Is German Bundesliga officially the most interesting professional soccer league, or does it just have the highest attendance? While England, Spain, and Italy are all busily celebrating the victors of their respective leagues, Scotland is gripped by its perennial (and by now, insanely boring) two-horse race between Rangers and Celtic, Holland's Alkmaar celebrated their title what seems like months ago, Portugal's FC Porco remain the only class side in their league, and Marseille are still trying to keep things interesting in France, as they now sit 3 points behind upstarts Bordeaux, with a game in hand and two weeks left of the season.
The reason I think Germany has the highest attendance is that some soccernet writer has been insisting on that fact for years, and I have no statistics that might disagree. Certainly, the large number of bottom-half-of-the-table clubs in most of Europe's leagues means that the top sides have to generate a LOT more interest, if attendance is to remain relatively high, on average. Unfortunately for most leagues, the "coefficient of interestingness" for most sides in most matches remains relatively low. The reason for this is simple: as the rich get richer, the gap between the best clubs and the rest of the clubs in each leagues grows larger and larger. Thus, for example, England's "big 4" currently sit a minimum of 9 and a maximum of 27 points ahead of the fifth-placed side, and the tenth-placed side is a full 40 points behind the side in first. If you threw out the top 4 in England, you'd be left with a fairly normal distribution of clubs, where the only gap between positions greater than 3 points is the 6-point spread between second and third place (really, 6th and 7th place). England is by far the most unequal league, mostly because of the way the top sides have managed to market themselves globally and corner the market even in Great Britain. While attendance for those clubs is always outstanding, the same cannot be said for the lower-side clubs, nor can a full stadium for the latter be compared, numerically, to those of the top 4. And nothing will change this year. We know who will play in the UCL, we know who will make it into UEFA, and by now we don't even care who gets relegated.
A similar situation holds for Spain and for Italy, where there are 2 and 3 big clubs, respectively. While there is typically some small amount of drama among these top few clubs throughout the season, the rest of the league might as well be playing as a different division, for all the drama it contributes to the top clubs. Villareal is a good example: sure, they challenged Barcelona and they beat Real this season, but they stand 27 points behind Barça and 19 behind Real, in fifth place. Barcelona currently stand 41 points ahead of the tenth-placed side, and are over 20 points above third-placed Sevilla. Again, if we ditch the top two clubs, the league almost starts to look competitive.
The dividing line between Italy's top clubs and the rest of the pack is a little less pronounced, at least this season: 3rd-placed Juventus is only a game ahead of Fiorentina. In fact, the biggest gap between positions in Serie A right now is the 7-point-spread between first and second places. If Juventus hadn't spent the second half of the season choking, they might very well be close to Inter's point standing right now, though again this would still place the usual suspects in title contention. In both Spain and Italy, there is no comparison between the numbers of people that can be accommodated by top-tier clubs and the rest of the sides. Moreover, matches between middle-of-the-table clubs in both leagues tend to be hugely under-attended, if the massive numbers of empty seats shown on TV are any indication. Very similar pictures emerge throughout Europe, where there are typically between two and four top, successful, clubs in each league, and the remainder of clubs serve as spoilers and feeders for the upper crust. The Dutch league has broken out of that mold somewhat this season, with the usual frontrunners Ajax and Eindhoven failing to make the top two spots. But it's safe to assume that both of them will fare better than either Twente or Alkmaar in European competition next season, so things will no doubt return to their usual state soon enough.
By contrast with all these situations, Germany's league still has yet to be decided, going into its final round next weekend. The full league gap is only 40 points (between first and last place), compared to the typical 50+ point gap in other leagues. More importantly, at least in terms of excitement and drama, the gap between first and 10th place is only 21 points, compared to 40 in both England and Spain, and 30 in Italy (France 30, Holland 37, Scotland 46 – and this is a 12-team league!!!, Portugal 35). To put it another way, a 10-point spread in Germany nets you the top 6 clubs, whereas in England it gets you 2, in Spain 2, and in Italy 2 (France 3, Holland 1, Scotland 2, Portugal 2). A 20-point spread in Germany encloses the top 9, whereas in England you still only get 4, in Spain 3, and in Italy 5 (France 7, Holland 5, Scotland 2, Portugal 5).
