How do you define "good" football?

Gabriele Marcotti writes a very thought-provoking piece in his blog for The Times about the argument between Wenger and O'Niell over whether Aston Villa play "good football", and the wider debate in the game of football:

Click here to read the article.

The question of what makes good football is almost as old as the game itself. Ever since some semblance of tactics emerged in the game there have been opposing camps as to how the game "should be played" and many have tried to quantify the best way to play the game.


So how do we define "good" football? If you have any ideas, leave a comment below!

Ownership soap operas threaten to overshadow on-pitch action

Misdemeanours and financial uncertainties of club owners are threatening to overshadow the football being played on the pitch at several Premier League clubs, leading to questions resurfacing over what makes a "fit and proper" owner of a football club.

Is it just me, or has football's focus shifted significantly towards the boardroom in recent years? As clubs become the playthings of ultra-rich sugar-daddies and sports tycoons from across the pond start to see the Premier League as an attractive prospect, the wranglings of the boardroom have become regular back-page material.

Perhaps it is the overarching and ever-extending influence of money in the game that has switched our focus away from the day-to-day business of the results on the pitch, and on to the results of business off it. Today, the importance of finely balancing success and financial security (something Portsmouth appear to have failed in) is so evident in the game that issues of ownership have been thrust into the public domain.

Club owners are under the scrutiny of the fans and the media alike, and so perhaps, they should be when there is so much at stake. However, surely less scrutiny would be required if the criteria for passing the Premier League's "fit and proper persons test" actually did what it said on the tin.

Portsmouth's recent ownership travails must draw the credibility of the test into serious doubt, as they have proved unable to meet even the most basic of financial commitments since assuming control. Granted, they took over a club already flirting with disaster and financial ruin, but the optimism of the fans when cream-suited Sulaiman al-Fahim bought the club in August has long since evaporated, along with the Dubai businessman's stake in the club (he sold a 90% stake to Ali Al Faraj on October). Portsmouth have made headlines again today as the Premier League gave tghem a 5pm deadline to pay back creditors or lose their latest slice of TV money.

The owners of Manchester United and Liverpool have also made the headlines in the last few days. For United, the story relates to a £500m bond issue in a bid to safeguard the financial security of the club, while Liverpool's co-owner Tom Hicks has today announced that the club will be "spending big" in the summer break, clearly a move to appease fans over the clanger dropped by his son Tom Hicks Jr in sending abusive emails to a fan.

Surely questions must be asked whether these parties are suitable to be in control of two of the biggest and best footballing insitutions the world has ever seen? These clowns of the boardroom are doing their best to overshadow what should really matter - success on the pitch. Liverpool have clearly struggled for lack of adequate investment inthe right areas in the last two seasons, while Manchester United look to be going the same way. Of course, success on the pitch must be underpinned by financial security, but it seems that both parties are failing on that front as well. I'm not sure what either have going for them, but it's not a lot from where i'm sitting.

There are of course stories of takeovers and ownership issues in recent years that have impacted positively on the game, and those should not be ignored. Randy Lerner continues to do a sterling job at Aston Villa with very little public intrusion. He has let Martin o'Neill's side do their talking on the pitch, and for that he should be praised. Carson Yeung has made a promising start to his time as owner of Birmingham City, perhaps galvinising his teams progress which has seen them go 12 games unbeaten in the Premier League. Even Roman Abramovich has enriched the Premier League by bringing us such characters as Jose Mourinho, Guus Hiddink and Carlo Ancelotti in the managerial hotseat, whilst building a formidable team along the way.

It remains to be seen of course, whether Stan Kroenke manages to assume control at Arsenal, and what kind of legacy he'll bring to the club. Many suggest he will be a positive force for change at the club and will lead them to the silverware that has eluded them in recent years. Whatever happens in his story, he would do well to take heed of the mistakes made by those who have gone before him.

Aston Villa, Spurs, Man City: who will break the top 4? Part 1

As a round of midweek Premier League games again provides compelling evidence both for and against the case for a new team breaking the so-called "big four", The Good of The Game jumps on the bandwagon by - over the next three days - offering their own insight into the debate that's being dubbed "the new can-Lampard-and-Gerrard-play-together?".

There seems to be an almost unspoken consensus amongst those who follow football - and indeed, those who write about it - that Liverpool will this year fail to finish in the Champions League qualifying places for the first time since they won Europe's top prize yet finished only 5th in the domestic championship in 2005. This of course leaves the door open for a team outside the cartel to break up the party and shake up the stagnant and predictable pond that is the English Premier League. To even the most casual of observers it is evident that the three teams best equipped to launch an assault on the summit of English football (or at least a plateau just below the summit that Sky has told everyone is the top), are Aston Villa, Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester City.

