World Cup 2010: Little guys play too

September 10, 2009 11:21 AM

What`s great about the World Cup of football is that everyone gets a chance to qualify, against all odds. This week was a fascinating week of World Cup qualifying matches around the world. But while the world's attention was focused on Portugal and Argentina and France and Cameroon and England, among others, a small victory was won in a dusty forgotten corner of UEFA Group Seven. On Wednesday the Faroe Islands recorded their first cWorld Cup win , a 2-1 victory over Lithuania.

The Faroes are a devoted squad, and although this was their first FIFA sanctioned World Cup win, they have had other extradordinary victories, including the 7-1 drubbing of Aland in the 1989 Island Games final. It was Bergur Magnussen`s greatest moment, scoring six second half goals for his side.

posted by salishsea (46 comments total)

WoooHooooo Faroe Islands! (Seriously, I was rooting for them because of a friend's weird connection with and enthusiasm for the islands.)
posted by The World Famous at 11:28 AM on September 10

stunning.
posted by ktrain at 11:35 AM on September 10

Faroe Islands also drew with Austria, which isn't a bad achievement really. Sadly though, all the ickle teams are now out, including Andorra, Lichtenstein, San Marino, Neutral Moresnet, and the Republic of Segonia.
posted by Sova at 11:47 AM on September 10 [1 favorite has favorites]

I love following the Dr. Seuss Group results early on in the qualifying!
posted by salishsea at 11:48 AM on September 10 [1 favorite has favorites]

One important thing about soccer in general, and international games in particular, is that the team manager can make a huge difference. That's why somebody like Guus Hiddink can manage to get big triumphs for small teams, whereas a Domenech or a Maradona may yet "manage" two huge football nations into the ditch.
posted by Skeptic at 11:55 AM on September 10

That's awesome - can't believe I missed it. Isn't the Faroe Islands' pitch famous for being massively sloped?
posted by patricio at 12:00 PM on September 10

I'm not a big sports guy generally, but I do love the World Cup, precisely because it's such a huge international sport with tiny margins. (And, it's the only sport where you get to say, "Wow, the US qualified. How about that?")

(My country hardly ever qualifies, but I still low that damn spectacle.)
posted by Dumsnill at 12:16 PM on September 10

This thread needs photos of the stadium. What a beautiful setting for a game! (OK, the Google Maps image is a little misty.)
posted by nowonmai at 12:24 PM on September 10 [3 favorites has favorites]

Thank you one hundred times for causing me to Google Neutral Moresnet and subsequently read its Wikipedia article, Sova. The first two sentences alone are the most delightful thing I've read today.
posted by CRM114 at 12:29 PM on September 10

Dumsnill: "I'm not a big sports guy generally, but I do love the World Cup, precisely because it's such a huge international sport with tiny margins. (And, it's the only sport where you get to say, "Wow, the US qualified. How about that?")

(My country hardly ever qualifies, but I still low that damn spectacle.)"

That's just silly. The U.S. National team has been qualifying pretty consistently since I was in high school and have qualified for the last 5 finals tournaments. The U.S. also made it to the finals of the confederations cup recently so I don't know about lucking their way around. The U.S. Woman's team has won the world cup a few times I believe.

I always cheer for my German team and hope they will do well during this upcoming World Cup. One of my goals is to make it to a World Cup Finals game with Germany vs. Anyone.
posted by Gravitus at 12:43 PM on September 10

if you cheer for the Germans avoid any Germany-Italy matches then
posted by matteo at 12:49 PM on September 10 [1 favorite has favorites]

That's just silly

Yeah, you're right, I was mostly thinking of the history of the game, where the US is more or less absent, except for occasional bursts of brilliance. My comment was not at all intended as an attack on US performance, it was (if anything) meant to point out that there are very few truly international sports where the US (and other big countries) does not dominate completely.
posted by Dumsnill at 12:51 PM on September 10

It's so funny that in Toronto you cannot avoid the World Cup - previous co-workers had the radio and/or a TV on constantly throughout. Here in the US... crickets.
posted by GuyZero at 1:08 PM on September 10

Also, The Homeless World Cup.
posted by GuyZero at 1:12 PM on September 10

That's why somebody like Guus Hiddink can manage to get big triumphs for small teams, whereas a Domenech or a Maradona may yet "manage" two huge football nations into the ditch.

