Should America emulate Australia in football?

And famous Belgian footballers: Paul van Himst Jef Jurion Wilfried van Moer Enzo Scifo Michel Preud'Homme Franky van der Elst Jan Ceulemans

Michael, I don't think you're giving the British enough credit for the way they spread their games around the world. The essential difference between the British and Americans is that the Brits exported the GAME itself, whereas the Americans want to import fans for their games. The British said "Here's the game. Learn to play it and then we'll take you on." The Americans say "Come and watch us, buy our caps and sweaters and you too can be a Dodger fan. You sure ain't gonna BE a Dodger, or at least not in your own town" The pinnacle of cricket, rugby and even soccer (although in the latter case it is under threat) is international competition. In American sports, the pinnacle is the domestic American championship, whatever euphemistic name they want to give to it. The Americans simply don't WANT the rest of the world to play their games and they certainly don't want them to become so proficient that they may even be beaten at their own games. They're quite happy to let the rest of the world pay homage to their own closed system, but that's a different matter. The "Stalinist" nature of this closed economy derives from that simple fact. i came to this conclusion following a brief period in my life some years ago when I took an interest in American football. To the extent that I went to watch the "World League of American Football" in which the "London Monarchs" competed. The final match between the Monarchs and the Barcelona Dragons (in which I think about two players from the combined rosters of both teams were not from the US) was a piece of American exotica dropped in London for the day. Everything, from the cheerleaders to the stadium announcers to the snacks on sale were just as you would imagine it to be in Candestick Park or Shea Stadium or whatever they are called now. In soccer rugby and cricket the teams from around the world express thier own identity through the game. They each have their own distinct culture and usually their own style of play. The French at their best play champagne rugby, the All Blacks have mana and the haka and the fierce pride in being an All Black. The Sprinboks bring physical domination to heights few can match. In soccer, the Germans are ruthlessly efficient, the Italians sublimely skilful if Machevellian in their insecurity and caution and the South Americans are exuberant, particularly the Brazilians and Argentinians. As for your British Empire point: in the soccer World Cup there is a Big Four of dominant teams, namely Argentina, Brazil, Germany and Italy. Every single World Cup Final match since 1930 has involved one of those teams. Five of the last seven, have been between two of them. (1982 Italy Germany 1986 & 1990 Germany Argentina 1994 Brazil Italy 2002 Brazil Germany) The only interloper in 1998 and 2006 has been France. None of those countries has ever been in the British Empire. PS All those trying to name 10 famous Belgians: No mention of Eddie Merkkx who dominated the Tour de France in the 1970s? You're showing your ages. Also there were a few painters from the Flemish school who were quite famous Belgians Rubens and Van Dyck being the most prominent. And surely some of you have heard of the song writer Jacques Brel? If not, do yourselves a favour. He's marvellous.

Dublin Dave - re you review of US and Aust sporting models - it's interesting - because, for example - the 'franchise' element is most obvious in modern (last 25 years) day 'expansion' scenarios of leagues that A. grew organically and B. were made up of clubs the grew organically. The AFL and NRL especially come to mind. The 'Stalinist' structures such as drafts is only seen in the AFL and Salary caps are pretty common (whether by that name or another). Noting that the NRL and AFL have 2 very different player transfer methodologies and the AFL trade week is derided - but, compared to the old open slather, is regarded as a lesser evil. However, in a professional environment - could easily be challenged in court as restraint of trade. The HAL is an almost total 'modern franchise' creation, and certainly the Super Rugby is franchise based in a sense - but, whilst we have one 'franchise', one state - - it then has perhaps more in common with the US models than any of the other sports. The NBL needs to restructure, netball has and has gone down a path similar to the Rugby Supers with one franchise per state. The key to the US model is the number of states and big cities available. It allows a greater distribution of teams/franchises. Australia doesn't have that luxury. It'd be great if the AFL and NRL could have 16 or 18 teams spread across that many major cities/states. Which is why we have leagues that MUST pick and choose elements of sports management from around the world or invent their own. It's not necessarily a bad thing. And not so 'insular' as you portray. Reality is that in Australia especially - there's no sport with the 'market freedom' that soccer enjoys in Europe. It's a pretty unfair comparison. btw - the sports of the British empire spread with the Empire. Simple. The US didn't run a military empire in that same manner - - however, they ran a more covert economic empire!!

