La Copa Mundial De Futbol

Justice

2006-07-09T07:05:00.000-07:00

The Big One. Not just the biggest football match in the world, but the single biggest sporting event on the planet. In fact in terms of getting numbers of human beings together doing the same thing, it may be the greatest uniting force known to man.

The World Cup Final.

Any poor unfortunate who has had to spend any time in my company over the last month can now begin to relax. My friends, everything I have put you through was all about last night. One match. 120 minutes as it turned out. It is at an end.

To those of you who are like me, I'm sure you were fighting back the tears before, during and after last night's finale. I hope you were strong, after all we have today and the next four years for reflection, and I hope that your last night, like mine, was an uninterrupted celebration of all we have been through together over the last 31 days.

If there is a God, he is obviously a romantic, as the celebrations turned out to be Italian. If the world's greatest story teller had submitted the tale of the Italian team's journey to this triumph as a work of fiction, it would have been laughed out of the publisher's office. We could fantasise forever about the most extreme example of a team finding a victory from the depths of adversity, but nothing anyone could conjure in their heads can compare with the extraordinary story that reality has provided us with in this World Cup.

Most of the Italian players came into the tournament facing the prospect of relegation with their clubs, and went into the final with that outcome a near certainty. Some have discovered that all their work, their very lives, has for the last few years been a pointless sham. Many have had to contemplate the news that their victories were false, their Championship medals won by the deception of others rather than their blood, sweat and tears.

If Italy had gone out ignominiously in the first round, no one would have batted an eyelid, it would have been seen as the inevitable demise of a group of shattered players representing a football association in disgrace. Instead their response was an overwhelming display of positivity, and from the moment Francesco Totti announced to his colleagues before the tournament that 'either you're a cheat, or you're one of us', Italy forged perhaps the greatest team spirit seen in a World Cup. It was probably Totti's most potent contribution to his teams' success. The Italians were not just playing to restore their own unfairly tarnished reputations, or to help clear the name of their great footballing nation. It's probably too late for that. Italy's players were playing for the thousands of football lovers in their immensely proud country, and all over the world, that still believe a great triumph can be achieved by fair means. This motivation proved to be an unstoppable force.

It is noticeable that the Italians have, unusually for them, been one of the least guilty sides for diving in this tournament. It is as if they couldn't contemplate indulging in this petty form of cheating, given the higher levels of deception their game is charged with.

Last night Italy gave one of their least effective performances of the World Cup, but their displays throughout the competition made them the more deserving winner of the two teams. The match itself was extremely even, and a classic game of two halves. Italy really should have been ahead at the break, their midfield quartet magnificent once again, and the vastly experienced French back four looking like they had never defended a set piece in their lives. It was indicative of the Italians' belief that they so easily shrugged off the penalty, both the award and conversion of which were dodgy, to play with the same confidence they had shown against Germany. France were in danger of being swept aside, the failings that have haunted them for six years, it seemed, were being cruelly exposed.

Nobody could have forecast the change that took place in the second half. The pundits' half-time analysis universally predicted an Italian victory, and for once it was impossible to argue with them. What fools we all were in believing this World Cup had no surprises left in it. It was as if France hadn't been told which game they were playing in beforehand, someone must have mentioned to them at half-time 'by the way lads, we forgot to tell you, this is actually the World Cup final'. From nowhere the French found a reserve of energy and confidence, and charged back at the Italians. The Azzurri suddenly hit a brick wall, and as much as their victory had looked nailed on in the first half, so a French win now seemed a certainty. Thierry Henry, for the first time in the tournament, actually started to play like the man who terrorises the Premiership every week, and the master defenders suddenly had to call on all their reserves of strength and will to prevent France from storming the fortress. Even the phenomenal Cannavaro suffered a spell of vulnerability in the face of this onslaught.

Italy also appeared to have reduced their own attacking possibilities with a bizarre pair of early substitutions, the tall centre forward Iaquinta asked to play first on one wing then the other, with no success either time, and the defensive midfielder De Rossi making an unwelcome comeback after serving a four match ban for the World Cup's most disgraceful challenge. In the end however, France themselves were stopped in their tracks by sheer exhaustion, Henry could barely walk off the field when substituted, and Patrick Vieira had by this time already departed for the dressing room with an injury.

Extra-time became inevitable, but with two debilitated teams on the field it was never an especially exciting prospect. Given their record, there is no chance that Italy would have conciously settled for penalties, but their bodies would not allow them to show the same commitment to attack that they so spectacularly displayed in the semi-final. The extra period began to peter slowly snd nervously towards the shoot-out, until interrupted by one of the most extraordinary incidents in the history of the World Cup, a moment that history will probably remember as the definitive one of the tournament.

For Zinedine Zidane, this World Cup had been the proverbial rollercoaster ride, from complete anonymity in the group stage, to a glimpse of brilliance against Spain, and then a spectacular rekindling of his glorious past to enable the defeat of Brazil. Having had a quiet night in the semi-final, surely this was the stage for Zizou to give us one final encore of the greatest footballing talent seen in this era. What he gave us was a departing image that, tragically, may stick in the minds of his millions of admirers forever. The question that kept me awake last night, and I imagine will continue to trouble the footballing world until we receive an answer, is: Just what on earth did Marco Materazzi say to Zidane? Whatever it was, it provoked perhaps the most violent reaction ever seen on such an enormous stage, Zidane suddenly turning and ramming his head into Materazzi's chest at full pace. The ensuing pandemonium can be explained simply by the complete astonishment felt by everyone present. The referee, who clearly didn't see it, had no clue what to do, the Italians who did see it didn't know where to take their protests, the French players looked on stunned, the crowd frozen in shock by what they had witnessed. It took the referee several minutes, and apparently a intervention from the 4th official who had viewed a replay on a pitchside monitor, to arrive at the correct decision to end Zidane's dazzling career with a red card.

Should we be terribly sad at the manner of Zizou's exit? In one sense yes, it's awful that our abiding memory of such a giant of the game should be of disgrace, and defeat. The worst thing about it was that the man never got to take a final bow. He should, win or lose, have been chaired around the Olympiastadion to a standing ovation, Zidane was after all a hero to every football fan in the world, not just the French supporters present at the game. Instead the great man did not even reappear to receive his medal.

In another way though, I can't help but feel priveleged to have witnessed such an historic incident. Dreadful as it may have been for Zidane, it was a truly unforgettable moment. During the minutes of waiting for the referee's decision, and seeing Zidane depart, it seemed as the though the world was frozen, as though the planet had ceased to revolve until it could come to terms with the seismic event that had just taken place. Isn't that what the World Cup exists for? I am obsessed with this competition because it provides me with memories more vivid than anything else I've ever seen. I'm sure that when I'm old I'll tell my life story in terms of World Cups, and it's events like this one that make that possible.

For Zizou himself, the legacy of last night may not be so terrible. After all, Diego Maradona's career was littered with disgraceful events, but it has hardly affected his legendary status. Even genuine England fans will admit that when they hear the name Maradona, they think first and foremost of the footballer, one of the two greatest players to have ever played The Beautiful Game. Zinedine Zidane has provided us with too many examples of his genius for it to ever be forgotten.

Having picked itself up off the floor, the World Cup had still to provide us with a champion. A penalty shoot-out would surely result in a French victory, as Italy can claim to be one of the few countries with a worse record than England in these events. The Italians had to banish the memories not only of the 1994 final, when two of its finest ever players were reduced to gibbering wrecks, but also two other recent failures, including one against the French in the 1998 quarter-final. Add to that the extra-time defeat to the same opponents in Euro 2000, and surely Italy had to be a team resigned to their fate. From the outset of World Cup 2006 though, it has been clear that this is a different Italy, armed with a mental strength never seen amongst its predecessors. I wrote in an earlier post about the power of a team playing with the belief that their triumph was destined, and Italy took their penalties as if safe in the knowledge that their success was guaranteed. Not one of the five kicks even threatened to miss. What an incredible turnaround from their previous failures, and how wonderful that the fates had finally handed back some luck to a team that has been deprived of it for so many years.

As the Italian players celebrated, there was a feeling in the air that justice had been done. Finally, payback for all those failed penalty shoot-outs, finally revenge for their being unluckily denied in the last breath of the Euro 2000 final. It was just that the World Cup's finest player ended with the trophy in his arms, and that other individuals that had played like World Champions, such as Pirlo and Gattuso, now have the right to claim that title. There was justice for Zidane, who left the field when it seemed that he might have got away with his crime. And there was justice for a group of players forced to play under a cloud due to the dishonesty of others.

Oh, and one last example of justice done that we shouldn't forget - the best team in the tournament won the World Cup. Of that there can be no doubt.

The final was by no means the best game of World Cup 2006, but it contained more than enough drama to make it an occasion worthy of its status. It was a fitting finale to a fabulous festival.

For me, there is still some work to be done. This is not a signing off message yet. I think I have put enough effort into keeping this record for it to warrant an adequate closure. This of course must include a selection of my team of the tournament, and a healthy summing up of the entire experience. Come back over the next couple of days for that.

To the football however, it's Arrivederci. And to Italy, the World Champions, Congratulazione!

Torture

2006-07-09T06:05:00.000-07:00

Really, who thought of the Third Place play-off? Come on, someone needs to own up now, there is a sadistic human being out there who devised this monstrosity, and some very cruel aiders and abetters who allow it to continue.

Can you imagine what it must be like for a player to have to play in this match? You begin the World Cup with an optimistic outlook, tempered with a bit of realism, but as the tournament goes on, and your team is successful, you allow your hopes to get out of control. Suddenly you're in the semi-final, just one game away from playing in the greatest sporting event known to mankind, and now, you allow yourself to believe that all your dreams will come true.

Then you lose the semi-final. What must it feel like? Fate has cruelly led you up the garden path, and your date with destiny is now a night infront of the telly with John Motson. Your body's every sinew has been sacrificed in pursuit of the Holy Grail, and now you must contemplate the reality that it may never be yours. The phrase you thought would never apply to you is the one now being broadcast in every country on the planet - you are out of the World Cup.

The key words in that last phrase are 'World Cup' and 'out'. In other words, for you my friends, the tournament is over. You will play no further part. What sort of mind is it then, that comes up with the idea of forcing these shattered individuals to re-appear? What kind of malicious inhumanity is required to hatch such a plan? Losing semi-finallists should be allowed to go home and suffer their failure in quiet contemplation. In the World Cup however, they must come back, parade themselves before thousands, and play the most pointless 90 minutes of their lives.

How can players be asked to take part in a World Cup match with no prospect of glory? How can you ask human beings to go and entertain once again the thousands of people whose hopes have been destroyed along with their own. How can the barbarism of this public execution be permitted in a civilised society??

Is it any wonder that teams almost always play the reserves in the Third place play off? Yes of course they tell us that they are giving a taste of the World Cup to those not quite good enough to earn a place in the team. We all know the truth is that the players who lost the semi-final are cowering in a corner somewhere, begging their coaches to be merciful. The coaches at least have some compassion within them. FIFA, I implore you, please end this now, before you are thrust before the European Court of Human Rights and rightly punished for your most hideous crimes against humanity.

TV Awards

2006-07-08T03:22:00.000-07:00

As the end draws near, a World Cup obsessive must do everything in his/her power to keep World Cup fever running at maximum until the final ball has been kicked. Many people at this time begin to talk about the competition in past tense, already having moved on from whatever excitement they felt a month ago as the tournament kicked off, and this attitude becomes especially common after England have been knocked out. These people should be avoided at all costs by genuine World Cup loonies.

What is needed in the run up to a final is a healthy dose of silly reflective lists. Today, I'm going to go with that good old favourite, the World Cup TV and radio awards.

Best Commentator - John Champion (ITV)
A surprise victory for shITV here, but this man is surely one of the most underrated in football broadcasting. He's got a great voice, he makes intelligent and insightful comment, and he's genuinely funny. He also has a knack of keeping his excitement level in perspective with the importance of the event - a crucial skill for a great commentator, and one only has to listen to ten minutes of John Motson to realise this. Why then is this man continually overlooked in favour of Clive Tyldesley? Tyldesley is always full of himself, trying to build up potentially big moments with memorable lines so he can hear his voice replayed over and over. The Champion just gets on with describing the game as it happens, and his commentaries are so much the better for it. The BBC failed miserably in this category this time, mainly due to having the embarrassing Motson as their number one.

Chances of getting the final: Nil.

Best Summariser - Chris Waddle (Five Live)
I should thank John Motson in a way, because if it weren't for his commentary being so excruciating, I wouldn't have been inclined, when watching BBC's matches, to use the digital facility of listening to Five Live's coverage instead. Chris Waddle has probably been their most used summariser along with the (also excellent) Terry Butcher. Waddle is a most perceptive observer, often spotting key tactical points early in a match which prove to be vital to the outcome. Howeverm the main reason Waddle gets the nod over his Five Live colleague in this category is his outspokenness, and his ranting during Graham Poll's farcical display in the Croatia v Australia match was one of my tournament highlights. To his credit, Waddle identified early in the game that it wasn't to be Poll's night, uttering the phrase 'having a shocker' after about 20 minutes, long before Graham had made his most memorable gaffes.

Waddle is a one of the few honest summarisers, with the courage to actually give damning criticism when it is justified - ie not just to England's opponents. Five Live completely outstripped the opposition in this category, if I had made a top five they would have been in with a chance of a clean sweep.

Chances of getting the final: 50/50 - they'll probably go for Butcher and Graham Taylor.

Best Panellist - Alan Hansen (BBC 1)
For about the fourth World Cup in a row, this category has been no contest, and we must ask ourselves whether a successor to the King of pundits' reign will ever be found. Should we in fact just be grateful to live in the era of Hansen - the greatest there ever was. The man isn't just a football pundit, he's a revolutionary force in broadcasting. Hansen moved football analysis into a new era, leaving Jimmy Hill and the old guard standing with his relaxed, articulate, and candidly critical observations . Never before had we heard the word 'abysmal' used with such regularity and resonance. All punditry is now judged by the standards Hansen has set, and it's noticeable that other BBC analysts must wait their turn until the big man has spoken. Hansen has become the BBC's crown jewel, one imagines he could name his price if he wished to sign for a rival broadcaster.

It should be said that ITV's performance in this category has been, as usual, abominable. See the nightmare team below for details.

Chances of getting the final: Are you kidding? Only death could deny him, even then the BBC would probably attempt some form of restoration.

Best Anchor - Gabby Logan (ITV)
Gabby is the runaway winner here. Her main rival, Gary Lineker, has been guilty of risible puns, and an unnecessarily anglocentric view. Lineker also had a tendency to talk in cliches about certain teams, ignoring the evidence on show. Witness his praise of Brazil's flair football after three performaces without any, and his continued insistence that Italy are boring despite them being among the more attacking teams in the tournament. Gabby on the other hand just exudes class; she consistently shows impartiality, displays greater depth of knowledge than all her male counterparts, and asks more sensible and searching questions of her analysts. So why, we must ask, have ITV insulted her by replacing her with Steve Rider for the biggest games? Rider was nowhere to be seen until ITV's first England game, almost a week into the tournament. Up to then ITV had been virtually Gabby all the way, then in strolls Rider, like an OAP walking straight to the front of the Post Office queue, right into their biggest TV audience of the World Cup to that point.

Rider, a man who spent the vast majority of his career playing second fiddle to Des Lynam on the BBC, being allowed only to present events no one watched, like Golf, Motor Racing or the non track & field bits of the Olympics, is given priority for major World Cup games over the most intelligent football presenter on TV. Rider has continued to make fleeting appearances, showing up for Brazil games, and getting the Semi-final. What possible explanation can there be? My most horrifying thought is that ITV think it's great fun and politically correct to have a woman presenting the football, but that when it gets serious, we really need to be told how it is by a man. Whatever the reason, ITV should hang ther head in shame. They have the best young broadcaster in the business on their books and they blow it by using a old fart with no interest in football. Gabby, get yourself a transfer to someone who appreciates your skills.

Chances of getting the final: About 1%. There is still a slim chance that I could shoot Steve Rider before 6pm on Sunday.

Best Reporter - Adrian Chiles (BBC 1)
Adrian Chiles is pure gold in the world of televised football. For the first time, a genuine football fan has made it to the higher echelons of broadcasting. Adrian represents all us real football obsessives, perfectly summing up the emotions we all go through in pursuing our addiction, week-by-week during the regular season, and now day-by-day during the World Cup. He asks the questions we would ask, he sees the things that we would see, he is amused by things that only a real fan would be amused by. When ex-footballers analyse matches, they can tell us endless things about tactics and techniques that those of us who have never played the game wouldn't have the first idea about. But it takes someone like Adrian to spot the despairing looks on supporters' faces, the anxious fidgeting of a manager, the mannersisms that give away a player's mood. This is what a football supporter sees, it's all part of our World Cup experience. Given the bemusement shown by Chiles' colleagues in response to some of his comments, you wonder whether genuine football nuts ever become players. Either that, or leaving this innocent part of the experience behind must be a necessary consequence of becoming a professional. Whatever the reason, it's vital that the likes of Adrian Chiles are allowed to share the airwaves with the ex-pro's. Supporters are as much a part of football as the players, certainly one couldn't exist without the other, so it's only right that during the World Cup our enjoyment should be enhanced by hearing the voices of experience from both on and off the pitch. The BBC are unique in offering this insight, and it is thanks to Chiles' presence that they can do so.

