More Bad News For US Soccer

The United States U17 team was crushed by Germany (4-0) in the Round of 16 at the U17 World Cup in Mexico.  Mexico beat Panama 2-0 to make the quarterfinals.

Now it’s important to remember that in the grand scheme of things the results of an underage World Cup mean relatively little.  These tournaments have some merit, but are generally taken too seriously.  Many a young “golden generation” could not make an impact on the senior level when it counted (see: Portugal at the 2002 World Cup.)  Furthermore, there is no shame in losing to Germany, although a 4-0 loss is a little hard to swallow.

Nevertheless, this is yet another indication that football in the US in not on the right track.  At all levels save for the senior US Women’s National Team, we are falling further and further behind the rest of the world.  This is an emergency, and something needs to be done to reverse the trend.

La Masia Closes Its Doors

Not the academy, but the actual farmhouse that was the residence for such luminaries as Messi, Iniesta, and Guardiola.  The farmhouse will be turned into a museum.

No doubt it’s for the best, and we all knew this was coming, but it’s still a sad day for symbolism.

Women’s World Cup Day 5: French Fry Canadian Bacon

Well, I predicted that starting now we would see some goal fests, but I was completely blindsided by which match it came in.  This round gave us some shocks: obviously the 4-0 French victory over Canada, but to my mind the biggest surprise was the fact that a home crowed booed the German team off the field at half-time.  It says volumes about the way Nigeria played, both in terms of its tenacity and organization but also its kamikaze play, which bordered on thuggishness.

It also says that a women’s football team will not be treated any differently than a men’s team.  If the crowd is unhappy with the way the team plays they will let it be known, gender be damned.  To my eyes, this is progress!

Despite a bad night, Germany still eked out the 1-0 win and, along with France, qualified for the quarterfinals.  Nigeria and Canada are out.  What a night.  Although the results were predictable (although I thought Canada would make the quarterfinals) everything you thought you knew has been turned on its head.

France v. Canada

Wow.  That’s all I can say.  France have officially played the best match of anyone so far.  Clearly bringing along most of the Lyon squad was a good idea, but the real glory has to go to Clairfontaine.  In previous years, group stage blowouts came about because one team was incredibly good and the other team was incredibly outmatched.  That is why you would see scores such as 7-1, 8-0, 11-0, and so on.

France v. Canada is incredible, possibly unique, because it was an early round match between two of the world’s best sides.  Both France and Canada are very talented, and both had a reasonable expectation of victory.  Until the match started that is.  From the beginning, France dominated and never let up.  It was a champion’s performance.

For Canada this game is fraught with “What Ifs?”  What if Christine Sinclair’s nose wasn’t broken?  What if they hadn’t played Germany first?  What if they had been in a different group?  What if there had been no problems between their coach Carolina Morace and the Canadian Soccer Association?

Unfortunately, Canada has to live with the reality of the situation.  The way France played tonight though, I am not sure that there could have been a different result, no matter what the what if.  The goalscorers for France were Gaetane Thiney (twice), Camille Abily, and Elodie Thomis, but really it didn’t matter who scored.  This was a team effort, as was each goal.  France may lack a Marta, a supreme individual talent who can change the match, but they have an entire team that plays at the highest level.  In contrast, Canada have Sinclair, but few of her teammates are at her level.

As of the end of two matches, France is firmly atop the Group A leader board.  The next match against Germany will determine who wins the group.  France’s tactics will be both interesting and telling.  A draw will be group enough, but will France want to win?  Germany looks mortal right now, and a defeat could be a near-fatal psychological blow.  Furthermore, France’s best (Lyon) beat Germany’s best (Turbine Potsdam) in the Champions League, and France may want to prove that was no fluke.

Back in Canada, it will be interesting to see what happens to Morace.  She won her struggle with the CSA, but the enemies she made now have a reason to get rid of her.  Will her team stand up for again?  Would they boycott the Olympics?  The program is moving forward, but the result was poor, and inevitably the coach shoulders the blame.

Nigeria v. Germany

The history of the World Cup is littered with ugly matches. Usually they are called the Battle of Somewhere or Other (Berne, Santiago, etc.)  Most recently a horrible refereeing job from Howard Webb mixed with thuggish tactics from an outmatched and far less talented Dutch team ruined last year’s World Cup final.

Nigeria have, to put it kindly, a history of physical play.  In 1999, the Nigerians tried to rough up the USWNT in group play, although they lost 7-1.  This was because in 1999 Nigeria was hopelessly outmatched.  Nigeria have shown in this World Cup that they are catching up to the rest of the world.  Giving up two goals in just two matches to two of the world’s best sides is completely respectable.  Their brutal play however is not.  I have said before that I think fouling and on-pitch violence are far more serious forms of cheating than diving, the bane of the American and English football fan (and which has gone happened in this tournament, despite some commentary to the contrary.)  Diving is a way to trick the referee.  On-pitch violence is the last resort of a team with no self-belief.

I think that sums Nigeria perfectly, and that is a shame because unlike at previous tournaments they are actually very good.  Violence alone that held Germany to a mere 1-0 victory.  It was instead, tough-minded organization, strong defense, and bit of bad luck during a set piece.  Nigeria’s violent behavior did not lead to any goals though, and once Germany scored, they could only keep the score down.  Nigeria’s biggest problem is not that they are outmatched, it is that they have no offensive weapons.

