Tottenham with no Bale and Lennon are so so different though. And Adebayor is so painfully bad.
Champions League/Europa League Thread 2012-13 - Page 78
Forum Index > Sports |
ZapRoffo
United States5544 Posts
Tottenham with no Bale and Lennon are so so different though. And Adebayor is so painfully bad. | ||
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
| ||
ZapRoffo
United States5544 Posts
(Though at this point even if he played out of position up front he would probably still bring more than Adebayor.) | ||
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On March 14 2013 22:48 warding wrote: I don't understand this bias against money in football. People enjoy watching the best players, and they enjoy following epic rivalries. It's only possible to have the best players when you have a lot of money. Hence, the ideal scenario for football as a sport is to have a lot of money concentrated in one or two leagues, ie. La Liga and the Premiership. And still, I think it's a major waste of talent to have Messi and Ronaldo play against crappy spanish teams in over 50% of their games. No one watches the french or german leagues outside of the respective countries because there's not enough money in those leagues, too many crappy teams, and they're too competitive. Yes, competition is bad. Fans like to follow winners, and they can't be changing teams every other year. Having around 4 clubs that can compete for the title every year is probably the best scenario. Having just one is a borefest. Having 8-10 different teams competing to win the championship every year is a mess. Competition is bad, right. First off, The Bundesliga has the 2nd highest attendance rating out of any sport in the world (behind the NFL), and its quality is comparable to both the EPL and La Liga overall. Second, you're nuts if you think competition is bad; just look at American sports. By any account, American sports are just as successful as soccer (besides the number of countries that follow each sport), and competition is one of the fundamental principles that they're built on. If anything, that's one of the things that American sports does better; soccer is so anti-competition (no, relegation battles don't really count) that it's not fun to watch. Why the hell should we watch any of the top 3 leagues right now? All 3 have their titles locked up with roughly 10 games to go still. By contrast, every American sports league has intense competition to the very end of the regular season just to see who makes the playoffs or who gets the top seed in the playoffs. Furthermore (and I've pulled out the stats in the other soccer thread), American sports have far more competition at the top level; even the Bundesliga, which is the most competitive European league in terms of number of different league winners, has less league winners since 2000 than the American sport with the least (basketball). You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about when you say that "competition is bad". Yes, European soccer is unique due to several different league splitting the talent, but rivalries and fans come about regardless; each league has epic rivalries, and it's not like a better distribution of money within a league ruins rivalries. Furthermore, people want to watch the best skill available. They don't complain because all of the talent isn't concentrated. American sports have some of the best rivalries in the entire world; Yankees vs. Red Sox, Celtics vs. Lakers, Vikings vs. Packers, Giants vs. Jets, Bruins vs. Canadiens, and the list goes on and on. These rivalries are BIG, their fans are incredibly passionate, and yet they're all in leagues where the money and talent distribution is far more competitive than in any one European soccer league, let alone throughout the continent. Yea that's the problem in the EPL. MONEY MONEY MONEY. It is getting out of hand. Some teams just let themselves get overtaken by a rich sheikh who just spills around his money like he wants to. Where is the heart and the soul of these teams? How can you as a fan identify with your favorite club if it is not the club anymore but just some rich guy who likes to play around a little bit? And then he just buys mercenaries from abroad who are supposed to bring him the success ASAP but don't really give a damn about their team. And if it is not working, their obvious solution is just even more money. Look at the teams like Barcelona, Bayern, Dortmund .... a lot of their players are homegrown players who identify with their city and their team and are willing to stay their whole career. These teams rise up their own talents and some of them make it into the first team where they are motivated on a completely different level than mercenaries who switch their team every 2 years anyways. On a sidenote, the English national team is also suffering a lot from their teams preferring exepensive players from abroad over own talents. Lets not get crazy here. Barca and Bayern throw around both their name and their money to gobble up as much talent as possible. They're part of the problem. | ||
Malaz
Germany1257 Posts
