Why James Lawton is no Shakespeare but is a stopped clock

Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day? Well no, I’m going to compare you to the best summer of my life when the beer and girls were plentiful, the sun was endless and the music was endlessly sublime. And I’m going to pick your worst day for that comparison, the equivalent of a miserable wet Wednesday in Skegness when everywhere else in the country was bounteously sunny but you were under the only black cloud in the country. I have to be fair you know.

I have immense sympathy for sports writers who have to knock out an opinion column each day. Who have to try to find an angle on events that everyone else hasn’t covered eighteen times already. It can’t be easy, and will inevitably lead to plenty of crap going out between the odd gems. Such a piece is James Lawton’s linking of the Barcelona of Messi and Johann Cruyff’s 65th birthday this week, and his comparing of the man currently dubbed the finest player in the world with two who have received that accolade in the past.

It’s no bad thing to question majority opinion – indeed, as we’re often reminded, it’s part of why a free press is a good idea. And neither is it a bad thing to remind modern fans, to whom Cruyff and Maradona may be merely names their dad goes on about, that those old guys could play too.  But when it’s done in a haze of dubious assertions it’s quite difficult to take seriously. Let’s take it apart piece by piece…

‘It was the conviction, impossible to swerve by anyone seeing both players at the top of their games, that if Messi is equipped with a stunning array of gifts, there is not much doubt that Cruyff would have been a more persistent threat to the security of Roberto di Matteo's hastily reconstituted defence.’

Now I freely admit that I never saw Cruyff at the height of his powers. And the thing is Lawton couldn’t have seen much of him either – British TV didn’t exactly broadcast a plethora of Ajax games in those days and neither did anyone see much of the Dutch unless they played England or were at the World Cup. And a persistent threat? Well, leaving aside the crashing of a penalty against the woodwork he created a goal for Iniesta and crashed a shot against the post late on that would’ve put Barcelona back ahead against a side that had displayed little attacking intent. There’s also the intelligence displayed when, knowing he’d be hunted down by a pack of Chelsea defenders every time he touched the ball, he drew players away to try and create space for others or dropped deep to try and affect the game. But as his team ended up losing, let’s ignore an intelligent, hardworking display and say that Cruyff would’ve done better. He may well have, but equally he may well have ended up as frustrated as Messi. The game of ‘what if’ is impossible to resolve.

The difference is that while Messi weaves mesmerising spells at the heart of a gifted team drilled to play the game a certain, and generally ravishing, way, he has been much less awesome in changing its direction, and impetus, in the kind of impasse imposed by Chelsea on Tuesday night, and Real Madrid three days earlier.

Which ignores that he’d done exactly that on the stroke of halftime in setting up Iniesta’s goal (repeating the feat from the last seconds of the 2009 Champions League semi-final which won the tie) and had pretty much made Real his bitch with thirteen goals to his name against them. Oh and that he’s already Barcelona’s record goalscorer at 24 with an extraordinary goalscoring duel with Ronaldo unmatched in the modern era. Might too much be being read into one game?

'There is now talk of signs of weariness in the 24-year-old Argentine after the years of Barça plenty but there is another possibility ignored by the most fervent of his admirers. It is that while he owns the most beautiful talent, and that in certain circumstances he has proved unplayable, he may just lack a quality that was so often the signature of all his rivals at the top of the all-time list of great players.

This is – maybe, and of course time will tell soon enough – the ability to carry a team enduring a fall in both confidence and rhythm.

When Cruyff was Messi's age he was launching himself on a run of three straight European Cup wins with Ajax – and a World Cup campaign in 1974 which ended in a defeat in a Munich final that many still believe was due not to any shortfall in Dutch, and especially Cruyff, brilliance but an overweening desire to make fools of Franz Beckenbauer's West Germany.'

And when Messi was the age he is now… he already has two Champions League medals (having scored in both finals) and has just come off the back of being the key player in a hat trick of league triumphs. In terms of honours he’s over achieved. And neither is he done yet. Judging great players by the number of medals in their cabinet is, of course, facile - are the likes of Georges Weah and Best any less great for not having played at a World Cup due to playing for (in national terms) footballing minnows, much less ever having made it to a final? Of course not.

‘The elevation of Messi in recent years has been inevitable and in many ways deserved, at least to a point. If his impact with Argentina has been limited thus far, his performances with Barça have touched extraordinary levels. He has been both relentless and luminous, but then he has operated in a team which has been consistently shaped around his particular gifts of skill and timing.

His compatriot Diego Maradona led otherwise unexceptional Argentina and Napoli teams to, respectively, the World Cup and Serie A titles. Alfredo di Stefano was the very heartbeat of Real Madrid's first stranglehold on the European Cup – and at half-time in a friendly match at Old Trafford, the young Nobby Stiles witnessed the great man deliver a withering dressing-down to a new Real player. It was Ferenc Puskas.’

