Cruyff's Paradox: Is Tiki-taka Simple or Complex?

Image from laacib.net

"Playing football is very simple, but playing simple football is the hardest thing there is."

                                                                                           Johan Cruyff

"To make something look simple, you have to master the complex." I would say that this quote (I made it up) goes a long way towards explaining the philosophical reasoning behind the way that Barcelona play football. It has always fascinated me how many observers make the conclusion that their style of play, and the reason that it's successful, is very simple, done very well. In my mind and in my experience with observing and studying Barcelona I cannot comprehend how people can come to that particular conclusion. A team which has revolutionised modern football since I started to follow the sport and that have broken so many boundaries of what was considered as the traditional norm surely does not play a simple brand of football. How can it achieve so much by playing so simply? Or perhaps there is more to this than first viewed. The man who can potentially answer this question is a legend of the game, or more appropriately, a legend of Barcelona - Johan Cruyff.

Perhaps Pele and Maradona can lay claim to being better players than Cruyff, but Cruyff has arguably had a bigger impact on the game itself. None more so than at Barcelona whom he played and coached, but more importantly, changed the whole philosophy and structure of the club. The most important idea he introduced was a concept of ball orientated football - to keep the ball when you have it and get it back quickly when you don't.

The original Dream Team coached by Cruyff
Image from themidfieldmaestro.tumbler.com

Cruyff often speaks about simplicity - to play with excess contradicts what passing was supposed to achieve - simplicity. Cruyff once criticised a goal that was scored because he claimed that the goal should have been scored earlier in the play. The extra passes were unnecessary and increased the chances that a mistake would happen. Simplicity increases efficiency and effectiveness. Think of Arsenal and how many times they overelaborate a goalscoring opportunity. According to Cruyff, a team should take a shot on goal at the earliest possible opportunity in order to increase the chances of scoring. To Cruyff, the perfect goal would be one which is scored with minimal effort, no unnecessary risks taken, and maximum efficiency.

"To play well, you need good players, but a good player almost always has the problem of a lack of efficiency. He always wants to do things prettier than strictly necessary."

                                                                                                       Johan Cruyff


Simplicity is an intangible concept which is falsely described by numbers and statistics. It is a concept invented by the human mind and is a quality which is vary hard to explain, much like creativity. However one defines simplicity, it ultimately reflects our perception of if it and more importantly, our understanding. To a physicist, the laws of physics make perfect sense because it follows certain laws. To a less learned person, it would make no sense whatsoever. The two different perspectives doesn't change the reality. The laws of physics is what it is. It remains the same no matter how we think of it. In applying this to football, Barca's football is what it is. It is the constant. The audience is the variable. This is why it is hard to definitively judge the complexity of Barca's style of play. To some it is an intricate web of movements and chain reactions - a systems version of football that is reliant upon every sub-system to function in order to make the whole system work and flourish. To others, tactics and details are overstated and that specific choreography has nothing to do with their style - it is the talent of the players and the way they simply pass the ball to the nearest team mate until someone can take advantage of an opposition defensive error.

I wrote an article stating that your opinion of what makes an entertaining game depends on three things: your knowledge of the game, the reason you are watching, and your expectation of the game. I believe that these three things also shape your view of the simplicity of Barca's football. In a way, your personal philosophy shapes the way you view football. You don't need to be a coach to have a philosophy, your philosophy is simply an aggregate of your past experiences and your personality. This goes some way towards explaining why some people would describe Barca's football as complex, and other people, simple.

When Cruyff speaks about football he often speaks about the entertainment value of the game, that there is more to it than winning. He believes in a certain style of play which has the power to put a smile on the people's faces as he described it. As such, he was a believer in his own philosophy, of a beautiful way of playing:

               "It's better to go down with your own vision than with someone else's."                

                                                                                                         Johan Cruyff

He would rather lose playing good football than winning playing ugly football. He said of the 1974 world cup final against West Germany that losing that final made the Netherlands more famous than it otherwise would have. To say that it was better to lose than to win because it left a better legacy speaks volumes about the mindset of Cruyff - quite romantic and idealist. It is therefore quite mysterious why Cruyff often speaks quite pragmatically. In a video on Dutch television Cruyff said that he never likes playing with two men in midfield because they could get exposed too easily. Instead, he always plays with three in midfield, explaining that "I am much more defensive than people think." Following on from this admission of pragmatism, he quoted this famous line:

                                "If you can't win, make sure you don't lose."

                                                                                                       Johan Cruyff


This evidence contradicts the common stereotype that Cruyff is the ultimate priest of tiki-taka and total football hell bent on entertaining the masses. He clearly does not like losing but he won't settle for playing a rugged and prehistoric style of football. This paradox in mentality is reflected on the pitch.

The concept that simplicity is the best form of playing football is all well and fine - it makes sense, certainly on a theoretical level. Put in practice however, it's a different story. Stoke City play with simplicity in theory because they do not overelaborate their build up play from the back. Compared to most Champions League teams, they play the most direct football because of their comparatively aerial style. Overall, it can be said that Stoke City play with simplicity. On the other hand, Barcelona have an opposite style of play compared to Stoke - a more indirect and slower buildup from back to front. It involves a greater amount of passes and more patience. What does this mean - is it an indication that Barca do not play simply enough? 

The spirit of Catalonia resembles the football of its team
Image from guardian.co.uk 

Take the example from the most recent Clasico game in the league at the Bernabeu. At one stage of the match, Messi and Iniesta exchanged several passes between them in the absence of any defensive pressure from the Madrid midfield players. It got them nowhere and it achieved nothing - no progression and no objective accomplished. It was a display in excess and indulgence - we can pass the ball all day, you see! It was like a scene straight from The Simpsons. It was akin of the analogy of the Arab sheikh living within his enormous mansion; living in it for show and prestige, but not for practicality. Has Barca become the Arab sheikh in a way? It seems as though tiki-taka has outgrown its initial purpose - to control the game with minimal effort and exertion. It's as if the club has become so entrenched in this way of playing to the point that passing has outgrown its existence as merely a mechanism to win football matches. It has instead become the objective itself, to keep the ball. In this case, possession is no longer merely a means to an end - but the end in itself. In this context, tiki-taka possession football is no longer useful for Cruyff.

