The World Cup is over.
For a month, 32 teams treated us to the highest level soccer imaginable. With Spain having been crowned champions for the first time ever, the parties in Madrid, Barcelona and Sevilla have been going on nonstop. South Africa, a nation that had been under great scrutiny on whether it could host the World's largest event was a gracious host as the tournament appears to have went off without many issues.
With all 32 teams back home, MLS restarting and European leagues starting in several weeks. Before we turn the page to the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, the question that we have for you is:
I think a few things for me tarnished this World Cup, which made me vote “No.”
1. From a U.S. standpoint, we blew a golden opportunity to make a deep run in this tournament. NO WAY should we have lost to Ghana. They have a few players, but we simply had a letdown against them. The U.S. has a sickness called “concession of early goals,” and the cure for that sickness is proper preparation…Bradley failed in that regard. I also find it staggering that with all of the soccer talent and development in this country that we can’t find a suitable LB.
2. Poor play from the marquee players…Ronaldo, Rooney, Torres, Messi. I think some are correct in that some guys are just geared more for club than country.
3. Horrible officating, simply horrible. There’s NO EXCUSE for FIFA to have its headline event marred by inept and inexperienced refs.
4. I agree with Betamale. How in the world can you not sellout a World Cup???
Agreed on all points. I would also add that the officiating was horrible, despite that the FIFA referee analysis showed 96% of calls to be correct. Even IF that is the case, the 4% of calls they missed were HUGE, and affected the outcome of several matches unfavorably.
I know I’m late to the party, but really? Zero excitement in the quarterfinals?
We saw the dutch come back then hold off brazil, uruguay’s desperation handball to defeat the continent’s last hope, germany dismantle maradona, and a penalty flurry between espana and paraguay. None of those could hold your attention?
You might want to find a new sport.
Really? I liked McManaman, and Gullit was good for most of it as well. Lalas… well, he’s not going anywhere, so might as well get used to it. 🙂
Harkes just doesn’t have anything non-asinine to say most of the time. My friends and I were convinced that he was making Ian Darke dumber and dumber as the tourney went on after they were paired permanently. It’s too bad that Americans apparently had problems with Ally McCoist’s accent — I thought he was the strongest and most consistently sharp in-game analyst they had.
Otherwise, the coverage really was excellent, and I hope ESPN/ABC keep it similar next time around.
also please get rid of Gullit, Mcmanaman, and Lalas.
Dude just look at the number of times players misjudged the ball in the air or let it bounce out of play. I heard this tournament had the highest number of throw ins on record.
You could also look at the number of free kick goals, or the percentage of shots on target. Either way, the ball being bad isn’t just a scapegoat, its fact.
Agreed – but John Harkes can go.
When you have teams like North Korea, New Zealand, Honduras, Slovakia, Slovenia, Greece, Switzerland etc, it doesn’t make for great games. Bunker in and hold on for dear life…
There are very poor teams that now come to the World Cup and aren’t at the same level as the “super powers.” I don’t care that Italy or France crashed out, I want to see great games.
We got very few of them this tourney. The Quarters gave us ZERO exciting games…
ABC and ESPN deserve a huge amount of credit for importing real commentators, rather than the hacks who have covered previous world cups.
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU ESPN ABC AND UNIVISION
Btw, I’m too lazy to do this myself — but if anyone can prove to me, beyond feelings of “it seemed” — that the ball did in fact perform differently, I’m all ears. I’m talking shots on goal relative to goals scored, total shots vs. shots on goal, etc. Then we need Mythbusters to bust you fools with this narrative for good by testing it against other balls. Ask them!
This World Cup was disappointing for many reasons (some stated by others), thus I voted NO — though none of them have to do with the ball. I’m sick of that being the scapegoat for negative/defensive tactics and poor individual play. THAT should be #1 on any list of disappointments, followed by the general lack of integrity on display (from players, refs, and FIFA).
Nothing catastrophic. Certainly the worst World Cup in memory for the reasons enumerated by other people above
The quality of play seems to be getting worse with every World Cup. The first round of this Cup was horrible. EPL, Serie A, and La Liga games are much better. The vuvuzelas killed the game atmosphere, and should have been banned for non-South Africa games. People are only saying it was a success because it wasn’t as bad as they thought it would be.
