 |
| |
|
 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Stop the stereotyping Nationality no influence on Champions League analysisPosted: Friday June 06, 2003 8:00 PM
Well, perhaps it was inevitable, but my column on the Champions League final generated a veritable flood of reaction. Ordinarily, I like to respond to individual questions, but given the number of responses on the same subject, I guess I'll do it all at once. I would like to state a few things for the record. I have no problem when people attack what I write. As for the personal attacks, the ones that aren't screened out by this Web site's obscenity filter, well, I can handle those too. What does bug me is people being clever and stereotyping me because of my nationality or ethnicity. Yes, as you can deduce from my name, I am Italian. And, as my profile states, I live in London. This does not mean I think all Italian or English related things are wonderful and everything else is garbage. When I praise, say, Manchester United or Arsenal, it's not because I live in London. The same goes if I praise Juventus or Milan. I would hope people could see past that. For the record, just because I'm Italian does not mean I enjoy boring, catenaccio soccer any more than the next guy. Anyone who has read my columns over the past year will know that I have been a harsh critic of Hector Cuper's Inter Milan and their safety-first style. At the same time, I am not one of those people who gets hung up on whether a game is "entertaining" or not. I really don't care. I like... no, I love this sport, and I consider myself fortunate that I can make a living watching it. What is most important to me is whether a certain approach works or not. The reason I don't like catenaccio soccer is that it's dull, unimaginative and counterproductive, at least in my opinion.
If I want guaranteed entertainment, I'll watch professional wrestling. One of the nice things about soccer is that you can't separate attacking from defending. It's yin and yang. Both are integral parts of the game. Bad defending makes good attacking play look great. And bad attacking play makes good defending look great. If you don't like it, go watch something else. Or better yet, go read a book. Now, on to the mailbag.
I think Nevded was the missing link in this final. He would have also probably won the game for Juve. Too bad. AC Milan don't deserve this trophy as they were lucky to even be in the final facing easy teams to get there. Juve suffered much more to be in this final.
Nedved's absence was a big blow to Juve, but that doesn't excuse the fact that the bianconeri, apart from a short spell early in the second half, did very little to win this game. As for Milan facing "easy" teams to get to the final, well, it only beat Deportivo La Coruna, Bayern Munich (twice), Borussia Dortmund, Real Madrid and Ajax. Its only losses -- against Deportivo, Borussia and Real -- came after it had already clinched qualification and fielded under-strength sides. Not to quibble, but Real's major scalps were Juventus, Manchester United, Milan and Roma. Hardly earth-shattering, especially when you consider that Real also lost to each one of those teams and also was held to home draws by AEK Athens and Lokomotiv Moscow.
I always respect your opinions and again agree on your take on the Champions League final. I want to add that I don't understand why Trezeguet is so overrated. I am a super Juventus fan but I think that he "sucks" (pardon my language). It would take me a book to prove why but he's a fox-kind of striker and we all know what happens when they don't have an empty net to score on. (except for Inzaghi, who I sorely miss).
Trezeguet was awful in the final, though he didn't get too much service. Unlike, say, Thierry Henry, Trezeguet is the kind of guy who needs decent balls into the box, and Juve was unable to provide them.
Sir, I've been reading on the Internet the comments made by the Spanish press regarding the Italians' revival this year. And I think that they were totally unfair. The way they talk make it sound as if their teams dominated this year's competition and as if they have the right to teach all of Europe how to play football. If the competition is played like La Liga then what would special about the champions league! The English press for instance paid tribute for the defenders and the goalkeepers and paid respect for Italy. Having three Italian teams in the semifinal means that Italy is the only and big winner, and that Spanish journalists aren't worthy of being called football fans. Don't you agree with me Mr. Marcotti, shouldn't the Spanish learn from Ferguson how to respect other nation's football culture.
I too read the Spanish press and thought some of them went way over the top. Then again, I don't think you can judge the strength of a league solely on the European performances and, in my opinion, La Liga is probably still Europe's top league. I do think you need to respect a nation's footballing culture, especially when that nation has a proven track record of success.
Not trying to take anything away from Milan, but wasn't Dida clearly off his mark in the penalty shootout? I have seen a lot of repeats of Montero's penalty that Dida blocked; he was clearly off the line by a very large margin! What do you think?
Yes, he probably was, though I guess goalkeepers, like all players, try to get away with whatever they can to get an edge. The referee should have done something about it.
So if Shevy's goal had counted, the game could have gone an entirely different direction... if Conte's header went in instead of going crossbar, it could have changed the face of the game... So basically you're telling me that a football game is already good when you can dream of what might have happened if they played better? I think you've gone daft man. Don't you think that by the very fact that you're talking about how great the game could have been you're just proving how much it stank?
Not at all. Judging a game simply by the number of goals is silly. What I find exciting is well-created chances, regardless of whether they go in or not. If excitement were provided solely by goals, than defensive errors would be just as titillating. As for the missed chances, I think it's undeniable that, if Milan had scored, Juve would have had to attack and the game would have been more open. As usual Gabriele, your assessments are accurate. Bottom line is that Serie A will never appeal to the masses. Just to pure soccer fans who accept its philosophy. Despite the fact that there was more open play this year. Teams like Chievo, Parma, Lazio, Roma among others played attacking style soccer. Serie A is the baseball of the Euro leagues and as such mental toughness and tactics play a large part in its routine. To some, a well-earned 1-0 score is better than a 4-3 glitz fest. Speaking of those fans, it is high time the Spanish and British press back off. They should know better in their attacks on Italian soccer. Not so long ago the all-Spanish final of Real-Valencia in 2000 was itself a snoozer. One headline that caught my eye is that the Italian teams, especially Inter (the pariah of the press) did not deserve to be there and that the Cup should go back to Real Madrid. I was absolutely stunned by these utterly absurd comments. To me, all this shows is the value and credibility of the Spanish press. Here's what I propose; If the Spanish (and British media) is so concerned and disgusted with the state of soccer as led by Italy, it should propose to have soccer turn into a judged sport with corrupt judges and all the kit. That way, Valencia could score its points for being pretty and Inter would not go home since putting the ball in the net would cease to be the deciding factor in a match. We'll see how soccer fans around the world like that. That's where we're heading right? Judging by these silly (poorly thought out I might add) comments. All I have to say is congratulations to AC Milan and Juventus. Two clubs who got through Real Madrid fair and square.