"Every solution to every problem is simple. It's the distance between the two where the mystery lies."

                                                                                                 Derek Landy.

The system is one thing but the players who play within it can corrupt the theory behind it. The 4-3-3 system is one that was designed to give maximum options to any player in possession of the ball. In this way it is saying to the players When you have the ball, pass it to the nearest team mate and then move. Keep it simple - pass and move, pass and move. In theory, the 4-3-3 optimises spacing of players in order to help the players follow the short passing philosophy. In practice, the players became masters of this style after many years learning it in the academy. Over time, merely passing the ball in order to create chances to score goals became pointless in a way. It became too easy. If we can keep the ball, why must we give it away so easily. The concept of passing started as an idea to score goals but it has since morphed into a total theory of football - of attack, defence and control. The cause of this metamorphosis is the talent of the current generation of players. No other team are as adept at rondos than Barcelona. No other team has the best player in the world of the last four years. How can a philosophy of simplicity be justified when simplicity is the enemy of extraordinary minds? Messi's skills are too elaborate for such a dimwitted system of play and Xavi, Iniesta and Busquets are too smart. It is in fact the very simplicity of the system that has allowed the foundation for layers of complexity to be added. 

What started as simply another way of playing the game has grown and grown. Today it has become the philosophy of a whole club and is becoming it in many others. Who would have thought that the arrival of Cruyff to Barcelona as a player would mark the beginning of something special. The supporters saw a glimpse of a whole team in one player. Years later, that one man gave his insight to a whole team. The reason why Cruyff has been such an influential and celebrated figure in the game was that he was different. He gave the world something new and unique. No matter your opinion of the actual style of play, it is undeniable that it has left a legacy to football.

                                     "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."

                                                                                                     Leonardo da Vinci

My Top 5 International Matches in the Past Twelve Months

1. Argentina vs Brazil (4-3) Friendly 9 June 2012

The most entertaining and pure game of football I have watched in the past twelve months without a doubt.  Brazil played with typical flair and samba, while Messi scored an absolutely ridiculous hat-trick. Not being a competitive match allowed both sets of players to play with freedom - resulting in spectacular football in front of a huge crowd at the MetLife Stadium in New Jersey.

2. Spain vs Italy (4-0) European Championship Final 1 July 2012

This game confirmed the status of Spain being the best national team ever. Having been met with a stubborn Italian side in the group stage, Spain simply demolished Italy in the final and blew away critics of their "boring" style of play by playing mesmerising football. Pirlo, Italy's best player, was left helpless as the world watched Spain's pass masters put on a show in spectacular fashion.

3. Germany vs Sweden (4-4) World Cup Qualifier 16 October 2012

A game that will be remembered by the result more so than the actual football. Germany went 3-0 up at half-time and also scored a fourth shortly after the break after cutting open a poor Swedish defence. When the winner of the match seemed settled, up stepped Zlatan Ibrahimovic to inspire Sweden to a miraculous comeback, culminating in a 93rd minute equaliser leaving Angela Merkel stunned as well as the whole stadium.

4. Argentina vs Uruguay (3-0) World Cup Qualifier 12 October 2012

Argentina in 2012 have been fabulous to watch as Alejandro Sabella figured out how best to use Messi in the national team. Perhaps their best game was a WC qualifier against enemies Uruguay who featured the attcking trio of Suarez, Cavani and Forlan. Simply put, Argentina completely dominated this game, putting on a masterclass of fluid attacking play while easily defending against Uruguay's star forwards. Messi was brilliant in this game, providing viewers with a satisfied feeling when the match was over.

5. Zambia vs Cote d'Ivoire (0-0) Africa Cup of Nations Final 12 February 2012

The worst game on this list in terms of quality, but the best story without doubt. Zambia were heavy underdogs against the golden generation of Africa's best national team and no-one expected them to beat the Elephants. After a tense scoreless draw after 120 minutes, the match was to be decided on penalties. After a marathon shootout, Gervinho's miss allowed Stophira Sunzu to score the winning goal which sparked memorable scenes of celebration including Zambia coach Herve Renard carrying the injured Joseph Musonda to celebrate with his team mates.

Communism and Capitalism of Football

The Cold War lasted forty-six years from 1945 to 1991. The war was not a physical one. It was not a financial one. It was not geographical, not religious and not even political. It was a war of ideology. It was a war between two superpower nations who had polar opposite views as to how humans should be organised to live in their society. It was a war of theory. It was a war between two nations who disagreed with how a human should live. It was a war about how each thought about the universe. To say it was a "cold" war is somewhat misleading. It wasn't played out because of any legitimate reason. It was played out simply because each wanted to prove that they were right. After forty-six years of conflict and verbal squabbling, the Soviet Union fell and with it, the war. Or did it?

The essence of communism was that it valued the collective over the individual. Every member in a society was equal to the person next to him. Every member of society had an equal input into the functioning of the society and each one was expected to contribute. The whole philosophy was based on the fact that the sum of the parts were greater than the whole - that if everyone contributed, the whole community would function more efficiently and no person was left disadvantaged. It wasn't just a matter of economic or social policy, communism was a matter of principle, that it was the correct ideology simply because it was believed that it was.

Capitalism on the other hand, valued the individual freedom to be able to express the very best a man could be. Freedom of expression, invention and competition are key values. It goes without saying that capitalism allow the best to rise to the top and the mediocre to sink to the bottom. The disadvantage is that conflict always arises between the top and bottom of society. The people at the top are defensive and seek to hold onto their status while the people at the bottom rebel and seek to displace the men at the top.

The Cold War has of course ended, but in football, it has reached a crescendo.  The war between collective football and individual football. Throughout the history of football a struggle has existed between those who believe that players should be given the freedom to play, and those who believe that players must work within a system. Two of the greatest national sides were 1970's Brazil and 1970's Netherlands. These two great teams existed at about the same time and yet had opposite ideas on how the game should be played. If we disregard specific tactics, Brazil represented the individualism of capitalism while the total football of the Netherlands were based on the principles of co-ordinated team work of communism. Brazil scored goals goals through dribbling, the Dutch through passing. Brazil were a team full of excellent players, while the Netherlands were an excellent team. Both national teams will be remembered as two of the greatest teams to have ever played the game, but they were different to each other. The battle of individual vs collective has always marked football and it will continue to do so.

