"We [was] robbed by that whack job referee!"

Editor’s note: For my non-football-loving/appreciating audience, I’ve interspersed the following with some of my travelling tales and tidbits from the past few days. The hope is that there’s a little something for everyone here.

I had intended on writing this a couple of days ago, closer to when the lingering bitterness over the USA-Slovenia match was still festering, but internet access has been hard to come by these past couple of days in Poland. Thankfully, I’ve calmed down quite a bit since then, and am instead looking forward to today’s matches. We’re just a few short hours away from kickoff.

First, a quick look back at the past few days’ worth of matches:

USA v Slovenia

Minutes after kickoff, I texted this to my father:

“Not sure if you're watching the match, but there's something about this referee that makes me nervous. I don't trust him.”

(Not sure what it was, just a certain…something. Very similar to the ‘something’ I feel whenever Mike Riley is in charge.)

Minutes after the match finished, I received this text:

“We were robbed by that whack job referee.”

And fours later, this from my old man:

“Way to go Algeria!”

(without hanging my father out to dry too much, that ‘whack job’ insult is a special one he usually saves for the vilest of Democrats, which in his case means pretty much all of them.)

I’m not a big fan of whingeing about referees. Too many managers, players and fans use it as an excuse – Wenger and Benitez seem to be the guiltiest parties in England, and I prefer the Sam Allardyce approach: blame your own players. I used to love his comments on Match of the Day when he was managing Bolton, usually to the effect of “my players didn’t listen to me, I had a great plan! They never listen to me in fact!”

The worst complaints have to do with incorrectly awarded corners: “It shouldn’t even have been a corner!” For chrissakes, you still have the defend the damn thing, get over it. Complaining about a late penalty is justifiable, as are sendings-off. Maybe a late(ish) free kick from outside the box, but still, if defended properly, then it shouldn’t be a problem.

Anyway, three ‘errors’ from the referee last Friday:

1. Robbie Findlay was booked when a ball hit him in the face on a corner (presumably for a handball?). This rules him out against Algeria.
2. When Altidore was fouled on 70 minutes, he was brought down by the last defender. It may have been a soft foul, but all the same, by the letter of the law, that player has to be sent off. I haven’t been reading much about this World Cup, so I’m wondering whether anyone else has pointed this out.
3. And of course, the disallowed goal. I won’t go into this in any more detail, but in the interests of fairness, take a look at this, brought to my attention by Matt:

http://goal.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/19/in-defense-of-koman-coulibaly-sort-of/#more-23803

Judge for yourself. As for me, I’m officially done complaining about it, though that may change in a few hours if the US fail to get past Algeria. On paper…(okay, we’ve been down this road before.)

It was amusing that on the Russian telecast, with each replay, the announcers commented on how it looked like a wrestling match, with half-a-dozen Slovenians wrestling US players to the ground (I had a waitress help me a bit on the translation). And the Russians are certainly no friends of the US.

Another note: on their equalizer, Herculez Gomes played a huge part, taking the defender away with him to allow Bradley an easy, unchallenged attempt on goal. A very clever manueovre, I want to see more of this guy. It will be interesting to see who starts up front with Altidore in Findlay’s absence.

To come from 0-2 down and draw is usually a good result. So I’ll leave it at that. For now.

Lastly, predictable observation from my mother:

“The US players are the only patriotic ones in the world, they’re the only ones who put their hands on their hearts.”

Other reflections in brief:

England v Algeria

Just an insipid, uninspiring match. After 20 minutes, when Rooney seemed to make his first meaningful contribution, the Russian commentators had this to say: “Ah, good evening Wayne Rooney, welcome to the match.”

Later on, with a glum looking Will and Harry looking on, the commentators began speculating on where their girlfriends were and what they were doing. I don’t know why, but they seemed to think this hilarious judging from their chuckles and snorts, as did everyone else in the bar.

For me, England’s approach was encapsulated by a screen shot in the 60^th minute. There were 2 Algerians just outside England’s 18 yard box, surrounded by 7 England players. Algeria are a technically limited side going forward, to put it mildly, and I’m not sure this was the best employment of England’s resources, to put it mildly.

Serbia v Germany

I never thought I’d see the day when Germany would end a match with two forwards named Cacau and Gomez on the pitch. Neither of them showed much inspiration either, but I certainly thought the Klose sending off was harsh.

In the meantime, in the looks department, Sami Khedira is the poor man’s Milan Baros. That isn’t a good thing.

Sami Khedira

Milan Baros

Holland v Japan

Even though the Dutch have qualified for the knockout round, I’m not entirely impressed. Years ago, the Dutch used to never settle for anything but goals of the highest aesthetic quality. Here, they’ve scored 3 sloppy goals in their 2 matches (one an own goal, one another goalkeeping mistake, the other coming after a rebound off the post) and not done a great deal with their overwhelming possession. At one point, the possession statistic flashed on the screen, with Holland having 73%. I can’t recall having seen a more lopsided match recently.

Ghana v Australia

I missed this match, because some old, dear friends took me out for a lovely ‘surprise’ evening in Lviv, treating me to one lovely café/restaurant after another. I wasn’t at all disappointed to have missed it, because the alternative was so much nicer. Alright, I’ll refrain from any more schmaltziness.

Denmark v Cameroon

Another African team bites the dust: it’s been a poor World Cup for them, with only Ghana having a realistic – and decent – shot at getting through to the 2^nd round. Cameroon were definitely guilty of profligate finishing, something that has plagued them in times past.

Denmark must present one of the limpest counter-attacking threats I’ve ever seen. In fact, it’s quite impotent. To their credit, they’ve perfected the art of the ‘muted goal celebration’. In contrast to most other players, the Danes seem to exude a quiet professionalism to their work, when more over-the-top celebrations – they scored 2 cracking goals - would have been entirely justifiable.

Italy v New Zealand

I missed this match because I was having a Ukrainian Thai massage. Now, not to sound like an ignoramus or anything, and I’ve had my fair share of massages, but I had no idea that a Thai massage would be so bloody painful. I was nearing the end of my time in Lviv and my body was aching from a few weeks of travel – really, it’s a hard lifestyle I lead. I thought I would treat myself to a therapeutic massage, and with the money I saved from not buying an FC Karpaty Lviv top, I reckoned it was a better ‘investment’.

It reminds me of the time I had a similar massage in the Philippines many years ago. I was beaten to a bloody pulp, and I had no idea my body was capable of such twists and turns, and I had no idea how I was producing such sounds of angst and pain. I was in such pain, in fact, that I needed another massage the next day just to get rid of my soreness. I felt pretty much the same after this most recent foray into the netherworld of Thai massage. Actually, I was a bit [irrationally] angry afterwards, as I started nursing even more aches and pains than from before.

