I Kid You Not: forget resolutions, what can sports do for us this year?

The beginning of a new year can serve as a reminder of the ever-changing nature of our world. The old is gone, the new has come.
And so many of us take this opportunity to take stock in our lives; to re-evaluate what’s important, to learn from the experiences of the past year, and, if possible, to make plans for improvement in the year to come.
This is not what I will be doing this year.
Operating under the assumption that I’m pretty great already, I’ve decided that the world should be making resolutions to make my life better.
Specifically, I’ve decided that the sports world should make a few changes.
A couple of years ago, I wrote a list of sports-related resolutions that I wanted to implement. I wanted to watch more games (which I’ve done), go to more games in person (also done),
...root for a team over an individual (sorry, Miami Dolphins players, but my fantasy football team did much better without any of you in my starting lineup), wear real eye black (which was confused for mascara by a scorekeeper in my coed softball league last year)
...and in general, have more fun with sports.
After months of introspection (or five minutes watching Sportscenter), it became clear that A) I’m pulling my weight around here, and B) the sports world is not.
So what should the world of sports do to better appease me?
I’m glad you asked.

1. Quality Over Quantity

512. 4,860. 2,460. Another 2,460. 36. Add those all together and you get 10,328.
That’s how many major sports competitions are held every year, just in the regular season. 512 NFL games, 4,860 MLB games, 2,460 games in both the NBA and NHL, and 36 NASCAR races. If we say that the average length of each of these contests is around three hours, that’s 30,984 hours of major sports action every single year.
There are only 8,766 hours in a year, so since many of these games are going on simultaneously, the number will be higher.
But my goodness, 30,984 hours of sports? I’m a big sports fan, but even that seems like a little bit too much time. Some games are fantastic, and more than worth the three-ish hours we put in. Others involve the Milwaukee Brewers, and shouldn’t be shown to small children.
I’ve written before about how the NFL has it right—one game per team per week, 16 games in the regular season, three weeks of playoffs, then the Super Bowl. Just enough to keep us interested, but not too much that we get bored. Because let’s face it, Americans get bored really easily. What used to be called multitasking a few years ago is now just called “tasking.” We watch TV while we eat. We talk on the phone while we drive (um… with a hands-free device, of course). We watch more TV while we… um… sleep.
I’m just as guilty as the next person. In our home, my wife and I have three TVs (one of which looks like this),
...four video game systems, two computers and three cell phones, two of which are “smart” phones. Not counting my collection of old Hardy Boys books (I’m a sucker for kitsch), our DVD collection outnumbers our book collection (not as much as it used to before I got married, at least). I recently chuckled to myself as I noticed another person watching TV, listening to an MP3 player and playing Mario Kart on the computer, all at the same time. Needless to say, we live in a country that takes sensory input to levels never before imagined.
But as we discussed in the NFL-has-it-right column, more is definitely not always better. Baseball is fun to watch, but it’s easy to lose interest in a team when you can’t watch 162 games. Same with the NBA, NHL and NASCAR (as much as I love NASCAR, it’s just too long of a season). And now the NFL is talking about an 18-game schedule for next year. Really? I mean, I know football is America’s current pastime, but as ESPN.com writer Gregg Easterbrook consistently reminds us, there is no law that says football has to remain popular.
I know it’s a lot to ask, but I think the sports world owes us less quantity and more quality. If it means contracting a few teams in the NBA and NHL and scaling back to 40 games or so (from December through March or something like that), then let’s do it. If it means only playing baseball in the summer (the horror!) instead of spring-to-winter, then let’s whittle the schedule down to June, July and August, with the playoffs in September. If it means only running NASCAR races from February through August, so as not to overlap the NFL, I’m all for it.
Basically, I want to be able to enjoy the sports I get to watch. I want games to mean something. I want each sport to have its own season of the year, with the exception of basketball, which is boring and should be ignored while we watch hockey.
I want sports to be worth watching in the 8,766 hours I have this year.

