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.
Showing posts with label hiddink. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hiddink. Show all posts
Monday, June 26, 2006
Thursday, June 22, 2006
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.
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.
Monday, June 12, 2006
Day Four
In Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond provides interesting evidence and arguments regarding the impact of geography on a matter no less important than the fate of civilizations. On a less important scale (well, at least to some people ;-) Australia's place on the globe has haunted them for World Cup qualification. As part of Oceania, they have been asked to win their region, and then meet the fifth place qualifier from South America in a playoff game. Until the 2006 World Cup, they had lost this playoff game. They have argued that a region winner should automatically qualify. Seems reasonable. But when one of the results from this region is Australia 31, American Samoa 0 (or was it 32-0? Apparently, the scorekeeper lost track of the score), one has to wonder about the relatively quality of the region. South Americans, of course, argued that Australia simply needed to beat their fifth place qualifier. It's my understanding that Australia will now qualify in Asia, ostensibly because they believe this arrangement will result in their qualification on a more regular basis. Is Australia seeking soccer justice? Or are they acting with a sense of entitlement?
This backdrop provided some interesting context for their match with Japan, a team coached by legendary Brazilian striker, Zico. On the other bench, Guus Hiddink hoped to continue his winning ways in The World Cup. Zico has encouraged Japanese players to be more creative, more confident, more free-flowing, more...Brazilian. Some Japanese players, including star Nakata, have questioned this approach. It would be great if more teams played like Brazil, but few teams can even come close to the talent level of Brazil. Hiddink, on the other hand, seems to manage to a team's strengths. When the Dutch complained about Australian rough play following a recent friendly, he declared that everyone should realize soccer is a man's game. This might resonate with the Socceroos, but I wonder what women's soccer teams thought of his comment.
So when the first goal came as a result of some pushing and shoving--and a really bad read by Australian keeper, Schwarzer--it seemed that if you live by physical play, you might die by physical play. It was especially odd because goalies often bowl over players in their efforts to reach the ball. If Schwarzer had aggressively punched the ball, and the Japanese player, I doubt the ref would have called a foul. Unfortunately, this referee didn't seem to follow a consistent pattern with calling fouls. He had too much of an impact on the game, which is always a problem for a referee.
For nearly the rest of the game, the Japanese looked to be in control, and the Australians looked increasingly frustrated. But things can change so quickly in soccer--especially with crafty intervention from a manager. The Japanese had their chances to put in another goal, without pushing and shoving, but they failed to do so. You have to admire Hiddink's willingness to throw caution to the wind with his substitutions. Soccer is also a game of adjustments. And with the three substitutions, two of whom who scored three goals in eight minutes, Hiddink showed everyone why his stock as a manager continues to soar.
Did the Australians prove that they belong in The World Cup? Yes. Did they prove that they are one of the premier teams? I think the jury is still out on that one.
At the other end of the managerial spectrum, Bruce Arena didn't make a lot of friends with his decisions before, during or after the ass kicking that the US experienced at the hands of the Czech Republic. I really wish that the US commentators, press, etc. would just stop making predictions or claims about the US team. When the US team faced no pressure or expectations in 1994 and 2002, they performed well. In 1998, with higher expectations, they collapsed. This team looked confused and befuddled; the Czechs outclassed them in every aspect of the game. Eddie Johnson showed that playing with energy can make a difference, but Arena's willingness to hang out to dry certain players is a curious choice. I know he's trying to get them pumped up. But he made the decision to play the 4-5-1, and to put DeMarcus Beasley on the right side--both moves that proved ineffective. During the game, he didn't do much of anything to get this team out of its funk. And, afterwards, he talked about how the players didn't rise to the occasion. They didn't. But is this the best approach as they prepare for the Italians? Does Arena bear any responsibility for what happened?
It's difficult for casual soccer fans in the US to understand that building soccer capacity takes time. The US could become one of the teams to watch on a regular basis, but almost certainly won't dominate the sport. It's not as if the US doesn't have the athletes--imagine if Deion Sanders had chosen to play soccer. But he didn't. He, like so many other athletes, played a sport with big money. As long as this remains true, the US will have to be content with being one of the good teams. It is the proverbial chicken and egg. It will probably take a World Cup victory for people in the US to really care (i.e., put up the $$$), but it takes $$$ to create the right conditions to win The World Cup. Did I just admit that soccer is actually about money? Speaking of money...
The Italian team is surrounded by controversy. A match fixing scandal has gripped the nation, and created massive distractions for the Azzuri. It didn't seem to matter. This team had a different feel than previous offerings from Italy. It's still strange not to see Paolo Maldini in the back line. And it was even stranger to see so many offensive options for the Italians. It's not as if the Italians haven't had their fare share of great strikers; it's just that they seem to feature them one at a time during The World Cup. Not so on this occasion. It was encouraging to see the Italians making sincere efforts to extend their 1-0 lead.