Except that for Maradona to manage Argentina into the ditch, he'll first have to manage them out of the ditch. Where's that Hand of God when you need it?
posted by grounded at 1:14 PM on September 10

Psssh... of course now everyone's a Faroe Islands fan.
posted by phrontist at 1:30 PM on September 10 [2 favorites has favorites]

Faroe Islands have won World Cup qualifiers before; they swept Malta in UEFA qualifying in 1998, and did it to Luxembourg in 2002 as well (not to mention their draw that year at home to a Slovenian side that qualified). Lithuania is miles ahead of both of them, though, so this is definitely my favorite result of qualifying so far.
posted by jackflaps at 1:56 PM on September 10

I believe the Faroe Islands were one of the squads I used to choose to play against Italy or Brazil in EA FIFA 0- (I forget which version it was...this is back in the PS1 days) when I wanted to see how many goals I could score in one game, so this sorta warms my heart.
posted by The Card Cheat at 1:59 PM on September 10

> It's so funny that in Toronto you cannot avoid the World Cup - previous co-workers had the radio and/or a TV on constantly throughout.

Moving to Toronto (in the summer of '98) is what hooked me on the World (and Euro) Cup; it's a great place to be for these international tournaments, because no matter who's playing there are expats from that country living here.
posted by The Card Cheat at 2:06 PM on September 10

Ah yes, the summer of '98... World Cup and a drywallers' strike that held up my new condo. Coincidence?
posted by GuyZero at 2:08 PM on September 10

(The Faroe Islands are, of course, most well-known for being the home of Týr.)
posted by Greg Nog at 2:28 PM on September 10 [1 favorite has favorites]

I didn't spot you at any of Týr's recent NYC-area shows Greg! You missed some good stuff.
posted by nowonmai at 2:35 PM on September 10

there are very few truly international sports where the US (and other big countries) does not dominate completely

You rugby-hating cricket-illiterate morons make me vomit up bile on my snooker table.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 2:38 PM on September 10 [8 favorites has favorites]

I remember when Scotland played the Faroe Islands ten or more years ago and at half time the teams were drawn 1:1 (I think). On Radio 5 Live's call in, one listener with a broad Scottish accent ranted as to what a disgrace it was, what a national embarassment it was, leading up to punchline "How on earth can we consider ourselves a footballing nation if we cannae beat Scotland?"
posted by NailsTheCat at 2:41 PM on September 10 [7 favorites has favorites]

Good to see Brian Kerr doing well again, his underage Ireland teams achieved spectacular success considering the size of the country and the place of soccer in the pecking order. He was a bit out of his depth at senior level, but didn't deserve the abuse he took from the media.
posted by kersplunk at 3:05 PM on September 10 [2 favorites has favorites]

Things to try to do in Torshavn
posted by kersplunk at 3:14 PM on September 10

Dumsnill: "That's just silly

Yeah, you're right, I was mostly thinking of the history of the game, where the US is more or less absent, except for occasional bursts of brilliance. My comment was not at all intended as an attack on US performance, it was (if anything) meant to point out that there are very few truly international sports where the US (and other big countries) does not dominate completely."

You are right taking, your previous statement in that context. In my opinion, the U.S. team has a large group of overachievers which is exactly what we need at this point in time. I was only halfheartedly jabbing at you. :)

On that note MLS makes me think of England Coca-Cola championship league teams. Previously, they were more like league 2 teams in England. They have come a long way with solid younger players but the development of these youth players leaves a lot to be desired as compared to most other nations and the setup they have going.

Now we just need to get the whole "relegation" model over to the U.S and apply it to more mainstream sports in America like football, baseball, basketball, etc... You hear that Detroit Lions?, GTFO.
posted by Gravitus at 3:15 PM on September 10

Now we just need to get the whole "relegation" model over to the U.S and apply it to more mainstream sports in America like football, baseball, basketball, etc... You hear that Detroit Lions?, GTFO.

I've always wondered why, given the prevailing stereotypes, in Europe soccer is basically dog-eat-dog capitalism, while American sport, with its drafts, salary caps, and collective bargaining, has more than a whiff of (gosh!) socialism about it.
posted by kersplunk at 3:25 PM on September 10 [3 favorites has favorites]

