|
|
 |
 |   |
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Video Plus Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities 
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE
|  |
To the point
Greetings. We start this mailbag with a soccer rule-change inquiry from Carson Speight of Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. Personally, I prefer the golden goal to penalty kick shootouts, and wish that a game did not have to result to penalty kicks. I have heard rumors of possible future implementations that would be a substitute for penalty kicks. One is taking a player off the field from each team in the golden goal period. If no one scores in a certain period of time, another player for each team is taken off, and so forth, until the golden goal. So my question is, are soccer associations even considering changes such as these, and what do you think about all of it? I'd heard that suggestion put forward before, Carson, and I quite like the idea myself. However when I called FIFA in Switzerland, a spokesman from their media office told me there are no plans to change the golden goal or penalty shootout tiebreakers at present. Of course, individual associations can do what they like in their domestic competitions. The only thing I would say in favor of the penalty shootout is that -- like it or loathe it -- you can't deny it creates a lot of drama, which, for pure entertainment value, can't be beaten. Mike Kooris, from Paris, France via Cincinnati, USA takes issue with a response in last week's mailbag in which I claimed cricket is a worldwide sport. Don't get me wrong, I like cricket. My British/Pakistani girlfriend got me interested in it, and I look forward to seeing highlights of it whenever I am in England. But cricket can hardly be considered a world sport as it is only played in British Commonwealth countries. Also, when you mentioned later that the U.S. doesn't have the diversity in sports coverage of other nations, you cited cricket, and I assure you that in France there is no coverage of cricket. I take the point that cricket is not played universally, but it is global since it's played on every continent. I don't know any game, apart from soccer, that's actually played at a competitive level in every country. Also, I didn't mean that U.S. sports coverage lacks diversity, only that it appears to focus on fewer sports than some other nations. I mentioned cricket coverage among my examples, but I'm not using cricket as a yardstick. I know most of Europe and South America couldn't care less about the sport, for example (though I did report on the Dutch team once, you may be surprised to know). As I said in my original answer, the fact is that nowadays most countries make every sport secondary to soccer, which is why it's called the world's greatest game.
And Carson Speight of Cary, North Carolina, USA has been working overtime, because here's another one from him. At this point, who would you say has the best chance of winning next summer's World Cup? Argentina probably. Though I'll feel more confident about that if they win the Copa America. Brazil would need to do a 180 in form to win it, given their current record. France of course will be formidable, but the World Cup's only been retained twice before, and not in the modern era, so the odds may be against them. Italy look strong in their qualifying group, and can never be counted out, as they showed in making the Euro 2000 final at a time when no-one rated them. Germany aren't yet convincing. I believe Japan will do better than South Korea, but it's too much of a stretch to think either of the host nations can take the trophy. As for the rest? Well, this far out from the tournament it's impossible to say for sure who'll make a run. But how about this for an early dark horse -- Russia. Next, to more on Africa's bid to host the 2010 World Cup Finals. My article, in which I highlighted the reservations some feel in the light of the recent tragedies in African football, having continued to attract some support and many criticisms. I would like to congratulate you on your stance in "Positive Response". I was born and raised in South Africa and I agree with you fully. I also respect you standing up for yourself and defending your opinion rationally.
Thanks Hans. Sadly, it seems the fans of my rationality are few and far between. Please Terry do not generalise by calling us "African." What happens in
South-Africa should not be connected to what happens in Congo or Ghana, just as something that happens in the UK does not have anything to do with anything in Germany or Holland. Please be fair in your criticism and analysis.
