Month: June 2015

The aftermath. Euro 1980 was expected with big hopes. New formula, more teams – it was expected to be exciting tournament. After the end the tone was minor. Menotti was highly critical during the championship, accusing Europeans of boring defensive play. After the last match the European opinion was very similar: the finals produced very few exciting matches. The final was highly entertaining, but hardly any other. Compared to the 1976 finals, 1980 was dismal tournament – back in 1976 all matches of the final stage were enjoyable to watch. Now, with more teams, the number of memorable games shrunk to almost nothing. Tactically, nothing new was discovered. In 1972 there was huge difference between the new total football played by West Germany and the rest of the finalists. The new football was superior to the old and this was the way for the future – in 1980 nothing similar emerged. No innovations. Even commercially the new formula felt short – bigger tournament was much more expensive and required full gates. It was hoped that longer and bigger tournament will bring crowds to the stadiums, but it did not. In fact, only the matches with Italy brought high attendance – the biggest was not the final, but Italy-England – almost 60 000. The final was attended by less than 50 000. Nine of the matches were attended by less than 25 000 – a good 50% of the total! On the lowest side was Czechoslovakia – Greece, attended by less than 5000. Numbers were too small for grand event. And the numbers went along with mediocre football: the public somewhat guessed right – there was no point watching most of the matches. This was recognized by unlikely place: Artemio Franchi and the head of the West German Federation Neuberger both criticized the new formula as entirely ineffective and called for return to the old one of direct elimination with a country hosting only the last stage of semi-finals and finals. Both official said they were against the new formula because it lowered the quality of the game. Teams were putting everything they were capable of because of calculations. Some matches were not even important and at least one side did not care, saving strength for the next stage. That was the general view of the game. This championship had no shine and nothing new. ‘France Press’ evaluated all teams and the conclusion was that:

1. West Germany – might, speed, skill, spirit, two new leaders – Schuster and Briegel.

2. Belgium – fantastic ability to adapt to the style of the opponent and organize its game to a specific opponent. Excellent collective play, great goalkeeper, excellent reader of the game – van Moer, masters of the off-side trap.

3. Czechoslovakia – masters of killing the tempo, very serious approach, needing to change the squad with younger players, masters of penalty shots.

4. Italy – 2 goals in 4 home games was a verdict in itself, old-fashioned attacks, a coach speaking unrealistically – looked like Italy was stuck and nothing new happened and was possible to happen.

5. England – major disappointment. All except Wilkins looked too tired, amazingly old English ‘kick and run’ tactical approach, unfortunately the same for 15 years already.

6. Holland – under the shadow of Cruijff and seemingly unable to get out of there. Speed was lost. Kist did not deliver.

7. Spain – pleasant to watch, but lacking experience and not in good physical condition. Too much individualism, but with some bright promising moments. May be will be different in 1982.

8. Greece – not bad debut at such level, good impression from Mavros and Ardizoglou.

The summary was devastatingly right… Euro 1980 gave very little positive. As for the negative, there was plenty of it and the biggest negative aspect was outside the pitch. Even the best 11 of the finals were not entirely unquestionable:

1. Zoff (Italy) – 2. Gentile (Italy) 3. K-H. Forster (West Germany) 5. Scirea (Italy) 4. Briegel (West Germany) – 6. Tardelli (Italy) 8. Schuster (West Germany) 10. Muller (West Germany) – 7. Rummenigge (West Germany) 9. Hrubesch (West Germany) 11. Ceulemans (Belgium). Understandably, half of the selected players are Germans – champions always are preferred – but the rest are Italians and Italy finished 4th. Only one Belgian player. Somewhat limited selection, but few players shined and many disappointed. If one is looking for alternatives and omitted players, there was little to find: Pfaff instead of Zoff, Gerets instead of Gentile, van Moer instead of Tardelli. May be Antognoni instead of Muller and Krol instead of K-H. Forster. A good number of established stars were either not outstanding (Stielike, Kaltz, Francois van der Elst, Bettega, Wilkins) or bellow average (Keegan, Brooking, van de Kerkhof twins, Rep, Haan). None of the Czechoslovakian players, half of whom were champions in 1976 made strong impression – rather the opposite. Holland and England utterly disappointed. Only two teams impressed and they will be treated separately. Scoring was low and there were almost no memorable matches apart from the final. What was memorable was entirely negative.

