Manchester City's season so far had basically been two distinct campaigns: one, the home campaign which has yet to see a defeat and features just one goal allowed (4-3-0, +6); the other, a miserable away campaign which, entering the day, had not seen a win (0-1-6) and was embodied by a miserable goal differential of -12.
Perhaps this is the start of something. City haven't necessarily lacked chances this season; it's finishing them that's been the key problem (even after today's outburst, City have just 13 goals in 15 matches). Today it wasn't an issue. Despite sitting fifth in the table, and despite playing at home, Aston Villa looked totally overmatched, especially on defense. City picked them apart, jumping to a 2-0 halftime lead and eventually winning 3-1.
Naturally, City still missed a ton of good chances, but then that's football. If they score three goals it doesn't seem fair for me to complain that they should have scored six. The point is: there are six sides left without a road win and City aren't one of them. This could just be another instance of lightning in a bottle (see: West Ham home win on 9/23, which engendered so much hope and was followed by a 1-3-2 run and two goals scored in the six games following), and the December slate is not easy:
12/4 vs. Watford
12/9 at Man U
12/17 vs. Spurs
12/23 vs. Bolton
12/26 at Sheffield U
12/30 at West Ham
Not exactly a cakewalk, is it? Sure, the Watford game should be a win (frankly, if it's not, there are much bigger concerns, aren't there?), but after that it's three road games - one the Derby - and two home games against teams that tend to give City fits. The three games in a week, the latter two on the road, isn't particularly fun-sounding either.
City's season is going to be determined by December. Currently they're on twelfth but just five points back of third - in all, eleven teams are within two wins of third place, in fact, and with Man U and Chelsea pulling well away at the top, it's the race for 3 and 4 (and to a lesser extent, 5, and maybe 6 and 7 depending on Cup results) that's going to be the most interesting for the rest of the season (not that the Man U-Chelsea tug of war won't be interesting, but, well, I hate both those clubs).
With that said, you have to look at wanting 10-14 points out of December. A lot to expect from six matches? Maybe. But if you're going to make Europe, Watford and Sheffield United have to be wins, and City have played well enough at home that you'd think they could take down one of Spurs or Bolton. That's nine right there, and if the defense stays up to snuff, one of the remaining three could easily be a draw. That's already ten. Fourteen is significantly more generous - it assumes either three home wins or a win over slumping West Ham (hardly impossible, even at Upton Park), and even then requires no more than one loss in the six, which could be a tall order. But if you ask me, ten isn't just doable, it's pretty much the least of what needs to happen if this club is going to make a push for Europe. And I really, really want to see a push for Europe.
But for the time being, let's just be happy with a road win. And Sylvain Distin's goal - my God.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Needed that.
Big win over West Ham, although it'd be nice to see City get a win on the road (I watched the highlights of the Chesterfield game, and that first goal was in fact exactly as crap as the announcers made it out to be). Everton is the next chance, though since they're one of just two sides in the EPL still without a loss (Villa are the other) and trounced Liverpool 3-0 at Goodison Park on the 9th, we may be waiting to see one until... well, the next two are Wigan and Charlton, neither of which seems impossible (Charlton are off to a lousy start). Still, the sooner the better.
Samaras' first goal against the Hammers was terrific; shades of Maxi Rodriguez, dare I say? The second was fairly standard but it's a good sign to see someone on City finishing, and simultaneously to see what looks like Samaras perhaps starting to find the plot, after seeming a slow study last year and the start of this one. As Pearce says, he is just 21. If he gets it together, six million pounds will seem like a steal.
Speaking of which, Ishmael Miller, who deserves nearly as much credit as Samaras for that first goal with his blistering 70-yard run. Between him and Richards - and Samaras, for that matter - we could be looking at the start of a great youth movement in Manchester. Now City just need to creep towards Europe, lest the youngsters get impatient and go all SWP on us.
