Jeff Maurer's Blog

Olivia Munn on the Daily Show

Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:07:52 -0500

Olivia Munn is being auditioned as the new Daily Show correspondent. This comes at an interesting time, since Jezebel recently wrote this poorly-sourced article about sexism at the Daily Show and the Daily Show women responded. I have a lot of opinions about what Olivia Munn’s audition says about women, comedy, and TV, but those opinions are all over the map. Here they are.

Olivia Munn’s audition has caused a lot of discussion for one reason: she's hot. The first time I saw her on TV – before she even opened her mouth – I thought: “Oh, I get it. They hired a hot chick.” So, there’s an anti-hot-person bias there (by me, at least, though I know I’m not alone). People hear that she was in Playboy and Maxim and assume that she can’t be funny. We should acknowledge that some people will prejudge her because she’s good-looking.

But didn’t she also get hired because she’s good-looking? At least partly? Of course she did. If you think that her looks had absolutely nothing to do with her getting hired, you’re naïve.

On the other hand, isn’t any performer judged by his or her personality? Can you really ask people to ignore what they observe about your race, age, gender, appearance, body language, and personality? No, you can’t, especially on a visual medium. So, yes, she was hired partly because of her looks…so what?

Here’s what: isn’t the job to be funny? Shouldn’t they just hire the funniest person, regardless of physical appearance? But that question already assumes that Munn isn’t the funniest person, which gets back to my anti-good-looking person bias. Maybe she is the funniest person…the jury’s still out on her.

And what does her hiring say about women on TV? Should women be happy that the Daily Show is auditioning another female correspondent, or should they be depressed that the woman they chose to audition may end up having more in the way of looks than talent?

Here’s where my opinions stop being so fuzzy: if Munn isn’t funny, then her audition is bad for women. The Jezebel article was obnoxious: arguing that you should hire women just for the sake of hiring women does absolutely nothing to advance women’s rights. In fact, it’s insulting; the subtext is that women can’t make it in a system based on merit – instead, the system has to be based on raw numbers. That argument is a loser.

If Olivia Munn isn’t funny and gets hired, then one of two things is happening: 1) She’s being hired mostly because she’s a woman, or 2) She’s being hired mostly because she’s good-looking. Either way in that scenario, she’s not being hired for her ability, and that certainly can’t be considered progress for women.

US vs. Algeria Preview

Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:27:19 -0500

I did a Lexis-Nexis search today for "soccer or football" and "referees" and "world cup" and "crackdown or crack down" in English-language newspapers (which are like the internet, but made of wood) in the last six months. I got 70 results. That's a lot of hits for such a specific search.

FIFA are always cracking down on something. Every single World Cup, they're "cracking down on foul play", usually elbows, and two-footed tackles, and diving, but never actually diving.

The result? Well, that bullshit red card against Kaka was one of the results. Also the red against Behrami yesterday. I thought Gourcuff's red card today was harsh. In the World Cup, absolutely everything is a red card.

That was the main lesson of the Confederations Cup. The US drew three red cards in five games. We've done very well with avoiding cards in the first two games. I hope that trend continues tomorrow, but the looseness with which the cards have been flowing worries me. Dempsey started off the Slovenia match with a challenge that shouldn't have been a red card, but could have been. In the Olympics, Orozco got a red card in the third minute against Nigeria and we ended up a goal short. Bradley seems to have gotten the message across, but I hope everyone tomorrow remembers that they're not playing in England, Germany, or MLS.

Here's what I hope we'll see against Algeria:

----------------Altidore-----------Dempsey-------------

Donovan--------Edu------------Bradley-------Holden

Bocanegra-----Onyewu--------Demerit----Cherundolo

-------------------------Howard--------------------------

Here's what I think we'll see:

----------------Altidore-----------Buddle-------------

Donovan--------Edu------------Bradley-------Dempsey

Bocanegra-----Onyewu--------Demerit----Cherundolo

-------------------------Howard--------------------------

A lot of people have been talking about Gooch. I think he's okay; sure, he's rusty, no question, but he's still one of our two best center backs (assuming you count Bocanegra as a left back). One thing I'm wondering, though, is if we could possibly see this at the back:

Spector---------Bocanegra------Demerit------Cherundolo

If there's a game to do it, this would be the game. You still have Bocanegra and Demerit for set plays, so you don't loose much in that regard. And Spector is better going forward than Bocanegra, which could be especially useful if Algeria play three at the back (as they sometimes do). I'm not saying I want to see this or think we will see this, but I think it's on the table.

