Yeah, so, who is this David Beckham guy anyway?!?
January 12, 2007 3:42 PM Subscribe
David Beckham is coming - I'm a huge sports fan, but like most Americans, I'm quite ignorant when it comes to soccer. I'll have to admit that the hype is getting to me and I want to a little more about this David Beckham fellow....
Is he the equivalent of Wayne Gretzky or Michael Jordan for the sport of football? I've been told he's even bigger than them. Is he like, the greatest soccer player ever?
Finally, an article I read today said that "Beckham was dropped by England after the 2006 World Cup and has spent much of this season on Real's bench." Why was he dropped from England's team if he is so good, and why is he sitting on the bench!
So who is this guy and will he make a difference for US Soccer?
Is he the equivalent of Wayne Gretzky or Michael Jordan for the sport of football? I've been told he's even bigger than them. Is he like, the greatest soccer player ever?
Finally, an article I read today said that "Beckham was dropped by England after the 2006 World Cup and has spent much of this season on Real's bench." Why was he dropped from England's team if he is so good, and why is he sitting on the bench!
So who is this guy and will he make a difference for US Soccer?
Beckham is like the Allen Iverson of soccer. That's the "let's trade this guy and rebuild" Iverson of today - not the one that took on the Lakers in the finals some years back. Or, the White Sox-era Michael Jordan -- the press he garners far outpaces the skills he displays.
He's a media hype machine - good with the free kick, pretty mediocre other than that. He's coming to the States because he's used up in Europe (although I'm sure a few struggling teams could have used him had they had the cash to pay).
Some other comparisons:
Eli Manning -- lot of hype, average delivery
Michelle Wie
I doubt he'll make much of a difference overall to U.S. Soccer:
Why David Beckham is bad for American Soccer [Slate]
Arsene Wenger's take
posted by buddha9090 at 3:50 PM on January 12, 2007
He's a media hype machine - good with the free kick, pretty mediocre other than that. He's coming to the States because he's used up in Europe (although I'm sure a few struggling teams could have used him had they had the cash to pay).
Some other comparisons:
Eli Manning -- lot of hype, average delivery
Michelle Wie
I doubt he'll make much of a difference overall to U.S. Soccer:
Why David Beckham is bad for American Soccer [Slate]
Arsene Wenger's take
posted by buddha9090 at 3:50 PM on January 12, 2007
Why not read the Metafilter thread on it?
No thread about Beckham would be complete without a video of this spectacular goal.
For what it's worth, I've never heard of Wayne Gretzky, and only vaguely of Michael Jordan.
posted by matthewr at 3:50 PM on January 12, 2007
No thread about Beckham would be complete without a video of this spectacular goal.
For what it's worth, I've never heard of Wayne Gretzky, and only vaguely of Michael Jordan.
posted by matthewr at 3:50 PM on January 12, 2007
He's often called "the most famous sports star in the world," but I don't know how much of that is just media hype.
posted by muddgirl at 3:55 PM on January 12, 2007
posted by muddgirl at 3:55 PM on January 12, 2007
I know nothing about American sports, so I can't compare, but Beckham is nowhere near the greatest soccer player ever. Not even in the top 50, I'm afraid.
When he was in England, he was a great deliverer of the ball from wide areas of the field. So that's crossing the ball and enabling others to score the goals. He is still a great dead ball player - ie free kicks and corners.
But basically, Beckham lacks pace, can't tackle, and can't beat players one-on-one. He can't get in the England or Real Madrid team right now for the simple reason that there are better players available in his position.
He's famous for his wife, and his face, not his soccer skills.
posted by afx237vi at 3:56 PM on January 12, 2007
When he was in England, he was a great deliverer of the ball from wide areas of the field. So that's crossing the ball and enabling others to score the goals. He is still a great dead ball player - ie free kicks and corners.
But basically, Beckham lacks pace, can't tackle, and can't beat players one-on-one. He can't get in the England or Real Madrid team right now for the simple reason that there are better players available in his position.
He's famous for his wife, and his face, not his soccer skills.
posted by afx237vi at 3:56 PM on January 12, 2007
Handsome until he opens his mouth, smackfu.
It looks like that "designated player" rule is just there to raise the profile of US soccer in the country. So, IMO, this deal is about Beckham the media personality, not Beckham the player. Expect the Posh'n'Becks marketing campaign on a billboard near you soon.
posted by Leon at 3:57 PM on January 12, 2007
It looks like that "designated player" rule is just there to raise the profile of US soccer in the country. So, IMO, this deal is about Beckham the media personality, not Beckham the player. Expect the Posh'n'Becks marketing campaign on a billboard near you soon.
posted by Leon at 3:57 PM on January 12, 2007
He's often called "the most famous sports star in the world," but I don't know how much of that is just media hype.
