How'd you like to score the game-winning goal in the World Cup final when you're 22 years old? Barely 22, at that?
TigerBlog's sense is that Mario Gotze is having a pretty good today. Why wouldn't he? Gotze - at the old age of 22 years, one month and 11 days - scored the only goal in Germany's 1-0 win over Argentina in the World Cup final.
Gotze, who plays for Bayern Munich, probably will never have to pay for anything at the Hofbrauhaus - or for a wienerschnitzel anywhere - ever again.
The goal was a beautiful one.
It took until the 113th minute for someone to score, though at least someone finally did, so that the World Cup wasn't decided by PKs. Gotze took a cross and, without ever letting the ball hit the ground, chested it and then left-footed it cleanly into the goal.
The cross came from Andre Schurrle, who will have to be content with winning the World Cup, since he won't get 1/1000th the adulation that Gotze will, but those are the breaks.
The difference between winning and losing in any round of any championship event can be extreme, and it's even more so in the World Cup.
For starters, the final is always going to be close, perhaps out of fear of making the crucial early mistake and digging a big hole.
Yesterday's game as the 19th World Cup final. Of those 19, there have been 11 decided by one goal (or tied and decided on PKs).
In fact, the goal that Gotze scored was nothing compared to the one four years ago, which came when Spain's Andres Iniesta scored in the 116th minute of another 1-0 win.
TigerBlog is seriously invested in some of his teams. He knows that he cannot imagine what it is like to be a German or Argentine soccer fan and watch that game.
Particularly striking to TB has been the pictures of fans weeping in the stands when their team loses. The Brazilians felt it early and often in the 7-1 loss to Germany, and the highlights of the game on the ESPN story are filled with sobbing Argentines.
TigerBlog has been pretty bummed after a few losses in his time here. As he has said, he can tell you easily what the most crushing Princeton loss he has experienced was.
It came in the second round of the 1998 NCAA men's basketball tournament, at what was then the Hartford Civic Center.
Princeton was 27-1 entering the game, having dispatched easily with UNLV in the first round. Awaiting was Michigan State, the fourth seed, while Princeton was seeded fifth, something that no Ivy League team has come close to matching.
Michigan State was two years away from winning the NCAA title, but the Spartans started four of the players who would start against two years later. It was 10-0 Michigan State before the Tigers rallied to tie it late in the second half, only to have Mateen Cleaves break Princeton's - and TB's - heart.
TigerBlog still feels bad that Princeton didn't get to the Sweet 16 that year. When Cornell got there in 2010, TB thought that should have been 1998 Princeton instead.
Still, he didn't weep.
Maybe it's not what American fans do. Maybe it's just that the passion of the World Cup is so intense that an American sports fan can't relate. Maybe, as into sports as Americans are, they just don't have that level of passion.
Anyway, the 2014 World Cup is over. The next one is in 2018, in Russia.
Qualifying begins in 2016.
TigerBlog is ready now.
After all, even if lacrosse is his favorite sport and he is an American, TB knows the best sporting event in the world when he sees it.
And the World Cup is it.
Showing posts with label World Cup. Show all posts
Showing posts with label World Cup. Show all posts
Monday, July 14, 2014
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Blowout
If you watched the Germany-Brazil World Cup semifinal game yesterday, you were probably expecting a tight, dramatic, one-goal-either-way struggle.
What you got was perhaps the most shocking sporting event played on a stage that big. Not shocking like a major upset, Miracle on Ice style.
No, shocking as in a total blowout of epic, never-to-be-seen-again proportions. It's impossible to fathom a World Cup semifinal game could be so one-sided, and yet there it was. Germany 7, Brazil 1.
It was shocking, and the world noticed. A record 35.7 million tweets about the game were sent, the most ever for any single sporting event.
Soccer games aren't supposed to end up 7-1. Certainly World Cup games aren't.
Hey, NCAA men's soccer championship games aren't even blowouts like that. The last 12 NCAA finals have all been one-goal games (or tie games that were decided by penalty kicks), and the largest margin of victory in the 55-year history of the event is three goals, something that has happened three times.
