September 18, 2006
Para los amantes del rally y/o el descalabro automovilistico:
Una hora y media de choques, piñas, vuelcos, derrapes, saltos y letales mordidas de banquina. Y todos salieron ilesos.
Bue… todos no. Por lo que vi, hubo un par de espectadores que si no palmaron, pegaron en el palo. Pero los conductores si. Todos ilesos.
Bah, algunos.
September 13, 2006
Falta Olmedo nomas. Las cosas que uno por suerte se olvida, y la maldita internet se ocupa de recordarle. Pimpinela, por dio.
September 7, 2006
Ya persiste en cuadernillo
la filosa ruscureda
tanto tiempo va sin quela
que zorbosa el farchetón.
Tengo lana de porcillo
alambrada en el queranto
Mas tu trino de sinficho
pega duro en el cuajón
Cinco tecas da la yira
Y con veinte surca el curcho
Como sabe tu golondra
de samparfos sin sifón?
Si teniendo la mazorca
gancho, peje y surubíso
la rasqueta defenestra
tu bobina de cartón.
En cuanto te zampo el zumbo
se me alondra el leporino.
Dentro tenés tanto rumbo
que si jungo, me entrefino.
Mira fijo a la cardisa,
como tira a la marchanta
todo atisbo de sumiso
cual merluzo goleador.
Garomperos siempre hubo,
y habrán mascado el chizo,
mas la cálida vesuvia
insinúa tu chantel.
No me salta el querubiso
sin gometa o fracho fijo,
mi divina calumeta
con faroles tornasol.
Cinco tecas da la yira
Y con veinte surca el curcho
Como sabe tu golondra
de samparfos sin sifón?
Si teniendo la mazorca
gancho, peje y surubíso
la rasqueta defenestra
tu bobina de cartón.
—-
No se como titularlo todavia, es lo unico. Escucho sugerencias. Por ahora me gusta “Cinco tecas”.
A proposito, el sublime verso “En cuanto te zampo el zumbo/se me alondra el leporino/Dentro tenés tanto rumbo/que si jungo, me entrefino.” no es de mi autoria, sino de Tomas Eloy Martinez (me imagino). Aparece en su novela “El cantor de tango”.
July 26, 2006
… Lionel Richie?
I don’t know. And I was kinda wondering the other night. That’s what I do. I’m too lazy to find out, so if anyone knows, please drop me a line or leave a comment.
Who can forget memorable hits like “Hello”, “All Night Long”, and the other one he had, that I can’t remember the name right now. Carrie knows which one I’m talking about. Not gonna hum it for you here anyway.
I’m really serious and I want to know what happened to him, dagnabbit.
July 12, 2006
Back to your scheduled programming…
So Rose is gone, and I’m kinda sad she is. Not only she was a good companion, but she also had one of the best story arcs, all things considered. Nicely done too. She ended up with everything she wanted in her life… except the one thing she really wanted.
A bittersweet ending, and that taste comes from the sheer impossibility of a future reunion with the Doctor. Whatever “impossible” means, anyway. There are still a few avenues left open for a future appearance of Rose, but we’ll see if they’re ever pursued. Let’s not forget Rose did have the Time Vortex in her head, and something might still remain, or that the parallel universe Torchwood might come back and be alive and kicking again… who knows what they’ll do? Rose crossing back to say hi, although impossible as the Doctor put it, is still highly probable.
As for the Doctor… this one really hit him, and it was nice to see that side too.
So, meet the new companion. We’ll see what happens, but I’m optimistic. If there’s one area that the new Who never disappointed me, it was the casting. They seem to know what they’re doing, and that’s great.
170 days… that’s terrible. Terrible.
July 10, 2006
There’s a reason why this franco-german cutie is here: Because I couldn’t find a good Italian cutie. Shocking.
So that was it. It’s finally over, and Italy is a fair winner, all in all. They were not the best team, the most dangerous or even the nicest to watch, but they were pretty regular through all the cup. And they killed everyone with that.
