Costa Rica and why Brazil 2014 was Concacaf's World Cup

Photo: Getty Images

We said goodbye to the Ticos via the penalty shootout versus the Netherlands yesterday. But their historic run, coupled with strong performances by USA and Mexico made one thing clear: this was Concacaf's tournament.

True, no team from Concacaf has ever made it to the semifinals, but it's not for lack of trying or quality. Indeed, the world should no longer think of Mexico as the only quality side north of Colombia. Not when quality teams like Italy, England, Croatia and Portugal have gone home courtesy of North and Central Americans teams.

Yesterday marked the fourth occasion that a team from Concacaf made it to the quarterfinals. Before it was Mexico in 1970 and 1986 (both hosted in Mexico) and USA in 2002. However, the Ticos had the hardest road of all: they won the "Champions Group": Italy, England and Uruguay. They defeated, via penalties, the 2004 Euro Champions Greece. Further, they got scored on only twice!

Concacaf also boasts the world's best goalkeepers: Ochoa, Navas and Tim Howard. In recent years there has been an increasing trend in Concacaf players transferring and succeeding in Europe: i.e. Javier Hernandez (Mexico), Clint Dempsey (USA) and Bryan Ruiz (Costa Rica). In doing so, these countries have advanced their knowledge of the game and this has trickled down to players in domestic leagues.

Concacaf's exploits have surpassed Africa's. While quality sides remain in Nigeria, Algeria, Ghana and Ivory Coast, their tactics and defense have yet to fully exploit the incredible talent of attackers like Ayew (Ghana), Moses (Nigeria), or Gervinho (Ivory Coast). 

To date, the only non-UEFA or CONMEBOL team to qualify for a semifinal is South Korea (2002), when they co-hosted the World Cup with Japan. And, truthfully, were Mexico to host the World Cup, I would bet on them winning it all. They already have the talent. The same cannot be said for Team USA, not yet. But come 2026, if the tournament is hosted in America, we might have the talent to make a run for it.

Wembley, Cathedral of Football

How does one describe a dream? Images, feelings, actions, emotions. This is how I would classify the different experiences I had when visiting Wembley Stadium today. There was no England game, no FA Cup or Champions League final, no American football exhibition, no rugby match, not even a rock concert. It was just the stadium and I and the history of the game.

A late June visit to the legendary venue means one thing: one cannot do the full tour because it's concert season. Nevertheless, I went ahead with the fragment of the experience because I didn't know when or if I would have another chance to visit Wembley. It did not matter and the stadium did not disappoint.

For us lovers of the game the now iconic arch over the structure is clearly visible as one approaches Heathrow airport via plane. From the ground there is no mistaking it and it is no wonder that this arch also has become the building's signature and most recognizable element. It also, as I learned today, serves as the main support for the roof.

Wembley stadium is completely modern but it retains vestiges of its storied past. The halls contain sample monuments to the 1966 final, where England defeated Germany in the World Cup via a very contested goal. This includes a copy of the Jules Rimet Cup, a plaque with the flags of all the countries and the very post that allowed for England to win the match. The ball bounced in off the cross bar, according to the referee and English fans. German fans think otherwise.

Inside the stadium the red seats reach 90,000 in number and a single person's voice bounces off every structure interminably in order to retain the maximum amount of noise. Just imagine what a game must be like. It is the history of this hallowed ground, dating back to 1923, with its numerous FA Cups, Champions League finals, and England national team games, that so reverberated with my football persona. 

There is a feeling of greatness wherever you walk at Wembley. From the walk up Wembley Way to Sir Bobby Moore's statue outside to echoes of soccer games both recent and past, from memories or the countless TV screens showing scenes of Beckham scoring, Messi celebrating and England winning World Cup 1966. Once you are here you understand why you love this sport.

Pele called Wembley a Cathedral when he arrived at the old "Twin Towers." To me it's a monolith, a conversation, a primal feeling of togetherness and achievement. That it belongs to the crucible of soccer, England, is only right. And yet Wembley Stadium remains a treasure for all, a monument to the sport and a beacon for its fans.

See more pictures at our Facebook page.

Frank Lampard: Legend and History

Photo credit: The Telegraph

As we watched the Aston Villa versus Chelsea match this Saturday morning many of us wondered about the future of players on this Chelsea team. With the certain exit of Rafa Benitez as coach and a possible return from the Special One, Jose Mourinho, it was clear that there would be a certain change in the team. This includes Frank Lampard, the cornerstone of this squad for the last twelve years.

