Russia 2018, the last World Cup

By Marty Gleason / Roar Guru

It is human nature to lament the passing of time, to feel more centred in the experiences of our formative years rather than what is going on in the world when we are older.

This seems to happen to everyone regarding the World Cup. The collective memory seems to always stop at Brazil losing to Paolo Rossi’s Italy, Harald Schumacher smashing Patrick Battiston, Diego Maradona sashaying through England’s defence, and no further forward.

I have a soft spot for France 1998 because it was the first World Cup I was old enough to commit to the early-morning risings. While I try to have perspective on life and accept the present moment for what it is, I am no different to what the TV show The Wire labels guys crying, “Back in the day” – my personal opinion is that there has not been a single classic World Cup match since Holland’s matches in 1998 against Argentina and Brazil.

It’s a harsh judgement, but I just don’t feel anything this century compares to your classic France vs Brazil 1986-type matches. Italy vs Germany 2006 was tense and meaningful. Germany vs Brazil 2014 was extraordinary. But they were not end-to-end slugfests. I’ll grant you Senegal vs Uruguay 2002 and Slovakia vs Italy 2010, but first-round matches don’t really count.

I still love current-day football, although it has all now been condensed into only two schools: Spain and Germany. On the club scene the three flagship clubs from these two countries have taken the last six Champions League titles. There are allegations that this dominance has not always been above the level either.

This decade Italy and Holland are no longer providing a counterpoint to those two powers. Holland don’t circulate the ball anymore or have any of the dreamy traits detailed in the 2000 book Brilliant Orange. Italy no longer have their iron will and star power of the 1990s. Of course neither has qualified for Russia 2018 to try proving me wrong.

(Jonathan Nackstrand/AFP/Getty Images)

On the South American front ever-increasing economic disparity and globalisation and freedom of movement for South American players have turned the annual Club World Cup final from a 55-45 sort of showdown to a certain victory for the European representative. European nations have also won the last three world cups, including 2014 in South America, once an impossibility.

I controversially argue that Argentina have been off the boil for ten years, Messi notwithstanding. Chile were a ‘school’ of evenly balanced mates who played with a philosophy – very rare at international level these days, but they aged and didn’t reach Russia.

Even Brazil have been up and down since the Ronaldo days. I do trust Brazil to be good this time – they finally seem to have a decent manager in Tite and seem to have given the Selecao over to players of youth, form and pace rather than playing old coach’s favourites, something all international teams should be doing.

As a counterpoint to this uniformity, international football is the last bastion away from the extraordinary individual dominance of Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo over the course of the last 11 seasons.

I remember the media panicking in 2009 because both Portugal and Argentina were struggling to qualify for South Africa 2010. History repeated in 2017, both countries needed last-day victories for qualification. God forbid a World Cup actually includes stories other than Messi and Ronaldo, who in 2010 were into roughly the third year of their unprecedented decade-plus dominance of the sport.

In the event both did get to South Africa but were nondescript. It didn’t matter, because there were other stories – depth of team balance in Spain, Germany and Uruguay came to the fore, and special individuality was provided by Diego Forlan and Arjen Robben.

(AP Photo/Natacha Pisarenko)

Brazil 2014 was the last and maybe only time Cristiano Ronaldo was not a conversation piece in the world of football. Since 2016, however, he has won all four possible major international trophies with Portugal and Real Madrid. The World Cup, a scene on which CR7 has generally struggled – with only three career World Cup goals; unthinkable – may yet give us a brief break from him. Generally, both Messi and Ronaldo have found international football heavy going throughout their careers.

Strange things are happening in the world of club football these years. The skill of team defence – in such a previously massively defensive sport – has been long forgotten.

One reason Italy shockingly missed qualifying for Russia is that the Azzurri are no longer able to cling on to lost situations for grim life anymore. These days when they are second best they simply lose, unlike, say, in the Euro 2000 semi-final in which Francesco Toldo saved three Dutch penalties, or the 2006 World Cup Final in which Cannavaro and co. held the line.

Michael Cox has argued, curiously, that huge and traditionally defensive clubs like Bayern Munich and Juventus are no longer ‘allowed’ to play defensive football as it would affect their brand name, international prestige and ultimately their bottom line as 21st century businesses.

