Yet, we still get ridiculous pieces of 'analytical' journalism such as this from Philip Micallef:
IF Terry Butcher wants to know why Melbourne pull far bigger crowds than Sydney, he should look no further than Friday night's blockbuster ...
Contrary to free-spirited Victory, whic [sic] is without doubt the flag-bearer of the league, Sydney does not create many scoring chances and is not exactly pretty to watch.
Perhaps this is why Victory gets huge crowds and Sydney's gates are poor, compared to last season at least.
Good grief. This is simply inane and vulgar sports commentary with no basis to factual reality. Micallef wants us to believe that exciting, attacking football brings patrons to games, an assertion that could be disputed with reference to all manner of examples from home and overseas. Queensland, for instance, are arguably playing less attacking football than last year - Miron Bleiberg stated as much before his departure, and Frank Farina's Roar has hardly managed to exhilirate fans so far. Average attendances to Roar matches have barely fluctuated from last year, though - the same fans are still turning up, regardless of the 'quality' of the attacking display.
Secondly, Micallef wants to drag Sydney through the mud some more - why not, everyone else is? Sydney's gates are down from last year, yes, but only by a relatively modest 8%. The situation is clearly far more dismal in the far east and west bases of the league, but perhaps due to their remoteness and low key media profiles those clubs haven't received the wrath of an ill-informed, agenda-based press. It's quite evident that an endless stream of negative media reports is at least partly, and possibly mostly, responsible for Sydney's poorer turnouts this year. Terry Butcher's heavy-handedness and watchful style probably hasn't helped an awful lot, but it's incredibly facile to assert his results-oriented approach is the major reason for fan disgruntlement. John Kosmina has also carved his team in the Jose Mourinho results-over-substance style, and one doesn't hear too many complaints from the larger Adelaide crowds.
Relative degrees of success is of course the other big factor affecting the fluctuation of attendances. (Perhaps I shouldn't say 'of course'; what might be obvious to 99% of us clearly isn't at all to a handful of imbeciles holding down decently paying jobs at our major sportscasters.) As the most successful team in the league in terms of the win column, Melbourne has benefited most of all from the post-World Cup intensification of interest in the local game. Since they keep on winning and remain on top of the table, Victory has been able to sustain the football bubble longer than anyone else. The enormous expectations surrounding Sydney after last year's championship no doubt contributed to the slowdown when early league results - especially at home - did not go their way. Meanwhile, the successful but not entirely satisfying inaugural seasons of the Reds and the Mariners may have helped pave the way for their improved attendances this year - the fans have had a taste and now they want more.
Finally, there's one more piece of the puzzle Micallef overlooks, much to his discredit: for an intense rivalry to emerge, it takes two to tango. If Sydney is so boring, why haven't 50,000 (or even 30,000) Melbourne fans attended any of the Victory's matches against any of the league's other teams? The analysis (not that Micallef did any) of home gates is just one aspect of the story. To provide a more complete picture of the league's favoured and disfavoured teams, both home and away attendances need to be taken into account.
--
By the way, if you're looking for a breakdown of current and historical aggregates and averages, please navigate to the approporiate page on AusFootballReview.
13 comments:
Bravo, James. Great piece.
The summary of the match on the A-League site says all that needs to be said about Micallef's simplistic "analysis". Sydney nine goal attempts to Melbourne's five.
I'm not exactly a fan of Butcher's overall approach, but getting us to second place at this stage of the season when we had a swiss cheese player roster for so long is a pretty decent achievement.
Not quite so sure that the quality of the football has no impact - I've been to two Sydney games this year, both atrocious. After the first, (game 1 v CCM), I thought i'd probably give the rest of the games a miss this year. I relented to take my dad to the first Roar game - which was sub-old-NSL standard. I note from the AFR site - great reference - that attendance at the second Roar game was down nearly 5000 from the one i saw - no surprises there, even the Cove can't stomach that tripe.