Well said. I might add that the Valencia-Bayern Munich final was goalless and boring, but people didn't come out of the woodwork questioning whether the teams deserved to be there. I might also add that Valencia attacked like there was no tomorrow against Inter, but largely because it was a goal down from the first leg. When it comes to entertainment and attacking soccer, Valencia has hardly set the world on fire this year, unlike, say, Real Madrid or Deportivo.
Gabrielle, I always enjoyed your columns, but this time I am disappointed. Everyone I talked to agrees that the Champions League final was ugly. You only enjoyed it because you are Italian right? When you have feelings involved, it is easier to enjoy a bad game. Just see, I loved the 1994 World Cup Final, but no one really liked that. Just confess, you were very excited in watching an all Italian final and saw some qualities that didn't really exist. Football is not basketball, no one enjoys defensive moves
It's true, I'm Italian, and it's true that when you're cheering for one side or the other the game becomes more enjoyable, but I have no rooting interest in Juventus or Milan. There really isn't much to confess. As I wrote, the first hour was very enjoyable, after that the game slowed down sharply. In extra time it could have been different, but Milan was virtually down to 10 men due to Roque Junior's injury, and Juventus simply failed to take the initiative. I'd blame Juve if you weren't entertained, not Milan.
It is not much of a question, but a comment. So little said about the true hero of the game: Brazilian goal keeper Dida. For those who follow the Brazilian league was no surprise his excellent, decisive display. Way to go Dida!!!
Dida had a great game and I'm very happy for him. Like many Brazilian goalkeepers he took a lot of abuse, some of it unwarranted.
Only an Italian with his national blinders on could try to wring some interest from that dry, dry final (Milan-Juve). When are you people going to finally relent and 'fess up to what everyone else already knows: Italian football, while certainly powerful, is excruciatingly BORING!
Maybe so. But Serie A is the second most watched league in the world, which means a large chunk of the soccer audience must enjoy BORING soccer. Also, generalizing about an entire league is a little excessive, no?
You must be Italian; that was a boring game. I can tell you know nothing about real football. Any team that plays not to lose instead of trying to win (can you say Italy) doesn't play the way the game was meant to be played. If it wasn't for the stupid penalties Italian football would never survive. Knowing that the game can be decided that way, why try and score during normal time. Let's just defend for 90 minutes. If we get lucky and score, great; if we don't, at least we have a 50/50 chance to win on penalties. The name of the game is to SCORE more than your opponent during NORMAL TIME. Italians play boring put you to sleep football. There is nothing tactical about defending. Anyone can defend. It takes more skill and tactics to create a scoring chance. Wake up buddy ...
So, if anyone can defend, why don't others choose to defend? And it's funny that you should mention penalties, since Italy was knocked out of three of the last four World Cups on penalties...
What do you call two Italian teams in a Champions League final match? A funeral service. These two had absolutely no respect for the fans, but at least it will be easier for the Libertadores champ to win the Intercontinental Cup!
I guess we'll find out in December...
Thank you for writing a fair and unbiased article on the new Euro CL champs -- Milan. I'm not an Italian but the finals (including the penalty shootout) was a clearly nail-biting affair. One of your writers mentioned it was the worst finals since 1991 (to which I think he needs a pair of glasses).
I guess that particular writer missed the Bayern-Valencia final or the Real Madrid-Juve final... I wonder if you're trying to convince us or yourself about the quality of the Champions League final? I'm mystified by your assertion that skill and drama were aplenty on Wednesday night. Andrea Pirlo, Rui Costa, and Inzaghi are vastly overrated players by you and other Italians, especially those in the press. It seems that Italian football is lacking so much skill that if a player can stand-up you attach upon him unworthy praise. Italian football has never truly produced a world-class player, period. I already know your response. What about all those fine defenders and goalies? If I played in defense with five players covering me I would be just as good as Baresi, Maldini, Bergomi, and Zoff. As individual defenders they aren't as good as other defenders from other countries. Look what Panucci did in Spain and England, Coco in Spain, Materazzi in England etc., etc. In other words they were basically exposed as ordinary, did nothing and ran home to Italy for more cover. Two World Cups pre WWII shouldn't really count towards Italy's overall total. If Italian clubs, and national team for that matter, couldn't acquire Argentines, Brazilians, Frenchmen, Germans, and other nondescript Europeans they wouldn't be very good. If a breakaway European league is started the prospect of no Italian teams should be considered. I read a book while watching the game and missed the game.
Well, if you read a book during the game I'm not sure how seriously your points should be taken. Let's see... Panucci won the title and the Champions League in Spain, Materazzi came from a small club (Perugia), moved to a big English club (Everton) and returned to a small club (Perugia). He also was named Everton's man of the match six times that season, more than any other player, but, heck!, who's counting, right? I don't think Francesco Coco is a particularly good footballer, though he's a great athlete. As for Italy not producing a world-class player, should I dignify that with a response? How about Roberto Baggio, Gianfranco Zola, Christian Vieri, Roberto Mancini, Gianluca Vialli.... No, you're right, those guys are pretty awful. Gabriele Marcotti covers international soccer for SI.com
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
