World Cup reprise : the naysayers are out

[Crusoe]

I’ve just been reading the latest edition of When Saturday Comes and their retrospective look at the World Cup contains some interesting opinions. For unfamiliar readers, the magazine takes a fairly jokey but pessimistic view of developments in football, and the articles on some of the team performances this summer are no exception.

On England:

“Get it into the collective head once and for all: this is not one of the great footballing countries. Germany and Brazil have reached the last four of the World Cup ten times each. England have done it twice, once at home … Pin this up: this is England and nothing has changed. If you don’t make a single half-chance for half an hour against ten men, ask some difficult questions. Ask them about Beckham, the greatest triumph of style over content in football history, and about Paul Scholes, who helped stifle Argentina but had a nightmare when it mattered … Scholes is 27 and can’t take the heat. Ronaldinho is 22 and Ronaldo was a world star at 20. Time to wake up and smell the Brazilian coffee.”

On Ireland:

“We nearly beat silky Spain too. But we didn’t … They were there for the taking! But we didn’t take them. ‘Yeah, but we nearly did! We took them all the way to penos [sic]!’ … If Ireland had topped Group E by earning actual victories, as opposed to the wildly celebrated ‘moral victories’ against Cameroon and Germany, we would have had to beat Paraguay, the US and South Korea to claim a historic place in the World Cup final. Now that would have been something to shout about … But we didn’t, and we may never get a better chance. Can we really be happy to say, ‘Ah well, we gave it our best shot’? Do we even care? Or, as Roy Keane famously lamented, are we really only along for the party?”

On the surprise performers:

“True, South Korea, Senegal and the United States did very well. But all this means, for now, is that they have become Irelands, Swedens and Romanias, nations capable of exploits in individual tournaments (thanks to a ‘golden generation’ of players or a bit of luck or, usually, both) but incapable of becoming permanent members of the sport’s aristocracy.”

So, opinions?

I suppose a certain amount of self-flagellation is inevitable when the dust settles and you realise you didn’t actually win anything, but how much of this is justified? Depressingly, I found myself agreeing with 99% of the England article; in hindsight, I don’t think my country really dominated a single match or played that well. The win against Denmark was largely down to some shocking defensive errors; the win against Argentina was a great defensive performance but not much more. I’m really not sure our ‘star players’ did anything to earn their reputations (maybe Ferdinand excepted, but I’ll wait to see how he plays this season) and the squad players weren’t exactly overwhelming.

Ireland fans: how do you react to the Irish article? The author takes a fairly pro-Keane stance, bemoaning the Irish attitude that it’s all about the craic and putting the effort in, then enjoying it afterwards. I think he’s maybe a little harsh in expecting Ireland to be able to do much more, and while his criticism of McCarthy is nasty in places it seems fairly spot-on in others (namely, his love of Connelly and Kennedy above better players).

< self-hijack >
Coldfire, if you wander in here, do you know of an Ajax player called Darl Douglas and is he any good?
< /self-hijack >

[Futile_Gesture]

I reckon they’re pretty much spot on. England has always had over-inflated opinion and expectations of their players. They could have done quite well, maybe even won, but this idea that they should by rights be through at least to the semis every time, and the euphoria after the narrow win over Argentina (courtesy of a weak penalty award), was totally misplaced. Unfortunately they never showed the class you need to win the World Cup, either before or during.

As for Ireland; in many ways you have to be realistic. Due to population size they are simply never going to be a world-beating team. Any progress they therefore make is an achievement, and what’s wrong with enjoying it while you’re there? You can criticise lots about their manager and their preparation. But the fact they were there at all is an answer to everything.

The others mentioned (S. Korea & USA etc) are quite fairly summed up as well. Many countries have their fleeting time in the sun, out perform expectations, and then return to mediocrity. It’s up to them to show that they can produce this kind of performance regularly. Like many people, I’m sceptical.

[jjimm]

Spot-on.

I particularly agree about Scholes, who never ceases to disappoint at international level.

