I clicked on the radio last night on the way home from Gillette, hoping for some post-game recap. Instead I get this guy who is going on about that lame tired old "Soccer won't make it in this country unless there is more scoring." I think it was on WEEI. Several Revs fans called in from cell phones on the way home from the game, but he just cut them off and kept going with his BS. He actually proposed that the game be changed so as to encourage more offense and scoring and that it was bad thing that we refuse to change the game. As if MLB will start playing in smaller fields just to increase the number of home runs in a game. So, here is my answer - feel free to use it anytime - for any soccer fan who is confronted with this ridiculous "Soccer is boring because of the low score" nonsense. I don't think anyone would say that Superbowl XXXVI was boring. Pats 20, Rams 17. Let's compare this exciting game to a soccer match. Rams get on the board first with a field goal. Well, in soccer we don't give any points for almost getting a goal. Field goals inside of 40 yards are almost a given these days. NFL score 3-0. MLS score 0-0. Pats score next with a touchdown. They get 7 points for getting the job done. In soccer you only get 1. It's just honest. NFL score 7-3. MLS score 1-0. Pats get another touchdown. MLS score 14-3. MLS score 2-0 Pats get a field goal. NFL score 17-3. MLS score still 2-0. Rams get 2 more touchdowns to tie the game. NFL score 17-17. MLS score 2-2. Pats win it with a field goal after a very exciting drive, but still its a field goal. NFL - game over Pats win 21-17. MLS - game still tied 2-2 and we are looking for a real goal in OT. Maybe we could start giving 6 points for a goal and 3 points for any shot on goal saved by the keeper. We'd have scores in the 40's and 50's in no time. I know its long and not exactly original, but there it is. I feel better now.
And that took 4 hours to get to 2-2. We do it in 90 minutes. Actual time the ball is in play in the nfl is around 18 minutes. That leaves 3 hours + of absolutely nothing happening. Exciting huh?
They're always going to be blow-hards like this, and at this point we really can't get side-tracked by their antics. Soccer is the journalistic equivalent of a fart-joke to these guys, it's something just simple enough for them to wrap their head around. Concentrate on the good coverage from the local affiliates, send them emails praising them for their coverage... good feedback can only help further our cause. There's been solid coverage in both print and television, and with the Sox out of the playoffs/Bruins & Celtics not quite in the mainstream sports eye yet, maybe the Revs can use their momentum to hijack some of the sports media machine in this area. The Magpie
That was Ted Sarandis - a total fool! And it was a caller - a soccer fan(!) - who suggested "improving" the game by eliminating the offsides rule. Oh, that would be exciting, watching each teams forwards stationed in front of the goals waiting for the ball to arrive. Actually, for those who would muck with the game, they should ask why Americans don't get into international basketball. You'd think that a "World Cup" of basketball, as the recent World Championships are referred to, would be a great competition for US fan interest. The answer, as every hoops fan would know, is that they play "different rules", thus different game! Like "Rugby League" and the amateur variety. My understanding is that there are very few fans who follow both with passion. But again, Sarandis is an idiot. Having him talk about soccer is even worse than having him ignore it!
Anyone who didn't find real sporting excitement in the NE-Chi playoff match is beyond the pale. They are barbarians -- they know what they know, and that's all they want to know. In time they will pass from the scene. Unfortunately, they have access to mass media and the chance to clone more zombies like themselves. All a person need do is accept a thing on its own terms, then trust what you see. there are dull games in every sport, but MLS has given us exciting contests more often than not -- and it just keeps getting better.
If you eliminate offsides, Mamadou would automatically become the best player in the world.... Do you really want that to happen??!?!?!?!?!?!
I saw Mike Lynch's miscue's. I don't like channel 5 for any sports coverage anyway. Kudos to ch's 4 & 7 both led off their sports coverage with the Rev's game. Ch 5 had it as the second story maybe even further down than that.
That's good to know. Media people probably play more golf than any other sport. Compare the 'actual involvemnet' in the game of golf to the constant strategy and physical exertion of soccer. But, then again, if you need a good nap; watch golf on TV.
Bob, what did Lynch say/do? He's still bitter about showing up at Foxboro for WC94 and being denied access because FIFA only allow a couple thousand journalists to cover the WC, and he/Ch 5 never applied for credentials. What an idiot! Anyway, one of the first things I heard this morning on my alarm clock was the game being mentioned as the lead sports story on WBOS 92.9. Nothing special, but it's nice to see the mainstream sports people give the Revs their due. Tom
Lynch just a couple of stupid little things like calling Daniel Hernandez "David", and pronouncing Adin like A-dean. This on top of Kristen Mastroianni calling Wolde Harris "Wolde Clark" and Taylor "Tyler" this weekend. I'm not sure who's writing the copy over at Channel 5 but they probably need to hire someone else. That's all. I also listened to some of WEEI on my way back from the game, but I had to turn it off. Some caller saying that the game should be split into four quarters, and team given timeouts or something. Also by making the nets bigger it would attract big foreign stars because they would score more goals. What?!? Of course Ted Sarandis was agreeing with him. That's why I turned it off.
