By Dr Paul: For a team who created the catenaccio style of defending, it was Italy’s opponents Paraguay who turned in a dogged, disciplined performance in the opening game of Group F.
The Azzuri, playing an uncharacteristically attacking 4-3-3 formation, started off all guns blazing -Fiorentina’s Montolivio was pulling the strings in the middle of the park, and full backs Zambrotta and Criscito were finding plenty of room down the flanks. Udinese’s Simone Pepe was an industrious figure on the right side of the forward line, and Gilardino and Iaquinta were lively in the opening stages.
At the back, talismanic captain Fabio Cannavaro looked to be back to his best, and in the opening half an hour Paraguay found it difficult to keep possession and played almost exclusively in their own half. For an Italian team to press so high up the pitch and really attack their opponents so early in the competition is almost unheard of. In fact, after watching the disappointing Holland v Denmark, Japan v Cameroon matches, it was refreshing to see such an attacking formation actually attacking and striving for a victory (as opposed to a 4-3-3 formation quickly turning into a more defensive 4-5-1).
It was interesting to note that Paraguay’s two best known attacking players – Roque Santa Cruz and Oscar Cardozo – came on in the second half, which seemed to suggest that a more aggressive, stifling gameplan was at the forefront of coach Gerardo Martino’s mind. It worked. On 39 minutes, Giorgio Chiellini conceded a free kick and, from an excellent delivery by Aureliano Torres, Alcarez stole into the danger zone to send a header past the stranded Buffon. This took the wind out of the Azzuri’s sails – buoyed by their goal, Paraguay’s midfield started to gain the upper hand, and the previously bright and industrious trio of De Rossi, Marchisio and Montolivio faded dramatically. This pattern continued throughout the second half, with Paraguay stifling any semblance of Italian pressure and looking fairly comfortable. Italy, still playing at a high tempo, huffed and puffed but didn’t create any clear-cut chances, instead opting to shoot from distance.
Gilardino
By the time the equaliser came Camoranesi and Di Natale (a surprise exclusion) were on the field as substitutes. Gaining extra confidence from their equaliser, Italy were back on top. Pepe had switched wings and was seeing a lot of the ball (although his distribution didn’t match his industry), while Montolivio started to come back into the game.
So the opening match in Group F finished as a draw. Italy will feel they should have won it, but in truth they did not create, despite an attacking performance and some lively patches, any real chances. With Pirlo waiting in the wings, and Di Natale (who scored a bucketful for Udinese in Serie A this season) surely meriting a start, Italy will want to work on turning possession into chance before their next game against the Kiwis.
However, cathartic sacrifice can have a homegrown referent. At World Cup 1998 David Beckham was sent off against Argentina, in a game in which England were eventually despatched on penalties. Beckham’s dismissal was probably harsher than Rooney’s: Beckham kicked out at Diego Simeone but it was a tame incident which was exacerbated by the elaborate response of the Argentine. It may have been assumed that the English population would have sought emotional cleansing by channelling their frustration at the cheating foreigner. But instead, a sustained campaign of vitriol was initiated against Beckham: he was portrayed as a feckless pretty-boy with an inadequate sense of national responsibility. Beckham’s momentary lack of self-control exposed his human fallibilities; this helped to distract the members of the collective vigilante squad from their own disappointments and inadequacies.
I am persisting with my view that USA should opt for a 4-4-1-1 formation with Landon Donovan behind Jozy Altidore. Robbie Findley looked dangerous at sporadic intervals against England but, without Charlie Davies, USA don’t really have a viable 90-minute strike-partner for Altidore. The US started the 2009 Confederations Cup with Donovan in a central-attacking area, and they functioned very well in their group game 
An early goal kick-started England’s World Cup 2010, but it failed to generate substantial momentum. Before five minutes of the game had elapsed, Emile Heskey received the ball on the edge of the box – he played in Steven Gerrard who slotted deftly past Tim Howard. The half continued to be an open affair with both sides constructing some good forward moves without creating many clear chances.
England were the better side and should have won this game – it was only a Robert Green howler which gifted the US an equalizer. The team generally performed well with good performances throughout the side. For all the discussion about central-midfield, Lampard and Gerrard were a resilient and influential combination. In fact it was the players at wide-midfield which disappointed slightly, with Wright-Phillips and Lennon failing to make consistent impact. There would also be concerns if Ledley King is injured: Carragher joined John Terry for the second-half and this pairing could surely be exposed by a pacy front-line.
The World Cup mascot should be well-designed and represent three things: the host nation, football and fun. Zakumi is the South Africa 2010 mascot: he’s a fun, attractive character and the football theme is clearly apparent. And as Zakumi is a leopard, the links to the South African nation are clear. The name Zakumi is a composite of ZA, standing for South Africa and ‘Kumi’ which means ’10′ in several languages across Africa. This further underscores his continental and national associations.
By Dr Paul: By now you’ve made your predictions. You’ve studied the wallcharts and plotted teams’ courses through the tournament, arriving at you final four. You will have probably studied the form guides and identified several dark horses teams that, judging from past World Cups, will start off slowly, build momentum and suddenly find themselves in the latter stages with a real shot at winning. During my own predictive processes, it struck me that this may be the closest ever World Cup to call. In some ways, it’s insulting to label talented, if hitherto unknown teams, as dark horses – this doesn’t afford them the justice they deserve. So I’m going to go through a group of teams I’ve selected as ones to watch and examine their credentials, and uncover why each and every one demands to be taken seriously.
It is quite alarming that the Gerrard/Lampard central-midfield debate has been fully reignited in 2010. There shouldn’t really be any mystery as to why they don’t function as a centrally-located pairing in a 4-4-2. Under this arrangement it’s usually necessary for one player to take up holding duties (so that the formation is more acutely configured as 4-1-3-2.) Neither Lampard nor Gerrard are natural defensive midfielders, and when they did feature together in the centre for England, a clear demarcation of duties was seldom apparent. The impact of both players was accordingly diminished as they struggled to navigate the ambiguity of a midfield lacking sufficient scaffolding. Neither could play their natural attacking game free from excessive defensive concerns, and it seems the principal focus was upon the ongoing negotiation of their respective duties. But even when a defensive midfielder was placed behind Lampard and Gerrard in a 4-5-1 formation (for example at World Cup 2006) they still failed to perform to the expected standard.