Duff from the Bridge to Toon - Strange Dealings

Damien Duff's 5m (pound) transfer to Newcastle has left the Toon ecstatic and me a little confused. I had this exchange with The Editor:

The Idiot: Is there any discussion of collusion going on with the Newcastle cut-rate signing of Duff? Seems like the always shady duo of Abramovich and Mourinho let him go for less money rather than let Liverpool (I think Chelsea's biggest threat this year) or Spurs sign him. Freddy Sheppard was thanking Chelesea repeatedly at the news conference - that's kinda weird.

Well, great break for Newcastle. Maybe they should play an 0-10-0 formation this year.

The Editor: Indeed, indeed, something dodgy is afoot with the Duffy deal. Me thinks Sheppard dost thank too much!! It really is incredible how cheap they got him. DD was one of he top players before he was wasted at Chelsea. But to answer your question, I have not heard any discussion reagrding possible collusion. But something went down.


Little wonder Shepherd thanked Chelsea when he payed 5m for a player that Chelsea payed 17m for only 3 years ago. Over those 3 years, Duff has confirmed that he is one of the best wingers in the Prem. Yeah, he struggled for time last year, but so did Shaun-Wright Phillips and at times, Arjen Robben. It's Chelsea - what can you do? Duff is still a top player and, at 27, should have several productive years ahead of him.

So why so cheap, when word was Tottenham and Liverpool both bid higher than Newcastle? It seems that Chelsea, needing to unload some players at crowded positions, preferred that Newcastle get him for less money than have Duff play for their likeliest challenger, Liverpool or an up-and coming Totenham side.

This concerns me and smacks of collusion. It's one thing if a player (on a free transfer) decides to sign for less money to play for a certain team (like free agents in the US occasionally do for reasons like hometown, playing time, playing for a contender etc), but I don't think its fair for clubs to accept less money in the transfer market, if only to weaken a rival. Then the transfer market is open to all sorts of distortionary behavior.

This is particularly problematic because Chelsea seems to be operating in a completely different world than every other club. It's enough of an advantage that they can outspend everyone by a factor of 5, or that they do not seem to care about repeatedly overpaying in the transfer market (losing a reported 51m on player transfers under Roman A). Should they also be able to determine where exiting Chelsea players are allowed to play?

To me, this is a dangerous precedent. I know the Prem is very different from Serie A, but I wonder what might happen if the Prem got a few more owners with the same mix of deep pockets and loose morals that seem to characterize Abramovich (and Mourinho). I could see a similar scenario unfolding.

While Newcastle's Shepherd repeatedly thanked Chelsea for this favorable piece of business, he should be wary. Previously, Mourinho/Abramovich focused their attacks on preceived threat Arsenal ( Ashley Cole tapping up, press wars etc), now they are shifting to Liverpool (and potentially Tottenham). If Newcastle puts together a great squad, I bet Chelsea will turn their artillery on their "friends" at Tyneside.

Roberto Carlos and Chelsea

Chelsea is about to sign Roberto Carlos, a move attributed (by the Mirror's John Cross ) to the wishes of Roman Abramovich's 12 year-old son. This might be just the type of thing that could unsettle Chelsea's march to a 3rd straight prem title. It certainly won't be a lack of talent on the pitch. Some thoughts:

Could such a shrewd judge of talent as Mourinho really be happy about signing the Brazilian? Could this be the beginning of some friction between two very willful men, Mourinho and Abramovich? If so, this could get good.

Maybe Chelsea (as rumoured) really have signed Ashley Cole and this is just a harmless bone for Mourinho to throw to his deep-pocketed owner. Carlos will mostly deputize and his slowing legs will benefit from fewer games. He will certainly help grow the Chelsea brand with his global name recognition.

But if they don't sign Cole, is Roberto Carlos a good choice? I think of outside backs much like NFL cornerbacks. They must be lightning fast to mark speedy wingers (the wide receiver equivalent) like Robben and Christiano Ronaldo. If you don't have the wheels you are done as a wingback and must move to central defense or midfield if you are still valuable enough there. For a cornerback who has lost a step in the NFL, he has to learn to play safety or hang it up. The position requires speed.

BTW, I think watching a wingback steal a ball from a winger and go on a box-to-box run downfield is just like watching a cornerback step in front of a wide-receiver, make the pick, and take it 70 yards the other way for a TD. Both are beautful to watch and great displays of speed and athleticism.

Despite his great fitness, Roberto Carlos has lost his speed. Judging by his performances the last few years for Real Madrid and Brazil, he also isn't terribly effective as an attacking option. And, though I never loved his high-velocity low % direct kicks, they have become even less accurate. He and Lampard might pose more of a threat to the fans behind the goal than the keeper.

Like a decent lefty pitcher in baseball, there is always a roster spot for decent lefties in the EPL (how bad did Graham Le Saux have to get for teams to stop offering him contracts?). And outside of Cole, there is a shortage of world-class left backs right now. So maybe Roberto Carlos is the best option - I would just opt for a solid, albeit out of position, defender like Gallas (who btw scores a fair amount on set pieces) over a riskier, attacking player like the Brazilian.

Newcastle United

Newcastle is off to a great start with the Toonami booing them off at halftime of their Intertoto Cup match against European super-power Lillestrom of Norway:

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/report?id=203673&cc=5901

Wasn't it only a few years ago that they were always in (or pushing) the top 4 (granted, only to get blown out of the Champions League)? Well this team has been headed in reverse since those heady times. Yes, they had a nice little run in the 2nd half of last season under Glenn Roeder, and yes they are a big club (with a large, loyal fanbase), but I think with their current roster, they might want to focus on the Prem (and possibly FA Cup).

In back, they have the killer B's - Bramble, Boumsong, and Babayaro. I don't like any of them (or Ramage, Eliot, etc for that matter - Steven Carr is OK, but I think on the way down). I can't believe they are trying to sign Beckham and Malbranque - they should be spending money on the back 4. If not, I foresee another very busy year for Shay Given.

