ON NARRATIVES

A month ago, the 2012-2013 Barclays Premier League season may have held its defining fixture as Manchester United, buoyed by another Robin van Persie game-winning goal, overcame Manchester City 3 to 2. But while the British Press certainly made mention of United's heroic resilliance after conceding their two goal lead, of Wayne Rooney's brilliance and of Michael Carrick's midfield presense, England's journalists chose to focus more heavily on the ineptitude of one Mario Balotelli. Granted the rare start by gaffer Roberto Mancini, City never seemed to click in the attacking third while Balotelli was on the field. His replacement after 55 minutes, Carlos Tevez, made an immediate impact and was louded as having turned the game in City's favor (though of course they still failed to take anything from the match). The maverick ghanaian-born forward was called lazy, disruptive, off the pace, and was further lambasted for walking straight down the tunnel after being taken off the pitch, rather than sit with his teammates in the stands. Balotelli was singled out for being essentially the sole reason for City's lackluster first half from which they failed to recover. Mancini was criticized for his inclusion of the Italian in his starting XI, and many saw Mario's substitution as the beginning of the end of his time in Manchester...

Now might be the time to state the following: Balotelli did not have a bad game at the Etihad that day. In fact, having watched the game both live and once more in the days following, I would argue that Balotelli was massively responsible for the few bright spots City had before his substitution. Why then did the press, composed of well educated and hopefully unbiased writers and commentators, hammer Balotelli's play?

It's simple really; Balotelli's narrative dictates that when his side play poorly, he becomes the scapegoat. His on-field demeanor, which an outsider to the game may wrongly call 'uninterested', combined with his off-field antics mean that Mario Balotelli is a convenient means by which a game report may be written.

I have never followed a Premier League season nearly as extensively as I have this current campaign, and if there is one thing that I now find myself keenly aware of it would be that the British press rely heavily on lazy narratives. Take for example the Fernando Torres saga; the narrative for this instance goes two ways. If Fernando is scoring, 'Rafael Benitez has revived his career'. If he is not, he is 'well past his prime, and lost a yard or two of pace'. Neither of these actually addresses the truth of the matter, which is that Fernando Torres was once a world-beater of a forward circa 2009, and now finds himself comfortably below the world elite in his position. However, the Spaniard still remains a player capable of scoring 20 goals a season provided he play in front of a dynamic midfield (which he does). To say he is either in a state of 'revival' or utter capitulation is both lazy and inaccurate.

It isn't just the top sides which become accosted by these false narratives. Stoke City, who until this weekend boasted the Premier Leagues best defensive record, have been pegged as a long-ball, anti-football playing side. In reality, Stoke possess that rare ability to properly defend in a league where basic defensive premises have been cast by the wayside. Furthermore, they compliment this ability with an aptitude to quickly move the ball from back to front, whether by long ball or by quick up-field passing, in order to create the odd quality chance in front of goal. Surely Stoke do not play the most aesthetically pleasing football in England, but to say they are 'anti-beautiful play' is shockingly askew from reality.

Interestingly, some narratives have taken such hold in England that they seem to be functioning as self-fulfilling prophecies. Roger Bennett, ESPNFC.com writer and one half of the fantastic Men In Blazers Podcast, commented during the recent Newcastle v Manchester United match (after Newcastle took the lead 3-2 nonetheless), that "the narrative dictates that United will equalize and Chicharito will score a 90' winner". And so, astonishingly, it was. The 'United score late goals' storyline is so entrenched into English football lore that I well and truly believe it effects the players who ought to be denying United those precious last minute winners.

But while I fume at many of the lazily wrought and repeated narratives that plague British commentary, there are indeed legitimate reasons why these narratives persist. Rafael Benitez's actions yesterday demonstrated the stubbornness that managers and players alike possess when they believe themselves unflappable, and this stubbornness lends itself perfectly to narratives. Rather than rolling out his strongest XI yesterday against basement-dwellers QPR, Rafa tinkered with his line-up so massively that Chelsea's (arguably) two best players, Juan Mata and Edin Hazard, found themselves on the bench until beyond the 60' mark. Chelsea lost 1-0. The 'Benitez fusses with his line-up too much to ever win a title' narrative proved frustratingly accurate.

So I suppose my gripes with narratives are two fold; they persist when they ought not to, and they persist because they are allowed to.

The game, and its complementary commentary, is frustratingly entertaining like that.