World Cup College

Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges scribed inventive labyrinthine tales which delve into arcane metaphysical worlds. One of the key themes Borges explores is infinity – this theme is a key element of his short story‚ The Library of Babel. In this story, Borges creates a universe (the Library) which is comprised of an indeterminate and perhaps infinite number of hexagonal galleries.

Something of this spirit seems to animate Argentinean football philosophy. The manager of their World Cup winning team of 1978, Luis Menotti, stated that ‘a team is above all an idea’. A football team is therefore more than a collection of situated components (players) that are understood with reference to their positioning in finite space. Instead, the team is a transcendental, emergent entity that meets an ideational standard.

Argentina’s current coach is controversial genius Maradona. His management of the team prior to World Cup 2010 was vaguely Borgesian in that he used an interminable number of players (more than 100) in qualifiers and friendlies. Exploring such a multitude of possibilities has enabled him to realise his idea of team and it accommodates the attacking talents of Higuain, Messi, Tevez and Di Maria. A fluid, vibrant ethic demonstrates that a team is more than the fixed positioning of players within a coordinate system – a team should promise the infinite! As Borges almost states in The Library of Babel: ‘The football team is a sphere whose exact centre is any one of its players and whose circumference is inaccessible.’

The English approach is more about the bottom-up construction of a material entity than the realisation of an idea. The aim is not to meet an overarching ideal, but simply about placing the best players in their best positions. This means that the team is viewed as a machine which will function if the parts are properly aligned: for England, therefore, the key concern is the arrangement of a mechanistic team’s components.

Italian coach Fabio Capello has endeavoured to reconcile the English approach with the requirements of international football. As he has adopted such a mechanistic philosophy and framework, Capello has the task of mending a machine rather than developing an ideal: the requirement is thus to bend and flex the materiality of the team into a form which can measure up to opposition sides. Back in January WCC noted that England were playing well under Capello, but that mechanical rather than organic solidarity had been attained. The shortcomings of the side had been addressed, but by hammering the parts into shape and papering over the mended area. And mechanical malfunction has followed, with Capello’s best efforts rendering the England side a skewed 4-4-2 with Gerrard moving infield from left-midfield to compensate for England’s lack of presence in central areas. There is no adherence to a transcendental notion of team – just the objective to rearrange the components into a functional mechanistic process. So when the team fails to function it ends up as a warped rhombus, rather than absolute space populated by an infinite number of hexagonal galleries!

Back in 2009 World Soccer magazine offered a range of suggestions which they believed could enhance the modern game. One suggestion in particular would have serious impact upon tournament football. That is, the number of respective corner-kicks for teams should be used to decide tied fixtures in the knockout phase. This system would thus replace the current usage of the penalty shootout. WCC asked Naranjito and Allied Forces’ goalkeeper Robert Hatch: should corner-kicks replace the penalty shootout?

Yes: The penalty shoot-out presents one of the biggest shortcomings of contemporary football. Penalties used to be a last resort to resolve matches, but now they seem inevitable almost from kick-off. Teams often prefer to hold on for a shoot-out rather than expose themselves defensively by chasing victory. The last World Cup final provides a clear example. With France and Italy at 1-1 by half-time, a penalty shoot-out seemed a virtual certainty long before the final whistle.

The penalty shoot-out might not be a lottery as is oft stated, but it bears little resemblance to the real game of football. Such a contrivance should not decide a complete game played between 22 players over 120 minutes. Penalties also psychologically favour the team who is most fortunate to have drawn the game and thus favour defensive sides. A team that has attacked throughout a game but failed to score is likely to approach the shoot-out in a defeated state of mind. Man Utd v Arsenal in the 2005 FA Cup Final provides an example of the more defensive side triumphing.

Whereas the penalty shoot-out encourages teams to defend, utilising corner-kicks as a mechanism for deciding drawn games will stimulate attacking play. Games would be decided entirely from open play and a more equitable mechanism for differentiation between teams tied on goals will thus have been realised. The reliance on the penalty shoot-out has already started to undermine tournament football. Using corner-kicks is an obvious solution: it will increase the chance for the best team to win and by encouraging attacking football may also reduce the number of draws anyway. Ultimately the game will be decided in the appropriate way: by rewarding teams over the course of the match, not through a silly gameshow ritual appended to the actual game.

No: Penalties may be something of a contrivance, but why replace them with another contrivance: the elevation in value of the corner-kick. Whilst it may not seem equitable to award games on penalties after a hard fought fixture, the shoot-out is still a test of skill and nerve, so isn’t completely distinct from the requirements of the open game.

My concern with using corner kicks is that it could change the fabric of the game in unforeseeable ways. Football’s main appeal is its simplicity, and its straightforward scoring system underpins this simplicity. Goals are what count in football, so introducing an ancillary scoring mechanism would damage the sport. If the shoot-out was dispensed with, I believe big games would remain tight and teams would seek corner-kicks instead in the endeavour to gain the requisite advantage. Do we really want to see wingers charging for the corner at every opportunity in the attempt to win a flag-kick? Imagine also the additional fuss for referees and their assistants when they have to call a close one: goal-kick or corner?

There is also something more purposeful and direct about penalties. Corners are ultimately conceded by the defence, rather than won by the attacking team. Reward in football should be a direct outcome of intent i.e. shots yielding goals. Corner-kicks seem too dependent on contingent events; they confer reward merely by being an approximate indication of a team’s overall territorial advantage. I understand that corners would only be a secondary system of award to be used in the event of a draw; but this still subverts the principles of football. Football matches must be decided by goals and goals alone: even if these sometimes have to be scored in a penalty shoot-out.