So my friends and family know I'm not a liar...

Mon, 21 Jun 2010 22:11:13 -0500

See, I was a semi-finalist on Last Comic Standing. How else would I have gotten the ticket?

Kinkos, you say? Go fuck yourself.

LA, New York, or DC?

Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:21:47 -0500

How can you tell what town a comic is from? It’s easy, at least as long as they’re from New York, LA, or DC/Baltimore. I know each of these scenes pretty well. LA comics are outgoing and polished; New York comics are moody and dark. DC/Baltimore comics have our own brand of homemade charm. I’ve developed a quiz to clarify things – which type of comic are you?

The first thing I do when I get on stage is…

a) Read an exhaustive list of my stage credits and commercial appearances

b) Light a cigarette

c) Take the mic out of the stand and place the stand to the side (that’s what the guy at Comedy College said to always do first)

On stage I stand…

a) At the very front; better to work the room and engage the audience

b) Slouched against the brick wall; I’m just relaxing and talkin’, man

c) Wherever I took the mic out of the stand; I am too petrified to move

The hoodie I wear on stage is…

a) A $400 Donna Karan pre-stressed hoodie

b) Delightfully disheveled

c) Drenched in flop sweat in under a minute

My first joke is…

a) A story that highlights my unique ethnic background (take note, casting agents!)

b) A joke about rednecks

c) Taken word-for-word from Brian Regan’s 1997 Comedy Central Presents

On stage I read…

a) My stage credits again…in case anyone missed them

b) An e-mail exchange between myself and my cable company

c) My set list, which I taped to the bottom of my beer glass

You may have seen me as…

a) A dead body on CSI

b) A dead body on Law & Order

c) A dead body on the Wire

I take a notebook on stage in order to…

d) Read the jokes my agent wrote for me

e) Project my affected, pseudo-artist persona

f) Remember my set…how to people remember five whole minutes?!?!?

My teeth are…

a) An unnatural, blinding white

b) Still clenched an anger at the Bush administration

c) Chattering nervously

My dream is to…

a) Be an actor

b) Be Bill Hicks, including the dying young part (which would be badass)

c) Feature at Del Rio Restaurant in Leesburg

US vs. Slovenia Recap

Fri, 18 Jun 2010 12:00:00 -0500

Before we talk about the ref, let’s talk about that awful first half, because the ref didn’t cause the US to come sleepwalking out of the gate. Shortly before the first goal, I said to my wife that the US must be playing a ropa-a-dope strategy, trying to draw Slovenia out and build their confidence. Shortly after I said that, Martin Tyler said it on TV. We were both searching for an explanation – there just HAD to be a reason why the US looked so, incredibly, incontrovertibly, unenthusiastic about this game.

Then, as is our tradition, we conceded an early goal. What is wrong with this team? Why can’t we ever start a game on the right foot? I don’t think that anyone has the answer. My theory is that we’re so concerned about conceding an early goal, we play with extreme caution, which then leads to an early goal. Or maybe there’s no reason. I don’t know. Nobody knows, or if they do they’re not telling us.

Slovenia played us off the field in the first half. We were horrible. We were absolute shit. We were the worst team on the planet. Donovan was the only player who was any good. I had been calling for Torres, and he laid an egg. Slovenia played well and deserved the two goal lead.

This exchange between Tyler and John Harkes summed it up:

Martin Tyler: The US are giving Slovenia a lot of space to play in midfield.

John Harkes: You could play in the midfiled with the amount of space the US are giving.

The whole game should have looked like the second half. We’re the better team, and we showed it. Slovenia had an opportunity here and there, but we were on the front foot. Much, much, much better. As much as you have to hate this teams inability to get the blood pumping at the start of a match, you have to love their commitment once they get rolling.

