Cold comfort

The Football Association officially overturned Nedum Onuoha's red card on Friday, meaning that he won't face suspension. That's good, but still fairly small consolation. Precedent has been set recently for the replaying of games due to egregious officiating errors, but this was not a botched enforcement of the rules of the game, it was simply a heinously bad judgment call - meaning that no matter how unsuspended Onuoha is, a decision that was admittedly harsh probably cost Man City the game. (Having the extra player out there while trying to defend changes everything - it could have kept the ball away from Distin's hand, for one thing.) It's always good to see that football's governing bodies are willing to admit to mistakes, but it doesn't make the results of those mistakes much easier to swallow.

Embarrassment and catharsis

It was like the Bolton game all over again, only even worse. City didn't exactly dominate Doncaster for most of the match, but they did generally have the better play and chances, though once again they had trouble finishing. When it went to extra time things were tense, but when Vassell put away a penalty in the first half, it looked good... then Onuoha got sent off for a challenge on a 50/50 ball with the goalkeeper which the color commentator thought was a harsh red. (Having seen the replay on Sky Sports News, it was in fact tremendously harsh - not only did Onuoha make contact with the ball, but he managed to pull his foot all the way down after he hit it so that he did not hit the keeper with his studs. And he gets sent off for that.) Then ANOTHER BALL GETS HANDLED IN THE BOX just two minutes from time, and Doncaster equalizes. Then we head to penalty kicks and things only get worse.

McIndoe, goal. 1-0 Doncaster.
Vassell beats the keeper... and hits the crossbar. Still 1-0.
Coppinger, goal. 2-0 Doncaster.
Sibierski has his shot saved! Still 2-0!
Heffernan, goal. 3-0 Doncaster. City now must make all remaining kicks and saves. Please.
Dunne... saved again! By the backup keeper! And that's it, 3-0, not a single PK converted against a side at the bottom of League One! And City are out of the Carling Cup!

Painful. Painful, painful, painful. I listened to the whole radio broadcast on an internet feed via the BBC website, and that's the result I get.

However, there's something sort of cathartic and unifying here. Though I took care to choose a Premiership side that was not among either the recently or historically dominant, Man City's recent unbeaten run (which had started before I declared my fandom) was almost unfair. I had looked into their history, of course, and found stuff like last year's third round FA Cup loss to Oldham, but there's a part of me that thinks that no matter how you chose your team, you can't truly belong until you've suffered with them. Otherwise you just seem like a frontrunner. Even Yankees fans, as much as I hate them, had the 1980s. (Although a decade of futility had sort of been earned by the Yankees' previous 60 years of general dominance.)

With the Bulls I had the post-Jordan, pre-Gordon era. With the Bears I've had about everything since 1986. With the Devils I had the 1994 Eastern Conference Finals, and the early playoff exits despite being the East's best team in 1997, 1998 and 1999. With the Cubs I've had my entire life.

So I hadn't yet had anything like that with Man City. There was the Bolton game, but Drew saved me from watching it, and the highlights simply reinforced the notion that City had played much better but had had some bad luck. Today, however, I suffered along with the team and the other fans, all the way through a game that should have been much more reminiscent of Barnsley than Oldham. Maybe it's because it was on the road (so was the Oldham game; Barnsley was not). Maybe it's because there was no Cole (surely he could have finished, as he could have finished one or two in the Bolton game), or no Barton or Fowler. Maybe it was just a few bad breaks - does it happen if Onuoha doesn't get sent off? Regardless of why, though, there was something cathartic - albeit deeply depressing - about the experience.

In what may be my favorite book, Nick Hornby's Fever Pitch, he writes of Arsenal's success at the beginning of the 1990s, "It was strange, trying to write about how miserable most of my footballing life has been in the midst of all that post-Championship hope and glory. So as the season crumbled to dust, and Highbury became a place for discontented players and unhappy fans once more, and the future began to look so dismal that it was impossible to remember why we thought it bright in the first place, I began to feel comfortable again." I'm not saying I relish defeat, as Hornby is not, and I would deny that theory in the same way that Bill Simmons refuted the idea, last fall, that the Red Sox fans' identities were tied to losing and that, having won the World Series for the first time in 86 years, they would not know what to do with themselves. What I am saying is that you have to take the bad to appreciate the good.

From the time I started getting really serious about sports, in the mid-90s, the Devils were probably the most successful team on my radar screen, winning three Stanley Cups between 1995 and 2003. But the 1995 Cup came on the heels of a devastating loss in 1994, and the 2000 win followed a three-year period during which we were eliminated twice in the first round as the #1 seed and the third time by the hated Rangers. Had the Devils pulled an Oilers and just won several Cups in a row, I'm not sure I would have known what to do, just as the Bulls' ridiculous run of NBA success was something that was good - not least because I knew so many Knicks fans at school - but not something to which I was really affixing my permanent identity. As nervous as I was in Game Six in 1997 and 1998, there was something fatalistic about the whole process, as though, having made the playoffs, the Bulls could not possibly lose. Following them, as a result, became less enjoyable - all their wins were expected. Had they lost just one of those years, everything else might have seemed justified - but they never did.

No one - and I say this very seriously as a Cubs fan - wants losing to define them. Being part of a losing culture is no fun. But there is one thing that a losing culture has over a winning culture - achieving the result will always be that much better. Yankees fans of the new generation who didn't remember the team's '80s struggles and thought there was no way they could lose to the Diamondbacks in 2001 probably had no idea how to react when Gonzalez hit his flare. Red Sox fans of any generation, however, knew how to react as Foulke tossed to first. They had seriously earned the win.

So as horrible and depressing as this loss was, ultimately it's a good thing. I mean, what if Man City had (somehow) not lost a game in the Premiership this year? Sure, I would have been following them the whole year, but I would never have known a loss. The City fans who have been waiting for a League title since 1968, or a Cup title since 1976, would be over the moon, but what would I have to compare it to? You need the losing first - otherwise you're just some guy who showed up to reap the rewards. I'll still be pulling for City to do well, of course - but now, if they win anything, I'll have a reference point: that crushing defeat at Doncaster that felt so painful. And I'll actually be able to say how much better the winning feels.

The palindrome of Bolton would be "Notlob"

Even though the Man City/Bolton game is probably one of only a half dozen Man City games that FSC will bother airing all year, I don't think I'm going to watch it. I was TiVoing it but got home late enough such that Drew had already watched it, and he warned me that I shouldn't. Personally, I might have been able to live with the result had I just sat down and watched it, but knowing that I had reason not to caused me to look it up. 1-0 doesn't sound so bad of course, but it was the way they lost. (I watched the EPL Review Show later on FSC so I saw all the key plays.)

It's pretty depressing to think that a team can be that strong an attacking force despite missing their star transfer striker and still lose, but that's what happens when you hit the woodwork five times - five! - and your right back handles a ball in the area in stoppage time. I think Musampa should have scored on his frame shot - he tried to one-time a ball, which would have looked way cool had it gone in, but it would have been much easier to score had he gathered it and settled down, then taken a shot. He had the time and space to do so, too.

On the other hand, it's great to see City attacking like that. Sometimes you just have hard luck games and this was clearly one - going double-digit games without a loss isn't the most common thing, so to think it was going to stretch on forever was a bit naive. This kind of attacking football, where City looked to be dominating the game against a team good enough to play in Europe (the EPL Review highlights package did not contain a single Bolton shot on goal except for the penalty kick), is to be commended and I hope it continues going forward, starting with Doncaster on Wednesday. (No embarrassing early Cup crashes, please.)

No respect, I tell you

I don't understand the FIFA world rankings. I know they're supposed to take into account pretty much every major play by the senior team of a nation, but sometimes I wonder what exactly is going on. For example, here are the top ten rankings in August of this year:

1. Brazil 837 points
2. Argentina 782 points
3. Netherlands 780 points
4. Czech Republic 777 points
5. Mexico 770 points
6. USA 768 points
7. England 743 points
8. Spain 739 points
9. France 737 points
9. Portugal 737 points

So that seems fair enough, right? Now, here's what's happened with those teams since then:

Brazil - 5-0 win over #73 Chile that qualified them for the World Cup
Argentina - 1-0 loss to #35 Paraguay that likely owed itself at least partially to the fact that Argentina had already qualified for the World Cup
Netherlands - 1-0 win over #120 Armenia; 4-0 win over #134 Andorra
Czech Republic - 2-0 loss to #31 Romania; 4-1 win over #120 Armenia
Mexico - 2-0 loss to #6 USA; 5-0 win over #77 Panama that qualified them for the World Cup
USA - 2-0 win over #5 Mexico that qualified them for the World Cup; 0-0 draw with #59 Guatemala
England - 1-0 win over #83 Wales; 1-0 loss to #116 Northern Ireland
Spain - 1-1 draw with #49 Serbia and Montenegro
France - 3-0 win over #126 Faeroe Islands; 1-0 win over #14 Ireland
Portugal - 6-0 win over #155 Luxembourg; 0-0 draw with #29 Russia

Now, based on these results and on the previous rankings, you might think the following things:
1. Argentina might drop, but probably not much since FIFA would understand they had little to play for
2. The USA would pass Mexico
3. England would likely drop out of the top ten
4. The rest of the rankings would probably stay more or less the same

Now. Three of those are essentially correct. One is not. Can you guess which one it is? I'll give you a hint: study the new rankings, released today, carefully.

