Spurs bottling the Carabao Cup v West Ham is not the end of the world -- or even a temporary setback

West Ham United came back from a 2-0 halftime to stun Tottenham Hotspur 3-2 and advance to the quarterfinals of the Carabao (ne League) Cup. It was a courageous rally by West Ham and likely saved Slaven Bilic's job, or at least gave him a(nother) stay of execution. Beyond that there is no significance to this match.

Some Spurs fans are in quite a tizzy over this, bemoaning not just the blown lead but the fact that this is one more trophy their team is not going to win. Some felt compelled to ask if the team would ever win one under Mauricio Pochettino. Presumably Pochettino has the team going nowhere. The Twittersphere was quite a read immediately after the final whistle as well:








Our friends at Spurs-web.com have more of these. Reddit was aflame as well. It's almost like soccer fans are drama queens who spend too much time on social media. It's not just social media though. Pundits, too. Jamie Redknapp said Spurs were arrogant and complacent. Former Chelsea defender Jason Cundy said Spurs are now likely to go silverware-less yet again this season (then again we'd expect a former Chelsea player named cund to act like a, well, cund).

Time for everybody to relax and take a step back. Yes, the game was a disappointment with the way Spurs rushed out to an early lead that evaporated in the course of 15 minutes. Maybe Spurs aren't the fifth-best team in the world, because the fifth-best team in the world should be able to field a 'B' squad capable of beating West Ham pretty easily. No, losing to the Hammers is never pleasant, but how can you begrudge a club so desperate for success, any success, that their fans fight young children over Mark Noble's sweaty jersey? In a way this was a charity act by Spurs. Or maybe a cruel way to manipulate West Ham to keep Bilic and get relegated. Either way it's worth remembering that this is the Carabao Cup. What exactly is a carabao? Exactly. It's an irrelevant name for an irrelevant competition, apparently played with a strange ball. Which is why teams are trotting out 'B' lineups for this.

The Carabao Cup may mean a lot to mediocre clubs like West Ham and Liverpool, but for teams in the Champions League, with aspirations of a league title, it is secondary out of necessity. Spurs, with a smaller budget than the other "big six," do not have the depth to compete for trophies like this if they are going to be serious about the Premiership and Champions League. Or even the FA Cup. Was the League Cup the easiest way to a trophy? Probably, seeing how opposing teams field weakened lineups. For this reason it's a cheap way to silverware. Again, a terrific alternative for clubs like West Ham. Not for Tottenham. Besides Spurs fans, do you really want your first trophy under Poch to be the Carabao Cup? Come on now. This club can do better. And it will do better.

Because with the Carabao now out of the way, Spurs will be able to concentrate on the competitions that truly matter: The Premiership, where they can assert themselves as the primary challenger to Manchester City. The Champions League, where they are all but assured passage to the knockout round. The FA Cup, which Tottenham dominated in the 60s but hasn't won since 1991. Even if Spurs don't win any silverware this season, having the Carabao Cup would be no solace to poor showings in those three tournaments. For this reason the loss to West Ham is meaningful only in that it frees Spurs up to focus on bigger and better things. So really it's good to have gotten this out of the way now rather than be forced to waste resources on it in additional rounds. Apparently this view is shared by a certain Argentine head coach of the team:



This Saturday, Tottenham visit Old Trafford with a chance to take sole possession of second place in the Premiership table. A win would also establish Spurs as the main challengers to Man City's title aspirations this season. The mere fact that Spurs can be considered favorites in this game is a testament to how far this club has come under Pochettino. It will go further still. The Carabao Cup has no place in these aspirations. Poch and Co have far bigger fish to fry.

It doesn't matter if Klinsmann is right; his attitude is un-American. And it sucks

As you may have heard, Juergen Klinsmann has been in the news for reasons other than cutting Landon Donovan from the U.S. Men's National Team World Cup roster. (A decision we supported, by the way). We are referring here to comments made by der Nationalcoach to the New York Times, that the U.S. can't win the World Cup this year. "We cannot win this World Cup because we are not at that level yet," the Times quoted Klinsmann as saying.

Let's ignore for a moment that Klinsmann's comments were likely taken out of context. After all, the very next quote is how the U.S. would have to "play the game of our lives seven times to win the tournament," an admission that we can, in fact, win the World Cup this year. Let's also cast aside any theories that it might have just been some sort of reverse psychology motivational ploy. In other words: let's just take the comment at face value.

In the realm of pure reason (yes that was a Kant reference. Deal with it) Klinsmann is, sadly, absolutely correct. The World Cup has only been won by eight countries, each with far more ingrained soccer institutions than the U.S. Two of these teams (England and France) were only able to win as hosts, and depending on who you ask may have only won because they were hosts. Another, Uruguay, last won the tournament in 1950, well before the modern era of television and internet and even before there were panini stickers. That leaves five World Cup winning nations in the past half-century: Brazil, Argentina, (West) Germany, Italy and Spain. Needless to say, the U.S. is a class or two removed from this level. Other than our goalie, Tim Howard, no American player would even come close to seeing playing time with these teams. It's unlikely that anybody with a U.S. passport (excluding maybe Klinsmann himself. He does have a U.S. passport, right?) would have ever made a World Cup-winning roster as an outfield player. So our players aren't good enough, probably because youth coaching and development remains substandard in this country. Whatever the reason, if you don't have world class players you aren't going to have a world class team. If you don't have a world class team, you aren't going to win a tournament like the World Cup. Or very much of anything else, for that matter. So realistically, as Klinsmann said in the Times piece, "it is not possible."

And that's exactly why we have to believe that it is.

Because if we accept that it is not possible, it will never become possible. Not this year, not in 2018, not ever. This attitude, "realistically, it is not possible," is not just nihilistic and self-defeating. It is a detriment to any team and any person who has ever been an underdog or faced "impossible" odds, in any situation. It is anathema to hope. It is enemy to progress. It is poison to the American soul. It runs counter to the ideals this country was founded on and which have instilled it with progress the last 200-plus years. Yes, I'm getting patriotic on all your asses right now. Somebody has to.