Lviv has many brand new cafes that have sprouted up over the past few years (details of which will be shared in a future post). One is the Masoch Café, named after Lviv legend Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, author of Venus in Furs and along with the Marquis de Sade, purveyor one of the more ‘robust’ forms of enjoyment that man can experience if he so desires. Anyway, at this café they allegedly flog and beat you, if you so wish it, and I had planned on visiting. After my massage, I felt like I’d already been beaten into submission enough, thank you very much, and so gave it a miss.

Upon leaving, this comment from the receptionist: “I have never heard such noise from customer before.”

Me neither, lady.

As far as the match is concerned, I only saw highlights but that looked like a rather soft penalty for New Zealand to concede. It’s not like big teams such as Italy need any more help from the referees. Australia is still aggrieved by that horrendous penalty decision against them 4 years ago. At that time, some of the Italian press suggested it might have been a make-up call from the 2002 quarterfinal, when Italy were denied a clear penalty in extra-time against South Korea, with Totti ridiculously being sent off for receiving a 2^nd yellow after his ‘dive’, a clear case of reputations preceding you.

As for this one, New Zealand got somewhat of a raw deal, maybe? I shouldn’t comment since I missed the rest of it. Mr Roeder made a nice comment after watching this match, and I hope he doesn’t mind me quoting him here:

“Just like in warfare and politics the little countries have learned you don't have to defeat your larger opponents. Guerrilla tactics, defense, keep them frustrated and off balance and you may not lose. And if you don't lose, you win. Look how long Iran has been stringing out the world with its nuclear situation.”

Nicely put.

Slovakia v Paraguay

Another accomplished performance from a South American side - many of my friends have commented on the Old v New World split, and the rise of South America – perhaps a subject for a later date. But I think we’ve all been impressed by most of the Western Hemisphere squads, and they could be dominating the latter stages.

Watching this match, it was amazing to think that Slovakia won their qualifying group ahead of the Czechs, Poland, Slovenia, and, uh, Northern Ireland. Versus Paraguay, in a match they had to win, they sat deep, provided little threat going forward, had awful link-up play with no one seemingly capable of holding the ball up.

Paraguay pressed and passed well, showed more flair, and easily deserved to win it.

The funniest moment came from the Ukrainian commentator (again, I had a lot of ‘help’ with this translation):

“This isn’t a very exciting match to watch. Not exciting at all. But I shouldn’t say too much, because we [Ukraine] aren’t very exciting either. Actually, we are less exciting than this.”

Makes me glad that they can be so self-deprecating.

Brazil v Ivory Coast

I’d been looking forward to this match for days. And I bloody well missed it!

Though I’m not complaining.

It was my final night in Lviv, and in yet another sign of how this city is so magical and holds such a dear grip on my heart, it became an incident-packed, unpredictably enjoyable evening. Minutes before kick off, I got talking to some locals, lots of beer and vodka were imbibed, and I had a grand old time, meeting some terrific new friends in the process. Despite the TV just above my head, I didn’t even notice when the goals were scored, though I did manage to catch that egregious decision to send poor Kaka off after yet more atrocious play-acting. Shocking and shameful – and I’m not just talking about my behaviour on the evening.

I always wonder about these players who fake blows to the head in hopes of getting opponents sent off. Remember Rivaldo against Turkey in 2002? A defender angrily kicked the ball at him, it him on the thigh, and he went down clutching his face. Don’t these guys know that they’ll be exposed as frauds? The cameras are always watching, nothing gets missed these days.

The highlight of my night – though hard to choose just one - might have been this exchange with a lovely young woman named Nataliya.

DP: ‘If I weren’t leaving tomorrow, I would definitely ask you out.’

N: ‘If you weren’t leaving tomorrow, I would definitely say yes.’

At that point, I couldn’t have cared less about the match. But it was disappointing all the same to see Ivory Coast all but get eliminated.

Portugal v North Korea

I missed the match because I was way too hungover from the epic night before. And because I was travelling from Ukraine to Poland. I endured a terribly uncomfortable hot, cramped and smelly marshrutka (minibus) ride to the border, where the overpowering stench almost made me retch, and then had to suffer through an interminably long wait standing in a queue at the border, where I got jostled, pushed and shoved by irate pensioners trying to get their smuggled wares across the border in hopes of drumming up a bit of business. Now I know how cattle feel.

By the time I got into the centre of Przemysl, the match had finished.

Chile v Switzerland

Chile excellent, blah blah blah, Switzerland crap, blah blah blah…the usual South America is better than Europe affair.

Seriously though: Chile were very impressive, and Switzerland aren’t the easiest team to break down when they’re playing with 10 men, a very resilient side. Chile are great at finding space and creating passing lanes, and there were some excellent crosses. Spain will have their hands full against them this week.

And so much for Swiss honesty: more play-acting cost a Chilean a yellow card.

France v South Africa

Didn’t bother watching. France stink, they make me sick, I’m sorry I picked them, I’m ashamed, embarrassed, etc, etc. Honestly…what was I thinking? Seemed like a good pick at the time.

Anyway…

A preview of upcoming matches

Slovenia v England

USA v Algeria

I have to go back to that comment my father made after England were held to a draw:

“Way to go Algeria!”

When it comes to conflicting loyalties and football…well, I’m pretty torn. It’s bit like the ‘Norman Tebbit test’ (former Conservative MP in the 1970s), when in the midst of debates over the emigration of Caribbeans to Britain, over the question of loyalty and identity, it came down to which cricket team you supported: the West Indies or England. I’ve often felt like that with football, never sure which team to support on the international stage. One thing is clear: first and foremost is Northern Ireland. That’s the easy part. The next two get trickier, and over the years I’ve wavered between England and the US. When the draw was made months back, I immediately felt conflicted and wasn’t sure who I was going to support. I figured that closer to the time I would make my ‘decision’, but in all truthfulness, I had little dilemma in leaning towards the US. This is a topic I could bore everyone, myself included, into submission, so let me stop there. I’m all behind the US…for now.

After the USA’s match against Slovenia, I was eagerly backing Algeria to frustrate the English, which of course they did. Now here’s hoping that Bradley has worked out how to break down the Algerian defence, not an easy thing to do. Egypt, the three-times reigning African champions, struggled to do it in three matches (2 group matches plus the playoff in Sudan), and they were ultimately denied qualification. (It has to be said that Egypt present a far more potent attacking threat and can be pleasing to watch at times.)

