Soccer Blog America

Carlosing it

2010-12-12T13:51:00.002-06:00

So, on Monday, December 6, the Manchester City official club website posted a video interview with Carlos Tevez in which he said all the right things, playing down his supposedly stormy relationship with Roberto Mancini, claiming to be happy in Manchester, and suggesting that the press have blown things like his supposed desire to retire from football soon out of proportion.

Then, this morning, after Tevez missed Saturday's game against West Ham (a 3-1 win) because of suspension related to an accumulation of yellow cards, news started trickling out that Tevez had submitted a transfer request to City which the club had rejected. ESPN Soccernet is now suggesting that Tevez will talk to the press and "blow the lid off" the behind-the-scenes at City and reveal that the club is in fact in the turmoil that the press has been claiming, even as recent wins had seemingly tempered those fears.

To which I would say: GTFO.

Tevez is, undoubtedly, a vital part of the City offense, as he would be at most clubs. But if all the news that's coming out is true - that Tevez, already on one of the richest contracts in England, demanded still more money just to see out the season; that after accepting the captain's armband and insisting in every actual interview that the issues attributed to him were being blown out of proportion, he apparently can't stand being at the club any more - I say dump him. It would be a pain for the rest of the season, for sure. But if this is the behavior of the man chosen as captain of the squad... how can the rest of the players avoid falling into line behind him? If this is leading by example, the club is destined to fracture from the inside, and the owners and Mancini should take pains to stop that happening. (Of course, if the trouble with Tevez is attributable to his relationship with Mancini, one suspects that Mancini will be deemed more expendable.)

Here's my problem. Let's assume that everything coming out today is true. This means that either (a) when Tevez gave the interview last week he was lying through his teeth, or (b) that somehow within the space of a week he changed his mind (perhaps again) and decided that his situation at City was, far from being a happy and successful one, completely unworkable. To which I would say: how is that possible?

Also, okay, Tevez misses his family and this probably informs some of his behavior. The guy is a multi-millionaire. Even if they don't want to or can't live in England, couldn't he afford to fly them over at least occasionally, so he isn't going months without seeing his family? And if they can't or won't leave Argentina for even a few days, maybe he shouldn't have gone to England in the first damn place. Sleep in the bed you made, Carlos. You want to be one of the best players in the world and be paid like it? This is how it goes down. If you don't, I'm sure Boca Juniors would be happy to have you.

It's also possible that the infamous Kia Joorabchian has his fingerprints all over this. City's statement on the transfer request certainly implied as much. The question, though, is what does Joorabchian have to gain? It's highly doubtful that Tevez could make more money anywhere else and City supposedly offered a raise to 250,000 pounds a week which was rejected. With no obvious motive from the agent side, I'm forced to conclude that Tevez is just an utter head case who simply can't deal without having whatever he wants whenever he wants it, no matter how it affects anyone else. To which I say, again, fine: GTFO.

City 3-0 Liverpool

2010-08-24T12:27:00.003-05:00

Quite the coming-out party. I was unsure of what to expect following the Spurs game; Spurs are good, of course, and the game was at White Hart Lane where they rarely lose (only seven times over the last two seasons, and they seem to step it up for big games; of the three losses last year, two came to Stoke and Wolves, and they beat Arsenal and Chelsea in a four-day span to set up the win over City at CoMS to clinch fourth). But even with that in mind, City looked disjointed, a rare offensive threat, and their defense resembled matadors; but for the heroics of Joe Hart, surely the game would have finished 3-0 or 4-0 like so many this season already have. And City had not defeated Liverpool in the last four Premiership campaigns; 0-0 draws were something of a regularity. I thought, in spite of the game being at home where City are usually much better, that a draw would be a good result; the next three games are against more or less bottom-half sides, and it seemed that so long as City could stay unbeaten against the upper-echelon sides while their team gelled, this would bode well for the future.

Well, either Liverpool are just not very good this year, or the future truly is now. A City side that looked like it had never played together before (and probably hadn't) in the first game suddenly looked composed and assured, having the lion's share of possession thanks to crisp passing and largely excellent midfield defense that snuffed out most Liverpool attacks before they had a chance to go anywhere. The formation was interesting - a 4-3-3 that played more like a Tower of Hanoi, 4-3-2-1, with Lescott, Kompany, Kolo Toure and Richards across the back, Barry, De Jong and Yaya Toure in the middle, Johnson and the recently-arrived Milner as attacking wingers and Tevez up front as the lone true striker. Tevez returned to his previous form, scoring twice, the first a bit of a poach off Richards' 52nd-minute header that Tevez barely got a touch on (if he even did; I'll be interested to see if the FA bother altering the ruling) and the second a well-struck penalty in the 68th. Barry had opened the scoring after some nice buildup, with Johnson springing Milner along the right side of the area and Milner's cross falling right to the feet of a charging Barry. Joe Hart also had his second straight highlight-reel cluster of saves as he twice denied Liverpool from close range near the hour mark to preserve the 2-0 lead.

Johnson, to me, confirmed that he should not only be starting but should probably be playing every minute for which he is fit and able, at least within the league. His play was outstanding and he's a constant threat to create. Milner likewise had an impressive debut that suggests he should be in the side on a regular basis, as he was a force to be reckoned with at both ends, creating chances but also flying back on defense when needed.

All this does have me a little nervous in terms of the squad's depth, however. Given how good the team looked playing together in this game, how could you make changes? But with players like Adebayor, Balotelli, Wright-Phillips and David Silva on the bench... how can you not? If you want to keep these guys, they have to play. I'll be curious to see who starts the return leg against FC Timisoara this Thursday; with a Sunday game at Sunderland looming, I wouldn't be surprised to see Adebayor or Balotelli (assuming his knee is okay) get a start, and possibly even Given, who desperately needs to be placated with playing time if there's to be any hope of keeping him around.

Nevertheless, I suppose "too many good players" is not the worst problem one can have. City have set the marker, and now they have to keep meeting that expectation. Falling asleep against lesser sides, as they sometimes did under Mark Hughes in the first half of last season, will not be tolerated. And with the next two months of matches providing a real combination of strong home tests (Chelsea and Arsenal) and road games that should be still be easily winnable (at Wigan, at Sunderland, at Blackpool, at Wolves), City have a chance to declare their intention to take a real shot at the title. The Chelsea game, in particular, an early-morning kickoff in the US on September 25, will tell us a lot. Beating Liverpool is good. But beating Chelsea - as City actually did twice last season - means that the blue side of Manchester is likely here to stay.

Spurs 0-0 City

2010-08-14T09:10:00.004-05:00

First game of the new season, first real City game for a lot of new boys... and it sure looked like it. The first half was a real high-wire act, with Joe Hart (perhaps cemented as the #1 keeper by virtue of being picked today) saving City's bacon on several occasions. Good job by Vincent Kompany at the back as well.

The outfield started in a 4-5-1, with Richards, Kolo Toure, Kompany and Kolarov across the back. The crowded midfield started De Jong, Yaya Toure, Barry, Silva and Wright-Phillips, with Tevez a lone striker up top. While a strong lineup by most standards, it was clear from the outset that these guys simply had not spent much time playing together. In the first half, a sprightly Tottenham side went on blazing runs, intercepted passes, and probably should have scored at least three or four times but for some outstanding work from Hart and one save by the post. The City back four at least played well (a much more impressive showing than they delivered in the preseason, as a unit), but the stacked midfield just seemed disjointed. It didn't help when Micah Richards came flying forward, as is his wont, although David Silva seemed almost to be moving into a striking position at times as well.

The second half was an improvement. City moved the ball better and had a lot more possession, but they still gave away some big chances and really never looked seriously like scoring themselves. Things improved a bit after the introduction of Adam Johnson for Wright-Phillips with 25 minutes or so to play, and while Emmanuel Adebayor will probably not be thrilled that he was only on for the last ten minutes, he was probably more threatening in that short span than Tevez was for most of the game. (Tevez was playing as though Gonzalo Higuain were still waiting in the box. Not sure he can keep playing as a lone striker if he remains so deep.)

Not the worst start overall considering that the side clearly will need to gain cohesion as the season goes along and considering City's recent lack of success against Spurs. Still, you'd have to admit that City were fairly lucky to come away with a draw.

Stray thoughts:

* Now that it seems Joe Hart has been selected as City's #1, whither Shay Given? Will he indeed force his way out? Could Mancini possibly throw just enough starts - between a few off-days for Hart and ideally deep runs in the Europa League and the two cups - Given's way to keep him happy? Is he sold or loaned out? Does he go to Arsenal? Could City possibly justify letting a viable #1 keeper go to a theoretical rival for top-four places?

* Will Mancini stay in a 4-5-1? Especially if Tevez isn't going to be as aggressive into the box, I don't know if you can play him alone. The problem with a 4-4-2 is how overstocked that midfield is. I think Johnson should be starting, but assuming that Yaya Toure and David Silva have to start pretty much every game, that only leaves room for one defensive midfielder (De Jong or Barry). Of course, when you assemble this much offensive talent, that's sort of what happens. With Balotelli now signed, I don't know how you can't play 4-4-2; with the money spent and his potentially volatile personality - and the presumption that he didn't leave his home country of Italy just to keep sitting on the bench - it seems like he has to get a fair number of starts, but at only 20 years old and fairly unproven I don't know how you play him as a lone striker. On the other hand, if you look at the forwards likely to be in City's final 25, it seems like it will be pretty much just three - Tevez, Adebayor, and Balotelli. You might be able to get away with only playing one at a time - start one, bring the second on for fresh legs late, start the third in the next game, or something like that. But all three seem like guys who have to be playing. Mancini asked for this problem, so hopefully he can manage it.

* It's amazing how much has changed since I started following this team. My first full season was 2005-06. Joey Barton was probably the best player on that team; the big offensive weapons brought in before the season were Darius Vassell and an aging Andrew Cole. They finished 15th in the league and fell at the first Carling Cup hurdle to Doncaster in a game I listened to live on the radio which, perversely, cemented my nascent City fandom. Since then, City are on their fourth manager and have had two major changes of ownership. I believe there's only one player in the squad who was with the '05-'06 squad - Micah Richards, and he was 17 at the time. (There is also Stephen Ireland, but he is quite clearly on the way out.)

In some respects this can make it harder to be a fan. On the other hand, would I rather follow a team that spends big and has a shot at winning trophies, or a team that barely spends at all, whose big signings are older guys pulled off the scrap heap or second- and third-tier players considered surplus to requirements at competing clubs? I certainly didn't pick City expecting them to turn into what they have, but what fan doesn't want their club to have the best chance of winning all its games? I just hope Mancini can keep harmony in the team as they reach for trophies, because I will say that the one thing that could make a winning season much less fun is constant tabloid speculation about the players. I suppose at this point that kind of comes with the territory, though.

Semifinal predictions

2010-07-05T12:00:00.002-05:00

7/6/10, 1:30 pm CT: Netherlands vs. Uruguay

The Netherlands have to be heavy favorites here. Uruguay, for my money, have defeated what were probably the worst teams available to play in each round; only Slovakia could give South Korea a run for worst Round of 16 qualifier and Paraguay - who had a much more impressive defense - are the only team that fall into Ghana's category in the quarters, with the remainder of the bunch (bar Uruguay) being top ten sides. At the same time, I'm still not convinced we know just how good the Dutch are; even in beating Brazil, they looked mediocre in the first half and their second half surge came via some slack Brazilian defending and then an utter mental collapse on the part of the Brazilians. But the Dutch are clearly better than Uruguay, especially since Uruguay - the only South American side still standing; who would have thought? - will be without attacking threat Luis Suarez due to his red card against Ghana.

Prediction: Netherlands 2, Uruguay 1

7/7/10, 1:30 pm CT: Germany vs. Spain

We all thought Germany/Argentina would be the game of the tournament, and it was a rout. This game shows promise to take the mantle, but I'm a bit worried for Spain here. They haven't been a high-flying offense in the tournament - blanked by Switzerland, two goals each against Honduras and Chile, a goal each against Portugal and Paraguay - and while that may be due in part to the defense of their opponents, how convincing can you be winning your games 1-0 and 1-0 while Germany have won 4-1 and 4-0? We know Germany can be shut down by the right defense - Serbia blanked them - but is Spain that defense? The Germans are confident, they have pace, they won't be intimidated by Spanish possession. Spain have to score more than one goal this time out, or it's into the third-place game for them, and we get our rematch of the 1974 final. I want Spain to win, but my head is finding it hard to pick them right now.

Prediction: Germany 3, Spain 1

Quarterfinal recap

2010-07-04T13:01:00.002-05:00

Uruguay 1-1 Ghana (Uruguay 4-2 pens)

Oh, the controversy in the wake of this one. Ghana took a 1-0 lead just before halftime via a Sulley Muntari blast from distance that caught Fernando Muslera napping in the Uruguay goal; Diego Forlan tied things up in the 55th with a perfect free kick. And then the game went on... and on... and on... and finally, things seemed to be going Ghana's way late. They were chasing a goal, and they were pushing into the Uruguayan box, and the ball was headed over the line... and Uruguayan striker Luis Suarez, who amazingly was back defending the goal line, reached up and swatted the ball away with his hands. It was, of course, a red card and a penalty kick... but Asamoah Gyan, the hero of the US game and a man who had already scored twice from the penalty spot during the World Cup with the winning goal against Serbia and the tying goal against Australia - both penalties the result of handballs in the box as well, and one on the line though not as definitely deliberate as Suarez's, missed the kick. Gyan stepped up and had Muslera, diving to his left, fooled; at least two-thirds of the goal gaped for Gyan to virtually tap home. And instead, he blasted it off the crossbar. We were headed for a shootout.

There is, of course, nothing quite as poetically unfair as the penalty shootout in soccer. You don't need to be the best team on the day - if you can manage to get it to a shootout, you basically have as good a chance to win as the other team does. In 2005, Man City lost in a shootout to Doncaster Rovers, then in League One (the third division of English football), when Doncaster's backup goalie got insanely hot out of nowhere and stopped every penalty City took, even though they had by no means been the better team on the day. Whether Uruguay had played better than Ghana is arguable; the Ghanaians certainly had more shots, although Uruguay had more corner kicks (suggesting better shot quality and/or more attacking pressure), and the possession was fairly even. And to say that the team that is better at shooting penalties deserves to win isn't really the way to go, in my opinion. But with that said, Uruguay were unquestionably better at shooting penalties. Gyan stepped up for Ghan and slotted home, placing the ball in an unsaveable location in the top right corner, presumably what he had been hoping to do in the first place. Steven Appiah, second up for Ghana, also converted. But John Mensah went third and took one of the worst penalty attempts you will ever see. Muslera saved it; I suspect I could have saved it. It was awful. Uruguay missed their fourth kick, Maxi Pereira hitting the ball into about the 20th row, but Dominic Adiyiah - who had been denied the winning goal by Suarez's handball - hit a shot that was little better than Mensah's, and Muslera saved that too. Uruguay made their next kick (a vicious little chip from Sebastian Abreu) and that was that.

The topic of debate then centered on Suarez's handball. He was decried as a cheat; people screamed about how Ghana were robbed of a rightful win by his actions. This was, of course, true in some ways. But it's been my position that to call Suarez a cheat completely overlooks the fact that everything that happened was in complete accordance with the rules of the game. According to the rules of the game, an intentional handball in the box means a red card for the offender and a penalty kick to the aggrieved team. If you assume that Suarez was thinking at all - personally, I think it was simply an instinctive reaction that probably didn't spend much time in his brain at all - presumably he was thinking that by stopping the ball, he was momentarily preserving his team's chances. By forcing Ghana to make a penalty kick instead, he was at least leaving the door open; by simply stepping aside because he could not reach the ball with a legal part of his body, he was dooming his team to defeat.

This, it is claimed, is cheating. But I don't really agree. It is, it seems to me, gamesmanship. What Suarez did was completely within the rules - in the sense that, yes, he made an illegal play, but he was also thoroughly punished for it in the way the rules of the game prescribe. He was ejected; Ghana were given a free shot at the goal. As it happens, Asamoah Gyan completely blew the kick. If Gyan makes it, are we talking about Suarez? Doubtful. Would we be talking about this if Suarez had brought Adiyiah down from behind on a breakaway? No; he'd probably be praised for denying the sure goal and forcing Ghana to make the spot kick. The only real difference here is that we can all say with certainty that if Suarez isn't standing there, the ball goes in. But, again, what happened fell within the rules, and Ghana blew it. Should the rules be changed? Maybe, although I think that that's an overreaction to a single episode in the first place and gives the referee a dangerous amount of subjective power to award "clear goals" in the second. Ultimately, Ghana really have no one to blame for their exit but themselves; while penalty kicks are by no means gimmes, they had two-thirds of a gaping net from twelve yards to win the game and couldn't hit it.

Netherlands 2-1 Brazil

A pretty shocking result, all told. I only saw part of this game, and it was in the first half with Brazil up 1-0 and looking more or less in control. Things unraveled in the second, with severe miscommunication between defender Felipe Melo and keeper Julio Cesar leading to a rather hopeful Wesley Sneijder ball finding its way into the back of the net to equalize, and Sneijder knocking in a header on which the Brazilian defenders seemed completely unprepared and Cesar barely moved. Melo compounded his woes by getting sent off for stamping on Arjen Robben, and the Brazilians completely fell apart. Suddenly the Dutch must be favorites to get to the finals... where a 1974 revenge match could await them.

Germany 4-0 Argentina

I'm honestly not sure whether this result is more or less shocking than the Netherlands winning, though ultimately I would say less because Germany so dominated the entire game that it would have been incredible if they hadn't won. Argentina's defense finally showed its true colors; facing a quick offense packed with clinical finishers, the back line had no chance. Germany's own defense, which some had questioned, certainly showed up; while Argentina had more shots on goal than the Germans, not one of the seven gave Manuel Neuer any real trouble - the Argentinians didn't have a single shot from inside the German six-yard box, while three of the four German goals were inside the six-yard box and the fourth only about two yards beyond. Messi and Tevez, whose pace had so devastated the other teams they'd faced, were largely non-factors in this game. After seeing this result, one begins to wonder how the Germans can be stopped.

Spain 1-0 Paraguay

As weird a game as you're going to see. Spain, typically, dominated possession but had a hard time cracking Paraguay's defense. Paraguay, less typically, had some good chances to score and perhaps should have in the first half, an effort called back for what seemed to be a fairly dodgy offsides. In the second half, Paraguay earned a penalty, which Iker Casillas saved; almost immediately, Spain earned a penalty at the other end. Xabi Alonso scored, but it was called back for encroachment (which probably should have happened on the Paraguayan PK, necessitating a retake as well); on the second attempt, Alonso's kick - a much poorer attempt than his first - was saved by Justo Villar (who then may have gotten away with a penalty-worthy takedown of Cesc Fabregas as the two went for the rebound). And then when Spain finally scored, in the 83rd minute, it was only after Pedro hit the post; David Villa's rebound bounced off both posts before finally deciding to settle into the net. Ultimately you have to say the better team won, but Paraguay were certainly game. Perhaps they all had Larissa Riquelme in mind.

World Cup 2010: Quarterfinal Predictions

2010-07-01T22:48:00.002-05:00

I didn't talk about any of the Round of 16 games aside from the US loss, but I didn't really have much to say, in large part because the only other one I saw was Uruguay/South Korea and that one finished exactly as I predicted. (As did Argentina/Mexico, for that matter.) Let's jump to the quarterfinal predictions; I'll get to watch at least two and a half of these games, including all of what's likely to be the best one, Germany/Argentina on Saturday.

7/2/10, 9 am CT: Netherlands vs. Brazil

This match seems likely to me to go one of two ways. It will be either (a) a classic match that could go either way or (b) a Brazilian blowout. The Netherlands, while they've looked good, have yet to be tested, particularly at the back. Their group was not amazing from an offensive standpoint and they drew probably the worst team to make the knockouts, Slovakia, in the round of 16. So while the Dutch have pretty much had their way so far, I don't know of anyone who would suggest they've totally hit their stride. Brazil, meanwhile, seem to be firing on all cylinders. While they did settle for a lousy 0-0 draw with Portugal, they handle a chippy Ivory Coast team and then romped past a Chile team that most people seemed to think had at least a puncher's chance of springing the upset. (Which just goes to show that not many people really pay attention to World Cup qualifying. Chile had no chance.) The Dutch may be shakier at the back than we realize, and if so, count on Brazil to exploit that. I'm hopeful that this is a free-flowing, high-scoring game after the complaints that scoring has been too low so far; the last time these two teams met in the World Cup was the '98 semis, with Brazil winning on penalties after full time ended at 1-1, but the time before that, in the 1994 quarters, saw a five-goal second half with the Brazilians prevailing 3-2 on the way to the title. Of course, these teams are not those teams, but a 3-2 scoreline hardly seems out of the realm of possibility. Honestly, though, the only hope the Dutch have is not to have to score with Brazil. If the final is 3-2 I have a hard time picturing them on the right side of it. I'd like to see the Dutch win here - while Brazil plays attractive football I just can't root for them to get closer to yet another title - but I don't think I'll believe they have it in them until I actually see them do it.

Prediction: Brazil 3, Netherlands 1

7/2/10, 1:30 pm CT: Uruguay vs. Ghana

Hard to care about this game. In the abstract, I think it would be great if an African team advanced to the semifinals at the African World Cup. In reality, since that team is Ghana, I can't root for them - not so much because they beat the US as because of the embarrassing way they played out, or rather tried their best to avoid actually playing out, the last half of extra time. Screw 'em. Fortunately I'd be rather surprised if they did win here; Uruguay have been playing well, and while they, like Ghana, seemed to take their foot off the gas in their round of 16 game with a 1-0 lead, they turned it back on much more quickly after South Korea equalized than Ghana did after Donovan's penalty. Uruguay also seems like they'd be much more able to create a goal out of nothing, which may be needed to win a game that promises to be the most defensive of the four in this set.

Prediction: Uruguay 1, Ghana 0

7/3/10, 9 am CT: Argentina vs. Germany

If this game lives up to the hype, it could be the game of the tournament, although I think going into it expecting a 4-3 final or something would be a mistake. Given the bad blood brewing between the two camps, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be a more physical affair and to go to extra time at 1-1 or maybe 2-2. Neither team looks totally solid at the back, but I feel like I would give the Germans better odds of buckling down, though Argentina also has the more potent attack. I predict Messi still will not score - the Germans will key on him - but that Argentina will sneak out a contentious match anyway.

Prediction: Argentina 3, Germany 2

7/3/10, 1:30 pm CT: Spain vs. Paraguay

While Spain have not always been on top of their game, this looks on paper like the biggest walkover of the bunch, and if Spain can play at top level, there's no way they don't win this game going away. It doesn't hurt that Spain have only conceded two goals at the tournament and Paraguay have not had the easiest time scoring. Spain will make their first ever semifinal* and, if nothing else, will be sure to deny CONMEBOL a clean sweep of the semis.

Prediction: Spain 2, Paraguay 0

*Spain finished fourth place in 1950, but there were no knockout stages that year; the four group stage winners played a round robin for the title, with Uruguay winning the title on points following their defeat of heavily-favored Brazil on the last match day.

Deja vu all over a-Ghana

2010-06-26T16:08:00.003-05:00

Ghana 2-1 USA (a.e.t.)

What, really, can you say? The US were burned by everything that plagued them in this tournament: tendency to give up the early goal; inability to finish good chances; shaky back line; tendency to allow the other team to control midfield possession. Ghana - in spite of their shameful diving and time-wasting in the second half of extra time, as if they lacked confidence in their ability to see the game out honestly - outhustled, outmuscled, and outplayed the US, barring about a 15-minute stretch between halftime and Donovan's penalty equalizer.

So who or what is to blame?

1) The letdown

After John Isner won his marathon three-day match by taking the fifth set 70-68, he promptly exited the tournament, 6-0, 6-3, 6-2 in the next round. This wasn't surprising, of course. Similarly, it's not totally surprising that the US couldn't pull this one out - first of all, there are only so many times you can go down and be forced to chase the game relentlessly, but the team were also coming off what must have been an exhausting (both emotionally and physically) game with Algeria just to make the knockouts. Ghana only had two days' rest too, but they barely showed up for their game with Germany, knowing that they didn't have to play their hardest to advance. For all the talk of how the Americans would benefit from their superior fitness, they simply looked spent by the middle of extra time. At some point you just can't chase a game any more. I don't know that I would have liked them from the spot even had they avoided conceding Gyan's goal; they had nothing behind their kicks in the second extra session.

2) The lineup

Facing a lineup that worked - Altidore and Dempsey up high, Feilhaber and Edu in the middle with Donovan and Bradley - coach Bob Bradley rather oddly decided to start Ricardo Clark and Robbie Findley in spite of the fact that neither had done anything in the tournament so far. Clark's error contributed to Ghana's opening goal, and after picking up a yellow card as well he was subbed off after 30 minutes for Edu. Findley had one good shot at goal and delivered a ball straight into the keeper's lap, then was gone for Feilhaber at halftime. Dempsey moved back up top and subsequently drew the tying penalty shot. Credit to Bradley for knowing when he was wrong... but why did he choose to go that way in the first place? My assumption is that he figured Clark and Findley would be fresh legs and someone had to be fresh after the Algeria game. But Clark and Findley couldn't pull their weight earlier in the tournament. Suddenly throwing them back into a must-win game never made sense.

3) The back line

While he did make some good plays, Jay DeMerit struggled once more on both of Ghana's goals. I have no idea what his health status is, but you can tell the team really missed Oguchi Onyewu, whose big, physical presence might have been better equipped to go shoulder to shoulder with Asamoah Gyan, who simply outmuscled Carlos Bocanegra for the extra time winner.

4) The midfield

Ghana mostly seemed to do what they wanted, when they wanted. As I noted above, they were the better team for all but about 15 minutes, and this started in the midfield, where the Ghanaians closed fast on the US and didn't allow much space. The US, by comparison, gave Ghana loads of room to run, as if scared to get passed in a foot race. The American inability to pass crisply also came back to haunt them. Michael Bradley alone had at least three soft giveaways, and he actually played fairly well. Ghana were also much better at keeping their shape as a side; there was always someone out wide for Ghana, sometimes coming into surprise view of the camera at the near side because the US had themselves been so packed into the middle.

