DCU-KC is an example of how exciting MLS matches can be

I wish I could say the same about the C-Bus and RSL game, right of the bat I didn't like the carpet that they were playing on and second what a borefest of the beautiful game. These guys are the killing the game of soccer..

 

So do we mandate at least one team has a crap defense? That'll really get those NFL fans to like soccer.

 

Yeah forget the NF of L fan, he's on to arena ball cuz the score is NBA like... they like the scores in the 70's to the 60's and to they like to know if their team holds the other team in the 50's you have a doomsday defense....

 

A bit of a mischaracterization there... While the Madden-folks might like 40-35, the 30-year-old+ fans love 10-7 football games. A "defensive struggle," they'd say. I'd actually say that the younger demographics who like soccer fit more in line with those who like high scoring NFL games.

I don't see how anyone who likes the game of football can get into Arena Football, mind you.

Also, having been at the game, the atmosphere was indeed great. I'll have the games be more "boring" if it means DC doesn't give up 4 goals a game. There's nothing really entertaining about giving the ball to Eddie Johnson and letting him run right past you.

EDIT: I would also add that there's nothing entertaining about any attack that takes advantage of Facundo Erpen being stupid. That is unless you're Eric Wynalda.

 

DC are shite, have great forwards and attacking mids, but shite defense and defensive mids!

RedBulls will outshine United from here on out in east...oh yeah...we have a nice new stadium to look forward too in addition to the winning!

 

Ah, in the past I would have replied, but in our current state of humility no response will be forthcoming.

the soccer gods must be appeased.

However, I really can't resist this...in the spirit of your greatness, you really need to enlarge your avatar. Maybe some Enzyte?

 

Ok i actually picked your team to finish first in the east with my Revs coming in second.But shouldn't you at least wait till you beat them before you start foaming at the mouth.Man that first DC-Red Bulls game of the season can't come soon enough.It's gonna be fun.

 

When defending the "low scoring nature of soccer" I love to and often bring up the NFL. When some NFL fan says to me "I can't get into soccer, there's not enough scoring and it's just too boring" I love to make these (although some are not great, it often gets them thinking) analogies/comparisons/questions/whatever they're called.

1. Let's consider 1 touchdown to be the equivalent of 1 goal. Those 21-7 and 14-10 games would only be 3-1 and 2-1, are you loving those high scores now?
2. As a neutral supporter which would you rather see, a 70 yard bomb with the WR going out at the one-yard line or a team run 18 consecutive plays resulting in a one-yard touchdown run? In soccer, even if it doesn't result in a goal there are plenty of breathtaking exciting runs/plays that are just as exciting as that 70 toss and infinitely more exciting than a boring touchdown.
3. Are you really that excited to have to sit through 2.5 hours of commercials and players standing around to see 60 mins of action? At least when I watch soccer I know I'm going to see 90 mins of up and down non-stop action and only have to deal with commercials during half-time and pre/post-game.
4. [The response to ties] I'd rather have a fair system that rewards a team for playing well enough to earn a draw then have a overtime system in which if my teams loses a freaking coinflip, then their chance of winning is greatly diminished. (In the NFL last year 60% of teams that won the overtime coinflip won the game)

So far it's worked on a few people.

 

"This is what happens when you have talented player, and hire coaches who understand you have to score goals to win games."

Or when you hire a coach that doesn't understand that playing a three man backline + two out of form d-mids (that for some reason think they're end to end players) is a bad idea.



I'm all for scoring, etc. But I think you fall into the same mindset as those who you criticize when you start calling a 4-2 game the international "game of the week." There were a few good goals, individual scoring moments... Enabled by terrible defense. Large portions of the game were terribly sloppy (poor conditions noted), there wasn't a ton of clever passing work and even the Brazilians couldn't dribble out there.

I think when you watch a game that is a track meet in a rainstorm and think it's proof that the league is good and entertaining... I think that just acknowledges the "we want goals!" mindset that we all criticize in the average American non-fan.

 

No No No.... This game could have been 1-0 and been just as good. I don't need goals to be satisfied, but I do need an attacking mindset.

