Hey, who's got Super Bowl fever?
(crickets)
Yeah exactly.
I haven't run across one person that's especially pumped up for the proverbial "Big Game" on Sunday. If you're a schulb that's there for the NFL week-in, week-out, the Super Bowl brings nothing to the table. Extra lite beer commercials, a longer halftime, more useless pregame prognostications. All the stuff that makes the NFL insufferable at times.
If anything the Super Bowl is ultimately anti-climatic, unless you have a dog in the fight. Yet, we watch dutifully every year since it is a slice of Americana.
And then there's the week of media hype. Does anyone really read or watch all the Super Bowl stories produced this week? If anything, it's the only mega-event that the old media world can still justify sending staffers to Miami for a week. It's the Super Bowl, after all.
As reported last week, last year's Champions League final between Barcelona and Manchester United outdrew the television viewership of the Super Bowl worldwide.
Why do I mention this? Well, there is a break between the semifinals of the Champions League and the final, but unlike the Super Bowl the participating teams actually play games in the league before the big finale. So yeah, there's hype, but there are actual developments in the build up aside from what Peyton Manning eats for breakfast.
Even with my personal complete and utter indifference toward the Big Game, it does attract a curiosity factor around the globe. People that have zero interest in gridiron football, might tune in for just a bit. The NFL always likes to sell that the game is broadcast in 135 different countries in 30-odd languages. (Question, is the Bowl televised next to the over-night overseas equivalents of the Bullet Express, mmm, turkey meatloaf in one processor, or does it get big time treatment. In most of Europe it's airing after 11 p.m.)
For a larf, I thought it would be interesting to kind of pull a "reverse peephole" on this scenario and read some of the coverage from overseas about the game and the NFL in general, specifically in England where the league wants to plant a foothold by hosting annual games in Wembley Stadium.
The reason behind this is because as an American soccer fan, you're really hard pressed not to be influenced by the English game and as a trickle down effect, the English media. We read things written there, apply it and eventually it joins the unruly amalgamation that is the American soccer culture -- which contains a dash of everything from outdated English longball, Central American one-touch passing and everything in between. Again it's just another of the long list of reasons why soccer in America is unique in its development to everywhere else. Call it a sporting marsupial. (Actually, Australia might be the only real comparable country.)
What's the line from "Pulp Fiction"? It's the little differences?
You read a Euro-based NFL report and it's just a little bit off. Call it mayo on french fries.
This got me to thinking. Do I and other similarly America-based writers/bloggers/etc. come off looking the same? Would an Englishman read something here and hold back subtle chuckles?
Soccer does have a more unique vernacular than most other sports. Take the name alone. Soccer, football, association football, etc.
Or look at it this way. In the NFL an offensive tackle is an offensive tackle. We know what it means. How about in soccer? Sure we have the basics -- goalkeeper, defender, midfielder and forward, but then it gets a lot more complicated. Can you honestly say you can explain the difference between a winger and an outside midfielder sufficiently? Better yet, how about a wingback or a fullback?
And should it matter? Are we just splitting hairs? On the soccer field, the only real rule is you need 10 outfield players.
All that said, there are a couple terms I'd like to highlight and address their worth. It's not a huge list, but probably a couple buzzwords that either make us Yanks look like the biggest toolboxes in the world, or at least a little less savvy than we think.
Brace -- Most Americans don't know that it means two goals. I've tried using it in actual stories and drawn blank looks from people. I don't know the origin, but I like it. Too bad it's not more commonplace.
Clean Sheet -- Basically the same thing as a brace, but shutout works just as well and is more commonly accepted.
Pitch -- As an American, you really have to go out of your way to use the word "pitch" when "field" works as well. Pitch, almost more than anything else, makes somebody look more like the dreaded "soccer snob" than any other word.
Footballer/Hero-man/Hardman/Talisman, etc. -- I love this words, maybe because they're so unusually descriptive. These would likely take years before they'd get any traction or penetration in the States, but whatever, I like 'em.
