Geekin' about sport: The Final Round

Finally, there are just four countries remaining, so we might as well do our final World Cup update and see who's going to win the whole thing.



URUGUAY vs NETHERLANDS
Uruguay were dark horses for many going into the tournament, and their 0-0 draw with a poor France side didn't give anyone much hope. But two convincing wins in the group set up a confident defeat of South Korea, followed by a very narrow victory over Ghana on penalties.

The Dutch started slowly in a less-than-spectacular group, taking all 9 points without breaking a sweat. The draw was kind given that they faced the weakest Second Round team in Slovakia, but it was after a poor first half against Brazil that the Oranje truly woke up and became world beaters.

The Netherlands have really hit their stride now, and Uruguay have been struggling a little. It'll be a tough fight, but we don't see any surprises here.
NETHERLANDS WIN

GERMANY vs SPAIN
After outclassing the Aussies and coming unstuck against Serbia, Germany needed one great goal to see them past Ghana in the final group match. England awaited, and despite the lackluster attempts by their opponents, the Germans still looked impressive. Nobody was prepared, however, for the mauling of Argentina which came next, and momentum is truly with them now.

Slow starts don't come much worse than losing to Switzerland, but Spain wrestled their way out of the group to beat a very disappointing Portugal before a tight Quarter Final with Paraguay. It was always going to be a low-scoring game, but either team could've made it before Spain tapped themselves into the Semi Finals.

Before the tournament, Spain would've been the likely favourites ahead of this, but Spain's nervous few games leading up to this contrast poorly with Germany scoring eight in two games. It'll be a real nailbiter, but we're going for the German machine to keep on rolling.
GERMANY WIN

POTENTIAL FINAL: NETHERLANDS vs GERMANY
An incredible rematch from the 1974 final, this time on neutral territory. At the time of writing, too close to call. But we'll try anyway.
GERMANY WIN

And that's all for now. We've been quite pleased about our predictions thus far. Hopefully our form will continue with the final matches.

Geekin' about sport: Second Round (Part 2)

We return with a look at the other side of the knockout draw for the World Cup.

GROUP 3 - WINNERS B & D, RUNNERS-UP A & C


ARGENTINA
The only team to be really flawless in the group stage, they have great strength in depth. All of the controversy over Maradona's management and their wobbly qualification seems to have disappeared. Then again, the Dutch looked similarly indestructible two years ago. Have they peaked too early?

GERMANY
Pretty Jekyll & Hyde stuff from the Germans: explosive against Australia, limp against Serbia and average against Ghana. They've certainly got enough great players to make it to the latter stages, but the group stage suggests that there is a way to stop them, and should anyone figure it out, the Germans will be in big trouble.

MEXICO
Mexico were thoroughly unspectacular in escaping their rather average group: they did well not to lose on the opening night, and made light work of a disintegrating France side before having little heart to really trouble Uruguay, given that they were almost guaranteed passage.

ENGLAND
Their turnaround wasn't quite as spectacular as Slovakia's, but then again expectations were much higher for the Three Lions. Two desperately poor games against less-than-special opposition brought serious criticism, but a much improved performance in the final game saw them finish the group with only one goal conceded, a freak error. Momentum is crucial for a good run in a very tough group.

ARGENTINA vs MEXICO
El Tri have exited at the Second Round at the last four World Cups. Now they're playing the same team that beat them last time, but now they seem unstoppable. Ah, damn it.
ARGENTINA WIN

GERMANY vs ENGLAND
Ugh... we don't want to call it. But we'll go for England. Why not? It has to happen eventually. Whether it's on penalties or not is another matter.
ENGLAND WIN

POTENTIAL QF: ARGENTINA vs ENGLAND
If England can actually get past the Germans, they'll have a real job getting past the Argies. Time to be realistic.
ARGENTINA WIN

GROUP 4 - WINNERS F & H, RUNNERS-UP E & G


PARAGUAY
They lazily ambled through their group, clearly not in any danger having drawn a poor group, especially with the collapse of Italy. The term 'dark horses' is used in every tournament, and these guys could be the ones.

SPAIN
There was a rude awakening in their opening match, but they found their feet afterwards, but have yet to look as magnificent as they did when they won in Europe two years ago. They can still do it, though.

JAPAN
Only the Japanese coach thought they'd make good progress through the competition, but they've surprised everyone else with some very confident performances, and could be a real surprise package. Of course, they won't be underestimated now.

PORTUGAL
Don't let the demolition of North Korea fool you: Portugal, with 0-0 draws against their other two opponents, have been very flat. Thankfully, Ronaldo has shown effort and promise, but few others have done so.

PARAGUAY vs JAPAN
A very tough call: Japan have improved with each game, Paraguay haven't really shown their full potential. We'll go for a tight Paraguay win.
PARAGUAY WIN

SPAIN vs PORTUGAL
Portugal haven't look all that special, and although Spain had a scare against the Swiss, they've looked a lot more solid. The Spanish should get through this Iberian derby, but it won't be a walkover.
SPAIN WIN

POTENTIAL QF: PARAGUAY vs SPAIN
Paraguay will do very well to make the Quarter-Finals, but Spain should be hitting their stride by this point.
SPAIN WIN

And that's all for now. See you for the Semi Finals.

Geekin' about sport: Second Round

After 3/4 of the matches, we're back again for the winner-takes-all stuff.

Now that we're in the knockouts, the draw essentially divides into groups again. So, on one side, the winners of Groups A, C, E and G join up with the runners-up from Groups B, D, F and H, and these eight teams fight their way to the final. There is a further group of four, as the teams from Groups A, B, C and D play together, as do the ones from E, F, G and H. As a result, we'll continue our graph-related coverage with the four new "Second Round/Quarter Finals" groups that have emerged, to see who can come out on top of those to progress to the Semi Finals.

The winners of our notional Groups 1 and 2 will face off in the Semi Finals, as will the winners of Groups 3 and 4. We'll return for the semis to evaluate the last four teams.

GROUP 1 - WINNERS A & C, RUNNERS-UP B & D


URUGUAY
The South Americans looked pretty comfortable in their three games, though it wasn't the most difficult group by any stretch. They seemed a little overcautious against a French side they could have certainly beaten, but against the other two they were never really in any danger.

USA
They've certainly looked far from their best, though they've also been very unlucky with a few refereeing decisions, notably the disallowed goal that would've given them a win against Slovenia. However, they ended the group on top, so all that is forgotten. They will, however, need a serious improvement to make it much further.

SOUTH KOREA
Their group ended up rather tight, but the Koreans had the strength to get past their two other real rivals. After winning their first game at a foreign World Cup four years ago, they've achieved their first Second Round appearance on foreign soil, too. They'll just be happy to be there.

GHANA
The only African team to look at least reasonably good, their three low-scoring games gave little away. It's difficult to see how well the Black Stars will cope in the knock-out stage, but they'll certainly be difficult to break down. In this group, the Semis look unlikely, but it's too close to call.

