Referee Roberto Rosetti, pushes away Australia’s Harry Kewell after showing him a red card during the World Cup Group D soccer match between Ghana and Australia at Royal Bafokeng Stadium in Rustenburg, South Africa, on Saturday, June 19, 2010. (AP Photo/Rob Griffith)
Does the failure of the Socceroos to match the exploits of their 2006 World Cup record blind our judgement on the 2010 World Cup? After all, the relative success or failure of your team inevitably blinds your objectivity.
As one Italian fan told me, the 2010 World Cup was the most boring since 2002, palling in comparison to the 1994 and 2006 editions.
It’s no coincidence that Italy were sent packing early in both 2002 and 2010 and made it to the final in both 1994 and 2002.
Subjectivity blinded his judgement.
For Australian fans, the 2010 World Cup will inevitably pale in comparison to 2006, where the Socceroos took us on such an emotional rollercoaster. The 2010 campaign was deflated in the opening match loss and only pride was recovered with the victory over Serbia.
So putting aside that subjectivity, how did we rate the 2010 World Cup?
The staleness of the opening contests in the group stage gave way to plenty of drama, controversy, goals and thrilling matches (Italy versus Slovakia the pick of the drama, in my opinion) as the tournament unfolded, with momentum swinging between South America (with Argentina leading the charge but all five representatives impressing at certain stages) to Europe, who swept the podium.
We may not have seen confirmation of the “new world order”, but the competition is condensing between continents as the network of professional players migrating to the best leagues around the world increases.
Every confederation with the exception of Oceania was represented in the knockout stages, with New Zealand, the only undefeated team in South Africa (remarkably), only missing out by a point.
There were plenty of sideshows too, from Paul the octopus’ psychic abilities, to promised nudie runs from coaches and lingerie models alike, to the “Nike curse”.
But what should have been sideshow stories impacted the tournament too adversely.
The vuvuzelas, for all their “cultural significance” to the host nation, stifled atmosphere by taking out the crowds and their chants from the matches, while the Jabulani ball was a disaster – a mistake FIFA must never replicate.
But it was another World Cup blighted by far too many incidents of simulation (Ivory Coast’s Kader Keit acting following Kaka’s “hit” the best example) and poor refereeing (take your pick, but Frank Lampard’s missed goal will be replayed for years).
Luis Suarez’s handball was perhaps the most blatant form of cheating we’ve seen at a World Cup and his gloating highlighted how far some footballers are removed from good sportsmanship.
One wonders if the three referees on the park can no longer control the modern game, with its speed and pressures, and the players, well aware of this, are merely taking advantage to win at any cost.
It’s the theatre and drama that makes World Cups, but such simulation and cheating has gone too far.
Back in Australia, SBS should be applauded for another exemplary hosting job.
It wouldn’t be the same without SBS with commitment and coverage that only they can deliver. The addition of Santo, Sam and Ed’s Cup Fever to the coverage gave it a great balance, from the comical “Mark Bresciano’s Cup diaries” to Craig Foster’s pontificating giving both casual viewers and hardcore football fans a World Cup viewing option each night.
The balance was right and you wonder how many non-football fans have been educated on the world game by Santo and co.
And for those who have criticise the forthright opinions of the SBS analysts, just imagine a World Cup hosted by the commercial networks or Fox Sports News hosts and then get back to me on which you’d prefer.
As for the final, it did, in the end, typify the mixed feelings surrounding this World Cup.
For some it was a fascinating arm wrestle as both teams squandered opportunities to win the Cup in a nervy encounter with Spain’s individual brilliance and superior tactical nous winning over Dutch aggression. For others it was a dour contest with neither team able to take control, stifled by the endless poor challenges and yellow cards.
Howard Webb has come in for severe criticism from both Dutch and Spanish fans in the aftermath of the final, but they should instead be directing their attention at their players and their thuggish tactics.
Webb had no choice but to go to his yellow card as often as he did.
At least the final was decided on a moment of brilliance – with respect for a fallen brother – and not a moment of controversy (although some Dutch players did their best to try and turn Andres Iniesta’s strike into a questionable goal with their gesticulating to the linesman). Also, there’s a sense of relief that we were spared from a second consecutive penalty shootout to decide the champion.
Spain finally claimed World Cup glory and Africa proved it can host a world-class event of such scale.
But like 2006, the 2010 tournament has been overshadowed by its participants exploiting the increasingly archaic rules (or lack of) of the game and the referee’s inability to apply them.
