I don't think anyone saw that coming. Before the game I said that predictions were futile at this tournament, and limited myself to what I thought was the safe prediction that it would be a close game. Until the 66th minute it was just that, but England never looked like recovering from Thomas Mueller's quick fire double.
It proved a relief that Mueller scored those two goals, because otherwise we would never hear the end of Lampard's phantom goal. It was miles over the line, and England fans have every right to feel aggreived. We'll never know what would have happened if the second half had started at two all. Capello thinks England would not have had to commit as many forward and would not have conceded so easily at the other hand. On the other hand, they were only one goal down with 25 minutes to play - hardly time to throw all caution to the wind, and the ease with which the German's carved open the English defense suggests they would have found a winner anyway. The disallowed goal was a terrible decision, and a crucial moment in the game, but the far better side won on the day.
FIFA still won't react to this by introducing video replays, which is a shame. Football is the most popular sport in the world, but if it wants to win over remaining sceptics, such as half of Australia and most of the USA, it has to address a perception that referees decide games more often than not and that 'soccer' is more about fluke than skill. Sepp Blatter, the head of FIFA and the sole real decision maker, is against technology being introduced to the game as a matter of principle. Until he retires, there won't be a video replay.
The focus should be on the game though. England will go home into an inquisition as to why players like Rooney, Lampard, Gerrard and Terry, who have played dominant roles in the Champions League in recent years, couldn't produce as a team. It may be heavily disguised, but there is a blessing in disguise here for England. Most of those players, in particular the woeful midfield combo of Lampard and Gerrard, won't be back for another World Cup, and the England side can start to build a team around a functioning centre.
For Germany, questions remain. Italy have built much international success on the idea that once they score, they can absorb any form of attack (not this year, obviously). This German side looks like one that, once it scores, plays so freely that they are almost unstoppable. On two occassions in the tournament Germany have scored in the first 30 minutes, and both times they finished with four goals. Yet the defense still looks questionable. They conceded twice today, and while Lampard non-goal was an excellent strike, the first goal came from woeful defending rather than English excellence. If Argentina are the opponents in the next round, Messi, Millito and Tevez will like the look of the German defense. In fact, Argentina v Germany could be a very high scoring affair, because Argentina's weakness is also in defense, in particular Bayern Munich's own Martin Demichelis, who will face at least 4 of his club team mates.
My sympathy goes out to England fans. They were entitled to expect better from their side, and that frustration will be compounded by the appalling decision to disallow Lampard's goal. But the World Cup moves on, and with other favourites Spain and Brazil not looking impenetrable, the side already in the quarter finals will be daring to dream.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Friday, June 25, 2010
The fairytales and big games to come
For an amateur blogger, this World Cup business moves much to fast. My last post was only days ago, but much has happened since then that deserves comment.
The group stages have wrapped up, with some upsets in major countries going out, and some minnows beginning to put up their hands for the fairytale of 2010 title.
For some, especially those south of the equator, the fairytale title has already been won by New Zealand. New Zealand came in to this game as the most unknown side, other than perhaps North Korea, in the tournament. There were reports that some of their opponents were struggling to find video footage of the New Zealand players, because a number of them play in leagues that are not regularly broadcast on television. In the era of mega rich professionals the term amateur is often used as a slur, but for New Zealand, which actually did field some amateur players, it was a badge of honour.
The match between Italy and New Zealand was, on paper, the biggest mismatch the World Cup has seen for a long time. Italy were the World Champions, while New Zealand had players who needed day jobs. A fourth or fifth division side in Italy would expect to beat such a team. Yet New Zealand held on, not just against Italy but against the other sides in the group too. They should be particularly proud of the fact that, while Italy certainly weren't at their best, they weren't terrible either. It was a good New Zealand performance, rather than a poor one from Italy, that earned this result. In the end they didn't lose a single game.
Not only that, but it is worth a quick thought about what might have been. Against Slovakia, New Zealand conceded a goal that was offside, while against Italy it was a contentious penalty decision. If not for those two moments, the Kiwi defense would not have conceded yet, and they would be readying for a second round knock out game. A fantastic achievement.
Apart from that, the big story of the group stages is the struggle of the European teams. Italy and France are out, England, Germany and Spain had to win on the last day to get through. This has shades of the 2002 tournament which was held in Japan and Korea, where all the major European powers bar Germany fell at the quarter finals or earlier - and this is no coincidence. No European side has won a World Cup outside of Europe, and the fact is that European sides have benefited immensely from the home ground advantage of having most world cups played in Europe.
The second round matches provide some huge match ups, and some less impressive ones. Fans of good football will be heading straight to the Spain v Portugal game. Spain will go in as favourites, and in my opinion they remain the firm favourites for the tournament, especially now that they have avoided a second round clash with Brazil. Portugal still depend too much on Cristiano Ronaldo - he couldn't force a win for Real Madrid (or Manchester United) over Barcelona, and he'll be facing much the same opposition against Spain, in Pique, Puyol, Xavi and Iniesta.
Ghana will be staking their claim to knock New Zealand off the fairytale pedestal. As the only African nation left in Africa's cup, they are carrying the hopes of a continent - and the draw has opened up nicely for them. It is already a certainty that this World Cup will have an unlikely semi-finalist. One of Ghana, USA, Korea and Uruguay will be in the semi-final. A much more inviting quarter of the draw than the one that contains Germany, England, Argentina and Mexico. No African side has made the semi final, and to be honest, Ghana still look like outsiders. While the qualified from a tough group, they still haven't scored from open play. Nevertheless, they will have huge support, as the South African fans have shown they will throw their support behind any African side. They are young, fit and not without skills. It would certainly make for a memorable world cup if Ghana do make a run.
Those with a penchant for games with history will of course turn to England v Germany. To sum up the history, in 1966 England won the final against Germany, courtesy of a goal which remains contentious for the doubt as to whether the ball ever crossed the line. In 1970, Germany got some revenge by knocking England out. In 1990 they met in the semi-final. While Paul Gascoine cried, the Germans held their nerve to win on penalties and go on to lift the trophy. In 1996 the two met in England in the semi-final of the European championship. England had been alive with dreams of 'Football coming home' the theme song of the tournament, but again Germany triumphed, also on penalties. Since then England have recorded a famous win, thrashing a very poor German side 5-1 in a qualifying game in Munich in 2001 - ultimately though both sides qualified for the subsequent World Cup, where England fell in the quarter finals and Germany finished as runners up.
England will be kicking themselves, and Germany will be eager to kick them too, for even letting it come to this. If England had done what was expected of them and won their group, they would be facing Ghana, and then need to beat either Uruguay or Korea to get to the semi-final, a stage they have only reached twice in their history. Instead, they now have to beat first Germany and then, probably, Argentina, to get there.
It is a shame that such a big game is being played so early in the World Cup, especially for the coaches. In Germany, if you fail to reach to semi-finals, you are in trouble. If Joachim Loew brings home the first side to fail to make the quarter finals since
1978, he won't get a new contract. That would be a tragedy for German football, because it is clear that Loew is in the process of building a very good team, which may not reach its full potential until 2014 or even 2018. England's coach Capello has been criticized heavily already, and a loss to Germany will probably seal his fate, equally undeservedly.
This World Cup has shown that very few games are giving clear results, and it is impossible to reliably pick winners, even in games where it should be obvious. In an evenly matched game such as Germany v England, making a prediction is futile. Germany will struggle to replace Schweinsteiger, if reports that he is likely to miss out for injury are confirmed, but may still have the upper hand in the midfield battle. Gerrard and Lampard are bigger names than anyone on the Germany side, but they still don't mesh that well, and neither has played well at this tournament. More worrying for Germany will be that they have struggled to score since the game against Australia, despite creating the chances. To get the better of John Terry, the strikers will need to better than they were against Ghana and Serbia. At the other end Germany have to deal with Rooney. Rooney is good, though not as good as the English press have made him out to be, and he still lacks a consistent partner, so the German defense may feel they can deal with him. But if he pounces into life and discovers his club form, he will be too much for the German defenders to handle.
Knock out games are always cagey affairs, as teams can not avoid being hampered by the fear of conceding. It would not surprise me if this game goes a long time without a goal. If it does look like its heading for penalties, it will be interesting to see the English players react. Germany has a huge reputation for penalties, and England have lost so many games that way. Perhaps they will fear penalties enough to throw caution to the wind and attack - especially because of their 5 penalty takes, 3 already have a damaged record. Lampard and Gerrard missed in 2006 against Portugal, while Terry missed in the Champions League Final in 2008. It should be said of course the that German reputation for penalties is built primarily on performances of previous teams. Some of the current crop converted against Argentina four years ago, but most of them have never faced a World Cup shootout. The current bunch haven't done anything to warrant the reputation that they carry.
My initial feelings about this game were primarily negative ones - from a fans point of view, losing to England seems terrifying, far more so than winning would be marvelous. But it shouldn't be. As I said, it is a shame this game is so early, but these games are what World Cups are all about. England have long termed their current crop as the Golden Generation. In this game they have a chance to finally live up to that burdensome tag and do something England haven't done in 40 years - knock Germany out of a tournament. Germany are at the beginning of a cycle, perhaps starting their own golden generation. Their previous generation was not a great one, but they maintained Germany's fantastic tournament record anyway, reaching the 2002 final and the 2006 semi-finals. That is the pressure the new generation have to stand up to.
One side will write a new chapter in their side's history, the other will be left horribly disappointed. Either the myth of Germany's superiority over England will be confirmed to the stage where even I might start to believe it, or it will finally be dispelled, and the English can start bragging about football rather than war. In either case, I hope it is a high quality game played in good spirit, with a fair outcome.
The group stages have wrapped up, with some upsets in major countries going out, and some minnows beginning to put up their hands for the fairytale of 2010 title.
For some, especially those south of the equator, the fairytale title has already been won by New Zealand. New Zealand came in to this game as the most unknown side, other than perhaps North Korea, in the tournament. There were reports that some of their opponents were struggling to find video footage of the New Zealand players, because a number of them play in leagues that are not regularly broadcast on television. In the era of mega rich professionals the term amateur is often used as a slur, but for New Zealand, which actually did field some amateur players, it was a badge of honour.
The match between Italy and New Zealand was, on paper, the biggest mismatch the World Cup has seen for a long time. Italy were the World Champions, while New Zealand had players who needed day jobs. A fourth or fifth division side in Italy would expect to beat such a team. Yet New Zealand held on, not just against Italy but against the other sides in the group too. They should be particularly proud of the fact that, while Italy certainly weren't at their best, they weren't terrible either. It was a good New Zealand performance, rather than a poor one from Italy, that earned this result. In the end they didn't lose a single game.
Not only that, but it is worth a quick thought about what might have been. Against Slovakia, New Zealand conceded a goal that was offside, while against Italy it was a contentious penalty decision. If not for those two moments, the Kiwi defense would not have conceded yet, and they would be readying for a second round knock out game. A fantastic achievement.
Apart from that, the big story of the group stages is the struggle of the European teams. Italy and France are out, England, Germany and Spain had to win on the last day to get through. This has shades of the 2002 tournament which was held in Japan and Korea, where all the major European powers bar Germany fell at the quarter finals or earlier - and this is no coincidence. No European side has won a World Cup outside of Europe, and the fact is that European sides have benefited immensely from the home ground advantage of having most world cups played in Europe.
