Greatest Rangers Team Ever?

Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:43:00 -0400

The Metroplex hasn't had Rangers Fever like this in more than a decade. In fact, in their almost 40 years in North Texas, the Rangers have fielded few teams with this much potential. If this current team stays on course for the next month, then we'll all be wondering if it might not be the greatest Rangers team ever.

I did this a few months ago when we all had Mavs Fever after the big trade with the Wizards. I took the current team and matched them up with the two best teams from two different eras from the franchise's past. So, let's do that with the Rangers, and hope for a better postseason result from our baseball team than we got from our basketball team.

The other candidates? I've chosen the 1999 Rangers, who won the AL West (for the third time in four seasons) with a club record 95 wins. The 1996 Rangers were also considered to represent this era, but most feel the '99 version was better. There were really no teams from the 80's worthy of being included in this experiment (save for maybe '86), but from the 70's there were three: 1974, 1977, and 1978. The '77 team won 90 games and were led by Gaylord Perry and Bert Blyleven on the mound. The '78 team featured newcomers Al Oliver, Richie Zisk and Jon Matlack, and won 87 games. But I'm going with the '74 squad, led by Billy Martin--they won just 84 games, but finished only 6 back of the World Champion Oakland A's in the AL West.

Let's go position by position and see what happens.

Catcher


2010 Bengie Molina/Matt Treanor
1999 Pudge Rodriguez
1974 Jim Sundberg

Clear advantage to the '99 squad. Pudge was the AL MVP in '99, and when you talk about the greatest catchers of all-time, he's right there with Bench and Berra and whoever else you want to consider. Sundberg was a tremendous defensive backstop, but falls way short of Pudge at the plate. The Molina/Treanor tandem does not figure into the mix here.

First Base

2010 Mitch Moreland/Chris Davis/Justin Smoak
1999 Lee Stevens
1974 Mike Hargrove

Hargrove hit .323 and was AL Rookie of the Year, never struck out, had a high on base percentage, and fielded the ball well. Big Lee Stevens out homered Hargrove 24-4, out RBI'd him 84-66, and had a higher slugging percentage. Again, the 2010 Rangers don't compete here. Tough call, but I'm going with Hargrove, who I think was simply a better all-around player than Stevens. But it's very close considering the two seasons involved. Advantage 1974.

Second Base

2010 Ian Kinsler
1999 Mark McLemore
1974 Dave Nelson

Kinsler, despite his constant injury issues, wins here. When healthy, he one of the most prolific offensive second basemen of his generation. He's also turned into an outstanding fielder, having dropped the error bug of his youth. McLemore was steady, but not spectacular. Nelson could field and run, but he carried a very light bat. Advantage 2010.

Shortstop

2010 Elvis Andrus
1999 Royce Clayton
1974 Toby Harrah

Harrah was an All-Star three times for the Rangers in the 70's. He hit 21 homers in '74, stole 15 bases, but hit just .260. Harrah was always among the league leaders in errors, too. Clayton hit .288 with 14 HR's in '99, and was solid. But Elvis might be the best defensive shortstop in baseball--at age 21. Like Ozzie Smith, anything you get at the plate with Elvis is icing on the cake--and his .280 average is pretty sweet icing. Advantage 2010.

Third Base

2010 Michael Young
1999 Todd Zeile
1974 Lenny Randle

Young is one of the best hitters of his era, but struggles in the field at third. Zeile went 24-89-.293 in '99--pretty solid--yet, he also led AL 3rd basemen in errors that season. Lenny Randle once punched manager Frank Lucchesi, so he doesn't enter the mix here. Nice year by Zeile, but Young is starting to put together the type of resume that, if he plays long enough, will encourage Hall of Fame consideration. And, Young's numbers by the end of the year should trump Zeile's from '99. Advantage 2010.

Left Field

2010 Josh Hamilton
1999 Rusty Greer
1974 Alex Johnson

Johnson was a good hitter--once won a batting title with the Angels. Greer was a fan favorite who played a great left, and went 20-101-.300 in '99--very impressive. But as good as Johnson and Greer were, Hamilton is on another planet. He's putting together possible the greatest individual season in Rangers history. He should win the batting title--easily--and his power numbers are huge. Hamilton runs and fields very well, and is turning into a real leader on the team. Advantage 2010.

