Whatford?

I suppose we had to see that one coming. If there's one thing City seem known for - certainly in my two years following the club - it's playing down to the level of opposition. (See: Rovers, Doncaster; Chesterfield.) The game sounded like it was being played in pretty rough conditions, to be fair, but a 0-0 draw against Watford, a newly-promoted side in the relegation zone, at home, following a 3-1 dispatching of Villa? Not the game I was hoping to hear, and it sucks because weekday games are the easiest to listen to for me. Ferris and Hinchcliffe got pretty slap-happy during the broadcast, such was the level of play on the field.

That opportunity for three points having gone by the wayside, picking up a point at Old Trafford - which I think is the best anyone can hope for - becomes ever more important. You can usually throw out the records on derby day - City took four points last year despite being significantly lower in the table come season's end - but United have been playing pretty well. I suppose it would be nice if the Benfica game tomorrow were a war of attrition, although Richard Dunne says there's nothing to worry about. Even with a pretty good defense (the Wigan game excepted), though, I hope City don't think they can go far without improving their finishing.

Annoying thing about Saturday's game: kickoff is 6:45 in the morning here, and it's not going to be televised on FSC, even in tape delay. This is going to make it really hard to follow.

On the road again

Manchester City's season so far had basically been two distinct campaigns: one, the home campaign which has yet to see a defeat and features just one goal allowed (4-3-0, +6); the other, a miserable away campaign which, entering the day, had not seen a win (0-1-6) and was embodied by a miserable goal differential of -12.

Perhaps this is the start of something. City haven't necessarily lacked chances this season; it's finishing them that's been the key problem (even after today's outburst, City have just 13 goals in 15 matches). Today it wasn't an issue. Despite sitting fifth in the table, and despite playing at home, Aston Villa looked totally overmatched, especially on defense. City picked them apart, jumping to a 2-0 halftime lead and eventually winning 3-1.

Naturally, City still missed a ton of good chances, but then that's football. If they score three goals it doesn't seem fair for me to complain that they should have scored six. The point is: there are six sides left without a road win and City aren't one of them. This could just be another instance of lightning in a bottle (see: West Ham home win on 9/23, which engendered so much hope and was followed by a 1-3-2 run and two goals scored in the six games following), and the December slate is not easy:

12/4 vs. Watford
12/9 at Man U
12/17 vs. Spurs
12/23 vs. Bolton
12/26 at Sheffield U
12/30 at West Ham

Not exactly a cakewalk, is it? Sure, the Watford game should be a win (frankly, if it's not, there are much bigger concerns, aren't there?), but after that it's three road games - one the Derby - and two home games against teams that tend to give City fits. The three games in a week, the latter two on the road, isn't particularly fun-sounding either.

City's season is going to be determined by December. Currently they're on twelfth but just five points back of third - in all, eleven teams are within two wins of third place, in fact, and with Man U and Chelsea pulling well away at the top, it's the race for 3 and 4 (and to a lesser extent, 5, and maybe 6 and 7 depending on Cup results) that's going to be the most interesting for the rest of the season (not that the Man U-Chelsea tug of war won't be interesting, but, well, I hate both those clubs).

With that said, you have to look at wanting 10-14 points out of December. A lot to expect from six matches? Maybe. But if you're going to make Europe, Watford and Sheffield United have to be wins, and City have played well enough at home that you'd think they could take down one of Spurs or Bolton. That's nine right there, and if the defense stays up to snuff, one of the remaining three could easily be a draw. That's already ten. Fourteen is significantly more generous - it assumes either three home wins or a win over slumping West Ham (hardly impossible, even at Upton Park), and even then requires no more than one loss in the six, which could be a tall order. But if you ask me, ten isn't just doable, it's pretty much the least of what needs to happen if this club is going to make a push for Europe. And I really, really want to see a push for Europe.

But for the time being, let's just be happy with a road win. And Sylvain Distin's goal - my God.

Needed that.

Big win over West Ham, although it'd be nice to see City get a win on the road (I watched the highlights of the Chesterfield game, and that first goal was in fact exactly as crap as the announcers made it out to be). Everton is the next chance, though since they're one of just two sides in the EPL still without a loss (Villa are the other) and trounced Liverpool 3-0 at Goodison Park on the 9th, we may be waiting to see one until... well, the next two are Wigan and Charlton, neither of which seems impossible (Charlton are off to a lousy start). Still, the sooner the better.

Samaras' first goal against the Hammers was terrific; shades of Maxi Rodriguez, dare I say? The second was fairly standard but it's a good sign to see someone on City finishing, and simultaneously to see what looks like Samaras perhaps starting to find the plot, after seeming a slow study last year and the start of this one. As Pearce says, he is just 21. If he gets it together, six million pounds will seem like a steal.

Speaking of which, Ishmael Miller, who deserves nearly as much credit as Samaras for that first goal with his blistering 70-yard run. Between him and Richards - and Samaras, for that matter - we could be looking at the start of a great youth movement in Manchester. Now City just need to creep towards Europe, lest the youngsters get impatient and go all SWP on us.

Creeping towards Europe step #1? Win some freaking road games. Keeping a nice record at home would be great, but without some road wins I don't see a top seven finish. (And that's assuming a top-five team wins the FA and Carling Cups, not a total sure thing.)

Second verse, same as the first

Pulling for Manchester City is starting to make being a Cubs fan look enticing. Sure, exiting a cup that is secondary to the FA Cup in everyone's eyes isn't that big a deal... but two years in a row, both to League One sides? Not cool. And of course, I was listening to both games on the radio over the internet. The difference being that last year it didn't really occur to me that City might not win, whereas this year I spent the whole time on edge, even after Samaras' goal, only to be stabbed right through the heart twice in 20 minutes in half number two.

Yes, the game was on the road, in middling conditions, but it was still against a League One side (and a mediocre League One side at that). Sure, in a single-elimination knockout cup these sorts of things will happen... but it seems to happen to Man City a lot. This is three times in three seasons, in fact, with Oldham in the 2005 FA Cup as well, and heck, there' s still time for a fourth in that span.

So what happened? Well, the defense, which I unwisely professed not to have been worried about, was kind of atrocious. More appropriately, the defense among the midfielders was just horrendous, or at least so it sounded. Every time Chesterfield took possession of the ball in their own end, I wouldn't hear a single City name until Dunne or Distin or Richards finally showed up - but where were guys like Barton, Hamann, and Jordan? Reyna didn't seem to do much on defense either (and in fact his short clear led to Niven's goal). If you're going to run a 3-5-2, the midfielders have to play more defense, and it just didn't seem to be happening. I should stress that as I was only listening to this, I can only say so much about the accuracy of it, but considering the final score, I doubt I'm that far off.

As for the offense, it was the same old story. City should try to get Ruud van Nistelrooy or someone like that - someone who finishes. Because right now, no one on this team seems to be able to do it. Corradi was just off on two or three headers, and while Samaras knocked one rebound in, he didn't do much else. Everyone else seemed pretty invisible.

How inevitable was this loss, given City's recent history in cups and their woeful play so far this season? Here were the ESPN.com headlines on the team pages after each of the three Prem sides crashed out:

Boro (lost to Notts County): "Boro Humiliated"
Fulham (lost to Wycombe): "Fulham Sent Tumbling"
City: "Pressure on Pearce"

Why even focus on the unlikelihood of the loss? This is Man City we're talking about, clearly. Certainly Boro's and Fulham's losses were worse - both were home games, and both opponents were League Two sides, not even League One - but still. Clearly City just need to try and rig the draws so they don't get stuck playing these teams on the road. City's last League Cup home game against a non-Prem team was a 7-1 trouncing of Barnsley in 2004; since then, two road games, two defeats. The Oldham game of January '05 was also on the road, while last year's FA Cup run was conceived almost exclusively at home (Richard's miracle goal to tie was at Villa, so City then won the replay at home).

But then, how does any team expect to win anything if they can't win away from home? Someone needs to look into why City are just so atrocious on the road. Quickly. Before next year's League Cup at least. Although at the current rate, City might be lucky just to start in the second round next year, instead of the first.

Next on the schedule: home for West Ham, at Everton, home for Sheffield United. City had really better win at least one of those. Note: City still undefeated at home this year (1-1-0)! Let's keep it that way.

Just like starting over

Not long after Stuart Pearce took over at Manchester City, the club went on a significant streak of matches without a loss. Then came the middle of last season, when they went into a tailspin and in the end were almost lucky to finish as high as 15th. Now, after a 1-1-3 start to this season (including a 4-2 loss to Blackburn on Sunday), City are struggling like crazy and rumor has it that Pearce may be on the hot seat soon, if he isn't already.

City made a lot of signings in the offseason, bringing in Hatem Trabelsi, Ousmane Dabo, Dietmar Hamann, Paul Dickov, and Bernardo Corradi, as well as Swedish national keeper Andreas Isaksson (though he has yet to play). They completed a loan deal for DaMarcus Beasley at the transfer deadline, and he now says he's interested in signing a long-term contract. Yet despite all this new talent, City are failing to win, and to add insult to injury, David James and Andy Cole headed south for Portsmouth, which has stunningly risen to the very top of the table.

Perhaps it was too much new talent, and the new Blues just haven't managed to gel yet. For the first four games, Pearce didn't use the same striker setup twice (finally in game five he repeated one, with Corradi and Dickov together up front), and so far only Joey Barton has scored any goals - and one of those was from the spot. From what I've seen, chance after chance goes by the wayside; City's difficulty in finishing last year was a lot of what killed them, and things aren't going to improve if they can't start putting a few balls into the net. (That seems self-evident, but really I'm not especially concerned about City's defense, Sunday's abomination notwithstanding. The scoring is where the major problem lies.) Things are bad enough that the only real news City's made so far this year is the Ben Thatcher fiasco.

