World Cup review

The World Cup final came perilously close to delivering the ultimate sucker punch in the face of entertainment. After a tournament dominated by player cynicism, the Dutch produced a display that was both so unpleasant and negative that they were the true representatives of how South Africa 2010 should be remembered.

It has been a disappointing tournament no matter what the television coverage, frequently bordering on patronising African supporters, may have told us. It will be remembered not for great moments of emotion or skill, but for misplaced passes, hopelessly over-hit shots and badly controlled balls.

The new football, the Jabulani, will have played its part in this, despite commentators veering from raging against it in week one, to arguing that it wasn't having any impact in week two. The reality was not so much that the ball swerved wildly in the air, but that it arrived on goal with far too much pace for goalkeepers to have the time to react. Reassess the goalkeeping blunders across the World Cup, of which there were many, and you will see time and again shot-stoppers being unable to react in time when caught out by the speed of the ball.

Some analysts have argued that 2010 has been a great tournament despite the lack of goals simply because of the parity of the teams. In reality though, all this has meant is that sides have been cancelling each other out with ease, sticking to rigid conservative game plans and displaying little attacking intent.

We thought this malaise to be restricted to the opening week of games, but the lethargy and apparent apathy towards actively attempting to win games was evident throughout. There has been perhaps only one great game-Slovakia against Italy, and for every one of those, there have been plenty of Japan-Paraguay clashes.

The positive to come from the tournament is that the most technically-gifted sides ultimately came out on top. England looked completely outclassed and frequently incompetent against sides that many here had arrogantly predicted they would brush aside. Instead the real moments of joy came from watching Germany's attacking pace and accuracy, and Spain's (less frequent than usual) pass-and-move football.

Despite this, there are an astonishing number of supposedly world-class footballers that are completely one-footed. As a direct result we have seen less goals where strikers, even including David Villa, have been unwilling to take a chance on using their weaker leg. Arjen Robben of Holland is so easy to defend against because defenders know he is always wanting to cut inside and use his left foot. Against Germany in the quarter-finals, the Argentinian Angel di Maria was hilariously reliant on his left boot, twisting in ever decreasing circles in a desperate attempt to get to use it.

The entertainment provided by the final largely resulted from guessing how long both Mark van Bommel and Nigel de Jong would stay on the field. Somehow both avoided red cards, de Jong after a horrific chest stamp on Xabi Alonso, and van Bommel after a series of deliberate trips, diving challenges and a constant barrage of chatter aimed at Howard Webb.

Webb was not nearly strong enough with players from both sides, and by failing to show more cards or dismiss players earlier in the game, allowed the cynicism to go on unchecked. Some pundits have credited the referee with keeping more players on the field for the length of the game, but this isn't the referee's responsibility, and not appropriate given the level of the Dutch kicking tactics.

The one certainty that should emerge from the competition is the need for video technology. This shouldn't be solely limited to judging when the ball has crossed the goal-line, but to dish out immediate punishment for reckless challenges that may otherwise go unseen. The referee can only follow the ball, the linesmen may be some distance from the action and when an increasing number of incidents are off the ball scuffles, kicks and elbows, there needs to be a system to eradicate such behaviour from the game.

The unwillingness of FIFA to progress the international game with the use of technology that other sports have readily embraced is increasingly frustrating.

Relief is the watch-word then, that Spain managed to signify to the world that they play the best brand of football. One could only have feared for the future of the international game had Holland triumphed.

'Tom English: 'The level of punditry is patronising and insulting''

Excellent article by Tom English that identifies more clearly the deficiencies in our punditry:
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/sport/Tom-English-39The-level-of.6364084.jp

It raises the question of why we let ex-professionals rule our football coverage instead of having those both knowledgeable in foreign football and those prepared to do the research.

World Cup opening week review

Maybe my memory deceives me, but I don't remember a World Cup having started so slowly as the 2010 edition has. The pace with which I have rushed for a television when the games get underway has slowed noticeably with each passing day, draw, misplaced pass and over-hit cross.

It has been a tournament that has already filled its quota of dull games before even a week has passed, largely down to the conservative tactics of almost all the teams involved. Whenever a side has gone 1-0 down in their opening encounter there has, on-the-whole, been no concerted effort to attempt to draw level again, instead resigning themselves to defeat.

These tactics may be understandable when an unfancied team is losing to one of the favourites, but when sides such as Cameroon are losing to Japan, a team that they must be looking to beat to progress to the second round, it makes very little sense.

Talk of the nature of the new Adidas ball has cropped up at the World Cup once more, and whilst it is tempting to dismiss it as easily as it was once the 2006 tournament was underway, the new ball does appear to be bouncing too high, skidding too fast off the surface, and too unpredictable to strike from range.

