Negative Tactics and Pretty Football

Would it be wrong of me to suggest that not everybody who converses about football communicates via their oral orifice? In a world of clichés we are sometimes lambasted by phrases that hold a vague meaning, but which everybody can relate to. Shouting “man on” conveys to the recipient that he has a defender fast encroaching upon his space. Why do we know that? Because we have heard one teammate holler that phrase to another teammate at a time when he is close to being tackled from behind. This sort of thing can easily become gospel in football phraseology, but may exclude those who are from outside the footballing circle. A newcomer may be unsure of its meaning, and may be at risk of not heeding the guidance given.

Another example may be “middle it”. What is ‘it’? That must first be determined before we even consider what the ‘middle’ is. I know what it means, and during a game I do not have the time to argue with its obscurity, but how about a young child being instructed to ‘middle it’ by a coach or parent? It is in this forum that confusion and ignorance is bred.

I know of many who agree that a lot of TV pundits spout nonsense, and that many are paid to state the obvious. Are we idiots? Do we need to be spoon fed? Could this game really go either way? I sometimes feel insulted when one of the suits on television comments that one team will need to “step up” in order to obtain an equaliser. I happened to see the film Step Up, and I wouldn’t advise their actions as a means to win a match.

This brings me to the point I wish to discuss, and what is at the top filters through to the bottom. The idiots who spout their nonsense in the media provide ammunition for the idiots who spout their nonsense in a whole variety of social situations, such as at the pub or at work. As people, we are all gullible to an extent, and we all have the need to feel important. This is perhaps why the wisdom provided to us by pundits and commentators, such as the team winning 1-0 could do with a second goal in order to feel safer, is often heard being broadcasted as a revelation by a man who thinks himself as the messiah of football. They are everywhere.

I believe it does a lot of damage, and two phrases that greatly annoy me are “pretty football” and “negative tactics”. What on earth do they mean? Well, a Jabulani is a pretty football.

I will start off by saying that negative tactics, to me, is deliberately kicking the ball into your own goal in an attempt to lose the match. Anything which might provide, or attempt to provide, a point or three, is therefore positive. Remember that you start all games with zero points gained. If taking a different spin on the meaning of ‘negative’ in this instance, then envisage Mark Lawrenson following you around on the football pitch criticising and condemning your every move. “That was a bad pass”, “You’re not running fast enough”, “Your haircut looks stupid”. That is a frightening thought, and I believe I would soon lose all desire to continue playing.

It irked me a short while ago when Real Madrid were heavily criticised for their “negative approach” against Barcelona in the Champions League. I didn’t see Real trying to lose the game, in fact, I saw quite the opposite. One of the beautiful things about football is that no two teams are the same. Tactics and philosophies are different at every club, with every manager, and with every group of players.

We all know Real Madrid were embarrassed earlier in the season when Barcelona put five goals past them. Now, as Jose Mourinho, next time you played Barcelona, wouldn’t your first inclination be to tighten up the defence? It is not negative or even remotely wrong to sacrifice an attacking player for a defensive player. Realising that your opponent has a very strong threat and then acting upon it in an attempt to nullify that threat is just common sense. It is not admitting weakness, it is not admitting inferiority. It means that in order to defeat your opponents, you must play in this way. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Notice that the words used were ‘in order to defeat your opponents’ not ‘in order to lose by fewer goals’. If a team didn’t think they could win the game then they wouldn’t turn up in the first place. If the league or governing body did not think that a team could win the game, then the opponent would simply be given a bye.

Not to pull rank or start an argument along the lines of “my tactics book is bigger than yours”, but some teams are heavily criticised for a direct approach. Throughout many different areas of life, I’ve come to appreciate a direct approach. Trying to order food would become a nightmare without it:

“Can I have a double cheeseburger, please?”

“Maybe”.

“Do you do chips?”

“It is possible”.

“Can I have a Coke with that?”

“You might be able to”.

At many games I will hear someone instruct a team or a player to “keep it on the ground!” When did it become illegal to play the ball in the air? If it wasn’t meant to be that way, the ball would be filled with concrete. There is no limit on how high the ball can go, so it would be a sin not to use it. It is important to look for the space in a game of football, but don’t take it so literally that you are aiming for Space.

