It might be worthwhile on occasion for fans to sum up how women's soccer journalism fails us in a way that at least has the possibility of being constructive and pushing for change. I mean, we can kvetch all day about journalists; it's what we do about everything, but trying to identify certain themes or areas where the journalists fall short could be more constructive than endless bitching. I don't expect journalists to listen to us as a general rule. In fact, it's interesting (perhaps revealing) who they listen to at all (mainly themselves but also a select subset of fans on a subset of issues). But maybe if we hammer away at a few things, something will get through. Refereeing In favor of WoSo journalists, they care, as we fans do, about the safety of players, consistently asking that referees apply the laws to protect the players. In the men's game, half the Premier League fans don't think cards are called for unless a player tackles their opponent with their cleats. "Studs" is the only s-word in their vocabulary, apparently never having heard the word "scissors" Nor can we blame journalists for not knowing what a handball is because no one knows what a handball is anymore. But what is going to get very tiring very quickly when the NWSL season starts are all the shots taken at the league and its referees. Certainly it's our birthright as fans to bitch about the referees, but it's not serious criticism if you don't recognize that a lot of the worst refereeing in the world is being done in the English Premier League on a weekly basis. (Check out the BigSoccer Ref Forum to see how bad it is) Also, WoSo journalists seem to think VAR is a high priority for the NWSL and the women's game in general, a quick way to improve refereeing. I think that's largely a deluded belief. I anticipate we'll talk about it more in the NWSL Forum as the season gets under way VLATKO Journalists don't have to think VLATKO is an idiot anymore than any of us fans are obligated to, but the degree to which VLATKO has been given a pass and not subjected to the tough, skeptical questioning that anyone in such a high profile in sports would take for granted is just mind-boggling. It's been left entirely up to folks like us at Big Soccer to even acknowledge that FIRE VLATKO NOW is a normal sports topic whether it's punctuated with !!! or ?!?! TV Commentary Why can't any journalists speak up for us fans who have put up far too long with "expert analysts" who drone on endlessly about their preset "narratives", even when something else is happening on the pitch? xG / Expected Goals xG stats and analysis has quickly appeared everywhere in the men's game because it's a highly useful stat. Why don't WoSo Journalists use it? Kim McCauley, who doesn't feature on any of the major outlets, is about the only WoSo journalist intelligently using xG stats and analysis Tactical Analysis Speaking of stats and tactical analysis, most WoSo journalism is sadly lacking in it. Admittedly, it's a difficult skill and so, perhaps, goes further down the list on what we should expect. But frankly I think some threads at BigSoccer have been far more insightful and interesting about tactics than almost anything published by the professional journos. International Coverage I know some fans at Equalizer Soccer get frustrated by the spotty international coverage. Perhaps this goes further down in the list of complaints as it's only natural for a (primarily) American outlet with limited resources to focus on America. Still, especially in a World Cup year, you'd think we could hear more about what's going with the lockout of Spanish players as well as coverage of the German national team, the #2 team in the world and one of the serious contenders at this year's World Cup Crystal Dunn I realize this is a controversial selection which many here will disagree with, but partly because it's a contentious and divisive issue it should get more coverage from journalists. But of course because it brings up issues of race that most people want to sweep under the rug, it gets swept under the rug Trans-gender issues Another controversial one and I may be in such a minority it belongs way down on the list, but I think it's at least worth a mention. WoSo journalists, as a group, have embraced the beliefs and assumptions of a vocal group of trans-gender activists. Certainly they are right to be concerned with the safety of a vulnerable minority. But the issue is, I believe, more complicated than that and at some point, maybe not now, we're going to have to examine the assumptions that WoSo journalists are rushing to accept.
There's a lot to chew on there. I would add 'College Coverage' as a category, as women's soccer here (and even internationally, to a certain extent), still runs through college (in a way that the men's game no longer does, or at least now to a much lesser degree). Presumably, our colleges and universities promote their own women's soccer programs, and there is some media coverage. A lot of games are streamed, but the quality of coverage, commentary, and reporting must vary widely. A substantial upgrade there could pay significant dividends - with a long-term 'multiplier' effect.
