On the BBC’s endless moaning about goals & entertaining football

“Its real parasite football,” pronounced Mick McCarthy brashly about 75 minutes into Brazil 0-0 Portugal. “Desperately disappointing stuff,” bemoaned Jonathan Pearce at the final whistle. “Oh dear,” was about all Gary Lineker could muster after the game.

Granted the game will not go down in the annals of football history as a classic. But this is far from the first time the BBC have ramped up a game pre-match only to spend the entire rest of their broadcast cursing and damning their sheer misfortune at a game that doesn’t quite meet their ludicrous standards. Put simply, their moaning about boring matches is far more boring than any football I’ve ever seen.

It is funny how Alan Hansen likes to portray himself as the defender’s pundit, but then proceeds to cry his eyes out at any hint of an effective defensive display. “They’ve killed the game,” he bawled dejectedly at half time of Argentina v Greece, as if his world had come crashing down before his eyes.

Surely an efficient, conservative side like Greece represent the defensive utopia Hansen longs for on all those occasions he reproaches teams both in England and internationally for “terrible defending” – his habitual catchphrase du jour?

The BBC’s formula for punditry at international tournaments, indeed for almost any live game they broadcast, is tiresomely predictable. Build the game up, expect a “feast of football” as if it is somehow the station’s birthright, like a spoilt child demanding an expensive new toy on a trip to buy school uniform, and then woe-is-me their way through the entire 90 minutes when the magical goalfest of football they conjured up from nowhere fails to materialise.

It is as predictable as it is irritating. Football does not suddenly transform into the NBA just because a major international tournament is on. The Celtics vs Lakers playoff finals were gripping – end-to-end stuff and plenty of points scored. Are the BBC confusing their sports when they harp on demandingly about the need to be entertained? Maybe they acquired the wrong TV rights.

Brazil have played in the same pragmatic way for about 3 years, with two holding midfielders and one striker upfront. It is the very reason Ronaldinho was deemed surplus to requirements in the first place, a style about as far from the Nike manufactured principles of joga bonito as you could possibly imagine.

Dunga didn’t see any value in having one of Serie A’s most creative players from last season in his 23 man squad, and so the likes of Josue, Kleberson, Felipe Melo and Gilberto Silva were drafted in ahead of him. For this game, Kaka and Elano were missing. Meanwhile, Portugal have played a lone striker for as long as I can remember, needed only a point to qualify and had the joint 3rd best defensive record in Europe during World Cup qualifying. And Gary Lineker expected a 4-4 draw?!

Tactical nous?

I’m not sure what others think, but the BBC’s consistent portrayal that a football match without goals is worthless regularly comes across as patronising. A 0-0 is not necessarily a dull game and a 4-4 doesn’t necessarily equal the greatest game ever.

Football is as much about the ebb and flow of the match; the different passages of play, the meandering narrative, the unravelling of the story, intricate passing moves and opposing attempts to thwart them, as it is about goals. To continually try and dictate to the viewer what is entertaining and what isn’t is patronising, and insults the intelligence of followers of football mature enough to make their own decisions.

One might venture that the whining about lack of goals is as much a screen for the BBC to mask their own lack of tactical analysis and genuine knowledge about the teams and players on display as it is a serious gripe. Others have written eloquently on the incredible dearth of actual knowledge from these supposedly knowledgeable pundits. I tend to agree. It is far easier to typecast Brazil as “that team what play samba football” and consequently moan about a lack of enterprise than it is to purposefully and accurately dissect the game as it plays out.

Does anyone actually suspect Hansen, Shearer or anyone else on those comfy couches has actually followed Brazilian or Portuguese football over the last year or two, or even thought to at least research a little bit about the teams they will be discussing for the next two hours? I have my doubts. Hansen can barely pronounce Raul Meireles, let alone provide tactical insight into how he fits into Portugal’s system and how Carlos Queiroz utilised him to neutralise the threat of Julio Baptista.

“Dreadful. Poor game. I don’t know what I’m doing sat here, I could have been on the treadmill back at the hotel,” Shearer protested after the game. Some might argue a treadmill would have offered more insight, Al.

Brazil, Portugal, The Media, World Cup 2010