Excellent post. To read some of the articles post WC, from the very same people who said nothing, makes it seem like these issues are brand new! No one wanted to say the Emperor has ho clothes.
And now the focus is what Beerenstyn (?) said. Ex players coming out bashing her. It all seems like a diversion from our own issues. We were cocky. We did not back it up. I don't know if NED were or not as I did not see enough of them.
I feel like this article encapsulates the current state of WoSo journalism. https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_...rld-cup-upsets-support-soccer-growth-rankings The overall premise is not wrong, but it's using numbers that are somewhat flawed The author uses FIFA rankings to show how the world has "caught up" the US, but the disparity is largely because Morrocco and South Africa were ranked cartoonishly low. African teams were ranked really low in FIFA rankings. Then the games were decided by ET/PKs when it was really only one more than the previous tournament. The interesting part is to see what the scorelines were Were teams just playing not to lose. It feels like the journalist had an assumption and found stats to support it., not really trying to figure out what the stats actually mean.
Who knows how long this Old Man will be allowed to Yell at BigSoccer Clouds, so I'd like to stress a few points for those of you who will be carrying on. WoSo Journalism may be succeeding at the most important things it can do, like highlighting the need for better conditions for players, safe conditions, respect for them as people. Coverage and investigative work into the sexual abuse of players in the NWSL was absolutely essential work and probably far overshadows any inadequacies that some fans like me may find on the purely sports side. Also their reporting on the players, bringing them to life, is something all fans look forward to. But as far as the sports side, as opposed to more political things and the "human interest" stories — we're going to be stuck, it seems, for many years with journalistic failure — the kind of failure which surrounded coverage of the US team for the entire Andonovski Era. I'm not a big fan of the Carli Lloyd / Alexi Lalas type of criticism when things go wrong — a lot of cheap sensationalism and attacks on the character of the players, a lot of "when I was playing" But what else should WoSo journalists have expected? I know some of them, in the aftermath of the US failure at the World Cup, are complaining about mainstream sports journalists "parachuting" into the space where they have been plugging away for years. But in the months before the World Cup what did any of them say or write which gave anyone a reason to listen to them after the USA crashed out in the Round of 16, failing to make the medal rounds for the first time ever? Blowhards like Carli Lloyd and Alexi Lalas fill a vacuum created by journalists who had nothing to say as the VLATKO ERA imploded in slow motion, ending by a millimeter or two in the penalty shootout with Sweden. Questioning the absurd experiment of Taylor Kornieck as the #6?! It is to laugh. VLATKO was a political general and as I said (not sure if here or somewhere else) Taylor Kornieck was a political op. Its primary purpose was to give members of the press something of his to criticize so they could think they were doing their jobs as independent journalists. WoSo Journalism in America could significantly improve if they did one thing — stop acting like cheeleaders for the US and their favorite players on the team. I don't see any signs of it happening. I don't see any awareness on their part of the need to change. At BigSoccer, we have a pretty good mix of fan views. We're going to need to carry on because the journalists aren't going to be getting better anytime soon
So true @kolabear Every fan has their own preferred style of coverage, but there is a glaring lack of fearless, insightful analysis of what is occurring ON the field. Tha balance is skewed towards other things. Even off the tendency is to find issues outside the USA and offer our opinions whilst ignoring similar at home. Criticizing other federations seems fair game. What Rubiales did was unacceptable, but we have Anson Dorrance in our midst, celebrated, memorialized and not just employed, but sought out as an "expert" by media outlets. A man who admitted this https://www.insidehighered.com/news...olina-and-coach-settle-sexual-harassment-suit why is this not a huge issue? the competitive cauldron is celebrated by many ex-players and media alike, and yet forceful coaching by outsiders is met with player rebellion. A case can be made that his "tactics" coincided with unprecedented success. The flip side is he was the first mover and his "tactics" were the foundation of overvaluing running power relative to soccer IQ something that continues to be an issue on our National teams. The parallels to the WNT are pretty obvious to me and yet the media ignore it. Why? One can only assume they fear upsetting a pillar of Women"s soccer in the USA even though the information above is publicly available.
