Monday, August 17th, 2009...8:49 pm
Beautiful Games
Years have gone by and I’ve finally learned to accept myself for who I am: a beggar for good soccer. I go about the world, hand outstretched, and in the stadiums I plead: “A pretty move, for the love of God.”
-Eduardo Galeano, Soccer in Sun and Shadow
This past weekend the English Premier League played the first games of its 2009-10 season. For many of you this is of absolutely no consequence. Personally, I enjoyed watching my beloved Gunners cruise to a 6-1 win over Everton as I sipped a Guinness and slowly picked away at a plate of baked beans and bangers at an Irish pub near my house.
As I sat there enjoying my breakfast, an esoteric notion I tossed around this past spring crept its way back into my mind.
I was standing in a different pub here in Chicago, packed to the brim with Hispanics, English ex-pats, and the few, oft-maligned Anglo-Americans who are brave enough to acknowledge their love of soccer. We all held our collective breath as the clock struck 90, and Chelsea grew ever closer to its goal of defeating Barcelona and returning to the Champions League final where it would face Manchester United, who had defeated Chelsea during penalty kicks in the previous year’s final.
Although the score stood at 1-0, a single goal by Barca would defeat Chelsea. (It would be the only away goal of the series. In the Champions League, if two teams have the same number of goals scored, the most away goals scored is the initial tiebreaker.)
The thought of Chelsea moving on was deflating for a number of reasons: European football is a financial Wild West and perpetually dominated by a select group of teams, of which Chelsea and Manchester United are perennial members. By no means are Barcelona a band of scrappy upstarts; Barca is as much a traditional powerhouse as their opponent that day. But something about a rematch of the previous year’s final struck me as cynical, if not outright boring.
The great power politics of professional football aside, there was something both magisterial and insurgent about that Barca team. For you see, the 2009 Barca squad played the game “the right way.”
The terms right and wrong make their way into the sporting lexicon all too often, but infrequently in this manner. This was not a reference to a refusal to use performance-enhancing drugs, laudable off-the-field activity, or even easily identifiable examples of sportsmanship. It was a reference to a number of aesthetic and moral considerations, typified by clubs such as Barca and Arsenal and nations such as Brazil and Holland, made on the pitch.
Brian Phillips of the earth-shatteringly awesome Run of Play gave his thoughts on the significance of the Barca-Chelsea match-up prior to the game described above:
If you take the obligation to play the game in the “right” (i.e., attacking, flowing, intricate, “beautiful”) way as an extension of the sense of moral cause that attaches to Barcelona (and I think you can, since, as joao points out, Barça teams “are designed to be a demonstration of their philosophical motivations”) then the conflict between virtue and effectiveness that he describes here is also the key to understanding the Barça-Chelsea match. Chelsea were playing to achieve a certain result, they devised a plan that they believed would effectively achieve it, and then they executed that plan (successfully, as it turned out). Barça—though winning the game was surely uppermost in the minds of the players—were playing in a style that was haunted by an ideal, and they weren’t prepared to surrender the ideal even if it might have meant winning the match. Like a few other teams blessed with extraordinary technical ability, especially Wenger’s Arsenal, they seem to train with the assumption that if they realize the ideal, the wins will come. But implicitly, maybe even unconsciously in Barcelona’s case, it’s the ideal, and not the wins, that they’re primarily striving for.
Phillips’ remark regarding Chelsea’s successful execution of their plan is a reference to the series’ first leg, in which Chelsea employed a style of enforced entropy, bringing the game to a grinding halt and forcing a 0-0 tie. When we left our story several paragraphs ago, it seemed as if they would successfully execute the strategy for a second time: Michael Essien had scored a goal in the first half and Chelsea had proceeded to pack it in defensively.
The game clock stood frozen at 90 as the amount of extra time slowly dwindled. 1 minute. 2 minutes. And suddenly:
Victory and ideal had managed to consecrate their unrequited love. Chelsea proceeded to have a highly public, collective meltdown, and Barcelona moved on to the final where Manchester United, despite being heavy favorites, would fall to the Spanish club, 2-0.
But this is fundamentally not about Barcelona and their unlikely path to Champions League glory. It is about this idea of playing the right way.
