I stopped at Paul Gardner. Seriously, go listen to the state of the League address from the Tuesday before MLS Cup. Its archived on the MLS site. Right around the 55th minute or so Gardner asks a long-winded idiotic question and Don Garber lays a smackdown on hom (and catches Clavijo int eh crossfire). Gardner wouldn't know a good MLS game if it jumped up and smacked him in the face.
I'm not a Rapids fan but when I describe you guys from now till next November the word I'll use is champions.
"banal" and "almighty bore" is how I'd describe Gardner's book about the World Cup. Seriously, the least interesting read about the World Cup I've ever read. But then again he's sold about 2,000 times as many books as I have so I'll just go hide in the corner.
I heard him interviewed on NPR a day before the game and the only Rapid he could name was Pablo. It's like he never heard of the best forward combination in MLS. Idiot. As for the game, to some extent the Rapids took what the situation gave them. It could have been a very different game if Toledo didn't allow ongoing fouls both in and out of the box. So if MLS wants a different game, one place to look is the refereeing.
The ref'ing in the game reminded me of the World Cup Final. Here you had a ref known for giving out cards (Toledo) letting them play. At least most MLS players are used to the ref letting a lot go. Obviously I'm biased, but I'm very glad the Rapids won and were the ones that were screwed by the non-call in the box early... if that had been Dallas then they would have had a real good arguement to make that the ref screwed them. It's funny that all these writers love to talk about the grit and determination and teamwork of the national team, of how they should be applauded for gritting it out against more talented opponents, but whenever a non-LA, non-NY club wins in MLS they're sick of "banal" teams.
Oh cute, Paul Gardner has an opinion. The only thing even worth commenting on from that article is "The game was won by the Colorado Rapids, who must be the worst team ever to win the title." Paul, is your senility coming on particularly strong today, or does the 2005 Galaxy team just not exist to you? You know, that same team full of Latin stars that you love so much, that ended up being a .500 team, last seed in the playoffs and playing with as much "pizzazz" as a beige living room?
Or just how bad the soccer was in the first few seasons in MLS? The quality has improved considerably since then. It's hard to make the comparison, but I have a hard time seeing the DC '96 defense of Clint Peay, Eddie Pope, Jeff Agoos, and Mario Gori being able to handle Casey and Cummings. Casey vs Pope would be interesting, but I think Cummings would manhandle the rest.
I guarantee Gardner wasn't looking at "pts per game" as his criterion when he made the proclamation. And in fairness to FSL, they didn't play the punt-and-run, 2 d-mid game that LA did in '05, and they have Latins and "young American coaches" on their squad, so Gardner would never pick FSL for that designation.
If there's a team Gardner shouldn't like, it is the Rapids. I'm alright with that. Gardner's opinion is just as valid as Woody Paige's. Neither cares about us as readers anyway.
Another tool for the woodshed. Someone get this man a bottle. I loved the hard fought, physical game that we played against Dallas. The ref let a lot go and we actually had a good case for a PK early on. Oh well, we won.
Gardner is an outcast from the NASL days. He thinks that the NASL was some kind of super league when in effect it was a Super Crappy league with washed out players. Every team in the MLS would dominate in the old NASL. Also, if you can find the archives from 1997, he really rips on the fact that the Rapids made it to the finals. He is the reason I stopped my subscription to Soccer America in 1997. I cannot stand that idiot and will never support any organization that pays him.
I stopped at Paul He recycled that 1997 column for 1998 when Chicago's boring Eastern European bunker/counter did in LA & DC, so what makes anyone think he wouldn't trot it out now.
Paul doesn't know this, but a lot of Cup finals aren't things of beauty. He is a real fool. His opinion is one that you would expect from a fool. As was said earlier in the thread, the Rapids are the league Champions. On the other hand, Paul Garner is just writing down dim, uninformed crap. It is his special gift.
This article seems like old news to me. It's pretty much the conventional wisdom to say that about the Rapids, from the MLS N&A forum to the blogger/journalists.