Are there many journalists -- at least in the USA -- who really have expert soccer analytical skills combined with the ability to maintain an objective perspective -- enough to confidently and credibly be able to do critical analysis? Maybe Ally Wagner is one. I would not trust Lalas or Lloyd, both seem way too lacking in objectivitiy and way too self-absorbed. Of the written word journos, which ones truly know enough about soccer to be hepful and also are objective? I am not saying there aren’t any, but I am not sure who they are.
Oh, blimey, someone's still on this recent "credentials" kick The whole point is that none of the experts the journalists turn to for quotes— the players and ex-players, coaches and ex-coaches (the ones with credentials) — said anything to help any of us prepare for the demise of the US team and the VLATKO ERA. We're getting comments and post-mortems now from players like Christen Press and Tobin Heath on some podcast that they're doing and my response to all of them is: Sure. Now. For any who happened to stumble across our conversations here at BigSoccer, we fans did a hell of a lot more to help them understand the problems the US was creating for itself under VLATKO — and the urgent need for everybody to channel their Revers-Jinx powers which were desperately needed (!) Is it because we know more than the experts? A few of us might (I know I'm not one of them). In part, maybe it shows that many so-called experts don't know as much as we'd like to think they do. (That and that inmates should not run the asylum) But more important is the lack of candor — and that being an expert, having credentials, doesn't guarantee candor. If anything, at least in the current environment, being an expert brings with it incentives to not be candid. They would find themselves criticizing people they personally know and like or in some way have a professional relationship with. What we have here at BigSoccer that the experts, for whatever reason, don't have is CANDOR. If the World Cup proved anything about who was right, who was wrong, it was that CANDOR was a hell of a lot more valuable than CREDENTIALS. I'm not dismissing the value of expertise, but if candor doesn't come with it, it's useless to fans and it's useless (or should be useless) to any journalists who care about keeping their readers informed. But I don't know if we have journalists like that in WoSo
I am not american but looking at the candor definition you think the us journos are dishonest in what they publish? Also the analytical stuff does not get much readership as other banal stuff sadly. It does get read by a certain population of fans. But a good majority of fans are not interesting in reading x ran 12km with 25 high intensity runs during that game and a xG of...
I admit that a bunch of spreadsheets of data and "analytical stuff", as you call it, would sure have me annoyed and skip the page or the article reporting them. The same way that the crude scientific data-base of, let's say, a biological, physical and astronomical experience would bore the shit out of me, unless I am a deeply technical expert of that field; but if some good vulgarizer would pick some few important chosen data for me and would explain them to me and, while briefly emphazing their importance, would traslate them into a more conversational and narrative description of what exactly those data mean and what that experience is fundamentally about, I could be very interested in that biological, physical or astronomical article, even excited! What I mean is that embedded cheerleaders make of course for an annoying reading, but mere data-spouters filling their articles with diagrams and numbers without aptly commenting them or giving sense to them in a wider picture can be at least as much annoying. A good journalist, in my opinion, shouldn't just give the raw data to his readers and suppose that everyone has the level of expertise to make use of them, but he should "digest" them and make use of them for a good insightful article, that would be substantiated by well-explained data, but not just "made of them". I am of course not talking about you, @shlj, but it happens too much often to me to see examples of lazy football analysis basically just made of a bunch of graphic and spreadsheets with no conscious effort to translate them into actual words. It can be satisfying for some, but not for me and, I suspect, not for the majority of football's fans.
Here is an example on Kyra Cooney-Cross It is fantastic but would the general public fans want to read that?
If I could rep this 100x, I would. I will read any opinion expressed here. I can agree or disagree. I can respect the way it is expressed and still disagree. I dont't care to know the qualifications of the writer. In time, everyone can form their own opinions as to credibility. I may or may not have coaching licenses, but I see that as my business and only relevant if I am coaching. I dont care to share that stuff here to gain credibility from strangers I only know via usernames. I have stopped posting on some threads because they are clearly not a source of interesting or objective discourse or information for me.
I find this interesting, to a point. Analysis like this for women tends to lack context given the huge variation in the quality of opponents.
