Actually, I'm in damn good company. For you see, if one attempts to learn about the history of soccer, it's quite natural to realize that soccer's gradual shift from a free wheeling attack oriented game to the defensively focused sport of today is not all together a positive happening.
I've found no finer primer on the subject of soccer than Paul Gardner's masterpiece entitled "The Simplest Game-The Intelligent Fan's Guide to the World of Soccer" (c. 1976, 1994, 1996 by Paul Gardner.) From the very end of the "tactics" section of Mr. Gardner's book, you'll find a sentence which says it all. So from page 226 I quote:
"The challenge for the sport's leaders was to devise new rules that would change that defensive mentality-that would ensure that risk-taking, entertaining soccer could also be winning soccer."
This is exactly what I am devoted to...rule changes which will produce more entertaining soccer.
For those who e-mail me with the sentiment that they don't care if they ever see an 8 goal game, I respond that they must not have a grasp of the history of the game of soccer. For a short glimpse into soccer's past, let's look to one of my favorite magazines, "World Soccer" (December 1999, p. 68), to see which soccer match is chosen by Keir Radnedge, the magazine's executive editor, as "The Greatest Game of All!" In his article with the same name, Radnedge looks back to the 1960 European Champions Cup Final between Real Madrid and Eintracht Frankfurt where 10 goals where scored in regulation, finishing with a final score of 7-3. The following quote from the article's conclusion pretty much sums up Radnedge's thoughts on what happened to offensive minded and entertaining soccer:
"Within a few years defensive tactics and temperamental cynicism changed the face and nature of the game for ever. Catenaccio, the 'wingless wonders', and a myriad other tactical inventions born of the fear of defeat infected European football. The work ethic took over and fitness levels were forced up and up to serve it. Technique and entertainment suffered. The face of the game changed irrevocably."
Should Radnedge's sentiments be a little too technical for your level of soccer education, let's go back to Paul Gardner's "The Simplest Game" (pages 202 and 203) for explanation and illumination:
"It was Italy that provided the most fertile soil for the growth of defensive tactics. The Italians had perfected a system that used the deep-lying fullback seen in Switzerland's 1950 verrou formation. Catenaccio, literally meaning a great big chain, was the name the Italians gave to their system.A chain of defenders, that is, designed to strangle the opposing offense. Three of the fullbacks were given strict man-to-man marking duties. Behind them was the deep fullback-the Italians called him the libero, or free man, because he had no specific opponent to mark. His job was to patrol the entire center of the defense and to quickly close any gaps that might be opened by other defender's errors.
The history of catenaccio tells much about the development of soccer tactics. There was absolutely nothing positive about its origin..."
and then later in page 204,
"There was no denying the success, in terms of results, that catenaccio brought. It did make it very difficult for the opponents to score, and there was always the possibility that the defending team, breaking away suddenly, might snatch a goal. It happened far too many times for it to be accidental.Eventually catenaccio became more than a style of play. It became a mentality that dragged Italian soccer down through boring negativity to almost total sterility. For, inevitably, the big clubs joined in..."
and further down page 204,
"When two so-so teams met and both employed catenaccio, both packing their penalty areas and hoping to snatch a sudden goal at the other end, then the game degenerated into a colossal bore."
And Mr. Gardner also focuses on scoring, as witnessed by this quote from page 221,
"...But what spoke most loudly and most insistently was the game as seen on the field. Not good enough. Italia-90 produced the worst final in the history of the World Cup. "A disaster," commented Rinus Michels. And it touched a new record low on the scoring chart, with 2.21 goals per game.World Cup-94 did a lot better. Goal-scoring went up by 23 percent to 2.71 goals per game. Half a goal per game better..."
But the key difference between Mr. Gardner's scoring analysis and my own is that, while the rest of the soccer world quotes total goals scored per game, I feel that goals scored by the losing team is a more accurate number for gauging the entertainment value of a sports match. By definition, both systems obviously embrace the philosophy:
MORE SCORING IS BETTER.
The difference is that a "total goal" system tracks goals but not the entertainment value of a match, as it gives a higher value to a 8-0 blowout (Germany vs. Saudi Arabia, World Cup 2002) than it does to a competitive 4-3 match where the lead may have changed hands twice. So, while I will concede that the presently used "total goal" system does provide a somewhat valid way to compare soccer scoring historically, it is obviously worthless as a tool for rating today's soccer matches against each other.
