There is a certain irony about individual events at the Olympics. On the one hand, each event is about the individual glory of the participant, on the other, if they win a medal, they boost their nation up the ever-important medal count rankings and they get lumped in with the rest of the winners. Some nations send so few athletes and win so few medals that national glory IS individual glory. For countries like the United States, Russia and China participants in events like “50 meter rifle prone” (Congratulations, Matthew Emmons!) tend to get lost in shadow of the more popular sports (Basketball, Track, Gymnastics) or more media-friendly events like swimming and its figurehead Michael Phelps.
While major tennis events are reasonably well viewed in the US, Olympic tennis matches are usually passed over for shorter, more exciting events like the 200 m Butterfly or 10 m platform diving. So, maybe it’s ok that Andy Roddick won’t be competing for the US in Beijing this summer. Most Americans couldn’t even name the members of our Olympic tennis squad anyway, but then again, how many could name the winner of the Legg Mason Tennis Classic. For that matter, how many Americans knew there was a tournament called the Legg Mason Classic? But its not about the glory for Andy Roddick, its about his goals.
According to a statement released by the tournament organizers and picked up by ESPN Roddick says “My goal every summer is to win the U.S. Open…I have won the Legg Mason Tennis Classic three times and feel defending my title in Washington best prepares me for another Grand Slam title." Never mind that Roddick won the tournament in 2001, 2005 and 2007, and won the US Open exactly none of those years, never even advancing past the quarterfinals. It just doesn’t seem like the Legg Mason is the best preparation, if success there doesn’t translate into success at the US Open. The competition there just isn’t on par with the level at the US Open. This comes as no surprise, the US Open is tennis’ final major of the year, and the Legg Mason Tennis Classic, while an important tournament, is not. If Roddick really wanted to gage his competition on the eve of his most important tournament of the year, he should be playing against world-class competition, the kind he would face at the Olympics.
In the end, Roddick’s decision is his own, forcing him to play would be an act of totalitarianism and would certainly tarnish not only any accomplishment he might have, but also the entire US presence at the games. Andy Roddick is a free agent and he has chosen to play in DC rather than Beijing. That said, his choice to pursue his own interests over the chance to win gold for his country is puzzling. Perhaps he has no special love for the US, perhaps he is very susceptible to jet lag and is worried he won’t be back on Eastern Time when the Open begins. There is any number of reasons that Roddick could have trotted out, but he chose the one that makes the least sense: by playing in a second-rate tournament, he has a better chance of winning a first rate-one.
As noted in the article, Roddick did play at the 2004 games, and entered as the second seed, highest of the four Americans who qualified. He finished third amongst the four and told the media that he took the loss to heart. Roddick’s candor is refreshing in a world of platitudes, but it also gives reason to believe that his absence in 2008 might have something to do with being disappointed and embarrassed after the 2004 games. Whatever his reason, it certainly makes one wonder why most of the world sends their absolute best, but Andy Roddick won’t show.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Nationalism in the 1999 Women's World Cup
Since 1993, the US has played host to a number of high profile international events. The Olympics came to Atlanta, GA in the summer of 1994, while Salt Lake City played host to the 2002 Winter Games. In between those two were two World Cups: the men’s cup, won by Brazil on PKs, while the Americans won the women’s cup on home soil in 1999. The win by the US women’s soccer team did not vault soccer into the center of the national spotlight, but it did attract more attention than the game had received for either the Men’s or Women’s national team. Part of the reason for this was the way the women played, and how they won their dramatic final victory.
Prevailing opinion in the US held soccer as the most boring game one could possibly watch, and worst of all the game might well end in a tie without a real result. One writer quipped that they goal of Men’s soccer was to take a 1-0 lead, then stack 11 men in the box. Contrary to this view, the women scored 13 goals in their 3 group games, including a 7-1 thrashing of Nigeria. The team drew reasonably well wherever they played, but matches that did not feature the home team showed American apathy to the sport all too clearly. On July 4, 1999 the US squad faced Brazil in the Semifinals at Stanford Stadium in Palo Alto, CA. Had this match been in France on Bastille Day, or any European nation on a day of national celebration for that matter, the game would have been sold out and the fans raucous with national pride. The American fans did their best, but there were still seats left in the stands; on the other side of the country less than 9000 people paid to see China dispatch Norway. Foxboro was at less than 1/6 of its full capacity.
