Football World Cup

[JackRiddler]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-10-best-pictures-of-mick-jagger-at-the-world-c

Mick's still bigger.

[vanlose kid]

World Cup final preview (part one)
Zonal Marking: July 10, 2010

Johan Cruyff is the greatest player in Dutch history, but has he been more of an influence on the current players of Holland or Spain?
This is a tremendously intriguing final for a variety of reasons.

Firstly, because it is between the two non-World Cup-winning sides with the best historical record in the competition, using this table as the basis for that statement. One of them will finally break their duck.

Furthermore, this is clash between two sides historically appreciated for their style of football. Before the tournament started, if we had asked a large sample of fans what their ideal final would be to guarantee an exciting game, Holland v Spain would surely have been the most popular answer, considering Brazil’s apparent negativity and the highly-structured Argentina side Diego Maradona looked set to field. But then, by their standards, neither Holland nor Spain have played particularly attractive football so far.

Dutch pragmatism

Holland have reached their first World Cup final since the the 1970s, when they won the hearts of many football fans across the globe for their exciting, revolutionary ‘Total Football’ system. There has been much discussion about the nature of Bert van Marwijk’s current Dutch side – it certainly isn’t Total Football, but is it even typically Dutch? Raphael Honigstein wrote an interesting piece before their semi-final with Uruguay on this subject, concluding, “It’s high time the old stereotypes were ditched, regardless of the result. Dutch football itself already did it a while back. Maybe the rest of the world should follow suit.”

Even accepting Honigstein’s theory that Holland are “no more defensive than 30 years ago”, it is interesting that, for a country so rooted in the concept of individualism, they have reached the final with few top-class performances from their star players. Wesley Sneijder is the one man who is being talked about in ‘Team of the Tournament’ terms, but his goal tally, his main achievement in the tournament, has been inflated by three rather fortunate goals. He and Robben have provided a couple of good moments, but nothing like the dominant performances they showed when guiding their sides to domestic doubles and the Champions League final last season. Holland have been successful in 2010 because they’ve worked well as a unit.

Spain ‘using the Barcelona formula’

With this debate about the nature of the Holland team, it’s perfect that they come up against a Spain side who arguably display more of a classically ‘Dutch’ attitude towards football. Jonathan Wilson has this week commented that Spain are ‘essentially using the Barcelona formula’ in terms of tactics, and there is a clear crossover with Barcelona in terms of personnel too. When David Villa scored the winner against Paraguay last week, there were 7 Barcelona-owned players on the pitch at the time: Carles Puyol, Gerard Pique, Sergio Busquets, Xavi Hernandez, Andres Iniesta, Pedro Rodriguez and Villa. Another, Cesc Fabregas, has been strongly linked with a move back to the Nou Camp this summer.

But the more fascinating aspect is that seven of those eight (this time including Fabregas but excluding Villa) are players who were brought up as Barcelona players – all of them spent considerable time at La Masia, and the majority made their professional debut for the club.

The Dutch influence on Barcelona cannot be overstated – in its entire history, only four managers have been in charge of the club for more than 150 matches, and all four have been from Holland – Rinus Michels (1971-75 and 1976-78), Johan Cruyff (1988-96), Louis van Gaal (1997-2000) and Frank Rijkaard (2003-08). Nine of their 20 La Liga titles have been won under Dutch management.

Michels is possibly the most important factor to consider here. ‘He was the father of Total Football, and he carried it on at Barcelona’, as Wilson says in Inverting the Pyramid. From him, there is a clear Dutch link to the present day. Cruyff was a Barcelona player under Michels, then when he became manager, brought Rijkaard to the club. The present manager, Pep Guardiola, played under Cruyff, van Gaal, and then managed the Barcelona B team during Rijkaard’s final season, and Guardiola’s influence on Spain’s squad both as a player (Xavi, Iniesta) and as a manager (Pedro, Busquets) has been well-documented.


Cruyff, as manager, instructs Pep Guardiola, now the current Barcelona manager
Dutch influence

It is not just a coincidental chain, either. Cruyff described Michels as his “first and only football master”. Guardiola pinpoints Cruyff as the key factor in his successful career, saying, “Cruyff believed I could do it, and gave me the opportunity. I think there are lots of people with talent who simetimes miss out simply because they are not given the chance. I owe it to Cruyff’. When Cruyff managed Barcelona, he “turned the Catalan giants into Europe’s leading club, and, arguably, the Continent’s standard-bearer for beautiful, attacking football” as David Winner puts it, a position they have regained under Guardiola.

