All Things Ken

"Cheaper" By the Bundle

2010-11-07T16:25:00.002-05:00

What's wrong with this picture?

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.

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?"

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.

Stuff My Ipod Throws Together

2010-10-12T17:26:00.002-05:00

"And I don't want to die...

But sometimes I wish I'd never been born at all...."

Queen; "Bohemian Rhapsody"

"And He gave us life, in His perfect will;

And by His good grace, I will praise Him still."

Fernando Ortega; "I Will Praise Him Still."

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 Learning to Craawl and Amy Grant's The Collection.

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).

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

TIFF 2010 Schedule

2010-08-31T14:01:00.002-05:00

So 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:

Thursday September 9

Film Socialism (Godard)

Inside Job (Ferguson)

Friday September 10

The Way (Estevez)

Guest (Guerin)

Saturday September 11

Erotic Man (Leth)

The King's Speech (Hooper)

Stone (Curran)

Jucy (Alston)

Sunday September 12

Made in Dagenham (Cole)

Conviction (Goldwyn)

The Illusionist (Chomet)

Monday September 13

Tamara Drew (Frears)

The Game of Death (Nick & Bornot)

Of Gods and Men (Beauvois)

Tuesday September 14

Miral (Schnabel)

Beautiful Boy (Ku)

The Sleeping Beauty (Breillat)

Meek's Cutoff (Reichardt)

Wednesday September 15

Amigo (Sayles)

Blue Valentine (Cianfrance)

Anything You Want (Mañas)

Hard to pick one film from a list like this and say it is what I'm most looking forward to, but Blue Valentine has been on my radar since Cannes. Look for reviews at 1More Film Blog.

Netflix Recommendations....

2010-08-29T08:10:00.002-05:00

....kinda, well...suck.

I read somewhere that Netflix had a contest for a million dollars for someone who could improve their recommendations. They need it.

Recently I got this odd genre category: "Cerebral Movies With a Strong Female Lead"

Um, okay, that sounds like the SORT of movie I might like, but...

Based on Your Interest in:

Sex as Comedy (Catherine Breillat)

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.

Netflix recommends:

Very Young Girls (Rachel Lloyd)

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."

Worst. Airline. Ever.

2010-08-20T20:17:00.002-05:00

Gotta be Delta.

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.

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.

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...

Ummm....reduced?

Yeah, only $59.

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.

Guess I won't be flying Delta again any time soon.

Courtyard by Marriott Scam

2010-08-09T18:49:00.003-05:00

Hey Courtyard by Marriott welcome to the customer service hall of shame.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I swear, all I could think about was that song in Les Miserables:

"Charge em for the lice..

Extra for the mice...

Two percent for looking in the mirror twice!

Here a little slice,

There a little cut...

Three percent for sleeping with the window shut!"

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.

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.

GoDaddy Rocks

2010-08-02T22:28:00.002-05:00

Okay, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?"

Thanks GoDaddy.

World Cup 2010 Game 64: Spain 1, The Netherlands 0

2010-07-11T17:08:00.004-05:00

It was, as one announcer said on ABC, "an ill-tempered final."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Congratulations to Spain for its first ever World Cup title. They were the best team throughout and deserved to hoist the trophy.

Wow, watching every single game of the World Cup was harder than I thought.

World Cup 2010 Game 63: Germany 3, Uruguay 2

2010-07-10T22:31:00.002-05:00

The 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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

World Cup 2010 Game 62: Spain 1, Germany 0

2010-07-07T21:31:00.003-05:00

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.

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.

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.

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.

It should be a great final.

World Cup 2010 Game 61: The Netherlands 3, Uruguay 2

2010-07-06T20:20:00.002-05:00

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Credit an understaffed Uruguay team for making the semifinals and staying level for a half, but the better team went through today.

World Cup 2010 Game 60: Spain 1, Paraguay 0

2010-07-03T21:16:00.002-05:00

Immovable object, meet irresistible force.

Paraguay had given up a total of 1 goal in this World Cup, and no team had scored in the last four games.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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?

World Cup 2010 Game 59: Germany 4, Argentina 0

2010-07-03T20:53:00.002-05:00

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

World Cup 2010 Game 58: Uruguay 1, Ghana 1

2010-07-02T21:01:00.002-05:00

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Then, incredibly, Ghana missed the penalty kick as the player hit the top of the goal post and the kick sailed away.

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.

Once the penalty kick was missed, it seemed inevitable that Ghana would lose in the shoot out, and they did.

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.

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.

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.

World Cup 2010 Game 57: The Netherlands 2, Brazil 1

2010-07-02T20:44:00.002-05:00

I guess that's why they play the game.

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.)

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.

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.

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.)

The Netherlands will likely be a favorite in the semi-finals.

World Cup 2010 Game 56: Spain 1, Portugal 0

2010-06-29T15:28:00.002-05:00

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.

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).

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.

With Spain's victory, seven of the eight group winners advanced. Only the United States failed to win its round of sixteen game.

World Cup 2010 Game 55

2010-06-29T15:11:00.002-05:00

Paraguay 0, Japan 0

The only thing more dissatisfying than winning a game on Penalty Kicks is losing one.

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.

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.

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.

World Cup 2010 Games 53 & 54

2010-06-29T08:49:00.002-05:00

The Netherlands 2, Slovakia 1
Brazil 3, Chile 0

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.)

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.

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.

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.

World Cup 2010 Game 52: Argentina 3, Mexico 1

2010-06-27T15:33:00.003-05:00

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.

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.

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.

Argentina continues to pour in goals in a tournament where goals are hard to come by. They have a quarterfinal match with Germany.

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).

World Cup 2010 Game 51: Germany 4, England 1

2010-06-27T10:37:00.003-05:00

FIFA will no doubt take the position that the final score of the match supports the contention that England's disallowed goal did not determine the outcome of the match.

As even the casual observer over the last two weeks will have noted, though, playing from behind in soccer is a very different proposition from playing level, and the notion that all other things would have been the same moving forward from that point on is as laughable as the failure to award England a goal for a ball that struck the crossbar and bounced inward a yard inside the box and over the line. When the backspin on the ball bounced it back to Germany's keeper, play quickly continued despite the protests of the English side.

In eschewing goal line technology, FIFA has said that it likes the controversy that the human element introduces to the game. Let's be clear on something, then. This was not a controversial decision. This was a wrong decision. There was nothing controversial about it. It is not and was not a judgment call. It was not a borderline decision. It was a flat error. At one of the showcase events of the largest tournament in the world.

As an American with a non-rooting interest in this particular game, I can only say that my hope is now that the final gets somehow marred by an error of this magnitude. Even then, will that be enough to make the governing body heed the cries to take even the most basic steps to correct the most blatant errors? Chip technology has existed for years to measure these sorts of plays and is used effectively in hockey, a much harder sport to judge goal line technology. As American coach Bob Bradley has pointed out, diving could be effectively eliminated without stopping play or altering decisions on the field by rescinding automatic suspensions after review and penalizing the players that took a dive.

When an error of this magnitude takes place, it is customary to focus on the unfairness to the losing side, in this case, England. There is an unfairness to Germany, too. Germany could very well go on to win the World Cup (though they face some fierce competition). If they do, will there always be a nagging question to mitigate their sense of accomplishment? Maybe not. And certainly everyone would rather be on one side of these decisions than the other. It is easy enough to believe you would have prevailed regardless. But believing you are the best team on the field and knowing it, proving it, are two different things.

World Cup 2010 Game 50: Ghana 2, United States 1

2010-06-26T16:01:00.002-05:00

Yes, well...we didn't think they would win it, but I am surprised the United States did not advance further.

Two things made the difference. The United States twice again gave up an early goal, first early in the game and then, again, early in the overtime period. In four games at this World Cup the United States played with the lead a grand total of about two minutes after the stoppage goal against Algeria. Mentally, physically, always pushing uphill costs you physically, mentally, and emotionally.

Secondly, there was just a difference of individual skill at the striker level. Ghana's second goal came not just on a U.S. defensive breakdown but on a skillful finish from a Ghana player who kept his balance, controlled the ball and put it on goal with pace over a good keeper. The few shots that the United States had were at the keeper. Set pieces, normally a strength of the United States were few and far between and are, of course, harder to execute with tired legs.

There are no easy games in the World Cup, no mismatches any more. The bitterness of a loss is, perhaps, alleviated a bit by the fact that it was not on a huge mental lapse or a poor referee's decision but rather on getting beat squarely by a team that capitalized on the chances it had.

World Cup 2010 Game 49: Uruguay 2, South Korea 1

2010-06-26T13:04:00.003-05:00

Congratulations to Uruguay for its first knockout victory in over thirty years. Congratulations, too, to South Korea, which fought hard and valiantly in the second half, scoring an equalizer in the second half before giving up a beautiful curving corner strike from Luis Suarez.

Uruguay now plays the winner of the United States vs. Ghana and will like its chances. It has conceded one goal thus far in the tournament and is toughened by having survived what was, apparently, the most challenging regional qualification process.

Two stories to keep an eye on that ESPN has mentioned but perhaps not highlighted:

--Once again, there were a lot of empty seats. I understand that these are not two teams with huge international fan bases, and from a neutral standpoint was the least sexy of the matchups, but FIFA has to be concerned about this matter. I could not find attendance reported in any of the stat sheets, but the figure I saw for the US-Algeria game was 35K. I would think, if anything, this bodes well for the US bid to host 2018 or 2022. It certainly puts a hamper on the argument for more host nations in non-traditional (i.e. South American or European) sites. (Incidentally, ESPN's Bob Ley mentioned there were also a lot of empty seats for the U.S.-Ghana game. The explanation offered there was that these could have been bought by English fans expecting their side to win the group, but I'm not sure I'm buying that. Anyone who has been around a tournament knows that there are usually fans hanging around after the game trying to pick up tickets for the next game from fans of the losing side. So maybe some English fans had tickets they didn't want to use, but the bigger story would be that there was nobody there to take them off their hands.)

--The field was not in nice shape. Okay, one commentator used the phrase "terrible." There are other knock out games scheduled for here, including, perhaps a game with the popular (and pass oriented) Brazil. Could the field conditions affect the run of play at a key moment? Stay tuned.

World Cup 2010 Games 47 and 48: Group H

2010-06-25T21:34:00.003-05:00

Spain 2, Chile 1
Switzerland 0, Honduras 0

Yes, that was a shot, not a fluke occurrence. The last set of group games was punctuated by the jaw dropping goal of Spain's David Villa who capitalized on yet another goal keeper error to score from loooooong range.

With the score 0-0 and Chile forcing the action and controlling much of play, Spain had a long pass to a striker making the run. It actually looked like the Chilean defender took an angle and was going to cut off play, but the Chilean goalkeeper streaked out of his box to try to reach the ball first, fearing a break away. He slid into the ball just before the Spanish player and Chilean defender, but he failed to clear the ball out of bounds, so it deflected off both charging players back to the left center of the field and at the feet of David Villa. Villa was staring at an empty (literally) goal. There was just one problem...it was 40 yards away. Did I say problem? Nope, Villa made a long, curving ball that started left of goal and arched like a slicing golf drive into the seemingly gaping goal mouth.

Funny, isn't it, how sometimes (like when the U.S. was 0-0 and needing a goal to advance) that goal can look so small and at other times (like when you are a Danish goalkeeper facing a Japanese free kick) the space you have to cover seems so wide.

Chile started the evening with six points and had a man sent off for a second yellow card just before half time. They faced the prospect of forty-five minutes against the number two team in the world while playing a man down, and a seemingly secure position now looked precarious.

Cynics may suspect that Spain took their foot off the gas in the second half. Once Chile scored a short handed goal to close it to 2-1 it was almost as though both teams tacitly admitted they had the results they needed barring two goals from a Swiss team that only managed one the whole tournament. Still, Switzerland was playing a weak Honduras team, so nothing was in the bag. Honduras actually had a few more chances (and an outside shot at qualifying if they could win by three or more goals). Instead both sides played to a zero-zero draw and we were spared yet a third Top 10 team in the world going out before the second stage.

We were also spared the 1 v 2 match of Spain/Brazil in the knockout round, though, honestly, Spain/Portugal will be nearly as heavy. Brazil is the big winner as they not only get a weaker Chilean team but one that will be missing two players from an accumulation of cards. That said, Chile has played Brazil twice in qualifying and while they didn't win, the familiarity of playing that team means they won't be in awe of the Brazilian side. Still, look for Brazil to go through and set up a round of 8 match with the Dutch.

In the knockout stage things rarely go according to seeds, but if they do, one would half to say that America got a much easier draw than the second place team in their group, England. To win the World Cup, America would have to beat (in order): Ghana, Uruguay/South Korea, Brazil, and Spain (which they have done). England would have to beat Germany, Argentina, Spain, and Brazil or the 1, 2, 5 and 6 ranked teams in the world. So while America is bemoaning its bad luck to get the Malian referee in game two, let us remember they caught a break with a fluke goal against England.

World Cup 2010 Games 45 and 46: Group G

2010-06-25T10:39:00.002-05:00

Brazil 0, Portugal 0
Ivory Coast 3, North Korea 0

Much as I predicted yesterday Brazil and Portugal played a less than enthralling match today. There were chippy fouls and a lot of yellow cards in the first half and while Ivory Coast scored an early two goals at no point was Portugal's nine goal differential in doubt. Even if it were, that would be all the more reason for Portugal to play for a draw. Brazil goes to one side of the bracket, seemingly on a collision course with the Dutch, while Portugal may get Spain as their reward for not getting the victory...unless of course Spain can't get a result against Chile.

This was the equivalent of an exhibition game, so I wouldn't read too much into it, but there was one play that was telling. In the first half Portugal had a rare counterattack and a man advantage on a four-three break away. The attacker was in the penalty box, unmarked on the right. Granted the angle wasn't the best, but he laid it off to the center to another player who dove in the box. The result of Portugal's best scoring chance? No shot on goal and a yellow card for embellishment. Portugal is an immensely talented team but that sequence suggests a confidence gap to me. Do they believe they are as good as Brazil? That they can win? In every sport there are players that want the ball in crunch time and players that in the back of their minds would be just as happy to see it go to someone else.

There were a few moments in injury time, including a nice stop by Portugal's goalie off of a deflected shot, but mostly this was a game played very close to the vest.

It's fashionable to feel sorry for the Ivory Coast, probably the best African side, both for the injury to their best player and for drawing the toughest group. Ultimately, though, it didn't come down to goal differentials since Portugal got a tie against Brazil. Also, Ivory Coast had a shot at Portugal in the opening game and both sides played very cautiously, more not to lose than to win. When you do that, you can't complain later that things aren't in your own hands.

One thought about Brazil going forward. They are the #1 team. They are the favorite. But they got 2 goals from a North Korea team that gave up seven to Portugal and were held scoreless by Portugal. Once you get to the knockout stage, will the recipe for beating Brazil be on defense rather than offense...going to penalty kicks or getting a goal of your own on limited opportunities (if North Korea can score on them than anyone can)?

World Cup 2010 Games 43 and 44: Group E

2010-06-24T23:33:00.002-05:00

Japan 3, Denmark 1
The Netherlands 2, Cameroon 1

Pretty much this whole tournament announcers have been lamenting the lack of goals from direct free kicks (not penalty kicks). It must be the new ball sailing...or the altitude. Then Japan scores two in the same half. First time it's happened in long time. Granted the first (which was from waaaaaay out) was aided by a goalie misstep--he broke the wrong way and didn't have time to recover. The second was a beauty. Later a long, looping cross from near midfield bounced off the goalie's hand and hit the crossbar. It wasn't the goalie's best day.

But that makes it sound like the goalie had a bad day. Japan dominated this game, with speed, creativity, and solid defense. (The goal allowed was on a bogus penalty kick awarded by...yes...a crazy referee.) As the game progressed, Denmark chipped long ball after long ball forward, hoping that a loose ball would fall in the box for an opportunistic goal. I suppose scouting may have made this a strategy, but if madness is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result....

I have nothing to say about The Netherlands, a team that had already advanced against Cameroon, a team that had already been eliminated other than to ask why this game needed to be played (except to get another African goal on penalty kicks). Then again, I should ask that of a tournament that makes the semifinals losers play a third place game? (Could you imagine West Virginia playing Michigan State the afternoon before the Duke-Butler game?)

The Dutch have had a very workmanlike stroll through their group and unless Brazil beats Portugal wins tomorrow will be the only team to finish the first round with three victories.

Speaking of Brazil, Portugal and meaningless games: with Kaka out on a bogus booking and both sides safely through (assuming Ivory Coast can't make up a 9 goal differential) I suspect you may actually see a pretty boring game...conservative, safe, with both sides caring more about avoiding cards and injuries moving forward. Add to that the fact that the winner of the group gets put in a subbracket with The Netherlands, and there may not be much urgency.

Then again, the second place team may get Spain in the round of 16. (Assuming the Swiss can beat Honduras, Spain has to win to advance to the next stage, so they are likely either going to win the group or go home.)

Interestingly enough, we could have three of the top four ranked teams in the world in the same quadrant of the bracket, and the teams ranked 6,7, and 8 (Germany, Argentina, England). Due respect to Japan, who shredded the Danes, but if you were Portugal, your reward for winning is a bracket with Spain (probably), Slovakia, and The Netherlands. Your reward for coming in second is a bracket with Switzerland/Chile, Japan, and Paraguay. Hmmmm, we may have a bunch of "own goals" in this one.