Many of us have memories of his plays and goals, from fans to rivals, coaches and fellow players, one constant remained: absolute talent. His clutch goals always came at the right time and in the most remarkable manners. At the end of the game, the end of the first half, the middle of a certain loss. Lampard fought through his relegation to the bench as coaches like Ancelloti, Villas-Boas and Rafa Benitez came and went. He sat out from the national team while Steven Gerrard took his spot. In reality, they are similarly gifted individuals in the same position on the pitch.

Lampard had arguably his best years under Jose Mourinho and whispers about the great Portuguese's comeback make us feel that Lampard will stick around at Stamford Bridge. It is certain, however, that with his contract ending this summer and his unwillingness to sign a contract as of yet, that he might be on his way out. And where would he go? MLS, possibly to the Galaxy to take over David Beckham's old spot.

Whatever Lamps' future holds for him, he has cemented his place in English football lore. He became Chelsea Football Club's all time leading scorer with his brace today, and by doing so he also made sure the team will be in the Uefa Champions League next year. There he continued to build on his legacy and history continued to be written. A player and a legend. A gentleman and a star. Frank Lampard will always be a constant reminder of football's greatest position: the playmaker.

Goal-line referees not enough for Ukraine

Photo credit: Sky.com

It has been widely accepted by fans, players, coaches, owners, leagues that some form of technology should be implemented to make the game of soccer more just. In 2010, at the World Cup, unfairness reared its unpleasant face when Frank Lampard's strike versus Germany was ruled not to be a goal when the ball is clearly shown to have crossed the line. For Euro 2012, UEFA made things a bit clearer by adding two additional referees at each goal. It was hoped that they could see actions unnoticed by the other officials.

Alas, the goal-line referees weren't enough either. In yesterday's match for the final game of group play between Ukraine and England, Marko Devic's strike past Joe Hart was cleared off the goal line by John Terry. So England fans hoped, and so saw the goal-line ref. But video playback shows that Terry clears the ball after it has completely crossed the line. In essence: goal.

So what now? FIFA has been looking into two different types of goal-line technology to circumvent the kind of situation mentioned above. One uses camera-based technology (Hawk-Eye) while the other (GoalRef) utilizes magnetic sensors to track the ball's path. A decision is set for July 5th and Sepp Blatter himself has said he will not go into Brazil 2014 without goal-line tech.

But why has it taken this long? Why do we have to ask this question? Michel Platini's argument that a goal-line referee would perform the same action is clearly flawed after yesterday's events, but it points to the old guard's elusiveness when it comes to amending the laws of the game.

Some of the American argument for why the game isn't as popular in this country is the lack of playback or assisting technology that is so prevalent in the National Football League. Maybe soccer could take on some American football rules for a change: how about a challenge allowed per team per half? You already have 3-4 minutes of stoppage time in average, so why not add another minute? Purity should give way to fairness in this world we live in. Nowadays everyone can look at the same angle whether on a TV screen, computer or smartphone. Suddenly we are all smarter than the referees. Why can't they use the same technology to upgrade their capabilities also?

England blues: Terry and Capello

Photo credit: The Independent

Wow. What a turn of events for the English national team. News broke today that Fabio Capello, manager of England, has resigned from his post following the FA's decision to strip John Terry of his captaincy due to the racial-comment controversy. England's team is again in turmoil ahead of major competition: Euro 2012 and the London Olympics.

Perhaps the most important fact in all of this is that Terry has done it again for England. Yes, his problems with Wayne Bridge prior to World Cup 2010 caused internal strife in the team that took attention away from the pitch and, ultimately, distracted players from what was at stake on the soccer pitch. Would England have been better in group play? If they had won the group they would have evaded the talented German team and, perhaps, could have gotten past Ghana and Uruguay.

It also comes down to Capello's philosophy on and off the pitch. His side was never as dominant as expected from such an experienced and talented coach. Maybe the international scene just didn't suit him but maybe it was his unwillingness to understand and react to non-soccer happenings that pushed him to end his time as England manager. Terry's play has been in decline for some time now, even to the point of relegating him to the Chelsea bench. Having him next to Rio Ferdinand (brother of Anton Ferdinand in the racism controversy) just isn't feasible. This is especially true since Ferdinand continues to be a relevant player in the Premier League and internationally. No, Mr. Capello, Terry just doesn't fit in with the English defense anymore. Worse still would be to keep him as captain.

