question

402 Views 15 Replies 9 Participants Last post by DacoRoman, Apr 21, 2002

Lupi

Discussion Starter · Apr 19, 2002

Our players were not really happy after yesterday's game. They were happy of course for the victory but this victory saddened them greatly because they (like we all) know that they deserve to be in the World Cup.

Now, I wonder, is it better to have a good team, with very skilled players but not qualify or have a bad team with unskilled players but who qualified to a major competition?

I was very saddened for not going to the WC but as much as that hurts, I still prefer having a good team, playing good and having the players we have (young, talented, fierce) than qualifying for a big competition with a bad team or not playing well. Winning is important, of course, but football is more than that. It's about passion, it's about playing with our hearts (something that we DO!), it's about the skill (personally, I am very proud to see that we have such technically gifted players!), it's about optimism and believing in a better future (it's hard not to when you see the players in our NT)...

(I know I will be criticized for the above statement and for my optimism and idealism, but this is trully what I think!)

State your opinion, if you want.

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

MironN

· #2 · Apr 19, 2002

Now, I wonder, is it better to have a good team, with very skilled players but not qualify or have a bad team with unskilled players but who qualified to a major competition?

You're right! I'd rather be a supporter of the team that we saw on Wednesday evening, with only 2 players over 30, and lots of talent, than of Slovenia, for example. Why? Because Slovenia has several older players (Zahovici is like 32) and their main focus is on not getting goals, scoring through counterattacks and counting on luck. This qualified them to Euro 2000, it qualified them to WC 2002, they might get past the group stage but that is it.

They will just have an ageing team and limited tactics. While our team seems to have a wonderful chemistry right now, which we'll get better with time, and which is based on young or very young players. Our team will shine at Euro 2004 and 10 years after that. If you take Chivu, who is just 21, you can realize that he'll play at least 12 years in the NT, probably 15. Same for Mutu, Codrea, Ghioane, Cernat, Radoi. Even Ganea, Filipescu, Ilie who are about 27-29 years old, will keep on playing for at least 4 years. So, we have a future!

Let's not forget that our biggest performance ever came after not qualyfing for Euro 1992. So, Portugal, here we come!

See less See more

Florian Albert

· #3 · Apr 19, 2002

no-4 years is a long time in a top footballer's career-you endeaver to get to the finals every time with whatever side you have-some well organised sides have had great cups even when on paper the team is average

GICA

· #4 · Apr 19, 2002

I agree with you, Lupi.
The future will be better and we should be proud of our players.I´m sure that the future will be fantastic for us and our absence in this WC has been only an accident.

Together and forever:HAI ROMANIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HAI ROMANIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GICA

· #5 · Apr 19, 2002

Ohhhhhhhh I´m a Player,not a Rookie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!haha

:tongue:

VIVAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ROMANIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

caveman

· #6 · Apr 19, 2002

we had a good team in november, it was all hagi's fault.

i know many of you won't agree. i respect your oppinions.

Romire

· #7 · Apr 19, 2002

Hagi's strategies were off and he become the NT coach too soon but I would disagree that he is to blame. Its not like we didn't play well or have a meriad of chances. Out of those 2 games we only needed one more goal we had our chances. You can't coach finishing at this level and thats all it was.

On the topic at hand, well I'd want it all but I'd definetely choose quality and pretty soccer. I take great pride in talking about Romania's passing, team work and attractive soccer (well most of the time its attractive). If I was Norwegian or English I'm not sure I'd be into the international game so much.

MariusDeDracul

· #8 · Apr 19, 2002

lupisor lupetto said:
Now, I wonder, is it better to have a good team, with very skilled players but not qualify or have a bad team with unskilled players but who qualified to a major competition?

In most cases a team with very skilled players will qualify to a major competition. Somethimes S**** happens and you don't (not just us, look at Holland and Czechs). So I would rather have my team not qualify to one major competition, but still have the choice, talent and potential to come back and qualify to the next major event ( e.g. in Portugal 2004, Germany 2008).On the other hand if you have a shiit team and you qualify out of fluke, you get the fame of the WC, but when you come back you are still
S H I T and will probably miss all the other major competitions from then on…So we'll be OK!

