NO *#*#*#*#ING PERSONAL ATTACKS I don't give two shits if you think Etcheverry is in league with satan himself and is soley responsible for DCU's decline, the economy, and the war in Iraq or whether you believe he is Lord God almighty's main main NO *#*#*#*#ING PERSONAL ATTACKS It is perfectly reasonable to think any particular player is crap/great what have you. It's possible to have really strong opionions on the matter, but do not attack someone for having a strong opinion. Bring a counter argument, maybe even a spot of reason, but this "you're an *#*#*#*#*#*#*# because you've dared impune Marco's name" or "your an *#*#*#*#*#*#*# because you're licking Marco's bum" stuff is going to end right here. MeridianFC In a very pissed off mood. Thank you for your support.
I am sure thanks to your message people will stop now and forever. But hopefully Marco bashers stop first.
Come on, you can't seriously say that Marco hasn't lost a step (or three) in the last two seasons, or that his insistence on taking every single throw-in, free kick, etc. hasn't slowed down play.
I think the point that we supporters of Marco (which I will fully disclose that I am one of) will say to the bashers that YES this IS a team game. So why not blame the others for not contributing instead of Marco, who last time I checked, is still contributing to DC actually WINNING games this season. Unlike one Bobby Convey who hasn't won *#*#*#*# for United. We actually tanked his rookie season, and have never recovered from then. Explain that one to me. I realize Marco isn't the player of the year anymore. But he still is one of our best, if not the best offensive player on our team to this day. That speaks volumes how sad the rest of them are.
The last paragraph is fairly telling and perhaps right - though I think Olsen and Dema are more dangerous. But contrary to what was perhaps your intent, it is also quite damning of Etch. ... that said ... Let me move onto something else. Here's the thing: Everyone is full of sh!t on this issue. Here's how I see it. I'm gonna cast a wide net and I'm not talking about anyone in particular. Consider these exaggerated caricatures of the pro and con Etch sides. The Pro-Etch people excuse his performance and say it's a team game so he shouldn't get the full blame for a lousy night. Then he doesn't play in a game, DC still loses and they come back and say that the game shows how much we really need Etch on the field. So in the first instance they want to say that Etch isn't the problem, it's the team. In the second case they want to say the team's problem is the absence of Etch. They want it both ways. The Con-Etch people deride his performance and blame him for losses. Then he doesn't play in a game, DC still loses because it turns out it isn't just Etch. The team just plain sucks. They can't have it both ways because the fact of the matter is that the addition or subtraction of one player in the lineup just doesn't make that much difference overall - Olsen, perhaps, being the exception. So the Con-Etch side wants to blame Etch and in doing so they overlook how bad the rest of the team is too. So given that the team is crap with or without Etch it seems to me that the real questions are these. First, along the spectrum of suck are we better or worse with Etch in the lineup. Framing the question that way is a far more honest and realistic than how it's usually framed; namely “DC would be great without Etch” vs “DC needs Etch to be great”. The question should be how can DC suck less. Second, given that we suck the long term question really has to be are we better off in the long run with or without Etch on the field. The answer, I think, is obvious because Etch isn't getting any younger. It's time to cut bait and move on. Should we fail to make the playoffs (indeed, I would actually argue that even if we do make the playoffs) one of the most horrific failures of this season was that we stayed with Etch too long when we should have been thinking about finding someone who would "make things happen" in midfield for next season and beyond.
Same sh!t, different pile. On a side note, how cool would it be if someone like Chino could also generate such intense debate?
That could never happen because thee is a pretty general concensus that Chino does suck. Since he was never good to begin with, his decline hasn't been so apparent.
Ohh...ohh...a trivia question. Actually, Wynalda did beat DC United at least once. It was called the MLS Inaugural game of 1996 when the then San Jose Clash defeated DC United 1-0 in the 88th minute or so off of an individual effort by Wynalda.
Eric Wynalda (in his prime) = Hristo Stoichkov (now) Listen, Wyanlda is just jealous that both Hristo or Marco can have an impact in the game now more than he did in his prime. He played midfield just once (under protest I belive) and he trully sucked and sulked the whole game. He has good perspective re Marco shooting, however, Etch is still a great player with good moves. If DC had a good striker besides Hristo he would be like Cancela in NE. Please people, name me one player besides the 2nd best diver in the league (Now that I have seen the Bulgarian cannonball) Guavara and Cancela in NE who could do what Etch does. Not one IMHO. The moderators on this board seem to be fed up with Marco, however, he has done the job that has been asked of him by the coaching staff. He has done it to the best of his ability for the team and not himself. I have to admire BudWisers effort in protecting Marco. This guys gives his all on the field. Maybee its not enough, however, considering how many games the Iranian Stallion (Escadrian) has blow for us, (I count at least 4), he should be the one we are slagging around this board.
Re: Eric Wynalda (in his prime) = Hristo Stoichkov (now) That's just silly. Maybe so. I doubt it. He doesn't have Cancela's speed, his accuracy with passes, his creativity, or his agility. Did in 1996. Doesn't now. I woudl agree he's done it to the best of his ability. I wouln to agree that that ability is at the level of his ability circa 1996-1997, or that it is sufficienct for his current role. I hardly think Esky (who I'm monumentally unimpressed with, BTW,a fter all the draft hype) has been responsible for blowing any of our games. He's been a late sub most of the time, and had relatively low impact (unfortunately). And he's of Armenian extraction, not Iranian. That's like calling Marco a Chilean.
