As of 10 p.m. Greenwich Mean Time, no trains had jumped the rails and no planes had skidded off runways in South Africa, but that won't stop us from giving more attention to an undeniable reality of the 2010 South Africa World Cup.
It isn't going to be your typical First World World Cup of recent vintage. (Thinking Germany, Japan, South Korea, France, the United States, Italy.) This is a different culture at a different place in its history. It may someday resemble Western Europe or North America, but right now it doesn't.
Which leads us to today's topic ... the ritual slaughter of a bull by young Zulu warriors, in South Africa. With their bare hands.
Now that's not something I think you will see in France. Though they do force-feed geese to make foie gras out of their livers.
But back to the bulls and the Zulus.
This story appeared in the New York Times. It notes that animal rights people objected to what apparently is a very old Zulu tradition ... and how that objection ticked off a lot of people in South Africa (and not just Zulus). It smacked of racism and colonialism, they said.
The story notes how the South African judiciary was asked to rule on the killing-a-bull-with-our-bare-hands thing, and decided it was OK. With the ruling judge saying something like "I don't want to be responsible if something bad happens to the Zulu king because I banned this ceremony," which doesn't quite strike me as a legal opinion that would rival something Coke or Taney would have authored, in terms of depth of analysis.
And the author of the story does his best to explain how it all went down, even though reporters were pushed some distance away from the ceremony.
The point being, again ... this will be a different World Cup than any that has come before it. And not just because it is 2010.
Read more!
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Traveling Around SA Is, Uh, an Adventure
OK, yes, there's crime. The second-highest murder rate in the world -- both as a percentage and in raw numbers. (Trailing only narco-state Colombia in each category.)
And, yes, some teams are going to bring their own paramilitary security forces (as detailed in the previous entry on this blog).
And we hate to keep coming back with bad news, but this actually is news. As in "just happened."
A couple of examples why it is difficult and dangerous to travel a significant distance, inside South Africa: A plane crash and a train crash.
First, the train crash.
It occurred Monday on the passenger line between Johannesburg and Cape Town -- which is only the most important rail line in the country.
South Africa already had a reputation for barely functioning rail. Slow, expensive, doesn't take you where you want to go. (Sounds like the United States.)
And now trains are running into each other?
Be careful, England fans, trying to get from Game 1 in Rustenburg to Game 2 in Cape Town.
Here is the link to the plane crash ... which was "only" an Airlink commuter plane running off the runway in a place called George.
What I don't get is how 35 people were "ejected" but only one hurt. This also happened Monday. Yesterday.
Anyway, a day later, the transport minister says he is considering grounding the Airlink fleet. A day after dismissing the off-the-runway thing as no big deal. Hmm.
Also, this probably is a good place to mention that Grant Wahl of Sports Illustrated is on the record as saying he will do whatever he can to tar the reputation of South Africa's main airline, South African Airways, which he dealt with, apparently, during the Confederations Cup. He said he hated it on just about every level.
So, if you are going, and you need to commute any distance around the Texas-sized country ... well, good luck. Trains spotty and dangerous. Planes spotty and dangerous. Driving in a big country with some second-tier roads and lots of crime? Sounds dangerous, too.
Not all teams will be dragged around the country during South Africa 2010. The U.S., for example, has all three of its group matches in a fairly small area in the northeast.
But if you have to make that Joburg to Cape Town trip ... again, consider yourself warned. Read more!
And, yes, some teams are going to bring their own paramilitary security forces (as detailed in the previous entry on this blog).
And we hate to keep coming back with bad news, but this actually is news. As in "just happened."
A couple of examples why it is difficult and dangerous to travel a significant distance, inside South Africa: A plane crash and a train crash.
First, the train crash.
It occurred Monday on the passenger line between Johannesburg and Cape Town -- which is only the most important rail line in the country.
South Africa already had a reputation for barely functioning rail. Slow, expensive, doesn't take you where you want to go. (Sounds like the United States.)
And now trains are running into each other?
Be careful, England fans, trying to get from Game 1 in Rustenburg to Game 2 in Cape Town.
Here is the link to the plane crash ... which was "only" an Airlink commuter plane running off the runway in a place called George.
What I don't get is how 35 people were "ejected" but only one hurt. This also happened Monday. Yesterday.
Anyway, a day later, the transport minister says he is considering grounding the Airlink fleet. A day after dismissing the off-the-runway thing as no big deal. Hmm.
Also, this probably is a good place to mention that Grant Wahl of Sports Illustrated is on the record as saying he will do whatever he can to tar the reputation of South Africa's main airline, South African Airways, which he dealt with, apparently, during the Confederations Cup. He said he hated it on just about every level.
