Monday, June 21, 2010
Tristesse
"Le Meltdown" as it's being called in the press -- the French disaster at the World Cup -- has received more than its fair share of snarky coverage, but this, from around 25:30 to 29:00, is both poignant and very interesting.
Why are the big European teams struggling?
As of the end of the second round of group stage matches, the five major European teams -- those that received one of FIFA's coveted #1 seeds -- are a combined 4W-4D-2L. That's England, Germany, Holland, Italy and Spain. They've taken only 16 of a possible 30 points. They have dropped points from matches against the likes of New Zealand, Algeria, and Switzerland, among others.
If you add France, the '98 World Cup champion and '06 runner-up, who are the top European seed in Group A, it's 4W-5D-3L, or 17 points out of 36. And if you are really a glutton for punishment, look at the four European World Cup winners (France, England, Italy, and Germany), whose combined record is 1W-5D-2L, or 8 out of 24 possible points.
The FIFA #1 seeding is supposed to protect these teams from early exit and insure passage into the second round, by preventing them from eliminating each other in the group stage. But going into the final group matches, only Holland are safe, having won both their matches. Everybody else -- yes, everybody else -- is vulnerable going into their last match. France seem destined for early elimination, and the strange math of the group stage could see off one or two others, or more likely see a few of them finish second in their groups, setting up difficult Round of 16 matches.
What is going on? If you read the European press, it's down to bad coaches, spoiled super-star players, bad mentality, and lack of effort. In the minds of the European media, European teams and players are clearly "better" than their opposition, but their decadence and lassitude make them vulnerable to the hustling football underclass from Eastern Europe, the Americas, and Asia. Sound familiar?
There's another explanation: these European teams just aren't that good outside Fortress Europe. And the rest of the world is getting better, fast.
We saw glimmers of this in 2002, when rank outsiders Turkey and South Korea reached the semi-finals, and Senegal and USA reached the quarters. Back on home soil in 2006 the eight quarter-finalists comprised six European teams plus Brazil and Argentina. But 2010 (South Africa), 2014 (Brazil) and 2022 (USA or Qatar) are all non-European cup sites.
Let's look at the specific example of Group C in this year's tournament. When the group was announced, the Sun tabloid in London ran a headline proclaiming: "England, Algeria, Slovenia, Yanks" (with the worlds lined up to spell E-A-S-Y). Easy, eh? USA are the champions of the CONCACAF group. Champions. They beat out World Cup qualifiers Mexico, who are currently scorching Group A, and Honduras. Qualifying in CONCACAF requires playing in some of the world's most hostile away venues (if you want a great example, read Bill Simmons' piece on Azteca). As CONCACAF champions, they played in last summer's Confederations Cup and finished second in a group that included Italy and Brazil, beat Spain in the semis, and lost a heartbreaker to Brazil in the final after going up 2-0.
Slovenia qualified from a difficult group that included Slovakia, Czech Republic, Poland and Northern Ireland, all teams that have qualified for the World Cup finals at some point, then beat powerhouse Russia in a playoff to qualify themselves. Algeria qualified after winning a playoff against African champions Egypt, and were themselves a semi-finalist in the highly-competitive African Cup of Nations in 2010. Easy. Sure.
In addition, the globalization of professional football means that European national leagues are no longer the near-exclusive domain of national players. The three USA stars (Donovan, Dempsey and Howard) all started for top clubs in the English Premiership in 2009-10. Most of the rest of the USA team plays for smaller clubs in the top European leagues, where they face world class talent every week. As do the Slovenians. And the Algerians. In fact, a core group of those Algerians who played England to a "shocking" 0-0 draw last week formed a part of France's successful U17, U18 and U19 national squads before taking advantage of dual citizenship to play for Algeria.
Parity has arrived at the World Cup. In 1954, the group stage was largely a joke. There were results of 5-0, 9-0, 8-3, 7-0, 7-2, 7-0 and 5-0. Not to mention a couple of 4-1's. And the tournament had only 16 teams. The current 32 team format has been in place since 1998 -- you'd think the expansion would have resulted in more lopsided first round results by diluting the talent pool, what with all those extra spots going to "lesser" federations, but it's just not the case. Sure, there are still the occasional shellackings (vis Portugal's 7-0 hiding meted out on North Korea today), but as a percentage of group stage matches, it's nothing like the past.
There was a great moment on TV after the England-Algeria match when commentator Steve McManaman banged his head on the desk and lamented the woeful performance of the England team, how they "under-performed" and wasted all that "talent." His co-commentator, Alexi Lalas, turned to him and said, "Maybe they are just not that good." That's the elephant in the room with European national-team football these days.
If you add France, the '98 World Cup champion and '06 runner-up, who are the top European seed in Group A, it's 4W-5D-3L, or 17 points out of 36. And if you are really a glutton for punishment, look at the four European World Cup winners (France, England, Italy, and Germany), whose combined record is 1W-5D-2L, or 8 out of 24 possible points.
The FIFA #1 seeding is supposed to protect these teams from early exit and insure passage into the second round, by preventing them from eliminating each other in the group stage. But going into the final group matches, only Holland are safe, having won both their matches. Everybody else -- yes, everybody else -- is vulnerable going into their last match. France seem destined for early elimination, and the strange math of the group stage could see off one or two others, or more likely see a few of them finish second in their groups, setting up difficult Round of 16 matches.
What is going on? If you read the European press, it's down to bad coaches, spoiled super-star players, bad mentality, and lack of effort. In the minds of the European media, European teams and players are clearly "better" than their opposition, but their decadence and lassitude make them vulnerable to the hustling football underclass from Eastern Europe, the Americas, and Asia. Sound familiar?
There's another explanation: these European teams just aren't that good outside Fortress Europe. And the rest of the world is getting better, fast.
We saw glimmers of this in 2002, when rank outsiders Turkey and South Korea reached the semi-finals, and Senegal and USA reached the quarters. Back on home soil in 2006 the eight quarter-finalists comprised six European teams plus Brazil and Argentina. But 2010 (South Africa), 2014 (Brazil) and 2022 (USA or Qatar) are all non-European cup sites.
