Germany finished their campaign with a fine 3-1 win over Portugal. Schweinsteiger scored 2 goals and forced the own goal with a solid free kick. While he was not outstanding in his general play, he certainly proved he has a wicked right foot. I like right footed players playing on the left side and vice versa for the exact reason that these players cut inside and shoot from the edge of the box before the defender has time to get set and block. Lahm opened the world cup in the same fashion from left back. In the 3-4 playoff, at right back, Lahm was a spectre of his previous self. Other prominent right footers who play on the left include the Portuguese trio of Simao, Ronaldo and Figo, all of whom can play on either wing. Of course, Lahm with his inability to cross off his left foot runs the risk of being slightly predictable, but it is a skill he will pick up with more experience. Other impressive performers for Germany were Sebastien Kehl, standing in for captain Ballack, and Oliver Kahn, at 37 still one of the best keepers going around.
The Portuguese actually put in a very good performance. But just like their entire tournament, they lacked a cutting edge upfront with Pauleta squandering numerous chances, 2 of which were absolute sitters. Nuno Gomes finally got a goal at the end, perhaps he deserved some more game time. It is the one area the Portuguese need to improve in if they are to be successful in major competitions in coming years. Apart from Figo and Pauleta, the rest of the squad will be unchanged over the next few years. The new core of Ronaldo, Deco, Simao, Carvalho and Meira will be around for the next world cup and provide the perfect skill set to build a team around. They would do well to retain Scolari as coach for at least the next two years.
The most contentious issue of the world cup has been "simulation", as FIFA calls it. It has once again reared his ugly head, this time in the context of the young player of the tournament award. Cristiano Ronaldo was denied the award on the basis of "fair play" i.e. because he dived too much. In a show of atrocious hypocrisy, FIFA instead handed the coveted prize to Lukas Podolsky, a player who does not think twice about following in the footsteps of his captain and taking frequent falls whenever defenders are nearby. It is reasonable for FIFA to claim that fair play is one of the factors taken into account, but to apply this criterion so selectively smacked of double standards. If they truly wanted to factor fair play into it, then Fernando Torres and Luis Valencia should have been the front runners. In fact, even otherwise, I think Torres was the best young talent on show this world cup. Valencia had a fine group stages but was frozen by uncertainty in the high profile encounter with England which cost him the award and possibly his team a quarterfinal date with Portugal.
Klose has more or less secured his Golden Boot award with a 2 goal lead over Henry, the only other player in contention. The player of the tournament is the only other individual award to be decided. As far as I am concerned, the only players in contention are Cannavaro and Zidane. Undoubtedly, the final will be decided on the performances of the two captains. The outsiders for the award are Vieira and Zambrotta, who have both had outstanding tournaments in the shadow of their illustrious captains. The final itself is difficult to call, because of the unpredictability of the Italians. The French will approach the game in the same way they approached their preivous three games. Zidane will be the epicentre of the French attack supported by Vieira and Makelele. They will play the all-park game with everything being filtered through Zidane. Malouda and Ribery will attempt to run off Zidane's insightful through balls, though it will be a mountainous task to get through Cannavaro and Materazzi. The problem with relying on an outstanding defence is that one mistake is all it takes to lose a match, ask Argentina!! For a team that attempts to maintain possession and attack relentlessly, one mistake doesnt matter as much. Thats why I believe that if Italy sit back and play the way they did against Australia, the French will win. The Italians have shown that when they play with intent, no team has been able to thwart them. Germany, Ukraine, Czech Republic and Ghana were all made to look ordinary when the Italians played to their potential. If Pirlo plays higher up the field with Gattuso and Perotta taking a more active role like they did against Germany, then this game may well take the same course as the Argentina-Holland group game. Both teams may well cancel each other out and end up with a 0-0 draw. Even though it sounds boring, I think this will be a fantastic outcome. A tight midfield battle Zidane, Vieira and Makelele versus Pirlo, Gattuso and Perotta would be a fine spectacle indeed....