I think most journalists covering women's soccer are reluctant to criticize coaches and players, because they perceive their job is to promote the sport rather than criticize it. I agree that the use of VAR is not likely to result in much if any better officiating -- and it comes at the cost of taking a lot of time and upsetting the flow of a match. I love statistics and the U.S. national team (unlike the NWSL) close-holds statistics. (I assume the National Team collects and uses statistics.) I'd like to see more openness on stats such as touches, completed passes, key passes, secondary assists, etc. One thing I would like to see is the off-side rule liberalized, maybe to say that to be offside most of the body has be beyond the last defender. That wouldn't reduce the controversies about off-side, but it would eliminate off-side calls when an attacker has only a toe-nail beyond the defender.
I mostly agree but I think that in a lot of cases you are being too "nice." The "perceptions" that journalists strive to publicize more than report is quite correct as that is the only way, other than total incompetence, to explain the lack of detailed reporting or hard questioning that exists throughout the women's game. VAR makes officiating much worse as it allows the refs to not make hard decisions because VAR will correct mistakes. It also, by things like the horrendously delayed offside calls that gives a player the chance to get an injury on a totally meaningless play. That is VAR is a crutch that supports poor officiating. But your last two points are, I believe, quite wrong. Statistics are not good for anything except supporting preconceived notions. The offside law does NOT need to be changed. It is just fine as it is it is the way it is used and the way that VAR interferes that is wrong. I think that if referees actually take some responsibility for making calls correct the first time and we only use VAR for things like "ball over the goal line" and "serious foul play" (both to give and remove red cards) soccer would be better. The very idea that the calls must be "perfect" is simply wrong. Let the players play the game and the on field referees call it and use VAR in a much more limited way is the way to improve soccer. Not by changing the laws or by adding more horrid delays is soccer "improved." VAR and the way it is misused everywhere is the greatest contributor to bad soccer there is. I guess journalists like it because it gives them more to jabber on about but, except for potential red cards, it really contributes nothing to the play of the game. I have watched quite a few matches recently where VAR was not used and I have seen zero instances where its lack made the game worse. But, in the many top matches where VAR gets implemented, I have not seen even one instance where the game has been made either better or safer by the use of VAR. Either EVERYTHING needs to be called by VAR or nothing does. This half way measure is simply a way to reinforce The notion that "soccer is boring." But, maybe, referees like VAR because it relieves them of responsibility. And, maybe, fans like VAR because it gives them a chance to buy another beer. It really does not improve soccer.
Are you implying that Dunn doesn't get to play midfield in front of Horan or Rose because of race? If so, what is your rationale for Vlatko letting Pugh and Smith lead us in scoring? Or Ashley Sanchez getting starts in the midfield over Kristie Mewis and Taylor Korniek? Or his obvious favor for Catarina Macario as a 9 or 10? Did he "make" Alana Cook play her desired position because of race? Dunn is not a starting midfielder at this level. She is a world class outside back though. Any coach with a brain would play her there. And, if she wanted to only play one position between club and country there is nothing stopping her from asking her club to play her at left back. Kristie Mewis, Huerta, O'Hara and Korniek (among others) have dealt with position switches.Was that about race too? It really is not a big deal if you are a team player, and Dunn has been a left back for essentially her entire national team career.
That's a plausible point to make but the larger point is racism, like sexism, can be as subtle as it is pervasive. We elected a black President. Does that mean racism doesn't still exist? In fact, some people are eager to use the fact we elected Barack Obama (twice even!) as proof we don't have to worry about racism anymore! Whose purpose does such a dismissal serve? Racists. The same ones who use their pious quotations of Martin Luther King to prove that racism isn't a problem anymore. We help them by not calling it out. Women should be able to speak about the added barriers placed on their advancement in the workplace. I should, too; I feel bad a thousand examples don't leap to mind of all the times I've read about it. Both racism and sexism persist even when they can't be maintained absolutely, even when all women or all blacks or minorities can't be barred absolutely. Full equality is still denied. Full equality is still kept a distant dream.
