I waited to write this final post about the 2006 World Cup until I had a chance to meet with Professor P. M. Forni at Johns Hopkins University. Professor Forni has become a leading authority on the topic of civility. I submitted to him that this World Cup, more than any before it, was defined by the issue of civility.
France played cautiously versus Portugal in their semi-final encounter. Perhaps they were saving energy; perhaps they were aware that Portugal would spend more effort diving, faking injuries and acting rather than trying to score an equalizer. By this point, it seemed, the referees were all too familiar with Portugese antics. Scolari only sealed Portugal's place from as the least civil team when he chose to berate the referees at the end of the match, rather than focus on his players, the other players, the fans...No moment defined Portugal's "performance" more than one of Christiano Ronaldo's dives during this game. At the edge of the box, he launched himself into one of his numerous dives. Anyone who's played soccer knows that if you're really tripped, your first thoughts rest upon getting your bearings, putting your hands out, bracing yourself, etc. Since Ronaldo initiated his own fall, he had the opportunity to stare longingly at the referee, appealing for a foul or penalty even before he hit the ground.
His dive may have appeared swanlike, but it definitely reflected an ugly duckling.
He has some interesting times ahead. Let's hope he concentrates his efforts on bolstering his considerable gifts as a soccer player and not taking lessons to augment his less than considerable acting skills.
As Portugal continued its uncivil ways in the third-fourth place match against Germany, France played more passionately during the final with Italy. Materazzi did not deserve to be penalized in the box, and Zidane's cheeky spot kick nearly cost him. These two men would become intertwined in a most memorable--and unfortunate--way. France did play better overall, and while Italy had its opportunities, they did resort to the defensive-minded play of previous days. But all of these considerations would be lost for a few minutes of madness.
I was watching the finals in London at a student cafeteria at Imperial College in London. Everyone in the room gasped and then fell into silence as we watched Zidane head butt Materazzi. Even now, we do not know what Materazzi said, but we know that Zidane reacted in a most inappropriate manner.
Zidane has apologized--sort of. While he stated that he was sorry for the children who witnessed his act, he went to assert that if he hadn't acted in this manner, whatever Materazzi said would have been validated. So much for turning the other cheek. Materazzi, even if he did not use the vile type of insult insinuated by Zidane's statements, certainly tried to inflame him. Materazzi has apparently been involved in similar incidents before.
Perhaps even more bizarre than the incident itself is the fact that Zidane won the Golden Ball award (FIFA needs to let people vote until the day after the finals), and that the French have applauded and celebrated him. It's understandable that they wish to honor his legendary career, but it almost seems as if they're saying it's OK to head butt someone as long as you're an exceptional soccer player. When David Beckham received his red card in the 1998 World Cup, even Manchester United fans gave him a hard time (at least for a brief time). Soccer laurels--individual, club, and national--may be enough for the French to forgive Zidane, but they are obviously insufficient to exorcise Zidane's inner demons.
In a fundamental way, this head butt incident reflects the 2006 World Cup. Zidane played so elegantly at times, reminded us of greater glory days of soccer, but he also showed the very nasty side of soccer. With so much at stake, it's perhaps surprising that we don't see even more uncivil behavior.
Franz Beckenbauer has called for a summit to identify ways to remedy the diving, shirt tugging, injury faking, name calling, head butting, and racism that is present in soccer. And there's good reason to do so beyond generating more goals. But it's worth noting that the fans try to introduce their own brand of judgment. Christiano Ronaldo was booed passionately each time he touched the ball in latter games. The fans whistle and jeer when teams play negatively, and criticize managers adopt defensive tactics. It seems that at least some fans still expect a beautiful game, played with a gentleman's code of conduct.
And then there are the Germans. The Italians are probably still celebrating in the eternal city, but the Germans were the real winners during this World Cup. They proved to be the best examples of civility, both on and off the pitch.
Showing posts with label portugal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label portugal. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Sunday, July 02, 2006
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
And Then There Were Eight
Brazil and France joined Germany, Argentina, Ukraine, Italy, England and Portugal in the quarter-finals. Six European teams, and the traditional two powerhouse South Americans. Ronaldo made history becoming the all-time leading scorer in World Cup history. And he has at least one game remaining. His goal was classic jogo bonito, but the rest of Brazil's performance was, well, Italian. They played like a team that wanted to win more than they wanted to play beautiful soccer. Who could blame them?
