SPAIN

Spain. We beat Spain 2-0. Seriously. Spain.



Spain is the best soccer team in the world right now. Without a doubt. It's such a stunning outcome, I don't even know how to react. Exactly two of our players play regularly in a top European (England, Spain, Italy) league, Clint Dempsey at Fulham and our keeper, Tim Howard, at Everton. Every single player on the Spanish team plays regularly in Spain or England. The only guy on our roster who might--might!-- make the Spanish squad is Howard.

Although I bet Oguchi Onyewu and Jay Demerit will get some serious consideration by teams looking for central defenders after this game. Spain spent much of the game unsuccessfully trying to cross the ball in past these two. The last half hour of the game consisted largely of Spain crossing the ball across our goal and one of those two heading it away. It's a nervy strategy, and it only works if one has complete confidence in one's central defense, it worked today.
And I bet Jozy Altidore will get a lot more playing time next season. He's looking good.

Peter Vecsey points out that the real benefit should come in the draw for the 2010 World Cup, where we should (finally!) be seeded ahead of Mexico.


Where would I put this on the list of US Soccer victories? #5. It's not higher because it didn't happen in the World Cup.

#1 USA 2-Mexico 0 in the 2002 World Cup: (a) we made the quarterfinals, and (b) we knocked Mexico out of the World Cup. It doesn't get any better.

#2 USA 3-Portugal 2 2002 World Cup group stage: Portugal was seen as a serious contender for the title. This game was personally outstanding because Schlamp was so tired he lay his head down on the bar of the Chieftain at halftime and napped. For me, this was funny. For Schlamp's immune system, this was a test. You don't want to put your head on the bar of the Chieftain.

#3 USA 2-Columbia 1, 1994 World Cup group stage: supposedly Columbia was going to challenge for the title.

#4 USA 1-England 0, 1950 World Cup: it happened a long time ago.

USA-Mexico: 2-0

Note the red card on Rafael Marquez (at 5:10). Why does this look familiar? Oh yeah....



(at 2:15) Marquez may be a solid defender at Barcelona, but still. That's his second straight red card when he plays against us. It seems he may be kept out of Mexico's next two games. Good.

Eliminate Baseball!

I like baseball. I like the Olympics. Baseball is going to be eliminated from the games after this Olympics, and I think that's great.

The Olympics are great because they're different than any other competition. I'm not really very interested in the pole vault, or swimming, but once every four years I care enough to pay attention. What makes a good Olympic sport? To me, it must be a legitimate world championship, ideally in a sport that gets little attention outside the Olympics. It should also be from a worldwide sport, i.e. lots of participants from many countries. Track is a great Olympic event because anyone can run and compete.

Under this rationale, baseball should be out. Major League Baseball teams do not let their players participate in the Olympics, so the best players (from America, Japan, Venezuela, Canada, Dominican Republic, etc.) don't play. The American team is all minor leaguers. Additionally, I think the new (and very cool) World Baseball Classic is going to become very popular. This will become a true competition between nations, like the World Cup for soccer.

I found this old SI article about the procedure for eliminating events. It's interesting reading. Golf did not make the Olympics this time. Golf would be almost as silly as baseball. There are already many, many golf events out there. It has a wide following, and hardly needs more exposure.

This is also the last Olympics for softball. I'm not a big fan of softball because, as one article I read emphasized, America is too good. It's not interesting if one country completely dominates.

Eliminating these sports also helps with limiting the size of the Olympics, a worthy goal mentioned in the SI article. I don't see a need to add any more sports; I think the Olympics would be better off allowing more countries to send athletes in existing sports. For instance, I think it's much better to let ten small countries send an additional sprinter or two, even if those sprinters have no chance, than to allow golf.

Galaxy

I went to the LA Galaxy-Earthquakes game last night in Oakland. I'd never seen an MLS game, and they had a good crowd, apparently the largest crowd in MLS history.

