Ronaldo does make enough money… to journalists

Yes, Cristiano Ronaldo is not the most likeable person in the world. And yes, comparing him to Messi, both from a footballing and a personal point of view, is unfair (even if I think Messi may not be the nice guy he is so much portrayed as). And on the pitch he acts as a diva which does little to endear us.

So, when he mentioned he is “sad” after not celebrating the goals against Granada over the weekend, it became only natural not to sympathise with him. The question then became the why: why is he sad? As some immediately wrote, he is young, rich, adored by (some) crowds, he is in his physical prime, he is supposed to be in a nice relationship with a beautiful woman (according to glossy magazines), has a stable personal life, etc. What is causing the sadness?

Is it life at Real? Maybe he does not get along that well with Marcelo anymore. Maybe the different clans in the dressing room are creating rifts amongst the players. There is the chance he was upset for not winning the UEFA award that went to Iniesta (he said no and we have to believe him, he never had any problems in expressing his displeasure with previous such decisions). Then there is the question of money: he wants more.

If so, it begs a different question: can a man who makes so much money actually be sad for not getting even more? Especially in a country with 25% unemployment and with salaries receding? The answer is obvious: of course he can. What others make or not is immaterial. It is true that footballers make outrageous sums, but only a small percentage of them are in that category. The vast majority of professional footballers make little more than the average citizen and at the end of the career they still face a much more prolonged retirement. Besides, if Ronaldo and other superstars make that much money, it is because those people who make so much less do pay to watch them. I would bet that there are families feeling the economic squeeze in Spain who may cut on some food items but who haven’t cancelled their pay-TV subscriptions, especially those involving football.

Besides, one can always be sad. Ronaldo did not force anyone to pay those values to him. They offered him those values. Maybe now he thinks he should be getting even more. If he is denied, why shouldn’t he be sad? The same can be said for the other postulated reasons. If you work with people you don’t get along with, you will be sad, no matter how much you make. If the club secretary called you an asshole to your face and the bosses did nothing, you can also get sad, the salary may help but will not solve the problem.

In the end, the only people who do not seem sad are the journalists. Ronaldo is sad. No matter he preferred not to discuss the subject. No matter it may even be a personal issue (his favourite club mascot died or something like that). No matter nobody outside the club actually knows what is going on. No. Cristiano Ronaldo, the diva, is sad. We can sell that. Let’s rejoice.

The Olympics (i)

When the Olympic Games are finally over, it is a good time to give my impressions. I will do it about the different sports I enjoy, but also about the overall feeling of the games. Starting with the perception about the organization and opening and closing ceremonies. This post is long, so if you really want to read, press “Continue reading” only if you have the time to spare. Continue reading

Xenophobia, racism, insults and Twitter

We all heard or read about it. Suarez abused Evra calling him a “negrito”, “little black”. Terry did the same to Anton Ferdinand with the delightful expression “back cunt”. Then, Ferdinand’s older brother, Rio, called Ashley Cole “choc-ice” which, I came the discover through all this incessant stream of tirades, means he is black on the outside and white on the inside. And now a player from the Swiss Olympic football team was sent packing after going on a rampage against South Koreans calling them “mentally retarded”.

The thing that initially comes to mind, more than any punishment of the players, is why do we bother? Why is it that we feel that sport (particularly football) should be so sanitized as to punish anyone who says (or writes) what he is thinking about? The question should answer itself, one might say, but I do not really see it like that. Let us look at the situation in two different ways. In one, we can talk about freedom of speech. In the other we can look at double standards.

The obvious question one could ask is: where is the freedom of speech? Britain and most western countries consacrate freedom of speech as one of the cornerstones of their societies. This means that one is allowed to be an idiot and say stupid things. Certainly there are limits to this. One refers to defamation. If I were to affirm that person so and so is corrupt, I would be making an accusation that I should be prepared to back up. On the other hand, were I to do it instead of, say, Sir Alex Ferguson, and there is a good chance I would be totally ignored as a village fool. And rightly so. Then, why is it that we cannot leave these kind of rants alone and let them die as the idiocy they are fully deserve? Truth is, most people who launch themselves in such verbal attacks are usually venting off and will be absolutely harmless. Morganella’s words were certainly offensive, but did anyone think he was going to follow up on the threat? Or was anyone convinced south koreans are mentally handicaped because of his tweet? Certainly not. These were stupid comments and the only reason anyone outside the followers of the swiss ever heard of them was his expulsion from his team. Sometimes, stamping such attitudes is counter-productive. Freedom of speech exists to allow people to say stupid things, not necessarily to say intelligent ones. it is very much an escape valve. It should not be closed.