Hooliganism. It was not new and was entirely British phenomena. The ugly and dangerous side football culture was getting bigger and more troublesome, but so far was also limited to domestic English games. Europe saw little of it and of short duration too – only when English club played European final. Trouble was limited o a day, even less, by the fact that the final is only one match. The English invaders had little time for massive destruction – a few hours before and after the match, and they were gone home. But long tournament concentrated them in another country for at least a week and damage was not done to a single city, for the English fans moved to where their team was scheduled to play. For the first time championship of national teams was tarnished by outrageous behavior of the English fans and it was a big warning for the future.

One of the most memorable moments of the 1980 European finals was the huge fight started by the English fans in the match against Belgium. It spilled beyond the stadium and was not limited just to day of the match. One man died. Many were wounded. Instead of festive, the new atmosphere at the stadiums was becoming hostile. The image of the 1980s was taking shape: drunk, half naked brutes fighting with heavily armed Police. A picture of war.

The question of security loomed large: nothing new about mounted Police patrolling near stadiums before and after games, but this was changing – now Police had to cover practically the whole city and patrol constantly. And not only patrol, but act, for drunk fans rioted constantly, thrashing everything in their way, looting, attacking bystanders, disrupting the normal life. Bars and restaurants quickly learned to simply close down and refuse to serve the English, if they were in town. Which only infuriated the invaders. Euro 1980 was almost halted when Milan’s Mayor threatened to close down the city stadium because of the violence: it was again a new problem difficult to deal with, for the venue was property of the city and no federation – national or international – had the power to operate it. The possibility of interrupted and even stopped and abandoned championship came as a result of increasing fans violence. And the Mayor had a strong point too: why his city should suffer damage and pay for it? The question of the English fans became huge and urgent. It was debated by UEFA, by English Federation, by the English clubs, by the media, by the Police, by politicians. It concerned larger issues as freedom of movement and individual liberties – it was simply impossible to refuse people their rights. On purely sporting scale the problem was aggravated by the sharp contrast between English on the pitch and English on the streets. English teams were liked for their spirit and behavior – they were gentlemen. Fair and entertaining players. For that, English teams attracted large crowds. Unfortunately, English teams had the largest traveling supporters and they were the problem. Since the problem was still new and in its infant stage, continental Europeans were not very happy with the attitude of English clubs and officials: the clubs almost dismissed the problem with the argument that they cannot be responsible for some fans. Officials and players, even when condemning the hooligans, were quick to add that it is a matter of only few ‘rotten apples’. Often a finger was pointed at the ‘foreign’ Police, which treated English fans harshly and thus provoked them. From the English side, it looked like as self-defense after unjust treatment: after all, what is one to do when a restaurant blankly refuses to serve him a glass of beer? ‘Foreigners’ raised the issue of costs – and here the English were quite stubborn: they were not to be involved with crowd control beyond English borders, but the fans were not to be subjected to ‘foreign’ rules either. The debate was at impasse, for England wanted to host the 1984 European finals and the English argument was that they know how to deal with their fans, so there will be no problem. It sounded as not very well veiled accusation of the ‘continentals’ for the problems – they don’t know how to treat English, thus creating problems. In reality, nobody knew what to do yet – the 1980s were coming with their ugly face and huge, spreading across Europe problems with the new violent fan culture. It needed the tragedy of Heysel Stadium to start really dealing with the problem – which generally lead to massive increase of restrictions and Police presence. As for fans violence… it is very much alive today everywhere. 1980 was the clear mark of huge change – going to football match was never to be simple Saturday peaceful entertainment. It became a dangerous adventure.

