Here we come to the sharp end of the tournament, as the quarterfinals give way to the semifinals. I managed to get all four of my predictions for this round wrong: some were understandable, like Argentina beating the Netherlands or France beating England. Others were less expected, like Croatia battling back against Brazil to win on penalties, or Morocco seeing off Portugal after having beaten Spain. It's been a tournament of upsets and surprises, and it's probably been better for it, especially since this is the first time since 2002 that three different continents/confederations are represented in the semifinals.
Here are some thoughts on what's happened and on what it all means.
Brazil and Neymar
The joke on the Guardian podcast is about how Croatia just don't tire out, but I think this result shows rather that they don't know when they're beaten. I actually missed most of the match, given that it started early on a work day for me, but I did catch the penalty shootout, which was epic - not a comedy of errors like Japan v Croatia or Spain v Morocco, but a nervy and riveting affair that showcased some fine penalty technique. I might have different feelings if I'd been watching a team I cared about, but I've really enjoyed the penalty shootouts this tournament.
As far as Brazil, I've been considering two things since yesterday. The first is what it means that everyone seems to make Brazil their favorites before a tournament but then Brazil always implodes before the final, sometimes in spectacular fashion. In my review of the 2014 Mineirazo I noted that there's never a good reason to assume that the Netherlands will implode, but they always do. The same can now be said of Brazil: it doesn't seem to matter how much talent they stack in their squad, they always come to grief in the quarterfinal (apart from 2014, when they were at home). A lot of commentators and Twitter gadflies note that this is the fifth time Brazil goes out to European opponents but that's nothing special: almost everyone gets beaten by Europe these days. I'm assuming 2026 will feature the same expectations but the same ending for the world's most successful team.
The second thing I've been thinking about is Neymar. Writing in the Guardian Barney Ronay has a good column about what this latest defeat means for him, and he paints a good picture of the emptiness at the heart of the whole Neymar project, not least the way the player attracts derision. For me, the takeaway is that all the hoopla surrounding Neymar has obscured, for me, what should have been a generational talent but has instead become an object of ridicule for all his diving and theatrics. He's tied for international goals with Pelé, but none of that will matter when we look back at this era, because for whatever reason he was just never fully there at the World Cup. Love the player or hate him, but that strikes me as a shame.
That Wout Weghorst brace
I don't have any grand philosophical pronouncements about this match. All I can say is that when the Netherlands equalized in the last minute of added time in the second half, with, of all things, a pass into the wall instead of a free kick... well, I laughed so, so hard. It's just a shame that the Dutch couldn't capitalize on that good work by actually winning the extra time or penalties. Still, it means that Lionel Messi is still in play for this tournament, which spares us anguished disquisitions on how another generational talent hasn't lived up to his best.
Though Argentina shouldn't be writing off Croatia here, because otherwise in twenty years we'll be talking about what an amazing player Luka Modric was (or, you know, maybe he'll still be playing).
Can anyone stop Morocco?
There are two parts to this one, but let's start by giving credit where it's due: this is an amazing run by Morocco, and I'm increasingly hoping they'll get to continue. My head says France will put an end to them in the semifinal, as they did against the rampant Iceland team of 2016, but my heart is looking forward to a Croatia-Morocco rematch in the final.
Now, on to Portugal, and another figure that everyone wants to see fail. Much was made of the scenes of Cristiano Ronaldo weeping as he left the stadium after the match, and like Neymar, I'm tempted to revel in his tears. But like Neymar, the antics and the general weirdness (because make no mistake, Ronaldo is extremely and abidingly weird) obscure a raw talent that bestrode the world of football for a decade, as well as a ferocious will to power that's taken him from an impoverished childhood on Madeira to becoming one of the world's most recognizable people. If I like anything about Ronaldo, it's that will to succeed, and it's a little sad to see that glittering career come to an end this way. But I'm glad it came against Morocco, who've captured the imaginations of football fans everywhere, rather than in another sterile contest against another world's best, Kylian Mbappé.
England's coming home
And now we come to the end. I was most disappointed by this result, because I've felt that this is the first England team in years that I could feel good about supporting. Ever since I moved to Britain I've had a complicated relationship with the England team, since they seemed to be more about satisfying their own sponsors and egos than playing well. Part of this, of course, isn't the players' fault: they were let down by a conservative footballing culture, from the FA on down to the way talent is developed, that continued to act as though footballing success was owed to them because they invented the game in the year Dot.
At the same time, David Beckham represented an early version of the Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi, Neymar Jr, Kylian Mbappé phenomenon. His talent seemed to take a backseat to his endorsements and his marketability, which likely had something to do with why his then-manager at Manchester United kicked a boot at his head and then sold him off to Real Madrid. All I'll say is that, like Ronaldo and Neymar, this tournament has left Beckham's brand a bit in tatters, though this time because of his shilling for the Qatari regime.
So what's so different about this England team? None of them is a bigger star than the team: Harry Kane seems to be more of the retiring type, while the one player I can think of who's done anything noteworthy off the pitch is Marcus Rashford, for his campaign to ensure that underprivileged kids continued to get access to school meals during the pandemic lockdowns. You can't imagine David Beckham, Wayne Rooney or John Terry making similar, selfless actions (which may be unfair, but there you go).
They've also represented a different vision of England during these years post-Brexit. Since that vote, the country's gotten smaller and meaner and poorer, with an elected class that seems more interest in triggering the libs than actually coming up with meaningful policy (you can make this accusation to an extent about Keir Starmer's Labour Party, too, btw). The England men's team, on the other hand, has continued to take a knee before matches and has pushed back against bad-faith pronouncements by some of the Tories' most unpresentable elements, like Priti Patel.
This has all come from the top, from Gareth Southgate, who came up from the youth teams and drew inspiration from other sports for training, conditioning and man-management, and who's been quietly but firmly resolute about pushing back against the worst impulses of Britain's leaders. He may not be the tactical genius that would bring England the greatest trophy, but you can argue that a national team job isn't the place for that anyway: there's a reason José Mourinho and Pep Guardiola have stayed in club management.
All I'm saying is, Southgate has taken the England men's team far, in terms of results and maturity, and while he'll need to give way someday, I think the English footballing establishment should consider carefully what he's brought to the team, and not undo all his good work.
No comments:
Post a Comment