Denouement

It's hard for this soccer diehard to admit it, but in recent offerings, The World Cup undergoes a certain drag from the quarter-finals onward. Yes, the powerhouse teams face off against each other, but this is part of the reason we start to see inordinate emphasis on doing whatever is necessary to win. As the stakes rise, we are presented with tantalizing matchups, only to see over-cautious play from managers who take the games out of the players' hands and, in some cases, resort to dirty tactics.

Argentina dominated Germany throughout most of their match. Initially, I thought Germany might have been playing cautiously on purpose, but I think Argentina simply had more skill on the ball, keeping the Germans at bay. After scoring their goal, Argentina inexplicably and completely changed its tactics. Obviously, they wanted to protect their lead, but if they had kept playing at 80% instead of 30%, I'm convinced Germany would not have found its rhythm. A team doesn't change its tactics so drastically unless the manager has instructed them to do so. Pekerman's substitutions were, to say the least, curious. Unless Riquelme was injured, why would you take out the one player who can control possession better than anyone else on the pitch? And why did he not bring Messi or Savioli into the game instead of Cruz? The Argentines had their best chances through speed and skill, not through size and strength. Pekerman has offered to resign. Obviously, he's done a great job in building up this team, and one game doesn't make or break a manager's career. But I wish he had let Argentina play soccer, instead of getting too caught up in managerial tactics.

On the other hand, what is happening to Italy? The team that perfected catenaccio played with an offensive flair that led to three goals, including two for Luca Toni, who must be thrilled to finally find the back of the net. Italy did not seem content with a 1-0 scoreline. As for Ukraine, they started playing soccer again. And it nearly paid dividends. They hit the woodwork on two separate occasions and had a close, direct shot before Toni found his scoring touch at the other end. If they had found Shevchenko on those occasions, they might have equalized. I wonder if they might have scored more easily if they hadn't turned off their offense for nearly two games.

England, on the other hand, has never turned its offense on. Sven Goran Eriksson said that reaching the quarter-finals was "not good enough." No kidding. Given the talent that England possesses, being bounced out in the quarter-finals for three successive tournaments has to be inadequate. England is capable of playing elegant, attractive soccer. During Eriksson's tenure, they have apparently decided to bore their opponents to death while waiting for Beckham to score on a set piece. It's a strange choice for a team with so much potential. And talk about strange substitutions. What exactly was Eriksson thinking when he waited until the 118th minute to substitute for a substitute? Aaron Lennon was one of the few bright spots on the pitch. Does he take bad penalty kicks? Put him tenth on the list. Carragher had obviously practiced his "no look" penalty kick; it's too bad he didn't wait for the whistle. If Eriksson wasn't going to play Theo Walcott, why did he pick him for the squad? John Terry was getting cramps. Why not put in experienced Sol Campbell to help a tiring defense and to offer another target for set pieces?

Only a few of their players seem to rage against this machine of Eriksson's sleep walking soccer. Wayne Rooney is one of them. But he showed us the dark side of his passion. Regardless of what might have happened, Rooney needs to show more composure in these circumstances. England already knows who will take the helm of this team. Hopefully, Steve McLaren will tap into his players' natural skills, rather than suppress them only to lose in penalty kicks. What isn't clear is who will take the helm on the pitch. Watching Beckham limp off the pitch, while Gerrard yelled at teammates for missed assignments and Terry organized them in the back, made everyone wonder about the captaincy.

Portugese manager Scolari has a twelve game winning streak in The World Cup. He has managed to send England home in the last three major tournaments. It's an impressive streak. But what I find most disconcerting about Scolari's impact on his teams is the dirty tactics. Let's not forget that the Scolari-led 2002 Brazil team featured Rivaldo's distasteful cheating tactic. Brazil plays a very clean, fair brand of soccer, often resulting in the fair play award (even though they play so many games). It was shocking to see Rivaldo act in this way and even more shocking to hear him admit he cheated. Scolari defended Rivaldo's action. On this occasion, several Portugese players are engaged in time wasting, diving, injury faking, and who knows what Cristiano Ronaldo said or did during Rooney's red card episode. Ronaldo apparently winked at the Portugese bench after Rooney was ejected. Ronaldo went on to lecture Peter Crouch when one of his Portugese teammates was clearly faking. It's great to see that someone of Christiano Ronaldo's talents is using his time in the Premier League to "learn" about his English club teammates. Given the number of players, and the number of incidents, one has to believe this is part of Scolari's tactics. Marcelo Balboa sadly (and repeatedly) believes that such cheating is part of the game, but does Scolari not believe Portugal can simply play great soccer? He has a great winning streak in The World Cup, but I think it comes with an asterisk.

I chose a French word for the title of this entry to honor Zidane. I eat my words yet again for suggesting that maybe the French would be better off without him in the lineup--and I'm glad to do so. It was fantastic to seeing him play with such joy, skill and passion. Was Brazil simply overwhelmed? On more than one occasion, Zidane weaved his way through stunned Brazilian players, but Brazil also didn't come to play. For the entire World Cup. Perhaps the selfishness they displayed in their match against Ghana was evidence of a lack of teamplay. I don't think the 4-5-1 formation helped matters either. While he leaves with the all-time scoring record, Ronaldo certainly hasn't been working hard up front. Once Brazil fell behind (and how could Henry rush forward completely unmarked?), we saw Adriano and Robinho, which changed matters. There was finally urgency but, again, it was basically driven by individual initiative, rather than cohesive teamwork.

If we're praising Zidane for his individual inspiration that led to great teamwork, it's time to admit something that few are saying at this point:

Ronaldinho was the biggest disappointment of the 2006 World Cup.

Zidane's prime performance was eight years ago (or perhaps over the next two games?) and it's been three years since he was chosen World Player of the Year. Ronaldinho is coming off back to back recognition of this pinnacle of individual accomplishment, and a Champions League title with Barcelona. If anyone should have matched Zidane's brilliance, it was Ronaldinho. Perhaps when Zidane was sitting on the bench during France's final first round match, he realized how few opportunities even someone of his considerable gifts would experience. It would take a meteor strike for Brazil to miss the 2010 World Cup. So Ronaldinho should get another chance, and hopefully he will fully embrace the idea that he should bring his best game to The World Cup.

For all the tactics, clean and dirty, that managers bring to their teams, it's important to realize that the players must win the matches by simply playing soccer--and that's when the game is its most beautiful.