So after a dispiriting Sunday match, what looms on the horizon? A mid-week cup-tie in the League Cup with League One side Chesterfield, perhaps ominously just one slot ahead of Doncaster in the third-division table right now. Surely no City fan can forget last year's painful crashout to Rovers; the Chesterfield match is, like that one was, on the road, and with City's offensive troubles they can either use this game to come together, or severely risk stumbling to another early exit.

I suppose I brought this on myself. I could easily have picked Chelsea, or Liverpool, or Arsenal. But it's too late now. For better or worse, I picked Man City, and after last year's League Cup there was no going back for me. Heartbreak has always been part of my life as a sports fan thanks to the Cubs; perhaps I didn't need to add more, but if that's how it's going to be, so be it. I'm not going anywhere.

Champions League "Preview"

There won't be much to this, and it'll probably be either (a) totally inaccurate or (b) spot on only because the groups align exactly as anyone would think. But with the return of Champions League group play, we might as well at least discuss it.

Group A
Barcelona
Chelsea
Werder Bremen
Levski Sofia

Werder Bremen is considered by many to be a potential surprise, but in this group? The games between Barca and Chelsea should be good (one would hope), but how do they not both move on? Even if Bremen can hang close, their final game is at Barca (December 5), while Chelsea finishes by hosting the Bulgarians that day. I'd take Barca first and Chelsea second.

Group B
Bayern Munich
Inter Milan
Spartak Moscow
Sporting Lisbon

Hard to imagine the Russians making much noise here. Sporting could surprise, but it would seem foolish to pick anyone other than Bayern (even sans Ballack) and Inter.

Group C
Liverpool
PSV Eindhoven
Bordeaux
Galatasaray

Once again, the group seems pretty straightforward. Liverpool have been good recently at surpassing their domestic form in the CL, so they'll have to hope for that. PSV, semi-finalists in 2004, have been a mixed bag to start the Eredivisie season, but have had little trouble scoring, with six goals from three games. Galatasaray have had some European success in the past, winning the UEFA Cup in 2000 after getting knocked out of the CL and then defeating CL champs Real Madrid in the Super Cup, but it's been a while since that heyday; still, they've got a history of surprises. They may not advance, but Liverpool and PSV shouldn't assume wins in Turkey. Bordeaux are something of an enigma but probably figure not to advance.

Group D
Olympiakos
Roma
Shakhtar Donetsk
Valencia

The Group of... well, not death. More like the group of who the hell knows. There isn't really a standout power in this group (Roma or Olympiakos, maybe) and while Donetsk seems like an obvious minnow, I can't imagine anyone knowing enough about them to say for sure. Clubs from the six major leagues seem to do most of the winning in the CL, at least the past couple years when I've been watching, so it's tempting just to pick Roma and Valencia and be done with it. But I think this one's going to be wide open. Could be the most exciting group top to bottom, but of course no one will see any of the games because it lacks a marquee team.

Group E
Lyon
Real Madrid
Dynamo Kiev
Steaua Bucuresti

Once again, it's easy to pick the big two. And in this case I think I will. Real seemed to struggle last year (including getting steamrolled by none other than Lyon in their opening game), yet advanced anyway mostly by feasting on Olympiakos and Rosenborg. It's hard to believe that Kiev and Bucharest will present significantly stiffer challenges. Lyon, meanwhile, is better than most people tend to realize.

Group F
Manchester United
Benfica
Glasgow Celtic
FC Copenhagen

Man U were simply awful in group play last year, a happening that doesn't figure to repeat itself if they continue their fast start to the domestic campaign. They'll have to contend with Benfica again, but Celtic and Copenhagen are unlikely to be the repeats of Villarreal and Lille. I wouldn't bet against Copenhagen going winless, unless they can top a Celtic team that tends to underachieve in Europe. Man U and Benfica advance if history is any indicator.

Group G
Arsenal
CSKA Moscow
FC Porto
Hamburg SV

Arsenal has looked lousy to start the year, but last year they were embroiled in one of their worst domestic campaigns in years and still managed to roll to the CL final (reversing their tendency to place 1 or 2 in the league and then get knocked out of Europe early). If they play to their capabilities they shouldn't be significantly tested in this group. Not that any of the teams are bad, but only one is Big Six (Hamburg) and it's not exactly its league's best. This really looks like Arsenal vs. Arsenal, but it's not like they're not capable of beating themselves. Porto did win the thing a few years ago, but they don't have Mourinho anymore.

Group H
AC Milan
AEK Athens
Anderlecht
Lille

Like Group G, this looks to be little more than a giant playing against its own weaknesses. Anderlecht had a terrible streak of group games lost over the past couple years and only just broke it after being eliminated. Athens haven't done a whole lot recently, though they did drill Hearts to get to this point, for whatever that's worth. Lille played fairly well last year and have to be considered a strong candidate for second place in the group.

Open letter to Stuart Pearce

Dear Stuart,

Is this ESPN.com story right? Are you guys about to complete a loan deal for DaMarcus Beasley from PSV?

OH MY GOD PLEASE GET IT DONE.

Sincerely,

Robert Flaxman
American Manchester City fan

Marco Materazzi is a bad liar

In what I'm sure came as a surprise to, well, absolutely no one, Italian defender Marco Materazzi admitted to the press that he had insulted Zinedine Zidane before the latter's fateful headbutt in extra time of the World Cup final. Materazzi denied, however, that he had called Zidane a "dirty terrorist," as earlier reports had it.

"I did insult him, it's true," Materazzi said in Tuesday's Gazzetta dello Sport. "But I categorically did not call him a terrorist. I'm not cultured and I don't even know what an Islamic terrorist is."

If Materazzi wants me to believe that he didn't call Zidane a terrorist, maybe he should try an alibi a little bit better than "I don't even know what that word means." Last time I checked you didn't need to be "cultured" to be aware of the existence of terrorists. Perhaps he's been on Mars for the past decade, in a cave, with his eyes shut and his fingers in his ears. This would be like Materazzi calling Michael Ballack a Nazi, and then claiming that he couldn't have done so because, as an uncultured person, he had never heard of Nazis before.

Further adding to the unlikeliness was Materazzi's inability to even produce another reasonable insult that he could have called Zidane, saying simply, "It was one of those insults you're told tens of times and that always fly around the pitch." Okay, so what was it? It would be a lot more convincing if you could make something up. Or maybe it wouldn't. Liar.

Regardless of what Materazzi said, I am fully convinced that he had been trying all game to get Zidane thrown out. The Italians are incredibly respectful of Zidane's skill, but they're also aware of his temper, since he played for Juventus - a team well-represented on the Italian side - when he threw his Champions League headbutt in 2001 over nothing more than a hard tackle. Materazzi had, by most accounts, been tugging at Zidane's shirt all game, and the French players claimed he had been goading him as well. Shortly before the headbutt you can see Materazzi talking like crazy and Zidane saying very little in response. Materazzi was undoubtedly aware of Zidane's history and whatever the last thing he said was, it worked. Honestly, I would give you excellent odds that it was racist, largely because if Materazzi had really been goading Zidane all game to no effect, he needed to have upped the ante to draw that kind of reaction so late.

This doesn't excuse the folly of Zidane's move, of course, but if Materazzi genuinely said something racist, that's pretty poor sportsmanship too, don't you think? Especially if he was trying to get Zidane tossed, which he probably was. Players have been raked over the coals for brandishing imaginary cards, and Cristiano Ronaldo's smirk in the England game booked him passage out of the country, but what about calling a guy names in the hopes that he'll hit you and get tossed? I think that goes well beyond the boundaries of mere gamesmanship, especially if the racism card was pulled to gain the desired effect. Obviously this is only speculation, but really, if Materazzi had been insulting Zidane all game, why would some common insult like "your mother's a whore" push him over the edge? I don't buy it.

Zi goat

Wow. Just wow. I'll be interested to see if Zidane tells the press what was said to him, because I can't understand how such a seasoned veteran could make such a mental mistake in such a huge spot. Sure, it's not the first time he's ever done this (he was red-carded for another head butt in the Champions League in 2001, apparently), but how do you not understand the stakes, especially as captain? What on earth was he thinking? How is it possible that Materazzi could have said something more offensive than anything else Zidane had ever heard in his career?

Zidane's move was even more goat-tastic for two reasons. Getting yourself sent off in a World Cup final is bad enough - the first time it ever happened was 1990 and Zidane is only the fourth player ever to do it - but to do so when (a) your team is clearly playing the better football and has been for an hour and (b) you're the best penalty kick taker on the team with a shootout looming, that's just horrible. It was an embarrassing lapse in judgment for one of the greatest players ever, and one who had had, I dare say, a surprisingly great tournament, defying all possible expectations. Honestly, you have to wonder if Materazzi wasn't trying to get Zidane to do something stupid, knowing that a shootout - a format at which, historically, the Italians have been absolutely crap - was quite possibly on the schedule.

Would the French have won with Zidane in? I don't know. Both goalkeepers looked lost during the shootout - not a single save, which I think is the first time that happened in this tournament, with Italy only winning thanks to Trezeguet overhitting it. But does that happen if Zidane's there? Impossible to say. Could they have won it in the final ten minutes with Zidane still in? Maybe, but quite possibly not. Still, just having his presence on the field would have changed things. Zidane had nearly won the game just a couple minutes earlier, after all. (My dad is of the opinion that Zidane cost himself tens of millions of dollars with the headbutt. "If he scores the goal, and doesn't get thrown out, he becomes Pele," he said. I would tend to agree on the latter count, though when you consider that Eric Cantona has been the face of Nike for four years, I don't know that being a loose cannon is enough to cost you a sponsorship in international soccer.)

All this, of course, provides yet another reason to complain about the PK shootout. I hate it. I loathe it entirely, especially as a way of settling a World Cup final. Would you settle Game Seven of the World Series with a home run derby, the Super Bowl with a field-goal kicking contest? I realize that it's very difficult to keep playing when the field is so big, and the idea of pulling players off isn't particularly viable because fewer players means more running for any given individual, which means fatigue comes even quicker... but there has to be a better way than this.

