Criticism is a funny thing, especially to when it comes to soccer. Because it's such a free-flowing, low-scoring game, one can't point to very much in the way of stats and say, "Empirically, here's proof this player had an off game."
Plus, in the U.S. especially, there's this culture of neutrality that reigns over a lot of the game. It happens because youth soccer is such an influence - people at youth soccer games hew to the unspoken rule of not cheering too much (the other team might feel bad) and not criticizing or booing anything (they might feel bad). Booing the ref is the major allowed exception.
Sometimes I think that carries over to other reactions. I've occasionally been labeled a "softy" or a "cheerleader" by some readers who write in, but this latest round of emails was indignant that my espn piece was too harsh on the U.S. team.
I give the squad full credit for the win, and I can appreciate that they are pulling their weight as one of the tournament favorites. That still doesn't mean that I'm going to overlook what I think could be improved upon. I have no problem giving the players major props when they impress me, but conversely, when they don't, I'm going to point out why.
Anyway, here's another Gold Cup article, this one a more general piece.
5 comments:
Not sure why you're getting criticism, the USA team has not performed well in the 2007 Gold Cup (given their competition) so far. They should have posted at least 5-6 goals so far rather than their anemic three. And the back line still looks pretty porous. It's one thing to struggle a bit against CONCACAF teams - but if we ever want to break into the top 20 countries - we must absolutely dominate our weak region.
mike in San Jose
Don't sweat it. Write what you want. They have looked average so far.
When you give your player analysis, can you please provide numerical ratings as well? I am sure there is a reason that you do not include them, but I really do prefer them. Although clearly subjective, they have a "statistical" air about them.
For the T&T game, mine are as follows (with a short phrase after each).
Kasey Keller - 5: Caught off balance in the 1st half on free kick. No speed. Silly freekick in 2nd half. Let's move on to Howard.
Frank Simek - 7: Nice attacking verve from the back.
Michael Parkhurst - 5: Not really tested, but mistakes would have been exploited by a better team.
Jay DeMerit - 6: Solid.
Jonathan Spector - 5: Average.
Ricardo Clark - 6: Good energy. Combine with a creative mid-fielder.
Justin Mapp - 7: Created the first goal. Needs better service.
Benny Feilhaber - 5: Good vision, but lack of effort.
Steve Ralston - 4: Out of sorts.
Eddie Johnson - 5: Needs more effort. No anticipation.
Brian Ching - 5: Missed chances. Decent hold up play.
Landon Donovan (46th minute for Feilhaber) - 7: Great touches.
Michael Bradley (65th minute for Ching) - 4: Always passes backwards. Mistake nearly cost US a goal.
Taylor Twellman (73rd minute for Johnson) - 6: Limited time but combined well with LD.
Have to agree. You seemed to be pretty spot on with your criticism. It was one of those games you win easily because you outclass your opponents by a far margin... but a good performace should have yielded a 4-0 line. Too many missed easy opportunities.
numerical ratings?!! what is this big soccer? go post your numbers over there!
I've campaigned my editor at espn.com to let me off of numerical evaluations. I don't like them, frankly, not so much because they're subjective (any kind of evaluation is, by definition), but because it seems to inaccurate to reduce a performance to an integer.
I'd rather describe how the player stood out, or didn't, during their time on the field and let readers give their own grades.
Post a Comment