2. More Football!

I know, this one seems to contradict the last one, but really, when you think about it… OK so it contradicts the last one. This is my wish list so I can contradict whatever I want.
I know it’s a long shot, but I’d really like to see steps toward the implementation of a Minor League Football system.
I outlined this idea in depth back in August—basically, you take the 32 NFL teams, give each of them a minor league affiliate in a nearby city, and have the minor league team supplement the NFL team’s roster when necessary. Wow, that was much easier to explain this time around. Makes me wonder why I needed 1,100 words to discuss it last time around.
I guess it was to talk about the details of how it would work, not to mention to suggest some fun names for the minor league affiliates (admit it, you’d go see a team called the Escondido Spark Plugs or the Fort Lauderdale Manatees).
This time, I’d like to focus on how it would make being a sports fan better. We all like football, because this is America, and if you don’t, well… you might be a communist. Just saying.
So how could more football not be a good idea?
The risk, as we touched on in the last section, is over-saturation. Too much football could make it seem ho-hum and watered-down.
But the potential reward is intriguing. If each NFL team had a farm team it could use to groom young players, the quality of play in the NFL would go up because young players would get more game experience in the minor league before getting shoved into NFL action. Players who were stars in college would get to quickly show whether or not they belong in the big leagues, while scrappy players who weren’t highly drafted would have more shots to show how their hard work has paid off. And it would even give players returning from injury a chance to play a real game as a bit of a warm-up to coming back to the NFL.
From a fan’s perspective, Minor League Football would give us more opportunities to watch professional-caliber football, play more (or different types of) fantasy football, buy more gear, attend more games (hopefully with the fun-first atmosphere of Minor League Baseball) and see more young players play in real games.

3. Cleaning House

If the world of sports really wants to appease the fans, the key is quality. And the best way to ensure that a quality product hits the field, court, rink or track is by increasing the level of competition while limiting the number of spots available to elite athletes.
In the case of professional sports, I really like the format of the English Premiere League, in which soccer teams are relegated to a lower league if they finish in the bottom four spots in the standings at the end of the season.
For the four major American sports, this would mean splitting the leagues into two levels and allowing only the teams in the top level to compete for the major league championship. In the case of the NFL, if we were to take the top 16 teams in the league (by record) and split them in half, we could separate the teams who are good from the teams who are not. We would have good teams facing good teams on a regular basis, and we wouldn’t have to sit through blowouts like we saw between the Steelers and the Browns on Sunday. Seriously, Cleveland? 41–9? Is that whole LeBron thing still getting to you?
Some might argue that this idea is flawed because we would still have to watch games like the Cardinals against the 49ers. That is true; terrible teams would still be terrible. We can’t get around that. But at least the terrible teams would only be playing other terrible teams, and they would be playing for some sort of second-rate championship, not to mention the chance to move up to the big leagues and play for the real title.
If we don’t get relegation, I’d at least like to see some form of contraction, especially in the NHL. I really like hockey, but there are 30 teams in the NHL, and I don’t think I can name more than one or two players on most of them anymore. And that’s kind of a shame since hockey names are pretty much the best. Where else can you find a guy named Guillaume Latendresse or Georges Laraque or Radek Bonk? Probably not even in the NHL anymore since it’s pretty well impossible to find a hockey game on TV these days.
But if the league went back to 15 teams (half of its current number)—preferably in the colder regions of North America— to consolidate talent, then slashed the schedule down to one or two games per team per week, it would make each game more important and full of better talent. And that’s the goal of this whole thing—more important games with more talent.

4. More Gus Johnson

Pro sports commentators are a dying breed.
Well, we’re losing most of the good ones, anyway. Pat Summerall was an icon. Keith Jackson made a highlight out of introducing the starting lineups. Dick Enberg and his trademark “Oh my!” provided so many great moments.
Bob Papa and Matt Millen, however, do not fall into this category. The NFL Network commentators are just two of the host of insufferable game callers who are increasingly harder to stomach. They all use too many clichéd catchphrases (“When you talk about the Chargers, you talk about a team that really plays well in December.”), too many incorrect words (it’s not, “They’re having a tough time figuring out how to defense the pass,” the correct phrase is, “They’re having a tough time figuring out how to defend the pass.” Don’t try to get all fancy on us.), and too many weird versions of common phrases that nobody else seems to be using (as in, when did “hand-eye coordination” become “eye-hand coordination?”).
At least we have Gus Johnson.

