World Cup Preview: Group C

Algeria
Nickname: Les Fennecs (the desert foxes)
FIFA ranking: 30
How they got here: Won a tiebreaker with Egypt after the two teams ended qualification tied at the top of their group.
Record in previous tournaments: Have appeared at the World Cup twice, in 1982 and 1986, and went out at the group stage both times.
Manager: Rabah Saadane, who's been coaching the national side off and on for years.
Players to watch: They don't have anyone that I've ever heard of, but apparently midfielder Karim Ziani is a Zidane-style playmaker.

England
Nickname: The Three Lions
FIFA ranking: 8
How they got here: Cruised through qualification with nine wins -- including two cathartic wallopings of Croatia -- and only one loss.
Record in previous tournaments: Won it all in 1966 but haven't been able to repeat away from home. Knocked out in the quarter-finals in both 2002 and 2006.
Manager: Fabio Capello, who won just about everything in Europe before coming to England to give the team the discipline they sorely lacked.
Players to watch: Wayne Rooney. Wayne Rooney. Wayne Rooney. Beyond him, they have lots of other top-class players, like Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard in midfield. The question right now is who will be fit (captain Rio Ferdinand has already been knocked out with a knee injury) and what formation Capello will use to get them to work together effectively as a team.

Slovenia
Nickname: Zmajceki (the Dragons)
FIFA ranking: 25
How they got here: Finished second to Slovakia in their qualifying group, then -- somewhat surprisingly -- beat Russia in a playoff.
Record in previous tournaments: Have only been to the World Cup once before, in 2002 (which isn't all that bad, considering they weren't even a country) until 1991); didn't win a single game that time.
Manager: Matjaz Kek, who took over as senior coach in 2007 after managing the U15 and U16 teams.
Players to watch: Cologne striker Milivoje Novakovic leads the attack, supported by captain Robert Koren in midfield.

USA
Nickname: They don't seem to have one, and I think somebody (*eyes Amanda and Sarah*) should get on that. "USMNT" doesn't count: it's not a nickname, just a jumble of letters.
FIFA ranking: 14
How they got here: Came through all three stages easily, finishing ahead of arch-rivals Mexico in the final group.
Record in previous tournaments: Their best-ever finish was third place way back in 1930. They made it to the quarter-finals in 2002 but then flopped at the group stage in 2006.
Manager: Bob Bradley, who some of us suspect is actually a robot.
Players to watch: Attacking midfielder Landon Donovan usually gets all the press, although I don't think he's ever really lived up to his own hype. More interesting, to me, are players like Clint Dempsey, Jozy Altidore, and Michael Bradley (nepotism FTW!).

Verdict on the group
England's chances looked more robust a few months ago, before the squad --particularly the back line -- began getting hit with injuries. But I still have confidence in their ability to top the group, especially with Capello's steadying influence to overcome their usual combination of pre-tournament hubris + group-stage mediocrity + agonizing quarter-final penalty defeat. The USA look like a pretty solid bet for second; their opening group match with England on Saturday should be interesting.

world. gone. mad.

Not that long ago, I think I was complaining about this summer having been boring in the footballing world. Apparently things were just building up quietly, though, because all in the past week everybody appears to have lost their damn minds. Managers are being sacked right and left (or not being sacked; nobody is really sure), and even more bizarrely, England are winning games!

I was debating on Wednesday if I should even bother watching the game against Croatia. In the end I decided not to, because I didn't really have the time -- or the whatever exorbitant price Setanta was charging. And I figured that the best attitude to adopt towards England games was a sort of weary bemusement. You know, like, "Oh god, what new ways to be mediocre are they going to find now?"

And instead they go out and beat those pesky Croatians 4-1. I don't know what to think about all this. I still haven't had a chance to watch the game, but I'm wondering now if maybe it would be better if I just didn't watch them again, ever, and then they can go on winning games and I can go on being pleased about it, without the unpleasantness of actually having to watch Frank Lampard stroll around in midfield and all that.

I should just give up my Setanta subscription for the summer, shouldn't I?

Because I'm paying $15 a month, and Greece v Armenia is the best they can do? Really?

They are showing England's game against Trinidad & Tobago, but not until tomorrow -- and even then I'm not sure it's worth watching, seeing as it's basically an exercise in sucking up to that odious little toad Jack Warner.

I do kind of want to see Spain v Peru, mostly because Xabi actually got to play for once (please don't go to Juve!). Spain won 2-1, incidentally. Also, Fernando Torres did his best to get naked without actually taking any clothes off -- which, you know, I applaud the effort.

Does anybody care about international friendlies, really? Even the people who are playing in them? I mean, look at the results over the past few days, and the virtually only thing that stands out in the mass of one- or two-goal games is Switzerland and Austria beating up on Malta and Liechtenstein. And a fat lot of good that's going to do them once Euro 2008 starts and they crash and burn.

We welcome our new Italian overlords

I finally got around to watching England's first game under Fabio Capello. (I find that they're much more enjoyable to watch when I already know how the match ends.) Anyway, it's encouraging that they won, although I'm certainly not reading much into that, considering that McClaren's tenure started out with a win too.

They didn't play particularly well in the first half -- I kept wondering how you say "Pass to a teammate, for fuck's sake!" in Italian -- but got better in the second half. Which is a nice change from previous incarnations, when they would start games well and then collapse ignominiously.