Should Gio Reyna get to pout and call out the coach for not playing him, or should he be a team player and understand his role on the team? Dunn making a decision to go to the media about her complaints can cause team issues. I doubt Vlatko would mind if she came to him personally, but taking it to the media is not good for team culture. How would it work for you if you called out your boss in the media? My guess is you would be fired.
It might be good to remember this thread is specifically about journalists, not the coach. We have other threads to deal with VLATKO It's easy to get confused, but we should be addressing here the question of why journalists have been so quick to drop the Crystal Dunn story. That it became an issue at all is in part thanks to a few of them bringing up her playing out of position and her long-known dissatisfaction over it. That's normal sports journalism. It would be hard story to completely ignore. But it's telling how uncomfortable the circle of women's soccer journalists are with the story and how anxious they were to run away from it. Why? We very much still have a hard time dealing with racism in America. It's not an easy thing. But some us who speak and act in good faith have a moral obligation to try
"her playing out of position" says who? Her best position is clearly outside back as she is one of the best in the world there. The media dropped it because Vlatko commented on it, and then Dunn backtracked on her statements. What else do you want them to talk about on this? According to you they should be interviewing Mewis, Korniek, Huerta, O'Hara and countless others who have changed positions over the year/years.
We're going to need a thread dedicated to Crystal Dunn (I'm not kidding) but let's just say again that none of Dunn's club coaches have played her as a defender. Kelly O'Hara, for example, couldn't cut it as a forward in NWSL. After her first few years none of her club coaches have seen her as a starting forward or midfielder on their teams. There is every reason for there to be a story and it's also an entirely fair question to ask whether it's not more of a story because of race
I think the Dunn story is old, old news, is well known, and it is just fine for her to have expressed her opinion. I have seen absolutely nothing that suggests race has anything to do with why she is playing outside back on the USWNT. I also have seen absolutely nothing that suggests any players on the USWNT (or Vlatko) have had a problem with her expressing her feelings about where she is playing. Some journalists have tried to make something of it, but they thrive on controversy and sometimes try to create it when there is none. To be honest, unless posters have concrete evidence, I would prefer they not dream up and post negative hypotheses. It just feeds all the negativity that is out there, of which there already is plenty. If someone has concrete evidence of anything, let us see it.
Every national team coach has played her as an outside back. So what is the story? That she is upset about it and backtracked after being called out by the general public (and likely talked to by her coach)? The national team is a much higher level than club. I guess my examples of Mewis, Korniek, Huerta don't garner a response? They put on their big girl pants and played where the coach thought was best for the team. Imagine that - such unselfish team players. This is how team sports work. Me, myself and I - Crystal Dunn - is selfish.
Unfortunately, topics like this one are hard to discuss. Especially in anonymous forums. The issue of race is not going to be one where you get concrete evidence very often. Is it possible that she feels the opportunity to be scoring threat and face of the team is impacted by factors other than ability to execute in that role? Maybe. Has she expressed it? No idea? Does that make her selfish? I dont think so. As far as national team being much higher than Club? Not sure i buy that. I think its different for sure, but higher? in what way? A lot of factors play into NT selections.