How does England address this problem? Considering that major international tournaments are so close to this event, important, calculated decisions remain to be made. The track record for most teams around the world indicates that the outcome isn't favorable for England's team. If, however, Harry Redknapp is able to rally his players and country in an unprecedented manner, then there is a chance things may favor the team. This is possible: Aguirre made a difference with Mexico in the previous World Cup cycle, although he had more time than is available for England's next manager prior to the international tournament. However, at that point, Mexico was seeing his qualification in danger. Another example is Luis Fernando Suarez for Ecuador during the 2006 qualifiers. When Hernan Dario Gomez left unexpectedly, Suarez was able to turn the turmoil into the best qualification process the team had ever seen.

So, plenty to digest for English football fans. Difficult times lie ahead, but life after Capello may offer better results on the pitch.

End of the affair: Bradley fired as US coach

Photo credit: AP

Bob Bradley was fired as coach of the US national soccer team today. When the referee called full time at the 2011 Concacaf Gold Cup with the Mexico team up 4-2 on the United States, some of us out there thought his days were numbered. But nothing happened. Days passed and international friendlies were announced (versus Mexico on the 10th), Copa America started and the US ladies made it to the final.

But today was different. A day after the thrashing of the MLS All-Stars at the hands of Manchester United, a symphony of news flashes gave us word that US Soccer had severed ties with Bob Bradley. But why not sooner? Time for searching and hiring a new man for the job? And yes, it seems they have Bradley's successor already with a "further announcement" on Friday.

Let's reflect a bit on today's events. What were the pros and cons of Bob Bradley? To start, his record was 43-25-13, winning a Gold Cup title, finishing in second place at the Confederations Cup and in the final 16 at the World Cup after winning the group over England. Also to his credit: the blossoming of Donovan and Dempsey, solidification of Michael Bradley, Onyewu, Howard and Bocanegra, and the addition of game-changers like Altidore, Agudelo, Jermaine Jones, Bedoya and Timmy Chandler. All in all, quite the resume.

Conversely, the national team has become quite stale after the World Cup and a 5-4-4 record this year. There is no inventiveness on the pitch and his tactics have been eviscerated by opposing squads. Do credit Mexico on their win, however. Their "golden generation" has come to life and, somehow, a run at the World Cup semifinals in 2014 isn't out of the question.

But back to Bradley. In reality, second term coaches (1 term being a world cup cycle) never quite do well in their reprisal as managers of national teams. A national soccer team is a completely different animal from club competition in soccer and, for that matter, other sports. There are only limited times in which you have your players each year and individuals that are central to the national team may not be playing at all for their club sides. Just the length of time alone does away with continuity. There's no "rebuilding season" or even "relegation battle." Other examples abound: Bruce Arena (2003-2006, early exit from 2006), Marcelo Lippi (Italian champions in 2006, eliminated in group stage in 2010), Sven Goran Erickson (English team became stale and lost flair in 2006).

So it's a new beginning for US Soccer. Who will be our coach? Juergen Klinsmann? Guus Hiddink? Sigi Schmid? Jason Kreis? Carlo Ancelotti? Marcelo Lippi? Claudio Reyna? All good candidates but my preference is a foreign coach right now. Someone that understands the larger scale of things. Jason Kreis is food for thought but I'd like him to have a few more titles and seasons with Real Salt Lake. Right now is too soon for the international arena. Collegiate experience, such as Arena had as a coach in college soccer, can only take us so far since a vast majority of our players are now in world-renowned teams and leagues. Arena and Bradley took this style of coaching to its very limit and with pleasant results. But a new line of thinking is needed.

So, we bid you adieu, Coach Bradley. You made us proud and made us believe. You brought us exhilaration, consolation and fantasy. We thank you for your hard work and we know you'll succeed wherever you go. No hard feelings either. Sometimes you just have to say "time's up."

The Good Son: Wayne Rooney's dilema

Incredible turnaround for a star in peril. I divert my attention from US Soccer to talk about more immediate international happenings. This blog entry is about Wayne Rooney. This has been a rough season for the English soccer superstar. Once the king of fantasy Premier League, the man has been relegated to the bench and/or dropped from squads completely. In life, he had a mediocre, at best, World Cup, and his EPL season has shown little of his wealth of talent.

Manchester United, undisputed kings of world soccer a few years back, has also lost its grip on the European scene. Is this due to the loss of Cristiano Ronaldo and Carlos Tevez? Is the injury to Antonio Valencia also influencing the team's performance? Sir Alex Ferguson looks nowhere near as concerned when his team ties a team like West Brom. Not the way he would have reacted in 2008, right?