At one point, it seemed that Brazilian fans could. It was wonderful to see them clap for Asamoah Gyan following one of his shots, shortly before he was given a second yellow card for diving. It's worth noting that both referees today managed to avoid becoming the focus of attention--for the most part. Ghana deserve tremendous credit for their performance. I had questioned keeper Kingson earlier, but if it hadn't been for him, Brazil would have won 6-0. Ghana played jogo bonito throughout the tournament, and out-Braziled Brazil for much of the match. They delighted the crowds and played the role of surprise team to perfect effect. Hopefully, we'll enjoy their performance in 2010 as well. It's hard to criticize Brazil, but it was shocking to see Adriano, Roberto Carlos and Cafu take ineffective shots when a simple pass to a teammate would have resulted in a sure goal. The margin for error--and selfishness--diminishes with each match.
Vive La France. They, and Zidane in particular, offered an inspiring performance against Spain. A few days ago, I speculated that France might be better without Zidane because they were asking too much of him. So much for my soccer foresight. He was instrumental in the victory, even finding the net in stoppage time. I will note that he should have been fresher than other players because he missed a match, but perhaps I'm splitting hairs. I hope he plays with the same passion and energy against Brazil.
Unfortunately, Spanish manager Aragones and French striker Henry were part of the storyline even before the match started. It's unfortunate because of Aragones asinine comment during a Spanish practice session when he referred to Henry as a "black piece of s**t." I think it would have been poetic justice if Henry had scored the winning goal. He had a part in it, but not in an elegant manner. Watching the replay, I have to say that I don't think Puyol fouled Henry. Puyol said as much, complained about the call, regretted the second goal, but then offered the following quote:
"It hurts to lose this way, because I think we deserved more and we were playing a great game. But that's football. We now have to recover and think ahead to the next tournament."
Wise advice for those who are still bemoaning their favorite team's departure because of a bad call. Puyol obviously had the ability to put matters into perspective. It was really encouraging to see Spanish players greeting, congratulating and exchanging jerseys with French players without hesitation or bias. Soccer players sometimes know better than their managers.
I'm willing to eat my words and admit that I was wrong about Zidane. On a much more serious note, I hope Aragones is willing to do the same about Henry.
At one point, it seemed that Brazilian fans could. It was wonderful to see them clap for Asamoah Gyan following one of his shots, shortly before he was given a second yellow card for diving. It's worth noting that both referees today managed to avoid becoming the focus of attention--for the most part. Ghana deserve tremendous credit for their performance. I had questioned keeper Kingson earlier, but if it hadn't been for him, Brazil would have won 6-0. Ghana played jogo bonito throughout the tournament, and out-Braziled Brazil for much of the match. They delighted the crowds and played the role of surprise team to perfect effect. Hopefully, we'll enjoy their performance in 2010 as well. It's hard to criticize Brazil, but it was shocking to see Adriano, Roberto Carlos and Cafu take ineffective shots when a simple pass to a teammate would have resulted in a sure goal. The margin for error--and selfishness--diminishes with each match.
Vive La France. They, and Zidane in particular, offered an inspiring performance against Spain. A few days ago, I speculated that France might be better without Zidane because they were asking too much of him. So much for my soccer foresight. He was instrumental in the victory, even finding the net in stoppage time. I will note that he should have been fresher than other players because he missed a match, but perhaps I'm splitting hairs. I hope he plays with the same passion and energy against Brazil.
Unfortunately, Spanish manager Aragones and French striker Henry were part of the storyline even before the match started. It's unfortunate because of Aragones asinine comment during a Spanish practice session when he referred to Henry as a "black piece of s**t." I think it would have been poetic justice if Henry had scored the winning goal. He had a part in it, but not in an elegant manner. Watching the replay, I have to say that I don't think Puyol fouled Henry. Puyol said as much, complained about the call, regretted the second goal, but then offered the following quote:
"It hurts to lose this way, because I think we deserved more and we were playing a great game. But that's football. We now have to recover and think ahead to the next tournament."
Wise advice for those who are still bemoaning their favorite team's departure because of a bad call. Puyol obviously had the ability to put matters into perspective. It was really encouraging to see Spanish players greeting, congratulating and exchanging jerseys with French players without hesitation or bias. Soccer players sometimes know better than their managers.
I'm willing to eat my words and admit that I was wrong about Zidane. On a much more serious note, I hope Aragones is willing to do the same about Henry.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
An Ugly Day of Soccer
Today's matches provided plenty of ammunition for the soccer detractors throughout the world.
For all the talent that England possesses in its midfield players and strikers, it is amazing how they produce some of the dullest, uninspiring, and numbing soccer. I'm so hard on England because I really like the way they are capable of playing. Individual players such as Cole, Lampard, Gerrard, and certainly Rooney have had their moments, but as a collective, they just aren't performing. Say what you will about David Beckham, but his free kicks have been directly responsible for two England victories, against the two South American teams they have faced. One might argue that it's a high price to pay for keeping him in the lineup if all he does is take charge of set pieces. But given how much England has come to rely upon these set pieces, it seems worth it. Rooney demonstrated that he can play the full 90 minutes, and that he can still cause havoc. I got the feeling that he is beginning to conclude that he has to take matters into his own hands, which is good for England--and bad for its opponents.
