New Fool In (A New) Town

The Triumphant Return

2006-08-17T15:07:00.000-07:00

Technical difficulties have been corrected.

I now have access to a computer 24 hours a day--which is an improvement over the zero hours a day I've had over the last two and a half weeks.

And squatting is now over. The homeland has been restored and the forty years of wandering in the desert have come to a close.

The site is back up at www.newfoolintown.com

Thank you for your cooperation.

Bad Omens for the Braves

2006-08-02T17:45:00.000-07:00

It seems a little silly to be talking about superstitions when reality is staring you in the face.

Namely, the reality that the NY Mets are approximately twenty miles ahead of the Braves in the race for the NL East crown. They've said it every year. This one, this one is (finally) the year. This really will be the year the Mets finally break the stranglehold Atlanta has held on the division since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

And every year it fades away like last night's brilliant drunken commentary on the linkages between Sartre, Project Runway, and Britney Spears. You were positive there was something there last night, but upon further review what seemed profound was just absurd.

Not this year. Just like watching children grow up or working on a college campus years go by and you think to yourself, "I'm not that much older", "we still have a lot in common", and perhaps most importantly, I can look at the men/women and not feel like a dirty old codger.

But one year the straw breaks the camel's back and you realize that the brilliant rationales you were giving yourself as recently as last year are just that.

Rationales. Not rationality.

I think the Braves might have reached that stage.

Which brings me to the point of my essay.

The bad omen? I've been to the Atlanta Braves website no less than twenty times in the last week and every single time I've clicked on the link to the NL Wild Card standings, I get precisely nothing.

No movement. No spinning wheel. No 404 message.

Just nothing.

Almost like there's nothing there.

I think it's time to break out the rosary beads.

Manchester United: Michael Carrick to Replace Roy Keane

2006-08-01T13:10:00.000-07:00

Carrick demonstrated his ability at the World Cup and I couldn't be happier about getting someone to play in the middle of the park who isn't a converted [insert striker, midfielder, goalkeeper, etc.].

I'll freely admit it. I'm a Man U fan. I loved them back when they won the treble. I loved Beckham at his prime, doing what he does best which is crossing the ball, looking dangerous every time he touched it because all of a sudden every single player on the field could feasibly receive the ball. I absolutely loved Paul Scholes--his seemingly weekly yellow cards, the ginger headed scowl, and the rocket of a shot combined with the ability to track back, play it simple, and tackle like a bastard.

Of course, I played right wing, so I had to like Becks more, but realistically speaking I realize I was more of a Scholes fan.

And there was Roy Keane, who never met a fight he didn't like. Refs, other players, teammates, coaches, the former boxer freuquently lived up to this name and without him Man U had trouble going anywhere.

I'm not saying Carrick will fill his shoes, but we needed someone in that part of the park who didn't look lost.

That being said, it's still Chelsea's world and we're just living in it, but maybe this could be the year.

And maybe Roman Abramovich *isn't* mobbed up.

Atlanta Braves: This Is Going To Hurt

2006-07-29T12:17:00.000-07:00

I'm not saying we're done.

I am saying that we're on life support.

The Braves are currently 13 games back of the New York [edited] Mets and about to go down 14 if we can't erase a four run deficit.

That would put us a touchdown out of the wildcard race (seven games back for those of you who are looking for soccer/football coverage).

This hurts. Bad.

I am old enough to remember the bad old days of the Braves--the days of Ted Turner sitting next to Hanoi Jane, the circular pit that was Atlanta Fulton County Stadium, the horrific tight blue uniforms that aren't even retro cool, and most importantly a team who was so bad that we didn't even think of making the playoffs.

We just wanted to get more than 3000 people to show up.

The biggest argument we had was whether to blow up the remnants of the 1982 division winning team or to keep tinkering and pray for the best, the former of which would have required trading Dale Murphy--the only player we had worth emulating (although Bob Horner's domination of the Japanese league was amusing in an imperialist kind of way).

But Murphy's rapid decline after his MVP season made even this option seem kind of silly.

Then we traded Doyle Alexander for some irrelevant Tiger pitcher.

Named John Smoltz.

I remember distinctly being pissed off about the trade. I eventually learned two things.

One, John Smoltz is perhaps my favorite baseball player of all time and arguably the greatest postseason pitcher the game has ever seen.

Two, One never knows the future--no matter how certain you are--ipso facto, do not, under any circumstances, bet on sports.

One of these stuck.

We've won the division every year since 1991. I'm currently teaching some high school students who don't remember back that long.

Because they weren't even born, yet.

I've loved every minute of it. So have all the (real) Braves fans. I remember the parade after the 1991 worst-to-first World Series which we lost due to Kirby Puckett's heroics and the virtual holiday declared by all schools and businesses so everyone could attend.

John Smoltz (of course) put it best when he said that he's been a part of many of the greatest moments in baseball over the last two decades.

It's just that he's usually been on the losing side.

So pardon us if we're getting a little upset about the possibility of an October without the pleasure/pain of watching our Braves demonstrate why the Wild Card was a bad idea (without it, I feel certain we would have won two more championships at least) and how nothing can last forever.

With the exception of 1995, ultimately we couldn't close the deal--even pennants have been hard to come by of late. I guess I shouldn't complain. The division win two years ago was legitimately out of nowhere, but last year was absolute stealing.

This year it looks like we may finally have been caught with our hand in the cookie jar.

But we still have more than 60 games to play. Scheurholz is still dealing to shore up the bullpen and Cox isn't managing to improve our chances for next year, he's trying to maneuver our team into the playoffs anyway he can.

Ironically enough, as the Mets famously showed us, no one can be counted out until the last game.

But the prognosis is not good.

Tour de France: Jack Daniel's is a Performance Enhancer

2006-07-27T20:55:00.000-07:00

I can't make this up.

Floyd Landis is an American whom you might have heard of. He just won the Tour de France.

And then promptly tested positive for performance enhancing substances.

He may be stripped of his title. And the last thing on Earth cycling needs is another scandal, especially after world class performers like Jan Ullrich were banned from the race prior to it even beginning.

But he may not have used performance enhancing substances to achieve victory.

In short, he may have gotten drunk.

After one of the later stages of the Tour, he got cracked in the Alps. Lost so much time that he was more than eight minutes behind.

Eight.

In cycling that's a lifetime.

He was more than a little peeved. Went to the bar like anyone of us would after losing out on a chance in a lifetime. A little out of the ordinary for a world class athlete, but if anyone can handle a beer, it's probably a cyclist.

Turns out the evening didn't stop there. They got mobbed at the bar so they did the rational thing and went up to their hotel room.

And broke out a bottle of Jack Daniel's.

The next stage he came out and according to one of the tour official's had one of the greatest single day performances in Tour *history*.

He made up seven and a half minutes of time and set himself up to come back and win the Tour by less than a minute--a microscopic amount over thousands of miles of racing.

And then tested positive.

Now, to be fair, it's only the first sample that's tested positive--they take an A and a B sample so as to decrease the risk of false positives. And he didn't test positive for any substance in particular, he just tested in a range of abnormally high testosterone.

Here's what ESPN has to say:

"This started after his disastrous Stage 16, where he went from controlling the race to a distant 11th. He thought it was all over, so instead of getting a massage and readying himself for the next day, he and some teammates went to a bar down the street. After one beer, they were mobbed, so they returned to a hotel room, where someone produced a bottle of Jack Daniel's, which has made many a good night go bad.

The next morning, Landis went out and smoked the field, winning the stage and setting up his eventual win. Everything was great, until Wednesday, when his team received a fax informing them of the test result. Landis was quick to point out that it wasn't a failed test.

"I know now that it has not been called a positive test," he said. "It's been called an abnormal testosterone-to-epitestosterone ratio, which needs to be explained one way or the other, either by some outside source of testosterone or by a physiological change of some sort."

*Now the Landis camp must do just that. Both the cyclist and his doctor said there were reasonable explanations, up to, and including, Tennessee sippin' whiskey.*"

Personally, I would attribute it to the fact that he just won the f-ng Tour de France and will never sleep alone again. Plus, he just won enough money to line his bed with it and use C-notes as paper for his "cigarettes". Might be enough to make a man's "manliness" get a little out of whack.

It could also be the cortisone he took for his arthritic hip.

It may have been because he cheated.

But last of all, it may have had something to do with the Jack.

And I, for one, regardless of medical results, investigations, or evidence will firmly believe two things.

1. He only tested positive because of his consumption of Tennessee Sippin' Whiskey *during* the Tour

2. Apparently, Jack Daniel's is a "performance enhancer" such that consumption can lead to virtually superhuman feats of endurance and cause one to do things one could not and would not, under any other circumstances, do.

Of course, we knew all of that already.

We just didn't know it was a "performance enhancer".

If it is, I may be the Jose Canseco of the amateur athlete ranks.

Chicago Baseball: Here's the Difference

2006-07-25T08:01:00.000-07:00

Both Chicago teams are in the news today. I think the reasons why aptly demonstrate the gap between the two teams.

White Sox--Mike MacDougal, the recently acquired apparent set up man for everyone's favorite closer, Bobby Jenks, looks to be heading to the Nationals.

In exchange for Alfonso Soriano. You may have heard of him. Very unhappy playing for the Nationals. When happy and at his best, he is one of the more dangerous hitters in the league. Again, Kenny Williams making a good trade to help the White Sox try and catch the Tigers and maintain their lead in the Wild Card race.

ESPN.com

The White Sox are "extremely close" to trading for Nationals outfielder Alfonso Soriano, a source close to the situation told ESPN The Magazine's Tim Kurkjian. The Nationals have great interest in pitcher Brandon McCarthy.

The slugger, who is scheduled to become a free agent at the end of the season, said Sunday he wanted to remain in Washington but doubted he and the Nationals could agree to a contract extension before the deadline.

I'll go out on a limb and bet that the Nationals aren't going to pony up the cash to keep a player with 31 home runs, 62 RBIs (Who's getting on base for him?), and batting .288.

*As an aside, as one analyst said, I'll starting calling RBIs, RBI when we starting calling POWs, POW. I hate it. It's snooty and pretentious and like your friend who insists on pronouncing obviously Anglicized words with the "proper" accent even though they were born in Milwaukee.

Cubs--They just named their five "Hometown Heroes". Ernie Banks, Ron Santo, Ryne Sandberg, and a couple of old timers I didn't recognize made the list.

Who's missing? Sammy Sosa.

And he's pissed.

This is supposed to be the five best players?" said Sosa, the Cubs' all-time leading home run hitter and the only man to hit 60 or more in three seasons.

"Let me say all of the respect that I have for [the five]. I would like to know who was the one who made that decision of the five best. I just thought I should say something about that now.

"Maybe if I had played in another city most of my career, maybe this wouldn't affect me," said Sosa, who spent 13 seasons with the Cubs after three with the White Sox. "But I played all of those years in Chicago. All of those glorious years."

Sosa, who broke in with Texas in 1989 and played for Baltimore last season, added with a sarcastic laugh, "I guess I will be in the second group."

Apparently Sammy, as he intimated at the steroid hearing, really doesn't speak English. Or has been spending too much time in the Dominican. There's this steroid controversy going on. Maybe you've heard about it, Mr. Sosa?

And you may not be exhibit A for the prosecution, but you've definitely cracked the top 5.

I won't remember Sammy for the roar he got when he ran out to right field to start every home game.

I'll remember the comical changes of his body prior to the crackdown on steroids that may (or may not) have allowed him to hit more than sixty home runs and vault him into the all-time leading HR leader for the Cubs. Add that to the fact that his home run totals "magically" disappered when the crackdown came.

I'll also remember the image of his feverish pouring of water on his head during the Home Run derby.

Can't imagine why he was so excited for a Home Run Derby.

It's almost as if he had more testosterone flowing through his veins.

Does that sound like a "Hero" to mentioned in the same breath with Ron Santo for the rest of time?

Tiger's Gift

2006-07-23T12:12:00.000-07:00

Looks like the real Tiger Woods did stand up.

I didn't get a chance to see most of it, but he had an answer for everyone who doubted him going into the final round. He was paired with a suddenly hot Sergio Garcia playing on European soil and was facing Chris DiMarco in the last round of a major--again.

Tiger had never lost a lead in a major before, but having missed the cut at the US Open, it looked as if there was going to be a first time, it was this Sunday in July.

He didn't.

From ESPN.com

Tiger Woods had an answer for everyone Sunday on another methodical march to victory in the British Open.

One month after missing the cut for the first time in a major, Woods was ruthless as ever on the brown-baked links of Royal Liverpool, making three straight birdies to turn away a spirited challenge by Chris DiMarco and win golf's oldest championship for the second straight year. He closed with a 5-under 67 and became the first player since Tom Watson in 1982-83 to win consecutive titles.

Woods tapped in for par for a two-shot victory over DiMarco, and pent-up emotions tore through his lips as he screamed "Yes!" He then buried his head in caddie Steve Williams' shoulder and sobbed, his chest heaving. This was his first victory since his father, Earl Woods, died May 3 after a brutal bout with cancer. Some questioned whether Woods could regain his focus, especially after he was sent packing after two rounds at Winged Foot in the U.S. Open.

His face was contorted in raw emotion as he walked off the green and sobbed again while hugging his wife, Elin, and his trainer, Keith Klevin.

"I could not stop it," Woods said. "I miss my dad so much."

I didn't see it, but just reading about it makes me want to cry. Everyone has lost someone close to them, but none of us have had to deal with it on such a public stage, had their mental capacity to bounce back become the topic of media debate, and go out and compete at exactly the thing that had formed the foundation of their relationship.

And quite simply, lest we forget, it was his dad.

I've watched a lot of sporting events in my life and I keep coming back for moments like this. These moments are why I unabashedly declare my allegience and keep watching, talking, and writing about an endeavor that many of those around me find irrelevant at best and deviant at worst.

They're a gift.

Tiger Woods is arguably the most dominant athlete in the world and has taken over the mantle Michael Jordan left when he retired, but unlike Jordan he's between the ropes on his own personal stage.

Alone. No teammates. No one else to deflect the blame. No one else to rely on.

But there was always someone he could count on to be with him either outside the ropes or at home watching.

His dad.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Tiger's mental strength is his greatest asset. There's a reason he closes the deal like no one else. The lack of second places in majors a la Nicklaus may not be a sign of weakness. It may be a sign that when he's got his game, he will not lose.

He just won't let it happen.

People were starting to question that. I'm willing to bet even he was starting to question that. I'm not privy to Tiger's state of mind, but his "troubles" with his game seem to correlate with the deterioration of his father through his battle with cancer.

A battle the former drill Seargent ultimately lost.

Today he was finally ready. Tiger came out and honored his father the best way he could.

He fought and fought and fought. No one knows what was going through his mind during those rounds, but it's impossible to believe that his father's death was not rattling around in there as he attempted to think his way around a British Open course that seemed designed almost specifically to negate his gifts--a course that paradoxically seemed to favor short hitters.

Number 11 on Tiger's march to Nicklaus--a march he's been on since he first put up the list of Nicklaus' majors on his bedroom wall--is the one we should remember.

Not the Tiger Slam and the tournaments where he embarassed the best golfers in the world. Not his first Masters where he lapped the field and the course so thoroughly that the fine Southern gentleman who run Augusta decided to alter the most prestigious course in America.

Just because of him.

But this is the one we should remember. This is like Nicklaus in 1986.

We can all identify with losing a family member.

We all want to believe that we can go on, we can move on, and we can somehow do it in a way that honors their memory and reminds us of why we loved them in the first place.

Tiger went out and did it.

It gives us hope.

There is no better gift.

Will The Real Tiger Woods, Please Stand Up...

2006-07-21T13:49:00.000-07:00

Please stand up, please stand up.

Eminem wasn't the only one who accurately pointed out that everyone wants "to be like me, dress like me".

But you can't "be me".

I guess the question was rhetorical.

Is Tiger ready for the Open championship...does a fat dog fart? Does a bear sh*t in the woods?

Is the Pope Polish?

Short answer, yes. And yes. A 204 yard eagle via a four iron also seemed to confirm this fact. Add to that the fact that he is 6 for 6 when leading after two rounds in majors and is paired with a guy who's going to fold like an old lady sitting across from Doyle Brunson.

Ernie Els is not the most mentally tough of players. They don't call him the "Big Easy" just because of his effortless swing.

Don't get me wrong, he's a tough competitor and anyone who wins US Opens should not have their mental toughness questioned.

But he's in the final grouping with El Tigre.

A Tigre who is playing in his first tournament after missing a cut in the tournament immediately following his father's death.

Woods is barely using his driver for anything other than a cane. He's ripping 2 irons off the tee like other people hit pitching wedges.

What's been his only problem recently? Driving accuracy.

There's an old doctor joke...guy walks into a doctor's office, says to the doctor, "Doc, it hurts when I do this".

Doctor says: "Well, then don't do that".

Looks like Tiger followed his advice.

And now the rest of the field is playing for second.

Is Tiger Ready?

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

The British Open is this weekend and the question on everyone's mind--apart from why the f*ck the Open is in Liverpool--is which Tiger we will see.

Will we see the Tiger who is still in mourning or will he somehow return to the dominant force he was in 2000.

I found this stat staggering.

Despite the fact that he has apparently "lost his touch" and is "in a slump" and the rest of the field is catching up to him, he is only eight majors short of Nicklaus.

Eight.

Nicklaus 18, Tiger 10.

Apparently the weather has been so hot that it's turned the Open course into a complete runway. It's so bad that there are rumors that Tiger might not even put a driver in his bag.

He may break out the two iron, which he apparently hasn't had in a long time.

I think Tiger comes out one of two ways. Either he's all the way back, ready to show to the world that he's resilient and that his strength and his re-emergence as a power is a testament to his father.

If that's the case, look out.

Of course, he could still be mentally fatigued/weakened due to his father's passing.

Ask his fellow professionals what his best attribute is and many of them won't mention anything about his putting, his length, or his ability to extract himself from spots others couldn't even think about.

It's his mental strength.

I think this weekend it's one or the other. Either he's back and ready or he's still mentally elsewhere.

I, for one, would have no chance to be ready for this tournament.

If Tiger is, it should only add to his legend and may be even more impressive than any of his runaway victories or unbelievable shots no one else in the world could pull off.

I'll be rooting for him.

Atlanta Braves: I Want My Turner South

2006-07-18T21:54:00.000-07:00

Ever since they've broken up TBS like Ma Bell, I've not been happy.

Games are played on TBS, ESPN, TBS Xtra, Turner South, Fox Sports South, ESPN2, and Fox.

Among others.