As proof that America loves winners, especially if the opponent is an ideological foe as well, the final between the US and China was the best-attended women’s event in history. The capacity crowd at the Rose Bowl got their money’s worth, as the game remained tied all the way into sudden death. PKs would decide the winner. The TV audience grew steadily throughout the game finally reaching nearly 40 million viewers according at ABC’s reports after the fact. The sport Americans love to hate had drawn more viewers than the Stanley Cup Finals, and about the same as the NBA finals. By the time Brandi Chastain famously ripped off her shirt after scoring the winning PK, more Americans were watching the event than had ever watched soccer before.
No one, least of all me, will deny the excitement of that game. I was among those perched on my couch watching excitedly as the US kickers continued to baffle the Chinese keeper. The question is: what brought the 40 million others to their TVs. Was it the excitement of sudden death? Was it the undeniable appeal of 1-1 PKs to decide who was the best team in the world? Or was it something that transcended the sport at all?
The men’s national team had finished dead last at the Men’s cup in France the previous summer. Drawing a dedicated, but comparatively tiny, fan base to France and a small share of fans watching at home. Men’s games outdraw women’s in every sport, it is the sad truth. Why, then, did the women’s squad do so much better with the fans than the men? The answer lies in a force that Americans rarely talk about outside of “Things that are wrong about Europe”
Nationalism. The success of the women’s team on home soil elicited a response in the average fan that intra-national games simply cannot. It is the same reason Americans get up in arms about the US’ loss to the USSR in the 1972 Olympic finals, fans set aside their distaste for the sport or for individuals to cheer on the team and by extension, the nation. As the tournament ran its course, it became clear that this team, unlike their male counterparts, was deserving of national support. Paired against an ideological rival in Communist China, nationalist passions were inflamed even more.
Sadly, with 3 years between the women’s triumph and the next World Cup, the passions didn’t stay. Nationalism is not a force one can just start and let go, it must be fostered, and there is little in US culture designed to accomplish such a task. The Men did well to reach the quarterfinals, but partially due to US apathy and partially due to the time difference between the home fans and the matches in Korea, their accomplishment went largely unnoticed. The women hosted the Cup again in 2003, but fell in the semifinals to a powerhouse German squad that went on to defeat Sweden for the Championship.
The 1999 Women’s soccer team picked up where the 1992 Olympic Dream Team left off. They ignited US nationalist passion for just a while, and like the Dream Team, they did much to advance their sport. It took a few years, but the 2006 Men’s World Cup showed demonstrably more support from US fans than would be expected. The growth of younger players like Freddy Adu or Lori Chalupny will largely determine whether or not soccer’s popularity will continue to grow or if it will wane, but one thing the 1999 team taught us is that the fans will come if they’ve got a team to cheer for. What separates the American fans from their European counterparts is this: US fans will come if they feel the team deserves them, European fans will come and cheer no matter what.
Prevailing opinion in the US held soccer as the most boring game one could possibly watch, and worst of all the game might well end in a tie without a real result. One writer quipped that they goal of Men’s soccer was to take a 1-0 lead, then stack 11 men in the box. Contrary to this view, the women scored 13 goals in their 3 group games, including a 7-1 thrashing of Nigeria. The team drew reasonably well wherever they played, but matches that did not feature the home team showed American apathy to the sport all too clearly. On July 4, 1999 the US squad faced Brazil in the Semifinals at Stanford Stadium in Palo Alto, CA. Had this match been in France on Bastille Day, or any European nation on a day of national celebration for that matter, the game would have been sold out and the fans raucous with national pride. The American fans did their best, but there were still seats left in the stands; on the other side of the country less than 9000 people paid to see China dispatch Norway. Foxboro was at less than 1/6 of its full capacity.
As proof that America loves winners, especially if the opponent is an ideological foe as well, the final between the US and China was the best-attended women’s event in history. The capacity crowd at the Rose Bowl got their money’s worth, as the game remained tied all the way into sudden death. PKs would decide the winner. The TV audience grew steadily throughout the game finally reaching nearly 40 million viewers according at ABC’s reports after the fact. The sport Americans love to hate had drawn more viewers than the Stanley Cup Finals, and about the same as the NBA finals. By the time Brandi Chastain famously ripped off her shirt after scoring the winning PK, more Americans were watching the event than had ever watched soccer before.
