The Asian Cup might be about to start, but it also marks the one year anniversary of Australia's return to the World Cup. Thirty two years it took for Australia to reach the World Cup, and what an impact they made. From the rampant finale against Japan, the refereeing debacle against Brazil, the high-drama against Croatia, to ultimately the last second elimination by Italy. If there's two things that will be remembered mostly for this World Cup it will be Zinedine Zidane's headbutt on Grosso in the final, and Australia. It gripped the nation like no other contest since the 1983 Americas Cup, and showed just why this sport is the most popular in the world. While Australia could quite easily have made the semi finals had slightly different circumstances arisen, the tournament was still a success on every level.
Before the tournament a final 16 spot was the realistic goal for Australia, while a win or at least some goals and a general well-rounded performance would have satisfied most. Australia's eventual results were 1 win, 1 draw and 2 losses. On paper, nothing special, especially when most people would have penciled the win over Japan as the most obvious expectation. The draw against Croatia and losing to Brazil and Italy would have been par for the course. However, the achievement of reaching the last 16 was good, and that most people outside Australia had ranked Australia as the fourth best team in the group. Also, Australia did beat Croatia if the referee (Graham Poll) on the night did not wave away the final goal in the chaotic final moments of the game and then just blow the whistle for the game. Why Australian officials did not fire in a protest about the result, is still bemusing - even given the excitement and sense of achievement in qualifying given that the draw was enough. Also curious that Fifa's own scrutineering did not investigate the final moments and at least provide some answers about it. Upon the many replays I've seen since, the only possible explanation is the scrimmage involving Croatia's Joe Simunic and Australia's Joshua Kennedy that saw Kennedy slung to the ground, could have been deemed a foul by Kennedy. Fifa at least did provide a reason for Simunic receiving three yellow cards before being sent off. It was due to the referee accidentally writing down in his book that one of the yellow cards against number 3 was for Australia (Craig Moore).
Once reaching the final 16, it would have been nice to go further. Final 16 in itself is not much of an achievement when half the teams in the tournament go that far - a fact enhanced by Lucas Neill in Australia for the games against Paraguay and Bahrain when he said "I think as good as the celebrations back here have been, we can only call it a mini-success because, let's be honest, we didn't actually achieve too much". The way Australia fought out games and kept having to beat adversity certainly made it an achievement, but for further World Cups, it will really be the first objective.
Control possession and you control the game. That was the catch-cry of Australia's coach, Guus Hiddink. A very simple and quite logical notion and one that Australia executed well. But is it true? Many top international teams will let the opposition have the ball and hit them on the break. The Czech Republic is a notorious exponent of this type of game and I can recall several years ago Australia being torn-apart and losing 3-1 despite 57% of the game. Against Italy at this World Cup, it is arguable at who really controlled the game. The longer the game went, the longer it looked less likely Australia would score and that Italy would. But they were the man down and had the limited possession? With a man down, that was their gameplan, and one that they had firmly in control. Ultimately, one of the chances paid off.
In hindsight, the controversial penalty highlighted a serious short-coming of the team: they had no answers up front. Worse, the defensive leaks under previous coach Farina were never quite plugged. In each game Australia conceded not just goals, but poor goals. The last few minutes of the game against Japan was the only time Australia led a match. For much a majority of the remainder, they were behind. In retaliation to conceding goals, Australia would score simply from sheer pressure, and not so much as cutting teams to threads with nice build-ups and sublime crosses. Looking back through all the games against stronger opposition under Hiddink (Uruguay, Greece, Holland, Japan & Croatia), all the goals came from broken or scrappy play. This is not an indictment on Hiddink, but more a symptom of the limited time he had with the team. Hiddink chose a possession and pressure type game for Australia. Yes, it worked, but against a real quality opponent like Italy, the limitation was exposed.
The other problem exposed was the over-estimation of the defensive capabilities of Australia's non-defenders. While Australia may have had little choice against Japan to leave one specialist defender on the pitch, I made the comment at the time that some players are just not defenders and Australia will be caught out. They were already lucky not to be caught when they equalised against Japan with Japan having a valid penalty claim and a couple of good shots on goal of their own. The goals scored by Brazil were both due to non-specialist defenders being caught out. Against Italy, it was Bresciano as a "right-back" who was shunted aside easily for Italy to ultimately win the penalty. These are the dying seconds of a game that can take Australia to a World Cup quarter final and Mark Bresciano is playing right-back?
Many commentators have said since that instead of waiting for extra time as Hiddink seemed to be doing, it would have been wiser to push for the win earlier and bring on Aloisi much earlier, and maybe Kennedy as well. As it stood, Aloisi came on with just 8 minutes left and ultimately set up one of the best chances Australia had to score. But a change in tack was needed as well for Australia to take moments of sitting back and allow the Italians open up a bit. For ostensibly, the way Australia played out the remainder of the game, they didn't have a man-up at all.
As much has been written about the penalty conceded against Italy, but no where has anyone bothered to find out the exact interpretation of the rule to determine exactly whether it was a penalty or not. Mostly it's comments of personal opinion, with the consensus being that it wasn't penalty.