World Cup 2010 Games 41 and 42:: Group F

2010-06-24T22:31:00.003-05:00

Slovakia 3, Italy 2
Paraguay 0, New Zealand 0

Ciao Azzuri. Italy joins France with an early departure from the World Cup. Given my ambivalence for the Italian side, it was especially gratifying to see de Rossi give away the lazy (and dangerous) central pass that led to the first Slovakia goal.

The oddest thing about this game was the last ten to fifteen minutes. Once Italy gave up the second goal, they went relentlessly on the attack, and when they scored the first goal, Slovakia (which needed a win to qualify) looked shaky. Then, as quickly as Italy established dominance, the old arrogance set in and they didn't mark a man on a THROW IN. The Slovakian sub scored on his first touch of the ball to make it 3-1. Even then Italy threw in a second goal and it seemed like Slovakia was the team on the ropes. Despite the referee chastising the Slovakians for wasting time, they fell to the pitch crying injury with every touch. It really was a shameful display, and if it happened against anyone except Italy, which had stolen a point from New Zealand with a dive of their own, I suppose I would have felt angry. Here it just seemed apropos.

The whistle finally blew, leaving the Italian players showing emotion that had been lacking most of the last three games.

Once Slovakia took a 2-0 lead Paraguay was reasonably safe, but they were playing a dangerous, defensive game. Despite leading the group, Paraguay would have been passed by New Zealand if they had given up a goal, and by Italy if the Italian side won. Even once Slovakia beat Italy, they had a few nervous moments to wait in case New Zealand slipped a ball into the net, which would have elevated them into second place. (This was sort of the revers of the last day of Concacaf qualifying in which Honduras finished their win a few minutes early but still found themselves behind Costa Rica, which was tied with the United States. When American Jonathan Bornstein put in a stoppage time goal, he knotted the game and put Honduras through and Costa Rica in a playoff with Uruguay.) Unfortunately for the Kiwis, their magic ran out and they go home without having lost a game (or winning one).

A lot of attention has been on France and their early exit, but the departure of Italy is a bigger deal. Italy is ranked fifth in the world (to France's ninth) and had a significantly easier draw. (France's opponents were ranked 16 [Uruguay], 17 [Mexico], and 83 [South Africa, playing on home soil]; Italy's opposition was ranked 31 [Paraguay], 34 [Slovakia], and 78 [New Zealand]). In retrospect there might have been signs that Italy was overrated. They fell to Egypt in last year's Confederation's Cup and then got pasted 3-0 by Brazil (allowing a U.S. squad it had beat handily earlier in pool play to advance on goal differentials.) The FIFA rankings are based on results from the last four years (it used to be on the last EIGHT). This would be a little bit like ranking the Philadelphia Eagles as one of the top five teams in the NFL because they have made the Super Bowl with players who were no longer there. Still, much as with the NCAA tournament, the name on the Jersey matters...at least to oddsmakers. Today it didn't matter to Slovakia, they certainly appeared to want it more. Italy acted like they deserved it because of who they were, but they didn't. If they had played with anything approaching the intensity and urgency they did in the last ten minutes they would have skated through this region. Turns out, as Clint Eastwood said in Unforgiven, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it."

One footnote to this match. Italy looked like they had a second goal when a Slovakian defender on the goal line kicked it away. It was hard to tell if the ball had crossed the goal line first, replays were inconclusive and the refs on the field ruled it no goal. They also had a goal taken away on an offside penalty that looked as close as the U.S./Algeria disallowed goal that had Americans up in arms. It's not that the refereeing has been terrible at this World Cup, it's that the difference between these teams, even the powerhouses and the little fish, is very small, and with not too many goals scored, every decision is critical. Again, I would feel more sympathy for the Italians if they hadn't been the recipients of a dubious penalty kick against New Zealand. That said, the U.S. should can any "why does this only happen to us?" It doesn't.

World Cup 2010 Games 39 and 40: Group D

2010-06-23T15:49:00.002-05:00

Germany 1, Ghana 0
Australia 2, Serbia 1

As thrilling as the end of the U.S.-Algeria game was, the last 10 minutes of Australia-Serbia was just as intense. Before moving to the knock out stage lets take a moment to praise Australia, a team that could have folded its tent after a 4-0 drubbing to the German side and playing two games with 10 men. Instead they scored two quick goals and suddenly the impossible seemed to be gaining momentum. They went for it, pushing forward, trying to make up a goal differential that weighed heavily against them. Then, in the desperate push forward, they left the defense vulnerable to a counter attack. Serbia scored and suddenly they went from dead in the water (down two goals in the second half) to needing only a tie to pass Ghana on goals scored).

Suddenly both teams were desperate for goals and that meant back and forth play like you don't never see.

Oh, and hey, lets throw a little controversy in the mix. On a Serbian corner kick a deflection hit Australian Paul Cahill in the hand. The referee (rightly, in my opinion) determined the hand ball inadvertent and did not award the penalty kick.

Like Group C, Group D turned out to be very evenly matched. Although the referee decisions weren't as dramatic as those in the U.S. games, consider that Ghana got all its points on penalty kicks, that Germany played half a game (and all the next game) without their best player. Australia won every game that they got to keep all eleven players on the field. That said, Serbia didn't push when they had a man advantage against Germany and Ghana did not put more pressure on Australia when they had a man advantage.

One side note--Germany certainly seemed to be playing a less aggressive game. Cynically, I might think that the U.S. result meant they may have preferred second place in the group (which would have happened with a tie), but a tie combined with a Serbia win would have knocked the Germans clean out. Once the Australia/Serbia game went into the 90th minute with Australia up a goal, I have expected Germany to let in a howler to get a more favorable match up in the knockout round.

Or is it? The U.S. scored four goals to England's two. Still, once you get to one and done stage, the World Cup is filled with teams who have looked less than great during the pool stage and manage to gain momentum and improve as it goes along.

World Cup 2010 Games 37 and 38: Group C

2010-06-23T15:01:00.003-05:00

United States 1, Algeria 0
England 1, Slovenia 0

It is traditional from a sports reporting context to report these sorts of fairy tale endings by saying you could just feel it coming.

I didn't. I thought they were dead in the water. All credit to Landon Donovan, Jozy Altidore and the rest of Bob Bradley's crew. When Clint Dempsey put the ball in goal in the first half and it was disallowed due to a questionable offside call it just felt as though the United States was going to have a valiant effort followed by four years of legitimate griping.

ESPN commentator Chris Fowler mentioned after the game that the United States in qualifying and the World Cup have scored 9 goals from the 86 minute mark and on--more than double that of any other team. Part of that, of course, may be due to its penchant for playing from behind, but surely part of it is a commitment to playing from whistle to whistle.

I really can't say enough about this U.S. team. I think one of the hardest things to do in life (or the subset of life) is to continue to plug away after you've earned a result (or feel you have) only to have it taken from you by unfairness, circumstances, or bad luck. Psychologically, it becomes easy to feel that things are stacked against you, that it was not meant to be, and that you have a built in excuse for failure. I'm very happy for the team.

The English win was not quite as dramatic. They got an early goal and looked to be group winners until Landon's run. The story line here may be missed opportunities. Rooney put a shot off the post (and this one looked like he was offside). This is important because another goal would have put England in first place rather than second. Why is that important? The United States plays Ghana and then the winner of Uruguay-South Korea; England will get Germany with the winner to play the winner of Argentina-Mexico; which side of the bracket would you rather be on?

Alexi Lalas claims the United States will be the underdog since Ghana will most likely be the only African side to advance. I'm not so sure. Ghana has scored two goals in three games, and both were on penalty kicks. That said, if we've seen anything in the group stage it is that on any given day the margin between these teams is not that great.

World Cup 2010 Games 35 and 36: Group B

2010-06-22T14:54:00.002-05:00

Argentina 2, Greece 0
South Korea 2, Nigeria 2

I was mostly watching the South Korea-Nigeria game, so when I turned to the Argentina-Greece match I was really surprised to see the Argentine side wearing navy blue. How odd. While not quite as iconic as the Dutch orange, the power blue with white stripes is so associated with Argentina that I actually did a double take when the announcers called a guy in the darker blue "Messi."

In my Yahoo! Pick'em Group, I predicted a 2-0 Argentina win. My thought process was that they were the better team and that Greece, behind on goals scored, would have to play aggressively. I figured they would give up a goal eventualy and once they did have to keep attacking. That is pretty much what happened.

The Nigeria-South Korea game was definitely the more entertaining of the two. Because Nigeria still had a decent chance, but only with a result, and because South Korea knew a tie might not be enough (if Greece were to upset Argentina) we had two sides pushing for the victory.

We also had a rarity in soccer--a seesaw battle. Nigeria took an early goal, but South Korea equalized and then took the lead on a free kick that curved in when the goalkeeper (previously very good for Nigeria) broke the wrong way. Nigeria tied it on a penalty kick and on the last ten minutes, with both sides knowing that Greece had gone down 0-2 knew a goal would for Nigeria would win it.

And they had some chances. South Korea definitely looked gassed at the end, and even though they were the better side, you could feel the crowd, desperate for an African team to get behind, swelling for a goal. Two lasers in the last ten minutes were just wide right and eventually Nigeria didn't lose so much as run out of time.

Ultimately it was Nigeria's foolish red card against Greece, for a frustrated kick after a shove, that will haunt them. Greece, coming off of an 0-2 drubbing from South Korea, was dead in the water; being able to play with a man advantage got them back in it.

Argentina has a show down with Mexico while South Korea will meet Uruguay. South Korea is a work horse team, but I think Uruguay's discipline, talent, and experience will make the difference. I'll have to think about the other game for awhile before making a prediction.

My one surprise was the lack of urgency on the Greek side. They needed a result, were basically playing Argentina's "B" side (Maradonna put in six subs to protect players with yellow cards), and yet they let Argentina control possession and lean on them the whole game until the inevitable breakthrough.

World Cup 2010 Games 33 and 34: Group A

2010-06-22T10:33:00.002-05:00

My quest to watch every game got both easier and harder. The movement to simulcasts meant no more 7:30 a.m. games, but it did mean I had to stream France and South Africa on the computer while watching Uruguay and Mexico.

Uruguay 1, Mexico 0
South Africa 2, France 1

The results mean that Uruguay wins the group and Mexico goes through second on goal differential.

The real story of this group, though, was France. Ranked in the Top 10 and a penalty kick shoot out away from winning the cup four years ago (and not that far removed from the Zidane glory days of winning it all themselves), the team struggled through qualifying, avoided a play-in loss to Northern Ireland on the infamous Henry handball, and failed to score a goal in the first two games. Team turmoil had a conditioning coach quit, a player (Anelka) sent home after the second game for insubordination, and, yet, amazingly, still had an outside sniff of qualifying for the second round with a decisive win against South Africa. Instead, they gave up an early goal and had a man sent off with a red card for an elbow to the the head.

Although a tie would move both Mexico and Uruguay to the next round, Mexico appeared to have enough of a goal differential cushion that a loss would not hurt them, so there was some incentive to play for the win. This game played out much as I had predicted, with Mexico moving forward early and Uruguay content with the counter attacks. When Uruguay scored a late first half goal, the complexion changed slightly. With South Africa up 2-0 and having a man advantage, Mexico suddenly found a seemingly insurmountable goal differential advantage cut in half. Thus the second half was a bit more tentative as the quest for the equalizing goal (which wouldn't have changed the rankings coming out of the group) became less important than scoreboard watching and ensuring they didn't give up any more goals. When France scored a short handed goal (welcome to the World Cup, guys, glad you finally showed up), the ordering of the group stage was set and the teams played out the string. (To be fair to South Africa about giving up the short-handed goal, they were pushing forward, even with a two goal lead, because they needed a bigger margin of victory.)

How to assess the chances of the two sides moving forward?

Uruguay will most likely play either Greece, South Korea, or Nigeria, and will be favored to beat any of those teams. If they were to make the quarterfinals they would play the winner of a match up between groups C and D, possibly the United States, England, Slovenia, Serbia, Ghana, or Australia...with an outside chance it could be Germany.) Given the way England is playing, none of those teams would scare Uruguay, though several could beat them. Still, the Uruguayan squad has to feel as though they have as good a chance at the semifinals as anyone, and if they can make it that far, anything can happen in one game (see US in Confederation Cup).

Mexico will almost certainly play Argentina (unless the Argentines give up four or more to the Greeks while failing to score). Argentina would certainly be favored, but Mexico has the right sort of demeanor for that game: because they think they are better than they are they will not be cowed. They also have the individual talent to make plays. (Guardado's strike that hit the crossbar in the first half of this game was almost a highlight show stopper.) A win there would get probably Germany, the United States or England. In other words, that side of the bracket is quite a bit tougher, explaining why Mexico pressed for a victory when a tie would put them through. The difference between winning Group A and coming in second was substantial, assuming, of course, that the Germany that played Australia with a man advantage is closer to what we'll see against Ghana than the Germany that played Serbia with a man disadvantage. Germany may be the hardest team to judge so far because they have played less than a half in two full games with equal footing.

World Cup 2010 Game 32: Spain 2, Honduras 0

2010-06-21T19:39:00.003-05:00

We're half way there. This was Game 32 of 64. The pace will pick up a bit tomorrow as there will be four games a day instead of three to accommodate the last games of pool play being played simultaneously.

Group H is shaping up for a wide open finish. All four teams are still alive, though Honduras would need Chile to beat Spain and to make up a difference of four in the goal differential category. Since they've not seriously threatened goal in two games, this seems unlikely.

But Spain may live to regret not jumping on Honduras when they had a chance. Unlike Portugal in the early match didn't want to leave the door open for the Ivory Coast (whom they had tied and had already played Brazil), Spain seemed content, almost relieved when they finally broke the ice with David Villa's first goal. (That goal, by the way, while not quite a Maradona run, was a beautiful possession keeping one on three challenge that culminated in the player making his own shot. Aesthetically it wasn't as spectacular as a few we've seen, but it will be on the short list for best goals of the tournament.)

Perhaps most troublesome, they missed a penalty kick late in the game that would have been the third goal. This would have no outcome on the game but could have a huge outcome on the tournament. Even if Spain were to beat Chile, they can't guarantee they won't end in a three way tie between Chile and Switzerland. Chile's goal differential is currently +2, Spain's +1, and Switzerland's is even. Were Spain to win, they'd have to outscore Chile by at least 1 goal, so they would move ahead on goal differential and be in. That mean's Chile has to play for a win or hope that Switzerland doesn't score big against Honduras. Here's the thing, though, if the Swiss post a large number on Honduras, they could leapfrog Spain to the first position. So while Spain can make sure they go through by winning, they are less certain to get first place (though they still could) and avoid a match up with Brazil in the Round of 16.

Then again, the team in second gets, most likely, Portugal, who seem to have turned on the jets. It's probably pick your poison. Could it be possible that someone might actually prefer Brazil. (It need be said, too, that with Kaka out, there is no guarantee that Brazil will beat Portugal. Since they are already safely through to the Round of 16, they could rest players.)

World Cup 2010 Game 31: Chile 1, Switzerland 0

2010-06-21T10:48:00.003-05:00

Chile gets a second win yet they aren't guaranteed to advance. They have a final game against a Spanish team that will need a result, and the Swiss get the weaker Honduras side. (That is, of course, unless Honduras ties or beats Spain later today.)

The story of this game was simple. After Switzerland had a man mysteriously ejected (straight red for a challenge), they tried to buckle down and just play for a tie. For awhile it looked like they would do it, but a goal line crossing shot to a header put Chile on the verge of advancing.

Switzerland is primarily a defensive, countering team, so the pressure is on them since goal differential will likely determine which two of the top three go through, again, unless Honduras can get a result against Spain. Because of that, this is a bigger loss (and they were hurt more by the referees sending the player off) than the Spain upset was a big win.

In the area of small consolations, Switzerland broke the record for most consecutive World Cup minutes without conceding a goal. So, while there was no guarantee that they would not have given up a goal any way, the red card really, really, hurt them.

That said, it is not a foregone conclusion that Spain will beat Chile in the last game of the round robin. Chile will have several things to play for...they will want to win the group so as to avoid Brazil in the next stage. And Spain will be playing against a side that knows it needs only a tie. While other games show the danger of playing for a tie (if you let a goal in all the air seems to go out, like it did to North Korea, because you've psychologically convinced yourself that you can't score), Chile is also aggressive enough that it can score even against a defensive minded team. So I don't expect them to go into a complete shell against Spain, but I do expect them to push forward less and for Spain to have fewer opportunistic chances (as opposed to chances they create).

Switzerland had an open shot from within the box in the 89th minute for a chance to tie. If they don't go through that miss, as much as the foul, will probably haunt them.

Other news of note, Chile player got a yellow card for diving in the box. As I mentioned earlier, the risk reward of that rule is all wrong. The reward for pulling it off is a penalty kick (see Italy/New Zealand). In a group that may come down to goal differential, that's worth a shot to try to draw the penalty call. The penalty for a dive in the box should be more severe. That said, I'm not sure what it should be. A red card may be too severe, as would a penalty kick the other way. Maybe a suspension for the next game? (That would make sense if FIFA would be willing to review calls between games, but...)