The second round matches provide some huge match ups, and some less impressive ones. Fans of good football will be heading straight to the Spain v Portugal game. Spain will go in as favourites, and in my opinion they remain the firm favourites for the tournament, especially now that they have avoided a second round clash with Brazil. Portugal still depend too much on Cristiano Ronaldo - he couldn't force a win for Real Madrid (or Manchester United) over Barcelona, and he'll be facing much the same opposition against Spain, in Pique, Puyol, Xavi and Iniesta.
Ghana will be staking their claim to knock New Zealand off the fairytale pedestal. As the only African nation left in Africa's cup, they are carrying the hopes of a continent - and the draw has opened up nicely for them. It is already a certainty that this World Cup will have an unlikely semi-finalist. One of Ghana, USA, Korea and Uruguay will be in the semi-final. A much more inviting quarter of the draw than the one that contains Germany, England, Argentina and Mexico. No African side has made the semi final, and to be honest, Ghana still look like outsiders. While the qualified from a tough group, they still haven't scored from open play. Nevertheless, they will have huge support, as the South African fans have shown they will throw their support behind any African side. They are young, fit and not without skills. It would certainly make for a memorable world cup if Ghana do make a run.
Those with a penchant for games with history will of course turn to England v Germany. To sum up the history, in 1966 England won the final against Germany, courtesy of a goal which remains contentious for the doubt as to whether the ball ever crossed the line. In 1970, Germany got some revenge by knocking England out. In 1990 they met in the semi-final. While Paul Gascoine cried, the Germans held their nerve to win on penalties and go on to lift the trophy. In 1996 the two met in England in the semi-final of the European championship. England had been alive with dreams of 'Football coming home' the theme song of the tournament, but again Germany triumphed, also on penalties. Since then England have recorded a famous win, thrashing a very poor German side 5-1 in a qualifying game in Munich in 2001 - ultimately though both sides qualified for the subsequent World Cup, where England fell in the quarter finals and Germany finished as runners up.
England will be kicking themselves, and Germany will be eager to kick them too, for even letting it come to this. If England had done what was expected of them and won their group, they would be facing Ghana, and then need to beat either Uruguay or Korea to get to the semi-final, a stage they have only reached twice in their history. Instead, they now have to beat first Germany and then, probably, Argentina, to get there.
It is a shame that such a big game is being played so early in the World Cup, especially for the coaches. In Germany, if you fail to reach to semi-finals, you are in trouble. If Joachim Loew brings home the first side to fail to make the quarter finals since
1978, he won't get a new contract. That would be a tragedy for German football, because it is clear that Loew is in the process of building a very good team, which may not reach its full potential until 2014 or even 2018. England's coach Capello has been criticized heavily already, and a loss to Germany will probably seal his fate, equally undeservedly.
This World Cup has shown that very few games are giving clear results, and it is impossible to reliably pick winners, even in games where it should be obvious. In an evenly matched game such as Germany v England, making a prediction is futile. Germany will struggle to replace Schweinsteiger, if reports that he is likely to miss out for injury are confirmed, but may still have the upper hand in the midfield battle. Gerrard and Lampard are bigger names than anyone on the Germany side, but they still don't mesh that well, and neither has played well at this tournament. More worrying for Germany will be that they have struggled to score since the game against Australia, despite creating the chances. To get the better of John Terry, the strikers will need to better than they were against Ghana and Serbia. At the other end Germany have to deal with Rooney. Rooney is good, though not as good as the English press have made him out to be, and he still lacks a consistent partner, so the German defense may feel they can deal with him. But if he pounces into life and discovers his club form, he will be too much for the German defenders to handle.
Knock out games are always cagey affairs, as teams can not avoid being hampered by the fear of conceding. It would not surprise me if this game goes a long time without a goal. If it does look like its heading for penalties, it will be interesting to see the English players react. Germany has a huge reputation for penalties, and England have lost so many games that way. Perhaps they will fear penalties enough to throw caution to the wind and attack - especially because of their 5 penalty takes, 3 already have a damaged record. Lampard and Gerrard missed in 2006 against Portugal, while Terry missed in the Champions League Final in 2008. It should be said of course the that German reputation for penalties is built primarily on performances of previous teams. Some of the current crop converted against Argentina four years ago, but most of them have never faced a World Cup shootout. The current bunch haven't done anything to warrant the reputation that they carry.
My initial feelings about this game were primarily negative ones - from a fans point of view, losing to England seems terrifying, far more so than winning would be marvelous. But it shouldn't be. As I said, it is a shame this game is so early, but these games are what World Cups are all about. England have long termed their current crop as the Golden Generation. In this game they have a chance to finally live up to that burdensome tag and do something England haven't done in 40 years - knock Germany out of a tournament. Germany are at the beginning of a cycle, perhaps starting their own golden generation. Their previous generation was not a great one, but they maintained Germany's fantastic tournament record anyway, reaching the 2002 final and the 2006 semi-finals. That is the pressure the new generation have to stand up to.
One side will write a new chapter in their side's history, the other will be left horribly disappointed. Either the myth of Germany's superiority over England will be confirmed to the stage where even I might start to believe it, or it will finally be dispelled, and the English can start bragging about football rather than war. In either case, I hope it is a high quality game played in good spirit, with a fair outcome.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Sacre Bleu! The French joke
Every World Cup needs a fairytale, and some farce. This morning the game between France and South Africa nearly provided both. Sadly the fairytale of South Africa qualifying for the next round didn't quite get over the line, with Bafana Bafana, as the SA team is called, falling short on goal difference.
The French however, have provided plenty of farce. It is difficult to find words strong enough to sufficiently condemn the French side, without slipping into language that Nicolas Anelka himself would be proud of. The French press will vent an astounding amount of anger on the players, the coach and football association over the coming weeks, and rightly so.
Throughout the world, but in particular in Europe, executive pay and banking bonuses have been under intense scrutiny for years now. Yet footballers earn salaries thought would make investment bankers blush, and on the whole this is tolerated. The reason they do not incite the rage that executives do probably has a lot to do with the fact that every four years nations send out their footballers and expect them to do the country proud. Winning isn't required, but competing with honour and dignity is expected.
Particularly in the honour category, footballers may sometimes fall short, but no team has ever been as great a source of embarrassment as the French national side of 2010. Before the tournament even began they were under a cloud, after they secured their qualification through a blatant act of cheating. In that fateful playoff game against the Irish, deep into extra time Thierry Henry saw a ball flying past him and out of the field for an Irish goal kick. Instead of letting it go he stuck his hand out and slapped the ball down, not once, which may have been instinct, but twice, which was definitely a conscious act. Once he had the ball down it was easy to square it past a stunned Irish defence to a surprised team mate who tapped the ball into the goal.
Henry later claimed he went straight to the Irish players and apologised, but the television footage told a different story, showing him gleefully celebrating with his team mates.
Having stolen Ireland's place at the World Cup, the least they could have done is put the spot to good use. Instead they shamed themselves further before the tournament even began. It was revealed that several members of the team were under police investigation for their use of under age prostitutes while on national team duty. Converted Muslim and married man Frank Ribery - who wrangled a pay rise out of his club, Bayern Munich, by insisting his wife wanted to move to warmer climes in Spain - defended his actions by saying he didn't know they were underage.
Having arrived at the tournament under this level of scrutiny, some nerves may have been forgivable, as they displayed in their opening game. But the tepid defeat in their second group match revealed deeper problems. At half time, it was reported, Nicolas Anelka told the coach 'Go Fuck yourself, you son of a whore'. Two things I can't help but mention here.
Ironically, it was the son of a whore comment, allegedly, that so enraged Zinedine Zidane that he headbutted Marco Matterazzi during the last World Cup. Why must these footballers always go for women, and mothers to boot? Raymond Domenech is an idiot, but I don't know what his mother had to do with anything.
Secondly, Anelka's comment did give rise to the best bit of coverage of the tournament I have seen on American television. They are very uptight about swear words on television in America - even late at night any swear word in a movie is beeped out or voiced over. At about 11am, ESPN interviewed a french reported about trouble in the French camp and asked him what had happened - live on air. He responded
'well, Nicola Anelka, ee was un'appy with the coach, when ee asked im to play more deep, and ee said Go to fuck yourself you son of a whore.'
Cue pale faces, followed by profuse apologies from the ESPN broadcasters. Juergen Klinsmann, one of the host panel, was kept out of screen, but you could hear him giggling in the background.
Back to the french though. After that outburst, Anelka was sent home. Then, the team, in protest over this decision, refused to train on the day before their last game. The fitness coach walked out, and another official resigned in disgust, over the protest, rather than the sacking. So instead of focusing on their last game, which they needed to win by several goals to have a chance of going through, the French players descended into bickering and farce.
Inevitably, they tamely surrendered to South Africa, losing 2-1 this morning. A side containing players from Manchester United, Chelsea, Bayern Munch, Real Madrid, Barcelona and Arsenal left the World Cup with two losses and one draw, and one single goal. What a joke. This will have repercussions for French football for a generation. Football fans are like all other people, and they will not like being treated with such contempt by their own side. How must those fans who forked out thousands of euros to fly to South Africa and follow their team feel? Its not that they lost, they didn't even try. If the German side behaved like this I would have to find a new sport to follow. It would hardly be a surprise if at the next game of Les Bleus they found themselves in an empty stadium.
Fortunately, a new coach is coming in. He will have little choice but to drop the entire squad, at least for a while. New Zealand have shown at this world cup that a second string side of lower quality players with heart and pride is still immensely preferable to selecting a bunch of talented millionaires who, apparently, just don't care.
Tomorrow sees Groups C and D reach their conclusion, and could see the first major upsets of the tournament. Both England and Germany need to win to ensure they reach the second round. England have looked very bad in their first two games, but should surely find the spark they need to beat Slovenia. Germany have looked decent, despite the loss to Serbia, but face a tougher test in the form of Ghana. If both make it through, there is a high chance that the two will meet each other in the next round. This will cause an uproar in England, where the usual tedious chants of 'two world wars and one world cup' will start again (question for English supporters - would you prefer no world wars but three world cups? be honest). In Germany the response will be more restrained. Everyone loves a win in the World Cup, but the Germans get far more excited about games against Holland. Probably because Germany have lost important games to Holland here and there, while they haven't lost to England at a tournament since the 1966 final.
If you want to read about Germany rivalry with Holland and England, here is a great article by a guy called Uli Hesse - the best English language (but clearly German origin) sports writer I know of.
The French however, have provided plenty of farce. It is difficult to find words strong enough to sufficiently condemn the French side, without slipping into language that Nicolas Anelka himself would be proud of. The French press will vent an astounding amount of anger on the players, the coach and football association over the coming weeks, and rightly so.
Throughout the world, but in particular in Europe, executive pay and banking bonuses have been under intense scrutiny for years now. Yet footballers earn salaries thought would make investment bankers blush, and on the whole this is tolerated. The reason they do not incite the rage that executives do probably has a lot to do with the fact that every four years nations send out their footballers and expect them to do the country proud. Winning isn't required, but competing with honour and dignity is expected.
Particularly in the honour category, footballers may sometimes fall short, but no team has ever been as great a source of embarrassment as the French national side of 2010. Before the tournament even began they were under a cloud, after they secured their qualification through a blatant act of cheating. In that fateful playoff game against the Irish, deep into extra time Thierry Henry saw a ball flying past him and out of the field for an Irish goal kick. Instead of letting it go he stuck his hand out and slapped the ball down, not once, which may have been instinct, but twice, which was definitely a conscious act. Once he had the ball down it was easy to square it past a stunned Irish defence to a surprised team mate who tapped the ball into the goal.
