In what has to be considered a bizarre sort of Judgment of Solomon, FIFA has decided that the entire first leg of the playoff between Uzbekistan and Bahrain for fifth place in Asia and a spot in the playoff with CONCACAF's fourth team for a World Cup bid must be replayed after the Uzbeks complained about the results of the match, which they won 1-0 in Tashkent on Saturday. Uzbekistan maintained that they should have scored a second goal on a penalty kick that was disallowed when the referee judged that the Uzbek player taking the kick hesitated over the ball before striking it; Bahrain was subsequently awarded a free kick and managed to hold the Uzbeks off the board for the rest of the game.
Of course, this decision is likely to make Bahrain happier than Uzbekistan. As one quote in that article says, "The referee stole our second goal and now FIFA is stealing our first goal." It's hard to expect FIFA to order the game started from the 38th minute - it's rare enough that official decisions are overturned, but the only example I can think of where play was resumed from the botched call was in the bizarre incident of the Pine Tar Game. Still, where's the precedent for voiding the whole game based on a technical error? Is this it, right here?
Here's the problem, as I see it: part of sports has always been the human element, particularly in the officiating. Yes, people complain about bad calls constantly, in every sport, and bark for instant replay. But that's one thing. Sure, let's get some instant replay in there if we have to. Replaying the whole game? I know it's more important in soccer where every goal is critical, but knocking the whole game off the scoreboard? That just seems bizarre to me. And is this part of a slippery slope? Will losing teams attempt to protest now if they think they have been victimized? It's true that this particular case involves a mishandling of the rules (FIFA's rules state that if the player taking the penalty violates the rules of the game in taking the kick and scores a goal in the process, he is to retake the kick; if he misses, which the Uzbekistan player did not, the defending team gets an indirect free kick - incidentally, I saw nothing in those rules prohibiting a hesitation during a run-up), while cases like, say, Liverpool's "phantom" goal against Chelsea at Anfield in last year's CL semis involve judgment calls. Still, one suspects this judgment will open the gates for more complaints, especially from losing sides.
Botched calls have provided some of the most memorable moments in sport, particularly soccer, even if they're infuriating. Everyone has one go against them at one time or another. Calling in the world council and declaring games null and void because of an error? I don't know. Would it be as bad if the team that was hurt more by a replay was the team that already lost? Possibly not, but then I don't see how that would work. Yes, Uzbekistan asking for a 3-0 forfeit wasn't going to happen, but punishing the team that actually won? What if Bahrain turns around and wins the replay? You've punished Uzbekistan - the team that won despite the ref's mistake - for the error. That's just not good. And maybe Uzbekistan just goes out and wins 5-0 and puts it all to bed. But maybe they'll be too distracted. The fact that the possibility exists at all is a little alarming.
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
Monday, September 05, 2005
I don't believe what I just saw
One of these days I'm going to manage to see an incredible comeback in a soccer game where I don't already know the outcome. I managed to have last spring's Champions League final ruined for me, and today I took in the February 2004 FA Cup match between Tottenham and Manchester City. I was aware that one team came from behind to win 4-3 and was pretty sure that that team was City; when Spurs scored the first goal less than two minutes in, that confirmed it.
Even so, it was pretty amazing to see. Not only were City down 3-0 at halftime, but Joey Barton (the notorious hothead) was sent off just after the whistle. In a three-goal hole and with only ten men on the pitch? Do you suppose bookies would even have set odds that City would come back to win?
Yet somehow it happened, thanks largely to City's increased determination (where was that in the first half, you wonder) and Spurs' breakdown in defense. Arni Arason, basically filling in for David James, chose halftime to suddenly turn into Oliver Kahn, making a couple incredible saves (including one on a free kick where he deflected the ball into the crossbar on one side of the goal, then in just a couple seconds scrambled to the other side just in time to stop a rebound header from going over the line).
First came a Sylvain Distin header just three minutes into the half. Twelve minutes later, a deflection caught Kasey Keller going the wrong way for a Spurs own goal. Things were pretty quiet for another twenty minutes, until Shaun Wright-Phillips barely avoided being offsides and broke free on a run, chipping one over Keller and into the back of the net. That would have been amazing enough, but a Jonathan Macken header in extra time got by Keller and sealed the win.
Talk about a comeback! Three goals down, a man short, playing on the road at White Hart Lane - that gives Liverpool's CL win a real run for its money. If it falls short it's only because it wasn't a final of any kind.
It flashes me back to what was probably the most memorable high school game I ever taped. We (Columbia) were playing Montclair Kimberley Academy in the semifinals of the county tournament, on a neutral ground at West Essex. In the first half, everything went their way - they went up 2-0, we didn't look that good, I think they may have had a penalty for one of their goals. Things didn't look good at all. Then came the second half. The first goal came maybe ten minutes in - I don't remember who scored it now, probably either Dan Lovitz or one of the Bowen brothers. Things were quiet for another ten or fifteen minutes, and then suddenly Charles Alcine broke in, the goalie came out to meet him, Charles got by him and it was 2-2. Then just seconds later, Dan took it away from MKA just after their restart, sent it to a streaking Pat Glennon up the right side, and as the goalie dropped to cover where he thought it was going, Pat fired it right over his head and into the top of the net for the third goal. Wild celebration ensued, followed by 15 or 20 minutes of holding off MKA, which they did. 3-2, Columbia moves on to the finals (a 1-1 draw against Montclair that was not broken).
I mention all this both to start working Man City into the blog and as a way of proving how exciting soccer can be, though if you're reading this you probably don't need much persuasion. People who attack the low scores are, I think, missing the point entirely. When scoring is at a premium, every strike becomes that much more exciting, regardless of when it's scored. Think about it. When a basketball player scores to make it 2-0 in the first quarter, would the fans leap to their feet and cheer? Only if they don't know how the game is played. Though it's theoretically possible for a first-quarter field goal in football or a first-inning solo home run in baseball to stand up, how often do they actually, and would anyone expect it? By contrast, any goal you see in a soccer game could very easily be the last. Sometimes you don't see any at all, something you would only see in a football game if the two teams were really incompetent (such as one contest between Northwestern and Illinois in 1978; NU finished 0-10-1, U of I 1-8-2).
Soccer isn't about easy scoring. It's not about constant "rewards" for the fans. It's about delayed gratification. It's about following the rhythms and flow of a game that's constantly moving (in a way that, of the four major North American sports, only hockey really resembles): tracking the ball up and down the field, paying attention to setpieces like corners and free kicks, watching chaos unfold around the goal mouth. A curling free kick, a laser beam from 20 yards, a rising header, a diving save. I don't mean to bash the American sports; those who know me certainly know I love all of them as well. There is something about soccer, however, that puts it in a class by itself.