Wish I could go to the common place and they were the best defensive team, but can’t even do that either. When you look at it, this a pretty offensive Italian squad, and despite having a rock-solid Cannavaro and not receiving many goals at all, you never really got the feeling that they were playing as defensively as you would expect from Italy. Other squads from previous cups were far worse in that regard.
So, of the favorites, they were one of the least likely. Along with France too. But they both got there through perseverance. There must be a lesson there, somewhere.
Anyway…
France 1 – Italy 1 (Italy wins 5-3 p.s.o.)
A good final game, intense for at least 90 minutes. They both tried, and worked, with recovery and offense in the middle, but they fizzled more and more as they approached the rival’s goal. Not only there were very few clear plays in front of goal, but they also had to deal with their own inadequacies in the first half, and their tiredness from the second half on.
Both were defensively spot on, with France turning that defense into offense a little bit quicker overall, but Italy stronger in the back, and winning the aerial plays all the time. In essence, it was the encounter of two very, very similar teams, with different styles of play. It was just too evenly matched.
There’s really not much to comment on. Just some quickies:
- Totti kept trying to play everything first touch, and was well-substituted. He never really got in the game as Italy’s conductor. As he should have been.
- Henry never really appeared through the cup, and he didn’t appear today either. A disappointing showing all around. Or perhaps it was us that were expecting too much to begin with.
- A frustrated Zidane loses his temper and gets correctly sent off. It was very odd to watch, and not the type of ending to a career that we all would’ve like to see.
- I think the ref was correct in most calls. A good showing. He did have that tendency of his to just wave play on sometimes, but that’s how he is. He was certainly up to the challenge in all the big calls, perhaps with the exception of the PK to France, which was difficult to spot and I’d like to see again myself.
- France did get the raw end of things with two important losses: Vieira due to injury, and Zidane due to stupidity. Regardless, it wasn’t felt that much, since by that point both teams were dead tired and were doing what they could.
In any case, it’s over and there’s not much to say. I would’ve like for the final game not to be decided by PKs, but on the other hand it was a much better final than in ‘94. Now Italy are the winners, fair winners overall I think.
Man of the Match: I guess Pirlo (ITA). Didn’t show much, but was an adequate conductor when Totti couldn’t (which was all through the game). I also liked Camoranesi in the first half, but he went MIA during the second period.
The good: Now we get four full years without having to hear an Italian complain about something.
The bad: 4 years until 2010… what the hell am I supposed to do now?
July 6, 2006
An odontological cutie for your viewing pleasure.
Well, short and sweet: I could only watch and pay attention to 15 minutes of the France – Portugal clash. I got a massive toothache out of nowhere, seeing stars and all that, so naturally my attention was elsewhere. That’s why not only Day 22’s report is late, but also… well, there’s no report.
But from what little I could see, Portugal played quite horribly, and despite my initial wish to see them pass through, I’m glad they won’t be in the final. France didn’t play half bad, and managed to contain a flat, aimless Portugal. Good for France.
Italy and France in the final, imagine that. Of the big names, those were the least likely, but there they are, and no one can take anything from them. Both playing better and better with each game. The stadium in Berlin will crack from the momentum alone when those two meet. Hopefully they won’t ruin the show and we get an amazing final.
That’s all. Oh, and I probably won’t cover the 3rd. place game in much detail either. Just saving myself up for a huge final game commentary extravaganza.
July 5, 2006
… doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
But first, a word about today’s Italian cuties. I know some people get off watching girls take all kinds of things to their mouths, but this is not why I put this picture up. The message these two cuties have is simple: you can tout your own horn, and that’s alright as long as you can back it up. And these two sure can. Look at those eyes.
Anyway, as I was saying. Intangibles. The ghosts. Those little things of football that shouldn’t affect things, yet they do. For example, the fact of Italy reaching the final every 12 years. Hey, don’t take my word for it. Look it up. ‘70, ‘82, ‘94 and now in ‘06. nobody knows why, but it happens.
