If you read the Wall Street Journal, you probably saw this weekend’s Weekend Edition spread about soccer. It was some author’s pitiful and quite pathetic attempt to suggest how soccer is boring and could use a bit of livening up per his suggestions. There were so many holes to poke in his analysis and half-assed attempt at sounding informed and educated about the sport (heck, sports in general) that I am tempted to write a rebuttal to the journal to point out everything that was wrong with it.
Let’s start out with the fact that WSJ dedicated the ENTIRE front page of the Weekend Edition to a useless picture of a foosball table to try and back up this hopeless author’s article. In fact, I bet they had to use it because they themselves believed that the article was weak and had no basis but didn’t want to offend a long-time writer and stalwart(I’m assuming). I don’t know how they figured the budget for the section could possibly devote so much space to such a useless argument. They were riding high on the success of this year’s World Cup and thought it would be a wise investment. I’m willing to claim that they will face a huge flood of dissatisfied readers and proponents of the sport, such as myself.
The author makes some claims of knowing what a good soccer game is like because his son (under-10) plays in some rec league. They chase after the ball and have a romping around in a beehive-ball manner that we’ve all come to associate with juvenile and recreational play. I don’t know what this guy’s basis for knowing what good soccer is all about if he hasn’t even played himself nor has he even had a remote interest in the professional leagues until a month ago. How naive. How can you claim to be well-informed about knowing the beauty of the game if you think football or baseball are comparable (he even claims model) sports. Those two sports are riddled with overweight men panting and trotting around taking breaks every ten seconds. In fact, I do believe the average football play lasts for seven seconds, while a typical baseball play lasts for even shorter a period of time. Wow. And of course they have to have time outs and replays and disputes about where a ball lands because surely, the team of 50 watching on the sidelines while 10 players take to the field just can’t decide.
One of the most irritating points this nutcase tries to make is the fact that he claims to have suggestions for improving the game of soccer to make it more entertaining. I think his view of entertainment is skewed. He wants some sort of Hollywood carnival with a miracle breakthrough by the clearly disadvantaged team. He wants the NBA. I don’t remember all of his suggestions because they were plain stupid. In fact, what it sounded to me like was he wanted rugby. Wow, I bet if he read up on the game of real men and hard work (not that pansy thing you call American football), he would realize he sounds like an idiot. An uneducated, uncultured idiot. But hey, I guess most of us Americans are.
All in all, it was probably the most ridiculous article I’ve read in the WSJ. Hugely disappointing content to say the least. WSJ, if you know what’s good for you, never try to commentate on soccer ever again until you learn about the professionalism of the sport and the fact that it’s been around longer than most other ridiculousness that exists out there. Sure sports should be entertaining, but in America, they’re driven to levels of drama and glitz and glamour that just makes it look gaudy and superficial. Soccer is a sport of hardworking athletes who have heritage in a game of honor and integrity.
To the author of this joke of an article, go home and write about something useful. Your commentary on soccer is just ignorant and insensible.