US faces Opportunity, Risk - Hartford Courant Revolution's Joseph shows Poise off the Field as well - N.Y. Times Hounds, former GM reunite in Cup - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Revolution look Defenseless - Boston Globe Fire Reserves roll to 4-0 Victory - Lemont Star Few Positives found in Crew's latest Loss - Columbus Dispatch Midfielder Davis solidifies Starting Role - Dallas Morning News (day late) Beckham Supporter is Elected - L.A. Times Spotlight may be Hard to Keep - Carson Daily Breeze Late Surge doesn't Disguise bad Day for Metros - North Jersey Herald News (day late) Beckham Saga waits to Unfold - Ventura County Star
Re: Re: 6/16/03: Chewy It shouldn't be... still above the league average, last year or this year, isn't it? I'm sure Kenn will be waltzing in soon with confirmation. What I think is the myopic thinking on the part of those at that paper is that with a new stadium, that it's a place to see and be seen, and with that line of thought, the Galaxy should be getting 27,000 crowds well into the next few seasons, until the novelty wears off. We've seen it with a lot of the new baseball stadia in the USA, and they're automatically thinking that the same would hold true for the HDC. But as you said, nearly 19,000 fans is nothing to be ashamed about, given the perspective I've mentioned.
And yet, I think Columbus had 22,000 in their 2nd game, before going under 20,000 in their 3rd, and with such fanfare for the opening of HDC, with so many glorioius pronouncements about it, I'd say under 20,000 on a beautiful Saturday night is disappointing. Most of the empty seats are in the expensive section (though certainly not all), and there were empty seats in the expesnive seats as well for the opener. Some people feel the Galaxy have simply overpriced themselves for the market. Time will tell. PS. Although I agree it was a very disjointed article.
Re: Re: 6/16/03: Chewy When i say it's about the image of the league, this is what i mean... ppl will look at us and say if this is a cathedral for soccer, how can u not even fill it to 80% capacity in the 2nd game. I am telling you... the expansion from 22,000 to 27,000 was a mistake
Re: Re: Re: 6/16/03: Chewy 1. I must have missed all the articles going nuts about the drop in attendance. 2. The 22-27 is not for MLS. It's for special events. When they start getting 15-18 for the friendlies and concerts on a regular basis, then it will be a mistake. This needs to be viewed from more than a LAG perspective. 3. I think most people don't give a crap what happens so we're pretty safe. They didn't go nuts when it opened and they didn't care when it "only" drew 18K for game 2. There's lots of time to gnash teeth.
That's a positive statement the writer is making there, guys. Read the whole passage. A year ago, the Galaxy averaged 19,047 for 14 home dates. Subtract 55,234 they drew to the Rose Bowl to see fireworks on July 4th and their average dropped to 16,263. Subtract another 32,874 on Youth Soccer Day and the average settled in at 14,879. A semi-educated, highly-unofficial estimate of the number of people in the stands at the start of the game was 14,000 to 15,000. An equally semi-educated, highly-unofficial estimate of the late-arriving crowd was a generous 20,000. The announced attendance was 18,683, which strikes a blow for the credibility of the Galaxy as they strive to break out of their niche and become a major sport in this country. The new party is just beginning. He's saying: a) the Galaxy averaged a healthy 19,000 people last year b) that average was skewed by the 4th of July and Youth Soccer Day crowds c) take out those extremes, and the average was more like 14,000 d) On Saturday, it looked like there were 14,000 before all the people had even gotten in the building e) All told, it looked like there were 20,000 people or more, even if attendence only counted 18,683 f) Things are looking up At least that's what I got out of it.
Interesting read. I gotta say, reading it the first time, I certainly thought it sounded negative. But you're right, he does make that statement in the midst of all of the other statements about attendance, and that this game is a healthy 4000 or so above average, not counting the outliers. Reading the statement is like looking at an optical illusion. At one point, I take it to mean one thing. But after re-reading it a few times, the other meaning "springs" into view. All in all, it is poorly written, since I am still not really sure what the author was really trying to say.
From the article: ""We just didn't have that extra bite, that extra level that we needed to pick up on," said Metros midfielder Richie Williams.
Great articles by the Elder Trecker, putting the right perspective on the Confederations Cup, and really nice article from Jack Bell on Joseph, who is quickly becoming one of my favorite players.
I'll agree with you completely. The article certainly has a better perspective upon it, once you've read it a second or third time. Which shouldn't happen, to begin with. Such a disjointed piece requires better execution by the copy editors, you can't blame the writer completely on this one.
for everybody that thinks the european press just picks on MLS because its the american league, here's how much they care about the mexican league too. www.guardian.co.uk their rumour mill......... "Newcastle's transfer-listed Chilean midfielder Clarence Acuna is attracting the attention of Sporting Lisbon and two Mexican clubs you probably haven't heard of"
but true. they might have some clue about the big clubs in argentina and a faint grasp on brazil, but they know nothing about the rest.