Other things I approve of:

• Steven Gerrard captaining the team, albeit temporarily. I thought he should've been made captain when Beckham stepped down, and I kind of hope he gets it now. (Also: Wearing the captain's armband makes any player 10% hotter. Fact.)
  
• Capello glowering furiously and barking orders from the touchline. I am all in favour of the yelly style of management -- as my own teammates would attest. And I suspect the England players would probably respond well to that too. Let's face it, some of them are not that bright; they need somebody telling them what to do.

Things I do not approve of:

• Steven Gerrard in the #10 jersey. I read a theory somewhere that it was an indication that Capello is trying to make him into the playmaker behind the strikers, which is not a horrible idea. But it just looks wrong seeing that number on his back.
  
• The new England away kits. What's with the blue accents? They look like they're meant to be Serbia or something. Not that there's anything wrong with Serbia. It's just not England. (I also happened to watch Spain v. France, which featured Spain in yellow jerseys and France in red. What the hell? Have all the kitmakers lost their minds?)

Things I am surprisingly not bothered about:

• David Beckham not getting his 100th cap. At least with Capello you can believe that he made the decision because it's the right one for the team, not to prove some sort of spurious point with the media. Plus, if I were Becks, I'd rather have the possibility of getting not just a token 100th cap but a 101st and a 102nd if my form merits it. Of course, maybe this is all just a front for dropping Beckham quietly down the road, and if so Capello has played us all marvelously -- in which case, good for him.
  
• Michael Owen not playing. Because: See above. Out of Owen, Wayne Rooney, and Peter Crouch, he'd be my third choice as a striker based on the way he's been playing recently. Plus, his little wheely legs could probably use the rest.

It's really the glasses that have sold me

Now that Jose Mourinho has taken himself out of the running, Fabio Capello has apparently jumped to the top of the short-list for the next England manager. I was a little surprised, but I kind of liked the idea of Mourinho taking over; however, my not-very-informed opinion is that Capello would be just as good -- or maybe even better.

It seems to me that one of the first things to do is to figure out what it is you want from a manager. This is perhaps where the FA failed most spectacularly last time, when their list of qualifications was limited to "Not being foreign." (This is also part of what made me think Mourinho was a good choice: he had a clear plan of what he wanted to do as manager.)

This shouldn't be that hard, actually. As far as I'm concerned, it's a pretty short list:

1. Pick the right players
This means first deciding on the right players to be called up for the squad (not, say, naming half a dozen left-backs for no apparent reason) and, once you've done that, choosing the best eleven for each game.

As a bonus to this, it would be nice if the manager could make some kind of vaguely effective use of friendlies to develop a larger pool of decent players so that if the team is hampered by injuries -- as England undoubtedly was during this last qualifying campaign -- it isn't such a huge crisis because there are plenty of solid replacements.

2. Pick the right strategy and get the best out of those players
First of all, this means developing an appropriate strategy for beating the teams you come up against (that is, not necessarily always a pedestrian 4-4-2, spiced up with random attempts at 3-5-2 that turn out to be utter disaster). Second, getting that strategy across to the players so that they know what their job is when they get on the pitch. Third, making the right substitutions in response to how a game is going. And finally -- and perhaps most importantly -- getting the players working together as a team rather than a collection of eleven random egos that is sadly less than the sum of its parts.

So far, none of this is all that earth-shattering. It's the bare minimum you'd expect from any manager, isn't it? And yet Steve McClaren seemed to be stunningly incapable of any of it. So how do you tell whether a new manager is going to be any good? Obviously it's possible for a relatively unproven manager to come in and do a brilliant job, but it's a bigger risk than appointing someone like Capello with a fantastic track record. Let's face it, he wouldn't have won all those trophies if he was totally useless. And somebody with his pedigree is also much more likely to earn the respect of the players that he needs.

But there's one more qualification that I think is important:

3. Deal with the media and public expectations
Now, this doesn't necessarily mean having a good relationship with the media. In fact, trying to get everyone to like you (*coughMcClarencough*) will do as much damage as anything. Getting the media onside is a bonus, but conversely the ability to just ignore them is also an asset. That includes not being pressured into making decisions based on popular opinion. Ironically, I think that could've been one of Mourinho's problems: not that he would have picked a player just because people on a call-in show wanted him to, but I could kind of see him doing the opposite and not picking someone just to be perverse.


You know what's not on my little list? Being English. Obviously speaking English is a big help, so that you can communicate with the players, but Capello's already learned Spanish; I'm sure he can manage to learn enough English to say "Robbo, lay off the pies" or whatever. But being English? Who cares? It's easy enough for me to say, since I'm not English, but I think the idea that a foreign manager wouldn't be able to properly motivate the team because they lack some innate understanding of "Englishness" is total bullshit. Plus, as far as I can tell, innately English football is innately not particularly good.

True, most of the other "big" countries -- France, Italy, Brazil, Germany -- have a manager of the same nationality. But even Brazil had Phil Scolari for a while, and although he spoke the language, he wasn't Brazilian, so where's the shame in that? Maybe the question is whether England truly is a world-class team (arguably they're not, if they can't even make it to the Euros) or if they just want to be.

You could argue that this is a good opportunity to appoint an up-and-coming English manager, now that there isn't a big tournament looming immediately, and give him some time and space to learn on the job. The problem with that is that I doubt whoever it was would be allowed that leeway to make mistakes -- not to mention the fact that none of the supposedly up-and-coming English managers seem to want the job, and those who do are not an inspiring bunch. So you might as well go with a manager who is world-class, and hope that he can drag the team up to where it wants to be.