The CBS play-by-play guy has developed a reputation this season for calling the NFL games with the most thrilling finishes. He called the Jaguars/Texans game that ended with a Hail Mary touchdown on the final play and inspired ESPN.com writer Bill Simmons to incorporate Johnson into his many theories about how to predict the winner in NFL games. He’s even the commentator on Madden 11, which is a huge upgrade from Tom Hammond in the 2010 version of the game.
If we cut back on the length of the various sports’ seasons, then we can get Johnson calling games year round. And if that doesn’t make sports more enjoyable, then I don’t know what will.
But maybe you do.
If you have any ideas about what the sports world can do to make 2011 better for us, the fans, send them to me at sports@valleycenter.com and I’ll share them with our readers. You can send an itemized list, a couple of ideas, or just random scribblings on a napkin. Whatever you’ve got, send it in and we’ll do our best to make 2011 a great year for sports.

Reader Response: Thoughts On The World Cup

Hey Dan - enjoyed your article in the Roadrunner regarding the World Cup. As I was reading it some thoughts came to mind:

1. Since there are so many diverse nations represented at the WC, what language are the players speaking when their talking to (a) the ref (b) the opponent? For instance, Japan is playing against, say, Mexico, and the ref is from England. Ok, so as the Japanese player is complaining/shouting to the ref about the Mexican player and vice versa, what the heck language are they speaking to each other? Same when I see the ref talking to players...warning them to stop pushing or something...or even at the start during the coin toss...does the German ref say "heads or tails"...does the Spanish player respond "heads"/"tails"...must be quite a funny scenario.

2. Will the vuvuzelas (loud, obnoxious horns) infect American sports? The closest thing I know of is in Minnesota and the Viking fans. I think they have a loud vuvuzela type of horn they blow there. Hope it doesn't spread to other sports/cities here in the USA. Maybe vuvuzelas can be banned at the customs...no one allowed to bring it in to the country. Did you know that the vuvuzela is banned from Yankee Stadium?

3. Here's something I've always wondered. In the USA we call the sport "soccer", while the rest of the world calls it "futbol". And, as we know, "soccer" is a relatively new sport in the USA...ok with that said, who's the wise-guy that came up with the name "soccer"? And where did the word come from? And why that name? And what does it mean? Seems like our own football is misnamed. Our football is mostly carried in our hands/arms. On few occassions during a game is the foot used (kick-offs, punts, PAT's, field goals)...otherwise most of the time we use our hands...yet we call the sport football. Let's see if I have this right...baseball has bases...handball uses the hand...basketball we throw the ball into a basket...racketball we use rackets...track & field is held on a track and field...volleyball you volley a ball...and football you hardly ever use your foot...huh? Should it be renamed to something like "tackleball" since almost every play involves tackling? Seems like the word "football" aligns better with the sport of soccer/futbol since most of the time the ball is kicked by the foot!

4. Will instant replay (IR) be used in high level soccer (er, futbol) tournaments like the Euro-Cup, or WC, etc. Maybe have a 5th official "in the booth" that can help the center-ref get it right on certain circumstances...like an obvious handball in the penalty box...or an obvious "offsides". The IR would only be available for the refs...no red flag like the NFL. I've told my wife that I don't think this will happen because socc...er, futbol is like baseball...lots of tradition, and very much a subjective sport. Like umps...each one has a different idea where the strike-zone is. However, baseball does use IR for fair/foul balls, homeruns, etc...maybe s...er, futbol could have a very limited use of IR too, like baseball.

5. If soccer is such a popular sport here in the USA at the youth levels, and its growing more at the adult levels, why has it not really caught on at the professional level? I suspect the main reason is commercials! All other popular USA sports are packed w/TV commercials (aka money)...however, there's no commercial breaks in soccer except during half-time...if there are few opportunities for commercials, then there's not a lot of money dedicated in ad budgets, thus, soccer remains a "grass-root" kind of sport.

6. Some day, mark my word, goalkeeper gloves in soccer will become the craze in football. The moment some big NFL star receiver starts wearing them it will catch on with other NFL receivers, then every receiver will be wearing them...college, high school, Pop Warner...you just wait and see. The same thing happened in the NFL with kicking field goals and kick offs. It used to be that every kicker would kick the ball with his toe...then the sidewinder-soccer style kicker came on the seen...at first just a few, then more...now all kickers at all levels kick "soccer-style"...no one toe-pokes anymore.