So why would anyone expect the World Cup to have a semifinal game with a margin of victory twice that?
And why would anyone think it would be Brazil who would be on the humiliating end of the score, on its home field? It made no sense.
Certainly TigerBlog didn't get it. As he watched the carnage unfold in the first 29 minutes, when Germany scored five times. Five times? How does that happen in the World Cup?
And it's not just that Germany scored five goals in less than 30 minutes, including four of them in six minutes. It's how effortless it was. It was like the Germans were doing a warmup skeleton drill with no defense on the field.
That's how the ESPN announcers saw it. While play-by-play man Ian Darke (he's the best, by the way; TB would love to see him do NFL football) was trying to be polite about it, color man Steve McManaman cut right to the chase, using words like "amateur hour" and "embarrassing."
McManaman's best comment came when Brazilian sub Willian went into the game with the score 6-0 Germany, when the former English national team player said: "He looks thrilled to be going in. What did they tell him? 'Willian, it's 6-0, go score seven?'"
The most stunning part was that this was Brazil at home in the World Cup semifinals. TigerBlog has seen blowouts before; he just can't remember one of this magnitude at this significant an event with a team that might actually have been the favorite the one that got blown out. Yes, Brazil was missing Neymar, its best player.
But 7-1? Wow.
The average blowout gets out of control early. Perhaps the team getting blown out makes a little noise, but then another spurt puts the game way out of reach.
After that comes lots of garbage time. The team losing plays with a sense of frustration. The team winning has everything going its way. The refs just hope nobody does anything dumb.
Most times, a blowout falls under one of three circumstances - a total mismatch of talent, a nearly perfect performance by the winning team or a losing team that barely shows up. TB would put the Germany-Brazil game more on the last one than the second one.
When he thinks about Princeton and blowouts, most would fall into the first category. And usually they're easy to anticipate.
As for the ones that weren't necessarily obvious beforehand, TB was trying to think during the game yesterday as to which the most unexpected ones he's seen at Princeton were, on both ends of the coin. Luckily, by the way, he's seen way more blowout wins than losses.
Anyway, he came up with two.
First, on the losing end, he'll go with the last game of the 1999 men's basketball regular season. Princeton (11-2) trailed Penn (12-1) by a game when the teams met at Jadwin Gym, and in fact Penn's only loss in the league to that point was the 50-49 Princeton win at the Palestra after the Tigers had trailed 40-13 with 15 minutes left.
TB thought this game would be close, but he also figured on a Princeton win and a playoff for the NCAA tournament bid. Instead, Penn turned a three-point halftime lead into a 25-point win, 73-48.
It worked out okay for Princeton, though. That was the year the Tigers knocked off Georgetown (five guys played the whole game) and North Carolina State in the NIT before falling in the quarterfinals to Xavier.
As for a win? How about the 1997 NCAA men's lacrosse final?
Princeton had won three NCAA titles before that, and all three had come in overtime. This time, Princeton was unbeaten and the top seed, and the Tigers were playing Maryland, the No. 7 seed, who had beaten No. 2 UVa in the quarterfinals and No. 3 Syracuse 18-17 in the semifinal.
Princeton and Maryland were scoreless after seven minutes. It was 8-0 Princeton at the end of the first quarter.
That was somewhat stunning. It was eight perfect minutes for the Tigers, and it came in the NCAA final.
By the end it was 19-7, and Princeton spent the last five minutes passing the ball around rather than shooting. And again, this was the NCAA final.
Anyway, like he said, TigerBlog has seen plenty of blowouts involving Princeton teams, and he's seen the Tigers on both sides of them.
What has he concluded?
It's way better to be on the winning end than the losing end.
Just ask Brazil and Germany.
What you got was perhaps the most shocking sporting event played on a stage that big. Not shocking like a major upset, Miracle on Ice style.