As for England today, Slovenia are equally a tough team to get past: very tidy and well-organised. They navigated their way out of that same qualifying group as Slovakia (ahead of Poland the Czech Republic), and narrowly squeaked past Russia over the two legs of their playoff. In the first match, in Russia, they fell behind 2-0, but stuck around, persisting until sneaking an invaluable away goal in the dying stages. In the second leg in Ljubljana, after going ahead 1-0, they proved stubborn, frustrating Russia, who never really came close to scoring the goal they needed.

I refuse to make any predictions, although I did predict before that Slovenia would advance. Ideally, I want to be proven wrong yet again, and my head and heart are firmly behind England and the US, let me clear about that. But given a choice between the two, I’m still U-S-A all the way.

Sorry.

As for other matches today, tomorrow and Friday

Ghana v Germany: Ghana only need a draw to advance, which in and of itself makes me nervous. Surely, (surely!) at least one African team has to progress? I can’t see Serbia struggling to get past Australia.

Denmark v Japan: thank goodness Denmark need to win to progress: the game should be all the more pleasing to watch than if they only needed a draw. This makes it all the more watchable.

Italy v Slovakia: amazing that Italy could fail to get out of this group. And that New Zealand could.

Ivory Coast v North Korea: the Ivorians have a mountain to climb and in all likelihood, they’re already done for.

Closing thoughts

The most frustrating part of the 3^rd and final matches of each group are the simultaneous kickoffs. When it’s out of your hands and you’re watching in a public place, unable to switch back and forth between matches, you feel utterly helpless, like things are completely out of your control. No doubt today I’ll be feeling all sorts of turmoil as I watch England plough away against Slovenia, all the while wondering how the US is faring. Maybe there’s something exciting about this in a way.

And that’s that for now.

Thank you, France, for making me look like an idiot

I'll save my thoughts and attempt to salvage my reputation for the very end.

For now, a few observations and musings from the first week or so of the Cup.

Fine, it was scrappy

Despite a post last summer where I complained about people who used 'scrappy' to describe a match (the gist of my argument: those who use scrappy don't know what other words to use), I can't come up with another word to label the Japan v Cameroon affair. I just couldn't get into it at all, and there I was closely scrutinising Japan's style of play in an attempt to see how it reflected the Japanese way of life. I'm no closer now than I was before the match: it was as scrappy as scrappy gets.

Vintage 'African' defending

Hmm...not sure of the adjectives I should be using to describe Cameroon's defending on Japan's goal: anytime you score on a corner with the ball landing at your feet, you have to question the marking. The same with the goal Nigeria conceded to Argentina, where there wasn't a defender within 5 yards of Heinze. Diabolical would be one word, to quote Alan Hansen. But how about that opening South Korea goal against Greece, almost a carbon copy of Japan's, except that from the corner the ball bypassed 3 Greek defenders? I'd put them all in the same category. I expect much better from Greece.

Negativity & Caution, Part I

Netherlands v Denmark: so disappointing, especially from the Danes. No ambition whatsoever, even when they attempted to push players forward. They were obviously playing for a draw, and then after going a goal down, seemed content to minimise the damage by failing to alter their style. Reminded me a bit of La Liga, where teams would rather settle for losing 1-0 than risk throwing all caution to the wind and losing by a greater margin. Abject, at best.

A wonderful cultural experience

Watching the US v England in an Irish pub in Kyiv: highly recommended. A third of the crowd were good-natured, football-ignorant drunk Americans who were more interested in having a good time than in watching the actual passage of play; another third were bitter and irate (and drunk) English supporters, who were equally annoyed with the antics of the Americans as with the goal England conceded; the final third were drunk locals, most of whom were too plastered to know what was going on, though most seemed to be cheering for England. Next to us – I was there with my good buddy Mark – were a group of quintessentially slutty, typically 'Brit-faced' English girls in England tops, getting mightily perturbed by the Americans.
[and yes, considering the circumstances, I was happy with the US getting a point; they got away one there, though could have stolen the three points had Altidore scored.]

A very brief aside on 'Brit-face'

A couple of very good friends who I shan't name and shame here accuse me of having an affinity for girls with 'Brit-face'. This all started when I commented to one of them (okay, it was Dr Wasabi Islam) that Virgin Atlantic flight attendants, the female ones anyway, were attractive. He vehemently disagreed, calling them mediocre at best, and accusing me of having bad taste. He coined that typical look to be 'Brit-face'. What that means exactly, I don't know, but it might have something to do with mousy features, pale skin and painfully average looks. I'll say no more.

Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. Or, my first lousy prediction?

Something I didn't reveal in my original pre-World Cup column when I made Serbia my pick for a surprise run. I also picked Serbia to make a surprise run 4 years ago, when they were beaten in all 3 of their matches. I made that pick on the strength of their qualifying performance where their stingy defence didn't concede a single goal. (wait, I could be wrong on that – doesn't seem likely, but I don't have the time or inclination to check just now – how's that for lazy reporting?!)

So did I learn my lesson? Clearly not, on the back of their performance against Ghana. In my defence, the sending off was harsh, and although it was a clear penalty, it was a highly pointless and unnecessary one. Ghana certainly didn't light up the pitch, though Serbia hardly presented much of an attacking threat. For the record, I do have to say that I'm happy Ghana won, and I would love to see them qualify for the next round, even at the expense of Serbia. It might make me look bad, but so what – I want to see the African teams do well.

In the meantime, let's hope Serbia can knock Germany off, or my reputation will really be in tatters.

However...

That was a clinical and brilliant German effort against Australia. The way they closed down space, pressed, cut off Australia's passing lanes should be put in an instructional video for all aspiring young players. Conversely, Australia were poor. No invention, off-the-ball movement or adjustments to the way Germany were picking them apart. They frankly looked like amateurs out there, but this is definitely a better Germany team than I had thought.

Negativity & Caution, Part II

Greece's win at Euro 2004 was a revolutionary movement in world football. It well and truly proved that an average team can knock off the very best with tactical discipline and tight organisation. This was a moment where it became clear that the most wily coaches could stifle the most potent attacking threats with the right game-plan. This is a blueprint many not-so-talented, less skilful teams now follow. I thought I was watching that very same Greece team reincarnated in the guise of Switzerland against Spain.

There's no denying the skill levels and wonderful passing techniques of the Spanish. Their pinpoint short-passing game, mastery of possession and mazy diagonal runs and crosses are something to behold. But the Swiss proved that the right game-plan can foil even as potent an attack as the Spanish, as good as they usually are at unlocking defences. For those, myself included, who might want to criticise the Swiss for this, they are after all playing to their strengths. What's the alternative? To play a wide open, Spanish-style game? They'd probably lose 5-0. To their credit – and let's not forget that Spain did miss a few gilt-edged chances and got unlucky by hitting the post 3 times – they executed their plan masterfully and were rewarded with an industriously scrappy goal.

