Reassessing Chelsea's Champions League Win

Abnormally, the sun is rising in south-west London but the dust has not yet settled on Chelsea’s magnificent Champions League campaign. There are those still who hold Barcelona up as a paradigm of footballing virtue and still fail to applaud Chelsea for beating them over 180 minutes of football. There are still those who fail to recognise the achievement of beating a Bayern Munich team in their own back yard, a team who had progressed past the best team in Spain, Real Madrid.

The point of this article is to dispel the myths of modern football, to outlaw certain words and to maybe provide a new slant on what it means to be “better” at football than another team. I will take Chelsea as my primary example and seek to undermine various phrases that currently blight the modern game.

1. “Chelsea played negative football”

Negative football? What does this mean? Did they deliberately score own goals? That is the only way I can conceive of a team playing negative football. So long as a team is not deliberately kicking the ball into their own net, they are playing positive football. I would ban the use of the words positive and negative – they are meaningless and have arisen out of a culture that has seen football stray from its core purpose into the entertainment business. Normally, and always at the elite end of the game, there are far more neutrals watching a game than fans of either team. These neutrals want to be entertained and they privilege the team that entertains them. Entertainment usually means going out to score as many goals as possible. Most neutrals are not the absolute connoisseur who admires heroic defence as much as silky attack. This is a shame, but it’s also a fact of life.

So the friction is between Chelsea’s desire to win the match (tie) and the neutrals desire to be entertained. I make no apologies for respecting the team that is doing right by its fans in its efforts to win. A team has no responsibility to please the neutral. They are obliged to win, to try to win, and therefore to please the fans. Playing well is a bonus. Every right-minded fan would rather win a Champions League “ugly” (whatever that means...) than lose in a semi-final playing beautiful football. Sport at the highest level is about winning.

Chelsea had no responsibility to go out all guns blazing, throwing caution to the wind and paying scant regard to their team’s ability in relation to that of the eleven supremos opposite you. Whoever said attack is the best form of defence is a liar and has never had Messi, Xavi and Iniesta running full pelt at them.

2. “Barca were the better team”

We love sport because of its inherently empirical nature. There is a winner determined by a score. As far as I’m concerned, the score does not lie. We love sport because sport really pays no attention to subjective measures like ‘better’ except the score. That is why the score exists, as a judge for who is better.

Undoubtedly, Barcelona are a better football team than Chelsea. If they played each other 10 times Barca would probably win 7, Chelsea 1 and they might draw 2. But that’s not how football works. League football is closer to this model, hence why teams would rather win a league than a cup – it’s a better judge. But over 180 minutes, Chelsea were better. They managed to produce the performance that led to the one victory and one of the draws. Do they not deserve credit for producing the two performances that led to them scoring more goals than Barcelona?

Simply, Barcelona played the most wonderful attacking football and Chelsea played the most dogged defensive football. Football is about blocking shots just as much as it is about shooting. Barcelona’s attack is wonderful, though, isn’t it? Or is it? What is the point of attacking? How do you judge an attack? Goals. Barcelona’s attack was successful in every way except in the final analysis of actually putting the ball in the back of the net. You can have as many shots as you like but if you don’t hit the target then what’s the point? I’m not going to join in the fetishising of Barcelona’s liquid football if their shooting is so poor as it was against Chelsea. They missed a penalty, too, possibly one of the few moments in football where the responsibility lies so heavily with the taker.

Chelsea set their stall out to play a certain way. They pulled it off. Barcelona set their stall out to play a certain way. They failed. And despite the fact that Chelsea were playing such defensive minded football (not negative), they still outscored Barca by three goals to two over 180 minutes of football.

