This week's column, deemed unsuitable for dcunited.com, has taken one of its sporadic road trips to: http://www.onetouchfootball.com/usa/ Cheers, Ian.
Jeez, Ian. I was reading along swimmingly until the Women's World Cup Final was deemed to be the most wonderful of the weekend. Up until then I thought your column was a plea for skill. [Sarcastic aside] Yessir there were several displays of brillant dribbling around defenders in that game, not to mention the absolute precision of the athletes' first touch in the vast majority of instances in the WWC. [/Sarcastic aside] On further reflection I guess you were just calling for excitement in playoff games. I've got to tell you that I've never been to a dull playoff game (I watched MLS Cup 2002 on tv). There is an electricity in the air for such meaningful games as those vs cheating bob and his scum-suckers. On Sunday, there will be a tactile energy field in and among the supporters' groups. I am a fan of your columns and appreciate your perspectives, so please consider these as constructive comments. For those thinking the MLS season stretches on forever, I suggest that they consider the number of regular season baseball and hockey games, the last five minutes of virtually any basketball game and dealing with the number of stoppages, penalty flags, tv timeouts and unlimited substitutions in what was once the beautiful game of American Football. Each of these instances can be used as a metaphor for eternity much more appropriately than a 30 game regular season for MLS. As for 80% of the teams making the playoffs we can't defend the percentage, but we can certainly defend the number of participants. This is a growing league. In 2005 the percentage participation will likely be 67% and it will probably continue to decline until it reaches 40% (assuming the denominator never becomes zero). I'm sorry you didn't take another shot at MLS' ridiculous overtime in the regular season. Sure, people could hear me say that and respond that I'm just sore at DC's record in OT -- and they would be right about my feeling about DC. However, the majority of MLS' poorly-compensated athletes have had to play a game lasting about 105 minutes (not counting ref Kennedy's measurement of stoppage time and bench warmers) on average (I'm guessing, maybe somebody will do the math). Perhaps the cumulative effect marathon games is now showing up as dead-legged players, who cannot put on a game of end-to-end action with precise ball 'handling'. I am adamantly opposed to regular season overtime, as I think you are, on its own demerits for all MLS teams. What say ye to stoking the ire and building a fire to consume Garber's overtime marketing theories? He helped rid the world of the shootout anathema so perhaps he can see the light on overtime as well. Keep on scribing (it's an American privilege to make verbs from nouns). GM
Great column Ian. I wonder why it was deemed unsuitable for dcunited's website? Maybe because it was too critical of MLS. I particularly liked this: There were just six goals in five MLS games at the weekend, including two sudden death overtime goals and two penalty kicks 3 of the 6 goals were scored in 1 game-the LA-KC game. 2 of the games ended up 0-0, that being 100+injury time minutes each of nothing Another game was the DC United-NE game, where nothing resulted until Prideaux tripped a guy in the penalty area, otherwise it most probably would have been 100+injury time minutes of nothing. Ian and many others complain about overtime-I don't like it either. I liked the shootout, but don't expect it to come back. The league HAS to make the games more exciting. That's the MAIN reason attendance goes down. Guys around the league now seem to be getting injured a lot-maybe we need more cards on defenders. And enough of the plastic grass! Play on a respectable field. Seems more like the Serie A now-where teams bunker and goals are very hard to come by. And I don't see the Serie A selling out. EPL scores more goals. And one more thing-ENOUGH WITH THE PARITY!! When you can't tell one team from another, how bland is that!! What's the use getting excited about one team, if it's no different than any other team? And MLS Cup. Why one game for the whole thing? I was listening to the Soccer Show the other day. I think it was CWeed who said MLS could use a mixup in scheduling-how about some A-League teams and regional matchups. Whatever or however, MLS has to make the MLS game more exciting next year.
GM - in your sarcastic aside you could remove 'WWC' and replace it quite easily with 'MLS'. Or 'EPL' for that matter. Regardless of the game's technical merits (and I think it's pointless to compare men's and women's soccer in this respect), the women's final was better than any game I've seen in MLS this year from an entertainment point of view. I thought about the baseball and hockey seasons too as a comparison to the MLS season, but I try not to bring US sports into my columns unfavourably in case I sound like a tedious, Yank-trashing Euro. As for bringing up Over-Time again - having written a whole piece about that already I didn't want to repeat myself. My feelings haven't changed on the necessity to abolish it (if only to save DC fans further torture). Budwiser - I think the club didn't want to post the piece just as they're gearing up to promote the playoffs, which I can quite understand. It's interesting you want to ditch the parity - usually I cite this as one of MLS' strengths when European fans of lesser clubs are moaning about how predictable the EPL, SPL, and most of the other big European leagues have become. On the other hand, we do miss out here on the satisfaction of seeing a giant getting stiffed by an underdog.
