For anyone who doesn't obsessively follow the day-to-day happenings of soccer's transfer window, here's what you missed: Robin Van Persie has stated that he will not be signing a new contract at Arsenal. The Gunners' captain has one year left on his current deal but has decided that the ambitions of the club do not mirror his own and will not be staying on. Arsenal can choose to let him play out his contract, meaning that he would play the 2012-2013 season with everyone knowing it would be his last, or they can attempt to sell him now to any number of interested clubs (Manchester City, Juventus, and Real Madrid have all been mentioned) in order to receive some value for him, generally believed to be in the €25 million range. These are the options but what terrible options to have.
For those of you who aren't aware of what Van Persie means to Arsenal, this is Aaron Rodgers telling the Green Bay Packers that he doesn't think he can win a Super Bowl with them. This is Kevin Durant deciding that Oklahoma City will never get over the hump. Van Persie is the reason that Arsenal was able to make it back to the Champions League this coming season and he is the reason life after Cesc did not result in an immediate and precipitous decline. He might not ever be a most beloved figure to fans, like how I feel about Kirby Puckett or how Boston Celtics fans remember Larry Bird, because he wasn't in top form with Arsenal long enough and he wasn't the heart and soul of the team as their captain. But he is (turning into "was") the best player on the team, the only one left that all of the "big" clubs in world would want. And now one of them is actually going to get him.
Soccer, due to the history of the clubs as well as the lack of a salary cap, is a severely tiered system. There are the the big clubs, the ones that everyone grows up dreaming of playing for: Barcelona, Real Madrid, Manchester United, Juventus, AC Milan, Bayern Munich, and Internazionale (Inter Milan). Manchester City, Chelsea, and perhaps Paris Saint-Germain (PSG) have entered that conversation recently due to the billions of dollars that they are willing to spend, but that's about it for the big boys. Then, there's everyone else. Of course there are tiers within the "everyone else" category. You'd rather be Liverpool than Fulham, that's for sure. But the distinctions there are more for pride and notoriety than anything else. The simple fact of the matter is that if you're not one of the most important clubs in all of Europe, you're in danger of having your players bought by them.
Arsenal has spent the last 20 years or so thinking that they were in that top tier and they certainly were for a while. But we might be seeing the end of that era right now. In the past, the players who left were either on the decline (Patrick Vieira), desperate to return home (Cesc Fabregas), or general assholes that couldn't be counted on as giving a valid opinion of the club (Samir Nasri). Even last year with Fabregas, Nasri, and Gael Clichey all leaving, fans could convince themselves that Arsenal were still a big club because those guys had their reasons or they were selfish or whatever. Not this year. Van Persie was the driving force behind this team, the captain, the top goalscorer, and the best player in all of England. Now he wants to leave. Not because he demands more money or wants a different place to raise his child. Because he doesn't think he can win with Arsenal.
It is possible that Van Persie is incorrect. He may have disagreed with a very sensible plan that was laid out in front of him. Perhaps Arsene Wenger wasn't going to overpay for players like Eden Hazard because he had other excellent transfer options in mind, other professionals that weren't the hot targets for Manchester City to throw £300k per week at. Van Persie might have wanted too much money to be spent on everyone rather than building the club smartly but still aggressively. Even if that is the case (and it likely is not), the message this sends is devastating. Regardless of Arsenal's plan (and it would certainly help a lot to say something to the fans about this, especially in the wake of Van Persie's announcement), the image is that Arsenal is a feeder team now. A very good, very historic feeder team, but a feeder team nonetheless. The last stop for up and coming players before they move on to the real big clubs like City or Chelsea. The beginning of a career now that our era has ended.
My emotions are mixed right now. I don't believe that the team has slid into the role I have described. At least not fully or not yet. But in order for Arsenal to make the argument that they are still a top team, they need to do so on the field. They need Jack Wilshere to come good on his promise. They need Lukas Podolski and Olivier Giroud to fill the scoring void left by Van Persie. They need Thomas Vermaelen and Laurent Koscielny to step up and play lockdown defense. They need to go out and challenge in the Premier League, make Emirates a place that teams dread coming to. They need to make the argument that their captain gave up on.
As for Van Persie himself: I cannot be mad. I wish he had stayed. He is a fantastic talent and our best player, one of the best in the world. So I wish that he had stayed to make Arsenal great, to show the world how good this team could be if all of the pieces were together. But even though he's chosen not to, I wish him the best. He was a Gunner and a good one and we should all, as fans, hope that he finds the success that he's looking for. Let's just also hope that Arsenal finds it first without him. As Always, Go Gunners.
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Sunday, July 1, 2012
And The Winner Will Be...
...I have no idea.
It shouldn't be that shocking for someone to admit that they can't, with 100% accuracy, predict the future but these days we want more from our experts. We want concrete answers about what will happen. We want locks and guarantees, we want to "mark it down" and so on. We want to know. But I'm afraid that I don't. I'm not saying this to buck a trend or teach some kind of lesson, I just honestly don't know.
Spain is the better team. If both teams played to the utmost of their abilities, Spain would win this match. But Spain hasn't been playing to the utmost of their abilities this entire tournament. They were patient in the group stage and that was fine because they could afford to be based on their play order. The opening draw with Italy was expected, as was the defeat of the "glad to be here" Irish squad (don't mean that offensively, it's just obvious at this point that they were never going to make it out of that group). Croatia was a dangerous team, but Spain had the luxury of playing them when it would have taken a drastic series of events to keep the Spanish team from making the next round. So again caution was the mode of the day and it obviously served them well. The victory over France was a walk in the park due to the baffling lack of heart from the French, but it wasn't a decisive "Spain is back!" kind of win. The penalty shootout win over Portugal was even more troubling because the passing game was interfered with for the first time in forever and even when Spain recovered, they didn't do enough to win the game in regulation. If they pull it all together for the championship game, they're still the best team in the world. But who says they can do that?
Italy, on the other hand, is the in form team of this match. The 2-1 win (which was basically a 2-0 win except for that late penalty) was shocking in that a talented German team was dispatched, but it wasn't fluky or cheap in any way. Italy was the better team throughout and though they benefited from some poor German shooting they also defended incredibly well, controlled the ball when accepting possession, and finished beautifully. Plus they're effing hard. Going to penalties against England was worrying because the 0-0 score showed a potentially fatal lack of finishing, but they controlled the match from the half hour mark on and were very unlucky not to put it away three different times. Mario Balotelli provided the finishing edge for them in the last match, but other than that we only have one goal from the Antonios (Cassano and Di Natale) and one from Andrea Pirlo off a free kick. We can look at Spain and say that they've had similar problems and it would be true, but that doesn't change the fact that Italy hasn't been able to produce straight up wins against anyone but Ireland and Germany (a stranger disparity would be difficult to find). Which team shows up today with it all on the line?
