|
|
|
It’s All A World Farce
ON July 13, 1930, at exactly 12.30pm GMT, the first Fifa World Cup game began at the Stadio Pocitos in Montevideo in Uruguay and featured France and Mexico before a crowd of 3 000 fans.
French striker Laurent scored the first World Cup goal, after 19 minutes, when he put his team into the lead in a game that they eventually won comfortably by a margin of 4-1. Only 13 nations took part in the inaugural Fifa World Cup — seven were from South America, four were from Europe and two were from North America and, after all the drama had ended, host nation Uruguay won the tournament following a 4-2 win over neighbours Argentina in the final.
While every country affiliated to Fifa was invited to take part in the tournament, only 13 eventually did and Belgium, France, Yugoslavia and Romania were the only European countries to feature in a World Cup where there were no qualifying matches and was tantamount to an invitational tournament.
The British nations, who were not part of the Fifa family at that stage, did not take part. Romania only took part after their new ruler King Carol III ordered them to make the journey by sea, selected the team personally and negotiated with the players’ employers to grant them leave to go and represent their country under the guarantee that they would return home to their workplaces after the tournament.
Uruguay, the hosts, played four matches — two in their group, one in the semi-finals and one in the final — and, after scoring 15 goals and conceding three, they beat Argentina in the final to be declared World Champions.
Four years later, in 1934, the World Cup tournament was held in Italy.
But the defending champions Uruguay boycotted the tournament, in protest at the refusal by most of the European nations to travel for the first World Cup, and that showcase remains the only World Cup that did not feature the holders in the history of this tourney.
Sixteen nations took part, the British countries again refused, Argentina and Brazil qualified without kicking a ball after their opponents withdrew and Italy won the tournament and were declared World Champions.
In 1938, with the threat of war hanging over Europe, the World Cup show came to France in a decision that angered the South Americans, who complained bitterly that Fifa had changed an agreement that the two continents should alternate in the hosting of the tourney, and both Argentina and Uruguay pulled out.
Spain did not take part because of the Spanish civil war, Austria qualified but withdrew shortly because of political complications, Italian players received telegrams from fascist dictator Benito Mussolini to "Win or Die" just before the final against Hungary and went on to win 4-2 and were crowned World Champions.
Hungarian goalkeeper Antal Szabo, who had seen the telegram messages before the game, later claimed that he felt relieved, despite conceding four goals in the final, that the Italians had won with a famous quote that resonated around the world — "I might have let in four goals but, at least, I saved the Italian lives."
The World Cup And Its Winners
In about four weeks’ time, we will have a country that will celebrate the triumph of its national football team and its rise to be hailed as World Champions following its success at this 2010 Fifa World Cup.
That country will hold that title for the next four years until another World Cup is held in Brazil and, if that nation fails to defend its title, we celebrate the rise of yet another country that would have joined the elite club that calls itself World Champions.
Only seven countries — Brazil (five times); Italy (three times); Germany (three times); Uruguay (twice); Argentina (twice); England and France — have won the World Cup in 70 years and, between 1950 and 2002, a period spanning 52 years, the World Cup final featured one of these three countries — Brazil, Germany or Argentina.
It’s a tough tournament to win and, if you listen to the experts, only the best country in the football world is able to finally celebrate the success story of winning a World Cup. But is the World Cup tournament the best possible way we can find the best football playing nation on the globe?
Are we right to hail Uruguay as world champions when they won a tournament on home soil in 1930 that featured only 13 nations, including only four from Europe, none from Africa and none from Asia?
Is it right for us to call a nation that played and won, as in Uruguay’s case in 1930, just four games on their way to grabbing the trophy, true World Championships?
Are we right to say that Italy were World Champions in 1934 when that tournament was boycotted by the South American giants and are we right to hail the Azzurri as champions of the world in 1938 when the goalkeeper of the Hungarian team, who were the losing finalists, tells us of how he was unnerved about the death notices hanging on the Italian heads should they fail?
Are we right to celebrate Uruguay as credible World Champions in 1950 when it took a schoolboy blunder from the Brazilian goalkeeper, under pressure from a record 200 000 home crowd at the Maracana, to give them a 2-1 win against the Samba Boys who were clearly the best team of that tourney?
