Barca's rhyme and reason

dyl10

For anyone interested in a lengthy, in-depth read, give the following a look.
Probably the best footballing article I've read in recent years.
Although I don't agree with everything mentioned, it's an extremely well written, well thought out argument.

---

I n the Book of Esther, which comes between Nehemiah and Job in the Old Testament, a retainer of the Persian King Xerxes named Haman plans to have his rival Mordecai put to death. To this end, he has a 75-foot high stake erected so that Mordecai can be impaled upon it. Haman's plans go awry and in the end he's the one who gets stuck on the big stick.

The fate of Haman came to mind on Wednesday night when Didier Drogba proclaimed his belief that Chelsea had been cheated out of victory in their Champions League semi-final against Barcelona. Cheated, you say' Didier, mon ami. Non, non, non. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the wise ancient Irish proverb "it takes one to know one."

Schadenfreude, the taking of delight at the misfortunes of others, may not be the nicest of emotions. But isn't there something wonderful all the same about seeing Drogba, after his many years of diving, cheating, whinging and malingering, appealing to the gods of fair play. As was seen in some of his tussles with Yaya Toure in the semi-final, Drogba is an immensely strong, big man who can stand up to all kinds of physical pressure if he wants. He chooses not to. Little Lionel Messi's ability to ride a heavy challenge and keep going, Maradona-style, is, on the other hand, so noteworthy because it is increasingly rare at a time when players seem happy to flop at the first instant of contact.

Chelsea certainly did have a case for a couple of penalties but is it any wonder Tom Henning Ovrebo decided against awarding one to Drogba when the striker was brought down by Eric Abidal in the first half' It must have crossed his mind that the player who had gone to the ground is someone whose predilection for plunging earthwards at the merest hint of contact has become the most famous thing about him. The Chelsea centre-forward has no-one to blame but himself.

In fact, the whole match could have been seen as a case of bad karma catching up on Chelsea. After all, it's only four years since they knocked Barcelona out of the Champions League with a late goal from John Terry which owed everything to a blatant foul on Victor Valdes by Ricardo Carvalho. This was quickly glossed over by the English media who preferred to focus on Chelsea's fighting spirit and professionalism.

That second leg at Stamford Bridge took place in the shadow of allegations by Jose Mourinho that Barcelona manager Frank Rijkaard had visited the referee's room at half-time in the first leg in an effort to influence the referee. It turned out this meeting had never happened and that Mourinho had, in all probability, invented it in an effort to put referees of subsequent Chelsea matches under pressure. What goes around comes around.

Similarly, any Chelsea fans who might feel tempted to blame Mister Ovrebo for costing their club the chance to win Champions League 2009 might reflect on the fact that the referee's biggest critic cost them their chance to win last year's competition. If Drogba hadn't decided to throw a tantrum over Manchester United's refusal to kick the ball into touch when he wanted them to and got sent off for hitting Nemanja Vidic, the chances are he'd have been one of Chelsea's first-choice penalty-takers.

A little bit more discipline from Mister F*****g Disgrace himself and Chelsea might be the reigning champions of Europe. Equally, it wasn't the ref's fault that Drogba failed to score when put clean through in both the first and second legs against Barcelona. One suspects that the fury of the post-match reaction on Wednesday may have had its roots in Drogba's guilt about not doing the job he's paid to do.

In any event, nothing could have been better for the game of football than a Barcelona victory over Chelsea. The two clubs represent almost completely contrasting visions of sport. On the one hand, you have Barcelona, a club which is the expression of Catalonian pride and whose disdain for commercial values is such that it has never had a shirt sponsor. Instead, it wears the UNICEF logo on its shirts and it's the club which pays UNICEF, around EUR2m a year.

On the other, you have Chelsea, the plaything of a Russian plutocrat, whose current success is based almost solely on money and which spent most of the last 50 years oscillating between being the third best and the fourth best team in London. Barcelona are the club which stood up to General Franco, Chelsea have numbered among their fans a brutally violent neo-nazi element.

On Wednesday, Barcelona were managed by Josep Guardiola who was born in Barcelona and came through the club's youth system.

Chelsea, meanwhile, were guided by their fourth manager in two years. They are the epitome of everything that is mercenary about modern football. Conversely, Xavi, Valdes, Busquets , Puyol, Pique and Bojan were all born in Catalonia while Iniesta and Messi have been at Barcelona since they were schoolboys. This is a remarkable thing in these days of globalised teams largely put together with the aid of huge transfer fees.

