Ever since Soccernet hired this guy, he's just driven me bonkers. It seems like every column this guy writes is either completely pointless nonsense with no insight whatsoever (Jermaine Jones is a good player. It's good that the US has him now. But he's injured. Which sucks.) or annoying contrarianism like this latest community college essay he just posted; http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/blog?entryID=5025145&name=worldcup2010blog&cc=5901&ver=us Ok...yes, we're very excited Charlie could be back in time for South Africa. I don't think we need to have a finger wagged at us for that. Is this guy even American? Anyway, I'm just venting and seeing if anyone else thinks this guy is the Cokie Roberts of soccer.
I have expressed my displeasure in Schaerlaeckens' writing before. He shows a ton of ignorance of US Soccer in his writing. And no he is not American. That contributes to his almost-anti-US Soccer flavor of his writing.
What an awful, and pointless article. It's so bad, i'm actually mad at you for posting it....you bastard. Edit: Does anybody else think that the us soccer page on soccernet has gone completely downhill ever since Ives left?
A writer writing a story based on info he got from an AP story and info readily available on Big Soccer. Good work. Jason Blair and the New York Times approve. Next time I go on the Davies Twitter thread, I will have to wonder which screen name is Leander's.
Exactly. It's not even a U.S. section any more, it's just the national team's World Cup page. I love Ives, but I haven't read FoxSoccer.com in years and I remember it as pretty amateur hour. Almost as bare-bones as the Yahoo Sports soccer page. But I think he's positioning himself to be a Chris Mortensen-type character for FSC.
it wasn't ives that killed it. His articles were not good at all anyways. But before he left, all the writers left the USA soccernet site for either SI soccer or Fox soccer. Hell, even Jen Chang is now writing at Si. Which is a damn shame, it used to be a decent site. Now, I guess all they have is Ravi Ubha, Jeff Carlisle (he needs a move somewhere better), and this clown.
Seriously, this guy shows no respect for the fans of the team he's writing about, or for the writers who have followed the team for years. The entire article was nothing new. I think everyone has gathered that Charlie still has a long way to go, even with how far he's come. He's provided nothing substantial or anything that we didn't know. Any one of us could have written the same thing. I mean, can you not set up an interview or two, get some more inside information to support your view? I'm not asking him to be a blind homer, but there's a reason ESPN hires former US players to cover MLS and US Soccer. They are reaching out to an American market. Get to know the team. It's okay if you're a little bit biased. ESPN Soccernet is a disaster right now, which is sad, because ESPN's soccer coverage overall is a good or better than it's ever been.
Nigel Powers: All right Goldmember. Don't play the laughing boy. There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch.
Agreed. IMO their American coverage has been woeful and the articles complete crap. Ives goes, Chang goes, the U.S. podcast goes, what next? I thought they were stepping UP coverage leading to the World Cup???
You think Chang is a better writer than Ives????? Soccernet was pretty good for a while. I always thought Ives, Davis, and Carlisle were 3 of the best soccer writers we have, along with Goff and Wahl. Chang wasn't a great journalist, but he did provide a different perspective and covered a wide array of topics. However, just like everyone has has said though, Soccernet as a whole has gone down the crap shoot. Part of it is the exit of some good writers, part of it is the flawed new design, and part of it is $hitty new material from writers like Schaerlaeckens.
Where did I say that? I was just giving an example. And yes, I do anyways. Ives is, and always will be a news reporter. His "analysis" is horrible.
I have good reading comprehension skills. You said you didn't like Ives' articles and that it was a shame that Chang went to SI. Analysis and talking points are Ives' wheelhouse. I've seen Ives criticized for his lack of pure journalism since starting his blog, but he's one of the best when it comes to soccer knowledge and analysis. Anyway, that's a topic for another thread. With Schaerlaeckens, I can't find one area to say where he has an actual strength. Not analysis, not journalism, not insight, nothing.
Soccer 'journalism' in the US is a pretty thin market, I think Ives is pretty good, Grant Wahl is good, after that.....well there just aren't many. This Schaerlaeckens character did do one good story about the 1950 team, other than that I just assume he works cheap.
Yeah, that piece was good, but he even pointed out that all of the investigative work was done by people for a magazine in the Netherlands (I think). So for his best piece, basically, all he did was summarize what better journalists discovered.
Eh, the majority of the US soccer "journalists" are shills for the power structure. There's scarcely any inside info on the inner workings of the apparatus that they have published (the "Beckham Experience" was 50% elucidating, 50% hack job). This guy could have been a breath of fresh air but he is not much of a soccer specialist either. I assume ESPN will get their ducks in a row at some point though.
Leander, while I disagree with the need for the initial post/thread I think there are some people here who have decided to talk about their displeasure with ESPN.com's current coverage of the U.S. team and The World Cup in general (not you in particular), and I think it's a discussion worth having. I genuinely feel that the quality of U.S. soccer coverage/reporting/journalism on the site has been steadily declining and can't for the life of me understand why that is happening during a World Cup year. If you want to to have a private discussion with someone who thinks you're a "hack" that's another story and completely understandable, but if you're reading this site it might be worth it to take the complaints into consideration and open up a dialog with your readers as to what can improve or what changes they'd like to see. Cheers.
kokoplus10: To answer the question about ESPN's World Cup coverage: we're actually ramping up our coverage considerably, and making big investments in doing so. There is more manpower on the USMNT beat than ever. At the same time, a few people have left for myriad reasons, somewhat affecting continuity and what people are used to seeing. As for your second point, it's a good one. I'd really like to hear from people what'd they'd like to see me and the others do. There is more emphasis on enterprise journalism and big-picture soccer coverage -- see the Gaetjens story and World Cup 101 series -- but we are keen on serving the reader. So, by all means, let's hear some requests. I'm always looking for good story ideas.
Leander: BigSoccer can't handle your last name! (PS, the Gaetjens story was very good. But what's the deal with hiding a lot of recent US soccer articles behind the ESPN Insider paywall? I assume the directive to gouge the American soccer fan demographic came from the suits above, but I hope we won't see more of this as we inch closer to the WC. However, I fear we will...)
ClevelandForce: I know... my name didn't fit. Thank you. Actually, only the stuff written by The Mag's Luke Cyphers and Doug McIntyre for the U.S. National Team Blog is behind the paywall (which is lifted with a Mag subscription, I believe).