Let's look at the specific example of Group C in this year's tournament. When the group was announced, the Sun tabloid in London ran a headline proclaiming: "England, Algeria, Slovenia, Yanks" (with the worlds lined up to spell E-A-S-Y). Easy, eh? USA are the champions of the CONCACAF group. Champions. They beat out World Cup qualifiers Mexico, who are currently scorching Group A, and Honduras. Qualifying in CONCACAF requires playing in some of the world's most hostile away venues (if you want a great example, read Bill Simmons' piece on Azteca). As CONCACAF champions, they played in last summer's Confederations Cup and finished second in a group that included Italy and Brazil, beat Spain in the semis, and lost a heartbreaker to Brazil in the final after going up 2-0.
Slovenia qualified from a difficult group that included Slovakia, Czech Republic, Poland and Northern Ireland, all teams that have qualified for the World Cup finals at some point, then beat powerhouse Russia in a playoff to qualify themselves. Algeria qualified after winning a playoff against African champions Egypt, and were themselves a semi-finalist in the highly-competitive African Cup of Nations in 2010. Easy. Sure.
In addition, the globalization of professional football means that European national leagues are no longer the near-exclusive domain of national players. The three USA stars (Donovan, Dempsey and Howard) all started for top clubs in the English Premiership in 2009-10. Most of the rest of the USA team plays for smaller clubs in the top European leagues, where they face world class talent every week. As do the Slovenians. And the Algerians. In fact, a core group of those Algerians who played England to a "shocking" 0-0 draw last week formed a part of France's successful U17, U18 and U19 national squads before taking advantage of dual citizenship to play for Algeria.
Parity has arrived at the World Cup. In 1954, the group stage was largely a joke. There were results of 5-0, 9-0, 8-3, 7-0, 7-2, 7-0 and 5-0. Not to mention a couple of 4-1's. And the tournament had only 16 teams. The current 32 team format has been in place since 1998 -- you'd think the expansion would have resulted in more lopsided first round results by diluting the talent pool, what with all those extra spots going to "lesser" federations, but it's just not the case. Sure, there are still the occasional shellackings (vis Portugal's 7-0 hiding meted out on North Korea today), but as a percentage of group stage matches, it's nothing like the past.
There was a great moment on TV after the England-Algeria match when commentator Steve McManaman banged his head on the desk and lamented the woeful performance of the England team, how they "under-performed" and wasted all that "talent." His co-commentator, Alexi Lalas, turned to him and said, "Maybe they are just not that good." That's the elephant in the room with European national-team football these days.
The Last Match Days of the World Cup Group Stage
One of the great things about the FIFA World Cup format is the last match days of the group stage. It's unusual for a group to be completely settled prior to the last day, so there's frequently a good bit of drama. Often, the goal differential and goals scored tie-breaker rules come into effect to decide positions. As we saw at last year's Confederations Cup, it's possible for the team dead last in the table (vis USA) to qualify for the next round through a series of improbable results. To make it even more dramatic, they play the final matches for each group simultaneously, so the table is shifting around in real time and an added-time goal could swing a group. Anyone who watched USA-Egypt last summer knows how excruciating that can be.
Overall, the vulnerability of some of the tournament's biggest names means that there is a lot less gamesmanship (in the negative sense) at play this time. The tendency for already-qualified teams to play "negotiated draws" really taints the proceedings. But because of the unpredictability of next-round opponents, and the high variability between playing, say, Argentina in your next match versus South Korea, lots of teams should be going for the win.
If you are setting your DVR, here are the one's to watch (reasons below): Mexico-Uruguay, Nigeria-South Korea, both of the Group C matches, Denmark-Japan, Italy-Slovakia, and Chile-Spain.
So, what's to play for going into the last match day?
Group A: Mexico and Uruguay both go through if they draw when they play each other. Nothing France can do if that happens. However, they will both want to avoid playing Argentina, the likely Group B winner, in the Round of 16, so Mexico will be playing to win, since a draw favors Uruguay (who would qualify first on goal difference in the case of a draw). France could just pip the loser on goal difference if they get a multi-goal win over South Africa and either Mexico crushes Uruguay or vice versa. Unlikely. Mexico and Uruguay should advance, although who finishes first and who finishes second is up for grabs.
Group B: Argentina clinch first place with a win or draw over Greece. South Korea clinch second place with a win or draw over Nigeria, assuming Greece lose to Argentina. If Greece draws Argentina and South Korea lose to Nigeria, Greece goes through in second place. Nigeria has a chance for second if they beat Korea and Argentina beat Greece. Probably Argentina and Korea, but we could see a weird finish for second here if Argentina rest their stars and Nigeria goes for it against Korea.
Group C: Lots of permutations here, with England, USA and Slovenia all capable of winning the group and all four teams still capable of qualifying. If both games draw, Slovenia wins the group and USA likely go through second on goals scored (they have a +2 advantage over England in goals), unless England score three more goals than the USA score. The crazy scenario is an England-Slovenia draw and Algeria beating USA, which would result in both England and USA eliminated. USA must beat Algeria to control their own destiny -- they would automatically advance with that result. A draw would only work if Slovenia draw or beat England. If USA beat Algeria and England beat Slovenia by similar scores, USA goes through first and England second. Going to be a great day of football on June 23rd.
Group D: Despite the table, I think Germany and Serbia are in the drivers' seats. Serbia play a demoralized Australia without either Cahill or Kewell, out on red card suspensions. Germany play a Ghana team they should match up very well against, even without Klose. If they both win, as I think they will, then order is restored and Germany qualify first, Serbia second. Any result against Germany would put Ghana through. If Serbia-Australia ends in a draw and Ghana lose, Serbia could be in trouble. They would be level on points with Ghana, probably level on goal difference (unless Ghana lose by 2), with Ghana having the goals scored and head-to-head advantages. If Ghana-Germany ends in a draw, and Serbia beat Australia, we could see Serbia and Ghana through, and Germany eliminated.
Group E: Holland are through. They play an already-eliminated Cameroon in a meaningless match for both teams. Holland need only a point to guaranty they finish first in the group, and even if they lose, they probably finish first on goal difference. Denmark-Japan is the decider for second place, as they both sit on 3 points going into the last match. Japan have an advantage on goal difference, so could technically play for a draw; Denmark, on the other hand, has to play for the win. Given how these teams have played so far, it should be a great final match, one I'm really anticipating.
