Charie Davies, who had been a regular in the United States First XI for most of this year, was nearly killed in a one-car accident earlier this month.
Three people were in the vehicle, which crashed at 3:15 a.m. on Oct. 13 ... and one of the people in the car died.
The incident is covered in this story.
What is interesting about this event ... is how little coverage and attention it has gotten since. Which may tell us quite a bit about the status of soccer in the United States.
To my knowledge, this story has not moved much further along, in the subsequent 11 days, aside from one update about Davies being moved out of intensive care, and how he still faces surgery on his elbow and, perhaps face.
A few soccer fans in the U.S. have noticed that some huge questions in the affair remain unanswered, to my knowledge.
-- Who was driving?
--Were tests run for alcohol or drugs?
--Could criminal charges be lodged?
--What was Charlie Davies doing in a car on a major road at 3:15 a.m. -- breaking curfew barely 36 hours before the U.S. was scheduled to play a World Cup qualifying match?
It has been suggested that this news blackout would not have survived if the athlete in question had been an American football star. Or basketball player. Or a star in one of the other major U.S. sports, such as baseball.
Journalists can be pretty successful in wheedling information from authorities, if they put their minds to it. If their editors care.
Apparently, there isn't much will-power here to find out what happened.
It also makes me wonder if, say, a starting forward on a major European or South American side had been almost killed in an early morning wreck, whether fans in that European or South American country would still be guessing at what happened almost two weeks later?
I think not.
My sense is that this story would remain shrouded in mystery only in a few major (or quasi-major) soccer countries -- and the U.S. is one of them. If not the only one.
The U.S. cares about soccer ... it cares about the World Cup, and its team is good enough to qualify for it. But the sport still is not so big that getting to the bottom of what happened to one of its prominent player is Job 1 for anyone.
Interesting.
Read more!
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
Parreira Back as South Africa Coach
At least that's what is being reported by Kick Off magazine.
Carlos Alberto Parreira is returning as coach of the South African national team, a week after federation dismissed another Brazilian, Joel Santana -- who had the bad form to have lost eight of his final nine matches running the Bafana Bafana.
Santana replaced Parreira in April of last year when Parreira resigned for what he called "personal reasons." Until then, it had been assumed Parreira would lead South Africa through the 2010 World Cup.
Parreira's appointment is important for several reasons.
--South Africa had to make a change. No one wants a host country that can't compete, and when South Africa lost 1-0 at Iceland, and was manhandled by Germany in a 2-0 defeat ... the Bafana Bafana was beginning to look as if it didn't belong in the 2010 World Cup, even if it were hosting it.
--Parreira is one of the handful of men in the world who has coached a team to the World Cup championship, leading Brazil to the title in 1994.
--Parreira isn't new to South African football. He coached the team in 2007 and into 2008. So he already knows the most important players. He won't be starting from Ground Zero, and that is important, considering the World Cup is less than eight months off -- 230 days, to be exact. That isn't long to batter the squad into shape.
To be sure, Parreira is something of a controversial figure. (As all coaches are, yes?) He was heavily criticized in 2006 when his Brazil team went out to France in the quarterfinals of the World Cup. His tactics were old and tired, some said, and others suggested he had lost control of his team.
Parreira is not a young man. At 66, he is at the upper end of the age bracket that can be expected to do well in a World Cup. It is a supremely demanding job, with enormous pressures.
Still, we're not sure South Africa could have done much better. The federation hired a man who knows the team, is familiar with the country and has won the biggest prize in football.
He takes over a team that played bravely, and well, against Brazil and Spain in the Confederations Cup, last June. So there is hope, still, that South Africa can make a good showing at the 2010 World Cup -- on the field as well as off it.
Read more!
Carlos Alberto Parreira is returning as coach of the South African national team, a week after federation dismissed another Brazilian, Joel Santana -- who had the bad form to have lost eight of his final nine matches running the Bafana Bafana.
Santana replaced Parreira in April of last year when Parreira resigned for what he called "personal reasons." Until then, it had been assumed Parreira would lead South Africa through the 2010 World Cup.