There is one player in the Premier League who is famous for his missile-like throw-ins. A lot of pundits, and by proxy, a lot of idiots in the street, claim that this is anti-football. When a team is losing, I often hear someone suggest that they need to start ‘playing football’. At this point I find myself looking for a cricket bat or badminton net. What have they been doing up until now if they weren’t playing football? In this situation I am crying out for a cricket bat so that I might be able to strike my aggressor repeatedly in the face.

As a manager, if you can create a scoring opportunity from a throw-in just about anywhere in the opposition half, wouldn’t it be a waste not to utilise that option? This is where ‘negative tactics’ locks horns with ‘pretty football’.

Even if I was blind folded, I would still expect to be able to play a fairly accurate pass over ten yards. Playing a pass over sixty yards requires accuracy and precision. If a player can get that right most of the time, surely that deserves credit and acclaim rather than condemnation? If not, players such as David Beckham become obsolete. Why make ten passes when you can score a goal in one? When I choose to go on holiday to a destination that requires extensive travel, no one ever criticises me for taking an aeroplane. It is just common sense. Unless going on a cruise, you will cross the Atlantic on a plane. Why isn’t this the same in football?

I understand the intricate patterns of movement and the intelligence of players like Xavi and Iniesta, but not every player has those qualities. Should we play to our strengths or should we all try to be clones of one another? Choosing the latter would greatly reduce the dynamic of football. Each team would be too similar, and there would be too many boring games. We like to see some confliction. We like to see water against fire, or even psychic versus electric, for all those of you who played the Pokémon games.

Personally, I do not advocate any style of play as being greater than another. They all have their advantages and disadvantages, and an appropriate time to be utilised. Many people do claim that there is a ‘right way to play’. To me, the right way to play is whatever wins you games. If players were to crawl around on their hands and feet like crabs, and that won them the game, that becomes the right way to play.

Sam Allardyce is a reasonably well known manager, but at the same time, fans want their club to avoid him like the plague. Why is this? Surely there can’t be any prejudices in football? We all know what Allardyce’s style of football is, but how many know just how successful he is as a manager? Since Allardyce began managing in the Premier League, no manager has gained more points when compared to money spent. When comparing the cost of assembling a starting eleven, and the total points gained from those players, Sam Allardyce is the most effective manager of his era. And yet, many don’t want him at their club.

Could England be missing out on the most effective manager out there due to stigma and bad reputation? Allardyce is like MacGyver. If you give him two paper clips, a rubber band and a pencil, he will be able to form a team that will get a point away to Man Utd. That is impressive. He was quite clearly wrongly sacked by Blackburn, who may still be relegated despite the head start that Allardyce gave Rovers on their competitors.

While Big Sam was in charge of Rovers, many fans complained and stated that they would not be returning to Ewood Park until he was relieved of his position. These people have got their wish, but at what cost? On one radio programme many months ago, West Ham fans were asked if they would take Allardyce as manager if it meant that they would stay up. The general consensus was that they would rather be relegated playing what they believed to be the ‘West Ham way’, as opposed to that hoof-it nonsense that Big Sam employs. One can only assume that the ‘West Ham way’ is to play badly. There is no good or bad football. It is not dark or light, good or evil, Jedi or Sith. Good football is what wins the game. Bad football is what loses the game. It is as simple as that. Stoke beat Arsenal 3-1 recently, yet those two are polar opposites in terms of what is regarded as good football.

Having been to Upton Park to see West Ham, and walking through the streets and mixing with the locals, I can confirm that there is nothing pretty about it. There is nothing there that warrants ‘pretty football’.

I do greatly advocate playing to your strengths. That is why players take penalties with their stronger foot. If a manager has a team of big and strong brutes, would it not be stupid to ignore that resource? Albert Einstein had a bigger than normal sized brain. Should he have held himself back at school because it wasn’t fair to his classmates that he might be more intelligent than them? Do we need to enforce height and weight categories in football?

Simply, no we do not. The current best player in the world is a midget. Quality always shines through. Be it strength, speed, or agility, all these qualities and characteristics only add to the diversity of football. Such variety makes it a thoroughly entertaining sport. It is a real tribute to just how wonderful the game is that two players as opposite as Lionel Messi and Christopher Samba can both become highly regarded professional footballers.

Hopefully this might have a small impact on the thinking of some football fans. Perspective, reasoning and understanding are ideas that should be cherished and held dear in all areas of life. Let’s not ruin the game we love with clichés and uneducated opinions.