tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-151913302024-03-07T14:30:29.291-05:00All Things KenReading Journal, Disc Golf Scores, and other things that don't seem to fit on my web site.Kenneth R. Morefieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02492954693818444648noreply@blogger.comBlogger603125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15191330.post-26339095799357272952013-10-27T16:16:00.000-05:002013-10-27T16:16:01.668-05:00Leonard Cohen PlaylistThis is the playlist for Leonard Cohen at the Fox Theater in Atlanta on March 22, 2013.<br />
<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Dance Me to the End of Love</li>
<li>The Future</li>
<li>Bird on a Wire</li>
<li>Everybody Knows</li>
<li>Guitar Solo</li>
<li>Who By Fire</li>
<li>The Darkness</li>
<li>Ain't No Cure for Love</li>
<li>Amen</li>
<li>Come Healing (Back Up)</li>
<li>Democracy is Coming to the USA</li>
<li>A Thousand Kisses Deep (Spoken)</li>
<li>Anthem</li>
<li>********INTERMISSION******* </li>
<li>Tower of Song</li>
<li>Suzanne</li>
<li>Heart With No Companion</li>
<li>Waiting for the Miracle to Come</li>
<li>Show Me the Place</li>
<li>Anyhow</li>
<li>Lover Come Back to Me</li>
<li>Alexandra Leaving (Sharon Robinson)</li>
<li>I'm Your Man</li>
<li>Hallelujah</li>
<li>Take This Waltz</li>
<li>*****Encores*******</li>
<li>So Long Marianne</li>
<li>Going Home</li>
<li>First We Take Manhattan</li>
<li>********2nd Encore********</li>
<li>Famous Blue Raincoat</li>
<li>If It Be Your Will</li>
<li>Closing Time</li>
</ol>
Kenneth R. Morefieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02492954693818444648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15191330.post-52464700231389631602013-05-08T13:57:00.000-05:002013-05-08T14:13:00.257-05:00Dallas Willard (1935-2013)News was released today that Dallas Willard's body died today. He was an author, teacher, philosopher, speaker, and source of much wisdom for contemporary Christians.<br />
<br />
If asked to name the ten books besides the Bible that had the greatest impact on my life, I would not get to my second hand before mentioning Dallas Willard's <i>The Spirit of the Disciplines</i>. (Others, in no particular order include George MacDonald's <i>Sir Gibbie</i> and <i>Hope of the Gospel</i>, Martyn Lloyd-Jones's <i>Spiritual Depression</i>, C.S. Lewis's <i>The Screwtape Letters</i>, Jacques Ellul's <i>Reason for Being</i>, Tzvetan Todorov's <i>Literature and Its Theorists</i>; Alfred Hitchcock and the Three Investigators mystery series, Jim Aparo's Batman run, and Deborah Tannen's <i>Please Understand Me</i>).<br />
<br />
As is true of any book that makes it on such a list, <i>Spirit</i>'s effect was a combination of content and timing. One of the Zorro films had a line about how when the pupil is ready, the teacher will appear. That's the glory of books. I read a smattering of Willard while I was in college (mid to late 80s) but it wasn't until I found myself as a postgraduate teaching in a fundamentalist environment that I really begun to gravitate towards Renovare, which at the time was heavily influenced by both Richard Foster and Dallas Willard. The notion that there were alternate approaches to Christianity besides fundamentalism (and/or American political conservatism) was something I intuitively knew but had never had outlined. Willard's assertions--particularly that Americans shied away from the disciplines not out of some righteous, protective zeal for "grace alone" but because they did not believe that transformation was genuinely possible and hence preferred "gospels of sin management" [I know, that's from a different book] to genuine discipleship--struck me as true. More importantly, he was one of the few Christian thinkers or writers who didn't merely critiqued the modern landscape but offered practical, helpful, suggestions for action.<br />
<br />
From his books I learned that disciplines were not just for zealots and saints, were not marks of an extreme lifestyle, but were tools for working out your own salvation in fear and trembling.
From Willard's instructions I've begun to learn not to despise the little steps as they are the foundation for broader changes. I've learned to be more honest about what I see in my own life and the world around me, less fearful that each failure punctures the illusion of progress and perfection upon which so much fundamentalism rests its claims for superior righteousness (and, hence, truth). I've learned that doing something poorly is better than doing nothing that can't be done perfectly. I've learned that discipleship means not just being more righteous--though it does mean that--but also more aware of your own brokenness. Most of all, I've learned that nothing fuels hope more than change, however small, and that the source of so much of our despair is not that God has abandoned us but that we find it harder to see him when we won't or can't be present in our relationship with him.
I've learned other things from Dallas Willard, though I might not yet be able to articulate them or even know what they are.<br />
<br />
In Emergenetics terms he helped my "yellow" conceptualize God and the New Testament in ways that made sense and my "green" understand that there were and are concrete steps that I could take to improve my understanding. I thank God for Dallas Willard and pray that his work would earn him a "well done good and faithful servant" when God fulfills his promise sealed in Jesus for the resurrection of the body.Kenneth R. Morefieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02492954693818444648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15191330.post-17026051039474524452012-11-11T21:39:00.000-05:002012-11-11T21:39:09.294-05:00Goodbye, Galaxy I've quoted this before, and I will again, I'm sure. Azar Nafisi once said that leaving a place involves mourning (not just sadness) because you lose a part of your past, you mourn for the person you once were but will not be again.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The Galaxy Theater closed its doors this evening, and despite having a stack of papers to grade, courses to prep, ancillary duties to perform, I could not take one last evening to pay my respects. Cindy and I went to see Marjane Satrapi's <i>Chicken With Plums</i>, an appropriately wistful and nostalgic film to mark the end of an era.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The Galaxy Theater reopened right about the time I arrived in North Carolina to start work at Campbell, so it has felt like a constant in my life. When I first arrived, I had never been to the Toronto Film Festival, not yet written a review for Christianity Today. My personal film history was a bit more conventional. I spent some time trying to remember the films I had seen over the years at the Galaxy: Shut Up and Sing!, Jiro Dreams of Sushi, Honeydripper, Being Elmo, Slumdog Millionaire, A Separation, Bright Star, Offside, Made in Dagenham, Bride and Prejudice, Cheri, Tamara Drewe, Mrs. Henderson Presents, Wendy and Lucy, Lorna's Silence. I saw a special presentation of Kieslowski's Blue. I had a glorious summer of watching the World Cup (free!) on the early afternoon screens. Often times I had seen a film in Toronto and could not wait to share it with friends or family, knowing the Galaxy was perhaps their best/only chance to see it as I had on the big screen. It was at the Galaxy Theater that I first had Chai Tea and discovered I liked it, first saw a Bollywood film (Jodha Akbar?), and expanded my horizons.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The Galaxy Theater enriched my life...how many small businesses can say that. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It will be missed.</div>
Kenneth R. Morefieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02492954693818444648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15191330.post-55571838933781158372012-11-01T22:17:00.000-05:002012-11-02T07:29:37.250-05:00A Season of Silence on Social Media--Any Lessons Learned?About four months ago, I wrote the following note on Facebook:<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
</div>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16.483333587646484px;">It happened again yesterday.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16.483333587646484px;">It doesn’t matter that I’ve composed these thoughts over several days so that “yesterday” no longer refers to the same day, because it happens every day now.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16.483333587646484px;">Someone, a friend or casual acquaintance, posted something on Facebook that was a little bit inflammatory, a little bit aggressive. Or, to be more accurate, someone shared something that someone else had said. Someone else commented in an aggressive manner, raising the ante or leveling counter accusations. Sometimes these are from conservatives and the comments are from liberals tired of misinformation, obstructionism, or hypocrisy. More often they are from liberals (simply because I am connected to more liberals on FB, not b/c they do it more often), and the responses/come backs are from conservatives tired of exaggerations, distortions…other forms of hypocrisy. Sometimes my response is initial pleasure that someone has noticed a similar hypocrisy that I have, followed by irritation and frustration that there seems no quarter where people are measured, fair, impartial and using those observations to arrive at considered judgments and invite others to do the same. Sometimes I have that initial feeling right off the bat. Always, always, I’m left feeling that “I can’t wait for the election to be over.”</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16.483333587646484px;">Really, though, in the last three years, I’ve noticed less and less of a respite between elections. There is no offseason any more, maybe there never was. The day after an election, before an inauguration, there begins the process of undercutting as a strategy to position for the next one. Is this unique to the current president and the current opposition? I don’t think so.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16.483333587646484px;">So, yeah, so what? What are the options…join in or remain silent.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16.483333587646484px;">Silent…silent…silent…</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16.483333587646484px;">I’ve learned a little about silence in the last five-ten years. That’s not a modest understatement; I’m trying to be precise. I’ve learn something, but it’s been actually a very small glimmer of what I need to learn. What little I have learned has been in the context of and fumbling practice of the Spiritual Disciplines. I was introduced to the concept of spiritual disciplines through Richard Foster’s seminal CELEBRATION OF DISCIPLINE; though it was not until reading Dallas Willard’s SPIRIT OF THE DISCIPLINES that I felt I understood at least in part their purpose and role in our lives. That was extended through Foster’s SPIRITUAL FORMATION WORKBOOK that gave me a foundational understanding of the disciplines as spiritual exercises…the first time in my adult life that I thought of devotional practice not exclusively in terms of Bible study and natural, organic Christian maturity but also in terms of homework and exercises designed to strengthen or fan into flame the graces that God has empowered the believer to practice.