I think that one potential factor I haven’t read mentioned in this thread is access. I believe many WoSoc journalists are reluctant to be too critical of the team, coaches, and federation because they are afraid they will lose access to the team and inside information. Being labeled a “hater,” especially when team is still getting results won’t curry favor or develop relationships within the system. The US Team had turned into a sacred cow. Look no farther than what happens on this forum to posters / posts that don’t support a long standing narrative or look at something through a different lens. Posters are often called trolls or their credentials questioned. Now, imagine being a journalist that probably didn’t play at the highest level (commentators aside) and doesn’t hold an A license nor a Pro license…and you want to criticize the most successful team and program in the history of the sport. It takes some professional bravery. The WoSoc journalism niche isn’t exactly mainstream and in major demand for more full time talent. I think the current ones like their position are probably content to keep the status quo, not rock the boat too much, cheerlead, and churn out supportive positive narratives.
I have never heard of a good journalist that sacrificed integrity for access. It takes more work to get good stories if you are not an insider and the only reason for not doing the work is simple laziness. So, it seems that people reporting on women's soccer, and most women's sports in general are simply incompetent and/or lazy. That is why I try to ignore much of what gets reported. I do NOT need low grade morons telling me what I should think and "low grade morons" are about all that report on women's sports. I don't even like or watch most video "clips" as they lie just as badly, or worse, than the actual print reporters.
That remind me of the press conference before Ireland v France, where the AFP agency correspond mentioned that Wendie Renard had blacklisted them for any personal interview because one of the AFP guy had asked her a question she did not like at a previous press meet.
Maybe it's time to revisit this thread. One of the criticisms voiced repeatedly was that WoSo Journalists tend to act like "cheerleaders" rather than journalists. Has anything changed? What happens when two things they are cheerleading on come into conflict with each other? The journos, like most fans, are fans of both Alex Morgan and the new coach, Emma Hayes — so what happens when Coach Hayes leaves Morgan off the Olympics roster? Interesting, wasn't it? Universally they sided with Emma Hayes. Suddenly all those critical observations some fans have been making all along — about Morgan's declining production — were no longer brushed off or ignored but became used in defense of Hayes' decision.
Sure, when you weigh what matters most to soccer journos in the US - continued access to the players/staff and VIP events when we host tournaments - the Fed takes precedence over a player in being able to grant that. On the broso side I think the 1st division league takes precedence over the federation, I think on the woso side it's flipped.
If we remove the athletes, I don't think there are enough "journalists" and organizations covering soccer that are going to take the opposite position when dropping Alex Morgan was really not too controversial. If the last two years have showed anything, it's that we don't know how to cover women's sport and it's likely never going to get better with the changes to the media landscape. Not WoSo, but Cheryl Miller said the WNBA was being underpaid at 200 million a year and no one pushed back. That doesn't happen almost anywhere. Either Miller is accusing the NBA of choosing a deal for less money, when no alternative WNBA deal was proposed or it was just a throw away comment.
This is not WoSo specific, but this article kind of frustrated me. This is from a long time journalist. It's insulting for the players who have been with the team for this cycle to lose their spot for "ratings". https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...sketball-caitlin-clark-attention/74734712007/
I think your criticism mis-states the argument. Adding Taylor Swift to the team would be for the ratings. Adding Caitlin Clark to the team would be adding the WNBA’s assist leader to the team, so a great young player (plus great ratings). The argument against adding Clark is that her rise came too late in the cycle to (fairly) include her. Only someone who doesn’t understand sports or basketball would think she was added unfairly and unreasonably - solely ‘cause, ya know, ratings. 100% a missed opportunity, but that’s now in the past. Moving on …
I read that a committee of basketball people picks the Olympic basketball team and it was picked 100% for basketball reasons, not marketing. Clark did not make the team for basketball reasons according to a person on the committee.
I was covering the French team at the Olympics and a theme that came multiple times from the head coach and the players during the press conferences is " you journalist are always looking from negative stuff, never the positives". Imagine they were like 5 or 6 max, sometimes 3 journos at those press conf ( those were those on match at MD-2 or MD-1). It becomes quite personal, they were hinting a l'Equipe journos, but I guess you get the same kind of relationship on the US press corp.
You mean Foudy. It appears that in this last go-round, she was told to muzzle it. In one match, she was starting to go off on the admittedly ridiculous schedule and roster limitations in the Olympics. She said something like "I know I'm not supposed to talk about this ...." So, apparently, someone had told her to stick to talking about the match. Which she mostly did. And, it was muuuuuch better.