The mystique of club "DNA" has been a topic of discussion in the football world for quite some time now. The notion that certain clubs possess an unbreakable thread of success that can be replicated through hiring familiar faces or rehashing past glory days is deeply ingrained in the culture of institutions like Real Madrid.
It's amusing to note how Xabi Alonso, who recently departed as coach of Real Madrid, would say "This club is about winning, winning and winning again. It's in our DNA." However, his eight-month tenure was marked by controversy, power struggles with star players, and a chaotic departure from the club he once called home.
It becomes clear that Real Madrid's ability to attract top talent is largely due to its vast financial resources and strategic business acumen. The fact that the club has been able to take its pick of managerial talent for decades speaks to its economic muscle. However, this narrative ignores the role of luck, circumstance, and sheer willpower in a team's success.
For instance, Michael Carrick's appointment as Manchester United's interim manager raises questions about what defines "United DNA." Is it the legacy of Matt Busby or Alex Ferguson? If not, how do we explain their respective successes without resorting to an outdated narrative?
The article raises a valid point by suggesting that club "DNA" is often little more than a convenient myth created to justify the status quo. The values and history of a football club are bound up in people, rituals, and memories, but this doesn't necessarily translate into on-field success.
It's worth noting that Brentford, Brighton, Manchester City, and Wolves have all had their share of successes over the years, yet none of these clubs can be reduced to a single defining trait or narrative. It seems that football is far more nuanced than our attempts to distill it down into an easily marketable brand.
Ultimately, the only reliable predictors of footballing success are indeed abundant wealth and good decision-making. The rest remains a subject of debate, myth-making, and spin. As the article so astutely observes, those who live by this "DNA" will ultimately be bound by its limitations.
It's amusing to note how Xabi Alonso, who recently departed as coach of Real Madrid, would say "This club is about winning, winning and winning again. It's in our DNA." However, his eight-month tenure was marked by controversy, power struggles with star players, and a chaotic departure from the club he once called home.
It becomes clear that Real Madrid's ability to attract top talent is largely due to its vast financial resources and strategic business acumen. The fact that the club has been able to take its pick of managerial talent for decades speaks to its economic muscle. However, this narrative ignores the role of luck, circumstance, and sheer willpower in a team's success.
For instance, Michael Carrick's appointment as Manchester United's interim manager raises questions about what defines "United DNA." Is it the legacy of Matt Busby or Alex Ferguson? If not, how do we explain their respective successes without resorting to an outdated narrative?
The article raises a valid point by suggesting that club "DNA" is often little more than a convenient myth created to justify the status quo. The values and history of a football club are bound up in people, rituals, and memories, but this doesn't necessarily translate into on-field success.
It's worth noting that Brentford, Brighton, Manchester City, and Wolves have all had their share of successes over the years, yet none of these clubs can be reduced to a single defining trait or narrative. It seems that football is far more nuanced than our attempts to distill it down into an easily marketable brand.
Ultimately, the only reliable predictors of footballing success are indeed abundant wealth and good decision-making. The rest remains a subject of debate, myth-making, and spin. As the article so astutely observes, those who live by this "DNA" will ultimately be bound by its limitations.
it's like they're saying we can just bottle up all the magic from madrid or liverpool and apply it to anyone else 
meanwhile brentford is over here busting a gut every week and people still think it's because of their 'brand' not actually putting in the work 
. And let's be real, teams can have success for years without any specific 'thing' that defines them, like Manchester City winning multiple titles with Pep Guardiola at the helm before Sergio Aguero came along 
. The narrative of 'DNA' is just a nice way to gloss over all the hard work and dedication that goes into building a successful team 
. It's all about the money and who you've got at the top, but what happens when that all gets stripped away? The myth of 'DNA' is just a nice way of explaining why the big boys always come out on top 
"The whole is more than the sum of its parts." When you break down all the myths surrounding football clubs' "DNA," it's clear that true success lies in the talent, strategy, and leadership on the pitch. No amount of money or nostalgia can replace hard work and smart decision-making 
. It's like trying to bottle up lightning in a vial - no matter how hard you try, something always goes awry 
️.
. Not some mythical "DNA" that's supposed to guarantee success 
.
but what about the wolves 
they went from league 1 to europa league in 3 years no magic or luck involved just good management and players 
and that matters too 
. Clubs can't just "have" success, they have to work for it and make smart decisions along the way 
. It's not just about throwing money at problems or hiring familiar faces, that's just lazy management 
. And don't even get me started on how much luck comes into play - one bad injury, a few key refereeing decisions, and suddenly your team is in free fall 
. Give me some data-driven analysis and solid footballing IQ over some feel-good "United DNA" nonsense any day 
.
The article actually makes a good point - the whole "DNA" thing is just a myth created to make us think they're some special snowflakes 
.
It's not just about the legacy of Matt Busby or Alex Ferguson; it's about who's in charge right now. 
. I mean, we all know that money and good management are key, but you can't just slap a label on some team and say they've got it figured out 
). Real Madrid may have the money, but other teams are killing the game right now, like Manchester City and Liverpool - they don't need to rely on some mythical "DNA" to be successful 
. And let's be real, even if they did have that magic formula, it would probably change from year to year anyway 
. So yeah, I love the idea of club culture, but let's not get too caught up in the hype, folks! 
.
But seriously, it's refreshing to see someone pointing out that all this "DNA" business is just a convenient myth we tell ourselves to make our favorite teams seem more special. And honestly, who doesn't love an underdog story? The fact that teams like Brentford and Brighton have been flying under the radar and still managing to rack up some impressive wins is basically the best thing ever 
!
it's just rich ppl throwing cash around and making lucky hires i mean don't get me wrong, wealth is super important but let's not pretend like it's the only thing that matters 
and then dismiss teams like brentford, brighton etc who are defo having their own magic 
going on
