Some World Cup reflections

That's it. No more World Cup until June 6, 2014. I've been lax in updating my blog, as always, but here's a few end-of-tournament reflections. Some are personal, some technical, some political, some ethical. Thanks in advance for reading, if you do. :)

South Africa was a great host country

Quite thankfully, apartheid and racial unity weren't slapped in our faces with every single day or game. There was a good balance of sending a good message (the "say no to racism" banner was displayed prominently later on) and not let the beautiful feelings take over the Beautiful Game, so to speak. Stadiums were always full and people were always civilized, which is more than could be said for Germany in 2006. The organization was nearly flawless and (that which matters most) people had fun. It's a tribute to the South Africans that they showed so much love to and for the game even after their team had been knocked out so prematurely. I've no doubt that Brazil 2014 will be a month-long party of epic scale, though I wonder what will happen if Brazil (as is likely) will perform unsatisfactorily. Last time that happened, people died. But that was the 1950s...

The host country had never been knocked out at the group stage

...not even in Switzerland 1954! That's saying something. Perhaps South Africa didn't "deserve" to leave so soon, but the concept of desert in sports (and especially in football) is complex. Some say that it matters not what you deserve, but only what you do; more on this below. The bafana bafana were a fun team with decent skill and good strength. But they were tactically naive, felt the hefty weight of a continent's expectations, and were also betrayed by the underwhelming performance of their only international star, Pienaar. It must also be said that Uruguay and Mexico were both in a state of grace and dominated the group...

Holders and runners-up had never been knocked out at the group stage together

It happened before that the holders went out in the first stage: in 2002, for example, defending champions France lost two out of three games and never scored a goal. This time France did score, but their game was embarrassing, though not nearly as much as their internal debacle and locker-room drama. The French federation is bound to undergo substantial change in the next three years and many of these old players will never wear the jersey again. After the golden decade of French football (1996-2006), the Bleus will need to start from scratch. As will Italy, who did just as badly. No team can draw with New Zealand and Slovakia and still expect to defend a World Cup title. Here too we have a disgraceful policy of under-utilizing the most promising youth and relying instead on the old senators, and here too the policy didn't pay off. New generation and new cycle now with Prandelli, hopefully in time for Euro 2012.

What still puzzles me is why Marcello Lippi decided to coach the national team again after his 2006 victory. There's a saying in Italy: "there are 56 million coaches," which is to say that when the Azzurri play, everybody and his brother thinks he can do better than the current coach. And that's not just a saying, either. You would be much surprised to hear the shit that even highly successful winners get everyday from unsatisfied "fans," and the shit just piles on higher than ever when it comes to the national team. With this in mind, it's surprising Italy has won as many World Cups as it did! Every one you win is worth at least two, internally anyway. So why would Lippi, who had managed to leave a victor, laureled head and all, surprisingly hailed by all as the new Bearzot (winner in 1982, practically a legend)... do it all again with virtually no chance of a repeat? Why not quit a hero? Some say money, but I think it's just that he wanted to prove to even those few but vociferous detractors that 2006 wasn't an accident. Well, he failed. Of course he did. I just hope that 30 years down the road we do remember him as the new Bearzot. After all, Bearzot too failed his second World Cup.

The most mature teams made it to the final

It doesn't matter who you rooted for: if you don't realize that Spain and the Netherlands were the most deserving teams in this World Cup, you don't understand modern football. Notice I didn't say "best" teams, for "best" is an evolving concept in this sport. Both teams imposed their game, as all great teams do. Unlike Netherlands, Spain did so actively, carrying the ball, sometimes in a stultifying repetition of tiqui-taca (small passes, slow and progressive advance, and then sudden accelerations and penetrations). Both teams were incredibly talented, full of great stars and famous names, and yet there were nearly no primadonnas. They're like workers' unions, like bee hives, where everybody's on the same wage and obeys coach's orders like divine commands. Surely enough, those who couldn't live with this--Torres and Van Persie, respectively--were quite disappointing. Like it or not, this is football today. Being spectacular doesn't get you anywhere. You win World Cups with maturity, patience, and a lot of slow, meticulous hard work. However, this also means that...

...football is no longer an art

This is the other side of the coin. Football has become a science and no longer a game. To some extent, it always was. To the occasional observer, games are won and lost almost by accident, or by individual exploits, but that's seldom the case. Football has always been founded on tactics and teamwork. And yet, this tendency has been exacerbated lately. Stefano Benzi, a prominent Italian sports reporter, complains that football just isn't fun anymore. What matters today, he claims, is to win and not to play well, and that's annoying. I agree, but only to an extent. The technical-tactical maturity that I praised in the previous paragraph is one way in which the Beautiful Game can be played, one of the many great things about it. Football isn't any less enjoyable, for me, when teams take few risks and few goals are scored. Take the final, for example. It was an ugly game by many standards, but it was very enjoyable by others. It was a tactical standoff and an extremely tense, very highly charged war of nerves. I had a lot of fun. On the other hand, it's true that the most memorable teams lately have been losers, not winners: the Netherlands in 2000, South Korea in 2002, Italy in 2004, and Germany in 2006 and 2010. So I remain torn about this.