Up front Ameobe does not cut it for me - he is just so inconsistent. If he was ever going to be a meaningful, effective striker, I think we would have seen it by now. I guess they are hoping for a lot of goals from an aging and injury-prone Michael Owen.

Keiron Dyer - ditto on the inconsistency- just barely there during long stretches of matches. Whenever I see Dyer go on a beautiful, mazy run, I think, "This guy is great." Then I don't see him again for a month. Yeah, he has great speed and ability, but what good is that if you are using it 1/20 of the time?

The only field players I like on their current squad are Scott Parker, Nolberto Solano, and Charles N'zogbia - and I wouldn't say I'm crazy for any of them. Maybe Emre can stay healthy and find his Inter Milan form again.

On the plus side, Scott Parker has been a feel good story culminating in his appointment to replace Shearer as Toon skipper. I thought Parker was going to be another cautionary tale of a young player doing well at a small club (Charlton), and leaving that nurturing set-up to languish on the bench at big club (Chelsea). (Ask SW Phillips if he regrets his Man City bolt for Chelsea - bet if he had played at Man City we might have seen him at the World Cup.)

Parker has found a home at Newcastle and shown himself to be a very skilled, hard-nosed warrrior in the center of the field. The Toonami deserve more players like him.

Offsides

Overall, I will say the linesman did a great job at the World Cup. I would have guessed off-sides controversies would have been the biggest negative issue, but they really weren't.

Still, based on the effect incorrect calls have on determining the winner of a match, I think offisdes is the greatest problem area in the game right now (particularly in League play, where numerous yellow cards and suspensions aren't as big of an issue as they are at the World Cup).

About a year ago, I heard about a study done on offsides that said the human eye can't reliably do what is asked of a linesman. It is too difficult for the linesman to look at the ball, last defender, most-forward attacker, and time of delivery. If that is true (and judging by the volume of missed calls, I think it is), we need to accept that linesmen will make mistakes and focus on limiting chances for mistakes. This includes clear, well-defined, simple rules on what constitutes an off-sides.

I think they should say offsides is only if the attacker's entire body is completely clear of the last defender (daylight rule) - Pipo Inzaghi would love this rule. I think given the above study and the propensity for linesman to look a split second after ball is delivered, this would be a better measure (it would at least shift some current incorrect offside flags into the no-call category). I thought they were supposed to be doing this already, but it seems unclear.

By my estimation, at least 20% of offsides calls are incorrect, and they are often stopping what would be golden scoring opprotunities, often a breakaway for an attacker (which has a high probability of resulting in a goal). Teams that are inventive and creative should be rewarded with good scoring opportunites, but too often they are stymied by a bored linesman who saw an attacker's head bob in front of a defender long after a through ball has been delivered.

Tinkering with the offsides rule (like passive offsides) has only increased confusion and not successfully adressed the real problem of too many miscalled offsides. I would scrap the passive offsides - it is too difficult to interpret whether a player has affected play or not. I think having linesmen try to determine the passive/active issue will only lead to more missed calls.

Lastly, I think the governing bodies should offer incentive for linesman to keep their flag down (I think for every one legit offside let go, they call about 10 off-sides that aren't) Do they have a system for counting miscalls? My idea is you miss a certain % of calls and you get relegated.

Injuries, stoppages, PKs

Numero Uno reader Boris posted this:

My personal pet peeve was how many people went down with "injuries" and then would pop back up on the field 30 seconds later. This served to slow the game down - i know it happens all the time, it just seemed to be more prevalent in this Cup. I think one crazy idea would be to say that if you are injured and play is stopped for the injury - you have to leave the field for 5 minutes (or 3 minutes). It would at least make people think twice about going down. I know there are some problems with this - but it's an easy way to create a deterent.

I thought this would be a good chance to start a discussion about some rules and ideas for possible rule changes.

Boris, I am with you in wanting to improve the flow of matches and have been pondering similar ideas, but, like you, am worried about the downside of punishing real injuries with "penalty box" time. Here are some thoughts on that and a few other topics:

Injuries

In theory I like the whole "fair play/kick it out of bounds" idea - it is a nice gesture of sportsmanship. It is, however, problematic and players exploit it to gain unfair advantages.

Far too often, the timing of a lot of these "injuries" are late in a match, often after a turnover with a potential counter-attack. I think "fair play" would dictate play on until your team wins the ball back rather than the other team having to kick the ball out of bounds. This might help to avoid things like the Portugal/Holland fiasco which ended in a needless yellow card for Deco (and eventual red). How about:

If a player requires treatment during the run of play, he should walk off to the sideline and recieve treatment, and play should continue.

If the player is unable to get to the sideline, then his team has to win the ball back and clear it out of bounds or win a goal kick, corner kick, throw-in etc. before the medical staff can come on the field.

Often, a player picks up a knock when he has been fouled - in those instances his teammates can take their time to make sure the player fouled is OK - if he's not OK, then call on the physio during that break in play. (This is how it currently works for this instance and I think it is fine.)

If the player has picked up a minor knock - tough. Walk it off and rejoin play when ready. If at any time the other team wants to knock the ball out - fine, that is their option. But they are not forced to do it by a vague notion of "fair play."

If a player is injured while comitting a foul - tough. The options should be a) get up and play hurt or b) wait until a goal kick, throw-in, etc for his team or until his team knocks it out on purpose. If the team awarded the kick is no rush and are fine with waiting or calling on physio - fine. That is their option.

Exceptions to the above are any injuries to the goalie and any head injuries.

Other ideas:

PKs

The Penalty Kick rule needs to change. The penalty box is not a good boundary for determining whether a foul stopped a great scoring chance.

I understand the idea is to discourage fouls on great scoring chances, but since the refs know PKs are basically handing 4/5 of a goal to a team, they are less likely to call fouls in the box. So we end up with more fouls comitted in the box, just fewer called. (Granted defenders are careful where they stick their legs in the box.)

