If there are Chelsea-supporting Dutchmen out there...

Then this guy is surely your least favorite player of all-time. I'm eagerly looking forward to the update to the I Scored a Goal at the FIFA World Cup Final documentary that riveted me last Saturday afternoon: "my nombre es Andres, y meti gol en la final del mundial."

I'm going to start my collection of unhinged thoughts with a predictable shout-out to Spain's players. I got a text from a friend last night asking "is it me, or are Spain's players more humble than most?" (This friend supports England. Do with that fact what you will.) Iniesta chose what is surely the biggest moment of his life to pay homage to Dani Jarque, a friend who played for Barca's cross-town rival, Espanyol, and who died of a heart attack last fall. Sergio Ramos went to the podium with an homage to Antonio Puerta, a teammate with Sevilla who died of a heart attack in 2008. Maybe I'm especially sensitive to athletes thinking about people other than themselves after the LeBrongasm of the past few days. Or maybe I'm just a fan of these players and I see character in mundane places. That said, it's not just that the right team won yesterday on merit; the right players won, as well.

Other thoughts:

OK, it's probably not a lottery: Was I the only one who was thinking that the Dutch would have been favorites in a penalty shootout? Spain had taken off its two penalty takers: David Villa and Xabi Alonso. The prospect of Fernando Torres taking a penalty when he is shorn of confidence was not an appealing prospect for Spain. Plus, the Spanish would have been under more pressure because they were the favorites, both in the tournament and in the match itself. Spain’s only advantage in penalties would have been Iker Casillas, who saved Spain’s jamon against Paraguay, as well as the shootout against Italy in ’08.

About those first 45 minutes, guys: To steal a term from The Guardian’s podcast, I’m a member of the Tiki Taka Taliban. I love the way that Spain play football because I love passing and teamwork. The patterns that Spain weave are hypnotic in a good way. In a test between technique and industry, I’ll take the former every time. That said, it’s hard to explain why Spain struggle to score goals. The most obvious and partisan explanation is that opponents bunker in against them, which depresses scores. However, that doesn’t explain why Spain struggle to score, especially in first halves. Spain played seven knock-out matches in Euro ’08 and this World Cup. They did not concede a goal in any of those seven matches. However, they scored only eight goals, seven after halftime. It’s hard to pick on a team that just made history in all sorts of ways, but if Vicente del Bosque is looking for an area of improvement heading into the Euro ’12 cycle, he should be thinking about how Spain can get on the board in the first 45 minutes. Maybe the maturation of Pedro and Navas will give Spain the direct dribbler that the team needs on the right wing? Spain need something so they can score without having to wear their opponents down like the Red Army.

Van Bomination: I’ll repeat what I said on Saturday afternoon: this was the least likeable Dutch team of my lifetime. 13-year old Michael was captivated by Rijkaard, Gullit, van Basten, and Koeman; I seriously doubt that there were many 13-year olds watching the match yesterday and deciding that they would cheer for the Dutch going forward. Jonathan Wilson nails it:

A fourth 1-0 win in a row doesn't tell the full story; Spain had none of the control it had possessed in the previous three rounds, as the Netherlands effectively kicked it out of its rhythm. An open extra time gave the game some credit, but this was a match ruined by Dutch brutality. Referee Howard Webb was booed by the crowd and will no doubt be harangued by pundits, but the greatest share of the blame belongs to the Netherlands and its negativity. The goodwill built up by years of attractive football was severely depleted by 120 sorry minutes. A more defensive approach is one thing; borderline anti-football is something else.

Rafael Hongstein hits a similar note:

For once, the Dutch will not be remembered as gallant losers but as the team that conspired to steal the World Cup from its rightful owners and nearly got away with it. It's a new sensation for the Dutch, an ample reflection of their new self-awareness as a team with obvious limitations. You might say it’s progress, of some sort. But it won't feel that way in Amsterdam on Sunday night.

Because I'm American, I need to think in list form: so where does this Spain team rank in terms of the best of all-time? I usually avoid discussing teams that came before I started watching the sport, so we're going to leave '70 Brazil, the Magnificent Magyars, and the Austrian Wunderteam out of the discussion. Before this tournament, I would have said that the '00 France side was the best international team that I have ever seen. (Cue an angry e-mail from Klinsi about '90 West Germany in 3, 2, 1...) The '98 side was very good, but lacked a little punch up front, as evidenced by their punchless performances against Paraguay and Italy when Zidane was suspended. The '00 side had the solidity of the '98 back line, but it added a more confident Henry and Trezeguet up front. This Spain side is right up there with the great France team. Yes, Spain won every knock-out game by a single goal, but thinking back, the '00 France team beat Spain 2-1 (with Raul missing a late penalty after some typical insanity from Fabien Barthez), Portugal on a penalty in extra time, and then Italy on an extra time winner from Trezeguet after a late equalizer (and a bad miss from Del Piero that would have put the game away for the Azzurri). The point is this: the margins in football are narrow and even the best teams play close games in the knock-out stages of international tournaments.

One final note: I bought Phil Steele on Saturday. Normal programming is right around the corner.

It's the Netherlands and Spain, so I'll be Switzerland

I feel very conflicted as to whom I will root for tomorrow. This is the problem that a sports bigamist can have. I have rooted for Holland since 1988, when I watched the Dutch play in Euro '88. (The tournament wasn't on in the U.S., but we were in Israel for three weeks and then in London for several days, so I saw everything but the final. I read about the final in The Manchester Guardian, which my parents got for the crossword puzzles. And you wonder why I'm an Anglophile.) The Netherlands played attractive football, they had cool uniforms and players with cool hair, and most importantly, they beat the Germans in Hamburg. If I would have known at the time that Ronald Koeman celebrated by wiping his rear with a West German jersey, I might have moved to Amsterdam right then and there. My affection for the Dutch was cemented when we saw them three times in USA '94 in Orlando, concluding with a 2-0 spanking of an Ireland team that I detested for aesthetic reasons. (I defy any human being to watch Ireland-Norway from 1994 without falling into a coma.) The Dutch fans were outstanding. They were a singing carnival; everything good about SEC fans without the nasty side. I was humming the tune from the Aida march for the whole drive back to Macon.



Side note: for years after the tournament, the expression that my brothers and I used for ripping a shot from outside the box was "give it a bloody Jonking."

When I was picking a club team in the aftermath of USA '94, I picked Barcelona in part because of the Dutch connection. Cruyff had played there, he was the manager there, they played the Dutch 4-3-3, and they had won the European Cup on a goal by Ronald Koeman. Plus, in the same way that I liked the Dutch for their opposition to the Nazis, I liked Barca because of the club's history as a bulwark against Franco. Being a Dutch/Barca fan seemed to make a lot of sense.

You can probably see where I'm going with this. I've been rooting for the Dutch for over two decades. I've been rooting for Barca for over a decade, to the point where I spend more emotional energy supporting them than any other team other than Michigan football. Over the past five years, I've become especially attached to the current core of Barca players. You know, the guys who are going to be over half of Spain's starting lineup tomorrow. If Spain win, then Puyol, Xavi, and Iniesta - the heart of the current Barca dynasty - are going to join the select group of Europeans who have won every major piece of silverware: their domestic competition, the European Cup, and the World Cup. Off the top of my head, we're only talking about the core of the West German/Bayern side from the 70s - Beckenbauer, Muller, Breitner, Hoeness, Maier - and the France side from the late 90s - Zidane, Henry, Desailly, and Thuram.

