Bill Simmons's Curious Foray Into Soccer

As I addressed in my Steve Slaton post, I'm a sports nut, and by effect, I read a lot of good and a lot of awful sportswriters. One I've always enjoyed is Bill Simmons, though me being a Boston-based basketball fanatic probably gives him too much of a homefield advantage. One thing about soccer is that there really aren't many good sportswriters (though I guess the same could be said for American sports) and sportswriting in Europe doesn't ever really seem to leave the analytical side of it. The most in-depth "op-ed" you'll get is someone wondering if Aquilani's Fascist political views will clash with Jamie Carragher's socialist leanings. ( That's dead serious by the way )

So, when Simmons did a special on choosing an EPL team after the 2006 World Cup, it was an immensely enjoyable read for a few reasons. I generally like his articles, and the writing style remained the same. But also, it is really interesting to see how someone who (let's be honest here) doesn't know anything about the league or sport breaks it down in the beginning. For the most part, his research proved to be pretty on-target(granted only 14 of the original teams remain, but that's relegation for you) and nothing has really changed since then. Since he wrote that article, Manchester United has won 3 straight titles, and I guess the only teams that suffered serious dips in form after the article were probably Arsenal, Tottenham and Newcastle. Arsenal he really trumps up, though I'm not sure why he sees the Bandwagon potential as so high. The bandwagoning ALL comes from the style of play, the same way Barcelona gets tons of bandwagon-jumpers every year. His paragraph on why he didn't choose Man U should be required reading for all non-Manchester-based United fans:
"Estimated number of "I don't care who you pick, just don't pick Manchester United" e-mails: At least 700-750. By all accounts, they're the New York Yankees of the EPL -- they outspend everyone else, everyone hates them, and even their own fans don't enjoy rooting for them that much. Financially, they blow almost everyone out of the water and purchase as many up-and-coming young stars as possible; they're almost like a European All-Star team. That's no fun. (Although I will say that I love Rooney's work and wish he was on another team -- he reminds me of a drunken Derrick on "Fresh Meat."). Anyway, can you imagine knowing a foreigner in their mid-30s who was looking for a baseball team and announced, "I'm going with the Yankees!" Wouldn't you hate that person? I don't want to be that guy."

Brilliant, if only he knew the depth of the bandwagoning. It doesn't fully apply to Americans, because Americans don't think the same way about club sports, but there's two huge reasons why people love Man U, one legitimate and one not. The illegitimate and obvious one is that they win all the time, and by being good, they're fun to watch. That's bullshit. But the other, far more excusable one, is that for most countries, they produce only a handful of top-soccer stars during a fan's lifetime, and those players become gods in those countries. Andriy Shevchenko was called BY THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, "Ukraine's greatest export." Nothing like faith in your economy, eh? But anyways, Manchester United always seems to get those singular stars from a nation (or all of them in Ireland's case, which is why 99% of all Irishmen are Mancs) and those countries cheer for United to cheer on the player or the memory of a player who defined their place in football. (Who else would Korea, Bulgaria, Serbia, Portugal (until this year) or Denmark root for, to name a few).

Anyways, despite relegations and the rise of Aston Villa and Manchester City, it's still a great read, and worth the time if you have it.

Now, I was pretty sure Simmons forgot about soccer. I wasn't insulted; it was to be expected to a degree. I mean, as I also mentioned in the Steve Slaton entry, you only have so much time in the day to dedicate to sports. So when Scoops told me to check out World Soccer Daily because Simmons and Jozy were on it, I was intrigued. First off, I really hope he doesn't view Cohen as the embodiment of the American soccersphere (or some other lameass term involving "sphere"), and not because of the LFCNY debacle, but just because he's a pompous douche bag. I appreciate that he has really dedicated his career in a way to promoting soccer in the US, but come on, he needs to chill once in a while. Regardless, Simmons pledged to start following soccer again, that he was getting back into it. Ok, ok. I've heard that. Then this gets posted.

Yet again, it's a very enjoyable read, despite a few shortcomings. I think he might be the only person left under the impression that Mexico has a categorically better soccer team than we do, and the fact that they haven't beat our A team on a non-Azteca site in about a decade is proof to that. Our record there is abysmal, but we only play there every four years, so even if you go back 8 years, our team was a joke, especially compared to today. So that really accounts for 3 losses, which if you make it about the time since we've been relevant, they've been equally bad in the US. The only team to ever beat Mexico in Azteca was a plucky Costa Rica side 8 years ago, and other than that one time, NO ONE, not Brazil, not the US, NO ONE has won there. A draw would have been brilliant, but you can't get everything. Despite that rant, yes Mexico did outplay us, but the homefield advantage would be like if Pittsburgh had Heinz Field in Denver, but transported LA's smog, and removed all laws when it came to conduct towards opposing fans. And this is in a sport where homefield is HUGE. So, while we did lose, and probably have given Mexico enough to qualify now, it is in no way a sign that Mexico is gaining on us (though Dos Santos and Vela are far more promosing than any of our U23s). Furthermore, it was only a brief mention, but I'm not sure which Tottenham-Liverpool game on file he was watching, but that was not Stevie G's greatest performance. Granted, him on a bad day is still better than most, and possibly he was just making a point knowing that no one would really refute him over here, but come on Bill, he wasn't "so ridiculously, dominantly good." He can be, and frequently is, but this past Saturday, not so much.

So, what does this all mean? I'm not sure. Simmons might start writing somewhat regularly about soccer, but I'm not sure how his editors will feel about that, especially from about two weeks from now until the Superbowl. He'll have baseball pennant race/playoffs and NFL until mid-October, and then suddenly has NBA, NFL and NHL (which is rare in his coverage). After the Superbowl, with soccer heating up, he probably will get a few articles passed as basketball and hockey playoffs will be the only competition. This is under the assumption that his editors have at least sizeable control over what he writes about; I'm talking out of my ass. And who knows? Maybe he can write shit articles about obscure sport happenings and be praised for it. (See Reilly, Rick) ESPN is getting really into soccer, as it is really the only market it doesn't dominate at this point, and so they'll probably be cool with some soccer dabblings of Simmons. It's great for the sport, and great for coverage in America, as he is arguably the most popular sportswriter we have. Will it change soccer in America? Absolutely not. Though if one thing does, he hit the nail on the head in his article: Jozy Altidore will be that change. If Jozy, or anyone like him, becomes an American transcendant star in soccer, that will be the catalyst to major change, and it's pretty obvious why. Regardless, here's to the increased exposure, and hopefully Simmons can get the ratings to spike high enough that I don't have to pay more for cable to watch good soccer.