From a macro perspective, this is one of the great mysteries ahead of South Africa 2010.
Which players are hurt?
Fans are likely to have a pretty good idea about the physical form of the players from their home team. And they may have an idea about the injured elite players in the top professional leagues in Europe.
But when we try to keep track of the middling or fringe-first-XI guys for 32 nations (one of which is secrecy-shrouded North Korea) ... well, we're going to be guessing.
In this case, Ghana has lost its best player, Michael Essien, for at least two months with a torn hamstring. (And my study of torn hamstrings is that two months is a very, very optimistic time frame for a return.)
The London Times tells us about Essien's injury here.
Get well soon, Mr. Essien.
The bigger topic ... is about how we will get close to the World Cup and make projections based on a team showing up with its first XI. And could be badly misinformed because several key players are hurt and we don't know it.
Here is just one example:
The United States may be the planet's elite sports nation. But when it comes to its soccer team, otherwise well-informed fans in other parts of the world don't really know more than a few names of players on the U.S. team.
And the United States's chances in the World Cup are, at the moment, typically forecast by others ... based on the assumption that the first XI it used there for that runner-up finish in the Confederations Cup will be the same it uses at the World Cup.
However, that is not the case.
Two of the first XI are on the shelf at this moment. One, Charlie Davies, who scored in the crucial match against Egypt, nearly died in an automobile accident in October. He suffered numerous broken bones and almost certainly won't play in South Africa -- and maybe never again. And how many non-Americans know that?
The other seriously injured U.S. player in central defender Oguchi Onyewu whose knee exploded in the latter stages of the World Cup qualifying match vs. Costa Rica, in November. Onyewu has a higher profile than most of the U.S. players, being under contract with AC Milan (albeit lashed to the bench there, before he was hurt) ... but it seems safe to assume most of the soccer world is unaware that he will not really begin his comeback until spring and may not be back in form by June 11.
And that is just one nation.
Multiply the not-quite-aware factor by 32, and you begin to see the really extraordinary level of Not Knowing (among pundits and fans alike), about what to make (and expect) of this, that or the other World Cup contender.
Because we won't, and can't, know who is hurt.
Complicating this further? The dearth of accurate information that World Cup teams will allow to leak out about its players and their injuries as we get close to the Big Event. As if it weren't already difficult enough to keep track of (say) Paraguay's guys -- even if we read Spanish-language publications from the country.
We will attempt here, as we get closer to this, to keep track of the players who suffer major injuries. But that injury report will most assuredly be skewed toward the big soccer nations and players in the major leagues.
Very good players, very important players, competing or club teams back in their home nation ... they could be in a full body cast, and we may not know about it until the opening match, when Team X takes the field without Player No. 11.
Read more!
Friday, December 11, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Algeria May Pay Costs of Fans to Go to SA 2010
That's one way to get 5-10,000 friendly fans in the stands.
Pay for them to get there.
Algeria famously charged nothing for about 11,000 of its fans to fly to the Sudan for the special playoff match against Egypt ... the one Algeria won, 1-0, putting it into the finals in South Africa.
Now, the government apparently is considering a reprise of that generosity for the finals, during which the Algerians will play two countries that have lots of fans paying their own way -- the United States and England.
The Guardian, an English newspaper, has some details on Algeria's planning.
The question not quite answered in the story is whether Algeria actually intended to let 11,000 fans show up, on its flag-carrier airline, at Sudan. Notice the wording about how the fans crowded onto the flights, and most were never charged a fee. Was that a plan? Or a mini-stampede that got out of control?
This time, 3,000 seats have been "blocked out" for Algeria supporters. Will that turn into another freebie? It's a much longer flight, from Algiers to South Africa than it is from Algiers to Khartoum. Much bigger expense, per flight.
Seemingly, Algeria will need all the help it can get. Algeria hasn't been in the World Cup since 1986, and was not favored to survive Egypt in the special playoff. It generally is regarded as the weakest team in Group C, which includes little Slovenia.
Several thousand sympathetic fans traveling at government expense ... that would go a long way towards making Algeria feel more at home in South Africa.
Just don't look for too many other governments to follow suit. Read more!
Pay for them to get there.
Algeria famously charged nothing for about 11,000 of its fans to fly to the Sudan for the special playoff match against Egypt ... the one Algeria won, 1-0, putting it into the finals in South Africa.
Now, the government apparently is considering a reprise of that generosity for the finals, during which the Algerians will play two countries that have lots of fans paying their own way -- the United States and England.
The Guardian, an English newspaper, has some details on Algeria's planning.