5) The lack of a killer offensive threat

Donovan and Dempsey are both very good players, but neither is really a striker by trade. Altidore had a decent Cup, I thought, but you have to say: he should probably be scoring goals. Right? Findley's inability to finish was embarrassing and as far as I'm concerned he should never play for this team again, at least until he's more seasoned in international play - I mean, the guy doesn't even have ten caps. Brian Ching isn't exactly Carlos Tevez and I know he's older, but why wasn't he on the squad? Bottom line, the US need to figure out a way to manufacture a great striker. Maybe a fully fit Altidore matures into that role, but he wasn't ready for it yet. Maybe when Charlie Davies returns, he's that guy. You have to say he was probably missed given the general struggles of the US to put the ball in the back of net from the striker position.

All in all, a devastating disappointment for American soccer after Wednesday's high. Where do we go from here? CONCACAF qualifying doesn't even start until 2012, and the key matches likely won't be played until 2013. There's another Gold Cup next year, but the US didn't even take the last one seriously, sending a third-string team to get obliterated by Mexico in the final. (Although I guess you'd have to be fair and note that the US A-team had been in the Confederations Cup just a few weeks earlier and clearly wasn't going to play both.) The MLS might get a little boost out of this. I don't know.

What I do know is we've got a long way to go. And in the next four years, it's time to find some better defenders, it's time to work on not conceding early, and it's time to show the rest of the world that we have the talent to compete with its best. American soccer seems to surge forward by the year; it's time to really take that next step. The country has shown it will be ready to respond.

World Cup 2010: Round of Sixteen Predictions

2010-06-26T00:25:00.003-05:00

Saturday, 6/26/10, 9 am CDT: Uruguay vs. South Korea

There seems to be some consensus that Uruguay was one of the more impressive teams in the first round. Having not managed to catch any of their three games - one of the few teams of whom that was true - I'm not a real position to disagree, but I would note that they drew 0-0 with France and beat Mexico 1-0, both pretty tepid/standard results. Yes, they beat South Africa 3-0, but South Africa had a man sent off in that game and, their other results notwithstanding, were one of the five weakest sides in the competition. Of course, I can't say any better for South Korea, who looked outstanding in beating Greece in their first game but were subsequently thumped by Argentina and held by a Nigeria side that missed at least two sitters. Plus this tournament isn't being played in South Korea.

Prediction: Uruguay 2, South Korea 1

Saturday, 6/26/10, 1:30 pm CDT: United States vs. Ghana

As you might guess, this game terrifies me. On the one hand, I feel fairly confident that Ghana will have trouble scoring - they've got two goals in this tournament and both were on penalty kicks resulting from handballs in the box. But they're a young, physical team, and the game comes on just two days' rest for the US (for Ghana as well, of course), and - most crucially - Ghana are the sole African side left and will probably have the full force of the crowd behind them barring a few thousand American fans. It's also worth noting that the US haven't exactly had an easy time scoring, although if they ever started banging home all the chances they were ringing up against Algeria I don't know if anyone could beat them. As usual, the key will be not giving up an early goal. Just don't touch any balls in the box, people who aren't Tim Howard.

Prediction: United States 2, Ghana 0 (*gulp*)

Sunday, 6/27/10, 9:00 am CDT: England vs. Germany

Not clear which team will show up for either side. Did England put it together against Slovenia, or were they just facing a side which had expended most of its energy clawing to the top of its group? Is Germany the team that destroyed Australia or the team that limped through games with Serbia and Ghana? England had better make sure its defense is up to snuff, as Miroslav Klose is rested and no doubt ready to go. England's offense, meanwhile, may still be a bit suspect if Wayne Rooney doesn't wake up soon.

Prediction: Germany 1, England 1 (Germany 5-3 on penalties)

Sunday, 6/27/10, 1:30 pm CDT: Argentina vs. Mexico

The Mexicans gave Argentina quite a game four years ago before falling, but I'm just not convinced this Mexican team is all that good. They barely drew 1-1 with South Africa - admittedly in front of a vocal home crowd in the tournament's first match - then coasted past an imploding France before only sort of showing up to face Uruguay. Have they really had to seriously perform yet in this tournament? Argentina hasn't been much tested, of course, and their defense can be suspect, but I find it hard to believe they won't be able to score on Mexico pretty much whenever they want.

Prediction: Argentina 3, Mexico 1

Monday, 6/28/10, 9:00 am CDT: Netherlands vs. Slovakia

Slovakia's 3-2 win over Italy was a revelation, but after lackluster performances in a 1-1 draw with New Zealand and 2-0 loss to Paraguay, are they really that good or did they just catch lightning in a bottle? (Or, perhaps, are Italy just that bad?) The Dutch haven't really been tested yet, but it's a big advantage for them to have what amounts to a tune-up game to start the knockouts, rather than their battle with Portugal from 2006.

Prediction: Netherlands 3, Slovakia 0

Monday, 6/28/10, 1:30 pm CDT: Brazil vs. Chile

Based on what we've seen from Chile in the tournament, this should be good, right? Well, until you realize that Chile have actually only scored three goals and were helped greatly by games against two of the tournament's weakest offenses in Switzerland and Honduras. Also, Brazil beat Chile handily in qualifying, twice, both home and away.

Prediction: Brazil 4, Chile 1

Tuesday, 6/29/10, 9:00 am CDT: Paraguay vs. Japan

Paraguay looked decent in the group stage, but don't sleep on Japan after their 3-1 demolition of Denmark. Paraguay have yet to face a potent offense, and while no one would have called Japan that three days ago, their ability to strike on setpieces cannot be questioned, and they'll be tough to beat if they get a lead.

Prediction: Japan 2, Paraguay 1

Tuesday, 6/29/10, 1:30 pm CDT: Spain vs. Portugal

Fitting that the marquee matchup of the round of 16 should also be its final game. Unfortunate that it falls in the middle of a workday. Portugal are a total enigma at this point; they played to a 0-0 draw with Ivory Coast, ostensibly because the two teams were feeling each other out, and then to a 0-0 draw with Brazil, ostensibly because they had no need to go for the win, and in between that they rolled up a 7-0 win, but against the worst team in the field. So can this team score goals when it's not facing North Korea? And what about Spain, which won its test against Chile but didn't always look comfortable in doing so? I wouldn't be surprised to see this one go to penalty kicks because both sides will be terrified of losing so early and will play defensively, although for the sake of fans everywhere I hope I'm wrong. Don't worry - I usually am with stuff like this.

Prediction: Spain 2, Portugal 1 (a.e.t.)

World Cup 2010: Day Fifteen

2010-06-25T23:52:00.003-05:00

The first round concluded today, and did so in expected fashion. Let's wrap it up quick-like.

Ivory Coast 3-0 North Korea

Not a shock. Ivory Coast scored two goals in the first twenty minutes, spurring a bit of "Maybe they can actually score nine goals!" talk before things settled down. The Elephants go home despite probably being the best team in Africa, but is anyone really surprised? Their group contained Brazil and Portugal, for crying out loud.

Brazil 0-0 Portugal

Sorry to anyone who was expecting a good game, but once Portugal loaded up on goals against North Korea you should have known better. Weird but true: Portugal's three games included a 7-0 win and two scoreless draws. What can we expect out of them going forward?

Switzerland 0-0 Honduras

Whatever.

Spain 2-1 Chile

Villa's goal: remarkable. We've talked about Maicon, Quagliarella, and whoever else, but understand this: Villa hit a clearance first-time into the net from 45 yards away down the left side. It's funny, Spain losing was the huge story of the first set of games, but they ended up progressing quite comfortably, while France and Italy - world powers that drew their opening games - ended up becoming the real embarrassments of the tournament.

World Cup 2010: Day Fourteen

2010-06-24T23:16:00.002-05:00

Paraguay 0-0 New Zealand

New Zealand's plan was pretty clearly to put the game on lockdown and try to nick a goal late, which was virtually the only way they were going through (a draw would only have helped in the event of an Italy draw, but Italy would have gone through on goals scored in that event). And it almost worked, except for the fact that New Zealand have no offense whatsoever, managing just four shots in the game and none on target. They exit the World Cup without a loss, the first team to do so since Belgium in 1998 (which was also the last year that a team managed to progress without winning a game). The Kiwis can hold their heads high; as the 78th-ranked team in the world, nothing was expected out of them, and yet they didn't lose a game and didn't finish last in their group.

Slovakia 3-2 Italy

No, that honor belonged to the Italians. The defending champs bowed out, not in as ignominious a manner as the French in 2002 - at least Italy scored a few times - but in pretty ugly fashion. The Italians had not given up three goals in a World Cup match since losing 4-1 to Brazil in the 1970 final; three goals matched their high allowed in an entire group stage since 1986. The defense was never all there for them, and while Fabio Quagliarella chipped in what would probably be the goal of the tournament so far if not for Maicon's physics-defying strike against North Korea, the offense was clearly lacking overall. All they needed was to beat New Zealand, for crying out loud. Instead, they're going home.

Netherlands 2-1 Cameroon

Whatever. This was a friendly.

Japan 3-1 Denmark

A fairly shocking result, as the Japanese had shown very little inclination to score goals prior to this point in the tournament. Keisuke Honda and Yasuhito Endo both struck from free kicks, the first time since Yugoslavia drubbed Zaire 9-0 in 1974 that one team had put in two free kick goals in the same match, and Denmark were just lost. Even the goal they grabbed back came on a penalty kick - and even then, it was on the rebound of the kick, which had been saved at first. Paraguay had better not sleep on Japan; it suddenly looks like they can make some noise.

Tomorrow! The shocking conclusion to Group G. Will Ivory Coast stay alive? (No.) Will Brazil and Portugal really care who wins their game? (Doubtful.) Will all the North Koreans defect after the game to avoid execution? (Maybe.) Plus, the legitimately interesting finish to Group H, which will most likely see Spain either go out or top the group. We're due for an awesome round of 16 match between either Brazil and Spain (top two teams in the world) or Spain and Portugal (2 and 3 teams, plus Iberian neighbors). With all due respect to Switzerland, I think I'd prefer it if they didn't deny us that.

Landon Opportunity

2010-06-23T21:22:00.002-05:00

USA 1-0 Algeria

What a game. I must confess, I came very close to turning it off at various points in the second half. The Americans couldn't buy a goal, it seemed, and as the minutes dragged on I felt worse and worse, a bundle of nerves, feeling almost physically ill. The worst part was that every five minutes or so, the tension seemed ready to erupt into joy and relief, and then it never quite happened, which only made that tension worse. Finally it came, in injury time, as Tim Howard made a save and flung the ball to a streaking Landon Donovan, who found Jozy Altidore, who crossed it to Clint Dempsey, who once again was denied by the keeper... but Donovan, running in on goal, cleaned up the rebound and then was off to the left corner flag to be mobbed.

The US topped their group for the first time since 1930 and won a game they were not leading for the first time ever at the World Cup. It's tempting to ascribe great things to the US team following this win, but I think we should probably keep in mind that Algeria didn't score a single goal at the World Cup and nearly got yet another early goal were it not for the crossbar. The defense played well overall, I thought, or at least better than they did against Slovenia, but I don't know if this is the defense of a team that can really make a run in the knockouts. If a team that doesn't score goals can create 19 shots (even if only four were on goal), what will Ghana do? What would (potentially) Diego Forlan and Uruguay do? It's easy to look at the side of the bracket the US are on and salivate - we avoided Germany, we avoided Argentina, we won't face a top ten team until the semis (when the survivor of what could be a loaded Netherlands-Italy-Brazil-Spain bracket arrives) - but we're talking about a team that barely drew Slovenia and were two minutes from leaving the tournament against one of its worst teams.

I thought the attack looked pretty good, along with the play in midfield. The US still lacks great finishing as a team (US strikers do not have a goal in this tournament and Altidore missed a gift-wrapped chance today) and they still aren't great passers. Against Algeria these things were more easily swept under the rug; I doubt that'll be the case against Ghana, much less even stronger teams that the US could run into in later stages of the competition. The defense continues to be suspect. For as exciting as this game was, you can't really look at it and say the US played a great game. They played a good game and were helped by not facing top-shelf opposition. Rafik Djebbour rattles the woodwork. Diego Forlan scores.

Am I excited to get to keep watching the US? Of course. And the Donovan goal is one of the greatest sports moments of my life. But I think we need to be measured in our response here. Even in what will probably be the easiest - or anyway least imposing - of the four quarterfinal brackets, we can take nothing for granted with this team.

England 1-0 Slovenia

Even in finally getting a victory and dragging themselves into the round of 16, it still seems like England are not all there. To make the semis they would have to go through Germany and Argentina - and while both games, if they were to happen, would make for very interesting stories, it's hard to imagine England coming close to doing that the way they've been playing.

Germany 1-0 Ghana

A perfect result because it means the US avoid Germany. Part of me was paranoid that the Germans would rather have played us than England and would leak a late goal, but it didn't happen - Ghana were probably fine facing us instead of England and weren't chasing it. I would rather not have faced a team that's going to be the Pride of Africa here in the round of 16, but given the alternative of facing Germany, it's cool.

Australia 2-1 Serbia

Both teams go out. For a little while - with Australia up 2-0 and Germany up 1-0 - it looked like what failed to happen in Group A would happen here. And then the exact same thing came to pass - Germany never really looked like getting a second, Australia gave a goal back, and that was pretty much it. The Socceroos end their World Cup with a win, and with the core of their team so old, who knows if they're going to be back in four years.

Interesting, if not massive, games tomorrow. Netherlands-Cameroon is basically a friendly, but Denmark-Japan is winner-take-all, and Group F has all to play for, with New Zealand holding out hope that they can earn a matchup with the Dutch and Italy trying to avoid being the second defending champion in three Cups to go out at the group stage.

World Cup 2010: Day Twelve

2010-06-23T00:21:00.003-05:00

Our first advancements to the knockouts, and they went about how I expected.

Uruguay 1-0 Mexico

I don't expect much out of Mexico in the round of 16, as usual. They made it that far, but no further, in each of the last four World Cups, and for the second straight Cup they'll be facing Argentina, who I don't see them beating. 2006's matchup was reasonably entertaining - two goals in the first ten minutes, then nothing until Maxi Rodriguez's insane volley in extra time.

South Africa 2-1 France

It actually looked for a while - when it was 2-0 South Africa and 1-0 Uruguay - that the hosts might progress miraculously. Then France caught up with the game a bit and the dream was gone. However, I'm happy for South Africa that they got a win on home soil, and against a world power, albeit one in total disarray.

Argentina 2-0 Greece

Had Greece been any other team, they might have won this game. They're not.

South Korea 2-2 Nigeria

One of the more exciting games of the tournament so far. Yakubu's miss was simply astounding - as the announcers exclaimed on the radio call, it was easier to make than to miss - and with the Nigerians going home as the result of the draw, that's one that could haunt. At least he made the tying penalty shot and saved some face. South Korea went through as a result of this game and will face Uruguay; I'm inclined to say Uruguay wins that one considering how shambolic South Korea's defense looked in this game.

With South Africa and Nigeria joining Cameroon on the rubbish heap, there are three African teams left carrying the banner. Ivory Coast, while still technically alive, are basically done because of goal differential. That leaves Algeria and Ghana, who can both advance with wins tomorrow. Of course, I'm certainly going to be rooting for Algeria not to win. So really it just leaves Ghana. Let's go Black Stars! This would also be good because it potentially dumps Germany out of the tournament.

I'm not sure I've ever been as nervous for a soccer game as for US-Algeria. A loss here could set back soccer in this country 12 years.

World Cup 2010: Day Eleven

2010-06-21T21:36:00.003-05:00

Today was the final day of early morning games (6:30 Central kickoffs), and while this means that my ability to watch the rest of the tournament will be restricted to weekends and my ability to slip out of work for a couple hours if it's not that busy, I'm also kind of relieved. I could barely stay awake for Portugal-North Korea, although to be fair I had very little investment in that game and it was only exciting if you like goals and the last time you'll see eleven North Koreans alive.

Portugal 7-0 North Korea

Biggest blowout since Germany 8-0 Saudi Arabia in 2002, which I also watched live. Amazingly, this game was only 1-0 at halftime (Germany was already up 4-0 at the break), but the Koreans fell apart in the second half. Tommy Smyth on ESPN Radio speculated that the Koreans were simply not a very fit team and had expended most of the effort reserves they had in holding Brazil to a 2-1 win. Portugal got into the North Korean box pretty much whenever they wanted to in the second half, scoring all of their goals from close range. My particular favorite was Cristiano Ronaldo's goal, his first for Portugal since 2008 - he tried to flip it over the onrushing keeper, and ended up bouncing the ball off his head and neck back down to his feet, at which point he poked it into the open net. Then he just had this look on his face like, "That's how I break my streak of not scoring? Okay." It almost made me like him until I remembered he's a whiny flopper.

Chile 1-0 Switzerland

Another bad game for the refs. I want to like Chile, because I think they're an interesting team that has the potential to surprise in the knockouts, but they're such awful divers that it really just makes me hate them. Switzerland's Valon Behrami made some contact with Arturo Vidal, and Vidal made an absolute meal of it; the ref was too far away to know how BS it was and ran over with the straight red. While it's obvious that there has to be a way to maintain discipline in games, I think that the straight red card should be reserved for the roughest, most deliberate of challenges. Some guys bring it out far too easily (Tim Cahill's was one such) considering the impact it's likely to have on a game. You basically cannot win if you're down to ten men before halftime. Given that it still took Chile until the 75th minute to score, you'd have to say it would have made a difference in this game.

Spain 2-0 Honduras

Another convincing-yet-unconvincing performance from Spain, but at least they got the win this time. David Villa scored twice, one a remarkable individual performance in which he dribbled into the area from 30 yards out and fired home while falling over, but also missed a penalty kick by wrong-footing the goalie and then pushing the ball just right of the post. I feel the same way about Spain right now as I feel about the Netherlands - I believe they're good and I think they can do well, but I'd like to see a little more out of them than I have to this point. At least Spain were tested by Switzerland; the Dutch could be in for a rude awakening if they suddenly have to face Italy in the round of 16.

Speaking of which, now that we're down to the third set of games only, let's quickly go over each group. I know I did the first six yesterday. We're doing them again. I'll give my actual picks this time to sweeten the deal.

Group A: Mexico and Uruguay both swear they aren't going to play for a draw. This is good news for France, or at least it would be if they weren't fighting, so maybe it's good news for South Africa. It's unlikely that the combined margins are going to turn over the goal differential that exists, however. I say Mexico and Uruguay go through.

Group B: With only a Greece side that I really think are terrible standing in their way, I think Argentina are taking all nine points and topping the group. Assuming they romp, second place will go to the winner of South Korea/Nigeria, but Nigeria has to win by two goals to overturn the existing goal differential. In other words, go with South Korea.

Group C: I'm terrified for Wednesday, of course, but hopeful that the US can get the win they need to go through, in whatever fashion. You also get the feeling that England will suddenly show up and torch Slovenia, but then I was sure they'd beat Algeria and look how that turned out. I still say US and England make it out.

Group D: Ghana lead the group and are pretty much Africa's last, best hope. But they get Germany, which I'm thinking means they desperately need Serbia to lose. Ghana's GD is +1, but if they lose that reduces at least to zero, which is where Serbia's sits, so a draw by Serbia and a Ghana loss by more than a goal risks dumping Ghana from the tournament. On the other hand, Australia's GD is so woeful that while they can tie Ghana on points with a win and a Ghana loss, Ghana would almost certainly go through anyway on GD. My pick here is Germany and Serbia - sorry, Africa.

Group E: The Netherlands are through, so it's a winner-take-all match between Denmark and Japan. Japan go through in the event of a draw, so expect Denmark to push for a win. I'm going to go out on a slight limb here and say the Danes pull it off, but it should be a fairly exciting game, although if Japan go into a defensive shell maybe a bit less so.

Group F: Paraguay need only draw New Zealand to advance, so they seem like a fairly safe bet - while I like the Kiwis and would love to see them move on, it's pretty hard to imagine lightning striking three times. While Italy have struggled, I still think they're going to beat Slovakia and advance as well.

Group G: Brazil and Portugal are going to go through after Portugal hung that 7-spot on the North Koreans, putting fully nine goals between themselves and the Ivory Coast. While the Ivorians will probably beat North Korea, they would need to do so by five goals and hope that Brazil beat Portugal by five goals... and as unlikely as that is with both teams trying, it's even more unlikely when Brazil could very well be resting some of its stars for the knockouts.

Group H: Group C is probably the most interesting group on the final day, but this one is up there. Chile and Spain are the likely bets - but if Chile beat Spain, the Swiss can go through with a win or draw. I think Spain will beat Chile and both will advance, however.

What second round matchups are we looking at if things go down the way I expect them to?

Uruguay vs. South Korea
Mexico vs. Argentina
USA vs. Serbia
England vs. Germany
Netherlands vs. Italy
Paraguay vs. Denmark
Brazil vs. Chile
Spain vs. Portugal

Holy crap is that an exciting-looking second round. Mexico/Argentina is a rematch of a great second round game from 2006; England/Germany is a massive historical rivalry (and rematch of the 1966 final); Netherlands/Italy matches two major European powers; Spain/Portugal does the same and they're neighbors to boot; Brazil/Chile is an intriguing continental matchup (although the Brazilians won both games during qualifying somewhat handily). If things turn out like this, we are in for a pretty great knockout phase.

World Cup 2010: Day Ten

2010-06-20T19:35:00.003-05:00

I didn't actually watch much today, but let's talk about it anyway.

Paraguay 2-0 Slovakia

This group always looked like Italy and Paraguay, and it seems that Paraguay has advancement pretty much sewn up following their comfortable victory. After dominating large stretches of their opening game but losing the win at the death, Slovakia were thoroughly outplayed by Paraguay (in spite of their slight edge in possession), getting just one shot on goal, and that two minutes from time already down 2-0. Slovakia's defense broke down on both goals; the first saw Lucas Barrios thread a pass right between the legs of Kornel Salata to be poked home by Enrique Vera, while the second was a strike from Cristian Riveros after Slovakia allowed Paraguay to have as many attackers in the box as they had defenders. With just one point, Slovakia's World Cup isn't over yet, but it's hard to see how they can beat Italy - which they must do to advance - when they've managed just one goal in their first two games. Paraguay need only take a point from their game with New Zealand to move on, regardless of other results.

Italy 1-1 New Zealand

Possibly a bigger shock than Switzerland beating Spain. While the FIFA rankings are questionable, Italy and New Zealand are separated by 774 points, while Spain and Switzerland are only separated by 699. New Zealand didn't win, of course, but holding on for the draw while being thoroughly dominated in most aspects of the game is an impressive showing by a country that just got its first ever point last week. Italy had 72% of the possession. Italy took 15 corners to New Zealand's none. Italy took 23 shots, with five on target; New Zealand took three shots, and the only one on target found the back of the net. I should probably note that the officiating in this game was also a bit shambolic; New Zealand's goal was probably offsides, and the penalty kick on which Italy tied it came from a very soft foul call (perhaps it was intended as some sort of makeup call for missing the offsides?). Still, New Zealand have to be thrilled with this result. On the other hand, it's difficult to see how they progress; a draw with Paraguay would only be enough to advance them if Italy and Slovakia draw and Italy score fewer goals than New Zealand in doing so, which seems unlikely. As much as I'd love to see New Zealand progress, I simply can't imagine they have beating Paraguay in them. Of course, if you're New Zealand it might be a moral victory simply to leave the World Cup without a loss.

Brazil 3-1 Ivory Coast

It only gets worse for African teams. I like Sven-Goran Eriksson, but in the wake of this result his apparent decision to play Portugal for a draw from the start becomes more suspect. At this point Ivory Coast really need North Korea to get a result off Portugal, and then to beat North Korea themselves in the final group of games while Portugal fails to win against Brazil. All of these are moderately reasonable outcomes, to be fair, but Ivory Coast would be in much better shape had they been able to take Portugal in the opening game, and it just never seemed like they were really trying to. This particular game is also noteworthy because it featured Luis Fabiano scoring after handling the ball twice, which somehow the officials missed even though I could spot it at full speed and with Fabiano only an inch or two high on a computer screen. I doubt removing that goal from Brazil's books would have made much difference, but sheesh, do you really need to make things easier for Brazil?

The final round of games begins Tuesday, and I'm excited, as most groups either still have all to play for or feature a do-or-die game. Consider the following:

Group A: This one would have been a snoozer, but suddenly maybe the hosts aren't quite dead - France are clearly in shambles, so what if South Africa can capitalize and flatten them 3-0? If Uruguay defeated Mexico 2-0 at the same time, South Africa would advance. Sure, it's completely unlikely... but let's throw Africa a bone here. They don't have a lot going on.

Group B: I fully expect Argentina to wallop Greece, and assuming that happens it makes South Korea and Nigeria into an elimination game, albeit one that Nigeria would have to win by two goals to advance. Still, everyone still having a shot to move on on the last day makes for an exciting finish.

Group C: Well, obviously. All four teams can still move on. It'll be interesting to see exactly how these games play out, as I can't help but think Slovenia will be happy to play for a draw with England, while the US and Algeria will both be playing for the win.

Group D: Anyone can still move on here as well, though obviously some scenarios are likelier than others. Serbia advance with a win. Ghana advance with a win - or, if Serbia don't win, with a draw. Germany advance with a win, or probably with a draw if Serbia lose. Australia needs to win and for Ghana to win; alternately, the Aussies will be hoping to win by several goals and for Ghana to get thumped in hopes of turning around a significant five-goal differential.

Group E: The Dutch are in and Cameroon are out, but that makes Japan/Denmark a for-sure elimination game. The Japanese have a one-goal edge in GD, so one wonders if they might just play for the draw, especially since a situation that involves them having to score more than one goal is not going to be to their liking.

Group F: As discussed above, all four teams advance with a win, regardless of other results - the one exception being Slovakia, who need to win and have New Zealand not win. Paraguay and Italy still seem like the obvious call, but who knows? If both games end in draws, New Zealand could still squeak this one out without even having to win.

Groups G and H: Still a lot of scenarios. Things will likely be a little clearer after Monday.

World Cup 2010: Day Nine

2010-06-19T16:13:00.002-05:00

I don't know if it's ironic or just kind of sad, but this is really starting to look like it will be the worst World Cup for African teams since 1982, the year West Germany and Austria colluded to deny Algeria a place in the second round, and the last time no African team advanced past the first.

