When a people are well governed, they are apparently allowed to switch off their own thinking. “Everything will be taken care of. Don’t worry about it.” If it is even ruled by an emperor, then his voice seems to be heard far beyond the borders of the country – and to find expression. At any rate, is this apparently true in relation to football?
The emperor is emperor because he has earned it and because it is his due. He doesn’t think much of “democracy” – but he doesn’t have to care about that either. Once you’re on the throne – before or after, but being world champion as a player AND as a coach is the latest thing that gets you there? –, then you are basically set and can say whatever you want: the people first hang on your every word, then greedily devour the statements – and from then on do not question their validity. The emperor speaks. Shh! The Emperor has spoken: “This is how it is and no other way.”
The “emperor” has made two “momentous” statements. He makes them simply because he can say anything he likes. He doesn’t have to ponder long and think deeply. All is well and something just came to mind. Out with it. Add to that looking good and smiling — because he always does — and a piece of wisdom stands rock solid and irrefutable, for decades. You may quote it and everyone knows it and whenever it would be appropriate or not: you say it to yourself without thinking. One is automatically a kind of expert if one can recite this flawlessly – and the statements are most simple. But they are not a little more far-reaching, more lasting.
These two momentous statements, perhaps said on a whim, without being able to foresee the consequences themselves – because furthermore, the emperor has no need for deeper reflection — are like this: “Goals come from mistakes” and “Let go of football as it is.”
Both statements stand and have consequences mentioned: you don’t have to think about it any more. That’s just the way it is and that’s the way it is right and that’s the way it will always be. Those who know the ropes know that and don’t need much more. Even if football philosopher Herberger got to the heart of many things better.
At this point, however, these statements, which are so firmly welded into everyone’s football mind, should be critically examined. One gladly accepts “insulting one’s majesty” or “usurpation of office” as accusations. Whether these can be upgraded to a “criminal offence” is a moot point. But: the world belongs to the brave?
Franz Beckenbauer, by the way, is not the least bit reproached. He has indeed seen and experienced just about everything in the world in connection with football, he has built his life on it, he is (has been) one of those exceptional artists who have achieved legendary status – and that worldwide — and this is by no means based on coincidences or even a kind of “overvaluation”. However, if one or two statements he made are treated like “the emperor’s new clothes”, then it is simply not his fault. In this view, he would simply make a different statement tomorrow, which could sound the opposite, but without intending to do so. Maybe he’s even having a bit of fun with it? For him, as a true Bavarian, there is only “Rosenheim” and not “Rosenborg Trondheim”. Who would want to be angry with him for that?
- goals are scored through mistakes
There is a very simple view here or, one could also extend this to two, three, fourteen. Some goals may come from mistakes. Others are beautifully played out. But there are a bunch of other categories. For example: a goal that should not have counted. Or: a goal from a deflected shot. An own goal? No, that would be stupid to mention here, because that could already be considered a “mistake” – even if the pictures should clearly prove that the defender was unluckily shot by his own teammate while trying to clear the ball.
The statement that “goals are scored through mistakes” is so inane that it is not worth investigating. Nevertheless, the sentence is quoted like this almost daily and again and again, so that one is almost forced to take a stand. Especially since the person quoting it is relying on it and wants to express something with it. And this wisdom somehow takes hold, has an effect on behaviour, nonsensically.
So it should be cleared up. The tone of the statement wouldn’t be a nice one either, if there was actually something to it. You explain the game of football to a newcomer. You invite him to visit a stadium. “What’s there to see?” he asks. “Oh, quite a lot. But the decisive thing is the goals. When one is scored, and it’s for my team, then it’s a real crowd-puller, the stadium goes wild.” “Great, yes, I’m in. But a quick question: How do goals happen?” “Well, we have to wait until someone finally makes a mistake. Otherwise it’s all dark here. There aren’t many either. One would be great.” “You know what? I’ll stay home.”
