Barcelona vs. "Anti-Football": Hopes for Fearless Football in El Clasico

We are now less than 48 hours away from the most highly anticipated match in football—El Clasico between Barcelona and Real Madrid. These two clubs are opposites in so many ways.

Barcelona is a showcase of Catalan pride, while Madrid is the beacon of Spanish nationalism. Barcelona focuses on youth development to compete, while Real Madrid relies on money to correct and improve its team.

Every Clasico showcases a clash of ideals, a history of conflicting politics, cultures, and business models. This match also showcases a clash of styles. How different the style is depends on the manager.

My goal in this article is to show that Barcelona is not unbeatable. With so many results being won against them this season in every competition, that is becoming clear.

Before the first Champions League semifinal match, many pundits and analysts were predicting a blowout for Barcelona. Many had already booked Barcelona's place in the final. That is arrogant. That is disrespectful to a Chelsea side that obviously prepared themselves for a big fight.

Beyond showing that Barcelona can be beaten, I want to show that there are many ways to beat Barcelona. Putting everyone behind the ball is not the only way to get points from the team still considered the best in the world.

A team like Chelsea can beat Barcelona without sacrificing balanced football. Yes, their defensive strategy got results and they should unquestionably be commended for showing such discipline.

But they should also have more confidence in their midfield and in the attacking side of their game. Contrary to what many analysts would have us think, Chelsea can match Barcelona multiple ways.

The Jose Mourinho Era

After Real Madrid was demolished 5-0 in his first Clasico, Jose Mourinho became a bit scared of Barcelona. The next few times they met, he closed up and reverted to the ultra-defensive tactics that he had developed a reputation for. Recently, however, Real Madrid has opened up a bit against Barcelona and reverted back to the fast-paced attacking Galacticos of old.

Going into this weekend's Clasico, we are unsure which strategy Jose will take. With a four-point lead in La Liga, Mourinho could choose to play for a draw and go defensive against la Blaugrana. That strategy generally worked against them when he managed Inter, and the more attacking play has not brought three points to Real yet—although the results were arguably better.

This article is a cry for the Galacticos of old. It is one fan's wish to see Real Madrid attack Barcelona and not be afraid of the consequences. It is the Spanish way, after all.

There is a common saying amongst La Liga fans in recent years: In Spanish football, offense is the best defense. This is what many fans want this weekend.

Some teams have shown that results can be won against Barcelona in the Pep Guardiola era without sacrificing football or resorting to total defense. Unfortunately, other teams have shown that this strategy works.

Chelsea's recent victory against Barcelona has sent many fans back into the mode of thinking that the best way to beat Barcelona is to put 10 or 11 men behind the ball. For much of the match, Chelsea did just that.

Anti-Football: Still Good Football?

First of all, let me say that I understand people having no problem being fine with this strategy of "anti-football." Results are results, and stats don't matter without the end product.

As Pep Guardiola said (via goal.com), "You do not win with possession of the ball...you have to score goals." Most fans want to see their team do whatever it takes to win. It's the neutral who may think differently.

It goes beyond thinking that the more statistically dominant team should win, and it definitely is not that critics just don't like defense. The desire for more goes beyond those reasons.

For some, it is the unnecessary fear factor, the expectations and the goal of the opposition that makes victory seem short of fair.

A Look at Chelsea's Victory

It seems obvious to me that Chelsea had no actual intention of winning their first semifinal match against Barcelona. Sure, they were fortunate when Messi lost the ball right after a knock and when a well-executed counter caught Mascherano off his marker, but that was much more than Roberto di Matteo had hoped for.

The goal for Chelsea was to not lose as opposed to actually beating Barcelona. There is nothing wrong with that. But there is something to be said about the idea that when a team plays just not to lose, a draw is a fairer result than winning.

Notice that I am not at all saying they do not deserve to win. Those are two very different arguments. Chelsea scored a goal, and the defense was exceptional all night. They absolutely deserve the result they earned. But that does not make it fair in the "footballing justice" sense of the word.

Bold or Fearful?