Netherlands 1-0 Japan

Japan played fairly well defensively in this game - the Dutch goal was a rocket from Wesley Sneijder that the keeper could do pretty much nothing about - and nearly tied it when Shinji Okazaki fired maybe a yard over the bar on the stroke of 90 minutes. Japan now go into a winner-take-all match with Denmark and the only question is this: can Japan score enough to win? Will one goal be enough? A draw would actually be sufficient to progress Japan, so maybe they won't even need one goal provided they can keep another clean sheet; they're quite close to not having conceded in the World Cup at all. The Netherlands seem bored, like they're just waiting for the knockouts to start; they dominated possession as usual, but only took ten shots, although you can chalk some of that up to Japan's defense.

Australia 1-1 Ghana

The Socceroos are alive by just the slimmest of margins, but had it not been for Harry Kewell's ejection for a handball on the goal line - the resulting penalty from Asamoah Gyan providing Ghana's lone goal, as well - they could have taken this one. Australia went up 1-0 in the eleventh minute and then were successful at holding off a rampaging Ghana until the ball hit Kewell's arm. Oddly, Ghana shut down for much of the second half as if playing for a draw; the Black Stars didn't take a shot between the 60th and 88th minutes, while Australia surged forward as if they were the ones who had an extra man. Ghana's center backs were woeful and very nearly gave the game away, with Australia coming closer to the winning goal than Ghana really ever did. Ghana suddenly came alive in the last few minutes, but it was too little, too late. The real question is why they didn't attack more strongly against a team down a man, something known only to Ghana themselves.

Denmark 2-1 Cameroon

I only saw the last few minutes of this one, in which Cameroon tried for an equalizer but were clearly gassed. It sounds like there was some slack defending on both sides, with Cameroon taking an early lead through Samuel Eto'o but proceeding to give it back and then some.

So how are the African teams doing? Well, only Cameroon have been officially eliminated, but it's not looking great. South Africa are almost certain to be eliminated, the first hosts ever to miss the second round. Nigeria are bottom of Group B, though they could advance with a win over South Korea and a little help from the Argentinians. Algeria are bottom of Group C, though a win over the US combined with a Slovenia win over England would advance them. Ghana do top Group D at the moment, but they may well need a win over Germany to advance, something I'm not lining up to bet on. Ivory Coast have a chance; we'll know more after their game with Brazil and perhaps more specifically after Portugal's game with North Korea. But I'm not convinced by them either, especially with Didier Drogba not fully fit.

Two African teams have never advanced in the same year, so if one moves on, Africa has merely lived up to usual expectations. But with this Cup being in Africa, obviously so much more was expected. And without a lot of help, it's entirely possible that no African team will move on. For the sake of the continent and this Cup, I hope that doesn't happen.

A tale of two halves

2010-06-18T18:56:00.005-05:00

USA 2-2 Slovenia

The way I felt at the end of each half in this game really mirrored the way I felt at the end of the USA's first two games in 2006.

At the end of the first half I was morose, deflated, angry at the team for conceding goals so easily, trying desperately to think of a silver lining - much like I was at the end of the 3-0 defeat to the Czech Republic that opened the 2006 Cup.

At the end of the second half I was drained, exhilarated, thrilled to have a point but furious at the officials for stealing two more - much like I was at the end of the 1-1 draw with Italy.

It's obviously the main part of the story, so let's get the officiating out of the way first. First of all: it was a goal. Of course it was a goal. Unlike DaMarcus Beasley's "game-winning goal" in the Italy game, which was called back for a tough but legitimate offsides on Brian McBride, there is simply no way to defend the whistle blowing in this situation. This wasn't even a case of a guy being too quick to call a foul; any foul was quite clearly on Slovenia. The ref - Koman Coulibaly of Mali, officiating his first ever World Cup game - wasn't trigger-happy, he was incompetent. Or crooked. Given that he didn't even blow the full-time whistle properly, I lean toward the former, but an awful lot of questionable calls went against the US in the first half (including a ludicrous yellow card on Robbie Findley for having the temerity to take a ball off the face in the Slovenian box, though this does spare us having to watch Findley refuse to shoot from five yards out in the Algeria game, for which he's now suspended). It's ironic that we'd spent the first week of the tournament talking about how good the officiating had been - with the red card on Tim Cahill in the Germany/Australia game the only really poor decision of note - and then we got, in one day, Alberto Undiano Mallenco doing his best impersonation of Valentin Ivanov (and potentially submarining Germany's tournament in the process) and Coulibaly's performance, one of the worst from an all-around standpoint that I can remember seeing in a football game. Even Graham Poll's three-yellow-card game (Croatia/Australia 2006) wasn't as bad back to front as this one was.

But with that out of the way, let's face it: we can say what we want about Coulibaly - and I have - but he didn't cost the US the win. Bad refereeing decisions, sadly, are part of football - part of sports - and they're just going to happen. The trick is not to put yourself in a position where they can cost you a game. And by going down 2-0 in the first half thanks to yet more shoddy defending, the Americans put themselves in a position where Coulibaly's decision could cost them the game. Leaving Valter Birsa unchallenged from 24 yards in the thirteenth minute cost them a win. Letting Zlatan Ljubljankic get completely behind the defense in the 42nd minute cost them a win. Coulibaly's awful call cost them the win, yes. They were absolutely cheated. But ultimately, what they could control were those two goals, neither of which should have been given away as easily as they were. And if they don't give those goals away, the bad call never gets a chance to matter.

And really, that's what the US need to focus on going forward. You can't fix the refereeing going into the next game (though I would figure it couldn't be this bad). But you can at least try to fix your own poor defense (more so in first halves) and inability to keep from conceding in the first fifteen minutes of games. We're all mad about the call, but that's not going to solve anything. They've got to go forward and figure out how to beat Algeria, without worrying about what the refs might do. Play well enough and you don't give the refs a chance to ruin it.

In some ways, I'm glad the US didn't get the win here. A win basically vindicates their propensity for going behind - well, hey, you can never count the Americans out! - even though their recent results prove that it need not be that way. I don't want to see the team that showed up in this first half against Algeria. I want to see the team that needed to beat Egypt 3-0 to advance in the Confederations Cup and did. I want to see the team that beat Spain 2-0, or that jumped out to a 2-0 lead on Brazil after 27 minutes. That's the team that needs to show up, and that's the team that had better show up. Because here's a prediction I will make for you: if the US trail Algeria 2-0 at halftime on Wednesday, their tournament will be over.

Serbia 1-0 Germany

Weird game. Germany never looked like the side that showed up to stomp Australia until after a few soft yellow cards (apparently any foul from behind deserved a card?) that culminated in Miroslav Klose being sent off and Serbia putting in a goal just two minutes later. Even down a man, Germany looked the better side for much of the second half - gaining a penalty that could have tied it only to see Lukas Podolski miss - and I found myself, bizarrely, rooting for the Germans to find an equalizer simply because I felt it was no less than they deserved. It wasn't to be, which is a shame, but on the other hand it blows Group D wide open and makes tomorrow's Ghana-Australia tilt a lot more fascinating.

England 0-0 Algeria

You really wonder what the final day of Group C - Wednesday the 23rd - has in store for us. When discussing the scenarios that could see the US advance, I had always assumed England beating Algeria as a given. Now things are all screwed up. I didn't see this game, but from what I've heard England looked pretty awful offensively, thanks in part to a stout Algerian defense. That kind of terrifies me for Wednesday, but hey - we only need one goal. (Just so long as we don't freaking give up any.)

The most amazing thing about this result is it means it is entirely possible - though of course you would not want to count on this - that the US can advance to the second round simply by drawing Algeria, which would make them the first team to advance to the second round of the World Cup without getting a win since Chile in 1998. Here are the possible scenarios:

US defeat Algeria
Obviously preferable. A win over Algeria advances the US automatically. If it comes along with a draw in England/Slovenia, the US and Slovenia advance, with the US coming first in the group if they win by two goals or more, or win by one goal but score more total goals than Slovenia. If Slovenia win, they top the group and the US come second. If England win, the US and England advance, with first place in the group determined by who won by more goals; if they won by the same number of goals, it's reasonably likely that the US would win the second tiebreaker as they currently have a two-goal edge on England in total goals scored in the group.

US draw Algeria
This would be annoying, and yet if England don't win (which looks more possible by the second) it would almost certainly advance the US anyway. If the US and Algeria draw, that gives the US three points and Algeria two; an England loss to Slovenia would leave the English on two points, and the Americans would advance in second place. An England/Slovenia draw would also see Slovenia win the group, with the US and England tied for second, but the US come into Wednesday with a two-goal advantage in total goals scored, which presumably would be difficult for England to overturn - if the US drew 1-1, England would have to draw 3-3 just to force the next tiebreaker, an unlikely result. However, if that did happen, advancement would be determined by the drawing of lots. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

US lose to Algeria
Obviously the US are out if this happens. Amazingly, Algeria are still in with a pretty good shout - if they win and England don't, Algeria advance. Pray this doesn't happen.

World Cup 2010: Day Seven

2010-06-17T19:48:00.003-05:00

It's starting to get serious.

Argentina 4-1 South Korea

The score line flatters the South Americans; it was 2-1 at halftime, although South Korea had never really looked like scoring until a defensive miscue by Argentina right before the half. As good as South Korea had looked against Greece, they couldn't get much going today except for a period midway through the second half where it briefly looked like they were seizing control - and then Argentina got their third and fourth goals just four minutes apart and put the game away. Argentina dominated the possession, with more than 60% of it, and they kind of have to; while they set up in a 4-3-3, they play more like a 2-5-3, dominating possession in the midfield, and both Messi and Tevez are killers with the ball at their feet. Higuain made the most of their distribution, scoring a hat trick that killed off the game after South Korea had opened the scoring with an own goal.

The real question is how Argentina will do in the knockouts. I fully expect them to breeze past Greece (more on them in a minute), but what happens when they run into a team like Germany that defends pretty well and has the offensive skills to expose a shaky defense?

Greece 2-1 Nigeria

I know they just got their first ever win at the World Cup, and I hate to be a buzzkill, but Greece: you're still terrible. I didn't see the game, but everything I've read suggests that Nigeria were in control of the game until Sani Kaita's Beckham-'98-esque red card that left the Super Eagles with an hour to defend a one-goal lead with ten men. Not surprisingly, they couldn't - although even then, both of Greece's goals were fairly weak. The first came via a huge deflection off a Nigerian defender, and the second was off a rare mistake by Vincent Enyeama, who let a standard shot bounce off him and right onto the feet of Vasilis Torosidis. Even then, Nigeria might have managed a draw had not Chinedu Ogbuke missed an open net from eight yards away.

Oddly, Nigeria still have a perfectly reasonable chance to win the group. With Argentina at six points and likely to beat Greece, and South Korea and Greece both at 3, Nigeria need only defeat South Korea to advance. That could be a very good game assuming South Korea don't count on Argentina beating Greece and play for a draw.

Mexico 2-0 France

Players who prominently appear in Nike's "Write the Future" ad: Didier Drogba, Fabio Cannavaro, Franck Ribery, Wayne Rooney, Ronaldinho, Cristiano Ronaldo. Total record of those players at the World Cup so far: 0-5-1 (Ronaldinho, of course, is not even on the Brazil squad this year). Ribery now becomes the first of the group to suffer a loss, and it becomes clear how much Zinedine Zidane meant to the French. With Zidane, the French won the 1998 World Cup, as well as Euro 2000, and made the final game in 2006; without him, they crashed out of the 2002 World Cup without scoring a goal (he did play in the third game but was never fully fit). And here we are again - while they may score against South Africa, France are almost certain to crash out of the World Cup, thus cementing an impressive alternation of win, crash out, make the final, crash out, in four straight Cups. Hard to do.

Meanwhile, the Mexican win means Mexico and Uruguay are almost certain to advance; both would move on with a draw in their final game, while even a loss by one would require a significant shift in goal differential to allow either France or South Africa to pass through instead. This sets up one of two intriguing rematches in the second round - either a rematch of Mexico/Argentina, one of the better games of the 2006 second round and ended on Maxi Rodriguez's wonder goal, or Uruguay/Argentina, a tantalizing border war as well as a rematch of the first ever World Cup final from 1930.

Tomorrow: the moment of truth for the Americans. Outside of CONCACAF qualifying, the US are pretty unaccustomed to being the favorites, and while neither a draw nor even a loss would completely end things, it would certainly leave us needing help. It's a must-win. Shudder.

World Cup 2010: Group Analysis, first set of games

2010-06-16T21:44:00.002-05:00

Group A

Since South Africa and Uruguay have played their second games already, this will be slightly more concrete than the others.

1. Uruguay, 1-1-0, 4 points
2. Mexico, 0-1-0, 1 point, 1 GS, 0 GD
3. France, 0-1-0, 1 point, 0 GS, 0 GD
4. South Africa, 0-1-1, 1 point, -3 GD

Let's assume France and Mexico draw tomorrow. For South Africa to advance, they would need to beat France in their final game, and have Mexico fail to win. Fortunately for South Africa, Uruguay aren't likely to punt the final game knowing that they need at least a draw to top the group. Unfortunately for South Africa, beating France isn't exactly the easiest ask. At this point, Uruguay seem the likely bet to top the group, and advancement is almost certain. The only way Uruguay would fail to advance is if Mexico and France draw and then both win in the third set of games; as long as Uruguay don't lose to Mexico, they'll move on. Who advances with them will depend on the Mexico/France result; the winner there certainly takes control, but a draw leaves every team in play. If I had to guess, I'd say it should be France, especially since they're probably more like to beat South Africa than Mexico are to beat Uruguay.

Group B

1. South Korea, 1-0-0, 3 points, 2 GD
2. Argentina, 1-0-0, 3 points, 1 GD
3. Nigeria, 0-0-1, 0 points, -1 GD
4. Greece, 0-0-1, 0 points, -2 GD

Based on the first games, tomorrow's Argentina-South Korea tilt has real potential. I still expect Argentina to top the group, but we'll see. Nigeria have to hope for a win over Greece and Argentina defeating South Korea, leading to a win-or-go-home game between South Korea and Nigeria in the third set. While Greece were surprisingly poor in the first game, this still has potential to be perhaps our most exciting group overall.

Group C

1. Slovenia, 1-0-0, 3 points
2t. England, 0-1-0, 1 point, 1 GS, 0 GD
2t. USA, 0-1-0, 1 point, 1 GS, 0 GD
4. Algeria, 0-0-1, 0 points

While the second set of games is massive in most if not all of the groups, it is particularly so here, especially where the Americans are concerned. A win over Slovenia is a virtual must for the US; while a draw would not cripple their chances, a loss would be devastating. Losing to Slovenia (combined with an expected England win over Algeria) means the only American hope would be a comfortable win over Algeria and, less likely, Slovenia going on to take all nine points; a draw, while it would make things uncomfortable, would still enable the US to advance with merely a win over Algeria and a Slovenia loss to England. A win, on the other hand, would make the US masters of their own destinies, requiring just a further win or draw with Algeria to advance regardless of the England/Slovenia outcome. If the hope is to avoid Germany, of course, the US will want to win both, by as many goals as possible.

Group D

1. Germany, 1-0-0, 3 points, 4 GD
2. Ghana, 1-0-0, 3 points, 1 GD
3. Serbia, 0-0-1, 0 points, -1 GD
4. Australia, 0-0-1, 0 points, -4 GD

Germany look set to take all nine points, meaning the only question is who comes second. Ghana are obviously in pole position; because of Australia's awful GD, the Black Stars need only draw the Socceroos on Saturday to feel pretty comfortable about advancing. Assuming Germany beat Serbia, Ghana could lose to Germany and have Australia win and still advance easily, so long as neither game was a blowout. Australia, of course, absolutely must win over Ghana to have any confidence that they can progress with a result in the Serbia game, due to that goal differential.

Group E

1. Netherlands, 1-0-0, 3 points, 2 GD
2. Japan, 1-0-0, 3 points, 1 GD
3. Cameroon, 0-0-1, 0 points, -1 GD
4. Denmark, 0-0-1, 0 points, -2 GD

Saturday's Denmark-Cameroon game is probably the key matchup here. I fully expect the Netherlands to defeat Japan, meaning that the Denmark-Cameroon winner - assuming we get one - moves into good position to advance. Denmark, having played the Dutch first, are almost masters of their own destiny at this point; assuming the Dutch will probably beat both Japan and Cameroon, Denmark need only do the same to move on. For Japan, the key will be a result in the Netherlands game; even a draw there means that a result in their tilt with Denmark promises advancement. Cameroon desperately need a win over Denmark, but they may be in trouble regardless with a final matchup against the Dutch.

Group F

1t. Italy, 0-1-0, 1 point, 1 GS, 0 GD
1t. New Zealand, 0-1-0, 1 point, 1 GS, 0 GD
1t. Paraguay, 0-1-0, 1 point, 1 GS, 0 GD
1t. Slovakia, 0-1-0, 1 point, 1 GS, 0 GD

Winston Reid's late header really shook things up, making the entire group completely level as it did. It also makes the Paraguay-Slovakia game perhaps the most important of the entire group stage. Had Slovakia won the first game, a draw here would have been okay; now, with Italy looming for the Slovaks in their final game, a win is vital if they hope to advance. Even the minnows are in with a shout, but New Zealand need to pull out a win somewhere and I don't really see that happening. Italy and Paraguay are still my likely bets to advance.

Group G

1. Brazil, 1-0-0, 3 points
2t. Ivory Coast, 0-1-0, 1 point, 0 GS, 0 GD
2t. Portugal, 0-1-0, 1 point, 0 GS, 0 GD
4. North Korea, 0-0-1, 0 points

Ivory Coast pretty much played Portugal for a draw, and you have to imagine they'll do the same with Brazil. After all, two draws and a win over North Korea - or even a loss to Brazil and a win over North Korea - are likely to put the Elephants through. However, losing to Brazil is both the most likely proposition and a bit risky; assuming Portugal also defeat North Korea, it's possible that Brazil and Portugal might then be happy to play for a draw in their final game, not unlike West Germany and Austria in 1982. Sunday's Ivory Coast-Brazil game thus threatens to be as dull as Ivory Coast-Portugal was with the Ivorians potentially desperate not to lose. However, their defense isn't as stout as North Korea's and Brazil still got two goals in that game.

Group H

1t. Chile, 1-0-0, 3 points, 1 GS, 1 GD
1t. Switzerland, 1-0-0, 3 points, 1 GS, 1 GD
3t. Honduras, 0-0-1, 0 points, 0 GS, -1 GD
3t. Spain, 0-0-1, 0 points, 0 GS, -1 GD

Spain and Honduras play Monday in a game I'm fully expecting Spain to win about 5-0 now. Chile and Switzerland meet on the same day in a crucial game. If they draw, both can advance at the expense of Spain so long as neither lose their last game. Because Spain will almost certainly beat Honduras, and I expect them to do so comfortably, a Chile-Switzerland winner is not guaranteed advancement. A win by Chile would put them on six points with Switzerland and (presumably) Spain on three, but Switzerland could beat Honduras and Spain beat Chile in the third set of games, risking Chile getting dumped out depending on differentials. Ditto Switzerland; a win over Chile puts them on six points, but they would still need to get a result from the Honduras game or have Spain not win against Chile. Spain are still perfectly capable of going through if they can defeat Honduras and Chile, but things would be easier for them if Chile do not win the Switzerland game, as a Chile win over Switzerland and a Swiss win over Honduras combined with two wins by Spain leads to a three-way tie that could still always see the Spanish eliminated on GD. Of course, thumping Honduras would limit that likelihood.

World Cup 2010: Day Six

2010-06-16T20:38:00.002-05:00

What a day, huh?

Chile 1-0 Honduras

I already covered this in the live blog, so I won't add much except to say that with the other Group H result, Chile's three points go a long way toward their advancement.

Switzerland 1-0 Spain

Enormous stunner, of course. I didn't see it live, but I did go back and watch the replay to see if I could get a sense for what happened, and what it comes down to is this: Switzerland set up for a draw from the start. Even in the first few minutes they were playing with eight men behind the ball. They knew they couldn't hang with Spain if the game were wide open, so they didn't even try. In many ways I was reminded of the US upset of England in 1950 - Spain dominated possession (74%), had a ton of shots (25, though only 5 on goal), and spent much more time in the attacking third... but they just could not put a shot in. Swiss keeper Diego Benaglio deserves a lot of credit for this, although so does the crossbar, which helped deny a Xabi Alonso bullet in the 70th minute. Meanwhile, a long kick from Benaglio started the play which led to Switzerland's goal, a bit of a messy affair that came completely against the run of play. Spain tried to push, but in the last few minutes the Swiss put all ten men behind the ball and the Spanish just couldn't break through.

So what does this do to the group? We'll address that, along with the other groups after one set of games, in a follow-up post.

Uruguay 3-0 South Africa

Whatever hope was generated by South Africa drawing Mexico in the first game was pretty well extinguished by the foot of Diego Forlan. I listened to this game on the radio and Uruguay seemed to be the better team rather easily; while the South Africans had a significant possession edge, this was mostly in midfield; Uruguay had 19 shots, six on goal, to South Africa's 11 shots, of which three were on goal.

The critical moment of the game, of course, came in the 76th minute, when Uruguay's Luis Suarez broke for goal. South African keeper Itumeleng Khune came out to challenge the ball, but ended up tripping Suarez - or at least, he ended up making contact with Suarez and Suarez went to ground. The referee called a penalty, which was reasonable, and then showed Khune a red card, which was probably extreme. Forlan converted the penalty, and at 2-0 and South Africa down to ten men the game was effectively over. So, for that matter, is South Africa's World Cup.

World Cup 2010: Day Six - Honduras/Chile Live Blog!

2010-06-16T06:28:00.081-05:00

FULL TIME: That's it for now. Will I try this again? Maybe for one or both of the US games, but probably not for any more of the neutral games unless it's a particularly scintillating matchup. We'll see, I guess.

FULL TIME: Chile have won it 1-0. Well deserved, certainly, but Honduras were extremely poor and Chile should have scored more goals. Fortunately for them, the most likely situation in which GD will matter for them would be up against Switzerland, and the Swiss are not exactly known for their high-powered offense.

94': Gonzalez pushes the ball to goal again, and the whistle blows as Valladares collects it.

93': Honduras take a quick corner and nothing comes of it. Chile break and have 4-on-3 for a minute before Gonzalez curls it over the bar.

92': Just like that, it's finally given: three minutes. Meaning Honduras has one more.

92': Was it ever announced how much added time there was?

91': Gonzalez fires wide left. Honduras might want to try getting the ball at some point.

91': Harkes notes that we can't totally judge Chile based on this because "it is against Honduras." Yeah, pretty much.

90': Welcome takes a shot from the top of the box but it's not especially close. Honduras have about three minutes to somehow find an equalizer.

89': Fernandez is unmarked at the top of the box but the ball runs off his foot.

88': Sanchez goes down under contact, looks up at the ref, winces and grabs himself, then looks up again to make sure there was a whistle. This is why people hate soccer, you guys. Knock it off.

87': Valdivia finally comes off for a sub.

86': Healey and Harkes invoke New Zealand's late goal to draw Slovakia. Honduras, inspired by this pep talk, get the ball into the box but Bravo collects easily.

84': A Honduran fan in the crowd clasps her hands together and rocks back and forth. Sorry, lady; Chile's fans already prayed and you can't both win.

83': A header from Medel is just wide, but he's offsides anyway. Chile have hardly dropped back, possibly because Honduras have never shown a reason to worry about their attack.

81': Chile have more than 30 touches in the Honduran box and Honduras have one in the Chilean box, according to Healey. Sounds about right. Chile actually make a substitution.

80': Anyway, that would be 48 years between World Cup wins for Chile, which would pass the old record of 44 years by the United States. Sanchez goes for goal but his shot from 20+ yards goes well wide.

79': I don't think Honduras has spent more than a few minutes even in the Chilean half since the break.

78': Honduras put in Walter Martinez as their final sub. ESPN lists him at 5'5".

77': A free kick bounces around but Valladares is able to collect.

75': Chile almost score again, but Valladares makes a save, Sanchez appears to handle the rebound, and then Valdivia puts it in but is offsides.

75': Chile hasn't won a World Cup game since 1962, the year they hosted.

73': Usually this stuff evens up a bit, but with less than 20 minutes to play, Chile still has two-thirds of the possession. Chile has another couple chances, but a shot is blocked and Isla's header goes well wide.

72': Valdivia limps off but doesn't seem to be getting substituted just yet. Honduras attempt to build on the man advantage but a header into the box is collected by Bravo. Still don't think Honduras have touched the ball in the Chilean box.

71': I still don't think Honduras touched that one in the box. The ball deflects off Ponce's elbow, but no handball call, which I think is right. Jorge Valdivia picks up a random cramp and we get a break in the action.

70': After a nice move, Palacios wins a corner.

69': Chile almost score again but for a last-second tackle by Hendry Thomas. Honduras almost touch it in the Chilean box 30 seconds later, but it's cleared.

68': Healey and Harkes talk about the US-Slovenia game, and how Slovenia's win over Algeria makes the US feel they have to beat Slovenia. Sure, but they really should have felt that way already. You don't want to go into a game like that thinking a draw is cool. In a related story, I had a dream last night that Slovenia won all three games in the group. Let's hope it was something I ate.

67': Honduras control the ball for about 20 seconds and then lose it out of bounds. I could probably just copy and paste this.

65': English football-ism: "asking questions." As in, "Chile have been asking most of the questions today." The main question being "Man, how much does Honduras suck?"

64': Valladares makes an incredible save on a header from about six feet. Ponce is kicking himself that he couldn't bang that in.

63': Welcome flops goofily by stumbling backwards over a Chilean but gets the foul call. Does this count as getting into the Chilean box? Honduras gets right to the edge but it's an offsides call.

62': Taking bets on the next time Honduras actually gets the ball into the Chilean box. Meanwhile, Sanchez makes a run and then rolls it just wide left of the Honduran goal.

61': Not only is Chile much more threatening, their attacks are a lot prettier.

60': Pavon is substituted, with Georgie Welcome coming on. That's a fun name.

58': Healey says of a Chilean player, "It's a real mystery why he hasn't reproduced his South American form in Europe." I don't even know who he's talking about, but I promise you it is not that much of a mystery.

57': Sanchez gets stepped on in the box, but the ref misses it. It was probably unintentional anyway.

56': Nothing doing on the header, but Chile regroup yet again.

55': Sanchez abuses Espinoza and then gets taken down, earning a free kick from the right side, maybe 24 yards out.

54': Healey references Honduras' MLS connections yet again. Given how bad they've looked, I probably wouldn't keep talking about that.

53': Valladares must have an awful goal kick, as Figueroa takes another.