7. Finally, someone once said that soccer is a gentlemen's sport played by gentlemen, American football is a "animal's" game played by gentlemen, and rugby is an "animal's" game played by "animals"...sure hope our USA "gentlemen" do well!
GO USA!
Cheers (that's how soccer players say goodbye)
Mario Cozzi

-- -- --

First of all, thanks for writing in; I love being able to dissect the many aspects of sports, and it’s so much fun to get a good discussion going. I have a few thoughts in response to your thoughts, so let’s get right to it.

1. I wondered about the language barrier as well, and I’ve heard it referenced a few times in the tournament thus far. I know that when Brazil played Portugal in the group stage, they had referees from Mexico, and the announcers made a comment about being able to communicate a little more easily since Portuguese and Spanish are similar languages.
I have to imagine that the common language for most matches is English, especially when you have teams from different parts of the world with officials from an altogether different area, like when Japan faced Cameroon with referees from Portugal. Sometimes, especially in matches with European teams, you could find a different common language, like French or German, but most of the time I would bet that the middle ground of language is English.
There was also the story going into the USA vs. England match at the beginning of group play, which focused on the referees (from Brazil) taking a crash course on English (or rather, British) slang so that they would know what words were considered profane.
Otherwise, I’ve noticed a lot of gesturing and other basic forms of body language, including the ever-popular “that’s enough” movement of hands from the referees. However they do it, they seem to get the point across. Unless the game involves Koman Coulibaly (more on that later).

2. Unfortunately, the vuvuzelas have already made an impact on American sports. The Florida Marlins had a vuvuzela night on June 19, and a quick online search for “Marlins vuvuzela” brings up links to at least a dozen pages featuring very negative responses to the giveaway. And they only handed out 15,000 of the plastic horns; imagine if the whole stadium of more than 23,000 had been honking throughout the game.
My initial reaction (and sincerest hope) is that the vuvuzela will quickly go the way of the Rally Monkey, the Thunder Stix, and the Snuggie.

3. Most people probably wonder why the sport is “soccer” to us in the USA and “football” (or the equivalent) to everyone else in the world.
I got together with Valley Center soccer guru Ron Norris in the summer of 2008 to discuss the European Cup tournament, and one of the things he mentioned was how the name of American football came about.
He said that football (soccer) was already a popular sport, but when the game started to morph into rugby, that sport became known as “rugby football.” When the game came to America and the rules were modified, the “rugby” part was dropped (because rugby was now its own established sport) and the football was left.
I dug a little deeper (ie, searched Google for “origins of soccer”) and discovered that soccer and rugby officially split in 1863, when a meeting was held in England to decide on the official rules of the game. Those who wanted to be able to carry the ball and play with full contact went with the rugby association, while those who favored the more traditional style stuck with the football association.
Interestingly enough, the term “soccer” also comes from England, as a nickname for football. When the sport began to form associations, the English would abbreviate it as “assoc.” and the nickname “soccer football” was applied to association football. The English are known for creating shortened versions of words for amusement, such as “ruggers” for rugby, “brekkers” for breakfast, and “ciggy” for cigarette.
When soccer started gaining popularity in America, we already had a sport called football, so our national soccer federation went by the name “United States Soccer Football Association” for about 30 years before they just dropped the “football” part and stuck with “soccer.”
So basically, we’re left with a nickname for association as the name for a sport in which you use your foot to kick a ball. And on the other side, we’re left with a sport that split twice, yet kept its original name after the second split, even though it was a completely different sport. And even though it would make so much sense to switch the names, there is far too much advertising invested in both sports to make it realistic.