1. Brazil 839 points
2. Netherlands 785 points
3. Argentina 778 points
4. Czech Republic 777 points
5. Mexico 771 points
6. France 770 points
7. USA 768 points
8. Spain 750 points
9. Portugal 743 points
10. Sweden 740 points

Now, FIFA claims to weigh a lot of factors. Let's look at their own words for this one:

"But by contrast to normal league championships, for the World Ranking a team's points for a match do not depend solely on whether they win, lose or draw. Also affecting the total for a match will be the number of goals scored and conceded, the venue and the importance of the match. In addition, the strength of the opponent is considered, so that a win over a weakly rated opponent will earn fewer points than one against a strongly rated one. This means that a win will not simply bring two or three points and a draw one, as would happen in a national league. The calculation is more complicated since it incorporates the factors mentioned above."

So let's see. The United States beat Mexico in the most important qualifier of their season (since the winner would have no more work to do) and then sent a second team to Guatemala where they held for a 0-0 draw against a lower-rated but still decent squad that was desperate for a win. Grand total of accumulated points: zero. Mexico, on the other hand, lost to the U.S. (but on the road, ooooh), then put the wood to a Panama team that was even weaker than Guatemala and did it in Mexico. Grand total of accumulated points: one.

The message I'm getting here is this: FIFA, like a college football poll, loves it when you run up the score. If the U.S. had beaten Guatemala 6-0, do you think they'd still be behind Mexico? I understand that Mexico shouldn't be devalued too much for losing at the United States, but what I'm getting from the fact that the U.S. didn't even add points is that drawing in Guatemala when you have absolutely nothing to play for and sent a second-string team is a negative occurrence, because surely beating the #5 team in the world, even if you play them in your backyard, is a positive one. What I'm also getting from it is that Mexico actually benefited from the U.S.'s previously high ranking; had the U.S. been ranked in the 30s like Paraguay, whose match against Argentina was at home, perhaps Mexico would actually have lost some points. Or maybe defeating a team ranked in the 70s at a home stadium where you almost never lose is just that impressive?

What we've learned is this: FIFA does not seem to care about whether a game is important or not. If you want to rise in the world rankings, the most important thing is to beat up on teams much worse than you. A 2-0 game between the world #5 and world #6? That's not so important. What really matters for next month is how those teams play when one is on the road against a #50ish team in a game they don't need to win and one is at home against a #70ish team in a game they do need to win.

Okay, yes: the U.S. team did not look very good in the Guatemala game. But again: second-stringers! They didn't need to look good! What happened to considering the "importance of the match," FIFA? What I'm hearing is that if the U.S. had scored one goal, just one, that probably would have been enough to keep the #6 spot, maybe even move up. But no.

Eh, whatever. We're in the World Cup, and ultimately FIFA rankings don't mean all that much. Either we're going to do well (I sure hope) or we aren't. Still, you have to admit this is a little annoying.

Dueling Man-jos

Though I knew the result and had seen the highlights, I sat down and watched the whole Manchester derby anyway tonight, because I'll be lucky to see a third of Man City's games all year so I'll be damned if I'm going to pass one up.

It wasn't too bad. Reading the recap and, in particular, Ferguson's whinefest, you'd think the whole game was just United firing shot after shot while City stacked ten men on the 18-yard line, but that really wasn't the case. In fact, City controlled the ball in the midfield for most of the first half and probably had the nearest misses before van Nistelrooy put one in just before the whistle. (Bad break there for City as well - James did well to make the first save on RVN's redirect of the free kick, but nobody got there to hold him off on the rebound.)

The second half was closest to Ferguson's description - after playing a bit more open in the first half and conceding a goal, City seemed determined to lock down and look for an opening for a counterattack. So most of it was just United attacking and eventually being held off, before City finally broke through in the 76th when Barton tapped Vassell's shot past Ferdinand, who was on the line to van der Sar's left as the only person in the way.

And after that, City unquestionably had the only other good chance of the game, when Cole drilled one that van der Sar just got in front of, about thirty seconds from time. Very very close to stealing one there. But Ferguson's just whining about nothing. Sure, City played defensively in the second half and waited for the "scraps," as he said. So what? It's a game plan and it worked. You expect City to try and get into a shootout with a team running van Nistelrooy and Rooney out front on their home pitch? They were playing for the draw in the second half, not the win, and they still came near to stealing it. Don't be mad because you drew; be relieved you didn't lose.

On to the other Tuesday action:

Real Betis 1-2 Liverpool

Not the best-played of games. Liverpool got the opener about 90 seconds in and the second before the 15-minute mark, and then at halftime seemed to lose all interest in attacking and just sat back as Betis missed chance after chance. The Spaniards did put one in with just six minutes gone by in the second, but after that it was all for naught; just a lot of boring midfield play, and the Reds didn't even play particularly well on defense (in some respects you could say they were lucky to win, especially with the case that they got away with a push on the first goal). Still, I'm glad to see Champions League football back, though I'm already salivating over the knockout stages and their heightened drama. (Hopefully I wasn't just spoiled by last year's finish.)

As for the games I didn't see but saw the scores, quick hits: Yikes, Madrid. Shrug, Chelsea. Wow, Rosenborg. And hey, Rangers. The rest were as expected. Tomorrow's most interesting game is probably Man U-Villareal, which will be on ESPN2; I don't think I'll have the chance to watch it live but it will be waiting on TiVo when I get home.

Premiership Power Poll

We're roughly one-eighth of the way through the Premiership season, with most teams having played five matches already, so I've decided to compile my impressions into a sort of power ranking. This is not just the league standings, though of course it's not tremendously different either.

1. Chelsea (5-0-0, 15 pts)
The sky seems to be the limit for Chelsea. 38 wins from 38 games? An entire Premiership season without allowing a goal? Why not? Chelsea's roster is preposterously stacked with talent - it seems like virtually everyone on the team is a star for their respective national teams (meaning that this year's World Cup qualifying could be the only thing that slows Chelsea down). Certainly the Blues have picked up just where they left off last season - five straight wins, most notably victories over Arsenal and Tottenham, and no goals conceded yet (a year after they set a new Premiership record with just 15 allowed).

2. Charlton (4-0-0, 12 pts)
We'll see just how good Charlton really are when they host Chelsea at The Valley on the 17th of this month, but until then the Addicks have earned this spot. They haven't played the best of competition yet, with Middlesbrough probably being the top of the four, but Charlton have scored eight while conceding just one, nothing to sniff at, and three of their four wins have come on the road, never an easy place to get three points in the Premiership. Much of the credit belongs to 21-year-old striker Darren Bent, who owns five of Charlton's eight goals so far.

3. Manchester United (3-1-0, 10 pts)
Though a draw in the Manchester derby has Man U sitting behind their crosstown rivals on the table, the Red Devils have a game in hand on City and have been more overall impressive so far. The goal allowed to Joey Barton in that game was the first Man U had conceded all year, while Ruud van Nistelrooy and Wayne Rooney have been scoring for United as expected so far. A trip to Liverpool on the 18th may be Man U's only serious league test between now and a November 6 tilt with the defending champs.

4. Manchester City (3-2-0, 11 pts)
Stuart Pearce's side have run off 13 consecutive Premiership matches without a loss, and current results suggest there's a chance that streak could be run to nearly 20, though a trip to Highbury in late October will provide a stiff challenge. With a regrouped attack that hasn't seemed to be missing Shaun Wright-Phillips yet, City are not in the class of a Chelsea or Man U in terms of overall talent but should have enough to play their way into Europe if they keep up current standards.

5. Liverpool (1-2-0, 5 pts)
The Reds have had a slow start to the season in terms of fixtures due to their European commitments. Though they haven't lost yet, they also haven't looked that good in the league, with two goalless draws and a 1-0 win over Sunderland to show for their efforts. However, their continued advancement into the group stages of the Champions League shows that this is still a strong team. The question remains this: will Liverpool prioritize Europe over the Premiership as they seemed to do last season? If so, they may find themselves dropping down the table and this ranking.

6. Tottenham Hotspur (2-2-1, 8 pts)
Spurs also have two goalless draws to their name, but also a pair of 2-0 wins, and their only loss so far came to Chelsea. That loss wasn't even as bad as it looks (and against Chelsea, that's not too bad), since both of the Blues' goals came after Mido was sent off for Spurs. With current England starter Paul Robinson in net, Spurs will find themselves engaged in a lot of defensive struggles, especially if the offense doesn't pick it up a bit.

7. Arsenal (2-0-2, 6 pts)
Arsenal have been very bipolar so far this season. The year started with a 2-0 win over Newcastle, a slim 1-0 loss at Stamford Bridge, and a 4-1 rout of Fulham. Then the Gunners went to Middlesbrough and went down 2-1. Arsenal still have the talent to return to Europe and the top of the table, but this is not the same team that went undefeated in 2004, especially with Patrick Vieira now at Juventus and Thierry Henry currently nursing an injured groin.

8. Bolton Wanderers (2-2-1, 8 pts)
Last year's sixth-place finish earned Bolton their first-ever trip to Europe in the club's 111 years. The Trotters are somewhat known for their age (many of their stars are above the age of 30), so it remains to be seen if all the extra football will take a toll, especially on the club's league fortunes. So far, apart from a 1-0 home loss to Everton, Bolton have been fairly impressive, with wins at West Ham and home to Newcastle.