A few “approximations” of how goals can happen. For example, you go back to a situation like this: a man has the ball and shoots at the goal. Distance is indifferent at first. Now, if a discussion partner believes in Beckenbauer, he might retort: “Mustn’t happen. Must be prevented.” So a shot on goal is not possible. Because it is somehow recognisable that if you shoot in the direction of the goal, then you would have to fear that the ball would go in? So there shouldn’t be any shots? Good. Then we consider how the shooting situation arose: one party had a throw-in. Is that possible? Okay, that’s possible. The ball is thrown into the opponent’s half. Is it still okay? Ok. The thrower has well-aimed the ball and has matched the running path of his team-mate. The ball is now at his foot. It’s 45 metres from the goal. It’s still okay, yes? No danger of scoring? What if he now knows a good trick and leaves an opponent standing with a feint? Well, that’s going too far. At the latest here, the defender has to extend his leg and bring the attacker to the ground.
All right, so it would be a free kick? Only 40 metres to the goal? Good. Now there are tall defenders, suited for headers and trained for it, educated for it, selected for it. Go? Ok. Two of them go into the opposition penalty area. The free kick is, appropriately enough, a free kick, so it is taken unopposed. The situation is rehearsed, the player taking the free kick has a “fine foot” and circles the ball with a lot of spin onto the head of one of the selected defenders, who has been converted into an attacker for the moment. Can’t you go any further? At least not without the fact that it could have/must have been prevented? What a pity. Otherwise you’d be close to finding some kind of goal kick. WITHOUT a mistake. But it probably didn’t work out. Whether it would have gone in without the goalkeeper having to “make a big mistake” is of course the next question.
In principle, the attacking team can cross the halfway line at some point and thus become the “attacking team”. The player on the ball could now either drive the ball further forward on his own, possible thereby that artful ball handling is required and a certain wealth of tricks, but why should it not simply be possible? By the way, the emperor himself used it often enough as a libero, i.e. as a free man: there was no one there to stop him. One or the other goal was scored. It was just the emperor, he can’t be stopped, okay. That was also before the time when laws were formulated and quoted…
Alternatively, other players could also try to find a free place. You can even take it with a quick run. It has even happened that one player was faster than the other. Wrong formation? Again: too bad. We were already so close…
So the other players look for positions where they can be played. Sometimes a distance of two metres from the opponent is enough. The pass comes, the ball is taken into the run. Is that not possible? Or is it only possible with mistakes? Not recognisable. Now they are already “threateningly” approaching the danger zone. The attacker on the outside now has these two metres of space. He takes a few more steps and draws a cross into the penalty area. A bit of luck or high precision in the cross, and the centre forward, who is also highly trained and skilled in this, gets to the ball – an impossibility. “How is that supposed to work, what are you dreaming about?” Yes, it was just a dream. It was supposed to sound like there could have been some kind of goal approach – without any mistakes at all.
There are simply a multitude of ways to keep the ball in. There are tactics to do that, players with certain attributes: Height, agility, speed, robustness, tackling strength or opposing dribbling strength. Acrobatics can also be cited today. Ball skills, technical skills, finishing strength, shot-toughness, precision, heading, jumping strength. Whatever. You can also hone these skills in training. You can even practise combination play, individual moves, double passes, crosses, corner kicks and free kicks. Even throws or throw-ins can become a weapon.
The goal of “ball circulation” – if you can just throw around a few more technical terms; don’t they all do that? – would be to gain space in the process. At the same time, of course, the opponent can’t score if you have the ball yourself. So you want to gradually gain space, if you can. The continued goal would be to gain as much space as possible until the ball ends up “in the danger zone”. This zone is called that because a finish in it should provide the desired goal threat.
The chance that a move will actually result in such a goal is still small. The only thing is that we keep to the hoover mentality here: keep trying. At some point, you manage to get a shot off – without making any mistakes. You even tire out the opponent from time to time when you have the ball a lot, and an age-old football law still applies, much more so than these modern-day formulations. If you let the ball run, you also let the opponent run more. And: the ball is always faster. But “played tired” does not mean that mistakes have to be the result. But there might be that extra metre of space that you need to make that precise pass, that pinpoint cross or, in extreme cases, that well-placed shot on goal that even the most highly trained acrobat in the opponent’s box can’t reach without making a mistake. “Out of his reach” or simply “unstoppable”. That’s what it used to be called. But it doesn’t exist any more. There’s more talk of “partial blame” or “on a good day” or at least “we have to talk about the goalkeeper”. But that doesn’t belong here.