World Cup Game 30: Portugal 7, North Korea 0

2010-06-21T09:03:00.005-05:00

Well, excepting Germany's 4-0 result against a ten man Australia side this World Cup had been lacking the good old fashioned rout. Portugal kicked an extra point in the first half and then put a touchdown on the board in the second. Legend has it that when the United States beat England in the last century that everyone assumed the 1-0 score was a misprint and that the score must have been 1-10. Well this was no misprint.

Because Portugal has Brazil in their last game and a tie breaker is on goal differential, they can be excused for pressing for every goal. North Korea is officially eliminated and Ivory Coast all but. (They would have to have a Portugal loss to Brazil and make up a nine goal differential.)

Portugal showed why, despite a lack of success on the biggest stage, people continue to think them favorites to make deep runs in every tournament. They scored goals of all kinds: counter attack, build up, header off a cross, individual strike. Since I picked on Christiano Ronaldo for diving let me say this: with Portugal up 3-0 Ronaldo had the the ball in the box and an opportunity to take on a tiring Korean defender. He layed the ball off to the top of the box for a charging teammate to make an easier strike. With the outcome not really in the balance a lot of players would begin to think about their own stats, much like the basketball players who pad their stats in the fourth quarter of a rout. Ronaldo did get a goal later after springing a defensive trap and winning a mad scramble in the box.

Portugal's win means that, most likely, if Spain recovers and qualifies out of their group they will likely have to play either Portugal or Brazil in the Round of 16. That means a match up of one of the following: World Ranking #1 (Brazil) vs. #2 (Spain) or #2 (Spain) vs. #3 (Portugal). Forget the "Group of Death" (Ivory Coast was hurt by an injury to their best player) the real story of the draw may yet be that three of the top four teams in the world ended up slated for the same quadrant of the knockout stage. Oh, and for all you non-geography majors, remember that Spain and Portugal are neighbors. The plot thickens...

World Cup Game 29: Brazil 3, Ivory Coast 1

2010-06-20T15:22:00.002-05:00

Okay, so maybe whatever group Brazil is in is the Group of Death. Maybe the tournament is one big group of death.

The story here was not the result, not even the fact that an African team scored on Brazil for the first time ever. No, the story here was, as one announcer put it "the not so beautiful game."

Make no mistake FIFA is so big and soccer so powerful that they don't really care about controversy. They like it. Because other than Americans people don't seem to let the bad parts of the sport drive them away. The premiere games of the tournament have been marred with controversy from poor officiating to poor sportsmanship.

Ivory Coast was a bit chippy against Portugal. The pathetic nature of the display here is that they howled and complained about Portugal's propensity to dive and managed to get Ronaldo thrown out for the next game. Here they were chippy again, and when Brazilian star Kaka put up an elbow to protect himself from an oncoming bump the Ivory Coast player took his hit to the chest, dove to the ground and grabbed his face. Remarkably, the Brazilian player was shown a yellow card, his second, and will now miss the last game. In what may only be seen as a bit of irony, Ivory Coast actually needs Brazil to do well in that game (against Portugal) or they will not have any chance to go through.

This pathetic display was on the heels of a game in which Italian villain de Rossi (if you don't know who he is Google "Brian McBride foul Italy" or check out this link). De Rossi salvaged a point by Italy when he dove in the box after a slight shirt pull, earning a harsh penalty kick from a referee who, we can only assume, was the only person in the world who hadn't been shown the replay of Slovenia-USA a couple dozen times to see what ISN'T called a foul.

Earlier in the tournament I expressed happiness at two German players getting carded for taking dives. It really doesn't matter, though, how many announcers scold or fans complain. The issue of diving is simply an economical one of risk and reward. With goals at a premium and FIFA insistent on not using review to check or correct bad calls people will continue to dive because the rewards of it working far outweigh the penalties of it failing. De Rossi got a goal and saved a much needed point for Italy, maybe even made the difference between their advancing to the knockout round and not. You think he cares that some British announcer called him "pathetic"? It's incentive to break the rules.

When games of this magnitude get played with obvious errors that go uncorrected and effect the outcome not just of the game but the whole tournament, that's a problem. You would think FIFA would understand that their inaction sends the message to those watching of how to play the game and maximize your chance at results. More and more players dive because...well, it works.

Other than that...oh, yes, the game. Well, Brazil is #1 and despite the problems of most #1 seeds they dominated the match from start to finish. Can they be beaten? Of course...they were down 0-2 at half time to a United States squad just a year ago. They lost games in qualifying. New Zealand showed us that a feisty undermanned team can hang with superior talent. If someone does that and gets a lucky break...

I think the team that beats Brazil would have to defend well (Brazil will make enough opportunities, you can't give them extra), have a decent possession (you can't just sit back and let the waves come like New Zealand did at the end of the Italy game), have a hot goal keeper and believe they can win. Here are six (yes ten) sides that could do it:

Spain: Yeah they lost to Switzerland, but that's my point. Switzerland showed you can beat a superior side and the talent difference between Spain and Switzerland is greater than that between Brazil and Spain. That said, Spain has a reputation for early exits in the Cup. Some people were looking at these two teams as co-favorites. Could they meet up in the Round of 16? Yes, if Spain comes in second in their group. If not Brazil might face...

Chile: The Chileans lost twice to Brazil in qualifying, giving up 7 goals and scoring 2. Here's the thing though, they attack. Sometimes that means losing by a larger margin than a team that concedes defeat from the get go and just plays to keep it close.

Portugal: Remember in Olympic Basketball how Spain played USA in the round robin format and played very conservatively saving their best game for when they would see them again. If Portugal can get its act together they are a very talented team.

Paraguay: Know the last team to beat Brazil in qualifiers? They are still around in the tournament and are 2-0 and safely in the field of 16.
Netherlands: They are winning ugly but ranked fourth in the world.

Germany: Remember the first game and remember that Serbia is a good team that was playing with a man advantage.

Argentina: Messi gives them confidence. They had a loss and a tie against Brazil in qualifying and they weren't playing nearly as well.

All of these, except Argentina, are on Brazil's side of the bracket in the knockout stage. There are teams on the other side that could spring an upset (remember the United States was up 2-0 at half time in the Confederations Cup final) but I think if Brazil gets to the final they will win. Or, stated differently, if they go down it may be in one of the early knockout stage games.

World Cup Game 28: New Zealand 1, Italy 1

2010-06-20T10:52:00.004-05:00

Wow, where to start?

Many of the themes of World Cup 2010 were on display. First and foremost was the struggle of the Top 8 teams. Consider that of the top 9 teams in Fifa's World Rankings, the aggregate record so far is six wins, three losses and five draws. The Netherlands and Argentina and Brazil are fairly safe, while France is in trouble. England, Italy, Portugal, and Germany could all still go through, but, amazingly could all go home.

Italy dominated play. At one point they had fifteen corners to New Zealand's zero. Shots on goal were 20-3. The last fifteen minutes reminded me of the end of the Brazil-USA Confederation Cup Final with wave after wave going forward. That said, Italy's only goal was on a penalty kick for a tugged shirt. (I'm guessing American Michael Bradley wishes the referees for these two matches had been switched.)

Like Group C this group now faces a final set of matches where any of the four teams can go forward. Slovakia plays Italy and would need a win and help in the other match. New Zealand plays a Paraguay side that has looked the best so far but the Kiwis are playing with house money and are dead even with Italy in terms of goals scored and goal differential.

Italy had a ball deflect off the inside of the goal post, but the spin made it bounce harmlessly away. There is a game of inches.

All that being said, remember that four years ago the Italians weren't exactly lighting it up at this point, failing to score a game winner against an American side that was playing with 9 men. They got a good draw in the knock out stage (Australia, Ukraine) and then beat the home Germans to go to the final and win on penalty kicks. So the difference between not being in great form and not still being a threat is quite different. "Survive and advance" Jim Valvano used to the say about the NCAA basketball tournament. In that tournament, you often see a heavy favorite struggle early against a lesser opponent and yet survive (think of Florida beating Butler in Round 1 before going on to success or UCLA needing a buzzer beater to top Missouri in the second round before going on to win the tournament). It's not so much that this result could be a "wake up" call as that to go out you have to actually LOSE a game not just give up a tie.

When asked if his team could beat Slovakia and advance to the knockout stage the New Zealand coach said "does it matter?" That says it all. House money.

World Cup 2010 Game 27: Paraguay 2, Slovakia 0

2010-06-20T08:59:00.002-05:00

If yesterday was all about FIFA facing the possible nightmare of all six African teams going out in the first round, today was a reminder that South America is playing with a chip on its shoulder. There have been 18 World Cups and South American teams have won nine times: Brazil 5, Argentina 2, Uruguay 2. Perhaps more tellingly for the purposes of this tournament, no European team has ever won a World Cup that was not held in Europe. Brazil won the tournaments hosted in Japan/South Korea and the United States and Argentina took the tournament in Mexico '86.

Consider, too, that Argentina finished FOURTH in its qualifying and had to get a result on the last game to avoid a play-in round with Costa Rica (which was eventually won by Uruguay, the fifth place finisher). All five South American teams (Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Argentina) could qualify for the round of sixteen though Chile still has work to do with Switzerland having posted a result against Spain. Add the likelihood of Mexico going through and possibly the United States (both who represent Concacaf, or North and Central America) and seven of the final sixteen could represent the Americas. Any chance that Honduras can step up?

The game itself shows the strength of the South American teams. Having to play Brazil and Argentina twice each, the South American squads really have to put a premium on not giving away any easy scoring chances--see also the Uruguay/France game--and put a premium on putting away scoring chances when they arise. There were larger periods of the game where Slovakia didn't really put any pressure on goal.

The second goal was important because the second place finisher of this group will play The Netherlands. Since Paraguay has tied Italy, that could mean it comes down to goal differential, assuming the Italians (who trail early to New Zealand) actually show up.

World Cup 2010 Game 26: Denmark 2, Cameroon 1

2010-06-19T15:21:00.002-05:00

And Cameroon becomes the first team mathematically eliminated. That supports my notion of parity. Five of the eight groups have finished their second game and only 1 of the 20 teams is out.

Denmark becomes only the second team to record a come from behind victory. (Well, three if you count the United States which...ah, let it go...). In tracking the other story, Cameroon's loss means that the African nations now have 1 victory in 11 tries and that was on a late hand ball leading to a penalty kick in the Ghana-Serbia match.

Cameroon will play a meaningless game against the Netherlands (whose only job will be to make sure they don't get anyone sent off and banned for the first game of the knockout stage). Denmark, meantime has a showdown with Japan. Because of Japan's two goal difference in their win over Cameroon, the Danes will have to win the game to advance while Japan can play for a tie. Will they?

This game had an early goal and a lot of up and down action. Both of the Denmark goals were well struck. (In some ways the Danish sides reminds me of the American side--some shaky defense but competent players who will execute well.) Cameroon's best player hit the post late in the second half. It's funny how often the post gets hit in soccer and hockey. Or maybe it really isn't that often, but it feels memorable. What's odd is that you very rarely see a ball hit the inside of the post and deflect in.

The winner of Denmark-Japan gets the second place finisher amongst Italy, Paraguay, Slovakia, and New Zealand. Any of those matches would look fairly even to me.

World Cup 2010 Game 25: Ghana 1, Australia 1

2010-06-19T11:56:00.003-05:00

Well you have to feel for the Aussies a bit. After having star Paul Cahill sent off with a straight red against Germany they saw a 1-0 lead evaporate when a hand ball on the line cost them a player against Ghana. While the call wasn't necessarily a bad one, it did not seem like an intentional hand ball to me. Penalty kick in order, definitely, but the red card is a bit rough. That's the way the rule is written though. Ghana is atop the group on the basis of two penalty kicks, one against Germany and one against Australia.

Australia actually created more opportunities in the second half but were unable to convert. They are technically still alive, but the goal differentials are not in their favor thanks to the 0-4 drubbing against Germany. Australia would need Ghana to beat Germany and then they could beat Serbia to take second in the group. This result doesn't seem likely, but Germany will be without Klose who was sent off on his own so you never know what could happen in one game. A late penalty, a fluke bounce, and things could be dicey.

I hate to pick on announcers because, really, it's hard to be in front of the mike for 90 minutes and not have a few flubs. American announcer John Harkes no doubt puzzled more than one listener by saying that since they were playing a man down Australia must be satisfied with the result just as they were with the result against Germany. No doubt he meant that they were playing against Germany with 10 men as well, but it came out sounding like they must have been proud of their 0-4 loss.

Harkes did slip in the news that Australia star Tim Cahill will be eligible to play in the third game, against Serbia. Announcers in the Germany game opined that Cahill's tournament may be over because straight red cards are usually followed up with a two game suspension. Although two is typical, one is the minimum and that's what Cahill got. Perhaps this was bigger news in Australia, but as an American this was the first I had heard of it.

Ghana was playing a little cocky. While they are the most successful African nation in recent memory, their going through is by no means assured. They are playing a Germany team that needs a result in order to ensure a victory, and a loss to the Germans could mean Ghana falls behind Serbia at the finish line.

That said, FIFA is desperate for an African side to go through. With Ivory Coast in the Group of Death with Brazil and Portugal, South Africa and Nigeria all but mathematically eliminated, Ghana may be the best hope. Algeria would need to beat the United States and get some help in the other group game. Cameroon may have to beat Denmark; a tie would leave them facing the Netherlands needing a victory. Is it possible that in this celebration of the first World Cup on African soil that no African nations could advance to the round of 16? If the Malian referee ends ups calling the Ghana-Germany game, let the conspiracy theories begin!

World Cup 2010 Game 24: Netherlands 1, Japan 0

2010-06-19T08:15:00.002-05:00

This one followed one of the classic World Cup templates. A stronger side playing an efficient but less accomplished team in a defensive posture. A goal based on individual effort causing the game to be opened up a little. Japan played a countering style, which is effective as long as the defense keeps the ball out of the net but also minimizes the chances for scoring.

Japan had a chance to equalize in the 90th minute when a header forward found a striker in the box. He took the ball on the volley for a strike at goal but hit it a little high off the bounce and it sailed over the crossbar.

Soccer is a team sport, but as with most team sports there are individual plays that can make the difference. Wesley Sneider's strike for Holland was pretty much a display of individual talent. Sometimes stars are responsible for creating opportunities but the most valuable quality in a striker is the ability to put the ball in the net when the opportunity arises.

The announcers and fans appear to be looking for a favorite (or co-favorite with Brazil), and the Germany loss earlier means none of the top 8 squads have looked dominant in both games. Perhaps scoring was down in the first slate of games do to the altitude and the ball,but perhaps parity is evident as well. The Netherlands was clearly a better team but not so much better that a team like Japan could not hang with them. This appears to be a difference from World Cups past where there was usually one team in a group that teams felt they could dominate. Argentina has looked like all of that and Germany at least had an excuse of having to play a man down--is it just me or the press in the United States or do you not hear nearly as much complaining coming from the German side for the poor refereeing that put them at a disadvantage? Is Holland looking like a dangerous team based on two 1-0 victories over inferior opponents? Maybe not, but breaking down defensively minded teams isn't easy--just ask England. If the Netherlands faces a team like, say, Paraguay in the Round of 16 they will have been well prepared for a tight battle. If Italy stumbles in that group and we end up having a Round of 16 battle between two top five rated teams in the world, they would have to worry about Italy playing up to the level of its competition. Once you make it to the second round you never know what to expect.

World Cup 2010 Game 23: England 0, Algeria 0

2010-06-18T17:05:00.002-05:00

What's the opposite of the "Group of Death"? The Group of Life Support maybe?

There will be even more nail biting in England this week than in America. If the United States fails to advance it would be a major setback for the team, but if England were to fail to advance it would be a calamity. They would pretty much lose any notion of being a soccer power.

England is sitting third in their group based on tiebreakers having scored one goal in two games. Goal differential is tied with the United States, but the Americans lead the next tie breaker, goals scored, by two. Of course were England to tie Slovenia 2-2 and the U.S. were to play a socreless tie with Algeria the team that would go through would be...decided by the drawing of lots. I'm not kidding.

Since England's lackluster play leaves little to write about I thought I would put in a word about two of my least favorite sports catch phrases:

"A Must Win Game" : How often did we hear this from the United States and England. My definition of a "Must Win" game is a game that, if the team doesn't win, they are eliminated from any possibility to win the (season/championship/tournament). No doubt we will hear oodles of people saying that the Algeria match is now a "must win" for the United States (which could advance with a tie) and that England's match with Slovenia is also a "must win." In the latter case that is probably though not technically right. I guess a "must win or tie by scoring at least three goals if the common opponent doesn't score" just doesn't have the ring to it.

"Controls Their Own Destiny." First off, if any team truly controlled their own destiny, then wouldn't they be through? (How would a team controlling its outcome not choose to go through.) This typically means that a team cannot be eliminated so long as it wins its remaining games, regardless of other results. Aside from the fact that we've just seen how a team can win and have their result taken away because they don't control their own destiny, here's the problem I have with this phrase in this instance. We'll be told over and over again that the United States controls its own destiny. So does Slovenia. So does England. So does Algeria. Yeah, I know, Algeria could win and still fail to qualify if England beats Slovenia. So they "need help" right? Well, does needing to beat an opponent by more than one goal cease being in control of your own destiny? No result would mathematically assure Algeria qualification. They could win 10-0 and if England wins 11-10...yeah, these scenarios are silly. That's my point. When does an improbability become rhetorically meaningful?

