Re: World Cup 2010
I stayed out of this yesterday because I didn't want to reply to every post, but I feel in light of many comments, not just on here, but on other forums and reports of the press reaction in The Netherland, I want to put some backing to my views here.
I must start by saying I can understand the great disappointment of fans at losing a final. I find it massively disappointing when any team I support loses and knock out match, never mind the final of the world cup, so my condolences are sincere.
Firstly, some people are saying that Howard Webb was a poor choice for the final, I do not want to say that he was the only choice, but the choice of this trio of referees can very much be justified.
A large part of the reason this trio was selected was because of the linesmen. They have been extremely good in a world cup that has seen some truly dreadful decisions for offside. I know Mourning you claim that first ball was offside, I am sorry, I have watched in 4 or 5 times and in my mind there is no doubt at all, that when he makes contact with the ball for the pass there is no part of Iniesta's body that he his allowed to play the ball with that is beyond the final defender. He is onside, and I can't find an analyst that disagrees. These linesmen were throughout the tournement two of the best.
Howard himself is a very well respected referee who has been on the big stage before. He refereed the Champions league final, he was considered before this world cup as one of the best in the world. He then had a very solid world cup. This, along with the linesmens performance made him a very legitimate option.
Jose Mourinho openly said he is probably the best referee in the world with regard to his Champions league performances.
Now some statistics for him.
He is very unlikely to award red cards or penalties.
This is statistically clear, particularly through this last season. Looking at the chamions league as that is a similar format to the world cup (people play differently in knock out games) he refereed in 7 games issuing no penalties and no red cards .... Now without watching all 7 of the games, we cannot judge weather these decisions were all correct, however, the arguement was put out before the final, that we do not want the world cup decided by a cheap red card or a cheap penalty.
Early cards.
He tends not to issue early cards at all. Only 2 within the first 15 minutes in the 7 champions league games he refereed.
Yellow cards
He issued 29 in 7 games during the Champions league, including the final where he issued 3 (ironicly one to Van Bommel). That is 4.1 yellows per game. Very slightly above average for the champions league but not in the top quartile for referees, and when you consider no reds he is almost exactly in the middle of the pack in terms of disaplinary action.
The teams.
Going into the final the two teams were on the oposite end of the foul spectrum. Spain had committed 62 fouls with 3 yellow cards, making them statistically the second cleanest team in the competition.
The Netherlands however had committed 98 fouls with 15 yellow cards, making them statistically the biggest fouling team in the competition (even taking into account the no. of games).
Admittedly thes statistcs cannot tell us anything about the match but they can tell us what to expect.
The Match.
Now, at great pain to my own brain and eyes, I have rewatched that final, to ensure that emotions etc. play as little part in my analysis as possible. Unfortunately, on second viewing, more than anything, it has cemented my views from the first viewing. This was a dreadful game of football.
The 3 earliest yellow cards.
Van Persie after 14 minutes. This was his second very poor tackle in 3 and a half minute. Each on their own could be justified as a yellow. In a final, with blood flowing, allowing the first to go is a good decision. Allowing the second to go would be paramount to having to allow the same level of leniency to everyone, which could have resulted in an even worse spectical, if that is indeed possible.
Puyol after 16 minutes. I must admit, I got this one mixed up in my head. This was actually a slide tackle on Robben as Robben collected the ball. It was late, with the studs up and cought Robben clean of the side of his ankle. If that is not a stone wall yellow card then leg breaks would be even more common.
Van Bommell after 22 minutes. This, as has been discussed was just simply unacceptable. I think in any other match it would be a straight red, but I think that something can be said of keeping played on the pitch in a world cup final where possible.
The other cards.
De Jong (27 minutes) was without doubt a red. Can't really say any more on that.
Heitinga
His first yellow (56 minutes) was a late tackle that I believe was of it's own right a yellow. Where I think Heitinga is unlucky is that he only committed 2 fouls in the game. Each getting a yellow. But unfortunately, this one was bad enough to warant it on its own.
His second was of more contraversy. By the letter of the law, as soon as he raises his hand and places it on the shoulder of the attacker, he is in trouble. Iniesta has gone down far too easily, and I dislike that aspect of the game massively. So yes, I think Iniesta is at fault there, but the referee has no choice. From his perspective, Heitinga had raised his arm and pulled back on Iniesta shoulder, Iniesta has gone down. There is no other alternative for Howard Webb. Iniesta should be ashamed of himself for gamesmanship, but that is part of the game now, regardless of how much individuals like me hate it.