No, shocking as in a total blowout of epic, never-to-be-seen-again proportions. It's impossible to fathom a World Cup semifinal game could be so one-sided, and yet there it was. Germany 7, Brazil 1.
It was shocking, and the world noticed. A record 35.7 million tweets about the game were sent, the most ever for any single sporting event.
Soccer games aren't supposed to end up 7-1. Certainly World Cup games aren't.
Hey, NCAA men's soccer championship games aren't even blowouts like that. The last 12 NCAA finals have all been one-goal games (or tie games that were decided by penalty kicks), and the largest margin of victory in the 55-year history of the event is three goals, something that has happened three times.
So why would anyone expect the World Cup to have a semifinal game with a margin of victory twice that?
And why would anyone think it would be Brazil who would be on the humiliating end of the score, on its home field? It made no sense.
Certainly TigerBlog didn't get it. As he watched the carnage unfold in the first 29 minutes, when Germany scored five times. Five times? How does that happen in the World Cup?
And it's not just that Germany scored five goals in less than 30 minutes, including four of them in six minutes. It's how effortless it was. It was like the Germans were doing a warmup skeleton drill with no defense on the field.
That's how the ESPN announcers saw it. While play-by-play man Ian Darke (he's the best, by the way; TB would love to see him do NFL football) was trying to be polite about it, color man Steve McManaman cut right to the chase, using words like "amateur hour" and "embarrassing."
McManaman's best comment came when Brazilian sub Willian went into the game with the score 6-0 Germany, when the former English national team player said: "He looks thrilled to be going in. What did they tell him? 'Willian, it's 6-0, go score seven?'"
The most stunning part was that this was Brazil at home in the World Cup semifinals. TigerBlog has seen blowouts before; he just can't remember one of this magnitude at this significant an event with a team that might actually have been the favorite the one that got blown out. Yes, Brazil was missing Neymar, its best player.
But 7-1? Wow.
The average blowout gets out of control early. Perhaps the team getting blown out makes a little noise, but then another spurt puts the game way out of reach.
After that comes lots of garbage time. The team losing plays with a sense of frustration. The team winning has everything going its way. The refs just hope nobody does anything dumb.
Most times, a blowout falls under one of three circumstances - a total mismatch of talent, a nearly perfect performance by the winning team or a losing team that barely shows up. TB would put the Germany-Brazil game more on the last one than the second one.
When he thinks about Princeton and blowouts, most would fall into the first category. And usually they're easy to anticipate.
As for the ones that weren't necessarily obvious beforehand, TB was trying to think during the game yesterday as to which the most unexpected ones he's seen at Princeton were, on both ends of the coin. Luckily, by the way, he's seen way more blowout wins than losses.
Anyway, he came up with two.
First, on the losing end, he'll go with the last game of the 1999 men's basketball regular season. Princeton (11-2) trailed Penn (12-1) by a game when the teams met at Jadwin Gym, and in fact Penn's only loss in the league to that point was the 50-49 Princeton win at the Palestra after the Tigers had trailed 40-13 with 15 minutes left.
TB thought this game would be close, but he also figured on a Princeton win and a playoff for the NCAA tournament bid. Instead, Penn turned a three-point halftime lead into a 25-point win, 73-48.
It worked out okay for Princeton, though. That was the year the Tigers knocked off Georgetown (five guys played the whole game) and North Carolina State in the NIT before falling in the quarterfinals to Xavier.
As for a win? How about the 1997 NCAA men's lacrosse final?
Princeton had won three NCAA titles before that, and all three had come in overtime. This time, Princeton was unbeaten and the top seed, and the Tigers were playing Maryland, the No. 7 seed, who had beaten No. 2 UVa in the quarterfinals and No. 3 Syracuse 18-17 in the semifinal.
Princeton and Maryland were scoreless after seven minutes. It was 8-0 Princeton at the end of the first quarter.
That was somewhat stunning. It was eight perfect minutes for the Tigers, and it came in the NCAA final.
