The Third Dukes

Nasty collision there. Henry is seeing stars.

Call me crazy if you want, but I love that ESPN is opening their coverage with highlights of both teams set to U2's "Where the Streets Have No Name". U2 = class.

bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha SportsCenter just did a segment called "the Top 10 Dives of the World Cup". I think Shevchenko winning a penalty by tackling himself was the winner.

But lets allow the diving Portugese and Itais to go unpunished! Wahey for smart thinking!

BASTIEN~!~!~!~!~!~! And have a yellow for taking your shirt off, moron. But wow. They should give him the hat trick.

Okay, time for one Ugly American's take on this World Cup. Feel free to tell me why I'm an idiot. I think the main trend of the World Cup is that coaches are afraid of taking a chance. It's amazing; you have all this world-class talent at your disposal and yet you play like you're trying to steal a point on the road in Stamford Bridge! While I and most of the US media (particularly Eric Wynalda) complained bitterly about the stupidity of Arena's 4-5-1, he was seemingly following a trend. Everyone and their brother was playing a 4-5-1 and keeping people behind the ball. The whole point of going from two points to three for a win between 1990 and 1994 was to make teams want to attack. Now, no one wants to attack. Of course, there's usually a good reason. I cannot remember there being this many dead ball situations in football ever. I'm old enough to remember 1990, and while it was pretty uneventful, it didn't strike me as outright boring. This has been painful to watch! I like football -- maybe not as much as you English types, but much MUCH more than the average Yankee -- and I can't stand this garbage. Offside traps, midfield battles, and everything else kills it for me. And speaking of dead balls, you have to consider the fouls. It's not just the fouls that exist -- the first few games were actually somewhat free-flowing. It was simply a case of teams realizing that, with 10 people seemingly behind the ball, the only way they could get anything was to hope for a set piece. So they tried Efor it -- a LOT. You pick on C-Ron (and, from what I saw against France, rightly so), but for crying out loud, it seemed like most of the teams were this way. I watched as much of Group E as possible -- five of the six matches, with only ITA/CZE escaping me for obvious reasons -- and the Americans and Czechs were trying to fight through the ball and get the shot off. Meanwhile, Italy and Ghana tried for fouls left and right. The end result was a penalty right at the end of the first half for Ghana that may or may not have cost the US a second round berth (deserved or not), plus Italy getting a second American player sent off (Pope) for a tackle WHERE HE PLAYED FOR AND WON THE BALL. When the Brazilians are attempting to draw fouls, you know it's bad. But that's what has come about. No one wants to attack, because they're too afraid of being hit on the counterattack, so both teams play this nowhere game and try to draw fouls. The best match of the tournament IMO was Sweden/Trinidad, because Sweden just went at it with guns blazing and Trinidad frantically tried to hold on with 10 men and pinch a counterattack. Sure, it was 0-0, but it was POSITIVE PLAY. Both teams were thinking they could win it. And that, more than anything else, is the reason the US hates football: teams play negative. This entire Cup has been about negative play -- draw fouls, stay back on defense, try not to lose rather than to win. With a lot of teams playing a pathetic 4-5-1 formation that basically strands the striker on an island and leaves him double marked throughout the match (no WONDER he can't score), the only way anything happens is from a set piece (cf. England/Ecuador). So both teams spend the entire time trying to get set pieces, and the result is this sham that we call Germany 06. And I'm sure coaches play the 4-5-1 because it allows them to say they've done something to impact the game. I saw this in the NBA and NHL: coaches began implementing offside traps and low-post double-teams and all this other stuff so that they could honestly say they weren't riding the players' coattails, and the result was an offensive drought so bad that both sports had to CHANGE THE RULES OF THE GAME to fix it! Why would you play a 4-5-1 with offside traps, pressing, and men behind the ball instead of putting your 10 best players (or best squad) on the outfield and telling them to go nuts? Because when you win, it's because YOU won, not THEM. That's the problem. In conclusion, a culture of arrogance has consumed the World Cup, from the coaches to the players. The coaches demand to be known as the difference-maker, and thus kill the game with excessive tactical decisions. The players then believe that they are smarter and better than the officials, so they attempt to draw fouls and win set pieces. The higher-ups have to be seeing this, but they cannot admit a mistake is being made by them, so they let it slide -- or worse, shoot the messenger. The end result has been a predictable and pathetic parody of football, with simulation and downtime the only thing breaking up the monotony made infamous by the Simpsons. So how do we fix this? We don't want to overhaul football, as much as some would like to. So what are the first steps? First, you need to change the coaching mindset. The best coaches are the ones who can decide what players to put on the pitch, then roll a ball out and get the hell out of the way. You're surrounded by the best your nation has to offer; these people know what they're doing; let them do it. Heck, I could coach the England squad and most people wouldn't know the difference because the team would put out 100% effort and talent on its own. Second, punish players for killing time. I have never known an injury that required a stretcher and could be walked off in the same breath. If you're so hurt that you can't walk off the field, but the minute you're on the sideline you're prancing about and demanding to be back in, that should be a yellow card. Barring that, anyone who is so hurt that he can't leave under his own power must stay off the field for a minimum length of time -- say, three minutes -- because clearly he can't be healthy enough to run around until then. I bet you won't see so much agony if that happens. (Oh, and one my dad suggested: anything where the recipient rolls more than once is an automatic yellow card. That is just not a natural response to a tackle under any circumstances.) Third -- and importantly -- demand positive play. I'm not sure how to do this without an overhaul -- some ideas I had, such as a half-point per goal bonus or no points for a 0-0 draw, I rejected offhand -- but the best football is positive football. Teams should be unconcerned with damage control and attempting to go full tilt. How do you accomplish this? Could you have all "level-on-points" decided by a playoff, as they were in the 1950s and 1960s? Make "goals for" the first tiebreaker instead of "goal difference", as was done in the 1970s? Do you expand the pitch to allow more running room -- CAN you do it without costing the clubs billions? Maybe it's as simple as going back to a 4-4-2 instead of a 4-5-1, or perhaps not relying on the offside trap. Maybe, if you let the players play and the coaches just step aside, that's all that's needed. The best defense needs to be a good offense. Stop trying not to lose, FIFA. Try to win.

