No conspiracy, it’s all footballing logic
THE FIFA World Cup will have its integrity questioned tomorrow when Mexico, Uruguay, France and South play simultaneously to decide which two teams qualify for the second round from Group A.
By Paul Mbugga
THE FIFA World Cup will have its integrity questioned tomorrow when Mexico, Uruguay, France and South play simultaneously to decide which two teams qualify for the second round from Group A.
Mathematically, the equation could not have been more straightforward: Mexico and Uruguay need a draw to ensure each other’s qualification while one of France or South Africa has to score a truckload of goals against the other and hope the Mexico-Uruguay encounter produces a convincing winner.
What chance of that happening? The Mexico-Uruguay game may as well end in a convenient draw and we will be left to decide whether that result is a tragic misfortune or a tragic coincidence.
Mutually strategic cynicism
But seriously, why would Mexico and Uruguay jeopardize their qualification chances by being naively adventurous? I expect them not to and we should instead prepare to marvel when the two sides put on a display of mutually strategic cynicism.
We have seen before, and with the Mexicans at that. At the 2002 World Cup in Korea/Japan, Mexico had to swat away accusations of a grand conspiracy after a 1-1 draw with Italy in their final group game ensured the two sides’ qualification to the second round. Mexico’s defenders, if you remember, spent the last ten minutes or so of the match passing the ball amongst themselves and a disinterested Italy obliged them by watching meekly.
Two years earlier, Italy itself was at the wrong end of a beautifully manufactured 2-2 draw between Sweden and Denmark at Euro 2004 that sent the Azzurri crashing out of the tournament in the group stages.
We were witnesses a similar occurrence during the Africa Cup of Nations earlier this year. Mali was left with a taste of pure granite in its mouth after a 3-1 defeat of Malawi in its final group game only resulted in elimination after a convenient 0-0 draw between Algeria and Angola
Mali’s Eagles, grounded in flight and enraged, felt that a foul hand was at play and the Malian football federation even lodged a protest with CAF claiming that the attitude of Angola and Algeria “was contrary to FIFA’s ethics of Fair Playâ€. In other words, the result was fixed.
No conspiracy
There was no such thing. Angola and Algeria actually attacked each other quite furiously before belatedly remembering that they were unified by a common desire to qualify for the quarter-finals. Then caution understandably took over
“We had the rules, “ Algeria coach Rabah Saadane freely admitted after the match. “So we said to our players: ‘Now stop. Either score or draw –– absolutely minimum’.â€
Mexico and Uruguay may well to seek the protect each other tomorrow and in no way should that be construed as match-fixing.
That would be fanciful; it involves an elaborate web of conspiracy and I struggle to think of anything that would bring two countries as well-meaning as Mexico and Uruguay together to pursue a common evil. Germany’s collusion with Austria to eliminate Algeria at the 1982 World Cup is one proper definition of a conspiracy. But not this.
France and South Africa may simply pay the price for two teams desperate to qualify for the second round. Patrice Evra, the Les Bleus captain, already knows that, as should we. He said last week, and referring to Mexico versus Uruguay, that he “does not believe in miraclesâ€.
THE FIFA World Cup will have its integrity questioned tomorrow when Mexico, Uruguay, France and South play simultaneously to decide which two teams qualify for the second round from Group A.
Mathematically, the equation could not have been more straightforward: Mexico and Uruguay need a draw to ensure each other’s qualification while one of France or South Africa has to score a truckload of goals against the other and hope the Mexico-Uruguay encounter produces a convincing winner.
What chance of that happening? The Mexico-Uruguay game may as well end in a convenient draw and we will be left to decide whether that result is a tragic misfortune or a tragic coincidence.
Mutually strategic cynicism
But seriously, why would Mexico and Uruguay jeopardize their qualification chances by being naively adventurous? I expect them not to and we should instead prepare to marvel when the two sides put on a display of mutually strategic cynicism.
We have seen before, and with the Mexicans at that. At the 2002 World Cup in Korea/Japan, Mexico had to swat away accusations of a grand conspiracy after a 1-1 draw with Italy in their final group game ensured the two sides’ qualification to the second round. Mexico’s defenders, if you remember, spent the last ten minutes or so of the match passing the ball amongst themselves and a disinterested Italy obliged them by watching meekly.
Two years earlier, Italy itself was at the wrong end of a beautifully manufactured 2-2 draw between Sweden and Denmark at Euro 2004 that sent the Azzurri crashing out of the tournament in the group stages.
We were witnesses a similar occurrence during the Africa Cup of Nations earlier this year. Mali was left with a taste of pure granite in its mouth after a 3-1 defeat of Malawi in its final group game only resulted in elimination after a convenient 0-0 draw between Algeria and Angola
Mali’s Eagles, grounded in flight and enraged, felt that a foul hand was at play and the Malian football federation even lodged a protest with CAF claiming that the attitude of Angola and Algeria “was contrary to FIFA’s ethics of Fair Playâ€. In other words, the result was fixed.
No conspiracy
There was no such thing. Angola and Algeria actually attacked each other quite furiously before belatedly remembering that they were unified by a common desire to qualify for the quarter-finals. Then caution understandably took over
“We had the rules, “ Algeria coach Rabah Saadane freely admitted after the match. “So we said to our players: ‘Now stop. Either score or draw –– absolutely minimum’.â€
Mexico and Uruguay may well to seek the protect each other tomorrow and in no way should that be construed as match-fixing.
That would be fanciful; it involves an elaborate web of conspiracy and I struggle to think of anything that would bring two countries as well-meaning as Mexico and Uruguay together to pursue a common evil. Germany’s collusion with Austria to eliminate Algeria at the 1982 World Cup is one proper definition of a conspiracy. But not this.
France and South Africa may simply pay the price for two teams desperate to qualify for the second round. Patrice Evra, the Les Bleus captain, already knows that, as should we. He said last week, and referring to Mexico versus Uruguay, that he “does not believe in miraclesâ€.