We've got more voices on the ongoing debate of "are all these stadiums worth the money ... in a poor country?"
It is a Reuters piece picked up today by the Johannesburg Times.
It pegs the cost of new stadiums for South Africa 2010 -- and there are (gulp) 10 of them ... at $1.7 billion -- up dramatically from the original estimate of $390 million.
We've got both sides talking.
On one side are the people who look at South Africa's shanty towns and AIDS epidemic and wonder how the nation's rulers can look at the country's blight and sleep at night, knowing so much has been spent on stadiums. When all figure to be underutilized and some hardly used at all, once the 2010 World Cup is over. Yes, the word is "white elephants" for the kind of massive projects that never pay for themselves.
On the other side are those who say Africa -- the whole continent -- needs a success, and the cost is almost irrelevant.
No less a personage than Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a Nobel peace prize laureate, is in favor of the expenditure.
Said Tutu: "With all the negative things taking place in Africa, this is a superb moment for us. If there are going to be white elephants, so be it."
OK then. For more, go to the story.
Read more!
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Monday, December 28, 2009
Spain Extends Coach Two Years ... Why?
Feliz Navidad, Vicente del Bosque.
Two days before Christmas, Spain rewarded its coach with a two-year extension on his contract, taking him through 2012.
Which is a bit curious, and leaves me pondering these questions:
1. Is that a guaranteed contract? Does del Bosque get the money no matter what happens to him? Say, a sudden collapse by his team and subsequent firing?
2. If so, why?
3. He reportedly was getting $2.2 million a year. Did he get a raise on that in the next two years, after Spain went unbeaten in European qualifying? Is the entire value of his contract up to Fabio Capello money ($10 million a year) yet?
4. If not, why not?
5. And what prompted Spain to guarantee money (or go through the show of extending a contract that isn't guaranteed) before the World Cup? Is Espana going to buck the trend and, if it doesn't win a championship that it is co-favored to win (along with Brazil) ... smile and say, "no problem, Vicente. We're sticking with you."
Most federations consider anything but an advance to the knockout round to be a failure ... and sack the coach.
Some of the elite nations consider anything short of the semifinals a failure ... and sack the coach.
And for those special elite nations expected to play for a championship (Brazil, Spain, maybe England), anything short of the finals is going to be considered a failure ... and the coach is sacked.
So, I just don't get it.
Maybe if it's a contract that del Bosque gets only if he doesn't get fired ... you know, like NFL contracts, that are worth millions unless you get cut ... then it makes sense. Otherwise, no.
OK, I've thought of the only way this makes sense.
Let's say Spain wins the World Cup ... well, Spain has their now massively brilliant coach already under contract through the Euro Cup (which isn't far behind the World Cup, to Euro nations), and doesn't have to give him even more money (post Jules Rimet Trophy) than they just did.
OK. That makes sense.
Read more!
Two days before Christmas, Spain rewarded its coach with a two-year extension on his contract, taking him through 2012.
Which is a bit curious, and leaves me pondering these questions:
1. Is that a guaranteed contract? Does del Bosque get the money no matter what happens to him? Say, a sudden collapse by his team and subsequent firing?
2. If so, why?
3. He reportedly was getting $2.2 million a year. Did he get a raise on that in the next two years, after Spain went unbeaten in European qualifying? Is the entire value of his contract up to Fabio Capello money ($10 million a year) yet?
4. If not, why not?
5. And what prompted Spain to guarantee money (or go through the show of extending a contract that isn't guaranteed) before the World Cup? Is Espana going to buck the trend and, if it doesn't win a championship that it is co-favored to win (along with Brazil) ... smile and say, "no problem, Vicente. We're sticking with you."
Most federations consider anything but an advance to the knockout round to be a failure ... and sack the coach.
Some of the elite nations consider anything short of the semifinals a failure ... and sack the coach.
And for those special elite nations expected to play for a championship (Brazil, Spain, maybe England), anything short of the finals is going to be considered a failure ... and the coach is sacked.
So, I just don't get it.
Maybe if it's a contract that del Bosque gets only if he doesn't get fired ... you know, like NFL contracts, that are worth millions unless you get cut ... then it makes sense. Otherwise, no.