9. Middlesbrough (2-1-2, 7 pts)
Boro's 2-1 win over Arsenal cemented them as a solid contender for European play for a third consecutive year. They've been a bit up and down, however, with a 3-0 loss at home to Charlton and a 3-0 win at Birmingham serving as the opposite ends of the spectrum. Boro are unlikely to challenge for a Champions League spot but could make some noise for the UEFA Cup and could play a spoiler role.

10. West Ham (2-1-1, 7 pts)
A 4-0 demolition of Aston Villa on Monday proved that West Ham are not a team that come up only to go right back down. The Hammers already own two wins, and both are over established Premiership sides (the other was a 3-1 win over Blackburn to open the year). It remains to be seen if they can play on the road, however, with only a 0-0 draw at Newcastle so far. Still, their early home form has been quite impressive, especially for newcomers.

11. Wigan (2-0-2, 6 pts)
Wigan have also shown solid form so far as they hope to join West Ham in beating the average of two callups going right back down the following season. The Latics' wins have only come over bottom-feeders Sunderland and West Brom so far, but their two losses were 1-0 defeats to Chelsea and Charlton, both found at the other end of the table and usually known for scoring more. This solid defensive form may bode well for Wigan down the road.

12. Blackburn Rovers (1-2-2, 5 pts)
Aside from a 2-1 home triumph over Fulham, Blackburn have looked likely to repeat their form of last year - good enough to be several spots from the relegation zone, but not good enough to make the top half of the table. Goalless draws against Spurs and Bolton have shown fine defensive form, though.

13. Aston Villa (1-2-2, 5 pts)
Villa sink to this level after being embarrassed at West Ham. Their one win so far was a slim triumph over Blackburn, and they did well to draw Bolton 2-2 in the opener, but they have looked solidly mediocre otherwise. The game against West Ham was probably not as bad as it looks by the score line, but a lack of finishing on the Villans' part was the nail in the coffin.

14. Fulham (1-2-2, 5 pts)
Brian McBride has had strong early form, but a 1-0 win over Everton has been the only real bright spot for the Cottagers so far, with a massive 4-1 defeat at Arsenal and a 2-1 loss to equally middling Blackburn also on the card. Fulham looks again like their main role in the Premiershp will be as possible spoilers.

15. Newcastle (0-2-3, 2 pts)
Though still without a win, Newcastle slots into 15th spot in this poll because of the addition of Michael Owen, who should provide some punch to an attack that has netted just one goal in five games. At least their form hasn't been terrible - their three losses have come to teams good enough to be playing in Europe this season. Still, with Owen in town the Magpies need to start scoring soon to keep Graeme Souness' job at St. James' Park.

16. Everton (1-0-3, 3 pts)
One of the least likely top-four teams ever, last year's Everton squad put the Ewing Theory to the test by getting rid of Wayne Rooney and running into Europe regardless, a year after finishing 17th and avoiding relegation by just six points. While David Moyes may have gotten the most out of the Toffees in 2004-05, however, 2005-06 is looking like it might be a return to form. The Blues just lost at home to Portsmouth and have scored just one goal in four games, though they have done well enough defensively by only conceding four. After crashing out of the Champions League in qualifying, Everton will look to make a UEFA Cup run, but that may be the highlight of their season.

17. Birmingham City (1-1-3, 4 pts)
Birmingham have a number of strong players, including Finnish striker Mikael Forssell, but in an odd twist have yet to win at St. Andrews, with losses to Man City, Boro, and Charlton. Their road form has been better although against worse teams, with the one win so far coming at West Brom. Another season in the bottom half looks likely, though the Blues have the talent to make a run at the top half.

18. Portsmouth (1-1-3, 4 pts)
A 1-0 win at Everton has been the only real bright spot so far for Portsmouth, who could well be looking at a relegation battle this year after escaping last year while rivals Southampton went down. Pompey have been solidly in the bottom half since making their Premiership debut in 2003-2004, and this year's squad doesn't look likely to change that.

19. West Bromwich Albion (1-1-3, 4 pts)
West Brom narrowly escaped relegation last year on the final day of the season, becoming the first club in Premiership history to be bottom of the table at Christmas and stay up. The Baggies can't keep relying on those survival tactics, though, especially if they're going to lead the league in goals conceded as they are, with ten, one-eighth of the way through. WBA opened the season with four points from two games by drawing Man City and beating Portsmouth 2-1, but it's been downhill from there, with a 4-0 drubbing at Chelsea and losses to Birmingham and, most recently, newcomers Wigan. Without Geoff Horsfield scoring four of West Brom's five goals so far, the Baggies would be even worse off.

20. Sunderland (0-0-5, 0 pts)
Sunderland surely hoped to contend in the top flight after topping the Championship, but right now the only record they're challenging is their own mark for Premiership futility - 19 points, set in 2003. That Black Cats side finished with 27 losses from 38 games, just four wins, and a goal differential of -44, all records in the ten-year history of the 20-team Premiership. This year's squad have begun with five losses from five games, scoring just two goals and conceding nine. If Mick McCarthy's men can't get into the win column - or at least the draw column - when they host another straggler in West Brom on the 17th, we may have to clear some space in the record book for the first team that didn't win a Premiership game all season.

A look into Europe

Though I'm most excited about the next (and final) set of World Cup qualifiers, I'm also fairly pumped for the start of the club competitions. While one of England's domestic cups starts for the Premiership clubs later this month (City take on League One club Doncaster in Round Two of the Carling Cup on the 21st - I don't claim to know how they work out the schedules for these things), the whole of Europe if not the world will have their eye on the two European cups, the UEFA Cup and, in particular, the Champions League.

The qualifiers having been played back in July and August, the six matches for each club will be played between now and December. I don't think we need to break down every single team's chances, but let's take a look at the groups really quick, with particular emphasis on the international powers in each of them.

Group A: With both Bayern Munich and Juventus, this group is probably the most straightforward to determine the top two teams that will advance to the knockout stages. Bayern won the Bundesliga last year and have opened 2005-2006 with four wins in four matches to go top of the table; Juve are defending Serie A champs and also top the early season table in Italy. It's hard to imagine either Rapid Vienna or Club Brugge taking much of anything from either team; I favor Bayern to win the group because of their edge in the goalkeeping department with Oliver Kahn in net. Juve have not conceded a goal in two Serie A games but are starting a replacement keeper due to injury. Be sure to mark off October 18 and November 2, when the powers meet.

Group B: This may be the weakest group. Arsenal are looking weak in early season play, with two Premiership wins but also two losses, including a 2-1 defeat this weekend that was their first to Middlesbrough in Premiership play. Worse still, Thierry Henry is out for an undetermined period of time that will include this Wednesday's first match. Ajax have more anonymous talent but will be looking to capitalize on any Arsenal slips. It would be quite an upset if those two clubs don't advance, however, with Sparta Prague and FC Thun playing the minnow roles; the latter in particular will likely just be happy to be there.

Group C: This may be an underrated group. Barcelona will be expected to go through, but don't count out Werder Bremen, who won the Bundesliga two seasons ago, or Udinese, making their CL group debut but much improved in the past several years. For that matter, Panathinaikos have some European history and a successful Italian coach. Barca most likely will advance one way or another, but beyond that nothing would surprise me.

Group D: Unquestionably Manchester United's group to lose. While none of Villareal, Benfica, and Lille are pushovers, Man U should have superior talent to them all. Villareal have already dispatched one English club (Everton) in qualifying, but Man U are much stronger and Villareal have started their domestic season sluggishly. Lille, who have started fairly strong (2-3-1) in Ligue Un, could be a surprise second if they play well.

Group E: Another fairly strong group top to bottom - AC Milan and PSV Eindhoven met last year in the CL semifinals, though PSV have lost several key players since then. German club Schalke 04 finished second in the Bundesliga last year, while Fenerbahce were Turkish champions. Milan should be favored to win and probably will, but anyone could finish second.

Group F: Real Madrid and their surplus of talent will be expected to win; after failing to bring home any hardware since their last league win in 2002-03, fan patience may be running short with such an expensive squad. Not to be overlooked, however, are French champions Lyon (quarterfinalists last season) and Olympiakos, the Greek champions who narrowly missed a spot in the knockout rounds last year to eventual champs Liverpool. Bringing up the rear are Rosenborg, the perennial Norwegian champs and equally perennial exit from the CL group stages, but at least they're seasoned. It'll be a real dogfight for the top two spots.

Group G: As if making a point about failing to qualify via one's league rules, UEFA managed to slot Liverpool into the same group as Chelsea, a break with the usual rule that no two teams from the same league shall play in the same group. The chance at a dual rematch to remove last season's semifinal embarrassment must be incredibly tempting and inspiring for Chelsea; playing possibly even better football than last year, they're already top of the Premiership with 15 points in five games. (Liverpool lag in tenth with five from three.) Barring another Reds-related stumble, it's hard to see Chelsea, an immensely talented side on all fronts, failing to win the group; second place is the real trick. Liverpool look to be in the driver's seat on this count, unless all the football they've played catches up to them. Real Betis' injuries should short out their bid, however, and Anderlecht don't look to be in the same class, finishing a mere second in the little-regarded Belgian league. In any event, keep a close eye on the Blues-Reds matches, on September 28 at Anfield and December 6 at Stamford Bridge.