Like Morace, it will be interesting to see what happens to Nigeria’s coach.  Ian Darke indicated he thinks she will be gone, both because of the early exit and because of the controversy surrounding her homophobia (which he danced around until the very end of the match.)  I suspect Darke has no idea about how bad things are for gays and lesbians in Nigeria.  Most likely Nigeria’s coach is a heroine back home for expelling players she suspected of being lesbians.  (FIFA came out against her statements, but pretty much everything FIFA says about tolerance is lip service.  Where was FIFA when Marcello Lippi, among other, made homophobic remarks?  How can FIFA allow Qatar to hold the World Cup if they really cared?)  As much as I hate to say it, the truth is, from a success standpoint, Nigeria should retain her.  Despite the losses Nigeria is on the right path.  Only in terms of football development.

The refereeing in this match was bad.  More cards should have been given, and Germany’s coach Silvia Neid looked ready to shoot daggers.  But this match also revealed something important: Germany is incredibly mortal.  A better team need to resort to Nigeria’s guerilla warfare to exploit Germany’s weaknesses.  One shaky mach is an aberration; two is a pattern.  Germany have trouble finishing, and Neid is stuck in the past (specifically 2003-07.)  Nowhere is this clearly than the starting presence of Birgit Prinz who was pulled out early twice.  When Germany meets a better team (France?  Brazil?  USA?) they may have some real problems.

Collectively, the team appears nervous, and perhaps playing in front of the home crowd is more hindrance than help.  That the home crowd jeered the team into the locker room at halftime puts even more pressure on the Germans.  Their countrymen have bought into the hype, and if the Germans don’t win, all hell will break loose. They are not just playing for themselves and their country; they are playing for the respectability of women’s football in Germany.

Next up is historical frenemy France.  In order to win the group, Germany must win.  This is a new situation for Germany, and the way the players deal with the pressure will determine whether they remain world champions or finally relinquish their title.

The Lion In Winter

I have been a tennis fan for as long as I can remember.  Although my ability to play is nothing more than awful, I can watch and understand the ebb and flow of a march far better than I can do or ever will be able to do in football (which I arrived at relatively late.)  I have seen so many great players in my life, among them Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Navratilova, Graf, Evert, Seles, Nadal, the Williams sisters, Agassi, Sampras, and above all Roger Federer.  I have enjoyed watching the game, but because of Federer I find I can no longer watch tennis anymore.  While his own special style turned tennis into an art form, he has also spoiled it.  The reason is that Federer has met an unconquerable opponent: time.  As he falls into the throes of the inevitable and natural decline that all athletes face, I cannot bear witness.  The lion is indeed in his winter.

Before Federer turned professional, he was a top-ranked junior player, and he won the boy’s Wimbledon title in 1998.  His already advanced game was still a work in progress, and that hindered in his early professional years–as did his impatience.  Scouting reports on Federer suggested that if a player hung in with him and absorbed his shots, Federer would become frustrated, lose his composure, and blow the match.  That was why the young Federer consistently fell to his early rival David Nalbandian of Argentina.  Yet despite his frailties he could still show flashes of greatness, none greater than when he beat Pete Sampras in their epic five set duel at Wimbledon, a match that ended the great champion’s dominance at the All England club.  That match, the only time those two ever met, was traumatic for both.  For Sampras it was the end of his invincibility.  Although he would go one to win one last major title (the 2002 US Open), he was now an afterthought.  For Federer it was too much too soon, and he faltered under the weight of expectations.  Over the ensuing months, Federer seemed doomed to be another Xavier Malisse, an incredibly gifted player who never fulfilled his early promise.

In August 2002, Federer’s world was shattered when his friend and former coach Peter Carter, the man who coached him throughout his teens, was killed in a car crash.  Oddly though, in as much as it hurt him on a personal level, from a tennis perspective it somehow helped to make him whole.  The results did not show immediately, and the final humiliation was yet to come.  At the 2003 French Open, a journeyman player from Peru named Luis Horna upset the fifth-seeded Federer in the first round (in straight sets no less.)

To say that this loss created Federer would be entirely wrong.  It is however, fair to say that the loss somehow released him from his self-imposed shackles.  Two weeks later at Wimbledon, tennis gave its greatest gift to the world.  Federer, now a fully formed colossus, strode out onto the manicured court and dominated all in his path.  He was not the first player to overpower the competition, but this destruction was different from all that had come before.

Part of this is circumstantial.  The truth is that by 2003, women’s tennis had become far more interesting than men’s tennis.  With the decline of Sampras and (to a lesser extent) Andre Agassi, men’s tennis had become a bubbling, shapeless mess.  Rather than the comfort of a hierarchy with a few top players to create compelling rivalries and intricate stories, men’s tennis became a free-for-all.  Whenever a player won a major tournament, you could never be sure if he was for real or just a flash-in-the-pan.  From the US Open in 2000 (the first major after Sampras’s last Wimbledon) to the French Open in 2003 (the last major before Federer’s first Wimbledon) there were nine different winners in eleven tournaments.

