Obviously, after yesterday's memorable demolition my pessimistic outlook on the England v Germany game now seems totally wrongheaded. My main argument was that England's experience would ultimately win out over Germany's youthful spirit. Retrospectively, I feel stupid for falling for the narrative of England's putatively "golden generation," a myth nurtured primarily by the self-understanding of the Premiership as the gold standard of international football (when in fact the league's sense of entitlement is equally inflated as its transfer fees and debts). Also, I didn't think it possible that the great Fabio Capello would be outcoached by Jogi Löw.
Yet, I also can't help thinking that England coming back to level the score from two goals down --within one minute nonetheless-- can in fact only be ascribed to Germany's inexperience. The fact that the second goal was wrongfully disallowed doesn't absolve the German players of their responsibility for what could have been a meltdown of epic proportions.
Now, it is of course the easiest strategy to avoid any kind of speculation on how the game would have developed if England had indeed been awarded the equalizer. However, when Klose was sent off against Serbia I made the case that Germany --in all probability-- wouldn't have lost that game with all of their players on the pitch. And I do have a feeling (what else could it be?) that Germany would have been in deep trouble had the "curse of Wembley" not come to haunt England once again. (Also, can we now stop bringing up that '66 goal every time we play England, please? We're even, once and for all, okay?)
Having said all that, the overwhelmingly accepted narrative (in both the German and English press) is that the disallowed goal didn't matter all that much in the end. England is said to have been completely outclassed by Germany and, therefore, doesn't deserve to hide behind the excuse of the non-goal. (No other country seems to enjoy self-abasement quite as much the English and the mercilessness with which the national team is treated never ceases to amaze me). Strangely, the English press seems to perversely enjoy the unambiguous result just as much their German counterparts precisely because it takes away any significance of the blown call.
(Sepp, can we please get some form of video replay now, please? No, you say? Well, I'm sure you have good reasons as you're a very wise man who honestly cares for the good of the game...)
To some extent the reading of the game (of one team outclassing the other) does indeed make sense. England looked terrible --"overweight," as Steve McManaman put it-- in trying to contain the German attacks (particualrly in the first 30 minutes). Yet, very few people mention how nervous Germany looked in the ten to fifteen minutes before and after the half when England --far from being brilliant-- were the more dominant team. Or, that England has some very decent chances of their own (Defoe, Lampard). The game was ultimately decided by two beautifully executed German counterattacks, which separated England's slightly better period after the half from the last twenty minutes of the game during which England had already accepted its fate and Germany almost seemed to show remorse (or, at least, a lot of restraint).
Now, I'm definitely not trying to take anything away from what has undoubtedly been a great performance by Germany. They were by far the superior team and are deservedly going through to the quarterfinals where I think they could be up for a surprise against favorites Argentina, who didn't look overly impressive against a surprisingly wishy-washy Mexican team. (Before the game, my friend Don and I went to the Mexican supermarket and the Mexican butcher working there complained about the lack of heart in Mexico's team. He had a point.*) But still, the German victory --as enjoyable as it was-- would be better remembered as a close game than a blowout.
*An earlier version included a lame joke on Mexico's former coach S.-G. Eriksson, which was removed due the fact that he was fired over a year ago (and, of course, coached the Ivorian team at this year's World Cup). I'm a real expert.
Ein Torfestival
2 days ago
I didn't think Argentina looked that bad. I'd make them pretty big favorites against Germany. Still, 'big favorites' at this point doesn't mean more than about 60/40. There's no team Germany doesn't have a good shot against at this point and you never want to bet against them in a tournament.
ReplyDeleteMy two cents:
ReplyDelete1- I think Germany played much better than England, ghosts goals aside.
2- Argentina had a hard time to beat Mexico, illegal goals aside.
3- I think Germany will get to semi-finals, taken there are no referee show-offs in the game.
4- Brasil is getting scary now.
Argentina-Germany will be very interesting, especially with regard to how the Argies will play it. The last two matches (WC 2006, friendly this year) had two things in common:
ReplyDeleteFirst, Argentina pressed from the very beginning on, putting pressure on the back four and closing down the midfield. The all-out pressing must first of all be attributed to an overall (and justified) sense of superiority - which probably is still in existence. They simply didn't believe Germany to be good enough to pass themselves out of pressure. Second, Argentina were the clearly better side on both occasions (despite losing 2006).
Yet, I'm pretty sure that Germany's performances at WC 2010 have given Maradona (or whoever is responsible for that) some food for thought. This time around it could be more dangerous or even backfire to press Germany. Although I still believe Arg. to be a class above Ger...