Breaking Down the Field by Appearances

Another way to parse the field for South Africa 2010:

By World Cup experience.

For some of these countries, a finals appearance is tantamount to a national birthright. For others, it is a rare and precious treat.

Let's go down the list of the 32, from the old hands to the (as the British would say) debutantes.

Nation, appearances (notes)

Brazil, 19 (all of them; the only country with that distinction)

Germany, 17 (didn't attempt to appear in the other two)

Italy, 17 (missed in only one attempt, 1958)

Argentina, 15 (only one qualifying failure, 1970)

Mexico, 14 (three failed attempts; banned from 1990)

England, 13 (three failed attempts for putative "masters of the game")

France, 13 (and four straight; thanks Thierry Henry)

Spain, 13 (maybe it's time to win one?)

Uruguay, 11 (though only two of last five)

Serbia, 10 (counting Yugoslavia days)

Netherlands, 9 (yes, a bit erratic, even with that talent)

Slovakia, 9 (counting Czechoslovakia days)

Switzerland, 9 (good success for a little country)

United States, 9 (and six straight for the "non-soccer-playing" USA)

Chile, 8 (but first since 1998)

South Korea, 8 (and seven straight)

Paraguay, 8 (and four consecutive; good for another little country)

Cameroon, 6 (from last eight attempts; all-time African qualifying leaders)

Portugal, 5 (yes, they used to struggle to get here)

Denmark, 4 (and all since 1986)

Japan, 4 (the last four, too)

Nigeria, 4 (missed only 2006, of last five)

Algeria, 3 (and first since 1986)

Australia, 3 (including last two)

South Africa, 3 (hosts made it twice on their own, 1998, 2002)

Cote d'Ivoire, 2 (consecutive)

Ghana, 2 (see above)

Greece, 2 (first since 1994)

Honduras, 2 (first since 1982)

North Korea, 2 (first since 1966, the stunning quarterfinals appearance)

New Zealand, 2 (first since 1986)

Slovenia, 2 (in three tries as independent nation)

Notes:

--Some consider Serbia and Slovakia to be first-timers, and they are under those names. As mentioned above, players from what is now these two independent countries played in previous World Cups.

--Seventy-six nations have qualified for at least one World Cup.

--Nations with the most appearances who are not in South Africa 2010: Belgium (11), Sweden 11), Czech Republic (9), Hungary (9), Russia (9).

--Nations/countries with longest drought (and at least one appearance): Cuba and Indonesia (1938); next, Wales (1958).

Check this wikipedia entry, for more information on this.
Read more!

Something Rotten in the State of Fifa

Fifa is like sausage. You really don't want to look too closely at how it comes together. You could lose your lunch. Maybe your mind, too. Just consume it; usually it goes down fine.

Today, we have Sepp Blatter caling for an super-duper-extraordinary-ultra-secret-super-double-probation meeting (or something like that), in Cape Town on Dec. 2, to do nothing at all about three major issues that have sullied the image of the organizing body.

As if you can sully the image of something that always tends to get mud on its face.

Here is the news story, but we can boil it down to three main issues for you.

1. OK, yeah, we blew that hand-ball call in the Ireland-France match. We blow calls all the time, and the hubbub usually dies down straight off. We didn't know this was the match that the entire English-speaking world (at the least) apparently was watching, and it's getting a little warm here in Zurich, even in late November.

Not that we're going to do anything about it other than to appear concerned and toss about ideas about better officiating ... that we will do nothing about.

2. That match-fixing thing brewing in Germany and various and sundry other countries in Eastern Europe. OMG. If you knew half of what we know ... oh, did we say that out loud? You know how easy it is to fix matches in which only one goal is scored? We do. Did we say that out loud too?

3. Oh, and the Algeria-Egypt thing, the players cut by flying debris and the siege atmosphere that Algeria had to play in, in Cairo, and the reprisals toward Egyptians back in Algeria, and the generic disgusting ugliness of the whole mess, making a mockery of the "beautiful game" and "fair play" platitudes we mouth ... well, we're going to talk about this very seriously as well, and frown, and maybe even wag a finger at somebody or other. Not that it will maatter.

All in a day's work! Read more!

How We Will Speak at South Africa 2010

The 32 teams/nations are in.