OK, I've thought of the only way this makes sense.
Let's say Spain wins the World Cup ... well, Spain has their now massively brilliant coach already under contract through the Euro Cup (which isn't far behind the World Cup, to Euro nations), and doesn't have to give him even more money (post Jules Rimet Trophy) than they just did.
OK. That makes sense.
Read more!
Sunday, December 27, 2009
In Case You're Thinking of Driving in SA ...
South Africa is a difficult place to move around in. You take a commuter plane, you may exit it somewhere off the end of the runway. You take a train, it could collide with another.
You go for a drive, and you end up dead.
The Jo-burg Times has the fairly horrifying December road toll death statistics here.
So, say you're an English fan and you want to see the Three Lions play. Match 1 is in Rustenburg, near Johannesburg.
Match 2 is in Capetown, which is 900 miles road miles away.
Match 3 is in Port Elizabeth, which is 500 road miles from Capetown.
(Oh, and an update on the air situation: Most of the Airlink fleet has been grounded for safety reasons. The good news is, you can't travel on those scary planes. The bad news is, you can't travel at all.)
So, that's 1,400 miles of group-round travel for England fans. By planes, trains or automobiles. And all are scary options.
Pcik your poison, fans. Read more!
You go for a drive, and you end up dead.
The Jo-burg Times has the fairly horrifying December road toll death statistics here.
So, say you're an English fan and you want to see the Three Lions play. Match 1 is in Rustenburg, near Johannesburg.
Match 2 is in Capetown, which is 900 miles road miles away.
Match 3 is in Port Elizabeth, which is 500 road miles from Capetown.
(Oh, and an update on the air situation: Most of the Airlink fleet has been grounded for safety reasons. The good news is, you can't travel on those scary planes. The bad news is, you can't travel at all.)
So, that's 1,400 miles of group-round travel for England fans. By planes, trains or automobiles. And all are scary options.
Pcik your poison, fans. Read more!
Saturday, December 26, 2009
And Now for Something Completely Different ...
Audio!
Not video. Just audio
Courtesy of the Johannesburg Sunday Times.
The Jo-Times has a mini podcast, I suppose we would call it, on its sports home page. Here it is. Can't vouch for how long it will be up there. It's the picture of the South African soccer team, over on the right side of the page. Click on the arrow there.
What it is, is a sort of interview with the sports psychologist, Dr. Gericke, that the South African soccer team just hired. And he has some suggestions for South Africa fans, on the run-up to South Africa 2010.
Dr. Gericke suggests South Africa fans can help the Bafana Bafana (the silly silly name for the home team) by ... singing.
Singing can inspire people, the good Doctor suggests.
He also hopes ... and this is vaguely controversial ... that South African fans blow those plastic horns -- the vuvzelas -- that were the aural cockroaches of the Confederations Cup, back in June.
He seems to advocate that fans play music on those horns, but my sense is that you've got one note. Unless maybe you have the lip control of a bugler.
Not everyone likes vuvuzelas.
The president of Japan's football association called for a vuvuzela ban after Japan played a scoreless tie during a friendly in South Africa last month. And there was one fairly arch quote from Japan's coach, on the vuvezelas. "Perhaps if they play good football (the fans) will be quiet and watch."
During the Confederations Cup, Spanish star Xabi Alonso also suggested the plastic horns be banned.
I was hoping the audio at the Jo-Times would have some droning vuvuzelas ... but it doesn't. Maybe later.
One other interesting aspect of the audio bit ... you get to hear two forms of South African English accents. From a black woman (the interviewer) ... and from an Afrikaner (Gericke) -- a white resident of (usually) mostly Dutch heritage.
Read more!
Not video. Just audio
Courtesy of the Johannesburg Sunday Times.
The Jo-Times has a mini podcast, I suppose we would call it, on its sports home page. Here it is. Can't vouch for how long it will be up there. It's the picture of the South African soccer team, over on the right side of the page. Click on the arrow there.
What it is, is a sort of interview with the sports psychologist, Dr. Gericke, that the South African soccer team just hired. And he has some suggestions for South Africa fans, on the run-up to South Africa 2010.
Dr. Gericke suggests South Africa fans can help the Bafana Bafana (the silly silly name for the home team) by ... singing.