Apparently, Ecuador's manager, Luis Suarez, said they were happy to make it past the first round. They certainly played this way. Maybe the offensive flair they displayed against Costa Rica and Poland was possible only against weaker competition. It was conspicuously absent against both Germany and England. The most surprising aspect of their play was a lack of urgency, but not everyone is obsessed with marching through the tournament. They certainly represented their country well.
England and Ecuador may be criticized for playing poorly. As for the Netherlands and Portugal, they should be ashamed for behaving poorly. The Dutch and Portugese teams are amongst the most creative, elegant and talented teams in the world, which made it even more sad to see the WWE debacle during this match. Having watched so many of these players in club and national team matches, I was shocked to see them behave in this manner. World class players were anything but world class. Lost amongst the wrestling, head-butting, kicking and shoving, we witnessed this evening was a fantastic goal by Maniche. It offered such fleeting promise for the match.
I wonder about Van Basten's coaching this evening. Hindsight is always 20/20, but keeping out Van Nistelrooij was a curious decision. He's obviously not the most popular guy around these days, and perhaps he didn't play with tremendous intensity in the first three games. But the Dutch needed one goal to keep alive, and Van Nistelrooij represents a great option for that one special moment. I also think Scolari used the 4-5-1 formation masterfully. The Dutch couldn't find any space in the midfield or Portugese end of the field.
I'm a great admirer of both Dutch and Portugese, but this match was one of the worst displays in World Cup history. It's too bad we can't replace Portugal with Mexico.
And just when we thought the refereeing could not get any worse. How can a referee hand out 101,351 cards and still lose complete control of the match? FIFA has indicated that it will send home referees who perform poorly. I hope Ivanov was sent to the airport right after the match. If FIFA follows through with their plans, who will be left to referee the final matches?
Where are you, Pierluigi Collina :-)
For all the talent that England possesses in its midfield players and strikers, it is amazing how they produce some of the dullest, uninspiring, and numbing soccer. I'm so hard on England because I really like the way they are capable of playing. Individual players such as Cole, Lampard, Gerrard, and certainly Rooney have had their moments, but as a collective, they just aren't performing. Say what you will about David Beckham, but his free kicks have been directly responsible for two England victories, against the two South American teams they have faced. One might argue that it's a high price to pay for keeping him in the lineup if all he does is take charge of set pieces. But given how much England has come to rely upon these set pieces, it seems worth it. Rooney demonstrated that he can play the full 90 minutes, and that he can still cause havoc. I got the feeling that he is beginning to conclude that he has to take matters into his own hands, which is good for England--and bad for its opponents.
Apparently, Ecuador's manager, Luis Suarez, said they were happy to make it past the first round. They certainly played this way. Maybe the offensive flair they displayed against Costa Rica and Poland was possible only against weaker competition. It was conspicuously absent against both Germany and England. The most surprising aspect of their play was a lack of urgency, but not everyone is obsessed with marching through the tournament. They certainly represented their country well.
England and Ecuador may be criticized for playing poorly. As for the Netherlands and Portugal, they should be ashamed for behaving poorly. The Dutch and Portugese teams are amongst the most creative, elegant and talented teams in the world, which made it even more sad to see the WWE debacle during this match. Having watched so many of these players in club and national team matches, I was shocked to see them behave in this manner. World class players were anything but world class. Lost amongst the wrestling, head-butting, kicking and shoving, we witnessed this evening was a fantastic goal by Maniche. It offered such fleeting promise for the match.
I wonder about Van Basten's coaching this evening. Hindsight is always 20/20, but keeping out Van Nistelrooij was a curious decision. He's obviously not the most popular guy around these days, and perhaps he didn't play with tremendous intensity in the first three games. But the Dutch needed one goal to keep alive, and Van Nistelrooij represents a great option for that one special moment. I also think Scolari used the 4-5-1 formation masterfully. The Dutch couldn't find any space in the midfield or Portugese end of the field.
I'm a great admirer of both Dutch and Portugese, but this match was one of the worst displays in World Cup history. It's too bad we can't replace Portugal with Mexico.
And just when we thought the refereeing could not get any worse. How can a referee hand out 101,351 cards and still lose complete control of the match? FIFA has indicated that it will send home referees who perform poorly. I hope Ivanov was sent to the airport right after the match. If FIFA follows through with their plans, who will be left to referee the final matches?
