An amazing result

by Chris Bertram on July 4, 2004

The BBC commentators have been comparing Otto Rehhagel to Socrates and invoking Greece’s ancient past. And why not? “Moments like tonight”:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/euro_2004/3860105.stm are what make football the great sport it is.

{ 51 comments }

1

WillieStyle 07.04.04 at 10:34 pm

It’s back! That unholy bastardization of the beautiful game called “European football”. We thought we’d seen the last of it after Italia 90, but like the undead, it insists on rearing its ugly head yet again.

With the success of Greece, teams like Italy and Germany will go back to the negative football that they invented. Pack 10 men behind the ball. Try for a quick counter and close up shop after your first goal.

The only chance the forces of light had was the Czech Republic. Here was a team that combined discipline and flair. A team that threatened to redefine European attitudes to football. But with one unfortunate injury to Pavel Nedved, all that came to an end.
Expect to see a lot more 1:0 and 0:0 results from matches involving European teams.

My only hope is that the Brazillians will beat this nonsense out of them.

2

Randy Paul 07.04.04 at 10:50 pm

Williestyle:

They will in 2006.

3

O'Toole 07.04.04 at 11:16 pm

Totally wrong, Chris. Beyond the Cinderella aspect of Euro 2004, this is the worst possible result for the sport. The message it sends is that winning football equals stifling football. Unless and until FIFA can find a cure to the paucity of goals (thank goodness the referee resisted deciding the whole thing with a spot kick), we are condemned to watching unimaginative, low-scoring, defensive football for years to come. The sport is urgently in need of reform.

4

Chris Bertram 07.04.04 at 11:50 pm

I’m sorry that williestyle and o’toole can’t take pleasure in an well organized defence, but it is just as much a part of the game as a brilliant attack you know.

5

O'Toole 07.05.04 at 12:58 am

Chris,

Football needs more goals. Badly. It’s simple (statistics): the lower the score, the more chance the result is due to luck or a referee’s whim. I don’t blame the Greeks (or their German manager); they did the best they could with their talents and their strategy paid off. But, much as I enjoyed seeing the mighty fall in Euro 2004, it was poor football.

6

WillieStyle 07.05.04 at 2:36 am

A well organized defence is great.
Relying on nothing but a well organized defence and a fluke goal is terrible football. France had a legendary defence in 1998 with Desailly, Thuram, Petite, Deschamps and co. Yet they also had offense with Zidane, Anelka, Henry.

I don’t really begrudge Greece for this. It’s the only way they could have won. It especially galls me, however, when Italy does it. I mean come on! You have Totti, Inzahgi et al. and you insist on playing timid football and going for the 1:0 win.

Again my only consolation is that as long as there are the likes of Ronaldo, Kaka and Ronaldinio, this strategy won’t ever win a World Cup again.

7

Erik 07.05.04 at 3:30 am

The Greeks beat the Czechs and Portugal on corner kicks — set pieces. I’d hardly call those ‘fluke goals’.

The Greeks did NOT play old-style grind-’em-into-the-dirt football. Every chance they got, even with the lead, they pushed forward in the counter-attack — they simply lacked the on-ball talent to gain possession and counter-attack very often.

A talented Italian squad using the Greek game plan could win 3-0 or 4-0.

Don’t confuse their lack of skill on offense with a lack of *will* on offense.

8

WillieStyle 07.05.04 at 3:47 am

The Greeks beat the Czechs and Portugal on corner kicks — set pieces. I’d hardly call those ‘fluke goals’.

I would.

Don’t confuse their lack of skill on offense with a lack of will on offense.

In every game I watched Greece play, they had 10 men behind the ball whenever they didn’t have possession. That’s as timid as you get.

Finally, a talented Italian team that played their system would win 1-0, because the system is designed to win 1-0

9

Randy Paul 07.05.04 at 3:49 am

Probably the most underrated aspect of the game is finishing. Greece had 21 shots on target (1 in the championship) and scored 7 goals. England scored 10 goals with 33 shots on target; Czech Republic 10 goals with 35 shots on target; Sweden 8 for 27; Portugal 8 for 40; France 7 for 24; Netherlands 7 for 42; Italy three for 26; Germany 2 for 24; Denmark 4 for 21.

Seems to me like Greece finished its chances well while defending very effectively against its opponents chances.

What a radical way to win at football.

10

WillieStyle 07.05.04 at 3:54 am

Randy, seeing as practically every team scored more goals per game than Greece, all your stat shows is that Greece was really bad at creating chances.

11

P O'Neill 07.05.04 at 3:57 am

I’m with the negative comments about this one. One other thing — there’s a clear negative correlation between intensity of domestic season and player success in Euro 2004. The teams loaded with players who had tough club seasons went out. Rooney is the exception who proves the rule because Everton didn’t have a whole lot to play for this season (other than survival). The Greeks were well rested and fit. For being able to capitalise on that, they deserve their win. But it’s not football I want to watch.