So they spend year after year trying to prove that the Americans are dirty, and not only are they unable to do so AND get chastised for cheating in an attempt to prove it, but as soon as he leaves, every other contender drops out? Instant karma just got the Tour. HINCAPIE TO WIN!

My footballing hero? Well, here's one from left field: Paul Caligiuri. But as far as lifetime achievement, I'd go with Brad Friedel, probably the best American ever to play the sport.

Erm... forgive my American ignorance, but apart from being able to whinge to the referee, is there anything about that armband that isn't symbolic? I mean, at the club level it helps, sure, but when you're talking about an All-Star team, no one needs to be told what their responsibilities are, do they? Everyone who puts on the England shirt is a star at some level; therefore, they all know what they're doing to have gotten onto the national side. (The same thing has come up in Team USA discussions, where basically people feel Donovan should get the armband because he's the face of football, even though Pope or McBride would have seniority; never is it discussed who has the respect of the team, since it's assumed everyone knows everyone else to be the best and therefore respect is due.)

A couple of British guys we get in America, I wanna know if you've got any experience with them and if they're any good if so: Adrian Healy Seamus Malin Derek Rae Tommy Smyth (Yeah, Malin and Rae haven't covered the Cup, but I throw them in because they're part of our CL coverage.)

Something I'm going to throw out and see if it's possible: The referees have all been wired with communications devices for this Cup so they can all talk to each other. Is it possible that this convo took place? Ref: "Look, I don't know why you're upset -- the foul was the right call." Linesman: "Sir, from my vantage point, the bloke in white stomped on the player's <insert synonym here>." Ref: "He did? Well, that's a no-nonsense red card. The one pushing all the other players, right?" (Note: The preceding dialogue may not be 100% accurate, but the idea is what I'm trying to get across.)