Barcelona

Barcelona is the perfect example of what the Soviet Union had epitomised. It is the gold standard and the philosophical Mount Everest of collectivism - communism. Barcelona display all the trademarks of being a communist club, without quite reaching it. The resemblance is so close in fact, that the grey area between imitating, and being, is almost abolished, and the two ideas merge into one.

Barcelona's system of play relies on the transfer of the ball via the mode of passing. So much is Barca's reliance on passing the ball that a word is used to describe it - tiki taka. To pass the ball, an individual must be willing to sacrifice possession of the ball in order to give it to someone else. To hold onto it is selfish. It is an admission of weakness of thought, that one cannot rid himself of the temptation to keep the ball for himself. It is an admission that one does not believe in his team-mates and does not trust them. Guardiola once said of his team: "This team will respect a philosophy." The philosophy is all encompassing and it filters through every level of the club, right down to the kids and parents.

Guardiola is a smart man and he thought deeply about how to make his team even better. Realising that he could add more variety in his attack, he bought Zlatan Ibrahimovic from Inter Milan. In bringing in the tall Swedish striker, Guardiola was making a huge statement - he was bringing in a player who was different from the players he already had. The likes of Messi, Xavi, Pedro, Iniesta, Busquets were all brought up - schooled - to follow the doctrine of collective football and sacrifice. In Ibrahimovic, Guardiola was bringing in a man who was the star in every team he had played for and was not the equal to his team mates. Zlatan had been to several clubs and thus was not as receptive to learning a whole new religion from the very beginning. Guardiola had bought an individualist - who believed that he was different - to a club that condemned such personalities - it was why Ronaldinho was booted out as well. Ultimately, this particular transfer would end in failure, but the fact that Guardiola chose to spend such a huge amount of money on a rebel was suggestive of a slight doubt he had in Barca's philosophy.

Just like the people of the Soviet Union during weak economic times, lack of infrastructural development, food shortages and lack of progress - people start to question how their country is being run and whether communism is working. When the United States became the number one country in the world under Ronald Reagan, surpassing the Soviet Union, the Russian people started to doubt their own country and sought prosperity like the Americans. It was this shift in attitude which led to uprisings against the Soviet government and ultimately bringing about the downfall of the Soviet Union in 1991. The difference between the Soviet Union and Barcelona is that the latter is currently prospering and all is harmonious within it's walls. However, the Soviet Union also prospered before it collapsed.

There were signs last season when Real Madrid out powered all opposition towards winning the league, while Barcelona were struggling to beat opponents who had become used to their patterns of play. Some observers criticised Barca's reliance on the collective, remarking that they were passing it for the sake of passing it and that their tiki taka philosophy had become a cult like religion, instead of a mere philosophy. People had started to grow tired of possession and some called for flair and dribbling to be brought back to the team for the sake of results. To quash the uprisings, Barcelona changed the leader - a common practice to give a renewed sense of hope back to the people. It was a smart move too as Vilanova brought enthusiasm and motivation back to the team and the people who grew tired by hearing one message over and over. Vilanova preached the same message, yet he inspired the doubters that possession was still the best answer to football. Communist football had remained and had resurged under a fresh leader. To this day, Barcelona are as deeply entrenched in the philosophy of collective football as it has ever been. Until the next day arrives when people start to grow jealous of another more successful philosophy, Barcelona will remain a communist club.

Valeriy Lobanovskyi

Even more so than Barcelona, Soviet football in the 1970s and 1980s paralleled the political climate of the time. During a time of forced technological advances during the space race, Soviet football was also heading in the direction of the scientific and the methodical. One coach of this era epitomised and symbolised communist philosophy - the legendary Ukranian Valeriy Lobanovskyi. As a player, he was a dashing winger, full of trickery and invention but his is coaching would contradict his style as a player. As a coach he revolutionised how sports science and statistics were to be used to maximise the talents of the players.

In him was acted out the great struggle between individuality and system: the player in him wanted to dribble, to invent tricks and to embarrass his opponents, and yet, as he later admitted, his training at the Polytechnic Institute drove him to a systematic approach, to break down football into its component tasks. Football, he explained, eventually became for him a system of twenty-two elements - two sub-systems of eleven elements - moving within a defined area (the pitch) and subject to a series of restrictions (the laws of the game). If the two sub-systems were equal, the outcome would be a draw. If one were stronger, it would win.

                                                              Jonathan Wilson - Inverting the Pyramid

Lobanovskyi was fascinated that these sub-systems had the characteristic of being greater than the sum of the individuals. In other words, smaller but more numerous factions of players working together could outperform bigger but less numerous factions of players. When all of the factions were operating at optimal efficiency, the product (the team) would perform at maximum efficiency, and should theoretically win 100% of games. Communist Soviet Union had similar factions of communities organised into what were called kolkhoz or communes. These were communities of farmers who would work together to farm crops on a large scale and subsequently donate all that was grown to the state for redistribution.The theory was that communities working together would create economies of scale. An economic term, economies of scale basically states that as operations of production increase in scale, the cost per unit decreases due to the greater efficiency of producing a single unit. In other words, the larger the scale of operation, the less it costs to produce a single unit, which reduces costs overall. Subsequently, a business can produce more products at the same cost as before or even lower. For Lobanovskyi, the result of the economies of scale within his team would be - as he termed it - universality. The notion that defenders would attack, and attackers defend - to create eleven efficient players who all contribute equally no matter where they played on the pitch. Now opponents had to deal with eleven players to defend against, and eleven players stopping them from scoring. In Lobanovskyi's mind, this was much better than having only the defenders defending and the forwards attacking.

