I think the draw is fixed not in the actual draw but the structure of rankings prior to the draw. Japan was placed in one of the easiest brackets, followed by Spain and Brazil. It would not be out of the question to see Japan advance due to the joke of a bracket they were placed in. U.S. got screwed again by being placed in the final spot rankings with the other Central American teams and the African teams. Mexico has a much easier bracket because Croatia has declined dramatically and Ecuador is much overrated.
The rankings were decided by prior World Cup play not current rankings...as a result Germany and Brazil were placed way too high and England too low. The "F" bracket now stands for "fucked" because all teams in the bracket are in for hell games decided by penalty kicks (the only part of soccer that needs to change). I wish I could go to the Portugal/USA game seeing that I am Portuguese and all my relatives are from Portugal but my mongering trips to Thailand and Brazil will take up most of my vaca time.

Blazers,

I totally agree with you!.UEFA has a tendency to "fix" the brackets and the world cup seedings. Germany a number one seed??? give me a break!

I won't jump on the Europena bandwagon yet. After all, Portugal got to the WC final by beating such soccer powerhouses such as Andorra, Estonia, Iceland and Cyprus..What a joke!! I agree that portugal is a dangerous team, Luis Figo will be one of the football greats. But he is better serviced by Real Madrid and although Portugal had a great run in the Euro Championships, their defence is suspect.

Poland.. welll they beat up on the other soccer powerhouses such as Belarus, Wales, Armenia and Norway. Their top scorer is a naturalized Nigerian. In addition Poland has played NO games outside Europe in 4 years.

South Korea.. well they do have the home field advantage, and they might take advantage of a team that plays poorly, and get a tie, but I don't see them winning a game.


I still subscribe to my theory that there are a lot of Euro teams overrated. UEFA has stacked the deck in their favor for years now. The only way to dilute their hegemony is to allow more WC slots to teams from other regions (not expand the number of slots). I think more qualifying rounds in Europe to get rid of the Luxembourgs,Andorras and ALbanias from the pool early, will lessen the number of WC spots Europe may claim. Only then will you get a fairer, more open World Cup.



OG

OG
I don't understand your gripes. Scoreboard baby. Whoever wins is the best, end of discussion.
France looks like will have to beat England or Nigeria, Brazil, Argentina to reach final, no cakewalk in the park. They may run out of steam by semi. Argentina has a tough road as no gimme first round. And yes I don't count the first round as this is just a warmup except for group F with 4 good teams.
The top seeds were all drawn except for France, Japan and Korea.

Blazers
There is no pk's in first round. Head to head is first tie breaker, then goal difference, then most goals scored...

I'll be shocked if USA can win a game but group is not difficult, Portugal has not played in wc in ages, is it 1966? Poland not since 1982 or something. South Korea will be much better than expected as they do have big bodies.

What is interesting is locale, neutral site with humid weather and rainy season.

BTW if USA had been in Group F this would not be called the group of Death, just another group. Nigeria and USA is night and day. I'll still root for US but have not real hopes unless Brian McBride can put some chances home.

Athos

I was referring to the WC qualifying. UEFA traditionally gets 12-14 slots based upon some esoteric formula, they provide FIFA. The formula is based on the number of participants in European Qualifications. If you were to eliminate many of the small coutries (Andorra, Lichenstein,Malta) in a prequalifying tournament you would have less slots allocated to Europe. CONCACAF is required to have prequalifying tournaments to eliminate many of the smaller Carribean and Central American countries to have a final 6 team WC qualifying tournament. Why not Europe? It is because UEFA tries to stack the deck. There are many other S & Central American, African and Asian countries that play way better soccer than some European ones.
You won't see them play, even in the Qualifying tournaments, however, they may have been eliminated in a previous tournament.

The plain fact is that without the smaller countries in Europe to "pad out" the qualifying, there would be fewer slots allocated to Europe.

In addition if you are an "outsider" country, a country outside of Europe or S. America. The odds of being seeded (unless you are a host) are small.
It was no accident that all the CONCACAF teams and African Teams were put into the same group!.

I think the whole Qualifying seeding is badly outdated, plays "favorites" and make it extremely hard for teams outside UEFA and S. A to compete evenhadedly. The way to the WC final is a slipery slope for many "outside" nations, and a downhill run for others.

OG

OG: I'm starting to agree with you about Latin versus UEFA spots at the Finals. I see a bit of your point, especially in the light of absences and presences. I'll be missing Colombia and Honduras -- either of whom (as long as the drug money doesn't run out!) can give ANY of the 32 qualified teams a good game, and a run for their money. I would certainly rather see them (plus Australia, but NOT as a replacement for Uruguay) than the excess UEFA teams Slovenia, Denmark, Ireland, probably also Poland and Russia. But then I catch myself, and remember that at least one European GREAT team is staying home, Holland. If ANY nation on the planet could give one of the 32 competitors at JK02 a high level of competition, it's probably Holland. Not to mention the Czechs, another absent European entrant.

So, the solution, for me, is not so much to allocate less UEFA spots and more Latin spots. Nor does it make sense to me, to cut back on the number of spots per competitor in UEFA simply because they have lots of minor nations there -- that's like saying there should be more countries in the Caribbean simply because there are lots of islands. Cuba, the Netherlands Antilles, the Bahamas, and Grenadine all had a chance to qualify for JK02 just like Estonia and Wales. So, it isn't strictly an issue of UEFA "packing the pool" with excess underlings -- although that IS a tactic UEFA is using to cloud the issue, I do agree. So, although that's how UEFA confuses Sepp Blatter, it isn't to me a legitimate thing to eliminate. Everybody should get a shot, and the final number of slots should be fairly representative of WHO IS GOOD, not where they're from.