FIFA has no more excuses: something must change

Seldom we've seen such poor refereeing as in this edition. From Coulibaly to Rosetti, refs have wreaked much havoc and decided the fate of many a team. Here we must deal with two extreme schools of thought, both wrong, as extremes often are. The conservative school, that of FIFA and its evil secretary from hell Blatter, says that human error is part of the game and we must learn to accept it no matter what. Ergo, things are fine just the way they are and, if anything, refs just need to do better. By contrast, the "revolutionary" opposition says that we must do all that we can to eradicate error as much as possible, until every single possibility of error has been stomped out and the game is perfectly fair to all involved.

The conservatives are wrong. If technology exists to reduce the incidence of error, it is very stupid to not adopt it. To "learn to live" with error is only a virtue insofar as the error has been reduced as much as possible. The revolutionaries are also wrong, though. Football is played by humans, which means that error will be there to some extent. It is naive to expect perfection. The happy medium, of course, is to learn (for once) from other sports and give the refs a hand. The game has become too fast and too emotionally (and financially) charged to let these four guys go about their job almost entirely unassisted.

Coaching is a mysterious art

Spain's Del Bosque and Uruguay's Tabarez have a lot of trophies and history under their belts. The Dutch's Van Marwijk and the Germans' Loew, though, never accomplished anything significant before. How have teams with such significant coaching history achieved pretty much the same in this World Cup? Part of the answer is obvious: even a great coach no more guarantees victory than a master chef guarantees a great cake. You must have all the right ingredients, the right conditions, the right timing, and luck.

All the major stars disappointed

Seriously. Rooney sucked: no goals, no game. Same for Cristiano Ronaldo. Messi played well but no goals and only two assists. Kaka was at his worst. And of course, some other greats were out injured (Ferdinand, Ballack) and yet others had suffered too much from recent injuries to play well (Drogba, Torres, Pirlo). To be fair, both Robben and Sneijder played a stellar tourney, as did Klose. And also to be fair, all of this isn't exactly unusual. Many teams find their "World Cup" man after a game or two, it's nearly always unpredictable who it's going to be, and it's rarely one of the hyped superstars. Just think of Italy's Schillaci and Grosso in 1990 and 2006. There isn't really much to be gleaned from this; just that it often happens.

Germany is the most fun national team since the 1970s

I don't root for anyone after Italy goes out, but I really liked Germany this year and was sorry to see them go. Spain deserved to win and they're an old favorite of mine, but the Germans played some of most exciting football I've seen in decades. After Klinsmann's departure, his vice Loew kept a foot in many shoes as he rebuilt the team around its most famous mainstays. This year's Germany was a masterpiece of locker-room management. Take a bunch of kids with less than 10 (yes, ten!) caps in the national team (some, like lead scorer Muller, even signed their first pro deal this year) whose average age is 24 years, the third-youngest in the tournament and the country's youngest ever. Half of these are second-generation immigrants, so you build a multi-ethnic, fresh, exciting environment full of talented youth who just love to play ball. You surround said youth with experienced players the likes of Klose, Podolski, and Schweinsteiger, who've been there before and have competed at high level for most of their lives. What you get, if you're a good psychologist (because that's what coaches are), is a killer team where everybody works hard, nobody slacks, and there's so much talent it hurts the eye.

No, it doesn't hurt. At all. Germany was a pleasure to see, and some of these players will be a pleasure to watch this coming season too. Ozil just saw his price tag rise from 15 to 35 millions during the World Cup. That's fully justified, too, as he's by far the best young attacking midfielder I've seen since De Rossi and Gerrard were his age. Much the same can be said for Muller, Khedira, and Kroos. This will be a side to reckon with in four years' time, but more than that, if things go smooth these will be the names to make headlines in the coming club season. I for one can't wait.

Uruguay-Ghana raises ethical issues

Some have wondered why Uruguay's Suarez was booed in the third-place final. Here's what happened. In the quarterfinals, Suarez blocked Gyan's (Ghana) shot with his hands on the goal line at the last minute of extra time. It was fully deliberate, with the intention of preventing the goal that would have sent Ghana to the semifinals. A handball on the goal line is always punished with a red card, and (of course) a penalty kick is given. Suarez didn't even protest. Gyan then took the penalty--and incredibly missed it. The game went to the penalty shootout and Uruguay won.

It's fairly clear to all that the rules were enforced properly, but some feel that Suarez "cheated" and robbed Ghana of a win. No doubt his foul did just that, but now consider this. First, the point of Suarez's handball was precisely that, a trade-off: red card and penalty instead of a goal. From a tactical standpoint, it's a sound move: you trade a sure goal for the (meager) possibility of a missed penalty, and you pay that "purchase" with a red card. It's sort of like a sacrifice fly in baseball, though with a much stronger impact on the game, especially at the time that it happened.