Group H: Inter Milan should be favorites here. Rangers and Porto will battle for second place (they meet Tuesday at Ibrox in what should be an early sign of which will finish behind Inter); Artmedia Bratislava will most likely bring up the rear. Porto did win the CL two years ago behind current Chelsea head man Jose Mourinho, giving them some edge in experience over Rangers. Inter's having to play home matches behind closed doors due to the fan violence in their match with city rivals AC Milan in last year's quarterfinals may affect them, though how much remains to be seen.

So that's the Champions League. Ought to be awesome. ESPN2 is actually showing some of the games, starting with Liverpool's match against Real Betis on Tuesday. Now a quick mention of the UEFA Cup, which features a few Premiership clubs and starts its next round on Thursday.

Everton, having been bounced from the CL qualifying stages, take on Dinamo Bucharest; Middlesbrough get Greek side FC Xanthi; Bolton host Lokomotiv Plovdiv of Bulgaria. Everton, the only English side who must play away in the first leg of this round, have struggled in the early season, with three losses in four Premiership games and just one goal scored in those four. The Toffees aren't much for scoring, having a -1 goal differential even while finishing fourth last year, and must rely on their defense if they hope to advance in the Cup. Bolton, 2-2-1 in their first five league games, have a better hope, though their last game at the Reebok Stadium finished 0-0 against Blackburn on Sunday. Boro may be the best odds to move on, coasting on their strong 2-1 win over Arsenal on Saturday, though they have two losses already as well.

It's tempting to pick all the English sides to move on because the other teams are also-rans from weaker domestic leagues, but one never knows. Still, Boro and Newcastle both played quite late into the Cup last year before they were both felled by eventual runners-up Sporting Lisbon in consecutive rounds, so all three should move on, at least at this stage. With some of the scoring issues, though, I'd keep an eye on it.

I gave up trying to avoid the Manchester derby results because it was driving me crazy; I'm happy with the draw, needless to say, and hoping for a win in the rematch. I saw the condensed highlights on the review show; it looked pretty much like this. "Man U shot, oh! Man U shot, oh! Man U shot, oh! Man U shot, oh! Man U shot, goal! Man City shot, oh! Man U shot, oh! Man U shot, oh! Man U shot, oh! Man U shot, oh! Man City shot, goal! Man U shot, oh! Game over." So yeah, United appear to have dominated the run of play for most of the game, but City's defense was strong enough to hold for the draw, and you can't be unhappy with that. (Even if Andy Cole nearly put in a winner late.) I'll probably still watch the full game after it plays on FSC on Tuesday and hand in a report.

Manchester Derby, Round One: Preview

I'm coming up on my first Manchester derby as a City fan, so I thought I'd take a moment to look back into history and also forward at what we might expect on Saturday.

Last City win over United: March 14, 2004; a 4-1 win at City of Manchester Stadium.

Last City win over United at Old Trafford: April 27, 1974; 1-0. Part of a seven-season span (from '67-'68 to '73-'74) in which City went 6-1-0 against United at Old Trafford in League play.

But: City have lost just once in their last four league trips to Old Trafford.

City all-time record against United: 38-48-56.

At Old Trafford: 14-25-33.

City are actually ahead of United in the standings right now, but only by a point, and United have played one fewer game, so whatever. Still, City's unbeaten league run stretches back to last March, a 2-1 loss at Spurs, for a run of 12 unbeaten games (7-5-0). Also of note: the derby has not taken place with City ahead of United in the standings since May 4th, 1991. (United won that game 1-0 at Old Trafford but still finished behind City for the year, which is also the last time that happened.)

Anyway, what to expect. Neither club has lost a game yet; United are 3-0-0 while City are 3-1-0. United's wins so far have come over Everton, Aston Villa, and struggling Newcastle; City have defeated Birmingham, Sunderland, and Portsmouth. Thus this is probably the first serious test for either club (though Everton's not bad, they haven't looked great yet), especially City.

City's wins have all come 2-1; in both the Birmingham and Portsmouth games, the opposition drew first blood and it was up to City to come back. This would not be a wise course of action against United, needless to say, who have yet to give up a goal this season. Moreover, City's new striker Andy Cole is a former Red Devil, though whether this means they'll better know how to mark him or not I'm not sure. David James' recent struggles make him all the better a target for United's pack of top-class players, that's for sure. Ruud van Nistelrooy has three goals in three league games; Wayne Rooney has United's other two. If the City defense can shut down either of those attackers, perhaps they've got a shot at stealing a win.

I doubt that, though. All good things must come to an end and City's unbeaten streak is one of them (though if it doesn't end here it could well last until late October and a trip to Highbury). The recent tendency to draw at Old Trafford leaves me somewhat hopeful, especially since this seems based on recent results to potentially be a better squad than those of the past few years, but it can't last forever, even with Fowler and Distin returning for the derby. City can challenge for Europe this year (as they did last year with the late run), but that doesn't mean they'll never lose. Still, they could be the first club to score on Man U this year. Prediction: United 2, City 1.

(Incidentally, FSC isn't showing this game until Tuesday. Do we think there's any chance at all I can go that long without seeing the result?)

Survivor: Guatemala

A shrug of the shoulders and a hearty "eh" to the U.S.'s 0-0 draw in Guatemala on Wednesday night. ESPN2 was showing a Mets-Braves game that ran long, so the game cut in at the 23rd minute, which was a bit irritating but I guess understandable (the Mets-Braves game at least had potential playoff ramifications, while the U.S. has, of course, already clinched).

Anyway, we didn't miss much. Starting an entirely different 11 from the squad that took on Mexico (in fact, the only starters who had even played in Columbus were Pablo Mastroeni, Santino Quaranta, and Jeff Cunningham, who were the U.S.'s three subs in that game), the Americans looked for most of the game like they were playing for the 0-0 draw they ended up getting - lazy long passes, not much attacking, concerned mostly with keeping Guatemala off the board. Late in the game things started to pick up a bit, especially when Eddie Johnson came on in the 57th minute and Landon Donovan in the 64th, and the U.S. did blow a few opportunities right in front of the Guatemalan goal, in particular a 3-on-2 break that concluded with Johnson knocking a header well wide to the right of the net. But Donovan probably should have just blasted a finisher there rather than offering it up; the other U.S. problem for most of the night was simply too much passing and not enough shooting. It was like the U.S. team wanted Guatemala to have a point and decided they weren't going to shoot unless they were already inside the six-yard box.

At least the defensive effort wasn't bad, putting up a clean sheet with a second-string team at Guatemala, a place the U.S. has apparently never won, against a team that wanted the game a lot more. Yeah, there were some lapses here and there, but again, considering that this wasn't the first team, I'll take a little luck if things worked out overall, which they did. It's too bad we couldn't ever bury a winner, but sometimes that's how these things go.

The U.S. is now tied atop the group with Mexico on 19 points. We should own the tiebreaker, holding the edge in goal differential (+1 to -1) in the two games. I'm not sure it matters much, though. We're talking about the World Cup here - even if a protected seed does exist, you're pretty much always going to end up in a group with some world power. Look at 2002 - we drew Portugal and the host South Koreans, Mexico drew Italy and 1998 third-place finishers Croatia, and Costa Rica - which led CONCACAF in points - drew Brazil and eventual third-place finishers Turkey! (Needless to say, they were the only CONCACAF team of the three not to advance to the knockout rounds.) So maybe finishing second would actually be better. I suspect that's what will happen; we finish with Panama at home, likely a win even with second-teamers, but the game at Costa Rica could well be a loss, as they'll be playing to seal their ticket to Germany and it's in San José. (We lost that game 2-0 in the qualifying for the 2002 Cup.) I say 22, max 23 points; meanwhile, Mexico host Guatemala and play at Trinidad and Tobago, both games they should win even if they choose to field a secondary squad. (Personally, I get the feeling that the Mexicans will want to take top of the group as if to show the U.S. that they are still the #1 team in the region, and that they may continue to play most of their top players as a result. More power to them if that's the case; I'll take a healthier team over a meaningless first place.)

UEFA doubleheader

Two consecutive UEFA World Cup qualifiers on FSC today - one live, one on a half-hour tape delay. Reports from those:

Czech Republic 4-1 Armenia

It was a game that was simultaneously closer than the final score indicated and yet probably not as close. The Armenians had the best chance of the first half, when lone striker Ara Hakobyan had to be met and denied by Czech keeper Jaromir Blazek at the edge of the 18-yard box; Hakobyan, playing up in what seemed to be a 4-5-1 formation, was left unchecked on a surprising number of occasions, the last of which led to Armenia’s lone goal on a nice finish in the 86th minute. By then, of course, the game was over; though the Czechs struggled against Armenia’s solid defense in the first half, they picked things up in the second. Their first two goals, from Marek Heinz in the 47th minute and Jan Polak in the 52nd, were off deflections and not reflective of great finishing, but Armenia let them keep firing away, and that’s what’s going to happen. Roman Berezovsky had a great first half but he couldn’t hold off the Czechs forever. Milan Baros made it three when he tapped in a rebound in the 58th, and Polak collected his second with a blast – easily the most impressive Czech goal – from about 23 yards in the 76th minute.
Game ball goes to: Vladimir Smicer, who came on as a substitute at halftime with his team floundering and immediately injected some life into them in the midfield.
Impressed the most: Has to be Hakobyan, who looked surprisingly good considering how little help he had. Perhaps the Czech defense just didn’t take him seriously, but he probably should have put Armenia up 1-0 in the 30th minute on his breakaway (at which point we would have been looking at a very different game), and he had a good touch to get the visitors on the board late.
Snakebit: Baros, who had trouble finishing all day. It’s never that impressive when a striker’s only goal in numerous chances comes dribbling off his thigh after the goaltender has weakly deflected a free kick. Aside from his goal Baros frequently looked lost with some of his passes and couldn’t seem to even put the ball directly on net when he had it.
Final impression: Credit Armenia for hanging in there as long as they did, but look wary if you’re a Czech Republic fan. This game was at home, even if it wasn’t in Prague, so to let the little guy hang around that long, and score half of your goals due partially to fortunate bounces, is a little worrying. With group leaders the Netherlands coming to town on October 8, the Czechs face a schedule that lets them play their way to the top of the group – but that’s only if they’re up to the task.

