With the 2002 World Cup approaching and nationalist sentiments rising for this and other reasons, I we return to those heady days in 1994 when the US hosted the World Cup and England had failed to qualify.
=============================================
[Mindless drivel deleted]
OK, Keith, you have finally done it!
I have been thinking about writing this post for quite some time, but you're the lucky guy who has finally -- and singlehandedly -- put me over the edge. It could have been any one of about 50 people, but your "number came up."
The following will likely be major flame bait, but I have one caveat. I am NOT referring to the thoughtful, conscientious posters from England who have been diligent, informative, witty and concise with their posts. Among the most meritorious are Sean, Rhiannon, the Derby Group, James, Shaggy, dozens of others who have informed and enlightened me about English football, including -- but not limited to -- the Gresley Rovers. I have learned much from you and how you appreciate the game you love. I know I am leaving out dozens more, but you all know who you are. Many thanks, please keep it up!
However...
The people I am referring to are the pinhead wankers who immediately start slagging off (how's that for the use of "English" English, blokes?) any and all things American. We have seen the use of American idioms for uniforms, cleats, fields, games, schedules, etc. pilloried for not conforming to some linguistically "pure" concept of the game of football/soccer.
Ah, soccer vs football!
We "Yanks" have been relentlessly bashed for using the term soccer instead of the "proper" term football. Of course you realize that the term soccer was invented by some of your upper class twit ancestors who somehow performed the feat of linguistic gymnastics that created the word Soccer out of Association Football. If you want to take issue with the origins of the word, take it up with your local "public" school headmaster, don't take it up with us!
As the World Cup approaches, we have seen more and more of this trash coming our way from England (note, I am not including the meritorious Scots in this castigation, as they have emulated some of the more thoughtful English posters who I praise in the first paragraph).
The social scientist in me wonders where this vitriol comes from and what might be the causes. I have come up with three hypotheses (which are not mutually exclusive) that might provide some answers to the English crap directed toward us, their "cousins".
Hypothesis 1 - The "Turnip" Explanation.
Perhaps the cause of the vitriol is due to the utter mismanagement of the English side by Graham "Turnip" Taylor in the WC qualifiers. Or perhaps there weren't enough quality players to be selected to qualify anyway. These two sub-points have been debated ad nauseam for months now, so it is pointless to continue here. I am grouping them under the same rubric since they come from the same misguided logic anyway.
Hypothesis 2 - The "Hollywood Perversion" Explanation.
As the World Cup approaches and our pinhead wanker friends realize that England won't be there, a fit of jealous rage overtakes them. The manifestation of this phenomenon takes the form of criticizing any and all things American -- rules, stadia, media, fan support, ticket availability, etc. -- as somehow perverting the game of football/soccer. This hypothesis seems to be gaining. If it continues until the World Cup, then we may have our proximate cause of the "slagging off".
Hypothesis 3 - The "Shame and Ignominy" Explanation.
June 9, 1993 Foxboro, MA USA - England 2:0
Nothing more needs to be said regarding this hypothesis, but I'm going
to anyway:
In Foxboro
Att: 37,000+
USA
2:0 England
Dooley 42'
Lalas 72'
=========================================
I was at the game with my dad, as I am in New England visiting family for a couple of weeks. It was a glorious day for the US in front of nearly 40,000 fans, as they showed a lot of poise, particularly in the midfield where Thomas Dooley and Tab Ramos (who just returned from Europe on Sunday night) added so much skill and presence. It made it much less hard for Harkes and Wegerle who tried to do all the work themselves vs Brazil, without much support. Last night, the four of them (plus Wynalda who also just returned from Europe on Sunday night and made some dangerous runs up front) took a lot of pressure off the back four (who still make me very nervous).
The first US goal came when Agoos crossed a ball from the left side far to the right, where Tab Ramos just kept it in play and then crossed it back to Dooley who was at the top of the 6 yard box and headed it past Chris Woods. The second came directly off a corner from Ramos when Lalas (who subbed for Dooley after the latter took a sharp crack on the ankle from Ince who should have gotten at least a yellow for his efforts) headed it the top right corner over Woods' dive.
Meola was huge in goal for the US, making 4 spectacular saves (2 from Clough and 2 from Wright) and was awarded man of the match. He has redeemed himself a great deal (and probably set Keller back a bit). Almost all of England's chances came from mistakes by the US back line (Clajijo got "nutmeged" twice, and Lapper and Armstrong were careless a bit too often for my liking, though Agoos had a much better match at left back than his "stinker" vs Brazil. Still, not having Balboa and Caliguri back there (both are injured) is not good. If I were Bora, I would give Cle Kooiman (Cruz Azul, Mexico) some time on the back line in the Germany match.
The crowd was interesting, some assorted vignettes:
OK, you fellow rssers, let's put it to a vote.
Is the increase in "slagging off" us "Yanks" do more to Hypothesis 1, 2 or 3?
You be the judge!
Yours in football/soccer!