Showing posts with label England. Show all posts
Showing posts with label England. Show all posts

Jun 17, 2014

Things we learned from the first round of World Cup games

Hard to believe the first round of games of the 2014 World Cup are already over. But each team has played once, and that gives us an excellent opportunity to draw a number of way too premature conclusions, way too early. Take these with a grain of salt, remembering that the road to World Cup irrelevance is paved with the carcasses of teams that shone brightly in their opening match and were never heard from again (remember the Soviet Union side from 1986? No? After trouncing Hungary 6-0 in their opening game they were the early favorites to hoist the cup in Mexico. Didn't quite happen that way). But hey, how much fun is drawing conclusions if you can't draw wrong ones? So here goes (in no particular order):


1. CONCACAF teams not named Honduras can play with just about anybody. For Exhibit A, consider today's scoreless draw between Mexico and Brazil. Yeah, this isn't your uncle's Brazil, much less your father's Selecao, but it's still Brazil and they're still playing at home. And Mexico still outplayed them for long stretches of today's match.

2. Spain are done. We know, we know: In 2010 Spain lost the opening game of the World Cup and a month later they were hoisting the trophy. This time is different. For one thing, this wasn't a 1-0 fluke loss, it was a 5-1 beatdown that exposed massive flaws in Spain's game. The era of the tiki taki is drawing to a close. Enjoy its dying moments.

3. Portugal are done. We told you they weren't that good. You didn't listen. The team showed little cohesion against Germany and went to pieces once it found itself down a goal. At one point late in the match, Nani even tackled one of his teammates. Portugal has good players, including arguably the second-best in the world, but good players do not a good team make. Beset by infighting, this squad will play out the string of group matches and take the next flight back to Lisbon.

4. Uruguay are done. They looked terrible against Costa Rica, an interesting little team that actually plays like one and should create all kinds of problems for England if not Italy. The Celeste are old and slow and out of ideas. Diego Forlan is a solid decade past his prime. Their best player is coming off surgery and is not going to be 100 percent fit for at least another week or two, by which time it will be too late. And their problems cannot be solved even by a fit Luis Suarez. Uruguay shocked the world in 2010, advancing to the semifinals. This time around we were actually expecting something. In vain. They may steal a point off England just because England are inefficient like that, but have no chance against Italy and will be on the first flight back to Montevideo.

5. England's attack is interesting, even exciting. The Three Lions had Italy, an excellent defensive side, reeling for stretches of Saturday's game. Unfortunately Wayne Rooney blew a chance from point blank range and his teammates fared no better at converting the chances they created for themselves. But with Danny Welbeck, Daniel Sturridge and Raheem Sterling, Roy Hodgson has a trio of excellent young attackers at his disposal for years to come. Too bad England's defense is so shoddy, and a shame that Gary Cahill, usually the team's best defender, let Mario Balotelli get free to head in the winning goal. Still, there are many positives in England's game. When was the last time you heard anybody say that? The mid-90s?

6. For all the talk about Juergen Klinsmann ushering in a new paradigm of attacking football, the U.S. still beat Ghana with Bob Bradley's tried and true method of bunkering. Or "parking the bus," as it's now known. And lest we forget, the winning goal came on a set piece, which is how they all seemed to come in the Bradley era. Here's the difference though: Unlike Bradley, Klinsmann had the magic touch with his substitutions, as second half subs Graham Zusi and John Brooks combined for the winning goal. And it's impossible to say if the Yanks had parked their proverbial bus as early as they did if they hadn't lost Jozy Altidore to injury. Don't forget that minutes before being stretchered off, Altidore missed a sitter right in front of the Ghana goal that really should have doubled the U.S. lead. Plus this was arguably the worst performance of Michael Bradley's career. If he had been a little more effective in holding and distributing the ball (for the U.S., not Ghana), things might have been very different.

7. Don't count Brazil out. Luiz Scolari's men have been far from impressive so far. They were gifted the three points against Croatia and looked only marginally better against Mexico. Still, with four points from two games and a very weak Cameroon up next, Brazil are in the driver's seat to win the group. Once that happens they will likely face Chile in the round of 16. Chile looked great for about 15 minutes against Australia. Soccer games last 90 minutes. By then Brazil could be hitting their stride. With a little help from the home crowd and the referees, the hosts will still be the team to beat.

8. Germany are quality. Joachim Loew's side played beautifully against Portugal. Well before die Mannschaft scored their first goal, we tweeted about them finding gaps in the Portuguese defense and cautioned that it could be a long day for Cristiano Ronaldo and his mates. And just think if they hadn't lost Marco Reus to injury in the last warmup game! Die Nationalelf are once again at the top of their game and the top of the sport, only now it's by playing a fast, attacking, entertaining style. If there's any justice in the soccer universe, this should take Germany far, perhaps even all the way to the Maracana on July 13. Alas, as past generations of German footballers remind us (hello Toni Schumacher), there is little justice in this sport. In the end it's often the bad guys hoisting Jules Rimet or his anonymous successor. This year, the bad guys appear to be Brazilian.

Jun 9, 2014

Can the 2014 World Cup break the following patterns?

Patterns are made to be broken. It wasn't that long ago that anybody but old white guys with Anglican or Scotch-Irish names could become president of the United States. Tech stocks were supposed to go up forever, until they didn't. Then real estate was, until it didn't. Americans would never watch soccer, until they did. The U.S. would never be competitive at soccer, until they were. The U.S. would never win a World Cup until, oh wait. Well, patterns are made to be broken. No less an authority than Juergen Klinsmann says the U.S. won't win it this year. So maybe that one's not ready to break yet (not that it can anyway with that vote of confidence. Thanks, Juergen). But there are other, more plausible scenarios, that stand to be broken at the 2014 World Cup. Let's take a look:

1. No European team has won the World Cup when it was held in the Americas.
Until 2010 this sentence could read "no European team has won the World Cup when it was held outside Europe," except then both finalists in South Africa were European and Spain ended up winning (another first).

2. Only Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay have won World Cups played in the Americas.
Granted, Uruguay's last triumph came in 1950, when most teams still traveled to the tournament by steamship. And European teams have come dangerously close before, with Italy losing the 1994 final to Brazil on penalties and Holland taking Argentina to extra time in 1978. Still...

3. Brazil, as host nation, will do well.
France and England won their only World Cups as hosts. (West) Germany and Argentina also prevailed when the tournament was held in their countries. Germany in 2006 was a young team in transition that was not supposed to get very far but finished third. South Korea in 2002 and Italy in 1990 made the semifinals of those respective tournaments. The U.S. in 1994 advanced to the elimination round against all expectations. Sweden (yes, really) made the final when they hosted the 1958 tournament. Mexico's only quarterfinal berth came as hosts in 1986. There are few exceptions, but ultimately Nate Silver may be right: this is Brazil's World Cup to lose.

4. A combination of the following teams will face each other in the final: Brazil, Argentina, Spain, France, Holland, Italy, Germany, Uruguay.
They, along with England (whom we haven't included for reasons that will be explained later), are the only teams at the World Cup who have played in a final before. There are three other nations that have played in finals, none of which qualified for Brazil and one of which, Czechoslovakia, isn't even a country anymore (the others are Hungary, who lost to West Germany in 1954, and Sweden, who lost to Brazil in 1958).

5. No African team has made it past the quarterfinal.
Only two teams from Africa have made it as far as the quarterfinals in World Cup history: Cameroon in 1990 and Ghana in 2010. This one looks like it will persist as this year's crop of African clubs appear to be mostly inferior to their counterparts from four years ago: Nigeria and Ivory Coast are shadows of their former selves, Algeria are promising but unproven, Cameroon's players already held one strike and Ghana, perhaps the best African team on paper, are in the group of death. Don't be surprised to see all of the above exit in the first round.

6. England will disappoint their legions of fans.
Only twice have the three lions progressed as far as the semifinals: in 1966, when they won as hosts, and 1990. So why do England fans continue to expect the nearly impossible? Because they're England fans, that's why! They simply do not learn from past failures. It would be funny if it weren't so sad and if England fans didn't become legitimately upset every time it happened. But it's still pretty funny.

7. The U.S. will spring a major upset.
Twice before the U.S. has participated in World Cups in South America. The first time, in 1930, the Yanks won their group and a berth in the semifinal (it's true. Look it up). The second time, in 1950, the U.S. shocked England 1-0 in what is still rightly viewed as the biggest upset in World Cup history.