Misconceived notions about the merits of this strategy are a result of unfamiliarity with Spanish football. Many fans think that this is the only way, and results like the latest Chelsea victory only encourage that.

More than likely, though, those fans probably do not watch La Liga very often.

What Chelsea did was nothing new. We see this strategy very often against Barcelona in La Liga. Usually when teams come out this way in the league, commentators are not afraid to simply call it a fear tactic. Yet, when Chelsea and Inter got their victories, it was hailed as bravery and even brilliance by the managers.

Is bravery or brilliance what separated Chelsea or Inter Milan from Real Zaragoza two weeks ago or Sporting Gijon last fall? No. What separates Chelsea from those teams is hundreds of millions of dollars.

The strategy is the same from all of those teams, and the execution is often similar for much of the match. However, more often than not in La Liga, Barcelona takes advantage of a tired, often older defense and then finish better than they did against Chelsea.

Of course, with Chelsea having so many more resources to put into a team, it is expected that execution would be better. Why spend all that money assembling stars if they fade in the second half or fail to maintain discipline like the average lower-table La Liga team?

The Fear Factor

I said before that the super defensive strategy of Inter Milan and Chelsea is unnecessary. That is because it is not the only way to beat Barcelona. That is part of what makes this strategy so frustrating to some critics when clubs like Chelsea or Real Madrid use it.

These rich, talented teams do not have to play that way. With the money they have spent to get so many talented players together, fans of football—the offensive side and the defensive side—hope for more balance. They hope for less fear.

Just like Inter in 2010 and Real Madrid of last season, Chelsea had too much fear. Fear of trying to play open football against Barcelona. Some fans want more.

That is not to say these clubs should try to "match" Barcelona. It is simply saying to better balance the approach. It is unfair and short-sighted to say that critics of anti-football just don't like defense. There is a difference between appreciating good defense and watching total defense.

Real Madrid has had as much, if not more, success recently when they have gone after Barcelona instead of playing super defensively like they did in CL semis last season. They have even neared and eclipsed Barcelona's total possession this season.

Arsenal showed last year that teams do not have to be afraid of Barcelona. Now, Chelsea players and fans will say that they obviously weren't afraid either, but the simple nature of their game proves otherwise.

Arsenal attacked Barcelona and went toe-to-toe with Barcelona's midfield. Now, as good as Arsenal's midfield was, if people try and argue that a teenage Jack Wilshere and Samri Nasri are far superior to what Chelsea has spent millions to assemble, I will have to disagree. Chelsea could undoubtedly have been more openly.

Is Total Defense the Only Road to Victory Against Barcelona?

Let us not respond with radical exaggerations. I am not saying that Real Madrid should or Chelsea should have used three attackers and a super high line. I am just saying Chelsea could have kept more than one player in the front half and put more pressure on Barcelona's midfield. I am saying that Real has the talent from top to bottom to open themselves up a bit.

Chelsea were actually having success attacking Barcelona through the air—many clubs have all season since Barcelona are so susceptible to goals on set pieces and crosses. Barcelona have proven weak to fast play out wide with a clogged midfield, and both Chelsea and Real Madrid have the ability to provide that. Both clubs have a solid midfield who can limit possession for Barcelona and spread play.

Some may argue that Roberto di Matteo does not yet have the knowledge or control of his team to be more bold in these situations. To that I would say fine, but let us stop giving him too much credit then. Let us see how people respond to him when he does open up to Barcelona and gets a different result. Even a more open second leg will be short of a clear sample of his abilities given the situation already being in his favor.

Does this mean that in order to be less fearful of Barcelona that a club needs to put millions of dollars into building a team? Of course not. No more than it means that only Arsenal and Real Madrid can get results.

It does not take money to get results against Barcelona. It takes confidence and a well-executed game plan. Relying on 10 defenders and a counterattack is not the only game plan to prove successful.

Even comparatively "smaller" clubs in Spain get results without being afraid. Osasuna, Sevilla, Valencia and Espanyol have all gotten results this season against Barcelona, and none of them went with 10 or 11 men in their own half.

It is factually and historically inaccurate to say that is the only way to beat them is to put everyone behind the ball and pray that a counterattack results in a goal.

