I dunno. I don't actually believe exceptions prove the rule. I think there is obviously something in what you are suggesting; at the same time I don't think every instance suggesting an African player or team is "athletic" is due to some lazy racial stereotyping. I also think "athletic" in football is used by slightly elitists teams/leagues/nations to dismiss effective teams or players. It suggests a kind of "yeah, they can run and jump and kick but they don't really play." That is how it was often applied to the US. A subtle jab, but more a jab at footie culture than something racial or ethnic.
I disagree to this extent: because US soccer coaches think that speed is important, they are putting players with speed at the top of their lists which means the best soccer talent goes to waste and teams never play like Barcelona because they consider speed as the ingredient of success instead of creating positional triangles that immobilize the fastest players on earth.
What people mean when they call the US "athletic" is that they are poor technically. When you call Ghana "athletic" I think you mean, "black, fast, & strong". In both cases, it is rather easy to see it as not quite complimentary.
Fwiw, speed can be stopped cold with a viscous tackle. Speed? Might be overrated. Ask Henry after his first season in EPL.
I think "black, fast and strong" is highly complimentary. Although I don't think the skin color adds much to fast and strong. The only time it becomes negative is when somebody is implying something else is missing. I don't think that implication is there in this case. Wasn't someone from Ghana talking about height being missing from their team, though?
That's not what I meant when I said it in the slightest. I missed where I even came close to implying color had anything to do with anything. Other people are projecting that onto comments that have nothing to do with it.
It's an expression used mainly in Romance language media to mean the passing is precise, "as if done with a ruler," the ball set perfectly to the feet of the receiver, who barely need to make an effort to control it. That's the best asset Japan has: look at their short passing, it reminds one of Barcelona. Sadly, they mishit most of their created chances. Box-to-box CMs need to be fast and have a lot of stamina. Short of wingers that cover the full side from defense to attack, they are the guys who run the most in teams, particularly in the English PL and in Serie A. Also, 'fast' doesn't just mean the speed of their legs, but also their speed of thought. Guys like Muntari are not just speedy, but also mentally quick. A fast player is also fast upstairs. If he can only run fast, he's just a speedster. Robbie Findley is a speedster. Donovan is fast.
Some of us need to watch the first Ghana-Egypt WCQ game in its entirety and then revisit their posts on this thread. Keep in mind Egypt is actually a pretty good team that should be in this WC but got a horrible draw. Observe the passing, speed and skill of the Black Stars on a muddy field. I believe we have a better shot of getting points off of Portugal than against Ghana, if Ghana brings it against the US.
Kwado Asamoah playing just now for Juve v Galatsaray, Champion's league must game for both. That Juve formation seems to put a lot of faith in Asamoah. He is really their left back and left wing at the same time. Fortunately, he will be playing against Cameron, Bradley, Gonzo and whomever is our right wing, Bedoya or Donovan. We've got this one under control. Our left side is under the microscope in Portugal and Ghana. Edit: it is now hailing in Turkey.
Ghana is a direct, brutal, athletic force that will do nothing unexpected. 5 in the midfield. Brutal tackles for which we will get no calls. Long ball to streaking forwards. Excellent wing play with so-so crosses. The key is pretty obvious: Central midfield. If we can't control the tempo, retain possession and eradicate jermain jones turnovers / dempsey dawdling on the ball / Suzi upfield slowness /evans lack of sophisticated defending, and Howard's irritating need to have a 'practice match' for all competitive matches the US plays, then we lose. In the final 3rd, we need to play quick diagonal balls to streaking wing players. I would not play a standard 4-4-2 looking for crosses, but a 4-2-3-1, dortmund style, which keep sthe ball on the ground and the ball moving very, very quickly. Diagonal attacking runs with cut back crosses. Ghana will over commit on the runs and lose shape. I think Jermain Jones is the key to this match. I have little confidence.
Agree with this. As a team, Ghana is superior to Portugal. The Portuguese have plenty of good players, beyond Ronaldo and Nani, but they fail to click as a team. There's a reason why they didn't win their group.
Said tongue in cheek - it's just an expression to me as well. And I said so in my original post. It's seems pretty obvious to me, however, that the darker the skin of a person, the more likely they are to be referred to as athletic. This most certainly applies to the African teams at the world cup. Do you think it's simply coincidence that Ghana is being described by most people as the most athletic bunch in the group? Sure, it's been used that way, and LD has been referred to as athletic but have you really heard people use athletic about him in order to say that his soccer skills are lacking? Again, I don't think it's overt racism and I don't disagree that it's used in the way you've stated.