Likewise, I'm fundamentally unhappy with the regional aspects of the draw. Mostly with the fact that Africa and CONCACAF all ended up in the same pot. This guarantees, for example, that the USA will not have an easy African team in its group. Mexico probably has the biggest gripe for this fact, since the USA doesn't really have a legitimate claim to having a "right" to moving on well into the competition -- the Mexicans see themselves as legitimate contenders from a region that produces few legitimate contenders; and now FIFA is putting them in a pot not only with that region, but also with ANOTHER region that produces few legitimate contenders. Hence, Mexico is always likely to end up with very strenuous opposition in the first round, since they're the team in the group that's supposed to be "easy" to beat. So, for Costa Rica and Mexico, it's a shame that Senegal was guaranteed to go to a stronger group. That's a silly plan -- why pit the worst at the Cup against the defending champions? Just because five from Africa plus three from CONCACAF makes a neat total of eight, I suppose.

For me, the solution is simply, to implement more inter-continental play. More stuff like the Iran-Ireland playoff. There's no reason that we can't have qualifying tournaments that involve, for example, the United States and Canada in some European play and some Asian play; and Mexico in some South American play. Heck, Mexico considers itself more of a legitimate rival of Argentina than of Canada or Trinidad anyway, don't they? And what about all those spots for African and Asian teams? That's NUTS! We could have had a full TEN teams from those two continents, and two of them SEEDED. I wouldn't mind, if they'd come up with some decent play; but admit it, China and Saudi Arabia are going to look decent, be respectable, and go home early. Even at the draw stage, after all 32 have been decided, we need to mix intercontinentally. There's nothing wrong with a group that pits four European teams against one another, if they happen to be Denmark, Turkey, France, and Slovenia.

"Fair" groups are those that provide multiple possibilities of wins, and no sure imbalance; but that also let the BEST team through to the next round. Currently, "fair" groups have been defined as those which have the greatest mix of Continental associations. By that logic, a group with South Korea, Senegal, Slovenia, and Ecuador, is equal to a group with France, England, Argentina, and Mexico. Dumb.

So, I think the goal for all of us should be to advocate a World Cup consisting of teams that have a legitimate shot at the title. Senegal will (I'm not going out on a limb to predict this) not win a game. Honduras and Holland both most definitely would have. A group using Senegal as a "whipping boy," is simply a group where group-play doesn't tax the lead nation as much as it might tax their eventual opponents in the Round of 16. No matter who wins the Group of oh Fuck (F: ARG ENG SWE NIG), they'll be beat up and injured, and probably sporting not only bruises but also suspensions. And they'll be playing a knock-out against (probably Uruguay?) second A (FRA SEN URU DEN), a nation that let France beat 'em as a learning experience, and then had an easy two other games. Is this intelligent?

I also disagree with the assumption that FIFA has things organized for TV audiences. Sometimes they remember to look at the bottom line, but sometimes they don't. TV money comes to them through Europe and the Americas -- the two regions most at odds with the current time schedule. Hosting in Hawaii would have been better for money, fer chrissakes. I think FIFA has its fingers in about three pies, and it sometimes confuses itself.

My plan? Take the new slots (one less host; also, champion must qualify), plus the bottom slots of Asia, Africa, CONCACAF, and Europe, and put 'em up for qualification among the teams that are last to not qualify from all regions. That way, the almost-there's get another run at the championship, flying around for a mini pre-tournament tournament. Hold this last round of qualification some time around November of 2005 for the 2006 Cup. I'm not sure I got all the specifics right, but it's close. You get the idea. More stuff like that in the earlier rounds of qualification would be nice, too. It's not currently being done because "developing markets" can't afford the travel. Unfortunately, many smaller Latin nations can't either. So, OG, your ideal of giving El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and other Central or South American places a better shot, might not work with this plan of mine. They can't get there to play.

Oh, and by the way, thank GOD the Cup will be in Germany in 2006. I'm already sick of looking up warped unknown locations and trying to figure out how to pronounce them. Soccer is for soccer nations. Maybe the winners should get to host -- yeah, that's another good idea ...

What are the odds on whether South Korea scores a goal in first round.

I still don't understand your arguments. If the USA, CR and Mexico reach the 1/4 finals and 1 or 2 reached the semi, CONCACAF would get more spots in next world cup. It is very simple but the truth is none will reach the semi final, at best Mexico or CR could reach the 1/4. If CR reached the round of 16 they will be hailed as heroes.
For the USA lose to portugal, beat Poland and S.Korea you're in.
CR lose to brazil, beat China and Turkey, you're in.
Mexico lose to italy, beat Croatia and Ecuador, you're in.
That's no different for other countries.
The truth is 6 European teams will be in 1/4 and 2 South American teams will be the last 2.

Hello to Athos. I think the miscommunication is coming because I and OG are speaking in terms of qualifying rounds in the year BEFORE the World Cup, and you're talking about the first round OF the World Cup.

What we want, is better distribution of the final 32 spots, and a greater likelihood of the good teams going to the Cup, rather than simply this bizarre mix of weak European teams and geographical variety. What I understand you saying, Athos, is something about what happens at the cup once the final 32 are chosen.

For me, the problem is not who's gonna win. It's, who we're gonna look at. I don't want to see a game between Japan and Tunisia. It bores me. In fact, all of Group H bores me ... but Honduras or Holland would not have.

book_guy
You keep sayin European teams are weak, I keep saying 3/4 of teams reaching 1/4 finals will be European.
Holland does not deserve to be in wc as they lost to both Portugal and Rep of Ireland. Did not Honduras lose to Mexico 3-0?

