The good old days of journalism Image from ijpc.org
I hate football media.
Well, most of them.
You see, an unhealthy culture has developed within the mainstream media in their reporting of football. When the product of discussion is supposed to take place on the field of play, there is an alarming trend developing whereby off-field incidents are sensationalised to the extent of mirroring the gossip and truly disgusting culture that is found in the celebrity gossip and paparazzi world. Such celebrity websites can be truly horrific in the content that they post, often creating completely fake rumours just to stir up some conversation. Such outrageous and completely low acts of desperation have no regard to the people who are the victims of blind accusations, rumours and false information. Sadly, this culture is entering football and it is demeaning the action on the pitch, which has become merely a sideshow in many cases.
One can take a very relevant and current example of the English media campaign against Luis Suarez. Before I go on I want to make this very clear - I very much admire and sympathise with Suarez. While I do not condone such actions that he has found himself paying for such as the incident with Patrice Evra last season, there are so many minor incidents, which do not deserve to be mentioned in any newspaper, let alone the front page. I am referring to countless accusations of diving and claims of cheating levelled against Suarez by the English media.
This is a completely biased form of opinion, one which is only seemingly made without rational consideration and aimed at providing journalists the content with which to fill their days.
I can recall a stonewall penalty that Suarez should have had against Norwich earlier this season which was not given by the referee. The media chose to ignore this incident, presumably because this injustice was not worth reporting. Against Stoke City, Suarez was involved with a few altercations with a few Stoke City players and was battling with the referee, pleading to be given legitimate fouls committed on numerous occasions by the Stoke City defenders. At the conclusion of the game and quite unsurprisingly, the media focused on the behaviour of Suarez towards the referee and his attempts at gaining free-kicks by "going down easily". The media chose to ignore the harsh tackles and approach from the Stoke players while lambasting Suarez for his constant attempts at manipulating the referee and trying to get the Stoke players booked.
Furthermore, when Everton hosted Liverpool at home Phil Neville was booked for a dive by the referee. Once again there was minimal, if not zero coverage of this truly hideous crime committed by the captain of Everton. Perhaps it was because he is English. The most recent example and perhaps the most clear indication that there is a bias against Suarez is the almost universal condemnation levelled at Suarez for his handball against Mansfield Town. What strikes me most is how the media have portrayed Suarez to have not only cheated by deliberately hand-balling, but also how he bragged about it and goaded the Mansfield Town supporters by pointing to the hand which made contact with the ball. This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard because any slightly reasonable football supporter would know that Suarez has a tattoo of his daughter's name on his wrist which he kisses after every goal he scores. He also kisses his wedding ring every time he scores. Using a man's love for his family against him to stoke the fires of a witch hunt is reprehensible.
In addition to these biased accusations, the commentator of the game uttered the words "work of a cheat" when describing the goal. Not only is this an unfair and biased statement, it is unprofessional bordering on insulting. The most ridiculous thing of all is that the media chastised Suarez for not admitting that he handled the ball. That is like accusing a player of not admitting the ball came off his shin for a corner which leads to a goal for his team.
Image from @LFCphoto Twitter
If you visit a celebrity website or read a celebrity magazine, you will inevitably come across pictures of a close up shot of a celebrity woman's stomach. The editor/publisher will add an arrow to indicate where we should look on the photograph and amazingly there seems to be an irregularity in the lines of the shirt she is wearing. "PREGNANT!" the caption would declare, and with that fan-sites start speculating whether it is a boy or a girl. Nine months later and the celebrity woman in question is secretly photographed on a beach wearing a swimsuit and seemingly as thin as she was nine months previous. You might as well invent such stories if there are idiots who read them and buy your magazines. This sad state of affairs can be adapted with an almost frightening similarity to football's fastest rising source of lazy journalism - the transfer market.
It is within this world that journalism standards hits the depths of mediocrity-as if it follows a cycle like the tides follow the moon. Metaphorically, it is as if the plague sweeps the world of journalism every European summer and January and then suddenly leaves the world to rest for a few months. If you still think that journalists don't make up rumours, I would like to point out a recent rumour started by @TAngleFootball and @th14renato in order to expose lazy journalism. The fake rumour was that Eduardo Vargas of Napoli was to join Arsenal this January transfer window. The rumour was started on Twitter and included fake quotes from the player and fake details about the transfer. The result of this experiment was astonishing. The rumour appeared on the following mainstream media outlets:
MirrorFootball
ESPN Brazil
Lancenet.com
Gazzetta Dello Sport
Rai Sport
Daily Mail
Goal.com
Express.co.uk
Football-italia.net
These are just a sample of the media outlets that have published the Vargas to Arsenal rumours started up by two people on Twitter. In an even more embarrassing twist in the uncovering of lazy journalism, the author of the story published on the Mirror, John Cross, claimed that the first he heard of the Vargas rumour was after the story had been published under his name. One must wonder how much little journalists actually know when they write transfer stories and more worryingly how much of it is taken from Twitter. As one Twitter user asked, "Don't you read your 'own' articles before they are published?" It is a legitimate question and it puts into question how much content published in newspapers and online news sites are actually the work of the authors that wrote them. It also highlights how much content is just copied and pasted from other sites, with no research or enquiry as to the source of the information or it's legitimacy. Take all this in as you please, but I for one have lost faith in football media transfer news.
