The Champions League - a defeat for football's purists?
April 30th 2008 23:00
Every so often a game is hyped up so much that one cannot fail to be enticed by its promise. Manchester United versus Barcelona was that game. The stage was perfectly set. The biggest and currently best team in England, against one of the giants of the Spanish game. The Camp Nou and Old Trafford. Ronaldo, Messi, Tevez, Eto’o and co, all on display. And the semi-final stage of Europe’s most glamorous competition, the champions league.
But it didn’t quite happen. At least not in the way that millions of viewers the world over would have hoped. The first leg in Spain was a thoroughly dull affair. The one chance of note was Cristiano Ronaldo’s second minute penalty, which he calmly placed the wrong side of the post. The rest of the match featured a Barca side that prodded and probed Utd’s defence, but rarely threatened. At the final whistle neither side looked overly disheartened with a draw.
The word coming out of Spain was that Barca had been there for the taking in the first leg, and that Utd could live to regret not beating a team so low on confidence when they had the chance. The watching world licked its lips in anticipation of the second game. This time it would be the match we were all hoping for, surely...
No. Once again it failed to deliver. Yes, it was better than the first game. And yes, the only goal by Paul Scholes, a swerving strike into the top corner, was a worthy match winner. But no, it wasn’t a superb spectacle. In many ways, the game followed the blue print of the first leg. Barca played in pretty triangles, and kept hold of the ball expertly. But, as previously, they failed to find a way through a stubborn Utd defence. Not even the impish genius Lionel Messi could create a goal (though he did come close after one particularly mesmerising run). To think that Messi is still only 20 years old is both frightening, and hugely exciting in equal measure. But he is another story entirely.
So why did this game fail to live up to the hype? Well, there are several possible explanations. Barca manager Frank Rijkaard chose to point the finger at English teams and their ‘defensive’ attitudes. But in truth, this looks like the action of a man who must realise he is on the brink of losing his job. It’s true that Barca had the baulk of possession, but it would be unfair to accuse Utd of being overly defensive.
A more likely explanation is that both teams were too scared to lose. This ‘fear factor’ has become an epidemic of football at the highest level. One needs only to look at the world cup in 2006, when a workmanlike side based on a solid defence, albeit fantastically organised, lifted international football’s biggest prize. The days of thrilling high scoring games in the biggest competitions are getting rarer.
But is it really fair to blame teams for not adopting a gung-ho attitude on the pitch? It almost seems a cliché to harp on about the vast amount of money in the game these days, but this cannot be ignored. The difference between success and failure can be calculated in obscene amounts of cash. Of course teams should play in a way in which they are likely to get results. Despite what Pepsi and Nike will have us believe, football is not all about stepovers, flicks and tricks, the performance and style is now secondary to results. Losing cannot be tolerated, because losing is more costly than ever.
It will be interesting to see what approach Barca adopt next season. This proud club have not won a thing for the past 2 seasons, and in Catalonia that is unacceptable. Players, and probably managers, will come and go, but whether or not Barca persist with pretty possession football remains to be seen. Arsenal are in a similar predicament in England, where wonderful flowing football has brought plenty of plaudits, but no silverware this season.
As for Utd, they go marching on to Moscow with their eyes on European club football’s most coveted prize. And, whilst millions will tune in to watch the final, the football purists among them may well be left disappointed.
But it didn’t quite happen. At least not in the way that millions of viewers the world over would have hoped. The first leg in Spain was a thoroughly dull affair. The one chance of note was Cristiano Ronaldo’s second minute penalty, which he calmly placed the wrong side of the post. The rest of the match featured a Barca side that prodded and probed Utd’s defence, but rarely threatened. At the final whistle neither side looked overly disheartened with a draw.
The word coming out of Spain was that Barca had been there for the taking in the first leg, and that Utd could live to regret not beating a team so low on confidence when they had the chance. The watching world licked its lips in anticipation of the second game. This time it would be the match we were all hoping for, surely...