In terms of the media coverage, it has been average at best so far. This is the first World Cup that I have made the effort to stray from the mainstream broadcast coverage to follow more respected print and online pundits, and it has made the gap between the best and the worst ever more apparent.

ITV's studio coverage has been improved immeasurably by the addition of Adrian Chiles, but still suffers from sub-standard commentary pairings. Clive Tyldesley and Andy Townsend were at their worst during the England-USA clash; praising Heskey regardless of when he played a poor pass or missed a chance, and claiming that England were asserting themselves as the Americans were playing the technically better football in the first half.

Most infuriatingly Townsend, whilst reminding the viewers that we hate to see players appealing to the referee for cards for opponents, said Wayne Rooney (of all players) had the right to complain to the referee over the treatment he felt he was receiving.

Peter Drury, a man given to hyperbole to hijack events, made the strangest comment of the opening week following Germany's opening goal against Australia: 'The German gene kicks in again!' he wailed, determined to stick rigidly to his cliched opinion of what German football should be about, despite the team providing the most skill and flair of any of the sides we have seen thus far. Sadly the co-commentator interjected at this moment, leaving us with a tantalising view of Drury's questionable racial politics that was sadly not expanded on.

ITV is not guilty alone of quality punditry paucity however. Mick McCarthy commentating on the Argentina-Nigeria clash for the BBC stubbornly maintained in increasingly uncertain tones that a challenge by a Nigerian defender was not a penalty even as replays were being shown clearly demonstrating that the Argentinian forward had been fouled.

The strange, rotating BBC studio is now filled with ex-pros to provide analysis, and aside from Alan Hansen, there is little worth listening to. Alan Shearer adds absolutely nothing of substance in his monotone drawl, and the old boys club that develops when Gary Lineker makes endless reference to his playing days is both not fulfilling his role as the anchor, and plain irritating.

Radio 5 Live have offered perhaps the best live commentary options, but this choice has to be balanced against the likes of Alan Green offering unwelcome and uneducated opinion (criticising Ivorian Gervinho's haircut), and David Pleat's inability to pronounce other people's names.

The directors in South Africa have become slightly obsessive in showing us endless slow-motion replays after the most innocuous of incidents; diving is aggravating enough when viewed live, let alone showing it frame-by-frame. Whether the showing of these replays is to promote high definition viewing, the effect on matches is to leave the viewer gasping for breath as live action is followed by replays of the same action immediately after.

So all in all it has been a frustrating opening week ruined by conservatism and petrol station quality footballs. As the second round of games begins tonight at last, we can only hope it will get better. And fast.

June 12th

The traditional dismissal of the US football team has already begun ahead of England's opening encounter in South Africa tonight.

What most English fans are often unwilling to accept is that whilst America has a smaller football following than some nations, those that do follow the sport are just as passionate and knowledgeable about the state of the global game. Indeed, it's the second most played sport in the country after basketball.

Every four years a significant percentage of the American population tunes in to the games, and this time around ESPN has made a concerted effort in both securing the rights and providing extensive coverage of the matches. It is rare that our brand of football graces the front page of ESPN's website, as is the case today.

I'm fully expecting tonight's meeting to be tight, and it is not unimaginable to see USA winning given their strong international appearances of late, most notably in the Confederations Cup last year.

Media coverage
Later in the week I'll be blogging on the quality of the television and radio coverage the tournament has provided thus far. Primary shock two days in; ITV has not been unwatchable.

Twitter
Meanwhile, I have crumbled and joined Twitter, primarily for the purposes of the World Cup, where regular blog posts are not necessarily appropriate given the ever-changing situation. You can follow my inane ramblings here. Or not.

World Cup predictions
Posted up slightly late, but here is how I saw the tournament panning out before it began:

Mexico
France
South Africa
Uruguay

Argentina
South Korea
Nigeria
Greece

USA
England
Algeria
Slovenia

Serbia
Germany
Australia
Ghana

Holland
Japan
Denmark
Cameroon

Italy
Paraguay
New Zealand
Slovakia

Brazil
North Korea
Portugal
Ivory Coast

Spain
Honduras
Chile
Switzerland

World Cup Daily arrives

The first edition of the Guardian's Football Weekly team's World Cup podcast has just been released. Usual informed analysis and a good preview of what to expect from the upcoming weeks:

World Cup Daily 

When a podcast opens with lines such as: 'What kind of message would it send to the world if England won the World Cup? What kind of template is that for being the best in the world? To have a bloated, over-inflated league, have a rubbish coaching structure, don't look after your youngsters and get a foreign manager in and you too can win the World Cup', it's clear that those involved don't pull their punches.