The final. It had all needed for a final – one team was obvious and expected favourite, which did not disappoint so far. The other was surprising team, which came as an outsider, but impressed by getting stronger and stronger. Weather added to the tensions: it was very hot in Rome – the temperature was above 30 degrees Celsius. News from team-camps increased the heat. Tensions in the German team surfaced. Magath was not happy at all – he said that he is better than those chosen to play and he will no longer be available for the national team because of that. Sounded like open rebellion just before the most important game. And also the ugly specter of the aftermath of 1974 raised its head: back then

Netzer and Breitner refused to play for the national team. Magath’s club team-mate Hrubesch added fire too: ‘Good we have to play against Belgium with their tall and physical defense. Derwall will not be a fool to leave me on the bench.’ Did not sound very flattering opinion of the coach. Del’Haye, not a starter anyway, sounded strangely happy to stay out of the final: ‘Today’s football is getting more and more brutal. It becomes just a matter of stronger bones.’ It sounded as if he is happy to save his for his new club, Bayern. It also sounded as a veiled criticism of Derwall chosing Allofs and not Del’Haye. The players were not alone and not entirely out of the mark: ever since Gerd Muller stopped played for West Germany center-forwards were under close scrutiny and found deficient. Hansi Muller was often criticized for his play too. But it was one thing outsiders to be critical and quite another insiders to voice their unhappiness: it meant trouble. Just hours before the final it looked like a big trouble.

Trouble in the Belgian camp was different. Once again the ‘unprofessional’ conduct of the Belgians was made public – the West German magazine ‘Bild’ run a new batch of scandalous photos of the Belgians lazily smoking and drinking along with their coach. Their reaction to the photos was even more scandalous: Walter Meeuws just laughed and dismissed the whole thing. “’Bild’ came here to take a look at us, saw our camp is no military barracks and felt offended. In one word – Germans.” Guy Thys preferred to address different critical points: ‘Against England we used zonal defense and the off-side trap. Against Italy we used Italian tactics. There is no problem at all – if we have to attack, we will attack.’ It was not a mere hint – it was already observed that Belgium used specific tactic for every opponent. West Germany was open team, so apparently Belgium was going to fight them in midfield in the same manner. The only question was was Belgium capable of attacking football – many were skeptical and thought Thys was talking nonsense.

The match started fulfilling bits of what was said before it: Magath was not a starter again. Hrubesch was. The West Germans were tense and careful. Belgium – a bit sluggish, perhaps because of the beer in their stomachs. West Germany pressed and pushed ahead – and what Thys feared most happened: an early goal. Schuster started dangerous attack and Hrubesch finished it. 1-0. Belgium responded in perhaps unexpected way – it neither moved blindly in attacks, nor stayed back defensively waiting for counter-attacking opportunity. Instead, van Moer took full reigns of the team and slowly, almost unnoticed, started to increase the tempo, taking possession of the central zone and build attacks. At first it did not work – Stielike, Kaltz, and Briegel became the players most involved, that is, the defensive players of Germany, not the creative Schuster and Muller. But those involved were versatile and capable of conducting attacks. The Belgian effort to press Germany back almost backfired – twice Rummenigge and once Schuster missed chances to score in the first half. On the other hand, Belgium had no scoring opportunity in the first half.

Jan Ceulemans seems formidable, but very alert Dietz is ready to tackle, determined to take possession of the ball. Hrubesh comes from behind, ready to help or to get a pass from Dietz and rush toward the Belgian net again. The picture of the first half – Germany was slightly stronger and more dangerous. If not for excellent save by Pfaff, the result would have been 2-0 – Allofs had a good chance and his shot was deadly on target.

In the second half Belgium increased the tempo, took the initiative at last, and dominated for good 20 minutes. The Germans were also unlucky – Briegel injured himself and was replaced by Cullmann. This change looked like fulfillment of the dark thoughts of every enemy of Derwall: back to the ugly pragmatic game. Back to the struglle, to the tackling, to the relentless pressing of the opponent, back to killing creativity and keeping minimal advantage by crushing under Prussian boot. It looked like Derwall had no answer to Belgian domination and desperately tries to keep the result with defensive play. And it did not work! Belgium pushed forward and got a penalty. There was no doubt hat Stielike fouled Rene Vandereycken. And it was crystal clear that it was a professional foul – the ugly pragmatic German invention, which spread as a plague in the 1980s: when in trouble, just bring down the opponent. The very reason rules were changed in the 1990s – today Stielike will be send off automatically. Back in 1980 there was no even yellow card. The only punishment was a penalty – which was not a penalty at all: a slow replay after the match showed that Stielike fouled Vandereycken outside the penalty area, but it was very close and the referee was hardly to be blamed for his mistake. Vandereycken stepped in and scored. 1-1 in the 72nd minute. It looked like West Germany was going to lose. Belgium missed chances in 74th and 80th minutes.