EPL -- Here's our biggest read flag, and what to make of it? It's not even the official abbreviation for the Premier League, or at least not what the guys writing checks from Barclays want. That said, most everyone in the U.S. kind of, sort of, knows what you're referring to when you say EPL. So what do we do with it? Continue to use it and draw the scorn of people in England or go to another term that nobody in America understands? Guess we could just say Premier League, it's not like anyone will think you're referring to the Kazakh Premier League. Consider it a necessary evil, if only so ESPN can abbreviate for the score crawl across the screen. (Any suggestions?)
ManU -- This is a pet peeve, especially when sportscasters use it. You will never hear an English commentator use it, or at least I haven't noticed it. It's either Manchester United or just United. Is it that big a tongue twister? Then again, we probably both just about every club's nickname in the States anyway, so why single out only one?
Again as I said before, it's issues like this that make the sport such a unique outlier in the otherwise static American sports landscape. It's doubtful anyone in Manchester, Mumbai or Moscow are inventing new ways to term a five-yard illegal procedure penalty.
Other stuff:
* Call me crazy, but has anyone read anything during this whole John Terry/Wayne Bridge affair, that the odds of Bridge actually making the England World Cup team are fairly slim, or at least in question? Shouldn't that be a factor when everyone thinks Terry will ruin the Three Lions?
Yeah, Terry's teammates might purchase some chastity belts for their respect WAGs at any team functions, but I find it hard to believe the former "best friends" will end up in the same dressing room. Bridge is a fringe player anyway, do you think Fabio Capello is going to create an unwanted distraction that he doesn't need?
Unless Ashley Cole gets hurt, he's the England starting left back. If I'm Capello, I'm using, even if they're a step down from Bridge, Liam Ridgewell, Stephen Warnock, Paul Konchesky, Andy Dawson, etc. Bottom line, I'm not creating unnecessary turmoil over Wayne Bridge.
Terry remaining as captain is a completely different issue, but does England have another choice? (Looks like he's stripped of the captaincy Friday. Captain Rooney on the way? Nah.)
This is a huge deal for the media, but do you really think it'll derail the Three Lions, well, any more than their usual inability to cope with success?
* And what to make about the whole Eric Wylanda/John Harkes/Steve Sampson revelations this week? Is Wylanda simply a self-promoter trying to generate some cheap heat? (Possibly.)
Me, I'm not buying Sampson using the affair between Harkes and Wynalda's wife for the trainwreck at France 1998. I'm sure it created tension, but does it also justify the 3-6-1, the David Regis scenario and the inclusion of never-weres like Chad Deering and Brian Maisonneuve? Or not playing, a then spry young, Brian McBride until it was too late?
Sorry Steve, you're not getting a reprieve via Harkes indiscretions.
* Just when you think the world of soccer can't get any more bizarre, DaMarcus Beasley's car gets firebombed in Glasgow. I'm at a loss on this one. Are there really Drooge gangs running around Britain?
* As loyal readers know, the FA Cup just doesn't do it for me. For whatever the reason that midweek Spurs/Leeds game did seem to have more juice the usual.
* Great week for Fox Soccer, with mega standalone matches on Saturday and Sunday. It'll be weird once the Fox Soccer Plus kicks off, since most viewers won't immediately have access to it, meaning a couple less live matches each week, at least in the short term. What would people rather have, FSC HD or the second channel? And has anyone else seen the FSC ad touting an iPhone app?