The best sequence of the evening didnt result in a goal, KC was up 4-2 at that point and was still attacking. This was the play that ended with a Harrington cross to the back post with Victorine just missing a header, the whole buildup was great.

Few good goals? Which goals werent "good"? The first one started with Kevin Hartman and had four touches to the goal, KC had the advantage of having Erpen slip, but the shot shot, looking off the keeper and shooting from that angle was nice. The second goal by Eddie Johnson was a nice run and finish in a 1 v 1 situation. The first goal by DC was offsides, but still a nice , albeit easy finish, the 2nd goal by DC was special.

KC's last two goals were nice, especially the last one, although Johnson should have finished before Sealy put in the rebound.

I think your just a bitter DC fan. This game was a lack of defense, it was good offense, and two teams commited to attacking.

When KC went up 2-0, they could have packed it in and put everyone to sleep for the last hour of the game. But they didnt, and we had the game of the week.

 

Dont worry about it. Had DC won the game it would have been the game of the week. It cant be the game of the week if DC loses, its law.

 

I am a DC fan and was at the game, but I don't think I'm just a "bitter DC fan."

Poor defense can make any offensive play look good.

KC played well and DC was inept - even offensively. Both teams were trying to score goals often, but DC spent most of the night giving the ball away. They scored on a free kick and an offsides gift (admittedly nice touch in the rain and solid finish.) KC was running down the field 3-on-2, 2-on-2, 2-on-1 for large stretches of the game. I just don't see the quality in that. Good for KC, they won and got a bunch of goals... DC sucked offensively and defensively. And just because both teams are trying to score goals doesn't mean the game is good.

I'd prefer to watch teams that are both playing good offense and defense with a tactical mind towards winning, as opposed to a tactical mind towards suicide (Soehn).

It was certainyl far from boring, and better than watching Columbus or LA... But when you start looking at this kind of game and use it as a badge of honor for the league, you've lost perspective.

 

Who cares what the supposed "technical level" of the game is... if there are scoring opportunities, goals, controversy, fans who care, and players who care, it is an entertaining game. This goes for any league in the world. There are boring, crappy games in every league, and there are wonderful exciting games in every league. Not just soccer, but every sport.

KC-DC was a great entertaining game!

 

"Who cares what the supposed "technical level" of the game is... if there are scoring opportunities, goals, controversy, fans who care, and players who care, it is an entertaining game."

That's a mindset I just can't embrace. Fans are good, controversy not so much, players caring is also good, and it wasn't boring... And I'm not saying it was a bad game, but the guy said it was the best game of the weekend in the whole world and that it is a sign of what the league can be... I just can't agree with that.

Honestly, any other sport in this country and any other league of soccer in the world and this sort of thing would get smashed, but it's the MLS, we're all so insecure about the league and we want it to be popular... So when we get a score of 4-2 people hold it up as an achievement as if to say "Look at us, we score goals, watch us!" Did you guys actually watch the game? While the goals largely featured fine finishes they were often the result of either a slip on the wet grass, terrible defense, or pure stupidity. Did you see DC's entire second half and how many times they passed the ball to no one or Fred losing the ball about 20 times? Or DC's frustrating unwillingness to actually take a shot (in another thread I refered to them as being like Arsenal in that regard) in the second half.

 

Hillarious.


To the point: IMO, if you are watching sport just for defense, offense, or any other single reason, then you are limiting yourself and consequently missing a great many things.

To me, higher scoring soccer is infinitely more entertaining on balance. Still, that isn't required to have an entertaining game. The presence of attacking qualities and hopefully goals just lends itself naturally to a more entertaining game. You never read the phrase, "...in a dour 7-goal game". Sub the 7 for a 0 and you can read it several times a week in whatever launguage you can understand.

I'm not much on low-scoring in any sport. I watch most of them. When the point, and therefore the function, of a game is to score; then a lack of scoring means ineptitude. This holds true under any and all circumstances - no matter if you don't agree. If the defense was so d@mn great, then why were they not good enough to help create 2-3 on the other side?

