"At home our fans will get behind us." That's the old cliche, isn't it?
How often will you hear a player come out with some variation of this line when asked about playing at their home ground? Often, the football world in general views a home team as having the advantage, usually due to the overwhelming support that their fans are meant to create in their favour.
But how true is this in the modern game? Two games recently made me think long and hard about this. Both were Liverpool games; one was the away game against Real Madrid and the other was the home game against Sunderland.
In the Madrid game, Liverpool's supporters (the away fans, remember) could be clearly heard above the locals - certainly not something you would expect in a stadium whose capacity is in the 80,000 region. This is not unusual when Liverpool go on their travels, in either the Champions League or domestically. I frequently hear the Reds' travelling fans outsing the home supporters, even on television where crowd sounds are often reduced.
The Sunderland game, on the other hand, provided a stark contrast. The Liverpool home fans were strangely quiet throughout most of the game; something the Black Cats' supporters chose to mention more than once. Only following a couple of Liverpool goals did the home fans "wake up" and begin to sing and chant. Yet still the Sunderland fans gave as good as they got.
This trend is not restricted just to Liverpool; I have merely used them as an example. Even Alex Ferguson has commented in the not-too-distant past that the Old Trafford crowd was unusually quiet. Newcastle United's fans have long been regarded as amongst the noisiest and most supportive in the country, but from what I have seen even that has dwindled of late.
Yet, there are exceptions to this apparent trend. For example, Liverpool's home support for European games is nearly always incredibly loud and passionate. Stoke City have been touted as having the loudest fans in the Premier League. Why is this?
An answer could lie with the fans of Derby County, who during their team's ill-fated spell in the top flight during the 2007-08 season took to "pretending" their team had scored goals just so they could celebrate. It was a rarity for them. And so European football games are a rarity for Liverpool supporters, relative to domestic games. Stoke City may still be relegated this season, so perhaps their fans are enjoying the Premier League while they can?
Another explanation for the dwindling home support is the attitude towards the modern game; specifically the impatience. Supporters now fancy themselves more knowledgeable than ever before, perhaps because of the amount of TV coverage and analysis of the game that is available. This results in far less patience with players and managers, and why there is so much negativity from allegedly 'loyal' home support.
In the past, new players would be given time to adjust and settle in. In the modern game, armchair managers demand they are dropped or sold if they aren't setting the league alight in their first couple of months. Similarly, managers are not afforded time at a lot of clubs if they are not pushing the team to (sometimes unrealistic) expectations. If this attitude had been prevelant in 1989, Alex Ferguson would not currently be the manager of Manchester United. This attitude is, of course, embellished and sensationalised by the media, who need compelling stories to sell their papers or increase their TV ratings.
If a manager loses a few games, it only takes a couple of media outlets to suggest his job is in danger before even more jump on the bandwagon, and then other supporters begin to follow suit. It is the old adage of "repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it".
So where am I going with this? My point is that this attitude manifests itself in supporters who believe they know better than they do, and is why their support at home games is less and less, well, supportive. They believe that Player X "should not be playing" or that Manager Y "does not know what he is doing". Instead of presenting this as opinion, it is presented as fact, and the fans then feel less obliged to sing and support their team because they do not believe they are worthy of it. If their team concedes a goal, they choose not to support them to try and get them back in the match, instead they complain that Defender Z made a mistake and should be dropped.
Contrastingly, most such fans do not have the dedication of the "hardcore" supporters who follow their team around the country (or the continent!) and are, by extension, more 'loyal'. The away supporters are the dedicated ones because they have travelled all the way from Portsmouth to Newcastle on a cold December evening just to support their team. They are the ones who took time off work and spent hundreds of pounds getting flights to the Ukraine just to support their team.
And that is why I believe that away supporters are beginning to surpass home fans as the loudest and most supportive. If this trend continues teams will soon prefer playing away from home so that they can get the better support. And that is truly concerning.