Fifa said nothing either, though, the fact that referee Luis Medina was used in further games, including the semi final involving Germany and Italy and being a reserve for the final, suggests they don't think he made an error. Indeed, on initial impressions, most people will say they thought it a penalty. I know I feared it immediately. For a player, they know if they go down early and do not win the ball, they are asking for trouble. Lucas Neill admitted on Foxtel's Backpage TV show that he was trying to be "cute" and didn't feel anything malicious towards Grosso and left it as all being part of football. Yes, he would think differently in a repeat scenario, but the real problem with the penalty was in the timing... in that it was the final act of the game and Australia had no time to react.
Now, lets actually look at the rule for free kicks, both direct (which is a penalty if caused in the penalty box) and indirect free kicks, and check Neill's action against them:
A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following six offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
-kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
-trips or attempts to trip an opponent
-jumps at an opponent
-charges an opponent
-strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
-pushes an opponent
A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following four offences:
-tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent
before touching the ball
-holds an opponent
-spits at an opponent
-handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player, in the opinion of the referee:
-plays in a dangerous manner
-impedes the progress of an opponent
-prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands
-commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped
to caution or dismiss a player.
The only possible direct free kick infringement is "tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball", but Neill did not really tackle the opponent, only plonk his bum on the turf to force Grosso away from goal.
For an indirect free kick, the most obvious infringement is "impedes the progress of an opponent". This is called "obstruction". Had Neill stayed on his feet, no doubt he would have pinged for obstruction. There's no reason obstruction should not be called for anyone plonking themselves on the ground as Neill did, but I've never seen such a call.
By these interpretations, the absolute correct call would be for obstruction and indirect free-kick for Italy, and a yellow card against Grosso for diving (or "simulation"). Which leads us to another problem...
Ever since I've been watching the World Cup (1986), and especially since the seminal World Cup of cheating in 1990, the bane of the sport has been players diving and the non-deterrent of yellow cards. As I commented in the editorial after the last World Cup, yellow cards need to penalise teams immediately so not just the team is punished, but the opposition is rewarded. Currently the only punishment is a second yellow card creating a send off, or, more commonly, a second yellow in another match that will actually reward the team's opponent in the following match via a suspension of the player. The result of yellow card should have an immediate effect and the best way to achieve that is for an immediate expulsion from the game for period of 15 minutes - much like the "sin bin" seen in other sports. Ice hockey has this very rule and has become instrumental in the game with their "powerplays" where a team benefits from an extra man for a certain amount of time. If there is insufficient time to serve the time, the card could carry into the next match for use as a deterrent to gaining a suspension in the case of a player picking up another card, as is the current rule.
The other blight on the game that really came to the fore at this World Cup was players feigning injury. Not just to waste time, but also to stop the progress of the other team. It's cheating beyond extreme. Now, if Fifa had a similar immediate expulsion rule, that is if any form of medic or stretcher that is called onto the pitch, the player must come off the ground and stay off the ground for at least 10 minutes, legitimately injured or not. Otherwise leave the pitch of his own accord. Currently all they do is come off and then go straight back on. Where's the deterrent?
It's also time that Fifa used video "retro-refereeing". Any player seen to have dived or "simulated" during the match, gets a yellow card awarded retrospectively. If he's committed two such fouls, it's a retrospective red card. Video has been used in most professional sports for years to sort out poor conduct, so why not the biggest sport in the world? Get with the program.
That raises the question of whether Grosso should have been awarded a retrospective yellow card for his dive? Of course! While the referee can be excused for possibly making a wrong decision in a very tough situation with the actual penalty, legal tackle or not, Grosso dived.
The word "depth", it has amazing connotations. Truthfully, no team other than the absolute top guns have depth. For the 1994 campaign, Australia's overseas players consisted of players playing in teams no better than the middle of the French, Dutch and Belgian leagues. Jason van Blerk anyone? Local players consisted of Paul Wade, Mehmet Durakovic, Alex Tobin and Milan Ivanovic. Certainly the latter three are probably the most accomplished defensive triangle ever, but names like Wade, van Blerk, Arnold, Farina and Slater don't quite compare to the likes of Kewell, Viduka, Cahill, Moore, Emerton, Bresciano and Grella. There was Zelic and Bosnich in 1993, who maybe the only players that would make the current team. Yet as the calibre of the team improves, each World Cup period we talk about the lack of depth. If the "depth" remained at the level of Bosnich, Zelic and Farina, then the current team has plenty of depth. However, with the likes of Kewell and Viduka, the surface level has increased and therefore dragging down the depth again.
Maybe only Italy at this World Cup you could pick any player off the bench for any player on the park and not lose too much. Even their second eleven may almost be as good as their first eleven. While we marvel at the calibre of our players increasing ever World Cup period, Hiddink really had little confidence in the depth of the squad, hence very few players being used throughout the tournament. When he did make a change, it was switching Schwarzer for Kalac, which became the biggest brain explosion ever. The reluctance to use other players threatened to unravel the team. Eventually it did. It's a travesty a player like Josip Skoko received no game time, especially in the seemingly interminable stalemate against Italy, and fatal that non-specialist defenders were used in defensive positions. It seemed Hiddink had no confidence in the team to try something more expansive or expressive. Instead the team remained in its holding pattern waiting of holding the ball and probing with short passes and ultimately achieving very little.