So where does Rooney figure into all of this? He is/was the prodigal son of English football throughout the 2000s decade. His red card in 2006's quarterfinal versus Portugal possibly influenced the outcome of that match: Portugal win. In 2010 he failed to score and his chances were few and far between. In the 2009/2010 season, Rooney played scintillating soccer and defenses couldn't stop him. In 2010, there have been quite a few matches in which his role was reduced to a cameo appearance.

Then comes word that Rooney wants to leave Man. U., that Real Madrid and Manchester City are seeking to acquire him, that Sir Alex Ferguson concedes the player doesn't feel at home with the "Red Devils." The fans parked in front of his house and demanded answers. Is he really leaving. Is he really going to play for the "Citizens?" Wow.

But, as often happens in the world of football, a final decision was made with pen and paper. Yes, Rooney signed a new contract with Manchester United for a five-year deal. If he wants to leave it will be a high price. If he stays, he better rekindle his considerable talent. "Chicharito" Hernandez is waiting on the bench and Dimitar Berbatov isn't going anywhere. Without Ronaldo, United needs Rooney to step up to the plate and deliver as the franchise player. Nani can only do so much.

If all of this sounds familiar it's because we've seen it before, closer to home, with our own superstar: Landon Donovan. Yes, the most recognized face in US soccer history signed a multi-year contract with the Galaxy a year ago, thus foregoing opportunities overseas for MLS stardom. In retrospect it's really not a bad deal. Donovan doesn't need to strut his stuff abroad. He already showed what he can do with Everton, and certainly in international mode with the United States in South Africa during the World Cup. So, for Rooney and England, sticking with Manchester United is the best deal. England's #10 remains on home soil and United can continue to build around him. He's a good son after all.

FIFA referees and technology

Grow up, please. FIFA, as much as we love you and the tournaments you provide, it can be quite unbearable at times to watch our teams (or even our foes) lose out due to bad officiating. As ESPN commentators put it today, bad officiating can be quite costly for football business. A bad call on a disallowed goal at a major tournament may mean losses in broadcast and merchandising, public interest and less respect for the game. This last part I'd like to throw in since it's the more American viewpoint from passive soccer-watchers. "Soccer needs to change or people won't accept it here." I agree with the first part.

Aside from two non-calls that may have favored the US versus Slovenia and Algeria (no fouls or offsides in the disallowed goals by Edu and Dempsey respectively), there have been major faults in the system. Two major faults, both today, both with quarterfinal repercussions. First, in the England-Germany game, came a blatantly legitimate goal by Frank Lampard that bounced of the horizontal bar and a good yard behind the goal line before bouncing back out. We all saw it except for the officiating crew. England would have tied the score. There is goal-line technology now in other sports (and has also been tried in soccer). How can we not go forward with this at least?

The other event was the goal by Tevez that opened the score in the Argentina-Mexico match. Tevez was offside by several yards. If that wasn't offside then Edu scored from his own half, right?

Okay, so FIFA wants to maintain control and pace of the game. True, yes, but when 99.9% of the press, players, coaches, world ask for change, you have to give in. If replay and/or goal line technology aren't enough, then please please please put another referee behind the goals. At least they would be able to tell us if 1) Tevez was offside, 2) Lampard goal counts, 3) Henry/Maradona uses his hand to score.

So FIFA, hear us out. We want some change to have our sport back. Soccer belongs to the world, not to a board room playing God.

World Cup revolution: Italy and France crash out

There are critics out there that prefer Italy out of the tournament because of their overly defensive tactics. France was also downright sad to watch. Where was Ribery, Malouda, Henry, Toulalan? They were there in body but not in spirit. Perhaps the Raymond Dommenech situation or the recent underage prstitution scandal involving Benzema, Govou and Ribery overshadowed any semblance of a chance the Gauls may have had in South Africa. And Italy? Let's just say they were never young enough to get too far, not when a third of their players are over 30 and their star player (Cannavaro) is 36. Maybe they should have called Maldini?

Conmebol certainly has impressed. Barring a possible change in fortunes tomorrow with Chile, all South American representatives are already through. Concacaf also has its two major powers, USA and Mexico, through to the next round and in style. Mexico defeated 2006 finalist France and USA went unbeaten in group play and won their group thanks to goals scored. Let's not forget Asia. Their more storied sides, South Korea and Japan, also went through to the next round after overcoming opposition from mid-level European teams (Greece and Denmark, respectively) as well as African teams (Nigeria and Cameroon, respectively). Japan did it in style today in a dominating 3-1 decision over Denmark. They managed to score two goals from direct free kicks (what's wrong with Jabulani?). Oh, don't forget Australia (4 points, lost passage to next round to Ghana by goal differential) and New Zealand (unbeaten, three ties).

