Eric Wynalda's "Howard Beale moment": FSC employees rant against MLS at the NSCAA Convention

But what if most of these things are frequently discussed on the MLS Competition Committee and dismissed (at least for the moment) because they're not feasible?

 

I shouldn't do this, but...

We're not talking about Donovan. Donovan is one of around 500 players in MLS. Donvan's not a great example, given the other things Donovan does that help his team win games. If he's not the player he should be, then we're having the same discussions we've had since 1999 with him.

So that's what it is, then? You want to see guys run hard? You have some sort of run-hard-ometer? Okay. It's running hard. Guys aren't running hard enough after running for 80 minutes. Got it.

And those things aren't happening in MLS. Guys aren't getting back to defend late in the game. Guys aren't making runs for through passes. Guys aren't going up to challenge for a ball in the air. I don't really care what you think you're seeing, Scott. I want you to prove to me that it's not happening. But you'll then hide behind the old saw (which is not just what you're doing, but which people always do) which is "I have watched a lot of soccer, trust me, I can tell." Show me that MLS players aren't doing it and then show me that they're not doing it because they aren't incentivized to do it, not because they're not capable of doing it for 90 minutes and we can start to say that throwing $400 at the problem will fix it.

False choice. It's not one or the other. It's misplaced. It's grandstanding. Diving into the scorer's table gets you a cheer and people say "That guy is great, he hustles, he goes into the stands after balls," but that shit doesn't help you win. And if you get hurt doing it, neither will you.

That's not me saying that. It's the twentysomethings who think soccer came into being in 2002 and stand behind the goals with a beer in one hand and a scarf in the other and think it's all about being a hard man and this myth of playing for the badge or playing for the people who pat themselves on the back for how much "atmosphere" they create.

If you're going to tell me that all it takes to make an MLS player play harder is to increase his salary and bonuses, that he's just a mercenary, I can accept that a lot more readily than the whole "playing for the badge" bullshit. I just don't believe it's going to make him run back 5% faster or 10% faster in minute 85 than he did in minute 5 and if it did, you wouldn't be able show me an appreciable difference. Oh, I know, you'd just know. Because you're good that way.

Whether it's getting relegated, finishing last, whatever. Someone loses out, no matter how much "harder" they play. Because someone has to. That's the way it works. And if MLS had relegation or has higher win bonuses or whatever system you want to use, someone's going to lose out. And that's how you'll know who doesn't play hard, I guess.

 

Firsty of all, I'm not a Waldo apologist, nor do I agree the details of his manifesto.

That being said,

You're definitely right that these are not new discussions (especially here on BS), but despite his clumsy and self serving manner of delivery I find his setting particularly intriguing here.

His audience is mostly college and club coaches and U.S. Soccer people, in my opinion part of the problem, and yet he is stirring the pot. In general, these people ignore these discussions and protect their little nest eggs. He is willing to call them out and get people talking. To me it's ballsy and could lead to more productive discussion, although it is not entirely responsible.

Hopefully that makes sense.

 

Considering the calendar alone is the biggest point of contention with FIFA, I think these issues go beyond Big Soccer.

A new voice, maybe. But much of the praise I have seen heaped on Eric acts as if this hasn't happened before. "At least he's trying to get the discussion going" portends that the audience at the national soccer coaches convention hasn't come across these issues. I find that hard to believe. Plus, he's been whining and bitching about everything since I can remember.

He's grandstanding for his own sake using simple issues much of his audience already has their mind made up on because it gives him a chance to sling mud at people who have been rewarded with things he thinks he deserves. He's not really breaking new ground here. He's just seeing that he's an outsider when it comes to MLS since he can't get a job within the league and won't be broadcasting their games anymore.

 

But did he go there with substantive concerns and possible solutions for people who might be protecting their nest egg, or did he go there to say Landon dogs it once in a while and Eddie Pope is a **********?

 

That is definitely where Eric broke down... as I pointed out in my original post. He stammered around, made a joke and moved on to his next point because he does not have the solution, but who does?

 

it would be great to get confirmation that that is indeed the case.

any (additional) details as to discussions taking place on the MLS Competition Committee and the reasoning behind dismissing items/changes as not feasible, would be great information to have.

AndyMead's posts earlier in this thread (and some responses) referencing Nelson Rodriquez's session and some of the information presented there on the (surprisingly low) level of average ticket revenue in the league are just the kind of additional details that may come to better light, in part because Wynalda conducted his rant and inaccurately tried to cite some content from that earlier session by Rodriquez.

it's not a perfect or clean conversation, but new items and information can be gleaned from it.

 

But he says he has the solution and if you don't listen and agree you don't want American soccer to flourish. That's a big part of my problem.

 

right, and in a certain respect, the listener/reader will always have their opinion/history of the speaker possibly infest the content of the speech.

no, Wynalda's "not breaking any new ground" (for you, or most people here) -- but again, his "new" voice (and approach) may be one that invites more people to get interested in and care about the conversation/league.

 

Which begets another problem - his inaccuracies and hyperbole. Maybe he's a new voice for some to reel them in, but he's giving them false/incomplete information. That doesn't help anything except his ego.

I don't shy away that I do not like Eric, mainly because every time I have seen him provide misinformation, he comes at me like gangbusters, then shrinks away when faced with the inevitable truth that he was making shit up, but always gets in a dig that he's right anyway.

He's a charlatan, a loudmouth, a snake oil salesman.

 

Maybe he should run for a CONCACAF position...