Beckham was quite good, probably the best player on the field. In person, you can see that he generally plays far wider on the field than anyone else. Everyone else would be bunched up on one side and he would be all alone on the other waiting for the ball. I would imagine that's because he's used to somewhat better teammates. For fifteen years he played at the best clubs in England and Spain, with better teammates, who are somewhat more used to using the entire field.

He's still an extremely accurate passer. He's got great vision and can pick out any of his teammates on the field, not just where they are, but where they will be when his pass gets to them.

Like the article said, he isn't very physical these days, or at least he wasn't last night. Maybe after all his ankle trouble last year, he made a decision to try to avoid getting hurt.

USA Soccer

We played England today and lost 2-0. It wasn't really close; England was waaaaaaaaaaaay better than us.

This is not necessarily an indictment of our team. England looked good. Enough to make one wonder how this team could tie Macedonia (Macedonia???) in 2006. (If I was the Queen of England, I'd totally fire the coach who couldn't beat Macedonia. Oh, wait, they already did that. Firing him isn't enough; off with his 'ead!)

I'm just happy that our national team is playing these hard games. England's really good. Next week we play Spain in Spain, and then Argentina the following. Those three teams in consecutive games are outstanding competition for us. I think we need to get tougher and more used to playing the most difficult teams if we want to advance farther in the World Cup.

Ranking systems

Ranking sports teams is inherently difficult. What is a ranking supposed to mean--the best team right now or the most deserving team over the course of a season?

The best way to rank teams is by playing a long season and declaring the winner to be the league champion. This is how it's done, for instance, in European soccer leagues. There are 20 teams in England, and they each play every other team for a 38 game season. Whoever finishes on top after the season is the champion. No playoffs, no Super Bowl; a team proves it's the best over the course of the season.

Baseball used to do this, before the playoffs were expanded. Now, mediocre teams routinely win the World Series while superior teams lose in the playoffs.

As I noted before, there's always lots of complaining about college football rankings. I don't think they're perfect, but given the nature of the system (120 competitors, each playing 12 games) they're pretty good.

Beckham

I like Beckham. By all accounts, he's a great teammate, a very down to earth guy.

Will he Transform Soccer in America? Beats me. He can't help but raise the profile of the MLS.

I pay more attention to soccer than basketball these days. I watch some of the Champion's League games in Europe, and as many of the USA games as I can. I haven't paid much attention to MLS, but I will watch next Saturday when the Galaxy play an exhibition against Chelsea.

Soccer

Most people don't follow European soccer too closely. I've started to pay some attention, especially this time of year, when spring training is boring. (As noted previously, I don't care about basketball.)

Anyway, I was reading something and ran across a guy with surely the longest last name in sports: Jan Vennegoor of Hesselink. Yep, that's really his last name.

Beckham is coming Los Angeles. I think it's great for soccer in America. He's not the player he once was, but he's still going to attract attention.

I wonder about that supposed $250 million contract. Surely it's not being paid by the Galaxy. It must include some fat endorsement money, i.e. Adidas (which outfits the Galaxy as well as Real Madrid).

The Sox are trying to sign a Japanese pitcher named Daisuke Matsuzaka. They bid $51.1 m-m-m-million just for the right to negotiate. Does the money make sense? I have no idea.

It sort of sounds like when Real Madrid signed David Beckham. Real Madrid paid $41 million to Beckham's old club, plus his salary. I read, though, that they made that money back in jersey sales immediately. Apparently Beckham is so popular in Asia that enough people bought his jersey that Real Madrid made money on the deal before he ever walked on the field.

Maybe it's the same with Matsuzaka. Maybe the Sox figure that they'll make so much more money on jersey sales in Japan that the actual cost to them is much lower. Or maybe not. Maybe he's just a really good pitcher. Beats me.

Italy, Czech Republic, Ghana. Oof. Still, it is progress that the Italian press is mad that they've been stuck in the same group as us.