Is REAL Football Dying? Football Is Fast Becoming a Game, Not a Sport

Earlier today I was enjoying my regular YouTube viewing and, as a die-hard gooner, I had to look no further than videos of Thierry Henry and Patrick Vieira to brighten up my day. After watching Vieira dribble up the pitch at White Hart Lane and score seconds after successfully defending a corner.

Vieira received the ball, dribbled out of his box, passed to Henry, whose searing pace made minced meat of the defender who then passed back to Vieira for the tap-in. This was not "walking it into the goal", this was Olympic 100-metre sprinting it into the goal.

After the happiness of seeing this video, I sat back with some sadness and thought, "Why can't the current Arsenal side do this?"

By this, I mean breaking away and scoring within seconds. Adebayor would not burn past defenders in the same way Henry did.

Nasri has not the pace of the underratedly (not a word, I know) quick Robert Pires. Could you picture Fabregas doing a Vieira-style bulldozing run through the defence?

I didn't think so. Some say, "but this team is different", "they are more gifted and technical, not needing sheer power", "I personally prefer seeing a defence-splitting pass than sheer physical presences."

Bull.

It is true that watching Xavi thread an inch-prefect ball to Messi is more eye-pleasing that watching Rory Delap throw the ball 40 yards to Ricardo Fuller and then seeing him smash it against the bar from inside the six-yard box. This is not what I mean by physicality, it is far more skillful than that.

Seeing Ronaldo (the Brazilian) run past defenders using strong shoulders as well as quick feet is much more exciting that seeing Arsenal jog with the ball to 25 yards away from goal, then see them knock it around until one of Denilson's many backwards passes gets intercepted. And if you show me someone who disagrees I'll show you a liar.

Sadly, this is what the game has become. If you watch clips of Henry or Ronaldo's videos, try to think of a player in today's game who can do what they do: combine a number 10's touch, brain and technique, a number 9's finishing, a number 7's dribbling and a number 4's passing (though the last of those refers mainly to Henry), as well as an attitude worthy of the Liverpool captaincy.

The stars of today simply do not have this: Ronaldo and Messi's reluctance to pass, the latter's unnoticeable but definite reliance on strength and the former's lack of it.

Kaka's lack of strength and real pace (by that I mean 100 metres in 11 seconds, which Henry and Ronaldo had), Gerrard's constant over-hitting of passes (which does not seem obvious because it doesn't make the highlight reel), and Adriano's poor attitude; which is a real shame as he is the closest player to Ronaldo and Henry who could still be at his best today.

Until recently, this was always the status quo in football, with players like Pele, Maradonna (who actually was quite strong), Garrincha and Rivaldo dominating because they possessed such qualities. Of course there were players like Zidane, Cruyff and Beckham who did not have the necessary attributes and were still good.

The fact that the afore-mentioned complete attacking player also existed is what made certain eras golden in football. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case.

But why?

Not so long ago, we had Vieira and Gascoigne—midfielders who frequently dribbled, Henry and Ronaldinho, who were strikers, wingers and link up men all at the same time—even Zidane scored two headers at the World Cup final, could you imagine Kaka doing that?

Now, a player's position has an increased influence in what they are allowed to develop. Football is now split up into certain categories and I will give examples of players who fit into each one:

The Block defender (John Terry), the "technical" defender (Ricardo Carvalho), the fullback who can't defend (Dani Alves), the strong defensive midfielder (Yaya Toure), the playmaker (Xavi), the powerful winger (Ronaldo), the technical winger who is actually an attacking centre midfielder (Nasri), the finisher (Van Nistelrooy) and the big guy who holds up the ball (Adebayor).

Very few players these days transcend these boundaries, Fernando Torres? Kind-of quick and a good finisher? Ibrahimovic? An aerial threat who is also a creative number 10 and a finisher? This is the closest we get to "multi-use players". 

The best football of all time was defined as total football, which meant every player playing in every position, now we have come so far from that that it is barely even the same sport.

Another turning point was the moment Roman Abramovich bought Chelsea. This was followed by billionaires buying both Manchester clubs, Aston Villa and Liverpool—and probably others who I don't know about.

The fact that these owners were putting so much money on the line meant that the managers were under increased pressure to deliver. This meant that they didn't risk having livewires like Ronaldo (with his inconsistency—e.g. WC final 1998) or Vieira (with his disciplinary problems).

The treatment that the explosive Shaun Wright-Phillips received at Chelsea or the way Robinho and Berbatov are being so heavily criticised shows that there is no room for players who are not guaranteed to deliver week in, week out but can have the odd flash of genius.

Instead the superstars of today are the type who are predictable but efficient. This also has cropped up in the centre of midfield.

Since when were defensive midfielders a necessity. There were always guys who weren't as gung-ho as their teammates and could hold the fort well like Dunga or Emmanuel Petit, but nowadays there are players like Alex Song, Javier Mascherano, and Jon Obi Mikel, who are nothing more than defenders with an inferior heading ability and superior passing ability.

I'm not saying that these are not good players, but, does every club literally need one to succeed. They shouldn't.

The presence of such defensive players has also reduced the tendency of midfielders to dribble. Of the world's great centre-mids nowadays, which ones actually beat players with their running rather than passing?

Fabregas? No. Ballack? No. Pirlo? No. Players like Essien or Vieira are the last of a dying breed: players who say no to mere functionality and take risks in possession.

Another way that Chelsea somewhat ruined the game I fell in love with as a 10-year-old is by getting 95 points in 2005. This meant that teams could not drop points if they were to succeed.

Meaning that managers had to be far more conservative. No longer could someone sell their star striker for 22 million and buy an unproven winger who scored one in 16 at Juventus and use him as your main striker, an unproven centre mid from Marseilles and use him as your main winger, as well as an unproven swede and a Frenchman who couldn't get a game at Milan and use him as your main centre mid.

Now it's all about buying established 27-year-olds who are "safe-bets", from whom you know what to expect. If I wanted predictability I'd watch professional wrestling, massive monetary gambles are what keeps football fresh and great, so when I see Aston Villa spending nine million pounds on Ashley Young and watch it pay dividends, I am far more happy than when I see a 31-year-old Michael Ballack in only his second season at Chelsea.

Some people call real football going down to the pub and having a pie with your mates while watching a sequence of long balls be hoofed from one goalkeeper to another. The one goal coming from the seven foot untalented striker who is able to put his foot through a misplaced hoof.

Others say football is a science: the game is decided by men in suits and merely carried out by the players, like pawns in a chess game. I call real football passion and entertainment, and the current delusions of what the beautiful game should be are turning it into something its not supposed to be. 

I'm not asking you to immediately love this article, but I am hoping it will stick in your mind, because unless people start to realise and adopt this view, we may as well be watching Backgammon.