Pilgrimage to Biloxi

It might seem strange to consider a journey to Biloxi as a pilgrimage. It isn't the town most people would choose for spiritual exploration. But then again most towns haven't gone through the type of devastation that resulted from Hurricane Katrina. There's no doubt that New Orleans ultimately suffered greater damage, especially after the levees broke, but Gulfport-Biloxi suffered a great deal. There's really not much point in trying to compare the relative effects. But it is worthwhile to think about how far--or I should say how little--things have progressed since Katrina changed the social, geographical, and political landscape of this country.

In Biloxi, the casinos and the resorts are back in business. More than one person pointed out that these businesses provide tax revenue, bring in tourists, generate jobs, and so on. True. Still, there's something perverse about seeing broken homes, a University that looked like a ghost town, a closed down beach (too much debris in the water for people to swim), and debris from gutted homes on the street, all within plain sight of luxurious condos, hotels and resorts.

Smaller, locally owned businesses have come back as well. We made more than one trip to the wonderful Electrik Maid Bakery. I met an incredibly sweet (pardon the pun) woman at this bakery who would refer to everyone as "sweetie-pie" or "darling." When my friend (see his blog post) mentioned this about her, she simply stated that she treats everyone the way she expects to be treated. It was really touching to experience the Golden Rule in action. Her spirit, warmth and kindness brightened everyone's mood. And the butter cream certainly satisfied everyone's sweet tooth. We also ate at Le Bakery, a place that has managed a unique form of fusion cuisine--Vietnamese style po' boy sandwiches. My wife, our friend and I were taken to Le Bakery by one of the kind souls who volunteer at Hands On Gulf Coast. He is one of the "long termers" who have spent months in Biloxi on the rebuilding and reconstruction efforts.

I had the great fortune of spending a few days with these volunteers at their facility in Biloxi--the "sacred place" for my pilgrimage. If you have watched the TV show "Jeremiah" you're familiar with Iron Mountain. The Hands On "base camp" in Biloxi reminded me of Iron Mountain as a place where kind, thoughtful, generous, dedicated, humble, beautiful (in every sense) were rebuilding their world with irrepressible spirit and courage. Even within a few days, I felt a deep sense of respect for and bonding with these people. Everyone participated eagerly in the chores in the base camp, and everyone volunteered for a range of activities from building to serving meals to petting cats and dogs at the Humane Society. I found myself happily carrying a box full of rotting vegetables to the compost heap in the garden. I've stayed at some of the finest hotels in the world, but I can honestly say that I've never slept as peacefully and deeply as I did in the backyard tent at the base camp.

President Bush visited Hands On Gulf Coast in April 2006. At the Hands On base camp in Biloxi, there's a picture of him "horsing around" with one of the volunteers. It was interesting to note that I didn't have a single conversation about politics while I volunteered in Biloxi. I think that Hands On is pragmatic in the sense that they focus on rebuilding lives and they understand that resources and support can come from a variety of places. I admire their compassion for others, especially when combined with this dispassionate approach to garnering support and attention for their goals.

My pilgrimage to Biloxi was an important step in my journey of self-actualization, but it also made me realize I have a long way to go. Hats off to the Hands On folks in Biloxi.

A Few Thoughts About Being Elite

I travel a great deal, almost exclusively for business. Anyone who travels a lot knows about, and probably participates in frequent flyer or guest programs. As a result of my very frequent travels, I have achieved "elite" status in more than one of these programs. Even if you do not travel much, you have probably seen these folks. They (like I) stand around the airport gate, hoping for upgrades, or seeking to board the plane before everyone else (except for first class passengers). They (like I) move to the "special" line at the hotel reserved for elite frequent guests. One of my particular favorites is Continental's OnePass program. For OnePass, if one flies 75,000 "eligible" miles in a calendar year, one can obtain the highest level of status--Platinum elite. It's actually possible to fly less than 75,000 miles and achieve Platinum status, or fly more than 75,000 miles and not achieve it.

Confused? So is everyone else. There's a nearly impenetrable set of conditions for different fare classes, partner airline rules, phases of the moon, and religious rituals that govern these rules. Frequent customers (like I) will do all sorts of strange things to navigate this maze, and some people (so far, not like I) will even fly well out of their way or take unnecessary trips in order to achieve OnePass Elite status. What does one gain for becoming Platinum elite? Well, I'm not even sure of the full range of benefits, but the one that I care about the most is a greater probability for upgrades to first class. There have been so many occasions I've watched jealously as Platinum elite members get upgraded, while Gold Elite members like me have to take solace in knowing that while we're in Economy, at least we get to board before other Economy passengers, sit in the front rows of the plane, and make sure that we get our luggage into the overheard compartment. I thought I would reach the magical 75,000 eligible miles following my current trip to Scotland, but it seems that this may not happen for reasons that were beyond my control. Upon realizing this, I became annoyed, even agitated and frustrated. I resolved to call Continental upon my return to the US using, of course, the dedicated phone number for Gold Elite members.

While on this trip, I watched a BBC news story about two young brothers in Congo who used to work in the copper mines. They used to work several hours a day, sometimes in sweltering heat, in crowded conditions with other children. Through the generosity of BBC viewers, these brothers are now able to attend school instead of working in the mines. One of them has made many friends and dreams of becoming a pilot. The other one smiled sheepishly at one point while describing his desire to learn "everything."

Today, I went to visit the Royal Yacht Britannia, which was decommissioned in 1997. It now sits in Leith harbor as a museum, showcasing the Royal lifestyle. I was struck by the immense attention to detail and pageantry to the point of becoming seemingly absurd. Is it really necessary to polish the Royal silverware everyday and make sure that the settings are precisely measured by a ruler? The trappings of the elite. I walked through the yacht feeling morally superior, knowing that I would never dwell on such superficial matters--that I know what's really important in life.

As I was leaving the yacht, I remembered those brothers in Congo. And then it occurred to me. The elite relativism. How would they react to my obsession with Platinum elite status? Would it seem as absurd to them that I measure airline miles as it seemed to me to measure distances between silverware? I live a more sustainable life than the monarchy of the UK. But I also realize that there's no monopoly on the desire to be considered elite.

When I get home, I certainly won't polish the silverware, and I think I might refrain from calling Continental.

An Inconvenient Choice?

A few days ago, I went to visit a friend in need. This friend, and others who know about my trip, have said "it was good of you to do this." I have told them that if visiting a friend in need has become a heroic act, then we are truly lost. Or, as is more likely the case, that our lives have become so chaotic and "noisy" that we don't even have the capacity or ability to decide what to do with the time that has been given to us. When visiting friends becomes an inconvenience, we have a serious problem on our hands.

A few days before I went to visit my friend, I saw "An Inconvenient Truth." When I was in grad school in the 1990s, I had access to the results of the general circulation models that examined climate change. It isn't as if I'm ignorant or unaware of these issues. I knew the science has progressed since then. These early models had grids the size of the US, and one of them had sunlight 24 hours a day. But I had no idea about some of the most compelling--and frightening--topics and findings discussed in the movie.

The Larsen B Ice Shelf disintegrated in less than a month?

So I headed off to the airport to visit my friend with a renewed sense of reflection and respect for relationships--with people, with the environment, with myself. I decided to walk to Baltimore Penn Station, and then take the light rail to BWI Airport. Usually, I will drive to the airport or take a taxi. As I walked to the train station, I noticed very few people walking. Lots of cars whizzed by, but very few people walked by.

When I arrived at Penn Station, I went to the light rail stop, which is not well marked or identified. I guess if something is rarely used, it's unlikely that someone will complain about poor signage. As I emerged onto the platform, I saw a light rail car at the end of the tracks. I learned that there is a separate spur that connects Penn Station to the regular light rail line.

Fine. I bought my ticket for $1.60 and waited for the light rail to come back to the main portion of the station. Another person appeared and asked me about the light rail to the airport. This was encouraging. Maybe I was being too cynical in assuming that no one used this service. He started talking on his cell phone, while he paced around and smoked a cigarette. In the time it took for me to wonder when the light rail would come back in our direction to the time I looked back at him, he had disappeared. And he did not come back.

At this time, I noticed that the light rail had also disappeared. I was sincerely hoping that it would come back.

And it did within a few minutes. Apparently, it does not come into the main part of Penn Station. This time I walked to end of the platform. When it returned, I immediately boarded. Since I was standing in the sunlight, noting those first annoying beads--and then streams--of perspiration that form and run down one's back, I was glad for the air conditioning. As I cooled off, I began to wonder...

I'm the only person on this light rail. Does it run all day? It only took a few minutes to return from the main line. Couldn't I just walk to the main line station? How much energy is this thing using?!? As the light rail operator walked by me, I asked him how many people ride this particular light rail on a daily basis. He said "You're probably the only one for today..." We waited a few minutes, air conditioning and lights full blast, for people who would not come. Not even the anxious individual I had seen a few minutes earlier.

Once on the main line, the BWI light rail came within a few minutes. But it took more than a few minutes to get to BWI. My entire journey took nearly two hours. Almost everyone else who used the light rail to BWI was wearing a retail uniform or an airport badge, and almost certainly welcomed an inexpensive form of transportation. I noted one fellow air traveller who looked like she could have afforded to drive or take a taxi; that is, she made a choice to use the light rail.

When I drive or take a taxi, it takes about 20-25 minutes. It costs a lot more, not in only direct dollars. But it is sooooo convenient. One of my other friends and former colleagues used to take the light rail to BWI airport when she would go on business trips. I remember having several conversations with her about this choice. I would argue that since she would be reimbursed for her taxi fare or mileage costs, she might as well forgo the light rail. She would tell me that she chose the light rail for other reasons. I would argue that she was not considering value of time. My Economics professors would have been proud of me. Of course, economists also believe that the value of human life is tied to one's wage rate. So much for the unemployed and retired folks (and remember you're only unemployed if you don't have a job, but are actively seeking one...if you've stopped looking for a job...well, uh, I guess you're not part of the statistics anymore). It's only now that I begin to realize why she felt so passionate about her choice.