This is not to say that Italy is in the final because it’s the 12th year but… mmm. Food for thought. If you have better ideas about why this happens, leave a shout.
Germany 0 – Italy 2 a.e.t.
Very, very nice game to watch as an unattached third party. Nice action from both, particularly during the 1st half and the extra periods.
Yet, this one is still simple to dissect: Italy won because they had more order going forward, they were stronger in recovery and better in defense. Yeah, I know. Terrible, shocking surprise that one, but there it is. Italy was the one that, seemingly, wanted to get the goal more. The one that through long spells of the game attacked more, and better. The one that not only found itself in possession of the ball with more clarity, but was also stronger in the challenges. When you had to put your foot in there to get the ball, they did it harder. And this doesn’t mean a foul. It means committing to a challenge to win the ball. Germany was a bit more lax in those, and they lost several balls (and the ensuing possession) that way.
I’m not gonna discover anything by saying Italy was solid in defense, however it still bears to be mentioned, despite what an obvious football fact it is. First of all, they had a huge amount of balls recovered through the center of the German attack, right outside Italy’s box (see: committing to challenges). Cannavaro was almost impassable for most of the game, and when Gattuso fell back to help, he didn’t feel out of position, and either himself or Camoranesi became Italy’s first line and first touch to decompress after winning the ball and getting quickly and precisely forward to Pirlo or Totti (whom pretty much fucked up everything he touched, but that’s another issue).
Second, Italy’s full backs were simply relentless in covering and marking Germany’s tries from the flank. It was only until Oronkor being subbed in that they started to show problems with his speed, however they still managed to contain most attempts. And third, they showed good transition, in speed and positioning, when they lost the ball and had to fall back. Only one or two German quick mini-counters caught them off guard.
So, add one two and three together and you’ll see why Germany never reached Buffon frontally with clarity (forget about one-on-ones, of course) and never troubled Italy with constant crossing. Italy’s box was kept safe very well.
Germany? What I saw today was, again, the Germany of the first half against Argentina. Not the strong, overcoming and overwhelming Germany, but the one that feels the pressure when is pressed, the one that makes mistakes and the one that can’t seem to create a good offensive circuit going when Ballack is missing/well contained. Add to this their passing imprecisions, specially during the first half (nervousism?), and Italy going to recover balls harder than them, and it’s no mystery why Italy dominated the first half rather easily. And I dare say for most of the match.
Now you would say “Right, if Italy dominated so much, how come they almost reached PKs with a 0-0″. Well, that’s easy to answer, and the answer has a couple of names attached: Francesco Totti and Michael Ballack. They were both either largely absent from the game, as in Ballack’s case, or just plainly messing things up with every ball they touched, as in Totti’s case.
Ballack might have been well contained, which seems visually not to be true, because it wasn’t as if he had 2-3 guys on top of him constantly. What happened with Ballack, I think, is that he couldn’t become the conductor the team needed, the passing man Germany needed because… many times he had no one to pass it to. See Italy’s good positioning and marking on defense. For a long time Germany really couldn’t penetrate Italy’s box effectively, so they had to resort to medium range shots. Which is fine, but it does expose the fact that, well.. you shoot because you can’t get in, mate. So no one to give the ball to, with space and comfort, makes Ballack a sad panda.
Totti? Just a forgettable game, really. Totti’s mistake all through the game was attempting to make every ball that came to him a first touch ball. Which is nice. Trouble is, when you play that fast and you’re transitioning from defense to attack (as Italy did every time they recovered the ball), it makes no sense to play first touch fast because… your team mates are still running behind you. Also, both Totti and Pirlo really went ahead and abused the frontal aerial pass, trying to win the backs of Germany’s CDs. A trick that works once, or maybe twice, but after that the CDs are not stupid and catch up quick, slow and cumbersome as they might be. The Midfield Adventures of Totti & Pirlo (that sounds so a sitcom waiting to happen) only produced quick and safe ball recoveries for Germany.