Arrigo Sacchi

Arrigo Sacchi's Milan was constructed with the same principles with Lobanovskyi's Dynamo Kiev, perhaps without going to the extremes that Lobanovskyi did. Sacchi was famous for his 'shadow play' training methods, a method which famously bemused spies from other teams in the league. Sacchi had engrained the concept of teamwork and of the collective in his players. For zonal marking to work, it needed every player to be working in unison. One player out of position would mean the delicate balance of the state of play would crumble. While this works in theory, reality is different. The reality for Sacchi was that he had two flamboyant Dutchmen in his team when he first took charge. Van Basten and Gullit were exceptional players, their talents surpassing those who sought to defend against them. The trouble was that they thrived on being given the trust to express themselves as individuals within the system. They showed creativity which could not be restricted by any sane coach. Sacchi was facing a dilemma - whether to allow the Dutchmen to play outside of his system, or to reign them in and force them to play within the confines of the system. Sacchi chose to do something else.

He brought in a third Dutchman - Frank Rijkaard - another flamboyent (less so than Van Basten or Gullit) player. Sacchi had chosen pragmatism and sacrificed his theoretical utopia of how football should be played. It was still a structured and collective orientated style of play, it just had a few restrictions lifted of the system. In essence, it can be said Sacchi was more of a socialist than a communist. He never reached the final version of his philosophy. Reality had rendered it redundant and it was simply impractical beyond the point of trying.

Jose Mourinho

Real Madrid under Jose Mourinho is the modern version of Sacchi's Milan. Mourinho is famous for his tactical organisation and attention to detail. He often talks about how the team needs to work as a unit in order to be successful. Samuel Eto'o is symbolic of his influence, playing on the wing instead of his preferred position as a striker in order to suit the team shape and tactics. At Madrid however, Mourinho had the most talented group of players he has ever coached, and subsequently encountered the same dilemma Sacchi faced two decades ago. Cristiano Ronaldo, Angel di Maria, Mesut Ozil - these were the modern day equivalent of the Dutch trio - highly skilful players who needed the freedom to express their creativity. Upon his appointment, the main concern expressed by people and media was that Mourinho would have difficulty successfully integrating these special players into a working system. Mind you, the pressure to play in a stylish manner was there from the beginning and added further complexities to Mourinho's dilemma. Much like Sacchi, the practicality of the situation meant that Mourinho opted to allow the positional freedom to Ronaldo and others by putting in place 'compensation mechanisms' as Andre Villas-Boas put it. To give freedom to a part of a team means that you must take away freedom in other parts in order to compensate and balance. Otherwise, you end up with a team who will become too imbalanced - usually over balanced in the attacking phase. One such coach who exhibits traits for failing to strike the balance between allowing individuals freedom and organising an efficient collectivised system, is Zdenek Zeman.

Zdenek Zeman

Argentine coach Marcelo Bielsa has a nickname - El Loco - The Madman. It pretty much sums up his whole career as a coach - unique, intense, weird. You could literally replace Bielsa's name with Zeman's and El Loco would describe this gentlemen perfectly. Like Bielsa, Zeman has built up a reputation for his beliefs of the game, training methods and his quixotic philosophies. His teams play in a brilliant but flawed way: with wild abandon, highly attacking and forward thinking way which produces very attractive football. Imagine being in the middle of Pamplona during the Running of the Bulls festival - that is virtually how Roma play today. The logic is to play in a manner that is so intense, direct and fast, that no matter how many goals the opponents score, they will simply concede more. The problem with Zeman's love of attacking football is that it relies on the players to play, not the coach - but players are emotional. If you let the bulls run free, they will act irrationally and without reason. It's easier to set a bull free than to tame a cat. Sometimes the players will perform, but other times they will fail badly and the result is inconsistency - Roma this season have been inconsistent. They have scored 47 goals - the most goals in the league, one ahead of Juventus. However, they have also conceded 38 goals - joint third most conceded. Roma are currently in 7th position. These numbers sum up the predicament of Roma under Zeman this season.

Zeman really is a dreamer - always the same football, always the same defeats, and yet he never takes a step back.

                                                                       Massimo Mauro, former Juventus player

To be labelled as pragmatic and practical is insulting to Zeman. He would rather leave a memorable legacy, than a successful one. To play attacking football is like living with freedom and independence  To place restrictions would be to deny fulfilment of potential. Consistency is sacrificed for the sake of owning your talent. Games involving Roma resemble a free market economy, where a player has full ownership of their decisions, skills and decisions. They are not bound to playing under restrictions -  they can decide how to play without the state governing how to do so. Even though Zeman is a capitalist at heart, he is bounded by the rules of reality. Like Sacchi and Mourinho and even Guardiola, some form of governance must exist if only to avoid total chaos. In a similar way to many economies around the world, there is some form of state ownership involved - state capitalism. Only the essentials like healthcare, education, transport etc are owned and operated by the state. Zeman still coaches tactical concepts like a high press, positional play and ball possession, but does not govern every little concept in detail like Bielsa or Mourinho would. Only the essentials are imprinted in the players, but the individuality is still left quite open to expression.

Harry Redknaap

Mention Harry Redknaap and tactics in the same sentence and people would look at you in a funny way. Old Harry is known for being a dinosaur tactician when compared to modern coaches like Andre Villas-Boas, Brendan Rodgers and Michael Laudrup. On the flip-side  he is well known for being a fabulous man manager who has that ability to extract good performances from his players.

There are no long and boring speeches about tactics, like I was used to at Real Madrid. There is a clipboard in our dressing room, but Harry doesn't write anything on it. It's not that we do nothing - but it's close to that.

                                                                                                  Rafael van der Vaart

His coaching style relies on empowering and liberating his players - to give them encouragement to exploit their talents as they see fit. It is not so much a policy, it's more of a natural way of thinking. Perhaps being an Englishman who grew up during the Cold War made him suspicious of politics in Soviet Union, China and Soviet-led East Germany. Of course, England have always been allies with the United States and it is quite common to agree on most issues with your friends, and disagree with your enemies. Perhaps it's just that Redknaap believes in the individual making his own decisions, rather than it being dictated by someone else. Out of all the coaches in the current day, Redknaap is one of the most liberal and wild at heart.

