Re: Re: great article on MLS & Garber.... To say nothing of the fact that once everyone got to the big stage, we went farther than both CR and Mexico (and France and Portugal and Italy and Argentina....)
Sanneh and Vanney I think are good cases to look at precisely because they weren't stars. Vanney was a solid defender, solid enough to start on any team in MLS? I haven't seen many MLS games in the last year so I can't really say. He went to france and did quite well. Sanneh same way, except that he didn't take off at Hertha. This is why I'm curious how well Duhaney does in the 2nd Bundesliga. He was a journeyman in MLS, at least based on how much he moved around. Looking at the inverse problem. Twellman came from playing in the lower German leagues, where he was outstanding to remain outstanding in MLS which at least sets a lower limit on the spectrum (not that I ever doubted that MLS was at a higher level than the Regional German Leagues). Hejduk's experience at BL04 sets an upper limit that MLS is probably not as good as perennial top 5 Bundesliga teams. Now I'd just like to try to make those limits a little closer using concrete players. It is clouded by the fact that European teams don't want to carry non-EU citizens if they can't contribute immediately because of the limit in most leagues (or I would believe, anyway). How well did Hermosilla and Campos do when they returned to the MFL. d
I for one have the upmost respect for this Garber guy. Look, I'm a Southamerican who has lived in the US for the past year and a half, and let me tell you, to run a football league in this country must be as hard as marketing the NFL in Brasil. Come on, give the guy a break. It's amazing, I come from a place where you get football coverage from all over the world practically 24/7, to... nothing, unless you have FSW, or in my case Fox Sports en Español (God bless Rupert Murdoch). So cut him some slack, sure the product is not that good, sure Morelia kicked the crap out of KC, but come on, besides you Bigsoccer guys, nobody cares about the game in this country, which is sad for me being a football lover. I really wouldn't like to be in Garber's shoes, what a tough job.
MFL doesn't own players, the Mexican clubs do. Mmm, let me rephrase that, Televisa and the rest of the clubs that are not owned by Televisa (3 or 4) do.
Re: ?!?!?!? Not yet, but it's definitely on my list of must-see Potentially the Worst Movie Ever Made list. I still haven't been able to finish Showgirls.
Re: Re: great article on MLS & Garber.... Yellow card this guy.... yet another example of why people just can't handle an opinion that varries from the norm.
Re: Re: Re: great article on MLS & Garber.... JRedknapp, This was out of line. I agree. But when you come on to an MLS board, title your thread "great article about MLS & Garber...", say it's one of the best pieces you've ever read, and the article basically says how much the league sucks and the commissioner is full of ************, what exactly did you expect? It was either a troll or you have no common sense or worse.
Have you got to the sex scene in the pool yet? It was perhaps the most rediculous sex scene in the history of movies. Andy
Re: Re: Re: ?!?!?!? I seem to get interested, interested, more interested, VERY interested, and then suddenly I lose interest.
Showgirls? K-U-A-L-I-T-Y. I love the scene where she gets picked up by the guy in the pick-up... and to stop his advances, she whips out the switchblade. Talk about high drama. I've always kind of seen Dalton and Nomi getting it on. Maybe if the Double Duece became a gentlemans club... Paul
Funny how when the US stumbles in qualifying but does well when it counts (in the World Cup) they're just "lucky" or athletic. When Brazil sucks it up in qualifying but does well in the World Cup, you don' hear people calling them "lucky". Well, of course, Brazl has proven their skill over decades, but just because the US hasn't had an illustrious World Cup history it doesn't mean that this was luck- maybe it means that we're improving and have a bright future ahead of us in the World Cup? All of these arguments really offer little new in the way of facts or analysis (including mine)- this basically comes down to whether you're inclined to worship European and South American soccer and disbelieve any positive showings the US produces, or whether you accept the possibility that the US may be on its way already to producing world class talent- or at the very least world class performances from non-world class talent (which is still not luck).
