Pekerman blows it, then quits
Are Germany a better team than Argentina? No. So how did they manage to lose a game which was theirs for the taking? Jose Pekerman, made mistake after mistake.
The first half was a tactical battle. Argentina dominated possession and Germany, conscious of their defensive weakness, got eleven men behind the ball. Things should have opened up in the second after Ayala’s header gave Argentina the lead on 48 minutes. However instead of going for the jugular, Pekerman decided to try to hold on to his lead. He took off his creative fulcrum Riquelme for Cambiasso. He then compounded his error by bringing on the immobile Julio Cruz, who has hardly featured in this tournament for Hernan Crespo.
Riquelme should have stayed on the pitch - his passes could have unpicked the German defence. Further, Saviola or Messi should have come on instead of Cruz - both are small and quick and would have tested the tiring German central defenders more. As a result Germany gained the initiative and Klose’s header 11 minutes from brought the scores level. With three minutes to go, Lahm brought down Maxi and Argentina should have had a penalty. Instead, referee Lubos Michel booked Maxi for diving and the game went into extra time.
With both teams looking tired, penalties looked inevitable and when they arrived there was little doubt that the Germans would come out on top. When Cambiasso’s penalty was saved by Lehmann to hand them a semi-final berth, they celebrated a little too much for the Argentineans liking and Leandro Cufre showed his annoyance by launching a karate kick at Per Mertesacker, prompting a small fight.
At the press conference following the match, Pekerman failed to acknowledge his mistakes during the game but did resign. Argentina should have gone further.
July 1st, 2006 at 2:47
I agree with your analysis - except the first, which was on Germany not being a better team. It’s like saying Germany owes its win to Jose Pekerman. On the contrary, Germany owes its win to a fantastic header by Klose, and Lehmann’s superb goalkeeping.
Germany had more stamina and endurance, which lasted them all 120 minutes. True, Germany was not like Argentina at all when playing - and in that sense they are not ‘that good.’ But they are unique and excellent in their own strategy, and in their own techniques.
At the end of the day, they won. And in a game that promotes fair play and boasts one of the most stringest rules in sports, that entitles Germany to be called the better team.
P.S. I LOVE your blog and commentary. I just thought I’d share my two cents on this recent one.
July 2nd, 2006 at 9:50
I agree with Miss Shomaker. Your article makes it seem like Germany was the negative, defensive side, while Argentina were the unlucky latins. This is far from the truth. Does Argentina have a better team? On paper, very much so. However, I do beleive that on the day, the better team won. Germany was more positive from the start, and the “who dares wins” attitude got its lucky reqard during the penalties. Pekerman compounded the errors of the team, but you could clearly see which team wanted it more.
Keep up the good work!
July 2nd, 2006 at 9:51
I agree with Miss Shomaker. Your article makes it seem like Germany was the negative, defensive side, while Argentina were the unlucky latins. This is far from the truth. Does Argentina have a better team? On paper, very much so. However, I do beleive that on the day, the better team won. Germany was more positive from the start, and the “who dares wins” attitude got its lucky reqard during the penalties. Pekerman compounded the errors of the team, but you could clearly see which team wanted it more.
Keep up the blog, v. interesting!
July 2nd, 2006 at 10:46
Guru and Miss Shoemaker. I think that Germany were more defensive in the first half but were definitely the more attacking side after the first goal. Germany have been a pleasant surprise, hence the inclusion of a few of their stars in our “team of the tournament”.