I know very little about soccer, but I have been doing my best to follow the World Cup at least. I used some info that I got through ESPN the Mag, some podcasts, Stefan's post, and a Eurosprt mailer to get a feel for the teams. Then I compared each team to their NBA couterpart. Using how the NBA teams finished this year, I made a list of how I expect the World Cup teams to finish. I got this idea from that blog Stefan linked to and also from a Bill Simmons podcast, so some of the comparisons are borrowed from that. See below:
1. Brazil/Lakers - Flashy, loaded with talent, and a perennial power. The favorite.
2. Germany/Celtics - Consistently historically great, lots of talent, play a complete game.
3. Spain/Magic - Maybe the most talent and the one of the most fun to watch, though not always consistent.
4. Netherlands/Suns - The deepest and most explosive offensive team but has defense questions.
5. England/Cavs - Lots of talent. Will likely do really well at the beginning, causing their tortured fans to get a lot of hope, just before failing and punching their fans collectively in the vaginas. Also may have chemistry issues because of teammates having sex with each others' loved ones.
6. Italy/Spurs - Play to win and not to entertain. On the downside of their peak.
7. Portugal/Mavericks - Lots of talent but chemistry issues and consistently underachieve.
8. Denmark/Jazz - Solid but boring and not as talented as the elite teams.
9. Argentina/Nuggets - Tons of talent but also a very volatile group with chemistry, coaching, and management issues.
10. USA/ex-Sonics - Up-and-coming team that plays with heart but is not quite there yet. Not expected to do much but could surprise because it has some nice young pieces and is well-prepared.
11. France/Hawks - A mishmash of talented players that haven't been together long and underachieve.
12. Uruguay/Bucks - Another up-and-comer that could surprise, and should be fun to watch and root for.
13. Greece/Bobcats - An under-the-radar team that could make some noise, but doesn't have very likable players or a history of being good.
14. Chile/Blazers - A team that was historically good, but then had poor character issues for a stretch and needs to rebuild.
15. Ivory Coast (pre Dragba injury)/Heat - Has one of the most exciting young players in the field, but likely doesn't have enough players around him to do anything special.
16. Cameroon/Bulls - A slightly lesser version of the team above.
17. Mexico/Rockets - One of those teams that is simply average and can be a spoiler but that's about it.
18. Australia/Raptors - A historically bad team that is better than their history but still not good.
19. Ghana/Grizzlies - A team like the one above but with less white players.
20. Switzerland/Pacers - A bunch of tall white dudes who don't have enough talent or specialization to be much more than average.
21. Nigeria/Knicks - A volatile group with a rabid fan-base who isn't very good but can be fun to watch. Like a train wreck.
22. Algeria/Pistons - A bunch of players who try to overcome lack of talent by being physical but forget you still need skill to win.
23. South Africa/76ers - A team with rabid and entitled fans but really no shot.
24. Ivory Coast (post Dragba injury)/Hornets - A team that has no chance after the player its entire game centers around went down with an injury.
25. Japan/Clippers - A team with some pieces but not enough, and no history of winning.
26. South Korea/Warriors - A slightly northern version of the team above.
27. Paraguay/Wizards - A team that might have been decent but fell apart due to its star player having to miss a lot of time with a gun related issue.
28. Honduras/Kings - A bad team with good athletes but bad players.
29. Serbia/T-Wolves - A bad team from the land of ice and snow.
30. Slovenia/Nets - A bad team with an ex-Soviet owner.
31. Slovakia/Fort Wayne Mad Ants - Poopfartandthrowup.
32. New Zealand/Yakima Sun Kings - Poopfartandthrowup.
33. North Korea/Quad City Thunder - Poopfartandthrowup.
2 comments:
Uruguay: Fear the Deer!
was the ivory coast meant to be in there twice? Both were good analogies though.
Post a Comment