Nutmeg Radio » The Game

USA vs. Slovenia: Americanness Rankings, Protecting Our Freedom

Clive Longbottom-Fellow, Esq. — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:47:00 +0000

We Americans love rankings. We rank players, candidates, movies, schools, entrepreneurs, dogs, horses, etc. We just can’t get enough.

Over the last few years, we’ve also grown to love discussing how several dual, or potentially dual, citizens should fit into the US pool. With this discussion in mind, particularly after today’s conversations about “the immigration problem,” we’ve decided to introduce Americanness rankings, basically measuring how much players love freedom and which players we need to phone tap. Semi-delayed, these ratings come after the US match against Slovenia, and are presented on a scale of 1-10. A “1” means we should seriously look at deportation/imprisonment, and a “10” identifies a player who basically bleeds freedom from his ears.

Let’s get started.

***

Starters

GK – Tim Howard, 6: Born in New Jersey to American parents, Howard seemingly is a 10. But then again, there has to be a discount considering much of his family on his father’s side is, and was, African-American. That means a pre-emanicpation 3/5 of a human being valuation (per person, of course) was involved at a point in the not to distant past. Since all forefather intent is apparently good these days, it seems ridiculous to leave out these values from the rankings. Using today’s exchange rate, I’ve discounted Howard one point. But he should still stand with his head held high with a 9, that is until he gets a further three-point deduction for spending too much time in Liverpool. And by born to American parents, I mean born to an American father and a Hungarian mother. Details, details. He gets off lightly for good on-the-field performances. You can skew the facts when you like someone.

D – Steve Cherundolo, 5: Cherundolo has spent a lot of time in Germany. We’re led to believe that he spends most of his time with his club team, Hannover 96 (a team he captains), but one can only play soccer and engage in club-related activities for so many hours during the season. So what else has Cherundolo been up to? I’ve seen Hogan’s Heroes and am weary about his close relationships with Germans.

D – Clarence Goodson, 6: Goodson left MLS to join Norwegian club IK Start, and has since left to join Brøndby, a signficant Danish club. He is now Brøndby’s captain. Like Cherundolo, Goodson’s assumption of responsibilities over a group of foreign players should raise concerns, unless, of course, he works for NATO. And he doesn’t. Goodson isn’t discounted as much as Cherundolo because he hasn’t been studying abroad as long. But he’s pushing it.

D – Carlos Bocanegra, 4: Don’t let the US captaincy detract from his decidedly un-American name. If he was a real American leader, he would change his name to Charles Blackmouth. Still, congratulations, I suppose, are in order for reaching 100 caps. Bueno.

D – Timmy Chandler, 1: Don’t let the name fool you. Regardless of whether Chandler plays right back or left back, Chandler is still as German as Rob from Milli Vanili, which should raise a bright, red flag to McCarthy levels. Chandler was born and raised in Germany. No, not Germany, Rhode Island (which may or may not exist), but Germany, the state in the country of Europe. That’s German of Hasselhoff proportions. If this was a Knight Rider episode, Kitt would be ejecting somebody out of a seat.

M – Michael Bradley, 8: What a name. He’s got the lifetime passport, the look, and did I mention the name? Michael Bradley, a quintessentially American name that could only be the result of a bald eagle and Mt. Rushmore mating. Smells like Anglo-Saxon, doesn’t it, which my Latin training tells me is a name derived from the mean streets of Princeton, New Jersey. Two-point deduction for spending an inordinate amount of time on the old continent.

M – Fabian Johnson, 1: See Timmy Chandler.

M – Kyle Beckerman, 6: Trying to look Jamaican? You’re supposed to cut those after you get back from Spring Break in Negril. You aren’t fooling anyone, bredren (that’s brethren for those of you who don’t speak Jamaican). From what my non-research tells me, Beckerman doesn’t even have a proper sound system. Bloodclot. But ol’ Peace Corps hair has to get some credit for playing stateside, in Salt Lake City for that matter. He’s either deep, deep undercover, or, as I suspect, an American sympathizer.

M – Clint Dempsey, 6: Although rap music is now officially mainstream, it still has a taste of … how do you say it … urban these days. Such is the conundrum that is Clint Dempsey. On one hand, his penchant for flare suggests he enjoys hanging out with foreigners who wear scarves and tie sweaters around their necks. But then again, he did create a piece of “music” entitled Don’t Tread [On Me]. I want to deduct points for playing in Europe, but we all know he plays in England, which by all accounts is not Europe. He gets the benefit of the doubt for now, but keep an eye on him.

F – Jozy Altidore, 3: If Altidore was Cuban, perhaps. But he comes from a Haitian family. And our immigration policy towards Haiti kind of speaks for itself, doesn’t it? (Read: suspect.) Perhaps if he was Cuban his mere presence would be enough to avoid suspicion. But he’s Haitian, and policy is policy. Um, America is full. We’re … um … not taking any additional reservations.

F – Edson Buddle, 7: As of November 17, 2011, Buddle’s Wikipedia page informs me that he invented the bicycle kick and defeated the Nazis. It’s on Wikipedia, so I believe it. Perhaps we should be skeptical since Buddle now collects his paycheck in Germany, but we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt because of his heroic exploits during World War II. He’s probably spying on them.

