In the soccer sporting world, certain assertions are taken as universal truth. A headed goal is ugly. A pass in the air that sales for over 30 yards is “direct.” A team unwilling to pressure for possession, instead waiting to capitalize on mistakes, is cynical. The linear equation of “pass + pass = beauty” can be replicated on an exponential scale. Arsenal & Barcelona, of course, embody this principle in the flesh & blood. But, in anticipation of the Kantian ideal of beauty vs. the slightly-better-looking Kantian ideal of beauty, the rematch, I suggest such statistics fail to account for certain integers that loiter in a gas station parking lot between X and Y.
And, of course, we are to blame for not seeing them.
For those who take the “assumptive equation” at face value, Arsenal vs. Barcelona pits pretty vs. gorgeous. So why wasn’t the first leg a beauty pageant of universal proportions? High on drama? Yes. But the first 45 minutes pitted Barcelona against Manuel Almunia, as Arsenal marked Messi out of the game but let the remaining Cules run rampant. Then came ten minutes of brute Ibrahimovic, and then 20 minutes of direct Walcott running.
Is it a practical reality that the size of Zlatan and the dribble-first pace of Theo made the difference? Should we paint these players as the evil necessity of the modern game? I’m not so sure. Rather, I have doubts that either club lives up to the Beautiful Game Myth. In fact, I have doubts about said “Myth.”
For starters, for all the talk of patient and pretty passing, the Gunners primarily attack with overlapping wing backs. In fact, a stunning array of their offensive forays end with corner flag-cross Do the two or three extra 10 foot passes in midfield break the bank? In the revancha, keep track of how many times a wingback runs to the touchline and crosses. Is that really beautiful? Also, for the talk of elegance, let’s not forget that one of the biggest goals of their EPL campaign came from Nicklas Bendtner…..
Yet the Myth pervades our past as well. People nostalgically paint the 2004 undefeated side as a collection of starving artists with barely enough pounds to purchase an easel. But cafe-lingerers they were not. The Invincibles were led by the venomous tackles of Patrick Vieira and a younger Sol Campbell. On a micro-level, these players point to a false dichotomy – some artists can also “take out the trash.” While Arsene Wenger may cloud his signings and mis-signings in the Kantian rhetoric of “playing the right way,” can we look beyond the smoke & mirrors to identify a hole in scouting & development. Namely, a Yaya Toure or Gilberto worthy of feeding Cesc the ball?
Barcelona, for their part, continue to sit back and watch in amazement as Leo Messi tears through defenses with ease. But is giving the ball to one wily & crafty winger the epitome of collective passing we have been spoonfed to expect? Or did the Cules of Ronaldinho, Deco, and Javier Saviola produce first-touch football more worthy of the term “fantasy?”
We can easily regress into the utilitarian compromise, the need to play Diego Milito, Yaya Toure, and sign a target forward like Zlatan to “get in his head to balls in the box.” But such rhetoric to my ears rings empty. The current Barcelona relies heavily on the lungs of Dani Alves, especially when savvy opposition keys in on the wunderkind from Argentina.
Still…..
Nobody can deny the pleasure of listening to a crescendo. Both Arsenal and Barcelona have defenses that prefer to pass backwards to a goalie or sideways to a teammate rather than boot the ball forwards 40 yards. Whether this tactic sets them on a majestic plain beyond the reach of mortals, whether I look at them with the eyes of a cynical distant cousin & not a loving father, the conclusions we are spoon-fed require reflection.
But let’s not paint the past in such simple shades of black and white either. Many point to the Brazil side of 74 as the greatest team of all time. Let’s look at their famous 4-1 final victory over Italy…
A header. A shot from distance. A free kick. The very last goal, considered one of the greatest goals in World Cup history, exemplifies the beautiful game ideals of collective passing and movement. But Brazil already held a 3-1 lead. Against capitulated opposition, park soccer plays are easier to pull off.
