A crazy day in Qatar

Argentina and Brazil, the two South American giants, competed in separate quarterfinal matches at the World Cup today. Most observers, including me, thought both teams were on their way to a mouth-watering clash in the semi-finals.

Both ran into fierce opposition — Brazil from Croatia, Argentina from Holland. Both matches were tied after two hours of play and had to be decided by penalty kicks. Argentina made it through. Brazil didn’t.

Here are a few thoughts on the matches, starting with Brazil-Croatia.

Those of us who have followed Brazil’s national team for the past three decades are accustomed to one constant — great fullback pairings. In the 1990s, it was Jorginho-Branco. Then came Cafu-Roberto Carlos. After that, Dani Alves-Marcelo.

But Brazil came into this tournament with no world class fullbacks. (Dani Alves was in the squad, but at age-39 did not play any meaningful minutes.) To make matters worse, two of its fullbacks suffered injuries during the tournament.

Thus, in today’s match, Brazil started a central defender, Militao, at right back and a good but not outstanding right back, Danilo at left back. Both were sound on defense, but neither provided much support for the Brazilian attack.

During the match, Landon Donavan’s commentary focused on the need for Brazil to overload its left attacking side. He called for the team to flood that zone with midfielders and forwards.

But the most straightforward way to attack down a particular side is with a great overlapping fullback. That’s what Brazil lacked today.

When the match went into overtime, Brazil’s coach sent left-back Alex Sandro, who has been battling injury, to warm up. He’s an attacking fullback in the Brazilian tradition. Though he’s not in the class of Branco, Roberto Carlos, and Marcelo, putting Alex Sandro on the left and moving Danilo to the right figured to give the team a much better attacking balance.

Then, Brazil scored in overtime.

At that point, I thought the coach would stick with the defensive-minded Militao to protect the lead. Instead, he went through with the change and, apparently, gave Danilo and Alex Sandro a mandate to push forward.

And so it was that with less than five minutes of overtime remaining and Croatia breaking into attack looking for the tying goal, it found acres of space on the attacking left (Brazil’s right) from which to set up the tying goal. (It didn’t help that Casemiro, Brazil’s great defensive midfielder, was caught up field.)

It’s in Brazil’s nature to close out tight matches by seeking another goal. That’s part of the reason why some of us like the Brazilians so much.

But Brazil’s attackers are good enough that the team can remain a credible scoring threat while keeping a solid defensive shape. Brazil didn’t do this today. The result was penalty kicks and, ultimately, defeat.

My sense is that if Brazil had been able to field a good attacking fullback pairing, this match never would have gone to overtime. I can’t imagine any defense, even one as good as Croatia’s, coping with the likes of Vinicius Junior, Raphinha, Rodrygo, and Antony on the wings, supported by world class marauding fullbacks.

The Argentina-Holland match was a crazy affair — as wild as any World Cup knockout round game I’ve ever seen. It featured an amazing comeback, an equalizer in the 111th minute, a couple of mini-brawls, a penalty kick shootout, and reportedly an after-match confrontation in which Lionel Messi got in Louis van Gaal’s face.

The short of it is that Argentina went up 2-0 only to concede a pair of late goals to Holland — the first in the 83rd minute and the second in the 101st minute (yes, the officials added 11 minutes of “stoppage time” to match). After 30 minutes of extra time, Argentina won on penalty kicks, 4-3.

The long of it is very long — too long to recount here. Because I’ve focused prior posts on the Dutch manager, Louis van Gaal, I’ll confine myself to discussing his tactical battle with Argentina’s relatively young coach, Lionel Scaloni.

Scaloni had the better of it for much of the match. For the first time this tournament, he opened with a lineup that featured three center backs. By doing so, he more-or-less matched up with the Dutch, who almost always play that way.

Scaloni’s move, which must have surprised van Gaal, offset the Dutch master’s surprise move of playing with three in attack — Memphis and Gakpo (as usual) and Bergwijn, who hadn’t started since the second match.