Furthermore, the dominant style in men’s tennis was very dull.  There are competing theories, some circulating around the move to graphite racquets (Navratilova and McEnroe were especially vocal about this.)  The serve had come to dominate to such an extent that points were over as soon as they began.  To be fair, every style has its flaws; the serve-and-volley was not much longer than just the serve-only game, and a meeting between two baseline players could be interesting as a metronome.  The service-only game was different though because–fair perception or not–seemingly talentless hacks rose to the top of the world.  It also polarized the men’s field: either a player had a strong serve and performed well on fast courts or he was a retriever and succeeded on slow courts.  There was no overlap.

Federer changed all that.  Federer has a strong serve (and perhaps even more importantly, a strong second serve), but he was no Goran Ivanišević.  He could play defensively, but he was no clay court specialist like Gustavo Kuerten.  He won tournaments on all surfaces, and went deep into every major.  Yet that is not why Federer was so great.

On the court, he was like a god.

I do not say this lightly.  Nor am I the only person who has compared Federer to the divine.  The late author and essayist David Foster Wallace wrote a famous essay for The New York Times called “Federer as Religious Experience” in which he explained, not the player himself, but rather the fan’s experience of watching Federer.  Wallace began his essay as follows:

Almost anyone who loves tennis and follows the men’s tour on television has, over the last few years, had what might be termed Federer Moments. These are times, as you watch the young Swiss play, when the jaw drops and eyes protrude and sounds are made that bring spouses in from other rooms to see if you’re O.K.

Wallace, who played competitive tennis as a youth, wrote perhaps the definitive essay on Federer.  He captured in writing a feeling that so many, even those who (like myself) do not play, feel about Federer’s game.  Federer’s tennis was the manifestation of a Platonic idea.

Even that alone cannot fully describe why Federer is so unique in tennis history.  Although rare, there have been other artists who have had all (or at least most) of the shots in Federer’s arsenal and delivered those shots almost as pristine a manner.  The difference between Federer and other artists is simple to explain, but unfortunately entirely prosaic.  Federer has perhaps the most tactically astute brain in tennis history.  Former artists got paralyzed in tight matches because they were not sure which shot to play.  Federer always knows.

Federer has his detractors, and the “Greatest Of All Time” debates rages on tennis blogs and discussion boards across the Internet.  Most of the debate centers around Rafael Nadal, Federer’s only real rival at his height, and the man who may very well supplant his legacy.  I am not going to get into that debate here, although one can easily figure out where my sympathies lie.

Instead, I want to talk about the feeling of utter sadness that I and other Federer fans feel as we witness what we always knew was inevitable.  The truth is for the past year-and-a-half or so, I have been unable to regularly watch tennis because it is just too painful.  Watching Federer is less joy than a mixture of nostalgia, regret, and depression.  I want to enjoy his last years in the game (the man is not yet 30), but it is just too hard.  I tried to watch the final of this year’s French Open, and I could not even though I should be used to Nadal beating Federer at the French Open.

It happens to all the greats without exception; no one goes out on top.  The truth is that I am utterly removed from Federer on a personal level.  I know little about him off the court, and I want to keep it that way.  The only times he exists for me are those hours I see him play on my television.  Yet in those hours he was everything; he created an intimacy and beauty in sport that may never be seen again.  It is impossible not to be moved by his decline, inevitable or no; gods are not supposed to fall, they are eternal.  But perhaps we all to become atheists if we ever want to watch tennis again.

Women’s World Cup Day 4: Magic Marta Meets Mighty Matildas. Much Mayham.

Before anyone comments angrily (although please comment!), yes I am aware that my title is deceptive.  Marta was not the X Factor that she has been in the past.  But I will address Marta’s contributions later.

Norway v. Equatorial Guinea

It’s impossible to overstate how much Equatorial Guinea exceeded expectations.  Of course, expectations of Equatorial Guinea were so low, that I think Beth Mowins and Cat Whitehill expected the Equatoguineas to run out of the stadium crying after Norway’s first pass.  The Norwegians seemed surprised that their opponents stuck around as well.

Equatorial Guinea probably became everyone’s second team after this match.  Like Mexico and unlike Colombia, they never for an instant let up.  There were all trying to score.  A 1-0 Norway victory was cruel; Equatorial Guinea deserved something.  All the more so when you consider (a) all the controversy surrounding them; (b) that some of their best players are not playing: (c) this is the team’s first World Cup; and (d) many of the players are inexperienced in international play.

The rock of Equatorial Guinea is the extremely skilled Turbine Potsdam player Genoveva Añonma.  Equatorial Guinea’s entire strategy can be summed as “Get the ball to Añonma,” which was actually a pretty good strategy.  She’s an incredible talent, possibly the find of the tournament thus far.  (Equatorial Guinea have some good players.  A few of them are actually Brazilians, which is a time-honored football tradition: when you don’t have talent, appropriate someone else’s.)  The weakness of this strategy though is that Añonma had trouble finishing.  Finishing has been one of two consistent team weakness in this tournament.*

just as a side note, Equatorial Guinea seems to have the most interesting fans.  There was one man who kept dancing in agony around his row of seats while wearing an Equatoguinean flag as a cape.  There also appeared to be some nuns cheering the team, which I found extremely funny.

