Glorious World Cup

For the first time in my life, I’ve been able to see as much as 50% of the soccer in the World Cup so far. I have benefited from a blessed combination of not working, day games (too many evening games can be disruptive to family priorities) and ESPN’s comprehensive coverage.

So far, it has been a pleasure. Brazil is clearly a wonderful venue, full of colour and carnival, and I have no complaints about the cameramen seeking out wild costumes and beautiful women. Somehow the carnival has made its way onto the pitch in most games, and the soccer has generally been great to watch.

The World Cup has something that even the European championships lack, which is a full spectrum of playing styles. When two styles meet in a match, the result can be fascinating tactics and the opportunity for talent to thrill. Queens is also a good environment to watch the spectacle remotely, with many cars displaying flags and restaurants and bars noisily supporting their own homelands. This will only get better as the tournament develops. 

A big part of me in glad that England has been knocked out, and the same part has a secret hope that the USA does not last much longer either. The reason is the commentary. ESPN has hired several British commentators and summarisers, who are generally excellent, except when England are playing. Everything is viewed through a narrower lens, more bigoted, more desperate, and more annoying. Every defence has been repeatedly carved open – it is only England’s that is then ruthlessly pilloried, at a time we should be celebrating the skill of the opposition. When the USA is playing, that tendency becomes even worse.

In general though, ESPN have done an excellent job, achieved by hiring knowledgeable and diverse pundits. Former US stars tend to be quite erudite – perhaps as people choosing a minority sport? – and Efan Ekoku and Stewart Robson are excellent analysts. In the studio, we have Roberto Martinez, Ruud van Nistelrooy and Michael Ballack, as well as some South Americans, and the outcome has been excellent. Based on the junk I read on the BBC website, you are not so fortunate in the UK. We have one exception, Steve MacManaman, who was a classy player but should never be allowed near a microphone. So far, he has been covering the England games – perhaps I can hope that he goes home with the England team?

What will it take to win? The tournament seems very open, so I have come up with a few criteria to separate the winners from the also-rans.

First, look at the team and the coach. Are they a unit? Do they have passion? It seems strange to say it at what ought to be the pinnacle of a career, but most teams seem to lack a winning spirit. Argentina is in open revolt with their coach. Some star players are remote. Other teams have many players who seem to be coasting. Why might this be?

The dominance of the club game may have a lot to do with it. Players from the most successful clubs are most tired after their season. A mid career player at a big club has a big contract to protect, not one to earn.

The winning combination seems to be a bunch of fast, fearless, hungry young players, guided by a few old hands looking to leave a legacy, and a recently retired coach who can galvanise a team, not just impose a system. Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica and Ghana all seem to have this, though you have to worry if later in the tournament the old-timer skill of holding on to win ugly matches might become more important and catch these ones out. Then look at Germany and France.

The second factor is goals. This is divided into some sub-factors. Most goals so far have come from either pacey counter attacks using width, from sheer brilliance in strikers, or from set pieces.

Pacey counter attacks with width argue for the same teams as the ones above, those with youth, energy and less fear. I used to think that the emergence of the defensive midfielder into the game was a bad thing for entertainment. With unimaginative coaches, it is. But we see here how the smart teams have used the extra central strength to free up their wide players to great effect. There is nothing more entertaining than the sweeping move, and we have seen many of those in Brazil.

No matter how beautiful your soccer, someone has to put the ball into the net, and this might be the most important factor, strikers who can turn half chances into goals. In Spain versus Netherlands, the teams created a similar number of half chances, but van Persie and Robben were clinical while the Spanish were not. Messi rescued Argentina in injury time. It is no coincidence that great strikers are the moneymen of the game, they are the ones who make the most difference.

The third way to score is set pieces. So far, goals have mainly come from corners and crosses, so teams must be able to defend them (can Chile?). But I predict more will come from direct free kicks in the second half of the tournament, as players finally get used to the ball. The balls are flying rather than dipping, and most free kicks have gone too high, but you can sure Ronaldo and others will adjust to this in the end.

So our winners will have flowing fast players, a quality striker on form, and set piece expertise. France is possible, though I am not sure about Benzema. Are the Colombian strikers good enough? Does Brazil have the pace? Germany seem to have all the elements though.

The third factor is luck. Posts are narrow, and margins are of inches. There are only seven matches – in how many years are there surprise leaders of major leagues after just seven matches? And there are the officials. Marginal off-side or penalty decisions make all the difference – just ask Croatia. All the teams are good and anyone can beat anyone else, so the winners will be lucky.

Given all this, I am backing Germany. They have team spirit, pace, strikers, maturity, and, usually, luck. I think the Ghana result was not as bad as it looked, as Ghana has a wonderful team as well.

Having jinxed Germany, now I have two complaints. The minor one is about statistics. There is so much more we can glean from statistics in soccer. Other US sports have stats for everything, and these are displayed in real time consistently. Stats cannot tell you everything, but they also don’t lie. I would love to know the passing accuracy of every player as the match progressed, and a summary of key stats per player to be part of the coverage. Instead we often get flawed opinions of lazy pundits. Just look at the BBC website England player ratings – not good enough, Mr. McNulty. I predict that stats will play a bigger part of our viewing experience in future, and it will be better as a result.

My second complaint is about use of technology. I just don’t understand why soccer persists in being ten years behind other sports. In the first match, we had the ludicrous spectacle of FIFA showing off their goal-line system for a ball that nestled in the back of the net for ten seconds, while allowing a poor penalty decision decide the game.

It would be so simple to employ technology. We could have multiple referees on the field, supported by others watching film, all communicating to each other. Offside can be decided in two seconds, fouls and simulations by a panel within five seconds. Suarez could have been sent packing straight away, to everyone’s benefit.

The only half-decent argument against this is the risk of slowing down play. But I actually think it would work the opposite way. Until a decision is confirmed, play would continue. A result could be a revolution in the use of the advantage law, to the benefit of open and attacking play and also continuity.

Soccer has a lot to learn from US sports, and officiating and statistics are just two examples. But don’t expect FIFA to enter this century anytime soon.

Meanwhile, let’s enjoy the rest of the spectacle, hopefully without Mr. Suarez. And probably without Germany too, now I fancy them. May the best team win, not just the luckiest or the best cheats.