The ultimate formula for comparing the entertainment value of a match would no doubt factor in the goal differential during at least 4 points in the match, such as minutes 23, 45, 68, and 90. It would also include a variable for the number of times the lead changed hands, and would doubtless include variables for the number of fouls and cards and shots and corner kicks. Only one goalkeeper stat would need to be included in the formula, and that is for the only save that is more exciting than a goal scored...on a penalty kick attempt. I'll leave final developement of such a formula to the great minds of our time.
Meanwhile, self examination has forced me to accept in myself:
"I'd rather watch a 3-3 draw than a 1-1 draw."
So the best comparison system is to track goals scored by the losing team. It is truly that simple.
But is it even reasonable for me to desire pro soccer reach the 4-3 or even 5-3
scoring level? From the
10-30-1998
issue of "Soccer America" magazine I quote part of Mr. Gardner's contribution to an
editorial roundtable discussion:
"The answer to your -- presumably rhetorical -- question is this: I'd rather see
a 4-3 game than a 1-0 game, assuming both are full of skill and commitment. I
have written on a number occasions that for an attacking player to be good, he
must be confronted by good defenders. Genuine defenders, that is, not cheaters
and foulers. There is of course that pathetic school of thought that holds that
all goals are scored as a result of defensive errors, a barren way of looking at
soccer that leaves no room at all for attacking skill. Presumably, perfection to
those lost souls means a string of 0-0 ties. Anyway, this is all theory. I have
lived through all the decades I'm discussing, I have seen the various types of
soccer. I don't need theory -- I have seen the damage that overly defensive
mentalities inflict on the sport."
Sadly, Chronic Statistical Deprivation is an affliction suffered by many soccer fans here in the USA.
So let's venture over the US Soccer's site for further enlightenment:
Stats Summary: USA MEX
Shots 4 7
Saves 5 1
Corner Kicks 2 7
Fouls 15 19
Offside 4 2
OK, now you do the math.
Above: Soccer "Perfection" in a 'Friendly' Exhibition Match
At right we have an excerpt from Grant Wahl's pre-World Cup 2006 piece for Sports Illustrated which follows our theme. The problem with using the World Cup as an example is complicated because the stakes are simply too high for everyone to simply agree to push forward.
But let's pretend that all were to reach such a meeting of the minds. The following video taken from that tournament's early match between England and Paraguay demonstrates that the prescription for entertaining soccer depends on many factors, for even as England's roster is like a roll call of the football gods - Gerrard, Lampard, Ferdinand, Cole, Beckham, Crouch, Owen, Cole, Terry, Robinson - this match ended in a 1-0 final score, with the lone goal being an own goal by poor Paraguay in the matches 3rd minute.
No video? Get the DivX Web Player for Windows or Mac
Please don't think that I'm in any way finding fault with Team Paraguay for failure to 'play beautiful', as it was England who repeatedly resorted to an 'over the top' attack to the 6' 7" Peter Crouch, even though they led for 87 of the 90 minutes. Make no mistake, in my mind consistent long ball football is nothing more than a cynical attack on the very concept of entertaining futbol...and that's doubly so when employed consistently by a team in the lead.
Image Credit: Telemundo Television Network & FIFA
When considering the above claim that "the coaches of Germany and Italy say they'll push forward," keep in mind that tournament's Germany v. Italy semi-final match was at 0-0 until just 3 minutes prior to penalty kick time. While such "push forward" talk might sell more magazines and produce larger market shares for the networks, it doesn't reflect the defensive mindsets which dominate soccer tournaments.
Luckily, for a revelation of the true coach's mindset at the international level, let's take a quick look at the other 2006 semi-final match: France 1 - Portugal 0. The article at left quotes Portugal's Coach Luiz Felipe Scolari regarding his expectations when two evenly matched teams play:
"A normal outcome would have been a scoreless draw, then 30 minutes of overtime, then penalties."
Let me ask you, does this sound like a guy who's committed to "pushing forward"?
Now I know that most of you are thinking:
"Yeah sure Mike, but that is one single coach's attitude, and Portugal's coach at that. It means nothing."
Let me humbly encourage you to pull your head out of...uh...the sand. This is the very same Coach Scolari who led the world's primary purveyor of soccer joy, Team Brazil, to be champion of the 2002 FIFA World Cup. Then in 2006 he takes Team Portugal to the Semi-Finals, and looses to France 0-1...barely...while embracing his limited "normal outcome" philosophy:
"A normal outcome would have been a scoreless draw, then 30 minutes of overtime, then penalties."
