As I'm watching the thoroughly enjoyable Brazil v. Ghana match, ESPN's halftime show reminded me of the one of the most unpleasant, distasteful aspects of soccer--the displays of racism. While there are unfortunate, indefensible signs of racism from the fans, they showed a TV clip of Spanish manager, Aragones, referring to France's Thierry Henry as a "black piece of s**t." I've been really admiring Spanish football, but this is inexcusable. Aragones claims he was simply using whatever tools or methods necessary to motivate his players. Maybe Aragones think's it would be OK to place a burning cross in the middle of the pitch? The Spanish football federation responded by fining him about four thousand dollars. Big deal.
I've talked about soccer being great escapism, but when winning soccer games becomes more important than respecting human beings, we have a serious problem.
After being critical of Ukraine's playing style, I now see that there's a much more serious concern about their manager, Blokhin. Here's a quote from an article in the PalmBeachPost.com:
In Ukraine, national-team coach Oleg Blokhin told reporters that his countrymen should stay in their national league so younger players could learn from them "and not some zumba-bumba whom they took off a tree, gave two bananas and now he plays in the Ukrainian league." No apology followed. One South African paper said Blokhin "has the politics of a mentally ill T-Rex."
This comment is simply unbelievable and reprehensible, especially from someone who's team is playing anti-soccer. As far as I can tell, there hasn't been a problem with the fans during The World Cup. But if FIFA won't discipline managers for this type of behavior, how can they claim to take this problem seriously?
Go ahead and criticize US soccer style or its parochial sports, but I'm glad to note that there's no way a US coach or player would get away with saying such things.
Showing posts with label ghana. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ghana. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Friday, June 23, 2006
The More Things Change, The More They Stay the Same
For the round of sixteen, we have ten teams from Europe, three from South America, one from CONCACAF, one from Oceania and one from Africa. No team from Oceania had previously advanced to the second round, but Australia's an outlier in more ways than one. With their move into the Asian confederation, one wonders what will become of Oceania. Having a team from Africa in the knockout phase is becoming a trend, but most people wouldn't have expected Ghana to advance from Group E. Both the United States and Trinidad and Tobago had a sliver of hope on the final day, but Mexico alone represents CONCACAF. Everyone expected Brazil and Argentina to advance, but Ecuador surprised quite a few people. Asia, after having the co-hosts advance in 2002, is the only confederation watching the rest of tournament from the sidelines. There's been much said about the effects of playing on European soil, and perhaps with good reason.
Will there be any surprises in the next round?
My best pick for an upset is Ecuador. They played very well against Costa Rica and Poland, but didn't show up against Germany (resting players in the process). England is a different team when Wayne Rooney plays, but their defense was shaky against the Swedes. The game I am most eager to watch is Brazil v. Ghana. And, with all due respect, the game I am least eager to watch is Switzerland v. Ukraine. For what it's worth, here are my picks for the quarter-finals:
Germany, Argentina, Ecuador, Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland, Brazil, and Spain.
Let the madness continue.
Will there be any surprises in the next round?
My best pick for an upset is Ecuador. They played very well against Costa Rica and Poland, but didn't show up against Germany (resting players in the process). England is a different team when Wayne Rooney plays, but their defense was shaky against the Swedes. The game I am most eager to watch is Brazil v. Ghana. And, with all due respect, the game I am least eager to watch is Switzerland v. Ukraine. For what it's worth, here are my picks for the quarter-finals:
Germany, Argentina, Ecuador, Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland, Brazil, and Spain.
Let the madness continue.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Group E Finales
Let's hail Pavel Nedved. He is a gifted player, who came out of international retirement to help the Czech Republic qualify. When he gets bumped, he keeps trying to play, rather than offer Razzie quality acting and diving. And one of my friends pointed out that he has the best hair on the pitch since Carlos Valderrama. Today, he played with a passion and persistence that was inspiring. Milan Baros did
his best to energize the proceedings, but his timing was understandably off, and he eventually ran out of gas. If ESPN's (screen hogging) lineup graphic was correct, Rosicky was playing as striker in a 4-4-2 formation. Whether he was supposed to be in the midfield or up front, he was a ghost during the game. This was the same man who wreaked havoc on the US, and scored those two magnificent goals?
