Football Champions

Few people would mistake Diego Armando Maradona for a sane man. That has been clear for some time now--probably since he first entered the public conscience nearly 30 years ago.

How else to describe somebody who supports the political regimes of Venezuela, Cuba and Iran (while dodging taxes, or maybe that was at a different point in his life) and who nearly ate, drank and coked himself to death on several occasions?

So none of us really need proof this guy is completely off his rocker. But just in case, he offered further evidence today when he named the Argentina squad for the 2010 World Cup.

How else to explain a 23-man squad that features Juan Sebastian Veron (yes that one), Martin Palermo and Ariel Garce?

If you haven't heard of the last one you aren't alone. He's a 30-year old defender who played his entire career for Argentine clubs. Seriously, how good can you be if NO European club EVER took as much as a look at you?

Speaking of which, three clubs have more than one representative on Maradona's team. One is Inter Milan. Can you guess the others? If you said Barcelona or Real Madrid or even Olympique Marseille you were WRONG. The correct answer is Estudiantes and Colon. The latter, along with their unfortunate name, will be fortunate to finish in mid table in the Argentine Clausura league this season.

Admittedly, we should have known something was up when Maradona named a 30-man provisional squad that did not include Real Madrid's Fernando "Lady" Gago or Barcelona's Gabriel Milito, among others.

It's one thing to go for experience. But with Javier Zanetti and Esteban Cambiasso Maradona had far better qualified options on that end.

I mean Juan Sebastian Veron? I didn't even know this guy still played!

Then again why should anybody really care about this? The worst thing that can happen is if it somehow actually works and Maradona is declared a genius rather than the psychotic lunatic he is in reality.

Then again what are the chances of that happening?

Photo taken from BleacherReport.com without permission.

...is this man: Wayne Mark Rooney.

Yes, we know: Rooney is actually Irish and could just as easily be playing for The Republic like his brother. But there are two problems with this: 1. Ireland were cheated out of a World Cup spot and 2. Rooney, for whatever reason, chose to represent the three lions.

They can be very glad he did. Because if England do defeat their former colony in South Africa, it will undoubtedly be because of Rooney. The best player in British football presents the U.S. a "match-up" problem its defense is ill-equipped to deal with. And that's when American defenders are healthy. At present, two of its starting back four (Oguchi Onyewu and Steve Cherundolo) are injured. So is defensive midfielder Ricardo Clark, whose services would be sorely needed to contain the Man United striker.

All three are expected back in time for the World Cup, but that might not help much. The U.S. simply does not have anybody who can match Rooney's pace, strength and positioning. Few, if any teams do of course but defense happens to be our weakest link. Clark is perhaps the best equipped to at least shadow Rooney in midfield and try to prevent him from getting touches there. But the back four will need to provide cover in the defensive third. And neither Onyewu nor Carlos Bocanegra, the Yanks other starting central defender, are up to the task. Onyewu can match Rooney physically but he's too slow for the assignment. Bocanegra is a bit fleeter than the massive Onyewu but not much. And frankly Boca (who also plays midfield) does not seem all that smart as a defender, as indicated through numerous blown assignments and cases of "ball watching" in qualifiers.

Too bad, because other than that England has no real edge on the U.S. In fact, the Yanks are stronger on the wings (through Landon Donovan, mainly) and far superior at goalkeeper. England have problems of their own on defense, and we aren't talking about John Terry's personal issues. Clint Dempsey has proven through his goal scoring at Fulham that he can succeed against English (and other) defenders. Plus we remain unconvinced about the strength of England's midfield, with Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard hogging all the limelight (and most of the possession).

So make no mistake: Rooney is the only truly world class player on either side right now. Among U.S. players, Tim Howard is almost there and Jozy Altidore certainly has the potential. So does Charlie Davies, but nobody knows how last October's accident will affect his skills over the medium term. And for England? Rooney's it, folks. Sorry, but Stevie and Frankie aren't world class anymore, if indeed they ever were. Okay, fine, Theo Walcott also has the potential to be world class but who knows about his health.

Of course lots can still happen between now and June 12. Rooney could get injured, or burn out, or lose his form. Charlie Davies could continue his miraculous recovery and return as his old self in time for kick off. Stuart Holden could emerge as another bonafide threat on the flanks. Who knows, maybe a defensive star will even emerge for the U.S. Eh, not so much. But for now, it looks like Wayne Rooney is the one key factor for which the U.S. have no answer. If England beat us, it will be because of him.

