(2 of 12)
(June 24, 12.10pm)
Despite all the shocks in the Cup so far, I'd find it hard to bet against Brazil or Germany. The Germans, after their drubbing by England last year, have turned themselves into a good, solid side, with a decent defense, an excellent keeper, and good playmakers in Hamman and Ballack. They haven't yet had the credit they deserve, because (apart from thrashing the Saudis) they have tended to eke out narrow wins. But as Gary Lineker once so memorably said, "Football is a game played over two halves of 45 minutes, at the end of which the Germans win." This is a better side than in '98, and despite South Korea's speed, it seems to me that it's Germany for the final.
Brazil are the class side left. Yes, Turkey are good — much better than their reputation — but I don't see them winning this. The three Rs plus Cafu and Roberto Carlos add up to a half a side of true excellence, even though Roque Junior, Lucio and Marcos (another in the line of weak Brazilian keepers) look shaky. Rivaldo is a wonder; shame that he's also a cheat. Turkey can hold their heads high whatever happens; in England, they're called "Germany B," which just about gets it right. On the back of Germanic influences and the success over the last few seasons of Galatasaray (whose fans, thank God, seem to have stayed in Istanbul) in the Champions League, they have deservedly done well. They meet England in Euro 2004 qualifying and will be no pushover.
Of course, as we've learned, nobody is. Of the 32 teams in the tournament, only Saudi Arabia and China were completely useless. Nobody can stroll through the first-round groups now, and those who thought they could — Portugal and France — found themselves on the early plane home. At the end of a long European season, speed kills — and it was the speedy, fit sides like South Korea, Japan, and the USA who provided most of the shocks.
It takes nothing away from the Koreans, who have been brilliant since they massacred Poland in their first game, to say that they've been the beneficiaries of two awful decisions, both by linesmen rather than by referees. (The famously controversial calls by referees against the USA, Italy, and others, have been much less clear-cut.) Tommasi scored an onside goal for Italy, and Spain — as all the world doth know — was robbed in the quarter-final by a terrible linesman's call. That was a pity; throughout the tournament, the Spanish had looked the most attractive European side, even if they found it hard to score goals. Sadly, age will now break this team up; I would have liked to see them win something.
Instead (you read it here first) Germany will.
Beware Davala's Ferret
At least Senegal can't complain about the refereeing. No, they were beaten fair and square by a Turkish team that outplayed them in the midfield, and created so many scoring chances that those prone to seeing the hand of God on the football field might have deduced that he was playing sweeper for Senegal, as Turkey's strikers repeatedly failed to make contact along the six-yard line. But the more influential "outsider" in this first-ever quarter-final clash between two Muslim nations appeared to have been the ferret perched atop the bald pate of Turkish midfielder Umit Davala. (That broad, flat swathe of dark hair that runs the length of his scalp is no a Mohican; it's a furry creature with a fine footballing mind that tells him exactly where he has to be and where and when to pass.) Although Senegal had a number of opportunities to steal the match on the breakaway, Turkey always looked in control. And in the 94th minute, the ferret decided it was time to exploit the softness at the center of Senegal's defense by curling in a well-time cross from deep on the right which found substitute striker Ilhan racing in to convert. A well-deserved victory, and that goal must sound a warning to Brazil — Lucio's gift to Michael Own was but one illustration of a vulnerability in the middle of the back four, and that's exactly where Davala and his ferret like to hit quick, high passes to release their strikers. Hakan Sukur is still obviously carrying an injury, but if they start Ilhan in the Number 9 spot, Brazil could have a few problems.
Who Are These Refs?
(June 24, 9am)
Can somebody tell me who plays in the Ugandan, Egyptian and Trinidadian leagues? I am trying to understand what kind of preparation the officiating corps at the Korea-Spain game received.
Despite the Ref, Spain Didn't Do Enough to Win
Enrique: Ask the Italians. The worst part was not the bad line call — refs miss calls all the time, as the U.S. team can tell you — but that the linesman was not in the proper position to make any call. That said, Spain, as Italy before
them, did not do enough to win this game, and once again I blame the coach
for what seemed to me to be an odd lineup. Were they playing for penalties?
It's Not About the Nationality of the Ref
The nationality of the refs has nothing to do with anything. The worst ref in
the World Cup was, ironically, from Spain: Senor Lopez Nieto, who was sent
home (repeat, sent home) after his ham-handed handling of Cameroon vs.
Germany. Let's also remember that Camacho and Co. also complained
vociferously about Swedish ref. Anders Frisk, who (rightly) gave Ireland a
late, late penalty after Mr. Iron Hierro tried to exchange shirts with Niall
Quinn before the final whistle.
Nieto and Frisk are supposed to be among the best in Europe, and if they can bungle then why not refs from Egypt, Trinidad or Burkina Faso?
Oh yes, and who were the ref in the Italy vs. Croatia game, where two Italian "goals" were disallowed? Not some unknown from some little country, but England's best: Graham Poll. And his linesmen were from... wait for it... England and Denmark.
So let's lay off the officials from obscure (in footy terms) countries. Their nationality doesn't prevent them from being good refs. Every country's national league has its own pressures and problems, and the men officiating them are no less qualified than refs from Europe.
From personal experience, I know that the Calcutta derby (Mohun Bagan Club vs. East Bengal Club) is a great deal more ferocious than, say Rangers vs. Celtic, Barca vs. Real, or Boca vs. River Plate. The men who officiate in Calcutta must endure the screaming insults of 140,000 fans in India's biggest stadium — and cope with the stress of knowing that angry mobs can (and sometimes do) descend on a ref's homes after the derby to protest decisions, perhaps by setting fire to his car, or by beating up his children.
So what if India has never played in a World Cup? Anybody who can be an impartial referee in the Calcutta derby has as much skill and cojones as Pierluigi Collina — and as much right as he does to officiate a World Cup game.
Nobody was more crushed by Spain's departure than I, but Camacho's protestations are excessive. The first of the so-called goals that Spain were denied was a good call by the ref. If you look closely at the replays, the first Spanish player in the line jumping for the free kick (the first man, who you tend to overlook because you usually follow the arc of the ball, which was heading for the fifth, or sixth man in the line) clearly backed into the Korean defender behind him: That's a foul.
As for the second goal, the linesman made a wrong call about whether or not the ball had crossed the line, yes. But the instant he raised his flag, the Korean keeper straightened up and made only a casual attempt to stop Morientes's header. The defenders running in to intercept, likewise, perceptibly slowed down. Had the linesman not raised his flag, keeper and defenders would have tried harder to stop Morientes. Would they have succeeded? We don't know, but it's silly to call that a "disallowed goal." As Hiddink says, it was a CHANCE, not a goal.
As for the linesman's call, it's a common enough mistake: I've seen it happen dozens of times in La Liga (and elsewhere). His view of the ball was obstructed by the player on it, Joaquim, and he may have been influenced by the spectators behind the goal, who all shouted that the ball had gone out. This happens every day in football, and it's part of home-field advantage.
Spanish anger is understandable, but it is better directed at Camacho, whose defensive game-plan (and he, above all people, should have known better after the near-disaster against the Irish) was the real reason for the side's failure to create and convert more opportunities.