The other day I was reading something about the historic 19-year ineptitude of the Pittsburgh Pirates. The once proud Bucs, who can recall a rich history dating back to the 1800s and fielding such all-time greats like Honus Wagner, Roberto Clemente and Mike Lavalliere, aka Spanky, are now the undisputed laughingstock of North American pro sports, especially since the Detroit Lions snapped their 19-game losing streak Sunday.
It dawned on me, what good reason would anyone in Pittsburgh have to support the Pirates?
On the one hand you've got the Pittsburgh Steelers, with an NFL record six Super Bowl titles, so the city isn't exactly starved for winning.
And why would you want to spend you hard-earned money on a franchise that's been "rebuilding" ever since it lost in the NLCS to the Atlanta Braves in 1991. Barry Bonds and Bobby Bonilla aren't walking back through that door. Throw in the wholly terrible ownership under the McClatchy family and why in their right mind would any Pittsburgian care about the Pirates?
About the only check in the positive column is the consensus nicest stadium in the big -- PNC Bank Park.
At this point, judging by Pirates' crowds, they've lost a generation of fans to other teams or other sports.
If you're a 14 year old kid, why waste your time with the Pirates when you could just as easily with a satellite dish dial up the Yankees or any other team and support them. Unless your father was a diehard from the Pops Stargell 'We Are Family' era, there's a good chance you wouldn't even know the Pirates exist.
Faced with choices, why would anyone in their right mind throw their support behind a perpetually losing team? In the year 2009, the word local doesn't mean what it once did.
And here's where we tie this all into the English Premier League.
If you're Joe England, why would you bother to support any other team outside the proverbial 'Big Four' of Chelsea, Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool? Hell this probably counts double or triple for worldwide fans, such as people reading this blog. Why, if you live in San Diego or Singapore, would you throw your lot in with the likes of Fulham, Blackburn, West Ham, etc? Unless you like going to the grounds and watching matches, what's the incentive?
This isn't the way I think, in fact the opposite, but people love winners and spraining their ankles jumping on bandwagons. (Suffice to say, it pains me when I see any 'ManU' fans.)
All you're setting yourself up for is -- at best -- a run in the Europa League, perhaps a deep forray into one of the Cups and staving off the lingering pains of the 'R' word (relegation).
It's not as if foreign fans, or even younger English fans, have the local loyalty ties which make the English game so compelling.
This all came to me during Fulham's 1-0 loss to Arsenal.
Look at the strides made by Fulham since Clint Dempsey's million-dollar/pound goal against Liverpool toward the end of the 2006-07 season, which saved the club from relegation.
Fulham replaced the disastrously incompetent Lawrie Sanchez with the sneaky-brilliant Roy Hodgson and slowly assembled a fairly solid, competent and composed team. Most importantly under Hodgson Fulham established a regular set of players and an identity, eventually leading the club to its best-ever seventh-place finish last season.
And now, where or more specifically, what is Fulham?
Where can it go from here?
It's clearly hit its ceiling, which I suppose Fulham fans would be delighted, but after a while the thrill of finishing in the upper half of the table fades.
Wisely, it had a ton of signage on its electronic boards for American things and U.S. Airways. Savvy. Chelsea, too, has highly banked its future as a "brand" by using its recent Roman Abramovich-backed success to tap into the American sports fan, including Kevin Garnett. To a certain segment of U.S. sports fans, Chelsea is cool and classy.
Another smart move by Fulham is signing South African international Kagisho Dikgacoi in the year lead-up to the World Cup. Sure, he'll likely only play sparingly, but will certainly have the Fulham name represented when the African nation hosts the world's premier sporting event -- any way to sell the brand.
Think on it, how is Fulham realistically going to attract fans in London, compared to its neighbors Chelsea or other London clubs like Arsenal and Spurs? (For a counterweight, people like myself will always chose the alternative to the easy, popular team/movie/band/etc.)
Or another question, how can a small regional team like Burnley (population 60,000) compete with the likes of Arsenal and Manchester United?
Apply this logic to any number of teams. Unless you love to suffer, why chose Everton over Liverpool? Or any team in the Northwest of England over Manchester United? Etc.?