This problem is at its worst on corner kicks (and direct kick crosses from a similar position)- it is a free-for-all in the box. Commentators always say there is a fair amount of contact and you have to let things go, but I disagree. Further, the refs love to whistle the attacking team for climbing-on-the back and push-in-the back fouls (refs also love the interfering with the goalkeeper call - a peeve for another post).

But to call those same legitimate fouls on the defense is a PK. Timing a header on goal correctly is one of the most difficult things to do in game - we see guys who are wide open struggle to hit the target at times. But when an attacker rises for a header and someone pushes him in the small of the back or pulls back his shoulder, the attacker has almost zero chance of scoring (it is hard enough to just make contact).

This is a foul a ref will call 10 times out of 10 in the midfield. And never on the defenders in the box. On a corner kick or direct kick cross, a defender must brazenly haul a guy down in the box for it to be even considered. Something is wrong with that.

Possible changes:

- Limit the PK to hand ball or fouls on clear scoring chance (about to go around defender or shoot) .
- For other fouls in the box, how about a direct kick with no wall from top of arc (call it a DK)? - Yes, this would be a scoring chance, but one more reflective of the chance the offense had to score pre-foul. (I know purists will hate this, but someone came up with the idea for the PK and that probably seemed ridiculous at the time.)

Some examples that would win this DK would be a) a trip in the box on a non-immediate scoring chance, b) a push in the back or a jersey grab on a header chance. (I hate the pantomime in the box where the ref comes over and separates two guys and signals "No more of that crap." He then walks away and they resume the jersey tug-off.)

I think you can also use this DK for fouls on potentially good scoring opportunities outside of the box as well. An example is when a winger like Arjen Robben beats a defender out wide, is about to bear in on goal, and is chopped down. Yes Robben wins a free kick (but often far away and out wide from goal) and the defender a yellow card, but that is a good trade-off for the defense when you consider what would happen if they didn't foul him. Wasn't that a better potential scoring chance than Torres dribbling away from goal (but in the box) and getting clipped by Thuram in the France/Spain match? Give 'em both DKs.

I'm all for great defense, but we should reward legitimately great defense - not clutching and grabbing and pushing the boundary of legal play. Once defenders have ceded a few of these DKs (and some goals resulted), we might see more of the former and less of the latter.

Free Kick Stoppages

Once the whistle blows and the ref signals free kick, the defending team cannot touch the ball (not just prevent kicking it away, which they have clamped down on), and must immediately retreat 10 yards. (Why should the team fouling get to slow the other team and set up their defense while a player lolls in front of the ball?)

(Note: I do not want to encourage guys blasting immediately into a defender after a foul and asking for a yellow card - some discretion by refs required).

It is not the God-given right of the defending team to set up a wall. So allowing excessive time for that is wrong - they comitted the foul and disrupted play so it should be incumbent on them to set up the wall quickly. If teams struggle to set up an effective wall, I think it will help encourage fewer fouls and stoppages (and I think ultimately more goals from open play). Right now, play grinds to a halt for long stretches with each foul comitted deep in the offensive zone.

Obviously there are flaws in these ideas (and some might be out-and-out crap), but I would love to hear thoughts, amendments, and any other things that are ripe for change in the beautiful game.

Tottenham and Villa

Tottenham Hotspurs let the on-loan Mido go - I was surprised at first beacuse he was such a focal point of their attack (before injuries) last season. Despite his bad reputation, Mido seemed to get along with Coach Jol and definitely worked his tail off on the pitch (had an effect like Drogba for Chelsea - more profound than goal totals suggest). Also, with Keane, Defoe and Berbatov (offers some of that) as striker options, Spurs might miss Mido's capabilities as an aerial target.

But I think Martin Jol has this team firmly on the right trajectory - so my thought is he will use all this amassed talent to ditch the "When in doubt, hoof it to Mido" strategy and play more of a short passing Dutch total football style. I like Jol's results (and his personality - seems confident yet humble) and am keen to watch Tottenham this year. Also, I love the signing of the Ivory Coast's Zokora from St. Etienne.

One gripe with Jol is that Edgar Davids is rapidly heading the opposite direction from the team - I know Jol loves him, but I don't think he is a very effective player anymore (Time for the Red Bulls to make an offer - he could be Lenny Kravitz to Beckham's Brad Pitt.) Is Davids really staying?

On the other end of the spectrum from Tottenham lies Aston Villa - a club that is barely treading water. I had kind of hoped they'd be relegated last season, and not only because of their indifferent play. I needed a break from David O'Leary's cloying, whinging interviews and press conferences. (Every dip in form is accompanied by O'Leary's "We're a small club. We're not a Man U or a Liverpool" Routine. We get it, David.) But the Villa board refuses to sack him despite crappy results on the pitch and his tendency to whine, slag the club, and rarely inspire off of it.

Diving, Video, Balls and the MLS

I am all for trying to remove diving from the game - I think it has no place in soccer. To help remove it from the game, I think FIFA needs to employ post-match video review.

I think of Postiga's crazy dive in the box against France - no contact and nothing but an attempt to deceive and win an undeserved PK for his team. The ref was probably turning his head as the ball was sent in from the corner and only saw Postiga going down. The ref did well not to fall for it, but it's hard for him to determine if its a flop because he is probably only seeing the end of the play (On replay, we could see at home that it was a ridiculous dive and worthy of punishment.)

You can have the equivalent of stewards at racetracks (guys who watch the race replays and judge whether a horse interefered with another if there is an inquiry) The "stewards" would sit down with a referee after the game and go over possible dives that they saw with the help of replays and different angles. Then they could hand out a suspension for offenses like Postiga's.

Also, I think they should use the same method to rescind cards that were not warranted. I think it is important for the match ref to be there, to help explain if a questioned card was for persistent fouling or verbal abuse and not just the debatable foul call. (Already exists as pointed out by The Editor - thanks)

I saw that FIFA is looking at changing to a 3 yellow-card = 1 game suspension. I think this is a good idea to help avoid suspensions like the one that forced Michael Ballack to miss the 2002 final. Lord knows if they will follow through on it.


