June 11, 2006
Why I Love Good Sports Writing
From Peter Berlin’s article, England gets some help to defeat Paraguay:
While the English were uninterested and sloppy, the Paraguayans were toothless and inept.
During the game my wife said, “The Paraguayans look disorganized.” I replied, “¡Dios mío!”
Cat: | Time: 10:48 am (utc+8)
June 12th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
Yeah, but that’s all just small talk. Today’s two early games in Group E are what really matter. Here’s hoping the 5th ranked soccer team in the world beats up…I mean beats…the 2nd ranked team.
June 12th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Scott: I don’t know Group E from Group Z (I’m an American, after all), but we are watching all the England games out of an affection for dear old Blighty.
June 12th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Here’s a little help (it sort of relates to that “I’m an American” thing):
Group E
Czech Republic - ranked 2nd in the world
Ghana - ranked 48th
Italy - ranked 13th
USA - ranked 5th
It’s really a shame that more Americans don’t know that their national soccer team is ranked 5th in the world (and is playing in the World Cup finals, just like old Blighty). As for dear old Blighty, well, they’re only ranked 10th.
June 12th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
Scott: Who does these rankings? Do they mean anything? Why in the world would the US be ranked ahead of Italy? That makes no sense.
June 12th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
Ever heard of FIFA? You’d better believe they mean “anything.” Unless, of course, you are one of the 200 countries ranked below the US.
http://www.fifa.com/en/mens/statistics/index/0,2548,All-May-2006,00.html
Why would the US be ranked ahead of Italy? Well, obviously because they have been playing (and winning) better than Italy recently (within the last 2 years). It makes perfect sense.
June 12th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
Two corrections:
1. I shouldn’t have said “Well, obviously because…” because it’s obviously not obvious. :)
2. I meant “within the last 8 years,” not 2 years.
June 12th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
Scott: I don’t know FIFA from Fluffy … has the US ever played any Italian teams in the last eight years? Aren’t we comparing apples and oranges? Don’t false comparisons among national teams make “global” rankings meaningless?
June 13th, 2006 at 1:59 am
This drubbing by the Czechs should hopefully inject some reality into American soccer coverage. Now will they stop saying that Kasey Keller is the best goalkeeper in the world even though he doesn’t play for a top club team?
June 13th, 2006 at 2:28 am
FIFA is the international governing body for soccer. This little party going on right now is called the “FIFA” World Cup.
The rankings are what they are. No different than any other rankings: tennis, golf, whatever. The whole point of rankings are that they take a longer-term look at “success.” The number one ranked players or teams don’t always win every game. But, over time they consistently do better than everyone else. Naturally, on any given day a lowly ranked team can (and often does) beat a much higher ranked team (just ask Poland, Sweden, and Japan).
These sorts of “global” rankings are done on many levels in international competitions: national teams, club teams, etc. They’re just as valid as anything else. In this case, it’s apples to apples (for the most part) — everyone plays by the same rules (sort of; the US is actually “handicapped” for being part of a “weaker” group, so the fact that they have achieved such a high ranking while, in effect, spotting the other team points is a testament to how far they’ve come).
June 13th, 2006 at 5:30 am
To keep beating this dead horse, here’s some additional “color:”
In 2004, the US lost only 1 of 15 games played. In 2005, they lost 3 of 20 games played. Until today, the US had lost only 2 of 10 games played in 2006. One thing that helped them in the rankings was the fact that they did so well in World Cup qualifying — which carries greater weight than a “normal” friendly game.
So, it’s not winning every game that matters (no one does that — not even #1-ranked Brazil), but rather playing consistently better than others (i.e., winning) over time that earns top rankings. That’s how the US has earned a higher ranking than Italy (and France, and England, and Germany, and…).
June 13th, 2006 at 8:00 am
Scott: Thanks for your thorough explanations … just in time for the Czechs to trounce the US. And I have my money on the Italians to win the June 17 game. ;-)
June 13th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
“Thanks for your thorough explanations…”
No problem.
“…just in time for the Czechs to trounce the US.”
As one would have predicted, given that the Czechs are ranked #2 in the world. :)
Like they say, “…on any given Sunday…” That’s why they play the game. And, that’s why fanatics like me watch and cheer.
June 13th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
“And I have my money on the Italians to win the June 17 game. ;-)”
Probably not an unreasonable bet, given recent events. What’s the line?
Btw, you might be interested in knowing how “three-time world champions” Italy made it to this year’s World Cup (they won the World Cup in 1934, 1938, and 1982) — then again, maybe you couldn’t care less:
Italy ended up first in its qualifying group that included Norway, Scotland, Slovenia, Belarus, and Moldova. They played ten games (one home and one away against each team), won seven (by an average differential of 1 goal per game), had one loss (to Slovenia) and two ties (against Scotland and Norway). They were able to pull out wins against those “powerhouses” Belarus and Moldova both times they played them. None of the other teams in this group qualified for the finals.
June 13th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
Scott: Italy to win is currently 60×69.