Athos: It was OG who said European teams are weak. I tend to wish for more European and less Latin nations, although this time 'round I'm less committal on that subject.

And my point, that the qualification procedure is a skewed and misrepresentative process that leaves out good teams, is not contradicted by your point, that the teams which are in JK02 are the teams which got there by the qualification procedure. Duh. Yes, Holland lost those games (looked dreadful doing it, too); that doesn't make sure that Holland is worse than Ireland. That's my point. Let me run it by you again: qualification is wonky. Sometimes bad teams advance, or good teams stay home. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Geez, is there a language barrier here or something?

Gee do you expect a perfect world? That's why they play the games dude.

I think Portugal is as good as any team in the Cup...I would love to see Figo v. Zidane like in Euro 2000. That game went to extended overtime and was decided by a questionable hand ball call. In other words, Portugal plays at the same level of France and France will be favored to win cup again. This time, the five best teams..IMHO are from Europe. Italy, Spain, Portugal, England and France. Argentina is right there though. If England doesn't win it this time, they will in 2006. They have the best "young" team and player in el mundo.

Here are my top five: France, Argentina, Italy, Portugal and Spain.
Portugal at 11 to 1 is a good proposition as Portugal is in the lower bracket and can beat any European team with 3 top forwards (Figo, Nunes, Rui Costa).
Indeed England will be very good in 2006 and also next year.
This is France last hurray as their real star Zidane will be too old then. The whole team will be different and they may not even qualify for 2006.
I pick France or Argentina to come out of top bracker, Italy or Portugal lower bracket.
I do hope France plays Argentina but would rather play them in semi rather than round of 16. This is not to watch a good game but to erase some of my life time demons from 1978.

What happened to Brazil? They are normally a top three team if not the favorite.

Speaking of talent, I was surprised to hear the Netherlands didn't make it.

Dog
Brazil still has the best line up of females imho.
Brazil will have a good team but France should take care of them in the 1/4 finals. The only player who worries me is Denilson but he is riding the bench. Rivaldo got totally outplayed by Zidane in last wc and I expect the same to happen.
Netherlands has very talented and disorganized team so lost to both Potugal and Rep of Ireland.
They do have great lineup in Amsterdam I hear.

Anybody see the Dec 9 friendly between KOR and USA? How'd we look?

Only 145 days left until ...

book_guy
Check out friendly USA-Italy feb 13.
If you live on the west coast, you may want to consider watching games from Rio with morning kickoffs as opposed to middle of the night kickoffs in CA.

Just saw the USA-Costa Rica Gold Cup final game. USA looked very good, actually -- I was pleasantly surprised. Any comments?

Book guy:

I saw it on Saturday, and was really impressed with "oldguy" Cobi Jones-- he was working his butt-off, creating in front of the the Costa Rican goal...the U.S. spent the entire day going forward, which was a real treat...Our ball-handling and spacing was as competant as I've seen in some time...

Costa Rica-- unlike us-- was at full strength and must have been disappointed...A really nice win for the U.S...It was certainly no fluke...

YoungBrig

I did not see the game but I believe for the first time in history, the US can take a big step next summer and can even pass the first round in 2006. Why because their best players are forwards, Donovan and Beasley. McBride is a very good player and could still play in 2006. I think McBride can play in England in the EPL at a bargain rate, he'd be perfect over there. And Wolf keeps impressing me, bit smallish but utilizes his speed very well with good finishing touches which Donovan is lacking right now.
Big problem though and it will cost them next summer is passing efficiency, way too many turnovers, kicking balls out of bounds and still lack of physical presence.
Looks like S. Korea is really that bad so maybe they can tie Poland and qualify on goals aggregate.
Also the heat may turn Polish players into sausage by second half. I'll never forget Germans melting in Dallas in 94 vs S. Korea almost blowing a 3-0 lead.

My personal opinion is that Donovan and Beasley are the USA's worst players. Very fast, with some tricky ball skills, but no tactical sense what-so-ever. (A guy at my soccer shop told me to watch Donovan closely next game, he evidently makes some surprise cut-through-the-D passes, so I'll look again.) I like players who have a "soccer brain," and not just quick feet. I do agree, "passing efficiency" or, as I'd say, accuracy and good brainwork, is still lacking. Reyna and Agoos have the concept when attacking (the Goose seems to be letting himself end up on the wrong side of the pitch when a play develops too often nowadays, though, so I'm noncommittal about him), as do once-in-a-while Armas, Donovan, Stewart, etc.

Favorite fact about Gold Cup: Sanneh didn't play and gee what a surprise the USA won. Someone shoot that guy. Except when there's a corner kick. He's good on airballs in the area. Good physical presence. But DUMB AS A BRICK, actually forgets that the object of the game is to give the ball to a teammate so you can eventually score, dammit.

My guess is that Portugal is our group's de-facto leader; Korea hopefully the bottom. So the question of second place will be resolved by the USA-Poland match, not by something Korea does. But we'll see. I think Korea probably won't improve all that much before their supportive fans -- not good enough that it matters where they play.

The USA has advanced to the second round before, in USA-94, thanks largely to a self-destructing Colombian side (I still pity the great players who are sentenced to being born under drug-warlord torn regimes) albeit in a tournament of 24 not 32 teams. We played eventual champions Brazil to 84 minutes of goalless, ugly but effective, defensive football, in the first knockout round. Worst performance ever? Against Germany in Paris, 98. Not that we should have expected to BEAT the eventual quarterfinalists, but AT LEAST try to look decent while you're doing it. Shoot Sampson right after you shoot Sanneh.

