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!

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!

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:

• 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!

So, What Is China's Excuse?

Wow. Now we have opened up a can of worms. Actually, make that a barrel of worms. A silo of worms.

China is awful in soccer. The casual soccer fan knows that.

But most of us don't know how much China cares that it is awful, how keenly aware it is of that awful-ness, and how embarrassed, ashamed, mortified (we could keep going, but that's enough for now) the nation feels about it.

This is the second of what is going to be a short series on why some of the planet's most populous nations are shrimps in the zoology of global soccer. We looked at India a few days ago.

And now China.

Again, wow. We get a sense that only a fraction of China's soccer-related angst has been translated into English ... and that what we hear or see on the topic, in the West, barely begins to plumb the depths of the national anxiety and subsequent debate.

How deep are those depths? Well, one Chinese scholar has suggested that the national team's incompetence could lead to political upheaval. He was not joking.

First, let's quantify how bad China is.

1. China is the world's most populous nation, with some 1.3 billion people, enjoys a booming economy and it is genuinely sports-mad, having reveled in winning the most gold medals at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Yet it is ranked 107th in the world in soccer.

Behind desperately poor African countries such as Guinea (55), Congo (79) and Mozambique (84); behind countries with microscopic populations, like Latvia (55), Bahrain (64) and Iceland (96); behind countries that aren't really countries, such as Scotland (30), Northern Ireland (31) and Wales (67); behind countries that were invented just in the past few years, such as Macedonia (56), Moldova (88) and Montenegro (89); behind countries wracked by war and/or political unrest, such as Iran (60), Sudan (96) and Iraq (98).

2. China has qualified for the World Cup finals only once, in 2002. It went out without scoring a goal.

3. China was eliminated in the second round of Asia qualifying for the 2010 World Cup ... by Iraq. War-torn, sectionally fragmented Iraq.

4. China lost all three matches in the 2008 Olympics, failing to salvage even a tie when playing on its home soil.

That shoddy Olympics performance was documented in this New York Times story, which notes that "soccer may be the sport the Chinese care about above all else, but it is also the one that most frustrates and disappoints them," adding that "the men's national and Olympic teams are the subject of much scorn, shame and hand-wringing."

The most interesting take on China and its soccer team came in a Washington Post op-ed piece written by a Chinese national who teaches history at Kalamazoo College in the U.S. state of Michigan.

In the piece, written before the 2008 Olympics, Xu Guoqi suggests up to 700 million Chinese watched the 2006 World Cup, which China failed to qualify for. "They weren't happy," Xi wrote.

Of the 2010 qualifying ouster at the hands of Iraq (which occurred he 2008), he writes, "Such losses have not only plunged many Chinese into the sort of depression that only a Chicago Cubs fan could understand. They have also prompted doubts about Chinese manhood, undermined the country's vaunted can-do spirit and sparked agonized questions about our politics, culture and society -- even about what it means to be Chinese. For the regime in Beijing, success at the Olympics may demonstrate China's superiority, but for the country's long-suffering soccer fans, the only real yardstick of greatness is a victory in the World Cup."

He also touched on numerous suggested explanations of China's soccer incompetence. For example ...

--Only a tiny fraction of China's enormous population plays sports, including soccer.

--China attempts to bring to the soccer field the same training techniques it employs for individual sports, at which it is so successful. Mind-numbing repetition and sheer exertion clearly can mean victory in what are sometimes referred to as the "robotic" sports -- such as diving and gymnastics. But that approach doesn't translate into success in a free-flowing game like soccer.

--A creaky, top-down system that starts with the "hidebound" Chinese communist party.

--Endemic corruption in Chinese soccer, from club to national team.

--Modern Chinese society's rejection of "communal values" in what has turned into a dog-eat-dog system. "These days everybody wants to be the boss, and nobody wants to be the goalie," Xu writes.

The reason why soccer failures generate so much anxiety in China, the writer suggests, is that China expects to be the best at everything ... and there is no easy way to explain away these shocking failures on the pitch. And it comes just as regional rivals Japan and South Korea have qualified, again, for the World Cup ... and even xenophobic, paranoid North Korea has clinched a berth at South Africa 2010.

Writes Xu: "The World Cup strikes Chinese as the most meritocratic, the most (gasp!) democratic, of competitions. Every nation, rich or poor, strong or small, has a real shot at winning. No country or regime, regardless of its wealth or power, can manufacture a victory the way that, say, East Germany used to during those dreary Cold War-era Olympic Games. On the soccer field, China is forced to test itself against the family of nations. It's social Darwinism as sport. No wonder millions of Chinese fans link soccer to their national sense of honor."

So, what is China's excuse for its soccer incompetence?

Let's boil it down as best we can. A country that loves sports but doesn't really play them; a heavily individualistic population that has trouble with the basic concepts of team sports; a badly run and probably corrupt federation; a government not open to transparency or to taking responsibility for failure.

At any rate, China must be considered the biggest underachiever in the history of global soccer. Because, unlike India, which doesn't really care about soccer ... China cares, and quite deeply. But still can't figure out how to beat Iraq. Read more!