I’m not Irish, but I am a supporter, and I disagree with Keane’s comment, as well as his stance. If a team has the self-knowledge that the articles are asking for, they’re going to do as well as they can, but realise they’re unlikely to make the final. Keane calls it being “along for the party”; others call it “sportsmanship”.

But then again, I know shag-all about footy.

[ShibbOleth]

For the USA, since most of their best players are 25 or under, save their keepers and their captain, I think they have a good shot to do well in the next Cup. There is a good pipeline for young players in place and a system to get them good competition. I think the USA’s younger teams (U-23 and down) do consistently better than Ireland or England. Also bear in mind that they have a relatively easy route to qualification, particularly now that USSF has opened it’s eyes to how they schedule their home qualifiers (vs Mexico in Columbus, Ohio instead of Los Angeles Coliseum, which becomes Azteca north). Toughest part is the horrific conditions for their away games.

The big questions remain whether there will be any sustainable public support and how good a job their coaching staff can do. Plus a bit of luck to keep them bouyant never hurts. I just hope we don’t draw in with ze Germans in the next one.

[Crusoe]

Interesting. The article does also make the point that Beckham et al were busy reinflating the national ego upon landing back in the UK, talking about how much potential the side has. The author’s reaction? Beckham, Fowler, Butt, Scholes, Campbell etc are 27 already and have yet to realise this potential, while Mills, Cole (J), Vassell, Heskey and Dyer are not yet even in that class. It’s enough to make you wince, probably because it’s hard to disagree.

I wonder with the Ireland article whether the author is just fed up with the Irish-party-people-plucky-underdogs stereotype and wanted a more ‘professional’ approach to the World Cup. I don’t know that that’s particularly realistic, but I can understand why he might be fed up at the stereotype that win or lose the Irish will have a laugh about it because they never expected to do better.

[owlstretchingtime]

I too read WSC and thought the article pretty well spot on. I think that this time we didn’t have unrealistic hopes (and last eight in the world is still an achievement that Holland, France, Argentina etc would have welcomed), and achieved pretty much what was expected.

I think a lot of the overinflated ideas we have about football come from our league (the self styled “best in the world”). Whilst this is the richest league around it will continue to do well in European competition, however this doesn’t translate to sucess for the national team as the English teams ARENT ENGLISH!

Most important palyer at Man U? Irish. Arsenal? French. Liverpool? Well maybe english (but I woud say Finnish) Chelsea? you get the idea.

England are a middling football power who are due some success. If the current crop of youngsters (King, duff, bramble the Coles etc) continue to develop we could have a serious attempt in two years time.

At least the Germans didn’t win.

[Crusoe]

Duff’s Irish. I presume you mean Dunn?

I tend to agree, but then again don’t English fans always look to the Under-21s as great white hopes who never quite turn out that well. Even Owen isn’t looking anything like the player he once was (and this is from someone who still rates him as a very good player).

The article on the surprise successes was fairly straightforward–dispelling the myth that the ‘old powers’ are on the want (etc). I’m not sure about the US’ future chances–are there really that many top-class youngsters coming through?

[Coldfire]

*Originally posted by Crusoe *
**< self-hijack >
Coldfire, if you wander in here, do you know of an Ajax player called Darl Douglas and is he any good?
< /self-hijack > **

Ewww, stop selfing yourself in public.

Douglas is technically an Ajax player, but has always been on loan to first division clubs - the last one being Haarlem. I know next to nothing of him, other than “he’s obviously not good enough to make the Ajax I team”. Oldham fan?

[Crusoe]

Aye. He’s on trial with us for a week or two. I think he’s played for your national Under-21 side too.

[owlstretchingtime]

*Originally posted by Crusoe *
**Duff’s Irish. I presume you mean Dunn?

I tend to agree, but then again don’t English fans always look to the Under-21s as great white hopes who never quite turn out that well. Even Owen isn’t looking anything like the player he once was (and this is from someone who still rates him as a very good player).
**

Um. Yes I did.

I agree about the U21/23s. I think that this is partly that the way is blocked by journeyman players, usually Scandiwegian, so there isn’t a smooth route through and that for every Michael Owen there are many Steve Sedgleys.