So what else is happening in this World Cup? One special thing location. Aside from Africa's failure, the different conferences have enjoyed the neutral location. Indeed, Americans are reported to have bought more tickets than any other country except for South Africa. They may not all be supporting team USA, but the various groups living in this country probably took up a large portion of the tickets.

One other aspect corroborating in this revolution is this: teams like Italy, England, and even Germany have leagues in which the majority of players in the dominant teams are not domestic. Inter, for example had only one Italian-born player on the pitch at the Champions League semifinal. Add to that the fact that the back line is made up of mostly Juventus players. Juve didn't have the best of seasons either. Oh, and England... why is Heskey starting? He hardly saw time on the field this past season. Germany's squad also relies heavily on Bayern Munich. You could argue that these players are tired from a very long season that included the Champions League final.

We can rest assured that there may yet be one or two or three more surprising scores in this tournament.. but how's this: Slovakia 3 - Italy 2, Switzerland 1 - Spain 0, Mexico 2 - France 0, USA 1 - England 1, New Zealand 1 - Italy 1... we can go on. And yes, that's why we love soccer.

Two to Tango: Argentina and Brazil rule South Africa

Okay, make that three to Tango if we count Holland. Unless you have decided to watch baseball or the NBA or the Gulf spill, you probably already know that there have been upsets galore in South Africa 2010. Starting from the top: France ties 0-0 Uruguay and falls 0-2 to Mexico, England ties 1-1 versus USA and 0-0 versus Algeria, Italy ties 1-1 versus Paraguay and New Zealand, Germany loses 0-1 to Serbia, Spain loses 0-1 to Switzerland. Discounting non-traditional outliers (Mexico, Paraguay, Slovenia, etc), we are left with only Brazil, Argentina and the Netherlands. If we go, strictly speaking, with history, then Holland is taken out of the equation and we are left again with just Argentina and Brazil.

Perhaps this "disarray" is due to a non-traditional location for the event: Africa. Perhaps the game is much more competitive now and teams from powerhouse leagues like England and Spain don't really match up with international success. Maybe the players are too tired from so many competitions. Wait, nearly all players tend to see each other once or twice if they play in such prestigious leagues (Drogba, Rooney, Dempsey, Vela, etc.). Clearly, this isn't the way to explain it since it would be a worldwide phenomenon of lowered quality in the game. No one wants to slump at the World Cup, right?

Then there is the African nations. With so much power and a "home field advantage," shouldn't they be tearing through teams like Australia, Japan and Slovenia? What's going on with Eto'o, Drogba, Gyan? Nothing. It's just that the teams as a whole just aren't quite there yet. More discipline is needed, perhaps, but haven't we been saying this all along? Aren't we always looking for a breakthrough African team that reaches the semifinal or, why not, the final? Cameroon (1990) and Senegal (2002) left us wanting more. Maybe South Africa can still pull off of a miracle entry to the round of 16 (still possible) and evade the title of first host nation to be eliminated in group play.

So we come back to a natural conclusion, one that is supported by historical evidence. It's as simple as this: a team that is meant to win it all does not lose a game. Never in World Cup history has a winner lost a game during the competition. Ties, yes (Brazil-Sweden in 1994, Italy-USA in 2006, etc.). With that in mind we can also argue for Italy to have a shot still. But, we are left with two teams that have thoroughly defeated their opposition: Brazil and Argentina. Historically, it takes Argentina or France to knock out the Brazilians (this goes back to 1986 for perspective). Argentina, on the other hand, can go out any number of ways: Germany, Romania, England, Netherlands.

This has to be the most competitive World Cup to date. Most teams (excluding Cameroon and perhaps one or two others after tomorrow) still have a chance to advance. Most "contender" teams could be sent packing. This could also be a World Cup of firsts: the host nation eliminated in group phase is a first. Maybe wounded nations such as Spain and Germany can break the curse and lift the trophy. If that is the case, then they have mountains of history to climb as well as two formidable gatekeepers: Argentina and Brazil.

Blame Jabulani: USA ties England 1-1

Fate? Destiny? Defense? The ball? Robert Green? How about all of the above? This was the gritty, physical, disciplined match we had hoped the US would play. A bit of ball-watching by Clark allowed for Gerrard's early strike. I missed the goal and thought the worst when I arrived at my destination. Tim Howard was dealt a blow to the ribs and is questionable for the match against Slovenia. More tests are expected.

