There is no Premier League or LaLiga during the international break, but World Cup qualifying has captured the imagination around the world, high between the top sides in Europe (England, France, Italy) and a pair of old rivals in South America. Talking about drama. , Brazil and Argentina.
Plenty of blame to share for Brazil, Argentina chaos
When you watch a World Cup qualifier-like fiasco between Brazil and Argentina in Sao Paulo on Sunday night, when police and health officials wander the pitch around the five-minute mark, your first reaction is anger.
Why can't they get this right? Why can't common sense prevail? Don't fans, players and football lovers from all over the world deserve better - not just in Brazil and Argentina?
Here are some facts and references. It's a complicated story and, as is often the case, you're tempted to do two things, both wrong.
One is to pull the thread until it settles, going back in time and asking macro-questions, such as: Why are we playing international qualifiers during a global pandemic? Why do we have to play a triple-header game in eight days? Why couldn't last summer's Copa America slot be used for the qualifiers?
Those are reasonable questions to ask, but going "macro" also loses sight of the "subtle" and it's important not to let past errors judge what happened in the here and now. Because that's how you share the responsibility and decide the best path forward. And why is it important to be fair? Because unless you are seen as impartial as you can, you will lose your credibility. And credibility matters at a time when many people have lost faith in institutions (not just in sports).
The second is to throw your hands in the air and conclude that "they are all as bad as each other!" Your teacher may have done something similar when you were back in elementary school and got scraps on the playground.
"He started it!"
"No, he started it!"
"Okay, I'm going to end this! You're both being detained!"
(Yes, this actually happened to me. More than once.)
Because when you take the time to really research the facts, you realize that there are too many to blame for new facts to emerge. From the Argentine FA to Anvisa (Brazil's national health monitoring agency), from the South American Football Confederation to the Brazilian FA, from the government to the Brazilian Federal Police.
but guess what? They're not all equally guilty, as my colleague Gustavo Hoffmann, who was there every step of the way, told us on Monday's Gab + Jules show.
Hoffman was at the Argentina team hotel on Saturday when Anvisa officials showed up to inform the Argentine FA that four players - Aston Villa's Emiliano Bendia and Emiliano Martinez, Tottenham's Cristian Romero and Giovanni Lo Celso - had tested positive for their COVID-19. Wrong information was given about Announcement when they entered the country. They neglected to disclose that they had been in the United Kingdom in the past 14 days and this was important because under a Brazilian law, which took effect on July 21, anyone who has lived in highly contagious countries such as the United Kingdom, India Or South Africa will have to quarantine for 10 days. (Except if they're a Brazilian passport holder. Why? I don't know. Maybe because the virus checks the passport before it's infected.) And since it's one of the documents "under the penalty of the law", they have a had committed a criminal offence.
Hoffman reports that Anvisa officials held a meeting later on Saturday with officials from CONMEBOL, the Argentine FA and the Brazilian FA. This lasted four hours and when it ended, they reached an agreement: the four players would stay at the team hotel and would not play the next night. The game would go on - or so CONMEBOL and the two FAs thought.
Anvisa thought differently, because the next day, three hours before kickoff, they issued a statement saying that the four players would be immediately relegated because of their false declaration. You know what happened next: They made their way into the stadium and after a lot of going around, the match was called off.
We don't know whether an agreement was actually reached between Anvisa and the other parties on Saturday - it appears that one of the parties is not telling the truth. If it was reached, CONMEBOL were foolish not to get it in writing.
So, in descending order, who's to blame here. Anvisa acted like the inflexible bureaucrats of the worst kind, interfering in the way they did. They are the government and they have the federal police; It's hard to believe that interrupting the game was necessary. They could issue their statement too soon, arrive at the stadium early or instruct the police at the stadium to block access to the pitch.
The Argentine FA also bears considerable responsibility. Their defense hinges on the fact that they were following the protocols set for the Copa America the last time they traveled to Brazil: player bubbles, daily tests, etc. And those protocols were agreed upon and endorsed by CONMEBOL and MERCOSUR. . Fine. But once you're told that the law has changed and you shouldn't play those four players (and, presumably, you agree not to play them), that's it. Do what the government and the police tell you to do with a gun.
If, as reported, the Argentine was given one last chance in the stadium itself – leave the four men in the dressing room and play the others, and the game could go on – and they still refused, fine. Yes, it's on them.
FOR CONMEBOL? Well, it is their responsibility. You're running a qualifying competition, you know those four players are traveling, you know - or should know - what the law says, and you should run the point on arbitration. Making sure your members know and follow the FA rules, strictly speaking, may not be part of your job, but it is in your best interest to do it right so you avoid embarrassment like Sunday night. Can you
The Brazilian FA doesn't break free from here either. FIFA's rules state that the host country is responsible for ensuring that the guest country knows all entry requirements. Yes, they told them, but they also knew (or should have known) that the law had changed. He certainly could have been more proactive in defending Argentina and his government.
And, finally, there is the government. Anvisa is an independent government agency. You don't want interference, but you also don't want international incidents and global embarrassment. They could have done more.
