Allow me to take you back. Back to a place where temperatures were not that hot, nor that cold. To a day that made me termporarily lose my mind. To a venue where an Algerian guy stole my vuvuzela. Okay, I gave it to him accidentally.  Anyway, here are some picture from the U.S. vs. Algeria match.Click on the thumbnail to begin the slideshow. Hope you enjoy. Better late than never, right?

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!

Related posts:

1. USA vs. England – An Ode to the U.S. Soccer Community
2. U.S. vs. Czech Republic World Cup Warm Up: What We Learned
3. World Cup-Inspired Art – Paul Goodnight

Uruguayan goalkeeper Pablo Aurrecochea is a certifiable, bad mother shut-yo-mouth. Last night, Aurrecochea, who plays for Club Guarani of Paraguay, faced off against Argentina’s River Plate in the Copa Sudamericana in this fly Superman goalkeeper jersey. If that doesn’t intimidate the opposition, I don’t know what will. I mean, nothing gets by Superman, right?

Sadly for Aurrecochea, the ball was like kryptonite last night and he wanted nothing to do with it as River Plate put four goals past the Uruguayan on the way to a 4-2 win. Maybe he should have worn his Batman jersey, or his Krusty the Clown jersey, or his Pink Panther jersey, or his Spiderman jersey.

Seriously.

Check Aurrecochea’s other get ups.

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Facebook and Twitter!

Related posts:

1. FIFA Plays Hard to Get with Technology
2. D.C. United Match Thoughts: Build A New Stadium Yesterday
3. Would You Rather Have Commemorative Shoes or Speedos?

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!

Related posts:

1. Did Brazil’s World Cup Loss to the Netherlands Break Twitter?
2. Puma Football Commercials Keep Getting It Right

UEFA has banned vuvuzelas from matches at all UEFA competitions. That includes the European Championships, the Europa League, and the UEFA Champions League.

My first instinct was: That’s rather ignorant and authoritarian. But then I realized that I had a bigger gripe. UEFA’s decision to ban vuvuzelas in European competition sets a very strange precedent.

According to UEFA:

European football’s governing body has informed its 53 member associations that it has taken the move for reasons related to Europe’s football culture and tradition, saying that the atmosphere at matches would be changed by the sound of the vuvuzela.

…

UEFA feels that the instrument’s widespread use would not be appropriate in Europe, where a continuous loud background noise would be emphasised.

The magic of football consists of the two-way exchange of emotions between the pitch and the stands, where the public can transmit a full range of feelings to the players. However, UEFA is of the view that the vuvuzelas would completely change the atmosphere, drowning supporter emotions and detracting from the experience of the game.

To avoid the risk of these negative effects in the stadiums where UEFA competitions are played and to protect the culture and tradition of football in Europe – singing, chanting etc. – UEFA has decided with immediate effect that vuvuzelas will not be allowed in the stadiums where UEFA competitions matches are played.

For what it’s worth, I was at the World Cup in South Africa, and although I had the occasional moment of disgust brought on by someone disrespectfully blowing a vuvuzela in my ear, for the most part, the instrument was simply an entertaining and incredibly addictive toy that created a distinct atmosphere influenced by local culture. Scores of fellow visitors seemingly agreed as they seemed unable to put the instrument down. The vuvuzela became such a phenomenon that it was banned from bars and restaurants across South Africa.

Various opinions about the legitimacy of vuvuzela bans seem to focus on whether individuals find the horn tolerable. But these critiques, although reasonable expressions of individual tolerance, seem to miss the greater point.

UEFA has no business legislating custom and tradition.

UEFA supports its vuvuzela ban by presenting itself as the guardian of European culture and tradition, saving the masses from unwelcome atmosphere changes. But aren’t the clubs and supporters themselves capable of determining what is worth saving, rather than having big brother regulate match atmospheres?