We are going to look at them a bit more closely, running up to the official Draw, on Dec. 4. Today, by how they communicate.

Cup teams by languages:

(Note: Includes several countries where a language is rarely a native tongue but has "official" status.)

English: 8 (Australia, Cameroon, England, Ghana, New Zealand, Nigeria, South Africa, United States).

Spanish: 7 (Argentina, Chile, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Spain, Uruguay).

French: 4 (Cameroon, Cote d'Ivoire, France, Switzerland).

German: 2 (Germany, Switzerland).

Italian: 2 (Italy, Switzerland).

Korean: 2 (North Korea, South Korea).

Portuguese: 2 (Brazil, Portugal).

And one each: Arabic (Algeria), Danish (Denmark), Dutch (Netherlands), Greek (Greece), Japanese (Japan), Serbian (Serbia), Slovakian (Slovakia), Slovenian (Slovenia) ... and several African languages, including Afrikaans, Akan, Bantu, Baule, Berber, Ewe, Dagbani, Gurma, Hausa, Igbo, Malinke, Senoufo, Xhosa, Yoruba, Zulu, to name most of those most commonly spoken.

So, if you're going to the World Cup, English is the best language to know, because it is an official language of South Africa (though spoken as a mother tongue by only 8 percent of the population) ... and because fans from seven other national teams ought to understand you.

If you also know Spanish and French ... now you've covered 19 World Cup countries, and that doesn't even count places such as Denmark, Germany and Switzerland where English is widely spoken, or the United States, where a significant number of people now understands Spanish.

So, with one language, English, you will be able to get along. With three (English, French, Spanish), the odds are good you will be able to communicate on some basic level with just about everyone. Read more!

Also, Note the Counter is Going to Hit 200 Days

Two hundred days until kickoff of South Africa 2010. We counted down right past that during this 24-hour period.

Seems like a long time but ...

Two hundred days is just 18 days over half a year.

Napoleon's return to France from Elba, his recapture of the government and his career-ending Battle of Waterloo ... all of that took less than 100 days.

For Americans ... the period of time during which Franklin Roosevelt pushed through his massive social programs, in 1933, is known as The Hundred Days.

Two hundred days is only a little more than two seasons of the year.

Two hundred days is 35 times as long as the map-changing Six Day War of 1967 between Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Syria. It is also 26 days longer than the 1982 Falklands War between England and Argentina.

Two hundred days is less time than it takes for a human to be conceived and be born. Usually.

Anyway ... we're getting close. Read more!

Ireland Replay? Fifa Says, Uh, NO!

It might have seemed reasonable.

The Ireland-France match, so important, so fatally flawed by the missed hand ball by Thierry Henry that led to the winning French goal ...

Of course it should be played over. It's only fair. It's reasonable. It could be done.

But those of us who have been watching Fifa for, oh, a couple of months or more knew that it would never happen. Fifa is infallible. Fifa never admits to mistakes. Sort of like popes. Judgment call, end of story.

The official decision came down Friday. And, surprise, Fifa still has never made a mistake. That's 1 billion for 1 billion in getting things right.

I know this won't make the Irish feel any better, but Thierry Henry apparently said that Ireland deserves a replay. Which was easy for him to suggest, knowing 1) his reputation in the English-speaking world was taking a beating (all that "cheater-cheater pumpkin-eater" stuff) and 2) Fifa would never allow it.

This also won't make the Irish feel better, but I am convinced France goes to South Africa 2010 next year with some really vile karma in the ol' kit bag. Something Heavy will fall on this French team, dysfunctional, disjointed, led by a toad (Raymond Domenech) and qualified by dint of a horrible mistake.

No way they last, not with that cosmic burden on their bleu backs.

It won't heal the wounds in the Emerald Isle, when the French go down ... but maybe it will numb them a little. Read more!

Should Ireland Get a Replay?

The anger seems to be building.

France won a spot in the World Cup at Ireland's expense in extra time Wednesday night on the strength of a goal set up by a player, Thierry Henry, who handled the ball -- twice -- before actually using his feet to pass it to William Gallas, who scored.

Ireland is calling on France and Fifa for a replay. Another match. Which would be nice. But, for better or (in this case) worse, this is not how soccer works.

