May 9, 1997 RFK v Cotton Bowl (Dustin Christman)
June 1, 1997 Rangers and Manchester United in Europe (Snaps)
see also
The 1966 World Cup And Other Controversies
========================================================
Subject: Re: Burn fan at RFK/DC an orgy of violence!
From: dustinc@bnr.ca (Dustin Christmann)
Date: May 9, 1997
Tommy wrote:
>On Thu, 8 May 1997, pulgao wrote:
>>
>> [That away fans are welcomed with open arms at RFK Stadium]
>>
>
> [That DC United fans are rabid animals that belong in cages and being an
> away fan at RFK is taking your life into your own hands.]
The evidence seems to support the latter viewpoint. From the May 1 Washington
Post:
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/dcunited/daily/may/01/united1.htm)
[Tightened security at DC United home games will in the future include video
surveillance, "no-tolerance policy", police patrol wagon stationed outside RFK,
and arrests instead of ejections for fighting/missile-throwing.
United home games are staffed by between 32 and 42 D.C. police officers and
70 to 89 crowd control personnel, depending on whether attendance is expected
to surpass 20,000.
Much of the trouble is caused by fans who stand the entire game singing and
dancing, while others behind them prefer to sit.
But during the Apr 5 game v MY/NJ Metrostars, a bottle rocket was fired and
struck NY/NJ equipment manager, while Roberto Donandoni was almost hit by
a bottle.
Other counter- measures will include public service announcements, fliers,
family-seating section,and DC Utd and RFK stadium attempting "to make
the games as enjoyable as can be"]
==========
Dustin's Personal Opinion [tm]: RFK is a dump anyway. Out of the seven
MLS stadia that I've been to, RFK is by far the worst from a fan's perspec-
tive. Many of the stands are old, wooden, and look as if they could be dis-
mantled with a couple of wrenches. The facilities are also a bit subpar, and
the security has been suspect. No wonder the late Jack Kent Cooke spent his
own money to build a new home for the Redskins. The opinion of a fellow
Burn fan upon assuming his seat at the USA-Guatemala WC qualifier in November:
"This is an NFL stadium?"
I'll even go one step further and say that it's the worst in the league, since
I can't imagine Giants Stadium, Mile High, or Tampa Stadium being any worse.
The really sad part is that it's not even close to being the oldest stadium in
the league. The Rose Bowl, the Cotton Bowl, Ohio Stadium, Mile High Stadium,
and Spartan Stadium are all older, yet are better stadia.
=========================================================
Subject: Re: Burn fan at RFK/DC an orgy of violence!
From: dustinc@bnr.ca (Dustin Christmann)
Date: May 9, 1997
Boz Sabeti wrote:
>Unlike most MLS pitches, the field is regulation-sized.
Yes, but according to the Laws of the Game, all MLS pitches are legal. If
we go according to a stricter standard, what FIFA requires for international
matches, then the standard is as follows:
"...the length shall be not more than 120 yards nor less than 110 yards and
the breadth not more than 80 yards nor less than 70 yards."
In such a case, the following MLS pitches pass muster:
Mile High Stadium: 74 yards x 116 yards
Cotton Bowl: 71 yards x 116 yards
Rose Bowl: 72 yards x 116 yards
Foxboro Stadium: 72 yards x 116 yards
RFK Stadium: 72 yards x 110 yards
The following do not:
Ohio Stadium: 62 yards x 106 yards
Arrowhead Stadium: 69 yards x 110 yards
Giants Stadium: 66 yards x 116 yards
Spartan Stadium: 65 yards x 106 yards
Houlihan's Stadium (nee Tampa Stadium): 68 yards x 116 yards
(This according to MLSNET)
Does your definition of most mean fifty percent? In any case, this still
doesn't change the fact that RFK is a dump.
>Unlike most MLS pitches (particularly the laughable "grass" at the Cotton
>Bowl), the field is in top-notch condition.
Boz, allow me to ask a personal question: Do you have rich relatives who
are alumni of UIC? After all, I'm wondering how someone whose memory is so
pathetically short can remain at a college for more than one semester.
Are you trying to suggest to the readers of this newsgroup that the current
state of the grass at the Cotton Bowl is not unusual, that it's the usual
state of affairs at Fair Park? Get thee to some tapes of Dallas home games
from last season, or ones from the World Cup.
(Actually, being a budding expert on Bozology, I'm following Boz's chain of
thought perfectly here: The field at the Cotton Bowl is currently crap,
therefore it has always been crap and will always be crap. It's indicative
of the Dallas attitude toward soccer, and shows why Dallas doesn't deserve
an MLS team, dammit!)
Moreover, every MLS pitch that I'd seen on TV was in good shape (with the
notable exception of ours). Does your definition of "most" means "just
Dallas?" But it still doesn't change the fact that RFK is a dump.
>Unlike most MLS stadia, RFK is marvelously accessible via both car and train.
Which I'll grant you, but it's still a dump, even if there were teleportation
chambers next to the concession stands.
>Unlike many MLS cities right now, RFK Stadium attracts fans --
>almost 25,000 of them per game (even with -all- home games shown live or
>SDD on HTS).
It's amazing what a championship will do for the attendance for a team that
ranked SEVENTH OUT OF TEN last season. Far be it from me, though, to invoke
the term "bandwagon."
>[Observers take note: Dustin's Dallas Burn, at that architectural landmark
>known as the Cotton Bowl, are averaging a thunderous 8,834 thus far]
And we've been a boisterous 8,834 a game, baby!
>After the Rose Bowl, RFK Stadium has the greatest soccer tradition (which
^^^^^^^^^^^
>is the 1990s, of course) in America.
You misspelled "Foxboro Stadium" or "Giants Stadium."