Chances of Getting the Final: 100% that he'll turn up at some point.

Best Newcomer: Leonardo (BBC 1)
Despite being far too good-looking, the Brazilian gets a deserved award. Alan Shearer aside, the BBC have wonderful taste in analysts, and Leonardo's insights, the result of a career spent playing Latin style football in South America and Italy, have been a welcome change from those of panellists too used to the English game. His command of the English language also appears to be far superior to that of most of his British colleagues, I'm sorry to say. It's a shame that this will probably be the last we see of him.

Chances of getting the final: Relegated to half-time reporting from the stands for the semi-final, so it doesn't look too promising. Hansen and O'Neill are rightly nailed on, but Leonardo's expertise on Italian football might give him a chance of nicking Alan Shearer's seat. We can but hope.

So, in conclusion we have:

2006 World Cup TV Dream Team!
My World Cup final would be brought to me by the following team: This is the World Cup final, which means I can cheat with numbers.

Anchor - Gabby Logan (ITV)
Panel - Alan Hansen, Martin O'Neill, Leonardo (all BBC 1), Graham Taylor (Five Live).
Commentator - John Champion (ITV)
Summariser - Chris Waddle (Five Live).

With reports at half-time and full time from Adrian Chiles, who is of course with the fans.

With this panel, the World Cup final would be a glorious occasion, even if the game turns out to be shite. There is however, always another side of the coin, which is why we have:

2006 World Cup TV Team From Hell!
If Satan was broadcsting the World Cup, this would be his team:

Anchor - Steve Rider (ITV)
Panel - Alan Shearer (BBC 1), Ruud Gullit, Andy Townsend (ITV)
Commentator - John Motson (BBC 1)
Summariser - Mark Lawrenson (BBC 1)

With reports from Garth Crooks from Baden Baden, who will presumably bring us the thoughts of items randomly discarded by England fans. That's if they can stand two minutes in the company of Garth Crooks of course.

Team from Hell's chances of getting the final:
Rider: 100%
Shearer: Looking good for him, bad for us.
Gullit: Low, thank goodness.
Townsend: 100%. Shit.
Motson: 100%
Lawro: 100%

The last two will of course be together on BBC 1. That's the bleak reality folks. My advice would be BBC 1, with commentary switched to Five Live when match starts. Oh, and break the number 3 button on your remote, just in case someone gets tempted.

Alan Shearer - CWSOP

2006-07-06T08:30:00.000-07:00

It's not often that the BBC come in for harsher criticism than the goons on the other side, and as usual, the beeb has generally provided far superior coverage throughout this World Cup. Last night however, I reached boiling point whilst watching the second semi final on BBC 1. Never have I heard a spouting of such complete and utter bollocks as that delivered before, during, and in the aftermath of, France's victory last night. Not only was it bollocks, it was also unforgivably biased bollocks. The usually exemplary Alan Hansen and Martin O'Neill were even guilty on this occasion, but there was no greater offender than perhaps the single worst pundit of World Cup 2006 - yes, even worse than Ruud - Alan Shearer.

At both half time and full time Shearer expressed the view that this World Cup had tailed off since the group stages, and had in fact been a steaming pile of shite since the commencement of the last sixteen. Did Shearer watch the previous night's semi-final? A match so emotionally draining many who watched it were unable to sleep due to the nervous tension that refused to leave their bodies? Even if this professional World Cup analyst did manage to miss the biggest game of the tournament so far, surely he saw the magnificent flowing football of France v Brazil? Or the drama of Argentina v Mexico, ending with the goal of the tournament? Was he under instruction from the BBC, so pissed off that they had been lumbered with such a dreadful semi-final, to deny all knowledge of the amazing match that had been shown on ITV the night before?

Shearer's colleagues generously attempted to make him look less of a twat by backing him up - O'Neill for instance said "yes Alan you're right, teams have looked a little nervous as the competition's gone on". What, you mean as they get nearer to the World Cup final? Oh how dare they become nervous, how inconsiderate of them. Martin, you're better than this, don't feel you have to back this idiot up! Alan, I've got news for you - you and you only think the World Cup has been shite.

Then we have the unbelievably one-sided assessment of the match itself. Shearer and Gary Lineker may be English, but that gives them no right to virtually cheer on the opponents of the side that knocked out England. The analysis throughout gave the impression that Portugal had cheated England out of a semi-final place, and that the French were going to avenge this for us. Now tell me in what way were Portugal cheating against England? Given that Wayne Rooney had stamped on a player's private parts, was a polite enquiry (and it actually was - no imaginary card waving) about the possibility of a red card unreasonable? These pundits had no reason to dislike Portugal before the game other than blinkered bitterness brought about by their own teams failings, exactly the type of reaction we have come to expect from hooligans. Maybe messrs Lineker and Shearer would feel better if they put the windows of their nearest Portuguese restaurant through.

Of course, no one could defend the blatant cheating that the Portuguese turned to as the game wore on last night. Surprisingly their one forward, once again inexplicably reduced to none late in the match, failed to create a chance against the flat back ten of France. The only Portuguese hopes were raised by the lunatic behaviour of Barthez. Inevitably, Portugal became frustrated and desperate, and their attempts to con the referee became farcical. Our friends in the studio, of course, dipped their bread. They might as well just have chanted 'cheat, cheat, cheat' throughout the post match discussion, such was their delight at being able to criticise the villainous Portuguese enemy.

There was however, evidence of one more piece of 'simulation' that appeared to be ignored in last night's game. Did anyone else think that Thierry Henry, who as we all know despises the ghastly cheats, was rather keen to make the turf's acquaintance after the challenge by Carvalho? There can be no doubt that Carvalho's boot made contact with Henry - but so what? Since when was this alone a foul? And since when was it ok for a player to throw himself to the ground simply in order to make the referee aware that inconsequential contact has been made with an opponent? Call me old fashioned but to call a challenge a foul, I was under the impression it had to bring the player down, or at least interrupt his momentum in some way? Carvalho's challenge did not affect Henry's run in the slightest, it was not enough to prevent him carrying on, and it was entirely Henry's choice to hit the floor. That is a dive. That is cheating. And it was just as bad as anything the Portuguese players did. So did our 'experts' acknowledge this? Nah.

Lineker - "There's no doubt this is a penalty is there?"
Shearer - "That's definitely a foul, you can't blame Henry for going down there"
Hansen - "Stonewaller"

If Cristiano Ronaldo, who I can't stand by the way, had won the penalty in the same circumstances, do you think he would have received this reaction? No, me neither. Still no matter, everyone loves Thierry Henry don't they? And we all hate Ronaldo and Portugal, so why let facts get in the way of anything?

Taking of facts let's get to a few. The match was awful, and both teams, that's both teams contributed equally to this. After France had scored their thoroughly unmerited goal, they went on the defensive for the rest of the game, safe in the knowledge that there was really nothing to defend against. This was not simply a case of a side sensibly and classily defending a lead, this was out-and-out negativity, everyone behind the ball, not even looking to try anything on the break. It was a return to the France of the first round, the France of Euro 2004, the France of World Cup 2002. It was a return to the France I had confidently predicted would totally flop, and here they are in the World Cup final. France and Zidane gave us a display to savour in but one match - against a shockingly bad Brazil. On the evidence of the tournament as a whole, and especially the two semi-finals, there can only be one winner of the World Cup on Sunday, and certainly only one deserved winner. It's not France. However, I have had enough of writing the French off and being made to look silly so I'm going no further with that. For now.

As for Portugal their performance was indicative of the poor standard of opposition they have had to play to get to this lofty stage of the competition. A group they couldn't fail to get out of, a vile Dutch team interested only in tarnishing The Beautiful Game, and a completely disorganised, reduced strength England, who they didn't actually beat. Results not worth of a semi-final place unsurprisingly led to a performance not worthy of a World Cup semi-finalist. Scolari's tactics were bizarre, never playing more than the lone Pauleta in attack, and then actually substituting him in two extraordinary situations, first against an England team down to ten men, then when a goal down with a World Cup final place up for grabs. Then again, to look at Portugal's squad, what was his alternative? Portugal's next best striker was Nuno Gomes, so the Brazilian was probably sensible in assessing that he was better off without. Scolari's fury at the referee for not buying his players' attempts at cheating pretty much summed up the desperation of the Portuguese effort.

Of course, any sensible analysis of this match would have criticised France's inadequacies, and dull approach to the game.

Shearer - "Well France have been one of the better sides in the tournament, and they proved that tonight"

I give up. All I could think of was what the analysis would have sounded like had that performance been delivered by Italy. The Azzurri would have been crucified, 'look at them sitting back on the lead, no one wants this in the World Cup do they?', 'well it's just typical Italy, we see it from them every time, it's disappointing they have this attitude when everyone wants to see an entertaining game'.

Any real football fan should be thanking their lucky stars that Italy are in the final, they are our only hope of World Cup 2006 getting the climax it deserves on Sunday if the French take the same approach into the game as last night. It's a shame the three teams that have stood out clearly above the rest in this World Cup ended in the same half of the draw. Any combination of Italy, Germany and Argentina would have made a fabulous final. Indeed it's possible that the destiny of the first semi-final is to be remembered as the greatest final that never was. Let's just hope that the France, and Zizou, of the quarter final, turn up one last time. The reality is they will have to if France are to take their second World Cup.

I am now off to lobby the BBC for a panel of Hansen, O'Neill and Leonardo for the final.

Auf Wiedersehen

2006-07-05T03:11:00.000-07:00

You see, the tournament would be much better off without Italy, they're so boring.

Yeah, right.

The first semi-final of World Cup 2006 was not only the match of the tournament, but will go down in World Cup legend as one of the greatest ever seen. The scoreline, still reading 0-0 with 90 seconds of extra time remaining, did it no justice whatsoever.

Semi-finals can often be nervous affairs, due to the sheer amount at stake. Sure, there is more to gain in a final with the ultimate prize to be won, but there is far more to lose in a semi-final, making these games much more susceptible to tension. When it comes players being dictated to by their emotions, fear of losing will assume power over the hope of winning almost every time. Besides, for the loser of a final there is an achievement on which to reflect and be proud, and the satisfaction of knowing their place in history is secure. For a beaten semi-finalist there is the certainty of obscurity, and the ignominy of participation in the harrowing misery of the 3rd place play-off.

What made last night's match different is that both sides, particularly Italy, defeated their fear. Perhaps this is not too surprising in Italy's situation, after all with many players facing relegation with their clubs, and having seen a personal friend almost take his own life a week before, what did they have to lose?

The entire 120 minutes of this game was completely absorbing, Italy dominated the first half-hour, controlling midfield, and with Totti enjoying his most creative spell of the tournament so far it appeared only a matter of time until they would break through. Germany however showed superb resilience, holding off the wave of attacks, and gradually growing stronger. The second half became a wonderfully open affair, with passing of the highest quality moving the ball swiftly between penalty areas, and nothing between the sides at all. The longer the match went without a goal, the more the feeling grew that Italy may have missed their chance. Ballack came more into the game, feeding his wingers who tried in vain to supply the German strikers with healthy ammunition, but found their efforts continually thwarted by the world's outstanding rearguard, and in particular the world's outstanding defender, the awesome Fabio Cannavaro.

Cannavaro was, in footballing terms at least, a giant, showing an almost psychic positional sense, precision and authority in the tackle, cool and accurate distribution, and when anything did go slightly awry, extraordinary powers of recovery. The captain was the ultimate leader, organising his defensive troops in one instant, and driving forward the attack the next. Only Zinedine Zidane can possibly hope to rival Cannavaro for player of the tournament now, and Zizou will need two mighty performances to rob the Italian skipper of that accolade.

As the match reached extra time, so Italy reached the point of no return. It was clear to everyone, including both sets of players, that a penalty shoot-out meant the death of the Italian dream. If Italy wanted their place in the World Cup final, the place their performance had definitely merited, they had to score a goal. Extra-time saw the drama reach an even higher level as a result, as Italy gathered everything they could find, and threw it straight at the German goal. Gilardino, a most influential substitute, hit the post, Zambrotta hit the bar, Del Piero got the ball stuck under his feet with the goal at his mercy. The commitment to attack of the Italians saw them playing the additional period with no fewer than four strikers - they really didn't want penalties. This, inevitably left them vulnerable, and the Germans almost took advantage, Buffon having to magnificently protect his perfect record against oppostion players in this World Cup.

It seemed that the monumental Italian effort had come to nothing, and that the penalty shoot out, and inevitable German win, was upon us. The expectation could be sensed all around the Dortmund stadium, a nation waited to acclaim it's heroes once again. But this Italian team has a spirit beyond that displayed by any other side in this World Cup. Pirlo, another wonderful performer in midfield, saw his excellent shot turned away for a corner by Lehmann. When the ball returned to the Italian on the edge of the area, his instinct must have been to fire in another shot. Instead Pirlo, with immense composure, skilfully evaded three oncoming defenders, and found space to slide the ball to Grosso, the left back, who from the right hand side of the penalty area, curled a perfect first time shot beyond the German 'keeper. Grosso's celebration resembled that of Marco Tardelli in 1982 (there can be no higher praise for a celebration), eyes bulging, fists pumping, tears streaming. The embodiment of what it means to put your team into the World Cup final. There was still time as the Germans made one desperate effort to recover for Del Piero to add a beautifully taken 2nd on the break, with the very last kick of the game.

The Italians celebrated not with relief, but with the joy of a team that had achieved exactly what it expected to. Never for a moment did the belief leave them that they would emerge victorious, and that, ultimately was what saw them through. For the Germans, an incredible adventure had come to an end, and they were left to deal with the extreme pain felt by a team that has to lose before its own expectant people. A nation that had celebrated as one since that last-minute winner against Poland, now suffered collective grief.

The surge of optimism that gives any host nation its foundation for success in a World Cup can unfortunately only do so much. In the cold light of day, the Germans must accept that they perished due to a lack of quality. Their best chances fell to the talented but raw Lukas Podolski, who spurned them. The effort shown by the workmanlike German midfield just couldn't quite cope with the class of the Italians. When a composed and cultured left foot was needed to provide the decisive finish, it was the foot of an Italian. This match was tremendously even, but Italy were just a little better everywhere on the field. Not vastly better, but enough for it to be apparent to everyone, and the grace with which the Germans accepted their defeat reflected this. The right team won.

The Italians are one step away from arriving at what they must now believe is their destiny. Only the finest all round team performance of the World Cup so far was enough to get them to the final, and they will believe that they can still improve on this when they get there. The victorious team in tonight's semi-final now know the formidable levels that they will need to reach in order to deny them.

They could start by trying to work out what on earth they need to do to score a goal.

Fairy Tales

2006-07-04T06:15:00.000-07:00

News broke today that Fabio Capello, manager of the potentially relegated Juventus, has resigned as the match-fixing verdicts get ever nearer. The prosecution for this case also recommended today that Juve be relegated two divisions, and that demotion should also apply to Milan, Fiorentina and Lazio - clubs that supply many of the Italy squad currently preparing for a World Cup semi with Germany. A week ago, one day prior to their second round match with Australia, the Italians learned of the suicide attempt of Gianluca Pessotto, former team mate of many, and simply 'mate' of some. Not the ideal preparation you would think.

Yet teams that win World Cups, a bit like Grand National winners, always seem to have a story behind them that makes their triumph seem like some kind of fantasy. Think of the likes of the written off Brazil of 1994, Kempes and Maradona's Roy of The Rovers-esque efforts in 1978 and 1986, the France team of 1998 which had failed to qualify for the two previous World Cups, and perhaps best of all the West Germans of 1954 who came from two down in the final to beat Hungary, having lost 8-3 to the same opponents earlier in the competition. Also high on this list would be the victorious Italians of 1982. Two years prior to the tournament, Italy had suffered a match fixing scandal that led to two major clubs being relegated and several players being banned, one of which, Paulo Rossi, returned from his ban to play in the World Cup. After a nightmare start in which Italy scraped through the group stage without winning a game, the written-off Rossi scored six goals in the final 3 matches of the tournament to help Italy take the trophy.

A few pundits have made the Azzurri's current campaign out to be a carbon copy of '82, which it most certainly isn't, yet there are enough similarities to make the more romantic among us start to lean towards Italy when selecting a champion from the remaining four contenders. Match-fixing has reared its ugly head once again, though this time the problem is very much of present concern, unlike in 1982. The scandal however, as so often happens, appears to have created unity amongst the Italian squad, a most valuable commodity amongst a group well known for temperament issues. As the presidents, directors, managers, referees and gangsters involved all await their fates, to be known almost immediately after the World Cup final, the players seem to have cocooned themselves, more determined than ever that this will not affect their chance of glory.

