That article is bollocks and cherry picks examples to fit its thesis. For instance, saying Man Utd should have attacked Barcelona in the UCL to increase their odds of winning doesn't account for Inter playing hyper-defensive over 2 legs against Barca and progressing on to win the trophy in 2010. Samuel Eto'o played RB for Inter in those games too, just like Rooney did for MU. And that's not even accounting for the fact that MU knocked Barca out of the comp in that example he provided - so what's he saying? MU won but they almost didn't, and if they attacked more they would have won more comfortably? Or what about Everton, who have their best squad in ages and have attacked all season andfailed to string together results.
And comparing a tactical approach in tennis or UFC to one in football is a pretty stretched analogy.
I see Leicester had another cagey 1-0 win since that article was published too, and are now 7 points clear with 6 games to go. And I'm not even sure they've even got more defensive since the start of the season, if anything their opponents have got more defensive against them as they realised the threat they pose, hence scoring drying up.
Yeh, it's far from a perfect explanation, but it did kinda resonate, especially in the discussion of BMac v Williamson as captains here. Which could go in the cricket thread.
Also with the discussion of Wenger- though that's a multi-faceted issue too.
The problem with the approach is if it works then it works. Which doesn't really help anyone.
It's an article for this forum- plenty of holes to pick at, but one or two valid points...