OT - World Cup Storylines/Things to watch for a nooblet
As a second generation Dutch immigrant, when it comes to voetbal, there is only one team to cheer for and that is the Dutch national team, KNVB ... Koninklijke Nederlandse Voetbalbond, currently ranked fourth in the world, with perhaps their best chance of winning in a generation...
Since the days of Patrick Kluivert (not sure if it is spelled that way or not) I have loved watching the Dutch play. Couple that with the fact that my Grandfather spent much of his time in WWII there and has many friends from the Netherlands and I will cheer for them on most occassions.
I also root for the USA and England for similar reasons. I am Canadian but our soccer team is crap, so as my friendly neighbor I root for the USA. My family is from Wales where most of us still reside. Their soccer teams is also crap (though not as much crap as Canada's) so I root for our neighbor in the UK.
I also enjoy watching Portugal and Spain as well, but they would be down the list of my favorites a bit.
The only teams I would not like to see win the world cup are Germany, Brazil or Italy. They have had enough success in the recent past that I would like to see someone new on the podium at the end of it all. Nothing personal against them, I would just like to see someone else there.
It's been quite a while since Germany won it all - I wouldn't mind seeing them win. I agree about Brazil and Italy. I have nothing against Brazil, really, it's just that rooting for them is like rooting for the Lakers.
I have nothing against Brazil - they're usually one of the most fun teams to watch for a neutral. But I have plenty against Italy. Flopping is a major problem in soccer, and on the international level no other team comes close to matching Portugal or Italy in making use of the dive.
Italy, Portugal, and France are the only teams I really do not want to see win it all - the former two for their acting and the latter because they shouldn't be in the tournament at all (they were minutes from being eliminated by Ireland in a playoff when Henry practically caught the ball and punted it across the goal mouth to a waiting teammate, without the ref seeing).
You'll notice I never said anything about having nothing against Italy :) Easily my least favorite side in international soccer. Definitely the kings of hysterical injury-faking, plus the Italian soccer leagues have been so incredibly corrupt in the past I don't know how anyone can stand it. And then you have the Italian club that cut the Korean guy that scored the winning goal against Italy in 2002 - there's absolutely nothing to like about them.
Forgot about France's handball. Normally I don't actively root against France but yeah, this year, hopefully the karma comes back to strike them. Especially since it was Ireland they screwed.
1. France wasn't on the verge of elimination, but a shootout. They were tied 1-1 in the aggregate against Ireland at the moment of the handball (France won the first playoff 1-0, and was losing 1-0 in the rematch). Had they not scored in extra time, the two teams would have had a shootout to determine the WC participant.
2. While Ireland was certainly victimized there, they wouldn't have made it to the playoff round themselves if not for a phantom penalty they drew against the Republic of Georgia a year ago. They were involved in two awful officiating mistakes during qualification, benefitting from one of them. They're playing the victim card to the hilt, but fans in Georgia aren't too sympathetic.
Fair point about the Henry play; I'd forgotten that it was the winning, not the tying goal. But a draw against Georgia (or even a loss, for that matter) instead of a win would have made absolutely no difference to the Irish going through - they would still have finished second in the group, and because Georgia finished last those games didn't count for determining which second-place finisher got left out of the playoff anyway.
Serious question - how long is a generation? They should have won in 1998.
While 1998 was a heartbreaker for sure, the golden era of Dutch soccer was 1974 and 1978, especially 1974. Rinus Michels "Total Football" earned the team the nickname "The Mechanical Orange." Michels developed the style of play where there are no positions, where each player is potentially both defender and attacker. Johan Cruyff was key player on that '74 team and parhaps if it were not for the home field advantage gained by Germany, the Dutch might have won. Four years later they were beat in OT by an Argentine squad shrouded in controversy, that Peru threw their match against Argentina to spite the Brazilians. It must be remembered that the Netherlands draws from a population of only 16 million people and yet continualy fields a world class squad who always seem to just fall short of winning the big one.
Here is football played they way they never have in the US...its pure magic...
The Dutch had a good team in '98, but to say they "should have won" is a bit much. They lost on penalties to the team that was beaten soundly in the final.
Oh, here's another piece of advice for soccer n00bs: If you're looking for a reason to hate the game and never watch it again, watch nothing but Italy's matches.
This. To compare them to the NHL, Italy's team is roughly the equivalent of the mid 90s New Jersey Devils. Despicable and bad for the game. Fun team to root against though!
Oh, and they left that traitor Rossi (ESPN the mag cover) off their roster. That's fun too. Well-played ESPN.
I hope you're joking about Rossi. Did you see this video/article?
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/story/_/id/5165898/ce/us/world-c…
He's not a traitor, he pretty much learned to play soccer in Italy. Partially grew up there.
a problem with it so long as he classified himself as Italian.
"HOW CAN I EXPLAIN IT? OFF THE FIELD, I HAVE ALWAYS FELT AMERICAN. ON THE FIELD, I'VE ALWAYS FELT ITALIAN."
That is why he is a traitor.