Proof of fake Eduardo Vargas rumour
Apart from my ramblings about the media, it seems that on a general level, that the media focuses too much on the negatives and not enough on the positives. Every time a team have lost a few games in a row, the media speculates the future of the manager. Every little training ground bust up is caught on camera and treated as the total and utter destruction of the dressing room. A player not passing to a team mate can be viewed as a sign that they don't like each other. If a player dives, he is a diver. If a player is from Brazil, he is too lightweight to play in the Premier League. The John Terry/Anton Ferdinand saga should have been played out in private but it didn't. Even the recent 'scandal' surrounding Pep Guardiola's refusal to shake the hand of Cristiano Ronaldo crept under my skin. Just today, as I am writing this article, one journalist asked Rafael Benitez at the pre-match press conference whether David Luiz's haircut would affect his form.
Yes, football media has become like the paparazzi and it has grown into a gossip monster, incapable of resisting the urge to seek and piece together poor quality content to gain as many readers as possible. Where being a sports journalist was previously looked upon by many teenagers as the ultimate career, it now more or less resembles a career working for a circus.
The media could well improve by focusing on the true stories in football - the ones that take place on the pitch. Maybe that way, the mainstream media could return to being more positive and actually make people happy to read about football. As George Costanza from Seinfeld says, "Why dwell on these negatives themes?"
Manchester City are a wonderful team, there is no doubt about that. They have magnificent players and they are reigning champions of England. However, City finished in last place in their Champions League group with a miserly 3 points, winning no games, scoring only 7 goals and conceding 11. Since this is the case, I would like to point out a couple of things which I believe would make Manchester City a better team.
Against the weaker teams, Man City can afford to play Tevez, Aguero, Nasri and Silva together. However, this system runs into problems when up against stronger opposition, namely, sides who are very good on the counter attack such as Real Madrid, Borussia Dortmund and Manchester United. It is against these sides where I think Mancini fails his team. Let me explain:
Image from article.wn.com
Mancini this season has found it problematic to find a suitable formation with the suitable players against the top sides. The reason is because his team is set up to play one of two ways. To play a compact and defensive game, or a game based on fluidity and attacking intent. The problem is that it can't do both. This is the heart of the problem which Mancini faces and the leading factor, in my opinion, which has led to their poor performances in Europe.
Against the weaker teams, City must play at least three of Aguero, Tevez, Silva or Nasri, but preferably all four of them. The reason is that in such games, the responsibility is placed on City to break down the other team's defensive block which you would expect to be tight and compact. Naturally, City would have the majority of the possession and would be the team who are expected to win the game. Such a strategy is pretty safe to use as long as they are playing against a team who do not counter attack very well. The negative aspect of this strategy is that against teams who can counter attack very well, City can be left exposed. A major reason comes from the way City are set up when the four players I mentioned play.
All four players play centrally. Aguero and Tevez are both strikers who play in the middle, while Silva and Nasri are not natural wingers and prefer to drift inside. Since this is the case, the only natural width City have is with both fullbacks pushing forward to support the play. It is essential that the fullbacks get involved in the attacking play, otherwise any team would find it difficult to create chances against a well organised defence. The reliance on the fullbacks to provide natural width can prove to be a problem. The reason is because when both fullbacks push forward, they can leave huge space behind them which can be exploited by the opposition players. Manchester United recently took full advantage of the space to create two goals in open play. The fullbacks going up by themselves is not a problem in itself. It only becomes a problem if the rest of the team cannot compensate for this particular movement.
Firstly, Silva and Nasri do not cover for their respective fullbacks forays forward. It is left up to Clichy and Zabaleta to track back to defend themselves even if they have advanced further up the pitch than Silva or Nasri.
Secondly, Yaya Toure is crucial to City's attack in that he often creates danger with his driving runs forward from deep areas, especially in transition. While this is all well, the harsh reality is that this means he leaves Barry isolated as the lone holding midfielder. In essence, the style of Toure often means that City's 4231 shape becomes a 4141 shape. People often debate whether Toure is better suited to a deeper role or a role behind the striker. The truth is that he can do both roles fantastically well. The problem is that he's asked to do both in the same game. Furthermore, this means that Barry is often forced to go forward with Toure in order to close up the distance between himself and Toure and this leave space in front of the two centre backs.
City's actual formation leaves too much space for Barry and both fullbacks to cover. Image from footballuser.com
Thirdly, Barry is not mobile enough to move laterally across the pitch. This is a crucial tactical error in City's shape because it means that Barry cannot cover for the fullbacks when they've gone forward. If Barry was as dynamic as a Ramires for example, City's 4141 formation could theoretically work. Sadly, this is not the case. Mind you, Garcia and Rodwell are similar types of players as Barry so they wouldn't make a tactical difference if they played instead of Barry.
The overall pattern seems to be that Mancini chooses to overload the middle and take numbers off the flanks in order to play four creative players all at once. While this system of play is not radical, it does require the players to do so. The problem City have, and is the ultimate problem Mancini has to solve, is how to give City width so that they can expand when they have the ball, while keeping compact when they lose the ball. At the moment, City don't do either. I get the feeling that City are not playing to the potential that they have. They have spent a great amount of money on players without a cohesive system in mind. Considering the money spent, City shouldn't be having so many and consistent tactical problems to deal with, and they should be dominating the league. Inefficiency in the transfer market is largely to blame and future managers (should Mancini not be in charge next season) will have the same problems as Mancini has. Too many players on highly paid wages that do not fit together in a cohesive system.
Having said all this, it still must be said that Manchester City are a great team with plenty of great players. They deserved to be champions last season. This season is different. Manchester United have strengthened and Europe taught them a lesson. In order to win the Premier League this season and to advance to the last 16 of the Champions League next season, Mancini has to find a way to incorporate his highly paid players into a better balanced system, otherwise he might no longer be wearing his blue scarf in the technical area of Etihad Stadium.