Pirlo, however, tried to stop the ball, look up and see if there was anyone clear to receive it. Even if it took 5 seconds instead of 1. He eventually got better and ended up being the offensive little engine of ball distribution for Italy. Totti never got out of his “I don’t want the ball – it burns” phase. Thankfully was substituted.
Both keepers were correct, with Buffon being perhaps a hair more secure than Lehmann, but conversely Buffon was tried less than Lehmann. It balances out. Italy’s first agonizing goal was a beauty. No one was expecting a backheel there, and Grosso’s touch was subtle, putting the ball exactly where it had to be placed to beat the keeper. Lehmann had nothing to do there. It was precious.
The second goal, with a distinct nail-in-the-coffin feeling (even if there had been 30 more minutes to play, it had that feeling because Germany nowhere through the game showed they had more than one goal in them), just exposed a lot of skill from Italy to deliver the fatal stab on an imbalanced defensive line that was pushing forward. Del Piero’s touch was great as well. Soft, and magnificently placed to beat the keeper. Lehmann had little to do.
EOF. Italy wins and gets to the final, as they like to do every 12 years. Germany will now play for third place (against France, I hope, but we’ll see tomorrow), with sadness because of getting so damn close to the final, but they also should play with their chins up, knowing they were one of the best teams to watch through the tournament. I don’t know if the best team, but easily one of the most cohesive, overwhelming and interesting to watch. And that is really, really good.
Man of the Match: I liked Lahm (GER), but I also liked Pirlo (ITA) once he stopped imitating Totti, and Camoranesi (ITA) a bit. Can’t really pick one.
The good: Intense action back and forth, two shots on the post. Second half decayed a little, but still worth a watch.
The bad: Seeing Ballack and Totti really not work makes you wonder if they were just being wonderfully contained, or if they were learning from Riquelme. Both are scary.
July 2, 2006
Open wide and say….oooooout. Yeah, yeah. It’s yet another Brazilian cutie, but I don’t mind. I promise it’ll be the last one.
Day 20. Quarter finals are done, just like that. Four remain. The best four? No, I don’t think so. I don’t think that has ever happened since 19whoknowswhen. What we have here are the four teams that were the most adequate in each of their games and/or the luckiest. Luck counts, and it’s an intangible that makes football what it is.
And now we have, just in a couple of days, the semis. Germany – Italy has, a priori, all the marks of a spectacular game. Always nice when two superpowers clash like that. Germany was shaken in their last game against Argentina, and will need a victory to chase away whatever doubts came up in that game. And they need for the victory to be as contundent as possible, not just because only a victory will put them in the final, but also a sizeable and dominating defeat of Italy, something they’re able to perform, will give them that extra ounce of confidence they’ll need later on. Italy? They’ve been good, but irregular, and perhaps they’re hoping their last game vs. Ukraine was the spark that lit a more even level of play. Of course Germany won’t give them the defensive gifts Ukraine did, but that doesn’t take from this offensive rennaissance they seem to be having.
France – Portugal will be another nailbiter, I think, because both arrive at this stage… I won’t say decimated, but rather against the odds. Few thought they’d be here, but here they are, and just knowing that with a little bit of effort they will be there in the last game, putting a lid on many (if not all) critics, will go a long way to give you confidence. Both are teams on the rise, something that’s specially evident in France’s case, but Portugal has its own claims to make. Most important of all, that a WC final will be the absolute last chance this current footballing generation of theirs will have to prove something and win something. Last chances are usually great motivators.
.
England 0 – Portugal 0 (1-3 on PKs)
At this point I think it’s safe to go ahead and say this about England: It’s the same old song every WC. Every time they come with a strong team. Every time, that team doesn’t perform as expected, but still manages to chug along and move forward. And at some point between second round and semis, every time, the whole thing comes crashing down.
