World Cup Robbery

As my surname implies, I have Dutch heritage so I was rooting for the Dutch in the World Cup final versus Spain. Alas, the Dutch faltered and fell to a late Spain goal, in extra time, leaving the Dutch as runners-up once again. But I have no doubt that in the days ahead there will be much complaining in the Dutch press about the referee.

In my view a football referee is different than most other sports in that their overall goal is that there is an overall fairness in the game, and not that all the rules were followed to the letter. The rules were designed to achieve that overall goal but they don't always do that. But that is fodder for another post altogether. In this game I would give the referee a C- grade from a technical perspective and a B+ from a human perspective.

Unlike the Dutch teams that finished runners-up in the past, this team was dramatically outclassed by Spain in terms of talent. With that in mind the Dutch had an easily identifiable game plan. 1) Play aggressively and disrupt Spain's excellent possession game. 2) Hold Spain scoreless. 3) Secure the win via the counter attack, a set piece, or penalties if necessary. To their credit, they succeeded to a large degree at disrupting Spain's possession and nearly succeeded in the other two points.

The referee had an interesting match as he set a record for cards given in a World Cup Final. He did miss a few calls that the Dutch are justified in complaining about. I still don't know how he missed the deflection off the wall just prior to Spain's goal.

But despite those complaints the Dutch should feel fortunate that they did not receive even harsher penalties. De Young should have seen a straight Red card for a vicious foul on Alonso in the first half. They also could have had several other players sent off for a second yellow much earlier than Heitinga received in the extra time period. All things considered, if the Dutch had won it would have had to be considered highway robbery.

It is one thing to play aggressive soccer but the Dutch resorted to thuggery. Instead of playing for a fair win they played with the hope that they could cheat and get away with it. In football, where finals often produce low scoring, it is all too easy to get away with that strategy. It is up to the referee to make sure that it doesn't work. And while he did give out a high number of cards, he almost didn't do enough, thus the low technical grade. As much as I hate to say it, it is a good thing Spain won. Had the Dutch won with that strategy it would have been adopted by many more teams than normally would use it going forward.

I give the referee a higher score from a human perspective because it is hard to give that many cards in a game. It is very hard to give a red card in a World Cup final. He also had to deal with a lot of angry and emotional players on both sides. It is one thing to deal with those situations as they arise but it is twice as hard to keep those encounters with players from affecting your perspective in the rest of the match. He seemed to do well at keeping his focus.

One final thought on the coaching in the final. Spain's coach, del Bosque, waited to long to bring on Fabregas. I also think he should started Navas instead of Pedro. He was probably thinking that Navas would take up space that Ramos usually uses to get forward but Pedro just didn't play well. As for Van Marwijk, his strategy almost worked. He probably should have used someone else besides Van Persie up front because he did very little. I haven't heard the explanation yet but I think he made a crucial mistake substituting Van Bronckhorst. I understand the move because he is old, the game was in extra time, and Navas' speed was causing him problems. But Braafheid is not of the same class or experience and the goal did come from the left side of defense. On the goal I wonder if Braafheid was a little too high, allowing Fabregas a clear lane to pass to Iniesta.

So the best team, who played the best, won the game. That's the way it is supposed to be. But I don't have to like it.