Well, I'm not a fan of either team but in all reality, this was a toss-up between Marshall and Dempsey.. The real crimes committed during end of the year voting was Guevara winning MVP and Ching winning Comeback Player of the Year.. The arguments being made on this particular subject seem pretty weak in comparison to the real tragedy of Moreno and Cannon being left at the alter.. Dempsey and Marshall were both deserving of the award and I'm not suprised that both players are being defended by their loyal fans.. With that being said however, my votes goes just slightly to Dempsey for the reason that he was a player that gave my team United a lot of trouble, and other teams as well, this season.. Chad Marshall to me will be an elite player in this league and for the USA in due time, I just wasn't as threatened by him when I saw him.. Dempsey really stood out for me most times that I watched the Revs while Marshall seemed a part of a really solid back line of defense, not really sticking out.. Fraser was the player to me that stepped to the forefront for Columbus this season.. Perhaps if Marshall had been playing in his natural central defensive spot, he might have been more visable.. He'll get his opportunity in due time..
he played 24 out of 30, starting 23. he only missed 6 games. he played 4 games fewer than Marshall. 4. 4. 4. can i get that through? Dempsey 2024 minutes. Marshall 2446 minutes. Diference is 422 minutes, less than 5 games. Less than 20% of the season as a difference. Dempsey played about 75% of all minutes this season. As for doing nothing since returning, didn't he score a goal in a 2-1 victory during the last game of the season that put NE in the playoffs?
In a way, you guys are arguing from both sides when it suits you. And, before the flames begin, I'm not talking about any individual poster, just the arguments in general. I keep hearing that the only reason that people voted for Dempsey was because he scored goals. Now, he shouldn't have gotten it because he didn't score enough goals. Dempsey was (as Bill seems to know) a defensive midfielder for the bulk of the year. And anyone who saw the Revs play very much is well aware that the midfield play dropped off when he wasn't in there. He's a real battler, has a great node for where to be, and can really unbalance a defense with his dribbling. And, yes, he does have flair, which probably didn't hurt in the voting. But he added as much to the Revs aside from his goals as Marshall did to the crew. As for his injury, the reason that I brought it up wasn't because I thought they should extrapolate his production over the games that he missed (which is the main reason I expected Marshall to win), it was because it's a good example of his toughness. I'm sure there are at least a few Crew fans that will grudgingly admit that playing (and scoring) with a broken jaw is something you'd like to see in your own players. This (along with the rest of my argument) isn't meant as a slight to Marshall, who seems to have the same trait.
Two worthy candidates..... like PK's, too bad someone has to lose (Sorry, that was DC/Revs... Columbus didn't get that far did they?) Marshall was surperb at his position all year.... playing next to the Defender of the Year... Dempsey was a leader on the field and produced in a number of ways at several positions on a sickenly disfunctional team for most of the season.... Congrats to both players, we are lucky to have them now and for the future. And thank God Adu didn't get it.... then we could all be crying our beer....
Dempsey was out for 2 or 3 games, that's not a long time. Also he did scored after he came back from injury. Any Revs fan will tell you Dempsey's level did drop off when he came back from injury but he did regain it the last few games of the season. Yes, Marshall got smoked by Twellman and Dempsey wiggles through 3 defenders and gets an assist. He did, with an injured 2nd and a resurging 3rd. Frankly it is close to arguable because that is what we are doin now. Marshall didn't have a phenominal ENTIRE season, he had a good season for a rookie at his position. He wasn't an All-Star, nor a Best XI. Dempsey was at least one of those. So Dempsey might have scored 7 goals and might have carried the Revs on their back through the poor stretches of their season? [quoe]It's a disgrace, just like the "Oh, let's find an award we can give to little Freddy so maybe MLS will get a few more mentions in the MSM." meme. This league manipulates everything, and the year-end awards are no exception.[/quote] So are you arguing that Frasier and Andrulis are jokes and that they shouldn't have won their respected awards.
To take the last first, if anyone doubts that I think Andrulis was unworthy of winning anything but a pink slip, they should peruse the Crew Forum a bit. The man is a boil on the ass of American soccer. As for Fraser, I thought his impact was felt not as much by his play (which at times was only average and I can think of at least a couple truly awful mistakes) as by his mentoring of Marshall and, to a lesser extent, Akwari and Herdsman. But since I don't think that necessarily disqualifies him from being named DOTY, I won't argue that one either way. The real question you mean to ask is: "Was Fraser more deserving of DOTY than Marshall was of ROTY?" and to me at least Marshall just really stood out.- As to the fact that arguing about something means that it's arguable, I suppose it's not worth - er - arguing about. Bottom line for me is the fact that - admit it or no - it was the goal scoring that got Dempsey noticed. It's not easy for a defensive midfielder to get a bunch of media attention, regardless of how "cohesive" or "effective" the midfield is or is not depending on whether he's on the field. It was the GOALS that made people sit up and take notice. You simply cannot argue (well OK, maybe you can but not believeably) that if he had scored no goals this year that he would have beaten out Marshall for ROTY.
