World Cup Hippo designed its very own fantasy football game for Germany 06, Der Spiel. Under the innovative Der Spiel format, participants selected the nations that they thought would be the high performers at this year’s World Cup - then organised them into a transnational über-team. 

In the quest to top the Der Spiel league, 85 managers painstakingly selected what they hoped would be the ultimate über-team. Sunday’s final provides the last scoring opportunity to Der Spiel managers and first place is still up for grabs. With a Nicky Butt jigsaw as first prize, the stakes couldn’t be any higher!

If you’d like to find out more about Der Spiel please click here to visit the site. And if you’re taking part in the competition and would like to comment on the game (or leave some encouragement for a rival manager) please use the box below. 

Televised cricket received a shot in the arm when Channel 4 won the rights to show England’s home test matches and select one-day internationals. Adding to existing technologies (such as stump-cam and stump-mic) snickometer, hawk-eye and super-slow-mo action replays, have all helped to increase fans’ enjoyment of the sport. In addition, these developments have made cricket more appealing to many who were previously indifferent to its quirky charms. New technological features have helped pundits and analysts to explain the nuances and subtleties of what can, from the outset, be a baffling game.

So where does football come into this? If we believe what Sky Sports tells us, there is no more exciting spectacle than Portsmouth v Aston Villa on a wet Monday evening! But in reality it is a rare match that doesn’t have lulls, drab spells and limitless sequences of unadventurous square-balls. It is surely in broadcasters’ interests to brighten up these snoozefests. More exciting means more viewers, which means more advertising revenue. Viewers aren’t going to stay tuned just because they can now see a player’s fizzog in glorious High Definition detail. With red buttons, hundreds of channels and squillions of pounds being spent on rights to show matches, surely we’re due some sort of advance in technological wizardry to liven up football.

Super slow-mo replays of grimacing defenders mid-header; tackle snickometers revealing just how bad that last challenge was - even a clichéd Matrix-style multiple camera effect would do! Cameras in goalposts like stump-cam, or wireless cameras attached to assistant referees to give us an official’s eye view. How about some stats telling us how fast Aaron Lennon just sprinted down the flank, or what speed Peter Crouch’s shot was travelling when it burst through the back of the net?!

All viable, all possible, and none of them would interfere with the ’spirit of the game’ that the suits at Soho Square are so keen to protect. Where has four decades of televised football got us? The same replay from four different angles and a flag that pops up on the screen when someone is offside!

Do you agree that football coverage would benefit from a broader range of technological features? Can any WCH readers suggest some ideas that broadcasters could employ to enhance our viewing experience of future World Cups?

The Italians were immense, forcing the German midfield to start taking longshots and the full backs to launch crosses from further and further back.  But despite having the best of the middle-third exchanges, Italy only really troubled Jens Lehmann in extra-time. They were happy to build steady attacks with lots of links and exchanges, draining the Germans of attacking ideas and energy - an interesting tactic against Klinsmann’s increasingly one-dimensional team. It worked perfectly!

For me, Lehmann never really looked himself. In defence for Germany, Lahm was a joy to watch, Metzelder was pretty solid, Mertesacker struggled with positioning and on the right Friedrich was a liability. Ahead of them Borowski needed more time on the ball than was available, Kehl and Schneider did their jobs well, but Ballack played like a man in need of a holiday. The appearance of Schweinsteiger on 72mins merely confirmed the youngster’s lack of quality when facing first or second class opposition.  Klinsmann was right to drop him, wrong to bring him on. Klose, normally so prominent, didn’t get a sniff of goal and Podolski looked out of sorts; a poor header from 10 yards summed up his fruitless search for a way past the imperious Cannavaro.

