Goals don't make a good game. Italy and especially England are just terrible to watch. I'd rather light my eyeballs on fire than watch that English team again. For a country with such a large footballing infrastructure, it's an absolute embarrassment that they can't produce a team better than Sweden.
They were outplayed by a better team, hey some times you can be outplayed all game and still win 1-0 (like we did vs. Italy a few months back); They just figured if it worked for Chelsea why could it not work for England. For the 0-0 score, Italy has some beautiful plays going for them, they did miss some good chances (Even England missed a couple). I know people complain about Spain and how “boring” their style can be, I think Italy put on a very good footballing display and totally outclassed England, even if the game ended 0-0. I mean even Spain doesn’t not win them all. PS; I think England is a very overrated team anyways. They are relatively good, just not as good as their fans/media like to think they are.
What?!?!? Another country plays their league during the summer? Someone notify Sepp Blatter immediately! On a serious note, I didn't have a problem with the England-Italy QF because there were no goals, I had a problem with it because England bunkered the entire game and made no effort to attack.
Actually this summer I have been finding out that many leagues in South American go deep into the summer. Argentina I think has their last week next weekend, Chile just had their playoff final last weekend (or maybe a semifinal) Colombia has playoffs, Peru and Ecuador are also in their playoffs. I mean is almost July and those leagues are still going on, so suck on that Blatter. Edit: Colombia has the final this week. Chile also has their finals this week Peru plays spring to fall (like Brazil) "The Torneo Descentralizado began on February 19 and is scheduled to end on December 9, 2012". link Argentina just ended last weekend (June 24th) Ecuador is also spring to fall "The season will begin on February 3 and will end in December 2012. " link
Oh, they made an effort to attack, they just sucked. The US was out played by Italy and won 1-0. England was just embarrassed.
Hell Spain just had their final promotion playoff yesterday. (Sadly for myself and our esteemed moderator Tenerife lost their home leg 2-1 after being down 1-0 from the away leg and will play in Segunda B for another season.)
Our summer, which is not their summer, correct? People tend to forget that anyone in the southern hemisphere who plays during what we consider the "traditional" (read: English) season is, like we do, playing largely through their summer.
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ratings-euro-soccer-solid-draw/1#.T-ihWIl5mc0 Sorry, as good as I can do with my iPhone at work. .6 for Cascadia rivalry.
Correct for Chile, Argentina and most of Peru. Ecuador is more iffy I am not sure how many teams are in winter and how many in summer Colombia is north so they are in summer right now.
Absolutely true. But then, those who advocate that MLS needs to play fall-to-spring always seem to argue that weather is either irrelevant or something that can be worked around. Surely, therefore, these South American leagues should play more games in the baking heat of their summer so that they can play the same schedule as "everyone else" (i.e. mainland Europe). ------RM
Like you posted before, for Colombia, Ecuador and Peru (between the tropics); who knows if there is really a big difference between summer and winter heat. Maybe more to do with rain or something.
Have to be pretty happy with a .6 rating. The 2.4 that ESPN posted for the Euro game means that 3/4 of viewers couldn't be bothered to keep the TV on, but at least there was a noticeable bump from normal MLS broadcasts.
Still a bit strange tho, I thought at least 0ne million might stick around . I think the switch from mothership to ESPN2 might have skewed the numbers.
Or people are really disinterested in MLS. What was that survey a few years back? It found that only 10% of soccer fans in the US watch/pay attention to MLS.
Couple of questions: What number does a .6 equal? Have we figured out how they got that since there was a channel split?
My question would be how unusual would this be for Seattle v Portland? I don't follow this stuff as closely as others but doesn't Seattle tend to get good ratings (lots of local viewers, I would imagine). So does a .6 simply mean a lot of people in Portland and Seattle were watching, or is this something that is more nationwide? Does this reflect a bump from the Euro game or would this be "normal" for Seattle v Portland?
Majority of the people I know they go nuts when I mention MLS. When it comes to TV viewing MLS has lots of growing to do. The friendlies and the Euro and other tournaments are major competition for soccer viewership nowadays and it's an uphill battle for MLS.
Since it was on ESPN/ESPN2 it makes national viewing and one would expect a 1.0 or higher. Both teams get great local TV ratings tho.
That's kind of what I mean. I know it's national being on ESPN but how many people outside of Seattle and Portland were watching - if you get my drift? I'm guessing we all knew the game would be watched by lots of people in Cascadia. The question is did the Italy-England game play a factor in a significant number of people in other areas deciding to watch the game? In other words, would .6 be a normal rating for Seattle v Portland on ESPN or is this something special?
The Seattle v Portland game last year got somewhere in the 400-500s IIRC. The bump could be attributed to Euro,better marketing (huge push locally and nationally) etc. etc.