AS BOTH a Mariners and a Barcelona fan, I find it remarkable that so much energy is spent on football forums debating the stylistic merits of various football tactics. I’m not aware of any points being awarded for style in football.
Nonetheless, in the interests of trying to improve the quality of the debate, I will attempt to wade into what is a highly subjective mire.
I believe it was the dreadlocked Dutchman Ruud Gullit who may have originally coined the term 'sexy' football way back in 1996, shortly after being appointed player manager of Chelsea.
As a player, Gullit was one of those very rare footballers that possessed exceptional strength and balance, along with a silken touch, plus incisive passing and vision. He was a prototype player possessing the gifts required to play the much vaunted 'total' football of his Dutch forebears. "Sexy' football was borne of this heritage.
For a football lover, it is a most apt description when you consider what this really looks like in practice. It is an expansive and fluid tactic, that requires quality possession, and more importantly, delivers goals through speed and space, and Chelsea would adopt this ethos quite successfully for a time, using the considerable talents of Gullit, Vialli. Zola, Petrescu , and DiMatteo.
A quick and predominantly short passing game, employed with width, movement and change of tempo, is attractive and exciting. Playing this way creates space, and consequently scoring opportunities. You can dominate teams, and with patience and skill, succeed.
At the top level of world football, it is reasonable to aim for this ideal, however even with the benefit of world class talent, these tactics like any other, do not always deliver the required results, and are not always executed well.
The 2007/8 season was a good case in point:
In the EPL, Man Utd continued to be a benchmark for this style of play, as did Arsenal, however Avram Grant's Chelsea, as they had under Jose Mourinho, deployed much more direct and often workmanlike tactics that nonetheless worked well, and played to the strengths of one of the best lone strikers in the modern game, Didier Drogba.
In Spain, Barcelona also continued to try and play in their traditional Dutch style, however faltered time and again in a league where space is typically not closed down as fast as the EPL. They failed to win a major trophy for a second season in a row after winning both the league and Champions league in 2005/6.
The 2007/8 Barcelona side could dominate possession, but frequently fell into defensive lapses when they lost the ball. They were often one paced, and also relied too heavily on one player for creative inspiration (Messi).
This season, Barcelona have addressed these deficiencies, however, in some ways Arsenal are now experiencing similar problems. They can look sensational for long periods but not score, and then concede crucial goals (which A-league team does this sound like?).
Realistically, the A-league does not have the quality of players across the competition to execute consistently attractive football. Very few leagues do. Recent raids into our playing stocks by Asian clubs will likely further inhibit this possibility.
However, to date these limitations have not resulted in match after match of boring football. We have actually enjoyed some remarkably exciting matches over the past couple of seasons. Strangely enough, this can happen when the football is actually 'unsexy', simply because the game is based around goals, not style points.
Bias is one thing, but it is a disingenuous argument to claim any A-League team has some exclusive claim on style, and that therefore they are somehow a better team. It's simply not an argument based on verifiable facts.
Seeking to diminish any team's success, i.e. games won, titles won etc, because they play 'ugly' football is just nonsense.
The fact is, no one remembers attractive failures.
