sounderfan Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 http://thefirealarm.matchnight.com/tfadefault.cfm?page=ARTICLE&show=583 quote:Another thing they need are soccer-specific stadiums. There is sort-of-one in Edmonton's Commonwealth Stadium. Vancouver's Swangard Stadium and Toronto's Varsity Stadium are close, but hardly have large capacities. There may be a use for Ottawa's Frank Clair Stadium, Vancouver's BC Place, Toronto's SkyDome, or even Montreal's Olympic Stadium. But they need stadiums that seat at least 20-25K and have soccer as the primary sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJT Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Apart from the obvious error with respect to Varsity, there is absolutely no use for several 20-25K stadiums that have soccer as the primary sport. Who the heck is going to use them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarnCherry Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Always wonder why that Montreal playoff crowd of 58,000 always gets mentioned as an example of big crowds in Canada, yet the Seattle at Vancouver regular season game in 1983 that drew over 60,000 never gets mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarnCherry Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 http://newheads.tripod.com/swangardsouth/id12.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Man Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 That game in BC, for those in the know, has always been considered the biggest indoor soccer crowd title in Canada played on fake grass. The Big Owe in 82 was still was an open stadium. So it holds the record for outdoor crowd played on fake grass. And Edmonton holds the record for outdoor game played on grass. A small point, but a point after all for that take things seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoyleG Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 Troll strikes again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarnCherry Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 quote:Originally posted by DoyleG Troll strikes again. Yeah but strikes "what" is the question. I'd consider it a tougher draw to get 60,000+ indoors in the summer in Vancouver (paying full price I may add for a regular season match) to watch a game played on fake grass (they had another crowd of over 50,000 that season) than to get people to get into an open aired big owe in the summer for a big playoff game played on fake grass. I'd say it's quite easier to get people on a sunny day to go to an open aired stadium with real grass for a big "event" game, especially with tickets heavily discounted and given away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Krammerhead I'd say it's quite easier to get people on a sunny day to go to an open aired stadium with real grass for a big "event" game, especially with tickets heavily discounted and given away. I'm not sure which match you're referring to. The U-19 match was definitely discounted, but the Brazil '94 match (which is the one that holds the Canadian outdoor record) surely was not papered, was it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarnCherry Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Rudi I'm not sure which match you're referring to. The U-19 match was definitely discounted, but the Brazil '94 match (which is the one that holds the Canadian outdoor record) surely was not papered, was it? Oh no, definately not talking about the Brazil '94 match. Have to say though, that match didn't need anybody to sell it and crowds would have been similar or greater had the game been held elsewhere in canada with a large stadium (yes I know Brazil wouldn't play on astroturf-thats not the point). I don't seperate records like that anyway, and know of no other nation that does that. Doesn't matter if the stadium has a roof or not, the game we are talking about is FIFA rules 11 aside soccer. Why people find it neccessary to seperate them I'll never understand. When people talk about indoor soccer one assumes they are talking about soccer played in a hockey rink with boards. When they feel the need to say outdoor soccer one assumes they are talking the real version with 11 aside-aka the worldsmost popular sport. That Canada-Brazil game drew 51,937. The Vancouver-Seattle game drew 60,322. It was still the same sport being played whether or not there was a roof on the stadium or not. Also if the crowd at that Montreal Manic-Chicago Sting game was indeed 58,000 they'd take the pseudo-quasi "Canadian outdoor" record for largest crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Krammerhead Oh no, definately not talking about the Brazil '94 match. Have to say though, that match didn't need anybody to sell it and crowds would have been similar or greater had the game been held elsewhere in canada with a large stadium (yes I know Brazil wouldn't play on astroturf-thats not the point). Absolutely. quote:I don't seperate records like that anyway, and know of no other nation that does that. Doesn't matter if the stadium has a roof or not, the game we are talking about is FIFA rules 11 aside soccer. Why people find it neccessary to seperate them I'll never understand. When people talk about indoor soccer one assumes they are talking about soccer played in a hockey rink with boards. When they feel the need to say outdoor soccer one assumes they are talking the real version with 11 aside-aka the worldsmost popular sport. Again, I agree completely. It's kind of stupid to have so many "sub-headings" for the record books. Soccer is soccer, and in the days of the Manic and (NASL) Whitecaps, it was acceptable to play 11-a-side matches on AstroTurf, therefore the record should be counted as legitimate as any other 11-a-side match. Not to mention the inclusion of "dome vs. outdoor", hell, the ChampionsWorld match between Liverpool and Porto at SkyDome earlier this year was played with the roof closed, yet no one