On March 15 2013 02:27 sc4k wrote: By the way can anyone from Germany explain why the hell there is no beast team from Berlin, a city with 3m residents? Dortmund having a tiny population of 500k and Munich 1.3m. What's the deal people? I don't have a clear answer for your question, just some things that may be part of the reason why Berlin doesn't have a "beast team". I live in Munich so I'm not really an expert on Berlin. Keep that in mind ![]() First off Berlin was divided for a long time therefore you don't have this one big football club. You have Hertha for West-Berlin, they are the club with the most fan-potential . For East-Berlin you have Union and they have great fans as far as I can judge from the game 1860 vs Union I went to last year, but I don't think their fanbase is as big as Herthas. The most successful team from East Germany during the GDR time was BFC Dynamo Berlin, but they were the "Stasi"-club so they don't have many fans. Compared to Dortmund the choice of sport teams is much bigger in Berlin. You have Alba for basketball, Füchse for handball and Eisbären for ice hockey. Especially the Eisbären have a pretty huge fan base in East-Berlin. Also apart from sports there are way more leisure facilities in Berlin. In the end the most important factor is simply mismanagement. Hertha was always considered to be the sleeping giant, because of their fan potential despite the points I just stated. The former manager Dieter Hoeness and the current manager Michael Preetz are just abysmal and wasted so much potential. Bayern Munich on the other hand has quite a unique position in German football. They have the most fans (and the most haters) here by a very large margin. You can kind of compare them to ManU in that regard I guess. The size of Munich doesn't matter too much here. As already mentioned I live in Munich and I'm a die-hard 1860 fan and Bayern hater. At least in Munich itself the number of Bayern fans compared to 1860 fans is quite even. Although that sadly might not be the case for the younger people anymore ![]() Bayern just has a massive amount of fans (bandwagon fans :p) all across Germany because they have been the most successful football team for decades and that won't change anytime soon. | ||
city42
1656 Posts
On March 15 2013 03:39 ZapRoffo wrote: Man I'm just sitting here thinking I love Dembélé, he's so class, doesn't get enough recognition. One of my favorites. Tottenham with no Bale and Lennon are so so different though. And Adebayor is so painfully bad. Tottenham have lost twice in 21 premier league games with Dembele starting, and 5 times in 8 games with Huddlestone starting. Bale gets the recognition for obvious reasons, but Dembele and Lloris have been just as important to their recent success. Adebayor is unbelievably bad and I'd frankly rather play Holtby or Carroll behind Defoe instead. Defoe is also horrible but not quite as bad as Adebayor. | ||
Ysellian
Netherlands9029 Posts
| ||
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On March 15 2013 01:07 Passion wrote: German league is a lot more fun to watch than the Spanish one, and to be honest, a lot better (the two might be related). Sure, Spain has two inflated super teams, but this does only so much for the quality of the league as a whole. Especially when looking at viewing pleasure, this league has barely anything to offer - barely a couple of teams play interesting, offensive football and I'd say none come anywhere close to the dedication and power of German teams. Hell, I'd almost rather watch the Italian league than the Spanish one. You also completely fail to understand the role of money in football. "There is not enough money in the smaller teams"... I think just about every true football fan will rather watch a bunch of local youngsters that managed to be forged into a true team perform well than seeing Chelsea/Man. City/Real/... Besides, as briefly pointed out before, football is so much more than money or the individual quality of players or even the general quality of the teams. I actually enjoy watching the Dutch league, not only because I'm Dutch, but mainly because of its super offensive playstyle. Sure, the defensive mistake frequently made sometimes make me slap myself. But the game as a whole is a lot more fun to watch. Similar reasons cause me enjoying the English and German leagues a lot more than the Spanish one (to be honest, I mostly have a hard time watching all league matches there as they just bore me to death). I think we're oversimplifying things a bit here. Fans will obviously be tied to their home team, but when your hometown doesn't have a team or the team isn't in a league anywhere near the top, then other things play a factor, like image, colors, fan/stadium atmosphere, nationality, player personalities, underdog role, competitive potential, etc. etc. etc. Especially for a game like soccer, where the vast majority of fans won't be from that team's hometown due to the worldwide following of the sport, money is important. Why? Because money determines competitive potential. Think about it for a second; how often is a QPR or Stoke game aired on American television? Not often. Why would I ever follow either of these teams as someone who doesn't even live in the country? Not a single reason. This means that they get less money, and they get less money because they can't