Of course, one can argue that a sport must protect its image, but then we enter the territory of double standards. Take Terry’s words. He called Anton Ferdinand a black cunt. Note that he used two potential insults: “black” and “cunt”. i don’t know about you, but I would certainly be more annoyed with the “cunt” than with the “black” (even if I am white… well, whitish). Still, this was the part that did not seem to affect Ferdinand, who heard it on the pitch and shook it off with Terry after the match. It seems it is a common part of the things those delightful characters say to each other, so it must be fine. The black part, however, well, that is another story. You see, Ferdinand is black, so it seems he could not be called that. What would happen if he had been called a “white cunt”? Or a blue one? Or a pink cunt with yellow dots? Would any of those be offensive? And what if Ferdinand had called Terry a white cunt or a black cunt? Would that be racial slur? Truth is, people see racial slur in these sentences because they so wish. Had Ferdinand simply ignored it, it would have been dismissed as the attempt to annoy him that it was. After all, if someone calls me an Einstein I may decide to take offense, even if it is meant as a compliment.
What does the double standard part have to do with this? Well, for one, the FA condemns the “black” but not the “cunt”. It means that it is perfectly at ease with insults, just not all of them. For another, whilst it is attacking (rather stupidly) the racial slurs, it is allowing a whole range of invectives involving sexual preferences. I simply find it easy to imagine one player trying to insult (note I write “trying”) another calling him a “homo”, “gay” or any other synonym that may be insulting. I can also easily imagine Terry being prosecuted for the word “black” alone, if the insult had been “black homo”. If this is not double standards, what is?

Of course, the players and the people in charge of the FA (and other organisations) could simply take the situation described in the image at the top of the post. If you are black, why bother about being called as such? If you are not, what is wrong in being called as such? If someone thinks that such words are offensive, it is their problem, not of the person being supposedly insulted. In the position of Ferdinand, Evra or other black players, instead of being insulted for being called something they are (by people who are not even racist), I would more likely fear being called “a disgrace” by the manager. That is the opinion that should count. The rest is nothing more than frustrated slur.

Are Spain the greatest national side ever?

Weeks after the final and the most recent title for Spain is not the time to provide a balance of the Euro2012. The question I would like to address is much simpler: is this Spain side the best of all times? As in all comparisons, one should start by defining its parameters. In this case, the question is: what constitutes being the best? I’ll try to answer by approaching the question from different angles.

Number of trophies
This is the one more readily pointed as the evidence of spanish superiority over any other country in history. The fact that a run of two European Championships and one World Cup has never achieved is an immediate indication that Spain are on a level of their own. in this aspect Spain has one single rival: the Uruguay side of 1924-30 as pointed by Jonathan Wilson. That was the only side to have won consecutive tournaments in the manner of the spaniards. The question of whether the Olympics can be placed in the same level of the Eusopean Championship is moot. At the time it was an important competition (the only real international one) and involved (in theory) countries from all over the world. However, some countries did not bother to travel to some of the tournaments at the time and it is possible to make the case that the uruguayans did not face as serious an opposition as Spain.
Any other possible contenders (Italy in the 30’s, West Germany in the 70’s) either failed one of the possible trophies in the run or had other blemishes. In terms of simply taking trophies, Spain hardly has rivals. The main question could have been placed by Brazil between 1958 and 1962, but they failed to get the Copa America in 1959 and became thus ineligible, even if in those times this was considered by them as a minor tournament. In any case, Spain could then be considered, using these criteria, as the best national side ever.

