Subject: Re: A Proposal to divide Rec.Sport.Soccer Date: 20 Jan 1998 21:28:16 GMT From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Dustin Christmann) Huw Morris wrote: >Chuck Pearson wrote: >> well, at least huw and steve know what the yanks think of them. 8-) > >You two are just jealous that you don't have any proper rivalries. :-) >Columbus and Chicago? How far apart are they? Several hours by car, but they're probably further than that, in effect. Since Chicago is in the Western Conference and Columbus is in the East, the most that they'll play is twice a year and possibly in the MLS Cup final. Meanwhile, Chicago will be playing Kansas City and Dallas four times each during the regular season and possibly a few more times in the playoffs. As further emphasis, Dallas has played Kansas City 11 times in two seasons: four times during the 1996 regular season, three times in the 1996 playoffs, and four times during the 1997 regular season. Total record: Dallas has five wins and no shootout wins and Kansas City has four wins and two shootout wins. And the personal rivalries are heated, as well. Just last season, one saw the following: * After Mark Santel committed a hard foul in Kansas City on April 18, KC coach Ron Newman dumped water on Santel, provoking a confrontation and fine for Newman. * After the same match, which KC won 2-1, Burn coach Dave Dir fliply asserted that KC didn't play defense. After the Whiz beat the Burn in a shootout after a 1-1 draw on June 6, Whiz goalie Mike Ammann responded that if KC didn't play defense, that he guessed that the Burn didn't play any offense. * In response, the Burn beat the Whiz 3-1 in Kansas City on July 6. Playing in goal for the Burn was backup Garth Lagerwey, who was the starting goalie in Kansas City in 1996 and stopped the Burn in a shootout to send the Burn out of the playoffs, but was unceremoniously cut following the season. After conceding a goal off a deflection, Lagerwey stonewalls his old team, even stopping a penalty kick late in the match. Following the match, he gives a profanity-laced opinion of Newman's player evaluation skills to any and all media members in the dressing room. * In the last regular-season match between the two, the Whiz beat the Burn 2-1 in Dallas on August 2, winning the match on a penalty kick, following a very dubious penalty allegedly committed by Brandon Pollard on Preki. As the two were chasing after a through ball, with Pollard winning the race, Preki runs into his back, sending both tumbling to the field, and the ref pointed to the spot. Only a few minutes earlier, during a player-ref argument, Whiz defender Steve Pittman cheapshots Burn forward Damian. Damian retaliates and gets sent off. * Finally, during the Burn's 3-0 rout of Los Angeles at the Cotton Bowl on October 8 to boot the Galaxy from the playoffs, scoring updates are given from Denver, where the Rapids are battling back from 1-0 down to beat the Whiz. With each Rapids goal announced over the loudspeaker, a roar arises from the Dallas crowd. Not bad for a two-year-old league. As far as Columbus goes, they might have a fledging rivalry going with Tampa Bay, but Tampa seems to be more interested in getting it on with Miami. Maybe the Chicago thing isn't such a bad idea after all. -------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: A Proposal to divide Rec.Sport.Soccer Date: 21 Jan 1998 10:06:19 GMT From: email@example.com (Huw Morris) Oh, c'mon! Every team has other teams they don't like. Leeds and Man Utd are an example in England. That's not the same as a proper local rivalry. It's when the same local paper covers both teams, where half your friends support the other lot and where town bragging rights are at stake each time they play. That can't possibly happen between Dallas and Kansas City. -------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: A Proposal to divide Rec.Sport.Soccer Date: 21 Jan 1998 23:59:42 GMT From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Dustin Christmann) Well, in England you have 92 league clubs in an area smaller than the state of Texas. I'd say that that's going to be difficult to duplicate here, at least outside of the New York metro area, where there are generally at least two teams in every major sport and those teams don't like each other. But even in other parts of the country, you have intense rivalries over hundreds of miles. Houston Rockets fans hate the San Antonio Spurs. Spurs fans hate the Rockets. Texas Longhorns fans hate the oklahoma s00ners. s00ners fans hate the Longhorns. Longhorns hate the aggeez. aggeez hate the Longhorns. Northern California teams' fans hate LA teams. And vice versa. And on and on. What matters is not the geographic proximity, though it helps, but the events between the teams that build bad blood. Things like what happened at the end of the 1993 baseball between the LA Dodgers and San Francisco Giants. The Giants had won over 100 games that season and were fighting tooth-and-nail with the Atlanta Braves for the National League West crown and a trip to the postseason, with the loser staying home. Meanwhile, LA's season had been over for a while. But LA and San Francisco met at the end of the season in a three game series. LA went out and beat the Giants in that series and cost them the division crown, with the Dodgers taunting the Giants the entire way. To this day, Dodgers fans remember it with a sense of pride. If you're a Dodgers fan, it is almost law that you must hate the Giants. And if you're a Giants fan, you must hate the Dodgers. And yet, LA and San Francisco are hundreds of miles apart. Some might point out that both teams used to make their homes in New York, but that was over 40 years ago. Nobody would care unless the rivalry was energized on a regular basis. And even with geographic proximity, there's no guarantee that the two teams will form a rivalry. There's