Substitutes

M – Maurice Edu, 4: Because Edu’s parents are from Ghana (English translation: Nigeria) rather than America, Edu doesn’t fall to the 3/5 discount (as adjusted). But then again, there’s the Ghanaian thing. For that we deduct four points. And considering your motherland beat us at the 2010 World Cup, that’s another point. Playing in Europe … oh, I’m sorry … Scotland? Another point.

M – Brek Shea, 5: There’s something very European about Shea’s chosen hairdos. He paints and likes Lil Wayne. I don’t know what else we need to know. He’s basically Che Guevara. Shea is currently training abroad at Arsenal and will probably come back to FC Dallas after he completes being trained in Euro-think. Typical revolutionary behavior. Going off to learn from the foreigners and then coming back as if his mind won’t be warped by all that Euro-thinking. As Elmer Fudd almost said, “Be vewy, vewy careful about training under Arsene Wenger.”

M – Robbie Rogers, 10: Like Michael Bradley, Robbie Rogers is the stuff of forefathers, although at times, it looks as if he got into the national team through an affirmative action program. What? Too soon? For centuries, scores of brown-on-brown parents have been trying to create a child that looks like Robbie Rogers. Basically, I’m saying he looks trustworthy. Add the fact that he been in MLS his entire career, and I think we’ve found our real captain.

D/M – Danny Williams, -1: The German-born and raised Williams instantly felt connected to the United States when he visited Miami earlier this year. It was love at first sight. After his visit, he “felt so connected to this nation that [he] knew what [he] wanted to do.” With that kind of reasoning, I’m glad he didn’t go to Cancun for Spring Break. He’d be playing for Mexico. Somehow. Also, see Timmy Chandler.

M – Jermaine Jones, 1: See Timmy Chandler, Fabian Johnson and Danny Williams. That.

Coach

Jurgen Klinsmann, 0.5: He lives in America. His wife is American. His kids are American. Said another way, Klinsmann is German, and there’s video to prove it. He actually received a 1.0 for his performance, but there was a 0.5 deduction for turning the job down during the last cycle, as if he had something better to do. If I could give him a negative number, I would, but then he would be on point system welfare, and we don’t need to add another name to the welfare rolls.

Conclusion

In order to be the best America we can be, we must ensure that we can out American all other potential Americans. We have some work to do America. Three cheers for freedom.

To Interpret or Refrain: An Interview With Mario Balotelli

Miriti Murungi — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:04:27 +0000

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTK1OIo7Vxc

On its face, smiling tells a story. But the story told by the reflex, or I suppose decision, to flash the pearly whites can be complex and originate from a wide range of what might seem like incompatible feelings. We smile for a variety of reasons. We smile when we are happy, when we are uncomfortable, to placate, and sometimes when we are simply unsure of what else to say. A smile could just as easily manifest itself as a shrug, a hug, laughter, silence, or even, in the most extreme cases, a roundhouse kick to the side of a disheveled head.

This brief exercise in deciphering what a smile might mean to the provider brought me to an interesting realization, one that admittedly might already be obvious to everyone else: Smiling isn’t just one-way traffic. A smile isn’t just a window into the person smiling; it also offers a glimpse into what it is that we, the recipients, expect or want to see. Reading too much into a smile can often just serve to provide us with justification for already established feelings. In that sense, the interpretation of a smile is no different from our interpretation of sporting or political events. Often, while we are busy being proud of ourselves for our profound powers of interpretation, we may just simply be engaging in an exercise of seeing what we want to see.

This interview is probably the most I’ve seen Mario Balotelli smile, and I’m pretty sure I would have recognized it if the interviewer never mentioned it. For some perhaps bizarre reason, my instinct is to be happy, but upon further reflection, I realize that his smile is no shortcut; it reminds me of how little you can know about a wildly complex human being from select public appearances, even though my instincts desperately want to use any number of his immensely entertaining episodes to reach a conclusion.

That is all.

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!

Jurgen Klinsmann: The Anti-Rick Perry (R-TX)

Miriti Murungi — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 15:21:57 +0000

If you happened to miss the Republican Primary debate two nights ago, you’ll be forgiven, especially if you were watching the epic New England Revolution-Philadelphia Union 4-4 extravaganza.

One of the special moments during the GOP debate centered around a Governor Rick Perry (R -TX) sermon on his state’s death penalty proficiency and his own sensitivity.

When Gov. Perry was asked by NBC anchor Brian Williams to defend his state’s record of executing 234 inmates, and specifically whether he lost any sleep over the possibility of executing innocent people, Perry said:

“No sir, I’ve never struggled with that at all. The state of Texas has a very thoughtful, a very clear process in place of which when someone commits the most heinous of crimes against our citizens, you kill one of our children, you kill a police officer, you’re involved with another crime and you kill one of our citizens, you will face the ultimate justice in the state of Texas and that is you will be executed.”

Gov. Perry’s response was greeted with rapturous applause.

Williams followed up by asking Perry what he made of the fact that mentioning the execution of 234 people drew applause. Gov. Perry didn’t skip a beat:

“I think Americans understand justice. I think Americans are clearly, in the vast majority of cases, supportive of capital punishment. When you have committed heinous crimes against our citizens—and it’s a state-by-state issue, but in the state of Texas, our citizens have made that decision, and they made it clear, and they don’t want you to commit those crimes against our citizens. And if you do, you will face the ultimate justice.”