8. The final will go to extra time or penalties.
The last two did. So did three of the last five.

Dec 6, 2013

Yes, the U.S. Can Advance From its World Cup Group

As you may have heard, the U.S. Men's National Team was drawn into a group with Germany, Portugal and Ghana today for this summer's World Cup in Brazil. That sucks, and there is clearly no justice at all where these things are concerned. I mean seriously: how can there be any pretense of fairness when you have one group with France, Ecuador, Honduras and Switzerland and another with Italy, England and Uruguay. Like, WTF? And who did Argentina pay what did Argentina do to get Nigeria, Iran and Bosnia? But we know full well by now what a corrupt mess FIFA is and there is no point in belaboring this any further. So let's move on, shall we?

Okay, good. So the U.S. is facing a tough task this summer, no question about that. And let's be realistic: Juergen Klinsmann's men are not going to beat Germany, in fact they will in all likelihood not manage a draw, either. And the fact that this is the last group stage game will not change matters. The U.S. has made great strides under Klinsmann and he surely would like nothing better to beat his former protege Joachim Loew on the sport's greatest stage. You can fully expect Klinsi to develop a terrific gameplan and for a little while the Yanks might keep it interesting before the Teutonic machine finds its rhythm and puts at least a goal or two past Tim Howard. In the end, as so often in this sport (cue Gary Lineker quote), you can expect die Mannschaft to take all three points.

Well guess what: Germany will probably take three points from all opponents in this group. And not only because Germany are good -- they are good, and one can make the point that they are the best national team in the world at present. But more significantly, the two other teams in this group are simply not very good.

We are talking about one team, Portugal, that very nearly missed this tournament altogether, needing a second-half hat trick from Cristiano Ronaldo in their play-off with Sweden to gain a spot. The same Portugal team that struggled to beat Luxembourg and dropped points at home against Northern Ireland and Israel in its World Cup qualifying group. That drew Gabon in one friendly and lost at home to Ecuador in another. We are talking about a club that is one injury to one player away from being downright pathetic. Like Luxembourg and Northern Ireland pathetic. The U.S. can beat this Portugal team. Forget that: the U.S. should beat this team and if they don't beat this team they will likely have nobody to blame but themselves.

In fact, Portugal should finish dead last in this group. Because not only is the U.S. better than Portugal, but Ghana is too. The Black Stars advanced all the way to the semifinals of this year's Africa Cup of Nations and made short work of a tough Egypt side in their World Cup qualifier. And yet, the U.S. should be able to defeat Ghana as well. For one, the Yanks are better, deeper and more well-rounded than they were the last time these teams met at Rustenburg, South Africa, in June 2010, while exactly the opposite can be said of Ghana. Michael Essien is now 31 years old, which is well past the prime age for a midfielder. True, they may not need him much anymore as Ghana has several formidable midfielders. But the team is thin and inexperienced in defense and may not have many answers for the sheer physicality of a player like Jozy Altidore. Consider that Ghana's most reliable defender is a guy, Harrison Afful, who stands 5'7 and plies his trade in the Tunisian league. The Black Stars gave up three goals the last time they faced a non-African opponent, and that was Japan.

Yes, Ghana had the Yanks number the last two World Cups, ousting them from both tournaments. In Brazil these teams face each other in the first match, assuring that history, at least this history, will not repeat itself. Besides, the past can only be a guide of future results for so long. No European team had ever won a World Cup outside of their home continent until Spain did. A black man was never going to be president of the U.S. The price of real estate was always going to go up. The U.S. has always (well, twice) lost to Ghana at a World Cup. Those U.S. teams were far more limited, plodding, bunkering versions of themselves. Under Klinsmann the Yanks have begun to develop something of a more freeflowing, attacking style. For a team like Ghana whose weakest link is its back line, that should be a problem. Especially if they think history is on their side.

Make no mistake: this is a pretty tough group. Tougher than the one the Yanks faced four years ago in South Africa, though not as difficult as some of the others in next year's tournament. Just ask England and Mexico, who can effectively forget about making the elimination round after today's draw. Or how about being in a group with Holland and Spain? Yeah, the U.S. faces a tough task. But it's not an impossible one. They play these games for a reason, after all (having said that, England and especially Mexico shouldn't even bother showing up for theirs. I mean really).

Jun 18, 2012

Why England Will Still Not Advance Past the Quarterfinal

England's win over Sweden was fantastic. No question about it. After arguably their best half of football in a decade (going back to the victory over Argentina in the 2002 World Cup), Roy Hodgson's men showed tremendous resilience in coming back to defeat Sweden and leave Zlatan Ibrahimovic and his mates with nothing to play for on the final match day.

Unfortunately, therein lies the problem. Well, part of it. With the Swedes' bags packed and their tee times booked, the Scandinavian side cannot realistically be expected to offer much resistance against France in their final match. France, equal on points with England, already have the better goal difference. So to win the group, England will likely need to defeat the Ukraine by at least a couple of goals.

We'll discuss the challenge of doing that against the host team in a bit. For now let's just point out that if England finish second, they face defending world and European champions Spain in the quarterfinals. Sorry, but under no realistic expectation can the three lions be expected to win that. England may have looked good against Sweden, but they didn't look that good. Not with the way they defended on the two goals, for example. If they pull that stuff against Spain it is going to be a very long day indeed.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves because a place in the quarterfinals is by no means assured. To finish second, England need at least a point from the encounter in Donetsk. No easy task considering the Ukraine will be playing for God and country on their home turf. Think the Ukrainians will be fired up for that one? Think there's any chance Andriy Shevchenko sits it out? Yes. And no. Sheva is 35. This is his last chance to represent his country (or indeed anybody) at this stage of a major tournament. Shevchenko will not only play, but play hard. Anybody expecting any different is probably also expecting the refereeing to be perfectly just. UEFA is not anywhere near as corrupt as FIFA (then again, neither is Afghanistan) but there is a vested interest in not seeing both cohosts exit the European championships for the second time in a row. Plus, rabid home crowds just have a way of influencing officials. So England will have their work cut out for them.

Still, let's say Roy Hodgson's side pulls it out. After all, Wayne Rooney will be back and that will supply a big boost. Surely, a draw can be achieved. And with it a spot in the quarterfinals, in all likelihood against Italy.

While an easier opponent than Spain, the azzurri are nevertheless likely to be the best team England have faced in the tournament so far. France were just getting their sea legs in game 1 and Sweden are really pretty weak in the whole scheme of things. Italy are organized and will not leave the Danny and Wayne show much breathing space. That means it will come down to England's midfield to create chances. This part of England's game has actually been impressive so far. Which means it can't remain so much longer. I mean come on, Steven Gerrard? Sorry, but at this stage of his career, he really shouldn't put much of a scare in the Italian defense.

At best, we see England holding on for a draw and maybe taking the game to penalties, where things will meet their inevitable end. Yes, Chelsea (an English team) defeated Bayern Munich (a German team) on penalties in the Champions League final, but how many actual Englishmen took spot kicks for the Blues? Two did, and they both converted, but can you really see five English players doing it? Well, maybe. But probably not. We may be reverse-jinxing England the way we did poor Poland and Barcelona (as well as a few others we don't need to bring up at this point) but betting against England at a major soccer tournament has got to still be a safe thing, right? Right? We'll just have to wait and see.

May 26, 2012

Euro 2012: Forecast, History and Other Things Worth Knowing

For the first time in nine months we are facing a weekend with no top flight soccer action in the northern hemisphere. (We're talking men's professional soccer here and no, Major League Soccer does not qualify as top flight). What better time to take a look at the main event of this summer's soccer schedule, the 2012 UEFA European Football Championship (aka Euro 2012)?

With its geopolitical influence waning, its economy in shatters and its currency union on the fritz, the "old continent" at least gets to hold what it can rightfully claim as the most competitive soccer tournament in the world. Unfortunately, "most competitive" does not always mean "most entertaining" or "most memorable." With few exceptions (van Basten, Bierhoff, Rehhagel) there are no great sagas that emerge from Euro tournaments the way they do from World Cups or even club soccer competitions. There are no equivalents to the Maracana miracle (Brazil, 1950) the "Wunder von Bern" (Miracle from Bern, Switzerland, 1954), football coming "home" (England, 1966), Showdown in Seville (Spain, 1982), "hand of god" (Mexico, 1986), etc etc. For whatever reason, the exploits of the Euro are quickly forgotten. Despite the high level of competition, or perhaps because of its resulting parity, Euro games very rarely enter the annals of the sport's history. In many ways this is a shame, or perhaps it is entirely fitting given the issues facing Europe at the moment.