So, if you are going, and you need to commute any distance around the Texas-sized country ... well, good luck. Trains spotty and dangerous. Planes spotty and dangerous. Driving in a big country with some second-tier roads and lots of crime? Sounds dangerous, too.
Not all teams will be dragged around the country during South Africa 2010. The U.S., for example, has all three of its group matches in a fairly small area in the northeast.
But if you have to make that Joburg to Cape Town trip ... again, consider yourself warned. Read more!
Monday, December 7, 2009
Teams to Hire 'War Zone' Security?
This is a story that came out of today's editions of the Pretoria News, an English-language newspaper in the city of Pretoria, in South Africa.
Pretoria, by the way, is a host city for the 2010 World Cup. The United States' last game, vs. Algeria, is in Pretoria.
The gist of the story: That some of the teams going to South Africa are bringing their own security men, and that some of those guys have backgrounds in war zones ... and terror zones.
I would link you to the Pretoria News, but they charge for the story in question. So I'm picking it up from other South African media.
Here it is:
"Many of the nations taking part in the World Cup will use private security firms - including war-zone specialists who operate in Iraq and Afghanistan - to safeguard their players and officials.
"Sources in the private protection industry have said that high-profile football associations from Europe and South America have already hired firms that will use ex-military personnel, some of them special forces veterans, to look after players and their families. The firms will provide round-the-clock armed bodyguards, bulletproof vehicles, hijack prevention advice and squads that can handle kidnap situations. Kidnap insurance is also offered by some agencies.
"The revelations come amid fears there could be 'gaps in the coverage' provided by the organisers. A number of football associations from around the world and senior figures in international administrative circles have concerns sparked by lapses at last summer's Confederations Cup, which was effectively a small-scale test event for 2010.
"'There was no single major mishap, but some worrying gaps were noted, suggesting there won't be enough properly trained security at every place they'll be required,' one source said. 'Security contracts weren't in place until very late, some players had property stolen from hotels, and some fans were victims of crime.
"'And at the Confederations Cup there were just eight teams, playing in four stadiums, three of which were within (112km) of each other. The World Cup is in a whole different league, with 32 teams, 10 stadiums in nine cities across more than a thousand miles, and millions of fans, hundreds of thousands from overseas.'
"Another source said: 'South Africa has a fantastic reputation for sports events. It has staged the Rugby World Cup, Lions tours, and major international cricket - but its infrastructure is under pressure. Booking rooms and internal flights is already a struggle, and the security is just as susceptible.'
"Fifa said it was satisfied the South African authorities had done all they could to secure the safety of players, officials and fans."
Well, there you are. We've been writing about this for months. That South Africa can be a dangerous place. Our sense always has been that the fans paying attention to their surroundings will be save.
(Reminds me of the Scandinavian journalists who covered the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles. They were staying on the east side of the Harbor Freeway, and they decided to go for a walk around the neighborhood and got mugged. If they had asked literally anyone from SoCal, they would have been warned off a pleasure walk in that neighborhood.)
Also makes me wonder what sort of laws South Africa has about foreigners carrying weapons (concealed or otherwise) in South Africa. If that is a problem, will they be hiring South African security firms?
Remember, too, the German team apparently has been counseled to wear bullet-proof vests when outside the team compound. Hmmm.
Could be interesting. Well, it all will be. Read more!
Pretoria, by the way, is a host city for the 2010 World Cup. The United States' last game, vs. Algeria, is in Pretoria.
The gist of the story: That some of the teams going to South Africa are bringing their own security men, and that some of those guys have backgrounds in war zones ... and terror zones.
I would link you to the Pretoria News, but they charge for the story in question. So I'm picking it up from other South African media.
Here it is:
"Many of the nations taking part in the World Cup will use private security firms - including war-zone specialists who operate in Iraq and Afghanistan - to safeguard their players and officials.
"Sources in the private protection industry have said that high-profile football associations from Europe and South America have already hired firms that will use ex-military personnel, some of them special forces veterans, to look after players and their families. The firms will provide round-the-clock armed bodyguards, bulletproof vehicles, hijack prevention advice and squads that can handle kidnap situations. Kidnap insurance is also offered by some agencies.
"The revelations come amid fears there could be 'gaps in the coverage' provided by the organisers. A number of football associations from around the world and senior figures in international administrative circles have concerns sparked by lapses at last summer's Confederations Cup, which was effectively a small-scale test event for 2010.
"'There was no single major mishap, but some worrying gaps were noted, suggesting there won't be enough properly trained security at every place they'll be required,' one source said. 'Security contracts weren't in place until very late, some players had property stolen from hotels, and some fans were victims of crime.