By the end it was 19-7, and Princeton spent the last five minutes passing the ball around rather than shooting. And again, this was the NCAA final.
Anyway, like he said, TigerBlog has seen plenty of blowouts involving Princeton teams, and he's seen the Tigers on both sides of them.
What has he concluded?
It's way better to be on the winning end than the losing end.
Just ask Brazil and Germany.
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
Fun In The Pool
Again, for the four millionth time, TigerBlog will begin by prefacing that no money is involved or changing hands and that nothing of tangible value was at stake in the Office of Athletic Communications World Cup pool.
That, of course, would be a major problem in the world of college athletics. Nothing resembling gambling is permitted, and with good reason - almost nothing can destroy the integrity of the intercollegiate sports like the hint of games being fixed. As a result, any sort of gambling on any sport has to be strictly against the rules - even if it's the World Cup.
This rule is reinforced at its most strongest in the buildup to the Super Bowl and NCAA men's basketball tournament, for obvious reasons.
Could having a $5 pool on the World Cup in the OAC somehow equate to betting on - and fixing - Princeton games? No, obviously. Still, as is the case with most NCAA rules, it's there because if it wasn't, someone would push it and push it and push it and then someone else would figure that it needs to be pushed a little more and so on until there is nothing but lawlessness.
Keep that in mind the next time someone wants to talk to you about how ineffectual the NCAA is and how bulky the rulebook is. Yes, some of the rules are on their face ridiculous.
Still, they were put there - by the membership, not by the NCAA itself - because someone figured out how to get around the spirit of the rule and use every loophole as an advantage.
Anyway, TB is fine with having just-for-fun pools here in the OAC.
A World Cup pool isn't as easy as having one in which a single-elimination format is already set from the start, because it's possible to pick teams in the final that will end up coming out of the group stage on the same side of a bracket.
TigerBlog has continued his series of awful predictions with his World Cup selections.
His pre-tournament predicted champion? That would be Spain.
He's not sure why he thought the Spanish would roll again and become only the third repeat champion. Maybe it's because he was rooting for them. Maybe it's because they were ranked No. 1 in the world prior to this World Cup.
Whatever it was, he completely underestimated how much soccer players age in four years. The Spanish certainly did.
So he wasn't quite right about that pick. Spain went out meekly, losing its first two games, ending up with a minus-3 goal differential and never being a factor in the tournament.
TigerBlog's runner-up pick was Brazil, who is still alive. Thinking back, he's not sure why he chose Brazil to lose in its own country in the final. What ref would allow that?
His other two semifinalists were Switzerland (at least made it out of the group stage before losing in the round of 16) and Portugal (did not).
Oh, and TB's format was to award one point for each team that reaches the semifinals, another point if a team wins in the semis and then two points for winning the final. A perfect score would be eight.
TigerBlog got a one.
John Bullis, the video guy, has either one point or two points, because he had five teams in the semifinals, something TB didn't notice until he started going through the picks this morning. Like TB, John has Brazil as the runner-up. Like TB, John's pick to win it all didn't get to the semifinals; unlike Spain (TB's choice), the U.S. (John's choice) at least made the knockout round.
Yariv Amir has two points as well and can get another, since has Brazil losing in the final (to Portugal).
Kristy McNeil has Brazil to beat Germany in the final. She enters the semis with two points.
Ben Badua has three points but doesn't have the winner (he picked Spain too). His runner-up is Brazil, bringing to four out of six people who participated who had Brazil to lose in the final at home.
Ben can get a max of four points, which he would get with a Brazil win over Germany today. At worst, he will have three.
That leaves Craig Sachson, who has three points and Brazil over Argentina in the final. Should Brazil win today, then Craig and Ben would have four each and Kristy would have three. Kristy can get to five, but to do so, Brazil would have to win, which would give Craig six.
So basically, it goes like this.
Should Brazil win it all, then Craig would win with either six or seven points (depending on whether Argentina was the opponent in the final). Should Brazil win today and lose the final, then Craig and Ben would be tied with four points each, but Craig would get another point if Argentina defeats the Netherlands and be the winner. If not, they would tie.
