World Cup Wonder: Soccer Should Exist in U.S. More than Once Every 4 Years

Was that brief period of excitement about the U.S. soccer team another demonstration of Americans’ imperialistic nature, or the beginning of a beeeeaaa-uutiful relationship?

Every four years or so (purely by coincidence), I’ve follow the sport of soccer. The fascination typically lingers for a few weeks and then quickly dissipates after a month or so (purely by coincidence). This year was different. Thanks to some of my friends who have a legitimate interest in and passion for the sport (read: who actually follow it more often than every fourth summer), I’ve watched more soccer during the past two weeks than during the entirety of my 26 years. It really is an engaging and exciting sport. Really.

Soccer’s recent fleeting presence in the American sporting arena was both predictable and disconcerting. It was gone so fast I didn't even have a chance to make one blog post . . . or even a "headed to the Nomad" Twitter post. Only a select few U.S. residents are true soccer crazies, and only a few more have jumped on the bandwagon. Soccer is not popular in America (what a revelation, right?). I’m not even sure a majority of Americans know how the game is played . . . or that the World Cup is even taking place. We are a bunch of soccer haters. Even Microsoft is in on it – spell check is telling me there is something wrong with the word “fútbol.” It doesn’t slap that annoying red line under “résumé” or “adios.” A little respect, please.

I am anything but a soccer expert and am certainly not qualified to argue its pros and cons and place in America. I have, however, made some noteworthy observations during the past two weeks’ worth of World Cup action that I would like to share in an effort to at least suggest consideration for adopting soccer into our sporting hearts:

1. The pure excitement. Although the final score may be determined in literally one second, each of the 90 or so minutes of a game is therefore engaging. A goal can be scored and a team’s fate sealed at any moment, so every moment counts. Do not mistake me for bad-mouthing America’s pastime, but in a soccer match there are at least 11 men constantly in action, setting up plays and hustling to balls hurling toward the end- or sidelines – all to score that fateful goal. Isn’t that more exciting than watching at least 11 men scratch themselves in the dugout? OK, OK, baseball is baseball and I won’t mess with it. I also acknowledge that, during that 90-plus minutes of soccer action, the same strapping and hustling men also occasionally nancy around holding their calves, heads, or whatever after merely brushing up against another player. Nonetheless, there is an art and thrill to the game that I have found captivating.

2. The uniforms. I know, we all hate the middle-aged chick in the office NCAA Tourney pool who can’t even spell Gonzaga, but wins the whole darn thing because her Final Four had the “prettiest outfits.” I, like every other college hoop sucker . . .er, fan. . .out there think I’m a genius and pick based on my basketball “knowledge.” In this case, though, I have to play the pretty jersey card; I think soccer jerseys are some of the coolest in all of sports. A friend of mine introduced this topic at our U.S. soccer team post-mortem on Saturday. Granted, the beverages may have made the conversation seem more captivating than it really is, but hear me out. I like me a good football jersey to layer up come fall, and nothing feels better than a worn ball cap and pristine white Brewers jersey in the bleachers on a sunny summer evening. . .but there’s something about those fútbol unis. Maybe it’s the sociologist in me that is fascinated by the various cultures materialized in the fabric donned by their representatives on the world’s stage. Or maybe it’s the bright, shiny colors. Whatever it is, they’re just cool. And special thanks to Adidas and Puma for form-fitting jerseys . . . yum. Nike, there is room for improvement; I’ll be looking forward to your craftsmanship in 2014.

3. The commentators. Listening to some dude with a Scottish accent sizing up a Phil Mickelson putt drives me nuts. That barely-audible whisper is maddening; I always wish some dude in the gallery would yell, “Don’t chunk it!” one of these times. Anyhow, a similar brogue during a soccer match is charming to me. I don’t know why. Maybe it’s the culture thing again. It’s also because these guys say what they think – and react to what’s going on in the field of play. There are no Joe Bucks plugging their networks, celebrity name-dropping, or tippy-toeing around questionable calls to suck up to the league. No, these guys say what you’re thinking at home, and then teach you a thing or two about the game.

4. The celebration. Who knew it would be so fun to yell “GOOOOOAAAAALLLLL” at the top of your lungs?

5. The Vuvuzelas. Even some true soccer buffs can’t stand ‘em. I like them – the sound adds a certain character to the game. They outrank cowbells in my book.