I still don't know what's going to happen, but I will take a guess because that's the role that I am playing. I think that Italy is going to make this a fascinating game with their countering skill and unique forwards (seriously, for all the reasons you may dislike Cassano or Balotelli, they have been fascinating to watch in this tournament; Cassano's movement has been phenomenal and Balotelli is... well, Balotelli). I wrote before that Spain is only as exciting as the opponent they are playing and if that is true, we could be in for a hell of a game that will see Spain regain their form and show everyone why they are here trying to win their third straight major tournament. I won't speak confidently about the type of match we're going to get, but Italy's willingness to play their game regardless of who is on the field with them is incredibly refreshing and I do think it will be a good one. I also think that it will be one where Italy's finishing fails them and we see Spain do just enough to find the net and hold on for their record breaking win. It will not be easy and I would not be surprised to see it go another way, but it is what I'm going with. I wish the best of finals to us all and I hope you enjoy it wherever you are.
Spain 1-0
It shouldn't be that shocking for someone to admit that they can't, with 100% accuracy, predict the future but these days we want more from our experts. We want concrete answers about what will happen. We want locks and guarantees, we want to "mark it down" and so on. We want to know. But I'm afraid that I don't. I'm not saying this to buck a trend or teach some kind of lesson, I just honestly don't know.
Spain is the better team. If both teams played to the utmost of their abilities, Spain would win this match. But Spain hasn't been playing to the utmost of their abilities this entire tournament. They were patient in the group stage and that was fine because they could afford to be based on their play order. The opening draw with Italy was expected, as was the defeat of the "glad to be here" Irish squad (don't mean that offensively, it's just obvious at this point that they were never going to make it out of that group). Croatia was a dangerous team, but Spain had the luxury of playing them when it would have taken a drastic series of events to keep the Spanish team from making the next round. So again caution was the mode of the day and it obviously served them well. The victory over France was a walk in the park due to the baffling lack of heart from the French, but it wasn't a decisive "Spain is back!" kind of win. The penalty shootout win over Portugal was even more troubling because the passing game was interfered with for the first time in forever and even when Spain recovered, they didn't do enough to win the game in regulation. If they pull it all together for the championship game, they're still the best team in the world. But who says they can do that?
Italy, on the other hand, is the in form team of this match. The 2-1 win (which was basically a 2-0 win except for that late penalty) was shocking in that a talented German team was dispatched, but it wasn't fluky or cheap in any way. Italy was the better team throughout and though they benefited from some poor German shooting they also defended incredibly well, controlled the ball when accepting possession, and finished beautifully. Plus they're effing hard. Going to penalties against England was worrying because the 0-0 score showed a potentially fatal lack of finishing, but they controlled the match from the half hour mark on and were very unlucky not to put it away three different times. Mario Balotelli provided the finishing edge for them in the last match, but other than that we only have one goal from the Antonios (Cassano and Di Natale) and one from Andrea Pirlo off a free kick. We can look at Spain and say that they've had similar problems and it would be true, but that doesn't change the fact that Italy hasn't been able to produce straight up wins against anyone but Ireland and Germany (a stranger disparity would be difficult to find). Which team shows up today with it all on the line?
I still don't know what's going to happen, but I will take a guess because that's the role that I am playing. I think that Italy is going to make this a fascinating game with their countering skill and unique forwards (seriously, for all the reasons you may dislike Cassano or Balotelli, they have been fascinating to watch in this tournament; Cassano's movement has been phenomenal and Balotelli is... well, Balotelli). I wrote before that Spain is only as exciting as the opponent they are playing and if that is true, we could be in for a hell of a game that will see Spain regain their form and show everyone why they are here trying to win their third straight major tournament. I won't speak confidently about the type of match we're going to get, but Italy's willingness to play their game regardless of who is on the field with them is incredibly refreshing and I do think it will be a good one. I also think that it will be one where Italy's finishing fails them and we see Spain do just enough to find the net and hold on for their record breaking win. It will not be easy and I would not be surprised to see it go another way, but it is what I'm going with. I wish the best of finals to us all and I hope you enjoy it wherever you are.
Spain 1-0
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Invention vs Prevention, Or Simply Execution?
Soccer managers, even the best of them, have a nasty habit of retreating into a strategy of trying not to lose in big matches. The stakes are so high that this becomes a more common tendency than we might think. Who wants to lose embarrassingly to an inferior opponent, or have their historic soccer club/nation bow out of a tournament too early, or not tactically adjust to a team who is more talented than they are? The pressure can force otherwise brilliant soccer minds into playing to make sure that they don't fail while still kind of sort of maybe trying to win the game as long as they don't overexpose themselves. When that happens, you have a recipe for disaster. The tentative, preventative play is rarely a winning strategy and that's what occurred yet again in the 2012 Euro semifinals: two teams tried to prevent themselves from losing and two teams got sent home.
Well, three teams played prevention come to think of it. Both Portugal and Spain played a cagey type of soccer that doesn't exactly work as an advertisement for the game. Portugal were rightly afraid of the Spanish possession game and so they geared their plan of attack around disrupting the tika taka and making sure that Spain never became too comfortable on the ball. Credit where credit is due, Portugal did a better job of this than anyone else I've watched. Their midfield attacked Spain high and refused to allow Xavi, Sergio Busquets, or Xabi Alanso to simply play the ball around and get into a rhythm. The Spanish midfield looked confused and surprised for large stretches of the game and it showed. They often missed passes in the middle third and Gerard Pique compounded problems by often mishitting balls from the back. Portugal was aggressive in their pressure and the Spanish starters never quite adjusted, trying to keep their passing careful and close in order to maintain possession since their normal skills were not shining through.
This aggression, however, was all in the service of prevention. Portugal did an excellent job of knocking the Spanish out of their comfort zone, but they were never able to turn that into anything positive. Cristiano Ronaldo had a couple of chances to put Portugal up in the match, but mishit them both. Indeed, out of 120 minutes of soccer, Portugal only had a total of two shots on goal. The extent to which Portugal was focused on being anti-Spain rather than pro-Portugal was evident after Spain took out Alvaro Negredo and David Silva in exchange for Cesc Fabregas and Jesus Nava. Spain turned their game around after the substitutions and became more direct, starting to finally look like the better team after Portugal had been in the ascendancy for the first hour or so. How to handle that? Between the introduction of Navas and the end of regulation, Portugal received four yellow cards in their attempts to knock Spanish players off the ball, ending with 31 fouls to Spain's 21. Spain retaliated in kind with four yellows over the course of the match (Portugal had five in total) but that served Portugal more than Spain and the game was predominantly clogged and bogged down. Though Spain played better in the overtime periods, everyone watching knew where this was going. And so, in a match characterized by preventative soccer on both sides, eventually someone had to win. It was Spain, thanks to the (frayed) nerves of Bruno Alves and the (steel) nerves of Fabregas.
Germany, though, was an obvious case of preventative play getting the better of a good coach. Joachim Low has made attacking soccer the new hallmark of the German national team. The wingers are fast and direct, always moving into the open space creating by quick passing. The midfield controls the game, alternating runs forward and keeping the ball forever moving. Mesut Ozil is a force unto himself, dragging defenders this way and that while also putting balls in at angles that no one else can predict or even see. Then the striker up top finishes clinically, taking advantage of the service provided to him as well as his own killer instinct. This is German soccer in the new millennium and it is what we have expected of this dynamic young squad.
