Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'D.C. United' started by shawn12011, Sep 30, 2003.
Interesting piece Ed.
You selected three aside comments about the woeful performance of Michael Kennedy as Sunday's referee that were among the 5 or 6 I included in my post-game comments. Coincidence? Probably.
I like your slant from this piece. But, to be fair, you should include that DC United's Earnie Stewart twice tried to run out the game with stalling in the corner late in regulation time while we were UP 1-0. I was screaming for DC to keep the pedal on and keep NY defending and possibly get a second goal.
As Earnie was "fouled" (another non-call) and dispossessed, this led to NY coming upfield to get another foul and free kick.
It's slightly different stalling with the lead, but up a man, we should have keep the pressure on.
This also shows something about confidence and attitude. I attribute Earnie's actions and the Ritchie stalling as both following directions from their respective coaches.
Playing down a man, after getting a miraculous Hail Mary goal in the 96th minute...again, down a man....Richie Williams (offensive star, we all know) should have tried to swing in a left-footed cross, even though the odds are that he (exhausted) then would've had to sprint back to the other end of the field to defend. Dumb play, Richie. Really dumb. How dare you not give easy possession and a numerical advantage back to DC in OT of a tie game!
At least it wason the DC website, that explains a lot.
Mike Petke on Bob Bradley
This doesn't directly pertain to what Ed is writing about, but this other article from today shows the respect that one former metro has for the current coach:
To me this says that the players realize that Bradley is realistic on his goals and puts his players to achieve as much as they can. Clearly both team, and both teams' fans, think the tie was a moral victory for the metros and a loss for United because at this point United clearly can field the better talent.
So the Metrostars are down a man heading into overtime and have only made it to overtime because of a last second goal (which was scored will they were shorthanded), and there is surprise and condemnation that they were content to play for the tie and get a point -- a point which would keep them ahead of us in the standings...
Explain to me again why this is surprising and/or a poor coaching decision...
Ives Galarcep's lede yesterday:
"The Atlantic Cup made its way into the MetroStars locker room Sunday night, but hardly anybody noticed. Metros players walked around battered and bruised as Bob Bradley told somebody to just lay the trophy off to the side.
"This isn't one of the trophies Bradley and the Metros are focused on winning..."
Ed, you're laughably off the mark with your inference that Jonny Walker's whistling showed an insouciance that stemmed from a feeling that their low expectations were fulfilled. One player-- a guy who is, even for a goalkeeper, a bit goofy-- whistles jauntily, and you conclude that the team is now satisfied? Why didn't you go into the locker room, and find the rest of the team?
Why didn't you ask Walker, or anyone else, if he was satisfied with the trifling "Atlantic Cup"?
Didn't you used to be a real journalist?
Ah, personal abuse: the sign someone has really hit a nerve.
Or, as President Walken would say, "If Haig is mad at us, we must be doing something right.''
I'm not mad, I just think Ed Morgans is a fool.
And his column seems to be getting panned even by DC fans.
I wonder what he got paid for this stuff... anything?
And what do you think of the fact that I didn't resort to personal attack-- I observed that Ed's column simply didn't meet with any reasonable standard of journalism-- while your point seems entirely rooted in an ad hominem charge?
Does that make you just a careless reader? Or also a hypocrite? And how do you think it doesn't discredit you, to claim I'm making a mere personal attack, ignoring all content to make a personal attack yourself?
The truth hurts.
Great article Ed.
Re: Mike Petke on Bob Bradley
As far as I'm concerned, its four points from two games, with arguably the most important in the series still to come on Wednesday. The Metros, came looking for payback for Thursday, played the best they could and still were lucky to come out with a draw. Big *#*#*#*#ing deal. When you look at their record in the last two months, the Metros are on a downward spiral. Losing to conference rivals like us and New England at home is not exactly what I would call a good run-in to the playoffs.
The most important thing DC can do following Sundays game is to learn their lesson and move on. We lost that game not because BB out coached anyone but because we didn't finish our chances and we gave the ball away too often in midfield in the closing minutes. If we learn from those mistakes we can kick the Metro's ass again in Piss-that-away or wherever that cruddy stadium is.
Insightful assertion as always, Jose.
But would you mind actually answering why the column is so good? Do you realize that unreasoned opinions count less than well-reasoned ones?