Belarus 1-4 Italy

Belarus got on the board in just the fourth minute, but Italy wasn’t rattled by this shock goal, scoring two in the next ten minutes to take a lead they would not relinquish. What should scare other teams is that the Italians did not seem like they were playing their best football, and they still won going away, albeit against a somewhat lesser nation.
Game ball goes to: Luca Toni, who scored Italy’s first two goals and then put in a third on a nice Italian break in the 55th for his first international hat trick.
Impressed the most: Has to be Toni, who put in his first goals in World Cup qualifying since scoring the winner in Italy’s very first qualifying match against Norway last September.
Snakebit: The Belarusian attack, which spent most of the second half on the Italian side of the field but couldn’t get anything through. While their passing was crisp for most of the match, Belarus’ finishing never matched the level of the Azzurri.
Final impression: Italy can surely look better offensively – which, again, is a scary thought. They’re vulnerable as long as they maintain a formation that puts only three men back on defense, however; Belarus exploited the defensive holes all day long, but just couldn’t finish anything. A stronger offensive team probably wouldn’t let so many chances go by.

So, after today's games, an update on the groups with now no more than two matches left for anyone.

Group 1: The Netherlands are still top by four points, on 28 to the Czechs' 24, with two matches left. Romania is on 22 with one match left; they're likely done, as the Czechs need just two points out of their final two games to go clear (and that's even assuming Romania wins their final game at Finland on October 8). The Dutch are in command of the group; even if they lose to the Czechs on October 8, their final game is against 2-2-7 Macedonia. Right now the Czechs will be looking to finish in the top two second place teams and avoid the playoffs; not losing to the Dutch will help that cause.

Group 2: Ukraine has the group won, but second place is still up for grabs - Turkey is on 20 points after beating Ukraine today, but Greece and Denmark also won and are on 18 and 16 points respectively. The worse news for Turkey is that both Greece and Denmark have two games left, while the Turks have only one (it's against Albania; Turkey won the first match 2-0). The good news is that Greece and Denmark will play each other on October 8. A win by Turkey in the Albania game would take them clear of Denmark, so they'll be rooting for the Danes on the 8th. Greece and Denmark both finish with minnows (Georgia and Kazakhstan), but as long as Turkey beats Albania and Greece doesn't win the Denmark game, Turkey is through. If Greece beats Denmark, however, that last day is going to be a sweaty one in Ankara.

Group 3: Portugal's scoreless draw in Russia got it one step closer to winning the group; on 24 points, five clear of Russia and Slovakia, Portugal needs just two points in the remaining two games to win the group. They were held to a shock draw in Vaduz in their first match against Liechtenstein, but the reverse tilt in Portugal seems like a likely win, which would do it. The real battle is now for second; Slovakia and Russia are tied at 19 and finish with each other on October 12 (the previous match was a 1-1 draw in Moscow last year). The Russians face awful minnows Luxembourg on the 8th and so will assuredly enter with 22 points; Slovakia must take care of Estonia, who are on 14 points and thus not mathematically eliminated yet. (Slovakia hosts after winning the first match 2-1 in Tallinn.)

Group 4: Still a real mess. After beating Ireland 1-0 today, France has climbed to 16 points, tied with Switzerland. Israel is now third on 15 points after taking care of the Faeroes; Ireland is still on 13 points. Switzerland must still play France and Ireland; Ireland and France each play Switzerland and Cyprus. Assuming both take care of business against Cyprus and Israel beats the Faeroes a second time, Israel will be on 18 points, France on 19, Switzerland on 16, and Ireland on 16. This leaves the Swiss/French game and the Swiss/Irish game. If both are draws (as the first ones were), France will win the group and Israel will advance to the playoffs. But if the Swiss win either game or Ireland wins, Israel is out. It's still far too complicated to call.

Group 5: Italy's win over Belarus helped them, as did Norway tripping at home against Scotland; the Azzurri need only draw Slovenia at home on October 8 to win the group. The Scots aren't out of it yet; they must host Belarus and travel to Slovenia still, but if they can get six points out of those two matches, they would advance if Norway manages two or fewer out of its final two games against Belarus and Moldova, or if Norway makes only four and the goal differential turns in Scotland's favor. (Currently Norway is +3, while Scotland is at 0.) Two wins for Norway advance them to at least the playoffs regardless of other outcomes, as they own two wins over Slovenia, with whom they are currently tied on 12 points.

Group 6: England's shock loss to Northern Ireland leaves them stuck on 19 points, while Poland's defeat of Wales moved them to 24. Poland has only one match remaining, however, and it's at England - meaning England controls its own destiny in the group. Win the final two matches, home contests against Austria and Poland, and they win the group. With Austria's scoreless draw against Azerbaijan today, England did officially clinch no worse than a playoff spot, though they might still qualify automatically even if they fail to beat Poland. Still, the group will come down to that game, unless Austria can trip England on October 8.

Group 7: A goal in the 68th minute pulled Serbia & Montenegro even with Spain, leaving the Serbs top of the group on 16 points and four ahead of Spain in goal differential. Spain finishes with Belgium and minnows San Marino, while Serbia closes with Lithuania and Bosnia. The Bosnians, on 13 points after a win today, aren't out of it yet, just one back of Spain. Assuming Spain holds form and beats Belgium and San Marino as they did in their previous matches with those two nations, however, Bosnia's only hope is to catch the Serbs for second place, which would still be possible if they beat them in the last match on October 12. Bosnia's previous match before that will be against San Marino, which should leave them no worse than three back of Serbia going into that final game in Belgrade, and a win in the final match would give Bosnia the tiebreaker, as the teams drew 0-0 in their first meeting.

Group 8: Sweden's defeat of Hungary today puts them top of the group on 21 points, one ahead of Croatia after the latter's embarrassing draw at minnows Malta. Sweden and Croatia will meet in Zagreb on October 8; a win by Sweden would clinch the group for them, while a win by Croatia would put them up two and needing just a draw in their final match with Hungary to win the group. (Croatia owns a 1-0 win over Sweden in Gothenburg last year.) Hungary's loss eliminated them from contention.

In other words, we aren't much closer to working it all out. The 8th and 12th of October are going to be sweet.

In other brief news, Australia won the second leg in Honiara to beat the Solomon Islands 9-1 on aggregate. They will move along to face the #5 South American nation, most likely either Colombia or Chile. Australia has played in four consecutive playoffs before this year, losing all of them (to Uruguay in 2002, Iran in 1998, Argentina in 1994, and Scotland in 1990). Australia's only previous appearance in the World Cup came in 1974 in Germany, where they went 0-1-2. Incidentally, the team they got their only point against with that draw? Chile, a possible opponent in this year's CONMEBOL/OCF playoff.

A slippery slope?

In what has to be considered a bizarre sort of Judgment of Solomon, FIFA has decided that the entire first leg of the playoff between Uzbekistan and Bahrain for fifth place in Asia and a spot in the playoff with CONCACAF's fourth team for a World Cup bid must be replayed after the Uzbeks complained about the results of the match, which they won 1-0 in Tashkent on Saturday. Uzbekistan maintained that they should have scored a second goal on a penalty kick that was disallowed when the referee judged that the Uzbek player taking the kick hesitated over the ball before striking it; Bahrain was subsequently awarded a free kick and managed to hold the Uzbeks off the board for the rest of the game.

Of course, this decision is likely to make Bahrain happier than Uzbekistan. As one quote in that article says, "The referee stole our second goal and now FIFA is stealing our first goal." It's hard to expect FIFA to order the game started from the 38th minute - it's rare enough that official decisions are overturned, but the only example I can think of where play was resumed from the botched call was in the bizarre incident of the Pine Tar Game. Still, where's the precedent for voiding the whole game based on a technical error? Is this it, right here?

Here's the problem, as I see it: part of sports has always been the human element, particularly in the officiating. Yes, people complain about bad calls constantly, in every sport, and bark for instant replay. But that's one thing. Sure, let's get some instant replay in there if we have to. Replaying the whole game? I know it's more important in soccer where every goal is critical, but knocking the whole game off the scoreboard? That just seems bizarre to me. And is this part of a slippery slope? Will losing teams attempt to protest now if they think they have been victimized? It's true that this particular case involves a mishandling of the rules (FIFA's rules state that if the player taking the penalty violates the rules of the game in taking the kick and scores a goal in the process, he is to retake the kick; if he misses, which the Uzbekistan player did not, the defending team gets an indirect free kick - incidentally, I saw nothing in those rules prohibiting a hesitation during a run-up), while cases like, say, Liverpool's "phantom" goal against Chelsea at Anfield in last year's CL semis involve judgment calls. Still, one suspects this judgment will open the gates for more complaints, especially from losing sides.