Norway have been a fading power for quite some time.  This month at the u19 European Championship, Germany crushed Norway in the final by a humiliating 8-1.  Even today, Norway did not deserve the win.  Norway lack killer instinct, and this is a problem.  The fact that every match has been so close this tournament means the women’s game has gotten to a point where (unlike in previous World Cups) the talent gap between nations has significantly closed, and not having a killer instinct is fatal.

The truth is that Norway’s demise has been coming.  Just as in the men’s game once-mighty nations such as Scotland, Hungary, and Austria have all fallen forever from the elite, so too is Norway on that route in the women’s game.  Quite simply, Norway does not have the population to compete.  Who are the top 4 in the world?  The USA, Germany, Brazil, and Japan.  The up-and-comers?  Colombia, Australia, and North Korea.  All of these nations have a significant population pool in the tens of millions if not hundreds of millions (and China, when it finally pulls itself together, has over a billion).  As the gap between programs closes, the presence of the less populous nations (Equatorial Guinea, Norway, Sweden, and New Zealand) will become rarer.  A good result is not impossible (look at tiny Uruguay in last year’s World Cup), but sustained success almost certainly is.

This is a good thing, and this tournament is the proof.  No match thus far was won by more than one goal save for the US win over North Korea (maybe it was the lightning), and for the first half of that match North Korea were the better side.  Quality is not nearly as disparate as it was even four years ago.**  This Women’s World Cup is incredibly entertaining, and the low scores contribute to the excitement.  Compare to the men’s World Cups, in which every tournament since 1986 has been called the worst ever.

Brazil v. Australia

Like the US against North Korea, Brazil were completely on the ropes for the first half.  Then after the break, Brazil remembered they were Brazil and started to dominate.  The goal was a beautiful piece of skill from Rosana (notice how Tony DiCicco and Adrian Healy pronounced her name correctly) which came from some equally beautiful preliminary by Cristiane.  It was a reminder to the other teams in the tournament.  Even when Brazil are on the ropes, the players are so good they can change everything in a matter of seconds.

But right there is also the problem with Brazil.  There is no reason for the team to have played such a poor first half.  Australia were terrific, yes, and I don’t want to take anything away from them, but Brazil nearly lost it just as much as Australia nearly won it.  Something more pernicious is at work.

Brazil have Marta, but Marta is one player in a team sport.  It is a shame that some people (like Grant Wahl) judge players by whether they have won major international team tournament.  It is a false measurement of greatness because no player wins alone.  History has romanticized Maradona in 1986 and to a lesser extent Garrincha in 1962.  Sure, both players anchored Argentina and Brazil respectively.  Both were the star players without whom victory would be impossible.  Yet, the credit they are given unfairly maligns their teammates’, relegating top players to the status of mediocrities.  Pele’s World Cup victories are his also his team’s.  If Messi does not win the World Cup, that is of a reflection on his Argentina not on him.  If Marta does not win a World Cup, one must understand why Brazil failed, not Marta.

The problem with Brazil is that unless there is a major tournament the team does not exist.  This would be unheard of for the men.  The CBF gives them almost no support whatsoever.  They were the last team to arrive in Germany.  Except for those players who play for Santos, they never play together as a team.  They had no meaningful friendlies before the tournament started.  Their manager is borderline tactically inept. A sweeper?  Really?  Their warmup matches are the group stage which is a very dangerous game.  The CBF has effectively told the Canarinhas that they have to coast on talent because they won’t get anything from the Federation.***

That Brazil, the nation most identified with footballing genius, is so woefully lacking in women’s football is on the surface baffling.  The problem lies at the very heart of Brazilian society.  Only recently have Brazilians started to see women’s football as legitimate, and that took was Marta winning the World Player of the Year time five times in a row (and counting.)

Brazil’s failure to achieve its full potential is a tragedy for women’s football.  This team could be the best in history, but cannot because its own country stands in the way.  No other goal in this tournament, skillful as they may have been, came close to the beauty that was created by Cristiane and Rosana.  I applauded when Rosana scored.  When Brazil are in its groove, they play a completely different game than everyone else (witness the semifinal against the US in 2007.)  But that groove requires more than just being terrific players, something the nation of Brazil knows only too well from the failure of the 1982 World Cup team.

Again, this is not to take away from Australia, although I am afraid I have done so.  Football is a cruel game, and the best do not always win.  Australia is by no means the best team in this field, but the fact that they completely out-played Brazil for at least half a match shows how good they can be.  Unlike Brazil, they played as a team rather than as a collection of phenomenally gifted players.

In the first half, I could not see how Brazil could pull out a win.  They took so many shots of goal that goalkeeper Andréia was probably the Brazilian player of the match.  One of the Australians even nutmegged Marta.  And then there is Lisa De Vanna.  So much has been written about her.  Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe she was the super sub from Australia four years ago.  She’s an immense talent, but like so many other talented players at this tournament, she could not finish.  If the ball does not go in the net somehow, all the lovely touches mean nothing.

In football, individuals goal tally is the most overrated statistic out there.  It is the team’s goal tally that really matters.  Marta did not score, but she played an important role in creating chances.  Lisa De Vanna did not score either, but aside from putting a few scares into the Brazilians, her impact was negligible.