Clearly, I saved the most relevant and significant arguments until last. Truth is, there is much, much more to the game itself than the supplements I documented in my 2010 World Cup diary above. For me, these extras just added to the fun of the past couple weeks. Looking ahead, I will certainly be watching the rest of the Cup play out and intend to follow the action across the pond a little more closely. A tiny part of me also hopes the sport gains a bit more footing in America, but I highly doubt this summer’s short-lived soccer “interest” will start a craze, given the domestic league’s shallow talent pool and Americans’ seemingly innate apathy for the sport.

But who knows, if the NFL can’t get its stuff together by next season, there could be a new fútbol in America.

Rodgers Ready for Super Run? Thank Favre.

With the Packers’ offseason officially ending Wednesday following a 3-day minicamp, it’s time to gear up and ponder the upcoming season. Will the team fulfill the prophesies of those who predict a green and gold NFC Championship, merely inch a bit closer by winning a playoff game, or perform poorer than in its 2009 campaign? Whatever the Packers’ fate, one of the guarantees we can make is that Aaron Rodgers’ play will significantly influence it.

I did some thinking about Mr. Rodgers this offseason, following a successful year in ’09 and the drama in ’08. As painful as it is for me to admit, Rodgers looks good; he was groomed to be an elite NFL QB and is so far coming into the part well. During the offseason drama that included a trade of franchise icon Brett Favre to the New York Jets, I was convinced that Aaron Rodgers was the personification of Ted Thompson’s best Ron Wolf impression – it was clear Thompson wanted the team to be completely his and his alone. Rodgers was his QB.

No worries – I won’t bring the hate in this post (anymore); in fact, I was pondering about how good Rodgers is.

Before we begin, you must understand how much it pains me to admit that Rodgers is a solid QB. To give you an idea of how much it annoys me, consider my Halloween costume last year – green and yellow flowered mini skirt, pigtails adorned with green and gold ribbon, green tights and the capper – a replica #12 Packers jersey with “ERIN” carefully stitched on the name plate.

I digress – point is, I still think Rodgers has much work to do before being considered a top NFL QB or MVP candidate. Like win. Favre, despite being in the doghouse for inconsistent play during his first few seasons in Titletown, never had a losing season and won his first playoff game in only his second season.

Still, Rodgers posted monster stats last year and looks to be using the tools Thompson knew he possessed before drafting him with Favre still in the driver’s seat. My question is – would he be the same quarterback today if Brett had kept his mouth shut and butt on his tractor in the summer of 2008?

It is my opinion that Aaron Rodgers is as good a QB as he is today – and viewed as such by those in and around the NFL – because of Brett Favre. Sure, the man has talent – and did when Thompson snagged him in the first-round in 2005. What he had when he took the reins in 2008 was that talent, plus 3 years’ experience behind Favre. . .and, perhaps more significant, a huge chip on his shoulder.

The years behind Favre were obviously invaluable in shaping the young quarterback. Working behind a legend – whoever it is – would be invaluable to any NFL novice. And regardless of how much or little Favre put his arm around Rodgers and instructed him, Aaron could still learn a lot during practice, film and game time with Favre; just listen to how much the Vikings players said they’ve learned in just one year of playing with him.

As for the chip, Favre may have very well created a monster. In his campaign to bust down the doors of Lambeau because he thought he was the best option for the Packers (guessing), he turned off the organization and most of the fan base from someone they held in such high regard for nearly two decades. Favre pushed us into Rodgers’ waiting arms, and the fans embraced him. Everyone – fans, the front office and his teammates – wanted Rodgers to succeed. That support, coupled with the indirect hostility and implied challenge from Favre set a raging fire under Rodgers. What helped his cause was keeping his head down and mouth shut (with the exception of this dig that was almost immediately forgotten). Even after he was out of Green Bay, Favre was still breathing down Rodgers’ back – from halfway across the country, but nonetheless on everyone’s mind.