In Winner’s book about Dutch football, ‘Brilliant Orange’, his description of the main factors of Total Football (aside from the well-documented switching of positions) is telling, when considering the Dutch influence upon Barcelona.

‘Space is the unique defining element of Dutch football…Total Football was built on a new theory of flexible space…Michels and Cruyff exploited the capacities of a new breed of players to change the dimensions of the football field…they tried to make the pitch as large as possible, spreading play to the wings…when they lost the ball, they pressed deep into the other side’s half, hunting for the ball, defended a line ten yards inside their own half, and used the offside trap aggressively to squeeze further space.”

This could be a description of Barcelona – flexibility, making the pitch as wide as possible, heavy pressing, a high line and an aggressive offside trap. This is not a history lesson on Barcelona, but a recognition that Puyol, Pique, Busquets, Xavi, Iniesta and Pedro (60% of Spain’s likely outfield XI for the final) all grew up in surroundings inherently shaped by Dutch figures and Dutch theories, dating back to Total Football.

But then, there is a further twist, because the current Spain side are playing football which has disappointed some in terms of excitement and attacking flair. Few expected a Holland v Spain World Cup final where the major discussion about both sides was ‘Are they boring?’, a debate touched upon by Giancarlo Rinaldi, looking at Vicente del Bosque’s players.

Spain certainly haven’t created as many goalscoring opportunities as expected, but even though their three knockout games have finished 1-0, against Portugal, Paraguay and then Germany, all have been good games, despite (or maybe because of) the lack of goals. “We probably don’t appreciate just how hard it is to open teams that, scared of Spain’s talent, sit deep, close off space and give their opponents no time to breathe”, says says Sid Lowe, in a piece with some fascinating quotes from Xavi. But they have largely stuck to the Dutch/Barcelona formula in terms of ball retention, heavy pressing and a high defensive line. The one exception has been Spain’s clear lack of width.

The final is a simple clash between two great football nations and two historical underachievers, but is also perfect in terms of footballing ideology. The history of Dutch football is a history of underachievement and disappointment. Failure once again on Sunday night would be a failure extraordinary even for the Dutch, because they would be beaten to their first World Cup by a side who have borrowed so much from their way of playing football.

http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/07/10/ ... #more-3841

*

[JackRiddler]

Was busy, mostly heard the first half on the radio - what a sad bloodbath.

In the second, we went across Broadway into the Spanish cultural center and had us some Coronas. About 1500 people on three levels, kids, babies, flags, old people, big screens and projectors. What a madhouse. Naturally I couldn't help after a while but be caught up in it and hope for a Spanish goal, to see the explosion. Second half was Spain dominant but Dutch impenetrable. The latter broke through just once. I saw a couple of red-card worthy fouls, including an elbow by Iniesta. They were trying to see if they could get at least 22 yellows.

Es-pa-na! Long story short, the trend continued, then Iniesta at 116, great combo for a nice goal, well deserved win for Spain, and the place did explode. I jumped as high as the rest. Ole, ole, ole, ole - ole, ole.

[stefano]

Yeah you can't say it was a visually appealing game of football, but Spain deserved their win and the nasty way the Duthc played made me support them all the more. The Netherlands should have been down to ten (or even nine) from the 20th minute, two horrible fouls by De Jong and Van Bommel. Maybe Robben should have got a free kick from a challenge from Puyol, though, and Spain scored off a goal kick that should have been a corner... Pity about the messiness of it all. But I guess that's par for the course if I think back to the 2006 final. I was kind of hoping for a fairytale ending with Torres coming on and making up for his general lack of presence so far, but he just kept filling out his jersey.

Good show all around! This month has been wonderful.

[82_28]

Thank God it's over. Let's get on with some real football now!



I did kinda mean that, for which I am sorry to be a dick.



Hahaha. How fucking stupid the NFL is. But I still love it.

[kenoma]

Yes! Huge cheers on the streets here, with all the Spanish language students we have round these parts, and horns honking in congratulation. It would have been a horrible "the bullies always win" moment had the Dutch won. They disgraced themselves, as did the referee who actually endangered careers with his lax treatment of Dutch thuggery, Van Bommel and De Jong especially. An ugly final, but justice prevailed, thank God and Iniesta.