Put it this way. I love baseball, but if the Cubs aren't playing, I'm probably not watching, unless it's the playoffs. Same with football and the Bears, college football and Northwestern, basketball and the Bulls, hockey and the Devils. College basketball I frequently don't watch at all until the conference tournaments start. Yet give me a soccer game and some free time and I'm all over it. I don't make time for every single game that Fox Soccer Channel shows, but I have watched many Premiership games that haven't featured Man City; I've even watched games from France and Argentina, leagues that I'm not about to seriously follow. Why? I'm not sure I could truly explain it. Either you're into soccer or you aren't, really; I think there are people who could be converted, but it's nearly impossible for words to do justice to the game - if a picture is worth a thousand words, 90 minutes of soccer is equal to 162,000,000 words, and I just can't summon that many to tell someone why they should be watching. Ultimately, all I can say is this: there's a reason it's called "the beautiful game." It's not an accident.
Well, that got out of hand. If you made it this far, thanks for indulging me.
Even so, it was pretty amazing to see. Not only were City down 3-0 at halftime, but Joey Barton (the notorious hothead) was sent off just after the whistle. In a three-goal hole and with only ten men on the pitch? Do you suppose bookies would even have set odds that City would come back to win?
Yet somehow it happened, thanks largely to City's increased determination (where was that in the first half, you wonder) and Spurs' breakdown in defense. Arni Arason, basically filling in for David James, chose halftime to suddenly turn into Oliver Kahn, making a couple incredible saves (including one on a free kick where he deflected the ball into the crossbar on one side of the goal, then in just a couple seconds scrambled to the other side just in time to stop a rebound header from going over the line).
First came a Sylvain Distin header just three minutes into the half. Twelve minutes later, a deflection caught Kasey Keller going the wrong way for a Spurs own goal. Things were pretty quiet for another twenty minutes, until Shaun Wright-Phillips barely avoided being offsides and broke free on a run, chipping one over Keller and into the back of the net. That would have been amazing enough, but a Jonathan Macken header in extra time got by Keller and sealed the win.
Talk about a comeback! Three goals down, a man short, playing on the road at White Hart Lane - that gives Liverpool's CL win a real run for its money. If it falls short it's only because it wasn't a final of any kind.
It flashes me back to what was probably the most memorable high school game I ever taped. We (Columbia) were playing Montclair Kimberley Academy in the semifinals of the county tournament, on a neutral ground at West Essex. In the first half, everything went their way - they went up 2-0, we didn't look that good, I think they may have had a penalty for one of their goals. Things didn't look good at all. Then came the second half. The first goal came maybe ten minutes in - I don't remember who scored it now, probably either Dan Lovitz or one of the Bowen brothers. Things were quiet for another ten or fifteen minutes, and then suddenly Charles Alcine broke in, the goalie came out to meet him, Charles got by him and it was 2-2. Then just seconds later, Dan took it away from MKA just after their restart, sent it to a streaking Pat Glennon up the right side, and as the goalie dropped to cover where he thought it was going, Pat fired it right over his head and into the top of the net for the third goal. Wild celebration ensued, followed by 15 or 20 minutes of holding off MKA, which they did. 3-2, Columbia moves on to the finals (a 1-1 draw against Montclair that was not broken).
I mention all this both to start working Man City into the blog and as a way of proving how exciting soccer can be, though if you're reading this you probably don't need much persuasion. People who attack the low scores are, I think, missing the point entirely. When scoring is at a premium, every strike becomes that much more exciting, regardless of when it's scored. Think about it. When a basketball player scores to make it 2-0 in the first quarter, would the fans leap to their feet and cheer? Only if they don't know how the game is played. Though it's theoretically possible for a first-quarter field goal in football or a first-inning solo home run in baseball to stand up, how often do they actually, and would anyone expect it? By contrast, any goal you see in a soccer game could very easily be the last. Sometimes you don't see any at all, something you would only see in a football game if the two teams were really incompetent (such as one contest between Northwestern and Illinois in 1978; NU finished 0-10-1, U of I 1-8-2).
Soccer isn't about easy scoring. It's not about constant "rewards" for the fans. It's about delayed gratification. It's about following the rhythms and flow of a game that's constantly moving (in a way that, of the four major North American sports, only hockey really resembles): tracking the ball up and down the field, paying attention to setpieces like corners and free kicks, watching chaos unfold around the goal mouth. A curling free kick, a laser beam from 20 yards, a rising header, a diving save. I don't mean to bash the American sports; those who know me certainly know I love all of them as well. There is something about soccer, however, that puts it in a class by itself.
Put it this way. I love baseball, but if the Cubs aren't playing, I'm probably not watching, unless it's the playoffs. Same with football and the Bears, college football and Northwestern, basketball and the Bulls, hockey and the Devils. College basketball I frequently don't watch at all until the conference tournaments start. Yet give me a soccer game and some free time and I'm all over it. I don't make time for every single game that Fox Soccer Channel shows, but I have watched many Premiership games that haven't featured Man City; I've even watched games from France and Argentina, leagues that I'm not about to seriously follow. Why? I'm not sure I could truly explain it. Either you're into soccer or you aren't, really; I think there are people who could be converted, but it's nearly impossible for words to do justice to the game - if a picture is worth a thousand words, 90 minutes of soccer is equal to 162,000,000 words, and I just can't summon that many to tell someone why they should be watching. Ultimately, all I can say is this: there's a reason it's called "the beautiful game." It's not an accident.
Well, that got out of hand. If you made it this far, thanks for indulging me.
World Cup qualifying corrections
For some reason I had been under the impression that goal differential was the most important tiebreaker if two teams were tied in group play in World Cup qualifying. This isn't the case. From UEFA's website, here are the official FIFA rules for group qualifying tiebreakers:
1. Points
2. Points in head-to-head games
3. GD in head-to-head games
4. Total goals in head-to-head games
5. GD in group total
6. Total goals in group total
7. A playoff match if necessary
Overall GD, which I'd been using, is fifth! (Or the fourth tiebreaker, since no one would consider "points" a genuine "tiebreaker.") It probably makes more sense for head-to-head to be first, of course; why I didn't think of that, I don't know. But with that in mind, the following entries from yesterday need to be revised:
CONCACAF
Guatemala and Trinidad & Tobago are still tied with seven points (2-1-4). Each has a win over the other, but Guatemala holds the tiebreaker by #3 - they defeated T&T 5-1 while T&T's win was 3-2. So Guatemala has a +3 edge in head-to-head GD, giving them an insurmountable tiebreaker should the two nations end up with the same record.
CONMEBOL
Chile and Colombia drew 0-0 in their first outing, meaning that a win by either in their head-to-head match would be enough regardless of Colombia's goal differential. However, if they draw again, it would fall to the GD tiebreaker, which would almost certainly take it for Colombia (barring a very unlikely and huge swing in the other remaining game). So all Colombia has to do to make the playoff for sure is beat Chile, and vice versa.
AFRICA
Here's where it really got messed up, because of the closeness of the groups.