Sunday, 9 July 2006
Sunday, 2 July 2006
Shangri-La Express
The much anticipated Shangri-La Express was officially launched this week in China. Connecting the central Chinese hub of Golmud with the Tibetan capital Lhasa, it was believed by the Chinese dictatorship to be the missing piece in the integration of Tibet into the People's Republic. Coming at a cost of USD3.6b, the project has been completer almost a year ahead of schedule. It was inaugurated with much pomposity, with all the usual propaganda and fanfare, by the Communist heirarchy earlier this week.
With an average elevation of 4,200 m and a peak elevation of over 5,000 m, it is easily the highest railway in the world. It is indeed an amazing feat of engineering, and as President Hu Jintao points out, a landmark achievement in railroad history. The construction workers battled against -30 C temperatures, low oxygen concentrations (because of altitude) and the cracking whip of their government. The Shangri-La railway is a status symbol for modern China as the Chinese prepare to leave behind the painful past and embrace the future.
But grave concerns have been raised about the impact of the Golmud-Lhasa stretch of the railway (the Xining-Golmud section was completed in 1984- it operates at under 1000m altitude). The Tibetan people are worried that the rail connection with central China will further dilute and oppress their culture. Already, Chinese outnumber Tibetans in Tibet; 7.5 million to 6 million. Now, with ease of travel to and from China, and the increased commercial opportunities (freight costs will fall by an estimated 75%), they fear that more and more Chinese will flood into Tibet. The Chinese government predicts that the Tibetan economy will grow enormously in the coming years- the Tibetans counter that they do not have any share in this as it is the Chinese settlers that reap the benefits and send the money back into China. Not much of it actually remains in Tibet. The only substantial investments in Tibet are government initiatives such as the Shangri-La Express, the extensive road network designed to service the Indo-China border for military access and the diabolic replica of Tiananmen Square imposed on the front courtyard of the Potala palace. An influx of foreign tourism is also expected; but again Chinese merchants are poised to gain the most from this.
However, beyond commerce, tourism and patriotism, lies the real significance of the Shangri-La railroad. It is China's permanent reminder to Tibet, as if the grotesque Mao poster opposite the Potala wasnt enough, that there is no way out for Tibet; that they are irrevocably bound to Chinese imperialism. The true importance of the railway is symbolic. It represents to not only the Tibetans, but also the Uighurs and other minorities in western China that China is the only option.
The rest of the world, despite China's enthusiasm and protests from Tibetans (they're always ignored I suppose), has not been excited by these developments in China and Tibet. If not for the environmental concerns raised about the Golmud-Lhasa track, it is unlikely that I would have even heard about this whole thing. Over 75% of the track runs over permafrost; soil that is permanently in a frozen state that occurs in areas where the mean annual temperature is below the freezing point of water. The construction in itself is not complicated (except by the temperature and air pressure) but the problem occurs when heat generated in the construction is transmitted into the ground and causes melting. The effect of such a massive construction on a delicate ecosystem largely untouched by humans is unknown. No-one exactly how fragile the Tibetan permafrost is; obviously, this concerns many environmentalists. Then of course, there is the issue of garbage and toilet waste being dumped into this pristine alpine desert. The Chinese government has assured western critics that the trains are equipped with garbage compactors to store all rubbish on board and that toilet effluent will also be stored and dumped into the sewerage systems at major train stations.
I believe that the biggest issue facing the Shangri-La will be one of safety. Soil temperatures are rising in parallel with air temperatures around the world. Whether you believe in global warming or not, this is a recorded fact. As this trend continues, and indeed, accelerates, the extent of permafrost will decrease. Continuous permafrost, such as in Tibet, will become discontinuous (seasonal) permafrost i.e. it will thaw for certain periods in the year when mean temperatures are above 0 C. This will be disastrous for the railroad as it puts tonnes of pressure on the ground, which permafrost can absorb, but boggy wet soil?? The Chinese government has rubbished these claims as fictitious. Now, I'm not sure if any data exists for Tibet, but rising soil temperatures have been recorded in many parts of the world, and there doesnt seem to be any reason to believe that Tibet is special in this regard. In fact, in neighbouring Nepal, there has been a large increase in unseasonal thawing of glaciers, flooding of alpine lakes and landslides in the last decade- all symptoms of rising temperature, global warming if I may say so.