So here's the question: am I rooting for the uniforms or the players wearing them? My loyalty is to the Dutch. I had always hoped that they would win the World Cup at some point during my lifetime to reward a great collection of supporters and a culture that produces an obscene number of skilled players. A Dutch victory will validate that a small country doesn't need to play a conservative, limited style in order to compete, even if this is not the most expansive of Dutch teams.

However, I also have loyalty to and affection for the core Spain players. I watch these players once or twice a week for most of the year. With Michigan's football program attached to the bowl like a skid mark and Atlanta sports firmly in meh territory (subject to revision if the Braves keep playing like they have for the past two months), Barca have kept my sports sanity for the past two years. There have been more than a few occasions on which I've felt lucky that I liked Barcelona better than any other city in Europe when I was backpacking after graduating college in 1997.

This particular group of players are especially rootable. They play a passing style that is aesthetically appealing. They foul at a lower rate than other teams and rarely get carded. Their fundamental disposition is to attack, which means that they don't play boring games (as opposed to counter-attacking parasite sides that require the opponent to take risks for anything to happen). In contrast, this is harder Dutch team to love. I don't begrudge the fact that they play 4-2-3-1 in a relatively defensive fashion. Bert van Marwijk would be insane to throw everyone forward with his average back line. However, Mark van Bommel.



Arjen Robben is a diver with the most exaggerated pout I've seen since Bobby Hurley. Robin van Persie is a brat. Nigel de Jong broke Stuart Holden's leg. Jonny Heitinga is not good. I root for these guys when they put on the orange jersey, but I wouldn't choose to do so if they played for Neutral United.

So anyway, the only solution for my dilemma is not to make a decision. I'll just watch the match tomorrow with a smile on my face. I didn't like any of the teams that made the last four of the 2006 World Cup and, validating my opinion of those teams, the last three games were 1-0 on a penalty, 2-0 with both goals coming in the final five of 120 minutes, and 1-1 after 120 minutes with the most memorable event of the match being the best player of his generation imitating a Cape Buffalo. This tournament has been much better in terms of the quality of the knock-out matches and my favored teams winning, which I will of course view as being correlated. Rooting for two teams famed for getting their fans' hopes up with attractive displays and then crushing those hopes, usually in penalties, I never thought I would face the problem that has been flummoxing me for the past three days.

One final note: even though I did vote for Barack Obama, I would root for the U.S. over either the Netherlands or Spain.

I'm Going with my Eight-Tentacled Friend

Nigel Powers’ Favorite Side

My friend Tom has two sports passions: Dutch soccer and Ohio State football. Needless to say, we see eye-to-eye on the former more than the latter. It occurred to me when I was talking to him on Friday afternoon that he should be familiar with the emotions that would be created by the Dutch winning the World Cup because this edition of the Oranje would become the 2002 Ohio State Buckeyes. The ’02 Bucks were by no means the best Ohio State team of recent years. They were not especially talented (by Ohio State standards, anyway, and I’m mainly thinking about the skill positions) or impressive, but because of their Ecksteinian grit/luck, they went 14-0 and won Ohio State their only national title in the past 42 seasons. Forget the Clockwork Orange team of ’74, this Netherlands side is not as talented as the Koeman-Gullit-Rijkaard-van Basten generation of the late 80s or the Bergkamp-Overmars-Stam-de Boer-de Boer-Davids-van der Sar teams of the 90s. This team has two great players - Sneijder and Robben - and a bunch of functional parts that defend well. In other words, this team would be the last team that a Dutch fan would expect would bring the country its first World Cup, and yet here they are in a semifinal against Uruguay.

Speaking of Dutch teams of the past, I highly recommend Rafael Honigstein’s description of the myth of Total Football:

Claims that the Netherlands has now changed beyond recognition into a negative, cynical side are made only by those who wrongly bought into the opposite extreme of the Dutch as some sort of European Brazilians and eternal purveyors of the beautiful game before. In truth, they're no more defensive than 30 years ago; they've just found it very hard to break down opponents who have so far resisted from attacking them, unlike France and Italy in 2008.

"Beautiful football is difficult against teams who don't give you an inch of space," Wesley Sneijder said this week.

The fact that the Dutch have mostly grinded out victories does not reflect a diminished ambition or change of direction at all. It's merely been a function of coming up against deep-lying teams, difficult conditions (the heavy pitch in Port Elizabeth made it impossible for Robben to accelerate against Brazil in the quarterfinals) and not quite clicking up front.

There's every chance that all the obituary writers will quickly turn around to celebrate the resurrection of Total Football if a few well-executed attacking moves come off against limited Uruguay on Tuesday. Then we'll read that van Marwijk has given the team it's "true identity" back, and other nonsense. It's high time the old stereotypes were ditched, regardless of the result. Dutch soccer itself already did it a while back. Maybe the rest of the world should follow suit.

Leave it to a German to nail the Dutch just so.

The Brazil-Netherlands match was especially interesting to me because Brazil played against their reputation. Dunga’s teams are supposed to be athletic, sound defensively, impregnable in the air, and imbued by a winning mentality transmitted by their coach. Against Holland, Brazil were undone by a pair of crosses into the box, after which they panicked and turned into a bitching, unlikeable team. Was Brazil never as stout as we thought? Should we not read too much into what happens in 45 minutes of football, no matter how big the stage? I lean towards the latter. I love the World Cup as a sporting event, but I have to admit that a lot is made of very small sample sizes.

The Condor Legion Flies Again

I’m probably engaged in a bit of wishful thinking here to support Spain (my analysis is often at its worst when my rooting interests and my predictions dovetail), but I feel pretty good about Spain’s chances. Germany cannot possibly have another gear. They have played as well as possible for the past two matches, save for a ten minute spell when they lost the plot against England. However, they’ve been up against two teams that suited their style. England are more name than merit and Argentina, while individually talented, played a disjointed style that Alexi Lalas correctly derided as “sandlot.” (Never have I agreed so vigorously with Mr. Lalas.) Argentina was a perfect mark for an organized German team, especially with Javier Mascherano cutting a lonely figure as the only central midfielder on the pitch. Yes, I wish that I would have figured this out before the match, but if I would have trusted my gut from before the tournament when I took every opportunity to mock Maradona, the warnings were present.

Spain, on the other hand, have not gotten out of third gear. Moreover, there is an obvious solution for them: remove the restrictor plate that is Fernando Torres. Vicente del Bosque has been doing his best Bobby Cox impression in this tournament, sticking with Torres despite the facts that: (1) Spain obviously play better with one striker because the players they put on in place of the second striker give them width; and (2) Torres is hurt, bereft of confidence, or both. Over a long season, sticking with Torres makes sense. In a short knock-out tournament, Spain can’t wait for Fernando to come good, especially when he doesn’t have the greatest scoring record as an international to begin with. Spain could afford to piss away an hour against Portugal and Paraguay because those teams were not very threatening; they cannot do the same against Germany. I know this. Everyone covering Spain knows this. Paul the Octopus knows this. Will Spain’s manager figure this out? I’m guessing that he will.

