After gorging on 2-3 matches a day, the 48 hour gap between the end of the second round and the beginning of the quarter-finals always comes as a shock to the system. After the feast comes a brief (but keenly felt) famine, and I (for one) am already licking my chops in anticipation of the nourishment to come.

As we sit here staring at the clock and twiddling our thumbs, perhaps we might pause (Angelus-style) and reflect - as many bloggers and journos are doing - on proceedings thus far. A quick glance over in Tuppenceworth's direction confirms that the bould Fergal Crehan has had his 'reflecting hat' on, turning his attention to the various merits and demerits of the BBC and RTÉ’s punditry and presentation (the less said about ITV the better).¹

Fergal also echoes the (largely) consensus view that the tournament has been (with the exception of one or two rather tedious second round matches) a tremendously enjoyable affair: full of positive, attacking football, some tremendous goals, and a general absence (despite what the silly red/yellow card count might indicate) of cynicism and bad blood.

A stat-tastic piece in today’s Guardian (by Kevin McCarra) joins in the praise, but draws our attention to some surprising facts:

It is decades since a World Cup had so many admirers. The reviews are subjective but many would put this down as a tournament to compare with Spain '82. There is a mood of satisfaction and certain goalless draws, with Switzerland usually implicated, were reviled because they were so out of keeping with the sprightly character of the competition, yet it is not so easy to identify the traits that supply all the charm.

Basically, the 2002 tournament delivered "more goals by the end of the first knockout stage than this one", but you’d be hard pressed to find a single journalist who’d argue that 2002 was a superior competition to that which we're currently enjoying. McCarra suggests (correctly) that those numbers are deceptive, masking the fact that "the attacking intent is greater than it was last time around", despite some poor finishing/execution.

The lesson of the piece (for me) is that it’s hard to really quantify a World Cup with bare stats alone. Since football is, by its nature, a low-scoring game that relies upon spontaneous moments of flair, invention and drama, one shouldn’t assume that more goals = more enjoyment/quality (I’ve seen 0-0 crackers, and 3-3 bores). There are things that have happened in this tournament - flicks, one-twos, tackles, dummies etc., etc - that will be fresh in my memory long after the memory of individual goals fades. Things that simply cannot be described by statisticians.

Anyway, I'm playing football myself this evening (in my own crappy but enthusiastic way), so hopefully that'll help soften the blow of another long evening without World Cup action…

1. Although I do admit a guilty fondness for David Pleat’s brand of informed football nerdism. [back]