Aside from soccer, the sport in which this conception of playing the right way is most invoked may be basketball. And no team is more strongly associated with this idea than the San Antonio Spurs.
But, in the case of the Spurs, this term is employed derisively just as often as it is meant to be a compliment. In the NBA, to play the right way is to play selflessly, conservatively, and most of all, boringly. In other words, the balletic playfulness of a Barca or a Brazil could not be further from the dark efficacy that drives San Antonio.
And yet, when one pauses and takes a more detailed look at the matter, an entirely different picture emerges.
Beautiful football has paradoxical aspirations, striving for both the Baroque and the minimal simultaneously. At its core, it is about nothing more than possession of the ball and the well executed pass. And yet, when you multiply those actions on top of one another exponentially, you give birth to an intricacy that is both deeply fragile and nearly unstoppable when executed confidently.
Spurs basketball is no different. On each end of the floor simple actions, such as responsible possession and thoughtful ball movement, are organized in increasingly complex patterns in order to produce a structure that can appear both impenetrable and easily fractured .
Every time a defender swiftly closes out on a shooter or seals the baseline, it may appear to be an isolated example of fundamental basketball. But when a single rotation is missed, the stone cathedral looks more like a sandcastle washing away on a wave-smacked shore.
Or consider the superficial simplicity of our offensive sets. We work the ball into Duncan, and then play a highly effective, seemingly effortless inside-outside game. And yet, to draw the double and create the space necessary for an open outside shot, every man must know his role. I’ll have you note that the Barcelona goal you watched earlier featured a team that worked the ball inside, outside, around the perimeter, and then struck from long range.
NBA observers often accuse the Spurs of pursuing a ferociously, almost nihilistically, efficacious form of basketball. But in Gregg Popovich’s ornate sets, I see an idealism that is similar to that pursued by Barcelona. In some ways, the deeply limited nature of last season’s Spurs squad has revealed this all the more. Without the athleticism required for contention, Popovich’s coaching ability looked vulnerable. Some saw it as a sign that his acumen was mortally wounded.
Instead I saw last season as the tribulations of an idealist laid bare. In the eyes of many, Popovich is the embodiment of pragmatism. But I see a man who has a belief not just in victory but in the manner in which victory must be achieved. It must be achieved intricately, thoughtfully, goodly. It must be achieved the right way.
25 Comments
August 17th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
MUST. GET. YOU. NBA. AGAIN. NO MORE SOCCER. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.
August 17th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
I’m ecstatic that Galeano is read in the States. Great read, Graydon. Welcome back.
August 17th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Happy to be back.
August 17th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Welcome back Graydon…
August 17th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Good lord, Graydon, you can compare my Spurs to proper football any day of the week. An informed observer would welcome your comparisons to the tactical and fundamental game that San Antonio employs to the beautiful game played at its highest and emotional level… Thank you.
August 17th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Beautiful read. This embodies everything I see when I watch team sports. I find it interesting that you limit your comparisions to only soccer and basketball. One thinks that you can just as easily compare it to life’s many decisions.
Thanks again for a great post.
-michael
August 18th, 2009 at 12:52 am
Within the context of that game, I would rather not compare the Spurs to Barcelona.
Though a fan of man utd and the attacking game, I still genuinely felt Chelsea deserved the win more. Sure, Barca supposedly played the right way on the surface, but if you look deeper it’s a different story. Soccer is also a game that demands well thought out strategies and a lot of physical commitment. The Chelsea guys worked their ass off to be strong and fast and able to beast out anyone else on the field. Would you feel sorry for Yi Jianlian because he hasn’t put much effort into the gym and can’t post up power forwards? Or any point guard getting blown through by Tony Parker? Moreover, Chelsea dominated in strategy execution. Their defense was brilliant, completely neutered the extreme force of creativity and deadliness that is the Barca offense. Chelsea’s counter attacks were also daggers. Smart runs and accurate passes, outsmarting the opponent. Remember, the Barca defenders were so clueless and worked up, they ended up committing fouls in the penalty box (oh the mortal sin of soccer), which were blatantly omitted by the ref.
It was a game where the right way wasn’t being carried out correctly, and Chelsea was the team playing more beautiful ball. And you know what, ultimately, the way that wins is the right way.
