There are two ways to skin the footballing cat: to score one more or to concede one fewer. In the modern game, especially in Europe, the latter approach is now much more popular, mainly because there are more controllables involved. But the manner in which Chelsea ravaged Olympiakos at Stamford Bridge tonight, taking care of an awkward job in a third of the allotted time like someone doing the Blockbusters Gold Run inside 20 seconds, was an affecting throwback.
Whatever happened to the fast start? Like the reducer, it was a staple of the first 10 minutes that is now in danger of becoming extinct. But while few will mourn the end of the free hack at creative players, the fast start is one of the sport's more exhilarating phenomena. Inevitably it is more often than not the preserve of home side - although when an away side do it, as with Manchester United at Highbury in April 2003 and Arsenal at Old Trafford in September 2006, for example, the inherent impudence can make it even more effective - and the away side are left with the limited short-term ambition of quietening the crowd. Perhaps that is the problem: in the prawn-sandwich age there is often not a crowd to quieten, and maybe in turn that subconsciously influences the aggressors' approach.
Whatever the reasons, the traditional pugilistic intent has certainly been replaced by a more cerebral approach; the dressing-room tactics board could almost be replaced by a chess board. It is not, of course, always wise to engage in a slugfest against the classiest opponents, as Ricky Hatton might testify, but in certain contexts it makes perfect sense to calculate your risks and act accordingly.
This was one such scenario. Olympiakos came to England with an air of quiet confidence, justly so given their away record in the group stages (they beat Werder Bremen and Lazio and, with 10 men for most of the game, were level against Real Madrid going into the final minutes, before losing 4-2). But lurking not far from the front of their minds would have been a more longstanding precedent: seven defeats out of seven in England, an apt reflection of Greek sides' traditional incompetence away from home.
By imposing their will, and their superior class, so emphatically and so quickly, Chelsea's conviction overwhelmed an opponent who, had they been allowed to feel their way into the game, could have been a genuine threat. When teams win games like this there is an inclination to say, 'You can only beat what's in front of you', which ignores the fact that you can sculpt what's in front of you to make it eminently beatable. Chelsea were so focussed on the job that Ashley Cole even ignored an opportunity to dive after being touched in the penalty box.
A relevant comparison might be Manchester United's match against Lille at the same stage last season: United went into the second leg, also at home, in a better position than Chelsea (1-0 up) and against opposition of a similar calibre. But they played with lamentable caginess, and endured a very awkward night - Lille hit the post at 0-0 - before a late goal ensured their progress.
In a way it is all bluff, like the pub brawler who uses the glass first and thus acquires a formidable but illusory reputation that then perpetuates itself. But it can definitely work on a grander scale: the Australian cricket team have been doing it for a decade, only very occasionally having that bluff called.
It has worked in bigger Champions League ties, too. In the quarter-final of 2005, Liverpool launched into Juventus in the first third of the first leg of Anfield, scoring the two goals that would ultimately get them through before reverting to their more comfortable pattern. In last year's semi-final second leg, AC Milan basically beat Manchester United in the first 10 minutes due to their bravery and their opponents' caution. A plus and a minus may equal a minus but, in football, a positive and a negative usually goes in favour of the positive side.
Some might conclude that Olympiakos were a shower, a Greek travesty who have no place at this level of competition and who would have been beaten regardless. And while they did play quite wretchedly, as was evidenced by the three-on-one Chelsea had for the second goal, that arguably owed more to Chelsea's strengths than their own shortcomings. It is football's million-dollar question: did we play well or did they play badly? The truth, as always, was somewhere in between.
That said, Chelsea will be wary of drawing sweeping conclusions from such limited evidence. There will certainly be encouragement in the burgeoning relationship between Frank Lampard and Michael Ballack; apparently incompatible despite being chalk and chalk - Lampard proved the cheese by wearing boots specially inscripted to commemorate his 100 Chelsea goals - they made the first two goals for each other and, for once, demonstrated the symmetry on the pitch that looks so perfect on paper in a 4-1-2-3 formation. With these two bursting forward, Chelsea certainly have more than one way to skin the cat.