kersplunk: I have a half-formed theory that goes something like this:
In Europe, sporting clubs were formed locally, competing against one another and subsequently forming associations to regulate regional, nationwide and eventually continent-wide and global competitions. But it was a bottom-up process that started with local sporting clubs, and the sports are organised in a club-oriented manner. The clubs, tied to their local communities, are the important entities. It is the clubs' interest that governs the game, specifically the most powerful clubs. The top clubs care only about their own success and there is no reason why they would care for any attempt to level the playing field.
My impression of American sport is that it is the leagues who "own" the sports, granting franchises to teams. Teams don't have the same links to local communities, and can relocate to different cities. Brand new teams can be created in markets that lack one. The league or association is more powerful than the clubs, and it is in the league's interest to have a close competition, with teams from many different markets sharing success to keep the ratings high.
ie, the history of the sports and the balance of power between clubs/teams and associations/leagues has led to the capitalism of club-dominated European sport versus the socialism of league-dominated US sports. In some sense, I feel that whereas in England Manchester United compete against Chelsea, Liverpool et al., in the USA the NFL competes against the MLB, NHL, NBA, and other prime-time TV.
I hope that made some kind of sense. It will be a killer essay when I have time to write it.
posted by nowonmai at 4:02 PM on September 10 [2 favorites has favorites]

I've always wondered why, given the prevailing stereotypes, in Europe soccer is basically dog-eat-dog capitalism, while American sport, with its drafts, salary caps, and collective bargaining, has more than a whiff of (gosh!) socialism about it.

I can't find it, but there was an article in the Economist several years ago about this.
posted by Stylus Happenstance at 5:57 PM on September 10

You're exactly right about the franchise system. Here in America, everyone knows that the primary goal of these franchises is to make money. I recently read comments from Liverpool supporters saying that the purpose of the club is to win trophies, not to make money. While that might be naive in England, it would be absolutely ridiculous to say that about any American tea,
posted by Stylus Happenstance at 6:01 PM on September 10

'team', of course

'American tea' is a different kind of ridiculous.
posted by Stylus Happenstance at 6:02 PM on September 10 [1 favorite has favorites]

Týr need to write their official football song, of course.

Then go back on tour. Damn they are a great band!
posted by spinifex23 at 6:05 PM on September 10

My impression of American sport is that it is the leagues who "own" the sports, granting franchises to teams.

That's essentially it. American sports are all about the leagues and have been since they were formed. Because what we now know as the major leagues dominated the US Rust Belt and Northeast, they were the ones that were trumpeted by the media and thus drew the best players. Other parts of the country, like the South and the West, had their own leagues, but they in the end couldn't compete with the eastern leagues, mainly because of a smaller population base.

The PCL tried to become a third major league in baseball, and they were close to succeeding when the Giants and Dodgers moved west in '58 and essentially killed that idea. There never really was a successful pro football league in the West, and the transfer of the Cleveland Rams to LA and the 49ers coming over from the AAFC cemented the NFL as a coast-to-coast league.

There never will be relegation in US sports, simply because there's no league to be relegated to in the five main sports. Minor league baseball and basketball have their players supplied by the majors. Minor league football is essentially college football. Minor league hockey is an amalgam of junior hockey and a minor league system. And the MLS is too tenuous right now to afford relegation of teams that in some cases are still heavily league owned. And on top of that, the amount of money in pro sports in the US -- teams like the Yankees worth well over $1B, your average NBA team worth $300MM -- would make it economic suicide to put promotion/relegation in.

I think, though, that the days of relegation in football will come to an end soon, simply because of how much money there is in the behemoths like Man U and Barca. There's just too much money at risk now with a league structure. Either the premier leagues will lock their memberships or the feared "European superleague" plan will rear its head again.
posted by dw at 6:08 PM on September 10

nowonmai, this is true. I have been for most of my life a huge Toronto Maple Leafs fan but I have found myself drifting away from hockey because of the ridiculous management of the NHL. And the Leafs are about as home town as a professional franchise gets, being that they predated the league and all. In Starbucks terms, the Phoenix Coyotes are a company store, but the Leafs are Seattle's Best Coffee.

But I'm also a Spurs fan having spent a little time growing up just north of London and I love the bottom up self-organizing nature of football that allows for teams to compete for many different trophies and in many different leagues. It's cool and interesting and it IS about the club and not the League.
posted by salishsea at 6:10 PM on September 10

PS on the US footie team: Yesterday they clinched no worse than fourth in the hexagonal, meaning at worst they'll play the CONMEBOL fifth place team for a World Cup spot. One more win, either at Honduras or home against Costa Rica, and they'll clinch an automatic berth.

The days of the US being a joke in football are over. They're not a superpower, but they're good enough to make the last 16.
posted by dw at 6:17 PM on September 10

> There never will be relegation in US sports, simply because there's no league to be relegated to in the five main sports.