52': Another good chance from Chile, though it's eventually called for offsides as it falls to the last man.

50': Chile take the corner shot but can't fire the ball through a scrum. Pavon ends up on the ground in the box, apparently hurting himself on the clearance. Chile are forced to start over from back in their end.

48': Beausejour almost has an open shot at goal, but Figueroa just gets in the way with a challenge that sends Beausejour sprawling. There's going to be a penalty at some point if this keeps up. Sanchez then gets the ball taken away in the box but wins a corner for Chile.

47': Honduras seem to want a penalty, but Medel does get a touch on the ball. Very risky challenge but it paid off, as another Honduran attack is stifled.

46': Honduras, like New Zealand, are making their second appearance and first since 1982. Right now they look a lot worse than New Zealand.

HALF: I make it back from the shower with a couple minutes to spare, as the Chilean team comes back out to the field. Are soccer halftimes short or do I just spend that much time in the shower? On second thought, don't answer that.

HALF: Certainly a deserved 1-0 lead for Chile. For CONCACAF's sake, I'd love to see Honduras do anything in the second half, as the team that showed up in the first half is going out of this tournament without a point.

45': Not a bad kick from Nunez; Bravo has to tip it over. After the ensuing corner is deflected away, the first half whistle blows. Figures that it would happen right as Honduras was getting anything going.

45': A goal kick is taken by someone other than a goalie, as Figueroa boots it out for Honduras. Once again, I don't think I've ever seen that happen before. Honduras end up with a free kick 30ish yards out.

43': A graphic shows us that Chile has a 63-37 possession edge, and Healey confirms that Honduras have not touched the ball in the Chilean box yet. Chile get into Honduras' box again, and Honduras gets lucky with an inadvertent handball that is not called.

42': Honduras yet again gets something going, but can't get it into the box as a pass in Pavon's direction falls short and Chile goes back the other way. Valdivia springs Beausejour but Honduras clear his cross for a throw-in.

40': Beausejour's father is Haitian, and was in Haiti for the earthquake. Lots of earthquakes in that family.

39': Nunez takes a shot from outside the box, but it's not particularly close. Honduras have yet to really get a good chance.

38': A deep ball, but the Chilean forward is just a little offsides.

37': Chile nearly score another. Honduras' defense is starting to break down a bit.

34': GOAL! The ball is sent across the face of goal, and Beausejour is credited with it although the replay makes it look like Mendoza, the Honduran defender, had a lot to do with the ball going in. Still, Chile deserve the lead here.

33': Wilson Palacios is booked despite not seeming to do anything. The ref is not having the greatest of games, it must be said.

32': Chile break, then are stopped; Honduras break in response and are stopped; Chile break again. Somewhat exciting even if none of the breaks do so much as get into the area.

30': The South African fans have organized some sort of vuvuzela-playing conga line.

29': Ramon Nunez of Honduras dives horribly and gets the foul call. He sort of looks like a young Sammy Sosa.

27': Chile kick the ball out of bounds while Pavon rolls around on the ground. After throwing it in, Honduras look for a second like they aren't just going to give it back, which I don't think I've ever seen. The Chilean defender blocks the ball and then Honduras push it to Chile.

25': US defender Jonathan Bornstein is apparently a huge fan favorite in Honduras because he scored the goal against Costa Rica that allowed Honduras to qualify for the World Cup ahead of the Costa Ricans. Meanwhile, Vidal blasts a header over the goal off a corner.

23': Adrian Healey says the game has "the aroma of goals about it" despite being so far goalless. I guess?

22': Claudio Bravo grabs the corner easily and then sets up an attack with a long punt. Valdivia eventually gets a shot off that deflects out for a Chilean corner. Sanchez falls down while attempt to shoot from 20 yards and the ball goes out for a goal kick.

20': Honduras again manage to organize a counterattack and earn a corner after a long shot goes off the back of a Chilean defender.

19': Chile's Fernandez gets booked for a slightly rash challenge.

18': ...and nothing doing. It's a bit high/long. Honduras get on the break and then Pavon finds himself wide open about 25 yards from goal, but he hits it weakly wide left.

17': Chile win a corner...

16': Good tackle by Mendoza of Honduras to take the ball away from Beausejour near the touchline.

15': Honduras get the ball through the box for the first time, but it's not threatening.

14': Adrian Healey informs us that there is an iPhone app that makes the vuvuzela sound, just in case you're trying to figure out a way to be a complete asshole to everyone you know.

13': Valdivia overhits a slotted pass into the area and Beausejour can't catch up with it. Again, we've seen this a lot, although I'm not sure you can blame the ball when the pass is along the ground.

12': Honduras start to come forward, then lose the ball after kicking it around the midfield. They look pretty bad so far.

11': Another long ball by Chile goes well past its intended target. Honduras gives it back to them rather quickly.

10': Fact of the day: Chile calls their coach "The Madman."

9': A couple of nice backheel passes between the Chileans, but the ball goes out off Honduras. Seconds later, Vidal fires a shot from distance that Valladares juggles, but no other Chilean was nearby.

6': Chile gets a free kick from the right side of the field about ten yards out. They're dominating the game early; Honduras hasn't had the ball for more than about 15 seconds at a time. The kick fails, but Chile get a shot on goal out of it, albeit a weak one.

4': Chile gets its first corner but nothing much comes of it. Honduras attempts to break, but Carlos Carmona trips the Honduran and gets a yellow card for his trouble.

3': Fernandez comes close to putting the free kick in; the crowd cheers as it looks for a second like it goes in.

2': Valdivia is challenged by Wilson Palacios and goes down clutching his face after being nudged in the back. Oh good.

1': Chile starts with a long ball that, of course, overruns everyone and goes out for a Honduran goal kick. If the Jabulani is really having an effect, this is it, for me.

6:30 am: The captains greet each other warmly. ESPN shows us the formations; Chile appears to be in a 4-3-3, while Honduras looks to be in something like a 4-2-3-1.

6:28 am: Let's do this.

World Cup 2010: Day Five

2010-06-15T19:37:00.002-05:00

New Zealand 1-1 Slovakia

If this game isn't a testimony to playing until the whistle sounds, I don't know what is. (I originally wrote "playing all 90 minutes," but of course New Zealand's equalizer came in stoppage time.) The Kiwis looked the better side for the first 10 or 15 minutes, but after that Slovakia mostly dominated the game - albeit the kind of domination that results in two total shots on goal and getting your only score via a header from a player who was almost certainly offsides. (I watched this game live and while it was not the snoozefest of Algeria-Slovenia, it was rarely very exciting.) For whatever reason, be it Slovakia feeling they had the game won or the Kiwis reaching for a second gear, New Zealand came to life in the final few minutes, and they snatched an equalizer mere seconds from time, courtesy of a header from embarrassingly-unmarked 21-year-old defender Winston Reid, one of only seven All Whites who play their club football in Europe.

An exciting moment for New Zealand, surely - it was their first-ever point in a World Cup and just their third goal scored. The question now becomes what we make of this group, which is technically a four-way draw at the moment. Italy and Paraguay seem like the class of it and I'd be surprised if they don't advance; while New Zealand probably deserved their draw here I must say they were pretty poor for large stretches of the game and I'd be stunned if Italy don't thump them. While a win would have given Slovakia a decent chance to advance, they now need to actually beat either Italy or Paraguay and I'm just not sure they're up to it based on what I saw, although it can of course be difficult to judge a team fully on its opening game.

Portugal 0-0 Ivory Coast

Speaking of which. Yeesh. I didn't see this one live, though I listened to most of the second half on ESPN Radio, but it doesn't appear there was much to see; ESPN's Gamecast commentator noted darkly after the final whistle, "That is 90 minutes of my life I can't get back." Portugal, the third-ranked team in the world, managed just a single shot on goal; perhaps the most noteworthy part of the entire game was a hilarious moment when Cristiano Ronaldo, about to be fouled by a sliding Guy Demel, flung himself up and over Demel's legs rather than making contact with him and was subsequently booked for diving on what would otherwise have absolutely been a legitimate foul on Demel. Guess you just can't teach an old dog new tricks. The most exciting moment of the game was surely the entrance of Didier Drogba, although he didn't manage to do much of anything until finding himself directly in front of goal in the 91st minute, only to cross the ball to absolutely no one.

The real question is what we know about either team following this match. It may have been a dreary, goalless affair, but that could just have been fear. Think about it this way: both sides, while surely confident in public, probably expect that they will not beat Brazil, or at least consider a loss to Brazil a relatively likely outcome. Assuming a win over North Korea and a loss to Brazil, that's three points each... and assuming that that's the most likely outcome for both, this game was absolutely critical not to lose. A loss here would have required a win over Brazil, most likely. Instead, the advancing team will probably come down to who can beat North Korea by more and/or lose to Brazil by less. I'm sure either side would have taken a win, but it's pretty clear that both were far more comfortable playing conservatively, not to lose.

Brazil 2-1 North Korea

A stunning result in more ways than one. First of all, Brazil's two goals were among the nicest you'll see, started by Maicon's in the 55th minute, a crazy shot fired in from such an angle that (a) it almost looks like the ball was CGIed into the video and (b) a debate ensued over whether or not Maicon was actually attempting a cross. (I'll say this: it would have been one of the least effective crosses of all-time, so he may as well say he was shooting for it.) Brazil also got off fully 26 shots, including ten on goal - the eight saves credited to North Korean keeper Ri Myong-Guk were two more than all five other goalies today combined - yet could only manage a narrow win in a game that was scoreless for nearly an hour. The Koreans pulled back a goal in the 89th which, astonishingly, could yet prove crucial to their own advancement to the second round. Perhaps most bizarrely, this became the first game of the tournament in which both teams scored not to end in a 1-1 draw.

Group G is suddenly very weird. North Korea sits at the bottom, and their goal differential is -1, but they also have a goal to their credit, which the Portuguese and Ivorians do not. Here is one not especially far-fetched scenario, particularly if Portugal and Ivory Coast also struggle to break down the North Korean defense:

Brazil def. North Korea 2-1
Portugal t. Ivory Coast 0-0

Portugal t. North Korea 1-1
Brazil def. Ivory Coast 3-1

North Korea def. Ivory Coast 1-0
Brazil def. Portugal 2-1

Obviously I just made up the second two sets of results, but based on today's games, North Korea scraping out a low-scoring win and tie in their next two games is not the most unrealistic thing in the world, right? And four points would be enough to get them through assuming Brazil will in fact take all nine. I will say this - the Brazil-Portugal game on June 25 gets a lot more interesting if Portugal need a win to ensure the North Koreans can't pass them.

Tomorrow! Honduras-Chile, possibly along with my first live blog (which I'm sure no one will follow live and so which I may just post all at once when the game is over, if I even do it); Spain-Switzerland; and a huge game for the hosts as they kick off the second set of matches with a tilt against Uruguay. A win for South Africa tomorrow puts them on the brink of advancing.

World Cup 2010: Day Four (the rest)

2010-06-14T19:19:00.003-05:00

I only got to watch the first game live, so let's just talk about the other two games quickly and then cast an eye forward.

Japan 1-0 Cameroon

Probably the shock of the tournament so far, not least because Japan had barely threatened Cameroon's area before scoring and really didn't threaten the entire game - most notably, the Samurai Blue did not record a single corner kick during the ninety minutes. Of course, the Indomitable Lions managed just three, and only two shots on goal despite a 57-43 edge in possession, perhaps explaining their domitability. This makes Group E more than a little interesting; while I still expect the Dutch to progress comfortably, Japan could now potentially squeeze into the knockouts merely by drawing Denmark. Not bad for what looked like one of the three or four weakest squads entering play.

Italy 1-1 Paraguay

Track down Paraguay's goal if you haven't seen it, because it is a thing of beauty - a perfectly located free kick from about 40 yards out that fell right at the edge of the six-yard box, where it was headed neatly into the right corner of the goal so effectively than Gianluigi Buffon didn't even move. Italy's tying goal, by comparison, was a goalkeeping blunder probably no better or worse than Robert Green's or Faouzi Chaouchi's - the Paraguayan keeper, Justo Villar, leapt for a curling corner kick only to see it pass his outstretched arm and land right on the foot of Daniele De Rossi, who easily poked it home. Villar did keep Paraguay in the game with four saves in the match, and even a loss here would probably not have kept Italy out of the knockouts with Slovakia and New Zealand on the schedule, but it has to have been disappointing.

Five games remain in the first set of group matches, with three of them, potentially, liable to be impactful on who progresses:

New Zealand v. Slovakia: I'm watching this because it's Tuesday's early game, but I can't imagine this will have much effect on the outcome of Group F. While the winner, if there is one, can bask in the Slovenia-like early group lead, Slovakia is probably the worst European qualifier and New Zealand might be the weakest team in the entire tournament although I'd love to see them do well.

Ivory Coast v. Portugal: Many howled when Ivory Coast were stuck with Portugal and Brazil in the apparent Group of Death, since they were viewed as Africa's best hope for a Cup winner on home-continent soil. With Didier Drogba's fitness in question, however, it may not matter at this point regardless. I'm still hoping this is going to be a good game, and certainly should Ivory Coast win or draw, second place in the group is open to much more question than it will be if they lose.

Brazil v. North Korea: Brazil has opened up each of the last three World Cups with somewhat unconvincing wins, but it's hard to imagine the North Koreans as anything more than cannon fodder in this group.

Honduras v. Chile: Another case where, as in Group C, the two strongest teams in the group (Spain and Switzerland) play each other in the first game. This enables the winner of Honduras and Chile - again, assuming there is one - to possibly snatch early pole position and be able to stamp a second-round ticket by doing nothing more than tying Switzerland. I also think that this game - featuring two teams with very little to lose - could be among the more entertaining of the first set, though I've been wrong before.

Spain v. Switzerland: Like US/England, if form holds in the other two games for each team, it ultimately may not be all that meaningful. However, should Switzerland lose 2-0 or 3-0 and the Honduras/Chile game produce a winner, the Swiss may begin to sweat.

World Cup 2010: Day Four (morning edition)

2010-06-14T08:44:00.004-05:00

Netherlands 2-0 Denmark

This game turned out to be a real disappointment. The first half barely kept me awake and the second half was at best a mild improvement. The Dutch are good at passing but if I'm a Netherlands fan I'm starting to worry about another early dismissal in the knockouts. This is the #4 team in the world? I don't doubt they'll emerge from the group with all nine points but they hardly looked like world-beaters. Their defense was fine but I wonder how much of that was Denmark's anemic attack (bizarre fact of the day from Healey and Harkes: Denmark only carry three forwards), and while the offense had a few moments of brilliance they seemed to spend most of the game playing ping-pong. The first goal was a fluky own-goal that really never should have happened; the second was earned (although much more by substitute Eljero Elia, the most dynamic Dutch player on the pitch, than by credited goal scorer Dirk Kuyt, who easily poached the goal after Elia hit the post). All in all I was severely disappointed; even if this game was never going to be the back-and-forth of Ghana-Serbia, at least I hoped the Dutch could run free, but Denmark's packed midfield helped make things boring for everyone. The real question now is who the second team in this group will be; Denmark probably seemed like the favorites coming in, but I'd give Cameroon a very good shot now. Although let's see if they beat Japan in the game that's about to start.

World Cup 2010: Days Two and Three

2010-06-13T20:14:00.004-05:00

In spite of being in Indiana for a wedding for most of the weekend, I was actually able to see the majority of the six games. Let's recap.

South Korea 2-0 Greece

Most of the games I'm going to be able to watch are the ones that start at 6:30 am. Which is a shame, because at 6:30 am I am not always fully coherent (that, and the fact that many of the early games look kind of mediocre on paper). As such I don't recall a ton about this game - what I can tell you is that South Korea played outstanding technical football, with crisp passes and coordinated attacks, and Greece just looked awful. The Koreans took an early lead with a goal in the seventh minute and Greece really never seemed much of a threat to score. This is only Greece's second World Cup appearance, amazingly; in their first, USA '94, they didn't score a single goal. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they repeated that feat here.

Argentina 1-0 Nigeria

Group B should be really interesting. Argentina were probably the better side in this game, but Nigeria looked decent on offense; they just couldn't find the net. Their defense left more to be desired, but we're talking about a team in Argentina that runs out two of the best scorers in Spain and one of the best scorers in England at the front. The goalie, Enyeama, did bail out his defense on more than a couple of occasions. I'm a little worried if I'm Argentina about the inability of the team to score after Gabriel Heinze's early rocket header, given the struggles of the Nigerian defense, although since I have no doubt they're going to pound Greece, advancing from the group won't be an issue.

USA 1-1 England

Because we had to leave the hotel at 3 pm Central to get to the wedding, I missed the last 15-20 minutes of this game, but I saw all the key stuff. The US sure loves conceding early goals in the World Cup, don't they? Just ask Jan Koller. And Emmanuel Olisadebe (and Pawel Kryszalowicz). And Slobodan Komljenovic. Those four guys all scored goals in the first five minutes against the US in the last three World Cups, and now you can add Steven Gerrard's name to that list, following an absolutely woeful piece of defending that left me thinking it was going to be an extraordinarily long afternoon. Fortunately, things settled down, and a game that had "Czech Republic 3-0 USA" written all over it turned into a game more like "Italy 1-1 USA," albeit without all the red cards. Clint Dempsey's goal was, of course, a lucky break, but you make your own luck to some extent, and the Americans could easily have gone up 2-1 had Robert Green not later been able to deflect Jozy Altidore's shot off the post. The US also did a good job of mostly taking Wayne Rooney out of the match; while the English were unsurprisingly able to put together a number of dangerous attacks - and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't terrified every time England pushed forward on anything resembling a break - the US held their own and had some good chances against a sometimes porous English back line. I'm perfectly happy with a point, especially after that start, and I think it was plenty deserved for both teams.

Slovenia 1-0 Algeria

This was always destined to look like the odd match out in the group - neither England nor the US playing, two of the lower-rated teams in the entire field going at it - but it did not disappoint that billing. While the fact that it kicked off at 6:30 am undoubtedly contributed, I fell asleep for 20 minutes or so during the second half, which does not say much for the quality of play. I didn't feel confident in either side's ability to mount threatening attacks; while Slovenia's defense is supposed to be pretty good, I'm not sure what it says about their offense that it took 79 minutes to break down what never looked like a particularly strong Algerian defense, and the goal was exceptionally soft (more so than Dempsey's, I would argue). While I wouldn't encourage the US to take either of these teams lightly, I didn't come away from this match thinking that either team had a shot to come out of the group. The media has been making a big deal about how the US wanted a goalless draw here and how now Slovenia are atop the group... um, who cares? If the US beat Slovenia and Algeria - and based on the level of play in this game they should do so handily if playing like they're capable of doing - the result here is completely irrelevant. Slovenia can't advance with just three points, so maybe wait until they're threatening to draw (or somehow beat) the US or England before we talk about how Slovenia might advance. To me this game did nothing but solidify the status of the US and England as favorites to advance.

Ghana 1-0 Serbia

A completely deserved result in my book. For a long time I was worried this game was headed for nil-nil, which would have been a real shame; I think the nil-nil draw is one of the things about soccer that the average American sees and just turns up their nose at. Ties are bad enough, but the game ended without anyone scoring? And yet with the possible exception of USA-England, I didn't see a better end-to-end game in the first three days of the tournament. While I love the World Cup, its high-stakes nature - even in the group stage, a single loss is often devastating to your chances of advancing - means that a lot of teams often play cautiously, especially in their openers, spending a lot of time in the midfield while looking for openings to attack. Serbia and Ghana, meanwhile, were flying up and down the pitch from the word go. It was a great game to watch and would have been even had no one scored. But then Serbia went down to ten men - deservedly - and amazingly the game got even more exciting as they somehow had many of their best chances in the few minutes after the dismissal. Finally a clear handball in the box earned Ghana a penalty, which they converted. This group is clearly Germany's to win, but if Ghana plays like this against Australia in their next match, I expect they'll be advancing as well.

Germany 4-0 Australia

An absolutely brutal result that probably ended Australia's World Cup just as it was beginning. After a 3-1 loss to the US in a friendly last week, Australia insisted they would be ready for this game, but the Germans absolutely throttled them. Maybe Germany is just that good - but even before Australia actually went down to ten men (via a harsh straight red card to Tim Cahill), they already seemed shorthanded. The Australians seemed to be trying to make regular use of the offside trap, but while it worked a few times on young striker Mesut Özil, Miroslav Klose was too experienced to be fooled, scoring one goal and coming up just short of at least two more. (As someone who watched the US in 2006, trust me - the offside trap is just an awful, negative style of defense, and the soccer gods must hate it because it always breaks down at least once.) While the Germans probably won't be quite this dominant throughout, this was an impressive display and at this point I'd be a bit surprised if they didn't take all nine points. Meanwhile, Australia simply have to win their next two games; with their GD already at -4, winning a tiebreaker will be next to impossible. Assuming Germany win out, Australia could advance by beating Ghana and drawing Serbia, but they're in a big hole early and even allowing for Germany being really, really good, the Australia I saw today will be hard-pressed to beat anyone, especially after the display that Ghana and Serbia put on.

With work back on tomorrow, here are the games I expect to be able to watch live this week:

Monday: Netherlands v. Denmark
Tuesday: New Zealand v. Slovakia
Wednesday: Honduras v. Chile
Thursday: Argentina v. South Korea
Friday: Germany v. Serbia; Slovenia v. United States
Saturday: Netherlands v. Japan; Ghana v. Australia; part of Cameroon v. Denmark
Sunday: Slovakia v. Paraguay

Not a ton of winners in there, though I think Netherlands-Denmark should be a good tilt, Argentina-South Korea has real potential, I'm of course looking forward to the US game, and Ghana-Australia could be good if Australia wake up. I will make an effort to "live blog" at least some of these games.

World Cup 2010: Day One

2010-06-11T16:11:00.003-05:00

Because I have a job, watching every game of the World Cup isn't going to be an option this year (as it wasn't in 2006, but could have been in '02 were they not all played overnight). However, I intend to watch as much as I can, which will probably come down to one game a day plus all of the American games, at least during the group stages. For some of the games I might do a live-blog of sorts (it'll post after the game ends, but reactions will be written down live). Anyway, here's what I saw on day one.

South Africa 1-1 Mexico

I actually only was able to catch the first hour or so of the game and so missed Mexico's tying goal in the 79th. I think this is a fair result for both teams; South Africa looked like they had no business being in this tournament for most of the first half, but seemed to put things together a bit after the break, at least enough to generate a few decent chances in addition to their goal, a nice counterattack that came largely against the run of play. Mexico were probably the better side overall but never really seemed that threatening.

I didn't see France-Uruguay but I don't seem to have missed much. Eight years to the day that France were eliminated from the '02 World Cup without having scored a single goal, the two nations played another goalless draw, just as they did five days earlier in that Cup in a game that was probably the least exciting of its tournament.

More detailed posts will come in following days when I get to watch a bit more. I have to go to a wedding this weekend so you'll probably get two posts on Sunday, because I'm sure anyone is reading this.

Marked for Death

2009-12-20T15:08:00.002-06:00

Blame Roman Abramovich. He took over Chelsea in June 2003, and at the end of the 2003-2004 campaign the club found itself in second place in the Premiership. The following year, they won the league. Manchester City's new owners likely had their sights set on this level of improvement when they took over in the summer of 2008 and rather shockingly added Robinho, but the club finished a distant 10th, worse even than the previous season under Sven-Goran Eriksson. This year, following an enormous spending spree on players like Gareth Barry, Carlos Tevez, Kolo Toure and Emmanuel Adebayor, the club sits in 6th, but a string of draws that kept City anchored just outside of the Champions League places likely sealed Mark Hughes' fate.

Of course, everyone seems to forget that in 2002-2003, Chelsea finished fourth. It's not like Abramovich led Fulham to a title in two seasons. For all the lip service that the owners believed in Mark Hughes and believed in City as a project, in the end they were scarcely more patient than Thaksin Shinawatra, who stated before the 2007-08 season that a top-ten finish would please him and then sacked Eriksson for finishing ninth and making Europe (if only via the Fair Play League). Hughes ended up with less than a season and a half, in spite of having City just a few points shy of the top four with a game in hand and into the semifinals of the Carling Cup.

Hughes was also quite popular with many of the players, particularly the British and Irish ones, with Shay Given and Hughes' countryman Craig Bellamy evidently leading a dressing-room revolt when they got the news. At the same time, he may not have been nearly as popular with other players - not least Robinho - and it's entirely possible that the owners felt Hughes simply did not have the stature to attract the major international stars they were hoping to bring to City. Various players linked with moves had laughed them off, some saying that City did not seem a serious club at the moment. Hiring Mancini, a major international manager with massive domestic success in Serie A, was probably seen as a step in that direction; reports of attempts to lure Guus Hiddink or Jose Mourinho fall under the same category.

And they might be right about this. There is little doubt that Hughes is a capable Premiership manager, but City do not wish to be Blackburn. The only British manager who seems to draw major international stars is Alex Ferguson, and even he couldn't hang onto Cristiano Ronaldo. On the other hand, maybe it's just the weather in England; most players, given a choice, seem to prefer Spain or Italy, in spite of the millions on offer in the Premiership.

Ultimately, whether or not this was a good idea will depend on Roberto Mancini (and, to perhaps not much less an extent, on Brian Kidd). If he leads Man City to a Carling Cup title and the top four, it will be a success - maybe Mark Hughes could still have done those things, but their achievement would make most Man City fans forgiving of his ouster. If City fall to United at the next Carling hurdle and end up in the Europa League or, even worse, out of Europe once more, it will have been an unmitigated disaster. Mancini or no, what is really needed to achieve these things is a serious shoring up of the defense, especially with Joleon Lescott now on the sidelines and Kolo Toure reportedly angling to find a way back to Spain. Drumming Richard Dunne out of the club in August is looking dumber by the day.

The best-case scenario is that Mancini can guide City into the top four, and the combination of Champions League football and an international manager will prove sufficiently enticing to the top talent City's owners want to bring into the side. The worst case is that Mancini proves no more successful and City become just another revolving-door for managers and players, with the fans never knowing who's coming and going from one month to the next.

I feel bad for Mark Hughes. Much like with Eriksson, and really with Stuart Pearce before him, I don't think he was fired for reasons that were all down to him. The defense needed strengthening; how much were their struggles really down to Hughes? How much difference will Mancini make without a big January buying spree that could have happened under Hughes anyway? Ultimately, Mancini needs to prove that he can lure international stars. If he's no more successful at that, it's unlikely that this move will make any difference, aside from fracturing the dressing room. And that would really just be a shame.

