1)The Brazilians have left a marvelous impression. Of course, there have been some protests about FIFA and the way Sepp Blatter and his cronies rig the game so that host nations spend billions for very little monetary return. But most Brazilians have been able to separate the politics from the football, and have offered gracious hospitality to the hordes of traveling supporters who have descended to enjoy the greatest sporting show on the planet.
2) Emotion and fanatical support can only get you so far
Never was there greater proof than the Brazilian team itself. Driven on a wave of fan frenzy, hyped by the media, an essentially limited team without any strikers (how is it possible that Brazil has to rely on players of the calibre of Fred and Jo to lead the line?) got further than perhaps they were entitled to. It might have been a mercy that the Chilean shot in the last minute of extra time knocked them out in the round of 16, or Mario Yepes ”goal” for Colombia was allowed – which along with the Rodriguez penalty – might have helped the latter get to extra time and perhaps a victory in the quarter finals. It’s hard to think either Chile or Colombia would have lost 7-1 to Germany. Nor 3-0 in the third place game to The Netherlands. A major rethink now looms in Brazilian football.
3) Clichés are essentially true: but they are not the whole story.
Mercurial Argentinians, Pragmatic Italians, Under performing Englishmen, Jogo Bonito Brazilians, Ruthless and efficient Germans. All are standard tropes for the national teams and, to a surprising extent, often bear a resemblance to reality.
But not entirely. The Argentinians have been solid and organized in defense and good enough to take what chances have come their way; the Italians were not tough or mentally strong enough; England did flatter to deceive but Brazil, Neymar aside, did not bring much joie de vivre. The Germans have been the perfect mix of cliche and surprise. Tough, mentally strong, disciplined and efficient. But mercurial, inventive, skilful, entertaining and flamboyant. Absolutely.
4) Cometh the hour, cometh the big name player.
Not always. For every Lionel Messi, who almost single-handedly dragged Argentina into the final, there was a Wayne Rooney, who dismally failed to perform for England. For every James Rodriguez, who illuminated an enterprising Colombia, there was a Cristiano Ronaldo who, despite some flashes of his wonderful talent, could not lift a limited Portuguese side. But those big name players who did deliver, did so brilliantly. Messi’s talent and influence on a lacklustre Argentina side was clear to see, while Arjen Robben’s pace, power, strength, technical ability and eye for goal drove The Netherlands to the semi final, where they only lost on penalties to Argentina, before humbling Brazil in the third place play off.
5) Where were all the strikers?.
Very few of the goalscorers could be classified as out and out forwards. Lionel Messi is essentially an attacking midfielder, who roams far and wide, deep and surges forward. James Rodriguez is a classic ”number ten” linking attack and midfield. Thomas Muller occupies that half space between midfield and all out attack, and also plays wide. Arjen Robben is a wide man who cuts in and makes space for himself. Only Miroslav Klose, Robin Van Persie and Gonzalo Higuain fitted the mould of classic strikers in the teams that made the last four.
6) Where were all the defenders?
One of the surprising things is how few defenders have stood out. Perhaps Germany’s Mats Hummels, solid at the back and the scorer of a couple of important goals and Colombia’s ancient Mario Yepes are worthy of recognition. Gary Medel of Chile did well while the Costa Ricans defended very well as a unit, conceding only one goal from open play in five games.
7) A team can’t be built around a goalkeeper – but having a top-shot stopper is a massive advantage.
While there were some shocking blunders between the posts – Russia’s Igor Akinfeev takes pride of place with two costly errors that could have cost his team wins – there were more keepers who covered themselves with glory.
Keylor Navas was the almost impenetrable barrier in the Costa Rican goal, a man who probably had the best month of his life. Guillermo Ochoa was simply unbeatable in the Mexican goal the night he defied Brazil and won a point for El Tri in their goal-less group game, while Tim Howard, the man in black for the US, was simply outstanding on a number of occasions, none more so than the day he almost single-handedly defied Belgium in the round of 16 knockout game in which the Americans took the strongly fancied Europeans to extra time. Manuel Neuer and Thibauld Courtois were also outstanding for Germany and Belgium.
8) The tournament is always better when there are shocks.
The purists might decry it, but things always feel better when there are a few upsets along the way. The first came on the second day. It might not have been surprising that The Netherlands were able to beat defending champion Spain but it was the manner of that loss that was a shock: a 5-1 win for the Dutch. After that they came thick and fast, mainly through the exploits of Algeria and the marvellous Costa Ricans.
No one gave the Ticos a prayer when they were drawn against Uruguay, Italy and England in Group D, yet they topped the table with seven points from nine and conceded only one goal. They saw off the Greeks in the knockout stages in a shoot out, having played for nearly an hour with just 10 men, and then only lost to the Dutch in a quarter final on penalties.
Algeria were also excellent value, coming through a group in which they finished behind Belgium but above Russia and South Korea before running the Germans closer than any one had a right to expect in their knockout game, going down 2-1 after extra time.
9) African football still hasn’t sorted itself out.
Some might argue that it was good for Africa for the first time to have had two teams – Nigeria and Algeria - who made it into the knockout stages and a third (Ivory Coast) which was a minute away from joining them.
But was it? Once again African teams were bedevilled by a lack of organisation and internal squabbling and the inevitable row over money and bonuses. We had players refuse to train and then the unseemly sight of the Ghanaian Federation having to fly millions of dollars across to Brazil via a special courier to ensure their players got their just demands. Ghana was perhaps the biggest disappointment. And what can be said about Cameroon? A team that arrived late and then lost all three games, had a man sent off and then had players fighting with each other on the pitch. Once, Cameroon made headlines for its actions on the pitch. Now it just appears to qualify for World Cups to provide a side show.
10) Where were the Eastern Europeans?
There was a time when Eastern European nations were a force to be reckoned with. The former Yugoslavia was always a side that could be guaranteed to look like winners. Czechoslovakia made the final in 1962 and were regular qualifiers. Russia (or the USSR) was another permanent presence in the latter stages of past World Cups, while the likes of Bulgaria and Romania often made it through.
While no longer political entities, they still continue to produce excellent players who end up at some of the biggest clubs in the world.
This time, from what might be termed the former ”eastern bloc” only three teams qualified this time – Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina from the Balkans, and Russia. None made it out of the group stage. It’s a mystery. Perhaps when the tournament is in Russia in 2018 the hosts will have improved – and there will be plenty of motivation for their former ”client states” to qualify and prove a point to their ex-overlords.
Sydney Morning Herald
No comments:
Post a Comment