Since most other coaches look up to the likes of Scolari for inspiration and illumination, I'd say the the sport of soccer is hurtin' for certain. In tournament soccer, winning isn't everything...it's the only thing.
Enough from the coaches already! Surely the players have something to say about the entertainment value of the beautiful game?!? Sadly, I haven't come across much, but then again the players seem to be delighted with a season of 1-0 matches just as long as it gets them into the payoffs. And not just the defenders, as midfielders and strikers seem just as content with the soccer status quo. But I have found an exception at right:
I don't know about you, but it sounds a little like sour grapes to me. I mean, how bland can The Ukraine be? Well, from the research I've done, I'd say they were pretty bland, but they have a right to be unentertaining since they suffer from a near total talent deficit, except for one player...Andriy Shevchenko. So let's take a look at Ukraine's FIFA World Cup 2006 record:
Spain 4 - Ukraine 0
Ukraine 4 - Saudia Arabia 0
Ukraine 1 - Tunisia 0
Ukraine 0 - Switzerland 0 settled by PK's
Italy 3 - Ukraine 0
And now let's consider the preliminaries leading up to the World Cup:
|
Yikes! Can you even imagine how boring those two matches against reigning European Champion Greece were? I'm thinking both compared favorably with that History Channel Mini-Series "Silent Thunder: The Calvin Coolidge Presidency".
Above Image from Soccer America Magazine
But really folks, I'm a little suspicious of any player speaking out against "The Beautiful Game" in any form or fashion. So before I make Jon Dahl Tomasson my poster child for entertaining soccer, let's dig a little deeper to see if he truly has 'paid his dues.'
A quick survey of his football resume reveals that this is truly one of the ultimate cases of "the pot calling the kettle black", since Tomasson's play for AC Milan (2002-2004) makes him an accomplice in some of soccer's most unentertaining matches, such as the following UEFA Champion's League matches in 2003:
Title: Winning Soccer, circa 2003
Source: World Soccer Magazine, July 2003
Ironically, it seems that Tomasson is uniquely qualified to serve as an 'expert witness' on the subject of unentertaining soccer. And take note of who scored Milan's only goal during these 3 matches...the man Shevchenko himself. Very interesting. I just pray that Shevchenko's presence at Chelsea doesn't inspire Coach Jose Mourinho to borrow too many pages from the AC Milan playbook. That would be tragic.
Let's consider yet another writer's opinion of low scoring soccer. Have a handkerchief ready, for you have no empathy at all if you can't feel the latin-esque pain which Andres Cantor is enduring as he describes the scoreless 1994 World Cup Final on page 236 of his book entitled "GOOOAL!-A Celebration of Soccer":
"The Italians' ordered, zone defense neutralized any attempted breakthrough on the part of the Brazilians. Faithful to their plan of defending themselves-even though they did risk a little more than in the old days-they left Brazil with few scoring chances. For the Italians, Daniele Massaro had the only scoring opportunity, but he squandered it when confronted with an inspired Taffarel. The uneventful regulation time ended without score being opened. In the half-hour overtime, only the entrance of young Brazilian striker Viola gave the Italians a fright. But it was too late, nobody was trying anymore."
These are the voices of honesty, not those of timid souls who are afraid that soccer is too frail for the truth to be spelled out for all to see. But unfortunately they reflect soccer's minority vote. By contrast, soccer's majority prefer to cling to the status quo, agreeing with the writings of Paddy Agnew in his article entitled "No Points for Losers" (World Soccer Magazine, July 2003, page 9) from which I quote:
"While one can only stand back and admire the sporting behavior of the Old Trafford [Man U's] fans who stood to applaud Ronaldo off the pitch following his hat-trick in the second leg of United's tie with [Real] Madrid, you have to wonder about the tactical awareness of those same fans if they felt that United's 'stand back and slug it out' approach was anything other than football suicide."
and then further down the page Agnew continues on with his praise of Italian style soccer:
"The belief that Italian football is based on a negative, cheating, percentage game is hard to eradicate from some minds...The great joy about the 'beautiful game' is that one man's 'negative football' can be another man's 'winning football'..."