Henry later claimed he went straight to the Irish players and apologised, but the television footage told a different story, showing him gleefully celebrating with his team mates.
Having stolen Ireland's place at the World Cup, the least they could have done is put the spot to good use. Instead they shamed themselves further before the tournament even began. It was revealed that several members of the team were under police investigation for their use of under age prostitutes while on national team duty. Converted Muslim and married man Frank Ribery - who wrangled a pay rise out of his club, Bayern Munich, by insisting his wife wanted to move to warmer climes in Spain - defended his actions by saying he didn't know they were underage.
Having arrived at the tournament under this level of scrutiny, some nerves may have been forgivable, as they displayed in their opening game. But the tepid defeat in their second group match revealed deeper problems. At half time, it was reported, Nicolas Anelka told the coach 'Go Fuck yourself, you son of a whore'. Two things I can't help but mention here.
Ironically, it was the son of a whore comment, allegedly, that so enraged Zinedine Zidane that he headbutted Marco Matterazzi during the last World Cup. Why must these footballers always go for women, and mothers to boot? Raymond Domenech is an idiot, but I don't know what his mother had to do with anything.
Secondly, Anelka's comment did give rise to the best bit of coverage of the tournament I have seen on American television. They are very uptight about swear words on television in America - even late at night any swear word in a movie is beeped out or voiced over. At about 11am, ESPN interviewed a french reported about trouble in the French camp and asked him what had happened - live on air. He responded
'well, Nicola Anelka, ee was un'appy with the coach, when ee asked im to play more deep, and ee said Go to fuck yourself you son of a whore.'
Cue pale faces, followed by profuse apologies from the ESPN broadcasters. Juergen Klinsmann, one of the host panel, was kept out of screen, but you could hear him giggling in the background.
Back to the french though. After that outburst, Anelka was sent home. Then, the team, in protest over this decision, refused to train on the day before their last game. The fitness coach walked out, and another official resigned in disgust, over the protest, rather than the sacking. So instead of focusing on their last game, which they needed to win by several goals to have a chance of going through, the French players descended into bickering and farce.
Inevitably, they tamely surrendered to South Africa, losing 2-1 this morning. A side containing players from Manchester United, Chelsea, Bayern Munch, Real Madrid, Barcelona and Arsenal left the World Cup with two losses and one draw, and one single goal. What a joke. This will have repercussions for French football for a generation. Football fans are like all other people, and they will not like being treated with such contempt by their own side. How must those fans who forked out thousands of euros to fly to South Africa and follow their team feel? Its not that they lost, they didn't even try. If the German side behaved like this I would have to find a new sport to follow. It would hardly be a surprise if at the next game of Les Bleus they found themselves in an empty stadium.
Fortunately, a new coach is coming in. He will have little choice but to drop the entire squad, at least for a while. New Zealand have shown at this world cup that a second string side of lower quality players with heart and pride is still immensely preferable to selecting a bunch of talented millionaires who, apparently, just don't care.
Tomorrow sees Groups C and D reach their conclusion, and could see the first major upsets of the tournament. Both England and Germany need to win to ensure they reach the second round. England have looked very bad in their first two games, but should surely find the spark they need to beat Slovenia. Germany have looked decent, despite the loss to Serbia, but face a tougher test in the form of Ghana. If both make it through, there is a high chance that the two will meet each other in the next round. This will cause an uproar in England, where the usual tedious chants of 'two world wars and one world cup' will start again (question for English supporters - would you prefer no world wars but three world cups? be honest). In Germany the response will be more restrained. Everyone loves a win in the World Cup, but the Germans get far more excited about games against Holland. Probably because Germany have lost important games to Holland here and there, while they haven't lost to England at a tournament since the 1966 final.
If you want to read about Germany rivalry with Holland and England, here is a great article by a guy called Uli Hesse - the best English language (but clearly German origin) sports writer I know of.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Tragedy for Kewell, but hope for the Socceroos
The Australian media have already written the headlines - pride in the jersey restored and all that. It was a much improved performance from Australia, in just about every position. I was scathing about Lucas Neill after the Germany game, so I should start by saying he was excellent against Ghana. So was Craig Moore, who played to a level I really didn't think he was capable of any more.
Ghana let Australia come at them, and, thankfully, Australia accepted the invitation even when down to 10 men. Just like in the Germany Serbia game, it was the team with 10 men that found an extra gear and pushed for the win right to the end. On this evidence, Australia have at least a realistic chance of beating Serbia, especially with their best player back on the field.
The major talking point will of course be Harry Kewell's red card. It was probably a dismissal within the letter of the law, but Harry can count himself desperately unlucky. The ball was goal bound, and Kewell's arm stopped it. The strict interpretation of the law is that any foul that clearly denies a goal scoring opportunity is a red card. So if it was a handball, then the red card was virtually automatic.
The handball rules is a controversial one. The general interpretation is that there should be some intent, but, of the three players that have given away penalties for handball in this group, none looked intentional. Another interpretation is that handball is when the hand moves to the ball, but not when the ball moves to hand. Sounds good in theory, but is hard to apply in real life, as in almost every case, both hand and ball are moving.
The fair result would surely have been a penalty, but no card at all for Kewell. For a player to be sent off for an unintentional act does not reflect the purpose of red cards, nor does it contribute to a just outcome of the match. Automatic red cards for the last defender or a player who denies a goal scoring opportunity are intended as a punishment and deterrent for professional fouls. An accidental handball does not deserve such punishment, and you can hardly deter players from the unintentional. In the past, red cards were reserved for violent or deliberate acts of cheating. At this World Cup, where there has been a red card in every group D game, without a single act of malice, misjudging the flight of the ball or the timing of a tackle seems to be enough.
After the game against Serbia, Germany's Bastian Schweinsteiger criticised the refereeing when speaking to German reporters, declaring that it can not be that there is a red card in every game. He was referring not just to the Klose sending off in that game but also Tim Cahill's red in the previous game. Harry Kewell's unfortunate demise supports the same argument. Sadly the number of games influenced by the referee at the World Cup is beginning to mount.
If Australia bow out in the next game, it will be a sad end to Kewell's World Cup career. While he has always been a source of frustration for Socceroos fans, he has also been Australia's best player for over a decade. This is the fourth World Cup campaign in which he has been a central figure for the Australians. No other player at the World Cup can claim that level of longevity, which is ironic for a player whose career has been defined by the frailty of his body. At his best he was Australia's only genuine world beater, a world class winger who, as a teenager, set the English Premier League alight at Leeds. As I pointed out in my last post, he has been subject of fierce and sometimes unfair criticism in this campaign. He deserves at least one chance to answer his critics with his feet. But he knows as well as anyone that football has little room for sentiment.
So what are Australia's chances from here? Better than they look at first glance. Australia must beat Serbia to have any chance. Not easy, but not impossible. Serbia are as defensive a side as Australia. They need a win too, so both sides will be forced to open up and play a game not entirely natural to them. Australia showed against Ghana that they can do that - with Serbia it remains a question mark. If Australia do win, they will go through if either a) Germany lose by any margin, or b) Germany beat Ghana, and Germany and Australia's combined winning margin is 5 goals or more.
Ghana don't look as strong as their position suggests. In two games they have only scored from the penalty spot, and against ten man Australia they looked very much under pressure, defending deep and limiting their attacking play to shots from long range, instead of exploiting the man advantage and pressuring Australia. If Germany click the way they did against Australia, a big win is not out of the question, and that would open the door for Australia.
In other news, I can't help but comment on England's performance so far. England looked untouchable in qualifying, and hopes, always high, were accompanied by a degree of actual belief in England that this year could be a good one. After a goalless draw against Algeria England were booed off the field by their own fans, and a look at the newspaper headlines there suggests the country is truly angry about the teams poor performances so far.
If I knew why England underperform at tournaments so regularly, I would head over to blighty and collect Fabio Capello's six million pound salary. I have some thoughts, but at the moment England are still in the tournament, and it would be premature to write their eulogy. But I will say that for the next game, Capello should drop either Lampard or Gerrard. Both of them are fantastic attacking central midfielders, but a team only has room for one of those. Both players have demonstrated that they can not play together. It's understandable that no coach wants to drop such a good player, but you simply have to accept that they play the same position, and there is only room for one of them. Sadly, both of them have shown that they do not have the flexibility to be effective in a different position. The Spanish have three great goalkeepers - they still have to leave two on the bench - England have to do the same. If it were me, I would drop Gerrard, but as Capello has given him the captain's armband, I suppose you have to keep him and drop Lampard.
Ghana let Australia come at them, and, thankfully, Australia accepted the invitation even when down to 10 men. Just like in the Germany Serbia game, it was the team with 10 men that found an extra gear and pushed for the win right to the end. On this evidence, Australia have at least a realistic chance of beating Serbia, especially with their best player back on the field.
The major talking point will of course be Harry Kewell's red card. It was probably a dismissal within the letter of the law, but Harry can count himself desperately unlucky. The ball was goal bound, and Kewell's arm stopped it. The strict interpretation of the law is that any foul that clearly denies a goal scoring opportunity is a red card. So if it was a handball, then the red card was virtually automatic.
The handball rules is a controversial one. The general interpretation is that there should be some intent, but, of the three players that have given away penalties for handball in this group, none looked intentional. Another interpretation is that handball is when the hand moves to the ball, but not when the ball moves to hand. Sounds good in theory, but is hard to apply in real life, as in almost every case, both hand and ball are moving.
The fair result would surely have been a penalty, but no card at all for Kewell. For a player to be sent off for an unintentional act does not reflect the purpose of red cards, nor does it contribute to a just outcome of the match. Automatic red cards for the last defender or a player who denies a goal scoring opportunity are intended as a punishment and deterrent for professional fouls. An accidental handball does not deserve such punishment, and you can hardly deter players from the unintentional. In the past, red cards were reserved for violent or deliberate acts of cheating. At this World Cup, where there has been a red card in every group D game, without a single act of malice, misjudging the flight of the ball or the timing of a tackle seems to be enough.
After the game against Serbia, Germany's Bastian Schweinsteiger criticised the refereeing when speaking to German reporters, declaring that it can not be that there is a red card in every game. He was referring not just to the Klose sending off in that game but also Tim Cahill's red in the previous game. Harry Kewell's unfortunate demise supports the same argument. Sadly the number of games influenced by the referee at the World Cup is beginning to mount.
If Australia bow out in the next game, it will be a sad end to Kewell's World Cup career. While he has always been a source of frustration for Socceroos fans, he has also been Australia's best player for over a decade. This is the fourth World Cup campaign in which he has been a central figure for the Australians. No other player at the World Cup can claim that level of longevity, which is ironic for a player whose career has been defined by the frailty of his body. At his best he was Australia's only genuine world beater, a world class winger who, as a teenager, set the English Premier League alight at Leeds. As I pointed out in my last post, he has been subject of fierce and sometimes unfair criticism in this campaign. He deserves at least one chance to answer his critics with his feet. But he knows as well as anyone that football has little room for sentiment.
So what are Australia's chances from here? Better than they look at first glance. Australia must beat Serbia to have any chance. Not easy, but not impossible. Serbia are as defensive a side as Australia. They need a win too, so both sides will be forced to open up and play a game not entirely natural to them. Australia showed against Ghana that they can do that - with Serbia it remains a question mark. If Australia do win, they will go through if either a) Germany lose by any margin, or b) Germany beat Ghana, and Germany and Australia's combined winning margin is 5 goals or more.
