Ender
10 Jun 2006, 08:01 AM
This is in today's intellegencer. It is a newspaper outside philly. Good to see our smaller papers are carrying the banner a bit too!
So what’s the lowdown on this big soccer-thing that started Friday over in Germany?
Yes, it’s the World Cup, and, yes, it’s the biggest sporting event in the world and, yes, it’s going to be an amazing month for those of us who have been waiting four years since the last one. But I’m not here to be a soccer bore and lecture about how Americans should care more about Wayne Rooney and Michael Ballack than Albert Pujols and Jim Thome. That day will probably never come — besides, I like soccer, I am thrilled about the World Cup, I will watch as many games as possible, and I still care more about baseball than soccer.
But there’s certainly room for both dishes in most fans’ diets, and only the most xenophobic and narrow-minded American sports fans will find nothing to enjoy from Germany 2006. But the whole thing can be overwhelming to even the casual soccer fan — eight groups, 32 teams, goal-differentials, extra time, players (and, let’s face it, countries) who are anything but household names here.
So here’s a quick walk-through of the cornucopia of soccer and the carnival-like atmosphere of the World Cup:
* There may be 32 teams playing, but only about eight teams have a legitimate chance to win. First, no World Cup winner (or even runner-up) has ever come from anywhere but Europe and South America. So that eliminates a big chunk of the field right there. Second, only seven teams have ever won a Cup — Argentina, Brazil, England, France, Italy, Germany, and Uruguay have divided up 17 Cups since its inception in 1930 (none in 1942 and 1946) — and Uruguay didn’t make it to Germany. Third, host teams have a huge edge: six of the 17 Cups have been won by the hosts. Fourth, Brazil has made three straight championship games, winning in 1994 and 2002 and losing to France (in Paris) in 1998.
* Thus, looking at history — and soccer fans are every bit as history-minded as baseball fans — you might predict a Brazil-Germany final. The other contenders: the remaining four past winners along with The Netherlands (considered the best soccer-playing country never to win a Cup) and, I suppose, Spain, which quadrenially does the least with the most talent of any participant. Add in the Czech Republic and maybe Sweden as darkhorses. Anybody else even in the semis would be a major shock.
* Yes, I am saying the U.S. has no chance. The American team will play entertaining and effective soccer — even at 33 (he turns 34 June 19), forward Brian McBride is a joy to watch and this might be a breakout Cup for quicksilver-like midfielder DaMarcus Beasley, on the verge of superstar-dom — but the U.S. doesn’t have enough playmakers, and thus will not score enough goals, to beat an Italy. Now, if the U.S. was in less of a killer group — say in Group D instead of Mexico — advancement to the knockout round would be much more likely. But in a group with Italy, the Czechs and Ghana (only Group C, the “Group of Death,” with Argentina, the Netherlands, Serbia and Montenegro and Ivory Coast, is tougher), the Americans’ chances are not that good. And even if the U.S. does make the knockout round it would likely face Brazil — gulp.
* Still, some team will come out of nowhere and be the darling of the tournament for a while, like South Korea in 2002 and Cameroon in 1990. It would be fun if it was Australia, since no team’s fans will enjoy themselves more than the Aussies, but keep an eye on Togo; just a hunch.
* Most teams in the tournament have their own distinct style, just as U.S. football teams do. Brazil, for example, has one gear: forward. Italy traditionally plays a very cautious, defensive (though hardly dull) game. England can be more physical. The Dutch are elegant. The Argentines are the kings of the playmakers. The African teams are predictably unpredictable. And so on. Watch and compare the differences, especially if an attacking-oriented team is playing a more defensive one.
* Group play is just to see who advances to the knockout round, and there will be some nasty mismatches in the groups (England-Trinidad and Tobago in Group B on Thursday, say). And there will be games near the end of group play that won’t much matter (Iran-Angola June 21 in Group D, say). So pick and choose group games to watch based on who needs to win; those games will display the most urgency. The one-and-done rounds start June 24 with pre-set matchups (winner Group A plays B runner-up, etc.) and that’s when things really heat up.
* Purists will cringe, but past grudges, soccer-related or not, between nations can add sparks. If Brazil and Argentina play in a semifinal July 5, South America may never be the same. Germany and Poland have some history; they play Wednesday. Portugal was Angola’s colonial ruler for centuries; they meet Sunday. England and Argentina could meet July 1; remember the Falklands?
* This is one event where the off-field pageantry and passion should not be ignored. Both on the streets of Germany and back in the nations playing, there will be excitement and fury, agony and victory. The supporters (“fan” is an American term) are as much the story as the players, and much more passionate than Olympic fans are. Sometimes much too passionate, but it is to be hoped hooliganism will be at a low, limited by the Germans’ security arrangements.
* The soccer referee is the most powerful official in sport; he and he alone is in charge. Between his ability to extend games with “extra” time (i.e., time lost to injuries or other delays), his ability to award penalty kicks and, most critically, his ability to send players off for fouls and thus make teams play short for the rest of the game (imagine a hockey team playing 5-on-4 for 45 minutes after a first-period game misconduct), he can (and will) decide games. Much fury will result.
* All right, who will win? I see the Netherlands stunning Germany in a quarterfinal and then getting past Italy (barely) to make the final. The other side will see Argentina break English hearts in a quarterfinal — on a penalty kick? — and then shock Brazil in a semifinal. Then the Netherlands will win its first Cup, 2-1, and the celebration in Holland may flatten every dike keeping the country dry. And the Dutch would say it would still have been worth it — it’s the World Cup, after all.
