Of course we all know that makes the statement half positive and half negative which makes it ok because that would be zero (neutral). Now if Jones was only 1/4 white we would have a problem. I am sure that Arena, being the media savvy guy that he is, considered this before making his comments. Of course, it is also possible that he was speaking metaphorically and trying to equate some of the positive attributes that we often associate with certain animals to Jones....nah, that couldn't be it. Could it?
I agree its really about nothing. My point is that biracial isn't 50/50. I took a ethnicity test once and we're all just a bunch of percentages. Most african-americans are not 100% of African decent and his mother who is German is probably 100% German/white.
I reread your post later and noticed the comment relating to that. I wasn't disagreeing with what you said but only taking advantage the bolded quote to make a pathetic attempt at humor by poking fun at some who read too much into every little thing. I think part of the issue with Howard's statements are that he tried to leave some things unsaid (obviously names for one) and many people inferred added meaning. He also left some things out that may or may not have been intentional. Some took it one way and some took it another. The statement that caused the most controversy, of course, went something like some of them are not showing the passion (because the preceding statement was about the foreign born players, this implied the foreign born players also). In the statement, the key words are "some" and any unsaid words about US born players. The word some, to me is easy...it means some show the effort, passion and pride that is needed and some do not. The problem is with the unsaid words about the US born players. Some (many/most?) took that omission to mean that the US born players were without blame. Is that really what it means? He could have meant it that way, but it is not close to conclusive. How many of us have never left something out in an explanation? If it is a face to face communication, you get immediate feedback and can explain at that time. In an interview, you get the feedback after the fact. If you look at Howard's two interviews, he didn't say anything in the second that contradicted the first. He added the unsaid portion about the US born players. Another interesting thing, I believe, is that other than Jones' obvious displeasure with Howard's remarks seeming to criticize German-Americans, Howard's remarks and Jones remarks on the team are actually quite similar. They both talk about the importance of the "passion. drive, desire, heart, soul" (Howard) and "it's what you have in here" (taps heart) and says "if you give everything for this country..." (Jones). Of course Jones goes on to be critical of singling out one group of players but to me, the issue is not going to be what he said, but will the team (especially the foreign born players of course) accept the second version and move on from there? here is a video at espn fc that shows clips of their interviews back to back. It also continues on to what I consider a pretty mindless analysis of the whole thing. http://www.espnfc.com/video/espn-fc-tv/86/video/3042018 As you said, most African-Americans are not 100% of african descent unless if you consider the fact that 100% of the world's population is primarily of African descent (as I understand it). There was mixing going on whenever different groups of humans came into contact with other groups...even to the point that most have a small but significant amount of Neanderthal dna and continues to this day. In some ways, it may be ironic that the only group that has little or no Neanderthal dna is africans (currently in Africa because they, as a group, never migrated from Africa) https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/
When the whole thing about athlete's being called Animal debate started, am I the only one who thought about this guy?
To really continue the theme, brethren, we should get much more specific: for example, Australians that proved to be a force to contend with could be called Tasmanian Devils--although for New Zealanders callin' em' Hobbits might not convey the precise sense of Might that Beast, Animal, Devil, Monster, Freak, Dragon do.
This board and some of the posters who make everything about politics really need to get a life and go watch CSPAN all day instead of posting on Big Soccer. I wish Arena called me an animal on the soccer field. I'd look at it as a major compliment...
Politics? I don't see anyone discussing politics but rather social mores. CSPAN has nothing to do with that.
The first time I saw Jones play live, I actually thought of a Tasmanian devil. The term "force of nature" also came to mind.
I think Jermaine Jones is tragically overrated and irrationally forgiven, but I would call him an animal if pressed. Just like when somebody shows you their ugly baby and you say "Now that's a baby."
"Breathtaking." Also, I'm happy being an animal. Seems better than being a bacteria or a fungus. Even a plant.
Really. Not say, Agoos, or what's name? You know, no place for him in midfield at the 2014 World Cup, Jones thought it was a good decision, league named the MVP Award after him, because like 6 MLS Cup rings... How many does Jones have after three seasons? Uh huh. Three seasons and now on his third team tells ya something.
I'm a big Donovan fan, would love to see him get back to being a top player. Yes, he is the all-time best US player, no question in my mind. But, he retired, got out of the swing and looked like a shell of his former self when he came back last year. At this point in time, I'd absolutely take Jones over Donovan. I was basing this comparison on the players Jones is actually competing against now. I should have said, any current US player. Donovan gets back into playing shape and actually starts to look like his old self again and the conversation changes. But right now, based on what he did in his comeback last year, he's nowhere near the Donovan that was a great player.
Oh shit, @SemioleTom says we should think like him and that will make everything better. Let's all line up behind @SeminoleTom 's leadership. That will improve the quality of our lives and eliminate bigotry. It only matters if @SeminoleTom says it matters. @SeminoleTom 's comfort level is THE comfort level and if you are uncomfortable or frustrated you should just put your paws up and go with the flow. The politics of confrontation are irrelevant in this space. Freedom!
At his best (think 2014 World Cup and 2016 Copa America), Jermaine Jones is a handful in the midfield, covering a ton of ground, breaking up opposing plays, and moving the ball forward in the attack. It's pretty telling that two of our last three major tournaments (2014 World Cup & 2016 Copa America) had a healthy, in-form Jermaine Jones and were successes, while the 2015 Gold Cup did not feature Jones and was an unmitigated failure. But Jones can be inconsistent, as we've seen in various WCQ matches over the years during which he's been a liability. His lack of positional discipline and his occasional poor judgment in passing can stretch our team and expose gaps defensively. You could argue that Jones' lack of positional discipline ends up pulling other players out of position or out of their natural comfort zone (e.g. Michael Bradley). And here's a random, existential question of the day. If you'd replaced Jermaines Jones in central midfield with a more positionally disciplined (i.e. Kyle Beckerman in 2014) or efficient ball circulator (i.e. Sacha Kljestan in 2016), would a workhorse but offensively limited player like Alejandro Bedoya have needed to be such a staple in our starting line-up on the wing, or could we have experimented with more attack-minded wingers?
Gold Cup 2015 should have clearly answered those questions. The recent New Zealand friendly is also telling. Perhaps a review is in order?
I'm probably just dense today, but can you clarify? Are you agreeing with me or providing evidence to the contrary?
He's best used further forward where his roaming won't harm defensive shape or tactics. I believe that's where Colorado deployed him. Of course, how that will work with idea of working Feilhaber or Klejstan into the team is yet to be determined.
If we were in a more comfortable position as far as qualifying goes then I'd drop him because of age and inevitable decline. However we need points. Qualifying matters above anything else. Trying to play sexy soccer and bleeding in new guys will have to wait. This is one of the things I think Klinsmann failed in his 2nd cycle as coach. We'd get a glimpse in friendlies but he'd go back to his 2014 WC core. There are areas on the team where we need to get younger. So now in a position where we must win there is little room for experimentation or phasing out the old guard. The old guard might be needed to help us qualify. That includes Dempsey too.