Rooney, Heskey, Lampard and Gerrard were relentless against the US defense, but Onyewu, Cherundolo, Bocanegra and DeMerrit made their presence known. England would not score again.

Then there was Dempsey's shot. A weak rolling strike to the right of the English goalkeeper. It should have been a routine save for West Ham's #1, Robert Green. Unfortunately for him, the Jabulani's trajectory didn't include his scooping arms. Green failed to get a hold of it and it rolled off his hands and trickled into the net. Green took his eyes off the ball. Not a good move. Was Capello right in starting him instead of Hart or James? Will Green play against Algeria?

The rest of the game offered more from the Americans as Altidore nearly scored a goal in an acute near-post shot that Green promptly saved (not enough to make up for his blunder). Rooney and Heskey had some clear shots that Howard and Onyewu saved. Onyewu was particularly impressive in this match. Given a good showing in the rest of the games, we can definitely see a starting spot for Milan or another top team (if on loan). He's only 28, so he's got another World Cup cycle still.

As I had stated in my previous post, this game was about dreaming and cellebrating Team USA. I watched it with 20-or so other US fans. Our screams filled the small confiments of a standard living room and the house errupted in cellebration as Dempsey's shot crossed the goal line. We had a collective, continuous heart attack that went through the entire 45 minutes of the second half. After that it was U-S-A chants, hugs and a feeling that we indeed have a quality squad. Slovenia is next. A win is a must, but we should be careful, this Balkan side eliminated Russia and they are capable of doing some damage. A tie wouldn't knock the US out but a loss would put us in serious jeopardy going into our final match.

Player ratings:

• Howard---------8.5
• DeMerrit--------7
• Onyewu---------8
• Cherundolo------6
• Bocanegra-------6
• Clark------------5
• Bradley----------6
• Dempsey--------7.5
• Donovan--------7
• Findley----------4.5
• Altidore---------6.5

Subs: not enough time on the pitch

Highlights:


England v United States

Mike | MySpace Video

To be or not to be: USA vs England

To win or not to win. That is the question. A tie or a blowout. In soccer, always a possibility. I will not dwell on pessimism and I will not build this up as the most important match the US will play in this tournament. Instead, let's celebrate the game for what it is: another chance to dream.

For some of us, this game represents another triumph for US soccer. Consider the amount of media resources covering this game. Consider the fact that major teams study US tactics to not experience the same as Portugal (2002), Mexico (2007), Egypt and Spain (2009). Consider that MLS is becoming a major force in Concacaf and that it provides quality players that work in important leagues (EPL, Calcio). Consider that Altidore went to Spain for $10 million. Consider how the British media is covering the likes of Donovan, Dempsey and Howard. Consider that the US bought the second largest number of tickets for South Africa.

We are a nation of dreamers and heroes. We lose battles and we win battles. We have a hard working team and we're confident that, win or lose, they will play the 90 minutes with the same intensity. It may be England that wins today, but US soccer has already won in the minds of fans. It will not be long before the US becomes a soccer power in the world.

We believe.

World Cup Memories: Slovenia

Unlike Algeria, I actually do have some experience/memories with Slovenia. The Slovenians actually made it to Korea/Japan 2002 although their stay was short and forgettable. Still, this time around the Slovenians are pitted against my home country--USA, and they deserve another look.

Korea/Japan 2002 was the only instance in which Slovenia made it to the World Cup. They were also surprise qualifiers for the 2000 Euro. The Slovenia FA is relatively young, having sprouted from the breakup of Yugoslavia early in the 1990s. In 2002, they were pitted against Spain, South Africa and Paraguay. Their opening game against Spain was almost a total blowout until they scored late in the second half and fell by 3-1. In their next game, they faced South Africa and fell by the minimum of 1-0. In perhaps their most interesting match, the Slovenians went ahead against Paraguay before the South Americans roared back with three unanswered scores in the second half. At the same time, South Africa was falling to Spain by 3-2. This mix of scores ensured that Chilavert's team would pass on to the round of 16 on goal differential, as they were tied with South Africa in points.

What's next for Slovenia? The US, England and Algeria. Considering the fact that they eliminated mighty Russia in the Uefa playoffs, it is conceivable that they have the material to handle US and Algeria, with England being a less likely source of points.

Be ready to see some important players in action for Slovenia: Hadanovic (Udinese), Bostjan Cesar of Grenoble, youngster Krhin (currently with Inter Milan), Novakovic (Koln),

World Cup Memories: England

Back to our World Cup memories series. This time it's England, the birthplace of football, home to the best players and the best league. However true this may be, they have won the World Cup on only one occasion in 1966. This time they are pitted against the USA and open group play against them. England has also failed to win the Euro championship, having only reached the semifinals in 1968 and 1996. Their win in 1966 is riddled with conspiracy theories but their victory against West Germany 4-2 stands.

