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 :-)

The World Cup

There is a madness, a fever, that has been rising throughout the world. No, I'm not talking about bird flu or its associated hysteria. I am talking about the anticipation for The World Cup. There are multiple sports that have a World Cup, but when referring to The World Cup, it can mean only one sport. Soccer, football, futbol, the beautiful game.

There are many in the US who do not appreciate soccer. It's too boring. It's not athletic enough. It doesn't have enough equipment or rules. It allows games to end in a tie (or draw if you prefer). What I find interesting is people who say this love baseball or golf or poker. So I'm supposed to be captivated by the "showdown" between a first base runner and a pitcher? And I love watching those TV shots of a golfer watching his or her shot...if someone were to watch me at this moment, we'd have recursive sports viewing. The athleticism of poker, the way those guys flick their cards when they fold, brings tears to my eyes. As for rules or equipment, the notable absence is what makes soccer so elegant (ok, the offsides rule is the exception). In The Power of Myth, Joseph Campbell discusses how US sports are obsessed with rules to enforce behavior, which is perhaps a reflection of our litigious society. England created sports with relatively few rules, but many expectations of appropriate behavior or codes of conduct (OK, the offsides rule seems like something a lawyer would come up with).

Wikipedia lists "243 entities considered to be countries" (BTW, this includes the newly declared independence of Montenegro...you gotta love Wikipedia's timeliness of information). To the critics of soccer in the US, I offer this statement: 242 COUNTRIES CAN'T BE WRONG!!!

A fan in England has purchased "trauma insurance" in case England is knocked out early; a Dutch company is offering insurance for the inevitable, sudden rise in sick leave. The Portugese government has wisely rescheduled a Parliament session that was to be held during a Portugal match. The World Cup has undoubtedly caused conflicts, but it has also caused conflicts to end (at least for the duration of the tournament). Prisoners in Brazil started rioting when told that they would not have access to TVs during The World Cup (in Brazil, this must have been viewed as cruel and unusual punishment). The World Cup offers a chance for Africa to compete with the mighty powers of Europe. And how grateful were the South Koreans to Guus Hiddink, who led them to the semi-finals? From Wikipedia:

"Hiddink was given the unofficial title of the most popular individual in the country, and became the first-ever person to be given honorary South Korean citizenship. In addition other rewards soon followed - a private villa in Jeju island; free flights for life on Korean Airlines and Asiana Airlines, free taxi rides, and so forth. The World Cup stadium in Gwangju was renamed Guus Hiddink Stadium in his honor shortly after the World Cup. His hometown became a popular stopover for South Koreans visiting the Netherlands.

Good grief, what would have they done if they had won the Cup?

When the US hosted The World Cup in 1994, it was left to immigrants and visitors to build this festive spirit. Without the host nation's energy behind it, it was perhaps the first time in recent memory that The World Cup was a secondary thought in the host nation. In some ways, the 94 Cup propelled US soccer, and FIFA realizes the potential benefits of raising interest in soccer within the US. But many people in the world must still be upset about this choice. Asia proved it could host The World Cup in 2002, and Africa will have to wait until 2010 for its chance to do so. And Latin America has not hosted it since 1986.

But for me, the 1994 World Cup was a godsend. I had the great pleasure of attending games in Washington DC and a quarter-final match in New Jersey (Bulgaria 2-1 Germany). I sat next to an Italian grad student from my department during the Italy-Mexico first round game. He told me he wasn't much of a soccer fan. The Italian team seems to enjoy tormenting its fans during the first round. Even during their most recent Cup victory in 1982, they advanced to the second round only by virtue of scoring one more goal than Cameroon. In 1994, they would advance in the same manner, and only in the very late stages of the final game in the first round. I watched this "casual" soccer fan get anxious, distraught, with perhaps even tears in his eyes, at the thought that Italy would not advance to the second round. And then elation. Italy scored a goal, tying Mexico, raising a flicker of hope. Still, the Italians were waiting for the Ireland-Norway result. 0-0 (surely, the most dreaded score for a soccer detractor). The Italians were through. As I watched my fellow grad student, who was now dancing in his seat, I said to him, "I thought you weren't much of a soccer fan." He said, "I'm not...look at those other Italian fans."

And he was right. Grown men were crying, some men were still covering their eyes, avoiding the scoreboard that might bring them news of the unthinkable. Others were dancing, kissing women, kissing other men, kissing their flags...it was sheer exuberance. It was something to see men expressing such unbridled, passionate emotion. You can see this exuberance in the grainy films of a 17-year old Pele in the 1958 World Cup, or in the corner flag dance of a 38-year old Roger Milla in the 1990 World Cup.

Of course, there is an ugly side to unbridled emotion that most often takes the form of hooliganism. Most recently, there's been an indefensible, reprehensible growth of racial slurs, signs, and sounds. The English are imploring their fans not to make references to WWII; the Germans are worried about new (and therefore unknown) hooligans from Eastern Europe, and about their own hate groups. It seems that some men, when given a chance to express their emotions, still choose to focus on the negative ones.

Franklin Foer has written an interesting book, How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization. I'm not convinced soccer explains the world. But I am convinced it reflects the world, and it allows the world to express itself--in all the wonderful and repugnant ways that we choose to do so. And the detachment, disinterest, and indifference that so many in the US feel toward soccer is perhaps an accurate but sad reflection of the US in the global village.

But for those in the US who feel the fever, and for all those throughout the world who will take sick leave starting June 9, I say to you: let the madness begin.