Which brings us to Fabio Capello. Pros:

• He wants the job
  
• He has a stellar resume
  
• He knows how to manage a bunch of overhyped primadonnas (see: Madrid, Real)
  
• He knows how to deal with the press (usually scornfully)
  
• He wears excellent glasses

Cons:

• His English is limited, but as I said above, so what? And although he's managed a slew of big clubs, he hasn't managed a national team; but again, so what?
  
• Probably the biggest point against him is his reputation for bore-you-to-tears catenaccio. And yes, it might be nice to see England dancing around opponents like Brazil in St. George's cross. It would also be a bit disconcerting. Personally, I'd be just as happy with a boring team that can actually win things. Plus, England could use a bit of defensive discipline, so that they don't get all squirrely any time they have to sit on a one-goal lead.
  
• He also supposedly has a history of playing favourites with some players and falling out with others. That could certainly be a weakness (look at Sven-Goran Eriksson's infatuation with David Beckham); on the other hand, the Beckham saga at Real Madrid proved that at least Capello can recognize when a player has earned his place back in the team and make use of him.

All this (very extended, sorry) is to say that I think Capello would be a great choice, and I hope the FA don't fuck this one up too. I do wonder what made Mourinho decide that he didn't want the job. Was he really just using it to flush out offers from the big clubs? Did he realize that he'd be bored without the day-to-day, hands-on involvement of club management? Or did he simply decide that the England set-up has too many problems and he didn't want to cope with the collection of buffoons at the FA? Because if it's the latter, then I'd be worried that any other good candidates are going to come to the same conclusion and stay far away from a job that would cause so much damage to their sanity.

Argh.

At least this means they have to sack McClaren now, right?

In which I play armchair manager

So: Israel beat Russia, which means that England only need a draw to qualify for Euro 2008. And Croatia have already qualified and are coming to Wembley tomorrow with nothing to play for. Which theoretically should make things easier for England, but then they've already shown a quite impressive ability to fuck up things that ought to be easy. (Like, say, beating Macedonia at home. Or defending a lead in any sort of competent fashion.)

Anyway, the Guardian is reporting that Steve McClaren is going to pick Scott Carson over Paul Robinson in goal, which is a bit of a pleasant surprise. I'd like to think this is a sign that he'd be willing to makes some changes to the rest of the lineup too -- rather than just picking the biggest 11 names and throwing them on the pitch willy-nilly -- but I suspect it's more that Robinson has simply choked too much lately.

As for the rest of the team, you know as well as I do who it's going to be: Whichever four defenders are fit. A five-man midfield identical to the one that crashed out in Germany last summer. And Peter Crouch up front on his own, seeing as Michael Owen is hurt YET AGAIN (I am serious, he is made of marshmallows and scotch tape), Alan Smith is being turned back into a midfielder, and Jermain Defoe has barely played this year.

I do like the idea of bringing in a defensive midfielder (probably Owen Hargreaves, possibly Gareth Barry) to hold things down and free up Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard to push forward -- and hopefully not get in each other's way too much in the process. But I can't help thinking that this is a rather ponderous midfield, and, Crouch is going to end up way too isolated up front.

Yes, David Beckham has lots of experience in crunch games, and his crosses and free kicks are still great. But that's about all he offers at the moment. He's not even 100% match-fit. Plus, pinging balls onto Crouch's head is lovely in theory, but it would probably be a better strategy if Crouch was actually, you know, good in the air. It sounds like they're going to be expecting Gerrard to play almost like a support striker -- which, again, doesn't really play to his strengths. He's much more effective bursting forward from deeper positions.

What I'd kind of like to see instead is actually a 4-3-3, with Lampard, Hargreaves and Gerrard across the middle and then two proper wingers to support Crouch -- Joe Cole and...um, this is where I run into trouble. I guess you could go with Shaun Wright-Phillips, but the problem there is that his crossing kind of sucks. So maybe Ashley Young, then? I'm not sure. Still, it doesn't matter a whole lot, because chances are that SWP's going to end up coming on anyway, when Beckham's legs go after about 60 minutes.

Also, there has predictably been a lot of stuff this week about whether or not McClaren should keep his job, with the players saying yes and pretty much everybody else in their right mind saying no. But of course the players are going to say they're behind him...well, they kind of have to say that. But to me, it's telling what sort of things they've been saying in support. It's all about how he's a great guy, he's good on the training ground, blahbiddyblah. And I'm sure it's nice to have somebody who can be all buddy-buddy with you in training, but wouldn't you rather have a manager with the ability to pick the right players and come up with a proper strategy to win games? Maybe that's just me.

Meh, England

Does anyone actually care about this game tomorrow? Because I don't.

Then again, if I did, I would have to worry about the fact that the defenders in the squad appear to consist of half a dozen left-backs, the Wes Brown Comedy Experience, and Phil Neville. Or that Steve McClaren is apparently going back to the Lampard-Gerrard midfield that misfunctioned so wonderfully before. Or that Wayne Rooney is broken. Or, um, the goalkeeper...and I use that term loosely.

So, yeah, I don't care about England v. Austria. But. Go Israel!

Russia 2-1 England

Four minutes. That's how long it took for England to bugger up their chances of qualifying for Euro 2008.