DacoRoman

· #9 · Apr 19, 2002

I'd rather have the flashy, technical and entertaining team as well. Of course we need more resolve and strength of character, and it seems like maybe we're finding it now with our new generation and especially under Iordanescu's direction. As for the British, I think they are capable of some very impressive and effective football, but I get your point Romire. As for the Norwegians I can't say because I haven't seen much of their game. They do have Andre Flo and Skoljaer (spelling). Aren't they both Norwegian? They might not be flashy but they can be very deadly . I remember Flo from his Chelsea days, and of course the latter plays for Man U and I've seen some of his world class goals.

anickol

· #10 · Apr 19, 2002

Soccer is a great sport, it is about skill and passion and endurance and tactics. Now if you talk about professional soccer you must include the main ingredient, because in professional sports my friends, the name of the game is WINNING. Having a great talented team without qualifying to a major competion is like having a great deal of neglected resources. A team of great talent without winning or qualifying for a major competition is called a bunch of underachievers. Few years from now, my friends nobody will remember, that Romania beat Poland 2:1, however a qualification in the second round of WC would have had much more lingering effects. Having said that I think the future looks brighter now, becuase at least we have someone in charge who knows what he is doing, although IMO Lucescu would have been the best man for the job.

See less See more

MariusDeDracul

· #11 · Apr 19, 2002

I agree with that anickol, but I believe lupetto's question was whther you prefer to have a team that qualifies out of fluke or a team that is good and fails to qualify ONCE. If this is the case then I would not be too worried because if the team is talented they will qualify the second time. However, if you have a good team that always fails to qualify (something that is not very likely) then I would obviously prefer the first scenario even if they qualify by fluke. WC is indeed what matters, but I would not want my team to go there if they suck, and get totally embarresed...and I am sure we will see a few such cases in Jap/Kor this summer

Florian Albert

· #12 · Apr 19, 2002

agree with annicol-the pain felt in not making it may anyway be a good thing because it will steel the resolve of the players next time-a promising side now is no compensation for the real thing ps-rookie-player what is your point ?-can't people air their views on what is an interesting question?

Lupi

Discussion Starter · #13 · Apr 19, 2002

the question was not about winning or not because a team should always try to win. It was whether you prefer to have a bad team that qualified or an excellent team made of skillful players that did not qualify (this happening once, of course, not repetitively). I see that the majority if not all of you agrees with me.

anickol

· #14 · Apr 19, 2002

well maybe I should spell it out more, but in my book qualifying = winning and not qualifying equal loosing to a great degree, but to be more direct in answering the question, I would rather have a great talented team providing the mistakes that lead towards the failure of qualification are corrected. Because if those are not corrected, it could only lead to more dissapointment. Because great expectations are placed on those who have a great deal of talent. Danm it, I have great expectations for Romania. I will go to Portugal if they qualify. I think we are moving in the right direction. And who the hell would enjoy having a weak team go to the WC only to be blown out in the first round?

GO ROMANIA, I think the future looks very bright

Florian Albert

· #15 · Apr 21, 2002

the tenor and background to the question is obvious-if you want to kid yourself that it does not matter that your team won't be in japan-korea because of possible future success-well fine-but i predict that once battle commences the questions will be-would of-could of -should of-dammmm

DacoRoman

· #16 · Apr 21, 2002

kiwi said:
the tenor and background to the question is obvious-if you want to kid yourself that it does not matter that your team won't be in japan-korea because of possible future success-well fine-but i predict that once battle commences the questions will be-would of-could of -should of-dammmm

I don't think any of us are kidding ourselves, we are merely taking consolation in the fact that our squad is talented and holds a lot of potential. Hopefully the new coach will be able to translate this into our team not only being skilled, but also successfull in qualifying rounds and in important competitions.

I'll have to say that football is a sport that is meant to be beautiful to watch and I for one would not be a fan of my national team if they were talentless hacks without any skill no matter what their qualification record was. I would support the team just because they represented my country, but I don't think I'd be a 'fan'. I'd rather go for a jog or something than to watch ugly football. It is a sport after all that is supposed to entertain and exhilarate. And if it doesn't entertain and exhilarate, well then I ask you...what's the point of watching? I mean it isn't war where the most ugly, rule-less and ruthless use of guile and strength is used to win at any and all costs. It is a game that is supposed to be the 'beautiful' game. Watching no talent hacks forcing ugly or lucky goals in would not be interesting to me and I would not be a football fan period.

So ultimately yes, I'd rather have a team that was recognized as skilled and by bad luck and bad coaching didn't qualify this time around but with plenty of potential to qualify the next time, than a team that was comprised of unskilled players playing an ugly style of football which qualified this time around but that won't be able to shed their talentless approach to their boring and uninspiring game anytime in the forseeable future.

See less See more

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.