The question not quite answered in the story is whether Algeria actually intended to let 11,000 fans show up, on its flag-carrier airline, at Sudan. Notice the wording about how the fans crowded onto the flights, and most were never charged a fee. Was that a plan? Or a mini-stampede that got out of control?
This time, 3,000 seats have been "blocked out" for Algeria supporters. Will that turn into another freebie? It's a much longer flight, from Algiers to South Africa than it is from Algiers to Khartoum. Much bigger expense, per flight.
Seemingly, Algeria will need all the help it can get. Algeria hasn't been in the World Cup since 1986, and was not favored to survive Egypt in the special playoff. It generally is regarded as the weakest team in Group C, which includes little Slovenia.
Several thousand sympathetic fans traveling at government expense ... that would go a long way towards making Algeria feel more at home in South Africa.
Just don't look for too many other governments to follow suit. Read more!
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
South Africa, Zulus and Bulls
As of 10 p.m. Greenwich Mean Time, no trains had jumped the rails and no planes had skidded off runways in South Africa, but that won't stop us from giving more attention to an undeniable reality of the 2010 South Africa World Cup.
It isn't going to be your typical First World World Cup of recent vintage. (Thinking Germany, Japan, South Korea, France, the United States, Italy.) This is a different culture at a different place in its history. It may someday resemble Western Europe or North America, but right now it doesn't.
Which leads us to today's topic ... the ritual slaughter of a bull by young Zulu warriors, in South Africa. With their bare hands.
Now that's not something I think you will see in France. Though they do force-feed geese to make foie gras out of their livers.
But back to the bulls and the Zulus.
This story appeared in the New York Times. It notes that animal rights people objected to what apparently is a very old Zulu tradition ... and how that objection ticked off a lot of people in South Africa (and not just Zulus). It smacked of racism and colonialism, they said.
The story notes how the South African judiciary was asked to rule on the killing-a-bull-with-our-bare-hands thing, and decided it was OK. With the ruling judge saying something like "I don't want to be responsible if something bad happens to the Zulu king because I banned this ceremony," which doesn't quite strike me as a legal opinion that would rival something Coke or Taney would have authored, in terms of depth of analysis.
And the author of the story does his best to explain how it all went down, even though reporters were pushed some distance away from the ceremony.
The point being, again ... this will be a different World Cup than any that has come before it. And not just because it is 2010. Read more!
It isn't going to be your typical First World World Cup of recent vintage. (Thinking Germany, Japan, South Korea, France, the United States, Italy.) This is a different culture at a different place in its history. It may someday resemble Western Europe or North America, but right now it doesn't.
Which leads us to today's topic ... the ritual slaughter of a bull by young Zulu warriors, in South Africa. With their bare hands.
Now that's not something I think you will see in France. Though they do force-feed geese to make foie gras out of their livers.
But back to the bulls and the Zulus.
This story appeared in the New York Times. It notes that animal rights people objected to what apparently is a very old Zulu tradition ... and how that objection ticked off a lot of people in South Africa (and not just Zulus). It smacked of racism and colonialism, they said.
The story notes how the South African judiciary was asked to rule on the killing-a-bull-with-our-bare-hands thing, and decided it was OK. With the ruling judge saying something like "I don't want to be responsible if something bad happens to the Zulu king because I banned this ceremony," which doesn't quite strike me as a legal opinion that would rival something Coke or Taney would have authored, in terms of depth of analysis.
And the author of the story does his best to explain how it all went down, even though reporters were pushed some distance away from the ceremony.
The point being, again ... this will be a different World Cup than any that has come before it. And not just because it is 2010. Read more!
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Traveling Around SA Is, Uh, an Adventure
OK, yes, there's crime. The second-highest murder rate in the world -- both as a percentage and in raw numbers. (Trailing only narco-state Colombia in each category.)
And, yes, some teams are going to bring their own paramilitary security forces (as detailed in the previous entry on this blog).
And we hate to keep coming back with bad news, but this actually is news. As in "just happened."
A couple of examples why it is difficult and dangerous to travel a significant distance, inside South Africa: A plane crash and a train crash.
First, the train crash.
It occurred Monday on the passenger line between Johannesburg and Cape Town -- which is only the most important rail line in the country.
South Africa already had a reputation for barely functioning rail. Slow, expensive, doesn't take you where you want to go. (Sounds like the United States.)
And now trains are running into each other?
Be careful, England fans, trying to get from Game 1 in Rustenburg to Game 2 in Cape Town.
