Seemingly as bumptious as he is precocious, Jack Rodwell recently said that several of England’s senior players including Rio Ferdinand, Steven Gerrard, Frank Lampard, Wayne Rooney, and John Terry, would be certain starters if they were in the current Barcelona squad—a boast sure to induce more than a few guffaws even if publications like The Sun are patting Jack the Lad on the head for his bulldogged patriotism.
But Rodwell’s comments are far less blinkered than they might seem considering the tremendous pressure facing not only the England U-21 team after they were plainly outclassed by their counterparts from Spain, but English football in general, which is facing a crisis of confidence 
after the national team’s tepid performance in the last World Cup and in light of Spanish club and national teams’ great successes over the past four years or so, which they achieved in a style considered an anathema to the English game. English soccer and its representatives, as I see it, are under more and more pressure to justify the prolongation of the English soccer tradition in its most distilled guise, which involves lots of running, hoofing, bravery, and passion to the detriment of guile, touch, and movement. As one of English soccer’s representatives, Rodwell was defending this tradition while doubling down on the notion that British players are in no way technically inferior to South American or continental opposition, because admission to the latter (technical inferiority) is tantamount to preemptive capitulation, which, based on the principles of the former (a never-say-die attitude), is an impossibility. Keep calm and carry on.
Stylistic variation based on national tradition is one reason so many of us consider soccer such compelling viewing. Watching the Dutch play the Germans isn’t solely exciting because these nations have quality footballers, but because these fixtures hold the promise of a stylistic clash. Curiously though, in the last World Cup we saw the Germans play like the Dutch and the Dutch the Germans. Many argue that globalization is the culprit here, homogenizing style in a way that is tearing soccer ideologies in the plural asunder.
I’m less interested here in whether or not the style in which soccer is played is becoming homogenous (I don’t think it is), and what style is in ascendancy (I’m not sure), and more on the mechanisms underlying the process of adopting or rejecting a new soccer style. When dealing with teams with firm ideological traditions like Arsenal or the Brazilian and English national teams, simply changing the way you play in order to achieve success often doesn’t lead to more than temporary changes in tactics and approach, especially if those tactics and approach violate the way supporters think the teams they support ought to play. Pragmatists like Dunga are tolerated as managers for Brazil so long as they bring success, which is a Brazilian virtue often overshadowed by their penchant for sexy football. Failure, however, is met with an unceremonious sacking, a national moment of reckoning, and a statement-making performance considered worthy of their roots. Purist supporters seem to multiply when cultural shifts coincide with hard times—politically this often leads to chauvinist or exclusivist forms of nationalism, which in soccer might simply reflect a benign demand to play in a way comforting to wide swaths of the fan-base. Often derided as belligerently obtuse, Stuart Pearce spoke a lot of sense when he pointed out the power of fandom and tradition after the draw with Spain.
“We all have our DNA as nations, whether you’re Spanish, Italian, English, German.
“We all play in a certain way that the public demands in that country and probably the breeding and the climate that you train in as well.
“We have to learn lessons from other nations and try to learn lessons from them to improve us but never lose sight of the DNA of our nation, and the strengths of our individual players.” (Italics my own).
That said, at some stage Arsène Wenger convinced fans in north London that weaving pretty patterns and caring about sports science and nutrition could become as Arsenal as hard won 1-nil victories. And despite their six-year barren period, Arsenal fans by and large harbor an emotional attachment to the way they play soccer, which projects a kind of sullen patience characteristic of a defender of the faith. Sure, there are many rather loud demands to buy a proper English center-half and a Viera-type midfielder, but Wenger’s general formula of financial stability and faith in youth remains fairly dogmatic.
How are soccer club and national-team staff able to change their team’s playing style without alienating supporters? As he so often does, Jonathan Wilson recently provided some insight here when he discussed how Bill Shankly was able to justify a new style to Liverpool fans after their defeat in the European Cup in 1973 to Red Star Belgrade. As Wilson tells it, a week later Shankly entered a discussion with his boot room staff about the possibility of the changing tactics and style of the team, and ultimately came to the conclusion that Red Star’s more patient style was worth emulating, but at the same time understood that supporters would probably jeer the changes. The next year before the first European game, Liverpool included a note in the match program explaining that they would experimenting with the tactics and would “be playing some sideways passes,” and that the club believed that it was going to be beneficial to the club’s success in Europe. Liverpool won four European Cups in the next ten years. The take away point, according to Wilson, is that the fans had to be consulted and, on some level, “educated” before the team took on a slightly different identity in terms of playing style.