Book Guy,

"Sanneh didn't play" --of course not!. Arena wanted to evaluate the MLS players and some the Europlayers who have been riding the pine(heyduk,Keller.Lewis) in their respective Euro leagues. Sanneh is a starting back at Hamberg and we all know that even a "near the bottom" club in the Bundesleague is probably better than any of the CONCACAF teams the US faced, so I guess some people feel he's competent.

Doanavan and Beasly are not the worst US players, just the youngest. As they are both "small" they have been pushed around by bigger defenders, and have only recently learning to adjust. Arena ahs moved Donanvan from a pure striker role to a foward/midfielder role to take advantage of his quickness and deft touches on the ball.

By the way, the US under 23 MNT w/Beasly, plays the Portugese U-23 MNT tommorrow (2/8)in Portugal, there are at least two starters from the Euro 2000-2001 team on the U-23's for portugal and about 5 more who are actively being considered for a spot on the Portugese WC team. The US has maybe one or two that are actively being considered for the WC team. It should be a good match!.

The US was tactically and physically superior to most of the teams in the Gold Cup. The Koreans were, IMHO, the surprise. They "outhustled" every team they played and only their poor finishing did them in.

It will be interesting to see the results of the US-Italy match next week. The US is sending its best players, BUT, they will have had very little time to practice and play together, having only a 2 day "camp" to get ready. The US Gold team got stronger as they progressed due to the increasing familiarity and confidence they had with each other. The US "Euros" will have no such opportunities. Due to the inability of ANY of the national team coaches to pull away their players from the European Club teams prior to the World Cup before May, the best preparation would be friendlies. European Club teams usually cannot refuse a callup from a WC qualified team for friendlies no matter how important the player is, so Arena has scheduled a lot of freindlies, most in US but at least 4 in Europe, to take advantage of this opportunity.

The US has scheduled Germany, The Netherlands, Ecuador and Uraguay as well as the usual Jamaica, Honduras. Ireland matches. A good stiff test for the US. I do look for some surprises from the US team in these friendlies. Prior to the WC, the US will have faced 7 of the 32 WC qualifiers in friendlies, by May we should have a pretty good handle on what to expect.


OG

I only wish Sanneh's Bundesliga team would schedule something so he couldn't get away for the World Cup ... bleah ... he sux ...

Friendly scores:
Italy 1 - USA 0
Portugal 1 - Spain 1
Poland 4 - Northern Ireland 1
Other interesting score:
Germany 7 - Israel 1
Looks like US held their own, Donovan hit the post in first half.

I think I figured out time difference with Japan/Korea during WC. 16 hours diff between CA and Korea.
So US games for example:
USA-Portugal June 5th, 2:00 AM kickoff
Korea-USA June 10th 11:30 PM (actually June 9th in CA).
Poland-USA June 14, 4:30 AM

Yeah the US WAS the dominant team in the first half, but failed to convert on at least 3 good chances. When you don't convert on your chances against a top caliber team like Italy, you may not get many more. That's what happened in the second half. Italy came out way more physical and pressured (re: fouled alot) the US offensive midfielders. A soon as they figured that the Maltese referee wasn't going to call a lot of fouls, the melee was on. It went from a fluid, flowing game and dominated by the US, into a mugfest/typical european league-like play.

The US took out its most valuable player ie., Reyna, when it got way too physical.

The lone Italian go came on a blatant foul on the US's David Regis, and the US, expecting the call slowed up allowing the Italians to get the extra step needed to get behind the US defense.

Overall the US played really well and against an almost full strength Italian Team. The US made more mistakes than the Italians because of the little time they had to play together going into the match. This wasn't the Gold cup team. and you could see the lack of cohesiveness in the second half when the italians applied the pressure.

The italians came away lucky, but it top level soccer, you make your own luck.

The great thing is that the US is only a step away from beating the Best Europena Teams. If they can apply lessons learned here, they'll fare much better at the WC.

OG

I was delighted with USA's performance. I think your assessment was a fair one, overall. And it's probably a good lesson for the US kids to learn, to PLAY TO THE DAMN WHISTLE (and also that even at the toppest top level, the ref's can be intimidated by big-name stars). But losing to Italy in a fairly even match, is nothing to sneeze at. Just where USA "deserves" to be. I'm pleased. Now if only Sanneh would shrivel up and die ...

USA versus Ecuador -- decent to above par performance for USA, below expectation performance for Ecuador. Interestingly stupid retaliatory foul for Mathis, cracker-boy gets a red card. Hoo hah. I tried to write up about 30 players from whom Arena would have to pick his 23 for KJ-WC02, and I couldn't think of more than about 25.

GK: Keller Friedel that-dude-who-played-versus-Ecuador Thornton

FB: Agoos Sanneh Pope Llamosa Maisonneuve Berhalter Cherondolo Mastroeni

Mid: Reyna Lewis Armas Stewart O'Brien Beasley Donovan

Fwd: Jones McBride Mathis Wolf-if-fit Vanney West Convey Olsen

That totals 27. Eliminate 1 GK, 1 FB (Cherondolo?), 1 Mid (barkus deMeasley PLEASE!), 1 Fwd (Olsen?). And look, USA with NO depth what so ever!

I can't really come up with anyone else who is IN contention, much less who will be the top 23.

