Now, here is some genuine cross-cultural ... oh, humor? Attempt at humor? Proof that what outsiders don't know about South Africa and what a sports columnist doesn't quite know about foreigners ... is truly a vast tract of intellectual territory.
A columnist named Carlos Amato has done a bit of satire, appearing on the Johannesburg Sunday Times Web site, on some of the visitors South Africans can expect to see during the World Cup in 2010. The are described as "aliens" in the secondary headline, and we can be fairly certain we are meant to think of "extra terrestrials" even before we conjure up another meaning. That is, foreigners.
I admire writers/journalists who attempt satire. Being funny -- and there is wit here -- is hard. In any language. I've been there, done that, and not always successfully. American actor and comedian Steve Martin once declared that "comedy is not pretty," and he has that right.
Anyway, it's always a bit tricky when you start slinging national stereotypes. Missing the mark is a near-certainty, especially if the prose is examined from outside the writer's immediate readership. And it is his immediate readership that is, by far, best-positioned to recognize the South African terms he uses, and who are familiar with local-culture pop references that non-South Africans can only guess at. (Do the Spice Girls have some history with Nelson Mandela?)
But it also shows that we can be looking into voids of misunderstanding even when speaking in the same language, more or less.
Let's look at some of his (yes, broad and overstated) ideas about the fans of several national teams.
Starting with the English.
He opens with a riff on the Spice Girls, who he has decided should be known as the Spice Tannies, and those of us who can form a mental picture of stick-thin Victoria "Posh Spice" Beckham can see humor in the author's suggestion that the "Tannies" can "convert their sunglasses into improvised shacks."
Then there is a bit about a presumably typical English soccer lout, this one a man named Barry who weighs 200 kilograms (440 pounds) and has passed out from over-indulgence and needs to be revived via mouth-to-mouth ministrations. (OK, gross humor; some comics make a career of it.) Meanwhile, the South African Good Samaritan tries not to look at the enormous breasts of this particular drunken soccer lout who has, on each breast, "a life-sized tattoo of Alan Shearer nailed to a cross." (Alan Shearer is a former English soccer great.)
The author moves on to American soccer fans, and his depiction of 18-19-year-old dreadlocked Coloradoans is peculiar. Very. Perhaps the only Americans the author has seen in South Africa are college-age backpackers? Amato suggests the Americans will be more interested in hacky-sack (a fad that seems to have disappeared years ago, by the way). "Already, these American kids secretly prefer hacky-sack to soccer, because they understand the rules better. You will see groups of them in Gautrain station platforms, kicking a hacky-sack. If you participate, they will befriend you, and bore the living crap out of you. Do not participate."
He also suggests that, in 2011, the dreadlocked American hacky-sack fans "will all go to college, where they will realise that soccer is a sport for socialists, Latinos and cannibals."
Hmmm. Well. Yes, some Americans are massively disinterested in soccer, but they will not be among those fans roaming South Africa next summer. Americans already have bought twice as many 2010 World Cup tickets as any other national group, and the people using those tickets will be quite serious soccer fans, actually. Have to be, to go all the way to South Africa from North America, at great expense.
There is a line about Dutch fans and hashish and mayonnaise, a suggestion that Italian fans will be interested in "seducing your mum," a riff about North Korean fans wanting to visit a power station (to spy on it?) and a half-sentence about how South Africans can expect to "hear Nigerian fans long before you see them."
And an unfortunate line about local citizens needing to make sure they "do not accuse visiting Egyptians of sleeping with prostitutes merely because you think it's possible they did." A reference to a Confederations Cup scandal centering around Egyptian national team contentions that players had personal items stolen while in a South Africa hotel, and South African authorities suggesting the problem was about Egyptian players inviting prostitutes into their rooms.
Actually, the piece is fascinating, in a cultural forensics sort of way. Because the Joburg Sunday Times is one of the best newspapers in the country, we have to assume that the author is considered amusing. And that he knows the boundaries of good taste vs. bad taste, in his community.
But, clearly, only certain bits of humor successfully cross oceans, or national borders.
The column does accomplish this: It reminds us that the sort of labeling/stereotyping most of us do when trying to boil down foreign cultures ... well, it's easy to be wrong. Maybe even offensive. (Anyone in Egypt laughing at the "prostitute" line?)
I don't want to be a scold, because I've been on the other side of a self-righteous scolding more times than I can count. Just saying ... this is the sort of subject to be approached with delicacy.
I recommend you read the Amato column. And, for your information, a "lilo" is an inflatable air mattress. And I assume a "stoep" is what we would call a "stoop" in America, Canada and England. That is, the Dutch-rooted word for "a small porch, platform or staircase leading to the entrance of a house or building."
Read more!
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
Oh, and Make Sure Your Tickets Are Legitimate
As if the would-be traveler to the 2010 World Cup didn't already have enough to worry about ...
Apparently, cyberspace is rife with people and sites keen to sell bogus World Cup tickets to football fans.
The Times of London today reported that New Scotland Yard has "closed more than 100 sites so far" that were trying to cheat fans eager to buy tickets to the event in South Africa next year.
Taking money and returning fake tickets -- or not even that.
The Times writes that "FIFA executives fear that these fraudsters are only the pioneers of an internet crimewave that will become more severe as the World Cup approaches.