Saturday:
* Liverpool v. Everton -- (Live, ESPN2, 7:45 a.m.) Let's be honest, do you think even Landon Donovan himself thought he'd ever be involved in this match and it's not on a "FIFA" game? But here he is, and you have to admit that El Landito has spurred on the Toffees recent revival, along with the increased performances of Tim Cahill, Steven Pienaar and especially Maroune Felliani. Do you really need me to outline how important this match is for both clubs? For Liverpool, a win here might make fans believe that maybe, just maybe, the club can maintain enough juice to finish fourth. Everton? The sakes are nearly as high, since the Toffees are playing for a Europa spot -- at best. But a win at Anfield is never anything to sneeze at. One thing to consider for Liverpool is that the Reds go to the Emirates four days later, so how much with Rafa Benitez hold back? Me? I'm not buying that Liverpool has righted the ship. Aside from a comprehensive 2-0 win over Spurs, the recent run hasn't been anything special. This could come down the influence of each club's talisman, Steven Gerrard and Tim Cahill. Both have the flair for the dramatic and Cahill has scored at Anfield in two of the past four seasons. ... Liverpool 1, Everton 1
* Bolton v. Fulham -- Finally Owen Coyle gets a palpable match for Bolton. Fulham hasn't looked good at all lately and struggled mightily in the midweek at home vs. Portsmouth. Simply, the likes of Erik Nevland aren't getting it done for 90 minutes. At this point what does Fulham have for motivation? Home form should keep it away from the relegation fight. Is the Europa League carrot all that enticing? Bolton, meanwhile, needs three points from matches like this to avoid the drop. ... Bolton 2, Fulham 0
* Burnley v. West Ham United -- Mido? Benni McCarthy? Did Gianfranco Zola stay up all night before the transfer window closed playing "FIFA 07"? At least they're warm bodies with a pulse and a Premier League pedigree. But have we ever since a player's stock drop as quickly as Mido? Is he the definition of a guy living off his "name" more than anything? ... Burnley 1, West Ham United 1
* Hull City v. Manchester City -- (Live, FSC, 10 a.m.) Hull City have allowed a league-high 49 goals. That number, incredibly, could be higher if not for Boaz Myhill. IF that doesn't mean anything to you, at least consider he is the most famous person on planet earth named Boaz. He should tested plenty against City, which now has less of a headache of playing time at striker now that Robinho and Benjani are out of the mix. This might be a good opportunity for Jozy Altidore, should City finally field Patrick Vieira, right? Then again, Altidore still has to fend off the international house of crazy named strikers with Jan Venegoor of Hesselink and Amr Zaky in the fold. ... Hull City 1, Man City 2
* Manchester United v. Portsmouth -- (Live, Setanta, 9:45 a.m.) Remember when Portsmouth used to give United trouble? That seems like a decade ago. I really hope David James writes an extended piece about the disaster at Fratton Park this season. Four owners? It just keeps getting worse and nobody with the power to step in and help seems to care. ... Manchester United 3, Portsmouth 0
* Stoke City v. Blackburn -- A battle of teams No. 12 and No. 11 in the table. If that doesn't get the juices running, what does? ... Stoke City 1, Blackburn 0
* Sunderland v. Wigan Athletic -- Oh wait, this one is even better. Since beating Arsenal 1-0 on Nov. 22, Sunderland have taken three points from nine matches. That's fairly impressive. Not sure why, but methinks Victor Moses to Wigan was a nice little move for the club. ... Sunderland 2, Wigan 1
* Tottenham v. Aston Villa -- (Live, FSC, 12:30 p.m.) I'll say this, somebody has to win this, of course, unless they draw. Funny that Roman Pavlychenko is still at White Hart Lane and captain Robbie Keane is now exiled to Celtic. That's Harry Redknapp for you. Curious to see how Spurs react in this game, knowing the onus is for them to take all three points to stay in fourth place. Better yet, where in the leader on the field with this team? Jermain Defoe might be the alpha dog, but does he make the guys around him better? As for Villa, I have a sneaky suspicion that their rivals for fourth might end up stubbing their toes and Martin O'Neill relatively tame bunch will pick up the pieces. Consider me excited for another round of Carlos Cueller's beard. ... Spurs 2, Villa 1
Sunday:
* Birmingham City v. Wolves -- For all the talk, Alex McLeish pretty much stayed the course with this squad, which isn't the worse idea in the world. It's weird how these two promoted teams fortunes have played out this season. Last season in winning the Championship, Wolves led the division with 80 goals scored. Meanwhile in placing second Birmingham tallied 54, a middling total, but the Blues allowed a league-low 37 goals. The conclusion should be fairly simple, though fans probably enjoyed Wolves season last year a lot more. ... Birmingham City 2, Wolves 0
