I'm going to disagree with this. Unless you are in the endzone in the supporters' section where it is understood that there will be standing, sit down.
Think Parkhurst deserves more respect. Good vision and anticipation. He's quicker and a better passer than both Bocanegra and Onyewu. I liked the deep threats he creates. Much better than the kick-ball game more suited to the aformentioned. While there's something to be said about being big and physical, it's not necessarily a requirement. We're still predictably wining and losing the games we should.
An argument that has taken place on many forums, just never been a fan of sitting for 90+ minutes, want to sit stay home, want to support your club get up and yell.
I enjoyed watching the match on Galavision and would agree that it was interesting (mostly because of checking out the "B" teamers) and there were times it was entertaining. It's a shame that so many nice thing happened up until we reached the attacking third and then there were problems. Feilhaber looked like he could create chances. Wondo was willing. I had hoped for more. . . It was good to watch Jermaine Jones, again. His physical attributes are stunning and it is great to see that he has regained much of his quickness and athleticism. One would have expected a player of his caliber to "boss" this match and he did. That being said, I am among those, who would say that he had a "good" not "great" match. At least two of his shots, I would have expected him to have put on frame were miss hit. Given his nice run of form at Shalke I would have thought to have seen better and quicker passing. I was particularly disappointed with the card, following his bad pass. It was unnecessary, foolish and ego driven. This particular group would have been better served by him being disciplined. Again, a mixed bag. At this point in his career, he should be an example of professionalism, a role model and an elder statesman. I remain hopeful but would particularly like to see improvement in this area.
You won't sell out too many stadia on that theory - not even in the football capitals of Europe. I do both. I paid for my ticket, I bought my beer, and as far as I'm concerned I should be able to sit down for at least part of the match if I feel like it and be able to see. I get up and sing/yell plenty during the match, and for big matches (like the USA-Mexico WCQ I saw in Columbus) you stand the whole time.
Sure, if you have no courtesy to your fellow fans. Including the elderly who can't stand the whole game, and kids who can't see with you in front of them, even if they are standing....If you want to stand, there are areas where it is encouraged, buy your seats there, fairer to everyone.
Probably not the right place for this... Standing the whole game does not mean a fan has "no courtesy" to their fellow fans. On many occasions when standing in front of kids our group offers for them to switch seats or stand in front of us or at least create a space for them to see between us. All examples of courtesy. Just as one has the right to buy a ticket and sit down, so does another have the right to buy a ticket and stand, even if outside the supporters section. To be fair I have only been to matches where everyone around has been standing (RSL, Timbers, Sounders). But I digress, Interesting observation about the atmosphere in Pheonix.
I have no problems with people standing (if they are not blcoking my view). But this whole idea is just crazy. On an interesting not i noticed that most soccer stadiums in Europe have the seating much steeper than in the states.
As a 5ft tall 70 yr old, I couldn't agree with you more! I stand up when something exciting is happening, but I don't want to stand the whole match and being short, even if I stand I usually can't see over the people in front of me! It seemsto me that the whole pont of seats is to sit - otherwise they'd have those unsafe terraces!!!
-No problem here then. -What is crazy about this whole idea? -Last point is a good one. At CLink Field in Seattle (non soccer-specific) the seating is not steep at all and this could tend to become an issue except that nearly everyone stands the entire match.
If you can't get seats in a standing section, then obey the rules or don't go if you can't handle it. You are welcome to take your own advice and stay home.
Not even close to accurate. It's all about context and what the rules of conduct are as provided by the facility and event manager. You don't go to a movie theater, the opera, or the President's State of the Union Address and proclaim that you can stand and shout as much as you want, do you? Sporting events are very similar. Find a standing section where you are not taking away from someone else's experience or else follow the rules. If you can't do that, stay home.
Really? So a movie theater of 100 people in a dark quiet room or the opera is very similar to a soccer match? Not even close to comparable. Also, I don't think anyone "proclaims' to their section that they will be standing or shouting as much as they want. I stand, because I like to, as does everyone around in the stadium/section I attend. If the dude behind you isn't, you make it so he can see - common courtesy. If there is a problem, you work it out or sit. Not that big of an issue.
Problem with your argument is that when you go to a stadium like Portland, Seattle, Salt Lake, the issue of standing or sitting has been decided. The atmosphere in those stadiums are electric, it's electric because the fans are up and cheering their teams. The match in Phoenix was not electric it was quite and lent itself to sitting quietly and politely watching the match. Given the choice, I am sure most true soccer fans would want to be at a match that feels like something more than sitting home and watching the tube. I did not want to send this forum down this path, I was simply interested in the question: Did this match seem more entertaining from home or live at the stadium? Because the lack of passion in the stadium did take away from the match for myself and the friends I was with.
I thought Jones was good-not-great as well, but that was a textbook professional foul meant to kill the counter. You see it all over the world. That was unemotional and nonvindictive. So it bears no comparisons to situations where he's gone bonkers. After screwing up the original pass and putting his defense in a tenuous spot, it was his best recourse.
Nah, you gotta know when to hold'em and know when to fold'em. If Jermaine Jones lets his bad pass turn into a break away goal, completely destroying his team's excellent defensive effort and going against the run of play, then he comes off looking a lot worse.
It is all relative but it was a dominant performance and certainly by far the best overall performance by a midfielder in the JK era. I just charted some quick numbers which supports his performance. He completed 63 passes missed 9 (88%) and lost the ball 5 times. He won 5 tackles, made 5 interceptions, created 2 chances from the run of play, had 2 shots and took 5 good corner kicks. There are unconfirmed rumors that he also sold 3 cases of beer, 5 cases of hot dogs and cleaned the bathrooms before leaving the stadium. Some context, the 63 passes and 5 tackles are the most in any game in the JK era. The 2 chances from the run of play are the most by any midfielder not named Shea. Maybe not great but certainly dominant!
Also, it was a look at how he plays at the club level. I haven't caught many Shalke games, but this was how he looked in the PL. This was almost as strong as his game against Arsenal last season. Like Bradley, though, he doesn't necessarily fit well into a midfield of specialists. A real strength of his is breaking forward.