Remember that us was "realistically" not possible to expect the U.S. hockey team to beat the Soviet Union and win the gold medal at the 1980 Olympics. The U.S. realistically had no chance against England at the 1950 World Cup either. Jesse Owens realistically wasn't expected to compete against Aryan superathletes. For that matter, a bunch of colonists realistically had no prospects of forming their own government, least of all one based on the outlandish belief that all men were created equal and could elect their own leaders! World (and sports) history would look quite a bit different if Juergen Klinsmann had been at the reins, wouldn't it? And not for the better.

One of the very first missives on this blog almost seven years ago was an attempt to dispute, in definitive terms, the notion that soccer is un-American. We listed the litany of usual complaints and then went to great lengths to debunk them all. Strangely enough, there has not been any talk of soccer's un-American-ness (yet) this World Cup cycle. (Come to think of it there wasn't much in 2010 either). We'd like to think we're at least partially responsible for that. We probably aren't, but that's neither here not there. The point is that while soccer has clearly taken over the American mainstream this past decade, so too have some of the more annoying traits of soccer punditry from the other side of the Atlantic. Yeah, we've been accused of doing that too in this space. Guilty as charged, we do sometimes find ourselves siding with eurosnobs, especially when it comes to critiquing being realistic about Major League Soccer.

Realistic. That word again. But let's make a clear distinction: being realistic about the present-day qualities (or lack thereof) of MLS is an assessment, based on fact. Extrapolating from this to make a prediction, even for the short term, is conjecture that can be demoralizing or depressing. No, the U.S. in 2014 does not have the players that Brazil or Argentina or Spain do. That does not mean we, as American sports fans, should accept Klinsmann's statement that we should forget about competing for the World Cup! The fact that so many have, while others have gone as far as to praise him for it, may indicate that the pendulum has swung a bit far into the "European punditry" camp and needs to be reeled back.

Because seriously? If the perfectly realistic thing happened every time, would any of us even watch sports? Hells no. The fact that any team, with the right amount of gumption and drive and good fortune, can beat any other (or will damn near kill itself trying) on any given day is one of the primary spectacles of our time. It's what makes sports so great to watch. Yeah in the end the Germans usually win. But oftentimes they don't. And that's what we're all watching for.

Time Will Vindicate Klinsmann's Decision to Omit Donovan from World Cup Roster

Juergen Klinsmann sent shockwaves through the world of U.S. soccer this week by deciding to exclude Landon Donovan from the team's roster for the 2014 World Cup in Brazil. The ramifications have been felt far and wide, on social and traditional media, water coolers and elsewhere, making the U.S. look like a real, honest-to-goodness soccer nation and leading at least one pontificator to take to Reddit and suggest the whole thing had been staged. (Reddit is great by the way. And you know the sport is being taken seriously when you have people suggesting conspiracy theories).

Many pundits have taken Klinsmann to task for omitting the Yanks' most seasoned and celebrated World Cup player. Some of these critiques were fair enough: Donovan has experience on this, the sport's grandest stage, he has been the team's best outfield player for the better part of a decade, he can mentor the younger players, etc. etc. Others were less plausible. Then you had one that was downright laughable: Klinsmann was criticized (criticized!) for having the gall to select the team with an eye to 2018. That's right, people are outraged that a U.S. national team coach actually plan for the long term. Many of these people are the same ones who lament the lack of long-term vision by U.S. soccer and cite that as a reason why the USMNT will never challenge for a World Cup.

First off, if anybody deserves the benefit of the doubt when it comes to long-term visions, it's Klinsmann. His methods were mocked and criticized at first, his personnel decisions questioned, and when the U.S. got off to a slow start in World Cup qualifying those voices intensified. One idiot even said it would be a good thing if the U.S. failed to qualify for Brazil! But Klinsmann stuck to his guns and sure enough, things started to gell. The team started to play the more entertaining, attacking style espoused by its head coach. Players who had literally been the butt of fans' jokes (see Beckerman, Kyle) took to their specific roles envisioned by Klinsmann and made the team better as a result. The Yanks steamrolled the rest of their qualifying competition, accomplishing something that had only been achieved once before in World Cup qualifying (a draw at the Estadio Azteca) and finished in first place in the Hex.

In the midst of this, Landon Donovan decided to take a sabbatical. This was well within his rights of course, just like it's well within anybody else's rights to question his commitment to the team. He previously said playing in the 2014 World Cup wasn't a priority. Then he changed his mind and came back to the team. Again, fair enough. People change their minds all the time. Sometimes even pundits and bloggers do. But Klinsmann didn't have to take Donovan back at all. When he did, the results were suspect. Donovan was visibly slower than before. More importantly, he no longer had a clear role in Klinsmann's carefully-engineered system (or Konzept, as the German's call it. A term that means concept, blueprint, vision and user manual all in one). This, more than anything, was likely what doomed Donovan's chances of making the U.S. squad.

There may have very well been other factors, particularly personal ones, that led to Klinsmann's decision to omit Donovan. But ultimately it is justified when the bigger picture is taken into view. That bigger picture is Klinsmann's vision of how to make the U.S. a world soccer power. Donovan simply does not fit into that picture anymore. Thus the only arguments in favor of including him become sentimental/emotional ones. Do we really need to remind you of the priority of such factors in the German decision-making process? Can there now be any doubt why Donovan wasn't named to the team?

In Brazil, the U.S. faces a "group of death" where it will be difficult to get results. The team has several promising young players but only one or two (Bradley, Howard) in the prime of their careers. It is moving from a system where it relied heavily on one player (Donovan) to one that stresses a more collective whole. This system (or Gesamtkonzept, to get all German on you again) needs to be given air, light and breathing space to develop and ultimately reach fruition. Eventually the idea is for it to become something that players are matched to, rather than the other way around. We have seen this idea fulfilled with great success in the Spanish national team and at Barcelona and Bayern Munich (and to a certain extent with the German national team). This is Klinsmann's vision for the U.S. as well and one he should be applauded for taking. In Brazil, we will see the next stage of its evolution. Maybe the U.S. will manage to get results and even qualify for the elimination round. More likely, the team will finish third or fourth. At this stage of his career Donovan will not have been able to change that. Better then, to go with the blueprint for the future and leave sentimentality at home. Yeah Donovan was a great World Cup player for the U.S. But that's in the past. Klinsmann is moving this team to the future.

