SA Footy

whufc wrote:

HH3 wrote:

woodublieve12 wrote:i guess people find something to whinge about. Good crowd for the final, more exposure for the sport. First year doing it,, obviously there will be some hiccups...

yep lets still bitch.

Drama for the sake of drama...that's what the world is coming to mate. We just have to get used to it.

Or AFL fans are use to their comp losing its integrity for the chase of coin and tv exposure, doesn't mean every other sport has to

Soccer has always prided itself on the fact that all league and cups are an equally even co test with every team given the same opportunities

I would hate to see the FFA go down the same path as the AFL

You kidding right?

woodublieve12 wrote:

whufc wrote:

HH3 wrote:

woodublieve12 wrote:i guess people find something to whinge about. Good crowd for the final, more exposure for the sport. First year doing it,, obviously there will be some hiccups...

yep lets still bitch.

Drama for the sake of drama...that's what the world is coming to mate. We just have to get used to it.

Or AFL fans are use to their comp losing its integrity for the chase of coin and tv exposure, doesn't mean every other sport has to

Soccer has always prided itself on the fact that all league and cups are an equally even co test with every team given the same opportunities

I would hate to see the FFA go down the same path as the AFL

You kidding right?

Nope look at any other soccer league in the world

Fixtures are created so each team plays every team in its league twice, once at home, once away, no blockbuster fixtures or teams playing uneven amount of games against others

Majority games are still played at there traditional time slot, not every game has to be at some spastic time so that each game is live on tv

All the cup comps are still random draws with every team being able to enter, it doesn't matter if Man United has to go to some scrubber ground in South England they just get on with it and that's it

All teams run by the same rules- you get money you can spend money

Yeah but one team has $200 million to spend on players and ones got **** all.

Id rather an uneven fixture than stacked sides.

that is certainly a good thing about soccer. the mind-blowing inequities between top tier teams and teams that play in the same league (premier league for instance) but have no hope of ever winning anything is a pretty big turnoff though.

bennymacca wrote:that is certainly a good thing about soccer. the mind-blowing inequities between top tier teams and teams that play in the same league (premier league for instance) but have no hope of ever winning anything is a pretty big turnoff though.

But

15 years ago would you have picked Chelsea, Man City and West Ham would be sitting in the top 4 halfway through a year

HH3 wrote:Yeah but one team has $200 million to spend on players and ones got **** all.

Id rather an uneven fixture than stacked sides.

Or you could reward teams for being useless by giving them all the advantages, while the well run clubs are forced to fall back to field based on nothing they have done wrong

IMHO that's one of the worse systems around

HH3 wrote:

woodublieve12 wrote:i guess people find something to whinge about. Good crowd for the final, more exposure for the sport. First year doing it,, obviously there will be some hiccups...

yep lets still bitch.

Drama for the sake of drama...that's what the world is coming to mate. We just have to get used to it.

It's only coming from the usual source though, so predictable

Couldn't make it to the game, wish I had made more of an effort after watching the second half last night looked like a typical cup game and you could feel the atmosphere.
You can see on which game AU's focus was on, last Friday night against Brisbane they were a shadow of what they played in the cup final.

bennymacca wrote:that is certainly a good thing about soccer. the mind-blowing inequities between top tier teams and teams that play in the same league (premier league for instance) but have no hope of ever winning anything is a pretty big turnoff though.

And it's only a turnoff for non football first fans.

West Ham, Newcastle, Everton etc etc have won nothing in a long long time yet still comfortably manage to get crowds of over 35k weekly despite having the likes of Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester clubs near by

legsman wrote:

HH3 wrote:

woodublieve12 wrote:i guess people find something to whinge about. Good crowd for the final, more exposure for the sport. First year doing it,, obviously there will be some hiccups...

yep lets still bitch.

Drama for the sake of drama...that's what the world is coming to mate. We just have to get used to it.

It's only coming from the usual source though, so predictable

Couldn't make it to the game, wish I had made more of an effort after watching the second half last night looked like a typical cup game and you could feel the atmosphere.
You can see on which game AU's focus was on, last Friday night against Brisbane they were a shadow of what they played in the cup final.

lol this whole thread had only 5 pages of chat for the entire tournament (and the majority of that was about Adelaide city) until the final and now it's the most prestigious trophy in world sport

whufc wrote:

bennymacca wrote:that is certainly a good thing about soccer. the mind-blowing inequities between top tier teams and teams that play in the same league (premier league for instance) but have no hope of ever winning anything is a pretty big turnoff though.

And it's only a turnoff for non football first fans.

West Ham, Newcastle, Everton etc etc have won nothing in a long long time yet still comfortably manage to get crowds of over 35k weekly despite having the likes of Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester clubs near by

That doesn't mean it can't be improved.

bennymacca wrote:

whufc wrote:

bennymacca wrote:that is certainly a good thing about soccer. the mind-blowing inequities between top tier teams and teams that play in the same league (premier league for instance) but have no hope of ever winning anything is a pretty big turnoff though.

And it's only a turnoff for non football first fans.

West Ham, Newcastle, Everton etc etc have won nothing in a long long time yet still comfortably manage to get crowds of over 35k weekly despite having the likes of Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester clubs near by

That doesn't mean it can't be improved.

If it ain't broke don't change it

It makes me laugh that the majority of AFL fans think their sport does everything right and yet everything soccer does is a joke, yet it's the rest of the world who have no interest and no entertainment in Aussie rules.

That's not directed at you Benny, I always respect your posts as someone who gives a lot of thought and is generally balanced with their views

whufc wrote:

HH3 wrote:Yeah but one team has $200 million to spend on players and ones got **** all.