Are we right to honour West Germany as true World Champions in 1954, especially after those stunning claims by German historian Guido Knopp in his documentary that the German players were injected with shots of Vitamin C, at half time in the final, using a needle borrowed from a Soviet sports doctor, which gave them better physical condition after the interval?
Known as the Miracle in Berne, that World Cup final somehow saw the Germans come back from two goals down, against the best team in the world then, tie the score 2-2, go ahead 3-2 before Ferenc Puskas — the best player in the world at that stage — appeared to equalise again with two minutes left.
Referee Ling gave a goal but his linesman Griffith said Puskas was offside and, after a minute of so, the goal was disallowed and the Germans won the World Cup.
In 2003 a film, the Miracle of Berne, was released that chronicles the incredible events of that final, the comedy of errors by the match officials all in aid of the German cause and allegations that the triumphant players had doped their way to success against the mighty Hungarians.
That Hungarian team, arguably the finest national side ever assembled, had thrashed England by six goals at Wembley, thrashed South Korea 9-0 in their opening World Cup finals game, hammered Germany 8-3 in their next game, scored four against Brazil and thrashed everything in its wake with striker Kocsis scoring 11 goals at the finals. Puskas was battling an injury, and not fully fit, during the final against the Germans.
All The World Cup Controversy
At the 2002 World Cup in Japan/Korea, hosts South Korea knocked a good Italian side from the tournament under a hazy of controversy with a perfect Azzurri goal being disallowed and, as if to add insult to injury, star forward Francesco Totti incredibly being sent off for diving when he had clearly been fouled inside the penalty.
Ecuadorian referee Byron Monero was the one who made all those controversial calls.
He returned home to Ecuador to a hero’s welcome but was out of the international game, within a year of those incidents in Korea, after receiving two domestic bans for crooked match officiating.
Spanish newspapers had questioned the Italian claims that their team had been robbed by Moreno. But when Egyptian referee Gamal Ghandour somehow disallowed two goals, which appeared genuine, by the Spaniards and his two linesmen, a Ugandan and a Trinidadian, frustrated them with questionable offside calls, in their game against the same lucky host South Korea, mass-circulating Spanish newspaper, Marca, screamed with a headline — "Italy was right!"
Ghandour, the referee who controversially handled Blackpool’s semi-final, second leg Cup of Cup Winners’ tie against JS Kabylie in Algiers in 1995 where he appeared to be playing for the Algerians, retired shortly after Spanish newspapers accused him of accepting a Hyundai car as a gift from the Korean Football Association.
So how do we repay the Spaniards and Italians for being robbed out of further progress in that World Cup in 2002, which they could have won, and how do we embrace the winners as worthy Word Champions when other potential winners were elbowed out in such controversial fashion?
The Brazilian team of 1970 is widely regarded as the finest national team of all time. But was it? Yes, they won the World Cup by thrashing Italy 4-1.
But who spares a thought for England?
They were the defending champions, having won on home soil in 1966, and they had a good team but, on their way to Mexico for the World Cup final in 1970, something terrible happened. The English were a hated nation in South America and there was a feeling on that continent that the 1966 World Cup had been fixed in favour of the Three Lions.
And when England brought in their food because they felt the cuisine in Mexico was of an inferior quality, it further incensed the South Americans and when the England stopped over in Colombia, on their way to Mexico, captain Bobby Moore — the heart and soul of the team — was arrested in Bogota. He was accused of stealing an emerald bracelet and the England skipper was placed under house arrest for four days, while the team proceeded with the rest of their journey to Mexico, before he was released. That incident unsettled the English team and, when the hosts employed dirty tactics where honking cars were employed to circle the England hotel all night, it killed whatever morale had been left in the team. Despite all that England reached the quarter-finals.
In 1978 Argentina were the hosts and they won the tournament but how did they reach the final in the first place?