In complete contrast I made the foolish mistake of relaxing my guard enough to try watching BBC Three's 'World Cup's most shocking moments', still available for your own misery on Iplayer. Talking head shows are generally abysmal, and despite some interesting clip choices, getting in Mathew Horne from Gavin and Stacey to comment on incidents he clearly had not seen before making the show, as if recalling fond memories, was aggravating.

Any programme that can make Peter Crouch's wooden acting one of the least problematic issues of the production deserves a kicking, and getting third party 'celebrities' to repeat cliches about German efficiency is an impressive waste of money.

The programme is mildly symptomatic of a greater malaise in the general punditry knowledge base across our media as a whole. There are great analysts out there, but they are not in the mainstream. It cannot be right that we can send people like Ian Wright and Andy Townsend to such major competitions in place of pundits such as Sid Lowe and Gabriele Marcotti.

Coalition context

While many Liberal Democrat supporters are up in arms over the new-born coalition with the Conservatives, it's perhaps worth taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture.

Whilst the idea of the two parties working together is still slightly unbelievable and potentially alarming to the Lib Dem grass roots support, many of whom will have voted Lib Dem in order to keep the Tories out, some context is needed.

Firstly, it's worth remembering that this is the only way, given the currently flawed electoral system that we have in place in this country, that the Liberal Democrats were going to have any form of power in the forseeable future.

Secondly, such a coalition need not mean that the Liberal Democrats bow to the Tories on every issue. Providing they stand up and make their voices heard within the coalition, the effect could instead be that they are capable of muzzling the Tories on their more aggressive policy, whilst still offering the voters aspects of their own manifesto that they campaigned on.

So whilst having Cameron as the leader may not be pleasing to Liberal Democrat voters, in many ways they now have the lesser of two evils. It's the Conservatives in power yes, but tied to a party that will still involve Nick Clegg and Vince Cable, who won't let them run roughshod, and will have the ability to force them into fairly significant concessions.

Thirdly, from a neutral's perspective, this is politically exciting. We are truly entering a new era of politics following this deal, and we will only be able to evaluate the coalition, for better or worse, in the months and years ahead.

Election night BBC TV review

Election night is usually enjoyable television; as the night rolls on and the presenters become more tired, tetchy and unpredictable, it generally has the potential to create moments of unintentionally entertaining action.

The BBC coverage has been criticised in the days following the event, in some cases rightly, but some without justification.

Those who watched would largely agree that the idea of having a party boat on the Thames was very much misguided. Not only did the BBC manage to assemble a group of 'celebrities' and commentators who were very easy to detest (not to mention Andrew Neil) that by 2am most were hoping for a stray torpedo to latch onto the craft, but it added absolutely nothing of substance to the analysis.

Why would we want to hear from Joan Collins about David Cameron making the ideal next 'President' for our country, or a candidate for the most cringe-worthy moment of television for 2010 when Bruce Forsyth, drunk on a cocktail of his own ego and senility, quietened the guests behind him and attempted to engage them in his catch-phrase.

Back in a studio that featured the world's most unnecessarily large desk, David Dimbleby increasingly looked like an elderly man shrinking into the electronic scenery. In fairness however, he did a surprisingly good job in holding the presentation together for what seemed like an eternity, disappearing at 9am for what was presumably a short nap somewhere under that desk.

It boggles the mind that the BBC can somehow still manage to have communication systems with exceptional amounts of lag, so that when Dimbleby addressed presenters outside the realms of the main studio there was often a three or four second delay between question and answer.

This isn't helped when you have Dimbleby and the trigger-happy Jeremy Paxman, who frequently interrupted the silent delays to add additional questions, further complicating the resulting exchanges. Paxman finally exploded out of his patience zone when Lembit Opik lost his seat unexpectedly, leading to the first heated trading of words of the night.

Meanwhile Jeremy Vine's graphics were rendered largely redundant. The whole purpose of utilising graphics should surely be to simplify the results coming in and make the whole process more coherent. Instead, Vine had to explain every aspect of the confusing swirling mess unfolding behind him. It was as if Vine was stuck in some strange parallel universe comprised of terrifying white voids interspersed with flying coloured panels, and a House of Commons filled with computerised twitching MPs.

Back in the studio, Emily Maitlis and Peter Kellner perhaps did the best job of assessing the voting share and swing in each seat, providing some much needed brevity and clarity.

Whilst ITV were apparently quicker in both showing results and the swing in each seat, what I saw of Channel 4's alternative election night was disappointing. It felt as though the tone of the show was misjudged, not offering the expected Mitchell and Brooker led-satire as much as cheap jokes and average comedy shows. Mitchell in particular looked uncomfortable in the environment, short stand-up material broken up by a woman in the audience with a machine-gun laugh.

It would have been more productive to have had a full Channel 4 news produced show, with occasional breaks for Brooker to offer his more visceral take on the developing events.