I can't, offhand, think of any sports star more famous. For example, he was the only sports star in the top 10 searched-for men on Google in 2004 (link) &mdash unfortunately Google haven't published more recent comprehensive information. Since football is the most popular sport in the world, I'd guess Beckham is indeed the famous sportsperson.
posted by matthewr at 4:03 PM on January 12, 2007
I can't, offhand, think of any sports star more famous. For example, he was the only sports star in the top 10 searched-for men on Google in 2004 (link) &mdash unfortunately Google haven't published more recent comprehensive information. Since football is the most popular sport in the world, I'd guess Beckham is indeed the famous sportsperson.
posted by matthewr at 4:03 PM on January 12, 2007
Beckham is in his decline phase as a player, which is troublesome since he was never as good as his reputation would lead you to believe he was.
He's a phenomenal crosser of the ball who takes amazing free kicks; ask him to run after a ball, though, and he's in trouble; he's got nothing outside of one good foot.
This signing was about 15% playing-related and about 85% marketing related. I don't want this sort of thing to continue because it'll do nothing to improve the quality of play in MLS.
posted by pdb at 4:12 PM on January 12, 2007
He's a phenomenal crosser of the ball who takes amazing free kicks; ask him to run after a ball, though, and he's in trouble; he's got nothing outside of one good foot.
This signing was about 15% playing-related and about 85% marketing related. I don't want this sort of thing to continue because it'll do nothing to improve the quality of play in MLS.
posted by pdb at 4:12 PM on January 12, 2007
I can't, offhand, think of any sports star more famous.
Tiger Woods, I'd say, and by a fairly big margin. Maybe Lance Armstrong.
posted by afx237vi at 4:17 PM on January 12, 2007
Tiger Woods, I'd say, and by a fairly big margin. Maybe Lance Armstrong.
posted by afx237vi at 4:17 PM on January 12, 2007
Is he the equivalent of Wayne Gretzky or Michael Jordan for the sport of football? I've been told he's even bigger than them. Is he like, the greatest soccer player ever?
Like, no. Not even when he was in his prime. No slouch in his prime mind you, but definitely past it now.
Pele, Maradona, Beckenbauer, Cruijff.
Those guys are the Wayne Gretzkys and Michael Jordans of football.
posted by juv3nal at 4:25 PM on January 12, 2007
Like, no. Not even when he was in his prime. No slouch in his prime mind you, but definitely past it now.
Pele, Maradona, Beckenbauer, Cruijff.
Those guys are the Wayne Gretzkys and Michael Jordans of football.
posted by juv3nal at 4:25 PM on January 12, 2007
Best answer: He is the best passer of a ball in the game ever.
What he can do with a free kick is mind-boggling, he's won several crucial England games were the free-kick was the last kick of the ball. Can you imagine hitting a perfect shot, swerving round a ball, past a goalkeeper, into the top corner of the net, with all that pressure on you?
He has an incredible work ethic, he ran himself into the ground in the world cup. He was dropped from the England team because of politics, not skill, he is still one of the top 11 English footballers IMO. He was dropped because, as captain, he had more influence over the players than the new manager would.
I think he will make a difference to US "Soccer" theres obviously talent in MLS, theres several americans playing in the English Premier now (McBride and Dempsey at Fulham, Convey and Hannemann at Reading, DeMerit at Watford). The sport just needs more attention and respect, exactly what he'll provide I think. He also owns a football academy in America, and I think he'll expand that. If kids start playing the game seriously, it'll take off at a higher level.
posted by chrispy108 at 4:28 PM on January 12, 2007
What he can do with a free kick is mind-boggling, he's won several crucial England games were the free-kick was the last kick of the ball. Can you imagine hitting a perfect shot, swerving round a ball, past a goalkeeper, into the top corner of the net, with all that pressure on you?
He has an incredible work ethic, he ran himself into the ground in the world cup. He was dropped from the England team because of politics, not skill, he is still one of the top 11 English footballers IMO. He was dropped because, as captain, he had more influence over the players than the new manager would.
I think he will make a difference to US "Soccer" theres obviously talent in MLS, theres several americans playing in the English Premier now (McBride and Dempsey at Fulham, Convey and Hannemann at Reading, DeMerit at Watford). The sport just needs more attention and respect, exactly what he'll provide I think. He also owns a football academy in America, and I think he'll expand that. If kids start playing the game seriously, it'll take off at a higher level.
posted by chrispy108 at 4:28 PM on January 12, 2007
Best answer: Beckham is not the best passer of a ball ever, and is a long way from being the best player ever. His freekicks are decent, but nowhere near the top of the list (Juninho and Nakamura are probably the best dead ball specialists around today.)