Boi of Gaborone had a similar objection. Should Africa be disadvantaged just because it so happened that incidents occurred within a short space of time in Africa at the time when African states are bidding for the hosting of the World Cup? Your comparison of Africa to Brazil is just not fair please compare a continent with another, not country and continent. With respect, at NO stage have I ever said that Africa should NOT hold the 2010 World Cup. I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I would like nothing better than to see Africa stage the best finals ever in 2010. I simply feel that with all the recent problems, Africa, as well as the rest of the sporting world, needs to ask some serious questions about its readiness to stage such a huge and prestigious event. Incidentally, none other than the legendary, Pele, voiced a similar opinion in a recent interview with CNN. So I certainly feel my concerns are justified. In addition, had you been following the discussion on Africa's 2010 World Cup ambitions, I made the point very early on that Africa is a continent comprised of many countries. However, for the purposes of deciding where the finals are staged FIFA is considering Africa as a whole. I simply followed their lead. Tichafa Chireka, Johannesburg, South Africa wants to know about the sources for my comments. How do you base you criticism on African Soccer? How did you know that there was poor organization or it was hooliganism? I was not there. I did not see what happened with my own eyes. But every report and official statement coming out of South Africa during and since the tragedy attributed the accidents to overcrowding, and made no mention of hooliganism. Besides, neither reason would act as a reference for Africa's World Cup ambitions. Even though I think a hooligan problem, if it existed, should not necessarily damage Africa's chances because it's a worldwide issue. Hector Mwandu of Melbourne goes off at a tangent with his views. The essential question that should asked concerning Africa hosting the world cup is how long and how greedy are the other continents especially Europe going to get before they realise that soccer is a sport first and foremost and not just a business? Your article does not address the greed in sport which has left African sport poor and yet Europe has been taken all the cream players to play for their clubs! Hector, I didn't address that accusation because it's not really relevant to the debate. Firstly, we've been talking about international football not club soccer. Secondly, the discussion was about the safety issues with regards to Africa's World Cup hopes, not the financial implications. On a purely sporting level incidentally, OF COURSE Africa should get the World Cup finals in 2010. But that's not the only criteria. Jack from Cranston, wherever that may be, is a bit of a divergent thinker I suspect. As his criticism of my article appears to be a diatribe against all the perceived ills of the USA. Aren't you exposing your ignorance about soccer and many of the glories soccer brings to people by citing incidences that the world has seen as accidents? You did not write about cars that kill thousands of people each year on US highways, or about American football games that result in thousands of accidents. On this issue it would be fair that the builders of the stations be held accountable not the continent of Africa. I don't really follow your reasoning here Jack. Are you saying that the glory soccer brings to a nation is worth dying for? If so, then I think your logic is well and truly askew. Even if the possibility of people being killed and injured in the name of soccer existed I'd want the finals moved elsewhere. It's only a game for goodness sake. On your other point, I accept that the incidents in the various African nations were accidents. But if the cause of those accidents was avoidable, then surely it's valid for potential visitors to ask for assurances that they won't happen again. Finally, American football has not produced "thousands of accidents," and as for your comment on American auto deaths, I really don't know what that's got to do with anything. This is a sports column. Francis Owono Ndi of Conway, Arkansas, USA somehow thinks more wrongs elsewhere make it right for Africa to be complacent. Terry, in response to your assertion: "Only the 1989 Hillsborough disaster in England fell into the same category as the tragedies in South Africa and Ghana". Around the mid-nineties (1992 or 1993), a tragedy happened in a stadium in France during a soccer game. That was in a town called Bastia, in the island of Corse. The name of the stadium was Furianni. All media and other parties involved attributed it to poor organisation and corruption. As you know, that didn't prevent France from being granted the privilege to host the soccer world cup in 1998. While CEDRIC of Nairobi Kenya, claims there are double standards in operation. Why is it that when something happens in Germany the world does not see it as a European problem? Why is it that if something happens in Africa in one state it will always be seen as an African problem. That's what we should ask ourselves before we make such comments on Africa. On the first point, there was a long time between Hillsbrough and the tragedy in France, which obviously helped to isolate the incidents. Plus, as I've said before, Europe had already staged successful World Cups without tragedies, so had nothing to prove. Added to which, the recent accidents in Africa came when the continent was being evaluated as a whole as a potential World Cup host. Therefore any negative publicity in one nation was bound to undermine confidence in the entire region. Alex, of Francistown, Botswana, believes I don't know what I'm talking about. Well, there's a novelty. Terry, please don't tell me that just because you have been to South Africa four times it gives you the right to justify your opinions. I mean I have gone to over 100 soccer games, both regional and international in South Africa in the last 5 years and not a single time there was crowd trouble. The point I am making is that the media has made Africa the global soccer scapegoat. I mean one single incident in one match between 2 teams does not make any difference to South Africa's bid in 10 years time! See my point? This is way too blown out of proportion! Alex, firstly, in response to someone who said I