Although it looks like Germany was in desperate defense on paper, it was not so: both teams attacked, only Belgium slightly dominated the game in the second half. But the effort was too much for physically weaker Belgians and they started to look tired. As ever, the Germans were fresher and stronger in the last minutes than their opponents. That was perhaps the decisive factor. A minute before the end of the match Rummenigge placed the ball in front of the Belgian net from a corner-kick. Millekamps and Meeuws were slow to react. Hrubesch was not. He was no Gerd Muller – he was big, strong, English type center-forward, deadly in the air. His header was unstoppable.

Hrubesch just fired the ball towards the net. 2-1. German journalists roared in the Press-center ‘Das Ungeheuer schlug zu!’ There was no time for Belgian response. The match was more than entertaining and there was no grief that the Germans won it by their not always loved specialty – goal at the very end of the game.

Dietz and Hrubesch happy with European Cup. Deserving champions, no doubt. Just picture too – two of the ‘unflashy’ players. To a point, a warning for the future… Not stars, but ‘workers’ win trophies. But who can blame them? Dietz captained the new European champions and monster-looking Hrubesch made them champions.

Coaches were good-natured, polite, and generous after the game. Thys said he cannot blame his team for losing at the very end and is happy with the achievement. Derwall acknowledged that the opponent was dangerous and he feared for the outcome. He was glad the final was entertaining. This was more than after-match politeness. Thys considered – and said so earlier – his team still in building phase. To be ripe in the next two years or so. Derwall was aware of criticism, tensions, and problems. He found the right blend slowly and it was not even complete – there was quite a lot to be done in the future.

Apart from feeling sorry for the underdog, Belgium was rightly second. They were a bit weaker than the champions. But it was well-deserved silver – the ‘Red Devils’ came as outsiders. They had excellent tournament and became the most talked about team. They very little to be champions, but it was objective limitation of which coach and players were well aware of . They lost the final, but without blemish and were the most successful Belgian national squad in history. More than silver medals would have been a matter of sheer luck, not ability.

Triumphal European champions. West Germany was the team most deserving to win. Character was never lacking, but this team showed similarity with the great team of the early 1970s – they were able to play, not just to run. As a whole, West Germany was bit stronger than Belgium – their victory left no bitter taste in the mouth.

The ‘small final’ for the bronze medals. Good old days – third place still mattered. It mattered for Czechoslovakia – Venglos stated it a few times, it was the maximum this team was able of, even above maximum. It mattered for Italy as well – Bearzot wanted to end the tournament positively, in part because Italy was unlucky and missed playing the final. In part, positive ending was needed to neutralize the negativity of the Tottonero scandal – as a point that Italian football, or at least the national team, was not all about corruption. Both teams were interested in ‘the meaningless’ match, but it was not so with the man on the street. Fans were disappointed, for they wanted Italy to win the title and only less than 25 000 attended the stadium in Naples. It was entirely Italian crowd – in 1980 Czechoslovakian citizens were not free to travel to the West. Both teams started with their best lines. Only injured Antognoni was missing – a problem for Bearzot, for he had no other playmaker of similar class. Bettega was moved slightly back again, but still Italy was playing 4-3-3. Czechoslovakia once again was defensively minded – 4-4-2, but really with 5 defenders, for Vojacek – like in the previous matches – was listed as midfielder, but was and played a central defender. Jurkemik was assigned to cover Bettega. The beginning of the match was no surprise – Italy attacked, Czechoslovakia moved back into sturdy defense, looking for counter-attacks. And their scheme worked better. Czechoslovakia was not entertaining to the eye, but, unlike Italy, had a chance to score to score in the first half. And they scored first anyway – it was this very Jurkemik, whose role was to shadow Bettega.

