"There are more than a hundred ways to win a football match. Choose whichever works for you!"
Recently, I read with disgust a news highlight on one of the dailies that Manchester City's Rodri was highly critical of Morocco's counterattacking approach against Spain. Immediately I saw that, I wished I was in close proximity to the Spaniard to give him a piece of my mind. But, I'll gladly give that piece of my mind right here, right now.
Seriously, what's the bias with possession football? Yes, you have to kick the ball around to somehow win a football match. In a similar manner, you have to score to win a football match. A coach I worked with back then once reminded me that a football match starts at 0-0. If neither team scores the game ends as a goalless draw. Even on the rare occasions when it goes to a penalty shootout, you still have to stick the ball in the back of the net to win, this time facing only the goalkeeper from 12 yards.
So, whatever pattern of play a team chooses to engage in always starts and ends with putting the ball in the back of the net. Afterall, goals are what make football a lively and joyous sport. I've never seen a situation where a defender makes a strong tackle and every one of his teammates leaves the football field to go celebrate that tackle with the manager. The only action that commands such grand celebration is goalscoring. So, why would a dude who plays for a team that could neither stick the ball into the net from open play in over 120 minutes or beat just the goalkeeper from 12 yards in three attempts have the effrontery to send insults the way of another team?
I've never been the type that criticize tactical plans of other managers, it looks stupid to me. A serious team plays to his strength while also considering the opposition. Mourinho's Inter Milan played without the ball at Camp Nou back in 2010 and got the desired result. His swashbuckling, counter attacking style was good enough to knock out prime Barcelona and defeat Van Gaal's Bayern to the Champions League title. Ranieri's Leicester had less than 40% possession in most games they played in their title winning season. I bet most people didn't remember that now, but they remember Leicester City defied the odds to win the English Premier League. If every team decides to pass the ball to death all in the name of playing possession based football, most games will be joyless, goalless.
Against Morocco, Spain had just one shot on target in 120 minutes. They were utterly clueless until Nico Williams came in and started running at the defenders with the ball, jettisoning the possession game for a more direct approach. The deeply defending Morocco had at least two chances to win the game within 90 minutes, one a clear goalscoring opportunity. What's the point of having over 1000 passes and a million more touches and you can't shoot the ball on target at least two times?
Guardiola has been uber successful with possession based football. That's not because possession based football is the best way to win a football match, it's simply because Guardiola is a once in a lifetime managerial talent. He's more like the Messi of managers; where he has succeeded other managers have failed woefully. Klopp focused on gegenpressing and he's defeated Guardiola on several occasions with his heavy metal style of play. There are more than one route to score a goal. Find the one that suits you and your players, then stick to it.
Xabi Alonso played for Benitez, Mourinho and Guardiola. He once explained that while playing at Madrid (for Mourinho), they control the opponents without having the ball. In the end, an ugly win is way better than a beautiful defeat. What's an ugly win anyway? Not having the ball for most of 90 minutes? Or, defending your goal and then nicking just one goal that is enough to win. Is that ugly? As far as I'm concerned, that's not ugly. That's an efficient way of getting what you want.
So, Rodri, just shut it!
Image Source: https://images.app.goo.gl/y6ABXsHBW8Ab5giS6