The evidence is the double-standard. The evidence is that it's only a black player on the US who is treated or spoken of as unqualified to play an attacking role even when she's an established star in attacking roles for her clubs and for her club coaches. The evidence of double-standards is even in the arguments used to deny there's a double-standard. I countered the Kelly O'Hara example. I'm not obliged to refute every single example someone decides they want to throw on the wall, but, for example, how is Taylor Kornieck even a good-faith counter-example? She did well in her second season in NWSL, but, please we're treating her as a star?! After a rookie season which was largely forgettable playing for the largely forgettable Orlando team. It's fine and natural that individual fans have individual opinions on different players — and we're fortunate that everyone here (unlike some places on the internet) at least acknowledges Dunn's excellence as left back for the US — but when fringe views are treated by a larger group as if they're serious views seriously contemplated by a serious number of fans — when they're not, when they're only tolerated because it gives us excuses to not talk about a sensitive subject — Guess what, folks, that's what pervasive racism is, passive racism, because it's not resulting from people who are actively malicious. That's what history is *** We really could use a dedicated thread for Crystal Dunn and, you know me, I'm not shy about starting one as I don't want this thread to completely derail itself over her. We should be talking about referees, for example, and how useless WoSo journalism has been at dealing with referee-related issues. We'll probably wind up mainly talking about referees for the next few months in the NWSL sub-forum, but I want to point out in advance that when journalists instantly bemoan the refereeing in the NWSL 90% of the time it's lazy journalism. Certainly NWSL referees should be critiqued, but it's lazy because there are deep problems with refereeing even in the men's game, even at what are supposed to be some of the highest levels like the Premier League and the Champions League. You can't solve a problem if you can't correctly identify it and simply blaming NWSL referees will accomplish nothing when the problems are deeper and widespread even in the men's game.
I don't believe there's any evidence that Dunn's assignment as a defender on the National Team is related to race. If Dunn has a problem, it's based on her versatility rather than her race. She can literally play anywhere -- and do well at it. Versatile players tend to get pushed around from position to position which is what has happened to Dunn. Likewise, I am mildly offended by the notion that fullback is an inferior position compared to forward or midfielder. The real issue for Dunn in my opinion is can she, age 30, recover her pre-pregnancy form? I haven't been overly impressed with her since she returned to the lineup late last year.
I realize that living on the internet means we all have the cultural memories of gnats. But before VAR people also fucking hated refereeing and thought all the officials were terrible and ruining the game.— Mike L. Goodman (@TheM_L_G) March 23, 2023 I was wrong about VAR I thought it would be way more helpful. Honestly I still think there are things it would be helpful for (not getting away with elbowing a guy on the other side of the pitch/blatant flops) but it's clear it can't be trusted not to ruin the game right now.— Joel Wertheimer (@Wertwhile) March 23, 2023 I'm grateful for the candor and I said so on Twitter. I also said maybe it's too late to put the genie back in the bottle. What I didn't say (not directly at any rate) was that journalists should have been going to places like the BigSoccer Ref Forum to better understand how refs see the game. But maybe it's too late now ADD — I mentioned TV Commentary in the original post. Do we have any bloody WoSo journalists willing to call out the "referee experts" on TV, like Christina Unkel, for being generally worthless mouthpieces for the governing bodies and the referee associations?
TV Commentary Why can't any journalists speak up for us fans who have put up far too long with "expert analysts" who drone on endlessly about their preset "narratives", even when something else is happening on the pitch? I assume that because this continues to be the norm, its what people want.
from misidentifying players to sounding like they have been given a script to read, I have made my feelings known. Julie Foudy is a prime example. Everything is about who scores and pace. I find her analysis limited and hard to listen to
I'm of the old-fashioned opinion that journalists should generally stick to facts, and not opinions, except in clear analysis/opinion pieces. So, I'm not sure why they should "call out" someone, especially if that's not their opinion? And as for mine, I happen to think Unkel almost always offers insight when she's on. She's not Dr. Joe in that she was a FIFA referee and is also PRO VAR-certified. Seems a bit odd to me also to have these back-to-back paragraphs. Unkel is an expert on how referees see the game (and gets a lot of respect in the Referee forum). The BS Ref Forum, while offering a lot of insight, is mostly full of amateur referees who've never refereed professionally or with VAR (with, I think, a few exceptions). Personally, I think anyone who wants a better understanding of a referee's perspective should take a referee course and referee youth soccer for a season. While I can't stand Lalas for other reasons, I do give him credit for doing exactly that. One season of refereeing won't make anyone an expert, but I think it'll help them realize how much of an expert they are NOT.