It was a strong, resolute response by the Governor. Whether you agree with Gov. Perry’s proud stance on the death penalty or not, you have to concede that it was a response worthy of applause, that is, if you are a die-hard member of his base. And that is precisely what Gov. Perry was doing, working his base during a Republican primary, pandering to the audience that he believes he needs to pander to in order to have a chance of slaying the starchy Mitt Romney and winning his party’s nomination. So Gov. Perry is wisely sticking to his script and hoping to win applause on his way to the nomination, with the support of God, of course.

Oddly enough, this got me thinking about Jurgen Klinsmann. Obviously, right? The applause made me think about the relative ease of pandering to a base and how the process of pandering typically sucks all remnants of personality, genuineness, and innovation out of politicians and the political process.

Deviating from the script is a risk that few are willing to take in politics. The same has been true in U.S. soccer for several cycles. For a long period of time, perhaps out of necessity, we’ve been following a script that elevated function over style. But Jurgen Klinsmann has decided to throw away that script and go for style, which is a bold move, especially considering the last time the U.S. men’s soccer team had a definitive style that didn’t evoke condescending, descriptive phrases used to compliment a battered boxer after losing a fight (often about effort and heart) was probably never.

Make no mistake, what Klinsmann is attempting to do is unprecedented in U.S. soccer. At a time when media and public scrutiny has never been higher (and that applies to both politicians and national team coaches), it’s a risky moment to try to transform the face of U.S. soccer, not to mention a tremendous task. And, whether it works or not, I’m excited to go on this off-script adventure. Three games without victory is not a concern as long as there are signs of progress in other areas. And there are. While victory may have brought applause from the base, we should be happy that we’re dealing with someone whose sole motivation is thoughtful transformation, not soliciting short-term, reflex applause.

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!

The Pitfalls of Latino Generalizations in American Soccer: A Story of African-American Quarterbacks and Playmakers

Miriti Murungi — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 00:09:42 +0000

Latinos offer three unique ingredients: 1. Latino kids have superior ball skills and are more comfortable in tight spaces. That seems to be taken as gospel now by the soccer cognoscenti. 2. Latino kids “need” the game to bring them opportunity. 3. Those same kids often play — are even given no option but to play — “unstructured” soccer where they develop a confidence and style that elevates their game — much like African-American kids playing on inner-city blacktops changed basketball and the NBA.

The Latino skill and hunger combined with the athleticism and power of the traditional Anglo affiliated and college player blended by a special national team coach is the recipe we should be after.

– Brad Rothenberg on the value of Latino talent in the U.S. (via Soccer America)

****

If we assume that Rothenberg’s characterization of Latino players is correct, why are Latino kids blessed with superior ball skills and more comfortable in tight spaces? The broad diversity of hues and hairs within the Latino community suggests that it has nothing to do with DNA. So if nothing intrinsically makes a player great from birth, what is it about our method of development in the United States that supposedly creates definable skill sets compartmentalized by ethnicity or race?

Perhaps it has more to do with our regimented way of thinking than it has to do with ethnicity or race.

The ease in which we attribute characteristics to groups may come with short-term benefits under the guise of inclusion, but in the long-term, such mechanical thinking can be detrimental to player development because patterns of thought often have a habit of snowballing into gross generalizations based on perceived appearances. These generalizations, when based on ethnicity and race, can impact behavior, and specifically, how we identify, develop, and allocate players.

Rather than focusing on the recognition and attribution of skills to ethnic or racial groups, the analytical goal of group analysis should be to deconstruct what it is about certain structures that produce desired results. But we can’t be satisfied with the resulting characterizations. The next step has to be ensuring that the resulting formula is available to all.

And that’s the underlying, problematic effect of Rothenberg’s perfectly appropriate, short-term recipe. The language used to describe Latino players is too matter of fact, too permanent. It comes off as satisfied with the conclusion that ethnicities have hardened characteristics, which is a regimented way of thinking that compromises our ability to get the best out of all of our players, especially when it comes to developing a long-term vision for player development.

Let’s explore a bit, shall we?

****

When a young player shows up for practice, a coach has to make a decision. “Where do I play this player?” Decisions are based on size, strength, speed and technical ability, but often other subconscious factors rooted in internalized ethnic and racial conditioning may also have a hand determining how coaches develop players.

The intersection of ethnicity / race and player development is a familiar space in American sports, particularly in American football. In American football, there has been a long-standing narrative about the influence of racial stereotyping on position assignments and responsibilities. There was a time when the common perception was that an African-American quarterback meant an option quarterback, a quarterback primarily reliant on running and athleticism, as opposed to a more conventional, white pocket passer. Although this mode of thinking has noticeably shifted over the last two decades, we aren’t far removed from a time when position assignments were dictated by rigidly formulaic casting, with African-American players starring as the naturally gifted athletes, and white players, the more cerebral option.

In 1968, the Oakland Raiders drafted Eldridge Dickey, making Dickey the first African-American quarterback ever to be drafted in the first round. Dickey, however, never played a single down at quarterback for the Raiders and was used as a receiver and kick returner. His story matches that of countless African-American quarterbacks who were seen at the college and NFL levels as athletes first, and reupholstered into anything but quarterbacks.

