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.