The Official 2010 Football & World Cup Thread

jampa17 wrote: Forlan made 5 goals and did several assistance and he was the second captain of the team (Lugano was the first) so, Forlán was a key player in every single game of Uruguay, not just for "the eye" like you said, Alex. Iniesta, he was not good, the first three matches he was very weak (consequence of his injury, it's understandable) and only until the last matches he get his best football. But I don't think he was the key player for Spain. Xavi, Alonso and Villa were also important for the team and they played plain football.

I agree with you, especially that Spain is more about "team" than individual talent/effort. My reason to pick Iniesta is the same reason employed by the people who vote for "Balon d'Or" or "FIFA best player of the year" awards. They usually pick the decisive player of the team who wins trophies. And Iniesta was decisive, his two goals helped Spain 1) get out of the groups and 2) win the final - not to speak about his decisive passes.

Just think of this list:

Balon d'Or:
2009 - Xavi (decisive player for Barcelona's win in all the competitions they played in)
2008 - C.Ronaldo (decisive player for a team who won the Champions League)
2007 - Kaka (decisive player for a team who won the Champions League)
2006 - Cannavaro (decisive player for a team who won the World Cup)
2005 - Ronaldinho (decisive player for a team who won the Champions League)
etc (there are of course exceptions to this tendency, but recently this is how the voters choose)

FIFA World Player Of The Year:
2009 - Messi (decisive player for Barcelona's win in all the competitions they played in)
2008 - C.Ronaldo
2007 - Kaka
2006 - Cannavaro
2005  - Ronaldonho
etc. Basically most of the winners of this trophy are also winning the Balon d'Or.

IMO the strognest candidates for this year's Balon d'Or and FIFA World Player Of The Year are, in no order:
Sneijder - essential player for winning the Champions League at club level, and World Cup finalist, one of the best players of the tournament
Forlan - essential player for winning the UEFA Europa League, and best player of the World Cup
Iniesta - essential player for winning the World Cup
Maybe Rooben, too - played both Champions League and World Cup finals, won none.

jampa17 wrote: It's one of the most ugly WC winners, maybe just under the Italy of 82.   Poor WC.

Yeah we know you hate Spain , but that's weird; from what you say the conclusion would be that you like offensive football, but you hate Spain (which played the most offensive football during the whole tournament) and you always wanted those ugly (and excellent, nonetheless) defending+counterattack teams to beat Spain! Probably because they were Latin-American

Seriously I wouldn't want to be in your position: the team you hate won the Cup and all your favourite teams lost at some point or another during the tournament. That sucks.

But it shouldn't keep you away from reality - Spain was the most offensive and attacking team at this World Cup. They had a great passing game:
- best accuracy: 80%; Germany had 73%, Netherlands 71%, and Uruguay 62%;
- greatest number of accurate passes: 3803; the second place in this list, Germany, had almost one thousand passes less, 2865! Netherlands were third with 2665; Spain's average per match was 543, Argentina's average (second on this list) was 458 (85 passes per match less!);
Also, they were the team who ran the most, 767 kilometres in total and with 109.6 km in average per match (only Ghana and Paraguay had a better average per match). But much more important, they had the ball for the most kilometres run: they ran 48.9 km per match with the ball, and only 36.9 without the ball. That meant that they ran 57% of the distance with the ball, and only 43 percent of the run was without the ball. For comparison, Uruguay ran only 44% with the ball and  ran 56% of the distance without the ball.
Their passing game always pushed forward, to the attack, where
- they had the most corners, 56, with a game average of 8, Germany had an average of 6.28, Holland had 4.4, England had 8.75, too bad it didn't help them much ; also, Spain had the best corner kick completion rate from all the best 8 teams of the tournament
- they had the most shots, 121; Germany and Uruguay were second with 102.
- they had the most shots on target, 42 (equal with Uruguay)
- they had the most attacking actions, 107 (Germany had 91, Brazil had 72, Argentina had 71), and the highest rate of attacking actions per match, 15.2; Brazil was second with 14.4).
Etc.