Group 1: Togo does control their own destiny (all they have to do is not lose), but it has nothing to do with goal differential. If Togo ties and Senegal wins, leaving them tied at 21 points atop the group, Togo would advance because of a 3-1 home win and a 2-2 draw in Dakar between the two nations.
Group 2: South Africa is out. No goal differential swing can erase their two losses to Ghana. Congo DR is still in it because they and Ghana have tied twice, but they would still need the scenario listed yesterday to happen: Ghana would have to lose, Congo DR would have to win, and there would have to be a sizeable swing in goal differential. Ghana is still well in command of this group, especially since they haven't lost since the very first match in June 2004.
Group 3: Cameroon defeated Côte d'Ivoire in both their matches, meaning that the Coasters need both a win and a Cameroon loss or tie in the final match; despite their lead in GD, a tie won't be good enough even with a Cameroon loss.
Group 4: Nigeria's failure to get a win at home against Angola in June could be their downfall. Angola won the first match between the teams, giving them the tiebreaker and rendering Nigeria's GD lead meaningless. Rather than what I said yesterday, it is Nigeria who need a win and to hope that Angola cannot match it. Angola's opponent is still lowly Rwanda (1-2-6).
Group 5: This was the only one that was right.
So those are the corrections. You learn something new every day, eh? I did, anyway.
1. Points
2. Points in head-to-head games
3. GD in head-to-head games
4. Total goals in head-to-head games
5. GD in group total
6. Total goals in group total
7. A playoff match if necessary
Overall GD, which I'd been using, is fifth! (Or the fourth tiebreaker, since no one would consider "points" a genuine "tiebreaker.") It probably makes more sense for head-to-head to be first, of course; why I didn't think of that, I don't know. But with that in mind, the following entries from yesterday need to be revised:
CONCACAF
Guatemala and Trinidad & Tobago are still tied with seven points (2-1-4). Each has a win over the other, but Guatemala holds the tiebreaker by #3 - they defeated T&T 5-1 while T&T's win was 3-2. So Guatemala has a +3 edge in head-to-head GD, giving them an insurmountable tiebreaker should the two nations end up with the same record.
CONMEBOL
Chile and Colombia drew 0-0 in their first outing, meaning that a win by either in their head-to-head match would be enough regardless of Colombia's goal differential. However, if they draw again, it would fall to the GD tiebreaker, which would almost certainly take it for Colombia (barring a very unlikely and huge swing in the other remaining game). So all Colombia has to do to make the playoff for sure is beat Chile, and vice versa.
AFRICA
Here's where it really got messed up, because of the closeness of the groups.
Group 1: Togo does control their own destiny (all they have to do is not lose), but it has nothing to do with goal differential. If Togo ties and Senegal wins, leaving them tied at 21 points atop the group, Togo would advance because of a 3-1 home win and a 2-2 draw in Dakar between the two nations.
Group 2: South Africa is out. No goal differential swing can erase their two losses to Ghana. Congo DR is still in it because they and Ghana have tied twice, but they would still need the scenario listed yesterday to happen: Ghana would have to lose, Congo DR would have to win, and there would have to be a sizeable swing in goal differential. Ghana is still well in command of this group, especially since they haven't lost since the very first match in June 2004.
Group 3: Cameroon defeated Côte d'Ivoire in both their matches, meaning that the Coasters need both a win and a Cameroon loss or tie in the final match; despite their lead in GD, a tie won't be good enough even with a Cameroon loss.
Group 4: Nigeria's failure to get a win at home against Angola in June could be their downfall. Angola won the first match between the teams, giving them the tiebreaker and rendering Nigeria's GD lead meaningless. Rather than what I said yesterday, it is Nigeria who need a win and to hope that Angola cannot match it. Angola's opponent is still lowly Rwanda (1-2-6).
Group 5: This was the only one that was right.
So those are the corrections. You learn something new every day, eh? I did, anyway.
Sunday, September 04, 2005
World Cup qualifying update
With a few teams qualifying and many more hoping to follow them into the 32-team field, let's take a look at how things are going on the road to Germany 2006...
CONCACAF (3.5 bids)
In: United States
All but a lock: Mexico (needs one point from final three matches; hosts winless Panama in next match)
Looking good: Costa Rica are on ten points after a win over Panama; a home win over Trinidad and Tobago coupled with a Guatemala loss on Wednesday would leave them needing just one point in their last two games.
The half-bid goes to: Currently, Guatemala and Trinidad are even with seven points (2-1-4 each). Guatemala has a four-goal edge in differential but faces the group's top three teams (including at Mexico), while Trinidad at least gets a match against Panama. If Trinidad can win that game and get a point out of either Costa Rica or Mexico, Guatemala will have its work cut out for it. The winner of the half-bid will play off against the fifth-place Asian nation, either Uzbekistan or Bahrain. (The Uzbeks won the first leg 1-0.)
UEFA (13 bids, plus Germany)
In: Germany, Ukraine
Group One report: I'd feel pretty confident if I were the Dutch. Though only three points clear of Romania in Group One, they've got two games in hand on the Romanians and four points on the Czechs with a match home to lowly Andorra on Wednesday. While a tilt in the Czech Republic looms, wins in the Andorra match and against Macedonia (the other remaining game) would take them through regardless of the turnout against the Czechs.
Group Two report: Ukraine should send a fruit basket to Soren Larsen, whose injury time goal drew Turkey yesterday and allowed Ukraine to win the group (seven points clear of Turkey with two games left for each). The real battle now is for second - Greece is two points shy of Turkey but they have a game in hand. Turkey could really use a win on Wednesday; they'll hope Ukraine's qualification will cause them to ease up in the game in Kiev. Greece, meanwhile, plays winless Kazakhstan; a win coupled with a Turkish loss will put Greece in command of second.
Group Three report: If any team that hasn't qualified yet could feel confident, it's Portugal, with a five-point clearance at the top of the group. Though they must play at second-place Russia on Wednesday, their final two games are home matches against Liechtenstein and Latvia, meaning that even a loss at Lokomotiv probably won't keep them and their massive goal differential (+26 currently) from qualifying without a playoff.
Group Four report: Group Four's top four teams are separated by a single point. Switzerland, France, and Ireland are all on 13 points, but all must play each other and Cyprus. Israel is on 12 points and has only two games left, but both are against the lowly Faroe Islands. If Israel can take six points from those two games, someone will have to step up; Switzerland, France, and Ireland should all beat Cyprus, but they can't afford to be drawing each other.
Group Five report: Italy is in the driver's seat in Group Five, but with Norway only two points behind, they can't afford to lose or draw any of their remaining three against Belarus, Moldova, and Slovenia. They shouldn't, of course, but that's why they play the games.
Group Six report: England is two points behind Poland but has three games left to the Poles' two. England should beat Northern Ireland on Wednesday, but Poland will likely also beat Wales. After England hosts Austria in October they should take the group lead, but ultimately this will come down to the final game: Poland at England on October 12. The loser may have enough points to qualify automatically as one of the top two second-place teams, though.