Can a sound tactic be morally wrong, or even just unfair or unsportsmanlike? The laws of the game lay out precise rules for punishment when that or other sound tactics are adopted. For example, if you're at midfield and your team is about to take a counterattack, to foul the ball-holder to allow your team to recuperate is always considered a "well-spent" foul. If ever there's a time to spend your yellow card, that is it. All sports have similar tactics, and an accurate use of rule-breaking can mean a win. Now, whoever plays the game subscribes to its laws, and Suarez, who decided to break them, was punished to the fullest extent of the laws. Yes, Ghana can claim the punishment doesn't fit the crime and that Uruguay gained more by breaking the laws than by following them; but that's only because Ghana missed the penalty (more on this below).

If anything, one could say that when a player intentionally blocks a shot on the goal line in such a fashion and at such a pivotal moment of such an important game, the goal should be allowed anyway--but that kind of rule is both contrary to other laws of the game (no goal that hasn't been made can be given) and, more crucially, so specific that it's nearly impossible to apply and enforce. When is it intentional? Was it really on the goal line or a few feet ahead? Would the ball have gone in for sure? Just when is a game important enough? And so on. If Suarez's case fulfills all of these it's only because the rule would be made to fit them, ad hoc. In the end, my answer is that yes, Suarez's conduct was unfair to Ghana, but not to the game. Suarez "robbed" them only insofar as he deliberately broke the laws of the game in full expectation and acceptance of the proper punishment. Such unfair solutions are a possibility that the game cannot rule out.

There are others, too. When a player is down, the other team usually kicks the ball out of play so that he may receive help and his team won't be at a numerical disadvantage (notice that this is never an issue in other sports). This behavior has received much criticism lately, for two reasons. For one, some players fake being down when their team is in danger, hoping the ball will be kicked out. Also, players now expect the ball to be kicked out, and when it's not, some sort of riot typically ensues. But is it unsportsmanlike to keep playing while your opponents are a man down? I think this is a typical supererogatory duty: it's very nice of you and even morally commendable if you suspend play, but you're not under an obligation to do so and you can't be called a cheater if you don't (just like when you're playing against a far inferior team it's very nice of you not to win 30-0, but you're not a bad person if you do). Likewise, I think it would have been "nice" for Suarez not to block that ball, or for the goalkeeper Muslera to let the subsequent penalty in to make up for it, but I don't feel that Uruguay can be called cheaters for following the laws of the game.

Once again, to break the laws and take the consequence for it is still playing according to the laws.

South Africa 2010 was my sixth World Cup

The first was Italy 1990. I was 9. I learned to accept defeat more or less gracefully the evening Italy lost the semifinal to Argentina on penalty shootout. At USA 1994 I fell down on my family's country house terrace (hitting my head) when Baggio missed the penalty that lost us the final. Might that be when I became insane? As for France 1998, it was the third defeat on penalties in a row for Italy and I missed the final: it was my mom's birthday and we had to go out. Bah! I only remember bits and pieces of Japan-Korea 2002, and Rivaldo's faking in the semifinal made me hate Brazil from that day forward. Of course, I remember everything from Germany 2006. Italy won, and deservedly, but it was an exciting WC apart from that. I was also alive for Spain 1982 and Mexico 1986, but far too young to remember much. Ironically, though, one of my first memories is my dad commenting Maradona's infamous "hand of God" goal in the 1986 quarters Argentina-England: he explained to me that it's called "football" because you can't play the ball with your hands, and that just seemed weird, because you could score such awesome goals with your hands!

Round of 16 predictions (part 1)

...aaaaand we have the first four R16 games cut out for us, and boy are they good. Here's some predictions and observations on each.

Uruguay-South Korea

Should be quite interesting. Uruguay has played some of the best football in the group stage. South Korea has also pleasantly surprised, despite an embarrassing and undeserved loss to Argentina. This one is interesting mostly because the two teams play surprisingly similar brands of football. Uruguay is one of the least technical South American teams, which isn't to say they're poorly skilled (quite the opposite) but that they also have a strong midfield and an expert defense. This is not surprising, given the well-known Italian roots of the Uruguayan people and traditions. South Korea also play a highly cautious game, but they're less technical and less physical. Their strength is in the amazing (and typically Asian) precision of teamwork, which, when joined with still-respectable skill, makes them one of the World Cup's strongest defensive teams when in possession. It should be a low-scoring, tactical game of chess--unless Uruguay gets an early lead thanks to a set piece, which if Cavani and Forlan both play could very well happen: then it will be an all-out war. Prediction: 2-0.

Argentina-Mexico

The one I look forward to the most, honestly. The Albiceleste has dominated its group and not one player has disappointed--not even Messi, who may not have scored but got assists right and left and gave horrible nightmares to those poor Greek, Nigerian, and South Korean defenders. So long as Veron plays, no problem at midfield (not even without Cambiasso... but Diego, what were you thinking?!), and unbeknown to most, Argentina has a very strong defense this year. They're going to need it, because Mexico's game has been sparkling and extremely physical since day one. Manchester United's newest star-boy Hernandez and old-glory Blanco have proven decisive in more than one occasion. On paper, this one is for Argentina, and if Diego's boys play like they can, Mexico stands no chance. But football is beautiful precisely because "on paper" doesn't mean crap! Prediction: 3-1.