Premier League officials love to talk the amount of people watching the league every weekend and the money its generating. Even with the television money trickle down, the small clubs are swimming as frantically as they can against the tide, until some rich oil-rich tycoon can come in an inject club with cash.
Not exactly a sound overall business plan for growth. It's a big reason the league was so hell-bent on playing Premier League matches in America, the Middle East and Asia. Eventually, it's not unreasonable to think, "superclubs" might spring up in this places and compete in the league, whatever its called. Cities like New York and Los Angeles have the population and financial wherewithal to compete on equal pegging with the 'Big Four' unlike the smaller regional clubs in England.
There's minimal sentimentality to this line of thinking, it's simply the cruel and unflinching wheels of progress turning.
As the global game of soccer becomes more and more elite and money-rich, there will be almost no way for the 16 other Premier League teams to have even a sniff of competing unless they expand their names around the world. The quaint idea of fathers passing along their favorite teams down to their sons doesn't apply in 2009.
The charm of Craven Cottage, like PNC Park, can only go so far.
Reverse jinxed?:
* For everybody around the globe flying the Blue flag, believe me I didn't mean to talk up Chelsea's long-term title prospects with the hope of putting a jinx on them.
That said, how in the world did the Blues lose to Wigan? Was it karmic balancing from four years ago when Hernan Crespo's late strike sunk the Latics in their first-ever Premier League match?
Even a team like Chelsea is due a hiccup, but this one hurts -- the red card suspension of Petr Cech for next week against Liverpool and Ashley Cole pulling up lame don't help matters.
Since the game wasn't on live does anyone out there know exactly what went wrong for Ancelotti's crew? What was this, Chelsea's first loss since Obama took office?
Suffice to say with Manchester United's ho-hum win at Stoke, the race for first got a lot more interesting.
D'Oh
* Was it crazy to run out at halftime of the Sunderland/Wolves match to run some Sunday errands? It was a dreary, 1-0 Black Cats lead and with the must-watch Detroit Tigers game later in the afternoon, my window to do things wasn't much.
How was I supposed to know it would turn into a wild six-goal second half?
Somewhere the marketing aces at Premier League HQ quietly smiled.
Announcing quibble of the week:
* Maybe this shouldn't go in the pro-English file since Bobby Zamora declared for Trinidad & Tobago, but here goes anyway.
In the second half of Fulham/Arsenal Zamora had a half-chance in the box that William Gallas perfectly timed to knock away lunging at full stretch. To me, this was a pretty amazing play by the French defender, but the announcer didn't praise Gallas, instead chastised Zamora for missing.
Go figure.
Lookalikes?:
* Arsenal's new keeper of the moment Vito Mannone and ex-journeyman quarterback/Jersey native Vinny Testaverde. Maybe?
Either way, Manuel Almunia better wrap up filming those porno flicks or whatever is causing him to miss time because as far as shot-stopping goes, Mannone was top rate at Craven Cottage Saturday. Obviously making reaction saves is only one part of keeping and for a team like Arsenal, ball distribution and decision making is likely more important long term. Still, with a still occasionally shaky defense, Mannone could develop into a Iker Casillas-type. (No, he won't be sainted, but he will see a lot of shots.)
Other stuff:
* Damien Duff got hurt? Who'd have thunk it? ... Wayne Hennessey, sound more like the name for a shooting guard in the SEC than a Premier League keeper. ... That was one fine shoulder shoulder save by Tim Howard vs. Portsmouth. ... And on the American tip, Clint Dempsey looked relatively frisky vs. Arsenal with a couple decent goal chances. ... How is Ryan Giggs still so important to Manchester United? ... In light of the shellacking at Anfield by Liverpool, would anyone argue that Hull is the leagues worst? At least Portsmouth is somewhat competitive. ... At times when he's at front of goal Fernando Torres is like a video game avatar. Could you be any better inside the box. (No double entendres, honest.) ... Steven Gerard, take a half-bow, hell of a goal but it was against a dead team. ... Did anyone else notice the early-stages Roberto Baggio-esque rat tail on Keiran Richardson? ... Four goals for Robbie Keane that's pretty good, pretty pretty good. I'd wager, though, Spurs fans would trade the four-spot vs. Burnley for a little more consistent production. ... Not sure anyone can conjure a goal out of the narrowest of half-chances quite like Robin van Persie. All he needs is an inch or two of space to fire a missle.
