The World Cup was an absorbing diversion from the bad news that dominates our attention.
Despite the manic nationalism and its inherent tribalism, part of the naive beauty of the past weeks has been the sense that for once the human race was looking in the same direction.
The North Koreans thought they might slip a quick long-range nuclear missile test in while everyone was engrossed in the France vs Portugal semifinal, and the Israelis continued their slaughter of Palestinians, but otherwise it was as if the distraction of such a mesmerising sport suspended our apparently inexhaustible appetite for conflict.
Now it’s over for four more years and we can return to our Hobbesian hell of death and destruction, which is only one part of the melancholy of the days following the end of the World Cup. At least in South Africa the sense of loss is ameliorated by the anticipation of hosting the next tournament.
No doubt it will become the receptacle for the full range of social and economic debate. Football — that simplest of games — will gather up a complex array of competing hopes, fears and dreams of a whole society.
The hangover of Germany is anything but toxic. It was the beautiful game at its beautiful best. Sadly, the commentators and so-called analysts were left woefully behind, unable to match or comprehend the wizardly technique laid before them.
Take the persistent bemoaning of a ”dearth of goals” and the complaints about diving. If you want to see 5-3 score lines go and watch your local pub side. Great attackers deserve the challenge of great defenders, such as Fabio Cannavaro and Lilian Thuram (with Gianluigi Buffon in goal behind these two, it is amazing that anyone ever manages to score against Juventus, compliant referees notwithstanding).
Admittedly, Fifa’s determination to stamp out foul play has created a cheat’s charter from which Cristiano Ronaldo drew liberally. But, if you want to see Corinthian ethics from ”gentlemen”, check out the local lawn bowls club.
It is the emotional vortex that creates the drama and the tension. Without it, professional football — the modern world’s equivalent of the medieval jousting contest — would be a pale spectacle. For all the humbug about Zinedine Zidane’s heroic headbutt, the fact is that it added greatly to the drama.
Gladiators are not dispensers of prudent, measured responses to provocation. They respond instinctively, loyal to their inner sense of truth and valour — in Zidane’s case, a tough Marseilles working-class immigrant upbringing.
In any case, I preferred to see Zidane walk alone from the arena, head held warrior-high, having given expression to his own uncomplicated form of retribution against the racist bigotry that is the root cause of so much human conflict and injustice.
Nonetheless, Cannavaro should have been player of the tournament, not Zidane. In the end, his was the more influential contribution. The most influential tactic was, in fact, wholly unoriginal, deployed as it was by both of the last winners, France and Brazil; it is simply that it is now being used with even greater sophistication and effect.
In 1998, Didier Deschamps — the man whom Eric Cantona ignorantly dismissed as a ”water carrier” — did the holding job in midfield. In 2002, Gilberto Silva performed the role even more adeptly, as he continues to do for Arsenal. In this World Cup all the most successful teams employed such a player, sometimes two: the admirable Maniche and the dogged Costinha for Portugal, Claude Makelele for France, Gennaro Gattuso for Italy.
Despite his £4-million salary, Sven-Goran Ericksson failed to recognise the value of it until it was far too late. Owen Hargreaves should have been rehearsing the role for the last four years; instead, it was thrust on him as a desperate after-thought.
The task of the holding midfielder is a thankless one — as the Cantona quote illustrates perfectly. If you are good at it, you are seldom noticed.
Makelele is the arch exponent, a true working-class hero in the sense that he does all the hard labour that permits Zidane and Henry to execute their ballet. He is as pivotal for France as he is for Chelsea. Picking the rest of the team of the tournament was relatively easy, despite the high level of skill of so many. Buffon is an extraordinary goalkeeper.
Willy Sagnol just edges Gianluca Zambrotta and Miguel of Italy and Portugal respectively at right back. Thuram was as magnificent for France as Cannavaro was for Italy, and should be alongside him at centre-back. Phillip Lahm was excellence personified at left back for Germany.
Argentina were perhaps the most skilful team and I am glad to be able to include the accomplished right-sided midfielder, Maxi Rodriguez, who scored the goal of the tournament to win the second-round game against Mexico. Franck Ribery’s pace and zest stood out on the wing.
With Zidane in the ”hole”, all that remains is to decide whether the absence of telepathy with Thierry Henry justifies the exclusion of the latter.
People persist in saying Henry underperformed, but the Arsenal striker scored important goals throughout the competition and caused the Italian defence significant problems with his scintillating runs on Sunday night. If only he had had Miroslav Klose alongside to finish the job; is there a more astute centre forward in world football?
Thus, my Team of Germany 2006, in 4-1-3-1-1 formation: Buffon (Italy); Sagnol (France), Thuram (France), Cannavaro (Italy), Lahm (Germany); Makelele (France); Rodriguez (Argentina), Maniche (Portugal), Ribery (France); Zidane (France); Klose (Germany).