But Rodgers didn’t shrink from the spotlight, and the spotlight embraced him. The NFL was obsessed with Favre versus Rodgers comparisons in ’08. Because of that media attention, folks who follow, write about and live and breathe the NFL saw more of Rodgers and the Packers. Especially last year focus was back on the NFC North and, more specifically, the Packers-Vikings rivalry. Without such attention paid to Rodgers during the past two years, would analysts forecast Rodgers to be the 2010 MVP? Phillip Rivers, another young QB who posted impressive stats and took his team to the Divisional playoff round, isn’t as publicized or lauded as Rodgers. (The conspiracy theorist in me swears Thompson paid off his share of NFL analysts to hype his young investment; how else does Rodgers telling Packers fans to shut up not create more waves? C'mon, it could totally happen.)

It was not the compelling scenario between Favre and Rodgers that kept the Packers in the media, however. Rodgers made Thompson’s argument by coming out firing in September. Amidst the turmoil and controversy, the young QB put the team on his back and embraced it – he made it about the team, not the QB, which is exactly the opposite of what Favre did before his bitter dismissal from Green Bay. I’ve heard several accounts of how massive Rodgers’ ego is; had Favre not indirectly emphasized the importance of operating, practicing and playing as a team, Rodgers may have begun his career as a very different player and teammate.

It is, after all, that team mentality that has given the Pack success the past two seasons. C’mon, two of the best –and most critical – defensive starters in Al Harris and Aaron Kampman go down with season-ending injuries and the team still makes the playoffs last year – it’s the system, it’s the guys. They think together, play together and win together.

The lessons Rodgers learned behind Favre were invaluable in a football sense. What he learned during that infamous summer in Packers history was invaluable in a leadership and life sense.

Favre once had unbreakable chemistry with and loyalty for his teammates and organization in Green Bay; because he somehow lost that may be one of the biggest reasons Rodgers may become the next Lambeau legend. It's now completely up to Aaron to determine whether it's as "that dude who followed Brett" or something of his own.

Can Celts Close It Out in 6?

The CPSN called last night’s X-factor in Paul Pierce. L.A. – or more accurately Kobe – was not enough to withstand the Celtics’ charge in Game 5. Now the pressure is on the Lakers and, judging by his performance and post-game outburst, Kobe is up to the challenge. It will be up to his teammates to decide whether there will be a Game 7, because Bryant clearly can’t do it all on his own. He tried last night – scoring the Lakers’ only points (23 at that) over about a quarter and a half – but managed to only keep L.A. within double digits. Check that, he single-handedly kept his team in the game.

Without Kobe’s scoring barrage, the Lakers would have suffered the same drought the Bucks did in Game 6 against the Hawks – a nearly-eight minute cold streak during which the Hawks peeled off 19 points versus the Bucks’ goose egg. That deficiency spelled the team’s series demise.

Could the Lakers’ feeble performance outside of its star in Game 5 be the turning point in the Finals series (even though the Celts seemed to overtake momentum after Game 1’s drubbing)? We’ll see how L.A. responds in friendly confines. Will home court advantage work its magic, as Phil Jackson suggested in his post-game comments or will the wheels completely fall off for the Lakers.

Revisiting the CPSN’s predictions following Game 4, we expect to see Kobe take over to give the Lakers its 16th title. But will it be enough? Game 5 showed us that even a spectacular individual effort can’t win a game; perhaps the X-factor L.A. needs in Game 6 is playing as a team.

You're Hot Then You're Cold; You Win Then You Lose

Is it because the bar is so much higher and the game so much more challenging in the Finals? Perhaps it’s because they’re too overconfident and therefore less focused after a big game. Whatever the reason, the X-factors – the stars in Games 1, 2 and 3 my earlier post discussed – severely underachieved in the game following their big performances. In Game 2, Kobe Bryant, Game 1’s hero, missed significant playing time because of foul trouble. Despite posting 21 points, he shot only 8 of 20 and couldn’t save his team from losing its first home game during these playoffs.

Ray Allen not only cooled after setting an NBA Finals record for 3s, he froze. Should we give credit to the Lakers for figuring out how to effectively defend Allen? Something knocked Ray Ray completely off his game – he went ice cold and shot 0 for lucky number 13.

Tonight, Derek Fisher was anything but heroic. In fact, he looked like someone who hadn’t nearly the amount of playoff experience that he possesses, taking poor shots and getting into foul trouble. The Lakers controlled most of the game until late in the third, when momentum started to swing. No one stepped up for L.A. tonight; instead, it was the Celtics bench stealing the show and another win to even the series.