All three sides have shown glimpses of exactly why so many people are backing them, but they've also shown evidence of both mental and technical weaknesses that suggest if one of them does manage the "seemingly impossible", it will owe more to the missed opportunities of the other contenders than to their own superiority amongst the best of the rest.

Indeed, even those who are paid to offer their unrivalled insight and wisdom on the game to the wider public - the journalists and pundits - seem to swing wildly from backing one team one week, to another the next based purely on the previous week's results and performances. This is perhaps symptomatic of the fickle nature of those who follow the game, even those who are paid to do so.

So, The Good of The Game has decided to throw it's hat into the ring and offer the definitive guide to each sides chances of finishing 4th or higher this season. Let's start by looking at the team currently in possession of that elusive 4th place, Aston Villa:

Aston Villa

It seems fashionable these days to herald Martin O'Neill as some kind of footballing messiah, a man of almost alchemic powers to transform average teams to very good ones, with his understated and likeable demeanour winning him many supporters amongst football's cognoscenti. The truth of the matter is that he has turned Aston Villa into very real contenders, and a side capable of producing eye-catching results against the very best. Only this season they've managed to upset Manchester United, Chelsea and Liverpool and have placed themselves in a strong position going into the crucial Christmas period which will see them take on Arsenal and Liverpool, and give us further insight into their credentials for a top-four finish.

There is no doubt that Martin O'Neill has now assembled a squad which contains sufficient depth to sustain a challenge throughout the course of an entire season, putting them immediately in a more favourable position than last season where their squad deficiencies were exposed in the second half of the campaign. Signings such as Richard Dunne, James Collins, Habib Beye and Stephen Warnock in the defensive area drew raised eyebrows in the summer for their apparent lack of ambition, but they have once again proven O'Neill to be an astute judge of character and ability as all three have brought valuable quality to the Villa squad. Dunne and Collins in particular have turned in imperious performances in the very biggest matches to make Villa - along with the evergreen and good-as-ever Brad Friedel - a defensive force to be reckoned with.

Going forward Villa boast an embarrassment of English riches, with Stewart Downing added in the summer to an already impressive attacking arsenal containing World Cup hopefuls James Milner, Ashley Young and Gabriel Agbonlahor. Add to that the muscular physicality of John Carew and the much maligned yet extremely effective Emile Heskey and you have an attack that offers dynamic options and an imposing threat on the break and at set-pieces. Milner has developed this season into an integral piece of the jigsaw, while Downing's recovery from injury and subsequent promising performances have only strengthened Villa's hand.

There's clearly no doubting the tools at Villa's disposal - they have a squad that many Premier League managers would kill for. However, there are still those who are critical of the side and what many consider to be an overly pragmatic approach. The great debate over form against function, the aesthetic versus the pragamtic, is one that has dominated tactical debates for over half a century, and it is one that will be again addressed in part two and three of this series as it plays such a crucial role in analysing the three teams in question.

For Villa and O'Neill, the foundation of their success so far this season has been defensive solidity. It was hailed as the reason behind their famous victories against Manchester United and Chelsea, and provides their attacking players with the platform to break at pace and counter attack against sides worn down by the dogged determination of Dunne and his defensive warriors. However, this pragmatic approach has also been their weakness at times.

In displays against Tottenham (when they played more like an away side at Villa Park) and Everton (where they failed to create enough against a side who had lost three and drawn two of their previous five games), Villa dropped points when those hoping for them to break the top-four would have expected more. Against Spurs in particular it was the manner of the performance that planted seeds of doubt in the minds of many. Villa sneaked an early goal despite barely showing the desire to pressurise the understrength Tottenham defence, and were then happy to sit back and absorb the pressure. Spurs eventually grabbed a point, but to all who observed the match, clearly deserved all three and Villa defended for their lives to keep hold of that solitary point.

If Aston Villa are to break into the Champions League places this season, shouldn't their supporters - and indeed their players and manager - expect to be doing more to take their chances? After all, it is unlikely to be the points gained against the very top sides that decides where teams like Villa will finish this season, but those against their immediate rivals and those below them. Last season Spurs had the best record against the "top-four" of any side in the league, but finished 8th due to poor results against weaker sides.

Surely Villa could be doing more week-in, week-out to mark themselves out as clear contenders for 4th place? They certainly have the tools at their disposal to do so, but it remains unclear whether Martin O'Neill will use those tools to their greatest potential. They may grab the attention of the country with eye-catching results, but in truth it may be the performances that give a more accurate glimpse of Villa's chances this season.

Click back to The Good of The Game tomorrow (18/12/09), when we'll be looking at Tottenham's chances of finishing in the top-four this season.