With an average elevation of 4,200 m and a peak elevation of over 5,000 m, it is easily the highest railway in the world. It is indeed an amazing feat of engineering, and as President Hu Jintao points out, a landmark achievement in railroad history. The construction workers battled against -30 C temperatures, low oxygen concentrations (because of altitude) and the cracking whip of their government. The Shangri-La railway is a status symbol for modern China as the Chinese prepare to leave behind the painful past and embrace the future.
But grave concerns have been raised about the impact of the Golmud-Lhasa stretch of the railway (the Xining-Golmud section was completed in 1984- it operates at under 1000m altitude). The Tibetan people are worried that the rail connection with central China will further dilute and oppress their culture. Already, Chinese outnumber Tibetans in Tibet; 7.5 million to 6 million. Now, with ease of travel to and from China, and the increased commercial opportunities (freight costs will fall by an estimated 75%), they fear that more and more Chinese will flood into Tibet. The Chinese government predicts that the Tibetan economy will grow enormously in the coming years- the Tibetans counter that they do not have any share in this as it is the Chinese settlers that reap the benefits and send the money back into China. Not much of it actually remains in Tibet. The only substantial investments in Tibet are government initiatives such as the Shangri-La Express, the extensive road network designed to service the Indo-China border for military access and the diabolic replica of Tiananmen Square imposed on the front courtyard of the Potala palace. An influx of foreign tourism is also expected; but again Chinese merchants are poised to gain the most from this.
However, beyond commerce, tourism and patriotism, lies the real significance of the Shangri-La railroad. It is China's permanent reminder to Tibet, as if the grotesque Mao poster opposite the Potala wasnt enough, that there is no way out for Tibet; that they are irrevocably bound to Chinese imperialism. The true importance of the railway is symbolic. It represents to not only the Tibetans, but also the Uighurs and other minorities in western China that China is the only option.
The rest of the world, despite China's enthusiasm and protests from Tibetans (they're always ignored I suppose), has not been excited by these developments in China and Tibet. If not for the environmental concerns raised about the Golmud-Lhasa track, it is unlikely that I would have even heard about this whole thing. Over 75% of the track runs over permafrost; soil that is permanently in a frozen state that occurs in areas where the mean annual temperature is below the freezing point of water. The construction in itself is not complicated (except by the temperature and air pressure) but the problem occurs when heat generated in the construction is transmitted into the ground and causes melting. The effect of such a massive construction on a delicate ecosystem largely untouched by humans is unknown. No-one exactly how fragile the Tibetan permafrost is; obviously, this concerns many environmentalists. Then of course, there is the issue of garbage and toilet waste being dumped into this pristine alpine desert. The Chinese government has assured western critics that the trains are equipped with garbage compactors to store all rubbish on board and that toilet effluent will also be stored and dumped into the sewerage systems at major train stations.
I believe that the biggest issue facing the Shangri-La will be one of safety. Soil temperatures are rising in parallel with air temperatures around the world. Whether you believe in global warming or not, this is a recorded fact. As this trend continues, and indeed, accelerates, the extent of permafrost will decrease. Continuous permafrost, such as in Tibet, will become discontinuous (seasonal) permafrost i.e. it will thaw for certain periods in the year when mean temperatures are above 0 C. This will be disastrous for the railroad as it puts tonnes of pressure on the ground, which permafrost can absorb, but boggy wet soil?? The Chinese government has rubbished these claims as fictitious. Now, I'm not sure if any data exists for Tibet, but rising soil temperatures have been recorded in many parts of the world, and there doesnt seem to be any reason to believe that Tibet is special in this regard. In fact, in neighbouring Nepal, there has been a large increase in unseasonal thawing of glaciers, flooding of alpine lakes and landslides in the last decade- all symptoms of rising temperature, global warming if I may say so.