Botched calls have provided some of the most memorable moments in sport, particularly soccer, even if they're infuriating. Everyone has one go against them at one time or another. Calling in the world council and declaring games null and void because of an error? I don't know. Would it be as bad if the team that was hurt more by a replay was the team that already lost? Possibly not, but then I don't see how that would work. Yes, Uzbekistan asking for a 3-0 forfeit wasn't going to happen, but punishing the team that actually won? What if Bahrain turns around and wins the replay? You've punished Uzbekistan - the team that won despite the ref's mistake - for the error. That's just not good. And maybe Uzbekistan just goes out and wins 5-0 and puts it all to bed. But maybe they'll be too distracted. The fact that the possibility exists at all is a little alarming.

I don't believe what I just saw

One of these days I'm going to manage to see an incredible comeback in a soccer game where I don't already know the outcome. I managed to have last spring's Champions League final ruined for me, and today I took in the February 2004 FA Cup match between Tottenham and Manchester City. I was aware that one team came from behind to win 4-3 and was pretty sure that that team was City; when Spurs scored the first goal less than two minutes in, that confirmed it.

Even so, it was pretty amazing to see. Not only were City down 3-0 at halftime, but Joey Barton (the notorious hothead) was sent off just after the whistle. In a three-goal hole and with only ten men on the pitch? Do you suppose bookies would even have set odds that City would come back to win?

Yet somehow it happened, thanks largely to City's increased determination (where was that in the first half, you wonder) and Spurs' breakdown in defense. Arni Arason, basically filling in for David James, chose halftime to suddenly turn into Oliver Kahn, making a couple incredible saves (including one on a free kick where he deflected the ball into the crossbar on one side of the goal, then in just a couple seconds scrambled to the other side just in time to stop a rebound header from going over the line).

First came a Sylvain Distin header just three minutes into the half. Twelve minutes later, a deflection caught Kasey Keller going the wrong way for a Spurs own goal. Things were pretty quiet for another twenty minutes, until Shaun Wright-Phillips barely avoided being offsides and broke free on a run, chipping one over Keller and into the back of the net. That would have been amazing enough, but a Jonathan Macken header in extra time got by Keller and sealed the win.

Talk about a comeback! Three goals down, a man short, playing on the road at White Hart Lane - that gives Liverpool's CL win a real run for its money. If it falls short it's only because it wasn't a final of any kind.

It flashes me back to what was probably the most memorable high school game I ever taped. We (Columbia) were playing Montclair Kimberley Academy in the semifinals of the county tournament, on a neutral ground at West Essex. In the first half, everything went their way - they went up 2-0, we didn't look that good, I think they may have had a penalty for one of their goals. Things didn't look good at all. Then came the second half. The first goal came maybe ten minutes in - I don't remember who scored it now, probably either Dan Lovitz or one of the Bowen brothers. Things were quiet for another ten or fifteen minutes, and then suddenly Charles Alcine broke in, the goalie came out to meet him, Charles got by him and it was 2-2. Then just seconds later, Dan took it away from MKA just after their restart, sent it to a streaking Pat Glennon up the right side, and as the goalie dropped to cover where he thought it was going, Pat fired it right over his head and into the top of the net for the third goal. Wild celebration ensued, followed by 15 or 20 minutes of holding off MKA, which they did. 3-2, Columbia moves on to the finals (a 1-1 draw against Montclair that was not broken).

I mention all this both to start working Man City into the blog and as a way of proving how exciting soccer can be, though if you're reading this you probably don't need much persuasion. People who attack the low scores are, I think, missing the point entirely. When scoring is at a premium, every strike becomes that much more exciting, regardless of when it's scored. Think about it. When a basketball player scores to make it 2-0 in the first quarter, would the fans leap to their feet and cheer? Only if they don't know how the game is played. Though it's theoretically possible for a first-quarter field goal in football or a first-inning solo home run in baseball to stand up, how often do they actually, and would anyone expect it? By contrast, any goal you see in a soccer game could very easily be the last. Sometimes you don't see any at all, something you would only see in a football game if the two teams were really incompetent (such as one contest between Northwestern and Illinois in 1978; NU finished 0-10-1, U of I 1-8-2).

Soccer isn't about easy scoring. It's not about constant "rewards" for the fans. It's about delayed gratification. It's about following the rhythms and flow of a game that's constantly moving (in a way that, of the four major North American sports, only hockey really resembles): tracking the ball up and down the field, paying attention to setpieces like corners and free kicks, watching chaos unfold around the goal mouth. A curling free kick, a laser beam from 20 yards, a rising header, a diving save. I don't mean to bash the American sports; those who know me certainly know I love all of them as well. There is something about soccer, however, that puts it in a class by itself.

Put it this way. I love baseball, but if the Cubs aren't playing, I'm probably not watching, unless it's the playoffs. Same with football and the Bears, college football and Northwestern, basketball and the Bulls, hockey and the Devils. College basketball I frequently don't watch at all until the conference tournaments start. Yet give me a soccer game and some free time and I'm all over it. I don't make time for every single game that Fox Soccer Channel shows, but I have watched many Premiership games that haven't featured Man City; I've even watched games from France and Argentina, leagues that I'm not about to seriously follow. Why? I'm not sure I could truly explain it. Either you're into soccer or you aren't, really; I think there are people who could be converted, but it's nearly impossible for words to do justice to the game - if a picture is worth a thousand words, 90 minutes of soccer is equal to 162,000,000 words, and I just can't summon that many to tell someone why they should be watching. Ultimately, all I can say is this: there's a reason it's called "the beautiful game." It's not an accident.

Well, that got out of hand. If you made it this far, thanks for indulging me.

World Cup qualifying corrections

For some reason I had been under the impression that goal differential was the most important tiebreaker if two teams were tied in group play in World Cup qualifying. This isn't the case. From UEFA's website, here are the official FIFA rules for group qualifying tiebreakers:

1. Points
2. Points in head-to-head games
3. GD in head-to-head games
4. Total goals in head-to-head games
5. GD in group total
6. Total goals in group total
7. A playoff match if necessary

Overall GD, which I'd been using, is fifth! (Or the fourth tiebreaker, since no one would consider "points" a genuine "tiebreaker.") It probably makes more sense for head-to-head to be first, of course; why I didn't think of that, I don't know. But with that in mind, the following entries from yesterday need to be revised:

CONCACAF
Guatemala and Trinidad & Tobago are still tied with seven points (2-1-4). Each has a win over the other, but Guatemala holds the tiebreaker by #3 - they defeated T&T 5-1 while T&T's win was 3-2. So Guatemala has a +3 edge in head-to-head GD, giving them an insurmountable tiebreaker should the two nations end up with the same record.

CONMEBOL
Chile and Colombia drew 0-0 in their first outing, meaning that a win by either in their head-to-head match would be enough regardless of Colombia's goal differential. However, if they draw again, it would fall to the GD tiebreaker, which would almost certainly take it for Colombia (barring a very unlikely and huge swing in the other remaining game). So all Colombia has to do to make the playoff for sure is beat Chile, and vice versa.

AFRICA
Here's where it really got messed up, because of the closeness of the groups.
Group 1: Togo does control their own destiny (all they have to do is not lose), but it has nothing to do with goal differential. If Togo ties and Senegal wins, leaving them tied at 21 points atop the group, Togo would advance because of a 3-1 home win and a 2-2 draw in Dakar between the two nations.
Group 2: South Africa is out. No goal differential swing can erase their two losses to Ghana. Congo DR is still in it because they and Ghana have tied twice, but they would still need the scenario listed yesterday to happen: Ghana would have to lose, Congo DR would have to win, and there would have to be a sizeable swing in goal differential. Ghana is still well in command of this group, especially since they haven't lost since the very first match in June 2004.
Group 3: Cameroon defeated Côte d'Ivoire in both their matches, meaning that the Coasters need both a win and a Cameroon loss or tie in the final match; despite their lead in GD, a tie won't be good enough even with a Cameroon loss.
Group 4: Nigeria's failure to get a win at home against Angola in June could be their downfall. Angola won the first match between the teams, giving them the tiebreaker and rendering Nigeria's GD lead meaningless. Rather than what I said yesterday, it is Nigeria who need a win and to hope that Angola cannot match it. Angola's opponent is still lowly Rwanda (1-2-6).
Group 5: This was the only one that was right.

So those are the corrections. You learn something new every day, eh? I did, anyway.

World Cup qualifying update

With a few teams qualifying and many more hoping to follow them into the 32-team field, let's take a look at how things are going on the road to Germany 2006...

CONCACAF (3.5 bids)
In: United States
All but a lock: Mexico (needs one point from final three matches; hosts winless Panama in next match)
Looking good: Costa Rica are on ten points after a win over Panama; a home win over Trinidad and Tobago coupled with a Guatemala loss on Wednesday would leave them needing just one point in their last two games.
The half-bid goes to: Currently, Guatemala and Trinidad are even with seven points (2-1-4 each). Guatemala has a four-goal edge in differential but faces the group's top three teams (including at Mexico), while Trinidad at least gets a match against Panama. If Trinidad can win that game and get a point out of either Costa Rica or Mexico, Guatemala will have its work cut out for it. The winner of the half-bid will play off against the fifth-place Asian nation, either Uzbekistan or Bahrain. (The Uzbeks won the first leg 1-0.)

