The U.S. sports pundits' treatment of the World Cup seems to reflect the desperation with which the American soccer powers are marketing the sport here. In years past i had to read a litany of columns blathering on about how boring the sport is, or how the U.S.'s soccer flubs occur because we don't care not because we aren't any good at it (the "why blacks don't dominate hockey" argument). This year however, the columnists are eager to compliment the sport, although in the most backhanded way possible. Take Sports Guy Bill Simmons, a favorite of mine, and his treatise on why he loves the World Cup. Apparently it's because the sport is boring enough that he can do other things while it's on TV, and still catch the occasional dive or theatrical moment. ESPN's Jim Caple feels that baseball would be as popular as soccer if the sport was marketed globally. A proposition i feel is so wrong it doesn't even merit discussion. Oh well. When the popular sports media is pushing to get rid of the offside rule or otherwise boost scoring at the expense of strategy, you know the U.S. at large just isn't ready to be a footballing nation. The beauty of the game is in its simplicity, its grace, and its strategy. Like no other sport, it reflects the abilities and demeanors of its participants. Bad players, ugly games. Great players, beautiful scenes. It's the perfect mirror for society, civilization, and humanity. Perhaps too poetic or realistic for our country.

It's been said before, but ... why does Cristiano Ronaldo cry so friggin' much? Bawled after losing the Euro 2004 final, wailed after getting injured against the Netherlands, sobbed after Portugal got eliminated by France. I don't remember but i would wager that he cried after Manchester United lost the FA Cup final to Arsenal in 2005. I don't want to get all Howard Stern here, but ...