Of course, I suspect one reason the American press spent most of the evening assuring a public that might have only been half paying attention that the U.S. side controlled it's own destiny is because those spectators might be surprised at that fact given they had been told for a week that the Slovenia game was a "must win" game.

World Cup 2010 Game 22: Slovenia 2, United States 2

2010-06-18T13:39:00.002-05:00

It wouldn't be a World Cup without some referee controversy, would it?

It was a bad call. A bad, bad call. Everyone agrees. Nobody on television, none of the commentators, most English observers, justified the phantom call that disallowed America's third goal and cost them two valuable points in pool play. It wasn't just that one call, though. The referee seemed to lose control of the match at times almost appearing Palinesque (or, more accurately Quaylesque) in his "deer in the headlights" approach to turning the other way. Slovenia went down with every challenge, delaying the game with phantom injuries that disappeared as soon as the player was off the pitch and ready to reenter. The United States seemed to get fouled willy-nilly without a call.

All that being said, they really shouldn't have been in that position to begin with, no? Once again the United States gave up an early goal. Considering how good Tim Howard is in goal, the number of shots let in should tell you something about how loose the United States's marking is on defense. Yes the first goal was a great strike, but given that much time and space a lot of players can make that play.

Landon Donovan made a sweet, sweet goal. If you are a superstar you are supposed to beat the goalie one on one and he did. Michael Bradley continues to come up with big goals. I wonder when American fans will let up on Bradley? It's almost because he doesn't have the flashy runs with the ball that they think he's terrible, but he ran down balls again and again and seems like a very heady player to me...knowing when to play up and when to stay back. How often, when opponents score, do you hear the announcers say "Oh, bad give away by Bradley?" or that Bradley was supposed to be marking his man?

Really, I suppose the way to look at this is that the U.S. needs to look at this, as poor as the officials decision was, is that they are pretty much where they expected they would be...needing a win against Algeria for a good chance to advance. Most probably thought that the United States would lose to England and beat Slovenia, thus going into the last game. That would have left them needing a result against Algeria to keep things in their own hand. There are a few remote scenarios where the United States could win against Algeria and still fail to advance. They would involve goal differentials and goals scored. Since Slovenia's win over Algeria was 1-0, they would have to score two goals in a tie with England to move ahead on goals scored, assuming the United States were only to win 1-0 against Algeria. The United States would still likely go through with a win.

World Cup 2010 Game 21: Serbia 1, Germany 0

2010-06-18T13:24:00.003-05:00

Things can change a lot from game to game. That's something United States fans should realize. Nobody looked more impressive than Germany in Round 1, punching in 4 goals. Serbia disappointed throughout their first game and then gave away a late penalty kick to lose to Ghana.

Those anxious to put Germany in the finals though got a taste of some poor officiating--a theme for the day. The game began with the referee handing out yellow cards on nearly every challenge. When German star Miroslav Klose picked up a second card on a second foul without much intent he was ejected from the game (and will miss the third game of pool play against Ghana). When Serbia scored Germany suddenly went from early tournament favorite to looking shaky to get out of the group.

It's hard for me to believe they won't beat Ghana, though. Germany controlled much of the play, even down a man, and even got a penalty kick in the latter stages. (What's with the Serbian players and handballs in the box?) When the keeper guessed right and stopped the free kick, Germany went home with the loss. If the United States manages to go through, chances are they may play one of these two teams.

World Cup 2010 Game 20: Mexico 2, France 0

2010-06-17T19:04:00.003-05:00

Well I was rooting for Mexico. Sort of.

I guess it is appropriate these two teams should play on the day that the Lakers and Celtics square off for the NBA championship. Like that game, this one had the consolation that one of the teams would lose.

Strictly from a regional affiliation, my desire was to see Mexico do well. They had never beaten a former World Cup champion, never beaten France. Their record against European powers is abysmal. Until Concacaf teams can beat the European powers, the United States will always be viewed as a light weight power no matter how much it dominates the region. So, yeah, America is helped by Mexico doing well. Helped in rankings and in keeping the regional interest alive.

That said, Mexico is a hard side to like. From their chippy play to their arrogance to their boorish fans (who threw batteries at Landon Donovan whenever he took a corner kick at Estadio Azteca) the image that surrounds this team is one of boorishness. That's a shame, really, because players like dos Santos are athletically gifted, and they always give the effort.

France, on the other hand, gave a lackluster performance and is in danger of going home without a goal. Amazingly, though, they are still alive. If Mexico and Uruguay tie, they both go through, but if one gets a result, France could go through on goal differential. I'm assuming Uruguay has the tie breaker with Mexico, so Mexico needs a result in order to win the group (and avoid Argentina in the round of 16). Best case scenario for France would be for Uruguay to beat Mexico by two goals (or more) and then they would have to beat South Africa by three or more goals. The host nation similarly could go through with a rout of France and some help in the other game, neither of which seems likely. Still, with Argentina looking good, Mexico and Uruguay do have something to play for and that is one small lining of hope for France.

The Mexican player definitely was offside for the first goal, but I don't have much sympathy for the French. If you watch the play, they assumed the call would be made and pulled up on defense. This is the World Cup guys, you have to play hard for ninety minutes.

World Cup 2010 Game 19: Greece 2, Nigeria 1

2010-06-17T10:53:00.003-05:00

Things can change in a hurry.

Greece was dead in the water having given up an early goal to Nigeria. Then Nigerian player Sani Kaita picked up a foolish red card forcing his team to play over half the match with 10 players. Kaita ran up to a Greek player on the sideline and shoved him out of bounds. When the Greek player gave him a little shove with the ball, Kaita gave him a kick with the cleats showing...an automatic red card. Greece scored the equalizer right before half time and then, despite some heroics by the Nigerian goal keeper the man advantage was too much.

Nigeria is not eliminated yet. They would have to beat South Korea by multiple goals and hope Argentina does the same to Greece. Still, Kaita will be regretting his scuffle for a long time. In many ways this World Cup has been more about errors so far than great plays. That will change as things move forward, but this error was as much mental as physical.

Greece is still a shade behind South Korea since the latter gets Nigeria in the last round robin game and Greece must play Argentina. That said, Argentina could be resting players having already gone through. (Mathematically they could still be eliminated but that would involve losing to Greece by maybe four goals and South Korea defeating Nigeria.) Second place in Group B is way up in the air.

World Cup 2010 Game 18: Argentina 4, South Korea 1

2010-06-17T09:13:00.002-05:00

Well if the first three games from the second round robin entries are any indication scoring will pick up somewhat. This makes sense since teams don't want to lose game 1, but the later you go in the first stage the more teams need a result. So teams that might be likely to play more conservatively in game 1 may be more likely to press for a result and you get a bit more up and down play.

Like Switzerland, South Korea got a quick goal off a long goal kick. In this case it wasn't a goalkeeper error but a lazy play by the defender who whiffed on possession and gave away an easy opportunity. Argentina was pushing the whole game, though, and while it took them well into the second half to reestablish the two goal lead they didn't look seriously threatened.

Higuain was the recipient of some nice work by Messi and may end up in contention for the golden boot (player with most scoring). That award can really depend a lot on how the team does overall.

From a South Korean point of view losing this game wasn't the end of the world but giving up the goal differential is worrisome since Nigeria only lost 1-0 to Argentina. As a result South Korea will go into the last game most probably needing a win against Nigeria (if Nigeria beats Greece). Also, since Argentina is guaranteed to go through there is no telling how aggressive they will be against Greece.

One thing I continue to admire about the Asian teams (Japan, North Korea, South Korea) is their effort. A lot of players will hustle when there is an obvious opportunity, but much like a baseball player who may or may not run out a pop fly, soccer players may not run down a play to be in position in case their is an error. A lot of teams would not have score in the situation South Korea did because many players would have assumed the defender would control the ball and would not have been in position to capitalize when the error was made.

World Cup 2010 Game 17: Uruguay 3, South Africa 0

2010-06-17T06:33:00.002-05:00

You want goals? Uruguay becomes only the second team of the World Cup to score more than two goals in one game. (In fact, only the Netherlands, South Korea, and Brazil in addition to these two teams have scored twice.)

Granted one goal was against a depleted and dispirited South African side fairly late in the game. South Africa's goalkeeper was sent off, meaning the team had to play with ten players. (They do get to use their second goalkeeper but he has to sub in for another player.)

As mentioned several times, the first tiebreaker for advancing is goal differential, so that third goal is pretty big. Uruguay will go into their final match, against Mexico, needing only a tie to guarantee going through to the next round and would probably advance even if they lose, unless there is a big shellacking. Strange things can happen, though. In last year's Confederation Cup the United States lost to Brazil and Italy yet managed to go through to the semifinals based on goals scored when they beat Egypt 3-0 and Italy lost to Brazil.

While not mathematically eliminated, South Africa would need a lot of help to advance. It would have to beat France and get some combination of results in the other games. Since no host nation has ever failed to advance to the second round, this is a bit of a big story. It was kind of sad to see the crowds flooding the exit late in the game.Kudos to ESPN for actually showing this and the commentators for mentioning it. Will the host nation get behind another African nation? Or will the rest of the matches become more muted? Some teams will travel well and have international appeal, but if there were already empty seats for, say Greece and South Korea, will FIFA be embarrassed if the crowds wane? Brazil is scheduled to host the 2014 World Cup, and given that this is the first African hosted World Cup, it's not out of the question that issues might affect the thinking of future bids. There are nine nations bidding to host 2018 or 2022: Australia, England, Japan (seems unlikely given that they were cohosts in 2006), Qatar, Russia, South Korea (see note for Japan), and the United States. Joint bids have been made by Belgium/Netherland and Portugal/Spain.

World Cup 2010 Game 16: Switzerland 1, Spain 0

2010-06-16T12:30:00.002-05:00

Well it took to the very last game of the first round set of games in Round 1, but we finally have a group favorite go down. Given how many pundits were picking Spain as a favorite to win the whole tournament, this was a shocker. (Other highest ranking teams in groups that did not win were France, Italy, and England.)

The game was the classic mode World Class upset where one team dominates play and makes plenty of opportunities but can't put the ball in the net. The Swiss goal, while not a fluke, game off a long goal kick, a challenge won in the air, and an opportunistic rebound.

One complaint I've heard about the World Cup is that with scoring down the "better" team doesn't always win. Funny how I didn't hear that complaint about hockey. In fact, the more I've blogged the more I've thought that the World Cup has a lot in common with America's favorite sporting event: the NCAA tournament. Sometimes the draw opens up for a team because a favorite is knocked off by someone else. Sometimes a serviceable team plays above their head for one game. Sometimes the style of play differs enough to make offensive juggernauts struggle to make points. For me, there is excitement seeing a team like North Korea standing toe to toe with Brazil or a Swiss team hanging on to a slim lead while a heavyweight tries to knock the door down.

Since this game means all teams have now played one of their three opening round games, here are a couple of questions to ponder going into the second round of pool play:

--How much trouble is Spain in?
A lot. The number two team in the world is certainly capable of getting through, but Chile looked awfully good against Honduras, and they can play for a tie against Spain. The Swiss are capable of losing a game, but even if they lose to Chile, they would still have an edge over Spain unless Spain beats Chile. (A tie is worth 1 point in pool play, a win 3). If Switzerland beats Honduras, they are through to the next round. Still, a team that looked hard pressed to score can never feel safe until they are there.

--Besides Spain, which group favorite (top seeded team in group) is least likely to advance?
The Italians looked poor in their opener, but they dodged the bullet that Spain couldn't, getting the goal to equalize. Neither New Zealand nor Slovakia look like a worrisome game. Nightmare scenario? The scoring drought continues and they play to 0-0 ties against weaker opponents, losing on goal differentials.

England is in good shape as they should beat Slovenia and Algeria, but Slovenia's win over Algeria means that if the United States should beat Slovenia, England will need to be concerned about goal differential to avoid a match with Germany in the round of 16. Nightmare scenario? Could Robert Green let in another soft goal? In a low scoring World Cup could a fluke goal given up to Slovenia in the third game could mean a first round exit.

Perhaps the biggest of the remaining big dogs to be in serious trouble is France, both because they didn't look good against Uruguay and Mexico tends to play up during the World Cup. Group A has one of the lowest differences between the two highest seeds. Portugal is ranked #3 in the world to Brazil's #1, making that the "group of death." Greece is the next highest ranking #2 seed at 13, six spaces behind Argentina. The United States is next at 14, six spaces behind England at 8. Mexico at 17, is 8 spaces behind 9th ranked France, but they are trending upward in the second half of qualification while France needed the famous handball to win the play-in series against Northern Ireland. Beyond the fact that France isn't playing particularly well, they are in a group with South Africa; the numbers say they won't go through but history is funny. The host nation has never failed to advance to the second round. Nightmare scenario? If Uruguay somehow manages to beat South Africa, France may be in a situation where it needs to beat Mexico. Even a tie against Mexico would leave them with 2 points going into a game with South Africa for all the marbles.

--Is Germany now the favorite?
Well, it was one game, and that against an aging Australia team. I'm not ready to anoint them just yet. I will say that with scoring being down and the altitude and ball playing tricks, the speedy wing play and passing of the Germans is looking better than the booming strikes from distance we are used to seeing. You can't win a World Cup in the first round, though, and none of those goals carry forward.

--Who outside of the Top 9 (Group Favorites + Portugal) has the best shot at a deep (say semi-finals) run?

On the basis of play in the first round, maybe Chile, but even if they win their group they get the "Group of Death" runner up. Certainly they could take Portugal (who, like France, struggled to qualify and looked listless against the Ivory Coast). But with the Swiss defeat of Spain, Chile might even get Brazil in the round of 16. That would be a fun game to watch, but they have a tough draw.

Both the Concacaf powers--U.S. and Mexico--would be possibilities. Of the two, I would say Mexico is more likely, because they could win their group and draw a Group B runner up that suddenly doesn't look like Greece anymore. I would certainly like the Tri Colores against Nigeria or South Korea (though no game is a shoo-in at that round). Also, I can't help but wonder whether all the concern about altitude might mean that the Mexican side--which plays a lot of games in Mexico City, might be more conditioned to altitude, which can affect both fatigue and ball flight characteristics.

Consider this scenario, though, with the United States having tied England, if they win against Algeria and Slovenia, that could mean that winning the group comes down to goal differential. And while Germany is waiting for the second place finisher in the US group, the winner of Group C gets the second place finisher in Group D--possibly Ghana. If Serbia can recover from their loss and grab the second spot they would also be a possibility. Granted, any game against an African team in the knock out stage would be a tough "away" match, the United States is used to playing in front of hostile crowds.

World Cup 2010 Game 15: Chile 1, Honduras 0

2010-06-16T10:07:00.002-05:00

Chile, which has the coolest border configuration of just about any country there is, dominated this game throughout. They probably should have put away more chances. This result is not a huge surprise. Chile finished second (to Brazil) in South American qualifying, while Honduras needed a 94th minute goal from the United States against Costa Rica to avoid having to take on Uruguay in the play-in series.

Performance against common opponents is always a chimerical way of evaluating teams, but Americans could not have been heartened by this result from the third place Concacaf team. The U.S. beat Honduras twice in qualifying, though they gave up an early goal at home and two on the road...to a team that never seemed able to sniff the danger area against Chile. Combined with Mexico's draw with South Africa, this result shows Concacaf teams are not really on the level as national teams on other levels. (And this in a World Cup in which Asia has acquitted itself quite nicely so far.) Then again, this is just one game and Chile is a top 20 ranked team. Still, Honduras looked like a team that was just happy to have qualified, and having lost to the second ranked team it will be interesting to see if they go at Spain at all. If they are out of it by the third game the Swiss could be the beneficiaries of having a "must win" against a team playing out the string.

World Cup 2010 Game 14: Brazil 2, North Korea 1

2010-06-15T22:12:00.002-05:00

Okay, everyone who had this score in your pool raise your ha...put your hands down, liars.

This one was supposed to be a rout, and really, once Brazil scored the outcome wasn't much in doubt. That it took Brazil 55 minutes or so to score was the first upset--though, wow, what a terrific angle shot. Maybe not one of the more spectacularly pretty goals you'll see at this World Cup but definitely a technically difficult shot--when South Korea scored near stoppage time that was the second upset.

The first round has been a bit slow without too many goals and only one side, Germany, looking impressive. Part of that was assumed to be because the schedule was backloaded with the #1 and #2 teams in the world not playing until almost a week in.

Brazil is a little bit like USA basketball...winning isn't enough. If they don't dominate than people are shocked. Nevertheless, this was a very yeomanlike effort, and it does take skill to exercise the patience necessary to break down a disciplined defense. Brazil strides quickly, covering so much ground that they are never far away from getting into danger territory, and they are pretty much the only team that you don't feel is in trouble when they are down a goal.

They are known for skill and precision passing, but I noticed in this game that Kaka (one of the star players) is also bigger than I realized, both in terms of length and upper body strength.

Much has been made of the North Korean side: they played home games in China because they wouldn't allow South Korean anthem to be played before the match; their "fans" are actually paid actors from China (hey anyone want to pay me to pretend to be a fan for free tix?), etc. Mmmm. Okay. Supposedly the goal scored was the only highlight allowed on North Korean television. Reminds me of the old Cold War joke: An American and a Soviet had a race and the American won. The next day Pravda reported "In an international competition, the Soviet Union finished second. The American was next to last."