It is most doubtful that Luca Toni will repeat Rossi's feats, and Toni's brace against Ukraine, scored as his place in the team had been brought into question after four goalless outings, is not quite comparable with Rossi's hat-trick against Brazil at the equivalent stage in '82 which came after a similar barren run, but again the resemblance is there. Who knows what the two goals will do for the confidence of someone who had the ability to score 30 serie A goals last season.

In addition to any positive omens that go with Italy, there are several negative ones that apply to the Germans, whose dreadful record against tonight's opposition I detailed in a previous post, and who the Italians beat to win the 1982 World Cup.

Now, I realise there's nothing whatsoever in all this that even approaches a concrete reason why Italy will beat Germany tonight and go on to win the World Cup, and indeed I have discussed the likelihood of an Italian success based on a more rational argument previously in this blog. But those who think vague historical comparisons are meaningless underestimate the power of psychology in football. Whether or not there are any worthy parallels between the Azzurri of 1982 & 2006 is irrelevant compared with whether the Italian players believe that there are. The thought that to win is your destiny, that your victory has already been decided, that it is actually impossible for you to lose - now that's a powerful mindset to take on to the field with you in a World Cup semi-final. Equally, the idea that you are playing your bogey team, a team that has got the better of not only your generation but all your predecessors as well, is not a good one to go into such a big match with. The Germans are renowned for their mental strength - will they have put such thoughts out of their mind? Is it possible for them to do so when such statistics fill every newspaper in the run up to the game?

When you hear a commentator ask, 'can history play a part in the outcome?', what they are really asking is 'can these footballers put superstition out of their minds?'. The same footballers who wear lucky shorts, lucky pants, lucky boots, walk out in their lucky position in the line, don't put on their lucky shirt until they've walked over their lucky bit of the tunnel and waved to their lucky wife at home sitting on the lucky chair holding the lucky dog - will these players be able to forget about superstition for a night?

To the rational thinking person, the Germans hold all the aces, they appear in better form, their performances have gathered momentum, the crowd is theirs in the most atmospheric stadium in the World Cup, their forwards are scoring much more freely than the opposition, and they have defeated better sides in the two previous rounds than the Italians. In addition, Italy's best player, someone who would surely need to be at his best for his team to win a game of such magnitude, is out of form and unreliable. The Germans are surely worthy favourites.

But is 'history' on their side?

Now this is what I call irony

2006-07-02T06:07:00.000-07:00

Those of you who have read this blog from the off will know that I didn't exactly rate the chances of the French team very highly. Well today I have a confession to make. I backed France to beat Brazil! Hahaha! Surely the most unjustified winnings ever, I slag off France right left and centre, and when they prove me to be a fool, I have the temerity to make money out of it! No, I have no shame.

Time for some humble pie. France, thank you, you were wonderful, it was a pleasure to witness your renaissance, and I as one of your biggest doubters, am only too delighted to be proven wrong, especially as your wonderful display of beautiful football accounted for the one team I have disliked more than you (not including Holland), Brazil.

So why the hell didn't you play like this before you lazy bastards?! Where have you been??

Brazil, an absolute rabble from start to finish in World Cup 2006, were turned over by a resurgent French team, and by a gloriously reawakened Zinedine Zidane, to whom I send this personal message:

Zizou, my friend, I know I doubted you, and I'm sorry. I criticised you harshly, but I was only thinking of your reputation as one of the game's giants. I did not want the lasting memory of you, a genius, to be of a useless, immobile waste of space. Thankfully you have left this to Ronaldo. Your status as a true footballing legend is secure. Zizou, I love you. Welcome back.

Another irony of this game was that two sides who have looked so dull, defensive and clueless in attack should produce the most open, attacking match of the tournament. In the end France triumphed because, unlike every other team in the competition, they were not scared of Brazil. If you walk onto a pitch feeling unequal to the opposition, you are beaten before you begin, and Brazil win so many games this way, through sheer intimidation. There was no chance however, of France succumbing, there are far too many egos in the French team for that. Why should players like Vieira, Zizou, Henry, Thuram, et al be in love with the Brazilians when they are so busy being in love with themselves? France's arrogance proved to be their biggest weapon, as it enabled them to overcome the toughest obstacle faced when playing Brazil - fear.

As for the (former, tee hee!) champs their legacy is surely to be remembered as the worst Brazil team to play in a World Cup. Not for one moment did Brazil ever look like world beaters, and I can't remember the last time you could look back on a tournament and say that. In fact Brazil carried (literally) with them the laughing stock of the tournament, his record breaking goals perhaps the biggest World Cup red herring ever. Yet this Brazil came in being hailed as possibly the greatest vintage of them all, famous five up front, Ronaldinho the finest since Pele, etc. How, er, ironic.

With confidence seemingly fully restored, France may be considered most people favourites now. Playing as they did last night, and with the real Zizou in tow, they will take some stopping, and do have the easier semi-final. The toughest problem remaining for the rest though is not Zidane, or the German crowd, and certainly not the snivelling Ronaldo. The team that wins now will surely be the one that can somehow work out how to score against Italy. Solve that one, and you will be deserved World Champions.

Now, what's the best way to spend ill-gotten gains...

Come on, you didn't think...?

2006-07-02T03:53:00.000-07:00

Sorry, just a moment...

FUCKFUCKFUCKSHITSHITBASTARDBOLLOCKSCUNTFUCKFUCKCUNTWANKERSHITESHITESHITEBOLLOCKSFUCKFUCKFUCK!!!
FUCK!

That's better.

People should be able to make a fortune out of England at the bookies (especially if you backed the draw, ahem!), they have to be the most predictable team in World football. If only they didn't get carried away with this optimism lark. Watching England in the World Cup is like re-reading your favourite book over and over again in the hope that the ending will change, a venture just doomed to failure every time. Yes, here we go again, troubles with unpredictable best player, will he play, won't he play? Yes yes, play crap win, play crap win, play crap win, play crap win. Ah, big team, this will be the end, we have no chance playing like this. Nooo, disaster, adversity, it's all going wrong. But wait...look, they're playing well...they're going for it...our heroes, they can do this! COME ON ENGLAND!!...

Oh dear.

Seriously though, it is absolutely typical England. As soon as they begin to look like a decent side, it's goodbye. What made this latest heroic failure particularly hard to swallow was the fact that it was all so easily avoidable. I said in a previous post that what England needed was to be free of Sven's tactical noose, and so it proved when change was forced upon them. Chance relieved England of their greatest hindrance, Beckham, and the pace and width of Lennon that replaced him almost won the game. What wasn't needed of course was being reduced to ten men and losing their best player, but even after Rooney's exit, England, with no plan in place whatsoever, took the game to Portugal and deserved to win. The truth is that the team that would have definitely won the game was on the field for less than ten minutes. England were given every clue to their best 11 during the warm up games, and in their poor performances in the early stages of this tournament, and yet they chose to ignore them all.

More frustrating still was the fact that Portugal were just asking to be beaten, and they gave surely one of the worst performances ever to earn a semi-final place in a World Cup. For a team which already had the bare minimum in attack, to reduce that number still further after the opposition had gone down to ten men has to go down as one of the most bizarre decisions ever. So much for another supposed tactical genius. 'Big Phil' Scolari got this one horribly wrong, as his battalion of midfielders ran around armed with the necessary weaponry, but with no target in sight. It should have lost Portugal the game, but the luck was with them. Portugal also feature in their team the World Cup's most odious individual in the utterly repellent form of Cristiano Ronaldo. Surely no one outside Portugal will be happy to see such a horrible, arrogant, overrated, cheating cry-baby lift the World Cup. Which is just as well, because he won't, and we do at least have the pleasure of his failure, and subsequent blubbing to look forward to.

Not that Ronaldo was actually responsible for the turning point of the match, whatever we may think of him. It was difficult to tell whether or not the referee did send off Wayne Rooney for the red-card offence he actually committed, or for the much less serious push that followed, but this really doesn't matter. All that is important in these circumstances is that justice is done, and there can be no doubt that the dismissal was justified. Rooney however, should not be made a scapegoat here either, in fact if any blame is to be ditributed, it should be pointed firmly in the direction of the England manager, and coaching staff. Even Rooney's foolishness can be linked to Eriksson's incompetence, after all the vicious stamp into Carvalho's groin was surely the act of a frustrated man, completely fed up with running himself into the ground with not a team mate in sight. Rooney deserved to go, but his mistake was understandable and forgivable. Eriksson's were not.

Of course, despite the frustration that all England fans feel at the team causing their own downfall once again, it should be remembered that at no stage of this tournament have England looked like World Champions. The Premiership is presented to us with such razzmatazz that it's easy to convince ourselves that the play seen there is better than it is. If commentators regularly tell us that John Terry and Rio Ferdinand are among the best defenders in the world, we believe it, and yet this tournament tells us something very different. Defensively England looked way behind France and Italy. In midfield they have nothing to compare with Argentina, despite the supposedly world class Lampard and Gerrard. Ironically, England's one individual display worthy of the world stage came from the one man that we are consistently told is rubbish. Yesterday, Owen Hargreaves gave one of the finest performances I have ever seen in an England shirt. The man was all over the pitch, despite the fact that he was meant to be playing midfield anchorman, usually a rather static position. Hargreaves maintained his covering position when Portugal had the ball, and yet got forward to support Rooney far more often than the two attacking midfielders infront of him, whose job it was to do so. I would like to hear the explanation of the tired-looking Lampard and Gerrard for this lack of energy shown in a World Cup quarter final. Well boys, was it the heat again? Hopefully Hargreaves will retain a place in the team, and in his correct position instead of being used as some kind of handyman utility player. I don't think you will see Bayern Munich moving him around too much after all.

Now of course, we have to suffer many people showing a disinterest in the World Cup. Only this morning, five live brought their World Cup breakfast show to an end, and presenter Nicky Campbell announced his return home. The suggestion that only England matter is one of the worst side effects of the World Cup. What are these people on? Get over your disappointment and park yourself infront of the next game!

After all, it's just getting interesting.

True Colours

2006-07-01T01:30:00.000-07:00

The lack of posts for a couple of days has not been down, as you might think, to the lack of football taking place. On the contrary, I had fully intended to keep you up to date with life as a World Cup obsessive on those days during the tournament when the remaining teams are allowed to rest, but alas, moving house and all the crap that comes with it have prevented me from posting. Also, I have now moved into a home which as yet has no internet connection so my posts may be a little delayed from now on. One thing that is certain is that, like the eventual world champions, this blog will continue to the bitter end!

Now where were we? Oh look, I go missing for a couple of days and I come back to find that World Cup 2006 has lost it's best team. You can't trust these footballers with anything can you? One thing should be clear, and that is that Argentina are the best footballl team in the world regardless of who wins the World Cup. Certainly when it comes down to technique, skill and sheer quality of their play they are anyway but as we know, that doesn't necessarily always win you football matches. When you get to a quarter final or beyond of the World Cup, I get the feeling that the teams that win are just those that get slightly less terrified than their opponents. Prior to yesterday's game, both these teams had advanced with a method of all-out-attack, in the Germans case mainly to keep the ball as far as possible from their untrustworthy defence, and yet both seemed rather crippled by the enormity of the occasion. What should have been a match to savour for its fast paced high drama and goals, will actually be remembered for the tension, slowly rising as they headed towards the moment of judgement, when one team that has come to the World Cup only to take away the trophy knows that their dreams will be shattered. Now that's pressure, and it got to Argentina.

After controlling the game for an hour, and taking the lead, the Argentine players and coach got the biggest case of the wobbles since Jana Novotna (legendary choker - tennis ed) last had a match point. This manifested itself in one of the classic "(sharp in take of breath) ooh, he's gonna regret that I tell you" substitutions as, with half an hour left and one goal up, Argentina removed Riquelme, their playmaker and axis, and replaced him with Cambiasso, a holding midfielder. They also used up their three subs without bringing on the young Prince Messi to torment their weary opponents. Germany duly equalised with ten minutes to go, and Argentina had nothing left with which to reply. The best they could achieve was to hold out in extra time and wait for the penalties, but as this game involved the Germans, we all know what happens then. I'm sure I caught sight of German players grinning as they meandered through the extra half-hour, knowing that as soon as the final whistle blew, the semi-final place was a mere formality. Readers can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here, but as far as I know the Germans have lost only one major shoot out - the 1976 European Championship final to Czechoslovakia, when the famous chipped penalty (probably the first time that technique was ever seen in a major match) won the tournament. From that moment, it appears that it has been implanted into the brain of every German footballer that they do not lose penalty shoot outs, and their preparation for these occasions is becoming the stuff of legend.

So, each and every German penalty was duly despatched with frightening ease and confidence, and the match was all over. Well actually, not quite. Following the final whistle, complete anarchy broke out on the pitch as Argentina took their defeat, complete with the obligatory few dodgy refereeing decisions in favour of the host nation, rather badly. Gabriel Heinze was unsuccessfully restrained by at least 20 people, and when Maxi Rodriguez sprinted 30 yards to launch himself feet first into a group of Germans, Sepp Blatter must have been having palpatations over the effects this would have on his precious PR. Fifa shouldn't punish Argentina for this, they should celebrate the fact that football is played by emotional human beings who aren't actually delighted at being knocked out of the World Cup having not lost a match, and have just had all their dreams shattered. If this is the greatest show on earth, and it is, then the last thing you should want is for players to walk off smiling when they've lost. Argentina's behaviour was a fantastic advertisement for football, it said 'this is the World Cup. It matters.' I would love to see England behave like this when, sorry, if they lose to Portugal today. Only joking there!

As for Germany's semi-final opponents, the one thing they will know is that the game must be won in the conventional way. Not only are the Germans seemingly infallible when it comes to spot-kicks, there aren't many nations more vulnerable at that stage than Italy. Personally I don't think it will get that far, I think Italy will knock the Germans out in normal time. The wonderful scenes of national joy reached their cruscendo last night, and are about to turn into utter despondency. Why do I make such a bold statement? Quite frankly I can't understand why the Italians are so constantly written off by the TV pundits who appear to dislike them for being defensive. First of all I think it's a tired cliche, and the Italians are no more negative than most other sides, in fact in some cases they are less so. What the Italians do have is a magnificent defence, but this is not the same thing as being negative. Some of their games may appear quiet, especially if Italy take the lead, but this is because the opposition finds it impossible to carve out any chances due to the sheer quality of the defending. You can hardly blame the Italians for spoiling the game when the opposition simply aren't good enough to beat them.

Let's look at a few facts. Italy have the best goalkeeper in the tournament, the best centre-back, the best full-back, the best holding midfielder, and possibly the best winger. Ok, playmaker unfit and out of sorts, and centre forward unconvincing, but it's not a bad start is it? They haven't yet conceded to an opposition player in the tournament, Zaccardo's freak own goal against USA the only time Buffon has been beaten so far. Italy also haven't actually lost a football match for two years, surely this makes them, if anyone, the 'team to beat' in the tournament. Then there is their World Cup record - Italy haven't actually been knocked out in normal time since 1986, losing on penalties in 1990, 1994 and 1998, and going out to the South Korean golden goal in 2002. When it comes to playing Germany they're not bad either, 4 World Cup meetings, no German wins so far, and when they last played each other in a friendly, about two months prior to the World Cup, Italy thrashed Germany to such an extent that Klinsmann almost lost his job because of it. The omens do not look good for the Germans. Quite apart from the questionable clues that history gives us to the outcome, Italy are coming along very-nicely-thank-you in this tournament. Anyone who can coast to a 3-0 win in a World Cup quarter final the way Italy did deserves serious respect. Even then the BBC chose to question the standard of the opposition rather than give Italy any praise for their efficiency. England have made much harder work of far worse opposition so far, yet their chances are seen to be better than Italy's.

If winning in the final stages of a World Cup is more a mental task than anything else, then personally I think we have new World Cup favourites. Just so long as it doesn't go to penalties, which may be the only way the Italians can be beaten.

I can't sign off today without a mention of or TV friends once again. The gulf in class between BBC and ITV was perhaps more in evidence last night than any other night, both in the serious and non-serious stakes. In the aftermath of the vile Spanish supporters monkey chanting over La Marseillaise the other night, Fifa have insisted on each captain reading an anti-racism message before the quarter-finals. As the German and Argentine captains did so yesterday, ITV gave a cursory explanation, then proceeded to talk all over the announcements. Jonathan Pearce on the BBC gave a full explanation, declared his praise for such a venture, and gave us full translations of both Cannavaro's and Shevchenko's readings. As the BBC might tell you, this is what they do. Added to this was the BBC's half-time punditry, which was superb. Gary Lineker, for all his puns and biased assessments does at least have a relaxing style well suited to sports coverage. Steve Rider might be presenting a royal funeral, such is the gravity of his manner. Last night the BBC produced the TV moment of the World Cup so far, thanks to the wonderful Martin O'Neill, who began comparing Italy's style of play with the building of the Roman Empire, and even crediting Caesar and co with inventing the offside rule. It's only on the BBC.

Now, who's playing today? Ah yes...

