Here's to the New Year!

Wow. It's been a long time since I've found the time to sit down and write anything here. The end of term and the holidays really take over the schedule. But now I have some free time and the benefit of the winter breaks to try to catch up on all I've missed. So here's a shot at getting out my thoughts on all the major football events of the past month.

The World Cup Draw:

The poor US. We really got the short end. The presence of Argentina and the Netherlands alone makes their group the highest profile and perhaps even the group of highest total quality (hey, those two count for a lot) but it is true that, overall, the US got dumped in the most competative group. I think that we can make it out. It will take some luck, though. The real disadvantage is having to play the Czech Republic first instead of Italy. The Czechs are not only talented, but hungry. Their abilities aside, I think the Italians are always vulnerable. Just think back to Euro 2004 or Korea/Japan. And I hope that no one is underestimating Ghana. Sure they have only two players that anyone here is likely to have heard of, but the same could have been said of Iran in 1998 and their two players alone took the US apart. Now, we're a lot better than back then, but it is a cautionary tale.

As for all the complaints about seeding, here's what I think. Get off it! FIFA's methods and motives are obsure and seemingly arbitrary, but what good is seeding the entire tournament going to do? We'll still have plenty of yawners. The problem there is due to the huge format of the tournament. And if the groups are determined entirely by seeding we'll be likely to end up with groups that look like European qualifying all over again. If we have to sit through minnow first rouders, I would much rather watch minnows from different confederations battle it out.

I think the commentators need to be a little more circumspect when arguing our own placement. Yes, it stings to watch Mexico snag a seed when we just crushed them in qualifying, took the Gold Cup out from under them and can still look back fondly at that World Cup round of sixteen drubbing we handed them. And yes, as the pundits are fond of pointing out, we made it to the quarterfinals in 2002 while Mexico has only ever made that far in the distant past and only on home soil. However, it should also be noted that Mexico has made it past the first round in at least the last four World Cups it has contested. This is more than can be said for the US (we still have to live down that dead last showing in 1998, sure that's a while ago now but we all still remember it). Also, recall that Mexico also have this curious habit of beating Brazil with alarming frequency. The fact is, Mexico just have a better track record against the big teams outside of CONCACAF. Things are changing in our favor, but we have to be patient. I think it's healthy to complain, it shows we have passion, but at the same time let's keep some perspective.

World Player of the Year:

It's Ronaldhino again! Big surprise. I actually would have voted for Lampard. Not just because I'm a Chelsea fan, either. The issue is the interpretation of the award. Does it go to the single best footballer? I.e. the one who has demonstrated the greatest amount of talent and the greatest ability to entertain fans. If this is the case, Ronaldhino must win, hands down. But I would argue that the award should go to the footballer who has shown the greatest combination of achievement within the game and indispensibility to his team's achievements. If this is the case, it seems to me that Lampard is the clear winner. In either case, the winner is more than worthy. And it looks as though both will have highly succuessful ends to the current campaign. Moreover, we can look forward to seeing them in action against one another in the first CL knockout stage and, who knows, possibly in the World Cup this Summer.

The Club World Championship:

Or whatever the heck it's called. I wonder sometimes if I am the only English speaking person who thinks that this was an interesting and worthwhile tournament. Ok. So it ended up as the same old same old: Europe versus South America. But it was a pretty close thing. Al Ittihad really gave Sao Paolo a run for it, contrary to what the wire story might have said. Liverpool had no such problems making the final, but Saprissa should hold their heads high. They played as well as a teams of Costa Ricans could ever be expected to play against the champions of Europe and they really should have had a goal. The overall quality might not be even at the level of the CL or Libertadores, but it is early yet. Football is growing in the rest of the world and this tournament can give it an impetus.

The final may not have had many goals, but it had tension in abundance. In regards to the outcome, I have only one thing to say to the English language press. Shut the hell up and deal with it! Liverpool lost as fair and square as it gets. Yes, they dominated the second half in a way that left one wondering how they had failed to score by the bucketload. But if one wants to talk travesty, maybe some people need to be reminded about a certain other game last May. At least Sao Paolo controlled the possession for a period of greater than six minutes. Actually, Sao Paolo played a lovely first half and, though they were pressed at the end, they deserved their lead. What on Earth Hyypia thought he was doing is anyone's guess. The goal was well made and well taken.

