U.S. beats Germany at soccerball

June 3, 2013 • 10:06 am

Since I’ll get criticized by the Europeans if I call it “soccer” and by the Americans if I call it “football”, I’ll use a neologism here.  The important thing is that yesterday the U.S. beat a powerful German team 4-3 yesterday.  Sadly, the victory, at RFK Stadium in Washington, D.C., can be attributed largely to an own goal by Germany, as their goalkeeper, Marc-Andre ter Stegen, flubbed a back pass from his own team, letting it roll into the German goal. I don’t know what he was thinking, but here is what the announcer called “eine gemütliche Rückgabe”:

Here’s a 13-minute clip of the game’s highlights (auf Deutsch):

And to my German friends, including Florian Maderspacher, I say this: “Die Vereinigten Staaten über alles!”

h/t: Matthew Cobb

63 thoughts on “U.S. beats Germany at soccerball”

      1. Why not “Kickball”?
        Though, in my youth, we played baseball-type game using a soccer ball, and instead of using a bat, we kicked the pitched (underhand, rolled or bounced on the ground) ball. That is a really good game, and it was called “Kickball”.

        …can’t use Foosball, naturally…

        1. I would have done the portmanteau the other way and come up with “foccer”. 😉

    1. It’s another Americanism. “Soccer” is to “football”, as “powerful” is to “second-string”.

  3. While I’m pleased with the US win, I think it’s worth pointing out that the German side was largely a B-team, since 17 of their normal squad were unavailable for the tour. Still, a nice win on our soccer centenary.

  4. Jerry: don’t be embarrassed about winning via an own goal – they all count!!

    As an Englishman who’s long since despaired of ever seeing his national team win anything, I advise you to celebrate whatever you can!

    1. The British nations should have had a joint national team decades ago. When English clubs were dominating European competition in the late 70s through the mid-80s, with mostly British players, a combined British team might have won a World Cup and maybe a European championship to boot. Ian Rush deserved better than Wales, and Dalglish and Hansen deserved better than Scotland.

      Heck, they could have just sent Liverpool (sans fat Jan Molby).

      1. Bizarre. You might as well say that the 3 north American countries should have a combined side, or perhaps Italy should combine with Argentina as they both got knocked out early last time round.

          1. On the contrary, bizarre and difficult.

            Bizarre because, in most sports, the nations that make up the UK compete individually, such as in the Commonwealth Games, and only combine for certain tournaments, such as the Olympics. In Rugby, for instance, England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales compete (with France and Italy) for the 6 Nations Championship every year, and only combine and the British & Irish Lions every 3-6 years, this year being one one such occasion.

            Difficult, because, in order to field a ‘GB’ team in the World Cup or European Championship, UEFA and FIFA insist that each nations home leagues would have to combine, which presents immense practical and financial problems.

          2. “Bizarre because, in most sports, the nations that make up the UK compete individually, such as in the Commonwealth Games, and only combine for certain tournaments, such as the Olympics.”

            “Certain tournaments”….how prestigious is the Commonwealth games compared to the OLYMPICS???

            “Difficult, because, in order to field a ‘GB’ team in the World Cup or European Championship, UEFA and FIFA insist that each nations home leagues would have to combine”

            If this is true, then I agree this would present a probably insurmountable practical difficulty. But then isn’t it true that Welsh teams, at least, compete in the English Football League and the EPL? Cardiff City and Swansea, for instance?

            As it stands now, Wales, N. Ireland, and even Scotland have a very small chance of ever qualifying for a major international tournament again. They are now minnows in every sense of the word; cannon fodder for the real footballing nations of the world. Scotland hasn’t been in anything since 1998, and has never in its history progressed beyond the first round of the World Cup. N. Ireland hasn’t qualified for anything since 1982. Wales’ last international tournament appearance was when?

            I understand that these “nations” were among the first international sides and are venerable institutions, but come on, get with the program already. If they can figure out how to have GB soccer team in the 2012 Olympics (albeit an U-23 team with a few allowed over-age exceptions), then surely some arrangement can be made for one tournament every four years. That way, at least those exceptional players like Best, Dalglish, Rush, Giggs, and now Gareth Bale will actually get a chance to shine on the international stage, and Great Britain might actually win something in soccer for a change.