Where are you, Pierluigi Collina :-)
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Group C Finales
I am really sorry that we won't get to see the Ivory Coast play in the next round. Even without Drogba, they offered up some impressive soccer against Serbia and Montenegro. Anyone watching the second half realized that it wasn't a question of if Ivory Coast would score, but a question of how many. It turned out to be just enough. Serbia and Montenegro showed some great finishing skills, and being a man down proved insurmountable for them (though Stankovic's missed header must have tormented their fans). It was refreshing to see Drogba join his teammates for their post-goal celebrations. There was a certain release each time they scored, and a huge sigh of relief when they netted their third goal. This team would have almost certainly advanced to the knockout phase if it had been drawn into another group. This is the last time that Serbia and Montenegro play as a unified team. Given that there were only two players on this team from Montenegro, it may be a sign that we may not hear much from them in soccer circles. Somehow, I don't think this was on their mind when they voted for independence.
Sometimes, great teams neutralize each other when they play, but Argentina and the Netherlands may have been neutralized even before they stepped onto the pitch. Both teams rested players. I would not be surprised if the possession was even, but the Argentinians made the most of their possession, mainly because of Messi and Tevez who had a chance to showcase their skills. Tevez, in particular, did his best impression of the Energizer Bunny. Riquelme did his part, offering several opportunities for others to find the net. Even then, he seemed about fifteen degrees off his best game. There were many, many moments of individual flair and skill, and a few sequences of surgical passing. But these moments only reminded everyone of what these teams are capable of doing. Some might assume that the Netherlands wasn't too picky between facing Portugal or Mexico, but I think this game just shows that both Argentina and the Netherlands are confident they can play with any team. It wouldn't be a shock if these two teams met again--with much higher stakes.
Sometimes, great teams neutralize each other when they play, but Argentina and the Netherlands may have been neutralized even before they stepped onto the pitch. Both teams rested players. I would not be surprised if the possession was even, but the Argentinians made the most of their possession, mainly because of Messi and Tevez who had a chance to showcase their skills. Tevez, in particular, did his best impression of the Energizer Bunny. Riquelme did his part, offering several opportunities for others to find the net. Even then, he seemed about fifteen degrees off his best game. There were many, many moments of individual flair and skill, and a few sequences of surgical passing. But these moments only reminded everyone of what these teams are capable of doing. Some might assume that the Netherlands wasn't too picky between facing Portugal or Mexico, but I think this game just shows that both Argentina and the Netherlands are confident they can play with any team. It wouldn't be a shock if these two teams met again--with much higher stakes.
Group D Finales
Perhaps I'm being unfair, but I didn't sense a joie de football from Angola today. Contrast their performance with Trinidad and Tobago, who also found themselves with unexpected possibilities during the final game. On more than one occasion, Angola's players were yelling at and pointing fingers at each other. Soccer can provide great escapism, but reality, both on and off the pitch, eventually has a way of making its inevitable impact. It couldn't have been easy to rely on Portugal for help, though they did their part for Angola (from a soccer perspective only, I repeat, from a soccer perspective only). Iran has played positive soccer throughout each of its games, and they deserved some reward. Angola didn't reach what must have been initially an unthinkable summit, but they did end up with two points, and their first World Cup goal. I hope they don't mind sharing the points with Iran on this day, who managed to salvage one point. More importantly, they showed that a country's place in the political landscape doesn't have to define its place in the soccer landscape. Can you think of another country for which this might be true?
Portugal and Mexico seemed intent on scoring goals. Even at the end of the match when Portugese manager Scolari was asking his players to hold the ball, they persisted in attacking the Mexican goal. Mexico must have known that their passage into the next round was never really in jeopardy, but even at the end of the match, they wanted more goals. The game featured another missed penalty kick (by a country mile), and a stutter step penalty kick. Not quite the style that Socrates used in the classic Brazil v. France match in 1986 but Simao had a better outcome :-)
In 2002, Mexico looked formidable during the group stage, but lost to the US in the second round. They haven't played as impressively in the current offering and they now face a match with Argentina. It's going to take a special performance from Mexico--or anyone for that matter--to beat Argentina. Portugal advances past the first round for the first since 1966 when the magnificent Eusebio led them to a third place finish. Perhaps Portugal has paced itself, and today they rested five players with yellow cards, but they haven't been pushed yet. I'm sure the Netherlands will offer a serious test.
Portugal and Mexico seemed intent on scoring goals. Even at the end of the match when Portugese manager Scolari was asking his players to hold the ball, they persisted in attacking the Mexican goal. Mexico must have known that their passage into the next round was never really in jeopardy, but even at the end of the match, they wanted more goals. The game featured another missed penalty kick (by a country mile), and a stutter step penalty kick. Not quite the style that Socrates used in the classic Brazil v. France match in 1986 but Simao had a better outcome :-)
In 2002, Mexico looked formidable during the group stage, but lost to the US in the second round. They haven't played as impressively in the current offering and they now face a match with Argentina. It's going to take a special performance from Mexico--or anyone for that matter--to beat Argentina. Portugal advances past the first round for the first since 1966 when the magnificent Eusebio led them to a third place finish. Perhaps Portugal has paced itself, and today they rested five players with yellow cards, but they haven't been pushed yet. I'm sure the Netherlands will offer a serious test.
