Ill-advised back threes and games of four quarters

The United States sparkled, South Africa were extremely disappointing in approach as much as execution, and hydration breaks are a dreadful innovation

For the World Cup, given time differences and the fact I have very little idea what day it is, Wilson’s World will break from the standard Monday-Thursday routine to a less regular pattern. There will be some full columns, but also others, like today’s, of thoughts I’ve had and have nowhere else to express. Some will be free and some will be paywalled.

South Africa’s Baffling Approach

Over the past three or four years, South Africa have been one of the most watchable sides in Africa, technically good and with an attacking instinct that has been harnessed by Hugo Broos. They got to the semi-final of the 2023 Cup of Nations (played in 2024) on the back of clean sheets allied to creative sparkle. Their 2-0 win over Morocco in the last 16 in Côte d’Ivoire was arguably the best South African performance since the glory days of the 1990s. There seemed then evidence of a new wave, inspired by the large contingent at Mamelodi Sundowns (eight of them in the World Cup squad) who beat FAR Rabat in this season’s African Champions League final, having been runners-up the previous year.

But at the most recent Cup of Nations, played over New Year in Morocco, South Africa lost 2-1 to Cameroon in the last 16. Cameroon looked quicker, stronger, smarter, allowing South Africa the ball and exposing them on the break. Perhaps that played on Broos’s mind, because the way they played in that opening game against Mexico was completely different to how they have played under him over the past two years.

Only once before under Broos have they set up with a back five, in the semi-final of the 2023 Cup of Nations against Nigeria. Then too, perhaps, fear of the occasion took hold. It was a desperately cagey game, in which South Africa equalised with a last-minute penalty but lost in a shoot-out. Was Broos concerned his side would wilt amid the frenzy of the Azteca? Even Javier Aguirre, the Mexico manager, spoke of his side suffering “stage fright” in the cauldron of green. Was Broos worried Mexico might dominate them physically, as Cameroon had?

Either way, it didn’t work. South Africa seemed inhibited, tentative, their attempts to slow the game down and control possession only leading to them into pressing traps, such as brought the first goal. Whether the fault lay with Ronwen Williams for playing the pass or with Sphephelo Sithole for dealing with it so ineptly can be debated, but where Sithole deserves sympathy is for his red card. There’s no doubt it was a sending off as Sithole tanged with Brian Gutierrez but the situation only developed because Nkosinathi Sibisi, the right-sided centre-back, had got caught playing three or four yards behind the defensive line. Players can make mistakes at any time, of course, but playing in an unfamiliar system probably makes such errors more likely.

*
The Power and the Glory, my history of the World Cup, is now out in paperback. Buy it here or here.

Jon Hotten’s brilliant book, Vinciness, is available now in paperback. Order it here. Originally produced as a limited edition hardback, it uses James Vince’s career as a meditation on sport, fragility and frailty. Heartily recommended.

Issue Sixty-One of The Blizzard is available here, featuring Brazil, Argentina, Belgium’s first international coach, a photo-essay from Uzbekistan, memories of Scotland in 1998, a look at Curaçao and Cape Verde and an investigation into what went wrong for Serbia-Montenegro in 2006.

On It Was What It Was, the football history podcast, we start a series on England and the 1966 World Cup. Listen here.

World Cup Wednesdays continue on the It Was What It Was Patreon, with 2010, while last Friday we talked to Sam Kunti about Brazil piost-2002. Members can binge all four 1966 episodes now. Join up here.

On Libero, we preview the World Cup. Listen here.

*

Hydration Breaks Must Go

Before the tournament I had, to be honest, been ambivalent about hydration breaks. If that’s what it takes to protect the well-being of players, I thought, so be it. I’ve been at plenty of games in which there have been breaks – at the Brazil World Cup, in the Premier League and at Cups of Nations. They always just seemed to pass by.

It turns out the breaks at this World Cup are different, more insidious for being mandatory. You know they’re coming. They seem to take forever. The play feels as though it’s shaped by them. The temperature in the Azteca was warm, but in no sense unpalatably hot: officially 23 degrees Celsius, although cooler when it clouded over. That’s not a danger to anybody. But we have the breaks so they can fit in more ads.

It turns out, football is better when it’s two halves of 45 minutes rather than four quarters of 22.5 minutes. In that opening game, South Africa just seemed to be establishing a foothold in the game when the first-half break came. Mexico reset and took control again. Rhythm, in turns out, matters a lot. In fact, given how low-scoring a game football is, it’s probably the most important thing – and Fifa have messed with it without really seeming to think through the consequences. Once again, the sport itself has been sacrificed to commercial instincts.

*

The Thrilling US Start

This has been a more open World Cup so far than I’d anticipated, although that maya be because the nature of the group stage, with two-thirds of the best third-place teams going through, means that, as yet, there is very little jeopardy. The big danger was always going to be in the last 32 when one slip, or one freakish goal, could eliminate a giant and a cautious cloud may yet descend. But the most impressive side over the first two days, by far, has been the USA.

Folarin Balogun produced a pair of excellent finishes (and one further effort that was ruled offside), suggesting that the US have the sort of firepower that was notably lacking from either South Korea or Canada, both of whom dominated their games without taking full advantage. And Christian Pulisic, confidence boosted by one early shuffle at pace, excelled, albeit he remains, as he was in his Chelsea days, a player much better at running at opponents than at doing anything with the ball once he’s beaten them. There was one hilariously dreadful cross that flew across the box about 50 feet in the air, and even his cross for the second goal was deflected.

But it didn’t really matter because of the sense of momentum the US generated. This is a Paraguay side that had conceded only 10 goals in 18 games in qualifying, and yet they were overwhelmed by the waves of US attacks, rattled into basic errors. In that sense, the USA are a very Pochettino side, and there appears reason for them to be extremely optimistic. Although perhaps the biggest question going forward is whether Pochettino will continue to dress like late-70s Roger Moore. Every shot of the bench looked like a young Russell Crowe had been cast in a remake of Moonraker. You just hope one of the multitude of Hollywood royalty who were there in LA have the foresight to make it.