Surprises, Irony And A Chance For Revenge
A surprising exit for Brazil and England!!
For Brazil, the result was somewhat unexpected, whilst for England, the manner in which they played before being eliminated was the surprise.
The Brazilians players are probably as dumbfounded as we are. They're not quite sure what happened out there. Basically, they played it like a training run and France swamped them. The manner of the French domination was not reflected in the scoreline, luckily for the Brazilians I must say. Zidane was (I have to say it, I know its oftrepeated) sublime; his movement, dribbling and vision once more reminded people why he is considered to be the best player since Maradona. The Frenchmen rallied around the aging star and produced the sort of performance not seen since Euro 2000. The Brazilians, despite a solid effort from Ze Roberto, were lacklustre. In an inexplicable display, their standard of play actually regressed going from the 2nd round to the quarters. This has not happened to a Brazilian team since an equally inexplicable capitulation at the hands of Zidane in the '98 final. I'm not quite sure what more to say about this one......
England must be feeling terrible after losing in penalties to an undeserving Portugal. The English have played poorly so far in the tournament and won 3 and drawn 1. Yesterday, they played their best match in ages and lost!! That's the wonderful irony of world cup football. Eriksson must be wishing he had gone back to boring long ball tactics with the good old 4-4-2. I am not exactly a fan of English football, in fact I'm heavily critical of their tactics on most occasions, but the way they lost this one was cruel. They made a serious effort to play a short passing game, to use all eleven players in attack, and to entertain for once. Owen Hargreaves, much maligned by the English sports media (absolute idiots- there's a very good reason why he has been a key midfielder at Bayern Munchen under Hitzfeld and Beckenbauer's tutelage since age 19), produced one of the best performances by a midfielder I have seen in this world cup. He was the only player still running at the end of extra time. But it was all to no avail as England crashed out in penalties once again at the hands of Portugal. There are some teams that are perennial penalty-chokers; England are right up there with the Dutch as two of the worst.
The saddest moment for me however was the picture of David Beckham sitting alone in the dugout choking back tears after being substituted in the 53rd minute. An unfitting end for one of the champions of English football. He proved rather ineffectual against the spritely Nuno Valente on the right of midfield, and based purely on his perormance, deserved to be taken off, especially considering what Aaron Lennon added to the team with his speed and enthusiasm. But Beckham is so much more than just a right midfielder; he is an inspiration to a generation of young English footballers. I wonder what the players on the field were thinking when they saw their captain barely keep himself under control on the bench.....
I think Eriksson erred in taking his captain off, because England had a few free kicks just on the edge which Lampard predictably blasted wide. Beckham, as he showed against Ecuador, is THE man for those occasions. It seems as if it was probably the wrong decision in retrospect. But, admirably, th English stuck to their goal of playing good (continental??) football and went down in flames.
Portugal won with their worst display so far. Deco's absence made an enormous difference to their gameplay. Against a better team, surely they would have lost. But such is their luck that they live to fight another day- a rematch of the Euro 2000 semifinal, a chance for revenge. That match in Holland in 2000 was a black day for Portuguese football. Having matched France for nearly 90 minutes, they lost to a last minute penalty when Abel Xavier was adjudged to have handballed; a fierce free kick unavoidably thudded into his shoulder. This provoked a violent reaction from the Portuguese players, several of whom served lengthy bans. Nuno Gomes is the only player who served a ban who's still in the squad; but he has been a fringe player for the last six years despite immaculate club form. That game scarred his international career before it took off. Now, Portugal enter this semifinal with a much tougher squad. If they match France the way they did six years, it will be difficult for the resurgent Frenchmen to reach their second final in three attempts. With Deco coming back into the team, I find it difficult to see how the French will stop Portugal. They played unimaginatively against England; but given their form so far in the tournament, and their newfound resilience and willingness to get dirty and brawl, I think they will edge out France. However, underestimate Zidane and the Zidane effect at your own peril.