Think about this, would you want to watch the 7 Seconds Or Less offense against the Spurs?
On that note, as a Spurs fan, you are obviously aware that there’s nothing deflating or boring about a powerhouse getting into the final again and again: The best teams deserve to be there.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:00 am
Graydon,
great post! As a soccer and basketball fan I always try to spot the similarities between the two sports’ tactics and strategies.
However, I am not sure (because of my Italian soccer background?) Arsenal and Barça play “the right way”, while other styles are less “right”.
Don’t know if it made it to the States, but do you remember the 2002 CL run by Bayer Leverkusen (a team hilighted by Ballack, Bernd Schneider, Ramelow, Lucio and with a nearly teenager named Dimitar Berbatov)?
They were a low talented team for the CL level (albeit a good team in the Bundesliga) and they couldn’t make the flashy plays Messi, Henry, Iniesta and the others make possible.
However they were one of the best teams to watch because of their good D and the fact that they were just totally wild… No way you could stop them.
I still clearly remember the return match against Liverpool, after a poor show that ended in a 1-0 loss at Anfield (you can see two MB goals in that game around minute 1 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRQd8J0ytDU&feature=related -> Unfortunately, after the head goal, there isn’t the part with MB celebrating holding his hurting nose…).
They were not a “beautiful” team the way Barça is, but they were just an amazing bunch of aggressive, wild, almost evil overachievers which constantly rode on the edge of failure (they started the second round with a 4-0 loss to my team, Juventus), but could not just be stopped in those nights.
On the same note, you couldn’t do anything but love that 2000 Slovenian NT (which lasted 2 games, anyway
) or that huge 2000 Mendieta’s Valencia.
Or it is just me getting old?
Best,
N
August 18th, 2009 at 3:12 am
Awesome to see someone share my love for both Arsenal and spurs. If you follow EPL you know spurs there refer to tottenham hotspurs, Arsenal’s biggest local rival
As an Arsenal fan I have often thought if it is a paradox that I like San antonio spurs basketball. Arsenal’s attacking prowess has never been doubted but it was always the defense that caused issues. SAS on the other hand are really good defensively. I often wondered if it was natural for Arsenal lover to support suns for all their brilliant attacking play (Steve Nash is tottenham fan!). However I always found myself supporting both SAS and Arsenal for the team ethic. In soccer you can be a brilliant individual player like Ronaldo but a good passing team with great basics are better. That is what is common to both Arsenal and Spurs.
BTW whoever was supporting Italian soccer, Serie A sucks big time. Dodgy refereeing, slow tempo, old home players and little attacking play makes for a poor watch. Serie A was at its peak in the Van Basten/Gullit, Maradona era. That AC Milan team was perhaps the greatest team ever but now it is a pale shadow of that era. Both English and Spanish leagues are far ahead in technical quality.
August 18th, 2009 at 3:44 am
[...] here to see the original: 48 Minutes of Hell » Blog Archive » Beautiful Games This entry is filed under Games, love, prem. You can follow any responses to this entry through [...]
August 18th, 2009 at 5:15 am
also a big footie fan, and I’m not sure I agree 100% with the Barca-Spurs comparison… Barca played the right way in terms of being a selfless, attacking squad but defensively they didnt have much of a philosophy at all, and to me that is still a huge part of the Spurs identity.
I think a better comparison for the spurs is Boca Jrs… defense first, slow pace, take advantage of your stars on attack and grind teams out. they were able to use that formula to beat teams they had no business beating, teams with much bigger budgets and many more stars to dominate a decade.
[manu is a fan of river by the way, so I'm not being a total homer : ) ]
August 18th, 2009 at 5:23 am
Nice to read your material again.
In a recent article, ESPN writer Bill Simmons made a similar point (one of many) by comparing U.S. and Mexican soccer. For those fans that double as soccer enthusiasts, it’s a good read.
See: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/090817
August 18th, 2009 at 6:18 am
Nice to read this piece, I agree with quite a few comments above.