If Dempsey didn't score any goals this year, Marshall would have been ROTY. But Dempsey's game is scoring goals. He can control the midfield and make runs and finish them off. That is the type of player he is, and that's how he won the RoTY. So yes, no one can argue that without the goals Dempsey wouldn't have won RoTY.
Can't disagree on the couple of awful mistakes but Fraser was a rock solid leader in the back. I don't think the Crew would have made it as far as we did in the regular season on "average" considering the youth out left (Marshall and Wingert) and the merry-go-round out right (Oughton, Hejduk, Wingert, Akwari, Sanneh). I'm surprised DOTY hasn't been challenged as much. Not taking away from Fraser's accomplishments but Marshall for ROTY is at best questionable, at worst a slap in the face. When you look at what made the Crew this season, it was our solid defense with Fraser and Marshal being the most consistent players in front of the usually solid Busch.
Grouchy- I think Fraser kind of won by default. He didn't have a stellar year, but no one else did, either. Pope had an inconsistent year by all accounts, and Bocanegra left for the Old World. Both of those players could have won the award if they were playing every week in MLS. But Fraser played the soccer of his life he deserves this award. Conrad is the only player one could lefitamately argue should have won.
Yes, he did have a phenominal ENTIRE season. You can count his mistakes on one hand. He was regularly assigned the opposition's best striker, and routinely marked the guy completely out of the match. Not only should he have won the ROTY award, he was more deserving for a Best XI spot than Pope was. The real travesty about the goals is - had Marshall knocked in one or two goals (and he was excruciatingly close; a few posts and at least one cleared off the line) he would have walked away with this award. No doubt in my mind. Goals are important, but in my mind the guys putting the bulge in the bag are usually overvalued, and the guys doing the work in the trenches undervalued.
What you're saying is probably true, that Dempsey wouldn't have beaten out Marshall if he hadn't scored any goals this year. Maybe if Marshall had scored a few goals he might have won it. But, to be just as honest, if Dempsey hadn't been injured he would have run away with the award.
See, this is exactly what I have a problem with. This is absolutely nothing but speculation. YOU may think it's obvious that Dempsey would have kept on the way he was. That's fine, believe what you want. Just don't demand that I believe it too.
But Dempsey WAS injured and there was a "slump" of form in the middle of the season when he was coming back from that injury.
You're right. It's pure speculation that Dempsey would have run away with the award if he wasn't injured. Just like it's pure speculation on your part that Marshall would have won the award if Dempsey had scored fewer goals, despite your claim that it can't be argued. What is a fact is that, in spite of Dempsey's injury and "slump of form" in his first few games back from injury, he was still the rookie of the year. If you want to cling to the belief that Dempsey would have been seen as having a worse year if he han't been either out of play or a little out of form for a quarter of the season, suit yourself.
OK, but he didn't score them. And even if he had, one or two goals wouldn't have been the difference between not winning and walking away with it.
I don't want to speak for him, but my argument is that goals are the only thing most of the voters look at, which is pretty fvcked up.
Don't bother - the point was obvious except to stupordave, who is a mindless douchebag of the first order. Other than completely mischaracterizing what I said, you've done a splendid job here. In fact, I'm not even sure what you're SAYING I said. This is absolute rubbish. For the record, what I'm saying is simply that you have to take what happened on the field, not what MIGHT have happened on the field. Dempsey had part of a good year. Marshall had a good whole year. Don't complicate it.
Sorry for confusing you. Here's what you said: "You simply cannot argue (well OK, maybe you can but not believeably) that if he had scored no goals this year that he would have beaten out Marshall for ROTY." Here's how I "mischaracterized" your statement: "Just like it's pure speculation on your part that Marshall would have won the award if Dempsey had scored fewer goals, despite your claim that it can't be argued." Where's the mischaracterization? What I'm saying is that people did take into account what happened on the field, including things like goals you score, and they chose Dempsey. While Marshall was, in fact, good the whole year, when Clint played he might have been a little bit better.