Far from lamenting the passing of the 'beautiful game', let's be realistic and just accept that teams are going to play to their strengths, even if it means dull, turgid tactics.

I've been wrong before, but this is far from a bold prediction: Spain will make it out of their group. Of that, I'm sure.

Good impressions, bad impressions

Uruguay were outstanding against South Africa, though Suarez ought to be ashamed of his diving. South Africa were abysmal. I saw poor off-the-ball movement, lots of static defending, general sluggishness going forward, tactical naivety (blame the coach) and strangest of all considering the home support, a lack of fighting spirit. They'll be lucky to make it out of this round.

Greece v Nigeria: a microcosm of this whole World Cup

In my book, this has been the most compelling match thus far. It seemed to have it all.

The first thirty minutes or so was rather lacklustre, though Nigeria did seem more up for it, with crisper passing and flashes of attacking savvy. Rehhagel started with a very defensive alignment, seeming content to counter or rely on set-pieces, Greece's route to success in 2004. Nigeria's opening goal had a hint of fortuitousness about it, though the game was utterly transformed with the dismissal of Kaita after half an hour. There's no doubt that he had to be sent off for kicking out at Torosidis, but the Greek ought to be ashamed of his histrionics, with a clearly delayed reaction to the 'assault'. There's Greek drama for you. Luckily for them, there was to be no tragedy.

In a masterstroke of absolute genius and ambition, Rehhagel brought on Samaras and immediately caught Nigeria off-guard. With just under 15 minutes in the first half, he astutely gambled that Nigeria would fail to re-organise themselves before the break, and the move paid off with an equaliser from Salpingidis just before halftime.

Salpingidis, however, was guilty of one of my biggest bugbears in football. I strongly believe that players should minimise the scale of their celebrations on penalties (unless it wins a penalty shoot-out), own goals, and especially heavily-deflected goals, such as this one. More often than not, deflected goals are either horrendously off-target shots, or straight at the keeper. If you score as a result of a wicked deflection, then you've got to tone down the celebration. And no, I'm not at all bitter or anything, even though I was pulling for Nigeria. Cheating Greeks.

A brief aside on Lars Lagerback, Nigeria coach

I've never been a fan of his. I thought he wasted a lot of supreme talent with his tactics while in charge of Sweden. Too often he gave too much freedom to great wingers like Ljungberg and Wilhelmsson who played way too wide and failed to roam inside, relying on them to loft long crosses into the box for Ibrahimovic to deal with. In the meantime, Sweden would fail to take advantage of that extra midfield space created by the width of their play. Lagerback certainly has something of a pragmatic reputation, and I was worried about what this might mean when he was appointed Nigeria boss a few months ago.

For starters, in this match I struggled to determine what formation Nigeria were in. Before the sending off, it almost seemed like a 3-6-1 at times, 3-3-3-1 at others, with Yakubu somewhat isolated up front. Afterwards, and in the second half, they reverted to a 4-4-1, and failed to really adjust after falling behind. During the later stages, it looked to me like a 4-3-2, which smacks of indecision and/or the players not executing instructions. I'm not sure, but the Nigerians looked unbalanced and confused.

Now, to quickly dispel what I believe to be the '10-man myth'. Simply put, I don't think playing against 10 men is always such a good thing. Defensively-minded teams, such as Greece, will often shut down opposing teams when they lose a player, making themselves extremely difficult to break down, and hoping for a bit of luck on a set-piece. Unfortunately, Nigeria aren't Greece, and 'shutting down' wasn't an option, the more so when Rehhagel gambled by bringing Samaras on. Nigeria didn't present much of an organised resistance, and weren't at all helped by sloppy, naïve defending, and hopeless clearances. It was only the goalkeeping heroics of Enyeama, who's been truly brilliant in his two matches, which kept them in it.

Sadly, it was his mistake that gifted that supreme acting talent Torosidis with the winning goal. Perhaps it's the curse of the controversial ball yet again, the same one that bedevilled Rob Green and the Algeria keeper into making ghastly mistakes. Enyeama deserved better than to spill a seemingly routine shot into the path of Torosidis after the stunning saves he'd made up to that point. But you can't rely on your keeper to bail you out time and time again.
One question, though, and this isn't sour grapes: on the winning goal, Samaras was down in the area, holding his head. Shouldn't the referee have stopped play? I've been wondering about this.

What would Frantz Fanon think?

I find it frustrating that almost all sub-Saharan African teams are managed by Europeans, who supposedly bring more tactical nous to the game than locally-groomed managers. That's the general stereotype anyway. (Interesting that Algeria and Egypt are managed by native-borns.) Nigeria's previous coach, Shaibu Amodu, came under fire for his tactics, even after steering his team to qualification and the semifinals of the African Cup of Nations. Qualifying for the World Cup in Africa is no easy feat. Getting all the players back, most of whom play in Europe, in time for the fixtures is more difficult than it sounds, matches are often played in oppressive heat, and a lot of the smaller teams present terribly tricky propositions, with poorly maintained pitches and treacherous playing conditions. In short, qualifying is a massive challenge, even with a team as talented as Nigeria.

I was disappointed that Amodu wouldn't have the opportunity to guide Nigeria in this World Cup, and it must really piss off the Nigeria FA that Lagerback has a mountain to climb to get Nigeria into the next round. I'm definitely questioning his tactics, as are many others I'm sure.
But do you know what's really amazing? At 1-1, if Obina doesn't miss that proverbial 'easier-to-score-than-miss' chance with the empty net beckoning, and Nigeria hang on to win it, we'd all be praising Lagerback and saying that Rehhagel got it all wrong. Funny game, football.

Lastly, in the interests of objectivity, let me be emphatic about this: Greece were terrific and fully deserved to win.

Okay, let the hatchet job begin

I'm mortally embarrassed that I picked France to win the whole thing. It will take a minor miracle for them to escape their group. If Mexico and Uruguay conspire to draw, they're out, and you know South Africa will put up a big fight, wanting to go out on a high. And besides, their hopes of qualifying are only marginally slimmer than France's. The French's best bet would be for Uruguay to win by a couple and for them to beat South Africa by a couple (I haven't checked the maths, but that might do it).

As for France, I'm not sure what to say. Anelka has been anonymous. I was mistaken in that things were harmonious in the French camp. Malouda apparently had a spat with Domenech, which meant he was out of the starting eleven against Uruguay. I'm baffled that Toulalan and Diaby have both started both France matches, when Gourcoff should have started in place in Toulalan against Mexico.

But it hardly does any good to nitpick: France have just been dismal, displaying no cutting edge, very little incisive and lots of misguided passing, and resorting to speculative efforts at goal. Mexico weren't great on the night, but they were easily better than France and were deserving of the win. France are embarrassing, and I'm beyond embarrassed with my prediction. It's clear at this point that I should refrain from predictions and stick to 'analysis' and rambling.

