They read 3 emails from SKC fans that were critical of their interview of Matt Besler. Borg clearly couldn't handle it and gets all self rightous saying, "Why are we kidding ourselves? Let the fans submit the questions, they're the expert jounalist! They know exactly how to ask the questions!" He then rants for a few minutes about it and then they read an email from a Seattle fan that basically thanks them for how they interviewed Besler. The other guy just says that he thought Seattle would win going in, but that neither team did enough to win in 120 minutes (uh, obviously), and so you got the crap shoot that is penalties.
In a previous episode they basically admitted Borg is there to stir the pot and create controversy to draw eyes and ears. Personally, I hate that shit and have no respect for "journalists" who do that.
There are a number of BigSoccer posters who could utter sexist tripe and not be thin-skinned about criticism aimed at them.
So I listened to the previous episode with Besler. They talk about the retake call and the hand ball, which they should, obviously. Borg was of the opinion that unless the player intentionally slaps the ball out of the air, then the referee shouldn't call a penalty, also because there was less than 10 minutes in the game was another reason not to call a penalty. This makes zero sense to me and I know this is not how referees are told to call a game. Borg also says that he didn't feel Sporting KC "deserved" to win. When Besler comes on they ask him several (at least 3) questions about the retake call, he says that it's a difficult call but they thought it was the right call; calling it consistantly would be nice; and that they had asked the referee to watch for it. Then Borg cuts in with how he has a picture where Jimmy Nielson is off his line before the Sounders take their shots and is laughing the whole time as if to say, I tricked you what do you say now? Borg then ask Besler if he thought Sporting KC derserved to win or did enought to win, and he replies that they think they did and at the end of the day they are the ones with the trophy. It definitely came across like the wanted him to admit they shouldn't have won or didn't deserve to or something. At no point did they congradulate Besler while they were talking to him, or ask him what the win meant to him personally, the club or the city. The only positive question they asked was about qualifying for the CCL. Finally they ask that listeners to send them comments or questions. I really have no problem with them discussing the controversy the way they did or even saying that Sporting KC didn't deserve to win, however the Besler interview was just classless. Having listened to it I certainly believe that your average fan is more of an "expert journalist" than they are. I guess that's why they are on a soccer podcast. I know I have no desire to listen to them ever again.
listened to about three minutes near the relevant spot. ugh. at least they were on topic. i can't sit through these any more, because they frequently get off topic and when they do are about as boring as a couple of white guys who work at the same office talking about nothing together can be. which is pretty damn boring. but yeah, wiebe has no spine. the times i have listened to more than 3 minutes he's gotten bullied out of having/expressing/sticking to an opinion of his own. doesn't help that he has the voice of a 13 year old and the face of a 10 year old.
Simon Borg is just kind of an idiot. His piece didn't really bother or upset me, it was par for the course. I imagine he refers to the rare occaison he has an actual thought as a headache with pictures.
Does Simon Borg realize that real journalists everywhere are losing their jobs to the fans who take up the mantle of blogger? Does Simon Borg realize that he was simply a blogger that became a journalist? He's essentially talking smack on himself, such a Simon Borg move. Malta.
I actually am aware of a 15 year old who had done an interview with Jimmy Conrad (albeit, email) and did a much better job than Borg and Co. did in this case: http://www.footychronicles.com/2012/07/interview-with-jimmy-conrad.html And it's not as if Isaac here simply does a vanilla interview either - he actually touches on points which are somewhat contentious, but does so in the proper manner and, more importantly, realizes that the interview is not about Jimmy answering his questions but guiding Jimmy to tell his story. Don't get me wrong, I think Isaac is very talented and so therefore it's likely that Borg could do better than most 15-year-olds, but somewhat telling when he is outclassed by a 15-year-old, no matter how talented and wise-beyond-his-years that teenager is. All that said, I get the distinct impression that Borg is just there to 'cause trouble' b/c it gets the league/podcast attention, but I hope that they all realize that this type of behavior really turns off a lot of potential listeners, many of whom are looking for exactly what this podcast could provide.
they don't need to have someone be an in-house, professional troller to get attention. they're the main mls site; they have people's attention. 1st Interviewer: Mr. Murphy, do you mean that you lied on your application? Spud: No! Uh. Yes. Only to get my foot in the door. Showing initiative and that like. 1st Interviewer: But you were referred here by the department of employment, there was no need for you to get your "foot in the door," as you put it. etc etc
I gave up on listening to extratime last year. The hosts, Borg in paticular, make up drama and the show doesn't add enough extra info to what I already know about the league. I've listened to podcasts from 5th division teams in this country that provide more information about their team and league. Extratime should take podcasts like these and learn from them. Just bring in important guests isn't going to work if they don't make the interviews professional enough.
It's up to them and mlssoccer.com what kind of quality they want to provide. There are different types of blogs/podcast. Some go for the amateur/fan perspective and are biased and crude, while others try to be professional and objective. There is a blog called Inside the Hall that covers Indiana University basketball better than anyone, including The Indianapolis Star. One of the co-founders of the site was even hired by ESPN.com and now writes about college basketball for them. So again, it's up to them what kind of standard they want to have, and right now they aren't setting it very high.