Group Seven report: Wednesday's game between unbeatens Spain and Serbia & Montenegro could well decide Group Seven, especially with Spain's final two matches against disappointing Belgium and group minnows San Marino. Spain has the advantage of hosting the game after the teams drew 0-0 in Belgrade in March.
Group Eight report: Currently one point up, Croatia could be three or four clear of Sweden by the weekend, as the Swedes must travel to third-place Hungary while Croatia needs only to contend with winless Malta. They'll need the distance; after the two teams meet on October 8, Sweden finishes with lowly Iceland, while Croatia ends with Hungary.
ASIA (4.5 bids)
In: Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran
The half-bid goes to: The Asian format makes it the only one to have already set all its teams, but Uzbekistan and Bahrain are still involved in a playoff to face the #4 CONCACAF nation.
CONMEBOL (4.5 bids)
In: Argentina, Brazil
Looking good: Ecuador is six points clear of the playoff spot and Paraguay five points clear. Colombia and Chile, currently tied on 20 points, play on October 8; a draw in that game would clinch spots for Ecuador and Paraguay even if both lose their matches that day (to Uruguay and Venezuela respectively).
The half-bid goes to: Colombia has the edge at the moment; they're hosting the game against Chile, and have a staggering 12-goal advantage in differential. A win against Chile would guarantee Colombia at least a place in the playoff.
AFRICA (5 bids)
In: No one yet. With just one match left, none of the five group leaders has more than a three-point cushion.
Group 1 report: Togo, on 20 points after a 3-0 defeat of Liberia today, is two points clear of Senegal with one match left. Senegal finishes against struggling Mali, but Togo, currently one up of Senegal on goal differential, controls its own destiny; a win over Congo (whom they beat 2-0 in Lome last September) will put them through.
Group 2 report: South Africa basically erased its chances by stumbling to Burkina Faso yesterday. Ghana's 2-0 defeat of Uganda today puts them three points up with one game left and 11 goals clear of South Africa on differential. Congo DR (the former Zaire) is also on 15 points and with a +4 GD, but they need to beat South Africa and have Ghana lose to Cape Verde in the final game, and have a big goal swing as Ghana is five goals ahead on differential. The odds are strongly in favor of the Ghanaians, who need only tie in their final match to go through.
Group 3 report: Cameroon stunned Côte d'Ivoire 3-2 on Sunday to go top of Group 3 with one game to play. However, Cameroon hosts third-place Egypt in the final game (Egypt won 3-2 in Cairo in their last match), while Côte d'Ivoire travels to lowly Sudan (the visitors were 5-0 winners in their home game). The second-place Ivory Coasters are, however, three goals ahead on differential; a Cameroon loss means that even a draw would likely send Côte d'Ivoire through. Still, the 2000 Olympic champions are masters of their own destiny against Egypt.
Group 4 report: Angola and Nigeria both won on Sunday, remaining tied atop the group on 18 points each. Nigeria has a five-goal edge in differential, so Angola needs a win against Rwanda - the group's last-place nation - and will hope that Nigeria cannot match it. Taking on Zimbabwe, the group's third-place team, the Super Eagles will have a tougher match ahead of them, but they host it, and already won 3-0 at Zimbabwe last September.
Group 5 report: The group is down to the final match - Tunisia, on 20 points, host Morocco, on 19 points, on October 7. The hosts need only draw to win the group; in the previous matchup, in Rabat last September, the teams drew 1-1.
OCEANIA (0.5 bids)
In: No team in Oceania gets an automatic bid.
The half-bid goes to: Australia and the Solomon Islands are currently in a playoff to face the fifth-place South American team. Australia won the first leg 7-0 at home, making them all but a lock to advance. In 2001, Australia also went to the OFC/CONMEBOL playoff; they won 1-0 at home against Uruguay but lost 3-0 in Montevideo to lose the two-legged playoff. New coach Guus Hiddink has been successful with his last two World Cup teams (the Netherlands in 1998 and South Korea in 2002, both of whom finished in fourth place overall), however.
So that's how it looks so far. I'm looking forward to the next set of games - and especially the pair in early October, which will decide quite a bit, especially in Europe. Quickly, here are my top ten games to watch (if you can!) or at least keep track of for this week:
10. Ukraine v. Turkey - Wednesday, 11:15 am CT
Ukraine has nothing to play for, but Turkey will be desperate for a win, hoping to get their record to the point where they can avoid the two-legged playoffs that await the bottom six second-place group finishers.
9. Guatemala v. United States - Wednesday, TBA
The U.S. is qualified and will likely be sending a second-string team; Guatemala is looking for the points to keep it out of the playoff zone. A win here would be a good start for them.
8. Solomon Islands v. Australia - Tuesday, TBA
There's no way Australia will lose this. Also, good luck seeing it - but if you could see it, it would be worth watching for all the goals. Also, it will set half of the OFC/CONMEBOL playoff that determines one of the World Cup's last spots.
7. Costa Rica v. Trinidad & Tobago - Wednesday, TBA
The hosts would love to win and put even more distance between themselves and the playoff zone. This won't qualify them, but if Guatemala loses, it will get them very close.
6. Hungary v. Sweden - Wednesday, 1:45 pm CT
Sweden is looking for points to get it towards the top of Group Eight; Hungary would love to win and take steps towards advancement.
5. Northern Ireland v. England - Wednesday, 1:45 pm CT
England wants to prove its mediocre showing against Wales was a fluke; Michael Owen returns.
4. Russia v. Portugal - Wednesday, 10 am CT
Portugal should go through even with a loss here, but it's a start for Russia if they win. They could also avoid playoffs if they win out, starting here.
3. Bahrain v. Uzbekistan - Wednesday, TBA
The first leg in Tashkent was marked by controversy, as the Uzbeks believe they were robbed of a goal on a penalty kick that was called back. 1-0 isn't much of a lead, but they need only draw to deny Bahrain the chance to face CONCACAF's #4 nation.
2. Spain v. Serbia & Montenegro - Wednesday, 3:00 pm CT
Neither team has lost yet; Serbia hasn't even conceded a goal in qualifying. The winner, if there is one, takes control of the group.
1. Ireland v. France - Wednesday, 1:45 pm CT
Though Irish manager Brian Kerr says that things are cool now after the French team's manager clarified remarks he made that Kerr viewed as insulting, you can bet this one won't be cute. Both teams are fighting to win a wide-open group.
CONCACAF (3.5 bids)
In: United States
All but a lock: Mexico (needs one point from final three matches; hosts winless Panama in next match)
Looking good: Costa Rica are on ten points after a win over Panama; a home win over Trinidad and Tobago coupled with a Guatemala loss on Wednesday would leave them needing just one point in their last two games.