But it's not all bad. He is a very good player. His work ethic is second to none, the man has never forgotten his roots and he seems to have never bought into his own hype. Despite the furore over his salary I believe he is making this move for the right reasons. "Beckham" was invented by an English press desperate for their underperforming national side to actually achieve something. He was torn down, built up, then torn down again just as fast.
Beckham can never be called world class - he has never imposed himself at the top level, in the biggest games and the biggest tournaments, the way players like Zidane and Ronaldo have. He is not the best English player playing today, he is not even the best English midfielder - I would have Gerrard and Scholes before him at least. That said, his signature is still a massive coup and he should have a real impact on American soccer.
(I would not rule out the fact he is earning his teammates yearly wage in a week posing a problem though.)
posted by fire&wings at 4:42 PM on January 12, 2007
But it's not all bad. He is a very good player. His work ethic is second to none, the man has never forgotten his roots and he seems to have never bought into his own hype. Despite the furore over his salary I believe he is making this move for the right reasons. "Beckham" was invented by an English press desperate for their underperforming national side to actually achieve something. He was torn down, built up, then torn down again just as fast.
Beckham can never be called world class - he has never imposed himself at the top level, in the biggest games and the biggest tournaments, the way players like Zidane and Ronaldo have. He is not the best English player playing today, he is not even the best English midfielder - I would have Gerrard and Scholes before him at least. That said, his signature is still a massive coup and he should have a real impact on American soccer.
(I would not rule out the fact he is earning his teammates yearly wage in a week posing a problem though.)
posted by fire&wings at 4:42 PM on January 12, 2007
Came through the ranks of the Manchester United academy. Scored a blinder against Wimbledon. Won the Champions' League. Got sent off. Scored against Greece. Captained his country. Fell out with Sir Alec. Went to Spain and everybody forgot about him. Was really never that special, just a one trick pony. Despite what you read -- and although he is exceptional -- he is by no means the 'greatest footballer ever to grace the planet ever for all time'.
He's good, but so are the people who make money from him.
People know who he is. (Bigger than Jesus? Answer 14)
posted by popcassady at 4:43 PM on January 12, 2007
He's good, but so are the people who make money from him.
People know who he is. (Bigger than Jesus? Answer 14)
posted by popcassady at 4:43 PM on January 12, 2007
I can't, offhand, think of any sports star more famous.
Tiger Woods, I'd say, and by a fairly big margin. Maybe Lance Armstrong.
Tiger Woods, maybe. FWIW, I don't know how well-known Lance Armstrong is in the States, but he's practically unknown here in Japan. So is Wayne Gretzky.
I agree with pdb. Beckham's free kicks are beautiful. He's a good player, or at least he used to be. I actually feel kind of sorry for him because from what I've read about him, he's actually a really stoic soccer player and worked really hard to get where he's at, but his above-average face and flashy wife make him look like a goon.
Now, whether or not he's worth all that money that's being paid for him is another matter. But then, that's what being a professional sports player is all about, right?
posted by misozaki at 4:45 PM on January 12, 2007
Tiger Woods, I'd say, and by a fairly big margin. Maybe Lance Armstrong.
Tiger Woods, maybe. FWIW, I don't know how well-known Lance Armstrong is in the States, but he's practically unknown here in Japan. So is Wayne Gretzky.
I agree with pdb. Beckham's free kicks are beautiful. He's a good player, or at least he used to be. I actually feel kind of sorry for him because from what I've read about him, he's actually a really stoic soccer player and worked really hard to get where he's at, but his above-average face and flashy wife make him look like a goon.
Now, whether or not he's worth all that money that's being paid for him is another matter. But then, that's what being a professional sports player is all about, right?
posted by misozaki at 4:45 PM on January 12, 2007
If Beckham was the world's best soccer player, he wouldn't play in the U.S.
posted by AwkwardPause at 5:00 PM on January 12, 2007
posted by AwkwardPause at 5:00 PM on January 12, 2007
I wouldn't know about the other sports but, in soccer, if you're a fancy pants and don't deliver the goods, then you get the sh!t ripped out of you. (C. Ronaldo -- how short people's memories can be.)