Center Field

2010 Julio Borbon
1999 Tom Goodwin
1974 Joe Lovitto

None of the three put up any offensive numbers worth discussing, other than Goodwin's 39 stolen bases. Goodwin could also cover a lot of ground in center--he's the best defensive player of the three. Advantage 1999.

Right Field


2010 Nelson Cruz
1999 Juan Gonzales
1974 Jeff Burroughs

Now we've got some offensive numbers to talk about. Burroughs won the AL MVP award in '74 (25-118-.301). Gonzales did not have his best year in '99, but was still a force at the plate (39-128-.326). Cruz has been great, but has missed too much time due to injuries. Close call, but Juando wins over Burroughs. Advantage 1999.

Designated Hitter

2010 Vlad Guerrero
1999 Raffy Palmeiro
1974 Jim Spencer

Despite the fact that he may have been on roids, Raffy wins. His 47-148-.324 season might almost make Josh Hamilton blush. Vlad has been nice, but his numbers aren't anywhere near Raffy's. Spencer was just 7-44-.278 as part-time DH/1B. Advantage 1999.


Starting Pitching

2010 Lee, Lewis, Wilson, Hunter
1999 Helling, Sele, Burkett, Morgan
1974 Jenkins, Bibby, Brown, Hargan

Is this the area that gives Rangers fans so much hope for this season? Those four names have all been good to great. The '99 starters had a combined ERA in the 5.00's (different era, I know, but still...). The '74 staff was top heavy, with Jenkins winning 25 games and posting an ERA of 2.82--the best pitching season in club history. Bibby won 19 for the '74 squad, Brown and Hargan won 13 and 12 with ERA's in the 3.00's. That '74 staff was damn good, and I would take Fergie over any one of today's Rangers, including Lee. Very, very close call. But, based on wins, strikeouts, shutouts (different eras, I know) and ERA of the four names in each group, I have to go advantage 1974. Fergie might have been the tiebreaker.

Bullpen

2010 Feliz (cl), Francisco, Oliver, O'Day
1999 Wetteland (cl), Zimmerman, Venafro, Crabtree
1974 Foucalt (cl), Merritt, Stanhouse, Broberg

Wetteland was huge with 43 saves, and his setup crew was good. Foucalt had just 12 saves, but when Jenkins and Bibby are finishing damn near every game, you don't have many chances. Feliz has been incredible--a Mariano Rivera in the making. By season's end he may have more than 43 saves. The 2010 middle relief has been incredible--if there was a tie here, they break it. Advantage 2010.

Manager

2010 Ron Washington
1999 Johnny Oates
1974 Billy Martin

I'm not a huge Wash fan, but he's doing something right. I think he's more a product of some genius work by Ryan and Daniels, and perfect timing. Oates was a manager's manager, and is the most successful manager in club history. Billy Martin, however, wins here. Martin was volatile, but a genius. Advantage 1974.

The Final Score

2010 5
1999 4
1974 3

It's official--this year's Rangers squad is the best in club history. It was actually a close race between the three eras, but the current day team wins out. The pitching, both starting and bullpen, has been great. The defense is much improved. Yes, they are benefiting from a weak division (what might that '74 team have done without the A's in their way?), but they are making the most of it.

Keep in mind, these results are as of 8/26/10. If the bottom falls out and this team stinks it's way through September and October, then we'll re-think things. But I don't see that happening--do you?

My First Date With Arsenal

Mon, 16 Aug 2010 01:08:00 -0400

This weekend was all about EPL in our household. "Eat, Pray, Love" starring Julia Roberts for my wife, and the opening weekend of the English Premier League for me. I think I had more fun.

I was pretty excited about seeing my newly adopted Arsenal Gunners play a match that mattered. I had watched a couple of the preseason "friendlies" as they are called, but that's like watching preseason NFL football--you know it doesn't matter, so you are quickly bored. By the way, there are WAY too many "friendlies" in soccer--just like we have too many NFL preseason games, too many college football bowl games, and too many Globetrotters games each year. Give us a break. Let us enjoy the stuff that really matters, and quit the sham that is exhibition sports. And in the case of the Globetrotters, at least give them someone else to play besides the Generals so that buying into it isn't so difficult.

