GoalChatter Special Report
There's only one right way to watch the World Cup Qualifiers, and that's sitting two seats away from someone who played at a World Cup. The American Fan Sports Club (Клуб любителей спорта), with honorary president, former Dynamo Kyiv captain and 1962 World Cup participant Viktor Kanevskyi, hosted a viewing party for the first leg of the Ukraine vs France World Cup Qualifying match. The Club, run by Iosif Tartakovskiy and Mark Schneider, did a terrific job at setting up a friendly, inviting atmosphere for football fans of all ages to watch the game the proper way: on a big screen and with sweet pastries served in the back.
As we were waiting for an issue with the wi-fi connection to be resolved, supporters reminisced about the Ukraine NT's previous games, as well as players of old that had excelled for the national team. All attention soon turned to the broadcast, with commentary in Ukrainian. The game was underway, and so were the collective cheers, groans and applause. If there was any doubt that there would be a small audience, it soon subsided. The room was packed with over 50 Russian-speaking football enthusiasts, Dynamo Kyiv fans among them. There were a few representatives of local Russian press, including sports journalist and Fan Club press secretary Vladimir Gurvich, who hosts the weekly Russian-language sports show on Davidzon Radio. Aside from Kanevskyi, other notable guests included former player and SKA Lviv coach Mikhail Rybak, as well as a former player who claimed to be an understudy of the famous Georgian striker Mikheil Meskhi. Gifts were presented to Kanevskyi and another distinguished guest in the form of beautifully-crafted electric kettles.
 |
| Second from left: 1962 WC participant Viktor Kanevskyi © Aleks V 2013 |
Viktor Kanevskyi shared his thoughts on the match during halftime. He mentioned that aside from Franck Ribery, there was nothing much to be said about France's game, while Ukraine played a great first half. The French, he said, would do well with a tie going into the 2nd leg, but Ukraine needed a win. At the end of the game, someone noted that while most had their doubts on Ukraine getting anything other than a draw, it was Kanevskyi who knew from the very beginning there'd be nothing short of a victory for the national team. Fan Club Chairman Vladimir Grinberg provided commentary on the refereeing, pointing to a foul in the box on Ukraine forward Zozulya that should have been a penalty call.
As anyone who's seen the game would know, it was quite worthy of a World Cup Qualifier. Both teams were eager to score and showed no signs of slowing down throughout the 90 minutes. Despite that, however, there were few shots on target for either side. Ukraine went ahead 1:0 after Zozulya slotted the ball in the near post after a series of scrambles in the box, while Yarmolenko made it 2:0 with his penalty kick. The keeper guessed the direction of the ball, but his ill-timed jump barely allowed him to touch the ball with his fingertips before it went in the net. The referee sent off one player per team, France's Koscielny and Ukraine's Kucher, both after second yellows. However, both sendings-off happened in added time. With a few minutes left to play, France was unable to make use of their remaining chances, giving Ukraine an advantage going into the second leg in France.
 |
| A supporter at the viewing party. © Aleks V 2013 |
Indeed, the 1st leg left very good impressions on both the viewing party and the game. The latter could be summed up in Zozulya's perfectly-timed goal and in the reactions of Ukraine president Viktor Yanukovych, who watched from the stands, clad in a patriotic football scarf, and was undoubtedly the most elated spectator.
This week's show:
- FIFA World Cup Qualifiers - Europe Round 2, Mexico vs N. Zealand
- MLS Playoffs - RSL vs Portland Timbers, Houston Dynamo vs SKC
- 1/8 Russian Cup
GoalChatter on Blogger
We're also on Twitter
...and tumblr
...and YouTube
Like what you hear? Leave us a review!!
FIFA
FIFA World Cup 2014
international
Support a Nation: Brazil Better Than U.S. For World Cup
11:47 PM
Why the anti-Brazil campaign should take it easy
With the biggest football tournament just one summer away, many have questioned the ethics of the host nation spending tens of billions of dollars on a sporting event while millions struggle with poverty, unemployment, and the ever-rising prices of public transportation. There's also the added danger of violent protesters who erroneously think that burning everything from tires to buses will do something about changing the costs of public transportation. When it comes to a large international tournament, however, it's highly doubtful there won't be increased security.
Every World Cup has a series of long-lasting effects on the host nation that will certainly be ignored and diminished in value by the pessimist, who will only note the obvious problems that arise with the tournament and add on to already-existing issues - the dirty streets, the traffic jams, increased hooliganism...What such a person fails to see is the true impact that the beautiful game has on a nation.
While stadiums may not directly improve the life quality of the population, they will continue to be used for football games long after the tournament is over, growing the sport and allowing more people to pursue their athletic dreams. More athletes means more opportunities for scholarships, and thus education.
