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)
XML

Archive

June 2006
S M T W T F S
        1  2  3 
8  9  10 
11  12  13  14  15  16  17 
18  19  20  21  22  23  24 
25  26  27  28  29  30   
November 2008
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

Notifications

You may request notification for Joel's Blog.

Syndication Feed

XML

Recent Comments

  1. Victor Koledoye: A Religion ticket
  2. Joel Aufrecht: from a senior roboticist
  3. Jeff Davis: Source?
  4. Kathryn Schild: quick question
  5. Tai Yan Lim: Trip Back Home - Joel
  6. José Rodrigues: Hello
  7. Guan Yang:
  8. Erika Graffunder: Canada
  9. Erika Graffunder: Per capita emissions
  10. Erika Graffunder: Policy - should you keep evaluating or focus on solutions