Tweet
Why Brazil and Argentina failed
FROM THE SPORTS DESK
BY IAN BURNETT
Sunday, July 04, 2010
As an unapologetic supporter of the 'beautiiful Brazilian game' since 1982, I shed no tears for the failure of Dunga's team from the ongoing World Cup Finals in South Africa. Equally, as someone who also appreciates top-quality football, regardless of where it resides, I refuse to join the many thousands who now weep following the demise of the great Lionel Messi and his Argentine teammates, who were cruelly asked to play under the clueless egotist Diego Maradona.
I make no pretence to know that both these South American giants would have faltered the way they did, but after perusing the final 23-man squads in late May, I was pretty confident that neither team would add to its tally of World Cup trophies.
I tend not to criticise coaches on their selections for national football teams because I've always believed that if someone is hired to do a job then he should be given free rein to do so without interference from the governing authority. However, after the debacle with Brazilian Rene Simoes when he inexplicably and stubbornly wrecked Jamaica's 2010 World Cup campaign after opting for a handful of inexperienced youngsters at the expense of a number of the country's far more seasoned professionals, who paraded their skills in Europe.
That ill-advised strategy by Simoes left Jamaica with the proverbial 'mountain to climb', and even though replacement coach Theodore Whitmore won his three remaining games, it was not enough for Jamaica to advance to the final round of CONCACAF qualifying, losing out to Mexico on goal difference.
With Jamaica out, the sacked Simoes picked up another job with Costa Rica and went mighty close to making it to South Africa, only to lose out to World Cup semi-finalist Uruguay in the play-offs.
Jamaica suffered because of the folly of Simoes, and the same can be said of coaches Dunga and Maradona. Their selections for this World Cup could be considered criminal. Despite the fact that both teams reached the last eight, sometimes with convincing displays, for students of the game, it was clear that neither squad was well balanced.
Dunga survived the exclusion of his most creative players, led the all-time great Ronaldinho, along with Diego, Pato, Adriano, Marcelo, among others, such as new sensations Neymar and Ganso of Santos, because he had won the 2007 Copa America with an understrength team which pummelled a star-filled Argentina 3-0 in the final. He also led Brazil to the 2009 Confederations Cup in South Africa and finished top of the CONMEBOL qualifying campaign with just two losses.
What Dunga's successful teams couldn't hide was their lack of creativity, and their over reliance on 'journeymen'. Dunga moulded a team off his own character, and saw world-class talent like Ronaldinho as surplus to requirement. I don't have a problem with his pragmatism, but for a country that produces the best football talent on the planet, it is more than a bit baffling for him to have selected only three world-class creative players (Robinho, Kaka and Elano) in a 23-man squad.
Not to mention that Kaka was only just returning from an injury-plagued season with Real Madrid and was always going to struggle to regain full fitness for the tournament. There were many excuses for Brazil after their drab draw with Portugal, but I was not surprised because the three creative players were all missing due to suspension and injuries.
Journeymen, many of whom make up teams like England, will always struggle to break down teams, and while appreciating the need for balance, the more attacking players at one's disposal, the better the chances of creating opportunities to score goals. It is as simple as that. Had a player like Ronaldinho, undoubtedly the best creator of opportunities in world football, been selected, there is a great chance Brazil would still be on course for a record sixth World Cup title.
When Elano was cruelly kicked out of the World Cup Finals by an Ivory Coast defender, Brazil not only lost a creative player, but also its freekick specialist and primary penalty taker, areas where he is clearly second best to Ronaldinho.
How can one explain a substitute right wingback being asked in the World Cup Finals to play attacking midfield for Brazil, a nation of nearly 200 million people who having been blessed with an abundance of talent, 'loaned' players in this World Cup Finals to Germany, Portugal, USA, Mexico and Japan?
With Brazil 1-2 down and facing elimination against The Netherlands, Dunga could only muster two substitutions. One (Gilberto for Bastos) due to the fear of ejection, and Nilmar for the disappointing Fabiano, a straight striker swap. Clearly he saw none of his benchers who could have gone on to make a difference on the pitch. And he was right, they were all journeymen.
For the clueless Maradona, clearly he thought that he could pack his squad with six strikers and that alone would win him the World Cup. This team has consistently played badly under Maradona, except for a few games in South Africa, due primarily to imbalance.
In attack the team was great, better than any other at the tournament, but for those who understand the game, there was always a very soft underbelly. The reluctance to include quality and experience such as Javier Zanetti and Esteban Cambiasso emphasised the coach's inexperience, and had he just put his ego aside and allow Juan Roman Riquelme to pull the strings in midfield and let the still learning Messi roam higher up the pitch, this Argentina could have been the winners.
It is probably now time for governing bodies to start looking at establishing selection panels, with the coach obviously being a part, to select teams.
It can't be that a coach selects or excludes a known quality player without offering any explanations. In the case of Brazil, one man should not determine the fate of nearly 200 million people, and Maradona should never be allowed to do the same to his nearly 50 million compatriots.
Without these unwanted and unnecessary problems, the World Cup is already very difficult to win.
