World Cup 2010 - The draw is settled

[Horza]

For the record, these are the groups:

Group A
1 South Africa
2 Mexico
3 Uruguay
4 France

Group B
1 Argentina
2 Nigeria
3 South Korea
4 Greece

Group C
1 England
2 USA
3 Algeria
4 Slovenia

Group D
1 Germany
2 Australia
3 Serbia
4 Ghana

Group E
1 Netherlands
2 Denmark
3 Japan
4 Cameroon

Group F
1 Italy
2 Paraguay
3 New Zealand
4 Slovakia

Group G
1 Brazil
2 North Korea
3 Ivory Coast
4 Portugal

Group H
1 Spain
2 Switzerland
3 Honduras
4 Chile 

[Renasko]

Come on Serbia!!

[ljkeane]

I want to add to this a point about population differences: The United States doesn't have to become so soccer crazy to start to compete with smaller European countries. We have such a larger population to draw upon, even if the sport never achieves tier one status, we'd be able to compete on equal terms with the Europeans and perhaps even Argentina and Brazil.

China, with over a billion people, is an even deadlier long term prospect for soccer strength.

I think it's far from guaranteed that population alone will allow the US to compete with the top level football nations. For example in cricket by that measure India should dominate but that hasn't been the case and in rugby the New Zealand should be far less successful with it's small population.

There are many components that go into making a country successful at a sport but I find it hard to believe that the US will consistently compete with the top teams without football becoming a major sport in terms of both participation and support in America.

[Padraig]

Ballack, Klose, Podolski and possibly the goalkeeper Adler (I've heard a lot of good things about him, but I haven't seen enough of him to judge yet).

See, I don't think that counts. Creating chances to score is what separates the solid teams from the lousy ones, but the world class ones are separated from the solid ones by the ability to actually convert those chances. If you "play someone off the field" and lose the match 2-1, it means you either got cleverly schooled by a superior coach or you're not actually that good.

You are right about Serbia. They should have taken advantage of their dominance. I wasn't trying to suggest that I think Serbia are world-beaters though. I think it was Kuroishi who said that Serbia weren't great and I wanted to point out that they did apparently give France a major scare in Paris. Not that I think France are that great either but still. :)

As for Germany. Germany have been depending on Ballack for a long time. Certainly a great player and this might be his last hurrah. But I wouldn't be scared of Klose or Podolski. They can be very hot or very cold.

To that I'll say this: the US will probably eventually win a World Cup and perhaps before it truly achieves tier one status in the US.

I wouldn't disagree. But not for a while. Certainly demographics are in its favour but it hasn't produced the players of sufficient quality yet. As Arakasi said, it is competing with all those other sports. Its the best and brightest that you want. Not the 4th choicers. And of course, these days, there are so many options for kids outside of mere sports. :)

And infrastructure is key. Getting kids early. Developing them...

[Horza]

Infrastructure and culture are pretty damn important and they take ages to cultivate. The US is building up the former but for the latter who knows how far it'll go.

[Zach H]

Soccer culture is definitely growing in the U.S., but a big part of the problem is that there are a lot of soccer fans here who aren't necessarily fans of American soccer. Mexico is probably the most popular team in the U.S. in terms of constantly filling stadiums, many people here watch Euro leagues while shunning MLS, and when the World Cup rolls around plenty of others join in on the spectacle and root for Italy because that's where their great-grandparenents came from, or England because of Beckham, or the Dutch because of their sweet orange shirts...still there are signs of things getting better. A nice buzz was created by the Confederation Cup run, and as MLS continues to grow and the U.S. sends better quality player to Europe things will slowly get better. For now the U.S. has to settle for being a relatively decent team considering how far removed the sport is from the national radar.

[Renasko]

Who cares about the US and other such places, when we have Europe and South America? More than enough talented players produced, thank you. :P

[Sir Thursday]

A lot of my American friends are really psyched for the World Cup this year. I got the impression when I was there this summer that there was a lot of anticipation going round, and that if things went well, it could be a major turning point for football in the US. Expectations raised by the Confederations Cup to the point that people will actually be tuning in with interest, that sort of thing. Will the Americans here back me up on this, or was that a false impression?

[TheEvilKing]

I want to add to this a point about population differences: The United States doesn't have to become so soccer crazy to start to compete with smaller European countries. We have such a larger population to draw upon, even if the sport never achieves tier one status, we'd be able to compete on equal terms with the Europeans and perhaps even Argentina and Brazil.