"'And at the Confederations Cup there were just eight teams, playing in four stadiums, three of which were within (112km) of each other. The World Cup is in a whole different league, with 32 teams, 10 stadiums in nine cities across more than a thousand miles, and millions of fans, hundreds of thousands from overseas.'
"Another source said: 'South Africa has a fantastic reputation for sports events. It has staged the Rugby World Cup, Lions tours, and major international cricket - but its infrastructure is under pressure. Booking rooms and internal flights is already a struggle, and the security is just as susceptible.'
"Fifa said it was satisfied the South African authorities had done all they could to secure the safety of players, officials and fans."
Well, there you are. We've been writing about this for months. That South Africa can be a dangerous place. Our sense always has been that the fans paying attention to their surroundings will be save.
(Reminds me of the Scandinavian journalists who covered the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles. They were staying on the east side of the Harbor Freeway, and they decided to go for a walk around the neighborhood and got mugged. If they had asked literally anyone from SoCal, they would have been warned off a pleasure walk in that neighborhood.)
Also makes me wonder what sort of laws South Africa has about foreigners carrying weapons (concealed or otherwise) in South Africa. If that is a problem, will they be hiring South African security firms?
Remember, too, the German team apparently has been counseled to wear bullet-proof vests when outside the team compound. Hmmm.
Could be interesting. Well, it all will be. Read more!
Sunday, December 6, 2009
The Odds Facing 32 Teams
It seems odd to me to gamble on soccer. Not enough goals. I know you can bet on all those "propositions" (like who takes the first corner kick, who commits the first foul, etc.) ... but it just doesn't seem like a bettor's sport. American football and basketball seem more attractive betting propositions. Rugby, too.
Though much of the world disagrees with me on this, because people writing about the soccer match-fixing stories coming out of central Europe are keen to note how many millions and millions are wagered online on soccer, in Europe and Asia.
So, think of this list of odds (posted on Sports Illustrated) as less of an incentive to bet ... and more as a piece of real news interest -- from the sense of the teams the bookies believe will receive the most support.
Here they are, from best odds to worst:
9-2: Brazil, Spain.
6-1: England
9-1: Argentina
12-1: Germany, Italy
14-1: Netherlands
16-1: France, Portugal
22-1: Ivory Coast
40-1: Chile
66-1: Ghana, Paraguay, Serbia
80-1: Cameroon, United States
100-1: Australia, Denmark, Greece, Mexico, Nigeria, South Africa, Uruguay
150-1: Switzerland
200-1: Japan, Slovakia, Slovenia
250-1: South Korea
300-1: Algeria, Honduras
500-1: South Korea
1,000-1: New Zealand
Some thoughts: I might be interested in a couple of exotic bets. If gambling were legal here. One would be "I'll take Brazil and Spain against the field ... what odds will you give me?"
And I wonder what sort of odds I could get for picking a half-dozen middling teams (beginning with Argentina) with the proposition being, "These X number of teams will not win. How much can I win if I bet $100 on that?"
But just looking at the list, I might lay a fiver down on Nigeria, at 100-1. I believe the African teams are going to have their best World Cup, and Nigeria has a decent draw. I also fancy the Netherlands at 14-1. Though I wish Van Persie hadn't hurt his ankle the other day. I'd bet $1 on New Zealand, too, but that is just so not going to happen, I may as well sail a dollar bill out the fifth-floor window of my hotel in Abu Dhabi.
Anyone you see there that seems like a bargain? Or a sucker's bet? Read more!
Though much of the world disagrees with me on this, because people writing about the soccer match-fixing stories coming out of central Europe are keen to note how many millions and millions are wagered online on soccer, in Europe and Asia.
So, think of this list of odds (posted on Sports Illustrated) as less of an incentive to bet ... and more as a piece of real news interest -- from the sense of the teams the bookies believe will receive the most support.
Here they are, from best odds to worst:
9-2: Brazil, Spain.
6-1: England
9-1: Argentina
12-1: Germany, Italy
14-1: Netherlands
16-1: France, Portugal
22-1: Ivory Coast
40-1: Chile
66-1: Ghana, Paraguay, Serbia
80-1: Cameroon, United States
100-1: Australia, Denmark, Greece, Mexico, Nigeria, South Africa, Uruguay
150-1: Switzerland
200-1: Japan, Slovakia, Slovenia
250-1: South Korea
300-1: Algeria, Honduras
500-1: South Korea
1,000-1: New Zealand
Some thoughts: I might be interested in a couple of exotic bets. If gambling were legal here. One would be "I'll take Brazil and Spain against the field ... what odds will you give me?"
And I wonder what sort of odds I could get for picking a half-dozen middling teams (beginning with Argentina) with the proposition being, "These X number of teams will not win. How much can I win if I bet $100 on that?"