What about the value of the environment? Putting aside moral, ethical, spiritual, religious, etc. considerations, from a purely economic perspective, it's irrational to expend natural resources so carelessly and thoughtlessly. Would you invest in a company that told you it was planning to burn through its machinery without any plans for the next phase?

If someone doesn't have the means to have choices, then the light rail is wonderful. But I confess that I kept asking myself...isn't it worth the $35 to take a taxi? Isn't the light rail an inconvenient choice?

But what if gasoline becomes $8/gallon? What if more ice melts in Greenland, the Arctic, or Antarctica, and Europe starts to cool off? What if the severity and frequency of hurricanes intensifies? What if we have more wildfires, more power failures, more wars?

I can imagine a lot more inconvenience in the future if we don't start making some of these "inconvenient" choices today.

Nicely Done

How happy do you think Alex Ferguson was to see Wayne Rooney cross the ball to Christiano Ronaldo for Manchester United's fourth goal against Fulham in the season opener. Ferguson should be applauded for not giving into Ronaldo's impulses to leave Man U, and for finding a way to make Rooney and Ronaldo forget their World Cup episode.

Soccer players are so fickle :-)

Using Toilet Paper Carefully

The memories of the 2006 World Cup have begun to fade. As the intensity of the event dissipates, I find myself remembering Argentina as the most memorable team, with team brilliance exemplified by a goal preceded by 24 passes and individual brilliance showcased by Rodriguez's goal against Mexico. While the escapism was fun, it's time to think about other matters.

I wrote earlier about my reasons for calling this blog "Decide." I have made an important decision: I am eating less.

This isn't part of a starvation diet, or a fast, or anything of the sort. I'm simply eating less food because I don't need to eat as much food. When I was in the UK for ten days, I ate less than I normally do. I didn't choose to do so. It's just harder to keep snacking and eating large quantities of food in the UK. The English and the Scots aren't the healthiest Europeans, but they eat less than folks in the US of A. And they walk much more. So, as I found myself eating less and exercising more, I asked myself why I eat so much when I'm at home.

This is something my wife has been encouraging me to do for a long time. There are moments in life when we experience an epiphany, notice with greater clarity, turn the corner, or [insert your favorite phrase here]. For my first lunch after I returned home, I ate only half of my usual sandwich. I worked out that evening as well.

Then I felt hungry. I haven't felt hungry in a long, long time.

Not the kind of hunger that's debilitating, which far too many people face all too often, but a hunger that urged me to refuel. There's something very wrong when people are hungry and don't know when and where their next meal will come from. But there's nothing wrong with a little hunger to remind you that it's time to eat. That you need to eat. I've been eating on auto-pilot for a long time. For too long. I've been eating an appetizer, a main course, often with a soda and dessert and stuffing myself to the limit for every meal. It still isn't too late for me to reverse course, but my father spent his life eating on auto-pilot and it ruined his health. I'm about eating about half as much as I used to eat and exercising more often. And I'm doing just fine. In fact, after only about a month of this change, I feel better than I have in a long time.

Everyone is reminded not to waste food. Typically, this well-meaning reminder manifests itself in eating everything on your plate. Less often it results in people ordering less food to begin with. I can sense the immediate impact on my health and well-being, but I also think about the broader impacts.

I have picked up, and put down repeatedly (remember, I've only taken a few steps along my thousand mile journey) Returning to Silence by Dainin Katagiri. The first time I started to read it, I was prepared to launch myself into Buddhist wisdom. Seeking the timeless wisdom of the Buddhist masters, I came across the phrases in the Foreward:

"We can help in many ways. Using toilet paper carefully is helping others. Don't expect helping to be a big deal. In everyday life, we can help someone or something all the time."

Even before I started reading the book proper, I put it down.

Using toilet paper carefully? I wanted to change the world!!! Since then, I have contemplated the "ripple effect" of using toilet paper carefully. Less waste, less production, less energy usage, less harm to the environment...Less is more indeed. More for others who need it much more than I do.

Bumper sticker wisdom: "Live Simply so that Others May Simply Live" (Actually, I think Gandhi said this).

Yesterday, when I ordered less than my usual amount of food for lunch, I gave back two packets of honey mustard sauce. What if everyone gave back unwanted or unused sauce, or as I will do when I've taken another step along the journey, used no sauce at all? And given the state of the world today, what if we didn't keep driving around until we found that "perfect" spot right near the entrance. What if we actually walked, or used mass transit (of course, we'd have to follow Portland's example first and build effective mass transit).

Many have stated that you can't change the world; you can only change yourself, or your place in it. As for the inertial idea that time will heal all wounds, Andy Warhol said, "They say that time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself."

Civility and Soccer

I waited to write this final post about the 2006 World Cup until I had a chance to meet with Professor P. M. Forni at Johns Hopkins University. Professor Forni has become a leading authority on the topic of civility. I submitted to him that this World Cup, more than any before it, was defined by the issue of civility.

France played cautiously versus Portugal in their semi-final encounter. Perhaps they were saving energy; perhaps they were aware that Portugal would spend more effort diving, faking injuries and acting rather than trying to score an equalizer. By this point, it seemed, the referees were all too familiar with Portugese antics. Scolari only sealed Portugal's place from as the least civil team when he chose to berate the referees at the end of the match, rather than focus on his players, the other players, the fans...No moment defined Portugal's "performance" more than one of Christiano Ronaldo's dives during this game. At the edge of the box, he launched himself into one of his numerous dives. Anyone who's played soccer knows that if you're really tripped, your first thoughts rest upon getting your bearings, putting your hands out, bracing yourself, etc. Since Ronaldo initiated his own fall, he had the opportunity to stare longingly at the referee, appealing for a foul or penalty even before he hit the ground.

His dive may have appeared swanlike, but it definitely reflected an ugly duckling.

He has some interesting times ahead. Let's hope he concentrates his efforts on bolstering his considerable gifts as a soccer player and not taking lessons to augment his less than considerable acting skills.

As Portugal continued its uncivil ways in the third-fourth place match against Germany, France played more passionately during the final with Italy. Materazzi did not deserve to be penalized in the box, and Zidane's cheeky spot kick nearly cost him. These two men would become intertwined in a most memorable--and unfortunate--way. France did play better overall, and while Italy had its opportunities, they did resort to the defensive-minded play of previous days. But all of these considerations would be lost for a few minutes of madness.

I was watching the finals in London at a student cafeteria at Imperial College in London. Everyone in the room gasped and then fell into silence as we watched Zidane head butt Materazzi. Even now, we do not know what Materazzi said, but we know that Zidane reacted in a most inappropriate manner.

Zidane has apologized--sort of. While he stated that he was sorry for the children who witnessed his act, he went to assert that if he hadn't acted in this manner, whatever Materazzi said would have been validated. So much for turning the other cheek. Materazzi, even if he did not use the vile type of insult insinuated by Zidane's statements, certainly tried to inflame him. Materazzi has apparently been involved in similar incidents before.

Perhaps even more bizarre than the incident itself is the fact that Zidane won the Golden Ball award (FIFA needs to let people vote until the day after the finals), and that the French have applauded and celebrated him. It's understandable that they wish to honor his legendary career, but it almost seems as if they're saying it's OK to head butt someone as long as you're an exceptional soccer player. When David Beckham received his red card in the 1998 World Cup, even Manchester United fans gave him a hard time (at least for a brief time). Soccer laurels--individual, club, and national--may be enough for the French to forgive Zidane, but they are obviously insufficient to exorcise Zidane's inner demons.

In a fundamental way, this head butt incident reflects the 2006 World Cup. Zidane played so elegantly at times, reminded us of greater glory days of soccer, but he also showed the very nasty side of soccer. With so much at stake, it's perhaps surprising that we don't see even more uncivil behavior.

Franz Beckenbauer has called for a summit to identify ways to remedy the diving, shirt tugging, injury faking, name calling, head butting, and racism that is present in soccer. And there's good reason to do so beyond generating more goals. But it's worth noting that the fans try to introduce their own brand of judgment. Christiano Ronaldo was booed passionately each time he touched the ball in latter games. The fans whistle and jeer when teams play negatively, and criticize managers adopt defensive tactics. It seems that at least some fans still expect a beautiful game, played with a gentleman's code of conduct.

And then there are the Germans. The Italians are probably still celebrating in the eternal city, but the Germans were the real winners during this World Cup. They proved to be the best examples of civility, both on and off the pitch.

A Classic Semi-Final

If you watched the Germany v. Italy semi-final match today, and found it boring, then you're just not going to enjoy soccer. Or you could watch coverage in a country (the UK) that knows soccer, as I had the great opportunity to do so today. Hearing English commentators made me realize even more just how bad ESPN/ABC coverage has been.

This match demonstrated that a 0-0 scoreline does not preclude tremendous end-to-end, free-flowing soccer. Each team generated several great scoring opportunities, only to be thwarted by even better defending and goalkeeping. Soccer is so demanding, that it's understandable players took pauses to catch their breath--but not for long. Finally, we saw players getting up quickly after taking a knock, and a referee who managed to maintain control, allowed the match to flow, without resorting to cards and penalties.

Truth be told, Italy was the better team. In fact, Argentina was the better team against Germany, but this German team has over-achieved. Klinsmann took a team with only a couple of superstars and took them within two minutes of the finals. Does anyone doubt that Germany would have won a penalty kick shootout? And let's offer tremendous credit to the Germans for not playing negatively or cynically for penalty kicks. Germany looked more fatigued at the end, perhaps because having to chase a team with superior play took its toll.