Ghana held its own for much of the match. Their bookends seem to be the concern. Their keeper, Kingston, actually had a good overall game, but he looked really lost on several corner kicks or crosses into the box. Their defense also looked shaky on several occasions. If Jan Koller recovers from his injury during the US game, imagine what he might do against Ghana. They also suffered from a lack of finishing or firepower from their forwards. On too many occasions, their midfield would admirably gain possession, move it through the Italian midfield only to take long shots, or pass to strikers who didn't complete the task. Nonetheless, it was their first World Cup game, and they certainly shouldn't feel embarrassed by their effort. They lost to a very good Italian team.
It's worth noting that the second place team from this group will face the winner from Group F in the second round. That would be the group with Brazil.
This backdrop provided some interesting context for their match with Japan, a team coached by legendary Brazilian striker, Zico. On the other bench, Guus Hiddink hoped to continue his winning ways in The World Cup. Zico has encouraged Japanese players to be more creative, more confident, more free-flowing, more...Brazilian. Some Japanese players, including star Nakata, have questioned this approach. It would be great if more teams played like Brazil, but few teams can even come close to the talent level of Brazil. Hiddink, on the other hand, seems to manage to a team's strengths. When the Dutch complained about Australian rough play following a recent friendly, he declared that everyone should realize soccer is a man's game. This might resonate with the Socceroos, but I wonder what women's soccer teams thought of his comment.
So when the first goal came as a result of some pushing and shoving--and a really bad read by Australian keeper, Schwarzer--it seemed that if you live by physical play, you might die by physical play. It was especially odd because goalies often bowl over players in their efforts to reach the ball. If Schwarzer had aggressively punched the ball, and the Japanese player, I doubt the ref would have called a foul. Unfortunately, this referee didn't seem to follow a consistent pattern with calling fouls. He had too much of an impact on the game, which is always a problem for a referee.
For nearly the rest of the game, the Japanese looked to be in control, and the Australians looked increasingly frustrated. But things can change so quickly in soccer--especially with crafty intervention from a manager. The Japanese had their chances to put in another goal, without pushing and shoving, but they failed to do so. You have to admire Hiddink's willingness to throw caution to the wind with his substitutions. Soccer is also a game of adjustments. And with the three substitutions, two of whom who scored three goals in eight minutes, Hiddink showed everyone why his stock as a manager continues to soar.
Did the Australians prove that they belong in The World Cup? Yes. Did they prove that they are one of the premier teams? I think the jury is still out on that one.
At the other end of the managerial spectrum, Bruce Arena didn't make a lot of friends with his decisions before, during or after the ass kicking that the US experienced at the hands of the Czech Republic. I really wish that the US commentators, press, etc. would just stop making predictions or claims about the US team. When the US team faced no pressure or expectations in 1994 and 2002, they performed well. In 1998, with higher expectations, they collapsed. This team looked confused and befuddled; the Czechs outclassed them in every aspect of the game. Eddie Johnson showed that playing with energy can make a difference, but Arena's willingness to hang out to dry certain players is a curious choice. I know he's trying to get them pumped up. But he made the decision to play the 4-5-1, and to put DeMarcus Beasley on the right side--both moves that proved ineffective. During the game, he didn't do much of anything to get this team out of its funk. And, afterwards, he talked about how the players didn't rise to the occasion. They didn't. But is this the best approach as they prepare for the Italians? Does Arena bear any responsibility for what happened?
It's difficult for casual soccer fans in the US to understand that building soccer capacity takes time. The US could become one of the teams to watch on a regular basis, but almost certainly won't dominate the sport. It's not as if the US doesn't have the athletes--imagine if Deion Sanders had chosen to play soccer. But he didn't. He, like so many other athletes, played a sport with big money. As long as this remains true, the US will have to be content with being one of the good teams. It is the proverbial chicken and egg. It will probably take a World Cup victory for people in the US to really care (i.e., put up the $$$), but it takes $$$ to create the right conditions to win The World Cup. Did I just admit that soccer is actually about money? Speaking of money...
The Italian team is surrounded by controversy. A match fixing scandal has gripped the nation, and created massive distractions for the Azzuri. It didn't seem to matter. This team had a different feel than previous offerings from Italy. It's still strange not to see Paolo Maldini in the back line. And it was even stranger to see so many offensive options for the Italians. It's not as if the Italians haven't had their fare share of great strikers; it's just that they seem to feature them one at a time during The World Cup. Not so on this occasion. It was encouraging to see the Italians making sincere efforts to extend their 1-0 lead.
Ghana held its own for much of the match. Their bookends seem to be the concern. Their keeper, Kingston, actually had a good overall game, but he looked really lost on several corner kicks or crosses into the box. Their defense also looked shaky on several occasions. If Jan Koller recovers from his injury during the US game, imagine what he might do against Ghana. They also suffered from a lack of finishing or firepower from their forwards. On too many occasions, their midfield would admirably gain possession, move it through the Italian midfield only to take long shots, or pass to strikers who didn't complete the task. Nonetheless, it was their first World Cup game, and they certainly shouldn't feel embarrassed by their effort. They lost to a very good Italian team.
It's worth noting that the second place team from this group will face the winner from Group F in the second round. That would be the group with Brazil.
Monday, June 05, 2006
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