"People are dying due to lack of infrastructure", says the boycott supporter, completely disregarding that this problem exists in many other nations, including those that have previously hosted large-scale tournaments. One could just as easily criticize supporters of bringing the Cup to the United States, where 36 percent of deaths in 2000 were due to social deprivation. Two years ago, almost 16 percent of the U.S. population had income below poverty level, a number that continues to rise as more and more workers are laid off in attempts to balance budgets. The poverty levels in Brazil have actually decreased tremendously as those of the U.S. have continued to linger.
Before the 2010 World Cup, South Africa struggled to meet its economic goals, in part due to a lack of much-needed infrastructure, such as public transportation. Hosting the WC pushed the government to take action and make significant improvements that last well beyond the duration of the tournament. That does not change the fact that people continue to die due to insufficient care in hospitals, but who's to say that a tournament should or must be the solution to this problem, or that the government is incapable of working towards solving such issues while simultaneously contributing to other aspects of the country's economy and culture?
"Violence against regular civilians" happens everywhere. Keeping up to date with the news in the United States shows just how many innocent people are cruelly gunned over the years down due to un-professionalism and carelessness of "law-enforcement".
The World Cup not only brings nations together, but bridges the gap between all corners of the world. People come together from across the many continents and bodies of water to enjoy the same passion they all share. Does that not make a great opportunity for some of these people to also volunteer and help when they are not going to games? Instead of protesting against hosting the tournament, why not rally the thousands of tourists to support the local populations and help out however they can?
Would you rather host the Cup in an overly-wealthy nation like Qatar, or in a nation where proceeds from tickets, souvenirs, hotels, and restaurants may provide a boost for its economy, all while entertaining the masses? Not all the money earned goes to FIFA, unless football's governing body happens to own all of the aforementioned services.
Football is also an outlet for creativity, much like the cinema or fine arts. Regardless of a nation's issues, would you protest any government investing millions of dollars in museums?
Boycotting the World Cup isn't going to solve Brazil's problems, and hosting the tournament may not contribute as much as is necessary, but it certainly will bring more good than harm, and at the end of the day, that is always welcome.
With the biggest football tournament just one summer away, many have questioned the ethics of the host nation spending tens of billions of dollars on a sporting event while millions struggle with poverty, unemployment, and the ever-rising prices of public transportation. There's also the added danger of violent protesters who erroneously think that burning everything from tires to buses will do something about changing the costs of public transportation. When it comes to a large international tournament, however, it's highly doubtful there won't be increased security.
Every World Cup has a series of long-lasting effects on the host nation that will certainly be ignored and diminished in value by the pessimist, who will only note the obvious problems that arise with the tournament and add on to already-existing issues - the dirty streets, the traffic jams, increased hooliganism...What such a person fails to see is the true impact that the beautiful game has on a nation.
While stadiums may not directly improve the life quality of the population, they will continue to be used for football games long after the tournament is over, growing the sport and allowing more people to pursue their athletic dreams. More athletes means more opportunities for scholarships, and thus education.
"People are dying due to lack of infrastructure", says the boycott supporter, completely disregarding that this problem exists in many other nations, including those that have previously hosted large-scale tournaments. One could just as easily criticize supporters of bringing the Cup to the United States, where 36 percent of deaths in 2000 were due to social deprivation. Two years ago, almost 16 percent of the U.S. population had income below poverty level, a number that continues to rise as more and more workers are laid off in attempts to balance budgets. The poverty levels in Brazil have actually decreased tremendously as those of the U.S. have continued to linger.
Before the 2010 World Cup, South Africa struggled to meet its economic goals, in part due to a lack of much-needed infrastructure, such as public transportation. Hosting the WC pushed the government to take action and make significant improvements that last well beyond the duration of the tournament. That does not change the fact that people continue to die due to insufficient care in hospitals, but who's to say that a tournament should or must be the solution to this problem, or that the government is incapable of working towards solving such issues while simultaneously contributing to other aspects of the country's economy and culture?
 |
| An anti-World Cup post that was popular on tumblr. |
The World Cup not only brings nations together, but bridges the gap between all corners of the world. People come together from across the many continents and bodies of water to enjoy the same passion they all share. Does that not make a great opportunity for some of these people to also volunteer and help when they are not going to games? Instead of protesting against hosting the tournament, why not rally the thousands of tourists to support the local populations and help out however they can?
Would you rather host the Cup in an overly-wealthy nation like Qatar, or in a nation where proceeds from tickets, souvenirs, hotels, and restaurants may provide a boost for its economy, all while entertaining the masses? Not all the money earned goes to FIFA, unless football's governing body happens to own all of the aforementioned services.