And if Brazil loses today, then Kristy would get another point for having Germany in the final, giving her three. Craig would also have three, as would Ben. Craig would win if Argentina also won, of else it would be a three-way tie.
TigerBlog? Nope. He's not winning this one.
And again, NO MONEY IS CHANGING HANDS AND THERE IS NO PRIZE FOR THE WINNER.
And hey, if there is a tie, TigerBlog's proposed tiebreaker will be penalty kicks.
It works better in a for-fun pool than it does in the real matches. TB hates that, but more on that another time.
For now, let's just say TB hopes it doesn't come to that.
He's predicting it will, though, which given how it's been going in his predictions of late means that there's almost chance it will come true.
Spain. What a bad pick that turned out to be.
That, of course, would be a major problem in the world of college athletics. Nothing resembling gambling is permitted, and with good reason - almost nothing can destroy the integrity of the intercollegiate sports like the hint of games being fixed. As a result, any sort of gambling on any sport has to be strictly against the rules - even if it's the World Cup.
This rule is reinforced at its most strongest in the buildup to the Super Bowl and NCAA men's basketball tournament, for obvious reasons.
Could having a $5 pool on the World Cup in the OAC somehow equate to betting on - and fixing - Princeton games? No, obviously. Still, as is the case with most NCAA rules, it's there because if it wasn't, someone would push it and push it and push it and then someone else would figure that it needs to be pushed a little more and so on until there is nothing but lawlessness.
Keep that in mind the next time someone wants to talk to you about how ineffectual the NCAA is and how bulky the rulebook is. Yes, some of the rules are on their face ridiculous.
Still, they were put there - by the membership, not by the NCAA itself - because someone figured out how to get around the spirit of the rule and use every loophole as an advantage.
Anyway, TB is fine with having just-for-fun pools here in the OAC.
A World Cup pool isn't as easy as having one in which a single-elimination format is already set from the start, because it's possible to pick teams in the final that will end up coming out of the group stage on the same side of a bracket.
TigerBlog has continued his series of awful predictions with his World Cup selections.
His pre-tournament predicted champion? That would be Spain.
He's not sure why he thought the Spanish would roll again and become only the third repeat champion. Maybe it's because he was rooting for them. Maybe it's because they were ranked No. 1 in the world prior to this World Cup.
Whatever it was, he completely underestimated how much soccer players age in four years. The Spanish certainly did.
So he wasn't quite right about that pick. Spain went out meekly, losing its first two games, ending up with a minus-3 goal differential and never being a factor in the tournament.
TigerBlog's runner-up pick was Brazil, who is still alive. Thinking back, he's not sure why he chose Brazil to lose in its own country in the final. What ref would allow that?
His other two semifinalists were Switzerland (at least made it out of the group stage before losing in the round of 16) and Portugal (did not).
Oh, and TB's format was to award one point for each team that reaches the semifinals, another point if a team wins in the semis and then two points for winning the final. A perfect score would be eight.
TigerBlog got a one.
John Bullis, the video guy, has either one point or two points, because he had five teams in the semifinals, something TB didn't notice until he started going through the picks this morning. Like TB, John has Brazil as the runner-up. Like TB, John's pick to win it all didn't get to the semifinals; unlike Spain (TB's choice), the U.S. (John's choice) at least made the knockout round.
Yariv Amir has two points as well and can get another, since has Brazil losing in the final (to Portugal).
Kristy McNeil has Brazil to beat Germany in the final. She enters the semis with two points.
Ben Badua has three points but doesn't have the winner (he picked Spain too). His runner-up is Brazil, bringing to four out of six people who participated who had Brazil to lose in the final at home.
Ben can get a max of four points, which he would get with a Brazil win over Germany today. At worst, he will have three.
That leaves Craig Sachson, who has three points and Brazil over Argentina in the final. Should Brazil win today, then Craig and Ben would have four each and Kristy would have three. Kristy can get to five, but to do so, Brazil would have to win, which would give Craig six.
