WINNING UGLY OR PLAYING BEAUTIFUL FOOTBALL. IT IS A GREAT CATCH 22, BUT WHICH ONE IS UTOPIA??

I am not Jose Mourinho’s biggest fan. I find him self obsessed, arrogant and conceited.

Even though this may be an act, I find the hero worship that he receives from Chelsea fans annoying and unjustified, considering that the much vilified Avram Grant actually took the club closer to the Champions League glory they so crave.

The 'special one' meanwhile, was tactically out manouvered by the much maligned and ‘incompetent’ Rafael Benitez in two Champions League semi finals.

This time, however, I have to defend the Portuguese manager and his tactic of diluting Barcelona in this week’s Champions League semi final.

I think too much has been made of Inter Milan's 'spoiling' tactics which were only brought on to them due to a very harsh red card. Why hasn’t more been made of Thiago Motta’s sending off and the displicable play acting from Sergio Busquets that preceded it? That is a bigger worry within the beautiful game as far as I’m concerned.

Anyway it’s not like Inter were negative in both matches. I thought they played some outstanding attacking football in the first leg. Mourinho is supremely tactically aware in this way, just like he was at Porto.

Even he, himself, admitted that his team let Barca have the ball after the sending off, so his team would find it easier to keep their shape. Attempting to attack the home team would only have created more gaps for Messi and co.

When he was first at Chelsea, Mourinho often played with Damien Duff and Arjen Robben as his wingers to exploit the full width of the pitch. There was some terrific football to watch in those early days.

However, when the need came he would use a more narrow formation and mix it up, especially away from home. This is what a coach is supposed to do isn’t it? He is supposed to be pragmatic.

What is Mourinho expected to do in the situation he found himself in on Wednesday night? Attack Barcelona and get beaten 5-0. Arsenal tried these tactics and got hammered, and that was with 11 men. Wenger could do with some coaching from Mourinho on how to nullify Lionel Messi, that's for sure.

I was tuned into Talk Sport on Thursday listening to Adrian Durham's Drive time show. As usual, the flame haired presenter played devil’s advocate, this time concerning Inter Milan's performance. Streams of fans called in to respond.

Many Arsenal fans were critical and said they would much rather play the 'Wenger way' and get thrashed. But would they really? Hand on heart? You play to your strengths in line with the opposition’s strengths and you adapt on that given day.

Do any Arsenal fans out there recall the 2005 FA Cup Final? A very negative Arsenal team appeared to play for a draw as they were too afraid of handing Wayne Rooney and Ronaldo the space the needed to destroy them on thatbig Milennium turf. They succeeded –just about- and won the game on penalties. They clearly played for the shoot out, but did Arsene Wenger care? I doubt it.

Arsenal have not won a trophy since, but they play attacking football which is easy on the eye? Which is better? That, or heading into their sixth trophy-less season?

There are numerous examples of stylish teams who usually play attacking football but are forced to adapt on the odd occasion that it is required.

Manchester United and their stylish 2007-2008 side were ultimately victorious in the Champions League semi final (1-0 over two legs) by nullifying Barcelona, creating a scrappy affair and hoping for one flash of genius to win the tie. They got it courtesy of a long range blockbuster from Paul Scholes, but they were incredibly negative over the two legs.

But how many people remember this? Not many, due to the dramatic way in which they won the final. Very few people remember how drab those semi final fixtures were two years on.

How often has the most attractive team failed to win the trophy because they couldn’t adapt to the situation in hand? And do we remember them as much as the overall winners?

Cameroon were by far the best team to watch in the 1990 World Cup, but they were defeated by England in the quarter finals, mainly due to their inability to tackle and their naive defending. Who is remembered more? The African team or West Germany - the eventual winners.

Dynamo Kiev, under Valeri Lobanovsky, were an exhilarating side in the 1998-1999 Champions League campaign and in my opinion were the best team throughout the competition. But, when leading 3-1 against Bayern Munich in their semi final first leg, they were unable to 'shut up shop' and eventually drew 3-3.