For Brazil, the result was somewhat unexpected, whilst for England, the manner in which they played before being eliminated was the surprise.
The Brazilians players are probably as dumbfounded as we are. They're not quite sure what happened out there. Basically, they played it like a training run and France swamped them. The manner of the French domination was not reflected in the scoreline, luckily for the Brazilians I must say. Zidane was (I have to say it, I know its oftrepeated) sublime; his movement, dribbling and vision once more reminded people why he is considered to be the best player since Maradona. The Frenchmen rallied around the aging star and produced the sort of performance not seen since Euro 2000. The Brazilians, despite a solid effort from Ze Roberto, were lacklustre. In an inexplicable display, their standard of play actually regressed going from the 2nd round to the quarters. This has not happened to a Brazilian team since an equally inexplicable capitulation at the hands of Zidane in the '98 final. I'm not quite sure what more to say about this one......
England must be feeling terrible after losing in penalties to an undeserving Portugal. The English have played poorly so far in the tournament and won 3 and drawn 1. Yesterday, they played their best match in ages and lost!! That's the wonderful irony of world cup football. Eriksson must be wishing he had gone back to boring long ball tactics with the good old 4-4-2. I am not exactly a fan of English football, in fact I'm heavily critical of their tactics on most occasions, but the way they lost this one was cruel. They made a serious effort to play a short passing game, to use all eleven players in attack, and to entertain for once. Owen Hargreaves, much maligned by the English sports media (absolute idiots- there's a very good reason why he has been a key midfielder at Bayern Munchen under Hitzfeld and Beckenbauer's tutelage since age 19), produced one of the best performances by a midfielder I have seen in this world cup. He was the only player still running at the end of extra time. But it was all to no avail as England crashed out in penalties once again at the hands of Portugal. There are some teams that are perennial penalty-chokers; England are right up there with the Dutch as two of the worst.
The saddest moment for me however was the picture of David Beckham sitting alone in the dugout choking back tears after being substituted in the 53rd minute. An unfitting end for one of the champions of English football. He proved rather ineffectual against the spritely Nuno Valente on the right of midfield, and based purely on his perormance, deserved to be taken off, especially considering what Aaron Lennon added to the team with his speed and enthusiasm. But Beckham is so much more than just a right midfielder; he is an inspiration to a generation of young English footballers. I wonder what the players on the field were thinking when they saw their captain barely keep himself under control on the bench.....
I think Eriksson erred in taking his captain off, because England had a few free kicks just on the edge which Lampard predictably blasted wide. Beckham, as he showed against Ecuador, is THE man for those occasions. It seems as if it was probably the wrong decision in retrospect. But, admirably, th English stuck to their goal of playing good (continental??) football and went down in flames.
Portugal won with their worst display so far. Deco's absence made an enormous difference to their gameplay. Against a better team, surely they would have lost. But such is their luck that they live to fight another day- a rematch of the Euro 2000 semifinal, a chance for revenge. That match in Holland in 2000 was a black day for Portuguese football. Having matched France for nearly 90 minutes, they lost to a last minute penalty when Abel Xavier was adjudged to have handballed; a fierce free kick unavoidably thudded into his shoulder. This provoked a violent reaction from the Portuguese players, several of whom served lengthy bans. Nuno Gomes is the only player who served a ban who's still in the squad; but he has been a fringe player for the last six years despite immaculate club form. That game scarred his international career before it took off. Now, Portugal enter this semifinal with a much tougher squad. If they match France the way they did six years, it will be difficult for the resurgent Frenchmen to reach their second final in three attempts. With Deco coming back into the team, I find it difficult to see how the French will stop Portugal. They played unimaginatively against England; but given their form so far in the tournament, and their newfound resilience and willingness to get dirty and brawl, I think they will edge out France. However, underestimate Zidane and the Zidane effect at your own peril.
