I was surprised to see today a post full of vitriol by A Fool's Match at Football is for the Madman. He really gets his undies in a bunch of Tim Howard's recent comments about the US Mens National Team's backline and who should be playing there. The tone isn't warranted and the arguments are flawed.
The first problem is that A Fool's Match falls for the classic "anyone is better; the grass is greener elsewhere" argument. That's exactly what Howard is arguing against yet A Fool's Match offers nothing to show that DeMerit, Conrad and others would do better than Bocanegra and Gooch have done. Why is that? It could be an oversight on his part. I would argue because there is no proof that they would do a better job. Remember the Copa America this summer? DeMerit and Conrad were there. How did things go then for the US' defense? Like Bob Bradley, I saw nothing about the performances of those two (and Boswell) in the Copa that would lead me to conclude those guys will do a better job.
Worse is the argument that when a player defends his fellow players, that he somehow needs to "grow some balls". Why would anyone expect a player to publicly criticize his teammates? Had Howard done that we would be speculating that he's a locker room cancer. Howard does the right thing by stepping up and publicly defending his teammates. There is no reason to expect him to do otherwise nor would we want him to. It's too bad that A Fool's Match is too caught up in ranting and raving to see this.