If Australia can correct its finishing problems, then the Matildas† should be able to advance.  If not, then the match against Norway and their finishing problems is going to be very interesting.  And of course there is still Equatorial Guinea.

Finally I want to plug a website that has been a great source of information and entertainment.  All White Kit has been wonderful with its World Cup coverage, and I highly recommend that people go and read it if you have any interest in women’s football.

Footnotes:

* The other major problem across the board is fitness; there is a lot of cramping going on in the final twenty minutes of matches due to the hat and humidity.  One thing you cannot fault the US for is its fitness.  They are completely prepared for the entire 90 minutes, weather be damned!

** The opposite side of the coin is to watch for blowouts starting tomorrow.  The first round is always the hardest and the minnows have put up a good fight.  Now the real question is whether they can keep that up or whether they will be found out.  Colombia, Equatorial Guinea, and New Zealand in particular are in real danger of humiliation if they let up for even a moment.  The other nations in their groups need to beat them and beat them by a lot.

*** As US fans, we have legitimate complains about the USSF.  I myself have written about them more than once.  It is important to remind ourselves though that as idiotic as the USSF can be, in their own weird way, they want to do what is best for American football, both men and women.  Compare that the negligence bordering on sabotage that the CBF has shown toward the Brazilian women or the abject corruption found in so many of the national federations.  It’s important to remember every once in a while that Sunil Gulati is not actually a villain, and he’s trying to build a good program, whether or not he is doing it the right way.

†  I know it’s not their national anthem, but I am always so disappointed when Waltzing Matilda is not played before an Australia match.  For the record, the national anthem is Advance Australia Fair.

Women’s World Cup Day 4 Preliminary Report: ESPN Finally Messes Up

I would normally wait until both matches are finished before I write anything, but this bothers me so much that I feel it deserves its own post.

I have been very impressed with ESPN thus far, but without a doubt my least favorite commentary team is Beth Mowins and Cat Whitehill.  First Whitehill repeatedly (as in five or six times that I am aware of) compared Japan to Barcelona even though they are nothing alike other than the fact that both teams field short players and pass a lot.  I have not been particularly impressed with either with the tactical analysis or the color commentary, but (the Barcelona comparison aside) nothing really bothered me to the point where I felt like I needed to complain.  Until today.  All throughout the extremely entertaining match between former powerhouse Norway and World Cup newcomer Equatorial Guinea, both Mowins and Whitehill repeated mispronounced the name of equatoguinean star Genoveva Añonma.  Every time they mentioned her name–and it was often because she was undoubtedly the player of the match–they said “a-NAHN-ma.”

(Note:  To be fair, it’s not just Mowins and Whitehill, it’s everyone at ESPN, but Mowins and Whitehill called the match, which means they said it most often.)

Equatorial Guinea was a former colony of Spain way back when the Europeans openly believed that they had the right to carve up the rest of the world.  Like with the Ivory Coast and France or Cape Verde and Portugal, there is a strong Spanish connection and influence in Equatorial Guinea.  Spanish is one of the official languages of Equatorial Guinea.  In Spanish, an “ñ” is actual pronounced “ny” as in mañana.  Therefore, Genoveva Añonma’s last name is not “a-NAHN-ma,” but rather “an-YONE-ma,” (note the long “o”) at least according to the name on the back of her jersey.

Look, we all mispronounce names, especially when those names are from a different culture than our own.  Even commentators make mistakes, and the occasional one can be forgiven.  But I don’t care if Equatorial Guinea came out of nowhere.  It’s called research, and if you call a match, it is your job to get names as correct as possible.  If you cannot pronounce the name of a star player correctly, you are not doing your job.

I’m not asking much.  Spanish is a very easy language to pronounce.  It’s even easier than English, which is also is relatively easy in the grand scheme of things.  We’re not talking about really difficult languages for non-native speaker that they have over a hundred different phonemes that exist nowhere else.  I’m not even asking for proper pronunciation of deceptively tricky languages (for English speakers) like Brazilian Portuguese which uses the same letters as English but with the occasionally different pronunciation–the transliteration of “Ronaldinho” is approximately “Honalgeenyo.”  (For fun, here is Tim Vickery’s demonstration of a Brazilians transliteration of English player Jonathan Woodgate.)

Now, of course I could be wrong.  Obviously language pronunciations differ from country to country and even in Spain there are regional variations, but I suspect that ESPN got lazy, and did not think any viewers would actually look at the player’s jersey, and think “Wait a second, that’s not right.”

This ends my rant.  Match reports to follow shortly.

Happy Anniversary

On this day in 1969, the Stonewall Riots broke out in New York’s West Village.  This is seen as the symbolic birth of the Gay Rights Movement, and it’s the reason that Gay Pride all over the country is in June.  In honor of this anniversary and all that has been accomplished since, I recommend that you read June Thomas’s excellent series on Slate.

The truth though is that the riots could have passed into history completely forgotten.  The real birth of the movement came on the first anniversary of Stonewall when LGBT activists marched in the first Christopher Street Liberation Day parade.  That has been going on year after year, morphed into the gay pride parades we all know and are ambivalent about.