But Low didn't play to the swashbuckling strengths of his team. Instead of a talented winger like Thomas Muller or Marco Reus, he started Toni Kroos, a gifted but more conservative option in the midfield. Suddenly Germany was looking to match up with Italy rather than the other way around, Kroos chosen to obviously challenge in the midfield and deny Andrea Pirlo time and space. Where was the high flying side we were used to seeing, the one who had put in four goals on hapless Greece just one round prior? Low turned his team into a preventative one and as a result, Italy got two superb goals from Mario Balotelli and is into the finals instead of many people's pre-tournament favorites.
Hold on, that's not right either. I know I messed up the whole "two teams were preventative and two teams lost" thing earlier but this is a little more egregious. Germany might have come out with a preventative lineup but didn't it still make sense? Kroos would mark Pirlo tightly, Bastian Schweinsteiger and Sami Khedira would take possession away from the less skilled Daniele De Rossi and Claudio Marchisio, Lukas Podolski would threaten down the left to keep the Italy fullback on the defense, and Ozil would feed Mario Gomez (and any breaking midfielders) all game long. The tactics make sense. Plus, let's look at the stats here. Germany took 15(8) shots(on goal) to Italy's 10(5) while also winning the corner kick battle 14 to ZERO and holding the ball for 54% of the game. That can hardly be called preventative.
Italy doesn't quite fit the bill as that dynamic, inventive force either, now that you mention it. Sure they got some shots and Balotelli finished beautifully, but their entire midfield is designed around giving Pirlo time and he is the only truly creative element. There are no marauding wingers or fullbacks, just Pirlo feeding open players as well as working the channels. Germany didn't really even play with a right winger, instead letting Ozil drift centrally from that position all game because they weren't in the least afraid of Giorgio Chiellini going forward. That doesn't exactly sound like a team that was a Platonic ideal of total football. What has happened to our easily constructed narrative and the ready made boxes that we put things in?
Simple: execution. There is so much talk these days about positive versus negative soccer, the creative versus the reactive, this style is better than this and blah blah blah. I'm not completely dismissing the debates of course. They fascinate me after all and the whole philosophy of soccer is something I've written about several times. But sometimes we get too busy casting what we see into ideal forms, strategies that are all A, B, or C and not made the least bit impure by dashes of each other, that we don't look at the reality of what we're seeing. So, simply put, this is what we saw: a Portuguese team that tried to disrupt Spain and create goals off of that disruption, but failed to execute because their counters and transition game were never threatening; a Spanish team that tried to play possession soccer and break down the Portuguese defense with fatigue and superior passing, but failed to execute because they were taken out of their quick passing game and never adjusted to what the defense was giving them; a German team that tried to bog down Italy in the middle, limiting their danger going forward, all while relying on their playmakers and shot takers to create goals, but failed to execute because their attackers flubbed what chances they had and the passing was not incisive enough in the final third; and an Italian team that tried to defend superbly, move the ball after taking possession from the Germans, and rely on their talented strikers to finish chances, and executed perfectly in all areas of their gameplan.
This isn't rocket science or a debate on the intricacies of tactical formations. If all things were equal and we saw one strategy win instead of the other then it might be a different debate, but instead there was one team that was clearly better than the others. Portugal could have moved the ball up high and finish chances but didn't. Spain could have worn down the Portuguese and scored tap-in goals but didn't, needing penalties to win instead. Germany could have used Kroos to shut down Pirlo and gotten key contributions from their attacking players but didn't. Only Italy did exactly what it wanted to do, no matter if it was preventative, inventive, creative, or any other theoretical ideal we want to use. Italy won because they were better than the team they played, obviously so. Now all that's left is to see if they can ride that form and if Spain can regain theirs. Here's hoping we get both so that we also get a hell of a final.
Well, three teams played prevention come to think of it. Both Portugal and Spain played a cagey type of soccer that doesn't exactly work as an advertisement for the game. Portugal were rightly afraid of the Spanish possession game and so they geared their plan of attack around disrupting the tika taka and making sure that Spain never became too comfortable on the ball. Credit where credit is due, Portugal did a better job of this than anyone else I've watched. Their midfield attacked Spain high and refused to allow Xavi, Sergio Busquets, or Xabi Alanso to simply play the ball around and get into a rhythm. The Spanish midfield looked confused and surprised for large stretches of the game and it showed. They often missed passes in the middle third and Gerard Pique compounded problems by often mishitting balls from the back. Portugal was aggressive in their pressure and the Spanish starters never quite adjusted, trying to keep their passing careful and close in order to maintain possession since their normal skills were not shining through.
This aggression, however, was all in the service of prevention. Portugal did an excellent job of knocking the Spanish out of their comfort zone, but they were never able to turn that into anything positive. Cristiano Ronaldo had a couple of chances to put Portugal up in the match, but mishit them both. Indeed, out of 120 minutes of soccer, Portugal only had a total of two shots on goal. The extent to which Portugal was focused on being anti-Spain rather than pro-Portugal was evident after Spain took out Alvaro Negredo and David Silva in exchange for Cesc Fabregas and Jesus Nava. Spain turned their game around after the substitutions and became more direct, starting to finally look like the better team after Portugal had been in the ascendancy for the first hour or so. How to handle that? Between the introduction of Navas and the end of regulation, Portugal received four yellow cards in their attempts to knock Spanish players off the ball, ending with 31 fouls to Spain's 21. Spain retaliated in kind with four yellows over the course of the match (Portugal had five in total) but that served Portugal more than Spain and the game was predominantly clogged and bogged down. Though Spain played better in the overtime periods, everyone watching knew where this was going. And so, in a match characterized by preventative soccer on both sides, eventually someone had to win. It was Spain, thanks to the (frayed) nerves of Bruno Alves and the (steel) nerves of Fabregas.
Germany, though, was an obvious case of preventative play getting the better of a good coach. Joachim Low has made attacking soccer the new hallmark of the German national team. The wingers are fast and direct, always moving into the open space creating by quick passing. The midfield controls the game, alternating runs forward and keeping the ball forever moving. Mesut Ozil is a force unto himself, dragging defenders this way and that while also putting balls in at angles that no one else can predict or even see. Then the striker up top finishes clinically, taking advantage of the service provided to him as well as his own killer instinct. This is German soccer in the new millennium and it is what we have expected of this dynamic young squad.
But Low didn't play to the swashbuckling strengths of his team. Instead of a talented winger like Thomas Muller or Marco Reus, he started Toni Kroos, a gifted but more conservative option in the midfield. Suddenly Germany was looking to match up with Italy rather than the other way around, Kroos chosen to obviously challenge in the midfield and deny Andrea Pirlo time and space. Where was the high flying side we were used to seeing, the one who had put in four goals on hapless Greece just one round prior? Low turned his team into a preventative one and as a result, Italy got two superb goals from Mario Balotelli and is into the finals instead of many people's pre-tournament favorites.