Ghana don't look as strong as their position suggests. In two games they have only scored from the penalty spot, and against ten man Australia they looked very much under pressure, defending deep and limiting their attacking play to shots from long range, instead of exploiting the man advantage and pressuring Australia. If Germany click the way they did against Australia, a big win is not out of the question, and that would open the door for Australia.
In other news, I can't help but comment on England's performance so far. England looked untouchable in qualifying, and hopes, always high, were accompanied by a degree of actual belief in England that this year could be a good one. After a goalless draw against Algeria England were booed off the field by their own fans, and a look at the newspaper headlines there suggests the country is truly angry about the teams poor performances so far.
If I knew why England underperform at tournaments so regularly, I would head over to blighty and collect Fabio Capello's six million pound salary. I have some thoughts, but at the moment England are still in the tournament, and it would be premature to write their eulogy. But I will say that for the next game, Capello should drop either Lampard or Gerrard. Both of them are fantastic attacking central midfielders, but a team only has room for one of those. Both players have demonstrated that they can not play together. It's understandable that no coach wants to drop such a good player, but you simply have to accept that they play the same position, and there is only room for one of them. Sadly, both of them have shown that they do not have the flexibility to be effective in a different position. The Spanish have three great goalkeepers - they still have to leave two on the bench - England have to do the same. If it were me, I would drop Gerrard, but as Capello has given him the captain's armband, I suppose you have to keep him and drop Lampard.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Serbia frustrate unlucky Germans
A few weeks ago, the (then) head of the English bid team for the 2018 World Cup, Lord Triesman, had dinner with a female journalist, and, in what he thought we're off the record remarks, told the journalist that Spain had agreed to support Russia's bid to host the tournament, in exchange for help in bribing referees for the 2010 tournament. Said journalist didn't feel that was off the record at all, and broke the story the next day. Unfortunately for Lord Triessman, he had no proof of this fairly grievous accusation, and amid the confected outrage of the Russians and Spanish, as well as FIFA, the focus quickly turned to Lord Triesman's indiscretion in making such a claim. He was fired from his post and multiple apologies were issued to all concerned, as England fretted about the damage this would do to their bid chances.
In the midst of all the controversy however, the original accusation seemed to be forgotten - I certainly couldn't find any media articles that followed it up. Perhaps it really was just idle boasting from Lord Triesman, an attempt to impress a girl, or a deluded fantasy. We'll probably never know, but it did highlight that there are very senior people in the world of football who don't think that corrupt referees at the World Cup are out of the question.
Serbia's win over Germany was secured on the back of a refereeing performance so inept as to make one wonder whether Triesman was hard done by.
There are few things less endearing in sport than blaming a defeat on the referee. Watching people like Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger predictably rage against the referee every time their team loses is as nauseating as it is pathetic - so it pains me to join that group today and say my piece against Alberto Undiano Mallenco.
In the referee's defence, his incompetence did seem to go both ways, with as many Serbians earning dubious yellow cards as Germans. The referee handed out 8 yellow and one red card. The last time a World Cup game saw that many cards it was a match between Holland and Portugal in the round of 16 in 2006, which finished with 3 red card and more than 10 yellows. On that occasion (I was there) it was a spiteful, disgraceful game where both sides seemed to put more energy into kicking each other than the ball. Today's game was nothing like that. There was no malice to be detected, and barely a single challenge that should have earned a yellow card (Lahm's being the possible exception). The two challenges least deserving of cards were the two that earned Miroslav Klose his marching orders - and that unquestionably turned the game.
The referee should play no further part in the tournament. Bad decisions will always have the potential to impact on games, but at the World Cup they can damage careers. Many players will only play 5-6 World Cup games in their entire careers. Giving them unjustified cards that lead them to being suspended (two yellows in the group stages mean a one game ban) denies them of the greatest aspirations of all footballers. Just as Tim Cahill.
Referee aside, Serbia deserve great credit. Losing to Ghana must have come as a shock to them, and after seeing Germany pummel Australia, they would have been forgiven for thinking their World Cup was over. Now they are right back in the hunt, and could even top the group.
Their defence was outstanding today. The German's threw everything they had at the Serbs, but time and again there was a final defender, or their outstanding goalkeeper, there to intervene. They didn't look that threatening going forward - the chances they had in the second half were down to the one man advantage and Germany pouring forward in search of the equaliser - but they looked tough to beat. Much how the Australians had planned to look, actually.
Germany, while disappointed, will not be panicked. Even with 10 men they were able to play their game of short, sharp passes and quick movement off the ball, and they still created multiple chances. Had Lukas Podolski had his radar calibrated, they would probably have won. They do however need to win against Ghana, which is a less than comfortable position, especially with several of their best players, defenders in particular, faced with the threat of suspension.
I said last time that this German team hasn't been typically German for a while. That is generally being considered a great thing in the media, especially in Germany, but its worth remembering that the old German style delivered three world cups and the most consistent record of any side in the world - it was not without its merits. And the most cliched of all German attributes was the uncanny ability to take penalties. The last time a German missed a penalty in regular time at the World Cup was in 1974. In shoot outs, they have converted 21 straight penalties since 1982. So a little of the typical German would have been appreciated today.
The result creates a tightly balanced Group D, with a very interesting set of incentives, especially for the Germans. At this point, no one can play for a draw to ensure second place without risking missing out altogether (except, if they beat Australia, Ghana). The group's qualifiers will face the qualifiers from Group C, now likely to be Solvenia and England. With those sides have played out a draw, its impossible to pick which order they will finish in, but in truth, either game would be considered winnable by whoever gets out of Group D. However, the first place getter in the Germany group is almost certain to face Argentina in the quarter final, barring a major upset, while the second place getter will face someone of the likes of Greece, Mexico or South Korea. So, if Germany manage to finish the group in second, they will be strong favourites to go to the semi-finals, but of they top their group, only an upset win over Argentina (who are shaping as tournament favourites) will get them past the quarter finals.
On a seperate note, I can't help but comment on Michael Cockerill, the SMH journalist who has been carrying on a vitriolic campaign against Harry Kewell in the Australia media. Here are some of the articles he has published so far.
1
2
The SMH's football coverage has always been poor, but this is just awful journalism. The first article is clearly motivated by frustration that Kewell won't give him an interview.
It's a common theme amongst the media in Australia that once they turn against you, failing to meet you own hype is the worst of crimes. Then of course, you have to ask, who created the hype. I've never heard Harry Kewell say he is Australia's greatest hope. As Michael Cockerill so forcefully points out, Kewell doesn't tend to say much at all. The idea that the Fairfax's chief football writer is outraged because the media pay too much attention to Harry Kewell is laughable - he is the head writer at one of the countries largest media organisations, he is, in short, the media.
To criticize Kewell for being injured is equally absurd. Cockerill might think it's frustrating that Kewell is often absent at big games. I agree with that - I would dearly have loved to see him on the field against Italy in 2006 - but you can be certain our frustration pales in comparison with Kewell's. It is implausible to suggest, as Cockerill clearly implies, Kewell could have played against Germany but felt he was too good to do so. And to criticise him for embracing a member of the German coaching staff, and apparently forgetting that your opponents must be your enemies, demonstrates Cockerill's poor grasp of sportsmanship and the reality of a world cup, which pits many club friends and colleagues against each other.
And then the letter addressed to Kewell. Let's set aside for a moment the awful stylistic decision to address an article directly to a player and publish it in the second person. And let's ignore the absurdity of claiming that publishing your opinion in (your) national papers, with no right of reply, is the same as facing up to Harry Kewell and standing by his criticism. The letter makes pretty clear that he has a vendetta motivated by a run in with Kewell's manager, but also reveals to poor foundation of his criticism. It's not that Kewell has played poorly, its that he has hardly played at all. Surely being injured does not invite this level of vitriol.
If Kewell plays against Ghana, he could still be the key. In such a dour side, he is the only genuine attacking talent we have left (with Cahill suspended) I imagine Cockerill will be the only person in Australia not happy to see Harry do well against Ghana.
In the midst of all the controversy however, the original accusation seemed to be forgotten - I certainly couldn't find any media articles that followed it up. Perhaps it really was just idle boasting from Lord Triesman, an attempt to impress a girl, or a deluded fantasy. We'll probably never know, but it did highlight that there are very senior people in the world of football who don't think that corrupt referees at the World Cup are out of the question.
Serbia's win over Germany was secured on the back of a refereeing performance so inept as to make one wonder whether Triesman was hard done by.
There are few things less endearing in sport than blaming a defeat on the referee. Watching people like Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger predictably rage against the referee every time their team loses is as nauseating as it is pathetic - so it pains me to join that group today and say my piece against Alberto Undiano Mallenco.
In the referee's defence, his incompetence did seem to go both ways, with as many Serbians earning dubious yellow cards as Germans. The referee handed out 8 yellow and one red card. The last time a World Cup game saw that many cards it was a match between Holland and Portugal in the round of 16 in 2006, which finished with 3 red card and more than 10 yellows. On that occasion (I was there) it was a spiteful, disgraceful game where both sides seemed to put more energy into kicking each other than the ball. Today's game was nothing like that. There was no malice to be detected, and barely a single challenge that should have earned a yellow card (Lahm's being the possible exception). The two challenges least deserving of cards were the two that earned Miroslav Klose his marching orders - and that unquestionably turned the game.
The referee should play no further part in the tournament. Bad decisions will always have the potential to impact on games, but at the World Cup they can damage careers. Many players will only play 5-6 World Cup games in their entire careers. Giving them unjustified cards that lead them to being suspended (two yellows in the group stages mean a one game ban) denies them of the greatest aspirations of all footballers. Just as Tim Cahill.
Referee aside, Serbia deserve great credit. Losing to Ghana must have come as a shock to them, and after seeing Germany pummel Australia, they would have been forgiven for thinking their World Cup was over. Now they are right back in the hunt, and could even top the group.
Their defence was outstanding today. The German's threw everything they had at the Serbs, but time and again there was a final defender, or their outstanding goalkeeper, there to intervene. They didn't look that threatening going forward - the chances they had in the second half were down to the one man advantage and Germany pouring forward in search of the equaliser - but they looked tough to beat. Much how the Australians had planned to look, actually.
Germany, while disappointed, will not be panicked. Even with 10 men they were able to play their game of short, sharp passes and quick movement off the ball, and they still created multiple chances. Had Lukas Podolski had his radar calibrated, they would probably have won. They do however need to win against Ghana, which is a less than comfortable position, especially with several of their best players, defenders in particular, faced with the threat of suspension.
I said last time that this German team hasn't been typically German for a while. That is generally being considered a great thing in the media, especially in Germany, but its worth remembering that the old German style delivered three world cups and the most consistent record of any side in the world - it was not without its merits. And the most cliched of all German attributes was the uncanny ability to take penalties. The last time a German missed a penalty in regular time at the World Cup was in 1974. In shoot outs, they have converted 21 straight penalties since 1982. So a little of the typical German would have been appreciated today.
The result creates a tightly balanced Group D, with a very interesting set of incentives, especially for the Germans. At this point, no one can play for a draw to ensure second place without risking missing out altogether (except, if they beat Australia, Ghana). The group's qualifiers will face the qualifiers from Group C, now likely to be Solvenia and England. With those sides have played out a draw, its impossible to pick which order they will finish in, but in truth, either game would be considered winnable by whoever gets out of Group D. However, the first place getter in the Germany group is almost certain to face Argentina in the quarter final, barring a major upset, while the second place getter will face someone of the likes of Greece, Mexico or South Korea. So, if Germany manage to finish the group in second, they will be strong favourites to go to the semi-finals, but of they top their group, only an upset win over Argentina (who are shaping as tournament favourites) will get them past the quarter finals.
