Don’t Forget The LiveBlog

Raybron,

I appreciate your insights as an antidote to the silly anti-US sentiment going around here.

(To those who feel compelled to use our team as the object of their unhappiness over the US foreign policy — suit yourself who you want to cheer for. But please do keep in mind that many of us in this country are embarrassed by our elected leaders. But I support my country’s soccer team because it’s supposed to be an expression of what unites us, not divides us, etc. etc. I should force myself to make that the last thing I say about geopolitics.)

sam,

I agree that commercialism spoils sports, but it’s kind of a necessary evil. Unfortunately the choice is between an MLS with annoying commercial announcements or no MLS at all. Do you really think the latter option would be better?

dick shut up
u have no right to call me that u racist.
I DONT SUPPORT WAT THEY DO. I dont SUPPORT ANYTHING THAT COUNTRY”S GOVERNMENT DOES. STOP BEIN PREJUDICE. THE GOVERMENT KILLS PEOPLE FOR NO REASON AND U THINK I SUPPORT HECK NO. MY FAMILY CAME HERE TO GET AWAY FROM THE MADNESS. PEOPLE GET HANGED FOR LISTENING TO MUSIC AND WOMAN HAVE NO RIGHTS WAT SO EVER. SO SHUT UP U DONT KNO THE COUNTRY ANd DONT KNO ME

CONGRATS USA
U SHOULD OF WON 3-1

Posted from  United States

hey the ref(ref in the usa game) was suspened last world cup for doing the same thing and i think he’ll get a life suspension now

Posted from  United States

Joanna,

Red Bull is an Austrian firm. Besides the New Jersey MLS team, they also bought SV Salzburg and changed its name to Red Bull Salzburg.

I’m not crazy about selling nameing rights — to stadiums, teams, whatever — but the only reason this happened in USA and AUT but not in ENG is essentially because clubs like Man. United have a huge value in their brand. I know that’s marketing terminology and I should appeal to the great glories of English footballing history, but really, tradition is for sale like anything else. “Metrostars” didn’t have anything like the cachet of “Man United” so it was worth it financially for the league to dance to Red Bull’s tune.

Capitalism isn’t an American invention and we don’t (pardon the inadvertant pun) hold a monopoly on it. Footballers make millions in Europe because supporters are willing to buy tickets and merchandise and to watch on TV. There’s no Evil American Genius behind the scenes who determined that “We must pour more money into association football to ruin it for the Europeans.” The laws of supply and demand will still function long after the American Empire has vanished from the face of the earth.

I say the US owned the game. Football by nature, design and strategy is all about DEFENSE. The team that holds their opponent to the lowest score wins. The US out played Italy (the heavy favorite) and survived 44 minutes with 1 player down!

As for the officiating, I would like to know if their is a petition being put together for FIFA to require he never be allowed on a field again. The job of a referee is to ensure a “fair game” and also to protect the players from injury. However, he is also to stay impartial and should have no impact on the game. He is there to officiate the game and not control the game.

Last but not least, there is an arguement to be made about the disallowed goal. The offsides rule is very clear and the US player did play a factor in the goal being scored. That said, any time a playeris offsides, he does influence the defense even if only one player histates for one or two steps to see if the lines-man is going to raise the flag. I believe the rule should be re-written that it is the offensive player’s responsibility to stay on-sides at all times w/ the exception of injury or other fault (lost shoe, getting water, is off the field of play, etc…)

I think it’s pretty clear that the US’s strategy of using offsides traps anywhere and everywhere was brilliant. Italy’s offense was in nearly complete disarray the full game (other than the one set piece that was executed perfectly). I believe Italy ended up offsides about 20 times. It’s part of a sound defensive strategy, and more importantly, it doesn’t diminish your own offense at the same time. Good call by Arena.

Bravo Philip.

Now, will we get back to discussing football for this World Cup? We should save the political vents for the DUers and Freepers, on their respective sites.

