My sister always had an interesting take on life. When we were kids she was always first in all trouble. In her case service was also offered with a smile, a grin which made her get away with things no one else could. One day our mom picked me up from school. Sis was sitting in the front and with typical cheek she refused to budge. On the way back home, she was quizzed about the English exam she had taken that morning. The title of her essay was the typically predictable ‘The Person I Admire The Most.’
‘So who did you write about?’ asked my mom.
‘Benny Hill’ was my sister's candid reply, as if in cool reference to the weather.
My jaw dropped and there was heard a short screech of brakes. The car momentarily veered into the opposite lane before narrowly missing a tree on the pavement. Beads of sweat prickled my mother’s brow as she raced to get home, too shocked to even give my sister a scolding. Upon our return she ran into the house to call sis’s English teacher and apologise for her daughter’s indiscretion. She was met by peals of laughter on the other end of the phone. Apparently the English teacher had laughed so much upon reading the essay that she decided to award sis full marks for originality. Sis had gotten away with it. Again.
But to her credit, whoever this teacher was (and despite picking such a lame title for an essay) she revelled in the unexpected. She appreciated the spontaneity and unpredictability of life, that element which adds zest to a cup tournament.
Fast forward to Sydney 12 July 2010. Spain and Holland had reached the world cup final in South Africa, two teams which had never taken the cup home before. It was a mouth-watering prospect, to say nothing of the historical significance for nerds enamoured by Renaissance European history. I couldn’t sleep a wink all night, before heading off to pick up two Spanish friends from Bondi and two fellow Malta men from Surry Hills. With heavy foot on the accelerator we shot off to the Spanish quarter in the Sydney CBD and ran along to the screens at Cheers bar.
The game was a tactical battle royal, taut as a steel pylon with a fair few close calls, excellent saves and dramatically won at the death. There was even a touch of post-match romance for the girls and whoever else likes fairy-tale endings, when Casillas smooched his missus. An early morning fiesta erupted in the Spanish quarter in Sydney and our Spanish friend Jorge was so moved he decided to shave his head which had exceeded that of Sergio Ramos for length!
Upon my return home, my elation was somewhat tempered by an email from an Aussie mate who’s a leaguey (Rugby League tragic) who could not resist taking a pop at the final, saying the usual ‘geez it was boring’ jibe and what with the world’s biggest stars failing to perform throughout the finals? At the point of exhaustion, I meekly replied ‘please spare me’ and clicked ‘send’.
‘Breathe in and out’, I told myself, ‘it’s cultural differences. Another leaguey, I mean, they also have a right to exist.’ (Don’t they just!)
So imagine my frustration when I opened this month’s copy of 4-4-2 Australia (hardly two months since the world cup) that I read the 'Star Letter' (if you please!) to the editor where the ‘star’ subscriber wrote:
‘My biggest disappointment came from what we were all watching the World Cup for – star players turning in top performances.’
I am sure my face turned beetroot red whilst steam whistled out of my ears. The rag was flung against the box where some power hungry wannabe was still crapping on about the Australian hung parliament. How could one of Australia’s foremost publications on the one true game give light of day to such an insidious and futile argument that threatens to undermine the world’s greatest sporting event? And does anyone seriously believe this rubbish? Is it not obvious that for every winner you’re going to have a loser? And how often have predictions been proved wrong before an international tournament kicks off? Is that not what adds spice to cup competitions?
It’s not a battle about who’s best on paper, it’s about what takes place on the pitch. It’s not meant to be a screenplay where stars win the day, it’s football where everyone’s (meant to be) giving it a go, getting down and dirty on the pitch with no quarter given. Why else would people watch it and why else would wins mean anything at all?
Perhaps people like the annoying leaguey or the ‘star’ subscriber think Adidas or Nike should commission a Hollywood director to direct the finals, allowing the stars to turn in top performances. Can you imagine Spielberg during a New Zealand – Italy encounter shouting from the sidelines:
‘Hey Paston - hang fire a moment kid! Can’t you see Cannavaro’s trying to head the ball past you? Did you have to go and save that? Have a heart mate, don't be a spoilsport. He’s a bigger star than you, people at home are gonna get disappointed!’
