In what I'm sure came as a surprise to, well, absolutely no one, Italian defender Marco Materazzi admitted to the press that he had insulted Zinedine Zidane before the latter's fateful headbutt in extra time of the World Cup final. Materazzi denied, however, that he had called Zidane a "dirty terrorist," as earlier reports had it.
"I did insult him, it's true," Materazzi said in Tuesday's Gazzetta dello Sport. "But I categorically did not call him a terrorist. I'm not cultured and I don't even know what an Islamic terrorist is."
If Materazzi wants me to believe that he didn't call Zidane a terrorist, maybe he should try an alibi a little bit better than "I don't even know what that word means." Last time I checked you didn't need to be "cultured" to be aware of the existence of terrorists. Perhaps he's been on Mars for the past decade, in a cave, with his eyes shut and his fingers in his ears. This would be like Materazzi calling Michael Ballack a Nazi, and then claiming that he couldn't have done so because, as an uncultured person, he had never heard of Nazis before.
Further adding to the unlikeliness was Materazzi's inability to even produce another reasonable insult that he could have called Zidane, saying simply, "It was one of those insults you're told tens of times and that always fly around the pitch." Okay, so what was it? It would be a lot more convincing if you could make something up. Or maybe it wouldn't. Liar.
Regardless of what Materazzi said, I am fully convinced that he had been trying all game to get Zidane thrown out. The Italians are incredibly respectful of Zidane's skill, but they're also aware of his temper, since he played for Juventus - a team well-represented on the Italian side - when he threw his Champions League headbutt in 2001 over nothing more than a hard tackle. Materazzi had, by most accounts, been tugging at Zidane's shirt all game, and the French players claimed he had been goading him as well. Shortly before the headbutt you can see Materazzi talking like crazy and Zidane saying very little in response. Materazzi was undoubtedly aware of Zidane's history and whatever the last thing he said was, it worked. Honestly, I would give you excellent odds that it was racist, largely because if Materazzi had really been goading Zidane all game to no effect, he needed to have upped the ante to draw that kind of reaction so late.
This doesn't excuse the folly of Zidane's move, of course, but if Materazzi genuinely said something racist, that's pretty poor sportsmanship too, don't you think? Especially if he was trying to get Zidane tossed, which he probably was. Players have been raked over the coals for brandishing imaginary cards, and Cristiano Ronaldo's smirk in the England game booked him passage out of the country, but what about calling a guy names in the hopes that he'll hit you and get tossed? I think that goes well beyond the boundaries of mere gamesmanship, especially if the racism card was pulled to gain the desired effect. Obviously this is only speculation, but really, if Materazzi had been insulting Zidane all game, why would some common insult like "your mother's a whore" push him over the edge? I don't buy it.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Sunday, July 09, 2006
Zi goat
Wow. Just wow. I'll be interested to see if Zidane tells the press what was said to him, because I can't understand how such a seasoned veteran could make such a mental mistake in such a huge spot. Sure, it's not the first time he's ever done this (he was red-carded for another head butt in the Champions League in 2001, apparently), but how do you not understand the stakes, especially as captain? What on earth was he thinking? How is it possible that Materazzi could have said something more offensive than anything else Zidane had ever heard in his career?
Zidane's move was even more goat-tastic for two reasons. Getting yourself sent off in a World Cup final is bad enough - the first time it ever happened was 1990 and Zidane is only the fourth player ever to do it - but to do so when (a) your team is clearly playing the better football and has been for an hour and (b) you're the best penalty kick taker on the team with a shootout looming, that's just horrible. It was an embarrassing lapse in judgment for one of the greatest players ever, and one who had had, I dare say, a surprisingly great tournament, defying all possible expectations. Honestly, you have to wonder if Materazzi wasn't trying to get Zidane to do something stupid, knowing that a shootout - a format at which, historically, the Italians have been absolutely crap - was quite possibly on the schedule.