Chelsea were the victims of the fetishising of Barcelona. Such contrived fawning is an unpleasant sight in sport and it’s a hangover from when Barcelona truly were great. They would win with such grace and style and panache. But when these qualities are prized above winning, I lose interest. Sure, Chelsea fans would have loved to have progressed playing wonderful football but every team has its limits and you have to play the opposition. They succeeded magnificently. Beating Barcelona over two legs is impressive, outscoring them is heroic. So I salute the shot-blocking winners of Chelsea more than the squandering wastefulness of Barcelona and say that the better team is that which carries out its intentions in such a way that results in a victory. The only thing to say to those who claim Barcelona were the better team is “prove it”. They did not, could not. Hence, Chelsea progressed.

3. “Chelsea didn’t deserve to win”

Who ‘deserves’ to win? Who decides who ‘deserves’ to win? What on earth means that one team has the divine right to score more goals than the opposition, seeing as that is what winning is?

The word ‘deserve’ should be removed from sporting lexicon and we should all accept that in 99.9% of cases, the team who wins is the team who ‘deserved to win’. Why should a team who records 50 shots and scores no goal ‘deserve’ to beat a team who shoots once and scores? Either one team has an excellent goalkeeper who saves all these shots (in which case, credit to them for having a good goalkeeper), the shots need to be of a higher quality to beat the goalkeeper or the team that manages to let that one shot become a goal needs to have a look at why it managed to let a team with what appears to be an awful attack score a goal against them.

Bayern had wasted 14 corners before Chelsea took full advantage of their first. Well done Bayern for playing in such a way that resulted in those corners but either the delivery wasn’t good enough or their heading is not good enough or Chelsea’s defending of those corners was excellent. Whatever the combination of reasons, it is the team that manages to defend 14 corners and score from 1 that I admire rather than the team that fails to score from 14 and lets in 1.

Why is it that so many privilege the wasteful team with the poor defence over the solid team with the potent attack that takes its chances. No team ‘deserves’ to win as a result of creating lots of opportunities that please the neutral viewer. Such a team may well be better at football but that is largely irrelevant if they cannot, on the day, put the ball in the back of the net.

Bayern were apparently the better team and ‘deserved’ to win. But they, like Barcelona, missed a penalty. Messi and Robben were wasteful. Why should a team which takes an awful penalty kick win? I see no reason why they should. Chelsea’s goalkeeper beat Bayern’s penalty taker so why do people say Bayern ‘deserved’ to win?

4. Conclusion

Let us ignore those who make pronouncements about what is positive and what is negative. To use these terms is to mistake the point of sport. I love attacking football and certainly prefer it to defensive minded football but not at the expense of victory. Anyone who disagrees when it comes to their team has questionable ideas about what they want from their team. I repeat, give me the victoriously heroic shot-blockers of Chelsea over the creative yet ultimately wasteful Barcelona every time.

Let us ignore those who think the team who wastes 14 corners is better than the team who scores a wonderful goal from their 1 corner.

And finally, let us ignore those who say that one team deserves a victory over another. Sport is the great equaliser. It may appear that Barcelona and Bayern are better football teams than Chelsea but football disagrees. It challenges your preconceived notions of what it means to be a good football team. In 99.9% of cases, the team that wins deserves to win. To say that Bayern deserve to win is to excuse the wanton wastefulness of Gomes, the lack of bottle exhibited by Arjen Robben and to deny the terrific lesson in defence given by Ashley Cole and the whole-hearted performance given by Didier Drogba. That, I cannot bring myself to do.

Tweeting Player Power

Just a short note on player-power in rugby and football.

It's got out of hand, hasn't it? And it's mainly due to Twitter.

At the end of the 6 Nations, the RFU were looking to appoint a permanent Head Coach of the England rugby team. Nick Mallett was the main and then the only option apart from keeping Stuart Lancaster in his role. England had a good tournament and the team was clearly happy.

Twitter gave these happy and contented players (the ones chosen by Lancaster, of course...) the public forum to support their Head Coach's bid for permanency. They abused it. Several players went above their station and put their employers in a very difficult position. Whether Lancaster was the right man is not the point; that was the RFU's decision and not that of the players. They had no right to publicly name their preference, thereby holding their employer to ransom. By all means they should have made their views known through senior players and the captain but to go public was inappropriate and unprofessional.