Hold on, that's not right either. I know I messed up the whole "two teams were preventative and two teams lost" thing earlier but this is a little more egregious. Germany might have come out with a preventative lineup but didn't it still make sense? Kroos would mark Pirlo tightly, Bastian Schweinsteiger and Sami Khedira would take possession away from the less skilled Daniele De Rossi and Claudio Marchisio, Lukas Podolski would threaten down the left to keep the Italy fullback on the defense, and Ozil would feed Mario Gomez (and any breaking midfielders) all game long. The tactics make sense. Plus, let's look at the stats here. Germany took 15(8) shots(on goal) to Italy's 10(5) while also winning the corner kick battle 14 to ZERO and holding the ball for 54% of the game. That can hardly be called preventative.
Italy doesn't quite fit the bill as that dynamic, inventive force either, now that you mention it. Sure they got some shots and Balotelli finished beautifully, but their entire midfield is designed around giving Pirlo time and he is the only truly creative element. There are no marauding wingers or fullbacks, just Pirlo feeding open players as well as working the channels. Germany didn't really even play with a right winger, instead letting Ozil drift centrally from that position all game because they weren't in the least afraid of Giorgio Chiellini going forward. That doesn't exactly sound like a team that was a Platonic ideal of total football. What has happened to our easily constructed narrative and the ready made boxes that we put things in?
Simple: execution. There is so much talk these days about positive versus negative soccer, the creative versus the reactive, this style is better than this and blah blah blah. I'm not completely dismissing the debates of course. They fascinate me after all and the whole philosophy of soccer is something I've written about several times. But sometimes we get too busy casting what we see into ideal forms, strategies that are all A, B, or C and not made the least bit impure by dashes of each other, that we don't look at the reality of what we're seeing. So, simply put, this is what we saw: a Portuguese team that tried to disrupt Spain and create goals off of that disruption, but failed to execute because their counters and transition game were never threatening; a Spanish team that tried to play possession soccer and break down the Portuguese defense with fatigue and superior passing, but failed to execute because they were taken out of their quick passing game and never adjusted to what the defense was giving them; a German team that tried to bog down Italy in the middle, limiting their danger going forward, all while relying on their playmakers and shot takers to create goals, but failed to execute because their attackers flubbed what chances they had and the passing was not incisive enough in the final third; and an Italian team that tried to defend superbly, move the ball after taking possession from the Germans, and rely on their talented strikers to finish chances, and executed perfectly in all areas of their gameplan.
This isn't rocket science or a debate on the intricacies of tactical formations. If all things were equal and we saw one strategy win instead of the other then it might be a different debate, but instead there was one team that was clearly better than the others. Portugal could have moved the ball up high and finish chances but didn't. Spain could have worn down the Portuguese and scored tap-in goals but didn't, needing penalties to win instead. Germany could have used Kroos to shut down Pirlo and gotten key contributions from their attacking players but didn't. Only Italy did exactly what it wanted to do, no matter if it was preventative, inventive, creative, or any other theoretical ideal we want to use. Italy won because they were better than the team they played, obviously so. Now all that's left is to see if they can ride that form and if Spain can regain theirs. Here's hoping we get both so that we also get a hell of a final.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Can Anything Stop the Final We All Excpect?
Everybody is waiting for Germany and Spain to play in the final of Euro 2012 so we can finally determine whether this Spanish team will become the first country to win back to back Euros, or if Germany is the new power in international soccer with their endlessly aggressive and creative game. There's only one problem: those teams need to win their semifinal matches to ensure that we actually get this final that everyone assumes is predestined. Do not think for a minute that Italy and Portugal are going to roll over and play nice for everyone else's sake. These matches are going to be battles.
Portugal vs Spain
Spain will possess, Portugal will counter, blah blah blah. You've heard this all before. The question, as Michael Cox of Zonal Marking correctly puts it, is how reactive Portugal chooses to be, how high they press Spain up the field. I was unimpressed with Portugal versus Germany because Portugal sat back in a shell and tried to counter quickly in order to steal a goal from a game where Germany dominated possession. My feelings are partly due to the fact that Portugal didn't look that comfortable sitting back with Germany pressing, but are more (if I'm being honest) because I find that strategy to be boring. I was very excited for Germany vs Portugal and it turned out to be a tame affair with one team possessing and looking to win and the other very obviously thinking it would be great if they could get a point from the match.
Portugal has improved much since then and given their recent success, it would be surprising if manager Paulo Bento didn't try to ride this current level of confidence and give Spain more of an effort. Don't get me wrong: Portugal are trying to win this game, but I would think that the manner in which they try will be different after beating Holland and the Czech Republic soundly. Expect the Portuguese to press Spain higher up the field rather than sitting everyone around the penalty area and parking the bus, with the counters to come quickly down the wings or wherever Cristiano Ronaldo can be found. Spain will do what Spain does: possess the ball, probe the defense, and try to break the opponent open. The only question comes with how they attack and that depends on their choice of striker. Otherwise, the defending champions will be unchanged but still nigh unbeatable.
Can Portugal win this match? Absolutely. Spain has shown that they lack a cutting edge at times and settle for possession too easily. It is not too difficult to see a game that doesn't quite go Spain's way where they can't finish their chances and Portugal grabs a goal on a counter or a superb individual effort, most likely from Ronaldo. But do I feel comfortable predicting it? Nope. 1-0 Spain when all is said and done.
Germany vs Italy
Everywhere I look, people are talking about Portugal vs Spain and I get that of course, it's going to be a great match. But honestly, I'm more looking forward to Germany vs Italy. I feel like I know what's going to happen with the Iberian match up whereas I have no clue how Thursday's game will play out. I should clarify: I think that Germany will win but the style of play seems impossible to determine. Germany are the better team and should possess more and get their chances, but Italy are no slouches and Andrea Pirlo can dictate games with his play. The forward combination of Antonio Cassano and Mario Balotelli is the picture you see in the dictionary next to unpredictable and Antonio Di Natale is a creative asset, should Cesare Prandelli decide to use him.
In addition to the uncertainty over the Italians' approach, we also have to take our guesses over what Joachim Low's starting lineup will be for Germany. Sitting Lukas Podolski, Thomas Muller, and Mario Gomez against Greece was a surprise and there's no guarantee that was a one-time thing to give players rest. Marco Reus was impressive in the quarterfinal match and Miroslav Klose was certainly effective. Regardless of who starts, we can expect impressive ball control and attacks coming from all over the field, which is what makes Germany so much fun to watch and why I picked them to win at the start of the tournament.
Though I made a big deal about how these games were far from decided, I can't bring myself to pick against my my pre-tournament favorites or the defending champions. The fact is the Spain and Germany have been the two best teams in this tournament and I would love to see them settle everything on Sunday in the championship game. Germany beats Italy 3-1 and we all get the match we want to see.
Portugal vs Spain
Spain will possess, Portugal will counter, blah blah blah. You've heard this all before. The question, as Michael Cox of Zonal Marking correctly puts it, is how reactive Portugal chooses to be, how high they press Spain up the field. I was unimpressed with Portugal versus Germany because Portugal sat back in a shell and tried to counter quickly in order to steal a goal from a game where Germany dominated possession. My feelings are partly due to the fact that Portugal didn't look that comfortable sitting back with Germany pressing, but are more (if I'm being honest) because I find that strategy to be boring. I was very excited for Germany vs Portugal and it turned out to be a tame affair with one team possessing and looking to win and the other very obviously thinking it would be great if they could get a point from the match.