It wasn’t until 1978 that the next African-American quarterback, Doug Williams, would be drafted in the first round by the Washington Redskins. Williams went on to become the first African-American quarterback to win a Super Bowl.

Warren Moon, a player also from the class of ’78 who now ranks fifth all-time in NFL passing yards – ahead of legends Joe Montana and Johnny Unitas – graduated from the University of Washington and went undrafted. Moon, like Dickey ten years earlier, was also asked by NFL scouts to consider a change of position, in spite of running a pro-style offense in college and being named Rose Bowl MVP his senior year. He subsequently signed with the Canadian Football League’s Edmonton Eskimos, where he played his first seven years of professional football before joining the NFL to terrorize defenses as a conventional pocket passer.

It wasn’t until the 1990s when we started seeing African-Americans taking snaps at quarterback as regularly as they were lining up at other positions on the field. Since then, we have seen positive developments in how we perceive African-American quarterbacks, but it has been a long, arduous road with plenty of lessons and road bumps along the way.

****

The last fifty years in the United States has taught us that legislative attempts and public cries to curb the effects of stereotyping are never enough to erase patterns of thought and behavior that have been embedded in our culture for centuries. Even the most enlightened among us are vessels of subconscious generalizations about ethnicity and race, simply because we are all inundated with common themes that are reinforced everywhere we look. That’s not just in sport, but also in politics and almost every other facet of our lives. A pre-Barack Obama example of this would be if someone asked you to think of an American president. My guess is that most people would think of a white man, and there is nothing inherently racist or discriminatory about that visualization. It is simply a side effect of people in a society tapping into a Rolodex of memories that is full of little, white cards with pictures of white, male presidents. But even if we concede that ethnic or racial generalizations are often backed by reflex rather than malicious intent, we should realize that our conditioning does have real world implications that influence how we vote, but even more broadly, how we allocate responsibility.

The same paradigm can be transferred to the struggles African-American quarterbacks faced when trying to break into the NFL for most of the league’s history. We know that outspoken proponents of segregation in the NFL, such as former Redskins owner George Marshall, who openly lobbied for the exclusion of African-Americans from the league, have played a prominent role in marginalizing African-American players. The Marshalls of the world are never hard to single out. But Marshalls alone can’t be responsible for implementing such widespread, exclusionary practices. It takes a village to exclude, even though many of the villagers aren’t operating with the same level of malice. It is just as likely that part of the reason why African-Americans continued to struggle to break into the quarterback position for so long, well past the Marshall era, is that those in charge of personnel decisions were also partially influenced by thought processes developed in an NFL era that was devoid of African-American quarterbacks, in a world where African-Americans were commonly seen as athletic and instinctual, and therefore, less capable of fulfilling the cerebral duties of a “proper” quarterback.

The story of African-American quarterbacks teaches us that we need to be conscious of ethnic and racial generalization. When you look at some of the great African-American quarterbacks who have graced the league since the early 90s, you have to wonder how many players have fallen through the cracks or been dismissed purely based on appearance.

Now, taking this principle over to the soccer field, are we in danger of repeating the same ethnic / racial compartmentalization mistake? The concern alluded to earlier is that the long-term effect of broad generalizations can be restricted player development opportunities. As much as it may be a valid observation that the Latino community has produced skillful, hungry players, Latino players can be more than skillful and hungry, just as they can lack both traits. But this problematic framing isn’t isolated to our regimented Latino characterizations; it also rears its head elsewhere in American soccer, particularly in the curious case of the American number 10.

In soccer, the closest thing to a quarterback is the traditional No. 10, perhaps more accurately described in the modern game as the playmaking midfielder, a player who operates as the brains of the team, dictating the flow, tempo, linking offense and defense, and having the technical ability to unlock defenses and maximize the utility of surrounding players. We are familiar with seeing No. 10s come out of Africa and the Caribbean, but African-American No. 10s are still a rarity at the highest levels.

Before continuing, it is necessary to emphasize that I am specifically referring to African-American players born and raised in the U.S. system, not players from Africa, the Caribbean, or players who emigrated to the United States after learning to play the game abroad. And there is a distinction to be made. Many players from Africa or the diaspora develop at a young age in communities immersed in soccer, in environments where creativity and expression are encouraged. Think Steve Zakuani, Charles Renken, Freddy Adu, Darlington Nagbe. But in the States, we seem to have a problem identifying and developing African-American versions of these players from scratch, which wouldn’t be so curious if there weren’t African-American players coming through at virtually every other position.

****

Here’s a game to play at home:

Name a few African-American forwards.
Name a few African-American wingers.
Name a few African-American fullbacks.
Name a few African-American centerbacks.
Name a few African-American goalkeepers.
Name a few African-American holding/defensive midfielders.
Now name a few African-American, playmaking midfielders.

One of these exercises is considerably harder than the others.

****

This disparity becomes more obvious when you look at the increasingly diverse U.S. men’s national team pools (both at senior and youth levels) and at professional leagues around the country. Our players are multilingual, born in the States and abroad, and come from a variety of ethnic backgrounds. Access isn’t universal yet, but there are now more opportunities to break through than ever. Even African-American players, a group historically under-represented in soccer, are increasingly exceling at the highest levels of the game. Today, you can see African-American goalkeepers, wingers, holding midfielders, central defenders and fullbacks at major clubs across the United States and Canada. We are even seeing a significant number of these players moving on from our domestic leagues to European leagues. But given the emergence of African-American players across the field, the lack of African-American faces among the fraternity of midfield playmakers is a curious omission.

