World Cup 2006 Recap

A reflection upon the 2006 World Cup Finals held in Germany (9th June - 9th July)

HIGHLIGHTS:


• Organisation:
  Efficient and effective, the Germans did a fine job in hosting from transportation to stadia presentation. Certainly the reaction from fans there was all positive and the organisers should be congratulated.
• Television Camerawork & Coverage:
  Multiple camera angles, slow-motion shots and slick production by the host broadcasters. Locally in New Zealand both TV1 and Sky Sport gave good coverage and analysis of the games, also having the good sense to give us some good match commentators and not the ESPN feed. Even the ESPN (including Tommy Smyth) Press Pass commentary team were bearable towards the end.
• Website:
  The FIFA official site had everything you wanted, as you would expect given their resources.
• Host team celebrations:
  Germany showed a great party atmosphere even after winning the 3rd place play-off, despite coming so close to an appearance in the final.
  (Would New Zealand also celebrate a 3rd place for our national team if it occurred in our hosting of the 2011 Rugby world cup?)
• Australia's performance:
  From their hard-fought 1st qualification game, a 1-0 loss to New Zealand, to the last minute 1-0 loss to the eventual World Cup winners Italy, the Australians made a strong impression in their first Finals appearance since 1974. Now part of the Asian confederation and with a domestic A-league producing a credible standard they look well placed for the future.

LOWLIGHTS:


• Feigning of injury:
  As a consequence of the great camera work, every nuance was captured (at times to the detriment of those who sought to gain an unfair advantage). Technology has caught up with them now so FIFA needs to act decisively in a manner which brings some justice and equity, probably an after-match video review assessing the level of such cheating and imposed necessary suspensions and or fines appropriately. For the on-field action, players who require medical attention must stay off for a specific period and not be allowed to resume action immediately.
• Players waving 'cards':
  Another blight, in itself it is a yellow card offence as it constitutes unsportsmanslike behaviour. Let the match officials make their decision without influence. Again one maybe for a post-match video review.
• Goals (or lack of):
  It all started well (Germany 4 Costa Rica 2), but as soon as the knockout phase began the goals dried up. This was the 1st Finals not to have at least one hat-trick scored by any player. Formations clogged the midfield and left a lone striker to do battle against several defenders was a ploy used by too many teams. The Ukraine-Switzerland game was an example of both teams desperate not to lose, instead of trying to win. Italy, in winning the Final, showed attacking glimpses but it's an area of concern.
• Improvements the game does not need:
  Some suggestions from New Zealand sports journalists, broadcasters or talkback callers -
  Increasing the size of goals, the unfairness of the penalty shoot-out, decide a drawn match on corner kicks or keep playing beyond 30 minutes extra time until a goal is scored were among the 'creative' ideas brought up. (Thanks for your input, but the rest of the world says no.)
  Memo to Rugby - how is that ruck and maul law going? Ever tried explaining it to someone watching a game for the first time? Or do you remember how the 1995 Rugby world cup final would have been decided if South African Joel Stransky had not kicked a deciding drop goal in extra time, well New Zealand would have 'won' the trophy in the drawn game by virtue of having fewer players sent off throughout the entire tournament!
  Memo to Rugby league - why does your main competition, the NRL, award 2 points (or the equivalent of a win) for a bye, or no game. With all teams having 2 byes, why not give them 100 points or just maybe (rationally perhaps given that no game is played) 0 points?!

COMMENTS & OBSERVATIONS:


• Critics:
  It's positive that the World Cup Finals were such a discussion point in New Zealand given the limited air time that football gets here, but uninformed and ill-informed criticism remained. References from local journalists and broadcasters to 'penalty shots' during a penalty shoot-out might be alright in the United States where ice hockey is one of their major sports. Similar references to football being played by 'pansies' is a little rich from New Zealanders where rugby is (currently) the national sport and yet where leading 'All Blacks' (the national rugby team) have used eyeliner (Ma'a Nonu), struck another player with a woman's handbag at a nightclub (former captain Tana Umaga striking current player Chris Masoe) or worn pantyhose on a particularly cold Wellington afternoon test match (Allan Hewson). Churlish comments from the media, usually from sports editors ranging from the NZ Herald (Auckland's major newspaper), Sunday Star Times, 9th July (national Sunday newspaper) to The Wellingtonian, 6th July (local newspaper in Wellington), have displayed a feeble knowledge of football, referring to 'pansies', 'these players wouldn't last five minutes playing rugby or rugby league' or 'give me a game where the players are gladiators, not gladioli (tackle sports in preference to football) were illustrations of the provincial mentality (where you're not a man unless you play a tackle sport) affecting a section of New Zealand society who cannot comprend the significance of the World Cup Finals. I suppose jealously and ignorance can be excused to a certain extent and manifest themselves in such reactions.
• Referees:
  Are always an easy target post-match. Given the stakes involved and that over a 90 minute game they will need to make several hundred decisions running along at a fast pace at times, they did well overall. Sure from the 64 games there will be moments and individual decisions which will rightly be open to question, comment or derision, but the game of football is a free-flowing one with few stoppages. It's a fine line for the officials, they need to be firm but fair and allow the game to flow.
• Yellow and Red cards:
  A necessary evil. Whilst the number issued was well ahead of those in the Japan/South Korea 2002 Finals, the overwhelming majority was justified. Players and coaches have a responsibility to ensure that their behaviour does not warrant these (an example of how not to was in the Netherlands-Portugal game where players were spiteful and deserved their punishment).
• 3 Yellow cards or 2?:
  No, not the 3 yellow cards issued by the referee in the Croatia-Australia game to the same Croatian player, but the proposal mooted by FIFA president Sepp Blatter (therefore it's under serious consideration) that in future 3 yellow cards accumulated over the group or knockout stages would lead to one-game suspension (instead of the current 2). This must be resisted, despite the argument that for the final group match some teams had to rest key players who had received an earlier yellow card, as the very reason that yellow cards are issued are to punish foul play or unsportsmanlike behaviours which are the cancers of a free-flowing creative game. Giving more latitude to the transgressors would only encourage players in their final group match to employ such tactics at a crucial time if they only have one previous yellow card. Sorry Sepp, but this must not proceed.
• Use of television replays for 'goal' decisions:
  Will surely be in place for South Africa 2010, however FIFA need to be mindful that the Finals themselves, although the rightful showcase for the game, are not the only part of the process as the qualification games too should then have access to any such technology to provide a fair outcome for all participating teams be they Brazil or Bhutan.
• South Africa 2010:
  Have a tough standard to follow in terms of their organisational ability. Let's hope for the good of Africa that they can achieve similar levels.
• New Zealand's qualification route for 2010:
  As the current top ranked team in Oceania (with Australia now part of the Asian confederation), the 'All-Whites' (our national team) can rightfully expect to be favourites to win the Oceania qualification phase. Then it gets difficult. Under the current qualification process it will be a two-legged game against the 5th ranked team from the South American qualification phase (perhaps Chile, Peru or Uruguay). Given that this is now an easier task for the South American confederation, than playing against a CONCACAF confederation representative, then the politics and sway that South America has it would seem unlikely to change. It should, on the basis of regional affiliations change so that the playoff contenders would be CONCACAF v South America & Asia v Oceania, but don't expect it. Also with Europe having one less team in the South Africa 2010 Finals, every half place in the Finals will again be keenly contested, so Oceania as the weakest confederation will have to bear the consequences.
• Happiness & joy:
  Even for those with no team participating in the finals (like New Zealand) and with little emotional investment it provided some fine moments for all humanity to savour and enjoy. The feats of teams like Angola, having endured years of civil war, to qualify and then produce credible performances was uplifting. Ivory Coast played well and were unlucky to be in a tough group with Argentina and Netherlands before coming back to win against Serbia & Montenegro. The bonhomie of fans attending games from different cultures is surely a positive for all of us.

Home page

Last updated: 11th July 2006

Disclaimer