Tournament leaves mark as one for the ages
Russia’s Cup made impact as revolution on international scale
MOSCOW — Some time around France’s virtuoso victory over 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 been the best World Cup.
That assessment might not last, of course: once we have had a chance to reflect, it might not quite live up to the standards of the 1982 tournament, most people’s market leader whenever this conversation arises.
Regardless of its exact place in the hierarchy, the effusive discussion itself will be of considerable relief to FIFA, which hitched its fortunes to Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, for better or for worse. When international soccer is being outflanked in so many ways by the club game, when it can appear to be such an afterthought, when the next edition, in 2022, will occur mostly during December and the one after that, in 2026, will expand to 48 teams from 32, these five weeks needed to be a success.
Have they gone well enough to carry FIFA and the World Cup through the next eight years of upheaval without suffering considerable damage? Certainly, this has been not just an enjoyable tournament, but a significant one, one whose broader consequences might echo for a few years. In more ways than one, Russia 2018 was a game-changer.
A tournament of unity
If there is little doubt this has been an outstanding tournament, it seems fair to say there has been no outstanding team. France (a 4-2 winner Sunday) or Croatia would have been a morethan-worthy champion, of course, but one has played a notch below its potential brilliance and the other right at the edge of its capabilities. Neither would be considered a team for the ages in the mold of Spain’s 2010 vintage.
Nor has it been a World Cup dominated by individuals: Kylian Mbappe has shone the brightest, and Luka Modric the longest, but in a sport increasingly in thrall to stars, almost all of those teams that had been constructed in the service of the great and the good failed to ignite.
Mohamed Salah and Robert Lewandowski went home in the group stage, and Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo and Andres Iniesta soon after. Neymar made it to the quarterfinals, but won few friends along the way. His addiction to melodrama was a discordant note at a World Cup that has seen little controversy.
Instead, it has been a tournament for collectives: for Uruguay’s resilient, defiant defense; for England’s ingenious, coordinated set pieces; for Belgium’s lethal, perfectly orchestrated counterattacks. Russia’s work rate brought the host country within a penalty shootout of the semifinals; Japan and Mexico, with its brave, breakneck style, might have made the quarters.
The days when the World Cup represented the pinnacle of the sport, the highest form of soccer, are long gone. Now it is best seen as a snapshot of where the game is. This year — one of shocks and surprises and the great being brought low — the picture is clear.
Parity emerges
The gap between the best teams, the traditional giants, and everyone else is shrinking, and shrinking fast, reduced almost to nothingness by the spread of knowledge and the sophistication of coaching.
The teams that had the most success here — in particular France and Croatia, but England and Belgium, too — of course have done so because they have the best of both worlds: players of remarkable talent who are prepared to place it 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, so stressed, during Argentina’s chaotic time in Russia. That evening, Uruguay’s battle-scarred defense 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 lingers is whether it is for the last time. Neither Messi nor Ronaldo has won this competition, and neither has much of a track record of leaving ambitions unfulfilled. It is difficult, though, to escape the sense this was their last chance.
Messi might return in 2022, though by that time he will be 35, and even his magic is likely to have faded. Can Argentina afford to spend the next four years building around a player entering the twilight of his career? Will Messi find the idea of another arduous qualifying campaign appealing?
Ronaldo will be 37. He does not believe he is finished: in the hours before the first semifinal, he was in Greece, completing his $110 million transfer to Juventus.
It is worth noting that his contract lasts four years, until summer 2022, a few months before the Qatar World Cup. It is a staggering commitment to a player of his age, but perhaps even his new employer feels, by that stage, his remarkable powers might have waned a little.
What is for certain is that this is the final World Cup either will approach at, or even near, his peak. It was impossible to escape the sense that this tournament marked the end of one thing, and the beginning of another.
In their stead, 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 the second-most expensive player in the world: Mbappe.
He has a long way to go if he is to emulate 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 Mbappe’s time. That of Messi and Ronaldo — in terms of World Cups, at least — has passed.
An uncertain future
The World Cup also cannot risk three of its confederations, those of CONCACAF, Asia and Africa, fading into irrelevance. FIFA’s deeply unpopular decision to expand the tournament might not be quite the disaster most expect. The motivation for the change might be purely financial, but that does not mean there will not be a sporting impact, too.
Africa, in particular, has always suffered because its qualification process is so brutal: good teams miss out because there are so few spots available.
For Asia and CONCACAF, the issue is more complex. Watching Panama and Saudi Arabia, it was hard to see how adding more teams would do anything other than dilute the quality of play.
In the short term, that is likely to be true; in the long run, it is to be hoped that exposure to the elite will raise standards across the board. The World Cup’s next few years will be difficult: first Qatar, then expansion. That does not mean, however, that the glory days are definitely over. Russia 2018 might have been the best World Cup for years. This will not necessarily be the last time we say that.