Is this phenomenon merely a coincidence, or might it have something to do with the same wiring that impacted the rate at which African-American quarterbacks were introduced into the NFL? It’s something that I’ve tried to understand for years. I have seen countless speedy, African-American players played at forward, on the wings, or at fullback, enough to wonder whether something happens during the development cycle that has historically ended up funneling African-American players to other positions. Thinking back to the NFL example, I can’t help but wonder whether the bottleneck that has prevented us from seeing African-American playmakers might lie with youth coaches and those making personnel decisions, people whose vision and worldviews largely dictate positional development.

One take on a youth soccer coach’s job description is that the coach should be responsible for a young player’s all-around development as opposed to developing specialized players. While specialization at too young of an age can yield results, it can also be a gateway to compartmentalization and hinder the development of robust skill sets that could end up paving the way to broader opportunities at a variety of positions.

Players develop a great deal by age 13-14. By that age, many coaches will have instilled certain traits in players that are hard to shake. If you are fast and placed on the wings, you will frequently tell future coaches that you are a winger, and the coaches will see your pace and often continue to frame you in that mold. Wingers can be easily moved to forward or even to fullback, but rarely do the skills of a pure winger translate into a playmaking role. Similarly, bigger, not-very-technical players likely won’t see time on the wings, but rather at center back, defensive midfielder, up top as a target player, or maybe even in goal. Whether we like to admit it or not, there is enough evidence to suggest that pigeonholing a player early as a specific type of player can fundamentally shape the player’s developmental trajectory, which isn’t necessarily an awful thing, as long as we don’t fall into a pattern of positioning players on the flawed basis of ethnicity or race.

Let’s revisit the presidential visualization exercise, but this time, we’ll apply it to the playmaker role. Visualize an American playmaker, a No. 10. What does he look like? It probably isn’t a far-fetched assumption that for many youth coaches, he isn’t African-American, which in and of itself is far from criminal. But how does one come up with that picture? Does it matter? Many youth coaches consciously determine a player’s position upon evaluating common attributes such as speed, physical build and technique, but is there a subconscious component to the decision making process that also appropriates value based on race or ethnicity? It is certainly feasible that the inability to see historical examples of, in this example, successful African-American playmakers, can make a coach less likely to visualize African-American players playing in the playmaking role, and therefore, less likely to develop African-Americans in a manner that allows them to succeed at the highest levels as playmakers. Again, this is not an example suggesting malicious intent, but rather one that recognizes a historically prominent side effect of visual conditioning and generalizing.

****

When we begin to get too comfortable attributing skills and traits along ethnic or racial lines, we need to check ourselves. This goes for youth coaches, commentators, journalists, and anyone else whose language frames how we think about the game.

The idea that Latinos are the purveyors of skill and hunger is dangerous precisely because it leads us down the same generalized path that lead to the long-standing notion that African-American quarterbacks weren’t thinkers, and furthermore may partially explain why we have historically struggled to develop African-American playmakers.

We must recognize that our language matters. That’s not to say, for instance, that we can’t recognize the tremendous impact that Latino communities have had and will continue to have on U.S. soccer. But we must be careful about crossing that line where we begin thinking of Latino players, or any category of player, in a monolithic way that doesn’t differentiate between people, abilities, and potential. At the end of the day, you can’t teach DNA, but everything else can be learned. Therefore, our focus should be on learning about how certain communities develop desired skills and ensuring that those lessons are shared, rather than doubling down on stale thinking or tired, ethnic talking points if the ultimate goal is to maximize the potential of American players of all backgrounds in every position.

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!

VIDEO: Robin Van Persie Gets Close and Personal in Rotterdam

Clive Longbottom-Fellow, Esq. — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:08:32 +0000

www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2zI3yfcdmM

This very cool Adidas video follows Arsenal’s Robin Van Persie back home to Rotterdam. Appearances by Van Persie’s dad, his son Shaqueel, and one of his close friends, Soufiane Touzani, one of the top Dutch freestyle footballers. Sidenote: Shaqueel will be a baller. Arsene should sign him.

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!

Why We Should Ignore Arsene Wenger’s Presidential Slight of Hand

Miriti Murungi — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:20:53 +0000

“We’re invading. I’ve weighed the pros and cons and there is no perfect answer. We have to send a signal to our enemies – and they do exist – that their conduct will not be tolerated and that there will be retaliation. That signal has to be sent. We also have to make our best attempt to influence who ends up filling the power vacuum once we succeed in removing the threat. And we will succeed. There will be casualties on both sides, even if we attempt to minimize the damage, but that is a small price to pay when our national security is at stake. And no, this has nothing to do with oil or any other type of natural resource.”

- some fictional president

Some might say that Barack Obama’s job as President of the United States is to run the country effectively, not to tell you the truth. Sometimes effectively running a country and straight-shooting work well in tandem, but that isn’t always the case. That’s not an Obama thing; it’s a president thing. And as much as our leaders’ unwillingness to be straight-forward all the time pains significant portions of the public, leaders often need to employ the slight of hand to effectively and efficiently lead in a world of competing interests. Of course, this isn’t the only model of leadership, but history tells us that it sure is a popular one.