          3. Of course in cricket, English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, Republic of Ireland Irish and South Africans all play for England.

          4. As the Commonwealth games is the third largest multisport event on this planet, yes, I do think it has some prestige,and so, I daresay, do the vast majority of those taking part. Less prestigious than the Olympics or Asian Games, but prestigious nonetheless.

            Yes, Cardiff, Newport, Swansea and Wrexham do play in the English league system, but that is because, at the time that each team was formed, there was no professional league in Wales, so they joined the nearest available one. They could hardly make up a viable league amongst themselves!

            I can assure you that it is most certainly true that UEFA and FIFA would demand GB league in order for a GB team to be fielded. They are very quick to say so whenever the subject is mooted.

            The Olympics is the only time that a GB soccer team is fielded, and the 2012 games in London was the first time that a GB team had been organised since 1974, when the IOC first started allowing under-23 professional players to be used, only amateurs having been permitted since 1936. It remains to be seen whether a GB team will take the field in future Olympics.

            I doubt very much whether the inclusion of one player from each generation would do very much to improve the fortunes of UK international football. Additionally, with the very loose rules regarding nationality these days, I am pretty sure that Bale would have found a way to be ‘English’, had he desired it. Giggs certainly could have, having represented England at junior levels.

          5. @ teacupoftheapocalypse

            The GB only fielded a football team at the 2012 Olympics because, as host nation, it got in without having to qualify. The European qualifying is done on the basis of the Under 21 European Championship, for which England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland submit separate teams, so ordinarily, there is no way for a Great Britain team to qualify for the Olympics.

            GB will not be entering the Olympic football again until the UK hosts the olympics again.

          6. There’s no anomaly; international sports founded by British people, and international sports founded by others are simply organised differently. If we started it, then our countries played the first internationals then others joined in a pre-existing arrangement with the 4 home countries being separate. If foreigners started it, we joined in as the UK.

            What’s bizarre is the idea that people should give up their nationality simply because they happen to be unsuccessful at present.

  5. Soccer, as I am sure was said here before, was a Public School name from Association [Football] in a similar way that Rugby football became ‘rugger’ – adding the suffix ‘-er’ to a shortened form of the name. Soccerball therefore fits as far as I am concerned!

    How did Brazil do yesterday – remind me?

    1. Brazil 2- England 2.

      Brazilian people are worried by their national team’s level.

      BTW it Football, yo

      1. Well, yes and no. Of course we’re worried. But boy do people have a short memory. We were in as bad of a state in 2001. We won 2002.

        12 months can be a long time. I saw some good signs in yesterday’s game.

        1. The thing is England are crap for a number of reasons, while the game as I understand it in Brazil is suffering from an export of talent & falling attendances. Still, you have 197 million people to choose from compared with 53 million for England & we have a huge number of popular sports to compete with for the same ‘sporty’ school children who will become future stars (or not!). At least the World Cup will be in a place where football is popular rather than in a Gulf State as in the next one…

        2. First of all, You’re right. But it’s totally understandable your worries, ’cause you ALWAYS are among the favorites to win the FIFA World Cup.

          Agree, 12 months is a long time, time enough to see Neymar’s development in Europe.

          Besides you will be playing in your own country, with your fans’ support and with the desire of get the Championship.

          Anything less than that, will be considered as a failure.

    2. It was the abbreviation of “association” to “assoc” that became soccer. It’s football’s original English name. Yet here in England people get quite upset with the soccer title, and Americans calling their amour plated fashion show style rugby game football.

      I like the term soccerball. I will use it to wind up English football fans.

  6. I’ll keep calling it soccer when I am in North America, where soccer has never been the dominant code of football and therefore the word “football” refers to something else. I’ll do this because I don’t want to confuse people and come off as some type of soccer snob.

    If I’m in a country where soccer is the dominant football code, I’ll use whatever terminology the locals use, and add the qualifier of “American” to football if I want to talk about the NFL.

    2. I think, but I’m not certain, that is consistent with the historical prerogative as well as the spread.

      Too bad there isn’t design protection on (old) sports.

    3. Thanks for the rational, non-contentious, non-self-righteous breath of fresh air. Do those who must argue semantics, etymologies, and provenance all the time realize how provincial and anal they sound?

