The end of the World Cup brings on a gloom and melancholy similar to the one many people (myself included) experience the day after Christmas, only a hundred times worse. Imagine spending two years getting ready for Christmas, and then when it ends knowing that the next one is four years away. Consider this my therapy.

I have nothing to say about the final really. Spain were the superior side, though I found that both teams wasted the chances you normally see sides of their caliber capitalize on. In that sense it wasn’t the greatest final game we’ve ever seen, though it beats every one that’s ended in an atrocity of penalty kicks. The Netherlands were particularly thuggish and so lost whatever sympathy they may have acquired as a dark horse; I’m not sure anyone but the Dutch were in tears after that loss.

I must admit that the World Cup loses some of its sheen for me after the group stages. Nobody thinks any of the small fish are going to win the World Cup (it requires too many victories in a row over superior teams, and eventually the superior team wins the day.) But the group stages are where the most improbable upsets are likely to happen, such as Switzerland defeating Spain (or even the draw that a gutsy South Africa side pulled off against Mexico to kick off their wonderful tournament.) The end result of this tournament teaches you that such upsets usually don’t mean as much as they seem to at the time (fantasies of glory for the winning side, predictions of ultimate defeat and failure for the no-less superior losing side.) But because most teams enter the tournament knowing they will never come close to touching the trophy, they savor their chances for success at the group stage, and hope for an easy route that might take them deep into the elimination rounds. As the rounds progress, these possibilities for glory and success begin to be foreclosed upon, and the remaining teams are whittled down to a core of favorites who dominate nearly every tournament. At that point most of us find ourselves rooting for good soccer, or perhaps a team we moderately favor, but with none of the passion and fervor for which we rooted for our own nations. For these reasons the group stage remains my favorite part of the tournament, even when my home side does well and progresses to the second round or beyond.

Speaking of my home side, I think it’s safe to say that soccer experienced an immeasurable boost as a result of the dramatic performances of team USA. Clearly, more Americans tuned into soccer than ever before. But it wasn’t just the numbers; it was the passion, and the intensity which is difficult to measure but seems to have been so clearly present this time around. Perhaps to some extent this has to do with our greater uses of social networking sites like Twitter (which broke after the US win over Algeria) and Facebook, which made it easier to amplify the passion of those following the game and so draw in other non-fans by making it seem like “something really big” was happening. And whatever else, Americans love drama, and they love a winner. Most people, even non-soccer fans, knew that the match against England was a big deal. And unexpected draw in that game, and a threatening US side that nearly took the lead at one point, made the game more exciting than what we might’ve seen in the past (a lucky goal followed by bunkering and prayers for victory.) The dramatic comeback draw/almost-win against Slovenia pumped us up even more, and the last minute heroics of Landon Donovan against Algeria released a frenzy of joy, even amongst the non-soccer fans who-thanks to the earlier performances-were definitely tuning in to see what this team could do. In that sense the loss to Ghana was a let down. Every game seemed to grab us even more intensely the one before, and I have no doubt that had the US made it past Ghana and (perhaps) past Uruguay to a semi-final, people who hadn’t yet watched a single game of the tournament would be tuning into watch. A team that plays creative, attacking soccer (and more importantly, wins) is going to get people’s attention no matter the sport.

Of course, the World Cup champion women’s team of ’99 captured our attention as well. A women’s league was founded on that success, and failed in only a matter of years. Is that the fate of this team’s success? Probably not, because the circumstances our different. The American team has established a tradition of winning (six World Cup appearances in a row) and has a tendency to surprise people with their talent and fortitude on an occasional (but regular) basis. Professional soccer is well-established in this country via MLS, which has only attracted ever more people and fielded more teams over the last fifteen years.  But there’s something hard to quantify about this team’s potential. I think Bill Simmons gets to the heart of it in this column, the best I’ve read on the World Cup this go around:

The U.S. soccer team could own that “everyone” domain for the simple reason that it’s unattainable for anyone else. We always want our national soccer team to succeed; it would be un-American to feel differently. There’s continuity through the years when certain players (such as Donovan, Howard and 2010 breakout star Michael Bradley, locks to make the 2014 World Cup) stick around for a prolonged time. There’s always a finish line (the Cup every four years), with dozens of exhibitions, smaller tournaments and World Cup qualifying strewn in between. If you want, you can extend your attachment by following American stars on their club squads. Add everything up and it feels like following the Lakers, Red Sox, Niners or whomever.