For Italy, Buffon was relatively untroubled (surprising considering Germany’s attacking verve in previous matches) and he has still not been properly tested in this competition. Grosso was lively, Cannavaro canny, Zambrotta competent and Materazzi a clown who found a decent performance when it mattered. Camoranesi doesn’t seem to have much upstairs and was rightly withdrawn after 90mins. Perrotta was excellent and unlucky to be replaced by Del Piero. Gattuso didn’t sparkle but was a key cog in the machine. Pirlo was always on the scene but despite winning man-of-the match didn’t impress me much. Totti showed his experience and proved his fitness, probing right until the end, but Toni was once again a second-rate striker. Gilardino is a ‘bits and pieces’ player, ideal for last night’s style of play, whilst Del Piero was the icing on the cake.

Italy showed that sometimes tactics and organisation are more important than flair, and that to do well in modern tournament football it is more important to have a very good squad rather than an excellent first choice team. Will they go on to win the World Cup? Unless Scolari or Domenech can pull something special out of their tactical hat, I’d have to say yes.

Before the tournament there was a prevailing consensus that Owen Hargreaves was one of the worst players ever to pull on an England shirt. WCH posted an article when the England squad was announced querying whether the widespread vilification of Hargreaves was perhaps a touch misplaced. His performances in the pre-World Cup games were disappointing, however, and fuelled further derision from the media and fans. At half-time in the Hungary friendly, BBC anchor Gary Lineker announced (with rapier-like sarcasm) that England were making a substitution that would excite us – ‘Owen Hargreaves is coming on!’ After the game, in which Hargreaves was admittedly below par, the BBC panel singled him out for denigration and showed a montage of his errors.

Fortunately Hargreaves was given a chance at the World Cup to show that this targeted criticism was grossly inappropriate. He played well against Sweden in the defensive midfield role, provided sound cover at right-back against Ecuador, and was the best player on the pitch in the quarter-final against Portugal. This latter performance, full of energy and tenacity, was the highlight of our World Cup, but at half-time the BBC still found time to show clips to demonstrate why Hargreaves wasn’t the ideal deep-lying midfielder for England. They acknowledged that he had played well, but positionally he was lacking, and the solution was Michael Carrick. Whilst Michael Carrick has performed well enough in an England shirt, the BBC pundits’ infatuation with him reached ridiculous levels at this juncture. They referred to how much better the team had looked going forward against Ecuador with Carrick in the side, seemingly forgetting that England were utterly dreadful in this second round fixture. What followed in the quarter-final accentuated the nonsense spouted by Hansen et al, as Hargreaves’ effervescent performance reached heights well above the mire of midfield mediocrity around him.

After the game there was still a consensus on Hargreaves - but it had been turned on its head. He was unanimously acclaimed man-of-the-match, and also rated one of England’s best players of the tournament. Newspapers now highlighted that Hargreaves had proven his critics wrong: The Independent stated that Hargreaves ‘won his personal battle with the sceptics thanks to a magnificent display’, while The Guardian noted that he had ‘rammed the boos of England supporters back down their throats with a series of versatile displays.’ But as is perhaps often the case when a prevailing consensus is overturned, nobody owned up to being a member of the benighted army which had been proven wrong.

Whilst Hargreaves’ good performances were underscored by England’s poor overall form the praise is, in the main, deserved. Hargreaves has shown that he is a highly capable player, a long way from the incompetent teacher’s pet image propagated by the media. However, the switch in Hargreaves’ status from pariah to superman over a few weeks highlights the absurdity which pervades English football. Richard Williams in Monday’s Guardian even considered the unique aspects of Hargreaves’ upbringing which might set him apart from his teammates and provide the ‘dynamism that seemed to come from within.’ In reality, away from a hyperbole-riddled, memory-impaired media universe, the truth probably lies somewhere in between: Hargreaves is a very good footballer, capable of both excellent and indifferent performances. I hope that he continues to play well for England for several years, unburdened by jeers but also unrealistic expectations, and I am delighted that he has demonstrated his ability on the international stage.

World Cup Hippo compiled ratings for four of the five matches that featured England at this year’s tournament. Featured below are the England players’ average ratings. I’ve only included those who received ratings for two or more matches. I didn’t report on the Trinidad and Tobago fixture, so Aaron Lennon doesn’t qualify for a rating - but he would have been close to the top as he played well in the aforementioned fixture, and also received a ‘7′ for the Portugal game. It is perhaps interesting to note that the two players who have been jeered and ridiculed by England fans within the last year were arguably our best performers in Germany. Overall the core group of England players listed below were rated at a rather underwhelming 5.9.