Singing can inspire people, the good Doctor suggests.
He also hopes ... and this is vaguely controversial ... that South African fans blow those plastic horns -- the vuvzelas -- that were the aural cockroaches of the Confederations Cup, back in June.
He seems to advocate that fans play music on those horns, but my sense is that you've got one note. Unless maybe you have the lip control of a bugler.
Not everyone likes vuvuzelas.
The president of Japan's football association called for a vuvuzela ban after Japan played a scoreless tie during a friendly in South Africa last month. And there was one fairly arch quote from Japan's coach, on the vuvezelas. "Perhaps if they play good football (the fans) will be quiet and watch."
During the Confederations Cup, Spanish star Xabi Alonso also suggested the plastic horns be banned.
I was hoping the audio at the Jo-Times would have some droning vuvuzelas ... but it doesn't. Maybe later.
One other interesting aspect of the audio bit ... you get to hear two forms of South African English accents. From a black woman (the interviewer) ... and from an Afrikaner (Gericke) -- a white resident of (usually) mostly Dutch heritage.
Read more!
Friday, December 25, 2009
England Is Really Good ... Have We Mentioned That?
More news on how good the English side is, six months and change ahead of South Africa 2010.
Shall we go ahead and even bother with the tournament? Does anyone have a chance against the Three Lions, conquerors of all they see ... well, at least in 1966, they were.
Today, it's Michael Ballack talking down Germany's chances and talking up England's.
(Anyone else think the Chelsea midfielder looks a bit like Matt Damon? It's just me?)
Here is Ballack lavishing praise on Mario Capello's side.
We've been over this, yes? England's bipolar approach to its team. Oh, yes, we have. How English fans and media people absolutely are in one of their manic phases right now.
A question that often comes to my mind is ... do any of QE2's subjects understand the concept of "poor-mouthing"?
That's the practice of someone associated with a good team sighing deeply and shaking his head and confiding that his historically good squad just doesn't have it this week, this season.
Most veteran sports people recognize this. And give it little credence.
A famous American football coach with the wonderful name of Amos Alonzo Stagg used to poor-mouth his teams relentlessly, on the off chance that someone would believe what he was saying and underprepare for his team. Or show up fat-headed and overconfidence.
Stagg spent much of his career at the University of Chicago, which was a power back in the 1920s, and Stagg's protestations became so ridiculous that when he worried aloud about his mighty team's chances against a much lesser opponent, the headline was written: Stagg Fears Purdue." And everyone laughed. It was ridiculous.
Anyway, England fans are free to believe their team will waltz into the semifinals ... and that Germany is awful. But since England won its one and only World Cup championship, Germany has finished in the top four seven times, reached the final five times and won twice.
Let's just guess and say that Germany will be competent. Let's just guess and say Ballack actually believes that.
And let's say that England is in real danger of thinking this is going to be far easier that it will be. Read more!
Shall we go ahead and even bother with the tournament? Does anyone have a chance against the Three Lions, conquerors of all they see ... well, at least in 1966, they were.
Today, it's Michael Ballack talking down Germany's chances and talking up England's.
(Anyone else think the Chelsea midfielder looks a bit like Matt Damon? It's just me?)
Here is Ballack lavishing praise on Mario Capello's side.
We've been over this, yes? England's bipolar approach to its team. Oh, yes, we have. How English fans and media people absolutely are in one of their manic phases right now.
A question that often comes to my mind is ... do any of QE2's subjects understand the concept of "poor-mouthing"?
That's the practice of someone associated with a good team sighing deeply and shaking his head and confiding that his historically good squad just doesn't have it this week, this season.
Most veteran sports people recognize this. And give it little credence.
A famous American football coach with the wonderful name of Amos Alonzo Stagg used to poor-mouth his teams relentlessly, on the off chance that someone would believe what he was saying and underprepare for his team. Or show up fat-headed and overconfidence.
Stagg spent much of his career at the University of Chicago, which was a power back in the 1920s, and Stagg's protestations became so ridiculous that when he worried aloud about his mighty team's chances against a much lesser opponent, the headline was written: Stagg Fears Purdue." And everyone laughed. It was ridiculous.
