|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jun 5, 2007 14:09:58 GMT
Beckham is certainly the only reason we scored, though. He set up every chance England got in that match.
He's not the player he was half a dozen years ago, but he's still one of the best we've got. With him and Joe Cole back in the team, England looked in a completely different class to the useless shambles of the last few matches without them.
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Jun 5, 2007 14:49:41 GMT
Yup, Becks the only reason you created ANYTHING of worth.
I think Englands biggest problem is the way you see yourself. During the last 10-20 years (something like that) you've gone from a mindless kick'n'run team to a european team. You've adapted a more tactical thinking, whith the loss of intencity. You have to realize what your edge on other teams is: tempo and hardness. You have to run more, tackle harder and take more pain than your opponents, because that's where Premier Leauge (where pretty much all english players play) distinguish itself.
Oh, and you have to cut Frank Lampard. He fills no role on that midfield. Micael Carrick would be a perfect substitute, since he acually IS a holding midfielder, unlike Lampard who just plays as though he is. With Carrick on the field Stevie G would (hopefully) feel more free to get forward. That way you would at least have ONE central midfielder who went for runs on the deep, unlike now, when you have none at all...
Übereil
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jun 5, 2007 14:55:49 GMT
I agree, Ube. I think you've got it exactly right.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jun 13, 2007 22:54:49 GMT
Heh. Real Madrid have tried to buy Beckham back from LA Galaxy, apparently, but Galaxy aren't having any of it ;D Good for them, I say
|
|
|
Post by ss on Jul 23, 2007 15:16:17 GMT
Beckham made his debut here couple days ago...it was a real "Hollywood" event, with all the pretty people coming out to see him.... He had an ankle injury and only played 13 minutes near the end of the game... (against Chelsa).. LA lost 1-0, but....sorry Venon...they had 27,000 fans there.. That is more than they have for the NBA....so...as I said before, I think Beckham is good for soccer (football) here and that it will seriously grow into a world class sport in the USA..
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jul 23, 2007 15:53:36 GMT
I think football will grow as a sport in the US - all the signs are there. But They'll need to build on the hype a lot more yet before it really takes off. And increase the standard of play, too. But - this amount of interest is certainly a good start
|
|
|
Post by Venom65437 on Jul 23, 2007 20:52:42 GMT
First of all... NO NBA arena even HOLDS 27,000 people, so of course a NBA arena can't compete attendance wise.
Second of all, I still think people just came out to see what all the hype was about. Americans will get tired of it fairly quickly though and we'll stop talking about soccer.
Oh yea... big shock, the U.S. team also lost!
EDIT: And to be more specific. No one misunderstand me. I have nothing against soccer. I PLAYED soccer for four years! I just don't think there is enough interest in it here for it to start to matter. I mean, we had Pele come over here and we still don't care.
If the U.S. team ever makes a serious run in the World Cup then I think soccer might be able to take off here, but until that, no. The U.S. likes to have the best of the best, and if you look at the most popular sports here: football, basketball, and baseball, you can argue we have the best players in the world.
Either that, or Beckham is going to have to do something ridiculous like score three goals a night. And don't forget... the pre-season for American football starts in TWO weeks. Soccer is going to have a VERY hard time competing with that. Argue with me all you want, but you'll see. Come September 9th when American football starts, no one will care about soccer or Beckham here.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jul 23, 2007 21:33:34 GMT
V - the US have had a couple of good runs in the World Cup, at least. They just haven't won it, yet. That seems to make no real difference, probably because most of the US never gets to hear about it.
Comparing Beckham with Pele is not exactly a good comparison, either. Pele is arguably the best footballer ever, a thing which even his greatest fans would never try to claim for Beckham, I have no doubt.
What Beckham undoubtedly IS is an icon - the most popular sportsman in the world, and the best known, too, with millions of fans on every continent (bar the US, I know ;D). His wife being one of the Spice Girls means he has huge crossover appeal, and that people with no interest in football at all still know who he is.
Throw in all the celebrity interest, with LA Galaxy match attendance starting to look like a who's who of Hollywood and you have vast potential there.
Will it lead to anything? That's the big question...
|
|
|
Post by Venom65437 on Jul 23, 2007 21:41:32 GMT
Well the whos who of Hollywood will come out for ANYTHING. I mean, they went to a freakin' CLIPPERS playoff game this year, and believe me, you'd have a hard time paying people to go a Clippers game most years...
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jul 23, 2007 21:44:00 GMT
Somehow I don't think that has much to do with toenails, V, but it sure sounds like it... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Venom65437 on Jul 23, 2007 22:58:46 GMT
LoL. The Clippers are a NBA team based in Los Angeles, like the Galaxy. They had a good year while the Lakers struggled so all the celebs showed up to the games because it was the "in" thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jul 23, 2007 23:42:32 GMT
Thanks, V Why do I think 'celebrity toenail clipping' might have been more entertaining? ;D
|
|
|
Post by peterh on Jul 24, 2007 20:06:37 GMT
I'm inclined to be on Venom's side here.