Parreira's appointment is important for several reasons.
--South Africa had to make a change. No one wants a host country that can't compete, and when South Africa lost 1-0 at Iceland, and was manhandled by Germany in a 2-0 defeat ... the Bafana Bafana was beginning to look as if it didn't belong in the 2010 World Cup, even if it were hosting it.
--Parreira is one of the handful of men in the world who has coached a team to the World Cup championship, leading Brazil to the title in 1994.
--Parreira isn't new to South African football. He coached the team in 2007 and into 2008. So he already knows the most important players. He won't be starting from Ground Zero, and that is important, considering the World Cup is less than eight months off -- 230 days, to be exact. That isn't long to batter the squad into shape.
To be sure, Parreira is something of a controversial figure. (As all coaches are, yes?) He was heavily criticized in 2006 when his Brazil team went out to France in the quarterfinals of the World Cup. His tactics were old and tired, some said, and others suggested he had lost control of his team.
Parreira is not a young man. At 66, he is at the upper end of the age bracket that can be expected to do well in a World Cup. It is a supremely demanding job, with enormous pressures.
Still, we're not sure South Africa could have done much better. The federation hired a man who knows the team, is familiar with the country and has won the biggest prize in football.
He takes over a team that played bravely, and well, against Brazil and Spain in the Confederations Cup, last June. So there is hope, still, that South Africa can make a good showing at the 2010 World Cup -- on the field as well as off it.
Read more!
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Desmond Tutu, AIDS and Condoms
This isn't about soccer, exactly, but it certainly gives us more of the flavor of South Africa -- site of the 2010 World Cup.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, conscience of South Africa ... today visited the Tutu Tester, a mobile clinic named for him that offers tests for AIDS/HIV.
South Africa is the epicenter of AIDS (with more HIV positive cases than any other country in the world, smoe 5.6 million in a population of about 50 million), and only now is the government there acknowledging it. Only a few years ago the country's leaders ignored mountains of science and denied that AIDS was being spread throughout the country and was an enormous problem.
So, today, Desmond Tutu not only visited the folks at the Tutu Tester, he was shown how to wear a condom by one of the volunteers.
Using a wooden replica of a penis, that is.
I found this story at the Johannesburg Sunday Times web site, and you can read the whole thing here. Tutu was a bit embarrassed/abashed at the proceedings, it seems, but he bounced right back to remind everyone in South Africa how important condoms are and how important testing is, as well.
The point being, for purposes of this blog and the World Cup ... just know that if you go to South Africa, you are traveling to the country with more AIDS cases than any other country in the world. (Though India is catching up, in part because it has a population of 1.1 billion.) In South Africa, it is not a disease mostly associated with intravenous drug users and the gay community. All sorts of people have AIDS. It is a blight.
But South Africa finally is grappling with the issue, and people like Desmond Tutu are leaders in that sea change. Read more!
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, conscience of South Africa ... today visited the Tutu Tester, a mobile clinic named for him that offers tests for AIDS/HIV.
South Africa is the epicenter of AIDS (with more HIV positive cases than any other country in the world, smoe 5.6 million in a population of about 50 million), and only now is the government there acknowledging it. Only a few years ago the country's leaders ignored mountains of science and denied that AIDS was being spread throughout the country and was an enormous problem.
So, today, Desmond Tutu not only visited the folks at the Tutu Tester, he was shown how to wear a condom by one of the volunteers.
Using a wooden replica of a penis, that is.
I found this story at the Johannesburg Sunday Times web site, and you can read the whole thing here. Tutu was a bit embarrassed/abashed at the proceedings, it seems, but he bounced right back to remind everyone in South Africa how important condoms are and how important testing is, as well.
The point being, for purposes of this blog and the World Cup ... just know that if you go to South Africa, you are traveling to the country with more AIDS cases than any other country in the world. (Though India is catching up, in part because it has a population of 1.1 billion.) In South Africa, it is not a disease mostly associated with intravenous drug users and the gay community. All sorts of people have AIDS. It is a blight.
But South Africa finally is grappling with the issue, and people like Desmond Tutu are leaders in that sea change. Read more!