What a load of tosh. Yet an image so symptomatic of our increasingly beige, bland and celebrity-obsessed culture. Don’t people get it? It’s not that society loves underdogs, it’s that society needs underdogs. Otherwise how could things like Fantasy soccer exist at all? Or a low budget flick win an academy award? And what joy would be left in playing or watching the game? Do people want everything to have to be predictable, to be served to them on a plate? Has identifying good unknown players become too much hard work for most? It’s like not having a chance of publishing a book if it contains too many ‘hard words’ (which in the US means a word of more than two syllables – I wish I were joking about this by the way).
Our 'star' then goes on to add:
‘Kaka was ordinary for Brazil, while Ribery was ineffective in a disastrous campaign for France. So what happened?’
Was this chap actually watching the games? Kaka would’ve scored an incredible equaliser were it not for arguably the save of the tournament from Stekelenburg. Until Brazil’s elimination at the quarter final stage Kaka was part of a ruthless Brazil side that were everyone's favourites to lift the cup after meeting Argentina in the final.
The latter’s elimination in the quarters was another result that shocked the football world to its core. After all the soothsayers predicting that a European team could not win the trophy off European shores, the 80 year old spell was finally broken! But it took an equally ruthless and daring Dutch side to pull off a famous and unlikely win against Brazil. As for Ribery, how can players excel when they’re on strike?!
But this still didn’t deter our ‘star’ pickled possum who went on:
‘The players that shone had limited Champions League commitments last term – Villa, Ozil and Forlan.’
Oh so Forlan did not have any arduous Europa league commitments to contend with before the World Cup?. And after an exhausting tournament in South Africa he still so happened to have the energy to upset the likes of Inter in last week’s super cup? Which is not to mention Wesley Sneijder’s heroics after having played in every single game with Inter Milan last season, winning all there was to win and still dragging Holland to the final?
And what of other players who reached the champions league final or semis, like Robben, van Bommel and a fair chunk of the Spanish side? Which is not to mention the double-winning Bayern Munich players with semi-finalists Germany? Personally speaking, I was quite star-struck watching Germany-Spain, thank you very much. Realising the fallacy of his argument, our ‘star’ at least goes on to sniffle:
‘Okay, Netherlands’ Wesley Sneijder is an exception’
But forgetting that his whole argument is crap, he carries on undeterred!
‘Maybe Europe’s premiere club competition needs to take a break or assume a shorter format in World Cup years?’
So he’s undecided again?! But hold your horses because he’s not finished:
‘And don’t even get me started on Rooney.’
Oh boy, he just had to mention that old well-worn out hoary chestnut.
Rooney was as fit for England as Defoe is presently ‘fit for England’. What does ‘fit for England’ mean anyway? It just means there’s a decent player who can barely stand masking the void of talent that cannot be filled in! Is this not a fact that’s blindly obvious, like Roy Hodgson saying Liverpool ‘have space’ for a new striker? All that being said, the likes of Robben still managed to almost nick the World Cup for Holland despite playing through the injury barrier. So no need of a winter break for some?
And in any case, should a team just fold and let the other win just because they’ve got a bunch of stars? Certainly not. Isn't it stiff opposition that makes consistent performances at the highest level the stuff of champions? That makes players like Beckham, Fowler and Del Piero impressive standouts – not to mention David Trezeguet scoring an average of 17 goals a season at Juve. And isn’t it the lack of stars in a winning team (like Mourinho's Porto in the European Cup of 04 and Greece in Euro2004) that makes their achievement so much more formidable?
And based on stars alone, which team most deserved to win? Spain, Brazil, Argentina, Germany? Is that the gauge you expected Paul the bloody psychic octopus to employ when making a prediction before every game: ‘oh, Germany have less stars than Spain or do Spain have less? Oh, I’ll plonk myself in both boxes then or else it means some stars will underperform?’
Before Brazil’s dramatic exit Dunga said that the era of the ‘big teams’ is over. A timely prediction, as it happened, before his team crashed out against Holland. I would venture to add that the significance of stars in international football is over. What are stars anyway, except names kept alive by big money transfers cooked up by agents mainly always stirring the same soup and an international media picking up on this to seek an easy way out to sell tabloids?