So, imagine that Spain deploy their 4-2-3-1 with Xavi, Iniesta, and one of Pedro/Navas/Silva behind Villa. Now, you have a fast striker running at Germany’s slow-ish centerbacks. You have a proper winger to stretch the Germans horizontally. (Look at how much better Spain played when Pedro came on against the bunkering Paraguayans.) And then you have the in-form Iniesta on the left, attacking a centerback playing left back. Del Bosque has taken a lot of criticism for playing two defensive midfielders, but his system is just what the doctor ordered for dealing with Oezil and Schweinsteiger. And in the middle of the pitch, you have Xavi.

So yes, I’m doubling down on Spain. A team that has never won the World Cup or even played in a final. Against three-time champions and six-time finalists Germany. I never said that I made sense.

Sigan Chupando

There is fun, there is great fun, and then there is watching Portugal get knocked out of the World Cup while Cristiano Ronaldo is punished for years of diving by being deprived of legitimate fouls. Simply glorious.

What was most interesting about this match to me was the fact that Vicente del Bosque decided it by taking off Fernando Torres. Torres had a terrific shot on goal in the first minute, but then produced the sort of rusty performance that has marked his World Cup so far. Del Bosque put Athletic Bilbao’s Fernando Llorente onto the pitch. Within minutes, Llorente had a great chance saved by the keeper, Villa had shot just wide, and then Villa scored a quintessentially Spanish goal after a series of short passes from the tika taka experts: Iniesta and Xavi.

The match was not unlike Spain’s win over Russia at Euro ’08. There, Spain struggled to break down Russia for a half. Villa picked up an injury, which forced Spain to change its shape. The new shape, with Cesc Fabregas in the middle and space for the full backs out wide, was devastating and Spain won 3-0. Yesterday, Spain didn’t change its shape, but bringing on Llorente gave Spain a traditional target man, which presented Portugal with a new threat. Portugal, like Russia, is coached by a tactical expert who most likely set his team up with a very specific plan to handle a Torres-Villa attack. When that attack changed to Villa-Llorente, Portugal was taken out of their plan. Spain are often criticized for having only one way to play, but yesterday’s game showed that La Furia Roja have terrific depth and can bring all manner of options off the bench. Del Bosque has a number of appealing tactical options as games progress; the question is whether he will continue to be willing to make significant changes.

The match yesterday also highlighted a theme from this World Cup: the underperformance of English Premier League stars. Torres is no different than Robin Van Persie, Didier Drogba, and Wayne Rooney, the strikers for the other members of the EPL’s Big Four. All four have been banged up and unproductive at this tournament. In fact, it’s hard to find a contender that is relying on an EPL star. (Argentina with the indestructible Tevez? Holland with Kujt, de Jong, and Heitinga?) I think that there are several factors at work here. First, the EPL is the only major league without a winter break. Second, the EPL has two domestic knock-out competitions instead of one. Third, and I think most importantly, the style of the EPL is fast, physical, and direct, aided by refs who let defenders get stuck in a little much. (Ask any Arsenal fan.) The style that makes the EPL the world’s most popular league takes its toll on its participants. Not only do EPL players end up playing more games, but the games that they play are more taxing. It is said that the passion that English fans have for football creates undue pressure on England’s players. More indirectly, the intense interest for football in England causes its clubs to over-schedule games, which means that the players are knackered by the summer.

Wishful Thinking

This is Awesome

The reaction to Donovan's strike all over the country.

This raises an interesting point: do the TV ratings account for the fact that so many people watch World Cup games in bars? More than any other sporting event, there is a communal element to World Cup games, in part because of the "us versus them" element and in part because many of the games are during the work day, so people watch with their co-workers at the local bar as opposed to at home on their couches.

Landon Donovan

Comin' to save the muthaf***in' day now.



I have absolutely nothing educated to say about that game. There was a friggin' lid on the goal for 90 minutes, infuriatingly placed there by a combination of wayward American finishing, a competent Algerian goalie, and a Belgian linesman whose country I would forever curse if they didn't produce such delicious beer. Chance after chance went begging. I couldn't eat, I couldn't drink, and I could barely form coherent sentences other than "A goal, please!?! F***!!!" I could barely see the screen at Ri Ra because we were sitting towards the back of the room and, sports fans being sports fans, everyone stood up at key moments. When Landon scored the winner, all I could do was judge the reaction of the people in the front of the room before jumping around like I just won the Showcase Showdown and landing in the arms of my friend who convinced me to watch the game at Ri Ra instead of Taco Mac, which has a million elevated TVs.

Now, we're likely on the Serbia/Ghana/South Korea/Uruguay quarter of the bracket. Nothing is a given or likely for a team that rallied from 2-0 down against Slovenia and then needed a Hollywood ending to beat Algeria, but that's not exactly the quadrant of death. If we were wondering which quarterfinal is going to be billed as the "one of these teams is about to make the World Cup semis?", here it is. Thank you to Raymond Domenech and the incompetent FFF for their attempt to one-up Gamelin for the title of "worst French management ever."

Other random thoughts:

• Now do you people understand why I and most of the rest of the planet love this game? There is nothing quite like the Chinese water torture that is the second half of a game in which your team needs a goal. The second half of Chelsea-Barca in '09 took a little bit off my life; today did the same. BTW, have I ever mentioned that Landon Donovan is Andres Iniesta with a tan?

• What was more improbable: the Nats winning in injury time or Jonathan Bornstein putting in a good performance in a crunch game. Let's hear it for the Tribe!

• Speaking of which, I'm not predisposed to root for Germany, especially when Ghana are the last hope for an African team making the knock-out rounds in this tournament. However, the prospect of an England-Germany knock-out game is too tasty. This is one of the conflicts that the World Cup presents. On the one hand, most fans like to root against the favorites, especially teams like Germany and France. On the other hand, when the favorites don't progress, the knock-out rounds aren't as good. Does anyone remember anything about Turkey-Senegal in '02?

• Save for his finishing (which is an awfully big caveat for a striker), this was one of Jozy Altidore's best games for the USMNT. He was a constant threat, right into injury time. Let's hear it for Bob Bradley making sure that these players are in peak physical condition.

• Spare a thought for Slovenia. They are the smallest nation in this tournament and they were mere minutes away from progressing.

• When I get around to buying one of the navy US jerseys, Michael Bradley's name is going on the back.

• I could not have been angrier at Algeria as the game went on. They had a chance to progress with two goals, but they were sitting in a friggin' bunker, making no effort to press the US or force mistakes. Maybe they were just out of gas, but to my conspiratorial mind, I assumed that they were letting their dislike of the US trump their own self-interest. Congrats to the Desert Foxes on going goalless for 270 minutes; you brought SO much more to the table than Egypt would have. (/shout out to the Pharaohs).

Random Thoughts before D-Day (North Africa Version)

• I love the World Cup again. I reserve my right to change my mind in three hours.