Would the French have won with Zidane in? I don't know. Both goalkeepers looked lost during the shootout - not a single save, which I think is the first time that happened in this tournament, with Italy only winning thanks to Trezeguet overhitting it. But does that happen if Zidane's there? Impossible to say. Could they have won it in the final ten minutes with Zidane still in? Maybe, but quite possibly not. Still, just having his presence on the field would have changed things. Zidane had nearly won the game just a couple minutes earlier, after all. (My dad is of the opinion that Zidane cost himself tens of millions of dollars with the headbutt. "If he scores the goal, and doesn't get thrown out, he becomes Pele," he said. I would tend to agree on the latter count, though when you consider that Eric Cantona has been the face of Nike for four years, I don't know that being a loose cannon is enough to cost you a sponsorship in international soccer.)
All this, of course, provides yet another reason to complain about the PK shootout. I hate it. I loathe it entirely, especially as a way of settling a World Cup final. Would you settle Game Seven of the World Series with a home run derby, the Super Bowl with a field-goal kicking contest? I realize that it's very difficult to keep playing when the field is so big, and the idea of pulling players off isn't particularly viable because fewer players means more running for any given individual, which means fatigue comes even quicker... but there has to be a better way than this.
It bothers me particularly because the best team does not always win the shootout. In this case, the best team definitely did not win, because anyone who watched this game should be able to tell you that France were clearly the better side for pretty much the entire match. In the second half and overtime, Italy were constantly playing inside their own half, and looked the worse side in terms of conditioning even though France were the older team. And then it all comes down to a contest in which the goalie has no chance unless the guy kicking it chokes? Terrible. (There is no way you can argue against this - the goalie never has a chance if the kicker puts the ball in a corner with a good amount of speed. The only time a guy misses is if he kicks it too softly, allowing a save, or blasts high or wide.) As my dad said, and I agree, it's embarrassing that supposedly the greatest sporting event in the world comes down to such a crapshoot contest as a way of resolving itself. Necessary evil? Maybe. I don't think we're getting rid of it anytime soon. But there has to be a better way.
All that said, Buffon has to be your player of the tournament. No goals conceded from the run of play, and the only goals he allowed were an own goal he couldn't possibly have stopped and a penalty kick (and we've been over that). That, combined with his game-saving stop on Zidane's header - which probably goes in against any other goalie in the world - makes him player of the tournament. Italy don't win without him; they just didn't have the offense.
So that's it for the World Cup. Truly disappointing finish to what I thought was a pretty good final through 110 minutes; truly disappointing way for Zidane to end his international career. It was a good World Cup, not a great World Cup, and a lot of the knockout stage games were disappointing, but ultimately I think we did see two of the three or four best teams in the entire tournament contest the final, and that's probably about as much as you can hope for under normal circumstances. Still... in Berlin, on Sunday night, the best team on the pitch did not win. And while it's not like that never happens in any other sporting event, it's still a shame that an event that only comes around once every four years couldn't have provided a more satisfying, or appropriate, conclusion.
Zidane's move was even more goat-tastic for two reasons. Getting yourself sent off in a World Cup final is bad enough - the first time it ever happened was 1990 and Zidane is only the fourth player ever to do it - but to do so when (a) your team is clearly playing the better football and has been for an hour and (b) you're the best penalty kick taker on the team with a shootout looming, that's just horrible. It was an embarrassing lapse in judgment for one of the greatest players ever, and one who had had, I dare say, a surprisingly great tournament, defying all possible expectations. Honestly, you have to wonder if Materazzi wasn't trying to get Zidane to do something stupid, knowing that a shootout - a format at which, historically, the Italians have been absolutely crap - was quite possibly on the schedule.