No one, least of all me, will deny the excitement of that game. I was among those perched on my couch watching excitedly as the US kickers continued to baffle the Chinese keeper. The question is: what brought the 40 million others to their TVs. Was it the excitement of sudden death? Was it the undeniable appeal of 1-1 PKs to decide who was the best team in the world? Or was it something that transcended the sport at all?
The men’s national team had finished dead last at the Men’s cup in France the previous summer. Drawing a dedicated, but comparatively tiny, fan base to France and a small share of fans watching at home. Men’s games outdraw women’s in every sport, it is the sad truth. Why, then, did the women’s squad do so much better with the fans than the men? The answer lies in a force that Americans rarely talk about outside of “Things that are wrong about Europe”
Nationalism. The success of the women’s team on home soil elicited a response in the average fan that intra-national games simply cannot. It is the same reason Americans get up in arms about the US’ loss to the USSR in the 1972 Olympic finals, fans set aside their distaste for the sport or for individuals to cheer on the team and by extension, the nation. As the tournament ran its course, it became clear that this team, unlike their male counterparts, was deserving of national support. Paired against an ideological rival in Communist China, nationalist passions were inflamed even more.
Sadly, with 3 years between the women’s triumph and the next World Cup, the passions didn’t stay. Nationalism is not a force one can just start and let go, it must be fostered, and there is little in US culture designed to accomplish such a task. The Men did well to reach the quarterfinals, but partially due to US apathy and partially due to the time difference between the home fans and the matches in Korea, their accomplishment went largely unnoticed. The women hosted the Cup again in 2003, but fell in the semifinals to a powerhouse German squad that went on to defeat Sweden for the Championship.
The 1999 Women’s soccer team picked up where the 1992 Olympic Dream Team left off. They ignited US nationalist passion for just a while, and like the Dream Team, they did much to advance their sport. It took a few years, but the 2006 Men’s World Cup showed demonstrably more support from US fans than would be expected. The growth of younger players like Freddy Adu or Lori Chalupny will largely determine whether or not soccer’s popularity will continue to grow or if it will wane, but one thing the 1999 team taught us is that the fans will come if they’ve got a team to cheer for. What separates the American fans from their European counterparts is this: US fans will come if they feel the team deserves them, European fans will come and cheer no matter what.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Our Teams, Ourselves
“Gareth Southgate, the Whole of England is with you!”*
“DO YOU BELIEVE IN MIRACLES? YES!!”
“Puckett swings and hits a blast! Deep left center! Way back! Way back! IT'S GONE!!! The Twins go to the seventh game! Touch 'em all Kirby Puckett! Touch 'em all Kirby Puckett! And the Twins have won this game 4-3 on a dramatic home run by Kirby Puckett!”
*Note: The 1996 European Championship, played on home soil in England, found the Hosts in the Semi-finals against Germany. The game saw England score very early, but the Germans would tie shortly thereafter and the game went to penalty kicks. Gareth Southgate was England’s 6th man to kick, but was called into duty. The Germans had made all 6 of their PKs when Southgate lined up his kick. British radio announcer Jonathan Pearce famously called out “Gareth Southgate, the Whole of England is with you!” just before Southgates shot was saved by the German keeper, relegating England to yet another disappointing exit.
Close your eyes and you can see it: Gareth Southgate’s missed PK in the 1996 European Championship. Gloves, helmets, sticks all thrown into the air as the final seconds ticked off the clock in The Miracle on Ice. Kirby Puckett’s fist in the air as he rounded second base, on his way to the plate, carrying the Twins on his back. Each of these plays, like countless others, conjures up powerful emotions, even years later. Pride for your team, elation at an unexpected outcome, shock, relief, joy, sorrow, pain, disappointment.
Sports can engender a wide range of emotions, and sometimes all it takes is a word or two. Take a Florida State football fan, whisper “Wide right” in their ear and watch as their head falls into their hands. Every team has their glories and their deep sorrows. Players and coaches come and go, the composition of the team changes, so why keep track of the epic failures as well as the divine joys of the team? Simply answered, it is because, while the team may change, one thing stays the same: The Fans.
