Thursday 14 April 2016 09:49, UK
Europe’s wealthiest clubs will always enjoy success but there is another way. The achievements of Leicester City and Atletico Madrid show that being the best team without the ball can be an effective way of equalising the odds on the cheap, writes Adam Bate.
World War One began with rifles and ended with tanks. World War Two began with tanks and ended with the detonation of nuclear weapons. Necessity truly is the mother of invention.
So when football's own arms race escalated in the 21st century, with the super-rich looking to take the game away from their erstwhile rivals, some looked for solutions.
Academies offered salvation for those left behind. But one look at Chelsea's current contractual commitments offers compelling evidence that talent can be hoovered up en masse.
Analytics offered hope. As Brentford director Rasmus Ankersen put it, David didn't beat Goliath by using the same weapons. But here too, it's the likes of Manchester City who have placed themselves at the forefront of the data revolution.
Leicester did cause a stir in this department but have already lost their head of technical scouting to Tottenham and Arsenal in consecutive seasons. Talent can be bought.
So perhaps the real advantage lies in what will not be replicated. Tastes change in football, but one thing seems broadly consistent - big clubs do like to have the ball.
Pre-existing prejudices dictate that, unlike acquiring the best talent on and off the pitch, playing without the ball is rarely deemed desirable. And that means that even the biggest clubs will remain vulnerable.
In Diego Torres' much-discussed biography of Jose Mourinho, the logic of winning without the ball was outlined in clear terms:
The game is won by the team who commit fewer errors. So it's better to focus on provoking errors by the opposition. And mistakes tend to be made by the team in possession. Ergo, do not seek possession.
This recipe for success has since been treated with three parts scorn for every one part admiration. It's anathema to the philosophy of some of the world's biggest clubs. But for those who wish to truly upset the odds, it can be a template.
At international level, Greece, Uruguay and Zambia have all won continental competitions in the past dozen years. Uruguay and Zambia did so with the worst passing accuracy in the tournament. Greece had the second worst. All three saw little of the ball.
There has always an alternative. But when teams can achieve similar feats over an entire league season, it's in danger of becoming mainstream.
Borussia Dortmund's success under Jurgen Klopp was built on running not passing and it was enough to beat Bayern Munich to the Bundesliga title for two consecutive seasons. Bayer Leverkusen boss Roger Schmidt was bright enough to learn the lesson.
The more you play with the ball, the more dependent you are for success on the individual quality in your team. That always limits the possibilities of success.
"The more you play with the ball, the more dependent you are for success on the individual quality in your team," Schmidt told The Times last month. "That always limits the possibilities of success.
"What Klopp showed at Dortmund is that, by being aggressive off the ball, it was possible to beat Bayern Munich over a whole season. That is only possible with this style. A lot of coaches saw that and took their ideas into their way of playing."
Over in La Liga, Atletico Madrid have been in their own battle against seemingly insurmountable odds. In the era of Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo, Atleti have found a way to compete by becoming the world's best side without the ball.
Since Diego Simeone's appointment in 2011, it's helped them concede fewer goals than both Barcelona and Real Madrid. Diego Simeone's side do still want the ball, but it's without it that they are truly extraordinary, having made themselves a nightmare to play against.
Leicester are now the unlikely followers in this tradition. Indeed, under a former Atletico coach in Claudio Ranieri, they have even taken the theory to the next level.
The Premier League leaders are in the bottom three for possession and passing accuracy, but they've been formidable. Perhaps even flawless. According to Opta, Leicester have made fewer errors leading to goals than any other side.
When Crystal Palace boss Alan Pardew described 1-0 defeat to the Foxes as his side's toughest game of the season, the only surprise was that he appeared to be surprised.
They have made more interceptions than any other side. They harass opponents. And they just keep going. "Why can't we continue to run, run, run?" asked Ranieri. "We are like Forrest Gump."
But they're also well drilled and extremely organised, with a back-five that's been together for 20 of the last 22 games. Leicester's last dozen home games have seen them concede only five goals.
It's an approach that isn't for everyone. Neither Manuel Pellegrini nor Arsene Wenger appear to have any appetite to replicate Leicester's methods. But that doesn't mean they don't work.
In fact, it's the method that's been key. For while a Leicester title win would be about Jamie Vardy, Rihad Mahrez, N'Golo Kante and the rest, it would also tell us much more. It would serve as a reminder that there is always an alternative solution to the problem.
Presented with little option but to do things differently in order to succeed, Leicester found a way. And in doing so, are proving once again that it's so often the best team without the ball that gets the best of them all.