A cynic might say, “Come on, you could have said the same thing when we beat Colombia in 1994.” No way. You need time with these things. Decades. You need kids like me to grow up with soccer in their lives. You need a few memories to stack up. You need it to happen organically. The theory that soccer would never catch on until we found our own Pelé or launched our own successful pro league was dead wrong. We only needed to be exposed to great soccer for a prolonged period of time. We’re American. We only respond to the best. The cream of the crop. Nothing else is going to fly.

We don’t care that much about Donovan playing for the L.A. Galaxy with guys who couldn’t sniff the Premier League, just like English people wouldn’t care about seeing Dwyane Wade playing with a bunch of D-Leaguers in London. We want to see Donovan tested against the best. In the months leading up to the 2010 World Cup, I watched Donovan play big games for our national team, for the Galaxy (in the playoffs), then overseas for a solid Everton team. I knew he was a world-class player. I knew he was legitimate. I wasn’t stealing that opinion from a magazine or a talking head. The hours I logged with Donovan made me feel invested in him.

[...]

I would never compare Donovan’s goal to Mike Eruzione’s goal, or compare the significance of an early-round World Cup game to the best American sports night ever. But you can’t tell me Donovan’s goal was a fleeting moment or a lark. Each celebration clip that landed on YouTube could have been any American bar, any group of American friends, anywhere. Like John Cougar Mellencamp’s annoying Chevy commercial sprung to life. Only it wasn’t annoying. I thought it was glorious. Those clips choked me up. Those clips gave me goosebumps. Those clips made me think, “I forget this sometimes, but I’m glad I live in the United States of America.”

Rasheed Wallace loved to say “ball don’t lie.” YouTube don’t lie, either. We will always have the Algeria game. Always.

Now, can they keep people around for another four years? Well, they’re doing their best. Big European clubs are now regularly visiting the States in their quiet summers, MLS continues to expand and the fans continue to come out (Seattle’s fans are, in my opinion, a shining example of what’s possible in this country.) The US will play Brazil next month, and so begin the long process of grooming a squad for 2014. Who knows…maybe they’ll shock Brazil, as they nearly did last year? To be successful soccer doesn’t need to be the most popular sport in the country. This is a big country, full of people who love sports and, more importantly, love winners.
Who knows what the next four years will see?

So those are my closing thoughts on the 2010 World Cup. I can’t wait for 2014 to get here.

FIFA drew the groups for next year’s World Cup today, and the United States caught a stroke of luck in avoiding not only a “group of death” but also in getting matches against two of the weaker opponents in the field. The United States will open against England on June 12th, face Slovenia on June 18th, and finish against Algeria on June 23rd. In my humble opinion England is one of the seeded teams most vulnerable to getting picked off by a decent side, Slovenia qualified only thanks to a playoff win against Russia, and Algeria is regarded as the weakest of the five African teams to qualify (other than S. Africa, the host.) So the likely result is a win against Algeria, a win against Slovenia, and a loss against England. But it’s not outside the realm of reason to imagine the U.S. getting a draw or a win against England. Of course, neither is it outside the range of possibility for the U.S. to draw or lose against either Algeria or Slovenia given some of their past World Cup performances. But I remain optimistic that this team, which stunned the world in their Confederations Cup performance this past summer, can do well in this group and make it out of the first round and into the knockout stage (where they might even face a re-match against Germany out of Group D.) The United States must perform of course, and this is a team capable of wild inconsistency. But overall this is an excellent result for the United States, and bodes well for a most pleasurable World Cup appearance next summer.

UPDATE: Grant Wahl, with more on the USA’s good fortune.

UPDATE II: An article from the NY Times, and Nate Silver, whose new rankings system gives the United States a 19% to win the group, but a 48% of advancing.

1. Nicholas Kristof, on how Republican have been scare-mongering Americans into voting against their own interests for eighty years now. History has proven them wrong, every single time.

2. Perhaps you heard about the “Hand of Frog” that secured France a berth in the World Cup over poor Ireland. Ireland’s petition to FIFA for a replay has been denied, proving that FIFA is an organization mired in the past, both rejecting modern instant replay technology and favoring the world’s powerhouses (particularly the Western ones) over the rest of the world.

