WORLD CUP ’90 : Winners Must Face Tougher Questions : Italy: Fans wanted a rout, but the coach is happy to advance against the defensive-minded Americans.
Azeglio Vicini, having coached his Italian team to a 1-0 victory over the United States Thursday night in the World Cup, smiled tightly as he sat down to face a mostly Italian media contingent at Olympic Stadium.
The smile, thin as it was, disappeared moments later as Vicini was peppered with questions:
--What about your team’s failure to score goals?
--Why was it so difficult to overcome a team that is essentially amateur?
--Why did you let the Americans dictate the pace of the game?
--What will you do to improve your team’s performance?
Who won here, anyway?
It was a game that stood logic on its head. The beleaguered U.S. team counted the loss as a moral victory, and the highly favored Italian team appeared to lose ground--and face--while winning.
The Italians may have lost some of their fickle fans, too. The overflow crowd made no attempt to hide its displeasure with the home team’s inability to score more goals or crush every U.S. attack. At times, the huge stadium echoed with the shrill whistling that signals crowd hostility. On the booing scale, such sustained noise is barely a step above pelting the playing field with day-old fruit.
This is the burden carried by teams expected to win--their victories must be of a higher order. It was made worse by the nearly universal expectation that Italy, one of the tournament favorites, would rout the U.S. team that only last week was blown out, 5-1, by the not-so-highly regarded Czechs. There was no question that the Americans would lose. The question was whether the goal differential would hit double figures.
The Italian team that took the field Thursday night was not the same team, in style at least, that was so impressive in winning its first Group A match against Austria.
In that game, although the final score was also 1-0, Italy had shown speed and dominated the game by setting a furious pace. Those gears did not exist for them against the United States. The Americans were able to make the Italians play at their own pedestrian pace and adopt the conservative American style.
“The U.S. was shaken by their defeat by the Czechs, and they came here determined to do better,” Italian captain Giuseppe Bergomi said. “They wouldn’t let us play the whole field, they added defenders and blocked the wings. That made it difficult for us to do anything.”
Credit the United States for formulating a game plan that factored in the home advantage and the fans. U.S. players said they knew that a slowdown style of play would make the crowd testy. Eventually, the Americans thought, the fans would turn on the Italian team.
That’s exactly what happened. Fans were joyous after the goal by Giuseppe Giannini in the 11th minute. Flags waved, horns blared, songs were sung and bets collected.
That euphoria wore off quickly when it became clear the game was not to be an orgy of goals for the home team. Fanatical support gave way to cynical derision. When Gianluca Vialli missed a penalty kick in the 33rd minute, Italy lost many of its fans.
“Playing at home, we have more responsibility but no advantage,” Vicini said. “The team played well. Our fans are very demanding. If we miss a penalty, they are not very happy.”
“In the beginning, it looked like a rout, but after we missed the penalty kick, we knew we were in a dangerous situation,” said Salvatore Schillaci, the hero of Italy’s first victory. “We only won, 1-0, but we must be satisfied. The U.S. showed it was a good team.”
Perhaps the soccer world will concede that small thing.