Creeping towards Europe step #1? Win some freaking road games. Keeping a nice record at home would be great, but without some road wins I don't see a top seven finish. (And that's assuming a top-five team wins the FA and Carling Cups, not a total sure thing.)
Samaras' first goal against the Hammers was terrific; shades of Maxi Rodriguez, dare I say? The second was fairly standard but it's a good sign to see someone on City finishing, and simultaneously to see what looks like Samaras perhaps starting to find the plot, after seeming a slow study last year and the start of this one. As Pearce says, he is just 21. If he gets it together, six million pounds will seem like a steal.
Speaking of which, Ishmael Miller, who deserves nearly as much credit as Samaras for that first goal with his blistering 70-yard run. Between him and Richards - and Samaras, for that matter - we could be looking at the start of a great youth movement in Manchester. Now City just need to creep towards Europe, lest the youngsters get impatient and go all SWP on us.
Creeping towards Europe step #1? Win some freaking road games. Keeping a nice record at home would be great, but without some road wins I don't see a top seven finish. (And that's assuming a top-five team wins the FA and Carling Cups, not a total sure thing.)
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Second verse, same as the first
Pulling for Manchester City is starting to make being a Cubs fan look enticing. Sure, exiting a cup that is secondary to the FA Cup in everyone's eyes isn't that big a deal... but two years in a row, both to League One sides? Not cool. And of course, I was listening to both games on the radio over the internet. The difference being that last year it didn't really occur to me that City might not win, whereas this year I spent the whole time on edge, even after Samaras' goal, only to be stabbed right through the heart twice in 20 minutes in half number two.
Yes, the game was on the road, in middling conditions, but it was still against a League One side (and a mediocre League One side at that). Sure, in a single-elimination knockout cup these sorts of things will happen... but it seems to happen to Man City a lot. This is three times in three seasons, in fact, with Oldham in the 2005 FA Cup as well, and heck, there' s still time for a fourth in that span.
So what happened? Well, the defense, which I unwisely professed not to have been worried about, was kind of atrocious. More appropriately, the defense among the midfielders was just horrendous, or at least so it sounded. Every time Chesterfield took possession of the ball in their own end, I wouldn't hear a single City name until Dunne or Distin or Richards finally showed up - but where were guys like Barton, Hamann, and Jordan? Reyna didn't seem to do much on defense either (and in fact his short clear led to Niven's goal). If you're going to run a 3-5-2, the midfielders have to play more defense, and it just didn't seem to be happening. I should stress that as I was only listening to this, I can only say so much about the accuracy of it, but considering the final score, I doubt I'm that far off.
As for the offense, it was the same old story. City should try to get Ruud van Nistelrooy or someone like that - someone who finishes. Because right now, no one on this team seems to be able to do it. Corradi was just off on two or three headers, and while Samaras knocked one rebound in, he didn't do much else. Everyone else seemed pretty invisible.
How inevitable was this loss, given City's recent history in cups and their woeful play so far this season? Here were the ESPN.com headlines on the team pages after each of the three Prem sides crashed out:
Boro (lost to Notts County): "Boro Humiliated"
Fulham (lost to Wycombe): "Fulham Sent Tumbling"
City: "Pressure on Pearce"
Why even focus on the unlikelihood of the loss? This is Man City we're talking about, clearly. Certainly Boro's and Fulham's losses were worse - both were home games, and both opponents were League Two sides, not even League One - but still. Clearly City just need to try and rig the draws so they don't get stuck playing these teams on the road. City's last League Cup home game against a non-Prem team was a 7-1 trouncing of Barnsley in 2004; since then, two road games, two defeats. The Oldham game of January '05 was also on the road, while last year's FA Cup run was conceived almost exclusively at home (Richard's miracle goal to tie was at Villa, so City then won the replay at home).
But then, how does any team expect to win anything if they can't win away from home? Someone needs to look into why City are just so atrocious on the road. Quickly. Before next year's League Cup at least. Although at the current rate, City might be lucky just to start in the second round next year, instead of the first.