Fantasy Team O' the Week:
* Blair Manwell's Lawn Wranglers posted 84 points thanks to Darren Bent and John O'Shea.
Looking ahead:
* Decent game Monday afternoon with Manchester City hosting West Ham on ESPN2 at 3 p.m. Next Sunday is Chelsea/Liverpool ... kind of a big one.
It dawned on me, what good reason would anyone in Pittsburgh have to support the Pirates?
On the one hand you've got the Pittsburgh Steelers, with an NFL record six Super Bowl titles, so the city isn't exactly starved for winning.
And why would you want to spend you hard-earned money on a franchise that's been "rebuilding" ever since it lost in the NLCS to the Atlanta Braves in 1991. Barry Bonds and Bobby Bonilla aren't walking back through that door. Throw in the wholly terrible ownership under the McClatchy family and why in their right mind would any Pittsburgian care about the Pirates?
About the only check in the positive column is the consensus nicest stadium in the big -- PNC Bank Park.
At this point, judging by Pirates' crowds, they've lost a generation of fans to other teams or other sports.
If you're a 14 year old kid, why waste your time with the Pirates when you could just as easily with a satellite dish dial up the Yankees or any other team and support them. Unless your father was a diehard from the Pops Stargell 'We Are Family' era, there's a good chance you wouldn't even know the Pirates exist.
Faced with choices, why would anyone in their right mind throw their support behind a perpetually losing team? In the year 2009, the word local doesn't mean what it once did.
And here's where we tie this all into the English Premier League.
If you're Joe England, why would you bother to support any other team outside the proverbial 'Big Four' of Chelsea, Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool? Hell this probably counts double or triple for worldwide fans, such as people reading this blog. Why, if you live in San Diego or Singapore, would you throw your lot in with the likes of Fulham, Blackburn, West Ham, etc? Unless you like going to the grounds and watching matches, what's the incentive?
This isn't the way I think, in fact the opposite, but people love winners and spraining their ankles jumping on bandwagons. (Suffice to say, it pains me when I see any 'ManU' fans.)
All you're setting yourself up for is -- at best -- a run in the Europa League, perhaps a deep forray into one of the Cups and staving off the lingering pains of the 'R' word (relegation).
It's not as if foreign fans, or even younger English fans, have the local loyalty ties which make the English game so compelling.
This all came to me during Fulham's 1-0 loss to Arsenal.
Look at the strides made by Fulham since Clint Dempsey's million-dollar/pound goal against Liverpool toward the end of the 2006-07 season, which saved the club from relegation.
Fulham replaced the disastrously incompetent Lawrie Sanchez with the sneaky-brilliant Roy Hodgson and slowly assembled a fairly solid, competent and composed team. Most importantly under Hodgson Fulham established a regular set of players and an identity, eventually leading the club to its best-ever seventh-place finish last season.
And now, where or more specifically, what is Fulham?
Where can it go from here?
It's clearly hit its ceiling, which I suppose Fulham fans would be delighted, but after a while the thrill of finishing in the upper half of the table fades.
Wisely, it had a ton of signage on its electronic boards for American things and U.S. Airways. Savvy. Chelsea, too, has highly banked its future as a "brand" by using its recent Roman Abramovich-backed success to tap into the American sports fan, including Kevin Garnett. To a certain segment of U.S. sports fans, Chelsea is cool and classy.
Another smart move by Fulham is signing South African international Kagisho Dikgacoi in the year lead-up to the World Cup. Sure, he'll likely only play sparingly, but will certainly have the Fulham name represented when the African nation hosts the world's premier sporting event -- any way to sell the brand.
Think on it, how is Fulham realistically going to attract fans in London, compared to its neighbors Chelsea or other London clubs like Arsenal and Spurs? (For a counterweight, people like myself will always chose the alternative to the easy, popular team/movie/band/etc.)
Or another question, how can a small regional team like Burnley (population 60,000) compete with the likes of Arsenal and Manchester United?
Apply this logic to any number of teams. Unless you love to suffer, why chose Everton over Liverpool? Or any team in the Northwest of England over Manchester United? Etc.?