Somebody else can pontificate on this at greater length should they so choose. For now, let's keep the focus on the field -- which in soccer is called the "pitch" (lesson number one for American readers looking to sound knowledgeable at Irish pubs this summer). Here, then, are some fearless forecasts for the Euro 2012:

1. Germany will either make the final or exit at the group stage. With one exception, this has been the pattern since 1972. That one exception was in 1988 when (West) Germany hosted the tournament and lost to the van Basten/Gullit-led Dutch juggernaut in the semifinals, so consider that an anomaly for those reasons. Apparently even Germans can succumb to pressure when they have to play in front of home crowds. Which leads us to...

2. Unless the host country is world class, it probably won't go anywhere. This is a stark contrast to the World Cup, where South Africa just became the first host not to qualify for the elimination round. Just two host countries, Portugal in 2004 and France in 1984, made the finals and just one (France) won it. Both of those clubs were at the top of their game at the time: France was a semi finalist at (and probably should have won) the 1982 and 1986 World Cups. Led by Michel Platini, the French played beautiful soccer, featuring prominently in the very best games of that era (that would be the 1982 semifinal against West Germany, still considered a traumatic event in France, and a 1986 quarterfinal victory over Brazil, still the best game this blogger has viewed in his lifetime). The Portugal side from 2004 featured Luis Figo, Deco, Cristiano Ronaldo and others and Porto won the UEFA Champions League that year. Besides those two, only two teams others won elimination round matches: England in 1996 and the Netherlands in 2000 (true story. Prior to 1996 the first "elimination round" was the semifinal). So things do not look good for Poland and the Ukraine and if you're a gambling man (or woman) you may not want to place bets on either club.

3. England will not win. This is like saying the sky is blue, but it's still worth pointing out. Besides, in the Ukraine the sky isn't always blue. Isn't that where Chernobyl is? Anyway, England may have looked impressive in qualifying but the runner-up in their group was Montenegro for God's sake. Montenegro! Since when is that even a country? Anyway, England don't face the most challenging competition in the group stage either, with France, Sweden and the aforementioned Ukraine. Consider their chances of surviving the group very good. But that will probably be the end of the road. The runner up in England's group D face the winner of group C, which will probably be Spain. If they win Group D, England would be most likely to face Italy, which we just can't see ending well either. But again, you knew this already and aren't holding out any unrealistic hopes, right? Right???

4. The semifinals will probably feature at least one team nobody was expecting. Since the Euro tourney expanded to include a quarterfinal, in 1996, there has been one of these each time except 2000. In '96 you had the Czech Republic and France, in '08 Greece, and Russia and Turkey last time. Who will it be this year? Probably not either of the hosts, if history is to be believed, and not England. That still leaves plenty of teams, such as Ireland (wouldn't that be fitting after the 2010 debacle vs. France), Russia (again), Greece (again) or maybe Croatia. Greece would be nice for obvious reasons, but if they're back on the drachma by then one would hope the bonuses get paid in euros.

Yes, these are strange days in Europe, but the more things change the more they (often) stay the same. Germany is pretty predictable at this tournament, as we have seen. If you're looking for a safe bet, invest in US Treasuries. If you're looking to gamble, bet on Germany if they advance to the elimination round. But it will still be gambling. If the recent history of Europe (both soccer and otherwise) is any guide, patterns and paradigms are bound to change, often with no notice. They play these games for a reason and nobody, least of all us, can tell you with any degree if certainty what is going to happen. Except England won't win. We're pretty sure of that.

Feb 3, 2010

The only reason England might defeat the U.S. on June 12...

...is this man: Wayne Mark Rooney.

Yes, we know: Rooney is actually Irish and could just as easily be playing for The Republic like his brother. But there are two problems with this: 1. Ireland were cheated out of a World Cup spot and 2. Rooney, for whatever reason, chose to represent the three lions.

They can be very glad he did. Because if England do defeat their former colony in South Africa, it will undoubtedly be because of Rooney. The best player in British football presents the U.S. a "match-up" problem its defense is ill-equipped to deal with. And that's when American defenders are healthy. At present, two of its starting back four (Oguchi Onyewu and Steve Cherundolo) are injured. So is defensive midfielder Ricardo Clark, whose services would be sorely needed to contain the Man United striker.

All three are expected back in time for the World Cup, but that might not help much. The U.S. simply does not have anybody who can match Rooney's pace, strength and positioning. Few, if any teams do of course but defense happens to be our weakest link. Clark is perhaps the best equipped to at least shadow Rooney in midfield and try to prevent him from getting touches there. But the back four will need to provide cover in the defensive third. And neither Onyewu nor Carlos Bocanegra, the Yanks other starting central defender, are up to the task. Onyewu can match Rooney physically but he's too slow for the assignment. Bocanegra is a bit fleeter than the massive Onyewu but not much. And frankly Boca (who also plays midfield) does not seem all that smart as a defender, as indicated through numerous blown assignments and cases of "ball watching" in qualifiers.

Too bad, because other than that England has no real edge on the U.S. In fact, the Yanks are stronger on the wings (through Landon Donovan, mainly) and far superior at goalkeeper. England have problems of their own on defense, and we aren't talking about John Terry's personal issues. Clint Dempsey has proven through his goal scoring at Fulham that he can succeed against English (and other) defenders. Plus we remain unconvinced about the strength of England's midfield, with Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard hogging all the limelight (and most of the possession).

So make no mistake: Rooney is the only truly world class player on either side right now. Among U.S. players, Tim Howard is almost there and Jozy Altidore certainly has the potential. So does Charlie Davies, but nobody knows how last October's accident will affect his skills over the medium term. And for England? Rooney's it, folks. Sorry, but Stevie and Frankie aren't world class anymore, if indeed they ever were. Okay, fine, Theo Walcott also has the potential to be world class but who knows about his health.

Of course lots can still happen between now and June 12. Rooney could get injured, or burn out, or lose his form. Charlie Davies could continue his miraculous recovery and return as his old self in time for kick off. Stuart Holden could emerge as another bonafide threat on the flanks. Who knows, maybe a defensive star will even emerge for the U.S. Eh, not so much. But for now, it looks like Wayne Rooney is the one key factor for which the U.S. have no answer. If England beat us, it will be because of him.

Jan 9, 2010

Soccernomics and the misbegotten quest to turn soccer into a statistical sport

Don't get me wrong, the book Soccernomics by Simon Kuper and Stean Szymanski is a quick and entertaining read and teaches a few solid lessons. It provides some pretty compelling insight into England's woes in particular and manages to shatter a few myths about the business of soccer. But the book falls short of its ultimate goal, to uncover new, "data-driven" truths that will revolutionize the way the sport is coached, scouted and managed. If you're looking for soccer's version of Bill James' Baseball Extracts, this ain't it. In fact, perhaps more than anything else the book demonstrates the perils of trying to turn soccer into a statistical, data-centric sport; it simply tries to do too much with too little. You're left with a lot of extrapolation, most of which is likely to be disproved before the end of the next World Cup.

The book's main points are this: Rich, prosperous countries and municipalities have more success than poor ones, though there are two notable exceptions (England and Brazil). The transfer market is very inefficient because people who manage soccer clubs, despite their success in other endeavors--or perhaps because of them--do not make good decisions when it comes to managing their clubs' resources (again one notable exception: Lyon). Soccer is not only not big business, but actually rather small potatoes. England are crap and will probably never win another World Cup.

The chapter on England that opens the book is also its best. Hopefully England supporters will read it before the World Cup. Then, when we (the U.S.) beat them in the opening match it will be less of a surprise--and also less of a catastrophe--for the sport's mother country and its bloodthirsty press. So why are England crap? Simple: It has never "developed resources" beyond its working class roots. The English national team is still largely made up of proletarian yobs. To illustrate, the book provides a table with members of England's last three World Cup teams and their fathers' professions. Besides the ones whose dads were professional soccer players or coaches, only David James, Peter Crouch and Gareth Southgate appear to have middle class backgrounds. "When you limit your talent pool, you limit the development of skills," Kuper and Szymanski write. Yes indeed.

Okay, then what about countries like Nigeria, Russia and Mexico, all of whom have soccer-mad populations north of 100 million but none of whom ever appeared in a World Cup semifinal? The same reason, really: managing resources. "People all over the world might want to play [organized] sports, but to make that happen requires money and organization that poor countries don't have."

Here is where the authors' thesis starts to get a bit dicey. How do they explain Brazil, a poor country that has won more World Cups than anybody? Or Argentina, which wasn't exactly rich when it won World Cups? They acknowledge Brazil is an anomaly, but say Brazilian players are overvalued on the transfer market. Then they laud the success of Olympique Lyon, who have somehow managed to "buy low/sell high" almost exclusively with Brazilian imports.