 

imo, it also helps "MLS" if more peopled are getting reeled into MLS discussions and items.

could that be achieved in a different or better way? perhaps.

but for this thread, we're stuck analyzing Wynalda's "rant against MLS at the NSCAA Convention."

absolutely. but in the big picture, does it matter if more people are being sold some snake oil with respect to MLS?

if more people are exposed to the league (even lies about the league and its business) -- that's still exposure (and exposure that could mature and develop into better understanding and a deeper appreciation eventually by more people/customers).

in my view, MLS having Fox Sports now as a "scorned lover/partner" is a positive for the league. having someone attack you and question your past shortcomings or future plans may actually work out well for you as time goes by (especially if you can defend yourself with accurate and useful information).

 

Really, I hadn't picked up on that.

 

I find Wynalda entertaining; he's the MLS court jester (or is that Alexi Lalas?). But anyone who bows and scrapes to the primeval scum that is Jim Rome loses a great deal of my respect.

I hate Jim Rome. Now I need to go watch Jim Everett fling him to the ground on YouTube again.

 

He also did this before we started playing well in the Confed Cup. Then he says his FB was hacked.

 

Oh, sure you should. You love it, and you know it.

I'm not sure I recall what conversation I've had about Donovan since then, but the example that Wynalda gave was more about the perceptions and attitudes of teammates than an indictment of Donovan personally (intentional or not....). I'm not saying that Donovan needs performance bonuses to play hard. I'm not saying that he's a slacker, or should have done anything different in his career. I am saying that significant point bonuses would make every player more serious and diligent in their preparation and play, either from the bonus itself or pressure from teammates for THEIR point bonuses.

As I said in my previous post, that's NOT the extent of what I'm saying. So no, you don't got it.

Are you saying that it isn't possible for them to do it more, or with more urgency? Seriously?

Why would I want to do that? That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying that it could happen more. There is a significant difference between those two statements.

Not that I would use that as my only evidence, but understand that my "I really don't care what you think you're seeing" is just as valid as yours. More, if you're really arguing that every player always runs absolutely as hard as he can all the time, and that no new incentive could possibly change that, which is what it sounds like. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

So, you're not even going to concede that it ever happens?

I get that. And I'd be a lot more inclined to take your side on this if I didn't hear so many coaches say that same thing.

Gotcha. My mistake.

Your value judgment, not mine. Some would use the word "professional."

100% agree.

Thanks for noticing. Happily, that oversimplifies what I'm saying beyond all recognition. Because you're good that way. Sorry, I just had to.

Now, I'm no pro/rel Scientologist (), but please let's not deny that relegation from a top flight is a whole hell of a lot more negative outcome for players than finishing last in MLS. In fact, when one of the Westervelt cult argues that relegation battles would be good for the league, it's hard not to agree. What is hard is justifying even bothering to talk about it, since the chances of it ever happening are well south of slim, and for good reasons.

But it's just another nail in the coffin of the assumption that players either play hard or they don't, external motivation be damned, period.

 

i think he has a mental problem more than a substance abuse problem.

 

In fairness to Scott and Wynalda, I think Waldo's rant was more about how players aren't willing to work hard enough in practice on Tuesday in order to win on Saturday.

I hope this isn't too controversial, but this is like supporters of Ron Paul. Unlike supporters of Romney or Obama, Ron Paul supporters don't think you understand what they're saying but just disagree on a policy or have different values and so value different outcomes.

Ron Paul supporters think you just don't get it. There's a strain of Gnosticism in supporting Ron Paul, and there's a strain of Gnosticism in Eric's rant.

 

And, as is subtly referenced in that Facebook rant, Eric has a problem with Landon because Landon broke his record and a bunch of Landon's goals were PKs. Just like the Eddie Pope and Jessie Marsch have gotten jobs in the union/league even though they didn't play in Germany in the early 90s like Eric did so the people who hire must not know soccer.

And his comments on Kreis there are much less antagonistic than what I remember him tweeting about Jason, but I could be wrong because he's basically bashed every ex-MLS player who has gotten a coaching job.

It's all personal stuff wrapped in a 2004 Big Soccer post. And that's why it's a problem for people to get into the conversation via Eric because they're coming in thinking Eddie Pope was a **********, EPL games get 6 million viewers and MLS turned down a sweetheart deal from Fox for selfish reasons.

 

The NSCAA Convention is an open bar.

 

I'm starting to wonder if it's not just the same sort of sense of entitlement from being coddled all his life, except for a couple of years in Germany, as he's so fond of pointing out, that he complains about from the present youth soccer setup. From a soccer standpoint, I can even see how that experience did drag him out of that comfort zone and instill the sort of professional attitude that he's advocating so stridently.

From a personal standpoint, not so much. Off the field, German players are pretty self-important too.

 

yes, it's a "problem" -- but it's also a "problem" that can be easily or eventually corrected, especially if people realize that...

and/or a fair number of tweets may come from someone who is slightly buzzed.

but there's really nothing wrong with listening to the loudest -- and perhaps drunkest -- guy at the bar. (he may be ranting and not supporting his opinions all that well, and/or misrepresenting facts, but he still may have some things to say of interest.)

again, more people in or interested in the conversation is a good thing. (even if some people may come in thinking or hearing things like "Eddie Pope was a **********, EPL games get 6 million viewers and MLS turned down a sweetheart deal from Fox for selfish reasons" or that "the MLS is a retirement league" or some such nonsense.