“Football was taken from the working class in the ’90s and passed to the middle class. Just as food was fetishised as an instrument of snobbery, now football is being snaffled by the poseurs.”
—Alexander Netherton, ESPN Soccernet
As I read this stirring conclusion to a nigh-on Scargillian tract railing against football tactics websites, I got to my feet, punched the air in an unquestionably heterosexual way and yelled, such that Bobby Moore himself might hear, “GET IN!”
Admittedly, I didn’t really get it at first, reading comprehension being a dull, bourgeois conceit and thus irrelevant to my life. But after extensively consulting the copy of the Oxford Children’s Dictionary I confiscated from my son Mucus in case he got ideas above his station, I came to realise that Al was expressing my precise feelings.
As I was saying to my mate Big Bob the Coalminer daaahn the boozah the other day in between us using each other’s faces as dartboards, the game has been gentrified to point of oblivion. It started when matchday programmes began printing team formations as they might actually appear in the game, instead of in a 2-3-5 which no team had actually used for decades. The rot continued when Andy Gray started to analyse tactical points on television, using electricity. But now that internet bloggers are starting to examine the mechanics of team football, write about it and—ye gods!—publish it for people to read, I fear we’re but an “overlapping full-back” away (whatever that is) from the day when to win a Blue in “soccer” is more prestigious than to kick someone’s head in for no apparent reason.
My suspicion of intelligence was bred into me from an early age by my father, an alcoholic riveter. I came home from school one day, bursting with enthusiasm from a day’s learning about the solar system. As I began to recount to my father newly-garnered details about the moons of Mars and Pluto’s unusual orbit, he punched me lovingly in the jaw and said to me, “Son, listen now and listen good. You don’t need to know all this rubbish about asteloids and Hyper Belts and what have you. It’s just not interesting, and it’s not for the likes of you and me. Leave the educational stuff to the lads with the posh accents, the ones with no visible scarring on their faces from excessive parental chastisement, the ones who will grow up and parlay their education into, at the very least, enhanced employment prospects. I want you to go back to school tomorrow and tell that hoity-toity teacher of yours that all you need is a love for your city, a look skywards to your mother even though she’s not actually dead or anything, and a song in your throat—a proud, proud song!” With that, he broke into an honest, proletarian rendition of “I’m Forever Blowing Bubbles”, at which a salty ocean of tears drenched my cheeks which were already hollow from a lifetime’s abuse of heroin and mawkishness.
As I’ve grown up and become worldly—in a stupid way, natch—I have seen the truth of Dad’s words everywhere I’ve looked. Take the great Ajax team of the ’60s and ’70s, chock full of salt-of-the-bleedin’-earth types. They achieved their success through a rigorous and undeviated-from training regime: first, they would drink for an hour; second, they would show some emotion; finally, they would be put through “inspirational moment” drills, where they honed their game to eliminate as much as they could of the flim-flam that is the bane of highlights-show producers and slow-motion montage compilers. Not for them the decadence of shape, organisation and thought. A certain Frenchman was inspired by this team, and it showed in his style. As Al says: “When you google Eric Cantona, is it to watch his implausibly delicate and perceptive pass to Denis Irwin or is it to note a withdrawn role confusing traditional English centre-backs?” Who cares that it was in no small measure his ability to exploit a congenital weakness in English teams of the age that enabled him to unfurl his Cantonaness in all its Cantonaness and thus create the legend that still resonates to this day? It didn’t matter how the other team played, because he scored goals through emotion and pride and, I don’t know, magic or something—all things the working classes instinctively understand but which are beyond the grasp of intellectual middle-class wankers.
If Noel Gallagher has taught us “owt”, it’s that knowing stuff is poncey, public school, Damon Albarn crap. Working class people are authentic; we feel instead of think; when we’re not blubbing behind horse-drawn corteges, we’re blubbing at our team’s relegation, or blubbing at our team’s promotion, or blubbing along to “Stop Crying Your Heart Out” as it gushes through the PA system articulating the People’s Non-Specific Pain and Desire to Have Casual Sex Whilst Avoiding Stepping in Some Battered Plaice (in a Gutter, Probably) of a Friday Night. We kill time waiting for the next inspirational moment to provoke us into in a rapture of rutting and blubbing, blubbing and rutting, blutting and rubbing, by chanting our emotional chants and emitting cheeky plebeian witticisms. What else would you do at a football match? You can always tell who the soi-disant intellectuals are: they’re the ones actually watching the football.