There is also the question of style. Chelsea are all muscle, hustle and bustle and in the first leg, they frequently stuck the boot in to try and put Barcelona off their stride. Barcelona, on the other hand, play football as it is played in the dreams of the lovers of the game. They do so with such a single-minded focus that it can be frustrating when things are not going well for them. As time ticked away, you wondered why they didn't lash a few hopeful balls forward. Instead they continued with the usual intricacies. The goal arose from a determination to pass the ball until an opening could be contrived and a belief that the players had sufficient skill to take advantage of this opening when it came. Andres Iniesta did just that.

The pragmatists and utilitarians of this world may point out that workrate, tackling and chasing back are every bit as important in football as what Iniesta did on Wednesday and what Messi does most weeks. This may be true but they are not the reasons why most of us watch football. Barcelona are poetry while Chelsea are prose. And the man who doesn't love poetry has something dead in his soul.

Attempting to apply moral values to sport is a mug's game. The bad guys often win, cynicism often triumphs, it is possible to buy success. That's why it was wonderful to see, for a change, a team which stands for the best in football defeat a team which worships a diametrically opposing set of principles. The thuggish capering of Drogba and Ballack after the final whistle merely confirmed my first reaction to Chelsea's bad luck with those penalty decisions.

It couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of guys.

Little Lionel Messi's ability to ride a heavy challenge and keep going, Maradona-style, is, on the other hand, so noteworthy because it is increasingly rare at a time when players seem happy to flop at the first instant of contact.

Messi is far from innocent when it comes to diving

Neil3030

Great article alright. I certainly concur with the sentiments about Drogba trying to cloak his unrest at the club, constant cheating and rubbish performances and chances wasted over the 2 legs against Barca with a last gasp display of false passion. What's that phrase? I think he doth protest too much? Certainly applies there imo.

growler

seems like a completely biased anti-chelsea rant to me

dyl10

growler wrote: »

seems like a completely biased anti-chelsea rant to me

That's exactly what it is. The key difference between this and the usual rant is that it appears to have good grounding and the author has structured good examples to clarify his points.

For anyone interested, this was in yesterdays Sunday Independent.

UnitedIrishman

I'd agree with most of that, even if it is a biased piece.

No team is without flaws but there are teams without a bit of class, Chelsea is one I'd put in that category.

Then again, I'm biased too.

UnitedIrishman

I'd agree with most of that, even if it is a biased piece.

No team is without flaws but there are teams without a bit of class, Chelsea is one I'd put in that category.

Then again, I'm biased too.

eZe^

Excellent article in places, didn't really like that he relegated Chelsea to a Russian billionaires plaything. Chelsea FC are a massive club, who have built success recently on sheer desire, strength and belief. Most world clubs would be proud of achieving anything close to what Chelsea have in the past 7 years... However I loved the emphasis on Drogba being a total and utter ****, and how Barca have a massive Catalan and youth team presence...

MisterAnarchy

dyl10 wrote: »

The pragmatists and utilitarians of this world may point out that workrate, tackling and chasing back are every bit as important in football as what Iniesta did on Wednesday and what Messi does most weeks. This may be true but they are not the reasons why most of us watch football. Barcelona are poetry while Chelsea are prose. And the man who doesn't love poetry has something dead in his soul.

Attempting to apply moral values to sport is a mug's game. The bad guys often win, cynicism often triumphs, it is possible to buy success. That's why it was wonderful to see, for a change, a team which stands for the best in football defeat a team which worships a diametrically opposing set of principles. The thuggish capering of Drogba and Ballack after the final whistle merely confirmed my first reaction to Chelsea's bad luck with those penalty decisions.

It couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of guys.