The half-bid goes to: Currently, Guatemala and Trinidad are even with seven points (2-1-4 each). Guatemala has a four-goal edge in differential but faces the group's top three teams (including at Mexico), while Trinidad at least gets a match against Panama. If Trinidad can win that game and get a point out of either Costa Rica or Mexico, Guatemala will have its work cut out for it. The winner of the half-bid will play off against the fifth-place Asian nation, either Uzbekistan or Bahrain. (The Uzbeks won the first leg 1-0.)
UEFA (13 bids, plus Germany)
In: Germany, Ukraine
Group One report: I'd feel pretty confident if I were the Dutch. Though only three points clear of Romania in Group One, they've got two games in hand on the Romanians and four points on the Czechs with a match home to lowly Andorra on Wednesday. While a tilt in the Czech Republic looms, wins in the Andorra match and against Macedonia (the other remaining game) would take them through regardless of the turnout against the Czechs.
Group Two report: Ukraine should send a fruit basket to Soren Larsen, whose injury time goal drew Turkey yesterday and allowed Ukraine to win the group (seven points clear of Turkey with two games left for each). The real battle now is for second - Greece is two points shy of Turkey but they have a game in hand. Turkey could really use a win on Wednesday; they'll hope Ukraine's qualification will cause them to ease up in the game in Kiev. Greece, meanwhile, plays winless Kazakhstan; a win coupled with a Turkish loss will put Greece in command of second.
Group Three report: If any team that hasn't qualified yet could feel confident, it's Portugal, with a five-point clearance at the top of the group. Though they must play at second-place Russia on Wednesday, their final two games are home matches against Liechtenstein and Latvia, meaning that even a loss at Lokomotiv probably won't keep them and their massive goal differential (+26 currently) from qualifying without a playoff.
Group Four report: Group Four's top four teams are separated by a single point. Switzerland, France, and Ireland are all on 13 points, but all must play each other and Cyprus. Israel is on 12 points and has only two games left, but both are against the lowly Faroe Islands. If Israel can take six points from those two games, someone will have to step up; Switzerland, France, and Ireland should all beat Cyprus, but they can't afford to be drawing each other.
Group Five report: Italy is in the driver's seat in Group Five, but with Norway only two points behind, they can't afford to lose or draw any of their remaining three against Belarus, Moldova, and Slovenia. They shouldn't, of course, but that's why they play the games.
Group Six report: England is two points behind Poland but has three games left to the Poles' two. England should beat Northern Ireland on Wednesday, but Poland will likely also beat Wales. After England hosts Austria in October they should take the group lead, but ultimately this will come down to the final game: Poland at England on October 12. The loser may have enough points to qualify automatically as one of the top two second-place teams, though.
Group Seven report: Wednesday's game between unbeatens Spain and Serbia & Montenegro could well decide Group Seven, especially with Spain's final two matches against disappointing Belgium and group minnows San Marino. Spain has the advantage of hosting the game after the teams drew 0-0 in Belgrade in March.
Group Eight report: Currently one point up, Croatia could be three or four clear of Sweden by the weekend, as the Swedes must travel to third-place Hungary while Croatia needs only to contend with winless Malta. They'll need the distance; after the two teams meet on October 8, Sweden finishes with lowly Iceland, while Croatia ends with Hungary.
ASIA (4.5 bids)
In: Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran
The half-bid goes to: The Asian format makes it the only one to have already set all its teams, but Uzbekistan and Bahrain are still involved in a playoff to face the #4 CONCACAF nation.
CONMEBOL (4.5 bids)
In: Argentina, Brazil
Looking good: Ecuador is six points clear of the playoff spot and Paraguay five points clear. Colombia and Chile, currently tied on 20 points, play on October 8; a draw in that game would clinch spots for Ecuador and Paraguay even if both lose their matches that day (to Uruguay and Venezuela respectively).
The half-bid goes to: Colombia has the edge at the moment; they're hosting the game against Chile, and have a staggering 12-goal advantage in differential. A win against Chile would guarantee Colombia at least a place in the playoff.
AFRICA (5 bids)
In: No one yet. With just one match left, none of the five group leaders has more than a three-point cushion.
Group 1 report: Togo, on 20 points after a 3-0 defeat of Liberia today, is two points clear of Senegal with one match left. Senegal finishes against struggling Mali, but Togo, currently one up of Senegal on goal differential, controls its own destiny; a win over Congo (whom they beat 2-0 in Lome last September) will put them through.
Group 2 report: South Africa basically erased its chances by stumbling to Burkina Faso yesterday. Ghana's 2-0 defeat of Uganda today puts them three points up with one game left and 11 goals clear of South Africa on differential. Congo DR (the former Zaire) is also on 15 points and with a +4 GD, but they need to beat South Africa and have Ghana lose to Cape Verde in the final game, and have a big goal swing as Ghana is five goals ahead on differential. The odds are strongly in favor of the Ghanaians, who need only tie in their final match to go through.
Group 3 report: Cameroon stunned Côte d'Ivoire 3-2 on Sunday to go top of Group 3 with one game to play. However, Cameroon hosts third-place Egypt in the final game (Egypt won 3-2 in Cairo in their last match), while Côte d'Ivoire travels to lowly Sudan (the visitors were 5-0 winners in their home game). The second-place Ivory Coasters are, however, three goals ahead on differential; a Cameroon loss means that even a draw would likely send Côte d'Ivoire through. Still, the 2000 Olympic champions are masters of their own destiny against Egypt.
Group 4 report: Angola and Nigeria both won on Sunday, remaining tied atop the group on 18 points each. Nigeria has a five-goal edge in differential, so Angola needs a win against Rwanda - the group's last-place nation - and will hope that Nigeria cannot match it. Taking on Zimbabwe, the group's third-place team, the Super Eagles will have a tougher match ahead of them, but they host it, and already won 3-0 at Zimbabwe last September.
Group 5 report: The group is down to the final match - Tunisia, on 20 points, host Morocco, on 19 points, on October 7. The hosts need only draw to win the group; in the previous matchup, in Rabat last September, the teams drew 1-1.
OCEANIA (0.5 bids)
In: No team in Oceania gets an automatic bid.
The half-bid goes to: Australia and the Solomon Islands are currently in a playoff to face the fifth-place South American team. Australia won the first leg 7-0 at home, making them all but a lock to advance. In 2001, Australia also went to the OFC/CONMEBOL playoff; they won 1-0 at home against Uruguay but lost 3-0 in Montevideo to lose the two-legged playoff. New coach Guus Hiddink has been successful with his last two World Cup teams (the Netherlands in 1998 and South Korea in 2002, both of whom finished in fourth place overall), however.
So that's how it looks so far. I'm looking forward to the next set of games - and especially the pair in early October, which will decide quite a bit, especially in Europe. Quickly, here are my top ten games to watch (if you can!) or at least keep track of for this week:
10. Ukraine v. Turkey - Wednesday, 11:15 am CT
Ukraine has nothing to play for, but Turkey will be desperate for a win, hoping to get their record to the point where they can avoid the two-legged playoffs that await the bottom six second-place group finishers.