[latest_videos_strip category=”football” name=”Football”]

The current spirit of the game is a dream come true for anyone who likes to see things actually happen in a football match. I committed to the 4:45am Liverpool vs Roma wake-up at Anfield knowing full well that something was up. Sure enough, seven goals.

This has ultimately opened the door for Real Madrid’s perpetual domination of the Champions League, on top through sheer individuality, team cohesion now unnecessary. Previous superteams like Barcelona 2009-12, in my opinion a superior team, twice had to contend with Internazionale and Chelsea scratching and clawing for survival at Camp Nou, aligned in front of their own goal like a series of grim-faced Easter Island statues.

Besides Atletico Madrid, these sorts of teams no longer exist. With no defensive grit or know-how, there is no way to beat Real Madrid except by being better than them like Bayern were in the 2018 semi-final, and even that didn’t work.

Don’t get me wrong, attacking football is better than defensive football. This is a golden age of ball movement and goals. However, most countries at the World Cup will not be skilled enough to deliver this. Teammates won’t know each other well enough, their coaches will be too old school, they will all take the field scared.

A 48-team World Cup will only dilute the quality further.

(Sven Hoppe/dpa via AP)

This is the beginning of the end of a cycle. It was the 2010 choice of Russia (and especially Qatar) to stage these world cups in the first place that cottoned people on to FIFA being utterly devoid of scruples.

This whole decade of the 2010s FIFA has been on a long downward spiral. Since then we have had strong street protests in Brazil of all places against school and hospital money being blown on single-use stadiums both at World Cup 2014 and the 2016 Rio de Janeiro-hosted Olympic Games.

This Russian World Cup is the first one since the United States justice department brought the very public indictments against many of the high-profile FIFA executives in 2015. They were arrested and many were accompanied out of their Swiss hotel covered by a bedsheet. The scandal eventually finished the administrative careers of all-powerful FIFA President Sepp Blatter and UEFA President Michel Platini.

Writer Charles P. Pierce called it the worst scandal in sports history in that unlike the 1919 Black Sox or a scandal involving a few administrators off to the side, the entire FIFA organisation was found to be a criminal enterprise.

“It is incorrect to refer to FIFA as being ‘fraught’ with corruption or ‘riddled’ with crime,” Pierce wrote in June 2015. “FIFA is itself a corrupt act. FIFA is itself the crime. This is a staggering revelation.”

(AP Photo/Christophe Ena)

Since Blatter’s demise FIFA has lurched onward under Gianni Infantino, but the organisation continues to produce stupid idea after stupid idea. In 2026, possibly as early as 2022, the World Cup will convert from a 32 to a 48-team tournament.

This reduces the first round to a mockery, in which teams with one draw and one loss from two games are likely to qualify for Round 2 and each group’s final match of three is widely open to collusion and West Germany-Austria 1982-style fixes.

After Russia, there will be the highly impractical 2022 World Cup in Qatar. After that, the 48-team monsters. This, in a sense, is the last World Cup as we know it.

If you choose to write Russia off as a result and signpost of the dubiousness of modern football administration, then the previous World Cup, Brazil 2014, was the final one before the FIFA World Cup’s shark-jump.

The Russian bid was judged by FIFA’s technical assessment team before the vote to have logistical flaws that competitors Spain, Holland and England did not. That was immaterial come vote time.

But we can argue totalitarian regimes are the only ones who can handle hosting large-scale sporting tournaments these years, for the simple reason that the will of the people is ignored.

Democratic populations this decade have turned heavily against the public spending and gigantism of modern sporting events.

Ultimately I love the World Cup still. I will sit down night after night and enjoy the final World Cup while I still can. Come the 2020s watching it will be like watching 2000s episodes of The Simpsons.

Then my conversion into one of many crying, “Back in the day” over the World Cup will truly be complete.

The Crowd Says:

AUTHOR

2018-06-09T08:16:15+00:00

Marty Gleason

Roar Guru


Yep you're right. I think the 2026 one will be 80 games or something like that. You still play/win 7 to win the World Cup. In the circumstances I'm fascinated that little countries like Morocco and Paraguay are in the running to host these huge tournaments.

