No World Cup till Friday...What else is coming up? Oh yea, All-star games. Pbbbbbbbbbt!

With the Round of 16 over, the national sides at the World Cup will break untill Friday, when the quarterfinals begin. In this time, there is little to talk about on the world football front, but there is something that made me think. For almost every national team, their roster represents a veritable All-Star team. For teams like England, it more or less IS their all-star team. Only two players on England's 23-man roster do not play in the English Premier League (David Beckham for Spain's Real Madrid and Owen Hargreaves for Germany's Bayern Munich)

Looking around these other countries, it seems that international competition IS their idea of an all-star team. In fact, the United States appears to be the only country (along with Canada, fine) that actually sends its players to All-star games. Fictional "Best XI" teams are formed, similar to our fantasy sports, but never real teams. Outside of sports popular in North America, actual games are rare. Why? Exactly the problem that most people complain about All-Star games today. All-star games don't mean anything. In fact, the first Major League Baseball All-Star game was the brainchild of a Chicago Tribune sportswriter, meant to be held in conjunction with the 1933 World's Fair as a one-time event. The first MLB All-star game WAS a matchup between two "fantasy" teams!

In the NFL, the all-star game is literally an afterthought. Taking place the week after the Super Bowl, it has given us such high-octane competitve moments such as Barry Switzer eating a hot dog on the sidelines during the game. Even the words "All-Star Game" are usually relegated to an afterthought in the logo.

I understand that Major League Baseball has changed the meaning of the Midsummer Classic by introducing the prize of home-field advantage in the World Series to the league that wins the All-Star game. While this has added SOME drama, I remain unconvinced (and still think it's ridiculous that the team that finishes with the best record during the regular season may not get rewarded with home-field just because some schmuck who's only there because his last-place team needed a representative hits a game-winning bloop single because all the "stars" were subbed out in the 4th inning. Hoo. Breathe.)

That being said, All-Star games still remain on the whole, entirely pointless. The NBA and NHL work their All-star games on an East vs. West basis. Every time I hear announcers or analysts try to debate who will get the better of the other, the argument always strikes me as incredibly ludicrous with quotes like, "I think the West has all the power right now." What is this? 1864? Are these the fastest, high-flyin'est, root-toot-tootinest players this side of the Mississip'?
Same thing if I hear one announcer say that the National League's domination by the American League continues, as the NL has not won the All-star game since 1996. I'm sure the NL players are completely demoralized that this one game every year was lost to a team that outside of this game, doesn't exist.

Other leagues have experimented with different formats like USA vs. the World (MLS) or North America vs. the World (NHL), or my personal favorites, Young Guns vs. Old School (Lacrosse) and PlanetUSA vs. Canada (AHL). Man, if Canada wins 8 all-star games in a row, imagine how crushed those losing players would be. They gave their all for PlanetUSA. I hate all these concepts because no matter how much patriotism and flag-waving you wrap it up in, it's still going to be a team that doesn't exist outside of video game form after that night.

MLS has taken to a more interesting concept in recent years, but I feel it is still incomplete and largely irrelevant. A team of MLS all-stars, regardless of geographic, divisional, or national background takes on a foreign club. They beat Mexico's Chivas de Guadalajara in 2003, and England's Fulham FC in 2005. This year's contest will see the all-stars take on English Premier League champions Chelsea FC (who are considered by many an all-star team in a single club). In this game, every player on the field has a reason to bust his ass. All the MLS players are in it to show either that American soccer can be competitive abroad, or individual players are looking to impress their coach and score a tryout with the foreign club. The foreigners have the incentive of not looking like a bunch of schmucks losing to a bunch of hastily-assembled Yanks, and to help spread their club's support (and revenues) into the United States. However, even this system is not without its flaws. While there is incentive, the foreign sides have much more to lose if a player goes down with an injury. I also don't like it because in the end it is still a meaningless contest.

Now there could be other reasons for an all-star game. League/Conference supremacy? I can't see it. Since 1980, there have been 26 Major League Baseball All-Star games. The number of years where the team that has won the World Series had their league win the All-Star game is 14. 14 out of 26, essentially half. Even if you take out the strike-shortened 1994 season and the 2002 All-star game tie, the results differed in 10 out of 24 seasons. In the NFL, the conference that won the Pro Bowl matches the conference that won the Super Bowl in 13 out of 27 contests since 1980.

A chance to see all the great players on the court/field/rink at the same time? I don't buy that, and fan balloting is to blame. For the upcoming all-star games, fan balloting is incapable of identifying the best players. In MLS, the league's leading scorer, Ante Razov, has 10 goals and is on pace to be the first player in 4 years to score more than 20 in a season, but his name is on only 6% of the ballots. In the midfield, Landon Donovan and Clint Dempsey are leading the vote, despite missing half the season for the World Cup. Freddy Adu is in third place among midfielders with his name on 21% of the ballots, but Adu hasn't scored a goal all season, and only scored 4 all of last season. In Major League Baseball All-Star voting, Washington's Alfonso Soriano is in 3rd place among NL outfielders. His OBP is .339. A tie for 54th in the NL, and 21st among NL outfielders. Todd Helton, who has an average of .311, and an OBP of .438 is not even in the running among first basemen, despite being the NL league leader in OBP among first basemen.

How about just a great game? Well...half a game if you're talking about the NBA All-Star game. In 2006, the average number of points per game for all 30 NBA teams was 97.0. The final score of the 2006 All-star game was East 122, West 120. In fact, the last time that an NBA All-Star team has been held under 100 points was 1973, when the East defeated the West 104-84. This was 6 years before the 3-point shot, but only 10 times in the game's history has a team failed to crack the century mark (out of 110 teams). If there's not going to be any defense played, then I'd like half my money back if I bought a ticket.

I'm not a fan of fan balloting, but if it's supposed to be a game for the fans, they should be able to pick. If it's a meaningful game, that's great, but even "meaningful" games disrupt the season and change the dynamics of players' seasons and occasionally, careers. As much as I try, every time an All-Star game rolls around, I just can't find a reason to care.