Cheers
Adam
Sunday, 8 March 2009
Friday, 20 February 2009
English Dominance in Europe
The knock-out stages of the UEFA Champions League (the European Cup) are just around the corner, so I thought I'd take this opportunity to look at why the English teams have been doing so well of late in this competition. Let's look at the last four finals:
2005: Liverpool vs AC Milan
2006: Arsenal vs Barcelona
2007: Liverpool vs AC Milan
2008: Chelsea vs Manchester United
It has been said that the bigger European leagues have all had their 'era' of dominance as it were. However, upon closer inspection a glaring difference can be seen. Take a look at the eras for Spain and Italy:
SPAIN
1998: Real Madrid vs Juventus
2000: Real Madrid vs Valencia
2001: Valencia vs Bayern Munich
2002: Real Madrid vs Bayer Leverkusen
ITALY
1989: AC Milan vs Steaua Bucharest
1990: AC Milan vs Benfica
1991: Sampdoria vs Barcelona
1992: AC Milan vs Marseille
1994: AC Milan vs Barcelona
1995: AC Milan vs Ajax
1996: Juventus vs Ajax
1997: Juventus vs Borussia Dortmund
1998: Juventus vs Real Madrid
In both cases, only two teams from the respective leagues made it to the final, with the exception of an appearance from Sampdoria in 1991 (who lost narrowly to Barcelona). And in Spain's case, only Real Madrid claimed the trophy during this time, although they did so on all three occasions, including in the all-Spanish final of 2000.
Italy's case is even more bizarre. Despite having a team in the final almost consistently for a decade, again only AC Milan and Juventus represented their country's league, with Juventus winning one of three (consecutive) finals. AC Milan won three of five finals in six seasons (and also defeated Juventus in the all-Italian final of 2003).
The difference now with this English era of dominance is that we have fielded four different teams over four finals, two of which won it and in the last season, 2007/08, no English team was knocked out by a team from another league (Liverpool beat Arsenal, Chelsea beat Liverpool and Manchester Utd beat Chelsea). This of course led to an all-English final, not unusual since both Spain and Italy have had a final all to themselves before. However, the Chelsea v Manchester Utd game in Moscow was one of the most closely-contested finals in recent European history, and Chelsea were denied victory by the width of a post.
This all leads me to believe that the reason that our game is so strong at the moment is because we have more than just a couple of teams that are able to step up to the challenge of Europe's other elite. For the past few seasons we have had the so-called "Big Four" of Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester Utd. It is commonly agreed that the Italian and Spanish leagues are the next strongest, but who do they have representing them each year?
In Italy, if you disregard points deductions and relegation scandals, you would normally expect the top three to be AC Milan, Inter and Juventus in no particular order. After that, their next European Cup place is one of many (no disrespect) average teams; usually Roma, but their place is under constant threat from the likes of Fiorentina, Udinese, Sampdoria and Lazio. All of these teams would consider a quarter-final appearance to be a major achievement in the Champions League.
In Spain, Barcelona and Real Madrid frequently have the top two spots to themselves. The remainder is filled with two of (usually) Villareal, Valencia, Atletico Madrid or Sevilla. On a couple of occasions even other teams such as Real Betis and Deportivo La Coruna have gatecrashed UEFA's elite competition. And again, these teams would not be the bookies' favourites to win the tournament.
Conclusions
The past few years have been good for the Premier League in Europe. And I see no signs of this changing, even if our teams do. Currently, Aston Villa look on course to upset the applecart and land a place in the big time. And nobody can argue that they will not have done so on merit. So, even with the new qualification rules, I would not bet against Martin O'Neill's side to have a good run in next year's European Cup should they make it.
Our league is growing ever stronger, whilst the other major European leagues stand still and continue as they ever have. I see no reason why English teams cannot continue to stamp their authority on this most prestigious of competitions for the next decade, or even beyond.
Predictions
As a side note, I would just like to offer my thoughts on which teams will progress into the quarter-finals this season. I have indicated the teams I think will win in bold.
Atletico Madrid vs FC Porto
Lyon vs Barcelona
Arsenal vs AS Roma
Internazionale vs Manchester Utd (really tough to call this one)
Real Madrid vs Liverpool
Chelsea vs Juventus
Villareal vs Panathinaikos (shock of the round!)