It bothers me particularly because the best team does not always win the shootout. In this case, the best team definitely did not win, because anyone who watched this game should be able to tell you that France were clearly the better side for pretty much the entire match. In the second half and overtime, Italy were constantly playing inside their own half, and looked the worse side in terms of conditioning even though France were the older team. And then it all comes down to a contest in which the goalie has no chance unless the guy kicking it chokes? Terrible. (There is no way you can argue against this - the goalie never has a chance if the kicker puts the ball in a corner with a good amount of speed. The only time a guy misses is if he kicks it too softly, allowing a save, or blasts high or wide.) As my dad said, and I agree, it's embarrassing that supposedly the greatest sporting event in the world comes down to such a crapshoot contest as a way of resolving itself. Necessary evil? Maybe. I don't think we're getting rid of it anytime soon. But there has to be a better way.

All that said, Buffon has to be your player of the tournament. No goals conceded from the run of play, and the only goals he allowed were an own goal he couldn't possibly have stopped and a penalty kick (and we've been over that). That, combined with his game-saving stop on Zidane's header - which probably goes in against any other goalie in the world - makes him player of the tournament. Italy don't win without him; they just didn't have the offense.

So that's it for the World Cup. Truly disappointing finish to what I thought was a pretty good final through 110 minutes; truly disappointing way for Zidane to end his international career. It was a good World Cup, not a great World Cup, and a lot of the knockout stage games were disappointing, but ultimately I think we did see two of the three or four best teams in the entire tournament contest the final, and that's probably about as much as you can hope for under normal circumstances. Still... in Berlin, on Sunday night, the best team on the pitch did not win. And while it's not like that never happens in any other sporting event, it's still a shame that an event that only comes around once every four years couldn't have provided a more satisfying, or appropriate, conclusion.

Quarterfinals

Germany 1-1 Argentina AET (Germany 4-2 pens.)

It's funny, people were talking about this being the best tournament since 1982 in the group stage, and now I think it's turned into the worst one since 1990. This game was okay but kind of uninspiring as a whole; the overtime was a typically blah affair leading to the always exciting but never satisfying penalty kicks. Germany won in large part thanks to Jens Lehmann, who guessed correctly on all four of Argentina's attempts, saving two of them. Argentina looked like the team to beat after the group stage, but I think that the drubbing of Serbia made them look better than they were - let's not forget, they didn't score against the Dutch (even if they were resting players, I thought they were supposed to be deep) and were a Maxi Rodriguez wonder goal away from potentially going out to a Mexico side that looked like crap in the first round. Pekerman's subs were also a bit odd - pulling Riquelme, never putting on Messi or Saviola. It was like he was either overconfident in the players on the pitch or playing for penalties. To be fair, he had one of his subs stolen because he had to replace the injured Abbondanzieri, but even so. Maybe it was fitting that Cambiasso was saved on the final kick, while both German subs in the PK line hit theirs.

Italy 3-0 Ukraine

Meh. I didn't even really watch this one, I just fast-forwarded through it looking for the goals. The first one, Zambrotta's, was pretty sick. Either way, I think it was obvious to everyone that Ukraine were easily the worst side in the last eight, so this result can't be considered much of a shock, even if Italy hadn't really looked great since coasting past Ghana in their first match.

Portugal 0-0 England AET (Portugal 3-1 pens.)

Really disappointing. Though I have to say, one of the reasons it was a little harder than I wanted to root for England was Rooney, who I really don't like, and it was his red card that helped shut things down for England - they already weren't playing that well, and had lost Beckham, but Lennon looked pretty good (clearly one of the future stars of that side) and with another hour looming you have to think England could have found a way to push one across at full strength with their best scorer on the pitch. It'll be interesting to see if the British press demolish Rooney in the same way they did Beckham in '98 - I think they've always had a touchy relationship with Beckham because it was felt he was a pretty good player made overly famous by his pinup looks. Rooney, clearly, doesn't have that problem. But he does have all the temper and in fact significantly more. It's not clear to me that the crotch stomp was intentional, but combine that with the shove of Ronaldo (his club teammate!) and that's probably why he got the red. Anyway. Lampard had a horrendous World Cup. Just an unbelievably poor showing. Gerrard did nothing in the knockouts. Basically, the team couldn't score when it mattered, and barely at all. The striker issue should be at least partly to blame. What on earth was Eriksson thinking bringing Walcott if he was never going to play him? Only one true striker started today (Rooney), and then Crouch came in after he was tossed, meaning that at no point did England have two strikers on the pitch. And okay, it's not impossible to win out of a 4-5-1 - that's basically what Portugal runs - but you need to have the right type of setup for that. England had too many shoot-first midfielders, not enough service to Rooney, and just in general not enough chances. Shots/on goal in today's game? Portugal 20/9, England 9/4. Yeah. They're lucky they didn't lose sooner than a shootout. By the way, nice work by Ricardo in the shootout. Very Lehmannesque.

France 1-0 Brazil

Best game of the round, possibly the only truly good one of the four - and it featured France, just like last round's best game. I'm starting to really appreciate France - they looked terrible against Switzerland, but they appear to be learning how to play better with each other and they're really hitting their stride. Great defensive performance in shutting down all of Brazil's weapons and rarely having to worry about Barthez's foibles; great goal by Henry getting in behind the defense. This whole tournament, Brazil looked like they were just sitting back, ready to ratchet up their play only when they absolutely had to; France exploited that by outplaying them before and after scoring, and then holding off the late flurry of attacks when the Brazilians appeared to finally wake up and realize that they were about to go out. I'm glad Zidane gets to keep playing, and I'm glad someone besides Brazil is going to win... although Germany and Italy, with three World Cups each, are both in the mix, which is a little annoying.

The last time the semis featured four European teams was 1982 in Spain, when the four were West Germany, Italy, France, and Poland. Sound familiar? Heck, Poland and Portugal even start with the same two letters, just for good measure. That year, Italy beat Germany in the final and Poland finished third by beating France. This year, I'm predicting a Germany/France final. Maybe it will be as epic as their semi matchup that year, which ended AET at 3-3 after France had gone up 3-1 in the first half of extra time, only for West Germany to score in the 102nd and 108th minutes to force penalties, where they won 5-4. We can only hope. (Although I'd rather France won, in terms of actual result.)

Round of 16: Games 5-8

Italy 1-0 Australia

All I watched of this was the last couple minutes. As far as the penalty kick goes, since that's all that needs to be mentioned... was it a penalty? I don't know, it was pretty weak. But Neill did himself no favors by sprawling on the ground, thus giving the Italian player an excuse to fall over him and the referee an excuse to call obstruction. Tough spot for a penalty and a tough call, but that's what happens. Hard luck for Australia, though; they probably outplayed both Brazil and Italy, but couldn't win either match and are gone as a result.

Ukraine 0-0 Switzerland AET (Ukraine wins on penalties, 3-0)

Pretty embarrassing showing by the Swiss in the shootout - but then, I'm with Michael Davies. Shootouts may be exciting to the average fan but they're a lousy way to decide a game; it would be like ending a tied baseball game with a home run derby or a basketball game with a free throw shootout (not to go all Shep Messing on you there). The problem, as Davies notes, is that the better team does not always win the shootout (though with due respect to Switzerland, in this particular case I'm not sure that the better team didn't win); a better way to go would be to use goal differential, total goals, and qualifying record. Or something. That would also help create what FIFA wants - an exciting overtime. They tried to get that with the golden goal, but the result was that teams were even more likely to defend because if you give up a goal in that format, you don't get a chance to re-tie the game. And right now many teams won't push the ball in an OT because they're willing to take their chances in the shootout. Change the rules to a tiebreaker format and you'll find that at least one team really wants to press in extra time. Which is as it should be. Anyway, this was a fairly bland game, as the score should indicate.

Brazil 3-0 Ghana

Didn't bother. With Essien out, this was even more of a fait accompli than it would have been with him in. I guess Ronaldo got the record, and that's nice for him, but I really didn't care about the game; I'm pretty tired of watching Brazil get outplayed (as reports had them doing for, at least, significant stretches of this one) and still win. Maybe a resurgent France can finally push them to the edge.

France 3-1 Spain

Game of the round, in my opinion; certainly game of the last two days. Spain's PK was a bit shaky - for the record, I hate the rule that any infringement, no matter how minor or distant from goal, is a penalty kick as long as it's in the box, though I guess what else can you do - but it didn't end up mattering. Great goal by Ribery, proving once again that the offsides trap will almost always burn you if you're playing a team of actual quality; better goal by Zidane to finish it. That's really the moment of the World Cup for me so far, what with Zidane helping prolong his own career and scoring a great strike while he was at it. Amazingly, this was the first time Spain and France had ever met in the World Cup, and the first time both had qualified for the knockouts since 1986 (when France finished third and Spain were knocked out in the quarters). Exciting game, end-to-end action, four goals, few cards; what more could you ask for? Here's hoping the next round has more games like this and fewer games like the other three.

Another random stat: the quarters will feature two games that match up past champions: Germany/Argentina and France/Brazil. Each of those games is also a rematch of a previous final; Germany and Argentina met in 1986 and 1990 (each nation winning one), while France beat Brazil in 1998. The semifinals could easily see at least one and possibly two more matchups of former champions; if Italy beat Ukraine, they will have one with the Argentina/Germany winner (a Germany/Italy game would be a rematch of the 1982 final, as well), and if England beat Portugal, they will have one with the Brazil/France winner. The last time a World Cup had more than two matchups of former champions in the knockout stages was 1990, which saw fully six such matchups if you count the third-place game, including both semifinal games:

Round of 16: Italy 2-0 Uruguay; Argentina 1-0 Brazil
Semifinals: West Germany 1-1 England (4-3 pen); Argentina 1-1 Italy (4-3 pen)
Final: West Germany 1-0 Argentina
Third-place game: Italy 2-1 England

The Germany-England semifinal was also a rematch of the 1966 final, along with the final being a rematch of the 1986 final. Thus concludes our stats wonkery for the day.