Hargreaves - 7
Crouch - 6.33
Ferdinand - 6.25
J. Cole - 6.25
Terry - 6
Neville - 6
A. Cole - 6
Gerrard - 6
Robinson - 6
Rooney - 5.33
Lampard - 5
Beckham - 5

…from Herr Colin.

England may have crashed out of World Cup 2006, but WCH has a message of hope for its English readers! Herr Hippo has access to a cyber-wormhole which enables him to access World Cup Hippo articles from future years. Presented below is an article that he has retrieved which is set to be written in July 2010 - just before the World Cup final in South Africa. 

***********************************************

We’re going to win the Cup!

July 7, 2010 by Herr Ed

There shouldn’t be any surprises with the England line-up for the World Cup final this Sunday. England manager Stan Lazaridis will stick with the 3-5-2 formation which has served us so well since the Steve McClaren inspired Euro 2008 debacle. And with regard to personnel, he’ll surely utilise the same players that pummelled Brazil 4-0 in the semi, although Rachel Unitt of course returns from suspension and will replace Matt Taylor at left wing-back. Unitt is likely to share the accolade of ‘first woman to play in a World Cup final’ with the US forward Cindy Parlow.

The USA have looked impressive on their way to the final, but player for player England are stronger at every point on the pitch. The injury problems that beset goalkeeper Chris Kirkland earlier in his career are now a distant memory and he is undoubtedly the best stopper in international football, although it is a minor worry how little action he has seen in South Africa as a result of England’s seemingly infinite superiority over rival nations. The back three will comprise the impermeable trio of Ledley King, John Terry and Gary Cahill, whilst the right wing-back slot will be filled by Leicester City’s Richard Stearman. Steven Gerrard and Lee Cattermole will again form the midfield-engine room, and in the holding role behind them Coventry City’s Owen Hargreaves will keep things ticking over -  and we know how much Hargreaves would love to add a World Cup victory to the Champions League medal he won this year with Coventry.

Upfront it’s the terrible twosome, Peter Crouch and Aaron Lennon. Lennon’s reinvention as a centre forward post-2008 is perhaps Lazaridis’s greatest managerial flourish. With 10 goals apiece in the tournament, the amiable rivalry between this strike duo should help them both find the net in Johannesburg. The US won’t be pushovers however, and will be the best team we’ve faced in the tournament to date - but if England fail to win by two clear goals the match will be a considered something of a disappointment. I don’t envisage disappointment, however, and predict a 3-0 victory!

England’s lacklustre 2006 World Cup is over, but at least there was a glimpse of excitement before the end! The first-half did not deviate from the pattern established in the previous four games: players with a defensive brief looked in command, but our attack-minded players were yet again shackled by uncertainty and a lack of collective purpose. It was a tightly contested half, however, and the lone forwards for both sides (Pauleta and Rooney) had very few opportunities to get into the match.

The second-half continued in much the same vein, until Rooney’s dismissal on the hour. England played with more vigour and purpose with ten men: perhaps losing a player eased some pressure from this expectation-burdened team. Once they had been re-branded as plucky underdogs an element of freedom entered their approach and they threatened Portugal’s defence more than they did in the first period. England’s backline also stood firm and Portugal never looked likely to make the most of their extra man.

Although England were a man down, the substitutions in the second-half also improved the side’s attacking shape. Crouch demonstrated that he is more suited to the lone forward role than Rooney; his physical presence and deft touches provided hope that England could somehow fashion a clear scoring opportunity. Beckham had already been substituted prior to the sending off and replacement Aaron Lennon performed well, adding much needed bite to the right-flank. England therefore measured up to Portugal, despite the incongruence in team numbers, but there was never enough potency in attack to suggest that the impasse was likely to be dissolved.

