Weekly Why: Chelsea, Jose Mourinho, Pragmatism and the Cancer of 'Sexy Football'
Welcome to Bleacher Report's Weekly Why, a place where we discuss world football's biggest questions that may go neglected and/or avoided. Ranging from the jovial to the melancholic, no subject matter is deemed off limits.
Why Is Winning Not Enough?
The word "deserve" annoys me.
It's often espoused by losing entities grasping for any modicum of solace and tends to follow this formula: "I thought we deserved a result today. Insert your choice blend of excuses here, but, at the end of the day, we couldn't get it done."
I listen to these rambles and attempt to convince myself supporters know what they're talking about. How could they not? They've pledged loyalty, watch every fixture, connect with the brand and know the inner-workings of their football club, but in reality—it's all nonsense.
The team who "deserved to win," won. Period. Point blank. Plain and simple.
Living in a statistical, fact-driven, analytical society, every conceivable factor that can be quantified is quantified. This trend has bled into sport, occasionally for the better, but more times than not conspires to convolute.
"We had more possession."
"We had more shots (on target)."
"We had more completed passes."
"We had more this, we had more that."
"Wonderful," I silently think, then ask: "But did you score more goals?"
If the answer's no, then what exactly have you accomplished? I'll answer: Nothing. Yet statistical dominance and visual aesthetics have transformed into legitimate excuses for clubs punching below their weight.
Which is more damning: A club which held 70 percent possession, had 15 shots and lost or the club with 30 percent possession, had five shots and won? I would contend being more precise with less possession is more impressive than passing backwards and sideways for an hour, then claiming your hour of possession means you deserved to win something.
Frustrating beyond the concept of deserveism, is the utter disdain for pragmatic tactical arrangements. "Parking the bus" has become tantamount to footballing profanity; should a team play solid defensively for 90 minutes and win without copious offensive statistics, they're branded anti-football, negative and boring.
As an honest question: What is the point of football matches? Furthermore, what are footballers and managers tasked with doing?
Stats like possession, shots on target and completed passes are code for "entertaining," hence, any contrarian to pragmatic football would respond: "Football matches are meant to entertain."
Not exactly.
I cannot deny football is a form of entertainment for millions across the globe, but the purpose of a football match is not necessarily to entertain—as it's foremost a sport—its purpose is to be won.
Footballers and managers are not paid to amuse, they are paid to win football matches—lest they find themselves unemployed. We could argue the job of a singer or actor is to entertain, but if a singer can't sing and an actor can't act, you're neither buying the album nor seeing the movie.
Therefore, if football's ultimate purpose is winning, should pragmatism be a crime? No, but that is unfortunately what's happened.
Perhaps the bastion of modern pragmatism are—in my mind at least—Jose Mourinho's Chelsea. Married, divorced and back together again, spanning the course of 11 years, the two have become synonymous with the devious notion of "bus parking."
Rather unsurprisingly, most hate of the west Londoners stems from their near-instantaneous success.
Rising from middling levels in the mid-90s to now an unquestioned European superpower, the Blues bypassed conventional avenues customary for their current position. Jumping line has never made anyone popular—whether in a cafeteria or football—and the Stamford Bridge dwellers did so thanks to Roman Abramovich and his billions.
Were they a more free-flowing, attack-minded outfit, Chelsea's relatively rapid ascension might've been an easier pill to swallow for some, but their methods for winning trophies have been generally tenacious.
It's one thing to skip in line if you're hungry, it's another to be hungry and bullish.
Mourinho's Blues won back-to-back Premier League titles in 2004/05 and 2005/06 by using brute, defensive tactics—stymieing their competition at every turn. What remains from that era are memories of Petr Cech, John Terry, Ricardo Carvalho, William Gallas, Claude Makelele and others clamping the English top flight for the better part of a half-decade.
In the Portuguese manager's absence (2007-2013), Chelsea had spells of offensive brilliance—setting the Premier League's all-time goals-scored record in 2009/10 under Carlo Ancelotti—and continued winning trophies, but come Mourinho's second English tour, their penchant for defensive solidarity has been combated with even more public vitriol.
Tasked by his owner to transition from one generation to the next, the 52-year-old Chelsea boss has shown intent to give Eden Hazard, Oscar, Willian and Cesc Fabregas his club's reins, but he invariably reverts to conservative type when playing "big matches." This tactic saw Mourinho win a domestic double in 2014/15, but his club was summarily lambasted for locking shop during the season's second half.
For the neutral, this "negative" approach is deemed anti-football, but anti-football, by definition, is playing not to win.
When a stratagem takes advantage of your player's best qualities and provides optimal circumstances for banking three points, I've always had a hard time slamming coaches who read the wall's proverbial writing.
It would appear the desire for "sexy football" is a disease of sorts.
Winning is becoming considered a by-product of playing beautiful, attractive football, when that's not the case. Winning results from besting your opponent on the scoreboard or table—offensive and defensive proclivities bear no mention therein.
Ask Chelsea supporters, or any club whose manager thinks pragmatically: "Would you rather play gun-slinging football and chance losing or play risk-adverse football and take three points?" I'm confident most would choose the latter.
The two purposes of football are winning and, consequently, lifting silverware. Were I anywhere between supporter and chairman of a football club, I'd want a coach who understands this—cares little for optics, stylistic beauty or public criticism—and manages to win at all costs.
If he's incapable of that, personally, he should kick rocks.
*Stats via WhoScored.com; transfer fees via Soccerbase where not noted.
.jpg?w=480 "NFL Meetings Football")
.jpg?w=600 "Jeremiyah Love on Giants' Radar")