As for the rest of Czechs, they kept their game in check. It was disappointing to see Nedved work so hard, with his teammates as spectators. Even if they didn't feel the desire, couldn't they have respected his drive and determination? Nedved provided opportunities, had the best shots on goal and, in the 93rd minute, two goals down, still chased after a ball. After the game, he laid down on the pitch, exhausted. It seemed that every Italian player wanted to acknowledge him. I am sorry to see him leave the World stage.
For every goodbye to familiar figures, we have opportunities for hellos to newcomers. Ghana, in its first World Cup, advances into the secound round, keeping alive Africa's streak since 1990. Even without the two goal scorers from the victory over the Czech Republic, they found the net twice. On their first goal, I do not understand why Keller did not rush off his line. There were three US players heading into the box to cover possible passes, and Keller's stance gave Draman ample opportunity to slow down, collect himself, pick his spot and drill the ball past Keller. The penalty call against Onyewu was a harsh assessment. Onyewu has a problematic tendency to defend with his hands, but on this occasion he went out of his way to refrain from doing so. He was also unfortunate with his header, which barely missed the net. It was sad to see Claudio Reyna hobbling off the field from an injury caused by being dispossessed just prior to the first goal. He was obviously in pain, yet he tried to keep playing. Eddie Lewis joined the Brian McBride "grit club" by getting cut, getting treated, and getting back on the pitch. Several US players showed a great deal of character in the face of adversity.
Which is more than I say for Bruce Arena. He is absolutely correct that the penalty call was dubious, and it greatly influenced the game. For better or worse, the referee's bad calls or missed calls is a part of soccer. Other managers get upset with bad calls, or bad fortunes, but they seem to recover and urge their players to move on. Arena seems to assume that if the game had remained 1-1, the US would have won. Maybe so. But instead of dwelling on this, he should have been urging the US players onward, and dealing with reality. At the press conference after the game, he was still talking about the penalty. I didn't see the entire press conference, but I sincerely hope he recognized the efforts of his players, and applauded them for picking themselves up repeatedly. Perhaps it's time to look beyond US borders for a manager, someone who might bring out the best in this team and remain positive in adversity. I'm sure someone would relish the challenge of taking the US team to new heights. It's too bad Guus Hiddink has committed to coach Russia.
As for Ghana, they deserve great recognition for an impressive accomplishment. Apparently, Ghanians admire Brazilian soccer. They'll have a close-up opportunity to admire Brazil's offensive firepower. Ghana's keeper still looks suspect to me. He looked completely frozen during Dempsey's goal. If McBride had managed to direct his header a few inches to the right, he would have beaten Kingson on the near post. I could have sworn Kingson dived well after the ball banged off the post. Essien's second yellow card will be costly. While he has been called on for offensive duties, his defensive midfield skills will be missed even more. Gyan and Muntari return from suspension, which should provide more offensive options, but it's a rare team that can outscore Brazil.
his best to energize the proceedings, but his timing was understandably off, and he eventually ran out of gas. If ESPN's (screen hogging) lineup graphic was correct, Rosicky was playing as striker in a 4-4-2 formation. Whether he was supposed to be in the midfield or up front, he was a ghost during the game. This was the same man who wreaked havoc on the US, and scored those two magnificent goals?
As for the rest of Czechs, they kept their game in check. It was disappointing to see Nedved work so hard, with his teammates as spectators. Even if they didn't feel the desire, couldn't they have respected his drive and determination? Nedved provided opportunities, had the best shots on goal and, in the 93rd minute, two goals down, still chased after a ball. After the game, he laid down on the pitch, exhausted. It seemed that every Italian player wanted to acknowledge him. I am sorry to see him leave the World stage.
For every goodbye to familiar figures, we have opportunities for hellos to newcomers. Ghana, in its first World Cup, advances into the secound round, keeping alive Africa's streak since 1990. Even without the two goal scorers from the victory over the Czech Republic, they found the net twice. On their first goal, I do not understand why Keller did not rush off his line. There were three US players heading into the box to cover possible passes, and Keller's stance gave Draman ample opportunity to slow down, collect himself, pick his spot and drill the ball past Keller. The penalty call against Onyewu was a harsh assessment. Onyewu has a problematic tendency to defend with his hands, but on this occasion he went out of his way to refrain from doing so. He was also unfortunate with his header, which barely missed the net. It was sad to see Claudio Reyna hobbling off the field from an injury caused by being dispossessed just prior to the first goal. He was obviously in pain, yet he tried to keep playing. Eddie Lewis joined the Brian McBride "grit club" by getting cut, getting treated, and getting back on the pitch. Several US players showed a great deal of character in the face of adversity.