For the first goal, four German defenders lost sight of Grosso and chased Pirlo holding the ball. Pirlo's pass was a wonderful reverse pass that gave Grosso the opening--and he made no mistake. It was simultaneously sad and fitting to see Ballack moving through the box to close the space on Grosso. He has done so much to propel this German team, but even he couldn't save them on this occasion.

After the match ended, the fans in the stands immediately waved their German flags and clapped for their team. As Boris Becker stated in an interview, "we displayed patriotism, not nationalism." And rightly so. They should be very proud of the way this team played, and what they accomplished. Klinsmann stated that he needs to think about what comes next. The Germans will certainly want him to continue through the Euro 2008. And he'd be crazy to turn down this offer to coach the US team just because he lives in California. It seems, even in soccer, the world is flat and a great manager can manage across continents.

The Italians are worthy finalists. How ironic that their domestic league faces turmoil, discord, and controversy while their national team provides the exact opposite. This team continues to play positive, attractive soccer. They are, as usual, solid in the back, but perhaps more than ever, they feature creative, flowing, energized play in the midfield with deadly strikers up front. Gilardino's vision to note Del Piero--and his willingness to deftly pass him the ball--is the kind of teamwork and skill that Brazil could have, but never, delivered. If we are to be without the samba of Brazilian, then at least we can enjoy the danza seria of the Italians.

If Only Soccer Could Solve Political Problems

There are several instances of major soccer tournaments resulting in cease-fires--for at least the duration of the tournament. As the 2006 offering of The World Cup reaches the final, troops are amassed along the Gaza strip, rockets are fired from North Korea, explosions continue in Iraq, and a host of other conflicts and near conflicts remain.

People throughout the world take pause during The World Cup but it seems clear that political, ethnic, and religious tensions dominate over interest in soccer. It's a nice thought that a month-long party could help the world find peace--if only for a brief interlude--but it's clear that these conflicts won't be solved on the soccer pitch.

Denouement

It's hard for this soccer diehard to admit it, but in recent offerings, The World Cup undergoes a certain drag from the quarter-finals onward. Yes, the powerhouse teams face off against each other, but this is part of the reason we start to see inordinate emphasis on doing whatever is necessary to win. As the stakes rise, we are presented with tantalizing matchups, only to see over-cautious play from managers who take the games out of the players' hands and, in some cases, resort to dirty tactics.

Argentina dominated Germany throughout most of their match. Initially, I thought Germany might have been playing cautiously on purpose, but I think Argentina simply had more skill on the ball, keeping the Germans at bay. After scoring their goal, Argentina inexplicably and completely changed its tactics. Obviously, they wanted to protect their lead, but if they had kept playing at 80% instead of 30%, I'm convinced Germany would not have found its rhythm. A team doesn't change its tactics so drastically unless the manager has instructed them to do so. Pekerman's substitutions were, to say the least, curious. Unless Riquelme was injured, why would you take out the one player who can control possession better than anyone else on the pitch? And why did he not bring Messi or Savioli into the game instead of Cruz? The Argentines had their best chances through speed and skill, not through size and strength. Pekerman has offered to resign. Obviously, he's done a great job in building up this team, and one game doesn't make or break a manager's career. But I wish he had let Argentina play soccer, instead of getting too caught up in managerial tactics.

On the other hand, what is happening to Italy? The team that perfected catenaccio played with an offensive flair that led to three goals, including two for Luca Toni, who must be thrilled to finally find the back of the net. Italy did not seem content with a 1-0 scoreline. As for Ukraine, they started playing soccer again. And it nearly paid dividends. They hit the woodwork on two separate occasions and had a close, direct shot before Toni found his scoring touch at the other end. If they had found Shevchenko on those occasions, they might have equalized. I wonder if they might have scored more easily if they hadn't turned off their offense for nearly two games.

England, on the other hand, has never turned its offense on. Sven Goran Eriksson said that reaching the quarter-finals was "not good enough." No kidding. Given the talent that England possesses, being bounced out in the quarter-finals for three successive tournaments has to be inadequate. England is capable of playing elegant, attractive soccer. During Eriksson's tenure, they have apparently decided to bore their opponents to death while waiting for Beckham to score on a set piece. It's a strange choice for a team with so much potential. And talk about strange substitutions. What exactly was Eriksson thinking when he waited until the 118th minute to substitute for a substitute? Aaron Lennon was one of the few bright spots on the pitch. Does he take bad penalty kicks? Put him tenth on the list. Carragher had obviously practiced his "no look" penalty kick; it's too bad he didn't wait for the whistle. If Eriksson wasn't going to play Theo Walcott, why did he pick him for the squad? John Terry was getting cramps. Why not put in experienced Sol Campbell to help a tiring defense and to offer another target for set pieces?

Only a few of their players seem to rage against this machine of Eriksson's sleep walking soccer. Wayne Rooney is one of them. But he showed us the dark side of his passion. Regardless of what might have happened, Rooney needs to show more composure in these circumstances. England already knows who will take the helm of this team. Hopefully, Steve McLaren will tap into his players' natural skills, rather than suppress them only to lose in penalty kicks. What isn't clear is who will take the helm on the pitch. Watching Beckham limp off the pitch, while Gerrard yelled at teammates for missed assignments and Terry organized them in the back, made everyone wonder about the captaincy.

Portugese manager Scolari has a twelve game winning streak in The World Cup. He has managed to send England home in the last three major tournaments. It's an impressive streak. But what I find most disconcerting about Scolari's impact on his teams is the dirty tactics. Let's not forget that the Scolari-led 2002 Brazil team featured Rivaldo's distasteful cheating tactic. Brazil plays a very clean, fair brand of soccer, often resulting in the fair play award (even though they play so many games). It was shocking to see Rivaldo act in this way and even more shocking to hear him admit he cheated. Scolari defended Rivaldo's action. On this occasion, several Portugese players are engaged in time wasting, diving, injury faking, and who knows what Cristiano Ronaldo said or did during Rooney's red card episode. Ronaldo apparently winked at the Portugese bench after Rooney was ejected. Ronaldo went on to lecture Peter Crouch when one of his Portugese teammates was clearly faking. It's great to see that someone of Christiano Ronaldo's talents is using his time in the Premier League to "learn" about his English club teammates. Given the number of players, and the number of incidents, one has to believe this is part of Scolari's tactics. Marcelo Balboa sadly (and repeatedly) believes that such cheating is part of the game, but does Scolari not believe Portugal can simply play great soccer? He has a great winning streak in The World Cup, but I think it comes with an asterisk.

I chose a French word for the title of this entry to honor Zidane. I eat my words yet again for suggesting that maybe the French would be better off without him in the lineup--and I'm glad to do so. It was fantastic to seeing him play with such joy, skill and passion. Was Brazil simply overwhelmed? On more than one occasion, Zidane weaved his way through stunned Brazilian players, but Brazil also didn't come to play. For the entire World Cup. Perhaps the selfishness they displayed in their match against Ghana was evidence of a lack of teamplay. I don't think the 4-5-1 formation helped matters either. While he leaves with the all-time scoring record, Ronaldo certainly hasn't been working hard up front. Once Brazil fell behind (and how could Henry rush forward completely unmarked?), we saw Adriano and Robinho, which changed matters. There was finally urgency but, again, it was basically driven by individual initiative, rather than cohesive teamwork.

If we're praising Zidane for his individual inspiration that led to great teamwork, it's time to admit something that few are saying at this point:

Ronaldinho was the biggest disappointment of the 2006 World Cup.

Zidane's prime performance was eight years ago (or perhaps over the next two games?) and it's been three years since he was chosen World Player of the Year. Ronaldinho is coming off back to back recognition of this pinnacle of individual accomplishment, and a Champions League title with Barcelona. If anyone should have matched Zidane's brilliance, it was Ronaldinho. Perhaps when Zidane was sitting on the bench during France's final first round match, he realized how few opportunities even someone of his considerable gifts would experience. It would take a meteor strike for Brazil to miss the 2010 World Cup. So Ronaldinho should get another chance, and hopefully he will fully embrace the idea that he should bring his best game to The World Cup.

For all the tactics, clean and dirty, that managers bring to their teams, it's important to realize that the players must win the matches by simply playing soccer--and that's when the game is its most beautiful.

And Then There Were Eight

Brazil and France joined Germany, Argentina, Ukraine, Italy, England and Portugal in the quarter-finals. Six European teams, and the traditional two powerhouse South Americans. Ronaldo made history becoming the all-time leading scorer in World Cup history. And he has at least one game remaining. His goal was classic jogo bonito, but the rest of Brazil's performance was, well, Italian. They played like a team that wanted to win more than they wanted to play beautiful soccer. Who could blame them?

At one point, it seemed that Brazilian fans could. It was wonderful to see them clap for Asamoah Gyan following one of his shots, shortly before he was given a second yellow card for diving. It's worth noting that both referees today managed to avoid becoming the focus of attention--for the most part. Ghana deserve tremendous credit for their performance. I had questioned keeper Kingson earlier, but if it hadn't been for him, Brazil would have won 6-0. Ghana played jogo bonito throughout the tournament, and out-Braziled Brazil for much of the match. They delighted the crowds and played the role of surprise team to perfect effect. Hopefully, we'll enjoy their performance in 2010 as well. It's hard to criticize Brazil, but it was shocking to see Adriano, Roberto Carlos and Cafu take ineffective shots when a simple pass to a teammate would have resulted in a sure goal. The margin for error--and selfishness--diminishes with each match.

Vive La France. They, and Zidane in particular, offered an inspiring performance against Spain. A few days ago, I speculated that France might be better without Zidane because they were asking too much of him. So much for my soccer foresight. He was instrumental in the victory, even finding the net in stoppage time. I will note that he should have been fresher than other players because he missed a match, but perhaps I'm splitting hairs. I hope he plays with the same passion and energy against Brazil.