In the days leading up to the World Cup, there was lots of talk about the Adidas World Cup Ball - mostly about how much it moves and about strikers licking their chops. Yes, Germany scored on a couple long screamers in the opener (Frings and Lamm) and Schweinsteiger sure looked like he knew how to hit it in the 3rd place match. But after watching about 60 matches, I think the ball might have a greater tendency to rise than previous balls. (I have to wait for the guys from the lab to get back to me with confirmation.) There seemed to be a real dearth of quality direct kicks and long strikes - most went over the net. This could be a contributing factor to the lack of goals this World Cup.

I have been hearing a fair amount of chatter about the possibility of Beckham coming to the USA and playing in the MLS. There has always been this conventional wisdom (going back to the Cosmos of the NASL) that we need big stars for the league to take-off. I think this is stupid for a few reasons:

1)Big money only lures declining stars to second tier leagues like Japan and some Arabian countries (and potentially the USA). You won't get a Ronaldinho or a Robinho - they can get paid big bucks and play with the best in the world in Europe. You will get an aging Lothar Mattheus or Youri Djorkaeff (Must admit, I still dug Youri even as late as his stint at Bolton). A fading Beckham surely would create buzz and sell some tickets (especially among the Boy Band fanbase), but i don't think he'd help create a better product on the pitch.

2) Stars are overrated- good soccer is the key. I won't watch the crappy Metrostars to see Djorkaeff, but I will watch the New England Revs to watch Dempsey/ Noonan/Joseph /Twellman and Co play really attractive soccer (The Revs are the first MLS team I will tune in to watch). You're better off nurturing American players and top players from around CONCACAF - guys like Dwayne De Rosario (Canada) and Shalrie Joseph (Grenada).

Watching a Houston/Chivas match the other night (I was a little desperate for soccer during an off-day at the Cup) - I was reminded that MLS soccer has improved dramatically. It's not the Prem or even the Eredivsie but the skill level and technical ability is infinitely higher than when the league began 11 years ago. With improving play, a growing domestic talent base, and smart decisions like building soccer-specific stadiums (adds so much more atmosphere than playing in cavernous, near-empty football stadiums), the MLS is on the right path. No need to veer wildly now.

Just saw a story on Yahoo about Materazzi possibly calling Zidane "a dirty terrorist" before the head-butt. I feel some vindication for Zizou (and my prediction) coming.

http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news;_ylt=AjwzJ81FRULAsBmuulsL2sgmw7YF?slug=ap-wcup-materazzi-zidane&prov=ap&type=lgns

The World Cup Final

Well, I am in withdrawal today. The World Cup is over (as is Wimbledon and even baseball is at the all-star break). What the heck am I supposed to do with myself?

I thought it was a great final with plenty of twists and turns, and I won't even complain about deciding the World Cup with PKs (no it's not fair, but the players are so worn at the end of 120 minutes, I don't think more open play is a better option.)

France grabbed the lead after the somewhat questionable PK call on Malouda's run (watching live I thought it was definitely a penalty - less so on the replays, but felt like Malouda had a legitimate shout for one in the 2nd half anyway, so it evened out.)

After Zidane had drilled his PK hard left against Portugal, I saw comments by people pointing out he almost always goes that way. With that backdrop, and Buffon guessing the same, I thought it was a great PK, despite Zidane almost chipping it too high.

Immediately following the goal, France went into their "1-0 lead shell." Italy seized control of the midfield led by Pirlo, who was everywhere in the 1st half. The Italians swarmed the ball, pressuring Veira, Zidane and Makalele into giveaways and refusing to allow Ribery any space on the right. Ribery always had his back to goal and was forced inside repeatedly, robbing France of any width down the right side.

France's tactics finally came back to bite them, when Materazzi leveled with a great header over Veira from a perfect Pirlo delivery (Every Italian set piece looked like it would end in a goal.) I was thinking France would be thrilled to get in to halftime tied 1-1 (Italy was now a bigger favorite on a betting exchange than they were at 0-0 pre-game).

Zambrotta was running wild again down the right side, and Italy controlled everything, despite Totti laying another egg and Camaronesi largely doing nothing. Henry, suffering from a concussion early in the match, did wake-up but still looked a step slow to me, especially on a dangerous through ball from Zidane. France did escape the half level thanks only to the crossbar saving a Toni header and a terrific sliding tackle by Thuram, who again had a solid match.

I did not like France's chances going into halftime, but they came out of the break with renewed confidence, immediately reasserting themselves, particularly in the midfield. Italy looked exhausted after their 120 minute marathon semi against Germany, and Pirlo and Camaronesi were having trouble completing the simplest of passes.

Ribery, sprung by a deft Zidane touch in the midfield, finally broke loose and ran at the Italian defense down the right side. The ball eventually found Malouda on the left, who was taken down in the box as he was about to shoot. I don't think the ref wanted to call another PK and, like the first one, it was a tough angle to see clearly. He let it go.

I thought Viera's injury and replacement by Diarra in the 55th minute might signal another shift in the game. But France continued attacking - Pirlo made a key block on a Zidane volley from the top of the box.

Italy remained flat on attack and Lippi deicided to not only bring off the ineffective Totti, but a quiet Perotta as well, bringing in Iaquinta and DeRossi. Immediately, Toni looked to have headed the Azzuri ahead from a set piece, but was whistled for offsides. But after that, the Italians produced few opportunities (I think France ceded only 1 more corner kick through the 2nd half and both periods of ET.)

Well, the big talking point of ET was the Zidane assault on Materazzi. A couple of thoughts:

1) It didn't change much in the game - there were only 10 minutes left until PKs and I don't think either team was going to score at that point. Yes, France would have liked Zizou for the PKs, but there is no guarantee he would have scored (or replaced Trezeguet as a shooter - think he might have replaced Sagnol.)
2) Though people were pointing out Zidane's violent history (like his red card cleating of a Saudia Arabian player in the 98 Cup), he doesn't do stuff like this very often any more. The only thing that makes sense to me is that Materazzi made a racist comment - this is pure conjecture, but nothing else makes sense to me.
3) Great head butt. Didn't know the sternum was even an option.