The study of tactics for its own sake is pointless. Worse still: it is an act of snobbery. This is why the discussion of tactics must be handled only by experts who know that that sort of stuff only matters in so far as it relates to the personal journey of the manager (he’s the one on the sideline). Of course, this means that these experts themselves would have to think deeply about tactics in a more general sense in order to know when more specific examples are relevant enough for we cave-dwellers to be aware of, and as we’ve already established, this would make them toffee-nosed twats fit only for saying things like “Gosh, Jeremy, I’ve spilled Pimm’s all over my Opta printouts”. It’s a puzzler. But I’m too busy perusing my favourite website dedicated to facially hirsute ’80s footballers and the exposed breasts of people who went out with footballers when they weren’t yet famous, Taches ’n’ Tits, to care.
My old pa is dead now, but I like to think he looks down on me and Mucus as we don our replica shirts in front of the telly and have a good old-fashioned row over whether we should watch Sky or ESPN, and I bet he chuckles to himself and says “You show ‘em, lads!” And even though neither he, I nor Mucus are or were Liverpool fans (all other teams being complete scum) I shall continue to live by the motto which is today famously inscribed on the Shankly Gates:
OCH, I DINNAE KEER ABOO’ THA’ “LAIRNIN’” SHITE
Of course, I didn’t express it quite like that, because I didn’t have Mucus’s Oxford Children’s Dictionary to hand at the time.
Of course, in writing this paragraph, I had to stop a passing intellectual middle-class wanker to translate my underclass grunts into something resembling written language.
Of course, I didn’t write a single word of this piece, not being Hugh McIlvanney, nor having been to university—or if I have, one that at best is a former community college or polytechnic.
Read More: Alienation and Dread
by Fredorrarci · March 2, 2011
First link is borked. It’s got a stray ”
@Kári Tulinius My fault. That’s fixed, sorry.
I just spat Pimm’s on my serf’s keyboard reading this
You’ve been unfair to Netherton, to a point where you’re countering a point which hasn’t actually been made.
I’m American, and as we’re a classless society I don’t exactly know what “snaffled by the poseurs” means.
But holy Moses, if this guy gets that angry thinking tactics bloggers are pretentious, please don’t ever let him find this site.
I don’t understand a word of this. That’s because I can’t read, I’M AUTHENTIC. I’M WORKING-CLASS.
Seriously though, great work. Are you sure John Terry wasn’t the author?
Genuinely brilliant. Just brilliant
In all seriousness, Netherton’s article makes a reasonable counterpoint to the unstoppable rise of armchair tacticians, but I can’t help but feel that his closing statement is a bit tacked-on. Just feels like a point unexplored. Like a relative dropping a bombshell at Thanksgiving dinner and not following up with the explanation everyone’s waiting for.
A straw man, I believe it’s called. Lots of bloggers very touchy on this subject, what a surprise.
@kt That’s the one.
It’s a load of buggery and you know it !
@kt Yeah, I feel really touchy about attacks on tactical analysis, since it’s basically our bread and butter here on a site whose most recent ongoing feature is about a group of magical film canisters D.W. Griffith left in my basement.
You have just confirmed what we were starting to think: Give up. People just don’t want football banter for the masses any more – “A light touch and good use of embedded videos makes this one easy on the eye and mind.” – Cheers, Dart!
They say that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but this comes across more as mean-spirited than anything else
I can’t get past how Netherton compares Roy Keane to Makelele and decides that, in the end, Roy Keane just had some more powerful human stuff inside his body that made him rise above the man who was so good at his job they named the position for him. At one point, he claims tactical analysis reduces Keane to nothing more than a number of forward passes made. Have you ever known an intelligent person to ever discuss Roy Keane without acknowledging the, ahem, spirit of his nature? Yet Netherton would have you believe an army of soulless, wannabe Mourinhos out there are doing just that, among other football-ravaging crimes, to the extent that it’s ruining the game.