Comments?

book_guy

US goalie was a new rookie who plays for NJ not that Thornton guy from Chicago. He looks good but Friedel would be my starter, good goalie playing for Blackburn I believe.
I think USA shows promises at times then panicks and turns ball over for no reason. I'll keep complaining about lack of size and speed. I'd like to see more physical play especially at midfield, wack them when referee is not watching not when everybody is watching. I don't mean to foul every time but use upper body to mark your territory.
But some good players in the mix, Mathis, McBride, Donovan.
USA seems to have better intention overall and I have some hopes they can pass first round. Playing Portugal first is an advantage as Portuguese players may be tense in first game as yes despite being top team maybe second world cup since 1966 for Portugal.
I really don't care for backups, give me a dozen good players.
Ecuador was missing a couple of players but this looks good for Mexico which can beat these guys. No talent whatsoever, USA could have scored a couple in first half, totally outclassed them imho.
Get rid of of Cobi Jones, too small and no good at anything in particular except holding on the ball for a couple of seconds then turned ball over, also no threat as a scorer as no power in his shots or passes.
Midfield is Armas, Reyna, hope Donovan or Mathis then I am not sure maybe O'Brien. I like Armas, plays with desire, makes up for lack of talent with hard work and physical play.
Forwards McBride is top forward on my team any day of the week, pair him with Donovan, Mathis or Wolf. I'd use Beasley in last 10 min of the game to use his speed.
Defense can be taken advantage but Llamosa looks OK but never seen him play when speed needed.
Other 3 defenders any combo just scares me, not physical enough and not big enough. But Agoos can kick free kicks pretty well when ball is on the right side inside 27 yards, and he can volley ball pretty good.
I like this USA team, potential is there, maybe in 2006.

USA plays Germany in two weeks, will be a great gauge as Germany will play to set their selection.
Will watch to see how physically they handle the Germans, then if they pass the test, I'll stop bitching about lack of size.

It ain't all about size, Athos. You should know that from the chicas!



I frankly think Sanneh is too STUPID to play footie on the international stage ... although he is big, I'll give him that. It's probably true that extra size/physicality would improve USA's results a bit. I don't know, and I don't actually enjoy looking at brute strength. I'd rather have bright teamwork and players who can read the game as it develops ... although at our level, that may be a really ineffective quest. Dunno. I simply don't ENJOY watching dumb-but-aggressive USA batter people for no apparent gain.

Oh, and about the numbers / backups. France in 98 used ALL 20 field players for AT LEAST 90 minutes each. I think back-up depth IS the main issue of any tournament. Playing games so close to one another, suspensions, injuries, etc. We certainly look better than we used to, but we're (for my tastes) WAY too shallow. We have 8, maybe 9 legit starters, and that's OK. But from there, it tapers off TOO fast.

Anyway, it's not like we have a "right" to expect to do well. We performed well versus Italy and Ecuador, didn't embarrass ourselves like at WC98, hopefully will make a respectable showing. I personally have pinned rather large "secret" hopes on Poland advancing, not because I like to vote against USA but because I have a few hunches ... >;)

book_guy
Who is Sanneh you keep bringing up, maybe you should stick him on your varsity team?
France's goal is to win the world cup. The USA's goal is to pass the first round. France can field 2 teams that could win the wc. They average 6'3, can play physical or finesse.
I still like the USA making good stride...it does not happen overnight.

France won the cup playing elastic defense, meaning their midfield dropped back as needed to smother any effective attack. Their goalie was off the charts plus very lucky at times. The team was rotated 3-4 times in a match to keep them running hard and fast. Then they had a couple of key attackers like Zidane scoring a goal now and again to ensure a win or draw.
Many feel the effort put out by Brazil in the final was evidence that some of the players had been bought. Hard to tell, but they played their worst game when it mattered most.

Traveller,
Saying Brazilians took a dive is like saying the USA nba players would take a dive in the Olympics for money.
They make tons of money already, let's just say that Mario Zagalo was not too bright and his players confused. It's a big jump from laying down.
I know Argentina bought the Peruvian in 78 but that's another story.
France has a better team than in 98. They won because of big home field advantage but don't say they bought their way, then this is no better than figure skating.
Actually France has not so great D these days but very good O with best midfield in the world. Suspect goalie at best.
BTW current Brazil sucks and will be lucky to reach semi this time around.

Athos,

I only referenced the rumor about Brazil taking a dive. They acted anemic and confused. Perhaps this was a way for cariocas to explain away the fact that their supposedly invincible heroes lost to the frogs 3-0. How else to explain it?? On paper they had a formidable offense with Romario, Denilson and Ronaldinho, to name a few. How come they couldn't score?

I agree with your assessment of the current team. They are in a rebuilding phase with a lot of youth, but man what a talent base to pick from.

World Cup should be fun. Can't wait.

Traveller
Romario was back home screwing garotas as he was injured.
Denilson rode the bench the whole tournament in favor of Bebeto hence my reference to good old boy Zagalo.
They could not score because they never held any position. It was Zidane vs Rivaldo, no contest in 98; as Rivaldo is really good these days.
I have always loved the Brazilians but for the first time do not fear them a bit.
Brazil barely beat lowly Denmark in 1/4, was extremely lucky vs Holland in semi. I was surprised they reached the finals in 98.
I am ready for June, watch first game live at 11:30 pm. tape 2:00 and 4:30 am games, watch in the morning on tape, go to work at 11:00 am. Weekend watch every game live.

Athos,

I take exception to your put down of "Lowly Denmark." Earlier in the tournament they lost in a squeaker to France 1-0 having twice hit the goal posts and slipped into one-on-ones with the goalie. Then Denmark humiliated Nigeria 4-1 and gave Brazil all they could handle right until the end. Watch out for Ebbe Sand, you heard it here first. Besides, be careful on whose flag you plant your big knobby foot!
I agree they fucked up benching Denilson too much. And Ronaldinho couldn't play with the team, because they wouldn't set him up to do his thing. A case of veterans protecting their image, I think.
One of the best matches was England-Argentina. Holy shit, guys going down all over the place. What a war.