I read your list and agree there are things that could have been better. But overall it was succesfully run. We as fans got to complain about calls like always. There were teams that succeded and failed. There are always players hurt or under preforming.
The full stadiums and ball were definetly problems that should have been handled but overall again it was a successful tournament. Now for it to be the best tournament it would have been a Brazil vs Germany final with 5 to 6 goals. But that dose not happen every time.
Voted yes because I can’t say it wasn’t successful. It didn’t lack more than its fair share of problems, however. The vuvuzelas were never really an issue for me, they faded into the background, unnoticed until someone I was watching with mentioned them, but obviously they were extremely distracting to some people. The biggest issue for me was probably the ball. In comparison to other World Cups or high-quality games, the ball just seemed over-hit or seemed to carry further than intended more often than it should have. In my opinion, FIFA / Adidas should stop trying to engineer some perfect prototype ball that will go farther or move faster or bend more and stick with the traditional, stitches on the outside, paneled ball that has worked fine for the past few decades. Of course change the logo or color to make it unique, but as has been made apparent in this cup, changing the engineering of the ball is a classic case of the old “if it’s not broken, don’t fix it” mantra.
As to the bad calls, there are bound to be a few big ones in any World Cup, sometimes more, sometimes less. This time there ended up being more than many would have anticipated, but when you have humans in control it should be a given that errors are possible and likely. I’m all for goal line technology, and to some extent video replay if it’s handled well, but until we implement that sort of thing we can’t really expect the three people on the field to get everything right, including important or game-changing calls.
Overall I enjoyed the World Cup, but those issues coupled with the fact that the US missed out on the easiest path to the Semifinals it’s likely to see for decades, there is a feeling of a little being left to be desired.
I voted “no.” This installment did a good job of exposing America to the passion and potential of the World Cup, but it also did a good job of exposing (and then rubbing in, over and over and over again) all the horrible rules defects that make soccer, the sport, so much less than what it could be. Cynical exploitation of those defects seriously damaged the quality of the games.
Of course it was still highly entertaining, but I interpret this poll to mean success relative to what could be achieved.
Any source on that you could link to on that record number of throw-ins comment? I’d be interested to read about that as I agree the ball played a part.
Once upon a time, cars were made by humans. Then we figured out that having cars made by robots made them better and cheaper.
Why is officiating any different? Like it or not, robots are a million times better at figuring out if a player is offside, or if a goal was scored, than humans are.
I voted yes, because a bad World Cup is still pretty awesome, but those are all excellent points. And the officiating would have to be very high on that list, because it was atrocious. And I would append FIFA’s continued insistence that there is no problem (despite all plain and obvious evidence to the contrary) to that one.
I say yes EXCEPT for the vuvuzelas. I respect that they are a part of South African culture and never would have them banned from stadia. But, not hearing chants and singing, instead hearing the monotonous wail of vuvuzelas, took away from the atmosphere of the global spectacle.
It was successful because there weren’t many problems. Having said that it was nowhere near as good as 2006 for many reasons. Ex. many games sucked/were boring/had Japan playing, lots of empty stadiums, and people wouldn’t shut up about: the vuvuzela(Which wasn’t a problem if you watched the action.), the Jabulani(It’s a damn round expensive ball. Shut up and kick it like Forlan and Honda.), and the refs(screw replay-its a game played BY HUMANS refereed BY HUMANS there will always be mistakes. It’s about enjoying the flow of the game not getting the call right-if we wanted that we’d play Xbox).
Two reasons: Absolute horrible field conditions and Jabulani. The only bright spots for me were the US topping its group and Germany’s and Uruguay’s play.
Agree on all counts.
This world cup lacked great football quality throughout. This was the worst world cup,I ever seen. I wont miss it, Alexi lalas greatest moment says it all. This new generation of players, most of them care about money more than country, give me games from the previous 3 world cups, i would watch them over this.
I forgot the most obvious problem – the joke of a ball did as much to repress offense as any Italian bunker.
Sorry for the double post. The initial attempt generated an error message.
I don’t know that I understand the point of the question. They held games, none of the stadiums collapsed, and somebody went home a winner. I don’t see how you can call it a failure.