Portugal has improved much since then and given their recent success, it would be surprising if manager Paulo Bento didn't try to ride this current level of confidence and give Spain more of an effort. Don't get me wrong: Portugal are trying to win this game, but I would think that the manner in which they try will be different after beating Holland and the Czech Republic soundly. Expect the Portuguese to press Spain higher up the field rather than sitting everyone around the penalty area and parking the bus, with the counters to come quickly down the wings or wherever Cristiano Ronaldo can be found. Spain will do what Spain does: possess the ball, probe the defense, and try to break the opponent open. The only question comes with how they attack and that depends on their choice of striker. Otherwise, the defending champions will be unchanged but still nigh unbeatable.
Can Portugal win this match? Absolutely. Spain has shown that they lack a cutting edge at times and settle for possession too easily. It is not too difficult to see a game that doesn't quite go Spain's way where they can't finish their chances and Portugal grabs a goal on a counter or a superb individual effort, most likely from Ronaldo. But do I feel comfortable predicting it? Nope. 1-0 Spain when all is said and done.
Germany vs Italy
Everywhere I look, people are talking about Portugal vs Spain and I get that of course, it's going to be a great match. But honestly, I'm more looking forward to Germany vs Italy. I feel like I know what's going to happen with the Iberian match up whereas I have no clue how Thursday's game will play out. I should clarify: I think that Germany will win but the style of play seems impossible to determine. Germany are the better team and should possess more and get their chances, but Italy are no slouches and Andrea Pirlo can dictate games with his play. The forward combination of Antonio Cassano and Mario Balotelli is the picture you see in the dictionary next to unpredictable and Antonio Di Natale is a creative asset, should Cesare Prandelli decide to use him.
In addition to the uncertainty over the Italians' approach, we also have to take our guesses over what Joachim Low's starting lineup will be for Germany. Sitting Lukas Podolski, Thomas Muller, and Mario Gomez against Greece was a surprise and there's no guarantee that was a one-time thing to give players rest. Marco Reus was impressive in the quarterfinal match and Miroslav Klose was certainly effective. Regardless of who starts, we can expect impressive ball control and attacks coming from all over the field, which is what makes Germany so much fun to watch and why I picked them to win at the start of the tournament.
Though I made a big deal about how these games were far from decided, I can't bring myself to pick against my my pre-tournament favorites or the defending champions. The fact is the Spain and Germany have been the two best teams in this tournament and I would love to see them settle everything on Sunday in the championship game. Germany beats Italy 3-1 and we all get the match we want to see.
England and Spain: Different Kinds of Boring
Winning in soccer can be accomplished a variety of different ways with a multitude of strategies seeing the light of a playing field, everything from the traditional two banks of four defending behind the ball to formations that eschew the traditional axiom that maybe it's good to have a striker who can score goals on the pitch. This should come as no surprise to you, the reader, as it is all over soccer at a variety of levels and it's also something I've written about a couple of times on this very blog. One thing that isn't talked about as much, however, is what exactly makes for a boring game. There are accusations of course: teams playing negatively, players not looking to attack, entire squads accused of parking automobiles on playing areas, and so on. But these strategies or inclinations do not automatically result in boring viewing experiences. If one team plays negatively, the other might be encouraged to play positively; if players on one team do not look to attack, players on the other may look to break out when they obtain the ball; if teams decide to park the bus and defend for 90 (or more) minutes, we may be treated to the moments of brilliance that are required to break them down. It would not be unreasonable though to cite certain types of soccer as more prone to create boring games. The rub here is that you can't use this assessment as a commentary on the quality of soccer being played: take the examples of England and Spain.
England is your traditional boring, negative team. They are purely reactionary, happy to cede the midfield to their opponents if they are over-matched and play the counter off of whatever the other team does. They put at least eight men behind the ball at all times and their strikers are used as escape valves when the defense needs a break from disrupting the opponent. I compared their strategy to that of Chelsea's during their improbable Champions League run (please read that post for the aforementioned comparison rather than all of the inaccuracy that is also present) but it's not quite the same. Despite their negative nature, Chelsea was brilliant on the counter and creative enough in midfield to retain the ball once they won it back from the team they were defending against. England can't do that. Steven Gerrard has played well on the attack and Scott Parker has thrown himself in front of seemingly every shot the opposition has taken, but they (and the others) cannot string together passes when facing a superior side. Wayne Rooney has been rusty since returning and though Danny Welbeck had one of the goals of the tournament, he has otherwise been ineffective. When you add all of this up, you get... not much. You get one-sided games. You get bored.
Now, this does not mean that every game that England plays is boring. The England vs Italy quarterfinal was fantastic viewing for the first ninety or so minutes. In fact, England tried to actually hold possession for the first half an hour or so and it was gripping stuff. Daniele De Rossi hit the post and Glen Johnson forced a reaction save from Gianluigi Buffon all within the first five minutes. But after England tricked us all into thinking that they were going to compete in this match, they sat back in their shell and tried to win in penalties from the 31st minute on. Again, that doesn't mean the match was boring. It wasn't. Italy pressed and pressed and almost scored entirely too many times, and England was probably decent on a counter or two somewhere in there, but the overtime period is where England's "style" (I refuse to use that word without quotes when referring to this England team) really stuck out and it happened because Italy finally tired out. Italy tried to win this match in regulation and they probably should have. A couple of better used inches anywhere on the field and Italy might have had five goals instead of none. In the overtime period though, they didn't bring the same energy, the same intensity that they had exuded for 90 minutes. That was when everyone realized that it was Italy that was propping this game up, Italy that was making it exciting and watchable. England wasn't an active participant so much as the straight man in a two person comedy bit. But rather than using understated comedic timing, England was playing long balls up to a bizarrely coiffed Rooney and retreating to absorb the latest Italy advance. They made their attempt for a boring, grind it out match and Italy, after struggling valiantly against the inevitable for so long, finally conceded to boredom in overtime. Their heroics were appreciated by this fan at the very least.
Spain is a different animal altogether. Spain isn't boring because they are negative or reactive or under skilled. They are boring (at times) because they are just so good and so controlling. That more than anything is what defines this Spain squad. The tika taka passing and limitless ball control give Spain an iron grip on a match and the excitement in their games comes from what their opponent wants to give them. This seems contrary at first blush. If Spain is dictating terms for the match and always has the ball, why does the opponent determine how exciting the game is? It comes from this simple truth: Spain thinks it can beat you. Whoever you are, Spain is confident in their ability to persevere over the course of a 90 (or 120) minute match. How they beat you is entirely up to you. Do you want to pressure Spain up high and play an aggressive back line? Spain will beat you by getting runners into space behind the defenders and creating breakaways on the goalie. Do you want to sit in a defensive shell and dare Spain to beat you? Spain will beat you, but this time by knocking the ball around for the entirety of the game, constantly probing to test the weak spots of the defense and eventually deciding to exploit them. Spain does not care. Spain will let you choose your doom.