And here are two more facile comparisons. Maradona’s achievements with Napoli and Argentina are rightly lauded but on the flip side he was unable to handle the pressure at Barcelona. Messi does so with a grace and joie de vivre. Maradona was better suited to being the central genius of the team on the pitch with no challenge to his authority, Messi is suited to being the star player in a team built mainly of the finest players in their positions today. And as for di Stefano dressing Puskas down? That’s just a difference in personality. It’s no reflection of greatness, more a different way of doing things. How do we know Messi hasn’t said similar things to his teammates?

Then of course there was Pele, of whom it was said that he never did anything that wasn't expressly for the benefit of the team.

That’s not even a judgment, it’s a closing time assertion stated as fact.

'Such men, if you believe all that you read, have been swept off the high road of football by the sheer virtuosity of Lionel Messi. Yet this week surely brought the need for a little more caution.

This did not require the downgrading of a superlative player, the one who remains the great hope of football in its purest expression. It was more a case of letting history run its course – and acknowledging one man who, for all his birthday candles, surely remains in the race.'

Jonathan Wilson, when commenting on Barcelona-Chelsea, quoted Juanma Lillo in saying that a common footballing error is to judge a process by the results. Chelsea achieved a quite wonderful triumph based on outstandingly disciplined defending… and plenty of fortune. Is Messi’s greatness questionable because he missed a penalty or that his late second leg shot struck the post, to go with two other efforts at Stamford Bridge which would’ve changed the complexion of the tie completely? No more so than if a volcano hadn’t erupted to force Barcelona to undertake a grueling coach journey or Bojan hadn’t had a goal wrongly disallowed in the 2010 semi-final. Lawton’s point, that one failure must give us pause for thought is false – every player in history has come off the pitch having disappointing games, or unable to inspire their team to victory. Cruyff, for instance, was never able to inspire Barcelona to European Cup triumph on the pitch. His process of using comparators, to measure one great player in the middle of a so far magnificent career against long completed careers, is deeply flawed, serving to attempt to diminish one player on the basis of one bad night against the rose tinted memory of other greats.  If these poor results (and a rewatch of the game concentrating on Messi’s performance would show it wasn’t a particularly bad night in any terms bar the result) are repeated then maybe Lawton’s theory may have some merit. On the basis of one single game decided by the finest of margins though, it is not. But sometimes flawed processes can produce the right result – call is stopped clock syndrome.  Lawton’s reminder that Messi has other players from the past who could rival his abilities is a fair one – it’s simply that everything leading up to it is so much space filling hot air.

But hey, what do I know? I’m not the reigning sportswriter of the year…

The Aesthetic Delusion - Musings On Chelsea vs Barcelona

The headlines, rightly, told of a great night for Chelsea. The night the finest club side of the era came to Stamford Bridge and left with nothing, a well worked counter attack in first half injury time combining with an exemplary defensive display to give them a fighting chance going to the Camp Nou. The artisans brought the artists down to earth. And in doing so they proved how right and wrong Dani Alves was in his pre-match interviews.

Alves’ comments were wilfully misinterpreted by at least one commentator, the one currently masquerading as Sports Writer of the Year.  Commenting on the previous semi-final between the sides ,when Chelsea were undoubtedly a better side and Barcelona still not quite the footballing masterpiece they’ve become, Alves pointed out that Chelsea had lost because they kept belting the ball away and giving the ball back to a side that lives by possession of the ball. And eventually Barcelona had a chance and took it. James Lawton of The Independent chose to splutter about the Chelsea penalty appeals that night and how Alves was guilty of ‘not so much historical revisionism as outrageous provocation’.  Let’s leave aside the fallacy that a penalty is a certain goal and how any of the appeals being given wouldn’t have resulted in Barcelona and Chelsea playing out precisely the same events if any of the appeals were given and scored (yes Chelsea would likely have gone on to win, but that’s by no means a certainly) and instead point out that Alves did mention the appeals in his interview. It’s a telling difference between the attitude of the teams that his view was Barcelona couldn’t control the referee (although Jose Mourinho would undoubtedly disagree) and instead concentrated on the factors that were within their control. Lawton’s correct to point out that the decisions by Tom Henning Ovrebo that night were a major factor in the result, but his dismissal of Alves’ analysis is incorrect – in terms of game play Alves was absolutely right. After Abidal’s dismissal Chelsea were facing ten men and with a 1-0 lead chose to adhere to the tactic of repeatedly clearing their lines and giving Barcelona the ball. Alves’ point was that denying Barcelona the ball would likely have been a more effective tactic, presenting a challenge they might not have been used to and not been able to handle with Chelsea having an extra man to circulate the ball with. They abdicated control of the game and presented Barcelona with a lifeline – for all Chelsea fans can argue over those decisions Ovrebo didn’t gift Barcelona that last chance.