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16.483333587646484px;">“Silence” is not listed as one of the chapters in Foster’s CELEBRATION OF DISCIPLINE but he has much to say about it:</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16.483333587646484px;">Quoting Bonhoeffer he reminds us: “Anyone who thinks that his time is too valuable to spend keeping quiet will eventually have no time for God and his brother, but only for himself and his own follies.”</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16.483333587646484px;">Of the purpose of silence he says (98-99): “Control rather than no noise is the key to silence [….] Thomas a Kempis writes, ‘It is easier to be silent altogether than speak with moderation.’”</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16.483333587646484px;">Very few of us have that control (to speak with moderation). I don’t. The discipline of silence is (or can be) a means to an end. By voluntarily imposing silence upon ourselves, we try to create a space where we can see how much speech, rather than truth, is used to try to gain control, have our way. Just as fasting from food makes us conscious of how much more than we realize our appetites influence our mood, attitude, and behavior, so too fasting from words can make us conscious of how much we rely on words to try to acquire, maintain, or oppose power.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16.483333587646484px;">In rudimentary attempts at the discipline of silence I’ve notice a few things.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16.483333587646484px;">1) It is almost always a harder discipline than we think. It shouldn’t be that hard to refrain from speech about something (or at all) for a proscribed period of time. After all, that isn’t even self-denial, it is just delay. But inevitably something comes up that makes us feel like, “This is an exceptional case that requires me to speak now.” Certainly there can be in this history of the world instances where our silence can have grave consequences for others and justice demands that we not withhold information. But how often in day to day life is that the case? More often it is we ourselves who benefit from our words, feeling better about ourselves (or our cause) for having spoken.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16.483333587646484px;">2) It makes us (or me, anyway) more sensitive to honesty. There are some people who are pathological liars, but I’m talking about something deeper than falsifying the truth. I think if we could step outside ourselves periodically, we would be shocked at how much and how often we exaggerate, shade the truth, or use words to create inferences that are greater or lesser than what a simple articulation of the truth would communicate. We justify this by saying it is necessary because “everyone does it” and “it is understood and so not really a lie” and “it’s not as though I’m lying…if they take it the wrong way [i.e. in the way I want them to take it] it’s ultimately in service of the truth.” When you are silent you feel (I’m tempted to write you are) powerless—and you long, ache for someone to speak the truth that you see and know.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16.483333587646484px;">Foster writes: “Silence is one of the deepest Disciplines of the Spirit simply because it puts the stopper on all self-justification.” I have found those words to be true in my experience.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16.483333587646484px;">Anyways, that is a preface to say this. Here is my discipline of Silence for the second half of the year. I am going to strive/resolve to hold silence in all public forums about politics and the American presidential election. Nor will I “share” posts that others have made on FB on this topic.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16.483333587646484px;">There remains just a brief couple of words to be said about what, based on past experience, I do and do not expect to (or hope will) happen as a result of this discipline:</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16.483333587646484px;">1) I do not expect others’ behavior will change much or at all. One aspect of most disciplines is that they are humbling. You may have grandiose and/or unrealistic scenarios where others notice and are inspired by your example. Spiritual disciplines are not tactical decency or indirect manipulation. In my experience with silence, others are simply happy to have the floor unopposed so that they can reiterate their own claims.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16.483333587646484px;">2) I do not expect that others will take up my cause (or the cause of me). One of the more humbling aspects of the discipline of silence is that it makes you realize how dispensable you are. The temptation to use words to defend or justify oneself (or one’s position) is so strong in part because it is fueled by the fear that nobody else will. Yet the reality of using words is that even if people do join your cause or affirm your words, it is never enough.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16.483333587646484px;">3) I do expect I will learn something. Most likely, and most frustratingly (in the past), it may very well be that I am little different from those whose practice I find the most annoying. That’s usually revealed in the more honest examinations of one’s own response to the question, “Why is it so hard (to not post this on FB, to not “share,” to not write the catty comment on someone else’s catty observation…)?”</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16.483333587646484px;">4) I do hope I may get some better sense of guidance or leading from God about how to vote. This probably sounds like a vain hope…possibly a counter-intuitive one. Foster writes: “To listen to others quiets and disciplines the mind to listen to God. Let me repeat that. Foster writes: “To listen to others quiets and disciplines the mind to listen to God” (121). If this hope is to find fruition, I doubt it will be because my own silence allows me to hear the wisdom of some others. Nearly all of what I see in public, social discourse about politics is knowing, willful exaggeration and distortion for the purpose of self-justification and rationalizations of one's own actions (that are often out of ignorance, fear, prejudice, or self-inerest). Being silent may not, probably will not, give me more insight because I value others’ pontifications and judgments more than my own. But it may turn my attention from poking holes in those justifications (or offering up my own) and towards that which is being said by He who needs not justify Himself and would (and does) speak to me when I am prepared to listen (but will rarely, unless I’m in severe danger, shout above my own voice in order to get my attention).</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16.483333587646484px;">May God grant us all light to see and wisdom to discern.</span></span></blockquote>
I almost made it. I voted early in North Carolina, so my election season was over. Since then, I'm reflecting on what I've seen (and heard). It hasn't been pretty.<br />
<br />
I don't say that intending to sound smug or superior. I'm sure I have been or will be as annoying to others as some have been to me. It was only by being intentional to abstain altogether that I've mustered any kind of ability to avoid some of the worst excesses that were pretty noticeable to me. As mentioned above, being silent, hard as it is, is easier than mastering one's speech.<br />
<br />
Some of my observations? Very little--next to none--of what my friends have to say about politics was well meaning, engagement oriented or particularly open. I'm tempted to write that very little was sincere. That's half right. I think people meant it sincerely when they expressed their indignation or contempt for the other party and its followers. I don't think they meant it when they said a question was actual and not rhetorical (such as, "How could a Christian vote for ...... ? I really want to know.)<br />
<br />
I'm not a single-issue voter, and I've always been a bit of a process/integrity guy. I had and have more faith in people keeping to the rules and going through a process than those who simply make claims of policy. That makes this a hard election for me, because doing things the "right" way, whether in debate, discussion, or methodology is a scant concern. Results matter.<br />
<br />
In such a culture, truth is a huge casualty. If I judged by my Facebook for the last four months I would be hard pressed to argue that Christians knew and took seriously the admonitions to tell the truth and not bear false witness. To the extent they did/do there seemed to be a buying into the notion that gimmicks designed to obscure or evade the truth were fine so long as they had some frame (however implausible) that would allow the speaker to claim that it was technically not an outright lie, however misleading it might be. This happened over and over again, about dates of plants closing, simple algebra, whether the president used the words "act of terror," etc. It's been depressing. Both sides do it. One side (in my opinion) did it more and more blatantly, but "My lies are less egregious than theirs" is hardly an endorsement. Voters (okay, this voter) found it increasingly hard to vote based on policy issues when, particularly in one side, I felt like I had to make educated guesses based on conflicting statements about what the policy was (or might be).<br />
<br />
It's human nature to give more credence to statements that confirm what we think we already know, so it was hardly surprising but still disheartening to watch how easily and glibly partisans dismissed questions or problems, inconsistencies or backtracks, confident that the other guy had been caught in a lie but their guy was always, only, tricked and distorted by the media.<br />
<br />
But I'm not even mostly concerned with outright fabrications or the increasing inability of people I otherwise respect to make distinctions between spin and substantive claims...I'm concerned about a process that by its very nature requires politicians to speak in code, to find ways of insinuating what they think and will do without actually saying it so that they can't be held accountable for their words. How can truth not be a victim in such an environment.<br />