I was recently watching a Pep Guardiola documentary of sorts on Youtube. Actually, it was more like an intimate and revealing interview between Pep and Spanish movie director Fernando Trueba recorded in 2011. Among many things, Pep talked about how the player that plays in front of huge stadiums packed full of huge numbers of people once played played football on the streets with his friends. He went on to illustrate how he never met a professional football player that does not love the game. Expanding further on this point, Pep explained how his love of football shaped him as a person, saying that the best education he had received was from the school of football.
"I have learnt to deal with defeat, that others can be better than me. I have learnt to recover after not performing well, to try harder to be the best. I have learnt to accept that a team mate can be better than me, that the coach can pick another player if I have behaved badly. All that knowledge about relationships I have learnt from sport...I did not receive that education in theory, but in practice."
At this point I was thinking all the points he was making were fairly normal...until the following quote struck me.
"That is why group sports are more powerful than individual sports."
This got me thinking about comparing group sports and individual sports. I was curious as to which particular category of sport is better, on an overall scale. Which type of sport requires the most skill, the most determination, the most sacrifices and the most mental toughness. In essence, which type of sport is it the most difficult to become world class.
Having a limited knowledge of individual sports such as tennis and golf, I tried to picture myself in Roger Federer or Tiger Wood's shoes in the middle of long tennis game or golf tournament. No doubt a key distinction in both these sports is that when times get tough, there are no team mates to turn to. All the pressure is on the shoulders of a single person. There is no-one but yourself to blame if things go wrong and the performance is not good enough.
On the other hand, in a football team, there is a different kind of pressure. Your performance has a direct impact on the performance of your team mates. If you make mistakes, not only have you let yourself down, but you have let down your team mates as well. It is what I call the 'guilt factor' in team sports. This guilt factor enhances the pressure an individual feels to perform because the guilt of not performing is multiplied. This is not the case in individual sports because you are not playing for others and as such your actions have no consequences so to speak. The only consequence is what thoughts a player has in his head. Roger Federer clearly has mastered the art of controlling emotions:
"Previously I always thought it was just tactical and technique, but every match has almost become mental and physical - I try to push myself not to become upset and stay positive, and that's what my biggest improvement is over all these years. Under pressure I can see things very clearly."
It is clear to see that in a game like tennis mental strength and psychology plays an important part in the success of a player. While I do not doubt this, I do doubt that the role of the mind is more important in individual sports than in team sports. The reason for my doubt is that I believe you need even more mental stability in football due to the complexity of the game. Not only can obstacles come in the form of a loss of confidence on your part, it can come from the opposition players or your own team mates. It is not enough to simply be at ease with your personal psyche, it must be integrated successfully and harmoniously within your team.
An example of this might be the case of Mario Balotelli. He is a man who does not lack confidence or self belief. The problem is that his mental strength does not lie within the accepted limitations for his team to cope with. This is especially true for his manager Roberto Mancini. Mario's "self confidence" is perceived as a bad attitude, a brash cockiness and a weak team orientated mentality. If Balotelli's personality was to be used in tennis or golf he might stand a better chance of annoying and disgruntling less people, allowing him the freedom to express his talents to the full. In football, a more subtle approach has to be taken to successfully integrate with the people around him. This is what I mean when I say that team sports represent a more difficult and complex environment to control your own emotions, even if your are self confident and mentally tough.
Image from allaboutfcbarcelona.com
Application of skill on a tennis court or a golf course is much, much easier than in a team environment. This is another reason whyI believe football is better than tennis and golf. Golf especially is played in a closed environment. This is a state where the skill takes place in a stable and predictable environment. Corresponding with the closed environment, golf is an internally paced sport. In other words, the golfer controls when he chooses to commence and conclude the skill action. The skill has a clear beginning and end, the golf swing being an example of a closed skill.
The football environment is the opposite of these conditions, being both an open environment and an externally paced sport in which the athlete's decisions and execution of skills are affected by the players around him and the time that he must execute skills. I.e. a striker cannot miss an opportunity to shoot on goal because he feels rushed into taking the shot. Football players have to contend with a highly charged and pressured environment where quickness and speed of thought are crucial to skill execution, unlike in golf where you can take your time and pace yourself. Tennis is in between golf and football on the scale, where some plays are internally paced (executing a serve) and it is an environment where you must contend with only one or two opponents instead of eleven.
The final point I want to make is that group sports can have a bigger impact on the audience because it is a social event as much as it is a sporting event.
"You have to learn how to relate to others. I have learnt to make an effort for a team mate and I know that tomorrow he will do the same for me in order to achieve our common goals."
It is these interactions between team mates which enrich the sport. Football is a microcosm of society, where people gather together, share aspirations, make plans and objectives, and sets out to achieve them together. Differences of opinion will occur, people will get upset and bust-ups will inevitably occur. Managing these issues is part of the sport. Achieving victories together sweetens the experience of playing the sport.
In my opinion, the complexities and the richness of football cannot be compared to individual sports such as tennis and golf. Football is simply the best game in the world. Pep Guardiola perhaps has the ultimate reason for why football is the only universally loved game:
"It is also a fun game, it brings pleasure, it is a game in the end. We have forgotten about that word, to play. We at the bottom play football, we play everyday. I play dreaming about the next game and my players play everyday."