• I just finished Inverting the Pyramid, which I thoroughly enjoyed. A couple initial thoughts. The description of Greece's Euro '04 win made me think of Paul Johnson and Georgia Tech. Otto Rehagel brought back the sweeper system and man-making, a defensive system that had been out of favor in major football for decades. Opponents had forgotten how to deal with that system, so Greece strung together 1-0 wins over France, the Czech Republic, and Portugal, all of which had far more talent than the Greeks. Does that sound a little like Johnson's success on the Flats? And if this analogy holds, then Greece's lack of success since 2004 - they failed to qualify for Germany '06 and they were knocked out at the group stages in Euro '08 and South Africa '10 - is a worrying sign. An unrelated note from the book: this quote from Arrigo Sacchi is the best counter to the "you never played the game" criticism of coaches and commentators from current or former players: does a jockey first need to be a horse?

• West African sides are often accused of wasting their formidable talent in major tournaments through bouts of naivete. The archetype of this phenomenon are the two penalties that Cameroon gave away to England in Italia '90 when the Indomitable Lions were poised to make the semifinals. Nigeria's red card when they were on the front foot against Greece is a perfect recent example. With that context in mind, Kaider Keita's Oscar-worthy performance in getting Kaka sent off was sadly hilarious. On the one hand, a West African team had finally figured out how to deploy the sort of gamesmanship that we take for granted from most major futbol powers. On the other hand, Keita's timing was exceedingly bad, as the Ivory Coast was already cooked in the Brazil game, so getting Kaka sent off reduced the chances of Brazil delivering the hiding to Portugal that the Elephants need to progress. Even when an African side deploys the dark art of play-acting, they don't get it right.

• Barcelona lacked a proper left-sided attacker this year after Thierry Henry showed that his career as a top level footballer was over. With that in mind, David Villa's opener against Honduras - in which Villa cut in from the left, beat two defenders, and then laced a shot into the side netting while maneuvering around a third - was sweet music to my . . . eyes? I liked what I saw from Spain against Honduras, minus Fernando Torres's incredibly wasteful finishing. Jesus Navas and Sergio Ramos made absolute mincemeat of the Honduran left and Villa had his way on the right. Spain 4 Chile 2 seems like a likely result on Friday. In terms of attacking, chances, and drama, that should be the game of the group stage.

• I don't know what to think about the Nats today. On the one hand, they looked very good in the second half against Slovenia, so you would hope that they can take that momentum into a game against a weaker foe that is going to have to press forward. Algeria are going to be uncomfortable needing to attack, which should create all sorts of chances for the US. On the other hand, nothing ever comes easy for our boys. The memories of Poland in '02 are still fresh. I like the US 2-1 today, but I'm uneasy, although not as uneasy as I would be if I were an England fan.

• Speaking of which, those of you who are regular readers can probably imagine how much joy I am taking from England's inability to complete a pass from point A to point B. All of the reasons why I don't like England - overrated EPL players who benefit from playing with skilled foreign teammates, passion in the place of skill, running in the place of passing - have been evident in the Three Lions' struggles. Not that he asked me, but if I were Fabio Capello, I would: (1) make Wayne Rooney the striker; (2) give license to Ashley Cole and Glen Johnson to get forward to pump crosses into the box; (3) bench one of Lampard or Gerrard (probably Lampard); (4) play Michael Carrick in the base of a 4-3-3 next to Barry and tell Carrick that his job is to be Andrea Pirlo or Xabi Alonso by spraying passes everywhere; and (5) make Aaron Lennon and Joe Cole the right and left wings of the attacking trident with instructions that they need to stretch the Slovenia backline and pin the Slovenia left and right backs to the wall. Capello is probably too conservative to do so, which raises another criticism of the English FA: they have figured out that there are no good English managers, but why have they tried to solve the problem by hiring two of the most conservative products of Serie A? I like Capello and will never dispute his merits as a manager, but when England's problem has been scoring goals against top competition and then going out on penalties, he doesn't seem like the fix. In retrospect, wouldn't Guus Hiddink have been the better solution?

We're One Week in and this Tournament Already Sucks

16 games. 25 goals. 1.56 goals per game.

When Italia '90 was universally panned by non-Teutons as being a hopeless bore because it finished with 2.21 goals per game, FIFA stepped in with two major, positive rule changes. First, it introduced the rule that teams would get three points for a win instead of two. Second, it banned goalies from picking up the ball after it had been played back to them from a teammate's foot. Leagues across the world followed the change and by USA '94, the average goals per game increased to 2.6.

Right now, we've regressed from the low standards of Italia '90 by almost two-thirds of a goal per game. Moreover, the quality of goals has been low. I can't recall a free kick on target, nor can I remember a quality shot from outside the box. There are two major causes of the stultifying play:

1. Damn you, Jabulani! Who is with me for a boycott of Adidas? The prevailing impression that I have taken from the first 16 games has been of attacking players futilely chasing balls as they run out of play for goal kicks. On the rare occasions where teams have found themselves in promising attacking positions, their passes have typically been too heavy for the players making runs. Quality crossing has been virtually non-existent. Top strikers who are noted for their first touches have been bumbling balls out as if they were over-the-hill drunks in a park. Maybe this is the result of the fact that FIFA and Adidas, in a shameless grab for filthy lucre, changed the object of the game - the ball - on the eve of the tournament. Can you imagine if Major League Baseball reduced the seams on the baseball before the playoffs so pitchers couldn't get the same spin? Bud Selig may be a goof, but he's Pete Rozelle compared to Sepp Blatter. And naturally, FIFA and Adidas didn't account for how their new ball would perform at altitude, which makes perfect sense since Johannesburg and Bloemfontein were all at sea level until last week. In the end, the best footballers in the world are playing with an oversized racquetball. I'm hoping that they get used to this abortion of a sphere, but I'm not hopeful.

2. Creeping Mourinhoism. You knew I'd blame Jose somehow, right? With limited exceptions, the coaches in this tournament have been remarkably conservative. Kenny Hassan was right on point on a World Football Daily episode before the tournament when he said that every team seems to be planning to play on the counter, so nothing is going to happen. It used to be that inferior teams played on the counter and teams with talent (save for Italy) would, you know, actually try to pass and score. Now, mimicking the Special One, numerous talented teams refuse to commit players forward, instead waiting for the other teams to take risks. The problem with being a parasite is that you need a prey. If everyone is a parasite, then everyone starves. The nadir was the Ivory Coast-Portugal game. Sven Goran Eriksson and Carlos Queiroz managed to neuter two teams packed with talent such that each team had about one good scoring chance. I say that on information and belief for last 15 minutes because I fell asleep on 75 minutes. If a game loses me, then it's fair to say that it's losing a casual fan. I feel especially bad about the spineless instructions given by managers to their players because ESPN has expended a great deal of time and money to sell this product. Soccer is becoming more mainstream in this country, but a tournament with record-low scoring will not be good in that respect. In a certain sense, I shouldn't care. If the games are on, why does it matter if I'm part of a select few watching them? I care because I love talking and writing about the game. The more fans, the more I get to do that.

Other thoughts on the first 16 games:

• The Dutch looked uncomfortably similar to the 2006 version that struggled to create chances and bowed out of the tournament in the round of 16. They struggled to generate chances against an organized Denmark side. The problem with the team was that Wesley Sneijder and Rafael van der Vaart are similar players, not unlike Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard. When they play next to one another, they look to do the exact same things: get the ball in a center-left position and make the final pass. They got in each other's way repeatedly and they lacked targets, other than the well-marked and off-form Robin van Persie. The Dutch looked much better when they hauled van der Vaart off and brought on Eljero Elia, a younger, fitter version of Arjen Robben. With a passer and a dribbler in the attacking midfield instead of two passers, the Dutch looked much better. When Robben is healthy, the Oranje should click. Until then, Elia needs to start.