<br />
Let me cite a few examples, and I pick them not because of which side was in the right or wrong. In the Vice Presidential debate, Joe Biden opined that an important reason to vote for his ticket would be because of Supreme Court nominees. Did voters want more judges like those appointed by Barack Obama or like those appointed by Republicans who wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade? Paul Ryan asked if there was a "litmus test" for judges and Biden said "no," just that the judges were fair.<br />
<br />
Raise your hand if you believe that. Anyone? Oh, I can believe well enough that nobody on the record, in front of witnesses, asked a potential nominee what his or her position was on Roe v. Wade. But there are all sorts of ways of asking the question without making it explicit. All sorts of ways of "wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean." The statement that there was no litmus test may be true under a strict parsing of what is meant by that term, but, really, if there is no litmus test, what was the point of Biden bringing it up in the first place? Wasn't he in effect saying, "Vote for us, because we'll protect Roe v. Wade and they will appoint judges to strike it down." That's fine, you can make an appeal like that, but you can't turn around and say, "But we have no way of guaranteeing a judge will do that because we don't ask."<br />
<br />
If you prefer another example with the roles reversed, in the third presidential debate Mitt Romney dismissed President Obama's foreign policy by saying, "We can't kill our way out of this mess." As an anti-war person, that got my attention. Not five minutes later, in response to the President saying some foreign policy matter was complex, Romney stated that his foreign policy would be "simple." He would, he said, "<span style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;">Well, my strategy’s pretty straightforward, which is to go after the bad guys, to make sure we do our very best to interrupt them, to — to kill them, to take them out of the picture." (</span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/us/politics/transcript-of-the-third-presidential-debate-in-boca-raton-fla.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/us/politics/transcript-of-the-third-presidential-debate-in-boca-raton-fla.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0</a>) It is hard, I think, to take candidates seriously if they don't take us seriously or the truth seriously. And it's hard to take supporters of either candidate seriously when they refuse to acknowledge the fundamental deficiencies of their candidates at any given point. How can one have a sustained discussion of the merits when we as voters have become the opposite of the girl in the story of the emperor with no clothes.<br />
<br />
Having been (or tried to be) silent for four months, I've found I want a lot of things. Campaign finance reform. Abolishing the electoral college. Insist that third parties be included in a number of debates proportional to the percentage of states for which they are on the ballot. What I don't want is more people to listen to me or engage me on Facebook. I didn't say a word and you somehow managed to figure out who to vote for just fine. I don't think anything I could have said would have convinced 99.9% of you to give your own allegiances a second thought, that the minute I had said something all gears would go into motion to think about how to rebut our counter.<br />
<br />
Am I wrong?<br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10.833333015441895px; line-height: 16.499998092651367px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10.833333015441895px; line-height: 16.499998092651367px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Kenneth R. Morefieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02492954693818444648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15191330.post-12883324468070166072012-09-05T17:12:00.002-05:002012-09-05T17:12:25.715-05:00Lies, Damn Lies, and Orioles StatisticsI don't remember my father reciting too many proverbs when I was growing up, but I recall one of his favorites being the old saw that "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." <div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Statistics, in other words, are not lies, but they can be manipulated in order to create false impressions. Statistics come with the illusion of objectivity, but their meaning is subjective, because they most be placed in a context in order to be interpreted.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I bring this up because the Baltimore Orioles have stayed in the playoff hunt long enough to get my attention. Part of why I haven't paid much attention is that I have been reassured, seemingly every day since the beginning of the season, that their success to date is a statistical anomaly that can't possibly continue. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
One of my firm beliefs is that we tend to accept evidence <i>as</i> evidence more easily when it confirms what we already believe. The Baltimore Orioles have not been in first place this late in the season since 1997. Most of my students were three or four years old at that time. I did not have a Ph.D. and was living in Illinois. I had never heard of Barack Obama or Osama Bin Laden. I did not own a cell phone. Almost all of my computer work was saved on 3 1/2 inch "discs." Brady Anderson was coming off a 50 home run season, and (yes, this was a long time ago...) nothing seemed particularly suspicious about that sudden increase of power. So, yes, of course, the Orioles would fade. They always do. (By "always" I mean, well in the last 15 years...)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Read enough baseball articles about the Orioles and you will be assaulted with two statistics, over and over. First, the Orioles have a negative run differential, meaning that over the course of the season, their opponents have scored more runs than they have. That usually means you lose more games than you win, unless, perchance, you win a LOT of close games and lose a lot of blowouts. Oh, surprise, statistic number 2..the Orioles have been very successful in close games, on pace to set a record for the best winning percentage in 1 run games. They also lost a couple of games early in the season by ten runs or more. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now the interesting thing to me about how these statistics are used is how they reinforce contrary assumptions. Those who focus on the run differential keep say, "The record moving forward will reflect what they ARE (which is masked by the anomaly of their past record)..a team that gets outscored." I'm reminded not for the first time of Bill Parcells's famous quip that "you are what your record says you are." Rather than believe that the record is indicative of what they are and the run differential an anomaly, pundits assert the opposite. Fine, but why? Isn't the true scientific method to try to use data to understand what is rather than to cherry pick the statistics that support your theory and explain away the evidence that doesn't? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Conversely, the record in one run games is considered to be an anomaly...they can't keep it up because history shows that they couldn't actually be what the statistics say they are...it isn't possible that they are that good at 1 run games. Eventually they will revert to the mean...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There is clustering in statistics, but reverting to an average assumes that all other things are the same. A baseball season is a long time. Statistically it is very uncommon for a team, any team, to not have at least one five game losing streak over the course of the season. The New York Yankees have not. Yet in one reason column where the columnist asserts that the Orioles must inevitable move back to average, the Yankees' statistical anomaly is given as evidence that they are really good and why they should hold on to win the division. There is not an assumption that they must, inevitably, return to the average because the columnist begins with an assertion that they are not average and uses the statistic as evidence.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As anyone who has bought stock knows, past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Some of the players who contributed to that run differential are no longer with the team. Why, if we are extrapolating statistics, are we extrapolating the statistics of pitchers who aren't playing? Why not extrapolate statistics since the all star break, or over a three year period? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I once wrote a paper that forced me to research the term "chaos theory." I was surprised to find that the most common form of chaos theory didn't hold that things were random, just that some systems were so complex that they could not be predicted, and anything that cannot be predicted has an appearance of (is indistinguishable from) randomness. We don't like to thing we can't predict, and we know that sports are not random, so statistics give us the illusion that we have found a meaningful pattern. Usually we have, but that pattern is part of a complex system that makes using it to predict the future a much more iffy proposition.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
None of this is to say the Orioles are a lock to go to the playoffs. Plenty of teams not named "Mets" have blown bigger leads than 1.5 games with 27 to play. Just that if they do fail to make the playoffs, all the statisticians will crow and say, "I knew it" and if they do make the playoffs the same statisticans will not admit that stats are meaningless, they will simply look harder for other statistics to (seemingly) explain the fact that they won games they were not expected to win.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In a famous essay Stanley Fish opined that when people said of literature that a text "can't" mean something, that's just a lazy way of saying that nobody has constructed a convincing argument for that interpretation." Someone might claim that William Faulkner's "A Rose For Emily" can't sustain an interpretation that Faulkner believed he was a reincarnated Eskimo, but let a scholar find an authenticated letter demonstrating that Faulkner believed he was an Eskimo, and you better believe that scholars would all of a sudden find things in the text that suddenly appeared to be consistent with what they (now) knew to be true. Let the Orioles make the playoffs and see how many arguments will be made that they "can't" and how convincing the statistics are used to support that belief. Sadly, we don't learn to look at statistics with a modicum of suspicion, we don't learn. Let the Orioles make the playoffs and we will comb over the same data and pull out those examples that now point to what we believe to be true...</div>