* Chelsea v. Arsenal -- (Live FSC, 11 a.m.) Is this a big match? I'm not sure. After a 1-1 draw on Tuesday at Hull City, Chelsea's margin for error here got a lot slimmer. The Blues probably enter the match Sunday looking up at Manchester United in the table, amazingly. Kind of a weird thought, but considering Chelsea got its transfer ban lifted, does it mean this could be the last hurrah for the Terry-Lampard-Drogba-Ballack core of the Chelsea team? Are they making one last push before trying something different? Beats me. They're all still good players, but the shelf-live for the same core in any sport doesn't usually extend beyond five or six years. That said, Arsenal haven't had much luck against either Chelsea or Manchester United. The Gunners can't pass these teams to death. And as we saw last weekend, Arsenal needs a much more razor edge in front of goal to have a chance to win at Stamford Bridge. If I had to lodge one guess, Arsenal devotes so much time to marking Drogba, that Nic Anelka steals a couple classic poached goals. Chelsea admittedly hasn't played great the last two matches, struggling at Burnley then the midweek match, but at home, in front of a rabid crowd, they're due for a big match. ... Chelsea 2, Arenal 1
Last rounds: 7-5
Season: 125-106
(crickets)
Yeah exactly.
I haven't run across one person that's especially pumped up for the proverbial "Big Game" on Sunday. If you're a schulb that's there for the NFL week-in, week-out, the Super Bowl brings nothing to the table. Extra lite beer commercials, a longer halftime, more useless pregame prognostications. All the stuff that makes the NFL insufferable at times.
If anything the Super Bowl is ultimately anti-climatic, unless you have a dog in the fight. Yet, we watch dutifully every year since it is a slice of Americana.
And then there's the week of media hype. Does anyone really read or watch all the Super Bowl stories produced this week? If anything, it's the only mega-event that the old media world can still justify sending staffers to Miami for a week. It's the Super Bowl, after all.
As reported last week, last year's Champions League final between Barcelona and Manchester United outdrew the television viewership of the Super Bowl worldwide.
Why do I mention this? Well, there is a break between the semifinals of the Champions League and the final, but unlike the Super Bowl the participating teams actually play games in the league before the big finale. So yeah, there's hype, but there are actual developments in the build up aside from what Peyton Manning eats for breakfast.
Even with my personal complete and utter indifference toward the Big Game, it does attract a curiosity factor around the globe. People that have zero interest in gridiron football, might tune in for just a bit. The NFL always likes to sell that the game is broadcast in 135 different countries in 30-odd languages. (Question, is the Bowl televised next to the over-night overseas equivalents of the Bullet Express, mmm, turkey meatloaf in one processor, or does it get big time treatment. In most of Europe it's airing after 11 p.m.)
For a larf, I thought it would be interesting to kind of pull a "reverse peephole" on this scenario and read some of the coverage from overseas about the game and the NFL in general, specifically in England where the league wants to plant a foothold by hosting annual games in Wembley Stadium.
The reason behind this is because as an American soccer fan, you're really hard pressed not to be influenced by the English game and as a trickle down effect, the English media. We read things written there, apply it and eventually it joins the unruly amalgamation that is the American soccer culture -- which contains a dash of everything from outdated English longball, Central American one-touch passing and everything in between. Again it's just another of the long list of reasons why soccer in America is unique in its development to everywhere else. Call it a sporting marsupial. (Actually, Australia might be the only real comparable country.)
What's the line from "Pulp Fiction"? It's the little differences?
You read a Euro-based NFL report and it's just a little bit off. Call it mayo on french fries.
This got me to thinking. Do I and other similarly America-based writers/bloggers/etc. come off looking the same? Would an Englishman read something here and hold back subtle chuckles?
Soccer does have a more unique vernacular than most other sports. Take the name alone. Soccer, football, association football, etc.