I am generally a serious and philosophical person. My writing reflects that and I'm sick of people telling me that I can't be fun. So I wanted to prove to them that I can let my hair down and be silly like them. So I have written the following article for the less serious people in life. (Or for serious but just not today people as well). Either way, put your silly hats on and don't tell me that my article is stupid. I will tell you now, it kind of is.
1. Driving bad for two-footedness
If you have a car and drive, you will already know that you mainly use your right foot to push the accelerator and the brake pedal. If you have a manual car your right foot will operate the accelerator and brake pedals, while your left will operate the clutch pedal. Either way, you will be using your right foot no matter what country you drive in. This means there is an imbalance in the work that your legs do. After many years of driving, the muscles in your right leg will have performed many more contractions than the muscles in your left leg. This means that the myelin surrounding the nerves in those muscles will have thickened, an adaptation related to muscle memory, or the ability for muscles to become more precise to certain movements. This may lead to an imbalanced use of one leg when performing football tasks such as always trapping or passing the ball with the right leg, simply because the muscles in your right leg are more used to contracting. If you want to be able to use both feet in football, don't drive. Or at least drive a manual car.
Want to be as good as Zidane? Image from xaxor.com
2. Playing chess improves tactical awareness
It is vital to improve your mental attributes such as awareness, confidence, decision making ability etc to improve as a football player. One of these attributes is tactical awareness, the ability to know where you are and where you should be. Chess is basically football played on a smaller field where the game lasts longer and is played at a lower intensity. It is proven that the chess masters have superior intelligence such as spacial awareness, problem solving and concentration. These attributes are basically the same ones that players such as Xavi, Zidane and Scholes have. If you play chess you can also improve these qualities which is the difference between the best players and the good ones.
3. Getting into your pants with the same leg makes your balance asymmetrical
Think about this- which leg do you use first to get into your pants or shorts when you dress? The first leg in is in all likelihood your preferred leg when kicking a football. In other words, since your childhood days you have been dressing and undressing without realising that you have been using the same leg over and over to get in or out of your trousers. If you assume that you change attire twice a day since you were five years old and you are now 25, you have dressed yourself 14,560 times. In a similar way to driving, you have been doing your non-preferred leg a major disservice. Not only has this affected your ability to use both feet, you have affected your balance. Try this experiment- wear different trousers to the one you are wearing now, but use your other leg to get into the trousers first. Not so easy, is it? If you are right footed, you have been overbalancing on your left leg. This means the action of passing, shooting or dribbling with your right foot is accentuated because your left foot is better at balancing your body than your right. If you want to improve your balance on your right leg so that you can use your left foot more in football, swap the leg you use to get into your pants.
4. To improve movement, walk backwards
Not a great point I admit. I was thinking of the movements in football and came to the conclusion that everyday human movement is non-specific to football movement. Football players run forward, run backwards, skip sideways, jump, jog, spin, hop- basically more than just walk, which is what we do in our everyday lives. If you want to improve your physical shape in football, then stop walking to work - skip instead. When you are in your office building, don't walk to your water cooler - walk backwards instead. When you walk up stairs, don't walk - hop up the stairs. These simple modifications in your day to day life will improve your football movement.
5. Playing FIFA helps you deflect blame so your confidence doesn't drop
It is a well known fact of playing Fifa on your game console that we humans refuse to blame ourselves when we concede a goal or lose a game. It is usually the players fault for not being good enough. Either that or you pressed X to pass but the button was faulty. You know what, the other player was cheating. Yep, that has to explain why I've lost every time I've played against my friend. What does this mean to us aspiring football players. It means that you will never blame yourself for mistakes you did. Never blame yourself for losing. It is this mentality which makes us bullet-proof. We will never get a dent on our armour of arrogance. Never accept it was our fault. (Why should it be - I tackled fairly but the referee gave a penalty - conspiracy!). All in all, we will never be hurt, never think it is me that's the problem and never lose our sense of self worth. If you want to never lose confidence in your ability as a football player, play Fifa. But never play as Fernando Torres.
6. Architects have a developed spacial awareness
The chess master moves his pieces in a particular space with obstacles in the way, but an architect designs the space. Not only does he design it, he designs it differently every time. That requires a mastery of spacial awareness and planning ability. Not to mention a real building is on a whole new level to a small board of 64 squares. Do you get what I'm getting at? If you want to improve your spacial awareness and ability to visualise and plan ahead, become an architect. Enough said.
Karate!!! Image from xaxor.com
7. Cycling will shorten hamstrings
On a slightly more scientific tone, it is said that fitness trainers who make their players cycle on a machine to improve their aerobic endurance are doing their hamstrings a disservice. You see, after constant repetition of cycling, your hamstrings will reduce in length due to the constantly shortened state it finds itself in a cycling motion. When a player kicks a ball hard or shoots on goal, the hamstring explosively lengthens as the leg moves away from the body. If your hamstring has been used to contracting in a shortened state, a sudden lengthening in such an action can cause a tear. In short, if you want to increase your chance of getting an injury, cycle. If you are smart, you would stick to good old running.
8. Ice skating improves balance
Ice skating improves balance because your whole body weight is balanced on two extremely thin strips of metal that has a much smaller surface area than your two feet. To improve your balance, take up ice skating. Simple really.
9. Karate kicks means better football kicks
Football is much like karate or taekwondo. In football, you use your leg to kick a ball. In karate, you use your leg to kick many things. Experienced martial artists have a greatly developed kinesthetic sense, the ability to know where your body is in relation to space. When performing a complex spinning kick, a martial artist must know precisely where his leg is and where it will go, as well as the ability to actually move his leg in the desired way. Elite football players also have an acute sense of their body position and can also precisely control the movements of their body and legs. Maybe Bruce Lee would have been a great football player if he hadn't discovered martial arts.