Are you trying to say, Ghana Mexico'd Bradley's Egypt America? I think four of those scores were unstoppable. Ghana had a perfect day in west africa, then a typical one in Egypt. The real key to this match occurred before the match even started. Ghana felt complete confidence in their anticipated victory.
Egypt has been known for at least the past decade for playing attractive, entertaining soccer. The Pharaohs did not drop a single point in the previous round of qualifying in Africa (6 games, 18 points). Why change their DNA? Of course hindsight is 20/20. Bradley would have been vilified if they took a more conservative approach and lost to Ghana.
They played Guinea, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe in the previous round. Ghana are not in the same universe as those teams.
Muntari just scored for Milan against Roma, with Bradley on the field. Muntari has 8 goals over last three seasons in Serie A - and two of them were while Bradley was on the field. (The other was against Chievo in April 2012): http://us.soccerway.com/matches/2012/04/10/italy/serie-a/ac-chievo-verona/ac-milan/1175935/ Edit: Here's the goal Muntari scored against Chievo back in April 2012. You can see in the build-up that Bradley over-committed to the winger on the outside, leaving a giant space in the middle for Muntari to shoot (and score). Granted it was still a sweet goal.
Stereotypes persist because we perpetuate them by failing to recognize the harm they do; a status quo that can easily change. Are the Ghanaians really especially fast among this group of athletes? Not particularly. At least, not to the point that I think it'll make a significant difference in any area of the pitch. So why even bring it up? Because in lieu of actual data, people can always rely on stereotypes. The one about the US being "athletic" is equally inaccurate and uncomplimentary. But it's the one thing foreigners could say about a US team they really didn't know much about otherwise. I guess Americans internalized it because, hey, any compliment is a good one, I guess. I think Germany will field the most athletic and fit team in the group, even though they are a bunch of white guys.
Rejecting all stereotypes and going tabula rasa can be like throwing the baby with the bathwater. The Ghanaian team IS fast (not just speed, remember); the USA team IS big and athletic; the German team IS organized; the Portuguese team IS full of flair. Stereotypes exist for a reason. Not always accurate, but a form of shorthand. Lazy thinking? Well, we're limited beings. Even words are labels, and could be accused of "lazy thinking." I'm more positive about them. I think they offer a basis for understanding. Becoming exceedingly offended by the way the stereotypes associated to one work is useless. Individuality stems from knowledge, but to know, you need to have an initial handle. Stereotypes serve that function, that initial handle. As happens with words.
Go to minute 2:00 to see Muntari's goal today. Bradley was caught up-field and couldn't catch up with the play in time.
Ghana seems to be comfortable on the ball and they like to interchange positions. There really is no set DM for their starting XI although many Ghanians can see Rabiu as a starter whom is a natural DM. This Ghanian team is a lot more attack minded and this is where the US should exploit them. Ghana likes to play the short passing game something the US is familiar with facing in Concacaf. It will be vital for the US to pressure the Ghanian mids as soon as they get in the final third because they love to shoot from distance.
The mistake is in your basic assumption, that stereotypes are the starting point for a more thorough exercise of intellectual discovery when they are precisely the opposite. Stereotypes preclude nuanced understanding of a subject, they don't foster it. Case in point: the stereotypes you repeat here are so nonsensical and banal that they provide nothing useful to the conversation/argument. The US is "big and athletic"? Compared to whom? You think Bastian Schweinsteiger and Michael Essien are biting their nails over Omar Gonzales and Jozy Altidore? Are the Ghanaians really particularly fast, compared to other WC teams? I think you'll find that stereotypes persist not because they are useful in developing a long-term understanding but because they are convenient and coincide with what people tend to want to believe. And when stereotypes actually have a tangible effect on how groups of people are treated (as they often do) it's hardly useless to be offended by them. Throughout sports history blacks were marginalized, denied opportunities and generally had their athletic achievements and contributions downplayed because they were stereotyped as "athletic brutes", excelling because of their physical gifts but lacking mental acumen needed for creative/leadership roles (naturally, this also reflected how blacks were treated in all parts of society). This is why the tendency for people to compliment a black athlete on his "athleticism" before all other qualities raises the hairs on some necks--it comes from a long tradition of failing to recognize the tremendous hard work, creativity and intelligence the most accomplished black athletes possessed; a reality that was dissonent with the "common sense" belief that blacks were mentally inferior.