"It is not only English fans who stand to suffer ... but thousands more around the world, with South Africa expecting up to 500,000 supporters from the 32 participating nations.
"FIFA has no precise figures, but it is thought that thousands of fans may already have handed over money for tickets that do not exist. But New Scotland Yard's cyberpolice ... are thought to have saved many more from parting with their cash and are leading the chase to make sure South Africa is not flooded next year with supporters holding worthless tickets and with no games to go to."
Let's put down a few simple ground rules, if you plan to buy tickets.
--If a ticket deal seems too good to be true, it is. Show some personal responsibility here.
--Unless you are buying from the authorized FIFA site, be very careful. Make sure the purveyor is a recongized, established tour operator or ticket broker. (And even then ...)
--Caveat emptor. Let the buyer beware.
Read more!
Apparently, cyberspace is rife with people and sites keen to sell bogus World Cup tickets to football fans.
The Times of London today reported that New Scotland Yard has "closed more than 100 sites so far" that were trying to cheat fans eager to buy tickets to the event in South Africa next year.
Taking money and returning fake tickets -- or not even that.
The Times writes that "FIFA executives fear that these fraudsters are only the pioneers of an internet crimewave that will become more severe as the World Cup approaches.
"It is not only English fans who stand to suffer ... but thousands more around the world, with South Africa expecting up to 500,000 supporters from the 32 participating nations.
"FIFA has no precise figures, but it is thought that thousands of fans may already have handed over money for tickets that do not exist. But New Scotland Yard's cyberpolice ... are thought to have saved many more from parting with their cash and are leading the chase to make sure South Africa is not flooded next year with supporters holding worthless tickets and with no games to go to."
Let's put down a few simple ground rules, if you plan to buy tickets.
--If a ticket deal seems too good to be true, it is. Show some personal responsibility here.
--Unless you are buying from the authorized FIFA site, be very careful. Make sure the purveyor is a recongized, established tour operator or ticket broker. (And even then ...)
--Caveat emptor. Let the buyer beware.
Read more!
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Crime Up: Attend SA 2010 at Your Own Risk
We can't sugarcoat this.
Any fan planning to attend the 2010 World Cup in South Africa should realize ... the country isn't safe.
It isn't safe by even the violent standards of, say, the United States. Or Russia. Or of a bunch of other countries known for violent crime. South Africa is way out there.
The Johannesburg Sunday Times this week wrote about national officials announcing South African crime statistics, and nearly every sort of violent crime is up -- often dramatically -- from the previous year (ending in February), with the exception of murder. Which is down, we are happy to note, 3.4 percent from a year ago.
Still, there were 18,148 murders in South Africa over the past year. Which works out to about 50 murders in the country ... every day of the year.
How does that compare to the rest of the world?
Badly.
South Africa not only is No. 2 in the world for most murders per capita, according to this Web site we just linked to (and those numbers indicate one out of every 2,000 citizens in South Africa was murdered in the previous year) ... South Africa is No. 4 in the world in total homicides (click on the "Total" stat on the site).
In murders per capita, South Africa ranks behind only Colombia, a state still in thrall to narco-terrorists ... and in sheer number of homicides, South Africa trails only India, Russia and Colombia. But India has 23 times South Africa's population of 50 million, and Russia has three times South Africa's population.
Anyway, look at those other stats, from the Joburg Sunday Times story. Business robberies, home invasions, carjackings ... all up. And steeply, in most cases. The country is going through an epidemic of mall robberies and attacks on armored cars and, deeper in the story, a business group suggests the government is undercounting some crimes.
What is behind those numbers? Generic lawlessness, clearly. But also poverty. Bad government. Social pressures. Gangsterism. Tribalism.
The Joburg Sunday Times was so agitated by all this that it wrote an angry/exasperated editorial about how Something Must Be Done. And the newspaper is right, if a little hazy on the details of how this something will be done, aside from more police in the streets.
Anyway, consider this: The United States is (fairly) regarded as a violent and dangerous country. But a person in South Afria is 12 times more likely to be murdered in South Africa as he or she is in the U.S. And compared to orderly and peaceful countries such as Switzerland and Japan ... South Africa is the Wild Wild West times about 100.
A couple of more disturbing stats:
1. If 50 people are murdered in South Africa every day, that means some 1,550 will be murdered during the 31 days of South Africa 2010;
2. The most dangerous province of them all? Gauteng, which happens to be where Johannesburg and Pretoria are located, and those two cities are the sites of three of the 10 stadiums that will play host to World Cup matches. And Johannesburg is the main air entre pot to the rest of the world. That is, a large proportion of fans and tourists will arrive in South Africa via Joburg.
So, as we have written here before, anyone planning to drop in for the 2010 World Cup, should go to South Africa knowing it is the most dangerous place in the world that isn't Colombia. That is, don't show up thinking you're in some sort of threat-free World Cup bubble. Because there aren't enough police in the country to safeguard tourists once they are away from the venues.
I'm not saying "don't go." In fact, given the chance to go, I will.
Just saying, "be aware." Go in with your eyes open and your guard up.
Read more!
Any fan planning to attend the 2010 World Cup in South Africa should realize ... the country isn't safe.