On the pitch
This is a much trickier proposition and one that can be directly answered: no one team could be considered as the best ever. The differences are too great to mention and, furthermore, football itself changes so fast these days that it is debatable whether this Spain team of 2012 could be considered the same as that of 2008. From the back five, only two players remained and one of them in a different position. From the midfield, only Iniesta and Xavi featured regularly four years ago. Whereas that team fielded two identifiable strikers, this one has none. It would actually be a much more interesting exercise to have Spain 2008 play Spain 2012 to see which would come out on top.
Taking thses caveats in mind, one has to compare not with the above mentioned other contenders, but with Brazil 1970. However, brilliant as that side was, it was built for one single tournament and dazzled as much for the yellow shirts appearing for the first time in colour in TV’s all across the world, as for the amazing quality and balance of a team that was not expected to achieve those breathtaking football heights. Spain, at least if considering the core of Casillas, Ramos, Xavi, Iniesta, Fabregas, have been battering opponents for four years straight, only occasionally conceding goals and never failing in knock-out stages. It is possible to imagine that Brazil 1970 could challenge Spain 2012, but it is unlikely. With a side built to use the ball but without the guile to defend adequatly, Brazil would probably be, as almost anyone else, passed into submission.
In this aspect, a much better case could be made for West Germany 1974. In Holland, the germans faced an opponent built around very much the same guidelines of passing and movement and, on Cruijff, had the individual brilliance that Spain lacks. Still, the germans managed to win, using a mixture of tactics, desire, strength and brilliant football. Furthermore, in Müller they had a striker who would not forgive the few mistakes the spanish back four could commit. In terms of trophies, the germans would come short. In terms of their impact on the game at the time, they could challenge the spaniards.
(A small interlude to explain the impact point. Even though we today remember the Holland side and their clockwork brilliance as much as we now are mesmerised by the passing of Spain, these are extremely difficult levels to achieve that come once every two generations. A much more lasting legacy may come from the tactical or technical innovations that managed to stiffle these sides. Nobody managed to follow the dutch from the 70’s, but the german approach was used to exhaustion and ended up being followed far more widly than the former approach).
Similarly to the germans, the uruguayans could be pointed as possible contenders for the title of best. Due to technical and tactical differences (not to mention physical) as well as the advent of professionalism, there is no chance that a magically transported Uruguay team from 2930 could compete would present day Spain. Still, taking the realities of the time into consideration, Uruguay, with their silky approach to football, could be contenders for the best ever.
In this thought exercise, some space should be made for famous losers. Hungary 1954, Holland 1974, Brazil 1982/86 should all be remembered. In tournaments of only a few weeks where one slip can be fatal, one should forgive somewhat those wonderful teams that captured our imagination more than the eventual winners.

Can we then declare a winner. Not really. Not objectively, in any case. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and in this case it is also true (just replace “beauty” by “greatness”). Spain are, undoubtebly, the greatest national side in the last 20 years. Possibly 50 years. Beyond that it becomes a muddy issue. What nobody can deny is that they belong amongst the greatest ever and are creating a unique dinasty. Much of that may be due to the present laws of the game as much as their youth policy. This, however, is an issue for another time.


Thoughts on Portugal-Spain

In short: an excellent first hour, with plenty of tactical battles and a balanced game, followed by the effect of portuguese tiredness and a better spanish bench in pushing Portugal back. Penalties ended up deciding it on a fine edge and allowed the better team to go through to the final.