Whoever has the ball can do a lot with it. That’s what I want to say here. With good alignment and good teammates who offer themselves, sometimes coming short, sometimes going long, constant rotation, crossing paths — with the intention that the defenders not only get confused but even have to cross their paths from time to time, quite inevitably, and so they no longer get to the danger area in time, all without committing a mistake.
There is a positive way to transport the ball forward and, ideally, to then finish the ball towards the goal. If everything goes right, it’s in from time to time – without any mistakes. At the same time, there are many facets to this positive style.
The application of the rule “goals only come from mistakes” has a highly regrettable (further) side effect: if it were actually so, then a highly regrettable game would remain, which would be in urgent need of reform. The aim of the game is and remains to put the ball in the box. All the other attractive actions would be incidental, the circus-like tricks would be wastepaper, the great saves would only be of value because they prevent the ball from going in. Every now and then, however, it has to hit the target. If the goal of the game could only happen through mistakes, then the remaining crumbs would only be what one could call a “tragedy”.
Unfortunately, however, everyone seems to be going for it. So the game of football as currently practised is, by its very design, almost nothing but this tragedy. Playing off an opponent is not possible, because it is not allowed to happen. So: either you have the ball or it’s on the ground. The choice of means is not completely indifferent, because the fewer fouls you play, the more likely you are to get away without a free kick for the opponent, but depending on how skilfully he or she is acting or how clumsily you yourself are acting: that he or she continues to run behind you towards your goal with the ball must not happen.
A goal kick from a dangerous distance must also be prevented and must not happen. Scythe him down if there is no other way. Standard, ok, but fortunately we all know what we have to do. Just pay attention to the commentators again. First they recommend overcoming a back line with a one on one, because they still have it in the back of their minds that such a stylistic device once existed, but when it happens that the ball gets past the defender with a body trick, then they reflexively say “but that’s far too easy”. If, however, as usual, despite a successful feint, the defender still can’t get past the defender but is knocked down, then it is said succinctly “that’s a free kick”, but at the same time the recommendation is “you’d better avoid that from these dangerous distances”. If an attacker creates enough space for himself, through a pass or his own good action, to cross the ball into the centre, then without thinking he is told “he has far too much space”. Surely something like that should be preventable? At least that’s what it sounds like. “Goes far too easily” and “has far too much space” are all effects of the thinking that “goals come from mistakes”.
So if we could finally succeed in eliminating all these mistakes, then we would finally have reached our goal: goals can be eliminated. What for? The ball really can’t land there under any circumstances. That was once upon a time, in the early days of the game. Back then, when you could even enjoy a beautiful goal and not even think about where “the chain of errors” started.
- let go of football as it is
This statement was made with just as little reflection, but it has much more substance than the previous one. It expresses this conservative thinking, which, however, has proven itself in the long run – and not only in relation to football. If you leave everything as it is, then you can expect to keep what you have. And not only is what you have measurable and what you have become accustomed to, and in the case of the game of football is by no means little, but the thought “we don’t even know what would come of it if we were to tackle this, this, that and change it” is a justified one.
The fact that the emperor said this in such a flippant manner has nevertheless had comparable consequences worldwide. He himself does not see any need to change anything anyway. His life is and was built on football, in the way it was and has developed up to this point. He still and always and practically daily has the task of rather avoiding the microphones that would otherwise be constantly rubbed in his face. So how could one expect him to now say, “Something urgently needs to be done about that.” That said, this does have a positive vibe when he says it and how he says it. “Everything is going well. Why think about it any longer?” There used to be gates, now there are gates. Everything is chic. The same, perhaps: we used to be world champions, today we are. European champions now and then, sometimes the Champions League, and if not, then we were just unlucky.