no real Knicks-Nets rivalry, for example. Most Knick fans just don't care about the Nets. Likewise, the Houston Rockets-Dallas Mavericks games are pretty ho hum affairs. As a Rockets fan, I just don't care about playing the Mavericks. But the Spurs! My day is a little brighter every time the Rockets beat the Spurs. And when the Rockets smacked around the Spurs in best-of-seven series each year in the playoffs on their way to two straight titles, I was in heaven each time. I tell you, there's got to be bad blood. That's what building between the Burn and the Whiz. -------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: A Proposal to divide Rec.Sport.Soccer Date: 23 Jan 1998 15:19:35 -0500 From: email@example.com (Jeffrey Winters) Bruce Scott TOK (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote: : Dodger-Giant rivalry goes back to the days when it was Brooklyn vs The : Bronx. Well, actually, Brooklyn vs. New York -- the Giants played at the Polo Grounds in Harlem. Me, I'd love to see an MLS squad in New York City proper, competing against the New Jersey MetroStars, but then I'd like to move the Expos or the Pirates or some such team back to Brooklyn. I'm just a sucker for heated cross-town rivalries. Or how about "life-style" rivalries? In most US states, the college rivalries break along the rural vs. urban fault lines -- Indiana vs. Purdue, Texas vs. A&M, Washington vs. Wazzou, etc. It might take some marketing smarts to develop club personalities that way in MLS (the only pro examples I can think of are the Raiders, Celtics, and Cowboys), but it might be a way to push a handful of teams into a larger public consciousness. Atletico Aztlan, anyone? -------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: A Proposal to divide Rec.Sport.Soccer Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 15:51:48 -0600 From: Stan collins
> Well, actually, Brooklyn vs. New York [...] Well, no, it is Brooklyn and the Bronx. He just has the teams wrong. The Dodgers main rivals were most certainly the Bronx Bombers, the Yankees. Which is part of the point, really. Even if the Giants had been the Dodgers main rival, which they never were, it wouldn't have maintained over their move several hundred miles apart (even if they did head in the same general direction). Dustin's right. There's no reason why an LA Dodgers fan dislikes the GIants because they once played in New York. That fan probably wasn't alive at the time, certainly never rooted for the Dodgers when they were in Brooklyn, and has no particular reason to care. Ask the Baltimore Ravens whether they consider the Cincinnati Bengals cheif rivals. > Or how about "life-style" rivalries? [...] Good point. I think most rivalries at least partially fall along some kind of lifestyle fault lines. It may not boil down to urban vs. rural all that often in the pros (or not nearly as often as it does in college) other issues, such as blue collar vs. white collar are prominent in professional sports rivalries in America. Part of the difference between LA and San Francisco is an 'Old Town' vs 'New Town' kind of thing. A far greater proportion of San Franciscans have lived in the area for quite a while than that of Los Angelinos (at least among the middle class). Los Angeles is so glitzy and glamourous while San Francisco is more of a 'big town' than a city, not so LA. San Francisco has a lot more character and architectural style than LA (or, for that matter, any city in the USA). But much of this is in the teams personnel themselves. Individual incidents between teams that stick in the memory of the fans create rivalry, as Dustin points out. A history between two teams has to be developed, and that can only be accomplished with time. Dallas and KC are forming that kind of thing in a nascent way (but more so than any other two teams, I suspect). Sort of like the Colorado Avalanche and Detroit Red Wings are getting that way through repeated meetings in the playoffs tinged with that extra little bit of violence. > It might take some marketing smarts to develop club personalities that way > in MLS It might or might not work. It's usually not difficult for the fans to tell when it really gets personal with the players. -------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: A Proposal to divide Rec.Sport.Soccer Date: 24 Jan 1998 04:31:24 GMT From: email@example.com (Dustin Christmann) >The Dodgers main rivals were most certainly the Bronx Bombers, the Yankees. Actually, the Dodgers probably had some pretty fierce rivalries with both. After all, they played the Giants 22 times a season (back when there were only eight teams in each league and there were 154 games a season) and especially during the 50s, the National League pennant usually came down to a race between the Dodgers and the Giants. As for the Dodgers and Yankees, the two could only meet in a meaningful game in the World Series, but since so much rode on those games, they were intense to start with, and since they were an intracity game, they were even more intense. >Ask the Baltimore Ravens whether they >consider the Cincinnati Bengals cheif rivals. Do the Bengals even have a true rivalry with anyone? >Good point. I think most rivalries at least partially fall along some kind of >lifestyle fault lines. Or any other time that a region can be split between two groups. For instance, for years, there were only six teams in the NHL, and of those, two were in Canada: the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Montreal Canadiens. People tell me that during that time, the Maple Leafs were English Canada's team, while the Canadiens were French Canada's team, making for a pretty intense rivalry that lasts to this day, even though there are few more Canadian teams. >Part of the difference between LA and San Francisco is an 'Old Town' vs 'New >Town' kind of thing. Oh, there are so many differences between