Andrew Hoppes Philadelphia Why is Johan Cruyff apparently not a candidate for the U.S. men’s national team coaching position? Would he be a good coach for the U.S., or would he have a difficult time dealing with players who are not of the same superstar caliber as his players at Barcelona? Would he be too expensive? Paul Kennedy: While Cruyff has demonstrated that he is a great player (Ajax, Barcelona, NASL, back in the Netherlands) and coach (Ajax and Barca), he would have a very hard time here. All the problems that a U.S. national team coach has to deal with would drive him nuts! U.S. Soccer insists that expense is no longer a factor — thanks to Nike and IMG — but they’d only spend big money on a coach of it felt he could make a long-term impact. Wilbert Dawkins Alexandria, Va. Jamaican player Andrew Williams was reported signed by the Crew. However, his name does not appear on their roster. What happened to Williams? Are there any other Jamaicans in or being considered by the MLS? Pete Bailey: Fear not, Wilbert. Williams, who was with the Reggae Boyz through the World Cup and then took a brief break, was scheduled to practice with the Crew for the first time on July 17. He will travel with the team to New Jersey and be available for duty against the MetroStars on Sunday. Wolde Harris of Colorado is also a Jamaican international. Many of Tony Simoes’ best players were British imports — Deon Burton, Robbie Earle, Fitzroy Simpson, Paul Hall et. al. — all of whom play in the English Premier League or First Division and would be too expensive for MLS to consider at this time. We’ve said in the past that MLS would do well to sign young Jamaican star Ricardo Gardener. Unfortunately, he’s headed to Bolton Wanderers. I also think that Ian Goodison and Theodore Whitmore would be quality signings. It’s up to Sunil Gulati, though. Ron Keller Urbana, Ill. What do you think FIFA will do to cut down on players taking dives? The displays put on by players in this World Cup were just shameful. My seven year-old daughter (who plays soccer) commented on the poor sportsmanship shown in the Croatia-Netherlands game. These players are role models. A player who goes down like he’s been hit by a truck and then is ready to play as soon as the ref makes his call brings far more disrepute to the sport than someone who gives a little shove after being provoked. Mike Woitalla: First of all, the act of taking dives and the exaggeration or feigning of injuries is nothing new to soccer. I am not sure that it was any worse at this World Cup than in the last five or six. However, the super-slow-motion, up-close replays gave the audience the ability to closely scrutinize player behavior. In fact, TV replays are probably the best answer to cracking down on players who take dives. (The German league has suspended players who faked being fouled after reviewing videotapes. Fines are another answer.) It is very difficult for referees to judge whether a player is faking it, because the game is so fast. For instance, when Juergen Klinsmann kicked Mexico’s Salvador Carmona on a bicycle kick attempt, Carmona clutched his head, and his trainers attended to his head. Replays showed he was kicked in the shoulder. So I’m assuming that was a time-wasting maneuver. And I think he should have be fined. I must say, even though in many instances players exaggerated their pain when they were hit, that doesn’t exonerate the player who did the hitting. France’s Laurent Blanc did indeed slap the chin of Croatia’s Slaven Bilic. That’s a red card in my book. Though I would have given Bilic a yellow for his exaggeration. (The referee, who was in position to see the incident, made the decision on seeing the slap, not the reaction of Bilic.) In fact, referees did give several yellow cards for players who took dives in France ’98. Chile’s Francisco Rojas received a pair of yellows for diving and missed the second-round match against Brazil. And, of course, there was the yellow that Ariel Ortega received before head-butting Edwin Van Der Sar. Pierre Van Hooijdonk got one in the Brazil semifinal, trying to draw a winning penalty shortly after the Kluivert goal. Most important, referees tried very hard to eliminate violent play. I believe the problem of players taking dives or exaggerating when tripped or hit is a product of years — especially in the 1980s — during which FIFA and referees didn’t do enough to punish violent players. As for these players being role models? Some of them are, and some of them