So basically, it goes like this.
Should Brazil win it all, then Craig would win with either six or seven points (depending on whether Argentina was the opponent in the final). Should Brazil win today and lose the final, then Craig and Ben would be tied with four points each, but Craig would get another point if Argentina defeats the Netherlands and be the winner. If not, they would tie.
And if Brazil loses today, then Kristy would get another point for having Germany in the final, giving her three. Craig would also have three, as would Ben. Craig would win if Argentina also won, of else it would be a three-way tie.
TigerBlog? Nope. He's not winning this one.
And again, NO MONEY IS CHANGING HANDS AND THERE IS NO PRIZE FOR THE WINNER.
And hey, if there is a tie, TigerBlog's proposed tiebreaker will be penalty kicks.
It works better in a for-fun pool than it does in the real matches. TB hates that, but more on that another time.
For now, let's just say TB hopes it doesn't come to that.
He's predicting it will, though, which given how it's been going in his predictions of late means that there's almost chance it will come true.
Spain. What a bad pick that turned out to be.
Friday, June 27, 2014
Advancing ... And Seeing Pete
TigerBlog doesn't understand why everyone either associated with or rooting for the U.S. at the World Cup was content with what happened yesterday against Germany.
Isn't the point to try to win the World Cup, not just get to the round of 16?
The U.S. went into its game yesterday against Germany knowing a win would mean first place in the group (and can everyone stop saying "Group of Death" please?). Instead, the U.S. lost 1-0 in a game in which it had no shots on goal and the German goalkeeper therefore had to make no saves.
Yes, the U.S. advanced to the knockout stage. Is that really all that matters?
Four years ago, with a Princeton alum as the coach, the U.S. did that and also won the group, so a loss in the next game would mean that the U.S. didn't quite match what it did in South Africa in 2010.
The U.S. moved on because Ghana lost to Portugal 2-1 and the U.S. had the edge on Portugal in goal differential. The Ghana-Portugal game provided some big drama, since it was 1-1 for awhile in the second half and a 2-1 Ghana win would have meant that Ghana moved on and the U.S. went home because of goal differential, even though the U.S. beat Ghana head-to-head, which doesn't matter.
The point nobody seemed to want to make was that the difference between being first and second in the U.S. group was on paper at least astronimical.
Germany, by virtue of its win, plays Algeria in the next round, and the winner of that game will play the winner of France and Nigeria. The U.S., by coming in second, plays Belgium, with the winner to play the winner of Argentina and Switzerland.
What's the difference?
Well, all three of the teams in Germany's part of the bracket are ranked below the U.S. in the FIFA rankings, while all three in the U.S. bracket are ahead of the Americans.
For the record, here are their rankings:
2. Germany
5. Argentina
6. Switzerland
11. Belgium (and the ranking doesn't take into account that Belgium is Princeton men's soccer coach Jim Barlow's darkhorse pick)
13. U.S.A.
17. France
22. Algeria
44. Nigeria
That's a ridiculous gap. And yet nobody talked about it. The U.S. has to play the team ranked 11th; Germany gets the team ranked 22nd.
Silly TigerBlog. He thought the point was to win the whole thing. Or at least do better than last time.
Yes, advancing past a group that included Germany, Portugal and Ghana wasn't going to be easy and is an accomplishment itself. But what about at least some sense that a great opportunity to be ranked ahead of the other three teams in the bracket leading to the semifinals got away.
Hey, maybe the U.S. can beat Belgium.
Anyway, that was what TigerBlog noticed about the game yesterday.
He also noticed that everyone around here was watching it. And everywhere else.
Ratings have been great for the 2014 World Cup so far, and TB attributes that 1) to the rise of international soccer coverage in this country in the last 10 years and 2) the fact that soccer is a fairly perfect TV sport.
The games fit nicely into two-hour windows. And there are no media timeouts.