Or look at it this way. In the NFL an offensive tackle is an offensive tackle. We know what it means. How about in soccer? Sure we have the basics -- goalkeeper, defender, midfielder and forward, but then it gets a lot more complicated. Can you honestly say you can explain the difference between a winger and an outside midfielder sufficiently? Better yet, how about a wingback or a fullback?
And should it matter? Are we just splitting hairs? On the soccer field, the only real rule is you need 10 outfield players.
All that said, there are a couple terms I'd like to highlight and address their worth. It's not a huge list, but probably a couple buzzwords that either make us Yanks look like the biggest toolboxes in the world, or at least a little less savvy than we think.
Brace -- Most Americans don't know that it means two goals. I've tried using it in actual stories and drawn blank looks from people. I don't know the origin, but I like it. Too bad it's not more commonplace.
Clean Sheet -- Basically the same thing as a brace, but shutout works just as well and is more commonly accepted.
Pitch -- As an American, you really have to go out of your way to use the word "pitch" when "field" works as well. Pitch, almost more than anything else, makes somebody look more like the dreaded "soccer snob" than any other word.
Footballer/Hero-man/Hardman/Talisman, etc. -- I love this words, maybe because they're so unusually descriptive. These would likely take years before they'd get any traction or penetration in the States, but whatever, I like 'em.
EPL -- Here's our biggest read flag, and what to make of it? It's not even the official abbreviation for the Premier League, or at least not what the guys writing checks from Barclays want. That said, most everyone in the U.S. kind of, sort of, knows what you're referring to when you say EPL. So what do we do with it? Continue to use it and draw the scorn of people in England or go to another term that nobody in America understands? Guess we could just say Premier League, it's not like anyone will think you're referring to the Kazakh Premier League. Consider it a necessary evil, if only so ESPN can abbreviate for the score crawl across the screen. (Any suggestions?)
ManU -- This is a pet peeve, especially when sportscasters use it. You will never hear an English commentator use it, or at least I haven't noticed it. It's either Manchester United or just United. Is it that big a tongue twister? Then again, we probably both just about every club's nickname in the States anyway, so why single out only one?
Again as I said before, it's issues like this that make the sport such a unique outlier in the otherwise static American sports landscape. It's doubtful anyone in Manchester, Mumbai or Moscow are inventing new ways to term a five-yard illegal procedure penalty.
Other stuff:
* Call me crazy, but has anyone read anything during this whole John Terry/Wayne Bridge affair, that the odds of Bridge actually making the England World Cup team are fairly slim, or at least in question? Shouldn't that be a factor when everyone thinks Terry will ruin the Three Lions?
Yeah, Terry's teammates might purchase some chastity belts for their respect WAGs at any team functions, but I find it hard to believe the former "best friends" will end up in the same dressing room. Bridge is a fringe player anyway, do you think Fabio Capello is going to create an unwanted distraction that he doesn't need?
Unless Ashley Cole gets hurt, he's the England starting left back. If I'm Capello, I'm using, even if they're a step down from Bridge, Liam Ridgewell, Stephen Warnock, Paul Konchesky, Andy Dawson, etc. Bottom line, I'm not creating unnecessary turmoil over Wayne Bridge.
Terry remaining as captain is a completely different issue, but does England have another choice? (Looks like he's stripped of the captaincy Friday. Captain Rooney on the way? Nah.)
This is a huge deal for the media, but do you really think it'll derail the Three Lions, well, any more than their usual inability to cope with success?
* And what to make about the whole Eric Wylanda/John Harkes/Steve Sampson revelations this week? Is Wylanda simply a self-promoter trying to generate some cheap heat? (Possibly.)
Me, I'm not buying Sampson using the affair between Harkes and Wynalda's wife for the trainwreck at France 1998. I'm sure it created tension, but does it also justify the 3-6-1, the David Regis scenario and the inclusion of never-weres like Chad Deering and Brian Maisonneuve? Or not playing, a then spry young, Brian McBride until it was too late?
Sorry Steve, you're not getting a reprieve via Harkes indiscretions.