Next on the schedule: home for West Ham, at Everton, home for Sheffield United. City had really better win at least one of those. Note: City still undefeated at home this year (1-1-0)! Let's keep it that way.
Yes, the game was on the road, in middling conditions, but it was still against a League One side (and a mediocre League One side at that). Sure, in a single-elimination knockout cup these sorts of things will happen... but it seems to happen to Man City a lot. This is three times in three seasons, in fact, with Oldham in the 2005 FA Cup as well, and heck, there' s still time for a fourth in that span.
So what happened? Well, the defense, which I unwisely professed not to have been worried about, was kind of atrocious. More appropriately, the defense among the midfielders was just horrendous, or at least so it sounded. Every time Chesterfield took possession of the ball in their own end, I wouldn't hear a single City name until Dunne or Distin or Richards finally showed up - but where were guys like Barton, Hamann, and Jordan? Reyna didn't seem to do much on defense either (and in fact his short clear led to Niven's goal). If you're going to run a 3-5-2, the midfielders have to play more defense, and it just didn't seem to be happening. I should stress that as I was only listening to this, I can only say so much about the accuracy of it, but considering the final score, I doubt I'm that far off.
As for the offense, it was the same old story. City should try to get Ruud van Nistelrooy or someone like that - someone who finishes. Because right now, no one on this team seems to be able to do it. Corradi was just off on two or three headers, and while Samaras knocked one rebound in, he didn't do much else. Everyone else seemed pretty invisible.
How inevitable was this loss, given City's recent history in cups and their woeful play so far this season? Here were the ESPN.com headlines on the team pages after each of the three Prem sides crashed out:
Boro (lost to Notts County): "Boro Humiliated"
Fulham (lost to Wycombe): "Fulham Sent Tumbling"
City: "Pressure on Pearce"
Why even focus on the unlikelihood of the loss? This is Man City we're talking about, clearly. Certainly Boro's and Fulham's losses were worse - both were home games, and both opponents were League Two sides, not even League One - but still. Clearly City just need to try and rig the draws so they don't get stuck playing these teams on the road. City's last League Cup home game against a non-Prem team was a 7-1 trouncing of Barnsley in 2004; since then, two road games, two defeats. The Oldham game of January '05 was also on the road, while last year's FA Cup run was conceived almost exclusively at home (Richard's miracle goal to tie was at Villa, so City then won the replay at home).
But then, how does any team expect to win anything if they can't win away from home? Someone needs to look into why City are just so atrocious on the road. Quickly. Before next year's League Cup at least. Although at the current rate, City might be lucky just to start in the second round next year, instead of the first.
Next on the schedule: home for West Ham, at Everton, home for Sheffield United. City had really better win at least one of those. Note: City still undefeated at home this year (1-1-0)! Let's keep it that way.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Just like starting over
Not long after Stuart Pearce took over at Manchester City, the club went on a significant streak of matches without a loss. Then came the middle of last season, when they went into a tailspin and in the end were almost lucky to finish as high as 15th. Now, after a 1-1-3 start to this season (including a 4-2 loss to Blackburn on Sunday), City are struggling like crazy and rumor has it that Pearce may be on the hot seat soon, if he isn't already.
City made a lot of signings in the offseason, bringing in Hatem Trabelsi, Ousmane Dabo, Dietmar Hamann, Paul Dickov, and Bernardo Corradi, as well as Swedish national keeper Andreas Isaksson (though he has yet to play). They completed a loan deal for DaMarcus Beasley at the transfer deadline, and he now says he's interested in signing a long-term contract. Yet despite all this new talent, City are failing to win, and to add insult to injury, David James and Andy Cole headed south for Portsmouth, which has stunningly risen to the very top of the table.