Please-who's spinning now? No, the problem I have is you lump me into this group, based on what I feel is an arrogant assumption on your part. jri can speak for himself, but IMO for you take from his posts that he’s anti-US is just laughable. I don’t always like his style; I’ve butted heads with him plenty, and ironically enough, even defended you with data in some of your clashes with him (Oops! I don’t support my views with data . Funny how you seem to forget that sort of stuff when it suits your fancy.) But I have never come away thinking that he roots against the US. And I won’t even bring up the fact that there are many people on these boards who agree with some of his views or insights. Are they enemies of US soccer as well? And about me, you are simply clueless. If the league has more supporters like me, it would be a lot better off. How you come to see me in this way says way more about you than me. And this idea that you have taken my opinions to task-really? In the years I’ve posted we’ve had three real “blowouts”: the Guatemala RFK match, the SI Mathis cover and a debate on NASCAR. On the Guatemala match and USSF, I don’t completely share your views on how we play the home field advantage. And for reasons I’ve already posted, I question the long-term wisdom behind it. During our spat on this, I made a point by digging up an older thread of yours, which you took offense to-stompped off crying about how you were sick of the Media board. I went out of my way PM an apology, noting it was only meant as a lighthearted dig. On the SI tiff-as in this thread-you feel you have carte blanche to hurl insults (something until this issue I avoided with you), because I said the SI issue wasn’t, “all that.” You asked me how I could even predict that something like this could ever happen and I gave you three reasoned answers: The slow news cycle that week, the arc in WC media coverage, and media looking for patriotic stories post-9/11. Your response: I’m an @hole, I sicken you, I’m full of crap-even after starting the thread by pleading with you not to turn it into a flame war; noting again, that I like many respect/appreciate what you contribute to that forum. (But then again, just what did you contribute to that thread other than to yell at people who didn’t agree with you and your version of what classifies as proper support for US soccer?) Re: NASCAR, we agreed to disagree on what we define as “media”. The vast majority of our past exchanges have been arguing/agreeing on the details of various subjects. So please, get over yourself. Re: those who claim we should just treat the SOL address as a sponsors pep rally. That’s fair up to a point; nowhere have I come close to suggesting he should do otherwise. But a search on the net shows that over the years, the press has covered this event as real news, and have written stories based on what Garber has said in these speeches. The idea that a writer can‘t hold up to light his statements is absurd. Sure Garber should pump up the troops, but he’s also talking to the press and is fair game. And to a larger point, there is nothing I’ve seen here that convinces me that people here simply aren’t reacting in some knee-jerk way to the writers in the press corps who are tough on MLS and US soccer. In fact, all you need to do is look the other way-look at how people here go nuts and fall over themselves at the slightest reference of anything soccer in the pop culture. And it’s not all teens and newbies posting this stuff, or pounding out e-mails to every writer who dares say anything critical about MLS or soccer. Talk about making friends in media. That the writer took a shot at Garber in stating his opinion-can we ever grow a thicker skin? Can we perhaps see merits in a piece-even one that has flaws? Or is the MLS board on BS simply filled with folks how want to troll newpapers for anti-MLS stuff in order to launch e-mail campaigns? Seems to be where a lot of energy is spent. Silly me for wanting to spoil your fun. Enjoy.
I just thought the hyperbole of Garber was not only matched, but basically exceeded by Snowden, making it on its face a very poor piece. But still, it had its points, no matter how poorly written. By making its case so badly, however, it opened itself up to a deluge of criticism, which it received. Which is not to say there isn't a basic defense/reflex mechanism that runs through BS. We're all a little sensitive when it comes to MLS and American Soccer. Why not? We have many "enemies" (a term I'm using in a figurative sense), and when our "friends" bash us too, it's not surprising many react.