Look, I hate reading that winning is the most important consideration in soccer. And I'm thrown into a deep dark depression when an influential writer expresses the belief that - AT HOME - mighty Manchester United's fans were at best 'simple' in their desire for a wide open, toe-to-toe, slugfest with arch rival Real Madrid.
But sadly, this is what the world's soccer coaches face day in and day out.
So while a few writer's subtle or even open support for more entertaining soccer is all good and well intentioned, it has had no effect on the attitude of soccer's coaches and players, who know exactly where Coach Dean Smith is coming from as he justified his use of the infamous "Four Corners Offense" in his book "A Coaches Life" (page 81):
![Source: Fort Worth Star-Telegram, July 10, 2003, p.7D in an article entitled "A Step Forward for [MLS's FC Dallas] Burn" by Tobias Xavier Lopez](5_Defenders.jpg)
"We didn't want a good game. We wanted to win."
Today, Coach Smith's justification is the battle cry of the vast majority of soccer's coaching community, for -- unless most of a team's players prefer to be addressed by their nicknames (i.e. Pele, Ronaldo, Kaka, Kimbroinho) -- winning soccer is all about defense. We can criticize until the cows come home, but as long as the first goal settles most soccer matches, defense will continue to be the game's first order of business.
Source: Fort Worth Star-Telegram, July 10, 2003, p.7D in an article entitled "A Step Forward for [MLS's Dallas] Burn" by Tobias Xavier Lopez
Check out this 2005 article by Independent Online which includes quotes on the subject of more entertaining soccer from two of the EPL's top three coaches, Arsenal's Wenger and Chelsea's Mourinho:
"London - Arsenal manager Arsene
Wenger has warned that boring soccer will drive away fans.
Premiership attendances are down on last season and the entertainment value on
offer has been criticised..."
Of course this is more than slightly humorous, since during that same time Coach Wenger was in the process of reengineering his team from the 2003-2004 side which was truly one of the most attack oriented sides in soccer history, beating quality EPL teams by scores of 5-3 and 5-4 on consecutive weeks, to the defensive oriented side of the 2005-2006 season (documented at right) which did so well in European play.
But that said, we need to accept that soccer coaches are absolutely powerless to change today's low scoring reality. Basic human survival teaches us that coaches, like the rest of us, must embrace the following logic:
"First order of business is providing for their family, and this is done by keeping their job. With as many draws as there are in soccer today, a soccer coach keeps his or her job by not loosing matches. Winning is a secondary concern."
Source: Associated Press/Dallas Morning News, July 20, 2003, P. 5cc
Today we have a reality where the deck is clearly stacked in favor of the defense, so there is more to be lost by embracing a philosophy of attacking offensive soccer than there is to be gained. And the sad truth is that one need only to look at both the success and the worldwide popularity of defensive minded AC Milan to understand that without rules changes this will continue to be so.
If you are one of the hard core purists who refuses to budge on this point, I encourage you to read up on what seems to be regarded as the most entertaining soccer team ever: "The Magical Magyars of Hungary." This is a team which went to England in 1953 and won 6-3 in Wembley Stadium, to become the first non-British team to beat mighty England at home. A year later a revenge motivated England traveled to Budapest only to be given a 7-1 clinic in offensive minded soccer. Fifty years later the British soccer press expresses a great love for this Hungarian team, because these guys could score goals and provided entertaining soccer -- even if they were embarrassing England in the process. I wish that you would embrace my belief that today's teams--with just a little help in the form of minor rules changes--can score far more goals and provide entertaining soccer.
Mike the Apostle** Kimbro
To return, better to hit the Back Arrow Button,
** apostle, definition #6 as per the College Edition of The Random House Dictionary: "a pioneer of any reform movement"
PS - For a more recent expression of our theme, consider the following:
I gotta give my boy Paul Gardner credit for uncorking that bottle of
whoop-ass, probably in response to:
The thought that Mr. Gardner and I were there at Pizza-Hut Park, watching the same MLS Championship Match, breathing the same air...well it gives me goose-bumps. Of course, Paul was probably looking down from the sky-boxes, rubbing elbows with soccer's Hoiti Toiti, while I was enjoying the game in my end zone seat as the guest of Mike and his sons Garrett & Matt. While I like to think that I was at home amongst my kindred spirits...the "common man," I must admit that the term 'entertainment' takes on a whole different meaning when you have a drum pounder sitting immediately behind you. Such is life in the end zone seats.