This weekend's action had the same feel to it that the opening weekend of the NFL has--except that it's only been a two month off-season for the EPL, and the NFL makes us wait seven months (have I really just made a 10 month commitment to a sport that I might not like?). I watched the EPL preview show on the Fox Soccer Channel (which is now in HD--thank God), and I've read up as much as I could on my new team. Arsenal hasn't won anything in the last four seasons (except that glorious weekend last month when they retained the prestigious Emirates Cup), but they are highly thought of which makes it fun to watch a team that may be on the cusp of something big. I was ready to go.

The Gunners were taking on Bob Sturm's Liverpool club. A classic Musers vs BAD Radio clash, and a classic season opening matchup of two sides who are almost always among the best in the league. The game was 0-0 at the start, and 0-0 at the half (what have I gotten into, again?). Liverpool scored quickly to open the second half, and in the last minute of action, Arsenal got a cheap goal to tie the game at 1-1. I was thrilled with the cheap goal--there is nothing worse than losing your opener in any sport. Today, I learned to appreciate kissing my sister.

Other thoughts from my first regular season Arsenal watch:

Is there a sport where going a man down matters less than in soccer? A Liverpool chap was red-carded (kicked out) late in the first half, which meant the Reds played with 10 men to Arsenal's 11 the rest of the way. "We'll kill them!" I thought, thinking of my Gunners now on a hockey-like power play for the second half. In reality, you couldn't tell a difference. Instead of being a man down, Liverpool looked like they were three men up.

The flopping is outrageous!! Don't these guys know that we have instant replay and can clearly see that they were not touched?? They will writhe around in pain as though they've just been Joe Theismann'd. Floppers in the NBA are actors, but they are Oscar winners compared to soccer guys. The cheap playlet often ends with a stretcher being brought out--I've never seen that during an NBA game--I think even Rudy T. walked off under his own power.

The atmosphere at the stadium looks great. The fans are singing and chanting all game long. Is it because they are drunk, or bored, or simply because they're such great fans? I'm thinking all of the above.

Penalty kicks and free kicks are fun. Corner kicks, however, are incredibly overrated. How many times does a team convert a corner--once in 100 tries? There were a ton of corner kicks in the Arsenal game today. The announcers would build them up, and then every time the ball would be poked 600 feet into the air and nobody would ever come close to scoring a goal. Corner kicks are not what they are cracked up to be.

I love Arsenal's road uniforms. I love their home look, too, And I like Liverpool's red. In fact, soccer uniforms, in general, are really cool. Looking forward to watching games each week just to take in the uniforms, stadiums, etc.

I noticed one thing today that may be the key to enjoying soccer. It's the struggle. It can be so frustrating to watch a soccer match because so much goes on, but so few points are put on the board. When your team falls behind 1-0, it seems as though they have to climb Everest to get that equalizer. It's really, really hard to score a goal, and that's frustrating to watch. But maybe that's also the beauty of it all.

So far, so good. I think I'm going to like this. At the very least, I know I'll end up liking in more than a Julia Roberts movie.

Was It A Good Tour?

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 01:35:00 -0400

The man who we all thought would win the 2010 Tour de France, Alberto Contador, won. He was far from dominant, yet nobody was able to take advantage of his less-than-stellar form. Contador didn't win a single stage. He struggled in the final time trial (when is the last time a Tour winner finished 35th in the final time trial--never??). The Spaniard was very beatable this July, but nobody was good enough or lucky enough to knock him off.

It was a very entertaining three weeks, yet the Contador/Schleck battle almost got a little stale to me, with neither able to drop the other on the climbs. The fireworks we all waited for in the mountains never really came about because the two were so evenly matched. Still, the race produced some interesting twists and turns, good story lines, and a result in doubt until the final weekend.