World Cup 2010 Game 13: Potrugal 0, Ivory Coast 0

2010-06-15T10:30:00.004-05:00

The story within a story was the early hostilities between the Ivory Coast players and Portugal star Christiano Ronaldo who is on the short list of best players in the world but has a reputation for going down a bit too easy....and playing to the refs in other ways. (He famously winked at the Portugal bench after English striker Wayne Rooney was sent off in a quarterfinal match in the 2006 World Cup.

On the one hand there was a quick yellow card against an Ivory Coast defender. On the other, they goaded him into an altercation after a foul that got him a yellow card for...well, for being fouled. Given the emphasis on diving, once Ronaldo had a card the Ivory Coast could be a little more aggressive in defense, so they probably got the better of the in game.

This was the first game in the so called "Group of Death" and I think the draw helps Ivory Coast a little more. Portugal probably has a slightly better shot at tying or beating Brazil, but given they are the higher ranked team, the burden is probably on them to get the result against Ivory Coast rather than relying on doing better against common opponents. Portugal does get Brazil last, which means that as long as they put a number up against North Korea they may have the option of battening down the hatches and playing for a tie against Brazil. Then again, Ivory Coast will go into the North Korea game knowing what they need to do.

Didier Drogba of the Ivory Coast did play about thirty minutes. He had his arm broken in a friendly leading up to the competition and has to play with a cast on his arm. Drogba is far an away the team's best goal scorer, so having to play large portions without him and still getting a draw helps make this tie, like the U.S. result against Engalnd feel like a bit more like a victory.

Drogba had a shot in the 90th minute but he had to go down and the shot went well wide. Playing with an injury, did he have to be a bit more cautious about attacking to protect his body? Oddly enough Ivory Coast had a corner kick in stoppage time and they played it short rather than crossing, never getting a shot. I think you have to take a shot there; it's a bit like holding on to the ball with one second on the clock rather than trying a half court shot.

World Cup 2010 Game 12: Slovakia 1 New Zealand 1

2010-06-15T08:39:00.004-05:00

Yesterday I suggested that New Zealand was the weakest team in the tournament. I forgot about North Korea, which according to the most recent FIFA world rankings is rated 105th, or about 27 spots below New Zealand. My apologies to the Kiwis. I stand by my opinion, though, that Group E is the easiest group.

New Zealand actually controlled play for the first 15 minutes or so. That seems to be a trend in world soccer as well...a weaker team coming out and seemingly doing okay, maybe even controlling possession, and then the stronger team coming down and scoring on one of their first real opportunities.

Is it better to play a weaker opponent to start or get your hard game out of the way? This group is a classic study. Slovakia did what they needed to get the points. But they know that Paraguay can beat New Zealand, so they would have to get at least a tie against Italy to stay square (and that's assuming no goal differential). Paraguay, on the other hand, could play for a tie against Slovakia, setting up a third round where they simply have to beat New Zealand to go through. I think Slovakia has to play the Paraguay game as though they need a win so that they are going into game three with Italy not needing a result. Then again, one of the vagaries of pool play is that sometimes a team can be through after two game and may not play as hard

Ha! New Zealand scores in stoppage time...literally with time running out. So this group starts with two ties. Nice for the Kiwis since I think Slovakia was offisides on their goal. Incidentally, wow, what a cross on the New Zealand goal. The guy was turned away from the goal. Talk about making something out of nothing.

World Cup 2010 Game 11: Italy 1, Paraguay 1

2010-06-14T19:35:00.004-05:00

The summer of 2001, Cindy and I went on a walking tour with Lost in Italy. Time in Florence, Assisi and Rome was spent on either side of hiking in the Cinque Terra and Tuscany. It was a great trip and there was very little I didn't adore about Italy: the wine, the art, the food.

Not sure why, but I hate their soccer team, though.

Maybe it's residual hostility over the vicious de Rossi elbow against Brian McBride--which the BBC called "sickening" (and seriously, how weird is it that you can find four year-old sports articles from the BBC on Google?)

Italy isn't the New York Yankees of world soccer...Brazil is more dominant. They are like the Duke University version of their sport...win a lot and make nobody happy but their own fans.

The Galaxy Theater in Cary had a lot less people today...mostly moms with ill behaved kids (and really, when Sartre said "hell is other people"...) and a few retirees. The crowd was evenly divided amongst Italy supporters and people who hadn't a clue where Paraguay is but wanted them to beat Italy.

Looked like it might happen for awhile, too. The rain made the play pretty ugly, and when Paraguay got a set piece header it looked like they were going to hold the fort. A goalkeeper goof (what else) on a corner kick gave Italy an undeserved tie.

Still, even if they had lost, I don't think Italy was in much trouble--with games against New Zealand (the primary beneficiary of Australia, they of the 0-4 thumping at German hands) having moved to Asia), possibly the weakest team in the tournament and Slovakia (currently ranked 34th in the world, or fifteen spots weaker than Cameroon).

Is there an opposite of "Group of Death" (the proverbial nickname for the hardest first round draw in the tournament)? For all the opining that the United States got a lucky draw (one called it the easiest draw the United States has ever gotten), England certainly looked better than Italy, and Algeria, the supposed weakling of the group is ranked higher than Paraguay, Slovakia, and New Zealand. In other words, the worst team in our group is ranked higher than every other team in Italy's group except Italy. Ask the Brits which group they'd rather be in. I wasn't too crestfallen that Italy got the equalizer because even if they had lost I still couldn't see them not advancing to the next round.

Then again, Paraguay did beat Brazil by two goals (the only team to do so in qualifying) and sported a 1-0-1 record against Argentina. So they can play some defense. How they scored two goals against Brazil baffles me since I'm not sure they had the ball on the Italian side of the field that much. Their defense was solid, though. One thing I enjoy about the World Cup is seeing a lot of soccer and being able to see where the Concacaaf teams I usually see aren't as developed. What jumped out at me in this game is how quickly and tirelessly defenders closed space. (Think in terms of the difference between an open shot in basketball and one with a defender running at you.)

There's usually one big upset in the first round of group games. I don't think it's going to be Brazil-North Korea, so maybe Portugal should be sweating. (Though, honestly, the Ivory Coast beating them would not be that huge an upset...more like a Butler beating Syracuse, the names make it more shocking than the talent differential.) Could Spain possibly go down to the Swiss? Doesn't seem likely, but that's why they are called upsets.

World Cup 2010 Game 10: Japan 1, Cameroon 0

2010-06-14T10:47:00.003-05:00

A lot of talk before the tournament started was about how the home continent advantage would result in some African side doing better than expected. This could still happen--South Africa got a tie against a strong Mexican side in its opener--but with Japan's result against Cameroon we now have two Asian nations with victories under their belts.

Certainly the Asian teams took a step forward in their last World Cup, but I guess the sentiment was that this was because of it being hosted in Japan and Korea. How many times could the announcers say that Japan has never won a World Cup game away from its home soil?

One thing that both Japan and South Korea appear to have in common is pace. Both in terms of fitness and effort, they really seem to have fast teams. It's a bit of a cliche in America that the best athletes go into football and basketball. It's interesting, then, to see a non-traditional power try to use fitness and speed to make up for having less technical ability.

Cameroon played a somewhat tentative game and once Japan had its goal it tended to fall back in the second half--a decision that almost cost them when Cameroon hit the crossbar in the 87th minute. More shaky goal keeping on both sides...turning into an ongoing story for this World Cup. Is it really just the ball? Altitude? Or are Americans spoiled, having high standards with being used to having one of the best keepers in the world?

World Cup 2010 Game 9: Netherlands 2, Denmark 0

2010-06-14T08:33:00.002-05:00

Everyone, except maybe Monty Python, loves the Dutch. Always a good side but never champions, the Dutch also sport the cool and recognizable orange uniforms. One wonders if they ever actually took the whole shebang whether they would be as popular or whether they would mutate, Boston Red Sox like, into a much less likable team.

The Dutch were in control most of the match, never seriously challenged by Denmark, though not exactly putting the fear into other world class teams, either. We saw the first "own goal" of the tournament--a phrase used when a player on defense inadvertently knocks the ball into his own goal. In this case the Danish player actually had an unlucky break as his clearance was deflected off the back of a teammate and into the net.

Once again, I thought I was goingt ot get bonus points in my pool for correctly predicting the score (1-0), but a second goal in the 85th minute changed the final score.

I was glad to see the Danes playing hard even after the outcome was decided. As I mentioned yesterday in regards to Germany and Australia, the losing team here has to figure that both the other teams in their group--in this case Japan and Cameroon will be heavy underdogs to the Dutch and thus goal differential could matter. So when a Danish player made a spectacular effort to keep out the third goal, it was the sort of play easily forgotten but which could mean all the difference ten days from now (or could mean nothing, but that's the joy of sports, isn't it?)

I chastised the Germans yesterday for taking two dives and earning well deserved yellow cards. That night I watched the NBA finals, game 5. It always amuses me when fans of sports more popular in America try to find things to rip about football and complain about all the diving...like there has never been an NBA player flop to try to draw a charge or an NFL receiver sell a pass interference call. So I realize playing the referees are part of sport, but the cynic in me says that when you are already up by a large marge against a clearly outclassed opponent those sorts of plays only make you look more bush league.

World Cup 2010 Game 8: Germany 4, Australia 0

2010-06-13T20:22:00.002-05:00

The local art cinema theater is playing selected games on the big screen--with free entry no less. So for the first time in the 2010 World Cup I did the trek to Cary. I was surprised by the turnout--it looked like there were maybe 100 people in the theater...mostly pro-German crowd. Of course, it was a weekend game. It will be interesting to see what the crowds are like during the week.

There was some talk before the tournament that Germany might be in a down year...did I mention Grant Wahl picked Serbia to win the group? Not so fast. Then again, I saw Australia play a warm up against the U.S. and they gave up three goals to the Yanks, so I knew this game would be trouble for them. In fact, I had predicted a 3-0 Germany win in the Yahoo! pool, so I was bummed when the meaningless 4th goal went in.

The big story was that Paul Cahill got a questionable red call, resulting in the Aussies having to play with 10 players for most of the second half and also his being banned for the next two games. (I thought it was a one game suspension, but apparently if you get a straight red, it is two.) I really thought the Aussies should feel at half that even if they lost to Germany, they could play for goal differentials and basically say they can still get through with effort against a suddenly suspect Serbia team and Ghana. They could even beat Ghana and tie Serbia and essentially get through assuming other results. So I was surprised they didn't put up a better defensive effort.

Despite not being very close, this game had my favorite moment so far--two German yellow cards for "diving." I love those calls, and I hope the trend of giving cards for dives continues.

(Credit where credit is due: Photo is from Doug Pensinger/Getty Images)

World Cup 2010 Game 7: Ghana 1, Serbia 0

2010-06-13T10:39:00.002-05:00

And the first African side to take an outright victory is...Ghana.

Grant Wahl at SI.com picked Serbia to win its group (over even Germany) and beat the United States in the knockout round. Group D has interest for American fans because the runner up in Group C plays the winner of Group D and vice-versa.

The last few days have been about big mistakes. England's goalkeeper letting in a howler and now Serbia's defender taking a hand ball in the box to give up a penalty kick. There was no question it was a hand ball, but I've always thought the judgments about "intentional" on those plays were pretty tough.

Ghana has a great chance to go through, now. They beat the United States four years ago, but this group was supposed to be a younger team. Sometimes, though, youth doesn't feel the pressure the way veterans do.

World Cup 2010 Game 6: Slovenia 1, Algeria 0

2010-06-13T09:39:00.002-05:00

The relief and happiness from the United States over the 1-1 draw with England dissipated somewhat the following morning with news that goalkeeper hero Tim Howard may have broken ribs. (And, seriously, playing a half with broken ribs...who says soccer is not a rough sport?) The best result in this would have probably been a 0-0 tie so that the United States was ahead on goals scored. Slovenia's late goal means that the United States almost certainly has to one of its last two games...that's assuming Slovenia doesn't tie England, too.

The game itself was pretty dull, and Slovenia didn't look great until Algeria had a man sent off for two silly yellow cards (jersey pull and hand ball diving for a header)--within four minutes of coming on. Algeria looked liked they had the possession ability to gut out a tie, but once the goal went in that was all she wrote. One bright side for the United States is that the 1-0 score wasn't a huge difference in terms of goal differential tiebreakers (or goals scored) down the line.

When I was in grade school I knew all the capitals of Europe. Now I'm not sure if I could identify all the countries on a map. If I understand my history correctly, Slovenia was autonomous in the early part of the 20th century but annexed (is that the right word?) by Yugoslavia in the 1920s. It was part of Yugoslavia after World War II but gained independence in the 1990s.

World Cup 2010 Game 5: England 1, United States 1

2010-06-12T15:43:00.002-05:00

In the qualifying matches before the World Cup the United States had a tendency to give up early goals. For months we heard commentators say that they couldn't do that at the next level and get by. In the week before the tournament starts one English pundit claimed that England was more talented than the United States at every position "except goalie."

The pessimists--and oddly most soccer fans are, at heart, pessimists--had to love this game. The USA gave up the early goal, and one good feel the deflation like one had inflated an air mattress with only breath and seen it popped by a pin. Then Clint Dempsey put the shot on goal and well, never has the maxim been truer that the only shot that can't go in is the one you don't take.

The second half was tense for the U.S., particularly the final moments where England was pushing forward and the United States opted for counter attacks rather than possession, giving the ball back.

I think the people who have to love this result the most are the Slovenia rooters, and both Algeria and Slovenia have to feel like if they can get a win against the other that the group is wide open. The United States and England will be favored in both their other pool games, but the United States has always played better as underdogs than favorites.

The trash talking will continue on both sides of the Atlantic with the Brits claiming they were clearly superior and the United States saying, simply, "scoreboard." The United States, for all its collapses in World Cup's past have now been recipients of two of the most memorable "soft" goals in pool play: Green's Buckneresque whiff on Dempsey's grounder and the Colombian "own goal" that allowed the United States to beat the dark horse favorite in 1994. (Though less infamous, don't forget that the US's 1-1 tie with Italy was the result of an own goal as well; clearly if this were the the NBA lottery the conspiracy theorists would be abuzz.)

One other note about the play. In qualifiers, the most notable difference I see between the United States and other teams is precision passing and first touch control. I noticed something else watching England which was how well their offensive players moved without the ball. It's always easier to pass to space than time a pass to the person, and while one sees a little of that from the U.S. (and much more than in year's past), the England side was truly remarkable in how the spacing seems more second nature than instantaneous. England is a dangerous side, but much like a hockey team with a poor goalie (cough, Capitals) or a baseball bombers with poor pitching, one has to think that below average goal keeping will eventually bite you at the wrong moment.

World Cup 2010 Game 4: Argentina 1, Nigeria 0

2010-06-12T12:49:00.003-05:00

In his most underrated book, Fever Pitch, Nick Hornby writes: "I fell in love with football as I was later to fall in love with women; suddenly, inexplicably, uncritically..."

While I don't share the passion for the sport that Hornby does, I recognize the quixotic alignment of factors that goes into developing an affinity. This is one reason why, as arbitrary as some sports allegiances are, they are very, very hard to change. It would be nice if I could just stop being an Orioles fan or a Wizards fan, but that's made up for the fact that I never much followed college basketball until I graduated from High School and Tommy Amaker, the star of the High School team went to some school called Duke.

I have vague recollections of the '78 World Cup (my family was living in Colombia at the time), but it was really Mexico '86 (or "ochenta seis" as the commercials said) that provided my seminal memories of the world's game. Eighty-six was, of course, Diego Maradona's zenith, and it was one of those situations where the neophyte didn't realize he was watching some of the best soccer of all time and figured every game would have something like Diego's runs through England and Belgium.

Maradona isa bit of a flake these days, and given Argentina's underachievement in qualifying, it was easy enough to hope that a usually dangerous Argentine side would be neutralized by their own internal chaos.

Hah. Instead the Blue and White looked like the proverbial pro team that underachieved during a regular season but could hit a switch in the playoffs. Somehow in the week leading up to the Cup, ESPN elevated Lionel Messi from one of the best players in the world to the consensus best, and he looked the part, running through Nigeria, though he missed several opportunities to finish.

There is usually at least one African side that overachieves at the World Cup, and I thought, based on underrating Argentina that Nigeria might be it, but they seemed flat here.

World Cup 2010 Game 3: S. Korea 2, Greece 0

2010-06-12T07:46:00.003-05:00

My resolution to watch every game is tested in the second day as a 7:30 a.m. start time gets confounded by my leaving my phone (which I use as a portable alarm clock) in the other room. First time in a long time I've been happy that my cat likes to cry in the morning to wake us up.

First upset of the tournament, I guess. Greece could be in real trouble, although I'll reserve judgment until I see Argentina play two solid games in a row.

There were a lot of empty seats in the stadium. Enough that the announcers even mentioned it, which is one difference between international announcers and American ones. I understand the world economy is what it is, but I think FIFA ought to be concerned. Of course, this may just be the case of the teams playing not having huge fan bases or a lot of international appeal for the local fans.