Kenneth R. Morefieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02492954693818444648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15191330.post-62062048537804242932012-09-02T13:32:00.001-05:002012-09-02T13:32:24.166-05:00It's been awhile...I haven't posted anything in All Things Ken in over two years. Why?<div>
<br />The majority of my posts are/were film related, but I've created a separate online magazine, 1More Film Blog (http://1morefilmblog.com) to deal with film stuff.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Also, Facebook continues to proliferate, but as any Facebook fan knows, the wall there is hard(er) to tag and search, so it occurs to me to go ahead and use the Blogger tool for public posts that I want to remain searchable. Stuff I can archive and find more readily. So I'll be posting stuff a bit more here, maybe...</div>
Kenneth R. Morefieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02492954693818444648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15191330.post-6039775372123190992010-11-07T16:25:00.002-05:002010-11-07T16:33:46.856-05:00"Cheaper" By the Bundle<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUwpqWDbuoZ4zxQXo8DgGMeRRYRBXChpWbBYwAd6JGBHuoLURqfBVlh4RBHt4glYaOn5dQJN7VidYzRHd763eXkQWHZz07MMnC6JQpLhAEzyP98L32RjQBk_u7UHdZsv1L6MnZeQ/s1600/qpbad.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 190px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUwpqWDbuoZ4zxQXo8DgGMeRRYRBXChpWbBYwAd6JGBHuoLURqfBVlh4RBHt4glYaOn5dQJN7VidYzRHd763eXkQWHZz07MMnC6JQpLhAEzyP98L32RjQBk_u7UHdZsv1L6MnZeQ/s320/qpbad.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5536924143536415122" /></a><br />What's wrong with this picture? <div><br /></div><div>I'm used to kvetching about the (mis)use of language in a post-literate society, but as an English major by training (and trade), I'm not used to having to do the math for people. </div><div><br /></div><div>Then again, I remember an article I read some years back about "weasel" words and phrases in advertising. It brought up the issue of unfinished or ungrounded comparisons--a typical trick in advertising. It suggested that whenever you see or hear an ad with a comparative--quieter, faster, cheaper--you train yourself to finish it by adding "than what?" </div><div><br /></div><div>Great gifts are "cheaper" by the bundle. But getting a bundle of four doesn't make them cheaper by unit or overall than getting a bundle of two. Cheaper than buying each of the four books individually, I guess. Not cheaper than if you had bought all four books in sets of two by two, though. </div>Kenneth R. Morefieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02492954693818444648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15191330.post-38673216307758407752010-10-12T17:26:00.002-05:002010-10-12T17:43:47.758-05:00Stuff My Ipod Throws Together<div>"And I don't want to die...</div><div>But sometimes I wish I'd never been born at all...."</div><div>Queen; "Bohemian Rhapsody"</div><div><br /></div><div>"And He gave us life, in His perfect will;</div><div>And by His good grace, I will praise Him still."</div><div>Fernando Ortega; "I Will Praise Him Still."</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>I remember once, growing up, my friend Steve opined that while my musical choices were not particularly out there, they did combine elements he was always startled to see together. I think this comment was made at a record store where I had just bought cassette tapes of the Pretenders <i>Learning to Craawl</i> and Amy Grant's <i>The Collection</i>.<div><br /></div><div>Granted, I don't think Steve knew too many people besides me who listened to any CCM, so I guess that combined with anything seemed like a strange marriage (or being "unequally yoked" as most CCM listeners would probably say).</div><div><br /></div><div>Today I don't listen to cassettes any more, but my Ipod shuffle can make such juxtapositions all the more frequent by throwing together songs from the recesses of my music library that, in the past, would never have been played one after the other. </div><div><br /></div><div>Case in point--earlier this week it spit out Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" and Fernando Oretga's "I Will Praise Him Still" and I've been thinking about how wide is the gulf not just between the two artists and their genres but in the psychological and spiritual state embedded in the songs.</div><div><br /></div><div>I don't know too many postmodern people who fret about hell when they think of the afterlife. With skeptical agnosticism or downright atheism, the new fear is that of nothingness, non-existence. If Christ was not risen from the dead, St. Paul wrote, then we are deceived and the most pitiable of men. Because, absent a life after this life, consciousness, life, is really a curse rather than a blessing, an awareness of one's eventual extinction. Better to have never been born than to be born only to a life of constant psychological torment. Yet, again, absent a life after this, life is the only imperative. One cannot choose to hasten the move into nothingness, can't want to die. Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" for all its operatic kitchy-ness, is a painful song (to me, anyway).</div><div><br /></div><div>In contrast, Ortega's hymn of praise is about as far at the other end of the spectrum as could be. Because life, all life, is a gift of God, it is the subject of praise--even if our current circumstances are painful, confusing, or seen and understood imperfectly. Because His will is perfect, one can trust that the conditions one must endure to receive the greater (and greatest) gifts are necessary ones, and that what seems unnecessary or what we wish we could have not had, will actually be the thing that leads to the greatest praise because we could not have had true life (life eternal, not merely temporary consciousness) any other way.</div><div><br /></div><div>I'm grateful for both songs...for artists who document the questions and doubts and fears as well as those who remind us that there are answers for the questions, encouragement to face the fears, and good news, gospel, to speak to the doubts that permeate the very air we breathe in the culture in which we life.</div>Kenneth R. Morefieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02492954693818444648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15191330.post-40940865979772744312010-08-31T14:01:00.002-05:002010-08-31T14:29:13.222-05:00TIFF 2010 ScheduleSo it's almost that time again. I received confirmation of my advance ticket order, and this year, I got all the films I requested. Barring last minute changes, here's my expected schedule:<div><br /></div><div><b>Thursday September 9</b></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/tiff/2010/filmsocialism"><i><b>Film Socialism</b></i></a> (Godard)</div><div><a href="http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/tiff/2010/insidejob"><i><b>Inside Job</b></i></a> (Ferguson)</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Friday September 10</b></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/tiff/2010/way"><b><i>The Way</i></b></a> (Estevez)</div><div><i><b><a href="http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/tiff/2010/guest">Guest</a></b></i> (Guerin)</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Saturday September 11</b></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/tiff/2010/eroticman"><i><b>Erotic Man</b></i></a> (Leth)</div><div><i><b><a href="http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/tiff/2010/kingsspeech">The King's Speech</a></b></i> (Hooper)</div><div><i><b><a href="http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/tiff/2010/stone">Stone</a></b></i> (Curran)</div><div><b><i><a href="http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/tiff/2010/jucy">Jucy</a></i></b> (Alston)</div><div><br /></div><div>Sunday September 12</div><div><br /></div><div><i><b><a href="http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/tiff/2010/madeindagenham">Made in Dagenham</a></b></i> (Cole)</div><div><i><b><a href="http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/tiff/2010/conviction">Conviction</a></b></i> (Goldwyn)</div><div><b><i><a href="http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/tiff/2010/illusionist">The Illusionist</a></i></b> (Chomet)</div><div><br /></div><div>Monday September 13</div><div><br /></div><div><i><b><a href="http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/tiff/2010/tamaradrewe">Tamara Drew</a></b></i> (Frears)</div><div><a href="http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/tiff/2010/gameofdeath"><b><i>The Game of Death</i></b></a> (Nick & Bornot)</div><div><i><b><a href="http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/tiff/2010/ofgodsandmen">Of Gods and Men</a></b></i> (Beauvois)</div><div><br /></div><div>Tuesday September 14</div><div><br /></div><div><i><b><a href="http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/tiff/2010/miral">Miral</a></b></i> (Schnabel)</div><div><i><b><a href="http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/tiff/2010/beautifulboy">Beautiful Boy</a></b></i> (Ku)</div><div><i><b><a href="http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/tiff/2010/sleepingbeauty">The Sleeping Beauty</a></b></i> (Breillat)</div><div><i><b><a href="http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/tiff/2010/meekscutoff">Meek's Cutoff</a></b></i> (Reichardt)</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Wednesday September 15</b></div><div><br /></div><div><i><b><a href="http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/tiff/2010/amigo">Amigo</a></b></i> (Sayles)</div><div><i><b><a href="http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/tiff/2010/bluevalentine">Blue Valentine</a></b></i> (Cianfrance)</div><div><i><b><a href="http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/tiff/2010/anythingyouwant">Anything You Want</a></b></i> (Mañas)</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Hard to pick one film from a list like this and say it is what I'm most looking forward to, but <i>Blue Valentine</i> has been on my radar since Cannes. Look for reviews at <i><b><a href="http://1morefilmblog.com">1More Film Blog</a></b></i>.</div><div><br /></div>Kenneth R. Morefieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02492954693818444648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15191330.post-56257519171894970882010-08-29T08:10:00.002-05:002010-08-29T08:16:53.042-05:00Netflix Recommendations........kinda, well...suck.<div><br /></div><div>I read somewhere that Netflix had a contest for a million dollars for someone who could improve their recommendations. They need it.