compete, and they can't compete because they don't have the money. It's a vicious circle. It's all about exposure to the majority of soccer fans (international fans), and soccer is completely anti-competitive in this regard. There's no draft system (where the worst teams get the best draft picks for picking incoming professional players), there's no salary cap (limiting the total amount of money that can be spent on a roster so giant money teams can't just buy out everything like they do in soccer), there's nothing. This stuff is all implemented in American sports, and it yields an incredible amount of competition and fan pride. Why? Because, even for a team like the Jacksonville Jaguars (NFL team) that's one of the worst teams in NFL history, I can still be a huge fan of them (I was born there) because every year, there's a chance. NFL rules make it so that there's enough exposure nationally and so that the big money NFL franchises aren't able to buy up everything. Sure, being a big legacy franchise gives you obvious benefits (more money/reputation is still more), but unlike soccer, it can't buy you EVERYTHING. In European soccer, teams like Man U, Barca/Real, and Bayern can literally buy trophies. This is one of the big reasons that soccer isn't that popular in the U.S. (although there are other reasons, like rampant diving and cultural clashes). Americans are used to constant competition; we get to see all 30+ teams in each sport compete every year with a chance to get into the playoffs and win. Every second of every season is exciting. It isn't in soccer. Even the Bundesliga, the most competitive (and my favorite), is boring to me. There's really no point in watching, since there's no competition left. The nature of soccer campaigns (only a regular season) could be partially responsible for this, but we all know this isn't true; just look at BVB or Man City winning last year, coming down to the wire. It's entirely possible to have plenty of competition all season long in European soccer, but the complete lack of any competition-encouraging rules makes it much harder. Now I love this sport as much as I love hockey (heresy for a Minnesotan to say, by the way), but as soccer fans, we all need to wake up. The arrogance that so many soccer fans have that this sport is the most popular in the world deludes the fanbase into thinking that soccer is oh-so-perfect and that there's nothing wrong with it and that it'll always be great and popular. Think again. Rampant diving, a severe deficiency of competition, and more and more reports of bribery, corruption, and match-fixing won't just go away. Again, look at American sports; 50-100 years ago, baseball was the defining sport in America. Now? The NFL has been by far the most popular for several decades, with basketball plummeting from it's peak in the '90's and hockey consistently getting more and more popular. Baseball is definitely popular popular still, but it's become a "meh" sport, especially with the disaster that is the steroids era. No sport or institution is invincible, so don't be that stereotypical arrogant soccer fan and think otherwise. | ||
Nich
397 Posts
| ||
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NBA_champions Two teams have dominated the NBA historically, and its rise in popularity in the 80s was due in large part to the Lakers vs Celtics rivalry. The NBA also proves the point that having a lot of money concentrated on one league may be good, because that allows to have the best talent in the world playing in the best league. | ||
ZapRoffo
United States5544 Posts
| ||
Ysellian
Netherlands9029 Posts
| ||
WhiZ
Sweden853 Posts
| ||
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On March 15 2013 04:32 warding wrote: Stratos_speAR, it's funny you mention american sports. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NBA_champions Two teams have dominated the NBA historically, and its rise in popularity in the 80s was due in large part to the Lakers vs Celtics rivalry. The NBA also proves the point that having a lot of money concentrated on one league may be good, because that allows to have the best talent in the world playing in the best league. And the NBA has a lower average attendance than the NHL, which isn't even a U.S. sport. That actually supports my point quite well, not to mention the fact that the NBA still has a draft system and salary caps, which soccer doesn't. Also, you can't really talk about distributing money between leagues when talking about the U.S., since the U.S. only has one real league for each sport, whereas Europe is a continent with several top soccer leagues. When talking about the distribution of money and the U.S., you talk about the distribution of money within a league. | ||
Ysellian
Netherlands9029 Posts
On March 15 2013 04:39 Stratos_speAr wrote: And the NBA has a lower average attendance than the NHL, which isn't even a U.S. sport. That actually supports my point quite well, not to mention the fact that the NBA still has a draft system and salary caps, which soccer doesn't. Wow I didn't know that. I actually googled it because I didn't believe you (sorry ![]() | ||
ZapRoffo
United States5544 Posts