England’s performances all through the cup showed it was never easy. Yes, they were the better team in most of them. Yes, they won games. But they were never clearly superior or completely convincing, and all their victories left a little feeling behind, that it always seemed they had to do much more work to win those games than their team would suggest. Sometimes they played well (vs. Sweden). Sometimes badly (vs. Paraguay). But they kept going.
But there was a feeling in the air that, sure enough at some point, that was going to stop, and that eventually they would come across the team that would kick them out if they didn’t step up their game. So I guess this time (this third time) that team was Portugal. Scolari’s Portugal.
Portugal… I dunno. They were always in the same boat as England, I think. Yeah, they won their games, but never crushingly, or even in a convincing way. They always left doubts behind. They play different from England, in the sense that at least they try to treat the ball a bit better and are generally more offensive, but on the other hand they can be a nasty team when they want to, or when it’s advantageous for them to do so. So, yeah, mixed feelings. If I had to come up with a matephore to explain this, I’d say Portugal are like a little diamond covered in mud. That they would shine so much brighter if they didn’t have that mud, but… they like having the mud.
As for the game, I think it was rather even, which is expected in these types of contests between teams of similar levels. Portugal had more possession overall, and they tried to use it well, but fizzled in the English box, and were never as incisive as they should’ve been to create serious problems. Despite having many more shots on goal, they were not an issue. England started playing like England, at least until ending up with 10 men, and I don’t know how good or bad that is. They were never really troubling either.
But then Becks had to come out injured, and Rooney made a fool of himself and saw a red. Catastrophe then? Far from it. England pulled themselves up, and the subs became a true breath of fresh air, because both Lennon and Crouch not only came in fresh and ready, but got into the game really quickly, allowing England a few good attempts to turn the tables. The game became much more even, and Portugal wasn’t handling things perhaps as comfortably as earlier.
England played better with 10 than with 11, and I’m sure there’s an explanation for it that doesn’t necessarily have to fall in the perennial common talking point of the English heart and gumption (which exists, and it’s good). But I just can’t find it.
In the end, the tie truly was the fair result, and had it been any other game, both would’ve gone home happy. But, hey. It’s PKs.
Bad day for England at PKs? Yeah, sure. Why not. Ricardo, a consumate PK stopper was in front? Yeah, sure. Whatever you want. But it strikes me that if you’re given five P’s to K, and of those you can only get one in, well… bad day and good keeper all you want, but still there’s something going on there, right? England does tend to choke on PK definitions (even without Beckham taking them), and I can’t find a sensible explanation for that. Full marks to Ricardo for his stops, which confirmed his status as one of the best PK stoppers out there.
Portugal through, England heads back home. And we’ve seen this movie before, there’s the rub.
Man of the Match: Ricardo (POR) for me. Crucial in the PKs and a couple of good saves here and there. I also liked Lennon (ENG), and I wish he had more time on the field to do more, perhaps, without the mental shackles of an ET on top of him. Hargreaves (ENG) had a great game as well.
The good: It was Sven’s last match, so… good times ahead for England.
The bad: Once again, Rooney loses his temper and fucks his team up. Again. Maybe he doesn’t deserve an automatic spot in the starting XI? Just a thought.
.
Brazil 0 – France 1
Well, take a dump in my eye and call me a shitty pirate. I knew way back, before even the start of the WC that it wasn’t Brazil’s this time. That something would happen, and they’d fall in the way. I don’t know what, but I had that feeling. I could imagine that, but I could’ve never imagined the executioner was going to be France, particularly given the amount of shit I piled on them early on, and the way they started playing.
Talk about a transformation. For both. France, started this WC playing like ass. Scraping draws again football powerhouses like Switzerland and South Korea. Their individualities missing, and lots of internal turmoil in the team. Brazil? All the contrary. Although they also faced football luminaries like Japan and Australia, they didn’t have many problems. They were playing relaxed, and winning. Really relaxed. Too relaxed perhaps.