As you might imagine, my current lengthy stay in upper New England does not allow me access to the channel "Turner South" which precluded my ability to watch the Braves hang another couple of touchdowns on your 2005 NL pennant winners and likely 2006 NL Central champs, the St. Louis Cardinals.

Their lineup is solid. There is no doubt that this team should score some runs. And they did, putting up five and three, respectively.

But the Braves have hung 29 runs on the Cardinals in the last two games alone.

29.

The Braves are now working on a seven game winning streak and after one more game against the vaunted Cardinal lineup have series against divisional powerhouses (sarcasm alert) Philadelphia and Florida.

After that, it's time to meet the Mets.

If we keep playing the way we're playing--which is impossible because we have now set a franchise record for number of runs in five games (59) that was previously held by the 1897 Boston Beaneaters--we've got a shot at running down the Mets before September even begins.

At the very least, we're on track to make that end of the month series pretty darned meaningful.

And if our bats stay this hot--or even lukewarm, comparatively speaking--we've got a possible miracle situation on our hands.

I don't know, like the miracle Mets, perhaps?

Atlanta Braves: So You're Saying There's A Chance

2006-07-17T20:06:00.000-07:00

These next two weeks could determine the Braves whole season.

Yes, we are somewhere North of ten games back.

Yes, our bullpen is horrific.

Yes, our starting pitching is a little bit, shall we say, erratic.

Here's what we got for the rest of July.

We're working on a seven game winning streak whose most recent victory was a 15-3 shellacking of the St. Louis Cardinals--a team you may have heard of.

We have two more games with them at the new Busch stadium, then division games against Philadelphia and Florida, both terrible teams.

The last three days of July? Three game set with the NY Mets.

Guess what else is July 31st? The trade deadline. While it is true that there is not much in the way of quality relief pitching to be had, if there is a way to squeeze it out, Scheurholz can find it. Plus, we've got another six million to play with.

The Mets schedule includes the Astros and the Reds--both teams at the top of the NL wildcard race and then a relative vacation with the Cubs prior to the Braves series.

Three things could happen which might make this a whole new ball game (no pun intended).

1. The Braves could split the remaining games with the Cardinals, sweep either the Phillies or the Marlins and win the other series. Even if they just win each series, they'll be charging into the Mets series on a roll with all the pressure on the Mets. They're the ones who walked into the All Star break with a double digit lead over the division.

2. The Mets could spit the bit. Cincy and Houston are both demonstrably tough teams and the Mets could lose either or both series. If that happens and the Cubs don't get swept, the Braves could conceivably cut the lead to 7-9 games going into the Mets series. The Mets would then know that if they lose that series they are anywhere from 4-7 games up and the lead has been cut in half.

3. A great acquisition. This would put *even* more pressure on the Mets. If the Braves get a veteran relief pitcher who can be relied upon, the entire team will calm down. Hitters won't feel the need to score eight runs to get a win. The team won't hold their breath when they take a three run lead into the seventh and pull the starter, and the starting pitchers won't feel the need to try and press so that they keep the other team away from our bullpen as much as possible.

I'm not even mentioning the fact that the Braves, of all the teams in the division, are *massively* underachieving. The bats have come alive and for the first time in a long time, the Braves can play beer league AL softball games and win. Chipper Jones is healthy and on a tear. Andruw's lack of a stride has improved his hitting (thank you, Terry Pendelton--one of the most underrated hitting coaches in baseball). Hell, even Jeff Francouer has walked once or twice.

Plus, our starting pitching just can't remain this bad. Smoltz is settling down and looking nasty. His slider is as good as ever and the plan to save him for later in the season may pay dividends. Hudson can struggle, but I refuse to believe that he won't catch up to where he was--he's just too talented for that. Ramirez has shown flashes of brilliance since coming back with one exception that is starting (especially after tonight) to look like an aberration. If those three can get together and Thomson can get back to early season form, we've got a shot. Even with a double A bullpen.

I'm saying a shot, not that we will win the division. I'm just saying that all you people who are counting out the Braves are forgetting two things.

Underachievers can sneak up on you and the advantage always goes to those coming from behind.

Just ask the White Sox, who--lest we forget--nearly blew a *huge* lead to miss the playoffs. No playoffs, no World Series victory, no deification of Ozzie.

Baseball's a strange game. Anything can happen.

(I can dream, can't I?)

Jonesing for International Soccer, But Not As Badly as Italian Fans

2006-07-16T14:36:00.000-07:00

Well done, Italy.

You've pretty much ruined the beautiful game in Europe--or at least in Italy.

Match fixing has always been whispered about and occasionally actually identified and punished.

But what you've done is *way* beyond that.

None of the reports seem to indicate exactly what Juventus, AC Milan, Lazio, and Fiorentina did, but it has been sufficient to knock every team out of the European championships, relegate three teams out of Serie A and result in every team mentioned being docked various number of points for each league. No team had less than 15 points taken away. And Juventus has had two titles stripped.

To give you some idea of how bad the point docking is, Chelsea ran away with the Premiership this year and didn't win by more than 15 points--much less 30.

Here are the details:

"For their part in the match-fixing scandal, Juventus, Lazio and Fiorentina were relegated to Serie B while AC Milan remain in Serie A but begin the season with a 15-point penalty.

Juve, Fiorentina and Milan were thrown out of the Champions League for the 2006-2007 season."

Juventus has played in Serie A for every year of its hundred year history. Silvio Berlusconi--yes, that Berlusconi who was recently prime minister--has been implicated as one of his clubs is being relgated.

Juve pretty much has no chance of returning to Serie A by winning Serie B next year which means two years of relegation and millions of dollars in lost revenue.

No one wins in this scandal.

And by no one, I mean everyone.

1. Every other big spending European power now can swoop in and take in players who don't want to play in weak Italian football for less money. It's a virtual fire sale and the number of players available possibly could have fielded a team that would have won the World Cup. Roman Abramovich may have just about fainted at his good luck. Chelsea may never be beaten again. Man U may be able to ditch C. Ronaldo without blinking and Real Madrid may revive the galacticos. And Fabio Cannavaro--recently seen jet skiing off of Abramovich's yacht--may have just become a trillionaire who will never sleep alone the rest of his life.

2. There's one name conspicuously absent from the list of Italian powers. Internazionale. Of Milan. That's right, Inter Milan emerged from this entirely unscathed. AS Roma as well. Inter Milan may have just been guaranteed the Serie A championshipi for the next two years as well as a prime place in Champions League action.

3. French fans. Zidane's exit, bad. Coming so close and not winning, real bad. Watching their opponents implode under the weight of their own cheating, underhanded ways, good. Very good. Not as good as winning the World Cup, but pretty good nontheless.

As Malika Zidane said, "some things are bigger than football".

I'll Always Be Rooting For Michelle Wie

2006-07-15T17:22:00.000-07:00

Michelle Wie did not make the cut in a men's tournament.

Again.

She didn't even make it through the second round. Pulled out of the tournament with heat exhaustion.

Some may find this a bit odd given that she's from Hawaii. Suspicious even. After all, she was pretty much guaranteed not to make the cut, again, and wouldn't it be better to take the Zidane route minus the ignominious head butt?

No way. Michelle Wie is fantastic. Let's not forget three things.

1. She *has* already made the cut in a men's tournament. True, she hasn't done it on the PGA tour, but it was a men's professional golf event in South Korea and that is nothing to sneeze at. It also proves, contra some whispers, that it wasn't the length that she couldn't handle at this most recent tournament, but simply a case of heat exposure.

And if you just giggled at the idea that she "couldn't handle the length" you're exactly the type of person who will be cheering for Wie in anywhere from 2-5 years like you've always loved her.

2. She's been in the top 5 of three majors this year. It may be true that she cannot seal the deal and has troubles with putting. She has yet to break through, but once she does, does anyone doubt that she will win many, many majors? Does this sound like an eerily familiar story? Like Phil Mickelson, perhaps? And we were talking about his inability to break through well into his late twenties/early thirties.

3. She's *16*. 16. As one of my friends put it, golf is not a sport where women excel at a young age like gymnastics or even women's tennis. She has a long, long career ahead of her.

For everyone who complains about her inability to "close the deal" and that she should go back to junior golf to "learn how to win" think about this.

When she is 26 she will have over a *decade* of professional golf experience on both the men's and the women's tour.

26. Golfers typically don't even peak for another five years.

Michelle Wie is a phenomenon.

If you don't get it, you just don't get it.

Today May Be The Day: Part III of Zidane

2006-07-12T10:52:00.000-07:00

Zizou is scheduled to speak on French TV at 2 EST. One can only hope this is when he's going to bring to fruition his agent's claims that in a few days all will be revealed.

Coincidentally, I'm sure, Blatter has made the claim that despite the fact that the Golden Ball award is given away by journalists he is considering using unilateral judgement on the part of FIFA to yank the award. Basically the equivalent of a judge setting aside a verdict.

But with less precedent or legitimacy.

One last note about the possible revocation of the award. Supposedly all the voting was done in 2002 prior to the second half (and presumably the same happened this year or else Zizou probably would have been punished/lost).

Winner last year? Oliver Kahn.

Brazil's second half goal--off a howler by Oliver Kahn. According to some analysts it cost Germany the World Cup. Sound familiar?

Think precedent will stop Blatter?

Me neither.

The world awaits. It will be interesting to see what Zizou says. If his statement correlates to what the lip readers and video evidence says, then it is not just a case of he said/she said. Video evidence may support Zidane.

Then what does FIFA do?

Incidentally, as a total aside, Zidane's mom (presumably if he's going on TV, he's told her what Materazzi said) may be the coolest mom out there short of Rachel Hunter (if you haven't seen the music video, don't worry about it--but Stacy's Mom has *still* got it going on).

These are quotes, mind you.

From the Mirror:

Mrs Zidane has defended her son's actions, telling friends:

"I am utterly disgusted by what I have heard. I praise my son for defending his family's honour.

"No one should be subjected to such foul insults on or off the football pitch and I don't care if it was a World Cup final.

"I have nothing but contempt for Materazzi and, if what he said is true, then I want his balls on a platter.

"Our whole family is deeply saddened that Zinedine's career should end with a red card but at least he has his honour.

"Some things are bigger than football."

Zizou Is Still A Hero: Part II

2006-07-12T10:02:00.000-07:00

I am a quick researcher. This skill has served me well in most endeavors I’ve attempted (one might say there’s some self-selection involved).

I am an even quicker writer. Sometimes it works to my detriment as readers of previous entries will no doubt have noticed.

It has taken me almost 72 hours to attempt to find what I want to say about the final act of Zidane’s career.

I’m still searching…I can’t really get past the theories, speculation, and reports surrounding what happened, what triggered one of the greats of the game to end his career in such a surreal, vicious, and just plain jaw-dropping fashion. Especially considering the stage, the stakes, and the personalities involved.

So I’m going to move right on to what people surmise transpired. It’s the easier part.

And the more disturbing.

***

First things first—who cares?

Aside from the social commentary involved regarding the issue of French multiculturalism, the triumph of forces like Le Pen that had been tamped down at least partially due to the success of Les Bleus in 1998, the widespread speculation regarding what was said and how Zidane retaliated can be read as a microcosm for the problems that plague the beautiful game and the complexities involved in any game that is as globalized and interculturally/intersocially mixed as international soccer.

There is another small matter that is being somewhat underreported by the media. FIFA has begun an investigation into the incident. This is standard procedure for all red cards issued, but given the stakes and the visibility of the individuals involved this could end up as no less than a referendum on the viability of FIFA to act as a protector of the game.

FIFA's already basically lied to our faces regarding the usage of video evidence in Zidane’s dismissal. They also declared that this World Cup was “a time to make friends” a nod to this year’s World Cup theme—eradicating racism. FIFA even went so far as to have statements read by the players asking for tolerance on the part of their fans before every game.

Thierry Henry—French star—is at least partially responsibly for this move through his organization of FARE (Footballers against European Racism).

If FIFA finds that the Italian team benefited from racial discrimination or racially contemptuous behavior the penalties had been stiffened for this World Cup in particular. Not just a fine, not just the banning of fans from future matches, but they have explicit guidelines that require teams be docked points—the equivalent of match wins for this behavior on the pitch.

If it occurs in a knockout round—that team is disqualified.

From the March 29th press release on FIFA’s website

The new provision in par. 4 stipulates that if any player, official or spectator behaving in a discriminatory or contemptuous manner can be attributed to a certain team, three points will automatically be deducted from that team for the first offence. In the case of a second offence, six points will be deducted, and after a further offence, the team will be relegated. In the case of matches played without points being awarded, the team in question will be disqualified.

In other words, if FIFA finds that Materazzi acted in a discriminatory manner (the rest of the press release speaks to the specifically racial/cultural dimension of this discrimination) they will have no choice but to revoke Italy’s World Cup victory and award it to France by their own rules.

If the things they say about Materazzi’s exchange with Zidane are true, it would be one of the biggest, most visible stands against racism the world has seen in years—perhaps since the unity against the South African apartheid government (who are, coincidentally enough, hosting the 2010 World Cup)

This is no mere idle speculation or gossip or attempt to excuse an act that so many people found appalling and inexplicable from a man they’d idolized as a hero.

***

What was said:

There has been much speculation, as one might imagine. First, the non-video evidence.

The anti-racism group SOS claims that they have evidence from “well placed, informed sources” with French soccer that Zidane had been called "a dirty terrorist" and had his Algerian heritage insulted.

Zidane’s agent claims that Zidane has not said what it was that was said, but that it was “very provocative” and will come out in a couple of days after he’d calmed down. In this same report, lip readers assert that Materazzi called his sister a prostitute as well. More on the lip readers in a second.

FOXSports reports that he called him a terrorist and that he should "play for his own country" a reference to Zidane’s Algerian heritage—his family and parents are from Algeria prior to moving to Marseille

William Gallas, a defender for Chelsea and French player makes an astute point that is circumstantial, but compelling. Materazzi had just given up the penalty for France’s only goal, won the World Cup, scored Italy’s only goal, converted a penalty in a shootout that won Italy said World Cup and apparently had been the victim of a brutal attack by one of the greatest footballers of our time.

Yet he walked out the door with headphones blaring refusing to talk to the press.

Finally, and perhaps worst of all, Zidane's family believes after having watched the game, the exchange, and knowing Zizou best, that Materazzi referred to Zidane’s father as a “harki”. Harki’s were the group of Algerians who fought for the French against the Algerians in the war for independence and then were left to be massacred when the French left. It is among the worst slurs one can toss at Zidane and has historically set him off—there are reports that the slur is what caused him to stamp on the Saudi player in one of his other World Cup red card offenses.

The New Republic Online also reported this the morning after the incident. I don’t have enough space to devote to this issue,, but this alone could have set him off. It speaks to cleavages of race, class, religion, immigration and family that run deep within Zidane and have deeply affected him as both sides in the debates about French nationalism and multiculturalism have used him to their advantage despite his attempt to stay above the fray and fiercely protect his privacy (on this issue) and his family.

But he has never backed off his pride in being Algerian or his family. The Observer has a great biography that explains how he’s arrived at this point and the explosiveness of this issue for Zizou personally.

***

What we know about Materazzi:

1. Materazzi has a history of taking cheap shots to provoke players. In 2001 he incited Craig Bellamy to foul him in a European Cup game by pushing the smaller player and grabbing him during a corner and the rather innocuous kick in response (by comparison) got Bellamy tossed. However, because of Materazzi's role in inciting him they reduced the suspension.

2. Apparently, his dirty play was so notorious it even got brought up in Italian Parliament. I don’t have the link offhand, but it is almost certainly a matter of record.

3. Him and Zidane played in Serie A at roughly the same time in the mid-late 1990s and it was well known that Zidane could be set off with the right set of insults aimed at the hot buttons.

4. He has committed some horrendous, deliberate fouls designed not just to stop the man with the ball, but to hurt the player attacked, including stomping down on a player’s knee at an angle and kicking a player in the face. The video of his best/worst fouls can be seen here

5. Materazzi admits to the veracity of the video evidence of him twisting Zidane’s nipple off the ball so that the referee’s would not see it.

6. The only people who have come to his defense are his dad and his agent, with his agent claiming that Materazzi is a “good boy” who doesn’t do these things (factually inaccurate)

7. He has offered this “defense” which changes his original position which was that he didn’t insult him at all. From the most recent Daily Mail:

Materazzi admitted that he tweaked the France captain's nipple as they clashed in extra time. After which, it is alleged Zidane responded: "If you want my shirt so much, you can f****** have it after the game."
The Italian said that he then replied: "I'd rather have the shirt off your woman," a supposed reference to the Frenchman's wife Veronique.
Materazzi's agent Phil Smith said: "There was no way Marco meant to cause such a reaction.
"It was just a typical innocuous football insult commonplace in every game. Marco is adamant he didn't call Zidane a terrorist.
"They know each other well from games between Juventus and Inter Milan and Marco just wouldn't want to wind up Zidane to the extent of getting him sent off."
Materazzi, 32, told Gazetta dello Sport: "I held his shirt for a few seconds only, then he turned to me and talked to me, jeering.
"He looked at me with a huge arrogance and said, 'If you really want my shirt I'll give it to you afterwards'. I replied with an insult, that's true."
Materazzi has not elaborated but he has denied, however, some of the more vile insults referring to his wife or sister or calling him a terrorist.
"It was one of those insults you're told dozens of times and that you often let fall on a pitch," Materazzi said.
"I did not call him a terrorist. I am not a cultured person and I don't even know what as Islamist terrorist is."
He added: "For me the mother is sacred, you know that."
However, Zidane's agent, Alain Migliaccio, said the former France captain would soon reveal what was said, claiming Materazzi insulted the French-born son of Algerian immigrants.

He admits to insulting his wife. Then justifies it by saying that insulting wives is commonplace in football. He also admits to knowing Zidane well from their time in Serie A together which suggest that he also knew Zidane could be incited to attack if provoked about certain issues.

It took him over thirty six hours to finally go on the attack and the best he can muster is that Zidane was arrogant (one might say witty) and told the shirt puller to wait until after the game. A comment so "arrogant" (funny) that Nike designed an entire commercial around it—a Joga Bonito commercial where Eric Cantona dismisses shirt pullers as degrading the beautiful game and asks the camera, "why can’t they just wait till after the game if they want the shirt so badly”.

He then claims not to know what a terrorist is, which is farcical even for a dumb football player like him. Finally, he makes the mistake of saying that he wouldn’t insult his mother because he knows mothers are sacred—presumably referring to his own experience with the death of his mother at a relatively young age.

Of course, that means he’d also know firsthand just how provocative a jibe about someone’s beloved—and recently hospitalized—mother would be.