While the fourth goal left a sweet taste in the mouth, the shadow of the “beautiful game” continues to cloud contemporary perspectives. I really did not mean for this article to come off as me railing on Arsenal & Barcelona, two fantastic clubs, but rather to incite reflection on those funny little boxes in which we place teams and plays.
Arsenal & Barcelona, upon close inspection, fail to live up to the Beautiful Game Myth inspired by 74 Brazil precisely because it is a Myth.
Some great writing. The last line especially good.
Hi, I have only recently discovered this site and found your characterisations of the La Liga teams immensely enjoyable. I have to warn though that with this piece you might just be inviting the wrath of the Barça faithfull to say nothing of the Arses. Lets start with me.
To start with a few pedantic points:
Ibrahimovic’s 2 goals had nothing to do with his size.
The rest of the Barça squad sitting back and watching while Messi tears through the opposition is not recieved without criticism by cules does not really reflect the essence of Barça’s collective passing. It is convenient for the purpose of this article to claim that Messi’s brilliance are all Barça are about.
That the Beautful Game is a myth worthy of greater introspection is a point that may agreed upon.
Perhaps when we say beauty what we are in fact trying to appreciate is a collective effort of imagination and execution by skill(read ball control) as opposed to a system which plays the percentages based on opposition errors possibly forced by physical attributes of the players.
There is nothing less beautiful about a headed goal or a long pass but the question is : was such a strike the only endeavour for perfection in execution in the match or even in the events preceding the goal? If a team is only trying to block out the opposition and then knock the ball upfield in the hope of a single instance of outstanding skill from a brawny striker or luck with the bounce or a goof-up from the defence, wouldn’t such a team be requiring lesser skill from its players, be providing less of a spectacle for the viewing public?
Webbie-
thanks for the kind words.
Kami-
glad the article stoked your passions. I really didn’t mean for it to come off as me dumping on Barca and Arsenal – both have intricate midfield play that can dazzle at times. I definitely agree that Ibra is more than a “hoof it 30 yards striker”, but perhaps I was/am too attached to the mobile and lightning quick Samuel E’too.
I also agree that collective understanding and movement is great (both aesthetically and functionally) – I loved the Deco/Dinho/Saviola Barca squad, but recently I just see Messi dribbling at lower table La Liga sides to choruses of greatest ever. He is a fantastic winger with loads of tricks, but its not the same juego tram tram as ayer.
Good points though. I really am not criticizing the Gunners or Cules so much as trying to shed light on the BG Myth – for example, why is a Pele far post header off a throw-in magical, but when Bentdner does the same, it is “direct”? Nostalgia? Naivete? Reverence? Convenience?
Elliott,
I think a lot of cules will take this post personally, as will many Gunners, and I think that doing so would be a disservice to your point, which, as I read it (and as you claim it), is that there’s no point in blindly accepting the concept of The Beautiful Game because doing so creates a round hole for what could turn out to be a square peg. Or not a peg at all.
I would agree that there is no singular definition of BG and no “proper” way to play it. What I think Brian Phillips has pointed out so eloquently in his article on the subject (which I know you read and which I suggest anyone reading this also read) is that many people deride the idea of BG simply because a team like Barça has become associated with it and not being like Barça would by definition be uglier football; through that correlation, an entire subset of fans (the English, in this case) feel put upon by the fact that they come from a different footballing heritage and have a different cultural approach to sports in general and that those two things are thus put in the “ugly brute” category. There’s a defensiveness about it that’s perfectly understandable, just as there’s a defensiveness among cules to claim that anyone who doesn’t string 4,882 passes together along with a few nutmegs and sombreros before putting the ball in the net is playing “too directly” or what have you.
Still, my own definition of what BG is contains many of Barça’s ideals, most of which boil down to ball retention and passing in triangles. It’s interesting that many who question Barça point out that the team use high pressure to get the ball back and isn’t that the brutish side of things; I tend to err on the side of paraphrasing Guardiola, who says the team is terrified when they don’t have the ball and just want to get it back at all costs. Because there are two sides to the coin (offense and defense), I think you can easily claim that Barcelona is not very pretty when they’re playing defense, but then again, I’m not sure anyone is or can be aesthetically pleasing while playing defense.