The Ukranians lost 1-0 in the return leg, but who remembers them more than Manchester United that year? Probably not many.

Looking from at it from a slightly more 'half full' angle, I wonder if the Red Star Belgrade players of 1991 care how they won the European Cup final against Marseille? It was an awful game and they blatently played for penalties.

It was curious how and why Belgrade did this, because they had played such glorious football to get there. But they still ended up lifting the trophy and going into the record books.

In fact that May night in Bari 19 years ago, the French side - including our own Chris Waddle - were certainly the more attacking team. However ,they themselves used similar spoiling tactics two years later to defeat a far more talented Milan side. Do Barthez, Desailly Deschamps, Boli et al care how they won that night in 1993? I doubt it.


Holland, of course, have still never won the World Cup, despite their reputation of playing the game 'how it should be played'. In 1974 they played ‘total football’ and lost the final to West Germany. But wasn't it actually ‘nearly total football’? They didn’t win.

The team the Dutch lost to that day have proved to be the masters' of adapting, and have showed it on so many occasions down the years. Sometimes, when they haven't even had the best players.

Denmark were the team to watch in the 1986 World Cup, but couldn’t defend. Football, lest we forget, is about both defending and offensive play. That’s why we love this game, and that’s why, in my opinion, it is the 'world game' and basketball isn’t. A great piece of defending is just as good on the eye as a great piece of attacking play. Bobby Moore's tackle on Pele anyone?

The ultimate 'adapters' of recent years were probably Greece. Did they care about how unattractive they were in Euro 2004?

I personally found it very interesting to observe just how Zidane, Nedved, Ronaldo and Figo failed to break them down.

Again what was Otto Rehhagel supposed to do in these games? Let the other teams walk all over them because they had superior players? No, they played to their strengths and deserved to win. They scored the goals when it mattered, and it’s down the the opposition to break them down with their superior skills. They didn't.

Of course, there have been several examples of the most attractive team winning.

In international terms, Brazil in 1970 is the obvious one, while France in 1984 is another example.

In domestic football, there are the Ajax teams which won the European Cup and the Barcelona side of last season. Although am I alone in thinking that they were quite negative when they played Chelsea in the semi finals and were very lucky to progress? And if Inter steamroll Bayern Munich in the final will anyone remember this week's game at the Nou Camp? I doubt it very much.

Fabio Capello’s Milan team of the mid nineties were the perfect mix of flair and defensive solidarity. And this was wonderfully demonstrated in their 4-0 demolition of Barcelona in the European Cup final of 1994. It was fantastic to watch and it was counter attacking at it’s best.

Counter attacking is, as is sometimes forgotten, based on having solid, but ball playing defenders and sometimes playing in a more defensive manner. But it can also be exhilerating to watch.

An interesting question would be, do Brazil’s World Champions of 1994 and Nottingham Forest’s double European Cup winning players really care how they won the finals of those competitions? Or, are the players just happy they have the medals to show their grandchildren?

If Brian Clough was a tactical master then, then why isn't Jose Mourinho now?

Inter Milan are certainly not a negative team. I watch Italian football quite regularly, and anyone who saw them destroy AC Milan 4-0 at the San Siro earlier in the season cannot say they are a wholly defensive team.


It’s an interesting debate this one. Isn't football mainly about the fans and the players? And don’t they want to win most of all, when push comes to shove?

Does Cesc Fabregas, for example, want to be remembered for being a great player or having lots of medals? Tony Currie and Stan Bowles are in this catergory. I would imagine Cesc would like both, but probably one more than the other.

As I said earlier, I fear too much is being made of Mourinho’s tactics and not about the real killer of our modern game - play-acting! But we can't possibly criticise our precious Barcelona can we?...

That, however, is a debate for another day.

As a football fan, I am intruiged by Louis Van Gaal clashing with Mourinho on May the 22nd. It will be interesting to see whether the Ajax 'total football' Champions League winning coach of 1995 can defeat Porto's 'more pragmatic' winning coach of 2004.

Bring on the final in Madrid...