Saturday, 1 July 2006
My Beloved Spain
Spain once again tragically crashed out of a tournament and in doing so, plunged a proud nation into sorrow. However, this time, the sorrow and disbelief is tinged with a touch of satisfaction, and hope for the future. Unlike past occasions, the Spanish public and media were fully supporting their team. In fact, according to Phil Ball, never have the Spaniards stood as one behind their football team in the quarter of a century he has spent in Spain. Luis Aragones must surely be given credit for selecting and guiding a skilled, youthful team to the country's best world cup performance since 1950. Yes they've reached the last 8 a few times whereas they crashed out in the second round this time, but their performances have captivated the imagination of a world audience. At the start of every tournament, it is customary to question whether Spain will finally perform to expected standards, usually with a hint of sarcasm. In Germany 2006, there was BELIEF, not just amongst Spaniards, but amongst the worldwide media and public.
This is what made it even more bitter for the players to lose the way they did. All of the Spanish squad grew up watching the national team jump from failure to failure; none of them were around in the glory days of di Stefano. Now, they were finally a part of a team which could seriously dream of winning. But it was not to be. The tears of the young Spaniards were a powerful reminder that it takes more than youthful exuberance and eyecatching elegance to succeed at the top level. The Spanish trio of Fabregas, Xavi and Alonso were schoolboys compared to Zidane, Vieira and Makelele, both in terms of age and tactical nous. Whilst the Spanish midfielders possessed greater speed, alacrity and combined skill on the ball, the French easily outdid them in strength, tenacity and grit which often counts for more in world cups. How often have the darlings of the tournament lost in tragic circumstances- Puskas's magnificent Magyars in '54, Cruyff's Orange army in '74 and the brilliant Brazilian team led by Socrates in '82 being prime examples. Once again, history repeated itself (pun not intended....initially).
For me, just like the Spanish public, this world cup was a huge triumph for Spain. In years of following Spanish football, never have I felt that the team has done justice to its incredible potential. Finally, Spain have shown the world that they can play, and that the quality of the Spanish league is not due to South American stars playing in Spain. Finally, Spain has been able to accept a defeat on the world stage. Finally, Spain exit a tournament without the tag of chokers, for losing to the old master Zizu is no disgrace. Finally, Spain have hope for the future, with the average age of the team 24, and the majority of the star performers being under the average age.
2010 cannot come soon enough for the Spaniards; the likes of Torres, Fabregas, Reyes, Villa, Xavi and Iniesta with four years of European experience, will be at the peak of their game. Of course, expectations will be higher than ever, but they will learn from this experience and come prepared. I am making an early prediction that Spain will be a contender in four years time!!
In other matches, Italy thumped Ukraine. Marcelo Lippi has proven to be a shrewd tactician. He has switched between catenaccio and a more free-flowing game befitting the skill level of his players expertly. Against Australia and Czech Republic, teams who he knew would come forward willingly, he sat back and absorbed pressure and only attacked on the counter. Whereas against the unpredictable Ghanaians in the first match, he attacked with intent. The USA game was an aberration due to disciplinary reasons. And last night, once again he adapted his play superbly. Ukraine are a confidence team, that is, the longer they stay in the game the better they become, the more self-belief they accrue and the stronger their attack becomes. This was demonstrated cleearly in the group games against Spain and Tunisia. Spain hit hard early and demoralized the debutants. After this, they controlled the game and ripped Ukraine to shreds. Lippi adopted the same philosophy and Italy came out with attacking intent. The early goal put the game beyond Ukraine with 2 2nd half goals sealing the victory. Despite Ukraine creating plenty of opportunities, because they conceded early, every Buffon save weakened them. Italy will have a tougher task against Germany, who rode on luck and home support to defeat the unfortunate Argentines.