12

Randy Paul 07.05.04 at 4:00 am

Not at all. It shows that they defended well and took advantage of their chances.

There are two components of this game. There are ways to break down defenses. Portugal obviously wasn’t up to the taks.

I didn’t see the game yet (I’ll watch the broadcast on Fox Sports World), but I heard the BBC radio broadcast on line and one of the constant themes of the game appeared to be Deco’s diving in the area. If that is indeed the case, Portugal didn’t deserve to win.

13

Chris 07.05.04 at 4:59 am

Yeah, football is great. Seriously, those fourth-down-and-inches plays just make me glad to be alive. The Rocket, and the Bus, and all the greats…

It’s a beautiful game.

14

Chris Bertram 07.05.04 at 7:37 am

Randy, seeing as practically every team scored more goals per game than Greece, all your stat shows is that Greece was really bad at creating chances.

But it is, as a matter of fact, false, that “practically every team” scored more goals per game than Greece.

15

Sandriana 07.05.04 at 9:30 am

Given the players Portugal had up front, particularly Vigo, who was looking for the goal he could retire on, Greece had no alternative than to play defensively: that wasn’t all there was to it though. Look at the stats- Portugal had more possession, they took more shots, and more of those shots were on target. But it was the difference between a team playing as a real team, Greece, and a bunch of individuals, Portugal. The team won, which is as it should be. And there is more, much more than goals to football. Football is chess at speed with real people instead of static pieces and it’s the ebb and flow of advantage and disadvantage that gives it such interest. What I really would like if anyone has it is a translation of what the Greek fans were singing: although outnumbered at least 2 to 1 they drowned out the Portuguese home fans completely.

I’m just glad that England never had to meet Holland. There would have been vicious, open civil war in our house. As it was, a great final.

16

Sandriana 07.05.04 at 9:36 am

Oh okaaay….. someone on IRC has suggested a translation of the Greek song, here it is:

”Who ate all the spanakopita?, Who ate all the spanakopita?” ”You did, you did, you fat philosopher….”

17

reuben 07.05.04 at 9:50 am

Williestyle, O’Toole – Were you watching the same game as me? If so, are you sure your seats are comfortable enough? Perhaps busted springs have led to irritability.

Yes Greece played great defense, but they didn’t play to kill the game. Their tackling was cobra quick – foot meeting ball practically every time, despite the tremendous risk of superious divers such as Deco et al being able to fool the referee into giving unwarranted fouls.

And when Greece had the ball, their midfield played a very taut game of short sharp passing, moving forward most of the time.

It may not be what you like, but it was damn fine football.

18

mc 07.05.04 at 10:29 am

Some people seem to be confusing football with basketball or something where scores are what counts. Since Brazil was mentioned – what makes Brazil great to watch is not how many goals they score but how they play. The style, the moves, it’s in their blood. But Brazil is not in the Euros and no European team will ever be able to play like Brazil, so let’s just get over it. It doesn’t have to suck just because there’s no Latin American team or even African ones to give a bit more flair and vivacity. Greece were good, and they deserved it wholeheartedly. Plus, I’m happy they won because there’s no big brand names in their team.

williestyle – “I don’t really begrudge Greece for this. It’s the only way they could have won. It especially galls me, however, when Italy does it. I mean come on! You have Totti, Inzahgi et al. and you insist on playing timid football and going for the 1:0 win.”

First, the reason Totti, Inzaghi et al. suck is because they’re mostly useless except for advertisers. The best are not the most famous. And they had the most incompetent coach on the planet. Football in Italy is just too corrupt and spoilt by divas and corporate interests.

Secondly, Greece was not playing the crappy Italian game.

Thirdly, football is about much more than football…

19

reuben 07.05.04 at 10:58 am

This is about the tournament rather than the game, but as yobs were a big concern, I wanted to mention one instance where they managed to be a big hit with the Portuguese.

At the Croatia-England match, the area around my seat had more than its far share of guys who booed during the Croatian national anthem and shouted the c-word ever time a Croatian player got the ball, both of which actions made the five Portuguese women sitting in front of me visibly uncomfortable.

Once the game was clinched, though, the yobs around me won the Portuguese women’s hearts. How? By singing “You’re going home” to the Croatians, but adding the words “with the Spanish” to the verse. The Portuguese loved it.

20

WillieStyle 07.05.04 at 1:08 pm

Some people seem to be confusing football with basketball or something where scores are what counts.

Spare me the condescension please. I was born with a footbal at my feet. Let’s not try to out “purist” eachother okay.

Since Brazil was mentioned – what makes Brazil great to watch is not how many goals they score but how they play.

Exactly. Brazilians play like artists. Europeans play like accountants.

The style, the moves, it’s in their blood. But Brazil is not in the Euros and no European team will ever be able to play like Brazil, so let’s just get over it.

