It was an heroic performance by the islanders, but as far as gripping, end-to-end action, I thought it was rather dull. Spain played like they were in an intrasquad scrimmage, and Cape Verde had possession in Spain's half of the field for probably 5 or 6 minutes the whole match (or so it seemed). I'm glad CPV got a point when few thought it possible, but the way the match shook out wasn't pleasing to my eyes.
I would not be that surprised if New Zealand repeats 2006 and exits the World Cup without losing a game.
Hope I don't jinx it for the next two days of first round action, but by and large, I think the referees have done a good job in keeping the games flowing. There haven't been many issues with time-wasting, be it from 'injuries' or having 3 or 4 players handle the ball prior to a throw in. The players seem to understand that since the new directives from FIFA prior to this tournament have been implemented. On top of that, some of the matches have had some wild finishes with late tying or winning goals, and the fans have really brought the atmosphere. So far, so good.
An absolutely fun game between NZ and Iran. The All Whites amazingly extend their World Cup unbeaten run to 4. But whereas in South Africa they always looked overwhelmed, particularly as the entire country only had 25 professional players in total, today they looked rather competitive with the occasional nicely worked play and goal.
My non fitba watching sister and her Geordie husband in the UK decided to use their "dodgy stick" to watch the World Cup on Fox and rate it far better than domestic ITV. Then again ITV has been getting a lot of stick but least for their pundits Roy Keane, Gary Neville and that noted soccer expert Adam Richman.
Not to discredit their opinion, but I think ITVs coverage has been very good (I'm sure you can find articles about every channel getting 'stick'.) Keane, Wright, Neville, Emma Hayes and Postecoglu have all been very good. I've watched Fox's coverage using the same means on a few occasions, and whilst its fine Alexi Lalas? is comfortably worse than any pundit on ITV, and he seems to be the lead analyst.
Keane's comments mainly consist of talking about how he would have reacted had he been in the dressing room at half time. Neville appears to sleep through the games (it has been hot in Brooklyn), Postecoglou and Hayes are actually informative. I can't believe Fox either hasn't cottoned to, or just doesn't care about, what actual soccer fans think of Lalas. Anyway, the main gripe with ITV seems to be the picture quality and the lack of camera angles. I don't know if they are taking the world feed over the internet or something. The games on BBC, as cheap as they are being, seem to have much better quality.
Adam Richman is a part owner in Grimsby Town. Worse, though, he is a Tottenham supporter. Certainly, neither make him a noted expert, but at least he is not Snoop Dogg at the Olympics (just there for being a celebrity).
Remember back in the early days of MLS broadcasts when games' start times took a back seat to other sporting events when ESPN was the only network showing 1 or 2 games a week? Because matches were joined in progress, a lot of posters on Big Soccer used the slogan, "ESPN Hates Soccer" on a frequent basis. Well, 30 years after those halcyon days of MLS on ESPN, the website is giving short shrift to the sport again...although, not entirely. At the top of the screen, it lists the first 3 WC matchups today, but not the last one. It's like they've copied Fox Sports by dissing the midnight EDT start times for the last match by not mentioning it at all! So...instead of saying, "ESPN Hates Soccer" or even "ESPN Hates The World Cup", I guess we could just go with, "ESPN Hates Jordan and Austria"!
I know, but it's still irksome that they do it that way. If USA were to play at midnight EDT, I'd wager every sports network and website in America would be promoting the hell out of that match.