Then there were eight

2006-06-27T15:50:00.000-07:00

What a mixed bag the second round has thrown up in World Cup 2006. Over the first two days we saw a dominant, clinical display by the Germans, the wonders of Argentina v Mexico, the inspirationless dirge of England, and the open warfare of Portugal's victory over the evil Dutch. The last four games have continued in this vein, showing us the full range of the footballing spectrum.

First came Italy's win over the Aussies, which threatened high drama all the way through but never really delivered until the dying seconds, though it's good to know that this World Cup hasn't missed out on that wonderfully freakish footballing event, the last minute penalty. Every tournament needs at least one, there's probably nothing more traffic-stoppingly dramatic in the game, and that includes the vast majority of shoot-outs. A game that Italy were running, but not leading, was seemingly evened up a little by the ridiculous decision to send off Materazzi with a straight red for what was no more than a fairly ordinary late tackle. Italy however, have been here before, and if Australia thought their job had been made a lot easier, they were proved to have been sadly mistaken. Cannavaro marshalled his ten troops magnificently, and even playing a man light the Italians barely gave the Aussies a look at the goal. If Italy hadn't been so wasteful in the first half they would have safely seen themselves through to a routine win, as it was, it looked as though they were coasting towards extra-time. Then as injury time reached it's final ten seconds, an Italian defender made a buccaneering run down the left wing. Thought I would give you a full stop there so you can re-read that last sentence, I promise I tell no lie. Having beaten two men, the full-back made his way into the box before being confronted by Lucas Neill sprawled on the ground right across his path. Well, what would you have done? I think it's harsh to call it a dive, as the Italian was actually denied the chance to get to the ball and lay on the winner, it just happens that Neill's stupid challenge was so bad that it actually missed everything and failed in it's mission to bring his opponent to the ground. A moral penalty in my opinion. So Totti, no pressure then. Only the entire world, and even half of your own fans wants you to fail miserably and enhance your reputation as the most overrated non-Frenchman in football. Ah, rubbish, that was only the most perfect penalty ever hit, smashed at 100mph straight into the top corner. Better luck next time fellas.

Just as well that some belated drama was provided in that game. The only think I can think of that could have been worse than watching the one that followed is to have been watching it sat next to Sepp Blatter. Sorry Franz Beckenbauer. Ukraine and Switzzzzzerland couldn't have produced less goalmouth action if they'd invited Norway along to join in. I will never understand it. I refuse to believe they were struck down by fear, it's not as if either would have had realistic claims for winning the World Cup, nor would it have been a huge embarrassment for either to lose. Instead it was a golden opportunity for both teams to play in the biggest game of their lives, a World Cup quarter final, and neither seemed the slightest bit interested in taking it. The way the game went was probably more the fault of the Swiss, who do base themselves entirely on clean sheets, and it's difficult to argue with their choice when you consider they successfully kept four out of four. I did previously compare them with Greece in Euro 2004, and the Swiss clearly had designs on ambushing this tournament in a similar fashion. Even the Greeks however, made some attempt to score on the break, in fact no one succeeded in keeping a clean sheet against them in the tournament. As it turned out the Swiss paid a heavy price for failing to acquaint themselves with the goal, as they incredibly failed to find it at all during the penalty shoot-out. As for Ukraine, well all I can think is that Italy must be feeling the most confident of the eight quarter-finalists.

The final day of the second phase was a particularly painful one for me, as I had to endure two sides that I have heavily criticised make their way through. I must admit I didn't hold out too much hope that Ghana would bring about the demise of Brazil, but of course my hopes were cruelly raised when Ghana began to give Brazil a bit of a roasting after conceding an early goal, before being dashed again by Adriano's highly illegal second goal, allowed despite the scorer twice being caught offside during the move. Ghana can go home mostly proud of themselves; despite not covering themselves in glory against the Czechs with a shameful display of imaginary card waving, their football had much to be admired, particularly the power and pace of their midfield which proved troublesome even for world class outfits like Italy and Brazil. However, their demise was brought about by their one consistent failing, the lack of quality up front. If Ghana had someone to provide a final ball and a finish they may have been 4-1 up on Brazil by half time; as it was, Brazil went in with a scarcely merited 2-0 lead, and the stuffing had been knocked out of Ghana who had nothing left after the break.

In their quarter-final, the underperforming Brazilians will play the barely performing French. On paper it looks unbelievable, "Brazil v France?, what a cracker that will be!" I hear millions cry. Well, if both sides display the same form that has taken them this far, we could be in for a nap, and then some penalties. Maybe I am being slightly unfair on the French, who definitely showed their best 45 minutes so far in the second half against Spain. Yet even this was such a long way from the heights they reached in 1998, and a country mile behind the what we have seen from Germany and particularly Argentina in this tournament. I still haven't seen anything from either France or Brazil that I consider worthy of real praise in relation to their expectations.

As for Spain, they must be crestfallen after their abject display against France. We should expect nothing else from them given their track record, but this was a major choke even by their standards. Spain held all the aces in this match, youth, pace, form and confidence were on their side. The one advantage France could have claimed to have over the Spanish was an abundance of experience, but the baggage carried by that experience had so far appeared to be the very thing working against them. Yet Spain, despite starting with three strikers, fired blanks once again, their predictable attempts at creativity the sort of thing Gallas and Thuram have dealt with in their sleep a million times before. As the game wore on, and Spain began to show increasing signs of desperation, the more likely it became that the French would find a breakthrough. It came after an appalling piece of play-acting by the steaming hypocrite Thierry Henry, long advocate of fair play and greater punishment for cheats. Henry got up off the floor after a bout of rolling and face clutching apparently brought on by contact between Puyol's shoulder and his chest, just in time to see Vieira head in an effective winner. Zinedine Zidane actually rolled back a few years in beautifully finishing a third. What an unbelievable bonus for the tournament it would be if Zizou were to miraculously find the greatness that has deserted him for the last four years. I won't be holding my breath.

I always find it very difficult to watch any World Cup match without willing on one side or the other, yet on Saturday night I'm going to have difficulty in not hurling abuse towards both sides. If only someone could show both sets of players the video of their predecessors in the quarter-final of 1986, when France won on penalties after a pulsating match-of-the-tournament, we may yet be treated to something truly inspirational. I have everything crossed.

Now. I have to deal with the World Cup watershed. After 56 games over 20 consecutive days - dare I say it - here comes a day without football.

Aaaaarrrrrrggggggghhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do I not like orange

2006-06-26T02:57:00.000-07:00

There may be some who claim that what makes a great World Cup is for the football to always be open, attacking, skilful, passionate, and fair, with plenty of goals to boot. This claim is false. A World Cup is like everything else in life, it feels better if it has a bit of balance. Everything in moderation. Which is why after the fantastic spectacle of Argentina v Mexico on Saturday, it is inevitable and acceptable that we should have to suffer the worst day of the World Cup so far in it's immediate aftermath, and that is pretty much what we got yesterday.

If what the four teams on show yesterday produced was meant to be football, then I for one, as a football fan, am insulted. First, the team to watch in the tournament - if you fancy a nap that is - England. If there's one thing worse than watching England play, it's listening to our genial hosts on TV talk about them. Every time it's the same, 'Are England playing the wrong system?', 'Should we have an extra man up front?', 'Should Hargreaves be in the team?', 'How about the holding midfielder?' 'David Beckham...David Beckham...David Beckham...Beckham David...Bavid Deckham...' SHUT UUUUP!!! History tells you that teams can be awful all the way through and still win the cup or get to the final. Italy in '82 didn't win a single group game, Argentina were extremely ropey in 1978 and would have gone out but for some dodgy stuff to do with dictators and referees, and England themselves never really looked convincing in '66 until the semis. Conversely, Hungary in '54, Holland in '74, Brazil in '82 - all geniuses, all lost. England are through, so they still have a great chance of winning the World Cup. What the pundits should do is forget the sodding midfield system, get to the point and give the England team the following, long overdue criticism: ENGLAND. ARE. BORING!

BOOOOORRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIINNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!

Ingerlurnd, Ingerlurnd, Ingerl...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

As I said at the start of the World Cup, I want England to win it. However, I am really starting to wonder if I want to see an England team win the World Cup playing like this. They would be remembered as the dullest champions ever, is that what we really want? I think if you are going to win a World Cup, you should look like worthy champions in at least one game. My theory on England is that they are too inhibited by tactics and stick too stringently to formations. Also, I think they are crippled by fear of an embarrassing defeat. If this is true, then maybe there is some hope of improvement, because as the tournament goes on, the opposition gets better and the stakes get higher, so players are more likely to be consumed by the enormity of the occasion. In this situation adrenalin can take over and systems are forgotten, and this could be our best hope of seeing England at their best, playing from the heart and on instinct, not from the instructions of their dreadful coaching staff.

Oh and if it's still being debated, no - one free kick does not mean David Beckham has proved himself worthy of being in the team. End of story.

The accusation of being dull could not be levelled at Portugal v Holland, however that is about the only good thing you could say about it. The Portuguese won a match that included four red cards, and saw just about everybody else booked by a Russian lunatic who had apparently been given the job of refereeing the game. The second half descended into violent bedlam, with punches being thrown, x-rated tackles flying in and brawls breaking out on the touchline. The referee had no other answer than to wave cards in every direction, only succeeding in creating further ill-feeling. All of this would, of course, have been perfectly entertaining if there were any football going on in between, a good punch-up certainly never did any match any harm after all. Besides, the savagery was far from being the worst aspect of this game.

What really gave this match a sour taste, that made even a match with this much carnage a turn-off, was the repellent, vile, gutless, and unrepentently blatant, cheating. The cynicism on display throughout the match was on a level I don't think I have previously witnessed. Players were not merely diving to win penalties, they were hurling themselves to the floor in neutral areas of the field, meaning the act was of no real benefit to their team - except for the possibility of earning their opponent a card. Now let's get this straight: There was one team to blame for the way this potentially great match turned into such an outrage - and that team was Holland. From the moment the whistle blew, the Dutch made absolutely no attempt to play any football whatsoever, instead content to give a display of 'simulation' that, even by their own low standards, was utterly loathsome. Portugal joined in with some appalling behaviour of their own sure, as the game wore on and the hatred grew between the two teams, but those seeds were sown by the team that chose to make cheating their primary course of action. All this from a team with talent at their disposal to match any in the world. Never has a team been so well summed up by one player, Arjen Robben, an electrifying winger with lightning pace and the ability to light up the biggest game in the world, and possessor of the most despicable attitude to the game you could possibly imagine. When struggling to beat an outstanding opponent, the Portuguese man-of-the-match Miguel, Robben chose to cheat and sulk rather than call on his considerable resources and apply himself. The quintissential modern Dutch footballer.

Holland, a country that gave us a team and a player that were once the embodiment of the beautiful game, have now become the antithesis of it. Good riddance.

Now, we have had our fill of all that, can we get back to the football please?

Only in the World Cup

2006-06-25T07:32:00.000-07:00

Last night I had the kind of experience that can only occur during the World Cup. As Argentina v Mexico approached, I received an invite to a friend's house for dinner. At first I politely declined, saying that I wanted to watch the match. I was then informed that it would be ok to watch it at their place, a fact I double checked because these particular friends are not football people. Now any real football fan or World Cup nut will know just how dodgy this territory is, as it is always very difficult to make non-believers appreciate just how absolutely necessary it is that you are able to see the game, and that it must be the whole game. So, I wearily make my way over there, settle myself down infront of their TV, and am served my dinner. All very nice. Then it transpires that my friends plan to leave for their evening's destination at half-time! Half-time! Of course, I protest: 'why wasn't I told?', 'I made it clear before coming I wanted to watch the match', etc, etc. But there really is nothing you can say in this situation that doesn't make you sound like an ungrateful spoiled child. In my mind I have done nothing wrong, and am in fact the victim of disorganisation and bad planning. My friends, of course, are baffled by what they see as a gross overreaction to the possiblity of missing a mere football match.

This is a classic example of why those who worship and those who abstein should not mix during a World Cup, but for the information of anyone who doesn't understand, Argentina v Mexico could in no circumstances be described as a 'mere football match'. The World Cup exists to provide us with games like this, a night when you perch yourself on the edge of your seat at kick-off, and don't move until the final whistle goes. Or actually, in my case, you don't move until the half-time whistle goes, at which point you run like hell to the nearest pub to find a different seat to perch on the edge of for the second half.

Mexico leave this tournament with my everlasting respect and admiration. I think the cliche goes 'if there is a way to lose, then this was it'. Faced with the best team in the world, sides can adopt various tactics. The usual one is to get ten men behind the ball and hope for the best, with some teams even prepared to counter attack every now and then; another method is to try and kick the big boys off the park; then there are those who decide to charge at the enemy from the off with no real plan, hoping that energy and adrenalin will win the day. The other option sometimes taken is to give up and cheat, which I refer to as 'The Dutch Method'. The Mexicans had no such negativity in mind, and dealt with the rather major threat facing them by raising their game to the highest possible level. They set a midfield formation designed to stifle Argentina's; they played at a fierce tempo, allowing their opponents no time to breathe; and passed the ball with precision and urgency. More than anything else though, they played with genuine belief; belief that they were as good as their opponents, and that they could win the game simply by playing at the top of their game. For this they should be hailed as heroes.

The result was one of the great World Cup matches, racked with tension and drama from the first whistle. Games like this produce an extraordinary intensity, and if you're watching it feels like the world outside must be at a standstill. Surely no-one could possibly be doing anything else could they? The fact I was watching the second half in a virtually deserted pub should have given me the answer to this question, but you become ignorant to such things. It's also quite difficult to explain why this game was so compelling; it wasn't a goal-fest, in fact both goals scored in normal time came in the first fifteen minutes. It wasn't especially end-to end; there wasn't an unusually large amount of goalmouth incident; nor was it overloaded with controversy. It was just two committed teams playing football the best way possible, with a sense of the unexpected looming at all times.

It would have been an injustice for this game to be settled by anything other than a spectacular goal, and it would have been a travesty for it to go to penalties. Argentina needed to show us exactly why they are the best, and why they deserve to be World Champions, and in extra-time they gave us a wonder goal to rival even that goal against Serbia & Montenegro. Sorin floated the ball from the left to Maxi Rodriguez on the right hand edge of the penalty area. Maxi chested the ball deliberately into the air and away from goal, before, in one movement, turning and volleying the ball with his left foot into the far top corner. The technique require to score this goal would have been beyond all but the very best. It would be a worthy goal of the tournament, and therefore was a worthy winning goal in this game.

The look on the Mexican coach's face at the final whistle said it all. A philosophical smile. An expression that conveyed pride in his team, a sense of extreme disappointment tempered with the realisation that there was nothing more they could have done. Mexico should sleep well in the knowledge that, if there is any justice, they have been beaten by the champions.

We all know however, that this is the World Cup. Justice has nothing to do with it.

2006-06-24T07:02:00.000-07:00

First of all today, apologies for no post yesterday. I actually had to partake in activities other than watching or writing about the World Cup yesterday, which was a dreadful irritance but couldn't really be helped. Although to be honest, yesterday's matches didn't provoke a great deal of excitement or debate. I'm sure no one who watched Ukraine v Tunisia would be the slightest bit interested in reading any more about it, and I think this may well be a candidate for the World Cup's biggest shitefest so far. Ukraine did the absolute bare minimum necessary to win the game, and it would have served them right if they had been caught out. As for Spain, already through, played all the reserves, and picked up the most routine of routine 1-0 wins. Two teams clearly trying to save what they have for when it matters most you may say, but it's possible that both may have underestimated the benefits of gathering momentum. Ukraine and Spain may find themselves beginning the last sixteen from a standing start, and it'll be interesting to see how they get on as both their opponents may be hitting the ground running.

This could certainly apply to the Swiss, who have gradually got better with each game. Switzerland are in fact the only team to get through the group stage without conceding a single goal, which is certainly not a statistic to ignore. Their style is very reminiscent of Greece in Euro 2004, and while they may not be good news to those of us who like a spot of goalmouth action now and again, we know that it also means they should not be written off. They had a bit of luck to help them through against the Koreans, who fans really did deserve a place in the final never mind the last sixteen, when the referee decided to allow a goal which had been flagged offside, causing the Korean defence to stop. The referee was technically correct as the pass deflected off a Korean, meaning Frei was onside, but he really needed to be up with play to make such an overrule. By the time he had arrived on the scene to inform the Koreans of his decision, it was far too late for them to react. A rather harsh way for South Korea to go, but then again they really didn't look like equalising against that miserly Swiss rearguard.

All of which let in the French, who just about took advantage and, unfortunately, rescued themselves from severe ridicule the world over. Damn. I still think they're miles short of what's required, and despite the fact that everyone will now predict a galvanised French team turning up in the knockout stage, I think they could be in for a caning if Spanish confidence holds out for another match.

So here we are then, about to embark on what we will no doubt be told far too many times today is the 'business end' of the World Cup. What that means is, here come the penalty shoot outs! Hurrah! You can't beat a penalty shoot as long as it doesn't involve your team. It's not so much the tension, or watching the relief of the winning side manifest itself in a mass pile up in the goalmouth that makes penalties great. The real joy of spot-kicks is the abject, despondent, misery felt by the unlucky losers. Tears stream down faces, consoling arms are aggresively rejected, fans just stare into space for hours after the rest of the stadium has left to go and watch the next game. Moments like this, which should be so private, brought to a mass audience of millions by compassionless cameramen. Wonderful, glorious, and delicious.