I loved the route of the Tour this year. The cobbled stage was great. There were enough flat stages for the sprinters, but not enough to bog down the flow of the race. There were rolling stages with tricky finishes like the one to Mende. The Alps did not disappoint, and the four days in the Pyrenees were terrific. Thumbs up to the race organizers for finally understanding how to lay out a three week stage race and keep it interesting--something they have had a tough time doing since 1989.

One thing we will all remember about this Tour: crashes. They were everywhere, and costly to many of the GC contenders. Frank Schleck broke a collarbone. Cadel Evans broke an elbow. Lance Armstrong crashed three times on the stage to Avoriaz, basically taking him out of the race in week one.

Could Lance have mustered a challenge had he not hit the pavement so often during that stage? What if he hadn't flatted on the cobbles? I think the answer is no. As good as I felt about his chances to podium before the race, I thought it became apparent during the event that his age had caught up to him. He had one great moment--the prologue. But after watching him for three weeks, two things stuck out to me...

One--his cadence in time trials is not what it was. He used to turn the gear at what seemed like 150 rpm. Now, it's more like a normal 90 rpm. I don't have a answer for that, other than to say his system is not trained like it was to put so much pressure on his aerobic engine. Second--he lacks that pure power and pure explosion in the mountains. At 28, Lance could accelerate and ride away from the best climbers in the world. At 38, he seems to only be able to follow wheels--and just for a while before having to give in and go at his own pace. He's still good at climbing and good at the time trials, but he's not great anymore--understandable for a racer of his age and recent retirement. It makes his 3rd place last year look even more impressive.


Many of us were fooled by Lance's good June results, but in hindsight perhaps we should have looked at his entire season for a better indication of what his Tour would be like--underwhelming. That's OK--I think he's done enough over his career for us to not worry about a 23rd place finish this year. And, as some consolation, Radio Shack won the team competition, giving Lance one last appearance on the podium in Paris, which was cool.

If Lance had been a few years younger, or come to the race in great form, he would have smashed Contador. For whatever reason, Alberto was below his level from last year. Maybe Schleck made him work harder than expected in the mountains. Maybe his race build-up was less than it should have been. Maybe he was ill. In the end, it was one of the least-impressive Tour wins ever. Add to that the controversy over not waiting for Andy on the Port de Bales, and you have a race that Contador would probably like to have a few do-overs in. I can't help but think that somewhere the likes of Merckx and Hinault are thinking "35th in the last time trial and he won the race--I would have crushed him!"

Will Andy Schleck win this race next year? I'm not so sure. Everyone is raving about his final time trial and how much he pushed Contador, but he finished 44th! I thought it was much more that Alberto had a bad day than Schleck having a good day. Andy will have to greatly improve his time trialing still to beat Alberto, because I don't think he'll ever be able to just ride away from him in the mountains.

Get ready for the Contador vs Schleck show for many more Tours. They are both young enough to be at the top for another 7-10 years. Basso? Menchov? Sanchez? Evans? I just don't see another real challenger to Contador's throne outside of Andy. And, there don't seem to be any really bright young hopes on the horizon. Of course, five years ago we didn't really know the names Contador and Schleck, so you never can tell.

Now, anybody up for the Vuelta?

2010 Tour de France Preview: Does Lance Have a Chance?

Tue, 29 Jun 2010 23:21:00 -0400

"Few things can bring the country of France to a standstill. The start and end of world wars. A revolution. And, every summer, in the heat of July, a bicycle race, as millions line to roads just to catch a glimpse of the two wheeled missiles and the gods who ride them"

Jorgen Leth from the film "23 Days in July"

Stage 3. This early battleground could tell us a lot about what kind of a race this will be. Stage 3 finishes with seven sectors of cobblestone roads, some of which are very difficult. Traditionally, thin climbers (like defending champion Alberto Contador) have trouble riding the cobbles. In 2004, Spanish climber Iban Mayo lost huge chunks of time to Lance Armstrong on a similar cobbled stage. If Armstrong and his team can make Contador suffer on this stage--and take some time from him--then we could have a wild and dramatic race.

Before we get to how I think it will play out, let's look at the favorites.