But just looking at the list, I might lay a fiver down on Nigeria, at 100-1. I believe the African teams are going to have their best World Cup, and Nigeria has a decent draw. I also fancy the Netherlands at 14-1. Though I wish Van Persie hadn't hurt his ankle the other day. I'd bet $1 on New Zealand, too, but that is just so not going to happen, I may as well sail a dollar bill out the fifth-floor window of my hotel in Abu Dhabi.
Anyone you see there that seems like a bargain? Or a sucker's bet? Read more!
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Oh, And a Million Tickets on Sale Today
If you have, oh, $10,000 in spare change lying about, and want to go see some matches at South Africa 2010 ... this is the time to get busy buying.
One million tickets went on sale today, the last big chunk of tickets offered to foreigners.
What the story I linked to, above, doesn't tell you is ... you need to go to fifa.com to buy tickets.
Here is a link to the fifa.com ticketing starting page.
And if any of you actually do buy tickets, send me an e-mail, so I can ask you how cool it is to have a confirmation for South Africa 2010.
If you're an American or a Brit, you won't be the only one in-country. Sources in the U.S. bought 84,000 tickets from the first batch and English bought 49,000 ... and it looks almost certain those two will be the biggest groups of fans, aside from the home team. Of course. Read more!
One million tickets went on sale today, the last big chunk of tickets offered to foreigners.
What the story I linked to, above, doesn't tell you is ... you need to go to fifa.com to buy tickets.
Here is a link to the fifa.com ticketing starting page.
And if any of you actually do buy tickets, send me an e-mail, so I can ask you how cool it is to have a confirmation for South Africa 2010.
If you're an American or a Brit, you won't be the only one in-country. Sources in the U.S. bought 84,000 tickets from the first batch and English bought 49,000 ... and it looks almost certain those two will be the biggest groups of fans, aside from the home team. Of course. Read more!
Some of the English Get a Grip on Chances
I did a post a few months ago noting the quadrennial giddy-ness that is a particularly English feature in the run-up to the World Cup. Or should we call it "barmy-ness"?
As erstwhile Masters of the Game ... as the home to the richest and most prominent pro league ... the English seem to feel as if they ought to win the World Cup again sometime soon, and they have a point. They have some nice players who play on the largest of stages.
And it is their sport, after all. Or was originally. Imagine the United States going 44 years between basketball world championships. Right. Unthinkable.
So, yes, there is generic English happiness about being drawn into what doesn't appear to be a difficult group -- Group C, with the United States, little Slovenia and underwhelming Algeria.
Patrick Barclay of the once-reserved London Times practically hyperventilates in this piece while describing why England not only has a great draw ... but is his choice to win the Whole Tournament. You'll have to go to the link. His gushing would make this item too long ... and too soggy.
But not everyone in England is banking on their lads hoisting the Jules Rimet Trophy (or is the Jules Verne Trophy?) on July 11.
Here is one snarky naysayer, Paul Hayward, in the pages of The Guardian, one of England's leading newspapers, counseling national skepticism, given England's recent history of World Cup failure:
"In the last two decades England have limped home from Italy (1990), traipsed back from France (1998), stumbled west from Japan (2002) and sounded the retreat from Germany (2006), where Wayne Rooney was sent off in a quarterfinal defeat to Portugal.
"Next summer's competition therefore presents a fresh opportunity: to be knocked-out on a whole new continent, in winter time, rather than the clammy temperatures that help redden faces, along with the tears. To break this anti-climactic pattern, the FA have hired two foreign managers on a salary of £5m a year each. Four years is long enough for the memory of the last implosion to fade and expectation to erupt again, but there is no disguising the gulf between the Premier League's wealth and power and the under-performance of the national team.
"(Coach Mario) Capello caught the infectious mood yesterday. 'I believe the facilities will be perfect for a great tournament, and the fact that the people here love football will make it even more special to be part of it,' he said. 'If you are the manager of England, it must be your aim to win the World Cup. That is the only thing that matters.' The special relationship, if it exists, is on hold."
Ouch. But give the man credit: He hasn't been slurping the "this is England's year; no, really" Kool-Aid that most of his countrymen have been quaffing by the gallon. (Though he could also have mentioned the failure to qualify for the World Cup, at all, in 1994.)
Not that England shouldn't do well. It ought to win Group C, and then face a fairly difficult Round of 16 match -- against Serbia or Ghana, most likely. But the English also don't have to play Brazil, Spain, Italy or Netherlands before the semifinals. And that can't be bad.
England was immediately installed as third-favorite to win the Cup, at 11-2 odds, behind only Brazil and Spain.
Meanwhile, Alan Hansen, writing in the Telegraph, laid out what certainly is the standard English analysis of their 2010 chances.
Wrote Hansen: "England have landed what can only be described as a dream draw and Fabio Capello will be delighted with it.
