It Looked Absolutely Awful on TV

[Thomas Flannigan]

Many thanks to La Norte, who showed some passion behind the goal, and to the SEs, Sam's Army, actually any fans who showed up and made some noise. But let's face it. This was the homecoming for the team after the World Cup. It looked awful on TV.

1. The crowd was announced at 13,000 something but it looked like if was about 4000. My high school drew over 8000 for a football game on Saturday in freezing weather. This is our national team. DC had another rainy day for a game but really, the advance sale should have been twice that long before the forecasts came in. But you can't blame DC area fans from avoiding this game due to legitimate safety concerns. Guanacos have not been terribly well-behaved at RFK. Playing yet another game in a game-weary DC, against the Guanacos was a financial disaster and public relations disaster. We could have sold 30-40,000 tickets for a friendly in many places in the U.S. Even the Guanacos didn't seem to care as much as before. We ate lunch in a Salvadorean restaurant in Chicago yesterday and some of the customers knew about the game but didn't seem to care.

2. Once again, we appeared to be the visiting team. The Guanacos made more noise.

3. The pitch looked like a cow pasture. The first time I saw the RFK field up close last year I was appalled. It looked like a Third World nation's pitch. Why don't they resod it? Parts of it look like a chalkboard, other parts looked like mud. The U.S. spends more money on meticulously landscaping stadium turfs than the GNP of some countries. With most of the state of the art playing fields in the U.S. why do we play on this? Look at the players, like Armas, who blew out their knees on this cow pasture. Imagine what it costs us in image when foreigners or potential fans watch a game played in front of a tiny audience on a field lots of high schools would not tolerate.
This was a big step backward. It's too bad because it doesn't have to be this way. Many cities are dying to host a game.
Just my opinions.

[The Magpie]

Shoulda played the match in Chicago.

I'll spare everyone the debate.

The Magpie

[K]

Considering it rained for about a week here in DC I thought the field looked pretty good, I didn't notice any puddle like MLS Cup 96 in Foxboro (although they did have a tarp over it before game time).

Most of the fans were tucked up in the 300 level on the non TV side to stay dry so hard to see them on tv. While not the worst weather I've watched a game in, (like MLS Cups 96 & 97) I'm not going to crap on people who wish not to catch pneumonia.

As far as US support, well, I read on the NAS board that SA wasn't organizing anything because they were still weary from the WC and this game didn't mean anything (if the team's unofficial official supporter's club doesn't make plans well that should tell you something). I don't think if the venue was elsewhere people would have travelled for it (I wouldn't have travelled elsewhere to see El Sal vs US). Besides, haven't you beaten this dead horse in a thread in News and Analysis?

K

[monster]

I was there. I had fun.

[Frieslander]

Originally posted by Thomas Flannigan

1. The crowd was announced at 13,000 something but it looked like if was about 4000. My high school drew over 8000 for a football game on Saturday in freezing weather. This is our national team. DC had another rainy day for a game but really, the advance sale should have been twice that long before the forecasts came in.

Were you there? There were 13,000 people there, no bs.

[Thomas Flannigan]

No one has disputed it looked terrible on TV. This was a big step backward at a time when fans all over the country are dying to see a USMNT game

K, I don't want to accelerate the dispute between the SEs and Sam's Army here. Realistically, fans within driving distance of a stadium provide 90-95 per cent of the attendance at national team games. You can't expect fly-ins to carry the day. I praised the fans who did show up whether they sought shelter or not. I never criticized anyone who sought shelter. That is your argument. I know that many DC fans share my concern about the state of the pitch. El salvador's national stadium has a better pitch than that!!!!
Potential fans all over this land were waiting to see the team that stunned the world at the World Cup. After five months we get this?? It was a big step backward at a time we should be moving forward.
We will probably plays El Salvador or another Central American team at RFK during the Gold Cup. The debacles just keep on coming.

[Lanky134]

Originally posted by Thomas Flannigan
No one has disputed it looked terrible on TV. This was a big step backward at a time when fans all over the country are dying to see a USMNT game

I cannot dispute it because I did not see it on TV. I was in attendance.