Don't get me wrong, the book Soccernomics by Simon Kuper and Stean Szymanski is a quick and entertaining read and teaches a few solid lessons. It provides some pretty compelling insight into England's woes in particular and manages to shatter a few myths about the business of soccer. But the book falls short of its ultimate goal, to uncover new, "data-driven" truths that will revolutionize the way the sport is coached, scouted and managed. If you're looking for soccer's version of Bill James' Baseball Extracts, this ain't it. In fact, perhaps more than anything else the book demonstrates the perils of trying to turn soccer into a statistical, data-centric sport; it simply tries to do too much with too little. You're left with a lot of extrapolation, most of which is likely to be disproved before the end of the next World Cup.

The book's main points are this: Rich, prosperous countries and municipalities have more success than poor ones, though there are two notable exceptions (England and Brazil). The transfer market is very inefficient because people who manage soccer clubs, despite their success in other endeavors--or perhaps because of them--do not make good decisions when it comes to managing their clubs' resources (again one notable exception: Lyon). Soccer is not only not big business, but actually rather small potatoes. England are crap and will probably never win another World Cup.

The chapter on England that opens the book is also its best. Hopefully England supporters will read it before the World Cup. Then, when we (the U.S.) beat them in the opening match it will be less of a surprise--and also less of a catastrophe--for the sport's mother country and its bloodthirsty press. So why are England crap? Simple: It has never "developed resources" beyond its working class roots. The English national team is still largely made up of proletarian yobs. To illustrate, the book provides a table with members of England's last three World Cup teams and their fathers' professions. Besides the ones whose dads were professional soccer players or coaches, only David James, Peter Crouch and Gareth Southgate appear to have middle class backgrounds. "When you limit your talent pool, you limit the development of skills," Kuper and Szymanski write. Yes indeed.

Okay, then what about countries like Nigeria, Russia and Mexico, all of whom have soccer-mad populations north of 100 million but none of whom ever appeared in a World Cup semifinal? The same reason, really: managing resources. "People all over the world might want to play [organized] sports, but to make that happen requires money and organization that poor countries don't have."

Here is where the authors' thesis starts to get a bit dicey. How do they explain Brazil, a poor country that has won more World Cups than anybody? Or Argentina, which wasn't exactly rich when it won World Cups? They acknowledge Brazil is an anomaly, but say Brazilian players are overvalued on the transfer market. Then they laud the success of Olympique Lyon, who have somehow managed to "buy low/sell high" almost exclusively with Brazilian imports.

They also have high praise for Arsene Wenger. It's hard to argue that the Frenchman hasn't done great things for Arsenal and that his methods haven't reinvigorated the game in England. But despite being one of the richest clubs in the world, Arsenal has won little silverware in England and none in Europe since Wenger's arrival. Manchester United, par contre, have had unparalleled success the past two decades even though the team's (Scottish) manager does not have an advanced degree in economics and presumably employs none of Wenger's new-age methods.

It just doesn't add up. The Soviet Union had a run of almost 50 years with a highly organized system of more resources than anybody else but didn't win anything. When its clubs did win, it places like Tbilisi and Minsk, not population centers like Moscow and Leningrad. Mexico may not be rich but its clubs have more money (and resources) than anybody outside Western Europe. The first African nation to make inroads internationally (Cameroon) does not even have the 10th-largest population on the continent and is certainly not its richest.

The authors' curious choice of Iraq as an "emerging" soccer nation is even more questionable considering it is right next to Saudi Arabia. The countries are comparable in population size, but one would think the Saudis have more money and organization dedicated to soccer these days. Another country they tapped for soccer greatness, China, has very limited success with team sports of any kind (despite its resources). South Korea has both resources and the know-how to manage them and made the semifinals of the World Cup to boot, but the book barely mentions the Taeguk Warriors.