It's been interesting today, reading all the analysis criticizing the team, because up until about the 70th minute yesterday, the commentators were going on about how this was a good performance by England: they were containing Russia reasonably well, working hard to shut them down and then hitting them on the break.

And if that's all they were trying to do -- guarantee a draw, maybe squeak a win -- then that's fine. But if they were, like Steve McClaren claimed before the game, supposed to be going all-out for the victory, then it's not good enough. And it's a dangerous strategy regardless, and one that we've seen backfire for England too many times before: they defend deeper and deeper, let teams come at them, panic and inevitably break down.

Maybe you wouldn't have expected to give up two goals to Russia. But they could've used another goal for insurance, and they weren't doing enough to create that -- you certainly can't expect Michael Owen to keep winning balls in the air against the centre backs -- and wasting those chances they did create, like Steven Gerrard from Gareth Barry's free kick early in the second half.

If he'd put that chance away, or if Micah Richards had got a toe to that free kick a few minutes later, it could have been a different game. What happened, though, was that McClaren seemed content to stick with the status quo, while Guus Hiddink reacted and put on Roman Pavlyuchenko as a substitute. That was the crucial move, as he combined with Andrei Arshavin to crank up the pressure on the jittery England defence.

First, Wayne Rooney undermined the good work he'd done earlier with a gorgeous volleyed goal, fouling Arshavin on the edge of the box and conceding a penalty. (Yes, it might have been outside the box, but then so might he have been offside for the goal.) Almost immediately, Russia had turned a 1-0 deficit into a 2-1 lead, as Paul Robinson parried Alexei Berezutsky's drive straight back towards Pavlyuchenko.

Robinson was surely at fault for the second goal, but the rest of the defense has to share the blame -- there were far too many incidents where they were scrambling in the box and couldn't get the ball clear. And don't ask me why Wayne Rooney was the one who had to be back defending when he gave away that penalty, but obviously somebody else was out of position. I don't think you can point the finger at any one particular player -- although Joleon Lescott's deer-in-headlights impression makes an obvious target -- but I'm going to go out on a limb and lay some of the blame at the feet of John Terry.

Yes, I know he wasn't even on the pitch. But I can't help thinking that if he hadn't been so insistent that he'd be fit -- and the coaching staff hadn't bought into his iron man routine -- then maybe the rest of the back line wouldn't have been so shaken up in his absence. (I also might have hoped that McClaren's appalling man management wouldn't have alienated Jamie Carragher so completely, but that's another story.)

Right, so, back to the game: 15 minutes left to salvage something. McClaren makes a triple substitution, bringing on Frank Lampard, Peter Crouch and, um, Stewart Downing, but it comes across less as a bold, Mourinho-esque game-changing move, and more as "I have no fucking idea, but it's either this or Phil Neville, so what the hell." And it works about as well as you'd expect, which is to say, not at all, as the clock runs down without much happening.

The loss leaves England still in second place in the group with 23 points, between Croatia with 26 and Russia with 21. Russia have two games left, away to Israel and Andorra, while England have just one more chance, at home to Croatia. The Andorra game should be a gimme for Russia, which means that even if England beat Croatia, a Russian victory in Israel will knock them out. Now, beating Israel at home is never easy -- just look at the trouble England had there -- and it's quite possible that England could beat Croatia, but their qualification hopes are on a knife-edge right now.

The thing is, though, it wasn't actually those four minutes in Moscow that screwed them. It was the 12 months before that, when they drew at home to Macedonia and away to Israel, and lost away to Croatia. If they'd been able to pick up a few more points from those games, then this loss to Russia -- in what was always going to be a tough match -- wouldn't have been quite so crucial.

Big in Japan 2: Electric Blogaloo

I was all prepared to rant today about Steve McClaren's supposed decision to switch to a 4-3-3 formation against Russia tomorrow, for the sole purpose of shoehorning Frank Lampard back into the lineup, and what an absolutely boneheaded idea that was. But now it seems that he's decided to not be a complete moron and stick with the 4-4-2 that's been working for them up till now, so you've been spared.

Instead, I will tell you that OleOle is once again running a contest to send two bloggers to Tokyo for the Club World Cup in December. I haven't decided yet whether I'm going to enter again this year, but if any of y'all are considering it, I'd encourage you to go for it, because it's a fantastic opportunity.

Also, the mention of the contest made me look back at my old entries, and I realized that I'd missed the two-year anniversary of this blog last weekend. (And two years ago, I was still pontificating about England and why Gerrard and Lampard can't play together. Plus ça change...)

England 3-0 Estonia

A good result, although it wasn't a particularly good game, with the scoreline helped in England's favour by a goalkeeping error, a deflected shot and a pinpoint headed own-goal. England started out reasonably well and had cruised to a three-goal lead within the first half-hour or so; after that they seemed to be happy to just pass the ball around as if it was a training exercise. Fortunately I had ordered a beer at halftime -- and that, combined with slagging off miscellaneous Chelsea players, kept me entertained for the remainder of the game.

Estonia certainly offered very little going forward, but on those rare occasions when they did get the ball into the box, England looked a bit suspect at the back. I'm sure part of that can be attributed to them spending the second half without a single one of their first-choice back line on the pitch (okay, maybe I'm stretching that with regard to Micah Richards, but even he was playing out of his usual position for England). Joleon Lescott, for one, had a less than impressive international debut, seeing as his first contribution was failing to cut out a high ball and forcing the intervention from Ashley Cole that ultimately led to his injury, and he was shunted over to left-back shortly thereafter.