The only good that came from the match was that for the first time I could actually hear a bit of chanting over the din of those wretched vuvuelas, and I was gladdened to hear plenty of 'boos' emanating from the French supporters as the players trudged off at half time.

Though I am tempted to say something about Argentina and I will: damn, they look good. I thought Samuel might be their only real weakness – I've never been a fan of his – though the injury he picked up today may rule him out for a bit.

I should also point out that it's 1.30am and I'm in Lviv for the first time in 4 years, which is bringing back an overwhelming wave of nostalgia and emotions as I visit old haunts and see old friends. That's my excuse if none of the above makes much sense. I shall now go to one of my old favourite nightclubs and drown my sorrows. And I'm completely sober at the moment.

Or maybe I'll go to bed instead. Tomorrow's a big day with England and the US in action.

Two points to clear up

We're just hours from kickoff, so I best clarify two things:

1. Ben made a great point regarding Anelka. I hope he doesn't mind me quoting him, but he said it best, plus he does follow Chelsea a hell of a lot more closely than I:

Whilst I am a fan of [Anelka] and recognize his contribution to the team, that is usually in the form of his drifting wide of the box to open spaces for people like Drogba and Lampard to exploit. The problem for the French is that I don't see who they have that can exploit those he will create.

This reminds me a bit of - don't laugh now - Stéphane Guivarc'h and his role in France's 1998 winning team. You could argue that France won that World Cup without any 'real' strikers: along with Guivarc'h, they employed Christophe Dugarry upfront for most of their matches, and though I can't recall how many goals either scored, or if they scored any, they were recognised for more for their contributions off the ball, creating space for others. Despite Guivarc'h's lamentable record at Newcastle - 1 goal in 4 matches and the dubious honour of coming top of the Daily Mail's list of the top 50 worst strikers in Premiership history - his international teammates always highly valued his off-the-ball movement and workrate on the pitch, things that don't often get recognised. There are parallels here with Anelka's efforts with Chelsea last season, though I'm certainly not comparing the two.

I should also point out how laughable is my egregious comment that Anelka 'had been banging them in all season'. Basic schoolboy error here. Not that this is any excuse, but I was getting seasons a bit mixed up, and I really should have said that he'd been banging them in over the past two seasons: after all, in 2008-9, he did win the Golden Boot in the Premiership with his 19 league goals. This past season, he had 11 league goals, and 14 in all competitions.

However, two further points here. In Drogba's absence at this year's African Cup of Nations, he did score 6 goals, meaning he does have that ability to lead the front line. And second, I should have made it clearer that because he's being asked to take up a more central role leading the French, I don't see him drifting as much; thus, I for one expect him to score a few more goals than his international goal scoring record would suggest (14 in 66 matches). Ben is right in that if Anelka does drift wide and create space, then there's a question over who will exploit it. If Anelka doesn't play well, I might look to Cisse over Henry to provide the spark.

2. Let there be no doubt, that no matter what I may have predicted, I'm behind the USA all the way. I do think Slovenia will qualify ahead of them, but I really hope that's not the case. And in Saturday's epic versus England, I'm going for the US, and that's not a terribly difficult choice to make.

Football, politics and life: all one in the same. Plus, a World Cup preview!

Keene State v New England College, Sept 2009: I believe their opponents opted for the classic American 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 approach


I originally started writing this post in September of 2009, just after I had started my semester at Keene, and just days after watching the men’s university football/soccer team play. It had been an awfully long time since I had watched a non-professional American soccer match, and I was struck by a great many things. More than anything, it led me to put together the following piece. It’s been sitting festering away on my computer since then, but I’ve now finally dusted it off, and added/edited large swathes of it – at this point, pretty much all of it - much of it based on more recent research. And at the end, as a sort of means of summing it all up, I’ve offered my pre-World Cup thoughts as well as a few predictions.

[…] the match inspired me to at long last put pen to paper and offer up a little theory I’ve been banging on about for years: the intertwining of a nation’s style of football and its politics and culture. In other words, how is a country’s distinctive style of football reflected in its politics, way of life and culture, and vice versa. As a disclaimer, I really must mention that this idea is not originally mine, and though I have tinkered with it a bit, it can be tricky to avoid stereotyping and crass generalisations, which are more often than not dangerous.

My theory, which is still a work in progress, takes into account more of the political and economic angle. For though I’ve made a reference to the ‘politics’ in the previous paragraph, I’m hardly about to delve into explicit detail right now about how France’s shift to the right under Sarkozy is reflected in its style of play, or how having a coalition government for years on end has influenced the Dutch and their passing, how North Korea’s trademark style is a reflection of the Communist one-party state, or how Turkey combines secularism with certain traditions in its movement on the pitch. Nor will I stray into the economic sphere. Not yet anyway. One of these days I may entertain the notion of doing the additional research I need to work out the political and economic side of things.

Works of Inspiration

Simon Kuper’s Football Against the Enemy, which remains the benchmark for the link between football and nationalism, first turned me onto this idea. Other influential books have been David Winner’s Brilliant Orange, which details Dutch football and how it reflects Dutch society, and Jonathan Wilson’s Behind the Curtain: Travels in Eastern European Football, which is mesmerising in its scope and offers arguably the most penetrating insight into football in the Balkans, not to mention vast swathes of the former Soviet Union. I highly recommend all three books. (under no circumstances go near Franklin Foer’s How Football Explains the World)

And more recently, I’ve discovered Wilson’s Inverting the Pyramid: The History of Football Tactics and Kuper’s collaboration with sports economist Stefan Szymanski, Soccernomics: Why England Lose, Why Germany and Brazil Win, and Why the US, Japan, Australia, Turkey – and even Iraq – are Destined to Become the Kings of the World’s Most Popular Sport.

According to Simon Kuper, there are two views of what a national team is for. The first view is more practical: the object is merely to win games (and/or entertain your audience). The second relates to nationalism: the national team should be a reflection of your country, society and culture: the ‘team must be the nation made flesh’.