Germany-England

This should have been the final. I hate this game and it will be painful to watch. As an AS Roma fan, I love Capello: we owe him the 2001 Serie A title and he's been a friend and teacher as well as a great coach. So rooting for England should be a no-brainer. I've always loved them anyway, and one of my all-time favorite players, Chelsea FC's Frankie Lampard, plays there. But this Germany has won me over, too. I started out hating their coach Loew (whose nose-picking, balls-scratching, armpit-sniffing habits in the 2006 World Cup had been the laughingstock of Italy) and ridiculing such a young and inexperienced team... but their great group and surprisingly skilled individuals can go very far. It's a well-balanced team that's fun to watch, with great fresh talents like Ozil and Khadira as well as the "old" guard of Klose, Lahm, and Podolski. Yes, the 4-0 over Australia doesn't say much, nor does the loss against Serbia--but Germany has played consistently well and I think they can come out on top. Prediction: 1-0.

Ghana-USA

These two had been in the same group in 2006, along with Italy and the Czech Republic. Ghana had won in a tough match then, but things are different now. The great new wonder of African football is not impressing anyone this time. Only two goals in the group stage, both penalties, and so many missed chances it's not even funny. They ditched their most repulsive habit from 2006, that of tackling so hard as to break legs, and that's good; but their football has also lost much of its spark. Au contraire, I've never seen the US play this well. They've been on a constant grow and have played well in all three games of the group stage, dodging some unfortunate ref calls and (most of all) their own lack of cynicism in the box. Unlike Ghana, they're a strong and well-organized team which lacks any seriously skilled individual (Dempsey and Donovan are merely okay: get over it)... but they have no major weak spots, either, and they are very well coached, and both can go a long way. Prediction: 0-1.

Looking forward to what R16 games Groups E through H will give us in the coming two days!

North Korean players go missing...?

The European press is abuzz with the news that four North Korean players have gone missing before the game with Brazil and haven't been seen since. It's difficult not to jump to conclusions. Korea DPR has a totalitarian regime and it's quite possible that the four might have fled and/or sought political asylum somewhere.

For days now I had read unconfirmed rumors on forums that N-Korean players would be sent back to the coal mines if they didn't do well in the World Cup, though that sounds much like the usual propaganda to make enemy dictatorships look bad (plus, it's just internet hearsay).

Two print sources report on virtually the same news. The most "reputable" are the UK's Daily Telegraph and the Italian La Stampa. The latter was supposedly was the first mainstream source to report the news. As for sports websites, Chilean La Tercera and Spanish AS also chime in on it, and the former claims that the news started on a South Korean web site... where exactly, though, is nowhere to be found. Finally, there's some discussion at this forum centered on a Romanian TV news source. (Remember that you can instantly translate entire pages in foreign languages with the Google Translate toolbar here).

What matters is that FIFA is silent on the whole thing on its web site, despite nearly all of the above sources claiming some sort of official confirmation from FIFA. The fact itself that the news came out nearly three days after the fact means either that something's brooding and press coverage is undesirable or that the whole thing is entirely made up or misunderstood. Hopefully we'll know more soon!

Three days in and yet no great games, but...

If you're new to international football, you ought to know that this is typical for the first round of games at the group stage in pretty much any World Cup. The venue is huge, teams are afraid, and they haven't played together at high level in months, maybe years. So it's normal that the first match be reserved for "studying" one's own game as well as the opponent's.

Surely enough, we've seen a lot of fine individual plays and even a few exciting minutes of football here and there... but by and large we're far from how World Cup games can (and will) be like.

Below is my quick, down-and-dirty assessment of the fourteen teams who've played so far in the first three days of the South African mundial.

South Africa

Typical home-team syndrome: want everything, want it now, think they can actually win. If they get lucky, like South Korea in 2002, they may just do something important. Otherwise, they're a rather forgettable team as seen against Mexico.

Mexico

Its first half against SA has been by far the best football seen so far, but they didn't close a game they should have dominated and in the distance they lost both skill and focus. A potential big-time outsider if they get their game straight.

Uruguay

The ghost of the highly technical, strongly physical team that nearly upset Italy in 1990. An uninspired, uninteresting formation that needed no more than its moderate technical means to stop an equally dumbfounded France.

France

The team that shouldn't be here (after Henry's handball against Ireland in the last qualifying match) confirms that it really shouldn't be here. Italian sports newspaper Gazzetta puts it best by wondering "who's supposed to score in this team?" More than that--who's supposed to do anything?

South Korea

Along with Mexico, the most convincing team so far. Their strength is teamwork, like in 2002, but what they have learned since is some skill and a more refined sense of tactics (as also witnessed by the fact that they're the only Asian team to have an Asian coach). They even have the star player in Manchester UTD's Park Ji-Sung. My money is on them to pass in group B with Argentina.

Greece

Might it just have been a bad game? One hopes so, or this team isn't going anywhere. They too are like the ghosts of the tough, skilled, and lucky players who brought home the controversial 2004 European Cup. Maybe their German coach Rehhagel really has exhausted his good luck.