In 2010, Vicente del Bosque famously omitted Raul from Spain's World Cup squad. Raul was the country's most seasoned and historically successful striker. It worked out all right in the end as Spain hoisted its first World Cup trophy. Soccer, particularly the brand practiced by del Bosque and Klinsmann, is a team sport where a unifying system trumps individuality. By hiring Klinsmann to be its head coach (and then extending his contract), U.S. soccer has bought in to this vision. It's showed great promise so far. Let's give it a chance to blossom.

Chelsea FC: The Best Team on the Planet

In the end it's just that simple. Chelsea FC, the team that for two thirds of the 2011-2012 season could do little right, did just enough to defeat Bayern Munich yesterday and claim their first-ever Champions League (or equivalent) trophy.

In so doing, Blues take the throne of club soccer and the unofficial title of best team in the world. It is a dubious distinction for a side that (according the the Premiership table at least) is just the third-best in London and lost two of its last five matches this season--to go along with various transgressions earlier in the campaign (in a 17-game stretch dating to December 17, Chelsea managed just six victories. The wins came against Wolves, QPR, Sunderland, Portsmouth, Bolton and Birmingham City). Still, Chelsea deserve both honors: the Champions League trophy and "best team in the world" moniker. For the following reasons:

1. While Chelsea were certainly not the best club throughout 2011-2012, it's where you finish that counts. After all, we are calling them "the best team in the world RIGHT NOW." It's hard to argue, after defeating Barcelona over 180 minutes and Bayern Munich over 120 (plus penalties), that Blues could not defeat any team in the world at present. Yes, even Premier League champions Manchester City who beat them on the field of play as recently as March 21.

2. Results matter. Clearly Chelsea's style leaves a lot to be desired. At its worst it is a throwback to the 1990s Italian defensive bulwark stuff, which makes sense since that's when Roberto di Matteo plied his trade as a player. That's a shame, but winning ugly is still winning. And how exactly would you expect somebody to play on opponents' grounds in the latter stages of a winner-take-all tournament? Also, Chelsea have this attacker, Didier Drogba, who would be completely alien to Italian national teams of any era, and this not just for superficial reasons. In fact, the entire soccer world has never quite seen anything like Drogba. Most strikers are short, spry fellows. Few have the prowess for finishing and nose for the goal like DD does. Which brings us to the next point...

3. Didier Drogba. This is ultimately what sets Chelsea apart. The 34-year old Ivory Coast international combines an innate scoring ability and imposing physical presence with nerves of steel and a clamoring for the biggest moments of the biggest games. Soccer is a team game and you need 11 guys to do the job and do it well. In that sense, Drogba is merely a role player. It just so happens that his role is to score goals and as a pure goalscorer it could be argued that Drogba is among the very best to ever play the game. Or at least among recent generations: More clutch than Romario and Ronaldo, more prolific than Maradona (as a goal scorer), more imposing than Lineker. We all rave about Messi's brilliance and rightfully so, but on the field of play, over 180 minutes, Drogba's Chelsea got the better of Messi's Barca (see item 2 above: "results matter").

4. Who's their competition for best club in the world? Start with the league champions first: Man City are branded by having exited the Champions League in the group stage. Juventus? Didn't play in Europe this season so we can't take them seriously. Real Madrid? Lost to Bayern in the Champions League semis. Montpellier? No way. Porto? Looked horrible against Man City in Europa League action.

Does this mean the Champions League winner automatically gets the "best club in the world" title? Not always, though in recent years it's hard to argue against the winners. You'd have to go back to 2005 and the legendary "miracle of Istanbul" to find a club (Liverpool) that was not the best in the world at that time. But that's another argument for another day.

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.

Thierry Henry gives the world one more reason to hate the French

(Just in case the thousands of others weren't doing it for you).
Thierry Henry's despicable handball in today's deciding World Cup qualifier against the Republic of Ireland was probably the biggest soccer fraud since Diego Maradona's infamous "hand of God" act in 1986. The stakes, then as now, are massive: a quarterfinals berth at the World Cup then, a spot in next year's South Africa tourney now. Then and now the handball in question led to the goal that would be decisive in the match. Both times, the cheater's excuse was pathetic. At least Maradona's "hand of God" line was somewhat amusing only because it showed just what an arrogant punk he truly was. Henry's excuse: "I'm not the referee." That's not only weak, it also shows complete contempt for the game and for the principle of justice.

I mean right Thierry, you're not the referee. You're not a cop either, but surely you see the harm in stealing somebody else's property? Or collaborating with a fascist government that invaded your country?

Here's the thing though: In 1986 we all knew Maradona was a creep. He had already been fined for cocaine use and linked to the Neapolitan mafia. Thierry Henry's image, on the other hand, was pretty much squeaky clean prior to tonight. In 2006, he was hailed a role model for children by none other than UNICEF for God' s sake. What are UNICEF going to say now? Hey kids, be a cheater like this guy? You're not the referee?

Henry has been a marketer's dream: Charismatic in several languages, handsome and supremely talented. No wonder he ended up as the poster boy for so many corporations and their products.

And there you have it. Money talks. The monetary difference between France and Ireland participating in the World Cup is close to $2 billion in revenues. FIFA is clearly corrupt so it isn't that big of a leap to say this thing reaches all the way up to Sepp Blatter's shiny little office in Zurich. Sadly, there is little justice in soccer. Argentina went on to win the 1986 World Cup. West Germany and Austria blatantly fixed a match at the 1982 World Cup with virtually no repercussions. There are many other examples. So don't expect France to suffer any kind of karmic comeuppance in South Africa next summer. With our luck they'll end up winning the whole tournament.

Photo taken from unicef.org without permission.

Hooliganism in the USA, part III

To read Part I in this series, please click here.
To read Part II.

Yes, this again. Soccer hooliganism is coming to the USA. Check that: it's already here.