It’s when we have the ball that we look better than good. And, to me, it’s extraordinarily telling that the Saviola goal you linked was assisted by none other than Xavi. I don’t know if you mistook him for Deco, but that’s the man who sent the ball over the top for Ibra in the first leg for Ibra’s second goal.
As for the “everyone stands and watches Messi run at defenses” thing, I think that you’re just simply wrong about that one. The team creates a thousand passing lanes for him, it’s just that Messi often chooses to ignore them and runs at defenders instead. And that is why Xavi is probably a better player than he is, just not as mesmerizing and fun to watch (and thus why “the best player in the world” is a silly moniker–and one I liberally apply to Messi simply because he’s the most fun to watch).
I’m planning a longer reply later this week, but with the clasico, we’ll have to see. For now, I appreciate the thought that we should question whether or not we’re really seeing some ideal and I think that while I disagree, I love the discussion and the thought put into it.
interesting points.
I think what’s beautiful about these two teams is that they aren’t beautiful all the time, they don’t make the sublime passes every time down the field, but it’s that they pursue the beauty of the sublime. they strive for that fleeting glimpse that will immediately bring a smile to the face of any footy fan.
that’s why they are fun to watch and that’s why they are called beautiful. they actively seek it. it is their goal to produce that beauty.
this may seem rambling, but it’s sort of like that corny quote that is on so many inspirational posters.
shoot for the moon, and even if you miss you’ll end up among the stars (or something).
Charlie -
I think that’s a great point about intent which I will chew on for a bit.
Isaiah -
We both agree that Xavi is a masterclass. In the Arsenal game, they collectively denied Messi the ball but at the cost of letting Xavi run free. Barcelona has too many individual talents to really man-mark any one person.
I think your summary was spot on and apologies to any Cules: all jokes here are lighthearted and I poke just as much fun at my own beloved Madrid.
I also agree with you that Barcelona actually press deep off the ball with three men to delightful effect – this tactic actually and ironically reminds me of the “British Aggression” alluded to in Brian’s great post from yesterday – http://www.runofplay.com/2010/04/05/the-rhetoric-of-artistic-endeavor/
My sympathies for your sentiment for Eto’o. I miss him too and was one of those who argued fervently for keeping him (at least till the end of his contract). Also Xavi is the essence of Barça’s approach to the game and we would be unrecognisable without players of that caliber while Messi is a singularity, an occurance all cules are grateful for but does not reflect the Barça identity in quite the way Xavi does.
I would like to think that what Charley says is the catharsis of my argument but maybe I am reaching too far there
Kami-
E’too was once a Madrid player! I recall his Mallorca days when he would shoot from 40 yards or dribble at 5 players….and score and score and score.
I guess in my head, I have a pass/dribble preference chart for players.
Messi: Dribble
Xavi: Pass
Iniesta: Dribble/Pass
For me, Xavi keeps the snare drums on time and the french horns in tune, but Iniesta is more of the “enlace” that creates guilt edged chances from the run of play (not so subtle plug).
Should be a great game today…I even bought extra batteries for my special calculator that keeps track of the number of 10 foot passes and tweet-complaints concerning Almunia. I’m expecting to top the one billion mark….
Pingback: Arsenal, Barcelona, & the Beautiful Game Myth « Scissors Kick
The Special One cares not for your interest in the Beautiful Game.
(I’m debating on copy and pasting that to every post on the subject that has appeared in the past few days, but that would unfairly lump them all together.)
Sean-
that actually sounds pretty fair.
And the posts on beauty vs cynicism in soccer will only get more frequent and more poorly written.
Pingback: The Platonic Tyranny of 'The Beautiful Game' | Must Read Soccer
Pingback: Brazil vs. Holland – Beauty, Bottom Line, Redux