I had a series of small strokes in the second half. I love following the national team, but I’m not sure how much I enjoy actually watching the games. The stress is unbelievable. When Bradley scored the second, my reaction was more relief than happiness.

Which brings us to the ref. Why must we always talk about the referee? The refereeing during the first week was OUTSTANDING. The only horrible call in the first week was the red card to Cahill, and it’s pretty hard to argue that that altered the course of the game. Game after game, they were spot on on just about every call. And then…

The referee got a bit whistle-happy in the France-Mexico match last night. He was calling it badly both ways, but he was inserting himself into the match where he didn’t belong. I said to my wife: “this is the first poorly-refereed match in the tournament.” In retrospect, that was the first crack in the dam. Shortly after that, Hernandez was pretty clearly offside when he scored the first goal. And, with that, the universe had course-corrected: referees were back to making horrible decisions that decide matches.

The Mexico-France match was bad, but the result was still arguably a fair one. The Germany-Serbia match was a disgrace. The worst kind of referee is the kind that kind keep his cards in his pocket and the whistle out of his mouth. Neither foul on Klose should have been a card. Complete horse shit. I have no affection for Germany; I would love to see them eliminated. But the referee was determined to play an active role in the game, and he did. He handed the game to Serbia.

And then Koman Coulibaly went and topped him. Horrible – just horrible. Bizarre, bizarre decisions. The yellow card on Findley (which actually made me happy – now he HAS to be on the bench): what the fuck was he looking at? Findley’s hands were down at his side, so even if the ball hits his hands – which it didn’t – it cannot be an intentional hand ball. Just what the fuck was he looking at? I kind of understand it when a ref misses a call; that happens. But to think you saw something that clearly didn’t happen…I have no idea what causes that. In MLS we call it the Jair Murrufo.

And, of course, he did it again and robbed us of three points. Was Bradley offside? No. He was kept onside by the guy who was fucking tackling him with both arms. But let’s give the benefit of the doubt and say that Bradley was: 1) Not fouled for PK and 2) Offside. Well, even if BOTH of those things were true (and neither were), Bradley was not involved in the play. Did the referee confuse Bradley with Edu? Maybe, but then again: Bradley is white and Edu is black.

So, for it to be offside, you have to believe that 1) Bradley was not fouled, 2) The man not fouling Bradley did, in fact, not exist, and 3) Maurice Edu is white.

I don’t think offside was the call – I think the referee called a foul. On whom? I have no idea. Edu? Nope. Bocanegra? I think this was the call, but nope. Dempsey? Nope. Gooch? No, not really anyone near him. It was a bullshit call, and the non-American press know it. From The Guardian blog:

Quite why the referee's whistle had gone is not clear - there was no offside and the only fouls being perpetrated were by Slovenians holding on to assorted American jerseys. Mystifying decision.

…

Indeed, it looked to me like they should have won, since I saw nothing wrong with the goal that was ruled out.

From The Guardian online:

Bob Bradley's team will feel that they should have had all three points after a late winner was ruled out.

And it looked like they had grabbed the winner when Maurice Edu smashed home Donovan's free-kick four minutes from time — only for the Malian referee, Koman Coulibaly, to rule it out, apparently [my emphasis] for an infringement in the box.

Should have been an historic 3-2 comeback. We were robbed. Then again, if we had played better, then we wouldn’t have put ourselves in a position to be robbed.

Player ratings:

Howard: 5.5. Not really too much for him to do. Certainly can’t blame him for either goal, and didn’t have any non-routine saves to make. He did well in the air, which is the weakest part of his game.

By the way: why can’t a US opponent ever seem to waste a chance early in the game? We give them way too many opportunities, but our opponents have an uncanny record of turning those opportunities into goals.

Cherundolo: 5.5. Good effort, but didn’t play his best game. His service from the wing was poor. Defended well, though, and got into the attack like he always does.

Demerit: 6. Kept his position well and tackled well. Didn’t have trouble reading the ball flight, as he had in previous matches. The center backs don’t seem to pass the ball too well with the central midfielders, but I can’t really tell whose fault that is.