9. Guatemala v. United States - Wednesday, TBA
The U.S. is qualified and will likely be sending a second-string team; Guatemala is looking for the points to keep it out of the playoff zone. A win here would be a good start for them.
8. Solomon Islands v. Australia - Tuesday, TBA
There's no way Australia will lose this. Also, good luck seeing it - but if you could see it, it would be worth watching for all the goals. Also, it will set half of the OFC/CONMEBOL playoff that determines one of the World Cup's last spots.
7. Costa Rica v. Trinidad & Tobago - Wednesday, TBA
The hosts would love to win and put even more distance between themselves and the playoff zone. This won't qualify them, but if Guatemala loses, it will get them very close.
6. Hungary v. Sweden - Wednesday, 1:45 pm CT
Sweden is looking for points to get it towards the top of Group Eight; Hungary would love to win and take steps towards advancement.
5. Northern Ireland v. England - Wednesday, 1:45 pm CT
England wants to prove its mediocre showing against Wales was a fluke; Michael Owen returns.
4. Russia v. Portugal - Wednesday, 10 am CT
Portugal should go through even with a loss here, but it's a start for Russia if they win. They could also avoid playoffs if they win out, starting here.
3. Bahrain v. Uzbekistan - Wednesday, TBA
The first leg in Tashkent was marked by controversy, as the Uzbeks believe they were robbed of a goal on a penalty kick that was called back. 1-0 isn't much of a lead, but they need only draw to deny Bahrain the chance to face CONCACAF's #4 nation.
2. Spain v. Serbia & Montenegro - Wednesday, 3:00 pm CT
Neither team has lost yet; Serbia hasn't even conceded a goal in qualifying. The winner, if there is one, takes control of the group.
1. Ireland v. France - Wednesday, 1:45 pm CT
Though Irish manager Brian Kerr says that things are cool now after the French team's manager clarified remarks he made that Kerr viewed as insulting, you can bet this one won't be cute. Both teams are fighting to win a wide-open group.
See you in Germany
Let me get one thing out of the way at the beginning of this post: I don't like Mexico. That is to say, I don't like anything associated with Mexico's national team. I don't like their tactless fans, whom I will never forgive for chanting "Osama!" at the U.S. team or booing the U.S. anthem during Olympic qualifying last year; I don't like their players, who hand out cheap shots like they think they're at auditions for another remake of The Longest Yard; and I really don't like their coach, Ricardo Lavolpe, whose name is, I think, Spanish for "sour grapes." After yesterday's game he commented that the U.S. played like certain female members of his family, which I guess means that he spent a lot of time as a child getting scored on by his aunt while his defense stood stone-footed.
I can at least understand why Mexico is so angry - in recent years, they've been eclipsed. They used to dominate CONCACAF and the U.S., but in the last ten matches, the U.S. is 7-2-1 against the team to the south. What really must anger Mexican fans, however, is the fact that the U.S. doesn't care nearly as much about the rivalry as Mexico does. When Mexico reached the round of 16 in the 2002 World Cup and played the U.S., it was the farthest either team had ever gotten in the expanded tournament, making it a national event in Mexico and... well, I'm sure some people in the U.S. noticed. When the U.S. beat Mexico 2-0, it hardly registered in the American consciousness. Had Mexico won, they probably would have had a national holiday (as Senegal did after their group defeat of France to open the tournament).
It's that inferiority complex that drives the Mexican fans to boo the U.S. anthem, throw batteries, burn U.S. flags outside Azteca Stadium. Maybe they just want to agitate the U.S. into taking them seriously, but I think they're starting in the wrong place. If there's anyone who does take Mexico seriously, it's the U.S. national team, which still has never won at Azteca and pretty much always has to go through Mexico to some degree if it wants to qualify for the World Cup or the Olympics. (The 2004 game in Guadalajara at which "Osama" was chanted ended up a 4-0 Mexico win that knocked the U.S. under-23 team out of Athens.)
Yesterday's game was, as it turned out, broadcast live on ESPN Classic (still, it says a lot that a game that could qualify the U.S. for the most popular sporting event in the world was shown on ESPN's third option while the two major networks showed a couple of relatively insignificant college football games). I missed that showing because I didn't know about it until it had already started, though, so instead I sat down at 1:30 in the morning expecting to see the game. What was there? Drag racing. Was the game late? Had it not been played? Because none of the sports tickers had a listing for "Soccer," I began to wonder if the game had been played at all. So I went online - where of course I found out that it had been played and exactly what happened, the very thing I had been trying to avoid all day. It figures.
I actually fell asleep for the last 20 minutes of the game (played around 3:30 in the morning, so can you blame me?), but what I saw spoke for itself. The first half was pretty bland; neither team seemed willing to go on the attack early. But even in this conservative milieu, it was obvious who the better team was. The U.S. was faster, crisper with its passes, and spent more time in the attacking half; Mexico, by contrast, looked like most of their players were wearing cast-iron boots. Still, the U.S. wasn't perfect; they made too many awkward back-passes to Kasey Keller, and they gave up arguably the two best chances of the half - one in the 31st minute which Naelson squandered with a bad first touch, and one in the 45th when Keller had to make a diving save on a free kick. Mexico looked like they were playing for a 0-0 draw, though (which would have sent them through).
So when the U.S. scored first (a Brian Ralston header after the ball had come off the post in the 52nd minute), Mexico got a bit skittish, and so it was that DaMarcus Beasley put the game away just five minutes later with a beautiful goal off a short corner that caught the Mexican defense napping. Really, on both goals, Mexico seemed unsure of what to do, like they hadn't expected the U.S. to penetrate this far into their territory.
I fell asleep less than ten minutes after Beasley's goal, so I can't speak much towards Mexico's performance in the final half-hour. Did they finally develop an attack? Well, all I can say is if they did, it didn't help matters. Keller now has a clean-sheet streak extending to over 500 minutes in World Cup qualifying (five straight shutouts).
The early qualification means the regulars can have some rest in the next three games, against Guatemala, Costa Rica, and Panama. The Panama game - in Foxboro - should be a win regardless, but the other two are both road games and will be tossups. I wouldn't be terribly surprised by a loss or tie in either one, especially against Costa Rica, which is solidly in third place right now. (If a win in their game against us in October would clinch them a berth, and it likely will if current trends hold, you can bet they'll be ready to go, especially at home.)
The U.S. finishing in the top three of CONCACAF qualifying always seemed like something of a given, but I'm glad to have seen it through so comfortably. It's always more fun following the World Cup when your team is there (although 1998 was pretty painful), though I do like watching all the games at that stage. Anyway, as I said before: see you in Germany!
