Marcelo Bielsa taught Frank Lampard and all of English football a lesson with ‘Spygate’

“Spygate” may just be the most entertaining thing to happen to English football of late. Not only for the incident itself but for the subsequent fall out that has been equally as enthralling to watch, particularly the reaction from some colour-blind ex-players and journalists who obviously look at this incident in black and white and totally ignore the full spectrum of nuance that actually lies between both ends.

The smell of sanctimony hung thick in the air on Saturday morning as news of the private scouting system employed by Marcelo Bielsa drew pearls to be clutched and hands to be wrung. Personally, I have to admit, I found it all hilarious and met the incident itself with a shrug.

Sure, fair play and sportsmanship should be upheld where possible, particularly in youth football. But this is professional sport and when there is more at stake than just three points and the enjoyment of the game players and coaches will always push boundaries and go beyond what the average person would do to win.

Livelihoods on the line

When anyone outside the professional game talks about ethics, it’s easy for them to set definite lines they themselves would never cross. They can afford to be idealists when defeat comes at no tangible cost to their own lives.

Read more: ‘Spygate’: Did Leeds United cheat or was spying on Derby training fair game?

Professional sportsmen and women are different though, as are those who manage them, when they have their livelihoods are on the line with every pass, shot and challenge. When you are faced with the risks, consequences and rewards in your sport then the competitive nature that got you to the highest level of the game shifts the boundaries you perhaps once had.

I look at games now and find the behaviour of some players ridiculous but that’s because I am now removed from the field of play and my perspective has changed. I laugh at players claiming for throw-ins they know touched them last but that was something I once did.

As players, we exaggerate our reactions to gain favour of officials, we all partake in gamesmanship. Some see it as professionalism, doing all you can within the laws of the game to win. Every player who has spoken out against Bielsa has been guilty of these “offences” in the past in order to win a game or gain an advantage which is why I can’t understand them riding in to the conversation on their high horses.

It goes on more than you think

And I don’t get this attitude of “this isn’t how we do things here” either because that is a load of absolute nonsense. It’s exactly what “we” do and culture has nothing to do with it. Whether it’s through desperation or sheer deviousness, information on the opposition has always been gleaned by fair means or otherwise.

Read more: If Leeds United continue this form their Championship rivals will soon need binoculars

For instance, during one pre-match team talk when I was playing for Barnsley at Bramall Lane, our manager at the time, Mark Robins, whilst in the middle of delivering his instructions, walked over to the emergency exit door and kicked it open, striking the member of Sheffield United medical staff who was crouched behind it listening in.

And that’s not the only example of “espionage” I’ve witnessed in the game.

Ceiling tiles are removed so voices are carried more easily in to adjoining rooms. Phone calls are made to unhappy opposition players who have fallen out with their own manager and are willing to part with information to spite them. I’ve had managers chase suspect characters from training grounds who they assumed were on reconnaissance missions but there was little fuss made about it and it was barely mentioned again. And this is one of the biggest points of the discussion that hasn’t been brought up.

Lampard missed a trick

"I don't care if it is cultural. I am not buying it."

Frank Lampard responds to Marcelo Bielsa admitting to sending a spy to Derby training.

Watch live on Sky Sports Football: https://t.co/dLI22fdxp1 pic.twitter.com/qsdQ5tQ9C1

— Sky Sports Football (@SkyFootball) January 11, 2019

There is a case to be made that “Spygate” had some effect on the Derby players and disrupted their whole preparation in the lead up to big game – and Frank Lampard has to take some responsibility for that too. He was clearly emotional in his pre-match interview and that will have translated to his players too. That was a mistake.

Lampard could have used what happened to his own advantage and turned the tables on Bielsa while still following the protocol through the right channels to express his unhappiness. Lampard could have played it all down and impressed on his players that what Bielsa did showed they were scared of his Derby side and in doing that he would have shown confidence in himself and his team as if to say: “It doesn’t matter what they do, we’re better than that and we’ll be better than them”.

His reaction showed that he was rattled and he allowed himself and his players to lose their focus. Football is a harsh world that deals out harsh lessons and this is one for Lampard. When you come up against a wily old fox who will go to the lengths he has this week, it becomes a double win for Bielsa.

Some lines are clear and everyone knows the repercussions if they are crossed. The use of performance enhancing drugs is one but it’s these unwritten rules of what people see as good sportsmanship that blur the lines between right and wrong but it’s also just a question of methods. As Sheffield United manager Chris Wilder has been quoted as saying, it might not be something that he would do but he accepts some will. So let’s stop pretending that Bielsa is the anomaly and a stain on “our” game.

The match itself proved more than ever that despite the details that may have been obtained from a roadside in Derbyshire, Leeds certainly didn’t win the game because of them. They won it because Bielsa is a fantastic coach whose methods may not be to everyone’s taste, but they are effective and it’s “we” who should be following his lead, not vice versa.