Zidane still won the golden boot for best player at the Cup, while Christiano Ronaldo was robbed of the Best Young Player award, apparently due to his lack of fair play. Seems odd, and I still think Cannavaro deserved the award. Even if he didn't really distinguish himself in the final all that much, he didn't make any mistakes, and I thought he was clearly the best player in the Cup from start to finish. I thought they would give to Buffon if not Cannavaro - Buffon came up huge in the ET on a vicious Zidane header. Over the whole tourney, Buffon gave up 2 goals - 1 was an own goal, the other from a PK.

So it came down to a few inches on Trezeguet's PK that decided the World Cup winner - I think on balance France deserved to win, but there was little separating these sides.

TV Coverage for the Final

Thoughts on US TV coverage for the final:

We have our shortcomings, but damn we are good at the montage. (Also, U2 goes perfectly with soccer - should be the official music of the sport.)

The whole Jesse Owens/1936 Olympics was mentioned way too often. If the USA (or maybe Germany) were playing in the finals, perhaps it might be relevant, but not really given a France/Italy final.

They finally waited until halftime and post-game to show the fans in Rome and Paris shots after goals and PKs. Bravo.

Julie Foudy was not good. Some gems:

- "That's the the danger of Zidane. He's always dangerous."

- Wondering why the refs were getting medals after the match - "Never seen that." I'm pretty sure they always receive medals at the end of the World Cup (and Euros and Champions League).

Throughout a half hour pre-game on ESPN and another on ABC, no mention of the line-ups until just before kick-off. Then, at the end of ET, no mention of who might take PKs (France was missing Zidane, Henry and Veira at that point.) Trezeguet had touched the ball about twice in 3 weeks before his PK and Wiltord hadn't looked good either.

The Jim McKay piece at halftime - when they opened with him in his study, I thought it was someone re-enacting Benjamin Franklin (and how he would look today at age 300).

I give Marcello Balboa some credit for doing a decent job:
- picked up on Makalele shutting down Totti (who was invisible again).
- credited the refs for doing a great job over the two semis and the final.

I think they were wiping down Brent Musburger during each commerical break, as he was sweating to the oldies throughout the pre-game. His upper lip looked like a Wet n' Wild.

Also, pre-game Brent mentioned Julie and Eric experienced what these players are going through preparing for the final. Eric experienced the World Cup, but not a final. Julie played in the Women's final, and while that is a big accomplishment, it is really not comparable to the men's final. The Men's final is watched by a billion people - everything little they do during the match will be remembered for years to come - it becomes a part of history. I think all that most people remember about the US women winning was Brandi Chastain stripping down to a jog bra.

World Cup TV Coverage

I really like this article by Stefan Fatsis regarding the crappy US coverage of the World Cup (I also loved his book "Word Freak" about scrabble players):

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115205934369497935-p7zzoDIaTTMsg18YJAeHQhPCU50_20060803.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

Some thoughts:

Dumbing down anything is never a good idea. Educate the audience with better higlights and commentary. Teach the nuances of the games that make it interesting and you have a better chance of winning over viewers.

Yes, goals are the most exciting thing in soccer, but there aren't that many of them. If you bank on great goals captivating the US audience, you will find them disappointed for long stretches of a match. How about stuff like:

Show the juxtapostion between the sloppy Swedish defense and the organized Italian defense on the mirror image Klose /Podolski plays that I talked about in "the Semis" post.

If you don't think the audience understands the Italian style of counter-attack, show it with game footage (Example: I think it's interesting to see an opposing wing back lose the ball on a forward run and Italy look to outlet quickly to the striker who at midfield has shifted over into that open space left by the wingback. He receives it, holds, and looks to feed a streaking midfielder for the fastbreak. (Might sound complicated, but it would be clearer with video))

Other thoughts:

One of the key themes of US coverage seems to be "we need to show Americans how crazy the world is for this sport we don't really care about." If you want to cut to some palazzo in Rome after an Italian goal - I'm not crazy about it (because I mostly want to see players and coaches reactions), but I understand. But cutting to some pub in London in the middle of open play - we cut away from our world feed for this shit - come on.

Univision has had a 1/2 hour pre-game for every game, while we have had 5 minutes for almost all the matches until the semis (when they went to an hour). We get a quick starting line-up and a weather report, while other countries are discussing match-ups, tactics and how those line-ups might affect the game.

I completely agree with the point that using graphics that cover key parts of the screen is awful. The screen-covering "how the US advances from group phase play scenario" was shown more times than TNT has shown The Mummy. This further suggests a view of soccer that nothing important is happening unless there is an attack, but so much of the game is determined by the many midfield and defensive battles for posession and control of the game.

Some of the commentators:

Eric Wynalda is not very good - he seems to have studied at the Bill Walton "I must make controversial strong statements" school. I just never get the sense that this guy has really done a lot of homework watching these countries (besides the USA) play in qualifiers or the individual players play in Europe. Yes, he is one of our most decorated players in USA national team history, but he adds so little as a commentator.

Giorgio Chinaglia, who they hilariously tried to present as the "Charles Barkely of soccer", is unwatchable. He is bad enough on his own, but when Wynalda tries to get into a PTI-style battle with him, it is awful television.

In all sports, networks are slaves to the notion that you must hire ex-pros. I think the good ex-pro commentator is the exception, rather than the norm (some notable exceptions: in basketball Steve Kerr, in football Troy Aikman and Tom Jackson - I love Tom Jackson. I wish he were my Dad.) But generally, I think we need more guys like Peter Gammons and Buster Olney - they are real students of the game. They come prepared with information and stats and do a great job.

I think watching and analyzing games is far more important to good commentary than having played as a professional. Yes, ex-pros can tell us about recovery times needed between matches, recognize fatigue etc., but I think you get a lot of guys with chips on their shoulders and that clouds their judgement and commentary.