had no right to comment unless I'd been to Africa, I said I'd been to Africa four times (it wasn't just South Africa by the way). But even if I'd been to every African nation a million times it doesn't change the fact that African soccer is collectively on "trial" so to speak, because FIFA is not making a big deal about awarding the finals to Nigeria or Kenya, or South Africa, but about awarding them to the continent as a whole. On your other point, neither South Africa nor Africa as a whole is being made any kind of scapegoat in my opinion. When so many people die in a nation that's regarded as Africa's flagship contender for hosting the 2010 Finals, isn't it logical that questions will be asked? The media aren't the bad guys here. We're just publicizing the widely held reservations about Africa as a potential host and commenting as we see fit. Just like you. Ok, enough of African issues, let's move on to the USA and this from Tim Young of Santa Barbara, Ca USA. I hear you said that European second division teams and first team back-ups are better than the MLS. The Metrostars just beat the Euro Champs Bayern Munich 2-0. Once again, European coaches make excuses that their team is tired or not into the match. But those are no excuses, and where is their pride to win? Time for people to give the MLS respect. I was reading about American arrogance in past mailbags, what about the European arrogance and ignorance for looking down on U.S. Soccer. I sense you Europeans are just afraid of the sleeping giant, the USA, has awakened. Well I think your senses are a touch insensitive then, because I don't believe anyone in Europe believes the USA's time has come just yet. Tell me, if the Sixers were to win the NBA Finals in seven games and head straight to Greece, for arguments sake, and lose to Panathinaikos two or three days later, would that make the Greeks better than the NBA champions? Or would you argue that the Sixers had merely run out of steam after a lengthy season and the drama and intensity of the post season? If so, then that's exactly the way Bayern were feeling against the Metrostars. They didn't even field their first team. It was an obligatory exhibition for the players who'd sooner have been on the beach, no doubt. While I agree that MLS is on the up, please get things in perspective. Once in a while there may be the odd upset win for U.S. teams against top foreigners, though often when it doesn't matter. But, as yet, they are no match for the world's top nations at club level over the long haul. It's hard to say exactly at what standard the MLS operates. But believe me, if it is comparable to second division football in the major soccer playing nations after such a short existence, that's a positive and not a negative, because those leagues are better than you'd imagine. From U.S. club soccer to the international game, and this from Mark Dunn, of Querétaro, Mexico As an American having lived three years in Mexico, I have watched Euro 2000, and various European, Asian, African, CONACAF, and South American World Cup qualifying matches, and I feel that the only three sides that clearly outclass the U.S.A. squad are Argentina, Brazil, and France. With Brazil playing poorly, I see the U.S. team making a run to the World Cup semis. They are deep, talented, confident, well coached, and well organized. AM I GOING TOO FAR HERE, OR DO WE HAVE A CHANCE TO DO SOMETHING SPECIAL? You are going so far that I can't even see you Mark. You're just a tiny dot on the screen. Why is every American soccer fan so impatient to be a world beater? Look, it's a huge leap from being the worst team, statistically, at France '98, to being one of the top four in 2002. The USA is evolving as a soccer nation, and doing so quite quickly. But, with the best will in the world, I do not see them putting together the five quality performances it would take to make the World Cup semis against the kind of opposition they'll be facing. Elsewhere in this mailbag, I comment on some potential title challengers in 2002. I would fancy any of them to beat the USA nine times out of 10, and I believe there are a host of European, South American and African teams who'd consider it an insult if they weren't favorites against the USA in the finals. That sounds harsh I know, and I realize I'll take a lot of heat. But let's be realistic. At this stage in their soccer development, getting past the first round again would be an achievement for the USA, anything beyond that would be icing on the cake. Tim G, of Silver Spring, MD thinks one tradition of American sport could benefit soccer clubs overseas. In the US, stadium naming rights have become big business drawing millions of dollars from companies. Why hasn't this caught on in other countries? I don't see historic stadiums like the Nou Camp or Highbury selling out, but what about a team like Queens Park Rangers or other lower division teams cashing in on some much needed revenue? There are some stadiums around the world that cash in on the sponsors name in the American way Tim, it's just that the traditional names tend to stick. I suppose what it comes down to is that these teams are seen as clubs as opposed to corporate franchises, so the Typhoo Tea Bag stadium, to give a fictitious example, wouldn't have quite the same appeal to fans as "Old Trafford." Personally, although it's a money-maker, I like the traditional names better. Finally, Brady Sylvester, Red Deer, Alberta, Canada follows up on his comment in my previous mailbag. The whole point of the World Sport Mailbag is to serve the minority that checks out the CNNSI Web site and has an interest in things other than the NFL, NHL, Major League Baseball, etc. They have sections all their own. But when the Mailbag is dominated by soccer questions, the same rule should apply. Give soccer its own mailbag, and leave World Sport open for cricket, F1, rugby, tennis, and Gaelic football, for all I know. I will, of course, concede the point if the fact is you just don't get many questions about other sports, period, but I wonder if they wouldn't increase if people felt a non-soccer question would stand a better chance. Brady, I'm so glad you told me what the point of this mailbag is because I'd been working in a vacuum. My point to you however, is that you still didn't ASK me a non-soccer question, so what can I tell you? Until next time,
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
