Stylish or boring? Liverpool and Rangers are taking most of the flak

The style of football this season in Britain, and all over the continent, has triggered discussion in pubs and homes across the country.

Liverpool have been slaughtered (mainly by defeated opponents) for their style of play. It has been the same in Scotland with Rangers, who remain on course fo a quadruple, but Liverpool have nothing to show for their efforts.

Tactics and styles in football, like every aspect in life, follow a pattern which goesaround in circles. In the late 50s and early 60s Italian football teams used a system called the "catenaccio" which literally translated means, "door bolt". It was most famously employed and invented by Helenio Herrera, the Argentinian manager of Inter Milan.

Success was plentiful for the Italians but the style of play was stifling the game. The "catenaccio " was influenced by Austrian coach Karl Rappan who employed the "verrou" or "chain" system and many variations have stemmed from both inventions. It is where the "libero" or sweeper originated.

It all made for low scoring matches with 1-0 victories for such teams becoming a regular occurence. With an almost impregnable defence such teams would use the sweeper to initiate attacks from the rear with quick breaks catching the opponents sleeping.

Now Liverpool and Rangers cannot be accused of playing quite so defensively with Liverpool scoring 100 goals this season quicker than anyone else. Rangers' style has been enormously effective and no-one can criticise something that works. Football would not be the game it is without differing views on how the game should be played.

Throughout history, countries like Brazil, France and Holland have always preached "the beautiful game" or "total football." Italy, Germany and Uruguay seem to prefer the more cautious approach with the emphasis on not conceding and relying on other mistakes.

It does make for fascinating football and some truly great games have been witnessed by the fans when both theories of the game clash. The more open style of football retains all of the plaudits for obvious reasons and these teams are almost always backed by the watching neutrals at World Cups and European Championships.

The argument has been raging across the continent all season. Chelsea, even with their fantastic array of talent, play a very cautious game with the "libero" now used in front of the back four in a more modern version of the "catenaccio." Indeed the defensive midfielder who patrols in front of the defense to fetch and carry is employed by almost every team in the land.

Going back through history again, Brazil won the World Cup in 1970 with some simply stunning football and this style was adopted by many throughout that decade. However the next style change saw Johan Cruyff's "total football"mantra fail twice in that decade against the Germans in 1974 and against Argentina.

So which style is the best? It's anyones guess as both styles are famed for getting results if they click in a certain game. Although "total football" was more about posession and building slowly, the all-out attack used by the Brazilians began to fail them.

Brazil were favourites to take a World Cup but in 1982, 1986 and 1990 they failed because other countries simply punished their almost non-existent defending. Apart from the Maradona-inspired 1986 win, Italy won in 1982 thanks to a stunning display by Paulo Rossi and Germany took the trophy in a dreadful 1990 World Cup.

It's like a battle between good and evil. You know which is which and it will continue to rage on. The question is this: With football fans paying big bucks to watch football, what do they want to see?

If your team is winning by playing the more uninspirational type of football do you really care as long as there are trophies in the cabinet? And who cares what anyone thinks anyway? Or do you stick by your guns and preach how football should be played, at the expense of success and trophies?

Every fan knows exactly which side of the football divide their team is on so do you wait for the "total football" to succeed in that ever changing circle or do you succumb to the quick fix? Arsene Wenger is obvious by his choice. So is Rafael Benitez. Sir Alex Ferguson has found that using both works, and Avram Grant uses everyone at his disposal.

Walter Smith is on the verge of history with Rangers. If he fails at the final hurdles and Gordon Strachan succeeds with his more attractive style what will be the general conclusion?

It's fascinating, it really is. The thing is we need one for the other to react. So do the two most criticised teams in Britain this season - Liverpool and Rangers - deserve all the criticism? No they don't!