Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Post by EthnicallyCrimean98476 on Feb 5, 2013 12:28:48 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure Darke is under contract with ESPN/ABC, so he wouldn't be calling any Fox games anyways. Also, this is a f*cking joke, and a continuation of the vomit-inspired production quality that Fox Soccer/Sports has been perpetrating since the inception of Fox Soccer Channel.
I'm pretty sure Darke is under contract with ESPN/ABC, so he wouldn't be calling any Fox games anyways. Also, this is a f*cking joke, and a continuation of the vomit-inspired production quality that Fox Soccer/Sports has been perpetrating since the inception of Fox Soccer Channel.
Not sure if anyone remembers Elite XC, or even cares about MMA, but NBC got the rights for televising the events (it was the promotion that put on the Kimbo Slice event where Seth Petruzelli knocked him out with one punch) and being the idiots that they are they just decided to throw Gus Johnson on there.
Now, I have been watching and a fan of MMA since I was wrestling as a 5 year old with my cousins (who were all-state level guys) and Gus clearly was a fan, but not educated on the techniques and whatnot.
Hearing Gus go Gus because he didn't understand that a guy in full guard is not a threat to finish a fight is probably the same feeling soccer fans will get when Gus sees a guy running in space and starts going ape sh*t even if the opponent's defense is set up perfectly to the point there is no threat.
To continue my assault on commentators, Ray Hudson is an absolute lunatic. He deliberately tries to make himself a spectacle and steal attention from the game.
I enjoy commentators that subtly and seamlessly add tidbits of information to the game, not those that try to be entertainers or dominate the narrative of the game. Let the game speak for itself! I'd much rather have a gruff Scottish old-timer mutter an unintelligible word or two about a hard challenge, than a raving mental patient come within an inch of pledging daily fellatio to Lionel Messi.
Completely agree, that's why I watch many Jets games without the announcers and just the crowd noise.
90% of what those guys say is pointless (it's not radio, you can't do a better job describing what is happening with words than my eyes do actually seeing it), just shut up and save your handful of legitimately insightful comments for lulls in the action.
To continue my assault on commentators, Ray Hudson is an absolute lunatic. He deliberately tries to make himself a spectacle and steal attention from the game.
I enjoy commentators that subtly and seamlessly add tidbits of information to the game, not those that try to be entertainers or dominate the narrative of the game. Let the game speak for itself! I'd much rather have a gruff Scottish old-timer mutter an unintelligible word or two about a hard challenge, than a raving mental patient come within an inch of pledging daily fellatio to Lionel Messi.
Ned I've never been so angry in my life. Ray is a damn poet.
Music Midtown'01'02'04'05'11-'13::Ultra'02'03::Roo'07-'16::ACL'10::AF/TheNational'11::Sasquatch'11::Voodoo'11'16::Counterpoint'12'14::Moogfest'12::TommorowWorld'13'14::MOEMS'13::Coachella'14'15::ShakyKnees'13-'17::MFGLASTONBURY2017
To continue my assault on commentators, Ray Hudson is an absolute lunatic. He deliberately tries to make himself a spectacle and steal attention from the game.
I enjoy commentators that subtly and seamlessly add tidbits of information to the game, not those that try to be entertainers or dominate the narrative of the game. Let the game speak for itself! I'd much rather have a gruff Scottish old-timer mutter an unintelligible word or two about a hard challenge, than a raving mental patient come within an inch of pledging daily fellatio to Lionel Messi.
Ned I've never been so angry in my life. Ray is a damn poet.
I actually find myself laughing at some of the things he says, but that's not what I'm looking for in a color commentator.
And I suppose the obvious answer of "all our best athletes play football or basketball"
No, that's a cop-out answer.
The real answer is that, prior to the recent inception of the youth academies, there was no regimental criteria that the elite youth programs were held to as in Europe. Instead, the best youth teams in the US would hoard the best athletes and not develop their individual technique or soccer brains. Thus, when put in situations when they were matched athletically, their lack of technique and intelligence is exposed. The United States National Team does not struggle because of our lack of athleticism. It struggles because of the ineptitude of our collective approach to soccer. When players are young, the emphasis should be solely on teaching the game and developing skills. When results are the primary objective, player development suffers.