If professional soccer, basketball, football, baseball, et al, was actually a sport anymore it might be of some interest. It is all 'glitz' and entertainment. No way is that sport. It is entertainment for the masses.
posted by popcassady at 5:45 PM on January 12, 2007
Beckham is just a huge PR machine -- the guy himself is nothing special (and i'll never forgive anyone for naming their house "Beckingham Palace"), and I think is going to the US because his star is fading fast in the UK. He's no longer England captain and the whole nation's a bit tired of him (and his wife with her recently-failed music comeback), so I think some clever marketing person said I know! Let's give him to the Americans!
posted by ukdanae at 6:00 PM on January 12, 2007
posted by ukdanae at 6:00 PM on January 12, 2007
Beckham's closest American analogue is Derek Jeter. Some people think Jeter can walk on water, is "clutch," and is better than Cal Ripken ever was. But most true fans believe the best SS on the Yankees is playing third, Jeter's stats are good but not great, the "clutch" and "leadership" are all hype, and given a choice between Jeter and Vlad Guerrero, they would take Vlad 11 times out of 10.
Jeter is a very good player, but he's not the greatest in the world (or even on his own team). Beckham is still a very good player, but he's no longer world-class.
I think there are some sour grapes here, because in '98 he and Michael Owen really were all that on that England team, and then Beckham hit Posh and the party scene while Owen just sort of vanished.
Beckham's career is in freefall now, and going to the MLS is nothing but a soft landing that I swear must have some Scientology influence. But soccer is a sport where when you lose pace you're toast, while in baseball you move to LF/1B/DH and start swinging for the fences.
posted by dw at 6:31 PM on January 12, 2007
Jeter is a very good player, but he's not the greatest in the world (or even on his own team). Beckham is still a very good player, but he's no longer world-class.
I think there are some sour grapes here, because in '98 he and Michael Owen really were all that on that England team, and then Beckham hit Posh and the party scene while Owen just sort of vanished.
Beckham's career is in freefall now, and going to the MLS is nothing but a soft landing that I swear must have some Scientology influence. But soccer is a sport where when you lose pace you're toast, while in baseball you move to LF/1B/DH and start swinging for the fences.
posted by dw at 6:31 PM on January 12, 2007
He is the best passer of a ball in the game ever.
Uhhhh, no. Dennis Bergkamp puts Beckham to shame, passing-wise. Beckham is a great passer of the ball off one foot, from one side of the field, to one specific area; he crosses better than most anybody.
But for a complete passing game, Bergkamp pretty much is the standard by which all passers should be judged.
posted by pdb at 6:56 PM on January 12, 2007
Uhhhh, no. Dennis Bergkamp puts Beckham to shame, passing-wise. Beckham is a great passer of the ball off one foot, from one side of the field, to one specific area; he crosses better than most anybody.
But for a complete passing game, Bergkamp pretty much is the standard by which all passers should be judged.
posted by pdb at 6:56 PM on January 12, 2007
One more chiming in for:
1) he's handsome
2) he's above average at set-piece or "free" kicks
3) he's married to another famous person.
There are a lot more exciting players who could come to the US, but hey, it's a start.
posted by deern the headlice at 8:27 PM on January 12, 2007
1) he's handsome
2) he's above average at set-piece or "free" kicks
3) he's married to another famous person.
There are a lot more exciting players who could come to the US, but hey, it's a start.
posted by deern the headlice at 8:27 PM on January 12, 2007
The most famous sports star in the world has got to be Muhammad Ali.
posted by Monk at 8:40 PM on January 12, 2007
posted by Monk at 8:40 PM on January 12, 2007
From the way they advertise it, I thought it was Tiger Woods?
posted by hadjiboy at 9:49 PM on January 12, 2007
posted by hadjiboy at 9:49 PM on January 12, 2007
"Beckham's closest American analogue is Derek Jeter." by DW
Wrong wrong wrong...
How do you figure the clutch and leadership are all hype?
I don't know how bonafide dominating clutch stats are "hype" It either is or isn't. Arod hasn't added anything to all the teams he's played for in the past decade to get them anywhere in the playoffs. Vlad is a dominating player but wake up nancy, Vlad is a prototypical cleanup hitting slugger.
Again any player who will end up with 3000 hits is far from hype.
As for leadership-- Espn already polled teamates and opponents in 2001 and Derek Jeter Rated overwhelmingly high from his peers. As opposed to bleacher bums who read the goosip column and are annoyed at who Derek might or might not be dating.
Good question poster, but unfortunately some are far from qualified to answer.
Go with what fire and wings said.
sorry for the snarkiness, but there are tons of reasons to hate on the Yankees, but Derek is definitely not one of them and any team would kill to have his class, clutch and leadership, Ask Oakland when he singlehandedly was their nightmare in throwing out Jeremy Giambi @ home plate--- . plus a .314 career playoff average.
Ninja please
posted by stavx at 10:43 PM on January 12, 2007
Wrong wrong wrong...
How do you figure the clutch and leadership are all hype?
I don't know how bonafide dominating clutch stats are "hype" It either is or isn't. Arod hasn't added anything to all the teams he's played for in the past decade to get them anywhere in the playoffs. Vlad is a dominating player but wake up nancy, Vlad is a prototypical cleanup hitting slugger.
