| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Mexxx |
Posted - Jul 11 2006 : 2:15:20 PM
I had written my reviews of this World Cup but decided to post this article instead, as it is eerily similar to my synopsis.
Defence reigns supreme again
Having begun in such an entertaining fashion, what a pity that the world's greatest showpiece should descend into a dull whimper.
After the first week of the 2006 World Cup practically everybody was talking about how this could be the best World Cup in living memory, myself included.
But then it seemed like all the entertaining football left with those who had not qualified for the knockout stages as we went back to the dull, defensive football that the sport is coming to epitomise.
Michel Platini knows a thing or two about the game, and hit the nail on the head when he said: "I've said elsewhere that it's the coaches' World Cup, and I could also have called it the World Cup of tactics.
"To some extent, that's a trend that has carried over from other competitions.
"Things have changed, because 20 years ago it was the players' World Cup. There was more freedom then, whereas now everything is dominated by tactics."
This was clear to see in the two teams in the final, with Italy constantly defending with ten men behind the ball and neither side putting more than two attackers in the opposition penalty area except for set pieces, which seem to be the central part of football these days.
With Fifa declaring that they would protect the skilful players, everyone soon realised that any sort of contact was enough to earn a free-kick if you fall over in the right way. Far from ridding the game of diving the refereeing at this World Cup encouraged and rewarded acts of simulation.
I don't remember a tournament when I've been baffled so often by referees' decisions, but the fact of the matter is that the players abused them no end, tumbling over at any opportunity to earn a guaranteed free-kick.
Coaches have decided that the safest way to attack is at set pieces since there is less chance of getting hit on the counter attack - everyone on the opposing side is back defending, and the ball is likely to either go out of play or back to the attacking side's defenders from any possible clearance.
So instead of bothering with breaking down the opposition man by man or playing through them with quick, clever passing and movement, why not just defend and hope you get lucky at a set piece?
This has become a very European trait, though other countries also use this practice. Without many flair players to boast about, teams from Europe have found success in the ability to overcome their opponents technically.
The majority of France's goals in the knockout stages came from set pieces (4 out of 6 to be precise) and their formation involving just one striker made them look unlikely to score from open play. But while it was difficult to see how they would score, it was equally difficult to see how they would concede.
The same applies to Italy who scored 6 of their 13 goals at the World Cup from set pieces.
Africa received a fair amount of criticism for the poor results picked up by their teams, but for me Ghana and the Ivory Coast were far more entertaining to watch than either Italy or France.
The Ivory Coast had as much possession as Argentina or Holland when they faced those two countries and they always looked eager to do something with the ball when they had it.
While Ghana dominated the possession against Brazil and were far more attacking and entertaining than the Samba stars, who ended up winning 3-0 purely from defending and hitting the Black Stars on the break.
In comparison, how often did you wonder when a European team would finally stop passing the ball between their two centre backs and actually try and attack? England in particular fit this bill.
Clearly the Africans' spirit did not get them very far but my point is that this is the direction that football is heading for at the highest level. As Platini mentions, individual skill becomes null and void and the team with the best defence wins at the end of the day.
Thinking about those players who now have a World Cup winner's medal, the only attacking player who really deserves one in my opinion is Andrea Pirlo. Francesco Totti is amazing for Roma, but does anyone remember anything that he did in Sunday night's final? Luca Toni produced a suttering performance reminiscent of Peter Crouch.
On the other hand Fabio Cannavaro, Gianluigi Buffon and perhaps Marco Materazzi and Fabio Grosso showed that they are worthy of the World Cup winners tag, an indication of the type of football Italy used to win the tournament.
If you sit back for a moment and speculate as to which of the 32 teams at the World Cup played the best football, no team sticks out much more than the others - even Argentina flattered to deceive somewhat, despite putting in the most impressive display of force at the tournament against Serbia and Montenegro.
While Zinedine Zidane ended up receiving the Golden Ball award under controversial circumstances, I think that most fans would have given the award to a defender in Fabio Cannavaro even before Zizou's moment of madness.
This defensive football is hardly new - Chelsea have won back-to-back Premiership titles based on a 4-5-1 formation with a solid defence and I don't expect Jose Mourinho to do things differently next season.
The desire not to lose outweighs the desire to win nowadays, and the entertainment value suffers horribly as a result.
Ok so Germany '06 was not the worst World Cup ever and hats off to Italy for their achievement against the odds, but I just hope that there will be a bit more flair when the beautiful game moves to the African continent for its next big outing.
Is that too much to ask?
By Tristan Holme
|
|
|