Couldnt put it better myself.
I also thought it was funny watching the post match analysis on both RTE and Sky.
RTE's panel were delighted Barca had won while Sky were angry and vitriolic that Chelsea had been 'robbed'.Priceless

bottlerocket

Good article. Clearly he doesn't have much time for chelsea but in fairness, they haven't exactly covered themselves in glory with their behaviour over the past few years. Hugh McIlvanney wrote a good piece in the Sunday Times yesterday along similar lines and I'd hardly consider him to be a biased journalist. Fact is, some of Chelsea's behaviour in the last few years has been arrogant at best and downright disgraceful at its worst. Ask Anders Frisk. They're a horrible club in many ways, but had a great team from 2005-7 and for the second half of last season. The bitterness and bile coming from them has been disgraceful. What about the pen Henry should have had, Abidal's sending off? The line being peddled about a Uefa conspiracy is English jingoistic nonsense at its worst. Bottom line is, Drogba had been a pain in the arse to the Barca defence over 180 minutes and if he had put away any of the chances he had in both games, Chelsea would probably be in the final. If his manager hadn't taken off his best attacker against 10 men, they would've caused far more problems in the last few mins. Chelsea got exactly what they deserved.

The most impressive thing about Barca the other night was that they didn't lose faith in their game, even 3 minutes into injury time. They're a joy to watch and the best footballing team I've seen. Like he says, the utilitarians will argue about chasing, tackling etc but the reason people love the game is because of teams like Barcelona. They're a wonderful club. Full of self-regard sometimes but this is a special team. I'm a United fan but the best football in Europe for the last 5 years, bar last season has been played by Barcelona. They have values and beliefs that the game seems to have lost. They make a ton of money, have many of the best players in the world, but can still pay Unicef to be their sponsor. They're owned by their fans, give youth its head and seem genuinely grounded in their community/country. Football needs clubs like Barcelona and if they win the CL, I will be a little disappointed as a United fan but happy for the game. Good luck to them.

bottlerocket

eZe^ wrote: »

Excellent article in places, didn't really like that he relegated Chelsea to a Russian billionaires plaything. Chelsea FC are a massive club, who have built success recently on sheer desire, strength and belief.

Yep, and half a billion from Roman.

Warper

bottlerocket wrote: »

Good article. Clearly he doesn't have much time for chelsea but in fairness, they haven't exactly covered themselves in glory with their behaviour over the past few years. Hugh McIlvanney wrote a good piece in the Sunday Times yesterday along similar lines and I'd hardly consider him to be a biased journalist. Fact is, some of Chelsea's behaviour in the last few years has been arrogant at best and downright disgraceful at its worst. Ask Anders Frisk. They're a horrible club in many ways, but had a great team from 2005-7 and for the second half of last season. The bitterness and bile coming from them has been disgraceful. What about the pen Henry should have had, Abidal's sending off? The line being peddled about a Uefa conspiracy is English jingoistic nonsense at its worst. Bottom line is, Drogba had been a pain in the arse to the Barca defence over 180 minutes and if he had put away any of the chances he had in both games, Chelsea would probably be in the final. If his manager hadn't taken off his best attacker against 10 men, they would've caused far more problems in the last few mins. Chelsea got exactly what they deserved.

The most impressive thing about Barca the other night was that they didn't lose faith in their game, even 3 minutes into injury time. They're a joy to watch and the best footballing team I've seen. Like he says, the utilitarians will argue about chasing, tackling etc but the reason people love the game is because of teams like Barcelona. They're a wonderful club. Full of self-regard sometimes but this is a special team. I'm a United fan but the best football in Europe for the last 5 years, bar last season has been played by Barcelona. They have values and beliefs that the game seems to have lost. They make a ton of money, have many of the best players in the world, but can still pay Unicef to be their sponsor. They're owned by their fans, give youth its head and seem genuinely grounded in their community/country. Football needs clubs like Barcelona and if they win the CL, I will be a little disappointed as a United fan but happy for the game. Good luck to them.

Good post - cant wait for the final - let the best team win.

dyl10

Warper wrote: »

Good post - cant wait for the final - let the best team win.

Thank god it wasn't another all English final.
The two best teams from the two best leagues, that's the way European finals should be :pac:

kinaldo

The thing about Chelsea is that I used to really like them, in spite of Ken Bates, right through from Hoddle, Gullit, Vialli and Ranieri. They were a moderately successful club, albeit only the 3rd most in London, but they were fantastically ambitious and always tried to play entertaining football.

Mourinho ruined all that. Yes he's a fantastic manager and brought greater success, but he also brought with him the arrogance to Chelsea and wittingly made them probably the most hated team in England.

I still think they're a great club, but really, they no longer have any class, and even someone like Guus Hiddink will come out and defend that whinging, diving and foul mouthed cheat, Didier Drogba, which I found unbelievable.

Barcelona on the other hand are a club that neutrals can really like, and I say that as a 'madridista'.