Appalling English long-ball tactics and school boy errors were the features of the game (that and the 7 away fans - you could count them - who had bothered to turn up) and I can't see myself paying good money for that sort of rubbish again, as much as i would like to see the A-League - and Sydney FC - succeed.
The games I saw last year were of a much better quality. It seems only the away game in Adelaide has matched those standards this year.
So from a sample of one, there is at least some correlation between quality and attendance.
Well I've been keeping a personal record of average crowd attendances, although their mostly the same Queensland seems to be a little off...
http://www.footballforumsaustralasia.com/index.php?showtopic=1430
Earthier I think the goalscoring chances view that the Sydney fan is a little off, a few weeks ago FoxSports showed a total shots on target and overall shots data chart and Melbourne were second last, so it defiantly isn't the number of chances or quality of them that influences the crowds.
I've been playing and watching football for over 30 years and I actually agree with most of what Micallef (Shaun?) had to say. I've dragged 10 newbies along to Victory games before and they have all come back. For this one I also got a number to their first-ever Sokkah game - it's going to be hard work to get them back again.
You and I understand the value of getting a 0-0 away draw against the league leaders - newcomers don't. Terry DOES have an obligation to entertain in an eighteen month old league in a non-Football country. Did those first timers at his previous 0-0 exercise at Gosford come back again for the Perth game? He's a serial offender.
The English/Scottsh football league understanding doesn't widely exist here. He has an obligation to help grow the A-league. That's also good for his job security.
...I relented to take my dad to the first Roar game - which was sub-old-NSL standard....
You do realise we were short about four key players for that one, don't you?
...The games I saw last year were of a much better quality....
Rubbish. The difference in quality of play between SFC this season and SFC last season is minimal.
The rest of the A-League teams have improved, especially Melbourne and Newcastle. SFC has stood still if anything. We're still in second. Go figure.
...He has an obligation to help grow the A-league....
It's funny, I never hear this mentioned in relation to any other A-League coach other than Butcher.
I repeat: I am hardly a fan of Butcher's overall approach, but there is absolutely nothing he could do to please some of the determined Anglophobes out there.
Philip Micallef's piece is indeed inane. But James, if you are going to hinge your argument on the Roar crowds I think it might be about to unravel.
The Roar crowd did indeed keep showing up to games, even after we started losing, but in my mind it was because the football was still extremely entertaining to watch. I'm not qualified to say whether it was more or less 'attacking' than last year, but there was heaps of passing and ball work - heaps of team-oriented skill - and for this novice punter it was just great to watch.
Last week Farina openly declared that he didn't care if the football looked good or not. On Thursday night that showed. It was the first time you simply couldn't say, "Gee, they played well though; plenty of opportunities; bit of bad luck..." They were just rubbish. Mark my words - the crowds will begin to die now, if they hadn't already (the low of 10,000 may well be put down to the Thursday night factor).
The notion that entertaining play doesn't effect crowd numbers is a nonsense which in my mind must be donked quickly on the head. Look, I love it that Australia wins the cricket, and I even ask people the score, but I'm not going to watch it, because it's boring to me. With Rugby League, I only watch State-Of-Origin games, because at least I'm assured of a good, entertaining match (your average club match is scrappy and dumb). The reason soccer is the most popular game in the world is because it is brilliant to watch. If Queensland won marbles games it would not attract good crowds.
I'll continue with this for a bit... I have walked away from games of soccer on TV because they were just uninteresting. Last Thursday hundreds of fans were just walking out of Suncorp stadium from half time, because there was nothing to watch. I've never seen that before, and the reason is that before, even though they lost, Queensland played.
Look, people don't give up there evenings for a fairly expensive late night just because their team will win. They can find out the score and say 'yay' in the morning. They go to be entertained. I am a football tragic because I was seduced by the sheer entertainment of the game, and no other game has so seduced me, ever.
