Is ATTACK the best form of DEFENCE?

M

MattBackHome

Well-known member

Jul 7, 2003

11,723

• Mar 7, 2013

• #1

Following on from a comment somewhere else on here today…

Well? Is it?

I’m not sure. If it is, doesn’t that mean that the team with the best attack will also have the best defence? Doesn’t it blur any distinction between stages of play?

I vote NO. I reckon CONSIDERED RISK is a better form of defence, though admittedly it's not as catchy.

Over to you, the great brainboxed intelligentsia of NSC.

 

Kumquat

New member

Mar 2, 2009

4,459

• Mar 7, 2013

• #2

It can be sometimes. Can we have an option for that?

 

SeagullSongs

And it's all gone quiet..

Oct 10, 2011

6,937

Southampton

• Mar 7, 2013

• #3

Surely DEFENCE, by definition is the best form of DEFENCE. Attack can be a good form though.

I mean, Palace haven't kept that many clean sheets this season, but by f*** do they score a lot of goals.

 

M

MattBackHome

Well-known member

Jul 7, 2003

11,723

• Mar 7, 2013

• Thread starter
• #4

Kumquat said:

It can be sometimes. Can we have an option for that?

Click to expand...

No.

Imagine you're Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator and you're deciding on the life of a gruff-talking Spanish Russell Crowe with no hint of a Spanish accent. it's thumb-up or thumb-down. No waving it around horizontally.

 

yxee

Well-known member

Oct 24, 2011

2,521

Manchester

• Mar 7, 2013

• #5

If attack is a form of defence then how do you compare it to defence? That's like comparing bananas to fruit.

 

Arkwright

Arkwright

Oct 26, 2010

2,790

Caterham, Surrey

• Mar 7, 2013

• #6

Well I understand the question.

I think in lower leagues it's all about scoring a hat full of goals and being attck minded, the opposition can't score all the time you are in thier half. Look at the Palace they are scorong for fun and fourth we are really hard to break down at the back but struggling to win games.

There of course is the other side of the coin where Arsenal won the league with 1 - 0 to the Arsenal scorer Ian Wright, to a degree the Albion did that with 1- 0 scorer Zamora.

I voted "yes" as I think you need to be positive on the pitch and push on and not just sit back and soak up the pressure and try to nick one on the break. Goals win matches not just clean sheets.

 

brighton rock

New member

Jul 5, 2003

4,430

lancing

• Mar 7, 2013

• #7

Score more goal than the other team easy realy

 

Trufflehound

Re-enfranchised

Aug 5, 2003

14,105

The democratic and free EU

• Mar 7, 2013

• #8

Is ATTACK the best form of DEFENCE?

Clearly North Korea thinks so, judging from another thread.

 

SIMMO SAYS

Well-known member

Jul 31, 2012

11,715

Incommunicado

• Mar 7, 2013

• #9

MattBackHome said:

Following on from a comment somewhere else on here today…

Well? Is it?

I’m not sure. If it is, doesn’t that mean that the team with the best attack will also have the best defence? Doesn’t it blur any distinction between stages of play?

I vote NO. I reckon CONSIDERED RISK is a better form of defence, though admittedly it's not as catchy.

Over to you, the great brainboxed intelligentsia of NSC.

Click to expand...

I'm going to sit on de-fence for this one

 

Randsta

New member

Aug 8, 2011

2,997

Eastbourne

• Mar 7, 2013

• #10

It depends.... for an average team defense is the best form of defense ...smash and grab!

 

T

Twizzle

New member

Aug 12, 2010

1,240

• Mar 7, 2013

• #11

Both attack and defence are the best form of defence

 

Ninja Elephant

Doctor Elephant

Feb 16, 2009

18,855

• Mar 7, 2013

• #12

I deffinitely think that attack is the best form of defence. If someone is threatening you with Nuclear action, strike first and erradicate the threat. Game over.

 

G

Gwm

New member

Oct 25, 2011

391

• Mar 7, 2013

• #13

Ask Oscar Pistorious !