Here is the link to the plane crash ... which was "only" an Airlink commuter plane running off the runway in a place called George.
What I don't get is how 35 people were "ejected" but only one hurt. This also happened Monday. Yesterday.
Anyway, a day later, the transport minister says he is considering grounding the Airlink fleet. A day after dismissing the off-the-runway thing as no big deal. Hmm.
Also, this probably is a good place to mention that Grant Wahl of Sports Illustrated is on the record as saying he will do whatever he can to tar the reputation of South Africa's main airline, South African Airways, which he dealt with, apparently, during the Confederations Cup. He said he hated it on just about every level.
So, if you are going, and you need to commute any distance around the Texas-sized country ... well, good luck. Trains spotty and dangerous. Planes spotty and dangerous. Driving in a big country with some second-tier roads and lots of crime? Sounds dangerous, too.
Not all teams will be dragged around the country during South Africa 2010. The U.S., for example, has all three of its group matches in a fairly small area in the northeast.
But if you have to make that Joburg to Cape Town trip ... again, consider yourself warned. Read more!
And, yes, some teams are going to bring their own paramilitary security forces (as detailed in the previous entry on this blog).
And we hate to keep coming back with bad news, but this actually is news. As in "just happened."
A couple of examples why it is difficult and dangerous to travel a significant distance, inside South Africa: A plane crash and a train crash.
First, the train crash.
It occurred Monday on the passenger line between Johannesburg and Cape Town -- which is only the most important rail line in the country.
South Africa already had a reputation for barely functioning rail. Slow, expensive, doesn't take you where you want to go. (Sounds like the United States.)
And now trains are running into each other?
Be careful, England fans, trying to get from Game 1 in Rustenburg to Game 2 in Cape Town.
Here is the link to the plane crash ... which was "only" an Airlink commuter plane running off the runway in a place called George.
What I don't get is how 35 people were "ejected" but only one hurt. This also happened Monday. Yesterday.
Anyway, a day later, the transport minister says he is considering grounding the Airlink fleet. A day after dismissing the off-the-runway thing as no big deal. Hmm.
Also, this probably is a good place to mention that Grant Wahl of Sports Illustrated is on the record as saying he will do whatever he can to tar the reputation of South Africa's main airline, South African Airways, which he dealt with, apparently, during the Confederations Cup. He said he hated it on just about every level.
So, if you are going, and you need to commute any distance around the Texas-sized country ... well, good luck. Trains spotty and dangerous. Planes spotty and dangerous. Driving in a big country with some second-tier roads and lots of crime? Sounds dangerous, too.
Not all teams will be dragged around the country during South Africa 2010. The U.S., for example, has all three of its group matches in a fairly small area in the northeast.
But if you have to make that Joburg to Cape Town trip ... again, consider yourself warned. Read more!
Monday, December 7, 2009
Teams to Hire 'War Zone' Security?
This is a story that came out of today's editions of the Pretoria News, an English-language newspaper in the city of Pretoria, in South Africa.
Pretoria, by the way, is a host city for the 2010 World Cup. The United States' last game, vs. Algeria, is in Pretoria.
The gist of the story: That some of the teams going to South Africa are bringing their own security men, and that some of those guys have backgrounds in war zones ... and terror zones.
I would link you to the Pretoria News, but they charge for the story in question. So I'm picking it up from other South African media.
Here it is:
"Many of the nations taking part in the World Cup will use private security firms - including war-zone specialists who operate in Iraq and Afghanistan - to safeguard their players and officials.
"Sources in the private protection industry have said that high-profile football associations from Europe and South America have already hired firms that will use ex-military personnel, some of them special forces veterans, to look after players and their families. The firms will provide round-the-clock armed bodyguards, bulletproof vehicles, hijack prevention advice and squads that can handle kidnap situations. Kidnap insurance is also offered by some agencies.
"The revelations come amid fears there could be 'gaps in the coverage' provided by the organisers. A number of football associations from around the world and senior figures in international administrative circles have concerns sparked by lapses at last summer's Confederations Cup, which was effectively a small-scale test event for 2010.
"'There was no single major mishap, but some worrying gaps were noted, suggesting there won't be enough properly trained security at every place they'll be required,' one source said. 'Security contracts weren't in place until very late, some players had property stolen from hotels, and some fans were victims of crime.
"'And at the Confederations Cup there were just eight teams, playing in four stadiums, three of which were within (112km) of each other. The World Cup is in a whole different league, with 32 teams, 10 stadiums in nine cities across more than a thousand miles, and millions of fans, hundreds of thousands from overseas.'