World Cup 2010 Game 2: France 0, Uruguay 0

2010-06-11T17:18:00.004-05:00

Not too many people know that my family lived in Uruguay for several years in the 1960s. I have no memory of it, being a newborn at the time. My brother went back for a visit awhile back and bought me a hat to commemorate. Here is a picture of me wearing my Uruguay hat while watching the game. Yeah, I know the bill is over my eyes, but I was trying to get the sun design in the photo.

I tried for several months to make this my "lucky hat" at disc golf tournaments, but it had no such luck in it. Neither, apparently, did it have any mojo against the French.

The game was pretty dull, actually, but I think both sides wanted a draw. That puts the pressure on Mexico, I think, since both France and Uruguay are capable of beating South Africa, which means they can play for a draw against Mexico and Mexico will need to play for a win against one of them. Then again, past history shows that can be risky as South Africa could pop in a goal against either side.

Honestly, I saw about 1/2 of the Uruguay-Argentina qualifier, and I'm not sure how this team ever scores.

I was driving to the store today, and I'm already sick of sycophantic Americans complaining about the World Cup. You know, I don't particularly like Nascar, so you know what I do? I don't watch it. You know what I don't do? Moan endlessly about how "boring" it is and how loud the crowds are.

Uruguay is one of only seven (I think) countries to have ever won a World Cup, actually having done it twice. I think the South American teams will be used to playing at difficult away venues, but for some reason I don't think they'll be much of a threat here. Strange being in Africa, you don't get the whole "a European team can't win in South American venue/a South American team can't win in Europe" issue. I think this year will be a lot like the NCAA basketball tournament...a lot of parity making games hard to call.

World Cup 2010 Game 1: South Africa 1, Mexico 1

2010-06-11T10:55:00.002-05:00

I've attended one World Cup game in person, when Mexico defeated Bulgaria in 1986. Probably because of that experience, I've never quite disliked the Mexican side the way some USA or Concacaf fans do. (Though, to be honest, the team makes it hard for me to not dislike then with their thuggish fouls when playing the USA and boorish behavior.) Then again, I'm one of those rare Duke fans who doesn't necessarily root against UNC when they are playing someone else.

It seemed during the draw that everyone wanted the USA in the bracket with South Africa since it was allegedly the weakest team from that pool. Yet, oddly, the host nation has next lost an opening game, so one wonders about that. On the one hand, of course, they might have finished better than Mexico against some shaky defense. On the other hand, Mexico got robbed of a goal on a phantom offside call (though apparently it was not a bad call after all because the goal keeper was on the other side--rare play), and one wonders if the USA would have had the tenacity to fight through that sort of bad call or would have just resigned themselves to "here we go again."

It was an exciting opener that included a late deflection off the goal post. With France not looking good in qualifying yet being France, this group looks like it could go any way. I would not be surprised to see any two teams come out of the group. Pressure is solidly on Mexico who has had their game against the weakest side of the group...yet they withstood the pressure of playing the opener.

Full Frame Documentary Film Festival 2010

2010-04-11T17:09:00.002-05:00

Lots of good festival coverage from Full Frame at 1More Film Blog.

The films I got a chance to screen this week (some reviews already up, others forthcoming), include:

Chairmaker
Casino Jack and the United States of Money (Alex Gibney!)
Family Affair (plus interview with Chico Colvard)
Genius Within: The Inner Life of Glen Gould
Google Baby
The Invention of Dr. Nakamats
Ito--A Diary of an Urban Priest
Last Train Home
Life Extended
My Perestroika
The Oath
Photo & Copyright by G.P. Fieret
Regretters
The Space You Leave
Stonewall Uprising (plus interview with Kate Davis and David Heilbroner)
Surviving Hitler: A Love Story
Today is Better than Two Tomorrows
Do It Again
Waking Sleeping Beauty

Why I Refuse to take the OFA Volunteer Pledge

2010-02-14T11:20:00.002-05:00

It's no secret on this blog that I was (and am) an enthusiastic Obama supporter and that I find many of the political tactics and gamesmanship techniques of the GOP to be scandalously hypocritical and corrosive.

But in the last two weeks I've received several e-mails from OFA (Obama For America) asking me to pledge volunteers hours to campaign or work for candidates who come out in favor of Health Care Reform.

The argument goes like this...the Republicans are spreading all sorts of dirty tricks and misinformation about those who come out in favor of Health Care Reform. True enough. Blue dog democrats are afraid that this will be a polarizing issue that may be used against them in elections. Therefore, if there is a groundswell of support from people saying, "Do this, and I'll promise to work for your re-election" that might embolden scared or worried Dems to do the right thing.

Um...sorry, but shouldn't it be the other way around? I vote for people who actually do what they say they will do. Do the right thing, even in the face of opposition, and I'll work for you. Don't tell me that if I pledge to work for you, you'll do the right thing.

One fundamental issue I have with the pledge drive is that it implies that if the volunteer pledges fall short, the Congressmen and Congresswomen are somehow justified in not voting for health care. This basically acknowledges what everyone already thinks: that the driving principle is always and only my own relection. Politics as usual, anyone?

I have a question about the Obama White House. Forget the Republicans, can it get tough with its own party? In issues like Lieberman's chairmanship, the Obama administration has sure looked to me like it is more concerned with preserving a coalition than actually using the coalition to advance an agenda. The GOP knows that and thus continues to patiently play the politics of obstruction--who cares if that means playing chicken with the economy or hurts those they claim to represent? But here's the thing, the moderate Dems know it too, and it is human nature to take the path of least resistance. Where's the upside of taking an unpopular position if I know that my own party isn't really going to push back at me if I refuse to do so?

Hey, OFA, you want me to work for you, then fight. Don't tell me you'll fight if I promise to have your back. I worked for you already. I canvassed in the last election. I got the word out, I offered my time for voter registration and to take people to the polls. And Obama carried North Carolina by the slimmest of margins. If you are a coach or a leader, then sometimes the biggest enemy is not the opposing team but the starter who sits on the bench and says "I refuse to play because you are drawing up a play for Tony Kukoc." If there are Dems that are worried about being unpopular by coming out for health care, don't try to appease them by asking me to work hard for them (and thereby give positive reinforcement to negative behavior), say instead: "Fine. Try winning the election without party support. We'll back a primary challenger who is willing to vote for Health Care reform." Worst case scenario, that splits the vote and a Republican wins, eating into the meaningless (because unused) majority. Best case scenario, you have a candidate who is not a weasel and, maybe, one I am willing to volunteer for.

Borders, Welcome to the Customer Service Hall of Shame

2010-02-07T09:42:00.002-05:00

On occasion I use this blog to point out the shockingly bad customer service of various companies I've had the displeasure to do business with.

Today's entry has to do with Borders.

It always surprises me, although it probably shouldn't, how so many of the companies that make this list are second or third banana to some major competitor. One would expect, as the slogan goes, for number two (or three) to "try harder," to attempt to make up in service for what they cannot match in price, location, or convenience. Alas, no.

Through taking some online polls, I got a reward of $15 in "Borders Bucks" added to my Borders Rewards card. I waited until I received my e-mail confirmation and headed to the store--about a twenty minute drive.

After perusing the shelves, I took my items to the cashier, who swiped my rewards card and told me that I did not have any Borders Bucks on it. I told her about the reward, and she said that this had been a problem--if I had a print out of the e-mail she could "give it to me." (Hmmm, "give it" like a gift, see.) Of course there was no printer or e-mail access there, so I went home and printed the e-mail.

The next day, my friend and I were going to the movie, so we stopped at Borders to pick up a book for my wife. I got it, took it to the cashier, who again told me that despite my e-mail confirmation, my card had no buck on it. I explained that I had been in there yesterday, had been told to bring a copy of the e-mail, and presented it. She then informed me that the e-mail was not acceptable because too many people printed them off and tried to use them to double dip. Why had I been told to bring it, then? (Perhaps to get me back in the store in hopes that, when I had book at cashier I'd just say, "Oh well," and pay cash?)

She said I had to call Borders "customer service" number. I used my cell phone, and well, you know that score. Some call center in India with a voice activated menu that told me call volumes were high, my call was important, but it could be a thirty minute wait to talk to a representative. Couldn't miss the movie, so for the second day in a row, I left without my item. (My wife wanted the book, so I actually went down the street to Barnes & Noble to buy it.)

Anyhow, I finally called the customer service center and spoke to someone. They took my card number and said, yes, my account had $15 on it. Why wasn't it showing up at the store? Well, I had put the money in around the 20th of the month. Borders Bucks expire at the end of each month. (That this is so is, in and of itself, a horrible customer service thing, but let that pass...). Since many people did not know they expire, Borders decided to wait until the first of the next calendar month for my reward to be available. That way, the representative explained, I had a whole 30 days to spend my bucks before they expired unbeknownst to me and there would be fewer people who showed up at the store only to find out that their bucks had expired. Wasn't that nice of them?

Well, no.

For one, I can't imagine the majority of the people don't go to the store (or the web site) soon after they get their bucks. For another, this wouldn't be an issue except for the stuff expiring to begin with. But the real issue is, why not just TELL the customer when the reward is issued? My e-mail specifically said the reward could be redeemed for 30 days after the date of issuance. Silly me, I thought that meant the next 30 days, not some random 30 days after the issuance. Gee, what we meant is that we pick 30 random days without telling you in the year 2015 and they'll be good then. Those are, after all, 30 different days AFTER the date of issuance.

Again, could it be that their hope is to get people in the store who will then buy something because they are there and come back later to use the bucks? I sure think so. Sad thing is, they achieved the exact opposite--due to lousy customer service, my resolve is to never shop at Borders again unless I have to. It's not worth the headache, and why reward a company for treating its customers so shabbily?

Is the Message of Avatar...

2010-01-28T12:23:00.002-05:00

...that James Cameron hopes Al Qaeda wins?

I realize that as probably the last person in America to see the film, I may be asking a question that has already been discussed about the film, but I'm seriously confused about the cultural work the film is performing.

Read more here.

Rick Minnich Interview

2010-01-23T09:45:00.000-05:00

My write up of my interview with director Rick Minnich is up at CT Movies Blog.

Eric Rohmer (1920-2010)

2010-01-11T21:35:00.004-05:00

If funerals, as they say, are for the living and not the dead, obituaries and appreciations (especially in an Internet age) are for the writers not the subjects.

Better writers and more informed film historians will argue about and establish Rohmer's place in the canon of great directors. Less enthusiastic amateur cinephiles may have to dig through the headlines at IMDB to find the news and rack their memories to remember if they've seen one of his films.

I confess when I went to IMDB and saw Rohmer's passing was only the second headline, below the notices of Simon Cowell's departure from American Idol, I was momentarily indignant. But it's always been that way for Rohmer, hasn't it? Amongst the uninitiated, he'll forever be remembered more for being the subject of Pauline Kael's classic slam than for being the auteur of My Night at Maud's, Chloe in the Afternoon, or Perceval. Kael's comment flitted through my mind not long after I heard the news of Rohmer's passing, and I tried to capture and bottle the anger and indignation I felt so that I could remind myself that a critic needs to be right 999 times to atone for the one time he or she is that wrong that snidely.

Such an object lesson still makes Rohmer's films secondary to something else, so I'll hasten to say there is a humility and a simplicity to his films that those weaned on explosions may find boring (I won't prettify the sentiments by using some nicer word), but those who love talk, ideas, and, above all, people, will find rich and savory.

In his chapter on Rohmer in Faith and Spirituality in Masters of World Cinema, John Caruana begins, fittingly, with a quote from Blaise Pascal: "Temporal afflictions conceal the eternal joys to which they lead." It took a long time for me to work my way past the "temporal afflictions" in Rohmer's films and catch a glimpse of the eternal joys to which they lead. But that's a part, too, of why I am so fond of his films. Those glimpses are none too frequent in our lives as well--but they are there. Caruana writes:

"But what appears to be an obstacle to appreciating Rohmer's spirituality is actually an important key to unlocking its mystery. Rohmer's unassuming style powerfully renders its spiritual message. For what is essential about Rohmer's God, like Blaise Pascal's before him, is that he is a hidden God. For Rohmer, God's invisibility speaks to humanity's distance from him, but also to God's respect for human autonomy" (74).

Caruana goes on to suggest that Rohmer emulates his God by withdrawing as much as feasible his authority over his work, giving his viewers unimagined freedoms to exist within his work and to draw their own conclusions about the world he has created.

The respect given to the viewer by Rohmer is something that is so rare in an age of lowest common denominators, of speeches giving hammering home epiphanies and music creating artificial significance. That respect for the viewer is infectious and it permeates the work and creates a space where characters can exist with dignity and humanity in spite of their foibles. If we are lucky, it carries past the film and begins to help us catch a glimpse of how we can give our neighbor freedom and respect. I know Rohmer's films have helped me cultivate the still fragile buds of habit in my own thought life that struggle to first think charitably about my neighbor in order to create a right foundation from which acts of love and compassion can be built.

A few months ago, at the Toronto International Film Festival, I had cause to meditate on a film from Alain Resnais, and I wrote the following:

There is a communal aspect to film going that is present in the culture at large and highly concentrated around major festivals. People talk about films and the way they shape our lives in a way I seldom hear them talk about books anymore. For good or for ill, films matter to people, and as a result the relationship between cinephiles and an auteur is often something quite different from that of their relationship to authors, actors, and other celebrities.

Two years ago, the eighty-seven year old Eric Rohmer sent what could well be his final film to the festival (Romance of Astree and Celadon) and the fact that the much beloved director could not himself make the trip to present the film in no way diminished the joy of his fans at having another film. Life gets mighty precious, Bonnie Raitt sings, when there is less of it to waste.

Alain Resnais is eighty-seven this year, and Les Herbes folles could well be his last film. That he was not able to be in the Scotiabank theater to present the film did little to diminish my pleasure in having two more hours in the dark with an international treasure of whom we are not yet ready (are we ever?) to let go.

I knew before today that I would probably not see another new Eric Rohmer film in this life. I knew this. This news was not unexpected. And yet, I still was not ready to let him go.

Are we ever?

Did Christianity "Cause" The Crash?

2010-01-07T10:33:00.007-05:00

Short answer: no.

Slightly longer answer: what the fu..!?! Um, no.

Even longer answer:

Sigh. I had some reward points for filling out polls Online, and without much in the way of prizes I wanted, I accepted a free subscription for one year to The Atlantic. Every now and then I've heard snippets from amongst friends that in an age where press journalism is hit hard that The Atlantic was a more substantial, more thoughtful example of journalism that was more in depth than say USA Today, Time or Newsweek.

Unfortunately the first issue I received did not impress me much. The letters to the editor actually struck me as more interesting and thoughtful than any of the articles, which included some lengthy explication on why Julie and Julia was more than just a "chick flick."

The cover article, by Hannah Rosin, was entitled, "Did Christianity Cause the Crash?" Rosin has just found out, it seems, about the so called "prosperity gospel," and the bulk of the article is actually a series of descriptions of churches or people who sit under the teaching of pastors or advocates of fiscal irresponsibility passing under the guise of faith.

I certainly don't want to jump to the defense of proponents of the prosperity gospel, but by the same token I struggle with the fact that the lead article in a prestige magazine is something which, were it handed in for a grade in my Freshman Composition class, might earn a C+ (clear, well edited writing with an identifiable and consistent thesis, but huge gaps in logic and poor use of examples for support). Maybe this is because my institution is on the "Critical Thinking" warpath, but I don't think so. I mean, surely it is not only in University English departments where things like hasty generalizations and non-sequiturs are viewed as poor argumentation? Or have we officially reached the Fox News age where argumentation doesn't even pretend to be about logos or ethos and is only about pathos? The shock headline may attract readers and if the argument itself leaves people nonplussed, well it sold the advertising space for a month and that's all that matters, right?

Maybe. Though (and now I'm gonna start sounding like Fox News rather than lambasting them, but...) I wonder if the article were dealing with some other religion or social group than Christianity or evangelical Christians if such broad stereotyping and generalizations would not be called out as based on and inflaming prejudices? Think about the headline for a second and then think of the article. Certainly we have a core problem of taking a subset of a larger group (proponents of the prosperity gospel) and identifying them as the larger thing (Christianity), I won't even bother to expound upon the apparently too subtle but important distinction between the generalization the article intentionally makes (prosperity gospel proponents = all Christians) and the even greater, more egregious rhetorical generalization the article unthinkingly promulgates (the actions of some Christians="Christianity" in its true form). Add to that the fact that I would hope it wouldn't take an offended Christian reader or a Ph.D. in Economics (hey, I majored in literature) to take issue with the underlying assumption that the "crash" did not have multiple proximate and remote causes, and I think you begin to the see the foundational problems at the core of this article. Leaving aside the generalizations about Christianity, surely the crash had so many causes that I would think laying the blame for it (or even the lion's share of the blame for it) at the feet of one subsection of (consumer!) society influenced by one way of thinking is, well, facile.

Here's a chain of causal influences for you. The World Trade Center buildings were destroyed by Islamic extremists who wanted to cause terror in the United States. One reason why the Muslim world has had it in for the United States is because of its support of Israel. Israel is composed of Jewish people, many of whom believe, for religious reasons, that they are entitled to land on the West Bank. If I were to then write an article in which I interviewed several Jews who held that belief and gave it a title "Did Judaism Cause 9/11?" I don't know exactly what would happen, but I expect I know one thing that wouldn't happen. I wouldn't get a cover story in The Atlantic.

