Winning a trophy in football has become the epitome of a
squad's successful season. World renowned managers like Arsene Wenger have
often been criticised not because they are doing a bad job overall, but because
their squads haven't done enough to earn silverware. The most obsessive of fans
yearn for trophies, which are a tangible way of showing that their team was
indeed the best during the course of that season. In reality however, it is
often very difficult to say which team was the best for any time period, simply
because the definition of best varies greatly.
A famous example would be Rafa Benitez's 2004-2005 Liverpool
squad. Remembered for their dramatic comeback final in Istanbul, they would be
the first English team to become champions of Europe since Manchester United in
1999. However, they finished 5th in the
Premier League. It wasn't even enough to qualify for next season's Champions
League; UEFA had to make an exception to the rule by seeding them in the first
qualifying round with lower league teams. So could Liverpool have honestly been
called the best team in England, let alone Europe?
Another good example would be the Chelsea squad of today. They
seem to be in the course of finishing 6th in the Premier League, however they are
also on their way to the CL final in Munich, right after an FA Cup win. Can one
honestly say Manchester United who got disqualified in the tournament by a
mediocre Swiss team (no offence to Basel fans), are better than Chelsea simply
because of the fact that they're 2nd in the league?
This is where the debate gets interesting. One can simply
dismiss the argument by saying there is no right answer because Chelsea are
better at knock-out tournaments, while Manchester United are better at
performing well in the domestic league. This would actually be a valid answer.
But what are the implications of this? What does it mean to be better at a cup
competition and to be better at gaining results in a domestic league?
Let's push the analysis even further by comparing
the attributes of these two English clubs. Chelsea recently did something that
Manchester United have not been able to do in the past 3 years, that is defeat
Barcelona. Even though this wasn't in the most aesthetically pleasing of ways,
they still won nevertheless. However Chelsea's domestic campaign has been a
rollercoaster ride. Sometimes they seemed to do well, at other times they would
drop points to teams at the bottom end of the table. Manchester United have
been far from perfect themselves, however their campaign has been a lot more
consistent despite their Champions League/FA Cup performances. And that is the
key word/attribute, consistency. The number of games in a domestic season far
outnumbers that of the respective cups. National Leagues are quite lengthy and
tedious. For a few weeks the team might perform well, for others they may drop
form and points. Although it does seem obvious when it's formulated in that
manner, it is nevertheless true.
What Chelsea haven't been able do to in the league, they
have more than made up for it in their Cup campaigns. It often seems as if
though this team was made for knockout tournaments. Although they've never won
the Champions League, they have still had moderate success in it, having
reached the final once and semi-final twice in the past 4 years. Also, an
interesting statistic to think about is that since Mourinho took over in 2004,
every team that has disqualified Chelsea, went on to either win the Champions
League or make it to the final. They have also won the FA Cup 4 times in the
last 6 years.
So what is it that Chelsea brings to the table, that
Manchester United doesn't? The answer is performance in big games. Although
Chelsea have not displayed the same degree of consistency as Man. United, their
superiority against strong opponents hasn't gone unnoticed. A good analysis to
use for these two clubs is that Chelsea is the lazy student who slacks off
during the entire year and fails all of his quizzes, but when it comes to the
tests and finals he uses all his concentration and willpower to get a good
result. Manchester United is the type of student who does ok in his quizzes
during the year, and also does ok in the tests and finals, however does not
receive as high of a mark as the other student in his tests.
Let's take the analysis and apply it to La Liga. If you compare
Real Madrid and Barcelona (Who else would one compare in the Spanish League? I'm
joking, of course.), individually Barcelona has the better team. However,
Madrid has the better squad. If they faced each other in solely one game after
all their players had been properly rested, Barcelona would most likely win
because they have the most world class players. However, Madrid has a deeper
squad with more options. Although, in a one time performance they would not be able
to do as well, over the course of a lengthy season, their weapon (depth of
squad) is a true asset in gaining a domestic title, and indeed they did so this
season.
Why Barcelona "failed" this season is that they
simply tried to do too much. Most average football fans expected them to win
the treble once more, but their lack of substitution options got to them. One
cannot honestly ask a team to face Chelsea twice and Real Madrid all within a
course of a week, and expect that team to be victorious, no matter how good they
are in reality. Real Madrid put all their effort into beating Barcelona,
however they paid for it against Bayern. Bayern and Chelsea instead rested a
great number of their players between the two legs, and it paid off. This was
simply because domestically they did not have much ambitions unlike their
knockout tournament opponents.
To wrap up the main points, winning a domestic league
requires a high degree of consistency. If you fail in one or two games, it does
not matter as much as in a knockout competition. In contrast, to win a knockout
competition is more of a measure of how much one team can bring to the table
over the course a single game against very strong opponents. The cases of
Chelsea and Manchester United are a good example of this phenomenon.