Again any player who will end up with 3000 hits is far from hype.
As for leadership-- Espn already polled teamates and opponents in 2001 and Derek Jeter Rated overwhelmingly high from his peers. As opposed to bleacher bums who read the goosip column and are annoyed at who Derek might or might not be dating.
Good question poster, but unfortunately some are far from qualified to answer.
Go with what fire and wings said.
sorry for the snarkiness, but there are tons of reasons to hate on the Yankees, but Derek is definitely not one of them and any team would kill to have his class, clutch and leadership, Ask Oakland when he singlehandedly was their nightmare in throwing out Jeremy Giambi @ home plate--- . plus a .314 career playoff average.
Ninja please
posted by stavx at 10:43 PM on January 12, 2007
Best answer: So who is this guy and will he make a difference for US Soccer?
See above for the "who is this guy" answers. He is/was a damn good player and is the "Most Famous Player Evar."
Now, the second question -- will he make a difference for U.S. soccer?
To answer this question, we'll consider "U.S. soccer" to mean the MLS, the national team and the perception of soccer in general.
* The MLS is desperately in need of marquee value in a big market. They need a reason to move off the back pages to the cover. Beckham brings this, just on name value. There's history here. Pele and George Best played in the NASL in the 70s, which had a run of success before spectacular failure. You can think of this as the modern attempt to do better than that.
* Adidas and other sponsors are the ones actually behind the $250 million price tag. The team itself pays "only" $8-9 million, which they think can be recouped, again, just on name value alone. So, cost isn't a terrible factor for the MLS itself.
* Beckham and his handlers probably see the U.S. as a giant untapped market where he will have ZERO competition here, in terms of his perception and endorsement value. He instantly becomes the most famous, most admired, most talked about soccer player in the U.S. This has value for the MLS, as they now have a "star" to hang their hats on.
This is good for the MLS, provided they can turn this goodwill into sustainable interest in the sport, which is debatable.
This is good for the national team, but not in an on-the-field sense. Beckham won't play for the U.S., obviously, but the hope is that a) more of the best U.S. players stay here and bask in Beckham's glow, and b) that benefits the perception of the U.S. team. But what the U.S. team really needs is to win on the national stage. They looked good in Japan/Korea. But they sucked ass a few years later.
This is good for the overall perception of soccer in the U.S., provided the MLS and Beckham can avoid the NASL curse and subsequent implosion if they cannot translate the marquee value into something sustainable.
Sadly, despite all of that, I don't think this will "work" in the long run. You'll see a few Beckham hats here and there, and you'll see more Galaxy shirts. But four years from now, if the U.S. national team isn't kicking ass and taking names on the world stage, it'll just be another four years before they get another shot.
IMO, the best thing that can happen for U.S. soccer right now would be for the English Premier League to open up their television rights to U.S. networks for free. Just go ahead and make it free for anyone to broadcast and advertise EPL games and material in the U.S. Go for the hardcore audience in a big way that'll watch the matches at home, instead of trying to find the one pub in the city that's open late at night or early in the morning.
posted by frogan at 12:40 AM on January 13, 2007
See above for the "who is this guy" answers. He is/was a damn good player and is the "Most Famous Player Evar."
Now, the second question -- will he make a difference for U.S. soccer?
To answer this question, we'll consider "U.S. soccer" to mean the MLS, the national team and the perception of soccer in general.
* The MLS is desperately in need of marquee value in a big market. They need a reason to move off the back pages to the cover. Beckham brings this, just on name value. There's history here. Pele and George Best played in the NASL in the 70s, which had a run of success before spectacular failure. You can think of this as the modern attempt to do better than that.
* Adidas and other sponsors are the ones actually behind the $250 million price tag. The team itself pays "only" $8-9 million, which they think can be recouped, again, just on name value alone. So, cost isn't a terrible factor for the MLS itself.
* Beckham and his handlers probably see the U.S. as a giant untapped market where he will have ZERO competition here, in terms of his perception and endorsement value. He instantly becomes the most famous, most admired, most talked about soccer player in the U.S. This has value for the MLS, as they now have a "star" to hang their hats on.
This is good for the MLS, provided they can turn this goodwill into sustainable interest in the sport, which is debatable.
This is good for the national team, but not in an on-the-field sense. Beckham won't play for the U.S., obviously, but the hope is that a) more of the best U.S. players stay here and bask in Beckham's glow, and b) that benefits the perception of the U.S. team. But what the U.S. team really needs is to win on the national stage. They looked good in Japan/Korea. But they sucked ass a few years later.