That's just unprofessional--not getting the names right. And the Revs media guide has these pronounciation guides to the players names, just in case they can't figure out the phonetics of "Brown." Or, just listen to the pbp broadcast to make sure you've got the pronounciations. I would forgive them if they called Kante "Dude-a" or butchered the former Crew player Abusku Abukusumu, but there's no excuse for "Wolde Clark" Tom
its been done and theyve juiced the balls to also help them go out. theyve also scerwed around with the height of the pitching mound to make it ever harder for pitchers to pitch, and this is comparable to saying keeper can only handle the ball inside the 6
Email George, who does the news for David O'Leary, and thank him. georgeknight@wbos.com BTW, Amy Brooks, (who hosts the midday show), played in college, so she gives it a mention when she can too. Not for nothing, but the Revs were the lead sports story on Magic 106.7 as well. Email Gay Vernon, (baseball fans know her as Mickey's daughter), from the Magic website, and thank her if you can. WMJX has always been ranked either 1st or 2nd in the 25-54 age group in Boston for years now. -john
That is a tired argument. I wonder how many of the soccer-bashing media enjoy pitchers duels. Those are low scoring matchups. If you can admire a pitcher's outstanding effort why not a soccer goalkeeper's shutout? How many shots are saved in a hockey game? More than soccer, but both goalies have to make saves and keep their team in the game. How many media types were in awe of the Baltimore Ravens' defense during their Superbowl run? (A 34-7 win over the Giants). And how many of them agreed with the statement that "defense wins championships?" I doubt all baseball fans like to watch 15-2 blowouts. Same for hockey fans, basketball fans, football fans, soccer fans, lacrosse fans...pick a sport and its appropriate blowout score. Granted it keeps the media folks busy with their score cards and they'll have things to talk about. But I think big saves, great tackles or spectacular catches are something to talk about too. I could offer more examples, but I think that will suffice for now. Point is: Yes, you need offense (and who doesn't love a goal, touchdown, grand slam etc. for their team?) but defense is important too. Don't get me wrong, I love seeing Revs goals and we've seen a lot this year, but the problem early on was we were allowing too many. Now we have a much better balance. Fans want to cheer on their favorite team and hope that their team puts in a good effort and has a chance to win. People often get defensive when someone "attacks" their team or their sport, it's part of being a fan. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I think that a lot of the soccer bashing folks haven't even bothered to watch a match. TV doesn't always do it justice, you need to drag your butt out to see it in person and really get a feel for the game. You just might be surprised and if you still don't like it, well, that's your prerogative, but at least you can say you tried it instead of just bashing it because you don't understand it or because you didn't play it. Can't hurt to learn some more about it, your kids probably play it. After all, it is the world's sport, we can't all be wrong about it. Now that I've stepped off my soap box and stopped ranting... Magpie's right. We need to thank those that have been covering the team and those that have started to do so. Emails, calls and letters are what got the recent coverage kick-started (thanks to Magpie and co.), can't stop now. Between the fans and the team media folks, not to mention the Revs effort and results on the pitch, you never know what level we can take this to. One more comment...regarding WEEI...I imagine the Revs game broadcasts were part of the Patriots Monday deal for the station. If that's the case, I think it is in their best interest not to bash the sport right after the conclusion of a match broadcast. Sports talk radio is all about the opinions of the hosts and the callers, but bashing a sport right after a broadcast is different than complaining about a team's performance tonight or throughout a season. ok, I'm stopping now...really.
Ch 7 last night started off with the Revs. Showed both goals and an Adin Brown save. Mentioned game 2 on Sunday. Also regarding Brown's efforts said "way to work." Also saw Gene Lavanchy of Ch 7 at about 5:30 PM yesterday broadcasting live from Gillette. That was right before I left my house to head to the stadium.
NESN also had a good report on the game during their morning Sportsdesk program. It got mention in the intro and then had a good segment later in the show. They showed both goals, Brown's save, Thorton's save on Wolde in the 1st half, Cullen's shot at Thorton in the 1st half, the Fire header that just went over the crossbar late in the game, and a view of the Fort waving scarfs and cheering. Very good coverage for a 15 minute show that just usually passes the score along as a graphic.