Listening to this story reminded me, strangely enough, of a book written by my dissertation adviser about how Islamist political parties adopt new, more democratic beliefs and practices. She explains how groups like the Islamic Action Front (the political wing of Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood) became more willing to engage in elections and cooperate with secular parties only after they found a way to discuss and justify those changes in terms of their core beliefs. The party’s constituents expected it to advocate for conservative reforms that are central to their understanding of Islamic life, so the group faced a problem when the kingdom reintroduced competitive elections in the late 1980s. Of course the group wanted seats in parliament, but that would mean working alongside communists, socialists, and liberals who advocated secular policies strongly opposed by the Islamists. Could the party make this move toward participation without totally alienating its core followers—a constituency that cared little about democracy and viewed leftists as infidels? After considerable debate—including dialogue with the group’s followers—the Brotherhood was able to justify participation alongside communists and socialists because the latter were not advocating atheism. What is key here is that even though participation in the elections was the right move for the group, it had to justify the move internally as well as to its core supporters. Liverpool FC doesn’t have anything substantively in common with the Muslim Brotherhood, but Shankly’s boot-room deliberation and consequent program note demonstrates that changing club cultures often requires that breaks with tradition be redescribed as extensions of the club’s identity.
Indeed, soccer clubs, like political parties, have core interests (winning, financial viability), beliefs (style in theory, business models, player development), constituents (supporters), and particular styles of politicking (tactics and style put in practice). These analogies are clearly imperfect, but they might offer a cursory way of thinking about changing soccer ideologies. Virtually all teams at all times have an interest in winning, but not necessarily at any cost. Sacrificing certain core beliefs about playing style and player development in the short term might compromise long-term goals and identity.
Real Madrid supporters, for example, are currently grappling with Mourinhoism as a soccer ideology, while certain recent events are conspiring to favor José’s way including the liquidation of internal club rivals. Nonetheless, if Alfredo Di Stefano’s somewhat elliptical public digs at Mourinho are any indication, José will have a very difficult time impressing his style beyond his term as manager, the way I suspect Wenger has done for Arsenal, Shankly for Liverpool, and Cruyff for Barcelona.
Success itself, especially if achieved with great panache, often contributes to the way teams aspire to play. To play beautifully and win needs no justification, only passionate praise and tireless promotion, while triumph might be the only thing that can paper over artless play. Beautiful victories are lodestones for ideological hegemony, ugly ones merely examples of the brutal facts of competition: there must be a victor at the end. To wit, Mourinho’s Champions League victory with Inter Milan is taken as a blueprint for beating Barcelona, while Barcelona’s two trophies are taken as a blueprint for success writ large. Spain is imagined as more beautiful and more just than their continental competitors. Maybe tiki taka, like democratic government, is fast emerging as the only game in town, meaning we will all soon inhabit Barney Ronay’s personal dystopia where every team plays like Barcelona, passing sideways until they reach the edge of the earth. Somehow I doubt it.
Now of course long ball isn’t Sharia Law and tiki taka isn’t democracy, but certain dominant narratives about the way the game ought to be played are forcing managers, players, and club reps to justify their modus operandi, which is why Rodwell and Pearce’s comments are neither as banal nor obstinate as they might first seem. In fact, Pearce’s comments demonstrate a keen understanding that English managers cannot simply start demanding that their charges start playing like the Spanish, and not just because the players lack the technical ability to do so, but because many supporters won’t buy into it.
After England’s senior squad lurched to a 2-2 draw against Switzerland, I tuned into BBC’s 606 Call-in show to gauge the British public’s reaction. It was more or less variations on a theme—the lads lacked heart/courage/desire/pride/respect/humility/passion/Redknapp. Character flaws were exposed, Harry Redknapp was invoked as savior (a man “with England in his heart and belly”), and one caller demanded that the national team be purged of all the Premier League players to make way for a team staffed fully by Championship players because they would give away their wife and children to wear the “Three Lions” while the spoiled louts in the current setup simply couldn’t be bothered. The host, Alan Green, struggled to mask his condescension for this caller’s opinion, and asked a few others what they thought of his idea about an all Championship England. Two callers actually took his side, while again suggesting that a lack of fighting spirit is miring the national team in mediocrity. What I didn’t hear a lot of, on the other hand, were calls to improve the overall technique of the players and/or a clamoring to engage with other soccer styles to improve results. There was some of each, but not much. Bravery, directness, and more passion were, instead, put forward as the combined ingredients to better future performances.