Unfortunately, Spanish manager Aragones and French striker Henry were part of the storyline even before the match started. It's unfortunate because of Aragones asinine comment during a Spanish practice session when he referred to Henry as a "black piece of s**t." I think it would have been poetic justice if Henry had scored the winning goal. He had a part in it, but not in an elegant manner. Watching the replay, I have to say that I don't think Puyol fouled Henry. Puyol said as much, complained about the call, regretted the second goal, but then offered the following quote:

"It hurts to lose this way, because I think we deserved more and we were playing a great game. But that's football. We now have to recover and think ahead to the next tournament."

Wise advice for those who are still bemoaning their favorite team's departure because of a bad call. Puyol obviously had the ability to put matters into perspective. It was really encouraging to see Spanish players greeting, congratulating and exchanging jerseys with French players without hesitation or bias. Soccer players sometimes know better than their managers.

I'm willing to eat my words and admit that I was wrong about Zidane. On a much more serious note, I hope Aragones is willing to do the same about Henry.

Racism in Soccer

As I'm watching the thoroughly enjoyable Brazil v. Ghana match, ESPN's halftime show reminded me of the one of the most unpleasant, distasteful aspects of soccer--the displays of racism. While there are unfortunate, indefensible signs of racism from the fans, they showed a TV clip of Spanish manager, Aragones, referring to France's Thierry Henry as a "black piece of s**t." I've been really admiring Spanish football, but this is inexcusable. Aragones claims he was simply using whatever tools or methods necessary to motivate his players. Maybe Aragones think's it would be OK to place a burning cross in the middle of the pitch? The Spanish football federation responded by fining him about four thousand dollars. Big deal.

I've talked about soccer being great escapism, but when winning soccer games becomes more important than respecting human beings, we have a serious problem.

After being critical of Ukraine's playing style, I now see that there's a much more serious concern about their manager, Blokhin. Here's a quote from an article in the PalmBeachPost.com:

In Ukraine, national-team coach Oleg Blokhin told reporters that his countrymen should stay in their national league so younger players could learn from them "and not some zumba-bumba whom they took off a tree, gave two bananas and now he plays in the Ukrainian league." No apology followed. One South African paper said Blokhin "has the politics of a mentally ill T-Rex."

This comment is simply unbelievable and reprehensible, especially from someone who's team is playing anti-soccer. As far as I can tell, there hasn't been a problem with the fans during The World Cup. But if FIFA won't discipline managers for this type of behavior, how can they claim to take this problem seriously?

Go ahead and criticize US soccer style or its parochial sports, but I'm glad to note that there's no way a US coach or player would get away with saying such things.

A Day of Penalty Kicks

When one hears about penalty kicks, it would be natural to assume that the Italians found themselves on the short end of the stick. Italian fans are convinced that the Azzurri are cursed to lose through penalty kicks, or doomed to failure because of conspiracies (most often manifesting themselves through referees' decisions against the Italians). So when the Italians were a man down, through a questionable red card, it seemed that they might be heading for another self-fulfilling prophecy. But not on this day.

Italian manager, Marcello Lippi, showed some courage by putting Totti on the bench, and starting Del Piero in the midfield. On another day, Luca Toni would have had a hat trick. Today, he just kept shaking his head after near misses. Lippi showed a willingness to adapt to the needs of the day when he brought Totti into the fray, something Van Basten wasn't willing to do with Van Nistelrooij. Lippi showed even more courage by allowing Totti to take the penalty kick. I thought it was important to have someone fresh take the kick, but I thought it would be Iaquinta. Totti did not hesitate, and he did not disappoint. Given the Italians recent woes with penalty kicks, it must have been very satisfying for the Italians to win with a penalty kick in the 95th minute.

As for the Socceroos, they deserve a lot of respect. I have been questioning their move into the Asian confederation but, after their performance in the Cup, it's only right to state that the Asian confederation will be richer for Australia's presence. I'm not sure what Australian defender, Lucas Neill, was doing or thinking. Perhaps he just lost his head. At that point in the match, Neill could have shouldered or bumped Grosso fairly aggressively without consequence. But when he lay down on the pitch and reached back, the referee had to call the penalty.

I think Hiddink might have been assuming that the game was destined for extra time. He has made so many prescient substitutions in earlier games, but he made only one today. More than anyone else, the Italians find a way to win through one quick strike, so perhaps he should have not expected more time for additional substitutes. But it's hard to criticize Hiddink. He showed class when he gathered his players, and persuaded them to absorb and recognize their fans' cheering and applause. Now Russia get a chance to experience the Hiddink effect.

"Where's the quality?" John Harkes said it best when he asked this question in the Ukraine v. Switzerland match. He later added, "ambition, imagination, and creativity" to the list of missing elements. For much of the match, both teams worked hard, but an errant pass, or a missed run, or a poor finish left the match without a goal. Both Shevchekno and Frei hit the woodwork, providing evidence that with appropriate service, they could have broken the deadlock.

At least the Swiss kept trying until the end. I fear that we may have found the "anti-soccer" team of the tournament with the Ukraine. After showing that they can score against the Saudis, Ukraine has chosen too often the lowest common denominator. Honestly, Switzerland deserved to win, but even their penalty kicks didn't have enough quality.

It''s too bad they couldn't bring Totti into their lineup.

An Ugly Day of Soccer

Today's matches provided plenty of ammunition for the soccer detractors throughout the world.

For all the talent that England possesses in its midfield players and strikers, it is amazing how they produce some of the dullest, uninspiring, and numbing soccer. I'm so hard on England because I really like the way they are capable of playing. Individual players such as Cole, Lampard, Gerrard, and certainly Rooney have had their moments, but as a collective, they just aren't performing. Say what you will about David Beckham, but his free kicks have been directly responsible for two England victories, against the two South American teams they have faced. One might argue that it's a high price to pay for keeping him in the lineup if all he does is take charge of set pieces. But given how much England has come to rely upon these set pieces, it seems worth it. Rooney demonstrated that he can play the full 90 minutes, and that he can still cause havoc. I got the feeling that he is beginning to conclude that he has to take matters into his own hands, which is good for England--and bad for its opponents.

Apparently, Ecuador's manager, Luis Suarez, said they were happy to make it past the first round. They certainly played this way. Maybe the offensive flair they displayed against Costa Rica and Poland was possible only against weaker competition. It was conspicuously absent against both Germany and England. The most surprising aspect of their play was a lack of urgency, but not everyone is obsessed with marching through the tournament. They certainly represented their country well.

England and Ecuador may be criticized for playing poorly. As for the Netherlands and Portugal, they should be ashamed for behaving poorly. The Dutch and Portugese teams are amongst the most creative, elegant and talented teams in the world, which made it even more sad to see the WWE debacle during this match. Having watched so many of these players in club and national team matches, I was shocked to see them behave in this manner. World class players were anything but world class. Lost amongst the wrestling, head-butting, kicking and shoving, we witnessed this evening was a fantastic goal by Maniche. It offered such fleeting promise for the match.

I wonder about Van Basten's coaching this evening. Hindsight is always 20/20, but keeping out Van Nistelrooij was a curious decision. He's obviously not the most popular guy around these days, and perhaps he didn't play with tremendous intensity in the first three games. But the Dutch needed one goal to keep alive, and Van Nistelrooij represents a great option for that one special moment. I also think Scolari used the 4-5-1 formation masterfully. The Dutch couldn't find any space in the midfield or Portugese end of the field.

I'm a great admirer of both Dutch and Portugese, but this match was one of the worst displays in World Cup history. It's too bad we can't replace Portugal with Mexico.

And just when we thought the refereeing could not get any worse. How can a referee hand out 101,351 cards and still lose complete control of the match? FIFA has indicated that it will send home referees who perform poorly. I hope Ivanov was sent to the airport right after the match. If FIFA follows through with their plans, who will be left to referee the final matches?

Where are you, Pierluigi Collina :-)

A Beautiful Day of Soccer

Germany continues to play elegant, flowing, and highly effective soccer. Jürgen Klinsmann had a nice touch as a striker, and it seems that as a manager, he's conveying some of his artistry to his team. In 2002, Klose basically disappeared after the first round. While he didn't score in the game against Sweden, he was absolutely instrumental in both goals, with Podolski being the fortunate recipient of Klose's hard work and deft passing. Ballack kept pounding shot after shot at Swedish keeper, Isaksson, who kept the scoreline low. Anyone watching the Germans' soccer showcase must have been impressed.

Just ask the Swedish midfielders and defenders, who seemed as equally impressed as the fans. They were guilty of ball watching and not closing down space on German players. After some speculation about their defense in their first game against Costa Rica, Germany has recorded three shutouts. But there's no time to rest on their laurels. Argentina awaits them in the quarter-finals, offering a highly anticipated matchup.

A matchup that almost didn't happen because of an inspired, wonderful performance by Mexico. The first half, in particular, of the Argentina v. Mexico match offered soccer at its finest. Both teams were surging forward with their attacks, playing end to end soccer. The offside call against Messi during stoppage time was questionable. But having that goal waved off gave us the opportunity to see what must be the best goal so far. Maxi Rodriguez's shot was one for the ages.

Argentina showed an important resiliency in this match. Even as Mexico continued to assail them, they showed a calm resolve that ultimately paid dividends. Perhaps Riquelme's deliberate approach to the beautiful game is the ideal soothing effect for this team. Both Germany and Argentina have shown us the elegance of soccer. It is a shame that one of them will be out after Friday. These two teams met in the finals in 1986 and 1990. In 1986, some questioned whether (West) Germany was a worthy finalist; in 1990, some questioned whether Argentina was a worthy finalist. I think most soccer fans would agree that both of them would make worthy finalists in 2006.