Group F: All four of these teams are still capable of qualifying, although there are some unlikely permutations. Despite New Zealand's amazing performances against Slovakia and Italy, this is still looking like Italy and Paraguay, although definitely not in that order. Italy still have work to do against Slovakia, who won't be easy to beat. A draw works for Italy if New Zealand crashes against Paraguay, but If New Zealand draw Paraguay, it's going to come down to goals scored, where the Italians and Kiwis are currently even. Hard to imagine New Zealand beating Paraguay, who should get through in first place. Slovakia could still qualify with a win over Italy and a New Zealand loss to Paraguay.
Group G: Brazil qualify, almost certainly as group winners. All they need is a draw versus Portugal in their last match to get a point and go through on top. Portugal would also be content with a draw, as it would insure that they progress ahead of Ivory Coast. Portugal could top the group with a win. Ivory Coast's only chance is for Brazil to humiliate Portugal, while they knock in a bunch against North Korea -- enough to reverse the astonishing -9 goal difference they currently have versus Portugal after Portugal's 7:0 win over North Korea. The Dear Leader's boys are eliminated and have nothing to play for.
Group H: Chile and Spain play for all the marbles in a wide open group. Only Chile controls its own destiny and wins the group with a draw. That draw would be disastrous for Spain, who would be eliminated in this case if the Swiss beat Honduras. If Chile wins, they qualify on top and Spain are eliminated with a Swiss win or draw versus Honduras. If Honduras beats Switzerland and Chile beats Spain, second place will come down to goal difference where Spain have a slight advantage. If Spain beats Chile and Switzerland beats Honduras (a likely scenario), then Chile, Spain and Switzerland will each have 6 points and it comes down to goal difference and perhaps even goals scored to determine which of the three gets eliminated. Honduras could still qualify in second place with a win over Switzerland and a Chile win over Spain, assuming they could make up some goal difference on Spain.
Overall, the vulnerability of some of the tournament's biggest names means that there is a lot less gamesmanship (in the negative sense) at play this time. The tendency for already-qualified teams to play "negotiated draws" really taints the proceedings. But because of the unpredictability of next-round opponents, and the high variability between playing, say, Argentina in your next match versus South Korea, lots of teams should be going for the win.
If you are setting your DVR, here are the one's to watch (reasons below): Mexico-Uruguay, Nigeria-South Korea, both of the Group C matches, Denmark-Japan, Italy-Slovakia, and Chile-Spain.
So, what's to play for going into the last match day?
Group A: Mexico and Uruguay both go through if they draw when they play each other. Nothing France can do if that happens. However, they will both want to avoid playing Argentina, the likely Group B winner, in the Round of 16, so Mexico will be playing to win, since a draw favors Uruguay (who would qualify first on goal difference in the case of a draw). France could just pip the loser on goal difference if they get a multi-goal win over South Africa and either Mexico crushes Uruguay or vice versa. Unlikely. Mexico and Uruguay should advance, although who finishes first and who finishes second is up for grabs.
Group B: Argentina clinch first place with a win or draw over Greece. South Korea clinch second place with a win or draw over Nigeria, assuming Greece lose to Argentina. If Greece draws Argentina and South Korea lose to Nigeria, Greece goes through in second place. Nigeria has a chance for second if they beat Korea and Argentina beat Greece. Probably Argentina and Korea, but we could see a weird finish for second here if Argentina rest their stars and Nigeria goes for it against Korea.
Group C: Lots of permutations here, with England, USA and Slovenia all capable of winning the group and all four teams still capable of qualifying. If both games draw, Slovenia wins the group and USA likely go through second on goals scored (they have a +2 advantage over England in goals), unless England score three more goals than the USA score. The crazy scenario is an England-Slovenia draw and Algeria beating USA, which would result in both England and USA eliminated. USA must beat Algeria to control their own destiny -- they would automatically advance with that result. A draw would only work if Slovenia draw or beat England. If USA beat Algeria and England beat Slovenia by similar scores, USA goes through first and England second. Going to be a great day of football on June 23rd.
Group D: Despite the table, I think Germany and Serbia are in the drivers' seats. Serbia play a demoralized Australia without either Cahill or Kewell, out on red card suspensions. Germany play a Ghana team they should match up very well against, even without Klose. If they both win, as I think they will, then order is restored and Germany qualify first, Serbia second. Any result against Germany would put Ghana through. If Serbia-Australia ends in a draw and Ghana lose, Serbia could be in trouble. They would be level on points with Ghana, probably level on goal difference (unless Ghana lose by 2), with Ghana having the goals scored and head-to-head advantages. If Ghana-Germany ends in a draw, and Serbia beat Australia, we could see Serbia and Ghana through, and Germany eliminated.
Group E: Holland are through. They play an already-eliminated Cameroon in a meaningless match for both teams. Holland need only a point to guaranty they finish first in the group, and even if they lose, they probably finish first on goal difference. Denmark-Japan is the decider for second place, as they both sit on 3 points going into the last match. Japan have an advantage on goal difference, so could technically play for a draw; Denmark, on the other hand, has to play for the win. Given how these teams have played so far, it should be a great final match, one I'm really anticipating.
Group F: All four of these teams are still capable of qualifying, although there are some unlikely permutations. Despite New Zealand's amazing performances against Slovakia and Italy, this is still looking like Italy and Paraguay, although definitely not in that order. Italy still have work to do against Slovakia, who won't be easy to beat. A draw works for Italy if New Zealand crashes against Paraguay, but If New Zealand draw Paraguay, it's going to come down to goals scored, where the Italians and Kiwis are currently even. Hard to imagine New Zealand beating Paraguay, who should get through in first place. Slovakia could still qualify with a win over Italy and a New Zealand loss to Paraguay.
Group G: Brazil qualify, almost certainly as group winners. All they need is a draw versus Portugal in their last match to get a point and go through on top. Portugal would also be content with a draw, as it would insure that they progress ahead of Ivory Coast. Portugal could top the group with a win. Ivory Coast's only chance is for Brazil to humiliate Portugal, while they knock in a bunch against North Korea -- enough to reverse the astonishing -9 goal difference they currently have versus Portugal after Portugal's 7:0 win over North Korea. The Dear Leader's boys are eliminated and have nothing to play for.