And I said this not too long ago. That I wanted to see what happened to Brazil with a decent team in front. Well, what happened was France playing a very smart and very effective game against them.
So let’s see. Why did France win?
- Because Zidane played one of his best games recently, not just in this WC.
- Because Makelele was a ball-recovering machine in the midfield.
- Because Ribery got sick of running into the holes on that defense
- Because having Henry so far up there, even if he ends up on offside most of the time, is a constant and fast pain in the ass for a slow(er) and old(er) defensive line.
- Because they were defensively solid, never giving the spaces Brazil needed. Because they were fluid in the midfield, both for recovery and to turn possession into offense. And because they always tried to be troubling in offense.
And why did Brazil lose?
- Because their individualities never shone. Ronaldinho played his best game in this WC, and still ended up being a bit opaque. Kaká was all good intentions, but little results. Same as Ze Roberto. Ronaldo was well crowded and covered all the time. And neither Robinho or Adriano had time to do much at all.
- Because they had tons of problems covering the wings, and kept being surpassed there.
- Because France’s recovery and possession destroyed their midfield creative circuit for most of the game.
- Because France was solid in the back, covering every possible hole and never giving them good room until about 70′.
It was a smart game, in the sense that France played Brazil the way you have to play Brazil: Taking the ball from them first, because if they don’t have it, they don’t hurt. And then attacking them constantly, never respecting them. However, there was also a lot of passion there. They were tireless in their duties, never really giving up and letting Brazil control the game at all. not even for a little while, if they could help it. Also, Zidane finally became the leader and conductor they needed him to be in this WC, asking for every ball, going to every challenge and being there to push the French forward.
So… suprise result? Yes and no.
Yes: Because France, except against Spain, was playing terribly and never giving any signs of recovery, whereas Brazil passed each game and challenge without batting an eye.
No: Because, contrary to popular belief, it is physically possible to beat Brazil, and France not only woke up at the right time, but also woke up with the right idea on how to do it.
If they can keep this momentum… I can definitely see a Germany – France final. Which should be tres yummy.
Man of the Match: Zidane (FRA) no doubt.
The good: France waking up to beat Brazil the way you have to do it. With good possession and attacking mentality.
The bad: Brazil having something like zero chances on goal for a long, long spell of the game. Wow.
July 1, 2006
A nice Argentine cutie with a nice rack. What? Look, we’re almost done with this World Cup thing, and the stock of cuties dwindles.
Sooo… quarter finals. Not bad. Not spectacular either, but knowing that: a) The team played above average (and certainly above my expectations) and b) We’ve managed to position ourselves in the top 8 teams in the world(*) somehow makes me a bit happy. It’s not all lost.
But yeah, predictably, not only we have to suffer for our wins, we suffer for our defeats as well. You always suffer with this lot. And I think that’s mostly because we have the names, and the skill, and the technique, and the tactics, and whatever you want… but as a (national) team, we’re still in search of our identity.
Some teams have identity, and they stick by it. It’s what defines them. Not only it’s a way of playing, it’s also a way of understanding the game, and some would say a way of living. For example, Brazil, Italy, England, Germany… like it or not, and agree with it or not, they have their own identities. And they’re always at least willing to be faithful to it, despite the accidents of a football match.
Argentina doesn’t have one. Or rather, we had one, and the we lost it in the way. In the last fifteen, twenty years, we’ve tried to redefine us so much, that we lost ourselves in the way. Even now, this 2006 played in a completely different way than the ‘02 team. And the ‘02 team, in turn, played differently than the ‘98.
I suppose at some point it’ll be found again. And now, on with it:
.
Germany 1 – Argentina 1 (4-2 PKs)
It had it all, except brilliance.
There are a few readings to make into this, but eventually you always end up staring at the old glass half empty or half full scenario. Yes, Argentina comes home. Early, for many. The team didn’t work as expected against Germany, and never really got their game going after getting ahead in the score. A correct reading.