Think about the difference between watching an NFL football game, a college basketball game and a World Cup match on TV.
The NFL has the dreaded score, TV timeout, kickoff, TV timeout, play situation in which the only live action in about a six-minute stretch is the kickoff, which often is a touchback anyway.
And a college basketball game? There are nine media timeouts and up to 10 called team timeouts in regulation, and the last two minutes of game action regularly take 15-20 minutes of real time to play.
Soccer has none of these issues. The game is played, and it never stops for artificial timeouts.
As a result a 90-minute game is played in less than two hours. In football, a 60-minute game takes three. In college basketball, a 40-minute game takes more than two.
ESPN must be making money off the World Cup, no? Even without TV timeouts.
Perhaps there's something in there that could apply to the football and basketball games on TV?
Speaking of basketball and Princeton, the Tigers' men's team will play in the Wooden Legacy in California this coming November, which will be here before you know it, TigerBlog surmises.
Princeton will be traveling the furthest to get to the event, which will be held in Fullerton and then Anaheim. The other seven teams are Western Michigan, Xavier, San Jose State, Washington, UTEP, San Diego and Long Beach State. The matchups will be announced later this summer.
For its long history of great basketball, Princeton has only played in Los Angeles once before. That was back in 1970, when Princeton played in the Bruin Classic.
The Tigers defeated Indiana in the first game and then lost 76-75 to UCLA - who would win the NCAA title again - in the final. Princeton lost on a buzzer-beater by, as TB recalls, Sidney Wicks.
Pete Carril was the Tiger coach back then. The win over Indiana was his 43rd at Princeton. The win over UCLA in the 1996 NCAA tournament would be his 514th and final one.
TigerBlog wrote about Carril a few years ago - actually more than seven years ago - and he had this to say:
“I get calls every year when the tournament comes around,” says Carril. “We played some games much better than that one. That one got a whole lot more recognition for that one than for some others. We played UCLA out there once [a 76-75 loss at UCLA in the 1969-70 season] when they were No. 1. We lost by one at the buzzer. We were ahead the whole time. Nobody ever really talks too much about that one.”
He's right. Almost nobody talks about that game.
TigerBlog saw Carril yesterday here at Jadwin. TB said hi, and Carril answered with a hearty "yo." TB asked how he was, and Carril said "still hanging in."
Yes he is. His 84th birthday is next month, and yet he remains what he has always been - a personality larger than any other that has ever walked into this building. TB thinks that point is indisputable.
And so it was, as it always is, great to see him.
Anyway, today is a day off at the World Cup, which resumes tomorrow with the first knockout games.
The U.S. plays Tuesday; will it be seen as a great run by the U.S. if it loses?
Isn't the point to try to win the World Cup, not just get to the round of 16?
The U.S. went into its game yesterday against Germany knowing a win would mean first place in the group (and can everyone stop saying "Group of Death" please?). Instead, the U.S. lost 1-0 in a game in which it had no shots on goal and the German goalkeeper therefore had to make no saves.
Yes, the U.S. advanced to the knockout stage. Is that really all that matters?
Four years ago, with a Princeton alum as the coach, the U.S. did that and also won the group, so a loss in the next game would mean that the U.S. didn't quite match what it did in South Africa in 2010.
The U.S. moved on because Ghana lost to Portugal 2-1 and the U.S. had the edge on Portugal in goal differential. The Ghana-Portugal game provided some big drama, since it was 1-1 for awhile in the second half and a 2-1 Ghana win would have meant that Ghana moved on and the U.S. went home because of goal differential, even though the U.S. beat Ghana head-to-head, which doesn't matter.
The point nobody seemed to want to make was that the difference between being first and second in the U.S. group was on paper at least astronimical.
Germany, by virtue of its win, plays Algeria in the next round, and the winner of that game will play the winner of France and Nigeria. The U.S., by coming in second, plays Belgium, with the winner to play the winner of Argentina and Switzerland.
What's the difference?
