He was new to Brazil, and one of the things that struck him most was the way that the kids, as young as eight, would dive in search of free kicks, waving imaginary cards in the hope that the referee would take disciplinary action. Yellow and red cards were not even being used in the little matches they were playing, but that did not stop the antics of the kids.
That conversation came back in my mind after watching the first leg of the final of the Copa Libertadores, when Santos drew 0-0 with Penarol in Montevideo’s Centenario stadium.
With no goals to reflect on, the big talking point, both after the game and at half time, was the relationship between Neymar and Paraguayan referee Carlos Amarilla.
Arguably South America’s leading referee, Amarilla took charge of the recent friendly between Brazil and Holland in Goiania – where both Neymar and Sao Paulo’s Lucas were given yellow cards for diving. Eighteen minutes into the Libertadores final, it happened again – Neymar flung himself to the ground and picked up another yellow card. As the player left the field at half time he complained to the media that Amarilla was repeatedly threatening to send him off. When Santos returned for the second half coach Muricy Ramalho made a point of protesting to the referee about the treatment Neymar was receiving, adding that he would prefer to take Neymar off if Amarilla was so keen to send him off.
In the event, no red cards were issued. After the 90 goalless minutes Santos could hardly complain about the officiating – Penarol had a late goal correctly ruled out for a narrow offside, and looked to have a good shout for a penalty when Alex Sandro arrived late for a tackle on Corujo. But the Amarilla-Neymar relation continued to dominate the post-match reaction. Penarol made an official complaint about Ramalho’s efforts to put pressure on the referee, while Santos appeared to believe that their most important player had been mistreated.
My opinion, for what it is worth, is that Carlos Amarilla is the best friend that Neymar could possibly have.
A few years ago I had a chat with Leonardo Gaciba, on the occasion when he was picking up an award as Brazil’s top referee. Gaciba, who recently retired, argued that the referee has to be a chameleon – he needs to able to adjust his interpretation of the rules to suit the circumstances and expectations. He admitted that the criteria he employed for a domestic Brazilian match was different from that used in a Copa Libertadores game. “The Brazilian player will look for the foul,” he said, whereas elsewhere on the continent “the player will look for the ball even after there has been contact.”
The point here is that over the last 15 years the criteria used in Brazil has gone mad. I struggle to find an explanation. Perhaps it has something to do with the growth of the media, the expansion of cable TV and the custom in Brazilian transmissions to have, alongside the commentator and the analyst, an ex-referee passing judgment on the performance of the man in the middle.
Whatever the reason, the outcome is a footballing culture where fouls are being given for the slightest contact – thus giving players a strong incentive to dive. I have lost count of the number of times I have seen a striker, clean through on goal, prefer to force contact with the keeper and go down in the hope of winning a penalty. The habit has become so deep rooted that the striker is looking for a foul even when he has a clear opportunity to score.
Gaciba freely admitted that this domestic criteria was making it harder for talented Brazilian players to succeed internationally. They were being spoiled at home, and then had to adjust to a much harder degree of difficulty when taken out of the comfort zone.
A player who likes to dribble relies on confidence, in his faith in his own ability to get past the defender. But that confidence is not an abstract – it reflects his belief in his capacity to perform the task. If the dribbler is aware that he is likely to pick up cheap free kicks, that if he is unable to get round the defender he has a good chance of wining the duel by being awarded a free kick, then his confidence soars. Take that belief away and it is a different story.
There is no better example than Robinho. Now 27, the former Santos star is enjoying a solid career – he has just helped Milan to the Italian title. But even his staunchest fan would have to confess that he has not come near to fulfilling the hopes that surrounded him when he was first making his name with Santos. Former Brazil international Casagrande said at that time on TV Globo that Robinho was going to be better than Maradona. I think we can all agree that this has not transpired.
Part of the explanation is surely that he was unprepared for the degree of difficulty he would face, and the problems he has experienced with a tougher refereeing criteria. How many times in European club football have we seen Robinho go to ground, not be awarded the free kick, and sit there swearing at the referee in Portuguese?
This is the challenge that Neymar will have to overcome is he is to achieve the greatness that is within his grasp. In his case the adjustment might be even more complicated. Eight years younger than Robinho, Neymar has grown up in this era of Brazilian football when diving is tolerated as an entirely normal part of the game – as we have seen with kids of Pavuna. I have never seen a player who throws himself so often, and who dives so theatrically. Of course, in great part this is a self-defence strategy – Neymar cuts such a slight figure against the more physically imposing defenders. But it is also a form of cheating, an attempt to win free kicks in advantageous positions and con the referee into giving cards to opposing players – and as such is viewed with revulsion by many in Europe.
Neymar has already picked up a reputation. In Europe if he overdoes the diving he will pick up cards and he will be a marked man. None of this should come as a surprise. Last Wednesday referee Carlos Amarilla did him a favour by giving him a taste of what to expect.