Everyone's heard that JJ is back in town and she's determined to be even better. "I don't even want to go back and be the player that I was because I want to be better."Julie Ertz is back with the #USWNT for the first time in over 19 months. She spoke about why she decided to return — and why now — plus her #NWSL future.➡️ https://t.co/XjoZsSgm9k pic.twitter.com/NZFZs609hP— The Equalizer (@EqualizerSoccer) April 5, 2023 That's the kind of quote which grabs attention. That's the kind of thing we love about her. The question is when? Why do WoSo Journalists find it so hard to put a little perspective in their reporting? I'm a fan of Julie Ertz, like everyone else, and if anyone can come back at 30 after playing only 6 games in TWO YEARS, it's JJ. But all of this is in the context of returning to the US national team for its last friendlies before the World Cup. Our expectation is she's going to be a better player in 3 months after barely playing for two years? Here we go again, taking a team with built-in excuses for losing. If we lose, well, you know it's tough when Julie Ertz is only 80% back from her injury and having a baby. *** OK, "calling out" wasn't the best choice of words, when, as you say it may not be their opinion. But critiquing the TV production is par for the course for sports journalism. And it's a journalists job to ask the questions their readers want asked — but of course, if we wish, we can dismiss the grumblings of someone at BigSoccer as being that of a tiny minority. If you're happy with the blabber on TV, I guess we should all be happy. *** Brad Pitt's going to need the writers to change the script: "Let's be honest with each other, JJ. I'm not paying for the player you used to to be, I'm paying you... Wait, what's that? You're going to be a better player than you were before?!" at 0'36 of the video clip from Moneyball
As a regular in press conference and mixed zone, all I can say is there are questions that you can ask and some that you cannot ask. In press conference, the press officer chooses who can ask questions. Also back in 2019 at the WWC, the US WNT press officer banned a French reporter from the mixed zone for the next games after the Chile game. To be fair, she is a bit of an idiot, but still, her mixed zone request was denied while her colleague's one got validated.
"Fawning" is, I think, the word I've been looking for to describe our press when it comes to the US national team. Some of our fans in France must tell us how they managed, for better or worse, to get both Corinne Diacre and Noël Le Graët canned when journalists have so much responsibility to be deferential and acquiescent
In my opinion, many woso journalists often fail to critically analyse and question staff and players. Others know better than I what questions/topics are off limits as has been mentioned previously here. I wonder if perhaps the fairly rapid, recent rise of woso and women’s sports over the past decade has effectively thrown many journos into the spotlight who may not have much structured experience where they could have learned how to work around these guidelines. I know early in the NWSL and W-League days a lot of the journos were essentially fans writing about woso as a side gig and they have now become some of the big names covering the leagues (which is super cool btw, but also a little bit flying by the seat of their pants and figuring things out on the go, I’d imagine!) Another limitation, to me, is the presence of opinions and the immediate nature of sports coverage via Twitter and the like (obviously this is not exclusive to woso). Today’s game vs Ireland had a couple of injuries that immediately were pounced upon by fans and media alike, stating a player should have been subbed out after her first contact and then speculating on the nature of both her injuries. While I understand human curiosity, and again stressing this is not just a women’s soccer issue, to me it is unprofessional for members of the media to speculate on such matters in a “rush to be first” type manner. To my knowledge, none of these journos have medical training and two of them have since deleted their tweets and posted apologies for jumping to conclusions. I suppose this is the nature of the current online world but just like I personally would hesitate to give my personal opinion when a patient asks what they should do, when it comes to reporting I prefer facts without the emotion. On another, perhaps slightly contradictory, note - I really enjoy reading opinions on, eg, who should be starting or who should make a roster when it comes down to people interpreting players’ strengths/weaknesses differently, but for reporting news I’d rather not hear or read opinions on the management of complicated medical situations. If it came out later that a certain player did in fact suffer a concussion prior to another injury then of course we should be told about it however medical staff have protocols for a reason and reading 5 or 6 different journos saying they’ve done their job wrong irks me.
Fully agree, I can see in press conference and mixed zones those like me who have learnt on the job and those who have studied in journalist schools after high-school. If you are over critical or incoherent with your questions the players or coach will not engage.There is a fine line, for example there was a game in Feb 2015 when I spoke to Jill Ellis. It was interesting then I spoke to Kelley O'Hara and the content was so bad, it never got published.