As for England's attack: they had a grand total of four shots on goal, which I think says it all. It's hard to tell whether the partnership of Michael Owen and Wayne Rooney can work or no, but I think they'll have to improve for the game against Russia. They certainly weren't helped by the rest of the team playing so many long, high balls into the box, as if they were imagining that Emile Heskey was on the pitch instead of at home injured.

Steven Gerrard was generally the exception to this, but he's had years of experience with the kind of service that Michael Owen needs. Gerrard also had some decent opportunities to burst forward -- he'd obviously been given license to roam, with Gareth Barry holding the fort behind him -- but he gave away his best chance on goal by passing to Joe Cole instead of shooting. Barry, meanwhile, was solid albeit unspectacular -- although he was good enough to earn the man-of-the-match award (also known as "Suck it, Lampard").

Lingering questions of fashion:

• What was up with the all-white kits? Aren't they supposed to wear navy blue shorts instead?
  
• Why was Barry wearing #7 and SWP #8, instead of vice versa?
  
• Just how atrocious was Andrei Stepanov's hair?

Women's World Cup: Quarter-finals

Germany 3-0 Korea DPR
Norway 1-0 China
USA 3-0 England
Brazil 3-2 Australia

All the results in this round were pretty much as you'd expect. North Korea worked hard but were eventually dispatched with stereotypical Germany efficiency, with goals from Kerstin Garefrekes, Renate Lingor and Annike Krahn. Hosts China were knocked out by Norway thanks to Isabell Herlovsen's first-half goal, with the Chinese squandering too many chances.

England held the USA to a scoreless draw at halftime and must have been hoping for a repeat of their first-round result against Germany, but the Americans took over after the break, with Abby Wambach, Shannon Boxx and Kristine Lilly all scoring.

In the last of the quarter-finals, Brazil dominated the game and took a 2-0 lead over Australia midway through the first half. But the Matildas fought back and equalized, before Cristiane scored in the 75th minute to take Brazil into the semis.


I also want to go back to the draw between Canada and Australia that ended up with the Canadians being knocked out. Canada took the lead within about 30 seconds, but I think that early goal actually hurt them, because it meant that Australia came at them hard, while Canada just tried to defend. They held out until halftime but Australia equalized soon after, and Canada played much better after that, knowing that they needed a win to progress. It looked like they'd done it when Christine Sinclair headed home in a corner in the 85th minute, but then Cheryl Salisbury scored late in stoppage time to put Australia through.

A dramatic way to go out, but so disappointing for the Canadians, especially after they reached the semi-finals in 2003. I think that maybe they overachieved last time around, and this time they just weren't quite good enough. Although the battle between them and Australia was very close, I didn't see enough to suggest that they would have gone on to beat one of the other teams in the quarter-finals.

Women's World Cup: Day 4

The most notable result from this round of games was England holding Germany to a scoreless draw. It was a thoroughly disciplined performance by England, as the defence stifled the German attack while Kelly Smith, leading the line on her own, harried them at the other end. England allowed Germany very few clear chances at goal, and keeper Rachel Brown was equal to those they did have, including an excellent save late in the game.

Argentina were Germany's victims in their first match, but they put on a much better show against Japan -- possibly heartened by goalkeeper Romina Ferro replacing the unfortunate Vanina Correa. Japan thoroughly dominated in terms of both possession and shots but couldn't seem to score, while Argentina could only muster up one shot on target. The one and only goal came late in the game, Yuki Nagasato pouncing on a rebound in stoppage time to give Japan the win.

That leaves Germany and Japan level with four points atop Group A, although Germany have a far superior goal differential. England trail with two points, but they still have a chance to move on to the next round if they win their next game and beat Argentina by more goals than Japan did.

In Group B, the USA bounced back from the disappointment of their draw against North Korea to defeat Sweden 2-0. Once again it was Abby Wambach (in this case, her presence rather than her absence) who made all the difference as she scored both goals for the USA, from a coolly taken penalty in the first half and a super half-volley in the second.

North Korea also won their second match 2-0, beating Nigeria thanks to two goals in the first half from Kim Kyong Hwa and Ri Kum Suk. Both goals came from set-pieces, the first directly from a corner that looped into the net over keeper Precious Dede (best. name. EVER). The Koreans and the USA are tied and lead the group with four points each; they face Sweden and Nigeria, respectively, in their third game, with both teams knowing that a draw will be enough to see them through to the quarter-finals.

Group A
Argentina 0-1 Japan
England 0-0 Germany

Group B
Sweden 0-2 USA
Korea DPR 2-0 Nigeria

England continue to confuse me, part deux

England 3-0 Russia

Oh, Michael Owen, how we how we have missed you and your little wheely legs and your ability to actually put the ball in the net. That's three goals for him in the space of two games and -- more impressively -- two of those have even come from outside the box. Shocking, really. It makes me wonder what exactly they did to him while he was off being rehabbed for months on end. (I'm picturing the doctors hovering over his hospital bed a la The Million-Dollar Man: "We can rebuild him. Make him better, stronger..." "Taller?" Mickey pipes up hopefully. "Um, no." "Oh. Bollocks.")