10. Artists can play number 10
I have written about creativity before on this site and on my own blog site. Having thought about it deeply I have come to a single conclusion. Artists are the most creative people on the planet. No doubt. If you want to be creative as a football player, if you want to be able to make more assists, if you want to be revered like the most creative players in the history of football, I will tell you one piece of advice. Paint!
You can now take off your hats and resume normal life.
We all know what creativity is-yes? It is something which allows you to create. Ok, that's not quite the description that gets me any closer to answering this rather complex and simple question. Wikipedia tells us that creativity is the invention of something new which has value. That is a very broad answer and is open to interpretation. No doubt scholars and philosophers have debated and reshaped this concept of creativity for thousands of years and as far as I'm concerned haven't truly defined in a single statement what creativity actually is. This is because creativity is one far reaching intangible concept in which it is impossible to definitively encompass all of its aspects in a single definition. With this, I will now attempt to create my own definition of creativity. Creativity, that is, in football.
If I were to ask you which are the ten most desirable attributes you would want in a football player, you would probably give me six or seven answers. You would pause, think hard, struggle due to thinking too hard, but finally give me a total of ten attributes. I would list those attributes you gave me and write them down on a piece of paper and stare at them. I would guess that there would be a good chance that I had noted the word 'creativity' somewhere on that list. Moreover, if I were to repeat this process with another nine people, I would find the word 'creativity' nine times. So what is my point. My point is that we must first establish how people think about creativity in terms of imagining a perfect player. Done. We've now established that creativity is something which is valued by all the stakeholders in football, that is the fans, players and others. Since creativity is a highly desired attribute, it would make sense for it to be something quantifiable- but it isn't. Creativity (until someone discovers an algorithm) is an intangible quality, something which cannot be analysed through statistics like we can possession or passes for instance. Funnily enough, by attempting to find some kind of statistics to define creativity, we might be systemetising a trait which stands against the very systemisation which attempts to define creativity. If this is the case, how can we possibly define what creativity is in football? Well, John Cleese, one of the most creative comedians in history once said that "[Creativity] cannot be explained...it is literally inexplicable." Now that we have established the value people see in creativity in a player, we can now start to answer our original question.
Image from fastcocreate.com
To answer this it is perhaps wise to start by explaining some fundamentals of the game. Fundamentals such as the objective is to win. This is achieved by scoring more goals than the other team. This in turn is manufactured in the two most basic aspects of the game: defence and offense. The defending aspect is concerned with preventing the other team from scoring while the offensive aspect is concerned with scoring goals for your own team. I think at this point it is fair to make the statement that creativity can only be achieved within these two aspects of the game. If your team has the ball, you are generally attacking and vice-versa. We all know that people generally associate creativity with attacking players, but can creativity also come from defenders? This is a hard question to answer but I believe the answer is no. Let me explain.
If we go back to our definition "creativity is the invention of something new which has value", defenders do not invent. They respond to what the other team is doing. Since reaction is in response to an outside stimulus, the "invention" has already been made by the attacker. The defender is simply responding to, and acting for a solution to the attackers' invention. However, (and this is where it gets complicated) one could argue that in the act of preventing an attacker from scoring or making any meaningful offensive play, the defender has "invented" a solution for his problem. I must admit that is correct. However, this is where the second part of the definition comes into play.
While the defender has had to invent a defensive play to counter the offensive play, his invention is not of a great value. In other words, the defenders' options to invent were restricted by the position of the ball and the opponents. This means that a part of the defenders' choice was actually chosen by the circumstances to which he could fully exert his creative thought over. This is where a a defender differs from an attacker. The attacker, unlike the defender, has the ball. This means that the responsibility is for the attacker to create in order to generate chances to score. Since the natural instinct of a defender is to react to the opponents' movements, their is less of a limit on what options an offensive player has to create goalscoring chances, than a defender has to limit goalscoring chances. The implication of this is that an attacking player with the ball has to create in a situation where he is, arguably, the player with the most pressure on his next decision. He is the reference point in the game at that moment in time and he controls the destiny of the next phase of play. This is why I think the player with the ball has to make a decision which holds a greater significance and value than a defender who does not have the ball.
Even though the player with the ball is supposed to be the most creative player on the pitch at that particular moment, there are a lot of players who do not display their talent sufficiently enough to be called creative. There are two viewpoints to try to explain why this is. The first possible answer is that certain people are born with creativity and others are not. The second possible answer is that all people are born with creativity but only a few have the ability to display their natural creativity. Sir Ken Robinson is an internationally recognised leader in the development of education, creativity and innovation according to his website. He once said that "If you're not prepared to be wrong, you'll never come up with anything original...adults have lost that capacity...we don't grow into creativity, we grow out of it." He suggests that all children have a natural talent for creativity and argues that the modern day educational model frowns upon mistakes and fosters an environment which does not encourage creative thinking. Applying this to football, we can say that a football club or academy is much like a school and a coach is much like a teacher. A child can enter an establishment which creates an environment which can help creativity or deny it.