Thus…

Brazil play football in its trademark flee-flowing, rhythmic, adventurous style reflecting its national character as the home of the samba, a relaxed, dance-happy carefree people. Then there’s Germany, with its rigidity and what some call a Teutonic efficiency, always planning ahead, doing what is required to get the job done but nothing above and beyond that, and never deviating from the game plan, players always following orders; Italy, with its anxiously calculated defensive posturing intermixed with the flamboyant individuality of its cast of alice band-clad prima donnas (witness the typical Italian goalscorer’s celebration of turning his back to the crowd and pointing with both thumbs to his name on the back of his top); England, with its exquisitely well-crafted game plan and supremely organised tactics, only to see it all fall apart when it comes time to implementation on the pitch, but with that always present indomitable fighting spirit replete with blood, toil, tears and sweat; Portugal, who like Spain, always considered a perennial underachiever, full of potential, promise, but with a nation full of individuals leading to showboating and too much pointless dribbling on the pitch, a team doomed to tragic failure, though the country does love misery; Hungary, once a proud and mighty footballing nation who only through bad luck didn’t win themselves a World Cup or two, were then brutally repressed and saw their footballing prowess almost buried and have been stutter-start ever since, every now and then offering a dawn of promise which inevitably and tragically turns into false hope; Belgium: soporific, tedious and dull and somewhat artificial feeling; the Dutch: gorgeous, free-flowing total football, lots of interchangeable parts, players backing each other up, picking up the others’ slack, multifunctional, adaptable, consistently entertaining yet often coming up short when it really matters; the Soviet Union with its highly systematized football reflected also in its pressing style, requiring supreme levels of fitness and dedication to the cause (also seen in one of its great club sides in the 1970s and 80s, Dynamo Kyiv); now, in Russia, Ukraine and a couple of other post-Soviet countries, individualism is coming back only slowly in society and the team, though they do show tendencies of not getting back up after a hit; the Scandinavians and their strict adherence to the 4-4-2, which of course is very egalitarian and a reflection of social democracy.

Some naysayers like to criticise the British and Scandinavians for years of playing reckless kick-and-rush football. This style is also referred to as Route 1 or Scandinavian Long Ball, the aim being to score as many of your goals as possible in moves consisting of 3 or fewer passes; it has worked well for the likes of Watford and Bolton over the years, but at the international level, it hasn’t been as effective.

There’s also another school of thought that examines the changing fortunes in a country’s status on the world stage vis-à-vis the performance of its teams. For example, Britain’s decline in empire coincided with the downfall in the fortunes of the home nations in football. And conversely, the decline in its football has been mirrored in a decline in its power, prestige and status in the world.


Beitar Jerusalem v Maccabi Haifa, Sept 08: A lot of unpleasant anti-Arab chanting from Beitar's fanatical right-wing supporters

My analysis does get a bit more nuanced than the above examples suggest, but I’m long past the point where I could wax incessantly about every country in the world. At one point, around the time of the 2002 World Cup where South Korea made that astonishing run to the semifinals – generously aided by the referees it must be said – I was certain I had a grand theory more firmly in place, talking about this Asian tiger’s miraculous growth and emergence onto the world [football] scene, reflected in its dynamic, adventurous and vibrant approach on and off the pitch. I grouped the likes of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Belarus together, all newish nations whose sporting histories were naturally characterised for decades by having their finest athletes represent the Soviet Union, and all caught in a situation where at independence they were struggling to create their own identity and style after years of repression.

Latvia, FC [Riga] Olimps v Daugava, Oct 07: Not systematized, not repressive and certainly not exciting


West Africa, or more specifically Nigeria, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Ghana and Senegal, with their chaotic, poorly organised, ill-disciplined but usually entertaining football, with no structure whatsoever in the heart of defence, and rash and reckless goalkeepers who come flying out of the 18 yard box and get caught in no mans’ land (that, or they flap at the ball on a free kick or corner). But the potential is massive and the future is loaded with promise; only the politics are murky, with football associations interfering with the football, pay for the players going missing, and no transparency to speak of in the hiring and firing of coaches or the recalling and dropping of players.

[there’s another fascinating colonialism angle here, that of all the European coaches drafted in to lead these nations, supposedly introducing a bit of stability and discipline to the tactics; I should also point out that I’ve really started to distance myself from the above accounts, which though years ago would have been unquestionably accepted, today feel quaint and even somewhat offensive, racist even.]

The big gaps in my account

For a supposedly truly ‘globalised’ game, how is one to account for all of the big nation’s not even being represented at this World Cup? No China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Iran, Egypt, Turkey - that’s well over half the world’s population, and outside of Brazil and Argentina, this is still a Western European dominated sport. How much longer will these big nations remain on the periphery, and if they do so for too long, what risk that basketball will start to creep in and take over as the world’s most popular sport, following the Chinese lead and their rapidly increasing euphoria over the game? Surely, though, it’s only a matter of time before China is regularly qualifying for the World Cup, though for many of the other nations, their footballing futures look pretty bleak, those massive populations notwithstanding (more on Turkey and Egypt in a minute).

The Indian subcontinent is certainly cricket country, but at the same time, the English Premier League is massively popular and getting bigger by the day. Will this rub off and affect the development of football? And the Middle East certainly merits a closer examination; we know football is already massively popular, but do the teams’ styles of play bear any reflection on their politics and cultures? Further research is definitely needed in these areas.

As for the teams that will be represented that I know little about, I suppose if I closely examine North Korea’s approach, I might see parallels with their repressive one-party state, though something tells me I won’t learn much. Same could be said for the likes of Australia and New Zealand.

I’ve always struggled to come up with a way of characterizing the US approach. If I take just what I’ve seen from the Keene match, I had no idea that at the amateur level in the US unlimited substitutions are allowed (to draw a parallel: one can recklessly go all out and expend all the energy necessary, safe in the knowledge that a respite will be coming up; no need to plan too far in the future, spend now, pay later). No one ever tackles anyone (though it’s a dog-eat-dog world, everyone gets a second chance). And sure, there is definitely free-flowing passing, albeit sloppy and misplaced much of the time, but for long periods the game consists of individuals making their moves and optimistically punting balls in the direction of whatever play is furthest forward (that eternal American optimism that the times ahead are always going to be better than the past?). All the while, as the match ebbs and flows, mothers and friends from the crowd punctuate the play with cries and shouts of ‘nice try, son!’ and ‘great hustle, kid!’ (it’s not the winning that counts, but the effort).

Austria, Austria Vienna v WIT Tbilisi, Uefa Cup, August 08: Rabid, passionate Austrian supporters in full voice for 90 minutes


But alas, the times they are-a-changing

Over the years, many countries, instead of altering their styles and adjusting to play to win, get stuck with the weight of expectation and fail to adapt. For many fans, and this goes as well for teams at the club level, it is still far more important for your team to stay true to its roots and play the kind of football that is expected, to adhere to tradition. Thus, the Dutch are stuck with total football and the Italians get flack for straying too far from catenaccio. Even when Brazil won yet another World Cup in 2002, many of their own supporters derided them as being too boring and a paler imitation of their former glorious selves from the 1970s (the 1994 team faced similar criticism, but in 2002 many were hankering for the ‘glory’ days of the mid 90s).