Round of 16: Games 1-4

Germany 2-0 Sweden

Pretty blah game. The Germans scored early; the Swedes never showed signs of getting back into it. Even when they were handed a goal on a silver platter, Larsson blasted over. Germany, which had been getting railed in their domestic press prior to the World Cup, are clearly peaking at the right time. Scary thought for everyone else, although their next game ought to be their first serious test.

Argentina 2-1 Mexico AET

Exciting, end-to-end contest that, by all rights, should have had more scoring. Mexico managed to raise their game after looking pretty mediocre in a bad group, but they're going home anyway thanks to the goal of the tournament so far, Maxi Rodriguez's jaw-dropping 20-yard volley off his own chest. It's hard to imagine that one being topped. More importantly, Argentina didn't play their best game and they still beat a Mexico side ranked #4 in the world (even if that wasn't entirely deserved). They'll have to play their best to get past the home side in the quarterfinals, but as long as they rest up I think they can. Either way, I'm hoping that's a great game.

England 1-0 Ecuador

There's no way England can keep playing like this and win a World Cup. If Ecuador were pretty much any of the other 14 teams in the second round, I think England could well have lost. Their defense played fairly well, but really it's more that Ecuador's offense was stagnant for most of the game. And they still had the best chance of the game that didn't actually go in, the shot just barely deflected by Ashley Cole enough to hit the crossbar. Beckham's free kick was insanely well-placed and should shut up the English press who thought he should have been pulled, but I think Marcelo Balboa had a point when he noted that, as good as Beckham is on the set-pieces and that's why you have him out there, he really wasn't that great in any other area of play. At any rate, if England play any more games like this, I think they're done, although they might still have a chance against a weakened Portugal.

Portugal 1-0 Netherlands

And I thought U.S.-Italy was a bloodbath. Criminy. Dellacamera and Harkes were raking Valentin Ivanov over the coals for the 16 yellow and 4 red cards, saying that he'd lost control of the game - but really, I think it was the way things were going. For whatever reason, this was a very contentious affair right from the start, and when you have players pushing each other down all over the place, what else is a referee supposed to do? Sure, he should warn them first and then bring out the cards, but can we say he didn't? Even the parade of yellow cards didn't seem to deter the players - say what you will, but I thought most of the cards were more or less deserved - so how can you say that Ivanov should have been able to get the game under control without going to the book so often? I don't know, maybe it's just me. But it was a tough game for both teams; Van Basten will be questioned - and, I'm going to guess, possibly fired as well - for not putting Van Nistelrooy out there at any point; the ball that Kuyt just missed late in the second might have been a goal at the feet of RVN. Maybe he was injured and we just haven't heard yet? Either way, rough game. Tough for Portugal to go into the England game now without a suspended Deco, and possibly without a potentially injured Ronaldo.

Portugal took out Holland in the semis of Euro 2004; now they face England, the team they beat in the quarters that year. That game went to penalty kicks; I can't say I'd be shocked to see this one do the same.

Not Ghana happen

If the draw with Italy had potential to become one of the seminal moments in American soccer history, the loss to Ghana took that potential out back and shot it, Old Yeller-style. With advancement to the second round within their grasp, the Americans laid their second egg of the World Cup, crashing out with just a single point and quite possibly setting national soccer back five years. The Italy game, so inspiring five days ago, will ultimately be a historical footnote, the one point the Americans managed to get on European soil - but the only one they could get in an embarrassing early exit at the tournament that was supposed to be US Soccer's coming-out party.

So what happened? Unsurprisingly, the team's failure can be blamed on a convergence of a multitude of factors, each as damning as the next.

One of the biggest and most immediately obvious was the Americans' lack of aggressiveness. Though they may well not have beaten the Czechs even if they were able to run with them offensively, the U.S. struggled mightily to get anything going against a Czech defense that had been relatively porous in qualifying despite starting arguably the world's best goalkeeper. The Czechs ended up conceding a total of four goals to Ghana and Italy in two losses that sent them packing as well. Certainly the Czechs played their game of the tournament in the first game; there was some speculation that the U.S. would have preferred to face an aging Czech team later in group play, and this may have been borne out by the actual results. Nonetheless, the U.S. never got anything going.

This wasn't an isolated incident, either. Against both Italy and Ghana, the Americans significantly upped the midfield intensity they had failed to display in the first game, but routinely stopped charging once they approached the 18-yard box; you'd have thought every opposing penalty area was mined the way they avoided it. Clint Dempsey's 43rd-minute goal against Ghana, off a nice feed from DaMarcus Beasley, was not only the only American-scored goal of the tournament, but one of the very few good chances the U.S. got out of the run of play. More often they seemed content to wait for the perfect spot or a setpiece, hoping the chances would come to them rather than making chances for themselves. In the second half of the Ghana game, down 2-1 and needing a win to advance, the Americans played with a startling lack of urgency, mostly content to bang it around the midfield. Even the introduction of Eddie Johnson proved fruitless, as the explosive striker rarely saw the ball.

With the possible exception of France, no non-minnow looked as woeful on offense in the group stages as did the U.S. side. The midfielders had a terrible time linking up with the strikers (in particular, McBride was almost completely marginalized throughout the tournament, his most noteworthy moment being his failure to get out of Beasley's way, denying the Americans the win over Italy), and nobody took quality shots from distance, an offensive feature of pretty much every other team in the world. The Americans appear to be a side built around defense first and attacking only when necessary, which is a hard habit to break when you find yourself going behind in every game.

Which brings us to the next problem: the shocking defensive breakdowns. It wasn't just that the U.S. made far too many horrible gaffes deep in its own half, it was that they managed to make them in such a way that they were nearly always punished for them. Of the six goals conceded over three games, fully four were at least partially the result of either a hideous mistake at the back or simply the exposure of a U.S. defensive weakness. The Jan Koller goal which, one might argue, set the tone for the entire tournament was largely the result of poor marking; Koller may have been tall enough to get to the ball first, but his unimpeded progress to the goal mouth was inexcusable. Tomas Rosicky's second goal was a botched offsides trap; so was Italy's goal, allowed when Eddie Pope decided to stop marking his man in the hopes he would be called offsides. Sadly, Pope forgot to inform his teammates of his plan, and Gilardino coasted towards the net unmarked. Ghana's opening goal was not so much a defensive breakdown as a mental mistake; Claudio Reyna should have known better than trying to dribble out of the back like that, and what's worse the play caused the injury that ended up pulling him from the game. A fit Reyna in the second half might have made a difference.

Of course, you can't discuss the U.S. getting bounced without some discussion of the officiating. I don't think it should be a crutch - the Americans made plenty of mistakes on their own - but you can't say it didn't have any effect. Would the Italy game have been different if it had been 11-on-10 U.S. in the second half instead of 9-on-10? Almost certainly. Would the Ghana game have been different if the U.S. had gone into halftime with all the momentum instead of being forced to play a dispirited catchup for the final 45? Quite possibly. That said, the Americans had 45 minutes to, at the very least, score one goal and save some face, even if they didn't advance, and they rarely threatened. I don't think you can discount the mental blow that the penalty kick was, coming so soon after the tying goal, and especially being one of the worst calls for a penalty kick you've ever seen in your life - but if you're going to be a top five team in the world, you can't shut down when a couple calls don't go your way. The U.S. didn't do that in the Italy game, but in the Ghana game, they seemed to have one foot on the plane in the second half.

The mental game is another aspect. For all the praise lavished upon this team and its toughness after the Italy game, the players were shockingly fragile during both the Czech Republic and Ghana matches. Everyone curled into a ball after Koller's goal, and shocking though it may have been, it's clear in retrospect that that Czech team was not so good as it was the Americans who were bad. It took Ghana's second goal to do the same in the last match, and while, again, it was a shocking goal - and, unlike Koller's, a blatant bad call as opposed to an American mistake - that's no excuse for closing up shop in what, really, was, or should have been, the game of many of these players' lives.

Some of this should be traced back to the coach. For all of Bruce Arena's success over the past eight years - much of it, it must be noted, in a relatively weak CONCACAF - and his track record as a developer of young players, if this World Cup proved anything about him it was that he is not a master tactician or motivator. Too long he kept his foot on the brake in the team's alignment even as it was obvious that the Americans needed goals, and it's hard to argue that he knows how to drive a team when you look at the uninspired second half against Ghana, only the most important 45 minutes of American soccer in history. Some of this may be the personnel, however. Arena picked the team and deserves some of the blame if his guys played flat, but still - should soccer players need a master motivator to get them up for the World Cup? It's the World Cup!

The list of supposed U.S. soccer saviors who came up bust in this tournament is far longer than it should be. Landon Donovan, a breakout star in 2002 and the man who everyone thought could and should carry the U.S. to greater glory in Germany, was virtually nowhere to be seen in three games, showing up in the Italy game only after so much new space was created by the dismissal of three players. That's all well and good, but if you can't find the holes when it's 11-on-11, you're not going to be much help in most games. DaMarcus Beasley got the only U.S. assist of the World Cup, but apart from that and his disallowed goal in the Italy game, he was comfortably anonymous - so much so against the Czechs that he was ripped into by Arena and benched to start the Italy game. (Whined Beasley after Arena's now-infamous "We got nothing out of Beasley" barb, "I don't know what he wants me to do. I was back there defending the whole time." Which is nice, unless you're an attacking midfielder and your team needs goals.) Brian McBride, who scored twice in 2002, was only moderately threatening, though if you're a striker who scores a lot of goals on headballs and rebounds, it can be pretty hard to rack up the goals when no one is putting the ball in the box. Kasey Keller had a couple big saves against Italy, and none of the goals allowed were his fault, but he hardly lived up to the pre-tournament hype - is it starting to fall into place why he's the goalie for a middling Bundesliga team and not, say, Manchester United?

