Watched by billions around the globe, World Cup 2006 will go down as the most watched sports event in history ... until the next World Cup, that is. Did it deliver?
According to Jonathan Stevenson of the BBC ... no. It did not deliver.
The World Cup can be a place where new stars are born. Was this one?
"A disappointing World Cup, with few real breakthroughs."
The World Cup can deliver classic matches that are talked about for generations. Did this one?
"Cautious coaches do not make for classic games."
The World Cup can deliver classic goals that are played and replayed for decades. Did this one?
Maxi Rodriquez (Argentina) had one rocket against Mexico which will be remembered. However, this World Cup featured very few long shots (30 yarders and out), no exciting volleys or acrobatic goals that will be talked about by grandfathers to their grandchildren years from now.
The World Cup can deliver shock value and stunning upsets like Cameroon against Argentina in 1990 or Senegal over France in 2002. Did this one?
"No alarms. No surprises."
So what is the take away image from this World Cup?
Without a doubt, it will the head butt. Zidane, the 34 year old French superstar, indelibly etched his name in World Cup history in the waning moments of the second overtime of the final game between France and Italy. Tired and exhausted after battling the entire game and two overtimes, Zidane exchanged words with Italian defender (and goal scorer) Materazzi and then turned and viciously head butted the surprised Italian. Materazzi was laid out. Lucky for him, Zidane caught his chest instead of his chin. Zidane was subsequently ejected.
This will be the enduring image of World Cup 2006. This will be the image that gets replayed for years to come. This will be story that gets told from generation to generation about World Cup 2006.
Few will remember a World Cup decided by penalty kicks. Yuck. Everyone knows that penalty kick decisions are 99 percent luck. Penalty kick wins are not the stuff of legends.
Head butts are, however. What a shame that this is what most people will think of when they think of soccer and the World Cup.
I enjoyed watching most of the World Cup (everything except the final) in Europe. I saw the final back here in the States. I'm not so sure that the Zizou head butt will be the only enduring image in Europe and the other countries where the World Cup really matters. I think that's a bit of an American moralist spin on the whole thing (though I agree the head butt was bad, pathetic, and a big stain on Zizou's legacy). The bigger legacy of the whole Cup, I think, will be that of Germany hosting a relatively harmonious tournament (aside from a few English hooligans), with the amazing spectacle of bitter WWI and WWII enemies playing a peaceful game (Zizou's antics aside) in Hitler's Olympic stadium.
BTW -- you also are right that penalty kicks are a ridiculous way to end a World Cup final. It should be two periods of OT, and then the opportunity to bring in three fresh new subs for successive periods until a golden goal is scored. There also should be no points awarded in the opening round for ties. Playing for a tie is bogus.
Posted by: dopderbeck | July 10, 2006 at 09:50
The 2006 World Cup will be remembered (by me) as two things: The first time I ever watched any appreciable amount of World Cup competition, and the year in which I finally figured out what the stupid offsides rule is.
Posted by: tgirsch | July 10, 2006 at 16:59
After hosting a German exchange student this past year, all we heard for 8 months was the World Cup in Germany.
We will remember the World Cup in a few ways:
1) actually watching Germany vs. Sweden on a satelite feed (in Arabic!) at a German friend's house in PA
2) seeing the rebirth of national pride in Germany
3) seeing the German team (with what the German press has called its "American style of play") do far better than anyone in German had imagined
4) me actually buying a Germany World Cup replic jersey and receiving a HUGE "World Cup care package" from our German daughter to help us watch Germany.
5) seeing my daughters talk about soccer and desiring to play it in the fall (if I can fit it around their golf times - LPGA first, US Women's Team second)
:)
Later.
Posted by: BWB | July 11, 2006 at 09:48
First of all, when I heard that Materazzi was (allegedly) calling the Muslim Zidane a terrorist and making horrible comments about his recently hospitalized mother for a long period of time during the game, my frustration with Zidane diminished slightly and my anger at Materazzi grew.
Second, like those Italians were so infamous for in this entire tournament, I think that Materazzi milked that headbutt for all it was worth just so Zidane would get the red card and get kicked out. Like they always do after they're rolling around on the ground as if they are near death, he got up right afterwards and played the rest of the game with just as much ease and comfort as he did before the hit.
I'm not excusing Zidane's actions, but possibly, if put into the proper context, they are not as horrifying and outrageous as they seem.
Posted by: | July 12, 2006 at 00:54
Joel:
No matter what was said, I think the red card was appropriate. However, soccer, like hockey, needs to penalize players much more often for diving and embellishing. That's the only way to make it stop.
Posted by: tgirsch | July 12, 2006 at 01:12
"I'm not so sure that the Zizou head butt will be the only enduring image in Europe and the other countries where the World Cup really matters. I think that's a bit of an American moralist spin on the whole thing"
Perhaps ... but so far, it appears I am right in my prediction. The head-butt story is dominating by far -- even in Europe.