I Hate to Rant, But........ Has anyone noticed that none of the radio stations in this town have a host who's under the age of 40? They may have a couple of newspaper guys who do the shows to make a few extra bucks but none of these stations have a "personality" who's under 40, though I don't know how old that moron Greg Dickerson is. I don't count Meterperel either as he doesn't have his own show. Point being, none of these guys have a clue about soccer because none of them have played it. You can't expect people to talk about what they just don't understand. So anyone who would call Sarandis wanting to talk about the Revs game isnt' too bright, because Sarandis is incapable of intelligently discussing it. Radio by nature is not a creative business because it's driven by ad revenues which are, to a large extent, driven by ratings. Most major market program directors are afraid to take chances because if something doesn't pan out, they could well be fired. Plus a lot of them hire programming "consultants" who basically tell them to do what everyone else is doing. So we have two sports stations in this town both with the same formats. Two hosts at midday, and a roundtable type show in the afternoon with a host and assorted print and fringe TV guys joining in. Maybe one of these days, Jason Wolfe at EEI or Mike Kellog at the Zone will wake up and try a soccer show for an hour or two during a weekend, which is radio's off-peak time. Get a host or two who actually know something about the sport, find a sponsor and get a call in show going. I would think that they would, in time, attract a few more listeners than currently tune in to hear idiots like Jon Wallack and the above noted Mr. Dickerson put you to sleep recycling the same stupid drivel that most of these shows generate during the week. (Is it possible to have less talent than those two by the way? Man, do they suck.) Or better yet (and listen up Revs Management) buy a couple of hours a week on Sunday night or after a Revs game on Saturday and offer it as a value added enticement to one of your sponsors, then let Adrian and Doug host it. If it were done right, they might be surprised at the audience it attracts because there are a lot more soccer fans around here than any of the suits who run these stations think. It might also help the Revs marketing efforts over time.
Trying to "adjust" MLS and NFL scores to explain that soccer is exciting is not so clever. The NFL averages somewhere around 5 TDs per game, MLS around 3 goals per game. But I've never heard anybody seriously argue that Arena football is three times better than the NFL because the TDs/game average is 13-14. For that matter, I couldn't quickly calculate an average number of field goals in an NBA game, but I'm guessing it's around 80, so doesn't that mean everything but basketball is an egregious waste of our spectating time?
Look, maybe 28 million people in this country of 280 million people are genuinely interested in soccer, maybe 10% of the population, more or less. And of those 28 million maybe half really care about the game HERE on a professional level to attend an MLS match. Well, in Portugal, Holland, Scotland, Chile and other countries that is more than enough of a core group to draw on to support a competitive, intersting league. And, in the case of Portugal and Holland, leagues that are competitive, skillful and of a high caliber. So maybe we all should stop fretting about the "other" 250 million people who just don't care and, as far as I'm concerned, can be lumped into one, big Ted Sarandis as in "nice guy, well-intentioned but just ignorant and irrelevant when it comes to proper football. Both MLS and the Revs can thrive, even prosper with crowds of 20,000 + coming to see a league and teams that play interesting, skillful football on a par with Portugal or Holland. THAT, given what we saw in WorldCup 02 and the end of the MLS regular season, is a highly attainable goal. The rest, i.e. the rest of the population, just doesn't matter. Put even more simply, market football for football fans and buggerall to the rest. JIM DOW
LoL, I heard somebody call taylor Taylor Wellman.... maybe a small mispronounciation... but funny none-the-less
Soccer is the Marty Mcfly of the American sports media. Whenever they need an easy target they go right for it. Gloating in their ignorance and disprespect for the game.
I disagree that eliminating the offside rule would result in higher scores. If my opponent's forwards are cherry-picking in front of my goal, I'm going to position at least as many backs behind them, taking those backs out of a potential overlapping attack. The end result would be the ball being knocked around midfield by six players on each side, with no possibility of breakaways. Two-on-one rushes would become 4-on-3s, and with the offensive advantage being reduced, I believe scoring would decrease. The offside rule actually encourages defenders to come forward and join the attack.
Ho-hum Ten years ago it was alright to give the Gerry Callahan's of the world a toungue lashing for ripping on soccer, but at this point its all moot. Nothing Jim Rome is going to say is going to make a soccer fan stop liking soccer, and nothing we say is going to make soccer bashers turn the corner. I say all press is good press when it comes to soccer, even if its an out-of-step dinosaur attacking something they don't know anything about. We shouldn't get so offended when the idea of changes in the game are brought up. Eliminating offside would be stupid and would only hurt the game, yes, but, for example, I don't think goalkeepers should ever be allowed to use their hands to pick up an intentional passback, whether its passed back with the head or chest, and not just the feet...plus, I feel that in a playoff or World Cup-esque situation, if a game is still tied after 30 minutes of golden goal, they should keep playing more 15-minute sudden death periods and eliminate the substitution restriction, doing away with PKs, which has to be the most sickening form (OK, second most, the shootout was worse) of "winning" a game. We in the soccer communities need to stop getting so defensive about what is said about our sport, and instead concentrate on uniting all of the various soccer communities that are out there behind US Soccer, MLS, etc. Once we do that, and soccer solidifies its place in the Big 5 American sports, what can anyone say?