URUGUAY vs SOUTH KOREA
The Koreans have energy and good attacking prowess, but Uruguay have a rock-solid defence, while Korea's defensive frailties have been exposed by worse teams than La Celeste. Uruguay are brimming with confidence, and they should be able to break down South Korea with few problems.
URUGUAY WIN

USA vs GHANA
Neither team was thoroughly convincing in the groups, but neither of them looked terribly bad, either. They're very evenly matched, and picking a winner is hard. We'll go with the States, as they seemed to have more fight in them in the group stage.
USA WIN

POTENTIAL QF: URUGUAY vs USA
Unless the USA either get lucky or find a real spark, they'll struggle against a very tough Uruguay side.
URUGUAY WIN

GROUP 2 - WINNERS E & G, RUNNERS-UP F & H


NETHERLANDS
Three wins, but hardly fantastic performances. Nothing wrong with that, of course: if they're saving their best for the knockouts (and Arjen Robben's back from injury) then that's for the best. We'll just have to see how much they can improve, though they're arguably in the easier side of the draw.

BRAZIL
They're the highest-rated team in the world, but let's be honest, they've had a slow start. It seemed like they were running on low power against North Korea and Côte d'Ivoire and were practically dead against Portugal. Like the Netherlands, perhaps they're just biding their time to unleash their power in the latter stages. We shall see.

SLOVAKIA
Shock winners over Italy to reach the Second Round, Slovakia looked rather poor in their first two before that famous and thoroughly deserved win. If Slovakia can maintain their momentum, they could cause yet more upsets. Seriously, though, they're in a nightmare group now, so we'll leave them as 'underdogs'.

CHILE
Came into the tournament quietly confident of success, and results suggest a low-scoring but ultimately solid side.

NETHERLANDS vs SLOVAKIA
The Slovaks should not be underestimated after brushing Italy aside, but there's a big difference between Italy and the Netherlands right now. The Dutch are heating up, and it looks like Slovakia will get burnt.
NETHERLANDS WIN

BRAZIL vs CHILE
To the uninitiated, this seems like an easy guess, but after seeing the Seleção saunter through their group, one suspects they may be caught unawares. They shouldn't: Chile finished one point behind them in qualifying, though it's worth pointing out Brazil thrashed them twice. Chile could certainly do something, but we're going for Brazil.
BRAZIL WIN

POTENTIAL QF: NETHERLANDS vs BRAZIL
What a match this could be. Two of the tournament favourites as early as the Quarter Finals. If Robben hits his stride, the Dutch can make the Semis.
NETHERLANDS WIN

So, that's the first half of the draw taken care of. Come back tomorrow for the second half.

What's in a t-shirt?

If there is a causal link between geekdom and fashion the band T-shirt is it – preferably black, preferably quirky and perhaps a little too tight. Every geek, even the most acceptable, has one and most can, to some extent, pull it off. Though the Acceptable Geek Club deplores them being the only thing in one’s wardrobe, they have a time and a place and, if one can locate that correctly, can be pretty damn cool.

Though the Acceptable Geek Club likes band T-shirts (particularly one’s bearing images of The Stone Roses or The Smiths) it is perplexed by one’s motivations for wearing them. Geeks were up in arms when the Ramones and Rolling Stones logos began covering the Top Shop clad chests of teenage girls several years ago so why is it different when someone who knows the first 5 digits of ∏ does it? The obvious claim is an epistemic one:

1. Knowing about band x and owning their albums entitles you to wear their logo/album cover on your chest.
   


2. Failing to know about band x yet wearing their logo/album cover on your chest means you are a dangerous fraud subject to the whims of the global fashion industry and/or capitalism
   


3. Hence, only geeks should wear band T-shirts.

There is no room for ironic subversions of classic art or just wearing it because it looks nice here.

The knowledge argument outlined above is an appealing one, but it does not get to the heart of the matter. Why do geeks choose to wear the marks of their sins? Even the Acceptable Geek Club, which aims to celebrate geekery without ramming it down the wider public’s throats, has an attraction to these items that it does not regret. It is, however, concerned about where the desire to wear it’s old Nevermind hoody comes from.

As a teenage geek, the motivation was clear. Finding it hard to find others who “understand” and fed up with one’s peers idiocy, the temptation to brand oneself in an attempt to form bonds of common interest is obvious. Women also like a man in uniform, thus the same is true for Goths as sailors. However, as acceptable geeks approach 30 is the same motivation plausible? If so, it sounds relatively desperate. Alas, we are unable, as of yet, to find something that fills its place.

Geekin' about sport - Part 4

Finally, with the World Cup upon us tomorrow, it's time to take a peek at the final groups, G and H. The two favourites are in this one, and if one of them somehow comes second, we could have the final very early indeed.

Group G

We have a clear winner, a clear loser, and two maybes. For Africa's sake, let's hope one of football's big names doesn't make it through.


BRAZIL
High: 2126 (2009/09/09)
Low: 1975 (2007/06/27)
Biggest rise: 50 (Argentina 3-0 Neutral, Copa América, 2007/07/15)
Biggest fall: 60 (Mexico 0-2 Neutral, Copa América, 2007/06/27)

It almost seems like Brazil have sauntered into this World Cup as favourites without really putting up much of a sweat. Spain have been the side getting all the attention, but now Brazil are ahead of them in both Elo and FIFA rankings. They've been handed an average group with a couple of battling sides, but it will be extremely interesting if either Brazil or Spain fail to make top spot, as we'll be watching them face off in the 2nd round. The winner of that could win the whole shebang.


NORTH KOREA
High: 1553 (2008/09/10)
Low: 1474 (2007/12/26)
Biggest rise: 28 (Jordan 1-0 Away, WC Qualifier, 2008/02/06)
Biggest fall: 32 (Tajikistan 0-1 Neutral, Asian Challenge Cup, 2008/08/13)

With much bigger and much better sides in Asia at the moment, it was a big shock to see North Korea actually qualify this time round. Obviously, they're not expected to achieve much, especially in such a horrendous group. Achieving what their countrymen in 1966 did is a tall order.


CÔTE D'IVOIRE
High: 1854 (2008/02/03)
Low: 1707 (2008/09/07)
Biggest rise: 30 (Ghana 3-1 Neutral, CAF Africa Cup of Nations, 2010/01/15)
Biggest fall: 58 (Egypt 1-4 Neutral, CAF Africa Cup of Nations, 2008/02/07)

The Elephants have flattered to deceive in recent years. When they arrived in Germany, led by Didier Drogba (who, of course, is still an influential figure) they looked like they might upset the apple cart. That proved unfounded, but after a good 2008 Cup of Nations they've fallen away a bit, and the task of unseating either Brazil or Portugal could be too much. Then again, it's in Africa...


PORTUGAL
High: 1909 (2008/06/11)
Low: 1789 (2009/03/28)
Biggest rise: 42 (Czech Rep 3-1 Neutral, UEFA European Championships, 2008/06/11)
Biggest fall: 48 (Switzerland 0-2 Neutral, UEFA European Championships, 2008/06/15)

Perhaps the most disappointing side in recent years, they came runners-up at their own Euro 2004, then 4th place at the last World Cup. Clearly the generation after the Figo 'golden generation' were one of the best in their history, but they've really struggled recently. Their qualification campaign was awful, and it took a play-off against a very average side to get here. Can they escape the group? They should have just enough - but they'll need to get a move on if they want to progress much further.