* Just when you think the world of soccer can't get any more bizarre, DaMarcus Beasley's car gets firebombed in Glasgow. I'm at a loss on this one. Are there really Drooge gangs running around Britain?
* As loyal readers know, the FA Cup just doesn't do it for me. For whatever the reason that midweek Spurs/Leeds game did seem to have more juice the usual.
* Great week for Fox Soccer, with mega standalone matches on Saturday and Sunday. It'll be weird once the Fox Soccer Plus kicks off, since most viewers won't immediately have access to it, meaning a couple less live matches each week, at least in the short term. What would people rather have, FSC HD or the second channel? And has anyone else seen the FSC ad touting an iPhone app?
Saturday:
* Liverpool v. Everton -- (Live, ESPN2, 7:45 a.m.) Let's be honest, do you think even Landon Donovan himself thought he'd ever be involved in this match and it's not on a "FIFA" game? But here he is, and you have to admit that El Landito has spurred on the Toffees recent revival, along with the increased performances of Tim Cahill, Steven Pienaar and especially Maroune Felliani. Do you really need me to outline how important this match is for both clubs? For Liverpool, a win here might make fans believe that maybe, just maybe, the club can maintain enough juice to finish fourth. Everton? The sakes are nearly as high, since the Toffees are playing for a Europa spot -- at best. But a win at Anfield is never anything to sneeze at. One thing to consider for Liverpool is that the Reds go to the Emirates four days later, so how much with Rafa Benitez hold back? Me? I'm not buying that Liverpool has righted the ship. Aside from a comprehensive 2-0 win over Spurs, the recent run hasn't been anything special. This could come down the influence of each club's talisman, Steven Gerrard and Tim Cahill. Both have the flair for the dramatic and Cahill has scored at Anfield in two of the past four seasons. ... Liverpool 1, Everton 1
* Bolton v. Fulham -- Finally Owen Coyle gets a palpable match for Bolton. Fulham hasn't looked good at all lately and struggled mightily in the midweek at home vs. Portsmouth. Simply, the likes of Erik Nevland aren't getting it done for 90 minutes. At this point what does Fulham have for motivation? Home form should keep it away from the relegation fight. Is the Europa League carrot all that enticing? Bolton, meanwhile, needs three points from matches like this to avoid the drop. ... Bolton 2, Fulham 0
* Burnley v. West Ham United -- Mido? Benni McCarthy? Did Gianfranco Zola stay up all night before the transfer window closed playing "FIFA 07"? At least they're warm bodies with a pulse and a Premier League pedigree. But have we ever since a player's stock drop as quickly as Mido? Is he the definition of a guy living off his "name" more than anything? ... Burnley 1, West Ham United 1
* Hull City v. Manchester City -- (Live, FSC, 10 a.m.) Hull City have allowed a league-high 49 goals. That number, incredibly, could be higher if not for Boaz Myhill. IF that doesn't mean anything to you, at least consider he is the most famous person on planet earth named Boaz. He should tested plenty against City, which now has less of a headache of playing time at striker now that Robinho and Benjani are out of the mix. This might be a good opportunity for Jozy Altidore, should City finally field Patrick Vieira, right? Then again, Altidore still has to fend off the international house of crazy named strikers with Jan Venegoor of Hesselink and Amr Zaky in the fold. ... Hull City 1, Man City 2
* Manchester United v. Portsmouth -- (Live, Setanta, 9:45 a.m.) Remember when Portsmouth used to give United trouble? That seems like a decade ago. I really hope David James writes an extended piece about the disaster at Fratton Park this season. Four owners? It just keeps getting worse and nobody with the power to step in and help seems to care. ... Manchester United 3, Portsmouth 0
* Stoke City v. Blackburn -- A battle of teams No. 12 and No. 11 in the table. If that doesn't get the juices running, what does? ... Stoke City 1, Blackburn 0
* Sunderland v. Wigan Athletic -- Oh wait, this one is even better. Since beating Arsenal 1-0 on Nov. 22, Sunderland have taken three points from nine matches. That's fairly impressive. Not sure why, but methinks Victor Moses to Wigan was a nice little move for the club. ... Sunderland 2, Wigan 1
