| ENGLAND |  | 2 | : | 4 |  | ITALY |
0 : 0 a.e.t.
ORDER OF PENALTIES
Balotelli (0:1), Gerrard (1:1), Montolivo (1:1), Rooney (2:1), Pirlo (2:2),
Young (2:2), Marchisio (2:3), Cole (2:3), Diamanti (2:4)
My match rating: ★★★
History repeating... in reverse. In the semifinal of Euro 2000, Italy and Holland were tied 0-0 after extra time. It had been a crazy match. Italy played with a man down for over an hour after Zambrotta's ejection. Yet the Dutch couldn't capitalize and missed two penalties in regulation. It went down to a shootout. Before a baffled home crowd in Amsterdam, Italy's Toldo saved three more and gave his team the final.
There is not very much to say about the rest of the match. Italy dominated far and wide, as you can read in the reports linked. They attacked relentlessly but with order for 120 minutes, shooting a 35 times, of which 24 on goal, and leading twice as many overall attacks as England. De Rossi effectively shut out Rooney for the majority of the game, keeping England's star to one shot, one header, and very few touches overall. As usual, De Rossi and Pirlo engineered the Italians' midfield dominance. For lengthy stretches, including the last 20 minutes of the first half and the first 20 of the second, England did not shoot on goal. For much of the second half they never even crossed their own midfield. It was as one-sided a match as I have ever seen in a major international tournament. As the Britons are older and more experienced than Italy's makeshift team, credit goes to Prandelli for out-smarting Hodgson at what was essentially a game of chess. Football matches are played on the pitch, but they are won on the tactical board, and tonight was resounding evidence of that fact.
ORDER OF PENALTIES
Balotelli (0:1), Gerrard (1:1), Montolivo (1:1), Rooney (2:1), Pirlo (2:2),
Young (2:2), Marchisio (2:3), Cole (2:3), Diamanti (2:4)
My match rating: ★★★
My man of the match: Pirlo (I)
UEFA report ---|||--- Player ratings ---|||--- Photos ---|||--- Highlights
UEFA report ---|||--- Player ratings ---|||--- Photos ---|||--- Highlights
 |
That match was significant for two reasons. For one, it was the first time that Italy won a penalty shootout, having lost that way three straight times in the last decade: to Argentina in the 1990 World Cup semi, to Brazil in the 1994 World Cup final, and to France in the 1998 World Cup quarters. The "damned penalties" were the bane of Italy's football throughout my childhood... but not this time: this major win on penalties felt like a long-time-coming liberation. The other reason was Francesco Totti. In the shootout against the Netherlands, Italy's star winger scored the most daring penalty I have ever seen anyone take (video here). In English they call it a "Panenka penalty," after the Czech player who pioneered it in 1976. In Italy we simply call it "the spoon," given its soft and curved trajectory. Totti's comment in tight Roman dialect during a TV interview ("gli ho fatto er cucchiaio!" = I gave them the spoon, an obvious double-entendre) quickly became a national catchphrase. Kicking a penalty that way is of course extremely risky, for all the goalie has to do to save it is stand still and welcome the ball as it flies gently into his gloves. The appeal, then, is that no goalie ever does that. He always commits to a side and dives, hoping that it's the side that the kicker has chosen, and by the time he's down he has no time to get back on his feet and catch the "Panenka." It is, of course, extremely irreverent; some who don't really get football even call it disrespectful or unsportsmanlike.
And today, in the penalty shootout against England, Pirlo "gave them the spoon" again. Only that this time Italy was down a penalty, while in the Netherlands match they were still even. It was incredible. To do something like that you must be either totally insane or totally confident. I think Totti was insane and Pirlo was confident. He looked calm and in control, just as he had in 2006 when he shot a great (conventional!) penalty against France in the World Cup final. His face betrayed no emotion. After the goal, he didn't even cheer, which is uncharacteristic for him. He knew exactly what he was doing. One may then ask: why did he do it? What need was there to take such a risk? As every leader should, Pirlo knew that after Montolivo's error Italy's chances were waning and his young teammates were losing hope. So since the next two penalty takers (Marchisio and Diamanti) were young and inexperienced, Pirlo must have felt that he needed to blow the horn. And what better way than to reference the classic cucchiaio, the moment that Italy broke free from the "damned penalties" and, at last, came out on top? I think Totti was just cocky in 2000, but I am positive that all of this was going through Pirlo's mind tonight as he walked up to the spot. He meant to do it, he meant to send a message, and he knows very well that certain actions in football speak much more loudly than their intrinsic value. If I am right, then this was a sublime moment in football strategy and sports psychology. It must have peeved the Brits, too, as they would not score again thanks to the misses by Young and Cole. I am reluctant to congratulate Buffon for the save on Cole, for whenever a penalty doesn't go in, it's the kicker who did something wrong. The goal is very, very large, and the spot is very, very close. If the kick is good, the penalty is virtually unsavable. With that said, good job Gigi for guessing right three times out of four and eventually grabbing this one!