They also have high praise for Arsene Wenger. It's hard to argue that the Frenchman hasn't done great things for Arsenal and that his methods haven't reinvigorated the game in England. But despite being one of the richest clubs in the world, Arsenal has won little silverware in England and none in Europe since Wenger's arrival. Manchester United, par contre, have had unparalleled success the past two decades even though the team's (Scottish) manager does not have an advanced degree in economics and presumably employs none of Wenger's new-age methods.

It just doesn't add up. The Soviet Union had a run of almost 50 years with a highly organized system of more resources than anybody else but didn't win anything. When its clubs did win, it places like Tbilisi and Minsk, not population centers like Moscow and Leningrad. Mexico may not be rich but its clubs have more money (and resources) than anybody outside Western Europe. The first African nation to make inroads internationally (Cameroon) does not even have the 10th-largest population on the continent and is certainly not its richest.

The authors' curious choice of Iraq as an "emerging" soccer nation is even more questionable considering it is right next to Saudi Arabia. The countries are comparable in population size, but one would think the Saudis have more money and organization dedicated to soccer these days. Another country they tapped for soccer greatness, China, has very limited success with team sports of any kind (despite its resources). South Korea has both resources and the know-how to manage them and made the semifinals of the World Cup to boot, but the book barely mentions the Taeguk Warriors.

In the end, it comes out to a typical example of over-reaching to make data fit your ideas rather than vice-versa. You can't fault the authors for trying, but it's a losing proposition from the word go. Unlike sports such as baseball and (American) football, soccer simply does not lend itself to statistical analysis. It just isn't wired that way. The game cannot be parceled up and broken apart with numbers or even facts. The story of a soccer match cannot be told in its box score and there is still no statistic that properly measures a player's contributions. This is starting to change with metrics like tackles, passes and distances run, but the sample size is very, very small. Moreover, even the crudest data, goals scored and against, does not always reflect the reality of what transpired on the pitch. In soccer, the best team does not always win. Over the course of a full season, the best team usually (though not always) ends up winning more than the rest, which is why you need a single table and full home and away schedule to determine a righteous champion. But neither the World Cup, nor its qualification pre-tournaments have this, which is one reason why international matches cannot be trusted as a proper metric for statistical modeling. The European club tournaments aren't much better, though they have been more just in the Champions League era (with its group stages) than before, when each round was drawn completely at random. Yet these make up most of the book's data sample.

So Soccernomics has no chance. The data is flawed to start, and the authors do it no favors by extrapolating to make points that aren't there to begin with. It's lose-lose. Kuper and Szymanski (and their editors) deserve credit for producing a work that is easy and fun to read and raises some interesting questions. But soccer will never lend itself to complete statistical analysis for the same reason that films, artists and actors won't. It's just too visceral.

Dec 4, 2009

Ranking the 2010 World Cup groups by degree of difficulty

The biggest sporting event on the planet, the soccer World Cup, will be held in South Africa next June. Today, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), the international governing body of soccer (which some parts of the world still call football) staged, er, held its draw to decide the makeup of the eight groups. Charlize Theron led the ceremony, though ties between her and South Africa are nebulous at best. The actress does not appear to be capable of even mimicking a South African accent, if today's show is to be believed. Apparently Matt Damon wasn't available.

Anyway, our ranking of these groups by degree of difficulty, from most difficult to least difficult, follows:

1. Group G: Brazil, North Korea, Ivory Coast, Portugal
The most challenging group, no question. Three of these teams are potential semifinalists. Brazil is fierce, but the matchups with the Ivory Coast and its former colonial masters Portugal are very intriguing. The African side appear deeper than Portugal: with Didier Drogba and Salomon Kalou it has one of the most formidable striker pairings anywhere. Barcelona man Yaya Toure anchors a midfield that also includes Arsenal's Emmanuel Eboue and Didier Zokora, while Kolo Toure heads up the defense. If there's a weak link, it's at goalkeeper. In fact, I couldn't even tell you who they have for the spot. Brazil, by contrast, has two Serie A tested goalies who could start for any number of other teams, including England (though frankly MLS has some goalkeepers who would be an improvement to England's options. But I digress). This group is going to be awesome. Except for the games involving North Korea, that is. Which is fine, because nobody fom North Korea will be watching them.

Group D: Germany, Australia, Serbia, Ghana
If Group G is the group of death, Group D is the group of hospice. Unlike Group G, there is no weak link, at least not to the degree of North Korea. You know the Germans are going to be a force because, well, they always are. Serbia are very strong and can play with anybody. Australia are underrated. Mark Bresciano and Scott McDonald can cause problems for opposing teams' defenses and you know the Aussies will work harder than just about anybody. Ghana were runners-up in the inaugural African Nations Championship. Their midfield, with Mickael Essien and Sulley Ali Muntari, is superb. The two European sides are probable favorites to advance, but Australia and particularly Ghana could give them a run for their money. Should be a fun group. In the end, the Germans win. Expect more of the same here.

Group B: Argentina, Nigeria, South Korea, Greece
A clear favorite (Argentina) with three teams that will challenge each other for second place. Unless, that is, Argentina lose their opening game against Nigeria (could easily happen). South Korea appear a little thin but if 2002 taught us anything it's that they are more than capable of surprises. Greece too could go either way. But all in all a pretty easy group for Argentina.

Group E: Netherlands, Denmark, Japan, Cameroon
Another group that could go either way. The Netherlands kicked arse in qualifying but had lousy competition. Other than Wesley Sneijder and Arjen Robben this team appears to lack star power, at least judging by its own very high standards. The current generation of Dutch players simply aren't as compelling as past ones. There does not appear to be a Johan Cruyff or Marco van Basten or Ruud Gullit or even Patrick Kluivert. The Dutch could advance pretty far, but they're unlikely to captivate us much. Denmark are an efficient little team. Christian Poulsen of Juventus is likely their best player. I'm honestly more intrigued by Denmark than Holland at this point. Cameroon? Well, you got Eto'o and, um, right. Japan will likely finish last.

Group H: Spain, Switzerland, Honduras, Chile
The most intriguing team here is Chile. Argentine coach Marcelo Bielsa has put together a squad that finished second in CONMEBOL qualifying. They do not appear to have any superstars (yet. Though look out for Matias Fernandez, a 23-year old midfielder who plays for Sporting Lisbon) but also no obvious weak links. We fully expect them to advance out of this group with European champions Spain. The other two teams are crap. Honduras aren't even supposed to be here and Switzerland were pathetic in the Euro 2008 tournament held on their home turf. Both clubs have a few intriguing players, but Spain and Chile should rule the group with relative ease.

Group A: South Africa, Uruguay, Mexico, France
Another very mediocre group. South Africa may be the worst host country since the U.S. in 1994. Mexico had a horrific start to their qualifying campaign but eventually got their stuff together under new coach Javier Aguirre. We liked Mexico's 2006 team a great deal. Their round of 16 match against Argentina was probably the best game of the entire tournament, but several key players from that club are in the twilight of their careers and the younger guys who replaced them have not impressed. Giovanni dos Santos has been a disappointment and may not even make the team. France? Don't get me started. Talk about teams that aren't supposed to be here. Uruguay may win the group with ease. Diego Forlan is awesome, but may be past his prime at this point. Ajax man Luis Suarez has not yet hit his; the 22-year old has scored 17 times in 15 Eredivisie matches this season (not a typo). This World Cup could very well be his coming out party. Uruguay are actually very deep at the forward position: Edinson Cavani and Jorge Martinez are two other guys who can score; they currently do so for Serie A sides Palermo and Catania, respectively and has some talent in defense as well. They could make a run to the quarterfinals. But don't expect much more than that. Remember this is a team that had to qualify through a playoff against Costa Rica.

