Posts Tagged ‘Netherlands’

World Cup Flags

May 26, 2010

I’m not sure if this article falls under ‘Improving Soccer in the United States’. However, it definitely falls under ‘Improving Geography in the United States’. The way I see it, any type of improvement is a good thing.

With that said, what is going on with the Serbian, Slovakian, and Slovenian flags? They all look the same. When I first started collecting flag images for the 32 countries in this year’s World Cup for my World Cup East Bay 2010 event, I wasted a good deal of time because I kept thinking I had used some flags twice. But when I deleted one of the ‘duplicates’, I only had 31 flags. Finally I figured out that these countries’ flags do look very similar. See for yourself.

Serbia

Slovakia

Slovenia

Good thing Russia did not make this year’s World Cup. That really would have made things confusing.

Russia

Then there is Australia and New Zealand. Can you tell the difference?

Australia

New Zealand

Check out how similar the flags are for the two African countries of Cameroon and Ghana.

Cameroon

Ghana

The Dutch (Netherlands) and Paraguayan flags are also very similar.

Netherlands

Paraguay

Though they did not make this year’s World Cup, I want to thank Nepal for their flag. Its design will never be mistaken for another country.

Nepal

USA vs. Netherlands (1:2) — Statistics Show it Could Have Been Worse

March 4, 2010

I watched the USA vs. Netherlands game today. The U.S. did not do too well (granted several likely World Cup starters did not play and the U.S. was playing the team ranked third in the world). Though the scoring chances did not reflect it, the first half was dominated by the Dutch. Jonathan Bornstein gave up a silly penalty and was lucky not to be called for a second one when he unintentionally handled the ball in the penalty area. The 0-1 was a just half-time score although if you look at the statistics I compiled (more on those shortly), the U.S. was lucky to be down only one goal.

In the second half, the U.S. showed more urgency but so too did the Dutch. The U.S. was very unlucky in conceding the second goal but made up for it with a beautiful header by Carlos Bocanegra. 23-year-old Dutchman Eljero Elia sure is a good player. He was all over the field today. The U.S. was fortunate to lose by only one goal.

The statistics I referred to earlier are shown below. They are the same type of touch-statistics I compiled for the 2010 MVP tournament for which the inside-of-the-foot was crowned champion (MVP stands for most-value-part).

The Dutch completely dominated the first half in terms of touches (see below). They more than doubled the number of U.S. touches: 769 (71%) – 317 (29%). When looking strictly at feet touches, the percentages are even higher (see yellow cells). I contend that controlling the ball with the feet gives players more control than with other parts of the body.

I also contend that using the inside-of-the-foot to control a ball, whether it is to receive, pass, or shoot, gives players far more control of the ball than other parts-of-the-foot. While both the U.S. and Dutch used the inside-of-the-foot a majority of the time (see yellow cells), the Dutch did so with much more frequency.

  • Dutch: receiving-73%, passing-76%, shooting-100%
  • Dutch: receiving-60%, passing-62%, shooting-33%

I’m not sure if these statistics prove anything (I did not compile statistics for the 2nd half because it takes a long time to do so and I wanted to get this post published in a timely manner). However, today the Dutch were the dominant team and they did exhibit very good ball control.

Author’s Notes:

I believe that poor ball control and a lack of emphasis placed on using the inside-of-the foot are the biggest problems facing U.S. youth soccer. If you concur and believe that the inside-of-the-foot is soccer’s MVP, please join the “Inside-of-the-Foot Soccer Fan Club” on Facebook.

I compiled these statistics as follows:

  • I watched the game on ESPN2.
  • I only counted touches that were televised.
  • If I could not tell which body part or surface was used, I did not count the touch (this included when more than one player was playing the ball).
  • If there was a one-touch pass, it was counted only as a pass, not a reception (under receiving).
  • Headers were counted as passes when the intention was there. Otherwise, headers fell under ‘receiving’.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.