Perhaps it was too much new talent, and the new Blues just haven't managed to gel yet. For the first four games, Pearce didn't use the same striker setup twice (finally in game five he repeated one, with Corradi and Dickov together up front), and so far only Joey Barton has scored any goals - and one of those was from the spot. From what I've seen, chance after chance goes by the wayside; City's difficulty in finishing last year was a lot of what killed them, and things aren't going to improve if they can't start putting a few balls into the net. (That seems self-evident, but really I'm not especially concerned about City's defense, Sunday's abomination notwithstanding. The scoring is where the major problem lies.) Things are bad enough that the only real news City's made so far this year is the Ben Thatcher fiasco.
So after a dispiriting Sunday match, what looms on the horizon? A mid-week cup-tie in the League Cup with League One side Chesterfield, perhaps ominously just one slot ahead of Doncaster in the third-division table right now. Surely no City fan can forget last year's painful crashout to Rovers; the Chesterfield match is, like that one was, on the road, and with City's offensive troubles they can either use this game to come together, or severely risk stumbling to another early exit.
I suppose I brought this on myself. I could easily have picked Chelsea, or Liverpool, or Arsenal. But it's too late now. For better or worse, I picked Man City, and after last year's League Cup there was no going back for me. Heartbreak has always been part of my life as a sports fan thanks to the Cubs; perhaps I didn't need to add more, but if that's how it's going to be, so be it. I'm not going anywhere.
City made a lot of signings in the offseason, bringing in Hatem Trabelsi, Ousmane Dabo, Dietmar Hamann, Paul Dickov, and Bernardo Corradi, as well as Swedish national keeper Andreas Isaksson (though he has yet to play). They completed a loan deal for DaMarcus Beasley at the transfer deadline, and he now says he's interested in signing a long-term contract. Yet despite all this new talent, City are failing to win, and to add insult to injury, David James and Andy Cole headed south for Portsmouth, which has stunningly risen to the very top of the table.
Perhaps it was too much new talent, and the new Blues just haven't managed to gel yet. For the first four games, Pearce didn't use the same striker setup twice (finally in game five he repeated one, with Corradi and Dickov together up front), and so far only Joey Barton has scored any goals - and one of those was from the spot. From what I've seen, chance after chance goes by the wayside; City's difficulty in finishing last year was a lot of what killed them, and things aren't going to improve if they can't start putting a few balls into the net. (That seems self-evident, but really I'm not especially concerned about City's defense, Sunday's abomination notwithstanding. The scoring is where the major problem lies.) Things are bad enough that the only real news City's made so far this year is the Ben Thatcher fiasco.
So after a dispiriting Sunday match, what looms on the horizon? A mid-week cup-tie in the League Cup with League One side Chesterfield, perhaps ominously just one slot ahead of Doncaster in the third-division table right now. Surely no City fan can forget last year's painful crashout to Rovers; the Chesterfield match is, like that one was, on the road, and with City's offensive troubles they can either use this game to come together, or severely risk stumbling to another early exit.
I suppose I brought this on myself. I could easily have picked Chelsea, or Liverpool, or Arsenal. But it's too late now. For better or worse, I picked Man City, and after last year's League Cup there was no going back for me. Heartbreak has always been part of my life as a sports fan thanks to the Cubs; perhaps I didn't need to add more, but if that's how it's going to be, so be it. I'm not going anywhere.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Champions League "Preview"
There won't be much to this, and it'll probably be either (a) totally inaccurate or (b) spot on only because the groups align exactly as anyone would think. But with the return of Champions League group play, we might as well at least discuss it.
Group A
Barcelona
Chelsea
Werder Bremen
Levski Sofia
Werder Bremen is considered by many to be a potential surprise, but in this group? The games between Barca and Chelsea should be good (one would hope), but how do they not both move on? Even if Bremen can hang close, their final game is at Barca (December 5), while Chelsea finishes by hosting the Bulgarians that day. I'd take Barca first and Chelsea second.