Sporting Lisbon vs Bayern Munich
Cheers
Adam
2005: Liverpool vs AC Milan
2006: Arsenal vs Barcelona
2007: Liverpool vs AC Milan
2008: Chelsea vs Manchester United
It has been said that the bigger European leagues have all had their 'era' of dominance as it were. However, upon closer inspection a glaring difference can be seen. Take a look at the eras for Spain and Italy:
SPAIN
1998: Real Madrid vs Juventus
2000: Real Madrid vs Valencia
2001: Valencia vs Bayern Munich
2002: Real Madrid vs Bayer Leverkusen
ITALY
1989: AC Milan vs Steaua Bucharest
1990: AC Milan vs Benfica
1991: Sampdoria vs Barcelona
1992: AC Milan vs Marseille
1994: AC Milan vs Barcelona
1995: AC Milan vs Ajax
1996: Juventus vs Ajax
1997: Juventus vs Borussia Dortmund
1998: Juventus vs Real Madrid
In both cases, only two teams from the respective leagues made it to the final, with the exception of an appearance from Sampdoria in 1991 (who lost narrowly to Barcelona). And in Spain's case, only Real Madrid claimed the trophy during this time, although they did so on all three occasions, including in the all-Spanish final of 2000.
Italy's case is even more bizarre. Despite having a team in the final almost consistently for a decade, again only AC Milan and Juventus represented their country's league, with Juventus winning one of three (consecutive) finals. AC Milan won three of five finals in six seasons (and also defeated Juventus in the all-Italian final of 2003).
The difference now with this English era of dominance is that we have fielded four different teams over four finals, two of which won it and in the last season, 2007/08, no English team was knocked out by a team from another league (Liverpool beat Arsenal, Chelsea beat Liverpool and Manchester Utd beat Chelsea). This of course led to an all-English final, not unusual since both Spain and Italy have had a final all to themselves before. However, the Chelsea v Manchester Utd game in Moscow was one of the most closely-contested finals in recent European history, and Chelsea were denied victory by the width of a post.
This all leads me to believe that the reason that our game is so strong at the moment is because we have more than just a couple of teams that are able to step up to the challenge of Europe's other elite. For the past few seasons we have had the so-called "Big Four" of Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester Utd. It is commonly agreed that the Italian and Spanish leagues are the next strongest, but who do they have representing them each year?
In Italy, if you disregard points deductions and relegation scandals, you would normally expect the top three to be AC Milan, Inter and Juventus in no particular order. After that, their next European Cup place is one of many (no disrespect) average teams; usually Roma, but their place is under constant threat from the likes of Fiorentina, Udinese, Sampdoria and Lazio. All of these teams would consider a quarter-final appearance to be a major achievement in the Champions League.
In Spain, Barcelona and Real Madrid frequently have the top two spots to themselves. The remainder is filled with two of (usually) Villareal, Valencia, Atletico Madrid or Sevilla. On a couple of occasions even other teams such as Real Betis and Deportivo La Coruna have gatecrashed UEFA's elite competition. And again, these teams would not be the bookies' favourites to win the tournament.
Conclusions
The past few years have been good for the Premier League in Europe. And I see no signs of this changing, even if our teams do. Currently, Aston Villa look on course to upset the applecart and land a place in the big time. And nobody can argue that they will not have done so on merit. So, even with the new qualification rules, I would not bet against Martin O'Neill's side to have a good run in next year's European Cup should they make it.
Our league is growing ever stronger, whilst the other major European leagues stand still and continue as they ever have. I see no reason why English teams cannot continue to stamp their authority on this most prestigious of competitions for the next decade, or even beyond.
Predictions
As a side note, I would just like to offer my thoughts on which teams will progress into the quarter-finals this season. I have indicated the teams I think will win in bold.
Atletico Madrid vs FC Porto
Lyon vs Barcelona
Arsenal vs AS Roma
Internazionale vs Manchester Utd (really tough to call this one)
Real Madrid vs Liverpool
Chelsea vs Juventus
Villareal vs Panathinaikos (shock of the round!)
Sporting Lisbon vs Bayern Munich
Cheers
Adam
Monday, 9 February 2009
What Makes "A Big Club"?