Another correct reading would be to think and see that Argentina, even not playing at the level that was expected, managed to hold out Germany until the PKs, and hold her well. And this is worth noting, not from a defeatist perspective, but merely from the realist point of view that acknowledges how Germany was (is) the team that had an enormous momentum going for them. Because of their home team condition, because of the fans, because of their less-to-more productions on the field, because of their confidence and, of course, of their results. So not all is lost when an average Argentina manages to hold out a huge block of Germany coming at high speed, and force things to even out for 120 minutes.
But let’s get into things. The first half I’ll give it squarely to Argentina, because despite footballistic pitfalls (which were evident in both — the Germans looked uncharacteristically nervous and imprecise), they took control of the ball and played their own game. Which is, possession, short passing, hide the ball from the opponent and wait for the opening. It was truly a midfield battle that Argentina handled, and did so very well for 45-50 minutes. Until the goal.
In contrast, during the first half we saw a German team that had their characteristic idea of fast, direct transitions into attack, and tried to do that, but found themselves getting increasingly desperate without possession of the ball. At some point I believe it was something like 70% in favor of Argentina, which is just ungodly. Defensively-minded teams can (and do) win without a need to have the ball in perennial possession. But offensively-minded teams, like ARG and GER, need the ball to be effective. So whoever has it, will be. The other won’t.
Still, Argentina had the ball, but not the clarity in offense to make that possession count, thanks to Germany closing the spaces tightly. There was simply not much room to do anything in offense, and while this was true for both teams, it was specially evident when Argentina was attacking, by virtue of their slow type of offensive buildup. Germany’s game is much more direct and fast, which also suffers when there’s lack of room, but it’s less visually evident merely by the speed of their plays.
Both teams were positioned well on the field, and never really went overboard with their pressing. It was a midfield half, through and through, since the ball very rarely made it clean to the respective offensive lines. The most clear of the first half… was the only clear chance. That header from Ballack that went over quite close. The rest was just a collection of good intentions and tough marking.
For the second half, there were no subs and no tactical changes. And this was evident in the first five minutes. However, Argentina got their goal from a corner and things started to change. Germany opened up and pressed forward, because they were given that obligation. And I guess at that point it wasn’t that ARG decided to fall back and wait: They were pushed back to that position.
All of a sudden, Germany was finding the room then hadn’t been given yet in the game. And they kept going. And going. And going. Argentina lost the midfield completely and it was looking more and more, as the minutes passed, that they were squarely betting on hitting the Germans on a counter, because it was all they had left. This lasted for about twenty minutes.
Then it all got weird.
Abbondanzieri has to come out, something that wasn’t in anyone’s realistic plans. That’s the least likely scenario, but it makes you burn a sub all the same. Soon after, one of the controversial subs from Pekerman, although not the weirdest: Riquelme out, Cambiasso in.
Now, the Cambiasso in part was fine. What’s the intention? To try and recover possession of the ball in the midfield, and through Cambiasso, carry the ball up front, since Mascherano doesn’t really do that. We know Cambiasso can. So that’s fine. The problem is the other part. The “Riquelme out”. And I don’t say that because I’m a sycophant of Riquelme. I think he’s an excellent player that’s simply not all that’s cracked up to be, and is something of a special case that I won’t go into detail here. So, in essence: Cambiasso in? Yes. I understand it (I would’ve put Aimar in, though). Riquelme out? No. Not because I’m in love with Riquelme. Riquelme was having another one of his “well, whatever” games, but he wasn’t the sub. The sub was Lucho Gonzalez, whom up until that point had done fuck all. It was like playing with ten men. So I don’t know.
And then… heh. The other sub. The one no one understands. Crespo out, Cruz in. For those not familiar with Julio Cruz, that sub is the equivalent of telling Germany “Hey, it’s okay guys. We’re done here, and we’re not planning on scoring anymore. You guys go right ahead”. I cannot fathom how a player like Cruz can get on the field (any field), and I cannot comprehendwhy he was chosen over Saviola or even Messi. It’s truly incomprehensible. Of course Cruz didn’t do shit, but that’s par for the course. It was expected.
