Friday, April 18, 2008
Rosario Revisited, Part 1
Another excursion into the past today.
One of the most controversial matches in World Cup history is the infamous 6-0 victory by Argentina over Peru in the final second group match of the 1978 World Cup, in Rosario. Argentina, the hosts, thereby sneaked into the final on goal difference ahead of Brazil.
The facts are these: the match was played, for somewhat arcane reasons, after the parallel game between Brazil and Poland (won 3-1 by Brazil), thereby allowing Argentina to ascertain exactly what margin of victory would be necessary.
Other snippets that have attracted the attention of World Cup historians: Ramon Quiroga, the Peruvian goalkeeper, was actually born in Argentina (in Rosario, in fact), and Argentina's manager, Cesar Luis Menotti, held a clandestine meeting with his team, minus goalkeeper Ubaldo Fillol, prior to the game.
In short: everyone outside of Argentina now seems to assume that the game was fixed...not that the evidence is at all compelling. There's a lively discussion of the whole issue here.
I've long been keen to see this game for myself, and tracked it down recently. So then?
As my father always likes to say: "Given the choice between conspiracy and screw-up, it's a screw-up every time." When one actually watches it, this game doesn't look like a conspiracy at all.
Consider this: one team, playing in front of a massive contingent of home fans, has everything to play for, and has a precise objective. The other team has absolutely nothing to play for, is facing a very loud, hostile crowd, and has just lost two games on the trot.
The fact that the margin was so great is probably due instead to the highly questionable system adopted in the tournament (the "second stage" leading directly to the final), which ensured that there could be such a divergence in the two teams' level of commitment at such a late stage of the tournament.
I can put it no better than one of the commentators on the above bigsoccer.com thread:
It seems to come down to this: if you've seen the game (and perhaps some others from WC78), you don't buy the conspiracy theories. If you look at the score line, you can't believe it could be a legitimate result.
In fact, it's one of the most entertaining World Cup games I've seen. And it deserves a more lengthy description than most, including as it does a number of tactical and strategic points of interest, and a crucial, instructive turning point in the second half.
More to come.
One of the most controversial matches in World Cup history is the infamous 6-0 victory by Argentina over Peru in the final second group match of the 1978 World Cup, in Rosario. Argentina, the hosts, thereby sneaked into the final on goal difference ahead of Brazil.
The facts are these: the match was played, for somewhat arcane reasons, after the parallel game between Brazil and Poland (won 3-1 by Brazil), thereby allowing Argentina to ascertain exactly what margin of victory would be necessary.
Other snippets that have attracted the attention of World Cup historians: Ramon Quiroga, the Peruvian goalkeeper, was actually born in Argentina (in Rosario, in fact), and Argentina's manager, Cesar Luis Menotti, held a clandestine meeting with his team, minus goalkeeper Ubaldo Fillol, prior to the game.
In short: everyone outside of Argentina now seems to assume that the game was fixed...not that the evidence is at all compelling. There's a lively discussion of the whole issue here.
I've long been keen to see this game for myself, and tracked it down recently. So then?
As my father always likes to say: "Given the choice between conspiracy and screw-up, it's a screw-up every time." When one actually watches it, this game doesn't look like a conspiracy at all.
Consider this: one team, playing in front of a massive contingent of home fans, has everything to play for, and has a precise objective. The other team has absolutely nothing to play for, is facing a very loud, hostile crowd, and has just lost two games on the trot.
The fact that the margin was so great is probably due instead to the highly questionable system adopted in the tournament (the "second stage" leading directly to the final), which ensured that there could be such a divergence in the two teams' level of commitment at such a late stage of the tournament.
I can put it no better than one of the commentators on the above bigsoccer.com thread:
It seems to come down to this: if you've seen the game (and perhaps some others from WC78), you don't buy the conspiracy theories. If you look at the score line, you can't believe it could be a legitimate result.
In fact, it's one of the most entertaining World Cup games I've seen. And it deserves a more lengthy description than most, including as it does a number of tactical and strategic points of interest, and a crucial, instructive turning point in the second half.
More to come.
Comments:
<< Home
The Junta threat to tyhe Argentine players may have added some crackle to their play too. the thought of being disappeared would certainly motivate my football.
I agree with the screw up thing too. I love a conspiracy but, that's all they are, theories.
Like you've pointed out it's usually down to other factors.
looking forward to part 2
I agree with the screw up thing too. I love a conspiracy but, that's all they are, theories.
Like you've pointed out it's usually down to other factors.
looking forward to part 2
Mike, As a kid watching it live, it smelt like a fix, and looked like a fix.
It was at best very very disappointing.
Having read Andrew Jennings Foul, confirmed my young suspicions check it out, it adds a little more to the conspiracy.
4-0 at half-time. It couldn't have happened if you'd seen previous games in that tournament, unless, just unless, something else was at play.
It was at best very very disappointing.
Having read Andrew Jennings Foul, confirmed my young suspicions check it out, it adds a little more to the conspiracy.
4-0 at half-time. It couldn't have happened if you'd seen previous games in that tournament, unless, just unless, something else was at play.
...Mike, As a kid watching it live, it smelt like a fix, and looked like a fix.
It was at best very very disappointing.
Having read Andrew Jennings Foul, confirmed my young suspicions check it out, it adds a little more to the conspiracy.
4-0 at half-time. It couldn't have happened if you'd seen previous games in that tournament, unless, just unless, something else was at play....
Well, for one thing, it was only 2-0 at half-time. And just on that point, it's significant that almost every account I've read/heard that supports the conspiracy theory (including David Yallop's appearance on that video at the end of the bigsoccer thread, and even Jennings's account) contains at least one factual error.
As for seeing previous games in the tournament: perhaps the only suspicious element to the game, for mine, is that Teofilo Cubillas, who was a star for Peru earlier in the event (two great goals against Scotland, a hat-trick against Iran) was a nonentity.
It's worth mentioning, though, that Peru were hopeless against Brazil as well in that second stage (I've seen excerpts of that game as well). And this was not one of the great Brazil sides, either.
I was watching the game fully expecting to see a suspiciously inept performance from Peru, but instead I saw a host nation utterly fired up and determined to achieve their goal.
Post a Comment
It was at best very very disappointing.
Having read Andrew Jennings Foul, confirmed my young suspicions check it out, it adds a little more to the conspiracy.
4-0 at half-time. It couldn't have happened if you'd seen previous games in that tournament, unless, just unless, something else was at play....
Well, for one thing, it was only 2-0 at half-time. And just on that point, it's significant that almost every account I've read/heard that supports the conspiracy theory (including David Yallop's appearance on that video at the end of the bigsoccer thread, and even Jennings's account) contains at least one factual error.
As for seeing previous games in the tournament: perhaps the only suspicious element to the game, for mine, is that Teofilo Cubillas, who was a star for Peru earlier in the event (two great goals against Scotland, a hat-trick against Iran) was a nonentity.
It's worth mentioning, though, that Peru were hopeless against Brazil as well in that second stage (I've seen excerpts of that game as well). And this was not one of the great Brazil sides, either.
I was watching the game fully expecting to see a suspiciously inept performance from Peru, but instead I saw a host nation utterly fired up and determined to achieve their goal.
<< Home