Would the French have won with Zidane in? I don't know. Both goalkeepers looked lost during the shootout - not a single save, which I think is the first time that happened in this tournament, with Italy only winning thanks to Trezeguet overhitting it. But does that happen if Zidane's there? Impossible to say. Could they have won it in the final ten minutes with Zidane still in? Maybe, but quite possibly not. Still, just having his presence on the field would have changed things. Zidane had nearly won the game just a couple minutes earlier, after all. (My dad is of the opinion that Zidane cost himself tens of millions of dollars with the headbutt. "If he scores the goal, and doesn't get thrown out, he becomes Pele," he said. I would tend to agree on the latter count, though when you consider that Eric Cantona has been the face of Nike for four years, I don't know that being a loose cannon is enough to cost you a sponsorship in international soccer.)
All this, of course, provides yet another reason to complain about the PK shootout. I hate it. I loathe it entirely, especially as a way of settling a World Cup final. Would you settle Game Seven of the World Series with a home run derby, the Super Bowl with a field-goal kicking contest? I realize that it's very difficult to keep playing when the field is so big, and the idea of pulling players off isn't particularly viable because fewer players means more running for any given individual, which means fatigue comes even quicker... but there has to be a better way than this.
It bothers me particularly because the best team does not always win the shootout. In this case, the best team definitely did not win, because anyone who watched this game should be able to tell you that France were clearly the better side for pretty much the entire match. In the second half and overtime, Italy were constantly playing inside their own half, and looked the worse side in terms of conditioning even though France were the older team. And then it all comes down to a contest in which the goalie has no chance unless the guy kicking it chokes? Terrible. (There is no way you can argue against this - the goalie never has a chance if the kicker puts the ball in a corner with a good amount of speed. The only time a guy misses is if he kicks it too softly, allowing a save, or blasts high or wide.) As my dad said, and I agree, it's embarrassing that supposedly the greatest sporting event in the world comes down to such a crapshoot contest as a way of resolving itself. Necessary evil? Maybe. I don't think we're getting rid of it anytime soon. But there has to be a better way.
All that said, Buffon has to be your player of the tournament. No goals conceded from the run of play, and the only goals he allowed were an own goal he couldn't possibly have stopped and a penalty kick (and we've been over that). That, combined with his game-saving stop on Zidane's header - which probably goes in against any other goalie in the world - makes him player of the tournament. Italy don't win without him; they just didn't have the offense.
So that's it for the World Cup. Truly disappointing finish to what I thought was a pretty good final through 110 minutes; truly disappointing way for Zidane to end his international career. It was a good World Cup, not a great World Cup, and a lot of the knockout stage games were disappointing, but ultimately I think we did see two of the three or four best teams in the entire tournament contest the final, and that's probably about as much as you can hope for under normal circumstances. Still... in Berlin, on Sunday night, the best team on the pitch did not win. And while it's not like that never happens in any other sporting event, it's still a shame that an event that only comes around once every four years couldn't have provided a more satisfying, or appropriate, conclusion.
Saturday, July 01, 2006
Quarterfinals
Germany 1-1 Argentina AET (Germany 4-2 pens.)
It's funny, people were talking about this being the best tournament since 1982 in the group stage, and now I think it's turned into the worst one since 1990. This game was okay but kind of uninspiring as a whole; the overtime was a typically blah affair leading to the always exciting but never satisfying penalty kicks. Germany won in large part thanks to Jens Lehmann, who guessed correctly on all four of Argentina's attempts, saving two of them. Argentina looked like the team to beat after the group stage, but I think that the drubbing of Serbia made them look better than they were - let's not forget, they didn't score against the Dutch (even if they were resting players, I thought they were supposed to be deep) and were a Maxi Rodriguez wonder goal away from potentially going out to a Mexico side that looked like crap in the first round. Pekerman's subs were also a bit odd - pulling Riquelme, never putting on Messi or Saviola. It was like he was either overconfident in the players on the pitch or playing for penalties. To be fair, he had one of his subs stolen because he had to replace the injured Abbondanzieri, but even so. Maybe it was fitting that Cambiasso was saved on the final kick, while both German subs in the PK line hit theirs.