However, if you mean was it a good World Cup, then I think the answer is no. Whether Blatter will admit it or not, the vuvezelas ruined much of the crowd experience. There were many thousands of unsold tickets, and high profile officiating gaffes. Travel to and from SA had to deal with scalpers. No one really tried to play with the eventual champion, and the final was an anti-commercial for the sport.
I abstained.
I don’t know that I understand the point of the question. They held games, none of the stadiums collapsed, and somebody went home a winner. I don’t see how you can call it a failure.
However, if you mean was it a good World Cup, then I think the answer is no. Whether Blatter will admit it or not, the vuvezelas ruined much of the crowd experience. There were many thousands of unsold tickets, and high profile officiating gaffes. Travel to and from SA had to deal with scalpers. No one really tried to play with the eventual champion, and the final was an anti-commercial for the sport.
I abstained.
See my list below for why I think it was a crappy world cup.
Sure it was a tournament where teams played the sport of soccer, some goals were scored, and eventually a winner was crowned, but does that mean it was successful? Not if you compare it with world cups of the past.
I just say yes since I love the World Cup regardless.
But please god, everybody in televised sports (EPL, La Liga, NFL, MLB, NCAA, etc.) please, please, PLEASE follow the example of Southampton FC and ban vuvuzelas from your stadiums.
Why was the level of play low? Give a reason why you believe the play to be poor. I don’t see it. I just think people are frustrated because the soccer “powers” and “superstars” didn’t really show up, but i think that is just due to the rest of the world catching up. I am certain the next world cup that is on a neutral continent (north america, africa, or asia) will be even more even and hard to predict.
…Although that doesn’t mean I think it was a complete failure.
I voted no because they did not have full attendance at every match. The opening game didn’t even sell out. How you can’t sell out every seat to the world cup is beyond me.
I can’t disagree with any of those points. Truth is, SA didn’t have any business hosting a WC with such hasty preparation–they barely made it in terms of logistics, etc. Brasil should be much more intense and I think we see a return of the more prestigious teams that flopped out so terribly.
Overall, I’d say it depends on who you ask. Uruguayans, Paraguayans, Slovaks, etc. may say it was the best WC yet…while the English, Italians and French may think otherwise.
Jeez, how did I miss that one? LOL, it was absolutely horrible. Yea, definitely not a success.
Thanks.
6) Refereeing continued to be a problem at the World Cup.
Success for whom? Vague question…
Well, 32 teams played and one team one . . .so yes.
it certainly could have been alot better for the following reasons
1) Jabulani. The ball was atrocious. It bounced too high and far, most players couldn’t get it on target. Only Honda & Forlan could consistently hit free kicks on target. Record number of throw-ins, tells you all you need to know about the ball
2) Vuvuzelas. Say what you want about ‘culture’ but those things really made the game hard to listen to. Factor that in with player complaints (blamed on one of Netherlands’ goal against Brazil), and it was a detriment to the game.
3) Empty seats. C’mon, this is a World Cup in the 21st century… hard to imagine that this event would have so many empty seats, even after FIFA gave away so many tickets.
4) Most major stars too hurt or exhausted to play effectively. Face it, if you’re a fan of watching the best players at the top of their game, this tournament was mostly a wash. Sure, some players like Iniesta, Sneijder, and Forlan dazzled us, but there were too many stars who didn’t show up: Ronaldo, Rooney, Torres, Drogba, etc.
5) From a US fans point of view, our team missed a golden opportunity to make this the best tournament in USSF history. Sure we won the group, but there was so much more to be had, that its hard not to feel disappointed.
For those reasons, I just find it hard to call this tournament an overwhelming success. It was okay, but could have been much better.
Flame on!
And I did vote yes.
It’s a bit of a trick question Adam…
Yes it was a success, of sorts. But it’s not just a yes or no question. Unsold tickets, horrible traffic and people being stranded so they couldn’t see games, expensive hotels, the horns…
And please, it wasn’t the highest level of soccer imaginable. Game wise it was a very poor cup.
For the 11% or what ever it will end up being that said no I am curious as to why? It was a success as far as the tournament went well there were some great games and some suprise exits, so overall it was enjoyable and Africa turned out not to be a great hazard to the enjoyment.
Great job S. Africa! Great job S. America, makes me look forward to 2014.
Yes it was. I hope Brazil 2014 will be every bit as successful.