Nigeria

Hard to judge. When they played, they played well; but they were dominated by Argentina for most of the game. Still, with the exception perhaps of Martins, they're light-years from the Eagles who knocked out Spain and (almost) Italy in 1994. But that's only natural.

Argentina

An offensive wonder who... wanders. Against the clunky Nigerian defense they should have scored six. Yes, the Nigerian keeper was in a state of grace, but Messi and (most of all) a horrid Higuain were simply imprecise. None the less, Veron and Messi are inspired and even the defense is kind-of holding, so with more cynicism in the box their ticket to the semis is already printed.

England

A Capello team, for better and worse. By far the most mature and Cup-ready team so far, and yet not quite as concrete as they should be. Never mind Green's mishap: they didn't kill the game when they could (and boy, could they!) and the American goal was in the air anyway.

United States

A game of surprising strength against an all-around better prepared England. They kept playing their game and seriously endangered Green's goal in more than a few occasions. Given as the MLS is currently in session, their physical condition might just be their best weapon (yes, only five play in the MLS, but they're also five key players).

Algeria, Slovenia, Ghana, Serbia

By far the two most utterly boring games seen so far, so not much to say about these. In the case of Ghana and Serbia, we know this isn't their best. Ghana got plain lucky in a game that shouldn't have awarded more than one point each. Hoping to see better/more next time.

Australia withdraw 2018 World Cup bid

About time. Australia can't host a World Cup--can you imagine getting up at 6 in the morning (or waiting until 11 at night) to watch games? Simply out of the question. Sorry, Aussies. Read the news here.

The pool of candidates now is down to England (wow, first the Olympics, now this... they're on a roll); USA (not again... please, not again...); Spain/Portugal (interesting indeed!); Belgium/Holland (didn't we just have a horrible European Cup here?); and Russia (my favorite, for no other reason they haven't hosted a significant international football event yet).

But of course, it's far too early to tell. Meanwhile, a reminder: Brazil 2014 will be the best World Cup ever, and if it isn't, I renounce football!

Paraguayan witches curse Italy

Now it's official: Italy will lose to Paraguay. Screw the bookmakers; the clairvoyants say so, and you just don't fuck with that kind of prediction!

The "news" is being reported all over the Italian media (see here, for example), but I haven't been able to find it anywhere else. I'm wondering if it's even true or--which is more likely--if it's a small and insignificant event that's being blown way out of proportion.

Who cares. It's funny as hell. It'll be ten times funnier when we beat Paraguay. Of course, if we don't... well, then............

Interactive WC calendar

Not really much to talk about today (so far), but check out Spanish sports daily Marca's ultra-sweet, interactive World Cup calendar!

Should North Korea play in the World Cup?

Do you believe that North Korea should be allowed to play in the World Cup? This question had been on the plate for a while now, but it resurfaced last night after incidents at the Nigeria-North Korea warm-up friendly. (Notice that the incidents were unrelated to the game and to either team, and were instead the result of poor safety and security standards by the South Africans.... even if FIFA disagrees with the latter assessment; also see here).

To most people, that's a non-issue; North Korea are regular, fee-paying FIFA members, just as they are UN members. And unlike the UN, FIFA is not even a government or political body. Others claim, though, that the alleged human-rights violations of the North Korean dictatorships ought to rule out its national team from international competition.

What's your opinion?

First ref designations...

FIFA has designated the referees for the first 16 games of the World Cup. Here is the link to the related PDF document.

Only two of the "big names" will start. One is Benito Archundia (MEX), who'll ref Paraguay-Italy. He had also ref'd Italy in the 2006 semifinal against Germany, doing a fairly good job. That year, he shares the record for most games refereed with the Argentine Helizondo. The latter, now retired, had ref'd the final among much controversy for ejecting Zidane, supposedly after being told by an assistant who had seen the replay on live TV (if you didn't know, any form of instant replay is strictly forbidden in football, a rule itself under much scrutiny).

The other big name is Howard Webb (ENG), who just excellently refereed the Champions League final. He will be in charge of Spain-Switzerland, a fairly easy game. Finally, Carlos Simon (BRA) will take England-USA, easily the most anticipated game of the group stage... well, at least by the Americans.

More later on the latest injuries and what the press has begun to call the "captains' curse"... since after Ferdinand, Pirlo, Drogba, Ballack, and Essien, now also Robben and Mikel have added themselves to an ever-longer injury list!

Edit: for a full list of all the WC referees and their assistants, see this document.

Luck of the draw?

In one of today's friendlies, Italy and Switzerland tied it 1-1. That's good omen, if one believes in such things. A similar pre-Mundial friendly in 1982 also ended 1-1, and one more such friendly before Germany 2006 had the very same score. All three games were played in Geneva, and in '82 and '06 Italy went on to win the World Cup. I don't believe in such mumbo-jumbo, but the reptilian part of my brain does and it was seriously rooting for there not to be any more goals after the first two!

Superstition aside, Italy played a much more aggressive game than against Mexico just two days ago. Of course, it was a different team... literally: Lippi picked 11 different starters each time, so as to give everybody the chance to play and (importantly) himself the chance to experiment two radically different squads and tactics. Azzurri, of course, are still far from top shape and light-years away from 2006 shape, but we all know how pre-WC games don't really say anything if not to the coach and players.