Group C: England, U.S.A, Algeria, Slovenia
They've done better under Fabio Capello but England shouldn't really scare anybody. Wayne Rooney, admittedly, is terrific and John Terry is a fine defender. Other than that they appear to be built on over-hyped players who never really accomplished anything in their national team careers. We're not even talking about David Beckham here, who has absolutely no business on this team and, if there is any justice in this world, will be left off. (Instead the finger points directly at Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard). Theo Walcott is potentially intriguing but will he even make the team? Aaron Lennon may be worth watching as well, but with Frankie and Stevie calling the shots in midfield, how many balls will he really see? Slovenia is smaller than about 48 of the 50 U.S. states but watch them beat us. Could happen, especially the way people here are talking about the group. Ditto Algeria, who appear to be strong in midfield and defense, which could create all kinds of problems for Bob Bradley's side. The U.S. has been maddeningly inconsistent this year; not just from one match to the next, but within individual games as well. The team simply appears to tune out and fade from stretches of games for no apparent reason. Without Charlie Davies, there are not enough weapons in attack. The defense is stong in the center but weak on the flanks. There is very little creativity in midfield and that is virtually all supplied by Landon Donovan. Other players (Michael Bradley and Clint Dempsey) need to step up. Is Jermaine Jones the answer? Probably not, but there could be somebody else to emerge much the way Davies did this year. Bottom line: This group is not England's or America's by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, neither team could qualify. What a field day we'd have with that one.
By the way: What do people think of my idea, floated on Twitter, for a friendly wager for the game: If the U.S. wins, England agrees to adopt "soccer" as the definitive word for the sport. If England win, Americans do the same for "football." If you're serious about this we should get other media involved. But then what happens if it's a tie? Well, then the status quo can prevail. What do you say?

Group F: Italy, Paraguay, New Zealand, Slovakia
Is it me or does Italy never get drawn into a difficult group? Italy never gets drawn into a difficult group. I don't know how much money, pasta, or prostitutes Italy has sent Sepp Blatter's way over the years, but it's obviously enough to earn some pretty nice favors. I mean, how can you even begin to take this group seriously? New Zealand is by far the worst team in the entire field. They're so bad they have a guy from the New York Red Bulls starting at left back. (True story) That spot in the tournament really should go to the defending champion or something. Give it to Ireland. Hell, give it to Canada. Anyway, you also have highly mediocre teams from South America and Slovakia to make sure Italy don't get off to one of their customary bad starts. It may not help. I can see Italy losing their first game against Paraguay, beating New Zealand 1-0 and maybe playing Slovakia to a scoreless draw and end up advancing as the second placed team. To make things even less fair, Italy will likely face another mediocre club in the round of 16. What a joke.

Photo taken from celebrity-gossip.net without permission.

Sep 9, 2009

A big day for England (less so for the rest of Britain)

With a 5-1 victory at Wembley, the English national team was able to exorcise the ghosts of its last meeting with Croatia and advance to the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. 5-1? Against effectively the same Croatia side that gave England fits in their 2007 meeting? You could write off last year's 4-1 England victory in Zagreb as a fluke, but this suddenly makes England look pretty good. Compared to their pre Euro 2008 selves, that is.

The victory makes a few things perfectly clear:
1. Steve McClaren was a horrible national team coach (or manager, as he's known over there).
2. David Beckham has absolutely no place in the England lineup and should not be included in the World Cup squad, even as a substitute. Let him play in a ceremonial friendly match for all we care, but for God's sake please declare his national team days over and done with, once and for all.
3. Aaron Lennon is a player on the rise and a star in the making and should be given every chance to flourish fnor England (see item 2, above).
4. Frank Lampard and Steve Gerrard might just be able to form a solid midfield nucleus, provided they aren't asked to do too much. With players like Lennon, Wayne Rooney and (when he's healthy) Theo Walcott, they won't need to.
5. Robert Green may be a serviceable national team goalkeeper, but more skill is needed on defense if England are going to go anywhere at the World Cup.

So much for England.

Coming into today's crucial World Cup qualifying matches, we naively (and, it turns out, wrongly) thought all four British teams plus the Republic of Ireland had a shot to make the main event in South Africa.

How quickly things change! It looks like England will now be the sole representative from the U.K. Wales, a distant longshot to begin with, are now officially eliminated after losing to Russia. Scotland lost at home to the Netherlands and are now done as well. Northern Ireland, which actually had an outside chance to win its group and qualify outright, lost at home to Slovakia and now has a real fight on its hands if it is even going to finish second.

That leaves Ireland, which didn't even play but saw its (slim) chances of winning Group 8 dashed after Italy beat Bulgaria. With a five point lead on the third-placed Bulgarians with two games to play, you might figure Ireland to be in the driver's seat. But a look at the remaining schedule (Ireland host Italy and Montenegro; Bulgaria are at Cyprus and host last-placed Georgia) reveals potential trouble ahead for Giovanni Trapattoni's side. Two points from the last two games are likely needed if Ireland are going to finish second. Montenegro may not have a win yet, but nearly all the games they have played have been close--including a scoreless draw against the Republic one year ago.

Elsewhere, Portugal threw a giant wrench in Hungary's plans, winning at Budapest 1-0. With first-placed Denmark stumbling in Albania (a 1-1 draw) the group is very much up for grabs. The next matchday features a battle between Denmark and second-placed Sweden. The Danes then host Hungary on the last matchday. If Portugal win out (they host Hungary next and finish with Malta at home) they should finish second.

Matters are tight in Group 2 as well, with four teams (Switzerland, Greece, Latvia, Israel) still in the race. Greece somehow managed to drop points at lowly Moldova, while Switzerland and Latvia drew.

In Group 4, Russia and Germany will fight it out for first place in the next matchday. Russia trail by a point. Everybody else is out of it.

Turkey stayed alive with a 1-1 draw at Bosnia, meaning Bosnia will need a result from one of its last two games (at Estonia and home to Spain) if it is to hold off the Turks for second place in Group 5. Spain have won the group after trouncing Estonia. No surprise there.

France barely managed to stay alive with a 1-1 draw at Belgrade. With a four point lead, the Serbs can clinch the group if they win one of their last two games (at home to Romania and at Lithuania). Expect France to win their last two games, against Austria and the Faroe Islands, to finish second.

That brings us up to date in Europe. Stay tuned for the situation in the Americas once those games are completed later tonight.

Photo taken from Aaron Lennon unofficial Web site without permission.

Sep 7, 2009

All four British teams and the Republic of Ireland could make the World Cup. Really

This is not a joke. England are all but qualified and can book their trip to South Africa with a win over Croatia Wednesday. Northern Ireland can win their group with victories in their last two games and a little help. Their neighbors to the south, the Republic of Ireland, have an outside shot of winning their group but should at least finish second. Scotland are in good shape to finish second in Group 9--all they need is a point against Holland on Wednesday or hope that Macedonia and Norway play to a draw.

That leaves Wales, who undoubtedly face the longest odds. John Toshack's team sit a distant fourth in Group 4, nine points behind second-placed Russia with three games to play. But Wales still has a shot at completing the sweep. It needs to start with a decisive victory over Russia at Cardiff on Wednesday. Did I mention that Russia has a +12 goal difference to Wales' -2 and that goal differential is the first tie-breaker, according to FIFA rules? No? Well it is. Okay, so the odds are very long indeed. But Wales can still make it. They need to trounce Russia to narrow the gap in goal difference between the two sides. Then Wales need to win their penultimate group stage match at third-placed Finland on Oct. 10. Not an easy task either. Even less so with goal difference a factor and Finland still very much part of the race for second (especially if Russia lose at Wales, which will need to happen for us to even have these conversations in the first place). They will also need Germany to beat Russia that same day--again, by a high as score as possible. That leaves the final matchday, where Wales have to beat up on Liechtenstein while hoping that Russia lose at Azerbaijan. The chances of all of these taking place are admittedly remote. If Wales beats Russia by anything less than two goals you can all but forget about it. But the possibility does exist.

Of course second place only guarantees a playoff match to get in and with some of the teams likely to finish second (France and Portugal come to mind) these could be some very tough matchups indeed. Or two of the teams could face each other.

But even if only three of the four British clubs qualify, plus Ireland, it will still be a monumental occurrence. When was the last time that happened? Scotland have not been to a major tournament since 1998 and Northern Ireland last saw action in 1982, if memory serves.

Of course there is also the possibility that no British teams will qualify. Northern Ireland face tough matches against Slovakia and at the Czech Republic, Ireland might need a result against World Champions Italy on the penultimate matchday. Scotland can easily miss out and even England can be caught if they lose to Croatia. With the direction British football has taken recently, that might be the more likely outcome.

Image taken from loretoenglish.wikispaces.com without permission.