San Francisco and LA that you can hardly begin to make a list. >[...] Dallas and KC are forming that kind of thing >in a nascent way (but more so than any other two teams, I suspect). Well, I'd say that there's some nascent rivalry between the MetroStars and DC United. At least no one's show a bottle rocket at a bench at the Cotton Bowl or Arrowhead Stadium. >Sort of like the Colorado Avalanche and Detroit Red Wings are getting that >way through repeated meetings in the playoffs tinged with that extra little >bit of violence. When that cheap-shot artist Claude Lemieux is out on the ice, a little extra violence is a given. Look up the number of penalty minutes from Wednesday's Avalanche-Stars game. > [Marketing ploys] might or might not work. My observation is that marketing-driven rivalries don't tend to catch. If there's no reason for the fans to care, then they won't. -------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: A Proposal to divide Rec.Sport.Soccer Date: 24 Jan 1998 22:01:08 +0100 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Bruce Scott TOK) A perfect example of a cross-town rivalry which also incorporates a perceived lifestyle clash is, of course, FC Bayern vs 1860 Munich. -------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: A Proposal to divide Rec.Sport.Soccer Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 21:20:59 GMT From: email@example.com (Paul Louis) IMHO the best example of a cross-town clash with cultural overtones is Esteghal vs Pirouzi, both of Tehran, since Esteghal were traditionally the Shah's team while Pirouzi were the people's. Then if you add religion to the mix you get Celtic vs Rangers, probably the most intense local derby of them all. ======================= Subject: Re: rivalries (was Re: A Proposal to divide Rec.Sport.Soccer) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:49:31 -0600 From: Stan collins Andrew McGregor wrote: > On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Stan collins wrote: > > Well, no, it is Brooklyn and the Bronx. He just has the teams wrong. The > > Dodgers main rivals were most certainly the Bronx Bombers, the Yankees. Which > > utter bollocks. Had you merely challenged me, you'd be merely incorrect. I probably would have let it slide. (I did last time somebody asserted that the Giants were the Dodgers main rivlas). But no, you had to go and pop off. The first soruce you might have thought to check was the Dodgers themselves. The official Brooklyn Dodgers website (endorsed by the LA Dodgers) "Brooklyn Dodgers: the original America's team" lists it's mission under is Yahoo description (search: "Brooklyn Dodgers") "following the Brooklyn Dodgers in their quest to beat their crosstown rivals, the New York Yankees. Site includes other Dodger info and links." This is Dodger great Duke Snyder's statement about what the Dodgers meant: We were always the sentimental favorites and not because it was until 1955 to win our first World Series. The Yankees were admired, but the Dodgers were loved. The Yankees were the ultimate professionals--they even wore pinstrips. We were the colorful, scrappy underdogs. Someone said, "Rooting for the Yankees is like rooting for General Motors," but the whole world had a great time rooting for the Dodgers. You had to love a team that had guys named Pee Wee, Oisk, Skoonj, Preacher, and the name the writers gave me--The Duke of Flatbush. Later we picked up Campy and the Big Newk. We had some unique names on the management side with Branch, Buzzie and Leo the Lip. Our batboy was "The Brow." We sounded like an assortment of characters out of Damon Runyon, and in many ways we were." Duke Snider(The Duke of Flatbush) Interesting, isn't it, that a definition of Dodgerhood includes a definition of the Yankees, but not the Giants? He could hardly get a sentence out of his mouth that didn't include the Yanks. (Clearly it's also a manifestation of that "lifestyle rivalry" kind of thing) > How could they be rivals when not in the same league. > This means in most seasons they wouldn't even play each other. I agree > the worlds series games between them would be hard fought but theses > would be few and far between compared to dodgers - giants game. Most seasons they didn't play each other, eh? Can you tell me how often they played? Save it, because I can. Brooklyn's World Series opponent was the Yankees seven appearances *in a row*. Every single time the Dodgers made the Series after 1920, they met the Yankees, and for the first five times, they lost. (1941, 1947, 1949, 1952, 1953) They finally beat the Bronx Bombers in 1955, but promptly lost again to them in 1956. By the time the Dodgers would make the Series again (in 1959), they would be the Los Angeles Dodgers. > damn, and you're american (and i'm not) This explains a lot. Your misperception is one of regular season games vs. Series games. Do you know how many regular season baseball games there are? I mean, the precise number is 162 but do you know what that means? Well, as much as MLS critiques have centered on the meaninglessness of regular season games, an individual regular season game in baseball *never* meant anything. The 7 games at the end produces the champion that the 162 previuos games didn't. The Dodgers and Giants very seldom met with anything serious on the line in that one game. the only excpetion that comes to mind is the one-game playoff in which Bobby Thompson hit the 'Shot Heard Round the World." But the Yankees were the primary obstacle to Dodgers championships again and again, whereas the Dodgers mostly got the better of the Giants (not that the G-men were poor, they made the Series in 1951, 1954, 1957, and 1958). So asking after the identity of the NY Giants main rivals (Dodgers? Yanks? Braves?) is a complicated question, but asking the identity of the Brooklyn Dodgers main rivals is not. It's the Yankees, cut and dried.