4. The point you brought up about instant replay is the one that got me fired up the most, especially after the first few games in the round of 16.
For those of you who didn’t see either of the World Cup games on Sunday, there was a no-goal that should have counted and a goal that should have been disallowed, both clearly proven by instant replay, and both having a dramatic impact on their respective contests.
The goal that should have counted came off the foot of England midfielder Frank Lampard, who lobbed a volley over the head of German goalkeeper Manuel Neuer that hit the lower half of the crossbar, hit the ground at least a yard past the goal line, then bounced back outside the goal. Lampard and a few of the English players started to celebrate, but none of the officials stopped the action as Neuer sent the ball back down the field. Every angle of the replay showed the ball was clearly over the line, but the officials were all so far away from the goal that none of them saw what happened. England had just scored a goal a minute earlier to make the score 2-1 in favor of Germany, so if the goal had counted, as it should have, the game would have been tied. Germany went on to win 4-1, but the outcome might have been much different had the score been tied at two.
The goal that shouldn’t have counted came in the match between Argentina and Mexico. About midway through the first half, Argentina striker Lionel Messi sent a lovely pass through the Mexican defense to forward Carlos Tevez, who took a quick shot at keeper Oscar Perez. Perez made the save, and the ball ricocheted back to Messi, who sent the ball back toward the goal. Tevez tapped the ball into the net for the game’s first goal. However, replay showed that when Messi sent the ball back into Tevez after the save, Tevez was at least two yards behind the last Mexican defender, which should have been called offside. The goal was initially counted, but the head official went over to talk to the assistant on the sideline, presumably to ask if Tevez was offside. Both teams crowded around the officials and offered their opinions during this little chat, but it did not change the outcome. Argentina went on to win 3-1, but once again, the game might have played out differently had the early goal been properly disallowed.
FIFA is notorious for resisting technology, saying that any technological changes would not be universal throughout the various levels of the sport. Obviously this is not a problem for the other major sports in the world, and some have even pointed out that the FIFA officials all wear microphone headsets to be able to communicate with each other, and that this isn’t universal throughout the sport.
To me, it really wouldn’t be hard to institute instant replay for the big matches; international tournaments bring in enough money to make it easily viable, and it wouldn’t have to take much time at all. They have a fourth official on the sideline who can help the head referee make decisions. Have a replay monitor right there for the guy, give him 30 seconds to watch the replay and make a decision, and clean up the really egregious errors.
But if technology is really the issue, then at least put more officials on the field for the big games. Put a guy by each goal. Put one more guy on each sideline. Put a guy on each corner. Just put more officials out there. In the Major League Baseball regular season, a crew of umpires consists of four. When it comes time for the World Series, the size of the crew goes up to six, as they add one more umpire down each outfield line. How hard would it be to add two more officials for World Cup games, one by each goal? You have to think that both blown calls on Sunday would have been overruled by an official standing right by the goal. If you’re going to resist the answer that gives the most clear result, at least provide a compromise of more pairs of eyes to make the best call possible.

5. Going back to the topic of advertising, I think you’re right on with your supposition that it affects the popularity of the sport here in America.
But honestly, I think the biggest reason why soccer isn’t as popular here is because it is distinctly un-American. We didn’t invent it, we didn’t perfect it, we’re not really even that good at it. To make things worse, the English are the ones who made it into what it is today, and there will always be something about American culture that resists things that come from across the pond. I mean, they drink tea, so we drink coffee; they play cricket, so we play baseball; they have a parliament, so we have a congress. Of course we’re not going to go all ga-ga for soccer, we have our own version, and it’s much louder, nastier, and so very American.
We are starting to see the fruits of the American youth soccer explosion of the late 80s/early 90s, as the kids who were shuffled off to soccer practice every summer are now old enough to compete at the international level. Guys like Clint Dempsey, Jozy Altidore, Michael Bradley and Maurice Edu were all growing up in the late 80s/early 90s, and the talent level inherent in playing a sport all of your life is starting to show up more and more as those numbers from the soccer boom sort out into some really talented American players.
Still though, soccer will always have a distinctly foreign feel, just from the characteristics of the sport. The clock doesn’t count down to zeroes, it counts up to 90. The game doesn’t end with a loud buzzer, it just kind of peters out when the referee decides that enough time has been allowed for stoppages. The game just keeps going, even when a player goes down. The strategy is much more patient; there aren’t nearly as many opportunities for one player to “put his team on his back” and carry them to a win. You have to let the play develop; you can’t force the issue. None of these characteristics are very fan-friendly, especially to American fans who are used to the NFL, where you get time between plays, you get a definitive clock, and you get athletes who can carry the game.
Since soccer isn’t going to change its very fundamental being, there really doesn’t seem to be much hope of it catching on in America the way other sports have.

6. Speaking of catching on, I wonder if your prediction about goalie gloves will ever come true. American football players generally have a thing about looking cool when they’re playing, so it would take a high-profile receiver (Chad Ochocinco, anyone?) to make the attempt. I love the spongy feel of goalie gloves, and they probably would help receivers hang onto a football a little better. I remember back when quarterback Doug Flutie played for the Buffalo Bills, and as a way to keep a better grip on the ball during the cold winter months, he found a pair of glass-cutter’s gloves that he wore with apparent success. They were rather large and a bit unorthodox, but they seemed to work for him.
But, as I’ve seen exemplified in a national sportswriter’s column about the World Cup, the general consensus about keeper gloves seems to be that they make your hands look like giant Twinkies. If a wide receiver ever does give them a try, however, I’ll remember your prediction and I’m curious to see if it will become a trend.