</div><div><br /></div><div>Recently I got this odd genre category: "Cerebral Movies With a Strong Female Lead"</div><div><br /></div><div>Um, okay, that sounds like the SORT of movie I might like, but...</div><div><br /></div><div>Based on Your Interest in:</div><div><br /></div><div><i>Sex as Comedy</i> (Catherine Breillat)</div><div>Filmmaker Catherine Breillat's semiautobiographical tale captures the making of a cinematic sex scene in all its awkwardness. Jeanne (Anne Parillaud), the director, has a clear vision of what she wants, but the actors (Grégoire Colin and Roxane Mesquida) loathe each other and just can't make it work. The situation is further complicated by Jeanne's sexual relationship with the actor, who balks as she tries to exert her directorial authority.</div><br /><br />Netflix recommends:<div><br /><div><i>Very Young Girls</i> (Rachel Lloyd)</div><div>David Schisgall's startling documentary captures the heartbreaking stories of underage girls -- many as young as 13 -- who've been forced into prostitution in New York, exposing how pimps use isolation, violence and drugs to keep girls dependent. Many of the girls interviewed take part in GEMS, a shelter and mentoring program founded by activist Rachel Lloyd -- once a prostitute herself -- that helps them transition out of "the life."</div></div>Kenneth R. Morefieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02492954693818444648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15191330.post-71000601997700806912010-08-20T20:17:00.002-05:002010-08-20T20:27:59.244-05:00Worst. Airline. Ever.Gotta be Delta.<div><br /></div><div>So I've got a 3:50 out of San Antonio. I get to the airport gate and they are delayed until 4:27. So I go to the gate agent and say, you know, it doesn't look like I'll make the connecting flight in Atlanta, so why don't you just go ahead and switch my reservation to a later flight to Raleigh. No, no, no, no, you'll make it, no problem. I get on the plane, and, of course, we circle Atlanta in the air for awhile and I deplane at 8:20 to try to catch my 8:30 connection in another terminal. Needless to say, I don't make it.</div><div><br /></div><div>Delta has a a station set up to assist passengers--I should suspect something is up when every other gate has a red "Missed Your Flight?" sign with a "Swipe and Go" machine. The cusmoter service there says, well, the later flight to Raleigh, you know the one you asked us to put you on in San Antonio? Well that's sold out. Good news, though, there's a plane tomorrow morning.</div><div><br /></div><div>I feel like saying "I told you so" but I've had a long day and I've been sick on the plane, etc. so I say "fine, just give me my hotel voucher and I'll take the morning flight." Well, sir, the hotel will be at a REDUCED rate for you...</div><div><br /></div><div>Ummm....reduced?</div><div><br /></div><div>Yeah, only $59.</div><div><br /></div><div>Delta is not going to give me a voucher for causing me to miss my connecting fault? No, we don't do that unless it is our fault that you missed the connection. Ummmm....but it is your fault. No, it's air traffic control's fault because the weather shut down the airport earlier....that's why your flight in San Antonio was delayed. But that's also when I told you to put me on the later connection and you declined to so because you, Delta, said the plane would still arrive in time to make the connection.</div><div><br /></div><div>Guess I won't be flying Delta again any time soon.</div>Kenneth R. Morefieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02492954693818444648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15191330.post-85539647780049561252010-08-09T18:49:00.003-05:002010-08-09T18:59:40.274-05:00Courtyard by Marriott ScamHey Courtyard by Marriott welcome to the customer service hall of shame.<div><br /></div><div>Wife and I prebooked a room via Priceline to stay at a Courtyard by Marriott for two days. When we checked in, even though the room was prepaid, they asked for a credit card for "incidentals." No problem, usually, since I just don't use the incidentals at a hotel.</div><div><br /></div><div>When I checked out, they tried to charge me a $1.08/per night for a "Room Safe Warranty." I mentioned that I had paid in advance and that per the agreement with Priceline, they had agreed to give me a room for the price quoted. </div><div><br /></div><div>I got a canned response that this was a "standard" policy and that this charge was not covered in the price of the room because it was an incidental. </div><div><br /></div><div>Huh? Since when? Incidentals are things you request over and above the cost of the room or which you can opt out of by not using. A safe is in the room, whether you use it or not and they know it will be part of the room when they get the offer for the price. This is not like a movie or Internet service where the person can agree on the additional charge when they use the service--this was added just for it being there to use if I wanted it.</div><div><br /></div><div>I swear, all I could think about was that song in <i>Les Miserables</i>:</div><div><br /></div><div>"Charge em for the lice..</div><div>Extra for the mice...</div><div>Two percent for looking in the mirror twice!</div><div>Here a little slice,</div><div>There a little cut...</div><div>Three percent for sleeping with the window shut!"</div><div><br /></div><div>Courtyard by Marriott, when the first thing that comes to someone's mind when they hear your name is the Thernardiers, you have a corporate image problem.</div><div><br /></div><div>CC to Priceline, too...if the customer can't be assured that the price the hotel "agrees" upon when you book through Priceline is the actual price he will have to pay, then what is the point of using your service? So, if I were Priceline, I would tell Courtyard that they need to cease this practice or I won't send them customers. Their dishonesty hurts the faith customers have in YOUR service.</div>Kenneth R. Morefieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02492954693818444648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15191330.post-90207009096937784442010-08-02T22:28:00.002-05:002010-08-02T22:33:56.619-05:00GoDaddy RocksOkay, so I'm probably going to get howls of derision from people who are really tech savvy, but since I've often posted about customer service nightmares I've had (I'm looking at you Blockbuster), it's only fair that I mention some positive experiences.<div><br /></div><div>For the last year and a half, I've had my personal film blog, http://1morefilmblog.com hosted on GoDaddy. Today I had a technical issue that was giving an error message instead of my site. </div><div><br />I called the 24/7 help line at 11:30 at night, spoke to an ACTUAL PERSON (within a 10 minute wait time) who resolved my issue. </div><div><br /></div><div>Having the tech support allows me to focus on the content of my site, which is what web hosting should be all about. For a very reasonable price, GoDaddy allows me to create a site that I think looks great and is kept up to date.</div><div><br /></div><div>Plus, the service person I spoke to was very knowledgeable. He neither spoke to me like I was an idiot nor tried to shove more products down my throat. It's so weird to get good customer service these days that when you do it almost feels like, "That didn't just happen, did it?"</div><div><br /></div><div>Thanks GoDaddy.</div>Kenneth R. Morefieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02492954693818444648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15191330.post-42706650589222141912010-07-11T17:08:00.004-05:002010-07-11T17:43:16.413-05:00World Cup 2010 Game 64: Spain 1, The Netherlands 0<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggHKjscBt-Z7RSpWA7gaQ2hfM7Nhyphenhyphen0TzyHlHuEp-D9Nxpp2WPOF9m50EcmxfHJId1yVq89ZIXoL1uWdjLZwzReH9EJugfJaeWl-xca9W-l4LH0FRDwsZt88G0f1zKyDqH9e4wRBQ/s1600/spainflag.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggHKjscBt-Z7RSpWA7gaQ2hfM7Nhyphenhyphen0TzyHlHuEp-D9Nxpp2WPOF9m50EcmxfHJId1yVq89ZIXoL1uWdjLZwzReH9EJugfJaeWl-xca9W-l4LH0FRDwsZt88G0f1zKyDqH9e4wRBQ/s320/spainflag.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5492782183419195874" /></a><br />It was, as one announcer said on ABC, "an ill-tempered final." <div><br /></div><div>Blame it on the Dutch, mostly, who were trying to do what Germany, Paraguay, and others had failed to do: beat Spain by playing ugly soccer. </div><div><br /></div><div>Spain becomes the first team to win the World Cup after losing its opening match, and perhaps the Swiss have to share a portion of the blame for the strategy of teams that followed, since they laid the blueprint for how a team with inferior talent could hang with, and ultimately beat, the mighty Spaniards.</div><div><br /></div><div>If I was not surprised that some followed suit, color me a bit surprised that Germany and Dutch appeared to go away from what got them to where they were. I wouldn't think they would concede to themselves that the Spaniards were THAT much better than them. Spain has only lost twice in its last 26 matches, and the other team to beat them, The United States, laid out a different plan (in last year's Confederations Cup) taking the fight to them and scoring early. Traditional logic says that the later the game goes to 0-0 the more the edge tilts towards the lesser side since penalty kicks are a toss up. Yet when a team plays to get to penalty kicks, they also minimize the mistakes they can make. They need to be near perfect.</div><div><br /></div><div>Holland did have a good chance in the first half with a ball split down the middle (glad to see that doesn't only happen against the U.S.), and the goalkeeper made a solid play diving one way but getting his feet out to deflect the shot that went the other. Spain also missed a golden opportunity late in regulation when an unmarked header went wide. </div><div><br /></div><div>FIFA was spared controversy on the scale that had marked some of the games, but there were stretches, especially in the second half, where tactics became to dive to the ground at any contact and hope that the attrition of yellow cards would culminate in someone being sent off. The Dutch did lose a player early in the second overtime for a pull just outside the box. The player was unimpeded to the goal, so it pretty much had to be a mandatory yellow (and since it was the second, a man down for The Netherlands), but it was ironic that the foul itself was garden variety given the chippy stuff that had been played all game long.