They needed a four-goal victory to qualify ahead of Brazil and they were up against a Peru side that was quite competitive during that period. But something happened and Peru virtually never showed up for the game and Argentina were able to score six goals and qualify ahead of Brazil and went all the way and beat the Dutch in the final. The bus carrying the Dutch team was first taken on a prolonged and tortuous route to the stadium and when they arrived there, they were kept on the field for nearly 10 minutes before the game began, as their hosts chose to remain in the locker room, leaving the Dutch to face a war of nerves, alone with only a hostile crowd of more than 70 000 for company.
There were problems when the Argentineans finally emerged as they questioned the legality of a plaster cast on Dutch midfielder Rene van der Kerkhof’s hand, which had been sanctioned by Fifa and used in previous games.
Having destroyed the mental strength of their opponents, in a hostile stadium, Argentina then went on to win the game and give the military dictatorship, ruling their country then, the World Cup trophy they wanted to pacify a rebellious population that was rising against the junta.
But who will think about the Dutch of the ’70s, as a team good enough to be world champions, whose only weakness was that — both in 1974 and in 1978 — they played, and lost, the World Cup final against the host nation?
Who will remember the Algerian Class of ’82 who shocked Germany2-1 and looked on course for the next round until the Germans, knowing that a 1-0 win over Austria would be enough for both teams to qualify at the expense of the Algerians, conspired to knock out the Africans?
The Germans scored after 10 minutes and, from there on, both teams started to stroke the ball around in their halves without threatening the opponent’s goal. Fifa were forced to change the rules, with deciding group matches being played on the same day at the same time, after the sad incident but it did not help the Algerians and Germany even went all the way top the final of that World Cup.
Is World Cup The Right Barometer?
I have my serious reservations about a four-to-five week tournament, based on knockout, being used to decide the team that can be called the World Champions.
Let’s take for instance the events on the eve of the 1998 World Cup final when Ronaldo became ill and became a shadow, in the final game, of the player who had inspired Brazil to the big stage.
Without the influence of their best player, the Brazilians were not the same, in the final, and slumped to a 0-3 defeat with the French, benefiting from a sublime game from their best player, Zinedine Zidane, in peak form — who also scored twice — won the World Cup for the first time.
So a stroke of misfortune, on the part of the Brazilians, becomes the defining moment where the different plots — for the champions and the losers — can be shaped. How cruel and how unfair!
Granted the Brazilians, since that day, have become easy prey for the French but that happens in football where other teams become bogey teams for particular sides and are likely to win, no matter their form, whenever they meet such opposition. So the Brazilians, for instance, are likely to lose against France — no matter their form — because the French are now their bogey side.
That means the French don’t need to be good now to eliminate Brazil because it will happen that way, why — we will never know because that is the way football is.
Once Brazil is eliminated by the French, it clears the way for other teams — who normally won’t stand a chance if pitted against the Brazilians, like the Italians — and thanks to the benefit of the draw that made it possible for them not to meet the Brazilians, they go all the way and win the World Cup.
England, since 1970, have had this weakness of losing to Germany — usually through penalties — no matter their form. In 1990 the English were probably the best team in the world and again they met Germany, in the semi-final, and lost on penalties. That German team went to beat Argentina in the final. But let’s just try and change the draw a bit and imagine the possibility of Germany meeting Italy in the semi-final in Turin that year and England meeting Argentina, without the Hand of God, in the other semi-final in Rome?
The whole game changes, you see, and that’s what I mean. It’s just like the Champions League. Does it give us the best and strongest team in Europe or Africa every year?
Manchester United, for instance, will always struggle against the German clubs but will certainly always do well against the Italian teams. So even when United are probably the strongest team in Europe that year and they have the misfortune of the draw, where they meet either Bayern Munich or any of the German teams and — as is usually the case — they are knocked out on the away goals rule, clearing the way for Inter Milan (an Italian team to win the Champions League) does that make them a bad team?
We all know that Barcelona, over the last two years, have transformed themselves into the best football club in the world and — get it from me — it hurts to say that given my passion for my Red Devils. Maybe this case puts into perspective what I want to explain. In the Champions League group games last year, a certain Russian team called Rubin Kazan went to the Nou Camp and shocked the world with a 2-1 win over mighty Barcelona.