"If you start worrying about facing the likes of USA, Algeria and Slovenia, then you really shouldn’t be in the World Cup.
"Everything is in England’s favour. They will play two games at sea level, the weather conditions will suit them perfectly and the draw opens up kindly.
"England will be based at altitude, so they will be well prepared when they face the US in Rustenburg in the opening game.
"Algeria and Slovenia shouldn’t pose too many problems, although Algeria could be awkward for the other two teams and I’d go for them to finish second.
"If England win the group, as they should, the second round doesn’t hold too many fears. Even if it’s the Germans, Capello’s players won’t be scared of that.
"The only downside is that Brazil look likely to be waiting in the semi-finals if England get that far, but you would take that right now.
"England’s second team lost narrowly to Brazil in Doha, but it will be a different scenario altogether in a World Cup semi-final.
"Brazil aren’t the Brazil of 1970 or 1982, when they were the best team never to win the World Cup, so who knows what could happen?
"All Capello needs now is his team to perform."
Wow. If the English just show up ... gotta love their chances. Just like every other World Cup since the only one they won ... at home, just the other day, in 1966.
Jeffrey Marcus, writing on the New York Times's "Goal" blog, noted that the Americans feared getting into a group with two Euro powers (say with Portugal or France, as well as a seeded Euro) ... and suggested England might be a bit of a break for the Yanks, 2-7 all-time against England.
Wrote Marcus: "The United States was scooped out of the bowl and plopped into Group C with England," Marcus wrote, "of whom much is always expected and little delivered." Read more!
As erstwhile Masters of the Game ... as the home to the richest and most prominent pro league ... the English seem to feel as if they ought to win the World Cup again sometime soon, and they have a point. They have some nice players who play on the largest of stages.
And it is their sport, after all. Or was originally. Imagine the United States going 44 years between basketball world championships. Right. Unthinkable.
So, yes, there is generic English happiness about being drawn into what doesn't appear to be a difficult group -- Group C, with the United States, little Slovenia and underwhelming Algeria.
Patrick Barclay of the once-reserved London Times practically hyperventilates in this piece while describing why England not only has a great draw ... but is his choice to win the Whole Tournament. You'll have to go to the link. His gushing would make this item too long ... and too soggy.
But not everyone in England is banking on their lads hoisting the Jules Rimet Trophy (or is the Jules Verne Trophy?) on July 11.
Here is one snarky naysayer, Paul Hayward, in the pages of The Guardian, one of England's leading newspapers, counseling national skepticism, given England's recent history of World Cup failure:
"In the last two decades England have limped home from Italy (1990), traipsed back from France (1998), stumbled west from Japan (2002) and sounded the retreat from Germany (2006), where Wayne Rooney was sent off in a quarterfinal defeat to Portugal.
"Next summer's competition therefore presents a fresh opportunity: to be knocked-out on a whole new continent, in winter time, rather than the clammy temperatures that help redden faces, along with the tears. To break this anti-climactic pattern, the FA have hired two foreign managers on a salary of £5m a year each. Four years is long enough for the memory of the last implosion to fade and expectation to erupt again, but there is no disguising the gulf between the Premier League's wealth and power and the under-performance of the national team.
"(Coach Mario) Capello caught the infectious mood yesterday. 'I believe the facilities will be perfect for a great tournament, and the fact that the people here love football will make it even more special to be part of it,' he said. 'If you are the manager of England, it must be your aim to win the World Cup. That is the only thing that matters.' The special relationship, if it exists, is on hold."
Ouch. But give the man credit: He hasn't been slurping the "this is England's year; no, really" Kool-Aid that most of his countrymen have been quaffing by the gallon. (Though he could also have mentioned the failure to qualify for the World Cup, at all, in 1994.)
Not that England shouldn't do well. It ought to win Group C, and then face a fairly difficult Round of 16 match -- against Serbia or Ghana, most likely. But the English also don't have to play Brazil, Spain, Italy or Netherlands before the semifinals. And that can't be bad.
England was immediately installed as third-favorite to win the Cup, at 11-2 odds, behind only Brazil and Spain.
Meanwhile, Alan Hansen, writing in the Telegraph, laid out what certainly is the standard English analysis of their 2010 chances.
Wrote Hansen: "England have landed what can only be described as a dream draw and Fabio Capello will be delighted with it.
"If you start worrying about facing the likes of USA, Algeria and Slovenia, then you really shouldn’t be in the World Cup.
"Everything is in England’s favour. They will play two games at sea level, the weather conditions will suit them perfectly and the draw opens up kindly.
"England will be based at altitude, so they will be well prepared when they face the US in Rustenburg in the opening game.