But alas, the times are changing indeed: the world is becoming increasingly smaller as globalization marches on, and teams are moving away from the way they’re ‘supposed’ to way. Whereas before no one would countenance the idea of England having anything but an English coach, here they are abandoning their all men to the front, no holds barred approach for the refined continental style introduced by their Italian manager. The Dutch, who for so long stubbornly held onto their wingers glued to the touchline, finally dumped them after some serious countrywide angst and debate, and have improved all the more because of it. And Italy have even incorporated a bit more adventure, though maintaining their defensive rigidity as the core to their approach. Globalisation’s impact on football is such that, not only are more and more players from around the world coming to play in the most prominent leagues in Europe, but national teams are ditching their indigenous styles and are moving to something more cosmopolitan, the ideal recipe perhaps consisting of Italian defending, German organization, English spirit and Dutch passing. Just to keep some of the old stereotypes going.

The southern fringe of Europe – specifically Portugal, Greece and Turkey – for years have been or were characterized by too much individualism and pointless dribbling. In fact, it was my Greek friend Magnus who recently lamented the decline in dribbling skills and individual flair, though would even he quibble with Greece’s stunning Euro 2004 success – over, ironically, Portugal in the final – even if it did mean wisening up and introducing more tactical organization in the form of a German coach?

The great 80s Milan coach Arrigo Saachi said of Italy: ‘When I started most of the attention was on the defensive phase. We had a sweeper and man-markers. The attacking phase came down to the intelligence and common sense of the individual and the creativity of the number ten. Italy has a defensive culture, not just in football. For centuries, everybody invaded us.’

The importance and influence of the playmaker has rapidly deteriorated in the footballing world. For years the Argentine number 10 – just to give one example - was the pivot point, the maestro orchestrating the midfield. But once teams cottoned onto the idea that by stifling the playmaker you would emasculate the other team’s attack, teams started adapting and opting for a more collectivist, team approach. As brilliant as Zidane was in his heyday, when he had an off-day, France had an off-day and that says nothing about how one-dimensional of a player he was in his later years, hardly bothering to track back and defend and worrying more about his positioning on the pitch to instigate the next attack.

Midfielders have become much more multi-functional now. Jonathan Wilson reckons we might be on the verge of a new era of tactics where the 4-6-0 (or, as I think more likely, a 5-5-0) becomes the norm, with no out-and-out easily recognizable forwards and a collection of equally versatile midfielders complementing each other in their formation. Football is becoming a more of a harmonious entity, with less of the old formula of two or three specialists balanced out with three or four exceptionally talented players, with a couple more thrown in to plug the gaps.

For some, like Magnus perhaps, could this mean the decline of the beautiful game, where there’s not so much dribbling anymore and players are merely cogs or components in a system? Is the era of individual battles over? One could easily argue that because the so-called ‘single-creator’ is too one dimensional, that yes, we are going to see more of the pragmatic, ‘team’ approach, though no one in the world could conceivably stifle the likes of Ronaldo and Messi in the near future. Thank goodness.

Enough of the tactics and on with the closing thoughts.


Slovakia v Northern Ireland, World Cup qualifier, Sept 08: in the minnows versus the minnows, the minnows undeservedly came out on top


An ode to those not here

Despite the rash of recent big-name players – Drogba, Essien, Mikel, Ballack, Ferdinand, Pirlo, Robben – set to miss out on the World Cup due to injury, it has to be said that most of the great traditional footballing powers are here in attendance. Portugal and France managed to squeak through, though Russia unexpectedly fell to Slovenia in the playoff.

Purely selfishly, I was disappointed not to see Sweden qualify, as I’m a huge fan of Zlatan Ibrahimovic. Though I don’t lament the failure of Turkey to qualify, they have to be considered a nation on the rise, with two major semifinal appearances in the past 8 years (World Cup 2002, Euro 2008) and now Guus Hiddink as their manager. Russia didn’t deserve to qualify, neither did footballing-mad Croatia (according to Soccernomics, they are the most rabidly passionate footballing country in the world).

The most glaring and tragic – not to sound too melodramatic – absence has to be Egypt, though one could argue that they too didn’t deserve to qualify if they couldn’t beat Algeria in their playoff. But here we have the winners of three straight African Cup of Nations not playing on the biggest stage of all. It has to go down as a mystery as to how they continually struggle to qualify for the World Cup, yet so thoroughly dominate on the African stage, most of the time anyway. But something has to be said for fierce rivalries, and getting past such a bitter adversary like Algeria is never going to be an easy feat.

In my book, two things seem to happen at just about every World Cup. First, we can expect an unfancied, surprise team to make it at least to the quarterfinals, possibly even the semifinals. In USA ’94, we had Bulgaria and Sweden in the semifinals; in France ’98, Croatia snuck through to the semifinals; Japan/Korea 2002 featured Turkey and South Korea in the last four; Germany 2006 stayed truer to form, though Ukraine’s insomnia-curing approach did see them sneak into the quarterfinals (in the Euros, there have been a couple of stunning surprises: Denmark in 1992, who only qualified as a last-minute replacement for Yugoslavia, and Greece in 2004). I think the same will hold true this year. Along with so many others, I’d love to see one of the African teams make a decent run, though the Essien, Mikel and Drogba injuries have seriously dented Ghana’s, Nigeria’s and Ivory Coast’s respective chances. Cameroon aren't the powerhouse they once were, though at least they are fairly injury-free, Algeria are unlikely to pick up a point, and South Africa will probably become the first host nation not to advance into the 2nd round.

My pick for a surprise run is Serbia. I can see them getting at least to the quarterfinals, maybe even sneaking into the semis. They’re one of the better ‘surprise bet’ teams. They could also play England in the 2nd round.

(disclaimer: much like when I play Scrabble – which I don’t particularly like – I’ve failed to look ahead and plan past the 2nd round’s potential matchups. This is terribly irresponsible and lazy of me, I know, but I’m on the road at the moment and have limited internet time to do the adequate research.)

Second, one of the so-called big traditional powerhouses, despite not being in the best of form, somehow sneak through into the latter stages, and often the final. Rarely does it seem that the ‘best team’ actually wins. How many tournaments have we routinely seen pundits declaring Holland to be the ‘best team’ at the end of the tournament? How many actual tournaments have they won? Exactly.

Often the best teams don’t win, and a big team in lousy form sneaks through to the end. We had France in 2006, there was Germany in 2002. Could this be the year when one of these unfancied traditional powerhouses actually wins it? I think it will be – my pick in a moment.