On a seperate note, I can't help but comment on Michael Cockerill, the SMH journalist who has been carrying on a vitriolic campaign against Harry Kewell in the Australia media. Here are some of the articles he has published so far.
1
2
The SMH's football coverage has always been poor, but this is just awful journalism. The first article is clearly motivated by frustration that Kewell won't give him an interview.
It's a common theme amongst the media in Australia that once they turn against you, failing to meet you own hype is the worst of crimes. Then of course, you have to ask, who created the hype. I've never heard Harry Kewell say he is Australia's greatest hope. As Michael Cockerill so forcefully points out, Kewell doesn't tend to say much at all. The idea that the Fairfax's chief football writer is outraged because the media pay too much attention to Harry Kewell is laughable - he is the head writer at one of the countries largest media organisations, he is, in short, the media.
To criticize Kewell for being injured is equally absurd. Cockerill might think it's frustrating that Kewell is often absent at big games. I agree with that - I would dearly have loved to see him on the field against Italy in 2006 - but you can be certain our frustration pales in comparison with Kewell's. It is implausible to suggest, as Cockerill clearly implies, Kewell could have played against Germany but felt he was too good to do so. And to criticise him for embracing a member of the German coaching staff, and apparently forgetting that your opponents must be your enemies, demonstrates Cockerill's poor grasp of sportsmanship and the reality of a world cup, which pits many club friends and colleagues against each other.
And then the letter addressed to Kewell. Let's set aside for a moment the awful stylistic decision to address an article directly to a player and publish it in the second person. And let's ignore the absurdity of claiming that publishing your opinion in (your) national papers, with no right of reply, is the same as facing up to Harry Kewell and standing by his criticism. The letter makes pretty clear that he has a vendetta motivated by a run in with Kewell's manager, but also reveals to poor foundation of his criticism. It's not that Kewell has played poorly, its that he has hardly played at all. Surely being injured does not invite this level of vitriol.
If Kewell plays against Ghana, he could still be the key. In such a dour side, he is the only genuine attacking talent we have left (with Cahill suspended) I imagine Cockerill will be the only person in Australia not happy to see Harry do well against Ghana.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
New Zealand show us how its done
Following the German side's emphatic win in the second round match of the 2006 World Cup, a 3-0 drubbing of Sweden, the German fans took to the streets singing 'Sieht ihr England, so wird das gemacht', This translates to "See England, that's how its done', a taunt referring to the English side's rather laboured progress through the tournament to that point.
If the New Zealand fans were of a mind to do so, they could direct the same chants at Australia fans today. New Zealand popped up to grab a dramatic draw in the final minute of their game against Slovakia today, and thereby kept their hopes in the tournament alive until at least game three. One thing that was clear was where New Zealand will be finding their goals. With a couple of decent crossers of the ball, and a couple of tall players that a strong in the air, it was there for all to see that set pieces and high crosses will be the most likely source of any more goals that the All Whites manage. The fact that both goals in the Italy Paraguay game came from corners bodes well for New Zealand - and the likely absence of 'keeper Gianluiggi Buffon from the Italy side gives NZ just the slightest bit of hope.
From the Australian point of view though, the lesson was in the attitude that New Zealand showed. While Slovakia is not Germany, the All Whites still started as significant underdogs against a side with far more top league experience. Nevertheless, New Zealand played with courage, seeking to take the game to their opponents and trying to create chances both before and after conceding a goal. The late equaliser was scored by Winston Reid - a defender. How many times did Lucas Neill of Craig Moore venture as far as the opposing penalty area? I suspect zero. New Zealand weren't the best team on the park, but they gave themselves a chance. That is exactly what Australia will need to do against Ghana and Serbia.
The days second game was the one that I, along with many neutrals, had been looking forward to most during this first round - Ivory Coast v Portugal. It should have been the game to decide who died first in the Group of Death. It was a disappointment, to say the least. Both sides, but especially Portugal, looked scared to lose, and I suspect they had both done the same calculation. Get a point from this game, then everyone loses to Brazil and beats North Korea, so both sides will be equal on points, and let goal difference make the difference. Portugal figure Ronaldo can whip them in against North Korea, Ivory Coast figure the same thing about a recovered Drogba.
Ivory Coast showed us one thing. Stop Ronaldo and you stop Portugal. Ronaldo can turn a game faster than any player in the world. In the 11th minute of this match he crashed a shot into the bar from 35 yards that only he, in the entire world, could have hit. Not Messi, and cetainly not Rooney, can generate that sort of movement and speed on the ball. But, he is easily frustrated, and there are still question marks over his performances in big tournaments. With Ronaldo not getting involved again after his early shot, Portugal never looked like scoring.
Ivory Coast on the other hand looked like all they need is a finisher to become a threatening side. Given that until the 66th minute, the world's best finisher was sitting on the bench for them, it seems that, if Drogba can reach 100% despite his broken arm, they really could survive the group of death.
However, the calculation that the two teams seemed to have made was thrown into some doubt by the North Korea Brazil game, which showed that victory over North Korea can not be taken for granted, and neither need defeat to Brazil be inevitable.
First to North Korea. They were fast, organised, athletic and they defended very bravely. What we saw from Portugal and Ivory Coast today would not be enough to break them down. They also have weapons going forward, as the late consolation goal showed.
Then to Brazil. Their number one ranking in the world is soft. This is because through Diego Maradona's absurd coaching, Argentina, Brazil's only regional competition, was effectively taken out of the game, allowing Brazil to win the Copa America and breeze through qualifying in recent years. They are a good side, but not the best in the world. Kaka has had a bad season for Real Madrid, Robinho was such a failure in England that they sold him back to Brazil, and the strikers are not in the league of Ronaldo and Rivaldo in their prime. They were lucky today, plain and simple. Maicon scored a goal from an absurd angle, practically on the by line. He claims he meant it, I don't believe him for a second. It was a cross. Even if he did mean it, they got lucky that the goalkeeper let himself be beaten that way. Don't get me wrong, it was an entirely legitimate win, and luck goes in all directions in football, but the fact is Brazil struggled to beat North Korea.
You really have to feel for these teams. Not only is it by far the toughest group, but the second place qualifier will almost certainly face Spain in the next round. That means, if Ivory Coast and Portugal are smart, they realise that they have to go after a win against Brazil - Spain is the worst possible team to face in this competition. There are plenty of twists in this group yet.
If the New Zealand fans were of a mind to do so, they could direct the same chants at Australia fans today. New Zealand popped up to grab a dramatic draw in the final minute of their game against Slovakia today, and thereby kept their hopes in the tournament alive until at least game three. One thing that was clear was where New Zealand will be finding their goals. With a couple of decent crossers of the ball, and a couple of tall players that a strong in the air, it was there for all to see that set pieces and high crosses will be the most likely source of any more goals that the All Whites manage. The fact that both goals in the Italy Paraguay game came from corners bodes well for New Zealand - and the likely absence of 'keeper Gianluiggi Buffon from the Italy side gives NZ just the slightest bit of hope.
From the Australian point of view though, the lesson was in the attitude that New Zealand showed. While Slovakia is not Germany, the All Whites still started as significant underdogs against a side with far more top league experience. Nevertheless, New Zealand played with courage, seeking to take the game to their opponents and trying to create chances both before and after conceding a goal. The late equaliser was scored by Winston Reid - a defender. How many times did Lucas Neill of Craig Moore venture as far as the opposing penalty area? I suspect zero. New Zealand weren't the best team on the park, but they gave themselves a chance. That is exactly what Australia will need to do against Ghana and Serbia.
The days second game was the one that I, along with many neutrals, had been looking forward to most during this first round - Ivory Coast v Portugal. It should have been the game to decide who died first in the Group of Death. It was a disappointment, to say the least. Both sides, but especially Portugal, looked scared to lose, and I suspect they had both done the same calculation. Get a point from this game, then everyone loses to Brazil and beats North Korea, so both sides will be equal on points, and let goal difference make the difference. Portugal figure Ronaldo can whip them in against North Korea, Ivory Coast figure the same thing about a recovered Drogba.
Ivory Coast showed us one thing. Stop Ronaldo and you stop Portugal. Ronaldo can turn a game faster than any player in the world. In the 11th minute of this match he crashed a shot into the bar from 35 yards that only he, in the entire world, could have hit. Not Messi, and cetainly not Rooney, can generate that sort of movement and speed on the ball. But, he is easily frustrated, and there are still question marks over his performances in big tournaments. With Ronaldo not getting involved again after his early shot, Portugal never looked like scoring.
Ivory Coast on the other hand looked like all they need is a finisher to become a threatening side. Given that until the 66th minute, the world's best finisher was sitting on the bench for them, it seems that, if Drogba can reach 100% despite his broken arm, they really could survive the group of death.
However, the calculation that the two teams seemed to have made was thrown into some doubt by the North Korea Brazil game, which showed that victory over North Korea can not be taken for granted, and neither need defeat to Brazil be inevitable.
First to North Korea. They were fast, organised, athletic and they defended very bravely. What we saw from Portugal and Ivory Coast today would not be enough to break them down. They also have weapons going forward, as the late consolation goal showed.
Then to Brazil. Their number one ranking in the world is soft. This is because through Diego Maradona's absurd coaching, Argentina, Brazil's only regional competition, was effectively taken out of the game, allowing Brazil to win the Copa America and breeze through qualifying in recent years. They are a good side, but not the best in the world. Kaka has had a bad season for Real Madrid, Robinho was such a failure in England that they sold him back to Brazil, and the strikers are not in the league of Ronaldo and Rivaldo in their prime. They were lucky today, plain and simple. Maicon scored a goal from an absurd angle, practically on the by line. He claims he meant it, I don't believe him for a second. It was a cross. Even if he did mean it, they got lucky that the goalkeeper let himself be beaten that way. Don't get me wrong, it was an entirely legitimate win, and luck goes in all directions in football, but the fact is Brazil struggled to beat North Korea.
You really have to feel for these teams. Not only is it by far the toughest group, but the second place qualifier will almost certainly face Spain in the next round. That means, if Ivory Coast and Portugal are smart, they realise that they have to go after a win against Brazil - Spain is the worst possible team to face in this competition. There are plenty of twists in this group yet.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Australians face early exit; Germans superb
Australia's chances of advancing past the group stage of the World Cup are hanging by a thread, and, in my opinion, two men take the majority of the blame.
First, the good news for Australia. Before a ball was ever kicked, Australia were never expected to beat Germany. In all groups with a strong top seed, the true battle is between the other three sides for the second qualifying spot. Australia lost to Brazil in 2006 and still went through. The tournament is not over for them.
Then the bad news. With a 4-0 loss, they are unlikely to advance courtesy of goal difference. That means 4 points probably won't suffice, and the Socceroos need to win both their remaining matches. That would require a significant lift from today's performance.
The two men who share the blame for Australia's predicament are coach Pim Verbeek and captain Lucas Neill. First to Neill. As the captain and central defender, Neill needed to recognise that the Australian's high defensive line was being torn to pieces by Podolski, Ozil and Mueller. Time and again the wingers were playing through balls along the ground straight past the Australian defenders as the German attackers sprung the off-side trap. Podolski's opener was the text book example. Thomas Mueller darted straight past the Australian defense, who raised their arms in search of the whistle instead of defending, and was left all alone to square a lovely cross to Podolski, who made no mistake. It was probably the coaches tactic, but once the whistle blows, there is a responsibility on the senior players to adapt a tactic that is clearly failing.
