Ok, so I know the fashionable thing is to overreact to what we
see, and thus assume Argentina are certain to win the World Cup -
having probably overcome the mighty Spain in the final - and that
England are going to crash out in ignominy sooner rather than later
after a good walloping by a team "we should be beating". But can we
try and keep a bit of perspective here please - we're only 10 days
into the tournament for crying out loud.
As well as Argentina played - and yes, they were brilliant against
Serbia & Montenegro and would arguably beat Brazil at their
best if they repeated that performance - how many teams have ever
dominated every game at a World Cup? Answer: only one - Brazil in
1970. Elderly Brazilians argue that the 1958 team was their
greatest ever, but even they struggled to beat Wales - yes, Wales -
in the quarter-finals. And perhaps the most one-sided tournament of
them all was in 1954, when Ferenc Puskas's Hungarians ran riot all
the way up to the final before being shocked by West Germany, a
team they had already annihilated 8-3 in the group stages.
You see, it doesn't matter how well you play in the first round as
long as you qualify. The final week of the tournament is when you
need to peak, as the quarter-finals, semi-finals and final are
played out. It's very, very rare that a team performs at its best
for seven successive games.
The Czech Republic have already proved this theory. They looked
like world-beaters against a United States team that sat off them
in the opening game; but after a couple of injuries, their
creaking, aged legs were run ragged by an energetic,
nothing-to-lose Ghana team just five days later. The Czechs now
face a real struggle to reach the last 16.
Spain - who, incidentally, have only three strikers in their squad,
one of whom is recovering from injury and hasn't scored since
before Christmas (ring any bells?) - face a different dilemma. They
will probably stick half a dozen more goals past Tunisia and Saudi
Arabia after their dismantling of Ukraine, but they might then have
to beat France and Brazil just to make the final four. Is anyone
seriously suggesting this is likely, just because they outshone
their two potential opponents in their 2006 debut?
Which brings us to England. No, they haven't yet set the world
alight with exciting, free-flowing football. But they have achieved
their goal - easing their way into the competition with two wins,
which is more than you can say about France. The key is that
England haven't had to play well to get to where they are. Those
teams who have dazzled us - the Argentinians, Spaniards, Italians
(against Ghana) and Dutch - have either been in one of the two
groups of death, or have opened with their toughest group fixture.
So they've had to be flying from the start, or else they'd be
flying home within a fortnight of arriving.
England, on the other hand, have had the luxury of knowing they
could stay "in second gear", as Steven Gerrard put it, and still
make the knockout stages. And, if all goes to plan, a second-round
encounter with Ecuador should ensure the clutch isn't required more
than once before England meet one of the big guns in the
quarter-finals.
That gives Wayne Rooney and Michael Owen nearly two more weeks to
regain their sharpness (though if Owen's header against Trinidad
& Tobago had gone the other side of the post, we probably
wouldn't be questioning his form); Gary Neville's calf time to
recover; and Ashley Cole's body the chance to rebuild the speed and
stamina that marked his excellence at Euro 2004.
In addition, the partnership of John Terry and Rio Ferdinand is
finally beginning to look equal to the sum of its parts - Paul
Robinson has had as few shots to save as any goalkeeper who's
played two matches so far - and their understanding should become
even more cohesive in the next two games.
As for the midfield, they will doubtless be helped by Rooney's
return just ahead of them, linking them to the striker. With
regards to Frank Lampard, widely criticised for missing several
chances, it would be more concerning were he not getting into
goalscoring positions. In fact, he's had more attempts at goal (13)
than any other player at the World Cup. Joe Cole has looked
England's most creative attacking threat, while David Beckham's
right boot is still as productive as ever, having set up all three
of England's goals.
The balance of the Lampard-Gerrard axis in the middle is an obvious
worry and still needs to be corrected; but with Michael Carrick or
Owen Hargreaves ready to drop anchor, Peter Crouch surprisingly
showing he can upset defenders at international level, and Aaron
Lennon a menace coming off the bench, England now have plans B, C
and D in reserve should their style need to be switched.
I'm not saying England will win the World Cup, but I do think they
have at least an even money shot of beating any team you put them
up against. They are the opposite to flat-track bullies in that
they look terrible against lesser sides, yet raise their game when
they meet the more powerful nations who don't just drop deep and
defend - to counter the oft-cited losses to Brazil, France and
Portugal, remember they have beaten Argentina, Switzerland,
Germany, Croatia, Denmark and Turkey in competitive matches during
Sven-Goran Eriksson's reign.
The great thing about this World Cup is that, while the group phase
has given us attacking intentions and many superb goals, all the
big teams are making their way to the knockout stages, which
promise several truly memorable games. When these top sides go
head-to-head, then England can acclaim the world's finest. Not
yet.
