The Grinch who stole Rivelino's legacy

World Cup 2002 has sprung more than a few surprises in the first phase. The whole world is in shock because to begin with Holland did not qualify. Then as if to rub salt in one's wounds, defending Champions France, Argentina, Russia, Uruguay, Nigeria, Portugal and reigning Olympic Champions Cameroon have taken an early bath. With their exit, the present edition of the World Cup has lost its sheen. True, many Asians will be gratified by the continued presence of co-hosts Korea and Japan in the final (knockout) phase of the competition and Korea have miraculously even made it to the semifinal stage. And I count myself among them. Because this success will provide the fillip for underscoring the Asian Football Confederation's slogan that " The Future is Asia ".

So, while you were drowning your sorrows and bemoaning the early exit of star studded teams, my mind started working in a totally different direction. Why did these teams exit so early? The obvious reason that came to mind was that the teams with a majority of players in the European Leagues were the first to be put to the sword. European Leagues are long and grueling and therefore must take their toll on players, both physically and mentally. Further, a lot of players were not available for practise with their National Squads until around the middle of May, a scant fifteen days before the World Cup kicked off. Perhaps, lack of team preparation was the cause of these teams' debacle.

Hang on a minute! What has changed this time that wasn't so of the last four editions of the World Cup? And why is Germany still in contention with one of the weakest teams they have sent for any World Cup? Sebastian Diesler and Nowotny are the best the Germans have in their arsenal and are not around thanks to injury. How did Denmark and Senegal get past France and Uruguay? The Senegalese have 22 players (of their 23 member squad) in the French League and by all accounts should have succumbed to the fatigue that entails. And the Uruguayan League, if less tiring should have ensured Uruguay's passage through to the next round because less than a handful of Uruguayan players are engaged with European Clubs. So although European Leagues may have been a reason for the notorious exits, it may only be a contributory one and not the main cause.

Again, one might say that the new Laws of the Game may be a contributory factor. The new Laws of the Game that are overhauled every year to apply from 1st June except of course when they are preponed for Tournaments like the World Cup that begin before but end after that date. Implementing untested New Laws is tantamount to changing the rules of the game. That can certainly confuse players. Even referees come under flack because the implementation of new Laws is not always uniform or standard and vary from game to game and referee to referee. Francesco Totti of Italy would be the first to agree with this view! And there has been reason to believe that certain teams have suffered grievously because of the inconsistent application of the Laws of the Game. Some teams would even gripe that poor referee decisions were the cause of their early exit. But this is not the main reason for all the upsets.

So what was the main reason? To get to the bottom of that one, we have to analyse the style of play of the teams that remained in the World Cup after the first round. Denmark, Senegal, Spain, Paraguay, Brazil, Turkey, Korea, USA, Germany, Ireland, Sweden, England, Mexico, Italy, Japan and Belgium have all adopted a direct style of play. Some, like Mexico, Spain, Senegal, Brazil and Italy out of compunction, others because of an inherent culture to play direct football (like the Danes, Swedes, English, Irish, Americans, Japanese, Koreans and Germans).

Against this argument consider what has actually been the difference between the style of play in the previous World Cups since 1970 and the present one. The 1970 World Cup gave to the world the Rivelino ' banana free-kick '. In later editions this style of bending the ball was engaged even in crosses from flanks and corners to pry open defences and confuse defenders and goalkeepers alike into making positional and technical mistakes, which were spectacularly punished. In essence it was really an attempt by players to get some extraordinary bend on a ball in order to obtain a significant tactical advantage for his teammates during the run of play or from set pieces. And the whole world loved it. The inherent beauty of the ball bending into a goal, with the opponent goalkeeper clutching air, propelled the game of football to the summit of world sports. Football became known as the beautiful game. And the players who became expert at bending the ball became the superstars of our genre. Names like Rivelino, Maradona, Francescoli, Gullit, Valderama, Hagy, Roberto Carlos, Veron, Rincon, Figo, Zidane and Beckham, spanning every generation of stars until the present time, became household names. And in every World Cup since 1970, the world waited with baited breath for a moment of magic from these great players. Some of the key characteristics these players possessed were skill, stamina, strength and speed. How many times have we seen players bending the ball in WC 2002?

