World Cup Soccer : Pomp and Controversy at the Draw

To the millions of television viewers worldwide who watched the draw for the 1986 World Cup soccer finals take place here Sunday afternoon, it must have seemed a fairly straightforward sort of affair.

Yes, Televisa, the Mexican television network that staged the draw in its studios in suburban San Angel, did turn its courtyard into a subtropical jungle replete with ferns and flamingos, palms and parrots and even a myna bird or two.

And, yes, Televisa did turn the stage upon which the draw was held into a virtual replica of the ruins of Teotihuacan, complete with stone serpents and carved columns.

And, yes, perhaps the laser light show was dramatic--certainly when compared to the dry series of speeches that followed--but Televisa did want to show that Mexico has made the leap from the Temple of Quetzalcoatl to the Temple of Technology. From Aztec to high tech, as it were.

But, even so, to the estimated 500 million or more who saw the event on television, the 20 minutes that saw the actual draw itself must have appeared almost routine.

Not so to the coaches of the 24 finalists, however. To them, it was anything but ho-hum. To them--and to their teams--the draw was a look into the the future, and it dashed the hopes of some and raised the hopes of others.

For the record, here is how it turned out.

Italy, the reigning world champion, was placed at the head of Group A, which will split its games between Mexico City and Puebla. Also drawn into the group were 1978 champion Argentina, Bulgaria, which Italy will meet in the tournament’s opening game May 31, and South Korea.

The pitting of South Korea against Italy caused a brief stir as memories flashed back to 1966 when the Italians were ignominiously ousted from the World Cup in England by unheralded North Korea. Now, the South has its turn to make history.

In Group B, which will split its games between Mexico City and Toluca, host Mexico has been given a relatively simple task against Belgium, Paraguay and Iraq.

Mexico’s coach, Bora Milutinovic, said after the draw that he did not believe his team was in the easiest group, but he was unconvincing.

Canada, for example, might have wished to have been as fortunate. The Canadians, playing in their first World Cup, were drawn into Group C, headed by European champion France and also including the Soviet Union and Hungary. The group will play at Leon and Irapuato.

Tony Waiters, the Canadian coach, had said before the draw that he was unconcerned about which teams Canada would be chosen to face, but he might be having second thoughts now.

“I don’t think really we’re concerned about where we get drawn or even who we play,” he said. “There are pros and cons for every location. Looking at the teams that will be here, whoever we play is going to be tough opposition.

“I think at the end of the day we’re just happy to be here and we’ll take whatever comes and see how well we can do against them.”

Group D, playing in Guadalajara, should be no trouble at all for Brazil, the favorite to win it all next year. The Brazilians, who were based in Guadalajara in 1970 when they won their third World Cup, have only Spain, Northern Ireland and Algeria to meet in the opening round.

Perhaps the most interesting game in the group will be the Northern Ireland-Spain match June 7. The Irish beat the Spanish in a memorable upset in the 1982 World Cup in Spain, and no doubt the Spaniards will be looking to avenge that defeat in Valencia.

The most difficult combination put together by the draw is Group E. Splitting its games between Mexico City and Queretaro, the group includes 1982 runner-up West Germany, winner of the World Cup in 1954 and 1974, and another two-time winner in Uruguay.

In addition, it contains Scotland and World Cup newcomer Denmark.

The final group, Group F, will play in Monterrey. It is comprised of Poland, England, Portugal and Morocco.

Strangely enough, it was the makeup of the latter two groups that caused the most discussion here Sunday.

While England’s Bobby Robson was doing his best to quell a controversy, Denmark’s Sepp Piontek was trying hard to start one.

The two World Cup coaches had totally different reactions to the draw.

Robson, never at a loss for words, earlier had been quoted as saying he hoped England would not have to play in Monterrey, 590 miles north of Mexico City, because the heat is intense and the lower altitude will hurt teams that advance to the second round, where they must play in cities with much higher elevations.

As it turned out, England was the last of the 24 countries to be drawn and, probably by coincidence, found itself sent to Monterrey. Robson did a quick about-face.

“We’re pleased with the draw,” he said, swallowing hard. “We’re quite happy about going to Monterrey; the stadiums there are very nice and the hotels are very good. The teams we’re playing with will give us a chance. We hope we can advance in the tournament.”

Piontek, meanwhile, found himself both pleased and angry at having been drawn into the strongest of the six, four-team groups. Then he started a controversy, about which much more undoubtedly will be heard.

“It has always been our dream to play West Germany,” Piontek said. “We tried a lot of times, but they didn’t want to play us. Now they have to play against us.

“Denmark was not important enough for West Germany for many years. Now, with our good results in the European championship (semifinalist in 1984) and in our qualifying group (a victory over the Soviet Union), now they respect us. Now, they still don’t want to play us. Before, we were not good enough. Now, it’s a different reason.”

When he heard of Piontek’s remarks, West German Coach Franz Beckenbauer gave a curt response to the suggestion that West Germany has avoided facing the Danes.

“I feel sorry for him (Piontek),” Beckenbauer said, “because we have to beat him.”

Asked his opinion of Denmark’s team, Beckenbauer said curtly: “It’s good. It’s one of the best teams in Europe.”