John Tierney Weighs In on The World Cup

In his op-ed piece in today's New York Times, John Tierney talks about "kicking the soccer habit." Tierney mentions that he lived in Chile as a child, during which time he played soccer and watched Brazil electrify the soccer world during the 1962 World Cup. So this is someone who had found--and has apparently lost--religion. He makes some very good points about the difficulty of watching soccer on TV. It's hard to see much of the field, to note the runs off the ball, the way in which defenses align themselves, and the great vision of the gifted passers in the game. Hockey also suffers some of these problems on TV. Watching soccer and hockey on HD makes a big difference. How many of us are putting up with ESPN/ABC's coverage because of HD?

Tierney asserts that "American couch potatoes" enjoy the breaks in baseball, basketball or football because it allows them to watch instant replays, or evaluate (i.e., second guess) the coach's decisions or strategies, and that the actions of individuals (e.g., "the pitcher dueling the batter") are more clearly pronounced and enjoyed. When speaking about the rest of the world's fascination with soccer, he states: "maybe they love soccer because they haven't been given better alternatives."

I think he's right that many folks in the US, including me, prefer sitting on a couch, living vicariously through athletes, and second guessing the coaches. Once upon a time, I used to actually participate in athletics. And I can tell you it's infinitely preferable. As I move slovenly and inevitably toward becoming overweight and unhealthy, I realize maybe I should participate in sports, rather than passively consume them. If you've ever kicked around a soccer ball, and tried to play on any reasonably sized field for any length of time, you get a deep appreciation for the skill and stamina of soccer players.

I don't doubt for a moment that sports fans in the US marvel at individual athletic accomplishments. The US canonizes the individual, sometimes at the cost of the community. The superstar athlete can act any way he wishes as long as he can make the great play. Manchester United and England defender Rio Ferdinand was suspended for eight months when he missed a drug test. Would a US-based athlete face such a suspension for his first offense? Ferdinand didn't get to play for a team in Toronto during his suspension either (and I say this as someone who cheers for the Miami Dolphins while sitting on my couch).

As for not having any alternatives to soccer, quite frankly, I don't know what Tierney is talking about. There are several other sports with fairly widespread interest such as rugby, ice hockey, field hockey and handball. I don't appreciate a sport that has "numerous intervals for lunch and tea", but even cricket has widespread appeal. If you've ever watched TV coverage of the Olympics or read the sports pages of a newspaper in Europe or Asia, you will quickly realize that they actually enjoy athletics, even when their national teams are not competitive. Imagine actually being able to watch Olympic sporting events in their entirety, instead of only the portions that are "relevant" to the US. There are so many cases of individual nations that revere other sports with local appeal. The Aussies have shown a real appreciation for soccer, but Australian rules football and swimming are almost certainly more popular sports down under.

As a global community, there are many, many things we can and should do that are much more important than soccer. But maybe the rest of the world enjoys soccer because it's a chance for the entire planet to share an experience, express themselves, and celebrate regardless of whether their team wins or not.

Tierney admits that part of his frustration stems from the referee's penalty decision during the US-Ghana match. In my opinion, that was a really bad call. Deal with it. It's time to admit that the US World Cup basically ended when Czech Republic beat them soundly in the first game, and that Bruce Arena probably over-analzyed and under-inspired this team in critical ways.

I think it's hard enough for people in the US to watch a sport without dominating it, but it seems even harder to watch a sport in which we can't overturn results or decisions through replays, appeals and legal actions.

The More Things Change, The More They Stay the Same

For the round of sixteen, we have ten teams from Europe, three from South America, one from CONCACAF, one from Oceania and one from Africa. No team from Oceania had previously advanced to the second round, but Australia's an outlier in more ways than one. With their move into the Asian confederation, one wonders what will become of Oceania. Having a team from Africa in the knockout phase is becoming a trend, but most people wouldn't have expected Ghana to advance from Group E. Both the United States and Trinidad and Tobago had a sliver of hope on the final day, but Mexico alone represents CONCACAF. Everyone expected Brazil and Argentina to advance, but Ecuador surprised quite a few people. Asia, after having the co-hosts advance in 2002, is the only confederation watching the rest of tournament from the sidelines. There's been much said about the effects of playing on European soil, and perhaps with good reason.

Will there be any surprises in the next round?

My best pick for an upset is Ecuador. They played very well against Costa Rica and Poland, but didn't show up against Germany (resting players in the process). England is a different team when Wayne Rooney plays, but their defense was shaky against the Swedes. The game I am most eager to watch is Brazil v. Ghana. And, with all due respect, the game I am least eager to watch is Switzerland v. Ukraine. For what it's worth, here are my picks for the quarter-finals:

Germany, Argentina, Ecuador, Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland, Brazil, and Spain.

Let the madness continue.

Group G Finales

France found its scoring touch today. In addition to their two goals, they had several missed opportunities. Was it the presence of Trezeguet up front with Henry or was it perhaps, dare I say it, the absence of Zidane? Sacre bleu!! Without Zidane, it seemed that Les Bleus found other ways to move the ball through the midfield. Viera certainly stepped up, and Togo found it difficult to deal with both Trezeguet and Henry. I would imagine the Spaniards would as well. It may be sacreligious to suggest that Zidane's absence actually helped the French, but they may be asking too much of him. Don't get me wrong. I am very pleased that Zidane gets to play again, but it was illuminating to see France play without him. Just something for France's manager Domenech to think about :-) Two other pieces of unsoliciated advice for the French. Ribery worked very hard, and made some great passes, but he should drink some decaf before he shoots at goal. And Barthez needs to stop trying to make extraordinary saves out of ordinary ones. Barthez will get France in trouble if he persists in not grabbing the ball.

Let's hope Togo resolves the situation with its soccer federation. If Togo qualifies in 2010, it would be great to see them play soccer without a constant cloud of controversy hanging over their heads.

For South Korea, they went to the well one time too many. A team that has rightly earned a reputation for miraculous comebacks, it eventually caught up with them. Their high-spirited play led to several chances but with no margin for error, especially given France's result, they find themselves heading home. The "no, wait, it isn't really offside" incident was bizarre, and unfair to the Koreans. It effectively ended the game but the Koreans would be wise to learn how to score first and hold onto a lead, rather than keep playing catch-up. In each of their games in Group G, the opposition scored first. At this level, it's too much of a mountain to climb every game.

Perhaps the biggest concern for Switzerland at this point is the health of Senderos. Switzerland is the only team to keep a clean sheet through the first round, but they haven't faced tremendous firepower. Senderos is a key figure in their defense, which will eventually face stiffer challenges.

On a programming note, I'm very glad to hear Adrian Healey refer to "crystal clear high definition" (instead of "glorious high definition"). Maybe he's reading this blog :-)

Group H Finales

Resting players in the final game of the first round is common, but I can't recall an occasion when a manager selected an entirely new lineup. There are a few teams that are so deep that they could field two formidable teams. Spain is one of them. So maybe it's not too surprising for them to chose a full substitution of their entire lineup. What was more surprising was seeing these substitutes play in a rather tepid manner. I recall how Brazil's Robinho, and Argentina's Tevez played when giving the opportunity to start. It was clear these guys wanted to convince their managers to give them more game time. I think Tevez might still be running around the pitch. Spain is probably worried about fading in the knockout round, but they certainly faded from this match. Saudi Arabia played well enough to create a few chances, and generate some more respect. For US team fans, consider that each team earned a point. It's true that the US had a better goal differential (by one goal), but the Saudis displayed more creative soccer skills.

Unfortunately, creative soccer skills are still being overshadowed by referees. The FIFA rules of the game mention the "opinion of the referee" when considering whether a player is offside. Calls that are based on the (mis)judgment are frustrating, but situations when the referee simply misses a blatant foul are mind boggling. In the Ukraine v. Tunisia match, the referee missed a blatant hand ball by a Ukranian player during a free kick. Players are told to keep their hands down or to the side when standing in the wall. This player's hand was over his head. How could the referee miss this? This referee also missed Swiss defender Müller's kick/trip of a Togo player in the box. Hmmm...two matches featuring a European team v. an African team and...well, I had mentioned that I sometimes seek patterns to a fault.

Ukraine took a big step forward by defeating Saudi Arabia 4-0, but they took a step backwards today. They seemed content with a draw, which is understandable from a strategic perspective, but gaining the man advantage actually seemed to deflate them. They scored only because of a dubious penalty call; Switzerland remains the only team yet to concede a goal. Ukraine will need to play much better if they hope to continue in the tournament.

Group E Finales

Let's hail Pavel Nedved. He is a gifted player, who came out of international retirement to help the Czech Republic qualify. When he gets bumped, he keeps trying to play, rather than offer Razzie quality acting and diving. And one of my friends pointed out that he has the best hair on the pitch since Carlos Valderrama. Today, he played with a passion and persistence that was inspiring. Milan Baros did
his best to energize the proceedings, but his timing was understandably off, and he eventually ran out of gas. If ESPN's (screen hogging) lineup graphic was correct, Rosicky was playing as striker in a 4-4-2 formation. Whether he was supposed to be in the midfield or up front, he was a ghost during the game. This was the same man who wreaked havoc on the US, and scored those two magnificent goals?

As for the rest of Czechs, they kept their game in check. It was disappointing to see Nedved work so hard, with his teammates as spectators. Even if they didn't feel the desire, couldn't they have respected his drive and determination? Nedved provided opportunities, had the best shots on goal and, in the 93rd minute, two goals down, still chased after a ball. After the game, he laid down on the pitch, exhausted. It seemed that every Italian player wanted to acknowledge him. I am sorry to see him leave the World stage.

