Liverpool and the art of winning ugly

Rafael feels the wrath of the Liverpool players

Soon after Liverpool eked out a 2-1 win over Sunderland at Anfield on Wednesday night, most people came out saying that Liverpool showed championship winning quality in managing to gain the three points. But how is struggling to a win against a side fighting for survival a sign of a champion? Shouldn’t champions be demolishing the lesser oppositions? Shouldn’t champions be the very epitome of dominance?

That is not always the case. If you’re winning ugly, it means you’re winning even when you’re not playing to your fullest potential. It means you’re winning when the opposition has pushed you to the hilt. It means that you’re winning when your character has been tested.

For a Sachin Tendulkar or a Jacques Kallis, an outside edge for four meant as much as playing the perfect straight drive or cover drive. For a Kobe Bryant, an ugly tip-in means as much as an authoritative slam dunk. For a Roger Federer, the ungainly tweener means as much as essaying the perfect single-handed backhand down the line.

Sport, in general, is about the result and not the means that have been adopted to get there. Ultimately, in a few years from now, only the winners will be remembered. Only the winners will be celebrated. People will not talk about Vinod Kambli being as talented as a Tendulkar, but people will talk about all the amazing achievements of Tendulkar.

The great Manchester United teams of the Sir Alex Ferguson era were result oriented. They were professional and went about football in a very uncomplicated manner. For Sir Alex, football was a very simple game. You had to stop the opposition from scoring, and you had to score goals. And that is how one must go about it. Off late, too much emphasis is being laid on aesthetics, and that only complicates the game further.

Too many kids growing up want to be a Tendulkar, but fail to realize that they could be as successful if they possessed the spirit of a Steve Waugh. Too many kids grow up wanting to be a Federer, but fail to realize that Nadal has been almost equally as successful. Too many kids grow up wanting to be a Ronaldo or a Messi, when a Ryan Giggs or Ruud van Nistelrooy have gone just fine.

Too many people grow up wanting to play a Perfect Match. But what is a perfect match? A perfect way to play a game is the best way you can find to win it. There is no such thing as “The opponent was better than me” in sport. If the opposition was better than you, it means you have not found your perfect way to play that match. It means you have not hit your straps readily.

Sport is about adjusting to the opposition. Sport is about adapting to the strengths and the weaknesses of the opponent. Sport is about winning. He who wins is he who adapts the best. You might be Roger Federer but you still have to do the ugly running around. You might be Sachin Tendulkar, but you still need to duck under the perfect bouncer. You might be Cristiano Ronaldo, but you still need to track back and help your team mates in the defensive cause.

When someone is not willing to work through the tough times and quits when things get tough, that is the anti-winning ugly. Winning ugly at the highest level is the same as winning ugly at any other level. Just finding a way, doing whatever it takes, inside or outside your comfort zone, recognizing your opponent’s strengths and weaknesses and being good enough and strong enough to keep exposing the weaknesses.

Sometimes, it is nice to remind people that winning ugly is still winning, at the end of the day.