  7. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with ‘soccer’ (Association Football), which has the same origin as the well-accepted ‘rugger’ (Rugby Football), in the English public school system, and not, as all too many assume, from the US.

    But ‘soccerball’? Never in several months of Sundays. It sounds like the bastard son of soccer and dodgeball.

    2. Can anyone explain why American Football is called ‘football’, given that only one player, of 49 on each side, actually has the job of kicking the ball?

      It should, by rights, be called something like ‘flingball’, which would avoid further confusion.

        1. As is every other ball sport I can think of right now, except hoofball and water hoofball.

      2. Early American football resembled rugby and association football as much or more than it resembles its modern form. But the major innovations of the line of scrimmage, downs and distance rules, and the forward pass altered the game significantly and made kicking in open play all but extinct. Of course, they aren’t going to change the name now, much like basketball won’t change its name just because they stopped using peach baskets for goals.

  8. The whole “Soccerball” thing was invented by The Guardian (I think). There’s a great account of the US playing Mexico, written by Scott Murray in 2002 from the point of view of a US sports journalist, which the BBC took seriously – twice.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2002/jun/17/minutebyminute.worldcupfootball20021

    Murray famously ranted on the Guardian’s cricket commentary when he had to do the early morning shift:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2003/mar/14/cricketworldcup2003.overbyoverreports

  9. At least they scored 7 goals, making the game 3 to 4 times less boring than the average soccer game.

    1. If scoring is what makes a game exciting to you, you must love basketball.

      And bowling.

    2. That’s not enterely true, ’cause there are lots of very exciting “Soccer” matches with a score of 2 or 3 goals.

      Besides, when playing soccer there are many ways of scoring. Please go to youtube and look at Neymar’s or Messi’s skills and tricks.

      You’ll enjoy it.

  10. Worth mentioning is also that US coach Klinsi used to be the coach of Germany during the legendary 2006 worldcup. Jogi Loew, Germany’s current coach, was then his assistant…

  12. “And to my German friends, including Florian Maderspacher, I say this: “Die Vereinigten Staaten über alles!””

    “Deutschland über alles” is a Nazi slogan. It is technically not illegal to say, but only jackbooted, drunken skinheads would ever utter these words.

    1. You’re dead wrong. The lyrics were written in the 1840s (including that phrase) and were used intermittently ever since, including by Nazis. But they’re still sung today, and not just by jackbooted drunken skinheads. As Wikipedia notes:

      When West Germany won the 1954 FIFA World Cup Final in Bern, Switzerland, the lyrics of the first stanza dominated when the crowd sang along to celebrate the surprise victory that was later dubbed Miracle of Bern.

      I guess the crowd were all drunken booted Nazi skinheads, eh?

      Plus the song is the German national anthem.

      1. The politics around that song are rather convoluted: originally, back when von Fallersleben wrote it, there was hardly any Germany, just many small states, and he meant it as put being German above being Prussian, Bavarian, and what all else. Including Austria then, for that matter. The geographic description corresponds roughly to the limits of german-speaking central Europe at the time.
        Fast forward to the Bismarck’s and William II’s Kaisereich, and their Hyperpatriotism. Later the Nazis. They each found their own meaning for these stanzas, progressively more odious.
        After the war, in a compromise between many traditions, the song was retained as the national anthem, but with the proviso that only the third stanza, which is quite innocent, be sung.
        1954 was not all that much after the war: many of those on the terraces that day had grown up with the first stanza still sung wholeheartedly. And it rang with the core of their feelings: “we are someone again”
        Today, when even the children of the ’68 generation are in their middle years, all but the third stanza are discredited in the German mainstream, and anyone singing it can be assumed to be tainted by the brown stuff in more than just this aspect…
        That said, all attempts at clearing this up by removing the first stanzas entirely or adopting any other song have met some stubborn resistance from conservatives not normally out on the far wing…

      2. “Die Vereinigten Staaten über alles!”