More to say tomorrow on FIFA's referee designation for the first 16 games, even though Drogba's tentative recovery is still (in my opinion) the hottest discussion topic right now. More coming up on that too...

Injury time, literally

Trouble ahead for three of the most anticipated teams: England, Italy, and Ivory Coast.

Yesterday, England's centre back Rio Ferdinand suffered a knee injury during training. Capello's staff are not optimistic: Ferdinand's World Cup is "almost certainly over." If true, England loses its star defender and (according to Football365.com) one of their "few world-class footballers."

Even more shockingly, Didier Drogba injured his elbow during an Ivory Coast friendly against Japan. Some are optimistic right now about his chances to make it to South Africa, while others remain sceptical. The Associated Press reports that Drogba himself isn't very hopeful.

And to top off a disastrous day, Italy's Andrea Pirlo's (a significant contributor to Italy's 2006 win) old calf problems seem to be bothering him again. This could be disastrous for the team's game and morale, especially after the Camoranesi scare last week. Italy just lost a seemingly easy friendly to Mexico which evidenced some ugly teamwork and worrisome physical condition. Most of the Italian press suspends judgment: this article reports that Pirlo has left the team for now and that initial medical reports speak of a 15-20 day prognosis... which would put him out of injury list just before Italy's second game against New Zealand. Again, it doesn't look good.

Meanwhile, the usual "summer dance" of coaches doesn't stop just because it's World Cup time; and, if anything, it's even more hectic right now. As everybody knows now, Benitez left Liverpool after a (mostly losing) 6-year streak. As for Capello, after being tempted by FC Inter owner Massimo Moratti to return to Italy, he seems intentioned to see England through to Euro 2012. And of course, Cesare Prandelli signed to be Italy's next coach after the World Cup. Prandelli should have gotten this job two years ago, after Donadoni was rightfully kicked out the door and before Lippi was dragged out of retirement like a Hollywood action-movie hero, as if there were no other talented coaches around.....

North Korean FAIL

Apparently, North Korea tried to smuggle an extra striker in its squad by listing him as a goalie... and now that FIFA found out, the guy is only allowed to play in goal. HAHAHA! Are all dictatorships this stupid or is North Korea a special case?

Read the news here... or, really, anywhere on the 'net. Oh my lol.

Goalie problems for England, as always

Football 365 reports on England goalie's David James, who says:

"I don't want to look at this World Cup as a personal mission. I look at it as a team mission. Yes, you want to be No. 1, you want to play every game and lift the World Cup, but if that doesn't happen it will be a case of: 'If I'm there, my contribution will have aided whatever success we have.'

That's mighty fine, but the problem goes far beyond James himself. England is, in many respects, a team specular to Italy, in that it's got everything right but the goalkeeper (unlike Italy where, so far, everything needs work but that human wall Gigi Buffon, a certainty as much as a bare necessity for Lippi's weathered defense). Mind, I do think England has its best shot at winning a World Cup since 1990. That time they assembled a killer but tremendously unlucky team. This time around they've got all their ducks in a row, especially without whiny Becks, and Capello is a winner and a closer.

Still, the goalkeeper department is a problem. For one, all four of England's top teams have foreign goalies, and have had them for quite a while: Van der Saar for Man-Utd, Cech for Chelsea, Almunia for Arsenal, and Reina for Liverpool. Even more importantly, there isn't a significant new, young generation of English goalies elsewhere. This isn't merely a problem with England. Italy's top four teams in this year's Serie A also had foreign goalies, and if it weren't for Buffon we too would be in trouble. But a problem it is, and a pretty serious one.

To conclude, it's not like the goalie--whoever it is--needs to worry all that much against the uninspired and uninspiring U.S. forwards. England will get through the group stage just fine. But if they have any higher aspirations, they will need a good man for the job, and right now they just don't seem to have it.

Europe, Brazil, and...?

The leading European sports betting web site, bwin, gives the following predictions concerning final victory of this World Cup (hereafter "WC"). According to their bookies, the top 4 teams most likely to win are Spain, Brazil, England, and Argentina, in that order. The least likely instead are Japan, Honduras, North Korea, and New Zealand, whose chances of winning the WC (or, really, any game) is just a tad better than my chances of dating Ellen Page. The reigning world champions, Italy, are quoted at just below Argentina and at just a notch above Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Portugal, which round up the "usual suspects." The number-one outsider to watch out for is certainly Ivory Coast, this year's highest-ranked African team (aside from Egypt, who however didn't make it to the WC).

First impression: nothing new under the sun. One cliche especially seems vindicated, viz. that the World Cup is almost always a European cup. Four years ago, in Germany, all four semifinalists were European. The first semifinal, Germany-Italy, had been a historic semifinal in 1970 (the best WC game of all) and a one-sided final in 1982. The final, Italy-France, had been a key quarterfinal in 1998 and the thrilling 2000 European Cup final, both decided by nerve and luck more than talent (as in 2006, after all). Rivalries are deeply rooted, there are hard feelings, and the World Cup--much like the so-called World Wars--is often an intra-European incestuous affair.