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Day Three
What did Arjen Robben have for breakfast?
In addition to his excellent skills, he displayed an incredible amount of energy. It didn't matter if he faced one, two, three, or four defenders, he kept charging at them and causing havoc. That had to be the performance of the tournament to date. When the Netherlands is firing on all cylinders, they are a sight to behold. The one curious aspect of their play was their repeated back passes that put Van der Saar into awkward situations. Given that he kept nursing a cramp, was it wise to keep pushing the ball back to him?
They looked better than Argentina on this day. It will be interesting to see what might happen to Argentina if a team inhibits Riquelme. While Robben shined today, there are other Dutch players who can rise to the occasion. How does one close down space on eleven players? Serbia and Montenegro certainly tried, but there were so many occasions the Dutch simply controlled play. Having said this, Serbia and Montenegro also had its moments. I think this is the group of death because each team has shown great skill and ability to control play. Ivory Coast and Serbia and Montenegro showed they can keep their opponents back on their heels. I think there's quite a bit of drama left in this group, perhaps culimating with the Argentina v. Netherlands encounter on June 21st.
I once heard that Marco van Basten preferred playing club soccer to playing for the national team. Perhaps that was true, but maybe one of the most gifted strikers (not just in the Netherlands) has particular insights into how to make the Dutch play as a cohesive, brilliant unit. He seemed fairly reserved as a player, and even more so as a manager. He must have been pleased at the end of this match, but he also looked like someone who knew that the uphill journey had only just begun.
During The World Cup, what transpires outside the soccer stadium sometimes makes more news than what happens inside the stadium. Iran has been the in the news for various political matters, and their President has made insensitive, indefensible comments about the Holocaust. Apparently, the crowd booed the Iranian team as they came onto the pitch. Mexico, on the other hand, had a personal tragedy given that goalkeeper Sanchez's father passed away this week. There was one political aspect to their team as well since there seems to be some controversy about two players who are naturalized citizens.
During The World Cup, what eventually happens inside the soccer stadium sometimes provides relief from what happens outside the stadium. Iranian keeper, Mirzapour, gave Sanchez a bouquet of flowers at the beginning of the game. Zinya, a Brazilian born Mexican, assisted brilliantly on the second goal and, despite being five foot, four inches, rose mightily to head home the third goal. Everyone on the team and every Mexican fan in the stadium cheered.
At the end of the game, Sanchez's teammates surrounded him, joining him in what must have been a bittersweet moment for him. I'm sure he is thrilled with the victory, but I'm also sure he has other things on his mind. The final image from the broadcast was an Iranian player applauding the crowd. Iran played a clean, positive, decent game. It was very encouraging to hear former US players emphasizing that they viewed their 1998 World Cup match with Iran as a game. That, as athletes, they were concerned about what happened on the field. Even as nations rattle sabres, players on the field can exchange gifts or swap jerseys. I do not know how specific Iranian players feel about their President or country's politics. But I do know that they represented themselves well on the pitch. I hope no one booed them on their way out of the stadium.
How do you measure progress?
The last time Portugal and Angola met on the soccer pitch, Portugal won 5-1, but the match was suspended after 68 minutes when a fourth Angolan player was shown the red card. When faced with a force that once dominated them, both on and off the field, it was natural to be nervous and anxious. Angola avoided disaster in the first minute, only to have it return in the fourth minute. At that point, if someone had told me that Portugal would score eight goals, I would have believed it. In another reality, Angola might have buckled and the Portugese goalfest would have commenced. But the Angolan players steadied themselves, and responded well. There was no chance that this group would receive four red cards. Tommy Smyth spoke well when he said "this team knows a little something about soccer..."
Portugal was humiliated by their performance in the 2002 World Cup. They played well in Euro2004, but two losses to Greece left the home crowd disappointed. They won today, albeit with more difficulty than they might have imagined. So three points from the first game is progress.
But the progress for the Angolans was more impressive. It was a courageous performance. If there is honor in defeat, the Angolans can claim it.
In addition to his excellent skills, he displayed an incredible amount of energy. It didn't matter if he faced one, two, three, or four defenders, he kept charging at them and causing havoc. That had to be the performance of the tournament to date. When the Netherlands is firing on all cylinders, they are a sight to behold. The one curious aspect of their play was their repeated back passes that put Van der Saar into awkward situations. Given that he kept nursing a cramp, was it wise to keep pushing the ball back to him?