Is this out there somewhere? Has http://www.roykeaneneverpassedforwardasmuchasyouthink.com been registered? And is it being updated regularly? I just don’t buy it, and Netherton deserved a response like this. He even put it in his piece:
“Respected writers succeed by combining passion for football with an eye for a phrase.”
That’s why we have: “… I fear we’re but an “overlapping full-back” away (whatever that is) from the day when to win a Blue in “soccer” is more prestigious than to kick someone’s head in for no apparent reason.”
@Fast Eddie There is something very mean about this but I think it’s a counterpoint to the nonsensical muck that certain Allerdyce types throw around about football as a working class sport that can only be truly enjoyed by the unwashed masses. Is it sinking to that level itself? Maybe (don’t say it too loud though or they’ll delete your comment) but I think the marginalization of intellectuals from football is also an issue-cue Monsieur Wenger’s innovations that were laughed at until they produced amazing results. This exclusion reaches the field as well because sadly football in England anyway is working class in terms of the players. Most players come from working class backgrounds and middle class and upper class kids are strongly discouraged by their own ilk and by those who would endlessly ridicule an architect’s or banker’s son or the like as being too posh. So I feel you in terms of the questioning the form but I do think the underlying concern is legit.
fantastic piece. made me giggle inside and out.
Well I’m too dim to know better and I thought it was hilarious.
Brilliant. I hated that Soccernet article when it came out.
The paragraph about your harrowing yet pure childhood, dear sir, reminded me of that of Bonaparte Ó’Coonassa. Verily does it warm my heart to hear you defend rutting and blubbing at a time when it is neither profitable nor popular, for I fear we shall not look upon its likes again – at least until a couple of Swedes start accusing Mr Cox of divillish goings-on in the bedroom [topical].
A+
@Tonyto @FastEddie Is this post sarcasm? Or could it be satire?
I’d welcome more from you on how this is mean-spirited. Because I’m failing to see that side of things. Is this a counterpoint to the types of working-class sterotypes Allardyce spouts as they relate to football? Sure. Does it sink to his level? I think a key difference that should be pointed out is Allardyce believes what he’s saying.
Condecension at its worst. Surely the point of alex’s piece was to remind the chalkboard obsessed that there are a certain amontt of intangibles in football that can’t be expressed via heatmap nor an analysis of 4-4-2 vs 3-5-2. Perhaps, instead of seeing it as attack on the tactics and its acolytes, you could view his article for what it is; that tactics alone do not describe football. I swear football used to be fun
@Brian Phillips Like I said, touchy.
@Jim For me this is could be construed as a shot at sincere working class fans who really do think that spirit, fight and tradition are what really matter (see the ROP piece on Redknapp and VDV). So while disagreeing with them is fine, calling them stupid (as I think the post clearly does) is a bit mean. So one could say it does sink to Big Sam’s level because it seeks to flippantly devalue, demean and dismiss a contingent of legitimate fans simply because they take another approach to understanding the game. For myself, I love tactics but I don’t think we need to raise our noses and smirk at those those who didn’t go to university. I love hearing the colloquial wisdom in pubs (often known as BS) AND the careful analysis of a tactical approach like zonalmarking.net and I don’t want either to drown out the other. So I get the post’s frustration at hearing mindless comments and commentary but let’s be cool with our fellow footy lovers.
@Jim: I’ve been thinking about this because nailing down *exactly* what irks me about this piece is difficult. Or at least putting specifics to the tone is. What I would say is that there is probably a better way of combating the argument that football has been “passed to the middle class” than constructing a nasty caricature of the working class
The Pimm’s line; amazing. And if anyone criticizing the implied stance on the importance of stats thinks the tactics side (the notion of a “side” is ridiculous: how can you divorce tactics from football, even awful football?) is winning should perhaps take another look at the status quo in English football culture. Sky and the Mail are kings, the Guardian and FW exiled heirs.