The options aren’t: play like Brazil or Play like the Azzuri. For a while France, the Czechs, Portugal, Holland played their own style of free flowing football. Europeans play will retrun to playing like accountants out of choice not necessity.

It doesn’t have to suck just because there’s no Latin American team or even African ones to give a bit more flair and vivacity.

No it doesn’t. But it will from now on.

williestyle – “I don’t really begrudge Greece for this. It’s the only way they could have won. It especially galls me, however, when Italy does it. I mean come on! You have Totti, Inzahgi et al. and you insist on playing timid football and going for the 1:0 win.”

First, the reason Totti, Inzaghi et al. suck is because they’re mostly useless except for advertisers. The best are not the most famous. And they had the most incompetent coach on the planet. Football in Italy is just too corrupt and spoilt by divas and corporate interests.

Oh please. At USA ’94 Italy had Roberto Baggio, one of the most creative players ever. Yet they went into the finals with Brazil with the clear intention of playing to a 0-0 stand still and taking their chances at penalties. Thankfully, the football gods were awake that day and the lost. It is that sort of attitude that is disgraceful.

Secondly, Greece was not playing the crappy Italian game.

NO. They were playing the crappy Italian game with a German twist. Rather than use your playmakers to hold the ball. Simply use short passes to move the ball around in your half till your opponents fall asleep.

Thirdly, football is about much more than football…

Dude, that’s like deep and stuff.

Look, let’s all agree to disagree okay. Some of us like to watch the likes of Brazil, Nigerian, Holland, Czech Republic, Argentina, etc.
Others prefer the forces of darkness and despair. I’m a liberal. I’m cool with diversity.

21

Erik 07.05.04 at 1:51 pm

Exactly. Brazilians play like artists. Europeans play like accountants.

Nice! I think you need to include some sort of salesman on the Euro side though, to cover the diving.

NO. They were playing the crappy Italian game with a German twist. Rather than use your playmakers to hold the ball. Simply use short passes to move the ball around in your half till your opponents fall asleep.

This is simply wrong, willie, for two reasons:

1) The Greeks did not have any playmakers who could hold the ball. Any time they tried it, they got stripped by the Portuguese within about three seconds.

2) There was no stretch of play of even ten seconds where the Greeks simply stayed in their own end passing the ball around. Whenever they got the ball they pressed forward — they just didn’t get the ball very often.

As for those last two winning Greek goals being lucky, then you must feel that any goal scored through the air is lucky.

We get that you hate the safe, boring Italian/German style of play from not so long ago, willie. But the Greeks do not deserve to be lumped in with them.

22

mc 07.05.04 at 2:35 pm

williestyle: maybe you could have spared me the polemical tone, as I had no such intention to argue about what’s purist and what’s not. I actually said I too do prefer the more vivacious style of playing, and yes, compared to Brazil, most Europeans do play like accountants, like, big news, it’s like saying compared to NASA all other space agencies are small. My point is simply it’s _not just_ about the style, the scores or the defensive vs. aggressive playing, on which I also agree with you, it’s also about the kind of players, the nature, the background, the mentality. In that sense too, football is more than just the game. You mention Baggio and Italy in ’94, well even then Baggio wasn’t this great shining star and driving force. Italy’s been relying on those big hyped up brand names far too much even when like Totti, Vieri and Del Piero they’re no use anymore. They shouldn’t even have been there, nor should have Trapattoni. And then they go whining about the match being fixed just because they lost, is that not a disgraceful attitude? It’s the mentality that’s wrong, not just the tactics. The big football stars are spoilt puppies with no real hunger to play. They play it safe because they feel safe and pampered, not just because of the coach’s choices. They won’t get dumped even when they’re no longer fresh because of the contracts and advertising and all the interests behind them. That’s a fact, especially in Italy. You see some of that with some players in other countries’ teams, but Italy is the clearest example.

Greece is not affected by all that. There’s the main difference and it shows. I really can’t see how you can blame them for bigger teams going back to being boring when they’ve been boring for years now! If anything, it’s a good shock to the system that an “ugly ducking” makes it while the big safe millionaire names all went home in shame.

23

WillieStyle 07.05.04 at 2:46 pm

MC, I’m sorry, but you’re offbase on two things.

1) Baggio was a stud. Period. His class shone through for club and country and he will go down in history as one of the greatest ever. And he always, always played with heart. I will never forget how he single-handedly ripped the heart out of my beloved Nigeria in ’94.

2) The Italians don’t play their style because the players are too lazy. It is an intentional strategy of pretty much every Italian national coach. Aks any Italian. It’s hardly a secret. I remember watching Holland v. Portugal with and Italian friend of mine. Every time Deco or Figo broke away with the ball in the second half, he’d scream at them to take the ball into the corner and “die there”. That’s the Italian philosophy and it isn’t limited to star players.