Imagine if the RFU had disagreed with the players. To do so would not have been as stupid as it sounds. I doubt all the players who Lancaster left out were feeling as cheery about his permanent appointment as those Tweeters. The public would know immediately that Player A preferred Lancaster and so would Mallett. Hardly the ideal start to a new regime.

Similarly with the FA, numerous players voiced their support for Harry Redknapp. So it turns out, Roy Hodgson is the new manager instead. That immediately undermines Hodgson and leaves him in a role which he knows several senior players don't want him in.

What were both sets of players trying to achieve? Was it to save/consolidate their own international careers? Was it with a genuine concern for the direction of their national team? Probably a bit of both. But as soon as they took to their Twitter accounts they showed disrespect to their national associations/union, disrespect to the other candidates seeking to land the job and an extremely unprofessional attitude with which to begin the reign of a new national manager.

6 Nations Half-Back Evaluation

This has not been a vintage tournament for half-backs.

For England, the distinctly average stop-gap Lee Dickson was eventually found out against Ireland and Ben Youngs thankfully returned to somewhere near form. Owen Farrell is ready to play international rugby but his passing is too often behind the man.

Mike Blair also returned to his form of 2009 but his teammates were too often slower in thought and deed. Greig Laidlaw is arguably not the answer at fly-half though he did provide much needed direction even if direction did not manifest itself in penetration.

Conor Murray impressed me as an all-round scrum-half and will hopefully recover quickly so that he can push his case for the Lions. Sexton confirmed his place as the most capable and rounded fly-half in the competition.

For France, several combinations were tried and more often failed. Yachvili missed out through injury though Parra should have automatically replaced him and not Julien Dupuy. Lionel Beauxis sadly failed to produce his early season form and PSA should surely stick with Francois Trinh-Duc.

Italy have no half-backs of value except perhaps Bennvenuti. Burton plays so deep and so lateral his backline has no chance.

For Wales, Mike Philips seemed to find the right balance between passing, kicking and utilising his strong running game, a balance that he lost for a season. His performances have been tidy, understated, and classy. Wales’ success has come in spite of Rhys Priestland and not because of it. He fell apart at Twickenham and I feel he is too keen to kick the ball. His confidence and composure from the world cup was non-existent. This was no doubt related to his aberrant goal-kicking.

"Oh Danny Boy"

Such clichéd headlines that very closely match the title of this piece are now obsolete in relation to Danny Cipriani. He is no longer a boy and certainly not a boy wonder. He has served his apprenticeship, albeit an atypical one, and is now surely ready to push for a place in England's national side from the dog pound of unwanted and undervalued players that is the Sale Sharks.

I have long been a fan of Danny Cipriani. He burst on to the European scene at a time when defences were very much on top (possibly like Kelly Brook) and the chances of a 10 breaking were definitely as slim as her. We'll get on to that lithe temptress that so distracted young Daniel very soon. Here was a 10 with genuine pace, the quickest in the team. He wasn't just a sprinter though, he was a footballer too, with a very cultured left foot.

And he had swagger and was good looking and there were 'human interest' stories about his mother driving a London cab to help make ends meet. He was undoubtedly naive and stories about training ground fights with Josh Lewsey over missed tackles didn't help. This is the first time I have mentioned Cipriani's tackling, or lack of tackling. It is not his strong suit and I am often too keen to sweep this awkward fact under the carpet to focus on the parts of his game where he is is outstanding.

He made a wonderful test debut at Twickenham against Ireland where he exhibited such control and poise, qualities that Owen Farrell has shown recently, although with a harder edge and a greater willingness to tackle than Cipriani. He even swore on the BBC. Irresistibly rock star and everyone loved him.