On March 15 2013 04:45 Ysellian wrote: Wow I didn't know that. I actually googled it because I didn't believe you (sorry ![]() I'd think it's cause NHL has a more hardcore fanbase in its regions, in Canada and the Northern US it's beloved (and every one of the teams that makes the playoffs thinks they have a shot) and most of the NBA teams are terrible and have no hope and no brand power and there's only like 2-5 actual title contenders in the NBA each year but there's not even like avoiding relegation to play for for the terrible teams, they just languish (in fact sometimes do bad on purpose to get a better draft lottery chance). | ||
Ysellian
Netherlands9029 Posts
OMG Inter could have just won it. On March 15 2013 04:49 ZapRoffo wrote: I'd think it's cause NHL has a more hardcore fanbase in its regions, in Canada and the Northern US it's beloved (and every one of the teams that makes the playoffs thinks they have a shot) and most of the NBA teams are terrible and have no hope and no brand power and there's only like 2-5 actual title contenders in the NBA each year but there's not even like avoiding relegation to play for for the terrible teams, they just languish (in fact sometimes do bad on purpose to get a better draft lottery chance). Yeah that doesn't sound very thrilling for fans, seeing your side lose on purpose because there is nothing to play for. | ||
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On March 15 2013 04:45 Ysellian wrote: Wow I didn't know that. I actually googled it because I didn't believe you (sorry ![]() Basketball is mostly popular in highly urban areas, and American culture still has a significant rural influence on it, so popularity for it isn't as widespread. Furthermore, youth programs tend to be dominated by other sports; high school and college football are dominant in pretty much every southern state, and high school and college hockey dominate the upper midwest; basketball is most popular at the youth level in states like Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. Racial divides could have something to do with it as well. I don't actually have numbers for this, but I would be willing to say that the NBA is the most disproportionate sport in terms of black:other races of players, and so it could be a sub-cultural thing, with other races being bigger fans of other sports. White folks are especially fans of football, hockey, and baseball, and the Hispanic population overwhelmingly loves baseball and soccer. Also, the NBA is recently having some image problems; a lot of players seem to look like they're into it more for the money than the game itself. Finally, a lot of NBA markets are doing very poorly. Golden State, Sacremento, Minnesota, Charlotte, Orlando, and many other places have consistently poor-performing teams, meaning that their attendance numbers will continue to drop. Oh, and they have to compete with football (the American sport), baseball (the traditionally American sport), and hockey (the Gospel of Canada and a sport that is slowly invading the U.S. from the north). Yeah that doesn't sound very thrilling for fans, seeing your side lose on purpose because there is nothing to play for. This may be true to a slight extent, but players on the court/field/ice never play badly themselves. Leagues in the U.S. actually fine teams for purposefully playing poorly or not fielding a competitive team. The San Antonio Spurs (basketball) were fined earlier this season for not putting a reasonably competitive team up against the Miami Heat towards the beginning of the season. They justified this because it "robbed the fans of the reasonably competitive event that they paid money to see". Also, I'd rather have the extra competition that we see at the top of American sports than the competition that we see at the bottom of soccer. | ||
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
Having a lot of money concentrated into one league is good. This is what happens with the NBA in comparison with other basketball leagues around the world. The world's best players flock to the NBA because they earn more, which makes for better quality. Given that we all have cable tv and internet, we don't need a lot of local leagues with quality, we only need one super league with a lot of quality. Which is why it's better for football fans to have a lot of quality concentrated in the Premiership and/or La Liga than to have it spread around all the different national leagues - or why they should create a super league. Story lines are created through rivalries which entices fans. Often the best rivalries are generated between two teams that are consistently dominant over team in a league. So having a select few teams being consistently dominant over time, is great for the sport because it creates story lines that people are drawn to. That can partly explain why the NBA is so popular around the world whereas outside North America (and selected Latin American countries + Japan) no one cares about baseball or american football. I'm not sure european fans of ice hockey care that much about the NHL but that would be interesting to know. Having your Jacksonville Pussycats competing for titles might be great for the local folk, but outsiders are looking for storylines to follow. | ||
Nich
397 Posts
| ||
| ||