This is good for the overall perception of soccer in the U.S., provided the MLS and Beckham can avoid the NASL curse and subsequent implosion if they cannot translate the marquee value into something sustainable.
Sadly, despite all of that, I don't think this will "work" in the long run. You'll see a few Beckham hats here and there, and you'll see more Galaxy shirts. But four years from now, if the U.S. national team isn't kicking ass and taking names on the world stage, it'll just be another four years before they get another shot.
IMO, the best thing that can happen for U.S. soccer right now would be for the English Premier League to open up their television rights to U.S. networks for free. Just go ahead and make it free for anyone to broadcast and advertise EPL games and material in the U.S. Go for the hardcore audience in a big way that'll watch the matches at home, instead of trying to find the one pub in the city that's open late at night or early in the morning.
posted by frogan at 12:40 AM on January 13, 2007
The one aspect of the game at which Beckham is the greatest ever is selling replica shirts. LA Galaxy will now sell millions* of replica shirts with "Beckham" on the back, especially in Japan, China and other Asian markets. These are markets in which there is not a strong domestic football offering, so there will now be an interest in purchasing TV rights to show MLS games (perhaps only Galaxy games, but I am sure MLS sells rights as a package rather than allowing buyers to cherry-pick).
So signing Beckham will herald a huge influx of money into the US game from Asian countries that previously had no interest in MLS. How much of that will go to MLS and how much to LA Galaxy and Beckham I don't know.
As far as his impact on the game in America goes: he is not the Gretzky or Jordan of football. He would not be able to hold down a regular place in a top European team (by which I mean the best 2 or 3 teams in Spain, England or Italy), but he will certainly be one of the most talented players in MLS. He will score a spectacular goal from a free kick every couple of weeks, ensuring a telegenic clip for "greatest plays of the week"-type segments, but soccer is very much a team game and he will not be a phenomenon like Jordan or Gretzky.
*This is not an exaggeration.
posted by nowonmai at 7:55 AM on January 13, 2007
So signing Beckham will herald a huge influx of money into the US game from Asian countries that previously had no interest in MLS. How much of that will go to MLS and how much to LA Galaxy and Beckham I don't know.
As far as his impact on the game in America goes: he is not the Gretzky or Jordan of football. He would not be able to hold down a regular place in a top European team (by which I mean the best 2 or 3 teams in Spain, England or Italy), but he will certainly be one of the most talented players in MLS. He will score a spectacular goal from a free kick every couple of weeks, ensuring a telegenic clip for "greatest plays of the week"-type segments, but soccer is very much a team game and he will not be a phenomenon like Jordan or Gretzky.
*This is not an exaggeration.
posted by nowonmai at 7:55 AM on January 13, 2007
As a mere female there is lots of questions posed that I can't answer but there is one that I can with ease -
So who is this guy and will he make a difference for US Soccer?
Beckham is delicous looking and makes Women twitch on sight. He goes beyond all cultural, religious and age boundaries, for females old and young, black or white, jewish or buddhist drool over him in equal measures. The man is universally appealing.
One effect he will have on American 'soccer' is that woman left right and centre are going to become hugely interested in the team he is joining. And trust me they will get to know his face as his face sells.
posted by mycapaciousbottega at 10:57 AM on January 13, 2007
So who is this guy and will he make a difference for US Soccer?
Beckham is delicous looking and makes Women twitch on sight. He goes beyond all cultural, religious and age boundaries, for females old and young, black or white, jewish or buddhist drool over him in equal measures. The man is universally appealing.
One effect he will have on American 'soccer' is that woman left right and centre are going to become hugely interested in the team he is joining. And trust me they will get to know his face as his face sells.
posted by mycapaciousbottega at 10:57 AM on January 13, 2007
Beckham is delicous looking and makes Women twitch on sight. He goes beyond all cultural, religious and age boundaries, for females old and young, black or white, jewish or buddhist drool over him in equal measures. The man is universally appealing.
Yeah, but what happens when he opens his mouth and begins talking?
posted by afx237vi at 11:55 AM on January 13, 2007
Yeah, but what happens when he opens his mouth and begins talking?
posted by afx237vi at 11:55 AM on January 13, 2007
Not to derail too far...
"Beckham's closest American analogue is Derek Jeter." by DW
Wrong wrong wrong...
How do you figure the clutch and leadership are all hype?
Because there's no such thing as clutch. And if it did exist, it's basically irrelevant and impossible to pry out of the small sample size of the situation.
As for his leadership, maybe he is a leader, but it doesn't necessarily make a team automatically that much better than another team. The 2004 Mariners had some established clubhouse leaders. The 1986 Mets didn't have any leadership. The M's finished with almost 100 losses, the Mets a World Series.
