Fourth time lucky for record-breaker Klose

Although I was pleased with my decision to choose the BBC’s coverage over ITV’s, there was one glaring omission from their post-match analysis. Whilst Gary Lineker focused upon plugging the brilliantly-named ‘Rio in Rio’ show that’s airing tonight and saying an emotional goodbye to Alan Hansen, I was a little disappointed by his failure to give a real star of this World Cup a similarly significant send-off: Miroslav Klose.

The World Cup’s all-time leading goal-scorer (presumably) signed-off from international football in fitting style, making way for match-winner Mario Gotze in the 88^th minute before lifting the trophy on the greatest stage of all. Having finished runner-up in 2002 and in third-place twice, there are few footballers in the history of the competition so deserving of a winner’s medal.

Miroslav Klose: World Cup winner at the fourth time of asking

Which is why it was a shame to see the BBC fail to acknowledge one of the finest goal-scorers of his generation. There is a lot to be said for the idea that Klose doesn’t deserve to be raised up to the levels of World Cup legends such as Pele, Maradona or even Ronaldo, the man whose record Klose broke with his strike in the semi-final demolition of – fittingly - Brazil.

These figures are so revered for qualities that Klose simply doesn’t possess – the ability to raise the volume within a stadium simply by receiving the ball. Germany’s all-time leading scorer will never be considered on the same level as these men, and perhaps fairly so. But football is a simple game, with its most basic objective being to put the ball in the back of the net. No other player has done it on football’s biggest stage as often as Miroslav Klose.

What Klose does possess is longevity, a quality that allows him to write himself in the annals of football history in a different way to these players. At 36, he continues to find himself in dangerous positions, not relying upon pace or luck but an innate knowledge of the game. In Britain we have seen players such as Michael Owen be beaten into retirement by age and injury, whilst arguably our greatest goal-scorer, Alan Shearer, had to retire from international football to maintain an acceptable level of performance.

Klose suffers no such problems. Throughout last season, he made 28 appearances for Lazio, his body able to cope with the demands of European and international football on top of his domestic duties. The Polish-born forward was a relative late-bloomer in football terms, not making his professional debut until he was twenty-years-old in 1998. However, 661 appearances and 277 goals later Klose finds himself firmly in the folklore of German football – alongside and even above the likes of Franz Beckenbauer, Gerd Muller and Lothar Matthaus.

His is also a career that has been forged with consistent professionalism. While the careers of some are tainted by scandal or disgrace, Klose has become known for his principled approach to the game, even admitting to using his hand to score for Lazio against Napoli two years ago. There are other, more celebrated figures among football’s legends that cannot boast the same character.

This class was in evidence last night. Once Philipp Lahm lifted the trophy, Klose celebrated quietly with his family, keeping a dignified silence about his future. Last night was about the team and the triumph of a young German side, not his potential retirement.

"I do not know yet if I will carry on with the national team," he said. "I'll take a couple of nights to sleep on it and then make the right decision."

As the BBC and the world focused upon the future – Russia 2018 and Germany’s potential domination – one could forgive Klose for allowing himself a moment of reflection. Finally, he was able to put to bed the ghosts of 2002 and enjoy the crowning glory of what has been a glittering career.

The likes of Pele and Maradona could excite a stadium, but in the end nothing gets the fans on their feet quite like putting the ball in the back of the net. And few have been able to do that quite like Miroslav Klose. 

“Best World Cup ever” still missing key component

There’s an increasing consensus that this World Cup has been up there with the best ever, at the very least the best in living memory. That might be true in my case: none of ‘my’ previous three tournaments -2002, 2006 and 2010 – have been able to contend with the levels of excitement that Brazil has treated us to so far.

I’ve come to tolerate hearing that this World Cup is the best ever – it may a touch premature, but it is a judgement that is ultimately subjective. But I’ve heard its proponents suggest that these finals have “had it all” - have they really? The semi-finals are upon us and we are, in my opinion, yet to see a truly great side.

That does not mean to say that this World Cup hasn’t had plenty going for it. There has been controversy – but dodgy refereeing, dives and bites are to be deplored rather than celebrated. So, too, have there been upsets, but none of the earth-shattering variety to be found in Korea and Japan, or indeed Brazil in 1950.