I can at least understand why Mexico is so angry - in recent years, they've been eclipsed. They used to dominate CONCACAF and the U.S., but in the last ten matches, the U.S. is 7-2-1 against the team to the south. What really must anger Mexican fans, however, is the fact that the U.S. doesn't care nearly as much about the rivalry as Mexico does. When Mexico reached the round of 16 in the 2002 World Cup and played the U.S., it was the farthest either team had ever gotten in the expanded tournament, making it a national event in Mexico and... well, I'm sure some people in the U.S. noticed. When the U.S. beat Mexico 2-0, it hardly registered in the American consciousness. Had Mexico won, they probably would have had a national holiday (as Senegal did after their group defeat of France to open the tournament).
It's that inferiority complex that drives the Mexican fans to boo the U.S. anthem, throw batteries, burn U.S. flags outside Azteca Stadium. Maybe they just want to agitate the U.S. into taking them seriously, but I think they're starting in the wrong place. If there's anyone who does take Mexico seriously, it's the U.S. national team, which still has never won at Azteca and pretty much always has to go through Mexico to some degree if it wants to qualify for the World Cup or the Olympics. (The 2004 game in Guadalajara at which "Osama" was chanted ended up a 4-0 Mexico win that knocked the U.S. under-23 team out of Athens.)
Yesterday's game was, as it turned out, broadcast live on ESPN Classic (still, it says a lot that a game that could qualify the U.S. for the most popular sporting event in the world was shown on ESPN's third option while the two major networks showed a couple of relatively insignificant college football games). I missed that showing because I didn't know about it until it had already started, though, so instead I sat down at 1:30 in the morning expecting to see the game. What was there? Drag racing. Was the game late? Had it not been played? Because none of the sports tickers had a listing for "Soccer," I began to wonder if the game had been played at all. So I went online - where of course I found out that it had been played and exactly what happened, the very thing I had been trying to avoid all day. It figures.
I actually fell asleep for the last 20 minutes of the game (played around 3:30 in the morning, so can you blame me?), but what I saw spoke for itself. The first half was pretty bland; neither team seemed willing to go on the attack early. But even in this conservative milieu, it was obvious who the better team was. The U.S. was faster, crisper with its passes, and spent more time in the attacking half; Mexico, by contrast, looked like most of their players were wearing cast-iron boots. Still, the U.S. wasn't perfect; they made too many awkward back-passes to Kasey Keller, and they gave up arguably the two best chances of the half - one in the 31st minute which Naelson squandered with a bad first touch, and one in the 45th when Keller had to make a diving save on a free kick. Mexico looked like they were playing for a 0-0 draw, though (which would have sent them through).
So when the U.S. scored first (a Brian Ralston header after the ball had come off the post in the 52nd minute), Mexico got a bit skittish, and so it was that DaMarcus Beasley put the game away just five minutes later with a beautiful goal off a short corner that caught the Mexican defense napping. Really, on both goals, Mexico seemed unsure of what to do, like they hadn't expected the U.S. to penetrate this far into their territory.
I fell asleep less than ten minutes after Beasley's goal, so I can't speak much towards Mexico's performance in the final half-hour. Did they finally develop an attack? Well, all I can say is if they did, it didn't help matters. Keller now has a clean-sheet streak extending to over 500 minutes in World Cup qualifying (five straight shutouts).
The early qualification means the regulars can have some rest in the next three games, against Guatemala, Costa Rica, and Panama. The Panama game - in Foxboro - should be a win regardless, but the other two are both road games and will be tossups. I wouldn't be terribly surprised by a loss or tie in either one, especially against Costa Rica, which is solidly in third place right now. (If a win in their game against us in October would clinch them a berth, and it likely will if current trends hold, you can bet they'll be ready to go, especially at home.)
The U.S. finishing in the top three of CONCACAF qualifying always seemed like something of a given, but I'm glad to have seen it through so comfortably. It's always more fun following the World Cup when your team is there (although 1998 was pretty painful), though I do like watching all the games at that stage. Anyway, as I said before: see you in Germany!
Saturday, September 03, 2005
Introduction.
Welcome to what is undoubtedly not the first and surely not the last blog to tackle the subject of soccer fandom in America. Let's not kid ourselves - it's hard to be a soccer fan in America. I happened to go to a high school that had a pretty good team (Group IV state champions, 1998!), and I - not being particularly athletic - was the cameraman. When your entire job is to keep a tiny white ball pinned in a small, black-and-white viewfinder at all times, you have to develop a good sense for the flow of the game, and I like to think that having to do so helped me appreciate the game all the more. As a result, I'm one of, oh, let's say twelve soccer fans in this country.
Okay, that's clearly a joke. But soccer has been and remains unpopular, despite various attempts to change that, including:
* The NASL
* The 1994 World Cup
* The MLS
* The men's national team no longer sucking
So before we go any further, let's get a couple things out of the way. First off, let's take a look at my top five reasons why soccer has not caught on in this country.
5. Americans like their own sports.
I think that a lot of the problem for soccer really comes straight out of American snobbery. Soccer? Don't the English play that? The three major American sports were all invented here, and even though baseball can be traced to cricket and football to rugby, the similarities by this time are minimal due to the adjustments we made to them 100 years ago. If there were a variant on soccer that was invented in America in 1910, I bet there'd be a big pro league for it. But why would you need to change soccer? It's great as it is. Still, that's part of the problem.
4. There isn't enough room for the niche to grow.
Even if we assume that soccer can boom in this country, that people will have the tolerance for it, there just isn't that much space. I myself would love to follow more than one overseas premier league, but 99% of my attention in that department is going to go to England because I already follow all four major North American sports, plus college football and basketball, and some amount of golf to boot. That's a lot to keep straight. Other niche sports that have managed to boom have done so usually by tapping a segment of the audience that had been left mostly alone. (In particular, the lack of many pro sports teams in the rural South had long left college football one of the few sports anyone there paid attention to; NASCAR was able to come in and exploit that hole.) Where is soccer going to fit? It's not different enough as a phenomenon (like NASCAR is) to appeal to some group that isn't already watching tons of sports -and therefore doesn't necessarily have the energy to add more.
3. The lack of a major pro league.
Yeah, yeah. I don't care what the M in MLS stands for, and I don't care if they're doing well enough to expand; it's not a major pro league in this country. A lot of that can be blamed on the following fact: the MLS does not contain the best players in the world at its sport. All four other North American major pro leagues can say this, but the MLS cannot and likely never will be able to. Even the NASL, which received tremendous help from international stars, could never say it - by the time Pele started with the New York Cosmos, he was nearly 35; Franz Beckenbauer and Johan Cruyff were 32. All were still very good players, but certainly pushing "over-the-hill" in soccer terms. David Beckham has talked of finishing his career in the MLS, but it's doubtful he'd come over until he was at least 33 or 34, and could well provide the English equivalent of Willie Mays stumbling around on the 1973 Mets. At least Beckham's general fame might help, but I doubt it would be enough.
