Do any of you guys read the LA Times and get the feeling that their coverage of the LAG is fluff? I read the LAT and all I can think of is, if the Lakers, Trojans, Angels or Dodgers were going through this type of season, 3 pages of the Sports Section would be dedicate to "Heads Should Roll," "Becks is Washed Up" "Yallop Should be Canned" "Lalas Go Back to Picking the Guitar" and "Donovan Stinks" type articles. Indeed, you know there would be full page spreads on the locker room in-fighthing and rumors about who is losing their jobs. Even if you do not believe any of that, you know the writers would be writing this type of stuff. The only coverage really has to do with basics of the game (who scored and the final score) and the color of Beckham's hair do with the obligatory photo of Beckham heading the ball or getting blown away on the bad end of a 50-50 ball against Chivas. Nice reporting there, LAT. The crazy thing is that they spend more time writing about these types of articles on the Mexican national team, Brazil, Messi (today), Dos Santos, etc. Just wondering if any of you out there think the same thing when you pick up the LA Times.
Do we really need articles by TJ Simmers that just bring down the sport? I rather live without them than just seeing the typical commentaries that the stooges at the LA Times make about LAG and soccer in general.
Even TJ would be good for the game. Remember what he did for the Trojans? He ripped them. Then, look what happened.... If the LAT cannot even cover the Galaxy right, then what's the point of all of this? At least it would make picking up the paper fun. We are relegated to either (a) Spice Girls coverage; or (b) In the back just below Horse Racing or Fishing.
There's always the Daily News even though its less popular than the LA times. From time to time they have good articles about the LAG. They were the ones who reported on how tough it is to live on a rookie salary.
Just forget about the LA Times and Google search it. Of course, that's exactly what is killing the Times as a business.
The Times is a mixed bag when it comes to soccer coverage. And for some of us, it still holds a position as the "paper of record" for this area, so its coverage has some impact. Although Topper is right - because of the demographics it is a dinosaur. Helene Elliot has written a couple of insightful and interesting articles. Unfortunately she will be back on the hockey beat and not have time for much MLS stuff. I really wish she were the LAG beat reporter. G. Jones is so consumed with himself and the Euro leagues that MLS is beneath his dignity. And Jaime Cardenas(spelling) is weird. He writes a big story about "Beckham Buzz wearing off" (paraphrasing because I can't remember the correct title). And who does he interview for verification of that conclusion? A bunch of Chivas fans! His conclusion - "soccer fans not really excited about Beckham." This one almost got me to write a letter to the editor. Its premise was just plain stupid. It was about as insightful as asking a bunch of Laker fans how excited they are that the Celtics picked up Kevin Garnett. But they sure did a nice puff piece today about the kid star on the Mexican National Team. At least they have found one team that they like.
With the drastic cuts that the LA times has suffered from cover to cover the last 5 years and the especially drastic cuts in the Sports section, I'm actually pretty grateful that there is regular soccer coverage at all.
I liked the coverage that Mike Penner provided a couple/three years ago, it was good to hear a new voice on the soccer beat, I too think Jones is so sour that his articles are predictable. Then Penner had a sex change, and now I don't know the new name he uses.
My take on this is that the Times has never come to terms with soccer. Initially, I think having a soccer reporter was seen as a way of establishing the "international" credentials of the paper (or at least the sports section). Graham Jones was a good match for this precisely because he dislikes MLS and American soccer. Now, I think the Times sees soccer as a way to build up subscribers in the latino community, which accounts for how they cover Chivas. As Topper says, it doesn't really matter. I stopped subscribing to a paper about 8 years ago and I've never missed it. Papers are so last century. When Jones gets a blog I'll pay attention to what he has to say.
Horrible...I can't stand reading LA Times sports coverage, and I follow everything except NHL. My advice is skip it altogether until they provide something worth reading someday.
Her name is Christine Daniels and she still writes (mostly online) for the paper. I don't know that Mike Penner was ever really a "new voice on the soccer beat" because I remember reading his articles back during the WC in 1998. I remember him writing an article describing how steve sampson used salt and pepper shakers to demonstrate how his 3-6-1 would be effective against Germany...
Well, then a "different" voice if not "new"; I read that Sampson article too! He also wrote on the national team qualifying campaign for 2002, wrote from Korea in 2002, and wrote on the Galaxy during the MLS Cup run of 2002. Then he covered the first season at the HDC, more with feature articles about the league's operations than the Galaxy column. That's about the last I remember seeing him write soccer. Anyway, I enjoyed his take, and I'm sure she's still writing good stuff but I haven't seen it for a while.
Today, we were relegated to the bottom corner of the "Soccer Page" in a really small box below the China Women's team victory. Mind you, this is the day of the Superclassico. Regardless of whether newpapers are "obsolete" or not (which I don't believe is entrely true especially for information overloaders like myself that love the net as well as hardcopy, basically info junky), the coverage is abysmal.
Surprisingly the OC Register has decent coverage with Damian Calhoun as the beat reporter. If there's a home or derby game, he's usually there to cover it and at times has pre-game stuff.