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Germans to Wear Bullet-Proof Vests at SA2010?
Germans in armor?
Could be, if the report in a German sports publication is correct.
A German sports magazine is reporting that a security firm recommends bullet-proof vests whenever its players stray outside the security perimeter of team hotels during the 2010 World Cup in South Africa.
That probably won't play well with South Africa boosters ... but we already have established that it is a country with the second-highest murder rate in the world, both in terms of raw numbers and per capita killings, behind only Colombia.
The feeling here is that national teams will be safe. Not even thugs want to interrupt a World Cup.
I suppose the risk is ... not knowing that those little guys over there are German soccer players, and not young, carefree tourists who may have a lot of money in their pockets.
It will be interesting to see if other national teams follow suit. The United States team often seems to feel under siege whenever it goes to another country. England and Spain have been targets of terror groups; might their teams, as well?
The gist of this seems to be that the Germans fear random street crime. If it were you or me, just walking around, that might be a legitimate concern. But as long as German players are dressed as soccer players ... they ought to be safe.
I'm guessing the bullet-proof vest thing will be ignored. And one good reason will be the (probably) needless paranoia it might inspire in a team with realistic aspirations of winning the tournament.
Read more!
Could be, if the report in a German sports publication is correct.
A German sports magazine is reporting that a security firm recommends bullet-proof vests whenever its players stray outside the security perimeter of team hotels during the 2010 World Cup in South Africa.
That probably won't play well with South Africa boosters ... but we already have established that it is a country with the second-highest murder rate in the world, both in terms of raw numbers and per capita killings, behind only Colombia.
The feeling here is that national teams will be safe. Not even thugs want to interrupt a World Cup.
I suppose the risk is ... not knowing that those little guys over there are German soccer players, and not young, carefree tourists who may have a lot of money in their pockets.
It will be interesting to see if other national teams follow suit. The United States team often seems to feel under siege whenever it goes to another country. England and Spain have been targets of terror groups; might their teams, as well?
The gist of this seems to be that the Germans fear random street crime. If it were you or me, just walking around, that might be a legitimate concern. But as long as German players are dressed as soccer players ... they ought to be safe.
I'm guessing the bullet-proof vest thing will be ignored. And one good reason will be the (probably) needless paranoia it might inspire in a team with realistic aspirations of winning the tournament.
Read more!
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
South Africa Fires Coach
This pretty much had to be done. Since reaching the semifinals of the Confederations Cup back in June -- after coming out of a very weak group -- South Africa's national team has been struggling. Badly. When you lose to Iceland ...
So, the ouster of coach Joel Santana was a necessity. South Africa needs to get a fresh approach to things ... or the host country for the 2010 World Cup may be faced with the distinctly unpleasant experience of going out of the tournament with hardly a whimper.
The World Cup usually goes to countries that are serious soccer powers. Germany, France, England, Argentina, Spain, Italy, Mexico, even.
And even when it hasn't, the host nation(s) have risen to the occasion. The United States survived the first round, in 1994, when it was host -- but anything but a serious soccer country. South Korea got to the semifnals in 2002, when it co-hosted with Japan -- which also got to the knockout phase for the first (and only) time in its history.
South Africa may yet rise up and get out of the group phase, as well, but its play since June has not indicated that it is likely. Eight defeats in nine matches? That's why Santana is out and someone else -- maybe Sven Goran-Ericksson? -- will replace him.
South Africa has some competent players. It should be able to defeat the Icelands of the world. Perhaps a fresh approach will turn around the Bafana Bafana and enable them to be just good enough to ride the enthusiasm of a country to some modest measure of renown at South Africa 2010. Read more!
So, the ouster of coach Joel Santana was a necessity. South Africa needs to get a fresh approach to things ... or the host country for the 2010 World Cup may be faced with the distinctly unpleasant experience of going out of the tournament with hardly a whimper.
The World Cup usually goes to countries that are serious soccer powers. Germany, France, England, Argentina, Spain, Italy, Mexico, even.