Group B
Bayern Munich
Inter Milan
Spartak Moscow
Sporting Lisbon
Hard to imagine the Russians making much noise here. Sporting could surprise, but it would seem foolish to pick anyone other than Bayern (even sans Ballack) and Inter.
Group C
Liverpool
PSV Eindhoven
Bordeaux
Galatasaray
Once again, the group seems pretty straightforward. Liverpool have been good recently at surpassing their domestic form in the CL, so they'll have to hope for that. PSV, semi-finalists in 2004, have been a mixed bag to start the Eredivisie season, but have had little trouble scoring, with six goals from three games. Galatasaray have had some European success in the past, winning the UEFA Cup in 2000 after getting knocked out of the CL and then defeating CL champs Real Madrid in the Super Cup, but it's been a while since that heyday; still, they've got a history of surprises. They may not advance, but Liverpool and PSV shouldn't assume wins in Turkey. Bordeaux are something of an enigma but probably figure not to advance.
Group D
Olympiakos
Roma
Shakhtar Donetsk
Valencia
The Group of... well, not death. More like the group of who the hell knows. There isn't really a standout power in this group (Roma or Olympiakos, maybe) and while Donetsk seems like an obvious minnow, I can't imagine anyone knowing enough about them to say for sure. Clubs from the six major leagues seem to do most of the winning in the CL, at least the past couple years when I've been watching, so it's tempting just to pick Roma and Valencia and be done with it. But I think this one's going to be wide open. Could be the most exciting group top to bottom, but of course no one will see any of the games because it lacks a marquee team.
Group E
Lyon
Real Madrid
Dynamo Kiev
Steaua Bucuresti
Once again, it's easy to pick the big two. And in this case I think I will. Real seemed to struggle last year (including getting steamrolled by none other than Lyon in their opening game), yet advanced anyway mostly by feasting on Olympiakos and Rosenborg. It's hard to believe that Kiev and Bucharest will present significantly stiffer challenges. Lyon, meanwhile, is better than most people tend to realize.
Group F
Manchester United
Benfica
Glasgow Celtic
FC Copenhagen
Man U were simply awful in group play last year, a happening that doesn't figure to repeat itself if they continue their fast start to the domestic campaign. They'll have to contend with Benfica again, but Celtic and Copenhagen are unlikely to be the repeats of Villarreal and Lille. I wouldn't bet against Copenhagen going winless, unless they can top a Celtic team that tends to underachieve in Europe. Man U and Benfica advance if history is any indicator.
Group G
Arsenal
CSKA Moscow
FC Porto
Hamburg SV
Arsenal has looked lousy to start the year, but last year they were embroiled in one of their worst domestic campaigns in years and still managed to roll to the CL final (reversing their tendency to place 1 or 2 in the league and then get knocked out of Europe early). If they play to their capabilities they shouldn't be significantly tested in this group. Not that any of the teams are bad, but only one is Big Six (Hamburg) and it's not exactly its league's best. This really looks like Arsenal vs. Arsenal, but it's not like they're not capable of beating themselves. Porto did win the thing a few years ago, but they don't have Mourinho anymore.
Group H
AC Milan
AEK Athens
Anderlecht
Lille
Like Group G, this looks to be little more than a giant playing against its own weaknesses. Anderlecht had a terrible streak of group games lost over the past couple years and only just broke it after being eliminated. Athens haven't done a whole lot recently, though they did drill Hearts to get to this point, for whatever that's worth. Lille played fairly well last year and have to be considered a strong candidate for second place in the group.
Group A
Barcelona
Chelsea
Werder Bremen
Levski Sofia
Werder Bremen is considered by many to be a potential surprise, but in this group? The games between Barca and Chelsea should be good (one would hope), but how do they not both move on? Even if Bremen can hang close, their final game is at Barca (December 5), while Chelsea finishes by hosting the Bulgarians that day. I'd take Barca first and Chelsea second.