Sep 4, 2009

The international break's biggest World Cup qualifiers

The international break will be a moment of truth for several national teams, with two matchdays on the calendar over the next week. We have taken a look at the group standings and calendar and provide you the following ranking of most crucial games (in order):

1. Portugal at Denmark, Sept. 5
It may lack the "sexiness" of some of the other match-ups, but Portugal v. Denmark holds the keys to the most competitive group in Europe and one that contains several squads that have been World Cup regulars in years past. Denmark lead the group with 16 points from six games. Portugal are lagging in third place, with just nine points from the same number of matches. The surprising Hungarians sit second with 13 points. They'll host Sweden, who are tied with Portugal on points. So Cristiano Ronaldo and his countrymen (along with a few guys born in Brazil who happen to play for Portugal) need a win. Unlike Denmark, they'll have a full squad at their disposal. The Danes will be without goalkeeper Thomas Sorensen (suspended) and four other starters: Thomas Kahlenberg, Leon Andreasen, Daniel Jensen and Daniel Agger (injuries). It's gonna be big.

2. France at Serbia, Sept. 9
Wednesday's match between the top two teams in Group 7 will likely decide the fate of both. The surprising first-placed Serbs (18 points from seven games) will be fresher after sitting out Saturday's games. France must first get by Romania, a club that gave them fits at last year's Euro but have since fallen apart and are barely a factor in the group (seven points from six games). Assuming they win, Raymond Domenech's men will be two points behind Serbia when they meet Wednesday. With a win in that match, they will in all likelihood take the group (their last two games are at home against the Faroe Islands and Austria). Figure Serbia, playing their first tournament as an independent, non-Yugoslav entity, to be aware of this. So the pressure will be on. Expect fireworks.

3. Slovakia at Czech Republic, Sept. 5
Group 3 is essentially turned on its head, with recent World Cup participants Czech Republic and Poland at the bottom of the table and Slovakia and Northern Ireland at the top. Saturday's "Czechoslovak derby" can begin to turn the tide. The Czechs are absolutely desperate for wins, having just eight points from six games. Slovakia sit first in the group with 15 points. Betweeen them are N'Ire (13 points from seven games), Slovenia (11 from seven) and Poland (10 from six). Oh yeah, the men from Ulster also play at Poland Saturday. But the Czecho-Slovak battle is the big one. With a win, Slovakia move a giant step closer to their first participation in a major tournament. A draw does the Czechs no favors either, but leaves Slovakia vulnerable to moves from Poland and Northern Ireland, whom they face at Belfast Wednesday.

4. Brazil at Argentina, Sept. 5
It undoubtedly pits the two best teams against each other, so why is this only the fourth-best (or most crucial, whatever) match? Simple: CONMEBOL is very top-heavy. While they currently sit fourth (the last automatic qualifier), Argentina still have some margin for error if they don't get a result tomorrow. Then Thursday's game at Paraguay simply becomes all important. So while Diego Maradona's side face pressure, it's not a do-or-die thing. Of course, you'll still want to watch any game between these two sides. It's sure to be a spectacle either way.

5. Macedonia at Scotland, Sept. 5
The Netherlands won Group 9 a long time ago but second place is entirely up for grabs, and Scotland are in the thick of it. They'll need to beat Macedonia tomorrow to have any chance though. If they do, they'll likely still need a result against the Dutch on the final matchday Wednesday (only five teams in this group)--or hope that Norway (currently one point behind Alex McLeish's side) and Macedonia somehow take each other out of it. But Holland will likely be resting starters Wednesday and Norway face a potentially tough game at Iceland tomorrow. So if they win tomorrow, Scotland might just be in the driver's seat.

6. Turkey at Bosnia, Sept. 9
If they win at lowly Armenia Saturday, Bosnia can effectively clinch second place in Group 5 when they host Turkey on Wednesday. With a win in that game, they would then put seven points between themselves and Turkey with two matchdays remaining. Of course, Bosnia have been close to qualifying for tournaments before (well, once, for Euro 2008) and ended up falling apart down the stretch. And second place is no guarantee to advancement either. (In case you're wondering: First place is not really an option seeing as Spain hold the lead in the group with a perfect 18 points from six games). But this would be a massive accomplishment for Bosnian football.

7. Mexico at Costa Rica, Sept. 6
Mexico are resurgent under new coach Javier Aguirre and have back-to-back victories against the hated Gringos to boost their fragile egos going into this crucial qualifier at San Jose. La Sele lead the group with 12 points from six games and are a particularly difficult foe on their home turf (it is actual fieldturf, too). But with just nine points, Mexico sit fourth and need a result. If they get it, they can look to the ensuing home games against Honduras and El Salvador to book their ticket to South Africa. If they lose, they'll face yet more soul searching.

8. Russia at Wales, Sept. 9
The moment of truth for Wales, who face extremely long odds even if they do win this game. Assuming (big leap of faith here) that second-placed Russia win at Liechtenstein Saturday, Wales will be nine points in arrears with three games to play. But these are three games that Russia can clearly lose; besides Wednesday's game at Millenium Stadium, they host Germany Oct. 10 and play at Azerbaijan Oct. 14. John Toschak's squad play at Finland and Liechtenstein. There is still hope for a Welsh appearance at South Africa, but it's a feint one.

9. Cameroon at Gabon, Sept. 5
Speaking of moments of truth, the Lions Indomptables have their backs to the wall with just one point from their first two games. They sit fourth and last in Africa's Group A, albeit with a game in hand over the second- and third-placed teams (Togo and Morocco, respectively). Gabon are first, with a perfect six points from two games. So Cameroon, the first team to really put African soccer on the map back in the 1990 World Cup (though some would argue that Algeria did so first in 1982), need a result. Actually, they need two, perhaps three to qualify directly (they face Gabon again Wednesday). But first thing first for the team now coached by Paul LeGuen, who previously led Paris Saint Germain, Glasgow Rangers and Olympique Lyonnais.

10. Croatia at England, Sept. 9
England have been stellar so far in Group 6: 21 points from seven games. We aren't exactly sure of the math, but it looks as though Fabio Capello's side can clinch a spot in South Africa with a victory Wednesday. That would put to rest the demons of the last time they hosted Croatia. It won't mean England are good, much less a threat to win anything next June, but it will be a nice accomplishment for a team that has had very little to cheer about since, well, 1966.

Want to play Fantasy Football? Any interest in football betting? Get your soccer news as well.

Jul 24, 2008

Major League Soccer Hooliganism, Part II

To read Part I, please click here.


The soccer blogosphere was alive this week with the sound of hooligans. Not literally, of course. It's not like I was sitting in front of my computer listening to "up to our knees in [fill in the blank] blood" or anything like that. Just that there was lots and lots (and lots) of talk about hooliganism, fan violence, security violence, etc. etc. in the U.S. and Major League Soccer.

Kicking it all off, of course, were some fisticuffs that took place at a Columbus Crew-West Ham United "friendly" on July 20. By now we all know the story: about a dozen (or maybe 30, according to many press reports) West Ham fans marched into the Columbus Crew end of the stadium to start a fight with their supporters. Security stepped in, perhaps even backed by pepperspray. There was at least one arrest and perhaps some minor injuries (though I couldn't find documentation of the latter).

The blogosphere reaction was swift and generally split into three camps: 1) Those who not only took the event seriously but called for some form of "swift action" to nip this hooligan problem in the bud, 2) Those who said it was overblown and 3) those (mainly from the U.K.) who took the whole thing with a grain of salt or made outright fun of it.

USA Soccer Spot was probably the most vocal members of group #1. "Columbus, you have a problem," they wrote, arguing that the hooliganism issue is specific to that franchise and not the league as a whole. "You have a problem and it needs to be stamped out not just for the good of your organization, but for the good of the league and the good of the game." Uh huh. Soccer America, who have obviously never been to Giants stadium, called the event "one of the worst incidents of fan trouble involving an MLS club." Bleacherreport.com said it was "a major confrontation" and that "hooliganism is everywhere when it comes to soccer, even within the borders of the U.S." CSRN's American Soccer Spot blog said these "incidents of hooliganism and fan violence" mean it is time for MLS to do a bit of soul-searching. Shakes, Shivers, and Dithers was probably most outspoken of all, writing of "the British disease" finally coming to America. "It is clear that one form or another of disorderly behavior has occurred in every country in which soccer is played," SS&D writes. "So far it has been avoided in America. What we don’t need is for our youth to have British idiots teaching us how not to behave."

Right. Except, the "idiots" in question may not have been British at all. At least, the one who was arrested definitely wasn't, according to the July 23 Daily West Ham United Digest. That and "disorderly behavior" has occurred in every country on every level and in every epoch where human beings have ever gathered. Except for maybe North Korea and until Sunday, Columbus, Ohio.