When the emperor speaks…
When a nation is well governed, it is apparently allowed to switch off its own thinking. “Everything will be sorted out. Don’t worry about it.” If it is even ruled by an emperor, then his voice seems to be heard far beyond the borders of the country – and to find expression. At any rate, is this apparently true in relation to football?
The emperor is emperor because he has earned it and because it is his due. He doesn’t think much of “democracy” – but he doesn’t have to care about that either. Once you’re on the throne – before or after, but being world champion as a player AND as a coach is the latest thing that gets you there? –, then you are basically set and can say whatever you want: the people first hang on your every word, then greedily devour the statements – and from then on do not question their validity. The emperor speaks. Shh! The Emperor has spoken: “This is how it is and no other way.”
The “emperor” has made two “momentous” statements. He makes them simply because he can say anything he likes. He doesn’t have to ponder long and think deeply. All is well and something just came to mind. Out with it. Add to that looking good and smiling — because he always does — and a piece of wisdom stands rock solid and irrefutable, for decades. You may quote it and everyone knows it and whenever it would be appropriate or not: you say it to yourself without thinking. One is automatically a kind of expert if one can recite this flawlessly – and the statements are most simple. But they are not a little more far-reaching, more lasting.
These two momentous statements, perhaps said on a whim, without being able to foresee the consequences themselves – because furthermore, the emperor has no need for deeper reflection — are like this: “Goals come from mistakes” and “Let go of football as it is.”
Both statements stand and have consequences mentioned: you don’t have to think about it any more. That’s just the way it is and that’s the way it is right and that’s the way it will always be. Those who know the ropes know that and don’t need much more. Even if football philosopher Herberger got to the heart of many things better.
At this point, however, these statements, which are so firmly welded into everyone’s football mind, should be critically examined. One gladly accepts “insulting one’s majesty” or “usurpation of office” as accusations. Whether these can be upgraded to a “criminal offence” is a moot point. But: the world belongs to the brave?
Franz Beckenbauer, by the way, is not the least bit reproached. He has indeed seen and experienced just about everything in the world in connection with football, he has built his life on it, he is (has been) one of those exceptional artists who have achieved legendary status – and that worldwide — and this is by no means based on coincidences or even a kind of “overvaluation”. However, if one or two statements he made are treated like “the emperor’s new clothes”, then it is simply not his fault. In this view, he would simply make a different statement tomorrow, which could sound the opposite, but without intending to do so. Maybe he’s even having a bit of fun with it? For him, as a true Bavarian, there is only “Rosenheim” and not “Rosenborg Trondheim”. Who would want to be angry with him for that?
- goals are scored through mistakes
There is a very simple view here or, one could also extend this to two, three, fourteen. Some goals may come from mistakes. Others are beautifully played out. But there are a bunch of other categories. For example: a goal that should not have counted. Or: a goal from a deflected shot. An own goal? No, that would be stupid to mention here, because that could already be considered a “mistake” – even if the pictures should clearly prove that the defender was unluckily shot by his own teammate while trying to clear the ball.
The statement that “goals are scored through mistakes” is so inane that it is not worth investigating. Nevertheless, the sentence is quoted like this almost daily and again and again, so that one is almost forced to take a stand. Especially since the person quoting it is relying on it and wants to express something with it. And this wisdom somehow takes hold, has an effect on behaviour, nonsensically.
So it should be cleared up. The tone of the statement wouldn’t be a nice one either, if there was actually something to it. You explain the game of football to a newcomer. You invite him to visit a stadium. “What’s there to see?” he asks. “Oh, quite a lot. But the decisive thing is the goals. When one is scored, and it’s for my team, then it’s a real crowd-puller, the stadium goes wild.” “Great, yes, I’m in. But a quick question: How do goals happen?” “Well, we have to wait until someone finally makes a mistake. Otherwise it’s all dark here. There aren’t many either. One would be great.” “You know what? I’ll stay home.”