2018-06-08T23:18:49+00:00

lunchboxexpert

Guest


Hi Marty, The problem with offering each team 3 games in a 48 team format is that requires 72 games straight off the bat in the first round, then you need to add games for the second round and the finals. By the end of the tournament you are looking at about hundred games total. The whole competition in the current 32 team format has 64 games total, from first game to last. Each individual team plays a maximum of 7 games (for those teams that make the final) in a 32 day tournament (which they are demanding be somehow shoehorned into a 28 day tournament for Qatar in 2022). I think, if you want keep the competition to a reasonable size and cost (if you can call the current size and cost demands reasonable), then I hope it is widely recognised that the compromise for an increase in the number of competitors at the world cup means a reduction in the number of "guaranteed" games at the world cup for each team. Getting people to relise this probably a forlorn hope I know because with these things people almost invariably want to have their cake and eat it.

AUTHOR

2018-06-08T07:26:55+00:00

Marty Gleason

Roar Guru


Good point. Better format then would be 16 group winners rather than 32 top 2s. Drawback of the whole thing is it's only two guaranteed matches per team instead of three. Doesn't seem to be enough chance for each country to get into their boys, it would end too quickly for some. I'm trying to think through the best maths for all this but that would be purely hypothetical exercise and a waste of mental energy. Best regards

AUTHOR

2018-06-08T07:20:17+00:00

Marty Gleason

Roar Guru


Ultimately, if the question of hosting these events (WC, Olympics) was under direct referendum like in Switzerland, who would accept spending all that public money these days? American populations like Boston have voided hosting the Olympics. Do Russians have that power? "Stick to football" can be a legitimate argument but this is the first World Cup since all the FIFA stuff went down. Surely worth mentioning in the scheme of things.

2018-06-08T07:10:35+00:00

PB

Guest


Russia is not even close to a totalitarian regime. Its democratically elected president just has a lot more power than under other systems. And that power was established by a constitution written while American minders were in the Kremlin and all over Russia encouraging Yeltsin to sell off everything that wasn't nailed down. Just stick to football.

2018-06-08T06:59:38+00:00

lunchboxexpert

Guest


"mockery, in which teams with one draw and one loss from two games are likely to qualify for Round 2 and each group’s final match of three is widely open to collusion and West Germany-Austria 1982" I agree that FIFA hasn't thought hard enough about the format of a 48 team competition with what they are proposing. Maybe they want it to fail. The 16 groups of 3 reducing to a 32 team (i.e 2 out 3 go through) knock competition isn't going to work out very well because it is likely that the last game in most of the first round groups will be a dead rubber and possibly open to collusion. There needs to be an added incentive to win the last group game for it to work. I can't easily see see how taking two teams will work. You probably need to take only the top team from each group and then work from a round of 16. It is interesting to note that in the 1982 World Cup West Germany-Austria game example quoted it was actually in a group of 4 and the undesirable result was largely because the last two games were played on different days instead of at the same time as today and two teams were progressing from each group was also a factor. It is also worth noting that the second round with groups of 3 actually worked very well, with only the top team from each group progressing. Tough system but the 1982 World Cup shows groups of 3 can be effective and fair when they are done right.

AUTHOR

2018-06-08T06:59:05+00:00

Marty Gleason

Roar Guru


Players don't dribble anymore, it's too low-percentage. Hardly anyone tries to take on their man, which is less exciting. I think at the 2014 World Cup there were few penetrative players besides Neymar (debatable), Messi (debatable) and Robben. Germany won because they had a few more than the others.