"Another source said: 'South Africa has a fantastic reputation for sports events. It has staged the Rugby World Cup, Lions tours, and major international cricket - but its infrastructure is under pressure. Booking rooms and internal flights is already a struggle, and the security is just as susceptible.'
"Fifa said it was satisfied the South African authorities had done all they could to secure the safety of players, officials and fans."
Well, there you are. We've been writing about this for months. That South Africa can be a dangerous place. Our sense always has been that the fans paying attention to their surroundings will be save.
(Reminds me of the Scandinavian journalists who covered the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles. They were staying on the east side of the Harbor Freeway, and they decided to go for a walk around the neighborhood and got mugged. If they had asked literally anyone from SoCal, they would have been warned off a pleasure walk in that neighborhood.)
Also makes me wonder what sort of laws South Africa has about foreigners carrying weapons (concealed or otherwise) in South Africa. If that is a problem, will they be hiring South African security firms?
Remember, too, the German team apparently has been counseled to wear bullet-proof vests when outside the team compound. Hmmm.
Could be interesting. Well, it all will be. Read more!
Pretoria, by the way, is a host city for the 2010 World Cup. The United States' last game, vs. Algeria, is in Pretoria.
The gist of the story: That some of the teams going to South Africa are bringing their own security men, and that some of those guys have backgrounds in war zones ... and terror zones.
I would link you to the Pretoria News, but they charge for the story in question. So I'm picking it up from other South African media.
Here it is:
"Many of the nations taking part in the World Cup will use private security firms - including war-zone specialists who operate in Iraq and Afghanistan - to safeguard their players and officials.
"Sources in the private protection industry have said that high-profile football associations from Europe and South America have already hired firms that will use ex-military personnel, some of them special forces veterans, to look after players and their families. The firms will provide round-the-clock armed bodyguards, bulletproof vehicles, hijack prevention advice and squads that can handle kidnap situations. Kidnap insurance is also offered by some agencies.
"The revelations come amid fears there could be 'gaps in the coverage' provided by the organisers. A number of football associations from around the world and senior figures in international administrative circles have concerns sparked by lapses at last summer's Confederations Cup, which was effectively a small-scale test event for 2010.
"'There was no single major mishap, but some worrying gaps were noted, suggesting there won't be enough properly trained security at every place they'll be required,' one source said. 'Security contracts weren't in place until very late, some players had property stolen from hotels, and some fans were victims of crime.
"'And at the Confederations Cup there were just eight teams, playing in four stadiums, three of which were within (112km) of each other. The World Cup is in a whole different league, with 32 teams, 10 stadiums in nine cities across more than a thousand miles, and millions of fans, hundreds of thousands from overseas.'
"Another source said: 'South Africa has a fantastic reputation for sports events. It has staged the Rugby World Cup, Lions tours, and major international cricket - but its infrastructure is under pressure. Booking rooms and internal flights is already a struggle, and the security is just as susceptible.'
"Fifa said it was satisfied the South African authorities had done all they could to secure the safety of players, officials and fans."
Well, there you are. We've been writing about this for months. That South Africa can be a dangerous place. Our sense always has been that the fans paying attention to their surroundings will be save.
(Reminds me of the Scandinavian journalists who covered the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles. They were staying on the east side of the Harbor Freeway, and they decided to go for a walk around the neighborhood and got mugged. If they had asked literally anyone from SoCal, they would have been warned off a pleasure walk in that neighborhood.)
Also makes me wonder what sort of laws South Africa has about foreigners carrying weapons (concealed or otherwise) in South Africa. If that is a problem, will they be hiring South African security firms?
Remember, too, the German team apparently has been counseled to wear bullet-proof vests when outside the team compound. Hmmm.
Could be interesting. Well, it all will be. Read more!
Sunday, December 6, 2009
The Odds Facing 32 Teams
It seems odd to me to gamble on soccer. Not enough goals. I know you can bet on all those "propositions" (like who takes the first corner kick, who commits the first foul, etc.) ... but it just doesn't seem like a bettor's sport. American football and basketball seem more attractive betting propositions. Rugby, too.
Though much of the world disagrees with me on this, because people writing about the soccer match-fixing stories coming out of central Europe are keen to note how many millions and millions are wagered online on soccer, in Europe and Asia.
So, think of this list of odds (posted on Sports Illustrated) as less of an incentive to bet ... and more as a piece of real news interest -- from the sense of the teams the bookies believe will receive the most support.
Here they are, from best odds to worst:
9-2: Brazil, Spain.