confuses that match with arena soccer. quote:That Canada-Brazil game drew 51,937. The Vancouver-Seattle game drew 60,322. It was still the same sport being played whether or not there was a roof on the stadium or not. Also if the crowd at that Montreal Manic-Chicago Sting game was indeed 58,000 they'd take the pseudo-quasi "Canadian outdoor" record for largest crowd. So we can say, then, that the record for a Canadian national team match is the one vs. Brazil in '94, the women's nat'l team record is the U-19 vs. USA in 2002 and the club record is the Vancouver-Seattle match. I believe the '76 Olympic final still holds the record for any soccer game held in Canada (over 70,000, IIRC), and since the Big Owe has been reduced in seating capacity since then, there is no chance of any match beating that mark until a larger stadium is built in Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarnCherry Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 If we want to get really picky we can say the olympic games crowds qualify as the best attended amateur soccer game in Canada as they were still pretending the Olympics were for amateurs back then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 I was at that 76 final. 72,000 plus. Montreal does hold the record. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarnCherry Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Kelly I was at that 76 final. 72,000 plus. Montreal does hold the record. Period. Vancouver holds the record for domestic support. We don't need no internationals or Championsworld to help us. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Man Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 72000 asses is 72000 asses. The rest is just gossip. Montreal gets the nod. Unless we start breaking it down again... Then- Vancouver gets it for biggest crowd in a dome with plastic grass with 3-4 Canadians playing and other 4-5 on the bench watching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
François Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Out of the 60,322 fans in Vancouver in 1983, how many were there to see the brand new BC place? That's why some people don't give enough credit to that 60,000+ crowd...too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarnCherry Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 quote:Originally posted by François Out of the 60,322 fans in Vancouver in 1983, how many were there to see the brand new BC place? That's why some people don't give enough credit to that 60,000+ crowd...too bad. There were two other crowds of 50,000+ later that year. Also the NASL final held that year at BC Place between Toronto and Tulsa drew 51,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarnCherry Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 quote:Originally posted by G-Man 72000 asses is 72000 asses. The rest is just gossip. Montreal gets the nod. Unless we start breaking it down again... Then- Vancouver gets it for biggest crowd in a dome with plastic grass with 3-4 Canadians playing and other 4-5 on the bench watching. That year of the 20 players on the Whitecaps roster there were 9 Canadians (all got good playing time) 4 from England, 2 from the USA, 2 from Ireland, 1 from Scotland, 1 from West Germany, and 1 from Holland. No different from any top professional team now playing in any other leagues people here follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Man Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 K-head, Your post suggested that the BC place crowd was somehow better than the Montreal crowd cause a domestic team was playing. My count wasn't that far off, I think I wrote about 8-9 Canadians. With 4-5 starting. Far from being an ass. Calling the Whitecaps a Canadian team is like calling Chelsea a British team. Maybe in location-- but on the feild product is international-- which is GOOD. Now did those 4 starters playing in an American League (NASL) do more for our national team and the sport in general- than lets say the current Whitecap team? Which has many many more Canadians on it's roster. And Canadian MLS team would probably contain just as many Canadians that lets say where starters for the Blizzard, Manic, Whitecaps, Boomers and Drillers. Let's not forget that we made the 86 World Cup due to the playing experience our players got playing in the NASL. The CSL generation got us no where near the World Cup finals. More proof that a MLS team would help--where a pan Canadian league full of fringe players would not. It simply would be more of the same. First round exits in front of crowds less than 6000 out west. Which is about 66000 thousand less than the biggest crowd for a soccer game in Canada- back east in Montreal, which hasn't had a MNT game in years. And the Manic also got play-off crowds of 46000, 43000 and 48000 thousand besides the 58,000. They also outdrew the Whitecaps in 81 and 82 both outdoors and indoors. And of course this year Montreal outdrew the entire western A-league teams combined. And still no MNT game. And people out west whine about alienation and being ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 quote:Originally posted by G-Man Let's not forget that we made the 86 World Cup due to the playing experience our players got playing in the NASL. The CSL generation got us no where near the World Cup finals. The CSL generation was one goal away from the World Cup in '93. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachesl Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Rudi The CSL generation was one goal away from the World Cup in '93. Well, one goal away from beating Australia to then play Argentina in another home-and-away to qualify. Finishing second to Mexico in the CONCACAF qualifiers gave us a 1/4 spot. If you mean earlier losing to Mexico in Toronto on May 9, 1993, 1-2, we needed two more goals to qualify as we had to win to win the final Group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.