Ben's re-writing History again

[manutd1]

I understand the hate-on against Hargreaves, but he was (and I say "was" because his future isn't too promising at the moment), just one player. Some of the statements here make it sound like him suiting up for Canada would have single handedly saved the nation. We didn't lose Pele to the English, we just lost a</u> good player. Good players are only useful if they are organized properly. We can't seem to get that first part half right. We don't even have a permanent coach; again. With OH we'd probably look a lot like we do now, with a bit more quality and the same result at the end of the day. Beckham at LA springs to mind...except the pace part.

Come on guys, he's crippled and he's young. I can tell you how terrible it feels not to be able to kick a ball for months on end and I wouldn't wish it on anyone, not even non-patriots. He's got his karma returned, his career is likely severely limited; leave him be and let's move on.

[Grizzly]

I disagree with Ted that the difference between the reaction to OH and JDG2 is that one lied about playing for Canada while the other didn't. While lying about who he would play for was yet one more of many blackmarks against his character, the difference between the two is that JDG2 had far more justification in calling himself Dutch (even though I still think he should have played for Canada) than OH did for calling himself English.

Regarding Ben Knight, there is a reason to his madness. First he brings up an issue that is almost totally dead but can still infuriate many fans and in which his own opinion is unpopular (this is no coincidence). Than like in almost every article he writes there is at least one wrong fact or obviously faulty line of thought. I used to think he was just a bad journalist but I think this is done quite on purpose. A factual article with well thought out opinions might get one or two similarly well thought out rebutals by those of different viewpoints but things would end there. One like this one by Ben Knight gets lots of arguments and angry comments that fill up a thread of several pages. Notice if he even bothers to respond here it is usually to make a sarcastic comment that will infuriate his critics even more. More importantly such articles give Ben Knight a lot of traffic which increases his advertising revenue and journalistic profile. It is a sad fact that sometimes the best writers are overshadowed by poorer controversial ones. It is no doubt very difficult to make a living as a soccer journalist in Canada and there are very few good ones, professionals and non-professionals included. However, the ones I respect are the ones who also respect the credibility of their profession and value accuracy and well thought out arguments even if they do not agree with my own.

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

Ben Knight is just another online blogger these days rather than a journalist and there isn't exactly a lot of money to be made in advertising terms in that context if Canadian soccer is the subject matter. The real reason for the animosity between Ted and Ben Knight almost certainly goes back to the CUSL and Ted's attempts to get Victoria United into a top tier national league based on a severely flawed business model that Ben Knight eventually called out on the Sportsnet website.

[earlimus]

I think we´re all off point here.

Hargreaves speaks with a fake Manc accent. There´s no excuse or redemption from this. It makes me so sick I´ve got the garbage beside me here just thinking about it.

Wanting to play for the three lions has outcasted him from his real country and rightly so, but to start practising your fake accent in the mirror before even landing in rainy Manchester, is a far, far greater crime. I feel offended as a Canadian and a human being.

Also, I like and more importantly appreciate Ben Knight´s writing... but he´d better not ever start talking like some Manc wannabe...

[Vic]

Ben Knight is the ONLY soccer writer in Canada I'll cross a street for.

Second observation on this thread: the more a post in here show's a complete lack of respect and class, the more the likelihood the author is calling OH a guy with a lack of respect and class.

[Massive Attack]

quote:Originally posted by Vic

Second observation on this thread: the more a post in here show's a complete lack of respect and class, the more the likelihood the author is calling OH a guy with a lack of respect and class.

I find this observation to be totally untrue.

The more someone defends the Whore the more I find that poster has no class or integrity.

You are the perfect example.

[Massive Attack]

quote:Originally posted by loyola

Look at the names in France 2001 U-17 WC champions roster. I think only one player has been cap by France MNT and he has only 1 cap.

This is a great point that seems to be continually ignored by the Whoregreaves apologists.

Or are the apologists going to tell us that France doesn't know how to run soccer development?

Thanks for debunking one of the classic Whoregreaves myths.

[ted]

quote:Originally posted by BringBackTheBlizzard

The real reason for the animosity between Ted and Ben Knight almost certainly goes back to the CUSL and Ted's attempts to get Victoria United into a top tier national league based on a severely flawed business model that Ben Knight eventually called out on the Sportsnet website.

LOL! Yep, it does go back to that but you will notice that I don't spend all my time criticising him. I call him out when he makes up nonsense about the CUSL and The Whore. Those two topics are indeed my hot-button issues. Am I not allowed to have opinions on these two issues or am I simply disqualified from ever discussing Ben's writings ever again?

