The World Cup quarter finals ranged from gripping to tedious and thrilling to tenacious, often in the same game. But all four matches had twists in the tail that ensured, like a good movie, you couldn’t look away.
The goals might have dried up but the last 15 minutes of Netherlands versus Costa Rica match showed you don’t need goals to get fans on the edge of their seats.
After 120 minutes of huffing and puffing, the Dutch still couldn’t blow the Costa Rican house down. And the penalty shootout led to one of the great talking points of the tournament, when Dutch coach Louis van Gaal replaced starting goalkeeper Jasper Cillessen with Tim Krul.
The substitution worked wonders, as Krul saved twice to give the Dutch victory and Van Gaal’s move has been hailed as an act of genius. Let’s just settle down for a moment.
Replacing one keeper with another is not an act of genius. It’s a pretty straightforward swap, especially when it’s done with one minute to go in extra time.
It’s not even that bold. In a penalty shootout, a keeper would have to do something galactically dumb to make a mistake. Tim Krul could not lose in this scenario. Even if he got nowhere near any Costa Rican penalty, he wouldn’t be held responsible.
It’s not even unique. Guus Hiddink was going to do the same thing in that memorable World Cup qualifier in 2005 between Australia and Uruguay, until a late injury forced him to make his third change and Mark Schwarzer went on to make history instead of Zeljko Kalac, who was slated to replace him. I saw it work in a tournament final in Israel in 2009.
So it’s not really genius, unique or even that bold.
Next talking point? Belgium.
Specifically, their puzzling tactical approach to the game against Argentina. Blessed with talented ball players like Eden Hazard, Adnan Januzaj and Kevin De Bruyne, they instead deployed the giants and took a lamentable route one option.
The tactic never looked likely to work against an Argentinian defence that has looked susceptible to quick passing interchanges at the edges of the area in previous games.
Belgian coach Marc Wilmots claimed Argentina were “ordinary” and criticised the way his quarter-final opponents played. There are a lot of black kettles in Belgium. Touted as the dark horses of the tournament, the Belgians are chockfull of talent and will still be around in Russia 2018. However, I don’t think Wilmots got the best out of them at this World Cup.
The big question for tournament hosts Brazil is whether they can win their home World Cup without the fabulous talents of Neymar.
This is a very different Brazil to the style we’ve become accustomed to over the years. I remember a time not so long ago when Brazilian fans didn’t credit goals their team scored through headers. This just wasn’t in the playlist for joga bonito.
And yet, Brazil’s best hope for overcoming Germany in their upcoming semi-final lies with the massive presence of Hulk and the directness of Fred, now that Neymar’s tournament has been ended by injury. Both Brazilian goals in their thrilling 2-1 win over Colombia in the quarter-final came from defenders, so maybe that is the new secret for getting to the big dance. Just let David Luiz take all the free kicks.
The semi-final match ups have Shirley Bassey ready to warm the tonsils and belt out a rendition of History Repeating. Germany versus Brazil is a repeat of the 2002 final, the last time Brazil lifted the World Cup.
Argentina versus Netherlands harks back to the famous final of 1978 when Mario Kempes scored twice to give the hosts their first world title and consign the Dutch to a second successive runners-up slot.
Of the four remaining nations, the Germans seem the most equipped to go all the way. Flu scare aside, they are all fit, they have quality in a variety of positions and are not reliant on one source for inspiration. Arguably, all three other teams do. Robben for the Dutch, Messi for Argentina and the absent Neymar for Brazil.
I’m thinking Ms Bassey can keep singing. Germany and Argentina to meet in the final, just like in 1986 and 1990. Which if it does happen, would also be history created, and mark the first time two nations have met in a World Cup final three times.
ebieritei solomon
Guest
as always, love your work apaway, however, not sure how you arrive at no-one would have blamed van-gaal especially given krul’s less than flattering penalty save %.
Tony Sombrero
Guest
as always, love your work apaway, however, not sure how you arrive at no-one would have blamed van-gaal especially given krul's less than flattering penalty save %.
apaway
Roar Guru
Mo I guess my assessment of Van Gaal's tactic is based on the inherent risks involved in what he did. As a former goalkeeper, the same thing happened to me more than 20 years ago in a major semi final so this is not a brand new tactic. The risk/reward odds were very low, in that Tim Krul was never going to "cost" the Dutch the result, he was only ever going to help them win it. What I mean is, had Costa Rica prevailed in the shootout, no-one would have blamed that on Van Gaal's decision. I concede that to make the change he had to keep a sub up his sleeve, but the way the game was panning out that wasn't really that big of an issue. Let's see if he tries the same thing in the semi finals, should the game go into extra time.
nordster
Guest
I like Belguim in a couple of years for the euros....but then i guess every one says that about a team with young players:)
Paul Nicholls
Roar Guru
Nice piece apaway. For all the talk about upsets etc it's interesting that the 4 semi-finalists are quite predictable. Disagree about your call on the Dutch coach. I would definitely call it a master stroke. I mean not bringing on a fresh outfield player especially when the Dutch had all the running takes a lot of nerve. The fact that his change paid off qualifies as a master stroke in my opinion. You say it happened in a tournament once - yes but that wasn't the World Cup quarter final. I think in the end Belgium were very over-rated. If they had their time over again they should have pumped more balls onto Fellaini's head.