In the end, it comes out to a typical example of over-reaching to make data fit your ideas rather than vice-versa. You can't fault the authors for trying, but it's a losing proposition from the word go. Unlike sports such as baseball and (American) football, soccer simply does not lend itself to statistical analysis. It just isn't wired that way. The game cannot be parceled up and broken apart with numbers or even facts. The story of a soccer match cannot be told in its box score and there is still no statistic that properly measures a player's contributions. This is starting to change with metrics like tackles, passes and distances run, but the sample size is very, very small. Moreover, even the crudest data, goals scored and against, does not always reflect the reality of what transpired on the pitch. In soccer, the best team does not always win. Over the course of a full season, the best team usually (though not always) ends up winning more than the rest, which is why you need a single table and full home and away schedule to determine a righteous champion. But neither the World Cup, nor its qualification pre-tournaments have this, which is one reason why international matches cannot be trusted as a proper metric for statistical modeling. The European club tournaments aren't much better, though they have been more just in the Champions League era (with its group stages) than before, when each round was drawn completely at random. Yet these make up most of the book's data sample.

So Soccernomics has no chance. The data is flawed to start, and the authors do it no favors by extrapolating to make points that aren't there to begin with. It's lose-lose. Kuper and Szymanski (and their editors) deserve credit for producing a work that is easy and fun to read and raises some interesting questions. But soccer will never lend itself to complete statistical analysis for the same reason that films, artists and actors won't. It's just too visceral.

Happy holidays from Soccer Source! In the spirit of things, we thought it would be a good idea to identify 10 questions facing world soccer in 2010 and rank them according to (our perceived order of) importance. Note that while we might claim these are "world" soccer issues, true imperialists that we are the list is almost entirely U.S.- and England-specific. But you've come to expect as much at this point, right? Anyway, here goes:

1. Who will win the 2010 World Cup?
Any speculation on this topic naturally begins with the point that no European country has won a World Cup outside its home continent. That would leave Argentina, Brazil and the United States as favorites. Just kidding, the U.S. is at least a generation or two away from even entering that conversation. So it's between Argentina and Brazil then? Not so fast. The 2010 tournament might be played outside of Europe, however the South African winter probably suits Europeans better than South Americans. Recent World Cups held outside Europe took place in ecosystems more akin to tropical rainforests, which are ill-suited to delicate European (particularly northern European) athletes. The one exception, Argentina, featured a heavily favored home side--and even then the Dutch almost won. So in terms of geography, we're entering uncharted waters in 2010 and not just because it's the first World Cup to take place in Africa. So where does that leave us? Maybe, just maybe, the best team will win. Right now, that team is Spain or Brazil, depending on whom you believe. So one of them will win the World Cup. Germany will probably make the final again just because that always happens. But really, Spain and Brazil are heavy favorites, followed by Argentina and Italy. Germany and Ivory Coast could be right there as well. England? Don't make me laugh. Ireland have a better chance of winning at this point and I say that fully aware they won't even be in the field.

2. Will Barcelona repeat its success from 2009?
It's going to be very, very difficult. For starters they have to repeat as Liga champs. That may be the easiest task at this point and only because second-placed Real Madrid have failed to impress. Then there is the Copa del Rey, a grueling two-stage elimination tournament that is now just in the round of 16. Upsets always happen in this thing (just ask Real Madrid) especially when teams have to devote manpower to their European campaigns. Speaking of which, Barca have an easy draw in the Champions League round of 16 (they face VfB Stuttgart, who aren't even good in Germany anymore). So at least that's in their favor. But with the myriad other tournaments, there are simply so many things that can go wrong that it's difficult to like Barcelona's chances of winning six trophies again.

3. What form will professional soccer take in the U.S.?
Make no mistake: this issue will have a direct impact on the wider world of soccer. North America has historically been the "final frontier" of the beautiful game, with countless professional leagues coming and going the last 80 years. Now, U.S. professional soccer is at the crossroads once more , with its top two divisions facing a labor stand-off and infighting, respectively. It could not come at a worse time. Major League Soccer, which was created as a prerequisite for the U.S. receiving the 1994 World Cup, has finally made some inroads with the American public. Its newest team, the Seattle Sounders, were an unprecedented success in 2009. The next expansion club, the Philadelphia Union, are already selling season tickets by the thousands. Television ratings have even gone up. A strike or lockout would be costly, perhaps fatal, but is now a very real possibility. A Jan. 31 deadline looms and the two sides remain far apart on major issues. Then there's the new North American Soccer League, or NASL 2.0, a group of dissident clubs from the United Soccer Leagues that acquired the rights to the NASL name. The two leagues, USL and NASL, are now caught in their own legal battle. How will all this end? Who knows if it even will end in 2010? If the history of U.S. professional soccer has proven anything, it's a penchant for self destruction.