It isn't safe by even the violent standards of, say, the United States. Or Russia. Or of a bunch of other countries known for violent crime. South Africa is way out there.
The Johannesburg Sunday Times this week wrote about national officials announcing South African crime statistics, and nearly every sort of violent crime is up -- often dramatically -- from the previous year (ending in February), with the exception of murder. Which is down, we are happy to note, 3.4 percent from a year ago.
Still, there were 18,148 murders in South Africa over the past year. Which works out to about 50 murders in the country ... every day of the year.
How does that compare to the rest of the world?
Badly.
South Africa not only is No. 2 in the world for most murders per capita, according to this Web site we just linked to (and those numbers indicate one out of every 2,000 citizens in South Africa was murdered in the previous year) ... South Africa is No. 4 in the world in total homicides (click on the "Total" stat on the site).
In murders per capita, South Africa ranks behind only Colombia, a state still in thrall to narco-terrorists ... and in sheer number of homicides, South Africa trails only India, Russia and Colombia. But India has 23 times South Africa's population of 50 million, and Russia has three times South Africa's population.
Anyway, look at those other stats, from the Joburg Sunday Times story. Business robberies, home invasions, carjackings ... all up. And steeply, in most cases. The country is going through an epidemic of mall robberies and attacks on armored cars and, deeper in the story, a business group suggests the government is undercounting some crimes.
What is behind those numbers? Generic lawlessness, clearly. But also poverty. Bad government. Social pressures. Gangsterism. Tribalism.
The Joburg Sunday Times was so agitated by all this that it wrote an angry/exasperated editorial about how Something Must Be Done. And the newspaper is right, if a little hazy on the details of how this something will be done, aside from more police in the streets.
Anyway, consider this: The United States is (fairly) regarded as a violent and dangerous country. But a person in South Afria is 12 times more likely to be murdered in South Africa as he or she is in the U.S. And compared to orderly and peaceful countries such as Switzerland and Japan ... South Africa is the Wild Wild West times about 100.
A couple of more disturbing stats:
1. If 50 people are murdered in South Africa every day, that means some 1,550 will be murdered during the 31 days of South Africa 2010;
2. The most dangerous province of them all? Gauteng, which happens to be where Johannesburg and Pretoria are located, and those two cities are the sites of three of the 10 stadiums that will play host to World Cup matches. And Johannesburg is the main air entre pot to the rest of the world. That is, a large proportion of fans and tourists will arrive in South Africa via Joburg.
So, as we have written here before, anyone planning to drop in for the 2010 World Cup, should go to South Africa knowing it is the most dangerous place in the world that isn't Colombia. That is, don't show up thinking you're in some sort of threat-free World Cup bubble. Because there aren't enough police in the country to safeguard tourists once they are away from the venues.
I'm not saying "don't go." In fact, given the chance to go, I will.
Just saying, "be aware." Go in with your eyes open and your guard up.
Read more!
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Unrest in Honduras May Force Move of U.S. Match
Honduras is something of a mess, at the moment. A coup ousted the president, who snuck back into Honduras this week, and he is holed up in the Brazilian Embassy.
There is unrest in the streets, with supporters of the ousted president, Manuel Zelaya, confronting the police and armed forces.
Meanwhile, Honduran airports are closed, as are ports, and the only way into the country apparently is an overland route from neighboring El Salvador.
Political tension could make for sports improvisation, the Associated Press is reporting. To wit: The scheduled Oct. 10 match between Honduras's surprisingly formidable national team and the United States, scheduled at San Pedro Sula, the second city of Honduras, may have to be moved. Perhaps out of Honduras entirely.
According to the New York Times, Neil Buethe, a U.S. Soccer Federation spokesman, said, "We are obviously monitoring the situation closely and are in discussions with the appropriate officials with Concacaf and FIFA, who will determine if the location of the match will be moved outside of Honduras."
Where might the match be moved? The New York Times suggests Guatemala. The consensus seems to be it would be held somewhere in Central America, to give Honduras as big an advantage as possible -- given the situation. Though NYT notes that Honduras had lots of support when it played the U.S. in Chicago, in June.
The game is important on a really basic soccer level because the U.S. and Honduras are two of the four teams atop the close Concacaf qualifying table. With only two matches left.
The top three finishers are guaranteed berths at South Africa 2010. The No. 4 team goes to a home-and-home playoff with the No. 5 team out of South America.
Clearly, it is better to finish in the top three than to finish fourth.
The United States could clinch a top-three finish with a victory. Honduras would move very close to doing the same, were it to win. And the Hondurans would be favored in this match, under normal conditions, having won all four of their home matches in qualifying, to date. But the coach of the national team, Ramon Maradiego, said players are suffering from "constant uncertainty."
There is precedent for FIFA moving a qualifying match because of violence or upheaval in a country -- and in this qualifying phase, too. ESPN.com notes that, in 2007, a qualifier between China and Myanmar was staged in Malaysia after Myanmar's military broke up pro-democracy rallies, killing at least 10 people.
And NYT recalls that a 1996 U.S. match scheduled to be played in Guatemala was moved to El Salvador, "switching to a neutral site after a stadium stampede two months earlier in Guatemala City led to 84 deaths."