Prediction: BRAZIL & PORTUGAL QUALIFY

Group H

The reigning European champions don't have the easiest draw, but it certainly should be no trouble for them, as they've brushed off much harder opposition before. The other three are relatively close, but we think we know the likely 2nd place candidate.


SPAIN
High: 2104
Low: 1857
Biggest rise: 34 (Denmark 3-1 Away, EC Qualifier, 2007/10/13)
Biggest fall: 64 (United States, 0-2 Neutral, Confederations Cup, 2009/06/24)

What a difference four years makes. Always everyone's dark horse, they now have the right to be one of the favourites after a masterful win at Euro 2008. They have quality in every position, and aside from that disastrous defeat to the Americans a year ago, they're one of the only teams to be constantly on the up since the last World Cup. Oh, they have group games first? Oh, don't worry about that.


SWITZERLAND
High: 1837 (2006/09/06)
Low: 1711 (2008/06/11)
Biggest rise: 48 (Portugal 2-0 Home, UEFA European Championships, 2008/06/15)
Biggest fall: 40 (Luxembourg 1-2 Home, WC Qualifier, 2008/09/10)

Ah, what a change. The Swiss may have been rather boring to watch in the World Cup, but they achieved two records: they didn't concede a goal or lose a match, but were still eliminated. Things haven't been much better since: they co-hosted Euro 2008 and didn't escape a very tough group, and mediocrity is starting to set in. First place is out here, and they've got a fight on their hands against perhaps the best Chile side in history, not to mention a tough Honduran team. They can't handle it.


HONDURAS
High: 1758 (2009/09/05)
Low: 1623 (2007/06/08)
Biggest rise: 38 (Mexico 2-1 Neutral, Concacaf Gold Cup, 2007/06/10)
Biggest fall: 42 (Guadeloupe 2-1 Neutral, Concacaf Gold Cup, 2007/06/17)

The Concacaf picture has been a little repetitive for the last few World Cups: USA, Mexico, Costa Rica, and if you're lucky, someone like T&T or Jamaica. Well, Honduras haven't been to the World Cup since 1982, and so most will write them off immediately. They're a tough side, though they're tactically inept. They've made great progress just to make the final, but in such a tough group (they may have benefited being in with South Africa instead) they've got a tall task ahead of them.


CHILE
High: 1864 (2010/06/09)
Low: 1681 (2006/08/16)
Biggest rise: 43 (Paraguay 2-0 Away, WC Qualifier, 2009/06/06)
Biggest fall: 41 (Paraguay 0-3 Home, WC Qualifier, 2007/11/21)

Talk about a change in form. Simply in terms of Elo rating, they've gone up from day one, and now have the highest Elo points total in their 100-year playing history. Pressure? Perhaps. After the tragic earthquake that rocked the country, a quarter-final, or even semi-final, for the national team would be the most likely fairytale to put your money on. They haven't even been to the World Cup in 12 years, but now their form suggests they're among the best. Let's see how it turns out.

Prediction: SPAIN & CHILE QUALIFY

Well, that's all folks. All we can do now is watch the group stage unfurl and see our wonderfully scientific predictions go completely tits up. Game on!

Geekin' about sport - Part 3

Part Three of our stat-tastic World Cup warm-up brings us to Groups E and F, both of them tough groups.

Group E

This is another tough group - for three teams. It's a battle of mediocrity as three average teams from three continents fight it out, while the Dutch walk on through to the next round. In theory, anyway.


NETHERLANDS
High: 2057 (2008/06/17)
Low: 1916 (2007/11/21)
Biggest rise: 52 (Italy 3-0 Neutral, UEFA European Championships, 2008/06/09)
Biggest fall: 60 (Russia 1-3 Neutral, UEFA European Championships, 2008/06/21)

The Dutch must've been pinching themselves after drawing such a poor group of opponents: they have no excuses for not progressing here. Euro 2008 was very eventful, as they tore Italy and France to shreds, only to be outplayed by the Russians. They've had two years to regroup, and at current form they should be aiming for the semi-finals.


DENMARK
High: 1896 (2006/09/06)
Low: 1743 (2010/06/05)
Biggest rise: 29 (Portugal 3-2 Away, WC Qualifier, 2008/09/10)
Biggest fall: 35 (Hungary 0-1 Home, WC Qualifier, 2009/10/14)

It's been a bad four years for the Danes. They were unlucky to miss out on the last World Cup after getting a tough qualifying group, but nothing's gone right since then. They failed to qualify for Euro 2008 (though one of their fans didn't exactly help matters) and they arguably got to this World Cup thanks to Portugal's even worse dip in form. Now they're in a group with two other teams going through similar bad runs, so although the last sixteen is a possibility, don't expect much more.


JAPAN
High: 1788 (2009/06/06)
Low: 1674 (2010/06/04)
Biggest rise: 27 (Egypt 4-1 Home, Afro-Asian Championship, 2007/10/17)
Biggest fall: 44 (South Korea 1-3 Home, East Asian Championship, 2010/02/14)

What can you say about Japan? After a poor World Cup in an admittedly tough group, they seemed to be making progress, though a lot of their good results were in friendly tournaments, and their qualifying was not the most challenging around. They come into the tournament having lost four consecutive friendlies: whatever you say about the merits of exhibition matches, that's not good preparation.


CAMEROON
High: 1785 (2008/02/07)
Low: 1685 (2008/01/22)
Biggest rise: 35 (Zambia 5-1 Neutral, CAF Africa Cup of Nations, 2008/01/26 & Ghana 1-0 Away, CAF Africa Cup of Nations, 2008/02/07)
Biggest fall: 43 (Egypt 2-4 Neutral, CAF Africa Cup of Nations, 2008/01/22 & Gabon 0-1 Neutral, CAF Africa Cup of Nations, 2010/01/13)

It's hard to know what to make of Cameroon. They walked into the 2008 Africa Cup of Nations in bad shape, but left as runners-up to Egypt. They walked into the 2010 edition as one of the favourites, but lost to Gabon, scraped through on goal difference before Egypt (again) put them away. Once again, they've hit a real low coming into this tournament. Which Cameroon will turn up in South Africa?

Prediction: NETHERLANDS & CAMEROON QUALIFY

Group F

This group is interesting, in that the four teams seem quite evenly apart in their rating going into the tournament. As a result, it shouldn't be so difficult to figure out who will go through.


ITALY
High: 2023 (2006/09/02)
Low: 1909 (2009/08/12 & 2010/06/05)
Biggest rise: 36 (France 2-0 Neutral, UEFA European Championships, 2008/06/17)
Biggest fall: 52 (Netherlands 0-3 Neutral, UEFA European Championship, 2008/06/09)

It's hard to match winning the World Cup, but momentum has certainly not been with the Azzurri. A fair performance at Euro 2008 was followed by a comfortable qualifying campaign and a poor Confederations Cup. Even if you take the latter tournament out of the equation, this is not the Italy of four years ago. Semi-finals would be a great achievement.


