My View: Should "Negative" Football Be Banned?

The debate of whether football teams should be forced to abandon the ultra-defensive, unmitigatedly pragmatic styles of play characterized by teams of tacticians such as Diego Simeone and Jose Mourinho, and be entrusted with the commandment of employing riskier, attack-based, and dynamic playing styles in which the objective of scoring would far outweigh the importance of not conceding, is a rather arduous one. On one hand, there will be proponents of liberty for coaches; those who, while not necessarily supporting defensive football, argue that a head coach is exquisitely cognizant of his own club’s limitations and objectives while bearing the inevitable responsibility of making his team win and, thus, has the right to craft the team in his image, however it may appear to others. Similarly, on the other hand, there will be opponents to the aforementioned ideology, who will label defense-based football as boring, overly reactive (or “negative”), and detrimental to the game on a whole. These people will argue that attacking football is “beautiful” football, that it stimulates creativity and audacity in players and promotes intrasquad unity and team skills; hence, it should be established as the default style of play, incumbent on every team to adopt. To me, a passionate fan and student of the game, both sides of the argument deserve recognition and contemplation. My aim here is not to vouch for one side over the other; instead, I intend to present both sides of the argument in as clear and impartial a way possible. Therefore, in as sagacious of an attempt as I can possibly devise, here is my take on this topic:

            To start off, there is no such thing as an objectively “bad” or “negative” style of play. Football is free to be played in any way one desires. Just like in real life, where some people aspire to become writers; others, lawyers; many others, physicists; etc., each coach has his own unique way of interpreting the game and deciding on the best approach to maximizing goalscoring opportunities while, simultaneously, minimizing chances of conceding goals. For many coaches, like Helenio Herrera, a highly pragmatic, organized, and systematic approach yields impeccable results. For many others, such as Johan Cruyff, an artistic, free-flowing, and dynamic approach works amazingly. A manager like Herrera will exhibit an authoritarian personality, expecting his players to be docile, abiding, and disciplined to the highest degree, leaving no degree of ambiguity in the team’s gameplan; on the other end of the scale, a coach of Cruyff’s mantle will radiate a far laxer, student-mentor-type aura, expecting his men to question him (although within limits) and to explore themselves on the pitch, giving his players freedom to use their own creativity during games. Herrera would favor being sturdy over being capricious; Cruyff would go for the reverse. Now, generally, many observers would tend to brand Helenio Herrera as the more “negative” manager who emphasizes results over quality of play. However, if we are to compare Herrera’s and Cruyff’s managerial careers in the most important aspect of garnering trophies and conclude who was better, then, objectively, Herrera would come out on top, with 16 trophies to Cruyff’s 14. Herrera also won the pinnacle of European football – the European Cup (now branded as the “Champions League”) – more times than Cruyff, with two to his name against Cruyff’s solitary win in 1992. And, Cruyff is not the only one who revolutionized football with his idea of Total Voetbol and the “Dream Team,” with Herrera also credited with the formation of the “Catenaccio” tactic and going on to influence many future coaches and team styles and being revered to this day. So, with regard to the ultimate purpose of winning, “negative” football actually proves to be better in this case. Of course, there are many other factors to consider (e.g., financial power of the club, league competition at the time, player injuries, length of managerial career, etc.) and there will, certainly, be many other comparisons which may conclude with an attack-minded coach triumphing over a defense-based one, but the point remains clear: considering the ultimate objective of the game, there is no inherently “wrong” or “bad” stye of play for a team to employ.

            Now, let us transition to outside the pitch – towards the stadium, towards the fans. Personally, I myself will not deny that if I, in the modern-day and age, had to choose between watching Arsenal play a regular Premier League game and Atlético de Madrid play a high-stake Champions League knockout tie, I would choose the former. Why? Because I know Arsenal play expansive, dynamic, free-flowing, and forward-thinking football which is joyful to watch, and I have no issues labeling Atleti as a prosaic and cautious side which can be boring to watch. When a fan puts on a game, he tunes into his visceral side rather than his intellectual one; he desires to experience the joy felt when a child is surprise-gifted his favorite toy, he wants to be excited and enthralled by the match and experience the competing sides go all-out, crafting innovative and different strategies to try and win the match. Fans like to see iconoclastic play, not just another day of regularity. How often have you heard of underdog runs and giant-killings being discussed like folklore? To name just a recent few, Atlético de Madrid’s La Liga win in 2014 and journeys to two Champions League finals, and Leicester City’s 2016 Premier League win, are standout examples. This is why any sport – especially the beautiful game – is so beloved to its viewers: it provides them with an escape from the mundane activities of daily life by exposing them to the unpredictability of the game! If a person was given the option of viewing a high-pressing team renowned for its astute attacking combinations (e.g., modern-day Manchester City, Denmark, Napoli, etc.) or a well-organized, battle-hardened team like Atleti or Inter Milan, he would more-than-likely choose the former, and this probability increases further if the viewer is not a personal fan of the latter two teams. Seldom does anyone prefer to see stern, compact, reactive football in which not losing is heavily prioritized over winning. So, in this case, the pendulum shifts towards attacking football.