In saying that, Hiddink did get a great deal out of the team and they played with a confidence and experience that truly surprised. Watching the games again recently really highlighted their competitive level. They really were a match for all the teams they played, including Italy, in which, other than a couple of early scares, they fired shot for shot even before Italy had a man sent off.
If you could make one criticism, it was the non-use of Skoko. In his place, Jason Culina played every minute, yet, other than a couple of pot-shots on goal against Brazil, he failed to create a single highlight for the entire tournament. He was like the invisible man. His shot, too, must be the most ineffective in the game. I just felt that Australia, at times, needed to shake it up a little and get some longer, probing passes and lobs happening, and someone that can shoot better from range. Skoko was that man.
There's still the Hiddink legacy. Under the current regime of Graham Arnold, assistant to Hiddink during his reign, Arnold, with more time at his disposal and able to expand on Hiddink's philosophy, encouragingly has turned Australia into a far more impressive attacking unit. The goals conceded still haven't quite dried up. But no one can realistically pretend a team should always put on a perfect performance of many chances and shutting out the opposition totally in every match and against any opposition. However, the team is now more potent in attack, and looking great for the future.
As has consistently proved, the most powerful aid to World Cup success is, again, the path. While I chuckled at the ease of Croatia in 1998, and both Brazil and Germany in 2002, Italy's path in 2006 was laughable. A group of USA, Ghana and a strangely under-performing Czech Republic. From there, Australia, Ukraine and Germany. Germany were rated one of the weakest German teams ever before the tournament, and mostly rode a wave of patriotic fervour led by coach Jurgen Klinsmann. They ultimately proved no hindrance to an accomplished Italian team.
The path wasn't meant to be so easy. The main culprit was France, whose second place in their group led to Italy avoiding them in the quarter finals. Instead it opened up for them to face either Switzerland or Ukraine. It could have been more difficult still had there been some upsets in either Italy's group or Australia's, which could have seen a Brazil-Italy knockout game first up. Italy can then thank France again for eliminating Brazil altogether, and avoiding maybe a tougher final. Though, in hindsight, Brazil were not the feared Brazilian team that many like to associate with them.
My first pick, Netherlands, ultimately proved disappointing. Mostly my support for them came from the heart and with the potential of a good draw. England, my other finalist, proved totally incompetent, even with a potentially easy draw. I did however pick Italy for third and Ukraine as outsider (both because of the draw). It was tough to separate them with France in that crunch quarter final. As it turned out, they avoided each other until the final.
It was an unusual World Cup. Normally, without Australia there, I'd be excited about all matches and fully knowledgeable about most of the teams and interested in their performances. However, this time, I was distracted, and didn't quite care. Obviously the time zone didn't help, but regardless of that, there were very few matches I watched in their entirety, even if I could, or record them. That included the final itself.
Normally I only pick three matches, but with Australia there this time, I'm picking five:
France, in this match, probably put on the most accomplished display of football of any team for the entire tournament. Totally dismantled and out-classed Brazil, both in offence and almost totally shutting them out in defence. Loved it. This came after a 3-1 demolishment of Spain. France were playing some unbelievable stuff, and from there, I hoped they could go on and win.
I didn't quite see all of this match, missing some of the early action, and have to rely on anecdotal reports as well. Proved the most classiest and one of the most dramatic matches, and complete with cracking goals. It was a shame Mexico had to be eliminated. It is two tournaments in a row where they have really looked the goods only to be eliminated in the first knock-out game.
The most dramatic and stressful game I've personally ever witnessed. It edges out the World Cup qualifier against Uruguay simply because goals were scored in this game, and Australia had to respond. There was also the Australia/Croatia rivalry with players of Croatian descent on Australia's team and players born in Australia on Croatia's team. Coach Hiddink made the bizarre choice of playing Kalac only to see him make a howler. All this came after Australia conceded early, being denied a clear penalty when Viduka was manhandled to the ground, Australia eventually getting a penalty, going behind to Kalac's error, and then finally equalising through Kewell in the latter stages of the game. If that wasn't enough, there were the three yellow cards on Simunic, plus the schemozzle at the end where Australia seemed to have been denied a perfectly good goal to Aloisi. It didn't all matter, because Australia had qualified for the second round.
A classic David vs Goliath, with Sweden pounding and pounding T&T, with T&T resisting and resisting. One of the few games I saw in its entirety. It kept me glued to the set.
The anticipation and uncertainty with the first game back at the World Cup in 32 years. The wonder of the sporting stage that they were actually there. The hope of winning. Then the dismay of seeing Japan "score" that clumsy goal, the wait and wait and wait and wait until, bang, Australia scored. Then bang, then bang. Three goals in 6 minutes that saw Australia grab one of the most dramatic wins possible. Afterwards, it was just the most wonderful feeling ever experienced.