"you also are right that penalty kicks are a ridiculous way to end a World Cup final. It should be two periods of OT, and then the opportunity to bring in three fresh new subs for successive periods until a golden goal is scored. There also should be no points awarded in the opening round for ties. Playing for a tie is bogus."
Amen. Penalty kicks are a disgraceful way to win -- complete luck. It would be like settling the NBA finals by having a free throw shooting competition. Absurd. Let them play. Golden goal wins.
Playing for ties or PKs is a disgrace. I agree that points for ties should be abolished.
"which I finally figured out what the stupid offsides rule is."
I still don't understand ice hockey rules. The balk rule in baseball is a complete mystery. Even the in field fly rule is a little confusing -- not to mention the dropped-third-strike-so-you-have-to-tag-out-the-batter rule. Baseball in particular is loaded with silly rules. I think soccer is much simpler by comparison.
The offsides rule simply prevents cherry picking. I like it. The off-sides trap, which is a defensive strategy, is also a beautiful thing to watch -- an exciting gambit of risk -vs- return.
"I'm not excusing Zidane's actions, but possibly, if put into the proper context, they are not as horrifying and outrageous as they seem."
I don't know, Joel. Zidane's actions were horrifying on many levels. It was a dangerous violent act. Even beyond that, it is hard to comprehend Zidane's actions. He is a veteran. He is the captain. He is the leader. He is the top player in the tournament if not the world. This is the biggest soccer game in the world. And an Italian insults his mother and Zidane loses his temper, commits a violent act, and gets thrown out?! I still can't believe he did it.
"However, soccer, like hockey, needs to penalize players much more often for diving and embellishing. That's the only way to make it stop."
I agree. The theatrics and diving is getting ridiculous. Issue more cards for faking. Some of these guys act as if they have been disembowled -- they get the call, and pop as if nothing happened. It is a disgrace.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | July 14, 2006 at 00:31
Perhaps ... but so far, it appears I am right in my prediction. The head-butt story is dominating by far -- even in Europe.
Seems you're right -- and the French are casting him as a Martyr! And what's with him winning the Golden Ball award? How can you give the MVP to a team captain who gets himself thrown out of a tie game and possibly costs his country the Cup? Another reason why the French will never again be a true world power.
Posted by: dopderbeck | July 14, 2006 at 11:37
Jeff:
I think you're a bit heavy-handed in your rhetoric. Clearly, penalty kicks are not the best way to resolve a game, but "disgraceful?" "Complete luck?" Come on. There's certainly some skill there, even if the odds do strongly favor the striker.
As to the offsides rule, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. To me, the offsides rule disrupts the flow of the game, punishes fast attackers, and reduces the penalty for defenders missing assignments or simply being too slow. Something more akin to the hockey offsides rule (line-based, rather than defender-based) would be much better for the game, in my opinion. (Well, check that -- it would make the game much more palatable to American sports fans.)
For the record, the hockey offsides rule is as follows: The puck must cross the blue line into the attacking zone before any attacking player can cross that line. Once the puck crosses the line and goes in, anything goes. If the puck goes out, all attacking players must evacuate before they can even touch the puck.
It's really not all that different than the soccer rule, except that it's a fixed line instead of a moving one. Whether or not a player is offside is a no-brainer, or close to it. And there's a much more continuous flow to the game. Maybe this fall, I'll have you meet me in Raleigh for a Canes game, and I can explain it all to you firsthand. :)
Posted by: tgirsch | July 14, 2006 at 17:12
"I think you're a bit heavy-handed in your rhetoric. Clearly, penalty kicks are not the best way to resolve a game, but "disgraceful?" "Complete luck?" Come on. There's certainly some skill there, even if the odds do strongly favor the striker."
I am never ever guilty of being overly dramatic :)
"To me, the offsides rule disrupts the flow of the game, punishes fast attackers, and reduces the penalty for defenders missing assignments or simply being too slow."
I disagree. Take away the off-sides rule and soccer becomes nothing more than a contest of who can kick it the farthest downfield to the cherry pickers. No need to build an elegant attack -- just boot it. That is ugly soccer. Will it generate more goals? Probably. But it will lower the skill level of the game and it will take away the need for controlling the midfield -- just recruit fast guys and kick it downfield. *boring*
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | July 16, 2006 at 16:23
"For the record, the hockey offsides rule is as follows: The puck must cross the blue line into the attacking zone before any attacking player can cross that line. Once the puck crosses the line and goes in, anything goes. If the puck goes out, all attacking players must evacuate before they can even touch the puck."
Thanks. You are the first person to explain that rule clearly. Well done.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | July 16, 2006 at 16:25
Jeff:
Take away the off-sides rule and soccer becomes nothing more than a contest of who can kick it the farthest downfield to the cherry pickers.
All the more incentive to put a guy on the "cherry picker." And how much "booting the ball down the field" would go on would depend greatly on the placement of the offsides line.