>While the Cotton Bowl breaks stadium records for tractor pulls and Rodney
>Joe motorcycle extravaganzas,
How pithy. How humorous. How utterly and completely divorced from fact.
Tell you what, Boz. If you can find any evidence of a tractor pull or
motocross event being staged in the Cotton Bowl in the last two years, I'll
send you your very own Dips United replica. And hey, I'll even spring for
lettering and numbering, so you can have "Boz" on your shirt and for once
be #1.
>the largest crowd for any event in RFK Stadium's storied history comes in
>the form of an Olympic soccer match last year between the USA and Portugal.
Little bit of Cotton Bowl trivia: To accomodate the larger soccer field,
there is removable seating along the sides of field and corners, which are
of course, removed for soccer and replaced for football. Therefore, seating
capacity for soccer will always been smaller than for football.
This, of course, explains why the record crowd for any event at the Cotton
Bowl is not one of the sellouts at the World Cup, but rather, is a tie held
by numerous University of Texas-University of Oklahoma games and numerous
New Year's Day Cotton Bowl games.
RFK, designed to accomodate both baseball and football, has no such worries.
>Of course who can forget World Cup '94, where the Cotton Bowl struggled
>for some matches while RFK was at near-capacty for every game.
Say Boz, I'm having trouble remembering something. One stadium holds 15,000
more than the other but I can't remember which one. For that matter, I'm
having trouble remembering which stadium hosted teams like Italy and Mexico
and which hosted teams like Bulgaria and South Korea.
I know that you're a poor student whose limited resources at the student paper
preclude any heavy-duty research, but maybe you can pull up your web browser
and let me know. (And since you're an avid reader of na-soccer, you can
also pull up Stephen Halchuk's treatise on why it's a bit unfair to rip
Dallas' World Cup attendances, which he posted a couple of months back.
After all, knowing that you're the paragon of fairness, well above taking
cheap shots, you obviously saved it.)
>Message is clear: soccer fans flock to RFK Stadium, no matter if it lacks
>a Jumbotron or a retractable roof -- not to mention desperate
>marketing ploys found out at some MLS locales like Dallas with their
>cheerleaders and frequent hits of canned music ("get up off
>your seats Burn fans and lets chant Ole!").
And I'm POSITIVE that Dips United have never, ever, ever once thought about
playing a wee bit of canned music, have they? (Never mind that in my visits
to other MLS stadia, I found that Dallas' use of canned music, relatively
speaking, was a bit... reserved.)
Incidentally, when you wrote about "desparate marketing ploys," I was remin-
ded of a man dressed in a dippy eagle-wearing-a-Dips-United-uniform suit.
Is that Thor Lee in that suit?
>> the security has been suspect. No wonder the late Jack Kent Cooke spent his
>> own money to build a new home for the Redskins. The opinion of a fellow
>> Burn fan upon assuming his seat at the USA-Guatemala WC qualifier in November:
>> "This is an NFL stadium?"
>
>So Tex Schramm and the Dallas Cowboys were in total satisfaction when they
>deserted the Cotton Bowl *two decades* ago?
Try 25 years ago.
Moreover, I never said any of the following:
a) The Cotton Bowl is an NFL stadium.
b) The Cotton Bowl is a wonderful stadium and tons better than the RFK dump.
Frankly, the Cotton Bowl isn't that terrific. But just because the Cotton
Bowl is a bit dubious doesn't make RFK any less of a dump.
>According to news reports, the new 'security policy' worked out
>glitch-free for last Friday's game against LA. The problem thus far had
>been that RFK officials were not making full use of the security measures
>available to them, as they had for the World Cup and Olympics.
Whatta shock! Arresting troublemakers cuts down on in-stadium incidents!
Whatta stroke of genius by those wunderkinds over at RFK! I'm SURE that no
one had thought of that before, least of all those slackers in Dallas.
>There will always be a few potentially disruptive individuals whenever you
>attract a large crowd to an outdoor stadium. No worry for Dallas here.
Care to compare the highest-ever attendances for Dips United and the Burn?
(Wait a minute. I have to revert to Bozology here. Dips United have drawn
well for their first few home games, therefore they have always drawn well
and will always draw well. By the same token, the Burn are drawing poorly for
their first few home games, therefore they have always drawn poorly and will
always draw poorly. It's crystal clear now.)
>> I'll even go one step further and say that it's the worst in the league,
>> [...]
>
>Your partisanship shines through quite pathetically here, Dustin.
>The paragraph speaks volumes of the frustration you must be feeling as
>one of the 10 Burn fans still left, and we will just leave it at that.
Partisanship? Perhaps you can explain this one to me, Boz. Are you imply-
ing that since I don't like Dips United, I am trying to make the case that
RFK is a dump? Well, don't you worry about that. I like the Gals even less,
but I think that the Rose Bowl is a wonderful stadium. A bit difficult to
get to, but still wonderful.
The ironic thing is that your partisanship is even more apparent here. When
I wrote the article to which you responded, there was a thought in the back
of my mind that it would get a few salty responses from irate Dips United fans
unable to accept the fact that there is a single flaw with their team. Your
name even crossed my mind fleetingly. It appears that my hunch was correct.
The sad thing is, Boz, once again you have taken up a quixotic quest to
shoot down my opinions which, you may one day learn, are not the product of
an undying, slavish devotion to my team, but rather, a product of personal
experience, introspection, and research. I will grant you that they are not
irrefutable nor infallable, they only seem that way when you make such an in-
ferior effort at trying.
For future reference, I'll give you two tips:
1) When someone is making the case that something is bad, it is not generally
effective to try to refute that case by trying to make the case that something
else is worse, especially when one doesn't have anything to do with the other.
For example, when I say that RFK is a dump, saying that the Cotton Bowl is a
dump doesn't make RFK less dumpy.
