Dorrk Dot Com

Why is there a history in the World Cup of coaches not putting in hot strikers into games. Baggio and Signori not being used, RVN for Holland, that Turkish guy who always won the game for Turkey in ‘02 off the bench (but who they left out when they needed him much), Messi and that other great player who looks like Anthony Keidis and plays in Brazil etc. etc. etc. And why do they wait so late to put those guys in? Why not in the 55th minute instead of the 78th?

I’ve never understood this, especially in must-win games where they’re trailing by a goal and don’t throw caution to the wind. Egos, mostly. Strikers can be real dicks, and sometimes tend not to work very hard for the rest of the team. However, the great ones have a special spark that can compensate for that with goals. RVN may be on the wane, but if you’re desperate for a goal, give him a half hour. 20 minutes at the least. What can you lose? I don’t get the super-late substitutions either.

Along with this, why are there such questionable choices by coaches in World Cups? Sacchi, Erikkson, the Dutch coach tonight. Why so often do they shoot their own teams in the foot and miss the obvious.

To be fair, I don’t think anything was going to get Holland through to another round. They didn’t have the desire or skill this year. But some of these other managers look good when they are managing clubs: Sacchi was a big success at AC Milan and Eriksson the same at Lazio, but they have looked like total fools at international level, where tactics and motivation become more important as you really have a limited selection of players. And they can’t even get that right!

It seems like every World Cup has a theme. Wasn’t the France WC the cup of lame games and ties? Wasn’t the 02 cup the Cup of upsets? And this cup is the Yellow/Red Card cup.

This is also the "early goal cup." So many goals in the first 10 minutes. It’s one of the reasons why this cup has been more exciting I think, as teams go a goal down early and have to play hard to claw back from the start.

The ESPN announcer always says (when England plays) this is considered the best team England has fielded in years. Is that true? I would think that the 98 France team was stronger with Shearer in his prime, Owen fast and lethal, Beckham up and coming, and Ian Wright, and Seaman. Even the 2002 Korea/Japan team seemed stronger with a still fit Owen, Beckham in his prime? Isn’t this England team kind of weak in comparison. Certainly their playing has been about as exciting as an episode of "upstairs/downstairs."

I think this team is possibly better than 1998’s in terms of squad depth. Beckham is a shadow of his 1997-2000 self, and Owen is a crock now, but there is more talent spread throught the team (although you don’t see it up front, as Jermaine Defoe was left home in favor of an unproven teenager). Really, the squad in 1998 was very poor compared to Rio, Terry, Gerrard, Lampard, Joe Cole, Rooney and Robinson. Eriksson just utterly fails to motivate them or give them a game plan to play well (or maybe there is a plan, but they can’t follow it). Beckham is not a good captain, either, so that hurts the team.

It looks like England couldn’t ask for an easier path to the Semi-finals now–as opposed to other WC’s. Sweden, Ecuador, and now a carded Portugal? And aren’t they in a different bracket than Brazil? It’s too bad they’re not firing on all cylinders.

No. England are set to potentially meet Brazil if both teams win their quarterfinals, with Italy vs. Argentina (or Germany, ick) in the other match. An England/Argentina final would be dynamite, but don’t count on it. Then again, if Spain can beat Brazil in the quarters, England may have a better shot. Spain, though, look like they’ve peaked. A good win over France tomorrow, though, will be an omen of a great face-off between Spain and Brazil in the next stage.

Tags: No Comments