Which is more than I say for Bruce Arena. He is absolutely correct that the penalty call was dubious, and it greatly influenced the game. For better or worse, the referee's bad calls or missed calls is a part of soccer. Other managers get upset with bad calls, or bad fortunes, but they seem to recover and urge their players to move on. Arena seems to assume that if the game had remained 1-1, the US would have won. Maybe so. But instead of dwelling on this, he should have been urging the US players onward, and dealing with reality. At the press conference after the game, he was still talking about the penalty. I didn't see the entire press conference, but I sincerely hope he recognized the efforts of his players, and applauded them for picking themselves up repeatedly. Perhaps it's time to look beyond US borders for a manager, someone who might bring out the best in this team and remain positive in adversity. I'm sure someone would relish the challenge of taking the US team to new heights. It's too bad Guus Hiddink has committed to coach Russia.
As for Ghana, they deserve great recognition for an impressive accomplishment. Apparently, Ghanians admire Brazilian soccer. They'll have a close-up opportunity to admire Brazil's offensive firepower. Ghana's keeper still looks suspect to me. He looked completely frozen during Dempsey's goal. If McBride had managed to direct his header a few inches to the right, he would have beaten Kingson on the near post. I could have sworn Kingson dived well after the ball banged off the post. Essien's second yellow card will be costly. While he has been called on for offensive duties, his defensive midfield skills will be missed even more. Gyan and Muntari return from suspension, which should provide more offensive options, but it's a rare team that can outscore Brazil.
David Brooks Weighs in on The World Cup
In his New York Times Op-Ed piece today, David Brooks lets us know that he's keeping an eye on The World Cup. He states:
"Going into today's World Cup match against Ghana, no American player has managed to put a ball into the back of the net, but the U.S. team does lead the world in one vital category: college degrees."
Brooks points out that most (not all?) of the US team's players have attended college whereas most of the elite players in the rest of the world are sent to soccer clubs when they are kids. This is true, and I'm sure that there are many kids who showed promise as youngsters, but didn't make it into the elite clubs or national teams. Without an education, it's disconcerting to imagine what happens to these kids. Brooks goes on to point out the prowess of the US educational systems, and how US college sports bring together communities, provide a nexus for social and intellectual activities, and act as engines of productivity for the economy. Implicitly, no explicitly, he asserts that the US has consciously chosen to accentuate the educational system which, therefore, means that our brightest soccer talent remains unfulfilled (and, as he points out, unable to find the back of the net in The World Cup).
Hard to argue with his line of reasoning, right? Of course, Brooks doesn't ask the question of how would our college educated national team players react if they had a chance to join the elite club team academies? Would they choose college over the (slim) chance of being a soccer superstar? I mean, the US would never compromise a child's education in an effort to bolster his or her soccer prospects. Oh, you might want to check out DC United's page on Freddie Adu, bragging about how young he was when he started for them. To his, and his parents', credit, he plays for DC United because it's the closest team to home, and he continues to participate in the US educational system. But I wonder what would have happened if DC United had a professional soccer academy.
Brooks also provides a utopian picture of collegiate athletics, mentioning that love of a college athletics breaks down social barriers and builds a sense of community. I'm sure the poor and disenfranchised tailgate with the rich and powerful. My aunt lived a university college town for a few years. She told me about a conversation with an ardent (US college) football fan who said that when she saw a black person, she assumed he was a football player or "just passing through." Heartwarming. Brooks conveniently forgets the dark side of college athletics, including corruption and violence.
While soccer may be an obsession, even religion, for much of the world, this is certainly not the case in the US. Brooks' piece provides evidence of an obsession in the US: money. It is sad that he believes one of the successful metrics for education is contribution to the economy. How about creating critical, independent thinkers? The reality of the situation is that soccer is a secondary consideration in the US for two reasons: the US team is not very good, and there isn't big money in the sport. This is a chicken and egg situation in that the US team won't be very good until there's more money, and there won't be more money until the US team is very good. But I can assure you this: if the US poured money into soccer the way it does for baseball, US football, and basketball, the US would have a damn good team. This might happen if the US tires of being defensive about having a good, but far from dominant, team. And college soccer world would become as competitive as the college football and basketball world, with all the unfortunate influences that the relentless pursuit of profit maximation brings.
Like when a prominent newspaper of record charges people for access to "select" online articles.
"Going into today's World Cup match against Ghana, no American player has managed to put a ball into the back of the net, but the U.S. team does lead the world in one vital category: college degrees."
Brooks points out that most (not all?) of the US team's players have attended college whereas most of the elite players in the rest of the world are sent to soccer clubs when they are kids. This is true, and I'm sure that there are many kids who showed promise as youngsters, but didn't make it into the elite clubs or national teams. Without an education, it's disconcerting to imagine what happens to these kids. Brooks goes on to point out the prowess of the US educational systems, and how US college sports bring together communities, provide a nexus for social and intellectual activities, and act as engines of productivity for the economy. Implicitly, no explicitly, he asserts that the US has consciously chosen to accentuate the educational system which, therefore, means that our brightest soccer talent remains unfulfilled (and, as he points out, unable to find the back of the net in The World Cup).
Hard to argue with his line of reasoning, right? Of course, Brooks doesn't ask the question of how would our college educated national team players react if they had a chance to join the elite club team academies? Would they choose college over the (slim) chance of being a soccer superstar? I mean, the US would never compromise a child's education in an effort to bolster his or her soccer prospects. Oh, you might want to check out DC United's page on Freddie Adu, bragging about how young he was when he started for them. To his, and his parents', credit, he plays for DC United because it's the closest team to home, and he continues to participate in the US educational system. But I wonder what would have happened if DC United had a professional soccer academy.
Brooks also provides a utopian picture of collegiate athletics, mentioning that love of a college athletics breaks down social barriers and builds a sense of community. I'm sure the poor and disenfranchised tailgate with the rich and powerful. My aunt lived a university college town for a few years. She told me about a conversation with an ardent (US college) football fan who said that when she saw a black person, she assumed he was a football player or "just passing through." Heartwarming. Brooks conveniently forgets the dark side of college athletics, including corruption and violence.
While soccer may be an obsession, even religion, for much of the world, this is certainly not the case in the US. Brooks' piece provides evidence of an obsession in the US: money. It is sad that he believes one of the successful metrics for education is contribution to the economy. How about creating critical, independent thinkers? The reality of the situation is that soccer is a secondary consideration in the US for two reasons: the US team is not very good, and there isn't big money in the sport. This is a chicken and egg situation in that the US team won't be very good until there's more money, and there won't be more money until the US team is very good. But I can assure you this: if the US poured money into soccer the way it does for baseball, US football, and basketball, the US would have a damn good team. This might happen if the US tires of being defensive about having a good, but far from dominant, team. And college soccer world would become as competitive as the college football and basketball world, with all the unfortunate influences that the relentless pursuit of profit maximation brings.
Like when a prominent newspaper of record charges people for access to "select" online articles.
Monday, June 12, 2006
Day Four
In Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond provides interesting evidence and arguments regarding the impact of geography on a matter no less important than the fate of civilizations. On a less important scale (well, at least to some people ;-) Australia's place on the globe has haunted them for World Cup qualification. As part of Oceania, they have been asked to win their region, and then meet the fifth place qualifier from South America in a playoff game. Until the 2006 World Cup, they had lost this playoff game. They have argued that a region winner should automatically qualify. Seems reasonable. But when one of the results from this region is Australia 31, American Samoa 0 (or was it 32-0? Apparently, the scorekeeper lost track of the score), one has to wonder about the relatively quality of the region. South Americans, of course, argued that Australia simply needed to beat their fifth place qualifier. It's my understanding that Australia will now qualify in Asia, ostensibly because they believe this arrangement will result in their qualification on a more regular basis. Is Australia seeking soccer justice? Or are they acting with a sense of entitlement?
This backdrop provided some interesting context for their match with Japan, a team coached by legendary Brazilian striker, Zico. On the other bench, Guus Hiddink hoped to continue his winning ways in The World Cup. Zico has encouraged Japanese players to be more creative, more confident, more free-flowing, more...Brazilian. Some Japanese players, including star Nakata, have questioned this approach. It would be great if more teams played like Brazil, but few teams can even come close to the talent level of Brazil. Hiddink, on the other hand, seems to manage to a team's strengths. When the Dutch complained about Australian rough play following a recent friendly, he declared that everyone should realize soccer is a man's game. This might resonate with the Socceroos, but I wonder what women's soccer teams thought of his comment.