Italy 3-0 Ukraine
Meh. I didn't even really watch this one, I just fast-forwarded through it looking for the goals. The first one, Zambrotta's, was pretty sick. Either way, I think it was obvious to everyone that Ukraine were easily the worst side in the last eight, so this result can't be considered much of a shock, even if Italy hadn't really looked great since coasting past Ghana in their first match.
Portugal 0-0 England AET (Portugal 3-1 pens.)
Really disappointing. Though I have to say, one of the reasons it was a little harder than I wanted to root for England was Rooney, who I really don't like, and it was his red card that helped shut things down for England - they already weren't playing that well, and had lost Beckham, but Lennon looked pretty good (clearly one of the future stars of that side) and with another hour looming you have to think England could have found a way to push one across at full strength with their best scorer on the pitch. It'll be interesting to see if the British press demolish Rooney in the same way they did Beckham in '98 - I think they've always had a touchy relationship with Beckham because it was felt he was a pretty good player made overly famous by his pinup looks. Rooney, clearly, doesn't have that problem. But he does have all the temper and in fact significantly more. It's not clear to me that the crotch stomp was intentional, but combine that with the shove of Ronaldo (his club teammate!) and that's probably why he got the red. Anyway. Lampard had a horrendous World Cup. Just an unbelievably poor showing. Gerrard did nothing in the knockouts. Basically, the team couldn't score when it mattered, and barely at all. The striker issue should be at least partly to blame. What on earth was Eriksson thinking bringing Walcott if he was never going to play him? Only one true striker started today (Rooney), and then Crouch came in after he was tossed, meaning that at no point did England have two strikers on the pitch. And okay, it's not impossible to win out of a 4-5-1 - that's basically what Portugal runs - but you need to have the right type of setup for that. England had too many shoot-first midfielders, not enough service to Rooney, and just in general not enough chances. Shots/on goal in today's game? Portugal 20/9, England 9/4. Yeah. They're lucky they didn't lose sooner than a shootout. By the way, nice work by Ricardo in the shootout. Very Lehmannesque.
France 1-0 Brazil
Best game of the round, possibly the only truly good one of the four - and it featured France, just like last round's best game. I'm starting to really appreciate France - they looked terrible against Switzerland, but they appear to be learning how to play better with each other and they're really hitting their stride. Great defensive performance in shutting down all of Brazil's weapons and rarely having to worry about Barthez's foibles; great goal by Henry getting in behind the defense. This whole tournament, Brazil looked like they were just sitting back, ready to ratchet up their play only when they absolutely had to; France exploited that by outplaying them before and after scoring, and then holding off the late flurry of attacks when the Brazilians appeared to finally wake up and realize that they were about to go out. I'm glad Zidane gets to keep playing, and I'm glad someone besides Brazil is going to win... although Germany and Italy, with three World Cups each, are both in the mix, which is a little annoying.
The last time the semis featured four European teams was 1982 in Spain, when the four were West Germany, Italy, France, and Poland. Sound familiar? Heck, Poland and Portugal even start with the same two letters, just for good measure. That year, Italy beat Germany in the final and Poland finished third by beating France. This year, I'm predicting a Germany/France final. Maybe it will be as epic as their semi matchup that year, which ended AET at 3-3 after France had gone up 3-1 in the first half of extra time, only for West Germany to score in the 102nd and 108th minutes to force penalties, where they won 5-4. We can only hope. (Although I'd rather France won, in terms of actual result.)
It's funny, people were talking about this being the best tournament since 1982 in the group stage, and now I think it's turned into the worst one since 1990. This game was okay but kind of uninspiring as a whole; the overtime was a typically blah affair leading to the always exciting but never satisfying penalty kicks. Germany won in large part thanks to Jens Lehmann, who guessed correctly on all four of Argentina's attempts, saving two of them. Argentina looked like the team to beat after the group stage, but I think that the drubbing of Serbia made them look better than they were - let's not forget, they didn't score against the Dutch (even if they were resting players, I thought they were supposed to be deep) and were a Maxi Rodriguez wonder goal away from potentially going out to a Mexico side that looked like crap in the first round. Pekerman's subs were also a bit odd - pulling Riquelme, never putting on Messi or Saviola. It was like he was either overconfident in the players on the pitch or playing for penalties. To be fair, he had one of his subs stolen because he had to replace the injured Abbondanzieri, but even so. Maybe it was fitting that Cambiasso was saved on the final kick, while both German subs in the PK line hit theirs.
