What clubs best fit the "generic opponent" category? That is, frequently forgotten, rarely noteworthy for being at the top, rarely noteworthy for being in the relegation zone, few or no big rivalries, few or no superstar or supervillian players...
In England - or at least in the top league - it's got to be the current city of my residence - Southampton. Doing relatively well (for them) at the moment. Ususally floating around mid table or just above the relegation zone. Few teams in this neck of the woods. Portsmouth, 1 division down (maybe not for long) and Bournemouth - in the 3rd division. No local rivalry to speak of in footballing terms as they don't play each other - But Southampton and Pompey hate each other nevertheless. Few star players to speak of. LeTissier was a local god but not much past that. And Shearer started his career here. Pretty much sums it up.
Any team in the MLS. It fits all the categories. Who's on top? No meaningful league table so it doesn't matter. No relegation. No rivalries that compare to anything in Europe, Latin America, Africa, etc. Ditto for superstars or villans. The teams are about as generic as McDonalds fast-food. So generic that they seem interchangable.
Aston Villa, the world's dullest team. Even with two local rivals in the EPL this season they are still dull.
Blackburn? If it weren't for Friedel, most Americans wouldn't care. For the past couple of seasons, they've been comfortably mid-table, I think. They have young players (Duff, Dunn) but they have yet to become superstars. They're the very definition of obscure. They're remarkable for being remarkably unremarkable.
It all depends what time scale we're talking about. If it's the here and now, then I guess, yes Villa and Blackburn might not be the most dynamic of teams. But if we're going back a few years Blackburn won the 1995 title and even further back were rather sucessful. Similar can be said of Villa. For all time non-entityness I still stick by Southampton, were it not for their 1976 'against the run of play' FA cup win, no-one would know anything about them.
While I agree with you for the most part, I wouldn't put Blackburn and Villa in the same league. Villa has a relatively decent history in Europe and Villa Park is one of the best known stadiums in England, if only because it hosts the odd FA Cup semifinal tie. Blackburn, at least in the last 20 some years, has very little to distinguish itself and the 1995 title was a mere blip on the radar during Man U's dominance of the Premiership. But that's just my opinion. And Charlton is probably the most obscure of the London clubs.
France is loaded with anoymous/generic teams Troyes,Sochaux,Rennes,Montpellier,Sedan,Guingamp,Le Harve, Bastia,Ajaccio among others and thats just in League 1. Bastia and Ajaccio do have the Corsican darby but no one outside of a tiny island cares about that.
Re: Re: Most anonymous/generic teams in big leagues You obviously don't like MLS but those things take time to develop. In several years true rivalries will exist. As of now, Dallas and Chicago don't like each other, DC and Metros don't either, and there is a great rivalry developing between LA and San Jose in the last two years. As for most generic - for me, the team has to be Kansas City. Even though they won the MLS Cup in 2000, they're still very generic IMO. As for EPL, I'd agree Southampton.
Re: Re: Most anonymous/generic teams in big leagues I definatly agree with this, MLS has no real table... sure, East and West, what the hell is East and West have to do with soccer? make it one table please! On to the real question MLS-Kansas City EPL- Southampton Brazil- Palmeiras Serie A-Como anyone else agree?
Como anonymous? At least for now, they're significant for being recently promoted. How about Udinese?
Nah, Racing are at least notorious for being bad. I'll second Valladolid, though. I very frequently forget they're even in the Liga Primera.
I nominate Fulham for most generic right there with Charlton for the most obscure London club. They supposedly have a rich owner and they can't even afford to redevelop their own grounds. Keep playing in another club's outdated 19,000 seat stadium will keep you generic/anonymous.
Not really... Fulham is quite well-known as "Mohammed Al-Fayed FC". If asked to name, off the top of my head, all the clubs in the Premiership, the two that I'm most likely to forget are Charlton and Southampton. In Serie A, along with Udinese, I'd like to nominate Bologna. They've been mid-table forever, and I can't name a single one of their players. In the Bundesliga... VfB Stuttgart? I'd also possibly nominate Wolfsburg, but the simple fact that they're managed by a guy named Wolfgang Wolf (along with their bright green shirts) assures that Wolfsburg won't be obscure for a long time.
Fulham will come to major prominence soon as they tumble all the way to the third division. Harrods going bust, the Ritz in financial free fall since 9/11 and Al-Fayed not willing to invest in craven cottage will see to it. 100 million quid to redevelope that dump? WTF....the mackems spent half that on a state of the art stadiun. St Marys for the saints...how much did that cost?
Blackburn, Fulham, and Southampton are all pretty well known teams, despite not winning much. I'd have to go with West Brom.
Re: Re: Re: Most anonymous/generic teams in big leagues You forgot the most obvious (or not, really) anonymous team in MLS: The Rapids. I forget they play except when Crew plays em. Who's ever heard of a Rapids "fan" much less a "supporter". hahah