ESPN.com Feature

[WarrenWallace]

Here is a new article that is on ESPN.com in the soccer section. People will be offended by the title, but his writing is pretty good.

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/halberstam/020802.html

[Dr. Wankler]

Well, the writing is exceptional by ESPN standards, but the old, "it's not me, it's the rules" bit is very, very tired:

"But I think the problem is the game itself -- or more specifically, the rules of the game. Very simply, the rules favor the defense against the offense much too much, and they take the game's best players and limit their offensive ability. It allows mediocre players from mediocre teams to bunch up and reduce the possibilities of artistry from the game's best players. A mediocre team can lay back, keep a game close against a more exciting, more talented team, and hope for a lucky score to win."

Uh, if the other team is actually good enough to "limit" the opposition, then they deserve not to be scored upon. And if they score, given how hard it is to actually score in this game, then, good for them...

Then there's this bit...

"It's important to understand that if in a sport like this, I'm something of a beginner as a fan, it doesn't mean I don't get it. Tennis is in many ways equally alien to me, but I understood very quickly the quality of the Connors-Borg-McEnroe matches, what their respective strengths, both physical and psychological were. The camera is a very quick teacher, and most big-time network sports have announcers who are exceptionally good at explaining the intricacies of the sport."

In other words, I get it. Yet I just proved that there are intricacies that I don't get yet. (Unless one wants to read this as a veiled reference to the inability of Jack and Ty to explain subtle aspects of the game to the beginner fan.)

No offense to you for posting the link, IceMan. But if you've been following soccer-bashing for years, the back-handed non-bashing bash like this is fairly old hat, and is often trotted out by the likes of Deford and Kornheiser who claim that they like the World Cup but don't like soccer.

[Darryl]

Articles like this really frustrate me. These guys seem to be saying that unless soccer in the USA is as popular as the NFL, then, well, soccer just isn't popular.

In this entire article, the guy doesn't mention MLS once. Hello, there is a US pro league here, and while its not storming the country, it is seven years old and has been averaging around 16,000 spectators per game. Can't MLS ever get any credit from these guys?

These bashers are so black-and-white about this. They keep wanting to pronounce soccer as a failure. Failure at what? Just take the sport for what it is. No, it's not as popular as the NFL, but it has a niche and it keeps getting bigger, year by year.

One more thing my sports expert: "Britain" didn't win the 1966 World Cup, England did.

Darryl

[FootyMundo]

I looked at his picture. He is old. I moved on.

[Dr. Wankler]

Originally posted by Darryl
One more thing my sports expert: "Britain" didn't win the 1966 World Cup, England did.

Darryl

Damn, how'd I miss that one?!?

Footymundo: Unless you plan on committing suicide before your 35, you might want to develop other criteria for coming up with excuses not to read something.