RELATED
Holland May Not Like It But Winning Ugly Is An Art Form That Deserves Respect
Chelsea won the Champions League this season despite heavy accusations of 'anti-football', and Denmark overcame Holland at Euro 2012 using similar tactics. But is it time for winning ugly to gain more respect?
Robben and De Jong: No strangers to wining ugly
At times this season Arjen Robben has been superb, a goals return of 19 in 36 games complimented by those pacey, incisive runs, cutting in from the right in that trademark style, gliding across the turf – he can be a joy watch.
Yet against Denmark, for the second time in less than a month, the Bayern Munich and Netherlands winger sank to his knees in disappointment at the noise of the referee’s final whistle.
Part of a side expected to win, in a game which saw them dominate possession and efforts on goal, the Dutch ultimately came up short – for Robben, it must have been depressingly familiar to last month’s UEFA Champions League Final against Chelsea.
Bayern had 35 shots to the Premier League side’s 9 that night, they enjoyed 56% of the possession, yet one statistic stands out more than any other. Bayern had 20 corners, Chelsea had just one solitary corner, swung in menacingly by Juan Mata and buried by the head of Didier Drogba.
Devastatingly effective, frighteningly efficient and an act that played a hugely significant role in Chelsea winning the biggest prize in European football for the first time in their history. Just like Barcelona before them, Bayern were left feeling robbed, sections of the Bavarian media making the same complaints their Catalan colleagues had done weeks prior.
Similarly, there’s nothing for Chelsea to be ashamed of about being cautious and defensive against Barcelona. Why take on arguably the world’s best club side at their own game, when they’re far better at it than you are?
One German sports newspaper called Chelsea to be ”destructive anti-footballers” – a Munich daily’s headline asked; “How much bad luck fits into a single football match?”. The truth is that in Munich, Barcelona and Kharkiv, the better sides triumphed.
That is if you agree with me that defensive concentration, dogged determination and well-drilled organisation are qualities just as worthy of victory as deft touches, clever passes and clinical finishes.
Player for player, it was hard to make a case for Chelsea beating Barcelona over two-legs, and if the Dutch played Denmark ten-times, you’d expect the Danes to lose far more than they’d win.
What’s so brilliant about football and one of the reasons it’s watched by billions of people around the world, is that technical deficiency can be overcome by a host of other factors – in short, there are many ways to win a football match and we shouldn’t presume more attractive equals better.
It’s time we asked why some people use this ridiculous term ‘anti-football’ to describe any style of play that isn’t open, expansive and easy on the eye. There’s no shame in grabbing a goal from a set play early on and then protecting what you’ve got for the rest of the 90 minutes.
One German sports newspaper called Chelsea to be ”destructive anti-footballers”, and a Munich daily’s headline asked; “How much bad luck fits into a single football match?”
Similarly, there’s nothing for Chelsea to be ashamed of about being cautious and defensive against Barcelona. Why take on arguably the world’s best club side at their own game, when they’re far better at it than you are?
True ‘anti-football’, for me, is when players and coaches seek to stop another team, often containing more naturally gifted players, by being overly physical or even thuggish.
A classic example being Cameroon’s win over Argentina in the opening game of the 1990 World Cup – Cameroon ended the game with nine men and I’ll always remember the terrible challenge by Benjamin Massing on Claudio Caniggia, which resulted in one of his team’s red cards.
The problem I have is that when it comes to the use of this term ‘anti-football’, the distinction has become blurred between that sort of outright foul-play and what is now commonly referred to as ‘parking the bus’.
A term with really negative footballing connotations, often used as an insult by coaches, players and supporters of clubs who’ve been beaten or frustrated by teams they were expected to roll-over, almost as if the intention is to shame their opposition into a suicidal, open game the next time they meet.
Clubs like Stoke City are often derided, the achievements of teams like Greece at Euro 2004 and Chelsea in this season’s Champions League are diluted
Clubs like Stoke City are often derided, the achievements of teams like Greece at Euro 2004 and Chelsea in this season’s Champions League are diluted – managers even lose their jobs for deploying a style of play that’s not perceived to be entertaining enough.