• France can't score without Zidane? Knock me over with a feather, I'm shocked!

• I tipped Nicolas Lodeiro before the tournament as the missing link for Uruguay. He lasted 18 minutes. FML.

• I got misty this morning listening to the Honduran national anthem. I can't imagine how exciting it must be for that small country to see its players and hear its song on the world stage for the first time in 28 years. As much as I bitch about this World Cup, I still love it like family.

• Yes, my bitching at the start of this post started before my Spanish friends laid an egg today. Yes, that egg has further fouled my mood on the tournament. I didn't see the match, so I don't know whom to blame other than the ball and the injuries that the team suffered at the end of the European season. And no, I'm not going to accept that the reigning European champions are bottlers.

• It's funny listening to English announcers express surprise at Brazil struggling to break down a defensive side. They are aware that Dunga is Brazil's coach, right? And that half of Brazil hate him because his teams play so defensively, right? And that 1970 and 1982 were a long time ago, right? It's not unlike being told over and over that the Dutch are perpetual disappointments, despite the fact that they come from a country of 17 million. And I'm still waiting for someone to acknowledge that the Germans are playing the most attractive football of any team so far. If the performance against Australia would have been delivered by a team in orange or yellow, we would never hear the end of it (and I say that as a fan of the Dutch). This Germany team is fun to root for. They're young, athletic, attacking, and multiethnic. They could be a great metaphor for the modern success of that country. (I have The Third Reich at War waiting on my bookshelf for when I finish Inverting the Pyramid. These nice statements about Germany will surely cease.)

• Speaking of our friends in central Europe, if the English want to know what they're doing wrong, they should take a peek at the Germany side. The Mannschaft is loaded with young talent: Muller, Badstuber, Khedira, Ozil, and Neuer are all young players who have gotten domestic and European experience playing for top Bundesliga sides and are now performing on the highest international level. When was the last time that promising young English players broke into any of the Big Four? Chelsea, Liverpool, and United all feature lineups that they bought and Arsenal's youngsters come from everywhere by England. (Yes, I am aware of Aaron Ramsey and Jack Wilshire. Let's see them break into the first team.) Germany's clubs produce young talent and then give young players quality experience. England's clubs see their top young players waste away at Middlesboro and West Ham. This is why you fail.

Post Squinting at my iPhone USA-England Thoughts

I was on a ferry coming back from a wedding between 3 and 4:30 on Saturday. Thanks to the wonder of modern technology, I was able to watch the game on my phone. Thus, I have thoughts, but I have to start with the caveat that I might have missed a thing or two . . . like which players were which.

1. Overall, I'd say that the U.S. had a pretty good performance and generated a very good result. Any of us would have taken a draw before the game started, so 1-1 puts the Nats' chances of qualifying well over 50%, especially in light of the fact that neither Algeria, nor Slovenia looked especially good yesterday morning. The Nats were under the cosh for a fairly good portion of the second half, but they didn't give up too many clear chances and their defensive attention ensured that England's best chances in the second half fell to two players who cannot finish: Emile Heskey and Shaun Wright-Phillips. (Or maybe we were just lucky?)

2. Before the game, I talked to a friend and predicted a 2-0 loss. I wasn't concerned about England creating offense through the midfield because I've seen way too many matches in which Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard get in one another's way. My concern was Ashley Cole and Glen Johnson having their way with our left and right backs and then getting crosses in for Wayne Rooney to finish. So, you might imagine my surprise that England struck early with a move that came right through the midfield. Gooch was drawn out of position to deal with Rooney and Gerrard exploited the massive space behind him. Gooch might have been instructed to step out on Rooney (I can't give credit for the Nats ensuring that England's weakest finishers got chances without acknowledging that this strategy can cause the defense to be pulled out of shape), so it's possible that Ricardo Clark deserves more of the blame for not tracking Gerrard's run. Bob Bradley had a good game, but I was not thrilled with his selection of Clark. Ricardo isn't as good a defensive option as Maurice Edu or as good a passer as Jose Francisco Torres. Landon Donovan was a little quiet in the match, in part because he was up against an outstanding left back, but also in part because his supply wasn't great. Torres would correct that problem. I really hope we see Jose against Slovenia.

3. But if we're talking about managerial goofs, the majority go to Don Fabio. He doesn't have a great option between the sticks, but managed to take one that led to an enormous gaffe for the Nats' goal. He had to pull off a midfielder in the first 30 minutes and then a central defender at halftime. He deployed the midfield combination that has never worked for England. That said, Capello's mistakes illustrate the weaknesses of England's talent base. The country hasn't produced a top keeper since Gordon Banks and all of EPL's top clubs have foreign goalies. England have not have a proper left-sided midfielder for ages, with the possible exception of Joe Cole, so Capello had to choose between James Milner - a jack of all trades and master of none - and Shaun Wright-Phillips - a natural right-sided midfielder who brings little other than speed - for his left wing. He has to play Lampard and Garrard together because England have only one proper holding midfield as a result of Michael Carrick's poor season. In sum, you wouldn't know it from listening to the English media, but the England team is not especially talented.

4. Can we all agree that the one instance of bad luck for the U.S. is that Jamie Carragher didn't get sent off? He was on a yellow when he bundled into Robbie Findley as Findley bore down on goal. Carragher is too slow to function at this level and the Nats exposed his lack of pace on more than one occasion.

5. The weekend's results create a new goal for the Nats. Coming into the tournament, we all wanted them to make it out of the group my any means necessary. Now, with a draw against England and Germany looking like the best team in the tournament, there should be motivation for the Nats to do their best to win the group to avoid the Germans in the round of sixteen. Am I getting carried away? Probably.

The Case for Spain

I am picking Spain. This shouldn't surprise any of my normal readers, given my beliefs in the omnipotence of Xavi, Iniesta, Puyol, and Pique, but I don't think that I'm being led astray by the Barca card in my wallet. In the lead-up to the tournament, most discussions of Spain and Brazil have been marked by the inevitable caveat that favorites have tended not to do well in recent World Cups. However, Spain is a better favorite than any team I can recall. (West Germany 1990 probably comes close.)

A team is usually the World Cup favorite for one of three reasons: (1) it won the most recent European Championship or Copa America; (2) it looked great in qualifying; or (3) its players are in great form, as evidenced by performances in the Champions League. Spain is the first team I can remember that checks all three boxes decisively. They won Euro '08 with a dominating performance in which they did not concede a goal in the entire knock-out stages. They won all ten qualifying matches, including two wins over the Euro '08 and World Cup '02 semifinalists. Their spine forms the core of the best club team in the world. (If Inter were really better [as opposed to better over 180 minutes with the help of a tactical genius], why did they park the bus at the Nou Camp?) Moreover, they play the same tika-taka style at Barca as they do for Spain, so there are no stylistic transition issues. Spain's players will be playing in the same way that they play for their club sides.