</div><div><br /></div><div>We've seen a few brilliant strikes of the ball in this cup, but this was one of those very nice (if a little ragged) build ups with multiple players touching the ball as it went from end to end and side to side. The goal itself was a crossing strike off the bounce, and while it was not quite as spectacular as Forlan's similar strike in the 3rd place game, given the time in the game and the stakes, it was a pretty impressive goal. </div><div><br /></div><div>A couple of other notes. Spain set the record for fewest goals scored by a champion. The previous lowest cumulative goals had been 11 or 12, while Spain found the back of the net only eight times in seven games. an average of 1.14 goals per game. To put that in perspective, that's actually LESS than the U.S. average of 1.25 goals per game and doesn't extrapolate for the fact that the U.S. had a goal disallowed and Spain scored two of its goals in bonus time in the knockout stage (which wouldn't be played in pool play). </div><div><br /></div><div>It's tempting then to suggest that the U.S. needs to focus on better defense despite the fact that it had trouble settling on strikers and had no goals by strikers. Really, though, teams of Spain's level can make chances (albeit fewer ones) against the best defenses, so its more about not giving away chances. Some of that may be communication, and it was telling to me to hear that seven of Spain's starting 11 players play in the same city. It's the classic debate--break up players to help them develop talent at the highest level or derive the benefits of coherence and playing together. </div><div><br /></div><div>Depth is another key difference. Having watched every game of the World Cup one thing I noticed was how on the best teams different players impressed in different games. In the final David Villa (tied for the golden boot) was quieter, but Xavi was relentless, controlling the ball and making probing pass after probing pass. Only Brazil seemed to have as many different players to step up. </div><div><br /></div><div>Congratulations to Spain for its first ever World Cup title. They were the best team throughout and deserved to hoist the trophy. </div><div><br /></div><div>Wow, watching every single game of the World Cup was harder than I thought. </div>Kenneth R. Morefieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02492954693818444648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15191330.post-82881380659591540852010-07-10T22:31:00.002-05:002010-07-10T23:56:59.176-05:00World Cup 2010 Game 63: Germany 3, Uruguay 2The third place games is one of those eccentricities of the World Cup that makes it what it is. There used to be a third place game in the NCAA tournament but it was discontinued twenty, thirty years ago under the reasonable notion that fans rarely cared and that forcing teams that were coming off staggering disappointments to play a somewhat meaningless game was just mean. <div><br /></div><div>Picking a third place game is like betting on a professional sports preseason game or an NBA or NFL All-Star game. A lot depends on predicting who will care, who will show up, which coach wants to save his job or get momentum for the next meaningful part of a schedule. </div><div><br /></div><div>I assumed, on one hand, that the game would be a little looser on defense and that would favor Germany. It is just human nature to have a little less concentration on defense, to not be able to trick your mind into thinking its like the "real thing" and bear down. Since Uruguay's game is a little more defensively minded, I figured it would be harder to change on a dime.</div><div><br /></div><div>On the other hand, Uruguay would have a couple players coming off suspensions who would be eager to play, and that might make the effort a bit more on their part. (Germany, for instance, didn't even play Miroslav Klose, who had an opportunity to set a career mark in World Cup goals).</div><div><br /></div><div>The game itself was pretty typical of a third place game, which is to say atypical of a World Cup game. There were lead changes (Germany scored first, Uruguay took a 2-1 lead out of the half, and Germany scored the last two for the win). The field was rained on and pretty sloppy, so that didn't make for pretty soccer. But it was worth watching for Diego Forlan's goal that could (depending on what David Villa does) earn him a part of the Golden Boot and should earn him a permanent YouTube home in some thread of pretties World Cup goals. Typically called a scissors kick, Forlan's shot was a perfectly timed strike in which he managed to get his leg over a crossing ball by throwing his legs in the air. That a player can just not whiff on such a play is extraordinary, that he can hit the goal (that is, aim) is astounding. </div><div><br /></div><div>Plus, that play had one of my favorite replays of the World Cup. Next time you see the highlight, keep your eye on the German goaltender. He never even moves until the ball is in the net. </div>Kenneth R. Morefieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02492954693818444648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15191330.post-80569004994226059582010-07-07T21:31:00.003-05:002010-07-07T21:43:41.965-05:00World Cup 2010 Game 62: Spain 1, Germany 0<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidlmQGE10afdBpArS0BcAghQTRtPmdVs1wTJzDuOAgb0T2giE-BPFgoXgDl10_2n8OuFhxrG2bdYku68Qmw85CFMYmerJ1fwR18i8v-uiwKfdDt3lPm1IBI9hrmLc3ue8_2Cw4qw/s1600/fifafinal.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 246px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidlmQGE10afdBpArS0BcAghQTRtPmdVs1wTJzDuOAgb0T2giE-BPFgoXgDl10_2n8OuFhxrG2bdYku68Qmw85CFMYmerJ1fwR18i8v-uiwKfdDt3lPm1IBI9hrmLc3ue8_2Cw4qw/s320/fifafinal.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5491360558742114578" border="0" /></a><br />The game was a little boring, actually. Disappointingly so, unless you had a rooting interest. Not that Spain, or its fans, will apologize. This was one of those games where the teams played less to win than to not lose. Each had enough respect for the other that they did not want to give away a key mistake to put themselves in the hole.<br /><br />That was a game recipe that, I think, played into Spain's hands, as they have been playing that style all World Cup, while Germany had been playing more wide open, up and down. In some ways, I was a bit surprised. I thought Germany would have--and play with--more confidence, and be able to play at Spain, using its offense not just to counter punch but to control the time of possession and thus put less stress on its defense. Instead Germany looked a little too tentative.<br /><br />I think I may have underestimated Spain's defense. Granted, like Brazil, Spain's defense always looks better because the offense holds the ball so the defense is fresher and has less opportunities to defend. Still, Spain has played the two teams (Germany and Portugal) in the last three games that have scored the most goals in the world cup and both teams were held scoreless. In between those two was a grind it out game against a Paraguay team that was the soccer equivalent of the Baltimore Ravens or '85 Chicago Bears. As such, Spain has won different kinds of games, and it got its bad break out of the way against Switzerland.<br /><br />I also think I undervalued Spain because of its loss a year ago to the United States in the Confederations Cup. I now suspect in that game the United States played loose because like the underdogs they were, they had nothing to lose, and like the team from another conference in the NCAA they didn't necessarily know to be cowed. In some cases, teams like that are dangerous because they are used to the other team being better and to playing games where they know they have to maximize potential, whereas more prestigious teams are not used to experiencing that and have trouble adjusting when they play an elite team.<br /><br />It should be a great final.Kenneth R. Morefieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02492954693818444648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15191330.post-35082964451958976502010-07-06T20:20:00.002-05:002010-07-06T20:28:34.379-05:00World Cup 2010 Game 61: The Netherlands 3, Uruguay 2<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBbl9MPDVWzTIiYXEJlsEebHzEap2YOiKmqb49r1NIYA1DJytwg_T1duiYqN8qMo_0PF9ylfkNXqHSNKF3xf8qKLAbs429gOrR2FohTmm6gKr4-2WZSZlU4KlVW_Nht8y3s63KOQ/s1600/fifa.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 291px; height: 283px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBbl9MPDVWzTIiYXEJlsEebHzEap2YOiKmqb49r1NIYA1DJytwg_T1duiYqN8qMo_0PF9ylfkNXqHSNKF3xf8qKLAbs429gOrR2FohTmm6gKr4-2WZSZlU4KlVW_Nht8y3s63KOQ/s320/fifa.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5490970108069352626" border="0" /></a><br />Not much to add about this game. It was a more talented side against a game, scrappy, undermanned side. I almost felt like I was watching the U.S. again.<br /><br />The Netherlands scored early with what the announcer called an absolute firecracker, and it was. Because camera distances are used to show broader parts of the field in soccer, the casual observer often doesn't realize how quickly the ball moves with some of these kicks.<br /><br />Uruguay got level on a goal by star Diego Forlan on a play in which he took a pass, thought about shooting from distance and then noticed he wasn't be closed on and so used some dribbling to set up a cleaner shot. The ball bent and deflected off the keeper into the net.<br /><br />This goal, too, reminded me of watching the U.S., and it was nice to know that even a team like Holland has some defensive lapses during the game. I'm used to hearing American defenders say about such goals that on this level players can "make you pay" for not closing soon enough. Forlan did.<br /><br />Even so, the Dutch never looked shaken. This was a team that trailed Brazil, so there isn't panic in them. They scored two quick goals in the second half and the game was effectively over, although Uruguay got a late goal to make the closing few moments a Maalox masher.<br /><br />Credit an understaffed Uruguay team for making the semifinals and staying level for a half, but the better team went through today.Kenneth R. Morefieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02492954693818444648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15191330.post-63837217539829939832010-07-03T21:16:00.002-05:002010-07-03T21:42:19.304-05:00World Cup 2010 Game 60: Spain 1, Paraguay 0<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYpGTT03odECOOEoK5oCm-OQ6JRiaOGXj4wIy8THgk9MVWJ0naysQkGemowCcc4lOrEdb1dfpwtBTwg5NR6Nyasi3vBG7IVdDiFk0qct6VqO890Yc9GVHYb0LDBIKcWMH41OAa8g/s1600/spainflag.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYpGTT03odECOOEoK5oCm-OQ6JRiaOGXj4wIy8THgk9MVWJ0naysQkGemowCcc4lOrEdb1dfpwtBTwg5NR6Nyasi3vBG7IVdDiFk0qct6VqO890Yc9GVHYb0LDBIKcWMH41OAa8g/s320/spainflag.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5489875874740892370" border="0" /></a><br />Immovable object, meet irresistible force.<br /><br />Paraguay had given up a total of 1 goal in this World Cup, and no team had scored in the last four games.<br /><br />Spain had the most offensive, attack minded squad of the World Cup and had, in its last game, figured out a way to crack a Portugal defense that had also not given up a World Cup goal.