Starting situation
I had written that Spain would benefit from using a winger such as Navas, but del Bosque opted to go for Silva on the right and Iniesta on the left, reserving Navas for the supersub effect. As expected, this meant that either Arbeloa would not push forward at all or that Ronaldo would get time on the left. Spain, rather surprisingly for me, went for the second option and Arbeloa appeared frequently on the portuguese half to try the overlap after Silva cut in. The main problem was that with Silva being picked by the central midfielders (usually Meireles), Arbeloa had to face Coentrao alone which was an advantage for the portuguese. On the other hand, Ronaldo’s free rein ended up not being so free as expected due to the excellent match from Pique, who several times ran across to the right to put pressure on the portuguese and cover for Arbeloa. Still, after the first few counters by the portuguese, usually through the left side (for more organised attacks, the right side was usually chosen), Arbeloa started snuffing those out with soft fouls. At a certain moment a less lenient referee might have given him a yellow card for repeated fouling, but he escaped. With these tactics, and with the support of Iniesta to Alba, the portuguese got also stiffled and simply could not get the desired breakthrough and score. Most of the attacks were relying on long diagonal balls from Pepe and Bruno Alves and if the first ones were not bad, Bruno Alves tended to overhit his passes and concede possession too cheaply. Veloso would have been a better option, but he almost never had enough time on the ball for it.
On the spanish side, Xavi’s move more upfield had been restricting his influence for a while, but in this match, with Veloso closely guarding him, he became almost completely anonymous and disappeared from sight. When he was replaced by Pedro, at the beginning I had not realised he was gone because I had hardly seen him throughout the match. In that sense, placing him in that position against a portuguese side that featured an in-form deep lying anchorman was a bad tactical move from del Bosque. on the other hand, it also serves to show how much less of a team Spain become without this great orchestrator of moves. The introduction of Negredo from the start was a surprise but, as Michael Cox argues, he might have been seen as the man who could simultaneously play on the shoulder of the defender, hold up balls and finish plays. Still, in a system which had no width and with strong and fast defenders such as Pepe and Bruno Alves, his influence was limited. In this sense, Llorente would probably have been a better option. It was still a shame not to see him staying to play with Navas and Pedro. There were two or three balls on the box for Fabregas that an accomplished striker would have been able to put away or possibly test the keeper.
The result at half time mostly reflected the capacity of both teams to stiffle each other and a 0-0 scoreline was absolutely logical.

Change of tactics
When Fabregas came in, shortly after restart, the spanish team immediately looked better because Fabregas can operate at faster speeds than Xavi and that gave better decisions and faster actions in front of the defence. Furthermore, as soon as Navas was introduced, Spain immediately restricted Coentrao and were able to keep Arbeloa tighter on Ronaldo. In one stroke, Spain had better offensive and defensive shape. On the left side, when Pedro was introduced he not only did the same to restrict Joao Pereira, but the fact that Nani frequently played more as a wide midfielder than a winger meant that Alba could also push forward and create overlaps. Of course the tactics worked excellently, but the fact that Portugal started to tire played an important role. Much was made of the extra two days the portuguese had, but this usually does not play much of a role and the dynamics of the game can be much more determined. As in the semi-final against Germany two years ago, when the Germans got tired chasing the ball, the portuguese started getting exhausted around the one hour mark. Pressing intensely high up the field is tiring and Spain, even though they had less rest, did not overexert themselves against France and could always rest with the ball. This became more and more evident as the time went on and the tiring limbs of the portuguese even caused some commentators to ask where were the spanish finding their strengths.
The depth of the portuguese in comparison with the spanish one was also evidenced by the reluctance of Bento in substituting players. Even these changed little, with the change in personnel being more significant because of the characteristics of each player rather than from a tactical switch. Oliveira brought more running but less ball challenge (something which Almeida did quite well and probably kept him on the pitch until so late). Custodio more energy and new legs, but less passing ability in comparison with Veloso. Varela could probably have come earlier to challenge Alba and check his runs, but Nani was playing well and there were not so many players to change. With hindsight, maybe he could have been brought on for Almeida (since Ronaldo ended up playing almost as target man and Oliveira became anonymous on the left flank), but the switches were all tactical sound and logical. The main problem was the lack of tactical alternatives for Portugal (Bento used only 15 players in the whole tournament) and the tiredness after the strong pressing in the beginning. One word for Patricio: in the whole tournament he had little to do and was at fault only on the second goal of Bendtner (and only partially) but here he kept concentration and parried brilliantly a short range shot from Iniesta that managed to save Portugal at the time. As I read at a certain point on Facebook, Portugal found out on the semi-finals they had also brought a goalkeeper.

Much has been written about the fact that Ronaldo took the last penalty. This is however common for Ronaldo with Portugal. He may be the best penalty taker, but his record on a club level in penalty shoot-outs is not the best (failed against Chelsea in the Champions League final and against Bayern in the semi-finals). Besides, it is quite common to get your two best penatlty takers as the first and last in the list. One to get them off to a flyer and the other to close the count. The main difference ended up being only some five centimetres. Bruno Alves’ penalty was good but slightly too high. Fabregas’ was only slightly good enough. Had the five centimetres gone the other way, Ronaldo might have won it for Portugal with his last penalty.