The World Cup is important. But not more important than the rise and fall of a government, and not more important than violence in the streets. You can't play a match when the rest of the city/country is in upheaval.
If Honduras doesn't settle down, and soon, look for that Oct. 10 match to be moved. Somewhere. Read more!
There is unrest in the streets, with supporters of the ousted president, Manuel Zelaya, confronting the police and armed forces.
Meanwhile, Honduran airports are closed, as are ports, and the only way into the country apparently is an overland route from neighboring El Salvador.
Political tension could make for sports improvisation, the Associated Press is reporting. To wit: The scheduled Oct. 10 match between Honduras's surprisingly formidable national team and the United States, scheduled at San Pedro Sula, the second city of Honduras, may have to be moved. Perhaps out of Honduras entirely.
According to the New York Times, Neil Buethe, a U.S. Soccer Federation spokesman, said, "We are obviously monitoring the situation closely and are in discussions with the appropriate officials with Concacaf and FIFA, who will determine if the location of the match will be moved outside of Honduras."
Where might the match be moved? The New York Times suggests Guatemala. The consensus seems to be it would be held somewhere in Central America, to give Honduras as big an advantage as possible -- given the situation. Though NYT notes that Honduras had lots of support when it played the U.S. in Chicago, in June.
The game is important on a really basic soccer level because the U.S. and Honduras are two of the four teams atop the close Concacaf qualifying table. With only two matches left.
The top three finishers are guaranteed berths at South Africa 2010. The No. 4 team goes to a home-and-home playoff with the No. 5 team out of South America.
Clearly, it is better to finish in the top three than to finish fourth.
The United States could clinch a top-three finish with a victory. Honduras would move very close to doing the same, were it to win. And the Hondurans would be favored in this match, under normal conditions, having won all four of their home matches in qualifying, to date. But the coach of the national team, Ramon Maradiego, said players are suffering from "constant uncertainty."
There is precedent for FIFA moving a qualifying match because of violence or upheaval in a country -- and in this qualifying phase, too. ESPN.com notes that, in 2007, a qualifier between China and Myanmar was staged in Malaysia after Myanmar's military broke up pro-democracy rallies, killing at least 10 people.
And NYT recalls that a 1996 U.S. match scheduled to be played in Guatemala was moved to El Salvador, "switching to a neutral site after a stadium stampede two months earlier in Guatemala City led to 84 deaths."
The World Cup is important. But not more important than the rise and fall of a government, and not more important than violence in the streets. You can't play a match when the rest of the city/country is in upheaval.
If Honduras doesn't settle down, and soon, look for that Oct. 10 match to be moved. Somewhere. Read more!
The 'U.S. League' Comment That Didn't Publish
A soccer fan/observer who goes by the handle of "Dawn Eos" (Eos is the Greek goddess of dawn) sent a thoughtful and informative e-mail ... because he (or more probably she) couldn't get it to show up as a "comment" to the previous blog entry -- "U.S. League Bows ..."
(Though other comments are showing up; I don't know what the issue might be.)
Anyway, I'm posting the Dawn Eos comment here, as an entry. In it, DE notes that Major League Soccer of the United States is not the only league to play over the summer in the Northern Hemisphere. Etc. (I should have written "Western Europe" ... and regardless of weather considerations, Sepp Blatter has said several times he believes the U.S. should play a fall-to-spring schedule.)
Here is the material from Dawn Eos.
Some Northern Hemisphere league schedules:
Belarus: April-November
China: March-October
Iceland: May-September
Japan: March-December
Russia: March-November
Norway: March-November
South Korea: March-December
Sweden: April-November
The relevant point: for much of northern North America, winter conditions have quite a bit in common with the countries listed above. February in Toronto: more like Madrid, or Moscow? Chicago: more like Rome, or Oslo?
As for why MLS has played through previous World Cups -- it seems unfair to assume that the league believed its fans were uninterested in the greatest show on earth. Given that:
(a) World Cup matches are played during mornings and afternoons (and sometimes earlier)
(b) the World Cup has traditionally been the only time in four years when the general American sporting public even notices the sport
(c) MLS remains a still-fledgling league, and one for which the cost of losing four summer weekends under any circumstances would be substantial
the league presumably decided that it would be better off continuing play during previous World Cups. Specifically: even with most soccer fans' attention elsewhere, Saturday night games during June and July would still do better than Wednesday games in March or October. And with the influx of casual fans watching World Cup games in the mornings and afternoons, MLS would at least be able to advertise its presence to those fans, and to offer them a live soccer experience at the single moment they're actually interested in the sport (and before they go away for another four years). And most mordantly: MLS might have thought that suspending play during the middle of its season for any reason might lead people to believe that it wouldn't ever come back.
But now: MLS is in far better shape than it was in 1998 or 2002, and increasingly appears to be a permanent part of the sporting landscape. And the general sporting public is more aware of the game than ever before (and is interested in soccer for more than one month every four years) -- for both those reasons, it's presumably less necessary for the league to chase potential fans during World Cups.
But probably most importantly, as more and more MLS teams possess their own venues, those summer weekend dates are no longer quite so critical financially. And that's probably the most important reason why the league will be taking that two-week break next year: they won't lose that much soccer income by doing so. Indeed, what will likely happen is that quite a few teams will dispose of their Open Cup obligations during that break, add a concert or two to their venues' schedules, and quite probably come out ahead in the end. Read more!
