Approach or Philosophy?

Managers, chairman, players and pundits often talk about a 'footballing philosophy' that dictates a clubs entire ethos- the classic case being 'tiki-taka' associated with Barcelona. Yet to use the term philosophy is tragically misguided. Philosophy is by definition an approach to life, and dealing with life's fundamentals. Core principles which guide your approach to your own existence and self-preservation. The passing of a football at rapid speed over short distances is of no relevance to how to govern society, or even as a persuasion to get out of bed in the morning.

‘Philosophy’ has been brandished by those who have needed justification when defending their own failings. In the case of Liverpool last season, Brendan Rodgers implied that the 'Liverpool way' was their driving force to ultimate success. In a match against Chelsea where this 'philosophy' failed them, Rodgers took his moral high ground, claiming his team was trying to play 'football' by remaining open and fluid. As far as I ever learned, a team being rigid, resilient and taking advantage of a guy falling on his backside actually is quite a fair representation of what 'football' can be. Rodgers' approach is one which relies upon high technical style played at a high intensity or tempo- yet it was implied that it fit in with the values of his football club. That they played the 'right' way. If it was indeed a 'philosophy', it would acknowledge that there was not just one way to a desired end result.

Now, people talk about the Wenger 'philosophy' representing something similar. A possession-based game that looks to provide short passing combinations which unlock a defence in the blink of an eye. This has typically been what his recent Arsenal teams have looked to do, albeit with very limited success in regards to winning trophies.

However, this is not Wenger's 'philosophy'. If anyone has listened to Amy Lawrence speak on podcasts recently when discussing her new book 'Invincible', you that Wenger looks to achieve on a very generic level on a football pitch. That is the freedom of a set of players to make their own decisions and take responsibility for their actions. This is part of the reason why Wenger has been criticised for a lack of tactical nouse or otherwise. Rather than coach a side to death on the shape of the side in likely match-play scenarios, he looks to encourage his players to understand this for themselves.

Now, as Lawrence has been keen to point out on many occasions, this has relied upon players built on a high level of intelligence, something attributed as a core of Arsenal’s prosperity between 2001 and 2006. To those who suggest Wenger inherited the workings of a great side, they would seem to be wrong- Arsene assembled a group of individuals with the freedom to solve problems on the pitch for themselves. Not dissimilarly, the Dutch concept of 'Total Football' positioned itself on the free individuals that formed a fluid and highly effective collective. In many respects, this represents more than just an approach to football, and the term ‘philosophy’ seems more apt in a football context than any other.

Now, in recent Arsenal sides this 'philosophy' is seen to be lost and shaken. Wenger took on a younger and younger side, and that lack of experience was always going to suggest a decrease in the individual’s general intelligence. Such a lack of experience also translated into a lack of belief, with teams not used to being victorious or successful on the most prized occasion. Denilson always sticks out as the classic case of this era’s player- youthful and definitely capable, but lacked the responsibility to make the team as a whole a success

Yet Wenger still has this keen eye for intelligent individuals. Mesut Ozil was purchased as a fantasy player who understood the workings of a football pitch better than many for generations (at least is the German perception!). Koscielny was put in the Wenger-mould, and to be honest, he would not look out of place in the Invincible side. The prevalent problem though has always been an irresponsible and relatively unintelligent collective.

This was shown brutally against Anderlecht. Players on the pitch did not understand what was required of them! At 3-1, I knew it was going to go downhill in the circumstances of the illegitimate goal; unfortunately, they did not. It was a time to dig in and resist the tide. Unfortunately, the players did not understand this. Wenger understood the situation, of course he did. Yet, the collective he is ultimately responsible for, did not. As much as any problem position we have had in the side, this has been our undoing in recent times. As much as I love Wenger, and I am sure we all have at some point, anyone can be forgiven for wanting a return to a footballing approach over any higher philosophical foundation.