Group H: Chile and Spain play for all the marbles in a wide open group. Only Chile controls its own destiny and wins the group with a draw. That draw would be disastrous for Spain, who would be eliminated in this case if the Swiss beat Honduras. If Chile wins, they qualify on top and Spain are eliminated with a Swiss win or draw versus Honduras. If Honduras beats Switzerland and Chile beats Spain, second place will come down to goal difference where Spain have a slight advantage. If Spain beats Chile and Switzerland beats Honduras (a likely scenario), then Chile, Spain and Switzerland will each have 6 points and it comes down to goal difference and perhaps even goals scored to determine which of the three gets eliminated. Honduras could still qualify in second place with a win over Switzerland and a Chile win over Spain, assuming they could make up some goal difference on Spain.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
A Thinking-Person's Guide to World Cup Analysis
"Football is a simple game," Gary Lineker famously said after England's 1990 defeat in the World Cup semi-final (on penalties, of course). "22 men chase a ball for 90 minutes and at the end, the Germans win." But seriously, the same twenty or so FIFA laws of the game govern both my kid's U10 club matches and the World Cup finals. Ball, goals, keepers, offsides, throw-ins, fouls, cards, free kicks, penalties. That's about it.
Partly because it's so simple a game, it ends up the subject of a lot of analysis. Like its closest American sports analog, basketball, when played well it is highly improvisational and fluid, so it doesn't allow itself to be understood through simple measurement or statistics. It is about the use of space by players with and without the ball, and it is memorably about what skilled players do with the ball in that space. Goals are rare, matches turn on single events, and what happened between the lines over 90-odd minutes is often the subject of intense debate.
The World Cup is the apotheosis of football analysis. Sure, the "quality" of football is better in the Champion's League, where money-is-no-object mercenary squads of the greatest skill players on the planet play. But nothing matches the history, the crucible of national character and the test of individual character, and the clash of play styles that you get in the World Cup.
Here are some of the resources I use and recommend:
Historical Results: The RSSSF archive is unbelievable. It's the wikipedia of football. The official FIFA archive for previous World Cups is great, too. There's also great historical coverage of the World Cup on wikipedia itself.
Analysis: There are unfortunately no American equivalents of the English style of deep thinking, good writing, and snarky gossip. Personally, I love the stuff coming from the team at The Guardian. They are providing some of the most humorous and objective coverage of the tournament, in particular Irishman Barry Glendenning. Their World Cup Daily podcast, full of bad puns, inside jokes and sexual innuendo, is awesome.
Grant Wahl, of The Beckham Experiment fame, writes for Sports Illustrated and has been ok -- not as good as I had hoped, but smart and insightful. The LA Times coverage is pretty good, too. I am not a huge fan of their cranky senior football writer, Grahame Jones, but their site is nicely organized and has some cool content. The New York Times has been spotty.
ESPN's Soccernet site is doing a pretty good job, and has some unique resources such as the great political statistician Nate Silver.
The communal World Cup blog has been variable in terms of quality, but is winning on breadth of coverage and subject matter.
Goal.com does a great job with technical match analysis and player ratings. They've been providing some good in-depth coverage of the US national team. If you want to understand the science of space, tactics and positioning on the pitch, you must read the match breakdowns at Zonal Marking.
For dedicated coverage of the US men's national team, US Soccer's official site is boring but comprehensive A lot of the players are on Twitter, so you can see updates from Donovan, Edu, Altidore and others there. Speaking of Twitter, the World Cup app at TweetBeat is fantastic stuff.
Partly because it's so simple a game, it ends up the subject of a lot of analysis. Like its closest American sports analog, basketball, when played well it is highly improvisational and fluid, so it doesn't allow itself to be understood through simple measurement or statistics. It is about the use of space by players with and without the ball, and it is memorably about what skilled players do with the ball in that space. Goals are rare, matches turn on single events, and what happened between the lines over 90-odd minutes is often the subject of intense debate.
The World Cup is the apotheosis of football analysis. Sure, the "quality" of football is better in the Champion's League, where money-is-no-object mercenary squads of the greatest skill players on the planet play. But nothing matches the history, the crucible of national character and the test of individual character, and the clash of play styles that you get in the World Cup.
Here are some of the resources I use and recommend:
Historical Results: The RSSSF archive is unbelievable. It's the wikipedia of football. The official FIFA archive for previous World Cups is great, too. There's also great historical coverage of the World Cup on wikipedia itself.
Analysis: There are unfortunately no American equivalents of the English style of deep thinking, good writing, and snarky gossip. Personally, I love the stuff coming from the team at The Guardian. They are providing some of the most humorous and objective coverage of the tournament, in particular Irishman Barry Glendenning. Their World Cup Daily podcast, full of bad puns, inside jokes and sexual innuendo, is awesome.
Grant Wahl, of The Beckham Experiment fame, writes for Sports Illustrated and has been ok -- not as good as I had hoped, but smart and insightful. The LA Times coverage is pretty good, too. I am not a huge fan of their cranky senior football writer, Grahame Jones, but their site is nicely organized and has some cool content. The New York Times has been spotty.
ESPN's Soccernet site is doing a pretty good job, and has some unique resources such as the great political statistician Nate Silver.
The communal World Cup blog has been variable in terms of quality, but is winning on breadth of coverage and subject matter.
Goal.com does a great job with technical match analysis and player ratings. They've been providing some good in-depth coverage of the US national team. If you want to understand the science of space, tactics and positioning on the pitch, you must read the match breakdowns at Zonal Marking.
For dedicated coverage of the US men's national team, US Soccer's official site is boring but comprehensive A lot of the players are on Twitter, so you can see updates from Donovan, Edu, Altidore and others there. Speaking of Twitter, the World Cup app at TweetBeat is fantastic stuff.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Group A-D: The First Matches
Mexico 1:1 South Africa -- I had a feeling that the home support was going to be worth a goal and that the Bafana Bafana might possibly see a result from this match, so I was not surprised by the draw. Mexico looked the better team in the first half, but all credit to South Africa for a tremendous first goal on the counterattack which sent the fans into ecstasy. Unfortunately, the home side lost the plot after that, and their marking on Mexico's inevitable equalizer was dreadful -- there were easily three or four Mexican players left unmarked at the far post on that play in position to score. South Africa had a late chance to win it, but a lazy shot was denied by the woodwork. Fair result and happy to see the hosts get a point.
France 0:0 Uruguay -- well, France was a bit better than I expected, and Uruguay was a lot worse. France defended well but looked toothless in front of goal. Uruguay really suffered from a lack of playmakers in midfield; their much-praised strike duo of Suarez and Forlan couldn't get any decent service throughout the match. Still, Uruguay should have won but Forlan missed an absolute sitter from the penalty spot, unmarked. Hope both these teams get eliminated as soon as possible.