Owen plays too much football for his fitness to hold up. They all play too much football.

[owlstretchingtime]

Oh and Coldfire (or other Dutchmen) whats the story on Nikos MAchlas? Spurs are being linked (but we get linked with every footballer on the planet, apart from the good ones)

[Crusoe]

I had Duff and Dunn confused in my work fantasy league last season. Picked Dunn while Duff played well, realised mistake and swapped them just as Dunn started playing well. Duh.

I think you’re right about the amount of football being played hurting our national players. Just think of all of the promising youngsters that have faded over time. Mind you, I’m more concerned about the mindset and ‘football intelligence’ of our players. Watching the game against Brazil became embarrassing as it was painfully obvious that the players just ran out of ideas. To a degree it’s the manager’s problem, but you’d hope individual players have the spark to make things work themselves. I’m concerned that too often England slip into the 4-4-2 keep-it-simple pass-and-move routine because it’s what we’re comfortable with. I’m all for playing to our strengths, but I think we’re playing like that because we’re stuck in an unimaginative rut. I’d like players that are brought up from an early age to be mentally prepared to take the initiative and to be adaptable.

[Boo_Boo_Foo]

Hey guys! Do you mind if I give you all an unbiased observation from a guy who lives in an unfortunate soccer playing minnow - namely Australia? I just love these kinda threads because most of the tribalism has died by this stage and basically it’s just warm chit chat amongst relatively objective fireside lovers.

Here in Australia we’re a bunch of rugby idiots and lovers of Australian Football (which is essentially a derivative of Gaelic Football). As a result, because we’ve had such dreadful luck trying to ‘qualify’ in the last 25 years, we get to watch the World Cup as relative outsiders, and yet, as you know, we Australians are arguably the most sports mad nation on earth.

So what happens World Cup time down here? Think of it as being something like it was back in the Max Schmelling vs Joe Louis era in boxing in the 1930’s. As a sports lover, you know it’s gonna be good but by and large, you’re unbiased to the outcome - so you tend to watch it purely for the sporting sake.

No doubt you ask, what is my opinion of the most recent World Cup? Well! Thank you for asking!

Look, I gotta be honest and tell you that it was definitely NOT the best World Cup I’ve ever seen. For some strange reason, even though there was more football on offer than ever before, I just didn’t see a side that freaked me out into a reaction of something along the lines of “Holy Shit! These guys are WHITE HOT!”

As a result, the Final was almost a bit of an anti-climax if truth be known. It’s a bit of a shame but I have to add something else though for you all to ponder on…

Anyway you grind it, the hub of World Football at the moment still remains Europe. Now run with me a little while on this while I introduce some lateral thinking…

Take a quick look at one current, undeniably HUGE GIANT in World sport - one Mr Lance Armstrong in the Tour de France. By any yardstick, this guy is a monster - and also, American.

I used to be a road racer and I used to race for the national side here over there in Europe and I can remember the inherent air of disbelief and condescension when Greg Lemond first won a Tour in 1986. He went on to win 3 titles in total, and even so, there was still a tone of “the Americans will never amount to anything in cycling - it was a one off…”

And yet, here in the year 2002 we have an American who without doubt has staked a claim to be one of the greats in history. My point being? The Americans are here - and they are FUCKING GOOD man! They’re obscenely good.

Mark my words gentlemen. It’s only time before the U.S.A. produces the Lance Armstrong of World Football. Honestly… it will happen. And the South American’s won’t know where their titles went - like the rest of the world.

But ultimately… one day… 132 years later… just like The America’s Cup, us Aussie will get up for a win! (Huge Smile!)

[Coldfire]

*Originally posted by owlstretchingtime *
**Oh and Coldfire (or other Dutchmen) whats the story on Nikos MAchlas? Spurs are being linked (but we get linked with every footballer on the planet, apart from the good ones) **

Good striker who’s had two seasons of very poor performance. If that boy can regain whatever he had when he played for Roda JC, he’s a force to be reckoned with. If he keeps playing as he’s done for Ajax, he’s just another 70th minute sub.