Group B
Bayern Munich
Inter Milan
Spartak Moscow
Sporting Lisbon
Hard to imagine the Russians making much noise here. Sporting could surprise, but it would seem foolish to pick anyone other than Bayern (even sans Ballack) and Inter.
Group C
Liverpool
PSV Eindhoven
Bordeaux
Galatasaray
Once again, the group seems pretty straightforward. Liverpool have been good recently at surpassing their domestic form in the CL, so they'll have to hope for that. PSV, semi-finalists in 2004, have been a mixed bag to start the Eredivisie season, but have had little trouble scoring, with six goals from three games. Galatasaray have had some European success in the past, winning the UEFA Cup in 2000 after getting knocked out of the CL and then defeating CL champs Real Madrid in the Super Cup, but it's been a while since that heyday; still, they've got a history of surprises. They may not advance, but Liverpool and PSV shouldn't assume wins in Turkey. Bordeaux are something of an enigma but probably figure not to advance.
Group D
Olympiakos
Roma
Shakhtar Donetsk
Valencia
The Group of... well, not death. More like the group of who the hell knows. There isn't really a standout power in this group (Roma or Olympiakos, maybe) and while Donetsk seems like an obvious minnow, I can't imagine anyone knowing enough about them to say for sure. Clubs from the six major leagues seem to do most of the winning in the CL, at least the past couple years when I've been watching, so it's tempting just to pick Roma and Valencia and be done with it. But I think this one's going to be wide open. Could be the most exciting group top to bottom, but of course no one will see any of the games because it lacks a marquee team.
Group E
Lyon
Real Madrid
Dynamo Kiev
Steaua Bucuresti
Once again, it's easy to pick the big two. And in this case I think I will. Real seemed to struggle last year (including getting steamrolled by none other than Lyon in their opening game), yet advanced anyway mostly by feasting on Olympiakos and Rosenborg. It's hard to believe that Kiev and Bucharest will present significantly stiffer challenges. Lyon, meanwhile, is better than most people tend to realize.
Group F
Manchester United
Benfica
Glasgow Celtic
FC Copenhagen
Man U were simply awful in group play last year, a happening that doesn't figure to repeat itself if they continue their fast start to the domestic campaign. They'll have to contend with Benfica again, but Celtic and Copenhagen are unlikely to be the repeats of Villarreal and Lille. I wouldn't bet against Copenhagen going winless, unless they can top a Celtic team that tends to underachieve in Europe. Man U and Benfica advance if history is any indicator.
Group G
Arsenal
CSKA Moscow
FC Porto
Hamburg SV
Arsenal has looked lousy to start the year, but last year they were embroiled in one of their worst domestic campaigns in years and still managed to roll to the CL final (reversing their tendency to place 1 or 2 in the league and then get knocked out of Europe early). If they play to their capabilities they shouldn't be significantly tested in this group. Not that any of the teams are bad, but only one is Big Six (Hamburg) and it's not exactly its league's best. This really looks like Arsenal vs. Arsenal, but it's not like they're not capable of beating themselves. Porto did win the thing a few years ago, but they don't have Mourinho anymore.
Group H
AC Milan
AEK Athens
Anderlecht
Lille
Like Group G, this looks to be little more than a giant playing against its own weaknesses. Anderlecht had a terrible streak of group games lost over the past couple years and only just broke it after being eliminated. Athens haven't done a whole lot recently, though they did drill Hearts to get to this point, for whatever that's worth. Lille played fairly well last year and have to be considered a strong candidate for second place in the group.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Open letter to Stuart Pearce
Dear Stuart,
Is this ESPN.com story right? Are you guys about to complete a loan deal for DaMarcus Beasley from PSV?
OH MY GOD PLEASE GET IT DONE.
Sincerely,
Robert Flaxman
American Manchester City fan
Is this ESPN.com story right? Are you guys about to complete a loan deal for DaMarcus Beasley from PSV?
OH MY GOD PLEASE GET IT DONE.