This isn’t even about whether people like the vuvuzela or find it annoying. Plenty of annoying things happen at sporting events. Rather it’s a matter of self-determination, a matter of clubs and supporters being able to determine for themselves what is appropriate in their stadiums and what is not. Clubs and supporters should be free to organically create their own fan environment without UEFA edicts governing instruments. If vuvuzelas presented a legitimate safety concern (and there is an argument to make), that would be another thing, but nowhere does UEFA mention safety.

It’s a strange precedent. If UEFA’s job is “to protect the culture and tradition of football in Europe” (e.g. singing, chanting etc.), where do they now draw the line? If a group of supporters decide to bring pots and pans to the game as a means of supporting their side, will UEFA step in? If a club begins to draw a significant immigrant community that has a unique horn used to support their side, will UEFA tell them that European custom is in danger? What is European culture and tradition? Is it only made up of “two-way exchanges,” or is it permissible for a European club to have other customs?

UEFA presents European culture and tradition as if it is static. But customs change, as do populations. If UEFA decides they are now in a postion to legislate culture and tradition, they are entering dangerous territory. One should always begin to worry when a sprawling, unfocused cross-national organization like UEFA begins legislating what is culturally acceptable in the name of preserving some sort of nebulous European culture.

Furthermore, to suggest that allowing vuvuzelas will jeopardize a club’s musical identity is naive and flies in the face of the musical reality of South African soccer. At the World Cup, stadiums were jam packed with foreigners. But under more normal circumstances in South Africa, one would be sorely mistaken if they thought that one had to choose between the vuvuzela and singing at soccer matches.

The World Cup was a unique moment in time for South Africa. Normally people don’t walk into restaurants blowing vuvuzelas in patrons’ ears. South Africans have developed their own relationship with the vuvuzela during more normal times, and have figured out the balance singing and tooting in their own domestic league. In fact, South African songs rank as some of the most impressive you’ll find anywhere. I am confident that people outside of South Africa can find their own balance between horns and song without the assistance of a patronizing overlord. The threat of this horn to music is premature, overstated and unnecessarily authoritarian.

Ultimately, how any of us individually feel about vuvuzelas is almost irrelevant to this conversation. The larger point is that preservation of culture should be a local decision, not one dictated by UEFA. In this case, there are way too many things that UEFA should be concentrating without wasting its time telling supporters across Europe what instruments are appropriate in their respective stadiums. If UEFA wants to crack down on fan behavior, they may want to dedicate their time to stamping out racism, not vuvuzelas.

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!

Related posts:

1. UEFA Champions League on Fox: The Emergence of the American Fan
2. Barra Bravas Go To South Africa
3. FIFA Ban On Headscarves Not Up To Snuff

Amidst the bevy of muppetry that exists on Big Soccer, I sometimes find respite when I don’t feel like over-socializing, yet feel compelled to interact in more than 140 characters about things that most reasonable people would find as interesting as Paris Hilton discussing Sartre.

I’ve tried to make my significant other my soccer conversation partner through sheer force, but now I truly understand the plight of the missionary. No matter how suave one may be, converting the disinterested can border on impossible. But the same applies to stubbornness, which is why missionaries and the disinterested stubborn make such a magical pairing. I digress.

Upon failing to covert the other, I did what anyone in their right mind without an audience would do. I went online.

That was four years ago.

As those of you who have spent time on the Big Soccer message boards know, you can only last so long before developing feelings, mostly anger mixed with a splash of fury and exasperation. But despite these recurring sentiments, and even though I sometimes take extended breaks from Big Soccer, at some point, I inevitably return, although my participation rate has declined dramatically. Over the years, I have accumulated fake friends, fewer fake enemies, and a slew of bantering associates who love the same asinine thing I love. If I am being honest, I think I might even enjoy the company of some of my fellow BS compatriots, in a purely platonic way, of course.

