SB Nation English Premier League
In the wake of Wednesday's Manchester Derby, critics continue to express their disappointment with the match's quality. For SB Nation Soccer Editor Richard Farley, beautiful matches are defined by a handful of very basic qualities.
Nov 11, 2010 - After reading reaction to last night's Manchester Derby, I sense a need to come to a consensus on what constitutes a boring match. Or, I need to come to some realization as to what people want. People want goals, people want chances and people want action. At least, that's what I'm reading.
The Derby, which I loved, had none of these things, so I'm not surprised that some people were left disappointed, but when a series of professional footy writers also subscribe to that mindset, I start to see a future where there's only one type of soccer match meets our standards. If a given ninety minutes fails to produce goals, we can break out the canned response. It's dour, bland, boring, dull. To my chagrin, that seems to be the building consensus.
That leads me to believe the world sees Barcelona as the standard. It makes sense. Their style of football is undeniably brilliant - the best way to display the skills which have bewitched our passions. When you see Xavi Hernández, Lionel Messi and David Villa, you react. "I'm going to love what I wish I was."
The football itself is an idealistic, sometimes naive, approach - one which holds that football can be played for football itself. It's a philosophy that's been a reason for Dutch national team disappointment and Barcelona's struggles against Rubin and Internazionale. At the same time, the Dutch are one of the elite sides in international football, while the number of losses Barcelona's incurred in the last two-and-a-half years can be counted on your fingers. While the Dutch and Barcelona have been the victims of heightened expectations, their footballing style wins while pleasing the soccer asceticists.
Unfortunately, few clubs in the world can play the style in a truly enticing, effective manner. Much of the Spanish league tries to do so while some clubs in England (Wigan, for example) have imported the approach. Werder Bremen's commitment to attack is a perpetual double-edged sword, while the entire Eredivisie remains stubbornly committed to this ethos. Still, no purveyor has captured our imagination like Barça and the Dutch, likely because they're the only teams whose results have matched our expectations.
On the contrary, Wigan's commitment to their system can be perplexing, while the Eredivisie (like Werder) often seems willfully ignorant of how to defend. None of this helps the viewer experience. While barrages of goals are entertaining on rare occasions, employing any style that ignores one facet of the game beguiles. It all leads to a harsh truth that Wigan's learning and Werder's has accepted: Unless you have the elite talent, adopting an overly idealistic approach could lead you to be overrun by the Chelseas, Real Madrids, Tottenhams, Sevillas - the world's talented pragmatists.
Looks across the world's elite, you see more talented pragmatists than principled idealists. Arsenal is the only club that can be grouped with Barça. Chelsea's approach is more direct than intricate, but they still accumulate mounds of goals and chances. Same can be said for José Mourinho's Internazionale and Real Madrid teams. While both Manchester United and Bayern Munich are more aesthetically pleasing than the three clubs living out Mourinho's legacy, all of Europe's mega clubs are as pragmatic as ambitious. Milan and Juventus (the only truly mega clubs in Europe we've failed to mention) are historically known as much for stifling as scoring. Even at the highest levels, few teams want to play like Barcelona.
So it seems our expectation that all teams show the Catalans' ambition ignores reality. It's not going to happen. It's all the more reason to appreciate Barcelona, but that appreciation shouldn't be used as reason to demonize pragmatists.
In the criticism of the Manchester Derby, we see that demonizing. We also see the recycling of the same, play-out narratives describing City's play. Manchester United's skilled passing isn't what's being called dull. Scrutiny of the derby is another passive aggressive critique of Roberto Mancini, echoes of the same disparagement being lobbed at City since match one.
That's why it's no surprise the Manchester Derby's been described as "dour" (in the words of Tony Malbert at Eurosport and England's Press Association). The Guardian flippantly referred to injured players as "bored to knack" by the game. Reuters called the match "tepid." Setanta described the match as lacking intesity, remarkable given Carlos Tévez's face-off with Rafael da Silva and Paul Scholes' running down of James Milner within thirty seconds. Henry Winter described the match as having 'little quality," telling me the English icon ascribes little value to the intricate passing game employed by United.
Such criticisms force me to wonder what people want from a match. Do they need goals? Chances? This seems to deny the idea that a great match can be defined by perfect defending.
Do they want an open game, one which sees each team prioritize going forward? That's the Eredivisie.
Do they deny a coach's right to use more defensive approach? What an interesting world that is: everybody using the same tactics.
In a sport which uniquely embodies the world's diverse array of cultures, perhaps it would be better if every club played identically. But then, how would the press fill their column inches?
I suggest talking about the legitimately compelling aspects of Wednesday match. Avoid the need to see the nil-nil as an extension of the "negative City" narrative that's all played out. For an imminently watchable match, tell readers why the fixture would have been worth their time. Given all the compelling (if esoteric) story lines which played out, it would not have been that difficult.
The Derby featured a compelling midfield match-up that saw Alex Ferguson bring Michael Carrick back into the team, allowing United to match numbers and pass into City's defense from the level above Yaya Touré. United's central midfield trio also destroyed City's counter opportunities, evidenced in David Silva's attempts to thread balls through United's retreating defense.
Nemanja Vidic gave the best individual defensive performance of the season, and the lateral quickness Rio Ferdinand hints the England captain may finally be fully fit.
Nigel de Jong and Vincent Kompany were crucial in disrupting United's short passing game, while two early second half injuries to United fullbacks created the added drama of limiting Ferguson's bench options.
That's what I took from yesterday's derby, though I'm in the minority. While most are focusing on a lack of goals, City's negativity, and the paucity of scoring chances. I wouldn't mind watching the Derby again.
For the sake of a more harmonious world, we should talk about what our expectations are for a soccer match. This could help clubs and broadcasters craft a better product. Writers will know what facets interest us. Players will have a better idea of why they are being criticized. Best of all, we'll all be in the same page.
Some viewers want goals. I prefer to concentrate on the details. If we have skillful players working hard, as a collective, and trying to maximize their results within the rules, I'm happy regardless of the final score. What more can you realistically want than a bunch of elite athletes trying their best of help their team win?
That seems like an easy standard to agree upon. Still, applying those criteria to yesterday's derby make people's disappointment even more perplexing. United's players certainly exhibited skill, as did Silva in his attempts to connect with Tévez and Touré. Hard work was seen in the efforts of Park Ji-Sung, de Jong, Vidic - all the non-Berbatovs. Each team was highly organized, and although most disagree with how they were doing so, City (as well as United) were trying to maximize results.
What more do people want? "Goals" seems the obvious answer. More ambition from City, some might say, but while that would lead to a different type of match, it would not necessarily lead to a better one. It would have also eliminated most of the match's conflicts.
The problem with yesterday's match wasn't the result. The problem was our standards. We can't agree what constitutes a good match. Is it drama? Skill? Effort? Organization? All those were present at Eastlands.
Or, is it just goals? Are all these criticisms just complicated ways of saying Manchester City should be playing to other people's standards?
Or was yesterday's match dour because, with the anti-City narratives inextricably woven into this season's fabric, Citizen performances will always disappoint?
The Manchester Derby would have been so much better had United's defense showed less effort, been less organized, and just given City a goal. That would have been good football.
0 comments