Ineptitude.

A few other things:

*Take your two candidates for best teams on the planet and have them play 10 times. One or two will probably be lesser offerings. That isn't unique to any one team sport or any particular level. It's just sports. If you want guaranteed scoring, at least one good team, and/or a good game every single time, watch volleyball.

*MLS in recent history has had ties be common in the beginning o fthe season. The contrast of 3 scoreless draws to Saturday's 6 goal game in dc is just that much more striking. Try to take in the big picture.

*That gmae in dc is what KC should look more like more often now that the soul-crushing yoke of having Bo Oshoniyi in net is a thing of the past. KC has atempted to attack in that manner for almost 3 full seasons now. Most of the nation hasn't seen it becasue KC isn't ever on national TV, and when they are it's against a truly bunkering negative dc road team, or an inept LA on the day. KC had a great game, dc wasn't good. I doubt KC will get 4 in RSL Wed. (USOC) or in Chicago this weekend.

*It's amazing how often "an exciting goal fest that should be the example to follow" is usually simply the product of an early road goal.

*Any league predicated on either 4-2, or 1-0 is a ridiculous concept. At some point everything gets to tasting the same, no? That said, both are available in many other countries...get a good satellite dish.

*I keep reading on every single thread about this game how dc just had poor defending, or the refs were bad, or the rain killed us. OK, but defending alone does not explain dc's lack of ability to win a loose ball, hustle more to get there first, or perform touches of quality. There was no single aspect of the game in which DC was the better of the two teams. None.

-WC

 

"*I keep reading on every single thread about this game how dc just had poor defending, or the refs were bad, or the rain killed us. OK, but defending alone does not explain dc's lack of ability to win a loose ball, hustle more to get there first, or perform touches of quality. There was no single aspect of the game in which DC was the better of the two teams. None."

On this I agree almost completely. I've been very critical of DC. Most people seem to act like I'm just a bitter DC fan, but honestly:

-I've only been following MLS for a year and a half and happen to go to college near DC... Thus the SN.
-I am not a big DC fan, I just go to a lot of their games, thus know their players better, etc.
-Here's how low of a homer I am for DC: NY is my second favorite team. I can't get into the NY-DC thing because I've only really been following for a year now.

Going last year I grew rather accustomed to DC being better than everyone, it was a nice notion, but that game Saturday, they got their ass kicked.

I just preach a notion of perspective and moderation... don't go crazy over a 4-2 game like that one. When they can play a 3-3 event with several sublime goals, pure drama, etc. (Think Barca-Real from a few weeks ago) that's something to hold up and shout about. Not a game like the one I witnessed at RFK on Saturday. That was an eventful, fun game (if you hate DC as 90% of MLS fans seem to).

Honestly, the best part of the whole thing was not the game... It was DC's fans and support screaming and beating their drums into the dying minutes down two goals after two hours of sitting in the rain. To those guys I take off my hat.

 

Saw the game, thought it was very good and entertaining. Can't say it was the game of the weekend cause the Chelsea v Blackburn game was better than expected and you really can not compare anything to the Super Classico. Game wasn't the best but I was on the edge of my seat the whole game and the atmosphere at el Bombonero was incredible. Getting back to the DC v KC game it held its own and was a pretty entertaining game. Both teams created chances and am hoping that more MLS games produce a similar quality level. Compared to the the RedBull game it was 10x better. The nor'easter had alot to do with the game in NY but then again DC was playing in similar conditions. I think DC and KC put together more passes and had better control of the ball compared to the NY game where they insisted on putting the ball in the air. Fred is playing with Moreno very well and I was hoping to see Marinelli for KC but he never went in.

As a side note, it would be cool if one of the new stadiums modeled the Bombonero where you have a whole section of the field dedicated to luxury boxes and the rest a traditional seating. SSS aren't designed to hold a lot of people anyway and I like that setup better than the stupid horseshoe. Would work for concerts as well and the luxury boxes is where the money is made anyway. Just a thought.