More importantly, Cahill's red card, which is a more serious blow to Australia's chances than defeat to Germany ever could have been, was, in my opinion, the culmination of Neill's misdirected 'leadership'. It was abundantly clear when the Australians came out on the second half that they were determined to bring a more physical approach. I would wager a pretty penny that a decent part of the half time team talk had been of the 'lets get stuck in, make your tackles count' variety, delivered by the captain.
It's a team talk that rings out across local football fields around Australia each weekend. Even at the amateur level, it never helps. Perhaps it is more common in a country where the sporting culture is still dominated by rugby and AFL - sports where that level of aggression is crucial, and where commitment to the cause is often measured in physical terms. But in football, it brings no results. At a professional level, vowing to get stuck in to the opposition and be more physical is far more likely to lead to a team losing their own composure than any improvement in their performance - as was the case today. And for that approach, Neill must take responsibility.
Neill was already lucky not to give away a penalty and concede a red card himself in the first half when replays showed him clearly dropping a cynical elbow on Sami Khedira. Rather than taking that fortune and refocusing on the game, he opened the second half by ramming his knee into Miroslav Klose's back. He received a yellow, but it was much closer to a red card than Cahill's challenge.
Moments later another Australian was seen punching Podolski in the back, and shortly after that came Cahill's tackle. Cahill was unlucky - the replay showed that he pulled his boots out of the tackle when he realised how late he was, but the referees mind had been set by then. Cahill was the scapegoat, but his red card was earned by the entire team, under the leadership of Lucas Neill.
The rest of the blame, for the performance and the difficulty of Australia's situation, lies at Pim Verbeek's feet. Verbeek simply doesn't have any confidence in his own side. He doesn't think they can play football, so he instructs them not to. The pre-match graphic showed that Verbeek had decided to play Tim Cahill as a lone striker. Cahill is a midfielder, not a striker, and the fact was that Verbeek had actually sent out a formation without a striker. It might be the first time in World Cup history that a side has opened the tournament with a formation of 4-6-0.
It was a formation designed to extract a nil-nil draw, conceding from the outset that victory was impossible. Ten minutes into the game Germany took a lead and Verbeek's plan had failed. Going into a tournament against better sides with a defensive mind set is hardly new, but Verbeek has no plan B. At 2-0 down Australia were utterly lost, with no idea where two goals were to come from. More problematically, there is no indication where the goals to beat Ghana and Serbia will come from.
Cahill will definitely miss the Ghana match, maybe also the Serbia match. Verbeek opted to bring only three strikers with him, and he doesn't think Kewell is fit, nor Kennedy good enough. Ghana, having collected three points against Serbia, know that a point against Australia will take them a long way to the knock out stages - they will hardly throw themselves forward and allow Australia to hit them with a counter attack. Australia have to chase the game now - something they have steadfastly refused to do since Verbeek became coach. It will take a remarkable turn around for them to make it out of this group.
The most disappointing thing about Australia's performance is that it could come as no surprise - the risks of the overly defensive approach were well known. I'll allow myself the self promotion to point you back to my first point on this blog. The real question for Australia, as it considers its future role in the football world is this - if you are not going to try and beat the best teams, why are you at the World Cup?
And what of Germany? It is hard to know exactly where to place Germany's performance, given that Australia appeared to be well below World Cup standard. But some things were clear. This team can move the ball with a speed and accuracy that few can hope to match. The statistics tell a story - 91.7% of German passes found their target. That's the fourth highest that any team has managed since the statistics started in 1966.
It was an attractive performance, and some of the moves, including the one that led to the opening goal, were sublime. Several of the German young guns look likely to become superstars over this World Cup. Ozil and Mueller looked like world beaters - if Germany go far in the tournament, the big clubs will come calling for those two (Mueller is already at Bayern Munich)
Lukas Podolski remains an enigma. He's been bad at club level for the last four years. Bayern eventually gave up on him in exasperation, and Cologne, one of the Bundesliga's worst clubs, don't even start him anymore. But at international level, he's unstoppable. At 25, he has 38 goals and 75 games under his belt. To put that in perspective, Bobby Charlton's 49 goals in 106 games still make him England's record goal scorer. Today he scored his 4th World Cup goal - more than he managed in the entire season in the Bundesliga - and was close to the best player on the field.
Its a little to early to call Germany the new favourites. If they dole out similar treatment to Serbia, then it might be time to start thinking about how far they can go.
People are so used to describing German teams as rigid, efficient and boring that they didn't notice that this changed years ago. I've been reading the reports of the game, and time and again the theme is surprise at Germany's beautiful football. Here are two links -
http://www.nationalpost.com/sports/world-cup/Germany+blows+Socceroos/3149445/story.html
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/world-cup-2010/remodelled-germans-spark-life-into-world-cup/story-fn4l4sfy-1225879412601
The reality is that Germany started playing fast, attacking, short passing football under Juergen Klinsmann before the 2006 World Cup, and Joachim Loew has continued this rebranding. Finally, it seems, the world has taken notice.
First, the good news for Australia. Before a ball was ever kicked, Australia were never expected to beat Germany. In all groups with a strong top seed, the true battle is between the other three sides for the second qualifying spot. Australia lost to Brazil in 2006 and still went through. The tournament is not over for them.
Then the bad news. With a 4-0 loss, they are unlikely to advance courtesy of goal difference. That means 4 points probably won't suffice, and the Socceroos need to win both their remaining matches. That would require a significant lift from today's performance.
The two men who share the blame for Australia's predicament are coach Pim Verbeek and captain Lucas Neill. First to Neill. As the captain and central defender, Neill needed to recognise that the Australian's high defensive line was being torn to pieces by Podolski, Ozil and Mueller. Time and again the wingers were playing through balls along the ground straight past the Australian defenders as the German attackers sprung the off-side trap. Podolski's opener was the text book example. Thomas Mueller darted straight past the Australian defense, who raised their arms in search of the whistle instead of defending, and was left all alone to square a lovely cross to Podolski, who made no mistake. It was probably the coaches tactic, but once the whistle blows, there is a responsibility on the senior players to adapt a tactic that is clearly failing.
More importantly, Cahill's red card, which is a more serious blow to Australia's chances than defeat to Germany ever could have been, was, in my opinion, the culmination of Neill's misdirected 'leadership'. It was abundantly clear when the Australians came out on the second half that they were determined to bring a more physical approach. I would wager a pretty penny that a decent part of the half time team talk had been of the 'lets get stuck in, make your tackles count' variety, delivered by the captain.
It's a team talk that rings out across local football fields around Australia each weekend. Even at the amateur level, it never helps. Perhaps it is more common in a country where the sporting culture is still dominated by rugby and AFL - sports where that level of aggression is crucial, and where commitment to the cause is often measured in physical terms. But in football, it brings no results. At a professional level, vowing to get stuck in to the opposition and be more physical is far more likely to lead to a team losing their own composure than any improvement in their performance - as was the case today. And for that approach, Neill must take responsibility.
Neill was already lucky not to give away a penalty and concede a red card himself in the first half when replays showed him clearly dropping a cynical elbow on Sami Khedira. Rather than taking that fortune and refocusing on the game, he opened the second half by ramming his knee into Miroslav Klose's back. He received a yellow, but it was much closer to a red card than Cahill's challenge.
Moments later another Australian was seen punching Podolski in the back, and shortly after that came Cahill's tackle. Cahill was unlucky - the replay showed that he pulled his boots out of the tackle when he realised how late he was, but the referees mind had been set by then. Cahill was the scapegoat, but his red card was earned by the entire team, under the leadership of Lucas Neill.
The rest of the blame, for the performance and the difficulty of Australia's situation, lies at Pim Verbeek's feet. Verbeek simply doesn't have any confidence in his own side. He doesn't think they can play football, so he instructs them not to. The pre-match graphic showed that Verbeek had decided to play Tim Cahill as a lone striker. Cahill is a midfielder, not a striker, and the fact was that Verbeek had actually sent out a formation without a striker. It might be the first time in World Cup history that a side has opened the tournament with a formation of 4-6-0.
It was a formation designed to extract a nil-nil draw, conceding from the outset that victory was impossible. Ten minutes into the game Germany took a lead and Verbeek's plan had failed. Going into a tournament against better sides with a defensive mind set is hardly new, but Verbeek has no plan B. At 2-0 down Australia were utterly lost, with no idea where two goals were to come from. More problematically, there is no indication where the goals to beat Ghana and Serbia will come from.
Cahill will definitely miss the Ghana match, maybe also the Serbia match. Verbeek opted to bring only three strikers with him, and he doesn't think Kewell is fit, nor Kennedy good enough. Ghana, having collected three points against Serbia, know that a point against Australia will take them a long way to the knock out stages - they will hardly throw themselves forward and allow Australia to hit them with a counter attack. Australia have to chase the game now - something they have steadfastly refused to do since Verbeek became coach. It will take a remarkable turn around for them to make it out of this group.
The most disappointing thing about Australia's performance is that it could come as no surprise - the risks of the overly defensive approach were well known. I'll allow myself the self promotion to point you back to my first point on this blog. The real question for Australia, as it considers its future role in the football world is this - if you are not going to try and beat the best teams, why are you at the World Cup?
And what of Germany? It is hard to know exactly where to place Germany's performance, given that Australia appeared to be well below World Cup standard. But some things were clear. This team can move the ball with a speed and accuracy that few can hope to match. The statistics tell a story - 91.7% of German passes found their target. That's the fourth highest that any team has managed since the statistics started in 1966.
It was an attractive performance, and some of the moves, including the one that led to the opening goal, were sublime. Several of the German young guns look likely to become superstars over this World Cup. Ozil and Mueller looked like world beaters - if Germany go far in the tournament, the big clubs will come calling for those two (Mueller is already at Bayern Munich)
Lukas Podolski remains an enigma. He's been bad at club level for the last four years. Bayern eventually gave up on him in exasperation, and Cologne, one of the Bundesliga's worst clubs, don't even start him anymore. But at international level, he's unstoppable. At 25, he has 38 goals and 75 games under his belt. To put that in perspective, Bobby Charlton's 49 goals in 106 games still make him England's record goal scorer. Today he scored his 4th World Cup goal - more than he managed in the entire season in the Bundesliga - and was close to the best player on the field.
Its a little to early to call Germany the new favourites. If they dole out similar treatment to Serbia, then it might be time to start thinking about how far they can go.
People are so used to describing German teams as rigid, efficient and boring that they didn't notice that this changed years ago. I've been reading the reports of the game, and time and again the theme is surprise at Germany's beautiful football. Here are two links -
http://www.nationalpost.com/sports/world-cup/Germany+blows+Socceroos/3149445/story.html
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/world-cup-2010/remodelled-germans-spark-life-into-world-cup/story-fn4l4sfy-1225879412601
The reality is that Germany started playing fast, attacking, short passing football under Juergen Klinsmann before the 2006 World Cup, and Joachim Loew has continued this rebranding. Finally, it seems, the world has taken notice.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
A Dilemma for Many
As Germany prepare for their opening game against Australia in less than 13 hours, I'm faced with a dilemma. The country of my birth faces my adopted and much beloved home. It is anything but a unique dilemma, and is in fact one of the conflicts that, in a globalised world, adds such colour to the world cup.