Very well, a single post on the semi-finals will do, as I am sure everybody has read everything somewhere before.

Certainly my preference goes to a repeat of the 4-0 victory of November 2010. However, that match had a very specific set of circumstances: it took place in Portugal, celebrated the 100th anniversary of the Portuguese Republic, was supposed to promote the World Cup 2018 joint Portugal-Spain bid and it was a friendly seen by the spanish players especially as a waste of their time and energies. For the portuguese players, however, and especially for Cristiano Ronaldo, it was an opportunity to get one over the long time neighbours and rivals and, at the same time, show that the wobbly start of the qualification for the Euros was gone. In that match, Portugal played a very aggressive style, harrassing the spanish players when off the ball and darting rapidly through the flanks when on it. The spanish players always moved themselves and the ball slowly and were obviously as uninterested in the match as any newly minted world champions would be.
In this semi-final the story may well be somewhat different, but essentially from the spanish side. If everyone expects Portugal to again seat deep and absorb pressure hoping for a counter-attack (as they played in the World Cup match under the guidance from Queiroz), they might be in for a surprise. It is obvious that Spain will keep the ball and play as patiently as they have done since del Bosque took over, but I simply do not see Paulo Bento telling his players to sit back. Especially since Spain does not have much width without the contribution of the full-backs and these will most likely try to stay as much as possible goalside from Ronaldo and Nani. Besides, if the typical spanish attack involves the penetrating vertical pass, it is likely Bento will trust Pepe’s fast running and good form to snuff out these attempts. The question remaining in Portugal’s line-up will be whether to start Hugo Almeida or Nelson Oliveira as a replacement for Postiga. Personally, I would expect Almeida to get the nod, seeing the difficulties Pique had against him in South Africa (his substitution was highly questioned at the time) and also because by playing longer balls, a target man could be very useful to Ronaldo.
From the spanish side, the usual question could be: Fabregas or Torres. Or, in other terms, a striker or a false 9? Signs indicate del Bosque will go for Fabregas, but the truth is that a winger such as Pedro or Navas could be extremely useful, especially in exploring the left side of the portuguese defence and to restrain the forward runs from Coentrao. Even though the whole press coverage seems to bill this as a match between Ronaldo and Spain, Veloso’s checking of Xavi and Moutinho’s pressure on Alonso and Busquets could be the decisive issue in play. Also, if Nani keeps on defending as he has so far and then putting crosses with the quality and frequency he can, Spain’s central duo may suffer.
I still predict a simple 1-0 victory for Spain, with the goal arriving at some point in the match and then the spanish simply killing the attacks by keeping the ball. However, if there is a moment when Spain may be vulnerable, it is this one. And if Portugal play as a team and Ronaldo shows his good face, an upset would not be unexpected.

Two days rest and less minutes on the pitch for the quarter-finals. These may be the decisive factors. Especially because it will be difficult to predict how these two teams will play. Traditional instinct suggests that Germany will attack from the off and the italians will sit back, soak pressure and try to break forward using their talented attacking line. In this match, however, it is quite possible the situation will reverse.
Prandelli has, in his tenure as Italy’s national coach, cultivated a possession-style of game based on the spanish approach. With a team boasting Pirlo, Montolivo, Motta, de Rossi, etc, this becomes almost natural. Also considering that the golden period of Cannavaro and Nesta at the back is gone (even if the present centre-backs are quite good), it is unlikely Prandelli will want a game taking place too close to his box. The germans, on the other hand, are quite adept at switching between taking the game to the opponents and playing on the counter. For this match, I can imagine Joachim Löw going for the latter option. This makes even more sense when the italians have the type of side likely to be exposed by the width players such as Müller and Podolski can bring to the germans. After having stayed on the bench for the match against Greece (and after the poor performance of Schürrle), it is possible at least one of them will be brought in. The use of Müller would still have the advantage of increasing the defensive cover on midfield in comparison with Reus or Schürrle. It can easily be expected to see Reus on the left (cutting in to the centre or searching the byline) and Müller on the right. Both are extremely mobile players who could combine excedingly well with Özil in his runs to the flank. The big question is whther to use Gomez or Klose. Gomez adds more physicality, something the italians are not comfortable against. On the other hand, Klose has better movement and knows the italian defenders better.
From the italian side, there is the question of how they will line up. Probably they will bring in Mota into the midfield (possibly at the expense of Montolivo) and try to send Ballotelli and Cassano wider in order to pin the fullbacks and escape the influence of the german midfield. Still, the lack of rest will probably take its toll and I can see Germany taking the victory with 2-1 at the end of the match or in extra time. As everyone else, I am (from aneutral point of view), aching for the Germany-Spain final. We shall see.