* Tottenham v. Aston Villa -- (Live, FSC, 12:30 p.m.) I'll say this, somebody has to win this, of course, unless they draw. Funny that Roman Pavlychenko is still at White Hart Lane and captain Robbie Keane is now exiled to Celtic. That's Harry Redknapp for you. Curious to see how Spurs react in this game, knowing the onus is for them to take all three points to stay in fourth place. Better yet, where in the leader on the field with this team? Jermain Defoe might be the alpha dog, but does he make the guys around him better? As for Villa, I have a sneaky suspicion that their rivals for fourth might end up stubbing their toes and Martin O'Neill relatively tame bunch will pick up the pieces. Consider me excited for another round of Carlos Cueller's beard. ... Spurs 2, Villa 1
Sunday:
* Birmingham City v. Wolves -- For all the talk, Alex McLeish pretty much stayed the course with this squad, which isn't the worse idea in the world. It's weird how these two promoted teams fortunes have played out this season. Last season in winning the Championship, Wolves led the division with 80 goals scored. Meanwhile in placing second Birmingham tallied 54, a middling total, but the Blues allowed a league-low 37 goals. The conclusion should be fairly simple, though fans probably enjoyed Wolves season last year a lot more. ... Birmingham City 2, Wolves 0
* Chelsea v. Arsenal -- (Live FSC, 11 a.m.) Is this a big match? I'm not sure. After a 1-1 draw on Tuesday at Hull City, Chelsea's margin for error here got a lot slimmer. The Blues probably enter the match Sunday looking up at Manchester United in the table, amazingly. Kind of a weird thought, but considering Chelsea got its transfer ban lifted, does it mean this could be the last hurrah for the Terry-Lampard-Drogba-Ballack core of the Chelsea team? Are they making one last push before trying something different? Beats me. They're all still good players, but the shelf-live for the same core in any sport doesn't usually extend beyond five or six years. That said, Arsenal haven't had much luck against either Chelsea or Manchester United. The Gunners can't pass these teams to death. And as we saw last weekend, Arsenal needs a much more razor edge in front of goal to have a chance to win at Stamford Bridge. If I had to lodge one guess, Arsenal devotes so much time to marking Drogba, that Nic Anelka steals a couple classic poached goals. Chelsea admittedly hasn't played great the last two matches, struggling at Burnley then the midweek match, but at home, in front of a rabid crowd, they're due for a big match. ... Chelsea 2, Arenal 1
Last rounds: 7-5
Season: 125-106
Labels: Prem Picks, Premier League, Soccer
ManU is also a negative term that really irks Man United/United/Red Devils supporters. Apparently it was conjured up by Leeds fans (not entirely positive on that) after the Munich Air Disaster. There was some interesting discussion about it on The ShinGuardian, and from what I read I don't see how the United fans took it the way they did, but I'm not a dyed in the wool United supporter either.
This is an interesting and fresh American soccer culture vs. rest of world debate.
The first main issue is what audience the writer is communicating to. I assume you set out to write your blog to the niche ( intelligent) American soccer fan. One of the reasons I think people have flocked to your blog is the fact it isn't dumbed down to American Joe who is glancing at a soccer report for the first time.
Now let's say a bloke from Liverpool is across the pond on business and reads a Wahl or Carlisle match report of a Confed Cup game.... I think he is gonna read the report with an eyebrow up. Now I'm not ripping Carlisle cause I think he does a great job, but his bosses probably tell him to dumb it down for the average American fan. Maybe the writer for the London Times really knows the x's and o's of the cover two - but has to make it all weird to fit his audience who doesn't?
The next example I can think of is the difference in jargon/analysis used by a color guy doing an MLS Thursday Night ESPN2 game vs. FSC's EPL or Champs League or Ray Hudson doing a Liga game. To that same bloke from Liverpool ... The MLS call might sound as weird to him as a Ricky Rubio euro league game sounds to me when they occasionally pick up his games( euro call) on NBA TV (a 3pter is called a Triple).
