Beautiful Barca

W

ell, it was a bit of a spanking wasn't it? No not Ryan Giggs enjoying the back of Imogen Thomas' hand, but the UEFA Champions League final. 3-1! Could have quite as easily have been 6-1 given Barcelona's overwhelming superiority. I don't know what the final possession statistic was in favour of Barcelona (it felt like 90%:10%), but I do know that Manchester United had only one shot on target from which they scored and no corners. These are the statistics that you would expect to see from a FA Cup contest between a Premier League heavyweight and a non-league minnow — not the Champions League final!

Bizarrely, Barcelona's dominance seemed to come as surprise to some. The deluded, distorted pre-match hype with every Alan, Mark and Lee offering his 'considered' opinion gave the impression that Manchester United were on a par with Barcelona and that the final was a 50:50 contest. Somehow the wily Sir Alex would fashion 'a result' for the Red Devils, although no one said with any degree of cogency how this would happen. Many said that the fact that Messi had never scored in England was a good omen. Then there was Harry Redknapp offering his nugget of wisdom by saying that 'United are capable of scoring goals'. Roy Keane even barked 'never bet against United'! I did, snapping up the extraordinarily generous 21:20 offering from William Hill for Barcelona to beat Manchester United in normal time. Thank you Mr Hill.

Now, any remotely sober analysis of the likely outcome would have told any half-wit that Manchester United were likely to lose and that Barcelona would have to have had a very bad day for the 'Red Devils' to triumph. For a start looking at the respective starting XIs only four Manchester United footballers would have a chance of being selected in the Barcelona first XI: Van der Sar, Vidic, Evra and Rooney. Valencia, Carrick, Giggs (not in his younger days) and Park aren't fit to lick Xavi, Busquets, Iniesta and Pedro's boots; let alone Lionel's. There has also been the unchallenged statement doing the rounds that Manchester United are the second best team in Europe. I suppose that this might be debatable, but people forget that Manchester United won a poor Premier League (poor at the top not the bottom) and had a very easy route to the Champions League final: Marseille, Chelsea and Schalke 04 whereas Barcelona had Arsenal, Shaktar Donetsk and Real Madrid! Had Real Madrid been in the Premier League then they would have won it and would have probably beaten Manchester United in the Champions League final too. Sir Alex stressed that United would be better equipped to defeat Barcelona than they were in the 2009 Champions League final. I'm not sure what the surly Scot was basing this on as the 2011 United side is weaker than its 2009 counterpart and Ferguson himself said that Barcelona were better than the 2009 Barca side. A fairly toxic combination one would think.

Anyway, to the victors. Barcelona are a wonderful team and encapsulate everything that is good about football (apart from the theatrical diving). They have demonstrated that supreme skill on the ball will override size, strength and stamina; that patience is a virtue; and that you do not need an oligarch or a Sheikh to reach the summit.

Barcelona have revived 'total football' pioneered by Hungary and Puskás in the 1950s and harnessed by Ajax and Cruyff in the 1970s. Barcelona do not have a striker and with Mascherano moving to centre back are possibly moving towards a system where centre backs freely interchange with midfielders, which they already do to a degree with Piqué acting as an auxiliary midfielder. 'Total football' is the most effective tactical structure for winning football games. The only snag in adopting it is that you have to have incredibly skilful players, who have been versed in its style from a young age as per Barcelona's La Masia schooling of Valdes, Puyol, Pique (before his interlude with Manchester United), Xavi, Busquets, Iniesta, Pedro and Messi.

I've always found the comment 'Barcelona play football in the right way' incredibly irritating as the people who say it imply that Barcelona feel duty bound to entertain and that their style of football is not necessarily the most effective way of winning games. If this type of football was ineffective in defeating opponents Barcelona would not practice it. They do not play aesthetically pleasing football for its own sake. Barcelona believe, and rightly so, that beauty and effectiveness go hand-in-hand; that attacking football has an intrinsic advantage over 'parking the bus' as reacting defenders will always be slower than dictating attackers; and that the perfect attacking move will always cut through the best defence, which the 'Special One' must accept if he is to progress as a coach and manage a truly great side.

The post-match analysis was arguably even more dispiriting than the pre-match hype focusing on the question 'how do you beat Barcelona?' The ITV pundits – Keane, Redknapp and Southgate – were certainly flummoxed by this, but agreed that not much could be done and that the opposition could only hope to catch Barcelona on an off day. As Alan Clark remarked about his Conservative counterpart Sir Charles Morrison this mind-set is “wet, defeatist, utterly useless”. Inevitably Barcelona will have off days as they did in last year's Champions League tie against Inter Milan, but a better approach would surely be to adopt Barcelona's footballing philosophy. Unfortunately, replicating Barcelona's ethos and La Masia would be a long term project, possibly resulting in ten years plus in the trophy wilderness. To the average top club supporter this would be unthinkable such is their clamour for 'silverware' and instant success. The only major club who have attempted to adopt Barcelona's ethos is Arsenal who are routinely lampooned from all sides for not winning a trophy in six years, which seems to have finally broken Arsene Wenger's resolve as he is preparing to delve into the club's war chest. Alas, short-term pressures almost invariably prevail.