Some of these ex-players struggle just to complete sentences - they just pile cliche after cliche until they feel they've reached a period (in hoops I think of guys like Dee Brown and BJ Armstrong). Paul Caliguri has been awful on Fox - watching him speak on camera is like watching a man drowning. Kobi Jones is marginally better, but not at all good. Can't we have these guys do some more spring training off-camera before they are forced on us?

I think Julie Foudy has shown some promise, but I'm not crazy about her. Though I was impressed by her pre-tourney pick of Ribery as a player to watch. Most others would just repeat the obvious Zidane or Henry, but Ribery has been crucial in pumping some life (and speed) into an aging French side that has struggled for goals over the last few years. It showed to me that Foudy has watched Ribery run rampant for Marseilles in France's League 1, as he had really yet to become a consistent force on the national side before the Cup.

Also credit to ESPN for hiring Allen Hopkins away from Fox Soccer Channel. Allen watches a ton of soccer and really knows his stuff. He even did a great commentary highlighting Italy's Cannavaro making an outrageous defensive play against Germany when he left his man and sprinted to interecept the ball at the last second. ESPN has used more and more of him as the Cup has progressed and though I feel he has at times adhered to the network policy of keep it real simple for our audience, he is doing their best work.

I actually don't have real problems with Brent Musburger - no, he is not a big soccer fan and yes he is prone to the stock statements like "They are dancing in the streets of ____." (Was kind of hoping Togo won a game so I could hear "They are dancing in the streets of.....Togo? Dear God I couldn't possibly name a city in Togo.")

He also loves statements like "Italy and the great Totti" - I would name like 7 Italian players who have been more important than Totti this Cup. But he is a sports fan and a consumate professional who picks up really quickly on whatever he is covering.

The miscalls of players by the play-by-play guys has been hilarious. My favorites:
- Confusing Henry and Viera, saying it was Henry who missed a header in the box. Even if you have trouble telling two tall black men apart, you should know that Henry rarely wins (or even goes for) headers in the box. And you should know that Veira is a constant aerial threat in the box.
- Mixing up Cannavaro and Del Piero - two small Italians with buzz cuts. The announcer thought it was Cannavaro on an open-field attack in the box. Del Peiro is a striker - Cannavaro is a sweeper who almost never is in the opposing box during open play (he does go up for corners). The chances that was Cannavaro were like 100-1.
- By the play-by-play account, the Ukraine had 6 Andriy Schevchenko's playing (and one of them was an overlapping left-footed wing attacker who came from really far back in the Ukraine defense).
- the constant references to Christian Ronaldo.

The Semis

Yes, I have been unhappy with much of the officiating this World Cup, but let me give credit where credit is due - the referees did a masterful job in the two semifinal matches. They blew their whistle when necessary, but mostly let the players play.

The pace of both games benefitted from fewer whistles (and booking breaks), and neither came close to getting out of hand. 1 complaint (and its not the Henry PK call) - the call on a Cannavaro aerial challenge on Podowlski that gave Ballack a golden direct kick from just outside the box - not a foul, and if a foul, then I think it was in the box. The ref kind of took the easy way out.

The Germany/Italy match proved once again that a 0-0 scoreline after 90 minutes does not mean it has been a boring match. Even before the two incredible Italian goals in ET, this match was riveting.

Grosso's go-ahead goal was a worthy match winner, with Pirlo finally finding the incisive touch that Italy had lacked out of the midfield all game. Grosso has shown himself to be quite deft beating defenders off the dribble and has provided Italy with an attack down the left throughout the knock-out rounds.

Germany played their hearts out and am glad the country has embraced them as heroes even in defeat. It was a great run for them, and I expect them to repay their rabid fans with a strong showing against Portugal in the meaningless 3rd place game. Even crusty Ollie Kahn put down the handbags and had a really touching moment with Jens Lehmann before the PKs against Argentina.

Klinsmann 1) had his team playing attractive attacking football 2) had them as fit as anyone 3) made some good adjustments like scrapping the offsides trap after the 1st match (which had cost them 2 needless goals in the opener) and 4) used his subs well, particularly Odonkor.

Lots of credit to Lehmann in goal. He backed up a great year at Arsenal with a great World Cup. He is one of the best shot-blockers in the world, but I did have concerns about his judgement on aerial balls in the box - he has shown a tendency to leave his line on a corner-kick, miss the ball completely and leave an open goal. But in the Italy game he dominated the box, turning potentially dangerous Italian cornerkicks into easy catches (often launching German counter-attacks).

My other concern about Jens is his penchant for running 40 yards out of his net to yell at an opposing player who has fouled a teammate or dived. He has received a few yellows for this in the Prem and wasn't sure if some ref in the WC (who wasn't used to his antics) might red card him. He still did this idiotic move once or twice, but nothing bad happened. The only way a goalie should even possibly do this crap is if he is the captain (Jens is not, and probably never will be captain because he is a pretty weird guy.)

Italian coach Lippi deserves a ton of credit. I was really confused when the Italians seemed happy to play for ET (and possible PKs) against Germany, as Germany has shown itself to be the fittest team in the Cup. Maybe the marathon match against Argentina took its toll on Germany, because when Lippi brought on Del Piero and Iaquinta, Italy shifted into 5th gear. While I thought they had a slight edge in the play during regulation, Italy dominated the ET, and could easily have scored 4 goals.

I again have to single out Cannavaro, though Buffon was flawless again. Despite partnering 3 different guys since Nesta's injury (that sounds a little funny), Italy has only conceded 1 goal (an own goal) in 6 matches. Cannavaro has been the player of the tournament thus far, though the Golden Ball will probably come down to who wins the final (Zidane will probabaly get it if France wins, definitely if he scores). Canavarro has my vote (which, I've been told, does not count).

He is so much quicker to the ball than anyone else, a fact highlighted when partnering the often lead-footed Matterazzi. Before the Cup I would have chosen Terry as the best center-back in the world, but I think I'd take Cannavaro now. Very interested to see what club gets him if Juventus is demoted in this scandal - I hope he goes to England.