They looked better than Argentina on this day. It will be interesting to see what might happen to Argentina if a team inhibits Riquelme. While Robben shined today, there are other Dutch players who can rise to the occasion. How does one close down space on eleven players? Serbia and Montenegro certainly tried, but there were so many occasions the Dutch simply controlled play. Having said this, Serbia and Montenegro also had its moments. I think this is the group of death because each team has shown great skill and ability to control play. Ivory Coast and Serbia and Montenegro showed they can keep their opponents back on their heels. I think there's quite a bit of drama left in this group, perhaps culimating with the Argentina v. Netherlands encounter on June 21st.
I once heard that Marco van Basten preferred playing club soccer to playing for the national team. Perhaps that was true, but maybe one of the most gifted strikers (not just in the Netherlands) has particular insights into how to make the Dutch play as a cohesive, brilliant unit. He seemed fairly reserved as a player, and even more so as a manager. He must have been pleased at the end of this match, but he also looked like someone who knew that the uphill journey had only just begun.
During The World Cup, what transpires outside the soccer stadium sometimes makes more news than what happens inside the stadium. Iran has been the in the news for various political matters, and their President has made insensitive, indefensible comments about the Holocaust. Apparently, the crowd booed the Iranian team as they came onto the pitch. Mexico, on the other hand, had a personal tragedy given that goalkeeper Sanchez's father passed away this week. There was one political aspect to their team as well since there seems to be some controversy about two players who are naturalized citizens.
During The World Cup, what eventually happens inside the soccer stadium sometimes provides relief from what happens outside the stadium. Iranian keeper, Mirzapour, gave Sanchez a bouquet of flowers at the beginning of the game. Zinya, a Brazilian born Mexican, assisted brilliantly on the second goal and, despite being five foot, four inches, rose mightily to head home the third goal. Everyone on the team and every Mexican fan in the stadium cheered.
At the end of the game, Sanchez's teammates surrounded him, joining him in what must have been a bittersweet moment for him. I'm sure he is thrilled with the victory, but I'm also sure he has other things on his mind. The final image from the broadcast was an Iranian player applauding the crowd. Iran played a clean, positive, decent game. It was very encouraging to hear former US players emphasizing that they viewed their 1998 World Cup match with Iran as a game. That, as athletes, they were concerned about what happened on the field. Even as nations rattle sabres, players on the field can exchange gifts or swap jerseys. I do not know how specific Iranian players feel about their President or country's politics. But I do know that they represented themselves well on the pitch. I hope no one booed them on their way out of the stadium.
How do you measure progress?
The last time Portugal and Angola met on the soccer pitch, Portugal won 5-1, but the match was suspended after 68 minutes when a fourth Angolan player was shown the red card. When faced with a force that once dominated them, both on and off the field, it was natural to be nervous and anxious. Angola avoided disaster in the first minute, only to have it return in the fourth minute. At that point, if someone had told me that Portugal would score eight goals, I would have believed it. In another reality, Angola might have buckled and the Portugese goalfest would have commenced. But the Angolan players steadied themselves, and responded well. There was no chance that this group would receive four red cards. Tommy Smyth spoke well when he said "this team knows a little something about soccer..."
Portugal was humiliated by their performance in the 2002 World Cup. They played well in Euro2004, but two losses to Greece left the home crowd disappointed. They won today, albeit with more difficulty than they might have imagined. So three points from the first game is progress.
But the progress for the Angolans was more impressive. It was a courageous performance. If there is honor in defeat, the Angolans can claim it.
Monday, June 05, 2006
The World Cup
There is a madness, a fever, that has been rising throughout the world. No, I'm not talking about bird flu or its associated hysteria. I am talking about the anticipation for The World Cup. There are multiple sports that have a World Cup, but when referring to The World Cup, it can mean only one sport. Soccer, football, futbol, the beautiful game.
There are many in the US who do not appreciate soccer. It's too boring. It's not athletic enough. It doesn't have enough equipment or rules. It allows games to end in a tie (or draw if you prefer). What I find interesting is people who say this love baseball or golf or poker. So I'm supposed to be captivated by the "showdown" between a first base runner and a pitcher? And I love watching those TV shots of a golfer watching his or her shot...if someone were to watch me at this moment, we'd have recursive sports viewing. The athleticism of poker, the way those guys flick their cards when they fold, brings tears to my eyes. As for rules or equipment, the notable absence is what makes soccer so elegant (ok, the offsides rule is the exception). In The Power of Myth, Joseph Campbell discusses how US sports are obsessed with rules to enforce behavior, which is perhaps a reflection of our litigious society. England created sports with relatively few rules, but many expectations of appropriate behavior or codes of conduct (OK, the offsides rule seems like something a lawyer would come up with).
