Are “lucky winners” good for football?
Anyone who follows the German Bundesliga will know that VfB Stuttgart won the league this year. As an avid fan of this (wonderful, magnificent, gracious) team, I was naturally delighted. But from an objective perspective, how is it even possible that a team which honestly no one thought had a fighting chance of even reaching the CL this year actually wins the league? Let’s be honest about it, seasons like this can only be won if other teams have made some serious mistakes.
I’ll be the last guy on Earth to belittle Stuttgart. They played some amazing football and deserved to pick up that salad bowl at the end of the season. But are “unexpected” champions good for football, because they keep it interesting, or bad for football, because they shed a bad light on the overall quality of a competition? Let’s look at some recent “unexpected” champions and observe the long-term affects of their wins on football in general, in addition to what happened to them afterwards.
1. Greece. Won Euro 2004, then failed to qualify for the World Cup. I think we can all agree that Greece played some pretty awful football during the European Championships, truly defensive and not as pretty to watch as the likes of Luis Figo, Rui Costa and a younger (but still brilliant) Cristiano Ronaldo. Although these fairy tales are in some ways inspiring, I’d say that Greece winning Euro 2004 didn’t bring European football forward at all. The two championships before that, with the respective winners Germany and France, actually included some good football being played by the winners, especially France’s football fully justified their three- to four-year dominance of world football.
So: good for Greece, bad for progressive football, football which people besides Greeks want to watch. They might qualify for Euro 2008, but they have never, in three years since their amazing win, looked or played like European champions.
2. FC Porto. 2004 was a pretty weird year, really. A Champions League final consisting of Monaco and Porto - who would have thought? Porto’s win through some exciting football was followed by virtually all of their good players (and their manager) being taken away - not something you’d expect of a CL winner.
They have failed to make a noticeable impact on European football ever since, despite two domestic titles. No one really looked at Porto and decided to take an example from their football - they basically just bought the players.
3. Liverpool. Another CL winner, the following year. Liverpool played some inspiring football and showed great spirit in the final. They even managed to reach it again two years later, becoming a force to be reckoned with in Europe, despite their pitiful attempts at regaining the Premiership crown.
The likes of Gerrard, Alonso, Riise and Kuyt are usually always mouthwatering to watch, and if the Scousers are lucky, they’ll have some American dollars going towards some strong reinforcements soon. A good example of how surprise winners can sustain themselves.
Back to Stuttgart, though. Surprise winners, no doubt. Europe next season, with a virtually unchanged squad (Turkish international Yildiray Bastürk is coming on a Bosman transfer from Hertha Berlin, a new striker is yet to be found). The young squad played fresh football this season, but keeping it up will be hard.
It’s probably safe to say that despite Bayern’s fourth-place this season, they’d do a lot better in Europe next year than Stuttgart will. Stuttgart’s seemingly inevitable failure to do well in Europe (although the true fan remains ever-positive) will effect Germany negatively in UEFA rankings, so technically Bayern being in the CL would benefit Germany, really.
What do you think? Are surprise winners good for football? Why / why not?
I think they are. What football fan doesn’t like a dose of unpredictability in the game? Otherwise i feel it would become just mundane with the same winners every year. The top teams in the world (club or international) would take more note to treat the lesser tiers with more respect and then maybe you might see some more really good matches (a la CL final 2005) happen. The lesser teams are not to blame for anything. So what if they play defensive football like Greece in 2004? In the face of such opposition that they had what other kind of football did you expect them to play?
Its upto the opposition to come up with an answer to this style of play, not criticize the other side for playing their own game the way they choose to. If Portugal was such a good team with attacking flair and style surely they would have managed an answer to Greece. As a supporter of Portugal i was disappointed with the result. But i realised that this defeat would only make Portugal play better and they managed to reach the semis of WC ‘06 with the same style & panache they are getting famous for. In the same way, its Greece’s own fault if they cannot sustain that kind of success by adapting & becoming better. Maybe the years after 2004 will make them find better ways to win, like France did in ‘98 after the debacle in ‘82. Every team has talent. They just have to find a way to maximise the potential of that talent base.
The situation with FC Porto is sad, i know. But money talks in this game & for Porto to do better they would have to come up with some new man management strategy & possibly a rich owner to pump money into the club whose players keep getting tempted away by the bigger leagues. If they had such talent before there is no reason why they can’t have it again & i believe that with the right decisions being made at the top in the boardroom they might just make it again.
As for Liverpool. 5 times European Champions & with the new players coming in for next season maybe they can finally mount a serious challenge for the Premiership. They have always been a good team & they can only get better under Rafa Benitez.
Surprises in football gives hope to all fans, players & teams of football in the world. It gives them inspiration that they too can succeed in this beautiful game, and the nature of this game and the simplicity in its rules will make sure that the game will never get boring.