I’m aware that meeting people you’ve met online can be shady business. We’re only talking soccer here, so it’s clearly not Chris Hanson shady, but the potential for catastrophe does exist, especially when expectations are created from fake identities. But these meetings may be virtually impossible to avoid. My new theory is that online and real worlds will inevitably collide when you persist on inhabiting the same online space for a significant period of time. As I recently learned, it’s just a matter of time.

Last month while in New York, I came out of the online closet.

I ran into a guy who is a frequent pint consumer at Nevada Smiths, New York’s legendary soccer pub. We’ve shot the proverbial feces on several occasions at Nevadas, so we just picked up where we left off. This time, however, our chat veered from the match, segueing into a conversation that recently took place on Big Soccer.

I bit.

“Wait, you’re in [Forum B]? What’s your name?” I asked.

“[FakeName].”

“Oh, snap. I’m [FakeName2].” (I said “snap” rather than snapping, which would have been awkward.)

And there it was, the full, naked, face-to-face disclosure. The good thing is that he was someone I had already decided was a relatively sane contributor to the board. Not that I am the arbiter of all things sane, but in my head, I am.

The rest of my day at Nevadas, with one exception (mentioned below), was smooth like Christopher Cross.

Here is what I learned from my self-outing:

1) Admitting to a real person that I am AwkwardName X from Internet Chat Room Y is partially embarrassing. Sure, this isn’t some perverted club, but it is a perversion of sorts, which makes coming out of the closet liberating, but unnerving at the same time. Your lesson: Liberation comes at a price. So do libations. Nothing worthwhile is free.

2) Shortly after outing myself, a few others joined our conversation. One of them revealed himself to be another character I was familiar with on the Big Soccer boards. I immediately did not like his real life persona. This guy was more aggressive in person than he was online, which I found odd. Revisiting some of his posts in my head, I concluded that he’s the type of guy to use message boards to test his theories before heading out to the pub to regurgitate opinion after opinion as fact, as if he worked for our beloved club. If I could have shoved him back into a computer, I would have. His real life character permanently tainted his fake character. Since then, I have vowed to battle him online whenever possible, whether I agree with him or not. Your lesson: Be prepared to make enemies.

3) If you plan on meeting someone for the first time from Big Soccer, bring a friend. Best case scenario: Three friends hang out. Worst case scenario: Two friends hang out. Both of these scenarios are better than you and an enemy hanging out on a double-date for two hours. Your lesson: Avoid torture.

4) The interwebs has made being a fan more exhausting than ever. Your lesson: Learn to hate the interwebs.

I hope these lessons serve you well.

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!

Related posts:

1. The English Are Coming! The English Are Coming!!!
2. Watch the Narco-Soccer Documentary “The Two Escobars” on ESPN
3. Soccer On the Big Screen: New York Film Festivals & Screenings For the Soccer Obsessed

Fox Soccer Channel’s Soccer Talk Live, hosted by former U.S. international Kyle Martino, is a painful, soul-crushing experience.

I wish there was something more positive to say, but at some point, the kid gloves need to come off. Fox Soccer Channel won’t critique itself, while many of those in the professional media will hardly consider challenging a peer even though feuds are great for publicity.

It’s probably not much of a stretch to say that the U.S. soccer machine is an incestuous mess of symbiotic parties hardly capable of discussing hard truths about itself, probably out of fear of biting the already impoverished hands that barely feed them. While this fear is understandable, it is no way for the game to grow, that is, if you feel the media has a role in soccer’s growth by challenging the status quo when the status quo needs challenging.

When you think of all that a soccer talk show could be in the United States, it is hard not to be aggravated by segments largely dedicated to empty conversations with questionable “celebrities,” a term I use loosely. It’s almost as if the predetermined target audience is “people who don’t care about soccer” to the exclusion of the existing soccer audience already primed to engage in thoughtful, well-reasoned debate. As it stands, I already miss Eric Wynalda and Nick Webster, which says a lot.