Alberto Contador


Two-time winner of the Tour, and acknowledged best stage racer in the world. He has started four grand tours, and won them all. He chalked up some impressive early season wins in this year, and three weeks ago he won the l'Alpe D'Huez stage of the Dauphine. At 27, he is at the height of his powers. His team (a weakened Astana) is a question mark, but his ability is not. His only real weakness may be his impatient nature and lack of tactical nous.

Lance Armstrong


Seven-time winner. 3rd place last year after 3 years in retirement. Slow start this year, but in June finished 3rd in the Tour of Luxembourg and 2nd in the Tour of Switzerland. He's 38, but has said in the last week that he feels 28 again, and that his training and test times are close to where they were at his peak (at least on the climbs). Has a very strong, albeit very old, Radio Shack team. His time trialing has slipped--a lot. But, he's the smartest racer in the bunch, and may be peaking at the right time.

Andy Schleck


2nd place last year. Regarded as the 2nd best climber in the world, behind Contador. Not much of a time trialist, and not much in the way of race results this year. Crashed in training last week--scratched up. Has put all of his 2010 eggs in the Tour basket. May be the only rider in the world who can ride away from Contador in the mountains, and is backed by a strong Saxo Bank squad. He's 25 years old--should be coming into his peak as a rider.

Frank Schleck


Andy's brother, who has been better than Andy this season. Recently won the Tour of Switzerland, and was second in Luxembourg. Improved time trialist, gifted climber. May be a better bet this July than his brother. Also races for Saxo Bank. Frank seems to be a better all-around rider than Andy, yet always seems to sacrifice himself for his bother at the Tour. With his form this season, it may be the other way around this time.

Ivan Basso


Former Tour of Italy winner, then suspended two years for doping, and now recent Tour of Italy winner (two months ago). Does he have enough in the tank to win the Giro in May and then be competitive at the Tour? We'll see. If on form, he's a great climber and a good time trialist. Liquigas team is strong. Basso is this Tour's dark horse/wild card--he could be very good, or very bad.

Others:

Cadell Evans, Denis Menchov, Carlos Sastre, Bradley Wiggins, Christian Vandevelde. If anyone other than one of these ten riders wins the Tour, I will walk down Greenville Ave in a bra and panties.


How I Think It Will Play Out

Fabian Cancellara (Saxo Bank) will win the prologue time trial, and the first yellow jersey. He will then try to keep yellow on Stage 3 over the cobblestones. Saxo Bank will have to be careful not to burn themselves out early helping Cancellara, as they'll need to save energy for the Schleck brothers and the mountains in the final two weeks. But they'll have yellow for a few days early.

Radio Shack will set a torrid pace on the cobbles near the end of Stage 3. Armstrong is good on those roads, and I think The Shack will try to rip the race apart. Contador knows this, but that doesn't matter--can he do anything about it? He trained a bit on the cobbles this spring, but he's never raced on them--big difference. I see him losing a couple on minutes on this stage. And that will set the stage for a delicious final two weeks. If Amrstrong is not able to pick up any time on Contador on this stage, then the race may be over.

The Alps come first this year, with one mountain top finish. The Pyrenees are more difficult, but will Ccontador be able to control himself until the final week? Will he need to make up time on Armstrong sooner that he thinks? I'm sure, given his mindset, that Contador will try to take time at Avoriaz, the first mountain top finish--Stage 8. If Contador has trouble dropping Lance on this stage, then lookout. If Amrstrong is climbing as well as he says, then this stage should be very interesting.

Stages 16 and 17 are brutal Pyrenean climbing stages. Most feel that Contador will stamp his authority on the race here, in the mountains that border his native country. I think we may have three or four men (Contador, Armstrong, and the Schelck brothers) all within a minute of each other at this point. Whoever can handle the Tourmalet the best will emerge as the likely yellow jersey in Paris. Safe bet here is Contador. He should leave the mountains with a couple of minutes advantage on his rivals, and he should add to that in the final time trial the day before the race ends.