For many, the joy of this World Cup has been the triumph of the underdog, with the progression of the likes Colombia and Costa Rica giving the tournament flavour and variety. Whilst this may be true, even the most extraordinary of underdogs cannot make a tournament great – no-one would suggest the Greeks boring their way to the European Championships in 2004 made it the best tournament of all time, however surprising it was.

Of course, perhaps significantly, there have been plenty of goals. The group stages boasted nearly three a game – almost unprecedented levels of excitement. Goals mean entertainment, of course, but they do not necessarily equate to a tournament of high quality – especially when they come at the cost of decent defending.

That is something that has been scarce at this tournament – just ask England. Costa Rica, perhaps, have been the most organised and adept side defensively, but they have been a refreshing exception. I am by no means a purist, but it is hard to announce a tournament as history’s finest when so few teams have mastered one of the game’s most basic objectives – keeping the ball out of your own net.

It should probably be pointed out that the knockout stages haven’t extended this barn-storming start. In fact, forgetting extra-time, the last 16 and quarter-final stages in Brazil have yielded fewer goals than the same stages in South Africa four years ago – widely perceived to be the worst tournament ever.

Regardless, the point is that goals are not necessarily indicative of entertainment. If they were, as Jonathan Wilson writes in Inverting the Pyramid, there’d be huge queues to watch primary school football. It might be a little simplistic but there can be average 3-3 draws in the same way that there can be great 0-0s.

I am probably being overly critical of what has undoubtedly been the finest tournament I have experienced. Perhaps I sound ungrateful for the hours of entertainment Brazil 2014 has brought, but I find it hard to refer to Brazil 2014 as the best ever as long as it continues to lack a great team.

Although it has been a privilege to see the individual brilliance of characters such as James Rodriguez, Neymar and Lionel Messi, when a World Cup comes around one of the things that excites me most is the opportunity to witness a truly great side.

The World Cup’s history is littered with great champions – teams that have done more than simply win the competition. The Brazilian champions of 1970 epitomise this, with the likes of Pele, Carlos Alberto and Jairzinho capturing the imagination of millions on their way to the trophy.

There have even been sides that have become immortalised despite falling short – the Dutch side of 1974 still managed to make those finals great with their revolutionary Total Football that ultimately saw them beaten in the final.

Even the comparatively dire 2010 tournament could still boast the presence of a brilliant Spanish side. When Iker Casillas lifted the trophy in South Africa you knew you were witnessing the rewarding of excellence.

For all the excitement of these finals, that’s exactly what’s been missing from the tournament. A friend of mine summed it up perfectly on Saturday night when he said that he didn’t want any of the four teams left in the competition to win it. It’s not hard to see where he’s coming from. Despite the 21 finals the four sides accumulatively boast, each has flattered to deceive.

The Netherlands and Germany both started with a bang, but have petered out as the weeks have gone on to the point where both, and the Dutch in particular, have had to ride their luck on their way to the semi-finals. Outstanding victories over Spain and Portugal respectively have proved to be false dawns.

Meanwhile, the Argentinians are in the final four by virtue of the excellence of Lionel Messi alone. Against Bosnia, Iran and indeed Switzerland, it took a moment of brilliance from the Barcelona magician to carry them through to the quarter-finals where they struggled past a lacklustre Belgian side.

And although I am a fan of this Brazilian side for their spirit and ability to cope with the expectations of a nation, they have hardly lit up their own tournament. Their only creative influence sadly leaves the tournament with a broken back, leaving us with a team that spent the majority of their quarter-final attempting to kick the apparently insatiable James Rodriguez out of the game.

In the event, it was France that came closest to this ideal. It was the first time I’d seen them come into a tournament and play with so much verve and drive. A solitary German goal saw them leave Brazil with a whimper, however, as they failed to produce with their backs against the wall.

Instead we are left hoping that one of the remaining sides can take a leaf out of the French book and produce some football worthy of a World Cup semi-final. The frustrating reality is that each of these sides has it in them. We’ve already seen it from the Dutch and Germans, and any side with Lionel Messi in their ranks is capable of the extraordinary.

It is not inconceivable that the eventual champions will dazzle their way to the World Cup with two quality performances at this late stage, but if they don’t, in the words of Brian Clough (albeit in a different context), they’ll be champions, but they won’t be good champions.

And if that occurs, then the “best World Cup of all time” will be missing one key component.

The Americans can't afford another missed opportunity

Amid all of the buzz from Tuesday night, it’s easy to forget that the US have done better.

Although I was not yet nine years old, moments from the 2002 World Cup stuck in the memory. Beckham’s penalty was one, Ronaldo’s haircut was another, whilst I remember the controversial but impressive run to the semi-finals South Korea enjoyed.

When I look back at those finals, the fact that the United States made the quarter-finals should be equally as memorable. Victory over Portugal in the group stage set them up for progression into the round of 16, where they achieved their first World Cup clean sheet since 1950 with a 2-0 win over rivals Mexico. Their journey was only ended by a contentious 1-0 defeat to Germany, when Thorsten Frings appeared to prevent an American goal with the use of his hand. 

Presumably I hadn’t got my nine-year-old head around the fact that being a large nation didn’t necessarily equate to footballing success, or that ‘soccer’ didn’t dominate American sport in the way that it does in the UK. So, the considerable achievement of Brian McBride, Landon Donovan and Claudio Reyna went over my nine-year-old head, and I wasn’t the only one. After the Americans sealed their passage into the last-eight the US media reaction was one of surprise – “The World Cup is still going on right now?” was one response.

Among those die-hard soccer fans, though, the achievement remains a highlight in the history of the USMNT, up there with their famous 1-0 victory over England in 1950. The ten-year anniversary of the win over Mexico was celebrated loudly in some quarters, and fans of the team point to the victory as evidence of the American superiority over their neighbours.

Sadly, that appears to be the only legacy from the tournament (and a false one at that). Copious amounts of money continued to be pumped into the sport without direction, and the MLS began to grow at a faster rate than public interest.

Even the arrival of David Beckham failed to significantly raise interest in the sport across the pond, and the US’s relationship with soccer remained strained, the team’s achievements even being treated with a degree of ridicule. After a draw with England at the 2010 finals, the New York Post’s headline declared: ‘USA wins 1-1!’, before claiming that ‘this sport is stupid anyway’ after their subsequent exit.

(thesun.co.uk)

The US may have more Gold Cups to their name than the Mexicans since Korea/Japan, but it is their neighbours that can claim more real progress since 2002. Appearances at the Olympics and Confederations Cup, as well as two U-17 World Cups are testament to the strong foundations that Mexican football finds itself built upon.

This time, though, things could and should be different.  Social media was buzzing with American pride on Tuesday night, and Barack Obama’s phone call to the team emphasised the feeling of a sea-change in American attitudes.

In Jurgen Klinsmann they have a serious coach with an interest in the future of the national side complemented by a team with potential. With a few lessons learnt from their experience at these finals and indeed from their Mexican neighbours, the mistakes of 2002 may not be repeated.

Although Tim Howard’s monumental efforts may have proved to be in vain on the night, the national response to his team’s World Cup means that, if the US gets it right, his saves may be even more significant than his country’s record-breaking run twelve years ago.

James Rodriguez: the £40m enigma

Almost thirty caps for his country, three titles in one of Europe’s top leagues, a Europa League winner’s medal and topped with a £40m move to one of the world’s most glamorous football clubs. Not a description of a player you’d consider unknown, but James Rodriguez has been treated as such during these World Cup finals.

It appears as though only players of video-game series Football Manager were aware of his talents before this summer, and even those of us that were didn’t realise we were pronouncing his name wrong the whole time. So how is it that Rodriguez’s brilliance at this tournament is shaping his reputation, rather than merely confirming it?

A large part of the reason is where, rather than how, the attacking midfielder plied his trade until now. Although he’d made nearly one hundred league appearances and earned ten caps for Colombia before he was twenty, these years were spent in the relative wilderness of South American football.

Even this early success was down to the influence of a supposed ally of Pablo Escobar. The president of Envigado, the club that gave Rodriguez his first shot at senior football, was apparently a friend of the infamous drug lord. Before long, he found himself at Banfield in Argentina: a step up, but still a long way from the television deals and worldwide exposure of European football.

However, his form on the international stage was catching the eye of Europe’s more astute scouts and it was Porto that came calling after Rodriguez had led Colombia’s U-20 side to victory in the 2011 Toulon Tournament. Finally Europe was taking notice, but the British remained oblivious as the playmaker led Porto to three titles in three years.

Indeed, ask your average Briton to name a Colombian footballer before this summer and Falcao would have been the most common response, probably followed by Inter’s Fredy Guarin. Having had a career closely linked to that of Falcao, Rodriguez has lived largely in the striker’s shadow, following him to Porto and then onto AS Monaco.

It was this shadow that caused many to write off Colombia’s chances when Falcao failed to recover from the knee injury sustained six months ago – even the £40m Monaco spent on Rodriguez last summer couldn’t convince the masses of his star qualities.

But his team-mate's injury has given Rodriguez the platform to excel at these World Cup finals. Throughout qualifying, James found himself out on the left, isolated from the areas in which he has been such an influence at this tournament. When Falcao had to drop out of the squad, Jose Pekerman moved Rodriguez inside, handed him the number 10 shirt and in doing so gave him the tools to become one of the stars of the competition.

James Rodriguez hits the volley that finally woke the world up to his special talents (ballball.com)

Granted, Portugal and France do not boast domestic leagues to rival La Liga, the Premier League or even the Bundesliga, but Rodriguez has stood out to such an extent that it is almost criminal that he is only getting recognition now. Thirty-four goals and twenty-three assists in his four seasons in Europe are testament to the significance of the 22-year-old’s contribution.

As the Colombian announces himself alongside Neymar and Mario Goetze as young challengers to Messi and Ronaldo’s throne, it is only a matter of time before the likes of Real Madrid come calling. Although Monaco have the financial clout to resist the temptation to sell, their absence among the game’s elite leaves them exposed to losing their star asset.

In England, our Premier League tunnel vision is finally being widened in a way only the World Cup can. For too long, the extent of Rodriguez’s quality has been hidden by our own ignorance and the shadow of those around him, but at long last a deserved spotlight is being shone upon one of the game’s most exciting young players.

Luis Suarez: international reaction leaves no hiding place for Liverpool forward

As a country we have a tendency to obsess over public figures, sporting or otherwise. When a figure like Luis Suarez – a delicate balance of genius and psychopath – enters our national consciousness, every new moment of magic or scandal is met with increasing scrutiny.

In the build-up to the World Cup, Suarez’s often-rocky relationship with the UK had never been on sounder footing. His Football Writers’ Award seemed to suggest that we were beginning to get over the racism scandal involving Patrice Evra and the way in which he bit Branislav Ivanovic just over a year ago.

In fact, Suarez’s two goals against England appeared to be the moment we appreciated that the genius outweighed the unhinged nature of the man. The Uruguayan apparently took great delight in this, dedicating his almost freakish display to those in England that had questioned his attitude over the past two years, blaming the media for disproportionately focusing upon his misdemeanours.

But last night, when the final drops of water appeared to be disappearing under the bridge, Suarez inexplicably bit the shoulder of Giorgio Chiellini, and the debate was wrenched wide open once again. It would be a pointless exercise to examine the psychological and moral implications of his actions – people far more qualified than I am have already begun their extensive analyses.

(independent.co.uk)

But in the aftermath of Uruguay’s 1-0 victory over Italy, Oscar Tabarez tried to play down the incident, claiming that his forward “is the target of certain media, a certain press.” In doing so, the coach re-opened a different but equally interesting debate: whether or not Suarez is the victim of a British-led witch-hunt.

The response in this country was both significant and, in some quarters, fantastically over-dramatic. Whilst the hashtag #BanSuarez trended heavily in the UK, the BBC’s Danny Mills laughably insisted that Suarez should be “locked up forever.” With Mills also being an advocate of the introduction of B-teams into the English League system, one starts to wonder if he’s almost as unhinged as Suarez himself.

For the most part, though, the British reaction was not one of melodramatic shock, but measured disappointment in seeing a player that had treated us to a fantastic season in our Premier League revert to such Neanderthal ways.

Of course, there are understandable calls for Suarez to be punished as severely as FIFA can muster but it came alongside an expression of sympathy for Liverpool that the efforts of respected figures such as Brendan Rodgers and Steven Gerrard had fallen on deaf ears, while others - such as Everton manager Roberto Martinez - asked with some concern about the Uruguayan's mental health.

Disbelief and condemnation, sure, but hardly a knee-jerk reaction of outrage.

The Italian press have been equally forgiving, distracted by their own country’s failure to qualify from their World Cup group and Cesare Prandelli’s subsequent resignation.

Locally, however, the response was not nearly as low-key. Brazilian paper O Globo led this morning with the headline ‘Crazy Man’, whilst Rio’s Metro declared that Uruguay qualified ‘With Nails and Teeth.’ The Brazilians, less accustomed than the British to the unpredictability of the Liverpool forward, have launched a far more passionate assessment.

Back in Europe, the Spanish press have been similarly critical. Marca described him as ‘once again showing his ugly side’, whilst AS focused upon his ‘cannibalistic tendencies.’ Real Madrid and Barcelona have been linked with a move for the 27-year-old, but if the Uruguayan does move in search of a more lenient media he could well find himself severely disappointed.

Tabarez and Suarez will most probably bury their heads in the sand that the Uruguayan media have provided, as the country’s papers focus upon their team’s qualification at the expense of their star man’s discrepancies.

Perhaps it is advisable that they do, because international condemnation as FIFA decides his fate means Suarez can no longer hide behind cries of victimisation.

'Where did it all go wrong?'

It seemed almost pointless to write anything about England’s exit. As is the case with any English failure (and, let’s face it, there are plenty), the post-mortem began even before the referee blew the final whistle in Uruguay’s victory, and will go on almost endlessly - long into the qualification campaign for the European Championships of 2016.

But on Friday, when the BBC asked on its website: ‘where did it all go wrong?’ I was struck by the irony of the question. It seemed to perfectly encapsulate the arrogance of the media, or at least the ignorance the press hold when covering the national side. Perhaps it is time they took a hard look at themselves in their pursuit of an answer.

My piece on Wayne Rooney last week focused upon the impact the media can have upon the performances of an individual, but the problem goes deeper than that. As my housemate astutely pointed out this weekend, the press were never on the side of Roy Hodgson’s England from day one.

Perhaps the front cover of the Sun isn’t completely indicative of British sporting journalism, but - as said housemate observed - you have to wonder how many nations would herald the beginning of a new manager’s reign by ridiculing him. Referring to Graham Taylor’s England of Euro ’92 as ‘Turnips’ is one thing, but to make fun of a man before a ball has been kicked under his tenure is a different and much more significant matter.

England, of course, did not look like world beaters at this tournament. It will be a while before a serious discussion can take place about winning the World Cup, but they were handed a tough group in which they competed gamely. Indeed, the Three Lions have played worse in previous tournaments and qualified, and you would have fancied their chances in nearly any of the other seven groups at these finals.

There are, undoubtedly, problems with the national side. A country with our footballing prowess on club level should have achieved more in recent years, but the point is that not all of the problems are internal. The English press undoubtedly do a great job of promoting the game and indeed analysing it, but sometimes those asking the questions should be asking those questions of themselves.

For low-key expectations before the tournament suddenly turned to outrage when England’s campaign ended prematurely. The BBC’s Phil McNulty used the word ‘embarrassing’, whilst Henry Winter called upon the players, staff and Football Association to apologise to the nation for their performances. If Luis Suarez's Uruguay exit the competition at the hands of Italy on Tuesday, I doubt his country's press will be making any similar demands.

Mercifully, Jim Holden of the Sunday Express wrote with more reasoning when he described the campaign as ‘a pity, but not a disgrace’; a far more balanced view that was more in keeping with pre-tournament predictions. The reality is that there are positives to come out of this campaign, but the press have been blinded by catchy statistics and trends of history.

Yes, this may turn out to be England’s worst-ever campaign historically and indeed statistically, but anyone who knows the game is aware that football is goes much deeper than that. Winter and McNulty obviously have more knowledge about the game in their little fingers than I do, but as weighty contributors to this country's sporting media it feels like they are doing themselves something of an injustice by falling into the trap of hyperbole.

The media makes much of the ‘fear’ England players are burdened with going into big tournaments, but when low expectations still translate to national backlash, it isn’t hard to see where the source of this fear can be found.

In answer to the BBC’s question, perhaps that childish headline is where it all began to go wrong. It’s about time the press were a help, not a hindrance, to our national team.

Capello's curse and the World Cup's unluckiest

The World Cup has the potential to make legends of players, managers and teams. Throughout the history of the tournament, men such as Pele and Franz Beckenbauer have become darlings of the competition, while teams such as the Brazil’s 1958 team and the Dutch side of 1974 played their way into immortality.

However, seeing the ball squirm through the hands of Igor Akinfeev and Fabio Capello’s subsequent look of self-pity, I found myself wondering about those that the World Cup has not treated so kindly.

Although Capello’s Russia fought back to claim a 1-1 draw against South Korea, the Italian would have been suffering a kind of déjà vu as he was reminded of Rob Green’s blunder against the USA four years ago. Capello got some stick for the management of his goalkeepers in South Africa, but to see two almost identical mistakes made by goalkeepers for different nations in their opening games must have left Capello wondering if his World Cup misfortune was ever going to end.

This is a man that suffered World Cup pain as a player as well as a manager. His goal against Poland at the 1974 World Cup proved to be worthless as the Italians failed to make the second round, whilst he was overlooked for the squad four years later despite good form in the Milan midfield. The Russians will no doubt be hoping his luck finally comes in when he leads them on home soil in four years’ time.

England fans are likely to have more sympathy for the misfortune of Paul Gascoigne, one of their favourite sons. Yes, he clattered naively into Thomas Berthold to rule himself out of a potential final, but few hearts – English or otherwise - weren’t touched by the tears of a player who’d lit up the tournament.

Little did he know that the World Cup heartache was only beginning. Gazza’s goals in qualifying for the 1994 World Cup couldn’t stop Graham Taylor’s ‘Turnips’ from failing to qualify for US competition, but the England midfielder thought he’d earned himself a shot at World Cup redemption four years later when the Three Lions qualified for France ’98.

Strong performances throughout qualifying – most notably in the heroic 0-0 draw in Italy – meant many saw him as a favourite for Glenn Hoddle’s squad. Whether or not being pictured out partying with Chris Evans a week before the final squad was to be announced affected his chances is a question that is yet to be answered, but the Middlesbrough man was overlooked.

Gascoigne took the news infamously badly, proceeding to smash up Hoddle’s office as his World Cup misfortune was compounded. He was never to play for England again and his career and private life spiralled out of control to such an extent that he is known by my sister merely as “the bloke who turned up with beer for Raoul Moat.”

Capello and Gascoigne are just two examples of the many individuals that have fallen foul of the World Cup’s darker side, but entire nations have been known to be hard-done-by by football’s biggest tournament – just ask the Algerian side of 1982.

After upsetting European Champions – and eventual finalists – West Germany in their opening game, results transpired to leave the African side ahead of their more illustrious European opponents after Algeria had played three games. The issue was that the Germans still had a game to play against group leaders Austria.

The two sides knew a narrow German victory would take both through, so when Horst Hrubesch put Germany a goal up, Austria were more than happy to sit back and take the result. Algeria could only helplessly sit and watch as one of the World Cup’s great controversies was played out before them. FIFA have since determined that the final games in a group must be played simultaneously, but the rule-change came too late for Algeria, who are yet to make the knock-out rounds of a World Cup.

Much is made of the romance of the World Cup, and its ability to make heroes. But at the same time the World Cup can break individuals and indeed entire teams. The World Cup has been the source of heartache for many, but, as Capello, Gazza and Algeria would tell you, sometimes it’ll hurt some more than most.