Soccer prides itself on uninterrupted play. Fans of American sports often are mocked, around the world, for putting up with all the stoppages of play in their games. American football, in particular.

Some of the sports stoppages in the U.S. are television-driven. Some of them are just part of the games. And others, increasingly, are made to allow electronic review of critical calls. To get them right, or as close as possible to "right" as the technology will allow.

It seems clear that Ireland would have benefited greatly by even the most primitive video-replay technology. The video of the key moment appears to have been taken down all over the web by the rights holders, but there seems universal agreement from those who saw TV of the match that Henry handled the ball twice -- and the referee just missed it.

This would not have happened in an American football game. A coach would have called for a replay, the game would have been stopped and various cameras would have caught Henry in the act, which the referee would have seen, and reversed himself. The goal would have been disallowed, Henry may have been assessed a yellow card and the Irish given the ball. And, presumably, eventually someone would have won the match ... fairly.

But ...

But ...

Is soccer ready for instant replay? Will it allow "the beautiful game" to be held up while the officials go to the video, American-style?

Only for goals? How about for offsides (now there's a can of worms)? To the legalistic American mind, soccer is maddening in its inability even to get right such simple calls as "who gets this throw-in?" Even in the biggest matches, linesmen get that "possession" wrong a dozen times, on throw-ins.

Soccer and quasi-"instant" replay? We don't see that happening any time soon. It goes too much against the grain of the game, and its traditions. It is a game that seems to have built in a certain, shall we say, "elasticity" when it comes to rules.Everyone knows it and they allow everything from kiddie games to World Cup matches ("Hand of God", anyone?) to be decided by blatantly illegal plays that go unseen by referees.

Also, bringing technology to all levels of World Cup qualifying might not be possible. Think of all the early matches in the underdeveloped parts of the world that aren't even televised. When and where, then, does Fifa start using viedo-replay? All the time, in Europe? In the last qualifying stage in Africa?

There are basic technical problems.

But, ultimately, soccer just allows X amount of stuff to go on. You either accept the game in its entirety -- and that means the more-than-occasional horrific, game-changing call -- or you don't have the game you have now. Can't have it both ways.

So, the Irish have a right to be angry and upset. But as coaches and athletes have been saying, of late, "it is what it is" ... which is jockspeak for "can't do anything about it now."

There will be no replay. Not saying that's right. But that's the soccer way. Read more!

And No. 32 ... Uruguay!

No more calls please! We have a lineup!

You can examine it right here on the home page. Just look down the column on the right ... and there are the 32 who are going to South Africa 2010. It took nearly three years of qualifying to figure it out, so it must be right.

Uruguay was last in the tournament, and is last in the alphabet ... but will never be "least." Not as long as New Zealand is around.

Uruguay got the final berth because it didn't play until late in the day, Wednesday. And not that the rest of the world doesn't respect Concacaf teams, but after Uruguay was held to 1-1 at home by Costa Rica (winning the aggregate 2-1), coach Oscar Tabarez felt compelled to promise that his team would play better in the World Cup.

Hey, Costa Rica can play a little. The Ticos had that bad stretch where they were outscored 8-0 and lost three straight (Honduras, Mexico, El Salvador), which killed their chances for a guaranteed berth, but they led Concacaf qualifying at the midpoint.

So ...

Let's divide the 32 teams into five groups, by order of what we might expect from them come South Africa, little more than 200 days away:

--The Just Here to See the Sights and Leave After the Group Stage Group: Algeria, Japan, Honduras, New Zealand, North Korea, Slovenia, South Korea, Uruguay.

--The Could Sneak into the Knockout Round Which We Will Consider Success Group: Chile, Greece, Mexico, Nigeria, Paraguay, Slovakia, South Africa, United States.

--The We're Thinking Quarterfinals Even if It's Not Realistic Group: Argentina (as long as Maradona is coach), Denmark, France, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Portugal, Slovenia, Switzerland.

--The Four Who Could Make the Semis if Everything Breaks Right Group: Cameroon, England, Italy, Serbia.

--The One of Us Is Gonna Win and Most Everyone Knows It Group: Brazil, Germany, Netherlands, Spain.

More interesting breakdowns of the Final 32 in tomorrow's post. Read more!