But where Alves’ analysis falls down a little is his provocative theory that Chelsea’s approach that night was borne of fear. It wasn’t, it was simply that Chelsea in 2009 weren’t (and aren’t) a side built to dominate possession, particularly against a side like Barcelona. The part of Claude Makelele’s game that no-one talks about, his quietly effective passing and eternal availability to receive a pass from a colleague who might otherwise be in trouble has never been replicated, not by Mikel, Ramires, Essien or Meireles. And if there’s no regular short effective pass then the long ball for a striker to battle for becomes the uppermost option in any defender’s mind, particularly those playing in the physical hothouse of the English Premier League. That instinctive option is what players will fall back on in high stakes, high pressure situations such as a Champions League semi-final. Is that a result of fear? Well that’s a philosophical conundrum dependent on your point of view. And in Alves’ view, where his entire footballing upbringing has been based on a possession strategy through Brazilian origins and his subsequent career at Sevilla and Barcelona, it’s a perfectly valid view, indeed it’s probably the natural one for him to have.

Just as from a Chelsea and English point of view it makes sense to repudiate it. The possession game is the natural one for Barcelona, taken to a logical extreme since the measures Cruyff implemented when brought in as manager bore fruit. It’s not an approach which comes easily to British sides, as often made obvious by their ineffectiveness in European competition in its infancy and immediately after the Heysel ban. There are rare exceptions to the rule – the Liverpool of Paisley and Fagan, Wenger’s Arsenal,  Ferguson’s United after Beckham’s departure, which integrated Carlos Queiroz’s tactical nous with Paul Scholes’ passing ability to enable them to retain the ball (the signings of Juan Veron and Michael Carrick could be seen as an attempted move toward a more possession based game than the counterattacking one normally associated with Ferguson) and even Benitez’s Liverpool which was centred around the passing of Xabi Alonso. It’s arguably the relative lack of the midfielder with vision and the passing ability to execute it which has led to such high scoring games as seen in the first half of the Premier League season, and is even a reason behind the poor second half to Liverpool’s season, with Lucas’ injury robbing them of their one player with the ability to control the game.  Noticeably United’s league form and their defence improved once Scholes returned and, with his intelligent distribution, they were able to control games again. Controlling games seemingly remains an alien mindset to the British game, Benitez and Wenger often coming under fire for their perceived obsession with it.  But then isn’t that only sensible as if you’re controlling games you’re more likely to win them than if they descend into chaos?

Back to the narrative though, and with Makelele’s departure Chelsea lost the one player they had who was truly capable of controlling games. With him they’d have had little chance of matching Barcelona’s obsession with possession, without him no chance whatsoever. At that point any manager who’s ascended to the level of taking charge of a Champions League side would sensibly dismiss playing Barcelona at their own game as unworkable. Indeed, as can be seen from Barcelona’s eye opening possession statistics all managers have essentially dismissed attempting to take on Barcelona by matching their aesthetic. Instead, it makes far more sense to look at playing to strengths and looking at what’s worked to counter Barcelona in the past. This Barcelona’s most famous defeat came in the2010 Champions League semi-finals. Leaving aside the quite reasonable contentions of Eyjafjallajökull’s ash cloud meaning they had to travel almost a day by coach rather than hours by air and a wrongly disallowed late goal, as Alves’ words and Guardiola’s attitude would have us do, the root of the strategy used by Jose Mourinho’s Inter was to strangle the space for Barcelona’s passing in the final third of the pitch at the Camp Nou. It’s the only proven approach which makes sense against Barcelona, and Alves’ talk of fear can also be seen as an attempt to throw Chelsea off their potential course. But it’s also an approach which plays to a strength of this Chelsea squad, a defensive base which is still largely that built by Mourinho and which set the English league record for fewest goals conceded in a season. Disciplined defending comes naturally, even with Makelele’s departure, and the physicality of Didier Drogba poses problems for a side which may work hard but isn’t built around the deployment of strength as an attribute beyond what’s necessary. That’s the aim, and one common to Hiddink and Di Matteo’s teams three years apart. Di Matteo and his staff added wrinkles for the 2012 first leg, Mikel often venturing what, for him, was nosebleedingly high up the pitch (around halfway) to hassles Busquets. Cole and Ramires provided a pacey attacking threat down the Barcelona right flank to try and give Alves second thoughts, and when Messi tried to find space he was largely muffled by multiple defenders. If you were to reduce this to national stereotypes (a dangerous game given the multinational nature of Chelsea and key foreign players for Barcelona) the games amounted to English discipline against Spanish flair. In 2009, as Alves pointed out, English discipline deserted the Chelsea troops, in 2012 it did not and for one crucial moment it deserted Barcelona as they lost the ball and succumbed to the fast counter attack Fabregas had talked about in his pre-match interviews.  Chelsea did not lose either of the 2009 games to Barcelona, and with the win at Stamford Bridge it’s evident that their tactics were well suited all those games. That’s not fear, that’s pragmatism.

