RANDOM HISTORY RANT ON TOTALFOOTBALL TO MAKE UP FOR CANCELLING THE EQUALLY RANDOM EXHIBITION GAME
I don't think there's any question total football and most of its key components originate behind the Iron Curtain, which is telling. Arkadyev with Dinamo Moscow in the 40s (a 3-4-3 diamond, no less), Sebes with Hungary in the 50s, then Maslov with Torpedo Moscow and Lobanovsky at Dinamo Kiev. They kept innovating around what was at the time a ground-breaking concept: the team over individual brilliance, no place for stars, no place for slackers, everyone as dedicated and committed as each other. They introduced pressing to football. Pressing, which sounds obvious today. Well, it wasn't.
It was all completely aligned with Communist ideals, they were proletarian sides, often army/KGB sponsored, etc. There was no room for egos, only discipline, team and work ethic. Look at the Czechs or Yugoslavia, they also had excellent sides built on the same premise. Look at most of their midfielders (Voronin, Netto, Masopust...) and they were all-rounders, players that sound too good to be true because they seemed to be suited for almost any role... which is precisely what happens when you've had that versatility drilled into you throughout your career.
What made Hungary standout brightest was that, on top of all that, it also had at least six World Class players who were arguably the best in the world at the time in their own roles so there was no loss of individual quality, they weren't just automatons, but had both the entire team, system and individual brilliance going for them.
What I love about the Dutch though is how completely different the main thrust is. The Soviets were arguably the most successful European side of the 60s, yet few remember them kindly and few could name more than a couple of stars, if that. Not least because they were impaired by the very same regime that somewhat aided their tactical progress. Streltsov, referred to as a White Pelé and supposedly destined to shine as brightly as the very best ever, ended up stuck in a gulag for the crime of having his own mind: he refused to play for the Army/KGB sides.
Now, with the Dutch you come from the polar opposite extreme. Michels took all these grand ideas from the Russkis on team and work ethic, constant movement, versatility, swapping positions, pressing, etc. but those embracing them embraced them as a reactionary statement. It was more a 1970s "feck systems and rigidity, long live expansive expression". It was a system in itself, a very refined one, but the organised chaos and disruption was right in line with what those hippie-looking Dutch players would embrace as a style. Most of them actually dislike modern tiki-taka, finding it boring, rigid, contrived... they did triangles alright, but they were incredibly direct and gung ho about it all. They also didn't have any issue whatsoever with one or two of them being top dog individually and they in turn ran themselves into the ground working for the team anyway.
Then in the 80s you find a new experiment, a bunch of indisciplined Danish non-conformists also ended up embracing the same philosophy in the face of the borefest of a future that Italy 82 was threatening world football with. They never shone as brightly, but boy were they a joy to watch, most entertaining side in the 80s, by a mile.
Then over comes Sacchi and puts Italian thinking into all that, which proves superior to the much more attractive proposition that Cruyff's Dream Team was... then both things eventually get reconciled a decade or so later, and tiki taka has bored my brains out since.
Yups, give me the Dutch, Danish Dynamite or the Dream Team any day of the week. They'll concede, they'll score, the other side may wind up getting more, but either way it will be exciting
I don't think there's any question total football and most of its key components originate behind the Iron Curtain, which is telling. Arkadyev with Dinamo Moscow in the 40s (a 3-4-3 diamond, no less), Sebes with Hungary in the 50s, then Maslov with Torpedo Moscow and Lobanovsky at Dinamo Kiev. They kept innovating around what was at the time a ground-breaking concept: the team over individual brilliance, no place for stars, no place for slackers, everyone as dedicated and committed as each other. They introduced pressing to football. Pressing, which sounds obvious today. Well, it wasn't.
It was all completely aligned with Communist ideals, they were proletarian sides, often army/KGB sponsored, etc. There was no room for egos, only discipline, team and work ethic. Look at the Czechs or Yugoslavia, they also had excellent sides built on the same premise. Look at most of their midfielders (Voronin, Netto, Masopust...) and they were all-rounders, players that sound too good to be true because they seemed to be suited for almost any role... which is precisely what happens when you've had that versatility drilled into you throughout your career.
What made Hungary standout brightest was that, on top of all that, it also had at least six World Class players who were arguably the best in the world at the time in their own roles so there was no loss of individual quality, they weren't just automatons, but had both the entire team, system and individual brilliance going for them.
What I love about the Dutch though is how completely different the main thrust is. The Soviets were arguably the most successful European side of the 60s, yet few remember them kindly and few could name more than a couple of stars, if that. Not least because they were impaired by the very same regime that somewhat aided their tactical progress. Streltsov, referred to as a White Pelé and supposedly destined to shine as brightly as the very best ever, ended up stuck in a gulag for the crime of having his own mind: he refused to play for the Army/KGB sides.
Now, with the Dutch you come from the polar opposite extreme. Michels took all these grand ideas from the Russkis on team and work ethic, constant movement, versatility, swapping positions, pressing, etc. but those embracing them embraced them as a reactionary statement. It was more a 1970s "feck systems and rigidity, long live expansive expression". It was a system in itself, a very refined one, but the organised chaos and disruption was right in line with what those hippie-looking Dutch players would embrace as a style. Most of them actually dislike modern tiki-taka, finding it boring, rigid, contrived... they did triangles alright, but they were incredibly direct and gung ho about it all. They also didn't have any issue whatsoever with one or two of them being top dog individually and they in turn ran themselves into the ground working for the team anyway.
Then in the 80s you find a new experiment, a bunch of indisciplined Danish non-conformists also ended up embracing the same philosophy in the face of the borefest of a future that Italy 82 was threatening world football with. They never shone as brightly, but boy were they a joy to watch, most entertaining side in the 80s, by a mile.
Then over comes Sacchi and puts Italian thinking into all that, which proves superior to the much more attractive proposition that Cruyff's Dream Team was... then both things eventually get reconciled a decade or so later, and tiki taka has bored my brains out since.
Yups, give me the Dutch, Danish Dynamite or the Dream Team any day of the week. They'll concede, they'll score, the other side may wind up getting more, but either way it will be exciting
Last edited:
Bless 