A quick preview and a couple of guesses are in order I think, as we are about to get cracking.

Germany v Sweden.
Very close this one I think. Sweden are very strong defensively, and Klose and co haven't had too much to beat so far. Klose is a canny character though, and he and Ballack might just be the difference, as they are both big match players. Sweden also seem to be struggling to score when England's defence isn't around, so I would be surprised to see them win in normal time. Every chance of a 0-0 or 1-1 here though, and the home crowd might just need all their persuasive powers to convince their men that they can force their way past the yellow and blue barricades.

Germany - just. Could well be in extra-time.

Argentina v Mexico.
Mexico are an odd team, and will probably point to regular victories over Argentina and Brazil at home over the years to give them hope. In this situation though, class usually comes out to play. Mexico may well create some chances, and it'll be crucial to this game whether or not they can take them, and they will need to be absolutely ruthless. No signs of that so far. Argentina will certainly carve out plenty themselves, and you have to think that they won't be so wasteful.

Argentina comfortably - about 3-1 I reckon.

Enjoy!

32 years of hurt

2006-06-22T15:56:00.000-07:00

We may still be a long way from finding out which two teams will have their names printed on the match day programme for the 2006 World Cup final. However we can tonight make one declaration about this official publication: Appearing beneath the two finalists will not be the name G. Poll (Hertfordshire). If World Cup 2006 saw its first English disappointment yesterday, in the shape of the stricken Michael Owen, tonight it got its first taste of abject English failure. Not provided by the players this time, but by our top-rated whistler. I though, am not complaining. Graham, I salute you, because tonight you helped to give the final set of group games the complete mayhem it has so desperately needed. You also played your part in the game of the tournament so far.

Where to begin? Well, Australia should have had three penalties. Graham gave the least obvious one, actually a very well spotted handball by Tomas, who wafted stupidly at a cross with his hand but made minimal contact. However when the same player later volleyballed one out of play that was about to be headed in by an Aussie attacker still chasing an equaliser, Graham gave nothing. Before any of this, he had also inexplicably turned down a stonewaller for a rugby tackle on Viduka. Now I accept refs generally don't give three penalties to one team, but they were all such obvious penalties it's difficult to understand how he missed any of them. Then we come to the cards. Anyone who has seen Graham ref in the Premiership will know that once the cards start coming, they don't stop, and he did get rather carried away tonight. Graham correctly issued two yellows apiece to Simic of Croatia, and Emerton of Australia. So, five minutes to go, and ten-a-side. Shortly after this comes a second yellow for Simunic of Croatia, but Graham forgets that he's already booked him and Simunic stays put. Then, as the clock begins to tick way beyond injury time, the plot becomes just a distant memory. With Croatia desperate for a goal to stay in the World Cup, and sensing they only have one more chance, Graham pulls a Croat defender up for a foul throw, that's a foul throw, in the third of three minutes of injury time. The Australians score from their throw in, but the celebrations are cut short by the whistle. Nobody seems to know what the whistle is for though; a foul on the keeper maybe? The end of the match? Viduka clearly thinks the latter and gives our Graham a hug, but Simunic doesn't appreciate this show of friendship, or the fact that the game is over, and has a few words. This earns him a third yellow from Graham, and this time he remembers the red as well. People pile on to the pitch, the match is presumed to be over, and Graham can't disappear fast enough, probably grateful that his misery is finally at an end. Personally though, I can't say I ever heard the final whistle.

In amongst all this was actually a game that would have been an exciting enough spectacle with or without Graham's help. The best free kick of the World Cup so far from Srna gave Croatia the lead, and the penalty that Graham gave brought Australia in level at half-time. The finest of goalkeeping howlers from Guus 'genius' Hiddink's choice of new keeper put Croatia back infront. Australia then threw absolutely everything at Croatia in search of the goal would send them through, an old fashioned frenzied game of all out attack against desperate defence. However, when Kewell got lucky and equalised from an unnoticed offside position, the tables were gloriously turned for the last ten minutes. Suddenly the ball was flying in and out of the Aussie box, and shots are being fired from everywhere, and the keeper's flapping at everything, and it's being kicked off the line, and defenders are falling over each other, and, and and...! This spell was made even more compelling by the fact that the Aussies naively forgot their position and helped Croatia out by hastily restarting the game every time the ball went dead in their favour. Wonderful entertainment.

The result of the match was fair, and the result of the result was fair, nothing between the teams on the night, but Australia showed much more belief throughout their three games, and deserve to go through.

Order and chaos, triumph and despair, elation and dejection. And that was just Graham's night. You can't ask for much more. Except I can, it's the World Cup and I demand more!

N.B - There is a prize for the first person to leave a comment correctly explaining the meaning of my title for this post.

Still not quite there...

2006-06-22T09:52:00.000-07:00

These final group matches are just not delivering. Surely group E was certain to end in unbearable tension wasn't it? The last few minutes were certain to be a chaotic shambles of desperate managers trying to get on the pitch, teams reverting to a 0-0-11 formation, and bamboozled commentators feeding us inaccurate scenarios that are out of date in seconds. Weren't they? Well apparently not, Italy and Ghana went through without suffering any major trauma. Those from Prague, having lost yet another centre-forward, were pinning their hopes on the return of Baros of the Czech Republic, but instead they got Baros of Aston Villa. Typically, Italy went one up then treated the rest of the game as an annoyance, defending their lead grumpily, like teenagers completing their chores. Once Polak had accomplished one of the more brainless sending offs ever seen, it was pretty much all over.

The Azzuri did add some entertainment to the proceedings towards the end, bringing on a personal favourite of mine: Filippo Inzaghi, the most offside player ever. Within thirty seconds, 'Pippo' made a trademark premature run, duly triggering the flag. Hilariously however, the replay revealed that the decision was actually incorrect! Poor Pippo! The first time in his career he times a run correctly and he's denied. Will he ever recover from this? Difficult to apportion blame to the linesman, as the idea of Inzaghi being onside is about as plausible as Ronaldo passing a pie shop, but what a dreadful disappointment as this would have been one of the genuinely memorable moments of the World Cup. But what's this? Another run, and this time no flag! Pippo's through! He won't have a clue what to do next, this is the point he usually turns to abuse the linesman, he never gets this far. Hang on, he's round the keeper, and it's there!!! Blimey, he must have been practising whilst sitting around injured for the last few weeks. I have always thought that if he could ever stand in a legal position he'd be dangerous, so mark my words, in the rounds to come we must watch out for the all new improved, onside, Filippo Inzaghi.

For Ghana, their destiny is probably to be unluckily knocked out by an underperforming Brazil in round two, but I imagine they'll probably settle for that. In fact Ghana are one of the few teams who would probably rather play Brazil than one of the perceived weaker qualifiers, better having the experience of a game like that than being knocked out by Croatia, Switzerland or Ukraine, which might have been the alternative had they won the group. That list of potential opponents is interesting though, now that we know Italy have that spot in the draw. I can't see the Italians losing too much sleep over Croatia or the Aussies in the last sixteen, nor will they be too concerned about a quarter final against the Swiss, Ukraine or possibly South Korea. The latter would provide the Azzuri with the chance they have been longing for to avenge the daylight robbery they feel they suffered when being knocked out by the co-hosts in 2002. Just about everyone else saw it as just desserts for all the years of trying to hang on to 1-0 leads, but believe me, that game is far from forgotten in Italy. Although the Italians have been known to falter against far less taxing opponents than the above, if they do manage to see two of these teams off, they will be in the semi-final. That's when Italy usually take things seriously.

As for the pandemonium, it's up to either Croatia and Australia tonight or, perhaps more likely, group G tomorrow with three teams still very much in it. Of course, with any luck, the French will be painfully and tearfully eliminated.

Bit of a let down

2006-06-21T15:30:00.000-07:00

Hmm, on reflection maybe I shouldn't have had such confidence in Argentina v Holland being classic when there wasn't really anything on the game. If only there had been though, there was the suggestion throughout that we would have been in for some fireworks. The players gave the impression all game that they were just itching to have a go at each other, but you could feel the coaches tugging at their leashes, making them wait for the real thing.

For Argentina, their work for the first phase was done. They have ensured that for the remainder of World Cup 2006, the opposition will be quivering as they take the field, and with good reason. Some might say Argentina played a reserve side in this game, but seeing as that meant the inclusion if Tevez and Messi it's hardly worth mentioning. I think that's what's known as a strong squad. They toyed with the Dutch in the first half, putting together the odd bout of passing that threatened to develop into another wonder goal, then realising that the moment just wasn't right. You could almost hear the Argentine players saying 'Shall we? Shall we? Nah. You know? This would be wasted on you lads tonight, I think we'll just keep that one to ourselves for now'. The Dutch must have felt like hostages in that first 45, doing whatever was asked of them, whilst desperately hoping to be released from their ordeal as soon as possible with the minimum damage done. The second half however, felt as though the tables had been turned, with the aggressors becoming lazy. As the game entered the last 20 minutes I don't think Holland could quite believe they were still getting a point, so decided to try their luck for all three, and came very close to getting them. In the end the group looked sensible. Argentina, the outright World Cup favourites with everyone except the bookies on top, the Dutch doing enough to get through, the Ivory Coast with some well deserved points, and Serbia & Montenegro with a well deserved naff all. Who would have predicted, by the way, that by watching Argentina v Holland you would have chosen the wrong game?! Did anyone tell Ivory Coast & Serbia and Montenegro that they were already out? Five goals, red cards, a stunning comeback, and all in a supposedly meaningless game. What a waste! No surprise however to see Serbia & Montenegro's defence become the first in the tournament to blow a two goal lead.

There is no middle ground with the last games of the group phase in a World Cup, they are either dreary dead rubbers, or absolute bedlam with imaginary tables flashing across your TV screens every two minutes. I think we can expect more of the latter today, when the madness of group E descends on us again, and then what ought to be a straight fight for second place between Croatia and Australia. Group D, played yesterday afternoon, almost got there, as Portugal quickly began walking all over Mexico, opening the door for Angola. The Africans however were unable to take advantage, although they did manage to do what had looked completely beyond them in the first two games, namely scoring a goal. As it turned out, the real issue was who won the group and avoided Argentina, and Mexico looked like they really wanted to avoid Argentina, attacking in the second half as though qualification itself depended on it. I think the referee's only reason for turning down Mexico's claims for a stonewall second penalty was that Bravo had missed the first by so far there was clearly no point in giving it.

Mexico failed to avoid Argentina. Could be a bad move. They'll be serious next time.

Awaaaaay!

2006-06-20T15:28:00.000-07:00

Not looking great is it? I mean if you want to win a World Cup, the least you should be able to do is defend a corner. As a defender, you'll be lucky to have any kind of professional career if you can't deal with a corner. Has any other team looked in such disarray at corners in World Cup 2006? How do England manage this? The English game is generally considered to involve more crossing than other European leagues, so you would think English defenders would be more adept than most at getting them clear. Defenders of the calibre of John Terry, Rio Ferdinand and Sol Campbell didn't reach their lofty status as the rocks at the heart of England's top three teams without being able to head clear a corner did they? Then why in the second half tonight did England look like conceding a goal from every single sodding corner that Sweden took?? It wasn't just from one position that England were struggling to clear their lines either; first it was the near post, then it was the far post, then it was the second ball; you name it, England weren't there.

You could at least say that this was a decent game, which is a first, and only, for group B. Unfortunately for England though, most of the entertainment was provided by them hanging on for dear life as Sweden turned the screw. Ironic really that after causing England so many problems from crosses, the Swedes themselves allowed a classic man-over-on-the far-post situation to develop, which Joe Cole exploited with a very tidy cross. Joe Cole was undoubtedly England's best player; before providing England's second, he had opened the scoring with an unstoppable volley that ITV's Gareth Southgate inxexplicably tried to blame on the helpless Swedish goalkeeper. If you ask me though, Cole needs to do this sort of thing in every match if he is to justify his place in the team as a completely right-footed player on the left wing. His movement on the ball is so predictable, always inside on to his right foot, he is very easy for a full back to deal with. This badly affects England's balance and, combined with Beckham's lack of pace on the other side of the pitch, means that they hardly ever get behind a defence, which in turn makes your attacking options very limited. Still, if Cole keeps coming up with telling contributions such as in tonight's game, no problem.

Gerrard's connection with Joe Cole's cross looked to have ended England's Swedish hoodoo. That is, until the crowning glory of their second half defensive debacle. This time it was the usually infallible John Terry at fault, completely misjudging his leap leaving Campbell and the rest exposed as the ball dropped into a yawning gap in the penalty area. Larsson got his studs to it to make it 2-2. Despite the defending though, England should be happy enough. They have won their group, which is most unusual, and their second round opponents are Ecuador, as opposed to Germany. Mind you, considering that Ecuador have scored a few goals from set pieces already, maybe England should be a little more concerned by their challenge than they appeared to be after tonight's game. Certainly England should be looking no further ahead than Ecuador, at least until they have learned how to defend a corner.

Ecuador themselves did not give away too many clues today about what England should expect on Sunday. They rested five players, including all their goalscorers from the opening two games, so not too much can be read into the ease of Germany's 3-0 victory. At least that's the line Ecuador will console themselves with after some shambolic defending of their own. Credit to the hosts though, who made it look easy in front of another adoring crowd. Klose is a strange player to watch. He doesn't seem blessed with any great talent, he certainly attempts no spectacular feats of individualism or creativity. Nor is he blessed with any outstanding physical attributes; he is neither pacy nor powerful. All this makes him easy to underestimate, but what he does seem to do, like all great strikers, is always find himself in the right position. At first he can appear lucky, as balls seem to just drop randomly to him in the box, or ricochet towards him; but you can't be lucky as often as he is. The man definitely knows where the goal is; four goals already, to add to his five from 2002. That's what you call an effective striker.

I love watching a host nation fall in love with the World Cup. Germany's games in the knockout stages are likely to be wonderful spectacles, and should not be missed under any circumstances. Not that anything should be missed in the World Cup of course. If you're still with us, you're definitely in for the long haul. From here on in it's valium all the way.

Can I interest anyone in Argentina v Holland?

TV Hell

2006-06-19T10:09:00.000-07:00

There's been so much activity to write about on the pitch in the last few days that I haven't had much time to examine the performance of our friends who dwell in the TV studios and media centres. Shame on me. Let's begin with yesterday's match between Togo and Switzerland. Even the usually excellent Radio Five Live managed to irritate me in the preamble for this one, telling everyone that it wasn't the most mouthwatering clash in the World Cup, and that it might be 'a good day to take a long lunch'. Ok, I'll accept that any game involving Switzzzzerland has possbilities for being a snorefest; as you would expect from the Swiss, they don't commit to attacking very often. But what do our friends at Five know about Togo? If their plan had been to play 6 up front, or to leave out the goalkeeper, the earliest any of their pundits would have known about it was when the game kicked off. In any case, this game should not have been devalued whoever was playing, as it was a vital game in a wide open group. And for their information, it was actually a fine game, very open, with both sides creating plenty of chances, and with Togo actually looking the better side for long spells of the game.

Mind you, Radio Five's knowledge of Togolese football was probably exhaustive compared with that of the three stooges covering the game for BBC 1, namely messrs Dixon, Desailly and Shearer. The score at half-time was 1-0 to the Swiss, despite Togo having more of the game, missing a hatful of chances, and suffering a terrible decision by the referee not to give a penalty when Adebayor was blatantly brought down. A fair assessment would have been that Switzerland could feel slightly fortunate to be ahead having taken their only chance, and Togo only had themselves to blame for poor finishing, yet there was enough there to suggest that Togo could still win the game if they could bring their shooting boots out with them in the second half. However, when Ray Stubbs asked the three wise men for their thoughts, these were the responses:

Alan Shearer: "Well, the Swiss are infront as we expected, but I think Togo have done really well"

Marcel Desailly: "Well, Switzerland took their chance, but I think Togo have done very well"

Lee Dixon: "I think Togo have done well".

Well cheers lads, I was in the dark about the finer tactical points of this game before hearing your enlightening comments, thank goodness we uninitiated morons have your expertise to call on. Could they be any more patronising? "Togo have done well"? Awww, bless their cotton socks, didn't they do well, aren't they lovely. Please, they are not disabled (not that that would excuse such condescending language), nor did they win their place in the World Cup by entering a competition on a packet of breakfast cereal. They are all professional footballers who had to win a qualifying competition to get there, just like England and every other team in the World Cup. At least show them the respect of analysing their performance in the same way you would anyone elses. More to the point, footballing intelligentsia, if you don't know what you're talking about then kindly shut up! I would have far more respect for someone who, when asked to give their opinion on Togo, or any other country they have clearly never seen, replied: "Do you know Gary, I haven't the faintest idea. I've never seen them. I wouldn't like to predict what is going to happen. All I know is I'm looking forward to finding out". Even better of course would be if they had a pundit who had actually gone to the trouble of doing a bit of research about teams and players that they are being paid large sums of money to give their 'expert' opinions on. Maybe I'm asking a bit too much now.