The Bundesliga may not be the most entertaining league to watch (though the attendance figures there might suggest that it in fact is), but frankly, how could we possibly know that, if it is almost NEVER broadcast outside of Germany? The fact that there is only a 3-point spread among the top 4 clubs going into the last week of the season certainly makes things far more interesting to me, especially since I don’t particularly care who wins the league. Fans of Manchester United, Inter Milan, and Barcelona are of course ecstatic that their sides have already clinched their respective leagues, and perhaps rightly so. But those of us who watch the game for the enjoyment of a tight competition, for some beautiful soccer (without diving crybabies who feel they’re entitled to special refereeing treatment), and sometimes to see the underdogs come up big, are guaranteed to be more and more consistently disappointed with things in these top European leagues. As revenues for the most successful clubs increase, their position at the top will also grow more and more secure, making the creation of a breakaway league all the more likely. The only other workable solution, as far as I can tell, is the introduction of salary caps, and I don’t think the Europeans, particularly those involved in the upper-level politics of the sport, are going to be too excited about a level playing field. As a last resort, I can always console myself with the fact that Wolfsburg, last year’s 5th-place club and the 15th-ranked team 2 seasons ago, have given the entire Bundesliga a reason to believe that money is still not the only driving force in the game.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Thursday, May 7, 2009
An Insult! This is worse than before!
For those who think I am unaware of current events in entertainment, I bring you Bob Dylan's latest offense against all things that are beautiful: Together Through Life. Bobby D. was never known for his fantastic pipes, as I am sure we are all aware. He was know for his politically astute, thoughtful, introspective, poetic ramblings. He has written some of the greatest songs alive (almost all of which have been performed, and much better, by other artists). And now popular culture has declared that he continues to write some of the best music alive (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8037386.stm). He has topped the Billboard album sales charts in the US and the UK with his latest ouvre.
I'm not offended, he should keep on keepin' on and all that, but for crying out loud, doesn't anyone else think he sounds horrible? Are we all such sheep? I have been told by several people that this new album is good, so I gave it a listen yesterday. I listened to the whole thing all the way through again today. And guess what? It's lousy. It's poor. It's uninteresting. It's a tired Bob singing tired blues in a tired bar and the audience should be tired of this stuff by now.
To Bob's new album I say, "NO!" To all of the people who rushed out and bought it just because he's the Bob, I say "NO!" To everyone else who's still thinking about buying it (more so, now that it's top of the charts!), I say, "NO!" People, we have brains, we have ears, we have the ability to understand and appraise what comes in through the latter with the former. So let us exercise our right to be offended by bad music, and say "NO!" Bob has enough money, he'll eat (drink?) fine without the cash you were going to shell out on this album. Give it to some charity, you'll feel better, someone will benefit, and you can write it off on your tax returns next year.
To Bob, thanks for all the good music from way back when! I'll keep listening to that quality stuff, just don't ask me to buy this new album. I'm not rich, and I'm not an undiscriminating listener, so I promise I won't do it. Sorry. I hope you had fun making the album, though. Seems like it would have been a pretty relaxed couple of sessions...
I'm not offended, he should keep on keepin' on and all that, but for crying out loud, doesn't anyone else think he sounds horrible? Are we all such sheep? I have been told by several people that this new album is good, so I gave it a listen yesterday. I listened to the whole thing all the way through again today. And guess what? It's lousy. It's poor. It's uninteresting. It's a tired Bob singing tired blues in a tired bar and the audience should be tired of this stuff by now.
To Bob's new album I say, "NO!" To all of the people who rushed out and bought it just because he's the Bob, I say "NO!" To everyone else who's still thinking about buying it (more so, now that it's top of the charts!), I say, "NO!" People, we have brains, we have ears, we have the ability to understand and appraise what comes in through the latter with the former. So let us exercise our right to be offended by bad music, and say "NO!" Bob has enough money, he'll eat (drink?) fine without the cash you were going to shell out on this album. Give it to some charity, you'll feel better, someone will benefit, and you can write it off on your tax returns next year.