For every goodbye to familiar figures, we have opportunities for hellos to newcomers. Ghana, in its first World Cup, advances into the secound round, keeping alive Africa's streak since 1990. Even without the two goal scorers from the victory over the Czech Republic, they found the net twice. On their first goal, I do not understand why Keller did not rush off his line. There were three US players heading into the box to cover possible passes, and Keller's stance gave Draman ample opportunity to slow down, collect himself, pick his spot and drill the ball past Keller. The penalty call against Onyewu was a harsh assessment. Onyewu has a problematic tendency to defend with his hands, but on this occasion he went out of his way to refrain from doing so. He was also unfortunate with his header, which barely missed the net. It was sad to see Claudio Reyna hobbling off the field from an injury caused by being dispossessed just prior to the first goal. He was obviously in pain, yet he tried to keep playing. Eddie Lewis joined the Brian McBride "grit club" by getting cut, getting treated, and getting back on the pitch. Several US players showed a great deal of character in the face of adversity.

Which is more than I say for Bruce Arena. He is absolutely correct that the penalty call was dubious, and it greatly influenced the game. For better or worse, the referee's bad calls or missed calls is a part of soccer. Other managers get upset with bad calls, or bad fortunes, but they seem to recover and urge their players to move on. Arena seems to assume that if the game had remained 1-1, the US would have won. Maybe so. But instead of dwelling on this, he should have been urging the US players onward, and dealing with reality. At the press conference after the game, he was still talking about the penalty. I didn't see the entire press conference, but I sincerely hope he recognized the efforts of his players, and applauded them for picking themselves up repeatedly. Perhaps it's time to look beyond US borders for a manager, someone who might bring out the best in this team and remain positive in adversity. I'm sure someone would relish the challenge of taking the US team to new heights. It's too bad Guus Hiddink has committed to coach Russia.

As for Ghana, they deserve great recognition for an impressive accomplishment. Apparently, Ghanians admire Brazilian soccer. They'll have a close-up opportunity to admire Brazil's offensive firepower. Ghana's keeper still looks suspect to me. He looked completely frozen during Dempsey's goal. If McBride had managed to direct his header a few inches to the right, he would have beaten Kingson on the near post. I could have sworn Kingson dived well after the ball banged off the post. Essien's second yellow card will be costly. While he has been called on for offensive duties, his defensive midfield skills will be missed even more. Gyan and Muntari return from suspension, which should provide more offensive options, but it's a rare team that can outscore Brazil.

Group F Finales

Reports of Ronaldo's death were greatly exaggerated.

He has now tied Gerd Müller's all-time scoring record, and he stands poised to pass all the great strikers who have graced the pitch during The World Cup. Brazilian manager, Parreira, deserves a lot of credit for properly gauging the Ronaldo pulse. With a few turns, a well placed header and a thunderous shot, Ronaldo announced his arrival in Germany. Robinho's presence has proven useful for Brazil, and he might displace Adriano in the starting lineup.

I'm sure Zico wished that Ronaldo had remained in abeyance. If Zico had asked Japan to begin in a defensive shell, he might have been called a hypocrite. How could he encourage Japan to emulate Brazilian football and then put every man behind the ball against Brazil? Japan should be credited for playing with Brazil in the early stages, and even taking the lead. After their goal, Zico seemed to realize that waking up a sleeping giant is a dangerous affair. While Japan started to sit back, waiting for a counter-attack, they faced a barrage of shots, near misses and, eventually, goals. Falling behind might have been the wake-up call that Brazil needed. It's amazing that they have a winning record in World Cup play when they concede the first goal.

Japan can't be happy to have the dubious distinction of leading, but ultimately losing two games, and remaining winless outside of Asia during World Cup play. Zico may be right in pushing Japanese players to be more creative and free-flowing, but they might have more to accomplish on the defensive side of the pitch. Maybe it's difficult to generate offense when you're back on your heels, but Brazil's opponents don't score many goals. For now, Japan has to be considered an Asian power, still waiting to make its big splash on the World stage.

There is an Asian team that's already made a splash on this World Cup stage. OK, I'm being premature. No, I'm not referring to South Korea, who may or may not qualify tomorrow. I'm referring to Australia's move into the Asian Confederation following the tournament. For now, Oceania can claim a team in the knockout phase.

Though they must be pleased (and rightly so), I don't think the Australians are ready to name stadiums or bestow honorary citizenship to Guus Hiddink yet. He deserves credit for getting Australia into the knockout phase, but I didn't understand his decision to play Kalac in goal today. Perhaps Schwarzer was hurt? Maybe Schwarzer was being disciplined? When Kalac's blunder gave Croatia the lead, Guus Hiddink looked like he was thinking about whether Korean Airlines flies directly to Russia. But, it seems, he and the team that he manages lead a charmed life. Kewell was clearly offside when he struck the second goal. As I mentioned elsewhere, missed calls are a part of soccer. Australia has now scored four goals in the last quarter hour of their three games. Given the way that Italy plays, the Socceroos might find themselves needing one of those last minute miracle comebacks.

David Brooks Weighs in on The World Cup

In his New York Times Op-Ed piece today, David Brooks lets us know that he's keeping an eye on The World Cup. He states:

"Going into today's World Cup match against Ghana, no American player has managed to put a ball into the back of the net, but the U.S. team does lead the world in one vital category: college degrees."

Brooks points out that most (not all?) of the US team's players have attended college whereas most of the elite players in the rest of the world are sent to soccer clubs when they are kids. This is true, and I'm sure that there are many kids who showed promise as youngsters, but didn't make it into the elite clubs or national teams. Without an education, it's disconcerting to imagine what happens to these kids. Brooks goes on to point out the prowess of the US educational systems, and how US college sports bring together communities, provide a nexus for social and intellectual activities, and act as engines of productivity for the economy. Implicitly, no explicitly, he asserts that the US has consciously chosen to accentuate the educational system which, therefore, means that our brightest soccer talent remains unfulfilled (and, as he points out, unable to find the back of the net in The World Cup).

Hard to argue with his line of reasoning, right? Of course, Brooks doesn't ask the question of how would our college educated national team players react if they had a chance to join the elite club team academies? Would they choose college over the (slim) chance of being a soccer superstar? I mean, the US would never compromise a child's education in an effort to bolster his or her soccer prospects. Oh, you might want to check out DC United's page on Freddie Adu, bragging about how young he was when he started for them. To his, and his parents', credit, he plays for DC United because it's the closest team to home, and he continues to participate in the US educational system. But I wonder what would have happened if DC United had a professional soccer academy.

Brooks also provides a utopian picture of collegiate athletics, mentioning that love of a college athletics breaks down social barriers and builds a sense of community. I'm sure the poor and disenfranchised tailgate with the rich and powerful. My aunt lived a university college town for a few years. She told me about a conversation with an ardent (US college) football fan who said that when she saw a black person, she assumed he was a football player or "just passing through." Heartwarming. Brooks conveniently forgets the dark side of college athletics, including corruption and violence.

While soccer may be an obsession, even religion, for much of the world, this is certainly not the case in the US. Brooks' piece provides evidence of an obsession in the US: money. It is sad that he believes one of the successful metrics for education is contribution to the economy. How about creating critical, independent thinkers? The reality of the situation is that soccer is a secondary consideration in the US for two reasons: the US team is not very good, and there isn't big money in the sport. This is a chicken and egg situation in that the US team won't be very good until there's more money, and there won't be more money until the US team is very good. But I can assure you this: if the US poured money into soccer the way it does for baseball, US football, and basketball, the US would have a damn good team. This might happen if the US tires of being defensive about having a good, but far from dominant, team. And college soccer world would become as competitive as the college football and basketball world, with all the unfortunate influences that the relentless pursuit of profit maximation brings.

Like when a prominent newspaper of record charges people for access to "select" online articles.

Group C Finales

I am really sorry that we won't get to see the Ivory Coast play in the next round. Even without Drogba, they offered up some impressive soccer against Serbia and Montenegro. Anyone watching the second half realized that it wasn't a question of if Ivory Coast would score, but a question of how many. It turned out to be just enough. Serbia and Montenegro showed some great finishing skills, and being a man down proved insurmountable for them (though Stankovic's missed header must have tormented their fans). It was refreshing to see Drogba join his teammates for their post-goal celebrations. There was a certain release each time they scored, and a huge sigh of relief when they netted their third goal. This team would have almost certainly advanced to the knockout phase if it had been drawn into another group. This is the last time that Serbia and Montenegro play as a unified team. Given that there were only two players on this team from Montenegro, it may be a sign that we may not hear much from them in soccer circles. Somehow, I don't think this was on their mind when they voted for independence.

Sometimes, great teams neutralize each other when they play, but Argentina and the Netherlands may have been neutralized even before they stepped onto the pitch. Both teams rested players. I would not be surprised if the possession was even, but the Argentinians made the most of their possession, mainly because of Messi and Tevez who had a chance to showcase their skills. Tevez, in particular, did his best impression of the Energizer Bunny. Riquelme did his part, offering several opportunities for others to find the net. Even then, he seemed about fifteen degrees off his best game. There were many, many moments of individual flair and skill, and a few sequences of surgical passing. But these moments only reminded everyone of what these teams are capable of doing. Some might assume that the Netherlands wasn't too picky between facing Portugal or Mexico, but I think this game just shows that both Argentina and the Netherlands are confident they can play with any team. It wouldn't be a shock if these two teams met again--with much higher stakes.

Good God, ESPN!!!

What a ridiculous moment during the Ivory Coast v. Serbia and Montenegro match. First, in my book, when a player is that deliberate with a handball in the box, it should be a red card. Second, why did the referee make Ivory Coast retake the penalty kick? Did the "encroachment" really impact the kick, especially if it was a Serbia and Montenegro player who was responsible?

But leave it to ESPN to make this absurd moment even more ridiculous. Just as they are broadcasting the replay, perhaps offering an insight into the ref's decision, ESPN SHOWED ONE OF THE LARGE, STUPID GRAPHICS THAT COVERS UP THE SCREEN!!!

Nice job, guys. I'm so glad you reminded us of the halftime show at that particular moment.

