Sunday was a very important day in Birmingham City's history. The Blues won their first major honour in 48 years against Arsenal – a match they weren't given a chance of winning by so called experts. It was also an important day for every club outside the top four.
Since Sunday I've seen quite a few articles dotted around the internet and, as expected, some rather bitter Gooners. The most disappointing of all though? The pretty football brigade. One article I read was written by a Spurs fan and more or less said that Birmingham City winning anything was bad for football.
Another fan, who I presume was an Arsenal supporter, said that Birmingham were anti football and didn't deserve success. What is the definition of 'anti football'? Cheating? Playing dirty? Using long throws? Passing the ball in the air? It would seem the pretty football brigade will use any of these to excuse a loss.
Even in Arsene Wenger's post match interview, he had a dig at Birmingham saying that he expected 'lots of long balls' and that Arsenal's error had 'handed them the trophy'. Well, at least he saw it. Nothing about Birmingham playing well and working their socks off. Nada.
It doesn't help that certain well respected (well, maybe not Wenger...) figures within the game are very quick to bemoan any team that plays in a way that hinders them. On Sunday, Blues boss Alex McLeish masterminded a game plan that brought the Carling Cup back to the second city. A couple of days before the game, Big Eck stated that he had found a formula to beat Arsenal and he was right.
Birmingham lined up with that oh so anti football formation of 4-5-1. The same formation that England fans nationwide were begging for during the World Cup. 6'8'' Serbian Nikola Zigic spearheaded the attack and, but for a sloppy quarter of an hour at the start of the game, did brilliantly against Arsenal's back four.
I suppose the pretty football brigade will point to both Birmingham goals and question how they can win a football game. A header from a corner and a tap-in after a mix-up are hardly breathtaking goals, but they all count.
I admire Arsenal, I really do. Their dedication to that style of football is something many clubs don't have. But is it more admirable than Stoke City's dedication? In short, no.
Had it been Stoke City and not Birmingham lifting the trophy last Sunday, the anger from Arsenal fans would surely have been more intense. For Wenger and Arsenal, it's their way or the highway.
Wenger likes to pluck players out of obscurity who can retain possession. Tony Pulis on the other hand, prefers to go for physically strong players, normally over six feet tall. There is no blueprint to football, there is no right way and wrong way to play the game. That's why it is the greatest game on Earth.
Nearly every nation on the planet has a contrasting style. Many fans argue that the game is becoming a non-contact sport with the influx of foreign players increasing the amount of diving taking place.
But Arsenal fans and Wenger in particular would love for that to happen. If games were played in the same style as training games are, Arsenal would probably win every bit of silverware every year.
Why should clubs like Blackpool and Hull be applauded for their attacking style in the Premiership? Look where it got Hull, and I wouldn't be surprised if the same happened to Blackpool. Possession doesn't win games, passing doesn't win games either.
West Brom are another good example, they have long been seen as the Arsenal of the Championship. Mainly because whenever they get promoted, they can't stop the ball from entering their net. After the appointment of Roy Hodgson and with a bit more steel and organisation, that might change.
It might work for Barcelona, they have better players than Arsenal and they play in a country where keeping possession is the most important thing. In England, that is not the case. English football has always been a bit scrappy and some of the England greats have possessed attributes that would now get them labelled as 'anti football'.
How can anybody blame a team for playing to their strengths? Stoke do it. So do Birmingham. Neither of those sides can compete with Arsenal in terms of money spent on transfers so they have to cut their cloth accordingly.
Birmingham's win on Sunday was a victory for old fashioned English grit and determination, a tactical masterclass from McLeish and a bit of luck. The performance was a brave one and for an anti football team, they have done very well in cup competitions this season. They're also the first team outside the top four to reach the Carling Cup final since Wigan Athletic in 2006.
Football is all about different opinions, Wenger and McLeish obviously differ quite dramatically in this case but neither view can be seen as right or wrong. McLeish proved that you can assemble a team mostly out of misfits and unwanted players and with a bit of organisation and playing to your strengths, you can upset the odds.
Let's put it this way, I'd much rather support a club that play physical football (within the rules of the game) than one which have players that admit to diving. Who are the anti football lot now?
Birmingham City's win proved to the teams outside the top four that you can play 'anti football' and still be successful. Now let's see how many trophies Arsenal win this year...
No comments:
Post a Comment