Wednesday, June 30, 2004
We're almost at the end of Euro 2004, and it hasn't been a bad tournament. It's nowhere near as good as Euro 2000, but equally nowhere near as bad as World Cup 2002 (Japorea!). What's interesting though is that... everyone sucks. Everyone had problems (except the Czech Republic, but I really don't want to jinx them). So let's look at the quarterfinals and see where they went wrong...
- Firstly, there was England-Portugal. It wasn't a great game, but it was a great game. That probably doesn't make much sense, but what I'm trying to say is that neither team played particularly well and there wasn't much good play, but both teams gave it absolutely their all and slugged it out end-to-end to create an epic encounter. It's like the last couple of rounds in Rocky: Both exhausted, both producing technically the worst boxing of the match, but gripping nonetheless because they were giving all they had to give and you wanted to see who dropped first. Except both teams did everything they could to lose. Portugal have always been sloppy at the back, so you can't say Owen's goal wasn't coming (nor the chances they gave England afterwards!). They're also awful when you pressure them in midfield. England played technically the perfect game by having Owen and Rooney (then Vassell) snapping away at the dodgy Portuguese defence, the midfield snapping away and disrupting the play of Portugal's flair players, and totally smothering their already isolated lone striker.
Except they only played like that for the first half, abandoning the plan at half time and deciding to sit in the box and invite Portugal on to them, clutching a one goal lead. At this point, Sven should have been shot. It's not like they didn't see Italy make the same mistake a week earlier against Sweden. Or that they made the same one against the French. So were you surprised when Portugal equalised? Was ANYONE surprised?
The only real surprise was that it was Helder Postiga who scored. It looked for a while like Scolari had beaten Sven in the "Self-Destructing Substitutions" game when he topped Sven's Phil-Neville-for-Scholes and Hargreaves-for-Gerrard with the jaw-dropping Postiga-for-Figo, but incredibly it worked out. (Just how the hell can you get away with that, anyway? Postiga for Figo? HELDER POSTIGA for LUIS FIGO?) Not that Sven making stupid substitutions was a surprise, of course... the instant Phil Neville came on, Haneal called and told me it was all over. "Hella self-destruct, man." Seriously.
Of course, it almost didn't happen that way... Rui Costa scoring in extra-time, yeah, that's in the script. But Frank Lampard equalising again? Not only was it not in the script, but given the team England had on the field at the time (with Vassell, both Nevilles and Hargreaves running things) the goal should have been worth two. Which would have helped, because then we wouldn't have to have seen Beckham's penalty. There was some talk in the papers that Beckham wanted to make a statement by taking the first penalty despite missing two beforehand, showing that he was man enough to lead by example and bury his ghosts... and that it was wrong for him to do that and risk missing. You think? Beckham's done this before -- in 2002, he took England's (winning) penalty against Argentina. He was not England's penalty-taker and did not win it, but because he was David Beckham and because he thought he had some divine right to bury his 1998 ghosts, he took it. And the papers applauded him for having the balls to do that... the same papers that say he shouldn't have done it now.
- If there was anything to make the English look a bit better though, it was the French. They were pathetic. And they have been pathetic. They deserved to lose each of their three group games, but escaped with two wins and a draw. But when you're playing like that, and when you're as bad as they've been... you're either going to take it as a sign to buck up and start playing, or your luck will run out. Their luck ran out. They have not been good enough in any way. Barring their goals against the Swiss (the SWISS for crying out loud), they needed set-pieces to grab goals against England and Croatia and only avoided defeat against the Croats with a bad backpass. There was no movement, no interplay, no cohesion. Henry was content to sit and do his thing without playing to Zidane's strengths, Trezeguet was starved of any service whatsoever, and Pires was anonymous. And their defending was appalling. Desailly has had an awful season (remember, Ron Atkinson was booted out of ITV for shredding an abysmal Desailly performance), Silvestre is incredibly error-prone and gave away a penalty or goal in each match, Gallas was played totally out of position and looked it, and Thuram not only came off the worst season of his career but also played in the wrong position.
Contrast this to the superbly organised Greeks, who unlike England are perfectly capable of playing a flawless smash-and-grab (ie: defend like hell, break away to score, defend like hell). I felt before that Greece would beat France. I said the French were due a loss. And they were. And it was a beautiful sight... though the infighting that's following -- with Henry, Vieira and Pires plotting to kick Zidane out of the squad and build the team around Henry -- is even better because it's SO RETARDED. Thierry Henry is a very good player, but Zinedine Zidane is the best player in the world -- and the best Frenchman at the tournament. So yes, let's kick him out! Is anyone against this? Is anyone against the French losing more? It's amazing how happy people were when France went out. Everyone hates the French. Even the FRENCH hate the French. Magical stuff.
- Holland and Sweden really wanted to prove me right. I honestly couldn't see a winner here. Both teams are perfectly matched in every way. I kept thinking, and thinking, and thinking about who'd win... and couldn't see either one. And it looks like they didn't really know either, judging by the way both teams tried not to win... or do anything, really. There have been a couple of boring games in the tournament, but considering the attacking options on show and the stage that game was unforgivable. Didn't anyone WANT to win? It's typical of the Dutch and the Swedes though... Sweden are conflicted, with two coaches (this has never worked anywhere else, go figure), strong organisation in defence and midfield, and a weird improvisational "we'll do what I want when I want when I feel like it!" structureless attack led by Ibrahimovic. And the Dutch are so fractured and talented that they can lose 1-0 and win 6-0 in successive games and you wouldn't bat an eyelid.
- And finally, the Czech Republic are looking so scarily strong that I'm honestly scared that somewhere there's a catch I'm missing. Aside from being the best team to watch and having my support because of Liverpool players Baros and Smicer, they're also the only team to win all their games and have no discernable weaknesses. This is something they've been threatening since they blitzed qualifiers for Euro 2000, but then they inexplicably lost twice to Holland and France, then failed to qualify for the World Cup... so something has to give here. I didn't think it would against the Danes though. Denmark were a quality side, no doubt about it, but the Czechs are just so much better that I fully expect them to reach the final and win it, barring a remarkable act of revenge by the Dutch or an inspired Portuguese performance. They're just too good. This was highlighted in a game of Winning Eleven, when I picked up the ball with Poborsky, then laid it off to Rosicky running up besides me, and then passed it to Nedved to thrash home. They have so many quality players and all of them are playing well right now... so... something has to give. How, where and when I have no idea, but I just want them to win it all so I can claim my prize in the office pool...
Posted at 2:55 AM