7. I just want to point out that Mario wrote his response before the USA was eliminated from the World Cup, so hopefully we can all understand his optimistic patriotism. Either that, or he’s just really looking forward to 2014, when the World Cup rolls into Brazil. If that is the case, then go USA!
And if anyone else out there has anything to add, or wants to take us to task on anything we’ve discussed, please send us your thoughts to sports@valleycenter.com and we’ll get more people in on the discussion.

Five Things To Love About The World Cup

Two years ago, it was the European Cup.
Last year, it was the Confederations Cup.
This summer, soccer’s biggest event is all the rage, and you’d better believe that I’m right there in the middle of it once again.
You may or may not remember (if you don’t, it’s OK) that I never used to be a soccer fan. I was one of those “typical” Americans who believed that if you can’t use your hands, it isn’t a real sport. Granted, I was also once a fan of the WWF (before it became the WWE) and considered that to be a real sport. But that was back before Hulk Hogan became a parody of himself.
Anyway, somewhere along the way, I started becoming interested in soccer. I think it stemmed from an invitation to play goalie for an indoor soccer team with some friends I met when I moved out here to Valley Center. I had never played soccer before, but I used to play goalie when the kids from my church youth group back home would play floor hockey, so I figured it was pretty much the same thing.
Turns out it was a lot of fun, and the more I saw how exciting soccer is, the more I wanted to see the high-quality, professional version.
And it doesn’t get much better than international soccer, where players are playing for more than just a ridiculous paycheck.
The past two summers have featured some outstanding soccer, from Spain’s big win in the Euro Cup to the thrilling run the USA had in the Confederations Cup last year. When the weather started to warm up this spring, I had June 11 circled on my calendar and I was devouring everything I could find to read about the tournament.
Thus far, the World Cup has fulfilled all my hopes and more. I’m far too lazy – er, busy – to get up at 4 a.m. to watch the matches as they happen, but thanks to the magic of digital video recording (DVR), I’ve been able to watch all but a few of the matches. I’m sure that some people care about matches like Serbia vs. Ghana, but I tend to like watching matches that involve at least some degree of interest.
With one more match for each team in the group stage left to play, I’ve started to appreciate some of the really great aspects of the tournament, while also lamenting some of the downfalls.
Here is a list of my five favorite and least favorite things about the 2010 World Cup so far.