4. How will the U.S. Men's National Team do at the World Cup?
This issue is also vital to the future of the beautiful game, which is why the powers-that-be in Zurich engineered an easy yet compelling draw for the Yanks. The U.S. should qualify from its group for sure. I can see them even defeating England, which will be hampered by the forced inclusion of David Beckham in its squad. After that, it's anybody's guess. A quarterfinal spot could be in the offing. Anything beyond that is highly unlikely. In the end everybody will say the U.S. did enough to demonstrate they're on their way to becoming a world soccer. Which is exactly what they say all the time, anyway.

5. How will England do at the World Cup?
No better than the U.S., that's for sure. England are caught in a kind of generational shift, with aging, overrated midfielders (Gerrard, Lampard) holding on to spots while younger guys like Aaron Lennon struggle for space. The whole thing is made more difficult through the forced inclusion of Beckham. You laugh, but do you really think Becks' corporate sponsors (which only includes, oh, everybody, plus all the companies that are bailing on Tiger Woods) will let Fabio Capello get away with leaving him off? Beckham is not only going to be named to the squad, but will also see at least 45 minutes of action against the U.S. That will screw up England's game and they could lose, or at least draw the match. Once that happens, FIFA will assure both sides get through to the elimination round. England might go through to the quarterfinals again, but that's about as far as we can see them advancing.

6. Who will be the star of the World Cup?
Another item that will have a major bearing on the future shape of the game (or at least its marketing arm). Who will be "the face" of the 2010 World Cup? The 2006 tournament didn't really have one, other than Zidane, and that for the wrong reason. In '02 you had Ronaldo and perhaps Oliver Kahn (shudder). In '98 Zidane again or one of his teammates or perhaps the entire France squad. It's been a little while (probably Maradona in '86) since somebody claimed the tournament for himself. This year the stars seem lined up for Lionel Messi but don't count out the likes of Didier Drogba or Fernando Torres or maybe somebody less obvious. (Not Cristiano Ronaldo. I have no faith in his ability to perform on this stage with that team).

7. Can Chelsea win the Premiership?
Yes. Will they? Yes. Perhaps by default, but Blues will take it. They simply have too much firepower, even with Drogba missing time this winter due to the African Nations Cup. More importantly, the only team with a realistic chance of catching them seems to lack the talent and wherewithal to mount a challenge. Then you have Arsenal, who are simply too inexperienced. Maybe next year.

8. Will professional soccer become a hot ticket in New York once more?
Obviously this depends on what happens with item No. 3 and to a lesser extent item No. 4. But the metropolitan New York area is poised for a soccer renaissance. The main reason for this is the new soccer-specific stadium, Red Bull Arena, that has arisen on the banks of the Passaic River. The Harrison, N.J., ground finally provides the New York metropolitan region the state-of-the-art soccer temple it has clamored for ever since Dutch settlers traded a few glass shards for the island of Manhattan. Unlike Giants Stadium, which was never intended for soccer, it is accessible via public transport. The ground's primary tenant, the New York Red Bulls, are admittedly not the most exciting draw (and not just because of their horrible name) but that could change very quickly. The likes of Thierry Henry and Raul have been linked to the team, who have both salary cap space (one "designated player" spot) and cash-on-hand to make such a deal happen. Better yet, they could trade in their goofy name for something much better: the New York Cosmos. Rights to the name were recently sold to new ownership and there has been some talk it will reappear in some form. Of course if there's a strike or a lockout this all becomes a moot point.