The 2010 Draw, and Predictions

2009-12-04T15:21:00.003-06:00

Hey, it's only been a year and a half since my last post. But no one reads this for my opinions on Man City and it's only now that we're really approaching 2010 hard-core. So let's do this.

Group A
South Africa
Mexico
Uruguay
France

The official FIFA world rankings only go back to 1993, which means we can only look at the last four World Cups when analyzing this next stat, but barring a miracle leap, South Africa's FIFA ranking will be the lowest ever for a host nation. Even in May 1994 the USA were ranked the #23 team in the world; in May 2002 the Japanese and South Koreans were #32 and #40 respectively. France were 18th in 1998; Germany were 19th in 2006. South Africa? As of November 2009's rankings, they're 86th, just behind Haiti and just ahead of Qatar. They're also 17th in Africa; in qualifying (which they participated in because it doubled as qualifying for the African Cup of Nations), they were eliminated in the second round, losing twice to Nigeria as well as to noted non-power Sierra Leone (currently 141st in the world). Going on results alone, they wouldn't have made this Cup, their third ever, in a million years.

That's the prize that comes with being the host nation, of course, though Mexico, Uruguay and France might argue that they were rewarded instead. Certainly France have to consider themselves one of the luckiest teams in the draw; after making it into the field by the skin of their hands (see what I did there?), Les Bleus have drawn the only weak team from the seed pot and avoided all of their European compatriots.

Mexico and Uruguay are both top 20 teams in the latest rankings, so it's not all fun and games for France, and their recent World Cup history is a bit patchy - a loss at the final hurdle of qualifying to miss the '94 Cup, winners as hosts in '98, a horrible crashout without scoring a single goal in '02, a shocking run to the final game in '06. By that standard we should be due for another poor showing, and their qualifying struggle might indicate as much. Mexico are certainly no pushovers, making the last 16 in each of the last four World Cups (though failing to advance in the knockouts each time), and I like them to get out of the group here. As for who's joining them? Well, South Africa would make history if they became the first host nation not to make it out of the group stages (even if they are almost certainly the weakest host nation in history), and they did seem to acquit themselves at the Confederations Cup. That said, I can't really justify picking them to advance; sooner or later that host streak has to end, and it likely does so here. I'll say France advance, although Uruguay wouldn't surprise me.

Group B
Argentina
Nigeria
South Korea
Greece

Were South Korea not all the way down at #52 in the latest rankings, this might look something like a Group of Death (which would have made it arguably the third Cup in a row in which Argentina ended up there). But they are, and they aren't playing at home, so this doesn't seem like their Cup. No one seems quite sure what to expect out of Nigeria or Greece either, in spite of the latter being ranked 12th. Really, even Argentina are a bit of a mystery given their slog through CONMEBOL qualifying. Aside from Argentina not advancing, little out of this group would surprise me. Nigeria are playing on their home continent, and they made the Olympic finals in 2008 (although, as we all know, not every nation takes those wholly seriously), so I could see them making it out as well.

Group C
England
United States
Algeria
Slovenia

After getting drawn into a Group of Near-Death in 2006, the Americans seem to have lucked out here. England, while #9 in the world, were the lowest ranked of the seeds aside from South Africa. Ghana and Paraguay are the only teams in the CONMEBOL/CAF pot ranked lower than Algeria, and Slovenia are #33 in the world only after a bizarre 16-spot jump following their playoff defeat of Russia. Nevertheless, out of the 13 UEFA teams in the field, they're 12th in the rankings, ahead of only Slovakia (and that by a single point). It's not that these teams are going to be pushovers, but can you imagine if this group were England-USA-Ivory Coast-Portugal instead? That probably would have been the Group of Death.

You have to like the US' chances to advance regardless, simply because this World Cup isn't in Europe. Here's a fun fact: all-time, here are the Americans' records in World Cups hosted in Europe as opposed to those hosted everywhere else:

Europe (1934, 1990, 1998, 2006): 0-1-9, -16 GD
Elsewhere (1930, 1950, 1994, 2002): 6-2-7, -4 GD

So maybe they're not a juggernaut outside of Europe, but I think we can all agree that's a pretty significant difference. Add to that a group that isn't particularly strong, and I have to like the US' chances of advancing. England should also get out of the group barring a surprise.

Group D
Germany
Australia
Serbia
Ghana

Serbia (and Montenegro, at the time) were the surprise of 2006 qualifying, but in the actual tournament they wound up in the Group of Death and failed to pick up a single point. This time things seem a little more open. Ghana and Australia were both darlings of the '06 tournament, making the knockouts, but neither is dominant; Ghana, at #37, is one of the lowest-ranked nations in the field. Germany will almost certainly make it out of this group; beyond that, any of the other three is possible, though I would install Australia as the slight favorite.

Group E
Netherlands
Denmark
Japan
Cameroon

Cameroon became the first African nation to reach the quarterfinals of a World Cup, in 1990, but they've got just one win and no knockout appearances since. They're ranked 11th in the world right now, though, and in a group of only moderate difficulty on "home" soil, expectations will be high. The same can probably be said for the Dutch, #3 in the world and one of only two or three nations with a serious claim to the "best footballing nation never to win a World Cup" mantle. The Danes sit well back at #26, one of UEFA's weaker entrants by ranking, though they were 15th in the world this summer and beat Portugal in Lisbon en route to winning their qualifying group outright. Japan, currently languishing at 43rd in the world, seem unlikely to finish anywhere other than bottom of this group. Cameroon and the Netherlands are my picks to advance.

Group F
Italy
Paraguay
New Zealand
Slovakia

The reigning champs have been handed an almost insultingly easy draw. While Paraguay are making their fourth straight appearance and reached the knockouts in both 1998 and 2002, most of their key qualifying scalps (wins over Brazil and Argentina in particular) came at home. New Zealand might be the weakest team in the field; they're ranked #77, which isn't the outright worst, but when you add to that their play in Oceania, in which most nations are ranked below #150, they don't exactly get tested much. (To be fair, they did have to win a playoff to get here, but it came against Bahrain, hardly a powerhouse.) Only two years ago the Kiwis were ranked #156 themselves. They're a nice story but will almost certainly finish last. Slovakia are dead last among the UEFA teams in FIFA's rankings; the outcome of the group will probably be determined by their game with Paraguay. I like Italy and Paraguay to advance.

Group G
Brazil
North Korea
Ivory Coast
Portugal

If there is to be a Group of Death this year, this is probably it, though the presence of North Korea (at #84, the lowest-ranked team that played their way in) sticks out like a sore thumb. We're surely going to hear all kinds of talk about their shock win over Italy in 1966, and the 3-0 lead they had on Portugal before falling 5-3, but that was 44 years ago. This North Korea will almost certainly get worked like a speedbag by their more talented opponents. Here, too, the outcome of the group will probably come down to one game: Portugal-Ivory Coast. I have high hopes for the entertainment value of that game, though unfortunately the fact that it comes first on Portugal's schedule means that their third game versus Brazil will likely not be as good as it could be. I'll take the two Portuguese-speaking nations to advance here, though Ivory Coast certainly have a shot.

Group H
Spain
Switzerland
Honduras
Chile

Perhaps the most intriguing group. Spain are the best team in the world but have a long history of failure in the World Cup, lining up with the Dutch to lay claim to the "best footballing nation never to win a World Cup" title. While they regularly make the knockouts, only once (1950) have they made it past the quarterfinals. Now they're #1 in the FIFA rankings and the defending European champions; much more will be expected. Winning this group should be no problem; it's second place that will be hotly contested. Switzerland, Honduras and Chile are all relatively unknown teams on the larger world scale, but all might qualify for the title of "feistiest team in the 2010 World Cup." Chile are 17th in the world and Switzerland are 18th; Honduras are a distant 38th but were an exciting side during CONCACAF qualifying. Anyone could come second in this group, but I give the Swiss a slight edge based on their strong showing in 2006 and group win in qualifying thanks to a sweep of Greece (in spite of a somewhat embarrassing home loss to minnows Luxembourg).

Hughes the man

2008-06-07T12:24:00.003-05:00

While I was away on vacation, the Eriksson dismissal became official. Shinawatra said that the second half fall was simply too much for him to take, and while I think that's a bit reactionary - is it really the manager's fault, or was it to a large degree a lack of depth? - I guess he does have a point. Between the critical choke against Fulham and the 8-1 loss at Boro, City suffered the two worst possible ways to lose (a late collapse and a total blowout) down the end of a season in which they were in desperate need of points to stay alive in the European chase.

I still wouldn't have fired Eriksson, but you could certainly do worse as a replacement than Mark Hughes, who made Blackburn a fairly legitimate team (and one with which City routinely had trouble) in the last few years, including taking them to the UEFA Cup a couple of times, a task he's now handed with City. I'll also be interested to see what players are coming in - the rumors have Thaksin extremely interested in making Eastlands into Brazil North, but I'm not sure whether Ronaldinho is really the kind of player who'd fit in at City, having spent the last year or so looking fairly undisciplined and out of form at Barcelona. Jo, maybe more so. Something about Man City the last few years has sapped the life out of every striker they've brought in (even though the midfield has seemed talented), with the possible exception of Martin Petrov. Jo has been linked to Arsenal and AC Milan in the past, so, you know, he might actually be good. Of course, you never know what to expect from players playing in England for the first time, but at least Jo has been playing in Russia, where the weather is worse if anything.

One thing I do wonder about Hughes - his name has been mentioned as the leading favorite to replace Sir Alex Ferguson when the latter retires from United, something which could happen in the next few years or even sooner. What happens if United win the league again next year and Ferguson decides to walk away - and United approach Hughes? Four managers in four years for City? Not exactly the way to establish your club as a perennial top-six challenger.

Is Sven-Goran Eriksson now trying to get fired?

2008-05-23T13:06:00.003-05:00

The talk out of Eastlands for a good two months now (at least) has been that Sven-Goran Eriksson, after just one season in charge of Manchester City, was on the way out because of dissatisfaction from Thaksin Shinawatra - or "George Thai-nbrenner," as I have taken to nicknaming him - over the club's results in the second half of the season. However, in spite of an 8-1 drubbing at Middlesbrough on the final match day and a subsequent pair of 3-1 losses to Asian all-star teams, the sword of Damocles is still hanging by its hair above Eriksson's head. No doubt a bid to the UEFA Cup, however completely unexpected and only barely earned on actual competitive merit, has given Shinawatra some pause, and Eriksson's comments to the press have largely avoided speculation, as he talks mostly about the future of the club but in such a way that it can't really be determined from his chosen words whether he's including himself in that future. Not bad considering English isn't even close to his first language.

Here's the question, though: if you were Sven-Goran Eriksson, would you want to get fired?

The initial talk was that Eriksson would be pressured to resign. But why should he resign? He did the job he was asked to do - getting the club into the top ten in his first season - and obviously he's not going to walk away from that kind of money. If Shinawatra wants him out that badly, he's going to have to eat Sven's contract for the last two years. And in the end, it could indeed be this that stays his hand; could he really want Sven gone so badly that he would just write off millions of pounds?

But then, if you're Sven, do you want to go through two more years of this? If doing exactly what the owner asked for in his first season got Eriksson buried by rumors that he hadn't done enough and was about to be sacked, what's going to happen next year if he doesn't get City into the top six? (And with a UEFA Cup bid already in the offing this season, who's to say Thaksin's eyes don't widen to dinner plates again if City start 2008-09 in the top four just as they did 2007-08?) What about in 2009-10, when Eriksson is being asked - no pressure! - to guide City into the top four, a position only occasionally reached by clubs other than Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal in the history of the Premiership?

The problem, as I see it, is that in stepping in with a lot of money, Shinawatra has determined that he should be getting for his cash whatever he wants to get for it. The time frame for moving into the top four is almost embarrassingly ambitious, and in threatening to sack Eriksson so quickly, Thaksin has displayed an extremely short-sighted approach to his ownership. In various interviews with the official club podcast, Thaksin had stated on multiple occasions that the top ten was the plan for 2007-08, and appeared to acknowledge that the club's late-season struggles were due in part to injuries and a general lack of depth which, he suggested, would be remedied over the summer. Now it just seems like he was lying through his teeth. The depth issue may still be remedied, but the very act of acknowledging it tells you that Eriksson does not seem to blame for the post-New Year's dip in form. More than likely, Shinawatra just got greedy, eyeing that early-season splash and assuming that things could stay that way all season without fail.

City have dropped two 3-1 defeats to Asian all-star sides you'd think a Premier League club could have defeated, but you have to consider the sides City put out - in the second game, agains the South China Invitational XI, Eriksson started just four players who had featured regularly all year in Darius Vassell, Martin Petrov, Geovanni, and Javier Garrido. Meanwhile, five players from the City youth squad saw significant time, and the second-half struggles were in front of a fourth-string goaltender whose name I'd never even read before. This is the time at which you have to wonder whether Eriksson was using meaningless friendlies to see what he could get out of reserves and Academy players, or whether he was conspicuously starting subpar sides while right under Shinawatra's nose in the hope of forcing the chairman to swing the axe. The rumors have been swirling that Sven has already signed a provisional deal with Benfica to become their manager as soon as he is fired by City; other rumors had the Mexican national team extending him an offer to be their coach. The mere fact that one of the biggest and most successful European clubs has been so desperate to bring Eriksson in (and a fairly prominent international team as well) should suggest to Thaksin that just maybe he really does have a good manager on his hands after all. But after having done all he can to alienate Eriksson, it may just be that Shinawatra will have to give him the boot, lest the Swede maintain the recent form where both he and the players have started to seem like they'd rather be anywhere but Manchester City.

Sven... and now?

2008-05-05T19:53:00.002-05:00

Given the recent history of Manchester City, a guaranteed top-ten finish with three games to go - to say nothing of a derby double over United - would have endeared any manager to the City faithful. But Sven-Goran Eriksson also brought an eye for talent and a stylistic flair not seen at City for some time, winning him legions of fans - most crucially club owner Thaksin Shinawatra. Thaksin declared his admiration for Sven in an interview with the club's official podcast in late October, saying City were "lucky" to have him as manager, and in another interview in mid-February told of his affinity for Eriksson's coaching style. There were, at the time, virtually no hints of the soap opera to come - in which rumors poured out of Eastlands that Sven was going to be asked to resign at season's end, and that he would likely be fired outright if he didn't.

To be sure, City limped down the stretch after spending much of the year in the European places. And Sven's biggest-money buy of the summer, Rolando Bianchi, was back in Italy within six months. But the majority of Sven's buys did catch on, and the squad was bitten by the injury bug a few times, most critically losing defensive superstar Micah Richards for much of the season's second half. Above all, it was a five-place improvement over City's 14th-place finish in 2006-07, and those Blues scored an embarrassing 29 goals all season, to this year's 44 - still not a lot in 37 games so far, but a marked improvement. City will also finish with more wins than losses this year no matter what happens in match #38 against Boro this Sunday at the Riverside, and with 15 wins so far they've already won as many contests this year as in any since returning to the top flight in 2002-03, and a win against Boro would be the most. By all normal City standards, it's been a pretty successful year, and one that lived up to Thaksin Shinawatra's stated preseason goal of a top ten finish.

But despite living up to that goal, the rumors have been persistent that Eriksson is on the way out. The manager himself has mostly refused to address the rumors directly, but as he repeatedly thanks the fans for the support they have shown him, he sounds like a man satisfied that his days are numbered but not entirely sure why. In his interview on the most recent club podcast, Sven sounded weary, tired of addressing the rumors but unable to deny them. His agent has stated that Sven does not plan to resign but at the same time that he does not expect Sven to be with the club next season; the players have united behind Sven, to the extent of apparently planning to boycott a preseason Thailand tour (which Sven reportedly talked them out of doing), but it's not clear if this is having any effect. One thing is for sure - there's only one man whose opinion counts, and he certainly seems to have his mind made up.

The question is: why?

1. City's sliding finish - a 5-4-8 record since the New Year (after a 10-6-4 fall) - led Shinawatra to believe that Sven couldn't effectively manage a team for a full season.

If he really believes this, he should just sell the team right now, because it suggests to me that he knows nothing about football. True, City were maddeningly inconsistent in 2008 - they beat Man U (at Old Trafford!), Spurs and Pompey, but they lost a heartbreaker-cum-choke job to Fulham in the final home game, lost to then-rivals Everton twice in the span of six weeks, lost 3-1 and 2-0 to relegation strugglers Birmingham and Reading, and slogged through frustrating draws with Wigan, Bolton, West Ham, and Derby, only the worst team in Premiership history. But while football is a results-oriented business, you have to consider that Micah Richards missed the last two months, and furthermore that several regulars in the City side have been playing their first season in the Premiership, possibly the toughest league in the world. Other teams may have made adjustments to players like Elano, Geovanni and Martin Petrov; some of them may have tired out a bit over the rough schedule in a way they might not do in future years with a season or more under their belt.

Try looking at it this way - suppose City started 5-4-8, then finished with a 10-6-4 run down the stretch. Eriksson would be lauded for having gotten the team to play together effectively, and it's highly unlikely that there'd be any calls for his head from the top. The inability to build momentum was a problem, but there are any number of possible reasons for it, many of which have nothing to do with Sven.

2. Shinawatra found a bigger manager on offer.

Who else is out there? Big Phil Scolari is the only name I've heard seriously mentioned who seems like a theoretical "upgrade," except that Scolari has said in the past that he'd never want to live in England, and he doesn't have the European club experience that Sven does. Mourinho isn't coming to City, I don't care how much money you throw at him, and furthermore Chelsea's Champions League breakthrough under Grant proves that Mourinho isn't the King Midas everyone thought anyway.

3. Shinawatra feels jealous of the loyalty to Sven exhibited by the fans.

This would just be ridiculous and beyond petty, so I hope it's not true. But in that same mid-February interview, Thaksin said "I want [the fans] to love me." And they may, but you know who they love more right now? Sven-Goran Eriksson. You fire Sven and you are absolutely King Asshole. But if anything, it's possible that the fan outcry has only hardened Thaksin's resolve - sure, he's going to be unpopular at first if he fires Sven, but ultimately, he's the one with the money. And if his next coach does take City to silverware, Thaksin's going to be able to take a lot of the credit (although the coach is going to get a lot of it too). And then the fans definitely will love him. But that's quite a calculated risk, and again, being jealous of Sven would just be childish.

Are there any other possibilities? I just don't get it. Everyone wants Sven to stay. He's under contract. There's only one game left; after that, it's in Thaksin's hands. If he cares about this team and not his own ego, at all, he'll make the right choice. But I think we're all pretty afraid he just doesn't have that in him.

Blue moon, you saw me standing alone in first place

2007-08-21T22:54:00.000-05:00

It's way, way too early to get too excited - especially with the wins coming over a newly-promoted Derby, a nearly-relegated West Ham, and a United team that was merely missing its two best players. But nine points from three games - and no goals allowed yet - is a pretty exciting start to the season, especially leaving City as it does alone in first, two points clear of Chelsea. The new players seem to be fitting together pretty well, and Schmeichel is performing capably, though of course the real star is Micah Richards, as anyone could have predicted.

The next three games will tell the story: at Arsenal, at Bristol City in the Carling Cup, at Blackburn. City rarely beat Arsenal, never beat Blackburn, and have struggled in the Carling recently, bowing out to much lesser opposition than Bristol, a Championship team, in each of the last two seasons. If City can get through September with no more than one loss - and the post-Blackburn games are Aston Villa, at Fulham, and Newcastle, so the possibility exists - then I may start getting very excited. For now it's just nice to see a fast start - of course, 2005/06 started similarly - D-W-W-W-D, the last draw an inspiring hold at Old Trafford - and then collapsed following the debacle at Doncaster. Fingers crossed that Sven doesn't repeat the same freefall to 15th in the table that that team had. (I'm guessing not, if only because of the available funds that didn't exist in 2005.)

A whole new ball game

2007-08-13T19:01:00.000-05:00

West Ham 0-2 Man City

I didn't see the game and I haven't gotten to see the highlights either, on account of the MCFCTV.com site being down for a month while it updates something or other. I did read the recap, though, the prevailing theme of which appears to be this:

"Man City looked pretty good for a team that has only just come together, but it might just have been that West Ham were terrible."

Looking at the box score was strange; it's almost like I pull for a totally different club now. Just five starters on Saturday saw any time for City last year - Dunne, Johnson, Hamann, Ireland, and Richards - and only two more on the bench (including reserve keeper Joe Hart, who got fully one start last year). Both goals were scored by new boys.

I'm still not sure what to make of it. It's one thing to have your club sign a couple new players, but we're talking a very significant overhaul, and the removal or displacement of a lot of names I knew - Vassell and Samaras, for instance, or recent departures like Sylvain Distin - has made it almost difficult to recognize the club as City. (The irony of a fairly recent fan saying this is palpable, I'm sure, but I feel it nonetheless.) It's kind of stupid, of course, because last year's side was almost unendingly pathetic, scoring just ten goals at home and relying on its defense to stay out of the Championship. The year before that, while it started promising, finished no better. So surely it's not that I'm nostalgic. Maybe I'm just baffled at seeing a team I like actually go for it - it's almost like the Cubs this year, though they're easier to recognize because I already knew who Alfonso Soriano and Ted Lilly were, and also because the turnover was not nearly as thorough. I'll watch as many games this year as I reasonably can, and the highlights when available, and get to know this new side, and hopefully things will progress towards Europe over the next couple seasons as Shinawatra's goal is stated. But for now... it's still going to take some getting used to.

It's back

2007-07-22T15:33:00.001-05:00

Due to Man City's impossibly lackluster finish to the 2006-2007 campaign, I pretty much lost interest in posting about soccer for a while, but with the 2007-2008 season just a couple weeks from beginning, this is as good a time as any to get back into the swing of things.

I liked Stuart Pearce, so it was tough to see him go, but after two successive finishes in the bottom half of the table, and ten home goals this past year (a record low), I don't see how anyone could have been surprised. I don't know that it was all Pearce's fault - he wasn't given much money to work with, and every striker he brought in was just too inconsistent, with Samaras and Vassell having difficulty displaying their class on a match-to-match basis and Corradi struggling mightily in his first English season.

Barton was the best player on the team - at least among those who don't play on the back line (Micah Richards) - so it was a shame to see him go. But then again, it really, really wasn't. You just can't keep guys like that around. I'm not ashamed to admit that I read about his injury today and had a bit of schadenfreude about it. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy, right?

Opinion is hugely split on the whole Shinawatra/Eriksson thing. I'm not so far terribly concerned about the owner - the charges against him have been levied by the coup that overthrew him, which doesn't exactly seem the most reputable source ever - but of course I think everyone is given a bit of pause by Eriksson, considering how his time with England ended. The optimists point to his strong club record; the pessimists point to England and the fact that his club successes mostly came in Italy. Of course, it's hard to say how much of England was Sven's fault; it seemed like he delegated a lot of the job to McLaren, which is another issue entirely, but certainly under McLaren's full-time stewardship England haven't done much so far (albeit with few chances to). You could also argue that the failure of the team to win came in part from the difficulty in assembling so many stars - I don't think even Brazil and Argentina had their sides stocked with so many world-famous players. When you have a team on which almost no one is used to being a role player - even the guys playing what are normally role-player positions - it may be hard to adjust, especially when clubs are complaining more than ever about players putting time in for their national teams. Eriksson didn't seem great about second-half adjustments, true, but look - England can't win the World Cup every year. This generation is talented, but their failure to win cannot be laid entirely at Eriksson's feet. And the fake sheik scandal notwithstanding, I think the charges that he somehow charmed Shinawatra into giving him the job are probably more than a bit overblown. Eriksson's a big name, like it or not; Shinawatra wanted to make a splash, and who else was out there?

Whether Rolando Bianchi is the striking savior of this club, I don't know; England is not Italy. It's not Sweden, either, where Bianchi has impressed with three goals in two games on City's preseason tour. But having another Italian around seems to have perked up Corradi, and that's a start. Man City have a long and sordid history of playing down to the level of their opponents, but in three preseason games so far against generally lesser opposition, they have three fairly comfortable wins. I'd call that progress.

Bring on West Ham.

A tale of two Citys

2007-03-10T18:02:00.000-06:00

For the second year in a row, Manchester City has been doing something rather odd - progressing to the quarterfinal round of the FA Cup (last year's appearance their first in something like two decades) while absolutely tanking in the league. The EPL season hasn't been kind to City - they've crawled no higher than ninth, currently sit just six points clear of the relegation zone, and have lost the ability even to win games at home. Since the conclusion of their surprising post-Christmas three-game winning streak, which concluded with a 2-1 win over Everton on New Year's Day, City are 0-1-4 in the league and have scored just a single goal. In the same period they're 3-1-0 in FA Cup games, although it probably bears mentioning that all three games have come against Championship opposition. City's opponent tomorrow is Blackburn, a club that City have already lost to twice this year by a combined 7-2 scoreline. In fact, boding particularly well for this tie, City last beat Blackburn on August 25, 2003, long enough ago that the winning goal was scored by Nicolas Anelka, who hasn't donned the City shirt since I started following the club, but whose goalscoring prowess certainly appears sorely missed.

With just ten games left in the season and staying up no longer the certainty it once was, perhaps it would be best if City lost to Blackburn on Sunday, which history seems to dictate they will anyway. Inability to finish has been the thorn in City's side all season, and putting all their eggs in Mido's basket only to see Spurs hold onto him at the eleventh hour of the transfer window means that the only candidate to save the season, aside from someone like Vassell or Samaras going on a seemingly unlikely tear, is Emile Mpenza, a Belgian striker whose highest all-competitions scoring total in the past six seasons is six goals in 2002-03. You will forgive my skepticism.

The point is that the FA Cup may well be a distraction. City's fortunes during last year's FA Cup run were decidedly better - four wins and five losses in nine games may not be anything to write home about, but it's certainly better than a draw and four losses in five. It's a bit suspicious on the heels of a three-game win streak. Maybe all the time off in February contributed to the sluggishness in the Wigan loss, but how do you explain 3-0 to Blackburn? (Other than the obvious fact that City can't beat Blackburn.)

There are some big games coming up. City still must host Chelsea, United and Liverpool, and there is probably no game in the remaining ten more important than April 6 when Charlton come to Eastlands. If City are still holding on by only a couple wins at that point, points will be absolutely paramount (as though they weren't already). But who's going to score? Joey Barton leads the team with five league goals but hasn't scored in the Premiership since December 17. Samaras has four goals but they've come in just two games. Vassell has found the net in the Cup, but not since November - and just once total - in the league.