Good article with valid points. I think that anyone watching the matches over the last month or so would have to agree with the assessment. Moreover, it's not just MLS-bashing. It's constructive criticism even when we don't all agree with the suggestions. One point that isn't brought up is the embarrassing result of Dallas' ineptitude this year. It has rendered the Western Conference playoff push a joke. Sure the 4 qualifiers are "jockeying for position" but realistically, it will come down to KC and Colorado fighting it out for 2nd. The other positions are locked in. As for OT, I mentioned it in another thread, but apart from the strain that it places on weary legs, I wonder how this impacts injuries to players. Surely it effects the quality of play, but I am curious as to whether it is taking out players? Surely this is another aspect of it effecting the quality of play.
Great piece Ian. I did read a good counter argument from Sean Wheelock on the ESPN site wherein he, who had previously preferred the european version of single table, has come to accept (embrace?) the American model for providing some actual end of season incentive for teams. To paraphrase, most teams in europe at the end of season are playing to 1) win the championship (a few to be sure) 2) avoid relegation, or 3) some spot in one of the two european cup competitions. Obviously we don't have relegation or a solid confederation wide cup competition (who the hell really knows how/when the CONCACAF champions thing runs?). What we do have, and this year it's tighter than most, is 9 out of the 10 teams into the post season with a shout. While it certainly may be a bit threadbare and the problems with scheduling you mention are valid (shouldn't we be able to theoretically meet the Muttros in the final?), the other side of the coin is making some sense to me with the plot taken as written. I thought the WWC was entertaining. The shoot out was an abomination before God. I dislike overtime and will be happy when it's gone. I can't wait till the same number of teams make the post season with a 20 team league. Home and Home final would be better too.
That's why we have the US Open Cup. As for the whole "dead legs" idea: DC United has played / will play 30 League games 4 exhibitions (that I can think of) 4 US Open Cup games 5 (potential) playoff games That's 43 matches. Don't the top clubs in Europe play closer to 60 matches per year, with the top players playing in 50 or so? Perhaps the place to invest resources is in strength and conditioning. BTW, I love the playoffs. I'd rather see every game mean something, even if it just "seeding" rather than have 50 percent of the league schedule be essentially meaningless after 3/4 of the season. Sachin
Not to make excuses, but while a team like Manchester United could play 60 or so games (38 league + X FA Cup + X League Cup + X Champions League), they carry much larger squads, have a reserve team, a youth academy, and don't often play more than two games a week. There are some weird MLS schedules with teams playing 3-5 games in 10 day stretches owing to stadium issues and that's with the limited size roster that we're all familiar with. The last time I can recall a top tier English club using MLS size squad numbers was in the 70s (I think Leeds or Liverpool made it through one season using a grand total of 14 players). Factor into this some of the players in the first team MLS squads are "not ready for prime time". As interesting side note, I figure the amount of overtime DC has played this year would equal at least a whole game.
Perhaps, but they play them with much larger rosters than MLS teams. I think the place to invest resources (besides in SSSs) is in larger rosters. Once we have them, I'd like to see more games, too, but our roster is knackered right now, and so are those of many other teams, and not (IMO) just because the players don't train enough. As for Mr P's column, I guess I must be in a distinct minority in finding it just a heap of whining. Some of it tired, retread whining at that. Yes, of course we'd all like to see MLS get off plastic grass, increase the number of teams, and be able to afford more coast-to-coast match travel: I'm sure anyone who has a few spare tens of millions of dollars to help out the league will be warmly received at MLS HQ. Just keep in mind that most teams in the EPL need to travel considerably less than 200 miles, while from Foxboro to LA is more like 3000 miles.
Here's a link to Sean Wheelock's column, which is on FSW site not ESPN's. If you smoke as much crack as I do you make these kind of mistakes. http://www.foxsportsworld.com/content/view?contentId=1716404
"MLS PR = North Korean propaganda" Amen brother. And if you watch for awhile you can't help but think they believe we swallow every word whole, too. The problem with MLS is that it's owned by corporate kingpins who treat it just like all their other massive corporate holdings and have since day one. (Don't like something? Issue a self-serving press release that tells whatever story you want it to.) But you can't skip the bit about building grassroots support and building a tradition and history around what THE SUPPORTERS want the definitions to be. I don't think you can do it from the top down, but time will tell I suppose.