Give Stuttgart a chance. There is no reason to believe, looking at them now, that they can’t make their mark on the European scene. This an opportunity for German football to show Europe that Bayern Munich are not all they have for good teams. I wish them all the success & luck they deserve.
One thing I don’t understand is, how can people say that an open title race or different winners are a good thing from a neutral’s perspective?
Is there any real neutral perspective in football?
It’s not going to matter to Arsenal fans who finishes top - Chelsea or United - if they’re not in the mix.
Similarly, it doesn’t matter to Tottenham fans what the final top four lineup is if they’re 10 points behind.
This whole neutral perspective thing is over-rated. Rivalry and new winners sell papers, that’s all.
Or am I wrong about this?
There are two situations you can analyse this with:
For the neutral and romantic, it’s always a great feeling seeing the underdog pip the highly fancied team. A case in point in addition to the ones you already mentioned, Korea defeating Spain and Italy in the 2002 WC. In hind sight you might feel sorry for Spain, but in the heat of the moment seeing Korea accomplish such a feat might give you the excitement and high.
For the purely neutral, however, it’s important for him that the better, more attractive team win. He wouldn’t care for the success of teams with the playing style of say, Bolton. He might agree that a team like Manchester United deserved the title over an underwhelming Chelsea (who despite a powerful team stuttered for most part relying on scrappy wins)
Ahmed, you devil.. indirectly making a point that Tottenham will not be in top 4
Watch out, if Berbatov doesnt leave they will be in top 4
heh - not making a point, just stating a scenario.
Hm. I agree that a completely neutral perspective is very difficult to have in football. However, I do think that there is a general consensus that attacking teams, teams who “play beautifully” will always have more “neutral” fans (i.e. fans who do have their own favourite teams, but have a soft spot for another team). So many more people wanted teams like Stuttgart and Bremen to win the German league than Schalke and Bayern, because the latter teams do not play as excitingly. Similarly, Manchester United was basically cheered on by the whole of Britain (besides West London) after it had become clear that Arsenal and Liverpool didn’t have a chance. They just played more exciting football.
Maybe calling these people “neutral fans” is misleading, but what I’m trying to say is that attacking teams who play with risks and with more show are, in my opinion, ‘good for football’. No one likes watching defensive teams play, unless it’s their own. Exciting games bring in sponsorship money, TV rights, fans. And the bigger the game gets, the more everyone benefits, right? (Okay, let’s not get into the “Death of Football” debate here, even though it’s a great article :D)
This topic has raised a lot of points in my mind but i’m going to just try & stick to 1 or 2 otherwise it’ll just sound like ranting.
Point #1
When you talk about ‘teams who no one thought would win’ aren’t you just buying into the hype & media build up around such matches? I’ve watched quite a few football documentaries & i’ve realised one thing that no matter how big the team or how much money they’ve got behind them, every match is just down to 22 men on the pitch competing against each other. The hype & money only JUSTIFIES the team & managerial talent of a club rather than making a match win a foregone conclusion.
CL final 2005 - i would have LOVED to have known what went on in both those dressing rooms that resulted in Liverpool fighting back like they did & AC Milan (reknowned for their defensive capabilities) screwing it up so badly. Was it the fans who cheered them on? I doubt that Milan’s fans were any less enthusiastic or vocal in their support for their team. Was it the pep talk that the managers or respective influential members of the team gave to each other? More possible seeing Gerrard’s famous on pitch antics. In the end none of the hype or media publicity mattered on that pitch, nor the fact that AC Milan had some of the biggest stars of European football in their team (Crespo, Seedorf, Shevchenko etc). What mattered was how they played that day & Liverpool delivered magnificently.
Now fast forward to CL final 2007. Nobody can deny that Liverpool were the more aggressive of the 2 teams. They suffered for lack of a decent striker but they kept pushing & poking at the Milan defence. Conversely Milan had learned their lessons & were patiently waiting for the crucial few opportunities that came their way & did not waste time in sealing the match win. Shouldn’t they be applauded for what they did? Sure the match might have been boring to some but Rafa ‘Tactician Extraordinaire’ Benitez was outdone by Ancelloti. Before the match i remember thinking that the game would be pretty evened up now that Inzaghi was playing instead of Gilardino & that told me that AC were serious about taking home the trophy rather than worry about what style of football they played. Personally i don’t care about styles of football too much. I do have my own favourite teams but I respect the result at the end of the day because i always think the teams deserve whatever they got from the match (unless there was some crucial refereeing that went wrong).
Point # 2
I totally agree with ‘rivalries & new winners sell papers’. Who doesn’t get bored with the same old winners all the time unless its your own team? But in terms of money coming in that generally goes only to the teams with more long-term success & a solid development program that makes them come back year after year to seriously challenge the competition. That’s the kind of thing that ‘one-hit wonders’ like Greece need. Their surprise win in 2004 on Portugese home soil was a massive accomplishment. Who doesn’t like seeing the underdog beat a good team on their own turf? Its inspirational to say the least & the stuff of legends. But they didn’t capitalise on the win afterwards with more national team development which only makes it seem that they didn’t deserve it.