6-1: England
9-1: Argentina
12-1: Germany, Italy
14-1: Netherlands
16-1: France, Portugal
22-1: Ivory Coast
40-1: Chile
66-1: Ghana, Paraguay, Serbia
80-1: Cameroon, United States
100-1: Australia, Denmark, Greece, Mexico, Nigeria, South Africa, Uruguay
150-1: Switzerland
200-1: Japan, Slovakia, Slovenia
250-1: South Korea
300-1: Algeria, Honduras
500-1: South Korea
1,000-1: New Zealand
Some thoughts: I might be interested in a couple of exotic bets. If gambling were legal here. One would be "I'll take Brazil and Spain against the field ... what odds will you give me?"
And I wonder what sort of odds I could get for picking a half-dozen middling teams (beginning with Argentina) with the proposition being, "These X number of teams will not win. How much can I win if I bet $100 on that?"
But just looking at the list, I might lay a fiver down on Nigeria, at 100-1. I believe the African teams are going to have their best World Cup, and Nigeria has a decent draw. I also fancy the Netherlands at 14-1. Though I wish Van Persie hadn't hurt his ankle the other day. I'd bet $1 on New Zealand, too, but that is just so not going to happen, I may as well sail a dollar bill out the fifth-floor window of my hotel in Abu Dhabi.
Anyone you see there that seems like a bargain? Or a sucker's bet? Read more!
Though much of the world disagrees with me on this, because people writing about the soccer match-fixing stories coming out of central Europe are keen to note how many millions and millions are wagered online on soccer, in Europe and Asia.
So, think of this list of odds (posted on Sports Illustrated) as less of an incentive to bet ... and more as a piece of real news interest -- from the sense of the teams the bookies believe will receive the most support.
Here they are, from best odds to worst:
9-2: Brazil, Spain.
6-1: England
9-1: Argentina
12-1: Germany, Italy
14-1: Netherlands
16-1: France, Portugal
22-1: Ivory Coast
40-1: Chile
66-1: Ghana, Paraguay, Serbia
80-1: Cameroon, United States
100-1: Australia, Denmark, Greece, Mexico, Nigeria, South Africa, Uruguay
150-1: Switzerland
200-1: Japan, Slovakia, Slovenia
250-1: South Korea
300-1: Algeria, Honduras
500-1: South Korea
1,000-1: New Zealand
Some thoughts: I might be interested in a couple of exotic bets. If gambling were legal here. One would be "I'll take Brazil and Spain against the field ... what odds will you give me?"
And I wonder what sort of odds I could get for picking a half-dozen middling teams (beginning with Argentina) with the proposition being, "These X number of teams will not win. How much can I win if I bet $100 on that?"
But just looking at the list, I might lay a fiver down on Nigeria, at 100-1. I believe the African teams are going to have their best World Cup, and Nigeria has a decent draw. I also fancy the Netherlands at 14-1. Though I wish Van Persie hadn't hurt his ankle the other day. I'd bet $1 on New Zealand, too, but that is just so not going to happen, I may as well sail a dollar bill out the fifth-floor window of my hotel in Abu Dhabi.
Anyone you see there that seems like a bargain? Or a sucker's bet? Read more!
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Oh, And a Million Tickets on Sale Today
If you have, oh, $10,000 in spare change lying about, and want to go see some matches at South Africa 2010 ... this is the time to get busy buying.
One million tickets went on sale today, the last big chunk of tickets offered to foreigners.
What the story I linked to, above, doesn't tell you is ... you need to go to fifa.com to buy tickets.
Here is a link to the fifa.com ticketing starting page.
And if any of you actually do buy tickets, send me an e-mail, so I can ask you how cool it is to have a confirmation for South Africa 2010.
If you're an American or a Brit, you won't be the only one in-country. Sources in the U.S. bought 84,000 tickets from the first batch and English bought 49,000 ... and it looks almost certain those two will be the biggest groups of fans, aside from the home team. Of course. Read more!
One million tickets went on sale today, the last big chunk of tickets offered to foreigners.
What the story I linked to, above, doesn't tell you is ... you need to go to fifa.com to buy tickets.
Here is a link to the fifa.com ticketing starting page.
And if any of you actually do buy tickets, send me an e-mail, so I can ask you how cool it is to have a confirmation for South Africa 2010.
If you're an American or a Brit, you won't be the only one in-country. Sources in the U.S. bought 84,000 tickets from the first batch and English bought 49,000 ... and it looks almost certain those two will be the biggest groups of fans, aside from the home team. Of course. Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
