For whatever the reason, soccer tends to lend itself to conspiracies more than any other sport. Yes, for years we've heard that NBA commish David Stern rigged the 1985 draft lottery so the Knicks would land Patrick Ewing or how writers like Bill Simmons trumpet alleged "fixes" with spotty referring to set up more television palpable matchups.
But while the NBA certainly has its shadier moments, the world of soccer lends to more crooked eyebrows than it probably should.
There are probably enough Manchester United conspiracy theorists out there they ought to consider setting up a merch booth in Roswell, New Mexico.
For all the shady goings on in soccer, expect plenty of fans across the globe to feel their country was slighted by however the draw for the 2010 World Cup shakes out in Cape Town on Friday.
Judging by the winds of public discourse, many in America think their is going to be a perceived slight against the U.S. and which group it lands.
Figure to read stuff like "Sepp Blatter hates America". (Why would he? The U.S. is still one of the few places left on earth that FIFA can still strip mine for major money.)
Most of this is probably due to the fact the U.S. landed in the toughest group in 2006 with eventual winners Italy, a very good Czech team and Ghana, which advanced to the knockout rounds.
If we look at the U.S. groups since it qualified for the 1990 World Cup in Italy -- it's first in forty years -- it doesn't exactly lead to places like lone gunmen and grassy knolls.
1990 -- Italy, Czechoslovakia, Austria. ... We'll never see three Euros in the same group again, but did that American team have any semblance of advancing regardless of where it landed?
1994 -- Romania, Switzerland, Columbia. ... Pretty fair, considering Mexico, Ireland, Italy and Norway were in one group and amazingly all ended on four points. It was remarkable how even the groups were in 1994. Look it up.
1998 -- Germany, Yugoslavia, Iran. ... The U.S. self-destructed here thanks to player discontent and Steve Sampson's revolutionary (read bad) 3-6-1 system and suffered the embarrassing loss to Iran. Hard group, but not outrageously unfair.
2002 -- South Korea, Poland, Portugal. ... If anything this was just as hard as 2006, since Portugal was a pre-tournament darkhorse and South Korea was playing with essentially a 10-point rating boost due to its rabid home fans. Guess what, the U.S. advanced.
2006 -- Italy, Ghana, Czech Republic. ... As soon as I saw this, I knew the U.S. was screwed.
Right now, a couple hours ahead of FIFA double-secret executive meeting where it will decide the seeding in Cape Town. (Think a room of middle aged, somewhat slow witted men, edging each other away from the buffet line, some wearing sashes. Could this group agree on a takeout order, let alone a World Cup seeding draw?)
Is it strange they'll waited until two days before the actual draw to determine how the teams will be arranged? Yes, admittedly, a bit.
Here's really all we need to know about the draw.
The potential No. 1 "seeded" teams are: Spain, Italy, Brazil, Argentina, England, Germany, Portugal, France and the Netherlands. That's nine teams, for seven spots since South Africa gets a seed.
So that means that one, potentially two, of the groups will be loaded, with two of the top nine.
Suffice to say, the U.S. doesn't want to be in this group.
Outside of that, the only way the draw might land in the "shenanigans" category is if South Africa lands in a group that also features the two rank outsiders to the tournament -- New Zealand and North Korea and if it doesn't get one of two remaining top nine sides. If the hosts -- who you figure FIFA wants to advance -- get in a group with one of the two minnows, well, start hanging the "I Want to Believe" poster in your living room.
As it stands from the U.S. perspective, outside of landing in a group with the two of the top nine, everything else seems fair game. And this would seem highly unlikely since the U.S. is ranked 10th according to this seeding system. Of course, said seeding and ranking system is about as byzantine as system as you'll find outside the BCS.
A good question to ask, is what exactly the U.S. is at this point? Or how is Bob Bradley's team is perceived by the rest of the world?
Is the U.S., like a mid-major team like Butler or Gonzaga drawing a Top four seed for the NCAA tournament? Dangerous, but eminently beatable?
Would countries be happy to land in a pot with the U.S.? Did beating Spain at the Confederations Cup change things? Or is the perception still that the U.S. is a weak sister? Would a "big" team walk away happy to have the U.S. occupying one of the other three spots in their group?
Is the U.S. worthy of a No. 2 level selection or more likely a No. 3?
More than anything, is it worth losing sleep the next couple nights worrying about the draw for the U.S.? I've said it all summer, the U.S. hopes likely hinge on the draw.