"Algeria and Slovenia shouldn’t pose too many problems, although Algeria could be awkward for the other two teams and I’d go for them to finish second.
"If England win the group, as they should, the second round doesn’t hold too many fears. Even if it’s the Germans, Capello’s players won’t be scared of that.
"The only downside is that Brazil look likely to be waiting in the semi-finals if England get that far, but you would take that right now.
"England’s second team lost narrowly to Brazil in Doha, but it will be a different scenario altogether in a World Cup semi-final.
"Brazil aren’t the Brazil of 1970 or 1982, when they were the best team never to win the World Cup, so who knows what could happen?
"All Capello needs now is his team to perform."
Wow. If the English just show up ... gotta love their chances. Just like every other World Cup since the only one they won ... at home, just the other day, in 1966.
Jeffrey Marcus, writing on the New York Times's "Goal" blog, noted that the Americans feared getting into a group with two Euro powers (say with Portugal or France, as well as a seeded Euro) ... and suggested England might be a bit of a break for the Yanks, 2-7 all-time against England.
Wrote Marcus: "The United States was scooped out of the bowl and plopped into Group C with England," Marcus wrote, "of whom much is always expected and little delivered." Read more!
Friday, December 4, 2009
Draw: Winners, Losers, Instant Analysis
The Finals Draw for South Africa 2010 is over. The singing and dancing and overly complicated processes and illegible names on the main board and bad graphics and silly celebrities and outwardly emotionless coaches in the seats ... and one horrible David Beckham haircut. It's done.
We now have eight groups of four.
First, let's nominate some winners and losers.
Winners: France, Mexico, Argentina, England, United States, Italy, Spain, Paraguay, Cameroon, Netherlands.
Losers: Australia, Brazil, Cote d'Ivoire, Portugal, Germany, Denmark.
Now let's look at all eight groups, each given its own name, and how the eight groups ought to shake out.
Group A (Group Charmin): South Africa, Mexico, Uruguay, France. Finish: Mexico, France, South Africa, Uruguay. Comment: The second-softest group in the tournament. Unless South Africa catches fire, playing at home. It seems unlikely, but we should keep in mind that no host nation ever has failed to gain the second round. Mexico has pulled itself together and should get out of this group and maybe win it, especially if it fights off the Bafana Bafana in the first match of the tournament, June 11. Uruguay is solid but modestly talented. That leaves France, which is the team much of the world wants to see lose immediately because of the whole "hand ball vs. Ireland" thing. But France as we have known it ... the France that would be tres formidable if its whole ever equalled the sum of its parts ... hasn't been seen for more than a year. I see the French getting out of the group, barely. But they are the wild card here and coach Raymond Domenech probably is the joker.
Group B (Group Diego): Argentina, Nigeria, South Korea, Greece. Finish: Greece, Nigeria, Argentina, South Korea. Comment: Argentina ought to win the group, but it still has that bloated idiot, Diego Maradona, coaching, and we have great faith in his ability to screw this up so badly that Argentina goes home after group play. That leaves tremendous opportunities for the other three, and I see the mechanical but massively disciplined Greeks and the massively talented but often erratic Nigerians taking advantage. South Korea will do well to get a point.
Group C (Group Rule Britannia): England, United States, Algeria, Slovenia. Finish: England, U.S., Algeria, Slovenia. Comment: England has been gifted a very direct route into the semifinals. The question: Can the often under-achieving English take advantage? They really ought to win the group, which would give them a beatable Serbia in the Round of 16 and a beatable Mexico or France in the quarters ... before they could possibly face Brazil or the Netherlands in the semis. Also, if Mario Capello's crew wins the group, it can't possibly see Spain, Italy or Germany until the championship. If England is going to win ... this is the time. The U.S. ended the year badly, losing some key players to major injury, but this is a group it could escape. Which is probably exactly what Algeria and Slovenia are thinking, too. Though neither of those two has much athleticism or World Cup experience, and the U.S. is in it for the sixth straight time.
Group D (Group Deutschland Uber Alles): Germany, Australia, Serbia, Ghana. Finish: Germany, Serbia, Ghana, Australia. Comment: This is almost a Group of Death, but Australia isn't quite there, Serbia is in the WC as its own country for the first time and Ghana is coming on but lacks big-game experience against coldly efficient sides like the Germans. We see Deutschland grinding through the group (and it will be a grind) and then the Serbs finishing second. Though Ghana could be there, especially playing in Africa. Australia ... better than most people realize, but not good enough to hang with the other three.
