Barcelona 4- 4 America: What a Friendly
This is the soccer I want people in the USA to see - I simply could not my eyes off this match. There appeared to be a standing ovation - if not, then at least a prolonged sitting ovation at the final whistle.
Chelsea has big bucks and some big names and are one of the best teams in the world, but there is nothing like Barcelona. They really play beautful, rhythmic soccer (I think I have to get permission from Nike and Eric Cantona to use the phrase jogo bonita now) and the crowds at their first 2 friendlies in the US have been buzzing (and shrieking when Ronaldinho touches the ball) for 90 minutes.
Some thoughts on Barcelona:
Ronaldinho was a little bitchy - less of the total joy/prepetual big smile manchild, more of the I am the greatest so why don't I get every call prima donna who came out with the R headband against France. (The refs were positively giddy post match as they shook hands with Ro.)
More importantly, Ronaldinho did some astonishing stuff on the pitch. At first he seemed only half into it - doing a few tricks, but more for show than anything. But the last 20 minutes, he started running at the makeshift America side (they had made a lot of substitutions at that point) and terrorized them. It was outrageously entertaining. Even Archie, my dog, was watching.
Rafa Marquez had an awful first half and was fully responsible for ceding one goal and debatably so for two others. Though announcers Max and Chris kept crediting him for the first Barca goal, I'm pretty sure it was an own goal off an America defender. Sullivan went on about Rafa's impeccable body shape on the flick header, while Max was amazed by his understated celebration. Add to that all the Barca players went to congratulate Gio who took the corner. Put the clues together - auto-goal.
The Barca defense was hilariously bad and one could easily see what Carlos Puyol means to their back 4. Barca played a high-pressure, high-line defense, but America was exploiting it and repeatedly sending guys in on goal with through balls. In those spots, when the shit hits the fan in the back and guys and loose balls are flying through the box, you need a guy like Puyol (or Cannavaro or Terry) who knows how to defend at defcon 5 (at defcon 5, its pretty much "fuck hold your shape - go win the ball." ) They didn't have him and conceded 4 goals.
I was happy to see Eidur Gudjohnsen have another decent outing. His exquisite touch on the ball and exceptional vision look perfectly suited for Barcelona. He may struggle for time, but I think he will definitely be of use at the Nou Camp and might well thrive.
Peeves:
Mark van Bommel remained in the same negative form he displayed for Holland at the World Cup - he began with a crass chop down of an America player followed by an obscene dive in the box. I know Barca wants some bite in midfield, but I dont think he fits.
Speaking of dive - the tying goal came after Ronaldinho was taken down in the box. He appeared to be tripped, but it was one of those instances where all he did was get his foot in and flick the ball fractions before the defender (who then made contact with him). But Ro's touch put the ball way past the endline.
I think they should use the NFL pass interference rule- where the pass must be catchable or else no flag. In soccer, I don't think just touching the ball means you are in posession. You must have some control or chance to continue your dribble.
This is not just for PK decisions. When attacking players dribble through the midfield at speed - this scenario often unfolds: The defenders close the space down and hem in the attacker, who is picking up speed has nowhere to go. The attacker pushes the ball past a defender, but another supporting defender is there. But the attacker gets that toe poke in before the second defender and the attacker goes flying after the inevitable contact. But the toe poke went right to another defender or twenty yards away from anyone. I think refs should generally let these plays go.
Another thought in the promotion of less diving/theatrics is something I have seen certain refs do, but would like to see more. That is using the advantage rule to give the fouled attacker every possible postive outcome.
Say Rooney is flying through the midfield and a guy tries to chop him down about 35 yards from goal. Rooney, being the keg-shaped terrier that he is, is slowed but continues dribbling. He has posession, but his momentum has been slowed and his control isn't as great post-foul. He loses out to the next defender (1 or 2 seconds after the foul). The ref should still call that original foul then.
The idea is to play the advantage as long as possible to reward guys like Rooney who continue to plow on after getting repeatedly fouled and discourage incentives to dive or go-flying theatrically and ask for a card rather than try to continue the move. Knowing that the ref will blow the original foul encourages the attacker to stay up as he is freerolling to some extent (if he can't pull it off, the ref blows the original foul - nothing to lose.)
One last thought- refs don't give yellow cards often enough when the advantage rule allows play to continue after a card-worthy foul. Cards should be on intent and action, not result. Just because a player doesn't go down and writhe in pain doesn't mean a defender doesn't deserve a card at the next break in the action.
Chelsea has big bucks and some big names and are one of the best teams in the world, but there is nothing like Barcelona. They really play beautful, rhythmic soccer (I think I have to get permission from Nike and Eric Cantona to use the phrase jogo bonita now) and the crowds at their first 2 friendlies in the US have been buzzing (and shrieking when Ronaldinho touches the ball) for 90 minutes.