If Fox Soccer Channel happened to be interested in examining models for successful television, they shouldn’t have to look any further than Jon Stewart, sadly one of the few people on television willing to ask straight-forward questions and critically explore elephants in rooms. Unsurprisingly, the ratings have followed Stewart as he comically explores obvious gaping hole after obvious gaping hole. Fox Soccer Channel could learn a thing or eight from this guy if improvement is on the list of goals.

You may recall the old, yet still spectacular clip of Stewart on Crossfire where he evicerates Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala for being disingenous, uncritical, and fundamentally symbolic of our inability to engage in productive discourse. The clip is below. But this time as you watch, assume that Stewart is talking about soccer coverage in the United States (by professionals) and then we’ll continue from there …

It’s not a perfect parallel, but if Stewart was talking soccer, he would have hit the nail on the head. Where is the substance in our conversations? Is anyone interested in responsible, honest conversation, or are we only interested in substance-free theater? I think we know Fox Soccer Channel’s stance.

Watching Temryss Lane interview beauty pageant contestants and Martino commiserating with Susan Sarandon on Soccer Talk Live is difficult to stomach when there are fascinating soccer stories and debates all over this country that are routinely ignored in favor of nonsensical programming that makes my inner soccer fan cringe. If Fox Soccer executives think that there is nothing of value to discuss between game highlights and vacuous celebrity cameos, we’ve got a significant problem on our hands and an obstacle to growth of the sport in this country.

Tracking down people capable of discussing immigration’s impact on U.S. soccer, gender equity, urban-suburban issues, technical challenges, various youth development models or issues with the MLS model is not difficult. If executives truly believe that a show like Soccer Talk Live in its current state is more viable than a show that delves into some of the aforementioned issues, then we no longer have to wonder why soccer in this country sometimes struggles to find an audience among people who already love soccer. Too often they talk to us as if we’re in middle school when we have masters degrees.

Maybe this is the result of a completely disconnected suburbia controlling our soccer coverage. How else would you characterize a group of perpetually risk averse people either unable to see or unwilling to consider the real issues facing soccer in the 21st century?  How else can you describe a group capable of repeatedly creating programming that is completely unrelatable to someone who has been soccer obsessed for decades? Which brings me back to Jon Stewart and Crossfire. Stewart’s main point is that he’s incapable of forgiving processed, unenlightened political conversation from seemingly intelligent people. When it comes to soccer, what aren’t we willing to forgive from our coverage? Horrible plywood set aside, when do we recognize that good content is a vision issue and not necessarily a money issue? If you think that time and money will solve the vision problem, stay tuned for disappointment. I am willing to accept the automatic “we’re a young sport/network/landscape” excuse for some things, but not all things, and certainly not for an inability to have vision.

Ultimately, I don’t blame Kyle Martino for this televised tragedy. I blame those way above his pay grade who are responsible for programing direction and concepts. Only a leadership completely disconnected from soccer reality can produce something like Soccer Talk Live without recognizing the oncoming train. People are already rightfully concerned. While missteps are understandable, hopefully lessons can be learned this time so that next time there’s less of a train wreck and more of a bicycle accident.

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!

Related posts:

1. Looking Beyond Seats on a U.S. Soccer Plane – Part III (The Diversity Problem)
2. Looking Beyond Seats On A U.S. Soccer Plane – Part I
3. Fox Soccer Channel Goes All In With Technology

Holy bejesus. I’ve seen it all.

I was watching Morning Joe this morning. Judge me on that if you will. I was kind of paying attention as Al Sharpton and Joe Scarborough talked Glenn Beck, Martin Luther King, and whether Sharpton will allow Beck to reclaim Martin Luther King’s dream. Sharpton basically concluded that Glenn Beck should have a different dream.

As the Sharpton segment finished, I heard someone reference a segment recapping the weekend’s football action after the break. Surely the reference was about the ol’ gridiron variety, so I paid no attention.