Arod hasn't added anything to all the teams he's played for in the past decade to get them anywhere in the playoffs.
Bullshit. He reached the playoffs in '97 and 2000 with the M's as a hitting machine. The Yankees have been in the playoffs all three years he's been there. As for the Rangers, well, he wasn't the problem.
Vlad is a dominating player but wake up nancy, Vlad is a prototypical cleanup hitting slugger.
So? Which would you rather have to build a team around, a 40 HR guy with a ridiculous OPS and a cannon for an arm or a SS that hits .300 and makes the routine look spectacular (i.e. his defense sucks?)
Again any player who will end up with 3000 hits is far from hype.
Beckham has 62 Premiership goals, 94 national team caps (with 17 goals), and goals in three World Cups. He helped Man U dominate in the late 90s (including the treble in 1999). He was highly skilled with free kicks, though he was never the goal scorer on Man U the way, say, Solskjær was. Some think he was a great passer, but many think he wasn't even the best passer on his own team. On the whole, Beckham was a great player, but not someone you build a team around.
Jeter has a career line of .317/.388/.463, 183 home runs, 249 stolen bases, and .314/.384/.479 in the postseason with 17 home runs. He helped the Yankees dominate in the late 90s (including three straight world titles in 1998-2000). He was always remembered for his postseason hitting, though he was never the run producer for the Yankees that, say, Bernie Williams was. Some think he was a great defender, but many think he wasn't even an average glove on his own team. On the whole, Jeter is a great player, but not someone you build your team around.
Good question poster, but unfortunately some are far from qualified to answer.
So, someone who follows the Premiership, goes to 20 games a year, and hangs with statheads isn't qualified? Thanks, Dubya.
sorry for the snarkiness, but there are tons of reasons to hate on the Yankees, but Derek is definitely not one of them and any team would kill to have his class, clutch and leadership, Ask Oakland when he singlehandedly was their nightmare in throwing out Jeremy Giambi @ home plate--- . plus a .314 career playoff average.
posted by dw at 5:44 PM on January 13, 2007
"Beckham's closest American analogue is Derek Jeter." by DW
Wrong wrong wrong...
How do you figure the clutch and leadership are all hype?
Because there's no such thing as clutch. And if it did exist, it's basically irrelevant and impossible to pry out of the small sample size of the situation.
As for his leadership, maybe he is a leader, but it doesn't necessarily make a team automatically that much better than another team. The 2004 Mariners had some established clubhouse leaders. The 1986 Mets didn't have any leadership. The M's finished with almost 100 losses, the Mets a World Series.
Arod hasn't added anything to all the teams he's played for in the past decade to get them anywhere in the playoffs.
Bullshit. He reached the playoffs in '97 and 2000 with the M's as a hitting machine. The Yankees have been in the playoffs all three years he's been there. As for the Rangers, well, he wasn't the problem.
Vlad is a dominating player but wake up nancy, Vlad is a prototypical cleanup hitting slugger.
So? Which would you rather have to build a team around, a 40 HR guy with a ridiculous OPS and a cannon for an arm or a SS that hits .300 and makes the routine look spectacular (i.e. his defense sucks?)
Again any player who will end up with 3000 hits is far from hype.
Beckham has 62 Premiership goals, 94 national team caps (with 17 goals), and goals in three World Cups. He helped Man U dominate in the late 90s (including the treble in 1999). He was highly skilled with free kicks, though he was never the goal scorer on Man U the way, say, Solskjær was. Some think he was a great passer, but many think he wasn't even the best passer on his own team. On the whole, Beckham was a great player, but not someone you build a team around.
Jeter has a career line of .317/.388/.463, 183 home runs, 249 stolen bases, and .314/.384/.479 in the postseason with 17 home runs. He helped the Yankees dominate in the late 90s (including three straight world titles in 1998-2000). He was always remembered for his postseason hitting, though he was never the run producer for the Yankees that, say, Bernie Williams was. Some think he was a great defender, but many think he wasn't even an average glove on his own team. On the whole, Jeter is a great player, but not someone you build your team around.
Good question poster, but unfortunately some are far from qualified to answer.
So, someone who follows the Premiership, goes to 20 games a year, and hangs with statheads isn't qualified? Thanks, Dubya.
sorry for the snarkiness, but there are tons of reasons to hate on the Yankees, but Derek is definitely not one of them and any team would kill to have his class, clutch and leadership, Ask Oakland when he singlehandedly was their nightmare in throwing out Jeremy Giambi @ home plate--- . plus a .314 career playoff average.