What wasn’t expected was Germany suddenly having the temerity to score with 10′ to go (two headers inside the box it’s always a goal, they say), and suddenly you find yourself in a position where the two subs you chose to make are worth less than one of Graham Poll’s yellow cards. Yeah. Not good. So now you gotta go forward, theoretically, and get the result again and… you have just substituted your playmaker for a defensive midfielder, and a world class striker for a world class stinker. Not good. And you don’t have anymore subs because your keeper had to bite it and you had to replace him with a guy that had seen, so far, zero minutes of play in this world cup.
In spite of these fuckups from Pekerman, Argentina not only managed to stand the German onslaught, but slowly tried to do the best they could with what they had, balancing things again all through the extra time. But by that point there wasn’t enough time or energy left to do anything of note.
The PKs? Germany showed good resolve and skill in taking them. Argentina didn’t. You could see the players walking up to the spot and you knew they were flakier. Ayala’s PK was a disaster, and Cambiasso’s, although well taken, it was even better contained. End of story.
A word on the referee: Far be it from me to complain about the ref. I think he was mostly correct through the game, getting all the important calls right. That said, I think he favored Germany a bit too much, always on the small little fouls and calls, the ones that are so muddied that they could go either way? Well, those were always for Germany. Whether that influences the game in a palpable way or not, you be the judge. But I did notice that. The notion that Germany always seemed to get the benefit of the doubt, and Argentina rarely ever did. But that’s all really. Compared to other ref performances, this one was stellar.
Of the brouhaha at the end, while always fun to watch, I can’t say anything other than I’d like to see how and who started it before I say anything else. The players all seemed to go against Bierhoff in particular, so who knows what happened. I’ll look around and see if anyone captured the incident in its entirety (and you know someone always does).
Man of the Match: Mascherano (ARG) for Argentina. Nothing spectacular, but he was correct most of the time and he was the most solid in a midfield that gradually lost cohesion, despite his efforts. Ballack (GER) for Germany. Always trying. Not his best game, but Germany’s football passed always through his feet.
The good: Knowing that even playing not well and with a couple of subs straight out of The Twilight Zone, we still managed to hold out the German football machine to PKs, and played them at an equal level for most of the game.
The bad: Riquelme, missing and/or contained. It doesn’t matter in the end. He didn’t do much at all. Lucho Gonzalez? Ridiculously absent all the game. Heinze insecure a few times again, like vs. Mexico.
.
Italy 3 – Ukraine 0
I couldn’t pay much attention to this one, honestly. Not that it was very attractive to begin with, but I was already talking and emailing back and forth with friends about the ARG match, so I watched what I could.
It was no contest, and despite the close calls and the balls on the post from Ukraine, those seemed more accidental than anything. Italy had it under control, and they played much more relaxed than Ukraine… of course the early goal helped them on that. They were never in any danger, because Ukraine played flat and badly, with Sheva unable to do much at all, and his company not willing to anything good with him. That’s about it, really. A bit of a defensive collapse by Ukraine on the second half, but not much else.
Italy passes through, predictably, having lucked out on the weakest quarter finals rival. Now it’s Germany – Italy, and all bets are off. It’s gonna be intense, to say the least, and despite my little bit of despise for Italy, I can see them pulling the upset and reaching the final. We’ll see what happens. If Argentina could have Germany in disarray for a little more than a half game, Italy can do so too.
Man of the Match: Gattuso (ITA) no doubt. The little engine pushing Italy along.
The good: Ukraine’s reaching quarters in their first WC showing. Playing decidedly average, but they reached the quarters. And that’s history on the record now.
The bad: Ukraine, so flat. Sheva is the only decent one of that lot, and if he’s having an off day… mmmm…
(*) Debatable, but mostly a right appreciation I think.