Group E (Group Dutch Treat): Netherlands, Denmark, Japan, Cameroon. Finish: Netherlands, Cameroon, Denmark, Japan. Comment: The Dutch are the most unpredictable side in Europe. Capable of greatness on any given day, capable of meltdown on any other given day. They caught a break by getting a group with no one that should give them real trouble, aside, maybe from Cameroon, the most successful African team in World Cup history. Japan is gritty and Denmark is clever and well-organized, but neither can match the Dutch skill and flair, and both will have real issues with Cameroon's speed and attacking style.
Group F (Group Buongiorno!): Italy, Paraguay, New Zealand, Slovakia. Finish: Italy, Paraguay, Slovakia, New Zealand. Comment: Happy birthday, Italia! Must be the country's birthday, because the Azzuri sit atop the weakest group in the tournament. New Zealand is an automatic three points, Paraguay isn't nearly crafty enough to deal with Italy, and neither is Slovakia. Italy should get nine points out of this. The Kiwis' goal should be a goal. Scoring one, that is. Because they won't win or tie. That leaves Paraguay and Slovakia, and we see the South Americans beating out the first-timers from Central Europe.
Group G (Group of Death, Kinda): Brazil, North Korea, Cote d'Ivoire, Portugal. Finish: Brazil, Cote d'Ivoire, Portugal, North Korea. Comment: Three-fourths of a Group of Death. North Korea messes things up, because all four Asian teams are weak and they appear to be the weakest. But the other three here ... Brazil is Brazil. It ought to win this group. But Portugal and Cote D'Ivoire are serious, serious sides. Portugal will have back Cristiano Ronaldo in June, and he's only the best player on the planet. And Portugal is ranked No. 5 in the world at this minute, and it's no accident. Ivory Coast has Didier Drogba and Saloman Kalou and a bunch of other Europe-based stars. Brazil wins, but is pushed, and the former Ivory Coast begins its run to the semis by edging Portugal for second place.
Group H (Group Viva Espana): Spain, Switzerland, Honduras, Chile. Finish: Spain, Chile, Switzerland, Honduras. Comment: Aside from Italy, Spain has the best draw in the tournament. Well, the best group-play draw, anyway. It really ought to win all three matches against the talent-starved Swiss, the unsophisticated Hondurans and South American also-ran Chile. After that ... we're thinking Chile dumps Switzerland and finishes second.
A couple more thoughts:
--The lower half of the bracket is far tougher than the top half. Group winners in the upper half can't possibly meet Spain, Brazil, the Netherlands or Italy before the semis, and those four are the top-ranked teams in the world and Italy is the defending champion.
--Ivory Coast probably is the strongest African team, and I'm on record as predicting an African team will reach the semifinals, but they caught no breaks here. They have to beat Portugal to get out of the group, then get Spain in the Round of 16 and Italy in the quarters. Do-able, but that's a rough go.
--Cameroon is probably the second-best African team (Samuel Eto'o, etc.), but the Indomitable Lions also are in the lower bracket, and they would face Italy in the Round of 16 and Spain in the quarters.
--So maybe Ghana (England in the second round, Mexico in the quarters) is the best hope for Africa. Or Nigeria (Mexico in the second round, England in the quarters).
Anyway, we're set. Let's see what everyone else has to say, and go from there. The next week should be full of prognosticating by players, coaches and pundits. Read more!
We now have eight groups of four.
First, let's nominate some winners and losers.
Winners: France, Mexico, Argentina, England, United States, Italy, Spain, Paraguay, Cameroon, Netherlands.
Losers: Australia, Brazil, Cote d'Ivoire, Portugal, Germany, Denmark.
Now let's look at all eight groups, each given its own name, and how the eight groups ought to shake out.
Group A (Group Charmin): South Africa, Mexico, Uruguay, France. Finish: Mexico, France, South Africa, Uruguay. Comment: The second-softest group in the tournament. Unless South Africa catches fire, playing at home. It seems unlikely, but we should keep in mind that no host nation ever has failed to gain the second round. Mexico has pulled itself together and should get out of this group and maybe win it, especially if it fights off the Bafana Bafana in the first match of the tournament, June 11. Uruguay is solid but modestly talented. That leaves France, which is the team much of the world wants to see lose immediately because of the whole "hand ball vs. Ireland" thing. But France as we have known it ... the France that would be tres formidable if its whole ever equalled the sum of its parts ... hasn't been seen for more than a year. I see the French getting out of the group, barely. But they are the wild card here and coach Raymond Domenech probably is the joker.
Group B (Group Diego): Argentina, Nigeria, South Korea, Greece. Finish: Greece, Nigeria, Argentina, South Korea. Comment: Argentina ought to win the group, but it still has that bloated idiot, Diego Maradona, coaching, and we have great faith in his ability to screw this up so badly that Argentina goes home after group play. That leaves tremendous opportunities for the other three, and I see the mechanical but massively disciplined Greeks and the massively talented but often erratic Nigerians taking advantage. South Korea will do well to get a point.