Posted from  United States

“the population of the US means that they should be able to put together a world-class team…”

It is a curious thing, eh? China, the world’s most populist country has no football presence. India, soon to be the world’s most populous county, and having been colonial subjects of the British Empire… have never been to the World Cup.. in fact, didn’t the first south asian player ever go in this tournament. Yet Australia – Brit derived with 20 million… mostly Anglo… T & T, Brit derived with 1 million… mostly African… both have strong teams. Mysterious as to why the US has lagged…

But in the clear light of day after yesterday’s match, it might have been our finest moment. Really, 9 men and we had a chance to do what no team in world cup has ever done… score. An offsides call kept us from history. No matter what happens on Thursday, this is a step forward for American football (by which I don’t mean American Football). Well done lads… a wounded Tiger indeed.

Posted from  United States

harry,

Don’t forget the example par excellence, the two-time World Cup winner with a population of 3.4 million: Uruguay. Granted those were ancient days, but they still produce strong footballers at an impressive rate.

Yep, that’s interesting. I mentioned Australia and Trinidad and Tobago as being former colonies as a way to explain the “football bloodlines” from England. I don’t know enough about Uruguay to speculate on how football took root in a country of 3 million in such a way to win the World Cup twice. Simply being between Brazil and Argentina, the giants, is that why? But the David and Goliath thing is so a part of this WC drama… I love Ecuador’s play… hope they go far in the tournament.

Posted from  United States

I think that the game’s roots in BRA, ARG, URU, and possibly Chile all had to do with the prevalance of English workers there in the late 1800s and early 1900s. In reality, they probably trace their futboling pedigree more directly to England than T&T (who AFAIK have been more passionate about cricket locally until recent times, but I could be wrong).

A solid performance from the US. If not for the two bogus red cards they would have won the game. Never did I think they could outplay Italy 9 v 10.

The game against Ghana should be another good one. Both teams will be missing 2 players but Ghana will be missing 2 of their better ones. They will be down to Essian, Appiah, and not much else. The US has more depth and needs to take advantage.

With the Czech’s missing Baros and Koller for the game against Italy a second round birth is looking more likely. Plus the Italians do not want to play Brazil and that should be incentive enough. First thing is first though, take care of the black stars.

Posted from  United States

John writes:
“I think it’s pretty clear that the US’s strategy of using offsides traps anywhere and everywhere was brilliant. Italy’s offense was in nearly complete disarray the full game (other than the one set piece that was executed perfectly). I believe Italy ended up offsides about 20 times. It’s part of a sound defensive strategy, and more importantly, it doesn’t diminish your own offense at the same time. Good call by Arena.”

Well, if we are going to use an offsides trap again on “upfield-corner-free kicks” (the set piece that Italy scored on), why can’t we have more than one man in the wall? How about at least 2-3 guys on the ball? It leaves less cooks in the kitchen to screw up the trap like what happened on that play. For that, I can’t give Arena too many props; for all other uses of it, yeah, brilliant calls.

Posted from  United States

Joanna and others–I agree entirely that American sporting events are often really obnoxious in that so many owners seem unable to imagine the fans would care about the game if they were simply allowed to, you know, watch the game without dancers, mascots, and racing dougnuts. That’s why I said so in my post.

I just don’t think it’s accurate to describe the changes wrought in Europe by big money going into sports as “Americanization.” Sure, European sports probably felt less commercial back in the 1970s (I couldn’t tell you first-hand), but America and American models didn’t effect that change. (The same shift took place in US sports at about the same time.) It changed because people realized there was money to be made off professional sports. And there’s a lot of money to be made in Europe. The EU market is bigger than the American market, has citizens not much less wealthy per capita, and belongs to the same system of global capitalism that shapes so much of US marketing strategies.

Do I wish it were otherwise? Sure. Do I have any hope whatsoever that it won’t get goofier and mercenary? Not much.

Getting back to actual soccer, I’d like to pause briefly and say that as delighted as I was to see the US running, using space, and passing, I’m still concerned by our inability to finish definitively when we do create chances.

