Discussion in 'New England Revolution' started by abecedarian, May 7, 2022.
The NYCFC experience shows why Fenway would be a lousy home for soccer.
That main grandstand at BU is actually part of Braves Field. It was the right field "pavilion" that ran from behind 1B down the foul line. The main roofed grandstand was where the dorms are and home plate was roughly in the center of the end zone. There was another pavilion going down the LF line and a main bleacher section behind RF known as the Jury Box because someone noticed there were only 12 fans sitting out there one game. When it was built in 1915 it was considered a mega-stadium, since it held 45,000, an almost unheard of number.
So, yeah it's not great in general for soccer, but:
1) at the risk of being sexist, I don't think a smaller field would hurt and in fact, might be be better
2) I would locate the field along the third baseline, as close as possible to the stands. That would allow close to 10K up close sideline seats, with some premium endline monster seats and high-end field level seats on the outfield. That would provide significantly more capacity than White Stadium, with seating close and high-up.
3) Fenway always has atmosphere
I watched Glasgow Celtic at Fenway and, while it was far from ideal, it was still a great event.
I also think playing at Fenway would get them more media attention as well.
If Fenway was to ever be a regular soccer venue (which I doubt would ever happen) they would need to make at least part of the section that juts out behind 3B a removable section. It would be the corner, allowing for a full width field and have the goal line to be roughly parallel to the foul line. They could put up temporary seating in LF and the 1B/RF stands would be nice sideline seats.
PS: And Glaaasga Celtic arra gree-ist fitba clooob inna werl an yuh cannae dispuuuute thet, Jemmah!
Interesting bit in Tara Sullivan's column in the Globe:
Ramos should have some stories to share with midfielder Ian Harkes, having grown up with Harkes’s father John as well as US soccer goalkeeping great Tony Meola. The three played for the famed Thistle FC out of the Scots American club in Kearny, N.J., earning the tiny town just west of New York the title of Soccertown, USA.
I don't see it ever happening for a full season since Fenway is for baseball or concerts pretty much every weekend from spring to fall. I could see BU or Harvard hosting again if they don't get their own stadium by 2026, but I assume the Wu regime would probably get a stadium built for them
Wish Harvard Stadium had modern pro soccer width. Or the revs could somehow acquire that tract of land behind HBS (may be moot as I think it's being developed).
It would be REALLY fun to play in H Square again.
If only we knew someone who was rich and had huge... tracts of land.
Had a dream last night that I was with a group of revs fans that were commiserating with a group of NY Jets fans.
Even my subconscious knows we are a mess at the moment.
Excuse me, Sir. I have standards!
Saw this on Twitter:
The Revolution with Gustavo Bou:
• 2 PPG (28 points in 14 games) • 1.85 goals scored (26 goals scored) • 1.07 goals allowed (15 goals allowed)
The Revolution without Bou:
• 1.4 PPG • 1.53 goals scored (23 goals scored ) • 1.4 goals allowed (21 goals allowed)
I already had a pretty good sense that we've gotten much better results when Bou plays, but what's interesting is that we also give up more goals without Bou. I'd guess that's because 1) we have to expend more resources to generate scoring opportunities, and 2) we are more likely to be chasing the game (and having to open up) w/o Bou's impact on the attack.
I think it's also simply that we're not very good when we try to hunker down and defend, and when Bou is on the field we do less of that. The Revs are very much a "the best defense is a good offense" kind of team. Bou comes off when we're trying to protect a lead (which you hint at), and when we bunker, we tend to fail. When we don't bunker, we hold the ball and keep the opponent from having a chance to attack. I'm not sure why Bruce et al. haven't figured that out.
Great point - it's been that way ever since we got Gil, at least.
But, for that strategy to work - keep attacking when you have the lead - you have to punish teams when they open up and we haven't done that this year (i.e., very, very few games blown open - I think maybe against Montreal at home and DCU, but ...).
I think the bottom-line is that we're not good at transitioning to offense, especially under pressure. So late in games, trailing teams will ramp up the pressure and even if we want to keep attacking, we don't get many balls into the hands of our attackers.
Case in point the back-to-back games were we gave up goals in the dying seconds. In both cases, we won the ball in our own end, but fumbled transitions to the attack and gave the opposition that last chance.
It's also that our back line hasn't been all that solid the past few years. Can you imagine what we'd look like if Romney hadn't stayed healthy all season?
It's still a month away from Halloween, it's a little early to start scaring people!!
It's Friday and no one has posted a PIP for the Charlotte game. I think it shows everyone's enthusiasm level at the moment.
There's been a lot of positive talk from Peay and the players over the last week+; it's time to show it on the field. Making progress isn't good enough at this point, they have to show they can get significant results (and that doesn't include ties at home, or against bad teams anywhere).
Yes, it's 3 point or bust at this point. They need to get wins against Charlotte and Columbus now if there's any hope of even a chance in the playoffs.
As far as keeping an eye on other results, things are so tight right now. The best results would be a draw for Columbus and Philly and a Montreal win at Orlando, however unlikely that seems.
Can anyone shed light on the playoff scenario for the Revs? Not that I'm confident we'll do well, but I have to go on a business trip Nov1-3, and I'd like to get a sense if I'm going to miss a home playoff game. Right now the chance of a home playoff game seems remote unless we can win an away one.
After the Revs clinched the playoff spot, the Revs sent season-ticket holders the following:
Round 1 (best of 3; higher seed hosts 1 and 3): First match 10/29-11/1; Second match 11/6-8; Third match 11/11-12
So, if Revs are higher seed then there could be a home game on 11/1. Someone else will have to weigh in on whether we will be the higher seed and whether the first match will be on 11/1.
Revs are currently in 5th, meaning they would travel to the 4th seed for the first match.
A win on decision day vs PHI (3rd place currently) would leave them with identical records, (15-9L-10T), but the Revs would have to win by 6 to make up GD.
If Revs win and CLB (4th) lose, Revs would be a point ahead of them and take 4th.
If Revs lose, they could finish as low as 7th (if NSH and ATL both win). NSH would have to makeup GD of 3 (so, Revs lose by 2, NSH win by 2 would do it).
Thanks. So I have a good chance of not missing a game. But, stranger things have happened, such as Club America's keeper stepping off his line on the kicks and saving Nashville chances, 2 minutes after the match ended, thus causing me to cancel a trip to Nashville.
So it's a best of 3 and are ties being broken by PKs? Or is it where ties count and it's first team to 5 points?
I hated the shootout the way it was used in regular season in the early days, but if we're going to have "must have a winner" scenarios, I think it gives a more even chance than PKs. Also, a breakaway like that is something that actually happens in the run of play in a real game, unlike a PK