Fast forward a few commercials about stuff that no one needs. Roger Bennett, ESPN soccer contributor and co-author of the ESPN World Cup Companion, was the featured guest for a new segment, Futbol Frenzy. Thoroughly confused, I turned the volume up. Although co-host Mika Brzezinski, Game Change co-author John Heilemann, and boy wonder Willie Geist were clearly unable to contribute, presumably due to a lack of soccer knowledge and/or interest, Scarborogh dove in head first, joining Bennett in a review of select action from this weekend’s English Premier League fixtures. For a man who claims to have had negative interest in the sport only a few years ago, Scarborough has come a long way. Over the past year, he’s made it perfectly clear that he’s 100% on the soccer train.

I have heard Scarborough talk about soccer before, but his comments usually surface during something World Cup-related, or at moments indisputably worthy of coverage, like when Thierry Henry moved to New York after signing with the New York Red Bulls. But today is just a random Monday. For Morning Joe to dedicate an entire segment to English Premier League highlights is borderline mindblowing. My guess — and don’t quote me — is that this could have very well been the first time a popular, non-sports related, morning talk show in the United States exclusively dedicated a segment to regular season soccer highlights.

So what topics did Scarborough and Bennett address? Manchester City, or as Scarborough calls them, “the best team that Abu Dhabi can buy,” falling 1-0 to Sunderland. Tottenham losing to Wigan. Blackpool’s performance against Fulham, which happened to be Scarborough’s favorite story of the weekend.

Really, this happened. Informed commentary on several soccer games with video footage. It was in the morning and not on ESPN or Fox Soccer Channel. It was random, thrilling, and in all seriousness, made my heart skip a beat.

Scarborogh moved on to Chelsea. Highlights aside, Scarborough thinks John Terry is “a terrible human being.”

Scarborough on Manchester United: “Berbatov …  actually performed. This guy has been the underperformer of the year.” Fair enough.

Then he moved on to his relief that Liverpool finally won while smartly acknowledging Bennett’s Everton affiliation. Well played, Joe.

Is this what America looks like when more people care about soccer? Do you wake up in the morning, make your coffee (or tea if you were properly colonized by the British), turn on your 3D television and listen to Al Roker talk about Paul Scholes?

All this Euro soccer talk will make Glenn Beck’s head explode. But it is great to see Scarborough, who has admitedly come from the soccer detractors’ camp, transform into yet another unlikely advocate for soccer’s growth in the United States. When you look at the Morning Joe panel, the idea to include a soccer segment, particularly one focusing on England, could only have come from Scarborough. And for that he deserves a hug. Thanks for making my morning, Joe.

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!

Related posts:

1. An NFL Fan Walks Into a Bar …
2. On Soccer Talk Live, Jon Stewart and Horrible Television
3. Dear Bill Maher, If Sarah Palin Is Influential, So Is Didier Drogba

From Soccernet:

U.S. Soccer Federation president Sunil Gulati and Bob Bradley met in Los Angeles on Thursday, but no decision was made regarding Bradley’s future as head coach of the U.S. national team, according to a source with knowledge of the discussions.

The source also indicated that the meeting was never intended to produce a decision regarding Bradley’s status, and instead was meant to be a debrief of the U.S. team’s performance at the World Cup, the second such meeting the two have had since the Americans were eliminated by Ghana in the second round.

No timetable has been set for when Bradley’s situation will be resolved.

Perpetual limbo.

Seemingly no one knows anything about the negotiations that are not taking place about the U.S. manager position.

We do know, however, that Bob Bradley is interested in opportunities in Europe. The only reason to reveal this tidbit is because Bradley is, well, interested in opportunities in Europe.

But from the Federation’s perspective, if they don’t think that Bradley is the best man for the position by now, they will never know. It’s almost three months since the U.S. was knocked out of the World Cup. That’s enough time to digest what happened. In fact, it’s enough time to draw out a cartoon, frame-by-frame, of Team USA’s adventure in South Africa.

So what are these people talking about?