It's dire. City seem to look worse with every league game, and as they've plummeted to 17th it's brought relegation worries to the front of my mind. One of the many reasons I chose to follow City was I didn't think they had much danger of being relegated, since they were a Robbie Fowler penalty miss out of Europe in 2005 when I picked them up. In 2006 they started hot and then faded to 16th; this year has been even worse. They're just 2-1-1 so far against the three teams currently occupying the relegation zone; if that number doesn't improve to 4-1-1 between now and the end of the year, things could get a lot worse.

So do I want City to advance in the FA Cup? Well, of course. It would be nice to see them exorcise the Blackburn demons, for one thing. But if they can't figure it out in the league, would it even matter? Has a Premiership team ever won the FA Cup and been relegated in the same year? I'm confident that City have talent so I don't know why it struggles so much to show itself - but if there was ever a time where they really, really needed to do that, it's now.

Sore perdedores

2007-02-08T14:40:00.000-06:00

It has gotten to the point - certainly on US soil, but let's not forget the round of 16 in 2002, either - where it's not a US-Mexico soccer game unless it ends with the US winning and Mexico playing the part of the whiny, sore losers. This came to a particular head under Ricardo La Volpe, who derided the US in 2005 as having played like various female members of his family - this after a game in which the US won 2-0 and clinched a spot in Germany. The Americans took a beating after their "early" exit in '06 - partly deserved, partly gleeful kick-'em-when-they're-down mentality on the part of the foreign press and fans. But while the US were wholly outclassed by the Czech Republic, they were the only team in the tournament not to lose to Italy despite two red cards, at least one of which was pretty questionable (and if not for Brian McBride being in the wrong place at the wrong time, things might have been different), and at least part of the problem with the Ghana game was that the team already had one foot on the plane (which is certainly their own problem, but understandable in its way given how draining the Italy game must have been). None of this should really have changed the fact that the US has become, at worst, a top two team in CONCACAF; excepting the usually competitive Costa Rica and an occasional streaky outlier, the US/Mexico pairing is turning into CONCACAF's Old Firm, and with all the attendant venom.

This time it was another 2-0 win for the US and another series of complaints from Mexico about the US's tactics - never mind how well those tactics may have worked. Mexico dominated possession but couldn't put the ball in the net; the US scored twice with the relatively few chances they carved out. Arrogant soccer teams that fail to finish while dominating possession rarely place blame on themselves or give credit to the opposing defense; they usually suggest that the other team was "lucky" to win. And guess what?

"The result was unjust." The words of coach Hugo Sanchez. "This is a unique game in that you can deserve to win and still lose. We deserved to win and they did not."

So, Hugo, can you explain why you deserved to win? Was it your shots that did not go in or were saved? Your attacks that were snuffed out by the aggressive US defense? The two goals you couldn't keep out of your net? Surely you don't think Mexico should have won solely because they held the ball more.

The US's style involves counterattacking and defense. Is it something that bothers me a bit? Yes, because it gets exposed by some teams (the Czechs, for example) and makes it hard to come back from a deficit. But for some reason the Mexicans seem to feel that this style of play is dishonorable. Never mind that it's a style that has kept Mexico from scoring on US soil since 2000. Never mind that Mexico has seen this style over and over again in that time and yet has never managed to find a way to beat it outside of the huge home field advantage of Azteca. Even with a largely pro-Mexican crowd on hand in Glendale, Mexico couldn't find a way to win.

If Mexico is such a better team than the US - as the Mexican team and most or all of their increasingly obnoxious fans seem to believe - don't you think they could have won one game in the US since 2000? One out of eight? Instead, it's 7-0-1 to the US, and the losing streak appears to bother Mexico so much that they stomped off the field without shaking hands or exchanging jerseys after this game, like little, petulant children.

That's what this team is. A group of spoiled brats who can't believe they can't beat a team they consider inferior. Maybe it's time for Mexico to think about the new order of CONCACAF and realize they can't just coast on their superior talent pool anymore. If they want to be top of the heap, they're going to have to work a lot harder. But in the meantime, maybe they should close their mouths for a minute and check the scoreboard.

USA 2, Mexico 0. Again.

Whatford?

2006-12-05T22:40:00.000-06:00

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

2006-11-29T20:14:00.000-06:00

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.

2006-09-26T21:33:00.000-05:00

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

2006-09-21T23:19:00.000-05:00

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

2006-09-18T23:51:00.000-05:00

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"

2006-09-11T15:22:00.000-05:00

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

2006-08-31T10:26:00.000-05:00

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

2006-07-11T15:14:00.000-05:00

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

2006-07-09T16:00:00.000-05:00

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

2006-07-01T16:19:00.000-05:00

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

2006-06-27T23:06:00.000-05:00

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

2006-06-25T18:08:00.000-05:00

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

2006-06-22T13:20:00.000-05:00

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

2006-06-21T22:21:00.000-05:00

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

2006-06-20T23:11:00.000-05:00

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

2006-06-19T23:03:00.001-05:00

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

2006-06-18T18:40:00.000-05:00

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.

2006-06-17T16:04:00.000-05:00

"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

2006-06-16T22:40:00.000-05:00

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

2006-06-15T22:09:00.000-05:00

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

2006-06-14T23:41:00.000-05:00

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

2006-06-13T23:38:00.000-05:00

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.

Czeching out

2006-06-12T12:57:00.000-05:00

"We're still a fraud."
-- Casey Stengel, after the Mets lost 7-0 to St. Louis to open the 1963 season

I can barely believe I just watched that. It's one thing for the U.S. to lose - we were playing the #2 team in the world, after all, even if some pundits feel that ranking (like ours) is a tad high, and we have, historically, not fared well in Europe (0-7 all-time in the World Cup there - 0-3 in 1990 and 1998, and 0-1 in 1934) - but to lose badly, and to look just awful in doing so... that is what really baffles me. Wasn't this the best U.S. team ever? Hadn't we improved? Sure, we could have played well and still lost to a team this good - but not 3-0. And we did not play well.

So what went wrong? Let's see just how many items we'd get if we made a list:

1. The Czechs were stronger. The size advantage may have been minimal outside of Jan Koller, but the Czechs won a ton of 50/50 balls and frequently stood up American runs.

2. The Czechs were faster. See Rosicky's second goal for about all the proof you need on this one. The Americans just looked tired and slow and were frequently caught flat-footed on both offense and, more problematically, defense.

3. Minimal aggressiveness from the Americans. The U.S. man of the match has to be Eddie Johnson, about the only guy who seriously threatened Petr Cech aside from Claudio Reyna's post action and an actual invigorating presence. Too bad he couldn't invigorate more than one or two of his teammates. As Marcelo Balboa noted midway through the second half, the Americans were mostly "standing around waiting for the ball to come to them." If they had been playing for a 0-0 draw maybe this would have been an acceptable tactic, but they were already down 2-0 at this point.

4. Horrible ball control. The U.S. actually won time of possession 52-48, which proves nothing except that there is no more overrated stat in sports with the exception of the hold in baseball. I've often come away from U.S. games feeling underwhelmed by the quality of their touches, but this took the cake. For every decent pass, there were five that missed their target terribly; at least one of every two balls played to the feet of an American either bounced up or away from them, enabling the Czech defense to catch up on the rare occasions they were behind or just generally letting the opportunity get squandered. This might as well have been the team of college kids who lost 5-1 to Czechoslovakia in 1990.

5. Weak crosses. It seemed like 75% of the American crosses, especially Convey's, were way too low and easily deflected by Czech heads. It also didn't help that the Czechs were winning most of the header battles, but even when the Americans were around the box, they just couldn't get decent service inside it. Speaking of which:

6. Little to no adjustment as the game went on. Because of the poor service, McBride was a complete non-factor; he thrives when his teammates are getting him the ball for headers and finishes, but when nothing's coming his way he's a ghost. Either Arena needed to tell his guys they had to have better service, or he should have pulled McBride for Wolff much, much earlier.

7. Poor defensive marking. Who the hell was supposed to be on Koller when he scored? I realize he's big, but shouldn't someone have been in front of him? The Americans also played with fire with the offsides trap; it's nice and all, but how about just defending? The offsides trap is the mark of a team that knows it can't stop its opponent on its own; it's the sort of thing you see when some Conference team plays Man U in the FA Cup. The reliance on the trap led to the third Czech goal, as noted above; Rosicky timed it perfectly, outhustled the last defender, and there was no one else to stop him. Meanwhile, the Czechs seemed to have eight guys in the box every time the Americans came down.

8. Zero team chemistry. Arena's been deified for making U.S. Soccer respectable for the first time in 75 years, but it's time someone other than DaMarcus Beasley called him out for the questionable practice of keeping his lineups secret from everyone - including his players - and not playing the same starting 11 together for nearly long enough during qualifying. A lot of problems 3, 4, 6, and 7 came from the fact that this team hasn't played together enough and just doesn't look comfortable; it's like playing an MLS All-Star team against Chelsea. I have to believe that the Americans have more inherent talent than they showed, but when you just don't know how your teammates like to play the game, it's tough to get in sync, especially in the first game and especially against an opponent this strong. That's why it looked like so many passes weren't working, that's why the Americans looked so tentative on offense for much of the game, and that's why the defense looked so muddled. You have to know where your teammates are going to be, and if you don't play with them, you aren't going to. I know it's hard to get this kind of chemistry on a national team, since guys are off with their clubs for most of the year, but every soccer power seems to manage it somehow. (Possible exception: England, who always seem to try coasting on their talent. Then again, they also have a knack for failing to come through in big games, and I doubt that's entirely coincidental.)

Can the U.S. still go through to the second round? Sure - they haven't been mathematically eliminated, and wins over Italy and Ghana would all but punch the ticket. But if you think the team we saw today has any chance of beating Italy... well, you can pretty much forget that. Heck, they might not even be able to beat Ghana. Major adjustments are necessary - and Arena needs to decide on a lineup now and let them play together for the next four days. I know his theory about not letting the other team know who or what to prepare for... but a fat lot of good that did them today. Arena dubbed his team a "sleeping giant" before the Czech game; maybe if the right things are done before Saturday, the U.S. will show up for their next two games without looking like they've still got their pajamas on.

World Cup Day Three

2006-06-11T21:09:00.000-05:00

You always hear about the Dutch being a very technical team, "Total Football" and all that, but until you've actually seen the Clockwork Orange play, you can't even imagine just how astonishing it is to see them. I've never seen such a well-executed passing game in my life - ball after ball after ball went exactly where it was aimed at the exact speed necessary. They say "the best defense is a good offense" and that's never been more true than here; Serbia and Montenegro didn't have a lot of chances, mostly because they couldn't pry the ball away from the Dutch passing clinic. Arjen Robben's goal came off a great feed, and he had at least three more excellent chances; he was the man of the match in no uncertain terms. Van Nistelrooy did pretty much nothing, but then he never really had to. After seeing this game I'd say the Dutch are now the #4 team I'm pulling for, behind the US, England, and Australia. How can you not root for a style that gorgeous?

Mexico vs. Iran: I did not attend this concert. Drew and I started playing the US team in CONCACAF qualifying in the FIFA World Cup video game instead.

I was hoping Angola could pull a 2002 Senegal and stick it to their former colonial overlords, but no such luck, although Angola seemed to control a lot of the second half and might have at least gotten a point had they been a little more talented. As it was, Pauleta scored for Portugal in the fourth minute and that managed to hold up. Not as exciting a "watch the favorite hold a 1-0 lead" game as the Netherlands/Serbia game had been, sadly, but at least Angola threatened for a while. I'm not sure if the game says more about Portugal or Angola, though. You have to think that Group D is Mexico and Portugal at this point. Which is really what everyone has been predicting from minute one, because holy crap that's the easiest group out there and it annoys me to no end that Mexico got it when they didn't even deserve to be seeded.

Okay, I'm done. US-Czechs tomorrow - I plan on a long lunch.

World Cup Day Two

2006-06-10T23:59:00.000-05:00

Didn't get to watch anything on Day One because of work, but I don't care much about Group A (although Ecuador is poised to be a surprise advancer). Today was when things kicked in. Unfortunately, I woke up five minutes too late to see England's goal and was simply too tired to stay awake past halftime; I ended up not missing anything. I also didn't miss anything scoring-wise in the Sweden/T&T game which I totally slept through, even if Shaka Hislop turned in what may end up being the game of the tournament for any keeper.

I did get to watch Argentina vs. Ivory Coast, the first game in the Group of Death. Pretty exciting, wide-open game, mostly because neither team wanted to pressure the ball, like, at all. So it pretty much became a game of "which team is better at passing" and I think the answer is unequivocally "Argentina." Argentina's goals were helped greatly by the refusal of the Coast defense to swarm; by comparison, Didier Drogba was more or less mauled whenever he got near the ball, and it's a testament to his talent that he was able to score at all. Many of his teammates seemed to be waiting around for him to do something, to the point that he started dropping back into the midfield in the second half just to get more involved. When he did score, in the 82nd minute, the entire team proceeded to go into a shell, as if they were content to settle for a loss as long as the goal differential was only going to be -1. I know this is the Coast's first Finals, but I didn't expect a team whose advancement could continue the cease-fire in the national civil war to look so apathetic after pulling within striking distance of a draw. But maybe they were just tired at that point.

It's hard to say that Argentina looked great, at least on defense - despite how frequently in disarray the Ivory Coast seemed to be, they still were able to get a number of opportunities, although more so in the first half. And the goals, while nice, were helped by Coast defensive mistakes that a better team might not have made. That said, Argentina did what they needed to do. They still have to play the highest-rated team in the group, though, and the stingy S&M defense, so let's not punch their ticket to the knockout stages just yet.

An observation on watching soccer on American TV: 95% of US announcers come in two varieties: the ones who know nothing about soccer, and the ones who assume the viewer knows nothing about soccer. Shep Messing, serving as color man, kept saying stuff like "For our new viewers..." and then explaining the offsides rule. I understand that some people might be watching the World Cup who are less familiar with soccer, but I mean, I'd hope anyone who's bothering to sit down and watch a soccer game can figure out what offsides is.

But maybe I'm just too sensitive, being much more aware of and into soccer than the average American. In that case, I feel more justified being aggravated by Glenn Davis' play-by-play. It's not that Davis didn't know how soccer worked or anything, but he seemed out of his depth somehow. Maybe it was the spoonerisms ("he's bought the breast energy out of the second-half substitutes") or the fuzzy math ("this game has turned 360 degrees!") or not knowing that the stat he was reciting about the US playing in its fourth consecutive World Cup was wrong.

At any rate, I was unimpressed by the commentary for Argentina-Ivory Coast. We'll see if it's better with other commentary teams. At least this time out it looks like they're doing all the games on-site; in '02 there was one live team and everyone else was looking at a monitor in a studio.

World Cup Preview

2006-06-07T23:17:00.000-05:00

I thought about doing an entire preview in this section - by which I mean predicting the outcome of not just every group (as I really already did) but every single game - and then I realized that there was (a) no way I'd be right and (b) no way I wanted to spend all that time for something that was never going to be right. So instead, here are a few random predictions slash total guesses:

Winner: Brazil. I'm pretty tired of Brazil at this point, as they've appeared in every final since I was old enough to follow the WC and won two of them, but who else do you put here? Tommy Smyth appeared on Pardon the Interruption today and said he thought Brazil could be beaten because they don't have enough defense. And sure, Brazil doesn't have the world's greatest defense, but aside from 1994, when have they ever? Sure didn't seem to stop them in 2002, did it? The one thing that might concern me is that their group looks pretty easy, with neophytes Australia and a Japanese team in disarray, and they won't be tested enough. But that won't really stop them, will it? On the other hand, they could potentially face Italy or the Czechs in the first knockout stage, both of which teams could pose real problems for them. So we'll see.

Runners-up: Assume the Czechs are healthy enough to win Group E. They could potentially have only Croatia and France standing between themselves and a semifinal berth. On the other hand, once they get there it could mean a date with Argentina or the Dutch, both teams that are good enough to beat the Czechs. And the injury woes have to worry you a bit. We did see what a big-time goalie can do for even a sometimes spotty offensive team in 2002, though - Oliver Kahn's hands (and one of Torsten Frings') pretty much singlehandedly took Germany to the finals - and Peter Cech is about as good as anyone showing up.

The big early crash-out: There's always at least one. Argentina and France, along with Portugal, fit the bill in 2002. I'm not sure there will be as many this year, but one of Argentina and Holland could find themselves in that spot this year, as Ivory Coast can be scary and Serbia have a strong defense. I don't see any other obvious victims unless Ghana gets hot and pushes out one of the highly-ranked Group E sides. At a guess... I still think there's a chance Italy could find themselves surprised. They're notorious for being slow starters in the tournament and if Ghana can stun them, or even just draw, in the opener, suddenly the next two games - against top six ranked teams - become all but must-wins.

Shock of the tournament: Maybe it's foolish optimism, but I still think the US can come out of Group E (more likely at Italy's expense than the Czechs), which seems like it would be a shock to most people. Paraguay over England in the Group B opener would be pretty surprising. Iran could come out of Group D in second if Portugal matches their historical underachievement. Togo or Angola winning would be big, especially if either shocks their former colonial oppressors - gotta love the fate that drew them in the right groups, just like Senegal pulling (and shocking) France in '02. I'd like to see the Angola/Portugal upset myself, even if Angola is probably the weakest team in the field.

Games I Most Want to See

1. USA vs. Czech Republic
2. USA vs. Italy
3. USA vs. Ghana
4. England vs. Sweden
5. Argentina vs. Netherlands
6. England vs. Paraguay
7. Italy vs. Czech Republic
8. Netherlands vs. Ivory Coast
9. France vs. Switzerland
10. Spain vs. Ukraine

Game I Least Want to See

Mexico vs. Iran. I think they're showing a Nebraska-Notre Dame football game on ESPN Classic at the same time. Can I just root for the stadium to spontaneously implode mid-game?

Oddsmakers and ends

2006-06-04T01:13:00.000-05:00

Part of the current line on the World Cup, apparently:

Brazil (2-1), Germany (7-1), England (8-1), Argentina (9-1), Italy (9-1), Netherlands (14-1), France (14-1), Spain (16-1), Portugal (20-1), Czech Republic (30-1), Sweden (30-1), Mexico (40-1), Ukraine (50-1), Croatia (50-1) and the USA (80-1).

Anti-US bias? I'll grant that the US is in a much harder group than Mexico, but considering that over the past few years, the only place Mexico has been able to beat the US is at altitude in Smog City, should their odds really be twice as good? And Portugal's four times as good when that country hasn't gotten out of the first round since 1966? (Again, might be the easier group. And since the US will be stuck facing Brazil even if they do advance - unless they can somehow win the group - you can see why the odds are so low.)

Germany at 7-1 is kind of surprising. I know they're the hosts, but it seemed like the general consensus has been that that team ain't so great right now.

Games start Friday! I'm pumped up, although it's a bit disappointing that I may only get to see the Italy game live of the US's three in group play. But just like in 2002, I'll try to watch all that I can of every nation, even if most of those will be on TiVo. (I probably won't be able to avoid the US results for the Czech game, so I may just keep it on Gamecast at work, but I'd like to watch as many games as possible without knowing the end... it gets really hard to sit through a sporting event when you know what happens.)

A bit of a letdown

2006-05-18T19:42:00.000-05:00

It's not really fair to compare any game to last year's Champions League final, I don't think, but it still must be said that the 2006 edition was fairly disappointing. Arsenal were reduced to ten men on a foolish takedown by Jens Lehmann early in the game - and there's nothing worse than a red card to the goalie, because then you have to burn a substitution to put in a new goalie AND pull a non-goalie off - and yet somehow went ahead 1-0 on a nice header by Sol Campbell... but Barcelona knew they could bide their time, and sure enough, the winning two goals came in a flurry with only around 15 minutes to go. And that was that. Not all that exciting from start to finish, and it was disappointing that we didn't get to see two full sides - especially two that have historically underachieved in Europe and were getting back at their past - go at it for the whole game. C'est la vie, as they say outside the Stade de France.

Sorry I haven't updated this in a while (I say to the zero people who read this), but it's amazing how fast you'll lose interest in soccer when your club team is going down the toilet. I know injuries take a lot of the blame, but WOW did Man City turn a promising year into a lousy one. Nine losses in ten to end the year, I believe it was? Routine clean sheets by opposing keepers... ugly stuff. And then Pearce let Riera go back to Espanyol, which was disappointing (at least Samaras is here to stay, for now anyway). Then again, Riera couldn't have been playing that well the last couple months for City to drop all the way to 15th.

It's always nice when your team has a bad year and you know they don't really have the money to get much better. Man City is like, I don't know, the Minnesota Twins right now - they've got some good players, but not enough to win, but they don't have enough money to make any real marquee signings, so if they're going to get better it'll have to be through the "farm system." Hey, the Wright-Phillipses came from the Academy. Why not more?

Speaking of which, Pearce apparently continues to try and lure SWP back to Eastlands. I mean, would you even want this guy at this point? Here's someone who might have helped Man City into Europe this year, but instead he forces a transfer to Chelsea because they're champions (and probably because he can get more money there too, let's be honest). Then he doesn't play - gee, you transfer to a team that was already league champion without you and you're shocked that your new nickname could be Mr. 80th Minute? - and now he wants out? Bah. I guess I wouldn't be upset if he came back - God knows City need more goals. But what does that mean for Vassell and Samaras, both of whom I like? I guess technically SWP is an attacking midfielder, so maybe it means nothing. What a front line that would be! On second thought, make it happen.

Oh, you think so, Doctor?

2006-03-23T22:31:00.000-06:00

Bruce Arena today proclaimed that playing Germany was a "mistake." Let's see...

*defending World Cup finalist
*playing at home
*desperate for a win
*starting most of its best players, whereas the US was playing at most three guys who are likely to start in June

Granted, the U.S. wouldn't have known #3 when the game was scheduled, but the first two were obvious and the fourth one must have seemed likely considering the timing of the game.

Here's what I'm worried about. The U.S. is going to enter this tournament with a lot of pressure. If you believe they're the #5 team in the world, then you think "well, they should make the knockouts." If you don't - and most people don't - then you want them to screw up so you can say "I told you so." Either way, anything besides at least a round of 16 appearance is going to be painful. I shouldn't be dreading the tournament so much, but it's hard not to at this point. Even when the full team was out there (against Poland), they didn't look great. I guess there's still plenty of practice left, though.

Slaughterhouse five

2006-03-22T23:48:00.000-06:00

Way to celebrate getting the #5 world ranking by looking like absolute ass, United States. I realize that this was by no means a full A-team, and when you find yourself saying "let's start Brian Ching at striker" that might be a clue that you're not trying as hard to win as maybe you could. But I'm less concerned with the offensive showing - which, like the game against Germany in Korea, was one of those "controlling the pace for a while, but not quite able to break through" games that are so unendingly frustrating to watch - and much more concerned with the defensive showing. The announcers were busy flattering the U.S. defense in the first half, which made me wonder what game they were watching - sure, the Germans didn't score, but it wasn't for lack of trying on the Americans' part. There was way too much space all around the box, as though three guys couldn't be bothered to come back upfield to defend, during large parts of the game. The back-passing was frequently way too dangerous. The fact that the U.S. lasted the whole first half without giving up a goal was less a testament to the U.S. defense and more a testament to the ineptitude of the German attack in that half.

The second half presented no such problems. And the less said about that, the better. I will say that if you're looking to see why the U.S. lost so badly, just watch the tape on goal #2. Good shot by Neuville, but some of the worst defensive ball handling you will maybe ever see from a supposed top five nation was what allowed the shot to happen. And that's all I have to say about that.

FAde out

2006-03-21T22:22:00.000-06:00

Intense yet profoundly depressing exit for City in the FA Cup sixth round, falling at home - the second home defeat in three days - to West Ham. It's hard to be surprised, really; Samaras was out and Bradley Wright-Phillips, while a decent player, is not who you want starting at second striker in the biggest game of your season to date (and as City threaten to fade from the European chase, it probably will turn out to have been the biggest game of the year). Vassell can be an excellent scorer but I really think he needs a strong second option to push him. Samaras provided that after Cole's injury, but Wright-Phillips - just 21 last week and looking barely old enough to shave - is too timid a presence and, indeed, Vassell was held in check for most of the game.

Not held as well was Dean Ashton. When one team has the best scoring option on the pitch, that team has pretty good odds of winning, I think. And in fact, Ashton created the first West Ham goal pretty much out of whole cloth, making the City defense look pretty foolish before blasting one past James that you could barely even feel bad about.

The second goal was the result of another defensive breakdown, but this one was a bit more forgivable since it came after a fairly harsh sending off of Sun Jihai. I can see where the ref would say he took a swing; I think it looked like an attempt to yank his hand free except he forgot his hand already was free at that point. Either way I don't know if it was a straight red, but what are you going to do?

City seemed to play with more urgency after going down 1-0, and even more after dropping to ten men. But you do have to wonder where that urgency was earlier. This game was City's focus, so much so that they basically tanked against Wigan to save up for it, and yet aside from a couple of middling chances early on, City practically seemed content to play for a draw (which surely could not have been the case considering their away form this season) before Ashton opened the scoring in the 41st.

I actually put the game on fast-forward after the second goal, but Musampa's strike sucked me back in for the last nine minutes, which were heart-stopping but never quite good enough. Then the recording ran out at 93:49 and I had to run onto the internet just to confirm what I quite naturally suspected. And with that, City were out.

A disappointing end, but it wasn't a bad run for a team that had only gotten this far twice in the last two decades plus. The back-from-the-brink Villa game only has me more attached to this club, and as depressing as their results can be, I usually enjoy watching the way they play, with crisp ball movement throughout the midfield. (Of course, this always manages to stop as they approach the 18-yard box.) I think it's about time to pick up a jersey (though I will need to manage a little more cash first), though I'm not sure what name I'd put on it. I don't feel a real compulsion to put my own name on, but it's even more dangerous in soccer than in other sports to put a player's name on and then watch as he leaves the team. (I bet there were plenty of SWP sky blue jerseys that look pretty silly now.) I wouldn't mind a Barton jersey, honestly, but with the rumors apparently swelling that Arsenal are interested, it's too risky (that's hardly the only reason it's risky, but it's the most presently compelling). Reyna's part of the reason I even started following the club in the first place, but he's been all over; you'd sort of like a homegrown guy if you can get him. We'll see. By the time I actually have the money, half the team might be different. Maybe I'll just get a blank one.

