MLS Cup a Major Snoozer - South Coast Daily Pro Soccer in Area remains a Possibility - Daily Oklahoman Fond Memories for Bradley - Chicago Daily Herald Sounders find Home at Seahawks Stadium - Seattle Times Seattle will play at Seahawks Stadium - Seattle Post-Intelligencer Rampage's Sucevic interviewing Friday for Fire Job - Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel Galaxy shoots for Another Cup - Whittier Daily News more to come -jim
don't even bother reading the MLS Cup is a snoozer article, some old fart spitting out the same antisoccer, it's boring, they don't score, can't stay awake..bull crap. Soccer can't compare to baseball blah blah blah....hurry up and retire from journalism out of touch idiot
"The MLS playoff system works on a point format with the first team to accumulate five points advancing to the next round. Three points are awarded for a win and one for a tie, meaning any series could run from two to five games and four of those five games could end without a winner (scoreless tie). " Damn. Our playoff system really could be worse. Well, same old same old from this guy, but... I can't say that I found the match to be among the most compelling I've seen from MLS this year, and the only reason I'll remember it at all is because it was the final. That, and because Franchino momentarily thought he was playing for El Tri and tried to tear Cobi's head off.
Galaxy looks to Double up on Titles in 2002 - Orange County Register Metros' Clint kicks Himself - N.Y. Daily News Mexico makes Surprise Pick in Team Coach - L.A. Times Crew can End Title Drought - Columbus Dispatch
Snoozer Hey , let's face it . i t wasn't a very exciting game. It was actually pretty boring. Most Finals do become defensive minded. remember we had arguably the 2 best defensive teams out on th pitch. I love and play soccer , wish I could see more on TV. But the fact remains that sometimes you get a stinker of a game to watch on TV. IMO
What a moron...The overall skill level in soccer can' compare to baseball or football. Puh-leeze. I am sure he has tried... He also said pro soccer can't be taken seriously...funny, 61,000 fans seemed to take it pretty seriously on Sunday, and the rising attendance seems to indicate that it is. Oh well, all I can do is laugh at this old fart who won't do anything but get a bunch of other old farts and Frank DeFord to agree with him. What the hell paper does he right for, he must be a great writer if he is writing for the "South Coast Standard-Times" I think his skill level can't compare to a legitimate sportswriter
"Don't read it", so of course I did: "Three, maybe four times I caught a glimpse of the soccer game while channel surfing." Oh good, an in-depth analysis of 3-4 times while channel surfing. What, was the American football game so exciting he had to surf at all? "The most amazing thing about that game was how the 61,316 people in attendance were able to stay awake. An hour and 52-or-so minutes of action and all both teams can muster is 26 shots -- a mere seven (count 'em, seven) on goal and just one by the Revolution. At least two of the 27 outs in Don Larsen's perfect game during the 1956 World Series came close to being hits." 2 of 27 outs were ALMOST hits for 3 hours of baseball. oh my gawd, that would be equivalent to, uh, 2 of 27 shots being on goal? good thing there were 7 of 26 on goal for almost 2 hours of play. Or is that 7 grounders vs. 19 pop-flies/strike-outs before someone crossed the plate? Thanks, I feel better, panties are again un-bunched.
Wow--is that guy a dinosaur. I guess it's a good thing that we rarely see these articles anymore, whereas, five years ago they were commonplace. I know I shouldn't let it bother me--but it is truly disgusting that soccer is not allowed to have a bad game in this country. (I didn't think it was the worst game I have ever seen, but I was disappointed by it...) MLS had a boring championship game. Oh, damn the entire sport then!
seahawks stadium is fieldturf boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo i'd prefer they keep that out of mls, i realize the metros are probably leaving grass and the fire are still playing on some fake crap for next year... but we don't need any new teams coming in on crap
Need we go over this again. FieldTurf is the good stuff. Its different than what the Fire are playing on. FieldTurf is used in many European training grounds and some game fields. FieldTurf is approved by FIFA on a case by case basis and according to FieldTurf's publicity installations are consistent. I know people that have played on FieldTurf and love it.
At the risk of sounding like the AntiChrist, I'd rather play on FieldTurf than all but the very best grass surfaces in the world. I was there when the Sounders opened up the stadium, and in speaking with a couple of the Sounders, they too were impressed with the surface. The ball plays true, and the surface feels true when you walk, run, and make cuts on it. We're not talking astroturf here.
What are the Fire playing on? Is it NextTurf? I was under the impression that Cardinal Stadium was in fact field turf.
FieldTurf may be ok for what it is, but please it is not "good stuff." It is still artificial, just furrier and softer than AstroCrap 1.0.
By the way, I'm not a fan of any kind of artificial surfaces, if they can possibly be avoided, but I would prefer this debate to the usual array of reactions to a soccer basher, like "huh huh, he's old" or "baseball sucks" and the dreaded "here's-what-I-wrote-in-my-Email-to-him" when what follows is a semi-literate diatribe that makes me want to start watching NASCAR for the sophisticated banter of their fans.
Get on FIFA's website and read what they have to say about Field Turf. Norway, Alaska, Northern Germany etc. makes their case apparantly. Little sunlight during winter months, excessive shade etc. The crux of the matter is that any plastic retains heat (i.e. the problems at Naperville) and the foundation underneath becomes hard over time. Artificial turf of any kind never has proven to be soccer friendly, especially during USA summers. Oh sure, initally the players think it's great, but eventually they change their minds. For over thirty years we've been told "this new brand of turf is the best, it's different, it's improved", but it never is. I wish you proponets of the stuff would come to realize that fact.
care to link me to what FIFA says about FieldTurf? One of the features of FieldTurf is that it doesnt heat up like SafePlay at NCC in Naperville does.
The real question is, if you had a choice of watching a game on turf or grass what would you choose? I would 100% of the time say grass.. I hate turf in baseball, american football and Naperville. Mls should try to avoid partnerships with stadiums that use turf of any kind, but if there is no other option there is no other option. we have to live with it until something else can be done.
Regarding the Buddy Thomas soccer is boring opinion piece, it's clear the guy never played or particpated in the game. That's the key. Just like cricket is something most of us don't have a taste for (foreign, don't know the rules, have no rooting interest in teams, etc.), he doesn't have a taste for soccer. Big deal. As time passes, more people will have a connection, and they won't share his opinion, which is a reflection of his inexperience. In any event, his article is a big cliche. You could take him to task on it, but having labored to reach his journalistic pinnacle in New Bedord, you're not going to change that guy's mind. As for soccer being a relatively unskilled game, as a high school football lineman, I can personally attest to the fact that soccer demands much more skill (and endurance). If that old buzzard had done more than warm a chair at his local Dunkin Donuts during his youth, maybe he'd know how wrong he is.