In my view teams like Barca or Brazil play the “beautiful way” and that’s usually what football lovers like to see: fluidity, great moves and improvisation by top players that catch your breath, and well, goals. However more often than not this is not the “right way”, at least if the team wants to win – France used to play this way and basically never won anything except the Euro 84 (82 WC was quite controversial). France started to win when they started to toughen up, lock up on defense and basically play the “other way”, which I’m afraid is the right way if you want to win. That’s the way teams like Germany or Italy have been playing forever with great success: discipline, defense, physical presence, execution of game plan and clutch play (in football we would call that “realism”: the ability to convert any opportunity into a goal).
So in a way I agree with you that the Spurs are playing the “right way”, but as in football it might not be the “beautiful way” or the “flashy way” (Real Madrid stacked with stars, Barca last year, etc.) – think of all the NBA teams that we keep seeing in the highlights and don’t even make the playoffs.
More often than not football teams playing the “right way” are actually quite boring, and widely criticized for playing that way, but as in basketball true fans know it for what it is and enjoy it in any case.
August 18th, 2009 at 6:59 am
socccer!!! chyea chyea!!!
I was surprised to read this, it reminded me of one of the first articles written by you guys.
it quoted galeano, it talked about pele and his love to the ball and it compared him to TD. can anyone post that link again?
August 18th, 2009 at 7:13 am
Diego et al,
By no means is the Barca-SA comparison perfect, nor is it meant to be. Obviously teams like Barca and Arsenal have defensive issues, which will always keep them at arms length from a team like the Spurs. And in some ways the physical, counterattacking style of a Liverpool or a Chelsea is an equally if not more apt comparison.
But I chose Barcelona because they are a prominent example of this “beautiful” style of play. And for me, personally, I find Spurs basketball to be equally beautiful. Its thoughtfulness and intricacy, the simultaneous pursuit of the simple and the complex. It shares many characteristics with “beautiful” soccer, even though it diverges from it in places as well.
I’m guess what I’m saying is, this wasn’t meant to fit together in every way. I just wanted to continue to chip away at this idea that the Spurs aren’t pleasant to watch.
August 18th, 2009 at 7:13 am
And Barcelona, as San Antonio, has a crafty Argentinian lefty that can create something from nothing….
August 18th, 2009 at 7:16 am
Juan H.,
Right after we launched with ESPN I quoted Galeano in a tribute to Tim Duncan. Here’s the link if you’d like to give it another read.
August 18th, 2009 at 7:32 am
Graydon actually the important part is that Chelsea lost, we can all agree on that
August 18th, 2009 at 9:06 am
I’ve been reading this blog for a few weeks now — and sometimes giving my humble thoughts.
I can now fully say that’s the cleverest blog i know, from writers to followers.
Regards
August 18th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
That was a really nice piece! GO GUNNERS! I think the kids will really show something this year!
August 18th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Being from Brazil, it is always interesting to read what others have to say about soccer (football, futebol, whatever). Although we did not invent the sport, we still unconsciously consider what others write about it (being them English, Italian, American or even Argentines) as just outsider’s rant, and have to force ourselves to respect what is being said.
Having said that, I liked the comparison, although the 2 sports are, in my opinion, completely different. Because of the disparities in length of possessions and number of points/goals per match, basketball rewards consistency, while soccer rewards craftsmanship. Romário, for instance, could spend 99% of the match just standing near the box, and end up scoring the winning goal. That was his trademark. Basketball, however, is not decided on one elusive play, although sometimes it seems so.
I would also say that ManUnited was not the favorite on that match. Barcelona was superior (or at least on the same level as ManUnited), having won La Liga and La Copa del Rey.
Please, keep up the good work. I love the blog.
August 18th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
[...] about Beautiful Games [...]
August 19th, 2009 at 7:44 am
Great Article… question for you: where can I get English written copies of Galeano?
He is one of the greatest writers we have in Latin America and I’m shocked by your knowledge if his work. Love the citation at the beggining.
I think TV also used him for an article about Duncan’s relationship with the ball though from a different book of his.
August 19th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
I think a better comparision for last season’s Barça would be the 2001-02 Sacramento Kings, the same idea doesn’t have to translate into a “boring” scheme.
August 19th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Rodrigo,
You can find English translations of Galeano’s work on Amazon or at most independent bookstores in the United States.
Also, I was the author of that piece about Duncan, and the Galeano quote is from the same book, although I have read other works of his. I linked to it above in a comment addressed to Juan H. if you want to check it out.
Leave a Reply