There are, of course, two very notable exceptions, Brazil and Argentina. They won five and two WCs respectively, over a third of those played so far (the remaining 11 are divided among just five teams, four of which European: Italy 4, Germany 3, France and England 1 each; the other is Uruguay 2, who however hasn't been any good since the 1950s). That widens the field a bit and keeps things interesting, especially given the other well-known cliche in football: "Brazil can lose only to itself," which is to say they're so good that if they don't sweep it, something odd must have happened. When my Dad was young, Italian sports editor Gianni Brera often said that Brazil's only obstacle to absolute dominion was the unwavering belief in its own supremacy, which resulted in sloppy defending on the pitch and wild partying and sexual habits behind the scenes. Well, the former issue is no more, thanks to a great defensive lineup including the likes of Lucio, Alves, Maicon, Juan, and Julio Cesar, all the world's best or near-best in their respective roles. The latter problem, "thankfully," still plagues them, so we might just see some actual competition!

But what of the rest? Where's the "world" in the World Cup? It seems sorely lacking. FIFA must have noticed this, given its choice of WC locations lately. Prior to 1994, the WC had always been played either in a major European or South American country, where by "major" I mean countries with prevailing and long-enduring football traditions and whose national teams were by and large successful on the international scene. Then we had USA 1994, Japan-South Korea 2002, and now South Africa 2010. This is not a complete trend change: we still did have France 1998 and Germany 2006, and it will be back to Brazil in 2014 (oh how momentous will that one be!) But the outreach program seems to be working. While the Asian WC was a failure by almost any standard, the American one was quite a success and greatly strengthened the rise of football/soccer in that country.

This brings me to my main point: the World Cup, much like the Olympics, has an important cultural component that is often overlooked. Football is by far the world's most popular and most widely played game. This means it's deeply ingrained in the culture of very many countries, almost regardless of their teams' international proficiency. It follows, then, that with every WC follows a clash and meeting of cultures, and the venue becomes extremely relevant. The choice to have minor countries (in the same sense as above) like Japan, USA, and South Africa host three of the last five WCs is only partially an attempt to bring football where it's least popular. It's also and primarily an attempt to bring cultural exchange where it's least popular. Korea/Japan and South Africa are about as exotic to us Westerners as anything else, and of course the whole world is exotic to Americans, whose isolationism has deprived them of much more than just football. If any country needs to know and be known by us all, it's the post-apartheid South Africa, with its fascinating blend of African and European lifestyle (and, of course, with all the work that still needs to be done).

Needless to say, this sports-based attempt at cultural exchange has nothing to do with game scores and winners, nor must it. Chances are that South Africa and all minor teams will go out early on and that the round of eight will again be an affair between Europe and South America. Sure would be nice if it were otherwise, but only if it were deserved. In 1990, Cameroon got to the quarterfinals thanks to their sparkling game (and some luck) and nearly knocked England out, losing only to their own inexperience. In 1994, Nigeria was arguably the tourney's best team, again only losing in the quarters against an Italian team barely balanced on Baggio's strong little shoulders (such bittersweet irony that he, of all players, would miss the decisive penalty against Brazil in the final not ten days later). But then, in 2002, the home team of South Korea got as far as the semifinals quite undeservedly and with much help from referees and a very complacent organization committee. That's not the way to promote football, cultural exchange, or anything else. This isn't politics. In the Beautiful Game there are no "rights" or "dues." The ball is round and goes where it's kicked, so if a team deserves to lose, it's fair if it loses and unfair if it wins. Therefore, I hope to see a fair WC this year. African football hardly needs any help to rise, after all, since in fifteen/twenty years' time it will easily come sleep in the big bed along with Europe and South America, and on its own merits.

To conclude, I (and I think everybody else) hope to see a World Cup that's fair and fun, filled with all the usual folklore and drama on and off the pitch. We don't expect to see great football; the world's most important tourney is a showcase of nerve and strength much more than of skill, especially coming as it does at the end of a long football season for many of the players involved. But there will be plenty of sensation to make up for it, and the purpose of this blog is to discuss all that--and if you've seen WCs before, you know there will be A LOT to talk about in the coming month!

This blog is now about the World Cup

Philosophy, while awesome, isn't nearly as interesting as football during a World Cup. Therefore, this blog is now about South Africa 2010. Some pre-tournament impressions to get me started coming up......

Some reflections on a form of cosmological argument for God's existence...

"You may find it hard to believe that God could make everything out of nothing, but the alternative is that nothing turned itself into everything. Which takes more faith to believe?" --Mark Cahill

I haven't done (or studied) any serious philosophy of religion in three years, but here goes. I was inspired by this quote and by recent debates with a friend; the quote is by a nobody who has no respectable academic standing, but the gist of it is popular enough to warrant discussion.