24

Erik 07.05.04 at 3:19 pm

The Greeks were really excellent in defense, not just organizationally but also individually (especially their tackling is spectacular). While I can appreciate this, I find it difficult to enjoy watching them play. At least the Italians could threaten and score from counter-attacks. The Greeks really are completely dependent on set-pieces and the occassional screw-up of a defense. It is admirable of course what they did with limited talent but I have seen enough of them already and I hate to see this tactic be so successful. Wish Koller would have nailed one.

25

reuben 07.05.04 at 3:20 pm

Williestyle

I see where you’re coming from, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that because Greece didn’t play like Brazil, they played like Italy. Just to take one example from your own post, at no point did a Greek player try to take the ball to a corner and “die there”. They aren’t great attackers, but they did attack, and, as Erik says, they did press forward consistently. They may lack the flair of the Portuguese, but they did not stifle the flow of the game. (Though they sure as hell stifled the Portuguese playmakers – until Costa came on.)

Point of trivia: Am I correct in recollecting that the Brazilian press excoriated Scolari for not playing exciting enough football in the run-up to and during the most recent World Cup?

26

james 07.05.04 at 3:33 pm

You are. And rightly so, it wasn’t a great Brazilian team by any stretch.

27

Randy Paul 07.05.04 at 4:08 pm

James,

It was a better team than the 1994 winners.

I’m married to a Brazilian and travel there regularly and I can tell you this: no one I spoke to in Brazil was upset that Brazil won in 1994 nor were they upset that they won in 2002. They floated numerous conspiracy theories as to why Brazil lost in 1998, but I think that France was clearly the better team.

Consider the goal differential between the Brazil and it’s competition in the last three World Cup Championship games:

Brazil:

2002: +14
1998: +5
1994: +8

2002 (Germany): +11*
1998 (France): +13
1994 (Italy): +3

(*8 of that +11 figure came in the Saudi Arabia game.)

Brazil’s goal differential is the greatest for a champion in the history of the World Cup. The object of the game is to score more goals than your opponent.

Not a great team my ass.

28

mc 07.05.04 at 4:13 pm

williestyle – for the record, I happen to be Italian, and it’s not like I’m saying anything original here… The problem is both the strategy and the lazyness, not either/or. You seem to insist on viewing it as one factor excluding the other, it’s not like that. The catenaccio is a traditional Italian tendency and not limited to star players, true; but today you get the pampered whingeing millionaire rockstar behaviour, and the preferential treatment in team selection for the brand names, and the tendency to find all sorts of excuses for poor performance, and the financial interests, not to mention the politics…

Italy hasn’t always been playing an extreme or crappy defensive game. In 1982 they beat even Brazil, and not out of sheer luck, and the Brazil team back then was fantastic, far better than the current one, who lately has maybe also been suffering a bit from the same big-egos problem, at times…

After that, it was downhill for Italy (at national level at least). Not just in terms of playing, but in a lot of other aspects. That period did coincide with the explosion of the current star system. The reliance on foreign players also played a part, which is also why individual Italian teams do better in Europe than the national one. But the biggest factor is what’s been on display in the last world cup and these euro matches. The so-called big stars being mostly washed up assholes who thrive on their names in spite of degrading performance. Ditto for the (former) coach, whom everyone hated but mysteriously even after the pathetic screwups at the last world cup still retained his post.

You really do misrepresent Greece by lumping them in with today’s Italy.

29

WillieStyle 07.05.04 at 5:05 pm

This has been a really fun debate. I see the point some of you are making. Perhaps I’ve been a little too hard on Greece.

In any case, the Copa America starts on teusday. God I love this game.

30

Rob Schaap 07.05.04 at 5:05 pm

On the up-side, up to the semi-finals, every cautious substitution (eg removal of Scholes or Robben) was duly punished by defeat. The big-name sides thought they were good enough to give away the initiative and soak it up, and none of them was. That’s the lesson I’d take from Euro 04. That and the fact Greece is a pretty good side – having knocked off the holders, the form side and the hosts (twice), they certainly can’t be said to have been lucky.

31

reuben 07.05.04 at 5:19 pm

Williestyle: Yes, a fun – and even informative – debate indeed. Enjoy the Copa.

32

O'Toole 07.05.04 at 8:03 pm

Just to get back to some points I made above (and were made first by another poster on an earlier thread)…

1. A typical football score these days is 1-0.

2. The finalists at Euro 2004 play 6 matches.

3. Greece scored a total of 7 goals; do the math.

4. Set pieces or otherwise, when a team wins 1-0, the result is nearly meaningless from a statistical pov. (I’m a biochemist; it would be the end of my career if I ever dared to publish a scientific paper on the basic of a sampling that small!).

5. When a typical score is 1-0, an offside call, a free kick or — especially — a penalty kick, can assume enormous importance. TV replays frequently show the ref’s (or linemans’) calls to be utterly wrong. How rational is it to be debating the condition of European football on the basis of such chancy data?!