To be sure, there are many other English fans who desperately lament the national team’s poor technique and apparent unwillingness to play in a more continental style with patient buildups and quick interchanges. But emphasis on bravery and directness is nothing if not typical.
Not long ago, Simon Kuper wrote a superb short essay on Frank Lampard, which doubles as a terse diagnosis as to why England’s “golden generation” has underperformed in meaningful competitions. Based on conversations with Guus Hiddink, Kuper explains that individual English players often hurt the collective by simply trying to do too much. A peculiar but ultimately familiar sight for Hiddink when he was coaching Chelsea was that of the overly assertive English midfielder hysterically bombing up and down the pitch fueled by an almost neurotic need to satisfy the braying crowd. What continental coaches like Hiddink and Rafa Benitez discovered was that British midfielders like Lampard and Gerrard are not only trained by coaches to play in the frenetic, be-everywhere-at-once fashion, but also by the fans and the culture that surrounds the sport. They are told to constantly hunt the ball and carry it forward—never sideways—with pace and purpose irrespective of their position on the pitch. This makes them individually a) extremely tired and b) often out of position, which makes the team as a collective a) predictable and b) easy to pick off on counter attacks. In Kuper’s words, “Lampard’s flaw—and the golden generation’s—isn’t a lack of spirit. It’s an excess of it.”
Evidently some supporters have started to ask themselves if they’re in any way responsible for the way England performs—both in a sense of results and style of play. The LondonEnglandFans supporters’ club deliberated after the last World Cup and, as Kuper tells it, acknowledged that bellowing instructions like “Get it forward!” when the defense is patiently circulating the ball at the back probably isn’t sending the right message to the players.
Perhaps moments of clarity like this combined with a waxing appreciation of Spain’s success done in style are signs of a shift in British soccer ideology. But, generally speaking, if you pass sideways in the British Isles you are still called a “crab,” in Spain a “crack.”
Sam Fayyaz is a PhD student at UMASS, Amherst where he studies political science when he’s not anoraking about soccer.
I could be off base, but my impression is that the changes Arsenal supporters are asking for have more to do with strengthening a few positions and slightly less financial austerity than overhauling the entire system.
Schwedler, Jillian. 2006. Faith in Moderation: Islamist Parties in Jordan and Yemen. New York: Cambridge University Press.
To add insult to injury, it was a Spaniard, Xabi Alonso, who pointed many of these flaws out in an interview with a South African publication during the World Cup, when he said: “You have to have players with different qualities and, in my opinion, the England team had too many players who can run all day long, who invest a huge physical effort, who attack and defend—‘box to box’, as they say in England. But the way I understand the game, you also need someone who delivers short passes, even if they seem innocuous at the time. That sort of player has been missing from the England team.”
by Sam Fayyaz · July 2, 2011
[contact-form 5 'Email form']
Great post! Certainly it speaks to the point I feel must be brought up every time anyone talks about making any other team “another Barcelona”, be they referring to Barca’s particular style or their (currently) extremely successful cantera — Barca’s model works because everyone at Barca, from the politicians in the back room to the coaching staff to the players to the fans, believes in it. The club, as an institution (which includes the fans), is willing to suffer periodic trophy droughts in order to maintain its commitment to a certain playing style and to investing in indoctrinating youth in that style; that model is currently paying high dividends, but hasn’t always, and it has taken a long time to develop. Clubs that want to embrace the Barca model must embrace the entire model, including the time commitment, and their fans must be on board with the whole thing or it won’t last. Getting fans on board with a long-term project is always the difficult part, especially at a club that already has an established identity (or a national team, which similarly does, and which has far less control over the kinds of players it has access to and their training), which is why I don’t see any other club turning into Barca over the next ten or fifteen years.
(That said, it should be pointed out that the trophy droughts Barca has suffered since adopting their model have never been terribly long in duration; I think even Cruyff’s vaunted legacy would be put to the test if they hadn’t shown a relatively consistent ability to beat Real Madrid. And it should also be pointed out that, while the Barca model should receive a great deal of the credit for their current spell of domination, they are also benefiting from a confluence of supremely talented players who happen to be supremely talented at playing the Barca style (and Guardiola). Barca has been trying to create this kind of success ever since the Dream Team, but it took Messi, Xavi et al. to all be of an age and a coach who lives the Barca ideology to produce it.)