(Though other comments are showing up; I don't know what the issue might be.)
Anyway, I'm posting the Dawn Eos comment here, as an entry. In it, DE notes that Major League Soccer of the United States is not the only league to play over the summer in the Northern Hemisphere. Etc. (I should have written "Western Europe" ... and regardless of weather considerations, Sepp Blatter has said several times he believes the U.S. should play a fall-to-spring schedule.)
Here is the material from Dawn Eos.
Some Northern Hemisphere league schedules:
Belarus: April-November
China: March-October
Iceland: May-September
Japan: March-December
Russia: March-November
Norway: March-November
South Korea: March-December
Sweden: April-November
The relevant point: for much of northern North America, winter conditions have quite a bit in common with the countries listed above. February in Toronto: more like Madrid, or Moscow? Chicago: more like Rome, or Oslo?
As for why MLS has played through previous World Cups -- it seems unfair to assume that the league believed its fans were uninterested in the greatest show on earth. Given that:
(a) World Cup matches are played during mornings and afternoons (and sometimes earlier)
(b) the World Cup has traditionally been the only time in four years when the general American sporting public even notices the sport
(c) MLS remains a still-fledgling league, and one for which the cost of losing four summer weekends under any circumstances would be substantial
the league presumably decided that it would be better off continuing play during previous World Cups. Specifically: even with most soccer fans' attention elsewhere, Saturday night games during June and July would still do better than Wednesday games in March or October. And with the influx of casual fans watching World Cup games in the mornings and afternoons, MLS would at least be able to advertise its presence to those fans, and to offer them a live soccer experience at the single moment they're actually interested in the sport (and before they go away for another four years). And most mordantly: MLS might have thought that suspending play during the middle of its season for any reason might lead people to believe that it wouldn't ever come back.
But now: MLS is in far better shape than it was in 1998 or 2002, and increasingly appears to be a permanent part of the sporting landscape. And the general sporting public is more aware of the game than ever before (and is interested in soccer for more than one month every four years) -- for both those reasons, it's presumably less necessary for the league to chase potential fans during World Cups.
But probably most importantly, as more and more MLS teams possess their own venues, those summer weekend dates are no longer quite so critical financially. And that's probably the most important reason why the league will be taking that two-week break next year: they won't lose that much soccer income by doing so. Indeed, what will likely happen is that quite a few teams will dispose of their Open Cup obligations during that break, add a concert or two to their venues' schedules, and quite probably come out ahead in the end. Read more!
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
U.S. League Bows to South Africa 2010
Major League Soccer is the top level of club competition in the United States, and it has been notable, during the past three World Cups cycles, for continuing to play matches while the World Cup was going on.
That will not be the case during South Africa 2010.
The league recently announced it will schedule no matches during group play of the 2010 World Cup, June 11-25.
And that's not all.
MLS also will not play matches on the same days as the World Cup semifinals (July 6-7) or championship (July 11).
The move demonstrates the globalization of soccer inside the U.S., and should be seen as progress by the soccer world inside the world's biggest economy.
The MLS, founded in 1996, just played right through the World cup in 1998, 2002 and 2006 because, rest assured, it didn't believe its fans were distracted (or even all that interested) in the World Cup.
That has changed. And it is another victory for the world's premier sports event.
FIFA president Sepp Blatter would also like to see MLS shift its schedule from March-October toward something in line with the rest of the Northern Hemisphere, from September until May or June.
MLS is resisting that sea change, still, probably because American football is so popular -- and runs from September to the first weekend of February) that MLS apparently fears being thoroughly eclipsed by it. A not unreasonable concern; in the end, soccer is an also-ran on the U.S. sports scene.
Also, the league in the past shared many of its stadiums with American football clubs, making a fall schedule highly difficult -- though that is changing with the growth in soccer-specific stadiums in the U.S. and Canada.
Anyway, American soccer fans won't have to worry about having to divide their attention, on any given day next June, between their local club team and a suite of World Cup matches.
One more upside, for MLS: Its stars, many of whom will be in South Africa playing for their national clubs (such as Landon Donovan, Cuauhtemoc Blanco, Ricardo Clark, etc.) will miss fewer club games back home in the States.
All this represents progress, and is good. Read more!
That will not be the case during South Africa 2010.
The league recently announced it will schedule no matches during group play of the 2010 World Cup, June 11-25.
And that's not all.
MLS also will not play matches on the same days as the World Cup semifinals (July 6-7) or championship (July 11).
The move demonstrates the globalization of soccer inside the U.S., and should be seen as progress by the soccer world inside the world's biggest economy.
The MLS, founded in 1996, just played right through the World cup in 1998, 2002 and 2006 because, rest assured, it didn't believe its fans were distracted (or even all that interested) in the World Cup.
That has changed. And it is another victory for the world's premier sports event.
FIFA president Sepp Blatter would also like to see MLS shift its schedule from March-October toward something in line with the rest of the Northern Hemisphere, from September until May or June.