9. What U.S. soccer player will establish himself in a top European league?
This one's easy: Jozy Altidore. It's going to happen. All he needs is a chance to see first team football on a consistent basis. So far, Altidore's short European career has been almost completely wasted. His current coach at Hull City, Phil Brown, for whatever reason doesn't want to play him any more than his previous ones at Villareal and Xerez did. But Hull City are caught in a relegation dogfight and we expect Brown's leash to be a short one. He'll either be forced to play Jozy out of the sheer necessity to try something new, or will go down before he has the chance. The team's last two games, neither of which Altidore suited up for, demonstrated it cannot score without him in the lineup. It may not be able to score much with him either, but it's hard to fathom why he hasn't received more of a chance. But he'll get one next year and when he does he'll impress. Take it to the bank.
10. What's going to happen with Liverpool?
Nothing good we can think of. Rafa Benitez should have been fired already, but might be allowed to hang on for a little while longer. A top four spot clearly isn't happening, no matter how much the Spaniard doth protest. Once the team's owners catch on to this it will likely be the end for Benitez. How much that helps the club's fortunes is open for debate. There is no doubting the team has talent and no denying it is showing little resolve on the pitch at this point. On paper, those things would be helped by a new, better coach. But Liverpool's problems might just go deeper than that. Maybe the players just won't work together because they're inherently selfish and were never taught to be anything else? Maybe they simply can't complement each other on the pitch? If that's the case, new blood will be needed. But who? And where from? And how much might they be expected to change the team's play if Stevie G is still running the show? Maybe Stevie's part of the problem? The only thing clear is there are no easy answers when it comes to Liverpool. 2010 won't be an easy year at Anfield, either.

Photo taken from ballantine.com without permission.

The biggest sporting event on the planet, the soccer World Cup, will be held in South Africa next June. Today, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), the international governing body of soccer (which some parts of the world still call football) staged, er, held its draw to decide the makeup of the eight groups. Charlize Theron led the ceremony, though ties between her and South Africa are nebulous at best. The actress does not appear to be capable of even mimicking a South African accent, if today's show is to be believed. Apparently Matt Damon wasn't available.

Anyway, our ranking of these groups by degree of difficulty, from most difficult to least difficult, follows:

1. Group G: Brazil, North Korea, Ivory Coast, Portugal
The most challenging group, no question. Three of these teams are potential semifinalists. Brazil is fierce, but the matchups with the Ivory Coast and its former colonial masters Portugal are very intriguing. The African side appear deeper than Portugal: with Didier Drogba and Salomon Kalou it has one of the most formidable striker pairings anywhere. Barcelona man Yaya Toure anchors a midfield that also includes Arsenal's Emmanuel Eboue and Didier Zokora, while Kolo Toure heads up the defense. If there's a weak link, it's at goalkeeper. In fact, I couldn't even tell you who they have for the spot. Brazil, by contrast, has two Serie A tested goalies who could start for any number of other teams, including England (though frankly MLS has some goalkeepers who would be an improvement to England's options. But I digress). This group is going to be awesome. Except for the games involving North Korea, that is. Which is fine, because nobody fom North Korea will be watching them.

Group D: Germany, Australia, Serbia, Ghana
If Group G is the group of death, Group D is the group of hospice. Unlike Group G, there is no weak link, at least not to the degree of North Korea. You know the Germans are going to be a force because, well, they always are. Serbia are very strong and can play with anybody. Australia are underrated. Mark Bresciano and Scott McDonald can cause problems for opposing teams' defenses and you know the Aussies will work harder than just about anybody. Ghana were runners-up in the inaugural African Nations Championship. Their midfield, with Mickael Essien and Sulley Ali Muntari, is superb. The two European sides are probable favorites to advance, but Australia and particularly Ghana could give them a run for their money. Should be a fun group. In the end, the Germans win. Expect more of the same here.

Group B: Argentina, Nigeria, South Korea, Greece
A clear favorite (Argentina) with three teams that will challenge each other for second place. Unless, that is, Argentina lose their opening game against Nigeria (could easily happen). South Korea appear a little thin but if 2002 taught us anything it's that they are more than capable of surprises. Greece too could go either way. But all in all a pretty easy group for Argentina.

Group E: Netherlands, Denmark, Japan, Cameroon
Another group that could go either way. The Netherlands kicked arse in qualifying but had lousy competition. Other than Wesley Sneijder and Arjen Robben this team appears to lack star power, at least judging by its own very high standards. The current generation of Dutch players simply aren't as compelling as past ones. There does not appear to be a Johan Cruyff or Marco van Basten or Ruud Gullit or even Patrick Kluivert. The Dutch could advance pretty far, but they're unlikely to captivate us much. Denmark are an efficient little team. Christian Poulsen of Juventus is likely their best player. I'm honestly more intrigued by Denmark than Holland at this point. Cameroon? Well, you got Eto'o and, um, right. Japan will likely finish last.