@Angharad Fantastic point. I don’t know if you read Spanish but Sid Lowe was recently pimping Marti Perarnau’s book “Senda de Campeones,” which he says details the process of player development and club philosophy at Barcelona better than anything on the subject.
This is fantastic. Any piece that has a sentence reading “Liverpool FC doesn’t have anything substantively in common with the Muslim Brotherhood, but…” is an automatic winner.
Shankly’s means of changing the style of play and, with it, the culture of Liverpool is probably the shining example of populism in soccer at its finest. Unfortunately, populism–in both politics and soccer–is fraught with risks. One can pander too greatly to one’s base, only to find that it utterly handcuffs the ability to make decisions that may involve some sort of compromise. Conversely, there are those whose interpersonal skills make populism an awkward fit; and when such technocrats find themselves in power, they operate on an inherently thin margin as they cannot command the affections of the governed/the fans. There are numerous examples of managers and heads of governments who have fallen into one of these two traps; and in the English case, it seems that Capello has decided that his lack of charisma and middling results precludes sweeping culture change in the national setup–in spite of the fact that he came to office with that particular charge.
National DNA, it seems, exists in an uneasy tension with tangible success–when success is at hand, the method used to arrive at that point becomes moot. When that success fades, however, the urge to ‘go with what we know’ is an impulse with deeper roots than we can imagine. Spain, it seems, has managed for the time being to achieve success with their tried-and-true methods–the soccer equivalent of having brioche and consuming it wholeheartedly in the full sight of the starving masses. Whether they decide to become long-ball merchants when success inevitably fades is anyone’s guess–but I suppose it just wouldn’t do. Imagined Communities, indeed.
@Sam:
“Maybe tiki taka, like democratic government,…”
It’s not so much the content of the analogy, but the brilliant timing of that phrase to bring the point home that made me laugh. Lots. Is your dissertation writing as well crafted?
@Jorge My dissertation is a fantastic mess actually. Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I’m glad you liked the piece.
Loved the post, especially the Simon Kuper bit, haven’t read the essay but I will endeavor to dig it up from somewhere on the interwebs. Personally, I have been contemplating Real Madrid’s current style and how it relates to the particular brand of football being plied over in Catalunya and you made a very interesting point.
@Sam Fayyaz Unfortunately for the discussion in question, my Spanish can just about cover a Messi interview*, but not much beyond that. I have heard of the book, though, and am keeping an eye out for any potential translations into English or French. Preferably by Sid Lowe, of course.
One thing I meant to elaborate more on in my previous comment is the trouble that national teams — or rather, the people in charge of national teams — have in forming a collective identity when it comes to a playing style, because of the lack of control that the national team has over the players’ training. It’s all well and good for fill-in-the-blank England coach to say, “and now boys, we’re not going to run around like chickens with our heads cut off”, but if Lampard, Gerrard et al.’s entire training has been in how to run around like a chicken with its head cut off, the three weeks of England training a year aren’t going to impose a drastically new style on their play. Of course, it’s obvious that right now Spain is benefiting from having so many of their top players indoctrinated in the tiki-taka style (even ones not from Barca), but historically the best national sides — Holland, Brazil, etc. during their respective periods of dominance — have usually had most of their players from, if not the same club, at least youth academies with the same philosophy. Spain’s starting seven Barca players in the WC final (or whatever it was) might have been remarked upon, but it was certainly not unusual. England does not have, and if things stay the same will never have, a youth system that even attempts to propagate any kind of coherent playing style, so the NT ends up with Arsenal-trained zippy wingers and Liverpool-trained target men and Manchester-trained referee botherers.
Interestingly, while I don’t see the US ever becoming a football powerhouse when the majority of their population is interested in other sports, I think they’re becoming much better at producing that kind of unifying stylistic philosophy, and I fully expect them to start routinely outperforming England on the big stage. Of course, I generally expect New Zealand, Fiji, and small things that live under rocks to outperform England on the big stage, so that’s not much of an endorsement…
*Given that Messi has a working vocabulary of about five words, and one of them is guaranteed to be “football”. My Spanish doesn’t extend to a Xavi interview.
I’ve often thought of Barcelona/the Spanish style as being rather reminiscent of the Borg. It’s impossible (for me, at least) to watch Borg episodes of Star Trek: TNG without thinking of Barcelona. Your article suggests that slowly, by incremental steps, we must all be assimilated.