Not once either effectively or spectacularly. Every attempt to spin or bend the ball from free kicks has resulted into the ball flying three to twenty feet above the crossbar. Have Beckham, Figo, Carlos, Veron or Aimar forgotten how to bend a ball? Not likely! Consider the goals that have been scored from free kicks. Carlos sent in a hard drive from 25 yards against China that went straight as an arrow and only shifted in flight once the ball lost momentum. That shift absolutely fooled the Chinese goalkeeper and the ball crashed into the nylons with a speed and force that has not been seen in previous matches. In the previous match against Turkey, Carlos had a couple of attempts in which he tried to bend the ball and it might have hit the girders of the stadium roof. Anders Svensson of Sweden hit the sweet spot on the ball from 20 yards to take his country ahead against Argentina and effectively knock them out of the competition. Figo, Veron and the other benders didn't quite get the plot!

So what is new in this World Cup is the Ball! Adidas has designed it to be 25 to 30 % more accurate than previously manufactured footballs. The Fifafan ball, as it is called, does not lend itself to bending. It prefers to be used as a missile hit straight and hard, right down its vertical. The more follow through of the kicking leg, the more will be the power on the ball and greater the speed. The power generated by such use is fairly dangerous for goalkeepers and players who form a wall to defend against free kicks. Players have, as the World Cup progressed, become very aware of the pain inflicted by the ball off free kicks. Korea turned this into a near goal when Ahn preferred to send in his free kick against Italy at ground level in anticipation that the Italian wall would react by jumping to avoid the full thrust of impact. That nearly produced a goal for Korea, under the tutelage of Dutch master Guus Hiddink, and Italian goalkeeper Bufon did a superb job to keep it from registering.

And so, instead of the players controlling the ball as in the past, the ball is effectively controlling the players, forcing them to change their style of play. The ball runs off the foot fairly quickly and so only one touch passing becomes a successful ploy. If a player, even of Recoba's considerable ability attempts the second touch, the ball is likely to roll further away than anticipated and the marking opponent will get the advantage of distance to the ball and possession will be lost. Hence the ball favours the one touch or direct style of Germany, Korea, England, USA and others aforementioned at the cost of skill and individuality. Even the Brazilians are playing more direct football in this World Cup than ever before and are thus quite comfortably through to the quarterfinals. The Dutch must be even more irked that a ball that would suit their style of play the most was introduced only after they were turfed out of the World Cup even before it began.

Many players in the present World Cup have complained about the characteristics of the new ball. With one notable exception…. David Beckham. Yet for all his effusive endorsement, he has done nothing spectacular with it in five games. Those curving crosses from the right flank, which he used to make for Solskaer and van Nystelrooy that invariably secured the goals for Manchester United are absent. The crosses for Heskey, Owen and Scholes were no longer there. Even Beckham's free kicks were a waste of time. The penalty scored by Beckham against Argentina went straight as an arrow. A bit like the one he took against Carlos Roa in the 1998 World Cup…, which was saved. This time round, the superior speed of the ball alone, not the line (very close to the keeper's left side) nor the bend (there wasn't any), beat Goalkeeper Pablo Cavallero under the Argentinean bar and gave England the three points they needed to stay in contention. Is it at all possible that David Beckham is the brand ambassador for the new Adidas ball? I hear rumours that he is, which would explain all the bull.

Like most people, I believe that was is good for the game is the need for players to acquire and display exceptional skill, speed, stamina and strength. As we have observed, this time around, there is no premium attached to skill. Even the need to acquire stamina has been obliterated by the new ball because of its own force, speed and accuracy. If this ball can be passed 40yards without error (or 70 yards if you are Roberto Carlos), the need for players to run a lot does not arise - a little intelligent positional play can cover for lack of stamina. The ball is fast converting the game of football into a total team sport with a closer affinity to basketball and field hockey. A lot of the charm of football is being lost.

How then can FIFA that does things for the " Good of the Game " sacrifice the future of football to one of its 'partners' …. Adidas? One has to believe that Adidas's sole raison d'etre is markets and profits. Hence they have created a ball that is better suited to the majority world population that culturally plays direct football at the expense of the 'skilled' constituency of the game. And a fundamental question that has to be addressed is whether the Ball should be changed after teams have qualified using one particular type of ball in the preliminary competition.

And so if you think this World Cup at the end of the first phase has already lost its charm, then like me you must come to the conclusion that like the Grinch who stole Christmas, Adidas stole Rivelino's legacy.