That said, we've seen the U.S. succeed when we expect it to fail and vice versa. We've seen it run off the field by Brazil and then give the Samba Boys a run for there money barely a week later.
Throw in the injuries to Oguchi Onyewu and Charlie Davies -- who says he'll be back for the Cup now -- and it's a total mystery how the U.S. winds up. (Not to be a coldhearted asshole, or at least anymore than usual, but rushing a guy back from injury and then throwing him into the World Cup fire is a recipe for disaster. Just ask England about this.)
Before closing here's my feeling toward the draw in teams for the U.S., the top nine excluded.
Teams I'd like the see the U.S. grouped with: Switzerland, Australia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Nigeria, Japan, Greece, Algeria, New Zealand and North Korea (except for the inevitably tedious Kim Jong II stories to follow, unless they include clips of "Team America.")
Avoid at all costs: Ghana, Cote D'Ivoire, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, Denmark, Serbia, South Korea.
I still wonder, like many others, has the U.S. advanced to the point in its soccer lifespan where it's fate at a major tournament isn't hinged to how a couple FIFA stooges pull some balls out of glass pots at an overly elaborate ceremony?
But while the NBA certainly has its shadier moments, the world of soccer lends to more crooked eyebrows than it probably should.
There are probably enough Manchester United conspiracy theorists out there they ought to consider setting up a merch booth in Roswell, New Mexico.
For all the shady goings on in soccer, expect plenty of fans across the globe to feel their country was slighted by however the draw for the 2010 World Cup shakes out in Cape Town on Friday.
Judging by the winds of public discourse, many in America think their is going to be a perceived slight against the U.S. and which group it lands.
Figure to read stuff like "Sepp Blatter hates America". (Why would he? The U.S. is still one of the few places left on earth that FIFA can still strip mine for major money.)
Most of this is probably due to the fact the U.S. landed in the toughest group in 2006 with eventual winners Italy, a very good Czech team and Ghana, which advanced to the knockout rounds.
If we look at the U.S. groups since it qualified for the 1990 World Cup in Italy -- it's first in forty years -- it doesn't exactly lead to places like lone gunmen and grassy knolls.
1990 -- Italy, Czechoslovakia, Austria. ... We'll never see three Euros in the same group again, but did that American team have any semblance of advancing regardless of where it landed?
1994 -- Romania, Switzerland, Columbia. ... Pretty fair, considering Mexico, Ireland, Italy and Norway were in one group and amazingly all ended on four points. It was remarkable how even the groups were in 1994. Look it up.
1998 -- Germany, Yugoslavia, Iran. ... The U.S. self-destructed here thanks to player discontent and Steve Sampson's revolutionary (read bad) 3-6-1 system and suffered the embarrassing loss to Iran. Hard group, but not outrageously unfair.
2002 -- South Korea, Poland, Portugal. ... If anything this was just as hard as 2006, since Portugal was a pre-tournament darkhorse and South Korea was playing with essentially a 10-point rating boost due to its rabid home fans. Guess what, the U.S. advanced.
2006 -- Italy, Ghana, Czech Republic. ... As soon as I saw this, I knew the U.S. was screwed.
Right now, a couple hours ahead of FIFA double-secret executive meeting where it will decide the seeding in Cape Town. (Think a room of middle aged, somewhat slow witted men, edging each other away from the buffet line, some wearing sashes. Could this group agree on a takeout order, let alone a World Cup seeding draw?)
Is it strange they'll waited until two days before the actual draw to determine how the teams will be arranged? Yes, admittedly, a bit.
Here's really all we need to know about the draw.
The potential No. 1 "seeded" teams are: Spain, Italy, Brazil, Argentina, England, Germany, Portugal, France and the Netherlands. That's nine teams, for seven spots since South Africa gets a seed.
So that means that one, potentially two, of the groups will be loaded, with two of the top nine.
Suffice to say, the U.S. doesn't want to be in this group.
Outside of that, the only way the draw might land in the "shenanigans" category is if South Africa lands in a group that also features the two rank outsiders to the tournament -- New Zealand and North Korea and if it doesn't get one of two remaining top nine sides. If the hosts -- who you figure FIFA wants to advance -- get in a group with one of the two minnows, well, start hanging the "I Want to Believe" poster in your living room.
As it stands from the U.S. perspective, outside of landing in a group with the two of the top nine, everything else seems fair game. And this would seem highly unlikely since the U.S. is ranked 10th according to this seeding system. Of course, said seeding and ranking system is about as byzantine as system as you'll find outside the BCS.
