What are you on about mate? What exactly is Tacticsl grinding in Football and what else is it’s equivalent in cricket?
There is not much we can do when comparing Random Tests to International football because International football teams build their legacy on World Cup performances and not random friendlies or qualifiers. So yes, the T20 tactical grinding is very much comparable to the Italian trademark style of defensive football. Pakistan won 2 Icc tournaments due to great bowling, not explosive batting. Great bowling requires great planning and good field settings to execute those plans
There is nothing equivalent between soccer & cricket - in that regard, this thread doesn't have any meaning.
And, it's really difficult to argue with someone trying to relate tactics with T20.... Then compare it with soccer, then comes ”larkre lenge style” with Italian organization. Still, are you still arguing that a tactics in cricket that's build on taking 10 wickets is equivalent to a soccer philosophy that is built on not conceding goals so that you win 1-0 or at least not lose it?
Apart from winning few random international friendlies, those Italians actually win 4 world cups, made two other finals, won one euro and made three other finals and I have lost counts how many times they have made the SF. Their clubs have won just UEFA CL 12 times...
As I said, start to follow soccer & the history of the tactics by the major 9 teams - Italy, Germany, France, England, Spain, Argentina, Uruguay, Holland & off course Brazil - more or less for over 50+ years, these team's are playing with a very similar tactics and you’ll notice these team's hardly employ a foreign coach for their national tram - they want to preserve their style & legacy (in fact never, apart from few years under Sven G Ericksen, he was also hired because of his style that suited English game).
Italy plays a typical Catennacio - an extremely tactical game that's built on high back line for off side traps and an attack built through wing backs and often just one centre forward in a pivot shape attack (but the Italian spearhead will be among best in world for his position - in ’82, Rossi managed three shots on that Brazilian post, in 90 minutes for his hattick). England plays long ball, a wide game using wingers - they (including Scotland, Welsh & NIreland) have produced some of the best ever wide attackers in the game, but they have always lacked a midfield general in the class of Platini, Zidane or Mathaus. Every great French team in built around their mid-field which keeps possession - they have lost more for their in-fights than their soccer. Individually, their top players are among most skilled in Europe, may be at per with Dutch & Spanish, but their spirit is often low and general soccer philosophy is safety first.
The Dutch plays the most expensive, stylish soccer involving everyone in attack but often keeping back door open for someone to steal it - at times, it can be compared to PCT of 1970s to 90s - skilled, expressive, exciting, eye-catching but not decisive enough, ruthless enough like the Germans. They are the most under achievers of soccer with that much riches in their talent Treasury. Their ATG first squad will compete any first squad of any nation including Brazil & Germany - but end result is only one Euro!!!!!!!! Germans play hit & run physical game with a die hard attitude & organization that only could be better by Italians (before 2016, Italy never lost to Germany in any competition game!!!) - not necessarily always eye catching, but ruthlessly effective - their key tactics is to win common ball & arial supremacy, no one can beat a German if the ball is flying in from distance. And, German soccer is built on efficiency, synergy - sum of 11 German individuals will always be higher as a team. Their constant search for better team efficiency has produced some of the ground breaking tactical positions in soccer - from attacking centre back to goal keeping sweeper back. Italians invented the position of ”Libero” in soccer - Germans mastered that with Beckenbouer.
Every great Argentine team is built around one genius as they play a skilled based game around their star-man and their superstar is the most visible one - if an Argentina team makes any Final or wins something, their best man is easiest to identify. They are the most tactical of the Latin teams, similar to Italy in defensive tactics but with a Latin flyer (and what their top coaches can do with defensive tactics.... you have to ask Jurgen Klopp). Argentina & Italy have produced most numbers of below average height superstar centre backs in soccer for a reason - from Passarella to Baresi to Ayala to Canevaro, as these are the two teams master of ”zonal markinning- a tactics which is build on defending by blocking channel (isolate forward - Schilachi was caught off side 23 times, in that 1990 SF!!!!!!) & reducing playing area by a coordinated high back line. For a long, through ball, you can put a scale on screen to notice that all 4 Italian or Arges back-line is moving forward with a precision that hardly any forward can beat.... unless he has the speed of Kylian Mbappe.
Brazil is Brazil - plays with the skill if Argentina, but with the flair of Holland. The amount to skill and talent Brazil posses in their soccer - they should have won at least 10 WCs by now, if not more - 1950, 66, 78, 82, 86, may be 2016 as well. Brazil is a soccer nation whose reserves could have made finals in some of the WCs - comparing them with PAK cricket team is an insult to sports as a whole, not only Brazil. they are the pioneer of almost every attacking tactics of soccer - first team to use 433 (at times when 5 forwards were common) to bring wing backs in to attack, ball playing centre forward, attacking midfielder, cutting inside wingers.... One of the reasons for Brazil’s failure (if winning 5 WCs in every continent bar Africa is considered as failure that Brazil can't get away with winning it only - they'll have to win it like Brazil. Of all their WC winning teams, 1994 is least cherished because that was the time Carlos Alberto tried to copy European style with 442, after four of the best ever teams failed to win it since 1978, for one/two defensive blunders.
Among Latin teams, Uruguay is most close to European soccer in philosophy - physical & defensive at least since WWII, but with Latin skills. They play a bit of rough soccer for a Latin team and focus on defending physically but still has produced Schiafino, Fransiscolly, Forlan, Suarez!!!! Last of the Elites - Spain is the closest European team with Latins for the amount of Latinos playing in their league since 1900s - also highest number of Latin coaches are active in Spain; migration, duel citizenship for Latinos is easiest in Spain. Along with Holland, normally they are the most watchable European team and as expected, along with Holland - most under achievers as well; because often they try to pay like Brazil, but there is only one Brazil in soccer - this is from someone a French fan from almost diaper days.... since Euro 1984.
The cricket team that's closest to Italy in that regard is India - their tactics for most part of their cricket history was built on compact defense and slow-burning attack with spinners. Australia can be compared with the brilliant ”hit & run” game of Germany that is always relentless, fighting till last minute and extremely consistent ........ only for few years Lloyd’s Calypso cricket could have been compared to the class of Brazil. And, I agree with someone here - England is very much England.... both teams won their World Cups also at home and with a little controversy as well.
Next time, come back with a little homework - otherwise I'll charge you something for a little soccer lesson.