            Lastly, the aspect of the footballing world I will be examining will be team resources. Specifically, the quality of coaching staff and players at the club, the financial resources of the club, and the overall pedigree of the club. What I mainly intend here is to compare, for example, a club which regularly finishes in the top-three or top-four of its respective league to a club that is a regular relegation-contender in the same league, and analyze how these different circumstances may mandate the respective clubs to adhere to particular playing styles. For this case, let’s take Manchester City and Burnley. Currently, Manchester City boasts some of the best talents in the world, with Phil Foden, Bernardo Silva, and Ruben Dias, to name a few, all holding starting spots at the club while being known as one of the most potent in the world in their respective positions. Comparatively, what “world-class” players does Burnley pride itself on? Yeah, you would have to think long and hard to answer that. Additionally, Manchester City has arguably the best coach of this generation – and one of the greatest and most revolutionary of all time – in Pep Guardiola. Thus, City’s player and coach quality is head-and-shoulders above Burnley’s, which gives it a built-in advantage in a direct match-up between the two sides and increases the marketability of the club for potential incoming transfers, as potential signings prefer to play alongside skilled colleagues and under acclaimed mentors. Now, let’s delve into the financial clout of each club. Manchester City’s current total market value is €1.05 billion, compared to Burnley’s €96.55 million. Synonymously, this would mean Manchester City is worth ten times more than Burnley. In addition to this, using data from Transfermarkt.com, if one is to compare the two clubs’ transfer activities for the last five years, Manchester City ends up with a total net spend of -€259.34 million, compared to a thrifty -€4.74 million for Burnley. And even after being in such a magnanimous deficit, City has won three of the last five (currently second in the ongoing title race of 2022/2023) league titles and has been competitive in other competitions as well, winning six other trophies and being a runner-up in the Champions League, once. City also has been able to, despite the recently-mentioned deficit, spend scrumptiously in the transfer market, bringing in the likes of Jack Grealish, João Cancelo, and Riyad Mahrez during the timeframe. In stark contrast, Burnley has not won a single trophy and even ended up being relegated from the first division, last year. Thus, when you see a club as mighty as City being able to spend such large sums for its growth and succeeding in the process, and compare it to how little clubs like Burnley can afford to spend to keep themselves in the race, it is no surprise that a team like Burnley would opt to deploy defensive tactics against such formidable opposition, because it simply cannot keep up with the quality. Lastly, the overall pedigree of the respective clubs comes into play as well; Manchester City has 36 total club trophies to Burnley’s 10 (Transfermarkt.com); City has perpetually qualified for the Champions League since the last eleven years (Wikipedia.org) while Burnley, in its entire history, never has; City bestows its players with much more and much superior marketability opportunities; City has a more famed academy with recent graduates like Phil Foden being live proof; playing for City gives a player more opportunities for development and, consequently, increases the player’s likelihood of being picked for his national side; and, as aforementioned, City’s squad boasts the world’s best potential colleagues and coaches, making it virtually impossible for any player the club is interested in signing, to refuse. Quite simply, it would not be unnatural to say that it is clear that City will be able to assemble a far stronger team than Burnley. Hence, it is with the thought of all these disadvantages compounding that the coach of Burnley may decide that a defense-first approach would be best for his team since, in a naturally low-scoring game like football, it is definitely easier to not concede than it is to score. How can a person have the guts to accuse a coach of playing defensive football when he knows about such ingrained inequalities between his team and the opposition? Therefore, in this area, liberty of playing style defeats attacking football.

            Now that this argument has been viewed from multiple angles, I believe it is appropriate to arrive at a conclusion and, before I state it, I will admit that there are countless other factors not explored in this article, such as player injuries, which can contribute to numerous other pendulum-shifts. Personally, I love watching attacking, expansive, and fearless football but I am – along with being a fan of the game – a student and reader of the game as well and, as a result, I can comprehend the need for a coach to have freedom to implement the playing style he deems best for his team and given circumstances. Heck, I would even hypothesize that a strong team like Manchester City would play more cautiously if many of its starters were out injured, on international duty, and the like! Thus, just as different languages employ various writing styles, be they alphabet-based, syllabaries, or logogram-oriented, I believe football teams have the right to utilize whatever tactical approach they deem best for themselves – therein lies the beauty of the game. In summary, the “beauty” or “flair” of a football team does not lie in its fundamental playing style; rather, it lies in its mentality and belief behind it, in the passion that galvanizes the team to march on and reach the zenith of its path.