Onyewu: 3. Worst game I have ever seen him play. Was at fault on both goals. I don’t think there’s a reason for it; I think he just stunk today.

Bocanegra: 5. Mediocre day. Didn’t do too much, good or bad. He’s a real threat on set pieces, though; there were a couple of times when I thought he might get on the end of one. Writing these reviews for the back four, I’m realizing that the US didn’t really have too much defensive work to do in this game. Even when Slovenia was bossing the game in the first half, they didn’t have too many opportunities outside of the two goals and a couple dangerous crosses.

Donovan: 7.5. He’s really matured – he’s stepping up his game when we need him most. He’s just quality; he always does something useful with the ball. Took his goal beautifully; cutting it back would have probably led to a corner kick.

Bradley: 5.5. Very good second half, but gave Slovenia way too much space on the ball in the first half. That’s weird; passivity usually isn’t his problem. Near the end of the game, I said to my wife that I was impressed by Bradley’s ability to keep his temper better than he’s shown previously; he didn’t make any stupid tackles, and he hasn’t picked up any cards. Then, he goes and yells at the ref after the game, which he did during the Confederations Cup and received a three match ban. I worry about him; he’s intense.

Outstanding finish on the goal.

Torres: 3.5. All of America agreed: Torres should start this game. Bob Bradley agreed. And Torres started, and he was bad. Didn’t position himself well defensively and didn’t do too much with the ball. He also took a few risky touches that (thankfully) weren’t punished. I wonder if we’ll see him again.

Dempsey: 5.5. Didn’t have his moment of brilliance, but played a solid game. Made good decisions; he passed the ball when he should have this game. I was stunned that he rolled that one across the goal for Donovan in the first half; I’m still not sure whether or not that was the right decision. He almost lost his mind when he got his elbows up going for a header on the first play of the game. Geez, Clint: you know that’s not a card, I know that’s not a card, but didn’t you watch the Germany-Serbia match? Be carful?

A horrible decision that has gone un-commented on in light of the referee’s other horrible decisions: Clint was fouled on Jozy’s shot off the free kick in the second half. Should have been a PK.

Findley: 4. I’m tired of writing the same stuff about Findley; he’s fast, he’s just not that good. Thankfully, he’s picked up two yellows, so we’ll be spared his poor first and second touches against Algeria.

Altidore: 6.5. He was dangerous just about every time he got the ball. The more he uses his size, the better; defenders just can’t hang with him when he’s on his game. He also won a few of those Brian McBride-type long ball headers, which is an improvement.

Subs:

Edu: 3.5. Man, maybe Ricardo Clark isn’t that bad after all. Edu looked scared; lots of bad touches, lots of unsure tackling. Now I’m not sure who our second best central midfielder is. Feilhaber? How’s Jermain Jones’ leg?

Feilhaber: 6. Played well, but also played the attacking midfield role in which he excels. He’s good in attack; not so much in defense. He’s also great at playing great passes, but mediocre at playing mediocre passes. At any rate, I thought he was good, and he put himself in the conversation in central midfield.

Gomez: 5.5. The ball didn’t ever fall for him, but he worked hard and made himself a nuisance. After seeing him do a couple interviews, you really have to root for the guy: he’s very humble, and he’s really had to earn absolutely everything that he has.

US vs. Slovenia preview

Fri, 18 Jun 2010 00:06:45 -0500

As far as I can tell, tomorrow will be the first time that the US have ever gone into a World Cup match as the favorite. The only possible candidates are vs. Iran in '98, vs. Poland in '02, or vs. Ghana in '06. Fun fact: we lost all three of those matches.

The good news is that Bradley and the players are saying all the right things. It seems that they didn’t get too high after the England match and realize that they have it all to do against Slovenia. I love quotes like this from Donovan:

Asked what it feels like to be, for a change, a favorite in a World Cup match: "Who says we are the favorites? It means nothing to me."

Also this:

We haven't always done well coming off a good result and continuing that, and so that was part of the feeling in the locker room that, 'Okay, that was a good start but it doesn't mean anything if we don't get through the group.' "

I know that athletes know what they’re supposed to say, but in this instance I think that they mean it. Surely, Bradley has drilled it into them; if nothing else, Bradley has demonstrated a remarkable ability to avoid irrational exuberance.

