Germany 2006: My thoughts (part 1)
After a hectic 1+ month of football, it is finally time to get back to the normal routine. Like spending more time at work. And blogging more. So here's my analysis on the World Cup 2006 and how it compared with the previous ones I watched before.
Overview
This World Cup wasn't about individual players. No player set the tournament alight, or brought himself to the forefront of football. While the last World Cup was about upsets, with Turkey and South Korea making the semi-finals, this one was about the Heavyweights - the traditional powers of football. All the previous winners except Uruguay made it to the quarter-finals. This World Cup was about teams and their tactics, and the team managers became the focus of the attention in this World Cup. England's Sven Goran Ericsson and Brazil's Carlos Alberto Parreira were criticized for their poor formations and refusal to drop star players, and both teams were rightly dumped out of the tournament after 5 poor games. On the other hand, Germany's Jurgen Klinnsman was applauded for turning the underdogs into tournament favorites with an attacking flair (something I have not seen Germany do before - play nice football); Portugal's Phil Scolari was considered the inspiration for getting his team to the semi-finals and Marcello Lippi for adding an attacking flair to Italy's usual catennacio style.
Playing styles
Another interesting thing for me was seeing the teams playing style - some sticking to their traditions while others losing sight of theirs. Let's start with the champions Italy. When they had to, they stuck to their 'catennaccio' style. Catenaccio means "door bolt" or "bolting the door" in italian, and it means to have a highly organized defense and play counter-attacking football. Of course, this makes for boring football, especially when Italy takes the lead, or when the team has achieved their objective. This was especially evident in the World Cup 2002 group game between Italy and Norway, where both teams got a draw, and Italy basically decided to sit back and defend, while Norway decided not to attack. It was terrible. But I also came to appreciate it in the games Italy played in Euro 2000. With Cannavaro, Nesta and Maldini, Italy had argubly the best defenders at the time. Against Netherlands in the Euro 2000 semi final, they played with a man down, and it was then I came to appreciate the catenaccio. In this World Cup, Cannavaro was the main man, and he had to play without the injured Nesta and the retired Maldini. Against the Czech Republic in the group game, they only needed a draw. Played their catenaccio style. They got a goal through a set piece, then sat back defend, then counter attack. Got the second goal. Game over. Against Australia, they got a man sent off, and again they repeated their performance in Euro 2000. Australia kept attacking, but Italy sat back until the last few minutes, turned it on, and bam! Won a penalty kick. Win 1-0.
France the losing finalist, combined their typical flair with resolute defending. France, along with Brazil had arguably the most skillful players in the world. Both teams had problems in getting their good players putting good performances. France managed to "turn it on" in the knockout stages. Brazil didn't.
Which brings me to Brazil, the biggest disappointment this World Cup. Brazil is famous for their 'samba' football - mazy dribbles, near telepathic understanding and passing, brilliant attacking football. They are the anti-thesis of Italy, with the motto - "Attack is the best form of defense". In Ronaldhino, Kaka, Robino, Adriano and even a buldging Ronaldo, they had players that any team would want. Unfortunately they didn't function as a team. They got to the quarter-finals without facing any tough opponents, and against France, Brazil only showed one aspect of their traditional style - the poor defending.
(above: I searched for 'Fat Ronaldo' under Google. This is what I got. LOL! )
Argentina were my favorites before they got kicked out. They put in the best team performance in the World Cup - a 6-0 win over Serbia & Montenegro which got the whole world drooling over that performance. In that game, they displayed the slow passing game that they are famous for. Pass and pass until the opponent tires or make a mistake... then bam! The second goal in that game involved 24 passes!! Absolutely brilliant. A few pundits said that the team "peaked too early", and they were right. Their performances stuttered in the later rounds, and got kicked out on penalties by Germany.
Germany. What can I say? I hate them. They were applauded for abandoning their traditional efficient style and grinding out 1-0 wins for attacking flair, and rightly so. But being bias that I am, I would say that they could do that because the teams they played were inferior teams. They were under pressure against Argentina, and lost out to Italy. But when it came to the crunch of penalty kicks, the Germans did what they historically have done best. Win a penalty shoot-out. Before World Cup 2006, Argentina and Germany had the best records in penalty shoot-outs. 5 wins, 0 losses. Now Germany is undisputed with 6 wins.
England played their traditional long-ball crap. They had good players, we all know that. Not the best players, but all very good. But again, year on year, we believe the hype the British media churn out about their team being the best, and every tournament the fans get disappointed, not just with the results but the performances.