The question is, where do we go from here? Unthinkable though it may be to some, I think one of the first steps may be to move on from Arena. I think he's already brought US Soccer about as far as he's capable of taking it - and he should be commended for that, but you don't hang on to a guy who has clearly passed his peak and is only heading downward. I don't know who you bring in - I've never been the biggest fan of the mercenary style of international coaching, but there's something to be said for the success of guys like Guus Hiddink (even with his bizarre goalie selection today) and Big Phil Scolari. Does the United States need a manager of that type to be successful? It's hard to say. Is there an obvious candidate to come in next? I don't know. But I do think that we've reached the end of the line for Arena, one way or the other. The 2006 World Cup proved that the United States has a much longer way to go than we thought to be competitive at the major international level; there's a next step to be taken, but Arena's lack of tactical creativity or risk suggests that he isn't the guy to take it.

Who is? That's up for US Soccer to decide, I suppose. And maybe it's helpful that the World Cup likely won't be back in Europe for another 12 years. But there's pretty much nowhere to go but up from here, and the Americans shouldn't have a dearth of talent anytime soon. Heck, by the next World Cup maybe Freddy Adu will have come of age. Whoever comes in, I hope they inject a little more offensive life into this team. You don't have to play like Brazil to be successful at the World Cup... but clearly it helps.

World Cup Day Thirteen

Unlucky thirteen? First I had Group D ruined for me by the elevator news ticker - though in retrospect, I probably wasn't sitting through Mexico/Portugal - and then Argentina/Holland was a total bust.

I get what they were doing. Really, I do. You're both in the next round already and the difference between Mexico and Portugal probably seems negligible, not like (say) avoiding Brazil to play Croatia or Australia (which I hope motivates Italy tomorrow). So why not rest guys with yellow cards, especially with the way the refs have been doling them out so far? (Though Luis Medina Cantalejo, the Spanish ref in charge of this game, is Ref of the Cup so far for me for just letting the players play for the most part. Yeah, he handed out five yellows, but at least three of them were completely justified, and there were other places where he could have whipped out a card and didn't. And I liked his apparent sense of humor, like the way he was smirking at Kuyt like "You know, I was trying to be nice, and then you had to go and do that.")

But that doesn't mean it made for compelling soccer. I've seen scintillating 0-0 draws in the past, but this one just didn't live up to billing, especially in the second half. Why couldn't this have been the first game in the group? If I'd known it was going to end up like that I probably wouldn't even have bothered watching. I wouldn't say I'm sorry I did - neither team looked bad, they just weren't trying that hard, and if I'm Mexico, or really anyone, Messi and Tevez scare the pants off me - but there were other things I could have been doing. Okay, that's a lie.

I suppose fittingly, Ivory Coast and Serbia played a ridiculous game that I didn't get to see. I don't know how the overall quality of play was, though I'm guessing not bad, but five goals should get anyone excited.

Here's hoping U.S.-Ghana doesn't disappoint me. We're pretty much 0-for-2 so far. The first game - well, the less said, the better. The second game - sure, I was thrilled they held on for the draw, and proud of how much better they played, but how could any U.S. fan not have been disappointed with that result after a win seemed like a virtual shoo-in half an hour in? All the U.S. need to do to make me happy is win. Can we get this done? I know Ghana is nothing resembling a gimme - but who is in the World Cup, really? Why would anyone think they would be? Just because they're not European? The U.S. have to approach this game the same way as the Italy game. Because any other way and they won't win.

Though speaking of Italy, am I the only U.S. fan made nervous by the "Czechs name Koller and Baros to match squad" news today? It's hard to believe either is 100%, and match fitness counts for a lot, and maybe this is just desperation on the Czechs' part. Or maybe they're scary again. I still think Italy may well have the better side top to bottom, but will they actually play like it? We need them to. Thank God they aren't already assured of going through (and even if they were, how could anyone not try to avoid Brazil?).

World Cup Day Twelve

So, what did we learn?

* Germany are, in fact, the class of Group A. No serious surprise there, I guess. Though you have to wonder how much Ecuador were trying; they looked like they had one foot on the plane, which is funny because they were already advancing. Maybe it was one foot on the plane to Stuttgart. But either way, they apparently didn't care about trying to avoid England. I guess when the biggest moment in your nation's football history prior to now was a 1-0 victory in the last World Cup after already having been eliminated, making the knockout stages is a deal enough in itself.

* Also, why would anyone want to avoid England, especially when they have a tendency to play down to their opposition and give up absolutely crap goals to blow leads? That 90th minute equalizer by Sweden was one of the most pathetic goals you'll ever see trickle into the net in your life. I can hardly wait to read Michael Davies' take on it, though there's the possibility he had a stroke when it happened and is currently in a coma.

* Hard luck losing Owen, although had he really done anything in the Finals so far? That's what happens when you're out of fitness; no doubt it's just as well Rooney didn't play the whole game. But England are looking a really safe bet to disappoint again. Right now I'd give decent odds that England meet Holland on July 1 in Gelsenkirchen, and you have to think the Dutch are playing a lot better right now. Certainly give them the edge in goalkeepers. It all spells early exit. England just don't seem to have enough offense to play with the best offensive teams out there, and I can't see them winning 1-0 games against the likes of Brazil or Argentina when they're prone to insane defensive breakdowns like today's.

Two days until the moment of truth for the US.

By the way, for those of you wondering what my sources were on the controversies list - because this is the New York Times of soccer blogs - I started with Wikipedia to get quick summaries of every Finals, and then found second, non-open-edit sources for most of them, mostly to confirm but occasionally to deepen as well. Other points of reference included the BBC and ESPN's coverage, which was where I heard about Wasserschlact, which the Wikipedia entry for the 1974 Finals actually doesn't even mention (the German one does, but the English one does not). But I think it's important to remember that the list is for entertainment purposes only and should not be used as a basis for anyone's college thesis.

World Cup Days Ten and Eleven

That's it for the first two go-rounds. There's just a third set of matches left, and because they have to be played simultaneously in each group (see the last entry for why), that's four per day and we're all done by Friday. The moment of truth for the Americans is Thursday, and I'll be at home watching it. In the meantime, let's wrap up the last two days and preview the next few.

Sunday
After Saturday's Group E action, Sunday was pretty much doomed to be a disappointment, and so it was on most levels. First off there was the useless Japan-Croatia 0-0 draw, though honestly I bet that would have been most people's pre-tournament pick for "least compelling matchup between teams that made the knockout stages within the last eight years." Then there was Brazil/Australia, which proved two things:

1) Brazil don't seem to be trying that hard.
2) It absolutely does not matter.

Maybe when they're playing someone besides Croatia, Australia, and Japan, Brazil will be better exposed, though you have to feel like they're totally saving themselves for the knockout stages. On the other hand, England had their number in 2002 until Eriksson revealed that he's really kind of a lousy tactician, so I hardly think this team is unbeatable. I'm just not convinced anyone will beat them until I see it happen. I'd love to see them play Argentina, but if they both win their groups that can't happen until the final. Though wouldn't that be a great final?

The third game was France/South Korea. France probably got jobbed on Vieira's header, but in fairness to the ref I didn't see the French complaining about it until after the game when they'd all seen the replay and/or heard everyone say it was probably in. If not one single player on the pitch was throwing up a protest, why should we expect the ref to have been able to tell? Anyway, it's France's own fault for wimping out in the second half and giving up a pretty crap goal. Hard to believe we may have seen Zidane's last game on the international stage, though.

Monday
Sunday may have been uninspiring, but Monday was possibly worse. Switzerland/Togo? (Though that does remind me to tell my favorite "ESPN's coverage is frequently stupid" story: during the first game between France and Switzerland, ESPN ran that little "here are some facts about x country" graphic thing they do for Switzerland. Where the map of Switzerland should have been, however, there was a map of Sweden. So close and yet so far. I don't know if this is as egregious as the announcers repeating for days that this was the U.S.'s fourth straight trip to the World Cup and apparently not a single person on the team realizing it was really their fifth, but it says a lot about American knowledge of the rest of the world, I think.) The second Swiss goal wasn't bad to watch, though; I love those doinkers.

Ukraine/Saudi Arabia was as much of a snoozer as you'd expect from any game involving Saudi Arabia and a European team. (Remember Germany in 2002?) The question is, does this game mean Spain are really, really good, Saudi Arabia are really, really bad, both, or something in between? Frankly, if I'm a Spain fan, I'm worried that they've been a bit coddled with an easy draw - they stomped the only seemingly hard team in their group, and even if it took them awhile they did eventually outclass Tunisia. It's hard not to see them rolling past Saudi Arabia, and their hardest second-round opponent would probably be France (assuming they can score at all) or a rematch with South Korea. But then they would be almost certain to meet Brazil in the quarters, and while Spain have showed more quality than Brazil so far, I think the Spanish would be more unprepared for the Brazilians than vice versa.

Final Group Matches Preview

Group A: It's decided who's moving on, but not in what spots. Surprising no one, Germany top the group with six points... except that, surprising everyone, they don't top the group, because Ecuador are also on six points and have a better goal differential. Ecuador beat the same teams Germany beat (obviously) and did so by an additional goal in each game despite not having home-field advantage. Does this mean that Ecuador - winners of just one road game in qualifying and that at significant altitude in Bolivia - are really the class of this group? Hard to believe. But I'm pretty psyched to watch this one. No one tell me what happens before 7:00 tomorrow when I get home.

Group B: England are moving on but second is still open. Technically Sweden could still top the group if they can beat England - not impossible considering England's recent form, not that Sweden have looked great - but more likely they'll be hoping to hold off Trinidad and Tobago. If Sweden lose and Trinidad win, it will come down to GD, and Sweden are at just +1; a 2-0 loss to England could make things very dicey for the Swedes.

