THERE is a mantra which swirls around English football these days, one of those phrases that has been repeated often enough to make itself a truth.
It pays no heed to evidence, requires no proof. It simply is. It has always been.
It goes like this: you can only win the Premier League title if you attack; recklessly, ceaselessly, pouring forward like a gusting wind, swarming into the opposition half with wild abandon, forgetting defensive duties, dirty things, and caring for nought but the adrenaline punch, that zesty kick, flying at the opposing goal gives you.
That is how you win titles, the refrain goes.
It is nonsense, of course, but it is a nonsense which explains football’s most enduring hypocrisy. The reason we think it is impossible to win titles in any other way than the most blood-pumping, fist-clenching manner possible is because we have forgotten all of those teams who ground their way to victory, who remembered that football is not theatre or art; it is not an attempt to entertain, but an endeavour to win.
Football is business; not as sponsors or corporates or TV executives see it – that is too crude, too base – but it is like any other business in that each company’s aim is primacy.
But that does not appeal to sport’s nostalgia, and so we forget that for years, Italian sides dominated European football with a system named after a padlock because its great tactical innovation was playing, effectively, a sweeper and two centre-backs.
Fine, we say: you can win in Europe with such cynicism, but in England, never. This is the land of blood and glory, of thunder and fire, and here you must attack.
George Graham’s Arsenal, of course, were a famously exciting side to watch. Likewise Jose Mourinho’s Chelsea. And, though few fans would admit it, many of those teams from Liverpool’s heyday, those sides who racked up the titles and the cups and who conquered Europe. They were efficient, not attractive. That was a by-product, if it was a product at all.
All were teams built not to be admired but to be victorious. We remember the victories as numbers alone, occasionally lionising one of the men deemed to have forged them, masterminded them. All else is forgotten. Individual games enter the collective consciousness, but often more for circumstance, for drama, than for aesthetic appeal.
And we remember the exceptions. We remember Kenny Dalglish’s team of 1987/88, the best ever to have graced this country. We are more likely to remember the heroic failure of Arsene Wenger’s sides than the success of Graham’s. That is what fans are. Idealists.
But there is a beauty in the other side, the dark side. There is a dangerous fascination with brutal, bloodthirsty, cynical ruthlessness. There is a forbidden pleasure in seeing a team absolve itself of ideals and simply set out to win. There is beauty in that, too. We just do not like to admit it.
But it manifests itself, and possibly in England more than in any other country. It manifests itself in the language of football – all of it, from midfield combat upwards, synonymous, evocative of war – and it manifests itself in our assessment of players.
Take Alberto Aquilani.
Alberto Aquilani is a footballing aesthete. He possesses more style, more grace, than any other Liverpool player. He caresses a ball to bring it under his spell. He arcs his leg, twists his back, a model of human motion, to play a pass.
He moves, constantly, and he tries things he ought not to do. He ignores that mantra of childhood – if in doubt, kick it out – and he attempts to dazzle, to entertain. He looks like a footballer. He does the things footballers enjoy doing, and he boasts that rare vision to do it. He is fragile, yes, and that is a substantial drawback in his line of work, but it is a fragility that should be indulged. Cherished, almost.
And yet listen to what happens when Alberto Aquilani plays. A simple pass: nothing. A clever reverse ball: a ripple of appreciation. A ducked tackle: a wail of discontent, blood-curdling screams questioning his manhood.
That is football’s great hypocrisy, English football’s great hypocrisy.
Our minds, as fans, crave only beauty, and elegance, and ingenuity. Our hearts, our souls, want nothing but the dark arts. We will tolerate an artist, as long as, when he is not at his easel, he gets stuck in.
We want warrior-poets. In that order. That is why Aquilani will be hounded from the Premier League, caricatured as a failure. Because he is too much poet, too little warrior. He is the sort of player that makes a mockery of our memories, of our collective wisdom. You can only attack to win titles? Nonsense.
You have to get stuck in, first.
I just hope that should the opportunity come his way that Aquilani’s got the heart and soul to do himself and the club justice. There’s something of the Garcia to him in my head, if not quite the same sunny disposition and adoration from the stands, he’s as likely to try and goose a man in our own 18 as drill one in from 30 yards. Ace.
Very good article,you state the truth.
It’s not just that he ducks out of physical challenges. The “artistry” you correctly identify is rarely allowed in the most physical league in the world. There isn’t time enough permitted to hesitate because you’d prefer to do the pretty thing; often you just have to get the pass off no matter the aesthetics of the thing.
Aquilani has demonstrated time and again, even during this preseason, when given space he can manipulate all sorts of crazy angles but pressured and he disappears and just becomes a guy running on a field. For goodness sake he was not only bundled off the ball in Malaysia (arguably his best performance for us to date) he was tossed to the ground several times by lads 3-4 stone lighter than him. Against Hull he was average and against Valencia non-existent.
Artistry is lovely when there is time to appreciate the work, but in sports artistry must be accompanied by utility, the sheer will and drive to even play ugly to get results. Aquilani, for all his skills, has yet to demonstrate depth in his work.
It really gets my goat when people lazily dub Aquilani unsuited to the Premier League when the evidence from when he actually did play clearly shows otherwise. Of the last 5 league games he started for Liverpool in 09/10, our fans voted him MOTM in 3 of them (Portsmouth, Fulham, Hull) and he came 2nd in the other 2 (Burnley, Chelsea).
As for being non-existent against Valencia, try counting the number of times our 2 CMs passed the ball to him in the first half. I did, and my count was 1 pass from Spearing and 1 pass from Adam. These were the 2 players you would expect most to be providing service to him, yet for whatever reason they totally ignored him. When Lucas came on in the second half Aquilani became much more involved.
Pretty insightful. Thanks!
My site:
simulation pret rachat de credits
To say he is unsuited because he is lightweight and “doesn’t have the time to pick a pass” is bollocks; look at David Silva. All you need to see is the comment above mentioning his man of the match stats, or simply look up a compilation of him on YouTube in any of those matches – the Portsmouth one I recall watching the other day.
Great piece, Rory. Shame I only found it today.
aquilani is a decent player in this country and in italy. artist? hmm…never saw anything that made me sit up and tune in.
luis suarez on the other hand, there is a world of difference and they both have played in the same league. why does one ‘artist’ as you put it, stand out and not the other?
i would suggest because one takes his opportunity while the other looks like he is waiting to be handed the opportunity.
i saw alberto dwindle on the ball once and then get robbed by an opposition player. he fell on to the deck and put his hands up pleadingly. the ref rightly waved ‘play on’ and the the football continued without him. that defines my feelings about aquillani. he’s got a nice hairstyle. end of.
Loaned out to the Serie A leaders and Champions League Quarter Finalists where he has just made his 25th appearances and will leave for an estimated £5m. Not one of Rafa’s best signings but never really given a chance in my opinion. To put it in perspective we replaced him (for approximately the same money) with Charlie Adam. Need I say more…
Lazy fat and injured. Never wanted to play for us and didn’t see too many teams queuing up to sign him when he was up for grabs. Time will tell