Now, let’s see if he can get the tactics right (in my snarky opinion). At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I want to see this:

----------------Dempsey------------ Altidore ---------------

Donovan----------Torres----------Bradley---------Holden

Bocanegra-------Onyewu-------Demerit-------Cherundolo

----------------------------Howard----------------------------

I really think this is the right lineup. Torres comes in for his ball possession and passing, which will be important in a game where we should be on the front foot. Also, the Slovenians are kinda big and really slow: Torres is small and quick. I think they’d end up fouling the hell out of him (and Donovan).

Which brings us to Holden: his set pieces are a cut above Donovan’s. He’s also a good possession player, and his defense is underrated. I think he’s ready to step up.

Dempsey is preferred to Findley for three reasons: 1) Dempsey is a much, much better player than Findley; 2) The Slovenians will play back and leave no room to get behind their defense. That takes away Findley’s primary asset. I think any US goals – especially the first goal – will be a scrappy, hockey playoff-type trash goal. Dempsey gets a lot of those. 3) Dempsey is excellent with his head, which is important because a goal off a set piece is also likely.

Of course, Bradley and I rarely see eye-to-eye on lineups, so I doubt we’ll see this. I’ll bet that we see Buddle instead of Holden, with Dempsey sliding to midfield. That would be okay. As long as there’s no Findley.

My impressions of Slovenia (after watching a grand total of two Slovenian matches) are the same as everyone else’s: not especially talented, but they’re organized and play well together. They’ve got some size, but are slow. They sit back and look to counter (which makes me a bit queasy – we’ve had some trouble stopping the counter). They’d be pretty happy with a point here, so I think they’ll REALLY sit back and look to counter. They did a great job against Algeria of keeping a deep line; I don’t think there’s going to be any room in behind their defense. Here’s a telling stat: Slovenia only allowed four goals in their 10 World Cup qualifying matches.

In my World Cup pool, I picked the US to win 3-0. But that’s the fan in me speaking. In reality, I would be thrilled with any win, no matter how scrappy. These games are always more difficult than I think they’ll be.

Player Ratings for the England Match

Fri, 18 Jun 2010 00:06:21 -0500

Howard: 8. Some girls - shallow ones - only have ugly friends. That way, the girl looks better by comparison. Did Howard really have such an outstanding game, or was it just the fact that he was standing across the field from Robert Green?

No - he was good. Although I think that Hahnemann and Guzan also would have made all of those saves. We're lucky - we have a lot of great goalkeeping options.

As good as Howard was, I'm a little annoyed by the fact that every match review I've read gushes over his performance. That's slightly insulting; they're making it sound like our goalie just had the game of his life. The reality is, England didn't create many quality chances, and two that they did create (Johnson and Heskey's chances in the second half) were capped by mediocre finishes. The fact that we only conceded one is a pretty fair reflection of the outfield play.

Cherundolo: 8. Awesome, awesome game by The Mayor of Hannover (that's his real nickname...I'm not making that up). He has it between the ears - he always shows up for big games. Loved the way he wasn't afraid to attack - I wish our central midfield had shown a bit more of that. Watching Germany today, they almost run their offense through their right back (Lahm, who is great on the ball). Seems like a tactic worth considering.

Demerit: 5.5. Did what we expect him to do. Another guy who you never worry about mentally - he's a bulldog, and he leaves it all on the field. I'm still a little worried about his depth perception after eye surgery - there were a couple of times when he misjudged the ball flight, including the play that led to his yellow card.

Onyewu: 6. Passable first half, very good second half. Glad Bradley started him. If we make it to the knockout stages, then he will have played his way into match shape by then. I'm also thrilled that he didn't pick up a yellow; Gooch is a card magnet (mostly because of his size), and the odds of Gooch being eligible for the first round of 16 game (knock on wood) just went way up.

Bocanegra: 5.5. Another guy you never worry about - he always, always, always shows up. Got beat for pace a couple times, which is inevitable. That will be much less of a problem against SLOW-venia (burn!).