2) Learn the difference between the changing and the unchanging. Dips United's
current superiority in attendance over the Burn is something that is subject
to change. The Burn still have 12 home games yet to play. The current sorry
state of the Cotton Bowl field is subject to change. Grass grows relatively
easily. RFK's sorry state is unchanging, at least in the forseeable future.
Accept the fact that RFK is a dump. It may have fans, it may have atmos-
phere, it may have swaying stands (which incidentally, doesn't exactly imply
structural soundness), but it's still a dump. The truly sad part is that
is only 36 years old. At least the 60-odd-year-old Cotton Bowl has an excuse
if it occasionally looks worn at the edges.
=========================================================
Subject: Re: Burn fan at RFK/DC an orgy of violence!
From: Boz Sabeti
Date: May 10, 1997
>Are you trying to suggest to the readers of this newsgroup that the current
>state of the grass at the Cotton Bowl is not unusual, that it's the usual
>state of affairs at Fair Park? Get thee to some tapes of Dallas home games
>from last season, or ones from the World Cup.
Does thee understand that "is" implies present-tense?
Now that you realize that most simple of aspects in reading comprehension,
here is the re-issue:
The field at the Cotton Bowl IS in a cattle-over-grazed-it state.
The field at RFK Stadium IS in top-notch condition.
If memory serves me correct, did you not have the gall to call the Cotton
Bowl field crew "the best in the league" -- even after that embarrasing
home opener?
>Moreover, every MLS pitch that I'd seen on TV was in good shape (with the
>notable exception of ours). Does your definition of "most" means "just
>Dallas?" But it still doesn't change the fact that RFK is a dump.
I appreciate your confession. I will also confess my mistake, in using
"most" rather than "many" in reference to the field size.
>It's amazing what a championship will do for the attendance for a team that
>ranked SEVENTH OUT OF TEN last season. Far be it from me, though, to invoke
>the term "bandwagon."
So why did DC United get almost 25,000 for its final regular season game
LAST SEASON and average 23,000 for its three playoff games LAST SEASON?
After Los Angeles, DC United led MLS in playoff gates LAST SEASON.
You do not want me to bring up the Cotton Bowl figures for the Burn's two
playoff games last season. How does the phrase "outdrawn by the local
indoor soccer team" sound?
As ERic V, a Dallas Burn fan, mentioned earlier on the NAS mailing list:
Burn attendances have been on a steady fall down-hill since the beginning
of last season.
Now, they have just fallen off the cliff.
>And we've been a boisterous 8,834 a game, baby!
I noticed you have removed the "MLS is a sham!" slogan from your
signature. So you now have your Mexican; you have your Salvadoran; you
have your World Cup superstar. But yet only 12,000 on a Sunday afternoon
against the league's best team with a local TV blackout.
What excuse is next, baby?
>>While the Cotton Bowl breaks stadium records for tractor pulls and Rodney
>>Joe motorcycle extravaganzas,
>
>How pithy. How humorous. How utterly and completely divorced from fact.
Humor -- ever try it before?
>From the tone of your message, it would aid you greatly to lighten up,
Dustin. Anyone who is emotionally racked by an Internet newsgroup flame
war is in serious need for some fresh air. Or better yet, employment.
>Say Boz, I'm having trouble remembering something. One stadium holds 15,000
>more than the other but I can't remember which one. For that matter, I'm
>having trouble remembering which stadium hosted teams like Italy and Mexico
>and which hosted teams like Bulgaria and South Korea.
What excuse is to be brought for the 44,000 at the Nigeria-Bulgaria game?
DC's lowest crowd (and might I add RFK was also trimmed for security
reasons) was a 53,000 crowd for the ever-glamorous Belgium v Saudi Arabia
match on a Wednesday afternoon.
>And I'm POSITIVE that Dips United have never, ever, ever once thought about
>playing a wee bit of canned music, have they? (Never mind that in my visits
>to other MLS stadia, I found that Dallas' use of canned music, relatively
>speaking, was a bit... reserved.)
DC United fans correct me if I'm wrong, but the "Macarena" doesn't blare
from the PA system while John Harkes is commanding the midfield.
One of the more depressing sights and sounds to this disappointing Major
League Soccer season thus far was witnessing Carlos Valderrama in action
while the Spice Girls' "wannabe" was blasted through the Tampa Stadium
speakers.
An occassional "We will rock you" bit during a lull in proceedings is
fine, but turning the PA into a Top 40 juke box during the action is
ludicrous. The artificial "Ole" soundbite is mindless as well. From what
I have seen this season, these things don't happen in New York, LA, San
Jose or DC (I haven't seen a Revs home game yet). Dallas is not supposed
to be a small market club.
>Incidentally, when you wrote about "desparate marketing ploys," I was remin-
>ded of a man dressed in a dippy eagle-wearing-a-Dips-United-uniform suit.
>Is that Thor Lee in that suit?
The International Olympic Committee uses it; FIFA uses it; it is called a
mascot. If you have not noticed, many English Premier League clubs --
including some of the 'big' teams -- have mascots. It's for the kids.
>>So Tex Schramm and the Dallas Cowboys were in total satisfaction when they
>>deserted the Cotton Bowl *two decades* ago?
>
>Try 25 years ago.
Furthering the point.
>Frankly, the Cotton Bowl isn't that terrific. But just because the Cotton
>Bowl is a bit dubious doesn't make RFK any less of a dump.
There is no denying that RFK Stadium is physically "a dump." Its PA
system is a disgrace, too many parts of the lower deck could be considered
an obstructive view and there is no Sony Trinitron.
But RFK Stadium possesses attributes modern technology cannot create. It
provides for an absorbing atmosphere, as the structure gives you that
close-up coziness not possible with a 80-90-100,000 capacity, entirely
terraced monuments like the Rose Bowl, Ohio Stadium, Tampa Stadium, etc.
