How To Win the Soccer World Cup

The sport of soccer is the most popular sport in the world. It’s world cup (tournament to determine which country are world champions) is held once every four years.

So far only teams from Europe and South America have won the tournament. Of them, only the big European or South American teams have won it. This is due to a number of factors affecting the smaller teams and teams from other continents.

They are:

1) Deficient tactics. Teams of the ‘smaller nations’ (we will be using this term to describe any team that has not won or is never considered a strong chance at winning the world cup) have not put in sufficient thought into tactics. We must think of on field tactics as a science or a technology. They are ever advancing. A tactic used by a team 10 years ago would be refuted entirely today.

If you were to take the world champions of say 1998 (France) and were to play them against a reasonably strong international team (who have put thought into tactics) then that 1998 French team would lose.

You must always be studying the tactics of all the best teams. This includes country and club teams. You must find counters to their tactics as well as refute their counters to your tactics.

2) Trying to play like other teams. This is similar to the problem of deficient tactics. Smaller teams will look at countries like Brazil, Italy and Germany (the most successful world cup teams) and conclude that they must play like those teams.

These teams have no business playing like other teams simply because they are only ever going to be the 2nd best Brazil or the 2nd best Italy etc. At best you can be runners up in the tournament.

What people don’t seem to realise is that these teams have developed their tactics through years and years of practice. They have developed and refined the execution of their style of play almost perfectly and have an entire structure around the way they coach young promising talent.

In other words. A team of 11 players who are trained (say for a period of 6 months before the world cup) to imitate the tactics of the Brazilian team are never going to be as good as the actual Brazilian team. This is because each of the Brazilian team were playing (as little kids) like Brazilians do. They were then identified as talented and were funneled through a system that taught them how to play as Brazilians. They have then played in the Brazilian team (which for decades has been training their players to play that way).

That was a long winded example, but it explains why you should not attempt to imitate or play like another team.

3) Lack of Belief. They don’t win, not because they’re not good enough but because they don’t think they can. Now this may sound like self help B.S. but it is in fact true. A team that is so overawed by another team that they are willing to change their tactics at the last minute will not defeat that team.

This happened when Australia faced Germany in their opening match of the 2010 world cup. Australia had good player, a good coach and good tactics. They played defensively and hit on the counter attack. However, just before the game panic set in. The Australian media came out proclaiming that Australia should take the attack to Germany. They advocated a more aggressive and attacking form of soccer.

Australia not only pushed the attack but also attempted to play the offside trap (which they had not done in the previous 4 years). The result was a 4-0 win to Germany.

A team may be tempted to make the same mistake, especially as the psychological pressure builds against an opponent with a formidable reputation. This temptation should be resisted. The only plan B you should have is a plan B you developed well in advance of a game.

4) Thinking they don’t deserve to be there.

This is similar to a lack of belief. There is a difference though. A lack of belief will harm a team on a macro level (tactics, training, player selection etc). Thinking you don’t deserve to be there harms you on a micro level (decision making while the game is being played).

A lack of belief will cause a player to freeze like a rabbit caught in a trucks headlights. We saw this in the 2010 world cup. Chile vs Spain. Chile had been dominating the entire match. They were (controversially) awarded a penalty. If converted the match would have been all but over. However Cardozo (Chilean Striker) missed.

There was something in his mind telling him that his team did not deserve to go to the semi finals. There was something saying ‘Spain are the best, they deserve to be champions.’ As it turns out, that ended up being the case. Spain did have that belief and were rewarded with the trophy at the end.

If you don’t think you deserve to be there you will pass when you should have shot, or freeze when you have a one on one chance with the goal keeper, kicking a lame shot into the keepers hands.

That lack entitlement may also prevent you from putting your whole self in. If two players are going for the ball, it is the one who is willing to die who will get that ball. If you don’t think you deserve to be there, you will not be willing to die to win the game and you will not put in 100%.

5) Not selecting the right players.

This may not be as obvious as it seems. I am not going to tell you to select players who pass more or players who shoot more. I will not tell you to select short players or tall players. But I will tell you to select the correct players based on the situation you are in.

What does that mean?

It means you are not necessarily selecting the best players for your team but the players that will make the best team. Now this isn’t a ‘the sum of the whole is greater than it’s individual parts’ speech. Far from it.

What I am in fact trying to emphasize is that you must select the players that are most likely to win you the world cup. This may on the surface seem obvious but there is an art to it all. A player who plays consistently well for their club week in and week out but chocks in a ‘do or die’ situation is not a good candidate for a world cup player. This player must not make it into your squad.

However, a player who is generally not such a strong player but who will rise to the occasion during a big or important match must make it into your squad.

Sometimes a player is both a consistent performer and one who rises to the occasion. He is obviously a perfect candidate for your world cup squad.

Coaches often make the mistake of selecting players who play in the top leagues in the world and who are consistent performers. Unfortunately, not all of these players care as much about their country as others may. They may also crumble under pressure when their team makes it to the knockout stages in the world cup.

Coaches also make the mistake of overlooking players in lower leagues. These days there are so many good players and the game is so competitive that a player in a lower league may be 98 or 99% the skill level of a top league player. If you select a top league player who only plays at 95% of their ability because they do not care about their country then he will not be as good as a player who plays to 100% of their ability but may only be 98% skill level of the top league player.

