Hamartia at the World Cup

For the second World Cup in a row, Ghana eliminates the USA 2-1. At least this time there was nothing to dispute about Ghana’s second goal.

Hamartia is one of the most famous concepts from Aristotle’s Poetics, and it’s translated as “the tragic flaw” that both accounts for a hero’s greatness and also brings about his downfall. But some scholars suggest that it simply means “error,” a mistake that the hero makes from which he cannot recover.

The USA displayed hamartia in both senses of the term.

The abiding flaw: a tendency toward early defensive lapses that saw them constantly conceding early goals and needing to come from behind. A second flaw: the lack of a lethal striker up front to help them make up for the early defensive lapses.

Today’s errors: Bradley’s tinkering with his line-up; a giveaway near the start at midfield, with the central defense to slow to recognize the threat and goalie Tim Howard cheating toward the center and beaten on the near post; and the defense getting split and out-muscled on the winning goal.

The USA were valiant, battling until the very end. And I hope that interest in soccer that the team’s run in the competition has generated here in the US will continue and grow.

You didn’t have to consult the Delphic oracle before the Cup began to foresee that the USA would be eliminated before the end. So I transfer my allegiance now to my backup team: the Netherlands. Go Robin van Persie!

[Photo: Asamoah Gyan scoring the winning goal. GETTY IMAGES via the Telegraph.]

World Cup Bits and Pieces

I’ve been enjoying listening to the partisan commentary on ESPN’s coverage of the World Cup. Former footballers Shaun Bartlett (South Africa), Ruud Gullit (Netherlands), Jürgen Klinsmann, (Germany),  Alexei Lalas (USA), and Steve McManaman (England) offer useful insights into each of the games they’re covering, but when those games involve the countries from which they hail, they aren’t shy about using the words “we” and “us.” McManaman comes across as the most partisan and least journalistic of ESPN’s pundits, wearing his heart on his sleeve and clearly mortified by England’s performances in the first two games.

So I’m sure he loved ESPN’s intro to the USA-Algeria game, featuring President Bartlett — I mean, Martin Sheen — make a series of invidious comparisons between the situations of the USA and England going into their respective final matches of group play — all in good fun, of course.

“Now ask yourself,” Sheen intones, “whose boots would you rather be in”? Well, looking at the brackets, who in his or her right mind would choose England. The USA plays Ghana, looking for a little payback for the defeat they suffered in the final match of group play in 2006: Ghana won 2-1 on a disputed penalty, going to the round of 16 and sending the USA home. Current FIFA rankings: USA 14th, Ghana 32nd. If the USA defeats Ghana, they get the winner of Uruguay (16th) vs. South Korea (47).

England has it a wee bit tougher. They play Germany: it’s age and experience (England) vs. youthful exuberance (Germany). I told my wife that England has some scores to settle with Germany. England beat German in 1966 in the World Cup final in overtime, benefiting from the so-called “Ghost Goal” scored by Geoff Hurst, who would then net another before the end of the game to complete the only hat-trick in World Cup final history. It was England’s only World Cup win. Since then, the teams’ fortunes have gone in different directions. Germany has been a dominant force in international soccer, and England, well, has not. Injured Germany captain and former Chelsea player Michael Ballack writes in the Times, “It should be a fantastic game and great occasion, but the rivalry everyone talks about is more on your side than ours. For us the rivalry is only so-so.”

Not well-versed in World Cup history but well aware of the history of the twentieth century in Europe, my wife said: “The English are still bitter about the Blitz.” Sure enough, the World War II analogies are popping up in the media. The Sports Blog in the Guardian reported this quip from an English fan in an airport upon hearing the news of England’s second-place group finish: “”This World Cup is exactly like the second world war,” he guffawed. “The French surrender early, the US turn up late, and we’re left to deal with the bloody Germans.” And Simon Barnes, the chief sportswriter for the Times, began a recent opinion piece by writing, “I have to mention the war. There is no dodging it. This country was at war with Germany twice in the last century, and while it is terribly important to move on and to deal with the 21st century as it unfolds before us, there is no possibility of — or, for that matter, any use in — forgetting that it happened.” The point of his piece, however, is about the difference between war and sport:

Sport doesn’t create peace, but sport is an irrefragable symptom of peace. The history of sport gets mixed up with the history of history, and it can make for great sport. But even with a history of warfare, the very act of playing sport together is an expression of the exact opposite. Sport is peace. Minus the peacefulness, of course.

England, of course, is ranked 8th — two spots behind Germany at 6th. If they survive Sunday’s blitz, the English get the winner of Lionel Messi’s Argentina (ranked 7th but looking very dominant at the moment) vs. Mexico (17th). Chances are good they’re going to be seeing Messi if they make it to the quarterfinals. Personally, and I’m not just being partisan, I think the USA has a better chance of playing in the semifinals than England does.

Not that the rankings I’ve cited mean anything much at this World Cup. Italy was ranked 5th in the world; France was ranked 7th. These two teams — respectively the reigning World Cup champions and runners-up — not only failed to emerge from group play but finished at the bottom of their groups! Italy was ousted by 34-ranked Slovakia, and France lost its final game to host South Africa, which was ranked 83rd.

Frankly, the USA should forget all about the rankings, which make them the favored team in their bracket. Because they seem to play best when they’re under pressure, when they’re behind, when they’re the underdogs.

Hey, guys, how about a couple of early goals on Saturday? I think I speak for the nation when I say that we really aren’t up to another cliffhanger like Wednesday’s game!