The Lip Readers

The Guardian has a good summary of what lip readers have said, but first there is the matter of the supposed expert of the matter.

A woman named Rees is the top expert in Britain and has been employed as an expert witness in these cases for the government and investigative services. She has interpreted the tape with the help of an Italian translator (a language both men speak) and claims, among other things, that Materazzi calls Zidane a “n*gger” and “the son of a terrorist whore”. Other experts have independently confirmed this.

Other theories exist including that he called Zidane’s sister a prostitute and wished a “great death on his family”. You can find a summary of these here.

And here is the full list of theorized comments from lip readers paper by paper courtesy of the Age

According to the website football365.com, The Sun's lip-reader claimed Materazzi called Zidane a "son of a terrorist whore". The tabloid also traced the incident back to an alleged twist of Zidane's nipple by the Italian, who then shouted: "Well, I did it that way because I know that's how your mother likes it."

The Guardian's lip-reader interpreted Materazzi's words as: "I wish an ugly death to you and all your family", while the Daily Mirror said Materazzi allegedly sneered: "All Muslims are terrorist b-----s" and called Zidane's mother, Malika, "a whore".

The Independent said Zidane sarcastically told Materazzi that he could have his shirt as a souvenir at the end of the match. "The Italian is alleged to have responded that Zidane could keep it for his sister and made an extremely derogatory comment about her."

This explanation was similar to that of Materazzi's agent who reportedly claimed that Zidane offered to swap shirts later, to which the Italian replied: "I'd rather take the shirt off your wife."

***

If any of these things are truly what he said, we can surmise it was calculated and premeditated and depending on what was known (whether he knew Zidane’s mother was in the hospital or if he knew the ‘harki’ issue) varying from disgraceful to downright sickening. As an aside, there are multiple ways he could have known about his mother—there are players on both sides who play for the same team who might have let it slip thinking it wasn’t a big deal when talking during warm-ups, or Zizou might have even warned Materazzi not to make comments about his mother because of her hospitalization. If Materazzi is right about mother's being sacred and they are familiar with each other, he might have said it expecting the thuggish Materazzi to understand given his own experience (and Materazzi's public statements back this up).

The incitement and subsequent reaction almost certainly guaranteed them the World Cup. Zidane is France's penalty designee in games, he surely would have taken one in the shootout and Materazzi drops the terrorist/traitor bomb right as it appears penaltys are inevitable. Plus, all the French players know--esp. with Ribery and Henry spectators at that point (which is another question that needs to be answered) that their World Cup hopes rested on his shoulders even more than they already did. France had the run of play and if any team knew that late goals in extra time could occur and could win a game of this magnitude it was the Italians who had were only their because of similar heroics in the Italy-Germany game and lost Euro 2000 to the French on a stoppage time equalizer and extra time goal.

I know this doesn’t mean Trezeguet would have made his penalty, but counterfactuals are silly. It’s just as likely that A. they may have scored in extra time with Zizou on the field, B. the confidence of having your captain may have led him not to blast the ball after beating Buffon, but placing it, or C. Zidane, their penalty designee and presumably most knowledgable regarding penalty strikes, might have had some words of wisdom after watching others take penalties that could have helped Trezeguet. Not to mention the effect his presence could have had on Barthez’ confidence.

I’m not saying France would have won the World Cup had there been no red card (see above re: counterfactuals). I am saying that after the red card, France could not win.

I hope the full story comes out. And if it does, I hope FIFA has the fortitude to follow through with their guidelines and “strong” stance against racism. I can’t think of a bigger symbol on a bigger stage to socially demonstrate to the globe that racism will not be tolerated.

Just The Facts: The Head Butt Heard Round the World Part I

2006-07-11T00:36:00.000-07:00

What did Materazzi say that so incited Zidane as to create the staggering and surreal reaction of his vicious head butt?

Good question, but one that will be dealt with in Part II.

I'm going to deal with the easier--and still disappointing issue of the way the red card was issued.

According to FIFA rules, video replays are not allowed in determining fouls--red cards or head butts included. If no one sees it with their own eyes, no matter how many replays are shown on the stadium scoreboard, there is nothing that can be done.

It doesn't appear they followed their own laws. On the biggest stage. With the biggest player and possibly the biggest impact.

To put it bluntly, it seems that Zidane was only thrown out on the basis of video replays, not the vision of any of the four officials on the pitch. FIFA, of course, denies this as it would be a staggering blow to a World Cup already marred by horrendous officiating.

As far as this issue goes, the number of news reports are kind of staggering. FIFA claims the fourth official actually saw it with his own eyes, despite the referee and linesman obviously missing it. FIFA didn't make that claim until this morning and yesterday I'm pretty sure both coaches said it. Plus, if the fourth official saw it, why did it take Buffon calling the linesman over to get the consultation between the officials connected by radio? If the fourth official had seen it with his own eyes I can't believe he wouldn't have *immediately* radioed in to either the linesman (who didn't raise his flag and thus indicated he didn't see it) or to the referee--who had his back to the play. And the fifth official has access to video and can communicate with the fourth official.

Both coaches claimed immediately afterwards that video evidence had been used, before FIFA had a chance to react. And their reaction has been tepid--no explanation, just straight denial (and the weak excuse that the fourth official was waiting for things to "settle down" before saying anything)

Plus, despite FIFA claims to the contrary, according to spanish media, MEDINA ADMITTED that he used video evidence to make the call.

Excerpts from the article follow:

However, Domenech was furious with Materazzi - and he claimed referee Horacio Elizondo only produced the red card after the fourth official had seen a video replay - a claim denied today by FIFA who said the fourth official has no access to tv footage and saw the incident with his own eyes.
Domenech said: "The sending off of Zidane changed the match, that was the key moment of the game...

And Lippi defended Materazzi. Lippi said: "You will realise that it was not Materazzi who got the attention of the referee.
"It was the fourth and fifth officials looking at the video at the edge of the pitch.
"We did not do anything. They saw it and they called the attention of the referee. When the French fans see television tomorrow they will see what happened and they will think differently.

The coaches agree, the fourth official agrees, the video seems to hold up this version of events, yet FIFA just offers a straight denial.

And suspiciously won't let the press anywhere near the referee.

This in no way justifies what Zidane did and if seen it was clearly a straight red card. But that's just it. Lots of fouls are missed by human error or simply human limitation--replays are used after the game all the time to correct for this by issuing suspensions after the fact.

Why not this time?

The Italians were involved, they did benefit, and it did involve squirrely officiating.

I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'

More on what was said tomorrow...

World Cup Final: Picking Up the Pieces

2006-07-10T12:37:00.000-07:00

1. Italy won the World Cup on penalties. Prior to that point they had never done so. In the shootout there was not a single save made by either keeper. The only difference was a Trezeguet shot that hit the crossbar and bounced down on the line, but did not cross it. Neither keeper even came close to a single save. After watching the Swiss miss every opportunity against the Ukraine and Ricardo's heroics for Portugal, this was positively shocking.

2. The game ended with the following French players as spectators--Thierry Henry, Franck Riberry, and Zinedine Zidane--all more or less voluntarily. Despite this, the French struck every penalty well and "missed" one strike--which hit the cross bar and came within inches of crossing the line.

3. Zidane pulled off two of the most outrageous acts I've ever seen on a such a huge stage. With more than a billion people watching and 95% of them (including the best GK in the Cup, Gianluigi Buffon) knowing that Zidane was going to hit the ball low and to the left, Zidane pulled off a playground move that almost *never* happens. He chipped the GK with a deft touch that glanced off the crossbar, hit two feet behind the line with so much backspin that it spun right back out. He struck the ball so slowly that Buffon had time to dive to his right, hit the ground, lean up on his elbow and watch the ball float into the net.

And then there is the head butt. I have many, many thoughts on this and am in the midst of doing research on this. Everything I have read so far indicates that there is *much* more to this story than anyone realizes currently and it positively turns my stomach.

No matter what ends up having transpired.

4. I guess I should be happy Italy won something, but until more investigation of the Zidane incident in the 110th minute comes out, I have a sinking feeling that the Italian penchant for corruption, cheating, and winning at all costs carried over to the World Cup.

And if the rumors are true--and much of the preliminary evidence points in this direction--the antics pulled off by Materazzi and others bring the game into greater disrepute than anything the Portuguese or any other divers, embellishers, simulators, or cheaters did.

Eradicating and raising awareness of racism in European football was the ultimate goal of this World Cup--especially after the possible voting fraud that gave Germany this World Cup instead of South Africa. Statements were made prior to every game asking for respect. The motto of this year's World Cup was "a time to make friends".

The fans, by all accounts, appeared to respect this in ways that have rarely been seen prior to this year.

It also appears that there is some likelihood that the World Cup trophy, the legacy of Zidane, and the lasting image of these last four weeks, was decided by the deliberate manipulation of racial provocation.

There's too much to digest even twenty four hours later. But the next few days are going to be terribly disappointing, disconcerting, and embarrassing for everyone who loves the beautiful game.

France-Italy: Tomorrow Should Be a National Holiday

2006-07-08T22:33:00.000-07:00

I've got nothing.

I love the storylines going into this game.

Italy's domestic league is in shambles due to a match-fixing scandal and general corruption involving players gambling--of which 13 (I believe) players on the Azzuri are directly linked. A player/coach/manager (I'm never really sure exactly his role) which many of the players are close to may or may not have attempted suicide, but we do know he is in grave condition and a rallying point for the players.

France is old. Really old. Players came out of retirement just to see if they could keep France from embarrassing themselves like they did at the last World Cup. And now they find themselves in the finals with a shot at title number two out of the last three World Cups. Barthez is still inexplicably in goal. Zidane's career has been literally on the line every time France has taken the field in a knockout match. Thuram and Vieira are playing fantastically at a point when they should be thinking about following Djourkaeff's lead and heading to the US for cash and an easy life in an easy league. Ribery has become a sensation as the anti-Ronaldo making slashing runs down the right without the antics and diving. One question remains on everyone's mind...where's Henry? For Arsenal he is devastating, but not so much for France. Part of the problem is positioning and expectation--he is, after all, tied for second in goals with three and tallying one in the finals would give hime sole possession of second place. Plus, he's playing out of position--he's not a sole striker in a 4-5-1 formation.

I'm perfectly neutral in this game. I think France winning is a better story, but I think Italy has been underappreciated and underrated the whole tournament. Plus, the fact that Cannavaro may be the best player in the tournament as a 5-9 center back is mind boggling (and appeals to someone of equal stature, like myself)

I just want a great game. And there is virtually no way it can't be.

If it ends up a nil-nil tie decided on penalties, there will be close calls and every move into the box will result in breath holding and moving to the edge of one's seat knowing that one goal, one bit of skill, one mistake, might make the difference between World Cup champion and historical footnote.

If it somehow ends up in a wild, high scoring affair, the excitement will be obvious.

The one thing that I don't think will happen is one team looking bad and the other team walking all over them (see Germany-Portugal).

****

Who ya' got?

My analysis of this game is actually quite simple. They both play similar systems with multiple talented holding midfielders playing in front of the defense (Makelele, Gattuso) that makes it hard for anyone to score. Other teams have difficulty scoring, but it also means that both teams have difficulty pushing players forward.

Totti will play a similar role to Zidane. He's starting to round himself into shape despite a Barbaro-like leg break, but even at his best he's going to walk around the pitch looking to snap a defense with one pass. Zidane will be more active, but won't be able to finish runs.

Henry will be up top, but who is he going to link up with? Will France be willing to commit Vieria forward? If so, for how long? Will they be afraid of the Italian counterattack which, while it didn't work against Germany, demonstrated that they continually had the ability to take three touches and move the ball sixty yards upfield to an outside midfielders foot.

If Italy starts Toni again, is he going to finally find the form that made him the monster he is in Serie A? If France plays Henry up top, will he be able to make the adjustment (which he hasn't so far) to being a lone striker and thus having to worry about the offside trap as well as find the form that makes him such a force at the club level in England and the Champions League.

Barthez is prone to howlers but is great at stopping shots which is important given how crazy this ball has been. Buffon is unbelievably good and playing at his highest form right now.

These teams are shockingly similar.

I think it has nil-nil and penalties written all over it, but that's the conventional wisdom and that rarely seems to hold true in World Cup finals.

I'd like to say that I see a French victory, but if it ends after 90 minutes with a winner I have to say that I lean toward Italy--especially if Lippi has the audacity to rely on strikers other than Toni.

The problem with this game is that I see both teams relying so heavily on their defense that it could be one bit of skill or even luck that decides it. And that favors neither team, nor anyone dumb enough to make a prediction.

These teams are virtually identical tactically with France having some more speed on the flanks, but Italy having strikers more suitable to playing alone up top. France is old, but crafty. Italy, however, is not dumb, nor are they World Cup debutantes.

I think Italy should be favored in this match. If it ends in 90 minutes, I think Italy wins 1-0, but as I said before it's got nil-nil/penalties written all over it. I'd say the latter is a little more likely. Given the stakes involved and the history between the two teams, conservative approaches are likely to rule the day, but Italy is a little more comfortable doing that and creating chances. It's just a question of whether they convert them.

The only thing I'm not wishy-washy about is that this game is going to be outstanding.

Zinedine Zidane, Thank You.

2006-07-08T21:54:00.000-07:00

From the New York Times

"With a victory, France would secure its second World Cup title in
eight years and Zidane would cement his position as perhaps soccer's
greatest player of the last 20 years."

"In the World Cup quarterfinals against flamboyant and skillful
Brazil, Zidane made the ball do tricks as if it were a pet. He was
more Brazilian than the Brazilians themselves."

Zidane may be the best European footballer I've seen in my short life. He's done everything. World footballer of the year three times in non-consecutive years (no MJ effect here). World Cup winner. Champions League winner. And now he's guaranteed to end his career in his second World Cup finals with a chance to make it two titles in three tries.

His play has been mesmerizing in the most literal sense of the term. Players seem to lose their capacity to defend when he is facing them. He escapes impossible situations and makes the ball do exactly what he wants it to. I'm sure he lost the ball at least once in the Portugal match, mostly because it was so anomalous.

I'm not the only one to make this analogy, but there is something positively Matrix like about his play in the last three games--it's like he's figured out something about the nature of reality that allows his play to be as apparently effortless as it is elegant.

And this is it. When he walks off the field tomorrow, it will be the last time he walks off the field as a professional player--in the process ending a career in a way that can make all of us smile.

His performance this last week gives us all hope that despite the inevitable passing of time, sometimes we can recapture what we once had. Soccer's just the stage upon which this is playing out. The hope it brings is universally applicable.

That hope is that we can get it back one more time when we're really ready to experience it and feel the moments for what they are with the perspective that only comes with time.

Only with time can you recognize the paradox of the power and glory of this rekindling at the perfect moment for anyone who even peripherally understands the sport of soccer. He's living a dream most of us couldn't conceive of, let alone actually fantasize about. But you can see he also appreciates that the money and the fame and the glory and the goals and medals are ultimately superfluous. He doesn't play for that. He plays for the moment--the sheer joy of splitting defenders, making the ball do precisely what you want, and the perfection of linking a pass to a teammate that no one else would have seen, let alone executed.

The game's the thing, but it's only a game.

Nothing more, but perhaps more importantly, nothing less.

We're watching a man completely at peace with his identity as a soccer player. It just happens that that man is one of the most immensely talented, intelligent, and skillful players we've seen.

Beautiful.

Representin' Deutschland, Ja

2006-07-08T21:20:00.000-07:00

It may not be true in the real world, but for one afternoon at least, the Germans reminded us of one thing we all are taught in our youth and desperately cling to throughout our lives despite all evidence to the contrary.

Cheaters never win. And winners never cheat.

Don't let the scoreline fool you, Germany hung three on Portugal in one half. Two virtually back to back on outrageous strikes by Schweinsteiger from distance.

Even after the first half ended nil-nil, you knew it was coming. Once Germany scored, I sent a text message to a friend of mine.

"Ze floodgates have been opened. Ze Maginot Line has been breached"

Portugal continued their antics throughout the game, with one memorable Cristiano Ronaldo flop where he beat two guys, pushed it past a third and when he realized it was to be harmlessly intercepted by a fourth he sprung forward when he reached the third player as if he were Superman.

The replays show A. He wasn't even breathed upon by the German player and B. He contorted his body to look at the referee before he even hit the ground to see if he had "earned" a call.

Germany, by contrast, and as you would expect given the German spirit (Ze Deutsche Geist) would get fouled by Portugal, try and stay on their feet and if they couldn't pop back up--even if they'd earned a call.

Portugal got whupped. Bad. In the space of about thirty five minutes they went from still in the game to a broken team. Broken in play, broken in spirit, but most importantly, the Germans broke their will.

In front of millions of people worldwide, the majority of those not from Portugal, rooting for exactly this.

If Klinsmann hadn't started taking off strikers and Schweinsteiger (who scored both goals and created the own goal via a rocketed shot off a set piece) by doing the basketball equivalent of emptying his bench and giving the fans a chance to give his star players an ovation, it could have easily been 4 or 5. As it was, the B team was still creating chances and easily could have made it four had they not decided to take the foot off the gas a little bit.

Oliver Kahn. He may not have gotten a shutout, but he proved that he is still one of the great keepers in the world and has not lost a step. He saved a ball struck so hard and from such point blank distance that I had no idea he'd touched it around the post. I had to see a replay before I figured out why they were lining up a corner kick. He came up huge whenever he had to, and it was sad to see Portugal put in a meaningless goal off of their best bit of attacking play in four games--a goal that virtually no keeper short of Jesus could have saved. (Jesus saves!)

I was so happy about the Germans punishing the Portuguese for their insolence that I went to my soccer game sporting the Germans preferred spiky hair and spent half of the day speaking a version of Deutsch/English that harkened back to my high school German classes. I even decided that I was going to play auf Deutsch and attack, attack, and attack some more.

I did. It was a meaningless game, but it did prompt the following exchange within three minutes of my taking the field. I have uttered not a word.

Ball is played into me with my back to the goal and a defender behind me. I touch it back to a fellow player. Play shifts to other side of field.

I then hear the following from said defender (shouting angrily):

THAT'S TWICE NOW! IF YOU TOUCH MY BOOBS AGAIN I'M GOING TO PUNCH YOU IN THE FACE!

I was positively dumbfounded.

This woman was approximately six inches shorter than me and I'm clocking in at about 5-9 in shoes.

I can only surmise that she thought I was either A. attempting to cop a feel in the middle of a soccer field or B. deliberately targeting her chest as a means of subduing and injuring her.

And I was somehow accomplishing this without looking at her as I had not faced her with the ball.

Needless to say, I did not get punched in the face.

I didn't deserve it.

But Portugal did.