A good question to ask, is what exactly the U.S. is at this point? Or how is Bob Bradley's team is perceived by the rest of the world?
Is the U.S., like a mid-major team like Butler or Gonzaga drawing a Top four seed for the NCAA tournament? Dangerous, but eminently beatable?
Would countries be happy to land in a pot with the U.S.? Did beating Spain at the Confederations Cup change things? Or is the perception still that the U.S. is a weak sister? Would a "big" team walk away happy to have the U.S. occupying one of the other three spots in their group?
Is the U.S. worthy of a No. 2 level selection or more likely a No. 3?
More than anything, is it worth losing sleep the next couple nights worrying about the draw for the U.S.? I've said it all summer, the U.S. hopes likely hinge on the draw.
That said, we've seen the U.S. succeed when we expect it to fail and vice versa. We've seen it run off the field by Brazil and then give the Samba Boys a run for there money barely a week later.
Throw in the injuries to Oguchi Onyewu and Charlie Davies -- who says he'll be back for the Cup now -- and it's a total mystery how the U.S. winds up. (Not to be a coldhearted asshole, or at least anymore than usual, but rushing a guy back from injury and then throwing him into the World Cup fire is a recipe for disaster. Just ask England about this.)
Before closing here's my feeling toward the draw in teams for the U.S., the top nine excluded.
Teams I'd like the see the U.S. grouped with: Switzerland, Australia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Nigeria, Japan, Greece, Algeria, New Zealand and North Korea (except for the inevitably tedious Kim Jong II stories to follow, unless they include clips of "Team America.")
Avoid at all costs: Ghana, Cote D'Ivoire, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, Denmark, Serbia, South Korea.
I still wonder, like many others, has the U.S. advanced to the point in its soccer lifespan where it's fate at a major tournament isn't hinged to how a couple FIFA stooges pull some balls out of glass pots at an overly elaborate ceremony?
Labels: 2010 world cup, sepp blatter, Soccer, USMNT
I'd prefer the US to get a decently tough but manageable group. No one can take anything away from the run in 2002 because we had a moderately difficult group with a host nation and a tourney dark-horse (surpisingly the game we lost was against a perceived beatable side in Poland). Then we played Mexico, the US anti-christ, and Germany in the knockout rounds.
If we advance in 2010 I don't want people looking back and saying it was because we were paired with Algeria and New Zealand so we advance by default (unlikely since Asia/OFC will likely be grouped with CONCACAF). I'd rather go down swinging against the likes of Holland, France, Brazil, Spain, etc. Though, it would sadly turn a few US fans off of the sport for a while, there's no shame in losing to better opposition unless you play like garbage.
Worst case scenario: Brazil, Holland, Cote D'Ivoire, US. Though it would be fun to see a healthy and in-form Gooch go toe-to-toe with Drogs (as long as he's the Gooch of September 2005 and not June 2006)
Group I'd like to see: France, Holland, South Korea, US. France are tough, but beatable. Same with South Korea. Holland would be the class of the group but would their overconfidence come into play or would they expend all of their energy demolishing France for the right to be seeded next time around??? The three different styles that these teams play would be a lot more fun to watch than the CONCACAF parking of busses.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/internationals/8390084.stm
No Asian or Oceanic teams for the U.S. A seeded team, a European team, and a South American or African team.
This ends badly.
However, the BBC does include us in what is described as the "worst-case" scenario for England. Which is nice, I suppose.
I'm with Kyle, being in the pot with Africa would have been better for the US. That being said (ha), it's hard to argue that the US, or CONCACAF as a whole, deserves any kind of advantage from FIFA after recent performances in the World Cups.
FIFA announcing, at the last minute, that the seedings are based solely on their recent rankings and NOT the system that also weights in the recent WC performances that they have used recently escapes me. Why keep this process secret until the last minute? It looks shady as hell and what was the 'advantage' for FIFA? Was FIFA shuffling it around so Holland would be in pot one and France not?
Maybe, but that makes me wonder 'why?' Once the games start in June, these narrow differences are not going to matter as much as who is injured and which team is playing well. This whole process makes FIFA look duplicitous, but for very small (if any) benefit as far as having the star teams likely to advance. Assuming that anyone could agree if France or the Dutch are more of the 'star' team.