Football is also an outlet for creativity, much like the cinema or fine arts. Regardless of a nation's issues, would you protest any government investing millions of dollars in museums?
Boycotting the World Cup isn't going to solve Brazil's problems, and hosting the tournament may not contribute as much as is necessary, but it certainly will bring more good than harm, and at the end of the day, that is always welcome.
It's not every day an athlete listens to Noam Chomsky. Then again, it's not every day I bring up American football.
I'm referring to the recent exit of John Moffitt from the NFL. Years of rigorously studying Chomsky are supposedly what made Moffitt give up playing the game he used to love, and the millions that went along with it. Although he gave a series of explanations for leaving, the fact that he retweeted a YouTube clip in which Chomsky discusses the role of sports in propaganda shows the main reason behind his decision. Moffitt has also expressed interest in "speaking his mind" via podcasts.
What Chomsky essentially inspired is "Snowden Activism", the ramblings of a retiree no longer affiliated with his organization as opposed to an "insider mover". I'm sure Chomsky denies the existence of the latter, what with the filtering of dangerous opinions that occurs for any who enter today's elite-run corporations.
Unfortunately, most of what Chomsky has to say on sports is nonsense. According to him, sports are a diversion that allows the elites to maintain their control over the masses. Kind of like the cookies offered when you join the dark side.
Like anyone, however, Chomsky is a product of his time. It's very likely that having lived through the tumultuous 20th century prevented him from foreseeing the global impact that real football - or any sport - would have.
In recent years, European football has probably seen the most turning points in resolving and increasing awareness to a variety of social issues. Would people really pay as much attention to fighting for cures and ending discrimination if those issues were not associated with something that interested them? When people see FIFA's Say No to Racism campaign, Major League Soccer raising money for Breast Cancer research, or their favorite player visiting a sick child, there's no doubt they feel more compelled to get involved. I call that positive propaganda.
Most of all, however, Chomsky neglected discussing the connection between sports and feminism. European football has seen huge progress in expanding opportunities for women. There's Karren Brady, who was the first woman to become managing director at Birmingham City and is now vice-chairman of West Ham United. Both Birmingham City and West Ham are men's football clubs. Even the least football-savvy know who Mia Hamm is. Most recently, she became the first woman to be inducted into the Football Hall of Fame, at the same time as Sonia Bien-Aime became the first woman appointed to the CONCACAF executive committee. A few women have taken up assistant refereeing in men's leagues in Mexico and Russia. Women's leagues have begun to rise in popularity as well, in part thanks to - you guessed it - the mainstream media.
With its growing popularity in the United States and around the world, European football is the perfect vehicle for social change. It serves as an invisibility cloak, allowing fans and industry professionals to sow the seeds of progress while avoiding the backlash and labeling that can otherwise occur when topics like feminism are addressed in the mainstream media. It is a platform through which reporters, athletes and others can address issues in ways that those in politics can't.
I'm referring to the recent exit of John Moffitt from the NFL. Years of rigorously studying Chomsky are supposedly what made Moffitt give up playing the game he used to love, and the millions that went along with it. Although he gave a series of explanations for leaving, the fact that he retweeted a YouTube clip in which Chomsky discusses the role of sports in propaganda shows the main reason behind his decision. Moffitt has also expressed interest in "speaking his mind" via podcasts.
Unfortunately, most of what Chomsky has to say on sports is nonsense. According to him, sports are a diversion that allows the elites to maintain their control over the masses. Kind of like the cookies offered when you join the dark side.
Like anyone, however, Chomsky is a product of his time. It's very likely that having lived through the tumultuous 20th century prevented him from foreseeing the global impact that real football - or any sport - would have.
In recent years, European football has probably seen the most turning points in resolving and increasing awareness to a variety of social issues. Would people really pay as much attention to fighting for cures and ending discrimination if those issues were not associated with something that interested them? When people see FIFA's Say No to Racism campaign, Major League Soccer raising money for Breast Cancer research, or their favorite player visiting a sick child, there's no doubt they feel more compelled to get involved. I call that positive propaganda.
Most of all, however, Chomsky neglected discussing the connection between sports and feminism. European football has seen huge progress in expanding opportunities for women. There's Karren Brady, who was the first woman to become managing director at Birmingham City and is now vice-chairman of West Ham United. Both Birmingham City and West Ham are men's football clubs. Even the least football-savvy know who Mia Hamm is. Most recently, she became the first woman to be inducted into the Football Hall of Fame, at the same time as Sonia Bien-Aime became the first woman appointed to the CONCACAF executive committee. A few women have taken up assistant refereeing in men's leagues in Mexico and Russia. Women's leagues have begun to rise in popularity as well, in part thanks to - you guessed it - the mainstream media.