PARAGUAY
High: 1841 (2009/02/11)
Low: 1721 (2007/06/02)
Biggest rise: 60 (Colombia 5-0 Neutral, Copa América, 2007/06/28)
Biggest fall: 48 (Mexico 0-6 Neutral, Copa América, 2007/07/08)

They faltered last time round, but they've been doing pretty well since then. A lively qualifying campaign saw them finish just a point behind Brazil, taking 4 points off Argentina and beating Brazil in the process. Their biggest danger is form: they took 23 points from their first 10 games, but only 10 from their remaining 8. To add injury to insult, star player Salvador Cabañas was shot in the head in January. And you thought England had injury worries: this guy's lucky to be alive.


NEW ZEALAND
High: 1594 (2008/09/10)
Low: 1487 (2009/06/17)
Biggest rise: 28 (Fiji 2-0 Away, WC Qualifier, 2007/10/17)
Biggest fall: 43 (Fiji 0-2 Away, WC Qualifier, 2008/11/19)

Now, let's be perfectly honest, New Zealand were always going to be making up the numbers. They're the best team in Oceania now the Aussies have left, so their play-off with Bahrain was assured. Thing is, Bahrain are not that great either, so it was going to be tight between the two. A headed corner kick was all it took to take New Zealand to the finals in their only important tie of the campaign. Never mind getting out of the group: a point would be cheered back home.


SLOVAKIA
High: 1708 (2007/03/24)
Low: 1576 (2008/09/10 & 2009/03/28)
Biggest rise: 40 (Wales 5-1 Away, EC Qualifier, 2006/10/07)
Biggest fall: 55 (Wales 2-5 Home, EC Qualifier, 2007/09/12)

In their first major tournament as an independent nation, Slovakia have made up enough ground on their Czech neighbours that they've qualified instead of them. They topped their group, only losing (twice) to fellow qualifiers Slovenia. Nevertheless, the World Cup group stage is a real test for them, and this is no easy group. They'll be determined to beat Paraguay to 2nd place, and they can certainly do it.

Prediction: ITALY & PARAGUAY QUALIFY

Don't forget to come back tomorrow with the final part, Groups G and H.

Geekin' about sport - Part 2

We now continue our journey through the wonderful world of World Cup-related statistics to bring you the lowdown on Groups C and D. Of course, this is where England come in, but a real geek doesn't simply focus on his home team.

Group C


And so the hopes of a nation rest on Fab's plucky boys. It would certainly seem like this group is done and dusted before it's begun. After failing to get to Euro 2008, England have consistently risen under Capello, and aside from a slip against Ukraine have been near faultless against most teams. The USA will also be glad to be taking on two of the worst teams in the finals. So, job done - or is it?


ENGLAND
High: 1987 (2009/09/09)
Low: 1881 (2007/11/21 & 2008/03/26)
Biggest rise: 46 (Croatia 4-1 Away, WC Qualifier, 2008/09/10)
Biggest fall: 34 (Croatia 2-3 Away, EC Qualifier, 2006/10/11)

Simply looking at the graph shows the difference between Steve McClaren's time in charge compared with Fabio Capello's. The four matches against Croatia are symbols of that: two poor defeats followed by two crushing victories. England are back where they were four years ago - which means the quarter-finals, then. Oh well.


UNITED STATES
High: 1871 (2009/07/08)
Low: 1727 (2007/09/09)
Biggest rise: 64 (Spain 2-0 Neutral, Confederations Cup, 2009/06/24)
Biggest fall: 76 (Mexico 0-5 Home, Concacaf Gold Cup, 2009/07/26)

A year ago, after beating mighty Spain in the Confed Cup, the USA were at their highest Elo rating in their history. Then Mexico smashed them in the Concacaf Gold Cup final and they've been limping a little ever since. They've been lucky to get into a group containing two minnows - and England - and will almost certainly take 2nd place. Advancing to the quarter-finals, however, could be too much.


ALGERIA
High: 1585 (2010/01/24)
Low: 1389 (2007/09/09)
Biggest rise: 46 (Egypt 3-1 Home, WC Qualifier, 2009/06/07)
Biggest fall: 68 (Malawi 0-3 Neutral, CAF Africa Cup of Nations, 2010/01/11)

For all the excitement and romance of the two old foes fighting it out (both on and off the pitch, depending on who you believe), the cold fact is that Egypt are by far the best team in Africa, after winning their third consecutive Nations Cup. Yet, an amazing one-off play-off on neutral territory sent Algeria through. Fans of the underdog may rejoice, but a team ranked as bad as North Korea and New Zealand have taken a place at Africa's World Cup away from the team that could've done the continent proud. Shame.


SLOVENIA
High: 1655 (2010/06/04)
Low: 1502 (2008/02/06)
Biggest rise: 44 (Slovakia 2-0 Away, WC Qualifier, 2009/10/10)
Biggest fall: 25 (Belarus 2-4 Away, EC Qualifier, 2006/10/11)

What a qualifying campaign. After finishing Euro 2008 qualifying ahead of only Luxembourg, they've shot up and into the World Cup for the second time. Two key victories against Poland and Slovakia took them into the play-offs, before their unexpected victory over the Russians booked their place in South Africa. However, like their group opponents Algeria, one could argue that they've taken a place away from one of the highest-rated teams in the world, and the competition has suffered as a result. Your choice.

Prediction: ENGLAND AND USA QUALIFY

Group D

Finally, a group that isn't so predictable. We all know how good the Germans tend to be, and they're in such good form that they'll get out of the group. But Australia - after their first ever Asian qualifying campaign - and Serbia - here in yet another incarnation after the collapse of Yugoslavia - will be fighting hard to get through. We could easily write off Ghana, but 'home' advantage could give them a slight edge.


GERMANY
High: 1992 (2007/09/12)
Low: 1915 (2007/11/21)
Biggest rise: 23 (Russia 1-0 Away, WC Qualifier, 2009/10/10)
Biggest fall: 56 (Czech Rep 0-3 Home, EC Qualifier, 2007/10/17)

Once again, you can't write off the Germans. After a great 3rd place at their home World Cup, and a very successful Euro 2008 where they came runners-up to Spain, Germany have been on top of their game in the last four years. They shouldn't have much trouble in their group, and they should be aiming for at least the quarter-finals.


AUSTRALIA
High: 1797 (2006/09/06)
Low: 1679 (2007/07/13)
Biggest rise: 26 (Thailand 4-0 Away, AFC Asian Cup, 2007/07/16)
Biggest fall: 56 (Iraq 1-3 Neutral, AFC Asian Cup, 2007/07/13)

The Aussies are back again, and they have the advantage of facing Asian opposition on the way, instead of some of the worst teams in the world. They're in almost as good shape as when they started the last World Cup, after losing on penalties to Japan in the Asian Cup quarter-finals. Sadly for them, they've been dumped in a very tough group, but if they can sneak through, they could cause a shock.