A few “approximations” of how goals can happen. For example, you go back to a situation like this: a man has the ball and shoots at the goal. Distance is indifferent at first. Now, if a discussion partner believes in Beckenbauer, he might retort: “Mustn’t happen. Must be prevented.” So a shot on goal is not possible. Because it is somehow recognisable that if you shoot in the direction of the goal, then you would have to fear that the ball would go in? So there shouldn’t be any shots? Good. Then we consider how the shooting situation arose: one party had a throw-in. Is that possible? Okay, that’s possible. The ball is thrown into the opponent’s half. Is it still okay? Ok. The thrower has well-aimed the ball and has matched the running path of his team-mate. The ball is now at his foot. It’s 45 metres from the goal. It’s still okay, yes? No danger of scoring? What if he now knows a good trick and leaves an opponent standing with a feint? Well, that’s going too far. At the latest here, the defender has to extend his leg and bring the attacker to the ground.
All right, so it would be a free kick? Only 40 metres to the goal? Good. Now there are tall defenders, suited for headers and trained for it, educated for it, selected for it. Go? Ok. Two of them go into the opposition penalty area. The free kick is, appropriately enough, a free kick, so it is taken unopposed. The situation is rehearsed, the player taking the free kick has a “fine foot” and circles the ball with a lot of spin onto the head of one of the selected defenders, who has been converted into an attacker for the moment. Can’t you go any further? At least not without the fact that it could have/must have been prevented? What a pity. Otherwise you’d be close to finding some kind of goal kick. WITHOUT a mistake. But it probably didn’t work out. Whether it would have gone in without the goalkeeper having to “make a big mistake” is of course the next question.
In principle, the attacking team can cross the halfway line at some point and thus become the “attacking team”. The player on the ball could now either drive the ball further forward on his own, possible thereby that artful ball handling is required and a certain wealth of tricks, but why should it not simply be possible? By the way, the emperor himself used it often enough as a libero, i.e. as a free man: there was no one there to stop him. One or the other goal was scored. It was just the emperor, he can’t be stopped, okay. That was also before the time when laws were formulated and quoted…
Alternatively, other players could also try to find a free place. You can even take it with a quick run. It has even happened that one player was faster than the other. Wrong formation? Again: too bad. We were already so close…
So the other players look for positions where they can be played. Sometimes a distance of two metres from the opponent is enough. The pass comes, the ball is taken into the run. Is that not possible? Or is it only possible with mistakes? Not recognisable. Now they are already “threateningly” approaching the danger zone. The attacker on the outside now has these two metres of space. He takes a few more steps and draws a cross into the penalty area. A bit of luck or high precision in the cross, and the centre forward, who is also highly trained and skilled in this, gets to the ball – an impossibility. “How is that supposed to work, what are you dreaming about?” Yes, it was just a dream. It was supposed to sound like there could have been some kind of goal approach – without any mistakes at all.
There are simply a multitude of ways to keep the ball in. There are tactics to do that, players with certain attributes: Height, agility, speed, robustness, tackling strength or opposing dribbling strength. Acrobatics can also be cited today. Ball skills, technical skills, finishing strength, shot-toughness, precision, heading, jumping strength. Whatever. You can also hone these skills in training. You can even practise combination play, individual moves, double passes, crosses, corner kicks and free kicks. Even throws or throw-ins can become a weapon.
The goal of “ball circulation” – if you can just throw around a few more technical terms; don’t they all do that? – would be to gain space in the process. At the same time, of course, the opponent can’t score if you have the ball yourself. So you want to gradually gain space, if you can. The continued goal would be to gain as much space as possible until the ball ends up “in the danger zone”. This zone is called that because a finish in it should provide the desired goal threat.
The chance that a move will actually result in such a goal is still small. The only thing is that we keep to the hoover mentality here: keep trying. At some point, you manage to get a shot off – without making any mistakes. You even tire out the opponent from time to time when you have the ball a lot, and an age-old football law still applies, much more so than these modern-day formulations. If you let the ball run, you also let the opponent run more. And: the ball is always faster. But “played tired” does not mean that mistakes have to be the result. But there might be that extra metre of space that you need to make that precise pass, that pinpoint cross or, in extreme cases, that well-placed shot on goal that even the most highly trained acrobat in the opponent’s box can’t reach without making a mistake. “Out of his reach” or simply “unstoppable”. That’s what it used to be called. But it doesn’t exist any more. There’s more talk of “partial blame” or “on a good day” or at least “we have to talk about the goalkeeper”. But that doesn’t belong here.
