Euro-World-Euro: Spain dance to their own heartbeat as flawed critics fall in a heap

For a more exclusive competition, Euro 2012 gave rise to two waves of proclamation and acclaim whereas the World Cup 2010 managed only one. As discussed earlier, in South Africa the attacking energetic vibrancy of the Germans grabbed the headlines before they were brushed aside in the semi-final. The emotional attachment of many (English) fans towards their brand of football persisted into Poland and Ukraine, where they were seen as the more exciting, more likely (more deserving?) team to win the tournament. They were again brushed aside in the semi-final, this time by Italy. Forza Azzuri.

Italy themselves, however, were already being prepared as the new team that would cause terminal problems to the reigning European and World Champions. If Germany had progressed barely at all from South Africa, then in contrast Italy had transformed themselves into an outstanding team, it was claimed, just two years after the shambles of their World Cup adventure. Here too the wave crashed: but in reaching the final the Azzuri achieved superbly.

What fascinates me - and not only because it relates to the job of betting and working out the strengths and weaknesses of teams, perceptions and markets - is just how unfounded and at times flawed a collection of seemingly agreeable views can be. Granted, this is somewhat vague. No judgement is aimed at anyone in particular, be they media personnel or friends. Yet in the collective maelstrom of ‘media output’ and ‘social discussion’, certain views are not only advanced without care or introspection, they come to be projected with such uniformity that the reality becomes shrouded in a mystery that does not exist. Whole events can be misunderstood as a result.

Italy's pathway to the final is a fine example. They held Spain in the opening game to a 1-1 draw. The game was quite open, there were chances for both teams, technical ability was high on both sides. Spain are notorious slow starters - they lost their opener to the Swiss in South Africa. Italy bounded out of the blocks, the world watching. Thereafter, many people stopped watching and started to wait, it seems to me, for a consensus. The next game for each team, not the game against each other, told the story that would emerge in the final. Spain dismantled the Irish 4-0 in sensational fashion. This game actually received very little worthwhile comment: it was almost dismissed as "a mismatch" and as insignificant to the bigger picture of good teams playing against each other. Spain's performance against Ireland demonstrated several things: They were just as good if not better than two years ago (general impression on watching); their technical ability was still razor-sharp; there was zero evidence of any individuality: the collective team ethic was not only in tact, it had prospered as they set about Ireland ruthlessly and with great hunger; fitness levels were sky-high; injury problems were absent; Torres was able to score; Xavi and Iniesta were sensational, among others. Yes, Spain outclassed a poor Irish team and precisely because of that gross imbalance it gave Spain a chance to muddy their own water with any imperfections, any in-fighting, lack of motivation, lack of focus. There was nothing of this, just remarkable footballing excellence.

Italy were also given the freedom of the park in the first half of their encounter with Croatia. Slavan Bilic dispensed with midfield protection for his back four and opted for a game of basketball which Italy won hands down. Pirlo preened and strolled and sprayed and controlled in a sea of time, space and forward options. Yet only he himself could score and that from a set-piece. Impressive as that first half was from Italy – and what became readily apparent in contrast to La Furia Roja – as soon as Croatia changed tactically, protected themselves and pressed and harried their opposition, they took control of the game and drew level. Italy had been quite easily neutralised and contained and both teams looked of very similar ability. Subsequently, Italy were nowhere near the class of Spain against the Irish, struggling to a 1-0 lead until the ball dropped to a static Balotelli in the last minute. Again, very little was ever said about Spain's brilliance against the Irish in relation to Italy's struggle against the same team. This was mostly because of a somewhat nervy draw being played out against the Croatians in the final group game, which Spain won in any case.

As the tournament progressed the Germans were looking swanky (but shipping goals) as usual, the Portuguese exposed a dire Dutch team ethic inspired by Ronaldo, the French and Italians both said to be capable of anything on the day, then perhaps the easiest way to try to say something concrete was to knock Spain and claim them to be weaker than before. That wont to decry or find fault with a champion is also a socially produced and rather common aspect of human interaction: finding the flaws, the weaknesses and highlighting imperfections beneath the veneer is an aspect of social behaviour in most societies. It can be rather interesting, too. Here, it was flawed: whatever one thought of Spain's performances no other team had produced a display in its totality and regardless of the opposition anywhere near that capable of winning a World Cup. As Spain were evidently still at that level the analysis and acclaim fostered onto other teams should have been far more circumspect and cautious. Lest we forget that the match between England and Italy was thought to be just about the most even contest imaginable: everyone, it seems (forgive the exaggeration) predicted a tight game and penalties. Roughly two teams with the same ability, similar players, they said. The match went to penalties after a competent Italy humiliated England for around an hour and a half in a hugely unequal affair.

Italy had once again been given the freedom of the park – this time for almost the whole game – and once again they looked imperious. Once again the link between lower level football (i.e. England as opponents) together with the amount of time, space and renewable possession in relation to performance output was completely overshadowed by the rather shaky and nugatory perspective that Italy were simply a great team capable of anything. With that mindset in place, Italy then defeated a Germany team on merit - allowing for a series of tactical and individual errors from Low and his team - meaning the only place Italy could go for many people was straight past the crashing wave on which a modest German side had been hoisted atop. In effect, going into the final, Italy were being lauded and assessed on the basis of one game.

Germany, remember, had been priced alongside Spain. As equals. More than that, Germany were favourites for the tournament at certain points along the way. Exit. It therefore fell to Italy – the team compared to England and quelled by Croatia – to overcome the footballing giant whose masterclass style many people, but certainly not all people, were keen to shake a finger at. Perhaps one of the most perplexing aspects of the build-up to the final was the constant reference to Italy as individuals and to Spain as a team: and the fact that no-one seemed to realise that talk of Italy was about individuals, and talk of Spain was about a team, dancing through yet another tournament to the rhythm of their own heartbeat. Time and again it was opined that: "If Balotelli can..." and "If Pirlo can..." ..then Italy can... but quite where that kind of discussion fits into an analysis of advanced patterns of play featuring one of the greatest international teams ever is anyone’s guess. The introspection, the cautious nod to reality, missing previously, found no backdoor into the previews.

Prandelli admitted that against Germany in the semi-final, his team were “knackered”. There was very little, if any, talk of how Italy were going to cope physically with Spain, I thought. Pirlo had a great tournament: he was favourite for the Player of the Tournament award but his team were quite big outsiders for the match: how does that make sense, given the Player of the Tournament award goes to a player on the winning side? The Pirlo assessments had been divorced from the reality of the situation at hand, but then such assessments had been prominent all tournament so far as Spain and their opponents were concerned. Some balanced analysis, and the Opta stats that Spain utterly dominated, saw La Furia Roja put their opponents and critics alike on the floor. While they recover, whisper it quietly, tiki-taka, here comes Brazil.