In many ways, Arsene Wenger’s role at Arsenal is no different than Obama’s role, or the role of any other world leader. Wenger is a coach, a leader, a father-figure, and a protector. But we should never forget that he is also a politician, and an astute one at that.

Wenger has a strategic vision influenced by aesthetics, economics, and long-term preservation. To achieve his vision, he often turns to political posturing, half-answers, non-answers, and obscure metaphors, especially when responding to the millions of questions about his transfer dealings. What about Jadson? Gary Cahill? No? How about Tim Cahill? Any Cahill? Hazard, Jagielka, Benzema, Tevez, Stuttgart, Argentina? Will you sign any of them?

My favorite response is the shrug, followed by non-sequitur.

Wenger routinely tells the public that he’s not interested in players when he is. He also has a history of telling us that players aren’t leaving when he knows otherwise.

Just last week, Wenger told journalists that “no one will be leaving the club” when he knew full well that Cesc Fabregas was on his way out. A few days later, to no one’s surprise, Fabregas was on en route to the land of sangria and trophies.

In August 2006, Wenger said that there was nothing in reports of radio star Jose Antonio Reyes going to Atletico Madrid. Less than a year later, after a brief loan spell at Real Madrid, Arsenal sold Reyes to Atletico Madrid.

The following year, Wenger told us that media stories about Barcelona’s interest in Thierry Henry were “completely invented.” That was in April 2007. In June, only two months later, Arsenal closed the deal to send Henry to Barcelona.

There is only one plausible reason for Wenger’s perpetual slights of hand. He thinks that the constant barrage of questions about transfers and his philosophy disrupts the implementation of his vision and his ability to conduct business as he sees fit. What is the value in being brutally honest with the public, telling the world that a player is unhappy, or leaving, or not good enough, or on his radar? You could take a myopic point of view and call Wenger’s approach dishonest, but you could also frame Wenger’s posturing as a manager simply doing his job.

Wenger’s comments have always been rooted in his steadfast desire to protect his vision and his players, not to appease journalists, opposing fans, or even the short term desires of his own club’s fans. You can debate whether that’s a good or bad approach, but when it comes to the man, that’s just who he is; it’s who he has always been. He protects that which he deems most sacred, his team, his Arsenal experiment. Do you really think that he doesn’t see fouls committed by his players?

The primary role of a manager is to create an environment to develop a team, and if holding the world at bay through nebulous statements is the most efficient means to that end, so be it. The confusing part is why this reality continues to confound the public when you consider Wenger’s painfully consistent approach to interacting with the outside world. He’s never going to wake up one day in one of those body-switching movies and turn into Harry Redknapp, Jose Mourinho, or Jamie Lee Curtis. He will continue to be the guy who uses the same language. He will continue to be the guy who only searches for special players who can add something (as opposed to?) and treats recovering players as new signings. But he will also continue to be the guy whose actions regularly diverge from his language. Yet, fifteen years into his reign, we still act as if his words should be taken at face value, reacting every time his actions don’t match his words as if we are being deceived for the first time.

On paper, the best politicians are those who can co-mingle the profound with the empty. They understand when it is time to share and when it is time to protect the mission. Wenger has been more than forthcoming about his philosophy. On that subject, he is an open book. But when it comes to executing his philosophy, just like Obama, Bush, Blair, Cameron, Sarkozy, Merkel, and other world leaders, the specific tactics are arguably best left close to the chest. That means looking forward to a mixture of straight answers, half-answers, and infamous Wenger-quotes. And we should stop acting surprised. He has sent the signal on countless occasions: judge his actions, not his words.

If his actions ultimately fail, like any politician, he knows he risks the wrath of the people. But like a good politician, he likely already factored in the many pitfalls of his chosen philosophy when he decided on his long-term, seemingly crazy vision of how to take on money with an alternative vision.

Fans may not like Wenger’s posturing, but they should really start treating Arsene Wenger’s words like presidential rhetoric, that is, unless they want to make the Arsenal experience more stressful than it already is.

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!

MLS All-Stars vs. Manchester United: An Exercise in Comparison

Miriti Murungi — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 00:18:22 +0000

People have their opinions on MLS. The level of play, the format, the league’s handling of investment, and referees, among other things, are regular topics of debate. Sounds like a regular league, right? But that’s not enough to stop the comparisons.

Making comparisons is part of our DNA. And I’m not talking about soccer fans; I’m talking about humans. We compare what exists to what we are familiar with. We compare our romantic relationships to our parents’ relationships and the contrived relations we see on TV and in movies. We judge the state of our economies, not by what is, but by comparing what is to what was. Our relationship with soccer is no different.

Pre-MLS and Fox Soccer, many of the marginalized soccer fans in the U.S. had to feed on a steady diet of local and/or college soccer. We were knee deep in games with open substitutions and clock stoppages. I never heard, and still rarely hear (although complaints are more common today), fans complaining about a lack of authenticity at these levels, or how our version of the world’s game is a bastardized version. That is largely because we had infrequent access to games elsewhere for comparison purposes.