Standpoint, part 3


Portugal-Czech Republic
As everybody has been keen to point out, Cristiano Ronaldo has been the outstanding attacking player of the tournament. If he had been criticised for his profligacy against Denmark, he had also, as Raphael Hönigstein wrote, put on a typical team-first display to help control the match. That Portugal had needed a late winner from Varela was a different story. Before that he had shown that, despite his constant histrionics, he can lead also by example on the pitch. Still, it was against Holland and the Czech Republic that he really has set the tournament alight. He ran, dribbled, passed, shot (with either foot and head), hit the post four times and scored three all-important goals. Moreover, his simple presence conditions the defensive set-up of the opposite team and creates space for his teammates. This was clear against the Czech Republic, where other players frequently had opportunities to shoot simply because Ronaldö’s presence cleared the path. Even the fact that he was lurking just outside the box created the space for the movement that culminated in Moutinho’s cross for his header. He has been the determining factor in Portugal’s advance, that much is certain.
Still, he has not been the only one. After the goals conceded all started from the left flank which Ronaldo seldom helps cover, Paulo Bento reshuffled his team somewhat to improve fluidity and increase solidity. Miguel Veloso has been the invisible star of the team, by dropping deep to stick to the opposing attacking midfielders and frequently run to the left to give support to Coentrao. In the first matches, it was Moutinho who would cover that side, but as Zonal Marking demonstrated, in recent matches there has been a switch between Meireles and Moutinho, with the latter now closer to the right side and the former offering the attacking thrust and defensive cover from the left. This was a shrewd move, as Bento realised that Meireles was not in his top form and therefore his attacking instincts could be sacrficed in favour of those from Joao Moutinho and at the same time his work rate could help compensating for Ronaldo staying up the pitch. This strongly stiffled Jiracek and with Gebre Selassie occupied, all czech threat had to come from Pilar, a player that was almost always well dealt with by Joao Pereira (who always had support from Nani and never had to face a 2vs1 situation at the back). In the end, the match could be summarised by the portuguese attacks breaking over and over again against the czech defence, the posts or Petr Cech. Ronaldo’s winning header may have come late, but was totally deserved.

Hailed as the the match of the €uro, this encounter had plenty of political conotations. On the pitch, however, the story would be quite simple: Germany would attack and Greece would defend, with an eye on the counter-attack. Joachim Löw decided on this match to present a very different forward line, with Reus on the right for Müller, Schürrle on the left for Podolski and Klose as striker for Gomez. The emphasis seemed to be more on creativity and technique (as well as movement from the part of Klose) to try to break the tight defence. Since Müller and Podolski are more direct players better suited for counter-attacking, this was a clever move. Still, the greek defence proved difficult to break, something which was not helped by an unusual slugginesh of Schweinsteiger on the ball (due to an ankle injury). Greece would defend inside the box, close out outside shots and hit the ball fast usually for Samaras who would try to impose his strength to Boateng and create openings for Salpingidis. In this phase, Katsouranis showed strong defensive awareness and brilliant passing skills, with his passes to the runners always narrowing avoiding interception. Without any team able to break the deadlock, the breakthrough came from Lahm who, taking advantage of not being closed down (the greek players were more concerned with the midfielders) unleashed a shot from outside the box and changed the match. Even though Greece unexpectedly drew just after half-time, they needed time to regroup at the back, having come back onto the pitch in a more attacking disposition. Khedira took advantage of that and scored what, psychologically, amounted to the coup de grâce for the greeks. From then on, it was a matter of putting in another couple of chances (and Klose drawing closer to Gerd Müller’s all-time scoring record with the Mannschaft) and Greece pretty much conceded defeat when Liberopolous came in for what was his final career match, in order to say goodbye to the fans. Germany progressed and stay as the only team to have won all matches whereas Greek go home knowing they overachieved and that they made their fans proud.

