This article, IMHO, is a disgrace and reflects the generally uninformed quality of soccer coverage by correspondents who live an American life. http://espn.go.com/page2/s/halberstam/020802.html First he provides the life context in which he's experienced soccer, to provide his column with some seeming authenticity. Then he goes on to submit that given all that "authentic" exposure, when the World Cup is over, the game still holds no interest for him. He continues this crap anecdotal nightmare by quoting the phoniest hack of all time, Tony Korn-hole, thereby nullifying, in my mind, anything of any relevance that Halberstam might have been trying to say. How many times will the gluttony of editors of sports columns force themselves to slip in a disparaging column about soccer, written by some hack who simply DOES NOT GET IT, in order to both stem the rising interest and requests for coverage in world football, and justify their own love for globally marginal sports that are without question on the wane? Halberstam has the nerve to join Korn-hole in suggesting that the "low scores" in soccer lead to boring or inequitable types of play on the field. PLEASE. When was the last time that any of us had to watch anything but the last quarter of a NBA game to know the story of that game? And what, in reality, is a hard-fought 14-10 NFL game? Its basically 2-1. Just because a sport decides to call a goal 6(7) points doesn't mean a significant amount of scoring is going on all the time. I am tired of the concerted effort among editors of sports publications to seek out articles that will disparage soccer, written by folks who don't really know anything about the sport, but rather have had the sport pass through their lives. the fact that world football events penetrated the crania of some of these slack-jawed Troglodytes is a miracle in and of itself. Any and all feeble attempts to show that "plus ce change, plus ce meme chose" must be continually met by the world football community in America with the finger, and cold hard facts. The reality is that MLS draws about as well as the NBA, on average, and that's damn good when every editor who wants to justify continuing coverage of his favorite sports rips into soccer for no other reason than playa-hatin'... Halberstam: if, while being possessed with such copious amounts of on-the-job free time that you had the wonderful chance to cruise the Paris cafe set and watch, among true fans, the 1966 World Cup you failed to become enamored of the sport as a whole, that's okay...you're just an abberation, a freak of nature. But your experience and reaction to it is solely yours, and not one that would have been most other globally-traveled sports fans' experiences/responses, I'll tell you that. As popular as Jordan was (and as much money as he made you writing a book about him), his popularity was much less than Pele, or even Zidane, or Figo, or even Ronaldo during his two years away from the game...don't, like Americans do so often on so many issues, think that your view holds any water outside the area around your kitchen table, let alone out here in the world...it doesn't.
First, David Halberstam is not a, "hack." Secondly, his view is pretty common-one I heard from people all over the city. "I can get into the World Cup, but the MetroStars..." was something I heard the whole month from many people. Third, his comment does in a way, reflect what many people in football feel is a problem. (Does the phrase "anti-football" ring a bell?)The ban of the back pass, tackles from behind-not to mention what many people felt was bad about this most recent WC. And look at the still-lingering stench of 1990-and even '94 to a degree. Also there has not been a player of transcendent, individual iconic quality since Maradona, which IMO speaks to this issue. Or put it another way, there is a reason why the 1970 Brasilian team is viewed the way it is-and it aint about its defence. I think for the most part, he got it right and his experience/views are quite similar to many college-educated professional who spend time overseas and dip into the world of football.
"this time all those wacky Koreans cheering like mad, and trying to get even for what happened to one of their skaters during the Winter Olympics." In this context I feel that "wacky" smacks of racism. Would Halberstam refer to a stadium of singing Englishmen as "wacky?" How about Brazilians? Halberstam: "Look at those little yellow people singing funny little songs in their funny little language. Aren't they wacky, folks?" Halberstam is an *********************. If he weren't so busy congratulating himself on having the moral fortitude to use the term "regime" he might actually have the time to write a decent article.
There's a thread about this article on the Links and Articles thread, too. Here's what I wrote there... 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 that inferior team scores, 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.) 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. ... Which leads me to Real Ray's point: yes, this is a common view of someone who dipped into soccer. But you don't expect commonplace insights from a writer of DH's stature. This is not the best and the brightest
I don't think his "wacky" comment was racist. Just an attempt to add some a tad of levity to an incredibly boring piece. Is it any surprise that a man who loves the NBA, where points pour through the hoop at a mind-boggling rate, would find that soccer has too little scoring? His incestuous reliance on the Kornheiser quote that Brazil had an "insurmountable" 1-0 lead is just pathetic. A 1-0 lead can vanish in an instant, and that's what makes soccer exciting. Halberstam is certainly correct on one point: when it comes to soccer, he just doesn't get it.
