- Or: Why I Disagree with Xavi
Last week saw the emergence of a wonderful interview with Barcelona and Spain midfield ace Xavi Hernandez (read it here). Gracefully penned by Sid Lowe, the conversation unfolded the thoughts and character of the player, who came off as quite a sympathetic and articulate man.In all, the interview was a real treat to read in a media world so dominated by mindless post-match comments a la Monty Python (“Well Brian, I just hit the ball and there it was in the back of the net”) and made-up sensationalist non-stories. Here was a opinionated player who freely spoke his mind, and a journalist who gently marked a path for him to follow or stray from. Great stuff.
That being said, however, I must protest to some of Xavi’s bolder claims regarding the game as such. Xavi holds the view that football is essentially a game that revolves around the joy of playing neat passes around the opposition players, thus creating a entertaining and spectacular games of high technical quality. This view is described by himself as a ‘romantic’ one, apparently in contrast to the cynical, physical and destructive tactics/teams/players who are trying to ruin the fun of the gifted kids.
While I have no problem with Xavi stating his view (which I am sure is shared by many, maybe even the majority of football fans) I do feel that it is important to remember that there is a different way of perceiving the game as well.
The arguments put forward by Xavi are not new. It’s the type of rhetoric that has surrounded the Brazilian national team forever, and the modern version of the ‘tiki-taka’ is very familiar to the Dutch brand of total football as exhibited in the seventies. The point being that ball possession makes room for the technical details and individual skills which make football beautiful, makes it transcend the mere game and turn to art, as it were.
I’m not opposed to this latter idea as such. Without those moments of magic, football would be a dour affair, no question. However, I think that the perception that football is only about these epiphanic incidents, and indeed that you need to pass the ball around in never-ending triangles until they occur is a very one-dimensional and reductive view.
To me, the suggestion that only ‘pretty’ football is worth watching is simply wrong. First of all, it favours the ‘neutral’ perspective, which for me is highly overrated. Of course a number of pundits and commentators need to (and get paid to) take this objective stance. Football matches, however, are played between two teams that wish to win, hopefully at all costs, and I think that deep down, most players and supporters look at results first and performance second. Because for them (me), football is ultimately about winning and giving your all in the process. Playing beautifully as well is ideal, but essentially icing on the cake.
I know that some places, particularly in Spain, this view is not necessarily shared, but being molded by calcio for many years, such an attitude to me is exotic, bordering on incomprehensible. Naturally, I’m not saying that i prefer ugly and destructive football, that would be plain stupid. What I am saying, is that I prefer to see teams giving their all to win matches. What Xavi seems to be saying is that all teams should try and beat Barcelona or Spain by playing technical football and not get in their way with tactics, marking and physicality.
Pardon me, but that’s rubbish! The current Spain and Barcelona squads are obviously some of the most technically gifted sides ever to play the game, but should we as a consequence just drop the matches all together and let them win by default? Hardly – although that seems to almost be the case for Barca in La Liga.
Quite frankly, if Xavi feels that Barca’s defeat to Inter in the UCL-semi’s last year was ‘unfair’ as they were the prettier team to watch in the second leg, I must question his capacity to appreciate the richness of the game in full.
Football can be played in many ways, and personally I much prefer the directness of the current German side or the resilience of the WC-winning Italians in ’06 to the endless possession and passing around of the Spaniards. But I’m not saying that Spain should play any different than they do, and that – apart from a certain amount of talent and status! – is the difference between Xavi and I.
Maybe not everyone is prepared to appreciate the genius of the well placed sliding tackle, the brilliance of tactically outsmarting the opposition or the beauty of a player soaked in sweat from running tirelessly for 90 minutes. So be it. But it’s there. And I insist that it is not completely overshadowed by fun and finesse. Grinta! Passion! War! All essential components of great football to me. True beauty is born out of fight.
To stretch the aforementioned art-analogy, you could say that that the aesthetic concept underlying Xavi’s ideological ‘romanticism’ is the claim that ‘only that which is harmonious and pleasing to the eye is beautiful’ – thus disqualifying modern and historical expressive art altogether. That is a reductionist attitude for sure. Art was never just pretty, but indeed sometimes disturbing and always provoking emotions. As should football be, in all its multifaceted glory.
...
