Recapping the All-Stars

Yesterday's All-Star Game proved to be quite entertaining. Does the 1-0 victory over Chelsea demonstrate that the MLS is now on par with the EPL? Of course not; nor would anyone suggest that. (Although the cynics will think you're suggesting this very thing if you don't take the opportunity to lambaste the MLS.) What the game -- and, to a lesser extent, the result -- does suggest that one can find quality soccer here in America, and that we can be competitive versus quality European teams...under certain conditions. Eventually, we should progress to the point where (at least some of the) MLS teams can be competitive versus quality European teams on a regular basis. Until that day, let's be pleased with the progress we've made so far.

The best parts about the game included our ability to maintain possession for long stretches (due in part to the low pressure play Chelsea employed to conserve their energy). I also enjoyed seeing some of the creative flair from our midfielders in their dribbling (attacking dribbling as well as possession dribbling), their passing (which included some saucy backheels), and their overall control. Dynamo Houston was very well represented, led by DeRo who played a magnificent 90 minutes in an attacking midfielder role. He controlled the pace of the game nicely, worked well with his temporary teammates, and had the only score of the game (a scorcher of a shot after settling an O'Brien throw-in, spinning, then pulling the trigger in the 70th minute). The best defensive play of the game came with Eddie Robinson sliding to clear the ball off the goal line to maintain the clean sheet. Ricardo Clark played confidently in a defensive mid role and Ching had several good looks at goal...too bad he didn't get some time on field in the World Cup, eh?

Those who I felt did not acquit themselves well were Nate Jaqua, Freddy Adu, Facundo Erpen, Jimmy Conrad, and to a lesser extent Alecko Eskandarian. Jaqua had an indefatigable run into the defensive third to win a ball late, but looked lost in his role as a forward. Adu boldly tried to take on opponents, but his success rate and timing suggested an overly confident kid who holds onto the ball too long because of a lack of vision/wisdom and perhaps of dearth of self-awareness. Erpen's miscues may have been due to fatigue in the second half.

I thought Toyota Park looked nice -- it's nice to see an American soccer stadium without an empty concert stage consuming one goal line -- but the pitch looked a bit ratty. (And, hey: shouldn't Toyota Park be near Toyota Center? Instead, one is in Chicago and one is in Houston. That's one problem with venues sporting corporate appellations rather than local monikers: the names lose relevance.) I also thought the endgame celebration was unnecessary and even a bit embarrassing: we had just beaten a team in its preseason; we didn't win a hotly contested tournament. We should have treated the occasion as an expected outcome rather than a Sally Field "You really like me!" moment. Toss the stage; the players should have instead trotted around the pitch applauding the crowd. (I like Ives Galarcep's comment: "Major League Soccer's fans and players should feel a sense of pride about Saturday, but calling the win a landmark moment is an injustice to a league that deserves more respect than that. Let the MLS doubters be the ones who are surprised by results such as Saturday's.")

Well, you've read my impressions of MLSers who did well and those who didn't. If you read the game summaries by pundits (such as on espn.com and foxsports.com), you’ll find that "media experts" have different ideas of who did well and who didn’t...but note that their opinions don't just diverge, they are in fact in direct opposition to each other (and, in places, with mine).

Pundits love to write about what's wrong with soccer in this country, but perhaps they're overlooking a significant failing: themselves. Our league and its players are improving, and the fanbase is slowing growing, but the pundits continue to demonstrate a lack of perspicacity and savvy. Those who analyze the game (including fans like me, perhaps; but fans shouldn't be held to the same standard as journalists) are unable to discern anything beyond the obvious when evaluating the culprits behind a loss or the heroes supporting a win. In other sports there are, of course, differences about what may have been the key play in a particular game or what are the key characteristics of a team or player, but rarely do analysts have diametrically opposed opinions about the same matters. Yet this happens all the time in US soccer journalism, one writer will list his heroes and his goats of a game, while another (even when trying to make the same argument) will list the same players as goats and heroes, respectively. This organized ignorance cannot be pinned to just one journal or just one "school of opinion." It strikes the national publications as well as most local rags, and can be found amongst the overly sanguine MLS apologists as well as the eternally cynical MLS-detractors.

Yes, the game still has a way to go here in the States, at the youth level as well as at the professional. But those in their ivory towers have just as much growth before them, and a little humility in respect to that would be most welcome.