I watched the US v Ghana World Cup match this morning, and I confess that I failed the cricket test. I’m an American and generally happy to be so, but where football is concerned I certainly couldn’t rouse any enthusiasm for the US of A.
There are three problems. First, the workmanlike and thoroughly uninspiring play of the Americans. It is a well-organized, athletic team, but completely lacking in creativity and invention. No joga bonito. Second, the relentless boosterism of the American television announcers and many of the American sports journalists. It’s an okay team – stop claiming it’s the the fifth best in the world. (I know the English media can be even worse in this regard, but at least England has some claim to its pretensions – until you see the team play.) Third, I like rooting for a team where the result has greater meaning. In Ghana, and in the other 55 countries of Africa, football is the alpha and omega of sport. I’d love to see Ghana advance further, although I fear for them against Brazil without the wonderful Michael Essien.
Update If evidence were needed about Ghana’s passions, read Sarah Left in The Guardian (I wonder if there’s a Sarah Right who writes for The Telegraph?).
No one is harsher on the England team than the English media, most of whom seem to be predicting a 6-0 drubbing at the hands of Ecuador. The tabs support England, yes. But as a longtime Crystal Palace supporter, I can assure you that there’s a world of difference between supporting a team and actually believing they’re good.
The US media, or at least the ABC/ESPN commentators, seem to actually believe that the US team is good, partly because of that FIFA ranking and partly because of a dangerous syllogism: USA reached the quarter-finals in 2002, the 2006 team is better than the 2002 team, therefore the 2006 team must be good enough to reach the semis at least, right? Of course, as they slink home with one point, the silliness of this syllogism will have a lot of time to sink in.
Still, if it’s any consolation, they did do better than Costa Rica.
As a fellow supporter of the Eagles I agree with you, and also disagree. The wonderful tightrope English media walk is between complete contempt for the English team and boundless optimism about its prospects. As I noted above, that was before anyone saw them play in Germany.
Lance-
I will steal boosterism. It is a great word.
I was at the Ivory coast-Holland game, but luckily, I wore the dutch trousers over my shorts, not instead of them..
http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news?slug=afp-fblwc2006marketing&prov=afp&type=lgns
The world cup is doing wonders for the German self image, I hope they win…
Before the World Cup started, I thought the German team would be pants. But they’ve been pretty impressive. I can’t see Sweden knocking them out, but after that, it could get harder.
The most famous use of “boosterism” comes from Sinclair Lewis’s Babbit. Lewis won the Nobel prize for literature, but I think hardly anyone reads him anymore. I last read him 30 years ago, so I have no idea how well his writing stands up.
Pingback: Vendorprisey » Blog Archive » search rankings and the World Cup