aren’t. Your daughter’s observations prove that she is able to distinguish between the good sports and the bad sports. David Walker Edmond, Okla. How is MLS attendance this year compared to the last two years? Do you think the World Cup was a short-term hinderance to attendance, a long-term help to attendance, or both? Pete Bailey: Through the weekend of July 12, MLS was averaging slightly over 15,000 fans per game, which is an improvement over last year’s average of 14,616, but still below the 17,000 or so averaged during the inaugural season. In terms of numbers, MLS didn’t suffer at all during the World Cup. Despite a pair of exciting France ’98 quarterfinal matches on July 4, MLS had some big crowds for Fourth of July games that evening — 46,000 in Denver (a Rapids record), 53,000 in L.A., and even 22,000 in Tampa (the Mutiny’s biggest crowd since its first home game in 1996). While the USA’s lousy performance did not help, I expect that France ’98 may have a positive long-term effect on MLS in that it put soccer out in the news. Some newspapers gave a lot of great coverage to the tournament. Our local San Francisco Chronicle, for example, generally had 1.5-3 pages of coverage each day. In addition, the World Cup got plenty of airtime on radio talk shows. MLS couldn’t ask for better publicity for the sport. That’s not to say that the league doesn’t have attendance concerns. Kansas City and Tampa continue to disappoint. Dallas, while doing better than last year, is still shaky. The expansion Fusion have not drawn over 10,000 to Lockhart Stadium recently. However, Chicago has had some great crowds at Soldier Field, including 28,000 for its July 15 exhibition against Mexico’s Pumas. Matthew Rhodes Charleston, S.C. One of the most prominent trends that can be gleaned from this edition of the World Cup is the tendency for teams to place all of their players behind the ball (many coaches refer to this as half-pressure). The practice itself is typically utilized by teams that are away from home or feel that they are severely overmatched (i.e. the U.S. vs. Germany). The result of such a formation are rather dry matches that are largely bereft of free-flowing play. The strategy is largely reminescent of the Italia ’90 mentality of playing to avoid a loss and does not bode well for the future. One need only compare Brazil vs. France from Mexico ’86 and France ’98 for a vivid illustration of my point. Do you think this is the future of international soccer? Paul Kennedy: It is true that teams often placed 10 or 11 players behind the ball when an opponent was in possession. This is a continuing negative trend, though the games were much more free-flowing than in recent years due to FIFA’s mandate to speed up play and eliminate tactics such as time-wasting, professional fouls and tackles from behind (well, sort of …). If you compare France ’98 to say, Euro ’96, most of the matches were much better. Same goes for France ’98 vs. USA ’94. France-Brazil ’98 vs. France-Brazil ’86? The ’86 game was a “classic.” The teams could not have played the up-and-down game, attacking AND defending, that they did in St. Denis 12 years ago. The heat in Mexico was too much. Also, it wasn’t as though the ’98 final lacked for chances. It France had converted all its chances, it would have had eight goals. Brazil had two good chances in the first half and two great chances in the first 20 minutes or so of the second half. Your point is well-taken, though. This trend will create more “negative” games, especially in qualifying when teams are under pressure to get a point or have limited personnel. Anu Khare Red Bank, N.J. What is your opinion of Brent Musburger as a studio commentator during the World Cup? I’ve heard many criticisms about his comments, but I don’t think it’s warranted because he’s never covered the World Cup before and he was only trying to add humor to some otherwise dull coverage. Also, people (even the media) say he’s a soccer commentator when he’s not; he’s a sportscaster and covers many sports! Pete Bailey: I agree with you, Anu; I thought Musberger did just fine. He’s a real professional and very good at setting the scene for his viewers — he has been ever since the classic “NFL Today” in the 1970s. I appreciated the fact that he’d done enough research to make a convincing case as to why he thought the French would win the final during that pregame show. By the way, we take a look at all of the ABC/ESPN broadcasters in the Backline section of the July 27 issue of SA.