This is a fair point, and I am glad you brought it up. There are far too many lazy journalists out there who do nothing but cut and paste from press releases and consider that reporting. I would submit that this speech is basically an oral press release designed to point out all that is good with the league and US Soccer. That begs the question, whose job is it to point out all that is NOT good with US Soccer? Obviously the press plays a significant role in smoking out all information, but the purpose is to balance the story. Snowden treated Garber's speech as if it were all lies. As if he had told us that each team netted $20 million last year, and here is the proof that he was lying. It is my feeling that if he had issues with Garber's speech (which he obviously did), as a journalist, his obligation is to call Garber and interview him. Ask him if WC qualifying results tend to show that we might not be dominant. Ask him if the KC result against Morelia changes his opinion about the dominance of the league in comparisson with the region. Frankly, I don't know if he considers himself a "columnist" or not. I would guess that he does based on the tone of the article. A column certainly allows the writer to express more of an opinion than a news piece, but contrary to what some might think, it should not relieve him of his obligation to go out and do a little work. There is a name for those who simply listen or watch something and then spew an opinion with no additional research or verification. They are called "BS Posters", and if he is going to do nothing more than the rest of us before putting pen to paper, than why should I put any stock into his rant?
I think the article serves to balance the euphoria and clearly points out some realities. MLS teams are NOT dominant in the region and the US did have some luck in the qualifiers. I will go even further They were lucky very very luck in the first phase of the world cup. While they deserved their win agaisnt Portugal they went through to the second phase tks to Korea. They way the played agaisnt Poland they should not ahve beenthere. But...Then they played their two best games. I thought. But they were very luckyto ge there. I have to add however that this world cup proved one of the realities of modern soccer> you don't need outstanding players to have a good or even very good team. You need speed, speed, speed and precision and one or two good players. Check south korea
I haven't read the entire thread, so its possible what I am about to say has already been pointed out and discussed. Still, I just wanted to point out some of Swoden's air-tight logic: "To be sure, there’s a long shadow of a doubt here. Every American player who can even be considered close to world-class, from Brad Friedel (yes, he played abroad before joining MLS) and Kasey Keller to Claudio Reyna and John O’Brien, honed their skills on the ruthless proving grounds of Europe, not the dubious arena of MLS. Landon Donovan, DaMarcus Beasley and Clint Mathis get lots of hype, but until they’ve proven themselves on a weekly basis in a top European league, they simply cannot be called 'world-class.'" What brilliant reasoning. MLS players cannot be considered world class because the only way to prove you are world class is by playing in a league other than MLS. By this logic, the USAMNT could win seven straight WCs entirely with MLS players and still not have produced any world class talent, according to Snowden. If the only way to be World Class is to play in England, Spain, Italy or Germany, then it is not logically possible for MLS to ever produce any proven world class talent no matter how well its players do on the national team. And one of the reasons I enjoy soccer in this country is because I feel there is less blatant idiocy in the way it is covered than in other sports are over here. Reading something of this caliber makes me hope that soccer never becomes as popular as hockey in this country. I fear idiots would make it less fun.
I love this post and, as an MLS fan and an American, I absolutely love the Eurosnob argument that fatigue was the reason why some top European teams went down. If Redknapp really believes his own post, then he must also assent to the following proposition: -MLS, in early-season, boasts superior play to even the top European leagues and competitions. Hell, the fatigue excuse even leads to another conclusion Eurosnobs such as Snowdon would hate: --It would be damaging for the future of the USMNT to have its stars based in Europe, as those leagues damage player performance in the WC and other international summer competitions. If the fatigue argument was really true, then it would be in the best interest of all teams in the WC to see their stars transfered out of "top" European clubs the year before the WC so that they can play in a league like MLS, which does an excellent job of preparing its players for the WC by not wearing them out. Yes!! I love the fatigue argument!
Since all player contracts are owned by the clubs and not by the players respective international confederations.... the transfering of players to lower leagues every four years is impossible and not to be rude but absurd.