In a perplexing display, Germany started the match in a sombre mood, allowing Argentina to enjoy 65% of the possession. The last time this happened, Serbia were flayed 6-0. To their credit, the German defence, which I have criticized without restraint, held firm. The first piece of misfortune for the Argentines was that they scored early in the 2nd half. This roused Germany from its slumber with nearly 40 minutes still to play. The second instance of bad luck came when keeper Abbondanzieri picked up an injury and was substituted by Leo Franco who had not played a match for over 6 weeks. Germany eventually equalized through Klose (this wasnt Franco's fault, no keeper would've stopped Klose's close range header) and took the game into extratime. Argentina's next unlucky turn came when their normally calm unfazed manager Pekerman made two rash substitutions. He replaced Crespo with Cruz, who is slower and not as predatory as the man he replaced; a bizarre choice. Then, even more bizarrely he replaced playmaker Riquelme with Cambiasso and stranded Messi and Aimar on the bench. To protect a lead by bringing on a tall player and a defensive midfielder is pure folly against a rampant Germany with vociferous home support. No doubt that his keeper's injury caught Pekerman unprepared, but his decision to take off his two most likely sources of goals and two penalty-takers proved costly in the end. Extratime never looked like yielding a goal with both teams, the Germans more so, looking for a shootout.
While Ayala's penalty miss was a surprise, Cambiasso never looked like scoring. He approached with trepidation and poked a limp shot into Lehmann's eager hands. The Germans, in contrast, stepped up with confidence and did not give Leo Franco a chance, though I do feel Abbondanzieri might have kept Argentina in the contest a bit longer. Neuville and Ballack exuded confidence whilst Podolsky, potentially a weak link, converted his penalty nonchalantly. Borowski unhesitatingly slammed home what proved to be the winner. Lehmann anticipated correctly on four out of four occasions, got a touch three out of four and saved two out of four. A fine individual effort in the likeness of Oliver Kahn, the legend he has replaced in the German team.
So a Germany-Italy semifinal awaits us. While its hard to tip against Germany barnstorming to the finish line in Berlin, Italy have all the qualities required to make the final. A tough defence, willpower and nerve to absorb long periods of pressure, and an incredibly powerful and often underestimated strike force. A difficult match to predict in my opinion. My only fear is that it could become a dull, uninspiring affair. The Italians certainly have it in their hands as to what sort of entertainment this one will provide. If they close ranks from the outset, then go to sleep and set your alarm clocks to get up in two hour's time for the penalty shootout.......
This is what made it even more bitter for the players to lose the way they did. All of the Spanish squad grew up watching the national team jump from failure to failure; none of them were around in the glory days of di Stefano. Now, they were finally a part of a team which could seriously dream of winning. But it was not to be. The tears of the young Spaniards were a powerful reminder that it takes more than youthful exuberance and eyecatching elegance to succeed at the top level. The Spanish trio of Fabregas, Xavi and Alonso were schoolboys compared to Zidane, Vieira and Makelele, both in terms of age and tactical nous. Whilst the Spanish midfielders possessed greater speed, alacrity and combined skill on the ball, the French easily outdid them in strength, tenacity and grit which often counts for more in world cups. How often have the darlings of the tournament lost in tragic circumstances- Puskas's magnificent Magyars in '54, Cruyff's Orange army in '74 and the brilliant Brazilian team led by Socrates in '82 being prime examples. Once again, history repeated itself (pun not intended....initially).
For me, just like the Spanish public, this world cup was a huge triumph for Spain. In years of following Spanish football, never have I felt that the team has done justice to its incredible potential. Finally, Spain have shown the world that they can play, and that the quality of the Spanish league is not due to South American stars playing in Spain. Finally, Spain has been able to accept a defeat on the world stage. Finally, Spain exit a tournament without the tag of chokers, for losing to the old master Zizu is no disgrace. Finally, Spain have hope for the future, with the average age of the team 24, and the majority of the star performers being under the average age.