Ice Station Kaiserslautern

2006-03-02T22:59:00.000-06:00

There's a reason the World Cup is played in the summer. The US-Poland friendly, one of two taking place in the host nation of Germany this month, was practically whited out by blizzard-like conditions for much of the second half. The 80th minute even saw the introduction of a yellow ball for improved visibility on the field (though perhaps ironically, I found it harder to see on the TV).

The first half was pretty brutal. The US didn't look very good, with mediocre passing and a problematic tendency to allow effective Polish counterattacking. They also didn't get too many good offensive sequences going. I know the field was hard and it was freezing, but Poland didn't seem too bothered (although I guess they don't have a place in their country they can really retire to in the winter to avoid these sorts of conditions).

The second half was a different story. Even with the snow picking up, the US came out of halftime looking like a different team. Of course, to some degree they were, with a couple changes made at the break; both teams put in their B goalies to start the second half, in particular. Did Clint Dempsey's goal, just three minutes in, result from a minor mistake that Jerzy Dudek might not have made? Considering that Artur Boruc apologized to his coach, and the coach still told the media, "That's not enough; you need to concentrate more," I guess it did. But it was still Dempsey being in good position at the right time, and if Taylor Twellman isn't getting in there to disrupt Boruc's punch attempt, probably nothing happens. Either way, however, the US team looked markedly better in the second half - better than their first half form, but also just better than the Poles in general. The offense looked more dangerous, the defense made fewer mistakes, and Tim Howard was good in his few chances.

Still, does this game tell us much going forward? Maybe not. Certainly the US cannot afford to have a first half like that against Italy or the Czechs - or Ghana, for that matter. When you end up in a group with two of the best attacking teams in the world (and certainly in Europe), you have to play the best defense possible, and I think this team does have a good defense, or at least the pieces for it, but it took a half to show up in Kaiserslautern, and against another team it might have been fatal. Of course, there should be more training time, and there are still two more friendlies (though this was the only one with the full A team), so we'll see.

The match against Germany should be interesting. I assume it can't be a coincidence that the two major friendlies the US scheduled for March are against the two teams that defeated the US in 2002, and it's certainly not a coincidence that both are in Germany - counting today's win, the Americans have just two wins (to seven defeats and two draws) in Europe under Arena. (The other: a friendly win over... Poland, in Poland in 2004.) A little worrying for June? Well, yeah. But then, I'd be worried about the draw no matter where it was. Still, getting two major European sides, playing close to their home countries... a bit problematic. Let's see how the game on the 22nd preps the US for that kind of atmosphere.

In other news, I also watched the England-Uruguay game. Tough break for Uruguay, but then they really didn't deserve the win anyway - still, England seemed to mail it in for much of the first half and, ironically, really only started to cook when bench players entered - the tying goal was scored by sub Peter Crouch (bizarrely wearing a uniform with 12 on the back and 21 on the front, which cannot possibly be legal) and the winner set up by a great cross from Shaun Wright-Phillips. (To be fair to the starters, Joe Cole set up the first goal and scored the second.) Rio Ferdinand made several mistakes - maybe this guy still has a job at Man U because he cost so much, but how does he keep starting for the national team when everyone thinks he sucks? - but the defense was pretty strong overall despite the early loss of Wayne Bridge. Pouso's goal was brilliant; you can't defend against that. But apart from that, Uruguay had few real chances. I don't know if you'd say England deserved the win, but they were certainly the more dominant team for at least the second 45.

The Battle of Stamford Bridge

2006-02-23T23:38:00.000-06:00

It was rough luck for Chelsea, really - down to ten men on a harsh straight red to Asier Del Horno, they actually managed to take the lead on a pitiful own goal, only to give it back on another own goal and finally lose 2-1 after a nice Eto'o header. On the other hand, I've seen high school soccer fields in better shape than the Stamford Bridge pitch, so maybe it was just karma.

The first 45 minutes were a real slog, as neither team got much going. Chelsea seemed content to sit back on their heels, rarely displaying any sort of nose for the goal, as though they were indeed planning on the 0-0 draw Mourinho had stated he would settle for. Plans didn't change much when Del Horno barreled into Messi in the 37th - a foul, sure; a yellow, maybe. A red? Certainly not when you see it on replay. Either way, though, it's just more fuel for the already quite contentious relationship between the sides, illustrated even further by Chelsea's refusal to kick the ball out of play when Motta was clipped, play so unsportsmanlike it appeared to prompt Mourinho to leave his box to apologize to Rijkaard. Of course, Mourinho being Mourinho, he must have looked at the tape later before determining Messi was an "actor and a cheat" - the replay did make it look like Messi oversold Del Horno's contact more than a little, but I'd love for Mourinho to name me some soccer players who don't do that. Cheating, or just gamesmanship? I don't know. I mean, I think a red card should be determined more by apparent intent than by result - if you go flying in with studs up and you're nowhere near the ball, you might be deserving of a red card whether you actually hurt someone or not. Messi insists he felt like Del Horno was trying to hurt him; I don't think the video really bears that out, while the ref says he feels he made the right decision based on the full-speed play. Being an official has certainly become a much tougher job in the age of instant replay, and especially slow-motion replay - people criticize decisions made based on angles and speeds that the ref is never going to see. Was the red harsh? Yes. But at full speed, can I see why he gave it? Yeah, I guess I can.

Oddly, it was Chelsea who came alive first after the break, with a couple of strong runs from Arjen Robben and, eventually, the setpiece that led to the own goal, though Motta was a real goat in giving that one up. (No surprise he was pulled off seven minutes later.) But Barca started to hit their stride around the time when Henrik Larsson was put in for Motta, and largely dominated the last 25 minutes or so. They ended up with a massive 69-31 edge in possession, along with 23-10 in shots and 9-2 in shots on goal. Had Chelsea had 11 men all game, the outcome would surely have been different - the stats if not the score, though the marking on Eto'o's header might not have been so poor with an additional man out there - but they didn't.

However much they may be running away with the EPL for the second year in a row, Chelsea find themselves up against it in the Champions League once more, and much earlier than last year's semifinals. Were they down 2-1 and going home, you might almost like their chances - but headed to Spain down 2-1? Unless they can pitch a 2-0 shutout at Camp Nou - and Barca haven't lost a 2-0 shutout at home since last February in the Primera - Chelsea are going to have to score at least three goals. On the road. The Blues dropped the first leg 2-1 last year and won the return 4-2 with three goals in the first twenty minutes... but last year, they started on the road and finished at home. Mourinho will need to have a miracle up his sleeve to pull this one off; I think Chelsea's quest for European silverware will have to wait another year.

Real-ly bad

2006-02-21T23:14:00.000-06:00

I'm not sure I've ever seen a team this loaded look so mediocre. I was expecting Real Madrid vs. Arsenal to be a good game, probably better than the bookmakers did. Arsenal may have been missing a bunch of players through injury, and yet it never seemed to matter.

Aside from a couple of solid shots from Roberto Carlos and a wicked drive from Robinho that happened to be right at Lehmann, Real never seemed to seriously threaten. Certainly the first 30 minutes of the game were all Arsenal; Real snatched the last 15 minutes of the first half, but when the second half started up it was mostly Arsenal again. They just made the Real defense look bad - but then, the Real defense isn't that great. (6-1 at Zaragoza? 6-1 vs. anyone?)

The more impressive part was that Arsenal's makeshift defense managed to keep Real off the board. But few of the Real players seemed on top of their games - in particular, Beckham, Ronaldo, and Zidane were all pretty ineffective. That helped, as did the fact that Arsenal's counterattacks were so successful. Indeed, in spite of Real's stunning 65-35 edge in possession, it never felt like they were the ones dominating the game. Maybe that's because after Thierry Henry's great goal in the 47th, Arsenal no longer seemed as interested in attacking. Yet they were still offered a number of chances due to horrible passing by the Real defense, which committed as many stupid turnovers as you could possibly expect any team to make in any one game.

Time of possession isn't everything, obviously. Arsenal were clearly the better team for at least 75 of the 90 minutes - honestly, had Real scored on one of their late chances (like the ball Ronaldo couldn't quite get to with only a few minutes left), I would have talked about how bad Arsenal's luck was in not winning. Either way, though, they've got their away goal - and with the win, any tie at Highbury sends them through. As Derek Rae was saying, it would be ironic if in one of their weaker Premiership seasons in recent memory - a mere fifth right now (which would be out of the 2006-07 CL), after not having finished worse than second since 1996-97, and not lower than fourth since 1995-96 - Arsenal finally broke through in Europe, where they have notoriously struggled despite their domestic success (and obviously with all those high finishes in the EPL they've had plenty of European chances in the last decade). Indeed it would be - and even more ironic if they did so with all their injury problems. But we'll see what happens - this Real team is certainly loaded enough to win at Highbury if they can get their act together.

Tomorrow's game? Chelsea vs. Barca. I'm even more excited for this one.

Snatching a replay from the jaws of defeat

2006-02-19T23:48:00.000-06:00

Matches like this one make soccer what it is, and anyone who couldn't appreciate, at the very least, the drama of Micah Richards' last-gasp header will never understand the sport. I'm quite certain I've never screamed that loud, possibly at any sporting event ever, certainly never at another soccer game. It would have been even nicer to see it live, but I studiously avoided all information pertaining to the game until I got home, and so it worked out about the same. My roommate did know the outcome, but he was very good about not saying anything revealing - though when, out of the corner of my eye, I saw him lean in as Barton prepared the corner, I got a mite suspicious.

It was a very frustrating game to watch at times, nonetheless. In fact, it was a very frustrating game to watch for about 94 minutes. For my money - though let's bear in mind that I've only gotten to watch them play so much - City looked as good offensively as they have all season, and this without Andy Cole on the pitch. Samaras looks better every time out, Vassell has blazing speed, and I love the way Riera and Barton move the ball around. It's really astonishing to realize how poor this team has looked on offense at times this season, especially on the road - whenever I watch they seem to move the ball very well. Their passing isn't just technically good, it's fun to watch, inventive and spread out. It's why I watch soccer in the first place - no one wants to see a slog with guys just knocking into each other all over the place.

But as good as they looked on offense for about 100 yards, the last 18 seemed to stymie City for pretty much the whole match. Seemingly wide-open chances went by the wayside, setpieces led to any number of near misses. The stat line says it all: City had 44 shots with seven on goal; Villa had just 18 shots but three were on goal. City also dominated time of possession, 57-43. They simply couldn't put it in. Midway through the first half, I grumbled to Drew, "This is the kind of game they lose 1-0" (remembering the Bolton game in particular). And sure enough, that's how it looked like it would finish - one good Villa counterattack was basically all they needed the whole game. And it nearly held up.

If City can finish just slightly more often, though, they could turn things around. This team has been woefully inconsistent this season, going 8-2-4 at home and 3-2-7 on the road in the Premiership. In this, the first road cup game since the Doncaster debacle, City dominated play throughout the game and would have been exceedingly unlucky to have lost. Sure, Villa are just 15th in the League, but cup games - and FA Cup games in particular - are always different.

I don't want to be confident, because City will surely stumble as soon as I think too highly of them, but it's hard not to like their chances in the March 8 replay. City already beat Villa 3-1 at City of Manchester Stadium back at the end of October, and as noted they've played much better at home than away this year - no home losses since January 4, and of the four home defeats this season, only one came to a team not currently in the top four in the table.

Cautious optimism is the key phrase here. I just hope FSC televises the replay, since there's no way for me to catch a midweek game on the radio, working during the day.

Paging William Styron

2006-02-16T23:13:00.000-06:00

This Sunday, the soccer gods really don't like me. Airing live on Fox Soccer Channel at 1 pm is Man City's match against Aston Villa in the fifth round of the FA Cup. Man City! FA Cup! Live at a reasonable time! This would be the first time I've ever watched a City game truly live (if I get to do so), though I did listen to the Doncaster game live (ugh). It's easier during cups, of course, because those games are often at night, whereas regular weekend league games are during the day - and during the day in England means early morning in Chicago, and if you think I'd get up at 6 am on a Saturday when I could watch the game plausibly live that afternoon, you're crazy.

Anyway. Naturally, airing at the same time is the US team in a friendly against Guatemala. Realistically, I am (or should be) more invested in US soccer than in Man City, but once the games don't mean as much, it's harder to care, and Guatemala - with all due respect - is not the most marquee of friendly opponents. Of course, my roommate is not a City fan, so guess which game he'd rather watch?

The obvious solution is to watch the Man City game live, and TiVo the US game for perusal later. But what if I'm not home? So actually, I have the City game set up in the TiVo. If it turns out I'm home on Sunday, then I'll switch it to record the US game and watch City live. If not, I don't miss City, and my roommate gets to watch the US game live anyway. I'd miss it totally in that case, but it's not as big a loss.

Of course, we can't forget how poorly my only previous live experience went, and for their general mediocrity Villa are still a couple notches above Doncaster on overall talent. Let's hope this won't be 90 minutes of my life I'll want back later.

Since we're talking about it, ever-so-quick discussions of the City win over Charlton and the US win over Japan, both by 3-2 scores.

City:
*Nice goal by Samaras. That's why you get a guy that size. But what was that when he was wide open later? He needs to be more aggressive, especially now that he'll probably see more time with Cole down.
*Barton - wow. It's amazing the way this guy has exploded since the transfer flap, and even more amazing how quickly the fans got back behind him. Loved that he charged to the stands while grabbing the front of his jersey - makes me optimistic that Pearce can ink him soon. I just hope this isn't a "playing for a contract" case and once he does sign he suddenly vanishes.
*Another nice win at home. Now can they win on the road? Three road wins all year and two of those were at Birmingham and Sunderland, and those were both in August. The only other was 5-2 at Charlton on December 4. But winning on the road will be required in the FA Cup, and in the European hunt - see this weekend, not to mention the rest of the EPL season.

US:
*Taylor Twellman is awesome.
*The annoying thing about a game like this is when your team is dominating, makes a whole bunch of substitutions, and then looks like crap. The last 15 minutes or so were really quite mediocre, whereas the first 75 were just so fun to watch because of the American dominance.
*Tied with Mexico at #6 in the new FIFA rankings. Yeah, that's more like it. There's no current excuse for the Mexicans to be higher than we are - equal's fine for now.

Team Strike Force

2006-02-01T22:17:00.000-06:00

This is why I watch soccer. Barton - despite being booed by the home fans for much of the match - looked phenomenal, backing up his claim of being "110% committed" to City despite the transfer request and seeming like a man who wants both to stay and to prove his self-perceived value. Riera - who I didn't get a good look at in the derby - looked great. Vassell and Cole make me tremendously happy as a striker duo. The three goals were all terrific, and for once I didn't know where they were coming or who scored them ahead of time. All told the offense looked quite crisp, with some brilliant passing, after the first ten minutes or so (it took about that long to find a groove). Granted, Toon frequently looked just miserable on defense, but you take what you can get. It was a terrific game to watch for a City fan; Newcastle supporters must have been ready to hang themselves, by comparison.

Samaras looked like a bull in a china shop, but it was just his first game. More actual practice with the team, and gameplay, and maybe he won't just be barreling into opposing players every time he's near the ball. (One certainly hopes so, considering the transfer fee. If they end up havng to lose other guys - like, say, Barton - because they spent so much on Samaras, I don't know.)

By the way, I love - love - that Pearce put in a loan bid for SWP. I don't think I even would want the guy coming back to Manchester - clearly he's something of a glory hog, so it's his own fault that he's sitting on a bench for the champs rather than starting for a team that could still make Europe if only they could find some damn road consistency - and you have to love Cole and Vassell, even if Cole is 34 and Vassell probably passes too much. (They looked so good today, though. Cole's assist on the Vassell goal... goddamn it was fantastic.) Anyway, the point is this: you have to love Pearce's attitude on that one. I almost feel like he was just doing it to mess with Chelsea.

Dueling Man-jos, part 2

2006-01-23T16:40:00.000-06:00

The weekend before last, the second half of the Manchester derby went off at the City of Manchester Stadium, and Man City took it 3-1, earning local bragging rights for the year after drawing United at Old Trafford in the first meeting.

I thought City looked pretty good for much of the game. Granted, this is a United team that has looked offensively impotent at times this year, but few of those times have been within the league itself (most were in the CL), so City's defense looked pretty solid, especially considering Sommeil and Mills were both out. The offense was fairly solid as well, with some decent passing, good shot selection (Man U had one more shot for the game, but City had three more on goal), and of course some nice goals. I recognize how well the Cole-Vassell tandem has played up front, but Fowler needs to see more action. The guy clearly has something to prove with three goals in the FA Cup and one in his first league appearance (and in just 15 minutes of time, no less)... isn't there any way to work him in?

While we're on the subject, what's with the talk of signing Georgios Samaras? How many strikers does one club need?

Of course, failing to build in any way on the United win, City turned right around and dropped a 2-0 decision to Bolton, so maybe the answer is "More." Just two shots on goal the whole game? Woof. Even bringing Fowler on for Cole ten minutes earlier than in the derby didn't help, though at least he's getting in the game now. At least this was a road match; hopefully the FA Cup tie against Wigan this weekend (which I may try to listen to live, though the whole "9 in the morning" thing will make it a challenge) will finish better.

World Cup draw reaction

2005-12-10T18:06:00.000-06:00

Bad day to be the United States, but good day to be a seeded team - there are only a couple of groups that look really challenging top to bottom, which you figure bodes well for the favorites. A quick look across the board:

Group A
Germany
Ecuador
Poland
Costa Rica

Hard to imagine the hosts not waltzing through this one, despite their recent "struggles" (in friendlies) - the tournament hosts have never failed to advance from the group stages (not even the U.S. in '94), and this isn't exactly the hardest group. Costa Rica is the least of CONCACAF's automatic qualifiers, Ecuador can't play at sea level, and Poland aren't bad but not exactly the class of Pool 3.

Group B
England
Paraguay
Sweden
Trinidad and Tobago

Four years ago England and Sweden met in the Group of Death and were the two teams to qualify out of it; it would be pretty surprising if they didn't advance again. Paraguay were feisty in '02, making the round of 16 and giving Germany a battle before conceding a goal in the 88th minute, but much depends on Roque Santa Cruz's health, which has been spotty of late. Either way, an England team playing to full potential should go 3-0-0, but second place could be up for debate if the Paraguayans do as well. Sweden, though, was one of the higher-scoring teams in UEFA qualifying. T&T are 0-3 waiting to happen.

Group C
Argentina
Ivory Coast
Netherlands
Serbia and Montenegro

Considered by most to be the Group of Death for this year, putting Argentina in it two Cups in a row. Group C boasts two teams ranked in the current FIFA top five (Argentina and Holland), probably the strongest team of the six African qualifiers (Ivory Coast), and a team that allowed just one goal in ten European qualifiers and went undefeated in a group that included Spain (Serbia). Argentina and Holland have still got to be the favorites, but a surprise or two could make the knockouts... well, probably less interesting. Wouldn't you rather see the best teams get that far?

Group D
Mexico
Angola
Portugal
Iran

Mexico barely got seeded at all, and their reward - thanks to the random draw - is a spot at the head of the easiest group. Sure, Portugal are no pushovers, scoring more than 30 goals in qualifying and conceding just a handful, but they also crashed out in 2002 as favorites in their group and have virtually no World Cup pedigree - this will be just their third World Cup in the 40 years since they finished third in 1966 and they're still looking for their first advancement to the knockout rounds. That said, Angola are possibly the weakest side in the tournament and Iran are not the best Asia has to offer. Mexico and Portugal will advance barring something shocking.

Group E
Italy
Ghana
Czech Republic
United States

In the U.S.' first WC appearance in 40 years (and start of their current five-Cup run), in 1990, their group in Italy included the hosts, Austria, and Czechoslovakia. Ringing any bells? The U.S. went 0-3 in that group, unsurprisingly, including a 5-1 loss to Czechoslovakia. This time around the Americans are much stronger, and Kasey Keller is a 36-year-old starting keeper rather than a 20-year-old reserve. But the parallels are a tad unsettling, especially with the Czechs ranked #2 in the world at the moment. The Italians must also have their guards up - they are the seeded team in this group, but the last time they missed the knockout stages at a World Cup came in 1974... in Germany. (Italy have won a World Cup since then.) Two top-ten teams staring them in the face can't be that appealing, even if the general world perception is that America is ranked too highly. Ghana cannot be written off either; they are probably the second most dangerous of the African teams and feature international stars like Michael Essien. This will be a severe test for the U.S., but if I had to pick just one of the eight seeds to trip before the knockout stages, Italy would be it - there is at least the potential that it could be beneficial to the U.S. not to be expected to advance, similarly to 2002. Of course, even if the U.S. does advance they'd probably have to face the top team in the next group...

Group F
Brazil
Australia
Croatia
Japan

This group is an interesting case. Brazil will probably go 3-0 and waltz out of it, but beyond that I could see any of the three teams below them taking second spot. Guus Hiddink seems to have the Midas touch, guiding his last two WC squads ('98 Holland and '02 South Korea) to fourth place; this will be more of a challenge but just getting the Aussies to the knockout stages will be considered a success. Japan will likely not fare as well as in '02 without the home field advantage; Croatia were surprise third-place finishers in '98 but don't look to have as much talent as that team did. I might pick Australia to slip through in second here. Interesting note: Brazil won just one of their five Cups on European soil (1958, their first, in Sweden).

Group G
France
Togo
Switzerland
South Korea

France was embarrassing in crashing out of the '02 Cup as holders without scoring a single goal, but they have some of their stars back and don't face a particularly challenging group. Togo will likely just be happy to be there; the Swiss gave France a fight in qualifying but don't look as talented on paper; South Korea will not perform to the same level as in '02 now that they aren't hosting and aren't led by Hiddink. The two German neighbors will probably move on from this one.

Group H
Spain
Tunisia
Ukraine
Saudi Arabia

Tunisia and Saudi Arabia have six World Cup appearances between them... and just three wins. (Two of those came in 1994, when the Saudis made a surprise round of 16 appearance in their first trip to the World Cup.) Spain have a reputation for underachieving, failing to advance beyond the quarterfinals in 11 previous appearances, but they won't be tripped up by this group. Ukraine were impressive in running away with a qualifying group that included defending third-place finishers Turkey and defending Euro holders Greece, but they haven't appeared on the big stage since attaining independence.

So... probably not as interesting on the group level as we might like. On the other hand, you'd probably prefer to get as many strong teams to the knockout rounds as possible if you're really a fan of top-class football, and who isn't?

Premiership Power Poll

2005-11-09T00:37:00.000-06:00

Nearly a third of the season has now gone by, so let's take a look at how things stack up. The last poll was nearly two months ago, so some things will have changed. Others, not so much.

1. Chelsea (10-1-1, 31 pts)
(last poll: #1)
It's easy to be down on the Blues considering their recent form, but all signs suggest that this is merely a dry spell and hardly indicative of a permanent fall from grace, even though that would make the EPL season a lot more interesting. The five-game run that has seen Chelsea go 1-1-3 has included two non-League games, and while a draw at Goodison Park is nothing to brag about, a 1-0 loss at Old Trafford and dominating the second half isn't the end of the world. The loss to Real Betis is awkward but let's not forget that Chelsea won the reverse 4-0 at Stamford Bridge two weeks prior. Never mind that the previous two EPL games before the current stretch went by an aggregate 9-2 to Chelsea (at Anfield and home to Bolton). They'll be fine.

2. Manchester United (6-3-2, 21 pts)
(last poll: #3)
Let it never be said that the English press are quiet and reserved. The cries for Sir Alex Ferguson's head were loud and pronounced after the 4-1 tumble at Boro on October 29, and the 1-0 drop at Lille in the CL that same week didn't help matters, but after beating Chelsea on Sunday United are third in the league. They have yet to find a particularly inspiring form (and haven't really faced the best the EPL has to offer, with wins over Everton, Sunderland, Aston Villa and Fulham among their six) and have looked surprisingly poor at home... and yet they're no further adrift of Chelsea than any of the expected title contenders (with all due respect to low-scoring Bolton and promotion darlings Wigan). If United have already played their worst - and if you believe the commentators, how could they not have? - Chelsea could be in for a real fight this time around.

3. Arsenal (6-2-3, 20 pts)
(last poll: #7)
The fears for Arsenal have been less pronounced but no less existent... and barely less inaccurate. The Gunners have stumbled in a couple road matches at Boro (2-1 on September 10) and West Brom (2-1 on October 15), but they still haven't lost at home and are the only English club that can claim a 4-0-0 Champions League mark. For all the surprises of the early season, the teams at the top have yet to markedly change.

4. Wigan Athletic (8-1-2, 25 pts)
(last poll: #11)
It might seem unfair to put the Latics fourth while they find themselves second in the league and unbeaten in their last nine EPL contests, to say nothing of the fact that they lead the Premiership in goals conceded (with just five in 11 games!). However, six of Wigan's wins have come against teams currently in the bottom seven of the league, so we have yet to really see what they can do. Following the international break, the Latics take on Arsenal and Spurs in consecutive weeks - both at the JJB Stadium, where they have spent a large amount of time so far, but the matches should still give a decent indicator of whether or not Wigan are truly for real.

5. Bolton Wanderers (7-2-3, 23 pts)
(last poll: #8)
A Monday win over Spurs gave Bolton third place in the table, but Wanderers are old and their offense is questionable. They could be lined up to be this year's Everton, with two 1-0 wins and a 5-1 loss already under their belt. They've still started strong and have a couple solid road wins, but whether a team this aging can keep it up for a full season remains to be seen.

6. Tottenham Hotspur (5-5-2, 20 pts)
(last poll: #6)
Only Liverpool and Portsmouth are within one of Spurs' five draws through 12 games. None of the five has seen the teams score more than a goal apiece, but Spurs seem to pull through offensively when it matters, as they have only two losses, one coming to Chelsea.

7. Manchester City (6-2-4, 20 pts)
(last poll: #4)
Perhaps no team has been more up and down in the early season than the Blues. After running off five unbeaten games to continue their fine run from the end of last season, City fell to Bolton and Newcastle and crashed out of the Carling Cup at Doncaster. They rebounded to win three of their next four (the lone loss a 1-0 fall at Highbury), but dropped a 2-1 decision at Fulham. The new striker pair of Andy Cole and Darius Vassell has been fairly productive, with nine goals between them, but Cole has missed three matches through injury and the entire rest of the squad has found the net just six times so far. Though six wins from twelve isn't bad, City are still looking for a more consistent form.