You hear it all the time don't you? "X Team is a massive club." Usually from players or managers that have just signed on with them. And I heard Harry Redknapp's comments the other day about Robbie Keane, and it got me thinking; what exactly defines a 'big club' in football?
For the record, here is what Harry said:
"I don't get this thing about Robbie struggling at a big club. What is Tottenham? He made it here and he can make it anywhere. Robbie has played for Inter Milan, and Leeds were a massive club when he played for them."
Okay, well ignoring for the time being that Robbie Keane struggled at both Leeds and Inter (and of course Liverpool), here Mr Redknapp is inferring that Tottenham are a 'big club'. Now I don't want to offend Tottenham fans, I want to point out that this was the statement that made me ask myself the question.
The one that always gets me is Newcastle United. It is often said that Newcastle are a "big", "huge" or "massive" club, and I always have to think "but how is it?" How do you measure just how 'big' a club is? By the size of their stadium? By their trophy success? I have decided to look at each of these factors and try to determine once and for all what makes a big club.
Stadium
It can be argued that you can't be considered a massive club unless you have a large stadium in which to host your high-profile games. Newcastle United's St James's Park has a capacity of 52,387. That places it on a higher capacity than the stadia of Chelsea (42,000), Liverpool (45,000), Nottingham Forest (30,000) and Aston Villa (42,000), yet three of these teams have won the Champions League/European Cup, and Chelsea have won the Premier League twice in recent years.
Some other useful stadia to note: Tottenham Hotspur (36,000), Everton (40,500), Sunderland (49,000), Manchester City (47,700), Arsenal (60,300) and Manchester United (76,000). Does this show that a direct correlation cannot be drawn between stadium size and trophy success? Let's see.
Trophy Success
Now personally, this is where I believe the size of a club can truly be measured. After all, the aim of any football club is to win any competition they enter. Let's say we allocate points to the five major trophies, according to their prestige. We can say a League Cup is worth one point, an FA or UEFA Cup two points, a League Title three points and a European Cup five points (owing to its prestige and difficulty to win). So now we can look at all those clubs mentioned earlier and we get the following:
Liverpool - 106pts
Man Utd - 90pts
Arsenal - 61pts
Aston Villa - 45pts
Everton - 37pts
Tottenham Hotspur - 30pts
Newcastle - 24pts
Sunderland - 22pts
Chelsea - 21pts
Nottingham Forest - 21pts
Man City - 16pts
So, of the 6 clubs above Newcastle, four have smaller grounds - in fact you could argue that it is five, since none of Arsenal's trophy successes have come since they relocated to their current stadium. But according to the above, Newcastle, Tottenham and Sunderland are all 'bigger' clubs than recent Premiership champions Chelsea. Indeed it suggests that Nottingham Forest are just as big as them, since they have two European Cups to Chelsea's zero.
What does this prove? Because you certainly would not find any honest Sunderland fan telling you his club was bigger than Chelsea. Yet they have a bigger stadium and, by the above, a better trophy record. Manchester City's stadium is much larger than Everton's, but the Toffees can point to a vastly superior trophy haul. Which club is 'bigger'?
Conclusions
Taking into account the above, I think that when a club is referred to as 'massive', 'huge' and so forth, it really needs to qualify under three criteria:
1) A stadium of at least 30,000 capacity
2) A trophy 'points' haul of at least 20 and, finally, something we have not mentioned
3) A 'major' trophy won within at least the last 20 years
I make point three specifically for teams like Newcastle. I'm sorry to keep making an example of them, but their last major trophy was the FA Cup in 1955. For a club that has gone over half a century without winning anything of note, one cannot claim that it is a 'big' club, no matter how you look at it. They have been relegated from the top flight much more recently than they have won something.
I have long believed that exaggeration plagues our mindset in many things, but especially in sport and specifically football. I believe the term "world class" is thrown around far too much, and perhaps a future blog will address that too. Similarly I think that the term "massive club" is over-used. If you believed everyone who claimed this, then most of the teams in the Premiership, and a few besides, are 'massive clubs', and if that's the case then surely that becomes the norm, and so what makes the truly exceptional stand out?