Brilliant article.
However, why is Allardyce always used as a reference point in discussions on this subject? He was actually one of the first managers in England to bring Prozone and statistical analysis into the mainstream! This always frustrates me. Just because he has a Northern accent and an amusing fake Twitter account doesn’t make him the Neanderthal people always seek to portray.
What I’m saying is, Big Sam isn’t actually @The_Big_Sam. Rant over.
The Run of Play is home to the some of the most audacious pieces of writing: some beautiful, some intelligent, all somewhat nonsensical – yet there is seldom any doubt about their readability.
This is gibberish. Or fantastic, what with every reference flying cleanly over my (and anyone I’ve shown this article to’s) head. I don’t understand it – literally, figuratively, metaphorically, philosophically, gynecology…
Dear me, this is poor form. If you want to take a pop at Alexander Netherton’s article, engage with his argument, rather than picking at one of the weaker bits and riffing away on it.
I mean, I’m sure you think this is suitably clever, but you’re kind of proving his point, desperate to display style over substance as you are here. Nobody’s suggesting learning is bad, sheesh. And I notice you haven’t countered his accusations , preferring instead to attack straw men; it’s almost as though you don’t have confidence in your own product or arguments.
But you carry on patting yourself on the back. This tactical revolution won’t last long, so make hay while the sun shines, because there’s certainly no future for you in comedy. (Your piece is also very revealing and virulently anti-working class, or at least subconsciously ashamed of your background – I have no idea whether you are middle class or not – but that’s an argument for another day.)
Having said all that, I liked the line about electricity, that’s a funny joke.
@Tonyto @FastEddie I had to delete the first reply I wrote to the two of you because I sounded like some kind of book-report-loving priest with a fondness for the W-M formation. No one here needs that.
I appreciate your reasoned reply. Of course I completely disagree with it, but you probably saw that line coming. I hope you don’t consider me dismissive because I was genuinely curious how you saw it.
I just completely disagree with how you’re reading this piece. I think it’s Netherton who is condescending and cruel to those who appreciate the game’s unseen, or unchartable, qualities. “Let’s all remember it’s the common folk that hold the rightful claim to ownership.” It’s bullshit. That he couches this view by espousing it from the altar of Jonathan Wilson (“… there’s arguably only one writer able to make a decent fist of the job.”) only weakens the foundation of his position. Netherton abhors tactical analysis of the game. Except for, you know, particularly good tactical analysis. What really gives him the red-ass is how rich all the owners and players have become.
Ultimately, I’d argue Fredorrarci is deconstructing all the working-class caricatures and stereotypes that Netherton hints at in the closing line of his piece. This is the last thing from being a cruel manipulation of the working classes just to refute another writer’s point.
There, less priest-sounding and a little more, oh, let’s say deacon-ish.
I think everyone defending me is right and everyone disagreeing with me here is wrong.
To me, brave sons of Notting Hill!
@Alexander Netherton Ha! Speaking for myself, I liked a lot about your piece, I just didn’t buy the tie to class struggle at the end.
goodness, the comment section has gotten a bit testy these past few posts.
i thought this piece was brilliant. Keep it up Fredorrarci. thoroughly enjoyed it.
@Brian Phillips Let me explain it then, because I don’t think I was making the point that the article mocks, though it might be because it wasn’t written clearly.
1. We can all probably agree football was taken from the working class in the 90s. We could argue the toss to the extent, but it’s a fair enough argument.
2. The middle class do use food as an instrument of snobbery. So I was saying:
3. The way the posers have taken tactics away from the middle class is LIKE the way the middle class took to posing about food in order to beat others about. Out of snobbery, not necessarily class.
4. I’m not saying the tactics nerds are middle class, or that the working class can’t understand tactics, or any of that stuff. I wish I’d made it clearer now.
5. I’ve expressed this all a lot more coarsely to my pals this evening, you cunts.
Cheers,
Alex
@Alexander Netherton My capitalist-oriented mind can only reach for the “wow, this piece just was just taken to the next level”. Game on.