Group D Finales

Perhaps I'm being unfair, but I didn't sense a joie de football from Angola today. Contrast their performance with Trinidad and Tobago, who also found themselves with unexpected possibilities during the final game. On more than one occasion, Angola's players were yelling at and pointing fingers at each other. Soccer can provide great escapism, but reality, both on and off the pitch, eventually has a way of making its inevitable impact. It couldn't have been easy to rely on Portugal for help, though they did their part for Angola (from a soccer perspective only, I repeat, from a soccer perspective only). Iran has played positive soccer throughout each of its games, and they deserved some reward. Angola didn't reach what must have been initially an unthinkable summit, but they did end up with two points, and their first World Cup goal. I hope they don't mind sharing the points with Iran on this day, who managed to salvage one point. More importantly, they showed that a country's place in the political landscape doesn't have to define its place in the soccer landscape. Can you think of another country for which this might be true?

Portugal and Mexico seemed intent on scoring goals. Even at the end of the match when Portugese manager Scolari was asking his players to hold the ball, they persisted in attacking the Mexican goal. Mexico must have known that their passage into the next round was never really in jeopardy, but even at the end of the match, they wanted more goals. The game featured another missed penalty kick (by a country mile), and a stutter step penalty kick. Not quite the style that Socrates used in the classic Brazil v. France match in 1986 but Simao had a better outcome :-)

In 2002, Mexico looked formidable during the group stage, but lost to the US in the second round. They haven't played as impressively in the current offering and they now face a match with Argentina. It's going to take a special performance from Mexico--or anyone for that matter--to beat Argentina. Portugal advances past the first round for the first since 1966 when the magnificent Eusebio led them to a third place finish. Perhaps Portugal has paced itself, and today they rested five players with yellow cards, but they haven't been pushed yet. I'm sure the Netherlands will offer a serious test.

Group B Finales

It was good to see both England and Sweden show up today. Both teams played to win--perhaps knowing that Germany awaits the second place team had an impact. Perhaps England just wanted to build up some momentum, and Sweden wanted to find the offense that helped them qualify for The World Cup. Joe Cole had a great game for England, with the best individual goal so far, and a great pass to set up Gerrard's goal. It's unfortunate to see Michael Owen helped off the field, well before he had much of a chance to get going. ESPN commentator Marcelo Balboa wondered why Sweden didn't press its one man advantage while Owen was getting treatment. As one of my wise soccer buddies mentioned during the game, maybe the Swedes did the sporting thing and let England deal with Owen, bring in Crouch and restore the balance. No team should be criticized for not taking advantage of an injured player. If Owen is hurt badly, and Rooney needs more time to get fit, are we going to see Theo Walcott? How many players get their first national cap before they even play for the club team?

I wasn't terribly impressed by Paul Robinson's performance. He seemed confused and indecisive at times, especially during Sweden's second goal. Why didn't he come off his line and grab the ball? Of course, the backup is David James, who's had some rather interesting moments as England's keeper. Both teams looked better, but neither still looks like they could challenge the top teams that are already clicking.

Trinidad and Tobago's dream ends. It was great to see their fans celebrating, even when their team was behind. They did not suffer from expectation escalation. No team wants to leave with zero points, and Paraguay was no exception. Brent Sancho looked devastated with his own goal. Let's hope he doesn't forget his heroic performance against Sweden, and dwell on this one unfortunate moment. I was surprised that Beenhakker played Kelvin Jack in goal, but he probably wanted Jack to get his World Cup opportunity. I don't think it would have mattered if Hislop had played instead, and Hislop has his World Cup memories. It seemed that both managers wanted to give some players recognition and a chance to play on the World stage. Both teams can leave with a sense of pride and accomplishment, and for ending their World Cup experience with an energetic performance.

Group A Finales

Ecuador didn't show up today. Aside from resting both their starting strikers, the rest of the team looked completely different from the first two games. John Harkes said there's a fine line between pacing yourself and giving it too much effort. I wonder about Ecuador's decision. They played well in the first two games, but will they lose some much needed momentum for their second round encounter? Apparently, their manager has stated that they are pleased to advance into the knockout phase. Perhaps this is true. But if he has greater aspirations--and who wouldn't--then it will be interesting to see how they play against England. If they are flat and out of sync, his decision to rest players and coast will be costly. It would have been illuminating to see Ecuador test Germany's defense, which still hasn't the firepower of a top offense.

Germany, on the other hand, continued to impress. I have no doubt that previous German teams would have taken the foot off the gas after the first goal. Klinsmann seems determined to keep this team flowing. Perhaps we should expect nothing less from a former striker. Their third goal displayed timing, precision passing and team understanding that we've been looking for from Brazil (and seen from Argentina). Klose is rapidly moving up the all-time scoring list, but he basically disappeared during the knockout phase of the 2002 World Cup. As Germany faces some tighter defenses, he'll have to keep contributing--and making the home crowds cheer. I've read that Germans are somewhat reluctant to display and wave their flags. You wouldn't guess this from the stadium today.

When teams reach the point where they know their World Cup is over, interesting things can happen. Some managers empty their benches, allowing younger players to get a taste of the ultimate soccer tournament. Others retain their starters, but clearly given instructions to play freely. Both Poland and Costa Rica kept their starters on the field, and they played an entertaining game. While Poland's first goal should not have counted, given the clear foul on Porras by a Polish player, they did play well. Polish defender, Bosacki, certainly made an impression.

As did Polish goalkeeper, Artur Borac--but not the kind you want to make. Gomez's strike was strong, but Borac looked completely befuddled by the shot, which basically went through his legs. Anytime a team with high expectations doesn't advance, the manager comes under scrutiny. Borac's blunder makes one wonder about keeping Jerzy Dudek off the squad. Would Dudek have made the save against Germany, which would have preserved the draw? Maybe, but I doubt it would have made too much of a difference. Germany and Ecuador have played better than Poland and Costa Rica, both of whom will probably look to younger players and perhaps new managers as they look toward the 2010 World Cup.

Where are you, Pierluigi Collina?

Yet again, we have a refereeing decision, or lack thereof, that is inexplicable. Costa Rica and Poland are playing for pride, but as one of the commentators stated, the referee should still treat this game as seriously as the Final. How could he not have seen the Polish player tripping Costa Rican goalkeeper, Jose Porras? It looked like a blatant trip no less.

I miss Pierluigi Collina.

I know he reached FIFA's mandatory retirement age, Everton and Juventus fans (who created a "I Hate Collina" website) may not view him so kindly, and his sponsorship deal caused some noise. But, objectively, he was one of the best referees. We hear about great teams that are missing from The World Cup, but what about great referees?

As the stakes, and $$$, continue to rise with The World Cup, teams, fans, soccer federations, will increasingly seek ways to address--and redress--referees' actions or inactions.

Day Eleven

Togo's team continues to swirl around in the storm of controversy related to compensation. As if playing in The World Cup isn't enough!! Apparently, they threatened to boycott the match against Switzerland. I never had much of a soccer career, and I'm certainly out of shape now. But I'd be happy to play in their place. Whatever the reason for this ongoing controversy, it's unfortunate to have this drama taking place during the games. They are arguing over compensation for wins, draws and for reaching the secound round, and they've been eliminated after two losses. During the last World Cup, Nike ran an ad using a remix of Elvis Presley's song "A Little Less Conversation [A Little More Action Please]" Maybe Togo's players should listen to this tune.

I hadn't seen much of Switzerland before the tournament, but I'm dismayed to see some of their tactics. They used their hands twice in the match against France, and both of the moves appeared to be deliberate. In this match against Togo, their defender Müller demonstrated tremendous skills in the box--karate skills. I'm not sure what the referee was looking at as he waved off Togo's pleas for a penalty kick. Maybe he's a karate fan.

What a difference one game can make. Ukraine not only soundly beats Saudi Arabia, they make up their entire goal differential in one game. You have to admire the Saudis, who keep on running and gunning, despite the scoreline. There's no doubt that drawing with Tunisia was a huge accomplishment. Perhaps it's a little harder to find progress in a 4-0 loss, but it's better than the 8-0 pounding from Germany in 2002. Maybe the Saudis should tighten up their defense when they concede a goal. Nah. It's fun to watch this team play so freely, even when they are behind. Ukraine will certainly sleep better tonight. Shevchenko's pass on the final goal was perfect. Arsenal fans don't want to see that sight next season in the Premiership.

Spanish fans must have been horrified when Tunisia took the lead today. Especially given that the Spanish defense seemed frozen in place. Even Casillas could have done better by punching the ball away from goal. But Spain is still looking very good. For many years, I was convinced that Morientes was the Rodney Dangerfield of Spanish soccer. Now it appears that Raul is on the outside looking in. Looking in the back of the net. He's certainly making the case for starting, alongside Torres.

As we move into the final games of the first round, I would put Spain in the top four performers, along with Argentina, the Netherlands and Brazil. Yes, I know that Brazil has only scored three goals, but I think we all know there will be more to come.

ESPN/ABC Coverage

ESPN/ABC's coverage is becoming unbearable. If I weren't addicted to HD, I would watch Spanish TV coverage. And, no, I don't speak Spanish.

Someone needs to stop ESPN/ABC from blocking up large portions of the screen (even on HD) with non-transparent graphics. Remember that the folks watching these games are either taping them and taking up their evenings with soccer, or taking time off from work to watch soccer live. Do you really think these people need the ticker along the bottom that reminds us when all the baseball games are beginning? Why not use the ticker for the soccer information that's filling up the screen.

Having said this, stop showing us meaningless, inane statistics!! Did you know that Brazil has never beaten a team when the moon is full, the planets are in full alignment, there's a hurricane on both coasts of the US, it's Tuesday, and aliens are invading the planet? Oh my God, surely, Brazil is going to lose the World Cup!!!! From the wisdom of the investment world, past performance is no guarantee of future results. What prior World Cup stat would have given us insight into France's victory in 1998 or South Korea's semi-final finish in 2002. Stop it with the stupid statistics!

