The Netherlands beat Italy for the first time since the 1978 World Cup–that’s right, 30 years–on goals by Ruud van Nistelrooy, Wesley Sneijder, and Giovanni van Bronckhorst. Have a look at the goals here.
Though it was lopsided, the final score hinged on a controversial play, some Dutch magic, and poor finishing from Luca Toni. The first goal came in the 26th when von Bronckhorst slipped the ball through a crowd to van Nistelrooy, who neatly directed it past Buffon. But was Ruud offside? He appeared to have been so by more than a yard, setting off immediate objections by the Italians as well as ESPN’s talking heads. Just before the goal, Buffon had collided with Panucci, who remained down behind the back line. Apparently, he was still considered the last defender, keeping van Nistelrooy in an onside position.
Giovanni von Bronckhorst will be dreaming about this match for a long time. With the Dutch ahead 1-0 in the 31st, he parried the ball off the goal line before flying down the left and floating a perfect ball over to Dirk Kuyt, who headed it down to Wesley Sneijder’s feet. With one touch, Sneijder somehow put the ball through the narrow space between Buffon and the post to double the Oranje lead. In the 80th minute von Bronckhorst finished off the Azzurri with a neat header. With a save, a goal and two assists, he has my vote for Man of the Match.
This match should dispel the bad vibes said to be circulating through the Dutch camp. They face France on Friday. Earlier today les Bleus slogged through a scoreless, spiritless draw with Romania. If Thierry Henry isn’t fit, I’ll go out on a limb and say that Holland should be well on its way to winning Group C.
And after that? Maybe the sports psychiatrists and penalty-kick drills will pay off in the knockout round…
June 9, 2008 at 10:21 pm |
[...] Original post here [...]
June 10, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
I know it’s early in the tournament, but it’s hard to imagine a finer display of positive football. The Oranje gave us their trademark Total Football and then some. Their passing was crisp and inventive and their movement off the ball was clever and kinetic. It seems to go beyond just technical skill — it’s like they have higher soccer IQs. They seemed very athletic, too, at least compared to that tired looking bunch Italy fielded.
I’ll be surprised if we see another goal as good as Sneijder’s. It was a thing of beauty from the moment van Bronckhorst cleared the line to the near impossible needle of space Sneijder was able to thread. Kuyt’s header to him was placed thigh-high so he had to jump and bend his leg like a hurdler to get to it. I wonder how many times the average fan in orange will watch that replay?
That WSJ article you linked at the end was interesting. I wasn’t surprised to find that my two favorite teams in Europe, England and Holland, have the worst records in penalty shoot-outs. (Though I can’t very well curse Podaspheria for PK fates after the Champions’ League final, can I?) Someone in the article said penalties are impossible to practice because you can never replicate the tension of those moments. However, I think the Dutch now have the right idea. You can at least put it into muscle memory. Plus, if there are little cues you can pick up, either as the taker or the keeper, that foretell a direction, say, that’s something repetition could help, too. It’s not like rock-paper-scissors, after all, is it?
That was a great post, Susan. I enjoyed reliving the game as I read it. Now let’s see what the Netherlands have got left for the rest of the tournament.
June 11, 2008 at 6:27 am |
So that’s the Dutch football they normally play? That’s was some sexy stuff! Wesley Sneijder’s goal was outstanding! One of the best counterattacks I’ve ever seen, especially against a team like Italy. Who would have guessed that the Italians would be blanked the way they were in their opening match, as well as dominated? I’ve never seen Italy so dominated ever, the Dutch were beating them to nearly every ball. It was weird to see Italy on their heels.
About Ruud’s goal, I thought it was offsides. The referee never hesitated. I guess Panucci was still considered in play. I don’t know, that’s a new one. But you could see how some defenders may go off the field, massage their calf for a bit, get an offside called for his team (or something), then trot back onto the field for the kick. Risky for the defender leaving his team a man down, but one could see how to take advantage of Panucci’s situation. However, I thought since the ball crosses the line, and goes out of play it applies to the player as well. :-S
June 11, 2008 at 5:10 pm |
Adam, good point. Donadoni fielded a ridiculous line up. With Cannavaro in there the Dutch don’t have as much space as they did.
As for the mysterious rule that suddenly came into play, no kidding everyone missed it. I’ve played soccer at a high level all my life and never heard of it. I asked no less than four referees (2 sanctioned by FIFA) and they all had a different take on it – though three said they would have called it. UEFA’s statement was bizarre. As was the Italian soccer federation saying it was a just call.
Whenever something like this happened during my experience the referee ALWAYS chose a cautious approach and called it. The little known fine print in the call is that Panucci was clearly not seeking an advantage and was winded. If he were standing and refusing to come back in then it’s a different story.
Then there’s the added dimension of passive offside if the ref doesn’t call it because the ball was cleared and Van Gol was not interefering with the play. Even that could have gone either way. Last, Dutch fans will say well they collided not our problem. True. But where’s this “fair” play we’re always talking about?
AT the end of the day, it had nothing to do with the outcome in my opinion. Italy was simply flat. Holland was prepared. But it’s only the first game.
There isn’t a more over rated discussion in soccer than “positive” and “negative” soccer. What pleses the eyes is considered “positive” but also sometimes superficial. Whta is taken as negative is sometimes sublime and sophisticated.
June 11, 2008 at 7:49 pm |
Several reports note that subclause 11 of Law 11 has only been around for five years or so; it’s certainly taken everyone by surprise, even Ruud. I understand that the purpose of the rule is to prevent a defender from deliberately stepping across the back line and thus placing the offensive player(s) in an offside position. But since Panucci was flat on his back (after a very visible collision with Buffon), I wonder why there is no room for the officials to use their discretion?
Hmm, beauty is always in the eye of the beholder, isn’t it? And it is true that what is deemed beautiful is often superficial. But not always. Holland’s second goal (von Bronckhorst to Kuyt to Sneijder) was classically lovely and sublime enough for me. I probably haven’t seen enough of purely negative football to judge it fairly, though I probably won’t ever care about any team whose aim is to win every match 1-0.
June 13, 2008 at 10:47 pm |
I kind of agree with The Commentator, in that football is a game, the aim of which is to win, and a team is within their rights to persue this any way they choose within the rules. I also take the point that, as Susan says, “what is deemed beautiful is often superficial”. But I think positivity and negativity are not necessarily connected with beauty in football. Take Turkey-Switzerland the other night: the first team pretty good technically, but you wouldn’t confuse them with Arsenal; the second, one of the weakest technical teams in the competition. We were never going to get the beautiful game in the same way as, say, a Holland-Argentina game (especially after the monsoon). The thing is, both teams played to score and to win, not to keep a clean sheet and hope the other team messes up. The result was a rip-roaring game that held your interest til the end.
Regarding the offside non-call: I, like everyone else, couldn’t believe it at the time until I heard about the interpretation of the rule. It’s harsh, but fair. As I understand it, the interpretation is designed to prevent a defender stepping over the bye-line, taking himself out of the play and playing an attacker offside. Panucci may have been injured, but how are the linesman and ref supposed to know if it’s genuine, especially given how quickly everything happened? Should they wait until the physio comes to inspect the player before deciding if the goal stands? But of course the Italian physio would be biased – should there be an independent doctor on call to assess the injury?…
I’m drifting into sarcasm here so I’ll sign off…