that actually sounds pretty fair.

And the posts on beauty vs cynicism in soccer will only get more frequent and more poorly written.

(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.)

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….

I would like to think that what Charley says is the catharsis of my argument but maybe I am reaching too far there

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/

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).

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.