Spoken like someone who didn't watch at least one of the 0-0 games. There's no way you can say that the Dallas-Metros games was "100 minutes of nothing." If DJ Countess and Jonny Walker don't make three brilliant saves of three well-taken penalty kicks, that game's scoreboard ends up looking a lot different. Complaining about the lack of scoring in soccer is a bit like complaining about trashy women at strip clubs, don't you think? Well, at least overtime saved us from "100 minutes of nothing" in one game this weekend. Maybe they should have bigger goals in MLS. And the EPL has smaller stadiums than Serie A. Call me crazy, but I'm guessing that that's probably the reason why they sell out more games. You don't like parity, but I'm guessing that you're not gonna volunteer your team to be cannon fodder. Everybody loves dynasties as long as their team is the dynasty. All those people who thought that MLS was so great from '96 to '99? About 90% of them are DC United fans.
Oh...and the idea that Serie A scores fewer goals than the EPL? Myth. Just as in past seasons, they were nearly identical in '02-'03 -- 2.63 (EPL) v 2.58 (Italy) Damn English bunker ball.
Yep. Absolutely right. G*d I hate the way they shut down every team that doesn't make money. And then take golden parachutes and retire early to live off the huge profits their teams rake in.
Uhhh....I saw the game. Penalty kick saves?? Come on. You know I saw it because near the end of the game an MSG announcers said something like "You would think w/the score 0-0 it was a boring game, but that wasn't the case-it was exciting." I kinda disagreed. The Metros maybe made it a little exciting, but the Burn were AWFUL, even though the announcers kept saying they were playing well for their record and would make the playoffs if they played like that all season Complaining about the lack of scoring in soccer is a bit like complaining about trashy women at strip clubs, don't you think? Yeah, but I wouldn't complain about trashy women at a strip club, would you? Well, at least overtime saved us from "100 minutes of nothing" in one game this weekend I saw that Prideaux foul. You mean to tell me we watch almost 100 minutes of soccer and it ends on Prideaux sticking his knee in front of a guy in a penalty box?? I mean COME ON And the EPL has smaller stadiums than Serie A. Call me crazy, but I'm guessing that that's probably the reason why they sell out more games OK good point. I see Serie A games w/lots of room in the stands You don't like parity, but I'm guessing that you're not gonna volunteer your team to be cannon fodder. Everybody loves dynasties as long as their team is the dynasty You'd be surprised at what I'd do to see a great team in MLS. Baseball's boring as hell, but people will stop to find the Yankees and Red Sox exciting. The Cubs have a legendary losing streak. This kind of stuff adds to the fun of MLB. NBA? You have the Lakers, the Kings. These are the teams you see on TV every week-these are the teams that define leagues. Make them fun. Do you want to watch in MLB the Royals vs the Indians? Of course not. I used to watch Shootout a lot and follow the Miami Fusion because they were an exciting team to watch What defines the EPL? Teams like Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool. They set the standard. Manchester United comes over here, for the Champions League, and you can't find tickets at high prices in places like the Meadowlands. All those people who thought that MLS was so great from '96 to '99? About 90% of them are DC United fans. Then what.......you like it now better than from '96 to '99?? What's your suggestion for improving the league?
Interesting stuff from back in '99: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/mls/1999/mls_cup/news/1999/11/23/united_parade_ap/ Said Garber: "I'm not worried about (the DC dynasty)," MLS commissioner Don Garber said Sunday after D.C. took its third championship with a 2-0 win over the Los Angeles Galaxy. "But I think that our fans would like to see another team give them a good run." And then there's: Parity was a key ingredient of the league's original business plan Well, we've got parity now. Congrats. Question is, is the league better for it. My answer is obviously no. What's the commissioner doing to improve the league? His "State of the League" address is always boring as hell. I'd like to know......
Well, maybe I'm a homer, but I'll excuse my team for playing a bit negatively when they're 5-18-4 coming into the match are missing five starters due to injury or callup. So you wanted the ref to swallow his whistle in that situation? You didn't answer my question. Do you want to volunteer DC United to be the Coventry City of MLS -- perpetual also-rans, never a hope of another title? I'm guessing that you don't. Everybody wants their team to have a shot at the title at least once in a while. Sorry, but leagues are zero-sum games. If somebody's riding high, year in and year out, then that means that someone has to be crap, year in and year out. Moreover, if leagues "need" dynasties, then how would you make your case to the NFL that they're doing it all wrong? Other than the fact that my team hasn't advanced out of the 1st round of the playoffs since '99 and the fact that we've got two fewer teams, yes, I do like it better. Keep on keepin' on: Keep improving the player talent. Keep improving the venues.
