Theories abounded that this World Cup would favor attacking teams. The cold weather was supposed to lead to superior fitness and, ergo, a goalfest of epic proportions. However, these scientific theories overlooked a very simple fact – we live in the dark ages of soccer. Despite Barcelona’s great season a year ago and Spain’s title as European champion, the tendency to pack the box and not risk tossing numbers forward plagues the world of football like pox-carrying rats. These locusts have resulted in a paltry first round goal total and abysmal goal per game percentage.

Amidst this backdrop, people criticize the selecao for being negative under the Dunga regime. Ironically, this same Brazilian side has produced perhaps my two favorite moments of the tournament: Robinho’s split pass and Maicon’s wonder shot-goal. Let’s enjoy them.

First, Maicon.

I love Maicon’s goal precisely because it has generated such strong debates about “volition” and the nexus between “brilliance” and “intent.” Some people view sport as an escapism, an alternate planet where, upon transportation, the shades of gray of the “real world” melt into a simple and childish black and white. Thus, the Maicon goal is an affront to their understanding and enjoyment of sport. The singular, simple “X hit Y to score in goal Z” equation does not apply. We watch Maicon’s movements before and after the game, but in the moment, in the split second that he strikes the ball, we can’t tell his intent.

This ambiguity provokes the ire of the cynics and the praises of the optimists. Surely nobody could achieve that feat at that speed. Let’s conveniently forget the fact that Roberto Carlos, another famous Brazilian wingback, has done Mr. Maicon one up. Meanwhile, others rush to sing his praises. Maicon used a clever head fake to trick the keeper and shoot shortside! I did the same thing once in a 5 a side game comprised of drunk and out of shape 50 year olds. Therefore, surely a professional athlete could.

But why does any of this matter? Hence the meta-narrative of sport – the individual with fate firmly grasped into his hands. Soccer, to an extent, casts doubt upon this very concept. After all, eleven men must coordinate their actions, so the opportunity for collective blame and abdication of responsibility abounds. Some Americans, with our stop-and-go traffic sporting culture, view soccer as “uncoordinated.” A coach can’t call a timeout? A coach only has three subs? But what if….what if…I have to go to the bathroom and there’s a goal?

So cruelly time marches on as the individual is drowned in the hopeless collective black hole. Then, bing, a moment of individual brilliance. And the debate on intent begins. But here’s the crux of the issue – does Maicon even know his intent? Did he study tape deliberately before the match and decide to head fake a cross and shoot short side based on carefule analysis of videos of the North Korea goalie? Perhaps he was just checking his watch, waiting to do so at exactly the right moment. Perhaps he wanted the floodlights to be behind him in the second half, so as to blind the keeper.

But what if his action was less deliberative, what if it was instinct. What if he had a general intent? What if he wanted merely to put a low box into a dangerous spot of the field in the hopes of either an own goal, a goal, or an assist? Is such general intent deliberate enough? And what if Maicon himself did not know his intent?

Whatever. It was a hell of a goal.

Second, the Robinho banana split pass and Elano’s cherry on top.

There is no underlying philosophical tension in that goal. But watch if again, and hope for more.

Related posts:

1. World Cup Quarters – “& Then There Were 8″
2. The World Cup Links the World, So We Steal
3. US v. Slovenia – World Cup Player Ratings