But then it’s hard to argue Barcelona got their tactics badly wrong either. They progressed to that 2009 final, achieving the desired result against an awkward opponent and the statistics on all but the scoreboard last night were the usual avalanche in their favour – 79% possession, 24 attempts on goal and the home side only registering one shot on target (none after halftime) to cherry pick three. That sort of statistical avalanche is the hallmark of their game week after week and given their results it’s hard to say that anything was wrong about their game bar profligacy. There was nothing to suggest that Guardiola should change his methods – Fabregas should certainly have scored one of his two chances, Alexis and Pedro beat Cech but not the woodwork. And the goal was through the area where Alves nominally protects but was upfield for. Chelsea exploited a minor weakness in the Barcelona system, but given the goals regularly provided by the attacking impetus of Alves it’s not something they’ll change – earlier in the season Madrid caught them for a quick opening goal after an underhit Valdes pass but Guardiola refused to change the way Barcelona played due to one incident. Believe the evidence of your eyes or the bare statistics but it’s evident who the better pure football team were last night. One of football’s great strengths though is that a performance of discipline such as Chelsea’s last night can at least see them matching the better team and securing a result. No matter your methods, buying the best or developing a supernatural youth system, a game isn’t decided simply by having better players on the pitch.

The thing is that for all the justified praise heaped on Chelsea they rode their luck – if Alexis or Pedro had caught the ball slightly more sweetly or if Fabregas hit his shot too well for Ashley Cole to clear off the line then the narrative would be  different; brave Chelsea can’t hang on to their advantage. Just as both side appeared to have their tactics right three years ago and fortune fell Barcelona’s way this night fortune favoured Chelsea. Because sometimes both teams in a match get their tactics right and the story is simply of how one player or another deals with a moment of pressure better –and individuals are one of those things it’s often difficult to control in football, no matter the instructions you give them.

All this goes to prove is where Alves made his cardinal error in his interview. He asserted that a policy of attack was superior to a defensive one and would always beat it. Barcelona’s football can verge on sublime at times; the art of the pass taken to its seemingly ultimate conclusion. And it can seem invincible without the favours of outrageous fortune as they hog the ball for long periods, their passing as hypnotic as a cobra before striking. But just as the cobra can come up against a mongoose so Barcelona can be beaten by the sort of tactics Chelsea displayed.  This is an indictment of one of football’s great fallacies; that a team based on attacking football is automatically superior to a defensive one on anything but aesthetic grounds. It’s why Chelsea’s achievement was more impressive – in an era when the press will almost automatically praise a team which incessantly attacks (thereby providing them with entertainment) so it will underestimate a team of an uglier style and, over a long term, damn them for that approach. Given the extent to which football has become part of the entertainment industry (and the Sky revolution of the 90s placed it firmly there) it’s become one of the orthodoxies of the game that teams need to entertain. Of course, as a sport, entertainment is actually a secondary consideration to a contest between two sides so it’s not true. If anything, entertainment is a by-product and that’s the fallacy that Alves’ words propagate, the aesthetic delusion. However good they were in footballing terms the great sides – Madrid of the 50s, Inter of the 60s, Bayern and Ajax of the 70s,Liverpool of the 70s and 80s, Milan of the 90s, Madrid’s Galacticos and up to Barcelona today found their own methods of effective defence. They were capable of not just dazzling sides but putting the work ethic in when faced with the likes of the modern Stoke on a wet Wednesday in February.

Will Chelsea’s bloody-mindedness win them through? It’s going to require another performance of iron discipline and concentration in Barcelona, and almost certainly another few moments where they ride their luck. But fortune already favours them in one important way – while Chelsea face Arsenal in an important but not season deciding game Barcelona face probably the most important game of their league season, the home Clasico in which anything but a win all but hands the league to Madrid. You’re unlikely to hear Jose moan about the scheduling which favours his side either, as you might have if his team had been the ones playing a Wednesday-Saturday-Tuesday schedule. But if Barcelona don’t win? Well perhaps Guardiola will be too much of a gentleman to mention it, and Mourinho, eager to perpetuate the Special One myth, certainly won’t, but once again the fortune of the cup draw will have played a role. And more than likely Mourinho’s team will have done the ugly things well. It’s undeniable that the philosophy of Barcelona is the more aesthetically pleasing but if they win, or Chelsea do to Barcelona what probably their finest team had done to them in the 2005 semi-final perhaps it’s time to start giving proper credit to the teams that win ugly.

Not that I’ll stop enjoying Barcelona more than Chelsea. But then that’s entertainment…