So who's the favorite? Didn't all the favorites either retire (Armstrong) or get kicked out (Basso, Ullrich)? I guess Vinakourov is still the fave -- I dunno. HINCAPIE FTW!

I'm not sure if you realise, but a 'scouser' is someone from Liverpool.

Hey, let's watch Brazil/France. Brazil's a goal down and has all guns blazing. This could be a great finish.

Wow. John Harkes on commentary (who has EPL experience and therefore may be someone you might half-listen to) is absolutely ripping into Wayne Rooney, even using the word "scouser" to describe him and his behavior. He called Rooney a disgrace. Wow.

But who's discussing this 'in the grand scheme of things'? I seem to remember a certain US fan spitting chips after the United States were beaten in their opening fixture of the World Cup. Supporting professional sports is one of the few facets of contemporary society in which men are allowed (and encouraged) to display an emotional investment in something. I see no problem with English fans being heartbroken over the result. I know I cried when Australia were eliminated.

As someone who can recognize bad football and incompetent tactical decisions, having seen both in abundance while following the US in this Cup , I wish to say the following: 1. The reason most teams play a 4-4-2 instead of the 4-5-1 is because it keeps the opposing central defense honest. McBride was stranded for most of the Cup on an island, with two men closing in on him whenever the US attacked. The same thing happened today to Rooney in the first half. Granted, it also happened to Pauleta/Postiga. 0-0 was the deserved result, tactically -- both teams played a conservative formation. 2. Intentional or not, if you attempt to castrate someone with spiked shoes, you deserve to be ejected from any sport. Lemme ask: has there ever bee 3. Portugal keeps baiting the ref, but the refs in this Cup are falling for it left and right. Under the circumstances, it's almost acceptable. 4. Okay, I can't say that with a straight face. Portugal are divers. 5. Why did Sven remove Lennon, much less bring on Carragher? You brought Walcott for a reason -- he's a striker who gets paid to score. You're 2 minutes away from a scenario where goals matter. Christ, I'm AMERICAN and I can outcoach this bastard. 6. Rooney has a history of being a hothead -- remember his Champions League applause to KM Neilsen? I think this is a case of red card by reputation. Though, again, he stomped on a player's testicles. Hard. Every time I saw the replay I thought "red card". 7. Ironically, Rooney is likely to get off scot free for this act of violence, whereas Beckham in 1998 was the victim of the most blatant dive I've seen in my life and almost had to leave the country for it. 8. Either Ricardo is a godsend or England telegraphs all their penalties. Oh, and Carragher tried to cheat a lot more blatantly than anyone else on the penalty -- he could/should have been yellow carded for it (the precedent is there). 9. When you lost to Portugal in Euro '04, it was because Portugal cheated. Today, it's because Portugal cheated. It went to penalties both times; that's just bad luck, not cheating. 10. Calm down. It's only a game. It's not like 5000 people were murdered by fundamentalists in one fell swoop. (sits back and awaits angry flaming)

I believe it was muddatrucker who said that any conversation about bad covers needs to mention Nickelback's "Saturday Night's All Right for Fighting". But I may be misquoting him, so he can feel free to jump in. And yes, Britney did "I Can't Get No Satisfaction", which was wrong on so many levels it almost deserves its own thread. I realize Shatner did "Lucy in the Sky", but I feel we need to disqualify any Golden Throats entries, as they were clearly intended as jokes. Pearl Jam's "Last Kiss" took a tender 50s ballad and made it creepy, though I'm sure I'm in the vast minority when I say the original was better. Or in the vast minority who knew there WAS an original. And I personall HATE Manson's version of "Sweet Dreams", but I'm sure that's heretical to say.

Honestly, you should know by now that when it comes to things I like and dislike, I'm completely perpendicular.