fail to point out is that both counter attacking and keeping possession of the ball are vialbe attacking options?
Germany and Spain have different types of players and as such it dictated the final product on the field in terms of how they approached the game.. they both performed admirably regardless of stlye etc etc ..