Juanma Lillo

Juanma Lillo is one of the most theoretical coaches out there. A fanatical supporter of the phrase "there is no 'I' in team", Lillo is like Karl Marx in his insistence that every action on a field by a player is only caused by, and affects, other players around him.

‘If a player gets the ball in his own area, the opposition players all sit down on the turf and he runs the whole length of the pitch, dribbling round them and scores a goal…that’s still not an individual act because if they don’t sit down, he can’t do that. What the other guy does is what imposes upon you this decision or that one. People talk about ‘individual actions’, but there are not individual actions.’

                                                                                                        Juanma Lillo

This is an example of communist ideology taken to the extreme - the last team Lillo managed was Almeria which got relegated under his leadership. Lillo's last game in charge was an 8-0 drubbing by Guardiola's Barca. The irony is that, alongside Marcelo Bielsa, Lillo mentored and advised Guardiola when he was in charge of Barca B. Lillo is a symbol that theory alone will not be successful. Adaptation and realism play an important part in success.

Barcelona, Dynamo Kiev, AC Milan, Brazil, Netherlands, Roma and Real Madrid in some shape or form have all been at war - an often silent war - between two ideologies. Players, managers, directors, supporters and media have all been soldiers in this war, trying to win everyone over everyone else with their arguments and speeches. It is a symptom of a perfect game - one open to interpretation and argument. Just like the Cold War was a battle of ideologies, football is at at war with itself to determine which is the best way to play the game. Unlike the Cold War, an answer will never be found. The Cold War in football is an endless war.

Published with permission from Sportskeeda

The Football Media Circus

The good old days of journalism
Image from ijpc.org

I hate football media.

Well, most of them.

You see, an unhealthy culture has developed within the mainstream media in their reporting of football. When the product of discussion is supposed to take place on the field of play, there is an alarming trend developing whereby off-field incidents are sensationalised to the extent of mirroring the gossip and truly disgusting culture that is found in the celebrity gossip and paparazzi world. Such celebrity websites can be truly horrific in the content that they post, often creating completely fake rumours just to stir up some conversation. Such outrageous and completely low acts of desperation have no regard to the people who are the victims of blind accusations, rumours and false information. Sadly, this culture is entering football and it is demeaning the action on the pitch, which has become merely a sideshow in many cases.

One can take a very relevant and current example of the English media campaign against Luis Suarez. Before I go on I want to make this very clear - I very much admire and sympathise with Suarez. While I do not condone such actions that he has found himself paying for such as the incident with Patrice Evra last season, there are so many minor incidents, which do not deserve to be mentioned in any newspaper, let alone the front page. I am referring to countless accusations of diving and claims of cheating levelled against Suarez by the English media.

This is a completely biased form of opinion, one which is only seemingly made without rational consideration and aimed at providing journalists the content with which to fill their days.

I can recall a stonewall penalty that Suarez should have had against Norwich earlier this season which was not given by the referee. The media chose to ignore this incident, presumably because this injustice was not worth reporting. Against Stoke City, Suarez was involved with a few altercations with a few Stoke City players and was battling with the referee, pleading to be given legitimate fouls committed on numerous occasions by the Stoke City defenders. At the conclusion of the game and quite unsurprisingly, the media focused on the behaviour of Suarez towards the referee and his attempts at gaining free-kicks by "going down easily". The media chose to ignore the harsh tackles and approach from the Stoke players while lambasting Suarez for his constant attempts at manipulating the referee and trying to get the Stoke players booked.

Furthermore, when Everton hosted Liverpool at home Phil Neville was booked for a dive by the referee. Once again there was minimal, if not zero coverage of this truly hideous crime committed by the captain of Everton. Perhaps it was because he is English. The most recent example and perhaps the most clear indication that there is a bias against Suarez is the almost universal condemnation levelled at Suarez for his handball against Mansfield Town. What strikes me most is how the media have portrayed Suarez to have not only cheated by deliberately hand-balling, but also how he bragged about it and goaded the Mansfield Town supporters by pointing to the hand which made contact with the ball. This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard because any slightly reasonable football supporter would know that Suarez has a tattoo of his daughter's name on his wrist which he kisses after every goal he scores. He also kisses his wedding ring every time he scores. Using a man's love for his family against him to stoke the fires of a witch hunt is reprehensible.

 In addition to these biased accusations, the commentator of the game uttered the words "work of a cheat" when describing the goal. Not only is this an unfair and biased statement, it is unprofessional bordering on insulting. The most ridiculous thing of all is that the media chastised Suarez for not admitting that he handled the ball. That is like accusing a player of not admitting the ball came off his shin for a corner which leads to a goal for his team.

Image from @LFCphoto Twitter

If you visit a celebrity website or read a celebrity magazine, you will inevitably come across pictures of a close up shot of a celebrity woman's stomach. The editor/publisher will add an arrow to indicate where we should look on the photograph and amazingly there seems to be an irregularity in the lines of the shirt she is wearing. "PREGNANT!" the caption would declare, and with that fan-sites start speculating whether it is a boy or a girl. Nine months later and the celebrity woman in question is secretly photographed on a beach wearing a swimsuit and seemingly as thin as she was nine months previous. You might as well invent such stories if there are idiots who read them and buy your magazines. This sad state of affairs can be adapted with an almost frightening similarity to football's fastest rising source of lazy journalism - the transfer market.

It is within this world that journalism standards hits the depths of mediocrity-as if it follows a cycle like the tides follow the moon. Metaphorically, it is as if the plague sweeps the world of journalism every European summer and January and then suddenly leaves the world to rest for a few months. If you still think that journalists don't make up rumours, I would like to point out a recent rumour started by @TAngleFootball and @th14renato in order to expose lazy journalism. The fake rumour was that Eduardo Vargas of Napoli was to join Arsenal this January transfer window. The rumour was started on Twitter and included fake quotes from the player and fake details about the transfer. The result of this experiment was astonishing. The rumour appeared on the following mainstream media outlets:

• MirrorFootball
• ESPN Brazil
• Lancenet.com
• Gazzetta Dello Sport
• Rai Sport
• Daily Mail
• Goal.com
• Express.co.uk
• Football-italia.net

These are just a sample of the media outlets that have published the Vargas to Arsenal rumours started up by two people on Twitter. In an even more embarrassing twist in the uncovering of lazy journalism, the author of the story published on the Mirror, John Cross, claimed that the first he heard of the Vargas rumour was after the story had been published under his name. One must wonder how much little journalists actually know when they write transfer stories and more worryingly how much of it is taken from Twitter. As one Twitter user asked, "Don't you read your 'own' articles before they are published?" It is a legitimate question and it puts into question how much content published in newspapers and online news sites are actually the work of the authors that wrote them. It also highlights how much content is just copied and pasted from other sites, with no research or enquiry as to the source of the information or it's legitimacy. Take all this in as you please, but I for one have lost faith in football media transfer news.