My final picks:

1. Contador
2. Armstrong @ 3:00
3. F. Schleck @ 3:15
4. A. Schleck @ 4:00
5. Evans @ 5:00

(If I had just a little more faith in Conatador, I would pick him to win by 10 minutes. This is the year he should be able to do that, but part of me doesn't trust him, and part of me believes the way the Tour is raced these days--with race radios and director sportif's controling almost everything--that the days of the Merckx-like 10 and 20 minute gaps are over)

It's hard to pick against Contador--he's in his prime, he's had a nice season so far, he's motivated to beat Lance, and he's the best in the world. Lance will put up a good fight--he probably knows he can't beat Contador straight up, but over three weeks, anything can happen. Contador could crash, test positive, have one really bad day, get sick--anything can happen.

I expect Lance to be better than last year in the mountains, but I worry about his time trialing. You can win the Tour if you're in the top 5 in the time trials, but you can't finish 15th in the time trials as he's been doing. Lance can get time on the cobbles, stay close in the mountains, limit his losses in the time trials, and finish on the podium again.

I like Frank Schleck better than Andy this year, but Frank and Andy have a way of throwing away their own chances in order to help each other. If Frank gets greedy and doesn't worry about Andy, he can finish in the top 3. Andy could be playing possum, but something just doesn't look or feel right about him this season.

Cadell Evans is a cagey, gutsy rider who has twice finished second in this race. He'll ride well again. It will be good to see the world champion's jersey racing to win the Tour de France--we haven't seen that since the 90's with Abraham Olano and Greg LeMond.

It will be a fascinating three weeks. With Lance and Alberto on different teams this year, the race should be much more interesting than the '09 edition. This will be Lance's final Tour, and I think he'll go out with a bang--another podium finish, and a fight with Contador through the final week. But, in the end, 27 year old legs beat 38 year old legs.

The World Cup, From The Outside Looking In

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 21:29:00 -0400

I have never been a soccer fan, though not for a lack of trying (more on that later). I have no bias against the sport. I do not hate soccer. I do not hate soccer fans. Or soccer balls. Or soccer moms. On the show this week, we've taken a lot of grief from irate soccer fans who think we deserve a red card for our take on the world's most popular sport. Allow me some time to explain...

I have always been a fringe sport/Olympic sport fan. Like any good American, I've always enjoyed football, basketball and baseball. But I've also always loved learning about sports that most Americans don't know much about. If you've listened to our show for any amount of time, or read this blog, you know that cycling is my passion. Since childhood, I've also always followed and/or played tennis, golf, World Cup skiing, track and field, triathlon, surfing, motorcycle racing, F1--you name it, and I'm open to watching it, learning about it, and trying it.

I would stack my love for and knowledge about international sports up against anyone at The Ticket. Nobody was more into the Winter Olympics than I was. Bob has me on soccer, boxing and hockey. Corby has me on soccer and golf. George has me on golf and swimming. Norm has me on horse racing and gambling. But I'm guessing I've got everyone on most of the sports I listed above, and then some. As a kid, I thought it was great that everyone in school knew who Roger Staubach was, but that I was the only one who knew who Bill Rodgers was. Everyone knew of Larry Bird, but I was the only one who knew of Dave Scott. Everyone had heard of Pete Rose, but no one had heard of Niki Lauda. Walter Payton, Reggie Jackson, Dr. J? That's easy. But how about Laurent Fignon, Gustav Thoni and Guillermo Vilas? I knew them all, because I loved all sports.

Which brings us to soccer. I tried to play it as a kid. I lost interest in a hurry. Not being able to use your hands was a big drawback, I thought. It just didn't have the constant, hands on (sorry) excitement that other sports did. As an adult, I tried watching it, but it never hooked me. I tried getting into the World Cup in 1994 when the U.S. hosted the event--I even went to a game at the Cotton Bowl. Fun atmosphere, but it never grabbed me. I've tried (maybe not hard enough--still more on that later).

So, against that backdrop, and armed with that information--here are my unbiased, non-sarcastic, from the heart observations on the sport of soccer and the World Cup.


THINGS I LIKE

1. Commercial free halves. Greatness. No other sport gives you that bang for the buck. You invest 110 minutes total and it's over. You have zero commercials per half. There is not another sport in the world that can make that claim. I love it.

2. The passion. I would stack the passion of the soccer fan up against the passion of any other fan from any other sport. I've never experienced anything like standing on the side of a mountain road during the Tour de France--the fans are insane. But I hear that the soccer fans at a Premier League game are just as nuts, if not nuttier. I would like to experience that one day.

