Comments on: Misunderstood: A Response to “Landon Donovan’s Hypocrisy”

By: steven

steven — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:12:48 +0000

i just watched the chelsea and everton game and after that there is no way donovan will want to go back and play in the mls

By: Bill James

Bill James — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:21:24 +0000

nah. Looking at the intial statement made out beckham to be un-loyal by going out on the loan. Donovan goes out and does the same thing, and therefore is a hypocrit. Simple.

No need to go so deep into it. Thats the fact plain and simple.

By: Dick

Dick — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:21:47 +0000

@lil’ zeke – No, hipocrisy is claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own own behavior does not conform.

And Nicole is actually 100% correct.

By: Lil' Zeke

Lil' Zeke — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 02:13:58 +0000

Sorry, nobody’s 100% correct in this. Surprising your team by failing to show up until the middle of the season is hypocrisy, no matter who does it. Good observations Corey.

By: Jan

Jan — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 02:06:02 +0000

Please do not defend Donovan. He was practically unheard of oveseas and here in Australia, if it were not for Beckham. And yes, he IS a hypocrite in my eyes.

As for LA Galaxy, they were also no-entities until Beckham joined them.

So, puh-leeze, Donovan and LA Galaxy totally benefitted from the publicity that Beckham generated and which Donovan never acknowledged!! At least Galaxy was more grateful.
Jan

By: Erik

Erik — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 22:24:32 +0000

For what its worth. I don’t care if Beckham comes back to the states. In MLS he’s been more hype than substance. And for that matter, I hope Donovan stays in Europe. I think it would be better for the US National team.

By: Corey Bennett

Corey Bennett — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 20:29:49 +0000

True, the comments were made in October 2008, but Donovan’s initial silence on the matter kept the controversy ripe. As I have argued, Beckham’s failure to return for the beginning of the 2009 season bolstered Donovan’s argument. Thus, the comments in Grant Wahl’s book were even more relevant when they were revealed all those months later.

Good points everyone.

By: Sergio Alvarez

Sergio Alvarez — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 19:31:03 +0000

Just like your collegue do your research on the comments donovan made. Those comments had nothing to do with Beckham loan to Milan. Comments came out in july 2009 from book that was being writing during the 2008 season. Thats were I dont see how you can label Donovan a hypocrite when he never made a comment towards Beckham loan.

By: jdm

jdm — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 19:15:44 +0000

Nicole is 100% correct, but I guess the “haters” will always find something to pin on Donovan. It’s all a non-issue let’s just move on.

By: Nicole

Nicole — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 14:45:12 +0000

You people are missing the entire premise which would make this all a non-issue: Donovan DID NOT criticize Beckham for going on loan! In fact, he said he completely understood why Becks went to Milan and understood why he wanted to stay further.

Donovan’s criticism of Becks was for his seeming lack of commitment and mailing it in after Ruud Gullit quit in the 2008 season. In other words, the criticism was his play WHILE WITH THE GALAXY.

That’s what the fans were all mad about too: Beckham wasn’t even trying that season after Gullit left and then he goes on over to Milan and he’s a great player. You could see the difference in his play and his demeanor.

Thus Donovan is not and cannot be a hypocrit in this situation because LD played his heart out for the Galaxy and is playing his heart out for Everton.