Not surprisingly, the past couple of days have seen some media comment about how the Brazil team of 2014 compares with the dazzling outfit of the 1982 World Cup - Zico, Socrates, Eder et al, and how the current line-up will not be remembered as warmly, even if it lifts the famous trophy later this month.
Don't get me wrong, I was as enthralled as anybody by the samba-propelled 1982 generation, and they are probably the most entertaining football team which I have ever seen. However, we need to draw a distinction between "entertaining" and "great". When all is said and done, Junior, Falcao and company failed to even reach the semi-finals in Spain, and had key, ultimately decisive, weaknesses. They had a mediocre goalkeeper, a poor defence, and no top-quality centre forward, and these deficiencies were hinted at throughout their stay in the tournament, before finally being fully exploited by Paolo Rossi and the Italians in that never-to-be-forgotten contest in the second group stage.
The present Brazilian team is a thousand times better defensively, has a better goalkeeper, is much better organized and prepared, and is much more tactically aware and astute. No, they don't appeal to the emotions and to the football romantics like some of their illustrious predecessors, but they may well succeed where the '82 team failed. In any event, does anybody seriously think that if a team played like the 1982 team in 2014, they would get anywhere? The game has changed, and in many respects for the better.
This all brings me on to an aspect of World Cup TV and media coverage which continues to infuriate me. That is, the often simplistic and shallow analysis, apparently calculated to appeal entirely to people who have never watched football before, let alone the World Cup. Can we not have separate "feeds", one for the neophytes, and another catering for a more discerning, nuanced and cynical audience?
No comments:
Post a Comment