China, with over a billion people, is an even deadlier long term prospect for soccer strength.

Hahaha.

On a more serious note, I think USA v Australia would be a fascinating clash. Although very unlikely, unless USA upset England or Australia upset everyone.

I'm sure the US posters here would see it as an easy win, but Australia, while they don't play good football, are a tough team to beat. Their players have as much if not more experience in the top European leagues, and being the first team to qualify has given them a small but useful advantage in terms of World Cup preparation.

[Horza]

Hahaha.

On a more serious note, I think USA v Australia would be a fascinating clash. Although very unlikely, unless USA upset England or Australia upset everyone.

I'm sure the US posters here would see it as an easy win, but Australia, while they don't play good football, are a tough team to beat. Their players have as much if not more experience in the top European leagues, and being the first team to qualify has given them a small but useful advantage in terms of World Cup preparation.

We play pretty good football actually. Not great, but people seem to think we're some kind of hard-grafting rugby team that accidently got issued round balls. It's not the case and never has been.

I'd love a match between us and the USA as I think fans of both sides would walk away with a better idea of what their opponents were capable of.

[Alcibiades]

I don't mean to say that footballing culture and infrastructure doesn't matter; of course it has an effect on how strong your team is. But, where our population is so much higher, we don't have to become as soccer crazed as European countries to compete on their level. I think that small gains here can yield big dividends.

Say our youth structure and soccer culture are such that 15% of our youth get the same opportunities and chances to succeed as european countries. That would mean that somewhere around 45 to 50 million people, or only a bit less than the population of England. So even if our youth system is very poor (where a lot of kids fall through the cracks, don't care, don't have the chances), soccer is a secondary sport (say football and basketball combine to recruit 75% of our youth), we're still putting together enough of a soccer culture within the wider United States to put together a serious challenge.

The example of India and cricket is very interesting. It does seem to refute my point; I don't know enough about cricket to really engage with it. There might be some sort of systemic problem that keeps India from reaching its potential, despite population and cultural advantages. Where you guys say culture really matters, India would seem to subvert your position as much as mine.

[kuroishi]

You are right about Serbia. They should have taken advantage of their dominance. I wasn't trying to suggest that I think Serbia are world-beaters though. I think it was Kuroishi who said that Serbia weren't great and I wanted to point out that they did apparently give France a major scare in Paris. Not that I think France are that great either but still. :)

Well my opinion on Serbia is actually the same as yours I think. They are able to regularly beat "weaker" opponents (which is very important of course in modern football, especially in qualification rounds, and which France for instance wasn't able to do in the past 2 years), but I doubt that they are able to rise up their form to beat "great" teams playing a decent football. In their group, they should be able to have interesting games vs Australia and Ghana (but I really think that these will be balanced games), but they shouldn't be able to beat a well-behaving Germany.

[Lord of Oop North]

Regarding football infrastructure and culture, I wouldn't be surprised to see Canada take a big jump in the world rankings in the next 20 or so years. I think we were ranked at about 40 in the late nineties, and I believe we are around 60 today.

MLS is very, very popular here in Toronto. It is a constant sell out, and I think that the owners are regretting not building a much larger stadium. My understanding is that the MLS expansion franchise in Montreal is also expected to be a big draw. Besides that, many young people play football and love football. World Cup, Euro Cup, etc. are all known for essentially shutting down sections of Toronto during their runs. Tons of new fields are being constructed in the city, and its' suburbs. Besides that, consistent immigration and the continuing inaffordability of hockey for many families can only be expected to enhance the popularity of the sport.

The only issue, in my opinion, is figuring out a way to get the children of immigrants to start cheering for their national team, rather than the team of their 'homeland'. They somehow managed to do that with the Toronto FC, but I'm not sure how you would replicate that on a national level. I expect that a Canadian qualification in a hypothetical future World Cup (like in '86) would do a lot to turn that around.

Don't underestimate us!

-

ETA:

As for the groups ... shit. Brasil AND Portugal in one group? Damn.

[Alcibiades]

MLS is very, very popular here in Toronto.

I really want to visit BMO field at some point. I've heard it has fantastic atmosphere. From the pics I've seen, it has a great view of the Toronto skyline to boot. The Revs here are really hurt by the use of Gillette stadium. Not only is it a massive cavern, but it is a good 45 minute drive from Boston. Supposedly there are plans in the works for a new facility in Somerville on the Orange line, but who knows if that'll ever happen.