What I think would actually happen is that it would encourage teams to be more agressive in their attacks, yes, but not recklessly so. And the additional aggression would eventually lead to one team making a mistake or getting a mismatch. And it would have teams being not only more aggressive on offense, but also on defense. More challenges -- on both sides of the ball -- would be a good thing, in my estimation.
The other problem I have with this idea is that most of the matches I watch don't involve teams building "an elegant attack" -- they involve both teams playing ultra-conservative and hoping the other will make a terrible mistake. And when that doesn't happen, you wind up with -- guess what? -- penalty kicks.
Finally, I don't really care if there are more goals -- I just want more attacks.
But based on your description of this, I see that we really need to get you to a hockey game.
Posted by: tgirsch | July 16, 2006 at 19:33
Oh, and now that you approximately get the hockey offsides rule, a slight clarifcation: a skater is considered "outside the zone" so long as he has one skate down on the ice outside the line. Which means he can have one skate in the zone before the puck goes in, and still be on-side. But the outside-the-line skate must be all the way on the ice -- no hovering, no tippee-toeing.
Next week: Icing! :)
Posted by: tgirsch | July 16, 2006 at 19:35
"The other problem I have with this idea is that most of the matches I watch don't involve teams building "an elegant attack" -- they involve both teams playing ultra-conservative and hoping the other will make a terrible mistake."
I agree with your disgust at teams packing it in hoping for a penalty kick victory. I don't think changing the off-sides rule will help here. Teams would still pack it in.
The solution is to do away with points for ties (in the early group play) and do away with PKs to resolve ties. I personally think the game should be resolved on a golden goal (i.e. a sudden death situation where first goal in OT wins). They need to allow for extra substitutions because some players will begin to cramp up. Another back up idea for breaking ties is to award a victory to the team with the most quality shots on goal. Though this is admittedly subjective, the team with the most shots on goal is almost always the dominant team -- even if they didn't score.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | July 16, 2006 at 23:15
I changed my mind. If the offsides rule were abolished, then a defender would be forced to play very deep for fear of being beaten. The midfielders would have to drop back and play defensively on the opposing forwards (since the defenders would be so far back).
I think it would become too risky to send defenders up on attack. Defenders overlapping into an attack mode is exciting though. We used to run that play (sending an overlapping full back forward). It was quite exciting. Defenders can score equally well -- as Italy demonstrated in their equalizer against France (it was a defender who scored).
I think the off-sides rule allows defenders more flexibility to go on attack -- because the rest of the defenders can scoot up and use an off-sides trap to neutralize the danger of having one of their defenders go forward.
So I am not sure that your idea would really open things up as much as you hope.
BTW, thanks for the hockey-for-dummies mentoring -- I need it ;)
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | July 16, 2006 at 23:28
Is hockey still around? I thought it went out of business a couple of years ago. Guess I didn't notice. (Those are the same guys who play arena football, right?) :-)
Posted by: dopderbeck | July 17, 2006 at 09:11
David:
:p -- The invite stands for you, too, although I'm quite certain I can't afford a Rangers game.
Jeff:
I'm not so sure. I think what would result is more attacks, with fewer men attacking. Also, if hockey is any indication, once in the attacking zone, the defenders have a decision to make -- stay with the puck/ball, or stay with the man. With some good puck/ball movement, you can try to force a wrong decision and/or a mismatch.
By the way, is football "boring" because receivers are allowed to get behind the defense?
Posted by: tgirsch | July 17, 2006 at 22:29
"By the way, is football "boring" because receivers are allowed to get behind the defense?"
Naw. But then again, defensive backs don't suddenly go out for passes either -- they have to play defense.
Basketball is a slightly better analogy -- since players are both defenders and attackers depending on which team has the ball.
Putting in off sides in basketball would take away the excitement of a fast break. But, it would also take away the lob pass to the cherry picker, which is about as low skilled of an attack as there is. I suppose that most would agree with you that fast breaks are fun to watch ... which is a point in your favor.
Being from Duke, however, I have learned to appreciate the superiority of the three point shot over the fast break ;-)
I wonder if Lacrosse has an offsides rule ... hmmm.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | July 18, 2006 at 18:27
I'm not a huge basketball fan, so I can't really comment on that analogy. I will say, however, that the "cherry-picker" got open somehow -- probably because a defender either blew an assignment, was too slow, or made a conscious decision to let the guy go. In any of those cases, it's not as if the defending team is powerless to stop this.
But honestly, my biggest gripe against basketball is exactly the opposite as my gripe against soccer: in the latter, the rules as they exist (and, in some cases, as they are enforced, which is different) too heavily favor the defense; in the former, they too heavily favor the offense. Both are bad, in my estimation. What's needed is balance. And that's where football and hockey and even baseball get it right. Not to say that those three couldn't stand some improvement, but they're much better about it than football or soccer, IMNSHO.
Posted by: tgirsch | July 19, 2006 at 15:27