Despite all of their second half dominance, Liverpool really have no one but themselves to blame. They had two goals called back for clear offsides. The third was debatable. Replays show that Luis Garcia was not actually offsides, but the same replays show that, when the ball was played, three other Liverpool players were. I think the linesman can be excused. Lesson for Liverpool: if you want the goals to count, make sure the entire team is onsides, just to be safe (it's not that hard). As for the foul on Gerrard, yes, it could have been a red card. But there are three things to consider. It was actually from the side, not from behind. Gerrard was not running straight at goal. And even if he had outpaced Lugano and turned in towards goal, there was another defender coming in to cover. You can rage all day about the enforcement of the law as it is written, but honestly, how many times have you seen the law enforced exactly as it is written? Don't worry, I'll wait while you think about that.

So all in all, I think this inaugural event was a success. For me, the clear winners were Sao Paolo (of course), CONCACAF who saw their side finish a surprise third, and Sydney, a team that counted it's history in months yet still managed to win their second match against Al Ahly. The losers would have to be Liverpool who must have been desperately disappointed and CAF who saw their "greatest team of the last decade" twice defeated.

Just one more thought. I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere else so I wonder if anyone else has thought of it. I find it funny that, even in this limited format, it is possible, though not likely, for the CWC to be contested by two teams from the same country. That would be Mexico, whose teams compete in both the CONCACAF Champions Cup and the Libertadores. Funny, huh?

The Angry Bogger Strikes Again:

I had an interesting experience shortly after I wrote my last post. I Googled myself. I found this blog referenced in a board discussion on We Call It Soccer. I was flattered that someone patronizing that much better established (and maintained) blog would not only have heard of my blog, but also have read it. So I checked out the conversation. It had to do with my blog's name (which as anyone could figure out is a refence to WCIS, intended mostly as a reverential one). To get right to it, I came across the comment that my "angry blog is actually pretty good". Flattering. But, I thought, angry? I'm not angry? I asked my fiancee, "Do you think I'm angry?" "Well", she said, "when you talk about football you tend to sound kinda angry." "I'm not angry," I replied. "I'm just very intense about football." "Yes", she said, not a trace of irony in her voice, "intense, that's it."

And it's true. I'm just a bit tense. I mean intense. But on reflection, I realized that there are a few things that do make me angry in football. Chief among them are the "esteemed" Paul Gardner and Brian Glanville. Apparently legends of football journalism, I must admit that I fail entirely to understand what has given them the stature they enjoy today. I won't even start with Mr. Glanville. Just read a wide selection of his columns. Mr. Gardner seems often to me to be a creature out of the nineteenth century (although this could be said about many who write about or manage British football). For this, I would refer the reader to his column on the smart ball and his ideas about the purposes of the game. What I find more galling still is his inability accurately represent the American game. He is unfailingly critical. This is sometimes justified but must be backed up with facts. I would refer the reader to his account of the MLS playoffs in the December World Soccer. He is certainly correct that the final was an abomination but his criticism of Steve Nicol is entirely unfounded. Nicol has been an unqualified success. He took over a disorganised, dispirited team and wrung every last drop out of it. Sure, it wasn't pretty at first, but things improved over time. He shrewdly analysed talent, select two consecutive rookies of the year and one runner up. He turned the unfailingly defensive Revolution into the unfailingly attacking team that we saw all season. Yes, as the playoffs progressed they became increasingly defensive, but they really can't be blamed for that. The Metros and Fire took what could be politely termed a vigorous approach to their match-ups with the Revolution. I hardly think a 3 goal second half comeback qualifies as defensive in any case. By the final, the Revolution had lost two key players and had at least three other starters significantly knocked. I would think that a truly legendary journalist would be able to incorporate this information into his analyses. If Mr. Gardner is going to comment on our league, maybe he should watch it.

That's my angry rant for the moment. I'm sure there will be more, but I'll try to keep most of these posts within the bounds of normal intensity.