And they got exactly that--a straight right to the chin that exposed to God and the world that Porgual's got a glass jaw and the beautiful game must be respected.

Or you vill be punished.

Ja.

Portugal...Come On Out and Get Your Whuppin'

2006-07-07T17:19:00.000-07:00

Ze Germans.

Efficient. Attacking. Relentless. Aggressive.

Give them a shot at winning something (anything) and they will take it.

Ze German people.

Head over heels in love with this team of young overachievers who just missed out on a dream trip to the finals. Their national treasure Klinsmann has been vindicated.

And it's their last time to cheer for the national team on home soil.

Portugal.

"..."

What happens to drama queens after they get dumped or don't get what they want?

They pout. They give up. They say "well, we didn't really want it anyways," or "it wasn't our fault".

"The ref didn't help us"--Cristiano Ronaldo.

Talk about a Freudian slip. He didn't say that the referee hurt their chances, but that he didn't help their cause.

You mean by calling fouls when you took obvious dives?

This World Cup has turned everything I've thought about world soccer and turned it upside down. I'm openly rooting for France, although I find the Italian team appealing as well. Brazil looked merely pedestrian despite having the best array of talent in the tournament

And now I find myself rooting for the Germans.

The Portuguese have no one but themselves to blame for their place in the third place match.

To most teams, this match is an exhibition. A time not to get hurt and a bit of an insult to continue playing in the JV game while the world gets ready for the real final on Sunday. As one commentator described it, it's a match they play on the way to the airport.

Portugal's coach Scolari has described his team as having "melancholy".

Germany, by contrast, is playing the MVP of 2002--Oliver Kahn--in goal for one last gasp at World Cup glory. Germany is also a young team and a team for whom a bronze medal actually means something.

The world will be turning even a little more upside down on Saturday, when I'll be rooting for Germany to take Portugal behind the woodshed and give them the whipping they deserve for bringing the game into disrepute.

Portugal has scored no goals against France, no goals against England, and one goal against the Netherlands in a farce of a match.

Germany does nothing but throw players forward and has attacking midfielders masquerading as right and left backs. Robert Huth will start at center back and he's been known to roam forward looking for crosses for Chelsea.

Portugal has very little to play for, a day fewer to rest, and has become the team everyone loves to hate.

Germany is in Germany and is being rooted on by neutrals who want payback for cheating.

And when you want a whipping administered in Europe, historically speaking, who do you call?

What's the one bad thing you can say about Germany's soccer team (and their military strategy through the years)?

They don't defend well enough, because they attack too much.

Ultimately, tomorrow is an exhibition match, and I think Germany is going to put on an absolute clinic while the Portuguese mumble things about referees, avoiding injury, and German slurs.

I can't wait.

I think Germany could hang four on Portugal. That's right, four.

Whether they will or not, I do know one thing. Germany is going to jump on Portugal with both feet and if they aren't prepared it could get ugly.

And by ugly, I mean beautiful.

Viva Le France, Part I (And Portugal Rightfully Gets the Embarassment of Playing in the Third Place Game)

2006-07-06T08:02:00.000-07:00

Never have I been so happy to have been wrong (at least in the last couple of days).

The Portuguese showed their true colors on July 5th and went down to a goal by the classy and talented Zidane.

The Zidane story is just too good to be true. Nothing against the Italians, but if you haven't gotten swept up by the big man, you're a bad person.

Thankfully, the Portuguese did the following.

1. They made precisely the same mistake that the Brazilians did. Zidane is a great player but he is less so when forced to run and is given less time to make his decisions. My only guess is that the Portuguse figured that if they threw men too close to him, he would beat them and unbalance their defense more than his passes already would. I think you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, so I think you go the close marking route--SK and the Swiss seemed to make it work, but Brazil took a different tack and lost. It's like refusing to guard the inbounder in basketball--it never works.

2. They chopped down Henry in the box. Henry has not been especially good in this World Cup. As one of my friends put it, his best play has been to run offside and then look incredulous when called (accurately) for it. I think he leads the Cup in fouls. However, he's not one of the most feared strikers in the world for nothing and if he hadn't been taken down, who knows what would have happened. Although it was a clumsy, clumsy challenge.

3. Ricardo did not save the penalty. But he did come damned close. Damned close. Picked the right side, right height and if Zidane doesn't put it in precisely the right spot, it's nil-nil and we're most likely going to penalties because France seemed unable to score from the run of play and Portugual unwilling.

*Warning: Inappropriate use of term coming

Ironicially enough, it was the penalty that got them to the semis and the penalty that sent them home.

4. Portugual chose to dive and cheat. I have never, ever seen such blatant and poor attempts at winning free kicks on such a big stage. For the first ten minutes C. Ronaldo was scaring the everliving you know what out of the French defense. He was running at two-three defenders and beating them or finding one of the legion of open players (who then promptly did nothing with it). Then he--and the rest of the team--decided their best bet at scoring was to win a dangerous free kick or penalty. The replay shots were astounding. They would fall without being touched. They would scream in pain. They would roll around. Even Arlen Specter didn't find their "magic bullet" explanations compelling

And, in the most unbelievable move of all, they would do it when they could have gotten to balls that might have resulted in goals. C. Ronaldo dived four yards from the goal instead of turning to receive a cross with his back to the goal. At that point all he has to do is turn and hope for the best.

France won. I am happy.

I'm even more happy at the way they won. France didn't so much beat Portugal as take what they could get and protect what they had and let the Portuguese beat themselves. That's experience. Great pitchers know how to win even when they don't have their best stuff. France did the same thing. They were having a hard time scoring, so they bore down, took their penalty, tried to poke another one in and encouraged/let the Portuguese self-destruct.

By cheating. They fouled Henry, penalty, down 1-0. They dive the rest of the game instead of looking for the equalizer and it's France inexplicably with a 50-50 shot at winning their second title in three World Cups.

You'd figure a team that dives and cheats that much would at least be better at it.

Apparently they don't read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" in Portuguese grammar school.

I, for one, am glad.

Portugal and France: This Is Going to Hurt

2006-07-05T11:17:00.000-07:00

I feel a bit hungover from yesterday's dramatics. Not literally, mind you, but just in terms of excitement and riveting foootball.

I'm also not one for beating around the bush when it comes to bad news. So I'll just come right out and say it.

I don't think France will win this game. I do think they've got a chance to go through on penalties, but we've seen how good Ricardo is at saving those things and even that seems a bit problematic to me for Les Bleus.

Although I didn't think it at the time, I'm growing to appreciate the France 1998 team more and more. Nationalistic politicians (I believe the party was Le Pen) were making comments (and still are) about how this team doesn't adequately "represent France" which is code for they have too many black people on the field and too many whose origins are of colonial descent, not Burgundy or Paris (e.g, Zidane is of Algerian descent)

Their best player is a gentleman and one of the greats of the game who has come up big at every major event and been hailed as world footballer of the year, but never in consecutive years. His stature is enormous by football standards, both literally and figuratively, and his footwork is nimble, with one commentator referring to him as having the "feet of a ballerina".

And he's not even their best player (at least the rest of the year). Henry is a wonder to watch when he's gliding his way through Premiership and Champions League defenses and has a shockingly powerful shot to boot. Plus, he's got the goal scorer's knack for finding the right place at the right time to poke the ball home. Why he hasn't been able to replicate this at the national level is a mystery that may never be solved.

He's also the leading footballer to speak out and organize efforts to stop the racism that mars European football--unspeakable acts that would never take place in America, including monkey chants and tossing bananas at black players.

As much as it pains me to admit this, I'll be rooting for the French.

And I'm currently wearing an England jersey as I write this.

What hurts the most about this game is that I think France's quest and Zidane's career ends here.

I'll be to the point because it bothers me no end.

1. Big Phil. The coach of the Portuguese is one of the best in the world not named Jose Mourinho (as a Man U fan, that sentence hurt, too). He's on a 15 match win streak after taking Brazil to the championship last year and is obviously fantastic at preparing his players and adjusting tactics to deal with opponents.

Typically, I don't put too much stock in the import of managers, but let's not forget why Mourinho is at Chelsea. He took another unheralded squad (Portuguese, coincidentally enough) FC Porto and won the European championship. Mostly through tactical and motivational acumen--he certainly lacked the talent other teams had.

Scolari is smart. Very smart.

2. The France-Brazil match was a bit of a one-off thing. France has been Brazil's nemesis for awhile now and Brazil knew it. If you watched the way Brazil played, they left the French players acres of space and dropped off, hoping to counter on the slow French defense. Let's also not forget that the only reason France scored was because Roberto Carlos had a massive brain fart and forgot to do the only thing his diminutive *ss can do on set pieces--cover the back post. His marking was so atrocious that if he was Italian their would be whispers of match fixing.

Scolari and Portugal will not give France the time or space that Brazil did and will not have the same respect. Some of these Portuguese players are young enough to have watched the France 1998 Cup (Ronaldo) and some are old enough to remember the pain of not making it out of the knockout phase after losing to the United States (Figo) in 2002.

France won't have the time they did in the Brazil match. And they had a tough time scoring against the Swiss and South Korea--both teams that are known for their harrying of the ball.

3. France has few real attacking threats that link up well together. Henry is not a target man, which leaves Riberry's admittedly fantastic wing play a bit less relevant. Zidane can pick out players but is not as quick to get forward to receive those balls back and make the most of them.

4. Portugal is an underrated team who get Deco and Costinha back. They may lose Figo, which could be a blessing in disguise as whoever replaces him will be faster and possibly more trouble for the experienced, but old French defense. Ronaldo will play and give them fits. Deco is a world class talent and "Big Phil" will put the fear of God in their midfield such that Zidane may have two players on him at all times. They'll also be willing to foul him at every opportunity.

5. Portugal can kill off games. They do it by killing the game I so desperately love by embellishing injuries, diving, and generally doing everything they can to cheat their way to victory, but considering this is the farthest they've come since Eusebio in the 1960s, if the gloves came off against Holland, I don't see them putting them back on for a semifinal matchup.

I think Portugal wins. I don't know the scoreline, but I would bet if they do, France does not score. A nil-nil tie is a distinct possibility, but if so, I think it goes to penalties and Portugal has a distinct advantage despite the fact that Barthez is kept in the lineup despite his occassional howlers and poor play in the air for his shot stopping abilities.

Why does this bother me so much? See below. They cheat, they steal, they lie, and they make a mockery of the game when they do so.

They've also eliminated England (my favorite team after the US) and Holland (a team I've loved since the days of Bergkamp, Kluivert, Davids, Seedorf, and Zenden). And they've done it ignominious fashion.

France is classy. Portugal is not.

Sometimes the guys in white hats lose.

This time, I hope I'm wrong.

Portugal 1-0 or on penalties.

Ugh.

Italy, Germany, and The Greatest Feeling In the World

2006-07-04T22:26:00.000-07:00

I was unabashedly cheering for the Italians today. Don't know why, but I think it had something to do with the fact that I didn't understand why they were underdogs, I like cheering against ze Germans, and especially for a team I think has been needlessly written off.

That being said, I had no clue this game was going to turn out the way it did.

Germany played well. Italy played better. Even when Germany seemed to have the run of play, the Italian defense was sparkling--starting at the back with Buffon and continuing up through the midfield. Gattuso played 120 minutes of unbelievably tough soccer and the backline looked fantastic with the notable exception of leaving Podolski alone on a near post run only to watch him head the ball wide in extra time.

You could tell the Italians didn't want penalties. They seemed indifferent about extra time, which was mind boggling to me, but maybe it's just their way. Once it started to become apparent penalties could decide their fate, they came at Germany with everything they had, hitting the post and then the crossbar within seconds of each other.

Not only that, but the Italian coach had the fortitude to put in *four* strikers at the end of the game to fight against the possibility of spot kicks determining the outcome of this semifinal. I guess they were playing a 4-2-4 formation, which hasn't really existed since the 1960s.

It worked. And it took until the very last gasp for it to finally happen.

In the 119th minute Italy bends a shot off a slipped ball from a poor clearance of a corner (created by a great shot necessitating a diving save from Lehmanns).

It looked good when it left his foot. It looked even better from behind the goal. Jens had the entire post covered. The shot went outside the post and bent back in the side netting.

Italy 1, Germany 0. Less than seconds to go in what turned out to be a 120 minute match.

I'm sure there are better feelings then scoring a goal in the last minute of extra time to virtually guarantee a trip to the World Cup final by eliminating the host country and avoiding a shootout where you had *never* succeeded, but right now I can't think of one. I'm pretty sure I could think for awhile and still be stumped.

Watching the birth of your child or getting married is certainly up there.

But almost everyone gets a chance to do these things at least once. And you can always do it again.

Wow. That ending is right up there with some of the best games I've ever seen--including the Manchester United 1999 Champions League comeback to score two goals in stoppage time to win 2-1, the Liverpool comeback from down 3-0 at half time in the Champions League final, and Gerrards forty yard strike in stoppage time to send the FA Cup to extra time.

I just can't handle it. I'm tired, spent, drained, and feel like I need a nap and a shot, not necessarily in that order.

I want to comment on the Portugal-France game, but that's going to require some drastic editing as I imagine the first draft will include many derogatory curse words directed primarily in the direction of the Portuguese.

Of course, on initial review, I think they might should be favored to win this game. I'm not as convinced as I was with the Italy-Germany game, but I'm leaning against the conventional wisdom. France 2006 is not France 1998, no matter what Brazil thinks. I'm not saying France will lose, but I think this is going to require more thought than the public seems willing to give.

Aesthetically speaking, though, a France-Italy final could be beautiful--it's happened once before (in Euro 2000, I believe) and resulted in similar stoppage time heroics. Add to that the players are just so compelling--how can you root against Zidane, take your eyes off of Henry, or keep from wondering if you're having an acid flashback as Patrick Vieira and Lilian Thuram still inexplicably patrol the park for Les Bleus?

Regardless, it's day after Thanksgiving time tonight. Time to rest, enjoy the food coma and look forward to doing it again tomorrow.

But make no mistake, tomorrow's game won't be an array of leftovers.

Still Confused: Why Has Everyone Written Off the Italians?

2006-07-04T10:53:00.000-07:00

1. Germany just played a 120 minute match against the most favored team to win the tournament not named Brazil, during which their best two players cramped up and may have gotten calf injuries. They claim this is not true, but there is no way these two wouldn't play, nor would they admit prior to the game that they are hurt.

2. One of their chief playmakers has been suspended--Torsten Frings. He will not take the pitch under any circumstances.

3. Germany cannot play defense terribly well.

4. Germany is being lauded for their attacking style of play. Why aren't Klose and Podolski household names? Might be because we know nothing about soccer, might also be because they aren't world class. World class strikers populate the Italian domestic league and the Italians deal with better guys than these week in and week out. Nesta is out, but Materrazzi is back.

5. But for the Argentinian coach having a brain aneurysm on the sideline Argentina should have won that game and the only goal Germany could manage required a bit of skill that is unlikely to be duplicated.

6. We can all talk about how the "scandals" are distracting the players, but we're forgetting that they are more than unified by the plight of their fallen friend who may or may not have attempted suicide and is in grave condition. Teams like that play together, not apart.

7. Luca Toni is a beast. And he's got confidence after putting in two against the (admittedly poor) Ukraine. Totti is almost 100% back. This Italian team can actually score.

8. Italy has never lost to Germany in a World Cup and beat them 4-1 in their most recent friendly. They beat them so badly that Klinsmann nearly lost his job.

9. The only thing I think the Germans have going for them is the home field advantage. This is great and all, but in the Italian league these players play against equally loud, unified crowds all the time. The crowds throw flares onto the field. Italians are used to ducking munitions in their domestic league. I don't think politely cheering Germans are going to frighten them.

10. I got no ten. Other than this. Italy is a massive underdog to win this game.

I realize I'm repeating myself, but I was hoping that I'd figure something out via further research to convince me that the conventional wisdom wasn't just bandwagon jumping and following through on the World Cup motto of "a time to make friends".

Apparently we're all friends with the Germans now.

Except the Italians.

Who knows? I guess we'll know in about three hours...

Has Everyone Forgotten the Italians Are Really Good at the Soccer?

2006-07-03T20:12:00.000-07:00

Germany versus Italy.

Nazis versus Fascists.

Cheaters versus, well, really, really good cheaters.

German efficiency and belief in the necessity of attacking at all costs runs up against the country that invented the "catenaccio" approach to soccer. Catenaccio, which I believe roughly translates to "door latch" consists of sitting back in a defensive shell and waiting for the other team to make a mistake and then capitalizing on a counterattack.

Winning 1-0 was the goal. Playing the beautiful game was not.

In fairness, this year's iteration is not your father's Azzuri and they attempt to play a brand of soccer that is much more free flowing and offensive oriented. While they haven't been tremendously successful at it, the Ukraine game may have been just what they needed to get back on track, offensively speaking.

In fairness, it was against crappy competition. The Ukraine was a one man show and a great story, but there was no way they could win that game--Shevchenko was the only player the Ukraine had and he's played too many years in Serie A for him to sneak up on the Italian defenders.

Germany, however, has had a much different road to get to this point. Their quarterfinal matchup was to be the belle of the ball--the best game of the World Cup (of course, we had no way of knowing that France was going to play Brazil like it was 1998 all over again).

While the Germany-Argentina game did not deliver the offensive explosion expected or the Argentinian master class on possession football, it certainly made up for it in drama.

Okay, enough foreplay. This is America and we want to know one thing.

"Who ya got?"

Germany

I thought that the Germans had yet to demonstrate that they can score on a strong, tactically sound defense and the Argentina game did little to dissuade me of this fact. Argentina scored first and Germany spent the majority of the time chasing the game. Eventually they did catch the South Americans and go through on penalty kicks.

The oddsmakers have jumped on the German bandwagon with both feet. Ze Germans have always been good with propaganda, but I presumed the Italians cozy relationship with bookmakers would overwhelm this fact. Shows what I know.

The Italians are not the favorite. Germany is now odds on to win against Italy and to take the whole thing.

Huh? Germany could not score against a South American defense that is good, but not quite Italian in its tactics, strength, and composure. It took this supposed offensive juggernaut nearly 80 minutes to level the game and that required what may have been one of the best goals of the tournament--a bit of skill one cannot consistently rely upon to win games, especially against superior defenses. Let's also not forget the aneurysm that the Argentinian coach apparently had on the sideline where he left his best player on the bench, started playing to protect the 1-0 lead, and basically screwed the game up so badly that he resigned immediately afterwards.

The German defense was also typicaly mediocre. They didn't do anything perfectly terrible, but they did little to convince myself or the world that they are capable of dealing with top class attackers.