So when the first goal came as a result of some pushing and shoving--and a really bad read by Australian keeper, Schwarzer--it seemed that if you live by physical play, you might die by physical play. It was especially odd because goalies often bowl over players in their efforts to reach the ball. If Schwarzer had aggressively punched the ball, and the Japanese player, I doubt the ref would have called a foul. Unfortunately, this referee didn't seem to follow a consistent pattern with calling fouls. He had too much of an impact on the game, which is always a problem for a referee.
For nearly the rest of the game, the Japanese looked to be in control, and the Australians looked increasingly frustrated. But things can change so quickly in soccer--especially with crafty intervention from a manager. The Japanese had their chances to put in another goal, without pushing and shoving, but they failed to do so. You have to admire Hiddink's willingness to throw caution to the wind with his substitutions. Soccer is also a game of adjustments. And with the three substitutions, two of whom who scored three goals in eight minutes, Hiddink showed everyone why his stock as a manager continues to soar.
Did the Australians prove that they belong in The World Cup? Yes. Did they prove that they are one of the premier teams? I think the jury is still out on that one.
At the other end of the managerial spectrum, Bruce Arena didn't make a lot of friends with his decisions before, during or after the ass kicking that the US experienced at the hands of the Czech Republic. I really wish that the US commentators, press, etc. would just stop making predictions or claims about the US team. When the US team faced no pressure or expectations in 1994 and 2002, they performed well. In 1998, with higher expectations, they collapsed. This team looked confused and befuddled; the Czechs outclassed them in every aspect of the game. Eddie Johnson showed that playing with energy can make a difference, but Arena's willingness to hang out to dry certain players is a curious choice. I know he's trying to get them pumped up. But he made the decision to play the 4-5-1, and to put DeMarcus Beasley on the right side--both moves that proved ineffective. During the game, he didn't do much of anything to get this team out of its funk. And, afterwards, he talked about how the players didn't rise to the occasion. They didn't. But is this the best approach as they prepare for the Italians? Does Arena bear any responsibility for what happened?
It's difficult for casual soccer fans in the US to understand that building soccer capacity takes time. The US could become one of the teams to watch on a regular basis, but almost certainly won't dominate the sport. It's not as if the US doesn't have the athletes--imagine if Deion Sanders had chosen to play soccer. But he didn't. He, like so many other athletes, played a sport with big money. As long as this remains true, the US will have to be content with being one of the good teams. It is the proverbial chicken and egg. It will probably take a World Cup victory for people in the US to really care (i.e., put up the $$$), but it takes $$$ to create the right conditions to win The World Cup. Did I just admit that soccer is actually about money? Speaking of money...
The Italian team is surrounded by controversy. A match fixing scandal has gripped the nation, and created massive distractions for the Azzuri. It didn't seem to matter. This team had a different feel than previous offerings from Italy. It's still strange not to see Paolo Maldini in the back line. And it was even stranger to see so many offensive options for the Italians. It's not as if the Italians haven't had their fare share of great strikers; it's just that they seem to feature them one at a time during The World Cup. Not so on this occasion. It was encouraging to see the Italians making sincere efforts to extend their 1-0 lead.
Ghana held its own for much of the match. Their bookends seem to be the concern. Their keeper, Kingston, actually had a good overall game, but he looked really lost on several corner kicks or crosses into the box. Their defense also looked shaky on several occasions. If Jan Koller recovers from his injury during the US game, imagine what he might do against Ghana. They also suffered from a lack of finishing or firepower from their forwards. On too many occasions, their midfield would admirably gain possession, move it through the Italian midfield only to take long shots, or pass to strikers who didn't complete the task. Nonetheless, it was their first World Cup game, and they certainly shouldn't feel embarrassed by their effort. They lost to a very good Italian team.
It's worth noting that the second place team from this group will face the winner from Group F in the second round. That would be the group with Brazil.