Conclusion? As FIFA has already acknowledged, football in general (and the European variety in particular) needs to have higher scores. This would make match results less dependent on luck or incompetent officiating and it would force teams to place a greater emphasis on attacking football. Football will never have basketball-type scores, or even those found in baseball, and no one wants it to. But results like 4-3 or 5-4 (i.e. similar to those in hockey) would make for a much more exciting game (and, at the same time, mitigate some of the problems inherent in referee bias or incompetence).

33

Randy Paul 07.05.04 at 9:11 pm

1. A typical football score these days is 1-0.

Oh please. What the hell is a “typical game?”

I saw a game last summer in Belo Horizonte between altetico Mineiro and Corinthians. Atletico Mineiro was beating Corinthians 2-1 in the second half when Corinthians had a man sent off. Corinthians came back and won the game 3-2 (10 against 11) and could have won it 6-2 if it wasn’t for poor finishing on their part. Is this your idea of good football? A defense so crappy it can’t hold a lead when it has a man advantage?

This weekend I saw the MetroStars play DC United. They lost 6-2 and it was embarrassing and boring. In a World Cup qualifier a couple of years ago Australia beat American Samoa 31-0. A lot of goals in that game and I can only imagine how dull it was.

There are two primaru components to this game as there are to most sports: attacking and defending. Greece won because they attacked sufficiently to gain an advantage and defended strongly to protect that advantage.

France won the World Cup in 1998 because they attacked sufficiently to gain an advantage and defended well to protect that advantage. Brazil lost the World Cup in 1998 because their defense relied on the piss poor talents of Junior Baiano and the aging Aldair and Dunga. They gave up as many goals through the round of sixteen as they did in all of 2002, they barely beat Denmark in the quarterfinals, could not hold a lead in the 89th minute in the semis and were crushed by France over two poorly defended corner kicks. They had one clean sheet (against Morocco) in the entire tournament.

In 2002 they had four clean sheets (China, Belgium, Turkey (semifinal) and Germany). Any coach who doesn’t put an equally important value on defending is going to see a lot of the world because he will be fired a lot. Defending is an important part of the game and a team (like Brazil in 1998) that doesn’t balance their attacking with solid defending – which is exactly what Brazil did in 2002 – will be a far greater disappointment to their fans than one that plays beautifully and loses.

34

Harolynne Bobis 07.05.04 at 10:29 pm

As an American woman living in Greece your comments are fascinating. I know nothing about the sport. But I loved how it galvanized an entire country, especially one with no true stars and given little chance throughout the tournament. So I’m sorry it wasn’t the tournament you would like to have watched, it was for me and everyone in Greece who was rooting for the home team.

35

Peter 07.05.04 at 11:41 pm

A defense so crappy it can’t hold a lead when it has a man advantage?

And you know for sure that it was poor defence rather than good attacking that earned the result?

Or, to apply this logic to the any of Greece’s games… how do you know when to praise the defence and when to blame the (inept? unlucky?) offence (Greece had 1 corner to Portugal’s 10, 4 chances to Portugal’s 17, 1 shot on target to Portugal’s 5)? As O’Toole pointed out, anything can happen in a single match when the result is 1-0. As it can even in a set of three (knockout) matches. When Greece can play in a league with France, Portugal, Holland, England, the Czechs, Spain etc. and end up on top after an entire season of matches then I will admit that they are the better team. An abbreviated tournament like Euro 2004 proves nothing.

36

Randy Paul 07.05.04 at 11:59 pm

Peter, if you read my post you will see that I was writing about a game that I actually attended between Atletico Mineiro and Corinthians, two of Brazil’s top domestic teams.

So, being at the game last August at Mineirão Stadium and watching the nonexistant marking, the desperation with which Atletico cleared the ball out of it’s own half rather than setting up for any semblance of a counterattack, the way the Corinthians attackers could roam at will in Atletico’s penalty area and the three occasions in which, again with a man advantage, Atletico let a Corinthians attacker escape into their half of the field with no one other than the goalkeeper between him and the net, if that isn’t a crappy defense, then the term just doesn’t exist.

37

Jeffrey Kramer 07.06.04 at 5:55 am

Portugal had more possession, they took more shots, and more of those shots were on target. But it was the difference between a team playing as a real team, Greece, and a bunch of individuals, Portugal.

I don’t understand this. If you keep more possession and create more chances, aren’t you by definition playing better as a team?

38

mc 07.06.04 at 8:16 am

o’toole: randy paul is exactly spot on – think about it, there is a reason you get higher scores of the kind you describe in small local level tournaments and in amateur matches, whereas they tend to be the exception in high-level contexts.

I remember one match in the last world cup, I think it was Germany vs Saudi Arabia, 8-0. It was terrible to watch. SA was obviously crap. A score like that would be next to impossible if you got two teams on an equal level.