No kidding-I couldn't finish it-not b/c I felt one way or the other about gardner at the time-now I think he's a bad writer reporter and a supreme tool-it was a poorly written book about my favorite topic.
The real question is when are going to get some thoughtful knowledgable soccer writers in this country to rep the game. It seems the Europeans have more respect for the MLS then North American writers. Gardner sux.
I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is one possible explanation maybe those NA writers are trying to be something they're not. Reminds me of movie critics who think simply trashing things is good writing.
Strongly disliked Gardner before... he's turning into the Andy Rooney of soccer journalism, 'cept Andy Rooney actually stumbles on something of substance every once in a while. Thinks more of himself then he ought, as evidenced by his ridiculous sermon disguised as a question at the MLS Cup Press Conference. Thankfully, better and more thoughtful soccer journalists like Grant Wahl and Beau Dure are doing the best work now. Gardner's day belongs with NASL.
It baffles me that any columnist today would think they could get away with using Gardners logic and approach. There aren't many would turn to a title game and expect much more than slug fest in the trenches. Yet Gardner offers it up proof that the MLS lacks pizzaz because, well, the MLS cup final was for the most part a cautious affair fought in the trenches. Of course we're not sure what is needed to have pizzaz. Gardener implies that it's goals of soccer merit but doesn't offer us a clue as to what those are. That and he says that the MLS lacks pizzaz because, well, they don't play like Arsenal. Well hell, no one plays like Arsenal. Heck, half the time this year Arsenal hasn't even played like Arsenal. No one really scores goals of soccer merit any more. The zeitgeist of the modern game, if that can be used that way, is one of where goals are normally scored not because of merit but because of some defensive mistake. Goals off of corner kicks are now because a marker didn't perfectly mark their man. Never mind that the kicker just made the perfect kick. Never mind that the coach's tactics allowed for lining up players in a way that allowed a couple others to throw that defender off his marker that half step (that is, good tactics with good execution). And never mind that the scorer still had to demonstrate a lot of skill in heading (and from the cup final, Wells reminded us that it aint easy) in placing that ball knee high between the defender at the near post and the goal keeper. In the modern game we're always looking at what the other team did wrong that lead to the goal. We speak very little of all the wonderful skill and hard work and good execution that went into making it happen. Given the modern mindset we're not going to find goals of soccer merit. Unless you're Lionel Messi more often than not you're credited with scoring that goal not because of your skill, because of soccer merit, but because of something the other team did wrong. Goals of soccer merit still exist, we just don't recognize them. Gardener points this out all too well by simply blowing off Kandji's goal as an own goal. He seems to believe that because it's an own goal it has no merit. Never mind that Kandji's skill and execution in his run into the box with the ball and getting by a defender three forced that own goal to happen. It was an own goal which meant some defender made a mistake.... heck, it was a goal so just that Kandji was able to dribble in the box was not due to his skilla nd the Rapids's Smith's insightful tactics but a sign that the other team made a mistake, heck, several mistakes. And if the other team is making mistakes, that means it's not a goal of soccer merit. And that's really where my problem with Gardner lies. It's not that I disagree with him, it's that he has no qualms with simply pulling stuff out of his butt and serving it up like it's fine cuisine simple because it's on some fancy china. He has no insight. He has no introspection. He fondly remembers some NASL games, therefore, they had pizzaz. Never mind that he had a few too many luke warm Hamms at those games. Never mind that they weren't much more than a bunch of mediocre foreign workers bees with one or two skilled, creative players doing some wonderful things partially thanks to having more time on the ball than most college teams allow. Gardener believes and behaves as though since he's a pundit whatever he says is not only true but it's important. There was a time when a columnist could do that. But it's 2011 and expectations for columinsts have vastly changed thanks in many ways to how much our ability to consume games, both modern and in the past, has changed. In other words, Gardner's a twat. Not the John Edwards cheat on your wife who's dieing of cancer sort of twat. Just that annoying know it all sort of twat.