Originally posted by Thomas Flannigan
I praised the fans who did show up whether they sought shelter or not. I never criticized anyone who sought shelter. That is your argument.
She didn't say you did. She was merely provided an explanation, from someone who was there, as to why on TV it looked like there were fewer people than there were.

Originally posted by Thomas Flannigan
I know that many DC fans share my concern about the state of the pitch.
It's usually in very good shape. It drains very well and the groundskeeping staff are excellent. You may recall that, during the All-Star Game, the big puddles that formed when play resumed were largely gone by the end of the game.

If the only time you saw it up close was last year's game against the Fire, keep in mind that there had been an all-day rock festival the week before and, as a result, needed to be resodded.

Dave

[monster]

Originally posted by Thomas Flannigan
No one has disputed it looked terrible on TV. This was a big step backward at a time when fans all over the country are dying to see a USMNT game

Care to place a wager on the TV number to back this assertion up? I don't doubt there's a demand, but I think you are greatly overstating this.

[K]

Is it me or do others find it rich for someone to complain about the game attendance from the comfort of their living room?

Tom you've carped on this game being at RFK and the opponent in several threads. Was that helpful in promoting the team and getting people to attend? If attendance is a concern did you encourage people from Chicago to go? You decided this game wasn't worth your while to attend why wasn't it OK for others to do the same? This was a meaningless friendly on ESPN against Sunday NFL games.

For those who did attend, it was a lot of fun. I didn't feel like I was in a hostile stadium (and with everyone in rain gear it was hard to tell sometimes who people were cheering for). I saw many families with the adults in ES stuff and the kids in Landon jersies. I wasn't aware of any incidents in the stadium like I have at other games.

K

[michael greene]

[i]Originally posted by Thomas Flannigan

Potential fans all over this land were waiting to see the team that stunned the world at the World Cup. After five months we get this?? It was a big step backward at a time we should be moving forward.
We will probably plays El Salvador or another Central American team at RFK during the Gold Cup. The debacles just keep on coming. [/B]

I totally agree.

I'm not sure which hurt attendance more, the USSF or the weather. For the first match in the US post-WC, those geniuses give us El Salvador in El Salvador Norte? US fans who live in the DC area know what that means, and many choose not to attend. The USSF knows this, and they insist on scheduling matches like that, with no advertising or promotion to speak of. It's hard enough to sell soccer in America, and short-sighted marketing decisions like this don't help. I'm glad the weather was lousy and kept the Salvadoran walk-up crowd down so the USSF doesn't cash in for selling the US out.

[saroccer]

I watched the game on TV as well and while I was expecting more ES fans, I thought the U.S. supportors looked good. I heard quite a few pro-U.S. chants during the game and could tell that the U.S. players were being cheered on. When they did close-ups on the fans, it looked like everyone was having fun. Not a bad advertisement for U.S. soccer on a cold rainy day.

Also, the banners looked good (esp. the 'Welcome Home Bruce').

I definitely wouldn't say that it was a 'big step backward' and it wasn't a 'homecoming' game for the Nats team - that was the all-star game, remember? It was a friendly, where both sides fielded their young players and the U.S. fans did a good job turning out in miserable weather (better than the ES fans, at least)

That said, a friendly in Atlanta would be nice. :)

[The Hand of God]

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah! If you weren't at the game on Sunday - your part of the problem, not the solution! Why don't we move our nations capitol to Chicago?

[big spaniel]

I really wonder about the attendance count. It looked and felt like more than 14,000 (and the traffic getting out of the stadium felt like that there was more than that, too). There wasn't that much promotion of the game around town, but that seems to be par for the course. Maybe people aren't thinking of soccer in the middle of November.

Also, I wonder whether most people realized that this was going to be a game without a lot of stars on either side. Still, it was quite an entertaining match, watching the younger players on both team trying to show their stuff. I though that Olson, Klein, Donovan and Barrett played particularly well.

The pitched not only looked fine but it played fine, especially after two straight days of rain. I didn't notice anybody slipping or sloshing around.

And thank you, saroccer, for your kind comments about the banners.

[CrewToon]

Originally posted by Thomas Flannigan
The pitch looked like a cow pasture. The first time I saw the RFK field up close last year I was appalled. It looked like a Third World nation's pitch.

