Play well or win? The eternal culture battle

The war of styles.

Soccer is an emotional territory in which everything fits, including endless battles such as

and

, two world champions who divided Argentine soccer and internationalized their differences.

There are fans of the two schools, disciples of one and the other, conciliators who never tire of failing and even some schizophrenic who, like me, is

having been world champion with Bilardo.

This week HBO premiered a series in Argentina:

.

Surely he will be very successful because of the appeal of the character: passionate, detailed, demanding, austere, a doctor who never practiced, a politician who failed and a pragmatist with a winning obsession that bordered the limits of ethics.

In chronicles of the series, I read that Bilardo won that cultural war.

That means I lost her.

What in days of real war does not seem so important.

Winning is healing.

I don't know if that football war has a winner, because it is reissued with different nuances and in different places from time to time.

Recently Simeone ( a declared

) reproached Xavi (

although he does not know it) for some statements that reproduced the old and false debate: play well or win.

On the other hand, Bordalás (

although he does not know it) defends the style of play of his teams because he feels that he is being attacked by professionals, journalists and part of public opinion.

But the controversies are ended by a good victory.

His Valencia eliminated Athletic from the Cup and Mestalla went crazy without wondering if the team played nice or ugly.

Nothing different from what happened to Bilardo in the 86 World Cup: he was slaughtered on the way and repaired in the final, where he was greeted with a large banner that read: “Sorry, Bilardo”.

The controversy also plays.

To order the old debate, we have to compare things of the same nature: do we prefer to play well or badly? Do we prefer to win or lose?

But if we simplify things to that extent we miss the controversies that football feeds on.

Here are two tests.

Betis and Rayo played games where football flowed.

A game within a clean context: respectful fans, educated coaches, journalism that could not scratch any conflict.

For current standards, a bore that only had 180 minutes of good football.

That only matters to the fans of the two teams.

On the other hand, Valencia-Athletic was played for weeks, where true or invented debates made the excitement grow until the Mestalla exploded and interested all of Spain.

The game was made of tension, dispute,

continuous inaccuracies and a great goal from Guedes that decided the game.

Battle won, Valencia happy and Bordalás renewed.

The beauty.

Of the infinite game, that each one loves the part that he likes the most.

As far as I know, there is no illegal style.

But do not take away the pleasure of small vices.

For example, the pipe that Pedri put on his back.

I have read that he threw it away in a reckless place, or that the beautiful solution to the problem he was in did not pay off.

As if beauty didn't count, as if we wanted to remove creativity from football, as if adventures didn't need risk.

Soccer is not a sport in which success is achieved by those who run the fastest and those who jump the highest, but a game with a logic that is broken by the virtuosity of a dribble, the deception of a feint or the genius of a brave man who, with a touch, turns a stadium upside down.

Between winning or losing, I choose to win.

Between playing well or badly, I prefer to play well.

You can follow EL PAÍS DEPORTES on

Exclusive content for subscribers

read without limits

subscribe

I'm already a subscriber