Outside of these two dead issues (really, they should be dead by now) I usually enjoy what he writes and agree with him more often than not.

And, just a reminder, the CUSL was not a, "severely flawed business model". Unless that is you consider MLS a failure since it was the same model. It was, clearly, not the right model for the time and place. Sorry to be pedantic but if I am going to object to Ben re-writing history I cannot exempt you.

[Robert]

Okay, like I said, I can have a lot of fun with this so here we go. What you wrote and claim to be 100% accurate is only a 100% accurately copied mistake that appears in Dave Unwin's book "From the Sidelines." The first team in the Capital to use the Victoria United United name was the result of a merger between the Victoria Association Football Club (also referred to as the Victorias) and the Columbia Association Football Club (also referred to as the Columbias). The Capitals were a seperate club and never a part of this merger. Anyone can verify this by checking out the Victoria Daily Colonist or the Victoria Daily Times, both of who reported the merger. The former newspaper is on line and can be accessed from the comfort of your home or office. If any one would like the exact date of the reports they can Email me through the Voyageurs. Ted, my friend, you should always check to see if your gun is loaded before pulling the trigger. The rest of your writing is full of mistakes but I won't bother you or bore others with those details.

Cheers,

Robert

quote:Originally posted by ted

No you could not since what I wrote was 100% accurate and in no way insults, belittles or misrepresents other people's opinions.

What Ben wrote was not accurate and I hope that he will refrain from picking at that particular scab as, from the comments above, it is clearly a divisive and pointless debate.

[ted]

quote:Originally posted by Robert

What you wrote and claim to be 100% accurate is only a 100% accurately copied mistake that appears in Dave Unwin's book "From the Sidelines."

LOL! I never claimed to be doing original research. It's too bad in the decade or so since I originally wrote that PR material for United you never once thought to share your research or have it published somewhere so I or someone from the club could make corrections. Of course, since it makes virtually no difference to the fact that more than one team joined together to form a "United" club it really changes nothing.

But I guess you sure put me in my place. After all, faithfully quoting a source on events that happened a century ago certainly makes me worse than someone making stuff up about events in which many people on this board were participants in or witnesses to.

Were you ever going to get around to actually defending Ben's article or was going after me personally your whole contribution to this thread?

And BTW, despite an apparent animosity on your part I am still quite interested in your research and look forward to your book eventually being published. I guess I won't be getting an autographed copy however.

[AvroArrow]

I fully support Owen Hargreaves decision to play for England because it benefitted his professional career. I also cheer for every single rookie that holds out and refuses to sign after being drafted, and for owners that move franchises because the city/state/province refuses to build them a new stadium.

There may be no "i" in team, but there certainly is a "m" and an "e".

[Sam]

I don't get how playing internationally for a top nation can benifit you that much. If you're good enough you're good enough.

You only have 4-6 international breaks during a season and impressing club coaches in that period means much less than impressing with your own club.

At the time Hargreaves was already in the Bayern system. It's not like he was struggling in his career. The fact he got a few England call-ups (eventually turning into him being part of the starting XI) means that he impressed enough at club level.

Playing for England did not advance his career so much as getting called up England was a sign of how much his career had advanced.

Would he be playing for Manchester United today if he never played for England? Maybe not. But he would certainly be in the starting XI at Bayern and getting looks from across Europe.

So I don't buy this whole he made a good decision to benefit his career BS.

[Robert]

Well, actually to tell you the truth I have thought more than once about publishing the research I have done because I would like to share (sell) it with any one interested. Being the delightfully obsessive/compulsive individual that I am, completing the undertaking I started has proven to be more of a task than I had originally anticipated. However, there appears to be some light at the end of the tunnel when it comes to the writing part. Whether any one would be interested in publishing or financing the work remains to be seen. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. If nothing else, it will make for a nice manuscript on my coffee table. As to signing a copy for you, if there ever is a copy to sign it would be my pleasure to do so I sure.

Animositily yours

Robert

quote:Originally posted by ted

LOL! I never claimed to be doing original research. It's too bad in the decade or so since I originally wrote that PR material for United you never once thought to share your research or have it published somewhere so I or someone from the club could make corrections. Of course, since it makes virtually no difference to the fact that more than one team joined together to form a "United" club it really changes nothing.

But I guess you sure put me in my place. After all, faithfully quoting a source on events that happened a century ago certainly makes me worse than someone making stuff up about events in which many people on this board were participants in or witnesses to.

Were you ever going to get around to actually defending Ben's article or was going after me personally your whole contribution to this thread?

And BTW, despite an apparent animosity on your part I am still quite interested in your research and look forward to your book eventually being published. I guess I won't be getting an autographed copy however.