There is not very much to say about the rest of the match. Italy dominated far and wide, as you can read in the reports linked. They attacked relentlessly but with order for 120 minutes, shooting a 35 times, of which 24 on goal, and leading twice as many overall attacks as England. De Rossi effectively shut out Rooney for the majority of the game, keeping England's star to one shot, one header, and very few touches overall. As usual, De Rossi and Pirlo engineered the Italians' midfield dominance. For lengthy stretches, including the last 20 minutes of the first half and the first 20 of the second, England did not shoot on goal. For much of the second half they never even crossed their own midfield. It was as one-sided a match as I have ever seen in a major international tournament. As the Britons are older and more experienced than Italy's makeshift team, credit goes to Prandelli for out-smarting Hodgson at what was essentially a game of chess. Football matches are played on the pitch, but they are won on the tactical board, and tonight was resounding evidence of that fact.
With all that said, it is an utter embarrassment that Italy had to win on a penalty shootout! The match "should" have ended 3-0, for that was the tactical, technical, and competitive disparity reflected in the actual play. But surely all the world's best tactics are useless if you don't actually put the bloody ball past the bloody line, and that Italy failed miserably to do. Balotelli had his usual great chances, which again he wasted, and it was again pretty ugly. De Rossi and Pirlo hit two posts. Montolivo failed to tap in the proverbial "I-would-have-scored-that-too!" ball after a half-assed save from Hart. England had their fair share of opportunities, too, but it makes sense to shoot on goal only 8 times and remain scoreless. But 24 times? And like this? Despite the tactical superiority and despite the resilience that eventually got them through, Italy are still lacking in the area that counts the most: scoring. That won't fly against the Germans, who will have as many chances, and they will convert them. Gomez doesn't wait too long to shoot. Lahm doesn't hit the post. Podolski doesn't fail the tap-in. Between now and Thursday, Italy will have work to do.
Speaking of Thursday, as the ESPN commentators Darke and McManaman rightfully remarked, the Euro 2012 calendar is unfairly laid out. When Italy and Germany play the second semifinal, Italy will have had only three full days' worth of rest. That wouldn't be a problem if it weren't that Germany will have had five. In major international events, with so many games crammed in a single month, every day counts. The winner of Italy-England would have been at some disadvantage because of the extra time and penalty shootout, but there's no way to control that: it's just part of the game. But there was a way to account for the different resting periods, and that is UEFA's fault. Traditionally, quarterfinals are played two-a-day, not one, precisely to avoid this kind of problem. I understand that it pays better and is more spectacular to have them spread out over four days, but they could have simply allowed everyone an extra day's rest between group stage and quarters, so as to allow the teams on the same side of the board to play on consecutive days. That would have reduced the first team's "advantage" to only one rest day, which is not crazy. Or they could have allowed that extra rest day between the quarters and the semis, because the difference of two full days' worth of rest is less relevant when the more tired team still had four full days to recover (that is, 4 and 6 is less unfair than 3 and 5). Either way, it should have been managed better. I'll just go ahead and blame monsieur Platini, for this and for all that is wrong with European football. It's easier!
The Italy-Germany rivalry is thus renewed. Another semifinal, like in 1970 and 2006, except this time it's the Euro and not the World Cup. Throw in the 1982 final and you have an absolutely stellar, unique set of precedents that no other two major teams have. The two teams have never met at a Euro, and Germany has never beaten Italy in a major tournament (see here). In 2006 especially, Italy had started off as the outsider. They were told they didn't stand a chance and that the Germans would cruise on their dead bodies on their way to the final. Well, we know how that turned out. This year, Italy's chances are still low, but they're not afraid of Löw, and they're flying to Warsaw in four days to prove it.
.
.
.
.