This is made all the more contraversial by Robben, who to be fair to him, in a similar situation, stayed on his feet. Advantage was played and Robben missed the chance. His reaction, however, equally has no part in football and deserved to be punished. I must say, on one hand I am impressed he stayed up (although a large part of that I bet was because he thought he would score), but the other part of me thinks his reaction was disgraceful.
Sneijder on Busquets in the 42nd minute. Was given a foul and a stern talking to. I include this, because there could have been more cards. I think this was a yellow as well, and some say it should have been a red.
Also a quick mention of Van Bommel Leaving his foot in on Iniesta, i think if this is seen it's another yello, before Iniesta got up and took the law into his own hands. He didn't hit Van Bommel, or infact barge him hard enough to knock him over, but the reaction inself deserved the yellow.
Anyway, enough examples, I have writen down all the cards and some of the other incidents here. I would like to know any examples of where a card cannot be justified by the laws of football, because in my eyes, I would not be able to argue against many of them.
The aftermath.
My point in this post is not to make Howard Webb out as the perfect referee. He isn't. Nor to say he had a perfect game. He didn't (missing that corner was nothing short of a farce). But I simply want to make the point that he had little choice in this game but issue those cards and make the decisions he did. It was dictated to him by the players.
Referees have a near impossible job. Howard Webb is one of the best in the world, yet he struggled because of the nature of the game. Referees have come out supporting his performance, many saying they are glad they didn't have to try and control the game. Mark Lawrence refered to some of the players behaviour as child like.
The referees association put out a statement saying "Howard Controlled the game firmly but with sympathy. It would be almost impossible to disagree with any of the yellow cards he issued."
I do not think that there is a place in football for the way the The Netherlands played that match. I do not expect them to play "Total Football" if that is not the best style for their team. But I do think that the tackles and their apparent attitude was acceptable. You can play hard solid football without going to the extent the Dutch did this weekend. Conservative solid, defence driven football does not need to include dangerous tackles and constant fouling. For the record, I would rather suport a free flowing football team that "underachieved" in the eyes of the public than a team that went beyond what is acceptable for the game in my eyes.
I do not want to get personal or attack any posters and I hope I havn't offended anyone in this post. I think it is an interesting discussion and debate, that hopefully we can have in a contructive way, without reducing it to a petty level.
As always, Just my opinions.
I stayed out of this yesterday because I didn't want to reply to every post, but I feel in light of many comments, not just on here, but on other forums and reports of the press reaction in The Netherland, I want to put some backing to my views here.
I must start by saying I can understand the great disappointment of fans at losing a final. I find it massively disappointing when any team I support loses and knock out match, never mind the final of the world cup, so my condolences are sincere.
Firstly, some people are saying that Howard Webb was a poor choice for the final, I do not want to say that he was the only choice, but the choice of this trio of referees can very much be justified.
A large part of the reason this trio was selected was because of the linesmen. They have been extremely good in a world cup that has seen some truly dreadful decisions for offside. I know Mourning you claim that first ball was offside, I am sorry, I have watched in 4 or 5 times and in my mind there is no doubt at all, that when he makes contact with the ball for the pass there is no part of Iniesta's body that he his allowed to play the ball with that is beyond the final defender. He is onside, and I can't find an analyst that disagrees. These linesmen were throughout the tournement two of the best.
Howard himself is a very well respected referee who has been on the big stage before. He refereed the Champions league final, he was considered before this world cup as one of the best in the world. He then had a very solid world cup. This, along with the linesmens performance made him a very legitimate option.
Jose Mourinho openly said he is probably the best referee in the world with regard to his Champions league performances.
Now some statistics for him.
He is very unlikely to award red cards or penalties.
This is statistically clear, particularly through this last season. Looking at the chamions league as that is a similar format to the world cup (people play differently in knock out games) he refereed in 7 games issuing no penalties and no red cards .... Now without watching all 7 of the games, we cannot judge weather these decisions were all correct, however, the arguement was put out before the final, that we do not want the world cup decided by a cheap red card or a cheap penalty.
Early cards.
He tends not to issue early cards at all. Only 2 within the first 15 minutes in the 7 champions league games he refereed.
Yellow cards
He issued 29 in 7 games during the Champions league, including the final where he issued 3 (ironicly one to Van Bommel). That is 4.1 yellows per game. Very slightly above average for the champions league but not in the top quartile for referees, and when you consider no reds he is almost exactly in the middle of the pack in terms of disaplinary action.
The teams.
Going into the final the two teams were on the oposite end of the foul spectrum. Spain had committed 62 fouls with 3 yellow cards, making them statistically the second cleanest team in the competition.