Proof of fake Eduardo Vargas rumour

Apart from my ramblings about the media, it seems that on a general level, that the media focuses too much on the negatives and not enough on the positives. Every time a team have lost a few games in a row, the media speculates the future of the manager. Every little training ground bust up is caught on camera and treated as the total and utter destruction of the dressing room. A player not passing to a team mate can be viewed as a sign that they don't like each other. If a player dives, he is a diver. If a player is from Brazil, he is too lightweight to play in the Premier League. The John Terry/Anton Ferdinand saga should have been played out in private but it didn't. Even the recent 'scandal' surrounding Pep Guardiola's refusal to shake the hand of Cristiano Ronaldo crept under my skin. Just today, as I am writing this article, one journalist asked Rafael Benitez at the pre-match press conference whether David Luiz's haircut would affect his form.

Yes, football media has become like the paparazzi and it has grown into a gossip monster, incapable of resisting the urge to seek and piece together poor quality content to gain as many readers as possible. Where being a sports journalist was previously looked upon by many teenagers as the ultimate career, it now more or less resembles a career working for a circus.

The media could well improve by focusing on the true stories in football - the ones that take place on the pitch. Maybe that way, the mainstream media could return to being more positive and actually make people happy to read about football. As George Costanza from Seinfeld says, "Why dwell on these negatives themes?"

Published with permission from Sportskeeda

Why Manchester City is Tactically Inefficient

Manchester City are a wonderful team, there is no doubt about that. They have magnificent players and they are reigning champions of England. However, City finished in last place in their Champions League group with a miserly 3 points, winning no games, scoring only 7 goals and conceding 11. Since this is the case, I would like to point out a couple of things which I believe would make Manchester City a better team.

Against the weaker teams, Man City can afford to play Tevez, Aguero, Nasri and Silva together. However, this system runs into problems when up against stronger opposition, namely, sides who are very good on the counter attack such as Real Madrid, Borussia Dortmund and Manchester United. It is against these sides where I think Mancini fails his team. Let me explain:

Image from article.wn.com

Mancini this season has found it problematic to find a suitable formation with the suitable players against the top sides. The reason is because his team is set up to play one of two ways. To play a compact and defensive game, or a game based on fluidity and attacking intent. The problem is that it can't do both. This is the heart of the problem which Mancini faces and the leading factor, in my opinion, which has led to their poor performances in Europe.
Against the weaker teams, City must play at least three of Aguero, Tevez, Silva or Nasri, but preferably all four of them. The reason is that in such games, the responsibility is placed on City to break down the other team's defensive block which you would expect to be tight and compact. Naturally, City would have the majority of the possession and would be the team who are expected to win the game. Such a strategy is pretty safe to use as long as they are playing against a team who do not counter attack very well. The negative aspect of this strategy is that against teams who can counter attack very well, City can be left exposed. A major reason comes from the way City are set up when the four players I mentioned play.

All four players play centrally. Aguero and Tevez are both strikers who play in the middle, while Silva and Nasri are not natural wingers and prefer to drift inside. Since this is the case, the only natural width City have is with both fullbacks pushing forward to support the play. It is essential that the fullbacks get involved in the attacking play, otherwise any team would find it difficult to create chances against a well organised defence. The reliance on the fullbacks to provide natural width can prove to be a problem. The reason is because when both fullbacks push forward, they can leave huge space behind them which can be exploited by the opposition players. Manchester United recently took full advantage of the space to create two goals in open play. The fullbacks going up by themselves is not a problem in itself. It only becomes a problem if the rest of the team cannot compensate for this particular movement.

Firstly, Silva and Nasri do not cover for their respective fullbacks forays forward. It is left up to Clichy and Zabaleta to track back to defend themselves even if they have advanced further up the pitch than Silva or Nasri.

Secondly, Yaya Toure is crucial to City's attack in that he often creates danger with his driving runs forward from deep areas, especially in transition. While this is all well, the harsh reality is that this means he leaves Barry isolated as the lone holding midfielder. In essence, the style of Toure often means that City's 4231 shape becomes a 4141 shape. People often debate whether Toure is better suited to a deeper role or a role behind the striker. The truth is that he can do both roles fantastically well. The problem is that he's asked to do both in the same game. Furthermore, this means that Barry is often forced to go forward with Toure in order to close up the distance between himself and Toure and this leave space in front of the two centre backs.

City's actual formation leaves too much space for Barry and both fullbacks to cover. Image from footballuser.com

Thirdly, Barry is not mobile enough to move laterally across the pitch. This is a crucial tactical error in City's shape because it means that Barry cannot cover for the fullbacks when they've gone forward. If Barry was as dynamic as a Ramires for example, City's 4141 formation could theoretically work. Sadly, this is not the case. Mind you, Garcia and Rodwell are similar types of players as Barry so they wouldn't make a tactical difference if they played instead of Barry.

The overall pattern seems to be that Mancini chooses to overload the middle and take numbers off the flanks in order to play four creative players all at once. While this system of play is not radical, it does require the players to do so. The problem City have, and is the ultimate problem Mancini has to solve, is how to give City width so that they can expand when they have the ball, while keeping compact when they lose the ball. At the moment, City don't do either. I get the feeling that City are not playing to the potential that they have. They have spent a great amount of money on players without a cohesive system in mind. Considering the money spent, City shouldn't be having so many and consistent tactical problems to deal with, and they should be dominating the league. Inefficiency in the transfer market is largely to blame and future managers (should Mancini not be in charge next season) will have the same problems as Mancini has. Too many players on highly paid wages that do not fit together in a cohesive system.