In fairness, the "analysis" is a bit different this time. Whereas in the past hooliganism was all about things that were (supposedly) going on in Major League Soccer, it is now all about stateside supporters groups of English teams. Not just any English team, mind you, but one Liverpool FC.

I'm getting ahead of myself. The above links to an open letter addressed to an "esteemed member of the football media" (who sent it to me). It concerns the 16-year old individual who tossed the now-infamous beach ball on the pitch at Sunderland's Stadium of Light on Oct. 17. As we all know this caused contributed to Liverpool's 1-0 defeat that day because the Sunderland goal was scored when the (soccer) ball bounced off the beach ball and into the Liverpool net. As you might imagine this angered the otherwise polite Liverpool supporters a great deal, and they vented their anger on various bulletin boards and other Internet forums. At some point--perhaps (hopefully?) in jest, perhaps not--they threatened the young lad's life, which understandably upset him a great deal.

Apparently, some of these fans were in the U.S. and other places outside the mother country. To wit:

“These people were from America and Australia and all over the world – so-called fans who never come to Liverpool," said the 16-year old, who added that after discovering this he "just ignored them."

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what led Mr. Wesley Chin to pen that letter to members of the media. As far as I can tell, it does not appear to be an act of satire, at least not intentionally.

Chin writes:
"I respectfully ask that this story does not fall through the cracks, and receive the attention that it deserves. We, as football fans to the beautiful game, simply cannot allow these reports of violence, hate, and intolerance be swept under the rug. The people responsible for the threats against this boy need to be held accountable for their disgusting actions, and not be given a pass for their actions. By letting this slip by us, it sends a message that they can say and do whatever they want with online protective anonymity. Silence is consent."

On second thought, maybe it was intended as satire? In that case the joke is on those of us stupid enough to take it seriously. Anyway, here goes:


Dear Mr. Chin,
Thank you for your letter (which was not sent to me personally, but whatever). I agree that violence, hate and intolerance should not be swept under the rug. I also agree that people who issue threats of physical violence need to be held accountable for their actions.

But with all due respect, I think you are taking this far too seriously.

While I do not in any way condone the actions of a select few soccer fans who threaten physical violence, I do not believe this is a reflection of the sport itself. Sports fans are a passionate group, as you point out. Sometimes this passion gets the better of them and they say and do stupid things. Sometimes, they actually mean them. In such instances, authorities need to get involved to protect the individuals affected.

This is not unique to soccer. Bill Buckner received death threats. So did that kid who interfered with the foul ball at Wrigley Field. In some non-soccer circles (college sports come to mind) death threats would be an improvement over some of the banter found on Internet boards.

I am sorry that you are left "feeling completely disgusted" by the news. However, referring to it as an "atrocity" is I think a bit much. So is your "silence is consent" talk.

I have been a fan of the beautiful game for about 30 years and have watched it grow in this country for the past 20. This blog, now two years old, is very much a reflection of what I have experienced. I feel fears of hooliganism and fan violence not only overblown, but alarmist and self-serving.

Allow me to refer you to an earlier statement I made on the subject of soccer violence. I realize this situation is a bit different, but think the message still applies. Please take it to heart:

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: socio-economic reasons, cultural reasons, geographic reasons and many more. Too much to get into at this point. (Sometime later, maybe. Though probably not).

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...

Are you ready, Mr. Chin?

One reason why football (soccer) will might not be a major success in the U.S.

Fellow soccer bloggers Caught Offside yesterday offered up seven reasons why football (soccer) will never be a major success in the U.S. It got lost in all of the hullabaloo over Charlie Davies' accident but I wanted to take the time to address it now.

First things first: Caught Offside are wrong on all but one count, namely that the sport is not stat-intensive enough to become a major deal in the U.S. And frankly, even that's debatable. The others (others sports have a headstart, the U.S. is not very good at soccer, there aren't enough interruptions for advertising, there's no full-time buzzer, not enough cheerleaders and the love of other sports is too great) are, to put it politely, completely off the mark. Many of them are not even true in their own right, much less as reasons for why the sport will fail (again) in this country.

Other sports have a headstart? Sure they do. Just like baseball and basketball did when pro (American) football entered the mainstream in the 1960s. Where was ultimate fighting 10 years ago? Prior to the 1980s the NCAA college basketball tournament was not even televised in its entirety. There are countless other examples of sports entering an already crowded marketplace and succeeding in a major way. A lot of this, it is true, was due to technological advancements (the ubiquity of televisions in American households in the 1960s for pro football) or major events that captured the attention of the nation at the time (think Bird vs. Magic at the 1979 NCAA basketball finals) as well as other factors. So yes, other sports might have a headstart. Big deal. It doesn't mean anything.

The "love of other sports is too great" argument is really no different than this one. Whether these sports have a headstart or people simply love them too much, it just drives home the same point: that there is no space for another "major" sport. But there is always room at the top in America. Just ask the ultimate fighting guys or Lance Armstrong or Tony Hawk or Bode Miller or anybody else who is a household name in this country in a sport outside of football, baseball, basketball or ice hockey.

The U.S. is not very good at soccer? Compared to whom, Brazil? We played them to the letter in the Confederations Cup final a few months back. Yes, they did beat us, but it was darned close. At the last World Cup, in an otherwise meek showing, the U.S. played a scoreless draw against eventual champions Italy. I'm not even bringing up the 2002 World Cup. You might argue the U.S. is not (yet) world class in soccer, but "not very good"? That's just not very accurate. Besides, you want not very good? Look at the U.S. ice hockey team's performance at the last Olympics. Or look at our baseball teams, which performed poorly not only at the last Olympic games, but at the World Baseball Classic. Yet baseball and hockey somehow remain popular, major, sports in this country.

The 'not enough stoppages for advertising' argument is as old as television itself. For the 1994 World Cup advertisers and media companies figured out a way to televise the game "commercial free" by putting a big corporate logo in one of the corners of the screen alongside the game clock and score. Problem solved. If this was still an issue, ESPN never would have acquired the rights to Premiership and Champions League games. Even without constant commercials, soccer sells on TV. This is not only a non issue for the sport's popularity (or lack thereof) in this country, but not a factor, period.