Keeper was distracted by the moving goalpost
(to be continued - Highlights of the World Cup)
Overview
This World Cup wasn't about individual players. No player set the tournament alight, or brought himself to the forefront of football. While the last World Cup was about upsets, with Turkey and South Korea making the semi-finals, this one was about the Heavyweights - the traditional powers of football. All the previous winners except Uruguay made it to the quarter-finals. This World Cup was about teams and their tactics, and the team managers became the focus of the attention in this World Cup. England's Sven Goran Ericsson and Brazil's Carlos Alberto Parreira were criticized for their poor formations and refusal to drop star players, and both teams were rightly dumped out of the tournament after 5 poor games. On the other hand, Germany's Jurgen Klinnsman was applauded for turning the underdogs into tournament favorites with an attacking flair (something I have not seen Germany do before - play nice football); Portugal's Phil Scolari was considered the inspiration for getting his team to the semi-finals and Marcello Lippi for adding an attacking flair to Italy's usual catennacio style.
Playing styles
Another interesting thing for me was seeing the teams playing style - some sticking to their traditions while others losing sight of theirs. Let's start with the champions Italy. When they had to, they stuck to their 'catennaccio' style. Catenaccio means "door bolt" or "bolting the door" in italian, and it means to have a highly organized defense and play counter-attacking football. Of course, this makes for boring football, especially when Italy takes the lead, or when the team has achieved their objective. This was especially evident in the World Cup 2002 group game between Italy and Norway, where both teams got a draw, and Italy basically decided to sit back and defend, while Norway decided not to attack. It was terrible. But I also came to appreciate it in the games Italy played in Euro 2000. With Cannavaro, Nesta and Maldini, Italy had argubly the best defenders at the time. Against Netherlands in the Euro 2000 semi final, they played with a man down, and it was then I came to appreciate the catenaccio. In this World Cup, Cannavaro was the main man, and he had to play without the injured Nesta and the retired Maldini. Against the Czech Republic in the group game, they only needed a draw. Played their catenaccio style. They got a goal through a set piece, then sat back defend, then counter attack. Got the second goal. Game over. Against Australia, they got a man sent off, and again they repeated their performance in Euro 2000. Australia kept attacking, but Italy sat back until the last few minutes, turned it on, and bam! Won a penalty kick. Win 1-0.
France the losing finalist, combined their typical flair with resolute defending. France, along with Brazil had arguably the most skillful players in the world. Both teams had problems in getting their good players putting good performances. France managed to "turn it on" in the knockout stages. Brazil didn't.
Which brings me to Brazil, the biggest disappointment this World Cup. Brazil is famous for their 'samba' football - mazy dribbles, near telepathic understanding and passing, brilliant attacking football. They are the anti-thesis of Italy, with the motto - "Attack is the best form of defense". In Ronaldhino, Kaka, Robino, Adriano and even a buldging Ronaldo, they had players that any team would want. Unfortunately they didn't function as a team. They got to the quarter-finals without facing any tough opponents, and against France, Brazil only showed one aspect of their traditional style - the poor defending.(above: I searched for 'Fat Ronaldo' under Google. This is what I got. LOL! )
Argentina were my favorites before they got kicked out. They put in the best team performance in the World Cup - a 6-0 win over Serbia & Montenegro which got the whole world drooling over that performance. In that game, they displayed the slow passing game that they are famous for. Pass and pass until the opponent tires or make a mistake... then bam! The second goal in that game involved 24 passes!! Absolutely brilliant. A few pundits said that the team "peaked too early", and they were right. Their performances stuttered in the later rounds, and got kicked out on penalties by Germany.
Germany. What can I say? I hate them. They were applauded for abandoning their traditional efficient style and grinding out 1-0 wins for attacking flair, and rightly so. But being bias that I am, I would say that they could do that because the teams they played were inferior teams. They were under pressure against Argentina, and lost out to Italy. But when it came to the crunch of penalty kicks, the Germans did what they historically have done best. Win a penalty shoot-out. Before World Cup 2006, Argentina and Germany had the best records in penalty shoot-outs. 5 wins, 0 losses. Now Germany is undisputed with 6 wins.
England played their traditional long-ball crap. They had good players, we all know that. Not the best players, but all very good. But again, year on year, we believe the hype the British media churn out about their team being the best, and every tournament the fans get disappointed, not just with the results but the performances.
Keeper was distracted by the moving goalpost
(to be continued - Highlights of the World Cup)
posted by Kevin at 12:46 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home