Yes, Argentina: You Can Change a Coach

As the days tick down to the two final qualifying dates for most nations, Oct. 10 and 14, Argentina still has Diego Maradona as its coach. Despite four defeats in Argentina's last five qualifiers. Despite Maradona spending this week in a "spa" in northern Italy, allegedly to lose weight.

But it's not too late to change.

Or, at least, that's the way another struggling World Cup contender -- Costa Rica -- is approaching things.

After three consecutive defeats by an aggregate score of 8-0, the Ticos fired Rodrigo Kenton and have hired Rene Samoes, a Brazilian who took Jamaica to the 1998 World Cup.

Samoes has three weeks to change the lineup (or chemistry or mind-set) of the Costa Rican team. The Ticos were in fine shape, halfway through the Concacaf qualifying schedule, leading the hexagonal with 12 points.

Then came defeats at Honduras (4-0), home to Mexico (3-0) and at El Salvador (1-0). Kenton was shown the door on Monday.

Costa Rica sits fourth in the Concacaf standings but stills controls its destiny; victories at home against Trinidad & Tobago and at the United States would give it 18 points and guarantee it a top-three finish -- and an automatic berth at South Africa 2010.

Argentina doesn't quite control its fate for one of the four automatic berths set aside for South America. Even with victories over Peru and at Uruguay, it might not catch fourth-place Ecuador -- though it probably would.

However, two victories would assure it of a fifth-place finish, and one more shot at getting to South Africa, in a home-and-home playoff vs. the No. 4 team in Concacaf. Which, at the moment, is Costa Rica. Home of a pro-active federation. As opposed to Argentina, which seems confused and passive as its former national superstar leads it into the wilderness.

If it comes to a playoff with Costa Rica, Argentina might wish it had a real coach -- and not a confused figurehead with a famous name -- with a berth in South Africa on the line.
Read more!

So, What Is India's Excuse?

This is the flip side of the previous post, about countries with tiny populations getting to the World Cup.

Let's spend a bit of time, in the next few posts, contemplating why several countries with enormous populations not only won't be making the World Cup, they didn't get close.

Take India. Please.

A country with 1.17 billion people went out in the first round of Asian qualifying for South Africa 2010. India lost a home-and-home series with Lebanon by an aggregate of 6-3. That would be the same Lebanon that has been racked, off and on, by internal violence the past few years. Yet India was swamped by the Lebanese, and it wasn't an upset. Lebanon was seeded 13 from among 43 Asian nations; India was seeded No. 28. Just behind the Maldives, just ahead of Singapore.

How it that possible? The subject is a big one, and we won't get to the bottom of it here, but we can skim over the salient points.

--Soccer is not the national game. That would be cricket, a sport at which India is among the world's elite. Field hockey, despite a decline in interest, probably ranks ahead of soccer, too. Two authors look at the phenomenon in a book entitled "Goalless: The Story of a Unique Footballing Nation" ... and here is a link to a review of that book.

--A perception that Indians are not interested in a sport in which they are awful. India is 149th in the world in the most recent FIFA rankings.

--Television. In this blog post, a writer from India suggests that successes in cricket and failures in soccer occurred at a critical point in India's television history, in the early 1980s, and that the subsequent TV-generated reinforcement boosted cricket and disappointment crippled soccer.

--A bad and ineffectual domestic soccer league. The National Football League (the other NFL, that is) features teams that play to small crowds and uses players who are, as one local critic put it, "third-tier Nigerians and fourth-tier Brazilians." The local league, then, does little or nothing to foster enthusiasm for the game.

--A thoroughly inept national soccer federation. The results would seem to be enough to bear out this contention, but in this rather unwieldy essay, the author seems to suggest India, as a country, does a poor job of organizing sports of any sort. (Having seen Indian track athletes finish far behind in preliminary heats at the Olympics, I can vouch for Indian failures in the Olympic movement, at the least.)

Twenty or 30 years ago, it was possible to argue that India's ineptitude on the athletic field was a function of its grinding poverty. But now, with estimates that as many as 300 million Indians recently have climbed into the middle class, that "too poor to play" analysis seems inoperable.

For whatever reason, or reasons, India is not producing elite players. Check this wikipedia entry on Baichung Bhutia, considered the best Indian soccer player of the past generation. Bhutia, however, has played very little outside India, and when he went to England to try his luck with third-tier club Bury ... he didn't exactly shine, scoring three goals in three seasons. Then went back to India.

What makes India and soccer a more perplexing issue are claims that India actually was semi-competent in the sport a half-century ago. Its "golden age" typically is described as having occurred in the 1950s and 1960s. That would include gold medals in soccer at the Asian Games of 1951 and 1962, and a runner-up finish (to Israel) in the Asian Football Confederation championship of 1964.

India has never done anything to qualify for a World Cup, though it was invited to the 1950 World Cup when its regional opponents decided not to field teams. However, FIFA required Indian players to wear shoes, and India pulled out of the 1950 World Cup because, apparently, several of its players insisted on playing barefoot.