        OUCH!!!
        You know, for someone who sees Nazi analogies even in tea kettles, you are rather careless with your choice of words…

        And no, I rather think you will find that it is you who is dead wrong here. Afaik the German national anthem consists only of the third stanza of the Deutschlandlied, and Wikipedia agrees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschlandlied – also here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Nationalhymne but only in German). There has apparently been some completely academic discussion over whether this was also formally and legally the case, but that was resolved conclusively with Germany’s reunification.

        At least as long as I can remember (I’m 31), saying/singing “Deutschland, Deutschland über alles” completely disqualifies that person from civilized company, and I’ve only ever heard it from Neo-Nazis and drunken somewhat-right-wing class mates who wanted to provoke outrage.

        1. Okay, I’ll back off, but when I referred to the “song,” I meant “the tune” rather than words, and in that I was careless. I do know that only the third verse is part of the anthem.

          If three Germans tell me I’m wrong, I’ll admit it.

  13. Of old, it was said that soccer was a game designed for gentlemen, played by hooligans; rugger was designed for hooligans, played by gentlemen.

  14. Strewth! Long, long ago, before the Dead Sea had even reported sick, I used to play for an indisciplined rabble known as the village boys team (our “system” loosely approximated to 1-0-9). But even then I don’t think we committed anything quite as bad as that own goal.

  18. OK. You win, it’s “soccerball”.

    We win, it’s “football”.

  19. Although not mandatory it is customary for a hanky to appear on the playground when the ball is being moved and sometimes even when the ball doesn’t move at all. Long and sometimes ferocious discussions and actions are taken due to the meaning of the hanky and the setting of the playground for the next potential handy appearance. The game revolves around the hanky, I don’t think anyone could object if the United States game was called hankyball.

    1. I’ve noticed that most of the players on both sides find these long discussions ruin their concentration. When the game finally (and briefly) restarts, they have forgotten whatever they were supposed to do and just run straight into each other in their confusion. With almost no one left to give the ball to, the chap with ball just hurls it as far he can upfield, hoping that someone who didn’t run into someone else just kept running and might catch it. It’s all very odd.

    2. Oh, and if someone does catch the ball before it bounces into the crowd at the end, they just stop. Obviously no one expected anyone to be left to catch the ball so they didn’t tell them what to do next. You can tell that some of the catchers find that very frustrating, because they throw the ball at the ground in disgust, or sometimes just fling it away. The others try to comfort him, though, which is nice: they give him a hug for not being knocked over and at least trying to do something.

      1. I find the attitude of the ref to be totally disgusting. He will often award points to a player for a “touchdown” even when the player has blatantly failed to touch the ball down.

  20. I am not a fan of soccerball (LOL) we have our own code of football Downunder, which is called “football” of course. That silly American game is known as Gridiron, when it is spoken of at all.

  21. Don’t forget, USA finished 3rd in the first ever World Cup in 1930.

    When England first entered the World Cup in 1950 they lost 1-0 to USA in Belo Horizonte, and that was with a full-strength team not the 2nd string the Germans sent this time. By all accounts England hit the woodwork several times and USA scored with their only attack of the game.

    However, I read recently that USA has more registered youth players than any other country, so they should be competitive with the traditionally powerful teams.

    The main predictor of national success in any sport is the number of teenagers playing that sport, so that for example Brazil are traditionally the most successful country simply because they have the largest population of all countries in which football is the #1 sport.

  22. It’s football, guys. Fat men wearing tight pants and chasing an Easter egg just doesn’t float anyone’s duck beyond your borders. And they call it football in Portland, OR, home of the Timbers and thus the epicenter of North American FOOTBALL.
    No Pity!
    Steve the Boro fan

    1. “Fat men wearing tight pants…”

      Yeah, these guys really need to get in shape. What poor physical specimens they are.

      http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://trialx.com/curetalk/wp-content/blogs.dir/7/files/2011/07/sports/Cornelius_Ingram-1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://trialx.com/i/2011/07/24/profile-and-images-of-football-player-cornelius-ingram/&h=469&w=375&sz=31&tbnid=NsI8ORdLjiOSkM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=77&zoom=1&usg=__LbUYbrZzrcq3gErLWy9y2Ugcu-4=&docid=Eduuakg1YlqU3M&sa=X&ei=RZW0UfjNBo7K0gGT3YGgCw&sqi=2&ved=0CJABEP4dMAs

Comments are closed.