In sum, I think the reasons that at least some people have problems with this super-defensive strategy is that it is unnecessary, imbalanced and not something expected from a team with as much money and as many stars that Chelsea and Real Madrid have.

But Is It the Best Way?

Ah, here is where it gets tough. History shows us that teams do not have to play completely defensive to beat Barcelona. But is that still the best way to beat them?

Fortunately, there is no correct answer here. There are too many factors to account for to answer this. Whether or not total defense is the best strategy depends on the team, the players, the coach, the setting, Barcelona's form and injuries, etc.

In the simplest sense, we can look to El Clasico and simply ask one question.

In this Saturday's Clasico, given Barcelona's defensive weaknesses all season, their inability to find sufficient scorers from players other than Lionel Messi, Real Madrid's own defensive issues and the makeup of Real Madrid itself, I would say no.

Real Madrid is much better suited to use its speed and midfield talent to spread Barcelona out and attack them through the air. It may turn into a shootout, sure.

But Real Madrid will likely end the season having scored more goals than any other team in history. Barcelona, on the other hand, is a team whose second- and third-highest scorers are midfielders.

I say, take your chances, Jose.

El Clasico

As I stated in the beginning of this article, there is no way of knowing how Jose will approach this game.

I would like to think that recent results in Clasicos show that he is no longer afraid of Barcelona and will once again attack Pep Guardiola rather than fielding seven defensive players. Others believe he will revert back to his more defensive strategy in hopes of leaving Camp Nou with at least a point.

Whatever strategy he chooses, the results will be earned. If he choose anti-football and the defense plays well enough to keep Barcelona from scoring, they deserve a draw. If a single counterattack catches Barcelona off guard and results in the only goal, three points would have been earned.

However, the fact that a result was deserved does not make it enjoyable or fair. Football fans deserve more. This is the biggest rivalry in football, and this match should showcase the two best teams in football.

Many people criticize Barcelona's style as being boring since they just pass the ball around—often in their own half—waiting for a chance to score. While I could never disrespect that opinion, we have to also put some responsibility on the opposite for that.

When teams are unafraid of Barcelona, the attacking football is some of the most enjoyable to watch—such as in last year's Champions League final, this season's first match against Bilbao or recent Clasicos.

Conclusion

All we can do as fans is hope. We cannot be so arrogant as to say our taste is better or that our favorite style of football is best. But individually, we can hope for exciting, entertaining, balanced football. Playing with 10 men behind the ball is not balance; it is fear.

Everyone's taste is different, and for fans of balanced, open football, this type of strategy is not the best showing of the beautiful game.

I am not saying that teams should not be defensive against Barcelona. But there is a difference between being defensive while playing the counterattack and putting every player behind the ball out of fear.

Some people argue that ultimately, both (offense and defense) are a part of the game.

Of course they are. All critics of total defense ask for is, ironically, for both parts of the game to be displayed.

I also do not want to be critical of the teams I have mentioned, specifically Real Madrid, Chelsea and Inter. Those teams deserve every bit of success they had because as a team, they earned it.

I use those and other examples merely to show that there are more ways to get results from Barcelona than to put everyone behind the ball and to express hope that Real Madrid does not employ that strategy in this weekend's Clasico.

In no way am I saying that Barcelona's brand of football or even attacking football is "better". I am not saying Spanish football is better. That is far too arrogant. Chelsea's defensive football was very enjoyable to watch.

Since coming to Madrid, Jose has had only one result where relying on a more defensive approach has yielded positive results, and that was last season's Champions League home leg. The rest of the time, the best results have come by clogging the midfield and attacking Barcelona's fullbacks before putting the ball high into the box.

Real Madrid are not built to play Jose's defensive game. They are built to play attacking football and have the talent to use that strategy effectively against any team in the world, even Barcelona.

Of course, that other, more open strategy requires near-perfect execution and perhaps a drop in form from Barcelona. But, as Real Zaragoza and other Spanish clubs can attest to, that is no different than the total defense strategy.

If we are really going to be open to the idea of "anti-football" and praise results gained in that manner, we also have to respect and be open to the opposing argument.