I don't think that's quite right; there are 32 teams in the NFL and only 16 regular season games. In the US egalitarian system they are arranged into 8 parallel divisions of 4 teams; in a European-style system a vertical league structure would have three divisions of 10-12 teams with promotion and relegation ensuring a concentration of talent in the top division. (eg. 10 teams = 18 regular season games with 4 teams going to post-season). A European style system would require promotion and relegation WITHIN the NFL rather than to and from another league.
posted by nowonmai at 6:53 PM on September 10

Looking at their roster, it seems like they have a fair number of guys playing on professional clubs in major to decent leagues.

The real story of the World Cup so far? North Korea qualifying with so few players with any professional experience outside of the piddling DPRK leagues. (If wikipedia is to be believed, only four members of the squad play outside of the country.)

Think about it -- a team qualifying for the World Cup with only four members who play outside of the country professionally (and frankly, not in very good leagues). That's astounding. And makes the disaster that is the current Argentine squad so laughable, with so many players in the Premier League, La Liga, Seria A, Bundesliga, etc.

My inner imp of the perverse kind of hopes North Korea, South Korea, United States, and Japan end up in a bracket together. Because that would be all kinds of fucking insane right there.
posted by bardic at 7:31 PM on September 10

a team qualifying for the World Cup with only four members who play outside of the country professionally

IIRC, almost every member of Italy's 2006 team played in Italy, not that this has anything to do with this situation, just, you know, something I remember hearing.
posted by Stylus Happenstance at 8:46 PM on September 10

Yeah, but Italy has one of the best professional leagues in the world.
posted by bardic at 9:06 PM on September 10

bardic...great group...that would be incredible.

Stylus....yeah well...I'm not sure what constitutes a professional footballer in North Korea, but it certainly isn't Serie A level...
posted by salishsea at 9:10 PM on September 10

My inner imp of the perverse kind of hopes North Korea, South Korea, United States, and Japan end up in a bracket together.

Can't happen. Japan, ROK, and the DPRK are all out of the AFC, and in the past the entire AFC has been dumped into a single pot when the draw comes. CONCACAF was in the same pot as the AFC in 2006. I haven't seen anything to suggest that FIFA will change the way they seed the groups in 2010, at least when it comes to how they handle federations.

It is certainly possible the US could draw the DPRK, but the mostly likely scenario would require the US to be seeded, and that's not going to happen.
posted by dw at 11:19 PM on September 10

nowonmai: "> There never will be relegation in US sports, simply because there's no league to be relegated to in the five main sports.

I don't think that's quite right; there are 32 teams in the NFL and only 16 regular season games. In the US egalitarian system they are arranged into 8 parallel divisions of 4 teams; in a European-style system a vertical league structure would have three divisions of 10-12 teams with promotion and relegation ensuring a concentration of talent in the top division. (eg. 10 teams = 18 regular season games with 4 teams going to post-season). A European style system would require promotion and relegation WITHIN the NFL rather than to and from another league."

I don't think it will ever happen for a few reasons that others have touched on already. I also think the reason it would never happen is that the volume of games played in soccer over the course of a season can get pretty high when you factor in league play, national cup tournaments, CL games, Europa games, National team games, etc. The only leagues that play more by comparison is basketball and baseball and I don't think it is applicable in this comparison. Seems more of a pipe dream for a common sports fan like me that rather see competition across the board instead of a few power houses.
posted by Gravitus at 11:55 PM on September 10

"Seems more of a pipe dream for a common sports fan like me that rather see competition across the board instead of a few power houses."

Alas, the English Premiership shows that relegation does nothing to prevent a few powerhouses emerging. In fact there is vague talk of ceding more power to the league, such as imposing a salary cap to try to level things out.
posted by patricio at 1:06 AM on September 11

Gravitus: I agree that reorganisation of any American sport into a vertical league structure isn't going to happen; I was just saying that the reason why not is not the absence of additional feeder leagues (nor the number of games - that's easily controlled in either system) because the existing number of teams could be organised that way if the powers that be wanted it. The differences between the US and Europe are entirely cultural.
And yeah, the effect of a vertical league structure is to concentrate wealth and success in a few powerhouses at the top. As a Liverpool supporter I'm OK with that!
posted by nowonmai at 7:22 AM on September 11

dw: Either the premier leagues will lock their memberships or the feared "European superleague" plan will rear its head again.

The temptation of having more and more of those big European club matches, with the exposure and advertising/television revenue that they represent, may prove irresistible in the end and bring about such a superleague. Probably with locked membership. Then we will be talking of wild capitalism.
posted by blogenstock at 2:12 PM on September 11