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
Martin Tyler was contracted to ESPN for the 2010 WC (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/soccer/10/18/worldcup.announcer/index.html) and, it seems, ESPN has also locked him in for the 2014 WC (http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=11052285)
mike
Guest
Why the hell didn't Martin Tyler do the final?
Bob Mcgregor
Guest
Yes indeed - I could. Whether we like it or not, most sporting event results can be synthesized down into a few critical plays that caused the end result. Passion and commitment can always be expected when representing one's country so that is a given and should not come into the equation. The little things make all the difference and they are there in the critical plays. Probably true of life generally. For example, imagine one is an excellent driver. Makes a comfort stop - buys a hot drink, restarts the journey and decides to take a sip. Top slips off and hot coffee falls everywhere. Distracted he crashes and kills himself. Or receiving /sending text while driving with same result. Life altering, even though one was proficient at task but not while distracted by something else Also happens in sport. For example, Giteau - the usual kicker for the Wallabies - missed a final kick that would have given victory in the last test against both Scotland and England. No goal keeper as in Soccer to stop the shot, just talent to execute. Both were easy, but he inexplicably missed both so both Tests were lost. Despite the struggle throughout, the result came down to a final play where for whatever reason OZ came up short. The highlights that counted in both games could be shown in a 3-4 minute summary. The critical play was the missed kick for goal. So OZ snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Now to OZ at the FWC 2010. First match was lost when Cahill - OZ's acknowledged best attacking player - was red carded for a tackle possibly worth a yellow if push came to shove. Usually play on. Score blew out as one would expect against a very good athletic side whose aim was to score as many goals as possible. I loved their attitude. Great - pity more teams don't emulate. Next Kewell gets a red for a hand ball on the goal line which hits his chest shoulder region and he too cops a red card. It wasn't even a 'real' infringement. Cost OZ any chance of winning the game. Poor refereeing decisions virtually ended our mission in Sth Afr and I felt for the lads. Those two red cards were the VITAL plays that prompted the final result. So OZ exited under what I believe was very dubious circumstances. Yet Holland reverted to very aggressive foul play in the Final and got away with most of it. Minor indiscretions were not tolerated in earlier games - why the policy shifts in the Final? The answer is of course - politics - the reason why TV adjudication has not been embraced. It allows a 'favorable' result to occur. Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, graft and corruption are endemic in our and World society - right across the spectrum; yet they are tolerated. Why? Too many on the take and lobbyists etc make sure nothing changes to derail the gravy train. If I told you that there are day trading configurations/platforms on the USA stock market that haven't had a losing day in 4 years you would say CRAP. BUT it is a fact! That's like saying I'll toss a coin 5 times per week, for 4 years, always call heads and I'll be right 100% of the time. We all know that is impossible UNLESS the market is rigged – which of course it is. Knowledge of that outcome prompts investors to withdraw as they KNOW they will be taken to the cleaners. Yet Governments and their regulatory agencies turn a blind eye. These platforms and similar mechanical devices, helped cause the Global Financial Crisis and one can be sure another will soon arrive. Next time OZ will not be so lucky. With betting on sporting results endemic, the weakest link becomes the referee and it wasn't long ago that some were red carded for life for 'rigging Soccer results in Europe. TV adjudication is a must so that justice is at least seen to be done. But I won't hold my breath in anticipation. The use and timing of the new ball used at FWC 2010 was implemented to give some teams an advantage over others. Subtle but unfortunately, true. Soccer was not missed by the rigging perpetrators.
Roger
Guest
But surely FIFA should have taken that into account?? FIFA should have stopped and thought "hey, wait, because of all the contracts, no team can actually use the jubalani ball until the World Cup! Hmm, I wonder if that will impact on anything?" Worst timing ever. Sorry, but FIFA is to blame here.
General Ashnak
Guest
That was their own fault. I blame their federations for this, exclusive use contracts? Please! I am very angry about how the FFA had an exclusive use agreement which prevented the Socceroos from using a Jubalani even in practice until they had arrived in South Africa for their pre tournament preparation. Each team who had qualified for the World Cup was given access to the ball in January! not at the tournament, it was because they were not allowed to use it because of agreements with rival ball manufactureres that we had all this complaining.
AndyRoo
Roar Guru
Bob Mcgregor The reply function only works to the point of indenting 5 tiems if that makes snece. to make sure everything stays central. The best way to continue to reply after that is just reply to the post 4th from the end (from a side on perspective) even if that's yours. The above probably doesn't make sence but hopefully just the words 5 indents help you figure out how they have set it up.