Premier League officials love to talk the amount of people watching the league every weekend and the money its generating. Even with the television money trickle down, the small clubs are swimming as frantically as they can against the tide, until some rich oil-rich tycoon can come in an inject club with cash.
Not exactly a sound overall business plan for growth. It's a big reason the league was so hell-bent on playing Premier League matches in America, the Middle East and Asia. Eventually, it's not unreasonable to think, "superclubs" might spring up in this places and compete in the league, whatever its called. Cities like New York and Los Angeles have the population and financial wherewithal to compete on equal pegging with the 'Big Four' unlike the smaller regional clubs in England.
There's minimal sentimentality to this line of thinking, it's simply the cruel and unflinching wheels of progress turning.
As the global game of soccer becomes more and more elite and money-rich, there will be almost no way for the 16 other Premier League teams to have even a sniff of competing unless they expand their names around the world. The quaint idea of fathers passing along their favorite teams down to their sons doesn't apply in 2009.
The charm of Craven Cottage, like PNC Park, can only go so far.
Reverse jinxed?:
* For everybody around the globe flying the Blue flag, believe me I didn't mean to talk up Chelsea's long-term title prospects with the hope of putting a jinx on them.
That said, how in the world did the Blues lose to Wigan? Was it karmic balancing from four years ago when Hernan Crespo's late strike sunk the Latics in their first-ever Premier League match?
Even a team like Chelsea is due a hiccup, but this one hurts -- the red card suspension of Petr Cech for next week against Liverpool and Ashley Cole pulling up lame don't help matters.
Since the game wasn't on live does anyone out there know exactly what went wrong for Ancelotti's crew? What was this, Chelsea's first loss since Obama took office?
Suffice to say with Manchester United's ho-hum win at Stoke, the race for first got a lot more interesting.
D'Oh
* Was it crazy to run out at halftime of the Sunderland/Wolves match to run some Sunday errands? It was a dreary, 1-0 Black Cats lead and with the must-watch Detroit Tigers game later in the afternoon, my window to do things wasn't much.
How was I supposed to know it would turn into a wild six-goal second half?
Somewhere the marketing aces at Premier League HQ quietly smiled.
Announcing quibble of the week:
* Maybe this shouldn't go in the pro-English file since Bobby Zamora declared for Trinidad & Tobago, but here goes anyway.
In the second half of Fulham/Arsenal Zamora had a half-chance in the box that William Gallas perfectly timed to knock away lunging at full stretch. To me, this was a pretty amazing play by the French defender, but the announcer didn't praise Gallas, instead chastised Zamora for missing.
Go figure.
Lookalikes?:
* Arsenal's new keeper of the moment Vito Mannone and ex-journeyman quarterback/Jersey native Vinny Testaverde. Maybe?
Either way, Manuel Almunia better wrap up filming those porno flicks or whatever is causing him to miss time because as far as shot-stopping goes, Mannone was top rate at Craven Cottage Saturday. Obviously making reaction saves is only one part of keeping and for a team like Arsenal, ball distribution and decision making is likely more important long term. Still, with a still occasionally shaky defense, Mannone could develop into a Iker Casillas-type. (No, he won't be sainted, but he will see a lot of shots.)
Other stuff:
* Damien Duff got hurt? Who'd have thunk it? ... Wayne Hennessey, sound more like the name for a shooting guard in the SEC than a Premier League keeper. ... That was one fine shoulder shoulder save by Tim Howard vs. Portsmouth. ... And on the American tip, Clint Dempsey looked relatively frisky vs. Arsenal with a couple decent goal chances. ... How is Ryan Giggs still so important to Manchester United? ... In light of the shellacking at Anfield by Liverpool, would anyone argue that Hull is the leagues worst? At least Portsmouth is somewhat competitive. ... At times when he's at front of goal Fernando Torres is like a video game avatar. Could you be any better inside the box. (No double entendres, honest.) ... Steven Gerard, take a half-bow, hell of a goal but it was against a dead team. ... Did anyone else notice the early-stages Roberto Baggio-esque rat tail on Keiran Richardson? ... Four goals for Robbie Keane that's pretty good, pretty pretty good. I'd wager, though, Spurs fans would trade the four-spot vs. Burnley for a little more consistent production. ... Not sure anyone can conjure a goal out of the narrowest of half-chances quite like Robin van Persie. All he needs is an inch or two of space to fire a missle.