Arsene Wenger once said that "a coach can stand in the way of creativity or he can foster it. But true creativity comes from the player himself. It's the player and not the coach who's creative. The coach can only help a player discover creative solutions a player wasn't aware of." It is an inspiring way to look at why children are more creative than adults. A famous psychological test is one where children and adults are asked to come up with as many uses for a paper clip that they could think of in one minute. Over and over again, children came up with significantly more ideas than adults. On the other hand, Cleese has a slightly different interpretation of creativity suggesting that it is as much about how one chooses to seek out creativity in one's life. According to Cleese, "Creativity is not a talent, it is a way of operating...Creative people get into a particular mood to allow their natural creativity to function." He talks about how creative people get into an 'open mode' in order to think creatively while being in a 'closed mode' is only to be used when you have the solution to the problem in order to effectively implement it.
The next angle of enquiry is to find out exactly what separates the best from the rest-the most creative players to the rest. Can we just assume that players who make assists and score goals are the most creative ones? Or is that too simplistic. By now, you should know that I like to go deep into any analysis, so naturally I think this is too simplistic a view to take. For example, Jason Puncheon from Southampton has five assists this season so far. Santi Cazorla has four. We all know who the better and more creative player is with all respect to Jason in the event that he is reading this post. So what is it which separates the best from the rest.
Image from Zimbio.com. Source: Michael Regan/Getty Images Europe
I often wonder if people think a player is creative simply because of his skill and a stereotype. If I asked you to choose who is the more creative player between Iniesta and Lampard the majority would probably choose Iniesta. Why is this? Lampard has greatly outscored Iniesta in his career and also had more assists than Iniesta, and yet, people usually refer to Lampard as a 'box-to-box midfielder' while Iniesta is a 'playmaker' or a 'number ten'. Could this categorisation of Iniesta and Lampard in creativity terms simply be because people think Iniesta is a skillful player. Or that Iniesta is a smaller player than Lampard, and that he's Spanish and Lampard is English. I think it is quite reasonable to suggest that skill/technique and public stereotyping have led people to believe that Iniesta is a more creative player than Lampard even though there is no statistical evidence to suggest so. Perhaps the reason people view Iniesta as a more creative player than Lampard is because Iniesta has the ability to make a play which surprises us, which was unexpected. With Lampard you get the feeling you won't get any spontaneous plays, it is all methodically efficient.
A player can be highly creative but cannot display his creativity because he lacks the skill to do so. It is no coincidence that the most creative players are also the most skillful ones. A truly creative player is one who views the game with curiosity rather than a series of inconveniences. Like both Cleese and Robinson say, a creative player does not fear mistakes and play as if they were kids. Be curious for the sake of being curious, without a conscious plan to seek a solution. It is players who can shield themselves from outside pressure so that they can get into the 'open mode'. Arsene Wenger puts this nicely- "This necessity [winning] can become a constraint that spoils everything. When you're obliged to do something, you do it badly. When you enjoy something, you do it with more conviction but also with creativity." The next time you watch a game, ask yourself which player is making mistakes but does not seem bothered. Who seems he is enjoying his football, who is not affected by the jeers he receives from the crowd. Which player does things which make his manager unhappy because he was not supposed to do that, but he wanted to try it so see what would happen. These are the things which should point you to the creative players.
Three amigos. Image from nandobase.wordpress.com
One area of curiosity for myself is to ask whether a team can be considered a creative one when there is a heavily systematised approach, that is heavily tactically orientated and planned. Consider Arrigo Sacchi's famous AC Milan team which dominated world football in the late 80s and early 90s. To this day, that team is considered one of the most creative and attacking teams who were successful. However, this particular team is a paradox. Although they had wonderfully creative players like Van Basten, Rijkaard and Ruud Gullit, their team tactics were highly organised and planned and were led by a coach who was famous for his ability to structure a team to play a highly organised and structured system with strict patterns of movements. Aldo Serena, AC Milan 1991-1993, said that "Sacchi had imprinted some tactical concepts and that Milan side almost played on memory. The movements were perfect at the back, the midfielders came back to help and all of this was because of Sacchi's maniacal work, which actually ended with him stressing and exhausting all the players." In this light, was that Milan team truly creative, or just very well drilled? Perhaps the secret was that Sacchi had found the perfect balance between system and individual, as Thierry Henry explains- "If you have a player who's creative on the pitch, someone who's different from the rest, he has to blend in with the unit, but also be allowed to do what he wants. For a coach it's a tough job to allow an individual player to do what he wants and still integrate him into the team. In moments like this I'm glad I'm not a coach." Sacchi had three such players which he had to balance and he did so. Perhaps thinking that Milan were not a creative team is naive, because they were. It could just be that Sacchi had created an organised system, a stable platform to allow his three amigos to function at their creative capacities. Or perhaps that Sacchi himself was creative, maybe more so than his players were. Franz Beckenbauer believed that "A coach has to be more creative than a player. After all, a player's creativity only takes place on the pitch."
In the end, creativity is like water. You can put water in a jug and the water takes the shape of the jug. It is what you want it to be. It is hard to explain and hard to control. Whatever you may think of it, creativity is like gold. It is precious and highly valued. I leave you with one last gem of a quote from John Cleese. "Telling people how to be creative is easy, it is being it that's difficult."
Football is a beautiful game when it is played in the beautiful way that it should be played. It is a sport which combines the strategic thinking of a chess master, the touch of a Formula 1 drivers' foot, the balance and poise of an Olympic gymnast and the creativity of a master painter. It pleases our senses, stimulates our impulses, shapes our feelings. These are the reasons that this sport of ours is unique, unmatched by any other. Sure, you get those who say you can get all those qualities in basketball, tennis or rugby. For those who do say that, I have some bad news for you - it's not the same. Nowhere close.
