Shut up 'Andrei' . . .

Anyhoo, I can't see how France v. Senegal would be the Frantz Fanon cup. Fanon was from Martinique, resigned from the French services to support the Algerian Revolution and subsequently became an honorary Ghanaian citizen. So France v. Algeria or Martinique of Ghana makes might be such a "Fanon Cup."

Leopold Senghor Cup maybe, or ... Cheikh Anta Diop Cup??....

Three cheers -- the three in question being ole, ole, and ole -- on a fine and fun World Cup draw roundup (Though, yes, I can't believe you made that Togo joke).

You're right to point out that had Italy been the US's first opponents, expecting an upset (and maybe even advancing) might not be entirely out of order. There is a very good chance that mercurial midfield genius Francesco Totti -- much as I love him as a player -- will haul off and spit in someone's face (as he did in the last European tournament) or perform otherwise petulantly in response to aggressive Ghanaian tackling, or the now familiar lovable/annoying American derring-do-style of running tirelessly from end line to end line. That's a slight exaggeration, but what I'm getting at is that yellow-card suspensions might play a big part somewhere along the line in the Americans's group. "Chippy" may be the watchword. Either way, the Italian press will need some sort of perceived anti-Azzuri scandal to decry or things just won't feel right. So bank on a card or three, or at least some high drama. And though Landon Donovan and DaMarcus Beasley are exceptions to the (not necessarily hard and fast) great-lungs-no-touch American rule, and will be the architects of whatever bits of offensive brilliance the US can muster, things do look rather grim against a Czech Republic side that put on what was certainly one of the most irresistible, entertaining, and attacking shows in recent memory against the Netherlands (who responded in kind) in the last European tournament.

And regarding the whole "soccer-American marketplace" question, whoo-boy that's a toughie. Contrary to what many US Soccer officials (& MLS officials, I guess) believe, I still think that the best thing for American soccer (in the national team sense) is that the most talented players go abroad and play. That's certainly happened (Beasley, John O'Brien, & other youngsters, oldsters McBride & Reyna, etc., and Donovan...for a bit -- his return is, I think, pretty disappointing and slightly problematic) and accounts for a large part of America's recent success, as great athletes have gone to Europe and been trained not only in the technical skills that may be lacking at American soccer academies, but they experience living in a culture where futbol-not-football is trumps, and they are around players who've played nothing but & fans who live for nothing but. BUT that's just talking about the elite. American soccer culture won't change until the sport becomes truly urbanized in that streetball sense. I live in Harlem, and as much as I love watching kids dribbling on the blacktop outside, I can't tell you how much I wished it was Thierry Henry's killer crossover they were thinking of instead of Allen Iverson's. Sometimes I feel that if kids could, on a regular basis, just SEE the best players at the top of the game (and see how many DON'T look like your normal suburban soccer player) do the absolutely outrageous things they're often capable of on a soccer field, things might change a bit. And maybe a few more pitches instead of b-ball courts in the city. It needs to be a cultural change at all levels, not just at the top. But hey, anything helps.

Lastly, I take no pleasure in factchecking a great piece like this...but one thing caught my eye. If, in your closing, you're talking about the famous words of Bill Shankly -- and you are -- frankly, Mr. Shankly (sorry, I've always wanted to use that in a sentence) is Scottish, not English. Though he did coach an English side, Liverpool, as I'm sure you know (maybe that's how you meant it?).

Yours in waiting with bated breath for Becks's WC hairstyle,

Pete L'Official

Jumping into the fray: the key modifier for the perceived problems with the make-up of the US National Team is not "white" but "middle class." As long as soccer is the preserve of organized youth teams starting with 3 year-olds in suburban enclaves, and is taught with a focus on tactical structure and not ball-skills, the US Team is going to have a hard time in international competitions.

Different country, slightly different angle, suggestive result: Scotland was woeful in the run-up to the World Cup, and didn't qualify. Scotland used to produce some pretty good players, but not many in recent years. I'd argue that it's a by-product of affluence: the kids have got too many things to do other than kick the ball around all day. People talk about the Thatcher government selling off football pitches but there were plenty who learned their best on the street with whatever came to hand (to foot?)

That doesn't make poverty a virtue, nor does it mean that the poorest nations win (plainly not the case) -- what it does suggest that unless one introduces an element of the street game (showing off, having fun, improvising) and especially ball skills, it's going to be hard for the US to produce a winning team. They've got the focus on the "scientific" elements of the game, it's the X factor that eludes them. It's as if training approaches are being defined by a football (in the gridiron sense) mentality.

All of which to say: if the US gets their ass handed to them in group play, and that means that US Soccer starts to have a rethink about how to train youth players, then the outcome might offset the results... in the long term. That's not hating America, and it's not racist, it's a valid opinion.