In this match, there was a paricularly good demonstration of Italy's famed organization in the back. Klose dribbled to his left across the top of the box and then left it for Podolski back on his right. Klose did this exact move against Sweden - all the defenders followed him, Podolski filled the open space and blasted it home for a goal. Against the Italians, everyone held their positions, there was no open space, and Italy intercepted the pass.

Totti has been spotty this WC - his last minute PK winner against Australia has been his only major contribution to the attack. Against Germany, he was awful - in the 1st half he was getting his thru passes just wrong. In the 2nd half, he couldn't give the ball away fast enough. I was surpsied Lippi kept him on, despite wanting him there for PKs.


France and Portugal proved much more interesting than I had thought it would. Both teams attacked from the outset and it had the potential for a great match. I guess on balance France deserved the win, but unfortunately they showed once again that when they get a lead, they are all too happy to play defense the rest of the way.

This almost cost them against Brazil, who only really created chances when France took their foot off the pedal. It almost did again v Portugal, when France packed it in for the last 20 minutes. (The only time France hasn't done this is with a lead iswhen they needed 2 goals v Togo to clinch advancing to the knockout - they easily controlled that game for all 90 minutes. Granted, easier opposition.)

If a team is ripping through your defense and you find yourself with a lucky lead, I understand having numbers behind the ball and packing it in tight. But if you are controlling the game and the other team is struggling to defend against you (let alone attack), this seems ludicrous. Maybe, you just boot it out and play defense in the 88th minute, but in the 70th? My friend Matthew described this as the American football equivalent of going into a prevent defense with a 7 pt lead and 10 minutes left in the 4th quarter.

France's subs have not helped their cause late in games - Wiltord and Saha keep giving the ball away. Of all the key players that could have been suspended for the final, France must be thrilled it is Saha. I hope coach Domenec has not left Trezeguet too rusty, as I think he will be needed against Italy.

I did think the PK call was correct - it wasn't much, but Carvalho tripped Henry in the box (after a gorgeous cutback by Henry). Too bad for Carvalho - he should not be the goat after a great Cup.

FIFA named Thuram man of the match and I'd have to agree. He was always there for key clearances and was not caught out of position once.

Barthez still makes me nervous, but what can you say? He's not letting in goals.

Deco laid an egg for Portugal - not only did his return not spur their attack, but he disrupted it with countless 2nd half giveaways - the last one a lazy, errant flick-on attempt when he had space to settle.

Bravo to Christian Ronaldo, who was awesome while being booed every time he touched the ball. He only confirmed what I said in the Rooney and Ronaldo post. Yes, he dove once or twice, but this guy is fouled more than anyone else. He is a terror with the ball at his feet and can go around multiple defenders as easily as one.

Maniche also ended a great Cup with another solid match. Figo was good in the first half, but hit a wall in the 2nd. I still can't believe he put that header over the net from 4 yards out.

Pauletta had an awful Cup. At least after being invisible against England, I saw him pop-up a few times this game. But aside from one strike into the side-netting, he focused on losing the ball and hiding behind Thuram and Gallas.

Without a target up top, Portugal relied too much on long shots from the midfield. Their last goal came in the 1st half against Holland and that was long time ago. It was a great run for them, but without any offense, I think it is fair that they are out.

Rooney and Ronaldo

Both the English Press and many English fans have tried to make Christiano Ronaldo the scapegoat of their latest World Cup disappointment, ignoring the fact that England played mediocre football throughtout the World Cup. They seem to think it was Ronaldo's protests to the referee that caused Rooney's red card, not the fact that Rooney stomped on Carvalho's nuts about two feet from the official . Even Sven asked the press to go easy on England's "golden boy".

There is talk (I watched interviews with Man U fans and saw some Brit press) that Ronaldo now cannot return to Man U (and England) because of this rift with Rooney, and that the Portugese winger is headed to Real Madrid. So Man U should have to give up a player in Ronaldo, who has improved dramatically over the last 3 years and is just heading into his prime because Rooney had another moment of idiocy?

When Ronaldo first came to Man U, he was all style and no substance. A great dribbler of course, but no vision, bad crosses, and weak finishing (and way too much diving). Now he is certainly one of the elite wingers in the world. He sees the field better, crosses better, and is developing into a good finisher with both feet (and a good striker of direct kicks - hits the crazy knuckler also used by Pirlo and Juninho). He is also an aerial threat in the box.

Rooney's temper and relationships with refs are a major problem. He strikes an adversarial pose with ever ref and screams at them after every call (he unofficially led the Prem in "Fuck Offs"). If he had some maturity and diplomacy, he would at least mix in a smile or a light moment with a ref - these things go a long way toward earning some leeway.

I understand that the English like their players to have a chip on their shoulder and play with a bit of an edge, but Rooney is far past that. You want to use that edge to fire up your team (see John Terry), not force them to play a man down. He helped sink Man U's Champions League hopes by getting a silly yellow card and then walking up to the ref and clapping derisively in his ear in a group match against Villareal. Ref Kim Nielson had no choice but to issue a second yellow and send him off the pitch.

Rooney is not yet a great finisher. He is a great player, demands a lot of attention from defenders, and creates a lot of chances, but he squanders a lot of chances as well. He almost always goes for power on his shots, and while they are often on net or just over the bar, they rarely find the net. He might want to take a look at Henry or Bergkamp (or soon to be ex-teammate van Nistlerooy), who all show the value of placement over velocity.

The good news is he is young and can rectify these things. Fewer red cards and higher quality finishing should both come with age and experience, but they are not guaranteed. It is time for people to admit Rooney's shortcomings as well as his gifts.

The Idiot

Hail Zidane

I have been guilty of yelling about Zidane being done at the top levels for the last year or so. An indifferent year at Madrid, two mediocre showings in group play at the World Cup (followed by a suspension) seemed to signal the end of an all-time great. I wasn't even totally convinced by his match against Spain (though others lauded him), despite a goal and an assist.