As I listened to my wife detail the reasons why Carlos is rocketing up the guys-she-would-leave-me-for-in-a-nanosecond list (Carlos is now even with Eric Bana and closing in on Jon Hamm), it occurred to me: if the US makes a run in this tournament, Carlos could become a fairly big celebrity. He's personable, smart, and need-I-mention: the ladies love Carlos Bocanegra.

Donovan: 6.5. Quality game from Lando. Sparked the offense when needed, and it was needed often; he's one of the only guys we can count on to carry the ball into the opposing half. Played a very smart game. Did a lot of dirty work defensively in the second half, which was critical because England's main threat was from the wing. We've all been wondering which Landon was going to show up for this tournament, and early indications are that it's Everton Landon, not Leverkusen Landon.

Clark: 4.5. The goal was about 60% his fault (also 20% Demerit and 20% Gooch). Still, he recovered fairly well and was solid after that. Deserves a lot of the credit for keeping Rooney quiet. Won a few 50-50 balls in the midfield and didn't commit any stupid fouls. Still, I have serious problems with his distribution: he plays the ball back way too frequently. When he does play the ball forward, the results are mixed. You can argue that we needed his skillset for this particular game, so maybe Bradley made the right call in starting him. But if he starts against Slovenia, then I'll start to wonder what incriminating information he has on Bob Bradley.

Bradley: 6. Not the breakout game I was hoping for, but a good game. He's a battler; unlike some of the other midfielders, he avoided the temptation to collapse on top of the back four when England had a spell of possession. Didn't get forward very often, but that was probably by design. Played it safe, didn't give up any stupid fouls, and didn't get any cards.

Dempsey: 6. It can't be denied: the way Clint plays for the national team is different than the way he plays for Fulham. With the national team, he pushes higher - he obviously sees himself as a bigger part of the offense (and he's probably right). It's not that he's lazy; he just tends to push pretty high for a winger. He tracked back more in the second half, but in the first half he was practically a third striker. He also isn't overly interested in one-on-one defending; he'll contain, but that's about it. So, let's just yield to reality and play Clint at striker. Please, Bob, it makes sense. Do it.

Jozy: 5.5. Newsflash: Jozy is big and fast and strong. All of the English fans seemed shocked by this (apparently nobody watches the bottom half of the Premiership - nobody seemed to know that Jozy is good but Green and Guillermo Franco suck). If they had watched more US matches, they would know that Jozy is extremely dangerous when he gets the ball in good positions. The problem is, he doesn't get into good positions often enough. I'd like to see him move more off the ball - a diagonal run or two would be nice. He doesn't try to get behind the defense often enough, and I'd like to see him attack balls in the penalty area with a little more aggression. Still, pretty good game, and probably a confidence builder for the 20-year-old.

Findley: 4. You know that part in Vertigo when Jimmy Stewart dresses the woman up to look like the woman who he thought had died? Memo to Bob Bradley: Robbie Findley is not Charlie Davies. Charlie is gone, Bob - let it go. Findley may have the right skill set to go with your system, but the quality is just not there. Holden is our 11th-best player; put him on the field. Even Buddle would be better.

subs:

Buddle: 4.5. Didn't do too much, but also didn't have many opportunities; we were in lockdown mode by the time he entered.

Holden: 5. Probably deserves a n/a given how little he played, but he had a few decent touches in his short time on the field.

US vs. England Preview

Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:35:14 -0500

My prediction: 2-1 US. Complete hometown call. Total hometown call. Realistically, I'd say the US has a 20% shot at a draw and a 20% shot at a win. How does that add up to a 2-1 prediction? It doesn't. But I'm going with it.

Things I'm thinking about...

Fitness. This could be a real advantage for us. Almost all US players have played many games at altitude, including the games at the Confederations Cup last year. We know what to expect. I'm not sure if many or even any English players have ever played at altitude (Euro 2008 in Austria and Switzerland would have been an opportunity, but we all know how that went).

Counterattacking is in style. Brazil is now - against all odds - a counterattacking team. South Africa got one on the counter against Mexico today (and almost got another). Chelsea were lethal on the counter this year. It's a good style to play, and we play it. I think it could work.