And even when it hasn't, the host nation(s) have risen to the occasion. The United States survived the first round, in 1994, when it was host -- but anything but a serious soccer country. South Korea got to the semifnals in 2002, when it co-hosted with Japan -- which also got to the knockout phase for the first (and only) time in its history.
South Africa may yet rise up and get out of the group phase, as well, but its play since June has not indicated that it is likely. Eight defeats in nine matches? That's why Santana is out and someone else -- maybe Sven Goran-Ericksson? -- will replace him.
South Africa has some competent players. It should be able to defeat the Icelands of the world. Perhaps a fresh approach will turn around the Bafana Bafana and enable them to be just good enough to ride the enthusiasm of a country to some modest measure of renown at South Africa 2010. Read more!
Monday, October 19, 2009
Euro Playoffs: France vs. Ireland, Etc.
These four European second-place playoffs sounded more intereresting in theory than in practice. I'm looking at the pairings now and having trouble conjuring victory for the four unseeded teams.
Here they are, with home team in Game 1 listed first:
Ireland vs. France
Portugal vs. Bosnia-Herzegovina
Greece vs. Ukraine
Russia vs. Slovenia
France, Portugal, Greece and Russia are the seeded teams. And which has the best chance of losing? Or at least some chance?
Hmm. I suppose my choice would be ...
France. And, mind, I don't think the French will lose.
Before getting into that, I do now wish the thing had been unseeded. So that there was a chance France could play Russia and Bosnia could play Slovenia, etc. Those would be fairer fights, and the stakes would be just as enormous. But the FIFA/UEFA decision to make the top four (according to FIFA world rankings) unable to play each other ... takes some drama out of this. Though anything can, in theory, happen in a home-and-home playoff.
I can't see Greece losing to Ukraine. The rap on Greece, most of the past decade, is that is struggles to score but it just put up five goals on Latvia, a pretty good side, and so those scoring issues appear to be less acute. And Ukraine isn't a bad side, but it's in the this tournament only because England needed to win at home against Croatia to clinch its group, and did, and then didn't need a result at Ukraine, which defeated the English, and finished second. Ukraine doesn't inspire much enthusiasm -- though it seems to be the unseeded team the seeded quartet feared most.
Nor can I see Portugal losing to Bosnia. The Portuguese are hot, having finished with a rush to secure second in their group. Plus, Bosnia just gave up five goals to a Spanish team that was Just Kicking the Ball Around, having nothing to gain or lose -- after having clinched its group months ago.
And Russia and Slovenia? Don't see the unseeded team winning that one, either. Russia came This Close to defeating the Germans at Moscow, which would have won the group for Mother Russia. Slovenia is tough in defense, but it's a itty-bitty country that can't help but be overawed by Russia.
Ireland and France? Ireland has a chance. A decent one. For two reasons: 1) Irish grit and 2) The Domenech Factor.
Ireland is a hard-headed side that yields goals grudgingly. Scoring them always is the issue for the Irish, who are slow and modestly gifted, technically ... and may, in fact, be the least athletic team ranked in the world's top 40.
Meanwhile, France continues to run out various incarnations of an all-star team that rarely impressed in qualifying. It seems to be about Raymond Domenech, their goofy coach, who somehow has destroyed French elan and turned his First XI (whomever it happens to be just now) into a nervous, fidgity crew.
French talent remains far, far better than that the Irish can call on. Ireland has no one like Thierry Henry, even in his athetic dotage.
Still, this process has the potential to be interesting, especially if the underdogs can get a result in the first match, on Nov. 14.
The return match will be Nov. 18. And at the end of that day, I fully expect the four seeds to be headed for South Africa 2010. Read more!
Here they are, with home team in Game 1 listed first:
Ireland vs. France
Portugal vs. Bosnia-Herzegovina
Greece vs. Ukraine
Russia vs. Slovenia
France, Portugal, Greece and Russia are the seeded teams. And which has the best chance of losing? Or at least some chance?
Hmm. I suppose my choice would be ...
France. And, mind, I don't think the French will lose.