I for one sympathize with the BBC callers yearning for a Captain Picard (Redknapp?).
I think that it is in some way normal if national supporters speaks about national “values” when there are speaking about the national team plays…no ?
How many tactical models exists ?
How many political models ?
How many month did it took for the german population to be converted to the national socialism and to accept the holocaust ?
Brilliant post, got a bit of a headache from all the nodding I was doing whilst reading it.
I’m afraid I’m one of those nobheads that’s stopped supporting England because of the “hoof-it” ideology. I’m a Man United fan (we seem to have a tendency, along with Liverpool fans, to “give up” on England), and whilst not being quite like Arsenal, I like to think that we’re one of the English football teams that has played more attractive football than most in this country over the last few years.
But the Stretford End certainly isn’t free from the vacuous rants of “Attack! Attack! Attack!”, “get it forward!” and “…he only passes sideways”. I can say now that United fans would never have the patience to wait for the harvest that would be reaped from the Barcelona ideology.
It was evident in the boxing match last night as well. In keeping with my nobheadishness I supported Klitschko, not supporting Haye not because of his lust for “passion” etc like Ricky Hatton, but because he’s, well, just a bit too arrogant for my liking.
However, the post-match expert opinion of Haye’s performance seemed to be that he got his tactics wrong last night. Hmm, where have I heard that about English athletes before, I thought. Then there was Nadal vs Murray the day before as well. The expert opinion? He got his tactics wrong. Wonder how much of a role the Wimbledon crowd had in that.
Only proved to me that the “English problem” is a national phenomena not purely associated with football.
nice piece, enjoyed it.
Fantastic piece Sam! By the way your impression of what Arsenal supporters are asking of our club is correct. While at times shaken by the results of the last few years, our belief in, and our attachment to the system and ideology of Arsenal is still strong. Defensive reinforcements are required though to maximise our chances of success (ie trophies, or even a trophy, I won’t get too far ahead of myself).
Great piece – I remember reading once in an international press that Gerrard “could have been” Schweinsteiger if only he was more discplined, and doing a double-take, because it’s common knowledge in the English press that Gerrard>Schweiny, but this does point to a real issue and in a hilarious way.
what ideology? the public there don’t get the game. maybe the English players do, but certainly not the fans and pundits. only a minority get it right
Thanks for the entertaining article Sam, good stuff.
Another Arsenal fan here, and yes, I agree with your drive-by analysis (not meant pejoratively) .
The system has proven itself in the past, but it currently lacks the right personnel. We’ve been through longer stretches without a trophy, and whilst playing abject football, really horrifying stuff, and where we are today is nothing to complain about.
There was another great article recently by Simon Kuper (someone may have linked to it from this site in fact) analysing the biographies of some of the England players. It was structured into the different careers stages of an English footballer, if that rings any bells.
It plainly spelled out their mentality. Youth is truncated; your body is forced sacrosanct; while other 16 yr olds are out on the pull, you’re doing laps and building your quad muscles; your private life is public fodder; any love you have for your trade is bullied out of you by 90 minutes of strenuous effort rewarded with abuse.
This is your job. It’s not worth your life.
If you can find the article it is absolutely well worth a read.
Simon Kuper is very good at what he does.
Gr8 piece,though i dont fully agree with the Arsenal part.I just think they use the “beautiful game” as an excuse for their trophy less run.Any Arsenal supporter would swap that style for silverware any day.
@Ritesh Well, like I just said, I am an Arsenal supporter. I’m not an ‘Arsenal + trophies’ supporter. Any supporter of any team would (should) say the same. As for excuses for the trophyless run, I don’t agree with your premise, but playing beautiful but fragile football has got to rate better than just being shite. And as to your hypothetical trade off, would you like to trade no trophies but pretty football for no trophies and ugly football? Because the world has an abundance of that.
@Ritesh I’ve been an Arsenal supporter since the beginning of Wenger’s tenure. Since Arsenal have won quite a decent amount of silverware in that time, while playing Wenger’s style of football, I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
I wonder if we are always confusing style with circumstances. Spain are not always just about the sideways passes, they have a certain pragmatism when going forward as well, they just don’t need the crazy straight to the goal hyper-active thing because they don’t seem to go behind that often. Surely the ‘get it forward’ shout can’t be seen as a style as such but a need for urgency created by the fact that england often give away stupid goals and only have five minutes left to clear up their mess. This was certainly the case with the golden era Man utd, whose ‘style’ seems to have now been set in stone only because they couldn’t defend for sevent five minutes and had to make these ridiculou mental comebacks.