FROM THE SPORTS DESK
BY IAN BURNETT
Sunday, July 04, 2010
As an unapologetic supporter of the 'beautiiful Brazilian game' since 1982, I shed no tears for the failure of Dunga's team from the ongoing World Cup Finals in South Africa. Equally, as someone who also appreciates top-quality football, regardless of where it resides, I refuse to join the many thousands who now weep following the demise of the great Lionel Messi and his Argentine teammates, who were cruelly asked to play under the clueless egotist Diego Maradona.
I make no pretence to know that both these South American giants would have faltered the way they did, but after perusing the final 23-man squads in late May, I was pretty confident that neither team would add to its tally of World Cup trophies.
I tend not to criticise coaches on their selections for national football teams because I've always believed that if someone is hired to do a job then he should be given free rein to do so without interference from the governing authority. However, after the debacle with Brazilian Rene Simoes when he inexplicably and stubbornly wrecked Jamaica's 2010 World Cup campaign after opting for a handful of inexperienced youngsters at the expense of a number of the country's far more seasoned professionals, who paraded their skills in Europe.
That ill-advised strategy by Simoes left Jamaica with the proverbial 'mountain to climb', and even though replacement coach Theodore Whitmore won his three remaining games, it was not enough for Jamaica to advance to the final round of CONCACAF qualifying, losing out to Mexico on goal difference.
With Jamaica out, the sacked Simoes picked up another job with Costa Rica and went mighty close to making it to South Africa, only to lose out to World Cup semi-finalist Uruguay in the play-offs.
Jamaica suffered because of the folly of Simoes, and the same can be said of coaches Dunga and Maradona. Their selections for this World Cup could be considered criminal. Despite the fact that both teams reached the last eight, sometimes with convincing displays, for students of the game, it was clear that neither squad was well balanced.
Dunga survived the exclusion of his most creative players, led the all-time great Ronaldinho, along with Diego, Pato, Adriano, Marcelo, among others, such as new sensations Neymar and Ganso of Santos, because he had won the 2007 Copa America with an understrength team which pummelled a star-filled Argentina 3-0 in the final. He also led Brazil to the 2009 Confederations Cup in South Africa and finished top of the CONMEBOL qualifying campaign with just two losses.
What Dunga's successful teams couldn't hide was their lack of creativity, and their over reliance on 'journeymen'. Dunga moulded a team off his own character, and saw world-class talent like Ronaldinho as surplus to requirement. I don't have a problem with his pragmatism, but for a country that produces the best football talent on the planet, it is more than a bit baffling for him to have selected only three world-class creative players (Robinho, Kaka and Elano) in a 23-man squad.
Not to mention that Kaka was only just returning from an injury-plagued season with Real Madrid and was always going to struggle to regain full fitness for the tournament. There were many excuses for Brazil after their drab draw with Portugal, but I was not surprised because the three creative players were all missing due to suspension and injuries.
Journeymen, many of whom make up teams like England, will always struggle to break down teams, and while appreciating the need for balance, the more attacking players at one's disposal, the better the chances of creating opportunities to score goals. It is as simple as that. Had a player like Ronaldinho, undoubtedly the best creator of opportunities in world football, been selected, there is a great chance Brazil would still be on course for a record sixth World Cup title.
When Elano was cruelly kicked out of the World Cup Finals by an Ivory Coast defender, Brazil not only lost a creative player, but also its freekick specialist and primary penalty taker, areas where he is clearly second best to Ronaldinho.
How can one explain a substitute right wingback being asked in the World Cup Finals to play attacking midfield for Brazil, a nation of nearly 200 million people who having been blessed with an abundance of talent, 'loaned' players in this World Cup Finals to Germany, Portugal, USA, Mexico and Japan?
With Brazil 1-2 down and facing elimination against The Netherlands, Dunga could only muster two substitutions. One (Gilberto for Bastos) due to the fear of ejection, and Nilmar for the disappointing Fabiano, a straight striker swap. Clearly he saw none of his benchers who could have gone on to make a difference on the pitch. And he was right, they were all journeymen.
For the clueless Maradona, clearly he thought that he could pack his squad with six strikers and that alone would win him the World Cup. This team has consistently played badly under Maradona, except for a few games in South Africa, due primarily to imbalance.
In attack the team was great, better than any other at the tournament, but for those who understand the game, there was always a very soft underbelly. The reluctance to include quality and experience such as Javier Zanetti and Esteban Cambiasso emphasised the coach's inexperience, and had he just put his ego aside and allow Juan Roman Riquelme to pull the strings in midfield and let the still learning Messi roam higher up the pitch, this Argentina could have been the winners.
It is probably now time for governing bodies to start looking at establishing selection panels, with the coach obviously being a part, to select teams.
It can't be that a coach selects or excludes a known quality player without offering any explanations. In the case of Brazil, one man should not determine the fate of nearly 200 million people, and Maradona should never be allowed to do the same to his nearly 50 million compatriots.
Without these unwanted and unnecessary problems, the World Cup is already very difficult to win.
Comment