@Eric Beard sorry, “this piece was just taken to the next level”. But Alex, if there is something to be clarified you really should write a follow-up.
I think this highlights the problem of modern journalism and the internet.
The insatiable desire for haste, brevity and ‘the new’ leads to articles with no conviction; flimsy arguments artificially enhanced with florid metaphor and cherry-picked imagery. Writers are under pressure to write something contentious and punchy, so we see strawman after strawman cut down by the rusty claymore of specious reasoning.
As long as no one takes it seriously I think we’re fine.
First, we have an article slinging bricks at the extreme end of the spectrum who talk about tactics before talent. Ignoring the possibility that people who write blogs about tactics probably enjoy other aspects of the game. It’s just that they write a blog about tactics. Should we start slagging off at journalists who only cover Middle Eastern affairs? Or at economists? How dare they concentrate on one aspect of society! The hipster/anoraks are ruining everything!
In response an article veers to the opposite end of the spectrum, creating a monstrous strawman pillock, riffing on a deliberately misunderstood point in the previous article. Entertaining? Yes. But an unfair response.
Someone mentioned that a lot of responses to articles are getting pretty tetchy lately , I agree (this response is pretty tetchy itself, no?) and I think it stems from a lot of recent articles making contentious arguments but not backing claims up with evidence, creating mountains of molehills, and attacking minorities (not racial, just people in small numbers). We’ll forgive intellectual looseness if the writing is quality and it doesn’t take itself seriously. But too many writers want to be the one to put their finger on the pulse and say THIS IS THE PROBLEM!!!
THIS IS THE PROBLEM.
I dunno. Meh.
Wow – is the internet running out of space? Otherwise I can’t see the point of the original article. If you don’t like blogs on tactics…um…wait for it…I’ll figure it out…der…don’t read them. While we accept that TV analysis has to appeal to the casual viewer, online analysis can be as complex as we like, and in whichever direction we prefer. So yer man there with his article could instead start a blog about the majesty of the individual rather than trying to score weird cheap points.
“Tactics play their part in a match. Indeed, they can decide them.”
Revelatory.
@Tim
ha
@Marquis Escalier
“The Run of Play is home to the some of the most audacious pieces of writing: some beautiful, some intelligent, all somewhat nonsensical – yet there is seldom any doubt about their readability.
This is gibberish.”
Ha! Agreed.
I may just be a simple, working class graduate student, but even I have to admit that my recent vimeo videos of 1970s porn set to Andy Gray audio may have gone a bit too far in the artistic department. Next time I’ll set the audio to Frank Lampard penalties like a good working class boy
Can I come over all wishy-washy and fency-sitty, please? Thank you. Here goes: I liked all of Alex Netherton’s piece except the final sentence (well, just the final word, really), and I laughed like a drain at this retort.
The trend in football to analyse rather than watch, to synthesise rather than feel, has gone hand in hand with the primacy of the digital over the analogue in society at large. We now demand our information in it-is-or-it-isn’t bits. The grey area is anathema. Look! It says here[1] that Darren Dogg competed 91% of his passes but Dmitri Rintintinko only managed 83%, ergo good old Doggers had the “better” match. The stats don’t lie.
Although tactistics[2] may indeed tell the truth and nothing but the truth, to find the whole truth we have to broaden our focus.[3] Take last night’s Valencia-Barcelona match. On Zonal Marking this morning, much is made of how Guardiola’s initial experimental shape (it was a 5-3-2, bingo fans) had to be abandoned at half time, after which the match was duly won. But other, equally valid readings are that (a) Xavi and Alves, both returning after a lay-off, were a few milliseconds off their pace and for Barça those few milliseconds make all the difference between a stroll and suffering great tribulations; (b) Iniesta was harried into losing the ball an awful lot; and (c) Messi had more chances in that allegedly-tactically-misguided first half – including three shots in two seconds at one point[4] – than he did in the second half, but the second half is when one of them just happened to go in. Our eyes don’t lie.