The full-time buzzer argument is even more nonsensical. "There is something very exact in nature about the way the big sports in the U.S. come to a halt," writes COS. Maybe, but what's inexact about a final whistle? Seems pretty finite to me. Baseball doesn't have a final buzzer either, by the way. Baseball games don't even have a clock, in fact. But that's okay because baseball isn't very popular in the U.S., is it?

Nor does baseball have cheerleaders. But soccer does at all levels in this country. High school and college for sure, and with various MLS teams as well. Ever heard of the ChivaGirls? Meanwhile several pro football and basketball teams don't have cheerleaders either. Nor does hockey. Nor does NASCAR. This argument sounds like it was made by somebody who is not very clued in to U.S. soccer. Or U.S. sports. Or, well, pretty much of anything.

Sure, Americans love their stats and there might (might!) be something to soccer's more ethereal nature that keeps it from becoming a major success in this country. (Though one could point to figure skating and gymnastics to nullify that point). More likely, other factors are at work. One of these is the very nature of MLS itself. The top U.S. professional league was created largely so American players would be able to earn money playing in their home country. In this, it has been an unbridled success: nearly every member of the national team got his start in MLS and the nats are more successful than ever before. But MLS, despite its moniker, is not a major soccer league. It is not the EPL. It will probably never even come close. That's fine of course, but there is something to the argument that American consumers clamor for the best and will accept no substitute. But the popularity of events like the World Cup will only grow. If we make a deep run in South Africa next summer we'll see exactly how much.

Mais oui, Arsene, the away goal rule sucks. But here's why we need it:

Arsene Wenger today made his case for abolishing UEFA's away goal rule that serves as the primary tie-breaker in European competition. The illustrious coach of Arsenal FC told the Guardian he felt "the weight of the away goal is too heavy now tactically - it was created 42 years ago at a stage when the teams that went abroad just defended. But now when you play in your own stadium without conceding you have a good chance to go through. So it has reversed the situation."

Actually, we don't quite follow Wenger's logic here; after all, a team needs to win its home leg, not just play for a 0-0 tie--so it's more than simply not conceding goals at home. Sure, home sides may sit back and defend a 1-0 lead once they have established it. And teams that have the lead coming into the home leg will obviously look to dig in their defenses. But we would think the initial impetus is to attack, at least until the first goal is scored.

Nevertheless, Wenger is right about the away goal being outdated. Not only that, it never really made much sense in the first place. What is so incredibly vital about scoring a goal in a foreign stadium that makes it the defacto tie-breaker? Not only that, but the way the rule is set up now away goals can count as much as double; if a team wins its home leg 2-1 it's not like it has a one goal lead. The game is effectively tied, because once the opposing team scores on the return leg it doesn't only erase the one goal deficit, it goes ahead!

Still, we think the away goal rule serves an important purpose: to significantly reduce the chances that a penalty shoot-out will decide the affair. Take away the rule and you'll suddenly see a massive spike in the amount of penalty shoot-outs. And penalty shoot-outs suck for a whole host of different reasons (too many to list here. Suffice it to say if you like penalty shoot-outs you're either a fan of the Italian national team or an idiot or both). If Monsieur Wenger thinks UEFA competitions are defensive now, let him see what they'd be like without the away goal rule! We'd see every single inferior team on the planet bunkering down and playing for penalties. It's bad enough when that happens during a World Cup or Euro quarter- or semi-final, which are one game. These UEFA matches are two! That's 210 minutes of booo-ring soccer!

So yes, away goals carry too much weight now. But absent a better rule for deciding ties (which has apparently remained elusive ever since medieval townfolk first started kicking around animal intestines) abolishing the rule would be a big mistake. Wenger told the Guardian he presented these views to UEFA and that there was "warm reception" to his idea. Here's hoping it was hot air.

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...

Friday Footie Link List

Earlier this week we had some points of contention with Du Nord, so let's pick right up where we left off, shall we? Except, this isn't so much a point of contention but more a point of confusion. The site introduced something today called "The Designated Players," which appears to be some kind of blogging quintet featuring Ives, This is American Soccer, The Original Winger and The Offside Rules. Du Nord doesn't say what the partnership means, except that the other four are his "brothers in arms." I expect further clarifications to be forthcoming. Or maybe not. Don't get me wrong, I think it's cool and all, though I do have a bit of an issue with the (I assume rhetorical) question posed by Du Nord; "Do you really need to go anywhere else for your soccer news?" (Yes you do. Blogs are great and all but sometimes you need properly written, edited and fact-checked news stories if your society isn't going to degenerate into a type of gossip mongering parody of itself. Not that that could ever happen in America of course).

Sadly, actual soccer reporters are fast becoming an endangered species. Earlier this week we had a bit on longtime Boston Globe soccer writer Frank Dell'Apa being reassigned to cover the Celtics. Now, Sideline Views tells us about the OC Register axing its Galaxy coverage. Somebody else told me about The Metrowest Daily News disposing with Mike Biglin, their soccer writer. Where will this all end, yo, I don't know.

WVHooligan asks its readers if it is time for New York Red Bulls constantly oft-injured midfielder Claudio Reyna to go. American Soccer News asked the same question a week ago (the result, so far, is pretty telling). In case you didn't know this, Reyna played in a charity game in New York's Chinatown this week, while his team was out west. The aforementioned Ives criticized him for this, calling it a slight to Red Bulls fans. Who Ate All the Cupcakes was right behind him, arguing that somebody as injury prone as Reyna should not be putting himself at risk in a charity game. I tend to agree with them and would jump onboard with some choice words of my own, except I am so tired of criticizing the Red Bulls in general and Reyna in particular. Which is not to say they don't deserve it. I'm just tired of it. This season is shaping up to be a typical RB/Metro campaign; glimpses of hope interspersed with sustained periods of disappointment and a few hopelessly embarrassing events thrown in for good measure. All of which will culminate with another first round exit from the playoffs. What's different this year is that there really, truly is light at the end of the tunnel--and it ain't an oncoming train, neither! Reyna's contract is up at the end of the season and sometime (probably late) next year the team moves into its shiny new digs in Harrison, N.J. But for the immediate future the franchise is just treading water, which admittedly isn't pretty.