France chose the slow death in their quarterfinal match and the viewing public was poorer for it. The strategy was evident from before the match even started, when France's starting lineup showed two fullbacks (Anthony Reveillere and Mathieu Debuchy) on the right side of the field and one of the main creative talents (Samir Nasri) on the bench. Now, there may have been other reasons for this. Nasri has proven to be a bit of an ass and manager Laurent Blanc might have thought his team would best served with his young hothead waiting in reserve. Regardless of the logic though, it made the French less dynamic from the get go and the message was clear: we need to adjust our play style in order to beat Spain. Not the other way around. Unfortunately for France, Spain broke them down in the 19th minute rather than the 83rd or so thanks to Xabi Alanso's perfectly placed header, so the French needed to adjust their game and find a way to win that wasn't "hold on for penalties and hope Hugo Lloris is better than Iker Casillas." But they didn't. France was never positive, even when down 1-0, and was never creative enough to manufacture chances that might tie the match back up. What is Spain's obligation in such a situation? They tried to score again, but not desperately. They showed flair, but not so much that it would get them in trouble. Anyone watching that game for more than two minutes would have been struck by a feeling of inevitability, that there was no chance France would persevere in this match and that Spain was always going to win; it was just a matter of the clock running out. With their position so obviously assured, what reason did Spain have to be dynamic?
Thankfully we don't have to watch England anymore in this tournament. Their desireless style of play was not rewarded in penalties due to the inaccuracy of their Ashleys. Spain will be playing again however, and this time it is on Portugal to give them the challenge they desire. Spain will be Spain regardless of who they are playing against. How close to perfection they come is up to their opponent. It falls upon Portugal to inspire.
England is your traditional boring, negative team. They are purely reactionary, happy to cede the midfield to their opponents if they are over-matched and play the counter off of whatever the other team does. They put at least eight men behind the ball at all times and their strikers are used as escape valves when the defense needs a break from disrupting the opponent. I compared their strategy to that of Chelsea's during their improbable Champions League run (please read that post for the aforementioned comparison rather than all of the inaccuracy that is also present) but it's not quite the same. Despite their negative nature, Chelsea was brilliant on the counter and creative enough in midfield to retain the ball once they won it back from the team they were defending against. England can't do that. Steven Gerrard has played well on the attack and Scott Parker has thrown himself in front of seemingly every shot the opposition has taken, but they (and the others) cannot string together passes when facing a superior side. Wayne Rooney has been rusty since returning and though Danny Welbeck had one of the goals of the tournament, he has otherwise been ineffective. When you add all of this up, you get... not much. You get one-sided games. You get bored.
Now, this does not mean that every game that England plays is boring. The England vs Italy quarterfinal was fantastic viewing for the first ninety or so minutes. In fact, England tried to actually hold possession for the first half an hour or so and it was gripping stuff. Daniele De Rossi hit the post and Glen Johnson forced a reaction save from Gianluigi Buffon all within the first five minutes. But after England tricked us all into thinking that they were going to compete in this match, they sat back in their shell and tried to win in penalties from the 31st minute on. Again, that doesn't mean the match was boring. It wasn't. Italy pressed and pressed and almost scored entirely too many times, and England was probably decent on a counter or two somewhere in there, but the overtime period is where England's "style" (I refuse to use that word without quotes when referring to this England team) really stuck out and it happened because Italy finally tired out. Italy tried to win this match in regulation and they probably should have. A couple of better used inches anywhere on the field and Italy might have had five goals instead of none. In the overtime period though, they didn't bring the same energy, the same intensity that they had exuded for 90 minutes. That was when everyone realized that it was Italy that was propping this game up, Italy that was making it exciting and watchable. England wasn't an active participant so much as the straight man in a two person comedy bit. But rather than using understated comedic timing, England was playing long balls up to a bizarrely coiffed Rooney and retreating to absorb the latest Italy advance. They made their attempt for a boring, grind it out match and Italy, after struggling valiantly against the inevitable for so long, finally conceded to boredom in overtime. Their heroics were appreciated by this fan at the very least.
Spain is a different animal altogether. Spain isn't boring because they are negative or reactive or under skilled. They are boring (at times) because they are just so good and so controlling. That more than anything is what defines this Spain squad. The tika taka passing and limitless ball control give Spain an iron grip on a match and the excitement in their games comes from what their opponent wants to give them. This seems contrary at first blush. If Spain is dictating terms for the match and always has the ball, why does the opponent determine how exciting the game is? It comes from this simple truth: Spain thinks it can beat you. Whoever you are, Spain is confident in their ability to persevere over the course of a 90 (or 120) minute match. How they beat you is entirely up to you. Do you want to pressure Spain up high and play an aggressive back line? Spain will beat you by getting runners into space behind the defenders and creating breakaways on the goalie. Do you want to sit in a defensive shell and dare Spain to beat you? Spain will beat you, but this time by knocking the ball around for the entirety of the game, constantly probing to test the weak spots of the defense and eventually deciding to exploit them. Spain does not care. Spain will let you choose your doom.
France chose the slow death in their quarterfinal match and the viewing public was poorer for it. The strategy was evident from before the match even started, when France's starting lineup showed two fullbacks (Anthony Reveillere and Mathieu Debuchy) on the right side of the field and one of the main creative talents (Samir Nasri) on the bench. Now, there may have been other reasons for this. Nasri has proven to be a bit of an ass and manager Laurent Blanc might have thought his team would best served with his young hothead waiting in reserve. Regardless of the logic though, it made the French less dynamic from the get go and the message was clear: we need to adjust our play style in order to beat Spain. Not the other way around. Unfortunately for France, Spain broke them down in the 19th minute rather than the 83rd or so thanks to Xabi Alanso's perfectly placed header, so the French needed to adjust their game and find a way to win that wasn't "hold on for penalties and hope Hugo Lloris is better than Iker Casillas." But they didn't. France was never positive, even when down 1-0, and was never creative enough to manufacture chances that might tie the match back up. What is Spain's obligation in such a situation? They tried to score again, but not desperately. They showed flair, but not so much that it would get them in trouble. Anyone watching that game for more than two minutes would have been struck by a feeling of inevitability, that there was no chance France would persevere in this match and that Spain was always going to win; it was just a matter of the clock running out. With their position so obviously assured, what reason did Spain have to be dynamic?
Thankfully we don't have to watch England anymore in this tournament. Their desireless style of play was not rewarded in penalties due to the inaccuracy of their Ashleys. Spain will be playing again however, and this time it is on Portugal to give them the challenge they desire. Spain will be Spain regardless of who they are playing against. How close to perfection they come is up to their opponent. It falls upon Portugal to inspire.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Fair is Fair
Germany did what everyone expected they would on Friday, beating an inferior Greek side 4-2, in the process showing why they are one of the favorites to win the tournament. However, the Germans did miss many chances early in the match and even allowed an equalizer to Greece ten minutes into the second half before truly taking over and putting the game out of reach. Though I think that Germany was more impressive than the Portugal side that I partially criticized in my last post, I also realize that there were holes in this performance just like there was in that of the Portuguese. Therefore, while I still believe that Germany is definitely the superior team, I would like to break down Germany a little more than just saying "they're good" and look at where they need improvement as well. After all, Portugal advanced without allowing a goal and were also the dominant team in their match. Perhaps things are closer than I would like to initially admit.
