Bush and Beckham

by DC Trojan on Jul 2, 2007 7:43 PM PDT in USC Football

A tip of the hat to new-ish SBN site Canal Street Chronicles, dedicated to the New Orleans Saints, for the video below...

As some of you may know, in addition to college football I am a fan of European soccer, so this Adidas marketing video of Reggie Bush meeting David Beckham is entertaining on many levels...

If I was being uncharitable, I would say it's a meeting of two one-trick-ponies who happen to be very marketable, but that would entirely miss the point of how very good they are at what they do. I should dislike Reggie for putting USC's record book at risk, but I got too much joy from his exploits on the field for that. I should dislike Becks for keeping England in tournaments and playing for Real Madrid, but underneath the marketing razzle dazzle he's a genuinely nice guy who has worked his ass off to get to where he is.

/ rant.

Tweet Comment 8 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Keeping England in tournaments?

The English public have never accused him of doing that. And rightfully so. In both the 1998 World Cup and 2004 European Cup he was very much responsible for England's defeat, and he did very little to help in 2000 and 2002. His best tournament was the last summer's World Cup, but his presence in the squad kept Aaron Lennon off the pitch, which was not a good thing for England. He is very much overrated.

by SuperBruinMan on Jul 3, 2007 1:48 PM PDT reply actions

I beg to differ

I was thinking specifically of the 2002 World Cup. However, I think you're overstating the case against Beckham, and letting some very average England squads off the hook by claiming that he was "very much responsible" for 1998 & 2004.

1998 World Cup. Hoddle barely played him in the first round, and Beckham still managed to score a goal against Columbia. Getting sent off against Argentina was not clever, but since Diego Simeone trod on his balls and then went down like he was shot, I'm willing to overlook it. And England could very easily have won that game had they shown any capacity to take penalties.
Euro 2000. You're right, Beckham setting up both goals against Portugal wasn't much help. And presumably he was the one who got Gary Neville to give up a late penalty against Rumania.
England might very well not have even gone to the 2002 World Cup except for Beckham's goal against Greece. Considering that he was coming back from a broken metatarsal during the finals in Korea - Japan, saying that he "did very little to help" is frankly laughable. What were the rest of the (uninjured) England squad up to then?
Euro 2004: are you joking? I'll grant you that he missed a penalty against Portugal, but so did Darius Vassell. The rest of the England midfield played a shocking game, and I don't think that Beckham was the reason that Sol Campbell's late goal was disallowed either.
Germany 2006: Well, he worked his ass off, but he was on the field more because of Eriksson than his form. Aaron Lennon is definitely a faster player, but who was going to actually score from the crosses he laid in? And precisely what did Lennon achieve in league play last season?

Beckham is overrated if you think that he should be Johann Cruyff. He isn't. He has a couple of exceptional strengths and in all other areas he has worked his way into being good or at least effective.

by DC Trojan on Jul 3, 2007 11:27 PM PDT up reply actions

That's the problem

The American press is treating him like he is one of the greatest ever.

My main point was that he has never really played well in the big tournaments. Over the years England has turned in some fairly mediocre performances, but he hasn't really stood out as better than the rest (in the big tournaments). Some of that has to do with bad luck and some has to do with playing against teams that have perfected the art of flopping, but "keeping England in tournaments" is not something he has excelled at (and why is it a bad thing to keep England in tournaments?).

by SuperBruinMan on Jul 4, 2007 8:03 PM PDT reply actions

England's biggest problem

There hasn't been much of this. And this wouldn't hurt either. Healthy Owen and Rooney + youthful Beckham + the rest of the current team = victory.

by SuperBruinMan on Jul 4, 2007 8:39 PM PDT up reply actions

Can't argue with that

Although it wouldn't kill them to drop Lampard.

by DC Trojan on Jul 5, 2007 7:30 AM PDT up reply actions

Why bad to keep England in tournaments?

... because I'm Scottish. There's nothing funnier than watching a bunch of lager-bloated ing-er-land fans falling apart when their team lets them down again. I don't actively cheer against England, because that would be petty, but their ongoing inability to field a decent team coached by someone with a grip on how to approach the opposition is both remarkable and satisfying.

by DC Trojan on Jul 5, 2007 7:22 AM PDT up reply actions