[BLU-RAY]

A lot of my American friends are really psyched for the World Cup this year. I got the impression when I was there this summer that there was a lot of anticipation going round, and that if things went well, it could be a major turning point for football in the US. Expectations raised by the Confederations Cup to the point that people will actually be tuning in with interest, that sort of thing. Will the Americans here back me up on this, or was that a false impression?

Pretty accurate. I follow a lot of sports media, and several different sports, and I've never seen this much interest in soccer from the American public, and more critically, from the American sports media. Soccer used to be a sideshow; when the national team would play in a competition, SportsCenter (the flagship sports highlight show) would trot out Eric Wynalda, he'd make some inane comments, and they'd move on, and that would be it. Now, European leagues will sometimes get highlights in the "Top 10 plays of the day/week/whatever", there's pretty comprehensive coverage available, and all of the important media outlets will cover the National team, and occasional MLS stuff. It's heartening.

[Padraig]

Say our youth structure and soccer culture are such that 15% of our youth get the same opportunities and chances to succeed as european countries.

I don't think getting 15% of the youth playing football gives you the opportunity you want. More specifically, you need 15% of the best athletes to play football. (Now some athletes are going to be better at some sports more than others but i'm looking at a more general situation). I'm not sure how the US system is set up (and i'm sure things have improved for football) but I doubt football is competing that strongly for the very best yet.

I'm not sure is the same level of investment put into the ground roots of cricket in India as it is in other countries. Besides, once a country hits a certain population level, you begin to hit the law of diminishing returns. 11 players make up a team. Whether you have 50 million or 100 million (or even a billion), it comes down to 11 players. Now having 5 million is a different story. Then you may not have the resources to produce 11 players of sufficient quality. Or if you do, its not consistent.

MLS is very, very popular here in Toronto.

I remember hearing about this. Things may have changed since, but I was wondering at the time that, given that support, imagine what would happen if Toronto started to win a few games. :P

One last comment on Serbia. I think a team like that can sometimes lack confidence. Croatia proved very recently, if you have the right attitude, you can beat a big name team or two. Hopefully Serbia can prove themselves. They do have some decent players.

[williamjm]

The example of India and cricket is very interesting. It does seem to refute my point; I don't know enough about cricket to really engage with it. There might be some sort of systemic problem that keeps India from reaching its potential, despite population and cultural advantages. Where you guys say culture really matters, India would seem to subvert your position as much as mine.

Coincidentally, as of earlier today India are apparently ranked the number 1 cricket team in the world for the first time. I think in general you are right that systemic problems have held them back despite a huge potential pool of players and money, they do seem to have a reputation for poor short-sighted administration of the sport.

[Zach H]

I don't think getting 15% of the youth playing football gives you the opportunity you want. More specifically, you need 15% of the best athletes to play football. (Now some athletes are going to be better at some sports more than others but i'm looking at a more general situation). I'm not sure how the US system is set up (and i'm sure things have improved for football) but I doubt football is competing that strongly for the very best yet.

Yeah, you definitely want your best athletes in the player pool, but one thing where an increased "culture of soccer" will help the U.S. is that the great athletes can start developing skills and learning tactics at the earliest possible age. The U.S. has already developed professionals primarily on the basis of their athleticism. Problem is that some of these players rely too much on sheer speed or strength and in turn struggle with such basics as the proper trapping of a ball. Then again, two of the most technically proficient Americans ever to play the game, John O'Brien and Clint Mathis, had their careers prematurely ended or derailed because of injury and fitness issues. I suppose the key is finding that balance, and thus far Landon Donovan is the best we've produced in that regard.

[ljkeane]

The example of India and cricket is very interesting. It does seem to refute my point; I don't know enough about cricket to really engage with it. There might be some sort of systemic problem that keeps India from reaching its potential, despite population and cultural advantages. Where you guys say culture really matters, India would seem to subvert your position as much as mine.

I don't want to get too in depth discussing cricket but the point I'm making is that there are multiple factors that go into making countries strong in various sports (and in cricket I think it gets a bit more complicated with different types of conditions). While population is one factor it's certainly not the only one and in my opinion there are probably several more important factors, I think Padraig also makes a very good point about which 15% of the population is committed to playing football.

[Master Aune]

When i think of a american fotballer that I see do good work is Fulhams Dempsey. He may not be the best of the best but he is one of Fulhams best players, if not the best. He scores some goals and is a very versital attacking player. If USA can produs players like him and better i think football can have very good furtmer in USA.