Also, anybody who saw the Ghana-Czech game should be well aware that the Ghana squad could very well beat us. Sure the Czechs didn’t have Jan Koller and looked a lot more listless than they did when they picked us apart, but a lot of that has to do with Ghana. They’re fast, strong, skilled on the ball, and creative in the attack. I’m optimistic, but, man, I’m nervous.

Commercialism in sports already exists in Europe. It’s not something that comes with the US, nothing to do with “americanization”. Here in Italy money spoiled our beloved football and those scandal we had lately are based on money.
The population thingie..it’s not about population it’s about a solid tradition in football which creates good coaches for the young players that makes a nation powerful in football. That’s way Uruguay won 2 times and China never.
Talking about the game, I was surprised by the americans they played a very good game, very passionate. Well i am an italian supporter and i can afford being surprised, the problem is our players (who are supposed to be professionals) were surprised as well, and played a very poor game.
You’ll think i am biased being italian, maybe i am, but each call the ref made was appropriate.
Enjoy the game against Ghana I hope i’ll enjoy ours against the Czechs

Posted from  Italy

Re: Population and World Cup success

Obviously it takes more than sheer population to win the World Cup. Otherwise India and China would always meet in the final, and the US would always win the consolation match. Tradition, national passion, luck, stability, wealth are all extremely important in developing any national skill, soccer obviously included.

Still, Brazil is by far the most populous of the nations considered by oddsmakers to be legitimate contenders to win the World Cup this year and most years.

Brazil (pop. 183 million) is almost twice as populous as Mexico (106 million); more than twice Germany (83 million); thrice England (56 million), Italy (57 million), and France (61 million); more than four times Argentina (40 million) and Spain (44 million); eleven times Holland (16 million); and about eighteen (eighteen!) times more than Czech Republic (10 million) and Portugal (11 million).

So culture and tradition certainly contribute to Brazil’s dominance over the past decades, but you can’t overlook the fact that there are so many great Brazilian players and Brazilian teams in large part simply because there are so many Brazilians.

What about this Italian scandal? Were some games fixed? Some are saying the whole season was riged. That sounds rediculous.

Posted from  United States

go nads, according to several phone calls caught (intercepted? dunno actually what’s the english word) by the police, some club’s managers (mainly Juventus) suggested some referees how to behave, which means fixing some games. The reward was an easier carreer for the refs. That’s a semplification but it’s the best i can do at the moment.

Posted from  Italy

I think everyone of the calls was fair; as in, there was an argument to be made for them.

That being said, Totti’s yellow and Pope’s second yellow were both very harsh calls.

Whatever, in soccer, good teams find ways to make up for bad refereeing. Talent wins in the end. Players cant control refs, tehy can only control themselves.

Posted from  Dominican Republic

Pao, thanks for the info.

ETucker, The ref tried his best I am sure. After the high elbow it just sucks that there was the expected make-up call. I felt that the flegrant foul deserved for Italy to play a man down. Using this logic the ref. should not have allowed the US to play so long with 9. He could have given a second yellow card to an Italian for acting. They flop and cry constantly. I don’t mind this but it is a violation just as late tackles are a violation.

Posted from  United States

Am I the only one who thinks Bruce Arena hs no business coaching our national team? With playing 2 men down on saturday and he never uses his last substition. He’s embarrasing!

Posted from  United States

I think a few of you guys aren’t fully understanding how I mean by Americanisation.And whilst i understand that there are points of the American system which make the game better (such as salary caps) I give you examples:

1. The way in which tickets, especially for big games, are distributed. Look at the African fella who has just been disgraced. Tickets, especially for the WC,are generally given first to officals, then sponsors, then home (DE, in this case), then to the countries playings FA’s – who then give them to officals, sponsors, then fully paid up offical fans. Naturally, mostof those going to sponsors end up on Ebay. Now Euro governments are having a scrap with Ebay over reselling event tickets, and Ebay are giving it the traditional ‘affront to free trade’ arguement.