>>There will always be a few potentially disruptive individuals whenever you
>>attract a large crowd to an outdoor stadium. No worry for Dallas here.
>
>Care to compare the highest-ever attendances for Dips United and the Burn?
Most definately, as it profoundly proves how the Burn's nose-dive at the
gate is not a 1997 phenomenon:
Dallas Burn '96 first home game - about 35,000 (largest crowd to date for Burn)
Dallas Burn '96 final home game - about 9,000
(Please don't tell me that 35,000 last season on Cinco De Mayo for the
Mexico v Boliva friendly was there to see the Burn.)
Dallas Burn '97 first home game - about 10,000
What makes my arguments apologist-free, unlike yours, in this entire
back-and-forth barrrage is that I am neither a resident of the DC area nor
am I a DC United supporter. I reside in Chicago, and a fan of the
yet-to-be-named Chicago MLS team.
I, just as the Dallas metropolitan area, could frankly care less about the
Dallas Burn.
I understand it is hard to swallow, but RFK Stadium is the FIRST and ONLY
major soccer-primary stadium in America. RFK Stadium is currently known
as the home of DC United, who is listed as its primary tenant.
So in the latter stages of this season as the Rose Bowl, Tampa Stadium,
Ohio Stadium, Mile High Stadium, Foxboro Stadium, Arrowhead Stadium have
gridirion carvings galore, there will be a soccer field in place at RFK
Stadium.
Meanwhile, the Cotton Bowl is currently known as the home of Southern
Methodist University football and the annual New Years Day football game.
In 1998, it will be the home of a startup professional Spring football
league.
Oh, and the Dallas Burn also play there.
You can search the Internet all you wish Dustin, as it merely shows how
much time you sadly have on your hands. My newspaper office is closed for
recess and I am not ready to make a long-distance phone call from my home
to the Cotton Bowl office so that Dustin Christmann can get his kicks on
the Internet.
Even if the opportunity to spend an entire day of my life searching the
Internet for a useless newsgroup flame war did arise, I will gladly pass.
As I will do in this instance.
=========================================================
Subject: Re: Burn fan at RFK/DC an orgy of violence!
From: dustinc@bnr.ca (Dustin Christmann)
Date: May 12, 1997
Boz Sabeti wrote:
[SNIP!]
>There is no denying that RFK Stadium is physically "a dump."
You know, you could have saved yourself a lot of writing, dubious research,
pop psychology, summary of the blatantly obvious, and speculation on how my
days are spent by just writing this in the first place.
(BTW, did you see that fan evade the stone wall that is RFK security, and
hassle the ref on Saturday after he called the penalty?)
[SNIP!]
=========================================================
Subject: Re: Burn fan at RFK/DC an orgy of violence!
From: dustinc@bnr.ca (Dustin Christmann)
Date: May 14, 1997
Ariel Mazzarelli wrote:
>Dustin, I don't even understand why you waste your time with a prick
>that trumpets the virtues of espn as though he actually had a job there.
>I can understand that someone might suck anal fluids if they were getting
>a paycheck, but this bozo sabeti seems to just enjoy the flavor on its own...
You have Benny. I have Boz.
======================
======================
Subject: Let's vote!!!
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 18:05:55 GMT
From: Snaps@kavana.u-net.com (Snaps)
A. Birmingham City -- Maradona (1995).
B. Blackburn Rovers -- Cantona (1996).
C. Glasgow Rangers -- Ronaldo (1997)
Which of these three failed transfer bids represents the ultimate
example of a medium-sized club electing to embarrass themselves by
getting ideas way, way, way beyond their station?
I'm going for B.
-------------------------
Subject: Re: Let's vote!!!
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 21:31:57 GMT
From: Snaps@kavana.u-net.com (Snaps)
"Seriously Concerned Jambo" wrote:
>[Rangers have] still outperformed their English equivalent
>4 times out of 5 since the Champions League started.
You mean once out of five, of course. In fact it was the first one. What
does that tell you?
>Why do Rangers get to be shite when you never said the same about MU x 2,
>Leeds and Blackburn ?
Blackburn *were* shit. Everyone in England knows this. They still picked
up more points than Rangers that season, who were apparently only
unlucky.
>Bias ? Prejudice ? Total ignorance ?
Are only the mildest of your problems.
>Ludicrous statement. MU tried their best and lost 5 games in 10.
Whereas Rangers were far more efficient in losing 5 in 6, unluckily
ending their Champions League campaign as 16th best of the 16 teams.
Damn unlucky.
> Rangers concentrated on winning nine-in-a-row at home
[...]
> To say Rangers played their best is idiotic.
Troll!
I can just imagine Walter Smith as his side prepared to take on Ajax at
Ibrox -- "I don't want to see any effort whatsoever from you lads
tonight in what is the worlds most prestigious club competition. Save
your legs for Saturday -- we've got Kilmarnock and it's important that
we stretch our lead to 15 points." [non-patois version]
>MU lost 5 out of 10. They were obviously out of their depth.
>The only reason they made the semi's was through UEFA constantly
>making things easier for losers.
Pray tell, who *should* have been in the semi-finals at United's
expense? Milan? Rangers? Fenerbahce? Porto? Valletta?
>Last year they drew twice (2-2, 2-2) with Dortmund - and
>that was a full strngth Dortmund not the reserve outfit Manc played.
They also lost 4-0 and 4-1 to Juventus -- and that was wasn't the World
and European champions that United played. Works both ways, sonny.
>Rangers will alomost certainly outperform both English efforts next year.
>It wouldn;t be the first time.
In England we are a damn sight more ambitious than to be satisfied with
merely finishing above Scotland. We did that last season, at both club
and international level (then again, who didn't?) -- it's no great
shakes.