Fantasy Team O' the Week:
* Blair Manwell's Lawn Wranglers posted 84 points thanks to Darren Bent and John O'Shea.
Looking ahead:
* Decent game Monday afternoon with Manchester City hosting West Ham on ESPN2 at 3 p.m. Next Sunday is Chelsea/Liverpool ... kind of a big one.
Labels: Chelsea, English Premier League, fernando torres, Liverpool, Monday recaps, Soccer
The highs feel so much better if you've felt the lows.
If I lived in Pittsburgh I would do everything I could to make sure my son grew up a Pirates fan. They can't be bad forever (can they?). And say they do turn it around and win the World Series 30 years from now. Won't that win mean so much more to my son and other Pirates fans who were there during the worst years? That's why you support a "loser". Sure the odds are stacked against you but that only makes it sweeter when your team pulls it off. Of course without the "anything can happen in the playoffs" setting of the EPL it becomes a little harder for fans to have high expectations for mid-level teams other than a sweet 7th place.
As a Newcastle supporter, I really have no idea what you are talking about.
It seems you have written an entire post wondering why 'someone' might support Fulham. Hmm.
I think you and I have the same thought process about not wanting to be a band-wagon jumper. No way was I going to pick one of the big teams - that is just too 'hack.' But in 2006, right as more and more Premiership games were coming to TV in the US, Fulham signed Brian McBride. He was the best American in England (non GK division) and that cemented my support. The way everyone goes on about Craven Cottage certainly didn't hurt. So I 'picked' Fulham.
So what do I get out of it? We'll never win the league. Minus the 'anything can happen in the post-season' effect seen in baseball and the NFL - there is a much smaller chance that anyone outside the top four finishes the season with the most points. That is what Cup competitions are for. Hodgson seems to be, wisely, not placing too much stock in our Europa League (wasn't that the competition in the James Caan version of Rollerball?). I guess that Fulham might have a sliver of a chance in the Carling Cup if they continue to improve, but I am not holding my breath.
Some might say that Fulham 'does it right' and they are not a bunch of money grubbing poseurs. Those people might even make a video explaining how cool it is to be a 'real' club and not one of the heartless conglomerates found atop the table and no player on Fulham has ever dived (or been a dirty foreigner). The video is cool but the point is kind of silly. Wasn't Fulham's Al Fayed one of the very first non-UK owners in the Prem? That video makes it sound like anyone NOT supporting the poor, downtrodden Fulham is a g0d-less kitten-killer. I do not agree with that - Millwall supporters excepted.
The Dodgers recently played a late-season series in Pittsburgh and Vin Scully, who can artfully explain anything, struggled to come up with kind euphemisms for how tiny the crowd was. There is the rub, TV makes it easier to follow a team (like me and Fulham) but it also makes it easier to stay away if things are going poorly and the 162 game (?!? perhaps part of the problem, right there) season is winding down. TV lowers the thresh-hold for following/being a fan. That is both good and bad.
Bill Simmons, who every soccer-specific person is scared will turn on 'our' precious little game, noted that High Def and large televisions make almost every sport better to watch on TV at home than in person at a stadium. Simmons commented that seeing soccer from England in HD was a game changer and I would agree. The connection he didn't make is that why should I follow my local, not very good team (hello, MLS) when I can see pretty much every match from afar in the same comfort and style? This applies to the nascent Yankee fan in Pittsburgh and the Fulham fan in LA who has been to exactly one Galaxy game in Carson.
I agree with you that most casual American fans won't pick a team to support beyond the "Big Four." There is no incentive to root for them, except for the novelty. I think a lot of soccer fans follow the EPL for the novelty of it all. I've met plenty of people who follow it because it's not known in the US, and they are inevitably Fulham, Villa, Newcastle, or whomever fans.
I've also seen a sizable backlash against Chelsea since they've become successful. I started supporting them casually in 2002 when I first got into soccer in college, but didn't follow that closesly until after Germany 2006. A lot of people who I knew who had supported them turned in their cards, so to speak, and started following other teams because they were "too successful."