8 comments
2 pings
Adam Digby says:
February 16, 2011 at 12:19 am (UTC 1)
In total agreement with you Lars, there are definately other ways to enjoy football than the Barcelona ethos proudly pursued by Xavi and his current team mates. However I can also appreciate their football as they are the finest exponents of it, as Italy were of their own style in 82 & 06.
Having said that the people calling Xavi elitist or snobbish for extolling the virtues of his own clubs style are way off the mark too, led by another Guardian columnist today with whom I fully disagree. Xavi has every right to chase this perfection, just as Chiellini does for Juve, Totti for Roma, Zanetti for Inter. As long as a club is true to its own identity then they are all beautiful in my opinion.
LAP says:
February 16, 2011 at 12:27 am (UTC 1)
I concur. Hence the initial praise of the man. What I find somewhat arrogant/reductive is the extrapolation of said style to be ‘What Football is All About’ – which I may or may not be right to be reading between the lines…
Blanda says:
February 16, 2011 at 12:41 am (UTC 1)
You have put into words my feelings about Barcelona’s style of play. It is very beautiful. Watching them work their way to a goal is like watching a sunset. You know it’s going to happen in a spectacle of colors & light. It’s always amazing to watch, but I get the most joy out of watching a game that has me emotionally spent at the end. I find beauty in overcoming challenges in one’s football as much as the football itself, if that makes any sense. Might just be my personality though.
Great read.
Adin says:
February 16, 2011 at 10:10 am (UTC 1)
“but I get the most joy out of watching a game that has me emotionally spent at the end. I find beauty in overcoming challenges in one’s football as much as the football itself”
you read my mind.
This is why for me, Inter’s Champions League win was way too emotional for me to re-live again. I cry every time i see highlights or replays of the game every now and then.
Shayan says:
February 16, 2011 at 1:08 am (UTC 1)
Great article! I’m a Barca fan but I would never want to see all teams playing the same style. That’s what makes football the world game, different styles. The italian way of playing is beautiful too when played thr right way (wc 2006).
FootballFarrago says:
February 16, 2011 at 1:35 am (UTC 1)
I agree, there’s more than one way to skin a cat, and different doesn’t mean worse – but for me it’s hard to argue that winning in the Barca way isn’t the best way. I actually enjoy watching them and teams like them (Arsenal, Holland, Brazil) even if they don’t win, because to me, as someone who doesn’t support them, the result isn’t important and I can just enjoy watching the fantastic teamwork and skill. That said I am disappointed if they don’t win because I feel like they’ve been cheated.
Phil Ruse says:
February 16, 2011 at 12:02 pm (UTC 1)
It’s the difference in styles that can make the game fun to watch. But I don’t subscribe to this idea that Xavi is saying beauty is all; he thought they were the better team (they weren’t) in the same way that a post-match interview with a manager who has lost will suggest they didn’t deserve to lose because of all the effort they put in.
There’s a middle point of view that suggests Tika-taka is the best way of winning a match and that’s why they play that way. The problem I have with extolling the virtue of effort and passion is that “anyone” can do that – though I’m sure that’s debatable to some!
Giorgio says:
March 19, 2011 at 8:00 am (UTC 1)
I am on the side of both Xavi and Lars. Inter vs Barcelona last year was a good tie. However, the second tie was a joke. First Inter didnt even play football. I enjoy Calcio so very much and building hard working teams and how they incorperate trequartisti, but they played 10 defenders at one point in the game. The first leg was brillient tho. Inter played a attacking line up, used counter attacks very well. But football should never be what inter did in the second leg in that tie
Tweets that mention The Beautiful Game » Pondering Calcio -- Topsy.com says:
February 15, 2011 at 4:32 pm (UTC 1)
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Thorbjørn Thaarup and Andrew Gibney, Lars Aabjerg. Lars Aabjerg said: *New Post* at PC – on why I disagree with Xavi: http://ponderingcalcio.net/http:/ponderingcalcio.net/the-beautiful-game [...]
Tweets that mention The Beautiful Game » Pondering Calcio -- Topsy.com says:
February 16, 2011 at 10:44 pm (UTC 1)
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Matheus Torres, Greg Theoharis and Vampy Archer, Lars Aabjerg. Lars Aabjerg said: Late plug for my dispute with the Xavian football ideology: http://tinyurl.com/6ej9trg [...]