That said, I suspect your prediction will be about as fruitful as your
earlier trumpeting of the magnificent Poland team that were going to
knock us out of the World Cup last Saturday. I suppose it's to be
expected from someone who claims, with no tinge of irony, that
Scotland's qualifying group is tougher than England's. On the eye,
maybe.......
After 8 successive attempts at the Champions Cup, only one of which
hasn't ended in abject humiliation, I'd have thought that you people
would stop making predictions.
>This year was a fluke for English sides.
But it's *always* a fluke when we outperform Scotland, isn't it?
Remember our fluke win at Wembley? Or our fluke performances in managing
to get beyond the first round of all those World Cup tournaments, whilst
Scotland were being 'desperately unlucky' when drawn against such tour
de forces as Peru, Iran and Costa Rica.
Remind me, when was the last year that Scotland had two survivors in
Europe after Christmas -- you may include as many flukey performances as
you like. (And I'm going easy on you, bearing in mind that England had
three this year).
>MU had a piss-easy group where they could rely on Rapid Vienna for 6 points.
In a similar vein, Rangers had a piss-easy group where they could rely
on Grassh...... D'oh!!!
Just read this posting from last August, after the draws were made:
x-static@dial.pipex.com (Alasdair Allan) wrote:
"Jus watch and weep when Rangers lift the Champions Cup this year while
Man U are sitting at home having been put out
by Fenerbache.
[...]
Currently Rangers are demonstrating just how good a Scots club can be
and are miles ahead of Man Utd who are unlikely
to get past the group stage. Rangers are quite likely to win their
group.
[...giggle]
But this year it is Rangers that have the better chance in the Champions
League."
We hear this type of stuff every year. It's to your credit that it never
stops being funny.
>They would not have qualified from any other group.
Well...maybe we'd have qualified from the group that had Porto in it....
In case you failed to notice, Group A, with Juventus-United-Vienna-Fenerbahce
was the highest ranked of all four groups -- with the holders, two eventual
semi-finalists and a finalist from the previous season's CWC. The best team
in Rangers group ended up getting blitzed 6-2 by Juve. Imagine what the new
Italian champions could have done to the *worst* team in Rangers group (ie.
Rangers).
>All other English sides lost to the first decent side they played.
I don't know, I'd say the likes of Metz and Sion were decent sides. I
can't remember the last time a Scottish team eliminated anyone from
France (and neither can you, I'll warrant). As for Sion, well they are
Swiss and neither Rangers or Celtic managed to escape their last visit
to this teeming land-mass without being righteously thrashed. Although
both teams were unlucky and probably had loads of injuries and the moon
was in the fourth-quarter etc, etc.
Just to satisfy my curiosity, who would you consider is the strongest
team to be eliminated from Europe by a Scottish club in the 90's? (Bear
in mind that I said "strongest", so you would be damned by your own
conclusions if you say Leeds).
Being biased, I would say that the best English performance of this
decade in European competition was United beating Barcelona in the 1991
CWC Final, closely followed by their recent destruction of Porto. I
would also give credit to Arsenal for eliminating the likes of Parma,
Torino, Sampdoria, PSG and Auxerre; Norwich for beating Bayern in
Munich; Liverpool for coming from 2-0 down to knock-out Auxerre; Leeds
for their gang-rape of Monaco last season and their great victories over
Stuttgart a few years back; Spurs for a wonderful blitzing of Porto;
Villa for beating Inter twice and knocking them out of the UEFA Cup when
they were holders; piss-ant Forest for knocking out a couple of
eminently forgettable French teams.
Does Scotland of the 90's have any other trophy in it's locker apart
from a victory at Elland Road?
>English teams are shite in Europe. End of story.
Until the day that another country on the face of this continent lays
claim to more European trophies than us, I'll keep laughing.
At the current rate of success of 3 European trophies in 41 years,
Scotland will reach England's 1997 total in the year 2284.
Set your cryogenic alarm clock for that one.
-------------------------
Subject: Re: Let's vote!!!
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 17:24:37 GMT
From: Snaps@kavana.u-net.com (Snaps)
"Amused Jambo" wrote:
>Compare the teams that they played. Blackburn were hammered by the
>Champions of Russia. Rangers played Juve and Dortmund. Bit of a
>difference.
But you are unwilling to use the same logic when the English team are in
a tougher group -- as United were last season, and as England are in
their WC qualifying section.
And Rangers still finished rock bottom of that table! Just as they did
this year from what is roundly acknowledged as the easiest group!
>As I have already explained, they played their Champions' League campaign
>with the most injury-hit squad in Europe.
In your opinion. It's the same tired old excuses being rotated every
time.
1995-96 - Unlucky draw "Group of Death"
1996-97 - Oh shit, easy group. Umm... injuries??? Yes, that'll do.
1997-98 - Preliminary rounds are unfair........ anyway we were
concentrating on *breaking* Celtic's record and winning 10 in a row.....
1998-99 - Unlucky draw "Group of Death"
Encore, encore.....
>They never had the luxury of playing with the same team twice and in the
>home game v Ajax had to give Scott Wilson a debut.
United never played the same team twice in any competition all season!
Plus, we gave a debut to Van Der Gouw in the away game at Dortmund,
where no-one on earth could claim we looked out of our depth.
>MU's performance at Leicester in the CCC showed that MU would have done no
>better (in fact, they would probably have done worse) with th same levels
>of injuries.
Exactly how is it possible to do worse?
>attitude where Rangers' fans have been happy to merely be better than
>Celtic and vice versa.
If they are trying to out-do Celtic then it surely follows that they
would have to concentrate on the European Cup -- not ignore it in
preference for a league title as you claim. What insult do you imagine
Celtic fans are going to be ramming down Rangers throats next season?