That's enough. All anecdotes I know, but I think the point should be clear enough. Winning is just not enough to draw crowds. If the philosophy is just to win, the A-League was dead yesterday.
Just as an aside to the great points everyone is making -
Do other people feel sort of hollow, unaffected or just 'meh' when goals are scored from one or two yards away, or from a really glaring error or refereeing transgression?
I know I do. Zzz.
I don't attend matches in order to see those kind of goals. On any day, I'd prefer to see a brilliant piece of build-up skill, improvisation, or just something really unique in terms of the whole viewing experience, even if it leads to a pathetic air-balled shot on goal or a 0-0 endgame.
It's something to consider when we ponder what 'attacking football' actually is and means, and how it should or shouldn't be valued.
(Not that I'm implying anyone here interprets attacking football as a goal-fest, but there are obviously going to be some members of the public that do see it that way. In addition to prickly members of the openly anti-football brigade or the "I'm opposed to football because that's what expected" group, like Kevin Sheedy, who I am sure enjoyed the "nil-nil" scoreline the other day a tad more than he may have actually liked watching the match. For many, the result was just another - might I add, meaningless - supply of ammunition for the devouring pleasures of the 'one football code - so long as it's not sokka' warriors.)
I remember watching a beleagured coach of a lowly amateur team one afternoon fielding a special 'attacking' formation against the next worse team in the competition, who he must have thought were easy beats for his vastly 'under-performing' squad.
From memory he played a 3-2-5. Five up front.
His team was smashed something like 9-0, largely due to his perverse strategy to stick to his guns when it was obvious they were being totally overrun in the midfield.
Heh. I know it's a stupid example, but it demonstrates that attacking football is suicidal without the correct ingredients in place. Barcelona can play attacking football and usually get away with it. So can Brazil, Man Utd, etc. But all those teams have also had their low spots, when the formula doesn't click for whatever reason - players injured or out of form, the opposition's tactics working perfectly, the weather having an affect.
No team in the A-League has the resources to play all-out attacking football. Miron Bleiberg learned that lesson after season one.
Doing so leads to bad results. If a team played attractive football and lost every game of the season, would the fans still be turning up in droves at the end of the year? I don't think so. Would it even be possible to consider a team's style attractive if they are consistently losing?!
IMO, results go hand in hand with attendances to a much larger degree than playing methodology.
Oh yeah, and it's a big help when both the braindead and the brain-marvellous sides of the press are on your side rather than vehemently against you and the cronies running your club - admittedly some teams dig their own graves in this respect.
James,
Would you be interested in cross posting some articles at http://www.sidelined.com.au? We are a collaborative sports blog and would love to have someone blog on A-League.
Email me at shaun at sidelined.com.au if interested.
I still think Melbourne are better supported than other teams. Even when we were struggling towards the end. I remember getting over 10 000 in the last match, when it was obvious we weren't going to make the top 4, even though we played the Kiwis. I think that was our lowest crowd, still higher than any other club's lowest crowd.
Oooh, a site with some stats has just been found! And our average was the third highest behind Bling and the Roar. Plus we had a few sellouts at Olympic Park, so that affected our highest attendance numbers.
So Melbourne's doing something right... I'm not sure what it is, as my family eats football for breakfast, lunch and tea - so we were always going to attend regardless of the team's performance.
So I don't think you need to win to have a crowd. I hope that of the 50 000 who rocked up the other night for their first football match had a good night thanks to the Northern and Southern stand supporter groups - even if they came to watch some goals occur.
(Which is something I struggle to understand - how can they not enjoy watching a well contested game that happenned to yield no goals?!?!? :P)
Crickey James you told us you weren't commenting much now you've gone bananas.
The crowd I watch with cheers all Roar goals and hates all the other teams goals.
James - I did not realise you had written this piece when I wrote my short update to an earlier blog on the gate take. I prefer to look at the match-by-match gate take rather than the averages. The one off spikes tend to hide the trends.
I have responded in detail on my blog.
Post a Comment