English Soccer newbie question(s)

Inuyasha · Post by **Inuyasha** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:01 pm

I am preparing for we9 and was just reading up on some of the English soccer teams. Can one of you soccer fans try to describe to me the English soccer teams compared to American teams if possible?

For example, I know Manchester United are like the New York Yankees if you made a English to American comparison. How would you describe the other teams like Chelsea and others....?

tjung0831 · Post by **tjung0831** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 9:15 pm

Here are a few that might be accurate...

ManU - Yankees
Chelsea - Red Sox
Liverpool - Cardinals
Arsenal - Dodgers
Newcastle - Cubs
Tottenham - Orioles
Everton - Whitesox
Wigan - Athletics
Sunderland - Royals
Aston Villa - Mariners
Blackburn - Giants

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 9:31 pm

I'm not much of a newbie, but still a bit. I have a question. Don't they cover the pitches at all prior to a match? The turf at Stamford Bridge for the Liverpool - Chelsea match looked like they had a truck and tractor pull at midfield immediately before kickoff!

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:34 pm

I don't get the ManU-Yankees analogy at all other than winning many championships.

The biggest beef that Yankee haters have is that Steinbrenner buys championships with his big budget. Chelsea haters say the same thing about Abramovich's unlimited transfer budget the last few years, insisting that Chelsea never won until Roman's money allowed the club to buy, buy, buy. At least Man U had a lot of homegrown players -- Scholes, Beckham, Neville brothers, Giggs -- as a vital part of the core of their glory years in the 90s.

The Newcastle-Cubs analogy is spot-on.

Take care,
PK

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 11:07 pm

pk500 wrote: The Newcastle-Cubs analogy is spot-on.

Take care,
PK

Newcastle is that pathetic?
They havent won in 100 years?

Do there fans congratulate them when they finsih last?
Cubs fans gave their team a victory lap for a last place finish the year they set the NL record for futilty to start a season.

I seriously doubt Newcastle fans are helping their team lose as much as Cub fans are.

TheMightyPuck · Post by **TheMightyPuck** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 11:41 am

Chelsea were pretty darn pathetic for most of the years I was following them (from afar). We were experts at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Now we pretty much just win (barring somewhat dodgy calls in CL games v. Liverpool--but hey that's football). Today Chelsea are definitely more Yankees than Red Sox but over the years not so.

tjung0831 · Post by **tjung0831** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:21 pm

pk500 wrote:
The Newcastle-Cubs analogy is spot-on.

Take care,
PK

Paul, I threw that in there just for you!
I think my Sunderland/Royals analogy was pretty accurate too though..

Tim

davet010 · Post by **davet010** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 1:17 pm

I'm not sure I know enough to qualify, but I'm making a guess at

Man City = NY Mets.

1. Overshadowed in the minds of the casual fan by larger, richer neighbour

2. Occasionally win things, but it's always a surprise when they do

3. Make expensive acquisitions that often go sour

4. Often seem to be on the verge of joining the 'big boys' before shooting themselves in the foot

5. Often tipped at the start of the season to do something, but by mid-season, you just know it isn't gonna happen.

The one thing that really sets the two leagues apart, of course, is relegation and promotion. Teams in soccer can't go bumping merrily along the bottom year after year, else the trap door opens and you find yourself down amongst the dead men - imagine if the Brewers could get relegated to AAA.

fsquid · Post by **fsquid** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:02 pm

I would like to compare my beloved Sheffield Wednesday to the Cubs

1. Has better fan support than its neighbor (Sheffield United) no matter how bad it is doing.

2. Plays in an old relic of a stadium (Hillsborough used to be the annual FA Cup Semifinal venue)

3. Has a large group of diehard fans from all over the globe that don't know any better

4. Has a great two years and then goes back to their rightful place in the world.

5. Has a chairperson that doesn't seem to have a clue!

6. Both have managers that are probably overqualified for where they are.

vanburen · Post by **vanburen** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:47 pm

tjung0831 wrote:
pk500 wrote:
The Newcastle-Cubs analogy is spot-on.

Take care,
PK
Paul, I threw that in there just for you!
I think my Sunderland/Royals analogy was pretty accurate too though..

Tim

great list. I used to think blackburn was a closer team to kc royals b/c royals did win a title in 85 and had a high payroll for a while, kind of like blackburn and the '94 title, but now KC is so pathetic they'd surely be relegated, unlike blackburn.

