The classic, polite description of a manager who prefers 4-4-2, long balls and a big man-little man striker combination is ‘more pragmatic’.
The assumption is that managers who hope to play attractive football – who prioritise possession and encourage their goalkeepers to pass the ball short – are dreamy idealists who have little care for results, yearn for popularity and can’t pull themselves away from the unrealistic demands of the modern day.
Managers who ask their six-foot-four defenders to lump the ball into the channels and hate the stress provided by tippy-tappy football are ‘pragmatic’ – practical and sensible and grown-up.
This couldn’t be further from the truth. The idea that Sam Allardyce and Sean Dyche have visions of leading a team that play beautiful football, that entertain crowds and pass the ball fluently from goal line to goal line, is ludicrous.
They aren’t managers that yearn for the same style of football employed by the likes of Norwich and Brighton while recognising that such an approach is simply unrealistic for their sides.
In fact, the old-fashioned, safety-first mentality harboured by a frustrating majority of bottom-half Premier League sides is increasingly resembling a dreamy ideal.
It seems that patronising jokes aimed at the likes of City and reminiscing on an era when expected goals (xG) – now becoming a symbol of tribal modernity – were yet to be born have become popular pastimes for long-ball apologists.
True pragmatism would actually be present in an entirely balanced team which refused to eschew either robust long-ball football or tiki-taka or even high-pressing football.
A glance at the definition of the word actually reveals that the most pragmatic coaches are the likes of Carlo Ancelotti, Ronald Koeman and Zinedine Zidane – adaptable and refusing to be anchored by a specific vision.
It’s also worth noting that the goalposts are constantly moving regarding pragmatism in football. While recently the debate seems to be about how long and precise passes should be and how easily players should go down in the box, in South America in the mid-1950s the tug of war was between system and individual, in Britain in the 1800s whether hacking should be allowed in the game.
My point is that no footballing philosopher – from the tweeter with no followers to Pep Guardiola – has any real authority when it comes to deciding the ‘right’ way to play the game. But patronisation is coming.
Should City seal promotion there will almost certainly be at least one loss to a technically inferior, more robust side, at which point it’ll be widely and smugly proclaimed that little old Norwich were wrong to assume that they could come to the top table play proper football.
There will be at least five infuriating episodes of Match of the Day for Norwich fans to disagree with.
The important thing is that heads aren’t lost. Nothing tests loyalty like a Premier League relegation battle and, even when the unbeatable finally-back-in-the-ground positivity wears off and the Canaries have been thrashed by Manchester City, it will be more important than ever that the fans back Farke’s boys to play the way they want to.
Hi Samuel. A thought provoking read. I was born in 1951 and started going to football matches in the 1960s so I have seen a fair few games. I guess what I have learned is there is no right or wrong way to play football because all methods can achieve results and it is, as they say, a results based business. In my early days of watching games there was no talk about formations. It was basically: two full backs, a right, left and centre half, two wingers, two inside forwards and a centre forward. Then Alf Ramsey dreamt up 4-4-2 often referred to as the wingless wonders. It was a time when England had a fair few world class players and a young man wh9 went on to play for Norwich, who was ten years ahead of his time, Martin Peters. Germany went on to play with Beckenbauer as a libero who was a spare man at the back. Later in the 1970s Holland played total football, where the players interchanged positions. Since then football tactics have changed markedly. Fitness levels have gone through the roof and the technic of the best footballers again has improved beyond belief.
Football is a totally different game from 60 years ago. What has not changed is that some teams are better than others and they are the ones that are looked at to provide a blueprint for others to aspire to and better. Up until a few years ago the model was Barcelona. They developed Ticka-Tacka football. Was that because it suited the players they had or did they acquire the players to suit that system? The problem for other teams is that they are never going to assemble the players to play that system as well as Barcelona.
No system will automatically beat another. Farkeball suits Norwich and the players we have when we are in the Championship. However, Premier League teams have the players to stifle Farkeball. It will be interesting to see what we do next season when I am sure we will be in the Premier League.
Daniel Farke came to Norwich with his own philosophy. It has worked . Results and style of play that entertains . In July 2017 I attended a friendly game against Brighton . It was the start of the Farke era , it frightened me to death , I don’t think the goalkeeper kicked at all . I took my dad ( at the time age 87 and a veteran of the 59 cup run ) . He said it was like a game of chess ( not in a disparaging way ) .
I was lucky enough to sit next to the Directors Box and had a chat with Delia. She said the main concern was would the fans be patient enough to see this change in style through .
The rest is history , most were patent , although some were not as this column evidences . Right club , right time , right team , right manager. I count myself lucky that in 55 years as a fan I have been able to enjoy this time , and enjoy it with my friends, when allowed 😃