No. Once again it failed to deliver. Yes, it was better than the first game. And yes, the only goal by Paul Scholes, a swerving strike into the top corner, was a worthy match winner. But no, it wasn’t a superb spectacle. In many ways, the game followed the blue print of the first leg. Barca played in pretty triangles, and kept hold of the ball expertly. But, as previously, they failed to find a way through a stubborn Utd defence. Not even the impish genius Lionel Messi could create a goal (though he did come close after one particularly mesmerising run). To think that Messi is still only 20 years old is both frightening, and hugely exciting in equal measure. But he is another story entirely.
So why did this game fail to live up to the hype? Well, there are several possible explanations. Barca manager Frank Rijkaard chose to point the finger at English teams and their ‘defensive’ attitudes. But in truth, this looks like the action of a man who must realise he is on the brink of losing his job. It’s true that Barca had the baulk of possession, but it would be unfair to accuse Utd of being overly defensive.
A more likely explanation is that both teams were too scared to lose. This ‘fear factor’ has become an epidemic of football at the highest level. One needs only to look at the world cup in 2006, when a workmanlike side based on a solid defence, albeit fantastically organised, lifted international football’s biggest prize. The days of thrilling high scoring games in the biggest competitions are getting rarer.
But is it really fair to blame teams for not adopting a gung-ho attitude on the pitch? It almost seems a cliché to harp on about the vast amount of money in the game these days, but this cannot be ignored. The difference between success and failure can be calculated in obscene amounts of cash. Of course teams should play in a way in which they are likely to get results. Despite what Pepsi and Nike will have us believe, football is not all about stepovers, flicks and tricks, the performance and style is now secondary to results. Losing cannot be tolerated, because losing is more costly than ever.
It will be interesting to see what approach Barca adopt next season. This proud club have not won a thing for the past 2 seasons, and in Catalonia that is unacceptable. Players, and probably managers, will come and go, but whether or not Barca persist with pretty possession football remains to be seen. Arsenal are in a similar predicament in England, where wonderful flowing football has brought plenty of plaudits, but no silverware this season.
As for Utd, they go marching on to Moscow with their eyes on European club football’s most coveted prize. And, whilst millions will tune in to watch the final, the football purists among them may well be left disappointed.
| 69 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Kevin Lustig
After all, winning has always been the point of the game, not just in the media/corporate sponsor/big money era. Sometimes you have to defend to win.
For my part, I thought Barcelona were fun to watch even though they didn't score any goals, and United's performance in the first game was tame, but it created a lot of tension. AC Milan v. Liverpool a couple of years back, by way of comparison, was a heck of a lot more exciting with lots of flashy goals. But most of Liverpool's goals came from luck or Milan mistakes. From a technical standpoint, the game wasn't among the best.
I think a lot of purists would prefer Barca v. Man Utd to the Liverpool game. But what I'm really arguing is chess v. checkers, and there are people in both camps. Anyway, that's my two cents . . . thanks for the post!
Comment by Ann 2
Muzikal Mafia
Canadiens Watch
Football Slate
Sometimes, the tactical display itself is a joy to watch. For me, the most interesting confrontation this year was Arsenal v. AC Milan. The Gunners made a complete lockdown on Pirlo and Kaka. There weren't lots of goals scored but it was still amazing.
Comment by Robert Kidd
The Beautiful Game
Ann, I think that Arsenal Milan match you refer to was an interesting game to watch, but I'm not sure I would describe it as exciting. You're right about Man Utd, a slightly more cautious approach has taken them to the final, so obviously it was a smart move.
As an avid football fan I appreciate all kinds of styles of play whether they are defensive, attacking or mixed. The point I was trying to make is that pass and move football is rarely as effective in today's game as it was in the past. The top teams in the world (possibly excluding Barca and Arsenal), often do not play an overly attacking game and I think that's a shame. But you're both right, it doesn't always mean the team loses out or the games are less exciting, one just needs to look at last night's game to see that! Thanks again.