So no, they are not all as bad as each other, but they are all responsible to varying degrees. What happens next is now up to FIFA, and you believe CONMEBOL is very happy to spend them uncovering this mess.
The best thing to do is to replay the game, but given how crowded the calendar is, it's hard to see how to do it unless you put it at the end of a qualifying tournament, when both, possibly , would qualify, like some kind of meaningless kick-out. Unless, of course, you get permission to play it outside of international match days, and perhaps, only with players from South America - which brings its own problems. Yes, Europe's stars will be missing, but it's better than not playing at all.
England players abused by fans that shouldn't have been there
England won five out of five in qualifying Group I with 4–0 victories over Hungary and Andorra. But the former game had seen racist abuse directed at England players of color, which happened at Puskas Arena during Euros, when they faced France. Hungary was hit with a three-game stadium ban (with one game suspended) for what happened at Euro...
...so why were the fans even present to abuse the players?
Well, because Euro is a UEFA competition and the ban was issued by UEFA. The World Cup is a qualifying FIFA competition and UEFA restrictions do not apply. It is as if a player who has been banned for three matches in the Premier League is still free to play in the Champions League.
As a clarification, this leaves much to be desired, and it is a rule that should be changed immediately. Racially abusing players is not the same as denying a goal-scoring opportunity outside the penalty area, and should not be treated as such. Punishment should be immediate and worldwide. And yes, there is a precedent: if you are banned for doping or match-fixing, that applies to all tournaments and competitions.
It's not just a question of optics. There is also a fact that justice (and punishment) needs to be swift to be effective. With the renewed ban on his mind, the potential for racial abuse was always high for abusers in the sport.
This is not a controversial issue. This is a common sense issue and one where, you would expect, FIFA and UEFA can rapidly reach common ground.
France are really off form. Should they be worried?
The world champions have now gone five games without a win after a 1-1 draw with Ukraine on Saturday. It's been a long streak for a team this talented, but, perhaps, it's also not entirely surprising.
Regular readers know that while I think there are many things that France boss Didier Deschamps does well, setting up a pattern of play and a system that maximizes the players at their disposal is not one of them. France basically won the World Cup by playing on the backs of four central defenders, playing on the counter and waiting for their superstars to do something. The problem with that approach is that if you go down a goal, you really have to do something to the opposition and sometimes, your superstars make nothing.
This was evident against Ukraine, especially when some superstars were missing: Karim Benzema, Kylian Mbappe, N'Golo Kante did not start. They went down a goal during the first half, and had to huff and puff to avoid defeat. Once again, they were less than the sum of their shares.
I don't think you need to be overly concerned - unless they lose to Finland on Tuesday night - but it reinforces the fact that this team can be much more than that.
Italy drop points... but set a record
Roberto Mancini noted after Italy's 0-0 draw with Switzerland on Sunday how his team dominated and created chances, but failed to convert them. That's largely true - Jorginho missed a penalty, Domenico Berardi and Lorenzo Insigne were denied world-class saves from Yann Sommer - but there's more to it than that. (And no, it's not all Ciro Immobile's fault, though his centre-forward game with Italy is once again a faint copy of what he does for Lazio).
Italy looked less quick in a no-scoring draw - worse than the previous draw against Bulgaria - and this would not have changed if they had lost a big chance. For all the accolades he's received for winning the Euros, it's not a side full of individual talent (that's not to say there isn't one). If things are going to be successful, they need to click and right click.
They still have a four-point lead in the group, but Switzerland have two games to go. If Switzerland wins both, the face-off in Rome on 12 November is a must-win game for the Azzurri, and is not a good situation.
Not only that, he extended his unbeaten streak to 36 international matches, a new men's world record, surpassing Spain and Brazil. Naturally, it would have been better to celebrate the achievement with a win, but it's still an achievement in the modern sport - and if you're superstitious, you'll see the other two win the World Cup.
Liverpool approaching a contract cliff-edge
The next six months are going to be crucial for Liverpool, and they neatly illustrate the importance of getting the age balance in your team.
After negotiating contract extensions with Virgil van Dijk (through 2025, when he would be on the verge of his 34th birthday) and Jordan Henderson (2025, when he would be 35), he had the chance to finish his attack. There are some big decisions for the trio of Sadio Mane, Mohamed Salah and Roberto Firmino. All three are 29 and all three are in the last two years of their contracts. Under normal circumstances, the rule is that ideally you extend the player you want to keep before entering the last two years of your contract or, if you can't make a deal, you transfer him to a new club. Looking for
Obviously, the last two years have been anything but normal conditions for Liverpool (which have been affected in other ways, as this thread by the excellent Swiss Ramble shows) but that doesn't make their decisions any more simple.
There's only so much cash to go around. It's risky to commit yourself to many years of high-paid players after their 31st birthdays. They're hard to sell (because they're bigger and make more money), and performance declines when a player hits their 30s. Also, it means fewer resources are available to strengthen other areas.
It's going to be one of the last big decisions - Michael Edwards - along with their widely respected sporting director and, along with Jurgen Klopp, the architect of this team - before moving on at the end of the season. It may not grab the headlines, but it is important that Liverpool get it right.