Friday Footie Link List, Feb. 22, 2008

How bad of an idea was the Pan-Pacific Championship? Not even the locals care about it, according to the New York Times' soccer blog. I seriously don't get the point, not even (especially?) from a business perspective. It's a tiny market in the middle of nowhere. Not so fast, though. One blogger in favor is An American's View on Futbol/Football/Soccer and he refuses to pan the Pan-Pacific Championship. Good for him. Diversity of opinion is what makes the blogosphere great. Hey, he has some good points too. Give credit where it's due.

A lot of attention has been given this whole Future of Football report (far more than it deserves if you ask me). PitchInvasion.net and The Offside have some of the more thorough analysis of the whole thing.

American Soccer Daily has an interview with Reading's Bobby Convey. I didn't know Convey was a Philadelphia native--but I like him anyway. In fact, he's one of my favorite U.S. national team players right now--and not only because his game is so un-American. Convey has technique, vision and field presence that I have frankly never seen in a U.S. outfielder (maybe Clint Mathis when he was at his absolute peak, circa 2002. But that was sadly very short-lived). Anyway, read the interview.

Speaking of Philly, Ives asks his readers to suggest names for its new MLS team. Some real good ones there. Some goofy ones too. And all points in between. My favorite is probably the Philadelphia Athletic, though Philadelphia Armpits is probably more appropriate. Watch Philly get a really cool name and built a really good team in no time, kind of like D.C. which also has a cool name and success on the field. Meanwhile, New Yorkers are stuck with a team in Jersey that is named after an Austrian soft drink popular with club kids and which has never won anything. Oh well, at least our mayor doesn't smoke crack.

Fantasy Sport: Soccer In The Year 2020

I don't know who or what The Future Laboratory is, nor do I know why a company like Orange would hire them to put together a report on the Future of Football. Because whoever these guys are, they don't seem to have a solid grip on reality, much less a legitimate grasp of the changes affecting professional sports in general and soccer/football in particular. According to these visionaries, 12 years from now kits will majestically heal injured players, linesmen will be replaced by robots, "stadiums will be equipped with dry ice rockets to set off any heavy rainfall well before the game" (yes that's a direct quote) and crowds will get energized by cocaine gas (or something to that effect) being pumped through stadium airducts. This is all supposed to take place not in some distant time and place (like, I don't know, a science fiction movie?) but by the year 2020. Twelve years from now. To put this in perspective, think back to 12 years ago and what professional sports were like then. Well, they were pretty close to what they are now, weren't they! Yes, one can now follow, watch and listen to games on the internet and some sports have made use of instant replay (though some were doing so 12 years ago too and that technology certainly isn't new) but by and large we're looking at very similar experiences. If somebody were to teleport you to a soccer match in 1996, you'd be allowed to smoke in the stands, there might actually be standing room, few people would have mobile phones and Brad Friedel would have an American accent. Other than that, I can't think of how it would be terribly different. Now I know about Moore's law and how technological advances are supposed to occur faster over time or something. But let's me serious now: this stuff isn't even science fiction. More like science fantasy. A bunch of school children could have come up with more realistic concepts than this. Granted, their presentation would not have been anywhere near as flashy.

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.

Sorry, But I Don't Care About USA-Mexico...

...or any other international friendlies. And neither should you. They're boring. We're talking about exhibition games here, okay folks? Nothing's at stake other than "bragging rights," which in this case comes down to nationalism. I don't like nationalism. It's caused too much trouble, including all of last century's most bloody conflicts. And to what end? At least religion inspired people to paint the ceilings of churches and what-have-you. Nationalism just inspires people to kill each other.

This doesn't mean I eschew international competitions wholesale. The world cup is good fun--great fun, even--and I will also watch the Euro championship, Copa America, Gold Cup, etc. Those tournaments at least represent a means to an end, with a number of national teams competing against each other for an ultimate prize. Okay, that's still vaguely fascist, but then so too is GDP. But we need a way to measure a country's economic output just like we need a way to gauge its soccer output. The international cups fit this need, even if it is flawed and sometimes corrupt system (so too is democracy, after all).

Friendlies are little better than the all-star contests U.S. sports leagues put on every year: over-hyped barely-disguised money-making schemes that are forgotten almost as soon as they are played (unless of course there is some kind of "border war" or other "bragging right" involved or it results in violence or scandal). The level of play is far inferior to club competitions for obvious reasons: few of the players have trained or competed together before and many are not familiar with the coaches' playing styles or tactical formations. Over the course of a month-long tournament like the world cup, national teams can and do gel to the point where they are as tight--or more so--than club sides. But that will never be accomplished in a few days.

So please, spare me this stuff. USA-Mexico? I'll take a pass. Let me know when the games count toward something again.

Photo taken from pe.com without permission.

Friday Footie Link List, Feb. 1, 2008

The 2008 MLS season is fast approaching. Preseason rankings and expectations will arrive soon enough but Who Ate All The Cupcakes (the Yank version of Who Ate All The Pies, I presume) brings us their 2008 MLS Superlatives, styled after those really annoying yearbook contests they had in high school. Readers get to vote on a dozen categories (everything from "most popular" to "best dancer" and "best hair") and even suggest their own. I think I am going to suggest "least valuable," which was a popular category with the Red Bulls last year.

Speaking of WAATP, they have an interesting poll that asks readers to vote on which Premiership team had the most successful January transfer window. I think it's hard to argue against Spurs, personally. But please have your own say.

USA Soccer Spot has their take on the Brad Guzan work permit saga, arguing that work permit rules hurt Americans. I agree that in the short term players like Brad Guzan will suffer in their development because they cannot compete with the best in the world on a regular basis. However, I think that over the long term having a strong domestic league will be a bigger advantage to us--and if the only way we can do this is through other countries' bogus import restrictions (for lack of a better word) then so be it. Besides, we don't need to develop any more goalkeepers. It's the one position Yank players have actually mastered.

Scousers are having a particularly difficult time of it these days. Just how bad is it? This lunatic at Caught Offside (though not one himself) reckons there's no telling how low Reds will go. Eleven devils pins his hope on the club's fans buying out the team. Well if Barca fans can...