The old NASL and the Major Indoor Soccer League (MISL) took bastardizing to a whole new level. The NASL awarded points in the league table for goals scored. MISL instituted multiple point scoring based on the location of the shot. These moves were predicated on league executives’ belief that Americans love scoring, and anything that encouraged more scoring was better for the American audience. But even then, prostelytizing fans and complaints about the purity of the game were a rarity. Fans largely bought into the product being offered. Again, this was largely because access to other forms of the game were limited.

If most of these leagues started today, it is hard to believe that there wouldn’t be an uproar from a segment of American fans in the same way that there were moans when WWE’s Vince McMahon decided to start the XFL, an alternative American football league that substituted a pre-game scramble for the ball for the opening coin toss. Is that because fans today are somehow more genetically predisposed to complain? Of course not. In soccer, it’s because we are inundated with a 24/7 soccer cycle that now allows us to see games from every corner of the globe. Nowadays, it’s virtually impossible not to compare.

Which brings me to the 2011 MLS All-Star game. I will admit that my thoughts on All-Starness in American soccer have gone through cycles, wavering from intrigued to indifferent over the years. Certainly there are positives about a group of MLS All-Stars lining up against one of the biggest clubs in the world. But there are also legitimate concerns. On one hand, bringing some of the best players in the world to try their pre-season luck against the league’s best is a sexy test, and the corresponding publicity never hurts. But on the other hand, I would be lying if I didn’t admit that there are times when I’ve thought that the notion of breaking mid-season for a meaningless friendly against a bunch of stars in pre-season somehow takes away from what a proper soccer season should look like. That is, if you define proper by what is proper elsewhere. Which brings us full circle to our human obsession with comparisons.

Is there really something fundamentally wrong with the MLS All-Star format, or are we simply victims of access, assuming that that which pre-existed our format is better simply because it has been around longer?

Although it is more difficult than ever to suspend our desire to compare, perhaps there is some value in withholding judgement on MLS decisions if the sole basis of argument is, “This is wrong because this is not how things are done elsewhere.” Sure, there is also an argument that fluidity across the game is essential for a global sport. However, it does seem at times as if some fans find it difficult to distinguish between adding three point shots to soccer and having an All-Star game against one of the game’s iconic teams.

Better is relative and subjective. It is worth remembering that from time to time. So join me the next time you are about to complain and ask yourself whether you are complaining because you can articulate why your preferred method is better, or whether you are simply assuming that something is better because you are now used to what the game looks like elsewhere. There is a difference.

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!

On Monarchies and Captains, John Terry and the Meaning of Armbands

Miriti Murungi — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 21:33:09 +0000

John Terry, a man you may know from Bridgegate and Tour-for-moneygate, is now back in the limelight in the latest episode of England Captaingate.

England manager Fabio Capello has reinstated his former captain as England’s new temporary-permanent captain, replacing the injured Rio Ferdinand in what can only be described as a Capello-esque manner. The decision, like all of Capello’s now trademark decisions, has been everything but straight-forward and has sparked heated debates about the merits of Terry’s reappointment as captain. But does it matter who sports the elastic armband for England? Probably not.

Injuries aside, players who have captained Liverpool, Chelsea and Manchester United all suit up for England. Add to the mix, Wayne Rooney, Frank Lampard and Ashley Cole, and you can hardly say that England is a team devoid of leaders. Devoid of role models, maybe, but certainly not devoid of people with experience exchanging flowers and pennants before games, shaking hands, leading other highly-paid, grown men on walks out of tunnels, smiling at dignitaries, indiscriminately cursing at referees, and speaking at press conferences.

Yet from the media coverage surrounding the England captaincy, you might think that England’s deficiencies on the field are down to a lack of leadership. It’s a puzzling framing of England’s problems that doesn’t quite match up with reality.

Judging purely on form over the last several years, England is a team that consistently suffers from a lack of dynamism and competence, not on-the-field leadership, per se. Looking at their run up to Euro 2008 and the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, England’s glaring failures were largely a function of flawed tactics and inadequate personnel, albeit with a touch of refereeing intervention. It wasn’t leadership that stole England’s cutting edge in the final third; that would fall on former manager Steve McClaren, Capello, and a list of midfielders and forwards too lengthy to mention here. Leadership wasn’t at fault for goalkeeping errors; for that, you would look to Robert Green, Scott Carson and Paul Robinson (and if you want to go back further, there’s David “Calamity” James). Leadership also wasn’t to blame for team selection or leaving Theo Walcott at home; for that, you can’t look beyond Capello, who has since admitted that he made an error in leaving Young Theo at home. But sadly, in spite of all these realities, leadership has become the de facto red herring that continues to shift attention away from England’s very real weaknesses.

To make matters worse, the media’s coverage of Captaingate isn’t even really about leadership; rather, it’s mostly about an armband, soccer’s functional equivalent to the royal family. By now, the symbolism is unmistakable. We’re supposed to show the utmost respect to the honorable armband, but really, deep down, we’re all wondering if there’s any real functional purpose to the title anymore. It’s as if the English media has elevated the value of the captaincy above anything practical (like focusing on missing characteristics needed to improve), and has reached the point where the base assumption is that leading a team out of a tunnel is inherently of epic importance to everyone, rather than just to the person wearing the armband and those already blindly in love with the lore of captains.

But what is the value of a captain? This is the existential question that arises from the latest episode of Captaingate. And the answer is, “It depends,” which is the answer to every existential question. In this case, it depends on the team.

