Subject: World Cup Qualifying

Team A has an equal strength side to team B.

Team A manages 20 chances including many good chances and a penalty. Team B has 3 chances and wins the game 3-0.

Was team B lucky, or was their manager the better tactician because he won the game?

mate, this is sokker...
I don't think it can be called luck, but when the engine doesn't want the ball to go in the net, then you can have divine striker in divine form, at 1 cm in front of the goal, he'll miss it...

I agree totally, I am just giving a hypothetical example to highlight how luck & tactical ability are often two totally different things.

Just because a team managed a good result, doesn't mean it was always merited!

they are not totally different...

starting with a decent tactic, you can get the luck...
if you start with a standard tactic or a bad one, then there can be tones of luck, the tactic doesn't help you...
so, what you have to do is to create a decent tactic... then to pray to have some luck...if there is no luck, you still have a decent tactic... if there's also some luck, you can win everything :P
but if you don't have a tactic at all, then the luck doesn't count...
i hope you get my point :P
(edited)
(edited)

There is a distinction, although you will always need some small degree of luck to get the results your team deserves.

I felt the raving reviews of the Uraguay fan claiming Uraguay had displayed great tactical understanding and ability, because they got a good result was mis-guided. The end result doesn't always reflect just how well the teams involved played, and if that game was played another 99 times with the same tactics I wouldn't expect to see many positive results for Uraguay, thats why I felt it was a lucky result.

Sorry, sorry, but the whole discussion began when WE WON to Lietuva... you said "You have loads of luck"... then WE DRAW with France... and you keep saying "You have loads od luck".

We have the same number of points that France after 6 games, and only 2 below Lietuva...

And you NEVER MENTIONED any king of merit behind any result.

So the point of the discussion WAS NEVER if we had luck or not. Obviously we had luck because we are a weaker team. The point of the discussion (originally and still) is if our tactical approach is to be considered when evaluating our results... because you ALWAYS minimize our efforts everytime you say "You had luck".

France can win 10-0 and have luck anyway... they are more powerfull but they still can have luck, dont they? Why you dont you look at your own mistakes instead of devaluating our results? This keeps being the reaction of powerfull countries NT managers after they loose points against a weaker country... what a coincidence!!!

I saw that match. France could score easy for 3 times in first 10 minutes, without the missed penalty. France wingers escaped many times very easy.

In your position, I wouldn't say anything about this match because it is obvious that France was the better side and their wingers were almost free.

I am tired about this discussion. Try to dominate games and then praise for that.

And I am tired of the discussion too.

How many games have you seen in real life that are won by counterattacking?
Because it is always clear for me that the team that attacks most and misses chances "should deserve" to win the match (if only considering the number of chances missed). But the team that won with a counterattacking strategy did things well... why wouldnt they praise themselves for making the correct approach to win the match?

I will praise for what I want. You criticize what you want and nobody says nothing about that.

you won a game, a point, who cares if it was lucky or not. You did your job. The match was on saturday, today is Tuesday, drop it. Next saturday is another story...

I think to be fair to panchoahead he was responding to our comments.

What is nice is to see the things we already discussed happening on the field. The risks we take, the opportunities we may have... that's why I think Mr.200 is doing a great job.
I think that some managers from "bigger" countries just "relax" because of the players they have. And when things goes wrong... well they need and excuse...

Being MUCH better and loosing because of really bad luck is a good enough excuse for loosing.

Imagine you have 16 shots[from one on one, headers from 5 meters, penalties, crossbars, posts], your opponent has 2 shots, and you loose 0:2. Do you say "faq, I was so unlucky!!" or "Hm...my opponent is such a great tactician and strategists..."?

It would amuse me if that happened in their next game against Shqipëria, perhaps even they could lose to an own goal with no actual shots against them.

I would like to see if they are quite so gracious in their praise for the victors great counter-attacking tactics, or just put it down to bad luck.

Haha, That would be hilarious.

Be sure I would!!!

It already happened and we praise the victors!
Perhaps your mistake is that you think that everyone would have the same reaction to loosing that you would have, and thats incorrect.
(edited)

I believe that if someone thinks, under any circumstances, that everything happened because he/she was unlucky... he/she is in trouble.
Even if you win, you have things to improve. For bigger countries (those that probably qualify just for being in a poll) the qualification is the time for improvement. If your team shoots 16 times and didn't score or made only one you should think about what happened, trying to either create 20 shoots next time or manage to "give" your players better chances.
If the manager thinks that was only bad luck, he/she won't change anything, hoping that next time luck will be on his/her side. That is the worst mistake that someone can do, either in a game or life.