3. The international flavor. I love any event where, in the stands, you will hear 10 different languages being spoken and see 10 different flags being waved. I enjoy the political/geographical rivalries. I enjoy countries whose hatred for each other goes back centuries. You don't get that in many sports. I also love the color--the jerseys and logos, etc. Very rich.

4. The history. While the game itself doesn't reel me in, the history of the sport does. I like reading about Pele and Beckenbauer. I like looking at the list of the Cup winners. I like the stories behind the stories. Any sport with a thick, global history and with lots of characters and intrigue is ok by me.

5. The United States climb to dominance. Soccer is one of the few sports remaining that we haven't figured out. We've reached the top of the mountain in just about everything else, but the road map to international soccer success is still confusing to us. I like that we are a hungry nation. America is usually at it's best when it's hungry.


THINGS I DON'T LIKE

1. The lack of scoring opportunities. My biggest beef with the sport. There is too much time where the ball is being kicked around at midfield, or kicked out of bounds, or when play just bogs down to the point that you realize nothing exciting is going to happen in the next minute, guaranteed. However, in other sports, there is almost always a chance for a score or something dramatic at any moment. In baseball, every pitch gives you a scoring opportunity. In football, every snap delivers the promise of something big. In basketball, almost every trip down the floor results in a payoff. Even in a slow sport like golf, every single stroke for Tiger counts towards his score--every swing could win or lose the tournament. Every one. Yet, in soccer, I would estimate that you get a legitimate scoring chance once every 5-10 minutes. Not enough, for this reporter.

2. The clock. "Extra time" is the most unstable thing in international sports. Can you imagine watching an NFL game where time was kept on the field and basically hidden from the players and fans? How outraged would we be? I don't understand why the clock can't start at 45:00 and count back, and be stopped when the official wants it stopped. It would make the game much easier to follow, instead of forcing fans to constantly do math and then guess at how much time might remain.

3. The flopping. I don't like it in the NBA, and I like it even less in soccer. At least in the NBA they get right up. In soccer, they bring out a stretcher. Really??

4. The ABC/ESPN announcers. The American announcers (save for a few) act like they've been around the sport forever--they haven't. The Euro announcers that they've imported for this event sound like they would rather be somewhere else. That doesn't get me fired up. Heck, we get so few scoring opportunities, I want those announcers losing their sheet in those moments.

5. The hyperbolic soccer media and fandom. Claiming that the extra time goal against Algeria was one of the greatest moments in U.S. sports history is a bit of a stretch to me. Likening it to the Miracle on Ice (Mike and Mike, Matt Laurer, and dozens of spare soccer scribes) is a joke. The Miracle on Grass? Come on. Should the U.S. beat Spain in the semi-finals on a last-second goal, then yes, let's all roll out the Lake Placid comparisons. But not beating Algeria (who didn't score a goal in any of their three World Cup games) in the preliminary round. As one listener said, it was the equivalent of Texas beating Iowa State 3-0 on a last second field goal. Nice, exciting win--but not epic.

MY PLEDGE

Then again, maybe it's me. So, as an olive branch to the soccer fan who thinks I haven't given the sport a chance or who thinks I haven't thought out my "soccer is boring" opinion, I offer this...

I've been told by many of you via email that the World Cup is not the best soccer to watch--that big-time European pro soccer is. So, I will get into Euro soccer for a season and see if it grabs me. I'll pick one team to follow (suggestions, please), and I will watch all of their games. I will read about it. I will talk about it. I will corner Bob at work and make him answer my questions, at gunpoint if that's what it takes. I will give it an honest effort. I will update my findings along the way. If, at the end of that season, it still hasn't grabbed me, then you'll just have to accept that one of the worlds best sports reporters finds the world's most popular sport boring.

So, let's get going. Let me know which league and team I should follow. Let me know when and where I can watch them. Let me know which websites are the best to keep up with them. I even pledge to attempt to see a game in person, if possible. It's just my way of showing you that I don't hate international sports, and that I don't hate soccer. I just don't get it. Yet.