Ricardo Guerra analyses the systems of play employed in South Africa, with special emphasis on Brazil and the criticism levelled at their coach Dunga Following the elimination of the Brazilian national team from the World Cup in South Africa, Dunga, the head coach, became the target of some particularly vicious attacks by the Brazilian press, almost as if he was being crucified. The attacks targeted his temperament as a coach, the tactical schemes he utilised with the squad, the bureaucratic structure and the lack of flair in the way the team plays, his tenuous relationship with the press and the fact that certain players were left out of the final roster that would travel to South Africa. Those are the stated reasons, but perhaps the media is after Dunga for reasons that have nothing to do with soccer. The press in the United States, for the most part, protects their icons and national heroes. On the other hand, a certain segment -- the eternal critics -- of the Brazilian press have the habit of cannibalistically chewing their head coaches, reveling in the business of character assassination whenever given a chance. No matter what you do or not do they will predictably find something in the minutia, regardless of how flawed their argument. These systematic attacks on Dunga are not novel; segments of the Brazilian press have historically targeted coaches of the national team with excessive, myopic and unfounded remarks. In fact, for the last 35 years one would be hard pressed to find a head coach that has not been targeted by some of these eternal critics. Claudio Coutinho, highly educated and the mastermind behind the Brazilian World Cup campaign in 1978, was heavily criticised despite a solid third place finish. When Brazil lost to Italy in 1982, the press criticised Brazilian coach Tele Santana for playing a high-risk offensive game when only a draw was required to advance in the competition. In 1990, Sebasti�o Lazaroni was relentlessly harassed and became a major target of Brazilian comedians, especially when they mocked him for creating a different language called "Lazaronês." Although Carlos Alberto Parreira displayed extraordinary vision and wisdom, which resulted in his team winning the cup following a 24-year drought, he got little sympathy from the press. Parreira was unjustly and shamefully criticized for a style of soccer they considered "too European". Even Luiz Felipe Scolari was not spared by the press following his 2002 campaign leading Brazil to an unprecedented fifth title. Dunga is just one more victim of this well-established pattern of incessant assaults. There seems to be no one who can satisfy the critics. Following the loss against Holland, the critics asked if Brazil even deserved to be in the quarter-final stage of the cup following the 2-1 loss to North Korea. One is left to wonder if the same undying critics questioned if Germany, after losing to Serbia in the group stage, deserved to be in the semi-final? Did Spain deserve to be in the final and ultimately win the cup even though they lost to Switzerland in the first stage? Why should Uruguay even be in the cup after barely qualifying for the competition? Holland played a completely results-oriented game, uncharacteristic of their offensive roots. Should this have prevented them from playing in the final? Based on the logic of the Brazilian critics, almost any team could be labeled as unworthy. Globalisation has taken the game to every corner of the world. This extended reach has generated an equalising force; as Brazilians we should reflect over the painful reality that the gap has narrowed between us and the rest of the world in the ability to brilliantly play the game. Why do certain elements within our press still propagate, or promote, an arrogant, hubristic and colonial attitude that we have an obligation to obliterate all of our opponents? Equilibrium and parity among the major football powerhouses of the world is a reality today. With globalisation of the game, as attested to in this World Cup, it is difficult for any team to bury their opponent with a high scoring result. This same phenomenon also took place with US basketball. At one point, the country supremely ruled over all others within the sphere of the game. Currently certain countries such as Argentina, Spain, Russia and segments of the former Yugoslav bloc are a threat and on any give day could put up a fight or challenge, or even win. Dunga has been heavily criticised for playing a highly defensive, structured and tactical game. They see his style as lacking the flair that characterised Brazilian football during the 1970 and 1982 World Cup challenges. The problem is not Dunga and the style of football he implements with the national team. He is placing a team on the field with the most suitable technical and tactical characteristics to compete head- to-head in a cut-throat environment. Dunga should not be held accountable or in contempt for playing in such fashion anymore than all the other coaches in the competition. Why should he play the vulnerable TV-friendly offensive game when no other major powerhouse team in the World Cup plays in that fashion? FIFA is the one that needs to be held responsible for not doing enough, not revising antiquated rules, to