Not so EASY

Do you suppose the English tabloid The Sun now regrets this piece, which was entitled “Best English Group since the Beatles” — referring to the World Cup soccer team? After looking at the Three Lions’ opponents in the group stage — Algeria, Slovenia, and the United States — the paper decided that the team was a shoo-in to make it to the knockout stage. The article, published on December 5, 2009, began:

ENGLAND looked dead certs last night to roar into the World Cup knockout stages after landing their easiest ever group.
Their unfancied opponents helped to spell out England’s “EASY” task – Algeria, Slovenia and the Yanks.

David Beckham, at that point still lobbying for a spot on the team before the Achilles tendon injury that dashed his hopes, did offer a cautionary note: “We’ll still have to beat the world’s best to bring the Cup home.”

Uh-huh. At this point, they have to beat Slovenia (ranked 25th in the world by FIFA), having failed to beat the Yanks (ranked 14th) and Algeria (ranked 30th), to even have a shot at the world’s best.

After the game, ESPN’s resident England partisan, former England midfield Steve McManaman, bemoaned his team’s poor play: “Individually when they put on the colors of Manchester United or Chelsea — superstars. Collectively when they put the white of England on — phfft — disappointing.”

Commentator Alexei Lalas, a former defender for USA responded: “How about this: they’re just not that good.” McManaman: “Together, maybe so …” Lalas: “They’re just not that good. They have great names. They make a lot of money. But they’re just not that good.” You can catch the exchange at the end of espn3.com’s replay of the game.

Lalas is being a little harsh (or maybe just a little arch), but I think England’s disappointing showing is predictable after Fabio Cappello picked a team full of “experienced” (older) players who’d just been through the trials of the extremely demanding Premier League season. In fact, according to the Guardian, it’s “the oldest squad that England has ever sent to the World Cup, with a record number of caps to boot.”

Supposed superstar Wayne Rooney, who doesn’t have age as an excuse, still looks banged up and not fully recovered from the injuries that marred his otherwise stellar season for Manchester United. No jump in his game. As opposed, say, to Lionel Messi, who’s been working his magic as Argentina has cruised to two victories.

Things may change for Rooney and for England — as long as they defeat Slovenia next week. We shall see.

One thing’s sure: if England does get through to the knockout stage, it won’t have been EASY.

Jabulani

The word jabulani means to “celebrate” or “rejoice” in the the Bantu language isiZulu, which is one of the eleven official languages of the Republic of South Africa, spoken by 25% of its popuation. “Jabulani” is sometimes used as a first name, occasionally shortened to “Jabu.” It is also the name of a suburb of Soweto. And, perhaps most famously these days, it’s the name given to the official match ball manufactured by adidas for the 2010 World Cup.

According to the official adidas press release, the ball is wrapped in numerical symbolism: “Eleven different colours are used in the adidas “JABULANI,” the eleventh adidas World Cup ball. These 11 colours represent the 11 players in every team, the 11 official languages of South Africa and the 11 South African tribes that make the country one of the most ethnologically diverse countries on the African continent.”

The ball features what adidas calls “a completely new, ground-breaking technology”: “eight 3-D spherically formed EVA and TPU panels are moulded together, harmoniously enveloping the inner carcass. The result is an energetic unit combined with perfect roundness.” Hans-Peter Nürnberg, senior development engineer in Adidas’s global innovation team, said before the tournament, “The goalies may find it a bit more difficult to cope because the ball will travel faster, possibly 5% faster, at altitude as the air is thinner and it will also ‘jump’ a bit higher.”

“Jabulani” may mean “rejoice,” but the ball led many people in the soccer world to do anything but. Before the tournament began, goalkeepers complained bitterly about the ball’s unpredictability. One of England’s goalkeepers, David James, said a week before the tournament that “the ball is dreadful. It’s horrible. There are undoubtedly going to be goals scored in this tournament which, in previous tournaments with different balls, wouldn’t have been scored.” Boy, was he prescient, at least as far as freaky goalie gaffes have been concerned.

Is it merely coincidence that the first week of the World Cup has seen a surprising number of errors by goalkeepers, the most prominent being the first — England goalie Robert Green’s mishandling of the ball that enabled the USA to tie their game last Saturday? (One can only imagine what James, fuming after being bypassed to play the game, was thinking when he saw that play.) Green didn’t exactly blame the ball for his mistake, but he did insinuate that it may not have been entirely his fault: “It may well have moved. I don’t often miss a ball like that… not by that much.” (One of the coaches who works with my son looked at the play and immediately blamed Green for not squaring up to the strike, which would have left his body in a position to block the ball after it slipped through his hands.)

Responding to suggestions that the ball was to blame, adidas responded with a statement blaming the goal on “a massive goalkeeping mistake.” The company continues to believe that the ball is the roundest, lightest, truest soccer ball ever made.

But maybe it isn’t the ball at all. Maybe it’s the higher altitude of many of the stadiums in South Africa. As Chris Jones of ESPNsoccernet points out, “In tests and in trials, in Germany’s Bundesliga as well as professional leagues in France, Argentina, Portugal and the United States, the Jabulani received few complaints.” (The Germans’ use of their ball in league play earlier the year has also been a subject of controversy, with England coach Fabio Capello complaining that it has given the team an unfair advantage. England’s contract with Umbtro has restricted its ability to use other equipment in league play.)

Sven-Goran Eriksson, the former English coach and current coach of the Ivory Coast team, has called for “a summit” about the ball: “Players, coaches and perhaps top goalkeepers should get together. Especially people should listen to the goalkeepers’ point of view, because the ball isn’t doing them any favours.”

Well, what’s a World Cup without controversy? We’ll see what develops as the tournament continues. Personally, I hate to see athletes blaming the equipment when things don’t go their way.

Meanwhile, the way that they make the ball is very cool. Take a look below.

Click over to  the design magazine Abitare for more about the ball and links to other videos.