|
by Joel Aufrecht
06:37 PM, 26 Jun 2006
Some context: I've watched almost every US World Cup match since 1990. I played soccer in grade school. I read the book Fever Pitch. I don't care for American football and would rather that here in the U.S., football meant international football. That said, here are my thoughts to date:
Against the Czech Republic, the US team played very poorly. Whenever an American had the ball, he avoided Czech players as if afraid they would take the ball from him. They did. When the Czechs had the ball, they dribbled past and through the Americans and took shots at will. Nonetheless, international football is such an inherently low-scoring game that the Czechs still only managed to score their goals through either defensive ineptness and superbly lucky kicking. None of the Czech goals resulting from pure skill and planning, and the Czechs went on to lose their two other games and crash out of the tournament. Against Italy, the US players played at a far higher level. For large stretches of the game, they were several quanta above the Italians in demonstrated passing and dribbling; they made a number of breathtaking moves of the sort where one or two or three players or limbs or heads go in many directions with great quickness while the ball is directly with alacrity in another direction (the proper jargon for such things exceeds my vocabulary but I believe "drop pass" merely hints at the marvels on display) and somehow the American players and their body parts and the ball all regroup on the other side of the defends and continue at great speed towards the goal. It was the sort of thing that I thought only Brazilians did, but the Americans did it many times throughout this game. Against Ghana, I was horrified to see two things: the return of the Americans to their poor normal form, and the poor gamesmanship of the Ghanians. They dove as if taking lessons from the Italians. The rest of the world seems to agree with blogger Matthew Baldwin when he says "my favorite aspect of the World Cup is the theatrics. ... any two players that pass within 70 ft. of one another will immediately drop to the ground, clutch their right knee, and writhe around in unbearable agony—and then, five seconds later, and completely irrespective of whether the official calls a foul or not, leap back to their feet and charge back into the action. There is more dramatics in a 90 minute soccer game than an entire season of your local repertoire theater." I'm with King Kaufman, who says "I've learned in this World Cup that we Americans are more offended by the diving than the rest of the world is. It's actually seen as a weakness of the American team -- a team with no shortage of weaknesses -- that it refuses to take part in the injury faking ... I understand why we don't like the diving and don't know enough about enough of the rest of the world to understand why it doesn't bother them as much. But no matter ... the diving has got to go." I've watched parts of other games. Since I have no TV, I watch in the rec room of the building at 7 am, and I often enjoy the company of the Hispanic building maintenance crew. When a Mexican player whacked a penalty kick over the crossbars, one guy jumped up in despair and moaned (in English), "stupid Mexican! Stupid Mexican!" I guess we are all influenced by our surroundings. After watching a few of the games heavily altered by penalties, I think the real problem is not the refereeing, it's the moral hazard. Its accepted in baseball and tennis and many other sports occasional bad calls are part of the game. But in most cases the players have very limited power either to generate situations which require calls or to influence the outcome of a call. A baseball player trying to touch a base before a fielder catches a ball can't do anything other than run as fast as possible, and if the call is blown it's usually by milliseconds, so viewers don't blame the umpire excessively. Probably the American sport that comes closest to soccer in the moral hazard area is basketball, where referees have to make complex and arbitrary judgements about high-speed mid-air collisions of many players. But even in basketball, there aren't too many dives. Why? Six foot ten inch 280 pound men don't like to go face-first into solid wood floors at 15 mph from three feet in the air. Implication for soccer: play on asphalt and you'll cut down a lot on dives.
Categories:
Comments (2)
|
Joel's Blog CategoriesChina (2 items)Denmark (22) Danish (11) Commentary (57) Quotation (131) War (24) Singapore (223) Public Finance (21) Institutional Analysis (15) Brain (5) Managing the Public Sector (15) Global Issues and Institutions (20) Non-State Actors in Governance (17) Leadership and Dynamics of Communication (12) Good News (97) Reviews (51) Baseball (31) Policy Analysis and Programme Evaluation (10) Urban Transport Policy (1) Archive
October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 April 2001 NotificationsYou may request notification for Joel's Blog. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||