There's also the continuous "wisdom" from the commentators that teams are trying to come in first or second in their groups in order to obtain a "favorable" pairing in the second round. For example, they keep talking about how Group A teams want to avoid England. Really? With the way England is playing, I would love to get them in the second round. And what's to guarantee that England will win their group. When was the last time England beat Sweden (I believe it was 1968). And think about Ecuador v. Germany. If that game ends in a tie, Ecuador wins the group. Stop assuming that Germany will win the group. We've already seen some great upsets, and some teams getting punished by looking for a particular result.

I'm also amazed by some of the basic points that the commentators seem to miss. I could have sworn Crespo's goal in Argentina's 6-0 drubbing of Serbia and Montenegro was an own goal. Instead of checking on this during the replay, they were too busy playing up the human interest angle of Lionel Messi getting his first assist. When a goalkeeper makes an acrobatic save, sometimes it's because of great reflexes; sometimes, it's because the keeper is out of position. Great goalkeepers make most saves look easy, and make the great ones when you need them. Not every wild jump or contorted body is a reflection of a great save. Help people understand when a keeper is out of position.

I should be fair in saying that I think JP Dellacamera, John Harkes and Tommy Smyth are doing a nice job. Adrian Healey's doing OK as well, though he needs to stop saying "games in glorious high definition." It not only sounds strange, it reminds me of my dependency. Other folks seem out of place. No mater how hard he tries, Brent Musberger looks completely out of his element. While he obviously knows about soccer, please stop Eric Wynalda from making inappropriate comments, like using the Japanese keeper's name as material for a joke.

Hardly a way to follow FIFA's advice to make new friends.

Days Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten

Before The World Cup began, I had imagined that Ivory Coast might have been the sleeper or dark horse team. Being placed in the group of death has been hard on them (though, it seems, even harder on Serbia and Montenegro). Having watched Ecuador play twice, I have to say that I believe they are the most promising, surprise team so far. It was so refreshing to see their defenders neutralize Costa Rica's strikers by actually running with them, toward the goal. They didn't rely (exclusively) on the offside trap, having defenders run away from the goal with their hands up in the air. If they tie or beat Germany in the final game of the first round, they win the group.

As for who they might meet in the second round, England still continues to underwhelm. On one level, it was great to see Wayne Rooney in action. The World Cup features the best players in the world, and he certainly fits the bill. But on another level, why did England need his (and Lennon's) boost? Peter Crouch had to resort to hair pulling for the first goal. They just don't seem to be rising to the occasion, and it's worth nothing they haven't beaten Sweden since 1968. If England beats Sweden, and Trinidad and Tobago beats Paraguay, we have to look at tie breakers. As much as I've enjoyed seeing T&T's spirit, I don't see this happening. BTW, major respect to John Terry for that goal line clearance.

Argentina 6, Serbia and Montenegro 0. Argentina has managed this scoreline before in The World Cup in 1978 by beating Peru 6-0, which helped them advance on goal differential over Brazil. However, that match remains controversial to this day. Soccer being soccer, I can even recall articles at the time speculating that Argentina had threatened military action against, or even offered nuclear technology, to Peru (conspiracy theories cut both ways). On this occasion, there's no controversy--just admiration for Argentina's fantastic play. Let's hope both the Netherlands and Argentina continue playing great soccer when they meet in the final game of the first round.

In the "other confederation" arena, it seems that the African confederation is reasserting itself. Ivory Coast played well in a losing effort, Angola tied Mexico, and Ghana's strikers and keeper found their stride against the Czech Republic. From Asia, Iran lost to Portugal, but Japan managed a tie against Croatia, and South Korea came back to tie France. From the CONCACAF realm, there's the US-Italy game.

Let's hope that we witnessed the worst refereeing of the tournament. That ref was hopeless. It takes a lot of courage to hand out a red card to a soccer power like Italy. De Rossi deserved the red card, but many refs would have given him a yellow card and a stern warning. But he almost certainly used Mastroeni for a make-up call. I also don't think he realized that Eddie Pope already had a yellow card. In the end, the US has to be pleased with being alive, though beating Ghana is no easy task. Onyewu seemed to settle into his role, but Eddie Pope still looked lost. The image of him holding up his hand, standing still, during Italy's first goal was rather pathetic. Of course, I'm not sure who's going to play in the back line now that he's suspended.

Both the US-Italy and South Korea-France match left me wondering about European soccer entitlement. What do I mean? De Rossi was clearly upset that his teammate, Zaccardo, scored an own goal (and what a bizarre strike of the ball). Maybe he should have had his words with him. Instead, he decided to elbow Brian McBride. When South Korea scored its goal, William Gallas (who should attend the John Terry school for goal line clearing) was clearly upset. Shortly after the goal, he grabbed (an offside) South Korean player and threw him to the pitch. So, what I wonder about is whether certain Italian or French players would behave this way if they were playing each other (or another of the soccer "powers")? How much of their frustration arose from an expectation, even entitlement, that they were the better team and therefore "deserved" to win.

Regardless of whether I'm just idly (or even unfairly) speculating, it was a very sad sight to see Zidane leave the field, throwing something off to the side. Given his second yellow card, he won't play in France's next game. If teams in their group play better than France, then they decide to advance. But I have to confess that I hope this isn't the last image of Zidane from The World Cup.

As for Brazil, everyone seems to think they're still going at 50%. All I have to say is that Brazil can put anyone into the game, even a guy named Fred, and he will find a way to score :-)

Day Six

We saw the worst refereeing decision to date.

The ref during the Spain v. Ukraine match gave a red card inexplicably to Ukranian defender Vashchuk. When the striker who was allegedly fouled (Luis Garcia) ends up consoling Vashchuk, you know something must have been amiss. I doubt Ukraine would have won, or even tied, this match with eleven players; Spain was definitely firing on all cylinders. But the red card ruined the chance to see the full, complete Ukranian response to a relentless Spanish attack. By the end of the match, we witnessed the most lopsided match so far.

Spain has started previous World Cup campaigns with a blaze of glory, only to flicker out later in the tournament. Part of the reason I didn't include Spain in my list of the best teams to never win The World Cup is that they haven't come close to winning the tournament. They did place fourth in 1950, but other teams came really close. If Puskas hadn't been injured, Hungary would have probably defeated West Germany in 1954 (Hungary had defeated the West Germans 8-3 in the earlier rounds). The Dutch lost to the host nations both times in 1974 and 1978; if Johan Cryuff had played in 1978, they might have won in Argentina. And while Les Bleus "only" made the semi-finals in 1982 and 1986, they gloriously won the European Cup in 1984, as did the Dutch in 1988 (remember Van Basten's goal in the finals?). Spain, with its phenonemal talent, has 20 European club championships, but only the one national club championship in Euro 1964. Let's hope they have some staying power this time, and that Ukraine gets a chance to fully demonstrate its potential in their next match. I can imagine that Chelsea fans certainly want to see Shekchenko show off his skills.

Part of the subtext in The World Cup relates to which confederation will rise up to challenge South America and Europe, who can claim all the winners of the Cup. Mexico, within CONCACAF, offers some hope, but they haven't made it over the hump. Besides, if Mexico wins, one can argue it would be validation for the South American style of play. As for the US, at this point, let's just hope they put up a good show against the Italians. While Africa made inroads in earlier tournaments (and the Algerians were cheated out of a second round appearance in 1982 by a disgusting display between West Germany and Austria), one could argue that Africa really announced itself in 1990 when Cameroon reached the quarter-finals. Most recently in 2002, South Korea definitely made a splash for Asia by reaching the semi-finals. Notably, Senegal repeated Cameroon's accomplishment by reaching the quarter-finals in 2002.

In the first Africa-Asia encounter, South Korea made history yet again by winning for the first time away from Asian soil. When Tunisia and Saudi Arabia played today, it was against the backdrop of Saudi Arabia hoping to erase all memories of a 8-0 thumping at the hands of the Germans in 2002, and Tunisia representing the last hope for the African confederation to secure any points from their first games.

Jaziri's impressive strike set up Tunisia very nicely. But Tunisia seemed content to seek the 1-0 victory, while bending to Saudi Arabia's attacks. When Saudi Arabia, deservedly, took the lead 2-1, it seemed that Asia could claim a degree of bragging rights over Africa based on first game results. Tunisia's 93rd minute goal in stoppage time seemed to say "not so fast." Nonetheless, the Saudis should be pleased with a result that is infinitely preferable to a 8-0 scoreline.

And what about the Germans who gave the Saudis this thrashing four years ago? They faced Poland today, a team that had never beaten the Germans, in a stadium where the Germans had never lost. Not an ideal set of circumstances. And while the Poles sought chances to score, they did seem content with a draw, perhaps hoping for one point as part of a plan to secure four points by beating Costa Rica in the next game. Their goalkeeper, Boruc, even took a yellow card for time wasting.

I suppose the Germans could have cooperated; four points from two games would be OK. But they clearly wanted to win this game. The goal in the 91 minute (in stoppage time again!) came from one of the substitutes (Odonkor) passing to another of the substitutes (Neuville). I've been praising Dutch managers for inspired substitutions that result in goals, so it's only fair to recognize Klinsmann as well. Klose and Podolski should have buried their point blank shots into the back of the net, but instead of beamoning lost chances, he kept pushing and the Germans were duly rewarded. I hope he gets to enjoy at least one night of peace and appreciation during the roller coaster ride he's in for.

During one of the matches, the ESPN commentators pointed out that there is a fine of 5,000 Swiss francs for receiving a card, but that the national soccer federations will pay these fines.

I say to the players of Togo...have you asked your national soccer federation to confirm this :-)