SERBIA
High: 1833 (2010/04/07)
Low: 1694 (2008/09/10)
Biggest rise: 32 (Finland 2-0 Away, EC Qualifier, 2007/06/02)
Biggest fall: 34 (Kazakhstan 1-2 Away, EC Qualifier, 2007/03/24)

They lost all three games last time, but now, without Montenegro, they're back with a vengeance. Statistically, they're a much better team than four years ago, despite losing out on Euro 2008. After losing to France in their 2nd qualifying game, they never looked back, and won 6 of their remaining 8 games. As a result, we think that their form gives them the best chance of joining Germany in the last sixteen.


GHANA
High: 1798 (2008/02/03)
Low: 1646 (2010/01/15)
Biggest rise: 30 (Côte d'Ivoire 4-2 Home, CAF Africa Cup of Nations, 2008/02/09)
Biggest fall: 49 (Gabon 0-2 Away, WC Qualifier, 2008/06/14)

When they walked into the last World Cup, they were very lowly ranked, but a huge upset against the Czechs followed by beating the USA put them in the last 16. This time, they walk in with a much higher ranking, but nobody will be taking them lightly anymore. One of Africa's best, this tough group could be the end of them, but with Africa cheering them on, we could have another big upset on the cards.

Prediction: GERMANY & SERBIA QUALIFY

Come back tomorrow for our next instalment, featuring Groups E and F.

Geekin' about sport

Music geekery may be considered the most acceptable form of geekery, and beer geekery may be nearby, but sport geekery must surely be right up there. While a considerable amount of geeks - especially Unacceptable ones - have less interest in sport than they do in personal hygiene (and my word, that's saying something), there remains a healthy chunk of the geek domain that revel in the sporting world.

As much as the passion and athletic prowess is alluring to most, one of the primary reasons is statistics. Ever since the audience of Fantasy Football League chanted 'Statto, Statto' at Angus Loughran, the stat fan has been recognised, if not wholly appreciated. Some sports lend themselves to stat geekery more than others - cricket and baseball can be broken down into individual balls, and so the stats can get quite ridiculous sometimes (want to know how Pitcher A performs against right-handed batters, with one runner, in the last 3 innings, at nighttime? In baseball, you can find out - seriously).

Football, given its structure (90 minutes of flowing action) doesn't exactly lend itself to statistical analysis. Does that mean it can't be done? Of course not. Once upon a time, all that mattered about a player was how many goals he could score, but things have spiralled to the point that UEFA Champions League broadcasts tell us how far a subbed player has run (an AFC Champions League broadcast even further divided the running into 'Run', 'Jog' and 'Sprint'). Managers, too, use things like ProZone to figure out every aspect of a player's abilities - and don't think the players ignore it, either. Finally, the effect of games like Championship/Football Manager on the typical fan can't be underestimated.

Well, the World Cup is heading to South Africa on Friday, and stats are more accepted in the game than ever before. So it's time that we at the Acceptable Geek Club did our bit for the cause. Most of you probably don't know too much about all of the teams in the finals, so we've gone to the trouble of using the Elo Ratings system (an alternative to FIFA's official ranking - and, we think, more effective) to show you the relative strengths of all 32 teams going into the tournament.

Starting from the day after the last World Cup final, we've jotted down the Elo rating of each team as they've played each match. We then took this information and put it in a colourful graph for you to look at. Some teams have played more than others, so don't treat the four teams in each group as being chronologically matched on the graph. Nevertheless, it should give you a good idea of how things have progressed for all teams, and how they find themselves going into the tournament. We'll return to this at each of the ensuing rounds also, just to give you the statorific rundown as it happens.

Group A

We start with the hapless hosts, who have to cope with the likes of Mexico, Uruguay and France. You'll see a recurring theme here: three closely-matched teams in for a real fight, and a hopeless loser. Sadly, the Bafana Bafana are that loser.


SOUTH AFRICA
High: 1569 (2010/05/31)
Low: 1443 (2006/09/02)
Biggest rise: 31 (Zambia 1-0 Away, ACN Qualifier, 2006/10/08)
Biggest fall: 36 (Zambia 1-3 Home, ACN Qualifier, 2007/09/09)

You could argue that South Africa have risen slowly but surely since the end of the last World Cup (which, obviously, they didn't compete in) and are now in their best shape for a long time. However, this is a shadow of the team that qualified in 1998 and 2002, and despite their gradual rise, they're still a long way behind the rivals in their group, or any group: they're one of the lowest-ranked teams in the tournament. If there's a World Cup where the host nation don't get past the first round, this is it.


MEXICO
High: 1904 (2007/07/08)
Low: 1745 (2009/06/06 & 2009/07/09)
Biggest rise: 76 (USA 5-0 Away, Concacaf Gold Cup, 2009/07/26)
Biggest fall: 38 (Honduras 1-2 Neutral, Concacaf Gold Cup, 2007/06/10)

The perennial dark horses have had a very bumpy ride since losing to that Maxi Rodríguez goal in Germany, going from losing the Gold Cup final to the USA, to bashing Brazil in the Copa América just three days later. As the graph shows, they've gone from that heady height downwards, only to destroy the Americans at the following Gold Cup final. That one result may have skewed the graph a little as they are now rated higher than the rest of the group, but there's no doubt that they're as good as their two rivals.


URUGUAY
High: 1842 (2007/06/02)
Low: 1765 (2009/09/05)
Biggest rise: 40 (Venezuela 4-1 Away, Copa América, 2007/07/07)
Biggest fall: 69 (Peru 0-3 Neutral, Copa América, 2007/06/27)

Having missed out on the World Cup last time thanks to those plucky Aussies, Uruguay are in a group that they can escape - with some difficulty. In the four years since the last one, they haven't really changed much, which isn't too surprising as the only difference with qualification this time is that they didn't lose their intercontinental play-off, against Costa Rica. We'll just have to see how it goes.


FRANCE
High: 2066 (2006/09/06)
Low: 1835 (2010/06/04)
Biggest rise: 19 (Ireland 1-0 Away, WC Qualifier, 2009/11/14)
Biggest fall: 48 (Austria 1-3 Away, WC Qualifier, 2008/09/06)

Irish moaning aside, France have got their hands full this time (sorry). Unsurprisingly, they finished the last World Cup as the 2nd-ranked side under Elo ratings, but their fall since then has been catastrophic, with Raymond Domenech's survival in the job nothing short of miraculous. Their European Championship was awful (1 point, 1 goal, 6 conceded), and the fact that it took a play-off with a highly-dubious goal to send them to South Africa says all you need to know. They're now at their lowest Elo rating since the 1980s - and that's a worry.

Prediction: MEXICO & URUGUAY QUALIFY

Group B

Once again, it's a tough group, but this time we have a clear favourite, with three others fighting for the other spot. Could be a very tight one.