By means of comparison, Arsenal is a team that clearly is in need of inspirational leaders on the field. Technically, Arsene Wenger’s men don’t have much to iron out. But when the going gets rough, it’s hard to pinpoint an Arsenal player who consistently picks up his teammates and inspires them to the finish line.

But England is not Arsenal. England is not a team of players lacking in inspirational figures. England is team of players who have won league titles and Champions League trophies, feats not possible without fully capable, inspirational leaders. When thinking of all the obstacles that have prevented England from advancing in qualifying and tournament play, “leadership” is not the word that comes to mind. Think of all the times in the past several years that England has failed to get a result. You probably didn’t think, “Man, they completely got their captain wrong today.”

That’s not to say, however, that a captain can’t have a detrimental effect on a team. A captain is fully capable of destroying morale through any number of personal deficiencies. Re-enter John Terry.

On the plus side, Terry has proved himself a perfectly capable leader on the field. He has won things, yells at people, and points a lot, checking all the boxes for the cliche of a leader. Without question, Terry is fantastic at expressing himself, which segues nicely into his downside as captain. The Chelsea man has been known to polarize locker rooms, and during Bridgegate, perhaps took things a step too far by over-expressing himself off the field, which ultimately diminishes the value that Terry supposedly brings to the table as captain, an ability to have his teammates rally around him.

Yet, in spite of all of the potential drawbacks that leave a clear path for England to fall apart, there’s still a question that continues to go unanswered — how does any of this captain discussion change England’s fortunes on the field for the better?

Quick answer: It doesn’t.

For those who think that the proprietor of the armband on this particular England team will be determine whether England succeeds or fails, I give you:

World Cup 2010:

England vs. USA || 1-1 || (captain: Gerrard)

England vs. Algeria || 0-0 || (captain: Gerrard)

England vs. Germany || 1-4 || (captain: Gerrard)

2008 European Championships:

Didn’t qualify (captain: Terry)

The point is, these categorical, English disappointments had very little to do with an armband. Fabio Capello makes too much money, so nothing is happening there. Therefore, England might as well make Scott Parker the new England captain. Can’t hurt, right?

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!

You May Take Our Freedom But You’ll Never Take Our Football

Mustafa Redonkulous — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 19:46:21 +0000

Today Brazil v. Chechnya. Tomorrow Argentina v. Myanmar. Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov along with Terek Grozny, Lothar Matthaeus and Oliver Kahn will take on Brazil’s 2002 World Cup winning team in Grozny later tonight.

You might remember Kadyrov from previous episodes such as being a militia leader and leading the slaughter of numerous innocents during his rise to power. He declared himself to be in excellent health and ready to lead Terek Grozny as captain.

“Ramzan Kadyrov himself will be the team’s captain,” Khaidar Alkhanov, the republic’s sport minister, said this week. “This will be a powerful stimulus for [the] players and a huge present for Chechen supporters.”

Dunga, Roberto Carlos and Romario will line up for Brazil. Bebeto, Cafu, Denilson and others from the World Cup winning team are expected to play as well.

Many leaders have considered themselves to be athletes regardless of their actual skill or fitness. Remember Bolivia’s Evo Morales?

The Daily Show – Intro – Evo Morales Knees Soccer Opponent
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Anyone who takes out Kadyrov during the match could find their head on a pike or disappeared. That’s something to think about. The home side better fight for a win tonight. There’s no telling how he’ll react if they lose. Ask the Iraqi national team how well it went for them under Uday Hussein.

World leaders have used sport to advance their political agendas such as Franco with Real Madrid. They also use it to placate the masses as well as increase their popularity. This has been happening since the beginning of the city-state. Chechnya may be calmer than at the height of the Chechen war but there’s still an ongoing insurgency. Kadyrov has been credited with bringing normalcy to Grozny at least on the surface. However he’s also accused of spearheading human rights abuses and corruption.

It’s bad enough that Ruud Gullit took the Terek Grozny job after Kadyrov personally hired him. Brazil is doing nothing but taking part in a showcase simply meant to glorify Kadyrov and take attention away from the numerous social and political issues affecting Chechnya. The last thing the people need is for other countries to give the Chechen leader legitimacy. On his part, it’s a familiar move. How long until Robert Mugabe decides to turn out for Zimbabwe against Italy? The military junta in Myanmar could almost put a whole side together themselves and take on Australia or Portugal.

If soccer isn’t your thing, stick around for the concert. Enrique Iglesias and Lara Fabian will be performing. There’s nothing like a singer or musician who will sell out for a quick buck. They shouldn’t feel bad. Several A-list singers have performed for the Gaddafi family over the years. There’s something for everyone in Grozny tonight. Just sit back and enjoy the show. Don’t mind the persecuted people. They’ve been removed from the city limits and dumped in a mass grave.

Saying that, I intend to find highlights of the match and watch them. Don’t act like you won’t either.

UPDATE: Kadyrov scored a brace in a 6-4 loss to Brazil.

“Today’s game was a show, we wanted people to understand, through football, that we are a peaceful nation,” the barrel-chested 34-year-old told reporters in the Chechen capital.

Kadyrov forgot to add, “Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go cleanse, I mean clean a village”.

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!

Arsene Wenger and Pep Guardiola Debate Fabregas’ Future

Miriti Murungi — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 02:23:22 +0000

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!