Before getting into that, I do now wish the thing had been unseeded. So that there was a chance France could play Russia and Bosnia could play Slovenia, etc. Those would be fairer fights, and the stakes would be just as enormous. But the FIFA/UEFA decision to make the top four (according to FIFA world rankings) unable to play each other ... takes some drama out of this. Though anything can, in theory, happen in a home-and-home playoff.
I can't see Greece losing to Ukraine. The rap on Greece, most of the past decade, is that is struggles to score but it just put up five goals on Latvia, a pretty good side, and so those scoring issues appear to be less acute. And Ukraine isn't a bad side, but it's in the this tournament only because England needed to win at home against Croatia to clinch its group, and did, and then didn't need a result at Ukraine, which defeated the English, and finished second. Ukraine doesn't inspire much enthusiasm -- though it seems to be the unseeded team the seeded quartet feared most.
Nor can I see Portugal losing to Bosnia. The Portuguese are hot, having finished with a rush to secure second in their group. Plus, Bosnia just gave up five goals to a Spanish team that was Just Kicking the Ball Around, having nothing to gain or lose -- after having clinched its group months ago.
And Russia and Slovenia? Don't see the unseeded team winning that one, either. Russia came This Close to defeating the Germans at Moscow, which would have won the group for Mother Russia. Slovenia is tough in defense, but it's a itty-bitty country that can't help but be overawed by Russia.
Ireland and France? Ireland has a chance. A decent one. For two reasons: 1) Irish grit and 2) The Domenech Factor.
Ireland is a hard-headed side that yields goals grudgingly. Scoring them always is the issue for the Irish, who are slow and modestly gifted, technically ... and may, in fact, be the least athletic team ranked in the world's top 40.
Meanwhile, France continues to run out various incarnations of an all-star team that rarely impressed in qualifying. It seems to be about Raymond Domenech, their goofy coach, who somehow has destroyed French elan and turned his First XI (whomever it happens to be just now) into a nervous, fidgity crew.
French talent remains far, far better than that the Irish can call on. Ireland has no one like Thierry Henry, even in his athetic dotage.
Still, this process has the potential to be interesting, especially if the underdogs can get a result in the first match, on Nov. 14.
The return match will be Nov. 18. And at the end of that day, I fully expect the four seeds to be headed for South Africa 2010. Read more!
Sunday, October 18, 2009
SA2010 Better Off without Maradona?
No question that we prefer to see a World Cup with Argentina in it.
But the bad news here is ... Diego Maradona likely will be in South Africa, too.
Maradona happened to be on the sidelines when Argentina won at Uruguay on Wednesday, clinching a berth in the 2010 World Cup. So, the odds are strong the mercurial (if not goofy, if not barking) coach will be there, too.
That may not be to the good, as the latest controversy surrounding Maradona seems to indicate.
Maradona blasted his critics in the Argentine media, after the 1-0 victory over Uruguay, and at some point was more than a little vulgar, in the process.
A cursory search of the web yields no transcript of Maradona's rant, but it was foul enough that FIFA announced it will investigate his comments.
That's the Maradona we don't really need. The rude and crude and paranoid android who was on display in the interview room Wednesday night.
If only it were possible to Argentina -- without Diego. Alas, it seems as if they are no joined at the hip. And perhaps at the lip. A pity, actually. Read more!
But the bad news here is ... Diego Maradona likely will be in South Africa, too.
Maradona happened to be on the sidelines when Argentina won at Uruguay on Wednesday, clinching a berth in the 2010 World Cup. So, the odds are strong the mercurial (if not goofy, if not barking) coach will be there, too.
That may not be to the good, as the latest controversy surrounding Maradona seems to indicate.
Maradona blasted his critics in the Argentine media, after the 1-0 victory over Uruguay, and at some point was more than a little vulgar, in the process.
A cursory search of the web yields no transcript of Maradona's rant, but it was foul enough that FIFA announced it will investigate his comments.
That's the Maradona we don't really need. The rude and crude and paranoid android who was on display in the interview room Wednesday night.
If only it were possible to Argentina -- without Diego. Alas, it seems as if they are no joined at the hip. And perhaps at the lip. A pity, actually. Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