-Watch any match Brazil is in. They can win the whole thing and still come home to angry fans for not winning with enough flair and style.
- Lionel Messi is a human highlight reel for Argentina.
- Historically African nations do not do well. Ivory Coast is the popular choice to make noise.
- USA is a bit of an unknown. They have decent talent but, with the exception of their Confederations Cup run last year, do not fair well in high altitude.
- Don't expect too many goals. Coaches tend to go conservative, especially when favored. A tie is still better than a loss.
...quite exclusive. How exclusive you ask? Only eleven countries have appeared in the eighteen finals (11 for 36 possible spots). Brazil, Germany, Italy and Argentina lead the way in finals appearances. Brazil, Italy and Germany are the only countries in the ultra-exclusive three or more championship club. Since Czechoslavakia was broken into the Czech Republic and Slovakia, both countries can legitimately claim the two appearances.
|
FIFA World Cup Finals |
||
|
Country |
Finals Appearances |
Record |
|
Brazil |
7 |
5-2 |
|
Germany |
7 |
3-4 |
|
Italy |
6 |
4-2 |
|
Argentina |
4 |
2-2 |
|
Uruguay |
2 |
2-0 |
|
France |
2 |
1-1 |
|
Netherlands |
2 |
0-2 |
|
Czechoslovakia |
2 |
0-2 |
|
Hungary |
2 |
0-2 |
|
England |
1 |
1-0 |
|
Sweden |
1 |
0-1 |
It's always surprised me that the Soviet Union, which had such a powerful sports machine, could never do much in the World Cup. I wonder if China will ever get it together.
EWWW ESSS AYE
Perhaps, but the USSR had a soccer culture, with some famous teams (Red Army, Dynamo Kiev, etc.). In the U.S., soccer wasn't even on the radar for decades.
The USSR made the quarterfinals three times and made the semi-finals once between 1958 and 1970. They also made it to the knockout stage during both World Cups in the 1980's.
They had even more success at the European Championships where they won in 1960, came in second three times, and finished fourth on another occassion.
Wow, I did not realize their record in the Euros.
...has no chance in international soccer. Predictably, it's their state managed sports system that hasn't seen fit to put the necessary investment into a sport that won't return the results PRC leaders must have.
"The biggest problem for Chinese soccer is they don't get enough money," said Ma Dexing of Titan Sports.
Even though China now boasts wealthy companies and individuals who could sponsor teams, there is little support as long as Chinese teams are perceived as perennial losers. "This is a very bad circle," Ma said. "No results, no money. No money, no results."
Politics comes into play, several sports journalists and others said, because sports ministry officials, particularly at the local level, would rather invest government money into promising sports prodigies with a quicker guarantee of victory. "It's related to their promotion," said Li Chengpeng, a soccer commentator and author.
Furthermore, soccer only flourishes when it is played en masse by a country's youth. The organic growth of the thousands of clubs that would be required is inimical to state control.
Simons, who has written a book called "Bamboo Goalposts" about his experiences, said the main problem is that soccer elsewhere has traditionally started as a series of neighborhood clubs, but in China, the ruling Communist authorities have always frowned on homegrown organizations that the party does not directly control.
"In China, there's virtually no football at the community level," Simons said. "Football in China can only succeed if it's a grass-roots activity organized by the people. And for that to happen, you'll have to change the political system -- and that's not going to happen either."
|
FIFA World Cup Finals – By Continent |
||
|
|
Finals Appearances |
Record |
|
Europe |
23 |
9-14 |
|
South America |
13 |
9-4 |
|
Rest of the World |
0 |
0-0 |
A buddy of mine is the manager of the groundskeeping crew at a course in Westchester,NY. The bosses told him that everyone has off when Mexico plays. That's because none of the Mexican workers will show up so they're letting everyone have off because they can't do much without them. So now all of a sudden my friend cares about Mexico advancing far.
A recurring theme of the World Cup is that the host nation exceeds expectations. The host almost always makes at least the quarterfinals, and often goes a lot further. But this year it's South Africa, one of the lowest-ranked teams in the field. They are in Group A, which is not particularly strong (two so-so teams, Mexico and Uruguay, and France, which is talented but out of sync), so they might have a shot at advancing out. And of course there's the whole "Can a sports team pull a racially-divided society together?" angle. They're worth keeping an eye on.
The ticket situation, which Brian has written about at The Sporting Blog, will be interesting, as organizers seem to be distributing thousands of tickets to locals in South Africa at exceptionally deep discounts. It will be interesting to see if the stadiums are full, and if this has any effect on the atmosphere of the games.
Are they seriously allowing those horns to be blown all game long? I'm about as uneducated of a soccer fan as you'll find but I love watching the WC. Those horns make the game simply unwatchable. This is a major downer.
As far a choosing a winner, european teams historically win when the Cup is played in Europe, South Americans whenever it's played elsewhere. If you picking a winner, history would favor Brazil or Argentina due to the location and of course the talent of the two squads.