Italy 3-0 Ukraine
Meh. I didn't even really watch this one, I just fast-forwarded through it looking for the goals. The first one, Zambrotta's, was pretty sick. Either way, I think it was obvious to everyone that Ukraine were easily the worst side in the last eight, so this result can't be considered much of a shock, even if Italy hadn't really looked great since coasting past Ghana in their first match.
Portugal 0-0 England AET (Portugal 3-1 pens.)
Really disappointing. Though I have to say, one of the reasons it was a little harder than I wanted to root for England was Rooney, who I really don't like, and it was his red card that helped shut things down for England - they already weren't playing that well, and had lost Beckham, but Lennon looked pretty good (clearly one of the future stars of that side) and with another hour looming you have to think England could have found a way to push one across at full strength with their best scorer on the pitch. It'll be interesting to see if the British press demolish Rooney in the same way they did Beckham in '98 - I think they've always had a touchy relationship with Beckham because it was felt he was a pretty good player made overly famous by his pinup looks. Rooney, clearly, doesn't have that problem. But he does have all the temper and in fact significantly more. It's not clear to me that the crotch stomp was intentional, but combine that with the shove of Ronaldo (his club teammate!) and that's probably why he got the red. Anyway. Lampard had a horrendous World Cup. Just an unbelievably poor showing. Gerrard did nothing in the knockouts. Basically, the team couldn't score when it mattered, and barely at all. The striker issue should be at least partly to blame. What on earth was Eriksson thinking bringing Walcott if he was never going to play him? Only one true striker started today (Rooney), and then Crouch came in after he was tossed, meaning that at no point did England have two strikers on the pitch. And okay, it's not impossible to win out of a 4-5-1 - that's basically what Portugal runs - but you need to have the right type of setup for that. England had too many shoot-first midfielders, not enough service to Rooney, and just in general not enough chances. Shots/on goal in today's game? Portugal 20/9, England 9/4. Yeah. They're lucky they didn't lose sooner than a shootout. By the way, nice work by Ricardo in the shootout. Very Lehmannesque.
France 1-0 Brazil
Best game of the round, possibly the only truly good one of the four - and it featured France, just like last round's best game. I'm starting to really appreciate France - they looked terrible against Switzerland, but they appear to be learning how to play better with each other and they're really hitting their stride. Great defensive performance in shutting down all of Brazil's weapons and rarely having to worry about Barthez's foibles; great goal by Henry getting in behind the defense. This whole tournament, Brazil looked like they were just sitting back, ready to ratchet up their play only when they absolutely had to; France exploited that by outplaying them before and after scoring, and then holding off the late flurry of attacks when the Brazilians appeared to finally wake up and realize that they were about to go out. I'm glad Zidane gets to keep playing, and I'm glad someone besides Brazil is going to win... although Germany and Italy, with three World Cups each, are both in the mix, which is a little annoying.
The last time the semis featured four European teams was 1982 in Spain, when the four were West Germany, Italy, France, and Poland. Sound familiar? Heck, Poland and Portugal even start with the same two letters, just for good measure. That year, Italy beat Germany in the final and Poland finished third by beating France. This year, I'm predicting a Germany/France final. Maybe it will be as epic as their semi matchup that year, which ended AET at 3-3 after France had gone up 3-1 in the first half of extra time, only for West Germany to score in the 102nd and 108th minutes to force penalties, where they won 5-4. We can only hope. (Although I'd rather France won, in terms of actual result.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)