In any case, you are wrong to claim Rangers deliberately under-performed
in the European Cup this season. You know it, I know it, everyone knows
it. That would be like fielding an under-strength team in a World Cup
final.
Apart from that your flailing use of selective logic is so haphazard
that it's almost as if you are an English poster doing a well-observed
parody of the little Scotlander mentality.
You say Rangers didn't care about Europe -- if so they would surely have
taken the choice to lose to Alania Vladikavkaz in the preliminaries. But
just in case that story doesn't stick you also talk about injuries being
the determinant factor in their failure. You then take it even further
and claim, insanely, that they were in a far tougher group than ManU and
would have qualified handsomely if the roles were switched. Make your
mind up and stick to one story that isn't going to contradict itself.
You are throwing wild punches in the hope that you can land a few. That
isn't how this sort of thing works. Precision is the key to success.
>(incidentally, had Rangers played as they did against Alania
>in their group, they'd have won easily. Had they been fortunate enough to
>draw MU, this converation would now be about the thrashing MU suffered.
>They'd have swept you away).
If only, if only, if only. There's always an excuse - because you always
need one. If only we hadn't drawn Brazil, if only we hadn't missed that
penalty, if only we were the hosts, if only we were in your group.
There's always a luck-based explanation for England's relative success
over Scotland. You can't even point to being robbed by the officials, as
the rest of us do when we feel the need to bullshit.
This is your problem. Every footballing country in the world has bad
luck from time to time. The key to success is an ability to make bad
luck a pointless irrelevance through sheer effort and skill. For
example, in the recent Poland-England game there was an incident in the
10th minute when Shearer was cynically dragged back for what was a
text-book example of a professional foul. It was a clear red-card
offence yet the ref only gave a yellow. England just got on with the
game and won anyway. Under the same circumstances Scotland would have
capitulated and spent the rest of their lives griping about being
unlucky. Ditto the Shearer/McAllister missed pen thing.
>In other words, although they tried as hard as they could in Europe, with
>the limited resources they had, they didn't go at it exclusively as MU did.
You are obviously kidding if you think United were exclusively
interested in Europe. Didn't we just win the English title? Or was that
a wet-dream.........
>They also fought for the Coca-Cola Cup, which MU threw. Quite simply, they
>stretched their thin resources even thinner.
So now you are saying that Rangers wanted the Fizzy Pop Cup, but not the
European Cup????
;)
>Now they have stated their intention to rule Europe.
I'm sure the alarm bells are ringing in Madrid, Munich, Monaco, Moscow
and Manchester.
Journalist:"Mr Lippi, Glasgow Rangers intend to win the European Cup"
Lippi: "Who?"
Journalist: "Glasgow Rangers. Apparently they are the biggest club in
Britain"
Lippi: "Manchester United are the biggest club in Britain"
Journalist : "No, no. It says right here on this Glasgow Rangers press
release - Glasgow Rangers (Biggest Club In Britain)"
Lippi: "I guess it must be true. Hang on a minute - aren't they the guys
we beat 8-1 last season?"
Journalist: "Yes"
Lippi: "I want my mummy"
>Rangers are the best equipped British team to succeed, as I
>have tried to explain.
Try harder.
Nobody but Scots believe this. Believe me.
If anyone of any non-British nationality would care to explain the
superiority of the Rangers team over Man United using, and I realise
this is unfair, hard clear logic then I'll be delighted to listen
intently as I giggle and sharpen my knives.
>The weaknesses of MU are self-evident - some of their problems are shared
>with that of Rangers - lack of squad depth, defensive weakness etc
If United are defensively weak in Europe then so is every other team. We
had easily the best defensive record of all 16 Champions League teams
this season, conceding just 5 goals (3 of which were deflected shots for
which it is impossible to legislate against). Southampton scored more
against us in one game than the likes of Juve, Dortmund and Porto managed
in ten. (I guess by your logic this proves that the Premier League is of a
higher quality than the Champions League?)
>- the difference is that Walter Smith is admitting his problems. Taggart
>has always been stubborn.
Well Taggart has already won more European trophies than Walter 'who'
Smith will ever see.
> He won't admit that he was wrong about Cole, or that
>Scholes is shite, or that a defence including Gary Neville, Irwin, Johnsen
>and Pallister is always going to be a joke at the top level.
More trolling. I suppose you also think that Brian McClair has been more
pivotal to United success than Eric Cantona?
>Now you're making me angry.
Admittance is brave, but foolhardy.
>TWO of Rangers' attempts haven't ended in
>humiliation. Compared to one of their English "peers". You will note that
>they did well without the need to field limitless foreigners
How many limitless foreigners did we use when we equalled Rangers best
ever European season when we won the pokey little Cup-Winners-Cup in
'91? Or did we only win because McClair played?
>In Rangers good year they were unbeaten, and if reports are to be belived,
>cheated out of a final by a bribery scandal.
Which reports are these? The ones you just made up?
How much mileage do you intend to get out of Rangers '92? It's five
years now, continually harking back to this team in mythic dewey-eyed
terms can only get sadder and sadder as time passes. I can imagine your
increasing desperation to believe yourself as we enter the new
millennium -- Rangers 92 - unluckiest team of all time, United 97 -
lucky useless bastards (apart from their Scots affiliates, who were all
fantastic).
>>I don't know, I'd say the likes of Metz and Sion were decent sides.
>Now you're sounding desperate. Metz are such a good side that their player
>of the year has just signed for Hearts.
Fine -- seeing as you selectively snipped my earlier request, I'll ask
again. When was the last time any Scottish club eliminated a French or
Swiss team from European competition?
Grasshopper 3-0 Rangers
Neuchatel Xamax 5-1 Celtic
Trawl back through history and find me any English defeat against
supposedly poor opposition that is as embarrassing as these two recent
ones from your two biggest clubs.
