I doubt that you ever thought you would see such a heretical statement. Rest assured, it's only because matches - and we're down to the really important ones, required viewing really - are played at 1 AM and 5 AM here. Sleep patterns, as well as the liver that I hope will continue to function after World Cup season is over, requires a recharging of the batteries at some point. The World Cup, really, is two separate, related experiences. First, the orgy of all-soccer, all-the-time that we just experienced (48 matches, 18 days). It's far more egalitarian, and even with the stress of having your team play (and let me remind you, not very well if you're an American), it tends to be a more casual affair. Starting with Friday's matches, though, we start the second phase: we're down to 8, and what the first part offered in quantity the second (we hope) will offer in quality. At least, that's the theory. These are the matches you watch, rather than just observe; chatter tends to coincide mostly with a stoppages of play. The overall stress level tends to be higher, even if your own team has been sent home. The orgy of matches has been been replaced by the orgy of hyper-analysis and commentary. I love both periods.
We're down to 8 teams, and with the exception of Uruguay who (blessedly!) lost to the Socceroos in the match to determine the final spot of the 32, every World Cup winner is still alive. European teams tend to do well when it's played in Europe (and not when it's elsewhere - further evidence that we need to take the 2002 US performance with a rather large grain of salt), and with the exception of Argentina (still very much in form, and my favorite to win it all) and Brazil (no explanation necessary), every team still alive is European. The good showing of Mexico against Argentina - pushing them to extra time, only to lose on a wonderstrike by Maxi Rodriguez - may have saved the CONCACAF region (North and Central America, plus the Caribbean) a spot at the 2010 World Cup. Overall, the region's performances were pretty dire: other than Mexico (who still drew with Angola and struggled to beat Iran, 1-0, in the first round), the 9 matches played by the US, Costa Rica, and Trinidad & Tobago resulted in 2 points gained out of a possible 27. Ouch.
For those that asked, check out the following blogs: all are good, with worthwhile commentary and some pretty trenchant analysis.
New Republic's World Cup Blog - a blog by Frank Foer and friends. An extension (of sorts) of his book, How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization, with some excellent thoughts, plenty of (differing) opinions, and an obvious knowledge of the game. Certainly beats the "analysis" that I've heard attributed to the idiots at ESPN. Ugh.
Blogs of Bobby McMahon and Jaime Trecker. Both write (and commentate on the "telly", in McMahon's case) for Fox Soccer Channel. While Fox misses the mark sometimes, and have a few grating personalities (though nothing like ESPN's soccer crew, who in my estimation turn at least as many people off the sport as on), both of these guys know what's going on, and have some good original thoughts they don't mind throwing out there. Soccernet - despite being owned by ESPN - has some good coverage too...but that's what you would expect from a site oriented towards the international (particularly British) audience.
I'll save my "why ESPN is destroying the game" rant for another time, as well as a few thoughts about the ongoing debate/argument about the role of Major League Soccer in our performance (short version: along the lines of Trecker, I think that the standard has improved by leaps and bounds, but it's an absolute joke to argue that MLS prepares players the same as playing in Europe does.) To close, though, for those that are uncertain about the intricacies of the offside rule, I offer up an email that I received earlier this week. The "Offside Rule, explained for women:"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You're in a shoe shop, second in the queue for the till. Behind the shop
assistant on the till is a pair of shoes which you have seen and which you
must have.
The female shopper in front of you has seen them also and is eyeing them
with desire. Both of you have forgotten your purses.
It would be rude to push in front of the first woman if you had no money to
pay for the shoes.
The shop assistant remains at the till waiting.
Your friend is trying on another pair of shoes at the back of the shop and
sees your dilemma.
She prepares to throw her purse to you.
If she does so, you can catch the purse, then walk round the other shopper
and buy the shoes!
At a pinch she could throw the purse ahead of the other shopper and "whilst
it is in flight" you could nip around the other shopper, catch the purse
and buy the shoes!
BUT, you must always remember that until the purse has "actually been
thrown", it would be plain wrong for you to be in front of the other
shopper and you would be OFFSIDE!