To Bob, thanks for all the good music from way back when! I'll keep listening to that quality stuff, just don't ask me to buy this new album. I'm not rich, and I'm not an undiscriminating listener, so I promise I won't do it. Sorry. I hope you had fun making the album, though. Seems like it would have been a pretty relaxed couple of sessions...
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Two Weeks at a Time: or, Death By Revision
Either way, it's going to be worth your time just to have a look. Or it may not. Remember how my last entry described our experiences in and of Barcelona? Right, in very cursory fashion. Well, I plan to expand upon that entry by highlighting some of the key events of the following days. Mostly, I'll be talking about our trip through the rest of Spain in as few days and words as possible. We didn't really see or visit the rest of Spain, but we caught some of the high points of Andalucía, which is probably my favorite part of Spain. This is where the Moors set up a rival caliphate to that in Damascus during the middle ages, and single-handedly dragged southern Europe through the dark ages and into the pre-Renaissance. Without these happy Arabs and Berbers, the rest of Europe would have been hopelessly mired in stupidity and ignorance, in part forced on them by a greedy and power-hungry class of ecclesiastical and civic leaders, well into the modern era. Of course, the Moors probably weren't the nicest people to have around in every situation, particularly when it came to religious or cultural differences with their subjects--I wasn't there, so I can't really say what the daily effect on people's life was. I can, however, say that there are no records or historical accounts of the Moors doing anything like what the Spanish did during the Inquisition, and in fact most of the ancient and medieval sources paint a Moorish government that represented almost the exact opposite of the powers behind the Inquisition (despite what the good people responsible for that little publication on the "Cathedral of Cordoba" would have you believe).
So, Moorish Spain. Al-Andalus. We all know that the Inquisition was so successful and so thorough that no Moors, Gipsies, or Jews remained in Spain after the early sixteenth century, right? Anyhow, that's what they say here in Extremadura, so it must be true. I'm pretty sure the Jews, Moors, and Gipsies who converted to Christianity were probably allowed to stay in Spain, but of course their conversion will have changed their blood-line, thereby allowing Spain to maintain its purity. Ok, enough about that, but it's kind of ironic that people still believe this trash, isn't it?
Moorish Spain is magnificent. The Alhambra is nice and everything, but to me, the coolest thing about Moorish Spain is the indoor gardens, patios, courtyards, small town plazas, and parks, all of which, barring perhaps the last two, are really just survivals from the Roman period in Spain. None of these features is entirely typical of the northern half of Spain, where the dark castles and fortified houses of the upper classes offer a stark contrast to the open, gardened, atrium-style house-and-bath complexes of their southern neighbors. Apparently the northerners were forced to adopt a darker and more dismal view on life upon the realization that the weather in the northern half of Spain is substantially harsher and less enjoyable than that in Al-Andalus.
Ok, so the Alhambra is all windows and gardens and decorative plasters, a castle-palace reserved for the head-honchos of the Moorish elite, to be mimicked by anyone who could afford it, but never really satisfactorily copied. The palace in Sintra, Portugal, originally had some pretty impressive imitations of one section of the Alhambra, but after western Iberia was recaptured in the 12th and 13th centuries, most of those rooms were gradually adjusted to fit into a more "modern" style. If you can get to the Alhambra someday, you should check it out. Just don't accept any of the rosemary kindly offered by the nice ladies outside--you can pick your own for free if you really want to, but who wants rosemary, anyway?
Maybe I'm giving the Moors more credit than they deserve. I have this theory that the cities that are really "Moorish" today in Spain were still pretty much Roman cities when the Moors arrived in the early 8th century--cities like Córdoba, Sevilla, Cádiz, and maybe Cartagena and Toledo. If that theory is true (and it must be, since it's my theory), much of what I love about those cities is really just the survival of Roman traditions and ideals. It's probably safe to say that the Moors preserved what would otherwise have been lost forever, at the hands of the Visigoths or whatever the Christians in the northeast of Spain should be called, and I'll even allow for the possibility, at least, that the Moors actually improved on some of what the Romans left behind. Incidentally, I'm not sure what that "left behind" is supposed to mean: surely the Hispano-Romano-Visigoths mostly stuck around when the Moors arrived, eventually mixing with the newcomers to provide a relatively homogeneous group that we refer to today as Spaniards. One of the great things about Spain today is the vast variety the country offers in terms of virtually everything. And that must be due at least in part to the fact that this was a crossroads of cultures throughout its history.