I say bring on more surprises. Unpredictability is what makes this game great to watch!
Great article. I believe that while it is nice in some cases, seeing less talented teams win competitions is not good for football.
For me personally the whole appeal of the showcase competitions is to see the most talented footballers in the world facing off against each other and playing the best football. Seeing South Korea, PSV Eindhoven and Greece progress at the expense of better teams didn’t leave me feeling happy at all, it left me feeling empty, frustrated and robbed. Robbed of the privelige of seeing the most talented and entertaining teams looking horns, of being able to see which of the players who have been hyped for years can truly deliver and which are just over-rated. People have questions going into tournaments which remain unanswered when luck prevails.
Aside from the entertainment factor, one of the great things about football is the parity that exists, the fact that unlike real life, circumstances,luck and external factors tend not to have any control over what happens, its almost purely down to talent, hard work and endeavour. Its great that a players or teams success and accolades are based on these and tend to be deserved. Seeing less talented teams win throws this into doubt. It almost invalidates all of this which is in no way a good thing.
I think that the whole love the underdog thing doesn’t is pretty much a myth. Favouritism towards an underdog is usually based on occasions when it directly benefits someones own team (eg a Man U or Chelsea fan seeing
Barca get knocked out the champions league, or Liverpool get knocked out of the FA cup by Crystal Palace) or sometimes when their is affinity based on a team playing good football or having a romantic story behind them (West Ham, Newcastle, Reading, African Teams in the World Cup). Aside from that Im sure theres no real natural tendency to favour the weaker teams.
Im not trying to belittle teams who have done well unexpectedly. When a team has good players and wins and emerges through playing good football such as Porto in 2004 (who had some great players and a brilliant manager), Sevilla and Stutgart thats fair enough. Its just not good when teams who are less able play the percentages game and grind their way to success. It taints the game if it goes too far, football needs a heirarchy, at least to an extent..
Ahmed
Is it just me or is your site dominated by the thinking that there is no-one in the country who supports a team outside the Top 4? It’s not about the specific order of the top 4, it’s the fact that the top 4 are always the same.
The vast majority of football fans in this country would welcome a change in the top 4. Even if you support a team outside the Premiership there is more interest in that happening. As someone else stated in an article on this site, other sports e.g. NFL have methods of ensuring more equitable distribution of resources leading to more exciting competitions. The current hegemony of Clubs in England and elsewhere in Europe will, eventually, lead to less interest and therefore lower TV revenue. This will be no bad thing.
Personally I take no interest in the Chumps League places or Chumps League itself cos West Ham have never looked like getting there. The Championship is a lot more interesting as there is more competition and you don’t know what is going to happen.
Fifth Column.
I can understand where your coming from and in something like this I don’t think there is a right or wrong point of view, I guess football just means different things to different people. I personally think that there should be a concentration of talent at the top to allow the most beautiful football to be showcased to the world. I dont think it should necessarily be the same four teams every season at all, but it should always be the most talented teams that are at the top. Although I value excitement in a football match as highly as anything, seeing a scrappy and lucky technically poor team doing well feels a little bit like seeing a dumb person getting promoted to me.
I get pleasure from seeing the best in the world doing things that most people couldn’t even dream of aswell as all the drama and passion. Maybe for you footballs something you want to relate to more directly and appreciate the aspects of winning and losing and seeing people give it their all more?
Thats fair enough, although if you ask someone from any other country what theyd rather watch out of the chamions League and the Coca-Cola championship I think youd be in for a big surprise.
FC - you’re right about one thing - there should be more articles about teams other than the top four.
Want to start writing regularly about West Ham?
Stuttgart were lucky, but not in the way you mentioned. There is one small factor we forgot. Schalke screwed up big time, and that was the ‘lucky factor’ stuttgart had.
Being an American football fan before I started my journey into Football I am very used to parity. The notion that in England and many other domestic leagues the same teams always vie for the title and if another team threatens the status quo they are vilified or shamed in the media because there brand of soccer is un attractive. Are the managers of these top teams talented or do they just reap the benefits of having unlimited recourses and no salary cap to stop there spending. Take Chelsea’s new manager is he any good or is he just managing A good team. Teams like Greece should be celebrated for there accomplishments. Who cares how they do it. Football nor any other sport is a fashion show. If anything the best thing for football would be to introduce a little parity. Maybe by introducing a super league so all the top teams just play each other. If that doesn’t work then a cap on spending so as to tighten up the talent level and stop teams from basically buying the league. Also it would make is much easier for smaller teams to hold onto there young stars and not seem them ride the bench at Arsenal or Man U.