Basically, no. Brazil are an anomaly in having a relatively weak domestic league in a nation obsessed with football, but this is most likely a result of the nation’s relative poverty. They produce a stupendous number of fantastically talented players, the best of whom all end up getting poached by the European clubs with vast revenues. Relatively speaking, the USA has virtually no grassroots footballing tradition. Brazil achieves what they do despite not having an absolutely top-level league (although we’re only talking by small degrees here) simply because football is more or less the only sport that matters there; nobody needs any more motivation to play. The USA, by contrast, need to build that sort of enthusiasm, and it’s going to have to go hand-in-hand with a better domestic league. Not that this is a guarantee or anything - witness the era when you had loads of (ageing) foreign stars like Pele playing in the States.
Not really, because it’s far more realistic than the prospect of the USA winning it in the foreseeable future. You just won’t except by massive fluke, and the World Cup doesn’t get won by luck. But I think you’re being pessimistic about the potential of football for expansion; hell, the living cliche of the “soccer mom” has only popped up in the last few years. As I understand it, there are quite a few more kids playing football than ever there were before, and it’s that sort of level that you’ve got to build from. You’re right, a lucky run in the World Cup will certainly help (and arguably it came last time around), but it’s not the sort of thing you can plan for, or rely on. If America will only get interested after it’s winning, it probably never will.
No. The MLS does need to get better, but greatness isn’t necessary. And having a great league doesn’t guarantee success (e.g. England). Holland, Brazil & Argentina are among the elite soccer nations without having elite soccer leagues. I might even put France in that category.
Although I don’t have numbers at hand, it seems true enough that more American kids than ever are growing up playing soccer, but it’s been that way since the 70s–with a lot of growth in the mid-90s as I see it, granted–and basically what happens is the parents don’t have any idea how the game works but they hear it’s a good way to get the kid exercise, so they yank the kid off the PlayStation and drop him off at soccer practice in their SUV and stand around giving the team orange slices. They generally don’t learn much more (the parents) about the game other than what directly translates to what they know about more traditionally American sports; the kids get to know the ins and outs of the game pretty well if they stick around long enough, but their interest in the game gradually fades as puberty sets in and by the time they’re 20 they stop caring. Although the stars in basketball, (Am.) football and baseball get front-page coverage in the local sports page during high school and whole message boards twist and turn over which team can jostle for the top position in signing the star, high school soccer is almost an afterthought. I’m sure MLS and the national team are scouting out high school stars, but you really don’t hear about them. On the contrary, any sports fan who’s lived in San Diego for the last 8 years or so can tell you all about Reggie Bush, the local high school (Am.) football star who went on to win lots of awards in college and is about to start his NFL career.
It seems to me like the World Cup is getting more attention here each time around, so maybe the kids who grow up playing the game will start to stay interested more and more. In Southern California bars are opening up early and getting packed to the brim with fans during the games in this tournament. I’ve actually heard stories of fans getting turned away from bar after bar because they were too full. But I don’t see the excitement in my daily life, as much as I hear about it and see pictures of it in the paper (I’m under 21 or I’d be there of course). Nobody I know at college is talking about the games, and I can’t get anybody to watch with me or talk soccer with me. Some of my classmates nod and smile and say “I like Brazil/Italy/England. How are they doing?” when I mention that I’ve been following the Cup. That’s about the extent of it I’ve seen personally.
Then again, I go to school in the part of town that watches NASCAR and thumps Bibles, so maybe it’s different in Little Italy.
Personally, I do think a better MLS would help a lot. But people need to keep caring about soccer after puberty before we can really have a great pool of domestic players–that will improve both the league and the national team.
One saving grace is that all 4 teams have to play to win. So the Italy-Czech game won’t be some “let’s play to a draw” farce that occasionally happens. Reason being is that neither the Italians nor the Czechs can rely on Ghana not winning.
If Italy-Czech ends in a draw and Ghana wins, not only are the Czechs out, but more importantly Italy finishes second, and then must face Brazil next round, which they definitely don’t want.
Everybody talks about how bad it would be to play Brazil in the first knockout game, but I think it’s not a bad deal at all. They’ve been lackluster so far, and if you gotta play 'em, why not play 'em early? I think they’re going to be much more beatable in their next game than in the championship. Anyway, say the US finishes second–what better way to earn worldwide respect than to show up and play a good match against Brazil?
Thank you very much for pointing this out, because I heard whispers about how they could just agree for the draw so both advanced, though the person saying it immediately dismissed the possibility.
With this bit you’ve pointed out, though, I don’t have to rely on the honor of (completely unknown to me) teams in a sport where the culture seems (to me) to encourage deceitful diving in order to further the team.
So you’ve put my mind at ease, especially since, from what I can tell, both remaining Group E games are being played (and broadcast) at the same time. Woohoo!
I eagerly anticipate tomorrow morning’s soccer bonanza; if both games go down to the wire, I’ll be thrilled.
I can see where you’re coming from, but if I have a choice of playing Australia/Japan or Brazil to reach the quarterfinals (and continue the quest for the cup), I’m taking the former without a question. Let another take the risk of taking out Brazil
This is probably one of the most intereresting groups at the moment with so many different end results possible.
Since the infamous game in 1982 however, when West Germany and Austria played out a contrived 1-0 win to West Germany to enable them both to progress to the next round at the expense of Algeria, the set up has changed.
Now of course the final two games of each group are played simultaneously to try to prevent this happening. You can’t legislate for every circumstance but it is an improvement.
One quite annoying result of this though is having to choose one of the games to watch when you might like to see them both.
Decisions, decisions.
For those of who watch with a calculator in hand, I think this is more or less accurate:
Italy
Italy advances with win or tie
Or loss by 1 + US-Ghana tie
Or loss by 2 + US-Ghana tie + score no more than 1 goal less than Ghana
Or loss + US win + GD of <5 between the two games
Czech
Czech advances with win
Or tie + US-Ghana tie
Or tie + US win + US wins by <5
Ghana
Ghana advances with win
Or tie + Italy win
Or tie + Italy loses by 2+ + Ghana scores 2+ more than Italy
US
US advances with win + Italy win
Or win by 4 + Italy-Czech tie + US scores 4 more than Czech
Or win by 5 + Italy-Czech tie
Or win by 5 + Italy loss
Dunno how it affects the rest of your tables, but this one’s a little off. In the case of an Italy loss, the U.S. does not have to win by 5, but the U.S. and Czech Republic together must win by 5 goals. Every goal Czech Republic wins by also helps the U.S. close the gap against Italy’s goal differential.
Well, OK, yeah, I’d have to agree. But I don’t think it’s the death wish a lot of people are talking about.
I was wondering about that. I watched Eng-Swe and I heard the announcers mention that match in the context of having changed some rule, but I wasn’t paying attention immediately before when they said the rule was the simultaneous-game thing.
In most groups, it seems like the choice is between a game with two advanceable teams and a near-throwaway 3/4 game. T&T-Paraguay had not even half the watchability of England-Sweden unless you were from one of the participating nations–T&T played awfully and the Eng/Swe broadcasters were going to tell you if something changed in the game. Iran-Angola was important for Mexico, sure, but I sure as hell wouldn’tve chosen it over Mexico-Portugal. (Part of it is being about a two hour drive from Mexico, I must admit; and another is that I’m less than impartial regarding Iran for a number of reasons, most of which you can probably guess.)