Yanks to ManU is right b/c both have been traditionally dominant teams and big money teams. Chelsea is new money with an unsustainable business plan.

these lists are so weird for me b/c I love baseball, but as a royals fan, I hate mlb now b/c it's so unfair and my team is the least competent of the teams with the cards stacked against them.

Yet, I chose to start following EPL a decade ago, and the problems are almost identical, except I was smart enough not to pick a loser, as I'm an arsenal fan. haha.

tjung0831 · Post by **tjung0831** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 4:13 pm

vanburen wrote:
tjung0831 wrote:
pk500 wrote:
The Newcastle-Cubs analogy is spot-on.

Take care,
PK
Paul, I threw that in there just for you!
I think my Sunderland/Royals analogy was pretty accurate too though..

Tim
great list. I used to think blackburn was a closer team to kc royals b/c royals did win a title in 85 and had a high payroll for a while, kind of like blackburn and the '94 title, but now KC is so pathetic they'd surely be relegated, unlike blackburn.

Yanks to ManU is right b/c both have been traditionally dominant teams and big money teams. Chelsea is new money with an unsustainable business plan.

these lists are so weird for me b/c I love baseball, but as a royals fan, I hate mlb now b/c it's so unfair and my team is the least competent of the teams with the cards stacked against them.

Yet, I chose to start following EPL a decade ago, and the problems are almost identical, except I was smart enough not to pick a loser, as I'm an arsenal fan. haha.

You know what, I love the Royals. I went to more Royals games last year than I did Cardinals games. I'll be going to quite a few Royals games this year. I'm from St. Louis and I love my Cardinals but what our ownership is doing to the fans is just downright uncalled for. They get away with so much crap because the fans are so damn loyal, most of them are basically blind sheep. For instance this is how much power they have over our hardcore fans. The owners took everything that they could sell from the old busch stadium and had a sale where they sold all this stuff for some extremely high prices including urinals. One of these faithful fans was quoted in the paper how great the cardinals owners are and that he couldn't believe that the owners let the fans in for free to the sale! LOL! It's like leading sheep to the slaughterhouse in St. Louis. We have great fans no doubt, very baseball savvy, but the majority only see cardinal red.

vanburen · Post by **vanburen** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 6:47 pm

if I were a cardinal fan, or any for that matter, I wouldn't envy royals fans one bit. we've had 100+ losses 3 of the last 4 years, something no one does. and the year we didn't, we went 83-79 after leading the division by 8 games at the all star break, a lead almost no one gives up. our owner doesn't even live in our city and go to our games.

This team is why I never apologize to soccer fans who question my frontrunning fandom of Arsenal. hey, I'm stuck with KC Royals pretty much for life. I'm not choosing nottingham forest.

tjung0831 · Post by **tjung0831** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:41 pm

vanburen wrote:if I were a cardinal fan, or any for that matter, I wouldn't envy royals fans one bit. we've had 100+ losses 3 of the last 4 years, something no one does. and the year we didn't, we went 83-79 after leading the division by 8 games at the all star break, a lead almost no one gives up. our owner doesn't even live in our city and go to our games.

This team is why I never apologize to soccer fans who question my frontrunning fandom of Arsenal. hey, I'm stuck with KC Royals pretty much for life. I'm not choosing nottingham forest.

Yeah they've struggled for sometime I love going to the ballpark when i'm in KC. I can't get seats 4 rows from the field in St. Louis like I can in KC. While the Royals might not be competetive right now, it's still a major league experience going to the games there with an old time feel.

Jimmydeicide · Post by **Jimmydeicide** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 8:53 pm

Liverpool are like Boston, Passionate fans with realy bad Accents.

tjung0831 · Post by **tjung0831** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 11:19 pm

Jimmydeicide wrote:Liverpool are like Boston, Passionate fans with realy bad Accents.

Hey that works in St. Loosier too!!!

Tim

Inuyasha · Post by **Inuyasha** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:44 am

fsquid wrote:I would like to compare my beloved Sheffield Wednesday to the Cubs

1. Has better fan support than its neighbor (Sheffield United) no matter how bad it is doing.

2. Plays in an old relic of a stadium (Hillsborough used to be the annual FA Cup Semifinal venue)

3. Has a large group of diehard fans from all over the globe that don't know any better

4. Has a great two years and then goes back to their rightful place in the world.

5. Has a chairperson that doesn't seem to have a clue!

6. Both have managers that are probably overqualified for where they are.

That one will be easy to remember. Cubs play on Sheffield Ave...etc..