Sherlock Holmes (Ritchie, 2009)

2010-01-01T09:59:00.001-05:00

I wasn't expecting much, and on the whole, it struck me as a generic action flick.

I was wondering though...was I the only one who thought it strange to have a major studio picture whose plot revolved around a faked resurrection in an attempt to gain power over the common people who were easily duped (and thus felt fear) released on Christmas day?

Top Ten Films of 2009

2009-12-30T01:31:00.002-05:00

I've posted my annual Top 10 list for favorite films at 1More Film Blog.

Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire

2009-12-25T18:01:00.002-05:00

Over at 1More Film Blog, I'm trying to celebrate the 12 days of Christmas by going to a movie a day. We'll see if I can sustain that better than Nanowrimo. Anyhow, here is a link to my review of Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire.

Twilight: New Moon

2009-11-21T15:27:00.001-05:00

Becky Finken reviews the new Twilight film at 1More Film Blog. The review is up.

Nanowrimo 2009

2009-10-31T23:04:00.002-05:00

"Now there's something you don't see every day," he cracked, looking at the body of what was presumably the owner of Sensei Mike's Karate Academy with a sword sticking all the way through his chest and piercing the punching bag on the other side.

He was right, but the joke was about as stale as the McDonalds coffee that I was reduced to sipping out of a Styrofoam cup. Being forced to drink fast food coffee would be enough to put me in a foul mood even if I wasn't having to stare down at the body of a homicide victim with my best friend (who usually really isn't that much of an asshole) making feeble stabs at gallows humor to try to hide his discomfort.

[Only 49, 874 more words to go! This novel writing stuff is easy breezy, Chucky Cheesey.]

Christian Fiction

2009-10-31T22:56:00.001-05:00

My article on "Christian Fiction" from the Books and Beyond (a Greenwood Encylopedia of Literary Genres) is now available online here.

Bible Films Meme

2009-09-27T17:21:00.002-05:00

My friend Carmen at In The Open Space: God & Culture tagged me with a meme that is going around asking people to select their three favorite "Bible Films" and to add one Bible based film they would like to see made.

This was a hard challenge for me because I mostly don't like Bible films, and I'm tempted to start a long discourse on why. But then, I'm always afraid in such instances that doing so turns into a knock on those who act or feel differently, and I don't want to do that either.

I guess I do need to say enough to contextualize my list. I tend to not like Bible films for much the same reason I don't like literary adaptations--good enough is hardly ever perfect, and I end up feeling as though my relationship to the text gets transferred in ways I don't particularly like. Also, I actively resist passive reading or passive viewing where the Bible is involved, meaning I'm usually working against the text.

Okay, so much for my caveats. Here are the three that I would consider my favorites:

The Miracle Maker (Hayes, 2000)
I find that the claymation and animation mix helps create defamiliarization, an essential element of any Bible film for me. Most of the interpretive choices or glosses are fairly well vetted, so the film mostly avoids the kinds of theologically problematic glosses on scenes that take me out of a film when I watch them.

I do tend to dislike the mix of Biblical and apocryphal interpolations (despite two of them being on my list), and I would prefer that an unknown voice Jesus, since any actor's persona carries with it problematic associations with other roles. Generally quick moving, and at times (in the animation) more emotionally suggestive than literal, The Miracle Maker is generally my go to film if I want a film as devotional or contemplative aid, though even this one feels long at 90 minutes sometimes.

The Bible: In The Beginning (Huston, 1966)
If I like The Miracle Maker for being stylized, I like The Bible for its insistent plainness. The most iconic thing about it is Huston's rich, accented voice, and the minimalist interpretations of the early Genesis scenes to help me to think of them as historical depictions of actual people rather than legendary archetypes. Certainly by the time one gets to George C. Scott as Abraham, I feel like I'm watching an actor read his lines rather than a tableau enact the spoken words, but I have a soft spot for the Noah passages. Perhaps it comes from having read of Huston's trials in working with animals and feeling as though there is something just a little metafictive in the way that he, like Noah, takes on a task that is so clearly out of his control.

I've posted a little bit more about Huston at 1More Film Blog, including this quote, which made me love the man, even while I was still on the fence about what I thought of this film: "I try to direct as little as possible. The more one directs, the more there is a tendency to monotony. If one is telling each person what to do, one ends up with a host of little replicas of oneself." Honestly, I don't know how anyone could direct a Bible film any other way.

Intolerance (Griffith, 1916)
D.W. Griffith's film is often viewed as his apology for or defense of Birth of a Nation, but really it's his defense of himself for having made Birth of a Nation. Intersplicing four stories of intolerance through the ages, the film might not be considered a Bible film by some, since only one of the stories is from the Bible. I find that I need something outside the standard depictions of the passion text, however, to keep me from just falling into a familiar sense that I've seen it before. And since some Bible films do feel self-contained to me, I sort of like ones that point outside the cinematic text and address the question of the text's relation to the surrounding world rather than simply being an illustrated text. As a film, Intolerance's use of sets and actual people always instills a sort of awe in me that CGI just doesn't give. There is something epic about the production values that gives the film a sort of weightiness that, while not the end-all-be-all of a Bible film, is, I think, a necessary element.

In terms of Bible films I would like to see made, that's a tough one. I'm tempted to say Carl Theodor Dreyer's long contemplated but never filmed biography of Jesus, but the truth is that I'm happy enough with what Dreyer created. I suppose Hosea might make a good film, as would Jonah, if there were a way to contextualize it quickly enough that the human emotions that are so universal in these texts could be allowed to stand without all the exposition. Rather than pick a film that I want made, can I pick an auteur whose Bible film I would be most interested in screening, whatever subject matter he/she picked from?

Answer: Frederic Back.

TIFF Coverage at Christianity Today Movies

2009-09-05T22:01:00.002-05:00

I'm happy to announce I'll be doing some guest blogging for Christianity Today (CT Movies). You can follow my posts at the CT Movies Blog.

Tentative 2009 TIFF Schedule

2009-08-25T20:13:00.002-05:00

Well, I got my Out of Town Package from the Toronto International Film Festival today, and spent most of the day figuring out what my itinerary will be. Now, the question is what will happen if I lose out on any of these in the lottery.

Here's what I put in for:

THURSDAY SEP 10:

6:00-7:40 An Education--Sherfig (Ryerson)

FRIDAY SEP 11:

12:30-2:51 Face--Tsai (Scotiabank 1)
6:00-7:50 Vision--von Trotta (Scotiabank 2)
9:00-11:04 Fish Tank--Arnold (Scotiabank 2)

SATURDAY SEP 12:
11:45-1:22 My Tehran For Sale--Moussavi (AMC 7)
3:15-4:56 The Art of the Steal--Argott (AMC 2)
5:15-7:40 White Ribbon--Haneke (Scotiabank 1)
9:15-10:50 The Disappearance of Alice Creed--Blakeson (Ryerson)

SUNDAY Sep 13:
9:30-11:30 Bright Star--Campion (Scotiabank 2)
12:30-2:17 Dorian Gray--Parker (Winter Garden)
9:00-11:00 Air Doll--Koreeda (Scotiabank 2)

MONDAY Sep 14:
10:00-11:30 Solitary Man--Koppelman (Scotiabank 2)
3:00-5:00 The Road--Hillcoat (Scotiabank 2)
5:00-7:00 Agora--Amenabar (Scotiabank 1)
8:15-9:51 Life During Wartime--Solondz (Scotiabank 1)

TUESDAY Sep 15:
9:30-11:14 Wild Grass--Resnais (Scotiabank 4)
12:30-2:03 Carmel--Gitai (Scotiabank 2)
6:30-8:12 White Material--Denis (Scotiabank 1)
9:15-10:51 Lourdes--Hausner (Scotiabank 1)

WEDS Sep 16:
9:15-10:40 Leslie, My Name is Evil--Harkema (Scotiabank 4)

Poker Question That Probably Only Interests Me...

2009-08-24T15:39:00.002-05:00

...or maybe it's a math question.

I remember talking to my friend Tom (tdeem1) once about euchre strategy, and he said something like "there is euchre and there is ladder euchre." Part of what he meant was that in order to succeed, you had to know not only the game but the venue.

Which brings me to Zynga Poker. Zynga is a free poker game attached to Facebook. Players earn chips that give them access to various rooms, but really there is no money exchanged. So that's one difference right there. People tend to be more aggressive, play to a draw more often, etc., when there is nothing really at stake.

Zynga has what is called a "Shoot Out" progressive tournament. You buy in for $2000 imaginary Zynga dollars and everyone gets $1000 chips. The winner gets his/her stake back plus entry into round 2. (Second and third get partial amount of stake back.) In round 2 the top three places score and the winner gets entry into round 3, where the winner gets 500,000 imaginary dollars.

Because the cost of the buy in is so low for Round 1, because they have very little attention span, and because it is not real money, many players in Round 1 go "all-in" on the first hand regardless of what they have. Most tables the average number of players who go all in is around 5, though I've seen all 9. I've only on very few occasions seen less than 4.

So here is my question, for the average person for whom imaginary game site dollars are not low (I have like 600 K and the buy in is 2K), when should you move all-in on the first hand?

Various thoughts, followed by rationale, follow, but I'm interested in other people's, especially math guru's, thoughts. FWIW, bear in mind that the fewer people all in (like 4) the easier it is to win the hand but the less decided advantage the person has. If there are seven people all in, it is possible with the blinds still at 10 and 20 dollars, to buy in to most pre-flop hands, wait for a commanding advantage and win the game. Though I have beaten the first hand winner many times, even when he/she generally has a 4-1 or 5-1 chips advantage.

Thought #1: NEVER
The problem with ever entering these free for alls is that even pocket aces seldom win. It becomes more random. You are 4-1 to beat a lower pair, but if there are 2 lower pair, and someone has suited cards and someone else has connectors, well, you get the idea...the number of hands that can beat you increases the more hands that are in and you can rarely get people off the hand. I will usually ANNOUNCE quickly when I have pocket aces, and I usually get 2-4 calls anyway. My hope is that 1 or 2 people might wait a hand to go all in. The fewer hands, the higher my probability of winning the first hand. And even just doubling up the first hand puts me in a much better position to be patient to bust the winner of the eventual group all-in.

Thoguht #2: ALWAYS
If it's just random, you should win a certain percentage over the long run (times where you have aces losing to a flush evening out with times you have 7-2 and suck out someone with the better hand). Once you win, you are in a commanding position. And if you wait, you are playing catch up most of the game.

Thought #3: Sometimes
Okay, but when? Given the fact that most of the other players will go in with anything, my thought here is that if you only play higher probability hands, you will still lose a lot, but the goal is to win more than a strictly random amount. So if you fold the 7-2s and play the AA, well, you'll now and then miss out on the 2-2-2 flop and get sucked out by the flush or straight draw, but the latter will happen less frequently than the former, and so, over time, you'll win a higher percentage than accepting the coin flip.

I sort of go with #3...I'll join if I have two cards 10 or higher, suited connecters, or an Ace + 2, 8, or 9.

Part of my wondering here is that not EVERYONE goes all in, so it is not strictly random draw. If I assume most people similarly won't fold two high cards, I can reasonably assume that the more people who are all-in, the less likely I am to draw a hand since there will be more low cards in the deck to flop. So, part of me thinks if there are 4 or fewer, go all in with high cards, but 5 or more, go all in with low cards (or value suited-connectors more). Then again, a lot of the players are just randomly all-in, so it isn't as though I can seriously read anyone's hand.

Also, does table position matter in this situation at all? I see some people just call the big blind and wait to see how many go all in, but I've seen it go all the way around the table to the small blind only to have him go all in and players with AA or 2-9 follow around the table, so the notion that there is less likely to be more good hands if it calls almost all the way around isn't really valid.

Just wondering if any poker players or math people have some thoughts about the most logical way to play this first hand melee.

Town Halls

2009-08-19T07:26:00.002-05:00

I remember a professor in graduate school saying once that the only appropriate response to some arguments is the "no comment F."

Dis-enchanted

2009-08-16T23:56:00.002-05:00

Rummaging through the desk the other day I found a hard copy of a paper I had delivered at a conference and thought was inadvertently deleted. It compares the films Ella Enchanted and Kill Bill: Volume 2.

I've put a copy of the paper up at 1More Film Blog.

Gates Arrest Police Report

2009-07-27T20:33:00.002-05:00

A lot of people have weighed in on the Gates-Crowley while almost everyone I've heard with an opinion has conceded to not knowing all/most of the facts. To that end, here is a link to a copy of the police reports at The Smoking Gun. Not saying these are all facts, but there is at least one side of the story in the participants own words, making it easier to draw your own conclusions.

"H" is for "Happy"

2009-06-29T21:44:00.002-05:00

I had a philosophy professor in college who claimed Plato called music "magic" because it can alter one's mood with no reference to prior experience. You are walking down the street and hear a song you've never heard before and all of a sudden you feel good. What is that, but magic?

My alphabetical sojourn through my Ipod has been stalled lately, but I'm up to the letter "H" and in honor of Plato, I say "H" is for "happy."

There are 90 songs beginning with the letter "h" in my Itunes, list. What follows are the songs from my list that tend to make me happy when I hear them--songs that put me in a good mood or that I enjoy hearing when I am in a good mood:

5) "Heartbreaker" by Dionne Warwick.
Okay, the bizarre thing about music is that sad songs often make you happy and happy songs often are just depressing (often, because they are insipid). It doesn't hurt that this song came out right around the time I was a junior or senior in high school, so it perfectly captures the overwrought emotional romanticism that is young adulthood. There is, perhaps, some nostalgia driving the engine--ah, to be young and to feel each nick and cut as an epic tragedy--but there is something self comforting in the song, too: "Get to the morning and you never call / Love should be everything or not at all." Of course, its always happier nostalgia because, in retrospect, one knows that the greater love was yet to come.

4) "Have a Heart" by Bonnie Raitt
Like Warwick, Raitt is able to sing about heartbreak and make it sound down right enjoyable. Still, while Warwick's song is overwrought, there is a fiestiness in Raitt's lyrics and voice that I just love. Lot of pluck. Glad I've never had to have that sort of spunk in love, but I wish I could have it in all areas of my life:

Hey!
Shut up.
Dont lie to me.
Hey!
Mister, how do you do.
Oh pardon me I thought I knew you.

I mean, that's perfect.

3) "Hips Don't Lie" by Shakira

I discovered this song after reading an interview with some athlete on SI.com where they asked him, "What's the most embarassing song you have on your Ipod." When he said he had the music video for this song I had to look it up. "I never really knew that she could dance like this / She makes a man want to speak Spanish..." Okay, I was gonna say that's positively Donne-worthy, but I'll settle for Byronesque (he who rhymed "intellectual" with "hen-pecked-you-all." Besides, goofy is fun, isn't it?

2) "Heart and Soul" by T'Pau
Actually the lyrics of this song are pretty damned depressing. Good thing one can't hardly decipher them. Love the music, though.

1) "Hymn to Her" by the Pretenders
Doesn't hurt that I discovered this song when I was falling in love for the first time. Never fails to bring a smile to my face.

Honorable mentions: "Hallelujah" by Leonard Cohen, "Holding Out for a Her" by Bonnie Tyler, "Heaven is a Place on Earth" by Belinda Carlisle; "Human Wheels" by John Cougar Mellencamp; "Head Over Heels" by Tears for Fears.

Two Bresson posts

2009-06-29T00:29:00.001-05:00

I have posted thoughts on two Bresson films at 1More Film Blog:

A Man Escaped

The Trial of Joan of Arc

Howard Hawks, Land of the Pharaohs

2009-06-06T22:14:00.001-05:00

I've been busy with work recently and haven't done much new film viewing, so I've uploaded an older piece I worked on awhile back to 1More Film Blog.

I got a kick out of the reason William Faulkner said writing the screenplay for this film was so difficult.

Charles Muntz vs Ted Turner

2009-06-02T14:47:00.005-05:00

Am I the only one who sees a resemblance? I'm sure it's probably just coincidental, no?

NBA Basketball

2009-05-24T10:10:00.003-05:00

So, based on my recent anthropological observations, here is the skinny on NBA basketball.

NBA Basketball is a contest resembling but in no wise identical to actual High School, College, Olympic, or Recreational Basketball. The play proceeds for three and one half quarters where four players congregate underneath under baskets and attempt to beat the living s--t out of one another while one player from a team alternately bounces and scoops and carries an orange ball like a waiter's tray while trying to run into the fifth player on the other team. If he is successful at running into the player on the other team, he gets two free throws, if not he must stamp his foot three times and cover his eyes before returning to play.

This proceeds until there are are approximately four minutes left in the game, at which point the rules change. Then, one player from the team that is behind is chosen at random to intentionally wrap his arms around another player's waist (rather than elbow him in the face) before the player scooping the ball can run into another player. If the scooping player is named Lebron, Kobe, or Michael, he doesn't actually have to run into another player in the last four minutes, he only has to get within three feet of the other player--at which point the other player is obligated to run in the other direction or be called for a foul.

After the game is over, the player with the most felonies or points must then publicly thank God and the fans at the arena, while the players of the losing team must say the word "adjustments" before going to the locker room. This is repeated every three days if no travel is required or every two if the teams are not from Los Angeles, New York, or Chicago until one team is either so beat up they can't play or has so many players suspended for doing in the last two minutes of the game what they are required to do all game, that the other team moves forward.

