2018: Best or not, gamechanger for certain

NEW DIRECTION With nearly half the goals in World Cup coming directly or indirectly from set pieces, the way football is played could change if that pattern persists

MOSCOW: Sometime around France’s virtuoso victory against Argentina and Belgium’s breathtaking comeback against Japan, the planet seemed to come to a decision. Russia 2018, it was universally decided, had not just been a good World Cup, and not just a great World Cup. It had, in fact, been the best World Cup.

That assessment may not last, of course once we have all had a chance to reflect. But regardless of its exact place in the hierarchy, the effusive discussion itself will be of considerable relief to Fifa. When international soccer is being outflanked in so many ways by the club game, these five weeks needed to be a success.

This has been not just an enjoyable tournament, but a significant one, one whose broader consequences may echo for a few years yet. In more ways than one, Russia 2018 really was a gamechanger.

CHANGE OF GUARD

If there is little doubt this has been an outstanding tournament, it seems fair to say there has been no outstanding team. Nor has it been a World Cup dominated by individuals.

The teams that have had the most success here of course have done so because they have the best of both worlds: players of remarkable talent who are prepared to place it entirely at the service of their team. Too many others seemed to arrive in Russia expecting the opposite to happen. Those days are over.

On the afternoon of June 30, France sent home Messi, who had looked so haunted and so stressed during Argentina’s chaotic time in Russia. That evening, Uruguay’s defence shut down Cristiano Ronaldo and Portugal. In the space of six hours, the two finest players of their generation exited the World Cup stage. The question that now lingers is whether it is for the last time.

It was impossible to escape the sense that this tournament marked the end of one thing, and the beginning of another. A new generation is rising, led by the tournament’s breakout star, if that is not a strange tag to give to someone who is already the second-most expensive player in the world: Kylian Mbappe.

He has a long way to go if he is to emulate either Messi or Ronaldo, of course; on the evidence of this World Cup, he is unlikely to have a peer and a rival capable of pushing him as hard as the Argentine and the Portuguese have for so many years. Throughout Russia 2018, though, it became increasingly clear that this is Mbappé’s time.

CONSEQUENCES

In the 1920s, football authorities were worried that the game was becoming boring because too few goals were being scored. To try to rectify the situation, the off-side rule was amended.

But teams did not take long to adapt, changing their defensive structures to account for the new rules. Soon, the number of goals was plummeting again.

In the 1980s, crowds were dwindling. This time the game’s authorities changed the rewards: three points would be awarded for a win, rather than two. The aim was to incentivise teams to push for victory. Instead, a study by Luis Garicano and Ignacio Palacios-Huerta found, those teams that took a lead became more inclined to sit back. If anything, games became defensive.

Major changes thus do not always have the intended effect. If this World Cup is anything to go by, the same may soon be said of video assistant referees (VAR).

VAR has been a success. Though the group stages were marked by some confusion about when it should and should not be used, the rather fluid definition of what constitutes a “clear and obvious” mistake has allowed it to do its job. Referees have awarded penalties they had initially missed, or struck off decisions that were incorrect. VAR has passed the test.

Just as significant, though, it has changed the game in ways that had not been foreseen. England, in particular, seemed to be seeking the illegal embrace of defenders from corner-kicks through the tournament, rather than trying to score goals. And Roberto Martinez, the Belgium manager, confirmed that the presence of VAR had changed the way his team handled both defensive and offensive set-pieces.

The ramifications could be significant. This has been a World Cup decided by the dead ball: nearly half the goals have come, directly or indirectly, from set pieces. If that pattern is maintained, the way football is played itself could change: it places a premium on winning free-kicks and corners, and having players capable of delivering them well, defending them well, and either scoring from them or using them as a route to win penalties. Football has always obeyed the law of unintended consequences. VAR may be no different.

EXPANDING THE FIELD

Between them, Africa, Asia and the Concacaf region sent 13 teams to Russia. They combined to win 10 games. Mexico and Japan were the only representatives from those regions to make it out of the group stage, and both fell in the round of 16.

It fits the pattern: in the five World Cups this century, there have been 40 slots available in the quarter-finals. Teams outside Europe and South America have claimed only five, and three of those (Mexico, Senegal and South Korea) came in the same year, 2002.

Partly, of course, that is a legacy of political, economic and social exploitation such as the depredations of colonialism but it does not necessarily explain why large, rich Asian nations make so little impression.

But with 48 teams from 2026 it is hoped that greater exposure will help level the playing field.