Over the next month first, second and even third generation immigrants around the world will face up to the inner conflict of watching their homeland play against the land of their forefathers. Serbian communities in both Australia and Germany will face a similar conflict to the many Algerians living in London. Italians in New Zealand will agonize over their support for the All Whites, while the confusion of Portuguese Brazilians will be shared by Portugal's own Brazilian trio of Deco, Pepe and Liedson.
Interestingly, it seems that (players aside) more often than not it is the fans' ancestral home that wins out in the battle for their affections. When Australia was eliminated from the last World Cup by Italy, Sydney's Norton Street (home of the Italian community) celebrated long and hard, while Germany's Turkish community mourned rather than celebrated when a late winner against Turkey sent Germany into the European Championship finals in 2008. This phenomenon is not restricted to soccer. Half of New Zealand may live in Australia, but you'll hardly find them cheering against the All Blacks, and every summer Australia's immigrant communities proudly support Australia's cricketing opponents, be they Indian, South African or Pakistani.
The question this raises for me, is why? After all, most of these people have come to their new country by choice, by birth, or as children, and are otherwise proud citizens of their new country, including supporting them against any other country. To borrow from the purely personal experience, I have both a Germany and an Australia jersey in my luggage. I will certainly be wearing my Socceroos jersey when Australia face Ghana and Serbia, and will be passionately hoping they win.
My theory is that there are two reasons. The first has to do with the simple joy of being part of an exclusive group. Sport, is after all, a mere game, and belonging to the small group that gets one up on the majority is something people simply enjoy. And, no matter how integrated people may be in their new homes, they will always be known to their friends (in friendly and inclusive ways, I hasten to add) as the German / Serbian / Indian etc. If you have to put up with they stereotypes and jokes the rest of the time, its fun to get one up on the locals when the chance arrives.
The second reason might be more complex, and apply particularly for those who subscribe to the theory that football is much more important than a matter of life and death. It goes to the reason people care at all about a tournament like the World Cup, or any other sporting event. People who do not enjoy sport will often ask a simple question - why do you care whether eleven people that you've never met, born in one country are better at kicking a ball around than eleven people you've never met from another country? Tempting as it is to dismiss these people as boring, stupid or both, the fact is they are expressing an indisputable fact - that our fascination with sporting contest is entirely irrational. The national pride that follows a team's World Cup success rests on the very dubious conclusion that their success says something about each person in that country. Dubious and irrational though it may be, it is a conclusion that millions of people around the world will happily draw.
Why does this make people more likely to support their land of origin than their new home? It rests on a very primordial, arguably primitive, way of thinking. For, while the above mentioned conclusion may be irrational, people will forever try to rationalise it. And the easiest way to come to the conclusion that your football teams success reflects on you is to believe that the teams success rests on the one thing you do have in common with those players - ethnicity. At its most simple, Brazilian fans like to believe that playing beautiful football is in their blood, German fans like to believe that the team's famed success under pressure is a Germanic trait.
The conclusion is reinforced by the fact that, particularly in Europe, stereo-types of the football teams so often closely reflect Europeans' stereo-types of each other. The Spanish are full of passion and flair, though rarely successful, the Germans are dull, efficient and effective, the Italians, like their Government, don't feel overly constrained by the laws of the game. The allegedly poor quality of English cooking is difficult to reflect in a football team, but their fans are often enough left calling on the famed stiff upper lip.
Of course, it is an absurd way of thinking. Firstly, national teams reflect the countries they represent, and so field great mix of ethnicities within their ranks. It may be easy for a German fan to tell himself that he shares certain traits with Bastian Schweinsteiger and Holger Badstuber, but the connection to Ghana born Jerome Boateng is less clear. Similarly, it is a long bow to draw for a Parisian to feel that her personal qualities are reflected in a French team that would more accurately be called "The Team of the Former French Empire". Secondly, each team picks its 23 most talented players - hardly a statistically relevant sample of the country.
It may be an absurd conclusion to draw, but it is one that remains irresistible to many football fans around the world, and seems to draw so many of the world's immigrants back to supporting nations that they do not live in any more. It is also one of the key ingredient that goes into creating the magic of a World Cup.
Through all that I've tried to avoid too clearly nailing my own colours to the mast for tomorrow's game - I've simply put forward a theory as to why most fans seem to choose their ancestral home, and pointed out that those reasons are not based in any sound process of reasoning. I will be wearing both my jerseys (its cold enough here to require that anyway). The inner layer may be the one closest to my heart, or the outer layer may be the one that is ultimately dominant - you decide. I will simply say that, regardless of the result tomorrow, I will celebrate for the winner and be sad for the side that loses, and I'll be supporting both teams for the rest of the tournament. If they meet again, both will have done well enough to be more than satisfied.
Germany have looked good in their warm up matches, Australia have looked poor in a laboured win over NZ and a loss to the USA. If Australia can sneak a point, it will be an upset, while a win for the 'roos would be the result of the Cup so far. But the Germans don't look likely to let the Australians in.
In other news, the first games of the World Cup have been played, with few surprises so far. The most interesting result by far, for fans of both Germany and Australia, was the draw between the USA and England. Group C is a weak group, and both England and the USA should still qualify comfortably. The important thing about the draw (or tie, as they insist on calling it here) between the two is that, with both sides quite likely to finish with seven points, the differentiating factor in determining first and second position will probably be goal difference. With England hardly looking like tearing through an opponent, and the USA having the much stronger goalkeeper, the chances of the USA topping the group now sit at at least 50/50. The winner of England's group will face the second place getter in Germany's group, and vice-versa. That makes topping group D slightly less urgent for Germany, who would probably prefer to avoid an early encounter with England. Australia on the other hand, have already lost a warm up game against the USA, and might fancy a match against England, which would easily rank as the biggest game the Socceroos have ever played.
Over the next month first, second and even third generation immigrants around the world will face up to the inner conflict of watching their homeland play against the land of their forefathers. Serbian communities in both Australia and Germany will face a similar conflict to the many Algerians living in London. Italians in New Zealand will agonize over their support for the All Whites, while the confusion of Portuguese Brazilians will be shared by Portugal's own Brazilian trio of Deco, Pepe and Liedson.
Interestingly, it seems that (players aside) more often than not it is the fans' ancestral home that wins out in the battle for their affections. When Australia was eliminated from the last World Cup by Italy, Sydney's Norton Street (home of the Italian community) celebrated long and hard, while Germany's Turkish community mourned rather than celebrated when a late winner against Turkey sent Germany into the European Championship finals in 2008. This phenomenon is not restricted to soccer. Half of New Zealand may live in Australia, but you'll hardly find them cheering against the All Blacks, and every summer Australia's immigrant communities proudly support Australia's cricketing opponents, be they Indian, South African or Pakistani.
The question this raises for me, is why? After all, most of these people have come to their new country by choice, by birth, or as children, and are otherwise proud citizens of their new country, including supporting them against any other country. To borrow from the purely personal experience, I have both a Germany and an Australia jersey in my luggage. I will certainly be wearing my Socceroos jersey when Australia face Ghana and Serbia, and will be passionately hoping they win.
My theory is that there are two reasons. The first has to do with the simple joy of being part of an exclusive group. Sport, is after all, a mere game, and belonging to the small group that gets one up on the majority is something people simply enjoy. And, no matter how integrated people may be in their new homes, they will always be known to their friends (in friendly and inclusive ways, I hasten to add) as the German / Serbian / Indian etc. If you have to put up with they stereotypes and jokes the rest of the time, its fun to get one up on the locals when the chance arrives.
The second reason might be more complex, and apply particularly for those who subscribe to the theory that football is much more important than a matter of life and death. It goes to the reason people care at all about a tournament like the World Cup, or any other sporting event. People who do not enjoy sport will often ask a simple question - why do you care whether eleven people that you've never met, born in one country are better at kicking a ball around than eleven people you've never met from another country? Tempting as it is to dismiss these people as boring, stupid or both, the fact is they are expressing an indisputable fact - that our fascination with sporting contest is entirely irrational. The national pride that follows a team's World Cup success rests on the very dubious conclusion that their success says something about each person in that country. Dubious and irrational though it may be, it is a conclusion that millions of people around the world will happily draw.
Why does this make people more likely to support their land of origin than their new home? It rests on a very primordial, arguably primitive, way of thinking. For, while the above mentioned conclusion may be irrational, people will forever try to rationalise it. And the easiest way to come to the conclusion that your football teams success reflects on you is to believe that the teams success rests on the one thing you do have in common with those players - ethnicity. At its most simple, Brazilian fans like to believe that playing beautiful football is in their blood, German fans like to believe that the team's famed success under pressure is a Germanic trait.
The conclusion is reinforced by the fact that, particularly in Europe, stereo-types of the football teams so often closely reflect Europeans' stereo-types of each other. The Spanish are full of passion and flair, though rarely successful, the Germans are dull, efficient and effective, the Italians, like their Government, don't feel overly constrained by the laws of the game. The allegedly poor quality of English cooking is difficult to reflect in a football team, but their fans are often enough left calling on the famed stiff upper lip.
Of course, it is an absurd way of thinking. Firstly, national teams reflect the countries they represent, and so field great mix of ethnicities within their ranks. It may be easy for a German fan to tell himself that he shares certain traits with Bastian Schweinsteiger and Holger Badstuber, but the connection to Ghana born Jerome Boateng is less clear. Similarly, it is a long bow to draw for a Parisian to feel that her personal qualities are reflected in a French team that would more accurately be called "The Team of the Former French Empire". Secondly, each team picks its 23 most talented players - hardly a statistically relevant sample of the country.
It may be an absurd conclusion to draw, but it is one that remains irresistible to many football fans around the world, and seems to draw so many of the world's immigrants back to supporting nations that they do not live in any more. It is also one of the key ingredient that goes into creating the magic of a World Cup.
Through all that I've tried to avoid too clearly nailing my own colours to the mast for tomorrow's game - I've simply put forward a theory as to why most fans seem to choose their ancestral home, and pointed out that those reasons are not based in any sound process of reasoning. I will be wearing both my jerseys (its cold enough here to require that anyway). The inner layer may be the one closest to my heart, or the outer layer may be the one that is ultimately dominant - you decide. I will simply say that, regardless of the result tomorrow, I will celebrate for the winner and be sad for the side that loses, and I'll be supporting both teams for the rest of the tournament. If they meet again, both will have done well enough to be more than satisfied.
Germany have looked good in their warm up matches, Australia have looked poor in a laboured win over NZ and a loss to the USA. If Australia can sneak a point, it will be an upset, while a win for the 'roos would be the result of the Cup so far. But the Germans don't look likely to let the Australians in.
In other news, the first games of the World Cup have been played, with few surprises so far. The most interesting result by far, for fans of both Germany and Australia, was the draw between the USA and England. Group C is a weak group, and both England and the USA should still qualify comfortably. The important thing about the draw (or tie, as they insist on calling it here) between the two is that, with both sides quite likely to finish with seven points, the differentiating factor in determining first and second position will probably be goal difference. With England hardly looking like tearing through an opponent, and the USA having the much stronger goalkeeper, the chances of the USA topping the group now sit at at least 50/50. The winner of England's group will face the second place getter in Germany's group, and vice-versa. That makes topping group D slightly less urgent for Germany, who would probably prefer to avoid an early encounter with England. Australia on the other hand, have already lost a warm up game against the USA, and might fancy a match against England, which would easily rank as the biggest game the Socceroos have ever played.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
The winning eleven that won't even play
Before a ball has been kicked in South Africa, one thing is becoming clear - this year's World Cup will be influenced almost as much by the players that are absent as by those on the field. Injury has taken a savage toll on the tournament already, with multiple sides, including some of the favourites, shorn of their best player.
