Token K.C. article for the week. Didn't see it posted here elsewhere. Despite All the Setbacks, They've Gone Far in K.C. Thx, Jay!
A few minor quibbles about facts - the Wizards received news of Simutenkov's injury about 30 minutes after Preki went down , but all in all a good piece.
If by that you mean they've taken a step closer to the center line, I guess you may be right. The 2000 team had more talent than the present lot and that team chose negative futbol after grabbing the early goal. Chicago deserved the win that day and I've been anti-KC ever since. KC is not the kind of team you want to showcase -- they are so fvcking exciting that they can only get 12,000 people to a championship game when tickets are only $5. You can yell 'scoreboard' all you want but spoken in the context of discussing KC all I'll hear is 'so bored'. I hope the baby blues choose to play the beautiful game rather than a watching-cars-rusting catenaccio. Whether they do or don't I hope the 'soccer gods' exact their revenge and balance KC's luck ledger for all the favorable bounces and woodwork saves of that 2000 Cup. GM
Absolutely untrue. Chicago didn't deserve anything but a 1-0 loss. The game is played on the field - and that game was no different than most of the games KC played that season. 23 shutouts in 40 MLS/USOC games. Quit getting so hung up about attendance in Kansas City - that has absolutely squat to do with the team on the field. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. That's what you keep hearing from people who see the team once, maybe twice per year. This is not the 2000/2001 Wizards. This team has lead the league in shots 2 of the last 3 years, and the declining goal output this season was due to injuries, not playing style. You've been badmouthing KC ever since MLS Cup 2000. Shouldn't you be worried about DC United instead? KC was the better team in 2000. They were the favorite, the higher seed. They went out and scored first. They didn't score a second because they didn't need the goal. Attractive? No. Winning isn't about beauty. It's about results. So many folks who never saw the 2000 team go on and on about how Chicago owned that game. Nothing I say will ever convince them otherwise. So be it. But the 2004 Wizards are a better team than the 2000 Wizards. More talent. More attractive. More dangerous. But then, the entire league is better. It's taken a 140 years, but Southern whites are finally forgiving the Republicans for freeing the slaves. How long will you hold a grudge for the negative style of the 2000 Wizards?
You know, Andy, except for matchups with DC or KC playing DC opponents, I don't give KC a thought, much less hold a grudge. It is the way that KC/Gansler plays/coaches that earns the less than positive vibes. Hard to grow a league when one of its Championship finalists plays negative futbol. I can see by your response that you are a little sensitive about it. Must be a lot of truth to it, eh? So bored, so bored. GM
The cynic in me says that you would be a lot less predisposed to whining about "negative futbol" if it were YOUR team winning with it, not somebody else. And in fact, the cynic in me says that if it were YOUR team that were winning with it, you wouldn't even call it "negative futbol." You'd be using some euphemism for it.
It was smart to put this analogy at the end of your post. If you'd put it at the beginning, a lot of people probably would have read no further. Jesus Christ.