This sort of thing divides the chaff from the wheat, doesn't it. Though it's usually not hard to tell which DC fans have integrity, who is a shill, and who the slackjawed imbeciles are.
if you didn't like ed's column fine. but to make fun of him as a journalist just isn't fair. ed worked his ass off at a small paper for very little money and few resources from the paper. he did a phenomenal job covering football during that time.
i know ed and i certainly don't think him a fool, and i don't, despite often disagreeing with his opinions, find haig a fool either at least from his posts which is all i know of him. i usually enjoy reading haig's posts and enjoy a good rivalry as much as the next guy, but it just doesn't seem fair to disparage ed's work as a journalist in the past or call him a fool based on his column and opinion.
I guess all the time you spend on the Metros board makes you particularly qualified to identify the slackjawed imbeciles.
The article is weakly written - the thing about JW getting a card for not handing over the Atlantic Cup to a teammate fast enough made me cringe and the boxing metaphor seemed tortured.
Because it's on the DC United site I wouldn't expect much in the way of brutal objectivity but the bias does seem a bit extreme.
I guess what gets me about that article is way that it glosses over the seemingly 100's of times United has played for a tie this year. And as for the time-wasting we're the ones who started the time wasting on Sunday, not the Metros. If you want to be irritated at anyone about that, look at Michael Kennedy who could have acted earlier to stop it.
Same goes for the Metro fans, of course -
Perhaps I'm a slackjawed imbecile, but I think you are way off base attacking Ed for his supposed lack of journalistic standards. His articles for dcunited.com are usually intended as impressionistic, light hearted opinion pieces, not match reports or investigative journalism. So what if he misinterpreted, according to you, Walker's whistling ? It's clearly his opinion, which is what the article is supposed to be about. Talking about 'journalistic standards', in this context, is missing the point. Personally I would concede that the premise of the article is a little suspect, since it made sense for Metros to play for the draw in the circumstances, and some Metros fans did make that point in a reasonable way. Unfortunately you chose to come across like a pompous ass and attack his supposed lack of journalistic standards instead.
Barb Dett et al. have made more cogent points than I have. I just find it hard to believe that DC wastes money-- no matter how little-- on this crap for their website. It seems like they should have more dignity than to bait the referees and the opponents on their official, public media outlet.
It's fanzine fare, not a story for the team website.
And "light-hearted fluff" and "crappy journalism" aren't mutually exclusive.
The club doesn't "waste" any money on Ed because he's a volunteer. Perhaps you should find out the facts before you shoot your gob off.
As for the official website publishing journalistic opinion pieces - since when was that a crime? The problem with most official websites is that they are unbelievably bland. DCU deserves a lot of credit for posting critical content and independent opinons on its website this season.
If articles like that only appeared on "fanzine" sites, what reason would there ever be to visit the official site?
If Ed is willing to write opinion pieces for free, I think dcunited.com is wise to take advantage of that and post them. I thoroughly enjoy the fact that Ed's and CWebb's pieces appear there.
As far as the piece itself, it's meant to be somewhat lighthearted, but I disagree with it. As far as I'm concerned, the Metros deserve credit for getting a point under pretty difficult circumstances. If we were on the road with our main offensive weapon ejected, I think we'd have done the same thing (in fact, we have done the same thing). Bob Bradley is a damn good coach; they are lucky to have him.
Why thank you.
You must be one of those Bonfire of the Vanity wannabe type people, what do they call them something of the universe...
Tell me, which part didn't you understand?
Doesn't matter if Ed volunteers-- swill is swill. "Get my facts straight" indeed.
And there are surely better ways to enliven the website than to publish crap inferences about how the Metros are resting on the laurels of the laughable Atlantic Cup based on Crazy Jonny Walker whistling a breezy tune after the game. Especially when Ed could have determined the importance of the trophy to that team with virtually no effort.
It was a puff piece that looked to celebrate all things DCU at the expense of other teams and the referees, and it seems to have embarrassed everyone but Ed, Jose, and you.
So Clint-like in it's boldness!
Jose, I like your spirit, but do you ever make sense?
If that's so then why do you insist upon measuring it against standards to which the piece - by your account - doesn't aspire?
Quite frankly I find it hard to believe that you have nothing better to do than pick on an article that is on a rival website. One tough guy.
You should buy a sense of humor, if you know where to look.
Perhaps it's not your cup of tea.