Sincerely,
Robert Flaxman
American Manchester City fan
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Marco Materazzi is a bad liar
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.
"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.
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.)
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Round of 16: Games 5-8
Italy 1-0 Australia
All I watched of this was the last couple minutes. As far as the penalty kick goes, since that's all that needs to be mentioned... was it a penalty? I don't know, it was pretty weak. But Neill did himself no favors by sprawling on the ground, thus giving the Italian player an excuse to fall over him and the referee an excuse to call obstruction. Tough spot for a penalty and a tough call, but that's what happens. Hard luck for Australia, though; they probably outplayed both Brazil and Italy, but couldn't win either match and are gone as a result.
Ukraine 0-0 Switzerland AET (Ukraine wins on penalties, 3-0)
Pretty embarrassing showing by the Swiss in the shootout - but then, I'm with Michael Davies. Shootouts may be exciting to the average fan but they're a lousy way to decide a game; it would be like ending a tied baseball game with a home run derby or a basketball game with a free throw shootout (not to go all Shep Messing on you there). The problem, as Davies notes, is that the better team does not always win the shootout (though with due respect to Switzerland, in this particular case I'm not sure that the better team didn't win); a better way to go would be to use goal differential, total goals, and qualifying record. Or something. That would also help create what FIFA wants - an exciting overtime. They tried to get that with the golden goal, but the result was that teams were even more likely to defend because if you give up a goal in that format, you don't get a chance to re-tie the game. And right now many teams won't push the ball in an OT because they're willing to take their chances in the shootout. Change the rules to a tiebreaker format and you'll find that at least one team really wants to press in extra time. Which is as it should be. Anyway, this was a fairly bland game, as the score should indicate.
Brazil 3-0 Ghana
Didn't bother. With Essien out, this was even more of a fait accompli than it would have been with him in. I guess Ronaldo got the record, and that's nice for him, but I really didn't care about the game; I'm pretty tired of watching Brazil get outplayed (as reports had them doing for, at least, significant stretches of this one) and still win. Maybe a resurgent France can finally push them to the edge.
France 3-1 Spain
Game of the round, in my opinion; certainly game of the last two days. Spain's PK was a bit shaky - for the record, I hate the rule that any infringement, no matter how minor or distant from goal, is a penalty kick as long as it's in the box, though I guess what else can you do - but it didn't end up mattering. Great goal by Ribery, proving once again that the offsides trap will almost always burn you if you're playing a team of actual quality; better goal by Zidane to finish it. That's really the moment of the World Cup for me so far, what with Zidane helping prolong his own career and scoring a great strike while he was at it. Amazingly, this was the first time Spain and France had ever met in the World Cup, and the first time both had qualified for the knockouts since 1986 (when France finished third and Spain were knocked out in the quarters). Exciting game, end-to-end action, four goals, few cards; what more could you ask for? Here's hoping the next round has more games like this and fewer games like the other three.
Another random stat: the quarters will feature two games that match up past champions: Germany/Argentina and France/Brazil. Each of those games is also a rematch of a previous final; Germany and Argentina met in 1986 and 1990 (each nation winning one), while France beat Brazil in 1998. The semifinals could easily see at least one and possibly two more matchups of former champions; if Italy beat Ukraine, they will have one with the Argentina/Germany winner (a Germany/Italy game would be a rematch of the 1982 final, as well), and if England beat Portugal, they will have one with the Brazil/France winner. The last time a World Cup had more than two matchups of former champions in the knockout stages was 1990, which saw fully six such matchups if you count the third-place game, including both semifinal games:
Round of 16: Italy 2-0 Uruguay; Argentina 1-0 Brazil
Semifinals: West Germany 1-1 England (4-3 pen); Argentina 1-1 Italy (4-3 pen)
Final: West Germany 1-0 Argentina
Third-place game: Italy 2-1 England
The Germany-England semifinal was also a rematch of the 1966 final, along with the final being a rematch of the 1986 final. Thus concludes our stats wonkery for the day.