Brazil is the only team ever to win off their home continent (if you count the Americas as one; otherwise you add Argentina '86 in Mexico along with two more for Brazil - '70 Mexico and '94 USA); they did it in Sweden in '58 and South Korea/Japan '02.
But no Confederations Cup winner has gone on to win the World Cup the next year, and Brazil won the Confed Cup a year ago.
The world cup is 32 nations playing the beautiful game at the highest level. 64 of the most exciting sporting events you will ever see, with entire countries living and dying on each moment. You will see heartbreak, triumph, incredible athletic achievements and collosal blunders. You will see the most highly recognized and highest paid athletes in the world giving their all for the land of their birth.
And at the end of all that, the English will get knocked out in the quaterfinals on penalties.
http://fanchants.com/football-songs/scotland-chants/stand-up-if-you-hat…
Alba gu brath!
Why England never made Sir Alex manager for life.... does he not want the gig? Isn't he like a national icon of soccer, er, football? Or is there too much intra-Premier league politics?
Sir Alex Ferguson is Scottish! He managed the Dark Blues in the 1986 World Cup before becoming an icon down south at Man U.
How did those of you that are so knowledgeable come into soccer? I really know very little about it with my "typical" American upbringing? Play it as a kid and just stick with it? Family really into it? I have tried watching the occasional match on FSC and plan to follow the world cup this year, but it never really holds with me. My interactions with hardcore fans around here tends to be negative with a kind of holier than thou attitude toward me if I'm not into it.
I'm not all that knowledgeable, however I didn't like soccer until I studied abroad in barcelona and went to a couple of games. When you watch soccer with a bunch of people in a large stadium, you can't help but get into it.
I love sports in general, so I took a step back, took it all in, and appreciated the little things (like crisp passes to a teammate in stride, great moves, great goal keeping. There's a lot more to the game than scoring goals.
A big factor of me starting to like soccer is World Cup play. I can't really explain it, but the passion and excitement is very different from normal games/matches.
...youth soccer in Northern Virginia in the early '70s and still play in an adult league. I followed the NASL (Cosmos - of course) when I was a kid and Bundesliga when I lived there in high school in the early '80s.
The 1994 World Cup in the US brought soccer back to the public consciousness and the advent of MLS soon thereafter plus the explosion of soccer outlets on cable (FSC, Gol TV, Univision, lately ESPN, etc.) showing Mexican League games and top flight leagues from around the world (England, Germany, Italy, Spain, France, Brazil, Argentina) plus UEFA competitions allowed those who followed those leagues to do it from the comfort of their home instead of PPV locations.
I'll give the WWL credit for continuing to support MLS and international soccer through the years, although they're doing it because the demographics are undeniable. Over the years, the number of sets tuned to soccer in the US will grow on pace with the rapidly expanding Hispanic population.
As to the soccer haters, my take is that it's mostly a class thing whereby folks who didn't grow up with it see it as effete (it traditionally flourished in the relatively wealthy suburbs of DC, NYC, Dallas, and LA) and isn't the game of the people like it is around most of the rest of the world. That's changing as the demographics of who plays it changes.
As to the soccer (football) snobs, I wouldn't get too bothered by them. Enjoy the game for its flow, artistry, athleticism and semi-frequent buildups of excitement punctuated by less frequent explosions of joy and elation.
I forgot to mention this nice little factoid.
The Ivory Coast is in the midst of civil war, however, a ceasefire has been ordered for the duration of the World Cup.
I believe that actually happened four years ago. (The Ivorian civil war ended in 2007.)
if the US beats England, is it the biggest upset since the Revolutionary War?
...to the magnitude of the US 1-0 upset victory over England at the 1950 World Cup in Brazil.
All the good advice was taken... so like, go Yanks is all I've got. Oh, and fuck France and Italy.
Also, if we're eliminated pease don't stop watching in disgust. There's a lot of exciting matches in the World Cup, try to find one and you'll be hooked for life.
for other noobs (like me) - look away when you see someone take a dive and clutch their shin like they just shattered their fibula (happens 20-30 times a game). You will lose an enormous amount of respect for the game/players when they are up and running around 10 seconds later like nothing happened.
To me there's a big difference between flopping or exaggerating the contact a bit to draw a foul (of which six gets you kicked out) and pretending to be seriously injured, complete with histrionics, screaming, and delaying the game for five minutes in order to draw a yellow card (of which you're only allowed one.)
To say nothing of occasionally drawing a straight red in the process (see: Ronaldo against England last year) or earning a bogus penalty (which is a near-automatic goal in a game that sees very few of them), or even the suspensions that can happen if you pile up too many yellows in a short time (although that benefits the next team to play them, not you).
It's still despicable in the NBA, but the edge gained by it when it works is infinitesimal compared to what can happen in soccer.
or even the suspensions that can happen if you pile up too many yellows in a short time (although that benefits the next team to play them, not you).
Which really only makes it even worse.
reasons why I don't watch the NBA at all.
...on the vuvuzela, the most annoying noisemaker in all of sports.