Germany has yet to beat a truly good team--there's a reason it's taken Klose so long to actually score a goal in the knockout phase. Germany is great at beating up on poor competition, but this is a side whose talent and quality are certainly not among the top four in the tournament, and for their overachievement (at least) they should be commended.

But not favored.

Italy

Oh, Italy.

They have the story no one seems to want to tell--the possible suicide attempt of a colleague player/coach with whom many of the players are close. They are supposedly distracted by the problem facing corruption in Serie A.

They're also probably the strongest team left in the tournament.

Luca Toni is a monstrous striker who had only appeared to be having an off tournament. He kept grazing the post, barely missing touches, etc. Everyone's been waiting for him to break out. Against the Ukraine he did, scoring a couple of goals in their demolishing of the yellow clad Eurasians.

Totti is coming back into his own after that horrific leg break he suffered and is beginning to look like the playmaker he once was.

They're defense is so strong that but for an own goal against the US that they have yet to be scored upon. Granted, their competition has been a little watered down (they faced a Czech team hampered by injury and a naive Ghana team), but they are well known for their tough defense and Gattuso's play in front of the back four has been outstanding.

Injury wise, the loss of Nesta is a concern for Italy, but equally so the danger of Ballack being at less than one hundred percent and the suspension of Torsten Frings for punching an Argentine player post-match is a real problem for Germany.

I hope the German fans can hear the Americans snickering at his suspension considering that Frings is the player whose goalline handball kept out the equalizer in the US' 2002 quarterfinal matchup with the Germans.

***

Bottom line, this game baffles me.

Not because of the game itself, but because of the conventional wisdom surrounding it.

If this game wasn't in Germany, I think the Italians would be solid, solid favorites. But it's not. I think the homefield advantage matters, but only within reason.

The Germans are not terribly adept at playing defense. Luca Toni is tall and can negate the only advantage German center backs have--height--as well as perform as one would expect the leading striker in Italy to do.

If he can unlock Italian "doorlatches" I don't think the German defense will be too difficult.

Germany may poke one in, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the Italians pitch a shutout.

And they will score on the Germans.

I got Italy, going away. I don't see this being very close if the Italians get through the first ten minutes.

Italy 2-0.

Diving, Cheating, the NBA, and the World Cup

2006-07-03T09:03:00.000-07:00

I received the following series of questions from a friend prefaced by a statement of absolute disgust with the second day of quarterfinal matches.

He is following the World Cup in earnest, but pretty much matches the prototypical centrist sports fan American soccer is attempting to pick off. Intelligent, male, middle class, and willing to appreciate most any athletic endeavor.

Unfortunately, despite his lack of experience, he stumped the Schwab as it were. He's hit upon some of the real problems of this World Cup and that's not good for those of us who want to grow soccer in America.

He writes:

1. Brazil -- they played like the Lakers in '04 or the Pistons in '05 or
any team that has ever thought they could just "turn it on" when it
counted. And then did in about the 80th minute or something but that
slo-mo thing they did the whole game just sucked. And now one of the
ridiculous European teams is going to win.

2. Commentators praising people for selling dives. Even in the
star-worship culture of NBA commentary, nobody praises
LeBron or D. Wade for getting ridiculous calls, they just try to pretend
that it doesn't happen or change game outcomes.

3. The whole culture of diving. It is cheating, pure and simple. And
somehow this is ok. The Portugese and Italian teams make the claim that
soccer is a "continuous" sport in comparison with slow sports like
basketball or football laughable. When guys tumble to the ground ever 2
minutes and play stops, the only thing continuous is the clock.

As for the Brazil thing, I've got no answer, the 180 million managers of the team have got no answer, and none of the 23 players for the vaunted Brazilian team have an answer either. I can speculate about poor tactics (playing Ronaldinho out of position and that ridiculous 4-5-1), poor player choice (where was Robinho and why was there such loyalty to Ronaldo despite the fact that his only goals were against teams classes below France), and a cumbersome style of play. Where was the samba? I'm not talking about backheels and flip flaps and running at defenders with thirteen step overs, I'm talking about the joy. The samba thread through Brazilian football is not about flash or flair or showing off.

Brazilian football is about joy, pure and simple. The way they get there is not particularly relevant, whether it is with tactics that are "too defensive" or "not Brazilian", but what is relevant is that they play with joy and spirit and acknowledge that they are the leaders of world football, even in defeat and have an obligation to respect the game and enjoy it as a game no matter what the stakes.

Turning it on and off may be acceptable in group stage games, but not against what everyone knew was the only team unafraid of them. They refused to turn it on until the 80th minute and by then it was just too late.

It was almost like watching a tremendously talented kid get challenged, realize they weren't going to be handed the game, and then decide to play tight and not go all out so they can say afterwards, "well, even if we lose, who cares, because we didn't even really try".

Plus, as I alluded to in a previous post, the Lakers comparisons are dead on, even down to the yellow shirts and overweight superstar who is still good enough that you can't leave him out, but prevents you from putting the best team out there and requires running things through him. In this case, though this was orders of magnitude worse because of the enormously talented supporting cast which was left on the bench. Brazil doesn't play with anyone wide except for Cafu and Roberto Carlos, presuming they can run seventy yards each way serving as wingers at one end and backs at the other.

Cafu was too old to do this. Roberto Carlos might be as well.

The only people who seemed to recognize that they weren't going to be handed the game were Ronaldinho, who had three guys on him every time he touched the ball and still could have found open teammates had any of them made runs in front of him (three guys on one unbalances a defense no matter what the sport), Kaka, and Robinho--the latter of whom did not get to play much because of the allegiance to Ronaldo and the presence of Adriano (who frankly, looked like he might be in worse shape than Ronaldo, yet got none of the criticism) and the former was most likely hurt.

2. The commentators are some of the most schizophrenic people I've ever seen when it comes to diving. At one point they get mortally offended, at another they give it begrudging respect, and at another they outright praise it. My friend is right on. NBA commentators may ignore it, but they never praise, for example, D Wade punching Nowitzski in the stomach as he dribbles past him and then getting rewarded with a foul--on Nowitzski. "Embellishing"--diving--was one of the things specifically enumerated in the 2002 referee guidelines as something to punish harshly and that didn't get removed this year. Commentators should have informed the viewershipi--especially in America that this is disgraceful and unacceptable, not something that is built into the fabric of the game like pitchers retaliating or tackling hard a player who tries to show up another team (be it in the NFL, college football, basketball, baseball, or soccer).

Their refusal to do so only convinces the casual fan that either this is an acceptable part of the game or that commentators have been following the Bill Walton school of announcing (and I do mean that as a negative).

3. Diving is disgraceful and it kills the sport. Want to know who had the fewest fouls in this World Cup. I haven't checked the stats for sure, but going into the France game I'm 95% sure it was Brazil. There is a reason they are respected worldwide for their play. They respect the game. They will tackle hard and they will tackle fair and they will make professional fouls (see Juan's takedown on a breakaway that nearly resulted in red card). They tend not to dive (Ronaldo's ridiculous sprawl notwithstanding).

Killing the clock occurs in every sport. That's fine. When it occurs because a player pretends to be hurt or has gotten kicked, punched, elbowed in a body part that either wasn't touched or he wasn't even touched at all, it kills the flow of the game and it's virtually impossible to correct. How do you tell when a player is really hurt and when he's not? How painful must an injury be to warrant the stretcher or medical attention? No referee can make that decision--they are part time even at the highest level and it's like asking a teacher to evaluate whether a kid is faking sick. You can't do it.

Some teams use this to their advantage. Ghana took a dive to get the penalty that put them up 2-1 and then was atrocious at stalling the game with "injuries" when they had the lead on the US. Portugal is a terrible offender. Italy as well. If they have the lead, every foul possibly portends an injury.

And here's the worst part, I've never seen an official add on more than six minutes of stoppage time. No matter what. Clearly there are times where this is insufficient, but no referee has the fortitude to turn a 90 minute match into a 100-105 minute match.

Even if they should.

More to the point, diving is cheating. Grabbing jerseys, professional fouls, pushing while fighting for a ball, putting your arms out for balance and to hold a defender down while fighting for a head ball are all outside the rules, but they are different for two reasons. One, players know when they are and are not malicious. See McBride's gushing face. Swinging an elbow is different than putting your arms out, even if they can have the same effect. Knowing this and falling down as if you've been shot when you know it wasn't malicious and you're not hurt is lying and dishonorable. Even at the level I play at, there are times when you beat one defender and another comes sliding in, mistimes it, and I push the ball past him, but he clears me out. Potential for pain, but if done right, no real potential for injury other than in how hard you hit the ground.

Two, and most importantly. It's lying. It's disrespectful to the game, to your opponents, the officials, and the people watching--especially with instant replay. Generally if you cheat, you'll get found out even if you're immediately successful in the game. Everything I've spoken to is outside the rules and when you do it, you accept the possibility that you will be penalized for it within the rules of the game. Diving is the opposite--it's an attempt to break the rules in a way that deliberately manipulates the application of those rules to the detriment of your opponent by manipulating the referee, not your opponent.

As this World Cup has demonstrated, officiating should not decide games.

And successful diving, embellishing, cheating is worse than any of the ridiculously poor officiating that has occurred in this World Cup.

I can accept a record number of cards in one game that turns a critical match into a ten on nine farce.

At least we know the referee, although failing, was trying his best to control a match.

Diving does the opposite--it's a deliberate means of creating poor officiating to tilt the game in your favor.

And it's why I'm rooting for the Portuguese to get their a**es handed to them on Wednesday.

But it's also why I think they've got an even up shot of beating the French and ending the career of one of the great gentlemen of the game playing some of the best football of his life, Zinedine Zidane.

It's turning me off to the World Cup--I can only imagine what it's doing to the casual fan.

World Cup Semis Part II: Acceptance

2006-07-02T22:35:00.000-07:00

Coming soon, my picks for the World Cup semis/finals (here's a hint: Venice will be smiling come July 9)

I understand that there are five stages of grief.

I have not a clue what they are. But I do know that I have reached the stage of acceptance.

Towit:

1. I knew that the French were going to be Brazil's toughest test. I backed Brazil throughout the tournament because they did (and still do) have the best array of talent of any team in the tournament. I didn't back off in the quarters because I figured if they could win this match I was in the chips. That being said, I was scared because Les Bleus are the only team to have beaten them in recent memory. And the downside of this team--the fact that they were too old--paradoxically worked to their advantage in this game. Many of the 1998 squad that beat Brazil were on the field this year in Germany. I figured then--and I figure now--that if they could get past France, they were a mortal lock to win the whole thing. Everyone else--save the Italians, maybe--would have cowered before the yellow jerseys and walked onto the field down 1-0. Unfortunately, as my friend put it, the Lakers, I mean, the Brazilians (both wearing yellow jerseys and sporting an overweight, past his prime superstar) couldn't turn it on when they needed to. Against England, and especially against Germany, it would have been over before either team took the pitch. Not so, with a team composed of Cup winners and led by Zizou fighting against the possibility of the end of his career.

2. Portugal is a filthy team. Typically I use the word filthy as a good thing, as in, "John Smoltz' slider is filthy, just filthy".
Not so with the Portuguese. This is a team that lies, cheats, and steals its way to glory. This is not to say that they do not have talent, but they manipulate authority in every possible way to achieve glory. Luis Figo should not have even been on the field against England. If Rooney deserved a red card, Figo should have gotten a two match penalty for his head butt.

The Portuguese represent everything the casual American fan hates about the game. They kill the flow of the game. They whine. They look for fouls. Worst of all, they "embellish" to the point of ridiculousness. If you're going to claim an injury is worse than it initially looks, at least grab the proper body part. The number of times they get hit in the shoulder or chest and clutch their face is abominable. Or when they get kicked and always, always, grab the part of their shin right below their knee--even when it's apparent they got kicked around the ankle--is shocking. One might, as some have argued, claim that this is *worse* than diving for a penalty as this is a blatant attempt to procure a red card.

I hate it. And I hate the team. C. Ronaldo is a precocious talent who is getting fed the wrong ideas and turning to the darkside. Figo used to be a player I wanted to emulate till I saw his atrocious acting habits regarding meaningless fouls and his dark head butt that was somehow seen and punished only with a yellow card--a watering down I can only attribute to his stature as an international footballer.

That being said, I think Portugal can beat France. They won't offer France the time and respect on the ball Brazil inexplicably did, they are faster, they will have Deco, and they are cheaters who will stop at nothing to advance. Plus, Ronaldo is a once in a generation talent who is unfortunately treading a path that I have come to despise.

And that path is, do anything you can to get your team to advance. There is a difference, though. You can, play hard. You can, play tough. You can, give no quarter and ask for none.

But do not cheat. Do not steal.

As they say, "these are claims that every man of every faith can embrace".

3. I just watched Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". I won't politicize, but have learned the following.

According to an old African proverb, there is a saying, a saying that is quite simple.

"When you pray, pray with your feet".

Joga Bonito.

World Cup Semifinals Part I: Somehow the World Is Still Spinning

2006-07-01T20:12:00.000-07:00

If I'd told you on June 8th that there were going to be four continental European teams contesting the semifinals of World Cup 2006, I might have had my computer forcibly removed from my obviously insane hands.

No Argentina *and* no Brazil *and* no England? And you have the audacity to publicly write about soccer?

Somewhere some secretary who chose her World Cup pool based on a combination of ancestry and coin flips is currently about to take down a large sum of money.

Portugal, France, Germany, and Italy.

I give you your 2006 World Cup semifinalists. One of these teams is *guaranteed* to win the World Cup.

I've never been so alternately baffled and drained after consecutive sporting events.

Those are the best two words I can think of after the last two rounds--baffling and draining.

Baffling

1. Brazil losing to France. I don't even know where to begin. How exactly did playing a slow and poor in the air Ronaldo as a lone striker end up as the game plan against the only team left that wouldn't be intimidated by taking the field against the blue and yellow? How did pushing Ronaldinho up rather than letting him pick up the ball wide in midfield so as to run at defenders and pick out teammates seem like a good idea? Why not put Robinho in the lineup or at least as a substitute earlier in the match? France was crafty, but slow in defense and Brazil always looked more dangerous with him on the field.

I watched the replay of the game at least partially to see if the score changed. I just cannot believe a team that talented lost the way they did. They didn't just lose either, they got beat.

More to the point, they played scared. I've never seen so many shots of Ze Roberto, Lucio, and Juan in my life. It's because they were the one's on the ball primarily--they are Brazil's backs and holding midfielders and should not be prominently featured in any game of Brazil's. There's a reason they are not household names. But in this game they were.

2. The resurgence of Zinedine Zidane. I'm starting to think that we're watching the unfolding of the Natural--the soccer version. Roy Hobbs has been in the hinterlands playing for the "galacticos" of Real Madrid who can't seem to play together and now he has decided since this tournament will be his last professional soccer of any kind (club or country) he's going to play like the three-time world footballer of the year he is. In the first forty seconds of the game, the surprisingly big man held the ball on his foot, waited for two Brazilians to come to him, split them, blew by a third with a casual step over and played a beautiful ball into (an offside) Henry. He's been a wonder to watch. Both in his play and in wondering where the hell this has come from. Where was this a week ago, when they looked unlikely to make it out of their group?

3. Portugal-England. I won't argue the Rooney dismissal. I just want to know why it happened. I do believe that Sir Rooney's foot planted itself in Carvalho's nether regions. He'd also just been tussling with two or three of the cheating Portuguese and was picking himself off the ground. I don't know if it's true, but I also think he might have had his back to him when he "stamped" Carvalho. Regardless it wasn't quite a "stamp" like I've seen others pull off. If the red card is because he pushed Cristiano Ronaldo, then that is a terrible call--especially considering Ronaldo is Rooney's *teammate* and clearly goaded him into it, even going so far, according to one report as winking at Scolari after getting Rooney tossed. It was barely a push and certainly not even a shove.

England was the better side. Peter Crouch played fantastically after he got subbed in, seemingly winning every long ball and holding it up as the ten men England side got forward. Owen Hargreaves, much maligned, was clearly the man of the match.

As for the penalties, Gerrard and Lampard both missed and Jamie Carragher forgot that there were rules involved as to when you could actually take the penalty. Poor marks all around, but unfortunately, metaphorically appropriate for England's run.

3.5 The Argentinian coach's substitutions. The GK decision was out of his hands. Then he takes out Riquelme, which requires balls that clank even though he wasn't having a terribly good game (although he wasn't terrible either and there is a reason I don't remember who replaced him). His final substitution? Some striker named Cruz no one has heard of and appears to have only one attribute--he's the tallest man in Argentina not playing for their fantastic basketball team(s). Messi, arguably their most talented player and demonstrably great off the bench, is left to rot and watch. If you're going to play conservative and bring on a striker to deal with (and defend) set pieces, at least recognize that you may have to play extra time and you might need to score again. I would say the coach should be fired, but he's already done the honors for us.

Draining.

1. The last ten minutes of Brazil-France. I don't know how Brazil didn't score. I don't know how Ronaldinho didn't bury that free kick in the top corner of the net after fooling Barthez so badly that he didn't even move. I don't know why they didn't push more people forward. I...just..don't.

2. England's penalties. We all knew they were going to miss them. Even Lampard knew. You could just see the looks on their faces and tell. It was all over but the shouting. But we still had to go through with it and hope against hope, knowing that even if they prevailed it would be without Beckham and Rooney and Terry.

3. C. Ronaldo. He's dead to me. I root for Man U. I loved the way he plays and defended it as simply a brand of football people couldn't appreciate, not something that was too showy and dramatic.

Not any more. He bought into the whole Portuguese diving epidemic which is a disgrace to the game--they don't even bother grabbing a body part that was touched by the oppposing player (if touched at all). He *mid-tournament* declared that he would "love" a move to Real Madrid. He goaded Rooney--his fellow teammate at Man U--into a red card and then celebrated it and he was the one who hit the penalty to end England's best chance at victory in decades.

And then Brazil lost, leaving only France to beat to reach the final.

Ronaldo is dead to me. And if he knows what's good for him, he better stay out of the Premiership next year. There won't be the crazy card dealing refs to protect him this time and there are more than a few Englishman throughout the twenty teams who would like nothing better than to introduce themselves to his ankles and what constitutes a truly devastating English tackle.

I've come full circle. I've even figured out how I'd do it without guaranteeing a red card (hint: C. Ronaldo needs to stop dragging the ball behind his front foot)

More once I figure out what I just saw.

Which may take a few days (months/years).

Germany vs. Argentina: This Could Be Beautiful

2006-06-29T22:48:00.000-07:00

This game could be the game of the tournament.

By far.

It could also be a complete dud, but I think that that is about as likely as correctly picking the final score.