This is a cosmological argument, one which appeal to causality to prove the necessity of God's existence. This very bare-bone form, which I've also seen attributed to Newton (?!), asks us to compare two possibilities:

1) God turned nothing into everything

2) nothing turned into everything by itself

When put this way, the God option sounds much more appealing. Who in his sane mind would say that something can come out of nothing, spontaneously? So let's agree that nothing can come out of nothing, and if something exists it means it must have come from something else which already existed before.

The believer says that this something else is God... but then where did God come from? We said that something must come from something else, so since God is arguably a something (but see below), then God must have also come from something else. What's this something else that God comes from?

Aquinas' answer is that there's no such thing, nothing that created God. God always existed. God is the uncreated creator, the unmoved mover, eternal. But why couldn't we say the same about the universe? Can't the universe also have always existed? Well, surely not in the present form (what idiot would ever believe that?), but rather in a primordial and condensed form consistent with current cosmological theories. So the nonbeliever may say something like this: a primordial form of the universe has always existed and is itself uncaused and eternal.

The believer now must accept that the two answers are the same. She was willing to admit that something (= God) has always existed, or she would contradict herself. So there's no reason now for her to deny that the universe can have always existed.

That is, of course, unless there's a major difference between what kinds of "things" God and the universe are. Surely neither of them is nothing, and if they're not nothing, then they must be something. But that assumes that there's only one kind of substance which underlies all "somethings." I'm not quire sure of that, but I'm at a loss to think of another substance which is neither nothing nor something, or a "something" of a different type. Believers have come up with their own half-baked, ethereal, Holy-Spirit versions of this extra substance, but those sound ad hoc and there's often no evidence other than the supposition that such a substance "must exist" for things to make sense. Well, if it must exist it's only because the believer needs to justify the fact that God is a something, a feat which the unbeliever needn't face and whose need she can deny tout court.

Pending a deeper understanding of the varieties of substances, the two original options take exactly the same amount of "faith" to be believed, because both say the same thing: nothing can come from nothing and thus something must have always existed, call it "God" or "universe" or however you wish.

Then, of course, there are many other reasons to favor the nonbeliever over the believer, or vice-versa. But that's beside the point: the point here is simply that I don't think the question of God's existence can be resolved purely cosmologically with a pseudo-argument such as this (or other, somewhat similar varieties of the cosmological argument, which of course need to be taken up individually).

--end of post--

4/16 Virginia Tech massacre: "We Remember"... but who is "we"?

The slogan here is "We Remember." April 16 is Remembrance Day. The engraved stone at the VT Memorial reads "We will prevail. We are Virginia Tech," after Nikki Giovanni's poem. Yet, who is "we"?

Like most of us, I wasn't here on 4/16/2007 when Cho killed 33, including himself, causing the worst school shooting in U.S. history and forever scarring this community. Only part of this year's graduating senior class was there, plus many faculty, staff, and Blacksburg residents. I feel that they are "we" so much more than I or our students--we "newcomers"--are or ever could be.

Yes, maybe "when in Rome..." is true, and those who were there really do want to share, and once you've spent even just a year in Blacksburg you've soaked in this town and school's sense of community. Whenever you move to a new place, it changes you... unless you focus exclusively on your studies, in which case you've already failed. But I go to VT and VT goes to me, and so the memory of 4/16, even if not my own, is quickly acquired, a thing to know and feel, like the Hokie stone and the Highty Tighties.

But something doesn't feel right. I feel that we newcomers must hold a respectful double-mindedness about Remembrance Day.

On the one hand, it does feel as if I were here on 4/16/2007. I have chills each time I walk by Norris and West Ambler and I tear up when visiting the Memorial, which I do each month. And yet, on the other hand, I can't feel "just as if" I were there, because I wasn't, and neither were most of the people who are now here. Ain't no "just as if." Back then (I was a sophomore), I remember being critical of the day-after slogan "We Are All Hokies." I used to think, "hell no we're not." We may be supportive, but what right have we to hijack the grieving and healing of a community by retroactively forcing ourselves into it?

There is a tendency in people to parade pain (others' pain, be very sure) and celebrate it, and pity parties are so much easier to join when they're on national TV. And while we no doubt felt genuine grief and solidarity, just as surely there were also hints of fabrication, of hypocrisy, a "me too" bandwagon that is puerile and disrespectful. This is a common occurrence, from Columbine to Michael Jackson, and while it's good that people feel brought together, there is a tendency to disregard the true nature of the event and instead sensationalize a cheap, feel-good, Hallmark-card pretense of belonging and support.

So which one of two minds should prevail? How are we new Hokies (and everybody else) supposed to participate and to what extent are we instead allowed to?

Perhaps we can disambiguate two meanings of "we remember." Perhaps they who were here remember both in the sense of recall and in the sense of remind, of passing on the memory and the lesson while continuing to heal. But we newcomers can only remind, ourselves and others. We weren't here when the burden was placed on this community, and we've no place saying that it's "just as if" we were; but we can lend a hand carrying it.

Those are both worthy enterprises, and we must be careful to know which one we're in the business of doing. In a few years, no one will be left to recall, and "We Remember" will perforce take on the second meaning... so it's worth thinking about how to sensibly and responsibly fill that role instead of fooling ourselves that we're filling the one to which we are not entitled.

(end of post)