How else could an agent justify the ridiculous transfer fees payed for players like Crouch, Defoe etc. when Slovenia’s star player and captain Robert Koren (whose team England laboured to beat 1-0) is without a club? And what of that clubless Mexico international who impressed and clubless New Zealand Simon Elliott? How else could an agent or a big-spending European club justify paying large amounts for unfulfilled talent when unknown players with the likes of Chile and Paraguay stood up to fellow Latin American opposition and countered the best Europe had to throw at them?
I actually think this world cup was interesting for the number of stars left out due to them not being on form. Stars are in fact good for the media but threaten team spirit and structure (just ask Capello, Zagallo or any other coach worth his salt) – as legendary West German coach Helmut Schön once put it: ‘you cannot have a team full of Peles’.
Cue the relevance of ‘water bearers’ like Didier Deschamps or Claude Makelele (whose departure from Florentino Perez’s first Galacticos side made them implode) or the last aggressive Juve team that swept all before them with the likes of Pessotto, Birindelli, Di Livio, Davids, Iuliano, Torricelli and other workhorselike players making stars like Zidane and Del Piero tick. Just look at United. For every Welsh wizard like Giggs, you have a hard grafter like the redoubtable Gary Neville of the evergreen teen ‘tache. Stars generally mean trouble, which is why the likes of Benny MacCarthy was left out by Parreira from the South Africa squad so he could keep working on his belly in peace whilst watching the world cup on telly at Maccas in the East End!
It’s not that the stars are underperforming, it’s that on the world stage the game has been taken up another notch, or at least, that’s what Dunga would have us believe. I think he’s right.
So why is this insistence that the stars underperformed still being entertained by the media?
I remember one Marcello Lippi when still Juventus coach explaining why the papers kept contradicting his denial that a particular Juve player was going to be sold: ‘these newspapers have loads of pages to fill, what else do you want them to fill them with?’
I also think that Nike's world cup ad got to some people’s heads, leaving many to tune into the world cup expecting to see Ronaldo, Rooney, Ribery and Ronaldinho (although he wasn’t chosen picked by Dunga) et al smash everyone like they did in the ad – except football’s not a movie. So excessive marketing of certain players irrelevant of their performances on the park is one problem.
And being a star also means you’re going to get closer and more intimate attentions on the pitch, people are going to try kick your legs from under you before you get near the ball. You'll have some unknown, feral, hard bitten, gnarly defender pulling your nipples and stomping on your feet during corners at every opportunity.
Which is not to say that the stars were not trying their best. What 'out of form' star delivers a cracking shot against the bar from thirty yards against the likes of the Ivory Coast? But being a star does not spare you from bad luck either.
Do people think that it was a want of trying that led to Messi not get on the scoresheet more often? He still lit up the world cup and was a joy to watch, drifting in and out of opposing defences with aplomb. But people forget that at the end of the day it’s a team game, which is why Germany did so well.
There was also a flood of new 'stars' (which the ‘Star’ subscriber probably views as spoilsports) who came to prominence like Asamoah Gyan, Ryan Nelsen and Ozil in a world cup of incredible quality which people should be waxing lyrical about. Just look at the quarters finalists: Brazil, Argentina, Ghana (who should’ve rightfully made the semis instead of a plucky Uruguay) and Paraguay (the next dark horses after Uruguay).
Which is not to say that as a tournament the World Cup is not without its flaws. But this ‘stars failed to shine’ argument is really starting to get me down and threatening to snowball. Its an argument which goes against the surprises every world cup is meant to contain, something that does not appreciate original and unexpected happenings. With a celebrity obsessed mass media providing an ocean of shallow content, one cannot put one’s expectations too high. However giving prominence to this insidious and ridiculous argument really takes the biscuit.
Maybe I’m just protective of international football, a tier of the game (as yet) untouched by transfer windows that are still going on even though the European leagues have already started. But its one thing to ridicule the last world cup because some untrained European ear couldn’t get used to the vuvuzela or because of the Jabulani or the refereeing. But this insidious, ludicrous argument that ‘the stars did not shine’ should not be aired by prominent journals.
It’s disrespectful to other players who put in a hard shift and pulled out a good performance. It implies that they’re undeserving upstarts or spoilsports. But they aren’t. They’re just brave athletes defying the odds and doing their best for their country. After all it’s football - something deadly serious - and not a star gazing night out at the flicks!