I know three things about this game.

1. Both teams are potentially overrated. Germany has played just about nobody, with the possible exception of Sweden and Sweden didn't fire after falling behind two goals in the first twelve minutes and facing upwards of 50,000 screaming Germans and a two goal deficit.

I'm scared just thinking about it.

Argentina, by contrast, has played some good teams--Cote d'Ivoire, Holland, and Serbia and Montenegro. We all know about the beat down on Serbia which included what may be the goal of the tournament (a twenty four straight pass clinic where no one touched the ball more than three times and ended with a back heel into the path of an oncoming striker for an absolute sitter from ten yards away). Against Holland, they looked sluggish, but both teams were pretty much playing the game to not get hurt and not to lose and it showed. Against Mexico Argentina showed that against another team intent on possessing the ball for long periods, they could be caught out and not create the chances that a more aggressive defensive/offensive squad creates via turnovers. They arguably shouldn't even be in the tournament. Of course, Germany is not that type of team.

Verdict? Argentina clearly has the better talent overall (although some of their best players remain inexplicably on the bench---e.g. Messi, Tevez), but Germany possesses a brilliant, confident attack that feeds off of the crowd and each other. They also can't play defense to save their lives.

2. There is virtually no way this match ends in a draw after 90 minutes. Germany is likely to score--Argentina's defense is good, but ze German attack is sehr efficient. Argentina's attack is also quite good and the aforementioned German defense is quite bad. Something has to give. Argentina might be able to keep Germany from scoring, but Germany seems unlikely to keep Argentina off the board.

I don't see a nil-nil draw, so why don't I think that a 1-1, 2-2 scoreline at ninety minutes is likely?

This brings me to point number three.

3. Whoever scores first wins. If Germany scores first, they will be playing super confident and throwing players forward like it's 1939 all over again. Fans will be screaming, Klinsmann will be diving, and Argentina will be on its heels. If Argentina scores first, the wind will be taken out of the German sails and Argentina can play their possession game and wait to expose to God and the world that the German's cannot play defense. Here's the other reason. It seems very likely that whichever team goes up first could go up two-nil quickly. The case for Germany seems easy. If they score early like they did against Sweden, Argentina will be stunned and if they aren't careful, there could be another Klose/Podolski special and we'll all be left wondering how a team that can't play defense could make it so far. If Argentina scores, then Germany will be pressing and chasing the Argentines around the park and the quality of Argentinian strikers are just orders of magnitude better than the back line of Germany. Problem is that midfielders and some outside backs will be up in the attack trying to get the equalizer. (And let's not forget set pieces--Argentina can get fouls in dangerous areas via individual skill. Germany may not have the same skill, but if they get pieces, they are a danger to score at any time given that they all seem to be six foot four.

So who do I pick? Tough call. My gut keeps telling me Germany wins a thriller, going up 2-1 and then putting in a late goal as Argentina chases the game, but my head says Argentina 2-1.

I'll go with my head--Argies 2-1.

Ronaldo Has "A Weight Problem" and Other Lies My Teachers Taught Me

2006-06-28T20:39:00.000-07:00

Ronaldo.

Ronaldo, Ronaldo, Ronaldo.

Brazil-Ghana promised to be an interesting matchup. At no point was it likely that Ghana would win the match--especially given the suspension of Michael Essien--regardless of the run of play favoring Ghana for most of the first half.

Ghana was athletic, strong, talented, and consider themselves the Brazilians of Africa.

Unfortunately, they came up against the actual Brazilians in a knockout game.

They were also against a Ronaldo determined to make history by setting the all-time record for goals in the World Cup.

Five minutes into the game Ghana is flirting with disaster by trying to pull an offside trap. Ronaldo runs back to midfield, starts his run from about three yards in front of the defenders and runs diagonally until he catches Kaka's eye.

At which point, Kaka plays a perfect ball into Ronaldo. No Ghanian defender within thirty yards.

Ghana's keeper, meet Ronaldo.

Ronaldo circa 2002.

Ronaldo faked the goalkeeper so badly and with such a quick move that the keeper fell down. Ronaldo rounded the prone keeper and flicked the ball into the back of the net with the outside of his right foot and peeled off to celebrate with his teammates, his fans, and the monkey that had just been kicked off his back.

The perfect end to a quest that some thought would be cut short due to Barry Bonds like injuries and an apparent lack of fitness.

Ronaldo's move was so quick that, much like the Ashley Cole block in the Ecuador game, I was again four feet from a forty inch HDTV and didn't quite get what had happened.

The replays showed the carnage. He pulled a stepover so quick, Robinho--half his size, half his age, and generally speaking twice as quick as anyone on the field--would have been impressed. Not a shoulder fake, not a shimmy, but a genuine, one hundred percent Brazilian step over.

He could have simply played the ball in the lower right corner, it was wide open and the keeper had to come out eighteen yards to meet him. But he didn't do that. He did it his way.

He didn't just beat the goalkeeper, he outclassed him.

With speed. And quickness.

And now he's the leading scorer of all time.

He's apparently too fat, too out of shape, too unfit, and too slow to be useful for the Brazilian team. When he's on the field, the story goes, Brazil is playing ten on eleven.

I want everyone who bought into this to promptly issue an apology to the great one. Eric Wynalda, I'm looking at you. Be a big enough person to admit you were wrong.

He is a step slower. He is older. He could be in better shape, but he's also surrounded by players who are quicker and faster and can do things that he can't.

He can also do things that no one else can--he can still play with his back to the goal better than anyone on the team and connect with short passes at the top of the box as well as anyone.

Does that require speed? Does that require the ability to track back? How many forwards do you know who are great defenders? He used to be able to get the ball in midfield, Rooney style, and run at defenders with speed and quickness and power and strength. Now the ability to run at defenders has certainly slowed down, but when you receive the ball 18 yards away from the goal, you only need to be faster that the defenders over the first two yards--and he hasn't lost that.

I hate to paraphrase a terrorist, but Ronaldo's figured out the striker's mentality and apparently everyone else has not.

An IRA terrorist failed in a plot to attack the Prime Mininster (I believe) and when questioned about it and confronted with the police's glee at thwarting a terrorist plot, the IRA member responded calmly.

You're right, you may have stopped us this time, but remember one thing. You have to be successful every single time.

We only have to get lucky once.

Ronaldo still strikes terror in defenses for a reason.

Atlanta Braves: Spanish Soccer Fans, Meet Atlanta Braves Fans; Atlanta Fans, Spain Fans

2006-06-27T14:59:00.000-07:00

I can't help feeling for Spain.

I believe with their round of sixteen loss to France, they have now set a record for World Cup wins without winning the tournament.

They've also set an unofficial record for being the team that everyone knows will look good in the group stage, produce a great number of strong club players and inexplicably lose in the knockout phase earlier than expected. They always get out of their group. They always crash out too early for their talent level.

Sound familiar Braves fans?

Don't get me wrong, the Spanish team this year lost to a crafty old French team with many of the 1998 World Cup winning stars basically coming out of retirement to give it one last go--especially after having the bitter taste of not getting out of their group, losing to Senegal and not scoring a goal in the 2002 World Cup (after winning in 1998), while Spain was playing a lot of young talented players who obviously didnt have World Cup winning experience.

Year in, year out, you can count on the Spanish to make it out of the group and be one of the teams that everyone knows has the talent to go deep.

Year in and year out, you can count on the Spanish to fall short.

Now I am an unabashed Braves fan and starting to come to the distasteful and nearly treasonous conclusion that we might should blow up the team while we can and match up some mid career players with the young talent getting MLB experience too early to win, but guaranteed to pay off down the road (remember when Jermaine Dye patrolled right field for us or the Andruw Jones of old who never saw a high fastball he didn't like?).

I do not believe the Bravos are choke artists. I just believe that in a short series anything can happen and a team built for the long haul may not be well suited for a short series. Namely, you can have as great a pitching staff and bullpen as you want, but if your offense struggles or generally beats up on bad teams and is iffy against good teams you'll still win 90-105 games. Problem is that when you reach the playoffs, odds are that you'll be facing a team with good starting pitching as well. And if you can't manufacture runs (see White Sox) you've got issues.

When everything is going well, the Braves over the years have been a thing of beauty.

When things go poorly, not so much.

Sound familiar Spain fans?

I feel your pain, but I can't forget one thing.

We've still got at least one world championship, independent of the number of potential ones we lost/got beat/squandered.

So we've got that going for us, which is nice.

If 1995 hadn't happened, I don't know where I'd be fan-wise. So I'll hoist a glass for you, Spain fans in acknowledgement of your pain.

World Cup: The Officiating Continues To Dominate the Headlines

2006-06-26T23:54:00.000-07:00

1. This tournament has already eclipsed the record for cards issued in a tournament and there are something like twelve games remaining. I obviously think the officiating has left something to be desired and won't pile on, but at the same time a smidgen of the blame needs to be placed on the players. If the refs are throwing cards like a poker dealer, then maybe you should adjust your play. Especially once you've reached your fourth game of the tournament. Apparently institutional learning doth not take place in football land.

2. The Australia-Italy game was robbery, pure and simple. I realize some will say that Totti deserved to score the game winner against a Guus Hiddink coached team after Hiddink's former charges (South Korea) knocked Italy out in the last World Cup.

That being said, the penalty call on Australia was one of the worst calls of an already poorly officiated tournament. I don't like the NBA nonsense about "letting the players decide" at the end of big games, because usually that just translates to giving star players calls and refusing to call anything else short of a mugging.

However, when you are seven seconds away from the end of stoppage time, you better be one hundred percent sure that the team deserves a penalty because the call you make is essentially awarding the game to the beneficiaries of said call.

This call was not 100%. I'm not even sure it was 25. The Italian player had beaten a man to get into a dangerous position on the touchline and the Australian came running in perpendicular to the Italian and slid to block. The Italian pushed the ball past him.

At no point in the events I described has the Australian touched the Italian player. As the Italian took a step over the Australian defender he dragged his back foot so as to hit the player and then he fell down like he'd been shot.

I'm not calling it a dive, but there was certainly some embellishment. He could have very easily jumped over the player, but chose not to, hoping for a penalty.

That was the wrong call. Wrong time, wrong place, too much on the line. Australia looked like they could have put it to the Italians in extra time, but instead a whistle determines their fate.

Sad, but seemingly par for the course.

3. The Switzerland-Ukraine game lived up to the hype. It was supposed to be a boring sluggish affair with neither team capable of summoning much firepower. Trench warfare on a soccerfield for 90 minutes. Turned out to be 120 minutes as it was 0-0 after both regulation and extra time. Not exactly riveting stuff, even for diehard fans of the game.

But the shootout produced a highlight/lowlight that the American announcers did not pick up on and should be summarily dismissed (I would make a red card joke but that would be too easy) for not catching.

The Ukraine is playing in their first World Cup. Shevchenko, their million dollar striker and by far the only reason the Ukraine are in the cup (he's been European footballer of the year), steps up to take the first penalty.

He is promptly stoned by the Swiss keeper.

The Swiss respond to this by producing a terrible penalty of their own.

It's now tied in spot kicks and up steps a guy I've never seen before and probably never will again. Bear in mind the penalties are tied and the Ukraine have yet to put one in.

He runs up to the ball and softly chips the ball in the middle of the net.

He chipped the friggin' keeper.

I have never seen this before in my life. Not at any game, not at any level. I haven't done the research, but I believe the last time this happened in a World Cup game was easily more than 12-15 years ago, much less in a shootout with so much on the line.

How exactly does one chip the keeper? You have enough faith that the goalkeeper will dive to one side that you run up to the ball and at the last minute hit under the ball instead of through it, lobbing the ball up in the air and down the middle.

If the goalkeeper doesn't dive it's the easiest save a keeper could have and you look like an absolute idiot. If he does dive, it makes him look like the idiot.

This strategy, as you may have noticed, takes an arrogance that borders on stupidity.

Or balls that clank, depending on your point of view.

Regardless, no comment during highlights, during the match, of during the post-game.

He chipped an f---ng penalty.

That just doesn't happen. Someone might should have pointed that out.

Bend It Like Beckham and Play Like A Hooligan

2006-06-25T20:46:00.000-07:00

If I were to tell you on a day in which there were two matches--Holland versus Portugal and England versus Ecuador--one of the games was going to be a taut one-nil affair that was tactical and kind of quiet and one of the matches was going to turn into an absolute blood feud that ended with each team with only nine players on the pitch, what would you have thought happened?

Looks like England fans may be hooligans, but they are nothing compared to the Portuguese and Dutch players.

The England game first. Typical English fare. Not terribly good, occasionally brilliant, ending as a grinded out one-nil victory where England didn't even score from the run of play. Three things I will remember from this relatively forgettable game. First, Ashley Cole's tackle in the fifth (?) minute that saved a certain goal was incomprehensibly good. Terry had a bad give away at the back and it was Tenorio and Robinson (England's goalkeeper) about to get up close and personal. It appeared a metaphysical certitude that Ecuador was going to score first. And given England's play of late, perhaps last. I watched the game about five feet from an HDTV that measured somewhere north of 40 inches. I thought Tenorio just shanked it and drilled it off the crossbar. I literally did not see Cole flying in all the way from his left back position to block the shot into the crossbar instead of the back of the net. Replays were even more impressive. Defense may not be pretty, but this was one of the most impressive plays of the tournament by far. Second, Beckham is not, not, not overrated. Yes, he gets too much marketing. Yes, he gets too much press. Yes, he may not should be the captain. Two things we learned about Becks today. One, he is one of the fittest athletes in the tournament. He was sick before the game and then famously lost it during said match. He even lost it in front of the cameras bringin back memories of Pete Sampras at the US Open. Two, as my English friend pointed out, he has had a critical role in most of the English goals. Finally, the last thing I will take from this game is that the announcers are atrocious. Balboa spent a long time talking about how England was basically playing ten on eleven with Becks on the field because he was only useful for set pieces and pretty much a liability otherwise. Watch Beckham on defense. Watch him go up and down the field. With Rooney up top, who is he going to cross to? With Gerrard and Lampard supposed to provide the offense, how exactly does he fit in? As another of my friends put it, he's basically a glorified right back who doesn't have sole responsibility for defense. It's not his fault he plays his position and plays it better than anyone.

His goal, however, was beautiful. An inch to the right and it's saved. Everyone in the televised world and even some people who weren't watching knew precisely where that ball was going (they named a damned movie over his ability to do this) and still it couldn't be stopped.

Up over the wall and down. Hit the ground three inches after crossing the goal line. Was probably closer than that to the bottom corner.

You want leadership? That's leadership.

Portugal v Holland.

"......."??!!!

This game ended with myself and my fellow fans (soccer players all of them) baffled. Absolutely baffled. Nine on nine?? There are just too many incidents to go through, but I will say the following things.

1. It struck me that Van Basten's comments regarding Portugal's ability to manipulate the poor refereeing were correct. There were numerous times the fact that it was obvious that the Portuguese were manipulating the referee caused the ref to presume the Dutch were doing the same thing. Robben had more than a few times where he was victimized and there was shockingly no call--including an incident where he took a boot, cleats up, to the chest in the penalty area.

2. The Dutch player who cleated Ronaldo out of the game should be suspended and possibly shot. If that foul had happened any later in the game it would have been a straight red card and the player would have been sent off. The ball was already away, Ronaldo is the most dynamic player for the Portuguese team and possibly the tournament (outside of those in yellow jerseys). The player went in late, studs up, and consciously tried to cleat Ronaldo in the leg, possibly the knee. This was a Cobra Kai move--sweep the leg and take out your primary competition.

I'll give him this, he was successful. On the replays you could actually see the cleat mark on Ronaldo's thigh immediately afterwards. Within minutes Ronaldo was taken off the field in tears, fearing his World Cup was over. It's one thing to hurt yourself and get taken out of the tournament like Michael Owen. It's quite another to get maliciously and cynically taken out.

3. The referee lost control of that match. He did not do a good job (understatement of the year) considering he set a record for red cards in a match and total cards shown.

That being said, the players have a lot to answer for. Independent of the legitimacy of the cards he threw, there were fouls he had to let go--serious fouls late in the second half that he couldn't penalize with a yellow card or else one of the teams (mostly Portugal) might go down to eight or even seven men because it would be their second yellow and an automatic red/sending off. Figo, for instance, head butted a guy during a melee. A Dutch player shoved Petit over an injured player while he was looking at his teammate. The fourth official added on a nearly unprecedented six minutes and we were looking at each other like that wasn't enough. I think you could argue it should have been more like ten--there was that much timewasting, fighting, fouling, and substituting.

4. England has no one to blame but themselves if they lose to Portugal in the quarterfinals. Deco and Costinha--critical players--are certainly out. Ronaldo may be too injured to play and Figo may get a red card retroactively for getting caught on film clearly headbutting another player during a confrontation. And thus endeth the names of players on Portugal's team I could identify prior to watching this match. Portugal may have won the battle but lost the war. Which pretty much fits with their history.

5. I want to repeat my ire about Ronaldo's injury. It was everything I hate about football these days. Ronaldo is in half the commercials for Joga Bonito--his play at Man U epitomizes the beautiful game almost to a fault. He plays with a flair only equalled by a few of the Brazilians. Yes, it can be a bit tiresome at times, but he is no showboat who can't play the game. His pass set up the only goal of the match. His ability to run at defenders freezes whole sides of the field and allows others to make great runs off the ball.

That and he's young. Young enough that once he matures as a player over the next couple of years he has the potential to follow Ronaldinho's lead as the new breed of player who plays with passion, guile, and a genuine belief that the game should maintain it's beauty--even if that's sometimes taken too far.

Having that cut short by a deliberate foul in a dyspeptic game is (athletically speaking) tragic.

I felt dirty after watching that match.

World Cup: Making Friends And Influencing People

2006-06-24T21:57:00.000-07:00

I won't even try and introduce this story.

All I'll say is this. This is a friend of mine whom I know is quite passionate--mostly about rabid Zionism. I did not know his passions extended to US Soccer.

And frankly, it warms my heart that it does.

As always, I do not endorse the actions of said friend. If you'd like the identity--feel free to email me at newfoolintown@gmail.com. Of course, if you're asking, one of your three guesses is probably correct.

***His version of events***

So... I got thrown out of the bar

The USA vs. Italy game was on. And the crew from an Alitalia plane (the
national airline of Italy) was staying in the hotel and watching the
game. With few exceptions, things went fine for about 70% of the game.
Sure there was the red card against Italy, after which I randomly turned
and screamed "you cheat" at the entire crew. And sure there was the
first US red card, when I attempted to explain that "you gave my guy
stitches and we gave your guy a toe ache. And you think that shit is fair?"