Of course, to think these thoughts was naive in the extreme, though not as naive as Danny. It was exciting though, seeing a 10 who could do all these things in such an audacious fashion not seen since Carlos Spencer. There were few detractors that day, though hordes have emerged since.

Two months after being crowned the new King of Twickers, he suffered one of the worst injuries around, the fracture dislocation of the ankle. Awful luck. But he came back 6 weeks ahead of schedule,a  testament to his own hard work, a much-questioned virtue of his, sometimes correctly, and sometimes not.

Back in the England side under Martin Johnson, chargedowns became the symbol of Danny's downfall. He fell out with Johnson, got injured again and then came Australia.

I still find it staggering that some questioned his move to the Melbourne Rebels. It is a tournament made for Cipriani and what 22 year old would turn down the opportunity to move to Australia and get paid loadsa money to play rugby on hard, fast pitches across the Southern Hemisphere. Sounds better than the bus to Newcastle...

But he'll be unavailable for England, they crowed. And? He was never going to be there forever, he was 22 and looking to broaden his horizons. Surely there was no problem with sacrificing two years of England caps which were never going to arrive anyway because the dogged Leicester streak in Martin Johnson hated everything that Cipriani stood for from the very beginning. So good luck to him, that was my view at the time.

Since then Cipriani has had 'disciplinary' issues. He leaned over a bar and nicked a bottle of vodka, hardly a crime, though was treated as if he'd then brought it down with a crash of alcoholic glass over Rod MacQueen's grey head rather than pouring it down his throat. The Australian move hasn't gone all that well, with moments of brilliance tempered by that old inconvenience, the need to tackle.

With his contract with the Rebels coming to an end and keen to return home, few clubs were interested in a prima donna who may well make searing breaks but who also is an arrogant celebrity before before professional rugby. Shame on these clubs. What an indictment of their club that they have such little faith in their own abilities and values, that Cipriani might flourish there.

Sale Sharks are the real winners in all of this, and Cipriani may well be too. With Steve Diamond and his strong personality running the show, they are hoovering up talent that other clubs have either missed or feel isn't quite right for them. Andy Powell, the first problem child and world renowned racer of golf buggies, was the first. Apparently he needs a minder with him to make sure he behaves. But more importantly, Sale have trusted him, they have put in place the necessary measures to make sure he repays that trust and is doing well. Other clubs have missed a trick.

Hopefully they can do the same with Cipriani and his clichéd personality of flawed genius. Being in Manchester and not London (or Melbourne) should help and the ethos of Sale may well closely resemble the 'Once a Wasp, always a Wasp' feel of that club. He can do things that very English players of his generation can. Whether he will learn to tackle well enough to convince an England coach of his talents is arguable, but even if he doesn't make it back to that international level, Sale can hide him around the backline in defence before reaping the pacy rewards of placing their faith and trust in a lost soul. I hope he does well - players of his calibre, flawed as they may be, and they are all the more interesting for these flaws, are rare, and we should enjoy them while they are around.

On Saudi Arabia, the Olympics, and Women

If you try to navigate from the IOC website to that of the Saudi Arabian Olympic Association, you are met by an internet silence. Perhaps it was my dodgy internet, but this accessibility failure struck a chord. The Saudis do not believe in accessibility. They believe in denying accessibility of the most basic kind, that of a woman's right to play sport. They deny plenty other rights, too, but sport is the area in focus as the Olympics approach. Saudi Arabia do not buy into the most basic tenets of the Olympic movement, Olympism and the Olympic Charter. They should be expelled from the IOC until they include a female athlete in their Olympic team.

Even the most basic glance at the IOC website confirms what the Olympics are all about: 'Sport For All.' All, all all all. Everyone! Some more aims: "to build a better world through sport;" and the true Olympic values of friendship, excellence, respect. Again, Saudi Arabia falls short. They do not respect women. Janice Turner summed it up perfectly in the Times: "sexual apartheid."