Women’s World Cup Day 3: Physicality Carries The Day

Mercifully, for the first time today, no one in the commentary booth compared any team to Barcelona.  This probably has less to do with realizing that this is a foolish comparison and more to do with the fact that not one of the four teams out there look like they were trying to imitate Messi & Co. in any way shape or form (not that this is a bad thing.)

I found both matches to be rather dull.  Sweden and the US were clearly the better sides, and Colombia and North Korea were outmatched (Colombia throughout, North Korea in the second half only.)  It was defense rather than scintillating attacks that carried the day, which is odd to say given that US v. North Korea was the first time in the tournament thus far that a team won by more than one goal.

Sweden v. Colombia

If I were a Swede, which I am not (Børk !Børk! Børk!), I would be alarmed by this performance.  Sweden completely shut down Colombia’s offense, and created chance after chance to score.  This easily could have been a 4-0 match, yet Sweden scored only once.  Jessica Landstrom in the 57th minute redeemed all of her earlier failures and scored.  After that Sweden sort of gave up and was content just to make sure Colombia couldn’t equalize, probably because they watched how an equalizer changed Mexico’s dynamic against England.

Sweden are a joyless side.  Sorry, but they are.  Resorting to outdated national stereotypes, the Scandinavians are blond, attractive, and generally decent, but not exciting or dynamic.  That is how I felt watching Sweden.  Sure, they were dominant, but it was just so rote, and completely lacking in killer instinct.  By effectively snuffing out Colombia’s attack, they robbed the match of that spark.

Colombia, in contrast, I am ambivalent about.  I was waiting for this burst of dynamism after hearing over and over again about Yoreli Rincón, “the next Marta.”  ESPN is partially to blame for these heightened expectation, but Rincón has been Colombia’s selling point for some time.  The Swedes, perhaps having heard about the next Marta and terrified of this happening, ensured she was a complete non-entity.  Colombia’s star of the match was its shaky back line, and perhaps Carmen Rodallega who actually created a few chances.  I’m not being fair to Rincón, I admit that.  She is only 17, and she’s in her first World Cup–as is her entire team.  They played one of the top 5 teams in the world, and still held them to just one goal.  That is extremely impressive, and they deserve credit for it.  Still, I wanted to see something that made my heart beat faster.

Colombia is an extremely young side, and hopefully they can capitalize on this promising start in the coming years.  I have a soft spot for Colombia.  It is the most populous nation in South America after Brazil, and in the late 80′s/early 90′s it produced glorious football.*  We all remember that team.  The brilliant Carlos Valderrama and his hair.  Crazy, crazy René Higuita with his scorpion kick (and his hair.)  And of course the tragedy of Andrés Escobar, whom I cannot think about without tearing up a little.  By all rights, Colombia should be a World Cup contender each year like Brazil and Argentina, but since the team’s early exit from the 1994 World Cup and the Escobar’s subsequent murder, Colombian football has never fully recovered.

The Colombian women’s team performed exceptionally well at the 2010 South American Women’s Football Championship, coming in (a very distant) second behind Brazil.  Brazil has always been the biggest girl on the block.  Perhaps it is time for them to finally get a rival.  Only time will tell.

United States v. North Korea

For the past few days, it was all over ESPN, Lauren Cheney was replacing Megan Rapinoe.  It turns out it was a brilliant move on behalf of coach Pia Sundhage because Cheney was certainly the best player on the field.  In the first half she took multiple shots and finally headed one in the second half (a lot of goals this tournament have been headers.)

The first half was fairly even.  Hope Solo certainly did herself proud.  She did a great job (as I’m sure she herself would tell you) when the North Korean attackers eluded the American defense, which happened with too much regularity in the first 45 minutes.  The second half was all USA, or almost all USA.  There was Cheney’s goal and there was Rachel Buhler’s goal, and it was over.  North Korea, who I believe are the youngest team of the tournament, were done.  It’s a shame too because teams that gave far worse performances (Colombia, New Zealand) ended up with more flattering scores, and goal difference will probably matter.  I wonder what North Korean state television is saying, or if it is saying anything at all.**

I cannot speak with any authority about the North Korean team, which, to my eyes did a decent job, but was undone by the superior conditioning and experience of the US.  I can talk about what I saw with the US.  I liked the pressing.  To my eyes, the US has done the best job of any team in pressing the opposition and winning the ball back.  I am not thrilled that the US often lost the ball after winning it back, although that is forgivable because this is the first match.  What bothers me most is that too many US goals come from set pieces (although that first goal from Lauren Cheney came from open play, and what a beauty it was.  More of that please.)  But this is the problem I have with the USWNT in general.  Free kicks and corner kicks are nice, but at its heart, football is a game of speed and skill not height and power.  There is always someone bigger and stronger, but skill always carries through.

Other Thoughts

The first round of a World Cup is usually the one with the least amount of goals because everyone is nervous and trying to get a result.  On the other hand, the trend toward more defensive play, which has been an unfortunate mainstay of the men’s international game, is starting to creep into the women’s.  While I do not particularly want to see one 6-0 blowout after another, I would hope to see a few more goals.