Group H: Spain, Switzerland, Honduras, Chile
The most intriguing team here is Chile. Argentine coach Marcelo Bielsa has put together a squad that finished second in CONMEBOL qualifying. They do not appear to have any superstars (yet. Though look out for Matias Fernandez, a 23-year old midfielder who plays for Sporting Lisbon) but also no obvious weak links. We fully expect them to advance out of this group with European champions Spain. The other two teams are crap. Honduras aren't even supposed to be here and Switzerland were pathetic in the Euro 2008 tournament held on their home turf. Both clubs have a few intriguing players, but Spain and Chile should rule the group with relative ease.

Group A: South Africa, Uruguay, Mexico, France
Another very mediocre group. South Africa may be the worst host country since the U.S. in 1994. Mexico had a horrific start to their qualifying campaign but eventually got their stuff together under new coach Javier Aguirre. We liked Mexico's 2006 team a great deal. Their round of 16 match against Argentina was probably the best game of the entire tournament, but several key players from that club are in the twilight of their careers and the younger guys who replaced them have not impressed. Giovanni dos Santos has been a disappointment and may not even make the team. France? Don't get me started. Talk about teams that aren't supposed to be here. Uruguay may win the group with ease. Diego Forlan is awesome, but may be past his prime at this point. Ajax man Luis Suarez has not yet hit his; the 22-year old has scored 17 times in 15 Eredivisie matches this season (not a typo). This World Cup could very well be his coming out party. Uruguay are actually very deep at the forward position: Edinson Cavani and Jorge Martinez are two other guys who can score; they currently do so for Serie A sides Palermo and Catania, respectively and has some talent in defense as well. They could make a run to the quarterfinals. But don't expect much more than that. Remember this is a team that had to qualify through a playoff against Costa Rica.

Group C: England, U.S.A, Algeria, Slovenia
They've done better under Fabio Capello but England shouldn't really scare anybody. Wayne Rooney, admittedly, is terrific and John Terry is a fine defender. Other than that they appear to be built on over-hyped players who never really accomplished anything in their national team careers. We're not even talking about David Beckham here, who has absolutely no business on this team and, if there is any justice in this world, will be left off. (Instead the finger points directly at Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard). Theo Walcott is potentially intriguing but will he even make the team? Aaron Lennon may be worth watching as well, but with Frankie and Stevie calling the shots in midfield, how many balls will he really see? Slovenia is smaller than about 48 of the 50 U.S. states but watch them beat us. Could happen, especially the way people here are talking about the group. Ditto Algeria, who appear to be strong in midfield and defense, which could create all kinds of problems for Bob Bradley's side. The U.S. has been maddeningly inconsistent this year; not just from one match to the next, but within individual games as well. The team simply appears to tune out and fade from stretches of games for no apparent reason. Without Charlie Davies, there are not enough weapons in attack. The defense is stong in the center but weak on the flanks. There is very little creativity in midfield and that is virtually all supplied by Landon Donovan. Other players (Michael Bradley and Clint Dempsey) need to step up. Is Jermaine Jones the answer? Probably not, but there could be somebody else to emerge much the way Davies did this year. Bottom line: This group is not England's or America's by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, neither team could qualify. What a field day we'd have with that one.
By the way: What do people think of my idea, floated on Twitter, for a friendly wager for the game: If the U.S. wins, England agrees to adopt "soccer" as the definitive word for the sport. If England win, Americans do the same for "football." If you're serious about this we should get other media involved. But then what happens if it's a tie? Well, then the status quo can prevail. What do you say?

Group F: Italy, Paraguay, New Zealand, Slovakia
Is it me or does Italy never get drawn into a difficult group? Italy never gets drawn into a difficult group. I don't know how much money, pasta, or prostitutes Italy has sent Sepp Blatter's way over the years, but it's obviously enough to earn some pretty nice favors. I mean, how can you even begin to take this group seriously? New Zealand is by far the worst team in the entire field. They're so bad they have a guy from the New York Red Bulls starting at left back. (True story) That spot in the tournament really should go to the defending champion or something. Give it to Ireland. Hell, give it to Canada. Anyway, you also have highly mediocre teams from South America and Slovakia to make sure Italy don't get off to one of their customary bad starts. It may not help. I can see Italy losing their first game against Paraguay, beating New Zealand 1-0 and maybe playing Slovakia to a scoreless draw and end up advancing as the second placed team. To make things even less fair, Italy will likely face another mediocre club in the round of 16. What a joke.

Photo taken from celebrity-gossip.net without permission.