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
G'day Bob Mcgregor You've got to look for the "reply" sign that appears at the end of YOUR post - not my post! Appreciate your candour about the 2007 RWC. I, too, am happy to admit that, of the 64 games at South Africa 2010, perhaps 10% were boring. I will forever recall the 1/4 final between Paraguay and Japan as 120 minutes of my life that I will never get back! Just out of interest. Would you ever take notice of opinion pieces written by someone if they only watched the brief highlights of a Rugby match? That is, can a viewer accurately sum up the mood, passion and tension of a Rugby match based on the highlights, or is is it important to watch the whole match to fully and accurately make comments?
Bob Mcgregor
Guest
Norm, your posted figure was correct at that time but has been exceeded since. According to Wikipedia, the current rectangular record is 109,874 for the Bledisloe Rugby Test between Australia and NZ on July 15, 2000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadium_Australia The design capacity was then 110,000. After the ground/stands reconfiguration was completed in October 2003, the rectangular ground record is 83,418 - also for a Rugby Test between Australia and NZ on August 7, 2004 against a capacity of 83,500. I was fortunate to be there for both matches - even though Australia lost both. These games are thought to be some of the best ever. Suggests Rugby must have something going for it as the current cost of the top test tickets against NZ All Blacks is $148 [for the Test on Sept 11,2010]. I'll be at the old Telstra Dome - now Etihad Stadium - on July 31, 2010 for the initial Test of 4 against the NZ All Blacks. Cost $151 per ticket. Guess the extra cost is for the better view one gets there. Go the Wallabies!
Bob Mcgregor
Guest
I've reloaded the page 5 times - the reply sign doesn't appear. A gremlin for the site manager to address. On the subject of World Cups, I attended 11 games during the 2007 RWC in France and Wales and was known to dish the spectacle where appropriate - especially the Final won by Sth Africa - their second RWC success without scoring a try. I traveled with my computer and commented on the "ROAR" during this tournament where I made many negative comments - justified I believe. Even reported the final was dead set boring and MANY in the stands made paper planes from their colour code sheets and floated them down from the stands. Went on to opine that the best 'floaters' drew the biggest applause from certain sectors - there wasn't much else to get excited about. Of course the Stade de France was a sell out. But Finals can be that way as each team tries not to lose. That's why I signaled Germany out as their play was very adventurous. At the 2007 RWC, I thought Fiji was a similar team and came so so close in defeating the eventual winners. I again, stand by MY assessment made initially.
Norm
Guest
Bob the crowd at the 1999 NRL GF between St George & Melbourne was 107,999.
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
I do appreciate your comments, Bob Mcgregor and, without doubt, you've been watching football for longer than I. In fact, I'm very jealous of the database of sport you have acquired over the years - I've got a few more years to catch up! The only reason I replied to your post was because you actually admitted you hadn't watched the games, but still provided a predominantly negative opinion of the 2010 WC. Perhaps, that's how life is nowadays and no one bothers to do the hard work and actually research the raw data in order to form an opinion. I'm from the "old school" so, if I'm going to write a book-report, I was taught that I had to read the whole book - not the Readers' Digest condensed version or the Book Report from last year's student group! And, if I want to comment about a sporting contest, I need to watch the whole contest and will then form my own opinion based on my interpretation of what actually occurred. I would consider myself to be ill-informed if I took the easy option and just watched the highlights and allowed my opinion/analysis to be influenced by anyone else's "post-match expert opinions". PS: there's nothing sinister about not being able to reply to my prior post. What you had to do was click the "reply" on your post - to which I had replied. Then your reply would have been inserted below mine .... ok, now think i've complicated a very simple process ;-)
Bob Mcgregor
Guest
Fussball ist unser leben Unfortunately I couldn't post in sequence as there was no 'reply' at the end of your last post. Wonder why that is? Now to the points raised. Because I originally posted in the vein I did - not in comment to other posts reacting to the leader article - you jumped to the conclusion I knew nothing about football. I agree I have never played the game other than the odd social game BUT over 70 years I guess I've watched many soccer games and for the last 65 some standing in the rain etc etc. The first one was 1945/6 watching Granville where some great players went around. Not sure but if memory serves me correctly the late, great Johnny Warren may have graced their turf in the late 1950's as a junior. Ever since, I've taken an interest in results and progress of Sydney/OZ teams and since the inception of the A league have tried to keep up to speed with highlights on Pay TV [ I have subscribed since inception of the service]. When my late father-in-law came to live with us during 1992 we