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Just as bizarre was the offence taken by the Gunners fraternity over the barbs about how they won, and how it almost superseded the lauded victories.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.
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.
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.
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.
j binnie
Guest
senn The rule change awarding 3 points for a win was introduced as an attempt to encourage teams to go out and play for a win. Actually it made little difference as to how the game is played at highest level for as anyone who studies figures will tell you it actually only affects the position of one or two clubs at season's end and those affected are usually mid-table. Some of the other suggestions put through around the same time was to enlarge the goal post area,and even one from a highly positioned official at the time ,who suggested playing the game without a goalkeeper. I kid you not.This official is in Football's Hall of Fame. Cheers jb
Nemesis
Guest
Agree with your points about GK rule and passive offside. However, I'm almost sure the 3 points for a win is not a FIFA Rule. Each competition has its own rule. In the ALeague we could have 10 points for a win and 1pt for a loss if we wanted.
Senn
Guest
Those FIFA rule changes are mostly responsible for how Football changed and became more positive overall: - 3 points for a win (previously 2) - Goalkeeper must not handle the ball if it has been passed to him intentionally by a teammate. - Allowing passive offside.
j binnie
Guest
It is just a bit amusing to read what one must think is a younger generation when they talk about recent examples of playing "not to lose" rather than "to win". Actually this view on the game and how it should be played is thought to have its origins back in the 1920's some 90 years ago when the then Arsenal manager moved his then centre half back into the "back line" with the instructions "you have a point when you go on the field ,don't come off without it". This edict of course has it's origins in the old adage "it is easier to defend than to attack" and so over the following years we witnessed formations in playing the game "progress" through WM, to 4-2-4 as practiced by the Brazilians and Hungary in the early 1950's,,then the 4-3-3 as developed by Brazil in the late 1950's, the defensive structure reaching it's optimum when the Itallians introduced their catenaccio in the early 1960's. That was hoisted on to fans of the game for at least another 10 years and was to prove almost impregnable ,at the same time turning fans away from the game in their thousands. Sanity prevailed and from 1970's football as a business began again to attract the fans back and even the Italians were forced to change their viewpoint on how to play the game but lately,with huge pressures brought to bear on highly paid managers/coaches the trend towards defensive strategies is once again raising it's ugly head. Can it be halted in it's tracks.? Tactically it is a very hard question to be answered. Cheers jb.
marron
Guest
Of course it was - because what else could they do if they want to win? To win, they must be cautious. Must hope to counter. Otherwise a Bayern or a real or a Barca will turn them over. I think of Rayo, who don't care, and attempt to play. The only team to outpossess Barca a couple of seasons ago. A monumental effort when you think about it. Last season they lost, what was it, 10-2? I applaud them. They're in the segunda now. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see every team play their way. I just think you and I are in the minority when it comes to accepting the repurcussions of that in the modern game, where relegation can ruin you and where there are no mysteries thanks to video and scouting networks etc etc. in my experience, fans prefer the win for their team even if they can appreciate good football. Having said that I have come to appreciate a good smash and grab. It has its own beauty.
Tim Holt
Roar Guru
thanks for the kind words
Tim Holt
Roar Guru
The aside is the acceptance of the cynicism. Think of a few of the portugese players getting grief for their football during the Euros and being dismissive about how they 'play to win', or, the UEFA Champions League Semi between Bayern and Athelitico where I think it was Alturo got stuck into Athelitico grim tactics after they won. Once more- the only response was 'we won, we do not care...'
marron
Guest
"I go about the world, hand outstretched, and in the stadiums I plead: 'A pretty move, for the love of God.' And when good football happens, I give thanks for the miracle and I don't give a damn which team or country performs it."
marron
Guest
at certain clubs, absolutely Tim - but I'd still argue a lot of it is a bit of window dressing. in my experience the majority of fans will actually take an ugly win over a beautiful loss. even the idealistic ones! I don't disagree with your overall point though - football has become more cynical overall. more money will do that I suppose.
Tim Holt
Roar Guru
As a season ticket holder at Aston Villa since 1957, it runs pretty deep that attitude
marron
Guest
"The surreal aspect is that there is an almost greater satisfaction in losing beautifully than prevailing due to attrition." I think the surreal aspect is that you believe this to be true. Having subscribed to this point of view for most of my life - bestowed by my dad - I can tell you I've always been in the minority, accompanied by romantics and idiots only.
Amrit
Roar Guru
Arsenal is a standout example of a club which still values style, tradition over results in the Champions league. However as Andre Villas Boas recently said at an interview in Amsterdam, that youth team philosophy should be kept separated from first team style, where there's always a fluctuation of managers and results and players are often shipped out By the way great read, mate