Try telling that to American parents though, when Jimmy isn't on a winning team.
How can a country like the United States be so terrible at non-American football? I mean, we seem to just get worse every year
It's a combination of multiple factors, but poor youth development is top of the list for me.
Just a quick background: I never played actual organized soccer after the age of 10 or so. I lived with college soccer players since age 18 (still live with one), and basically was the Fordham soccer team's superfan (yes, I am aware of how tremendously pathetic that sounds). I know a few guys who have played internationally (low-level) from living with the soccer guys, I watch soccer regularly. Basically...I'm not Joseph A. Merica sitting on his couch watching soccer because there'e no 'real sports' on.
Talking with my roommate (college soccer player, played on regional teams all his life and was on the best team in CT when he was growing up) and our other friend (biggest American-born soccer fan I know of, stopped watching the Mets and Knicks for EPL and now is religious about it) about it last night, the youth academies were both mentioned immediately, but moreso how political the whole process is. It's not a lack of athleticism (the guys on a national soccer team are tremendous athletes, let's be serious), but they might not necessarily be the best players.
This isn't coming from me, so if you disagree blow up the comment, but basically what was told to me is that they "weed out" players in the academies, but it's not based on skill or hard work necessarily, it can be personal and very often is. So you have players with the potential to be more skilled if they are given the same tools the players currently on the squad get, so while they aren't currently "more skilled" or "more athletic," if given the same resources there are players that could have been (and should have been in some cases).
Knowing what little I know about the development process, inner city youth sports, etc. it did make sense. Just wondering what your opinion is on those comments, since you're one of the more knowledgeable people I've seen commenting on it on any forum/website.
It's a combination of multiple factors, but poor youth development is top of the list for me.
Just a quick background: I never played actual organized soccer after the age of 10 or so. I lived with college soccer players since age 18 (still live with one), and basically was the Fordham soccer team's superfan (yes, I am aware of how tremendously pathetic that sounds). I know a few guys who have played internationally (low-level) from living with the soccer guys, I watch soccer regularly. Basically...I'm not Joseph A. Merica sitting on his couch watching soccer because there'e no 'real sports' on.
Talking with my roommate (college soccer player, played on regional teams all his life and was on the best team in CT when he was growing up) and our other friend (biggest American-born soccer fan I know of, stopped watching the Mets and Knicks for EPL and now is religious about it) about it last night, the youth academies were both mentioned immediately, but moreso how political the whole process is. It's not a lack of athleticism (the guys on a national soccer team are tremendous athletes, let's be serious), but they might not necessarily be the best players.
This isn't coming from me, so if you disagree blow up the comment, but basically what was told to me is that they "weed out" players in the academies, but it's not based on skill or hard work necessarily, it can be personal and very often is. So you have players with the potential to be more skilled if they are given the same tools the players currently on the squad get, so while they aren't currently "more skilled" or "more athletic," if given the same resources there are players that could have been (and should have been in some cases).
Knowing what little I know about the development process, inner city youth sports, etc. it did make sense. Just wondering what your opinion is on those comments, since you're one of the more knowledgeable people I've seen commenting on it on any forum/website.
Ok, so here's a bit of background on myself: I just finished up my eligibility at a mid-major similar to the size of Fordham. I never played for either of the two Michigan academies, but instead played for local clubs my whole life. I do however, have plenty of friends/ex-teammates that were Academy players so I do feel that I can offer some insight on the situation.
First off, you are spot-on about the Academies being political. I have a teammate and good friend who played for one of the Michigan Academies while essentially being a walking, talking own goal. Great guy, but holy sh*t not a great soccer player. Well how'd he play on an academy team -supposedly for only the elite players of the state- then? His mom did the books for the whole club. I'm sure there are similar stories from other places as well, and I actually think this serves to prove my point about player development.
The academies, while a step in the right direction, are an absolute joke to what other soccer nations of the world have established. Basically, the academies are still club soccer teams, of the type that America has always had. They practice at least 3 times a week and have one game on the weekends. Parents drive their kids to and from practices, games, and showcases. It is very much related to the model that has been in place for decades.