Thus, India is perhaps the only country in soccer history to lose interest in the sport. Several countries came late to the sport -- the United States and Japan among the most prominent -- but India stands almost alone among countries that were at least passably competent once upon a time ... and now are not.

And no one seems to care. Which probably is the bottom line of the entire discussion.
Read more!

In Praise of the Little Countries

Generally speaking, the bigger your population, the bigger the pool of world-class athletes, the better your chances of qualifying for the World Cup finals.

Makes sense, yes?

But raw population is by no means an indicator of world-level soccer success. If it were, China would have made more than one World Cup. India would have made one. Any one.

Many countries with a tiny fraction of China's population -- or the United States or Indonesia, for that matter -- are prime contenders to be in South Africa next June.

Using FIFA qualifying standings and wikipedia world population statistics, let's determine at the 10 smallest countries -- from lightly populated to least-populated -- who have clinched a berth at South Africa 2010 or remain solidly in contention to do so.

The little contenders, with population and (in parantheses) their global population rank:

10. Paraguay, 6,350,000 (103). We don't need to talk about Paraguay's chances, because Paraguay is one of only 11 countries already qualified for South Africa 2010. And, of course, the smallest in population in the tournament. So far.

9. Slovakia, 5,413,000 (111). What was once the lower half of Czechslovakia is now holding the upper hand in Europe's Group 3. All Slovakia needs is a tie at home, Oct. 10, vs. Slovenia, to clinch first place and punch its ticket to South Africa -- and gain its first World Cup finals as an indepedent country.

8. Costa Rica, 4,435,000 (118). Two weeks ago, the Ticos looked likely to secure one of the three guaranteed World Cup berths out of Concacaf, but a pair of defeats dropped them to fourth in the regional standings. That's disturbing in the little Central American country, considering that the Ticos were in first place before Sept. 5. But even a fourth-place finish is enough to keep them alive for a place in South Africa -- via a home-and-home playoff with South America's No. 5 team. Note: Costa Rica has no military, perhaps freeing up more guys to play soccer.

7. Croatia, 4,435,000 (119). The semifinalist from France 1998 is second in Europe Group 6, and can clinch second place -- and almost a certain slot in the playoffs for Europe's final four berths at South Africa -- with a victory at Kazakhstan on Oct. 14.

6. Ireland, 4,422,000 (120). The Emerald Isle (well, minus Northern Ireland, which competes on its own) is a World Cup overachiever, having made three of the past five finals. Ireland can clinch second place in Europe Group 8 with a victory at home vs. Italy (unlikely) on Oct. 10, or vs. Montenegro (quite likely) on Oct. 14. FYI: Ireland's current population is roughly equal to the number of immigrants it has sent to the United States, alone.

5. Uruguay, 3,361,000 (132). Historically, the most successful of the Little People, with two World Cup championships (1930, 1950) on its resume -- despite having less than 10 percent of the population of the U.S. state of California. Uruguay is one point behind Argentina for fifth place in the South America standings, which would yield a playoff with the No. 4 team out of Concacaf, and two points behind Ecuador for fourth place and a guaranteed slot at South Africa. Uruguay controls its destiny; it plays at Ecuador on Oct. 10 and is home to Argentina on Oct. 14.

4. Latvia, 2,257,000 (141). The smallest of the Baltic countries, both in size and population, is very much alive in Europe Group 2, tied with Greece for second place. The Letts would lead the group had they been able to hold either of two leads in a home match against Switzerland on Sept. 9. It finished 2-2. Latvia needs a point from a road match at Greece on Oct. 10 to finish second and get in the Europe second-place playoffs.

3. Slovenia, 2,045,000 (145). The smallest splinter to emerge from the breakup of the former Yugoslavia is well-positioned to finish at least second in Europe Group 3. The Slovenes could even win the group with a victory at Slovakia, and a victory at San Marino (as close to a certainty as there is in FIFA) together with a loss by the Slovaks at Poland. At the least, the three points from the San Marino match should get Slovenia second place and probably a berth in the four home-and-home pairings to determine the final four European teams that go to South Africa.

2. Gabon, 1,475,000 (149). A small West African country best known for lush scenery and exotic wild life, until this qualifying cycle. Two weeks ago, Gabon looked in good shape to make the Word Cup, but successive losses to Cameroon (pop. 19.5 million) have damaged Gabon's hopes of winning Africa Group A (and qualifying). It remains doable, but it's not the way to bet.

1. Bahrain, 791,000 (159). Bahrain is an oil-rich island in The Gulf, just offshore from the Arabian Peninsula, with a population about 2 percent as large as the city of Tokyo. And Bahrain is 180 minutes away from being the smallest country -- in area as well as population -- to qualify for a World Cup finals. Bahrain has been punching above its weight all along, finishing fifth in Asia qualifying. Now it has a home-and-home with New Zealand, Oceania champion, to see who goes to South Africa 2010, and rates as a slight favorite. If you root for the littlest guy, Bahrain is your ultimate side. Read more!