German tabloid Bild take the view of an “unnecessary“ loss and that Dortmund was “distinctly predominant“. Markus Hanfler looks at the reaction to Arsenal's win.
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung continued and hailed that Dortmund should have won. Although they acknowledge that Arsenal did their homework and adjust to counter attack of the German team it is crystal clear to them who should have won the match.
Arsenal were “ice-cold” raved German football magazine kicker and scored from nothing. A well deserved victory is described differently to say the least.
German tabloid Bild take the view of an “unnecessary“ loss and that Dortmund was “distinctly predominant“.
The Bavarian national newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung wrote that Borussia Dortmund was unlucky. They continued: “In the end the BVB invested too little for the victory” and added it was “a dank and sometimes unexciting duet which only the guests enjoyed.”
Why does the German media think so much of Dortmund players if they weren’t winning? A classic case of misjudgment. One little passage of the whole German coverage cut right to the chase of the matter:
There is no game usually where Marco Reus didn’t strike, Suddeutsche Zeitung wrote in another piece and continued: “As well against Arsenal Marco Reus had many situations in which he flashed his sumptuous skills. However, the international failed to exploit its opportunities. To earn a top grade, Reus should have scored.” The game in a nutshell.
The passage destroyed the myth of 'the better team lost', which was used in last night’s post game interviews too often. If the one team really was better, it should have scored, but it didn’t. That’s the beauty of football: it has little room for an subjective final outcome.
Sure Arsenal was a little lucky to score with a rare foray forward. But if Borussia Dortmund weren’t able to score once or twice on their 15 goal scoring opportunities themselves then they can’t be the better team.
Do you agree with the German press or is it sour grapes?
image: © wonker