Football a world sport

Never has the second round of a World Cup been so diverse. At least one team from every continent (The Antarctic penguins have yet to compete) has edged it's way closer to the finals. Even North Korea, although with no success, was given the chance to compete. Teams like Japan, Slovakia, Chile, Ghana, and South Korea have edged out regulars like France and Italy. In a Cup that by the round of 16 often looks like a Euro cup, it is proof that soccer, football, has become not just a world sport of spectators but also of contenders.

Groups A & B: Impressions

Group A

- Mexico looks impressive. Although slightly disappointing, their draw with South Africa has to be viewed in a positive light considering the massive levels of inspiration pulsing through the Bafana Bafana. Slick-passing and well-organized, Mexico will hope to shred the wet blanket that is France before facing a potentially tricky final fixture versus a cagey Uruguay team. All told, Mexico has the best form of any team in this group and should advance. Whether they do so in first or second place is up to them.

- South Africa showed moments of quality but were lucky to draw with Mexico. Their next match versus Uruguay will determine their fate. Will they use their adrenaline to overcome their lack of quality or will they have a let down after the big first game? A disgruntled, uncaring France side is next and may wither underneath the vuvuzela drone. Its up to South Africa to avoid being starstruck and take advantage of the situation.

- France. No sympathy for this talented pack of underachievers. Coach Raymond Dominech said he would need a gun if the team failed to put aside their egos. At this rate, I would hope he doesn't find said gun and shoot one of his players in a fit of existential angst. There is apparent division in the ranks and without Zidane's Jedi Master abilities to bring the team together, France seems doomed to an whimpering departure.

- Uruguay. Bunkered against France but soon realized they had very little to fear from their toothless opponents. Got forward intelligently and did well to earn a draw after going a man down. Probably has the least quality in the group but with a striker like Forlan and a continued high level of defensive organization, they could sneak into the second round.

Group B
- Argentina. Should have won handily against a Nigerian team that seemed to be suffering from some sort of dietary malaise, perhaps from the prescribed diet of pickled herring and potato from Swedish coach, Lars Lagerbeck. Maradona's madman tactics (Jonas at right back? Starting Higauin over Milito?) showed in this match as the team looked unbalanced and unsure of itself going forward. Although Messi could have had three goals on the day, the Biancoceleste were somewhat lucky to win. They are really going to have to up their game versus an energetic, never-say-die South Korea side.

Nigeria. What a shambles. If Argentina shuffled around in a directionless steak coma, then Nigeria looked as listless and boring as the shots on the sideline of its headman, Lars Lagerbeck. Lagerbeck, for all his experience, really didn't look like he gave a shit and his gig with Nigeria reeks of Sven Goran Eriksson mercenary work. Never have I seen an African team in a World Cup look so boring and passionless and I'm sure that is mostly down to their dour Swedish manager. Luckily their next game is against the equally terrible Greeks.

South Korea. Showed the passion and energy that they came to be known for during the 2002 World Cup. They are well-organized and seem to really want it, as compared to Greece and Nigeria who both seem utterly aimless and lacking in desire. South Korea could give Argentina real problems in their next match if Maradona's team fails to click into top gear.

Greece. They play the most disgusting, negative soccer that you will ever see. No sympathy for this team who will most likely crash out without scoring a single goal, without earning a single point. Their only hope is that Nigeria is as listless as they were in their opener, but that's not likely to be the case.

US 1 - England 1: A Brief Examination of the History and Discourse

1776. 1812. 1950. 2010. Four significant dates in the history of antagonism between the United States and England, two countries that share a historical lust for imperialism and sport. We all know the story of 1776 and the Revolutionary War that preceded American independence, a ragtag band of Americans drove out the mythical British army. In 1950, the United States defeated mighty England in the World Cup as the headlines read England 0 - US 1, a result famously misinterpreted by those in England as a misprint that surely meant to read England 10 - US 1. Just as American independence resulted in a long, hard slog to establish the foundation of a new nation-state, the American soccer victory in 1950 was followed by a dark, inward-looking era in which a fledgling sport was looking to find itself. Far from non-starters, these two victories set the stage for future American triumphs.

In the War of 1812, a cagier, more wizened United States repelled further British military advances. The British once again invaded the US, not only because it believed that the US had no right to be trading with France (who the British Empire was at war with at the time) but also to reassert its domination over a land that Britain still saw as its own. For the 2010 World Cup, the United States has come away with a famous draw against England. While the 1-1 scoreline isn't technically a victory, the very nature of the result shows just how much the US team has progressed. Falling behind so early in the match, the Americans kept their composure and had control of the match for much of the first half, eventually tying the match thanks to Robert Green's already infamous blunder in the England goal. In the second half, the team defended like lions and could very well have snatched a victory. For all intents and purposes, the match was a win for the Americans.

The significance of this 2010 England vs. US match is this: it shows that US soccer has now finally lifted the finger of its oppressor. So many English soccer fans have an unfairly dour view of the American team because, as the epicenter of the world's most popular league, they are allowed to set the discourse. That discourse has for the longest time seeped into the psyche of too many American fans, fans who would dare cheer for their oppressors, virtual Torries that have ingrained in them the view that American soccer always has been and always will be inferior to the English brand. But like any good subversive, revolutionary movement, the United States players have managed to change the nature of discourse to their advantage.

Many of our key players, plying their trade in England, have won over English fans and some in the English press, and Sunday's match will further imprint the image of America as an increasingly competent soccer nation. Anyone who seriously watched the game would see that although England were surely the better team with higher quality players, the gap is closing fast. One can point to the mistake of Robert Green as the key moment in the match but that would be denying the fact that England simply didn't have the requisite ability to go on and win like such a supposedly vastly superior team should be able to do. This hard-fought but well-played result against a team many feel to be amongst the World Cup favorites has shed an undeniably favorable light on the American soccer brand. While this was a massive result for the American team, it simply must win its next two matches and progress to the next round. Anything other than that will open the door for the discourse to be reversed, for the skeptics (American and otherwise) to howl at the moon about the inescapable inferiority of the American soccer brand.

Goodbye, Thierry.

For all the relentless posturing and feigned warm-up that Thierry Henry carried out leading up to his late entry into the Uruguay-France first round match this afternoon, the end result was visibly nothing. He lightly trapped the ball in the box, presumably for one of his teammates to handle. He let a decidedly high long-ball fly over his head, too high perhaps for a fresh-legged substitute to bother jumping or reaching for. He did, at one point, trap, handle and shoot the ball, and then abruptly stopped and turned to the referee asking for a penalty kick to be awarded for an unintentional and inevitable, all irony aside, handball on the part of his Uruguayan caretaker. The icing on his proverbial suck-cake was the final play of the game, a free kick he handled from just outside the box. A carefully planned approach with appropriate gestures of tension and confidence appeared, from the authors perspective, to result in a casual chip, easily removed from the field of play, the final punctuation in what should very well be Thierry Henry's last nod on the world stage. Perhaps France can bring in another mildly potent striker in his place and award him the same status of Supreme Inspirer as England's David Beckham. We've seen Henry's cool, collected footballer style transform into a kind of spectacular nonchalance in the past few years, a metamorphosis that clearly jives with his upcoming immigration into the MLS to play for the New York Red Bulls with full honorary celebrity status, a gesture awkwardly perfected by predecessor and partner-in-impotence Beckham. We need not see any more of it.