The World Watched

Here's the thing about soccer... everybody can play it. The main reason why it's the most popular sport in the world (and why it has a hard time taking off in the US) is because of how easy it is to play. No matter how poor you are, or how bad you neighborhood may be, you can play soccer anytime. Step 1, get a ball (quality of the ball is unimportant). Step 2, get some space (a dirt alley will do). Step 3, kick the ball around. TA DA! You're playing soccer. You don't even NEED shoes. I know it's a stereotypical image, but how many pictures are paraded in front of American viewers during the World Cup of children playing bare-foot soccer in the streets or some poorly maintained field.
American sports (football, basketball, baseball) require more equipment and, in turn, more money. Sure, you can play football without pads, but if that's all the practice you get, you'll never be ready to play the real thing. Children around the world can get more enjoyment from soccer because they have more of a chance of playing it. If you denied your average American youths access to baseball bats and gloves, football helmets, basketball goals, tennis courts and swimming pools, they would eventually embrace soccer as the only game alive.
Yes, soccer games, with their low scores/ties and flopping, irritates the average American viewer because we like seeing multiple home runs, extra innings, 70-yard touchdowns, last-second jumpers, etc. But, soccer, when done fundamentally well, rivals our sports for "beauty." We all "oooh" and "aaah" at a great curve ball to freeze the batter for strike three, a behind-the-back pass for a open slam-dunk, or a guard leveling a linebacker on a pull-block for the breakaway touchdown run. Soccer has just as much, or more, fundamental beauty as our sports. It's just harder to see for the average viewer. Some day, maybe the US will catch on, and I hope it doesn't require the national team winning the WHOLE thing to do it, either.

All the argument about the sport aside, this World Cup was one for the ages. A new Champion got the monkey off their back, a couple traditional powers faltered, some surprises gained respect, and the buzz in South Africa came through (ha ha, get it? The vuvuzellas?)
I'd say my predictions were decent. I was 10-for-16 on teams making the knock-out round (at least one from every group) and predicted the group winner in 5 of the 8 groups. I put a little too much faith in the African teams as Nigeria, Cameroon, and Ivory Coast let me down, and not enough faith in South America (all 5 qualifiers in the knock-out round). No one can fault me for missing on France and Italy. Got to be the first time the defending champs and defending runner-up missed getting out the groups right??
Anyway, here's how I would rank the 32 teams from worst to first:
32: North Korea
31: Cameroon
30: Honduras
29: Algeria
28: France
27: Nigeria
26: Italy
25: New Zealand
24: Greece
23: Denmark
22: Serbia
21: Australia
20: South Africa
19: Switzerland
18: Slovenia
17: Ivory Coast
16: Slovakia
15: South Korea
14: Mexico
13: England
12: USA
11: Chile
10: Japan
9: Portugal
8: Ghana
7: Paraguay
6: Brazil
5: Argentina
4: Uruguay
3: Germany
2: Netherlands
1: Spain

Obviously, the number one problem with the tournament was the officiating. It lacks consistency, efficiency, and accountability; but I won't beat a dead horse. My problem was with the "tanking." By that I mean teams stalling on the leads or ties, specifically in the last group games. This in a major reason why people think soccer is boring. I understand there are some strategies. For example, pulling stars with yellow cards late with the lead to save them for the next game, or not pushing for a third goal when you've already got 6 group points and a five goal differential lead. Take, for example, the way the last games played out in Group C. Every team needed to win to secure a spot in the next round. Slovenia would have been fine with a tie, England and the US could have stomached one, and Algeria was desperate. Let's look at how it was shaking out...

After 2 games:
Slovenia - 4 pts, +1 GD, 3 GS, 2 GA
USA - 2 pts, 0 GD, 3 GS, 3 GA
England - 2 pts, 0 GD, 1 GS, 1 GA
Algeria - 1 pt, -1 GD, 0 GS, 1 GA

Ideally, to win the group, each team needed the win. Obviously, Slovenia wins and they get the group. England, with any size win over Slovenia takes the lead. The US needed the win and to keep pace with or do better than the goals in the other game. Algeria needed a win by 2 and an Slovenia loss. Okay, but let's say you're playing for second place (you never should, but I'll be humored)... Slovenia is happy with a loss as long as the US/Algeria game is a draw. England can't lose, but they'll take a tie if they score 3 more goals than the US, if the US/Algeria game is a draw (a win by either team doesn't work against their tie). The US can't lose, but a tie is fine if England/Slovenia tie and they keep pace with the England goals. Algeria CANNOT lose and need to win to even get second place (this is important), a tie with the US does them NO GOOD. Basically, whom ever scored first in either game was in the drivers seat.