South Korea 2:0 Greece -- the Koreans were fantastic. Energetic, skillful, and fit. They took it to the Greeks from the first whistle, and with a little luck could easily have won this one by four goals. Both of their goals were nicely taken: the first showed great concentration and belief on a set piece, while the second was a great bit of individual effort from open play. Meanwhile, Greece were horrendous. We knew they would struggle to score goals, but I expected they would be organized on defense at a minimum. Er, no. Their center backs looked like they were going to get into a fist fight after the Koreans came close once too often. Greece won't get a point, or even a goal, at this rate. Korea v. Argentina will be a blast.
Argentina 1:0 Nigeria -- the Argentines were a lot more dominant than the scoreline would suggest. Messi, Tevez and Higuain just tore up the Nigerian back line -- I lost count but Messi must have had five shots on or near target and ran at the defense with real purpose. Tevez was also very, very dangerous. But the Nigerian keeper was awesome, and literally kept his side in the match. The second half introduction of Obafemi Martins for Nigeria was long-overdue, and he really provided some chances to get Nigeria back in the match. Again, with a little luck the Africans might have stolen a point, but you could easily say that with a little luck, Argentina could have had three more goals. It was fun to watch Maradona jumping around on the sidelines, too.
England 1:1 USA -- the Americans looked terrified in the opening minutes, and a totally overmatched Ricardo Clark was punished after 4 minutes with a nice goal from Gerrard who easily tapped in a heads up pass from Heskey following a routine throw in. I had a sinking feeling of a Czech Republic-style drubbing, but instead of unravelling the USA buckled down and fought back. In particular, England had trouble with our pace. On the right side Cherundolo consistently abused Milner, who eventually collected a yellow card for multiple infractions and had to be subbed after just 30 minutes lest he pick up a red. In the middle, Donovan and Dempsey tested John Terry and Leadley King, the latter going off at the half with an injury. On the left, Altidore ripped Carragher on multiple occasions, the last of which almost resulted in a winning goal, but England’s keeper, Green, just palmed it onto the near post and out of the net. Dempsey's 40th minute equalizer was soft and totally, completely lucky, and Green deserved the abuse he's taken for it, but England had let the USA back into the match, and the goal wasn't completely against the run of play. Onyewu, DeMerit and Bradley kept Rooney somewhat in check, and Howard came up big in stopping hard shots by Heskey and Wright-Phillips. Sadly, Bocanegra was the weak link in the defense, as Lennon and Johnson kept running at him on the left, creating several chances. To paraphrase one commentator, England were better at every position except keeper, and the keepers decided the match. A huge point for USA. If they can build from here and not let down in the last matches, they could win the group. On a personal note, the second half was so nerve-wracking in my house, that my always-loquacious father-in-law fell silent and my son looked like he was going to puke. That's why I love the World Cup.
Slovenia 1:0 Algeria -- both these teams were awful for most of this match. Couldn't string passes together, bad service from the wings, sloppy all over the pitch. There were a couple of half-chances both ways, but nothing that seemed like a sustained attack. I had heard so much about the great Slovenian defense pre-match, but they looked really mediocre, even from the tepid attacking Algeria managed. An Algerian forward was sent off for an idiotic intentional hand ball, ending any chance for a goal from them. Slovenia finally got a breakthrough ten minutes from time when a decent but stoppable shot was mishandled by the Algerian keeper, and the ball ended up in the back of the net. And that was that. Without the keeper’s gaffe, this was headed for the worst kind of 0:0 draw. Slovenia got the result, which will put pressure on both the English and Americans to beat them. Good -- maybe we'll play Torres instead of Clark ...
Ghana 1:0 Serbia -- Ghana missed Essien less than I expected, and Serbia's play was definitely not up to the pre-match hype. Ghana had a couple of decent chances but they were not very sharp in front of goal. Ghana seemed more poised in midfield than I expected, though. The match turned on a ridiculous Serb hand ball in the box resulting in a penalty to Ghana, which was clinically finished. Serbia didn’t really put a decent attack together until they had the man sent off; oddly it seemed to energize them and they played much better down a man, getting their best chances of the match. The Ghanaian goal scorer had another chance to put it away late, but hit the post. Surprise result, and Ghana will go into their next match with confidence, but both teams put on second-rate performances.
Germany 4:0 Australia -- wow, did Germany look good here. Best performance of the first eight matches. Ok, the Australians sucked ass, worse even than they were against the USA in the pre-cup friendly. In fairness, the Aussies opened decently, and missed at least one early chance. But when the Germans ultimately took over the match, they were electric. Podolski's strike was an unstoppable rocket, and after Klose missed an easy one on a great early cross from Podolski, he came back and destroyed Schwartzer and the Aussie defense with a killer header, classic German power football. Germany collected two more good goals after poor Tim Cahill was sent off for a dubious straight red card. But my pre-tourney take that Germany was going to suffer from the absence of the playmaker Ballack in midfield was just dead wrong. If anything, they looked quicker and livelier without him. This was more Germany good than Australia bad, and Germany are going to go far in this competition and should provide both England and the USA a lot of incentive to win the group, just to avoid playing them in the round of 16.
France 0:0 Uruguay -- well, France was a bit better than I expected, and Uruguay was a lot worse. France defended well but looked toothless in front of goal. Uruguay really suffered from a lack of playmakers in midfield; their much-praised strike duo of Suarez and Forlan couldn't get any decent service throughout the match. Still, Uruguay should have won but Forlan missed an absolute sitter from the penalty spot, unmarked. Hope both these teams get eliminated as soon as possible.
South Korea 2:0 Greece -- the Koreans were fantastic. Energetic, skillful, and fit. They took it to the Greeks from the first whistle, and with a little luck could easily have won this one by four goals. Both of their goals were nicely taken: the first showed great concentration and belief on a set piece, while the second was a great bit of individual effort from open play. Meanwhile, Greece were horrendous. We knew they would struggle to score goals, but I expected they would be organized on defense at a minimum. Er, no. Their center backs looked like they were going to get into a fist fight after the Koreans came close once too often. Greece won't get a point, or even a goal, at this rate. Korea v. Argentina will be a blast.
