Chelsea stars should not throw stones from the glass house of “anti-football”
By George Perry
Eden Hazard and Thibaut Courtois should look into what people say about Chelsea before they take a swing at World Cup finalist France.
Thibaut Courtois reacted to Belgium’s semifinal loss with all his usual grace and media savvy. Rather than lauding the lads and glumly congratulating France on their berth in the World Cup finals, he criticized how France played after going up a goal, said he wished Belgium had gone out in the quarterfinals against Brazil – “a team that wanted to play football” – and called France “an anti-football team.” Eden Hazard added he would “prefer to lose with this Belgium than win with this France.”
Well. Hazard’s comments could at least be construed as saying he’s proud of Belgium to the death. He would rather lose as a Red Devil than be anyone else, whatever their success. Courtois has no such ambiguous innocence.
More than the sportsmanship aspects, Courtois and Hazard stepped into a self-awareness fail with their comments. They both play for Chelsea, the team who invented parking the bus. Jamie Redknapp called Chelsea’s hyper-defensive performance against Manchester City a “crime against football” (Hazard would likely agree with that assessment). Before playing under Jose Mourinho and Antonio Conte, Courtois played for Diego Simeone on loan at Atletico Madrid.
In short, Courtois and Hazard have spent most of their professional careers playing anti-football, at least as Chelsea’s critics would have it.
But even beyond that, Courtois and Hazard did football no favours in their remarks.
Anti-football. What does that even mean? Is it football that wins games? Football that has brought Chelsea unprecedented success under Jose Mourinho and Antonio Conte? Football that saw France through to the finals of the World Cup?
Chelsea’s Belgians gave in to the idea that aesthetics count as much as results. This was a core feature of the dissent and criticisms around Antonio Conte, particularly in the second half of last season. We had the ridiculous spectacle of fans and pundits saying they would rather have “lost beautifully” 5-2 to Manchester City than 1-0. The discussion turned less on whether one loses than how one loses, and created a new consolation column in the stats table for aesthetic value.
The momentum for Maurizio Sarri was as much about his beautifully flowing “Sarri ball” as it was the outcomes he produced. Obviously, it had to be about aesthetics. He has yet to produce any more outcomes than the similarly beautiful and entertaining Tottenham Hotspur.
While Courtois and Hazard try to hold up France’s win as an example of “anti-football,” Belgium’s performance is the perfect example of style divorced from tactics. Roberto Martinez’s strategy evolved through his usual stages after going down a goal: 1) attack, 2) attack harder, 3) attack harder and faster, 4) attack harder and faster with more people. If the Belgian duo really want to have this conversation, they should ask if France won because of their tactics or if Belgium lost because they had none.
In victory, such as Chelsea’s FA Cup win, the prioritization of aesthetics is absurd. In defeat, it is pathetic. And in both cases, it is wildly subjective.
Next: Familiar dynamic plays out for Eden Hazard in Belgium's defeat
Fans of the Italian school of football find great beauty in a 1-0 game. They recognize the aesthetic value of a tightly structured defence, understand the constraints giving rise to the tactics, appreciate the control and cohesion. Football beauty is also in the eye of the beholder.