So here's how it shakes out after 23 minutes (Defoe puts England up 1-0 and the US/Algeria tilt is 0-0)...
England 5 pts, +1 GD, 2 GS, 1 GA
Slovenia 4 pts, 0 GD, 3 GS, 3 GA
USA 3 pts, 0 GD, 3 GS, 3 GA
Algeria 2 pts, -1 GD, 0 GS, 1 GA

Okay, if we assume each team is watch the scoreboards from the bench and communicating to the field, I can understand England going into save mode and the other three picking up the pace (although Algeria should have been in top gear the whole time, but after their early shot hit the crossbar, they looked apathetic about winning). What happens next we all know, but there were about 70 minutes (not including half time) of poor strategy on each field.
England - Yes, with the win the English are safe to advance, and they probably were not concerned with their next round match-up. But in my mind, they have to go for another goal, because a second place finish would mean facing either Germany or a confident (after beating Germany) Ghana. Sure, attacking would open up the defense for the possible Slovenian equalizer, but they had given up only one (fluke) goal up to that point, were they really giving up another at that point?
Slovenia - Really? Their man-handling (literally) defense gave up that goal? What the hell? Anyway, they ended up packing it in and playing for the tie, despite the fact that a US goal at any point sends them home. I don't get it. They were basically settling for second place and the same scenario described above... weak sauce.
Algeria - Okay, you hadn't scored all tournament and you start the game knowing a tie gives you nothing, you have a great chance rattle the crossbar early on, but things bog down as the US keeps the pressure up. Now, with the England/Slovenia game at 1-0, you have your chance, score twice and you've advanced. The miracle tie against England and the ousting of American hopes lifts your country to glory. Instead, you are forced into a defensive nutshell. The US can't score, but all of your chances are outnumbered counter attacks that fizzle quickly. You need two goals! What happens as the clock ticks away? You commit too much to weak attacks. The England/Slovenia game is over (1-0) and all of a sudden there are 4 minutes of stoppage time on the clock... the US keeper makes a solid save, he throws it out, and... oh, CRAP! It's a 4-on-3 going the other way... and the rest is history.
USA - I'd criticize the strategy, but we won and it worked out.

Group C wasn't the only place this happened. On the last day in Group A, Mexico took the 1-0 loss to Uruguay to make sure they maintained the goal differential lead on South Africa. Ghana stalled in their 1-0 loss to Germany to avoid letting Australia catch up. And, while the margin was great and they appeared to be trying, Brazil taking the draw with Portugal didn't help Ivory Coast's valiant effort to close 7 goal differential... certainly they were hoping for a few goals from Brazil to even it out. But the biggest tragedy was in Group C were a team needing 2 goals played most of the game for a tie and another went into the locker room satisfied with a loss only to find their world crumbling around them moments later.
Lesson? Always play to win. The game is never over, especially the simultaneously played third group games. Score first, score again, bring home the win. There was too much tentativeness early on and it led to some LONG games in the knock-out rounds. We learned that Africa has a ton of talent and support, Asian teams are dangerous, and South America might be better than Europe. If less teams played for 0-0 or 1-1 ties and 1-0 wins, then soccer would be more exciting.
As for the US, after the crap of 2006, I wouldn't have expected much. But we WON the CONCACAF qualifying, which is huge (Mexico always wins), making us the top seed from our region. We didn't lose to England, giving us reason to laugh in their faces. We actually won our World Cup group (hasn't happened before) while putting together some exciting finishes. And we finished no worse than England and Mexico (our rivals and measuring sticks). I think the US did wonderfully. I can't wait for 2014, and if we get to host either 2018 or 2022, we could be contending for the title.