For those of us in the performance analysis biz, Jeter is a difficult problem because any realistic evaluation of his skills, no matter how flattering, seems like a slight when compared to his reputation. In the eyes of true believers, Honus Wagner and Superman combined couldn't do half the things Jeter does. In truth, he's terrific at going back on shallow pop-ups and executing the jump throw in the hole. Other aspects of the job—fielding grounders to his left for instance—elude him, and it doesn't take an MS in scouting or statistics to see it. When watching a Yankees game, simply pay attention to the opposing shortstop. He will routinely get to balls that Jeter cannot. As for the Gold Glove, peel back the foil on the award and you'll find there's some tasty chocolate underneath. That's about what it's worth, though at least Jeter was better this year. On offense, Jeter walked less than ever before and doubled his previous high in sac bunts, perhaps because he lost confidence after a shockingly poor April. Jeter is a Hall of Famer to be, a key player on a great team, an inspirational leader, a fine hitter…and he gives up a lot of singles with his glove. In light of the rest, why is that last part so difficult to accept?As for the A's play, I can think of one better than that. Actually, three.
-- Baseball Prospectus, 2005
posted by dw at 5:44 PM on January 13, 2007
Sorry to continue the derail, but dw...that PECOTA blurb was 2005 -- just like your argument. What will BP say about Jeter's 2006 season?
On the whole, Jeter is a great player, but not someone you build your team around.
Are you insane? In case you hadn't noticed...a dynasty was built around him.
posted by edverb at 4:34 PM on January 14, 2007
On the whole, Jeter is a great player, but not someone you build your team around.
Are you insane? In case you hadn't noticed...a dynasty was built around him.
posted by edverb at 4:34 PM on January 14, 2007
What will BP say about Jeter's 2006 season?
Probably what I would say -- he didn't win the MVP even though he was a better hitter than Morneau, and he won a Gold Glove even though a host of shortstops were better than him.
Are you insane? In case you hadn't noticed...a dynasty was built around him.
Around him. But what about Mariano Rivera? Bernie Williams? Trading Sterling Hitchcock and Russ Davis for Tino Martinez? Jorge Posada? Andy Pettitte?
posted by dw at 12:13 AM on January 16, 2007
Probably what I would say -- he didn't win the MVP even though he was a better hitter than Morneau, and he won a Gold Glove even though a host of shortstops were better than him.
Are you insane? In case you hadn't noticed...a dynasty was built around him.
Around him. But what about Mariano Rivera? Bernie Williams? Trading Sterling Hitchcock and Russ Davis for Tino Martinez? Jorge Posada? Andy Pettitte?
posted by dw at 12:13 AM on January 16, 2007
Dw...for that matter what about Chad Curtis? Ricky Ledee? Any number of people named Rivera? (Ruben for instance.) They could have banked on any number of seemingly promising rookies. They banked on Jeter.
Granted, some of the dynastic players are still Yankees regulars (Mo Rivera, Posada, Bernie Williams in case of emergency)....but Jeter is the captain after all.
Seems to me any of the others (except Mariano possibly) could have been trade bait under the right circumstances. Jeter has always been untouchable.
All of which supports my contention...the Yankees did build a team around Derek Jeter, and that team is unarguably the most successful of the past half century at least. The 1998 version has a strong case as the greatest team in modern baseball history. Vlady Guerrero cannot make these claims, he doesn't even have a ring. And brilliant though Ichiro may be, he has not led his team to a single WS. Nor has A-Rod.
Never mind 11 consecutive postseason appearances (with Jeter), or six World Series appearances in eight years with four rings.
It's folly to say "you wouldn't build a team around Jeter". The answer isn't remotely speculative. Of course you could...history has already proven it.
(btw...PECOTA 2007 is out, and right now they have NOTHING to say at all. Harumph.)
posted by edverb at 8:02 AM on January 19, 2007
Granted, some of the dynastic players are still Yankees regulars (Mo Rivera, Posada, Bernie Williams in case of emergency)....but Jeter is the captain after all.
Seems to me any of the others (except Mariano possibly) could have been trade bait under the right circumstances. Jeter has always been untouchable.
All of which supports my contention...the Yankees did build a team around Derek Jeter, and that team is unarguably the most successful of the past half century at least. The 1998 version has a strong case as the greatest team in modern baseball history. Vlady Guerrero cannot make these claims, he doesn't even have a ring. And brilliant though Ichiro may be, he has not led his team to a single WS. Nor has A-Rod.
Never mind 11 consecutive postseason appearances (with Jeter), or six World Series appearances in eight years with four rings.
It's folly to say "you wouldn't build a team around Jeter". The answer isn't remotely speculative. Of course you could...history has already proven it.
(btw...PECOTA 2007 is out, and right now they have NOTHING to say at all. Harumph.)
posted by edverb at 8:02 AM on January 19, 2007
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by smackfu at 3:46 PM on January 12, 2007