A Day of Penalty Kicks

When one hears about penalty kicks, it would be natural to assume that the Italians found themselves on the short end of the stick. Italian fans are convinced that the Azzurri are cursed to lose through penalty kicks, or doomed to failure because of conspiracies (most often manifesting themselves through referees' decisions against the Italians). So when the Italians were a man down, through a questionable red card, it seemed that they might be heading for another self-fulfilling prophecy. But not on this day.

Italian manager, Marcello Lippi, showed some courage by putting Totti on the bench, and starting Del Piero in the midfield. On another day, Luca Toni would have had a hat trick. Today, he just kept shaking his head after near misses. Lippi showed a willingness to adapt to the needs of the day when he brought Totti into the fray, something Van Basten wasn't willing to do with Van Nistelrooij. Lippi showed even more courage by allowing Totti to take the penalty kick. I thought it was important to have someone fresh take the kick, but I thought it would be Iaquinta. Totti did not hesitate, and he did not disappoint. Given the Italians recent woes with penalty kicks, it must have been very satisfying for the Italians to win with a penalty kick in the 95th minute.

As for the Socceroos, they deserve a lot of respect. I have been questioning their move into the Asian confederation but, after their performance in the Cup, it's only right to state that the Asian confederation will be richer for Australia's presence. I'm not sure what Australian defender, Lucas Neill, was doing or thinking. Perhaps he just lost his head. At that point in the match, Neill could have shouldered or bumped Grosso fairly aggressively without consequence. But when he lay down on the pitch and reached back, the referee had to call the penalty.

I think Hiddink might have been assuming that the game was destined for extra time. He has made so many prescient substitutions in earlier games, but he made only one today. More than anyone else, the Italians find a way to win through one quick strike, so perhaps he should have not expected more time for additional substitutes. But it's hard to criticize Hiddink. He showed class when he gathered his players, and persuaded them to absorb and recognize their fans' cheering and applause. Now Russia get a chance to experience the Hiddink effect.

"Where's the quality?" John Harkes said it best when he asked this question in the Ukraine v. Switzerland match. He later added, "ambition, imagination, and creativity" to the list of missing elements. For much of the match, both teams worked hard, but an errant pass, or a missed run, or a poor finish left the match without a goal. Both Shevchekno and Frei hit the woodwork, providing evidence that with appropriate service, they could have broken the deadlock.

At least the Swiss kept trying until the end. I fear that we may have found the "anti-soccer" team of the tournament with the Ukraine. After showing that they can score against the Saudis, Ukraine has chosen too often the lowest common denominator. Honestly, Switzerland deserved to win, but even their penalty kicks didn't have enough quality.

It''s too bad they couldn't bring Totti into their lineup.

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.