The injury toll has become so long that an you could pick an eleven out of injured players that would be red hot favourites to win the tournament - and that is just what I've done. While most of these players will miss the entire tournament, the criteria for selection is that, at this moment, it looks as though the player will be absent for at least the first game.
Playing with the 4-5-1 formation that is popular with many of today's top sides, the team would contain a trio of Chelsea stars. Didier Drogba would lead the attack, with Michael Ballack and Michael Essien sharing the defensive midfield duties. In front of them, the third in a brilliant midfield triangle would be Italy's mercurial playmaker and dead ball expert, Andrea Pirlo. Arjen Robben was the best winger in Europe this season, but looks like missing the Dutch campaign through a hamstring injury, making him an automatic starter on the wing in our crocked eleven. The other wing place might be taken by Harry Kewell, or, if he recovers in time for the tournament, David Beckham can still make a handy contribution. At the back, England's intended captain, Rio Ferdinand, will be joined by Germany's Heiko Westerwelle. Martin Skrtel of Slovakia might be shifted from the centre of defence to the left wing, and the right back position will be taken up by another Chelsea star, Jose Bosingwa. Standing behind them all in goal will be Renee Adler, Germany's number 1 and its third contribution to the injured eleven, missing out with a broken rib.
That is as strong an eleven as any one of the national sides playing. Linking the pace and trickery of Robben with the guile of Pirlo and the brute power of Drogba would mean the team would almost certainly score more than it conceded, while Ballack, once the best header of the ball in the game, would have a field day with perfect crosses that Beckham is known for. Of course, a World Cup side needs both a captain and a manager. Drogba, Essien, Pirlo, Beckham, Kewell and Ferdinand have all captained their national sides, but for having captained his side to a World Cup semi-final and a European Championship final, the armband would have to be awarded to Michael Ballack. As a manager, there is also someone who has established himself as amongst the very best in previous World Cups, but is absent from South Africa. Anyone remember Guus Hiddink?
Fortunate though the injured eleven is to have these players, it is a great shame that some of them will not grace the biggest stage of all this year. Each players absence will be felt in a different way.
For those romantics hoping for an underdog story, the absence of Drogba is perhaps the most devasting. With the World Cup being staged in Africa for the first time, and host nation South Africa looking unlikely to achieve much, Ivory Coast were carrying the hopes of the continent, and of all those who would like to see the duopoly of South America and Europe broken. And for once, those hopes were not entirely misplaced. Even without Drogba, the Ivorians boast a talented lineup, brimming with stars from the best European clubs - Emmanuel Eboue (Arsenal), Salomon Kalou (Chelsea), Yaya Toure (Barcelona) and his brother Kolo Toure (Manchester City) and Didier Zokora (Sevilla), to name a few. At the head of this line up was meant to be Dider Drogba, certainly in any list of the top five strikers in the world.
Ivory Coast were unfortunate to be drawn in this years Group of Death, and have to overcome one of Portugal and Brazil to make it out of the group stages. With Drogba at their helm, they might well have managed this, especially with Portugal looking vulnerable throughout qualifying and Cristiano Ronaldo still to turn up at a major tournament. It is not impossible, even without Drogba, but certainly looks less likely now. There is still some hope that Drogba will recover from his broken arm and be able to take part in the tournament. If you are one of those people hoping for a fairytale from Africa this year, cross your fingers for him (and if he does, put some money on Ivory Coast for the semi finals)
The footballing purists will be saddest to see that Arjen Robben looks likely to miss the tournament. Robben has been a super star waiting to emerge for years now, but has been consistently hampered by injury. At his best, Robben is unstoppable, able to dribble the ball as if its glued to his foot while sprinting at a speed most players can not match even without the ball, and always ready to unleash a fierce shot with the left foot that eliminated Fiorentina and Manchester United from the Champions League this year. The World Cup highlight reels will certainly suffer from Robben's absence, as will Holland's chances of winning the tournament. To see what you won't see in South Africa, click here
Those who follow the personal drama that sport produces will not be able to help feeling sorry for Germany captain Michael Ballack, whose injury provides a poignant, and perhaps fitting, cap to a brilliant career marked by sporting tragedy. Perhaps no player in history has come so close so many times, without lifting a major international trophy. He has been a talisman for Germany for almost a decade, and in that time has lead them to the World and European Championship finals. Suspended for the 2002 World Cup final, he missed the chance of a repeat when Italy won one of the greatest semi finals ever played with the winning goals in the 120th minute. At club level, he lead Bayer Leverkusen from obscurity for the Champions League final in 2002, only to be sunk by one of Zinedine Zindane's finest strikes. And in 2008 it seemed he'd finally done enough, after a man of the match performance and converting his penatly in the shoot-out against Machester United in the Champions Leage Final. Alas, John Terry missed his spot kick and Chelsea lost their grip on the trophy. After the Euro 2008 final loss Angela Merkel told a tearful Ballack they would have to wait two more years before they could really celebrate. Sadly, the chance won't be forthcoming for Germany's captain.
For fans of their countries, the other injured players will have special meaning. For Ghana, Essien is irreplaceable, and without him, they may struggle. England will have to pick a third captain within months, after John Terry lost the armband for off field reasons earlier this year. Italy already looked vulnerable, and will be even more so without one of the heroes of 2006.
The silver lining is easy to see - in the absence of these many established stars, a new generation will be given a chance to put their mark on the world game and write their names alongside their absent colleagues. There may just be a blog post in that somewhere
p.s. as a Germany fan, a Ballack fan, and one who falls into the category of people who enjoy the personal stories of sport, I feel obliged to post a proper tribute article to Ballack, which will be in an upcoming blog entry. Look out for it :-)
The injury toll has become so long that an you could pick an eleven out of injured players that would be red hot favourites to win the tournament - and that is just what I've done. While most of these players will miss the entire tournament, the criteria for selection is that, at this moment, it looks as though the player will be absent for at least the first game.
Playing with the 4-5-1 formation that is popular with many of today's top sides, the team would contain a trio of Chelsea stars. Didier Drogba would lead the attack, with Michael Ballack and Michael Essien sharing the defensive midfield duties. In front of them, the third in a brilliant midfield triangle would be Italy's mercurial playmaker and dead ball expert, Andrea Pirlo. Arjen Robben was the best winger in Europe this season, but looks like missing the Dutch campaign through a hamstring injury, making him an automatic starter on the wing in our crocked eleven. The other wing place might be taken by Harry Kewell, or, if he recovers in time for the tournament, David Beckham can still make a handy contribution. At the back, England's intended captain, Rio Ferdinand, will be joined by Germany's Heiko Westerwelle. Martin Skrtel of Slovakia might be shifted from the centre of defence to the left wing, and the right back position will be taken up by another Chelsea star, Jose Bosingwa. Standing behind them all in goal will be Renee Adler, Germany's number 1 and its third contribution to the injured eleven, missing out with a broken rib.
That is as strong an eleven as any one of the national sides playing. Linking the pace and trickery of Robben with the guile of Pirlo and the brute power of Drogba would mean the team would almost certainly score more than it conceded, while Ballack, once the best header of the ball in the game, would have a field day with perfect crosses that Beckham is known for. Of course, a World Cup side needs both a captain and a manager. Drogba, Essien, Pirlo, Beckham, Kewell and Ferdinand have all captained their national sides, but for having captained his side to a World Cup semi-final and a European Championship final, the armband would have to be awarded to Michael Ballack. As a manager, there is also someone who has established himself as amongst the very best in previous World Cups, but is absent from South Africa. Anyone remember Guus Hiddink?
Fortunate though the injured eleven is to have these players, it is a great shame that some of them will not grace the biggest stage of all this year. Each players absence will be felt in a different way.
For those romantics hoping for an underdog story, the absence of Drogba is perhaps the most devasting. With the World Cup being staged in Africa for the first time, and host nation South Africa looking unlikely to achieve much, Ivory Coast were carrying the hopes of the continent, and of all those who would like to see the duopoly of South America and Europe broken. And for once, those hopes were not entirely misplaced. Even without Drogba, the Ivorians boast a talented lineup, brimming with stars from the best European clubs - Emmanuel Eboue (Arsenal), Salomon Kalou (Chelsea), Yaya Toure (Barcelona) and his brother Kolo Toure (Manchester City) and Didier Zokora (Sevilla), to name a few. At the head of this line up was meant to be Dider Drogba, certainly in any list of the top five strikers in the world.
Ivory Coast were unfortunate to be drawn in this years Group of Death, and have to overcome one of Portugal and Brazil to make it out of the group stages. With Drogba at their helm, they might well have managed this, especially with Portugal looking vulnerable throughout qualifying and Cristiano Ronaldo still to turn up at a major tournament. It is not impossible, even without Drogba, but certainly looks less likely now. There is still some hope that Drogba will recover from his broken arm and be able to take part in the tournament. If you are one of those people hoping for a fairytale from Africa this year, cross your fingers for him (and if he does, put some money on Ivory Coast for the semi finals)
The footballing purists will be saddest to see that Arjen Robben looks likely to miss the tournament. Robben has been a super star waiting to emerge for years now, but has been consistently hampered by injury. At his best, Robben is unstoppable, able to dribble the ball as if its glued to his foot while sprinting at a speed most players can not match even without the ball, and always ready to unleash a fierce shot with the left foot that eliminated Fiorentina and Manchester United from the Champions League this year. The World Cup highlight reels will certainly suffer from Robben's absence, as will Holland's chances of winning the tournament. To see what you won't see in South Africa, click here
Those who follow the personal drama that sport produces will not be able to help feeling sorry for Germany captain Michael Ballack, whose injury provides a poignant, and perhaps fitting, cap to a brilliant career marked by sporting tragedy. Perhaps no player in history has come so close so many times, without lifting a major international trophy. He has been a talisman for Germany for almost a decade, and in that time has lead them to the World and European Championship finals. Suspended for the 2002 World Cup final, he missed the chance of a repeat when Italy won one of the greatest semi finals ever played with the winning goals in the 120th minute. At club level, he lead Bayer Leverkusen from obscurity for the Champions League final in 2002, only to be sunk by one of Zinedine Zindane's finest strikes. And in 2008 it seemed he'd finally done enough, after a man of the match performance and converting his penatly in the shoot-out against Machester United in the Champions Leage Final. Alas, John Terry missed his spot kick and Chelsea lost their grip on the trophy. After the Euro 2008 final loss Angela Merkel told a tearful Ballack they would have to wait two more years before they could really celebrate. Sadly, the chance won't be forthcoming for Germany's captain.
For fans of their countries, the other injured players will have special meaning. For Ghana, Essien is irreplaceable, and without him, they may struggle. England will have to pick a third captain within months, after John Terry lost the armband for off field reasons earlier this year. Italy already looked vulnerable, and will be even more so without one of the heroes of 2006.
The silver lining is easy to see - in the absence of these many established stars, a new generation will be given a chance to put their mark on the world game and write their names alongside their absent colleagues. There may just be a blog post in that somewhere
p.s. as a Germany fan, a Ballack fan, and one who falls into the category of people who enjoy the personal stories of sport, I feel obliged to post a proper tribute article to Ballack, which will be in an upcoming blog entry. Look out for it :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)