The BBC pundits regretted hyping up the Brazil Portugal match today, but who could have blamed them? Two of the top teams battling it out for first place in Group G? How could that turn into a “turgid” (Linker’s reassessment) and scrappy stalemate during which neither side showed its true colours and in fact spent most of the game either committing fouls or pretending a foul had been committed against them. There were enough yellow cards to make a life-size Brazilian player and put it on as a substitute.
Yes, it was pretty threadbare stuff – certainly not worth knocking off from work early – and some boos were heard towards the end from a previously up-for-it sea of blue and yellow. Alan Hansen pretended to have nodded off when we returned to the tangerine-bathed studio at full-time. Shearer, who I am now convinced is Stewart Lee, bemoaned the fact that he could have been on the treadmill back at the hotel. Still, that – as I have come to understand every two years – is football.
I actually do think we could have expected a little more than a goalless draw from a team who scored seven a few days ago. But Portugal, although for me, with my lack of knowledge and context, were the better side, spent most of the time lying on the floor clutching parts of their bodies in fake agony until it was clear the ref wasn’t going to award a free kick and then got up and carried on playing. And that, to repeat a cliche, is football.
At least a rubbish match gave Mick McCarthy something to sound dour and unimpressed about. It was as if the Brazilians and the Portuguese got together and agreed to provide a match that fitted his general outlook. Good on Ivory Coast for beating North Korea 3-0, while still failing to qualify. I see that North Korea ended on minus 11. Perhaps they will literally minus 11 when the squad returns to North Korea and faces the dressing down of a lifetime. Raymond Domenech should go and manage them.
I must admit I love this stage of the tournament, when you’re all comfortable with the pundits and the commentators (on which note, please spare me ITV’s Chris Coleman, whose Welsh accent is not the problem, it’s his technique of muttering off-mic and, one assumes, forgetting he is broadcasting, live, to millions of people), and your Guardian World Cup Guide is being gradually filled up with numbers and names. Yes, I’m excited about England Germany on Sunday, which I shall watch without xeonophobia, but I’m equally excited to see who will play Brazil on Monday? Spain or Chile? One hopes they will play properly either way.
Still, good news: after two weeks of wondering but failing to follow through and actually look it up, we’ve found out who Mahimbra Satyam are. Their name keeps scrolling up on the electronic Blade Runner-style advertising hoardings, and, unlike Castrol, Emirates, Tellkom and African Road Safety, I had no idea what it was advertising. I hoped it was a satnav shaped like a yam. It’s not. It’s the official IT provider of the World Cup, based in India, and they are very proud, as they might be:
I think what this World Cup has really proven is that the pundits on the BBC and ITV are more often than not, wrong and lazy. They seem to do no research whatsoever in the build up to games. “We don’t know much about this team” has been such a common cry from Shearer and co. Did you not bother to ask anyone Alan, or turn on your laptop? Yet they are so self-righteous when chastising managers, players and referees for honest mistakes.
Similarly irritating are commentators who, when broadcasting to the whole of the UK, refer to England as “we”. There are hundreds of different Nationalities watching “back home” lads.
I agree, Martin. I sometimes say “we”, but in the comfort of my own home.
Totally agree RE Chris Coleman. I think he’s from The Mumbles.
I could have blamed them a little bit, I think, had I seen that bit. Neither team absolutely had to win, and the experts should know what that can sometimes lead to. Also, I happened to notice, Brazil’s last game was at 1750m, this at 15 … Is it a coincidence that Brazil’s performance was described in exactly the same way – “no energy”, “lack of fizz” – as England’s first post-high altitude game? It might be I suppose, but it also might not be and to not mention the issue once makes it seem like they’ve not bothered to find out anything about it. (Just thought that teams might have been able to leave a few players high up and a few low down… but I’ll leave that.) Not sure Spain and Chile did play properly at the end did they but pleased for Chile.
Is it not the case that if you become accustomed to playing at altitude, then play at sea level, you should feel fitter, not less fit (which is why athletes often train at altitude). Is that right? Where have all the doctors and scientists gone? Is that true about training at altitude? Is there an athlete in the house?
That is right but I’ve been led to believe you need a week or more for er certain things to readjust to the new altitude. You wouldn’t be capable of performing as well as you usually do and being unaware of that would create a lot of additional stress. Added to that I think is the fact that playing at a higher altitude will have tired you out more than normal and will take longer to recover from. I suppose there’s also the travelling between the high inland venues and the coastal ones. Don’t want to make too much of it, as a non-expert, just seems a fair explanation for sluggish performances.
There is also the significant difference to how the ball flies at different altitudes… but I’m not sure how much this can be blamed