make or force the game in a more offensive direction. By changing certain rules the game could potentially automatically take a more offensive direction regardless of the tactics being chosen by a coach. The goalless draw in the 90 minutes of normal play in the final between Holland and Spain was at times hard to watch when both sides, more specifically Holland, stalled the match by incessant fouling. A total of 14 cards were shown by the referee during the course of the match. It was an arduous battle where both teams played in a very cautious defensive form. Both squads were hesitant to move forward in full force, opening up, conceding spaces and territory, and consequently becoming vulnerable in the counter-attack. The way this match was played is indicative of how tactically cautious, regimented, and defensive oriented the game has become. In fact all the countries that made it to the final four of the competition -- Germany, Uruguay, Holland and Spain -- play a highly structured, tactically sound, disciplined and defensive-oriented game. Germany is an example of organisation both on and off the field. The German squad is solidly built in all sectors of play displaying an unyielding defence and a lethal counter-attack with tremendous speed. Consequently, they unequivocally ran over Argentina and England. In a recent conversation with Shad Forsythe, the fitness coach of the German team, member of athletes performance, he mentioned that Joachim Lowe believes the high fitness of a team was of the utmost importance and a critical component in ensuring that the desired and chosen tactical schemes will be employed effectively. Shad said the head coach believed in tactical discipline and that the players have to follow their assigned tasks and objectives, which have been carefully delineated in precise fashion. "We defend with the whole team not only with the back four within a tactically defined plan. Even Miroslav Klose and Mesut Ozil, our strikers, return to defend. When all the players follow their designated task of defensively covering space, the whole team, as one, consequently conserves energy since there is less space for each individual player to cover," said Shad. The Dutch coach, Bert van Marwijk, was responsible for a major shift in the national team's style of play when he shocked the country's very foundation by promoting a more defensive and pragmatic approach to the game. Until then, Holland was known for their kaleidoscopic Totaal Voetbal (Total Football), a highly offensive game, pioneered by the Ajax mastermind Rinus Michels, that was the trademark of the 1974 and 1978 World Cup teams. Van Marwijk waged war against his critics and the press when he designed a very structured style of play. He made the defensive unit into the foundation of the house, an unprecedented style of Dutch football until then. Currently Holland plays with six players with defensive characteristics. They have specifically assigned tasks and their defensive full backs are not as mobile offensively. During the course of the competition when journalists pressed him and asked if the team would play "total" football -- the entrenched offensive game that was the base of Dutch football -- Van Marwijk simply pointed out that Holland had never won the World Cup when playing in such a fashion. In the game against Brazil, the Dutch team used every tactic in the Italian playbook, making a mockery of FIFA's fair play slogan. Throughout the course of the game Arjen Robben, the striker, would fall to the ground upon the most innocent physical contact with the opponent in order to obtain favourable calls. Other Dutch players constantly pressured the referee. They complained about calls that were made against them and also about others that were not called. During the final match against Spain the same "fair play" was replicated as evidence by the eight yellow cards received by the squad, plus one red. This was not the Holland that we knew in the past. Uruguay played in superb fashion defensively, not conceding any goals in the group stage of the competition, and went forward lethally in the counter-attack with Suarez and Forlan. They got to the semi-final with a clear display of tactical discipline, cohesion, defensive unity and structure while their players valiantly declined to surrender. The Spanish team progressed to the final and won the World Cup playing compactly. Their game was tactically disciplined, relying on very short passes that facilitated maintaining ball possession for extended periods of time. Undoubtedly the Spanish team is one of the most tactically sound teams in the world. They have two experienced warriors, Puyol and Piqué, forming the base of the Spanish defence. Spain beat every opponent in the second stage of the tournament including Holland in the final by a meagre score of 1-0, not very indicative of a major offensive powerhouse. Initially maimed, and eventually murdered, in the field of battle by the German machine, Argentina the chosen one, the darling, and the most praised squad of the competition by the critics of Dunga. They heaped praise on Argentina for the team's offensive flair in their style of play. Maradona's disciples blatantly succumbed, and were humbled by their formidable opponents, for