My World Cup memories of this storied team begin with the first tournament in my memory--1986. This was the tournament of Peter Shilton and Gary Lineker. It was the tournament of Maradona's hand of God. It was a tournament in which perhaps England should have reached the semifinals. They were pitted alongside Morocco, Portugal and Poland in the group stage. A loss to Portugal in the opener sent shivers down fans' spines, but a tie versus Morocco and a win against Poland were enough to see them through to the next phase. There, they met Paraguay and dispathed them 3-0 thanks to a brace from Lineker. Highlights include Lineker's goal in the 81st minute close to a half hour after Diego's masterful goal as well as the infamous one. Lineker's header looked reminded me of Pele's in the 1970 World Cup final against Italy. We should note that Gary Lineker was the top scorer of that tournament with 6 tallies.

In 1990, England was keen to erase bad memories from the previous tournament. They were placed in the group that included Ireland, Netherlands and Egypt and won the group undefeated, winning one and tying two. Next they met Belgium and defeated them 1-0 in extra time. A similar nail-biting match awaited them against World Cup surprise, Cameroon. England was down against the "indomitable lions" 1-2 when Lineker struck the equalizing penalty in the 83rd. A second penalty in the 105th minute, again by Lineker, sealed the game. Their semifinal match against eventual-champions Germany ended in a 1-1 tie, forcing penalties. Pearce and Waddle missed their respective shots and Germany won the shootout 4-3. The English would go on to lose their third place match against host nation Italy. Schillaci's penalty late in the game served to give the Italians their consolation prize; it also served to make Schillaci the top scorer of 1990.


England failed to qualify for USA '94 and returned in 1998 hoping to rekindle the magic of 1990. France '98 was David Beckham's tournament as well as Michael Owen's. They were placed in the group that included Romania, Colombia and Tunisia. They lost against the Romanians but victories against Colombia and Tunisia were enough to qualify them for the round of 16. It gets interesting at this point because they face Argentina. Memories and feelings from '86 were still ripe. Beckham's red card played its part in the match. They were tied 2-2, went to penalties and bowed out of the tournament.

Korea-Japan 2002 would serve to re-energize the team. They were in the "group of death" with Sweden, Nigeria and (yes) Argentina. They would go on to tie the Swedes and beat the Nigerians. Beckham exacted his revenge and scored on a penalty to defeat the Argentinians. A second-round goleada over Belgium pitted them against Brazil in the quarterfinals. After going 1-0 over the Cariocas, goals by Rivaldo and a young Ronaldinho concluded their stay in the Far East.

In Germany 2006, they had an "easier" group with Sweden, Paraguay and Trinidad and Tobago. England has been unable to defeat Sweden in a World Cup and this time was no different. They won their games against T&T and Paraguay. In the round of 16 they faced an unfamiliar foe--Ecuador. The English media was outraged that it had taken a lone goal by Beckham (off a free kick) to defeat this "limited" South American side. Rooney would miss the game against Portugal and Scolari's team took them into penalties. Both Lampard and Gerrard failed to score and England once again went home in the quarterfinals.

What's next in 2010? The USA, Slovenia and Algeria. They have an advantage over the US in that several of their players are in the Premier League. This may also count against them, however. Slovenia and Algeria had more trouble accessing passage to the tournament and, as such, can be considered relative "minnows." Do remember that the Slovenians knocked out Russia and that Algeria defeated Egypt (African champions). We're likely to see plenty of Rooney (arguably playing his best soccer at the moment) and Lampard and Gerrard. If this sounds familiar, well, it should. England is in need of new talent. Will it be Walcott? Sean Wright-Phillips? Will the team be hampered by the loss of Beckham or distracted by the Terry-Bridge drama? We won't know until they play their opening game--against USA. We will build on this later.

Becks' PK in 2002:

Big Love: from Terry to Harkes

Who says there's no drama in soccer? And what about love and infidelity? Maybe some "Dream Team" action too? Yes, from England to the USA. Just recently, John Terry of Chelsea and the England national team has been sacked as captain of the England squad. Why? Extracurricular activities with Vanessa Perroncel, the former girlfriend of England defender Wayne Bridge. Ouch indeed. Should he be removed as captain? Yes, if it will cause turmoil within the team that will also cause distractions prior and during the World Cup.