The Good
They scored. More than anything, I was critical of Portugal for dominating a less-skilled opponent but only managing one goal, a goal that did not come until the 79th minute. Germany did not have that problem as they scored first in the 39th on a piece of brilliance by Philipp Lahm, then three times in the second half within fifteen minutes, seemingly insulted by Greece's equalizer. Lahm, Sami Khedira, and Marco Reus all had exceptional individual efforts while Miroslav Klose made the most of an inch-perfect cross from Mesut Ozil to head in what seems like his 873rd goal in a German shirt. More than that, Germany's possession game was all-encompassing, not only holding the ball for 66% of the match but also creating dangerous chances all over the field, constantly pressuring the Greek defense and, unlike Spain, making aggressive runs at goal. The shots(on goal) numbers of 24(14) vs 9(5) bear this out and to be honest, Greece was lucky to make it out of the first half only down one.
Aside from the dominant possession and shots stats, Germany passed the eye test again and again. Ozil was brilliant in this match, making smart runs all over the defensive third and playing a part in every goal. Khedira's late runs into the area often caught Greek defenders off guard and his goal was a perfect example of surprising a defender that didn't expect him to be where he was, much like Cristiano Ronaldo's goal against the Czech Republic. Even Manuel Neuer looked good when called upon (which was rare), clearing away one good ball over the top and getting a good piece of the ball on the goal when most other keepers would have been left floundering.
What was particularly striking about Germany was the realization that, like Spain, they have an embarrassment of riches all over the field. Manager Joachim Low left Thomas Muller, Lukas Podolski, and Mario Gomez on the bench and instead gave starts to Klose, Reus, and Andre Schurrle. Only Schurrle could be judged to have had a sub-par game due to his inaccurate passing and Low now has the choice of which players to utilize in his attack against the winner of England vs Italy, a decision that, while difficult, is hardly worthy of pity or sympathy. With even the wave of substitutes contributing and scoring goals, what exactly could Germany have done wrong?
The Bad
To start, they could have finished better. That sounds borderline crazy to say about a team that put in four goals, but they could have scored all four of their goals in the first half and never had their momentary scare later in the match. Reus missed golden opportunities early, Schurrle whipped several shots wide of the post, and even the impressive Ozil bungled a chance or two. These were the type of opportunities that you would see go wanting and exclaim "surely that must have been a goal!" Lahm's strike in the 39th minute was impressive, but it also papered over an ugly truth: Greece almost entered the second half of this game with a 0-0 draw, the exact result that they would want from the first 45 minutes. Too often the German attackers let Greek defenders off the hook and as we saw from Greece's counter in the 55th, you keep teams in a match at your own peril.
Speaking of the counter, I'm sure Portuguese fans will be all too happy to point out that their team did not allow the Czechs to possess the ball hardly at all in the second half, let alone give up a goal on a well put together counterattack. To Germany's credit, it really was a good counter. The ball forward for Dimitris Salpingidis was perfectly weighted and the cross that found the foot of Georgios Samaras was a thing of beauty. No matter how well executed it was, however, Germany allowed it to happen. They let Greece stay in the game with only a one goal lead and then let in an equalizer to put pressure on their backs once again. As it turned out, the Greeks' goal only served to wake the Germans up and they put in three quick goals afterward. But against England or Italy, they may not be able to make those mistakes. Both of their potential opponents in the semifinals are better defensively than Greece, better on the attack, and just better all around. That 1-1 scoreline may last much longer than the Germans would want and once you get into overtime or penalties, anything can happen.
One last note: Bastian Schweinsteiger has to be better. I personally think he's one of the best ten or so players in the world right now, but he was poor in this match. He turned the ball over numerous times, couldn't get into the flow of the attack, and never looked like the lynchpin he was in previous matches like the victory over Holland. My first instinct was the perhaps he was suffering from a lack of pressure due to Greece sitting so deep, but he used that time and space to rip the Dutch open again and again, so it seems that he just had a poor day. That may be fine for a game like this where Germany was always on the attack and always likely to win, but when the sides are more equal, he will need to be an important player once again.
No matter how impressive this win seemed for Germany, they can still be better. Perhaps they were only playing at 90% due to the quality of their opponent (quick note: I keep saying the Germans were superior to the Greek team and while I believe that's true, that's not meant as disrespect to Greece; they did great work to get out of Group A and it looked for a while like they might stay in this match, but the German team was just too talented), but they also need to prove they can tap that last 10% when it is needed. I still believe them to be a more complete team than Portugal, but now that both teams are into the semifinals, that comparison won't matter unless both teams win their next game. If that happens, well, we can revisit just who is the better squad.
The Good
They scored. More than anything, I was critical of Portugal for dominating a less-skilled opponent but only managing one goal, a goal that did not come until the 79th minute. Germany did not have that problem as they scored first in the 39th on a piece of brilliance by Philipp Lahm, then three times in the second half within fifteen minutes, seemingly insulted by Greece's equalizer. Lahm, Sami Khedira, and Marco Reus all had exceptional individual efforts while Miroslav Klose made the most of an inch-perfect cross from Mesut Ozil to head in what seems like his 873rd goal in a German shirt. More than that, Germany's possession game was all-encompassing, not only holding the ball for 66% of the match but also creating dangerous chances all over the field, constantly pressuring the Greek defense and, unlike Spain, making aggressive runs at goal. The shots(on goal) numbers of 24(14) vs 9(5) bear this out and to be honest, Greece was lucky to make it out of the first half only down one.
Aside from the dominant possession and shots stats, Germany passed the eye test again and again. Ozil was brilliant in this match, making smart runs all over the defensive third and playing a part in every goal. Khedira's late runs into the area often caught Greek defenders off guard and his goal was a perfect example of surprising a defender that didn't expect him to be where he was, much like Cristiano Ronaldo's goal against the Czech Republic. Even Manuel Neuer looked good when called upon (which was rare), clearing away one good ball over the top and getting a good piece of the ball on the goal when most other keepers would have been left floundering.
What was particularly striking about Germany was the realization that, like Spain, they have an embarrassment of riches all over the field. Manager Joachim Low left Thomas Muller, Lukas Podolski, and Mario Gomez on the bench and instead gave starts to Klose, Reus, and Andre Schurrle. Only Schurrle could be judged to have had a sub-par game due to his inaccurate passing and Low now has the choice of which players to utilize in his attack against the winner of England vs Italy, a decision that, while difficult, is hardly worthy of pity or sympathy. With even the wave of substitutes contributing and scoring goals, what exactly could Germany have done wrong?