Footnotes: 

* There was also a Golden Age in the 1940′s and 50′s when Colombia had one of the finest leagues in the world, but that had less to do with Colombian players than those imported from other countries, particularly Argentina.

** True story, or so I am led to believe.  At least year’s World Cup, Brazil eked out North Korea 2-1, and a jubilant North Korean state television showed it as a 1-0 victory for the North Koreans.  So much did they believe their own hype that the government allowed the next match (against Portugal) to be shown live.  Portugal went on to win that match 7-0.  After 4-0, the government cut off the feed and told the people that North Korea pulled out a victory.  After North Korea’s ignominious exit, Radio Free Asia reported that the team faced a six-hour public reprimand and the coach was sentenced to hard labor.  This was clear violation of FIFA rules which forbid government intervention, so much so that FIFA were forced to investigate, although “investigate” meant they sent a letter asking if the reports were true.  North Korea denied it, and FIFA closed the case, satisfied that the reports were false.  Today, Ian Darke repeated that story about the players, and only briefly alluded to the fact that it may not actually be true.

If You Love Something, Destroy It

Listening to World Football Daily lately has gotten me depressed.  For one thing, I cannot think of anyone in the media who wants Bob Bradley gone.  Rather, they ardently defend him.  Nor do I hear any reporters taking the USSF and Sunil Gulati to task.  Moreover, the way the members of the media treat the fans has been beyond patronizing. There appears to be this belief that fans have never played, don’t watch games, and don’t read.  Only they know what they’re talking about.

I get that no respectable coach will take on the US job because it would be a tremendous salary cut.  I also get that the US does not have the talent to compete on the world’s biggest stage.  I get that the biggest stumbling block for the growth of US Soccer is not Bob Bradley but Sunil Gulati.  And I also understand that despite my complaining and that of my fellow fans, Bob Bradley is here through 2014.  (And I also understand that the US is doomed to an early exit in Brazil, but no one mentions that.)

But the condescension is too much.  Why are US fans so upset?  Because they are watching a program that took years to get to mediocre start to crumble.  Because they are tired of watching an inept team led by a lackadaisical manager.  Because you only don’t fix something when it’s not broken.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Watching the Women’s World Cup, I am reminded (thanks to ESPN) of the 2007 debacle, which I realize ties into my feelings on Bob Bradley.  If you read this blog, you probably already know what I am talking about, but if you don’t, it’s a doozy.  In 2007, the US Women’s National Team went to China with an excellent record (granted from friendlies and minor tournaments), a number one ranking, and an expectation that they would reclaim the title that they lost to Germany four years before.  They had already recaptured the Olympics and gotten rid of national team coach (and former star player) April Heinrichs.  She was replaced by Greg Ryan who had previous been an assistant coach for the USWNT.  Although there was no Mia, no Julie, no Joy, and no Brandi (the first three because of retirements and the latter because of exile), the new generation seemed to be coming into its own.

The 2007 World Cup was not an easy one for the USWNT.  They drew their first match with North Korea, and then beat Sweden and Nigeria to win the group.  They beat England 3-0 in the quarterfinals.  Then Ryan made one of the great tactical blunders in USWNT history.  For the next match against Brazil, he replaced top goalkeeper Hope Solo with former US #1 goalkeeper Briana Scurry.  Scurry was the keeper throughout the famous 1999 World Cup win.  Her talent was never in doubt, but honestly, time and a younger rival had caught up.

A keeper is different from other positions.  A good keeper is the general of her half and the last line of defense.  Watch any match and you will see the keeper screaming at his or her defenders.  Good keepers tend to be somewhat crazy and very outspoken.  There is a different kind of rapport between a keeper and the team, because, unlike every other player, the keeper is a fixture.  Even replacing a bad keeper can have consequences.*

There is an argument to be made that benching Solo for Scurry is not the sole reason why the US lost.  There is even an argument to be made that scapegoating Greg Ryan masked the real problems with the USWNT and the US women’s program in general.  However, whether solely responsible or not, the switch in the keeper had dire consequences for the US.  Early in the match the US blundered with an own goal, and from there it went from bad to worse to catastrophic.  (This is, of course, the perception of a US fan.  If you are a fan of Brazil, or just the game itself, what you saw was the ascendancy of history’s finest female player.) That 4-0 defeat is to-date the worst loss the USWNT has ever suffered.

Solo, being a goalkeeper and afflicted by goalkeeper insanity, looked both miserable and furious on the bench.  After the match, she let loose to the media, saying that had she been in goal, she would have saved those goals from Brazil.  The truth is, she was probably right.  The entire team, who were all very fond of Scurry, excommunicated Solo, so much so that she had to fly back to the US alone.  Needless to say, the third-place match was played with Scurry in goal.

The USSF was unimpressed with both the team’s performance and the media fallout.  Greg Ryan’s contact was not renewed.  The happy coda to the story is that Pia Sundhage was hired, she brought Solo back from exile, and the US defended its Olympic title over Brazil (Solo being the star of the match.)