displaying a highly individualistic, disorganised and catastrophic defensive system. Argentina headed back to Buenos Aires following a chaotic display both on and off the field. Quarter-finalist Brazil played a highly structured and disciplined game in this World Cup. In the first half of the game against Holland, Brazil had several opportunities to bring the match to complete closure but failed to capitalise on the goal scoring opportunities presented to them. Eventually the Brazilian defence, the bedrock and the most praised unit of the competition until then, made two fatal mistakes in set plays culminating in their early exit from the competition. The international press, especially the American TV network commentators, lavished Dunga with praise for the tactical organisation of the Brazilian team until the tragic defeat. Critics argued that the Brazilian players at one point during the match against Holland showed signs of losing composure. One must understand that during the course of any given match there is a constant shift or fluctuation in the emotional stability of any given player. Up until the match against Holland, Brazil had won every match and did not have to deal with coming from behind in the scoreboard. When Holland went ahead the Brazilian players were predictably a little shaken, as would any team, not limited to only Brazil. Holland's' emotional resolve was also battered when Uruguay scored their second goal in their semi-final match and almost scored an additional goal in the final minutes that would have forced extra time. Germany, during their semi-final match with Spain, clearly looked emotionally unsettled. Dunga is also targeted by the critics for his volatile temperament on the sidelines. Many argue that his aggressive style of coaching and personality may have influenced the players negatively during matches. The idea that such a character trait is detrimental to performance is ludicrous. There are many examples of highly successful coaches within the game, past and present, who have or have had highly turbulent and impulsive personalities. Valeriy Lobanovskyi, the legendary Ukrainian coach, assembled together the formidable team of the former USSR in the 1980s despite being known for his explosive and tempestuous personality. Several years back during a visit to Kiev I was surprised to come across his statue in the centre of the city. It is a major tourist attraction, one built in his honour and as a show of appreciation for all his accomplishments. Luiz Felipe Scolari, "Big Phil", is known for his sideline antics, aggressiveness and truculent ways but has won almost everything there is to win in the game. Sir Alex Ferguson, also known for his obstreperous, dictatorial and disciplinarian ways, runs Manchester United with an iron fist. These traits did not prevent him from being at the top of the most competitive league in the world for many years. Several other sports have successful coaches with similar personalities. One can quickly recall Bobby Knight, a mythical figure within US college basketball, who was known for a multitude of unconventional theatrics and antics. During one game, he famously launched a chair into the middle of the court. He was known for submitting his players to corporal punishments for making mistakes and in one incident even physically assaulted a player. Within American football there are several other examples of coaches with confrontational and hostile personalities. Mike Ditka and Bill Cower are both known to walk around the sidelines exhibiting an intensity and facial expression usually associated with someone about to commit murder. Do the critics question Bernardinho over his coaching, the Brazilian super coach of the men's volleyball team, who has won every title in the book? Bernardinho is known for his highly explosive personality on the sidelines. These characteristics are more obvious due to his physical proximity to his players during games. Also, he is able to call several time- outs throughout the game where he shreds his players to pieces with his blatant rage. Nevertheless, that surely does not affect his players and has not precluded him from winning. What would the same critics have professed if Dunga presented himself with a passive and subdued demeanor such as the one displayed by Sven Goran Eriksson, the head coach of the Ivory Coast? What if he had replicated the posture of Raymond Domenech, the French head coach, with his cute little designer glasses, watching his team as if he was in an opera house, perform pathetically during his games? They would have surely accused Dunga of standing too passively and of not providing enough motivation to the players in the field. What is really surprising is that the same critics that systematically attack Dunga for being so strict, stubborn, rough, and lacking in refinement never mention how much he is admired and respected by the players within the team. The players were completely devastated following the match against Holland and mentioned how sorry they were not to have done better for their coach. Over dinner before the return flight, Julio Cesar, the goalkeeper of the team, emotionally made a speech in honour of Dunga that apparently brought tears in the room from several players. Conflict