Next, the "overblown" camp, led first and foremost by the two clubs themselves. The Columbus Crew issued a statement calling such reports of the event a "gross mischaracterization." That might have been what set off USSS. West Ham was not far behind, though. "We understand this was an isolated incident," West Ham chief executive Scott Duxbury told the BBC. "I must agree with the Crew's official position that the incident was blown out of proportion," wrote Columbus Alive's Chris DeVille. "Columbus is burning...err, not really," was the title of West End Football's post on the subject.

Finally, those who made light of the whole thing. "Having successfully exported cholera, colonialism and the Cross to the New World, Blighty is now making an attempt at sending hooliganism Stateside, too," wrote the Londonist. Actually check that. They're in camp #1. I thought this was absolutely hilarious before I realized they appeared to be dead serious. "Why must a small, unbiddable part of me find it impossible to stifle a laugh?" asked the Guardian's Marina Hyde. Of the "Hudson Street Hooligans," the supposed "hard core" of Columbus supporters, Two Hundred Percent wrote "they are, ultimately, little boys living out a fantasy. You see them on YouTube, frantically masturbating over shaky hand-held camera footage of football hooliganism from across the world."

Asked about the incident, West Ham boss Alan Curbishley said "We needed that sort of workout...we wanted to show people what we're about."
(Not quite. He did say that but it wasn't in response to the incident, which I doubt he was even aware of at the time. See how easy it is to take quotes out of context?)

Dave's football blog had an alternate theory: the whole thing was just a publicity stunt!

Time to revisit an earlier Soccer Source post about hooliganism in MLS. The title ("...we should be so lucky") was of course somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Nobody wants to see anything resembling the extremely dangerous atmosphere at football grounds in Europe from the mid-60s to early 90s (least of all me, who has firsthand experience with at least a sliver of that time and place). But there is absolutely no chance of that happening in the U.S. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. The null set. There are many reasons for this, some of which were addressed in that piece. (Socio-economic reasons, cultural reasons, geographic reasons and many more. Too much to get into at this point. Sometime later, maybe).

What we will continue to see--and not only in this country--are episodes of violence or unruly behavior when you put large numbers of young men in a confined space at the same time and add alcohol. It happens at (American) football games, baseball games, basketball games, hockey games and yes, soccer games. Every time it happens at a soccer game we can be sure to hear and read about how hooliganism is coming to the U.S. Don't believe it. It's just somebody else taking themselves too seriously and thinking they know something about soccer culture. Or as the Guardian's Barney Ronay put it, "most likely, one of the culprits here is a lingering US fascination with the cliche and paraphernalia of English football hooliganism." Indeed. Time to get over that, folks. Whenever you're ready...

Feb 8, 2008

Friday Footie Link List, Feb. 8, 2008

One of this week's most blogged-about items was the English Premier League's plan to play regular season games overseas. Not surprisingly, most bloggers hated the idea: All Quiet in the East Stand titled its rant "The Day Football Started To Kill Itself." Football Corner wrote Premier League games abroad is not the answer" (they didn't say what the question was, but I get it; they hate the plan. Fair enough).

It wasn't just English bloggers who came out vocally opposed, either. Jakarta Casual out of the Indonesian capital city, is calling the EPL the English Prostitute League. Oh You Beauty, an American Liverpool fan, also blasted the concept, arguing that it would require too many games and dilute the fact that it's the English Premier League. I think he's a bit confused because the only thing English about the EPL (besides its name) is the fact that its teams play in English cities. I suppose a few of the players are English too, though not at Arsenal. If I'm not mistaken, there are at present as many U.S. goalkeepers as English ones starting for Prem sides. And we know all about the American, Russian, Egyptian, Icelandic and Thai club owners. Anyway, we haven't heard the last of this debate. I happen to like the idea, but I think I'm in the minority the only one (although I did find one blogger who seemed to think the whole thing was a cruel joke).

Here's something you definitely won't see in the U.S. Actually you probably won't see it anywhere but in St. Pauli, which is the section of Hamburg that contains the Kiez, the city's thriving red light district (think Las Vegas meets the East Village and you're about halfway there). St. Pauli also has a professional football club that literally plays its games at a fairground. The team, FC St. Pauli, currently plies its trade in Germany's second division and made news this week for signing a sponsorship agreement with Orion, an erotic mail-order company that will supply the club's fan shop with its own brand of condoms (thanks to The Offside for pointing this out to us). Gotta love that. The Offside asks what type of club would do such a thing and provides the link to a neat video report about the organization in response to its question. I can tell you from my own experience that St. Pauli is a very special place. I'm not at all surprised by the news. When I was living in Hamburg, its shirt sponsor was Jack Daniels, which is actually a bit more shocking only because that's a U.S. corporation and St. Pauli are quite literally anti-capitalist.

Wednesday night there was a full suite of international friendlies on the docket. From what I understand the U.S. tied Mexico and England beat Switzerland. Their parents must be proud. I find these games boring but Who Ate All The Pies posed an interesting question in conjunction with Fabio Capello's debut, namely how many England players are world class? WAATP argues that Rio Ferdinand, Steven Gerrard and Wayne Rooney (and "possibly" Joe Cole) fit the bill. I agree with them on Rooney. This got me thinking about the U.S. and Mexico, who between them probably have one world class player at present (Rafa Marquez) but several who could get there in the next five years (Gio, Jozy, Bradley, Adu and Vela come to mind), while England has Theo and Micah. Maybe there are others I'm forgetting. Or maybe, just maybe the U.S. and Mexico will be better than England in a decade's time? Nah. No chance of that happening.

Image taken from lapolladefutbol.com without permission.

Jan 23, 2008

All Publicity Is Good Publicity...Right?

When Saturday Comes, which modestly bills itself as "the half decent football magazine" (that would obviously never fly in the U.S. and not just because of the term "football") did a small piece on Soccer Source in its January issue. Very small. We're talking three lines. The blurb was nothing but a perfectly justified ridicule of one of my "fearless forecasts," but for a fledgling blog like this one, any publicity is good publicity. After all WSC is very well-respected, so if Soccer Source is on their radar--even as an object of ridicule--it must mean I'm doing something right, right? Right?

Uh, yeah. Well anyway, what was all the fuss about in the first place? You'll remember a Soccer Source poll that asked who should be the starting England goalkeeper. The winner was Aston Villa's Scott Carson (by a pretty healthy margin, too). This led me to rejoice when Steve McClaren choose Carson as his starter for that fateful Croatia match back in November. I had a whole post on the topic, titled (I swear I'm not making this up) With Carson in goal, England cannot fail.

We all know what happened next: Carson was crap (worse than Robinson, in fact) , England lost and failed to qualify for Euro 2008, McClaren was sacked, Capello hired, etc. etc. At this point, I should have done what most smart bloggers do, which is delete the embarrassing post from the archives. But I figured that was intellectually dishonest and besides, at the time I really figured Carson the best man for the job. Instead I owned up, with this mea culpa.

WSC didn't give me any credit for that. And why should they have? The funny thing wasn't that I had owned up, but that I had been stupid enough to make such a ridiculous prediction in the first place. They did, however, give me credit for my "pertinent and courageous headline," though I'm not entirely sure that wasn't tongue-in-cheek. Check out page 11 of the January edition (print edition only, I can't find it on their Web site). They even have a screenshot of Soccer Source. I have arrived!

Dec 21, 2007

Weekend Premiership Preview (From An Actual Brit)

The Carling Cup saw us hurtle depressingly toward another Chelsea vs Arsenal B-team final. Chelsea saw off a Liverpool team that was neither second string nor entirely first team. As a result the Scousers lost easily and also had Peter Crouch sent off, which means he’s suspended for three Prem games, a potentially big loss for a struggling team.

Arsenal B edged Blackburn Rovers in a 3-2 thriller. Credit to the kids, but all that result does is support last week’s column about the chasm between the top four and the rest. Imagine if the Patriots’ or Colts’ second string beat the Jacksonville Jaguars starters and you get the idea of what’s going on in England. If Blackburn, as one of the best-of-the-rest teams, can’t beat a collection of Arsenal squad players, what hope is there? Now the baton passes to Tottenham Hotspur after their impressive win away against Manchester City. Then again, maybe another tightly fought, lairy contest is preferable to the inevitable curb-stomping that we’d see if only one of the big four makes the final.

On to the weekend’s games:

Saturday, 22 December 2007
Arsenal v Tottenham, 12:45
This is a what is known as a statement game. And the statement is likely to be: “Arsenal are way better than Tottenham.” Spurs have been slowly turning things around under Ramos, but after seeing off Chelsea quite handily last weekend, anything other than a home win would be a shock.