Group C: If you're not looking forward to Argentina/Holland - a rematch of the 1978 final, incidentally - you don't like soccer. Argentina have looked better - but then they've looked better than everyone - but Holland haven't looked terrible either. This one ought to be a wide-open game; it could finish 6-5 and I wouldn't be shocked. (Well, yes, I would. But you know what I'm saying.) In any event, you have to favor Argentina to win the group right now.

Group D: It's Mexico and Portugal to top the group. Amusingly, minnows Angola are still in it after Mexico's gag draw with them; I'm absolutely going to be rooting for both Portuguese-speaking nations in the hope that Mexico get run out of the tournament's easiest group. Most likely, though, the traditional powers will move on; I think Portugal can beat Mexico, but it's not immediately clear that Angola are a shoo-in to beat Iran.

Group E: Well, we know what I want to happen. Group C may feature a better top two, but this is clearly the real Group of Death, as literally anything can still happen on the last day. The Americans are the only side that don't control their own destiny; the other three are in with a win, while the U.S. need Italy to win as well (there are other possibilities, but they involve huge GD swings and are thus quite unlikely). The real Death-Group thing is that it's hard to know what to expect on the last day. Which Czech team shows up, the one that manhandled the U.S. or the one that got thoroughly outplayed by Ghana? Which Italy team shows up, the one that glided past Ghana or the one that was pushed around by an American side that wanted their match more? Will Ghana be hurt by the suspension of goalscorer Asamoah Gyan? Will missing a defender and a holding midfielder hurt the U.S., or does the fact that one of those is Eddie Pope really make it addition by subtraction? But that's the really great part about the World Cup. Groups F and H are the only other ones where no team has been totally eliminated yet; you gotta love a last day where every team is alive.

Group F: Every team is alive, but who really cares? We all know Brazil are going to top the group. Oh, sure, there's the battle for second. Snore. Australia pretty much just need to draw Croatia to advance; that game could be decent, at least. Japan are still in it, but if Australia don't lose they'll need to beat Brazil by three goals. Ha.

Group G: France are in real danger of another crashout. They play Togo, obviously the weakest team in the group (and perhaps in the tournament), but even a win could land them in a three-way tie for first on five points if Switzerland and South Korea draw. If you're France you'd really like a decisive win, since 1-0 might not be enough. A France win and any winner in the other game is enough to advance the French, though not as top of the group. Can you imagine a France/Spain match in Round Two?

Group H: With as bad as Ukraine made Saudi Arabia look, I don't see any way Spain don't take the full nine points and win the group. The question is, which Ukraine team shows up to face Tunisia? Can Tunisia possibly steal that game and second place? My guess: no.

The Ten Biggest Controversies in World Cup History

On the heels of what has to be considered the most controversial game of this year's Finals, here is my take on the top ten World Cup Finals controversies:

10. 2006 - U.S./Italy see red three times
It's too recent to go any higher and it's possible I'm just biased, but no less a figure than Franz Beckenbauer stated he believed the referees to be throwing out too many cards without warnings in the 2006 Cup. The tournament isn't over yet, but the apex of the movement appears to have come in the first-round game between the United States and Italy. When the heavily-favored Italians went down a man due to a thrown elbow by Daniele De Rossi into the face of American striker Brian McBride, it seemed as though the U.S. - already controlling the pace for most of the game - were in good position to take three points crucial to their advancement. Just prior to the end of the first half, however, midfielder Pablo Mastroeni was given a straight red card for showing his studs on a tackle, and two minutes into the second half, Eddie Pope received a second yellow card - and thus a red - for what most observers seemed to agree was a fairly conventional tackle (and one on which he played the ball, no less). Down to 9 men with nearly an entire half remaining, the U.S. were forced to hang on for the rest of the game, conjuring up only a couple of attacking chances and finishing with a draw that, while it left open the door for advancement, meant the Americans would be reliant on other results to move on. The three red cards in one match tied a World Cup record; only one match in the previous 50 years (Denmark vs. South Africa in 1998) had seen as many. It was subsequently revealed that the referee, Jorge Larrionda of Uruguay, had been suspended prior to the 2002 World Cup by his country's federation for supposed "irregularities," though these were not defined.

9. 1974 - West Germany defeats Poland in "Wasserschlacht"
In 1974 the Polish team was one of the strongest in the world and arguably among the two or three favorites to win the World Cup. They had taken gold at the Munich Olympics in 1972 and striker Grzegorz Lato ended up winning the '74 World Cup's golden boot with seven goals. With three wins in three games despite being drawn in a group with Argentina and Italy, the Poles seemed well on their way. Drawn into a second round group with the hosts, Poland defeated Sweden 1-0 and Yugoslavia 2-1, a Lato goal providing the difference in each game. The Poles were a quick, talented team, and it seemed like the Germans were going to have a very hard time defeating them in Frankfurt. Before the game, however, it rained heavily, turning the pitch at the Waldstadion into a waterlogged nightmare. The Poles pushed to have the game postponed, but the Germans refused and the match went on as scheduled. Their speed advantage negated, Poland could not muster a goal (at one point, a goal-bound shot died in a puddle in front of the German net), and Gerd Müller's goal in the 76th minute was enough for West Germany to win the game and the group. Poland went on to defeat Brazil in the third place game, the best result in their history (they later finished third again in 1982 but have escaped the group stages just once since), but if not for a soggy pitch in Frankfurt, it could have been more.

8. 1954 - The Miracle of Bern
In 1954 Hungary were the best side in the world. They had won Olympic gold in 1952, and came into the World Cup unbeaten in 29 straight international matches dating to 1950, a streak they ran to 33 (still a record) before running into West Germany in the final. The Germans were not, at the time, the world football power they are today, while Hungary's "Magnificent Magyars" were led by an attack force that included Ferenc Puskás (considered to be one of the greatest footballers of all time) and Sandor Kocsis, who won the golden boot at the '54 Cup. The Hungarians had defeated West Germany 8-3 in group play, and were certainly favored going into the final. Puskás and Zoltan Czibor both struck inside of ten minutes to stake Hungary to a 2-0 lead, but Max Morlock scored in the 10th minute and Helmut Rahn in the 18th to tie the game at 2. While it may have seemed to be heading for a 6-5 finish then, the match slowed down, and no one scored again until Rahn struck a second time in the 84th minute. The controversy came in the final minutes, with Hungary looking for an equalizer. Puskás scored in the 89th minute, but the goal was called back for offsides; seconds later, Kocsis went down in the penalty area but no foul was given. The whistle blew and the Germans were crowned champions; the distraught Hungarians were ushered off the pitch. While they would win two more Olympic gold medals (in 1964 and 1968), Hungary never again seriously contended at the World Cup.

7. 2002 - South Korea's home-field advantage
Shocking most experts, co-host nation South Korea not only won their group (pushing out favored Portugal with a 1-0 win in their third match) but marched all the way to the semifinals before finally being dispatched by eventual runners-up Germany. How they did it was the controversial part. Paired off with Italy in the round of 16, the Koreans won 2-1 thanks a golden goal by Ahn Jung-Hwan in the 117th minute. Prior to that, however, the Italians had been reduced to ten men when Francesco Totti was sent off with a second yellow for diving, and an Italian goal had been disallowed; many felt that replays showed both decisions to be incorrect. Had that been the only game seen as suspicious, it might have blown over, but South Korea found themselves up against Spain next, and they won 5-3 in a shootout after ending 120 minutes of scoreless play. However, Spain had two goals disallowed during the game, including one in extra time which would have won the contest, and both the Spanish and Italians grumbled about their results afterwards. The situation wasn't helped by FIFA's admission that the officiating in general was not quite up to par (which perhaps explains why they stood so adamantly behind the flurry of cards in the 2006 Cup). Korea's luck with officials continued in 2006, as France had a goal not given when a Patrick Vieira header appeared to cross the line, leading to a 1-1 draw.

6. 1978 - Argentina-born keeper lets in six
In the second round of the 1978 World Cup, the host nation Argentina found itself in a group with Brazil, Poland, and Peru. When Argentina and Peru met in the group's final game, Brazil had defeated Poland 3-1 to move into first place in the group (which would earn them a spot in the final against the Dutch). As Argentina and Brazil had drawn 0-0 in their earlier match, the hosts could move on only if they defeated Peru (who were well out of it by this time) and won the game by at least four goals, which was unlikely. Up until that point Argentina had scored just six goals in the whole tournament; Peru had allowed just six, thanks to the play of goalie Ramón Quiroga, including a 0-0 draw with eventual runners-up Holland. In this game, however, Quiroga saw six go past him, two in the first half and four more in the second. It transpired that Quiroga had actually been born in Argentina, which some felt may have accounted for his suddenly poor performance, but players on both sides vehemently denied any agreement to let Argentina win.

5. 1990 - The ugliest final
The 1990 World Cup is frequently regarded as one of the worst ever, as it featured a record low goals-per-game average and a then-record 16 red cards. The final saw a number of questionable decisions; both the West Germans and Argentinians, contesting the final, had a penalty denied them on what seemed like obvious fouls within the box, and the only goal of the game came on a German penalty kick in the 85th minute on a call much sketchier than either of the ones not given. Furthermore, Argentina had been reduced to nine men thanks to two red cards, giving the Germans a sizable advantage by the end of the game. No one had ever been sent off in a World Cup final before, nor had the losing team ever failed to score before. (Interestingly, no losing team has scored in a final since.)

4. 1934 - Mussolini exerts his influence
The 1934 World Cup was held in Italy, which was at the time controlled by the fascist dictator Benito Mussolini. The Italians won the World Cup, which may or may not have been partly attributable to pressure put on the officials by Mussolini. Reports had the Swedish referee who officiated both Italy's semi-final match and the final game meeting with Il Duce prior to both of the matches. Many disputed decisions went Italy's way, and supposedly some of the officials who refereed Italian games ruled so favorably for Italy that they were suspended by their home nations after the World Cup. The Italians eventually proved their win was not entirely due to the home advantage by winning the 1938 World Cup held in France, but the belief that they had been handed the '34 trophy held.