However, this leads us on to the BBC's worrying use of Marcel Desailly, apparently, as their African football specialist. Now Desailly was born in Ghana, but he moved to France as a 4-year-old, and played his entire 18 year professional career in Western Europe, before retiring in 2004. Which probably means he has seen about as much African football as Lee Dixon and Alan Shearer. I can understand Desailly being asked to enlighten everyone on Ghana, as it would be logical to think he might take an interest in the fortunes of the country of his birth. Yesterday however, Ray Stubbs was asking him to give us an insight into everything about Togo. "How do you think the Togolese players will be feeling Marcel?", "What will be the Togolese tactics for the second half?" If the BBC had a Spanish ex-footballer on the panel, would he be presumed to be an expert on Portugal? I find this use of Desailly offensive, why after all should he have specialist knowledge of anyone except France? Modern TV coverage of the World Cup is unrecognisable from years gone by, with enhanced digital quality pictures and sound, virtual reality pitches, tactics explained using bizarre computer graphics, and interactive highlights you can watch again and again. And again. Yet when it comes to talking about less well-established nations and their players, TV is still stuck in the sixties. Except then, I suppose it would have been ok for the presenter to say 'Come on Marcel, you're a black bloke, tell us how your mates are going to play!'. Well some of the questions asked of Desailly during this World Cup smack far too much of that if you ask me.

In addition to this, why is it that whenever an African team plays, the TV commentators feel the need to make endless reference to their colonial past? During the Angola v Portugal match, the phrase 'Lords and Masters' was even heard on more than one occasion, which is astonishingly inappropriate. Since independence these countries have had to strive to establish their own identities once again, so wouldn't it be nice to hear them referred to as something other than 'a former colony of...'? And it's strange, but I haven't heard nearly as much talk of colonial history during Australia's matches.

Whilst I am not asking ex-footballers to suddenly become historians, it would be nice if they were at least aware that nationals of all of the countries taking part in the World Cup will be watching TV coverage in the UK, and that they might just have a little more tact. On the whole, it would make their lives (and ours) a lot easier if they restricted their comments to things they do actually know something about. Mind you in the case of Lee Dixon, this could make for a very quiet programme.

Sounds good to me.

What might have been...

2006-06-18T15:39:00.000-07:00

I'm racking my brains trying to think of something that hasn't happened in the World Cup this weekend. A godlike display of footballing flawlessness? Check. Unpredictable results? Check. Kamikaze football, with all thoughts of defence abandoned? Check. Multi red card thuggery contest? Check. Hapless idiot scoring hilarious own goal? Check. Footballing establishment embarrassed by spirited underdog? Check. The best crowd of insanely noisy fans ever? Check. Some dull shite thrown in for good measure? Check.

It's been great. A World Cup weekend to remember. But it could have been so much better. I can't quite put my finger on exactly what it is, but there's something about Brazil that I really can't stand. I mean I hate all the hype, and the tacky monatges of clips of Pele we've seen a million times before, played with some predictable Samba music in the background. I hate the fact that we only ever see Ronaldinho doing keepy-uppies, when just about every player probably does that stuff in training now and again. Yet all this is not the Brazilians' fault. They can't help it if the idiots providing us with our TV coverage start drooling at the sight of a yellow shirt. But there's still something about them that I can't stick, and it causes me to irrationally crave a Brazilian defeat every time they play. It was summed up today when Brazil scored their decisive, and undeserved, second goal against Australia. Robinho's shot hit the post, and fell straight to substitute Fred, who miscontrolled the ball into the net. The celebrations that followed were the type you would expect from Angola if they actually won the World Cup; completely over the top considering the following:
A: It was a crap goal
B: It was against the run of play, and they should have felt relieved rather than overjoyed
C: Brazil are meant to be gods of the game, and should not have been struggling to beat Australia. Didn't they feel just a little bit humbled?
To watch them all leaping on top of each other, you get the impression Brazil have no concept of when they have played poorly. Either that or they believe their own press and actually imagine that the whole world does love them unconditionally, and therefore that a carnival was being organised in celebration of them flukeing a goal, and scraping a win.

Australia could have made this one of the World Cup's greatest days. This Brazil team was just asking to be humiliated, Ronaldo was allowed to stand still for an hour for the second game in a row, Ronaldinho was too easy to mark, and their goalkeeper performed like the clown that he is. If it were not for the outstanding Ze Roberto covering about four different positions, they would surely have crumbled. Fortunately for Brazil however, the Aussies were in a very charitable mood; Bresciano declining to shoot when clean through, and Kewell putting the ball into orbit rather than tapping into an empty net. A glorious chance to become legends missed by Australia, and the egos of Brazil allowed to wander around unbruised for a little longer. Not too much longer, I hope. Look, if at any stage they live up to their billing, Brazil will get their due amount of credit in this blog. But only when it's deserved.

Not as lucky as the egos of Brazil were those of the only team more overrated than them in the tournament, the French. I have already made known my thoughts on France, I thought they would struggle, and struggle they did. However, I was getting ready to eat some humble pie, as early in the game France's veteran superstars looked like they might just be about to roll back the years. The early goal they scored was more than a little on the lucky side, as Wiltord's poor shot ricocheted off a defender straight into Henry's path, but the goal was merited by France's impressive opening to the game. Was this to be a French renaissance? South Korea looked good candidates for a spanking, bizarrely one-dimensional in attack, whacking lots of long balls up towards their tiny forwards, who had Gallas and Thuram for company. Only one outcome there. France would surely take this opportunity to remind us how they earned their reputation by whacking four or five right? Nah. Don't be silly. Why bother to work hard, win well, and recover the respect of everybody when you can slope around like a bunch of lazy bastards and win 1-0? Slight flaw in the plan I'm afraid lads. South Korea may not have had many ideas, but giving up is not in their vocabulary. It's an accepted rule in football that no matter how unlikely it may look, you will always get at least one great chance to score in every match. The Koreans duly took theirs thanks to a wicked cross, and communication problems between defenders and goalkeeper. The goal was deserved not so much by South Korea's players, who looked a shadow of the energy fuelled force of 2002, nor by their manager Dick Advocaat, as the players showed little evidence of having taken into the game a tactical masterplan. The goal, and the point, was the least that was due to South Korea's 12th man. Anyone turning on their TV midway through the game would have been forgiven for believing they'd walked in on a belter, such was the constant din being made by the bass drums, and high-pitched vocals of the indefatigable South Korean support. Undoubtedly the best fans in the world, and proving that they can replicate the atmosphere generated at home in 2002, when playing thousands of miles away. No one can begrudge them a place in the knockout stage, and thanks to the reliability of an appalling French attitude to the game, we may well see just that.

The underdogs are finally beginning to get some rewards for consistently competing well with their more illustrious opponents, and it's much to the benefit of the tournament. Just imagine how good this day, this weekend would have been, if only... aah, it would have been perfect.

Australia, what are you like?!

Just the tonic needed

2006-06-17T09:12:00.000-07:00

I think the cliche goes 'after the Lord Mayor's show'. In the aftermath of Argentina's performance yesterday, it seemed that the rest of the teams in World Cup 2006 had come to the conclusion that, well, there's not much point to all this now is there? Understandable, but life must go on. I still felt a little bewildered myself for several hours after the final whistle in Gelsenkirchen, but I gamely dragged myself infront of the TV to watch the matches that followed, and I think it was fair to expect the non-Argentine players to show the same level of courage.

Holland played another excellent half-hour, waltzing into a 2-0 lead, and then realised that if they carried on it might turn into an attempt to emulate Argentina, and that would just have been folly. So they sensibly returned to their usual policy of diving, sulking, and attempting to get oppostion players sent off. The luckless Ivory Coast go home having played two games they couldn't really have expected to win. If they could have swapped group places with any of the other African sides they would have had a great chance of going through.

As for the consistently oddball Mexicans, they had definitely been watching Argentina. They walked around in a daze for 45 minutes while Angola tried to work out exactly when they were going to have begin the desperate rearguard action they had prepared themselves for. By the time the Mexico realised why they were there, it was too late. Angola needed to complete only half an hour of the defending they were expecting to do for 90 minutes, and they secured their draw reasonably comfortably.

Making predictions about Mexico is probably marginally less sensible than trying to forecast what Portugal will do. Surely they'll have too much class for Iran? Well as it turned out, yes, but could they have made harder work of it? It was like watching someone trying to paint a wall with a really small brush. You just want to shout at them, 'for god's sake use a roller! You'll get it done in half the time, then you can put your feet up!' Why do they insist on playing one man up front? No matter how many times they struggle like mad to break poor teams down, still it's the solitary Pauleta carrying the attack. It's not even as if he's any good. Yes, yes great goals to games ratio in internationals, but tell me this? If he's that good, why the hell does he play for Paris St Germain? Portugal are a bunch of quality midfielders creating chances for no one, which is why they're guaranteed to always fall short. As it turned out they got home in this one, eventually, thanks to a cracker from Deco and a dive from Figo.

Still, very uninspiring stuff. We were in need of something new. Having been given an injection of beauty, what the World Cup required was a helping of football's other defining attribute; namely the capacity to descend into complete chaos. Enter group E. This collective always had possibilities on paper: it's two underdogs are of a higher quality than most groups; the Czechs are very attacking, and therefore vulnerable, especially with some injury problems; then you have the Italians, whose affinity with the self-destruct button is the stuff of legend. It was actually a bit of a surprise when the first two matches in this group went according to plan, so to speak, with comfortable victories for the favourites. Today's second round of fixtures more than made up for it.

From the moment the Czechs left their concentration in the dressing room and conceded a soft goal in the first minute, this was to be no ordinary evening. Sensing that their opponents were suffering from a lack of attacking inspiration thanks to the absence of their two first choice strikers, Ghana went for the jugular. In fact, the Africans' policy became so attacking as the game wore on, you would have been forgiven for thinking they had forgotten about their early goal and believed the score was still 0-0. Either that or they believed they were subject to some kind of handicap system, and the win didn't count unless the margin was at least two goals. Suffice to say, defending their lead did not appear uppermost in their mind, and this unusual policy led to an extraordinary end-to-end-to-end-to-end second half. Despite the space being left for them to exploit, the Czechs still didn't look like equalising, the hapless Lokvenc up front proving no replacement for the talismanic Koller. Ghana on the other hand tore the Czech back line to shreds, creating chance after chance, but were constantly let down by poor finishing (again), or denied by Cech, looking every bit the world's best 'keeper. However, the Ghanaians form in front of goal improved from consistently awful in their first game, to merely erratic in this one. A belting shot from Muntari sealed a win they fully deserved.

Unfortunately though, one incident took the shine off this excellent performance. The ball broke to Amoah in the penalty area in the 66th minute who, rather than shooting, decided to take a dive as Ujfalusi's lunge made no contact. Referee fell for it, penalty given. Nothing we haven't seen before. Mr Elizondo however, clearly had no plans to send off the defender; that is, until Amoah and his team mates began stalking the referee with their imaginary cards. The official actually had a job finding the offender, so much time had elapsed since the initial decision was made. Why do players need to do this? Cheating is bad enough, but begging for opponents to be sent off is the lowest of the low. Even spitting doesn't come near it. Ghana played superbly, but in that one moment I lost all respect for them.

So a frenetic, exhilerating game with a touch of the dark side? You ain't seen nothin' yet. Bring on Italy and the USA, who played without doubt one of the most absurd matches ever seen in the World Cup. It began with the US looking a much improved team from their mauling by the Czechs, and it was against the run of play when Gilardino gave Italy the lead. Five minutes later, another gap was filled in World Cup 2006, with the first bonafide balls-up; an inexplicable violent slash at the ball by Zaccardo, slicing it with precision into the bottom corner of his own net. Wonderful. This was followed seconds later by an unprovoked and brutal assault by the elbow of De Rossi on Brian McBride, resulting in a completely justified early bath for the Italian, and leaving McBride searching the field for the remains of his nose. Not to be outdone by this display of savagery, Mastroeni, not wanting to risk missing Pirlo's shin with just the one foot, went in with both to make sure, and consequently joined De Rossi in the dressing room. As a response to their own reduction in personnel, Italy took the decision to substitute Totti. It was a decision they would regret, as by the first minute of the second half one less had become one more, as Pope received a second yellow. Lippi, having removed a playmaker, now threw on Del Piero; the Italians in a state of utter confusion having long forgotten whether their approach was now meant to be positive or negative. The Americans seemed to believe that this was meant to be their night, committing what men they had left to going forward in search of the winner, and even finding the back of the net only to see it correctly disallowed for offside. Italy should have forced a winner, but the closest they came to getting it was when Bocanegra tried to even the own goal count up, but was cruelly denied by the woodwork. Somehow, incredibly, this match finished 1-1. Only 1-1. A scoreline that did scant justice to this 90 minutes of anarchy. I think the cliche goes 'it had everything'.

Phew!

Welcome back World Cup, thought we'd lost you there for a minute.

The Beautiful Game

2006-06-16T10:41:00.000-07:00

Speechless.

It's been a couple of hours now since the final whistle, and I'm still speechless. I'm not sure even the most talented and experienced writer could come up with the appropriate words to describe it, never mind a blogging beginner such as myself. I mean, what should I write? If you didn't see it there's nothing I can say that could adequately describe what you missed. If I were to fill the blog top to bottom with superlatives, it still wouldn't cover it. After all, no amount of superlatives can describe perfection.

Think I'm exaggerating? Carried away? Just get yourself onto BBCi, or find one of those replays in the early hours of the morning, or find a mate who's taped it. Watch the game, then try and tell me I'm exaggerating.

When the referee blew the whistle to begin the game it was as if the curtain had been lifted on a company of the world's finest performing artistes; prepared down to the finest detail, ready to deliver the performance of their lives. The ball began to glide from one navy blue shirt to another with such effortlessness; barely touching the turf but, of course, never leaving it. Such was the ease with which the pace was increased and reduced, you would have been forgiven for thinking that the players had been been fitted with gears by formula one car mechanics. And surely nothing but telepathy can explain the demonstration of awareness, movement and vision that was given this afternoon.

Hang on a minute, there's another game being shown on my TV at the moment. What can it be? Surely not a World Cup match? Surely the tournament ended at 3.50pm today? They couldn't even dare to think about awarding the trophy to anyone else now could they?

Let me try and return to earth for long enough to actually recap the game. To begin, 6 minutes of pacing around like a lion watching a zebra from the bushes. Then came the pounce. First time pass followed first time pass with blue shirts buzzing like wasps around defenders resembling startled picnickers who've just opened the strawberry jam. The ball seemed to make one continuous movement from Saviola's first pass to hitting the top corner of the net 6 passes and Rodriguez' finish later.

That was only the first goal, and that was sublime enough. What happened 25 minutes later deserves to become the stuff of legend. A 24 pass string, involving every outfield player, with opposition players becoming mere spectators, looking on in admiration like the other 52000 in the stadium. It was as if the players had an agreement that the final ball and finish were not permitted until only the greatest goal ever would result. Who could argue that, when Saviola found Cambiasso who found Crespo who backheeled to Cambiasso who crashed it past the keeper, all of the above played, naturally, first time, the result was exactly that. This was not a goal, it was an exhibit from the museum of footballing artistry. One can only wonder what position it would subsequently take in World Cup history had the scorer been wearing a shirt of gold. My guess is that it is destined to become a precious artefact gathering dust in a corner, unappreciated, undervalued, forgotten. Well not to anyone who saw it.

After the mesmeric Saviola had humiliated another unfortunate onlooker in a white shirt to create another goal for Rodriguez just before half time, it appeared that their work may be complete. The second half became a victory procession, the crowd (still including the opposition) priveleged to be there to pay 45 minutes of homage after the exhibition given in the first half. Then, as if reappearing after spending half an hour backstage listening to uninterrupted adulation, they graced their public with an encore to cement the afternoon's place in the memory of all who were witness to it.

For the final act, they were joined by Messi. His arrival like that of a young prince being paraded before the subjects of his future rule. For the time he was on the pitch, the ball barely left his feet. It did briefly as he supplied Crespo with a fourth goal, and again as Tevez crafted a fifth. It was the prince however, that rightly had the last word; his entourage clearing the way for him to accept the acclaim with the 6th, and final, outstanding goal. We shall surely not have long to wait for his coronation.

Argentina. Today you achieved greatness. Today you played the beautiful game. Thank you.

Sorry? Did I hear someone venture that it was just like watching Brazil? Thought not.

You wouldn't dare.

Let's look at the facts

2006-06-15T17:32:00.000-07:00

Before we all go over the top analysing England's performance again...actually, what am I saying? Far too late for that! But really, some perspective is required once more.