Clubs like Liverpool, Manchester United and Arsenal are "massive clubs". Clubs like Aston Villa and Newcastle are simply better than average.
For the record, here is what Harry said:
"I don't get this thing about Robbie struggling at a big club. What is Tottenham? He made it here and he can make it anywhere. Robbie has played for Inter Milan, and Leeds were a massive club when he played for them."
Okay, well ignoring for the time being that Robbie Keane struggled at both Leeds and Inter (and of course Liverpool), here Mr Redknapp is inferring that Tottenham are a 'big club'. Now I don't want to offend Tottenham fans, I want to point out that this was the statement that made me ask myself the question.
The one that always gets me is Newcastle United. It is often said that Newcastle are a "big", "huge" or "massive" club, and I always have to think "but how is it?" How do you measure just how 'big' a club is? By the size of their stadium? By their trophy success? I have decided to look at each of these factors and try to determine once and for all what makes a big club.
Stadium
It can be argued that you can't be considered a massive club unless you have a large stadium in which to host your high-profile games. Newcastle United's St James's Park has a capacity of 52,387. That places it on a higher capacity than the stadia of Chelsea (42,000), Liverpool (45,000), Nottingham Forest (30,000) and Aston Villa (42,000), yet three of these teams have won the Champions League/European Cup, and Chelsea have won the Premier League twice in recent years.
Some other useful stadia to note: Tottenham Hotspur (36,000), Everton (40,500), Sunderland (49,000), Manchester City (47,700), Arsenal (60,300) and Manchester United (76,000). Does this show that a direct correlation cannot be drawn between stadium size and trophy success? Let's see.
Trophy Success
Now personally, this is where I believe the size of a club can truly be measured. After all, the aim of any football club is to win any competition they enter. Let's say we allocate points to the five major trophies, according to their prestige. We can say a League Cup is worth one point, an FA or UEFA Cup two points, a League Title three points and a European Cup five points (owing to its prestige and difficulty to win). So now we can look at all those clubs mentioned earlier and we get the following:
Liverpool - 106pts
Man Utd - 90pts
Arsenal - 61pts
Aston Villa - 45pts
Everton - 37pts
Tottenham Hotspur - 30pts
Newcastle - 24pts
Sunderland - 22pts
Chelsea - 21pts
Nottingham Forest - 21pts
Man City - 16pts
So, of the 6 clubs above Newcastle, four have smaller grounds - in fact you could argue that it is five, since none of Arsenal's trophy successes have come since they relocated to their current stadium. But according to the above, Newcastle, Tottenham and Sunderland are all 'bigger' clubs than recent Premiership champions Chelsea. Indeed it suggests that Nottingham Forest are just as big as them, since they have two European Cups to Chelsea's zero.
What does this prove? Because you certainly would not find any honest Sunderland fan telling you his club was bigger than Chelsea. Yet they have a bigger stadium and, by the above, a better trophy record. Manchester City's stadium is much larger than Everton's, but the Toffees can point to a vastly superior trophy haul. Which club is 'bigger'?
Conclusions
Taking into account the above, I think that when a club is referred to as 'massive', 'huge' and so forth, it really needs to qualify under three criteria:
1) A stadium of at least 30,000 capacity
2) A trophy 'points' haul of at least 20 and, finally, something we have not mentioned
3) A 'major' trophy won within at least the last 20 years
I make point three specifically for teams like Newcastle. I'm sorry to keep making an example of them, but their last major trophy was the FA Cup in 1955. For a club that has gone over half a century without winning anything of note, one cannot claim that it is a 'big' club, no matter how you look at it. They have been relegated from the top flight much more recently than they have won something.
I have long believed that exaggeration plagues our mindset in many things, but especially in sport and specifically football. I believe the term "world class" is thrown around far too much, and perhaps a future blog will address that too. Similarly I think that the term "massive club" is over-used. If you believed everyone who claimed this, then most of the teams in the Premiership, and a few besides, are 'massive clubs', and if that's the case then surely that becomes the norm, and so what makes the truly exceptional stand out?
Clubs like Liverpool, Manchester United and Arsenal are "massive clubs". Clubs like Aston Villa and Newcastle are simply better than average.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)