In fact, seeing as I went to the trouble of posting details of around 20
recent English victories over good European opposition, only for you to
ignore and snip my request, perhaps you would like to finally offer me
the recent Scots role of honour?
I'll start the list for you:
Rangers - Leeds
Rangers - Alanis Morissette
--------------------------
Subject: Re: Let's vote!!!
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 00:21:27 GMT
From: Snaps@kavana.u-net.com (Snaps)
"Anglophile Jambo" wrote:
Right. I'm going to have to put this request right at the start. As
you've ignored it on my previous two postings to this thread, I can only
assume that you aren't quite making it to the end of my posts:
If current Scottish football is as good as English name some quality
teams that have been eliminated from Europe by your clubs this decade.
By 'quality teams' I mean any club from a country that is ranked in the
top 8 by UEFA's coefficient formula -- ie. Italy, Germany, Spain,
France, Holland, England, Portugal, Turkey.
Purely to amuse myself, for every aggregate Scottish victory over one of
these teams that you can name I will name five from English clubs (in
fact, I'm reasonably convinced that I could name twenty for each one,
but I want to cover myself).
>What ? England have Italy. Scotland have Sweden and Austria.
No. What you should say is Poland must face England and Italy, whereas
Austria only have to face Scotland and Sweden.
Why not ask any French or Brazilian fan which group they would have
preferred to see their team drawn into if they had been forced to
qualify? The answer is a unanimous "Sweden's!!"
>The average FIFA ranking for our group is 25 points higher than it is
>for yours.
Oh! Why didn't you say this in the first place? All our arguments have
been for nought. You want FIFA rankings? England 13, Scotland 29.
There you go -- you've just proved England are better. Happy?
(Another magnificent strike for Jambo's tartan flip-flopping logic. I'd
love to cross-examine you in court.)
>Two teams go up - Rapid Vienna would have been 6 points for Hearts
>let alone MU.
Rapid Vienna weren't even 6 points for Juventus, silly.
Hearts to win Serie A anyone?
>Are you really so incapable of accepting that MU may not be Britain's
>best hope ?
Are you so incapable of accepting that United *proved* that they are
Britains best hope just six weeks ago?
>>1995-96 - Unlucky draw "Group of Death"
>Wasn't it.
For Rangers, yes. But every group shares this characteristic under that
circumstance.
>>1996-97 - Oh shit, easy group. Umm... injuries??? Yes, that'll do.
>Injuries have been a problem for two years. Again, that is fact. A quick
>look at any of their teamsheets will show you that.
It shows what a diabolical state the rest of Scottish football is in if
a side that has TWO YEARS of injuries can still pick up two
yawn-inducing championships.
>Even MU managed to do faitrly well when they
>concentrated specifically on Europe. If MU can do it, Rangers should piss
>it.
Your obsession with urine seems to be growing. Rangers fans shouldn't
allow themselves to get too excited over your predictions. You have also
recently told us how Vladikavkaz pissed over Liverpool, how Mypa-47 also
pissed over Liverpool, and how Hearts pissed over 'recent European
Champions' Red Star Belgrade. In your language the team that does the
pissing invariably loses.
>Look at it this way. MU set out to win the EC this year. That was their
>only STATED objective.
Errr, no. It was the primary objective, with the Premier League title a
*close* second.
I am more than satisfied with what Man United have achieved this season,
and I would certainly have took a Championship and a European semi-final
at the start of the season without even a shadow of a doubt.
>>United never played the same team twice in any competition all season!
>>Plus, we gave a debut to Van Der Gouw in the away game at Dortmund,
>>where no-one on earth could claim we looked out of our depth.
>You lost didn't you.
And Hearts lost to RSB. And Alanis Morrissete lost to Liverpool. And
Mypa lost to Liverpool.
Flip-flop logic again.
> Rangers didn't look out of theri depth v Ajax at home.
You lost didn't you?
Flip-flop.
>They deservd more out of it then MU did v Juve.
That's not saying much, bearing in mind that Ajax are only Holland's
fourth-best team and were eventually butt-fucked in grand style by Juve
both home and away. None of the other teams in Rangers group showed any
form this year and the Scots were still proven to be the worst of all 16
teams. At least the preliminary rounds will get rid of them early next
season.
>you have a problem with
>comprehension. Perhaps I'm using too many big words ?
This is apparently the only flame in your locker. Time and again you use
it, whilst sometimes not even bothering to rephrase. Not only is it
hopelessly generic, it is neither witty or in context -- not to blow my
own trumpet but I think it's probably more than obvious to everyone that
your enraged adolescent knicker-twisting is clearly beneath me. You are
not a logician, you are not a litigator, and you are far too angry to be
taken seriously. You are a pure amateur, interesting only in an
anthropological sense. Aptly enough, your usenet presence is eerily
similar to Rangers Champions League presence. Lightweight, but desperate
to portray yourself as more impressive and significant than you really
are. As with Rangers, nobody is falling for it.
I'm only responding because I'm enjoying it. Like everyone else, I
already know the score with regard to Scotland-England/Rangers-Manu. I'm
just getting a perverse thrill from pushing your button.
>Rangers ARE the biggest club in Britain. A look at the accounts released by
>each team will show that. End of story.
Ask around. The biggest club in Britain is the club that is relaxed
enough not to even bother proving its size to everyone else. Without
argument the two major candidates for this important title are
Manchester United and Liverpool. Every other team is on the periphery.
You may as well live with it, because it doesn't really mean anything
anyway.
Just one point though. "The accounts". What are these? Where is your
citation? I've noticed that you seem to like inventing official-sounding
blurb, and harking back to never-made quotes in order to give your
teen-angst witterings some credence. I suspect this is more of the same.