Having said all this, it still must be said that Manchester City are a great team with plenty of great players. They deserved to be champions last season. This season is different. Manchester United have strengthened and Europe taught them a lesson. In order to win the Premier League this season and to advance to the last 16 of the Champions League next season, Mancini has to find a way to incorporate his highly paid players into a better balanced system, otherwise he might no longer be wearing his blue scarf in the technical area of Etihad Stadium.

Published with permission from Sportskeeda

Why Football is Better than Tennis and Golf

I was recently watching a Pep Guardiola documentary of sorts on Youtube. Actually, it was more like an intimate and revealing interview between Pep and Spanish movie director Fernando Trueba recorded in 2011. Among many things, Pep talked about how the player that plays in front of huge stadiums packed full of huge numbers of people once played played football on the streets with his friends. He went on to illustrate how he never met a professional football player that does not love the game. Expanding further on this point, Pep explained how his love of football shaped him as a person, saying that the best education he had received was from the school of football.

"I have learnt to deal with defeat, that others can be better than me. I have learnt to recover after not performing well, to try harder to be the best. I have learnt to accept that a team mate can be better than me, that the coach can pick another player if I have behaved badly. All that knowledge about relationships I have learnt from sport...I did not receive that education in theory, but in practice."

At this point I was thinking all the points he was making were fairly normal...until the following quote struck me.

"That is why group sports are more powerful than individual sports."

This got me thinking about comparing group sports and individual sports. I was curious as to which particular category of sport is better, on an overall scale. Which type of sport requires the most skill, the most determination, the most sacrifices and the most mental toughness. In essence, which type of sport is it the most difficult to become world class.

Having a limited knowledge of individual sports such as tennis and golf, I tried to picture myself in Roger Federer or Tiger Wood's shoes in the middle of long tennis game or golf tournament. No doubt a key distinction in both these sports is that when times get tough, there are no team mates to turn to. All the pressure is on the shoulders of a single person. There is no-one but yourself to blame if things go wrong and the performance is not good enough.

On the other hand, in a football team, there is a different kind of pressure. Your performance has a direct impact on the performance of your team mates. If you make mistakes, not only have you let yourself down, but you have let down your team mates as well. It is what I call the 'guilt factor' in team sports. This guilt factor enhances the pressure an individual feels to perform because the guilt of not performing is multiplied. This is not the case in individual sports because you are not playing for others and as such your actions have no consequences so to speak. The only consequence is what thoughts a player has in his head. Roger Federer clearly has mastered the art of controlling emotions:

"Previously I always thought it was just tactical and technique, but every match has almost become mental and physical - I try to push myself not to become upset and stay positive, and that's what my biggest improvement is over all these years. Under pressure I can see things very clearly."

It is clear to see that in a game like tennis mental strength and psychology plays an important part in the success of a player. While I do not doubt this, I do doubt that the role of the mind is more important in individual sports than in team sports. The reason for my doubt is that I believe you need even more mental stability in football due to the complexity of the game. Not only can obstacles come in the form of a loss of confidence on your part, it can come from the opposition players or your own team mates. It is not enough to simply be at ease with your personal psyche, it must be integrated successfully and harmoniously within your team.

An example of this might be the case of Mario Balotelli. He is a man who does not lack confidence or self belief. The problem is that his mental strength does not lie within the accepted limitations for his team to cope with. This is especially true for his manager Roberto Mancini. Mario's "self confidence" is perceived as a bad attitude, a brash cockiness and a weak team orientated mentality. If Balotelli's personality was to be used in tennis or golf he might stand a better chance of annoying and disgruntling less people, allowing him the freedom to express his talents to the full. In football, a more subtle approach has to be taken to successfully integrate with the people around him. This is what I mean when I say that team sports represent a more difficult and complex environment to control your own emotions, even if your are self confident and mentally tough.

Image from allaboutfcbarcelona.com

Application of skill on a tennis court or a golf course is much, much easier than in a team environment. This is another reason why I believe football is better than tennis and golf. Golf especially is played in a closed environment. This is a state where the skill takes place in a stable and predictable environment. Corresponding with the closed environment, golf is an internally paced sport. In other words, the golfer controls when he chooses to commence and conclude the skill action. The skill has a clear beginning and end, the golf swing being an example of a closed skill.
The football environment is the opposite of these conditions, being both an open environment and an externally paced sport in which the athlete's decisions and execution of skills are affected by the players around him and the time that he must execute skills. I.e. a striker cannot miss an opportunity to shoot on goal because he feels rushed into taking the shot. Football players have to contend with a highly charged and pressured environment where quickness and speed of thought are crucial to skill execution, unlike in golf where you can take your time and pace yourself. Tennis is in between golf and football on the scale, where some plays are internally paced (executing a serve) and it is an environment where you must contend with only one or two opponents instead of eleven.

The final point I want to make is that group sports can have a bigger impact on the audience because it is a social event as much as it is a sporting event.

"You have to learn how to relate to others. I have learnt to make an effort for a team mate and I know that tomorrow he will do the same for me in order to achieve our common goals."

It is these interactions between team mates which enrich the sport. Football is a microcosm of society, where people gather together, share aspirations, make plans and objectives, and sets out to achieve them together. Differences of opinion will occur, people will get upset and bust-ups will inevitably occur. Managing these issues is part of the sport. Achieving victories together sweetens the experience of playing the sport.

In my opinion, the complexities and the richness of football cannot be compared to individual sports such as tennis and golf. Football is simply the best game in the world. Pep Guardiola perhaps has the ultimate reason for why football is the only universally loved game:

"It is also a fun game, it brings pleasure, it is a game in the end. We have forgotten about that word, to play. We at the bottom play football, we play everyday. I play dreaming about the next game and my players play everyday."