The IOC's 6 fields of activity are: development through sport, grassroots, environment, education through sport, peace through sport, and finally, women in sport. So how can a country that so flagrantly and so blatantly disagrees with everything the Olympics stands for be allowed to compete? Many have pointed to Saudi Arabia's oil wealth and the resulting influence they hold with power to wield. I think it goes a little further.

The answer lies in a growing uber-liberal apologist attitude in the West so keen to uphold and respect a nation's right to hold beliefs, especially if they are different to how we view the world. Such an attitude misses the point. Saudi Arabia is welcome to make laws on whatever it wishes but, crucially, it does not have a pre-ordained right to take part in the Olympics.

Some might argue that it is Saudi Arabia's religious beliefs the leads to their 'sexual apartheid' and so who are we to meddle in their affairs and impose our ideology on them? This is also missing the point. Religion doesn't make it any less abhorrent and certainly not less open for question.

The Olympics stand for certain things, certain ideologies - this needn't be a dirty word. Women in sport is one of these. This is not a political issue, it is one for the IOC. When South Africa excluded black people from its teams they were excommunicated until they sent a team representative of their nation. The same should happen with Saudi Arabia.

Are we, the Olympic community, so scared of offending people and saying, "No, this is wrong, women do deserve to represent your country and if you don't agree then we will carry on without you." There is a definite and clear Olympic ideology - a very positive one, in my opinion. This is not an imposition of our view of the world, it is simply laying out the conditions of entry - no team has a divine right to be a part of the Olympic movement.

What are we scared of? The IOC should have enough faith in what it believes in to put a stop to this and say that they will not be bullied by misogynistic, sexist rulers who don't sign up to what the Olympics should be all about.

The Olympic movement, from Pakistan to Peckham, should wake up and start believing in Olympism with such a fanatical force that the IOC can no longer ignore everything they believe in. The Olympic message is a positive one, we must not be afraid of shouting this from the roof of the Olympic stadium. It's time the IOC put some firm action behind the slogans and say good riddance to any countries that disagree.

The Pre-Pubescent Unionist

You know, I never made it in Scottish rugby. Couldn’t hack it, wasn’t up to it. That’s why I left to join a French professional club.

That was the argument used by my SNP chum to expose my views on Scottish nationalism. My views were invalid because I never made it in Scottish rugby.

The next attack was on my age and, bizarrely, my pubescence. My views, my beliefs, are not valid because I am 19 and therefore not fully pubescent. I was quite game for sending a photo at this point and letting my nationalist pal judge for himself whether I was pubescent enough to hold views on the subject.

I was told that I have never worked and my views are therefore invalid. I have indeed worked.

My views, my beliefs, are also invalid because I have never “paid taxes, had a mortgage, domestic bills, been responsible for others welfare...” I wasn’t aware that my thoughts on Scottish nationalism would only become valid at a certain age and after fitting several criteria.

Given that most 19 year olds have not fulfilled these obligations, perhaps they shouldn’t be allowed a vote. Or maybe they should be allowed a vote, heck let’s give it to 16 year olds too, but no one under the age of, say, 25 should be allowed any views.

I questioned whether 19 year old SNP members would be allowed any views. 19 year old SNP members do have a massive advantage over me, of course – they’re in the right and I am simply wrong.

So I’ll be spending the rest of the afternoon trying to get better at rugby – maybe by tea-time my tackling will have improved enough to validate my right to have views on certain subjects. Maybe I’ll be closer to adulthood by that point and be better endowed and it will become okay to hold views, even if others disagree with them.

I can’t wait till I’m all grown up.

On Encountering the 'Cybernats'

This evening I couldn’t help but engage in debate with what is commonly known as the ‘cybernat’. This is an internet dweller who scurries into the open to challenge anything said against Scottish nationalism before scurrying away again.

What had I done? I re-published excerpts from George Orwell’s essay ‘Notes on Nationalism’. Nothing more, nothing less. Having read widely on the subject of nationalism, Orwell's thoughts struck a chord. 