In that sense, the Soccernet piece is spot on. The experience of watching football is being changed – debased, some might say – by an over-reliance on quantification. Where that piece gets it wrong for me is with its final (bolt-on?) wonky causality argument, passing off the trendiness of tactistics as a direct consequence of the gentrification of the game: “And, lo!, the prawn sandwich begat the inverted pyramid.” But surely you might equally blame shirt sponsorship, the tyranny of TV scheduling, the arrival of the fourth official with his LED board or any other development that happens to have coincided with the hegemony of the chalkboard.
_______
1. Those three little words are invariably accompanied by an index finger repeatedly stabbing an iPhone screen.
2. TM.
3. As, to his credit, Michael Cox of Zonal Marking is the first to admit.]
4. Yes, he laughed too.
This post bothers me a lot. I’m not interested in the tactics vs. cliches line (the spouting of nonsense annoys me as much as everyone else), but I cannot see how the binary should be extended along class lines (middle class posers vs. salt of the earth types). I understand that this is partly what the post is trying to parody but I find the whole thing a little insensitive (to put it mildly).
I just don’t see what this writing is doing to dispel the various myths about the poor ‘underclasses’ that are still such a big problem today (perhaps never more so).
I’ll say this once (in several slightly different ways)
There is not A working class. There is no TYPICAL working class person. Being uneducated IS NOT the same as being stupid. There is nothing inherently middle class about reading or thinking or even about going to university (whatever we might be told to the contrary).
I do understand that this is exactly what this post is trying to say (to problematize it if i’m being kind), but playing to its extreame the same thing it takes issue with is not going to change anything.
Do not do it again because talking about people with less money than you (the working class, the salt of the earth, the great unwashed, etc etc) in ways that do nothing to help tackle the massive inequalities that exist in this country, that only reinforce the stereotypes and myths that surround them, that do absolutely nothing to make the real problems that real people have any more visible to the rest of the world, really fucking annoy me.
i’ve got a problem with the way the page loads, everything is all over the place with writing over images and text going all the way down a small margin on the left of the page. any chance of getting that fixed? i’m using a netbook by the way.
@tony Funny, I could read this fine at work (oops) but have experienced the same thing once I got home. Have never experienced this before, however. It must be magic.
@Eric Beard If someone wants to pay me for a follow up, sure, otherwise I don’t give a flying one. It’s not likely.
@tony Whoops — there was an unclosed tag that was causing all kinds of havoc in Internet Explorer. Try it now.
as someone once said:
“The only tactic that ever made sense was the 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1, that the Brazil sides used when taking to the field, and listening to the anthems”
@brian phillips thanks, that’s fixed it.
on a side note, thought the pro vercelli saga was just really awesome.
“when it comes to judging player ability, the difference between walter colombo and a six-month-old baby is that walter is under contract through 2013″ – comedy gold.
anyway, there’s a much-discussed article at the top of this page which won’t read itself…
Have we entered RoP’s ‘galacticos’ period?
I find this article terribly written, unfunny, and utterly besides the point Netherton was making. Major mehs were heard around my desk at White Collar Middle Class Inc.
Fredorrarci, you terrify and inspire me. Show me the way to enlightenment, o denizen of the grimey, genuine masses; and I shall learn to spit, drink, and eschew my pretensions like the men of yore.
You got your Freedarko in my Run of Play!
Reading the piece, I exult in the power of satire and parody. Reading the comments, I despair for the future of satire and parody.
@Sean Spence Amen. Netherton built a strawman of tactics afficianados as “Football Manager obsessive bloggers”, so Fredorrarci built a strawman of his own to underscore the intellectual bankruptcy of such an approach. I didn’t think the method here was really that subtle, but there you have it.
“…there is probably a better way of combating the argument that football has been “passed to the middle class” than constructing a nasty caricature of the working class”
Spot on. This is a very well-written and mean-spirited post.
I would feel a bit bad that Netherton’s lazy last paragraph has been so thoroughly torn into here if I hadn’t noticed his abuse of Zonal Marking on twitter a couple of weeks ago, which seemed arbitrary at the time but I now see as ideologically driven:
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/999/twitter2i.jpg
@Daryl Well put, sir.