It was the second US red card where, in retrospect, things started to go
south. Not so much exacty when the red card got thrown as when Italy
failed to score for like the first 5 minutes afterwards. I'm pretty sure
the comment "maybe if you bought another red card you could score. Maybe
your players could use some of their gambling money" was when the crowd
definitively turned against me...This is when the only other
Americans in the bar - an elderly couple from back East - stood up,
assured one of the Italians that "we're not all like this" and walked
out. I'm not making this [edited] up.

Even with this I think that things would have amounted to nothing
(despite the double digit vodka count), had not some Italian [edited]
with a shaved head and a tattooed girl who literally sat in his lap
walked in. I feel that I had established a rather amiable dynamic with
the Alitalia crew, but he was apparently determined to disrupt said
amiability. He and I had the following exchanges:

Me: "You cheat"
Him: "If we win, will you send us to Guantanamo?"
Me: "No, no. But we are going to torture the [edited: rhymes with puck] out of the referees"

Me: "Hey, we've only got 9 players to your 10"
Him: ::SILENCE::
Me: (sensing weakness, reraising - obvi) "Of course, historically,
that's about 4 more than we need to beat you"

Him: "Are you going to bomb us if we win"
Me: "No no. We'd never bomb you. We like your cities. But we'll invade
you." ::PAUSE::

"Again."

I'm pretty sure it was actually the comment about invading them that sent the surly Italian to the bartender, but things are pretty fuzzy.

Brazil Is Just That Good

2006-06-24T21:30:00.000-07:00

I remember awaiting the Breeder's Cup Classic one year.

It's the most prestigious and the biggest horse race in the world. The triple crown races are fantastic and wonderful.

But they're only for three year olds.

The Classic? It's for everyone and anyone and as far as horse racing goes, three year olds are triple A all stars at best.

There was a horse whose figures were head and shoulders above the rest of the field. On a scale of one to 130 with one being half dead and 130 being Secretariat, the last three races this horse had run had been rated a 125, a 116 and something else north of 130 (I think). Regardless, his numbers were comparable to the best horses of the century. No one in the field had come close to this horse.

Horse's name was Ghostzapper.

But it was the Breeder's Cup Classic. There's no way a horse could be that good. He's running against the best horses alive, he couldn't really be that many lengths better, could he?

Enough people--very smart people--decided that despite the wealth of evidence staring them in the face, this horse was overrated and not as good as his races indicated and let him go off at 5/2. In any given race on any given day, the favorite of any race is usually 2/1 or shorter.

In other words, the sharpies, the pros, those in the know could not accept the fact that this horse was just that good.

Turns out...he was.

He won like a truck. He won going away without much effort. Biggest race in the world? No problem. Like a random Saturday at Philadelphia Park. Scorched the field. Paid off an astronomical amount for how much better his figures were then the field. He was supposed to be ten percent better than the field and still paid 5/2 odds.

What's a horse got to do with Brazil?

This. We can talk and analyze and think and overthink and watch tape and identify weaknesses, but it really comes down to this.

Sometimes, if it looks like a duck, flies, floats, and quacks, it's really quite simple. Sometimes a duck is just that, a duck.

Brazil is just as good as Nike wants you to believe. They beat a fairly decent Japan team 4-1. They could have made it 8-1 if they'd wanted.

Three images I take from that game.

1. Roberto Carlos--one of five starters rested for the game--refusing to sit on the bench and instead laying out on the field as if he was watching bikini clad women walk by on a Rio beach instead of observing his World Cup team take the pitch.

2. The entire team looking for Ronaldo--despite all his deficiencies, to get him goals that would put him closer to the all time mark. It was as if the entire team gave him the Bobby Jenks treatment, saying, "screw y'all, he may be fat, he may be out of shape, and he may not be at his best, but dammit, he's our guy, he's on pace to break a record and it's our job to make it happen". And I'll be damned if they didn't do it. Brazil is so good, they not only scored goals, but made sure that Ronaldo was the one doing it so they didn't have to try and get him goals during knockout games when it really counted.

3. This isn't actually from the game, but a rumor I heard. Ungentlemanly conduct is a warrant for a yellow card. Typically, it's a close relation to dissent and used as a means to keep players in check. Apparently, and I have no proof of this other than two fans/friends who swear it is true, Robinho--a teenager no less--was awarded a yellow card for embarassing an opposing player too many times.

That's right. He was so good at beating another player, the referee deemed it unsporting. Unsporting enough to issue him a yellow card.

Maybe Brazil is soft at the back. Maybe they are complacent. Maybe they are playing with ten men when Ronaldo is on the field.

Ask yourself this.

Do you think anyone can stop them from scoring?

More importantly, do you think anyone believes they can stop them from scoring?

That's what I thought. Good luck, world. You're going to need it.

You want a prediction for Brazil-Ghana?

As Clubber Lang put it, "My prediction?"

"Pain"

(This does not mean they will win 5-0, but I don't think at any point after the first ninety seconds of the match will their be a doubt about who will prevail in this match, regardless of how long it lasts)

World Cup: Are You Talking About Ze Germans?

2006-06-24T21:01:00.000-07:00

The Big Lebowski got it right.

"Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it's an ethos".

Ze Germans, zey have an ethos.

That ethos is: ve vill attack. And then ve shall attack some more.

This German team is positively arrogant (although not as arrogant as the Argentinians--which might explain the whole Falklands thing).

Their attack is unrelenting, efficient, operated by six foot aryan gods, and the labor for the two goals in today's match was provided by a man with a Polish name (Podolski).

I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.

And much like 1941, this country is, say it with me, ov-er-rated (clap, clap, clap clap clap, Georgetown style).

They are fierce. They attack with precision and unrelenting passion. They have the support of a fearsomely united and nationalistic public (wow, this is getting scary).

They cannot, however, play defense, to save their lives. When asked about how to play defense, they simply push more players forward and look for more goals.

This is a team that has beaten Costa Rica (and gave up two goals in the process), Ecuador, Poland, and Sweden. Sweden may be the only legitimate team in that group and after going down two goals in the first twelve minutes they were in deep sh*t. Any team against any team is going to be in trouble after spotting another team two goals with over 70 minutes to go. And then they spotted them a man for the majority of the rest of the game for no apparent reason other than the ref being what the Brits politely call a "wanker".

Are the Germans fearsome in attack? Yes. Are they pumped up by the crowd? Yes. What's going to happen when they either A. Get punched in the mouth by a team equally potent offensively or B. play a team who won't let them see the ball for long periods of time. This wouldn't be a problem, but for the fact that their next round opponent fits both descriptions (Argentina) and the most likely foe if they win that game is Brazil who can do both of those things better than anyone in the world.

Brazil could hang five on Germany. Germany might score three, no doubt, but Brazil will score and their is nothing they can do about it. The Blitzkrieg was brilliant, but let's not forget one thing.

They lost.

Otherwise, as my friend puts it, the French would be drinking Becks and eating sauerkraut.

Short story as in 1941: Germany equal overrated.

Here's the problem, Argentina might be as well. Argentina is the popular sharpies pick to win it all. I think they are all just overthinking things. Same thing happens in Triple Crown horse races--everyone starts overthinking things and looks at charts and possession and perceived weaknesses and forgets basic things like: who looks the most impressive? who has the best players? who has the best team spirit? who's world are soccer players undeniably playing in?

It's Brazil's world, Brazil's game, and we're just passing through. They may lose, certainly, but it's still them and everyone else. Argentina is good, but as Mexico, MEXICO, showed, Argentinian possession doesn't always result in clear cut scoring opportunities and dismantling an already split Serbia and Montenegro side doth not a champion make--no matter how many goals are scored.

So...who wins this match? It really depends on the pace of the match. If Argentina comes out like they did against Mexico and turns it into a Saturday afternoon Tottenham-Manchester United Premiership match, Germany could poke in a few and put Argentina too far behind. If Argentina can slow the game down to the equivalent of the UCLA four corners offense, ze Germans may not find a way around the Maginot line and we can achieve peace in our time.

I'm just shocked about this. Germany is vastly overrated and I've noticed this since the first game. (So has Klinsmann, lest we forget, it's his tactics that are creating this offensive juggernaut). They can't play defense at the highest level. Their best hope is to run the Phoenix Suns offense and hope that they outscore you. Klinsmann should be venerated for his fortitude and intelligence to recognize that that's really the only way that they can win--and he's stuck to his guns.

We'll see if that works against the Argies.

US Soccer: Wynalda is a Force That Must Be Stopped

2006-06-23T16:35:00.000-07:00

Eric Wynalda was on a radio show this morning--Mike and Mike in the morning.

Let's just say his analysis of the US soccer situation was a little bit different from mine.

1. When asked the following question, "Do you pin this on the players or the coach" he responded without a doubt, "the coach" even going so far as to ask for our "fat coach" to have his head rolling down the street. He even offered to man the guillotine.

Aside from the crass ridiculousness and downright childishness of this statement, to anyone who watched the matches and follows US soccer this is nonsensical. In general, blaming the coach is rarely correct. (cliche alert) The players play the game. In a game like soccer, it is especially up to the players. Few set plays. Few real formations. No timeouts. Three substitutions. Ain't too much a coach can do during a game.

Everyone was wondering how we were going to field a team that had Donovan, Beasley, McBride, and our captain, Claudio Reyna. Donovan is not a forward. Reyna is too old to play defensive midfielder. Donovan cannot play defensive midfielder, he has to be an attacking central player. If those four players have to play, how do you add wide players and another forward? Six attacking players, four spots accounted for with a fifth necessitating a non-forward. It's a puzzle that can't be solved without one of two things happening. Arena not starting the golden child (Donovan) because he forces three central midfielders, or switching to a 4-5-1. We could have tried a 3-5-2, with Pope, Onyewu, and Gibbs at the back, but Gibbs got hurt and we had to play two offensive powerhouses and an extremely athletic Ghana team. Three at the back and Arena would also have been excoriated. And the US defense might have been disemboweled.

So I ask you, Mr. Wynalda, how exactly would you solve this problem?

2. Eric W. claims, "Arena did not let the players play" inferring that they were so concerned with defense that they couldn't attack. Let's review. The Czech game was lost because of a goal when our left back was caught upfield playing offensively not to mention the fact that the best way to beat that Czech team was to absorb overly aggressive style of play and win quick counters (presumably with McBride laying off balls to Beasley and Donovan on the break). It didn't work because they went up two quick goals and that was that. Italy was a fight to get a draw for half the game because of the ten versus nine debacle, but for the first half, after the US drew level with Italy (a contender to win it all) and Italy went down to ten men, the US looked good and was playing with confidence. After Pope is sent off, we had to play for the draw. Against Ghana, he put them out there and let them play. For the first half they did and until the crappy penalty call, they were the better team. Not Arena's fault we couldn't play from behind (we started panicking and playing long balls up to a lone striker). He even started one of the most aggressive lineups he could without sitting Donovan.

3. Eric W. claims, "Arena didn't even have the class to congratulate the Ghana coach" which was made all the more egregious because of the import of this game to Ghana itself. If you're going to be a journalist--even one on television--you've got to get your facts straight. Arena did, in fact, congratulate the coach in the dressing room. It's a matter of record that Wynalda is factually incorrect.

4. Eric W. showed up hungover. It was a point of joking with the hosts. Be hungover. Don't mention it when you are a f----g analyst getting paid to dispense said analysis in the media. Kind of takes away from your credibility doesn't it?

5. He refused to put any blame on the players. I've spoken to this issue before, but here's the problem. You can only work with what you've got and the combination of injuries and incompatible star players put Arena in a tough spot. Arena has done more for American soccer than any other coach. Period. And as he and Reyna pointed out, he has never left a team in worse shape than when he arrived. He's a great coach. Making fun of his lack of international playing experience is a cheap shot (which Eric took) and not relevant.

As is pointing out that he's fat. Arena is not a handsome man with a winsome personality, but he's fair and tough and his players stick by him. Check out Brazil's coach. Not exactly a supermodel either.

Wynalda is [insert Ozzie Guillen's opinion of Jay Mariotti minus the offensive attitude and language] and someone needs to publicly call him out.

United States World Cup Team: RIP Part I

2006-06-23T09:06:00.000-07:00

I received the following email from a friend after the US spit the bit in the Ghana game, guaranteeing the end of our World Cup. It's about the best place for me to start.

"I've worked my way through the five stages of grief (and a little whiskey) to reach acceptance. I have accepted that the US team simply isn't very good. The Republic of Ghana, a country slightly smaller than Oregon where the average person dies before the age of 60, is superior to the United States of America."

I haven't worked my way through the five stages of grief--and have avoided whiskey for fear it will create new reasons for grief--but I have more than a few postmortem thoughts on the demise of the US team. And as an aside, I am not sure that Ghana is the superior soccer nation.

1. Good things

"..."

That's just the grief talking. The Italy game was stunning. It proved to the world that we begrudgingly deserve respect. We no longer are the debutantes being celebrated as the blossoming young thing brimming with potential. We had big time problems to deal with that typically only mature adults (teams) can handle. The call against Eddie Pope was unconscionable. Playing ten on nine almost never happens. And still we didn't lose out to a team that may win the whole thing.

As far as the Ghana game goes overall, we showed some real confidence for 45+ minutes. We went down a goal, but were controlling the run of play and looked ready to come out after halftime and push through, especially after the brilliant Dempsey equalizer.

2. John O'Brien is clinically dead or in a coma being kept alive by a breathing machine. There is no other explanation. I understand not bringing him in during the Italy "match" (I don't understand not starting him in that match or the first one against the Czech Republic). Once he wasn't in the lineup or a substitute in the Ghana match it was clear that he must be so hurt that playing was absolutely impossible. Outside of Reyna, he is widely acknowledged as the US' best overall field player by the team members themselves. His passing vision and ability to excel at all aspects of the game--going forward, tracking back, comfort on the ball, passing, shooting, and tackling--is unique among the team.

Arena is famous for keeping his mouth shut about things like injuries and whatnot. He only gives up his lineup to his team hours before game times. I figure we're going to hear a couple months from now just how hurt this guy really is/was.

3. Donovan and Beasley are overrated. I am increasingly of the opinion that neither should have played the entire Ghana match.
Beasley was off form. His pass to Dempsey for the United States' only goal of the World Cup was beautiful, but otherwise he played, as a friend put it "like a scared little kitten". If I weighed 145 and saw some of those Ghanians coming at me, I might turn the ball around and play it backwards too.

Of course, this might be why I'm not considered one of the stars of the US national team. He is. Get some intestinal fortitude. Go at defenders. We all know you can do it. Bobby Convey is about as big as he is (and looks younger) and took on three defenders within minutes of arriving on the field and got absolutely flattened by two defenders, earning a dangerous free kick. Convey is not as fast or as good on the dribble as Beasley is when he's on. DMB was not on. Get him out of there.

Donovan. I'm so mad about this guy, I'm choking on my own rage. I wrote that I thought he was a smug little man and I "loved him for it" but I was worried that he would crack if things went pear-shaped.

He showed he has a glass jaw. The Czech game was the equivalent of getting sucker punched. He never got back up off the canvas. Compare that to the image of McBride trotting off the field covered in blood to rub some dirt on it and get back in there.

LD--if you want to have a great life, play in MLS, kick it in Santa Monica, and live with a beautiful woman while being well compensated, more power to you. If you want to be a leader on the international stage and the next Claudio Reyna, you need to do three things. First, show some humility and quit buying the press/marketing about you being so damned good. European and South American players are always looking for players like that to knock down (literally and figuratively), especially if they're Americans. They've been doing it for years. They won't make an exception for you Second, quit dying your hair. The hairline is receding, we get it. Dying your hair doesn't distract from that. Third, go to Europe--this is non-negotiable. You will not improve in MLS. This is not a knock on MLS, it is a testament to your talent. MVP and championships are good. Playing with the big boys is better, and frankly, it makes us wonder about you. Given the chance, nearly every player in the world wants a shot at Europe. You don't. Why? None of the theories we can come up with from the outside speak very highly of you.

Why does this cripple the US? If Donovan has to play, he can't play defense, so he needs two central midfielders behind him. But we still need two outside players. If we play four at the back that leaves a grand total of one striker. McBride is good. Against Ghanians and Italians and Czechs (hell, against Mexico) one striker ain't going to do it.

Take out Donovan, put in Reyna and Mastroeni and we can play with two forwards and let Eddie Johnson off the chain. He's big, he's fast, he has confidence, and he was the one everyone was scared of. He didn't get to play virtually at all and with LD on the field it was just a clusterf*ck.

DMB is the same way. He has to play on the outside. Which brings me to my final point (for this piece)

4. Bobby Convey and Clint Dempsey were the two most important and best attacking players for the US this World Cup. That's not a knock on McBride, he just didn't get any service. One should play on the right. One should play on the left. Where does Run-DMB play? Now you see the problem Arena has and why he looked disgusted half the time. He knew that he was going to win or lose this World Cup on the backs of DMB and LD, but if he could he would have yanked both of them and gone with other players and another formation. Why he didn't, I don't really know. Is that a reason the US should move in a different direction coach-wise? Maybe, but I'll save that for later.

I'm eventually going to write more player by player analysis, but given that I'm already somewhere north of 2000 words, I'll only say this. These two players showed me something. They both seemed to be the only attacking players who realized that they were actually playing in the World Cup. Four years of preparation for three games. World Cup games are won, not lost, unlike qualifying games. You have to go out and beat the other team. They got it. And got that that requires risk taking, linking play, and a certain amount of actual confidence unlike the feigned confidence of LD and DMB. If Dempsey is playing in the US next year, I'll be surprised. Someone will/should want him. He's got confidence, flair, and looks dangerous.

In other words, he doesn't play like he's an American.

US soccer took a big step forward this year.

This team, though, was a disappointment.

Show Me, TUNISIA!

2006-06-23T08:34:00.000-07:00

I woke up this morning earlier than I intended.

If Holland, Argentina, Cote d'Ivoire, and Serbia/Montenegro were the Group of Death, this was the group of ugly kids who get picked last.

Spain, Ukraine, Tunisia, and Saudi Arabia.

Who are you rooting for?

Yeah, me neither.

They are, however, on my TV as we speak and have just gotten the royal prison introduction (it rhymes with gas-ape).

Down to ten men, playing a flat Ukraine team, the following sequence took place.

Tunisia gets a free kick on the right side of goal just outside the penalty area in roughly the 70th minute. Ball is headed for the upper corner, has clearly beaten the keeper but it touches the wall and deflects inches high.