2010 cannot come soon enough for the Spaniards; the likes of Torres, Fabregas, Reyes, Villa, Xavi and Iniesta with four years of European experience, will be at the peak of their game. Of course, expectations will be higher than ever, but they will learn from this experience and come prepared. I am making an early prediction that Spain will be a contender in four years time!!
In other matches, Italy thumped Ukraine. Marcelo Lippi has proven to be a shrewd tactician. He has switched between catenaccio and a more free-flowing game befitting the skill level of his players expertly. Against Australia and Czech Republic, teams who he knew would come forward willingly, he sat back and absorbed pressure and only attacked on the counter. Whereas against the unpredictable Ghanaians in the first match, he attacked with intent. The USA game was an aberration due to disciplinary reasons. And last night, once again he adapted his play superbly. Ukraine are a confidence team, that is, the longer they stay in the game the better they become, the more self-belief they accrue and the stronger their attack becomes. This was demonstrated cleearly in the group games against Spain and Tunisia. Spain hit hard early and demoralized the debutants. After this, they controlled the game and ripped Ukraine to shreds. Lippi adopted the same philosophy and Italy came out with attacking intent. The early goal put the game beyond Ukraine with 2 2nd half goals sealing the victory. Despite Ukraine creating plenty of opportunities, because they conceded early, every Buffon save weakened them. Italy will have a tougher task against Germany, who rode on luck and home support to defeat the unfortunate Argentines.
In a perplexing display, Germany started the match in a sombre mood, allowing Argentina to enjoy 65% of the possession. The last time this happened, Serbia were flayed 6-0. To their credit, the German defence, which I have criticized without restraint, held firm. The first piece of misfortune for the Argentines was that they scored early in the 2nd half. This roused Germany from its slumber with nearly 40 minutes still to play. The second instance of bad luck came when keeper Abbondanzieri picked up an injury and was substituted by Leo Franco who had not played a match for over 6 weeks. Germany eventually equalized through Klose (this wasnt Franco's fault, no keeper would've stopped Klose's close range header) and took the game into extratime. Argentina's next unlucky turn came when their normally calm unfazed manager Pekerman made two rash substitutions. He replaced Crespo with Cruz, who is slower and not as predatory as the man he replaced; a bizarre choice. Then, even more bizarrely he replaced playmaker Riquelme with Cambiasso and stranded Messi and Aimar on the bench. To protect a lead by bringing on a tall player and a defensive midfielder is pure folly against a rampant Germany with vociferous home support. No doubt that his keeper's injury caught Pekerman unprepared, but his decision to take off his two most likely sources of goals and two penalty-takers proved costly in the end. Extratime never looked like yielding a goal with both teams, the Germans more so, looking for a shootout.
While Ayala's penalty miss was a surprise, Cambiasso never looked like scoring. He approached with trepidation and poked a limp shot into Lehmann's eager hands. The Germans, in contrast, stepped up with confidence and did not give Leo Franco a chance, though I do feel Abbondanzieri might have kept Argentina in the contest a bit longer. Neuville and Ballack exuded confidence whilst Podolsky, potentially a weak link, converted his penalty nonchalantly. Borowski unhesitatingly slammed home what proved to be the winner. Lehmann anticipated correctly on four out of four occasions, got a touch three out of four and saved two out of four. A fine individual effort in the likeness of Oliver Kahn, the legend he has replaced in the German team.
So a Germany-Italy semifinal awaits us. While its hard to tip against Germany barnstorming to the finish line in Berlin, Italy have all the qualities required to make the final. A tough defence, willpower and nerve to absorb long periods of pressure, and an incredibly powerful and often underestimated strike force. A difficult match to predict in my opinion. My only fear is that it could become a dull, uninspiring affair. The Italians certainly have it in their hands as to what sort of entertainment this one will provide. If they close ranks from the outset, then go to sleep and set your alarm clocks to get up in two hour's time for the penalty shootout.......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)