UEFA (13 bids, plus Germany)
In: Germany, Ukraine
Group One report: I'd feel pretty confident if I were the Dutch. Though only three points clear of Romania in Group One, they've got two games in hand on the Romanians and four points on the Czechs with a match home to lowly Andorra on Wednesday. While a tilt in the Czech Republic looms, wins in the Andorra match and against Macedonia (the other remaining game) would take them through regardless of the turnout against the Czechs.
Group Two report: Ukraine should send a fruit basket to Soren Larsen, whose injury time goal drew Turkey yesterday and allowed Ukraine to win the group (seven points clear of Turkey with two games left for each). The real battle now is for second - Greece is two points shy of Turkey but they have a game in hand. Turkey could really use a win on Wednesday; they'll hope Ukraine's qualification will cause them to ease up in the game in Kiev. Greece, meanwhile, plays winless Kazakhstan; a win coupled with a Turkish loss will put Greece in command of second.
Group Three report: If any team that hasn't qualified yet could feel confident, it's Portugal, with a five-point clearance at the top of the group. Though they must play at second-place Russia on Wednesday, their final two games are home matches against Liechtenstein and Latvia, meaning that even a loss at Lokomotiv probably won't keep them and their massive goal differential (+26 currently) from qualifying without a playoff.
Group Four report: Group Four's top four teams are separated by a single point. Switzerland, France, and Ireland are all on 13 points, but all must play each other and Cyprus. Israel is on 12 points and has only two games left, but both are against the lowly Faroe Islands. If Israel can take six points from those two games, someone will have to step up; Switzerland, France, and Ireland should all beat Cyprus, but they can't afford to be drawing each other.
Group Five report: Italy is in the driver's seat in Group Five, but with Norway only two points behind, they can't afford to lose or draw any of their remaining three against Belarus, Moldova, and Slovenia. They shouldn't, of course, but that's why they play the games.
Group Six report: England is two points behind Poland but has three games left to the Poles' two. England should beat Northern Ireland on Wednesday, but Poland will likely also beat Wales. After England hosts Austria in October they should take the group lead, but ultimately this will come down to the final game: Poland at England on October 12. The loser may have enough points to qualify automatically as one of the top two second-place teams, though.
Group Seven report: Wednesday's game between unbeatens Spain and Serbia & Montenegro could well decide Group Seven, especially with Spain's final two matches against disappointing Belgium and group minnows San Marino. Spain has the advantage of hosting the game after the teams drew 0-0 in Belgrade in March.
Group Eight report: Currently one point up, Croatia could be three or four clear of Sweden by the weekend, as the Swedes must travel to third-place Hungary while Croatia needs only to contend with winless Malta. They'll need the distance; after the two teams meet on October 8, Sweden finishes with lowly Iceland, while Croatia ends with Hungary.

ASIA (4.5 bids)
In: Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran
The half-bid goes to: The Asian format makes it the only one to have already set all its teams, but Uzbekistan and Bahrain are still involved in a playoff to face the #4 CONCACAF nation.

CONMEBOL (4.5 bids)
In: Argentina, Brazil
Looking good: Ecuador is six points clear of the playoff spot and Paraguay five points clear. Colombia and Chile, currently tied on 20 points, play on October 8; a draw in that game would clinch spots for Ecuador and Paraguay even if both lose their matches that day (to Uruguay and Venezuela respectively).
The half-bid goes to: Colombia has the edge at the moment; they're hosting the game against Chile, and have a staggering 12-goal advantage in differential. A win against Chile would guarantee Colombia at least a place in the playoff.

AFRICA (5 bids)
In: No one yet. With just one match left, none of the five group leaders has more than a three-point cushion.
Group 1 report: Togo, on 20 points after a 3-0 defeat of Liberia today, is two points clear of Senegal with one match left. Senegal finishes against struggling Mali, but Togo, currently one up of Senegal on goal differential, controls its own destiny; a win over Congo (whom they beat 2-0 in Lome last September) will put them through.
Group 2 report: South Africa basically erased its chances by stumbling to Burkina Faso yesterday. Ghana's 2-0 defeat of Uganda today puts them three points up with one game left and 11 goals clear of South Africa on differential. Congo DR (the former Zaire) is also on 15 points and with a +4 GD, but they need to beat South Africa and have Ghana lose to Cape Verde in the final game, and have a big goal swing as Ghana is five goals ahead on differential. The odds are strongly in favor of the Ghanaians, who need only tie in their final match to go through.
Group 3 report: Cameroon stunned Côte d'Ivoire 3-2 on Sunday to go top of Group 3 with one game to play. However, Cameroon hosts third-place Egypt in the final game (Egypt won 3-2 in Cairo in their last match), while Côte d'Ivoire travels to lowly Sudan (the visitors were 5-0 winners in their home game). The second-place Ivory Coasters are, however, three goals ahead on differential; a Cameroon loss means that even a draw would likely send Côte d'Ivoire through. Still, the 2000 Olympic champions are masters of their own destiny against Egypt.
Group 4 report: Angola and Nigeria both won on Sunday, remaining tied atop the group on 18 points each. Nigeria has a five-goal edge in differential, so Angola needs a win against Rwanda - the group's last-place nation - and will hope that Nigeria cannot match it. Taking on Zimbabwe, the group's third-place team, the Super Eagles will have a tougher match ahead of them, but they host it, and already won 3-0 at Zimbabwe last September.
Group 5 report: The group is down to the final match - Tunisia, on 20 points, host Morocco, on 19 points, on October 7. The hosts need only draw to win the group; in the previous matchup, in Rabat last September, the teams drew 1-1.

OCEANIA (0.5 bids)
In: No team in Oceania gets an automatic bid.
The half-bid goes to: Australia and the Solomon Islands are currently in a playoff to face the fifth-place South American team. Australia won the first leg 7-0 at home, making them all but a lock to advance. In 2001, Australia also went to the OFC/CONMEBOL playoff; they won 1-0 at home against Uruguay but lost 3-0 in Montevideo to lose the two-legged playoff. New coach Guus Hiddink has been successful with his last two World Cup teams (the Netherlands in 1998 and South Korea in 2002, both of whom finished in fourth place overall), however.

So that's how it looks so far. I'm looking forward to the next set of games - and especially the pair in early October, which will decide quite a bit, especially in Europe. Quickly, here are my top ten games to watch (if you can!) or at least keep track of for this week:

10. Ukraine v. Turkey - Wednesday, 11:15 am CT
Ukraine has nothing to play for, but Turkey will be desperate for a win, hoping to get their record to the point where they can avoid the two-legged playoffs that await the bottom six second-place group finishers.

9. Guatemala v. United States - Wednesday, TBA
The U.S. is qualified and will likely be sending a second-string team; Guatemala is looking for the points to keep it out of the playoff zone. A win here would be a good start for them.

8. Solomon Islands v. Australia - Tuesday, TBA
There's no way Australia will lose this. Also, good luck seeing it - but if you could see it, it would be worth watching for all the goals. Also, it will set half of the OFC/CONMEBOL playoff that determines one of the World Cup's last spots.

7. Costa Rica v. Trinidad & Tobago - Wednesday, TBA
The hosts would love to win and put even more distance between themselves and the playoff zone. This won't qualify them, but if Guatemala loses, it will get them very close.

6. Hungary v. Sweden - Wednesday, 1:45 pm CT
Sweden is looking for points to get it towards the top of Group Eight; Hungary would love to win and take steps towards advancement.

5. Northern Ireland v. England - Wednesday, 1:45 pm CT
England wants to prove its mediocre showing against Wales was a fluke; Michael Owen returns.

4. Russia v. Portugal - Wednesday, 10 am CT
Portugal should go through even with a loss here, but it's a start for Russia if they win. They could also avoid playoffs if they win out, starting here.

3. Bahrain v. Uzbekistan - Wednesday, TBA
The first leg in Tashkent was marked by controversy, as the Uzbeks believe they were robbed of a goal on a penalty kick that was called back. 1-0 isn't much of a lead, but they need only draw to deny Bahrain the chance to face CONCACAF's #4 nation.

2. Spain v. Serbia & Montenegro - Wednesday, 3:00 pm CT
Neither team has lost yet; Serbia hasn't even conceded a goal in qualifying. The winner, if there is one, takes control of the group.

1. Ireland v. France - Wednesday, 1:45 pm CT
Though Irish manager Brian Kerr says that things are cool now after the French team's manager clarified remarks he made that Kerr viewed as insulting, you can bet this one won't be cute. Both teams are fighting to win a wide-open group.

See you in Germany

Let me get one thing out of the way at the beginning of this post: I don't like Mexico. That is to say, I don't like anything associated with Mexico's national team. I don't like their tactless fans, whom I will never forgive for chanting "Osama!" at the U.S. team or booing the U.S. anthem during Olympic qualifying last year; I don't like their players, who hand out cheap shots like they think they're at auditions for another remake of The Longest Yard; and I really don't like their coach, Ricardo Lavolpe, whose name is, I think, Spanish for "sour grapes." After yesterday's game he commented that the U.S. played like certain female members of his family, which I guess means that he spent a lot of time as a child getting scored on by his aunt while his defense stood stone-footed.