Argentina 1:0 Nigeria -- the Argentines were a lot more dominant than the scoreline would suggest. Messi, Tevez and Higuain just tore up the Nigerian back line -- I lost count but Messi must have had five shots on or near target and ran at the defense with real purpose. Tevez was also very, very dangerous. But the Nigerian keeper was awesome, and literally kept his side in the match. The second half introduction of Obafemi Martins for Nigeria was long-overdue, and he really provided some chances to get Nigeria back in the match. Again, with a little luck the Africans might have stolen a point, but you could easily say that with a little luck, Argentina could have had three more goals. It was fun to watch Maradona jumping around on the sidelines, too.
England 1:1 USA -- the Americans looked terrified in the opening minutes, and a totally overmatched Ricardo Clark was punished after 4 minutes with a nice goal from Gerrard who easily tapped in a heads up pass from Heskey following a routine throw in. I had a sinking feeling of a Czech Republic-style drubbing, but instead of unravelling the USA buckled down and fought back. In particular, England had trouble with our pace. On the right side Cherundolo consistently abused Milner, who eventually collected a yellow card for multiple infractions and had to be subbed after just 30 minutes lest he pick up a red. In the middle, Donovan and Dempsey tested John Terry and Leadley King, the latter going off at the half with an injury. On the left, Altidore ripped Carragher on multiple occasions, the last of which almost resulted in a winning goal, but England’s keeper, Green, just palmed it onto the near post and out of the net. Dempsey's 40th minute equalizer was soft and totally, completely lucky, and Green deserved the abuse he's taken for it, but England had let the USA back into the match, and the goal wasn't completely against the run of play. Onyewu, DeMerit and Bradley kept Rooney somewhat in check, and Howard came up big in stopping hard shots by Heskey and Wright-Phillips. Sadly, Bocanegra was the weak link in the defense, as Lennon and Johnson kept running at him on the left, creating several chances. To paraphrase one commentator, England were better at every position except keeper, and the keepers decided the match. A huge point for USA. If they can build from here and not let down in the last matches, they could win the group. On a personal note, the second half was so nerve-wracking in my house, that my always-loquacious father-in-law fell silent and my son looked like he was going to puke. That's why I love the World Cup.
Slovenia 1:0 Algeria -- both these teams were awful for most of this match. Couldn't string passes together, bad service from the wings, sloppy all over the pitch. There were a couple of half-chances both ways, but nothing that seemed like a sustained attack. I had heard so much about the great Slovenian defense pre-match, but they looked really mediocre, even from the tepid attacking Algeria managed. An Algerian forward was sent off for an idiotic intentional hand ball, ending any chance for a goal from them. Slovenia finally got a breakthrough ten minutes from time when a decent but stoppable shot was mishandled by the Algerian keeper, and the ball ended up in the back of the net. And that was that. Without the keeper’s gaffe, this was headed for the worst kind of 0:0 draw. Slovenia got the result, which will put pressure on both the English and Americans to beat them. Good -- maybe we'll play Torres instead of Clark ...
Ghana 1:0 Serbia -- Ghana missed Essien less than I expected, and Serbia's play was definitely not up to the pre-match hype. Ghana had a couple of decent chances but they were not very sharp in front of goal. Ghana seemed more poised in midfield than I expected, though. The match turned on a ridiculous Serb hand ball in the box resulting in a penalty to Ghana, which was clinically finished. Serbia didn’t really put a decent attack together until they had the man sent off; oddly it seemed to energize them and they played much better down a man, getting their best chances of the match. The Ghanaian goal scorer had another chance to put it away late, but hit the post. Surprise result, and Ghana will go into their next match with confidence, but both teams put on second-rate performances.
Germany 4:0 Australia -- wow, did Germany look good here. Best performance of the first eight matches. Ok, the Australians sucked ass, worse even than they were against the USA in the pre-cup friendly. In fairness, the Aussies opened decently, and missed at least one early chance. But when the Germans ultimately took over the match, they were electric. Podolski's strike was an unstoppable rocket, and after Klose missed an easy one on a great early cross from Podolski, he came back and destroyed Schwartzer and the Aussie defense with a killer header, classic German power football. Germany collected two more good goals after poor Tim Cahill was sent off for a dubious straight red card. But my pre-tourney take that Germany was going to suffer from the absence of the playmaker Ballack in midfield was just dead wrong. If anything, they looked quicker and livelier without him. This was more Germany good than Australia bad, and Germany are going to go far in this competition and should provide both England and the USA a lot of incentive to win the group, just to avoid playing them in the round of 16.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
World Cup Preview
"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that."
~Bill Shankly
Seven days to the 2010 FIFA World Cup. Now that all the squads have been set and the teams have begun arriving in South Africa, it's time for my pre-tournament preview and my (generally insane) predictions.
Overall, this has the makings of perhaps the most exciting World Cup in two decades. Of all the interesting aspects of the tournament, geography provides the most compelling storyline. A European team has never won a World Cup held outside Europe (the eight tournaments held outside Europe have been won by Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay). Add to that the aging, largely unimpressive nature of many of the European powerhouses (England is fielding the tournament's oldest team; France barely qualified; Italy seems lackluster; Germany is a shambles of injuries and managerial spats) and the fact that this is the first African tournament (an Asian team, South Korea, made the semi-finals in the first Asian tournament), the possibility for surprises seems high. I would be shocked to see a repeat of 2006 in Germany, with an all-European final four (Italy, France, Germany and Portugal).
It's hard for non-American's to understand, but this is also the first time I can remember that a major US media company (ESPN/ABC) is hyping the tournament like crazy and signing up to show all the matches in HD. They have even dumped the dubious announcing team of JP Dellacamera and John Harkes in favor of some Brits (and not just any Brits ... Martin Tyler, one of the best in the business). There's a lot of genuine excitement in the tournament, not just in a "team USA goes to the Olympics" kind of way. I think the fact that so many matches from the EPL, La Liga, Serie A, and the Bundesliga are shown on cable TV means that many more Americans actually know the top players who will take part from watching them with their clubs, which makes it more interesting and fun, and of broader appeal than simply the team USA matches.
Group Stage
Group A: This is one of my favorite groups, because all the teams are damaged goods and I can craft an argument for any two of the four teams making the elimination round. France has the pedigree (winner in '98, runner-up in '06), but their current form is poor and they have no clear leader. Mexico always rise to the occasion in the World Cup, but they have a relatively weak squad this time. Uruguay have tradition, but just squeaked past Costa Rica in the post-qualifying playoff to make the tournament. And South Africa are only here as hosts -- they would never have qualified otherwise. Mexico and France are likely to advance, but I think if the hosts can get three points from Uruguay, it might be Mexico and South Africa. Don't underestimate home turf advantage, particularly in far-away Africa.