Anyway, that's two solid wins in a row for England, and two good performances as a team. I'm not quite sure what to make of this, although I'm leaning towards the pessimistic expectation that they'll revert to being crap soon enough. Which is not being helped by all the speculation that has of course cropped up about whether McClaren will stck with this lineup when his choices aren't constrained by injuries.

• Micah Richards vs. Gary Neville
  
• Rio Ferdinand vs. some unnamed centre half who is able to avoid dozing off for 90 minutes straight
  
• Shaun Wright-Phillips vs. David Beckham and his dodgy ankle vs. David Bentley/Aaron Lennon/Jermaine Pennant/whoever
  
• Emile Heskey vs. Peter Crouch
  
• Michael Owen vs. Wayne Rooney vs. one of England's myriad other nippy wee strikers
  
• Gareth Barry vs. Frank Lampard vs. Owen Hargreaves

It's the latter two that worry me the most; in the other cases, I think either option is not too disastrous. But the question of who plays up front and in centre midfield is crucial to whether or not the team works. As wonderful as it is to see Owen back and scoring goals, what happens if (when) he gets injured again? I suppose in that case Wayne Rooney is the backup plan, but on the other hand, how do you justify keeping Rooney on the bench for the moment? I can justify it quite easily by saying that Rooney hasn't been scoring lately, even when he wasn;t injured, and he doesn't work particularly well with Owen, but then I am not Steve McClaren and don't have to worry about people baying for my head because I've left Manchester United's star player out of the team.

As for the midfield issue, I think it should be Steven Gerrard + either Barry or Hargreaves, depending on the opposition. I'd suggest considering Lampard as part of a 4-5-1 against certain teams, but I think it's been thoroughly proven that England don't have anyone who can play effectively as a lone striker, so that's out. And that leaves Lampard as the backup for Gerrard, rather than automatically being in the team when he's fit, and too bad if John Terry gets all pissy because his BFF can't play. The fact that Gerrard and Barry have meshed so well after a grand total of two games together -- something that Gerrard and Lampard couldn't manage in god only knows how many attempts -- says enough for me.

England continue to confuse me

I was debating whether to go to the pub to watch them against Israel on Saturday, wondering whether it'd be worth the $10 cover charge just to see them grind out another mediocre draw. Then I slept in and my decision was made for me. And then they had to go out and actually put in a decent performance for once, the bastards. 3-0! Playing like they wanted to win! Playing like a team, rather than simply a collection of overpaid assholes! Astonishing.

Today the decision about whether to watch their game against Russia has been made for me: I will be at work, probably flailing impotently at the Guardian's minute-by-minute commentary and wondering why England can't string together two good games in a row.

Russia will undoubtedly present more of a challenge than Israel, but England should still be able to beat them; sadly, I've said that plenty of times before and been proved wrong. (I read a comment from Steve McClaren after the Israel match where he said that England "made Israel look ordinary." Wrong, Steve-O. Israel are ordinary. The problem is that England have a talent for making otherwise ordinary teams look good.)

Frank Lampard and Owen Hargreaves are still carrying thigh strains (if I was Steven Gerrard, I'd be sneaking into Lampard's room every night after training and kicking him in the leg, just to make sure he stays injured and out of the way), so Gareth Barry should be partnering Gerrard in midfield again. The unknown factor is whether it'll be Emile Heskey or Peter Crouch up front with Michael Owen. I've surprised myself by not really caring either way; Heskey may mesh better with Owen, but Crouch has the valuable ability to actually score goals himself.

I probably won't bother watching any of the other games from this round, although I did catch bits and pieces over the weekend:

• Italy 0-0 France: Remarkably boring without Materazzi tempting people into assaulting him or Totti doing his idiot savant thing. At least Fabio Cannavaro seems to have learned how to defend again, though.
  
• Spain 1-1 Iceland: Only watched the first 20 minutes, by which point Xabi Alonso had been sent off (and let's be honest, he is the main reason I'm watching Spain. That and watching Iker Casillas yell at his defenders and wondering why he's cut the bottom off his jersey.) and I had been sent into a rage by the Fox commentator's inability to pronounce the players' names correctly or indeed even string three words together in a way that made sense.
  
• Sweden 0-0 Denmark: Entertaining mainly for the hilariously awesome sight of Daniel Agger squaring up to Zlatan Ibrahimovic. Also, for reasons that I don't really want to get into here, I am unable to see Ibrahimovic on screen without doing a cracked-out imitation of him in my head. ("How you know Zlatan? Zlatan knows YOUR MOM.") Yeah, don't ask.

If I were going to be paying attention to any of the other matches today, though, France v. Scotland and Portugal v. Serbia are the ones I'd pick.

Women's World Cup: Day 1-2

Last summer in the men's World Cup, Germany v. Argentina was one of the best games of the tournament. Not so much with the women's version. This was a blowout. A score you'd usually associate more with, say, Germany v. San Marino. The Germans were helped by some terrible goalkeeping by Vanina Correa, who put the ball in her own net twice, as well as some equally atrocious defending by Argentina; the back line might as well have not even been there for all the good they were. I think they just kind of gave up after the first five goals or so. But even so, it takes a pretty good team to score eleven times in the space of 90 minutes, including hat tricks for both Birgit Prinz and Sandra Smisek. WIR SIND DEUTSCHLAND. WIR SCHTOMPEN ON DIE PUNY SOUTH AMERICANS MIT UNSERE BIG SCHTOMPY BOOTS.

