Soccer’s constant struggle with the concept of “style” is in the news again. Barcelona’s Cameroonian forward, Samuel Eto’o, recently had this to say: “We [Barcelona] sometimes get too obsessed with keeping possession and passing the ball around. It isn’t any good to keep playing the same way because if you don’t score, it is no use. What counts is winning, and I want to win and don’t care how we do it. That’s the reality of soccer.”

In recent years, Barcelona has been cherished as an example of a club that wins by playing stylish soccer. But things have gone awry over the past year: Last season, Barcelona lost the Spanish title to archrivals Real Madrid, and halfway through this current season, Real leads the standings, with Barcelona trailing by seven points.

Eto’o evidently believes he has the answer to the slump: Barcelona should forget the stylish soccer. He does not specify what should replace it, but he doesn’t really need to. Everyone knows that the antithesis of “passing the ball around” is the long-ball game — basically, the practice of thumping the ball 40 or 50 yards downfield for the forwards to chase and fight for it — and the closer to the opponent’s goal that the fight takes place, the greater the chance of scoring. Such is the theory. The long-ball game is also known as the direct approach; the English, who are the specialists, call it Route One soccer.

The argument advanced by Eto’o has some merit, but no more merit than the counter-argument that the complete lack of subtlety in the long-ball game renders it predictable and comparatively easy for defenders to deal with. As for style, there is no contest. Most of the long balls forward are hit-and-hope efforts, not true passes: They produce an ugly, scrappy game of soccer.

Part of Eto’o’s criticism seems to be that stylish soccer is out of date, and that it cannot be part of the “reality of soccer.” A similar view was expressed last year by Brazil’s coach, Dunga, who scornfully dismissed the very idea of Brazil’s traditional jogo bonito (beautiful game), and said he was only interested in his team playing “effective” soccer.

Implicit in both views — those of Eto’o and Dunga — is the notion that stylish soccer cannot be winning soccer. This is clearly nonsense: Barcelona was doing very well with its passing game until recently, with a record that included winning Spanish league titles in 2005 and 2006, and the European Cup in 2006.

Barcelona coach Frank Rijkaard, in a mild response to Eto’o, stated, “We must play all matches as if they are little finals, adding points, and the best way to do that is to play in an attractive way.”

Ironically, it is Real Madrid that has gone out of its way to emphasize that style is a key ingredient of its game. Despite winning last year’s championship, Real fired its Italian coach, Fabio Capello (who has since signed as the coach of the English national team), saying — among other criticisms — that the fans despised Capello’s style, which they saw as too Italian (read: too defensive) for Madrid.

In Capello’s place, there now sits the German Bernd Schuster, who has taken Real to its seven-point lead at the top of the league table. A clear triumph for the stylist point of view? Not at all. In fact, it is difficult to discern anything particularly stylish about the way that Real Madrid is playing. This past weekend, Madrid recorded a rather fortunate 2–0 win over Real Zaragoza, but the better soccer, the more stylish soccer, came from Zaragoza. Both of Madrid’s goals resulted from brilliant individual play from their Brazilian forward Robinho — one that he set up for Ruud van Nistelrooy, and the other that he scored himself.

Schuster was certainly a skillful, stylish, and creative performer during his playing days (of which eight years were spent with Barcelona, another irony), but there is not much evidence so far to suggest that his coaching pays much attention to style.

The team has come to rely heavily on Robinho’s spectacular dribbling, a fact that many find perverse, because of a comment that Schuster made last year when he was still the coach at Getafe. After Barcelona’s Lionel Messi had scored a superb goal by dribbling past a succession of Getafe defenders, Schuster refused to acknowledge the brilliance of the goal, and merely remarked that his defenders should have fouled Messi to stop him.

Nor was style much in evidence last October when Madrid hosted the Greek side, Olympiakos F.C. Incredibly, the Greeks — down to 10 men after one of their defenders had been ejected — took a 2–1 lead. Again, it was Robinho who rescued Madrid with two late goals — but style? Forget it. Schuster admitted that his team had “to throw caution to the wind” to win the game, 4–2.

Real Madrid president Ramón Calderón, the man responsible for hiring Schuster, says everything is fine and that the fans are happy because “the system of play is completely different to last year. Now when we have a one-goal lead, we look for a second and a third. Before, we would have closed up shop at the back and held on to win.”

A statement that further complicates the matter of style. Calderon talks of the “system” of play. He makes no mention of playing attractive soccer. Evidently to him, style is a matter of tactics and the players’ attitude.

It is almost as though “style” is a dirty word in soccer. One team that is generally held to play with considerable style is England’s Arsenal. That may sound a trifle odd, given England’s devotion to the long ball, but coach Arsène Wenger’s team is composed mostly of non-English players.

Arsenal leads the English league, but comes under constant criticism for playing “pretty football.” When Arsenal recently won a brutally physical game against Chelsea, the press echoed with praise for this non-pretty version of Arsenal: a team that knew how to “play ugly,” that had demonstrated that it knew a thing or two about “the reality of soccer.”

pgardner@nysun.com