2. A lack of major moments.
I might argue that hockey, currently the "fourth major pro league" in this country even though no one missed it last year, didn't really take off in America until the Miracle on Ice in 1980. Soccer doesn't have anything like this, at least not yet - the biggest win in American soccer history is still the 1-0 defeat of England in the 1950 World Cup, a game so little-known that few people in this country even took note of it at the time, let alone half a century later, despite the fact that it may well be the biggest upset in the history of the international game. Even an advancement to the round of eight in 2002 couldn't hold American attention spans; I doubt highly if anything short of a finals appearance, if not an outright win (ha!), could truly capture the American interest even for its own national team.
1. People just think it's boring.
If you asked me whether I'd rather watch a 1-0 baseball game, a 3-0 football game, a 1-0 hockey game, or a 1-0 soccer game, I'd take the soccer game every time unless the baseball game involved the Cubs winning or something rare like a no-hitter or perfect game. Now, I'm a soccer fan, so perhaps this is unfair, but it's no more unfair than the general perception by American sports fans that soccer isn't interesting. I would wager that most people you asked would confirm that, and yet many of them probably would not have watched more than one game, if even that much. Soccer's rep comes from its low scores, and people's apparent refusal to believe that a low-scoring contest can be exciting. (Many Americans don't even seem to like watching pitchers' duels anymore.) Of course, 99 out of 100 soccer games are pretty much "low-scoring," and plenty of baseball games finish 7-6 and that sort of thing. (And certainly 3-0 is a pretty rare football score.) But people need to understand that a 1-0 game isn't boring (well, it can be - but it isn't just boring by default). There's a lot that goes on in a soccer game and it isn't all balls going in the net. Still, this consensus probably won't change any time soon.
So there you have it. Five reasons why people in this country haven't gotten into soccer, and why a lot of them never will. And five things that people reading this shouldn't see in themselves. Yeah, it's hard to follow soccer in this country - the US is playing a World Cup qualifier against Mexico today, in the US (Columbus), and it's airing on tape delay at 1:30 in the morning. I'll be up for it, though, and that'll be the first game report you'll see here. Why? Because as hard as it is to follow soccer, I think it's worth it. Hopefully more people will start to feel that way - because when that happens, it'll get easier.
Okay, that's clearly a joke. But soccer has been and remains unpopular, despite various attempts to change that, including:
* The NASL
* The 1994 World Cup
* The MLS
* The men's national team no longer sucking
So before we go any further, let's get a couple things out of the way. First off, let's take a look at my top five reasons why soccer has not caught on in this country.
5. Americans like their own sports.
I think that a lot of the problem for soccer really comes straight out of American snobbery. Soccer? Don't the English play that? The three major American sports were all invented here, and even though baseball can be traced to cricket and football to rugby, the similarities by this time are minimal due to the adjustments we made to them 100 years ago. If there were a variant on soccer that was invented in America in 1910, I bet there'd be a big pro league for it. But why would you need to change soccer? It's great as it is. Still, that's part of the problem.
4. There isn't enough room for the niche to grow.
Even if we assume that soccer can boom in this country, that people will have the tolerance for it, there just isn't that much space. I myself would love to follow more than one overseas premier league, but 99% of my attention in that department is going to go to England because I already follow all four major North American sports, plus college football and basketball, and some amount of golf to boot. That's a lot to keep straight. Other niche sports that have managed to boom have done so usually by tapping a segment of the audience that had been left mostly alone. (In particular, the lack of many pro sports teams in the rural South had long left college football one of the few sports anyone there paid attention to; NASCAR was able to come in and exploit that hole.) Where is soccer going to fit? It's not different enough as a phenomenon (like NASCAR is) to appeal to some group that isn't already watching tons of sports -and therefore doesn't necessarily have the energy to add more.
3. The lack of a major pro league.
Yeah, yeah. I don't care what the M in MLS stands for, and I don't care if they're doing well enough to expand; it's not a major pro league in this country. A lot of that can be blamed on the following fact: the MLS does not contain the best players in the world at its sport. All four other North American major pro leagues can say this, but the MLS cannot and likely never will be able to. Even the NASL, which received tremendous help from international stars, could never say it - by the time Pele started with the New York Cosmos, he was nearly 35; Franz Beckenbauer and Johan Cruyff were 32. All were still very good players, but certainly pushing "over-the-hill" in soccer terms. David Beckham has talked of finishing his career in the MLS, but it's doubtful he'd come over until he was at least 33 or 34, and could well provide the English equivalent of Willie Mays stumbling around on the 1973 Mets. At least Beckham's general fame might help, but I doubt it would be enough.
2. A lack of major moments.
I might argue that hockey, currently the "fourth major pro league" in this country even though no one missed it last year, didn't really take off in America until the Miracle on Ice in 1980. Soccer doesn't have anything like this, at least not yet - the biggest win in American soccer history is still the 1-0 defeat of England in the 1950 World Cup, a game so little-known that few people in this country even took note of it at the time, let alone half a century later, despite the fact that it may well be the biggest upset in the history of the international game. Even an advancement to the round of eight in 2002 couldn't hold American attention spans; I doubt highly if anything short of a finals appearance, if not an outright win (ha!), could truly capture the American interest even for its own national team.
1. People just think it's boring.
If you asked me whether I'd rather watch a 1-0 baseball game, a 3-0 football game, a 1-0 hockey game, or a 1-0 soccer game, I'd take the soccer game every time unless the baseball game involved the Cubs winning or something rare like a no-hitter or perfect game. Now, I'm a soccer fan, so perhaps this is unfair, but it's no more unfair than the general perception by American sports fans that soccer isn't interesting. I would wager that most people you asked would confirm that, and yet many of them probably would not have watched more than one game, if even that much. Soccer's rep comes from its low scores, and people's apparent refusal to believe that a low-scoring contest can be exciting. (Many Americans don't even seem to like watching pitchers' duels anymore.) Of course, 99 out of 100 soccer games are pretty much "low-scoring," and plenty of baseball games finish 7-6 and that sort of thing. (And certainly 3-0 is a pretty rare football score.) But people need to understand that a 1-0 game isn't boring (well, it can be - but it isn't just boring by default). There's a lot that goes on in a soccer game and it isn't all balls going in the net. Still, this consensus probably won't change any time soon.
So there you have it. Five reasons why people in this country haven't gotten into soccer, and why a lot of them never will. And five things that people reading this shouldn't see in themselves. Yeah, it's hard to follow soccer in this country - the US is playing a World Cup qualifier against Mexico today, in the US (Columbus), and it's airing on tape delay at 1:30 in the morning. I'll be up for it, though, and that'll be the first game report you'll see here. Why? Because as hard as it is to follow soccer, I think it's worth it. Hopefully more people will start to feel that way - because when that happens, it'll get easier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)