Art is everywhere around us. Have a look at the world around and tell me what you see. What do you see in your building-on the outside of your building, the landscape around you, the cars, roads, and man-made structures. The answer is shapes. Virtually every man-made structure is based on the fundamental mathematical division called geometry. It is the shapes of geometry which allow our architects, engineers, designers, builders and artists to create the buildings, tunnels and bridges of our world. Just like in our physical world around us, our beautiful game is based on geometry and just like the physical world, the shapes that are created by football are disguised by our inability to see the deep aspect of football, or profundus. With such a huge amount of our attention invested on the actual ball, we miss the shapes that would seem obvious to a coach or one who is looking them. Such shapes are created by the relationship of players to each other, the relation between the balls' position on the pitch to the position of the players, and of the balls' movement on the pitch. It are these shapes which occur thousands of times in a single game and are the ones which spectators are oblivious too. Quite often, the only time a spectator (especially a spectator who is not at the ground) will only be prompted to notice these patterns when they are pointed out by the commentator. Even then, the average spectator will soon forget about these patterns and resume their narrow-sighted attention on the ball and not much around it. So why does it seem so difficult to concentrate on these patterns? It is because they are so complex.
If we have a look at a 433 formation-the most fantasised of triangulated formations-it is clear to see what's on offer in terms of the potential passing routes. Graphically, there is a potential to have every player to be part of at least one positional triangle in relation to his teammates. Since this is the case, it is also possible for the ball to make a triangle on the pitch in three passes with three players. Another option is for only two players to complete the triangle if one of them moves to compensate for the third player not being there. Furthermore, there are thousands of possible combinations of passes that the players can make and the path that the ball can travel. It are these possibilities which people tend to associate with possession football.
The potential triangles in a 433 and the lack of in a 442. Image from futbolforgringos.com
The next question we must ask is whether this association between triangular spacing and possession is in fact a correct one. To answer this question, we can look at the actual geometry to reveal the answer. Firstly, ask yourself this: can you create a shape on the pitch other than a triangle using only three players. The answer is no. The only way you can position three players on the pitch without forming a triangle of some sort is by placing them in a straight line. In football, straight lines are the enemy of footballers because this is the worst type of spacing that three players can make. The reason is because only one player in this line has the option of passing the ball to both his teammates assuming that there are no defenders in between. The players on either side of him can only pass to the teammate in the middle. The only way that a player at the end of the line can pass to the other end of the line is by chipping the ball in the air or curving the ball around the middle player. This is bad for accuracy and requires greater skill to perform, thus reducing the efficiency and probability of a successful pass. To sum up- only one of the three players has the option to pass to the other two player, while two players can only pass to a single teammate.
This nicely leads to the principle of triangulation, or, spacing players such that they form the triangle shape. The first thing to note about a triangle is that a triangle cannot, by the law of physics/mathematics/geometry, exist on a flat plane (the playing surface) with having some sort of latitudinal and longitudinal spacing. In other words, at least one of the points of the triangle must have at least one of either horizontal deviation or vertical deviation. If this does not happen, the three points would essentially be in a straight line. If you still don't understand, try thinking of it like this. Imagine that you draw two points on a paper (the paper represents the football field). If you connect these two dots with a line, you will have a straight line between the dots. Now extend this line so that it goes beyond the dot. Now draw another dot on the extended part of the line. You should now have three dots on a single straight line. Because you drew the last dot on the extended line, you still have a straight line and not a triangle. However, if you drew the third dot off-centre from the extended line, you have created a triangle because you have deviated the last point so that it is no longer directly in line with the first two dots. Think about it, to deviate the third dot off-centre from the straight line, you either moved the dot left, right, up or down. That, essentially, is what I mean by latitudinal and longitudinal spacing.
freedigitalphotos.net
Now that we understand a basic property of a triangle, we can now explore how triangles make it easier for a team to keep possession. Before we do so, we must firstly understand a basic requirement that allows a team to keep possession. This requirement is teammates for the ball possessor to pass to. If a player with the ball has zero available teammates to pass the ball to, it is virtually impossible to keep possession of the ball. Triangulation helps to solve this problem by utilising a brilliant geometrical property of the triangle- the hypotenuse.
The hypotenuse is a property of the right-angle triangle and it is the key as to why triangles are so effective to keep possession. It has to do with distance. If we imagine a right-angle triangle, we know that the hypotenuse is the longest of the three sides. If we had three players who formed a right-angle triangle on the pitch, the two players who are stationed on either end of the hypotenuse will have the longest pass to each other in terms of distance. The other two possible passes are both shorter in distance. This means that a defender would have more distance to run along the hypotenuse and less distance to run along the other two sides. This has important implications for football because if we can can figure how to manipulate the triangle so that we can make more use of the longer hypotenuse and less use of the shorter sides, possession football will become easier because the opponents would have to cover more ground to reach reach the player with the ball and his teammates. This effectively means extra space is created for the team in possession and consequently increases the time they have to make correct passing decisions and makes it easier for his teammates to find space to receive passes.
The way to achieve this is to ensure that no two consecutive players are on the same longitude or latitude as each other. l.e. no player is directly vertical or horizontal to his nearest teammate. In the following diagram, we see a midfield four that are all on the same horizontal plane, meaning there is no vertical deviation at all. In the second midfield, there is a clear vertical and horizontal spacing between the players, i.e. vertical and horizontal deviation.