Group C (Group Rule Britannia): England, United States, Algeria, Slovenia. Finish: England, U.S., Algeria, Slovenia. Comment: England has been gifted a very direct route into the semifinals. The question: Can the often under-achieving English take advantage? They really ought to win the group, which would give them a beatable Serbia in the Round of 16 and a beatable Mexico or France in the quarters ... before they could possibly face Brazil or the Netherlands in the semis. Also, if Mario Capello's crew wins the group, it can't possibly see Spain, Italy or Germany until the championship. If England is going to win ... this is the time. The U.S. ended the year badly, losing some key players to major injury, but this is a group it could escape. Which is probably exactly what Algeria and Slovenia are thinking, too. Though neither of those two has much athleticism or World Cup experience, and the U.S. is in it for the sixth straight time.
Group D (Group Deutschland Uber Alles): Germany, Australia, Serbia, Ghana. Finish: Germany, Serbia, Ghana, Australia. Comment: This is almost a Group of Death, but Australia isn't quite there, Serbia is in the WC as its own country for the first time and Ghana is coming on but lacks big-game experience against coldly efficient sides like the Germans. We see Deutschland grinding through the group (and it will be a grind) and then the Serbs finishing second. Though Ghana could be there, especially playing in Africa. Australia ... better than most people realize, but not good enough to hang with the other three.
Group E (Group Dutch Treat): Netherlands, Denmark, Japan, Cameroon. Finish: Netherlands, Cameroon, Denmark, Japan. Comment: The Dutch are the most unpredictable side in Europe. Capable of greatness on any given day, capable of meltdown on any other given day. They caught a break by getting a group with no one that should give them real trouble, aside, maybe from Cameroon, the most successful African team in World Cup history. Japan is gritty and Denmark is clever and well-organized, but neither can match the Dutch skill and flair, and both will have real issues with Cameroon's speed and attacking style.
Group F (Group Buongiorno!): Italy, Paraguay, New Zealand, Slovakia. Finish: Italy, Paraguay, Slovakia, New Zealand. Comment: Happy birthday, Italia! Must be the country's birthday, because the Azzuri sit atop the weakest group in the tournament. New Zealand is an automatic three points, Paraguay isn't nearly crafty enough to deal with Italy, and neither is Slovakia. Italy should get nine points out of this. The Kiwis' goal should be a goal. Scoring one, that is. Because they won't win or tie. That leaves Paraguay and Slovakia, and we see the South Americans beating out the first-timers from Central Europe.
Group G (Group of Death, Kinda): Brazil, North Korea, Cote d'Ivoire, Portugal. Finish: Brazil, Cote d'Ivoire, Portugal, North Korea. Comment: Three-fourths of a Group of Death. North Korea messes things up, because all four Asian teams are weak and they appear to be the weakest. But the other three here ... Brazil is Brazil. It ought to win this group. But Portugal and Cote D'Ivoire are serious, serious sides. Portugal will have back Cristiano Ronaldo in June, and he's only the best player on the planet. And Portugal is ranked No. 5 in the world at this minute, and it's no accident. Ivory Coast has Didier Drogba and Saloman Kalou and a bunch of other Europe-based stars. Brazil wins, but is pushed, and the former Ivory Coast begins its run to the semis by edging Portugal for second place.
Group H (Group Viva Espana): Spain, Switzerland, Honduras, Chile. Finish: Spain, Chile, Switzerland, Honduras. Comment: Aside from Italy, Spain has the best draw in the tournament. Well, the best group-play draw, anyway. It really ought to win all three matches against the talent-starved Swiss, the unsophisticated Hondurans and South American also-ran Chile. After that ... we're thinking Chile dumps Switzerland and finishes second.
A couple more thoughts:
--The lower half of the bracket is far tougher than the top half. Group winners in the upper half can't possibly meet Spain, Brazil, the Netherlands or Italy before the semis, and those four are the top-ranked teams in the world and Italy is the defending champion.
--Ivory Coast probably is the strongest African team, and I'm on record as predicting an African team will reach the semifinals, but they caught no breaks here. They have to beat Portugal to get out of the group, then get Spain in the Round of 16 and Italy in the quarters. Do-able, but that's a rough go.
--Cameroon is probably the second-best African team (Samuel Eto'o, etc.), but the Indomitable Lions also are in the lower bracket, and they would face Italy in the Round of 16 and Spain in the quarters.
--So maybe Ghana (England in the second round, Mexico in the quarters) is the best hope for Africa. Or Nigeria (Mexico in the second round, England in the quarters).
Anyway, we're set. Let's see what everyone else has to say, and go from there. The next week should be full of prognosticating by players, coaches and pundits. Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