But the pitch still was in better condition than the turf where the Cincinnati Bengals play.

[Thomas Flannigan]

I saw the pitch up close at the qualifier on September 1, 2001. It was in pretty bad shape then.
Does anyone know what the overnight TV ratings were for the game? I left my magnifying glass at home. To tell you the truth, it might not be a bad thing if they were low. I just don't see the casual or curious fan rallying behind THAT. The only problem is, more low ratings and ESPN won't even touch the USMNT. We will end up on PPV.
The Gold Cup at DC next year is rumored to be on PPV.

[Sachin]

Originally posted by Thomas Flannigan
I saw the pitch up close at the qualifier on September 1, 2001. It was in pretty bad shape then.
Does anyone know what the overnight TV ratings were for the game? I left my magnifying glass at home. To tell you the truth, it might not be a bad thing if they were low. I just don't see the casual or curious fan rallying behind THAT. The only problem is, more low ratings and ESPN won't even touch the USMNT. We will end up on PPV.
The Gold Cup at DC next year is rumored to be on PPV.

What on earth are you talking about Thomas? I don't know what you are comparing the pitch to, but it was in fine shape. I was there, I saw it in person. Perhaps you should invest in a better TV.

Of course the Gold Cup will be on PPV. When has it not been? The USSF does not control the Gold Cup, CONCACAF does. Rather, Inter-Forever (We Hate the USA) Sports does. And they sell the games to PPV operators.

You seem to be the only one who believes the World Cup opened up a groundswell of support. It didn't. End of story.

Thomas, I'll swear under oath you watched a different game than the one I attended.

Sachin

[Lanky134]

Originally posted by Thomas Flannigan
I saw the pitch up close at the qualifier on September 1, 2001. It was in pretty bad shape then.

Here are some photos of the field that day, take from the third row near midfield. The grass looks pretty good to me.

http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/dslifton/vwp?.dir=/World+Cup+Qualifier+-+CSB+2001+Weekend&.src=ph&.dnm=The+US+Players.jpg&.view=t&.done=http%3a//photos.yahoo.com/bc/dslifton/lst%3f%26.dir=/World%2bCup%2bQualifier%2b-%2bCSB%2b2001%2bWeekend%26.src=ph%26.view=t

http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/dslifton/vwp?.dir=/World+Cup+Qualifier+-+CSB+2001+Weekend&.dnm=Both+teams.jpg&.src=ph&.done=http%3a//photos.yahoo.com/bc/dslifton/vwp%3f.dir=/World%2bCup%2bQualifier%2b-%2bCSB%2b2001%2bWeekend%26.dnm=The%2bUS%2bPlayers.jpg%26.src=ph

http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/dslifton/vwp?.dir=/World+Cup+Qualifier+-+CSB+2001+Weekend&.dnm=A+free+kick+by+Earnie+Stewart.jpg&.src=ph&.done=http%3a//photos.yahoo.com/bc/dslifton/vwp%3f.dir=/World%2bCup%2bQualifier%2b-%2bCSB%2b2001%2bWeekend%26.dnm=Both%2bteams.jpg%26.src=ph

http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/dslifton/vwp?.dir=/World+Cup+Qualifier+-+CSB+2001+Weekend&.src=ph&.dnm=A+cause+for+the+ages.jpg&.view=t&.done=http%3a//photos.yahoo.com/bc/dslifton/lst%3f%26.dir=/World%2bCup%2bQualifier%2b-%2bCSB%2b2001%2bWeekend%26.src=ph%26.view=t

[K]

Originally posted by Lanky134


Here are some photos of the field that day, take from the third row near midfield. The grass looks pretty good to me.