All I watched of this was the last couple minutes. As far as the penalty kick goes, since that's all that needs to be mentioned... was it a penalty? I don't know, it was pretty weak. But Neill did himself no favors by sprawling on the ground, thus giving the Italian player an excuse to fall over him and the referee an excuse to call obstruction. Tough spot for a penalty and a tough call, but that's what happens. Hard luck for Australia, though; they probably outplayed both Brazil and Italy, but couldn't win either match and are gone as a result.
Ukraine 0-0 Switzerland AET (Ukraine wins on penalties, 3-0)
Pretty embarrassing showing by the Swiss in the shootout - but then, I'm with Michael Davies. Shootouts may be exciting to the average fan but they're a lousy way to decide a game; it would be like ending a tied baseball game with a home run derby or a basketball game with a free throw shootout (not to go all Shep Messing on you there). The problem, as Davies notes, is that the better team does not always win the shootout (though with due respect to Switzerland, in this particular case I'm not sure that the better team didn't win); a better way to go would be to use goal differential, total goals, and qualifying record. Or something. That would also help create what FIFA wants - an exciting overtime. They tried to get that with the golden goal, but the result was that teams were even more likely to defend because if you give up a goal in that format, you don't get a chance to re-tie the game. And right now many teams won't push the ball in an OT because they're willing to take their chances in the shootout. Change the rules to a tiebreaker format and you'll find that at least one team really wants to press in extra time. Which is as it should be. Anyway, this was a fairly bland game, as the score should indicate.
Brazil 3-0 Ghana
Didn't bother. With Essien out, this was even more of a fait accompli than it would have been with him in. I guess Ronaldo got the record, and that's nice for him, but I really didn't care about the game; I'm pretty tired of watching Brazil get outplayed (as reports had them doing for, at least, significant stretches of this one) and still win. Maybe a resurgent France can finally push them to the edge.
France 3-1 Spain
Game of the round, in my opinion; certainly game of the last two days. Spain's PK was a bit shaky - for the record, I hate the rule that any infringement, no matter how minor or distant from goal, is a penalty kick as long as it's in the box, though I guess what else can you do - but it didn't end up mattering. Great goal by Ribery, proving once again that the offsides trap will almost always burn you if you're playing a team of actual quality; better goal by Zidane to finish it. That's really the moment of the World Cup for me so far, what with Zidane helping prolong his own career and scoring a great strike while he was at it. Amazingly, this was the first time Spain and France had ever met in the World Cup, and the first time both had qualified for the knockouts since 1986 (when France finished third and Spain were knocked out in the quarters). Exciting game, end-to-end action, four goals, few cards; what more could you ask for? Here's hoping the next round has more games like this and fewer games like the other three.
Another random stat: the quarters will feature two games that match up past champions: Germany/Argentina and France/Brazil. Each of those games is also a rematch of a previous final; Germany and Argentina met in 1986 and 1990 (each nation winning one), while France beat Brazil in 1998. The semifinals could easily see at least one and possibly two more matchups of former champions; if Italy beat Ukraine, they will have one with the Argentina/Germany winner (a Germany/Italy game would be a rematch of the 1982 final, as well), and if England beat Portugal, they will have one with the Brazil/France winner. The last time a World Cup had more than two matchups of former champions in the knockout stages was 1990, which saw fully six such matchups if you count the third-place game, including both semifinal games:
Round of 16: Italy 2-0 Uruguay; Argentina 1-0 Brazil
Semifinals: West Germany 1-1 England (4-3 pen); Argentina 1-1 Italy (4-3 pen)
Final: West Germany 1-0 Argentina
Third-place game: Italy 2-1 England
The Germany-England semifinal was also a rematch of the 1966 final, along with the final being a rematch of the 1986 final. Thus concludes our stats wonkery for the day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)