But, dear God, he brought the goods against Brazil. Deft touches, composure, and vision marked a strong first half for him, but it was early in the second half when he changed the course of the game. Brazil was finally applying a little pressure and the French side was struggling to gain any posession. Ribery (another very good performance) looked to lose a ball in the midfield and another Brazilian attack seemed imminent. But Zidane stepped in, flicked a ball over the head of a Brazilian and found an overlapping Malouda. A Brazil foul resulted in a free kick, that Zidane bent beautfully to an unmarked Henry on the far post for the only goal of the game.

Then, as everyone else seemed to tire, the suddenly ageless Zidane provided invaluable posession for the French over the last 30 minutes of the match.

The whole French team played a nearly perfect match, controlling the ball in the midfield, stifling the vaunted Brazil attack and preventing any shots on an always nerve-wracking Barthez until late in the game. It is hard to single out any of the back 4 for particualr mention, as they were all fantastic.

Veira and Makalele were incredible once again, making crucial tackles and winning countless balls whenever Brazil looked ready to run at them from the midfield. There was a great Veira moment when late in the game Ronaldhino received the ball with some space on the left side and looked ready to go on one of his famous charging runs. Veira closed him down, forced him to head the other way, and when more defensive help arrived, stripped the Player of the Year and began another French attack.

I love Makalele because he is one of the best players in the world, despite lacking any touch on the ball (his through passes are hilarious, always too heavy. His rare shots on goal are worse). But he is so good at disrupting attacks, winning balls, and knowing his limitations on the ball (almost always looks for simple pass to Zidane or Veira or back to his defense) that his lack of attacking ability scarcely matters. You have to love this guy (unless you have to play against him).

France is a 2-1 favorite to advance against Portugal, and given their rapdily improving from over the last 3 matches, it seems justified. The biggest concern for me about them is that after defeating the best team in the world, they might overlook a bland but difficult Portugal side.

Thoughts on Brazil:

The wing backs Kafu and Roberto Carlos both showed their age. They offered none of the overlapping attack (Kafu didn't even attempt to get to the end line, while Roberto Carlos often settled for blasting right at defenders). Substitute, Cicinho did more than those two combined in his 30 minutes out there.

Kaka and Ronaldinho, not Ronaldo, had the disappointing World Cups. Neither one had much influence and Ronaldinho spent a lot of this match feebly chasing after Veira and Makalele.


The best thing I can say about Portugal is that they are in the semis. They played an indifferent match today and failed to create any real chances when England played 60 minutes with ten men. At times I wondered if Pauletta was even on the pitch.

Portugal seemed to mirror the tactics Spain used against France. A lot of posession in the midfield, but mostly sideways and back passes. They refused to commit men to the attack and seemed to be playing for PKs even though they had a man advantage.

Their defense was pretty solid, but should have been breached. They did maintain their shape well and bravo for containing a previously rampant Joe Cole down the left side.

MVP to goalie Ricardo for an astonishing display in the PK shootout. His coverage was so good, I felt like England was shooting from 25 yards, not 12.

Credit to Ronaldo and Maniche who provided the only spark to their lifeless attack. Perhaps the return of Deco will help re-ignite the attack - they desperately need it.

After a bright first match against Angola, Figo's play seems to be declining steadily. I know he is not the speedster he once was, but he looked positively slow against England. Scolari might want to look into bringing him off the bench against France, but that seems unlikely.

England finally put together a decent performance against Portugal, and in classic English fashion, lost the match. Thoughts:

Sven has been a failure:
- I thought he shuffled line-ups way too often in the pre-WC friendlies and this team never really had any cohesion. They certainly did not play up to what their individual abilites suggested they could.
- His selctions must be questioned (though choosing Hargreaves proved brilliant). Jermaine Jenas? Theo Walcott? He was fortunate Rooney was fit enough to play, or it would have been a total disaster.
- I don't believe he instilled this team with a confidence or a swagger that they badly needed. His ultra laid back style might be more appropriate for a team with proven int'l success.

I am afraid that Lampard peaked two seasons ago, when he was certainly one of the best players in the world for both club and country. Yes, he still scored alot of goals for Chelsea, but he showed flaws in his passing and became a little long-shot happy. Playing a 4-5-1, England was relying on him for goals and, despite numerous shots, he never found the net (even in PKs) in the World Cup. He was unable to link-up effectively in the midfield with Gerard and Beckham. Overall, it was a horrific world cup for him.

The Beckham debate rages on. I had thought Erikson should have named Terry captain and been open to sitting Beckham when he proved ineffective. Though Beckham showed his value in the Ecuador game with the deciding goal, his direct kick prowess comes at a real cost to England's ability to create in open play. His only meaningful contribution from open play came against T&T when he found Crouch for a header goal (but only after Lennon had come on and provided some space for him to operate). When Beckham was out on the right alone, England had absolutely no attack down the right side and relied exclusively on Joe Cole on the left. When Lennon came on against Portugal, England suddenly had a dangerous option - can't help but think Lennon should have played more.

(On that Adidas +10 commercial with the two kids picking sides from the best players in the world, when the one kid says "Beckham", the other kid should say, "Beckham? Beckham?" Unless the kid is picking him to help get some hot girls after the game, it is a crazy choice.)

Owen Hargreaves, a player I have never liked, was England's best player over the last two matches. His work rate and tackling against Portugal was inspiring - his efforts in the 2nd half and ET made it look like England was still playing with 11 men. I think he has radically changed his legacy with these outstanding performances. (Dumb comments by the announcers: They attributed his great play to familiarity with the brutally hot conditions of Germany. Guys, Bayern Munich doesn't play Bundesliga matches in the summer. There is more likely to be snow on the pitch when Hargreaves plays for his club.)

John Terry is the best center-back in the world. I just love that guy. I olny wish Beckham could have found him on a corner kick, b/c he is an outstanding header of the ball (both attacking and defending). I think he, not Gerard, should be the next captain of England. Gerard is incredibly talented and had a decent World Cup, but he is still disappears at times. Terry is much more consistent and is England's anchor in the back.

I am picking an Italy-France final. More on that later.

The Idiot