Wikipedia lists "243 entities considered to be countries" (BTW, this includes the newly declared independence of Montenegro...you gotta love Wikipedia's timeliness of information). To the critics of soccer in the US, I offer this statement: 242 COUNTRIES CAN'T BE WRONG!!!
A fan in England has purchased "trauma insurance" in case England is knocked out early; a Dutch company is offering insurance for the inevitable, sudden rise in sick leave. The Portugese government has wisely rescheduled a Parliament session that was to be held during a Portugal match. The World Cup has undoubtedly caused conflicts, but it has also caused conflicts to end (at least for the duration of the tournament). Prisoners in Brazil started rioting when told that they would not have access to TVs during The World Cup (in Brazil, this must have been viewed as cruel and unusual punishment). The World Cup offers a chance for Africa to compete with the mighty powers of Europe. And how grateful were the South Koreans to Guus Hiddink, who led them to the semi-finals? From Wikipedia:
"Hiddink was given the unofficial title of the most popular individual in the country, and became the first-ever person to be given honorary South Korean citizenship. In addition other rewards soon followed - a private villa in Jeju island; free flights for life on Korean Airlines and Asiana Airlines, free taxi rides, and so forth. The World Cup stadium in Gwangju was renamed Guus Hiddink Stadium in his honor shortly after the World Cup. His hometown became a popular stopover for South Koreans visiting the Netherlands.
Good grief, what would have they done if they had won the Cup?
When the US hosted The World Cup in 1994, it was left to immigrants and visitors to build this festive spirit. Without the host nation's energy behind it, it was perhaps the first time in recent memory that The World Cup was a secondary thought in the host nation. In some ways, the 94 Cup propelled US soccer, and FIFA realizes the potential benefits of raising interest in soccer within the US. But many people in the world must still be upset about this choice. Asia proved it could host The World Cup in 2002, and Africa will have to wait until 2010 for its chance to do so. And Latin America has not hosted it since 1986.
But for me, the 1994 World Cup was a godsend. I had the great pleasure of attending games in Washington DC and a quarter-final match in New Jersey (Bulgaria 2-1 Germany). I sat next to an Italian grad student from my department during the Italy-Mexico first round game. He told me he wasn't much of a soccer fan. The Italian team seems to enjoy tormenting its fans during the first round. Even during their most recent Cup victory in 1982, they advanced to the second round only by virtue of scoring one more goal than Cameroon. In 1994, they would advance in the same manner, and only in the very late stages of the final game in the first round. I watched this "casual" soccer fan get anxious, distraught, with perhaps even tears in his eyes, at the thought that Italy would not advance to the second round. And then elation. Italy scored a goal, tying Mexico, raising a flicker of hope. Still, the Italians were waiting for the Ireland-Norway result. 0-0 (surely, the most dreaded score for a soccer detractor). The Italians were through. As I watched my fellow grad student, who was now dancing in his seat, I said to him, "I thought you weren't much of a soccer fan." He said, "I'm not...look at those other Italian fans."
And he was right. Grown men were crying, some men were still covering their eyes, avoiding the scoreboard that might bring them news of the unthinkable. Others were dancing, kissing women, kissing other men, kissing their flags...it was sheer exuberance. It was something to see men expressing such unbridled, passionate emotion. You can see this exuberance in the grainy films of a 17-year old Pele in the 1958 World Cup, or in the corner flag dance of a 38-year old Roger Milla in the 1990 World Cup.
Of course, there is an ugly side to unbridled emotion that most often takes the form of hooliganism. Most recently, there's been an indefensible, reprehensible growth of racial slurs, signs, and sounds. The English are imploring their fans not to make references to WWII; the Germans are worried about new (and therefore unknown) hooligans from Eastern Europe, and about their own hate groups. It seems that some men, when given a chance to express their emotions, still choose to focus on the negative ones.
Franklin Foer has written an interesting book, How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization. I'm not convinced soccer explains the world. But I am convinced it reflects the world, and it allows the world to express itself--in all the wonderful and repugnant ways that we choose to do so. And the detachment, disinterest, and indifference that so many in the US feel toward soccer is perhaps an accurate but sad reflection of the US in the global village.
But for those in the US who feel the fever, and for all those throughout the world who will take sick leave starting June 9, I say to you: let the madness begin.