With its growing popularity in the United States and around the world, European football is the perfect vehicle for social change. It serves as an invisibility cloak, allowing fans and industry professionals to sow the seeds of progress while avoiding the backlash and labeling that can otherwise occur when topics like feminism are addressed in the mainstream media. It is a platform through which reporters, athletes and others can address issues in ways that those in politics can't.
This week's show:
- World Cup Qualifying Games: Europe Round 2, CONCACAF: Mexico vs New Zealand (Intercontinental Playoffs)
- UEFA Europa League: Group Stage, Matchday 4
- Major League Soccer Playoffs
- Games of the Week
Official site
'Like' us on Facebook
Follow GoalChatter on Twitter
We're also on Tumblr
...and YouTube
Like what you hear? You can leave us a review!!
What Dynamo Moscow Can Learn From the New York Red Bulls
 |
| New York's wings would look good on Dynamo. |
The New York Red Bulls may be out of the MLS playoffs, but there's a lot to be said about their regular season. Granted, luck wasn't always on their side, and yes, they did not make it to the penultimate playoff round, but Mike Petke did a splendid job during his first full season in charge. Aside from winning the Supporters' Shield - the team's first official silverware in its entire 18-year history - Petke accomplished something even more important. He brought a team together. But before we get into that, let's take a quick tour down a darker end of memory lane, to a side coached by Hans Backe. Surprisingly, there are quite a few parallels between Backe's approach and that of Dynamo Moscow manager Dan Petrescu. Both decided to make some radical changes to the squad - namely, getting rid of a large group of players and signing a band of big-name replacements, all in one go. Temporary bliss followed, as did criticisms directed at "stars" who were clearly under-performing. By the end of the Backe era, not only had great players like Juan Pablo Angel, Tim Ream and Rafa Marquez left the New York Red Bulls, but there were obscure signings, like Mehdi Ballouchy, which defy all logic to this day.
Enter Mike Petke, a former Red Bull player and assistant manager, whose youth and lack of extensive coaching experience may have caused many a fan (and seasoned journalist) to underestimate his potential impact. To say that he silenced his skeptics may be the understatement of the season. The Red Bulls' 2013 season ended with an Eastern Conference - and, more importantly, Supporters' Shield - win. RBNY scored the most goals, lost less games than all of the teams in both conferences combined (except for the Portland Timbers) and had an incredible performance on the road. The Red Bulls had acquired a successful home-grown manager who was able to connect to players with completely different backgrounds and bring them all together.
Pre- and post-Petke Red Bulls are two different teams entirely. Like pre- and post-90's Britney, only the other way around.
However, as they say, you can take a team to the playoffs, but you can't make it win. RBNY lost on aggregate to the Houston Dynamo, the lowest-seeded Eastern Conference team left in the playoffs. Failure to make use of a plethora of chances often maximizes those of the other team. If you don't score, you can bet quite heavily that your opponent will.
Like pre-Petke Red Bulls, the RPL's Dynamo Moscow seem to have it all - a collection of young and veteran players that have made names for themselves playing in the top leagues as well as for their national teams. Heck, they even have a manager whose playing career still has a special place in the hearts of Chelsea fans, who refer to him as "the ledge" while reminiscing about their club's good ol' days over a hot cup of tea. But back to Dynamo. They've got the manager. They've got the players chosen by the manager. But where's the actual team? Dynamo continue to under-perform, drawing or losing one game after another while gaining points only against currently weakened (Ural, Krylya, Tomsk) or otherwise unstable (CSKA) sides. It would all make sense if the results were a reflection of the prowess exhibited by their opponents. When Dynamo Moscow struggle against mid-table sides and lose to Amkar and First-Division Salyut, however, eyebrows are raised so high that even the most naive and hopeful supporters' hearts all echo the same reply when they consider who's to blame. They may even be united in their silent agreement of who may be the perfect man for the job. A man who, like Mike Petke, is a well-respected former player, and is currently coaching the ever-successful reserves. It would only do well for Dynamo Moscow to make like a Red Bull if they aspire to be champions.
It takes wings to reach the golden tree, but feathers aren't gonna grow themselves.
The trophy-winning Red Bulls don't have a former Chelsea man at the helm. They don't have as many big names on their squad as they did in the Backe era.
They have something far better.
They have a team.
This week's show:
- El Clasico and Neymar
- Russian Cup: 10 (!) Premier League teams knocked out in Round of 32
- Major League Soccer Playoffs
- Games of the Week
'Like' GoalChatter on Facebook!
Follow GoalChatter on Twitter
(Psst: We're also on tumblr.)
And YouTube.
Like what you hear? Leave us a review!