I can at least understand why Mexico is so angry - in recent years, they've been eclipsed. They used to dominate CONCACAF and the U.S., but in the last ten matches, the U.S. is 7-2-1 against the team to the south. What really must anger Mexican fans, however, is the fact that the U.S. doesn't care nearly as much about the rivalry as Mexico does. When Mexico reached the round of 16 in the 2002 World Cup and played the U.S., it was the farthest either team had ever gotten in the expanded tournament, making it a national event in Mexico and... well, I'm sure some people in the U.S. noticed. When the U.S. beat Mexico 2-0, it hardly registered in the American consciousness. Had Mexico won, they probably would have had a national holiday (as Senegal did after their group defeat of France to open the tournament).

It's that inferiority complex that drives the Mexican fans to boo the U.S. anthem, throw batteries, burn U.S. flags outside Azteca Stadium. Maybe they just want to agitate the U.S. into taking them seriously, but I think they're starting in the wrong place. If there's anyone who does take Mexico seriously, it's the U.S. national team, which still has never won at Azteca and pretty much always has to go through Mexico to some degree if it wants to qualify for the World Cup or the Olympics. (The 2004 game in Guadalajara at which "Osama" was chanted ended up a 4-0 Mexico win that knocked the U.S. under-23 team out of Athens.)

Yesterday's game was, as it turned out, broadcast live on ESPN Classic (still, it says a lot that a game that could qualify the U.S. for the most popular sporting event in the world was shown on ESPN's third option while the two major networks showed a couple of relatively insignificant college football games). I missed that showing because I didn't know about it until it had already started, though, so instead I sat down at 1:30 in the morning expecting to see the game. What was there? Drag racing. Was the game late? Had it not been played? Because none of the sports tickers had a listing for "Soccer," I began to wonder if the game had been played at all. So I went online - where of course I found out that it had been played and exactly what happened, the very thing I had been trying to avoid all day. It figures.

I actually fell asleep for the last 20 minutes of the game (played around 3:30 in the morning, so can you blame me?), but what I saw spoke for itself. The first half was pretty bland; neither team seemed willing to go on the attack early. But even in this conservative milieu, it was obvious who the better team was. The U.S. was faster, crisper with its passes, and spent more time in the attacking half; Mexico, by contrast, looked like most of their players were wearing cast-iron boots. Still, the U.S. wasn't perfect; they made too many awkward back-passes to Kasey Keller, and they gave up arguably the two best chances of the half - one in the 31st minute which Naelson squandered with a bad first touch, and one in the 45th when Keller had to make a diving save on a free kick. Mexico looked like they were playing for a 0-0 draw, though (which would have sent them through).

So when the U.S. scored first (a Brian Ralston header after the ball had come off the post in the 52nd minute), Mexico got a bit skittish, and so it was that DaMarcus Beasley put the game away just five minutes later with a beautiful goal off a short corner that caught the Mexican defense napping. Really, on both goals, Mexico seemed unsure of what to do, like they hadn't expected the U.S. to penetrate this far into their territory.

I fell asleep less than ten minutes after Beasley's goal, so I can't speak much towards Mexico's performance in the final half-hour. Did they finally develop an attack? Well, all I can say is if they did, it didn't help matters. Keller now has a clean-sheet streak extending to over 500 minutes in World Cup qualifying (five straight shutouts).

The early qualification means the regulars can have some rest in the next three games, against Guatemala, Costa Rica, and Panama. The Panama game - in Foxboro - should be a win regardless, but the other two are both road games and will be tossups. I wouldn't be terribly surprised by a loss or tie in either one, especially against Costa Rica, which is solidly in third place right now. (If a win in their game against us in October would clinch them a berth, and it likely will if current trends hold, you can bet they'll be ready to go, especially at home.)

The U.S. finishing in the top three of CONCACAF qualifying always seemed like something of a given, but I'm glad to have seen it through so comfortably. It's always more fun following the World Cup when your team is there (although 1998 was pretty painful), though I do like watching all the games at that stage. Anyway, as I said before: see you in Germany!

Introduction.

Welcome to what is undoubtedly not the first and surely not the last blog to tackle the subject of soccer fandom in America. Let's not kid ourselves - it's hard to be a soccer fan in America. I happened to go to a high school that had a pretty good team (Group IV state champions, 1998!), and I - not being particularly athletic - was the cameraman. When your entire job is to keep a tiny white ball pinned in a small, black-and-white viewfinder at all times, you have to develop a good sense for the flow of the game, and I like to think that having to do so helped me appreciate the game all the more. As a result, I'm one of, oh, let's say twelve soccer fans in this country.

Okay, that's clearly a joke. But soccer has been and remains unpopular, despite various attempts to change that, including:

* The NASL
* The 1994 World Cup
* The MLS
* The men's national team no longer sucking

So before we go any further, let's get a couple things out of the way. First off, let's take a look at my top five reasons why soccer has not caught on in this country.

5. Americans like their own sports.
I think that a lot of the problem for soccer really comes straight out of American snobbery. Soccer? Don't the English play that? The three major American sports were all invented here, and even though baseball can be traced to cricket and football to rugby, the similarities by this time are minimal due to the adjustments we made to them 100 years ago. If there were a variant on soccer that was invented in America in 1910, I bet there'd be a big pro league for it. But why would you need to change soccer? It's great as it is. Still, that's part of the problem.

4. There isn't enough room for the niche to grow.
Even if we assume that soccer can boom in this country, that people will have the tolerance for it, there just isn't that much space. I myself would love to follow more than one overseas premier league, but 99% of my attention in that department is going to go to England because I already follow all four major North American sports, plus college football and basketball, and some amount of golf to boot. That's a lot to keep straight. Other niche sports that have managed to boom have done so usually by tapping a segment of the audience that had been left mostly alone. (In particular, the lack of many pro sports teams in the rural South had long left college football one of the few sports anyone there paid attention to; NASCAR was able to come in and exploit that hole.) Where is soccer going to fit? It's not different enough as a phenomenon (like NASCAR is) to appeal to some group that isn't already watching tons of sports -and therefore doesn't necessarily have the energy to add more.

3. The lack of a major pro league.
Yeah, yeah. I don't care what the M in MLS stands for, and I don't care if they're doing well enough to expand; it's not a major pro league in this country. A lot of that can be blamed on the following fact: the MLS does not contain the best players in the world at its sport. All four other North American major pro leagues can say this, but the MLS cannot and likely never will be able to. Even the NASL, which received tremendous help from international stars, could never say it - by the time Pele started with the New York Cosmos, he was nearly 35; Franz Beckenbauer and Johan Cruyff were 32. All were still very good players, but certainly pushing "over-the-hill" in soccer terms. David Beckham has talked of finishing his career in the MLS, but it's doubtful he'd come over until he was at least 33 or 34, and could well provide the English equivalent of Willie Mays stumbling around on the 1973 Mets. At least Beckham's general fame might help, but I doubt it would be enough.

2. A lack of major moments.
I might argue that hockey, currently the "fourth major pro league" in this country even though no one missed it last year, didn't really take off in America until the Miracle on Ice in 1980. Soccer doesn't have anything like this, at least not yet - the biggest win in American soccer history is still the 1-0 defeat of England in the 1950 World Cup, a game so little-known that few people in this country even took note of it at the time, let alone half a century later, despite the fact that it may well be the biggest upset in the history of the international game. Even an advancement to the round of eight in 2002 couldn't hold American attention spans; I doubt highly if anything short of a finals appearance, if not an outright win (ha!), could truly capture the American interest even for its own national team.

1. People just think it's boring.
If you asked me whether I'd rather watch a 1-0 baseball game, a 3-0 football game, a 1-0 hockey game, or a 1-0 soccer game, I'd take the soccer game every time unless the baseball game involved the Cubs winning or something rare like a no-hitter or perfect game. Now, I'm a soccer fan, so perhaps this is unfair, but it's no more unfair than the general perception by American sports fans that soccer isn't interesting. I would wager that most people you asked would confirm that, and yet many of them probably would not have watched more than one game, if even that much. Soccer's rep comes from its low scores, and people's apparent refusal to believe that a low-scoring contest can be exciting. (Many Americans don't even seem to like watching pitchers' duels anymore.) Of course, 99 out of 100 soccer games are pretty much "low-scoring," and plenty of baseball games finish 7-6 and that sort of thing. (And certainly 3-0 is a pretty rare football score.) But people need to understand that a 1-0 game isn't boring (well, it can be - but it isn't just boring by default). There's a lot that goes on in a soccer game and it isn't all balls going in the net. Still, this consensus probably won't change any time soon.

So there you have it. Five reasons why people in this country haven't gotten into soccer, and why a lot of them never will. And five things that people reading this shouldn't see in themselves. Yeah, it's hard to follow soccer in this country - the US is playing a World Cup qualifier against Mexico today, in the US (Columbus), and it's airing on tape delay at 1:30 in the morning. I'll be up for it, though, and that'll be the first game report you'll see here. Why? Because as hard as it is to follow soccer, I think it's worth it. Hopefully more people will start to feel that way - because when that happens, it'll get easier.