The Bad
To start, they could have finished better. That sounds borderline crazy to say about a team that put in four goals, but they could have scored all four of their goals in the first half and never had their momentary scare later in the match. Reus missed golden opportunities early, Schurrle whipped several shots wide of the post, and even the impressive Ozil bungled a chance or two. These were the type of opportunities that you would see go wanting and exclaim "surely that must have been a goal!" Lahm's strike in the 39th minute was impressive, but it also papered over an ugly truth: Greece almost entered the second half of this game with a 0-0 draw, the exact result that they would want from the first 45 minutes. Too often the German attackers let Greek defenders off the hook and as we saw from Greece's counter in the 55th, you keep teams in a match at your own peril.
Speaking of the counter, I'm sure Portuguese fans will be all too happy to point out that their team did not allow the Czechs to possess the ball hardly at all in the second half, let alone give up a goal on a well put together counterattack. To Germany's credit, it really was a good counter. The ball forward for Dimitris Salpingidis was perfectly weighted and the cross that found the foot of Georgios Samaras was a thing of beauty. No matter how well executed it was, however, Germany allowed it to happen. They let Greece stay in the game with only a one goal lead and then let in an equalizer to put pressure on their backs once again. As it turned out, the Greeks' goal only served to wake the Germans up and they put in three quick goals afterward. But against England or Italy, they may not be able to make those mistakes. Both of their potential opponents in the semifinals are better defensively than Greece, better on the attack, and just better all around. That 1-1 scoreline may last much longer than the Germans would want and once you get into overtime or penalties, anything can happen.
One last note: Bastian Schweinsteiger has to be better. I personally think he's one of the best ten or so players in the world right now, but he was poor in this match. He turned the ball over numerous times, couldn't get into the flow of the attack, and never looked like the lynchpin he was in previous matches like the victory over Holland. My first instinct was the perhaps he was suffering from a lack of pressure due to Greece sitting so deep, but he used that time and space to rip the Dutch open again and again, so it seems that he just had a poor day. That may be fine for a game like this where Germany was always on the attack and always likely to win, but when the sides are more equal, he will need to be an important player once again.
No matter how impressive this win seemed for Germany, they can still be better. Perhaps they were only playing at 90% due to the quality of their opponent (quick note: I keep saying the Germans were superior to the Greek team and while I believe that's true, that's not meant as disrespect to Greece; they did great work to get out of Group A and it looked for a while like they might stay in this match, but the German team was just too talented), but they also need to prove they can tap that last 10% when it is needed. I still believe them to be a more complete team than Portugal, but now that both teams are into the semifinals, that comparison won't matter unless both teams win their next game. If that happens, well, we can revisit just who is the better squad.
Friday, June 22, 2012
Portugal's Dominance(?)
Out of the Group of Death and into the semifinals. On Thursday, Portugal showed just how good they can be, dominating the Czech Republic on the way to a 1-0 win that should prove many of their doubters wrong... or should it? Portugal were certainly the better team in the second half and were by no means beaten in the first half, but this was one of those matches torn between being destined for overtime and destined to go to the better side with a late goal. As it turned out it was the latter instead of the former, but it wasn't until the 79th minute that Cristiano Ronaldo headed home the goal that would proper Portugal forward. I know, I know, this sounds like endless nitpicking of a Portugal side that has won three out of its four games, the only loss being to a German team that many picked to win the tournament. And yes, there is definitely something to be said for letting the results speak for themselves: no matter how you want to break it down, Portugal are in the semifinals against the winner of France vs Spain. However, just because Portugal are through and have played well does not mean they are without their flaws. Let's take a look at both sides of this team and see what we can come up with.
The Good
In the second half, the Portuguese players came storming out from the get-go, with Raul Meireles crossing to a free Hugo Almeida and the substitute striker blazing the header high over the bar. It was, as play-by-play announcer Adrian Healey said, a "statement of intent." From that moment until the rest of the game, Portugal were the better team. They had some chances in the first half, such as Ronaldo's lovely chest first touch into a turn and shoot that ricocheted off the near post, but the second half was truly where they came alive. The stats bear this out as well: 20(5) to 2(0) shots (on goal), 11 to 6 in corners, and 56% of the possession. These are all the full game numbers too, so you can imagine what the second half by itself would have been. As early as the 51st minute, I noted "Portugal starting to look like the better team who are eventually going to win" and play bore that out.
Ronaldo looked dangerous everywhere he went and it looks like he has put together how to play within this system for his country. His header to win the game was a prime example of his excellent movement: as Joao Moutinho hits his cross, Czech fullback Gebre Selassie went to box out the man he was marking, only to feel that he wasn't there. Ronaldo has drifted back away from the ball a bit and as he realized where the cross would be hit to, he stepped around a puzzled Selassie and struck his header well past Petr Cech. Portugal went with this strategy of crossing the ball into the box in the second half as they were generally finding success on the wings. Some of the play inevitably came through the middle, but it was more on turnovers or scrambles for possession after an errant pass or clear. The attack was so consistent that the Czechs could not hold the ball long enough to relieve pressure, settling to belt the ball up field in order to reorganize the defense before the next attack, like soldiers on an ancient battlefield constantly reforming the lines. The Portuguese dominated play in the second and got their game winner. What more could you want?
The Bad
Look, this sounds dismissive to say, but I'll say it anyway: it's the Czechs. That doesn't mean that everything Portugal did was for naught and it doesn't mean that the Czechs are an awful team. It just means that this isn't an elite team that Portugal just beat and we need to keep that in mind when talking about their upside or ability to beat better opponents. The Czech Republic basically ceded the midfield to the Portuguese in the second half without a fight and there is no other team left in the tournament, save England, that will do that again. All of that possession and attacking play is all well and good, but they can't play that style against anyone else that's left, especially Spain if that's who they end up playing in the next round. The obvious response is that they can play defense and counter, and I'm not 100% sure on that. First, their defense wasn't really tested in this match. Pepe stepped forward well to head the ball away from danger on several occasions, but save Petr Jiracek making his runs up the field, the Czechs didn't apply any pressure and force Portugal to step up. So who truly knows if they can soak up pressure for most of a match while still dashing forward on the counter?
The mention of the counter brings up another overall problem: where does the finishing come from? Ronaldo, of course, and he has been menacing all tournament long. Perhaps they can rely on him for the offense going forward. But if they can't, who? Almeida showed no lust for the limelight based on his second half performance, Meireles (who I think is a fantastic player) was skying every ball over the goal, and Nani is more of a winger to provide than a pure goal scorer. Any one of these players can step up and bury a goal, but there is no consistency. You can always point to players who might score. You can't always find player that you trust to find a way to score. It took until the 79th minute of this game, a game against a not so fantastic team that tried to purely defend for the last 45 minutes and wasn't the best in the world at it. The possession was impressive, but this was exactly what it looked like: a superior team waiting to eventually pull ahead of an inferior opponent.
Portugal could still win this whole tournament and I don't want to give the impression that I think that impossible. They only have two games left and could certainly win both of them, regardless of opposition, to take how the title. But while this performance must reassure fans of the team, it does not mean that things will be the same going forward. They will still have to earn what they get and they will most likely have to do it in a very different way, beating teams who, on paper, are the better of the two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)