~*~*~*~*~*~*~

The point of that foray down Repressed Memory Lane, believe it or not, was not actually about the USWNT.  Rather it is about the contrast in the USSF’s reaction to Ryan and to Bradley.  With the women, a 3rd place finish was not good enough, which is shocking.  Keep in mind that (a) although sometimes the best team does not win, by that time the US was not the world’s best anymore; (b) Ryan’s record was very good; (c) Ryan, like Bradley, fit the profile of a Gulati-preferred coach; (d) knockout tournaments are unpredictable; and (e) in the last three men’s World Cup, where there is far more pressure to succeed, no coach who led his team to the semifinals or beyond was sacked (although France should have fired its 2006 coach.)

When she was first hired, Sundhage was only given a one-year contract.  If the team did not perform well (i.e. win) at the Olympics, she too would have been gone.  (After the team won the gold medal, Gulati got down on one knee and begged her to stay.)

The point of this extended story is that the USSF and Gulati have shown that they are not afraid to cut loose a coach with good results if those results don’t meet expectations.  Therefore, it is a wonder that they have so mismanaged the Bradley situation.  Once again, I understand that there are other factors, not the least of which is that a top women’s coach is paid far less than a top men’s coach.  And of course there is always the issue of control, and how much the USSF is willing to give (little).  But given how openly disappointed Gulati was with the USMNT results in South Africa, it is a wonder that Jürgen Klinsmann was the only other candidate considered.

No special feature by a Goal.com hack, or Grant Wahl, or Sean Wheelock, and no browbeating by Kenny Hassan will convince me that retaining Bradley was the right choice, even if now it is too late.  But in the long run, Bradley is not the main problem.  What I have realized more and more is that as long as Sunil Gulati is in charge, football in the United States will either stagnate or regress.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~

So it got me thinking if there is a way to change things.  There is, but it is not a pleasant solution.  In fact, it is anarchic and nihilistic.  But otherwise, I got nothing. Maybe you have a better idea.

The only way to get rid of Bradley and Gulati is boycott.  Boycott the US Men’s National Team.  Don’t buy their kits.  Don’t go their matches.  Don’t even watch their matches.  Cheer for another country (I hear Mexico is on the rise.)  Stop supporting MLS.  Find a European team, or an African team, or a South American team to support instead (you probably already have at least one; we all do.)  Boycott all things US until the USSF is on its knees, and begging for the fans to tell them what to do.  Without the fans, USSF cannot exist.  Be willing to sacrifice all the gains US Soccer has made since the 1990 World Cup in Italy.

Now I am not recommending this course of action.  It’s like killing a mosquito with a bazooka.  Sure, you’ll get the sucker, but you’ll destroy most everything else around it.  Nevertheless, I have felt very disappointed of late, and somewhat helpless, which is not a feeling I like.  And worse, I feel like I’m being talked down to, by the grand pooh-bahs of the football media, which really pisses me off.

The one hope in all of this.   Landon Donovan**, the great and mighty majesty of American Soccer himself, is not particularly pleased with Bob Bradley.  No doubt the backtracking will begin soon if it hasn’t already, but perhaps this is the crack in the facade.

Hope spring eternal.  Especially for the hopeless.

 

Footnotes:

* Consider the England men’s national team in South Africa last year.  England has been woefully lacking in good keepers of late, and at the World Cup they paid for it.  The US equalized only because England’s goalkeeper Robert Green made a blunder to end all blunder.  National team manager Fabio Capello punished him by benching him in favor of a keeper so prone to error, his nickname is “Calamity” James.  Needless to say, England’s form for the rest of the tournament was woeful even when they won.

** I wonder what Donovan and Clint Dempsey think of one another.  They each have what the other desperately craves.  Dempsey has succeeded in Europe, at least in that he is a big fish in a small pond and helped lead his team to the final of a European competition.  Even if Dempsey only plays for Fulham, playing the in EPL has a real cachet attached to it, whereas Donovan failed in Europe several times and could not get a permanent move to Everton even when he did play well.  On the other hand Donovan has the name recognition and the respect of the average American sports fan, even those who only watch the World Cup and nothing else.  I imagine that drives Dempsey crazy, and is at least partially behind his ludicrous belief that he should be playing Champions League football.

Some Questions for Libertarians

I have a couple of questions for any Libertarian readers of mine out there (and I mean real Libertarians, not the Ron Paul/Rand Paul social conservative types who claim they are Libertarians because they hate taxes and the Federal Reserve.)  Who do you vote for in an election?  The American is such that there are only two choices, and neither of them really lines up with your core beliefs.

If I were to briefly define a Libertarian, if would be a person who loves his money and doesn’t want to be told what to do.

The truth is though that neither party suits that philosophy.  Republicans talk about cutting spending, but all that “saved” money will just to the Pentagon and the military industrial complex.  Worse, Republicans are very involved in your personal life, which I gather (although not from the media) is as big a deal to Libertarians as the money stuff.  They want to tell you what you can smoke and who you can marry.  Democrats, on the other hand, believe in spending your money and spending it on social welfare programs.  The laws they enact are a form of social control (some may call that governing, but I gather that Libertarians don’t really care too much for that either.) So who would you vote for and why?

Do you hate that the only major media portrayals of your belief are Ron and Rand Paul, who really make a mockery of them?

Are you planning on using Social Security and Medicare when you get old (or if you already are of age.)  If so, how do you do that in good conscience?