<br /><br />In a World Cup of bizarre referring blunders, goalkeeper errors, last minute goals and extra-time handballs, what else was left? How about two saved penalty kicks and yet another disallowed goal.<br /><br />The key sequence started with a Paraguayan being pulled down in the box on a set piece--somewhere Michael Bradley must be thinking, "I knew that was a foul"--getting a penalty kick which was saved by the goalkeeper. Video shows three players inside the box when the ball is struck, a clear violation that was not called. Spain immediately broke on a counter attack and when their striker was tripped moving towards the goal, the referee awarded a penalty kick to Spain but inexplicably gave only a yellow card to the defender (a foul to stop a clear goal scoring opportunity is supposed to be an automatic ejection). Spain buried the penalty kick and was finally on the board against the stingy Paraguayan defen...<br /><br />Not so fast. The referee waved off the goal, claiming a violation...that Spain had put people inside the box to rush a possible rebound. He made them to the penalty kick again, and this time, amazingly, the goalkeeper stopped the kick. Yet the referee nightmare was not yet over. As is common on a penalty kick, several players are rushing the box to try to get a rebound. The goalkeeper pretty much tackled one Spanish player to stop him from getting the rebound, yet this was not called a penalty nor even a foul and Paraguay had dodged its bullet.<br /><br />If ever a game seemed destined for penalty kicks, this one was it. But Spain kept pressing forward and around the 80th minute had a clear shot that beat the goalie and...deflected off the post! David Villa took the rebound and curved a shot to the far post which again hit the post but this time spun bounce in.<br /><br />Spain now moves forward for a match with Germany. It has plenty of practice with teams playing defensive minded soccer, but now they get a team that has put the ball in the net 13 times this World Cup, a feat Spain has accomplished only six times. Yet because of Germany's pressing attack, Spain may find more room to operate and the semi-final could be an up and down, more open game that suits the Spanish well. In the end, the question may be how good is the Spanish defense?Kenneth R. Morefieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02492954693818444648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15191330.post-91069733249048931712010-07-03T20:53:00.002-05:002010-07-03T21:12:34.718-05:00World Cup 2010 Game 59: Germany 4, Argentina 0<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWHtC55UFr3YF4K4RTH8_5Q0t8biwXFiX4ladIG3713GzsI4qd325dZOPsDVOZNKvnz4npi2zcYeVLA69x8tYffRKaoAXIcYGtbAgl8NDUc3RQ0yWh4jnQz8Ucg9ujJ23XA8hbLw/s1600/germany1.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWHtC55UFr3YF4K4RTH8_5Q0t8biwXFiX4ladIG3713GzsI4qd325dZOPsDVOZNKvnz4npi2zcYeVLA69x8tYffRKaoAXIcYGtbAgl8NDUc3RQ0yWh4jnQz8Ucg9ujJ23XA8hbLw/s320/germany1.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5489868186233896306" border="0" /></a><br />In my World Cup pool I had picked Argentina for this game all the way until the morning of, when I did a 180 and switched my pick to Germany.<br /><br />Sometimes it helps to have a few hard games out of the way, to be challenged and forced to elevate your game. Argentina had looked very impressive, but its competition had yet to include a Top 10 ranked team (Nigeria-21, South Korea-47, Greece-13, Mexico-17). Also, people forget that Argentina was up and down during qualification and actually, until the last game or two was in danger of missing the World Cup altogether or having to play the play-in series against Costa Rica. Which is to say, I kind of felt like Argentina was a bit inconsistent and would have a bad game somewhere.<br /><br />Germany, after it's 4-0 win over Australia was a bit undervalued because of its loss to Serbia. They had to play most of that game with 10 men, however, so that result was misleading. Mostly, though, Germany was scoring goals. I was concerned about it giving up a 2-0 lead to England (even though the second goal wasn't counted), but having strikers who put shots on goal is very important at this stage. Opportunities are fewer, so you have to finish them.<br /><br />Argentine star Lionel Messi made a record for the most shots on goal in a World Cup without recording a goal. Perhaps because of the history of Maradona in 1986, Argentina was waiting for an individual to have a transcendent goal, to run through four or five defenders and laser a picture perfect shot on goal. Germany seemed to spread it around more, and that brought up the classic question of whether you want to have a go to guy in the clutch or whether you want to have a "balanced" team. This appears to be a year, in sports, for the latter, with the New Orleans Saints winning the Super Bowl and Duke winning the college basketball championship. (Neither of the two seniors from that team was drafted in the NBA.)<br /><br />Miroslave Klose might not have his name bandied about with Kaka, David Villa, and Messi as the best in the world, but he's closing in on all time goals at the World Cup. Even so, I'm sure he'd give up the Golden Boot (for most goals scored) to get the team trophy.Kenneth R. Morefieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02492954693818444648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15191330.post-76350022400964073402010-07-02T21:01:00.002-05:002010-07-02T21:42:36.073-05:00World Cup 2010 Game 58: Uruguay 1, Ghana 1<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_iJPX7iWLCOYdd7PEDFLVLYTdr9ILhk85Tu5gr9aCKrttw5f2GwGcfs92-mq8pssbUlGa-tMuNaUD_Vw4F8Vghwazy-kwqklL79sEjSCuR0nzIrS6nUJHTo9NbUo2cS_YRQQF2w/s1600/uruguay.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_iJPX7iWLCOYdd7PEDFLVLYTdr9ILhk85Tu5gr9aCKrttw5f2GwGcfs92-mq8pssbUlGa-tMuNaUD_Vw4F8Vghwazy-kwqklL79sEjSCuR0nzIrS6nUJHTo9NbUo2cS_YRQQF2w/s320/uruguay.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5489504860792471282" border="0" /></a><br />In the first 56 games of the World Cup, the team that scored first lost once. In the quarterfinals, the first team to score has yet to win. And this was a game that, years from now, will be remembered for how it ended rather than how it began.<br /><br />Ghana broke through at the end of the first half on a curving, rolling shot that caught the goalkeeper leaning the wrong way. Uruguay got the equalizer early in the second half, then both teams settled in.<br /><br />The end of overtime looked a bit like a reverse of the end of regulation between Ghana and the United States. In the earlier game, Ghana looked gassed and was saved by the whistle, getting enough of a second wind to score early in overtime. Here it was Uruguay that looked out of energy, hanging on by a fingernail against a younger, pressing side. Even so, the penalty kicks looked inevitable.<br /><br />Then a foul let to a free kick that landed in the box. Shot...saved by goalie. Rebound for another kick which was kicked out by a defender on the goal line. The second rebound was put on goal and Ghana was going to the semi-finals.<br /><br />Except Uruguayan Luis Suarez, standing on the goal line, deliberately handed the ball away. He got the compulsory red card (ejection, suspension for next two games), but Uruguay was technically still alive.<br /><br />Then, incredibly, Ghana missed the penalty kick as the player hit the top of the goal post and the kick sailed away.<br /><br />I've mentioned earlier in this series of blogs that one problem with eliminating diving and other forms of cheating is the cost/benefit analysis. Here was a classic example. Suarez deliberately cheated to prevent a certain goal in a situation where the game would have been over. In such a situation, anything that keeps the goal off the board is better than taking the loss, and so he took the 1% chance over no chance at all.<br /><br />Once the penalty kick was missed, it seemed inevitable that Ghana would lose in the shoot out, and they did.<br /><br />Uruguay may find itself in the position of villains after a sort. Yet what Suarez did is what anyone would do...and he accepted the penalty. Perhaps people will look at this the same was as an American fan might view fouling a player on a breakaway layup to concede two freethrows or tackling a receiver and getting a pass interference call rather than giving up a touchdown. One difference is, of course, that this was that here the outcome was certain. (A player can miss a breakaway dunk, a receiver can drop a pass.) I seem to recall that in baseball or softball, if a player used an illegal means to stop a home run that the home run would be awarded. But the deliberate handball has a penalty in the rule book and rare, very rare is the instance in which that penalty is preferable to the outcome of the play.<br /><br />Will any of this matter to FIFA? Probably not. The Maradonna "Hand of God" goal was deliberate cheating and they did not change the rules. This is the most puzzling aspect of the sport for Americans. To be sure, nothing could be done here since the rules governing the game were in place, but American sports generally move to ensure such instances won't happen again.<br /><br />Will it matter to Uruguay? Nope. They will be underdogs against The Netherlands, particularly with Suarez serving a suspension, but they live to play another game.Kenneth R. Morefieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02492954693818444648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15191330.post-61251354094421190052010-07-02T20:44:00.002-05:002010-07-02T20:57:30.530-05:00World Cup 2010 Game 57: The Netherlands 2, Brazil 1<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqVHwuN54gEEq6eQ6jApdbEidmtFM8IoDZAv2TmeHKf2vMe2Tz1ssjAq-0Fs6FSaKpChjX5NEKMZbM58ryN1fjotBwBFdeBbkWv1f_Xh2RXEIbbFYl3Xw3zGeeRHtSrR2DaoCprg/s1600/dutch.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 290px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqVHwuN54gEEq6eQ6jApdbEidmtFM8IoDZAv2TmeHKf2vMe2Tz1ssjAq-0Fs6FSaKpChjX5NEKMZbM58ryN1fjotBwBFdeBbkWv1f_Xh2RXEIbbFYl3Xw3zGeeRHtSrR2DaoCprg/s320/dutch.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5489493228280761266" border="0" /></a><br />I guess that's why they play the game.<br /><br />Pretty much everything that happened in this game was not supposed to happen. Brazil got the first goal and yet lost the game, only the second time, I think, in this World Cup where the team that has scored first lost. (The other was Nigeria/Greece, a game where the balance was affected by a red card.)<br /><br />Brazil has won five championships; The Netherlands is the consensus best team to have never won. When Brazil went up the early goal, The Netherlands was supposed to fold, one more time of being good but not good enough.