I was kind of hoping for a fairytale ending with Torres coming on and making up for his general lack of presence so far, but he just kept filling out his jersey.

His terrible last 15 minutes, capped off with a hamstring injury, pointed to the only discernable narrative thread in an otherwise chaotic tournament: the dismal performance of the English Premier League. I think I read that by the quarters, only 19 of the remaining 180 plus squad players played in The Best League In the World (tm). In the last four, only Liverpool's Kuyt performed admirably. The tournament's best player, Diego Forlan. is one who could never adapt to the league.The only standout EPL player in the tournament was Man City's Tevez (his goal against Mexico, the onside one, was goal of the tournament imho). One hopes in vain that this might raise some serious questions about this overhyped financially-bloated unsustainable league model.

Thank God it's over. Let's get on with some real football now!



I did kinda mean that, for which I am sorry to be a dick.

No offence taken, we don't mind that you Yanks prefer you own games, we're just mystified as to how you could find what is essentially military drilling remotely entertaining. (I don't understand the appeal of baseball either; it's your cricket I suppose, but then I hate cricket)

[Stephen Morgan]

The tournament's best player, Diego Forlan. is one who could never adapt to the league.

Never had much of a chance.

The Dutch were clearly the better team and, despite the Daily Express' comments (saying that Webb was the star of the show) the refereeing was crap. Yellow cards for simple fouls (not that surprising from Mr "Three Yellow Cards", if you remember last time around), yellow cards for reckless and violent conduct. Hence all the yellow cards. True the Spaniards had most of the possession, but as with most of the tournament they did bugger all with it, only seemed to want possession so the Dutch couldn't have it. When the Dutch had the ball they at least created a few chances, mostly for Robben. The Spanish only became threatening when they brought on Fabregas, who ran at the defenders, which no-one else in the Spanish team did, even Navas, and when Heitinga got sent off. Shouldn't have been, either. Unlike Iniesta (twice), De Jong and Robben, Heitinga didn't deserve the red card. del Bosque behaved in a reprehensible manner too, very undiginified if you remember the incident where van Bommel put the ball out to give it back to the Spaniards and was roundly abused by the Spanish players and manager. Compare that to van Persie's honourable decision to return the ball to Spain when Casillas conceded a corner on another occasion when the ball was being returned to him by the Dutch. (Happened a lot, one of the Spaniard's ball-retention strategies being to feign injury and have the ball put out of play so they can receive "treatment".) De Jong should have gone for his reckless karate challenge. Iniesta for violent conduct after his early retaliation and Robben for a second offence for kicking the ball away when he was offside, typical petulant Robben. As was his first booking, for aggressively claiming a penalty when he fucked up a chance on goal. As for the Spanish performance, it was totally unremarkable beyond Iniesta's red card offence, Ramos' missed chance and the very good performance by the goal keeper (on the subject of which, see below).

So, the bad guys won, as far as I'm concerned. And not just because I had money on Holland, either.



Now, back to the proper football. It's only about a month till the Charity Shield. Or Community Shield, as it is now.

[JackRiddler]

Spain may not have been a great team, but they were the better team Sunday.

And Netherlands were the rowdies. Contrary to what you're saying, I say if they'd really enforced the rules there would have been like 8 Spaniards and 5 Dutch left on the field at the end. The red card was a kind of collective punishment and of course it set up the final goal.

Hard to believe De Jong got away with this:



At least Zidane was provoked into his famous header, and it wasn't during play.

[kenoma]

True the Spaniards had most of the possession, but as with most of the tournament they did bugger all with it, only seemed to want possession so the Dutch couldn't have it. When the Dutch had the ball they at least created a few chances,

the skillful fighter puts himself into a position which makes defeat impossible, and does not miss the moment for defeating the enemy. Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.
...
A clever general, therefore, avoids an army when its spirit is keen, but attacks it when it is sluggish and inclined to return. This is the art of studying moods. Disciplined and calm, to await the appearance of disorder and hubbub amongst the enemy - this is the art of retaining self-possession. To be near the goal while the enemy is still far from it, to wait at ease while the enemy is toiling and struggling, to be well-fed while the enemy is famished - this is the art of husbanding one's strength.
...
Ground which can be freely traversed by both sides is called accessible. With regard to ground of this nature, be before the enemy in occupying the raised and sunny spots, and carefully guard your line of supplies. Then you will be able to fight with advantage. Ground which can be abandoned but is hard to re-occupy is called entangling. From a position of this sort, if the enemy is unprepared, you may sally forth and defeat him. But if the enemy is prepared for your coming, and you fail to defeat him, then, return being impossible, disaster will ensue.