As the fixture edged through extra-time it became apparent that the best that England could hope for was to hold on resolutely for penalties. This was achieved – but with 16 years of penalty shoot-out failure ingrained into the national psyche, the result was never in doubt.

So heroic failures yet again! England made it to a quarter-final penalty shootout, but it is quite remarkable how few coherent attacking manoeuvres they managed to contrive over the five games.

8/10 – Hargreaves: Covered every blade of grass in an effervescent performance.
7/10 – Terry: Dealt with everything the Portugal attack threw at him.
Ferdinand: Solid at the back and hardly put a foot wrong.
A. Cole: A reassuring presence at left-back. Neutralised the threat of Portugal’s wide players.
Robinson: His most convincing performance of the tournament.
Lennon: Made some very positive runs. Has a bright future.
6/10 – Crouch: Quickly settled into the lone forward role.
Neville: Sturdy performance, but unsettled by Ronaldo at times.
5/10 – Gerrard: Anonymous for most of the game, but involved in some good moves in extra-time.
J. Cole: A few neat touches, but failed to reproduce his early tournament form.
4/10 – Rooney: Didn’t get into the game.
Lampard: Nothing seemed to work for him.
Beckham: Negligible impact. 

Rivalry between Olde Albion and Die Vaterland has always been intense – both on and off the football field. On the field, Germany are known as strong, ruthless and efficient, and are always somehow able to grind their way to victory. England on the other hand are known to play with fierce competitiveness, but their much admired all-out attacking approach has seen them go down in a blaze of glory on numerous occasions.

But at this World Cup things seem to be changing. Germany, so stoic and granite-strong in previous tournaments, are now playing breathless attacking football and may crash and burn at any moment. Meanwhile England are grinding their way forwards, playing unattractive, less than cohesive football – the type which German teams from yesteryear would heartily approve of.

So are England the new Germany? Can England grind their way through and win ugly games playing in an ugly fashion all the way to the final? The short answer is ‘yes’ – Germany have done it on countless occasions. Sven Goran Eriksson has conceded that if England win the tournament playing the type of football that leaves fans back home scratching their eyes out with sharpened 2B pencils and peeling the skin from their shins in frustration, then that is better than not winning at all. And, to be fair to the clueless Swede, he’s bang right. “Ghana have played wonderful football. Ivory Coast have played wonderful football. Holland and Spain, the same,” he says. “If I had to pick one team on Tuesday it would have been Spain. But where are they? Tell me, where are these four teams now? At home, that’s where. To win the World Cup… if that means playing bad football then, come on, who cares?”

And you can’t disagree with him. When Germany stumbled their way to the World Cup final in 2002, their insipid football inspired Franz Beckenbauer to snort: “If you put them [German players] all in a bag and hit them with a stick, they would deserve it.” But Der Kaiser couldn’t have argued with the progress of his team to that final – while England wilted against Brazil in the quarters, Germany did get to the final after all – even if they played poor football and were indebted to Oliver Khan. The omnipresent Beckenbauer himself should know how it feels to play poorly and still win. In 1974, West Germany played shakily on home turf in the group stages and were expected to be royally shafted by the purring, total footballing playboys of Holland in the final. Despite going 1-0 down, Germany called upon all their famed spirit and determination to spring a surprise win.

Go back further, to 1954, and the Germans set the standard for surprise victories. After being trounced by the brilliant Ferenc Puskas-inspired Hungarians in the group stages, the Germans beat them, incredibly, in the final despite coming under intense pressure. More recently, Germany lurched their way to victory in the 1996 European Championship final against the Czech Republic after defeating England (reckoned to be the best team in the competition) on penalties in the semi-final. In that one game, footballing stereotypes were laid bare. England were unlucky and valiant in defeat but heroes to a nation where the phrase ‘it’s not the winning it’s the taking part that counts’ is still recited by some, while Germany, the win-at-all-costs juggernaut, once again scraped though.

Fast-forward to 2006 and these roles look as though they are being reversed. Let’s hope so.