3. 1982 - West Germany and Austria collaborate to deny Algeria
Algeria pulled one of the most shocking upsets in World Cup history in their first group match in 1982, stunning West Germany 2-1. After losing to Austria and beating Chile, the Algerians found themselves with four points but a goal differential of zero. Austria already had four points, while West Germany had just two. On June 25, the day after Algeria's final match with Chile, West Germany and Austria met in the last game of the group. Every potential scenario was already known. An Austrian win and Algeria and Austria would move on. If West Germany won by three or four goals, they and Algeria would move on. A draw would not be good enough for the Germans; they needed to win. But if they won by too much, Austria would be out. When Horst Hrubesch scored in the 10th minute to put West Germany up 1-0, fans thought they might be in for a repeat of the teams' match in 1978, an exciting game won 3-2 by Austria. But after scoring, the Germans simply stopped attacking, and the Austrians didn't start. Despite furious jeering from the Spanish crowd, the teams kicked the ball around for 80 minutes, giving West Germany the 1-0 win and advancing both teams at Algeria's expense. The result of this embarrassing performance was FIFA's subsequent rule that the last two matches in every group must be played simultaneously, to avoid having one or more teams change their play based on other results.

2. 1966 - They Think It's All Over
The 1966 World Cup, still the only World Cup won by footballing giant England, had probably the most controversial final game on record. Facing off against West Germany at Wembley, the English went up 2-1 in the 78th minute, only to see the Germans, attacking like crazy, score in the 90th minute to send the contest to extra time. Shortly before the end of the first half of extra time, Geoff Hurst struck Alan Ball's cross towards goal. The ball hit the underside of the crossbar, then bounced down to the goal line, and then was cleared by the Germans. Unsure of whether or not to give the goal, referee Gottfried Dienst consulted linesman Tofik Bakhramov, who was in good position. Bakhramov said that the ball had crossed the line, Dienst gave the goal, and German fans everywhere were furious (any similar goal is now sarcastically called a "Wembley-Tor," or Wembley goal, by some Germans). Just before the end of extra time, Hurst struck again, this time as England fans began spilling onto the pitch to celebrate, mistakenly thinking the game had already been whistled over. This led to Kenneth Wolstenholme's famous call, "Some people are on the pitch, they think it's all over... it is now!" Some have argued that this goal should not have been counted either due to the pitch invasion, although it's hard to believe that West Germany would have had the time to score anyway by that point. In 1995, a group of Oxford researchers used computer analysis to enhance television footage and declared that Hurst's first extra-time goal (his second of the game) had not actually crossed the line in full.

1. 1986 - Maradona's "Hand of God"
If England had gotten the favorable part of a referee's judgment in 1966, two decades later they gave back as much as they had taken. The English met Diego Maradona's Argentina in a quarterfinal match at Mexico City's Azteca Stadium. The game was scoreless at halftime, but in the second half the match was taken over by the mercurial Maradona. His second goal, scored in the 56th minute to put Argentina up 2-0, was named "Goal of the Century" by FIFA in 2002, as he dribbled past five England defenders and keeper Peter Shilton. The irony of this is that his first goal was so shockingly illegitimate. As the ball bounced high in the air towards Shilton, Maradona leapt towards it - and punched the ball with his fist over Shilton and into the English goal. It all happened so fast that many did not realize what had happened, including Shilton and certainly including the referee, who gave the goal. Maradona gave the goal its name in the postgame press conference, as he declared that the goal had been scored partially due to "the hand of God" and partially due to "the head of Maradona." In his 2002 autobiography, and again on his television show in 2005, Maradona copped to the handball, admitting that he knew all along the goal was illegitimate and that he told his teammates to gather around him quickly or the referee would figure out not to allow it. Gary Lineker, who scored the only English goal in the game, told Maradona in 2006 that he blamed the officials for not seeing the handball, and not Maradona himself. Nevertheless, Maradona has been vilified by a generation of English fans, and his infamous goal helped inflame a rivalry that had already caught fire politically thanks to the Falkland Islands War (at one point Maradona used England's victory in the war to defend his stolen goal) and has since boiled over on the pitch, thanks in no small part not just to the 1986 clash but to subsequent meetings in 1998 and 2002 which it helped inform.

Out of fingernails.

"Players win games, coaches lose them, referees ruin them."
-- Eric Wynalda

Absolutely brutal game. It could not in any way have been more poorly officiated; Franz Beckenbauer may well have had an aneurysm in the 47th after the U.S. had two players sent off in the space of three minutes between the end of the first half and the start of the second. The Italian red card - a flagrant elbow to the head, justified. Mastroeni's red in the 45th? Ridiculous. His spikes were out but not fully up - it's not the worst straight red I've ever seen, not even in this tournament (Ukraine's red against Spain was an obscenely bad call), but it was a bad one considering it wasn't in the box or anything. Should have been a yellow. Pope's second yellow in the 47th? Again, probably not the single worst yellow you'll ever see, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a pretty terrible call. That said, we got nothing out of Pope, to paraphrase Bruce Arena; it was his stupid "playing the offsides trap when no one else is" mistake that gave Italy their goal after the U.S. dominated play for the first 20 minutes. Still, the ref's itchy card hand cost the U.S. the game; the fact that we got some decent chances even with nine men should tell you that Italy weren't playing very well. The U.S. defense finally got it together in the second half (ironic since there were only three professional defenders out there) and avoided conceding even though the Italians were on the front foot for most of the 45, and Keller actually made a couple of nice saves.

Beasley's non-goal? Yeah, I guess it was offsides, but man, that sucked. We were screaming in the apartment thinking the U.S. could pull off a miracle. Though frankly, holding with nine men (even if the Italians had just ten themselves)? Kind of a miracle. Though they made mistakes and were punished for a couple of them, this might have been the best international performance in U.S. soccer history, when you combine the aspects of where they were, who they were playing, what happened in the game, and the size of the stage they were on. Gritty, draining second half performance. I just hope the team has something left for Ghana, because those guys aren't exactly pushovers. Combine the Ghana stunner with the U.S. game and the fact that it was almost 90 degrees in the apartment until halftime of the U.S. game and this is easily the most exhausting sports day of my life. I'm just relieved we held on; we can't win the group now, which is unfortunate (because that door had been opened with Ghana's win, and you know Brazil is going to be waiting for the #2 team), but with the way the team played in the first game, and today's partial redemption, I'd take advancement. Ironically I'm now compelled to root for Italy, but even though they're all whiners I think the Czechs annoy me more. Viva Italia!

Cribbing from the format of Michael Davies' rating of England players, here's how I thought the U.S. did:

Not At All Crap
Oguchi Onyewu
Steve Cherundolo
Clint Dempsey

Onyewu had a couple dumb fouls early but managed to avoid a card, and once he settled down he was the most reliable defender at the back. Cherundolo was also fairly good on defense and had no notable lapses. Dempsey's energy and creativity didn't lead to enough U.S. chances, but that was pretty much never his fault. He's gotta start against Ghana.

A Little Crap, But Only a Little
Kasey Keller
Landon Donovan
Carlos Bocanegra
Bobby Convey
DaMarcus Beasley
Claudio Reyna
Jimmy Conrad

Most of the team played pretty well, though all had a handful of flaws. Keller made a couple decent saves but did not punt especially well. Donovan was much more aggressive in the midfield than in the last game but was still too hesitant at the top of the area (so was most of the team, which has to stop). Bocanegra played pretty good defense, enough so that I rarely found myself forced to comment on him, but he did nearly head in an own goal (it went off the crossbar). Convey's speed was good but I think his crosses still leave a bit to be desired. Beasley played great for five to ten minutes and then stopped running, perhaps dispirited that his goal was stripped - but you've gotta keep playing hard. For a while he energized the team but then he vanished, something I don't think Eddie Johnson would have done. Reyna, I feel pretty much the same way about him as Donovan - better than last game (in Reyna's case, since he didn't suck against the Czechs, maybe as good) but didn't help create enough really great chances at the top of the box. Conrad was a minimal factor, but he didn't allow a goal.

Fairly Crap
Brian McBride
Pablo Mastroeni

McBride was much more effective than last game, but considering how invisible he was in Gelsenkirchen that's only saying so much. The couple good chances that came to him he couldn't finish, and it was his interference that prevented Beasley's goal from counting, so I'm forced to stick him here. Mastroeni may be getting a bit of a raw deal since there's no way it was a straight red, but refs frequently give makeup calls and Mastroeni's clumsy tackle gave the ref far too large an excuse to pull another one out.

BMOP (Bowel Movement on Pitch)
Eddie Pope

Absolutely wretched. Even if he could start against Ghana I would hope Arena would bench him like crazy. Take away the second yellow, which was weak; the first yellow was pretty fair if I remember right, and emblematic of one of Pope's many defensive breakdowns. The most egregious of those came in the 22nd, when he inexplicably left his man on a free kick hoping to play the offsides trap - except he didn't tell anyone else, so Gilardino was easily onsides and buried it past a helpless Keller (who really hasn't given up a single goal in this tournament he could do anything about, and three of those involved embarrassing defensive lapses). If I were Bruce Arena I feel like I would have pulled Pope right that second (assuming I could have noticed it from the bench, of course). Pope's game today made Jeff Agoos look like John Terry. What I don't get about Pope is this: I swear that every time I watch the U.S. play, he has a bad game. Why is he such an unquestioned starter?

Other than that, meh. I'm not sure why Arena sat on the last substitution, especially with Reyna (and everyone else, really) clearly flagging late in the game. Put in Johnson and try for a last burst, or put in Lewis to tighten up the back, but why leave a sub on the table in a game this draining? Other than that I thought his changes were pretty good.