In the next match, a fortnight later of this back-to-back fixture, Kazan turned on a defensive masterclass to hold Barca to a goalless draw. Barca survived, because this was the group stage, and they went on to qualify for the knockout stages. Just imagine if this was the knockout stage?
That would have been that for Barca. Which, really, is a shame because, as that brilliant Barcelona team later showed the world, they were good enough to win the Champions League and five other trophies — including the world club crown — in an emphatic demonstration of their greatness last year.
Where did Rubin Kazan go after that? Nowhere, of course! That’s my point, that in these money games, where a team that makes a mistake over 90 minutes is eliminated, we certainly don’t get the best possible team emerging from the contest.
If Brazil avoid France, they are likely to win the World Cup, if they meet France they are likely to be eliminated and Italy will win it, and if they meet Italy the Samba Boys are likely to win it and if the French meet the Azzurri, the Azzuri are likely to win.
Confusing? But that is the reality!
So What Do We Do?
I believe that the league championship format is the best way to gauge the best team in any competition because every team plays the other side pure and simple. When you lose on a bad day, you are likely to recover and — as they usually say — over a certain period, the best team will certainly emerge.
Chelsea were humiliated at home by Manchester City and, if this was a World Cup, that would have been that — they would have been knocked out. We wouldn’t have got the chance to celebrate Chelsea’s achievements, in the past season, in which they developed to be the best football team in England — beating all their major rivals, Arsenal, Manchester United and Liverpool with frustrating regularity if you are not one of their fans. I believe that, once the World Cup reaches the last group of eight — the quarter-finals — then all the teams should play against each other, in a league format, until we get the winning side.
Given that we have four years to look for a World Champion, I believe that we have enough time to try that format and no team will ever complain of a bad day, when they were caught out with one of their best players not in good condition, like the Hungarians in 1954, or were knocked — as the Italians in 2002 — because of a crooked referee.
As long as we have this current system, where England can be World Champions even without playing either Argentina or Brazil simply because they might have been beaten, just like Barca on that day against Rubin Kazan, by a funny team on a bad day, I will always feel that we will be doing the title of World Champion a disservice.
I don’t think the World Cup, in its present format, gives us the best football team on the globe but, rather, it gives us the best in-form team, which also enjoys the luck of having an injury-free campaign to key players during the five months, in the world. Cricket has found a good way of deciding its World Champions, when it comes to Test matches, where every team plays the other and accumulates points along the way.
Eish Bafana
HOSTS South Africa turned on a pathetic show and were taught a lesson, at this level of the game, by an impressive and organised Uruguay in a 2010 World Cup tie at Loftus on Wednesday night.
Bafana Bafana, crippled by a midfield that never came to life with Everton’s Steven Pienaar a big disappointment once again, were a pathetic lot and let their loyal fans down with a shambolic show that was, at best, a joke and — at worst — a shame. Not that I was surprised really because I have always questioned this team.
But what I can’t understand is our apparent reluctance to question is South Africa are right to pump millions of dollars into a Brazilian coach who, at the end of the day, produces just the same results as a local coach.
I stand to be guided but, Eish, Bafana!
Go Maradona Go! Go Messi Go!
Story Of The Week
Sales of condoms jumped five-fold in South Korea as fans celebrated after the nation’s football players rose to the occasion in their opening World Cup game against Greece, reports AFP. About a million red-shirted fans nationwide, including 200 000 in Seoul, packed boulevards, stadiums and parks on Saturday to cheer the side’s 2-0 win over Euro 2004 champions Greece.
The biggest winners were convenience stores and fried chicken outlets as fans took to the streets, the JoongAng Daily reported on Monday.
It said Bokwang Family Mart chain stores saw a near doubling of sales in spots where fans had gathered. Stores in residential areas also did well as those tuning in at home bought three times the beer and more than twice the number of snacks.
After the game, fans in celebratory mood bought five times more condoms than during the team’s lacklustre 2006 World Cup performance, the paper said.
Text Feedback — (International — +27822955020, Local (SA only) 0822955020) Email — robsharuko@yahoo.com |
|
|