A lower league player who loves his country and is a big game player may be the best player on the planet during a game that really matters to his country (like a world cup final).

You must also recognize the difference between qualifying for a world cup and winning that world cup once you’re there. You must sometimes select different players for each phase. You may select one player for qualifying and another during the world cup. While this may be heartbreaking for the player who helps you qualify, it is necessary to guarantee the teams success.

Conclusion

The gap between the teams in world soccer today is so small. The gap between a team that misses out on qualifying for the world cup and a team that consistently wins (or comes close to winning) the world cup is a matter of a few percentage points. Quality players can be found not only in the worlds top leagues but in the lower leagues also. In fact a lack of scrutiny of the lower teams and players could serve as a game breaking advantage when playing a higher rated team.

A team that eliminates all the problems above and who puts in 100% of their energy towards winning the world cup will inevitably be successful. It remains to be seen whether or not a lower team has the courage to make this happen.

Regards

-Simon

The Video Referee In The World Cup

There has been much debate regarding the use of video technology in soccer. The recent world cup has brought about further calls for the use of video technology.

The controversy mainly surrounds 2 incidents. One was England’s disallowed goal. The other was Argentina’s unjustified goal. These both happened on the same day.

England’s (disallowed) goal was scored by Frank Lampard. The shot hit the crossbar, then went in, then bounced out because of backspin on the ball.

Argentina’s goal that shouldn’t have been was scored by Carlos Tevez who was in an offside position when receiving a headed assist from Lionel Messi.

I will now comment on these 2 goals and the issues surrounding them.

Lampard’s Goal

This was a goal, but neither the linesman nor the referee can be blamed for not seeing that it had. The linesman must stay in line with the 2nd last defender until a ball is kicked by an attacking player. He must then quickly look at the 2nd last defender to see if there are any offside attacking players (this is my experience from when I used to officiate club games).

My point is, even if the linesman was faster than (current fastest man) Usain Bolt, he would not have had enough time to see whether or not the ball had crossed the line.

On the other hand, both the linesman and the referee would have been saved a lot of grief had one they been allowed to refer the decision.

Tevez’s ‘goal’

This is one decision the linesman should have correctly made. He was in line with the second last defender and had ample time to see whether or not there was an offside player. Further adding to my annoyance was the fact that the referee of this game was the same referee who wrongly sent Australian Harry Kewell off against Ghana (more on that later).

In this situation, a replay of the incident was shown on the screen, causing the Mexican players to confront the linesman. Once the incident was replayed on the big screen, there was zero chance of it being rectified. Referees are not allowed to use video evidence in making refereeing decisions. Once the ‘goal’ had been shown on the big screen the referee had to stand by his original wrong decision. If it hadn’t been shown, he would have had until the restart to consult the linesman and reverse decision.

Again, the use of the video referee or some sort of challenge system (like the ones used in cricket or tennis) would have eliminated this controversy altogether.

Use of video technology to stamp out diving

Diving is a huge problem in this sport. It ensures that only the whimpiest of nations ever succeed at this sport. Diving could be eliminated straight away with the use of video technology. The method is simple. After a game, find footage of all those who dived, and hand them one match bans. This would not interrupt the flow of the game (one argument against the use of the video ref)  and would stamp out the practice.

Previous calls for the video referee.

Australians have been calling for the video referee in this sport ever since they were wrongly knocked out of the 2006 world cup due to a dive by Fabio Grosso. Italy went on to win the world cup and Australia went home after the second round. Four years later and both Tim Cahill and Harry Kewell are given red cards. In both cases, video evidence would have seen the decision overturned. This costs Australia a spot in the second round (handing it to Ghana, who have just advanced to the quarter finals).

There have been other incidents in this world cup where video evidence would have overturned a crucial (incorrect) decision.

Why the sudden calls for video referees?

Why is it only now that there is a strong push for the video referee? Why is it that after England and Mexico have been harmed, is there a huge outcry? Why wasn’t there an outcry when the chances of Australia were destroyed? Why wasn’t there an outcry when the chances of New Zealand were destroyed (through a DeRossi Dive). Why not when Henry hand balled against Ireland?

I believe there is now an outcry because it is one of the superpowers who has suffered as a result of refereeing mistake (that could easily be fixed with video evidence). The injustice was suffered by England. Had the injustice been suffered by Australia, or Ireland, or New Zealand or any of the other teams who have already suffered injustices then there would be no outcry.

“But wait, you forgot to mention the Mexico incident”

I haven’t forgotten. The Mexico issue was merely used as a backup by those touting England’s case. Had it just been Mexico that was wronged, we may not have heard about it again. Having said that, Mexico can be seen as a superpower in this sport, or at least just below superpower status.

It’s nothing against England

I am not criticizing English fans here. I would be pissed off too. But the fact that the world decides to sit up and take notice of the issue now, rather than previously, is just wrong. The video ref should have been brought in years ago.

Where to from here?

The use of video technology is inevitable. If it is not brought in now, it will be brought in in 5 years. If not, then in another 5 years etc. The only question is: will video technology be brought in now?

I hope it is.

Regards

-Simon