It's surprising, but not really, it's only four, considering we were something like 0-192 when trailing at the half on the road.
I only watched the second half but wow was the narrow field really causing some craziness tonight. Crew played some wacky formations, and NYC had some extra protection being down a man. Schulte and Morris seem to have a bit of a hangover. Notable comments on the broadcast that United scouts are looking at schulte, and regarding chambost nancy wanted a left footed midfielder to launch passes. I think he is just another weapon in the arsenal instead of a replacement for anyone
So, with the rain delay, the MLS After Dark thing, the red card, the small-ass field with the baseball diamond, the VARs that went in our favor, the 15 minutes of stoppage time... if ever there was a game where you burn the tape after a WIN, I feel like this is it.
The thing is, we played some amazing flowing football for spurts. We need to bring in another cb and/or CM.
I’ve been saying this for a few weeks, before the morris departure. Sean Z ain’t enough, he’s good but he’s not the same caliber as Aidan.
I just mentioned this to Sirk on twitter... I'm trying to remember when we finally broke that bastard. I remember a game at San Jose during that 2008 season where we were down 1-0 at the half and stormed back with three for the win, but I can't remember if that was the first time or not.
2-1 at Toronto on 9/22/07. Second half goals by Jason Garey and Jacob Thomas. Took 'til the end of the club's 12th season to finally break through. https://t.co/P8MtC61ACI— Steve Sirk (@stevesirk) June 15, 2024
Was it 2006 when we beat Chicago 6-2 on the final day of the season and our fate was sealed the day before? That's another "win and burn the tape" game.
When people want to complain about how narrow the pitch is at Yankee Stadium, and as long as you're invoking Sirk, ask him about the pitch in Ohio Stadium. They swore it was 70 yards wide, most visiting players claimed it was closer to 68 - which doesn't meet FIFA regs - and if you go find some old game photos from 96-99 you'll notice that the channels between the penalty area and the touch lines bear a striking resemblance to bowling alleys.
I'll advocate for the Devil for a second. I think what the everything-MLS-does-is-wrong brigade would say in response to that is that a team with Man City money in the year 2024 shouldn't be playing on a crappier field than a small market team in an upstart league with no money did in the year 1996. That said, I'm over it. Not because Yankee Stadium isn't a shitty place to play a professional soccer match -- it is. But because they're getting their own stadium in 2027. They've addressed the problem. I follow the #Crew96 hashtag on twitter when I watch games live, so I can get a further sense of what people are thinking, and last night, people were constantly bitching about the stadium/field, and snitch-tagging Don Garber and MLS, whining that NYCFC need to get a stadium. And I'm like, "they're getting one! What are you still bitching about?" Plus, I only have to look at it once a season anyway.
People are making a lot of this, but I can't read minds. This could be "what? We have to play a soccer game in this dump? Really?" Or it could be "Wow... Yankee Stadium. One of the most famous sports venues in the world, and we GET to play here."
Yes, but MLS 1.0 is much different than today. The league back then teetered on the verge of collapse for nearly a decade. Today you have a strong and growing league that is nearing one of the big four sports in popularity. It's the hypocrisy from Don and the league office that irks people most. You can't say expansion teams must have their own stadium, and then let NYC play in a baseball stadium for their first dozen years, allow Charlotte and Atlanta to play in NFL stadiums, and approve San Diego leasing their field from a college football team. You also can't say teams must have a stadium in their downtown urban core, and then let Nashville build theirs on the fairgrounds, Austin put up theirs in an industrial zone, and Miami play 45 minutes outside of Miami. The other part of it is player safety. The investment teams make today is orders of magnitude higher than the early days. You don't want them playing on dangerous fields. The NFL is reexamining their policy for field standards right now too because they had about seven starting QBs get season-ending injuries this year, some of which were caused by bad surfaces. Charlotte's turf is so bad than even NFL players complain about it being dangerous. NYC has threadbare sod covering parts of the field. Portland seems to get a rash of injuries every year due to playing on turf. Soldier Field has bigger divots than you'd find at a municipal par 3 course. As Nancy said, these conditions are bad for the league. Thankfully, several of the long-standing issues are getting resolved soon with new stadiums coming for New England, NYC and Miami. There seems to be some smoke in Chicago as well. Dallas, Colorado and the Galaxy are the remaining teams badly in need of new facilities. The next step needs to be requiring high-quality grass fields. Between Apple money, expansion fees, and advertisers, these teams have the money to make the switch.
Don't think so. I was at that game (think it was one of Robert's interim games after Greg andrulis?) and it was either right before or right after a real Madrid VS chivas game as a double header in July or August of 2005. I have fond memories of seeing the Galacticos and especially Roberto Carlos and Zidane put on a show. I think we either won 1-0 or tied 1-1 with our goal being that Vasquez screamer.
Yes, yay, they’re getting a new stadium in three more seasons, and buying land and developing it in NYC is a slow process. We get it. The issue I have, and I think I speak for many others down on NY alphabet soup, is that they’ve been in MLS playing in a baseball stadium for ELEVEN YEARS. Eleven years. And, you might think that Citeh money might grease the wheels a bit with speeding things up so they wouldn’t be playing on a postage stamp for THIRTEEN YEARS total. Meanwhile, @ColumbusFTW makes these excellent points re: other teams and MLS’ stances on their stadiums. Let us not forget that new ownership was not enough to allow the Crew to stay in Columbus; we had to have a plan to move from the fairgrounds to a new downtown stadium. Meanwhile, Nashville gets to build their new stadium at—guess where—the fairgrounds, and aust!n’s is nowhere near their downtown. The double standards are ridiculous. Thirteen years my @SS.
And my response would be... yeah. You're exactly right. It's ridiculous that it took so long to get it done. And the people who were complaining about it... were RIGHT to complain about it. Making the noise and beating the drum and not letting the people in charge forget about it helps nudge issues forward. I just don't see the point in continuing to waste your breath about it when the desired goal has been attained already. The construction crews aren't going to build the f***in' thing any faster because of a few angry tweets. As for Don Garber... I don't follow his every move and word, so I'm genuinely asking this question: I know that there was one point where he made the whole "downtown stadium" thing an important platform of his. When was the last time he made that point? I haven't noticed any speeches from him in recent years where he's emphasized that. Is it possible that he's just realized that maybe it wasn't the hill worth dying on that it once was, and he's moved past it? Again -- I'm really asking here. It's certainly possible that he is a genuine hypocrite. But sometimes narratives harden into cement and then don't change later when the evidence says otherwise.