Perhaps, but since the managers of the big international teams like Italy, France, Agentina, etc., are now aware of how their teams will be damaged if they include worn-out, fatigue riddled players from Real Madrid, they should make ti clear to potential team members that they will not be capped unless they play in MLS. I mean, if they stunk because they played in various, overly exerting European leagues, wouldn't France have been better if it capped players from less heralded leagues? Or is it that the fatigue argument is a giant pile of puke?
Of course what...this is Arena being what...humble? That being his famous personality trait? No wait-he's a Eurosnob! Seems like there is another fatigue issue at work here-your tired effort vis-a-vis the use of a simple search engine. Try it.
There was a good article in 442 (I think, could have been World Soccer) that discussed how Brazilians, who play some pretty tough schedules themselves (those that play in Brazil play a ridiculous amount of games), looked more like the Koreans than the Portuguese. The Brazilians attributed it to their superior training techniques. IIRC, they train year round for fitness as opposed to just during pre-season in Europe.
A great coaching staff will know how to properly train and staff their squad. I understand where you are trying to go, but it just doesn't make sense. National squads want their A tier players and no matter what they will always bring those guys in. If the teams like the US, Korea, African nations and Scandanavian countries can put well rested players out for a top tournament..... that then forces countries like those in Europe or South America who don't have the freshest options to go out and call for their top players so they can compete. Sometimes it means putting out a player like Zidane who is only @ 50%. If the opposition is going to come at you with their star player then your hand is forced to do the same..... For every action there is an opposite or equal reaction.
Great ready for a lengthy post. Oh wait--because I support the USA and use the term "Eurosnob," that means that anything Arena says must be completely accurate! Of course! I should mention, however, that the Arena comments you quoted point more to the issue of training as a team, not so much simply being exhausted, as being the desicive issue. Training as a team I can accept. Fatigue, I simply cannot. This is because, among many reasons, Arena's comments actually point out what I am saying all along. He points out that the Champions league final was one of the main causes for poor performance among some of the European "elite" (which apparently doesn't include Germany). Thus either: A. Admit that European leagues did a poor job of preparing the poor performing "elites" for the WC or B: Admit that fatigue was not the issue. Simply put, if players in the WC were overly tired from playing in European leagues that didn't finish until mid-May, that means that those leagues did a poor job of preparing players for the WC. Or I could point out the ridiculous notion that if a player was too tired from playing a game three weeks earlier to perform well in the WC, then that player simply isn't properly fit as a world-class athelete should be. I mean, in high school we ran 60 miles a week for cross country. These players are unable to recover from a match three weeks earlier? To use a favorite term from the attendance threads, that is pathetic. If you want to talk about how some teams were able to train together more than others, well fine. I can accept that argument--the training side of it makes sense. The fatigue side, however, is a giant pile of puke. Drop the firggin' fatigue argument. I would also have to agree with other posters on this thread, however, that the fatigue argument is just one of the many examples (bad refs and climate being the other two most popular) excuses that priviledged nations feel are necessary in order to explain losing to those nations who they feel are only in the WC because of affirmative action. Let's come up with some reasonable explinations: 1. Portugal lost to the USA because they were outplayed and overconfident. The USA had far more good scoring opportunities than Portugal. 2, Portugal lost to South Korea because they were outplayed (despite a heroic effort after Korea's goal), and utterly, utterly arrogant (if punching a ref after an obvious red card foul isn't arrogant, I don't know what is). 3. France was eliminated because they were, quite simply, the worst team in their group. They were beaten, battered, outplayed, and sent home, as their performance dictated they should have been. 4. Italy got beat by its own game against South Korea. You live by the dive, you die by the bad dive call. Sure, they were unlucky on an offsides call--who hasn't been? I mean, wan't Italy lucky that South Korea missed the PK? 5. Argentina and all their European stars were, flat out, unlucky. They were in the supposed "group of death," however. It happens. 6. Spain was clearly beaten by bad luck. Fatigue, training, etc. had nothing to do with it. Germany, Brazil and England all did quite well by themselves, however. Those are the reasons. Fatigue, and even trainging, had nothing to do with it at all. Drop the damn fatigue argument.