Alright, I managed to go one post without talking about soccer in some form or fashion, but I just HAD to comment on this article I came across in the New Republic today.
Here is a picture of the guy, just to give you a mental image of the man I will proceed to rant against:
Oh Hi, I am Alek. I am supposes to know about the soccer. Check out my glasses.
So in case you are backtracking, the The New Republic (double the's intentional) is, in fact, having a guy (that guy, up there) cover soccer from here to and through the World Cup. Soccer coverage? From a news and politics magazine? You've got me. But really, why not? More soccer coverage in America can't be a bad thing, right?
As it turns out, the answer is plainly 'yes.' Yes, it can be a bad thing to have more coverage of soccer if that coverage is crazy terrible. Like this guy's was. There are a LOT of people in this country (and outside of it, for that matter) who could do a vastly better job covering the beautiful game for the American audience. Why is this guy so terrible? Where to begin...
... I guess the biggest thing for me was the fact that he really doesn't seem to have all that deep on an understanding of the game. In the paragraph where he mentions Liverpool's financial trouble, he initially called world-renown striker Fernando Torres "Francisco Torres." (The mistake was edited later in the day.) I don't mean to be a soccer snob, but anyone actually following the game (instead of just looking up facts to write an article) would NOT make that mistake. I'm sorry, a simple mistake like that subverts any claim to be knowledgeable about anything regarding the game in Europe.
But on to the substance of the argument. I guess his main idea is that Real are pretty foolish in their attempt to win European glory through the second go-round of the galacticos policy. In that main respect, he may be right. This commentary is far (and I mean fucking Pluto-distant) from insightful and hardly worth a column in the The New Republic. About a million bloggers, commentators, soccer personalities, et al. have made this exact same observation. It doesn't take a soccer genius to note "hey, maybe buying great players isn't the best policy for winning the CL." Barcelona proved just that last year. And everyone noticed. Last year. Way to be on top of your game, guy! A mere 10 months late to that party!
But this common line of attack against the galacticos policy is not without its faults as well. Many seem to forget that under the first Perez regime, Madrid were quite successful, winning two Champions League crowns (2000 and 2002) and two Ligas (2001 and 2003). They only stopped succeeding when Perez sacked manager Vicente del Bosque, the current gaffer of the Spanish national team. Back in those halcyon days under del Bosque, Madrid's policy of signing the greatest players was hailed as masterstroke, and they were truly a delight to watch. While the current generation of superstars may not play together as well (bearing in mind they have only been at it for less than a season), no one can rightly claim that they are doomed to fail in future efforts. This is a team built for the future (many of the stars are under the age of 28), not for immediate results on the field.
Hemon also seems to lack an understanding of relative player quality. He lists Arbeloa and Garay as cut-rate defenders, while both of them have been capped for their respective national sides - Arbeloa generally figuring as a starter or substitute as of late. He claims that Guti is a "divinity among Madridistas for his fanatical club loyalty and meticulous hair care"... I really don't even know where to begin with that one. The general consensus among Madrid fans is that Guti is a player to be tolerated more then celebrated at this point, as he has both tremendous upside (sublime passes) and disastrous downside (disappears from games, bad attitude). "Fanatical club loyalty" in reference to Guti is probably the richest statement in this entire piece, which is otherwise riddled with bold statements; Guti has on many occasions expressed his desire to leave the club or shared his displeasure with his current amount of playing time. I think Hemon makes the dangerous error of conflating time of service with club (no one would deny that Guti has been with Real for ages) with loyalty to said club. Guti is no Raul, for example.
In the final analysis, this guy is pretty far off base when it comes to backing up his very bland "analysis." The fact that TNR picked this guy to give its American readers in-depth soccer coverage through the Mundial is quite disappointing.
/endrant
//really, what is up with those glasses?
No comments:
Post a Comment