Psychology. You've surely heard this at some point this week: "England always start slow." Whether or not that's true, English players might have this in their mind. The second part of that maxim is: "...but they always advance." If it's 1-1 in the 80th minute, England might not press as much as they would in the second or third game.

Holding the ball in the midfield. England doesn't build the play; they hoof and hope (a bit...I don't want to over-generalize). We have the centerbacks to cope with the hoof-and-hope approach. What we can't do is give the ball away cheaply and allow them to counter. We really need to hold the ball. Which brings me to...

The lineup that I'd like to see:

---------------Altidore---------------Dempsey-----------------

Donovan--------Torres----------Bradley--------------Holden

Bocanegra-------Onyewu-------Demerit----------Cherundolo

-----------------------------Howard------------------------------

I had been putting Edu in Torres' spot until about a week ago for defensive purposes. But the more I thought about it - and the more I thought about the second half of the Brazil game in the Confederations Cup last year - the more I thought that the best defense might be to deny England the ball. Hence: Torres instead of Edu. Also, I am still an advocate of playing your best 11 (within reason), which is why Holden is in for Buddle. I also really like what Holden brings to the table on set pieces.

We also need to realize this about Dempsey: he IS playing up top. You can pencil him in at left mid, but he's going to play up top. So you might as well have that be his official role.

The lineup I think we'll see:

---------------Altidore---------------Buddle-----------------

Dempsey--------Edu----------Bradley--------------Donovan

Bocanegra-------Onyewu-------Demerit----------Cherundolo

-----------------------------Howard------------------------------

I am okay with this lineup; I could see us winning with this lineup. If Buddle really is in peak form (small sample size, blah blah blah), then this could work out very well. I am fine with Edu or Torres; I don't think Clark is the best option.

Predictions

Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:07:04 -0500

Kickoff is 30 minutes away. Prediction time. These predictions are influenced by the following factors:

1. The home team always plays way better than they should.

2. The home team, in this instance, is not all that good.

3. When the Cup is in Europe, a European team always wins (except for Brazil in Sweden '58). When the Cup is anywhere else, a non-European (i.e. South American) team always wins. Weird.

4. Home field advantage is primarily psychological, not geographic, and having the World Cup in Africa for the first time is a huge deal. Therefore, I am factoring in a "home continent advantage" for African teams in spite of the significant geographic distance.

5. Team adversity is overrated (see: Italy 2006). "Us vs. the coach" can be a motivating factor, too. Translation: don't count out France.

6. Diego Maradona is as bad of a coach as he was a great player.

7. I don't tend to pick a lot of upsets (I have a background in statistics - it's all probability and expected value for me. Also, I don't like fun).

Group A:

1st: Mexico

2nd: France

Group B:

1st: Argentina

2nd: Nigeria

Group C:

1st: England

2nd: USA

Group D:

1st: Germany

2nd: Serbia

Group E:

1st: Netherlands

2nd: Cameroon

Group F:

1st: Italy

2nd: Paraguay

Group G:

1st: Brazil

2nd: Portugal

Group H:

1st: Spain

2nd: Paraguay

Round of 16:

Nigeria beats Mexico

England beats Serbia

France beats Argentina

US beats Germany (okay: home town call here. But we owe them one from 2002)

Netherlands beats Paraguay

Brazil beats Chile

Cameroon beats Italy

Spain beats Portugal

Round of 8:

England beats Nigeria

France beats USA

Brazil beats Netherlands

Spain beats Cameroon

Semifinal:

Brazil beats England

Spain beats France

Champion: Brazil

Golden boot: David Villa

Golden ball: Xavi

Yashin award: Julio Caesar

Best young player: Jozy

Most entertaining team: Netherlands

Dark horse: France. (Do they count as a dark horse? No? Okay: Serbia)

New Paul F. Tompkins Special Tonight @ 11 on Comedy Central

Fri, 11 Jun 2010 08:24:36 -0500

Set your TIVO - sure to be hilarious. Followed by Ralphie May, so don't worry too much about the karmic balance of the universe.