No doubt is Beckham a huge icon and his wife is a former Spice Girl and he's a hot name in Hollywood right now. But, as Venom said, hype is fleeting and while the first few games might have a decent audience I'm not sure it'll hold. No doubt the Beckhams will be media darlings but it won't stand up against American football when the season begins.
Too bad, though, because as well all know football- not the American kind - is the best sport ever ;D
|
|
|
Post by Konrad Flameheart on Jul 24, 2007 21:14:14 GMT
Beckham (david) like his husband (victoria) is all media these days. he was always overated as a footballer and his lack of form over the past few years just goes to prove that his heart isn't in it any more. glad we cut him loose. it was long over due.
He won't last long in the American leagues either. So i'm not sure why he is even bothering. Let him continue to model cothing. its about all he is good for these days.
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Jul 24, 2007 21:21:43 GMT
Eh... He's still the only English player who can create chances... And he's been one of Real's best player during the past few years. Everyone decline with age, Becks no different. But to claim it's due to lack of motivation is a bit... unfair...
Übereil
|
|
|
Post by ss on Jul 25, 2007 4:31:20 GMT
@ Venom - I take your point, especially in light of the instant gratification concept of Americans...but... England has not won the World Cup since the 60's, but it does not deminish the love of the game in England...?? The big thing with Beckham is if he sustains his ability to contribute (and I think he will) with his popularity, then if he wins on top of it, then soccer will surely grow expotentially.... As for American Football, the big hype now is the Michael Vick fiasco....under indictment for fighting dogs...It will definitely get the news media back on football... Vick is a "punk" in his mentality as is his brother Marcus...both from here in Norfolk.... Compare them to Ronde and Tiki Barber, the twins from UVA and it is evident as to their upbringing mentality... I hope they kick him out of the League....but thats just me..
|
|
|
Post by cleglaw on Jul 25, 2007 5:09:30 GMT
I don't care much for soccer on TV. 1. low scoring game 2. you can't see all the action on the screen. If you watch a basketball game on TV, you can usually watch all the players on the screen at once-- not so with soccer. So you miss out on seeing who is open for a pass, etc. Perhaps many Americans feel that way. I have watched an occasional game on TV because my in laws are into it.
David who?
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jul 25, 2007 8:40:46 GMT
From the talking I've done with many Americans, Cleg's thinking is the US norm. That and the games are not long enough constitute most of the US reasons for indifference towards football. Those Americans who are fans are the ones who take the time to watch it a while played at a high level, so they start to see the skill involved.
There's no doubt that one's attitude towards sport is largely cultural, and football has no real part in US culture.
In England, of course, it's our national game. Not only did we invent it in the first place, but it's absolutely our most popular cultural export, being played just about everywhere two groups of kids can find something to use as a ball.
Being good at it is kind of secondary, in a way. And it really helps that our Premiership (The top club division in England) is one of the best leagues in the world (Spain is top though, the pests ;D). That keeps interest high, even when our national team is sucking.
The US has periodically done pretty well at national level, but the MLS is composed of teams that are frankly not up to the standards of the top European leagues, nor even close. It's a bit hard to generate new interest when all the money, almost all of the media interest and most of the talent is being funneled into Gridiron, Baseball and Basketball.
In England, of course, it's Football, Rugby & Cricket, and all else is far below the radar.
The difference Beckham makes is that enough people are interested in him around the world that the MLS is making headlines in countries that probably had little to no awareness that it existed. That's gonna help bring in the foreign TV contracts, and thus the money...
|
|
|
Post by Venom65437 on Jul 25, 2007 16:09:30 GMT
SS - You have to remember in England they already love the game though. They don't have to be sold on it like we do. The Dolphins haven't won the Super Bowl since the 70s, but that doesn't mean I like them any less. If I were to become a fan today, I might not opt for the Dolphins.
E - Soccer has had their chances here in the US before. The ultimate sports hype machine here, ESPN, has given it a try. When Freddy Adu was first going pro, they made a huge deal out of it, talked about it all the time, got a lot of people excited to watch him... and then I don't think the coach even put him in the game. ESPN also pushed Beckham a lot too, but of course he got hurt and only played 12 minutes.
Both of those situations are unfortunate, but it seems like every time that soccer had a chance to have center stage here, something happens.
And E is right, for the most part, our teams are no where near the best teams in the rest of the world.
|
|
|
Post by cleglaw on Jul 25, 2007 16:41:40 GMT
For the record, I don't like football or baseball either. I used to coach foil and epee fencing, but I have stopped following it for the past few years. I'd still watch it though.
|
|