Of course it’s nicer when there’s more attack and goals but what matters is that there is a same level to start with and a good game, high scores alone don’t make up for that. Players today just tend to be less inventive and daring also because they’re caught up in a bigger system that crushes creativity and where individual stars count more than team spirit, and off the pitch celebrity can overshadow anything else.

jeffrey kramer, if you re-read the phrase you quoted, the answer is already there – _playing as a team vs. bunch of individuals_.

39

Yann 07.06.04 at 1:46 pm

Sorry guys, but Greece was clearly outplayed by France (if I had to to give it an arbitrary numerical rank I’d say by a ratio of 10 to 7), by the Czechs (6 to 4) and by Portugal (6 to 4). They won each game because they were lucky on a single chance, while their oponents were unlucky in all of theirs (crossbars hit, goalposts, shots centimetres wide, and so on). That’s all it amounts to. Were you just to have arrived from another planet (and hadn’t heard the results) and shown the matches on tape, with just 30 seconds excised from each recording: the winning goal, there is no way you would guess that Greece had won. I agree with O’Toole: the Greeks won simply because they were luckier. Were they to repeat this over a entire season — or, seeing as we’re talking about a national team, over several years and several tournaments — then we’d begin to rank them up with the favourites. Until then, all the explanations for their “success” are meaningless.

40

reuben 07.06.04 at 2:58 pm

Peter writes: An abbreviated tournament like Euro 2004 proves nothing.

That’s fine by me. It was still damn good fun – and for most of us, that’s enough. Things don’t have to be statistically meaningful to be important.

Few would call Greece the best team in Europe, but we do call them the champions. I think that for a great majority of fans, the fact that the former doesn’t always equal the latter is a good thing. Who knows, maybe it even appeals to the little man/underdog in all of us, just as the wonderful talents of Brazil appeal to our love of skill and show. Football has a bit of something for everyone, I think (except when it comes to rationalists and tournaments, perhaps).

And to crap on just a little bit more, when Yann writes that ‘all the explanations for [Greece’s]“success” are meaningless’ he misses the point in at least a couple of ways, I think.

One: no, they’re not meaningless. Without luck, Greece wouldn’t have won. But they also wouldn’t have won without skill, discipline and some of the best tackling I’ve ever seen. Just because they got lucky doesn’t mean that they aren’t good, or even very good. If Latvia had got just as lucky, they’d have still have been watching the quarterfinals from home. (And if it irks you that a merely good team can win a major tournament, rather than the honour being reserved for those we consider great – eg Italy?! – then we’ll just have to agree to disagree.)

Two, and perhaps more significantly: I notice that you put the word “success” in scare quotes, implying that because there’s the presence of luck and the lack of a long term sample, it isn’t real success. Thankfully, success is success even in the absence (as you see it) of clear explanations.

Ain’t life grand?

41

Randy Paul 07.06.04 at 3:25 pm

Mc,

Thanks for the kind words. Just for the record, however, the game I referenced seeing last August in Brazil pitted two teams in Brazil’s first division battling each other, palying in a stadium with a capacity of 120,000, both of which have won the National Championship and one of which (Corinthians) competed in the thus far one time only World Club Championship in 2000 in Brazil, and if I recall correctly won this competition.

Indeed, for me the far greater shame for Atletico Mineiro was the fact that a team at the highest levels of the game gave no regard for defense and thus lost the game (the man advantage notwithstanding) and could have lost it on far worse terms.

42

Jeffrey Kramer 07.06.04 at 3:35 pm

Sorry, mc, I still don’t see it. The argument or assumption seems to be that having more of the possession and creating more scoring chances is NOT a measure of how well a side plays as a team. Why? What are better measures of how well a side plays as a team?

43

Yann 07.06.04 at 4:55 pm

Jeffrey Kramer,

Of course you’re right. MC (and the others) are simply trying to rationalize what cannot be rationalized: Greece’s victory. By any normal measure of how a “team” plays, Portugal outplayed Greece. But Greece scored the single goal of the match, so now, after the fact, we are offered theories (the playing as a “team” business) that are supposed to explain this anomaly. I rather enjoy watching underdogs win, even when their triumph is patently due to luck. But these efforts to “explain” the result make no sense outside the alcohol-fuelled confines of a bar or pub.

44

reuben 07.06.04 at 5:45 pm

Sorry, mc, I still don’t see it. The argument or assumption seems to be that having more of the possession and creating more scoring chances is NOT a measure of how well a side plays as a team. Why? What are better measures of how well a side plays as a team?

I would agree with you, Jeffrey, that these are key measures of how well a team plays. But they’re not the only measures, or even the primary measure.

I suppose the primary measure is what you do with the chances you do create. And no, Yann, that’s not drunken rationalisation; it’s just how the game works. Have 60% of the chances and create three chances to your opponents every one and guess what? If you don’t put the ball in the net, you ain’t gonna win. THere’s luck involved in that, sure, but that’s not all that’s involved, and the presence of luck doesn’t necessarily make an outcome less valid.