Anyway, England fans are free to believe their team will waltz into the semifinals ... and that Germany is awful. But since England won its one and only World Cup championship, Germany has finished in the top four seven times, reached the final five times and won twice.
Let's just guess and say that Germany will be competent. Let's just guess and say Ballack actually believes that.
And let's say that England is in real danger of thinking this is going to be far easier that it will be. Read more!
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Making a List, Checking It Twice
Back when this blog started, in July, my second and third entries were entitled "If I Got to Choose the World Cup Teams" ... and were about which nations I would have preferred to see in the World Cup.
Not from a Ground Zero perspective, but looking at qualifying that was well-advanced and including only those sides that had a realistic chance. Like, one of the "Stans" (Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, etc.) in the World Cup would be cool, but they had no chance by mid-July. China would have been interesting, but the Chinese were already out.
Since it is Christmas, or almost so, let's take a look back at my wish list ... and see if Santa thought I was naughty or nice, and rewarded me accordingly.
So, looking back at what I wanted, and what we got, and how that strikes me, on Christmas Eve:
AFRICA
Wanted: Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Nigeria.
Missing: Egypt, Gabon.
Instead: Algeria, Cameroon.
Comment: Got only 60 percent of my wish list, but the changes aren't a disaster. Gabon would have been fun because it's a tiny nation that has never played in the World Cup finals and has some really obscure players. A Cinderella story, you bet. But Cameroon blew past Gabon to win the group, and that's fine. The Indomitable Lions are headed for their sixth World Cup, and have a better chance of making noise than little Gabon would have. And Algeria instead of Egypt? Well, I still prefer it the other way round because Egypt has more than twice the population of Algeria (77 million vs. 34 million). And since Egypt covers the "North Africa needs a team" part of things, we then come down on the side of the country with more people, generally. But no gnashing of teeth here.
ASIA
Wanted: Australia, Bahrain, Japan, North Korea, South Korea.
Missing: Bahrain.
Instead: New Zealand.
Comment: All the nations I "wanted" (aside from Bahrain) already had qualified. The other four were in. I'd rather see one of the "stans" or China rather than both Koreas. But that ship had sailed. ... As for Bahrain, I wanted them to give the Gulf a team. Bahrain got past Saudi Arabia in the Asia fifth-place playoffs, which was good, because Saudi Arabia has been to several finals and been a crashing bore ... but Bahrain choked against New Zealand in the last playoff. Australia already is the "Oceania" representative, as far as I'm concerned, and adding New Zealand to South Africa 2010 is gilding the antipodean lily. Plus, the Kiwis can't really play. Fine chaps, and all, but a tiny country that brings nothing to the table. Not like one of the central Asians would have (in terms of curiosity) or China would have (in terms of population) or, specifically, Bahrain would have (representing the Gulf). So I rue this one. Yeah.
EUROPE
Wanted: Denmark, England, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Serbia, Turkey.
Missing: Ireland, Israel, Russia, Turkey.
Instead: Greece, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland
Comment: A bit annoyed with how this turned out, too. First, though, I have to express my thanks to the soccer gods for giving us the six Euro teams I said, back in July, no World Cup seems right without. Those being England, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Spain. It's the rest that rankle. How can you not want the Irish in the tournament? Their matches are an automatic party, and they're not nearly as likely to brawl as other Britons. Israel would make people think, bringing some geopolitical tension to the event, which often makes for good story lines. Russia? They should be here. An important soccer nation. But they gagged/quit when it came down to a playoff against tiny Slovenia. And Turkey would have been the standard-bearer for all those central Asian countries from the Turkic-language speaking group. ... Instead, we get the thrill-an-hour, defense-first (second and last) Greeks, Slovakia and Slovenia (which is one Gutty Little Minnow too many from Europe) and Switzerland, which we all know is going to do nothing important. OK, the Swiss are becoming vaguely interesting because one of the most uptight nations on Earth is allowing some minorities onto its national side, but they're still not that good. I still want the four I didn't get. And of the ones who are coming, I wouldn't mind Slovenia or Slovakia, but not both, and not the other two. Ugh.
OCEANIA
Wanted: Nobody.
Missing: Nobody.