Fortunately, the other matches so far have been much closer. In the other Group A match, Japan scored first with a free kick from Aya Miyama, before England equalized and then took the lead with two quick goals from Kelly Smith. But in injury time, Miyama scored from another free kick on the edge of the box, leaving both teams with a share of the points.

(I'm not going to do the bad hair awards for this tournament, because most of the players just have ponytails, which is boring. But I have to mention Japan's Eriko Arakawa, who has a truly spectacular fro. How do you even head the ball with that?)

Group B, meanwhile, is wide open, as both of those games also ended in a draw. North Korea surprised the favoured Americans with two goals in the space of five minutes, both scored with the USA down to 10 players while Abby Wambach was off having a nasty head wound stitched up. I'm not quite sure why that took the team up so much, though -- if you're going to be missing a player, wouldn't you want it to be a striker?

And finally, Nigeria's Cynthia Uwak scored a late equalizer to give her team a deserved point against Sweden, who'd taken the lead early in the second half with a goal from captain Victoria Svensson.


Group A
Germany 11-0 Argentina
Japan 2-2 England

Group B
USA 2-2 Korea DPR
Nigeria 1-1 Sweden

Women's World Cup Preview: Group A

GERMANY
Nickname: Die Nationalelf (nothing to do with Legolas; it means "the national XI")
Current world ranking: 2
Coach: Silvia Neid, who took over in 2005, having previously led the U-19 side to the title at the world championships in 2004. She was also a member of the German side that lost in the final in 1995.
How they qualified: Won their UEFA qualifying group with a flawless campaign, winning all eight games.
Past record: Reigning world and European champions, Germany are always one of the favourites for the title. Their worst performance was in 1999, when they only made it to the quarter-finals.
Other results: Six-time European champions; they were also bronze medalists at the 2004 Olympics.
Why they could win: Germany are a very talented and physically tough team. They cruised through qualifying, scoring 31 – with goals coming from all sorts of different players – and only conceded three, thanks to the strength of goalkeeper Silke Rottenburg and a solid defence in front of her.
Key players: Striker Birgit Prinz racked up eight goals in qualifying and is a two-time FIFA Women's World Player of the Year. Midfielder Renate Lingor is the team's linchpin; she has great vision and can be deadly from set pieces.
Predicted finish: Runners-up

ENGLAND
Nickname: Three Lions (or should that be the Three Lionesses?)
Current world ranking: 12
Coach: Hope Powell, appointed as the team's first-ever full-time coach (and also their first female coach) in 1998; she racked up 66 caps and 35 goals for England in her career.
How they qualified: Finished on top of a tough UEFA qualifying group that also included France and the Netherlands, with a 6-2-0 record.
Past record: Only one previous appearance at the World Cup, in 1995, when they were knocked out by Germany in the quarter-finals.
Other results: Not much to speak of, although they were semi-finalists at the European championships in 1995.
Why they could win: Women's football in England has made great strides in recent years, boosted by hosting the Euro 2005 tournament, but there have also been setbacks like the Charlton ladies' team being closed down due to lack of funding. They lost 1-0 to China in a recent World Cup warmup game, but they're still riding the high from their successful qualifying campaign, where they only gave up two goals.
Key players: Strikers Rachel Yankey and Kelly Smith, who both play for the quadruple-winning Arsenal ladies' team. Smith was the player of the tournament at the Four Nations Tournament in China last year.
Predicted finish: Quarter-finals

JAPAN
Nickname: Nadeshiko (the Japanese word for the wild pink carnation that has come to symbolise the country's ideal woman)
Current world ranking: 10
Coach: Hiroshi Ohashi, who took over in 2004.
How they qualified: Finished a disappointing fourth at the Asian championship in July 2006, but beat Mexico in a playoff to earn a spot at the World Cup.
Past record: Have qualified for every tournament, but their best result was reaching the quarter-finals in 1995.
Other results: Four-time runners-up at the AFC championship.
Why they could win: Japan has a well-balanced, hard-working team. The players support each other selflessly, and they're good at creating space and passing around opponents. However, they struggled in qualifying, and hard work alone won't be enough to get them through the tournament.
Key players: Midfielder Homare Sawa, Japan's all-time scoring leader, with 60 goals in 118 caps. This is her fourth consecutive World Cup, and she's got lots of experience, having made her first appearance in the Japanese women's league at age 12.
Predicted finish: First-round elimination

ARGENTINA
Nickname: Albicelestes
Current world ranking: 29
Coach: Carlos Borello, who's been in charge since 1998; he previously coached at San Martin de Burzaco in Buenos Aires.
How they qualified: Upset Brazil to win the South American qualifying tournament in November 2006.
Past record: Qualified for the first time in 2003, when they lost all three of their group games and finished with a goal difference of -14.
Other results: Three-time runners-up for the CONMEBOL title, before finally beating Brazil last year.
Why they could win: That victory over Brazil in the South American championship is a big point in their favour, but the fact is that – unlike the situation with the men's teams – Argentina are not nearly as strong as the Brazilians. The Argentines have good passing and ball-control skills, but have been let down by some wayward finishing.
Key players: Striker Maria Belen Potassa, who scored one of the key goals against Brazil and previously played with the U20s in 2006, is quick and has a good shot. Influential veterans include Marisa Perez and Rosana Gomez in midfield, and Romina Ferro in goal.
Predicted finish: First-round elimination

Group Predictions
Germany are the obvious favourites to win the group, and I think they can go all the way to the finals. England may be ranked below Japan, but I see them as a dark-horse candidate here. Unfortunately, the draw means that they'd probably end up facing the USA in the quarter-finals, which would likely spell an end to their campaign. Argentina may have beaten Brazil recently, but I don't think they're ready for the world stage yet.