Just because Portugal won the battle of the statistics doesn’t mean that Greece’s victory is without reason.

By the way, I caught a nice moment walking through London today. A Greek man was festooning his tiny little car with Greek flags – I counted 16 – and as people walked past him, almost everyone congratulated him on the win.

(I can only imagine that he didn’t manage to get the flags on sooner because he’s been sleeping one off.)

45

mc 07.06.04 at 6:24 pm

jeffrey: of course they are measures, but if you don’t have the team spirit it’s no good. Again, it’s not either/or, it’s both aspects.

Put it this way. Greece has no Wayne Rooney. But Rooney cannot do everything by himself. Especially when the captain is nowhere to be seen.

Anyway, Reuben already replied more clearly above.

yann – I don’t think anyone said Greece are the new genius masters of football eclipsing anything before them. I certainly didn’t. Of course it’s a quick tournament and of course a big part of it is luck, as always, but it takes more than luck to go from “underdog” no one would bet on to winning against the best players out there. Portugal remain a more talented team, just like England or Spain or France, even if they were eliminated. But it’s not enough to have the talents when they’re not clicking together. That’s not rationalisation after the facts, that’s an obious reality. You could put together the best dream team you can think of but if they don’t put their potential into action they’re not going anywhere.

Those “big” teams didn’t lose out of bad luck alone, they played under their level, for whatever different reasons. Greece winning wasn’t just about one goal, Portugal weren’t as good as they’d been just a while before.

Maybe there’s too much delight in seeing the “underdog” win, but then, maybe there’s also a bit of stubborness in refusing to acknowledge that a lot of the big favourites simply did badly?

46

O'Toole 07.06.04 at 6:53 pm

Reuben (et al),

I don’t know why people who are adamant atheists and rigorous scientists outside a pub (or even inside one) can argue with straight faces that there are teleological explanations for something so chancy and statistically meaningless as Greece’s 1-0 win over Portugal. Portugal had 10 corners to Greece’s 1. Greece scored on its single chance. Why? Simply because they did. On this particular day. Call it luck (my preference) or whatever you like. But unless and until Greece can repeat its feat over a statistically significant period of time they are not the better team. Not last Sunday (when they were clearly outplayed by Portugal), not today and not even, I expect, in the near future.

If you don’t put the ball in the net, you ain’t gonna win. THere’s luck involved in that, sure, but that’s not all that’s involved, and the presence of luck doesn’t necessarily make an outcome less valid.

To repeat, no one is questioning the “validity” of the result (i.e. no offside, no foul, and so on). What we are questioning is the validity (if you will) of what you are reading into the 1-0 result. If I had told you, before the match, that Portugal would have 60% of the possession, 10 corners to Greece’s 1, 17 shots to Greece’s 4, and so on, you would be perverse to conclude that Greece would “outplay” Portugal, wouldn’t you? Of course the outcome depends entirely on someone putting “the ball in the net”… Duh! But the fact that Greece outscored Portugal 1-0 means only that data which normally predict a Portuguese victory can never guarantee one. Nothing more. If you think you have more pertinent (measurable) predictors of victory than shots, chances, possession and so on, by all means describe them, but I am at loss to see how “putting the ball in the net” can be measured in advance of it occurring.

47

reuben 07.06.04 at 7:24 pm

O’Toole

You’re misinterpreting me. As I’ve said before, I don’t care if Greece’s victory is statistically meaningless. This is where you and I differ.

Also, just because Portugal had more possession and more chances on goal doesn’t mean they outplayed Greece. Possession and chances are two of the key factors leading to victory, but there are others. Not just being lucky and/or good enough to be able to put the ball in the back of the net, but, for instance, what I would call significant possession and significant chances. Sure, Portugal had the ball a lot, but I would argue that for most of that time, Greece, with their phenomenal defence, were actually dictating play. Likewise, due to Greece’s brilliant marking and tackling, Portugal’s chances were almost invariably poor.

Here’s a hypothetical for you: Let’s say Team A has 70% of the possession and manage to have 40 chances in a match. But let’s say Team B have a cross between Peter Schmiechel and Spiderman in goal, and he manages to save every shot. Is the fact that Team A doesn’t score down solely to luck? Statistically, it would appear that way; after all, with 40 chances, surely you should score eventually. But in my hypothetical, luck will play a role (not even my Spidey Schmiechel can stop everything) but the incredible skill of the goalkeeper plays a major role too. This is what Greece’s defence did.

Re the luck of headers, didn’t Greece score on several set pieces during the tournament? You can argue that this was luck, and maybe it was. But maybe it was also discipline and brilliant planning, and maybe the reason other teams did so poorly on set pieces is due not jsut to bad luck but to insufficient practice or discipline. Just to take one example of the latter, did Holland give up that key header solely because of luck, or at least in part because Edgar Davids looked like he was leaning against a lamp post waiting for a nightbus?