Jurt - Jacques Rogge is Belgian, he is head of IOC and also played rugby for Belgium. Dont know too many other Belgians though As for basbeballers - Sammy Sosa, Mark McGuire, Barry Bonds, Derek Jeter, Ty Cobb, Jackie Robinson, Babe Ruth, Deon Sanders - thats off the top of my head, would be able to name more than 10 NFL players with ease.

The website www.famousbelgians.net. (yes there is such a site!) lists Audrey Hepburn at no. 4 on their all time list of famous Belgians. But according to Wikipedia although born in Brussels her Mother was Dutch and father British and she grew up in Holland, so I think that's cheating.

Yes Joe Dimaggio not Mickey Mantle, though I think Mickey Mantle was also a baseballer, yes Barry Bonds, I've heard of him & I always thought Lou Gerhig was an AFL player. As for Enzo Scifo, anyone who remembers the 86 World cup (Maradona's wc) would remember Scifo helped Belgium to the semis that year. Tom Boonen, if you follow the Tour De France was always one of Robbie McEwen's main rivals for the Green sprinter jersey. And Bosman was only famous for the Bosman ruling, as a player he was very average.

Robbos - of course, Kim Clisters and Justin Henin! I knew there were a couple of other Belgians I should know. I must admit I haven't heard of the others (although have heard of the 'Bosman ruling'). As for baseballers are you sure Micky Mantle was married to Marilyn Monroe? I thought it was Joe Dimaggio (you know, from the song 'Here's to you Mrs Robinson or whatever it's called). I can also think of Lou Gerhig because he has a disease named after him, Bary Bonds who took all those steroids, Jackie Robinson who was the first African American to play major league baseball and Shoeless Joe Jackson - but only because of the film 'Field of Dreams'.

Baseballers Babe Ruth Mickey Mantle the Mr Marilyn Monroe Was OJ Simpson a Baseball player? There is the Aussie, Nielsen i think. Belgians Kim Clisters Justin Henin Tom Boonen (Tour de France sprint cyclist) Enzo Scifo Footballer Jean Marc Bosman famous for all free transfers are now called a Bosman struggling

Tintin Hercule Poirot Um... You're right, it is pretty tough. Are there ten famous Belgians? Can anyone think of any others?

David V Can you name 10 famous baseball players? The average European could do so with the same ease that the average American could name 10 famous Belgians. It's a minority sport around the world. Centred in the US. International competition is not the focus: the major domestic leagues in the US are. And as for the Olympics: it's in the realm of Greco-Roman wrestling in terms of popular impact rather than athletics. Most people could tell you that Usain Bolt won the 100m. Who won the Greco Roman wrestling gold medal?

Dublin Dave: baseball is a sport with a fairly broad global appeal- countries like Cuba, Venezuela, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico all play it, Australia were silver medalists in Athens, etc.

So what could the USA learn from Australia after that Confederations Cup campaign? Not a lot, I would reckon. It seems to me from my distant perch that organisation of sport in the US and Australia is quite similar. For two countries that supposedly place great store on the concept of rugged individualism, their sports are organised on Stalinist command-economy principles. This is not to say that failure to perform is punished by a trip to the gulags, (though who knows?) but rather that the centrally planned model of franchises and drafts prevails where the central authorities decide what team will play where and even for whom each player will play. Like all socialist models, this is very good at distributing riches that have already been created; it is not very good at creating riches in the first place. The franchise model is very poor, in practice, at evangelising a sport to a new audience. The European model, in soccer and rugby at any rate, where teams have grown up organically through years of tradition and where players are free, in the final analysis, to play for whomever they choose among those teams that want them, allows for a more fluid and meritocratic allocation of resources to places where they will be best used. It's Adam Smith versus Karl Marx. Just compare the way British coded sports have spread around the world with the insular nature of American sport. There is no comparison. Soccer, Rugby and Cricket all have genuine world cup competitions. You cannot say the same for baseball or gridiron, no matter how much you spin it. The only American sport that is truly international is basketball, and this is so for the same reason that America is now a world power in soccer. And it IS a world power in soccer. It is consistently in the top 30 of FIFA rankings and has got to the last eight in two of the last four world cups. I know the FIFA rankings can be misleading; but they're not totally inaccurate. America deserves its ranking as a top 30 team. Soccer has grown in popularity in the USA despite almost complete lack of interest or even hostility from the incumbent sporting media because it has big numbers of players. This is helped by the simple nature of soccer, and the fact that it is so easy to organise. Basketball has mushroomed around the world for the same reason. There is no shortage of kids there wanting to play. And in terms of tradition, there are many communities in America who are only a generation or two away from countries where soccer is a passion. From what I can see, most of the American team are either Latin American or Irish in origin. The combination of Micks and Spics is doing them proud! Apart from the players, the true heroes of American soccer are the Sawcer Moms, those parents who organise the clubs and leagues and get their kids away from the play station and on to the sports field, if only to delay the onset of that most recognisable of physical characteristiscs: the Great American Cheeseburger Arse. And that ultimately is the bedrock requirement for the growth of any sport. Player numbers. Those that can play, will continue to do so. Those that can't but loved the effort of trying to learn will become the most fanatical of watchers and team supporters. Whatever your sport, that's all you need to learn.