Well, this group comprises my enitre peer group, and this reflects none of their experience, none at all. Whether or not Halberstam is inherently a hack or not is irrelevant; without question, reflecting the agenda of the editor set who, again, are looking to justify their old-school American sporting view, he has been used by them and presented as a hack, used solely to spin out the "I still don't get it" article I'm more than tired of seeing around every significant football event. Do you have any idea about the actual article selection process that takes place at ANY media outlet? It distills, very quickly, to basically what the editor likes, and one doesn't become an editor unless one is prepared to build sections of a particular media outlet that reflect what has "always worked." Halberstam is either inherently a hack (and his Jordan book, btw, lacked insight and was largely a reflection of his Jordan idol-worship), or gets used like most hacks might.
I don't have a problem with this article in particular, and Halberstam is certainly entitled to his opinion. The problem I do have, and I think many soccer fans do as well, is that media outlets go out of there way to bash the sport, to try to de-legitimize it. Ignore it or cover it, but why trot out the same "soccer will never take in the US" article over and over. Do other sports get this? Where is the "golf would be great if there were tackling" or "IRL racing would be better with jumps"? There are certainly negative articles about sports, but they tend to talk business particulars (strike talk in baseball) or news (fixed figure skating) and not just "this sport sucks" sort of articles. If it's any comfort, one sport that could have legitimately complained about lack of coverage compared to fan base size in the past, + negative articles, was Nascar and they've done just fine.
Actually I do, but I think that's besides the point. The article is not a bash-nor is it a backhanded compliment IMO. It's simply expressing a very obvious opinion about football's poularity in the US: the big event quality is often enough to bring in the typical US fan to the Wolrd Cup, but not enough to sustain a larger, mass following. Could he be proved wrong in time? Sure, but I don't think anything he wrote was a bash and IMO reflects not only many American's attitudes about football, but track & field, swimming, and a bunch of other sports that drop off the radar every four years. Many people like the Olympics, but don't care for the year in, year out stuff in the odd years. There are other ways to describe them, but basher? I don't think so.
I thought it was a great article. Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion.. and page 2 is strictly opinions. He didn't bash the sport, and instead of simply stating his dislike for soccer, he qualified it by giving suggestions to improve the game, which, whether you agree or disagree with them, you gotta agree that it's better than just saying "soccer sucks".
Well, no I don't. When he makes says, "I'm a beginner at Tennis, too, but I understand..." he falls way short. I mean, tennis isn't all that complicated, so to think that because you can understand (what does he use, McEnroe/Connors?) a simple individual sport that you then have an idea about how to fix soccer is to betray a certain thick-headedness that Halberstam, given his stature as a journalist and historian, shouldn't betray. I mean, he doesn't understand the sport, and yet he pretends to understand the sport enough to think he can fix it. It may not be a bash, but it is ignorant.
Lighten up people. This article was very much couched as Halberstam's own opinion. The intnse subjectivity of the piece should have been apparent to everyone when he was discussing his personal experiences with soccer in anecdotal form. He keeps the discussion personal, for the most part. Also, and very importantly, the article was posted in the soccer section of ESPN.com. It was not meant for a general audience, and it will not be read by such. It was supposed to be a thoughtful article to soccer fans explaining why many American sports fans don't like club soccer, but like international soccer. It was, in many ways, an attempt by ESPN to intellectualize the various anti-soccer rants by its other pundits.
It's all about context. If a Korean were dressed up in a clown suit throwing cream pies I wouldn't hesitate to call him "wacky." There's nothing wacky, however, about a stadium of supporters in full voice. Feel free to disagree with me, but I don't think that Halberstam would have used the same term in describing a packed Wembley. Let's just say that I found Halberstam's choice of words extremely telling...
"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. Or at least a score that implied a boring game was close. It's as if Michael Jordan arrived in basketball, and there was no 24-second clock, and opposing teams could keep the score close by simply holding the ball." Halberstam should know better. He recognizes that soccer's aesthetics don't appeal to him yet he blames the game instead of stating his preference for sports that provide more immediate gratification. I would actually be very interested to watch Jordan and other modern NBA greats play without a shot clock.
Not quite. It was linked to from their soccer page, but it was posted on Page2, their "columnists and editorials" site. Anyone who visits that site can get to it, not just soccer fans, and there's a link to Page2 from ESPN's home page. My only problem with the article is this: why don't we see "I like the Tour de France, but not bicycle racing" articles? "I like the Indy 500, but not other IRL races" articles? It's always "I like the World Cup but not [club-level] soccer." Well, fine. I like the NHL playoffs, but not so much the regular season. I like the NCAA Tournament, but not so much the college basketball regular season. I like baseba--oh, wait, I don't like baseball at all.