Playing on that disaster of a soccer field excuses your team from doing anything. Dallas has by far the worst home record, the lowest average home attendance. Horrible fake grass field w/extreme football lines and endzone colors-no wonder Kreis tore his ACL. I tore mine on artificial turf. You didn't answer my question. Do you want to volunteer DC United to be the Coventry City of MLS -- perpetual also-rans, never a hope of another title? DC United already has become the Coventry City of MLS. No playoffs, last place finishes the last 3 years. Everybody wants their team to have a shot at the title at least once in a while. Sorry, but leagues are zero-sum games. I guess now the Metros get home-home-home field for the last 3 Open Cup games, gets their 1st title probably, and calls it "legit". Yeah, right. They got what they wanted-who's the league gonna decide gets the next Open Cup title? would you make your case to the NFL that they're doing it all wrong? NFL doesn't have single entity or is close to the parity MLS has. NFL has its terrible Bengals, Cardinals, Bears teams and great teams in Tampa Bay, Green Bay. I don't see the NLF giving up Warren Sapp or Brett Favre for "salary cap reasons". What league in the world has the parity MLS has? I haven't seen any.
Baltimore Ravens, circa 2002. Dallas Cowboys, circa mid-90s. They don't give up their one or two stars becuase their cap is bigger because they bring in more money. But teams have cap troubles all the time and give up very good players in order to accomodate the guys at the top of the scale. And it hurts teams. If you think the NFL doesn't have parity, I'm not sure what will convince you. Just because they have more teams at the extremes than MLS doesn't mean they don't have parity. It is a result of sheer larger numbers. I typed "NFL salary cap" into Google's news earch and came up with a bunch of articles about the effect of caps on team and the NFL's desire for parity. It's a reality. Whether you choose to accept that fact is up to you. That said, I was indifferent to Ian's article. Just like I was to the radio interview of Garber with nothing but a bunch of Europosing whining about "why can't this change." Face it - some people are gonna find something to bitch about. If it's not a week where the games blow, it will be horns in the stadium. If it's not that, it will be marketing to kids. If it's not that, it will be not playing in every club competition in this hemisphere. The league is growing. To get completely anal because one late-season week featured a bunch of horrible games shows a lack of long-term vision which is exactly what MLS needs to have in the front office. People can be knee-jerk all they want. Just don't expect the people signing the checks to be the same way. I may not agree with all their decisions, but they have the right focus.
No question.....as I have. I don't 100% agree w/what I just said, it's an extreme position, but I do like to argue on this board, as it's fun and wastes more time at work for me. It's kinda like PTI-Kornheiser and Wilbon go at it, taking extreme positions, partly believe what they say, just having fun going at it That said, I think there's some truth in what I said about the effect of parity-and there's NO DENYING there is some parity in MLS. And I'm not sure how much the league is growing, other than making new stadiums. Attendance seems to be going nowhere, tv ratings are tiny, ... so something should be done. Nobody really hears much from Garber about league direction, other than the standard "the league is doing great" BS Parity also hurts when we play club tournaments. Columbus and LA were absolute busts this year as MLS representatives, DC wasn't when it was a dynasty If there was no complaining, you'd take away what-maybe 50% of the posts on BigSoccer. Complaints about players, coaches, other posters' posts, what have you is an essential part of BigSoccer I think
mls scheduling A great point. With the new playoff format, they had to figure there was a decent chance this would happen. Had New England not come alive the last few games, nearly the same would have happened with Columbus and Chicago playing three straight and four out of five. It just makes no sense. Ditto scheduling that Thursday Metros-DC game for one day after the U.S. Open Cup semis. That was basically MLS saying, "guess which two teams we don't think are gonna make it to the semi-finals?" Our reward for making it anyway? No TV coverage (unlike Fire-Galaxy), since USSF had to move the game. And then MLS schedules our two home Sunday games AFTER the NFL season has started, both in conflict with Redskins games, something that will clearly siphon away casual fans. Meanwhile, L.A., which doesn't have an NFL team, won't play in any of the six MLS Sunday games competing with the NFL. Soccer Sunday should be all about the L.A. Galaxy, or would that be too obvious? We played at RFK on three straight Saturday nights from June 7-21, then didn't play a Sat. night home game until Aug. 9. It's not like the Senators had scheduled a 50-day RFK homestand or anything. We are now in the middle of a 6-week gap in Sat. home games, from Sept. 13 to Oct. 25. Sometimes it just seems like MLS is trying to drive its fans away.