I found his writing on Beckham to be particularly interesting this week, especially his take on the sleazy way the New England Revolution handled the whole thing. To quote Mr. Wahl:
Well, if you're talking about Beckham's on-field efforts, let's be honest: The guy has only played for 20 minutes in a competitive MLS game, and there's no denying that Beckham's lingering ankle injury has been a huge buzz-kill for ticket-buyers (like the ones in New England, who had to buy tickets for four games if they wanted to see Beckham, only to have Becks not dress for the game in Foxborough on Sunday).
Still, I try to bring the voice of reason to this column, and Beckham's standard line these days ("I'm here for five years") is worth remembering. It's not like he's faking the injury, after all, and he's in a tight spot.
Would Becks and the Galaxy have been better served if he'd stayed in L.A. to rehab his ankle instead of playing only 20 minutes on the Galaxy's three-game road trip?
Sure, but it would have been a p.r. disaster if Beckham hadn't at least been in the stadiums. (I do have a problem, however, with the fact that it was never announced to the fans in New England that Beckham was unavailable to play. It reeked of an attempt to keep people in the stands -- and buying concessions -- for as long as possible.)I'm not trying to beat dead horse with this, but just point out that I'm not quite crazy.