The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Efficiency over style: How football changed

Roar Guru
10th November, 2016
Advertisement
Manchester United's manager. (AFP PHOTO / CARL DE SOUZA)
Roar Guru
10th November, 2016
12

Regarding football as the beautiful game is seductive, and it comes with its own connotations.

Fans want their teams to play an attractive style, while club administrators insist they do, and often demand it.

The biggest clubs, due to their spending capacity, view it as a responsibility to entertain their fans. This invariably means to strive for beautiful football.

Any clubs delving into the grim or boring, are seen as a slight to the honour that goes hand in hand with the English game.

The surreal aspect is that there is an almost greater satisfaction in losing beautifully than prevailing due to attrition.

Think of the ‘boring boring Arsenal’ chants that emanated in the 1992-93 English season, despite the team being the first to win the FA and League Cup double, and later the UEFA Cup Winners Cup in 1993-94.

Just as bizarre was the offence taken by the Gunners fraternity over the barbs about how they won, and how it almost superseded the lauded victories.

The irony was that at the same time, the shift was away from more traditional formations such as 4-4-2 to encompass more evolved ones such as 4-2-3-1, allowing the implementation of ‘ugly’ while maintaining the beautiful.

Advertisement

Emanating in Spain, the formation had two midfielders sit in front of the defence to assist as well as break up opposition attacks. In possession, they transitioned to attack, provided cover and flow, as well as allowing a playmaker to roam free.

Largely embraced in the English game with the immediate cynical rejig to this flowing formation, was the Jose Mourinho inspired 4-5-1.

It was highlighted by midfield destroyers, such as Claude Makelele, in a compact set up which relied on counter attacks for scoring, while suffocating out dreary one-nil results.

It brought widespread success, combined with scorn, as people tapped into the unspoken ‘never win ugly, prefer losing beautifully’ convention ruling the game.

The aside was the break from the past, with the lack of defence from its instigator, encaptured in this dismissive Jose Mourinho statement:

“Look, we’re not entertaining? I don’t care; we win.”

Mourinho has argued that it is duller to be defeated while playing attractively than to claim victory with efficiency.

Advertisement

Chelsea's manager Jose Mourinho. AFP PHOTO / CARL DE SOUZA

One word flipping the whole debate in ‘efficiency’.

This suggested that supposedly boring or ugly football exists only if a team loses, but sides are deemed as efficient if they grind out results highlighted by success.

In a large sense, it transformed perceptions of English football as well as the game itself. Support was largely given to efficiency in the big clubs, and encouraged among the smaller clubs.

Every time a club is in a relegation dogfight invariably names renowned in grinding football styles, like Tony Pulis, or Sam Allardyce, are on instant speed dial.

Away from the Premier League, the dogged style dominates, as it is seen as not only a ticket to the big time, but a means to remain in it long-term and fully cash in on the resulting financial windfall.

Symbolic in the evolution were lines in the sand deemed never to be crossed being crossed. As seen in an ex-Birmingham City manager Steve Bruce now managing hated rival Aston Villa, with his vindication being his defensive, tactical savvy, that efficiency gets results.

Advertisement

The irony amidst the apparent evolution in mindsets is the growing ridicule directed at Arsenal’s beautiful style lacking the necessary dogged aspect, widely attributed to its lack of recent success.

close