A play symbolic of the Lakers’ second half meltdown was a baffling possession by Fisher in the waning seconds. Upon gaining possession with 31 seconds remaining and his team down 8, Fisher dribbled furiously up court, pulled up as if to take a tre, passed up the shot, drove to the basket . . . but then pulled the ball back out beyond the perimeter! He then made a layup, but let valuable second tick off the clock for only a deuce. And, granted the Lakers were in deep trouble at that point, but a quick 3 keeps them in the game. Who better to make that shot than the man who’s done it on that very stage so many times before?

After dominating Game 1 of the Finals, the Lakers have let the Celtics make a series of it. Now that Boston has found its rhythm, a Game 5 win by the Celts puts tremendous pressure on the Lakers to stand their ground at home. Who will step up next and give his team a 3-2 edge going west? The CPSN predicts it will be someone in green and white (Paul Pierce has been way too quiet thus far). Then Kobe shows us why he’s still better than LeBron because he wins games in the playoffs – namely, Games 6 and 7 in L.A.

NBA Finals So Far All About the X

Through three games, the NBA Finals have been about the X-factor. Three games, three different players making an impact for his team, which, without his production, would have likely been on the losing end. Not surprisingly, these fellas are no strangers to carrying their teams to playoff wins; they're consistent performers - no Dante Halls in this mix (pause for reflective, "Ohhh yea, I remember that guy").

Game 1 it was Kobe; he blew up the Celts D and left them too awestruck to generate any offensive or defensive rhythm. Game 2’s X was of course three-baller Ray Allen. The Celtics needed all of his eight record-breaking threes and eight additional points to pull away from the Lakers, who kept things close until a fourth-quarter meltdown.

Tonight’s X-factor? Veteran playoff X-factor Derek Fisher. In a game during which the Lakers somehow built a 17-point lead as quickly as the Celtics shaved it down, Fisher was the difference in the critical fourth quarter. In the quarter, Gasol sank a couple clutch shots and Kobe made a few hustle plays, but Fisher’s 11 points and key defensive board with the Lakers clinging to a 4-point lead with 53 seconds left solidified the win.

Who'll step up in Game 4? Boston needs it to be someone in green and white to stay in the series.

Lakers' Complete Game Cans Celts

Watching Game 1 of the 2010 Finals was like watching the Celts pound on the Magic for 4 out of 6 games a round prior. The Lakers’ defense was stifling, offense aggressive and productive and composure in tact. These two teams are talented enough to keep things competitive through 7 games, but the way the Lakers dominated at home tonight, home court advantage may be influential. That and the fact that Kobe & Co. were faster, quicker and seemingly hungrier.

What I’ve learned from watching the NBA the past few years is that not much matters until the 4th quarter. It’s what I call the perfect party sport. I’m more than happy to invite friends over or attend functions to "watch" a basketball game, because I can not only listen to people, but also reply coherently. If it’s a blowout, I’m not missing anything; if it’s close, everyone starts to pay attention. Football is a much more solitary sport . . . at least in my case – I'm really just looking out for the safety of others.

Back to tonight’s Lakers-Celtics contest, which was an exception to the party rule. That is, I was excited enough about the start of the Finals to watch from minute one. . .and was bored by the end of the 3rd quarter. If I had plunked out almost twice an entire month’s salary to attend the game (oh, yea, I considered it enough to do my research), I’d have serious buyer’s remorse (then again, if I’m buying Lakers tickets, chances are my salary analogy wouldn’t be accurate).

Fact is the Celtics were owned tonight. How significant is this Game 1 loss? A series is hardly over after one contest, but history is not encouraging for the Celts' chances. Since the NBA’s first season in 1946-47, the team that won game 1 of a best-of-seven series won 319 of 407 series (that’s a whopping .784 winning percentage, kids). Oh, and my friends and yours at ESPN also note that Phil Jackson's teams dominate after posting a W in game 1 of a playoff series – they’ve won 47 straight series.

As fun as it was seeing Kobe fly around and feeling the energy halfway across the country at the Staples Center Wednesday evening, it would be all the more fun to see a competitive, well-played series. If the Lakers stay true to historical form, here’s hoping they do so in 7 games.