Quote:
Originally Posted by Kakurin-san
Here's where I disagree. The primary purpose of the short-passing tiki-taka is to retain possession. Hence the avoidance of long or diagonal passes which have the potential to gain much more ground in one sweep but are more prone to getting intercepted. The tiki-taka is designed to be very, very patient and wait for the defence to make a mistake. It philosophically is not much different compared to a catenaccio, parking-the-bus style game where you seal off the spaces for the attacking team and wait for a mistake which is to be exploited during a counter-attack.
|
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. I always believe that tiki-taka was a patient game where attacking focus was always the key - hence why we see recycling of possession in deeper areas when the opposition defence closes gaps up, before using the deeper playmakers as a spring-board. It is noted that tiki-taka style has a propensity for quick one-touch passing to gain advantageous attacking positions with swift movement and exploiting gaps that open up with opposition pressing. Tiki-taka's philosophy is basically "start on the front foot and maintain that attacking pressure to force opponents back and into mistakes". I'd go as far as saying this attacking pressure is sustained by the high amount of sideways passing that goes with the interchanging of positions and passes.
One thing about the strategies; catenaccio is likened to a lock, whilst I view tiki-taka to be a "key" of sorts that unlocks the defence, so I always saw them on opposite spectrums, and hence less-reliance on counter-attacks with tiki-taka.