[82_28]

No offence taken, we don't mind that you Yanks prefer you own games, we're just mystified as to how you could find what is essentially military drilling remotely entertaining. (I don't understand the appeal of baseball either; it's your cricket I suppose, but then I hate cricket)

It actually really is mystifying -- these differences that we here in the states have as to what we look at in a sport and the rest of the world when it comes to the "world's game". I have never seen a more boring sport in my life when it comes to any kind of a competition that routinely can end in a 0-0 tie (nil nil as all yallz put it). I've tried really hard to get into it! I really have. The Sounders FC are in their 2nd year now here in Seattle and let me tell you, they are hella popular. This whole city, it seems sometimes, is wearing their ridiculous green scarves and cheering on something that I, speaking for myself, simply does not get. I mean, I've been in bars where games, ahem, matches, end in some kind of a boring ass tie. Even after the final score of A TIE everybody cheers and says "that was a great game", "what an effort" etc. I just do not get this! All that said, soccer, ahem, "football" is growing in steady popularity around here and Sounders FC games, ahem, matches routinely sell out -- though they do rope off the whole upper deck of the stadium the NFL team Seahawks play in.

Other sports I do not get are golf, Indy car racing, Nascar racing, UFC fighting, Boxing and yes, of course, cricket. Oh and tennis. I'd rather watch paint dry.

As to American football, there is no other game like it. It requires a shit ton of equipment for one. It requires unheard of amounts of strategy, finesse, VICIOUSNESS, cadres of coaching staff -- hell the coaching staffs of one NFL team or even college team is probably twice the size of any old soccer team, ahem, football club. Conditioning for bursts of speed and brutality, rather than conditioning of endurance -- I will give soccer players that. (bear in mind too that I find viciousness and brutality anathema in regular old life -- I just like the game)

As to the flopping and writhing on the ground holding one's leg, this practice has caused me to further dislike another sport that I love as it has been imported by the Europeans over the years -- NBA basketball. Football and hockey are the only team sports I know of where you come to play and never ever fake it. If you fake it, you're dead -- literally -- no faking. Oh, I love hockey too. Also, why does every head coach in soccer look like some kind of villain from a Die Hard movie?

[Stephen Morgan]

At least Zidane was provoked into his famous header, and it wasn't during plahome delivery networky.

That's bad. A karate lunge as part of play could be inadvertant, could be just getting carried away. Head butting someone, albeit in the chest, is a wanton an unjustifiable act of violence.

I get it. You all like the dirty cheating Spaniards and their uniquely unappealing brand of anti-football, all that tedious tippy tappy bullshit. I liked George Graham's Arsenal. Each to his own.

[JackRiddler]

.

In the United States today, the team sport with the highest number of female and male players organized and competing regularly through schools, clubs and leagues is soccer. Number one. Therefore this is an American sport, and cannot be distinguished from other sports as somehow less "American" (assuming the usual usage of "American" to mean "of the United States.")

Soccer is as American as pizza, frankfurters, eggrolls, fernsehen, the bomb made by European exiles, Mayday and the eight-hour work shift, presidents named Obama, Mexican immigrant workers, First Nations Casinos, and the Mayflower.

Other sports I do not get are golf, Indy car racing, Nascar racing, UFC fighting, Boxing and yes, of course, cricket. Oh and tennis. I'd rather watch paint dry.

I submit that a game qualifies as a sport only if the primary physical forces applied are produced by humans alone, surface tension, and gravity. Thus two of the activities you mention are actually technological competitions among motor manufacturers, albeit involving some fairly athletic vehicle operators as important but secondary elements. And their appeal to the spectator is indeed puzzling.

As to the flopping and writhing on the ground holding one's leg, this practice has caused me to further dislike another sport that I love as it has been imported by the Europeans over the years -- NBA basketball. Football and hockey are the only team sports I know of where you come to play and never ever fake it. If you fake it, you're dead -- literally -- no faking.

Right, the manly NFL way is to pretend no concussion until you end up with early onset dementia at some clinic about 20 years after your retirement.