Group B: While this is potentially a sneaky-hard group, Argentina are absolutely loaded with talent and my odds-on favorite to win the tournament. The big unknown is whether their coach, the volatile Diego Maradona, is a help or hinderance in their campaign. I think the first match -- the morning match on Saturday June 12 between Nigeria and Argentina -- will speak volumes about the Argentine character and potential in this tournament. Nigeria are arguably the best or second best African team in the tournament and I think they could make a run as far as the semi-finals. South Korea are quick, disciplined, physically fit and dangerous. Greece's defensive anti-football can cause problems, but they are light on talent and goal scoring threats I can't see them advancing. Argentina and Nigeria get out of the group.
Group C: The big question here is which USA team shows up. If it's the Confederations Cup runner-up, then I think they have a chance not only to advance from the group, but to win the group outright and potentially avoid a rematch of the 2002 quarter-finals with Germany. If it's the team that played the first half against Turkey, they won't make it out of the group. They are a difficult match-up for England in the opening round with their speed and goalkeeping. Donovan is peaking, Dempsey seems fully recovered from injury, and Bob Bradley made some clever choices bringing Findley, Buddle and Gomez rather than the usual re-treads (i.e., Ching). If Altidore's ankle sprain is really bad, I'd love to see Gomez up front. Unfortunately the USA are always inconsistent in group play, and their back four have been shockingly bad. Onyewu is struggling (he can't jump), while Specter and Bornstein looked terrible in the run-up friendlies. That said, England seemed very flat in their pre-tournament matches. They were totally unimpressive against lively sides from Mexico and Japan. They are over-reliant on Wayne Rooney to score goals. [UPDATE: ... and Rio Ferdinand, their captain and anchor of what has been a shaky central defense, injured his knee in training and is out of the competition]. There is no reason they shouldn't do well, but there's a nagging feeling of dread surrounding the team. Slovenia and Algeria are both good sides, but I don't see either challenging. USA and England advance.
Group D: I don't think Germany are all that good, and without the leadership of Ballack they could be in for some tough matches. Ghana, one of the best African sides, was dealt a tremendous blow with the injury to Michael Essien. Australia has some decent players (Schwartzer, Cahill). Serbia was great in qualifying, and can claim some of the old Yugoslav pedigree in World Cups. I think this is a bit like Group A in that you could make good arguments for a variety of outcomes given that there are no dominant teams. I like Germany to (barely) win the group, with Serbia taking the second place.
Group E: Holland are one of my favorite teams in the tournament, and along with Argentina one of my picks to go deep. I think they win all three matches in this group. The only interesting bit is who gets the second spot. I like Denmark, who had an under-rated romp through qualifying, besting Portugal and Sweden in a tough group. The crazy Samuel E'to controversies have added fuel to an already burning fire around Cameroon. And while Japan did ok against an out-of-sorts England, they have been in poor form for most of the last year or so. Holland & Denmark.
Group F: This is a gift of a group for Italy. New Zealand are woeful. Slovakia are ok, but have limited tournament experience (other than as a part of Czechoslovakia pre-breakup). Paraguay had a magical qualifying run during which they beat both Brazil and Argentina to finish one point out of first place in the South American qualifying table. In a more difficult group, Italy struggles, but here, it's Italy and Paraguay moving on.
Group G: Probably the worst possible draw for Brazil: a quality African side from Ivory Coast on near home turf (with Didier Drogba amongst the top strikers in the world right now, along with Kalou and the Toure brothers); '06 semi-finalist Portugal led by Christiano Ronaldo; and an unknown North Korean team. I would not be shocked if Brazil didn't make it out of this group. The Brazil-Portugal match on June 25 will be incredible. My head tells me Brazil and Portugal advance, but my heart tells me Brazil and Ivory Coast, the latter riding the African wave of goodwill to the elimination round. [UPDATE: Drogba broke his elbow in a friendly with Japan yesterday and is out of the World Cup. No way Ivory Coast beats Portugal without him. Goodbye heart, hello head.]
Group H: Spain have to be the favorite to win the cup after their Euro '08 win, their incredible unbeaten streak (ended by the USA in last summer's Confederations Cup), and their huge pool of talent at the peak of their careers. However, they don't seem to travel all that well. Chile are an unheralded but high-quality second place team in this group. Honduras is lucky to be here (thank you, Jonathan Bornstein, the USA defender, whose injury-time goal knocked out Costa Rica and allowed Honduras to qualify for their first World Cup in three decades). And Switzerland don't have the quality to compete here. Spain and Chile move on.
Elimination Round
Round of 16
Nigeria d. Mexico
USA d. Serbia
Holland d. Paraguay
Brazil d. Chile
Argentina d. France/South Africa
England d. Germany
Italy d. Denmark
Spain d. Portugal
Quarter-Finals
Nigeria d. USA
Holland d. Brazil
Argentina d. England
Spain d. Italy
Semi-Finals
Holland d. Nigeria
Argentina d. Spain
Final
Argentina d. Holland
Friday, March 5, 2010
10 Things We Learned About the US National Team in Holland
Ok, the Dutch are FIFA ranked third in the world behind Brazil and Spain. They are fantastic -- best Dutch side since their Total Football teams of the '70's. So even a listless Dutch performance is going to be a handful for the US national team. Still, we looked a mess out there and we learned some painful lessons:
1) We are really, really missing our injured stars. Dempsey's possession and ball control, Onyewu's physicality, Charlie Davis' pace -- they were all sorely absent in our performance against the Dutch. If a subset of those guys isn't back for June, we are in deep shit. I'm glad Bradley gave Findley a chance up front, because he was so awful that we know we can eliminate him from the squad for June.
2) Landon Donovan needs to be more consistently good. He was almost invisible against Holland. As he was against Sporting Lisbon and Tottenham for Everton last week. He needs to string three great performances together in South Africa if the US is going to have a chance.
3) Defending deep, ceding control of midfield, and hoping for a bit of luck with a long ball is not a winning strategy. I know Bob Bradley doesn't have a squad full of talent like the top European or South American sides. But man, is he that bad of a coach that he thinks he can play this way and be competitive against anyone other than Trinidad and Tobago? Come on.