The fact that this is a cold weather World Cup also helps Spain. I know that the conventional wisdom is that the climate will help the northern Europeans, but the bigger impact will be that attacking, pressing sides will be able to do their thing. If the tournament were played in oppressive heat, then pressing would be very hard for anything other than short stretches. Thus, teams that play on the counter and conserve energy would have the advantage. In cold weather, Spain can press with its forwards and midfielders for longer stretches, which means they'll monopolize the ball and also protect their back line. In a hot environment, I'd take Brazil over Spain. On a colder day, I see Brazil having a hard time getting the ball. (Counterpoint: Brazil depend on their right backs for offense. Maicon and Dani Alves can run their tails off in the cooler weather.)

Brazil, the other favorite, checks the boxes for winning the last two Copa Americas and also looking good in qualifying, but they have some worries in terms of the form of their key players. It's true that Julio Cesar, Lucio, and Maicon were all instrumental in Inter's European triumph. However, Brazil have major questions further up the pitch. Kaka, their key offensive player, had a bad year at Real. 2007 seems like a long time ago for Ricky. Robinho washed out at City and has been picking on minnows in a regional Brazilian competition. Luis Fabiano was hit-or-miss for Sevilla this year. Felipe Melo was a major disappointment at Juve. Gilberto Silva is well past his sell-by date. I'm well aware of the fact that players can look bad for their clubs and then good in a different system for their countries (Zidane looked finished at this time four years ago), but Brazil have an awful lot of question marks for the supposed favorites.

The fact that Spain are the best team doesn't mean that they'll win. Futbol involves far too much variance to make that prediction confidently. (Goldman Sachs' preview listed Brazil and Spain as the favorites and gave them 13 and 10 percent chances of winning, respectively.) One inspired counter from a drug-addled former superstar, one wall that is marginally misplaced, or one intimidated referee from Egypt can be the difference between success and failure. However, I refuse to pick against the best team simply because they have never won the tournament before. Spain have the reputation of being bottlers, but when have they ever been the favorites before? They come to South Africa as the European Champions and with a collection of players who are winners on the club level. Shouldn't that matter more than Zubizarreta's near post or Tassotti's elbow?

One more thought: in editing this piece, it occurs to me that France '02 could be described in the same way as Spain '10. They had the same credentials, with the added benefit of having also won the World Cup. That France team was undone by losing Zinedine Zidane before the tournament. That illustrates another of Spain's strengths: they have two of everything (unless you think that Xabi Alonso and Sergi Busquets aren't proper Makeleles, in which case they have none of one thing. That is Spain's one weakness. If they are undone, they'll be missing Marcos Senna.) France's attack revolved around Zizou. Without him, they were lost. Spain can afford an injury to any of their players because they have replacements of the highest quality. It's a fool's errand to state with confidence that a particular team is going to win and injuries are a major reason why, but this Spain side are better equipped to deal with absences than any other team in the tournament. If I'm not drinking sangria on the night of July 11, an injury or two will not be the reason why.

One Thought on Improving the World Cup

In doing my World Cup draft, a couple problems with the format of the tournament have come up. One is that it is an advantage for a second-tier team in a group to play the group favorite on the last match-day. For instance, Slovenia has an advantage in Group C because they play England last. Let's say that England has won the group after two wins in their first two games and then sends out a second-choice side for the last match. Slovenia can then get a point to secure its place in the second round by facing a significantly weaker England side than the one that the U.S. saw in the opener.

A second problem is that the bottom half of the draw is much stronger than the top half. If anything goes wrong for Brazil in their group, they could end up finishing second and playing co-favorite Spain in the Round of 16. Brazil could have to face a Spain-Italy-Argentina gauntlet to make the final, whereas the teams in the top half of the bracket have an easier road.

So here's a simple suggestion: seed the teams from 1-16 after the group stage based on points and goal difference. That will increase the likelihood that the favorites will miss one another until the quarters and semis, which is when the big games should take place. More importantly, it means that the top teams will play hard for all three group games. Finally, it increases the likelihood of a 10-1 massacre and who doesn't like that? Are you telling me that you wouldn't be interested in seeing how many goals Spain can put past Honduras? No? Then you're probably also one of those clowns who doesn't like margin-of-victory in computer polls because "what about the children!?!" F*** you, imaginary adversary!

Five World Cup Thoughts

We're two-and-a-half weeks away! Hide the women and children. (Speaking of which, my wife happily pointed out that all of the games will be during the day, so I'll be watching them at night after she goes to bed. When I pointed out that there are games on the weekends, she was less than pleased. Then again, I watched all of Dancing with the Stars this season, so I'm loaded with ammo.)

1. Argentina is the most interesting team in the tournament and might be the most interesting World Cup team of all time. The race of the Ballon D'Or right now is between Leo Messi and Diego Milito, both of whom play for Argentina. However, Milito might not make it into the side because if Argentina's depth at the position. There is no team in the world that is as deep at a position as Argentina is at the striker spot between Messi on the right and Di Maria on the left: Milito, Higuain, and Tevez, all of whom had great seasons against top competition. And best of all, Argentina have a madman making the decision. A guy who ran over a photographer and then showed his remorse by saying "What an asshole you are! How can you put your leg there where it can get run over, man?" Frankly, I can't wait to see what happens. This will be like Kate Gosselin being made Chairman of the Federal Reserve, only without the worldwide economic meltdown as a result.

2. I participated in a World Cup draft with some friends and I was struck by the fact that there is a broad consensus as to the hierarchy of the teams. Every time I was thinking that two or three teams were the next logical picks, those two or three teams would be the next ones off the board. When I got excited that we were three picks away and Portugal, Serbia, and Paraguay on the board, all three got taken in rapid succession. Other than the USA going ridiculously early (9th pick!), the draft went exactly as one would expect.

3. I'm disappointed that Brazil isn't on the same side of the bracket as Serbia. Brazil are the odds-on favorites, but they struggle mightily against defensive teams that go not expose themselves to the counterattack. Brazil are not good at breaking down an opponent that is waiting for them and that is doubly true with Kaka out of sorts. Serbia sets up as the perfect team to upset them, but they could not meet until the final. Serbia could end up playing England in the Round of 16, which would be a tricky tie for the English.

4. It's hard to look toward the second round after the performance of the Nats' backline last night, but the uncertainty surrounding the German camp is good news for the U.S. because the Germans are a likely second round opponent. Michael Ballack scored the winner against the US eight years ago, but he is out of the tournament. Germany's strikers had poor seasons for their club teams this year and there is controversy hanging over their camp because the in-form non-auslander striker in the Bundesliga - Kevin Kuranyi - has been left at home. Finally, the Germans have no idea who is going to be between the sticks after years and years of top-notch keepers from Maier to Schumacher to Illgner to Kahn to Lehmann. (And yes, I did that off the top of my head. German keepers are like Italian central defenders, Brazilian playmakers, and English penalty goats: you never forget them.) Germany do have a good crop of young players coming up and two in-form players who should be the backbone of a good team - Bastian Schweinsteiger and Phillip Lahm - but they are not vintage and it's within the realm of possibility that the Nats could beat them if we sort out our oil spill of a back four.