3. No one sitting on death row in Texas can expect any sort of clemency from Gov. Perry right now…the man has a primary to win!

4. Short-term lenders in Texas are getting what they pay for with their campaign contributions: zero regulation. As I have said before and will say again, our democracy will forever be corrupted by money until the Supreme Court wises up and decides that money is not the exact equivalent of speech, or political campaigns become publicly funded.

…against my better judgment. But still, this NY Times article about Elizabeth Lambert, a soccer player for the University of New Mexico, bothers me for several reasons. I ran across the YouTube video of Lambert’s extremely aggressive (that is, downright dirty) play in a game against Brigham Young via the various soccer blogs I like to follow. The only thought I had watching it was that she seemed like an extraordinarily aggressive player, who probably should have been tossed out of the game at some point. The play of one female college soccer player hardly seems to merit news coverage, so I was a bit surprised to see a major paper address this issue. But it appears the YouTube video garnered Lambert some mostly unwarranted and completely unnecessary coverage and criticism:

Lambert said she was shaken and appalled by some of the responses she received in e-mail messages, telephone messages and on blogs, which included the publishing of her parents’ home phone number in Southern California and one suggestion that “I should be taken to a state prison, raped and left for dead in a ditch.”

What on Earth? I don’t really feel why anybody thinks it’s necessary to dig up the e-mail address of a female college soccer player so they can send her a nasty message about the highlights of her play in one particular game, or why anyone would publish her private information so anonymous idiots can call and leave hateful and threatening messages. Lambert herself thinks she knows why the incident has garnered so much attention:

“I definitely feel because I am a female it did bring about a lot more attention than if a male were to do it,” Lambert said. “It’s more expected for men to go out there and be rough. The female, we’re still looked at as, Oh, we kick the ball around and score a goal. But it’s not. We train very hard to reach the highest level we can get to. The physical aspect has maybe increased over the years. I’m not saying it’s for the bad or it’s been too overly aggressive. It’s a game. Sports are physical.”

[...]

She said she was taken aback at how the incident had been perceived by some as sexy catfighting between two women. She said she was aghast that some men had sent her messages saying, “Hey, we should meet up some time.”

“That appalled me,” Lambert said. “A lot of people think I have a lot of sexual aggression. I was like, ‘Whoa, no, I don’t feel that way at all.’ That’s bizarre and shocking to me.”

I’d like to think she’s wrong, but I doubt it. As a frequent purveyor of soccer blogs and forums, I’ve come across some pretty appalling sexism that the poster felt no need to make anonymously (so confident was he of the rightness of his sexism and misogyny.) Male soccer fans can be dismissive of the female game, droning on and on about the lack of skill, speed, or athleticism (none of which is entirely true.) I’m sure some men saw that video and considered it proof as to why women’s soccer shouldn’t be accorded any respect. (I’m sure she has also been harassed by women as well, but I’m unqualified to speak as to what would motivate a woman to criticize another woman’s aggressive soccer play other than from a soccer perspective.)

I’m also bothered by the apparent “re-education” Lambert must apparently endure to win her way back on the team:

She is seeing a clinical psychologist on campus to better understand what caused the hair-pulling incident. It is one of several steps she is taking, along with speaking to youth players about acceptable behavior, so she can seek reinstatement to the team in the spring.

A clinical psychologist? Really?? If Lambert is to be believed, she was experiencing a frustrating game, and both teams were allowed to get out of control by an overly lenient ref (she is indeed elbowed in the stomach prior to punching a player in the back.) That sounds like a situation that’s ripe for a player to go off. I understand that we live in an age where people have to make public (if utterly shallow) amends for their bad behavior (especially if it winds up on blogs or YouTube) but I find myself wondering whether a male soccer player would be expected to see a psychologist. I’m sure there are more than a handful of punches thrown in men’s NCAA soccer every year, and I would be surprised to learn that even a single one of those instigators was expected to see a clinical psychologist even if that game were captured on ESPN like the New Mexico-BYU game. I can only speculate but it seems to me that Lambert has to publicly debase herself precisely because she got away with enough bad behavior to fill a YouTube video, and because she’s a woman and women just don’t play that way. Had she been red-carded after her overly aggressive tackle from behind at one point earlier in the game as she should’ve been, none of this would be a story.