What can we learn from this World Cup? (Part 2)

Ok, the picking through the entrails of another World Cup continues...


What sorts of players were important? I've already mentioned defensive midfielders, who protected the defence, covered for attacking full-backs (a real feature of the modern game) and stopping the opposition's creative players functioning to full potential. Also the striker(s) tasked with holding the ball up and bringing those behind him (or them) into the action. Who else then?

This was not a vintage World Cup for goalkeeping. The ball has been blamed by many, but there was also plain poor decision-making and judgement by goalkeepers. Some mistakes will go down in fans' nightmares, though it could work the other way round. Just as lack of confidence in the goalkeeper could shatter a team's mental approach to a game, solid goalkeeping could be a huge lift. Arguably the two best goalkeepers in the tournament were those of Spain and the Netherlands, i.e. the two best teams in South Africa. They could, for the most part, be relied on to be solid and assured, boosting their team's performances.

Also, the playmaker. Some teams relied too much on theirs, Brazil and Kaka, Portugal and Ronaldo, France and Gourcuff come to mind. The teams who did well did place importance on the playmaker, giving them freedom to orchestrate attacking play, but their other players stepped up to the plate too. If the Netherland's Sneijder was off-form, Robben or Kuyt would turn it on for the team; for Germany, they had Müller and Schweinsteiger; Spain had Xavi, Iniesta, Alonso, Fabregas...

Essentially, it was important for a team to have a key playmaker (or for Spain, two), but those that went far into the tournament had players who could do the job if needed.

Speaking of Fabregas, there was a clear difference between teams: squad depth. For starting XIs, England and Brazil would be up with Spain and the Netherlands. But substitutes are a key part of any game, for the potential to change games, change approach or replace a subdued player. England's response to going three goals down to Germany was to bring on Emile Heskey. Madness, really, but Capello had little else to choose from. Brazil's replacement for Kaka would be Julio Baptista - good player, but not close to being in the same league. For the Netherlands, however, they had the options of the likes of van der Vaart, Huntelaar and the promising Elia. Spain were even more blessed: Fabregas, Llorente, Silva, Navas, eventually even Torres as a impact sub. Impact was the word, as Fabregas came on to set up Iniesta to win the cup.

We also saw two interesting approaches to playing the game: possession football v counter-attacking football. Spain are the masters of the former; to begin with, it looked like their 'tiki-taka' style would cost them. But it paid off for them in the latter stages, as they bled Germany, then the Netherlands, dry before killing them off with late goals. The style of play is admirable in its ambitiousness and technical ability required to achieve it. It didn't work for all teams, though, as the South American giants of Brazil and Argentina fell to the counter-attacks and opportunism of the Dutch and Germans respectively.

Counter-attacking at pace seemed destined to bring Germany glory. It destroyed England and Argentina. But against Spain, a team with a strong defence and midfielders who could retain possession for very long spells, it hit the rocks. The Dutch too had made use of counter-attacks and set-pieces to knock out Uruguay, who perhaps were better in possession for much of the game.

The argument is not about possession statistics, but what you do with it. Germany and the Netherlands were clinical as times. Or is this wrong? Spain appeared to win themselves the trophy through possession retention. They certainly created lots of chances, but were wasteful on many occasions, almost trying to score 'the perfect goal'. But with a solid defensive lineup and defensive midfielders to screen the back four, they could ask their flair players to keep the ball, tire the opposition out and get the pivotal goal(s), no matter how late in the day. So has there been a move, under Spain, towards 'It's not what you do with the ball, but make sure you keep it. And do score eventually, please'??

This issue brings us to the questions of 'Is there a right way to play the game?' and who exactly can define that 'right way'? From the coverage of the World Cup final, one could be mistaken for thinking there was only one correct way to play football, and any deviations from it ought to be condemned as heresy. I'll leave this point for the next blog (too much to say, too much already said!!), but we have seen in this World Cup some incredible favouritism by media and broadcasters. South Africa, fine, they were hosting it and it was good for the tournament that they performed well; but I don't recall any broadcasters pushing this point too far.

My first real concern was with Uruguay-Ghana. ITV's coverage was inappropriate, in my opinion. I lost a lot of my respect for Clive Tyldesley that evening, as he proceeded to come out with phrases like "It's Uruguay against the continent of Africa tonight" and "Wouldn't it be bad for the tournament if Ghana went out?" What utter rubbish, I thought. Rubbish or not, as broadcaster, you have the responsibility of presenting a balanced view of events to football fans at home. Tyldesley allowed emotional attachment and preconceptions to win out over being impartial. Pundits, fine, they have attachments - Marcel Desailly was justified in his emotional moments. Pundits are there to give opinions and try to speak on behalf of a team; commentators, however, should never be brought into this.

Then the British press (and many others besides) crucified Luis Suarez for the handball that "broke African hearts". It would have been a non-story if Asamoah Gyan had had the composure to score from the spot. I suppose that, for the good of the World Cup, Suarez should have been sent off, lynched there and then, Uruguay's keeper tied to his crossbar for the penalty kick, all of Uruguay's players had their legs broken for the shoot-out when Gyan still contrived to miss, and Ghana awarded the tie anyway, since 'penalties are a wee bit difficult for those poor African players'. Suarez got his punishment, Ghana blew their chance and went out. The favouritism in the media that bordered on ridiculous condescension is no good to African football: if their teams are to be considered worthy at the top table of world football, those already there (though British teams are hardly feasting at the moment...) have to stop treating them like inferiors who 'have done jolly well to have gotten this far'.

The hypocrisy of the media with reference to Uruguay was laughable. As someone pointed out on 606, if John Terry had cleared a goalbound shot off the line with his hand and England had won on penalties, he would have been 'Lionheart Terry', the man taking one for the team and becoming a national hero, his private life forgotten (ok, maybe not the last one). "It's what any player would have done," says Shearer on MOTD, "Good on you, son." But a Uruguayan against the hope of Africa, how very dare he?!

As Uruguay went out to the flair of the Dutch (ha, how that line changed), it was proclaimed as justice done. And the hypocrisy turned full circle on Saturday, as the 'underdogs' Uruguay were heralded against those nasty German types. 'They've done so well to get this far (heard that one before? Oh, and we've forgotten the cheating scumbag Suarez now have we?), it'd be good to see them get third place'. You couldn't make it up.


Apologies for the ranty nature of this blog, but I can't prevent opinions seeping through. As always, please do leave comments or questions.