5. A lot of the time, success and failure at the World Cup is decided by having the guts to make a bold decision. For instance, imagine that Spain are 0-0 with Portugal in a Round of 16 game with ten minutes remaining in extra time. Vicente del Bosque's captain is his goalkeeper, Iker Casillas. However, Casillas's back-up is Pepe Reina, a noted expert at stopping penalties. The smart move would be to bring Reina on, assuming that Spain has not used all three subs. (And yes, I know that Casillas got Spain past Italy in penalties two years ago. Reina is still a better penalty stopper.) Does del Bosque pull off his captain? If England are looking narrow and congested in the midfield, will Fabio Capello have the guts to bench either Steven Gerrard or Frank Lampard? How wedded will Marcelo Lippi be to his 2006 players in light of the fact that Italy's young players are, in many cases, better models? We've already seen one instance of the bold, but right decision not being made: France could have fired Raymond Domenech and hired Laurent Blanc instead of simply making Blanc the coach in waiting. Domenech has the confidence of absolutely no one, whereas Blanc has proved his worth at Bordeaux and is a hugely respected figure because of his role on France's '98 World Cup-winning side. France essentially sacrificed the tournament by leaving a fool in charge.

World Cup Stocks, 98 Days to Go

Stock Up: Spain

It's not like I'm covering any new or exciting ground here by touting the favorites , but hold cow are they good. They went to France, a place where they haven't won in my lifetime, and calmly strolled out with a 2-0 win while not facing a shot on goal. Graham Hunter on the World Football Daily Podcast on Wednesday got across the ludicrous amount of talent on this roster. Like Canada in hockey, Spain could put a contender together with the players they are going to leave in Iberia this summer. They have at least of three of everything. For instance, Victor Valdes, who has done a bang-up job in goal for Barca this season, will probably not be one of the three keepers going to South Africa, but he would start for Germany, England, or Argentina. Speaking of our Teutonic friends...

Stock Down: Germany

The standard caveat with Germany is that they never look good in friendlies, they are never the sexy pick to do well, and then they usually exceed expectations. That said, they have problems. First of all, they have the problem for which their fans have always mocked England: a disaster between the sticks. What, pray tell, is Rene Adler doing here?



And that was only one of his blunders on Wednesday. Second, the coach, Jogi Loew, is feuding with the DFB over his contract. Technically speaking, his contract will expire on June 30, which is during the tournament. No one could have thought that little detail through? (Insert standard "are they taking management lessons from the French?" joke here.) Third, and most importantly, Germany seems stuck between generations, not unlike France. On the one hand, you have the Ballack-Klose-Friedrich-Frings generation that took Germany to finals in 2002 and 2008. On the other hand, you have a pile of promising young players who will form the next generation of top German players - Muller, Ozil, Khedira, Kroos, and Taschi - who have been winning junior tournaments. In the middle is a mostly disappointing generation that has produced Mertesacker, Lahm, Schweinsteiger, and a bunch of disappointments. In short, this team doesn't look like it is in its prime.

Stock Up: Uruguay

You won't find many better combos up front than Forlan and Suarez. Winning 3-1 in Switzerland is no joke, especially with the defense that the Swiss typically deploy. My dark horse for the tournament is Chile, not necessarily to win the thing, but to make a run to the quarters. With Chile's team taking a break for obvious reasons, I need to tout someone else. Why not the country that won the first World Cup?

Stock Down: South Africa

Let's just say that it's not just the stadia that need some work.

World Cup Stocks, 132 Days to Go

I've been very busy at work and finding myself without a lot of topics about which to write with college football done and European footie in a lull before the Champions League takes off in earnest at the end of February. (I should be writing more about the Hawks, who are playing well right now, but it's a little hard to get excited at any one point of an 82-game season.) So, without further fanfare, say hello to a new feature at this here blog: a weekly, stock up/stock down look at the major contenders for this summer's World Cup.

Stock Down: Brazil - The Selecao are, at present, the second favorite to hoist the Jules Rimet Trophy this summer, but there are chinks in the armor. For one thing, the last two times Brazil won the World Cup followed qualifying campaigns in which they barely preserved their streak of being the only country to appear at every World Cup. Qualifying with ease has generally been a bad sign for Brazil. More specifically, Dunga has settled on a lineup, but a number of the major figures in that lineup are injured or looking shaky. The front line is composed of: (1) Luis Fabiano, who is injured; (2) Kaka, who has been a major disappointment so far at the Bernabeu; and (3) Robinho, who just forced a transfer from Manchester City to Santos, forgetting that Brazilians are supposed to spend their primes in Europe. Felipe Melo, who was a revelation for Fiorentina last summer and for Brazil at the Confederations Cup, has been a disaster at Juventus, as has Diego, who was hoping to force his way into the Brazil side. The rest of the midfield would be Elano, who is currently playing for Galatasaray, and Gilberto Silva, who is 834 years old.

Let's be honest here: Brazil never lack for players and they can fill out a depth chart full of quality options better than any other team in the world. However, this can be a problem. Many of Brazil's first-choice players are not in-form, which means that there will be some uncertainty because the guys behind them in the pecking order are of such high quality. This is not an easy problem for Dunga to handle.

Stock Up: Argentina - Let's imagine for a moment that Argentina were coached by a replacement-level gaffer and not a guy who reminds me of Tony Montana, post-Take it to the Limit. The team's major problem during an uneven qualifying campaign was a weak backline. Now, Walter Samuel is playing at a high level and was just part of the Inter backline that completely shackled a previously high-flying Milan attack. Gabi Milito is returning to fitness at Barcelona and should be the first central defender on the depth chart behind Puyol and Pique. (It sure shouldn't be Marquez or Chygrynskiy, but that's another story.) Voila, there's a central defense pairing that could win a World Cup. Also, our replacement level coach would be able to pick between in-form Diego Milito and in-form Gonzalo Higuain to partner with Leo Messi, who is torrid right now. Argentina are still suspect at left and right backs, not to mention goalie, but the rest of the roster is rounding into form.

Stock Down: Ivory Coast - There will be a lot of pressure on the Elephants as the standard bearers for an entire continent at the first African World Cup, but they just put in an underwhelming performance at the African Cup of Nations, drawing with Burkina Faso and then losing in the first knock-out round to Algeria. Soccer365 makes the good point that Eurocentric footie fans overrate Ivory Coast (and I would include myself with that description) because it has a number of European stars, but other African sides have plenty of quality players. Personally, I don't totally buy that explanation. If there are players in Africa who are just as good as Didier Drogba, then European clubs would buy their rights. Jerrad Peters assumes the existence of a failing of the market and I would need more evidence before I believe it. Still, it's hard to argue with the results and Ivory Coast did not look good at the ANC. As in 2006, they are in a very tough group, so they will not have the luxury of rounding into form over the course of the tournament.

Stock Up: The Netherlands - Yup, it's about time for me to start deluding myself. Wesley Sneijder's move to Inter has been an unmitigated success, as he not just a regular for one of the elite European sides, but he has in fact shown himself to be the Nerazzurri's most critical player because he's the link-up player that Inter have sought for years. He ever comes with that quintessential Dutch hothead:



Robin van Persie was flying for Arsenal before getting injured in a friendly for the Dutch, an injury from which he will heal in advance of the summer and which will ensure that he doesn't have too many miles on the odometer in June. Arjen Robben is in form for Bayern. If Ruud van Nistlerooy gets his legs back at Hamburg, then the Dutch are going to have the best attacking options of any team in the tournament. I still don't like this team's backline, but the forwards and attacking midfielders should be good enough to deter opponents from taking too many risks.