And when I say deflected, what I mean is punched by a member of the Ukrainian wall. Replays are 100% conclusive. In the box. Should have been a penalty. And a red card. Would have put the Tunisians (?!??!) up, despite being a man down and minutes away from the knockout round and eliminating heavily favored Ukraine (now that's a statement I never thought I'd write in my life).

No call.

Cut to minutes later.

Shevchenko, the only player you might have heard of prior to the match, beats a defender, splits the goalkeeper and another defender, but pushes the ball out of reach.

And falls down.

Not pushed, not fouled, he just trips over his own damned feet.

You know what happens next.

Penalty. Sheva buries it and Tunisia's hopes of becoming the second African team to make it to the final 16.

I'm not going to pull a Cuban and say it's fixed, but the officiating has been pretty terrible for such an important event.

More on that later.

Miami Heat Win and Pat Riley Has Earned the Right To Tell Everyone Where They Can Stuff It

2006-06-21T07:25:00.000-07:00

Congratulations to the Miami Heat. Pat Riley pretty much told everyone where they could put it by coming down from the front office and leading the team to the title. Winning it all was about the only acceptable outcome given the circumstances and in the process he showed MJ how one navigates the front office to team transition.

But let me get this straight.

A forearm shiver to a seven foot tall German while dribbling
the ball is a foul on the German defender, not aforementioned player
who threw forearm shiver (especially if he's Dwyane Wade).

Grabbing the jersey prior to/in the process of a Dallas player attempting a series tying
three pointer is *not* a foul.

Cuban might be right about the NBA being fixed.

That was some of the worst officiating I've seen in a long time.

I don't like blaming officials. Even after the US v Italy abomination on Monday. They're human, it's part of the game and something that players need to learn to manipulate and use to their advantage. Of course, sometimes there's just nothing you can do about it (like when Shaq is allowed to throw 'bows like he's in a Ludacris video).

As I'm watching this, Portugal is positively mauling Mexico, but still feels the need to roll around on the ground after every foul as if they've taken shrapnel from a WWI era landmine.

Dallas was a more fun team. Dallas also didn't have Shaq, who gets away with murder because sportswriters love him. It's like he's a modern day Babe Ruth.

I'm sure this will start discussions of whether Dirk has the heart to win. Have you ever noticed how international players seem to get this more often than Americans? The only complaint I can see is that Dallas started settling for jumpers, but that's not heart, that's just poor planning from a team that's relied on the jumper all year to win.

Dwyane Wade is a fantastic talent. Just fantastic. I don't know if the Heat deserved to win, but he has demonstrated that he is far and away one of the great talents of the NBA even when/especially when playing for all the marbles.

I just wish his success wasn't tainted by the poor officiating.

Atlanta Braves: 17 Losses Out of 20 and 14 Back of the Mets

2006-06-19T17:01:00.000-07:00

It's time to party like it's 1989.

The Atlanta Braves just lost their umpteenth game out of the last twenty.

It's not time to panic. Yet.

14 games back of the Mets, however, is not a good place to be.

Sunday night's performance was especially galling.

John Smoltz on the hill versus Curt Schilling and the first place BoSox. Smoltz pitches well, but we end up down 3-2 in the seventh, but it's Jeff Francouer to the rescue and his three run home run puts the Braves up 5-3 going into the eighth.

Then the wheels came off. McBride comes in and gets out David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez back to back. Two of the most feared batters in baseball. Red Sox down to two outs in the eighth.

Apparently our bullpen can do the hard stuff, but the easy stuff, like getting the next out, is apparently impossible.

Six runs later it's 9-5 and all over but the shouting. I think my remote control is embedded in a concrete wall somewhere in my apartment, but it's buried so deep that I can't find it.

Games like these are how teams break out of slumps.

Or end up destroyed by them.

I'm more than a little worried.

US Soccer: Don't Tread On Me

2006-06-18T08:50:00.000-07:00

It was put up or shut up time.

And we put it up. In a big way.

It was also the strangest, weirdest, most bizarre match I've seen with that much on the line. Ever.

The US was beating the pants off of Italy for the first twenty minutes. And was down 1-0. Then an own goal in the 27th minute tied it up.

Then an Italian put a Mob hit on McBride and was promptly sent off. Game tied, US controlling the game, and we're playing eleven on ten in the most important soccer match possibly in US history.

And then in the space of three minutes we went from having a stranglehold on the match to fighting it out for our collective tournament lives.

Mastroeni gets tossed on a makeup call/legitimate straight red. At game speed it looked like a yellow card at best. Slow it down and it's a late, studs up, two footed tackle. Which may not sound like much to the uninitiated, but to soccer fans that is almost a text book straight red card.

Pope then gets sent off practically before the halftime whistle goes off and somehow this game has been turned into a complete farce. Ten on nine. Pope, however, unlike Pablo, may not have even committed a foul let alone a bookable offense. And any other referee in the world would have looked first before he tossed that second yellow, precisely to see if it meant Pope was gone.

If the US lost this match, we were not mathematically eliminated, but we'd have to hope Italy beat the Czech Republic and we beat Ghana by something like two touchdowns.

In other words we had to get a point.

And damned if we didn't.

I'll also be damned if we almost didn't win this game. DaMarcus Beasley hit the back of the net, which would have made World Cup history--no team in history has scored with nine men, but McBride was offside. No argument here.

Two things I'll say now and probably write more later.

1. Regardless of what happens with the rest of the group, US soccer has arrived. Arena scouted this team. His tactics were impeccable. Before the game turned into the comedy of errors by the refs/players, we were dominating Italy in the midfield and creating chances. Donovan looked good, Dempsey looked dangerous, and Reyna was controlling the game. Then it all went pear shaped against a team that may win the World Cup. And we didn't fold. Not only did we not fold, but we looked like the better team, even reduced to nine men. I've never been prouder to be an American fan. We haven't gotten respect. We earned it. And it's killing the rest of the world. Could England of done what we did? Portugal? Spain? The Czechs?

Maybe. But maybe not.

We did. And now all we have to do is beat Ghana to make it to the next round. Italy has a huge incentive to win the game agains the Czechs. Why? If Ghana beats the US and Italy either loses or draws they get to play Brazil in the round of 16. Which means Italy will go all out to beat a team without a striker. I like Italy's chances.

2. That referee should be fired. Period. He's already been suspended once. For throwing too many cards. Then got reinstated. Then couldn't referee his way out of a paper bag. Then threw too many cards again.

And somehow he got to referee this match. Given what's been going on with Italian soccer corruption, it seems like a pretty dumb choice, not only because of his demonstrable ineptitutde, but because of possible perceptions of impropriety.

I've got more. But I'm proud to be US fan. Doesn't matter what happens next. We're a real power now.

US Soccer: It's Only Been Four Years

2006-06-17T08:09:00.000-07:00

This is it.

All the marketing. All the buildup. All the qualifying. All the speculation.

It all comes down to this one game.

Even the Italian coach concedes that the loss to the Czech Republic was a bit squirrelly. Which is not to say that we didn't get our collective *ss handed to us, but merely to say that the flow of the game made it very difficult for the US to get back into it.

The lineup must change.

I screamed about this to my colleagues and I'll yell about this again. John O'Brien must, must, must be in the lineup. He is--outside of possibly Reyna and Keller--the only player with a claim to any legitimate world class skill. His field vision is shockingly good for an American. And against a team like Italy where they may slack off on alternate points of attack, we're going to need someone capable of exploiting that.

We're not going to beat many people one on one and we all know that's not our strength. Our strength is linking passes together and finding our target men in the middle.

Notice I said "men" not "man".

The 4-5-1 is a great formation when played Chelsea style, which is really two midfielders ahead of the back four, two players wide who are permitted to rove forward and primarily attack, a withdrawn forward who has the skillset of an attacking central midfielder, (e.g., can find any of the three attacking players) and a target man.

It works for Chelsea because they have people like Joe Cole, Frank Lampard, and Didier Drogba filling these positions and the confidence to move forward because their Mourinho designed and Abramovich purchased defense is virtually impregnable.

It does not work for the United States because we don't practice it and we don't have the guns to pull it off.

Here's my lineup. We're up against the wall. We're going to win or lose this game not based on our ability to attack. That will indeed be a critical component, but the key to this game is whether we can keep the Italians to a goal or less. There is no way we put up more than two against that defense.

With that in mind, I advocate the following lineup. Which may sound paradoxical, but it's designed to control the midfield and let our big defenders handle flighted balls into the box.

I want a three man backline composed of Onyewu, Pope, and either Bocanegra, or Cherundolo. I want their to be explicit instructions that A. Onywewu and Pope have the games of their life and B. They will do nothing other than defend and score on set pieces. That's it. If they rove forward like Lewis did, they will be taken out by a sniper in the stands. No offense to Lewis, he's a great left back in the English style game, but that's not what this is going to be about.

I want Reyna directly ahead of those three. He's older, he's slower, but he's comfortable on the ball and with the discipline of the other midfielders I think the can rove forward without fear of getting caught out.

Landon Donovan and JOB in the middle ahead of him. I've already spoken about JOB and Donovan has earned the chance to show that the Czech game was a fluke. Plus, being surrounded by such quality players should allow him the freedom to create and not be marked out of the game. JOB and Reyna should form a good partnership even though Claudio should play behind JOB most of the time.

The wings are where things get interesting. Run-DMB (DaMarcus Beasley) is out. If JOB can't go the whole game, I say pull him and stick Beasley on and go to a 4-4-2 by either adding a defender or go balls to the wall with a 3-4-3 by putting him up top on the left with the two forwards. (But that's only if we're behind)

I stick with Convey on the left. He can cross the ball, he's shown some confidence on the dribble, and with JOB/Donovan in the center, if they can switch the point of attack, he may be able to get some crosses off without having to beat a man like he did in the Czech game.

You knew it was coming. Dempsey on the right. Yes, he's a defensive liability, but chemistry matters. Dempsey's got attitude. He's not even in the same universe in terms of skill as Cristiano Ronaldo of Portugal, but he shares the "I don't give a dman who you put in front of me, if the time is right I'm coming at you and I'll pull a playground move to get past you if I need to. And then I'll stop to watch you get up and talk some noise." In the England game, Joe Cole was the only man on the field who looked like he wasn't playing a Sunday kick around in the park. That fire carried over to the rest of the team and ultimately resulted in their waking up with time left to get the win. Dempsey's got that potential. I don't know if it will happen, but the potential exists.

McBride and Johnson up top. Stick Johnson on Dempsey's side primarily. They share a room, they share an attitude, they've obviously dreamed about linking up in the World Cup for their country and doing a pimp dance straight out of Little John to celebrate a goal. Don't underestimate the power of confidence and playing for each other.

Donovan may not be able to hack it at this level. His smugness may belie a lack of confidence about his ability to kick it at this level when the chips are down. JOB can and has. Dempsey and Johnson just don't know any better and have none of the pressure the others have.

That's my lineup. If you'll remember we had some success with the 3-5-2 in the last World Cup. I hope we get the same thing this time.

Regardless of what happens, the US has taken a giant step forward in the soccer world. Even if we get clocked 2-0.

Bad teams from disrespected countries don't have pressure on them.

Children can just play. Adolescents have to clean up their rooms and do their homework or there are consequences. Adults have to take care of business and live up to their responsibilities.

Even in defeat, the United States will have shown it's transitioned from being a precocious kid to adulthood.

Welcome to the wonderful world of football, America, where winning the World Cup or merely advancing out of the group are significant accomplishments. Just ask England, Spain, Portugal, or the now defunct Uruguayan dynasty.

Expectations are the tough part to deal with. The soccer playing is almost always second.

David Duval Is Back

2006-06-16T19:38:00.000-07:00

I, for one, cannot get enough of it.

I loved David Duval back when he was playing. Loved his game, loved his look, loved the way he played. He always looked like he just wanted to put the ball in the hole and didn't give a darn about what you thought about how he did it.

That's not arrogance. That's not unfeeling. That's just knowing what you want, knowing what's important, and going out and getting it done.

This man, lest we forget, was the number one player in the world while a guy named Tiger Woods was playing the game. He was capable of taking down the Tiger while others cowered.

He shot 59 on Sunday of a golf tournament. He won the British Open while his back was in shambles. He hit the ball far and straight and carved out iron shots like a server at Lawry's Prime Rib.

The glasses (needed for allergies) and the caution with the media, it wasn't all a problem with him. I read an interview about him that sold me on him a long time ago. If I get the details wrong, I apologize. I can't find the original.

Here's the important part I remember. He had a brother who died while he was still a child. Bone cancer.

His brother's treatment required transplants. There was only one match.

David.

Bone marrow is not easy to procure. To put it bluntly, it requires boring a needle into the bone, sucking out some marrow and transplanting it into the patient.

Bone doesn't exactly take local anesthetic well. And general anesthesia is too risky.

David went through this often. He was held down while they took their only shot at saving his brother.

And still his brother died.

Throughout the whole process of him losing his swing, dropping to 800 something in the world, wasting exemption after exemption with scores in the 80s, it kind of makes his claims of, "there are things more important in the world than golf" seem a little more genuine, doesn't it?

He's currently six shots back at arguably the toughest US Open course in years.

Tiger Woods? He missed the cut.

David Duval will be joining us all weekend.

Win or lose, I'm happy.

You should be, too.

Argentina Grabs the Cup By the Throat

2006-06-16T08:49:00.000-07:00

I am now officially pissed off at my ability to wake up in the morning.

I have woken up late for two matches and two matches only.

Spain-Ukraine and Argentina versus Serbia and Montegro.

In the process I have missed nine goals.

I feel very, very stupid. I've also ended my streak of watching at least a piece of every game live. I woke up too late to catch the end of Argentina's beating of Serbia and Montenegro like a tied up goat.

I guess that's fair, considering that Serbia has a pretty awful recent past and they aren't even going to be a team come the next World Cup. Montenegro will be independent.

Argentina hung six on S and M (sorry, I couldn't resist) who apparently had the best defense in the tournament.

Which I'm sure is news to the Italians (and possibly the English), but they didn't allow many goals through qualifying so apparently they have the best defense in the world. Uhh....okay.

Sweden averaged three goals a match in the run up to the World Cup and they've barely managed one against Trinidad and Tobago and Paraguay.

Noted defensive powerhouses the both of them. Honestly.

Ivory Coast-Netherlands is coming up next. I can't see the Cote d' Ivoire winning this. The Dutch can fight all they want among themselves. They are just too good and they're coach is one who demands respect. When Van Basten talks in Holland (or the Netherlands or Dutchland or whatever it's called) people listen. Robben will attack, but if Marco thinks he was a ball hog, he won't be this time. He plays for Jose Mourinho, for God's sake, he's eminently coachable.

But I've been known to be wrong.

Coming soon, I'm going to evaluate the US chances versus Italy.

I'm hoping Homeland Security won't be listening.

Fire Eric Wynalda

2006-06-16T08:26:00.000-07:00

Eric Wynalda is a big damned idiot.

I'm not paid by ESPN, so I don't have to lie.

Julie Foudy is serviceable and charismatic. She's not demonstrating much in terms of tactics or insightful analysis (plus her refusal to recognize that the ball is juiced is roughly akin to ignoring the evidence that Barry Bonds is juiced as well).

Eric Wynalda on the other hand is a jerk.

1. Wynalda has claimed that Reyna should not start. The United States has only won one World Cup game with him on the field (which I'm not sure is accurate, but regardless). Reyna also is undoubtedly one of the most important soccer players in US history. Everyone, down to a man, believes he is critical to their success.

2. Wynalda has positively excoriated the team for their performance against the Czech's. He's right. He doesn't need to do it with the glee of an ex-wife watching her husband fail.

3. His willingness to blame people for losing. Okay, he just blamed Reyna for the second goal. Claudio was late shutting down the shooter and "if you're going to pull your hamstring in a World Cup, that's the play to do it on.". Rosicky was certainly open when he hammered in his thirty five yard strike (with the live ball, lest we forget). But as Ms. Foudy aptly pointed out, he was caught in a bad spot because of the poor clearance that led to Rosicky getting the ball. A bad defensive spot, as in he was defending, but just got caught in the wrong place based on poor teammates play.

4. Smug. I wrote in this space earlier that Donovan is a smug little man. And I loved him for it. Wynalda is a smug little man. I don't love him for it. He brings very little to the game.

Although not as little as the color man who's been doing the early/irrelevant games (Ecuador/Costa Rica, Tunisia/Saudi Arabia). I can't even begin to describe how bad this guy he is. I won't mention his name, for the same reason cameras won't show people who sneak on to the field.

Someone needs to teach that guy writing/announcing 101.

More adjectives are not more better.

I'm Back...and I'm Squatting

2006-06-14T15:08:00.000-07:00

I'm back.

And I'm tired.

Say a prayer for the web firm that has so generously supported the Newfoolintown.com website and my columns at Athensexchange.com

Their hard drive collapsed. Bad for me. Worse for them.

As you might imagine, I am not their only client or website they support. They have been able to restore some of their issues, but unfortunately it has left me offline for a long time and necessitated my temporary placement here.

Send it on to your friends, let them know that the New Fool continues and I will be back to my usual home shortly, but right now I'm squatting over here.

That being said, I can't catch up completely in a single column, so I won't even try. Some important thoughts.

1. The Braves are not done. The All Star break is not even here, yet, so I won't talk about premature predictions. I won't even dignify Mets fans claim's that the Braves are done.

2. My head says the Braves are not done--ten games is not a lot in a baseball season. My head also says that the US men's national team is done. D-U-N, done. My heart says otherwise, but to give you some idea how irrational I am about this team, I drank an entire bottle of whiskey before 5 PM on the day of the US-Czech republic match. Also learned that playing soccer after said activity is not a good idea.

3. I have watched a part of every single World Cup match so far. Here are my (super-abridged) thoughts. England wil win their group, no matter how bad they looked against Paraguay. Brazil is as good as they say--winning 1-0 against Croatia was mostly a function of being bored. Germany is overrated. Spain is *vastly* overrated--their four goals were off a deflected free kick, a deflected corner, a dodgy penalty call that resulted in an even more sketchy red card, and a fourth goal after the Ukraine had given up and were playing a man down. Lastly, I don't advocate betting. Sweden, however, should beat Paraguay like a rented mule and is almost even money. I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.

4. I am tired. Very tired. Getting up at 8 AM to watch South Korea-Togo is draining. Doing it again, and again, and again with no end in sight is a bit difficult.

5. Ben Roethlisberger appears like he's getting better. That is good. Riding a motorcycle without a helmet, that is bad. You want to talk about a bad image for the kids, that's it.

6. Please, please, please publicize the fact that I'm squatting at a different place for awhile. Tell your friends, tell your enemies, tell your parents. Just tell someone.

Joga Bonito.