I'm still laughing at your hopelessly bluffed assertion that expert
stock analysts have a lack of confidence in the currently buoyant market
for English Football shares. Your crude attempt at bullshiting was all
the more embarrassing because you are so completely oblivious to the
basic machinations of a market-economy that you failed to realise that a
lack of confidence in the future market would be expressed by a
depression in the current market. In other words, the current strength
of the 'football market' represents its bright future!!!
Your insistence that Italian clubs are more profitable than English
clubs was, I assume, just a joke.
>If Dortmind or Juve had wanted more goals, they would have got
>them, but that would risk them being left open. Instead, they were
>confident that your strikers weren;t good enough to pierce their defence
>and sat back.
But when RSB and Liverpool sat back they were being "pissed-on" by
Hearts and Mypa, eh?
;) Flip-flop!
>McClair is shit.
We agree. There is nothing more depressing in my footballing universe
than hearing a thick Mancunian accent wailing, "Oh fuck, Choccy's coming
on......."
>>Which reports are these? The ones you just made up?
>Can you read newspapers ?
Yes. Can you answer my question?
>>How much mileage do you intend to get out of Rangers '92? It's five
>>years now,
>How much mileage will Mu fans want out of 97 in, say, 2000.
We'll find out in 3 years, won't we? Even this hypothetical painting is
considerably less sad than the very real sight of Rangers fans bleating
about their current superiority because of something that happened in
1992.
(Usenet tip: You shouldn't offer hypothesis as a counter-point to
criticism based on fact, that's like saying "I have no adequate
response, please feel free to shit in my mouth" -- although you would
have won it if you were hosts).
> You want match
>the achievement of a semi-final in that time. Not with the players you
>have.
We'll just have to be content with watching them confusticate the
Italian national team instead.
--------------------------
Subject: Re: Let's vote!!!
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 21:10:03 GMT
From: Snaps@kavana.u-net.com (Snaps)
"Anglophile Jambo" wrote:
[Snip]
Heh hee!!!!!
After my 4th (fourth) request on this thread to have Jambo explain,
using statistical evidence, the relative inferiority of English teams
over their illustrious Scottish counterparts this decade, he has finally
given me an answer.
Just to recap, here is my (by no means definitive) list of every
aggregate victory this decade by an English club over a country from
Europe's "top 8" coefficent blah-de-blah that I can remember:
ManU-Montpellier
ManU-Barcelona
Liverpool-Auxerre
Spurs-Porto
Arsenal-Auxerre
Arsenal-PSG
Arsenal-Torino
Arsenal-Sampdoria
Arsenal-Parma
ManU-Galatasaray
Norwich-Vitesse
Norwich-Bayern Munich
Leeds-Stuttgart
Leeds-Monaco
Forest-Lyon
Forest-Auxerre
ManU-Fenerbahce
ManU-Porto
Newcastle-Metz
Villa-Inter Milan
During this time English clubs have picked up two trophies, and reached
the semi-final stages on a further four occasions.
Now Jambo responds with this glorious counter:
>Rangers 3 Arsenal 0
>Celtic 2 Arsenal 1
>Hearts 4 Southampton 0
>
>(All within last 12 months)
And each of these pre-season friendly victories, as Jambo acidly points
out, came within the last 12 months.
I defer to his greatness. My wrist has been well and truly slapped.
==================================
Subject: Re: Four reasons to smile
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 23:59:52 GMT
From: Snaps@kavana.u-net.com (Snaps)
Mike Armitage wrote:
>"Who talks the *least* bollocks - Snaps or Jambo?"
I'd just like to say from the off that the flawed logistics of this CFV
would only pass muster in a Banana Republic, being, as it is,
cross-posted to RSS. I've been irritating people (t)here for a couple of
years, whereas only certain selected highlights of Jambo's have ever
reached this group. The imbalance can only be redressed if we also
expand to alt.books.nancy-drew, where I'm a legend.
That said, I vote for Jambo anyway. Because it's good for Britain.
However, just for fun, maybe this little gem I unearthed from Dejanews
may raise a few smiles. I've snipped it down to the three most
significant sentences, because the whole thing was another of his 300+
line rants, but the context is genuine:
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: A Challenge to Jambo
From: "Concerned Jambo"
Date: 1997/04/26
Message-Id: <01bc524f$d0bef200$LocalHost@lee>
Newsgroups: alt.sports.soccer.european,alt.sports.soccer.european.uk
Rangers are as good as any English team, except MU.
[...]
MU are clearly the best in Britain.
[...]
MU would beat Rangers and Celtic.
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
Weird, huh? What's even weirder is that 5 weeks and zero signings later:
>"Rangers are the best equipped British team to succeed"
and:
>"If MU can do it, Rangers should piss it."
and:
>"Rangers will alomost certainly outperform both English efforts next year."
And the reason for his startling change of opinion? Simple. An English
Manchester United fan (me, oddly enough) made a joke at the expense of
Rangers. So Jambo back-tracked then started shrieking and throwing wild
punches to prove the Englishman wrong.
Whilst at Dejanews I also found another of his postings that claimed
Rangers were pulling away from everyone else in the country. This was
again contradicted a couple of weeks later by his insistence that
Rangers dominance in Scotland was drawing to a close. And the reason for
this startling change of opinion? Simple. An English fan had claimed
that there was a lack of competition in the Scottish league. So Jambo
back-tracked then started shrieking and throwing wild punches to prove
the Englishman wrong. Encore, encore.
Now, he's not really a hypocrite because even hypocrisy requires a
degree of control. It's a little more subtle than that, this is more
compulsive behaviour. I'll guarantee that he regrets making 50% of his
postings within a week of sending them. He's like a spoiled brat who
deliberately drinks from the bleach bottle because he wants his mother
to know that she's made him angry. He may be a cunt; but at least he's a
sad, useless cunt -- so there's room for pity when the ridicule stops.