My question I suppose is that maybe ‘style’ is circumstantial and should (and very often does) at many times throughout the game. Can we only define a prominent Barca style because they are so often in the same situation, facing a row of forty five defensive midfielder perfectly happy to give up possesion? Is the Aresenal thing not calling for a full change in style as such but simply the ability and willingness to adjust to the ransacking that a fairly average (but extreamly flexible) Newcastle forward line set on them for forty minutes?
Discuss.
Thanks for this. As a relative newcomer to European football, I found it very illuminating. My son and I started out as Liverpool supporters, and we still are, I think (I’m not sure our loyalties have quite cemented yet), but at some point during the season I stumbled onto a Barcelona game. I didn’t know anything about them, mind you — not their style, not their rivalry with Real Madrid, not even that Messi (who I’d seen in the World Cup) played for them. Total neophyte. Maybe I was unduly influenced by Ray Hudson’s rapturous commentating, but I quickly fell in love and felt that I was seeing football as I had always imagined it should be. My son is less enamored, however – has become, in fact, a Real fan – and defends the English style. So I’ve been fascinated by this stylistic thing, but am still trying to understand it. Your post helps. Well done.
Great read. You nailed it in the head without being to tabloidist (don’t know if that’s a word) and not giving to much importance to results but actual tactics.
Will be thinking about the evolution of england’s national squad & stile.
Sam, you can’t talk about Wenger’s style as arse’s “style”—by doing so, you ignore their long, boring history of long, boring, nil-nil draws. The Wenger style is different, but that doesn’t absolve them of their *actual* tradition of doing the things you imply are so bad about English football in general.
I find it amusing that people who write intelligent, thought out articles about footy always seem to have this arsenal fetish and ignore the awful history of the club.
@humbug You’re just bashing something for the sake of bashing it. Sorry.
Very well thought out article Sam. Really enjoyed reading it.
@Obaid really, fella? I simply thought that it might be edifying to point out that arsenal did play football pre-wenger (and football existed pre-premier league…gasp!), not that any of the glory-hunters seem to care. If pointing out a factual innacuracy (the claim that arsenal have a tradition of attractive football when it’s really been only about the past 10 years that they have played in such a style) is “bashing” someone, then fine, I am “bashing” the author. So sorry for trying to tell the whole story.
@humbug Arsenal do have a history of attractive football pre-Wenger. Herbert Chapman, Bertie Mee and indeed George Graham all produced teams that were built around great passers of the ball.
Towards the end of Graham’s tenure there was some pretty ugly stuff, but it shouldn’t make us forget the class and craft of Davis, Rocastle, Thomas and Limpar. Even Kevin Richardson could play a little.
Great post Sam – thoroughly enjoyed it.
I have some sympathy for Rodwell and feel his views are symptomatic of English football’s confusion around the difference between individual technique and the ability to apply and flex that technique to suit the needs of the team.
When the media point at English players and state ‘you are technically inferior to your continental counterparts’, I think it’s fair for those players to cry foul. When you view them strictly on an individual basis, English footballers are not intrinsically inferior in their ability to control and strike a football. Wayne Rooney can control a moving football just as well as Pato or Messi. Gerrard or Scholes can strike 50 yard pass as accurately as Cambiasso or Veron and Ashley Young can dribble as effctively as Podolski or Ribery.
These players will look at the technical skills demonstrated by their Spanish, French and South American teammates in training and think ‘I can do what you do, so how can I be technically inferior?’
Where English players traditionally lag behind, is their ability to identify how best to apply their individual skills to a team dynamic or tactical set-up that requires more of them than ‘hit the big number 9 long, get the knock-down then get it wide’.
The lowest-common denominator approach that is prevalent in the English football media can’t be bothered to distinguish between technical and tactical ability, hence we get these habitual ‘our players are technically inferior’ headlines. Which get more and more BORING.