Finally, just how good are Inter Milan? Well, no longer the best club in the world, according to my Top 25. But still good enough to come from behind and beat Juventus in a thrilling Coppa Italia match Wednesday. SoccerLens has a feature inspired by a memorable performance in that game: Mario Balotelli is the lad's name and he was officially made an Inter hero by notching a brace, including the game-winner in the 54th minute. Can we consider him Inter's answer to Pato? Negative, states Goal.com. The Ghana-born teenager will be better.

Photo taken from Massere.Altervista.org without permission.

Friday Footie Link List, Jan. 25, 2008

One massive tournament I have not paid any attention to so far is the African Cup of Nations (I wish I could, but professional commitments and rooting interests in others leagues and sports have left me with very little room to maneuver). Luckily for me (and you), there is excellent coverage out there. Soccerblog.com has a moving piece on the role of the sport in Ghana, the country that is hosting the tournament. Titled Ghana: The crucible of African soccer, the piece traces the history of soccer in that country to its postwar roots, providing the names and stories of some of its biggest protagonists.

WorldCupBlog also has excellent coverage of the ACN, including photos, highlights and live blogs. TimesOnline has this inspirational piece on the state of the game in Africa. But best of all may just be Who Ate All The Pies' Top 10 Reasons Why the African Cup of Nations is better than the World Cup (No. 1: Germany can't win it).

Back in the U.S., ussoccerplayers.com has a full-on Q&A with new Red Bulls head coach Juan Carlos Osorio. Is Osorio the man to end the franchise's 12-year reign of futility? I don't know, I'm just glad he isn't Bruce Arena. This will make for a less poisonous atmosphere at press conferences, as El Bruce was at best ornery and at worst downright hostile toward media--and not just in New York. Additionally, Osorio appears to have identified what is for me the crucial shortcoming of MLS: defending. Asked how he turned things around in Chicago, Osorio told USSP "we defended well." This is consistent with remarks he made at his introductory press conference last month.

Speaking of MLS, the league is finally allowing teams to charter their own flights, reports BigAppleSoccer.com. It's about time! Dealing with commercial flights is no fun for anybody, least of all somebody who just spent two hours at maximum physical exertion.

The worst for last: FoxSoccer.com has a new Friday feature called Side Kicks. The inaugural edition to me demonstrates just how weak U.S. soccer journalism still is (outside of the blogosphere, of course!). The writers, Robert Burns and John Juhasz, do a fellatio piece on Landon Donovan where they argue that "LD is the best all-around U.S. [player] we've got. Hands down." The argument itself might--might--have merit on its own grounds, but what is embarrassing is that the writers base their claims on a statistical feat (Donovan's new status as all-time leading USMNT scorer). By doing so they fall into the age-old trap of trying to equate soccer goals scored with something like home runs in baseball. Unlike baseball and most other American sports, soccer does not lend itself to statistical analysis. There is as of yet no statistical way of measuring soccer players' impact or worth; you have to actually watch the games and see them interact on the pitch. The article shrugs off that Donovan "didn't like it in Europe," then asks (I'm assuming with a straight face): "Are all the Yanks playing abroad knocking in goals at an astonishing clip (and with consistency) for the national team? And if Donovan only scores goals against poor competition, why aren't those other players who are supposedly more skilled and ambitious getting hat tricks in the same games?" Uh, maybe because they aren't playing in many of the cupcake Nats games that Donovan is? And again, the obsession with goals scored. It gets worse, too, as the writers apparently think soccer penalty kicks are akin to free throws in a basketball game or something: "So he scores goals from the penalty spot. Doesn't someone have to? And if so, aren't you glad we've got someone who's confident enough to always want the challenge of scoring them? Yes, a lot of his international goals are from the spot, but all that means is that he scored them for us and put the team in a position to win games." Lame, lame, lame. I seriously think FSC would benefit from hiring a savvy blogger to be their soccer editor. No way any of us would have allowed this crap.

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!

Friday Footie Link List, Jan. 4, 2008

Is this really my first post of the year? Indeed it is, but there is good reason for this, which fortunately has nothing to do with the evil day job--at least not this time. I have been busy with no fewer than three (3) separate soccer-related projects (in addition to this one of course). In no particular order, these are AmericanSoccerNews.net, Sportingo and Caught Offside. More on that at a later time (maybe). Here is what has caught my interest out in the blogosphere:

Say goodbye to John Harkes, Red Bulls fans. An assistant coach under Bruce Arena, the Kearny, N.J. native was let go by Juan Carlos Osorio, according to DuNord and others. Osorio is keeping Richie Williams, though. I don't know much about Harkes as a coach but Williams could be (and indeed has been, albeit I think only on an interim basis) a head coach in MLS.

3rd Degree is a great blog. How great? They don't even consider themselves a blog but an "independent FC Dallas news source." Rightly so! The latest example of their independent news source excellence is their list of 2007-2008 Generation Adidas players. It's actually not so much a list but a database that tracks each individual player's status. Absolutely brilliant stuff and required reading for anybody who intends to follow the careers of top young Yank players. This reminds me that MLS SuperDraft in two weeks' time. I will be there representin' my various soccer outfits. If you plan to be at the draft in Baltimore please let me know.

Bonji at From College to the Pros has some insight on Billy Beane (of Moneyball fame) and his arrival not only in MLS where he is part-owner of the new San Jose Earthquakes but also in the English Premier League, where managers have begun to listen to him. For more information on Bonji and his site, please read the interview I did with him a little while ago.

Bored with the lack of transfer activity in the EPL, Center Holds It re-ran a full-on interview he did with USMNT player Jonathan Bornstein. Why not? It's better than not posting at all (like me) or writing some "sorry I haven't posted in awhile" apology (see last week's FFLL).

Speaking of the Premiership, if you need a quick and dirty update on what has been going on (or not) in the January transfer window check out Football Commentator, an English blog I recently discovered. Lots of excellent stuff in there.