http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/dslifton/vwp?.dir=/World+Cup+Qualifier+-+CSB+2001+Weekend&.src=ph&.dnm=The+US+Players.jpg&.view=t&.done=http%3a//photos.yahoo.com/bc/dslifton/lst%3f%26.dir=/World%2bCup%2bQualifier%2b-%2bCSB%2b2001%2bWeekend%26.src=ph%26.view=t

http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/dslifton/vwp?.dir=/World+Cup+Qualifier+-+CSB+2001+Weekend&.dnm=Both+teams.jpg&.src=ph&.done=http%3a//photos.yahoo.com/bc/dslifton/vwp%3f.dir=/World%2bCup%2bQualifier%2b-%2bCSB%2b2001%2bWeekend%26.dnm=The%2bUS%2bPlayers.jpg%26.src=ph

http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/dslifton/vwp?.dir=/World+Cup+Qualifier+-+CSB+2001+Weekend&.dnm=A+free+kick+by+Earnie+Stewart.jpg&.src=ph&.done=http%3a//photos.yahoo.com/bc/dslifton/vwp%3f.dir=/World%2bCup%2bQualifier%2b-%2bCSB%2b2001%2bWeekend%26.dnm=Both%2bteams.jpg%26.src=ph

http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/dslifton/vwp?.dir=/World+Cup+Qualifier+-+CSB+2001+Weekend&.src=ph&.dnm=A+cause+for+the+ages.jpg&.view=t&.done=http%3a//photos.yahoo.com/bc/dslifton/lst%3f%26.dir=/World%2bCup%2bQualifier%2b-%2bCSB%2b2001%2bWeekend%26.src=ph%26.view=t


And that's real turf out there, not that plastic stuff that they have in Cardinal Stadium!

K

[Thomas Flannigan]

Sachin, I have praised you and other hard core fans many times. La Norte looked and sounded good yesterday, as always. I think you were dealt a difficult hand. El Salvador in DC is not an easy gig for a US fan. DC fans whom I respect posted in the United forum about safety considerations with so many Guanacos in RFK. The attendance was lousy, but considering the lack of novelty of yet another USMNT game, fear of Guanacos, AND bad weather, you can't really criticize the DC fans. My gripe is with the USSF and people who defend the Foxboro-DC axis.
The USSF used to try to make money by trying to sell tickets to ethnic groups living in the US. At one time they had no alternative, really. Now they do have an alternative and how do they reward loyal fans all over the country? They cater to the Guanacos.
One of the nice things about Big Soccer is a few people will always attack something you didn't say, such as sheltered fans. I never said we had a bad team. I think Coach Arena picked some good, young talent and gave them a chance. The team looked good.
Of course I tried to get people to go. I chipped in on travel threads and tried to help, as always with travel arrangements:

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23054

You can deride me for watching in the comfort of my living room (with a screaming baby). Us Midwesterners don't have the luxury of driving to games like the East Coast fans. I do all I can. I went to 10 qualifiers and 5 World Cup games. For most of the other games, I tried to promote them, bumping threads and offering travel advice. Car pooling for the Jamaica WCQ was done in Miami California, and from this computer. It would have been easier if Foxboro fans had done it. DC is better because it has good supporters groups and tries to help out of town fans. But you have had enough games and you should be egalitarian enough to admit that. The USSF could have had a bigger payday an many places and dispelled the growing notion that the USMNT is part of coastal clique.

[Thomas Flannigan]

I knew that soccer "fans" would gloat over the very unfortunate circumstances we have here in Chicago, tap dancing on the not yet sealed coffin of an MLS franchise. We had a great venue until January, 2002. The London Financial Times reported after the 1994 World Cup that the consensus among foreign reporters was that Chicago was the best venue, a beautiful city with a good stadium walking distance from downtown. Foxboro was the worlst, primarily because of its location. I have not lobbied for Chicago, instead arguing other cities, such as Dallas should get a chance. You all know that the Burn and Fire are rivals but I put the USMNT interests first. Dallas should have gotten this game. If not Dallas, someplace other than the Same Old Places.
I sincerely hope that DC United prospers and you don't have stadium problems. If they would resod the awful pitch and not be so strict about banners and parking lot sales, you would have a fine venue, near transport and with plenty of parking. I would never gloat if RFK was closed for 2 years and the loyal DC United fans were relegated to a small stadium in the suburbs. That would hurt the MLS and the soccer movement in this country.
So gloat all you want and make cracks about Cardinal Stadium. That contributes to the perception that the "scene" is locked up in a coastal clique, who don't care whether soccer lives or dies in the heartland.