For the lifelong fans of one team or another, much of their own history is tied into the team’s history. The team’s success yield, on some level, personal satisfaction; the team’s failures, too, can be internalized. Yet the fan has little to no agency in this unholy bargain. As fans, we cannot choose to go for it on 4th down, to bring in the lefty, to pull the goalie for an extra skater, or to go into a zone, hoping to get inside the opposing point-guard’s head. Frustrations abound when managers and coaches go against what seems to the fans to be the clear solution, especially when games seem to hang in the balance.
Countless words in print, on air, and online skewered Grady Little for leaving Pedro Martinez in for too long in the final game of the 2003 ALCS; Little’s contract was not renewed that offseason, and many armchair fans spent the winter wondering what might have been, if only THEY had been out there with Pedro. In the end, it is an exercise in futility. Little paid the price for his mistake and the fans were no closer to the World Series for their trouble.
Why, then, do we willing submit to this arrangement? More than even that, why do we pay for the privilege to suffer? Like a junkie looking for a hit, come game time, true die-hard fans will be found in the stands, at their local bar, or wherever they follow the games, no matter how many times they swear the team off. Is it the promise of a bright future? Ask a Pirates, Twins, Royals, or Rays fan how well that works and then settle in, since, chances are, you’re in for a long rant. Is it, as many scholars have suggested, an outlet for nationalistic or even Nietzschean urges towards domination? If so, why do teams like the Buffalo Bills ever sell a single ticket? I love being a Twins fan; I’ve been one for my entire life, but I still couldn’t tell you why. Couldn’t tell you why I actually care about Liriano’s elbow, or Mauer’s knee. Couldn’t tell you why it scares me that Ron Gardenhire doesn’t care about OBP in young players. But do I care, and it does scare me.
This hasn’t just been an exercise in the rhetorical; I really do want to know what is it to you? Are you a fan of baseball because you get bored easily during the spring and summer? Do you consider yourself a fan at all, or are you just here for the hot dogs and the fireworks when the team wins? If you have, as I have, simply grown up in a fan culture, do you wish your parents had been great fans of Pucini instead? Sports have to fill some void, or they wouldn't have lasted this long, the question is what void they fill.
“DO YOU BELIEVE IN MIRACLES? YES!!”
“Puckett swings and hits a blast! Deep left center! Way back! Way back! IT'S GONE!!! The Twins go to the seventh game! Touch 'em all Kirby Puckett! Touch 'em all Kirby Puckett! And the Twins have won this game 4-3 on a dramatic home run by Kirby Puckett!”
*Note: The 1996 European Championship, played on home soil in England, found the Hosts in the Semi-finals against Germany. The game saw England score very early, but the Germans would tie shortly thereafter and the game went to penalty kicks. Gareth Southgate was England’s 6th man to kick, but was called into duty. The Germans had made all 6 of their PKs when Southgate lined up his kick. British radio announcer Jonathan Pearce famously called out “Gareth Southgate, the Whole of England is with you!” just before Southgates shot was saved by the German keeper, relegating England to yet another disappointing exit.
Close your eyes and you can see it: Gareth Southgate’s missed PK in the 1996 European Championship. Gloves, helmets, sticks all thrown into the air as the final seconds ticked off the clock in The Miracle on Ice. Kirby Puckett’s fist in the air as he rounded second base, on his way to the plate, carrying the Twins on his back. Each of these plays, like countless others, conjures up powerful emotions, even years later. Pride for your team, elation at an unexpected outcome, shock, relief, joy, sorrow, pain, disappointment.
Sports can engender a wide range of emotions, and sometimes all it takes is a word or two. Take a Florida State football fan, whisper “Wide right” in their ear and watch as their head falls into their hands. Every team has their glories and their deep sorrows. Players and coaches come and go, the composition of the team changes, so why keep track of the epic failures as well as the divine joys of the team? Simply answered, it is because, while the team may change, one thing stays the same: The Fans.