As for Chelsea, the little Portuguese feed I saw was not pretty -- I think it was just a bad game. Away to Wigan is a fixture I always assume is going to cause problems. I was expecting dropped points, but not this. Losing Cech is really bad. Starting Hilario in the Carling Cup wasn't such a bad move now, at least he'll have three consecutive first team appearances before that match. I also read that Ashley Cole will travel to Cyprus for the APOEL match, which is a good sign. Ballack and Mikel both stayed in London. Hopefully that means Ashley Cole will be fit to play Liverpool, I don't think Zhirkov is quite ready for that kind of appearance although he'll probably start at LB on Wednesday.
In August 2008, i read this on thatsonpoint.blogspot.com about Newcastle United - "REASON TO LIKE: Dedicated, passionate fans who support their team through thick and thin home and away...by most account the Toon Army is its own breed, angry, hostile and devoted...[the team] is frustrating to follow and haven't won anything of note since the 1950s."
after reading that, i knew that the toon was the team for me. being a diehard phillies fan for many years, i knew about losing...and now as a phillies fan, i understand the odd satisfaction of supporting a loser until they become a winner.
i have a keiron dyer jersey. i spent saturday following a coca cola championship matchcast of newcastle v. ipswich town. i know nothing about ipswich except that i hated them on saturday. it's sick. i blame (and thank) this blog for my new obsession. and i fully understand why someone would root for pittsburg or fulham or ipswich.
i can't wait to buy a "we got promoted" t-shirt, if they make such a thing...
@30F
McGod signed in '04. I remember as I was studying sports psych at Brunel University. The lone yank, who didn't like "sawker" at the time. But I always loved McGod since I saw him play a match for the Crew in '96.
That right there sealed my now over zealous support. I rather have the hope of them eventually winning, versus the eventual apathy of winning everything annually.
I've dealt with this by adopting sort of a tiered system of support. I thought my team was going to be Reading, as I really started following the Prem the year they came up, and they had a couple of Americans and played attacking football and looked like an interesting team on the rise. It would have been compelling to watch them grow and try to become a Fulham-style mid-table team over a number of years, but of course they crashed out of the league the second year and have stingy ownership, so now they look like they're going into a Pirates-like drastic rebuild and could even be in danger of dropping into League 1, where I couldn't even follow them at all really from the US. I guess they're my team, and I would root for them primarily if they ever came back up, but I had to do something in the meantime, so...
I adopted Villa. They were already a team I had an eye on and enjoyed watching, and I liked Martin O'Neill's nebbishy antics and that they were putting together a young and coherent team that plays attacking football. Plus there's the American connection there too with Lerner and Friedel. They're my main team realistically going forward, because I can actually follow them and see them on TV and the like. Like you, I didn't want to be a bandwagon-jumper, so it was always going to be someone mid-table, and Villa was the best fit there over Fulham(too boring) and Everton(too boring) and Spurs(interesting, but terribly-run and drama-queenish).
But, and this is probably blasphemous to "real" old-school European fans, I also kind of root for Arsenal. If one of the big 4 has to win the league, I want it to be them, and I generally root for them and Barca in the Champions League. Again, mostly because I like the way they play and enjoy watching them. They're not a team I live and die with, but you almost need some sort of mild Big-4 rooting interest if you're going to have any skin in the game in international competitions and most of the cups.
I support Liverpool although it was more of a process than just an outright selection of a team. I watched the league as a neutral for a number of years and Gerrard has been my favorite player for a long time. More Gerrard = More Liverpool viewing = Familiarity with the team/coach/fans, etc.
If you were to ask what team I supported though, I'd say my local USL team first because it's hard for me to rally behind a team 100% when there's a very slim chance I'll ever even get to see them play in person.
I picked Everton for the following reasons in no particular order:
1) I read that they had a strong Irish following and that Toffee was even a term used to refer to Irishmen;
2) they weren't one of the Big 4 but they seem to make the most of what they have (a small squad and limited funds);
3) American keeper;
4) a number of Catholic and Protestant fans alike seem to claim them (I've read some articles debunking such an affiliation) and both Glasgow sides have contributed extensively to the Toffee ranks; and
5) former Bhoy is the manager; and
6) I didn't think they'd be relegated considering they're among the best of the rest after the Big 4 - it wouldn't be very fun to follow a team you can't watch on tv.