The Netherlands however had committed 98 fouls with 15 yellow cards, making them statistically the biggest fouling team in the competition (even taking into account the no. of games).
Admittedly thes statistcs cannot tell us anything about the match but they can tell us what to expect.
The Match.
Now, at great pain to my own brain and eyes, I have rewatched that final, to ensure that emotions etc. play as little part in my analysis as possible. Unfortunately, on second viewing, more than anything, it has cemented my views from the first viewing. This was a dreadful game of football.
The 3 earliest yellow cards.
Van Persie after 14 minutes. This was his second very poor tackle in 3 and a half minute. Each on their own could be justified as a yellow. In a final, with blood flowing, allowing the first to go is a good decision. Allowing the second to go would be paramount to having to allow the same level of leniency to everyone, which could have resulted in an even worse spectical, if that is indeed possible.
Puyol after 16 minutes. I must admit, I got this one mixed up in my head. This was actually a slide tackle on Robben as Robben collected the ball. It was late, with the studs up and cought Robben clean of the side of his ankle. If that is not a stone wall yellow card then leg breaks would be even more common.
Van Bommell after 22 minutes. This, as has been discussed was just simply unacceptable. I think in any other match it would be a straight red, but I think that something can be said of keeping played on the pitch in a world cup final where possible.
The other cards.
De Jong (27 minutes) was without doubt a red. Can't really say any more on that.
Heitinga
His first yellow (56 minutes) was a late tackle that I believe was of it's own right a yellow. Where I think Heitinga is unlucky is that he only committed 2 fouls in the game. Each getting a yellow. But unfortunately, this one was bad enough to warant it on its own.
His second was of more contraversy. By the letter of the law, as soon as he raises his hand and places it on the shoulder of the attacker, he is in trouble. Iniesta has gone down far too easily, and I dislike that aspect of the game massively. So yes, I think Iniesta is at fault there, but the referee has no choice. From his perspective, Heitinga had raised his arm and pulled back on Iniesta shoulder, Iniesta has gone down. There is no other alternative for Howard Webb. Iniesta should be ashamed of himself for gamesmanship, but that is part of the game now, regardless of how much individuals like me hate it.
This is made all the more contraversial by Robben, who to be fair to him, in a similar situation, stayed on his feet. Advantage was played and Robben missed the chance. His reaction, however, equally has no part in football and deserved to be punished. I must say, on one hand I am impressed he stayed up (although a large part of that I bet was because he thought he would score), but the other part of me thinks his reaction was disgraceful.
Sneijder on Busquets in the 42nd minute. Was given a foul and a stern talking to. I include this, because there could have been more cards. I think this was a yellow as well, and some say it should have been a red.
Also a quick mention of Van Bommel Leaving his foot in on Iniesta, i think if this is seen it's another yello, before Iniesta got up and took the law into his own hands. He didn't hit Van Bommel, or infact barge him hard enough to knock him over, but the reaction inself deserved the yellow.
Anyway, enough examples, I have writen down all the cards and some of the other incidents here. I would like to know any examples of where a card cannot be justified by the laws of football, because in my eyes, I would not be able to argue against many of them.
The aftermath.
My point in this post is not to make Howard Webb out as the perfect referee. He isn't. Nor to say he had a perfect game. He didn't (missing that corner was nothing short of a farce). But I simply want to make the point that he had little choice in this game but issue those cards and make the decisions he did. It was dictated to him by the players.
Referees have a near impossible job. Howard Webb is one of the best in the world, yet he struggled because of the nature of the game. Referees have come out supporting his performance, many saying they are glad they didn't have to try and control the game. Mark Lawrence refered to some of the players behaviour as child like.
The referees association put out a statement saying "Howard Controlled the game firmly but with sympathy. It would be almost impossible to disagree with any of the yellow cards he issued."
I do not think that there is a place in football for the way the The Netherlands played that match. I do not expect them to play "Total Football" if that is not the best style for their team. But I do think that the tackles and their apparent attitude was acceptable. You can play hard solid football without going to the extent the Dutch did this weekend. Conservative solid, defence driven football does not need to include dangerous tackles and constant fouling. For the record, I would rather suport a free flowing football team that "underachieved" in the eyes of the public than a team that went beyond what is acceptable for the game in my eyes.
I do not want to get personal or attack any posters and I hope I havn't offended anyone in this post. I think it is an interesting discussion and debate, that hopefully we can have in a contructive way, without reducing it to a petty level.
As always, Just my opinions.
Comment