2018-06-08T05:22:27+00:00

Kangas

Roar Rookie


We see some super stars like Messi etc these days , but the game is not better imo . The ball may be played on the ground and the general skills of most players better , but it appears a lot of teams are full of robots who are overcoached . There doesn’t seem to be enough variety and individuals who can take teams apart. Josimar for Brazil in 82

2018-06-08T03:01:54+00:00

lunchboxexpert

Guest


I agree the problems he talks about are not new. Perhaps it was just, that for a while there I think people (including myself) kidded ourselves (or perhaps hoped is a better word) that we as humans had got over many of these problems and left them behind and we were headed for a better world. I think that the problems talked about with Brazil in relation to where the money came from (schools and hospitals) to build "single use" facilities are more about the ethnic and cultural challenges that its society faces than about the problems of the sporting event itself. I think it can be assumed that 1. those schools and hospitals were never likely to see that money regardless of the World Cup or Olympics and 2. there is no shortage of children and young adults in Brazil who would love to use those excellant sporting facilities if these challenges could allow it and 3. before we turn this into a "lets criticise Brazil" article lets recognise that every country in the world is far from perfect and that every country faces these challenges in some way or another ( including Australia). I think laying all the blame on the Olympics or the World Cup for these issues is wrong, maybe they can take a portion of the blame, but I think these events should receive some support for actually laying the deeper problems in a society bare rather than having them covered up. Sure it is important that these events must be "paid for" and if a country is to host an event then the money must be found to host it properly but perhaps these events can be used for a greater good by say, demanding better pay and conditions for workers who build and operate the facilities (no slave like labour conditions for example either direct or indirect and neither before, during or after the event) and making sure that there are credible plans to use the facilities after the event (and not just during) etc, etc. Having said all this I don't think these events nor the bodies that organise them should be immune from criticism but I think that we should recognise that the world is actually a better place because of events like the World Cup and the Olympics than it would be with out them. Finally, while we should not forget any of this during the event and talking about it shouldn't be "off the agenda", the time from 14th of June to the 15th of July in Russia is really the time for Football to do the talking. Lets play Football.

AUTHOR

2018-06-08T02:38:14+00:00

Marty Gleason

Roar Guru


To me the Real Madrid thing is a worry. They've made eight consecutive Champions League semi-finals in a row. That is unprecedented, if I'm not forgetting something. They haven't even been that dominant in that time either, they've only won two Spanish Leagues in ten years.

AUTHOR

2018-06-08T02:29:09+00:00

Marty Gleason

Roar Guru


At minimum, the South American club thing is irreversible, they will never be able to beat top European clubs on their merits again, absolutely never. Italy will be back because of the size of their population and their football culture. Arguably the current disfunction of their economics and society is keeping them down. They will need a good manager (they had one in Conte in 2016; if they'd won the shootout they may have won the tournament) some decisive defenders, and above all some very good forwards to get back in there. They have no forwards at the moment, it's killing them. Holland I think will seldom be thereabouts again. Not a big enough population. Plus I think the Surinamese wave of players of 1988-2000 was a one-off (one-third of Surinam's population went to live in Holland due to bureaucracy in the 1970s). They may be better again in the future but I see them continuing to play in the style of 2010-2014 and not going back to the fancy stuff of Cruyff, Gullit, Bergkamp. To me this is somewhat irreversible. I agree that this piece is a bit of a 'how things are now' summary rather than coming up with new fanciful predictions. Best regards

2018-06-08T01:09:48+00:00

chris

Guest


Marty nothing you have stated in your piece is new and it has been often repeated in the past. Bayern won 3 Euro cups in the early 70s. Real Madrid won 5 in a row in the 50s. Milan were dominant in the 90s. Its all swings and roundabouts and national teams like Italy and Holland will be back as they re-think their playing philosophies etc. You make it sound like its terminal and that its not reversible. It's difficult to compare with other sports as no other team sport comes anywhere near the size of football. But for example Rugby. The All-Blacks have been number one since who knows when, closely followed by Aus, England, Sth Africa and one or 2 others. The same with football. There have always been 6-8 teams that have dominated and that will continue to be so. It will be interesting to see how things develop over the next 20 years as big countries like China and the USA continue to commit more and more resources to football.

AUTHOR

2018-06-07T22:22:02+00:00

Marty Gleason

Roar Guru


I imagine it's in FIFA's interests for something iconic to happen on the field. CR7 is one of the most likely ways that could occur. They need him.

AUTHOR

2018-06-07T22:19:03+00:00

Marty Gleason

Roar Guru


I gotta say, the Roar crew got some nice pictures together for this article!

2018-06-07T22:12:32+00:00

dAN

Guest


Good chance the world cup games are rigged as well ronaldo poisoning, South Korea in 2002 ect

Read more at The Roar