@humbug: I thought that Sam did address that point and he mentioned Wenger as being successful in “impressing his style” on a club. The obvious, if implicit, assumption here being that Arsenal did play differently pre-Wenger
That said, the point could probably be explored further with an examination of the role of ‘intellectuals’ in developing a footballing ‘ideology’. And this is where Pearce’s excuses fall short. Tiki-taka, for example, has no prior history in Spain but was rather a direct product of Dutch imports in the 1980s. Now it may be that Spain’s footballing ‘DNA’ was not as blindly insular and arragont as Ingerland’s, but today’s Spanish success is largely due to concious decisions made by Spanish footballing figures three decades ago
@Fast Eddie Quite. Insularity remins the key issue. The national team experienced a brief period of optimism and development between 1995 and 1999, under the management of Venables and Hoddle. Both of whom possessed the intellectual curiousity and courage to ply their trade away from England, subsquently introducing a more balanced approach to the national team’s tactical mindset.
Unfortunately one was a crook and the other a headcase.
Regarding Pearce, I happened to tune in to a pre-Euros interview with Daniel Sturridge, conducted in the England camp in the build-up to the tournament. It was a ‘behind the scenes’ type affair and the camera showed three ‘break-out meetings’ (excuse the business speak) taking place, with the three rooms marked ‘defence’, ‘midfield’ and ‘attack’. Love the attention to detail Stuart, not so sure that such a modular and silo-based approach is the ideal way to tackle Spain, whose players don’t tend to play the game in the same neat little lines that appear in your mind.
As an aside, I believe that Sturridge is on the verge of a serious breakthrough. He’s the second coming of Ian Wright. Arsene should let Chelsea take Nasri in return for Sturridge and watch him bang in goal after goal, firing the Gooner renaissance.
This is the best article about Rich Rodriguez ever written.
@Alex
Good job making the distinction between technical ability (England have some wonderfully skilled footballers) and tactical ability (England teams are less than the sum of their parts).
The player that encapsulates this for me is Joe Cole. With the ball at his feet, he can make a jaw dropping move or touch. However, he’s the archetypal “head down” dribbler. Off the ball, he’s probably the worst player in the Premier League. His work rate is very poor, he’s a positionally weak defender, and he rarely creates space for teammates through clever movement. His decision making is abysmal. In a playground skills contest, he could match Andres Iniesta. On the pitch, Iniesta is light years more effective. Iniesta is everything Joe Cole is not: versatile, diligent off the ball, and able to combine with teammates with one touch passing.
This is a fantastic, insightful read. The part about Lamps and Alonso makes clear sense.
@Alex I don’t think that English players are on par with their Spanish counterparts in the matter of technical ability.Most of the players defenders don’t seem comfortable on the ball.Whenever in doubt they boot it into the stands instead of trying to get the ball into midfield with a couple of passes.
@Vir That’s not technique. That’s about attitude, the ability of your teammates to offer you an option and a level of confidence that you can give them the ball without them losing it. An English defender under pressure in his own half has the technical ability to make a quick and accurate five yard pass to a teammate, but his education and the team mindset he operates in discourage him from making that choice.
Compelling!
Your political analogies make me wonder if there isn’t some unconscious link between the English approach to Football and the English mindset that let to that brief period of time where they ruled the world. It would be a fun read if it were as well crafted as this effort.
i do think we sometimes take “technical ability” for “juggling artistry”.
Over the years, one of the most striking features of the english game is the quality in the passing. Ball reception and pass are usually very quick, as there is no time to dwell on the ball. A tackle is coming right for you, better get rid of the ball quickly.
In Portugal we have almost as many brasilian players as portuguese players and yet most players look like “brinca-na-areia” (“play-in-the-sand”) type players. Ask many of them to dribble head-down the other team, they would do it. Ask them to pass the ball quickly and it all becomes confusion and lost possessions.
A good cross, a header, a tackle, ball reception and pass delivery, shot technique, they all make for a good technical player.
@Alex While I agree completely with your point, I disagree with some of the evidence you’ve used to support it. Wayne Rooney is very, very good, but no person alive is as capable of controlling a ball on the run as well as Messi. His ratio of poor touches to good is nanoscopic, while Rooney’s is merely tiny. And Messi weaves his magic through a forest of flailing defenders, like a serene Allen Iverson/Bruce Lee hybrid. Rooney hasn’t garnered that level of defensive attention for quite some time. Setting the two up as equals seems dismissive (to me) of just how mind-blowing Messi’s runs are.
I appreciate where you were going, though, and I scream a profane equivalent of your thesis at the television almost every time I watch the EPL.