ARGENTINA
High: 2058 (2007/07/11)
Low: 1846 (2009/09/09)
Biggest rise: 29 (Mexico 3-0 Neutral, Copa América, 2007/07/11)
Biggest fall: 69 (Bolivia 1-6 Away, WC Qualifier, 2009/04/01)

We've all seen and heard Diego's foul-mouthed reign as Argentina's bumbling boss, and it could very well have all gone tits up, but they hung on to qualify again. Given that they walked into the 2007 Copa América final as the highest-rated team in the world, their fall is rather dramatic. Still, in this group, they should get through. How much further, we cannot say.


NIGERIA
High: 1778 (2006/10/08)
Low: 1676 (2010/01/28)
Biggest rise: 17 (Algeria 1-0 Neutral, CAF Africa Cup of Nations, 2010/01/30)
Biggest fall: 42 (Egypt 1-3 Neutral, CAF Africa Cup of Nations, 2010/01/12)

Nigeria are one of Africa's hopes for the tournament, since we all know how much of a caning the hosts will receive. But Nigeria haven't been a good team for a long time, and have been getting progressively worse in the last four years (they didn't qualify last time round). The chance of escaping this group are slim, even with Africa on their side.


SOUTH KOREA
High: 1766 (2010/05/24)
Low: 1612 (2007/07/15)
Biggest rise: 44 (Japan 3-1 Away, East Asian Championship, 2010/02/14)
Biggest fall: 51 (China 0-3 Neutral, East Asian Championship, 2010/02/10)

They go into this year's tournament as the best team in Asia, but that's still only average compared to Europe and South America. They've made good progress since last time, and go into the group stage in good form, and as good as the team in 2002. Whether they can cope in Africa remains to be seen.


GREECE
High: 1838 (2008/05/19)
Low: 1711 (2010/06/02)
Biggest rise: 28 (Ukraine 1-0 Away, WC Qualifier, 2009/11/18)
Biggest fall: 45 (Turkey 1-4 Home, EC Qualifier, 2007/03/24)

The Greeks walk into this tournament in perhaps the worst shape since they famously lifted the European Championship back in 2004. After losing all three games in Euro 2008, they've been in freefall. They squeaked into the World Cup thanks to Ukraine's lack of bottle, and have a challenge to not finish bottom.

Prediction: ARGENTINA & SOUTH KOREA QUALIFY

That's all for today. Join us tomorrow for Groups C and D. Yes, that includes England.

What’s the matter with you Hobgoblin?

Q – If a hobgoblin is a mythical creature made up of two other mythical creatures, why would a pub want to brand itself after one?
A – Because it will attract geeks like flies round the proverbial.

Geeks are big business. As the cost of Games Workshop models and Starwars collector’s pieces shows, the Geek Dollar is sort after market for companies to mine. It is perhaps unsurprising, therefore, that someone would eventually attempt to start a geek pleasing range of pubs. Whether this is exactly what Wychwood Breweries aimed to do when it was founded in 1983 is a matter for founders Paddy Glenny and Chris Moss, but it is certainly what they’ve achieved.

Wychwood Brewies is best known for it’s 4.5% strong dark ale Hobgoblin which is sold in a number of pubs that have since attracted or adopted the label ‘Hobgoblin pubs’. Though not a single franchise, the degree of uniformity in these pubs’ clientele is remarkable and of two types – CAMRAs and Bad Geeks. CAMRAs are followers of the Campaign for Real Ale, a superb grass-roots organisation that has done much for the quality of British beer in its 39 years in existence. Bad Geeks are not Unacceptable Geeks who make mistakes in the deployment of their geekery. Bad Geeks revel in wearing T-shirts with wizards on, quoting Tolkien and playing Magic the Gathering in public. These are the people who give geeks a bad name.

The Acceptable Geek Club has many gripes with Bad Geeks and will come to them all in time. For now, we will suffice with just one criticism that we shall no doubt meet again – their ignorance.

As has been said before, music geekery is the most acceptable form of geekery. Beer geekery, however, cannot be far behind. Beer enjoys a high standing in British culture and so knowledge of it, correctly deployed, cannot be a bad thing. However, as with all forms of geekery, when such knowledge becomes your first line of conversation it becomes a bore; and when it becomes a gospel to preach it becomes an annoyance. Bad Geeks are always too keen to preach their current obsession and assert it’s superiority to anything that sways vaguely close to the mainstream of culture. At the same time, should anything they heap praise upon then enter the mainstream it then becomes a target of derision for “selling out”.

Hobgoblin, with it’s ridiculous ‘What's the matter Lagerboy, afraid you might taste something?’ tagline, is everything Bad Geeks love. Niche and yet aggressively assured of its superiority, they flock to it and turn it into another badge of honour to go with their unwashed hair, ZZ Top mimicking beards and aversion to any kind of physical exercise. Is it the greatest beer in the world? Perhaps (its cider is certainly top notch). But does this mean that the entire lager drinking population of the world lack taste buds? Given that lager sales far surpass those of ale, which is largely an English peculiarity ignored on continental Europe, we very much doubt it. As usual, the Bad Geek takes a genuine concern (the poverty of British lagers) turns it into canon and becomes more ridiculous as the “narrow-minded trendies” he so despises.

Wychwood Breweries is a successful company which, intentionally or not, has found itself a stable market base. It should, however, beware the Bad Geek. If it wishes to expand its market it may be time to kick the fat roleplayers out of the corner. There is only so much of them that the general public can take.

Gleek = Geek or Geek = Gleek?

The Gleek, defined by Urban Dictionary as someone who is obsessed with the show Glee, is the growth social identity of 2010. Fox’s teen musical cum high school drama has enjoyed infectious popularity since its US debut a year ago and has even bagged a Golden Globe for Best TV Show – Musical or Comedy. Given that the term Gleek is seemingly applicable to 90% of females aged 15-30 the first part of our title is clearly redundant. Though their love of Glee may be obsessive, obsessive love does not a geek make. Otherwise our club would have to open it’s metaphorical doors to teeny boppers and sociopaths.

A more interestingly line of inquiry is whether geeks should be Gleeks. The Acceptable Geek Club firmly believes that Glee should be watched without prejudice. Though the trials and tribulations of a high school music society are hardly traditional geek fare, Glee deserves your attention as both a social phenomenon and, put simply, a quality program. Glee’s position as a cultural juggernaught needs no defence here - a quick skim of it’s charts success will suffice. However, we anticipate our second claim may meet with some resistance.

Besides it’s writing pedigree (two the show’s creators previously worked on Nip/Tuck), Glee should appeal to most Acceptable Geeks for one reason – covers. The most acceptable form of geekery is music geekery. Intricate knowledge of obscure album tracks has been cool since long before Nick Hornby publicised it and is unlikely to go out of fashion as long as music maintains it prominence in popular culture. For geeks, music is perhaps the one thing it is wholly acceptable to have a savant like knowledge of and enthuse about wildly. The same cannot be said of film and television, which can always cloak the sceptre of Trekkerism.