Favorites

1. Patriotism
Like I said, it’s one thing to watch an athlete play a game to earn a bloated salary. Elite athletes are elite regardless of what they’re playing for, but there is a little extra something when a team of individual talents comes together to represent their country together. You see a little bit more heart, a little bit more emotion, a little bit more hustle, and just a little bit more exuberance. I guarantee that every one of the players in this tournament has thought about what it means to represent his country on the field, and it shows in how they play.
And while the focus on national pride brings out a spirit of friendly competition, the tournament can also help bridge a gap that can be otherwise un-bridgeable. The fact that North Korea has a team in the World Cup is a testament to the breaking of barriers that a tournament like this can accomplish. There was a lot of mystery surrounding the North Korean team heading into the tournament, from their players to their tactics to even their uniforms.
But when they’re on the field, they’re just like all the other players. They run, they pass, the fall down at the slightest bit of contact (spoiler alert for my least favorite section), and they look like they’re having fun. Well, except during that 7-0 drubbing that Portugal handed them. Something tells me that I don’t want to ride any subways or visit any tall buildings in Portugal for a while.
See though, that’s what is so great about this tournament – even though there is a very real tension between North Korea and… well, pretty much everyone, the World Cup is a way to help us all see that they are real people. Even if their leader (reportedly) has a secret communication link to the coach so he can talk to him during the games, the players are out there for the same reason as all the other players: to represent their country by playing a game they love.
2. The British commentary
My wife likes to tease me for thinking that I’m English, which I like to encourage by telling her that I consider myself to be English. In reality, my ancestry is English, but I really enjoy the mannerisms, and especially the witticisms, of our neighbors across the pond.
Whether we’re hearing from Martin Tyler, Derek Rae, Adrian Healey, Ian Darke, Efan Ekoku, or Ally McCoist, it’s just fantastic to hear their descriptions of even the most mundane on-field (or on-pitch) activities.
In the last two summers, I’ve noticed that English commentators refer to a country in the plural, as in, “England are attacking with a purpose tonight,” or something along those lines. There are lots of other terms specific to the sport, such as “pitch” instead of “field,” or “boot” instead of “shoe,” or “good ball” instead of “nice pass.”
But the one phrase I’ve been especially excited about this year is the way the commentators talk about a team that is creating some opportunities on offense. You’ll see a player bring the ball up the field and start to make headway, and the commentators will say that the player is “asking all sorts of questions of the defense.” I don’t know why it’s so fantastic, but I love the way they say it. Honestly, a person with a British accent can make just about anything sound cool, but these guys take it to a whole new level.
Another fun thing about international soccer is the informal nicknames given to the teams.
Among the many nicknames out there, the English are known as The Three Lions (because of the three lions on their crest), the French are known as Les Blues (because they wear blue jerseys – leave it to the French to come up with something so clever), the South Africans are known as Bafana Bafana (The Boys, a term of endearment in Swahili), and the Australians are known as The Socceroos. American sports teams have names, some nostalgic but most often fueled by marketing purposes. But there’s something about a name originating with the fans that adds a connection to the team that goes just a little deeper. It’s like when you get to know why your friend John is called Turtle by all his other friends. For the record, I’m pretty sure it’s because he really loves those little chocolates with the caramel and pecans.
3. The flair
Everybody’s got their own set of fashion rules these days, and the players in the World Cup are definitely not an exception.
From frosted tips to bleached braids to a collection of faux-hawks that stretches farther than the eye can see, the players inject their own flair into the proceedings.
But even more impressive than the individual styles are the fantastic uniforms (aka “kits”) worn in the tournament.
From the classic whites worn by the English to the light-blue-on-white vertical stripes of Argentina, to the trademark orange of the Dutch, to the mint-crème green of the Algerians (aka The Desert Foxes), so many of the jerseys this year are fabulous. Some teams even have a watermark-esque design on the shoulders, as seen in the form of a fox on the Algerian jersey, or an elephant on the jersey of the Ivory Coast.
Granted, there are some aberrations, like the beauty-queen-ish sash look on the blue USA jerseys or the cartoonish bright-red-on-bright-blue look the Spanish are showing us this time around.
But overall, most of the kits in this tournament are fun to see, and I think it adds another dimension to the proceedings.
4. The French are awful
I admit it. When I saw that French striker Nicolas Anelka got sent home for a “profanity-laced tirade” against his coach, the soon-to-be-dismissed Raymond Domenech, I chuckled. Then, when the rest of the French squad refused to practice because of the dismissal, I wondered who was sharpening up the guillotines.
France have yet to score a goal in the tournament, and they look old on the pitch. They made us suffer through a scoreless tie against Uruguay on the first day of the tournament, then gave all of Mexico another excuse to throw a party after a 2-0 loss to the Mexicans. The team is in disarray, the coach bases his lineup around the signs of the zodiac (I’m not making that up), and when you do a Google search for their best player, the top three suggested searches are Franck Ribery scandal, Franck Ribery scar, and Franck Ribery prostitute. None of that can lead to anything good.
5. Underdogs
Nothing makes sports more fun to watch than the fact that, as commentators have often said, the games aren’t played on paper.
Whether it’s the 1-1 tie between USA and England, or the 1-0 win for Switzerland over European champion Spain, or the 1-0 win for Serbia over a German team that was coming off a four-goal romp over the Socceroos.
Big-name players are getting lost in the shuffle of unlikely heroes, from Tshabalala for South Africa to Gabriel Heinze for Argentina to keeper Diego Benaglio of Switzerland.
Goals are at a premium, perhaps in part due to the new Jabulani ball that the players disparage so much, but the quality of play looks good so far, and for the fans who enjoy good soccer, it looks like there is plenty more to be had.
Next week, we’ll discuss some of the things I’m not so fond of in the World Cup, which may or may not contain a reference to Tim Donaghy. Stay tuned!
And if you have any thoughts of your own about the World Cup, drop me a line at sports@valleycenter.com and let me know what you think. I’ll even put the good responses in next week’s issue.
Unless you write in French, in which case you should just give up. Like the rest of the French.