Well, all three of the teams in Germany's part of the bracket are ranked below the U.S. in the FIFA rankings, while all three in the U.S. bracket are ahead of the Americans.
For the record, here are their rankings:
2. Germany
5. Argentina
6. Switzerland
11. Belgium (and the ranking doesn't take into account that Belgium is Princeton men's soccer coach Jim Barlow's darkhorse pick)
13. U.S.A.
17. France
22. Algeria
44. Nigeria
That's a ridiculous gap. And yet nobody talked about it. The U.S. has to play the team ranked 11th; Germany gets the team ranked 22nd.
Silly TigerBlog. He thought the point was to win the whole thing. Or at least do better than last time.
Yes, advancing past a group that included Germany, Portugal and Ghana wasn't going to be easy and is an accomplishment itself. But what about at least some sense that a great opportunity to be ranked ahead of the other three teams in the bracket leading to the semifinals got away.
Hey, maybe the U.S. can beat Belgium.
Anyway, that was what TigerBlog noticed about the game yesterday.
He also noticed that everyone around here was watching it. And everywhere else.
Ratings have been great for the 2014 World Cup so far, and TB attributes that 1) to the rise of international soccer coverage in this country in the last 10 years and 2) the fact that soccer is a fairly perfect TV sport.
The games fit nicely into two-hour windows. And there are no media timeouts.
Think about the difference between watching an NFL football game, a college basketball game and a World Cup match on TV.
The NFL has the dreaded score, TV timeout, kickoff, TV timeout, play situation in which the only live action in about a six-minute stretch is the kickoff, which often is a touchback anyway.
And a college basketball game? There are nine media timeouts and up to 10 called team timeouts in regulation, and the last two minutes of game action regularly take 15-20 minutes of real time to play.
Soccer has none of these issues. The game is played, and it never stops for artificial timeouts.
As a result a 90-minute game is played in less than two hours. In football, a 60-minute game takes three. In college basketball, a 40-minute game takes more than two.
ESPN must be making money off the World Cup, no? Even without TV timeouts.
Perhaps there's something in there that could apply to the football and basketball games on TV?
Speaking of basketball and Princeton, the Tigers' men's team will play in the Wooden Legacy in California this coming November, which will be here before you know it, TigerBlog surmises.
Princeton will be traveling the furthest to get to the event, which will be held in Fullerton and then Anaheim. The other seven teams are Western Michigan, Xavier, San Jose State, Washington, UTEP, San Diego and Long Beach State. The matchups will be announced later this summer.
For its long history of great basketball, Princeton has only played in Los Angeles once before. That was back in 1970, when Princeton played in the Bruin Classic.
The Tigers defeated Indiana in the first game and then lost 76-75 to UCLA - who would win the NCAA title again - in the final. Princeton lost on a buzzer-beater by, as TB recalls, Sidney Wicks.
Pete Carril was the Tiger coach back then. The win over Indiana was his 43rd at Princeton. The win over UCLA in the 1996 NCAA tournament would be his 514th and final one.
TigerBlog wrote about Carril a few years ago - actually more than seven years ago - and he had this to say:
“I get calls every year when the tournament comes around,” says Carril. “We played some games much better than that one. That one got a whole lot more recognition for that one than for some others. We played UCLA out there once [a 76-75 loss at UCLA in the 1969-70 season] when they were No. 1. We lost by one at the buzzer. We were ahead the whole time. Nobody ever really talks too much about that one.”
He's right. Almost nobody talks about that game.
TigerBlog saw Carril yesterday here at Jadwin. TB said hi, and Carril answered with a hearty "yo." TB asked how he was, and Carril said "still hanging in."
Yes he is. His 84th birthday is next month, and yet he remains what he has always been - a personality larger than any other that has ever walked into this building. TB thinks that point is indisputable.
And so it was, as it always is, great to see him.
Anyway, today is a day off at the World Cup, which resumes tomorrow with the first knockout games.
The U.S. plays Tuesday; will it be seen as a great run by the U.S. if it loses?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
