The Way Sports were Meant to be Played

"Everything is in a state of flux." Ancient Greeks.

Without ever delving into it by defending a stance, we often hear fans and sports writers say "they play the game the way it was meant to be played." A curious mind will ask what does this mean exactly?

Not much.

People who usually assert this generally say so in defense of an argument about an athlete or team they prefer. Let's dissect and debunk this notion right here, right now. For this, I will use soccer.

Once upon a time a long time ago in a land far away, the game of soccer differed very much from what we have today. The tactics and formations used would be alien, if not unthinkable in today's highly scientific soccer landscape. Soccer was under the sway of a 1-1-8; 1-2-7 (in England where individualism prevailed) and 2-2-6 (in Scotland where a team approach was used. In any event, what this meant was there were one or two defenders and most of the players were stacked at the front. This did not necessarily mean more scoring either.

From there soccer evolved. And not just in England. Many countries contributed to new ideas and tactics while others perfected systems in place. In the 1920s, the Austrians, the Hungarians and Czechoslovakia (Bohemia) took the first steps. Playing a style that predicated on short passing and individual skills, the Danubian School (as it was known) generally employed a 2-3-5 system originating in England. By the 1930s, this style earned the term "Wunderteam" for the Austrians (picture) who are also thought to be the precursors of Total Football.

Not to be outdone, the Italians under Vittorio Pozzo came up with the "Metodo" in the 1930s, which essentially asked players to be more responsible at the back end. Result? Italy won back-to-back titles with the 2-3-2-3 formation. It was the beginning of sophisticated tactics that mark the carefully calibrated Italian style that remains until this day.

Prior to this, the Argentineans and Uruguayans (1930 World Cup finalists) played the 2-3-5 system of the Danube School. For federations interested in playing attractive football, France for example, this was the preferred system.

By the 1950s, the English at the international had remained oblivious to the goings on in world soccer. Choosing to cling on to their superiority, they quickly became obsolete (though not at the club level as teams like Tottenham, Arsenal, Manchester United and Liverpool continued to sparkle) in international soccer. Some say they have never recovered. While England slept, the Hungarians and Brazilians took the Danubian school to other places by reforming it to a 3-5-2 and eventually a 4-2-4. These systems basically unleashed further the creative player.

In the back drop of these early inventions, modern formations were born. For example, the 4-3-3 and 4-4-2 being among the most popular. Even these have been adjusted to various degrees from a 4-4-1-1 (Italy and Juventus); 5-3-2 (Germany) 4-3-1-2 (Argentina); 4-3-2-1 (AC Milan and Barcelona); 4-2-3-1 (France, Spain and AS Roma) all the way to a 5-4-1 (Liverpool in 2005).

To make matters richer in texture, in between all this two concepts were developed that marked world football; the "catenaccio" or dead-bolt defense invented by the Austrians, perfected by FC Internazionale Milano Argentine coach Herrera and eventually found its way to the Italian national side.

While invented by an Englishman, the soul of Total Football remains the strict domain of Dutch football and Ajax in particular. Like Hungary before them, the Netherlands helped to revolutionize the game but only to fall agonizingly short at the World Cup. Total Football, if we need to compare it to something closer to home, is somewhat akin to the "torpedo" system in Swedish hockey.

With these competing values and interpretations of the game, the idea of how the game was "meant to be played" is a specious statement. The game is meant to be played not in one style but many. Some cultures respond and adapt better to other systems. Humans change and so do sports.

I've just scratched the surface here. It was suffice to illustrate some obvious and over looked examples of how soccer has evolved. History tells us much. Examining the many clubs and national sides who have used different permutations is a study onto itself.

The oft-repeated notion that Brazil plays the game the way it was meant to be played is not entirely accurate. Brazil plays a style that is unique to the Brazilian character. From the onset, soccer had several ways to be played. Indeed, when talent was available, many countries opted for the offensive style. But as we have so many times and in so many sports pure offense does not win you championships. Every Brazilian team was built on solid (and vastly under rated) defense. Conversely, Italy (while no longer dedicated to catenaccio) succeeded not just with defense but with an under rated creative and talented strike force. Still, other teams seek a balance; notably Argentina and France. The Netherlands and Germany yet another style. Again, depending on the resources available a good coach will consider the temperament of his players too.

Everything is in a state of flux. Now you know why such a statement is misguided if not foolish.