New Contributors to 1More Film Blog

2009-05-16T13:54:00.002-05:00

I'm pleased to be able to add content to 1More Film Blog from two new contributors.

Dan Mohr has graciously allowed me to republish some of his discussion board thoughts on the new Star Trek film. I like Dan's writing style and (although we largely agree on this particular film) his ability to disagree with a prevailing attitude or critical consensus while avoiding personal insults and just dealing with the substance of an idea or critical opinion.

I've known Laura J. Morefield much longer, as a sister-in-law and friend. She describes herself on her blog thusly:

Laura Morefield is a poet, budding novelist, political commentator, wife, sister, aunt, daughter, friend, person fighting cancer and occasional life coach.

Laura's skills and experience as a creative writer give her a perspective which, I think, nicely complements my own as an academic and critic. In her own blog, she has written about how fighting cancer has effected her perspective about her own political writing, and I suspect this experience can't help but influence how she feels and writes about art as well. It is for this reason I especially welcome her perspective as she works through Academy Award winners or other films. Her most recent piece is about The Life of Emile Zola.

There is, of course, something that threatens to reduce a person and put her (or him) in a box when we focus too much on one specific aspect of their perspective. Just as I like to think of myself as more than "just" a "Christian critic" or a "literature teacher" even though I like to think my faith and profession help shape and differentiate my perspective, so too Laura is so much more than "just" a cancer fighter, or a creative writer, or a woman writer. All these things (and more) inform and differentiate her perspective and make her someone I enjoy listening to and someone who I inevitably learn from.

When Facebook Applications Go Bad, Part II.

2009-05-15T12:07:00.003-05:00

Yeah, I can't possibly think what could go wrong here, either.

Star Trek Rant

2009-05-14T18:02:00.004-05:00

Originally posted at Cinevox. Spoliers, of course.

******************************************

Spoilers abound, of course.

So Peter, Beth, Cindy and I saw it.

My goodness, my transformation to effete film snob is nearly complete. I know intellectually this movie isn't half as bad as it felt (or maybe it was) and that I'm responding as much to the adulation it is getting (confirming my growing suspicion that most of the people in the world who aren't me--or at least agree with me 95% of the time--are idiots) as its mediocrity.

Peter and Beth want a full-on ATK rant. Not sure I'm up to that--but I guess I'll give it the old James T. Kirk try. The abbreviated version, in rising order of what I found irritating:

--the prolonged and ever increasing chase factor, turning the franchise from a science-fiction film into an action film. Mission: Impossible in space, if you will.

--either be a reboot (and ignore the continuity issues/problems) or a prequel (and spend time explaining how to get Nimoy, etc into the movie), but don't do a half-assed job at both and thus a satisfactory job at neither.

--The explicit coda delivered in dialogue for those too stupid to understand what a movie they have just seen is about.

--(I realize I may be the only one who cares about this one, but...) I find it to be the wrong cultural moment for the political self-congratulatory tone of our humanistic, Western federation valuing of life and even mercy towards our enemies. Spock is supposed to be the moral hero because he recognizes he has been "emotionally compromised" and thus relieves himself of command. Kirk offers mercy to the terrorist slayer of 6 billion life forms b/c that may be the only way to build a diplomatic bridge to the terrorists? Sure, he's happy when they say they'd rather die than submit, allowing us to simultaneously exercise genocidal vengeance yet still feel morally superior in, you know, a Christian sort of way. It's the sort of fantasy wish fulfillment of the sort (pandering to our basest instincts masquerading as moral superiority) I haven't seen since, well, Left Behind. Rather than deal with or even acknowledge our most problematic (Kaplan uses the word "shameful," I think, in Female Perversions) urges, let's construct fantasy scenarios in which giving in to them is actually required of us and therefore morally noble rather than compromised or even base. It's the philosophical/moral equivalent of the Kobyashi Maru scneario--let's rewrite the program to that some problem isn't a problem at all and congratulate ourselves at our cleverness in being able to have our cake and eat it too. I've never been a great follower/fan of the television incarnations, but I've respected what I've seen, in part because there seemed to be an actual ideological idea or world-view that was being expressed. This film reminded me of the first Harry Potter film--working feverishly to get in all the superficial surface paraphernalia (as though those were the things that made it great rather than just nostalgic buttons to push) but totally whiffing on the spirit that animated them and made people love it in the first place.

Should make a couple gazillion billion dollars and serve marvelously as a tent pole reboot. And it's my fault, because like the last two Star Wars movies, I know I'll probably go see them all.

On the upside, I had a great afternoon with friends and family, so that was well worth eight bucks. I guess if I had to choose between that and loving the film but finding the people I see it with really annoying, I'll take the company every time.

"God's Love" and The Celebrity Apprentice

2009-05-12T09:44:00.003-05:00

I stopped watching The Apprentice long ago, basically when it became clear that decisions were not about winning the weekly contests but about creating conflict that was good for "drama." I was, however, interested enough to read this interview with Joan Rivers who defended calling one of her rivals (apparently Annie Duke, the poker player) "worse than Hitler."

King: Joanny, where did you come up with that 'worse than Hitler' crack?
Rivers: Oh, I don't know. You know, you're always saying things. Hitler is the worst villain in the world. So when you really get furious at someone, you say, 'Oh, you're a female Hitler' or something, you know? It's just an expression. But I stand behind it.

So, it's all in the game, and it's all about making money for charity.

Joan's charity? I'm not making this up:

Trump: She got $250,000 plus she raised hundreds of thousands more during the course of the 14 weeks. But she gets $250,000. That goes to God's Love We Deliver, which is a great charity in New York.

I guess I should cap this post with a clever zinger about irony, but really, one senses that if people don't get it themselves, anything I could say about it would probably be lost. So, instead, I'll just say, thank you Joan Rivers for delivering God's love, and congratulations on acquiring $250,000 for your charity.

Dom DeLuise has died...

2009-05-05T20:16:00.003-05:00

...and so has Bea Arthur. So has Jack Kemp.

But that's not really what this post is about.

The first celebrity passing which I recall actually being aware of was when a newscaster for the evening news gave a teaser that John Wayne had passed.

People died back then, but, pardon the crassness of my saying so, it seemed to happen less frequently. I'm sure there were obituaries and all, but with the Internet, it seems that someone dies every day.

And that's what this post is about.

There seems to me to be something pat, routine, and "Now...This"ish about the whole exercise of acknowledging (different from memorializing) celebrity passings that I actually find dispiriting and depressing. The phrase "Now...This" is from the book Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman (who I think is dead, but I'm not sure). It is the transition, he says, that indicates what you have just heard and been asked to think about has absolutely no connection to what you are about to hear or think about. Okay, that part is just typical media age disconnectedness. He also says, though, that it is the cue that you have thought long enough (an appropriate time) about whatever and now are okay to think about something else. If it is a really big celebrity, that might mean long enough to post a thought on your blog (or read someone's), but if it was someone you didn't really know was alive or dead until you read the obit, it's more usually a moment of silence or an acknowledgment.

What's wrong with that?

Well, nothing, I guess, other than my general dislike of expressions of anything that are ceremonial rather than actual. But it just seems like the canned way of responding is so routine that it just means that all we think about is death, that death is the only thing that gives the story meaning. It's also a bit of a trap in that not acknowledging makes us feel cold and hypocritical, so we have to acknowledge everyone...."Hey, that person that was in the commercial for x died...yeah, that was a funny commercial...hey and the first drummer on the One Hit Wonders...and the reserve point guard who played on the NBA finals..." But in acknowledging everyone, isn't there a kind of trap or hypocrisy as well? "So and so...wasn't he the one who did that television show I never watched before doing that other television show that I didn't watch?"

If nobody died, we can always do a catch up with the friends or family of somebody who died last month or last year. Earlier this month I was at the supermarket and there was a magazine that had a famous celebrity talking about dealing with the death of a family member. "Oh, yes," I thought, "I remember [vaguely] when it was reported that that happened."

The fact that I hadn't thought about it once since then is, perhaps an indication that this story didn't really have anything to do with me. That a stranger died in another part of the country under sad and tragic circumstances. Or perhaps it is an indication that whatever sympathies I had for that family and those people was parcelled into increasingly smaller packages to be shared with the friends and families of Dom DeLuise, and Bea Arthur, and (not dead yet!) Roger Ebert, and Patrick Swayze, and Farrah Fawcett...

Kon Ichikawa died this year. Seems like just yesterday we were talking about Bergman and Antonioni going in quick succession. Oh, wait that was 2007. I totally skipped over the tragic deaths of Heath Ledger and Natasha Richardson, didn't I? How could I have forgotten those stories? No, I mean that literally, how? They were all over the news, weren't they?

I don't mean to disparage any of these celebrities who brought beauty and entertainment to countless people and who, I hope, had friends and loved ones who will feel their losses very deeply, not because a newspaper told them to, but because they were integral parts of their lives. I don't even mind people who have a particular remembrance of a film or a performance writing a memory or an appreciation. (I did, when Nick Reynolds passed away last year...or was it 2 years ago...). I just wish that we could find some way of making such gestures something other than compulsory so that I could trust and believe them when I read them and not just feel like they served no other purposed than to make the person making them feel insulated from the charge of being a jerk less anyone notice that, "Hey, Marilyn Chambers died, and Ken was so busy writing about his life and his family that he didn't even mention it."

Movie Prayers--Cromwell (1970)

2009-05-01T15:42:00.001-05:00

Lord, thou knowest how busy I must be this day. If I forget thee, do not thou forget me.

"I'll Pray for You..."

2009-05-01T01:10:00.003-05:00

Why do those words set my teeth on edge?

Okay, today it is because I got a letter that had in its return logo:

DEAR JESUS, WE PRAY THAT YOU WILL BLESS SOMEONE IN THIS HOME SPIRITUALLY, PHYSICALLY AND FINANCIALLY. ST. MATTHEW 18:19.

On the back it said:

WE PRAY OVER THIS LETTER BECAUSE WE WANT TO HELP THIS DEAR PERSON IN YOUR HOLY NAME AMEN. PSALM 37:4

and

...AND PLEASE DEAR JESUS, BLESS THE HANDS THAT OPEN THIS FAITH LETTER THAN CAN CHANGE THESE LIVES, AND WE ASK THEE TO GIVE THEM THE DESIRES OF THEIR HEARTS...

Really? Even if the desire of the heart of the hands that open the letter are an Islamic Jihad, a pedophilia party, or a lifetime supply of crack cocaine?

My friend Jeffrey Overstreet once remarked to an inquiry about whether or not he prayed for Hollywood celebrities with a rather caustic remark that he had a hard enough time cultivating the discipline of praying for his own family.

Really, isn't praying for someone one of the greatest things you can do? We certainly say that, yet how many people, when they hear those words actually feel glad to know it? Even Christians. Perhaps we don't feel it because, rhetoric aside, our experience of having people tell us those words is not one of experiencing a difference in our lives.

Many years ago, I made the decision to try to avoid ever saying "I'll pray for you." It seemed like an indeterminate and weaselly commitment. I was also frustrated by the number of people who would ask me to pray for someone or about something and then never follow up. I might see them days later and ask about their "prayer request" only to be met with a shrug or an embarrassed look and told they didn't know how the situation had resolved or if it had. Really "I'll pray for you" is a way of ending the conversation, without having to do any follow up. I will, occasionally tell someone "I have prayed for you" and I'm certainly open to people who want to pray right now.

My favorite part of the above prayer is the scripture reference. I love how the pray-ers tell Jesus not a prayer but THAT THEY ARE PRAYING. They then tell Jesus that they are praying in his name, and in case Jesus is wondering why they are praying the way they are, they provide Jesus with a nice scrpture reference from Psalms.

I'm trying to picture a kid talking to his parents (or, if the metaphor is better, his big brother) like this:

"Hey, will you bless this name in the phone book, because I want to help this person on your behalf by letting them know you blessed them..."

I believe prayer is a a good thing. I believe it helps us more than we know and is effective more than we guess. I just wish that it were more meaningful in our culture. Meaningful enough that we would toss our prayers around like advertising slogans, hoping for market pentetration rather than genuine human and spiritual connection. And I wish we would talk about praying less and actually do it more.

More Fun with More Film

2009-04-30T00:00:00.001-05:00

Wow, wordpress really lets me go to town with my new film blog...scrolling feature bar, random post selection, video embedding. I'm having all sorts of fun. Check out the new and improved look at http://1morefilmblog.com.

Things That Keep You Going Back

2009-04-29T10:05:00.007-05:00

So I finally figured out how to upload photos from my cell phone.

This rather banal little photo is career ace #5, made earlier this year in McLean. It was a short little hole, a measly 146 feet. But an ace is an ace. I threw a beat in Innova Dragon that tracked a perfect slice into the chains.

There are pictures that are pretty and there are pictures that are "purty."

OLC Torture Memo Excerpt Put to Music

2009-04-23T11:46:00.004-05:00

Rockcookiebottom.com has a YouTube of the OLC Torture Memo put to music. Thanks to Andy Zell for pointing this out to me:

Deuce Factor

2009-04-22T23:53:00.002-05:00

Since I moved most of my movie stuff elsewhere, I thought this a good time/place to repost the history of "Deuce Factor":
*********************

What Is It?
Okay, now that I know that "Deuce Factor" is being practiced in at least four different cities, I figured I better write it up so that any subsequent people claiming to have invented it would be precluded. "Deuce Factor" is a way of rating movie trailers (also called previews). After watching a trailer, each person ranks how interested/willing to see the film he/she is in comparison to Deuce Bigalow, Male Gigolo. One simply asks oneself the question: "Based on this trailer, if someone held a gun to my head and said, you MUST watch, right now, either this movie or Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo, which one would I choose?"

A Deuce Factor +1, means you would rather watch the film than Deuce Bigalow, conversely, a Deuce Factor -1 means, if forced, you would prefer to watch the Rob Schneider film. Films can be given a +2 (I think I would rather watch that movie twice than have to sit through Deuce Bigalow once) or a -2 (I would rather watch Deuce Bigalow twice than this movie once:--and hey, it can happen). Thus far, only one movie in history (Nutty Professor II: The Klumps) has ever received a Deuce Factor -3. A "Deuce Push" means that one may as well flip a coin, there is nothing to recommend the film (based on the trailer) over Deuce Bigalow or vice-versa).
I would point out, this procedure, while working marvelously well, only seems to work for those people who have NOT in fact seen Deuce Bigalow. If you have seen it, then the question becomes, "would I rather see it again, or watch this movie for a first time?" and then calibration gets messed up.

Who Invented It?
Steven H. Perlstein of Northern Virginia. I was visiting him in the winter of 1999 and lamenting how Deuce Bigalow looked like the worst movie of all time. "You're being melodramatic," he replied. "I can think of a half dozen movies playing right now that I would rather see Deuce Bigalow than..." I challenged this statement, and Steve picked up the Washington Post and began perusing the film section. I don't remember the exact movies that he rattled off--perhaps one was Bicentennial Man, perhaps another was Stuart Little, perhaps he mentioned Dogma, The Messenger, or The Bone Collector. I think The Story of Us was still playing in the $1.00 theaters. Needless to say, I was shaken. It wasn't so much that there were a half-dozen movies as bad as or worse than Deuce Bigalow, just that there were a half-dozen as bad or worse movies AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT.

Later, in line to see Man on the Moon, Steve consoled me for my naiveté. "Deuce Bigalow is a good test case though; it's the type of movie that is easy to ridicule and criticize without ever thinking about how bad some other movies really are." We bought our tickets. "In fact," Steve said, "I think that is how I am going to judge previews from now on: would I rather see this movie or Deuce Bigalow?"

I believe the first previews we got that night was for Play It to the Bone. It looked stupid, crass, and pointless. I was hard pressed to find any reason why I would rather see it instead of Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo. I think next came Fantasia 2000, or maybe Snow Falling on Cedars. More pretentious films, to be sure, but in their own ways promising to be no less dreary. "I rest my case," Steve said.

I've never looked at previews the same way since.

P.S.
Since that time my friends Todd and Sherry Truffin have introduced "Deuce Factor" to Cleveland, Ohio, and last summer I took "Deuce Factor" on the road to Saugus, California where my brother, sister-in-law, and friend, Jeremy Riter, quibbled over whether Coyote Ugly was a +3 or a -1 (and whether a film had only one true and authentic "Deuce Factor rating" or if it could have several depending upon the gender and taste of the viewer). These questions are still unresolved.

So if you are in a movie theater and you hear somebody saying, "It's a -1..." during one of the previews, you know what they are talking about. Why not lean over and surprise them by saying, "You mean you would seriously rather see Deuce Bigalow than that?"

Then email me at kenmorefieldATgmail.com and tell me where "Deuce Factor" has reached.

You Keep Using That Word...

2009-04-22T08:54:00.004-05:00

...I don't think it means what you think it means.

Last week, I was apparently the only person in the world who thought it odd that U.S. News and World Report would says that Rick Warren was "a little nauseous."

Today I wake up to find that SI.com says the Penguins defeated Philadelphia Flyers to "seize control" of their playoff hockey series.

Just so we're clear. The Penguins were leading the series two games to zero before "seizing control." I wonder who had before this game?

Supermen of Malegaon (2009)

2009-04-21T23:13:00.010-05:00

My review of Supermen of Malegaon is now up at 1More Film Blog.