<br /><br />Not this time. A lucky break with an own goal in the second half (the first ever "own goal" in Brazil's World Cup history), and suddenly it was Brazil losing its composure...looking like a favorite that was feeling the pressure.<br /><br />This game was absolutely earned. In retrospective, Brazil's final with the United States at last year's Confederation Cup said more about chinks in its armor than the arrival of the United States. One talking point--the field was in poor shape. Did that help The Netherlands? They scored one goal from a long volley and another off a set piece header. Was Brazil's precision passing hurt by the field? (It didn't look that way in the first half where the first goal was scored on a thirty yard diagonal pass up the heart of the defense.)<br /><br />The Netherlands will likely be a favorite in the semi-finals.Kenneth R. Morefieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02492954693818444648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15191330.post-16543590201658305092010-06-29T15:28:00.002-05:002010-06-29T15:38:56.208-05:00World Cup 2010 Game 56: Spain 1, Portugal 0<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_mlrOw9xPHfYHqmuaQJozkQJ93CbRP91iUBmFQeHte6O73MTKqDFW-ktgmnc3FV0dAUQcdkOgYaTec9tUBvuDXFCAwa-qV1d3ZrYeIRX2zn37MeOoMolNQaEQzL0QUhsS7ZoiBw/s1600/david+villa.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_mlrOw9xPHfYHqmuaQJozkQJ93CbRP91iUBmFQeHte6O73MTKqDFW-ktgmnc3FV0dAUQcdkOgYaTec9tUBvuDXFCAwa-qV1d3ZrYeIRX2zn37MeOoMolNQaEQzL0QUhsS7ZoiBw/s320/david+villa.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5488297852989077186" border="0" /></a><br />Even before Diego Maradonna ran through England and Belgium and almost single handedly (pun intended) delivered the World Cup to Argentina in '86, one of the subplots of the tournament has been which player will establish himself as the best in the world.<br /><br />Today it looks like Spain's David Villa may come out of the tournament as the alpha male of the sport, besting Christiano Ronaldo (who looked more petulant than threatening as he called out his teammates and the referees) and Portugal. Argentina's Lionel Messi has probably had a better tournament, but as his own strikes haven't found the back of the net and Villa's have, Villa will have the advantage unless or until the two teams go head to head. The fact that Brazil's goals have been modest and distributed amongst the team also makes it easier for players from another team to strike their claim. Then again, if someone does something special in the next three games, that is what will be remembered, not the player who had the lead after 54 holes (metaphorically speaking).<br /><br />Portugal was a disappointment in this game, and their 0-0 draw with the Ivory Coast was more indicative in the long run than the 7-0 explosion against North Korea. Yes, they hadn't given up a goal in something like 12 matches, but excepting the game against North Korea, they hadn't scored in this World Cup either. I could be wrong, but they looked a bit intimidated by Spain, a bit tight.<br /><br />With Spain's victory, seven of the eight group winners advanced. Only the United States failed to win its round of sixteen game.Kenneth R. Morefieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02492954693818444648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15191330.post-85229350338242973972010-06-29T15:11:00.002-05:002010-06-29T15:18:53.711-05:00World Cup 2010 Game 55<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKS8DmR1WB-bevpOy1dEkhoWffr4RYLPQyYYzklGhGHfs5ABypVRaohPS_ApHiBpqH5-8819pZPFNDgtQFxXoCDRor3Tb3bZ0o_0exDd2JGrqn2nqkC6NAh43Ehio7QTRi6g2qAA/s1600/paraguay.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 290px; height: 290px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKS8DmR1WB-bevpOy1dEkhoWffr4RYLPQyYYzklGhGHfs5ABypVRaohPS_ApHiBpqH5-8819pZPFNDgtQFxXoCDRor3Tb3bZ0o_0exDd2JGrqn2nqkC6NAh43Ehio7QTRi6g2qAA/s320/paraguay.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5488292678067071522" border="0" /></a><br />Paraguay 0, Japan 0<br /><br />The only thing more dissatisfying than winning a game on Penalty Kicks is losing one.<br /><br />In one of the earlier telecasts an ESPN announcer chatted about a psued0 debate among statisticians as to whether these such games should be counted as a loss or a draw. Hard to explain how you lost a game where they opponent didn't score, but, then again, if there is a result, then one team did what they needed more than the other.<br /><br />Japan did not exactly go into a shell and play for a draw, but they were very conservative, often playing only one striker up front and hoping for a moment of brilliance from Honda rather than a team goal. Paraguay, accustomed to playing Brazil and Argentina twice in qualifications had a little more practice in playing defensive shut down games. Neither team had ever made it to the quarterfinals.<br /><br />Paraguay will be heavy underdogs against either Spain or Portugal but they have beaten two of the teams in the final eight within the last year, so they can score goals in regulation time...though I'm sure if you offered them a penalty kick shoot out right now, they would take it.Kenneth R. Morefieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02492954693818444648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15191330.post-11124547821773791272010-06-29T08:49:00.002-05:002010-06-29T09:12:36.217-05:00World Cup 2010 Games 53 & 54<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5NwCxECF9oAO-lBiAF7Y3mqN9yO0rgoRNQeNrfUUQBORJwtRd4DPQUIsndcJmwxOYtGTYWHpgtnmZl0YGFg9Rvi-2vtH6LnzfHKNFAVSLm7Z9zWQEXaayZp61TfoWmJU3HFD_Nw/s1600/brazil-football.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 229px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5NwCxECF9oAO-lBiAF7Y3mqN9yO0rgoRNQeNrfUUQBORJwtRd4DPQUIsndcJmwxOYtGTYWHpgtnmZl0YGFg9Rvi-2vtH6LnzfHKNFAVSLm7Z9zWQEXaayZp61TfoWmJU3HFD_Nw/s320/brazil-football.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5488198329468244210" border="0" /></a><br />The Netherlands 2, Slovakia 1<br />Brazil 3, Chile 0<br /><br />One doesn't make oneself look smarter than everyone else by picking Brazil, which is the favorite of any world cup until it loses. The experts have been volleying back and forth, embracing Germany after their first big win against Australia, warming up to Argentina after they flattened a weak group, falling in love with Portugal after they poured in six goals in a half against a North Korea team that held Brazil to within 2-1, and falling back in love with Spain after they overcame their goose egg against Switzerland to win their group. (For the latter, there is something to be said for getting your bad game out of the way early in the tournament.)<br /><br />Even so, Brazil is ranked #1 for a reason. The outcome against Chile was never really in doubt, but two moments impressed me. In the 70th minute, with Brazil up 3-0, the team pressed forward and Kaka got an unmarked strike just over the top of the box. He sailed the shot high, and as the camera panned back on him, you could see him chastising himself for not doing better. In most games with a 3-0 score, the leading team feels carte blanche to try to pad the stat sheet, but each opportunity here is an opportunity to practice and prepare for the key moments.<br /><br />Perhaps more telling was a moment four minutes later. Brazil had one a corner kick that was headed out of the box starting a counter attack moving the other way. The Brazilian player who did the corner kick literally sprinted back on defense, marking the Chilean with possession, and slowing the break to give the defense time to get back and set up. A fifty yard sprint in the 75th minute with a 3-0 lead? It's customary to think the best teams just coast by on superior natural talent, but they often work just as hard or harder than those trying to overtake them.<br /><br />The Dutch cruise along, also winning their fourth game with no draws and setting up a quarterfinal showdown of #1 vs. #4. Not as flashy in the build up as Brazil, the Dutch still have some nifty finishers and they are good enough with possession that their defense minimizes the chances the opponents get. At this level, that's what you do...minimize the number of opportunities. Still, Brazil will create a few opportunities on skill, and they will finish. The question, then, is whether or not the Dutch can capitalize on their opportunities. If they do, it will be a close match.Kenneth R. Morefieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02492954693818444648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15191330.post-5089281621883365122010-06-27T15:33:00.003-05:002010-06-27T15:44:14.865-05:00World Cup 2010 Game 52: Argentina 3, Mexico 1<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLoqmJX4nPPskl-rhImDqQTPZ-IA6N5Pm2FtBXeCHRyMl7r82YYij3yuhUHM5rYilfmZYVVusTctFKuTnFy2jv0QD6bG3IXq6aAfyKWC7fGYlmpvcZBHx-4gPdg-9aokfxAUClDw/s1600/concacaf.gif"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 250px; height: 268px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLoqmJX4nPPskl-rhImDqQTPZ-IA6N5Pm2FtBXeCHRyMl7r82YYij3yuhUHM5rYilfmZYVVusTctFKuTnFy2jv0QD6bG3IXq6aAfyKWC7fGYlmpvcZBHx-4gPdg-9aokfxAUClDw/s320/concacaf.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5487556458838662658" border="0" /></a><br />Well, at least Mexico can say, by virtue of scheduling, that they lasted longer than the United States by a day. This sort of regional supremacy is pretty much all the two would be soccer powers have left.<br /><br />This game was marked by--you guessed it--yet another egregious officiating error. This one gave Argentina a 1-0 lead as a goal from a man who was clearly offside was allowed (unlike the clearly legal goal in the England game that was not allowed). The error was magnified by the fact that the official was not really in position to call the play. But hey, Argentina was clearly the better team, so it's not as though giving them a 1-0 advantage had any outcome on the game.<br /><br />Argentina eventually went up 3-0 before Mexico scored a late goal, a beautiful strike to the corner that made me wonder whether or not Concacaf would be competitive if it just formed one regional team with players from different nations. The United States, remember, hasn't had a World Cup goal from a striker in about 8 years.<br /><br />Argentina continues to pour in goals in a tournament where goals are hard to come by. They have a quarterfinal match with Germany.<br /><br />And whither now Concacaf? Rather than closing on Europe and South America, it appears to have been caught by Asia, which put as many teams in the second round as Concacaf and had a better showing from its teams that didn't go through (Australia at least put up a fight whereas Honduras looked like it couldn't score a goal if it had another six games).Kenneth R. Morefieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02492954693818444648noreply@blogger.com0