The responses ranged from the bizarre to the sensible and several revealed much Scottish nationalism to go much deeper than the desire for Scotland to be independent.

I shall attempt to guide you through the twisting and the turning of the ‘cybernat’ when challenged. One thing that Orwell mentioned was confirmed: “The smallest slur upon his own unit, or any implied praise of a rival organisation, fills him with uneasiness which he can relieve only by making some sharp retort.”

At first, some nationalists clearly realised that they didn’t want to be associated with what Orwell was talking about. This is encouraging. So several deflected attention to the Prime Minister. For a while, ‘nationalist’ became a dirty word – David Cameron is the nationalist. When I pointed out that the Scottish National Party is inescapably nationalist, these few cybernats scurried away.

Next up they tried to escape nationalism by claiming that the SNP actually fit Orwell’s definition of patriotism rather than nationalism. Here is what Orwell says:

                [By] “‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but which has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.”

More power, more prestige. The cybernat response to Orwell’s words? The Declaration of Arbroath, 1320. This is the just first time that this particularly worrying strand of ‘Braveheart’ nationalism appeared. This failure to recognise that, impressive as the Declaration is, Scotland has moved on. There are better arguments for independence than the Declaration of Arbroath.

Are anti-nationalist views ‘misinformed’? Apparently, an independent Scotland is the logical end point to all this and, when everyone knows the facts, then they too will agree. If your beliefs are of a Unionist nature, sorry, you are ‘misinformed’. As if there is some final answer that is ‘correct’, like a maths puzzle and we’re all just trying to work it out and we’ll all get there eventually. I’m one of the slow ones! Thank goodness there are those who have already solved the puzzle and know the right answer. They can inform me.

Question: ‘Would we have greater or less individual power in an independent Scotland?’

Answer: I don’t know. My response to this was, ‘I would have greater individual power with no government at all but no one is advocating that’.

The Proclaimers wrote a lovely song about the Scots going ‘Cap in Hand’ to the English. I’m listening to it now, it talks about when Hibs goalies were good. This phrase is so unbelievably demeaning to Scotland. It basically suggests that Scotland is so weak that they have to go ‘cap in hand’ to the English. If highlighting the weakness of Scotland is an argument for independence then forgive me if I rest my case.

Common sense broke out around half past nine, with discussion centring on whether independence would leave Scotland in a better situation. Obviously no conclusion was reached. So the cybernats then started to wage a class war. “For us to get a better UK deal would take removal of every single Tory in Westminster.” Ah, so this is what it rests on. The Tories hate Scotland and are deliberately grinding it into the ground!

I was encountering a nationalism based on the dislike of one political party.

My point that it is very possible to be Scottish, British and a Tory was rubbished, with Malcolm Rifkind and Michael Forsyth attracting much ire. I asked if they were anti-Scottish but apparently they’re ‘counter-Scottish’ which is an Orwellian shifting of language if ever I saw one.

Orwell said that Scottish nationalism often takes the form of ‘a class hatred tirade against the B.B.C. accent.’ And sure enough, the BBC are apparently biased. They call Andy Murray Scottish when he loses and British when he wins. A call to arms!  Comrades, claim back your country and your tennis players!

The debate descended into bringing up the Highland Clearances and turning it into what I interpreted as an England vs. Scotland event – simplified history.

In the end, it was argument for the sake of argument. I am guilty for not being able to resist a scrap. This remains an issue of debate and there is nothing dialectical about it. Orwell: ‘all nationalist controversy remains at the debating-society level. It is always entirely inconclusive, since each contestant invariably believes himself to have won the victory.’ I’m not trying to win anyone over to what I see as a correct point of view. I don’t see anyone else’s views as ‘misinformed’ and subject to change when I lay out all the evidence. It is good fun, however, and the ideals of a proper debate are worth sticking to for their own sake. Sadly, not all agree. The final word on this Thursday evening belongs to Christopher Hitchens who said, “My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, anytime, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.”