My masters degree in people watching tells me that Bob Bradley is done. He’s publicly looking for a job without burning bridges. Someone who is primarily interested in staying at a job doesn’t look publicly. Fair enough. But Sunil Gulati and the Federation are seemingly Bradley’s bunkmates in limbo. While it’s fair to assume that one can’t announce any developments where none exist, as the days turn to months, you have to begin wondering about U.S. soccer’s ability to properly plan for the future. As we start getting closer to the next international date with no movement, the smell of confusion starts to burn the nostrils.

Let’s go back to Bradley’s introduction. Bradley was initially appointed interim manager as the U.S. Soccer Federation tried to secure Jürgen Klinsmann. When the Klinsmann thing didn’t work out, Bradley was offered and accepted the job full-time. And the statements of confidence and support followed, as they should have.

But what happened raises a fundamental question: How do you go from Klinsmann to Bradley? Without questioning either manager’s pedigree, the two men are philosophically night and day.

If you think that Klinsmann and Bradley are the same type of manager interested in developing similar playing styles, perhaps there is no issue. But if you think that these managers would go in two different directions, we have an issue, not with the managers, but with the body doing the hiring.

Coaches have skill sets, and teams have needs and areas that require attention. A coach’s strengths should match a team’s needs. Simple as. But someone needs to define the needs, the direction, and the destination. If Klinsmann and Bradley are on the table at the same time, there needs to either be a rationale as to how each of these men fills a need and provides the direction to a destination, or there was no direction or destination in the first place. In fact, it makes one wonder whether the need was defined beyond narrowly needing a manager who knows the system. Our needs are an open book and they aren’t always tied to poor technique. We need to get better getting forward. We need to become more proficient building our attack through midfield. We need to improve our finishing. We need to work on possessing the ball and controlling the tempo of the game. Simply put, there are people  better equipped than others to address these needs.

Bradley was a reactionary hire. That isn’t to say that his results were horrible. Quite the contrary. Bradley took the opportunity and led a successful cycle if results are the measure of success. But his hiring on the back of courting Klinsmann showed little vision. It’s like saying, “Well if not Barack Obama, I’ll take John McCain.” It shows an inability to understand that the leader you choose shows what you’ve highlighted as the biggest needs, and dictates the direction you think is required to get to the next level.

Hopefully, the Federation gets the process right this time. I’m assuming that Bradley is not the first pick. We don’t know the other names that the Federation may be considering to be his successor. But even if the Federation doesn’t have a clue, they should, without question, know the direction that’s needed. We’ve been watching this group now for four years. If there are not clear ideas regarding where we need to go, something is desperately wrong.

As it stands, if Bob Bradley, after almost three months of stagnation, ends up manager, he’ll deserve our unconditional support, but it will reek of a Sarah Palin-esque lack of ideas, unless, of course, the Federation can articulate the team’s needs, direction and destination, and how Bradley has the skills to do the specific job defined. Bob Bradley deserves better. So do we. To ask for a little vision isn’t asking a lot.

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!

Related posts:

1. Nigeria Might As Well Hire Me Next: Systemic Problems in African Hiring
2. U.S. vs. Czech Republic World Cup Warm Up: What We Learned
3. Management Under Fire (Counterpoint)

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!

Related posts:

1. Random Weekly Football Review: Around The World In 90 Minutes (3.28.2010)
2. Random Weekly Football Review: Around The World In 90 Minutes (4.11.2010)
3. Random Weekly Football Review: Around The World In 90 Minutes (5.16.2010)

From Vladdub: Andrey, do you play in pairs with Pavlyuchenko?
A.A.: What game do you mean?

From shmelkat: What are going to do after your football career? It’s Katya writing, 12 years old.
A.A: Katya, it’s Andrey answering, 29 years old: I do not know …

From antoha94: Hello Andrey! I play football and I want to become a professional Russian player just like you, but I do not live in Russia. Do you think it’s possible? What club can accept an 18 year old guy?
A.A.: The one that will get interested in him.

It’s genius, really. If you want to absorb more nuggets of greatness from the diminutive Russian, it’s all here.