Aston Villa v Man City, 15:00
City proved last week that they have the stomach for a fight; Villa proved that they should never ask fans to pay to watch them play Sunderland. Villa, though, do have a good record at home, having beaten both Chelsea and Liverpool, and this is the sort of game they need to win if they want to crack the top six and make a play for Europe.

Bolton v Birmingham, 15:00
This week’s lock for most boring game and possibly a preview of a top of the table clash in the Championship next season. Be warned: only four teams have scored fewer Prem goals than these two.

Fulham v Wigan, 15:00
One of those teams is Wigan. And when you know that 5 of their 17 goals came in last week’s game against Blackburn, you realize just how crap they are. If Steve Bruce wants to justify his hiring he’ll need to beat the other crap teams around Wigan, which Fulham most certainly are. As for Fulham, any sympathies the neutral had for the small west London club surely evaporated after last week’s putrid affair against Newcastle.

Liverpool v Portsmouth, 15:00
Pompey have won seven away games on the bounce while Liverpool have lost three of their last four games. The Rafa job watch will begin in earnest if the team loses another game before the New Year and seeing as Derby are the opponents on Wednesday, this is the game Liverpool fans should be worried about.

Middlesbrough v West Ham, 15:00
At first glance this looks like it’ll be shockingly dull. However, a cold, dark (and likely wet) evening in Middlesbrough are conditions not seen elsewhere in the big European leagues and could help make for an entertaining game. All those clichés about the pace and thunder of Premiership football may come true in this one.

Reading v Sunderland, 15:00
Like West Ham fans making the opposite journey, Sunderland’s followers face trips of up to 8 hours just to watch a 90 minute game between two not very good football teams. One hopes that they have something to be mildly pleased about on the long journey home, though one doubts it.

Sunday, 23 December 2007
Blackburn v Chelsea, 16:10
Blackburn are becoming seriously annoying. In their last four Prem games they’ve been hammered 4-0 at home by Aston Villa, lost at home to West Ham and conceded 5 goals to team from a crappy town that’s more interested in watching rugby. And let’s not forget that they lost to residents of the Arsene Wenger school for non-English children. Thank God for the perpetual calamity that is Newcastle United, otherwise Rovers would have gone all of November and December without a Prem win. Meanwhile, Avram Grant continues his Jose-lite impression, sending out a team that seems to play just like Mourinho’s Chelsea only not quite as steely. They’ll miss Drogba and Terry, but not enough to be bothered by Rovers.

Man Utd v Everton, 12:00
Aka the Return of Phil Neville. Will he get one over on his old team? Uh, no, he won’t. Everton have been playing excellently of late, so a draw is not out of the question. There’s also no telling whether Man Utd’s players will still be suffering from what seems to have been either the greatest or worst Christmas party ever depending on your viewpoint. One alleged rape, one near rape and Wayne Rooney apparently confusing Justin Timberlake with Jay-Z. It’s what Christmas was invented for.

Newcastle v Derby, 14:00
Food for thought: in 2003 Sunderland set the standard for failure, scoring just 21 goals, conceding 65 and amassing 19 points in 38 games. In the first 17 games this year, Derby have scored 6 goals, conceded 39 and have a grand total of 6 points. Their one win of the season? Against Newcastle. Hopefully, whoever chose this game for a live TV broadcast is sitting at home browsing Monster.co.uk.

Dec 20, 2007

The View From Blighty: Smoods Sounds Off On Capello Hire

My workmate Smoods (an actual Brit!) had such a good time with his first article, he wrote me another. Actually, two more! But the second will have to wait until tomorrow. Here is the first:

So for the first time in about, oh, 18 months, the English national team has a tactically astute foreign coach with a string of club successes on his C.V. This should be interesting.

The most amazing thing about first Sven’s and now Fabio Capello’s hirings is the fact that otherwise jingoistic and xenophobic English soccer fans don’t seem to have a problem with it. These are the same fans who sing “I’d rather be a Paki than a Turk” when facing Turkey and who’s rioting led to the cancellation of a game against the Republic of Ireland. And yet there’s barely any protest at a move that screams surrender to Johnny Foreigner.

And if the principle is hard to take, the reality should make even more refined fans wince. It used to be that foreign coaches were for the sport’s third-world countries. Hiring a foreigner was like calling in the IMF—it was done by struggling nations wanting to get better. Now, can you imagine Gordon Brown calling in the IMF to help with a tanking British economy? Fuck no! And yet the idea that England has willingly dragged itself down to the level of Chad and Saudi Arabia passes with barely a protest.

If you can get past such thoughts, it’s hard to argue with Capello’s qualifications. The man wins trophies and is rightly considered one of the top coaches on the planet. Short of luring Arsene Wenger or Jose Mourinho, the FA has probably found the best man for the job. He’s won the Serie A title with three different clubs over a 15-year period (if you ignore match fixing scandals) and La Liga twice in the only two years he’s coached in Spain. He also won the Champions League with the most jaw-dropping final performance in the competition’s history.

But here’s the problem: if England screw up with him in charge, who gets blamed? With the exception of Terry Venables, the blame is always with England’s managers. With Capello that won’t be possible, so what then? Blame the Germans? The referee? Penalty kicks? Maybe it’ll be the players who get it in the neck. Failure by a Capello-managed England team will surely make fans and media ask whether the players are simply not tactically and/or technically good enough. Wouldn’t it be something if England had face the fact that it simply isn’t as good as the Brazils, Italys and Argentinas of the world?

Dec 12, 2007

Poll Update: England Outlook For World Cup Qualifiers And Beyond

With Fabio Capello reportedly set to take over the England manager job vacated by Steve McClaren, now is as good a time as any to close two concurrent polls Soccer Source has been running for the past fortnight. The polls asked readers to predict where England will finish in their qualifying group for the 2010 World Cup and inquired if the Three Lions "will win a World Cup or European Championship in your lifetime?"

I originally intended the mini survey to gauge England fans' moods after their team's historic collapse against Croatia. But it soon occurred to me that this method was flawed on several levels: there was no way to limit participation to England fans and the "your lifetime" bit was by definition subjective--and potentially self-fulfilling, if particularly distraught fans decided to take their lives into their own hands in the near future (a very real concern, judging by what was portrayed in the country's media. Talk about self-fulfilling. How can you not contemplate suicide after a steady diet of that stuff?). More importantly, there was no way to put the results into context, by for example comparing them to the views of other countries' fans.

I'm glad this is a blog because it's getting really long-winded. No serious editor would put up with this crap. Wait, where was I? Oh yes, the polls. Well, I'm closing them now. I'm sorry if you didn't have a chance to vote but if you feel so inclined you can post your views as a comment. For what it's worth, nearly two-thirds of respondents think England will qualify for the next world cup. Twenty seven percent even believe they will do it by winning the group outright. Thirty four percent think England will go through after finishing second and winning the playoff. Twenty one percent see England finishing second and failing to qualify and only 16% think they will finish third or lower in the group (then again the group is really weak).

As for the second question, one-third of respondents (incidentally the same percentage who envision England failing to qualify for South Africa) think England will win a World Cup or European Championships in their lifetime. Again, I don't know how old these people are or what their life expectancy is but I'm willing to bet this number is lower than it would have been a generation or two ago. On the other hand, it's not as low as one might expect, especially in light of the team's recent travails. Think about it: an individual 25 years old can reasonably expect to live through 20 more such tournaments in his or her lifetime (assuming they live to 65 and both tournaments continue to be held every four years). Since World War II, there have been 15 World Cups and 13 Euro Championships (I'm counting next year's, which England will not win for obvious reasons). Twenty eight such tournaments, of which England has won a single one. And it's not like they were close for the others either, making it to only three other semifinals (1968, 1990 and 1996). On that basis, I see little reason to be optimistic. Then again, past patterns rarely work as accurate indicators of future results. By that measure, England are in the driver's seat.

Dec 4, 2007

Soccer Quote of the Day, Dec. 4, 2007

"You have to have so many gifts as an international manager. Fair play to [McClaren] being nominated for the job, let alone getting it. But it looks a step too far..."--Former Irish international Paul McGrath, in prescient comments after Steve McClaren was given the job as England manager last year.

Nov 30, 2007

Soccer Quote of the Day, Nov. 30, 2007


"It's a tense time for managers. They have to exhume confidence."--Gary Lineker

Nov 28, 2007

Soccer Quote of the Day, Nov. 28, 2007

"They think it's all over...it is now!"--Kenneth Wolstenholme's commentary on BBC television during the 1966 World Cup final. The two parts of the quote came immediately before and after Geoff Hurst scored England's fourth goal.