However, there’s another side to the coin: Defense. Mourinho’s legacy will surely be summarized thusly: He has proved quite effectively that, so long as the referee is afraid to show too many cards, a crunching tackle is the perfect antidote to tactical intricacy. If it accomplishes nothing else, the MLS stands as proof of just that fact. And so long as the viewing public equates the skill it takes to swipe a players legs out from under them with the technique and communication required to string together 20 passes, domestic player development will reflect these values. I think it’s telling that Spain’s talismans are midfielders (Xavi and Iniesta), while England’s are defenders (Terry and Ferdinand).
Dammit, I feel another RoP submission coming on…
@Brian Davis I don’t know if it was a legacy, or just a return to mythic Albion roots, but Mourinho’s fondness for ‘destruction’ explains his ongoing media-enabled love letters to the EPL – home of the crunching tackle.
I wonder if he isn’t the man to coach England. He loves a hard tackle, his motivational ability is well-known, is tactically brilliant and has the mental fortitude that could actually execute the sorts of changes the national team need, plus he drinks in opprobrium like mothers milk – he’d guard the players from the media faff.
Please submit something. I will read it.
@Brian Davis In terms of Rooney, I was thinking more of his ability to control the moving ball coming towards him, rather than controlling the ball as he runs with it. Rooney’s no better a dribbler than Shaun Wright-Phillips, let alone Messi, but his ability to trap a ball is absolutely world-class.
Due to the fact that he plays in the EPL, we see him exercise his close-control technique a lot more than Messi might, seeing as Wayne will often be asked to control a John O’Shea Gaelic Football-style punt, whereas Leo spends most of his time collecting laser-precision passes from Iniesta and Xavi before spinning off to cause more mayhem.
Rooney is strong, has a fantastic work-rate and is good to excellent in his passing and shooting. He’s not particularly swift and his ability to pick the right pass can be spasmodic at times, but his cose control is vastly superior to most other players. It allows him to create a fraction more space and time for himself and his teammates and ensures that he’s always dangerous. When his touch abandoned him in the last World Cup, it was an immediate sign that something was very very wrong in his head.
As for Mourinho, I think his true legacy might be introducing the word ‘transition’ to the footballing lexicon. I think he was one of the first coaches to really take advantage of the fact that advances in player fitness and work-rate meant the pitch had suddenly got smaller, which allowed teams using a basketball style ‘fast-break’ approach to thrive and dominate.
If that is indeed the case, then I think we need an immediate re-appraisal of Damien Duff’s role in the tactical evolution of association football. I will start an immediate campaign for Jonathan Wilson’s next book to be entitled ‘The Tao of the Duffer’.
One last thing, before we go to town on the ‘crunching tackle’ can we please make an important distinction? The crunching tackle that wins the ball is a thing of beauty. The Stevie G/Keano style studs-up who gives a flying fuck where the ball is crunching tackle is ugly and ruinous.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7zjhYKkOW0
@Brian Davis
Just what I wanted to say.
An objective comparison would be interesting. Let us compare the English and the Spanish nt teams. Let us compare the first touch and control of three different kind of players –
Forward:
Rooney for England and Villa for Spain. Probably Rooney is better.
Defender(Central): Ferdinand for England and Pique for Spain. Well Pique wins hands down. He has better ball control than some strikers.
Midfielder: Gerard for England and Iniesta for Spain. Iniesta I think is better
One could do this for a veriety of skills. The outcome would be interesting to analyze.
Well the above skill was favourable to the Spaniards. There would definitely qualities which are favourable to English players. For example stamina and pace. But I think a more thorough evaluation is necessary before a sweeping statement saying their technical levels are the same.
But Alex’s point is true. Tactical skill has huge role to play ultimately. A tactically good team will make its members look good
I write about a similar topic, national identity and how it affects tactics, over at http://notthatkindofplayer.weebly.com/national-identity-spain-and-the-netherlands-in-the-2010-fifa-world-cup.html.
@Tom Addison Man United though, to be fair, have always been a direct attacking team. To their credit that doesn’t mean they lay the ball off to a defender and pile around the opposition penalty area for the oncoming long ball. Uniteds style has always been shifting it quickly to the wings from midfield for crosses or a fast counter attack. The Barcelona style is brilliant, as we all know, and I, as we all do, love to watch it. However I would hate for attractive styles such as that of Man United to be lost.
I don’t think anyone wants to see England completely lose the ideology that all players have to be passionate and fearless. We don’t want Barcelona clones we want teams/players who can appreciate such brilliant football and bring it into their own games.
great piece, good luck with the disso
@Ronit – Harry Redknapp! Picard!! Hellz no.