This backdrop provided some interesting context for their match with Japan, a team coached by legendary Brazilian striker, Zico. On the other bench, Guus Hiddink hoped to continue his winning ways in The World Cup. Zico has encouraged Japanese players to be more creative, more confident, more free-flowing, more...Brazilian. Some Japanese players, including star Nakata, have questioned this approach. It would be great if more teams played like Brazil, but few teams can even come close to the talent level of Brazil. Hiddink, on the other hand, seems to manage to a team's strengths. When the Dutch complained about Australian rough play following a recent friendly, he declared that everyone should realize soccer is a man's game. This might resonate with the Socceroos, but I wonder what women's soccer teams thought of his comment.
So when the first goal came as a result of some pushing and shoving--and a really bad read by Australian keeper, Schwarzer--it seemed that if you live by physical play, you might die by physical play. It was especially odd because goalies often bowl over players in their efforts to reach the ball. If Schwarzer had aggressively punched the ball, and the Japanese player, I doubt the ref would have called a foul. Unfortunately, this referee didn't seem to follow a consistent pattern with calling fouls. He had too much of an impact on the game, which is always a problem for a referee.
For nearly the rest of the game, the Japanese looked to be in control, and the Australians looked increasingly frustrated. But things can change so quickly in soccer--especially with crafty intervention from a manager. The Japanese had their chances to put in another goal, without pushing and shoving, but they failed to do so. You have to admire Hiddink's willingness to throw caution to the wind with his substitutions. Soccer is also a game of adjustments. And with the three substitutions, two of whom who scored three goals in eight minutes, Hiddink showed everyone why his stock as a manager continues to soar.
Did the Australians prove that they belong in The World Cup? Yes. Did they prove that they are one of the premier teams? I think the jury is still out on that one.
At the other end of the managerial spectrum, Bruce Arena didn't make a lot of friends with his decisions before, during or after the ass kicking that the US experienced at the hands of the Czech Republic. I really wish that the US commentators, press, etc. would just stop making predictions or claims about the US team. When the US team faced no pressure or expectations in 1994 and 2002, they performed well. In 1998, with higher expectations, they collapsed. This team looked confused and befuddled; the Czechs outclassed them in every aspect of the game. Eddie Johnson showed that playing with energy can make a difference, but Arena's willingness to hang out to dry certain players is a curious choice. I know he's trying to get them pumped up. But he made the decision to play the 4-5-1, and to put DeMarcus Beasley on the right side--both moves that proved ineffective. During the game, he didn't do much of anything to get this team out of its funk. And, afterwards, he talked about how the players didn't rise to the occasion. They didn't. But is this the best approach as they prepare for the Italians? Does Arena bear any responsibility for what happened?
It's difficult for casual soccer fans in the US to understand that building soccer capacity takes time. The US could become one of the teams to watch on a regular basis, but almost certainly won't dominate the sport. It's not as if the US doesn't have the athletes--imagine if Deion Sanders had chosen to play soccer. But he didn't. He, like so many other athletes, played a sport with big money. As long as this remains true, the US will have to be content with being one of the good teams. It is the proverbial chicken and egg. It will probably take a World Cup victory for people in the US to really care (i.e., put up the $$$), but it takes $$$ to create the right conditions to win The World Cup. Did I just admit that soccer is actually about money? Speaking of money...
The Italian team is surrounded by controversy. A match fixing scandal has gripped the nation, and created massive distractions for the Azzuri. It didn't seem to matter. This team had a different feel than previous offerings from Italy. It's still strange not to see Paolo Maldini in the back line. And it was even stranger to see so many offensive options for the Italians. It's not as if the Italians haven't had their fare share of great strikers; it's just that they seem to feature them one at a time during The World Cup. Not so on this occasion. It was encouraging to see the Italians making sincere efforts to extend their 1-0 lead.
Ghana held its own for much of the match. Their bookends seem to be the concern. Their keeper, Kingston, actually had a good overall game, but he looked really lost on several corner kicks or crosses into the box. Their defense also looked shaky on several occasions. If Jan Koller recovers from his injury during the US game, imagine what he might do against Ghana. They also suffered from a lack of finishing or firepower from their forwards. On too many occasions, their midfield would admirably gain possession, move it through the Italian midfield only to take long shots, or pass to strikers who didn't complete the task. Nonetheless, it was their first World Cup game, and they certainly shouldn't feel embarrassed by their effort. They lost to a very good Italian team.
It's worth noting that the second place team from this group will face the winner from Group F in the second round. That would be the group with Brazil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