Of course, these figures don't say that Spain was the "best" team. Figures without context can't say which team is "good" and which team is "bad". For example, a team can have apparently exceptional figures gained by matches with weak adversary... and next they meet a stronger team who crushed them. That happened to Argentina and Brazil. Or, if you look up the charts for the best defending game, you won't see Spain at the top... Because they didn't need to defend much, all the teams who played against them tried to defend, not to put pressure (they wouldn't have been able anyway).

What these figures show is that in no way can we speak about Spain as an "ugly" team. They passed the most, they did it always towards the front, they attacked the most, they shot a lot, etc. That is what I call generous, offensive football. "Total football". And we should be happy that the team playing the most generous and offensive football won. That happens very rare! Usually, the winners are pragmatic teams, who put the base on rock-solid defending, are economical, play on counterattack, and try to stay in control and exploit the opponent's mistakes if/when they appear. For example, the offensive teams have won only three times from 1970 to out times: Pele's Brazil, Maradona's Argentina, and Spain. The rest were pragmatic teams:

- in 1974 and 1978, the team playing fabulous "total football", Holland, loses the finals against more pragmatical (host) teams, Germany and Argentina
- in 1982, the incredibly pragmatical Italian team beats the crap out of everyone they meet in the knock-out stage, including a fabulous Brazilian team
- in 1990, the Germans play "pragmatically" in the final against Argentina, winning in what can be called a shameful manner
- in 1994 both finalists are "pragmatical" teams, which makes them annihilate each other perfectly
- in 1998 France was an offensive team, yes, but the more beautiful offensive teams then were Brazil and Holland
- 2002 was such a weak tournament that we can't use it as an example for anything
- in 2006 both finalists are pragmatical, one somewhat more offensive (France) and the other more defensive.

I hope that by now it is obvious that I don't want to deny anyone's right to opinion by flooding with figures... Just that I love to talk about football.


Edited by harmonium.ro - July 12 2010 at 12:56

Hopefully someone will make a better version.

Gamemako wrote: The real reason Americans will never appreciate soccer is that they key to victory is getting cards by taking dives.

Lot of truth to this.

It really spoils my enjoyment of the game.

The real reason Americans will never appreciate soccer is that they key to victory is getting cards by taking dives.

crimson87 wrote: Wow , the " best team in the history of mankind" like some spaniards said won the WC. With crushing victories 2-0 , 2-1 , 1-0 , 1-0 , 1-0 ,  and 1-0... if Italy does that , someone would start with the old "anti football" issue. Now , since Spain proved that could produce talented players on their own , don't ever buy another "sudaca" from our league. I have to be honest , I would have liked even England or Brazil to win this WC. But not Spain...

Apparently 145 goals were scored duting this tournament, with a goal per match rate of 2.26, which is a tiny bit more than WC1990, the worst ever from this point of view.

Iniesta wouldn't even be on my top 3 of the tournament. 

Not that he did badly, he didn't.

James wrote: Argh, Spain aren't that great.  I'm still not convinced!

I predicted you will say that!

James wrote: They won the World Cup without even playing their best team.  Why was Fabregas on the bench in every single match

Safety first. Two defending midfielders vs. one defending midfielder means better defending, and better defending is the best way to win (and Spain received only 2 goals this tournament - no team has ever done better in this respect). I agree though that Fabregas' presence boosted the attack, that's why he was used when in need for a decisive breakthrough.

James wrote: and why was Torres even brought on?

The coach chose to play with just one striker, so Villa had to do an enormous amount of work. He simply wouldn't have been able to play anything over the 90 minutes mark.

James wrote: And I'm sorry BBC pundits but I agree with the decision that Diego Forlán was player of the tournament.  No way Iniesta like you guys say.

Yeah, it depends on the criteria. Iniesta was the essential player for Spain in both winning the Cup and overall in the tournament, while Forlan was the most pleasant to the eye player, especially by scoaring beautiful goals. I'd also pick Iniesta as the the player of the tournament.

Congratulations Spain, but that was a poor final.

Did America win yet?