Whoever has the ball can do a lot with it. That’s what I want to say here. With good alignment and good teammates who offer themselves, sometimes coming short, sometimes going long, constant rotation, crossing paths — with the intention that the defenders not only get confused but even have to cross their paths from time to time, quite inevitably, and so they no longer get to the danger area in time, all without committing a mistake.
There is a positive way to transport the ball forward and, ideally, to then finish the ball towards the goal. If everything goes right, it’s in from time to time – without any mistakes. At the same time, there are many facets to this positive style.
The application of the rule “goals only come from mistakes” has a highly regrettable (further) side effect: if it were actually so, then a highly regrettable game would remain, which would be in urgent need of reform. The aim of the game is and remains to put the ball in the box. All the other attractive actions would be incidental, the circus-like tricks would be wastepaper, the great saves would only be of value because they prevent the ball from going in. Every now and then, however, it has to hit the target. If the goal of the game could only happen through mistakes, then the remaining crumbs would only be what one could call a “tragedy”.
Unfortunately, however, everyone seems to be going for it. So the game of football as currently practised is, by its very design, almost nothing but this tragedy. Playing off an opponent is not possible, because it is not allowed to happen. So: either you have the ball or it’s on the ground. The choice of means is not completely indifferent, because the fewer fouls you play, the more likely you are to get away without a free kick for the opponent, but depending on how skilfully he or she is acting or how clumsily you yourself are acting: that he or she continues to run behind you towards your goal with the ball must not happen.
A goal kick from a dangerous distance must also be prevented and must not happen. Scythe him down if there is no other way. Standard, ok, but fortunately we all know what we have to do. Just pay attention to the commentators again. First they recommend overcoming a back line with a one on one, because they still have it in the back of their minds that such a stylistic device once existed, but when it happens that the ball gets past the defender with a body trick, then they reflexively say “but that’s far too easy”. If, however, as usual, despite a successful feint, the defender still can’t get past the defender but is knocked down, then it is said succinctly “that’s a free kick”, but at the same time the recommendation is “you’d better avoid that from these dangerous distances”. If an attacker creates enough space for himself, through a pass or his own good action, to cross the ball into the centre, then without thinking he is told “he has far too much space”. Surely something like that should be preventable? At least that’s what it sounds like. “Goes far too easily” and “has far too much space” are all effects of the thinking that “goals come from mistakes”.
So if we could finally succeed in eliminating all these mistakes, then we would finally have reached our goal: goals can be eliminated. What for? The ball really can’t land there under any circumstances. That was once upon a time, in the early days of the game. Back then, when you could even enjoy a beautiful goal and not even think about where “the chain of errors” started.
- let go of football as it is
This statement was made with just as little reflection, but it has much more substance than the previous one. It expresses this conservative thinking, which, however, has proven itself in the long run – and not only in relation to football. If you leave everything as it is, then you can expect to keep what you have. And not only is what you have measurable and what you have become accustomed to, and in the case of the game of football is by no means little, but the thought “we don’t even know what would come of it if we were to tackle this, this, that and change it” is a justified one.
The fact that the emperor said this in such a flippant manner has nevertheless had comparable consequences worldwide. He himself does not see any need to change anything anyway. His life is and was built on football, in the way it was and has developed up to this point. He still and always and practically daily has the task of rather avoiding the microphones that would otherwise be constantly rubbed in his face. So how could one expect him to now say, “Something urgently needs to be done about that.” That said, this does have a positive vibe when he says it and how he says it. “Everything is going well. Why think about it any longer?” There used to be gates, now there are gates. Everything is chic. The same, perhaps: we used to be world champions, today we are. European champions now and then, sometimes the Champions League, and if not, then we were just unlucky.