Brad Wilson is Associate Sports Editor of The Intelligencer. He can be reached at (215) 345-3184 or bwilson@phillyBurbs.com.
So what’s the lowdown on this big soccer-thing that started Friday over in Germany?
Yes, it’s the World Cup, and, yes, it’s the biggest sporting event in the world and, yes, it’s going to be an amazing month for those of us who have been waiting four years since the last one. But I’m not here to be a soccer bore and lecture about how Americans should care more about Wayne Rooney and Michael Ballack than Albert Pujols and Jim Thome. That day will probably never come — besides, I like soccer, I am thrilled about the World Cup, I will watch as many games as possible, and I still care more about baseball than soccer.
But there’s certainly room for both dishes in most fans’ diets, and only the most xenophobic and narrow-minded American sports fans will find nothing to enjoy from Germany 2006. But the whole thing can be overwhelming to even the casual soccer fan — eight groups, 32 teams, goal-differentials, extra time, players (and, let’s face it, countries) who are anything but household names here.
So here’s a quick walk-through of the cornucopia of soccer and the carnival-like atmosphere of the World Cup:
* There may be 32 teams playing, but only about eight teams have a legitimate chance to win. First, no World Cup winner (or even runner-up) has ever come from anywhere but Europe and South America. So that eliminates a big chunk of the field right there. Second, only seven teams have ever won a Cup — Argentina, Brazil, England, France, Italy, Germany, and Uruguay have divided up 17 Cups since its inception in 1930 (none in 1942 and 1946) — and Uruguay didn’t make it to Germany. Third, host teams have a huge edge: six of the 17 Cups have been won by the hosts. Fourth, Brazil has made three straight championship games, winning in 1994 and 2002 and losing to France (in Paris) in 1998.
* Thus, looking at history — and soccer fans are every bit as history-minded as baseball fans — you might predict a Brazil-Germany final. The other contenders: the remaining four past winners along with The Netherlands (considered the best soccer-playing country never to win a Cup) and, I suppose, Spain, which quadrenially does the least with the most talent of any participant. Add in the Czech Republic and maybe Sweden as darkhorses. Anybody else even in the semis would be a major shock.
* Yes, I am saying the U.S. has no chance. The American team will play entertaining and effective soccer — even at 33 (he turns 34 June 19), forward Brian McBride is a joy to watch and this might be a breakout Cup for quicksilver-like midfielder DaMarcus Beasley, on the verge of superstar-dom — but the U.S. doesn’t have enough playmakers, and thus will not score enough goals, to beat an Italy. Now, if the U.S. was in less of a killer group — say in Group D instead of Mexico — advancement to the knockout round would be much more likely. But in a group with Italy, the Czechs and Ghana (only Group C, the “Group of Death,” with Argentina, the Netherlands, Serbia and Montenegro and Ivory Coast, is tougher), the Americans’ chances are not that good. And even if the U.S. does make the knockout round it would likely face Brazil — gulp.
* Still, some team will come out of nowhere and be the darling of the tournament for a while, like South Korea in 2002 and Cameroon in 1990. It would be fun if it was Australia, since no team’s fans will enjoy themselves more than the Aussies, but keep an eye on Togo; just a hunch.
* Most teams in the tournament have their own distinct style, just as U.S. football teams do. Brazil, for example, has one gear: forward. Italy traditionally plays a very cautious, defensive (though hardly dull) game. England can be more physical. The Dutch are elegant. The Argentines are the kings of the playmakers. The African teams are predictably unpredictable. And so on. Watch and compare the differences, especially if an attacking-oriented team is playing a more defensive one.
* Group play is just to see who advances to the knockout round, and there will be some nasty mismatches in the groups (England-Trinidad and Tobago in Group B on Thursday, say). And there will be games near the end of group play that won’t much matter (Iran-Angola June 21 in Group D, say). So pick and choose group games to watch based on who needs to win; those games will display the most urgency. The one-and-done rounds start June 24 with pre-set matchups (winner Group A plays B runner-up, etc.) and that’s when things really heat up.
* Purists will cringe, but past grudges, soccer-related or not, between nations can add sparks. If Brazil and Argentina play in a semifinal July 5, South America may never be the same. Germany and Poland have some history; they play Wednesday. Portugal was Angola’s colonial ruler for centuries; they meet Sunday. England and Argentina could meet July 1; remember the Falklands?
* This is one event where the off-field pageantry and passion should not be ignored. Both on the streets of Germany and back in the nations playing, there will be excitement and fury, agony and victory. The supporters (“fan” is an American term) are as much the story as the players, and much more passionate than Olympic fans are. Sometimes much too passionate, but it is to be hoped hooliganism will be at a low, limited by the Germans’ security arrangements.
* The soccer referee is the most powerful official in sport; he and he alone is in charge. Between his ability to extend games with “extra” time (i.e., time lost to injuries or other delays), his ability to award penalty kicks and, most critically, his ability to send players off for fouls and thus make teams play short for the rest of the game (imagine a hockey team playing 5-on-4 for 45 minutes after a first-period game misconduct), he can (and will) decide games. Much fury will result.
* All right, who will win? I see the Netherlands stunning Germany in a quarterfinal and then getting past Italy (barely) to make the final. The other side will see Argentina break English hearts in a quarterfinal — on a penalty kick? — and then shock Brazil in a semifinal. Then the Netherlands will win its first Cup, 2-1, and the celebration in Holland may flatten every dike keeping the country dry. And the Dutch would say it would still have been worth it — it’s the World Cup, after all.
Brad Wilson is Associate Sports Editor of The Intelligencer. He can be reached at (215) 345-3184 or bwilson@phillyBurbs.com.