Would England blame bad form in south Africa to Terry's affair? Probably. It happened before. Here, in the USA. Do you remember back to 1998 when Steve Sampson decided not to include John Harkes (captain at the time) in the US squad for the tournament? Apparently, this is what caused the three and out for the US. But why? An extra-marital affair with the wife of none-other than Eric Wynalda. Drama!

Now, I won't get into details but know this: according to Sampson and Wynalda, this caused enough of a rift to undermine the team's performance, thus leading to losses against Yugoslavia, Germany and even Iran. What a disappointment. I'm not sure this is necessarily true. Sampson wasn't ready for the tournament and the US needed a foreign coach to ride the psychological high from 1994. Scapegoating is just too easy in world football, and Terry's and Harkes' dilemmas are further proof. But, if England is distracted, this may actually help the US, direct rivals in the group phase. If so, American fans should cheer on the current events. Soccer analysts, both official and unofficial, will just be disappointed... but players are human beings, we must remember that.

South Africa 2010: the draw

The excitement began today. The party is underway. What will this world cup be like? Here is a quick look at the groups and who has it easier/harder and what surprises we can see. Throughout the time leading up to the tournament, I will post a more personal look at each of the teams, their structure, history, players and memories.

• Group A: South Africa, Mexico, Uruguay, France. It's hard to imagine France not winning this group, but 2002 proved that it could happen (loss to Senegal and ties to Denmark and Uruguay. You can argue that Mexico has it easy to be the second team to make it through. Uruguay is a dangerous team that can surprise any established squad. Then there's South Africa. Clearly the weakest African team in the tournament...but they are at home. Never underestimate home field advantage (think USA in 1994).
• Group B: Argentina, Nigeria, S. Korea, Greece. This group is almost a mirror image of the 1994 group that included Bulgaria instead of Korea. Argentina should win this group, but Maradona's squad has lost to much weaker teams recently. Nigeria struggled to enter the World Cup, but they have the history and the players to dominate any team. Greece is the new Italy, with it's superb, albeit boring, defensive style. Korea has the speed and agility to create chances.
• Group C: England, USA, Algeria, Slovenia. This is the "easiest" group the US has had in recent memory but I will give much more details on this on future posts. England should claim victory in this group, but they are prone to injury and much weaker without Gerard, Lampard and Beckham. Algeria is in a World Cup for the first time since 1986. They aren't a terribly strong squad but they have a certain African pedigree that could help them go the distance. Slovenia is arguably the weakest European team, but as they showed versus Russia in the UEFA playoffs, they have the ability to overcome stronger teams.
• Group D: Germany, Australia, Serbia, Ghana. Group of death #1. Germany is the strongest team, but they aren't too far ahead of the others. Serbia has history on their side but they match up equally against Australia and Ghana. The Australian "socceroos" have players in major leagues making the difference in those teams (Kewel, Viduka, Shwartz) and they aren't a weak team anymore. Ghana isn't as strong as they were in '06, but they still have dominant men like Michael Essien pulling the strings.
• Group E: Netherlands, Denmark, Japan, Cameroon. This is a fun group to watch. It could be considered group of death "light" since they are all quite accomplished sides. Holland are likely to win this group thanks to Kuyt, Snejder, Van Persie and company. Denmark is another strong squad that booted out Sweden and forced Portugal into the playoffs. Japan, like S. Korea, has the speed to surprise the opposing defense. Cameroon struggled to enter the tournament but they have the history of being a difficult team to play against.
• Group F: Italy, Paraguay, New Zealand, Slovakia. A relatively weak group for the Azzurri. Paraguay should also be able to overcome a much weaker "kiwi" team and another weak European team. New Zealand is possibly the weakest team in the tournament, whilst Slovakia can be another toss-up.
• Group G: Brazil, N. Korea, Cote d'Ivoire, Portugal. Group of death #2. Apart from N. Korea, all three teams have a chance at advancing through to the next round. This will likely come down to scoring plenty against the Koreans for the Ivorians, Brazilians and Portuguese. It's also about getting a result against the stronger teams. Portugal is one of the few countries that has beaten Brazil in recent memory. The Ivorians are one of the strongest teams in the world (Drogba, Kalou, Toure) and they could go the distance. Brazil is just what it is--Brazil.
• Group H: Spain, Switzerland, Honduras, Chile. Spain is the best team on the planet and I can see them getting all nine points here. Switzerland are a bit of a mystery but with excellent players. Chile has a squad to reach the quarterfinals, given the right results. Honduras aren't pushovers anymore. Players like Suazo, Costly, Palacios and Guevara mark the difference.