What this does is create triangles which maximise the distances between each point of the triangle. In effect, it creates triangles entirely made up of hypotenuses. The knock on effect of this is that, since the distances are maximised by utilising both vertical AND horizontal spacing, it is harder for the defending team to intercept passes, close down opponents with the ball, and mark the players without it. The other effect it has is spacing the players of the defending team away from each other so that they cannot keep a compact shape or press in numbers. This reduces more of the game to 1v1 battles and favours the team who has better technique and tactical organisation to pass the ball and keep possession. All these favourable outcomes are due to the triangle, and cannot be achieved with any other shape.
As triangles are crucial to the design and construction of real world structures such as buildings and bridges, so too are they crucial in the design of a football team. When you hear a comment such as "passing in nice triangles" in reference to a nice piece of passing by a team, they are referring to the concept of triangulation. Even though people tend to ignore the deep analysis of geometry to explain why triangles are so important in football, they are nevertheless correct in making the connection between triangles and effective possession. Perhaps the team that are currently most famous for the use of triangles is Barcelona. One term which sums up perfectly this style of play is "strangulation by triangulation". When you have players such as Messi, Xavi and Iniesta playing in triangles across the whole field, it makes for a lethal combination.
freedigitalphotos.net
In the end, triangles in football are not just something that is thrown around by managers and the media when referring to possession. It is a fundamental geometrical part of football, something which makes football beautiful. Just like the most famous artists, the brightest mathematicians and the engineers of this world use triangles to create and innovate new methods, styles and discoveries, so too does football. When we start to truly look for the profundus, the deep side of football, we can truly appreciate how important and fundamental the hidden world of geometry is to football. Perhaps it is only appropriate to label the humble triangle as the the most famous shape in football.
Are systems overrated? What do I mean by that. I am talking about systems of play and formations that the average fan talks about e.g. 442, 433, 4312 and so on. My question is whether we talk and compare formations of two teams playing against each other too much. Do we overrate the way a team is written on paper in the sense that the formation a team adopts on the field has a large effect on the flow of the game and ultimately the result.
To give you a prime and recent example I point you to the recent game between Italy and Spain in the 2012 European Championships. the major tactical talking point was Vicente del Bosque's decision to not start with any of his three recognised strikers and instead play with Cesc Fabregas in a false nine position. While this was a surprise to many observers, it wasn't a major shock by any stretch of the imagination as Spain can comfortable play without a striker because their ability to possess the ball is unmatched by any other national team currently. In theory, playing a midfielder in the number nine position should enhance the team's ability to possess the ball for even longer periods of the game. After Italy scored first through Antonio di Natalie, Fabregas equalised soon after and the game ended in a draw. While Fabregas scored a goal in that game, the general consensus from journalists and supporters was that the striker-less formation used by Spain restricted Spain's goalscoring chances. The media suggested that a striker must play the next game against Ireland and indeed the inclusion of Fernando Torres in that game yielded two goals for him and a 4-0 win for Spain. It seemed to confirm in many people's eyes that by playing a natural striker who would play on the last man, Spain had a focal point to aim for and created many more chances to score.
You could argue that this is the case but you could also equally argue against it. Was it the change in formation that allowed Spain to win? Possibly. However, it is even more probable that it was just a case of Spain's opponent being of a lower quality than Italy. It is natural that you would expect Spain to score more goals against Ireland than you would against Italy. Consequentially, the argument that Spain's change in formation was the largest contributor to them being more successful in the second game than the first suddenly makes less sense and logic. It is by this example where I question whether tactical formations are over-emphasised in the media. I am not entirely dismissing the notion of formations entirely, far from it. I am simply pondering if the result of games are attributed to the formations of the two teams. To show you an example of what I mean, I would like to point your attention to a common stereotype of a 433 vs 442 formation battle.
Dream team vs Fantasy team. 433 vs 442. Who wins?
The standard perception is that the team playing the 433 will outnumber the team playing 442 in midfield and will therefore dominate possession. On the other hand, it is said that the team playing 442 will deliver a greater threat up front via the twin striker partnership and can also dominate the wings by utilising the space between the opponents wingers and fullbacks. This stereotypical attitude is common throughout the world of the football commentator. You often hear a commentator complain that,
"the striker is isolated upfront and has no support. I think the manager should throw on [strikers' name] at halftime and change to two upfront. The gaffers' got to shake things up a bit, otherwise they'll never get back into this,"
or something to that nature. Naturally, the solution always seems to throw on another striker and change formation and somehow that is always the way to fix the problem on the pitch. The problem I have with this attitude from pundits and fans alike is that it seems that they are not trying hard enough to properly think and analyse the situation at hand. To often I find myself in a position of watching a match and virtually predicting word-for-word what the commentator is going to say next. I find it a rather unique skill to be honest.
The main thing to take out of this is that too often in football it is the micro-tactics which are neglected; that is, the tactics which look into really detailed analysis of the individual interactions between players and the movements and spaces these create. It is these aspects (or "finer details") that ultimately make the difference between who wins and who loses. By being to broad and too general is our analysis of the games, we are missing the key substances which are the real difference makers. It is perhaps a symptom of a lack of expertise in the field of micro-tactics which causes commentators and fans to become so predictable and boring in their communication of the tactics of a match. Not to mention that it takes an incredible amount of data, time and work to compile some resemblance of a usable and useful dossier on micro-tactics. However, this is slowly changing as more data and statistics becomes available to the public in the form of television, internet, communications technologies and modern performance data capturing capabilities.
While the trend is starting to go in the direction of micro-tactics, there is still a huge misconception to those unfortunate enough not to have caught up to modern trends, that believe that a 433 will always dominate in midfield against a 442. Unfortunately, you may be hearing that from a commentator who is voicing his opinion in the next game you watch on your television.