This was in effect the most boring match of the tournament so far. One may blame it on Spain’s style of game, with possession and safety being paramount, but France did not help matters by shrugging their formidable attacking force and ligning up with two right-backs, one nowadays mainly defensive player (Malouda) and almost only Ribery and Benzemea to try to fashion some chances for les Bleus. It was therefore ironic that the two right backs failed to stop Iniesta’s pass to Jordi Alba and the latter’s cut into the box before he layed a perfect cross for Xabi Alonso’s header. Still, the main fault was from Gael Clichy, who should have covered that side but was sucked inside and opened up space on his back
After this, the match could be summarised by a possession glut from Spain, closing spaces when out of possession and keeping the ball when in attack. As Cabaye’s influence grew, some spaces appeared at the back, but these were always well dealt with, especially since most openings came from movements wide by Benzema which left the centre completely devoid of french players, since no midfield runners seemed to be available. The second goal from Alonso was almost the only other notable incident on the match and if it brought the scoreline higher than what Spain deserved, it also punished a fearful french side which could have been one of the most exciting ones in the tournament. Spain go on to try to make history and France go back home only in slightly lower disgrace than after South Africa.

As Zonal Marking noted, England’s best period (the first half hour) coincided with Pirlo’s most quiet one and also with the period when Rooney better harrassed the italian regista. Whether Pirlo’s (and by extension Italy’s) dominance started because of Rooney neglecting this job or whether Rooney simply failed to do it because of Pirlo’s quality is difficult to point out, but it is not hard to imagine it was the former. Rooney is an excellent defender and chases the ball whether, but seems to get tired (as in bored) of this job quickly and prefers to stick to attacking. He has only ever managed to be a more defensive player when playing at Manchester United to give Ronaldo more freedom and it appears that, if he is the top player in the group, he will refuse to do too much of the dirty work. This marked the difference with Pirlo, who always ran after his opponent on the rare occasions he lost the ball.
Although Pirlo’s performance should obviously be lauded, Montolivo was only slightly less influencial. He operated more forward and his short passing frequently found spaces with Cassano and Ballotelli which confounded the english defenders. Still, a wastefulness from the italian players guaranteed that England managed not to concede in 120 minutes of play. As time wore on, England reverted to Hodgson’s revered two banks of four and waited it out, hoping for a long ball forward which could conjure a goal from a moment of brilliance by Rooney. Unfortunately, not having any other quality player next to him to fashion such chances (Wellbeck has promise, but he is no Nani or Valencia), the Man United man felt isolated and slowly faded away. In the end, the question was whether Italy would be able to break the english resistance or whether the penalties would tell the same old story. They did and England go back home. Despite some encouraging signs by some players, this was a performance that should actually not bring too much hope to english fans. Wellbeck only showed some flashes, Ashley Cole was largely anonymous, Wallcott and Oxlade-Chamberlain had impact mainly against tiring and mediocre defenders and the best members at the back were men around 30 years old. The day that strikers will get used to fake a shot to let Terry go to ground before actually shooting, England’s defence may actually crumble. Until 2014, however, the three lions may still be able to limp to Brazil.
Italy will now face Germany, an opponent they have a good history against. Still, with two less days to rest and 30 minutes of play (plus the stress of a penalty shoot-out) extra, they may fall to Germany’s attacking machine. After the possession masterclass by the italians in the quarter-finals, we may well see them going back to basics and shut down at the back in the semi-finals. Still, a side with Pirlo and Ballotelli should never be written off.

Final thoughts
As Sid Lowe wrote, the four best and most interesting sides made it to the semi-finals. Both matches will probably see proactive sides (Spain and Germany) against reactive ones (Portugal and Italy, respectively). Still, with the players on display, it should never be expected that one team will park the bus while the other looks for a way around it. These matches, even with the need to keep solidity in mind, could give some of the most interesting semi-final matches in several years.