routinely watched his old team Sunderland playing in the English Premier League [when it was up - bit of a yo-yo team sadly]. To this day I still look up the results and think of his memory. Yet again I watched ALL my second son's soccer games from age 6-18, even got involved with a bit of coaching with his side- and you "KNOW" I'm uninformed? If truth be known, I've probably watched more soccer games over the years [hockey as well - has similar rules] than possibly you have? You mentioned in your last post about "research" and "analysis". I didn't raise the issues. You did! I merely put out MY opinion based on what was reported and I observed on the highlights reel of free to air and Pay TV - which is what we are ALL entitled to do - well, as long as OZ remains a democracy. Of course that, intermingled with my prior experiences with the game, allows me to have an opinion about what transpired even though others will see it differently. Thats called diversity of opinion. I encourage you to have your say on any topic - even Rugby - because that's what the ROAR is all about. But please, don't jump to conclusions that alternate views/assessments to yours are ill informed. And then your final comment dishing Rugby. In case you are not aware the biggest crowd in OZ to watch either a Rugby , Rugby League, AFL or Soccer game was in 1999 at the then Homebush Olympic Stadium, where the Wallabies played the NZ All Blacks in a RUGBY TEST. Nearly 105,000 if my memory doesn't deceive me. Was even thought to eclipse the long standing Murrayfield [Edinburgh,Scotland] record of 104,000 - also at a Rugby match. The Rugby World Cup rates second only to the Football World Cup. It started in 1987 so gave Soccer 50 years start. Will be interesting to see how they rate in another 50 - not that I'll be around. By the way Australia has won 2 of the 3 Rugby World Cup Finals they have contested. I can still remember the ticker tape parade accorded them in Sydney. I look forward to the time such recognition is bestowed on an OZ Soccer team - but the odds favour it will be the Matildas. I followed the 2007 Wallabies at RWC 2007 around France/Britain and EVERY match I attended [11] was sold out - as will all the games be in NZ 2011. This site was started by Rugby guys and they traverse ALL sports. Something to remember when you next post on the ROAR.
Roger
Guest
I beg to differ. The jabulani ball was not controversial because it is a bad ball, it was controversial because every single team but Germany had little to no time to get used to it. A World Cup is the WORST possible time to introduce a new ball. I mean, what on earth were they thinking?? The entire group stage was affected because of the timing. Now, give nations a chance to get used to it and no worries, I would expect it to be an excellent ball, and we might possibly see some cracker goals from long range in time. But introducing it across the board at the start of a World Cup is ridiculous.
General Ashnak
Guest
Thanks whiskeymac, my comment was thankfully moderated as I waxed a little gutteral on my true thoughts of Craig Foster's 'commentary'. :D
General Ashnak
Guest
The jubalani ball was not controversial at all, as some one who watches the Bundesliga I cannot understand what all the fuss was about. It does nothing to detract from that competition and everyone who complained about it did so because their national associations had exclusive ball use agreements with rival manufacturers which precluded them from using the jubalani ball until they arrived in South Africa for the World Cup - even to practise with. What they were actually saying was our national association are complete muppets, not that the ball was bad.
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
Thanks, for the concern Bob Mcgregor. Over the years I've kept quiet and not reacted when non-Football people make uninformed comments about Football but, no more. You made comments about 64 matches played at the 2010 WC, based on data you received after watching highlights of the games on the evening news! That's what I call shoddy research, which leads to ill-informed analysis. I wouldn't have the temerity (or, to be frank, wouldn't even have the interest) to make comments about the Rugby WC or any Rugby match based on my analysis of the evening news. Although, to be fair, Rugby hardly ever makes it even onto the evening news - for a game that is allegedly "played in heaven", I always wonder why there is such little interest for the Rugby game on earth!
albatross
Roar Pro
Stattoz have posted their hand crafted statistical analysis of the final at http://bit.ly/91ZqPX
Bob Mcgregor
Guest
My, you do react poorly to people who don't agree with you AFTER you take issue with what they post. And then get personal to boot [the other shoe we couldn't find in the earlier melee]. Time for a red card time out methinks - now THAT would make the highlights reel! Then again one could use the analogy of the bird that flew in ever decreasing circles until it disappeared - one knows not where. Relax and allow others to have different views. It not good for one's blood pressure and longevity.
whiskeymac
Guest
right on general
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
Yup - as usual, the "shoe shopping" example makes it easier for "certain men" to better visualise the offside rule! I guess that's how the term "rugger-b**ger" entered the sporting vernacular ...??? Of course, not that there's anything wrong with that, Bob Mcgregor!