As Radio 1’s Live Lounge suggests, the most acceptable form of music geekery is knowledge of covers. Covers are an Acceptable Geek’s dream. Endlessly debatable, easily accessible and thrilling to be introduced to, a geek with a good record collection (or nowadays knowledge of Youtube) will never be short of a cover to dazzle with. Glee is the king of covers. Whilst a parade of shoe-gazing indie bands perfunctorily pluck their way through the latest R&B chart topper with an increasing lack of originality, Glee is treading the road less travelled. Be it AC/DC or U2, Kanye or Queen William McKinley High School’s finest have covered every kind of popular music imaginable. Unlike other covers shows like BBC’s Over The Rainbow, Glee is more than just a musical theatre mash up – the styles are as diverse as the content.

Glee’s covers seem set to dominate the charts till at least the Olympics. Though some are undoubtedly awful many surpass the originals (notably All American Rejects Gives You Hell). Performed by a superbly talented cast led by break-out star Matthew Morrison (Will Schuester) even the most hard-nosed indie snob will find it hard not to love something here. Surprisingly, Glee also manages to deal with issues of disability and homosexuality in a wholly un-PC yet affecting manner which puts other shows to shame.

Love it or hate it, Glee is the most influential show of 2010. Any geek with pretensions to musical taste cannot hope to ignore it. Should he, he may not find himself acceptable any more.

Especially for who?

The Acceptable Geek Club is worried about love. As we have said before, it is not just school girls that dream about someone in shining armour coming and rescuing them. Geeks just want rescuing from different things.
The Acceptable Geek Club is also worried about presents. Giving a present to the one you love is a fine art. In the early stages of a relationship a present for a birthday or Christmas can certainly feel like a make or break deal. Perhaps it is. Regardless, in every loving relationship there should be a desire to buy a present that will please one’s partner, and there is an expectation of receiving one in return. How else will you know if that person really knows you?
The first rule is simple: never buy a present for you or for who you want your partner to be. By all means take your girlfriend to see City of God, it will broaden her appreciation of world cinema and the social problems of developing countries. However, buying it her as a present with the same motivation is not acceptable. Similarly, do not buy her Super Mario Bros Wii or the complete novels of Dan Abnett on the grounds that you will “both enjoy it”. You won’t.
However, this is hardly revolutionary stuff. What worries us more is the tendency of newly domesticated geeks to throw money at their respective partners without a thought for the consequences. £100 necklaces? Champagne and oysters at Gordon Ramsey’s? We’ve seen it all on modest incomes by people with cheap tastes.
To be clear, there is nothing wrong with money and spending it on the one you love. Whilst the Acceptable Geek Club has issues with capitalism, it accepts that it is by far the best system for geeks and others to live in. However, what is discouraging is the kind of people that operate within that system and their peculiar attitudes, particularly towards presents. For many a geek the equation for buying presents is simple: expensive = good and expensive jewellery = double plus good. There is nothing intrinsic in capitalism that encourages this attitude, but it does permit it and the art of buying presents is disfigured as a result.
As with most art, once the primary goal becomes the spending and generating of money real value is usually lost. Yes, a silver Celtic cross may cost £100 and come in a nice Tiffany’s box but does it say anything to your loved one? Are they Christian? Are they Celtic? Do they even like and/or suit silver? To really touch someone takes thought, not money. Geeks are thinkers. Geeks are creative. Geeks should be great at presents.
Do not fear spending money on something they will really love, but do not spend lots of money in the hope that they will love it. Rather, look to the simple things like cards, mix tapes or a particularly beautiful, hand crafted, fair trade bracelet. If possible, make or plan something yourself. This will say more about you, and your feelings for them than a thousand gaudy watches. This may not even be the most expensive item you buy them, but for better or worse it will be the one they remember. And if the person don’t love it, the person ain’t worth it.

The Horror of Horrors

Live Action Roleplaying, or LARPing as it is more commonly known, is never acceptable. No matter how much football one watches and how carefully one chooses his aftershave, spending a weekend above a pub in Reading pretending to be an elf mage defies even the loosest definition of normality. Though Magic the Gathering, Wizards of the Coast and even Dungeons and Dragons may be passable, it is only so if kept locked away in the privacy of your own home. Once a man steps out into the world dressed as an orc and clad in green body paint, he has crossed a line that it is hard to get back on the right side of.

To see the problem with LARPing let us consider a bastardization of Kant’s publicity test. Essentially, an action must be unacceptable if you would be unhappy with everyone knowing you were doing it. Though this is far from a perfect moral guide, it has simple charm to it and should act as a restraint to most Acceptable Geeks. Unless you’d be happy for all and sundry to know you spend your weekends rolling D20 to determine the results of your social interactions, you probably shouldn’t do it. And if you are happy with this, you are probably a nerd. Fortunately, though the age of criminal responsibility in the UK currently stands at 10, we would support a rise to 18 in the cases of crimes against geekdom. With the correct retelling, nerdish actions committed as a minor can become charming self-deprecating humour. So there is hope for the LARPer – as long as he stops now.

Though the Acceptable Geek Club holds the above as gospel, there is a different interpretation of LARPing which awards it much greater credit. Interacting Arts (http://interactingarts.org/data/ia-international-05.pdf), a Stolkholm-based group of art theorists, see role playing as a significant, post-modern art form. Differing from traditional spectator-based arts, roleplaying is seen as a participatory art in which players are engaged in a communal process of creativity. If the artist is the ultimate expression of Western individualism, then roleplaying ‘reclaim[s] creativity for Everyone (sic)’ and allows participants to achieve the highest human’s can strive for. It also strips art of elitism and makes it something for the masses.


The Acceptable Geek Club shares Interacting Arts distain for the snobbishness of artistic communities and generally supports the democratization of the arts. All too often great works that geeks love are dismissed as “genre pieces” and not afforded the same worth as art-house cinema though their messages are as sobering and their techniques as seminal. Though new technologies are moving many arts (most noticeable video) away from the establishment and into the hands of the many, much art, particularly that associated with “high culture”, remains accessible only to those with the right education, tastes and, unfortunately, accents. Should we, therefore, reassess and celebrate LARPing? We think not. Though it may be a form of art, art is not a virtue in itself. Art can be good and it can be bad, and LARPing is bad. Art should also have standards, and those these will remain to subjective and fluid they are key to allowing any kind of debate about what counts as art. What these would be in LARPing is wholly unclear. Finally, above all, art must be creative. Though everyone has influences we lambast and, if is obvious enough, punish plagiarism. LARPing is often little more than derivative Tolkien-fetishism and this stifles, rather than promotes creativity.