between segments of the press and successful sports figures, specifically head coaches, is far from being a recent occurrence. In fact it has happened on multiple occasions over the last few decades. Sir Alfred Ramsey, the legendary head coach of the English team which won the World Cup in 1966, was known to have a turbulent relationship with the media. Jose Mourinho, the Portuguese, Inter Milan coach, who won the European Cup twice with both Inter and Porto is known to purposely antagonise the media with the intent to stir an us-against-them mentality in order to motivate his players. Billy Martin, the famous head coach of the New York Yankees in Major League Baseball, was known for his outbursts and profanity directed at the press. In American football these incidents are commonplace and embedded in the tenuous relationships between media representatives and coaches. Finally it would be very important to note that the type of temperament a coach has and the way he interacts with his players and his relationships with the press is not a determining factor or a pre-condition for success. The same way that coaches with challenging personalities are successful there are many other examples of leaders with a more tempered, a zen like philosophy, that are just as victorious. It would be extremely naïve and not accurate to blame the defeat against Holland on the personality of Dunga. One of the biggest challenges facing a head coach, of any sport, is managing the ego of the millionaire superstar athletes. To instill in a team an egoless and collective mentality among the players can seem insurmountable. The media is quick to fire at Dunga for not calling certain players to the national team. But what the same media apparently does not understand is that Dunga may have very well been shielding the team from individuals whose egos could not be harnessed for the collective mentality required for participation in a sport that is dependent on inter-connectedness. At times, it can be risky and not worth the hassle to bring a top star that has a destructive ego. Multiple examples of individualistic attitudes presented themselves during this World Cup. The English squad had an internal break among their group that may have lead to their early exit from the competition. The French team imploded and better resembled a bunch of egotistical divas following the Anelka incident with the head coach. Henry, the superstar striker, was seen on more than one occasion to take the ball away from Ribery by force whenever their was a free kick. Cristiano Ronaldo, the Portuguese superstar, was clearly seen to, at times, not even acknowledge his co-players. In contrast, the Brazilian team had a camaraderie from within and a cohesive group mentality very difficult to obtain in any professional team and not seen in that squad in many years. For that and many other accomplishments of Dunga the press was silent. Many in the camp of the eternal critics accuse Dunga of not including in the final roster of the squad Ganso and Neymar and a few others that played in the 2006 World Cup team. Even though Neymar and Ganso are talented players, they have limited experience, and there was not enough time for Dunga to observe them playing and to consequently integrate them into the team. The young players from Germany had significant experience in their respective team prior to the cup. Holger Badstuber and Thomas Muller had even participated in the final of the European cup prior to the World Cup and surely had a depth of experience that the two Brazilian players did not. It is not surprising that after every tragic loss Brazil has in a World Cup, segments of the press attempt to find a scapegoat or a "Barbosa", the infamous goalkeeper of the 1950 squad blamed for the defeat in the final against Uruguay, to torment or crucify. Football is a team sport, played in a collective group fashion, where there are multiple factors that can influence the outcome of a match. It is time that the critics embark on a soul searching mission and determine if their failed attempts to convert the Brazilian training camp, during the competition, into a reality show or a soap opera were in the best interest of the squad. These attempts are truly at the centre of their attacks on Dunga; a coach who showed mettle and principal in denying access and preventing the soap opera atmosphere the media sought. Dunga, a square jawed, intense man with a fierce look, is built along the lines of an American football coach: no- nonsense, authentic, hard working, but a drill sergeant whose primary focus is to ingrain a collective, selfless mentality within the spirit of the team. His main fault may be that just like his team he is unwilling to turn himself into a darling of the media at the expense of what he believes is decent and integrous. Barbosa, the infamous goalkeeper, once said, "In Brazil, the maximum penalty for any crime is 30 years, and it has been almost 50 years since that fateful match and I am still carrying the blame and the sorrow from that defeat." [email protected] The writer, an exercise physiologist and strength and conditioning coach, has worked with several clubs and teams in the Middle East and Europe, including the Egyptian and Qatari national squads.