MLS is resisting that sea change, still, probably because American football is so popular -- and runs from September to the first weekend of February) that MLS apparently fears being thoroughly eclipsed by it. A not unreasonable concern; in the end, soccer is an also-ran on the U.S. sports scene.
Also, the league in the past shared many of its stadiums with American football clubs, making a fall schedule highly difficult -- though that is changing with the growth in soccer-specific stadiums in the U.S. and Canada.
Anyway, American soccer fans won't have to worry about having to divide their attention, on any given day next June, between their local club team and a suite of World Cup matches.
One more upside, for MLS: Its stars, many of whom will be in South Africa playing for their national clubs (such as Landon Donovan, Cuauhtemoc Blanco, Ricardo Clark, etc.) will miss fewer club games back home in the States.
All this represents progress, and is good. Read more!
Monday, September 21, 2009
Europe Qualifying, and Second-Place Teams
Warning! This could make your head hurt. As it did mine.
We are about to plunge into the way-more-complex-than-it-seems situation surrounding the second-place teams in Europe's nine qualifying groups.
The situation in Europe is this:
If you want to know why that is -- and if you're reading this blog you're probably a fan of Euro soccer -- well, read on. It might make for some heavy sledding, but someone has to do it, and this blog seems the likeliest place to take on this chore. Uh, responsibility.
If you read the rules for the second-place playoffs, you know this: Norway isn't dead. The Norwegians have 10 points, and are finished with qualifying from the five-team Group 9.
At the moment, at least two teams in all eight of the other groups have more than 10 points. So, it's over?
No. Because of this stipulation: After the second-place teams have been determined within each group, the results from their two matches with the last-place team in their group are expunged, for purposes of the nine-team second-place standings. Points from wins and ties, disappear, as well as all goals scored (or allowed).
Why? Because Norway played in the only five-team group and because the other eight groups had weak (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova) to pathetic teams (Andorra, Malta and, ugh, San Marino) at the bottom of the table. Norway didn't get to play two matches against those stiffs.
Still, even with deductions, I can figure out no scenario in which the second-place team out of four groups (3, 5, 7 and 8) finishes behind Norway in the second-place standings.
So, here are the teams that still could finish second in their groups, yet finish behind Norway in the adjusted standings. The table (below) shows their current real status relative to Norway.
(Key: MP-Matches played; W-Win; D-Draw; L-Loss; GF-Goals for; GA-Goals against; Pts-Points.)
Team----MP--W-D-L--GF-GA-Pts
Bosnia-Hz--6---3--1--2--15--7---10
Norway----8---2--4--2---9--7---10
Ireland----6---2--4--0---6--4---10
Portugal---7---2--4--1---6--5---10
Turkey-----7---2--3--2---9--8----9
Sweden-----6---2--3--1---4--3----9
N. Ireland--7---2--2--3---6--9----8
Hungary----6---2--1--3---5--5----7
Czech Rep.--6---1--3--2---5--6----6
Poland------6---1--2--3---7--11---5
Note that three of those countries have played seven matches; this means that one of those countries' last two qualifiers (Oct. 10 or Oct. 14) is against the last-place team in its group -- which is good for finishing second, but not good for finishing ahead of Norway, because that match won't count in the playoff calculations.
Also note that while some teams still have a shot at finishing second . . . . well, it's a long shot.
So, let's look at the most likely scenarios that create a second-place team that Norway would finish ahead of for the eight-team playoffs. In what I believe is the likelihood of it happening. Ranging from "unlikely" to "just talking mathematically possible, here."
1. Ireland. The Irish are sitting on 10 points. A tie in either of their final two Group 8 matches, both at home, means they finish ahead of Norway. But the first match is against Italy, which must rate as favorites. And if Ireland loses to Italy ... well, Montenegro hasn't won a match in group play, but if the Irish choke and lose again, Norway would finish ahead via goal differential. Not likely, but the most straightforward scenario.
2. Sweden. If the Swedes do no better than one tie in a road game at Denmark and a home match with Albania, the Swedes can finish second in Group 1 with 16 points -- if Hungary and Portugal tie their match, and then lose or tie vs. Denmark and Malta, respectively. That would leave Hungary and Portugal at 14 or 15 points. Sweden's second-place points total would be nine points, to Norway's 10. Far-fetched, but it doesn't involve goal-differential tweaking or San Marino getting a result. (See below.)
3. Hungary. The Hungarians can finish second in Group 1 by narrowly beating Portugal and losing at Denmark while Sweden loses to Denmark and Albania -- and Portugal defeats Malta by one goal less than Hungary beat Portugal, so that Hungary wins the goal-differential (currently one goal in Portugal's favor). Then Norway and Hungary are each at 10 points in the second-place standings, and Norway goes ahead on its plus-2 goal-differential.
4. Portugal. Can finish No. 2 in Group 1 by losing at home to Hungary by the same number of goals it wins by at Malta. Combined with Hungary losing heavily at Denmark as well as Sweden losing at Denmark and at home to Albania. Portugal and Hungary would have 16 points and Sweden 15, and Portugal would be second on goal-differential. However, Portugal would have 10 points in the second-place standings, and if it had a plus-1 goal differential, Norway goes ahead and Portugal stays home.
5. Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Bosnians lose twice in Group 5, at Estonia and home to Spain, but they still finish second if Turkey suffers even a tie versus Belgium or Armenia. If the Bosnians' aggregate in those games against Estonia and Spain is at least minus-7, they lose to Norway via goal differential. No, not at all likely. Bosnia isn't going to give up seven goals in two matches. Not even with Spain the opponent in one of them.
6. Turkey. The Turks finish second in Group 5 by tying at Belgium and winning at home over last-place Armenia while Bosnia-Herzegovina loses at Estonia and home to Spain -- and those losses are by an aggregate of eight goals or more. In that case, Turkey finishes second on goal-differential (plus 1 to Bosnia's 0), then loses to Norway on goal-differential (plus 2 to plus 1). No, not likely, either; Bosnia isn't going to give up eight goals in two matches.
7. Czech Republic. The Czechs finish second in Group 3 by defeating Poland (by no more than two goals) at home and tying Northern Ireland at home. That gives the Czechs 16 points, one more than the Ulstermen. But they/Norway would need help. Slovenia would need to lose at Slovakia and tie (or lose) at San Marino. That would leave Slovenia at 15 or 14 points. And back to the Czechs; they would have 10 points in the second-place standings, and would lose to Norway via goal differential. How likely? Massively unlikely, considering this scenario includes San Marino getting a result against visiting Slovenia when San Marino has been outscored 44-1 in nine defeats -- though it has played a pair of home matches that it lost by only two goals.
8. Northern Ireland. The Ulstermen tie the Czechs to get to 15 points in Group 3, and the Slovenes lose twice (at Slovakia, at San Marino!), the Czechs lose to Poland and the Poles lose at home to Slovakia. Then Northern Ireland is second, but has only nine points in the second-place table, to Norway's 10. How likely? Beyond "massively unlikely" because the scenario requires Slovenia to lose at San Marino.
9. Poland. The Poles defeat the Czechs by two or three goals on the road in Group 3 and tie Slovakia at home. That's 15 points. Meanwhile, Slovenia loses at Slovakia and San Marino, and the Czechs win at home over Northern Ireland. The Czechs also have 15 points, but if their loss to Poland was heavy enough and their victory over Northern Ireland slight enough, Poland could finish ahead via goal differential. The Czechs currently lead them, 9-8. However, Poland would have only nine points in the second-place standings, to Norway's 10. I'm calling this the longest shot of all, because not only does it involve San Marino beating Slovenia, it calls for the Poles to suddenly start playing well.
Wasn't that edifying? Only took me, like, three hours. Three hours of my life I'll never get back.
The point, to reinforce, is that Norway isn't dead, despite how it looks in the standings. But the most likely train of events, yes, has Norway left out of the second-place playoffs. Read more!
We are about to plunge into the way-more-complex-than-it-seems situation surrounding the second-place teams in Europe's nine qualifying groups.
The situation in Europe is this:
- Group winners go straight to South Africa 2010, and we will know all nine of them no later than Oct. 14. (England, Netherlands and Spain already have clinched.)
- Europe, however, has been awarded four more berths, and they will be contested by eight nations that finish second in their groups. Four home-and-home playoffs will be set up, and the four winners go to South Africa. The rules for how that system works are outlined here.
- Notice that eight second-place teams get into the playoffs. Meaning just about everyone who is gazing at second place (yes, we're lookin' at you, France) assumes they will be able to get to South Africa via this back door. But one group runner-up doesn't even make the playoffs.
- Most of the world figures that the left-out runner-up will be Norway, second in Group 9. That's quite likely, actually. And deserved, considering Norway tied Iceland. Twice. But it's not a done deal.
If you want to know why that is -- and if you're reading this blog you're probably a fan of Euro soccer -- well, read on. It might make for some heavy sledding, but someone has to do it, and this blog seems the likeliest place to take on this chore. Uh, responsibility.
If you read the rules for the second-place playoffs, you know this: Norway isn't dead. The Norwegians have 10 points, and are finished with qualifying from the five-team Group 9.
At the moment, at least two teams in all eight of the other groups have more than 10 points. So, it's over?
No. Because of this stipulation: After the second-place teams have been determined within each group, the results from their two matches with the last-place team in their group are expunged, for purposes of the nine-team second-place standings. Points from wins and ties, disappear, as well as all goals scored (or allowed).
Why? Because Norway played in the only five-team group and because the other eight groups had weak (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova) to pathetic teams (Andorra, Malta and, ugh, San Marino) at the bottom of the table. Norway didn't get to play two matches against those stiffs.
Still, even with deductions, I can figure out no scenario in which the second-place team out of four groups (3, 5, 7 and 8) finishes behind Norway in the second-place standings.
So, here are the teams that still could finish second in their groups, yet finish behind Norway in the adjusted standings. The table (below) shows their current real status relative to Norway.
(Key: MP-Matches played; W-Win; D-Draw; L-Loss; GF-Goals for; GA-Goals against; Pts-Points.)