"I hardly think Esky (who I'm monumentally unimpressed with, BTW,a fter all the draft hype) has been responsible for blowing any of our games. He's been a late sub most of the time, and had relatively low impact (unfortunately). And he's of Armenian extraction, not Iranian." His dad played for Iran. Anyway, both speak Armenians and Iranians speak Farsi and historically crossed the border to find employment etc... His low impact is preciesely what I am talking about. He missed 5-6 sitters of the games I have seen. Most would have put us ahead. He has not been able to adjust to his role of coming off the bench. Its unfortunate, and hopefully he can get us a better year next year. Anyway, I have seen Wynalda play and he cannot and could not create from the midfield. He was a decent finisher, however, just like Marco and Hristo he had a temper. I wished he had a better career in MLS as it would have helped his Waldo/used car salesman image.
I don't share this assessment. I think Chino can be (and has been) a good little player. Nobody gives him his due when he plays well. He came up with the clutch assist on Sunday that should have guaranteed our playoff slot. It seems as if most people on these boards (particularly those who were assigning grades) refused to ackowledge that he had done that. AQ
True. These were inexplicable misses. And you know what? Almost every one of these impossible misses blew slam-dunk assist opportunities for Marco Etcheverry. AQ
I've been riding the fence on Chino for a very long time.. This is my basic breakdown of Chino: Despite what a lot of posters seem to think, I think Chino is a highly skilled player.. Good with the ball at his feet and turns very quickly and has good escapability.. Additionally, he uses both feet very well, a skill that is severely underused in this league.. Unfortunately, he is ridiculously slow and small of stature.. All the heart and grit this kid posesses will never diminish the fact that he has turtle-like speed and that in the end is the reason why he is not an every day MLS starter.. Spot duty he does just fine, but if you have to depend on him to play and start 20 or so games in a season (see last season for a prime example) you get poor results.. As for the game on Sunday, yes, that was a beautiful cross to Petke to tie the game but what stuck in my craw in particular was him getting beaten soundly by Brian West which led to the PK that put Columbus in the lead.. He came on for defensive purposes and West blew by him on numerous occasions and was no where to be found on the Chacon cross to McBride for the game winner, despite Chacon being right where Chino should have been defensively..
Re: Re: Eric Wynalda (in his prime) = Hristo Stoichkov (now) Marco in 1998 or 1999 didnt have it? Sorry but the Marco that won the MVP would run circles around Cancela and Guevera. --Seriously you think Marco was at his peak in 1996??? This is the type of stuff that sets me off... I agree he isnt the best player we have and he has lost a step, but let's not crap on the reality of his past to further a debate.
McOwen - I think you're over-reacting to that statement. BroonAle didn't say anything about when Etch lost it - just that he had it in 96 and doesn't today. How that played out between 97 and now he doesn't say. So chill ...
Thanks people! that allowed me to burn 45minutes of valuble company time. Stateing that this debate is old & moldy is like a pop-up ad asking if you're of tired of pop-ups. If Marco is 65 and needs a walker he should still start, just for the mullet factor.
Because he plays well so often. . . Yeah it was a nice cross for Petke to head in but one play does not a game make. As Cweedchop has said he's slow, glacially slow, and that hurts him big time in this league. Also we have all witnessed game after game where all of his passes went to the other team. His size makes him a liability defensively and while he's a feisty little guy effort doesn't always make up his other shortcomings. Also since he joined the team a couple of years ago he's really chubbed out. I used to play against him indoor at the Springfield Sportsplex before he joined up with United and he seemed much slimmer then. He does have very good feet and is a technical player, but the pace and physicality of the league has really passed him by. Also I still think he's tactically underdeveloped. So is he the worst player to ever don a United jersey? Not by a long shot. However his effectiveness and usefulness in this league and for this team has come to an end, even as a spot player or a late game sub. I think he could have a good career in the A-league, which isn't the slam some may see it as. It's just the right level for his talents.
Re: Re: Re: Eric Wynalda (in his prime) = Hristo Stoichkov (now) Nice attack on something I never said, McOwen. Straw men are so much easier to knock over, aren't they?
Hahaha. I was trying to make the point that even though some of us think Etch has lost a step, it still says something about him that he can still generate such intense argument (though I'm not sure what), whereas someone like Chino, or Ivanov, or Namoff, or anyone else, frankly, cannot do that. It just fascinates me how polarized we all are about Etch. But yeah, as for Chino, I dunno, I think if he doesn't count as an international he can be valuable as a midfielder who will always come in and give you a ton of effort as a sub. You can't put him in positions like he was on Saturday trying to run with West. But putting him in the middle of the field, where his lack of sprinting speed is more neutralized, he can be effective enough as a sub and a rare stopgap starter.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Eric Wynalda (in his prime) = Hristo Stoichkov (now) Hey you said he had it in 1996. That implies a finite period of time (ie one year)... as if he didn't have it in the years after. I am pretty sure you did not mean he sucked in 1998 or 1999. (They were by far his best years...) I just thought your wording was odd and wanted to clarify. Its not a big deal. To be clear... I am not knocking anyone over or in a rant. I just don't like revisionist history and anyone saying 1996 was Marco's best year, because the facts and league honors show this is not true. I wouldn't put it past some of the more radical Marco bashers around here (not saying you Brown) to try to diminish Marco by negating the most effective years of his career. ---Trust me I am not half as worked up in this thread (or topic) as a lot of people.