For the lifelong fans of one team or another, much of their own history is tied into the team’s history. The team’s success yield, on some level, personal satisfaction; the team’s failures, too, can be internalized. Yet the fan has little to no agency in this unholy bargain. As fans, we cannot choose to go for it on 4th down, to bring in the lefty, to pull the goalie for an extra skater, or to go into a zone, hoping to get inside the opposing point-guard’s head. Frustrations abound when managers and coaches go against what seems to the fans to be the clear solution, especially when games seem to hang in the balance.
Countless words in print, on air, and online skewered Grady Little for leaving Pedro Martinez in for too long in the final game of the 2003 ALCS; Little’s contract was not renewed that offseason, and many armchair fans spent the winter wondering what might have been, if only THEY had been out there with Pedro. In the end, it is an exercise in futility. Little paid the price for his mistake and the fans were no closer to the World Series for their trouble.
Why, then, do we willing submit to this arrangement? More than even that, why do we pay for the privilege to suffer? Like a junkie looking for a hit, come game time, true die-hard fans will be found in the stands, at their local bar, or wherever they follow the games, no matter how many times they swear the team off. Is it the promise of a bright future? Ask a Pirates, Twins, Royals, or Rays fan how well that works and then settle in, since, chances are, you’re in for a long rant. Is it, as many scholars have suggested, an outlet for nationalistic or even Nietzschean urges towards domination? If so, why do teams like the Buffalo Bills ever sell a single ticket? I love being a Twins fan; I’ve been one for my entire life, but I still couldn’t tell you why. Couldn’t tell you why I actually care about Liriano’s elbow, or Mauer’s knee. Couldn’t tell you why it scares me that Ron Gardenhire doesn’t care about OBP in young players. But do I care, and it does scare me.
This hasn’t just been an exercise in the rhetorical; I really do want to know what is it to you? Are you a fan of baseball because you get bored easily during the spring and summer? Do you consider yourself a fan at all, or are you just here for the hot dogs and the fireworks when the team wins? If you have, as I have, simply grown up in a fan culture, do you wish your parents had been great fans of Pucini instead? Sports have to fill some void, or they wouldn't have lasted this long, the question is what void they fill.
Lou Brock Redux?
Pandora’s Box
(This blog originally appeared at BYTO on the day after the Johan Santana trade)
Today was a hard day to be a Twins fan, there’s no way to hide it. Trading Santana period was tough, but we had all steeled ourselves for that reality about midway through last season when he pronounced that he no longer wanted to be part of a team that didn’t seem committed to winning. What made it doubly galling was that after hearing the names of great young players tossed out for months on end, the Twins ended up with neither Phil Hughes nor Jon Lester. Neither Melky Cabrera nor Jacoby Ellsbury nor even Fernando Martinez. Ryan Kalish, Jed Lowrie, Mike Pelfry, and the rest of you can sleep soundly tonight; your friends can come help you stay put (Its easier than moving).
The coming days and weeks will show whether or not Hughes et. Al. was ever really available or if what happened at the winter meetings was a lot of saber rattling. Martinez at least seemed like a good place to start, and seemed within reach. It would be easy to say that Smith really overplayed his hand or that he got taken by an older and wiser GM in Minaya, but as Peter Gammons pointed out, Smith walked into an untenable situation and if the Yankees weren’t willing to deal Hughes after all, then the Red Sox had a much smaller incentive to make a deal, and Smith’s actual leverage is pretty much gone. Toss in reports that Johan and his agent, Peter Greenberg, were putting pressure on the team to get this done NOW and you can see the situation for it was. Smith was SOL from the moment he took that podium to accept the job as Twins GM.
Fans can be bitter about what happened, and perhaps they should be. Plenty of people have pointed out that after forcing a tax increase to pay for his new ballpark, built for the specific purpose of fielding a competitive team, Pohlad refused to pony up the cash. Reports are circulating now that Johan turned down a 5 year 100 million dollar deal, which, if true, would severely weaken what good will there still is for Johan in Minnesota. Maybe a Twins offer of 7 years/144 million wouldn’t have been good enough, maybe Johan just wanted out after all, but a lot of fans would have liked to see a little more effort to keep the ace lefty we had groomed for years.