Traveller,
You are right Denmark was pretty good actually in 98 and should have beaten Brazil but bad goalie Schmeichel could not make a save.
France plays Denmark again in 02. Denmark had a double digit unbeaten streak, broken by France last year.

You know your soccer! Smeichel's reflexes were slower than a turtle's. He retired afterwards.

Denmark must placer better than either France or Uruguay to advance. It will be 2 of the 3. Tough task.

My take on Brazil's failure to field a team of anything but Zombies for WC98 Final: very young players, bad man-management among the coaches. Zico, who is famous in Brazil for having never scratched half as deep as he was supposed to, was number two to Sagallo (aka Zagalo). Basically, I would have figured the junior coach should have been the guy in the locker room calming the nerves of young inexperienced talent like Ronaldo, but instead he lived up to the situation only as well as he did in his playing days, by basically performing to his bare minimum abilities. Poor Ronaldo, he simply had a panic attack -- call it choking, call it a psychological malady, whatever; it could have been avoided if some decent sports psychologist had gotten to him sooner.

The very idea that a Brazilian international would throw the World Cup Final is preposterous to me. They did play poorly, but it cannot have had anything to do with money. At the financial level those guys are at now, there's not enough money in the ENTIRE WORLD to convince someone playing in the Stade de France to pick cash over going down in history as a World Cup winner. They're all multi-millionaires before the game anyway ... there's not going to be any way to convince them to seek (however ineffectively they ended up doing it) anything other than a victory.

My take on Denmark ... decent side. Certainly not as great as France, but they could finish second in that group fairly handily if they keep their tactics together.

Traveller, you seem on the money about France's "elastic defense." I'd never thought of it that way, although it certainly is an accurate picture. That type of fitness-management was one of the prime strengths of Aimee Jacquet ... I'm wondering if his replacement is as quick to read his midfielders ... and replace the flagging ones. It'll be awful hard to pull someone like Zidane, Petit, or Pires, now that they are the world's darlings. Again, I point out, France used ALL 20 field players for at least 90 minutes in the 98 tournament. That victory was about depth and fitness, as it played out over a tournament and over any given single game.

But then, as Athos points out, France's goal is to win the entire tournament. Their tactics don't necessarily apply to the USA, whose goal is to eke out a passage into the knock-out phase at all. Good point. A.

My take on Athos' suggestions about bigger is better. Well, I'm beginning to agree with him. Although in the larger view of things, I'd much prefer to see teams that have finesse and intelligence, I think that this would be too much to ask of the USA. Reyna can do it, Vanney can do it, Agoos could do it if he weren't so busy mopping up for other defenders mistakes, but the rest of 'em are just run-and-gunners and/or brutes. So, given our current status, with our current players, it might actually be quite an effective move for Arena to simply demand greater physicality of them. Not that physicality is always the solution -- but in this context, I'm thinking maybe that so many of the players don't have any other skills upon which to draw (at least not to World Cup standards) that ya gotta go with what's your best shot.

My take on other USA players. First, I knew Thornton wasn't the guy who played against Ecuador. To whomever misread me: I was listing four goalies -- Keller, Friedel, Thornton, and someone else whose name I don't know who played versus Ecuador and looked pretty good. Presumably Arena will select three of those four.

Now, about other positions. I saw a PSG game recently on Fox Sports World, and I have to say that Vanney looked GREAT. He had good ball sense, very quick reflexes, read the game really well. He was the goat for the one goal, though, so eh bien take what you can get. I would nevertheless be confident that the USA had an intelligent defense if Vanney, Agoos, Pope, and Llamosa were to play a flat back four. Of course, Athos would probably be quick to point out, they wouldn't be physical enough ... time will tell. As I said, I'm beginning to side with his argument.

Some folks don't like Agoos. I consider him the rock upon which our entire defensive formation is built. I think Agoos tends to appear to give the ball away, and appear to be caught trying to do too much, simply because he's the ONE of those four "good defenders" who is consistently on the field when the rest of them are either off in Europe or sitting on the bench ... so, Agoos gets called on to cover for the mistakes of the less able defenders such as Cherondolo or Maisonneuve, and Agoos ends up looking like he put himself in a bad place when actually it was the mistakes of the other guys who were relying on him to cover for them. Example, the Italy goal -- yes indeed, Agoos was the man closest to del Piero when the goal went in, but you can't hardly blame him for failing to mark better. It was Bark de Measley who gave up the easy turnover looking for a call, and then the rest of the defense not having a clue who to mark right after the turnover, who all hung Agoos (and the keeper) out to dry.

I was mentioning Sanneh because he gets a lot of time in the USA games, although now that the Bundesliga is under way again, he's back in Germany and so is not called up for the friendlies in North America. I think he's a brain-dead dolt, although I have to admit that he does head the ball in defense of corner kicks well. That's just not enough for me to put him in a tactical line-up. But, as I said about Athos' size thesis, maybe we need to go with our best assets and not try to be what we cannot be.

I am beginning to appreciate Landon Donovan's speed, but I'm still not impressed with his decisions. He and Beasley both tend to simply go straight at defenders, often when there's an obvious open choice out on one of the wings that they're ignoring. That sort of stuff works against disorganized, one-for-one defenses like we've dealt with in CONCACAF qualifying and in the Gold Cup, but Germany or Italy would just rip such a one-pronged attack to shreds. Some simple cover in defense, a direct tackle from a square, tall, standing defender, and Donovan's mindless dribble has turned the ball over and left him, not to mention his formerly open wingers, all well out of position for the impending counter-attack. I have to admit, I've noticed that Beasley actually covers his defensive responsibilities admirably, which is a bit of a surprise given his overall weaker size and presence, so maybe that's one more reason he's seeing more time than some of the other slight players -- Convey, Olsen come to mind.