Some thoughts on Barcelona:
Ronaldinho was a little bitchy - less of the total joy/prepetual big smile manchild, more of the I am the greatest so why don't I get every call prima donna who came out with the R headband against France. (The refs were positively giddy post match as they shook hands with Ro.)
More importantly, Ronaldinho did some astonishing stuff on the pitch. At first he seemed only half into it - doing a few tricks, but more for show than anything. But the last 20 minutes, he started running at the makeshift America side (they had made a lot of substitutions at that point) and terrorized them. It was outrageously entertaining. Even Archie, my dog, was watching.
Rafa Marquez had an awful first half and was fully responsible for ceding one goal and debatably so for two others. Though announcers Max and Chris kept crediting him for the first Barca goal, I'm pretty sure it was an own goal off an America defender. Sullivan went on about Rafa's impeccable body shape on the flick header, while Max was amazed by his understated celebration. Add to that all the Barca players went to congratulate Gio who took the corner. Put the clues together - auto-goal.
The Barca defense was hilariously bad and one could easily see what Carlos Puyol means to their back 4. Barca played a high-pressure, high-line defense, but America was exploiting it and repeatedly sending guys in on goal with through balls. In those spots, when the shit hits the fan in the back and guys and loose balls are flying through the box, you need a guy like Puyol (or Cannavaro or Terry) who knows how to defend at defcon 5 (at defcon 5, its pretty much "fuck hold your shape - go win the ball." ) They didn't have him and conceded 4 goals.
I was happy to see Eidur Gudjohnsen have another decent outing. His exquisite touch on the ball and exceptional vision look perfectly suited for Barcelona. He may struggle for time, but I think he will definitely be of use at the Nou Camp and might well thrive.
Peeves:
Mark van Bommel remained in the same negative form he displayed for Holland at the World Cup - he began with a crass chop down of an America player followed by an obscene dive in the box. I know Barca wants some bite in midfield, but I dont think he fits.
Speaking of dive - the tying goal came after Ronaldinho was taken down in the box. He appeared to be tripped, but it was one of those instances where all he did was get his foot in and flick the ball fractions before the defender (who then made contact with him). But Ro's touch put the ball way past the endline.
I think they should use the NFL pass interference rule- where the pass must be catchable or else no flag. In soccer, I don't think just touching the ball means you are in posession. You must have some control or chance to continue your dribble.
This is not just for PK decisions. When attacking players dribble through the midfield at speed - this scenario often unfolds: The defenders close the space down and hem in the attacker, who is picking up speed has nowhere to go. The attacker pushes the ball past a defender, but another supporting defender is there. But the attacker gets that toe poke in before the second defender and the attacker goes flying after the inevitable contact. But the toe poke went right to another defender or twenty yards away from anyone. I think refs should generally let these plays go.
Another thought in the promotion of less diving/theatrics is something I have seen certain refs do, but would like to see more. That is using the advantage rule to give the fouled attacker every possible postive outcome.
Say Rooney is flying through the midfield and a guy tries to chop him down about 35 yards from goal. Rooney, being the keg-shaped terrier that he is, is slowed but continues dribbling. He has posession, but his momentum has been slowed and his control isn't as great post-foul. He loses out to the next defender (1 or 2 seconds after the foul). The ref should still call that original foul then.
The idea is to play the advantage as long as possible to reward guys like Rooney who continue to plow on after getting repeatedly fouled and discourage incentives to dive or go-flying theatrically and ask for a card rather than try to continue the move. Knowing that the ref will blow the original foul encourages the attacker to stay up as he is freerolling to some extent (if he can't pull it off, the ref blows the original foul - nothing to lose.)
One last thought- refs don't give yellow cards often enough when the advantage rule allows play to continue after a card-worthy foul. Cards should be on intent and action, not result. Just because a player doesn't go down and writhe in pain doesn't mean a defender doesn't deserve a card at the next break in the action.
posted by the idiot at 7:49 PM
2 Comments:
A good ref WILL do most of what you suggest. Yellow carding after the fact, not calling a penalty when the player obviously won't get to the ball or doesn't have control, etc. It is always great when a player gets hacked, continues on with some success and then when the play finally stops, the ref goes back and cards a guy for what happened a couple minutes earlier. It is great refereeing and improves the game immensely.
That said, there ain't that many "good" refs out there...
Yes - read that book. I agree- it's only OK. Very generalized. And I agree - all the Germans (and others) in Germany thought we wuz robbed. OK - time to disagree...I think the idiot is really brilliant.
Post a Comment
<< Home