There is no doubt in my mind that this team does not attack enough. The midfield play itself was nice and aggressive, but everyone tensed up around the area. Can't happen. Please note that the U.S. have still not scored a goal of their own in the World Cup; they need to get at least two up there on Thursday, and that won't happen without more movement in the box. Maybe the U.S. were willing to play for the draw today, but Thursday it's win or bust. Ghana are good, as we saw today, but they're not so good that I would let their offense preoccupy me and waste energy by trying to divide and conquer. Sure, make sure you've got a solid defensive unit out there. But attack, attack, attack. Do, or do not. There is no try.

Whew. Anyone else feel like that second half took ten years off your life?

World Cup Day Eight

So much for the Group of Death. Especially Serbia's place in it. The Ivory Coast may have been eliminated but they put up two spirited fights; the Netherlands and Argentina were clearly just better. But they only lost 2-1 each time. Serbia, meanwhile, haven't scored a goal yet while surrendering seven, which is only seven times as many as they allowed in ten qualifying games (to be fair, though, they weren't exactly in the toughest group, apart from Spain), and they've been absolutely dominated on both sides of the ball by both Argentina and the Dutch. The Argentines are looking like strong candidates to go a long way in the tournament, and their game against the Netherlands on Wednesday ought to be a great one (unless both teams decide they don't care whether they win the group or not and rest guys, the only drawback to scheduling the bulk of your anticipated marquee matchups at the back end of group play).

I think Cambiasso's goal - Argentina's second, the backheel from Crespo - was the prettiest of the six. Possibly the best goal of the tournament among the ones I've seen. Along with Spain and probably Holland, Argentina really are looking like a major contender right now, at least as far as "firing on all cylinders in the first round" means "looking like a major contender."

Weekend Matches That Will Tell Us a Lot About Their Groups

* Portugal-Iran. Mexico handled Iran pretty well, so Portugal need to take care of business after the Mexicans stumbled to a draw with Angola. This should tell us something about what to expect out of the Portugal/Mexico final that will most likely determine first vs. second place - though with Argentina and Holland waiting, do you want to be either of these teams?

* Brazil-Australia. I think the general consensus is that Brazil aren't as bad as they looked and Australia aren't as good as three goals in eight minutes would suggest. I also think that Brazil could be pulling a 2000 New York Yankees - do just enough to get into the next round, then roll. I'd love to see Australia get a result here, even if only a draw, though.

* US-Italy. A-duh. Something of a must-win for both teams, though the Italians might settle for a draw if they think they can beat the Czechs. How will the U.S. rebound? Will the offense look like anything other than total crap? Tough questions that will be answered soon.

World Cup Day Seven

I knew I wasn't going to have time to watch any of the games today, so I just followed the game logs on the BBC website. Brief observations:

* Ecuador! I guess that whole thing about winning at altitude turned out to be kind of overrated, huh? Not that Costa Rica are the greatest out there but Poland aren't awful. I guess the real test will be the German game. If Ecuador don't lose the game, they'll actually win that group, which is kind of crazy when you think about it.

* How much can it possibly suck to have absolutely nothing to play for? Costa Rica and Poland are both eliminated and they have to play each other, which means they don't even get to play the role of spoiler. I guess they can avoid trying to finish last. Costa Rica are on no points and -7 GD, which by my count currently puts them dead last in the Cup.

* That entire Group B has been pretty uninspiring, huh? Kinda sad when your most exciting game is a 0-0 draw. England are through despite not looking great at all. You have to give the edge to Sweden to be the second team, as the chalk would have dictated, but Trinidad and Tobago are, shockingly enough since they have yet to score a goal, still in it. They need to win, have England beat Sweden, and make up three goals in the process (and even then that would only draw them dead-even with Sweden, so really they'd want to make up four if possible). Considering the level of scoring in this group so far, I'm doubting that one.

* This absolutely has to be the most talented England team in at least a generation, so you have to wonder why they look so bad at times. I think it comes back to the all-star team problem. These players don't play together that much all year, but even when they do, the "get as many stars into the lineup as possible" method presents some problems since Rooney and Owen are totally different types of forwards and they don't start a single holding midfielder (not a natural one at any rate). They've also had all kinds of second-half problems under Eriksson (see: 2002 World Cup, especially games against Argentina and Brazil), which at least they squashed a little today. That comes when Eriksson suddenly yanks the stars in the midfielder and throws in a bunch of defense as long as England have a lead, however slim. It's fashionable to bash the manager in England, and he's invited plenty of it on himself, but no matter how you feel about his extracurriculars, there is little denying that he is overly cautious at times. A team with this much talent, especially on offense, shouldn't sit back so much. Does Brazil?

* An England-Germany round of 16 game sounds pretty good if you're a soccer fan, doesn't it? Maybe not so much if you're a fan of those two teams, though. Despite Ecuador's early success, I'm sure England fans would rather their team face the South Americans than the home team.

World Cup Day Six

It hasn't been a good tournament so far for the games I listed as the ten I most wanted to see. USA-Czechs was an ugly blowout, and so was today's Spain-Ukraine game. (The other two of the ten that have already taken place, England-Paraguay and France-Switzerland, were total snoozers.) I guess Spain-Ukraine was good if you like goals, and the fourth was a cracker. On the other hand, maybe that goal doesn't happen if Ukraine aren't reduced to ten men on one of the worst straight reds you'll ever see in your life (to say nothing of the fact that it shouldn't have been a penalty either). This is not to say that Ukraine were ever in the game, because they weren't. They may possibly have played worse in relation to their opponents than did the U.S. in the Czech game. So what set up to be the best game of the day actually ended up being the worst.

I had minimal interest in Saudi Arabia-Tunisia and didn't have the time to watch three full games (though I skipped through much of the second half of Spain-Ukraine for obvious reasons), but I did watch the goals. Considering how unfancied both these teams are in their group, all the goals were pretty nice-looking. Of course, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia were playing Tunisia and Saudi Arabia, respectively. I don't think either has a chance against a Spanish side firing on all cylinders, but one or both could steal a point or more from Ukraine unless the first game really told us that much more about the Spanish than about the Ukrainians. Ukraine does still have to be favored to advance for now, I think, given their performance against a strong qualifying group.

Germany-Poland was the game of the day and one of the best of the tournament so far, even if I'm no particular fan of either team. It basically embodied a lot of what I find so great about soccer - it was a wide-open game with both teams frequently going on the attack, but a lot of good goal-keeping (especially from Boruc, who would have been man of the match had it finished in a draw) kept it scoreless. The double crossbar right before the 90th was insane, and I think most people thought Germany couldn't break through after that... and then they struck. Wouldn't have happened if Poland had had 11, probably, but the foul that drew the second yellow was plenty legit. Tough break for the Poles; after looking bad against Ecuador, they play probably about as well as they can against Germany and still get no points out of it, and now they're going home early again barring a Costa Rica win over Ecuador, a Poland win over Costa Rica, a German win over Ecuador, and a bunch of stuff that fixes the -3 GD Poland currently has. It's not as impossible as it could be, but you hate to have to rely on so specific a sequence of events. Any draws in there and Poland's done, for example, and there hasn't been a World Cup group without a draw since Group H in 1998. So... yeah.

Tomorrow's games: Ecuador-Costa Rica, England-Trinidad, Sweden-Paraguay. I'd say I'm most interested in the middle one. But really it's all building up to the do-or-die U.S. game on Saturday.

World Cup Day Five

Who would have thought that the game of the day would turn out to be Korea-Togo? Yet that's how it turned out, at least in terms of actual drama. Togo, one of several African newcomers, looked the better team in the first half, but the Koreans hung on and scored two very nice goals, a free kick in the 54th and a score from Ahn Jung-Hwan in the 72nd.

I certainly didn't think it would, because I skimmed that game before settling in to watch my marquee match of the day, France/Switzerland. Could France recapture their form from the 1998 World Cup? Short answer... no. The Swiss defense was good, but France's near-total lack of attack (did the Americans secretly switch places with the French before the game?) was the real killer. Vikash Dhorasoo - the first player of Indian descent to play in a World Cup finals - looked like France's most potent offensive force, and he only got on in the 84th, just in time to get off one shot that almost went in and not much else. Henry was wasted for the most part. Like the U.S. on Monday, most of the French players seemed too busy waiting for the ball to find them instead of playing actively, a tactic that wasn't going to work against a Swiss back line that came to play. The Swiss offense nearly pushed one across on a few occasions too, though perhaps the best chance saw Alexander Frei attempt to pull a Maradona with his left hand (he received a yellow card for his efforts). All told, a pretty dull game, though I guess what can you expect from the two teams that came out of UEFA qualifying group 4? (France topped that group at 5-5-0, with Switzerland at 4-6-0 besting Israel on GD. The top four teams had just one loss between them - Ireland losing to France - but a total of 22 draws. France played to three separate 0-0 draws in qualifying alone.) This all means that France still has not scored a goal in the World Cup since their 3-0 win in the 1998 final. Way to go, France.

By the way, say what you will about Shep Messing - and I have - but he was spot on in his criticism of France during the game. No rhythm or creativity at all. Haven't they been watching those Nike commercials like everyone else has been forced to?

Brazil/Croatia was also surprisingly uneventful, mostly because Croatia actually played Brazil tough for the whole game. Kaká scored a goal just before halftime that was pretty much unstoppable, but in the second half the holders seemed to have minimal opportunity; Dida found himself touching the ball more often than Stipe Pleitkosa did. In the end it didn't matter much; Brazil found a way to get it done, even with Ronaldo slowly crumbling on the pitch and none of the offensive weapons looking terribly potent. But if you're Brazil, you know you'd better up your game; Australia has some decent offense. That's now my game of the group to watch, though Croatia/Australia should also prove interesting (and will probably be the battle for second place and advancement). I feel like Australia/Brazil will really deliver if you're a fan of the goals, though.