Thank GOD we don't have to hear the ESPN and ABC announcers waxing poetic about the amazing talents of Ben Olsen any more. I hate the way they choose someone to trumpet. Why can't they just let the performances on the field dictate who it is who's doing well, rather than having to invent a personage in order to do an "Up Close and Personal" about somebody simply because some network exec. was mislead into believing he "had great potential." Remember all that shit we heard about Olsen last year? Shut the FFFF up!!! I'd like to hear how Josh Wolf is doing, I think he connects with Clint Mathis really well, and anyway I have a soft spot in my heart for any Florida or Georgia cracker who plays ball.

Anybody think the USA can finish second in their group? I think we can draw Portugal, and then beat Poland and Korea. I didn't say we WILL, I just said we CAN. That's why they play the game.

Well, that's my weekly commentary. Responses?

Champions league 1/4 are almost set to be played in April, pretty good teams remaining except missing oddly italian team. 3 from Spain (Real, Barca, Coruna), 2 or 3 from England (Man U, Liverpool, possibly Arsenal) and 1 or 2 from Germany (Bayern and possibly Leverkusen).
UEFA 1/4 are pretty lame except for Inter playing Valencia on thu live on FSW.
I'll root for the English team but expect Spanish team to come through again, possibly Real for 8th time (?)

USA plays Germany a week from tomorrow, big game. Mehmet Scholl is out as well as Jancker maybe Yankees can show something and put doubt in Germans who are playing pretty well right now.

USA Germany ... we get a reprise of Sanneh's brain-dead lummoxity, oh boy.

But I'm really excited to see the Europe-based players -- especially the Nederlandse Eredivisie boys, Earnie Stewart and whatsisname O'Brien.

Germany without Mehmet Scholl and Karsten Jancker is like England without ale and beer ... interesting conclusions may be drawn, I suppose, but mainly, what's the point of going at all if you can't have their main thing?

Players are fighting for spots, it will be a real game next wed. On the German side, they are taking game very seriously, just read their coach quotes. I would assume Americans too are taking game seriously.

A few scores from today:
Germany 4 - USA 2
England 1 - Italy 2
Holland 1 - Spain 0
Poland 0 - Japan 2
Cameroun 2 - Argentina 2
Brazil 1 - Yougoslavia 0
France 5 - Scotland 0
Portugal 1 - Finland 4
Ireland 3 - Denmark 0

Germans did not impress me at all, they have no chance of winning world cup. No star on offense for first time in my life time.

USA worries me not putting their best 11. They played well in first half despite being outplayed. Second half ball watching during 10 min with no marking, then they just looked tired.

Great goalie, on D I liked only Agoos C+. Midfield just awful Armas F get rid of him, Lewis D, Stewart D, Donovan C he will be good player but had no help.
Forwards Mathis A+, excellent player every time I see this guy play.
USA has good O. so I am picking them to compete and beat Poland and S. Korea.
My starting 11:
Keller or Friedel
D: Agoos ... help for other 3 spots
Midfield: O'Brien, Reyna does he ever play this guy, he must if Sunderland is willing to fork the cash, Donovan and maybe Stewart.
Forwards: Mathis and McBride as good as it gets. Mc Bride is the key player. Both will head to Europe after wc.
Why not look at Vanney who plays for Bastia and was on the Olympics squad?
Please I am tired of seeing Cobi Jones...
Nice new uni but a bit too close to Scotland uni.

Nice new uni but a bit too close to ITALY uni ...

GK: Keller had another awesome game. Friedel should be worried ...

Defense: Agoos and ... help for other 3 spots. Would have loved to have seen Vanney. I was quite impressed with him last time I saw a Le Championnat game with him in it. I was not disappointed with Pope, although I felt he was simply outclassed in terms of touch and thought. At least he can tackle when it's an emergency, which is more than I can say for Cherondolo.

Midfield: Reyna ... help for other 3 spots. I too am also quite sick of Cobi Jones, although I have to admit that he works like a horse. Run run run. I guess he knows what he's capable of, and probably also knows he isn't capable of much else. Sometimes sheer determination gets him there first for something effective, but most of the time, especially against a well-organized team (such as just about anyone other than CONCACAF, and definitely such as Germany) it's a moot point, whether or not he runs hard. Will someone please shoot Landon Donovan? More on Donovan later.

Forwards: Mathis does impress. He plays like he cares whether he does well or not, which is more than I can say for the remaining US players. McBride, to me, is simply a big target man. He does a wonderful job of that, but he has very little else to his game. He will win some headers, even against the towering German defense, but what ELSE can he do? I would like to see Josh Wolf come back. Oh well, promises promises ...

I personally have decided that Landon Donovan is nothing but speed. He has not got a football bone in his body. He takes defenders on with the dribble when there was an obvious, and much better, square or through pass; looks for a through pass when there is nobody making a run but there is a clear gap behind the one defender in front of him; shoots when he should pass, passes when he's one-on-one with the goalie, almost blew his few scoring chances in the last three games or so (natural speed got him a second bite at the apple and we give him CREDIT for getting the ball back, rather than DEBIT for losing it in the first place?).

I get the impression that, if only Ajax would buy him now, Donovan could become a true world-class player. He needs a coach who tells him, "You dumb fuck! Play the EASY ball. Ball to corner flag. Ball to open man. Don't dribble when there's cover in defense." It's such OBVIOUS mistakes that he makes in his CHOICES of what to try to do. As it stands, any organized defense will simply be too intelligent to let his mistakes through. It's a typical US-soccer situation -- dumb but athletic, and touted over and over and over on the networks as though he's the great white hope, means everyone's impressed with him. The networks haven't figured out how to do an "up close and personal" with someone who doesn't speak in sound-bytes, though, so basically intelligent players will continue to be disregarded.