Seems to me that the negative PR garnered by this last-minute approach by FIFA would make them simply announce the seeding formula months ahead of time - except maybe that makes it harder for them to negotiate large bribes from every nation involved.
Mike, your question about the US 'advancing' to the point where who we draw is NOT the sole arbiter of our success is a good one. I suggest that almost ALL teams in tournament - save the top handful and the absolute bottom teams - are almost completely dependent on how the draw breaks for them. Nigeria is, in my opinion, a better team than the US - but they are still reliant on who they end up playing. Just as big is which teams end up in the group 'next' to yours. Nigeria (or the US or any other member of the upper middle class) getting past Serbia and Japan to finish second in their group behind Italy, does nothing for them if they are destined, in the round of sixteen, to face the winner of Brazil's group.
Unless you are one of the top five sides in the world, the draw on Friday determines a lot. Probably too much. But, I'll certainly be watching - which is likely the point.
Reading the BBC link, the US in the worst possible situation (which we were probably destined for)--the best team of the CONCACAF, Asian/Oceanic pot. Which means the US doesn't get to play any of those squads. So it's a seeded team, a European team, and an African or South American squad. That's a pretty thin needle to thread to get a group the Americans are going to feel positive about.
Part of me would like to see us draw England just because I can't imagine any other scenario where a nation would have more to lose with a loss and nothing to gain with a win than a US-England match.
Weird break for the U.S., but look at it this way...
If you're England, Argentina, etc., you're probably just as upset if you get stuck with the U.S. or Mexico compared to the other teams in that group.
As it stands today, I think the U.S. fate comes down to Pot 4. If they get a Switzerland or Slovenia, there's a glimmer of hope. If it's France/Portugal, break out the 2002 tapes.
After seeing the actual pots, is everyone else hoping that if not S.A., we end up in the pot with Argentina? Seems like definitely the weakest link as per current form.
I'd love to see:
Argentina
Portugal
Cameroon
USA
Fun teams to watch. Fun players to watch and you'd get enough of the teams beating up on eachother that each team would be "just one win away" from advancing.
If we don't totally luck out and get SA out of the seeded pot, I'd prefer to get Italy or Brazil. Italy because I think they're old and ripe for the picking, and Brazil because we tend to play them well when it matters, and there will be a bit more incentive after the Confed Cup final. We could probably steal a draw off them if we played our best. Other than that, maybe England, even though they're playing well now. I want no part of Spain again, or the Dutch or Argentina. They'll eat us up. Germany are Germany, they'll beat us 1-0 on a set piece even if we play the best game possible.
Pot 3, please no Ivory Coast or Ghana. The rest of those teams don't scare the hell out of me, though each of them could certainly wax us on a good day for them or a bad one for us.
Pot 4, none of them really scare me either, except maybe Serbia. We might actually be better off against the struggling big names like France and Portugal than the more disciplined and hungry smaller ones, though I'd rather not test that. We can beat anyone in this pot on a good day, but other than Slovenia and Slovakia, it's hard to say we should consistently beat any of the rest of them.
The competition as a whole looks really balanced. There are a lot of middling teams just like us below the top 8 or so, and not many scary dark horse teams in that group. Russia and Croatia certainly would have been if they had gotten in, as might have Egypt. As it is, IC and Ghana are the only ones who worry me a lot, though Chile has been hot through qualifying and could be in that category too.
Barring total luck with drawing SA, this would be a decent scenario:
Italy
USA
Algeria
Switzerland
A total nightmare would be
Spain
USA
Ivory Coast
Serbia
Seems to me that, unless we get South Africa - the top seeded team in the group isn't going to matter much. The USMNT is shooting for second place in our group so what we really want is that team from Pot 1 to stomp all over the other sides in the group.
Obviously none of this matters since it is a draw we (unless your name is 'Sepp') don't control, but Pots 3 and 4 are what will make the difference.
Jesus christ 30f!! You argued the exact opposite point a week ago RE: re-seeding prior to a draw in your mindless rant against the Irish.
Make up your mind or at least stick to bloviating about what you know.
Wow Brad. Not sure what I said (or bloviated) that has peeved you so.
Re: mindless rant against the Irish. I don't see it. Are you thinking of this post? If anyone can spot the ranting, be sure to let me know. I'll joing the anti-Gilette boycott.
The draw certainly matters. The 'none of this' that I was speaking of in this comment string was that none of our arguments, opinions, fevered wishes or complaints will make a difference to what balls get fondled by Sepp (heh) during the draw.