Id rather an uneven fixture than stacked sides.

Or you could reward teams for being useless by giving them all the advantages, while the well run clubs are forced to fall back to field based on nothing they have done wrong

IMHO that's one of the worse systems around

You mean the clubs who have sugar daddy billionaire owners that just continuously pump their own money into clubs, use their cash to artificially make them a powerhouse club, which then draws in the bandwagon masses and creates revenue, which then makes them a sustainable money maker?

Imagine the carry on in this thread if Melbourne Victory were just handed the home final over Adelaide purely based on tv timeslot

HH3 wrote:

whufc wrote:

HH3 wrote:Yeah but one team has $200 million to spend on players and ones got **** all.

Id rather an uneven fixture than stacked sides.

Or you could reward teams for being useless by giving them all the advantages, while the well run clubs are forced to fall back to field based on nothing they have done wrong

IMHO that's one of the worse systems around

You mean the clubs who have sugar daddy billionaire owners that just continuously pump their own money into clubs, use their cash to artificially make them a powerhouse club, which then draws in the bandwagon masses and creates revenue, which then makes them a sustainable money maker?

Or a club like Man Utd and Liverpool who did it based on brilliant sides made up of young homegrown talent and then in turn marketed themselves brilliantly (ala Man Utd first sports side to really hit the asian market) to create the revenue

Clubs like Barcelona are actually owned by their members and have created global brands via their on field success

Even Ambravovich at Chelsea went searching for clubs, unfortunately my club West Ham showed no interest

bennymacca wrote:

whufc wrote:

bennymacca wrote:that is certainly a good thing about soccer. the mind-blowing inequities between top tier teams and teams that play in the same league (premier league for instance) but have no hope of ever winning anything is a pretty big turnoff though.

And it's only a turnoff for non football first fans.

West Ham, Newcastle, Everton etc etc have won nothing in a long long time yet still comfortably manage to get crowds of over 35k weekly despite having the likes of Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester clubs near by

That doesn't mean it can't be improved.

The football fans I met in England wouldn't think of it as an improvement if they had to play against a Chelsea side that was only able to spend the same as Burnley

whufc wrote:Imagine the carry on in this thread if Melbourne Victory were just handed the home final over Adelaide purely based on tv timeslot

yeah, they'd probably sound like you...

whufc wrote:

bennymacca wrote:

whufc wrote:

bennymacca wrote:that is certainly a good thing about soccer. the mind-blowing inequities between top tier teams and teams that play in the same league (premier league for instance) but have no hope of ever winning anything is a pretty big turnoff though.

And it's only a turnoff for non football first fans.

West Ham, Newcastle, Everton etc etc have won nothing in a long long time yet still comfortably manage to get crowds of over 35k weekly despite having the likes of Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester clubs near by

That doesn't mean it can't be improved.

If it ain't broke don't change it

It makes me laugh that the majority of AFL fans think their sport does everything right and yet everything soccer does is a joke, yet it's the rest of the world who have no interest and no entertainment in Aussie rules.

That's not directed at you Benny, I always respect your posts as someone who gives a lot of thought and is generally balanced with their views

couldn't be any further from the truth... AFL/Footy purest get very frustrated how the higher ups keep trying to touch our great game...

Playing eachother twice isn't an option in AFL, it's far to long and far to taxing on the body. you'd almost have to run a season (from the beginning of preseason to the grandfinal) over a year and a half just to fit every thing in...

Soccer is a great sport, even if some think it's neccessary to flop around like a fish when a stiff breeze gets them....

whufc wrote:

bennymacca wrote:

whufc wrote:

bennymacca wrote:that is certainly a good thing about soccer. the mind-blowing inequities between top tier teams and teams that play in the same league (premier league for instance) but have no hope of ever winning anything is a pretty big turnoff though.

And it's only a turnoff for non football first fans.

West Ham, Newcastle, Everton etc etc have won nothing in a long long time yet still comfortably manage to get crowds of over 35k weekly despite having the likes of Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester clubs near by

That doesn't mean it can't be improved.

If it ain't broke don't change it

It makes me laugh that the majority of AFL fans think their sport does everything right and yet everything soccer does is a joke, yet it's the rest of the world who have no interest and no entertainment in Aussie rules.

That's not directed at you Benny, I always respect your posts as someone who gives a lot of thought and is generally balanced with their views

Do you find it disappointing that a successful season for west ham is not finishing in the bottom 3, and a season beyond the wildest expectations is sitting 4th, 4 wins off the pace, with the hope of possibly finishing in the top 6?

I guess it is about expectations but that would dampen it a bit that you basically will never have a shot at winning a premiership ever

In all seriousness I dont.

As cliche as it sounds I look to each game as an individual chapter of a book and the buzz of excitement pre match and during the match is what I love, I remember games like West Ham beating Man City at home for years and years to come but couldn't tell you where the hammers finished in 2003.

While the ladder generaly finishes the same the beauty of football is that each game really can go either way especially with the draw being a realistic result

If you were guaranteed the Crows would not win the premiership in the next ten years would you still take your membership and attend/watch games as much as you can. Would it dampen your excitement of the Showdown, or the big Friday night clash vs Collingwood at AO

You also have to remember that it's not just about winning the league, there is excitement in chasing a Europe spot or the up coming relegation battle game etc etc. it's very rare in the EPL that your side is involved in a complete dead rubber, which is unlike Aussie rules where games like dogs vs saints, gws vs Melb etc etc at complete dead rubbers

whufc wrote: Benny, I always respect your posts as someone who gives a lot of thought and is generally balanced with their views

I can no longer attempt to take this thread seriously.....