1966, Revisited

Seldom do I write blogs about football, but when the World Cup comes along, I can't not help myself to a couple of posts about the beautiful game. Furthermore, in addition to my appearance on Kick Off last Thursday, I sincerely believe that any footballing analysis that I make is better than the tripe that they say on TV, thereby giving me the divine right to comment accordingly. A case in point is when the presenter asking me questions during my interview mistakenly asked what I would do if I were in Capello's shoes during the Italy game vis-a-vis half-time substitutions - of course, the Italian coach, at the time, was Marcello Lippi.

Anyway, today saw England face off against Germany, in what was undoubtedly meant to be one of the ties of the round of last 16. Instead, however, it transpired that Germany were in inspired form and England were rather pants, resulting in a 4-1 defeat for the English and yet another four years without winning the World Cup. By the time Brazil 2014 comes, they wouldn't have lifted the trophy (the real one, and not any replicas one might see) for 48 years, a streak which will almost certainly be extended considering who the hosts of the World Cup and automatic favourites for their 6th or 7th world titles are going to be. Despite the mauling, however, there was a massively controversial moment in the first half where a ball hit by Frank Lampard actually crossed the line (for once) by a good couple of feet, only for the linesman not to award the goal for some strange reason. Had it been allowed, the teams would have, perhaps undeservedly, gone in for the break at 2-2, and a different game would have been on our hands.

I will now proceed to analyse this incident both subjectively (simply because that perspective is fun) and objectively, and look at the overall impact that the incident had on the game and England's now-defunct World Cup chances.

The Subjective Perspective

For the Italian-supporting Maltese population, this disallowed goal will be seen as justice served for England. Not only have they been punished for being poor in the group stage - no matter how so much poorer Italy was, in all fairness - but there is always some form of delight at seeing one's bitter rivals being bruised, battered, hurt and destroyed. Justice will also be seen as served vis-a-vis the goal that never was in 1966, when, ironically, a goal that didn't cross the line was awarded to Geoff Hurst and gave England a 3-2 lead against West Germany in the World Cup final. That match ended up finishing 4-2 to England, which should have been the score this afternoon too.

This was one hell of a humiliation. Seeing defending as poor as that out there, where even a schoolboy would have been able to do a better job, is practically laughable. Critics and the media will be absolutely justified in criticising and smashing Capello and his team - the fact of the matter is that while there is no shame in losing to Germany, losing 4-1 is firstly embarrassing; and secondly, this was also done solely out of England's own ineptness. In a group containing Slovenia, Algeria and the USA, they should have finished comfortably top of the pile. Had they done so, they would be facing the likes of Ghana in the round of 16, and Uruguay in the quarter-finals, instead of a route to the final consisting of Germany, Argentina, Spain and Brazil. Hardly an impossible route to being among the best four teams in the world.

Yeah, on a personal level, I just can't stop smiling.

The Objective Perspective

Let's be honest with ourselves now - the ball DID indeed cross the line, and this was about as clear a goal as one would have seen throughout the tournament. I think there should be no dispute about this point, and indeed, perhaps, there should have been nothing controversial whatsoever about it.

Inevitably, arguments have come about over how this would have changed the landscape of the game. At the time the incident occurred, England were losing 2-1, which would have obviously meant that had the goal stood, they would have pulled level, no matter how much Germany had dominated the game up to that point in time and no matter how much England wouldn't have deserved it. However, the fact of the matter is what happened, well, happened; and nothing can be done about it.

Would it have raised England's morale and deflated Germany? Would we be seeing England in the quarter-finals instead of the aformentioned Germans? This is all part and parcel of the game - and indeed, no football game in history has been devoid of its what ifs. By the same token, one could ask what if that the goal that never was indeed did not stand in 1966 - would Germany have another world title to their name? What if Italy weren't awarded that penalty that sent them to the quarter-finals in 2006 against Australia - would they have become champions of the world? What if Thierry Henry didn't shield the ball with his left hand three times in the playoff against Ireland? What if Diego Maradona didn't score the "hand of God" goal? What if Ronaldo hadn't mysteriously fallen ill before the 1998 World Cup final? The list is endless for any competition, not just the World Cup.

The disallowed goal however beggars belief as to what the linesman was doing at that time. As mentioned before, the ball was at least two feet over the line, which in ordinary terms means that anyone would have been able to see it in the net. I just wonder whether the linesman was either extremely badly positioned, or rather whether his vision was obstructed in some way or another. Either way, in reality, there should have been no excuse - the goal was there to stand. One however cannot really blame the referee, who was probably too far back to determine whether the ball had indeed crossed the line or not.

This also once again reopens the debate vis-a-vis goal line technology. This afternoon's shot was so glaringly obvious that technology, per se, would not have been needed, but with the linesman on Mars, perhaps it might have indeed been useful. In a day and age where technology is so advanced and yet the football the best players in the world are using at these finals is so crap, it has already been proven to not be impossible to insert a microchip into the ball which would determine whether such a ball has fully crossed the goal line or not. It would also put those lovely big screens that many stadia have in this day and age to good use.

Other sports have progressed and embraced technology readily, even if some players aren't too happy about it. Tennis, for instance, has adopted hawk-eye technology, which determines whether a ball has clipped the line or not, rendering it 'in' or 'out' for that point. While an identical concept wouldn't be ideal for football, something along these lines could be conjured up and modified accordingly so as to avoid such incidents in the future. Another solution that would have undoubtedly been beneficial in today's match is UEFA's famed goal line assistants - someone placed on the goal line obviously would not have missed this incident.

But thereagain, what is the beautiful game without controversy?

God Bless You all!
Matti