Good news for agents of change who introduce cultural revolution
The Daily Telegraph, 5th December 2008
By Ed Smith
05 Dec 2008
It was a big week for the modernisers. Wales became the only home country to beat a southern-hemisphere rugby giant this autumn, and Arsenal, despite rumours of internal splits and warring factions, crept back into the top four of the Premier League.
Warren Gatland and Arsene Wenger might be at different stages of their careers, but their journeys have huge similarities. Each inherited a great sporting brand that had forgotten how to win. Their shared ambition has been to restore a sporting dynasty to former greatness, but using new methods – in other words, both a restoration and a revolution at the same time. Not easy.
Who would be an agent for change? The resistance is enormous. All modernisers face two challenges: first to persuade the old guard to budge, secondly to convince them that this change must take a particular shape. Institutions are conservative because change implies that the incumbents could have done better. An institution is an aggregate of vested interests, and preserving the status quo, even in the face of failure, has one huge advantage – it avoids the unpleasantness of admitting you were wrong.
The cultural revolution Wenger has effected at Arsenal has always divided people. He took the most English of teams – a pragmatic, dour blend of offside traps and old-school physicality – and turned Arsenal into the purists’ dream. Wenger’s Arsenal are young, svelte, elegant and cosmopolitan. They are also deeply erratic and prone to self-destruction.
When Arsenal lose, and they have been doing plenty of losing, the old chorus of English cliche finds full voice. If only Arsenal kicked the opposition harder. If only Arsenal stopped passing the ball so much. If only Arsenal did a bit more Vinnie Jones-style testicle-grabbing. If only Arsenal weren’t so damned good to watch. Then everything would be just dandy. Wouldn’t it?
Wenger has taken on, and sometimes won, two modernising battles. First within Arsenal itself – he broke the heavy-drinking culture and embraced athletic attacking play – and secondly within English football. But during Arsenal’s successful phases, the old guard did not change their minds. They still believed in the old English virtues of a good kick at your opponents followed by a hoof downfield. They just went quiet for a bit – and waited.
Christmas came early for Arsenal’s critics. They have been able to say what they always wanted to say – that Wenger’s team are too pretty by half, too European, not really English, no grit, no steel, not enough roast beef. There is no doubt that Arsenal have lacked on-field leadership this season. But sometimes the chorus of disapproval resembles a mass therapy session for English football’s collective myths. Told you, Arsene, what you really need is people like us.
For Gatland, who took over after Wales had played good passing rugby while losing to Fiji in the 2007 World Cup, the challenge has been in the other direction. Wales could always play, but they lacked structure and discipline. Gatland has tried to bring a New Zealander’s clarity and coolness to the most blurry and passionate of rugby nations.
The battle for the soul of Welsh rugby has lasted decades. To the romantics, Wales need only pull on the red jersey, shed a few tears while belting out the anthem and then express themselves. They must trust ‘the Welsh way’, as if all their problems could be solved by a few more sidesteps, miss-passes and ghosting runs by dreamy half-backs.
To the pragmatists, often foreign coaches brought in to shake things up, Wales have lacked a clinical edge. There is no point scoring three tries and conceding four. You also need to be streetwise and resilient. But at times in the Nineties, following Wales felt like watching a side doing an impression of a bad New Zealand team. All the good stuff got lost in translation.
Gatland has sensibly positioned himself outside both these traditions. He has encouraged Wales to play positive, attacking rugby, but given them a harder edge. Wales defend better now and compete relentlessly at the breakdown. As Gatland understands, you can only attack when you have won the ball, and only use the ball efficiently when your pack are moving forward. Every team’s cavaliers desperately need the roundheads to give them a platform – just ask Danny Cipriani.
Gatland has won the Six Nations and performed creditably in the autumn internationals. But he should not be lulled into thinking he has won the debate. Welsh rugby has a mad streak and the gift of perennial self-destruction.
If he loses a couple of muddy, dour Six Nations games in the new year, the old whispers will begin again – not Welsh enough, not romantic enough, does he really understand the Welsh way?
Sometimes, as both men must know, winning isn’t enough – it’s more about persuasion and the impression of consensus. But winning, they can be reassured, is the best – perhaps the only – available strategy. It might even work.