First, the truth that has completely passed the media by - Group B is crap! All 4 games played so far have been complete shitefests, filled with turgid, directionless, one-dimensional garbage. It really doesn’t help that two teams in the Group are interested only in defending, whilst the other two rely heavily on defence being the strongest area of their game. The only thing that saved us (as fans I mean – I never use ‘we’ or ‘us’ when referring to England) yesterday was that the idea of England not beating T&T was so implausible that the closer it came to becoming reality, the more the tension mounted. In short, the same reason that made T&T v Sweden a watchable game on Saturday. Thus, these games at least had an element of drama that the other two games in the group have sadly lacked, but on the whole Group B has been a good excuse to get your shopping done.

Second, England are through to the next round. In fact, but for Sweden's late winner, England would have already won the group. Imagine what France would give for that position. If you offered the French a 1-0 win with a terrible performance against South Korea on Sunday, they'd snap your hand off. So it could be worse.

Third, England have perhaps the best defensive unit seen in the tournament so far. Ok, they haven’t come under an enormous amount of pressure, but apart from one incident where John Terry was forced to make a spectacular goalline clearance (an incident which was no fault of any defender - more on this later), the opposition have not been near the England goal in two games. Even the most impressive looking teams so far have had at least one or two chances created against them.

On top of all this remember that the excitement of the World Cup leads to England being unbelievably overrated. England are undoubtedly under par – but it’s unlikely that England’s par would be anywhere near good enough. England went into the tournament hoping that they could find the inspiration to play well above themselves, this is very difficult to achieve and a lot to expect.

So it certainly isn't all bad. Just some of it. The main criticism you would have to make of England yesterday was a complete lack of imagination. Yes, T&T were a very disciplined outfit, who concentrated on getting their defensive basics right, and not making errors. But honestly, does it really take something that special to get past Gillingham stalwarts? Admittedly it’s never that easy to break down a team that puts up a brick wall, whatever their class, but the worrying thing was that England never recognised that their tactics weren’t working, or worse still, were aware of that but had no alternative. The manager surely has to be questioned here - England looked like a team who had been told to stick to their guns come what may. Whether that’s true or not, where was the order after 20 mins to abandon plan A and try something else? Whatever, nothing changed, even at half-time, and we were forced to watch one diagonal ball after another find the head of a centre-back. Only when Eriksson finally came to his senses and put genuine wide men on the pitch did England start to actually test the T&T rearguard. I personally could not resist giving an ironic cheer when Lennon immediately went past his full back (possibly the first England player to do so in the World Cup so far). The move actually gave the whole match a lift, as if this tiny injection of pace and creativity suddenly opened the whole team’s eyes to what they should be doing. At the same time you could sense the fear increasing amongst the T&T players, a collective thought of ‘bugger, we’ve been rumbled here lads’. It really shouldn’t have been that hard to work out.

Nor should it require a superb last minute goal in order to deduce that Gerrard is being utterly wasted playing in his own half of the field. This situation has gone far enough, someone in the England management team just needs to grow some balls and tell Frank Lampard that there just isn’t room for him in the team. Not his fault, fantastic player, it’s just his bad luck he plays in the same position as someone better. If you had two world class goalkeepers would you play them both just because you thought it was a shame to leave one out? Great teams all have one thing in common – balance. The two of them playing together has consistently robbed England of this most crucial ingredient.

Ah yes, I mentioned goalkeepers. Interesting little footnote I think. It appears to have gone completely unnoticed that Paul Robinson looks as dodgy as hell. He has had virtually zero to do in two games, yet has still managed to drop or misjudge 3 crosses, one of which would have led to a T&T goal had he not been rescued by Terry. I think England need to hope that his lack of activity is to blame for this, because if you transfer that sort of form into a game when he actually sees some serious action, they have a major problem. It seems just as well he has been so expertly protected so far.

So on reflection, do the pros outweigh the cons? I’m still no nearer deciding!

Home Win

2006-06-14T16:13:00.000-07:00

Another classic World Cup cliche:

"It's great for the World Cup if the host nation does well, and stays in the competion until the later rounds".

Know what? I totally agree. Tonight's game between Germany and Poland displayed exactly why the host nation is a major asset to a World Cup. Did you hear the noise in Dortmund? Not just during the game, but from around an hour beforehand the atmosphere sounded incredible. The match preview on 5 live became a trying experience for Mark Saggers and the pundits, fighting a losing battle to make themselves heard over the din. All of which led to a real hairs-on-the-back-of-the-neck rendition of that most gorgeous of all national anthems, leaving a crowd uplifted enough to keep the noise up for the whole game, despite the frustration felt at the home side's failure to find the back of the net. Then came that last 20 minutes, when it seemed that every household in Germany must have donated a kitchen sink for the team to throw at their opponents. One attack after another, with no pause for breath, or defensive re-organisation, descended on the Polish goal, every one bringing with it a louder roar of encouragement, and cry of anguish. Only one thing could have given this game it's perfect ending. One last kitchen sink: Winger escapes down the right... centre back comes across to cover, leaving a gap... Neuville stretches out a hopeful leg... and somehow manages to poke the ball into the bottom corner. Say goodbye to the roof.

Only the host nation can bring this kind of theatre to the World Cup. A great tournament needs quality, but not nearly as much as it needs memorable games. Matches that stay with you mostly aren't about great goals or outstanding individuals; they are typified by the kind of dramatic intensity you could feel in tonight's game. There's nothing more compelling than watching an entire nation go through the emotional mill, and you can't help but get carried along with them. So many memories of major tournaments involve the fate of the host nation. We in England all know this to be true after the euphoria, and utter despondency, felt here during Euro 96. What do people remember most about the 1998 world cup? Someone's man-of-the-match display in the quarter final? A blinding 30 yarder in one of the group matches? No, what they remember are scenes of jubilation, as an ecstatic nation took to the streets of Paris to celebrate the home victory.

Gavin Peacock, BBC pundit, said of Germany after tonight's game: "I don't think they're a great side at all, but you shouldn't underestimate any team that has momentum". Indeed so, and it's the home team that is always in the best position to gather momentum, riding high on the emotions of its people. The more this impetus increases, the more we can expect to be wearing out the edges of our seats watching Germany progress. This is great news for everyone that loves the World Cup.

Los Idiotas

2006-06-14T14:48:00.000-07:00

"Andy Townsend, that was impressive, how far can Spain go then?"
"Well Gabby, on this evidence, they'll be hard to stop. This team might just be the one at last"

"So, Iain Dowie, can Spain go all the way?"
"Yes, I think they can"

Fantastic, this is what makes the World Cup great. It just never lets you down. You want idiots tipping Spain to lift the trophy after an impressive opening win? Of course you do! It wouldn't be the World Cup without it, after all. Well it's not a problem. In the bag. I hope you will notice that I haven't even picked on ITV for this one, I intrepidly ventured behind the red button to find you some shite being spouted on the Beeb as well. I hope you appreciate this.

Ah, they'll never learn. At least I hope not. Spain were great today, I'm certainly not going to deny that, they completely outplayed a very disappointing Ukraine, who seemed to suffer from a bit of stage fright. But if Spain win this World Cup, or even get to the final, then I'll be playing up front for the Ivory Coast in 2010. In any case, 4-0 doesn't quite tell the whole story. Despite their dominance, and the undoubted quality of their build-up play, they had to rely on an unusually large amount of luck. First goal bounced in off Xabi Alonso, second was a deflected free kick, third was a penalty given for a non-foul outside the box which also saw Ukraine reduced to 10. It might sound harsh, but that's what put them three up. Add to that the fact that Ukraine suffered at the hands of a myopic linesman to the tune of 4 incorrect offside decisions in the first half, 2 of which would have given Shevchenko a one-on-one with the keeper, and you can see how things might have turned out differently. It will be described as a convincing win, when in truth it was more of a convincing scoreline. Brilliant fourth goal, mind you.

Ukraine shouldn't lose too much sleep. They can't suffer that kind of luck again, and they shouldn't even need any luck to see off Tunisia and Saudi Arabia, who handily did themselves no favours by drawing.

Not that I'm saying that those from North Africa and the Middle East will be whipping boys, of course. Only an idiot would predict such a thing.

Sod the cliches, watch the game!

2006-06-13T16:31:00.000-07:00

Always one of the worst days of the World Cup this. The day Brazil play their first match is always a cliche infested swamp of hyperbole, and today was no exception. I have been sick of this since USA '94, mainly because most of it just doesn't apply anymore. And if anyone dares to tell me Brazil are my second favourite team just once more...! Brazil teams down the years have always had a fair sprinkling of world-beaters. The difference between the generations is that the Brazils of the 50's, 60's, 70's and 1982 were amazing to watch because of their crop of geniuses; where as Brazil since 1994 have been shite to watch despite theirs. What will it take for the idiots that pass for football experts to realise that Brazil are now a defensive side? Is it too much to ask for them to watch some of their recent games, or to even look at the results? Even the most cursory glance at their World Cup results since 1994 reveals a side that is firmly based on clean sheets. Nothing wrong with that, almost all successful sides are. Just stop telling us that we're going to see an all singing-all ball juggling goalfest every time they play! It's not going to happen.

Take tonight's match. Just an hour before the game, messrs Lineker and Shearer were promising us the night of our lives, and for weeks it has been suggested by preview shows and pull-out guides that Brazil 2006 would be a carefree, 5 up front freakshow that sets out to win every game 10-0, but doesn't really mind if it's 10-9. Personally I think that makes them sound like Spurs under Ossie Ardiles. All of this, we were told, was being masterminded by the same coach who led Brazil to glory at USA 94 playing like Gary Megson's West Brom. Pretty unrealistic wouldn't you say? Brazil's formation tonight was a novel one, I'll give them that. Can't say that I can recall seeing 4-2-2-1-fat bastard before. Personally I hope Ronaldo plays in every match, because it's going to be the best laugh of the World Cup. If Parreira has any sense however, he'll pack him off back to the psychotherapist's couch. Only, make him cycle there, he needs the exercise. Of the famous five, only two really turned up tonight; the one true genius Ronaldinho, and Kaka. Generally though, Brazil's formation was too disjointed to make real use of either of them. As they didn't have to bother looking after Ronaldo, Adriano, and latterly Robinho, it made it easier for Croatia to take care of the real danger by multi-man marking. If only the Croats had combined superb execution of their defensive plans with just a modicum of composure up front, they could easily have won the game. The second half was actually very one sided in the Croats' favour, despite patronising remarks on commentary such as "Croatia are actually causing one or two problems here, Brazil might have to be careful" or "Brazil aren't quite clicking in their opening match, this might give the Croats some hope". Why does everything have to be seen from Brazil's point of view? There are two teams on the pitch after all. I can accept that kind of bias in England games, but not everyone has an unconditional love for Brazil. Argentina play glorious attacking football, but can you imagine being told you should want them to win the World Cup?

Biased commentary is becoming a problem actually. The other game in this group, played yesterday, might have been mistaken for an England B international, such was the partizan nature of the commentary in favour of Australia. Japan were actually the better side for the vast majority of the game and with better finishing would have been out of sight by the time Cahill made his decisive appearance. And am I the only one that thought Japan's goal was ok, and the result of a dreadful misjudgement by Schwarzer? I suppose it was asking too much for his club manager to admit that on commentary.

But I digress.

Brazil are bad enough, but when it comes to unjustified hype and tired cliches, one team are the undisputed kings of recent times. Let's get one thing straight - anyone who thinks France are a good side, or have any chance in this World Cup, is an idiot. Those of you who are about to accuse of me of talking with the benefit of hindsight, having seeing today's dire excuse for a match, please visit this guardian blog and read my own reponse (under the name forest7879), written before a ball was kicked.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/worldcup06/2006/06/08/five_simple_rules_for_fixing_f.html

People who are paid money for their opinions on football have actually tipped France to get to the World Cup final. Haha! Why? I demand a written explanation for this. How can anyone who has watched any international football in the last 6 years possibly think this French team - still mostly the one that won the trophy 8, count them, 8 years ago - can do any damage? Some of them can hardly move! It's actually quite tragic that we have to see greats like Thuram and the giant that was Zinedine Zidane, performing as shadows of their former selves, but as Martin O'Neill correctly pointed out today (praise for a pundit everyone!) you can only judge a player by how he performs now. Yet continually we read that France are favourites for group G, having so much quality in Zidane, Thuram, Vieira, Trezeguet and of course, everyone's darling, Thierry Henry. Has anyone ever watched Henry in an international? Obviously not if they rate him. Never at any stage has Henry performed for Les Bleus as he does for Arsenal. You could argue that this may be the fault of the French system or various coaches, but wherever the blame lies, it doesn't make him any more likely to suddenly turn up now.

France have rejected the opportunity to play younger players, and players in form; the omission of Ludovic Giuly from the squad is especially baffling. Now, they shall get what they deserve, another disaster. It was a mistake to take this ageing team into the 2002 World Cup, a mistake for which they were punished. They failed to learn from it and catastrophically kept the faith in Euro 2004. Yet here they are once again; it might be funny if it wasn't so embarrassing. If France get out of this group, I will be very surprised. If they do, it will only be due to the weakness of their opponents.

Don't write off South Korea, would be my advice.

Don't believe the hype. Brazil are not going to start banging in goals from the halfway line on their way to 14-0 wins, and France's claims to being world beaters lie only in the record books. Ronaldo and Zidane have had their World Cups. There are tournaments with which their names will forever be synonymous. Neither should play any further part in this one. They should move aside and allow the heroes of 2006 to take the stage they deserve.

Apparently, there's no substitute for it

2006-06-12T17:12:00.000-07:00

A pattern is emerging at World Cup 2006. As we have already established, the days of minnows finishing on the receiving end of cricket scores are all but behind us. Yet it seems the underdog is still destined to suffer, only in a different, much crueller, fashion. Trinidad & Tobago's heroics aside, those that kicked off as clear second favourites have so far failed to register any points. No team has been embarrassed by failing to compete, or cause their opponents any problems, indeed the basics are being well covered, even by the most unfancied sides. Instead, matches are continually being decided by subtle differences at the business ends of the pitch. A touch of quality, even genius at times, is consistently making the vital difference.

A slight feeling of deja vu could be detected today when watching the introductory performances of Ghana and, to a lesser extent, the US of A, whose efforts appeared to replicate those of Ivory Coast, Iran, and Angola. Both sides attacked with purpose, passed the ball with confidence, were well organised at the back... and could have played for a fortnight without creating a single goalscoring chance. The only way either would have found the net would have been from a long range shot, or from 50/50 penalty decisions had they been lucky enough to get a more generous referee. At the same time, both looked like they could have conceded with every Italian or Czech attack that came their way.

Ghana actually looked a very decent outfit in the middle third of the pitch, very powerful and pacy, which helped move their counter attacks forward rather menacingly. Yet they were continually let down by their final ball, and lack of ability up front. Add to that the dodgiest keeper so far, and a tendency to treat the award of an Italian corner as a drinks break, and I'm afraid trouble is a-brewing. What they lacked was just a bit of class where it was needed most. It may be the epitaph of many a team in this World Cup. Many a team, but not their opponents, who gave an exemplary display. The Azzuri, supposedly troubled (stop me if you think you've heard this one before...), looked glorious at times, the passing and movement around the box of Pirlo, Toni, Gilardino, and, incredibly, Totti would have been the most inventive and incisive seen in the tournament so far - if the Czechs hadn't got there first a couple of hours earlier. More impressive still it was all done at pace, and with a bit more luck the first half hour might have seen 3 or 4 goals. I say 'incredibly' in reference to Signor Totti because just 4 months ago the man broke his leg. And apparently did some ankle ligaments for good measure. To make it on to the pitch for the first game was unbelievable, to look like he'd never been away was nothing short of miraculous. Makes Rooney look a bit slack for missing the Paraguay game really doesn't it?

If Italy's attacking first half tactics left (gasp!) a few gaps at the back, which Ghana exploited (but didn't punish), the second half saw a return to more a traditional form of Italian football. Namely, defence. That's not a criticism at all, far from it. I think Italy have a way of defending which is actually enjoyable to watch. No, I'm not taking the piss! I'm being sincere! Italy are able to wipe all thoughts of scoring a goal from the opposition's mind without ever resorting to the kind of negativity which ends in 10 men behind the ball, and clearances being booted downfield. The reason for that is that they don't need to pull their attacking players back to help out in defence, because their defenders know how to defend properly. Besides, the Italians broke regularly in the second half, and still looked superb in attack. Some may try and say I am trying to convince myself a bit here, because, yes, Italy were my pre-tournament choice to win this thing, but so confident was I in the inevitable clean sheet that I actually won a fiver off a mate who told me after 10 minutes that Ghana would definitely score. You'll never learn David.