Cheers Vicentin - good read. As much as I love reading about football tactics, the thing I loved most about this article was the clear hint that commentators and pundits get far, far too wound up about giving a name to a particular formation/game plan - when, in truth, the modern game has moved miles away from that possibility (such that descriptors can only be applied in the broadest terms). The argument about whether Brazil was or wasn't playing 4231, or whether it played with a diamond, honestly - it's hilarious!! Our first reaction to hearing that Brazil might be playing around with 4231 might shock and horror!! But the truth is, as a general concept, a 4231 formation can be as attacking or as defensive as you want it to be. The writer himself describes an advanced play making role for the 2nd holding mid, and clearly if each of Kaka and Robinho advance, then yes - you have a classic diamond formation with two centre-forwards - there's nothing magical happening here!! Then commentators get hung about whether Dunga is playing a true diamond or not - as if they expect to see it in evidence at all times - which is a nonsense!! Show me that sort of static formation in the modern game and I'll show you a team that is losing games!! In conclusion, there are as many variations of 4231 as there are square metres on the football pitch - little wonder the modern football coach uses it as his starting point. Who on Earth is going to start an international game at the highest level with two dedicated strikers? Only those with a death wish - forget about it folks - those days are gone forever!!

Thanks for posting Vicentin.

I agree, a spain brazil game would have been great. Maybe next year eh =)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/jun/24/the-question-brazil-4-2-3-1 done.

...oops, sorry, France did it in 1998 - oh well, let me rephrase that - for the first time since 1974, we will get a team in the WC final that has never ever finished top 3 before!!

Hey Vicentin - how about putting up the link here for starters!! On that other blog on the US, I caught one comment that caught my eye, about Europe never winning outside of their continent (certainly true as far as the WC goes, and probably manifests itself in other comps as well). This reminds of something I've said many times before: the first Asian WC produced an unusual top 4 (along with a few unique faces in the quarters as well). My guess is that the even more unfamiliar African surrounds will produce an even more unusual top 8. Expect at least one African country in the semis. Expect at least on other smokey pushing their way into the top 4. For the first time since 1974, we will probably get a WC final that involves one team that has never ever won been in it before (that's an amazing stat isn't it???)

whiskey - yes, have read the 4-2-3-1 article and have shared it around a few of my coaching buddies - I've been meaning to re-watch the match when I get a chance in light of Mr Wilson's observations. It was poor showing by Italy on all fronts though - poor personnel choices, inappropriate formation etc. I have to say I was disappointed that Spain lost the other day purely because I thought a game against Brazil would have been utterly fascinating - they don't seem to play each other too often in general and at the moment I'd say they're the best two in the world. It's a shame, but there's always more good football around the corner. cheers

Aye Vicentin: a good rule would be who would you bet on to win if they played home and away series - you'd think most pundits would stump up for Spain and those that went the underdog did so because of the chance of an upset (the words 'underdogs' and 'upset' revealling they are the weaker team!) or blind patriotism (which of course the US and maybe Australia could never be accused of ). as an aside, and knowing you read the gusrdian the brazil 4-2-3-1 article was worht reading too....