However, in Europe for example, youth soccer isn't similar to this at all. Dumbing it down, players join club academies from a young age - Steven Gerrard joined Liverpool at the age of 9 for example- and begin their development as players then. The goal of these academies is simple, create professional players. The academies are almost, but not quite, boarding schools. Players split their days between school classes and training. They don't have aspirations of going to college and becoming doctors, lawyers, etc. They want to be professional soccer players. Life after soccer is considered a failure. So yes, the intensity at which development is pursued in other countries is different, but also, the manner in which the development is assessed is foreign to us.
In these academies, results are not the emphasis, even though they are always playing other youth academies. Instead, the way the game is played is the barometer of success. I ganked this quote by a Dutch youth coach from a New York Times article about Ajax's youth development: I am never looking for a result — for example, which boy is scoring the most goals or even who is running the fastest. That may be because of their size and stage of development. I want to notice how a boy runs. Is he on his forefeet, running lightly? Does he have creativity with the ball? Does he seem that he is really loving the game?
THAT is the key difference for me. I absolutely hate generalizations about culture, but in the US, we are a victory-obsessed culture. In reality, the results of youth soccer games are meaningless. The ultimate goal is for the players to constantly improve, but parents, players and coaches alike are blind to this.
I think your roommates make a good point about limiting potential great players from being developed due to other sports, political academies, etc. (One of the biggest limitations is that the US academies are pay-to-play, effectively discriminating most players that don't come from a well off family. There are exceptions, as each academy has different scholarship programs, but academies are definitely a device for the priveleged.)I'm sure there are professional athletes that could have easily crossed over to soccer if they had played the game their entire lives. NFL cornerbacks and kick returners would seem to have the tools to be excellent outside backs/ wide players. However, this is a cop-out too frequently used when discussing the state of soccer in the US as a whole. I read recently (and I'm kicking myself for not remembering where. It may have been in Soccernomics, a f*cking incredible read and right up your alley) comparative statistics regarding the number of youth soccer players between countries. Basically, one of the most telling stats was that the Southern California region had roughly the same amount of youth players as the entire nation of Holland. Yes, that Holland, the nation that has produced world class player after world class player.
So if the US absolutely dwarfs the Dutch in total numbers of youth players, how come the Dutch are so consistently excellent? Do the Dutch have inherently better soccer genes? ARYAN RACE?!? No, it has everything to do with how their academy system is set up, and nothing to do with the amount of players available. So yes, I could concede that potentially great players in the US could more easily slip through the cracks, but again that would be due to the way our development system is set up. I strongly disagree with anyone that asserts that the US is struggling to produce great players because our great players are playing other sports. The surefire way to create European-class quality players would be to mimic what their clubs have done to be successful.
I simplified a few things, and there are obviously other factors involved (IE the high cost of college in America and thus desire for players to play for college scholarships, parents wanting their kids to follow traditional American routes through schooling, etc.) but I definitely stand by my statement that player development is what shapes the quality of the soccer player, not vice versa.
That was more rambly and stream-of-consciousness-esque than I would have liked, but I hope my point came across. Let me know what they say, or if you have any gripes with what I've said.
Post by EthnicallyCrimean98476 on Feb 13, 2013 11:56:20 GMT -5
Big day for the Gus Johnson experiment today as he's calling the Man U - Real Madrid game at 3 EST. I'm going to try as hard as possible to give him a fair shot before muting the game.
Wow, thanks for the response, that was a great. I'll check out those links tonight or tomorrow when I have more time, but you basically reinforced what I ha pieced together myself (only with more actual examples and facts).
I always wanted to tell the idiots commenting that "Pssh, if our best athletes cared we'd beat everyone in soccer, too."
Team USA basketball thought they could just throw together 15 super-athletes and win. Then a bunch of people most NBA fans never heard of from Argentina kicked their *ss. I've always been a believer that a well coached team with incredible timing and chemistry will beat a more talented team that's a lot of isolation and me-first type of nonsense.