World Cup Match-ups

Well, the first round of group games is over and we’re into round two. England play Algeria tomorrow morning (NZ time), so I thought I better post this now just in case I’m slumped in the corner with depression tomorrow. I don’t expect to be – but you never can tell with England, or France, or Spain…

I don’t know what the French press are saying about their draw with Uruguay and their loss to Mexico, or what flack Spain are copping for their loss to Switzerland, but I know that certain sections of the British press have slated England for not beating USA. I find this a little odd because USA are a very good and competent side with some solid defence and inspirational moves up front; they didn’t get to 14th in the FIFA World Cup rankings by fluke (we are 8th incidentally).

This is the beauty of football, or one of them anyway. It is not by nature a highly scoring game, especially when the teams are evenly matched and they have a strong defence that the attackers struggle to penetrate. A single goal may be lucky (USA) or well-worked (Chile) or both (New Zealand) but it can dramatically change the outcome. I’ve heard a lot of grumbling (mainly from fans of rugby, basketball and ice-hockey) that the games have been boring because there are few goals. 

Clearly these people don’t understand subtlety or tactics (they probably hate test cricket too) or they would be able to appreciate that the Côte d’Ivoire vs. Portugal was a classic World Cup game of flare and dogged determination. There were two different styles of football of show: Portugal demonstrated flowing passes, silky skills and great team play; the Côte d’Ivoire fielded a side of big strong athletes with excellent individual prowess but not such superior solidarity. It was 0-0.

Another exciting aspect of this sport is that the ‘best’ team doesn’t always win. Portugal are ranked third in the Fifa World Cup rankings; Côte d’Ivoire are ranked 27th. The big thrill over here is New Zealand (78th) snatching a draw with Slovakia (34th). So far, the biggest difference in rankings has been Brazil (first) against Korea DPR (105th), and the lesser fancied side still managed to score a goal in the 2-1 game. You don’t often get that in other sports. We call it giant-killing and it makes every football competition electrifying. Anything can happen.

Let’s just hope that tomorrow the ‘best’ team – England (8th) – really does come out on top.

Euro 2008: Who to support?

I am still smarting from England's absence, but I have been enjoying the football played at Euro 2008. It really is the beautiful game, and I don't have to bite off all my nails when my team step onto the pitch, because they're not there.

I don't have to shout rampant biased things at the referee and the opposition, but can instead appreciate each pass, save, volley, free kick, defensive header, crunching tackle, tactical run and, of course, the goals.

But I find sport more interesting if I'm supporting one side or the another. For the record, I'm backing Spain to win the tournament. True, their wordless national anthem is a little underwhelming, but they have the most Liverpool players, including the outstanding Fernando Torres.

It felt strange, this morning, watching the football and wanting Germany to beat Portugal. Football brings out tried and tested stereotypes, and long lost prejudices, largely based on cinematic portrayls and a couple of World Wars fought long before I was born.

So in the end it came down to a question of whom do I dislike more; Michael Ballack or Cristiano Ronaldo? No contest. Ballack may be a fouling, diving, aggressive, dirty player, but Ronaldo is a petulant, whining, cheating, arrogant, selfish, vain, indulgent, tantrum-throing, spoilt, self-obsessed, pouting prima donna.

Sure, he can be a stylish player, but the whinger (and no, that's not a typo) believes he is more than the team, whether that be Portugal or Man Utd. He may be a talented footballer but he is a disgrace to football, and for that reason alone I cheered on Germany.