Instead: New Zealand.
Comment: See the Asia comment, above. New Zealand is making only its second appearance, and that seems about right for a country that prefers rugby and cricket to soccer. And did I mention that New Zealands has, like, one semi-significant club team? As I noted, back in July, since Australia left Oceania for Asia, Oceania is New Zealand and about 10 coral reefs. Nothing personal, Kiwis. ... We just have about 55 million more people with a "neighborhood" rooting interest if Bahrain had made it instead of you.
NORTH AMERICA
Wanted: Costa Rica, Honduras, Mexico, United States.
Missing: Costa Rica.
Instead: Uruguay.
Comment: As a native North American, I was hoping that the fourth-place team in the Hexagonal could win the playoffs with South America's No. 5 team and give Concacaf four berths. It didn't happen, with Costa Rica going down by a 2-1 aggregate to Uruguay. No disaster. Mexico was in a bit of trouble, when I wrote my wish list, and we have to have them, so El Tri making South Africa is good. The U.S., gotta have them, too. And Honduras ... first time since 1982, and it's a big deal to them, and they've got the sidebar of the upheaval in the government, so I'm OK with this. One Banana Republic in the World Cup is never a bad thing.
SOUTH AMERICA
Wanted: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay.
Missing: None.
Instead/in addition: Paraguay.
Comment: At least Argentina made it, despite having a ninny (Diego Maradona) as its coach. It did go down to the wire. ... Brazil has to be in. No discussion. It's not a World Cup otherwise. (Only nation to play in 'em all.) And if we have to have four out of South America (and we do, even if the rest of the world doesn't really care who the others are, once we get past Brazil and Argentina), why not Chile, which has some interesting attacking players? And Uruguay, a nation with lots of World Cup history (two championships) and a reputation for playing dirty? That's kind of fun. ... I guess. ... Gaining Paraguay does nothing for me, though. I know the Paraguayans can play a little, but I'd rather see Costa Rica. I imagine it's a wash, for everyone in the Old World. (What's the difference between Paraguay or the Ticos in the World Cup, if you live in Europe, Africa or Asia? Right. Nothing.)
So, am I happy? Was Santa nice to me?
Yes. On the whole. Yes. A couple of key teams (Argentina, Mexico and Portugal) survived rocky qualifying runs and got in. I got Nigeria by dint of a late rally and a Tunisia collapse.
My biggest beefs are in Europe (Greece, an extra "Slov" and Switzerland) instead of the four I wanted, which are more interesting for a bunch of reasons, and Asia, which already was done, aside from Bahrain/Saudi.
I'm not complaining about what's in my stocking. Of the 31 teams I was backing (not counting host South Africa), 22 got in ... and of the nine that didn't make it, a couple already faced long odds of surviving.
Be nice to have Russia in this thing, and Ireland, and a Gulf team, and Turkey ... but I think we will be OK.
Thanks, Mr. Claus.
Read more!
Not from a Ground Zero perspective, but looking at qualifying that was well-advanced and including only those sides that had a realistic chance. Like, one of the "Stans" (Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, etc.) in the World Cup would be cool, but they had no chance by mid-July. China would have been interesting, but the Chinese were already out.
Since it is Christmas, or almost so, let's take a look back at my wish list ... and see if Santa thought I was naughty or nice, and rewarded me accordingly.
So, looking back at what I wanted, and what we got, and how that strikes me, on Christmas Eve:
AFRICA
Wanted: Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Nigeria.
Missing: Egypt, Gabon.
Instead: Algeria, Cameroon.
Comment: Got only 60 percent of my wish list, but the changes aren't a disaster. Gabon would have been fun because it's a tiny nation that has never played in the World Cup finals and has some really obscure players. A Cinderella story, you bet. But Cameroon blew past Gabon to win the group, and that's fine. The Indomitable Lions are headed for their sixth World Cup, and have a better chance of making noise than little Gabon would have. And Algeria instead of Egypt? Well, I still prefer it the other way round because Egypt has more than twice the population of Algeria (77 million vs. 34 million). And since Egypt covers the "North Africa needs a team" part of things, we then come down on the side of the country with more people, generally. But no gnashing of teeth here.