On the subject of luck, another thing I love about football is that we genuinely don’t know what percentage of Greece’s set piece success was down to luck and what was down to practice, skill, etc. The mystery of that is fabulous.

Anyway, I’ve crapped on a bit. We’ll have to agree to disagree on what’s important to us. You seem to want outcomes that reflect statistical breakdowns. I’m quite happy with what I saw over the last four weeks.

As I said before, Greece aren’t the best side in Europe*. They’re the champions.

I think that’s kind of cool.

(* Though I do think they outplayed Portugal.)

48

Yann 07.06.04 at 8:31 pm

Reuben,

Yes, Greece won. But I saw the match just as well as you did. Portugal’s (“significant”) chances were far better than those of Greece and they had a lot more of them. I.e. (see my tape-of-the-match-minus-30-seconds argument above) they outplayed Greece. I’m not unhappy that Greece won. They were the plucky underdogs, they gave it their all, and it’s always nice to see a new national name on the cup/trophy. But please don’t try to convince me that on any other day, under similar circumstances, you would bet your house on Greece!

49

reuben 07.06.04 at 9:02 pm

No, I wouldn’t bet my house on Greece. But I do think they outplayed Portugal, and that seems to be an opinion shared by most of the UK’s sportswriters and television pundits.

Here are a few examples:

Guardian: http://football.guardian.co.uk/euro2004/comment/story/0,14584,1254916,00.html

Guardian again:
http://football.guardian.co.uk/euro2004/matchreport/story/0,14583,1254186,00.html

Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13750-1169303,00.html

BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/euro_2004/3866041.stm

BBC again:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/euro_2004/3865353.stm

The Independent:
http://sport.independent.co.uk/football/internationals/story.jsp?story=538463

The Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2004/07/06/sfnhan06.xml&sSheet=/sport/2004/07/07/ixfooty.html

And again from the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2004/07/05/sfgpor05.xml

Note that in at least the final article, the writer laments the effect Greece had on the games they played (much as Williestyle has done), but believes that the Greeks outfoxed and outplayed the Portuguese.

I would be interested in seeing a selection of articles stating that that Portugal outplayed Greece. (Disclaimer: I don’t read POrtuguese.)

And finally, just one snippet from that first Telegraph article, because I was so impressed by the incident he references:

“Let’s go back to a Portugal free-kick 10 minutes from time on Sunday night. Deco and Luis Figo were standing over the ball and the atmosphere in the stadium was tense. The pressure was starting to tell on Greece as they defended their lead, and perhaps in the past it might have caused them to lose their shape or forget the defensive principles that had been drilled into them.

“Not this time. The line of Greek defenders was too deep and to solve the problem Stelios Giannakopoulos called them out. When that didn’t work the midfielder walked behind his team-mates and physically pushed them away from their own goal. As they pressed out they took the Portugal players with them and did not concede any space in the penalty area. The resulting cross was harmless.”

Anyway, it’s been a fun debate and we’ll agree to disagree.

Talk to you next season.

Cheers

50

Yann 07.06.04 at 9:27 pm

Reuben,

One final point…

Sports pundits earn their salaries conducting post mortems. Had Portugal scored in the 65th minute and gone on to protect their lead, the sports pages would be filled with stories explaining how the “better” team won (and how Greece had run out of miracles). Or something along those lines. They are terrible at foresight and terrific at hindsight. Were football matches decided entirely by a single coin toss, they would still fill entire columns explaining why heads won on this day and tails lost. All of which is to say that while I enjoy reading (some) sports writers I would hardly put much stock in their “explanations”.

51

Another Damned Medievalist 07.07.04 at 1:10 am

What is with you people? Seriously, there seems to be a real lack of understanding of the nature of football here, IMO. Like, “it’s a funny ol’ game, innit?” There have been and will always be many times when the “better” team loses to a “lucky” goal. After all — how many times have England played great games, made plenty of chances, and then gone out on penalties? But chances, although they may be really exciting, don’t count unless they’re put away. So if a team plays deft, exciting football, creates lots of chances, but lets through a goal to a less imaginative team who play at a consistent, yet not so entertaining level, who’s better? Greece beat Portugal twice in the same tournament. I thought the Czechs should have gone through, but they didn’t, despite playing some of the most beautiful football I’ve seen for ages. Holland had one of their best showings in a long while.

Sorry to rant, but justice and football have little to do with each other — Urs Meier’s performance proves that! Sometimes really good teams get hit be a bunch of injuries. Sometimes, the hardworking underdogs win — but more credit to them. No one seems to have noticed that the Greeks have done amazingly well just to get to the finals and then out of the groups. It can’t all have been luck.

Oh — and the game doesn’t need more goals. I’ve seen 0-0 draws that were as exciting as 5-4 nailbiters. It’s the chances and the saves that give the excitement factor, not whether there are lots of goals.

Comments on this entry are closed.