As I thought, only one of Italy and Czech Republic would go through to the Last 16. Unfortunately, the Czechs, despite playing some delightful football against the USA in their first group game, are now out of the tournament. If they'd held their own against Ghana, they'd probably progress at least on goal differentials. As it is now, the golden generation that won the '96 Euro (the likes of Pavel Nedved, Karel Poborsky, and so on) have let their last chance at a World Cup slip away.
Ghana will be the sole African representative in the Last 16, as Ivory Coast, sadly, will not join them. If only they were drawn in a less competitive group - say, groups D, G, or H - they could very well still be playing in Germany this weekend.
Argentina has played the best football by a mile so far. Germany will be glad that they've kept two cleansheets since conceding two against Costa Rica on botched offside traps. Brazil and England have both struggled against international minnows like Australia and Trinidad & Tobago. But of all the so-called powerhouses, France has been the most disappointing. Managing only 1 goal in 180 minutes against Switzerland and South Korea, they must now beat Togo by two goals in order to progress on goal differentials. Compounding their problems is the fact that Zinedine Zidane is suspended on two yellow cards. Having to sit out your final group game and watch while Les Bleus struggle to net two against Togo of all people and crashing out of another World Cup? What a way to end your footballing career, eh, Zizou?
USA took a step back this year, despite their young stars from four years ago having supposedly matured. One point from three games from a team that's ranked 5th in the world and went to the quarters last time around is madly disappointing.
Michael Owen is out for at least 5 months with a cruciate ligament injury. That leaves England critically short of attacking options. They'll likely be stuck with Crouch and Rooney up front, Crouch leading the line and Rooney roaming in the space behind. What Eriksson said, though, about how England has numerous second-striker options (Joe Cole, Gerrard, Lennon, etc.), is pure bollocks. No way would any of them play in place of a fit Rooney. No way would Rooney be as effective leading the line so one of those options can be used in the hole. Rooney is there to stay as second-striker unless he gets hurt again. Should England ever go with a lone man up front, whether it be Crouch or Rooney or, heaven forbid, Walcott, they're better off deploying Carrick or Hargreaves in front of the back four to allow both Gerrard and Lampard to push forward, instead of sticking Joe Cole in front of those two and actually hampering their forward runs.
On the right, while many would prefer Lennon running at fullbacks the way the Coles do on the left, let's face it: Beckham will never be replaced by Eriksson. Don't you wish you could bring on deadball specialists whenever, the way they send on kickers in American football?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment