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.

The chip on Cannavaro’s shoulder persists but Brazilian protests may be premature

The 2014 FIFA World Cup is nearly a week old and we’ve been treated to many an eye-catching moment, from Robin van Persie’s flying header to Pepe’s moment of madness. However, something far subtler has been equally noticeable since Thursday night: the chip over Fabio Cannavaro’s left shoulder in the ITV studios.

My first post last week referenced the ‘minor damage’ made to the studio by protestors after Brazil’s victory over Croatia, and the subsequent crack in the glass is almost symbolic of the divided public opinion over the country’s investment in the tournament. Images contrasting the glamour of the World Cup with the squalor of Brazil’s disadvantaged have done the usual rounds on social media, apparently fuelling the flames of international discomfort.

However, it must be noted that the protests are by no means universally supported in Brazil. Quite the contrary, in fact. The BBC’s Tim Vickery asserted last night that the protests against FIFA were minor, whilst the parties were only getting bigger. And yet, like that crack behind Italy’s World Cup winning captain, the disquiet shows no signs of going away.

As a generation and indeed a nation, we have become acutely aware of the pros and cons of hosting major sporting events. The South African World Cup was hosted in a nation that continues to have one of the widest gaps between the rich and the poor, whilst the 2012 Olympics in London were equally derided for the strain they were apparently placing upon the tax-payer. What we are less aware of, perhaps, in our Premier League bubble, is the extent of the financial draw of football and the impact it can have upon the infrastructure of an entire nation.

Fabio Cannavaro's crack (huffpost.com)

The World Cup has, in recent history, had differing effects upon a country both economically and socially. It seems as though within almost every nation that has hosted the competition, opinion has been split about its value. But using history as a basis, it appears as though Brazilian protests may be a little premature. 

Yes, the favelas continue to co-exist alongside the lavish stadiums, connected by unfinished transport networks, but this is a country that has taken on twice the usual load, with Rio hosting the 2016 Olympic Games. For some this is foolish, perhaps even greedy, and it is certainly unchartered waters. Only the US has experience of hosting a World Cup and Olympic Games in such close proximity, and the two countries’ economies are almost incomparable.

Brazil’s developing economy is undoubtedly straining under the weight of hosting the two events; images of unfinished highways are evidence enough of that. But whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, even in economic terms. Twice the burden may be being placed on the average Brazilian, but in the long-term they’ll be reaping twice the benefits.

The fact is that the Brazilian economy is growing, and the investment that a World Cup brings will help stabilise this growth. The majority of global sponsorship is found in sports – recent World Cup hosts can vouch for this: in the US, 65% of sponsors’ money is spent on sports, whilst in South Africa this figure stands at 80%.

The formation of the MLS was a direct result of the US being awarded the 1994 World Cup, opening the door for endless commercial opportunities, almost personified by the eventual move of David Beckham to LA Galaxy in 2007.

Similarly, German football benefited hugely from the 2006 World Cup, with the Bundesliga garnering international attention after they hosted the tournament. But it wasn’t only the football that benefited, as the spotlight was shone upon German industry, resulting in increased international interest in their trade. Brazilian football, for all its quality and international recognition, is waiting to be similarly tapped-into.

Though some provocative and emotional images have come out of this World Cup, it must be remembered that the benefits of being a host nation are harder to quantify. You cannot put pictures of corporate investment on a newspaper's front page, but that doesn’t mean it’s not happening. Brazilian football has long been admired but has gone without the financial reward afforded to its European counterparts.

Hopefully, with the hosting of this tournament, Brazilian football will finally get the commercial interest it’s deserved, and it will be those that cracked the ITV window that feel the benefits of the game they apparently deplore.

A word in defence of Wayne Rooney

Wayne Rooney’s Facebook fan page isn’t often worth scrolling through; more often than not, it is a mess of self-indulgent advertisements. Like most footballers, it is a corporately-driven vehicle to push Rooney’s market value under a veil of bringing him closer to his fans. Today, however, it was worth following as the England man launched a surprising attack upon the English press, claiming he was unsure what they ‘were getting at’ when speculation emerged about his extended role in yesterday’s training session.

Rooney: a frustrating but not fruitless night for England's star man (thetimes.co.uk)

Such a frank view is notable for its rarity among the traditionally secretive and professional England World Cup camps – John Terry, for example, suffered the wrath of Fabio Capello when he appeared to criticise his manager’s methods in South Africa. At the same competition, Rooney presumably suffered a similar handing-down after his infamous outburst towards England fans in the aftermath of the dour 0-0 draw with Algeria.

But this was different and, in my view, immeasurably more justifiable – England’s hierarchy wouldn’t have let Rooney’s words see the light of day if it wasn’t. An already mounting campaign against Rooney’s inclusion in England’s XI reached fever-pitch after the Italy defeat, but it’s a campaign that is as unjust as it is overblown.

Before his performance on Saturday night is even analysed, it appears the quality of the player has been lost on some critics. This is a player that has shone in an otherwise dire Manchester United season, scoring seventeen Premier League goals in a side that was mismanaged and entirely bereft of confidence. He is set to become England’s record caps-holder and it’s almost inevitable that he will better Bobby Charlton’s record of 49 goals for the national side.

It seems as though the only blemish nay-sayers can find on his record is World Cup finals appearances, with many having doubts about his ability to perform on the biggest stage but, in reality, how solid is this argument? He entered the 2006 tournament recovering from a serious injury and was never able to find fitness let-alone form. The fact is that he should probably never have gone, but that mistake was not his. Four years later, he was admittedly off-form, but the fact that Jermain Defoe was voted by Capello as England’s best player says everything about the quality of performances in South Africa in general.

Other critics point to his performance on Saturday night as further reason for his not being involved, but this is an equally-flawed argument. It doesn’t need to be said that Rooney was played out of position and had an admittedly quiet outing, and yet he still managed to contribute an assist – how many other England players could provide a cross so accurate on their weaker side in those conditions? - and create chances for himself. One of which he would have scored, some suggest, if his shirt had been red.

This is perhaps the most accurate criticism of Rooney’s doubters, and it may be so that Rooney would not have fired wide if the badge on his chest was United’s. Although a player of his ability and value should be putting these chances away, I can’t help but think that the matter is one of comfort.

The difference is that Rooney is valued at Old Trafford – the £300k-a-week and appreciation of United fans is evidence of that – in a way that he is not valued with England. He is shunted out in unfavourable positions and criticised when he’s not at his absolute best. Whilst it may seem absurd to suggest that someone who is paid to play football needs comfort from fans and the press, there is nothing to gain from offering the opposite.

The reaction of the English press to Wayne Rooney is something that continues to baffle me. Most would agree that he is our best player, one of few with the ability to change a game – the closest we have to Brazil’s Neymar. Despite his less-than-impressive performances so far at this World Cup, the Brazilian press will not lambast their ‘boy wonder’, and he will be better for it. Give Rooney the same treatment, and the same can hopefully be said for him.

Rooney has contributed more to the England team than most, and yet he finds himself as the focal point for much of the criticism levelled at the side. Frank Lampard’s press call today meant it occurred to me that the argument against his involvement is almost paradoxical. As England’s vice-captain rightly said, the criticism levelled at Rooney is mainly born out of the fact that he is our best player – a fact that should mean he is the first name on England’s team-sheet.

Perhaps that is over-simplifying matters, but the point is that there is nothing to gain from this treatment of Rooney. Although he was, for the most part, quiet against Italy, criticisms of his performance are ill-informed and hasty. Stick a player out-of-position and the least you can ask is for a decent job to be done. Rooney managed that and more in laying-on England’s goal.

Like Alan Shearer and most other onlookers with knowledge and balance, I would suggest it would be madness to judge Rooney fairly until he is played in his favoured position. As Patrick Vieira suggested on ITV, Rooney is the kind of player teams should be built around rather than vice-versa. Hopefully on Thursday night we’ll see Sterling out wide –where he is equally effective – and Rooney through the middle, where he can play with the comfort he needs to excel at a World Cup finals.

Until then, criticisms of Rooney are merely unhelpful and, worse, ill-informed assessments of England’s best player.

The Netherlands haven't killed tika-taka; Spain have divorced it

First, I must hold my hands up and admit how horrifically wrong I was about Spain versus the Netherlands on Friday night. History was thrown out of the window, and everybody on the planet could not have been happier as this competition continued to be showered in goals. The fall-out from that game has and will be pored over until the World Cup’s end and beyond, but you can’t help but think such a thrashing will have a wider impact on the order of international football.

Spain were out-thought and out-classed, but the game was not a tactical revolution. Spain’s tika-taka football has not died a sudden death akin to that of, for example, Argentina’s la nuestra at the 1958 World Cup. Instead, what we saw was a failed attempt to depart from a slowly dying system – an almost half-hearted and reluctant effort to adapt.

In short, this was not a failed attempt by the Spanish to re-create the system that has served them so well at the last three tournaments. In deploying a powerful force up front in Diego Costa, Spain suddenly had an obvious focal point for a more direct style of football. Critics suggested a centre-forward was the missing piece in a Spanish jigsaw just short of perfection.

The Netherlands did a grand job of pressing high up the pitch and not allowing the back four time on the ball but even if they had it, with Diego Costa up top one has to wonder whether a more direct plan was always in mind.

Ultimately, it was an understandable and almost logical attempt to bridge the gap between tika-taka and a more direct style, but it didn’t seem as though the players were comfortable or even in support of such a system. Perhaps that is a step too far, but either way it didn’t work. The Netherlands took the lead in the second-half through a well-taken Arjen Robben goal, but the origin of the move was an over-ambitious Spanish throw-in on the half-way line.

Evidence, if ever it was needed, that this was a defeat of Spain’s own making. Netherlands were impressive and carried their game-plan out to perfection, but their opponents’ own insistence upon abandoning their principles so readily played right into their hands.

The Spanish (their management if not their players) obviously feel as though they have out-grown tika-taka, that tika-taka can no longer give them what is needed. It remains to be seen whether the two can be reconciled, but signs suggest that one of football's greatest marriages may be heading for divorce - and not an amicable one.

The collisions of heavyweights are often light on goals

Tonight sees the 2014 World Cup’s first clash of two footballing heavyweights in the form of a replay of the 2010 final between Spain and the Netherlands. Due to the nature and size of the competition, World Cups don’t often haul together two of the big hitters at this stage but this year has presented a plethora of such fixtures as England, Italy and Uruguay prepare to faceoff in Group C, whilst Germany face Portugal on Monday. It should be a rare feast of football but, if recent history is anything to go by, don’t expect fireworks.

In my World Cup-watching experience, the games between two of football’s big names are not the ding-dong battles they are often billed as. Much is made of the fear of losing games in the group stages and that appears to ring especially true in these fixtures, as it often transpires that neither side is particularly willing to take the risks needed to go on and win the game.

Instead, they become cagey and tactical, as though each side is trying to weigh the other up for a potential meeting later down the line rather than attempting to take the points on offer. In fact, not since the 1982 World Cup have we seen more than two goals in a game between two such sides, when audiences were treated to four goals in the clash between England and France after Bryan Robson’s early opener.

In 2006, a potential classic between Argentina and the Netherlands was essentially ‘spoiled’ by the fact that both sides had effectively qualified for the second round. It was a similar situation four years later when both Brazil and Portugal could settle for a point in what was basically a dead rubber. All four teams rested players on those occasions, and both games finished goalless.

Spain have been involved in their fair share of World Cup let-downs, being involved in a fruitless 0-0 draw with Uruguay at Italia 90 before holding the attacking talents of Germany’s Voller, Klinsmann and Effenberg to 1-1 draw four years later, so don’t look to them in search of a goal-fest.

For England fans, the 2002 clash with Argentina is remembered so fondly for David Beckham’s tale of redemption that it is easy to forget that the game itself was hardly an edge-of-your-seat thriller. Neither team was already qualified, nor was it a cagey opening fixture. It just appears that there is a trend for low-scoring encounters between the biggest nations in World Cup group stages.

Without disrespecting Mexico and Cameroon, tonight may be the first time we see some genuinely good football being played at the tournament but history wouldn’t suggest a goal-fest. Although the Netherlands find themselves guided by a coach much more inclined to attack than four years ago and we all know the talents of Spain going forward, we may well see two sides crippled by a fear of losing and a far cry from England’s three-goal exploits against the French more than thirty years ago.

A shame in Sao Paulo

Like cheap drink at a party, tonight was a celebration that left a bad taste in the mouth. What started off as the Samba-style festival the world had predicted - despite the best efforts of an underwhelming opening ceremony and Pitbull - had, by the end of the night, verged upon the farcical.

Some of the ridiculousness should not be taken lightly – ITV’s television studio supposedly suffered minor damage after a number of anti-World Cup protestors began hurling debris at the media centre - but the scandal began long before Yuichi Nishimura, noticeably lenient towards the Brazilians all night, blew his final whistle, the same whistle that sadly found itself as the game’s focal point.

Eight of the last 12 opening games at a World Cup have produced a goal or fewer, but there never seemed a danger of this one going the same way as both sides began openly, perhaps frantically. Within ten minutes, Croatia threatened to spoil the party as Ivica Olic bought enough space off of Dani Alves – as he would continue to do all night – to drill the ball across the box and against the ankle of the despairing Marcelo for the unwanted honour of becoming the first goalscorer at this World Cup. As Jonathan Wilson remarked on Twitter (@jonawils): the Croat was put among the pigeons.

It was only the beginning of the embarrassment for Real defender Marcelo, as his side found themselves on the right side of some questionable decision-making from Yuichi Nishimura (businessinsider.com)

History will look upon the game more fondly than the Brazilians deserve, for the score-sheet tells a misleading story of Brazilian resurgence led by their ‘boy wonder’, Neymar (a title Clive Tyldesley employs so incessantly you’d have thought he was employed by Marvel Comics). The reality, though, was a tepid display aided by good fortune from the moment the Barcelona forward escaped heavy punishment for what appeared to be a calculated elbow into the throat of Luka Modric.

As if to rub salt into the wound, it was Neymar who dragged Brazil level on the stroke of half-time, his admittedly well-struck effort finding its way between the legs of Dejan Lovren and beyond the outstretched arm of Stipe Pletikosa.

But Neymar’s affair with lady luck was not over, for when Fred tangled with Lovren in the penalty area – the Fluminense striker’s only ‘contribution’ to the game – he took the chance to give Brazil a lead they scarcely deserved. Though it would be a stretch to suggest the celebrations of the partisan crowd were tinged by guilt, it would be equally hard to imagine that many of them could honestly say they agreed with Nishimura’s decision to point to the spot.

It is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that a host nation has got the rub of the green at a World Cup finals but if FIFA bills the tournament as a display of the sport being played at its best, then it must be ensured that the refereeing is of equal quality. Games and whole tournaments rest on big moments, but the game would be better off if these were moments decided by the twenty-two competitors rather than those officiating.

Croatia will have won many fans tonight for the way they responded to the injustice of going behind, but they were rewarded only by a final hammer blow dealt by Oscar – a man no-one could begrudge being on the winning side tonight. Luiz Felipe Scolari’s decision to move Neymar inside to a more recognisable number 10 role meant the Chelsea midfielder found himself on the right of Brazil’s attacks. Croatian efforts to shackle Neymar through the middle left Oscar with space to exploit, and exploit it he did, bursting from deep ten minutes from time and poking the ball home.

As the Brazilians filed out of the stadium amid fireworks and protests alike, they’ll know they have got away with this one. It was not the convincing performance many expected: their full-backs looked suspect defensively and Neymar’s two goals belied a performance in which he hardly shone. Nevertheless, starting points don’t come much better than three points in your opening game and an improved Brazil with a Neymar ready to seize the tournament will no doubt rear its head before the group stage is out.

The real shame in Sao Paulo, however, was the fact that this opening game will be remembered not for Oscar’s brilliantly-taken goal – the match’s one moment of genuine quality – but for the image of a wide-eyed Nishimura running away from a crowd of Croats, pointing almost demonically at the penalty spot.

The BBC’s expert on South American football Tim Vickery (incidentally another of the night’s positives – more of him, please) managed to refrain from suggesting that Nishimura was pressured by FIFA into attempting to appease Brazilian political unrest through his decision-making, but the fact that the question of conspiracy is even raised highlights the sad extent to which the officials’ decisions soured what should have been the sweetest of celebrations.