2. All seater stadia.
A ridiculous idea copied by the Brits from Gridiron- supposedly for safety reasons – when its main advantage seems to be to make it easier for people to move around the satium spending money. German stadia – the very same in use in this WC, are proof that these are wrong, and kill the traditional atmosphere of football (which is what gives it its cultural position in the first place).

3. Player wages. Naturally, if the US gridiron/basketball players start being paid daft amounts, be it by ‘franchises’ or sponsors, the rest of the worlds sportsmen are going to ask where theirs is.

4. Intrusive advertising. The main worry is that US advertisers and media owners will, should the game become popular in the US, either introduce stoppages for ad breaks evey so often, or just cut away from coverage every so often to show a thirty second ad (like itv did with F1, again, an idea copied from the US)

5. Intrusive Owners/sponsors.
Cases in point being a) MK Dons – possibly the most hated lower league English club. For thiose that don’t know, their ownership changed, the new owners decided it would be more economically astute to move from London to Milton Keynes – which has no team. The fans were not happy, and have set up a new team with the aim to discredit and replace MK Dons. They are doing a grand job too. Also see FC United, who get a better atmosphere in non-league (basically the 15th division, or something) with 4,000 fans than Man Utd do with 65,000.
b) red bull salzburg – again, fans not happy, introduced break away club, legal challenges from red bull etc etc.
c) The welsh league.
A laughing stock due to Total Network Solutions and Airbus.

6. TV companys running things.
I remember when football used to be 3pm on a saturday, with cup games on tues/weds nights. them were the days. Then Sky bought the rights, slapped a big premium on them (stopping those of us that don’t have that kind of cash from watching) and started moving game times around just like our American friends do. TV has made the Italian league uncompetitive

7. I didnt want to put this in because i didnt think anyone British or American would understand, but the influence of companies who don’t understand the game, or more so, its fans.Ultras are not hooligans, and the way that media and advertisers are putting pressure on clubs and leagues to discourage such activities as flag waving, standing up and singing is a joke. One of the prime culprits is Coca Cola – who’s television advertising claims the complete opposite!

Is it any wonder that the best fans in this world cup (such as the dutch, croats and koreans) all have ‘lesser’ leagues which have not suffered as much intrusion from US style marketing tactics?

Anyway, i’m not trying to be anti – US in anyway. I just don’t want the sport to catch on there, as i figure that the changes for the everday fan will be worse than when the English middle classes decided to put down their Rugger balls and cricket bats and watch TV in a theme pub with a beer (or 15) instead.

‘I seriously doubt it would ever come close to the drunken loutishness on display in the English leagues’

Youve never been to an English league game have you? Its illegal to be drunk anywhere in the vicinity of a football stadium, and most will kick you out for standing too much. Making a racist remark at a football game will earn you longer in jail than GBH or burglary. Oh, and theres more coppers in the stadium than the rest of the host town/city, usually.

Philip – The Brazilians learned football from a Scotsman. Actually, the Scots and Irish pretty much taught the English, which explains the distribution of clubs around the country. It also goes some way to explaining why soccer never caught on in the Raj – football was a working mans sport, the gentry played cricket whilst out in sunnier climes, such as India/Pakistan/Bang.They also supported, and i think still do, the cricket clubs etc – and no money was spent on football.

As to explain away the popularity of football in the carrib, and this may seem slightly odd:

Bob Marley and Alan Skill Cole – Bob did more for football in the carib than anyone else.

Raybron –

“MLS players make around $40,000/year”

Your telling me that Matt Jansen is going to turn down offers from Clubs like Leeds Utd of $12,000/week to play for the Red Bulls on 40k a year? Also by American Football we euros mean gridiron, and by football we mean soccer – i think you got a little confused, i hear there can be BIG money in owning someone like, say the Buccanneers.

Posted from  United Kingdom

Joanna,

you posted the dumbiest arguments ever, congratulation. I hand you the first prize of this blog.

You fish and chips pudding eating fat ass. As shallow as you are. Don t forget to support Peter Crouch…LOL