But what’s done is done. Assuming Omar Minaya ponies up the cash and that none of the Mets prospects have a degenerative hip condition ala Adam Jones, Johan is gone. In his place, 4 of the unluckiest players in history. Carlos Gomez, Delois Guerra, Phil Humber and Kevin Mulvey must collectively feel like Ernie Broglio, and to be honest, I pity them. They are all young players, and yet from the moment they are introduced, they will fight the uphill battle of having to prove their worth vis-à-vis the greatest pitcher of the century so far. Is it fair to compare them to Broglio? Of course not! Broglio was a 20 game winner when he was traded; the four ex-Mets have barely played 20 MLB games combined. Kidding aside, I think its time we give these four players a fair shake and look at them outside of the fact that they were traded for Johan Santana.
First, Carlos Gomez. Gomez comes in with serious skill already in place. He has game-changing speed and a great arm. He could probably step into CF right now, his defense is that good. He has great bat speed, but struggles hitting for power and has questionable plate discipline. Oh, yeah, he’s also 22. His top comparables are: Rocco Baldelli before his injury, Lastings Milledge, Frank Diaz and Hanley Ramierez. Not a bad bunch to be compared to. The big knock on him, as on new teammate Delmon Young, is plate discipline. Joe Vavra will have to take both of them aside and teach them how to wait a pitcher out to get a good pitch, but at least they can watch Mauer, who is probably patient to a fault. Gomez can make an immediate impact, but would probably benefit from everyday play down in AAA to see if he can improve his power and his discipline.
Next, Kevin Mulvey. Mulvey has 4 solid pitches and throws strikes, a big plus in the Twins eyes. His stuff isn’t overpowering, but if he mixes well, he can be fairly effective. He reminds me a bit of Kevin Slowey and Brad Radke. Guys you’d HATE to have on your fantasy team, but you probably won’t mind seeing on the hill for your team. Projections say nothing more than a back end of the rotation starter, but if he can pick one pitch as his out pitch and work around that, he may move up towards the three spot.
Phil Humber, third in line. Phil used to be as untouchable a prospect as there was, and in a way he still is. Then, he was so good, you couldn’t package enough talent to get him, now, most teams won’t touch him with a 39 ½ foot pole. What happened? Tommy John surgery made him a shell of the pitcher he once was, and at 25, he is the oldest of the ex-Mets. He has a true out pitch in his curveball, but it no longer bites the way it once did and curveballs that don’t curve are like sinkers that don’t sink: homer bait. Last year was Humber’s first full season back from the surgery and he underwhelmed most people. I look at Humber a bit like Kubel. Huge injury, huge setback, huge chance of failure. Kubel is slowly coming back to be the player we hoped he would be, Humber has a chance to do the same. Will he? Who knows, but he has a better chance in this organization than he did with the Mets. Humber is not the lost cause that many make him out to be, but he is also the least likely of this group to succeed.
Lastly, and most enigmatically, Delois Guerra. Guerra just turned 19, but already put up decent number is high-A ball. He is the furthest away from helping the Twins, but he may also prove to be the best player in the deal. He has a huge frame: 6’5” 200 pounds, so he shouldn’t be a breakdown concern, but his innings will be closely watched. Guerra has 2 big league pitches, a fastball that has risen from the mid-80s when he started in rookie ball to near 94MHP. His change is mediocre, and he needs to learn to control it better, but the Twins minor league staff is pretty good at assessing pitchers and helping them develop. Guerra excites me more than anyone else in this deal. The Twins scouts are among the best in the league at finding raw pitchers and getting them developed. Liriano was a throw-in to the AJ deal, Johan himself was a rule 5 pick, Guerra’s top comparable is King Felix. Having even 1 pro-ready pitch at 19 is great, and unlike the Mets, the Twins won’t rush him up through the system.
So, was it a good deal? No. Not now anyway. If Guerra turns into Felix Hernandez sans injury, will it be worth it? Getting closer. If Gomez turns into a version of CoCo Crisp who can throw? If Mulvey turns out to be Brad Radke? If? IF? IF? It is impossible to know now, and it will be impossible until Guerra gets to the majors. Once that happens, debate away, but until then, lets give these guys the benefit of the doubt. They didn’t want to be traded for Johan Santana, I guarantee it. Let them develop, and in a few years, who knows, we may be stocked with solid pitching, glad to have a lead off hitter like Gomez and poised to contend in a brand new stadium. Or we may have gotten hosed like the Cubs did for Brock. Only time will tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)