In the 53rd minute Czechoslovakia was leading 1-0. No, it was not a penalty – Jurkemik powerfully kicked deflected ball from 20 meters.

Italy managed to equalize in the 77th minute, thanks to Graziani’s header.

Happy Italians… for the moment.

It was not attractive and memorable match. Jozef Barmos with ball was highly praised by Czechoslovakian press and this may be the best description of the ‘small final’ – watchful, careful Czechoslovakians, staying back and preventing danger. A triumph of the defenders. 1-1 in regular time and nothing different in extra time. Penalty shoot-out. Also nothing new… that was how Czechoslovakia won the European title in 1976. Venglos apparently was ready for such outcome: his team trained penalty kicks for a long time. Vaclav Jezek, who coached Czechoslovakia to victory in 1976 concurred: “It was not the best match today. If our boys win, it could be only in the shoot-out’.

And the shoot-out was the only trill this day. Both teams did not miss at all after the regular 5 shots. Twice the Italians were lucky, for the ball deflected from the bar to the net. Nobody missed the gate; no keeper managed to block a shot. 8-8. Collovati stepped in then. He kicked the ball. Netolicka guessed the direction and blocked the ball. On the goal-line.

Or behind? Looks like a goal… Collovati triumphal and Netolicka – unhappy.

The critical moment – where is the ball? The referees ruled it did not cross the goal-line.

Jaroslav Netolicka happy now… no goal. Netolicka became a hero and his saved penalty – quintessential moment of victory. But it was not victory yet – still Czechoslovakia had to score. Barmos did not miss – 9-8. Yet, the image of Netolicka remained… The drama was over at last.

A rare result, worth showing. If only the match was as interesting as the information board…

 

 

Empty-handed Italy. Of course, the whole Italy was disappointed. Bearzot was diplomatic and trying to defend his team: ‘Both teams deserved bronze medals. Apart from West Germany, we were the most balanced team at the finals. Many speak against Graziani today, but,in my opinion, he did his job well. We had scoring opportunities, but we were without Giordano and Rossi to use them. And what is the matter anyway – a few months back England won over Argentina and everybody proclaimed them the best in the world. Where is England now?’ But Bearzot’s words did not change the obvious – Italy was not the impressive team of 1978. It was a worse team. It was also true that Italy did not lose a single match – but Brasil did not lose a match in 1978 and yet it was not impressive team.

May be a bit lucky, but with bronze medals. There were similarities between 1976 and 1980 – Czechoslovakia nobody counted, but the team came on top. Penalty shoot-outs brought them success both times. Both times the team delivered when it mattered after slow careful preparation. And there was continuity: Venglos was assistant coach of the 1976 champions. Five of the 1976 winners were starters in 1980. Stambachr was unused reserve in 1976 – in 1980 was a regular. The team changed slowly and carefully – there were practically no newcomers coming out of the blue: Vojacek and Gajdusek played often for the national team even before 1976. They were out of the winning team back then, but regulars in 1980. Czechoslovakia did not shine and came with no expectations to the finals in 1980. Their modest approach was thoroughly realistic – the team was aging, had plenty of experience, played as best as they could, relying on tactical discipline. The most they could reach was third place – and they got it. Nothing outstanding, nothing spectacular – just honest work. It was not memorable team, rather boring, defensive in approach. A team with problems too – goalkeeping was the most serious one and there was no solution to it. Many already reached their peak and getting old. Czechoslovak press came to the same conclusion and was not euphoric after the team got won bronze. There was one more point, which was not made public yet, but certainly was known to insiders: Czechoslovakia started exporting players. The stars new it and they were motivated to play well, so to make good impression on future employers. This also meant urgent and pressing changes in the national team. There was also one more important international tournament this summer – the Olympic games in Moscow. It mattered for Czechoslovakia – and the Olympics were also a good opportunity to start new team. Well done so far, but Czechoslovakia left no lasting memory. Even the penalty saved by Netolicka stirred no debates – Dino Zoff said that the ball did not cross the goal-line. He was just there, a reliable witness from the losing team.