One of the new features of this World Cup, the hydration break was booed by fans in the stadiums and criticized by players and coaches. Many say that the three-minute break in the middle of each half breaks the rhythm of the game and some credit the novelty to FIFA’s commercial interests.
The so-called “cooling break” was announced by the entity as a measure to minimize the effects of strong heat on players during matches. The tournament started on June 11th and runs until July 19th, in the USA, Mexico and Canada.
In the first two countries, temperatures exceed 30°C, but in Canadian cities in general the situation has been milder. The stop always happens around the 22nd minute of each half.
It is true that these minutes opened up a new profit opportunity for the entity, with more advertising on TV broadcasts and streaming or even on the field. The teams use squeeze bottles and coolers printed with FIFA sponsor brands and big screens in the stadiums display advertising.
But the break offers coaches more than that pitchside chat with a player during the game. It’s the opportunity to pass instructions to the entire team, even if quickly.
Without going into whether the break is good or bad, the coach of the Portuguese national team, Roberto Martínez, said that coaches and teams need to be aware that the measure changes the dynamics of matches.
“It’s a very important, revolutionary aspect, because now the game takes place in four parts,” he said. “We already see it in other sports.”
Basketball, for example, is divided into four halves of ten minutes each. Intervals are 2 or 15 minutes. In volleyball, teams are allowed two rest periods per set, each 30 seconds, which coaches use to adjust their teams. There is also a three-minute break between sets.
American football, in turn, cited as an example of successful advertising exploitation during breaks, divides the match into four halves.
In the World Cup, there are cases where the game changed after the hydration break. Australia scored their two goals against Turkey, on the 14th, after stoppages in the first and second half (27th and 75th minutes, respectively).
In Brazil’s debut in the World Cup, against Morocco, the first half stopped shortly after the opponents’ goal.
With a clipboard in hand, coach Carlo Ancelotti gave instructions to the players. Soon after, the team gained a little more control of the ball in midfield and Vinicius Júnior equalized in the 32nd minute with an individual play.
On Saturday (21), the match between Germany and Ivory Coast was goalless until half-time. Just after three minutes of stoppage, the African team opened the scoring, in the 30th minute. They ended up losing to the Germans, 2-1, with a goal in stoppage time.
When analyzing the goals of the games until this Sunday (21), I found at least eight matches in which the teams scored after 25 minutes of the first half and 71 minutes of the second — I considered the stoppage at 22 minutes plus the three-minute break. Only games with tighter scores were taken into account, leaving aside routs.
Of course, this survey does not have statistical precision, as there are other variables that must be taken into consideration. For example, comparison with matches that did not have a break and whether there was an effective tactical change after the break.
Finally, there are those who argue that in matches in places where the temperature is pleasant, such as in Canada or in air-conditioned stadiums, stopping is not necessary.
According to FIFA, the uniformity of the rule guarantees equal conditions for all teams. But, if we analyze it from a tactical aspect, wouldn’t a possible suspension of the measure in these cities put the teams that play there at a disadvantage?
The debate is far from over.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
