Sunday, July 09, 2006

Vikash Dhorasoo would have nailed it

Italy won the World Cup. Hurrah for Italy!

Coming to the point, for me the defining moment of the game was not the sending off of Zenedine Zidane, but the substitution of David Trezeguet for Franck Ribery in the 101st minute. Throughout the tournament, Trezeguet was used sparingly, with Telugu-pride Vikash Dhorasoo being the preferred midfield substitute. And he hadn't done too badly either, if you ask me (which for some reason no one ever does; but I digress). In any case, I am convinced that Dhorasoo would have converted the penalty that Trezeguet ended up missing.

Sure it sounds hypothetical and may well be attributed to hindsight, but Dhorasoo was the man in form, had had more play time in the tournament, had led PSG successfully to a French cup win earlier in the year, and had a good record in penalty shootouts. Add to that the fact that Andhra-ites (or gultis, if you like) are notoriously famous for 'scoring', there is no doubt in my mind Dhorasoo was the logical choice for the substitution.

Apparently French coach Raymond Domenech didn't think so. Domenech is a superstitious man. So much so that he plans his starting line-ups based on star signs of his players. I wonder if that had something to do with his reluctance to use Dhorasoo. It might be one irrational decision that cost France the World Cup.


At July 28, 2006 at 12:59 AM, Blogger the saint said...

i think picking Anelka or even Pires would have been better than going with Trezeguet - both as partial cover for Henry's inexplicable refusal (passive-agressive?) to convert a Zizou pass.. Henry and Pires link up much better, and Anelka is quite deadly - even with poor service..


Post a Comment

<< Home