ASIA
Wanted: Australia, Bahrain, Japan, North Korea, South Korea.
Missing: Bahrain.
Instead: New Zealand.
Comment: All the nations I "wanted" (aside from Bahrain) already had qualified. The other four were in. I'd rather see one of the "stans" or China rather than both Koreas. But that ship had sailed. ... As for Bahrain, I wanted them to give the Gulf a team. Bahrain got past Saudi Arabia in the Asia fifth-place playoffs, which was good, because Saudi Arabia has been to several finals and been a crashing bore ... but Bahrain choked against New Zealand in the last playoff. Australia already is the "Oceania" representative, as far as I'm concerned, and adding New Zealand to South Africa 2010 is gilding the antipodean lily. Plus, the Kiwis can't really play. Fine chaps, and all, but a tiny country that brings nothing to the table. Not like one of the central Asians would have (in terms of curiosity) or China would have (in terms of population) or, specifically, Bahrain would have (representing the Gulf). So I rue this one. Yeah.
EUROPE
Wanted: Denmark, England, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Serbia, Turkey.
Missing: Ireland, Israel, Russia, Turkey.
Instead: Greece, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland
Comment: A bit annoyed with how this turned out, too. First, though, I have to express my thanks to the soccer gods for giving us the six Euro teams I said, back in July, no World Cup seems right without. Those being England, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Spain. It's the rest that rankle. How can you not want the Irish in the tournament? Their matches are an automatic party, and they're not nearly as likely to brawl as other Britons. Israel would make people think, bringing some geopolitical tension to the event, which often makes for good story lines. Russia? They should be here. An important soccer nation. But they gagged/quit when it came down to a playoff against tiny Slovenia. And Turkey would have been the standard-bearer for all those central Asian countries from the Turkic-language speaking group. ... Instead, we get the thrill-an-hour, defense-first (second and last) Greeks, Slovakia and Slovenia (which is one Gutty Little Minnow too many from Europe) and Switzerland, which we all know is going to do nothing important. OK, the Swiss are becoming vaguely interesting because one of the most uptight nations on Earth is allowing some minorities onto its national side, but they're still not that good. I still want the four I didn't get. And of the ones who are coming, I wouldn't mind Slovenia or Slovakia, but not both, and not the other two. Ugh.
OCEANIA
Wanted: Nobody.
Missing: Nobody.
Instead: New Zealand.
Comment: See the Asia comment, above. New Zealand is making only its second appearance, and that seems about right for a country that prefers rugby and cricket to soccer. And did I mention that New Zealands has, like, one semi-significant club team? As I noted, back in July, since Australia left Oceania for Asia, Oceania is New Zealand and about 10 coral reefs. Nothing personal, Kiwis. ... We just have about 55 million more people with a "neighborhood" rooting interest if Bahrain had made it instead of you.
NORTH AMERICA
Wanted: Costa Rica, Honduras, Mexico, United States.
Missing: Costa Rica.
Instead: Uruguay.
Comment: As a native North American, I was hoping that the fourth-place team in the Hexagonal could win the playoffs with South America's No. 5 team and give Concacaf four berths. It didn't happen, with Costa Rica going down by a 2-1 aggregate to Uruguay. No disaster. Mexico was in a bit of trouble, when I wrote my wish list, and we have to have them, so El Tri making South Africa is good. The U.S., gotta have them, too. And Honduras ... first time since 1982, and it's a big deal to them, and they've got the sidebar of the upheaval in the government, so I'm OK with this. One Banana Republic in the World Cup is never a bad thing.
SOUTH AMERICA
Wanted: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay.
Missing: None.
Instead/in addition: Paraguay.
Comment: At least Argentina made it, despite having a ninny (Diego Maradona) as its coach. It did go down to the wire. ... Brazil has to be in. No discussion. It's not a World Cup otherwise. (Only nation to play in 'em all.) And if we have to have four out of South America (and we do, even if the rest of the world doesn't really care who the others are, once we get past Brazil and Argentina), why not Chile, which has some interesting attacking players? And Uruguay, a nation with lots of World Cup history (two championships) and a reputation for playing dirty? That's kind of fun. ... I guess. ... Gaining Paraguay does nothing for me, though. I know the Paraguayans can play a little, but I'd rather see Costa Rica. I imagine it's a wash, for everyone in the Old World. (What's the difference between Paraguay or the Ticos in the World Cup, if you live in Europe, Africa or Asia? Right. Nothing.)