There are many in the US who do not appreciate soccer. It's too boring. It's not athletic enough. It doesn't have enough equipment or rules. It allows games to end in a tie (or draw if you prefer). What I find interesting is people who say this love baseball or golf or poker. So I'm supposed to be captivated by the "showdown" between a first base runner and a pitcher? And I love watching those TV shots of a golfer watching his or her shot...if someone were to watch me at this moment, we'd have recursive sports viewing. The athleticism of poker, the way those guys flick their cards when they fold, brings tears to my eyes. As for rules or equipment, the notable absence is what makes soccer so elegant (ok, the offsides rule is the exception). In The Power of Myth, Joseph Campbell discusses how US sports are obsessed with rules to enforce behavior, which is perhaps a reflection of our litigious society. England created sports with relatively few rules, but many expectations of appropriate behavior or codes of conduct (OK, the offsides rule seems like something a lawyer would come up with).
Wikipedia lists "243 entities considered to be countries" (BTW, this includes the newly declared independence of Montenegro...you gotta love Wikipedia's timeliness of information). To the critics of soccer in the US, I offer this statement: 242 COUNTRIES CAN'T BE WRONG!!!
A fan in England has purchased "trauma insurance" in case England is knocked out early; a Dutch company is offering insurance for the inevitable, sudden rise in sick leave. The Portugese government has wisely rescheduled a Parliament session that was to be held during a Portugal match. The World Cup has undoubtedly caused conflicts, but it has also caused conflicts to end (at least for the duration of the tournament). Prisoners in Brazil started rioting when told that they would not have access to TVs during The World Cup (in Brazil, this must have been viewed as cruel and unusual punishment). The World Cup offers a chance for Africa to compete with the mighty powers of Europe. And how grateful were the South Koreans to Guus Hiddink, who led them to the semi-finals? From Wikipedia:
"Hiddink was given the unofficial title of the most popular individual in the country, and became the first-ever person to be given honorary South Korean citizenship. In addition other rewards soon followed - a private villa in Jeju island; free flights for life on Korean Airlines and Asiana Airlines, free taxi rides, and so forth. The World Cup stadium in Gwangju was renamed Guus Hiddink Stadium in his honor shortly after the World Cup. His hometown became a popular stopover for South Koreans visiting the Netherlands.
Good grief, what would have they done if they had won the Cup?
When the US hosted The World Cup in 1994, it was left to immigrants and visitors to build this festive spirit. Without the host nation's energy behind it, it was perhaps the first time in recent memory that The World Cup was a secondary thought in the host nation. In some ways, the 94 Cup propelled US soccer, and FIFA realizes the potential benefits of raising interest in soccer within the US. But many people in the world must still be upset about this choice. Asia proved it could host The World Cup in 2002, and Africa will have to wait until 2010 for its chance to do so. And Latin America has not hosted it since 1986.
But for me, the 1994 World Cup was a godsend. I had the great pleasure of attending games in Washington DC and a quarter-final match in New Jersey (Bulgaria 2-1 Germany). I sat next to an Italian grad student from my department during the Italy-Mexico first round game. He told me he wasn't much of a soccer fan. The Italian team seems to enjoy tormenting its fans during the first round. Even during their most recent Cup victory in 1982, they advanced to the second round only by virtue of scoring one more goal than Cameroon. In 1994, they would advance in the same manner, and only in the very late stages of the final game in the first round. I watched this "casual" soccer fan get anxious, distraught, with perhaps even tears in his eyes, at the thought that Italy would not advance to the second round. And then elation. Italy scored a goal, tying Mexico, raising a flicker of hope. Still, the Italians were waiting for the Ireland-Norway result. 0-0 (surely, the most dreaded score for a soccer detractor). The Italians were through. As I watched my fellow grad student, who was now dancing in his seat, I said to him, "I thought you weren't much of a soccer fan." He said, "I'm not...look at those other Italian fans."
And he was right. Grown men were crying, some men were still covering their eyes, avoiding the scoreboard that might bring them news of the unthinkable. Others were dancing, kissing women, kissing other men, kissing their flags...it was sheer exuberance. It was something to see men expressing such unbridled, passionate emotion. You can see this exuberance in the grainy films of a 17-year old Pele in the 1958 World Cup, or in the corner flag dance of a 38-year old Roger Milla in the 1990 World Cup.
Of course, there is an ugly side to unbridled emotion that most often takes the form of hooliganism. Most recently, there's been an indefensible, reprehensible growth of racial slurs, signs, and sounds. The English are imploring their fans not to make references to WWII; the Germans are worried about new (and therefore unknown) hooligans from Eastern Europe, and about their own hate groups. It seems that some men, when given a chance to express their emotions, still choose to focus on the negative ones.
Franklin Foer has written an interesting book, How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization. I'm not convinced soccer explains the world. But I am convinced it reflects the world, and it allows the world to express itself--in all the wonderful and repugnant ways that we choose to do so. And the detachment, disinterest, and indifference that so many in the US feel toward soccer is perhaps an accurate but sad reflection of the US in the global village.
But for those in the US who feel the fever, and for all those throughout the world who will take sick leave starting June 9, I say to you: let the madness begin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
