So pleased that the Dutch didn't get to the final, just because of Robben, oh how I could just spend all day hitting him with a bat. I know its not right, but its Robben.
From a footballing perspective, the abject humiliation of Brazil by Germany on Tuesday was indeed "grotesque". However, for those that were calling it from the very first game of the WC, it was bloody funny witnessing the Emperor universally seen and acknowledged to be stark bollock naked.
Really enjoyed last night's match. Two well organised teams playing well organised pacy technical football full of good tackling and closing down that in the end nullified each other. If you're American or don't really follow or understand top class football you would find the match the day before exciting and yesterday's boring. But, as Tony Cascarino says in his article today in the Times (printed below) the Brazil v Germany match was '...an embarrassment to the game.'
This was football returning to normality. This was earth to football. Brazil v Germany wasn’t football, it was oh-my-God grotesque, a sporting version of hara-kiri in which professionals abandoned any form of professionalism, and although Holland and Argentina served up something far less eye-catching, it was also a match in every form.
Where Brazil were naive and flailing, last night presented us with two proper teams who were well drilled, well honed and organised. It reminded me of a top European match, a Champions League game between leading clubs where both were conscious of their opponents’ strengths and flaws. In that sense, it was reassuring.
If the tournament has taught or reinforced anything it is that there is no scope to carry people in the modern game. Dirk Kuyt was almost playing as a right back for Holland — a man who was once a £10 million striker at Liverpool — but the point is that he is capable of playing to a system, with discipline and, in doing his job, can be relied upon to give his all. And both coaches are tactically astute.
If Luiz Felipe Scolari has to take the lion’s share of responsibility for the Brazilian debacle, a flipside followed; composed and sensible, a close encounter where both teams understood that the game could be decided by a piece of magic and doing their utmost to prevent it happening. To repeat: it was a match.
In a wider context, perhaps the Argentinians have given us an insight into how South American football will develop. The host continent has given us some electrifying moments; Chile were aggressive in style, Uruguay were hit and miss, but I’m not sure that any of them have quite been as organised as you have to be at the pinnacle.
Argentina have had that. They have given very little away in any of their fixtures and, as with Louis van Gaal, they have set their stall out first and foremost not to be opened up. When Arjen Robben ripped Spain apart, any coach worth his salt would have reacted, looked at ways of negating him and countering. By contrast, had Brazil taken any notice of Germany?
Lionel Messi attempted to find space all across the park, searching for an opening, which is exactly what Diego Maradona used to do, but he was also forced to do it. The days of man-to-man marking are gone, but teams now defend in numbers, building walls of players, and the Dutch have done that more as the competition has elapsed. Messi came up against team organisation.
When you examine the previous night, you have to focus on Brazil ahead of Germany simply because their dereliction of duty was so extreme, a once-in-a-lifetime implosion, impossible to take your eyes off but an embarrassment to the game.
Holland and Argentina were the epitome of modern sport, Rafael Nadal against Novak Djokovic, ceding nothing and waiting for the other to blink.
He makes some good points but the bottom line is that it has to be entertaining to people beyond the stats obsessed fraternity and Netherlands - Argentina was diabolical.
For me the World Cup has to be entertaining, you have to create something special (as Brazil did in 1970) to leave that great legacy of remembrance behind.
If all of this boils down to being 'well organised' and battling out 1-0 wins or penalty shoot-out wins then you have to ask if its worth it?
The World Cup is a chance to show what you can do, an opportunity to create unforgettable footballing memories, if it comes down to becoming so big that everyone is terrified of losing then it will have greatly lost its way because it should be about creating something not about avoiding defeat.
I take his point about the first semi-final. I wanted to see a close match with lots of goals. There was no tension because it was all over in 20 minutes but it was still compelling viewing because of the enormity of what was happening. And I can see his point on the Argentina-Holland game but to me it was two good defences against each other and not great defending to counter great and inventive attacking play. Some of the passing, especially in the final third, was poor. I can hardly remember a good cross, even from players like Messi and Schneijder from set pieces. Neither side was prepared to take a risk and although I quite enjoyed the first half, it just petered out into a stalemate.
So pleased that the Dutch didn't get to the final, just because of Robben, oh how I could just spend all day hitting him with a bat. I know its not right, but its Robben.
This,............ and the whole ship-nicking business.
FIFA didn't like it for some reason. The problem was that they had extended it to 24 teams, which is an awkward number. They replaced it with, in my opinion, the more stupid system allowing the 'best' 4 third paced teams to qualify for the knock out phase.
I think the best way to create some real drama - and to stop teams 'playing for penalties' would be to have the penalties after 90 minutes and THEN play the extra-time.
That way the team that loses the penalty shoot-out gets 30 minutes to win the match in regular play - if its still level after that then the winner of the penalty shoot-out wins.
I have always hated the fact that these games are won on penalties, its meaningless in terms of judging who the better side is.
Like that idea. The winner of the shoot out takes a penalty half-goal into extra time to see if the other team can overturn the deficit inside 30 minutes.
Like that idea. The winner of the shoot out takes a penalty half-goal into extra time to see if the other team can overturn the deficit inside 30 minutes.
And what happens, if the losing team from the penalty shoot out, scores in (let's say) the first minute of the extra time? 29 mins, where neither of the teams dares to push for a goal? Do we then have a penalty shoot out again?
Like that idea. The winner of the shoot out takes a penalty half-goal into extra time to see if the other team can overturn the deficit inside 30 minutes.
And what happens, if the losing team from the penalty shoot out, scores in (let's say) the first minute of the extra time? 29 mins, where neither of the teams dares to push for a goal? Do we then have a penalty shoot out again?
No , the team who let in the goal would have to push on because they would lose if it stayed 0-1 because the penalty shoot out at 90 mins is only worth 0.5 of a goal
Like that idea. The winner of the shoot out takes a penalty half-goal into extra time to see if the other team can overturn the deficit inside 30 minutes.
And what happens, if the losing team from the penalty shoot out, scores in (let's say) the first minute of the extra time? 29 mins, where neither of the teams dares to push for a goal? Do we then have a penalty shoot out again?
No. If the game is still tied at 120 mins then the winner would be the team that won the penalty shoot out at 90 minutes.
Comments
However, for those that were calling it from the very first game of the WC, it was bloody funny witnessing the Emperor universally seen and acknowledged to be stark bollock naked.
I just hope the final isn't the same.
Wouldn't that make teams less negative?
PS If I have just imagined that, could someone nominate me for Blatter's position at the next election?
We got eliminated without losing a game.
Anyone know why this was abandoned as a format - surely it would promote more attacking styles?
That way the team that loses the penalty shoot-out gets 30 minutes to win the match in regular play - if its still level after that then the winner of the penalty shoot-out wins.
I have always hated the fact that these games are won on penalties, its meaningless in terms of judging who the better side is.