My final point is I grew up in a sports culture I'm proud of and I'm not gonna change. I'd feel fine sitting in a bar( pub) in Manchester chatting with the locals about how great Old Trafford's field (pitch)looks compared to Soldier Field, how much I've respected Owen Hargreaves as a defensive mid ( holding mid), joking about the Glazers and how ManU (United)or the EPL( Premiere League) is looked at in America, and high-fiving the bar after a blast( cracker) from Rooney.
I often hear/read UK based commentators decrying the statistics obsessed nature of US sports and sports reportage. I can certainly see their point, but it seems like there is more and more stats and numbers in the Brit media as well. Does how far Kuyt runs in a match mean anything? Save the pedometer budget and get us the flying overhead spider-cam in every Premiership stadium.
This leads me to the thought that the name of the Barclays Premier League should NOT ever be shortened to EPL (or even BPL). Ugh, that is too long to type every time. Do I *have* to work the full sponsors name into it every damn time? What are you guys, NASCAR? I'm fine getting laughed at for writing EPL.
The anti 'ManU' thing reminds me of frat boys in college saying no one should say 'frat' because 'You wouldn't call your country a c*&t.' That is their rule that those insiders made up for themselves - possibly even with an eye on spotting the outsiders who mess up and use the 'wrong' phrase - 'ManU.' I also think Manchester United fans would like everyone to just shorten it to 'United' - as if their team is the *only* United in all of soccer. I bet that especially tweaks Leeds United fans - which is probably the point.
If this last one is a repeat, I apologize. Soccer. That is what I grew up calling it, that is what I am going to continue to call it. "His momma call him Clay ..."
The thought that the US suffers with a league and players of a lower quality than found in Europe or Sud America BECAUSE of the word 'soccer' is something I have heard - and it is ridiculous. Try this out the next time some ex-pat runs that on you:
"If using the word soccer is holding us back, I have a question. What do you folks in the UK call the sport where people run around a 400m oval, and long jump and throw javelins? You lot call it 'athletics,' right? Over here we call it 'track and field.' Since the US wins six or seven times as many medals in 'track and field' than Brits do every Olympics - do you limeys think the phrase 'athletics' is holding you back?"
Good read this week.
About a year ago my wife scored a brace in about 10 minutes for my co-ed team. For like a week I was talking about it nonstop, which meant since I'm stubborn with verbage I was explaining to everyone what a brace was.
Great post, Cardillo, and great comments, all.
Another fun term -- "New Boys" in reference to the newly promoted. Since we don't do prom/rel in any of our major sports leagues, thats a term we won't see cross over.
Same with "Six-pointer." Although in hockey, there's some relevance, but it lacks the urgency without having prom/rel.
I'll always call it EPL. F' Barclays.
Maybe I watched too much Bretos, but the term "Early Days" is another one I find intriguing.
Something I read: "Abrahmovich didn't need his millions or his mob ties [to get the transfer ban lifted]. He threatened to let Terry loose on their wives if they didn't overturn the ban"
Oh, I forgot the one British soccer term that kills me: Fitness.
Fitness means a ton of different things, depending on the context. It is like being 'a producer' in Hollywood.
Fitness1: Recovery from the physical ravages of injury. Is the calf muscle back to full strength, is the ankle fully stable?
Fitness2: Cardio-vascular capacity and ability to run/play at a high level for the full game. (This is the typical US meaning of 'fitness').
Used somewhat less, but this is the most confusificating to me.
Fitness3: A player's touch on passing, shooting and team interplay, after a lay-off or transferring in to a new squad.
Brace is a funny word. I thought I read somewhere on wiki that it comes from Cricket which would also explain why it's never used in the US. It makes sense to have a word for two goals if a hat-trick is 3 there needs to be something cool for two.
I thought Chelsea would be really active in the most recent transfer window since they had appealed the ban. It doesn't matter much now since the ban was overturned but why appeal if your not going to use the window anyways.