Published with permission from Sportskeeda

10 Slightly Quirky Ideas to Make You a Better Player

I am generally a serious and philosophical person. My writing reflects that and I'm sick of people telling me that I can't be fun. So I wanted to prove to them that I can let my hair down and be silly like them. So I have written the following article for the less serious people in life. (Or for serious but just not today people as well). Either way, put your silly hats on and don't tell me that my article is stupid. I will tell you now, it kind of is.

1. Driving bad for two-footedness

If you have a car and drive, you will already know that you mainly use your right foot to push the accelerator and the brake pedal. If you have a manual car your right foot will operate the accelerator and brake pedals, while your left will operate the clutch pedal. Either way, you will be using your right foot no matter what country you drive in. This means there is an imbalance in the work that your legs do. After many years of driving, the muscles in your right leg will have performed many more contractions than the muscles in your left leg. This means that the myelin surrounding the nerves in those muscles will have thickened, an adaptation related to muscle memory, or the ability for muscles to become more precise to certain movements. This may lead to an imbalanced use of one leg when performing football tasks such as always trapping or passing the ball with the right leg, simply because the muscles in your right leg are more used to contracting. If you want to be able to use both feet in football, don't drive. Or at least drive a manual car.

Want to be as good as Zidane? Image from xaxor.com

2. Playing chess improves tactical awareness

It is vital to improve your mental attributes such as awareness, confidence, decision making ability etc to improve as a football player. One of these attributes is tactical awareness, the ability to know where you are and where you should be. Chess is basically football played on a smaller field where the game lasts longer and is played at a lower intensity. It is proven that the chess masters have superior intelligence such as spacial awareness, problem solving and concentration. These attributes are basically the same ones that players such as Xavi, Zidane and Scholes have. If you play chess you can also improve these qualities which is the difference between the best players and the good ones.

3. Getting into your pants with the same leg makes your balance asymmetrical

Think about this- which leg do you use first to get into your pants or shorts when you dress? The first leg in is in all likelihood your preferred leg when kicking a football. In other words, since your childhood days you have been dressing and undressing without realising that you have been using the same leg over and over to get in or out of your trousers. If you assume that you change attire twice a day since you were five years old and you are now 25, you have dressed yourself 14,560 times. In a similar way to driving, you have been doing your non-preferred leg a major disservice. Not only has this affected your ability to use both feet, you have affected your balance. Try this experiment- wear different trousers to the one you are wearing now, but use your other leg to get into the trousers first. Not so easy, is it? If you are right footed, you have been overbalancing on your left leg. This means the action of passing, shooting or dribbling with your right foot is accentuated because your left foot is better at balancing your body than your right. If you want to improve your balance on your right leg so that you can use your left foot more in football, swap the leg you use to get into your pants.

4. To improve movement, walk backwards

Not a great point I admit. I was thinking of the movements in football and came to the conclusion that everyday human movement is non-specific to football movement. Football players run forward, run backwards, skip sideways, jump, jog, spin, hop- basically more than just walk, which is what we do in our everyday lives. If you want to improve your physical shape in football, then stop walking to work - skip instead. When you are in your office building, don't walk to your water cooler - walk backwards instead. When you walk up stairs, don't walk - hop up the stairs. These simple modifications in your day to day life will improve your football movement.

5. Playing FIFA helps you deflect blame so your confidence doesn't drop

It is a well known fact of playing Fifa on your game console that we humans refuse to blame ourselves when we concede a goal or lose a game. It is usually the players fault for not being good enough. Either that or you pressed X to pass but the button was faulty. You know what, the other player was cheating. Yep, that has to explain why I've lost every time I've played against my friend. What does this mean to us aspiring football players. It means that you will never blame yourself for mistakes you did. Never blame yourself for losing. It is this mentality which makes us bullet-proof. We will never get a dent on our armour of arrogance. Never accept it was our fault. (Why should it be - I tackled fairly but the referee gave a penalty - conspiracy!). All in all, we will never be hurt, never think it is me that's the problem and never lose our sense of self worth. If you want to never lose confidence in your ability as a football player, play Fifa. But never play as Fernando Torres.

6. Architects have a developed spacial awareness

The chess master moves his pieces in a particular space with obstacles in the way, but an architect designs the space. Not only does he design it, he designs it differently every time. That requires a mastery of spacial awareness and planning ability. Not to mention a real building is on a whole new level to a small board of 64 squares. Do you get what I'm getting at? If you want to improve your spacial awareness and ability to visualise and plan ahead, become an architect. Enough said.

Karate!!! Image from xaxor.com

7. Cycling will shorten hamstrings

On a slightly more scientific tone, it is said that fitness trainers who make their players cycle on a machine to improve their aerobic endurance are doing their hamstrings a disservice. You see, after constant repetition of cycling, your hamstrings will reduce in length due to the constantly shortened state it finds itself in a cycling motion. When a player kicks a ball hard or shoots on goal, the hamstring explosively lengthens as the leg moves away from the body. If your hamstring has been used to contracting in a shortened state, a sudden lengthening in such an action can cause a tear. In short, if you want to increase your chance of getting an injury, cycle. If you are smart, you would stick to good old running.

8. Ice skating improves balance

Ice skating improves balance because your whole body weight is balanced on two extremely thin strips of metal that has a much smaller surface area than your two feet. To improve your balance, take up ice skating. Simple really.

9. Karate kicks means better football kicks

Football is much like karate or taekwondo. In football, you use your leg to kick a ball. In karate, you use your leg to kick many things. Experienced martial artists have a greatly developed kinesthetic sense, the ability to know where your body is in relation to space. When performing a complex spinning kick, a martial artist must know precisely where his leg is and where it will go, as well as the ability to actually move his leg in the desired way. Elite football players also have an acute sense of their body position and can also precisely control the movements of their body and legs. Maybe Bruce Lee would have been a great football player if he hadn't discovered martial arts.

10. Artists can play number 10

I have written about creativity before on this site and on my own blog site. Having thought about it deeply I have come to a single conclusion. Artists are the most creative people on the planet. No doubt.  If you want to be creative as a football player, if you want to be able to make more assists, if you want to be revered like the most creative players in the history of football, I will tell you one piece of advice. Paint!

You can now take off your hats and resume normal life.

Published with permission from Sportskeeda