Reports on tonight’s game should contain rave reviews about Denmark’s defensive shape and all-round team display, but from what I’ve seen so far, a lot more column inches are being dedicated to lamenting the bad-luck and/or wastefulness of the Dutch.
That won’t change until the wider football community begins to recognise that the ability to stop – by fair means – players with more natural ability than you from expressing it, deserves far greater admiration. Although I’m not sure whether Arjen Robben would agree…
Follow Adam Summerton on Twitter
Watch Handbags’ England vs France preview on Google+ 7-7.30pm on Sunday, 10 June here
Or, if you miss it live, you can watch it straight after on YouTube here
To find out more about Handbags click here
Read more great Euro 2012 pieces
A Stripper’s Guide To Euro 2012
Euro 2012: A Tactical Analysis Of The Group Of Death
Click here for more articles about Football and Sport
Click here to follow Sabotage Times on Twitter
Click here to follow Sabotage Times on Facebook
If you like it, Pass it on
COMMENTS
Ah for the first I've found somebody who I agree with. Thing is Mr. Summerton, the type of play used by teams such as Barcelona, as beautiful as it is, has become the new standard, and therefore anyone who does NOT go with that is regarded as bad sportsmen or destroyers of a beautiful game. As a Chelsea fan, but also as neutral observer, I like to think that the better team won the Champions league because they were able to adapt their tactics from one opposing team to another. To put it like what everyone else says today, we played beatiful vs Napoli (return leg) , not bad vs Benfica, and terrible vs Barça and Bayern because we parked the bus. But isn't that recognising your opposition's superiority, and using your best asset against them? Like most footballers say....we are remembered in the history books not because we played well or bad, but because in the end we got our hands on the trophy. After all the principle of football is simple: score more goals than your opponents in the best way you can within the laws of the game. We did that. Denmark did that.
Chelsea goals scored en route to winning the CL - 25. Man United in 2008 - 20. Liverpool in 2005 - 18. Who is anti-football now? In fact only Barcelona is higher on the goal-scoring charts. Chelsea are the next-highest scoring winners over the course of the campaign. What this shows is that Chelsea adjust their tactics to suit the opponent: attacking when they need to be (more often than not, as proven by the goal tally), defensive when they need to be. That's football as it should be.
Oh, Thank God!! It's about time someone had the cajones to write this. I've been talking about this since the "anti-football" brigade have been spewing their misguided rubbish since the CL final. If these people had their way we would decide games by holding up scorecards at the end! If possession alone was the deciding factor then Arsenal would have won many more trophies in the last seven years. In the Denmark game they put stats up on the screen (Denmark were already 1-0 up) Netherlands Shots; 10, On Target; 2 Denmark Shots; 3 On Target; 3 The announcer immediately spouts; "The Netherlands leading in all of the stats" Who are these people?!?!
as a liverpool fan and watching us play boring possesion pass backing defensive over atackin for a good few years now i just think its boring its nice when underdogs win and all that but as a fan watching your team it doesnt have to be technical you just want fast hard and attacking even if beat at least you see your team give it there all nothing worse than watching your team go into a match defensivley and loose.
Denmark weren't as bad as people make them out to be. Played well I thought. Sour grapes from Dutch supporting fans.
Nice little article this one. Of course neutralizing the opposition's threat is a part of football otherwise we'd decide matches on a set of skill tests. The article seems more about Chelsea than Holland which is fair enough however to stick the boot into the Dutch I'll refer you to the World Cup Final in 2010 where they literally tried to kick Spain out of the game. They probably don't like it because they're no good at it! And you're right - that's what makes football great. I never loved following football so much as I did when I followed Rangers stagger towards the UEFA cup final without scoring a home goal from the QFs on and getting absolutely battered by Fiorentina in the Semis only to go through on pens. If you want to watch a game where the stronger/better team always wins - watch Rugby.
Great stuff and good to see footballing snobbery isn't yet an epidemic. Funny how Soke get derided by various mard managers and JCL's when they lose at our place and yet not a word about how we play when they beat us.
SABOTAGE