Odds and ends

A few things that I have been vaguely paying attention to over the past week or so:

• The end of the transfer window: It was a case of no news may or may not be good news for both United and Liverpool, as neither team made any major signings before the deadline. I was really expecting (or rather, hoping) that United would pick up a new striker. The fact that they didn't suggests that Sir Alex is far more confident than I am about Wayne Rooney's ability to get fit and Louis Saha's ability to stay fit. Either that or they couldn't get anybody they wanted. As for Liverpool, I still think they need some defensive cover, even if Jamie Carragher is likely to be back soon. On the other hand, the lack of signings means that at least that horrifying rumour about Boumsong wasn't true.
  
  
• The Champions League draw and Michel Platini's proposal to reform the way teams qualify:
  Liverpool have a slightly easier draw (Porto, Marseille and Besiktas) than United (Roma, Sporting Lisbon and Dynamo Kiev), but I'm pretty confident that they should both qualify. (Please, don't remind me about Lille in 2005.) As for the proposal to give the fourth qualifying spot to the team that wins the FA Cup, I can see the arguments both for and against, but I'm not too fussed either way because I figure that the big clubs have enough clout to make sure that it never happens.
  
  
• The ongoing clusterfuck that is England and qualification for Euro 2008: The team is beset by injuries at the moment, which in a funny way almost makes Steve McClaren's job easier because he can point to that if they fail (again) to perform. David Beckham is out with a knee injury, which means Shawn Wright-Phillips or maybe David Bentley on the right wing. They may miss his delivery from set pieces, but other than that this isn't the worst thing that can happen, because it forces McClaren to bring in some players who (a) are young enough to become part of the team for years and (b) have merited a place based on their form this year. As for Beckham, I figure he just wants to get to that magic 100-cap number and then he can limp off into the sunset; the sooner, the better.
  
  Frank Lampard is also out, with a thigh strain, with Steven Gerrard caught in a tug-of-war between Steve McClaren and Rafa Benitez about whether he should play despite his broken toe. I reckon he will, because the alternative is Michael Carrick, who has not exactly been setting the world on fire for United this season. Up front, after a couple years out of the team, Emile Heskey has been called up for the express purpose of making it easier for wee Michael Owen to start scoring goals again. I've never been all that impressed by Heskey, but do think they need a player like that -- and a 4-4-2 formation, for the love of god -- to get the best out of Owen. Jermain Defoe, meanwhile, is off in a corner weeping quietly to himself.
  
  
• Speaking of clusterfucks, the Canadian Soccer Association: Colin Linford resigned as president last week after just 15 months in the job. Now, I know very little about the internal politics of the CSA, but this article in the Globe and Mail is a pretty damning indictment of their incompetence.
  
  
• And in not exactly happier news, well, Toronto FC still suck, but I went to their game against DC United last weekend, watched them lose 1-0 and set a new league record for the longest goalless drought, and had a great time anyway. The game also reminded me of a couple ways that watching a match here is different than (from what I hear) it is in England. First, before the game, heading to our seats with beer in hand, we were stopped by a British guy who asked if you were allowed to take beer into the stands. Not only that, we told him, but they have people who will come by and sell it to you at your seat. His eyes lit up, and he sped off. The second is that we stood for the entire 90 minutes, as did everyone else in our section, and nobody seemed to have a problem with this. So, it's not all bad. Now, if only the team could score...

lolkeeper

I feel like I should care about the Gold Cup

And yet, no.

Maybe it's because I'm in full-on summer mode, which means I'd rather be outside playing soccer than writing about it. (Unless y'all want to hear about how my team totally got shafted by the referee on Friday. No? Didn't think so.)

Or then again, maybe it's because Canada lost to Guadeloupe in their last game. Yeah. Guadeloupe. After beating Costa Rica to start the tournament. One step forward, two steps back. Anyway, they face Haiti tonight in their final group match, with qualification for the next round still undecided.

In the other two groups, the USA already have six points from two matches in Group B and are assured a spot in the quarter-finals. Mexico, who you'd expect to be the other big name, lost to Honduras and are down in third place in a very tight Group C. They still have a chance to progress, though, because the tournament is set up so that the top two finishers from each group plus the next two best teams all go through.

Other things I am trying, and failing, to care about right now:

• England, David Beckham's renaissance, Euro 2008 qualifying, and Steve McClaren's attempts to remove his head from his ass.
  
• The European U21 tournament (me and David Bentley, apparently).
  
• The topsy-turvy penultimate weekend in La Liga and Leo Messi's hand-of-god goal. (When did I start disliking Barca more than Real Madrid? I feel very weird about this.)
  
• Toronto FC, who lost 2-1 to New York Red Bulls last week, after taking the lead in the first half but giving up two quick goals from Juan Pablo Angel in the last half-hour. I think I'm a bad fan because I don't pay much attention to them unless I'm actually at the games.
  
• The rumours about Man United buying Carlos Tevez, presumably as part of Sir Alex's quest to assemble the fugliest team in the Premiership. (This is the complete opposite of Arsene Wenger's policy, which involves only buying nubile young French boys.)

One day there will be proper content up here again. But it is not this day.