The NFL's substance and appeal are as much based in theatrics as any other spectator sport. Each game is an enactment of two consuming American passions: war and the law.

---

PS Morgan: Actually I didn't like Spain originally, and wanted the Dutch to win, until I saw what they were doing in the game (and ended up watching it with 1500 insane Spanish speakers, whose auras compelled me to want them to be happy).

[Stephen Morgan]

It actually really is mystifying -- these differences that we here in the states have as to what we look at in a sport and the rest of the world when it comes to the "world's game". I have never seen a more boring sport in my life when it comes to any kind of a competition that routinely can end in a 0-0 tie (nil nil as all yallz put it).

Not a big cricket fan, then? Some of the best games of cricket I've ever seen went on for five days and ended in a draw, or tie as foreigners and savages say. A tie is something else in Cricket, something very rare indeed.

Other sports I do not get are golf, Indy car racing, Nascar racing, UFC fighting, Boxing and yes, of course, cricket. Oh and tennis. I'd rather watch paint dry.

Well, we've all got our flaws.

As to American football, there is no other game like it.

A factually accurate statement.

It requires a shit ton of equipment for one.

More than the aforementioned indy-car-racing? Even cricket requires the slightly effeminate padding/helmet/armour plating usage. And not just a ball, but a BAT as well.

It requires unheard of amounts of strategy, finesse, VICIOUSNESS, cadres of coaching staff -- hell the coaching staffs of one NFL team or even college team is probably twice the size of any old soccer team, ahem, football club.

That seems unlikely. Obviously football clubs have specialist training staffs for the various positions, various types of activity, such as zonal marking at set pieces, youth team coaching staff, scouts trawling the leagues of darkest Peru and other far off places for potential talent, reserve teams, women's teams, under 19s, under 17s and so forth. Football tests the player in the round, spatial awareness, positioning, speed, strength, endurance, tactical awareness, deftness of touch, unselfishness and so on, all of which has to be practiced. Whereas American football is just set pieces.

Conditioning for bursts of speed and brutality, rather than conditioning of endurance -- I will give soccer players that. (bear in mind too that I find viciousness and brutality anathema in regular old life -- I just like the game)

Sounds like Rugby Union, but with padding and skin tight trousers. And helmets.

As to the flopping and writhing on the ground holding one's leg, this practice has caused me to further dislike another sport that I love as it has been imported by the Europeans over the years -- NBA basketball. Football and hockey are the only team sports I know of where you come to play and never ever fake it. If you fake it, you're dead -- literally -- no faking. Oh, I love hockey too. Also, why does every head coach in soccer look like some kind of villain from a Die Hard movie?

Well, they wear suits. To look smart and that. They look slightly odd in their suits because their professional life probably started with thirty years as a player, then a coach, during which time they spent all their time in track suits. So they put on suits for the match and try to look like bouncers. Or Glenn Roeder. And judging by the total lack of popularity of basketball everywhere I can't imagine many Europeans have made their way into NBA.

And Jack may or may not know that pizza and may day are American inventions, as his list seems poorly focused, containing both things of American and of non-American origin. As for Spaniard auras, I like to be surrounded by misery so I would still have been hoping for the Dutch.

[82_28]

The NFL's substance and appeal are as much based in theatrics as any other spectator sport. Each game is an enactment of two consuming American passions: war and the law.

So true. But the theatrics come from on high, not the feeble rolling on the ground crying in pain shit soccer players do. I like the game of American football, not the actors and pomp and circumstance. You might like this one, but I was aghast a couple seasons ago when they did some country version of Morrissey's "Every Day is Like Sunday" to bumper music it up on FOX I think.

However, where do I fit in? I hate war and I hate law, but I love me my Denver Broncos -- all run by idiot conservatives. Perhaps it's legacy. Perhaps it's all I could look forward to when my family would take us to church -- at the very least there was a fucking football game to look forward to later. I dunno. I still like the NFL. So many friends of mine over the years have always talked about it and that's how many friendships of mine have been formed -- talking football.

Do these friends want to hear any of my conspiracy theories? Hahaha. Hell no. All I get is shit, so I don't bring it up. I've brought some around though.

Basically, it comes down to this, I don't understand how anybody can get excited about a game that routinely ends in ties and you also don't know when the ref is going to blow the whistle and end it.

[82_28]

I can't imagine many Europeans have made their way into NBA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fo ... BA_players