Even more impressive than the boys in blue though, were the Czech Republic. To call them dark horses is a bit of a cliche, and I don't think they'll win it. What they are, without any doubt, is criminally undervalued. Their games should receive top billing because they are always a wonderfully attacking, exciting side to watch, with some top players, and one bonafide genius in Nedved. To think of the column inches and TV coverage the over the hill and tediously negative France will get in this tournament, when they don't even deserve to have qualified, it angers me that such a talented team as the Czechs gets ignored. I guess if your face doesn't fit...etc. Still, those of us in the know can make a date to sit back and enjoy the kind of stuff we saw today; interplay of the highest calibre between a midfield triangle out of the top drawer combined with an added directness, an extra dimension given to them by their giant centre forward Koller, making them very dangerous. It's very difficult to criticise the Americans, who really did very little wrong. In fact they looked a useful unit for a lot of the game, very fit, well organised...we've been through this. They were just well beaten by a team that showed that bit of class. Didn't they just show it by the way? The two best goals so far from Rosicky, one all down to himself (and that includes the ball), and the other a glorious team effort. So unlucky that big Koller picked up a bad injury, meaning we may not see him again, and you wonder whether they'll be the same proposition without him against tougher opposition.

One thing they won't be lacking however, is that bit of class.

Whipping boys

2006-06-11T18:31:00.000-07:00

Time to balance out my ITV bashing a bit tonight, and to help me out, I can call on the ever reliable Lee Dixon. During the analysis post-Mexico v Iran today, Lee gave his thoughts looking ahead to the Portugal-Angola clash: "I'm sure Angola are going to be one of the whipping boys of the World Cup". A very easy opinion to give, seeing how it's the one virtually everyone else gives, but it does beg the question: On what, precisely, was it based? Are we to believe that since his umpteen years of passing the ball 6 yards sideways to Tony Adams came to an end, Lee has spent his time as the British football ambassador in south-west Africa? Or has he, in fact, read the Angola page in the (actually rather excellent) Match Of The Day World Cup 2006 guide? In short, he knows nowt. To be fair to Lee, he's probably no more guilty of this than most of his colleagues, but I'll pick on him anyway because, well, it's fun. And no one likes Lee Dixon do they? Thought not.

Seriously though, when are pundits and journalists going to learn? The days of the World Cup whipping boy would seem to be all but over. There are far more decent coaches in the established football nations than there are established nations with coaching vacancies. These people need jobs, and they find them in developing football nations. We have already seen a few completely written off teams, Costa Rica, T&T, Iran, and Angola, and whilst none of them actually beat their more illustrious opponents, try asking the coaches of Germany, Sweden, Mexico and Portugal whether or not they enjoyed their supposed 90 minute walkovers.

Predictions in this World Cup already appear to be idiots' territiory. Every match has been close enough to have gone either way. Portugal must have breathed a sigh of relief big enough to blow Cologne's Volksparkstadion to Hamburg when the final whistle went tonight. Angola terrified them, make no mistake. If Angola's game had had just a little more sophistication, say as much as Ivory Coast's, Portugal would have been in big trouble. Despite Figo's excellence, and a gift early goal that should have opened the floodgates, the Portuguese huffed and puffed, suffering from shite cross syndrome for the rest of the match. As the clock ticked away, and the nerves set in, they got deeper, and deeper and deeper, and it was clear to all the Portuguese fans in the stadium, who went from derisory whistling to actually chanting support for their opponents, that their team was hanging on. To anyone who enjoys an underdog, Angola were heaven and hell to watch. Time and time again they comfortably broke up Portuguese attacks, made their way neatly into their opponents half... and then panicked. One attack after another ended with the wrong option chosen, a rushed and overhit pass, or a row ZZZ bound shot. A damn shame, because Portugal deserved to be embarrassed.

Mexico were much more respectful of the opponents they were meant to give a pasting to, and were rewarded with a better result and performance. Iran looked every bit their equal in the first half, they attacked speedily, and used the ball intelligently. They could have taken the lead before unluckily falling behind to the wonderfully named Bravo. The equaliser certainly came as no surprise, and they deserved to end the first half level. Mexico's response should be seen as a lesson to the 'bigger' teams; rather than arrogantly assuming their opponents game would deteriorate, they made two substitutions at half-time, and changed their tactics, putting the emphasis on keeping possession, and showing patience. The result was that Iran never got a sniff of the ball in the second half, and when the keeper and centre half each made their only mistakes of the match, they were ruthlessly punished. With confidence boosted, Mexico's Brazilian then added a lovely third.

Iran's boys were not whipped, but effectively beaten by a better side who showed intelligence in working out their opponents. I don't think Mexico would have been any happier if they had won the game 5-0, because they never made the assumption that they would do so in the first place. I'm guessing they probably weren't listening to the advice of ex-England full-backs commenting on teams they've never seen.

I hate Holland

2006-06-11T17:14:00.000-07:00

It will become apparent to you as the World Cup goes on that I have very little time for Holland. The reason for this is that they are brilliant. Fantastic. Touched by genius. So why do I hate them so? Because despite being all of the above, they continually turn up to these international tournaments and play the type of football that should be against their religion (their religion being the gospel of total football as preached by St Johann, in case you've forgotten). So often, the beauty of which they're capable is rejected in favour of negativity, cynicism, and out-and-out cheating. The Dutch are guilty of flushing more talent down the toilet than any side in the world. And I hate that.

So of course, I sat down for today's match daring to believe that the 2006 orange vintage could be the one to break the mould. What's this? Pinpoint 50 yard passes to dream about? Movement so clever, every Dutchman had an absolute age on the ball? Toying with the opposition before effortlessly upping the pace, and sending the lightning quick Robben clear of the LAST DEFENDER... GOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLL!!! Awesome. Sublime. Better than Brazil. Give them the World Cup NOW!

In short, I allowed myself to get a little carried away. For 20 glorious minutes I believed that this time was going to be different. It was clear that this game was going to be a rout, 6, 7, who knows? Who cares? Just sit back and enjoy. And then...they dropped deeper. Nooooooooooo!!!! I demand you throw men forward and put this shite to the sword! They don't inhabit the same planet as you damnit! Oi! Cocu! Van Persie! Look at Robben, he fancies double figures here, that full back's on his mantlepiece after the game! Get back in their half I say!

Need I go on? Serbia and Montenegro (feel free to do the 'two teams' gag by the way, they will actually become so very soon methinks) got so fed up with Milosevic and Kezman bumping into each other, they eventually packed them both off to the bath to be replaced by their version of Peter Crouch. There then ensued a game which (Big) Sam may have enjoyed over on ShITV, and the men in orange were content to head the ball clear for the entire second half. Bastards.

One second half incident provided the perfect microcosm of Dutch football. Van Persie pulled away to the right, and was supplied with effortless precision. In one movement, and with an electric injection of pace, he sublimely glided past the last, hapless, defender. Inevitably, but, and please note, unsuccessfully, the stricken full back's leg duly came out, hoping to put a swift end to the move. He was too late, however, to bring down the winger, who had left him for dead. With support arriving, Van Persie's run to the byline would surely have ended in a certain, glorious, second goal. Van Persie never made the byline, choosing instead to bring his own run to a premature end, without the help of his opponent.

Never has the phrase 'you're only cheating yourself' felt more appropriate.

I give up.

Just to explain

2006-06-11T15:31:00.000-07:00

If you are confused by the dates of these posts in relation to the content, I should just explain that I actually started this blog on another website, and have 'moved' so to speak to this new home. So the first 4 entries were hastily pasted in together, but were actually written at various times since Friday 9th June.

Should all make sense from now on. Welcome to any new readers :)

Belatedly...

2006-06-11T14:55:00.000-07:00

A few words on last nights game. Probably the best football played so far, certainly technically. Argentina's first half performance should really be a warning to everyone, their passing and movement was a joy. Of course if they played like that for the entire match, in every match, we might as well all go home now. The great thing is, of course, that they won't. The latin mentality will never change, and though Argentina could conceivably have come out and got 3 or 4 more in the second half, they decided it was time for a late siesta, and the Ivorians can think themselves damned unlucky not to have come out of it with a point. Having watched quite a bit of the African Cup of Nations earlier this year, I can't say I gave the Cote D'Ivoire much of a chance (why do we have to use their language when saying their country's name by the way? This seems to apply exclusively to them - should we start saying Deutschland, or Italia, or Espana from now on?), and yet they were one of the better teams in that tournament. The best compliment I can pay to the Ivorians is that they looked like they deserved to be sharing the pitch with Argentina, not at all out of place when many a minor footballing nation would have been swept aside. Further proof that the global football gap is narrowing all the time in terms of quality. Argentina's 2nd half laziness allowed the Ivorians to have a real go, and Drogba's goal was thoroughly deserved. It would have been very interesting if it had gone in a little earlier, and Argentina couldn't have complained if an equaliser had been scored. But the right team won in the end, the major difference between the two being quality in and around the box, and to be honest, that's what counts.

The best team seen so far? Definitely.

You can always count on England

2006-06-11T14:43:00.000-07:00

So, 5 games into the World Cup, and we have had 4 games that were either very exciting, very interesting, very pleasing on the eye, or all of these. We have also had 1 complete shitefest. Trust England to spoil things.

Did anyone else think that this afternoon's 90 mins felt like 3 hours? Of course, in over-analysing England's performance, the TV boys managed to completely gloss over the truth about the match - it was crap. Why can't they just agree on that and be done with it? Yes, yes dodgy substitutions, didn't really create any chances, front two ineffectual, blah blah...SHUT UP! Now, forget that it's England, take another look, and try and be objective. What's that? A load of shite? Hurrah, well done, the penny's dropped. That's all it was, a coma-inducing, directionless clogfest between two teams that never came to terms with each other's game, or the conditions. It would be wrong to be too critical of England's performance, after all it takes two loads of shite to make a shitefest. England should be grateful that they got a win, that they came up against the poorest team in the competition so far, and that a mad, attention-seeking referee didn't do them any serious damage. If there is one justified criticism that could be made of England, it would be the naive way they went bombing around after the ball like kids in the under 14's cup final in 100 degree heat. Surprise, surprise after 20 mins they were knackered, and never really recovered. Alan Shearer's assessment of this tactic at half-time? "It's great to see England playing such a high tempo game, closing down the space". What, so when playing in sauna-like conditions, having strikers charging around after full-backs who are deep inside their own half is a good idea? Bollocks, they should have conserved energy, and they're lucky they weren't made to pay for it in the 2nd half. Now let's move on. We know that England can play better than that; and when the circumstances allow for it, they will.

As for us fans, we should be grateful that there were two other games today, and in each of them both teams got much more into the spirit of things. I can imagine so many people examining their wallcharts today and selecting the game sandwiched between England and the Argentina-Ivory Coast match as an opportunity to return to normal life for a couple of hours. 'Sweden v Trinidad & Tobago, oh that'll be routine stuff for the Swedes, I'll give that a miss'. Oh ye World Cup amateurs, will you never learn? T&T overcame the worst refereeing decision so far (and I include those made by the idiot from the England game) to get a draw they fully deserved... Hang on, before I go on I must dwell on the sending off for a moment - Gareth Southgate and Robbie Earle: "I think the referee got that just about right". Ha ha ha! ITV strike again, bless them, aren't they lovely? The lesser known John actually made a perfectly good tackle, hard but fair, and was given a second yellow card because the referee construed it as 'dangerous'. Well every bloody tackle has the potential to be dangerous doesn't it? Fair tackles have been known to break legs after all. The point is he got the ball, and as far as I know, FIFA do still allow that for the time being. In any case, 10 men or 11, hanging on for a draw was a pretty heroic effort. In fact 'hanging on' is probably a bit unfair; whilst big Shaka had a stormer, the T&T rearguard were well drilled, and coped comfortably for the most part.

The 0-0 was undoubtedly a calamitous result for the Swedes, but it's actually difficult to see where they went wrong. They dominated possession, they passed accurately and incisively, they got behind the T&T back line on numerous occasions, and the front two looked lively and creative. In fact, Ibrahimovic looked every bit the class act he is for most of the game. However, despite all these positives, they never really managed to create a clearcut chance. Quite baffling really, they'll probably just put it down to one of those days. And just a mad thought - seeing as they played half the match with ten, and actually came closest to scoring, through Glen's thunderbolt that hit the bar, T&T might actually think themselves a bit unlucky. Ha!

Only in the World Cup. You have to love it. All of it.

Thoughts on Argentina shall be banked till the morning. See you then.

Ok, if I must...

2006-06-11T14:40:00.000-07:00

England games. It's not that I'm not excited, I'm very excited, because I'm excited about every game. It's not that I don't want them to win, of course I do. I want England to win the world cup. There, I've said it, and you should refer back to this comment throughout the tournament. However...

There is just something about the atmosphere around major England internationals that I find irritating and unsettling. Whether it's the out-of-control optimism, tacky supermarket memorabilia, or racist tabloid hyperbole I'm not sure. Actually I think the worst thing of all is the part-time supporters. Part-time England supporters, part-time football supporters, and part-time world cup watchers are just everywhere. I want to share my World Cup with the kind of people who have considered looking for rehab clinics that cure football addiction. And then thought better of it. Sadly, amongst all the plastic flags, plastic hats and plastic beer glasses these people get lost, and I am forced to discuss the game with people who can't remember any other World Cups, don't know any of the opposition players, and in some cases don't even know the sodding off-side rule! This problem does not occur at Macclesfield, I can tell you that. Why can't these people just piss off to Ikea?

Since Euro 96, England games seem to have taken the place of royal events; they have the feel of a royal wedding, or a coronation or jubilee. I'm all for displaying colours, even flags. The more the flag is used by people who aren't vile Daily Mail, BNP type people the less it becomes associated with them. And that's good. However, it's a football match, and it should be about football, and nothing else.

Most importantly, if you are a football fan, you should be able to watch England games objectively, praising the opposition playmaker when he outwits us, recognising that our strike force is a bit on the average side, and not reacting with total surprise when Rio Ferdinand cocks up. Above all else however, a football fan should be doing one thing and one thing only when the final whistle blows in the England game today - switching over for Sweden v Trinidad.

La Copa Mundial De Futbol

2006-06-11T14:35:00.000-07:00

Some things never change, and it's quite reassuring that you can rely on them. No, I'm not talking about the Germans opening with an impressive win, or England's chances being massively overestimated, or even about a Central American team turning up with a dodgy back four and keeper. If there's one thing on Planet World Cup that you can truly count on then it's this - ITV's punditry will be the biggest load of shite you ever hear. And what a cracking start they got off to tonight. Immediately after the end of a match in which Ecuador comfortably beat a European team on European soil, Ruud Gullit gave the opinion that the South Americans were clearly going to struggle without the advantage offered to them by the high altitude of their own part of world. What? Did he watch the game? Was this a pre-match analysis recorded and played back at the wrong time? In fairness to Ruud though, his comments were far from being the most embarrassing of the evening. (Big) Sam Allardyce suggested that both Ecuador and Poland had played to a "poor technical standard". Quite apart from the fact that both teams, particularly Ecuador, appeared to me to pass the ball very well, this comment comes from the manager of Bolton Wanderers! Presumably for (Big) Sam to appreciate their technique these teams should look at lumping it 70 yards to a 6 ft 5 donkey on the edge of the box in their next game. Thank goodness for Gabby and Stuart Pearce. More to the point, thank goodness for the BBC!

Welcome to my World Cup blog by the way. I thought it was about time I used this page for something, and even if no-one reads it, it will make a nice momento for me. I am on half days at work throughout the group stages to ensure I don't miss anything, and there'll be at least one entry here every day until we have to say goodbye to this extraordinary event for another 4 years.

So were the Germans good or bad? It's a difficult one to assess. Yes a couple of corking goals, but crap defending and a silly ball have to be considered. Actually that's a little unfair to Frings' goal but the doubts are there nonetheless. Then there is the question of their own rearguard, twice the two centre-backs were attracted like schoolboys to closing down the same ball, and twice they were superbly exploited by a skilful pass, and the excellent Wanchope. Klose, however, looked at his ruthless best, and is surely a very warm favourite for the golden boot already. And of course we mustn't forget that Mr Ballack is still to come into the team if 'Klinsi' allows him on to the pitch at some point. The effect could be similar to adding 3 players to the team that played today. I expect the Germans to do well, if only because host nations always do well in the World Cup. But they're going to need the luck and the kind of referees that South Korea got last time if they are going to go all the way with this team.

Tonight's other game was much more interesting than our friends Ruud and (Big) Sam would have us believe. I must admit that beforehand I expected Ecuadorian homesickness to give the Poles the edge in this one. Not a bit of it, Ecuador were impressive and deserved winners (that's right Ruud, RUUD! THEY WON RUUD! Someone will tell him at some point I'm sure). In fact, for a bunch that supposedly feel so uncomfortable outside their homeland, there was something distinctly un-south american about Ecuador's performance. They played with a plan, their defence was superbly well organised and their commitment admirable. They also scored a set-piece goal of such classic simplicity I'm surprised (Big) Sam didn't offer them all a contract while ITV were still on the air. Usually minor South American teams come armed with temperemental geniuses, defenders that used to be forwards, and a team spirit that makes the Dutch squad look like blood relatives. This made a refreshing change, and also offers England something to think about. As Ecuador are now warm favourites to be group A runners up, they could face England in the last 16 - if England get it right in group B.
More interesting though is whether Ecuador's form is any clue to that of their neighbours Paraguay, so far not given much of a sniff of progressing from group B, and certainly not of upsetting England. Strap yourselves in.

See you tomorrow.