One possible transfer that may not be a big deal "over there" but would be huge for MLS is Eddie Johnson's rumored move to Derby County. MLS Rumors say there is a 5/5 chance it will happen. Paul Jewell must be really desperate because EJ is really not very good--not even by Yank standards. Then again, neither are Derby. MLS Rumors give the same probability to Alecko Eskandarian's move to Belgian side Standard Liege.

Finally, the best for last: Check out World Club Rankings list of top 25 soccer blogs. This is good stuff--even better when you see who they have ranked #1! That's right folks, you are reading the top-ranked soccer blog in the world (according to WCR at least. They may be in the minority, but Rome was not built in a day! By the way, with COS at #3 this means I am a contributor to two of the five best soccer blogs in the world!)

Fantasy Soccer Is Good Fun, But Can Be Made Better: Here's How

As much as I enjoy fantasy soccer, it feels incomplete somehow. The addictive rush that other fantasy sports (American football and baseball, notably) supply just isn't there. Don't get me wrong, it's good fun and all. But something is missing.

Part of this is, of course, the very nature of the game itself. Soccer does simply not lend itself to statistical analysis the way many other sports do. Moreover, the statistics we do have (goals, assists and clean sheets, essentially) provide a very incomplete picture, both of an individual player's skill and his contribution to the team.

For example, a goalkeeper could have a great match and his team could win 2-1, but he would not get credit for having a clean sheet. Or a striker could get a tap-in goal, or capitalize on a goalkeeper's error or blown defensive assignment and his team could lose, but fantasy owners would still benefit. Or a defender could score a goal, assist another, but blow off marking assignments and cost his team two goals and the victory.

And what about the players who work tirelessly--be it on offense or defense--for their team's cause and are essential to its victory but do not show up on the scoresheet at all? The whole structure is made worse by leagues that incorporate statistics such as scoring attempts, passing accuracy and others that are, at best, misleading and, at worst, reward selfish play.

The solution is to incorporate the subjective elements of the sport (of which there are many) in a way that can be quantified, while making better use of data currently available. How to accomplish this? Behold a 10-point plan that seeks to make fantasy soccer more realistic:

1) Official and unofficial player ratings should absolutely factor in to the number of fantasy points a player produces. Some leagues already do this on a limited basis by awarding a "Man of the Match" bonus. This is a good start, but it should be taken further. Why not tally the various player ratings that pundits and fans award individual players and use the mean number as an additional scoring category for each player? Bonuses could be awarded when a player is included in a "team of the week." Each individual league could choose what pundits and media to include. Also, why not award a player's fantasy owner for a goal of the week, play of the game or save of the week?

2) Not all goals are created equal and not all should be scored equally. Create two (or more) categories of "goals scored," differentiating between the simple tap-in and the screaming strike into the upper 90. When a goalkeeper allows a soft goal, the "scorer" should receive a small fraction of points awarded to the player who scores on a bicycle kick or by bending a free kick around a wall--and the keeper should be penalized. This should also account for goals scored in different game situations, i.e. during a close game versus a blowout.

3) Instead of "assists" create a new statistic called "goal contributions" and award points to as many players as deserve them. Maybe the star striker was able to pull the defender out of position, creating more space for a teammate? Maybe a midfielder played a brilliant ball that another player ran on to, passed to one or two others, before the ball ended up in the net? What about the player who hit a great shot from 30 yards that the keeper tipped over the bar and the team scored on the ensuing corner? Or the one who was fouled for a penalty? Speaking of penalties, these are basically gimmes and should absolutely NOT count as much as a goal scored from the run of play or other set-piece. But the player who misses the penalty should be penalized--especially if the goal could have made a difference in the final score.

4) Find a way to award the same amount of potential points to midfielders, defenders and goalkeepers. Different players contribute in different ways. It's not all about scoring and creating goals. Different players also cost their team in different ways. If a defender is clearly taken to school on a goal, his fantasy score should suffer--especially if the goal proves to the balance in the game.

5) Create the goal-saving-save (GSS) statistic for goalkeepers. Outfield players should also be eligible for this. See Richard Dunne's clearance off the line in the dying moments of yesterday's Man. City-Liverpool clash for one example (link should play highlights of the match).

6) Players from winning teams should get more points. Clean and simple. Find a way to reward players from a winning side and penalize those from a losing side--especially if they blow the game (see Petr Cech from the Arsenal-Chelsea clash the other day).

7) Award players who receive caps for their national team. Why not? It means something if a player has the attention of his national team's manager. If one receives a call-up his fantasy owner should be rewarded. This should of course be adjusted depending on how solid the national team is. If somebody gets called up to the Slovenian national team it should obviously not count as much as a call-up to Brazil's Selecao.

8) Count continental (Champions League, UEFA Cup, Copa Libertadores, etc.) competitions as well as league and FA cups. It's only fair if the players are going to partake in those games. Actually, why limit leagues to one country? Allow fantasy teams to own whomever they want, but adjust the scoring for minnow leagues. (A huge legal hurdle for sure, but if these managerial games have rights to all the players' names and attributes why can't a fantasy league?)

9) Allow substitutions for injured players. Real-life managers get three per game. Why not fantasy owners? Allow teams to dress 14 players or 13 outfielders and two goalkeepers. The highest-scoring goalkeeper and 10 highest scoring outfielders count toward the fantasy teams tally. The others don't. Simple.

10) Play for keeps. Create more keeper leagues and allow "franchise" leagues where teams start out with a set amount of virtual money. Allow players to be bought and sold, loaned out, etc. Create a formula where virtual gate receipts are tabulated for each home game--judging by the type of attacking football the team plays (points for goals scored or chances created or whatever), its place in the table and its opponents' place in the table. Visiting teams get a percentage. Allow teams to go into the red but at a cost--points from a game, future revenues, etc. Or allow them the choice of how to "finance" this. One day maybe corporations will line up to sponsor top teams, in exchange for shirt space or even the team name. Maybe even with real dollars.

An unrealistic pipe dream? Perhaps, but it's fun to think of what could be. But if anybody wants to finance and collaborate on this venture, I'm game. Also, please remember where you heard these ideas first. If anybody copies this without my consent I will sue you. (Hey, are there any lawyers out there looking for pro-bono clients?)