Obviously, not as many links to round up as there were in Germany. Not because there is less coverage, really, but because the nature of it is different. And also, I am really busy. Definitely not at the beach this time around.
First up, daily recaps:
- Brazil-Italy, New Zealand-Switzerland, Nigeria-South Korea, Mexico-Japan
- North Korea-Norway, USA-Ghana, Argentina-Canada, Germany-China
- Brazil-Nigeria, Mexico-Switzerland, Italy-South Korea, New Zealand-Japan
General conclusions? Group B is the group of “You might literally die out here.” Group A is going to break my heart. The US look way too much like the 2010 edition, and this is upsetting. Japan probably benefits having primetime slots more because of the weather than because of any home crowd advantage.
Next, blogs:
- Assistant Coach Janet Rayfield’s (USA) blog
- Natalie Gomez-Junco’s (Mexico) blog
- Julie Johnston’s vlog (okay, not a vlog, but still a link)
I know, that’s not much. By and large, the interesting stuff is happening on twitter and facebook. (Like Canada rooting for Japan. What do you guys have against the Kiwis?) No surprise, right? It’s not like twitter was new in 2010, but it’s getting a lot more mileage now.
The real surprise is that FIFA actually has some nice little features for perusal.
US Soccer’s coverage is mainly video (also on youtube) and the WNT blog, where none of the entries are tagged. But remember, it’s the WNT blog, not the YNT, which is the twitter heading the U-20s fall under. Look, US Soccer never claimed to be consistent or particularly concerned with accessibility. Just deal with it.
In conclusion of the roundup, can we all just bask for a moment in the fact that the goal that Brazil’s Amanda scored in the opener against Italy was ranked among the top 5 goals of the weekend amid goals scored in men’s professional leagues, and it was actually clearly superior to any of the others except maybe the bicycle kick.
Indeed.
In what way is the US looking too much like they did in 2010?
Today’s post should explain that! Mainly: nice on paper, ineffective on the field. Part of it is personnel issues, part of it is a lack of creativity.