In truth in football it is not always the best team that wins. And I mean "best" in the sense that it is not the team that plays the nicest football, that creates the most chances, that attacks the most, that plays the most entertaining.
This was exactly what happened in the Olympic women's final between Brazil and the USA. I think the USA did not have a shot on target until the 85th minute, while the Brazilians were constantly in possession and attacking.
Here though, I must also say another truth in football: the more clever defeats the more naive. One must respect the discipline and defensive tactics which did that the Brazilian ladies, in spite of overwhelming superiority in possession, never really got a great chance. The North American ladies thus fully deserved the gold ahead of the naive (and unlucky in the end!) Brazilians.
So congratulations to the USA for their gold medal!
That said, there is a deeper problem here for the sake of women's football.
I have before said that I do not find women's football too exciting: it is too mechanical and with too little flair. The Brazilian ladies have been the first to add flair to women's football, thus making it more entertaining to watch. But if teams that play like the USA did today continue winning, women's football will always be too boring to watch! With all due respect for the tactical prowess of their victory, it is more exciting to watch someone count grains of sand than to watch someone play like the US ladies did today!
Showing posts with label Beijing 2008. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Beijing 2008. Show all posts
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Goodbye and thanks for nothing
Cameroun and Italy, in the first round of this Olympic tournament, played some of the most boring football ever, and now, both teams are out, in the quarterfinals: farewell to both, and thanks for nothing.
I did not see Italy lose 2-3 to Belgium, but I am happy they did: every time Italy is out in football it is a reason to be happy!
What I did see though, was Brazil's extra time 2-0 victory against a Cameroonian team who did not seem to have gone to China to kick a ball, but rather to kick the men. This should not surprise about Cameroun though: they have always played physically, bordering on the outright violent, and are one of the teams ever with most cards in the world cups. And today they lived up to their style: destructive and boring football, nothing to do with that so-called "Olympic spirit".
While Brazil was not impressive, very slow and lacked fighting, they did the whole world a favour by eliminating Cameroun. And I hope Cameroun doesn't come back to the Olympics.
I did not see Italy lose 2-3 to Belgium, but I am happy they did: every time Italy is out in football it is a reason to be happy!
What I did see though, was Brazil's extra time 2-0 victory against a Cameroonian team who did not seem to have gone to China to kick a ball, but rather to kick the men. This should not surprise about Cameroun though: they have always played physically, bordering on the outright violent, and are one of the teams ever with most cards in the world cups. And today they lived up to their style: destructive and boring football, nothing to do with that so-called "Olympic spirit".
While Brazil was not impressive, very slow and lacked fighting, they did the whole world a favour by eliminating Cameroun. And I hope Cameroun doesn't come back to the Olympics.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Olympic football
The Olympic games in Berlin are about to start, and football is one of the sports where the country's will be competing.
The history of olympic football has always been rather awkward, and still today, the position of olympic history is very strange: something in between a semi-youth tournament supplemented with some star players.
For the first Olympic games, when there was no world cup, the Olympics were considered like the world cup, dominated by Europeans. This was just until unknown Uruguay in 1924 blew all Europeans away, and the groundwork was laid for the first world cup in 1930 in Uruguay. Then, for many years, olympic football became the ground of amateurs, dominated by Eastern Europeans, who had "state amateurs".
In general, it was a bore, and no competition with the World Cup: one can also see this in relation to countries that were the best in the world, were not to be seen in the Olympics: Brazil, England, West Germany, Argentina... (with only possible exception of some Eastern European countries).
Over the last years this has started to change, and the allowing of new players has made the tournament a bit more interesting, although some participating nations still only show off with a secondary youth team.
The great exceptions for these Olympics in Beijing are Brazil and Argentina. Argentina are defending champions from 2004, and Brazil is keen on winning its first gold ever in football. They therefore have shown up with very strong teams, and are by far the favourites to win the whole thing.
Nevertheles, because olympic football is such a bore, one doesn't know what may happen. However, I may add that it is not really worth bothering with games in the first rounds, until the semi-finals, unless you are from one of the countries playing.
The history of olympic football has always been rather awkward, and still today, the position of olympic history is very strange: something in between a semi-youth tournament supplemented with some star players.
For the first Olympic games, when there was no world cup, the Olympics were considered like the world cup, dominated by Europeans. This was just until unknown Uruguay in 1924 blew all Europeans away, and the groundwork was laid for the first world cup in 1930 in Uruguay. Then, for many years, olympic football became the ground of amateurs, dominated by Eastern Europeans, who had "state amateurs".
In general, it was a bore, and no competition with the World Cup: one can also see this in relation to countries that were the best in the world, were not to be seen in the Olympics: Brazil, England, West Germany, Argentina... (with only possible exception of some Eastern European countries).
Over the last years this has started to change, and the allowing of new players has made the tournament a bit more interesting, although some participating nations still only show off with a secondary youth team.
The great exceptions for these Olympics in Beijing are Brazil and Argentina. Argentina are defending champions from 2004, and Brazil is keen on winning its first gold ever in football. They therefore have shown up with very strong teams, and are by far the favourites to win the whole thing.
Nevertheles, because olympic football is such a bore, one doesn't know what may happen. However, I may add that it is not really worth bothering with games in the first rounds, until the semi-finals, unless you are from one of the countries playing.
| Olympics | Gold | Silver | Bronze |
| 1900 Paris | Great Britain | France | Belgium |
| 1904 St. Loius | Canada | United States | |
| 1908 London | Great Britain | Denmark | Netherlands |
| 1912 Stockholm | Great Britain | Denmark | Netherlands |
| 1920 Antwerpen | Belgium | Spain | Netherlands |
| 1924 Paris | Uruguay | Switzerland | Sweden |
| 1928 Amsterdam | Uruguay | Argentina | Italy |
| 1936 Berlin | Italy | Austria | Norway |
| 1948 London | Sweden | Yugoslavia | Denmark |
| 1952 Helsinki | Hungary | Yugoslavia | Sweden |
| 1956 Melbourne | USSR | Yugoslavia | Bulgaria |
| 1960 Rome | Yugoslavia | Denmark | Hungary |
| 1964 Tokyo | Hungary | Czechoslovakia | East Germany |
| 1968 Mexico City | Hungary | Bulgaria | Japan |
| 1972 Munich | Poland | Hungary | USSR |
| 1976 Montreal | East Germany | Poland | USSR |
| 1980 Moscow | Czechoslovakia | East Germany | USSR |
| 1984 Los Angeles | France | Brazil | Yugoslavia |
| 1988 Seoul | USSR | Brazil | West Germany |
| 1992 Barcelona | Spain | Poland | Ghana |
| 1996 Atlanta | Nigeria | Argentina | Brazil |
| 2000 Sydney | Cameroun | Spain | Chile |
| 2004 Athens | Argentina | Paraguay | Italy |
| 2008 Beijing | |||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)