In Defense of Direct Football
And How an Italian Novelist Can Help
In football, the aim is pure: shift the ball from one side of the field to the other, with a view to putting the ball into the net. Over the years many systems have been devised as the best way to do that. But broadly speaking, for me, there are two schools of thought: the pragmatist view (under which I would file the Italian
catenaccio system, and typical "English" football), and those who do not treat the playing of football as a means to scoring a goal, but as the goal itself. Here I would include most Latin countries (in particular the current Barcelona and Spain side, the
samba futebol of Brazil, and some English sides - mainly Arsenal, but also, to an extent, 1980s Liverpool).
Often the battle between the two schools has been one of opposites: football/anti-football; attractive/boring; tidy/physical; indirect/direct. It is the last dualism here that I'm particularly interested in, the notion that "direct" football is unattractive, and the wrong way to play the game.
The English Envy
I attribute the English media's obsessions with the current Barcelona side; the current Arsenal side, with a footballing envy: English football has never been attractive, right from the days of when we stuck with a physical 2-3-5 whilst the rest of the world began to change; through to the likes of Graham Taylor, Sam Allardyce, Roy Hodgson, and Steve Bruce. What hurt the most, presumably, was that all the while Scotland were doing it much, much better. From the days of Queen's Park in the 1870s, who developed a passing game which worked wonders against the English system (a system based on physicality and dribbling); right through to the wave of great Scottish managers in the 1900s: Bill Shankly, Matt Busby, Jock Stein, Mr. Alex Ferguson; even newer managers such as Owen Coyle are proving themselves to be more tactically adept than their English counter-parts.
This envy manifests itself in either a begrudging admiration for so-called "pretty" football, or a passionate defense of how the Premier League is the "best in the world". Neither of which, I believe, is the right attitude to have. Instead the English must reshape their concept of direct football: rather than it being a "hoof it up to the big man, see what he can make of it"-direct, direct football should become minimal, sleek; full of lightness: the true end is scoring the goal, and that should come about at any cost - but nowadays, football is not so physical, not so brutish. There is no longer a need for a big man: the big man must adapt his game, become useful with the ball at his feet, and create chances for himself. Importantly, one must reshape one's notion of beauty.
Exactitude
For the ancient Egyptians, exactitude was shown as a feather that served as a weight, on the scales for weighing the souls of the dead. For Italo Calvino, in his 1988 book
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...&resnum=6&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false, a collection of writings on what he believes the pillars of modern literature should rest on, exactitude is defined as three things:
(i) a well defined and well calculated plan for the work in question
(ii) an evocation of clear, incisive, memorable visual images; and
(iii) a language as precise as possible both in choice of words and in expression of the subtleties of thought and imagination
Where does this tie in with football? Well, the great Bill Shankly once said that “football is a simple game based on the giving and taking of passes, of controlling the ball and of making yourself available to receive a pass. It is terribly simple". It's not hard to see where the two philosophies overlap: in the pass-and-move Liverpool side of the late 80s we saw both "clear, incisive, memorable visual images" (that is to say, the passing of the ball, the movement) and a "well defined and well calculated plan for the work in question".
When Rafa came to Liverpool, we saw glimpses of Calvino's exactitude. Beauty for me was redefined: football became again about scoring goals in the most direct way possible. With Alonso acting as a quarter-back, spraying passes out to the Kuyt and Riera, we became a machine; a sublime force that dominated teams all over Europe. But our football wasn't the most traditionally attractive, there wasn't any neat tricks, and none of the players were particularly skillful (certainly with players like Mascherano, Lucas, Kuyt and Arbeloa, we had a great work-rate - something crucial). But when we got going it was a sight to behold, for me even more so than Barcelona doing their neat triangular passes and dominating possession. We stretched the opposition, pulled them about like waves crashing into a ship, before finally playing the incisive pass; the killer blow. There was simply no need for what my mother would describe as "dilly-dallying" on the ball.
Less is more. And this is true of football. I dream of a team where the ball is passed around the back-four, slowly advancing to the midfield, until the opposition is dragged so out of position that only 3 passes need to be made until the ball is in the back of the net, simply because of the brilliant off-the-ball work by all players. Whilst this sounds alarmingly like Graham Taylor or Charles Hughes, I can assure you it is not. The long pass may be used occasionally, but a team must look to have the ball on the ground as much as possible. Crucially, all players must have great control and passing technique. As Bill Shankly says:
"Above all, the main aim is that everyone can control a ball and do the basic things in football. It's control and pass, control and pass, all the time. At the back you're looking for someone who can control the ball instantly and give a forward pass. It gives them more space and time to breathe. If you delay, the opposition have all run back behind the ball. It's a very simplified affair, of course, very economical."
Adaptability and fluidity is also key. Whilst I don't think a
totaalvoetbal method is entirely the way to go - and there are flaws there - the ability for a defender to come into attack, and a forward to drop back into defence is crucial, not only to keep the opposition guessing, but also to create the impression of an advancing unit, and to manipulate the shape of the pitch.
Final Thoughts
A philosophy of exactitude creates a team; a unit - they all carry out largely the same duties (in both attacking and defending). It allows for a system, of which new players can come in at ease. It creates a beautiful contradiction: one must be direct, but also patient (for the final ball). And it also allows for maximum fitness levels. When off the ball squeeze the space; press. When on the ball, slow the game down, and then speed it up again. The back four in a system of exactitude should be great passers of the ball.
In essence, the roles are completely reversed. The midfield and attack do all the pressing, hounding to get the ball back. The ball is then placed back to the back four, who can pass the ball around whilst the midfield either regain energy or create space. Then it's all about timing. Quick passing and moving up the pitch, and a goal is scored.
Direct play has gotten a lot of (correct) bad press in the past. But I argue that that was not direct football. The aforementioned, in my view, is direct football, and it's not a bad thing at all.