First, those who won’t win

• Germany: no Ballack, no chance, plus their strikers are in patchy form
• Spain: for the perennial underachievers, no way do they win the World Cup just two years after peaking and winning the European Championship. They’ve had their glory and can surely now expect a few more years of misery before winning another.
• Portugal: well, their shaky qualifying form is one thing; the fact that they’re in the group of death with Brazil and Ivory Coast is another; and my personal bias (I don’t like them) is the third. Add them all up = failure to get out of their group (that opening match against Ivory Coast could all but eliminate one of the two immediately).
• Italy: no one in the mold of Totti, Cannavaro is a shell of his former self, and they’re lacking pure goalscorers up front – I don’t see where their goals are going to come from.
• England: sorry, just don’t see it. The injury to Ferdinand hurts, they’ve only got one recognized right back, and if Barry isn’t fully fit, where’s the midfield muscle?
• Argentina: with Maradona in charge? They were lucky to qualify, and if they win anything, it will be despite the manager, not because of him.
• Holland: again, another devastating injury (Robben), plus an awful lot of faith in Van Persie, who missed the bulk of the season, up front, as well as a combination of shaky and unproven defenders.
• Brazil: simply because everyone expects them to win this, whether expert or layperson, and I can’t go with the masses here. By nature, I’m a contrarian. But I also see a couple of key weaknesses. First, their strikers don’t scare me as much as years past. Second, I know Brazil often resorts to the attack-is-the-best-form-of-defence approach, but their back four make me nervous. I’m always sceptical of people who label the likes of Alves and Maicon as the ‘best backs in the world’ when they can hardly defend, nor even bother to. Both are terrific bombing forward, but questionable when asked to defend. Between those holes – good teams will exploit this – as well as Lucio’s tendency to pick up silly bookings, don’t be surprised by a situation where in the latter stages Lucio is suspended and a team with good wingers and a well-disciplined defense exposes this. Italy perhaps?

(goal of the season, arguably, comes from Maicon - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsCbXu5it6Y

Also, for what it’s worth, it merits a mention that no European team has ever won a World Cup on anything but European soil. Other minor prediction, regarding group C: as much as I’m going for the US, something tells me they may not make it out of their group. I have such a soft spot for central and eastern European minnows, and I see Slovenia sneaking out of this group in 2nd spot, behind likely winners England. I hope I’m wrong, but harking back to my heavy sports gambling days (almost entirely American football), I would sometimes bet against my teams as a way of hedging my bets. If my team won, I was happy; if they lost, I’d made a bit of money to ease the pain. Though there’s no money involved this time, if I were a betting man, I’d put money on Slovenia finishing 2nd. On paper, the US team looks weak in the midfield (where’s the muscle?) and there are huge question marks over the forwards. Of course, we all know that ‘on paper’ means nothing when it comes to actually playing the game. As Sir Alex quipped about the Scotland team: ‘great on paper, shite on grass’.

And had Egypt qualified, we can safely assume that they would have replaced Algeria in this group, making it significantly more cumbersome to progress out of.

Anyway, onto the winners

Like I alluded to, I think this will be the year that a traditionally ‘big’ though unfancied and unexpected team will actually pull it off. And the team I expect to win it all are a far cry from the champions of 1998 and Euro 2000 and the finalists of 2006. From what I can tell, some are predicting them to not even make it out of their group – they could be looking at a 2nd round match against Argentina. Call me crazy, and call this a rather unconventional pick, but here’s why France will win it:

• The unjustness of it all: France hardly deserve to be here after that shocking Thierry Henry handball over which the Irish are still crying foul. I was just as disgusted, but football often has a perverse whiff of the unfair about it, and I think that will carry over during France’s run. It could well also motivate them; they’ll want to prove to the world that they do belong here. (If they manage to win it, I can only imagine then what the Irish will be saying then.)
• It’s Domenech’s last hurrah. And yes, he’s been an under-fire, far-from-satisfactory manager (to put it mildly), and I’m not claiming that he will have a grand part to play in it, but like 2006 when Zidane was effectively in charge, this will be a year when he’ll delegate the bulk of the responsibility to his players, and let them dictate more of the tactics and pace. And that’s a good thing.
• But…keep in mind that this is the same Domenech that took Lyon out of the 2nd division in the late 80s and turned them into the powerhouse of French football. Don’t ever forget that.
• From what I can tell, for the first time in the history of French football, they seem to have a natural, debate-free starting XI. I haven’t heard too much bickering from their camp and I love their balance:

Ribery – Anelka – Govou
Malouda – Gourcoff
Toulalan (or Diaby)
Evra-Gallas-Abidal-Sagna
Lloris

Despite the presence of the combustible Gallas in the centre, the rest of the back four are dependable, solid, and are as good going forward as tracking back. Toulalan, from the limited matches I’ve seen of him as the holding player, is terrific. If there’s a weakness as far as responsibility goes, it has to be Ribery’s unwillingness to track back, which means Evra will have to be a lot more cautious on the left flank.
• In normal World Cup years, fitness would be a factor amongst players coming from the bigger teams. Any English-based players, almost half of the starting eleven, have faced a plethora of games and history tells us that as the tournament progresses, these players fade. That’s why it’s minnows like Slovenia and Serbia who can sometimes make runs: their players are fresher. And despite the fact that no European teams have won a World Cup outside of Europe (assuming that heat and humidity are a big factor), this is a different year, simply because it’s winter in South Africa, and fitness won’t be the issue it has been in years past. Thus, the normal advantage that the smaller teams enjoy is effectively neutralised.
• France’s most important players have been in the form of their lives: Ribery, Anelka, Malouda and Gourcoff. Despite Anelka’s patchy international goalscoring record, he banged them in all season for Chelsea, and he’s the clear, out-and-out target man in this lineup. At odds as high as 66-1, I’d definitely put money on Anelka winning the golden boot. You can also get France at 20-1.
• A strong supporting cast: the bench has a few decent names on it. Diaby is a more than viable replacement for Toulalan in the holding role and may even start a couple of matches. Djbril Cisse had a monster season in Greece and is eager to show that he’s back to his very best. And if they’re losing late on and need a reprieve, you can always bring on Henry and ask him to work his, uh, ‘magic’. Let’s not forget his dive that won France the free kick that knocked out Spain in 2006. This guy has a history of this stuff, and I wouldn’t put anything past him again.

And that is that. I’ve been disastrously wrong before, but I did pick Italy to win it four years ago. Let’s hope the hot streak continues.


Sources
Football Against the Enemy, Simon Kuper
Soccernomics, Simon Kuper & Stefan Szymanski
‘Why Argentina chose ‘ganas’ and ‘pibes’ over winning’, Financial Times, Simon Kuper
Behind the Curtain: Travels in Eastern European Football, Jonathan Wilson
Inverting the Pyramid: The History of Football Tactics, Jonathan Wilson
Brilliant Orange: The Neurotic History of Dutch Football, David Winner