4) Bornstein looked dangerously out of his depth. He conceded the penalty on an idiotic shirt-tug. He caused the deflection that produced Holland's second goal. He was abused on the left in the second half by the Dutch wingers, and literally fell on his ass while defending, almost allowing a third goal. He generally looked like a high school kid playing his first professional game. Shocking. I agreed with some of the commenters who said that he was Holland's Man of the Match.
5) Only slightly less worrisome is Specter on the right side of the defense. He looked ok the couple of times he came forward (he's good at early crosses), but he is very slow and not particularly imposing physically when defending deep. Elia toyed with him in the first half in the same way that Kaka did in the Confederations Cup. Against world class wingers like we'll see in South Africa, he could be badly exposed.
6) Our midfield passing was atrocious. The modern game is fast. One touch passing. Quick combinations. Movement off the ball. We did none of that, particularly in the first half. Terrible. We looked way out of our league.
7) Demarcus Beasley actually looked good. He came on in the 35th minute for the injured Holden and made some threatening runs at the defense, moved well up the wing, and even showed some grit against the very physical play of the Dutch. He's been so far off the radar screen that I kind of forgot he existed, but he certainly made a strong claim to a position in the starting 11. Much, much better than Donovan in the match against the Dutch.
8) Altidore looked like he's starting to come into his own. Often in past international football he seemed lost and frustrated. But he showed some real flair against Holland. A clever back heel / nutmeg on the touch line when trapped by two defenders, a couple of nice moves with back to goal, and that fantastic strike in injury time that almost produced the equalizer. His time at Hull has clearly helped him mature, and he's so athletic that when he starts playing with confidence, he could be scary.
9) We desperately need some good wing play. We have some of the best wingers we've ever had: Dempsey, Donovan, Beasley. Yet, until late in the second half you could have counted the number of attacks that came off wing play on one hand. Our central midfield was so poor in possession that the holding mids and defenders were just lobbing the ball over the top and hoping that Altidore or Findley could latch on to one.
I'd like to see Bradley try something like what we've seen at Fulham or Everton lately. Fulham play 4-4-2 but with Zamora almost a sole striker and Gera behind him. Everton play 4-5-1, with Saha in the Zamora role and Cahill as the attacking midfielder. We could play Dempsey (if healthy) and Beasley on the wings, Bradley and Feilheiber or Torres at midfield, and Donovan behind Altidore in the middle. Would give us a lot more attacking options than the lob-and-pray tactics we adopted against Holland.
10) If we play like we did against the Dutch, it will be three and out in South Africa. England will take us apart, and we'll likely draw (or lose) in our Slovenia and Algeria matches. It's hard to imagine that this was the same US team that beat Spain by two goals last summer (Spain's only loss in their last 24 competitive matches) and that went up 2-0 on Brazil, forcing the best team in the world to work for a late winner.
1) We are really, really missing our injured stars. Dempsey's possession and ball control, Onyewu's physicality, Charlie Davis' pace -- they were all sorely absent in our performance against the Dutch. If a subset of those guys isn't back for June, we are in deep shit. I'm glad Bradley gave Findley a chance up front, because he was so awful that we know we can eliminate him from the squad for June.
2) Landon Donovan needs to be more consistently good. He was almost invisible against Holland. As he was against Sporting Lisbon and Tottenham for Everton last week. He needs to string three great performances together in South Africa if the US is going to have a chance.
3) Defending deep, ceding control of midfield, and hoping for a bit of luck with a long ball is not a winning strategy. I know Bob Bradley doesn't have a squad full of talent like the top European or South American sides. But man, is he that bad of a coach that he thinks he can play this way and be competitive against anyone other than Trinidad and Tobago? Come on.
4) Bornstein looked dangerously out of his depth. He conceded the penalty on an idiotic shirt-tug. He caused the deflection that produced Holland's second goal. He was abused on the left in the second half by the Dutch wingers, and literally fell on his ass while defending, almost allowing a third goal. He generally looked like a high school kid playing his first professional game. Shocking. I agreed with some of the commenters who said that he was Holland's Man of the Match.
5) Only slightly less worrisome is Specter on the right side of the defense. He looked ok the couple of times he came forward (he's good at early crosses), but he is very slow and not particularly imposing physically when defending deep. Elia toyed with him in the first half in the same way that Kaka did in the Confederations Cup. Against world class wingers like we'll see in South Africa, he could be badly exposed.
6) Our midfield passing was atrocious. The modern game is fast. One touch passing. Quick combinations. Movement off the ball. We did none of that, particularly in the first half. Terrible. We looked way out of our league.
7) Demarcus Beasley actually looked good. He came on in the 35th minute for the injured Holden and made some threatening runs at the defense, moved well up the wing, and even showed some grit against the very physical play of the Dutch. He's been so far off the radar screen that I kind of forgot he existed, but he certainly made a strong claim to a position in the starting 11. Much, much better than Donovan in the match against the Dutch.
8) Altidore looked like he's starting to come into his own. Often in past international football he seemed lost and frustrated. But he showed some real flair against Holland. A clever back heel / nutmeg on the touch line when trapped by two defenders, a couple of nice moves with back to goal, and that fantastic strike in injury time that almost produced the equalizer. His time at Hull has clearly helped him mature, and he's so athletic that when he starts playing with confidence, he could be scary.
9) We desperately need some good wing play. We have some of the best wingers we've ever had: Dempsey, Donovan, Beasley. Yet, until late in the second half you could have counted the number of attacks that came off wing play on one hand. Our central midfield was so poor in possession that the holding mids and defenders were just lobbing the ball over the top and hoping that Altidore or Findley could latch on to one.
I'd like to see Bradley try something like what we've seen at Fulham or Everton lately. Fulham play 4-4-2 but with Zamora almost a sole striker and Gera behind him. Everton play 4-5-1, with Saha in the Zamora role and Cahill as the attacking midfielder. We could play Dempsey (if healthy) and Beasley on the wings, Bradley and Feilheiber or Torres at midfield, and Donovan behind Altidore in the middle. Would give us a lot more attacking options than the lob-and-pray tactics we adopted against Holland.
10) If we play like we did against the Dutch, it will be three and out in South Africa. England will take us apart, and we'll likely draw (or lose) in our Slovenia and Algeria matches. It's hard to imagine that this was the same US team that beat Spain by two goals last summer (Spain's only loss in their last 24 competitive matches) and that went up 2-0 on Brazil, forcing the best team in the world to work for a late winner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