About the size and brutality question. We were thinking maybe we could find out whether a more strong and physical US side would be more effective, but evidently the game did not develop that way. There wasn't much evidence either way, in the Germany match. I would have expected that it would be a clear indicator, of whether we were being physical enough, playing the Germans. But the successes and failures didn't come in terms of physical dominance, they came in terms of lateral passing. So the jury's still out, on whether greater physicality is a necessary ingredient in the US recipe.

I was impressed with the way the Germans found our weakness and then exploited it. Soon after the interval, their wide midfielders at about 25 yards out started dribbling, and then passed square at the edge of the box. Bang bang bang, the ball's in the net. Then, most impressive, once they'd discovered the chink in the armor, bang bang bang they exploit it a second time. And basically, a third time. The impressive part, is the way they can all cooperate on CHANGING tactics midway through a match, all be in cahoots on what the little tiny weakness they're going to expoit is going to be, all bring their entire attacking might to bear on that one small (or, in the US's case, glaring) hole in the defense, and CONTINUE to do that as long as it's working. I saw the Germans do that in the Euro 96 final against the Czech Republic -- a radically inferior side, it must be admitted. But once I got my head wrapped around the idea that Germany was simply trying to find a hole in their opponents, and letting the opponents' weaknesses dictate the Germans' attack style, I was quite impressed with the machine. Not necessarily exciting or unpredictable play -- simply trying boring old A, then B, then C, until something works -- but definitely effective. People say they dislike watching the weaker German sides because of the staid, standard, predictable, uncreative play, but if you change your expectations, and simply look at the opposition as a problem to be solved, and then share with the German players' thinking, kind of like reading about Sherlock Holmes unraveling a mystery, you can be quite entranced.

But I agree with Athos, Germany for the most part aren't a very impressive side these days. It needs to be remembered, that the side we saw in Rostock was radically different from any predicted WC side. In the absence of Mehmet Scholl, there's really nothing going on out there in attack, lots of boring standard play that does the "right" and generally conservative thing. (The US could stand to learn a little bit from that book, especially Donovan.) Maybe the Germans will lift their game for more worthy opponents -- they have an average to below-average draw at Korea/Japan, meaning it will probably be easy for them to advance past the first round, but then they'd have to up their game from what we saw against the US. Cameroon will be a tester for them, but I think simple physical and athletic superiority individual by individual will allow them to easily defeat Ireland and the Saudis. Robbie Keane may present some worry, but, like Landon Donovan, he tries to take on too many people, and the Germans showed us against the US just how easily they can handle a selfish hot-dogger.

So, what I saw was at times some decent midfield play on both sides. That is cause for hope in the US, since for much of the first half we kept up with the Germans moving the ball through midfield. But by the time the Germans had figured us out early in the second half (and whose halftime talk does THAT give greater credit to, hmm?), and had decided to play harder through the midfield, they definitely made us look weak and stupid. Tic tac toe the balls' in the net. They were putting on a clinic, and a rather weak one, at that. Neither side could beat Portugal, right?

Well, those are my theories for how to make an "ideal" US side. I would like to say, though, that just as I gave concession to the "sizability" thesis in earlier posts, I must give negative concession to my "intelligence" thesis in this post. It would be all very well and good for Landon Donovan to start thinking more and more like an "ideal" player, in my books; but it might actually make sense, to simply not expect him (or anyone else) to be something they can't be. Rather than trying to cram Americans into a cerebral European mold, maybe we should (as Athos seems so capable of doing) think simply in terms of what our own CURRENT best assets are, and maximize them. In that case, letting Donovan dribble whenever he gets the damn ball, is probably our greatest chance of survival at this World Cup. Unfortunately.

Donovan looks like a very good 2nd Division player as he needs to get much bigger. I tend to agree he makes the team by default but he has some talent, you know throw the hail mary shot.
I did not realize more than half the german team was missing, ouch. Ballack is pretty good, best German player, young, big and can score.
For real soccer, check this week Man U vs La Coruna (Espn 2), Liverpool vs Dortmund and Real vs Bayern.
It's still the best US team by far, and I'll watch games with some hope. They have to survive the first half vs Portugal or it could be quick exit. I just don't see this team come back from a wooping.
I like the new the uni but not the socks color, where is the white and red?

I agree, it's the best US team in more than a lifetime. Hoorah for that much. I won't argue the Donovan question -- he's fast, has good touch, I'll give him that. "Hail Mary," LOL. Yeah, the uni needs some RED dangit -- we ain't Italy or Scotland. Red shorts, blue tops and sox is nice ...

I am not impressed with USA from last night ... OR MEX, for that matter. I hope it was just an issue of both teams using experimental players. Vanney disappointed me, and Meola didn't direct the defense as confidently as Keller or Friedel. Absent Agoos and a confident 'keep, USA's defense were porous but competent. Beasley (!) held defensive responsibilities admirably. In attack, Mathis continues to please, Donovan continues to disappoint. Very very dumb choices on Donovan's part, consistently. Like, he has a nose for the WORST possible option. Hmm. I was disappointed the first-half MEX goal was called back, although replays sort of showed the dude was barely offsides. Not the spirit of the law, one of those lamentable technicalities.

Neither side could hold a candle to France or a full-strength Italy. Mexico ought to be ashamed of the nadir to which they have fallen. At least the US can claim it's an accomplishment to have risen as far as we have lately. LOL.

Is anyone from this board travelling to Japan/Korea for WC 2002?

I am and would like to hook up with fellow Hombres if possible.