Scaloni also concentrated on attacking down the right, putting pressure on Daley Blint, probably the weakest Dutch defender and certainly the slowest. If only the U.S. had done this.

As good as some of the Dutch players are, Argentina was always going to have the advantage if the teams used similar tactics. And that’s how much of the match played out. Holland had heart, but Argentina had Messi, who assisted brilliantly on the opening goal, netted by the right wing-back, and scored from the penalty spot on the second.

But van Gaal had a Plan B. Literally. According to ESPN:

At halftime, there was a photo doing the rounds on social media of a document titled "Plan B." The photo was taken in the stadium, and it showed a pad of paper left on Van Gaal's chair during the match. On it was an alternative formation: 3-2-3-2, with Luuk de Jong and Weghorst leading the line.

To call Luuk de Jong and Weghorst journeymen would go too far. But neither has ever distinguished himself on the international stage. And Weghorst failed to make an impression playing for lowly (and since relegated) Burnley in the English Premier League.

But Luuk is tall and Weghorst is a giant by soccer standards. Plan B was to take advantage of the height of these two by sending balls into the penalty area aimed at their heads.

Argentina played into van Gaal’s hands by taking off Romero, arguably its best center back, in the 78th minute. Five minutes later, Weghorst scored on a header.

Holland continued its aerial assault and Argentina continued to struggle against it. Yet with the match in its last minute or two, Argentina still held the lead.

That’s when van Gaal’s next masterstroke came into play. Holland had won a free kick in great range for a shot on goal. But a previous attempt from almost the same spot had been blocked by the wall, and goals from such free kicks are rare.

So instead of shooting this time, Berghuis slipped a ball to Koopmeiners who was stationed right next to the Argentine wall. He flicked it on to Weghorst in front of goal, and the Dutch giant slotted it home for the equalizer. [CORRECTION: On second viewing, it’s clear that Koopmeiners passed the ball to Weghorst alongside the wall and Weghorst did the rest. Berghuis was not involved.]

“A goal straight from the training ground,” as they say.

This set up extra-time penalty kicks and Argentina’s eventual victory.

Finally, a word about the refereeing. This was an extraordinarily ill-tempered and at times dirty match. The ref handed out 16 yellow card (unless I lost count) and there were two near brawls.

The match was not well officiated. Antonio Miguel Mateu Lahoz, the Spanish referee, missed a number of calls and a few of them were mystifying.

But this match was virtually impossible to referee well. Neither team showed much regard for the rules. Both pushed things to the limit and occasionally beyond. Under these circumstances, I’m not sure any referee would have acquitted himself well. In my opinion, Michael Oliver, hands down the best referee in England, struggled almost as much with the Brazil-Croatia match, a considerably tamer affair.

After the match, Messi complained that the ref favored the Dutch. I don’t think so. He declined to issue a card to Messi for a blatant hand ball. He declined to red-card Parades for instigating an altercation with the Dutch bench by kicking the ball at it after fouling.

Several Argentines complained about free kicks awarded to the Dutch in good shooting range, including the free kick that resulted in the game-tying goal. Those looked like good calls to me. The Argentines should be blaming their center back, Otamendi, for giving the fouls away.

Messi and others complained about the eleven minutes of stoppage time at the end of regulation. That much extra time is almost unheard of in the soccer I normally watch.

However, it’s not that unusual at this tournament. Apparently, FIFA ordered officials to give the fans a full 90 minutes of action. This has resulted in large amounts of time-added-on throughout the World Cup.

The Argentines’ suggestion that the referee wanted the Dutch to tie the match is ludicrous. With all of the fouling that occurred, Lahoz easily could have reduced Argentina (or Holland, for that matter) to ten men.

These kind of complaints only reinforce Argentina soccer’s reputation for poor sportsmanship.

In my opinion, the officiating favored neither side in this match. It’s also my view that the Argentines deserved its victory and that the tournament will be better for having Argentina advance.

The tournament is also better for having given us this crazy, memorable match — one that owes a good deal to the tactical acumen of Louis van Gaal.