Warning: The following statement may cause readers to spit out lukewarm tea in a spray of disgust or be impelled to send waves of voodoo curses towards this erstwhile correspondent. The local derby is fast receding into an anachronistic echo of a time when geographical footballing rivalry actually did set brother against brother and was the bubbling cause of many a playground scrap. In fact, is it in any way relevant in our highly globalised, inter-connected twenty-first century world?
Before the massed ranks of Manchester and Tyne and Wear begin their gnashing of teeth and fist-shaking, allow me to explain.
Wright, Adams, Merson, Rocastle, Groves. These names still have the capacity to elicit bouts of retrospective, rueful grudge-holding in me. As I think back to the late eighties all the way through to the mid-nineties, I can unfortunately recall far too many occasions when the Highbury Nomads were able to lord it over the clearly more cerebral and aesthetically pleasing talents of my beloved Spurs. The 1987 League Cup semi-final capitulation still makes my stomach churn and the narrative has been more or less consistent in subsequent North London derbies.
However, when Arsene Wenger was appointed as manager in 1996, one of his first remarks regarding the fixture was a pithy and nonchalant dismissal: “I am aware of the rivalry”. As he set about re-branding the dour reputation of the ‘Boring Boring’ years, he made it plainly obvious that he had bigger ambitions for the club than the petty little local affair with a club, in Spurs, that he has always viewed as somewhat inferior to his idealistic philosophies of how the game should be played.
As Arsenal became more cosmopolitan in both their playing style and in their acquisition of non-English players, Spurs fans saw their arch rivals overtake them in the style stakes. It may be anathema for Spurs fans to admit it, but Arsenal throughout Wenger’s tenure have been wonderful to watch.
As other clubs followed in Wenger’s footsteps utilising more and more foreign talent, the nature of the derby as a paean to the blood and thunder, all guns blazing encounters of the pre-Premier League era arguably lost its allure. While many fans still feel the intensity of these games, players seem to have a much more detached attitude towards them. Is it too much of a bold statement to suggest that local derbies are increasingly more sterile affairs, when the pursuit of points is more desirable than the proverbial bragging rights?
A case in point is the latest match-up of Manchester’s two clubs. In the build-up to the game, football fans were bombarded with a barrage of news reports and television programmes proclaiming that City v United was one of the most intense and anticipated of all derbies. We witnessed puff-pieces with Eric Cantona taking languid strolls across Manchester’s cityscape as he apparently sought to find the essence of what makes the match so unique.
Before the match itself, Sky’s pundits, Ruud Gullit and Graeme Souness, positively gurgled in anticipation at the thought of crunching tackles and the “passion” of it all. What in fact transpired was a match so forgettable that Match of the Day deliberately cut down the highlights in order to maintain the late-night viewing figures. Manchester City’s approach can be viewed as Italian in its willingness to sit back and soak up the pressure without any kind of pressing in the hope that they would catch the visiting team on the break. In other words, the performance was professional, remote, passionless. So much for simmering rivalries and generational feuding.
The local derby may still be significant to fans from the surrounding vicinity of the clubs contesting the match, but fails to take into consideration that the quest for a global audience subsequently introduces new fans to a club that, by the very nature of their geographical distance, have little interest in the feudalism that continues to exist between local rivals. For many, Manchester United v Liverpool is regarded a more intense and fractious encounter than the United v City fixture.
If the derby has any meaningful relevance in today’s footballing culture, it is usually evident in the perceived lesser club of the two. Whilst Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and Manchester United have more or less dominated the upper echelons of the league in recent years, Everton, Manchester City and Spurs have looked on enviously. Hence why Everton fans took so much delight in their recent victory over Liverpool as the latter briefly found themselves in the relegation zone and why so much is made of Manchester City’s so far fruitless attempts to usurp United both in terms of finance and glamour. As for Spurs though, their recent heroics in the Champions League might suggest an overdue overcoming of their own self-inflicted inferiority complex in relation to Arsenal.
Derbies these days only hold the attention of fans, players and managers if there is an apparent parity between the two clubs. This might point to why the Tyne-Wear derby lived up to its stellar billing at the end of October. But to suggest that these occasions are the biggest games of the season looks increasingly out of step with the times. A Carling Cup defeat to Arsenal patently does not hold the same lustre as hosting the champions of Europe, however fervent a supporter and blinded by local hostility you may be.
Whatever some may feel about local derbies, when it comes to the natural pecking order of English football, Sir Alex Ferguson was quick to temper City’s sudden ascent:
“There was one City fan who put a tattoo around his body saying ‘European Cup winners!’ People simply get carried away and, unfortunately, supporters are just as bad as directors.”
You can’t help but dream, but let’s not kid ourselves that any sleep is being lost over these games any more. And perhaps that’s a good thing. Tony Adams, FA Cup semi-final, 1993. I’m still twitching at the memory.
Greg Theoharis is the man behind Dispatches from a Football Sofa.
twofootedtackle.com is trying to raise £1,000 for Cardiac Risk in the Young, which works to raise awareness of heart conditions that lead to sudden cardiac death and sudden death syndrome. You can help by donating just £2 at justgiving.com/twofootedtackle.
Tags: Derbies
Is it pointless, sterile and anachronistic? Absolutely not. We often hear that football would not be what it is if it wasn’t for the fans in the stands. While I agree with you that an Arsenal-Spurs or a ManUtd-Man City game doesn’t mean as much as it used to for the players involved in it, it means every bit as much to the people who actually matter. The people who live in and around the area, the people who will go to work with those in the opposing stands on a Monday morning, those who will still be in the stands 40 years from now.
If anything, the local derby’s special place in the heart of the football fan is one of the few good things left in a sport that has been so gutted and sterilised by footballers who couldn’t care less where their next £100k is coming from and who care about the fan in the stand only as much as they are absolutely obliged to.
The ‘global audience’ is a concern of the money men. If you choose to take their side in the discussion on what is or is not important or out-dated then that is your prerogative but you’ll be a pretty lonely voice in the stands I’d wager.
BOF,
The ‘global audience’ is not the concern of money men. It is the interest of money men (and women) but the concern of the hundreds of millions to whom the destiny of Manchester United or Arsenal or Manchester City means everything - as mush as these totems of footballing dreams, these bastions of imagined glory mean to the people who live in the area, who go to work with those in the opposing stands, who will be in the stands in 40 years. In Ivory Coast, Didier Drogba, feted as a demi-god, has a significant influence over national elections. Does Wayne’s pick for PM have the same effect? Does Wayne even know who the PM is? When Didier plays for Chelsea, Ivory Coast stops to watch. Now the unfortunate thing you may retort is that this is an artificial construct designed by the money men to spread influence, increase popularity, maintain support and boost profits. Well yes that may be however, it is and this is the place we find ourselves now. Football is the world game and the Premier League the most watched domestic league in the world. The First Division is bigger than it ever used to be, it’s the Premiership now and like its title has changed somewhat, as everything does over time. It’s whether you can adapt to change or remain anachronistic that is the true marker of progress and success. Just look at Arsenal.
I agree with you, to an extent, when it comes to many of the Premier League derbies. But in the lower divisions, local derbies still mean everything to the players, fans, owners and local communities and economies.
[...] Dispatches on the Net: twofootedtackle.com: Local derbies: pointless, sterile, anachronistic? [...]