Two Good Reads

1. Eve Fairbanks' piece in The New Republic about South Africa's transportation system in advance of the World Cup. This paragraph was especially amusing:

But there are hotels all over sprawling Johannesburg. The city itself needs to be navigable; soccer fans don’t just move back and forth along pre-set axes like foosball dolls. Any tourist would be impressed with the Rea Vaya, but with months to go to kickoff, it took us eight additional taxi rides to get where a tourist might reasonably want to go. And anticipating the patterns of public transport use has never been Johannesburg’s strongest suit: Transport to and from the stadiums was the biggest black mark on last June’s trial-run Confederations Cup. I have visions of German spectators, brimming with I-told-you-sos, smugly blogging the beating of their minibus-taxi drivers next June.

I sent this article to about ten different friends and relatives. The transportation situation at the World Cup next summer could turn into a massive fiasco, although I'm hopeful that South Africa will respond with the world's attention fixed upon it. The one positive coming from the article is the fact that Jo'burg is getting a new public transportation system for the World Cup, which would be a rare instance of a major international tournament leaving a useful legacy in terms of infrastructure. I think about this point every time I drive to a Braves game and mutter to myself that MARTA doesn't go to the Ted.

2. S.L. Price's piece in Sports Illustrated about Urban Meyer. I couldn't put the piece down, if for no other reason than it was a reminder of how much of an outlier Meyer is, not unlike most people who are at the apex of a very competitive profession. A few random thoughts:

• I wonder how many dads in the State of Florida will decide that it is a good idea to make their sons run home eight miles for striking out in a baseball game.

• The story of Meyer failing as a minor league baseball player was reminiscent to me of the similar tale about Billy Beane in Moneyball. I could see how both of them were inspired to success in sports by their failings as athletes. (I wouldn't be shocked if there is a similar story floating around in the ether about Jose Mourinho.)

• Price did a good job of confronting the criticism of Meyer for his players' run-ins with the law. At the end of the piece, I felt a little bit more sympathetic towards Meyer's position. The endorsement from Marty Johnson's father was definitely meaningful. On the other hand, the influence of his wife, who has psychological training, reminded me of Tom Osborne, who also had a background in psychology and ultimately ended up with a roster full of miscreants? Is the story that Osborne and Meyer use psychological expertise to justify keeping very talented players on their rosters for selfish reasons? Do they have good intentions, but their players take advantage of a caring approach? Are their players' misdeeds covered excessively because their teams are so good? I'm just thinking out loud here. Maybe I should just say that when I read the Shelley Meyer passages, I thought "Tom Osborne."

• My first thought when I read the following quote by Meyer was "and this is when Urban Meyer goes from great coach to merely good: "You know what? I used to really stress about what people thought. But I don't care anymore. I've won. I've done it. I'm in a different place." Then Meyer was hospitalized after the loss to Alabama and I was reminded that maybe he is still the competitive guy who headbutted his players when he coached wide receivers at Notre Dame.

Instathoughts on the Draw

THANK YOU, SEPP BLATTER!!! The US could not have come away with a better draw. It's too much to ask for a draw with three weaklings at the World Cup, so the key is to avoid being in a group with two other quality teams. It doesn't matter if you have drawn 1970 Brazil because two teams are going through; you just want to avoid drawing two other teams who can beat you. With a group including the weakest teams in Pots C and D, this is an unmitigated success for the US.

Additionally, I don't see England as a bridge too far for the US for a few reasons. First, it's England at the World Cup and they aren't playing at home. Second, England are a relatively narrow team (they have no left wing and their best attacking players all come through the middle), so they won't be able to take advantage of the US's suspect left and right backs like, say, Holland would. Third, if the US is going to play on the counter, they will want to play against a defender who leaves his post. Ladies and gentlemen, meet England right back Glen Johnson. Landon Donovan, meet the acres of space that Johnson will leave behind him as he bombs forward. (I do realize that Johnson getting forward contradicts my notion that England are a narrow team. Just let me have my illusions.) In all three respects, England are a little like the Spain side that the US upset this summer, only they don't have half the technical ability of Spain's midfield.

The major counter to everything I've just written: Fabio Capello versus Bob Bradley. With both having months to prepare. I'm having flashbacks to Pete Carroll versus Lloyd Carr in Pasadena.

Tim Vickery did say that Brazil were due for a tough group. Tim is always right. Holy cow, I'm not sure that I've seen a group with three teams as good as Brazil, Ivory Coast, and Portugal, at least since the tournament expanded to 32 teams. Right now, the Portuguese look like the odd team out. Remember their exit from Euro '08 with Ricardo flapping at German crosses? There is no team in the world that presents a greater aerial threat from set pieces than the Selecao. And the Ivory Coast have Didier Drogba. Yeah, Portugal are headed out. F*** you, Ronaldo. This group will be interesting not just to see who comes out, but also because there will be a major incentive to finish first to avoid playing Spain in the Round of 16. Not that Brazil would be scared of Spain (or anyone), but they would rather not be playing a contender right out of the box in the knock-out stages.

Where is Sophia Loren when you need her? Conspiracy theories can be great fun, but FIFA did the hosts no favors by handing them one of the two toughest draws from two of the pots. Also, the idea that FIFA wanted to screw France went out the window when the France got the coveted South Africa draw. You'll hear the "no host country has ever failed to make the knock-out stages" stat a million times, but I can't remember a host side worse than South Africa. Even South Korea and Japan had better resumes and they also added fanatical support at home. Austria and Switzerland just hosted the Euros and neither came close to coming out of their groups. At the end, talent has to play a role.

I'm going to guess that Spencer Hall is annoyed. I watched the '06 Final with Spencer and he spent much of the time explaining why he hates Italy more than any other team. I found this bizarre, since France is so obviously more hate-worthy and there is hard evidence for that fact. (I'm just not sure what it is.) Anyway, Italy could not have done any better with their draw. (And yes, I know that Paraguay did well in qualifying.) They're famously slow starters, but it's hard to see complications against New Zealand and Slovakia. That said, I can also see a second-round match against Cameroon with the entire stadium rooting against the Azzurri.

Just so you know, the over/under on "don't get bogged down here with your bigger foe on the horizon" jokes from me when Germany meets Serbia: 427.

Stuff that only I care about: Argentina, Greece, and Nigeria were all drawn together at USA '94. The fourth team in that group was Bulgaria. Argentina bombed Greece (with Maradona's famously demented celebration after scoring) and then beat Nigeria 2-1 in an outstanding match. Then, Maradona was sent home for failing a drug test (Ephedrine, if I recall correctly. If you remember what he looked like at that stage, the idea of Diego taking diet pills is not especially surprising.), Bulgaria drilled Argentina in the last group game, and then Romania sent them home in the round of 16. Nigeria blew a late lead and were knocked out by Italy, and Bulgaria made the semis before losing to a pair of Roberto Baggio goals. And no, I didn't look any of that up.

If the seeds hold, then we'll get Germany and Argentina in the quarterfinals for the second straight World Cup. Maybe this time around, Argentina will see fit to play Leo Messi.