8. Charlton Athletic (6-1-4, 19 pts)
(last poll: #2)
A 1-0 win over Wigan on August 20 has become the most impressive tally on Charlton's record, as the Addicks went from the feel-good story of the early season into a distant eighth in the current table. Just one league win since the start of October hasn't helped their cause, and a spotty Blackburn team whipped them on Saturday, 4-1 at Ewood Park. Ace striker Darren Bent hasn't scored in an EPL game since an October 1 loss to Spurs, and not in a win since September 10. With Man U coming to the Valley after the international break, and with a surprisingly poor home form so far (1-1-3), things may get worse for the Addicks before they get better.

9. West Ham United (5-3-3, 18 pts)
(last poll: #10)
Though perhaps not as lively as Wigan, the Hammers are showing good strength for a newly-promoted side. Their home form at Upton Park has been much better than their road form, but that's as you'd expect - while none of their wins are over top teams yet, they turned in a couple of dominant early performances, including a 4-0 thrashing of Aston Villa. The rest of November should provide some clues, with the Hammers traveling to White Hart Lane and then hosting Man U.

10. Liverpool (4-4-2, 16 pts)
(last poll: #5)
The Reds have played just ten games due to European commitments and have struggled on the road (only just earning their first road win over lowly Aston Villa), but they have held serve at Anfield, with only a loss to Chelsea. They seem to show more interest in the Champions League for a second straight year (and, for a second straight year, it seems to be working), with the prime example of this the back-to-back games against Chelsea at Anfield - a tightly-played 0-0 draw in the CL, followed by a 4-1 loss in the EPL. Still, with two games in hand and just two league defeats, Liverpool cannot be rated as low as their points would otherwise suggest.

11. Newcastle United (5-3-4, 18 pts)
(last poll: #15)
After a brutal start to the year that saw no goals until the fifth league game, the Magpies snapped up Michael Owen and seem to have turned it around somewhat, with three consecutive league wins now and a brace from Owen in a 3-0 win over West Brom on October 30. On the other hand, those three wins are against the three teams in the relegation zone, so you'll forgive me if I want to withhold full credit. Let's see how they handle a trip to Chelsea on the other side of the international break.

12. Blackburn Rovers (5-2-5, 17 pts)
(last poll: #12)
Rovers have been strong at home (4-1-1), but equally miserable on the road (1-1-4). With two consecutive away contests against top-six teams coming up, it's a treacherous stretch for Blackburn. Figuring out how to score some goals on the road (five in six games) would be useful.

13. Middlesbrough (4-3-5, 15 pts)
(last poll: #9)
If any team has been more up and down than Man City, it is surely Boro. The Teessiders have delivered losses to both Arsenal and Man U, the latter a 4-1 blasting that shook the foundations of Old Trafford, but they also stumbled at Goodison Park on Sunday and are the only team to lose to Sunderland - a 2-0 loss at the Riverside Stadium, no less.

14. Fulham (3-3-6, 12 pts)
(last poll: #14)
The Cottagers have lived up to their name with a solid home form, including wins over Liverpool and Man City and a close 3-2 loss to Man U, but on the road they have only sometimes shown up, to the tune of no wins, two draws, and four losses. All told, it's been an unremarkable start.

15. Portsmouth (2-4-6, 10 pts)
(last poll: #18)
With no wins in six home games, Pompey have failed to defend Fratton Park, and their two wins have come against lowly Everton and Sunderland. Draws against Boro and Newcastle have proven more encouraging, but really it's just hard to justify ranking Portsmouth any lower.

16. Everton (3-1-7, 10 pts)
(last poll: #16)
Despite getting two chances, the Blues crashed out of European competition early, and have faired little better on the domestic circuit. How they even have three wins is a miracle, considering they have scored a mere four goals all season - unsurprisingly, all three wins are 1-0 (over Bolton, Birmingham, and Boro), and equally unsurprisingly (and perhaps more distressingly), all seven of their losses have been shutouts. If David Moyes is still managing this club at the end of the year and they're putting up similar goal-scoring numbers, even if they aren't relegated, I'll be surprised.

17. Aston Villa (2-3-7, 9 pts)
(last poll: #13)
For a club that finished top half last year, Villa have been pretty well brutal to start this campaign. Just two wins - both 1-0 - and plenty of losses and goals conceded, including 4-0 at newcomers West Ham and 3-1 at Man City. Somehow Villa keep advancing in the Carling Cup; chalk it up to not yet having had to face another Premiership side.

18. West Bromwich Albion (2-2-8, 8 pts)
(last poll: #19)
The Baggies host Everton next, giving them a decent chance to pass Villa and move out of the relegation zone. They need all the home games they can get, though; in six road games West Brom are 0-2-4 with just one goal scored and ten conceded. By comparison, the 2-0-4 home form looks positively dominant.

19. Birmingham City (1-3-8, 6 pts)
(last poll: #17)
With the second-fewest goals scored - just seven - the Blues have been lucky not to look worse. After a middling finish last year, Birmingham have been positively rotten, squeaking out just a 3-2 win at fellow relegation zone club West Brom and scoring just four goals in their other 11 games.

20. Sunderland (1-2-9, 5 pts)
(last poll: #20)
The Black Cats continue to threaten their own record for futility by taking just five points from their first twelve games. With 11 goals they have looked livelier than some of their competition near the bottom, but by allowing 24 have played themselves out of virtually every game. Oddly enough, the single win came on the road, at Middlesbrough, but Sunderland have routinely given up three goals in losses. Back-to-back home games against Villa and Birmingham after the international break might provide an opportunity to move up in the world, however.

Playoff action

2005-10-14T15:30:00.000-05:00

As it turns out, only the top three teams are seeded when they draw for the UEFA playoffs. Spain ended up drawing Slovakia, dashing my hopes of a Czech-Slovak clash. The Czechs will face Norway; Switzerland and Turkey meet in the third pairing.

It's kind of hard to imagine the higher seeds (the Czechs, Spain, and Turkey) losing here; Spain hasn't missed a World Cup since 1974, the Czechs are top five in the world, and Turkey finished third place overall last time out. The three lower-rated sides have less overall pedigree, both currently and historically. On the other hand, that's why they play the games; the home-and-home ties give anyone a chance. In 2001, the Czechs were ranked tenth in the world and lost out to a Belgium side rated #33; #27 Slovenia took out #15 Romania as well. So let's not book the plane tickets just yet.

According to ESPN.com, the top eight seeds for the Cup (i.e. the "anchor teams," so to speak, of each group) would be Brazil, Spain, Mexico, Germany, Italy, Argentina, France, and England, if FIFA uses the same formula they used to seed teams in the last two World Cups. It's funny to think that Spain would be an anchor team if they made it but could potentially still miss; the Netherlands, currently #2 in the world, would take over as an anchor team if Spain blows it.

World Cup would be the last update but it's not

2005-10-13T00:43:00.000-05:00

It almost is.

UEFA
Group One: The Czech Republic took down Finland 3-0 to move into second with 27 points, two ahead of Romania. I guess no one's going to be driving on Mikael Forssell Boulevard anytime soon.

Group Two: Turkey, Denmark, and Greece all won - giving Turkey the spot in the playoffs by one point and bouncing both the Danes and the defending European champs.

Group Three: Slovakia and Russia drew 0-0. The Slovak coach called it the "worst 90 minutes of my life," which is funny since it meant his team qualified for the playoffs on goal difference. Could they meet the Czechs? Would that not be totally awesome?

Group Four: France's no-duh win over Cyprus (4-0 despite a lack of Henry and Trezeguet) gave them the group as Switzerland and Ireland played to a goalless draw at Lansdowne Road. The Swiss move into the playoffs.

Group Five: Was already sealed, but a 3-0 win by Scotland over Slovenia, coupled with a Norwegian defeat of Belarus, ensured that Norway's place in the playoffs would not resort to tiebreakers. The Scots moved into third place, which doesn't help them now but could come in handy for the next European qualifying.

Group Six: England finally looked good and won the group by taking down Poland 2-1. The Poles go through as one of the two best runners-up anyway.

Group Seven: Serbia's defeat of Bosnia meant even a 6-0 trouncing of San Marino left Spain in the playoffs. With just a single goal allowed in ten qualifying games - even if this wasn't the strongest group - the Serbians could be a scary sleeper in Germany.

Group Eight: Sweden won and Croatia drew but it didn't matter. Croatia wins the group on tiebreaker, and both go through as Sweden's 8-0-2 record makes them one of the two best runners-up.

So the playoffs are based on the FIFA World Rankings and are seeded. Though new rankings come out on the 19th, September's will apparently be used, giving us this:

#4 Czech Republic vs. #45 Slovakia
#8 Spain vs. #38 Switzerland
#12 Turkey vs. #37 Norway

Czechs-Slovaks! Can you imagine the atmosphere for this game? And if the Slovaks win? Sign me up to watch. Please let a non-PPV channel carry this one.

AFRICA
Settled on Saturday.

ASIA
Well, guess what. A 0-0 draw sends Bahrain through on away goals. Think Uzbekistan is wishing they never said anything? Bahrain will play...

CONCACAF
...Trinidad and Tobago. In an exciting final day, Guatemala pounced on Costa Rica 3-1, but two goals from Stern John sent T&T past Mexico 2-1 and into a playoff for a spot in Germany. The U.S. topped the group by beating Panama, as they beat Mexico 3-2 on goal differential in the two games played between the sides.

CONMEBOL
A 1-0 win over Argentina kept Uruguay a point ahead of Colombia and sent them into a playoff for the second straight time. Uruguay's opponent in 2001? Australia. Uruguay's opponent in 2005? You guessed it.

A mere five spots left, meaning 27 are clinched. And they are!

Europe (14 bids, 11 set)
Ukraine
The Netherlands
England
France
Poland
Sweden
Serbia and Montenegro
Croatia
Italy
Germany
Portugal

Africa (5 bids, 5 set)
Togo
Ghana
Ivory Coast
Angola
Tunisia

Asia (4.5 bids, 4 set)
Iran
Japan
Saudi Arabia
South Korea

CONCACAF (3.5 bids, 3 set)
United States
Mexico
Costa Rica

CONMEBOL (4.5 bids, 4 set)
Brazil
Argentina
Ecuador
Paraguay

Interesting indeed. Man, I can't wait for the draw. But first, the playoffs!

Jump back, what's that sound?

2005-10-13T00:10:00.000-05:00

It's the sound of the U.S. topping CONCACAF's final round of qualifying, that's what it is.

Pretty good game against Panama considering who was starting - a young team with two players getting their first caps (Mapp and Carroll), and few real veterans of the 2002 team (Eddie Pope was the only player on tonight's roster who actually played in the Germany game, and he stayed on the bench). Kyle Martino and Taylor Twellman got their first international goals, and just a handful of minutes apart - Martino's was a great first-time shot out of the air that snuck past the near post, while Twellman did well to finish when the Panamanian keeper came off his line and misplayed the ball.

As good an outing as it was for Martino, Twellman, Mapp and Carroll (the latter two of whom got specific postgame praise from Arena for their performances in their first caps), it must have been disappointing for Brian Ching, another possible candidate for second striker in Germany. (There's also Landon Donovan, but he can play attacking midfield just as well, as he mostly did in 2002.) He didn't get in until the 74th minute and had an awkward handball in the box - while under exactly no pressure - lead to a penalty kick that was fortunately pushed wide left.

The U.S. did look pretty good, though. The team seemed to take a while to get cohesive on offense, but Panama rarely was able to pose a significant threat in the other direction, and considering the third-string U.S. team thrown out there, that's pretty good. (Especially since Panama is much improved recently.)

Combine the win with a Mexico loss and the U.S. tops the group for the first time since the final round expanded to six teams in 1994. Eddie Lewis' goal at Azteca looks pretty huge now, doesn't it? Of course, before we get too excited, remember: Costa Rica's "reward" for topping the group in 2001 was a place in the same group as Brazil and Turkey, the eventual champions and third-place finishers respectively. On the other hand, it's not clear whether seeding is actually based on group finish or world ranking (though said ranking can be affected by the same things group finish is - namely, wins, draws and losses), which might better explain 2002 from a Costa Rican perspective. As long as the U.S. doesn't end up in a Group of Death I'll probably be happy enough, though. There's no reason why this team shouldn't be able to hang with most of the world.

The field is nearly set

2005-10-09T12:30:00.000-05:00

Saturday's slate of games hardly set the entire World Cup field, but by the end of Wednesday everything will be decided except for the handful of playoff spots. Then it's an agonizing two-month wait for the draw, followed by another half-year before we actually get to watch the whole thing play out. World Cup years - and the ones preceding them because of the qualifying - are actually terrible times to be a fan of club soccer, because your team's players are frequently taking off to play in international games and sometimes return from them hurt, an aggrieving problem that's becoming so common that the G14, a group of Europe's biggest clubs including Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool, AC and Inter Milan, Juventus, Real Madrid, Ajax, Bayern Munich, and Barcelona, is threatening to start withholding its players from international matches if compensation for the clubs isn't arranged, especially for when a player gets injured during international duty and has to miss time with his club.

(When you think about it, this makes a lot of sense - clubs shell out most of the money, then the national squads step in, wear the players down, and toss them back. I'm one of the people who thinks that playing for one's country should trump any club obligations, not least because players shuttle between clubs in international soccer more than in any of the North American pro sports. But it's not really fair for the national associations to shrug their shoulders when injuries happen, leaving the clubs on the hook for a player who didn't even get hurt while playing for them.)

On the other hand, they're great times to be a fan of world soccer, and since I don't have the energy to follow more than one premier league regularly (the EPL, natch), it's nice to be able to keep track of what everyone in every corner of the globe is doing without feeling like you're overstepping your bounds. With that said, let's take a look at how qualifying is shaking out as it rumbles to a close.

UEFA
Group One: With 31 points, and seven clear of the Czechs with one game to go, the Netherlands have wrapped up the top spot in this group, doing so with a 2-0 win over the Czechs in Prague yesterday. The second spot is still up for grabs; Romania claimed it with a 1-0 defeat of Finland, but they don't play another game, whereas the Czechs, just a point behind, head to Helsinki on Wednesday. Presumably this is a win for them and a spot in Germany (at 9-0-3, the Czechs would be at a .750 winning percentage, a mark that only England and Sweden, among second place teams, could challenge), but the difficulty of sorting out the tiebreakers here when not all teams play the same number of games is enough that I'm not going to bother calculating it.

Group Two: This one's been settled for a while, with Ukraine walking away with it. However, the second spot is very much up for grabs. Denmark surged into third on 19 points with a 1-0 defeat of Greece yesterday; Turkey is on 20 and the Euro 2004 champs are stuck on 18. All three face the group's bottom dwellers on Wednesday; Turkey has the hardest test, taking on four-win Albania in Albania (where the Albanians beat Greece, fresh off their Euro 2004 win, a year-plus ago), while Denmark gets woeful 0-1-10 Kazakhstan. Greece gets Georgia. A win by Turkey puts them through, likely to a playoff; a loss by Turkey and Denmark can get through with a win or draw; a loss by Turkey and a loss or draw by Denmark and Greece can get through with a win. A Turkish draw, Greek win and Danish loss would result in yet another scenario; having played to two goalless draws with Turkey, Greece would be out on goal differential unless they beat Georgia by eight goals.

Group Three: Portugal clinched their spot with a no-kidding win over Liechtenstein, though they actually had to come back to do it, trailing 1-0 at halftime at home before equalizing shortly into the second half and sealing the win on Nuno Gomes' goal at 86 minutes. Slovakia and Russia both won to stay deadlocked in second at 22 points - one game left and guess what? They meet in Slovakia on Wednesday, one of a handful of do-or-die games that make qualifying so great. If the teams manage to draw, the score would matter - 0-0 sends the Slovaks through, anything at 2-2 or higher sends the Russians through, and 1-1 means we head for goal differential, with Slovakia holding a decisive edge. If I'm Russia, I worry about scoring two goals first and then just hope the rest takes care of itself.

Group Four: As much of a mess as ever. Israel now lead the group on 18 points, but Switzerland and France both have 17 and the Irish have 16. The Israelis are done, meaning they need a ton of help. France and Switzerland both hold tiebreakers with Israel on away goals, leaving the only option for the Israelis to advance a scenario in which Ireland defeats Switzerland at Lansdowne Road to win the group and, at the same time, 1-1-7 Cyprus manages to stun an injury-decimated France squad in Paris. Even with their injuries, France is most likely going through (a 1-1 draw on Saturday gives them the away goal tiebreaker with the Swiss); it's second place that is more likely to be decided in the Switzerland-Ireland clash, another winner-takes-all battle that almost certainly means the difference between second and fourth. Since a draw would be enough for the Swiss to advance, look for them to play conservatively. My best guess is that France and Switzerland come out of this group, since wins among the top four have been at a premium all year.

Group Five: Italy, on 20 points, wrapped up the top spot after putting Slovenia away late. With Scotland's loss to Belarus, combined with Norway's win over Moldova, eliminating the Scots' slim hopes, Norway wrapped up the second spot, as Slovenia is the only team that could catch the Norwegians - but they can at best tie, and Norway has defeated Slovenia twice in qualifying. That makes Group Five the only group that is resolved going into the final day.

Group Six: England may not have looked great, but they took care of business by beating Austria, making the final day's showdown against Poland another winner-take-all match. The Poles are on 24 points and two clear of England, so only a win will send the English through, though even a loss or tie will earn them a spot in the field because of their gaudy 7-1-1 record. So actually, the last match here doesn't mean much - though it will determine the winner of the group, the loser is going to Germany without a playoff regardless.

Group Seven: Serbia, Spain, and Bosnia all won on Saturday to stay close - on 19, 17, and 16 points respectively. Serbia and Bosnia face off on Wednesday, while Spain get minnows San Marino. Spain will clearly top the group if Serbia fail to win; a win by Bosnia would send them through and leave the Serbs out, which would be a shocking result for a team that has only conceded a single goal - away to Spain in a 1-1 draw - in qualifying so far.

Group Eight: Croatia's 1-0 win in their head-to-head match yesterday was huge, putting the Croats top of the group on 23 points (at 7-2-0, they are in a select group of unbeaten teams). The last day's results could still swing the group, but they would require not only Sweden to defeat Iceland at home (the likely outcome), but Croatia to lose their first of qualifying at Hungary. This is possible, but not likely. The Swedes should take heart, however, as a win would leave them at 8-0-2 and should send them through as the second automatic qualifier of the second-place clubs.

AFRICA
Group One: Togo clinched the group in sensational fashion on Saturday, coming back from a 2-0 deficit to win 3-2 over Congo in Brazzaville. The win kept them two ahead of Senegal, the feel-good story of the 2002 Cup, who won 3-0 over Mali in classic too-little, too-late fashion. Of Africa's five qualifiers, four are first-timers; Togo is one of those.

Group Two: Ghana needed only a draw against lowly Cape Verde to go through, and did so in fine 4-0 fashion. Congo DR, the only squad that could even mathematically catch Ghana, gained only a draw with South Africa.

Group Three: A month after a debilitating 3-2 home loss put Ivory Coast a point behind Cameroon for the group title, the Elephants won 3-1 at Sudan while the Indomitable Lions stumbled to a 1-1 home draw with Egypt thanks to a missed penalty in stoppage time. Talk about a reversal of fortune.

Group Four: Angola's head-to-head edge over Nigeria meant the Super Eagles needed a win and for Angola not to win to make it back to the World Cup. However, while Nigeria were pounding Zimbabwe 5-1, Angola slipped past Rwanda 1-0 in Kigali on a header by captain Fabrice Akwa in the 80th minute.

Group Five: The only African qualifier to have appeared in a previous World Cup final, Tunisia drew Morocco 2-2 to remain a point ahead at the top of the group and assure qualification.

CONMEBOL
Paraguay and Ecuador sealed their spots in the field with, respectively, a 1-0 win over Venezuela and a 0-0 draw with Uruguay. With one game left, the playoff spot - the right to face Australia in a two-legged playoff - is all that remains. Uruguay hold the spot on 22 points but must host Argentina on Wednesday. Chasers Colombia and Chile, on 21 points each, travel to Paraguay and host Ecuador, respectively. Various outcomes remain possible for the final spot.

CONCACAF
Costa Rica's 3-0 triumph over an uncoordinated U.S. side puts them through to the Finals once more. The playoff spot, which goes up against the Asian playoff winner, is currently held by Trinidad and Tobago on ten points. Guatemala, on eight, are still alive; both teams have tough but winnable matches coming up. Guatemala host Costa Rica, while Trinidad host Mexico; the Mexicans need at least a point to clinch overall first place (whether they think that matters remains to be seen), while Costa Rica cannot move up unless the U.S. lose to winless Panama (an unlikely turn of events). If Guatemala win, Trinidad must win to get through; if Guatemala do anything else, T&T are through no matter what.

ASIA
In what was not quite the worst-case scenario, Uzbekistan managed only a 1-1 draw with Bahrain in the controversial replay of their match last month that was declared void due to a refereeing mistake. Uzbekistan now head to Bahrain for the reverse needing a win; a 2-2 (or greater) draw would also be enough for the Uzbeks; 1-1 would lead to a shootout.

Wednesday's going to be fun in Europe, huh?

Washed away

2005-10-09T01:56:00.000-05:00

Ugly game for the U.S., there's no doubt about it. Obviously it wasn't a game we needed to win, and Saprissa isn't the easiest place to play, especially in the rain, and Arena was trying out some new players. But it wasn't a performance that's going to inspire anyone, at least not on the defensive end - the first two Costa Rican goals were created by incredibly ineffective defense on the part of the U.S.

I didn't see the whole thing because I wasn't at home, and my girlfriend insisted on flipping back and forth between the game and a painful Saturday Night Live featuring the unwatchable tag team of host Jon Heder and musical guest Ashlee Simpson. What I did see mostly spoke for itself - the Americans had a few opportunities but never really threatened to finish, except for when they had a goal called back on an offsides, and on one shot in the second half the ball was cleared off the line by the last Costa Rican defender. Neither team played great in the conditions, but Costa Rica were quick to pounce on their opponents' mistakes at the back. Factor in the fact that Costa Rica needed the win and you've got all the ingredients. (Technically they didn't need the win, as Mexico beat Guatemala, but you always want to get in on your own terms if you can. Anyway, they may or may not have known the result of Mexico/Guatemala when they took the field.)

Really, I don't have much else to say about this one. There weren't many positives for the U.S. that wouldn't just have come from how a certain player played, but since I couldn't watch it as closely as I might have, it was hard to notice. I'll try to pay more attention when Panama comes to town.

Maybe the critics are right

2005-10-01T09:52:00.000-05:00

People have been griping lately about the lack of scoring in the Premiership making it less interesting overall. And maybe they're right. I don't think you have to have goals for a particular game to be exciting or interesting, but it's usually better if there are. Wednesday's Chelsea-Liverpool game - the latest in a string of CL games between the two that has seen virtually no scoring - was one example of a game that was still reasonably exciting: plenty of good end-to-end football found its way onto the pitch, even if the goals didn't. But despite that, there weren't many good chances. When the best team in England doesn't even look in real danger of finding the net - or of having it found against them - that isn't the most exciting stuff. The EPL needs some more goals.

Man U at least got some scoring in the 2-1 win over Benfica, but aside from the goals it was kind of a dull game, though maybe that's just because I don't really care for Man U.

The question is, what would you do about this problem? Arsene Wenger suggests an extra point for wins by three goals or more, but this seems like a "rich get richer" situation that isn't going to help many teams. I mean, how many three-goal blowouts do you see a year in the entire EPL? A few dozen. Last year there were 50 all year, 2.5 per team. Not a very high number. Some teams, naturally, didn't have any (a couple finished on neither end of such a blowout), but even a Manchester United only had four. Plus, proving my rich get richer point, with ten and eight respectively, Arsenal and Chelsea combined for more than a third of the total. And of course they were the top two teams.

Of course, what you don't want is "more blowouts," and obviously that's not what Wenger is suggesting - he's suggesting that the extra points would produce more attacking football as teams try for the blowout. What you really want, I guess, are high-scoring games. In how many games last season did the clubs combine for five goals or more and it wasn't a three-goal blowout? The answer is twenty-five. Barely more than one per team. And certainly some teams never had any, especially when you note that Norwich City was responsible for seven of them.

Yes, 1-0 and 2-1 games, if not 0-0 and 1-1 games, are far more likely than, say, a game like Norwich-Boro on January 22, in which Norwich went up 1-0 in the 18th, gave up four goals in the next hour, scored one in the 80th to pull within 4-2, and then somehow scored two in stoppage time to steal a point. Even without a winner that's dramatic as hell. Not that a 1-1 game in which the tying goal is scored late isn't, but it's far more likely. 84 games last year finished either 0-0 or 1-1, meaning that every team in the league had an average of four games that were probably fairly boring. There were 30 0-0 draws total, which is five more than the number of games that finished 3-2, 4-3, 4-2, 5-3, or 5-4, though at least both are relative outliers. In perhaps the worst example of a team being rather boring on the whole, West Brom had 11 1-1 draws and three more that finished 0-0, meaning that more than a third of their season was taken up with generally bland football, though at least they made up for it by staying up on the last day in dramatic fashion.

But 30 out of 380 0-0 draws is a fairly small percentage. (Less than a twelfth, in fact; about .08, which won't even get you arrested.) On the other hand, that was last year - the bigger problem is this year, which has already seen nine games finish 0-0 out of just 66 played, a percentage of .14, creeping up on twice last year's number. Seven more games have finished 1-1; only three so far have seen four goals scored by one team. (One each for Chelsea and Arsenal.)

Maybe an even bigger problem is the number of shutouts, though. In 66 matches, the losing team was blanked in fully 32 of them! Adding the 0-0 draws on to that gives you a horrifying total of 41 games out of 66 - 62% of the games played - in which at least one team did not score. Last year, that figure was 188 out of 380 - plenty, but still less than half. In 2002/2003, though, it was 185 out of 380. Not much less. And this year's figure does have a small sample size.

In other words, the stats suggest that it's probably just alarmist stuff. I'm guessing some teams haven't hit their strides yet, but in the end I think we'll be about where we've been, goal-wise. Let's not hit the panic button just yet over one-sixth of a season. But by all means, let's root for the English teams to be involved in some more exciting CL games, because so far the ones I've gotten to watch haven't been great.

Cold comfort

2005-09-23T19:52:00.000-05:00

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