Team----MP--W-D-L--GF-GA-Pts
Bosnia-Hz--6---3--1--2--15--7---10
Norway----8---2--4--2---9--7---10
Ireland----6---2--4--0---6--4---10
Portugal---7---2--4--1---6--5---10
Turkey-----7---2--3--2---9--8----9
Sweden-----6---2--3--1---4--3----9
N. Ireland--7---2--2--3---6--9----8
Hungary----6---2--1--3---5--5----7
Czech Rep.--6---1--3--2---5--6----6
Poland------6---1--2--3---7--11---5
Note that three of those countries have played seven matches; this means that one of those countries' last two qualifiers (Oct. 10 or Oct. 14) is against the last-place team in its group -- which is good for finishing second, but not good for finishing ahead of Norway, because that match won't count in the playoff calculations.
Also note that while some teams still have a shot at finishing second . . . . well, it's a long shot.
So, let's look at the most likely scenarios that create a second-place team that Norway would finish ahead of for the eight-team playoffs. In what I believe is the likelihood of it happening. Ranging from "unlikely" to "just talking mathematically possible, here."
1. Ireland. The Irish are sitting on 10 points. A tie in either of their final two Group 8 matches, both at home, means they finish ahead of Norway. But the first match is against Italy, which must rate as favorites. And if Ireland loses to Italy ... well, Montenegro hasn't won a match in group play, but if the Irish choke and lose again, Norway would finish ahead via goal differential. Not likely, but the most straightforward scenario.
2. Sweden. If the Swedes do no better than one tie in a road game at Denmark and a home match with Albania, the Swedes can finish second in Group 1 with 16 points -- if Hungary and Portugal tie their match, and then lose or tie vs. Denmark and Malta, respectively. That would leave Hungary and Portugal at 14 or 15 points. Sweden's second-place points total would be nine points, to Norway's 10. Far-fetched, but it doesn't involve goal-differential tweaking or San Marino getting a result. (See below.)
3. Hungary. The Hungarians can finish second in Group 1 by narrowly beating Portugal and losing at Denmark while Sweden loses to Denmark and Albania -- and Portugal defeats Malta by one goal less than Hungary beat Portugal, so that Hungary wins the goal-differential (currently one goal in Portugal's favor). Then Norway and Hungary are each at 10 points in the second-place standings, and Norway goes ahead on its plus-2 goal-differential.
4. Portugal. Can finish No. 2 in Group 1 by losing at home to Hungary by the same number of goals it wins by at Malta. Combined with Hungary losing heavily at Denmark as well as Sweden losing at Denmark and at home to Albania. Portugal and Hungary would have 16 points and Sweden 15, and Portugal would be second on goal-differential. However, Portugal would have 10 points in the second-place standings, and if it had a plus-1 goal differential, Norway goes ahead and Portugal stays home.
5. Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Bosnians lose twice in Group 5, at Estonia and home to Spain, but they still finish second if Turkey suffers even a tie versus Belgium or Armenia. If the Bosnians' aggregate in those games against Estonia and Spain is at least minus-7, they lose to Norway via goal differential. No, not at all likely. Bosnia isn't going to give up seven goals in two matches. Not even with Spain the opponent in one of them.
6. Turkey. The Turks finish second in Group 5 by tying at Belgium and winning at home over last-place Armenia while Bosnia-Herzegovina loses at Estonia and home to Spain -- and those losses are by an aggregate of eight goals or more. In that case, Turkey finishes second on goal-differential (plus 1 to Bosnia's 0), then loses to Norway on goal-differential (plus 2 to plus 1). No, not likely, either; Bosnia isn't going to give up eight goals in two matches.
7. Czech Republic. The Czechs finish second in Group 3 by defeating Poland (by no more than two goals) at home and tying Northern Ireland at home. That gives the Czechs 16 points, one more than the Ulstermen. But they/Norway would need help. Slovenia would need to lose at Slovakia and tie (or lose) at San Marino. That would leave Slovenia at 15 or 14 points. And back to the Czechs; they would have 10 points in the second-place standings, and would lose to Norway via goal differential. How likely? Massively unlikely, considering this scenario includes San Marino getting a result against visiting Slovenia when San Marino has been outscored 44-1 in nine defeats -- though it has played a pair of home matches that it lost by only two goals.
8. Northern Ireland. The Ulstermen tie the Czechs to get to 15 points in Group 3, and the Slovenes lose twice (at Slovakia, at San Marino!), the Czechs lose to Poland and the Poles lose at home to Slovakia. Then Northern Ireland is second, but has only nine points in the second-place table, to Norway's 10. How likely? Beyond "massively unlikely" because the scenario requires Slovenia to lose at San Marino.
9. Poland. The Poles defeat the Czechs by two or three goals on the road in Group 3 and tie Slovakia at home. That's 15 points. Meanwhile, Slovenia loses at Slovakia and San Marino, and the Czechs win at home over Northern Ireland. The Czechs also have 15 points, but if their loss to Poland was heavy enough and their victory over Northern Ireland slight enough, Poland could finish ahead via goal differential. The Czechs currently lead them, 9-8. However, Poland would have only nine points in the second-place standings, to Norway's 10. I'm calling this the longest shot of all, because not only does it involve San Marino beating Slovenia, it calls for the Poles to suddenly start playing well.
Wasn't that edifying? Only took me, like, three hours. Three hours of my life I'll never get back.
The point, to reinforce, is that Norway isn't dead, despite how it looks in the standings. But the most likely train of events, yes, has Norway left out of the second-place playoffs. Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