Next to Godliness

‘Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.’ Mark Twain

Though cleanliness is of course next to Godliness even the Unacceptable Geek should need no guidance on that matter. However, after cleanliness comes clothing, something many geeks are often keen not to think about. Though this may be divisive, the Acceptable Geek Club believes clothing is important, perhaps to the point where it goes right to the heart of Acceptable Geekdom. Though it is generally best to eschew fashion this should not be taken as a carte blanche to dress in a grubby, ridiculous manner – especially if one expects anything resembling acceptability. Certain items of clothing should never be worn, and those that can should never be ill-fitting or overly worn. Though trends come and go the following rules are best observed:

1) You can never spend too much money on Jeans
Though it is hard to ever prove laws outside the natural sciences the inverse of this is certainly true. Jeans that cost too little appear that way, wear badly and can make your crotch, ass and worst of all, ankles, appear strange. Jeans, especially blue jeans, will likely form the mainstay of your clothing and can make a massive difference to any outfit. As such, you should ensure they are the best quality possible. Even without reaching the designer label expense of Diesel and Evisu quality jeans can be bought: Levi’s are (obviously) timeless and Gap jeans are also surprisingly good and regularly on sale.

2) Never wear a T-shirt you can’t defend
The obvious fashion choice for the geek is a quirky, often film or computer game based, T-shirt. Though generally an excellent choice, avoid the overtly nerdish (Treasure Island Dizzy is a no) or anything too difficult or boring to explain. In short, unless you are an expert in Che Guevara, and are prepared to justify his rather brutal military tactics, don’t go out with his face emblazoned across your chest. However, a T-shirt of David Hasslehoff made to look like Che Guevara is a different matter.

3) Never completely ignore the High Street
Though generally unpleasant places to shop, the likes of Next and H+M can occasionally turn up good pieces. A knowledge of their stock is also a good indication of current trends that you can then partially adopt or viciously mock. They can also be particularly good for work clothes and basics.

4) Don’t go for ‘a look’
Perhaps the worst mistake a geek can fall into is to go for ‘a look’. Most often, this will be something vaguely gothic. There are many dangers here, not least of which is looking stupid. The real worry, however, is that most people who go for ‘a look’ do so to avoid a stereotype, but in doing so end up just being a slightly less popular one

In general, Acceptable Geeks are quirky, interesting and creative people. However, clothes can be all these things too. And even if they are not to you, there is no need to look life unsightly. Unfortunately, we all make snap judgements on the way people dress. Why hinder one’s self when dressing well is so easy and so good for self-esteem?

Love in a time of the internet

Dating. The hardest area for even the most acceptable geek. First comes the hard part – meeting someone to persuade into going on a date. Is it acceptable to put your finger in your ear when talking to someone in a club so you can hear their name? Is there an etiquette for asking for someone’s number? And exactly how long should one wait before sending that first, charming text message? The questions are endless. And then comes the second hard part, the date itself. Which pub best defines you as a person? Which t-shirt? The stormtrooper head or ZX spectrum keyboard? Should a joke about disability or a comment about region 2 DVDs really be avoided? Dating is the proverbial minefield.
Fortunately, the noughties seem to have offered a way out of the first dilemma, and it is only becoming more common as we enter our new, unnamed decade. Internet dating, once the domain of the pervert, is now remarkably acceptable and possibly cool. Nowhere is this truer than London, where the average tube journey bombards commuters with opportunities for amore. Though Match.com is the definite market leader, other companies like Only Lunch and Be Naughty specialise in different kinds of liaisons (young professionals on lunch dates and sex addicts, respectively). It is an indication of how far the profile of internet dating has changed that Match.com regularly runs television campaigns advertising for eligible men to meet female demand. Gone are the days of the only enticing woman online being Stephen from Nigeria who needs you to wire him money for his train ticket to meet you.
For the Acceptable Geek, the Match.com explosion offers an excellent opportunity but is not without danger. The benefits are not hard to see. Clubs and bars are not the ideal place to meet your sweetheart, especially if, like many geeks, you don’t excel at small talk or pump sufficient iron to arouse attention. Many geeks also find their circle of friends distinctly lacking in girls (and “being set up” with a friend’s girlfriend’s friend is never likely to go well). At risk of sounding distinctly chauvinistic, there are also many areas of the country that also lack of delectable women for the discerning geek. If you’ve left university and failed to find your soul mate, you may find yourself staring down the barrel of loneliness or, worse, a train wreck of a relationship with someone you have nothing in common with.
The Acceptable Geek Club is ostensibly pro internet dating. Though this may be the cheesiest sentence we’ve written, we have never tried it, but several of our friends have, and it has worked out well for them. The initial idea for this article was for your author to try it and write a detailed report. But having already punched above his weight and met a girl in what we may for not much longer refer to as “the conventional way”, decided that it was best not to take unnecessary risks. What we have gathered though, is that the hardest part is the profile writing. There’s a real tendency of internet dating to reward the liar and self-publicist who’s travelled to Kathmandu where he saved street urchins and gained an appreciation for Shakespeare yet still loves the Killers and going to upmarket restaurants. The best advice here is to be honest and be humble. As always, we believe geekery, correctly marketed, is attractive. Making up stuff will only disappoint the person you meet through it, and ultimately disappoint you to.
So what of the dangers spoke of earlier? Our fear is motivated by this, rather beautiful piece of advertising by Match.com (featuring, perhaps unsurprisingly, one very acceptable looking geek):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yyxx-QqbJ3E

On first seeing this advert we were rather touched by its cuteness, but this advert represents a sea change in the claims of online dating companies. Previously all but the wacko Christian networks have sold dates not love, or, if love, love symbolised by a tacky arrow through a tacky heart. Now they are selling real, affecting love, the kind everyone would want to find. The danger is this: Love, or at least the British understanding of it, is a mythical almost religious feeling that’s found through struggle, perseverance and probably a little luck. It’s found in the intangible feelings of song lyrics and Jane Austen novels (and if the reader hasn’t read at least one, he should have). It’s an art and definitely not a science. And more importantly than anything, it permeates our culture and most men’s deepest desires. No matter how much we like to admit it, the desire for Taylor Swift’s Lovestory is as strong in us as it is in the girlies. Secretly, Hugh Grant in Four Weddings is a hero to men the country over.
The danger of internet dating is simple, but hopefully avoidable. It encourages the reduction of love and love-finding to a series of tick boxes and carefully placed statements of likes and dislikes. It can be an encouragement to mediocrity and a clarion call for desperation and taking whoever will have you. This is not to say these are not problems for Acceptable Geeks everywhere - many of who will throw away their identity to get “the one” - but this problem is heightened by the modern way of doing things. In short, online dating could be the final step towards a fully scientific society. We’ve taken the magic from the astronomy and religion; why not take it from love to?
To the geek, Match.com and its kin offer an excellent opportunity to break a cycle of, as the Smiths so perfectly put it, going to clubs and standing on your own till you cry and you want to die. We would encourage geeks plagued by this feeling to grab the internet opportunity with both hands. But in doing so, be wary. Your need to find someone can lead down a dangerous road of self-denial and the erosion of your identity. It can also lead to the discounting of love and replacing it with companionship, and if one feels a real longing for a true love story this will be deeply unsatisfying. The Acceptable Geek Club has little in the way of treatment to offer here, only a diagnosis. There is surely a way to navigate internet dating whilst retaining all we value in the idea of love, but we very much doubt anyone could show you the route. It may ring hollow, but believe in romance and believe in hope. Both are wonderful things.