So, am I happy? Was Santa nice to me?
Yes. On the whole. Yes. A couple of key teams (Argentina, Mexico and Portugal) survived rocky qualifying runs and got in. I got Nigeria by dint of a late rally and a Tunisia collapse.
My biggest beefs are in Europe (Greece, an extra "Slov" and Switzerland) instead of the four I wanted, which are more interesting for a bunch of reasons, and Asia, which already was done, aside from Bahrain/Saudi.
I'm not complaining about what's in my stocking. Of the 31 teams I was backing (not counting host South Africa), 22 got in ... and of the nine that didn't make it, a couple already faced long odds of surviving.
Be nice to have Russia in this thing, and Ireland, and a Gulf team, and Turkey ... but I think we will be OK.
Thanks, Mr. Claus.
Read more!
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Coming Up to Speed on African Football
Much of the world has a few fairly simple and common conceptions of African soccer.
Fast. Athletic. Almost too colorful for its own good. Technically sound. Tactically weak.
It is all that, but much more, and we now have a well-received book on the history of the African game on book shelves.
Well, on amazon.com, anyway.
It is entitled "Feet of the Chameleon: The Story of Football in Africa."
As this review in the Johannesburg Times notes, the book comes out at a propitious time -- just six months before the biggest moment in African football history, the 2010 World Cup in South Africa.
This is Africa's moment in the sun. Its chance to prove it can handle the biggest event in sports and perhaps even succeed on the pitch, as well. No fewer than six African teams are in the 32-team draw, and more than a few observers (including this one) are predicting an African team in the semifinals, for the first time.
It's as if most of the world has a blinkered view of African football. From the players exported to the big clubs in Europe and the once-in-a-quadrennium glimpse of this or that African side in the World Cup.
Those glimpses -- individual players, specific teams at one moment in time -- don't provide us with enough information to have an informed understanding of the African game.
The author of "Chameleon," Ian Hawkey, covers eras and countries, according to the review. And since Hawkey writes for the London Times ... we can be almost certain his prose is easy on the eye.
I will be buying this book. I have been fascinated by African football for a long time now ... its raw passions, stunning skill and often chaotic situations. I have mentioned on this blog, a time or three, that one of my unrealized ambitions is to see an edition of the Africa Cup of Nations, the semi-annual continental championship that brings Africa almost to a halt.
This is the time to buy the book and read, learn and inwardly digest the grand pageant that is African football.
Read more!
Fast. Athletic. Almost too colorful for its own good. Technically sound. Tactically weak.
It is all that, but much more, and we now have a well-received book on the history of the African game on book shelves.
Well, on amazon.com, anyway.
It is entitled "Feet of the Chameleon: The Story of Football in Africa."
As this review in the Johannesburg Times notes, the book comes out at a propitious time -- just six months before the biggest moment in African football history, the 2010 World Cup in South Africa.
This is Africa's moment in the sun. Its chance to prove it can handle the biggest event in sports and perhaps even succeed on the pitch, as well. No fewer than six African teams are in the 32-team draw, and more than a few observers (including this one) are predicting an African team in the semifinals, for the first time.
It's as if most of the world has a blinkered view of African football. From the players exported to the big clubs in Europe and the once-in-a-quadrennium glimpse of this or that African side in the World Cup.
Those glimpses -- individual players, specific teams at one moment in time -- don't provide us with enough information to have an informed understanding of the African game.
The author of "Chameleon," Ian Hawkey, covers eras and countries, according to the review. And since Hawkey writes for the London Times ... we can be almost certain his prose is easy on the eye.
I will be buying this book. I have been fascinated by African football for a long time now ... its raw passions, stunning skill and often chaotic situations. I have mentioned on this blog, a time or three, that one of my unrealized ambitions is to see an edition of the Africa Cup of Nations, the semi-annual continental championship that brings Africa almost to a halt.
This is the time to buy the book and read, learn and inwardly digest the grand pageant that is African football.
Read more!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