Well, I haven't said much about our trip, and maybe I won't today. It seems that I'm less interested in what we did than in what happened before we got there. I guess that's why I'm an archaeologist and not a sociologist or something like that.
But, speaking of sociology, and more generally of current events, what's the deal with this "swine flu" business? Is it just me, or should we all be mounting class-action lawsuits against the news media? Today's stories on the BBC and CNN illustrate just how far we've come in the 10 or 14 days since this thing hit the fan: we're now referring to this potential pandemic as little different from the standard seasonal flu outbreak. For example, here's what the BBC says in this story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8030365.stm), "Health Minister Jose Angel Cordova [of Mexico] told the BBC that, based on samples tested, the mortality rate was comparable with that of seasonal flu." Really? I'm supposed to be panicking, or so it seemed three days ago. In fact, some mucky-muck at the WHO told us the most troubling thing about this flu is that it's infecting otherwise healthy young people in Mexico (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/25/swine.flu/index.html). Yet, for all the hype, according to all the stories coming out today, the death toll is much lower than initially projected, and as tragic as it still is, is largely limited to people who already had serious underlying health conditions (including the unfortunate case of a toddler brought to the US from Mexico for treatment, the only confirmed death in the US attributed to this flu outbreak). I'm not saying this isn't a serious concern, but I do think that the media have done such a thorough job over-reporting a flu outbreak with fewer than 1000 victims worldwide (and just over 20 deaths confirmed!) that now we're all behaving like the poor souls in that movie Outbreak from the 1990s. I'm pretty sure that the annual flu outbreak in the US, and around the world, claims far more victims than this one ever could, and also receives FAR less attention than this one is receiving. If we panic every time a new strain of the flu hits major cities, we're going to have to just get used to panicking, because the flu mutates so fast it seems there's a new strain popping up every day. Why else are we getting new shots every year, and how is it that those shots are largely ineffective on so many strains of the virus? The flu is a major concern, and we should all avoid putting our fingers in our mouths and coughing in each others' faces. But shouldn't we all be taking those simple precautions anyway? It's gross, isn't it? I mean, I've had this cold or cough or something for a good two weeks now, but you don't see me coughing in people's faces, wiping my phlegm all over doorknobs and the like. I'm pretty sure I don't have the new flu, but if I did have it, I don't see how panicking and going on a world-wide crackdown would really help. More realistically, I should probably drink loads of water, get lots of rest, seek medical advice, and follow through on a full antiviral regimen, as prescribed by a qualified medical professional. I'm prepared to panic over all this if it's still in the news in a week, though....
So, Moorish Spain. Al-Andalus. We all know that the Inquisition was so successful and so thorough that no Moors, Gipsies, or Jews remained in Spain after the early sixteenth century, right? Anyhow, that's what they say here in Extremadura, so it must be true. I'm pretty sure the Jews, Moors, and Gipsies who converted to Christianity were probably allowed to stay in Spain, but of course their conversion will have changed their blood-line, thereby allowing Spain to maintain its purity. Ok, enough about that, but it's kind of ironic that people still believe this trash, isn't it?
Moorish Spain is magnificent. The Alhambra is nice and everything, but to me, the coolest thing about Moorish Spain is the indoor gardens, patios, courtyards, small town plazas, and parks, all of which, barring perhaps the last two, are really just survivals from the Roman period in Spain. None of these features is entirely typical of the northern half of Spain, where the dark castles and fortified houses of the upper classes offer a stark contrast to the open, gardened, atrium-style house-and-bath complexes of their southern neighbors. Apparently the northerners were forced to adopt a darker and more dismal view on life upon the realization that the weather in the northern half of Spain is substantially harsher and less enjoyable than that in Al-Andalus.
Ok, so the Alhambra is all windows and gardens and decorative plasters, a castle-palace reserved for the head-honchos of the Moorish elite, to be mimicked by anyone who could afford it, but never really satisfactorily copied. The palace in Sintra, Portugal, originally had some pretty impressive imitations of one section of the Alhambra, but after western Iberia was recaptured in the 12th and 13th centuries, most of those rooms were gradually adjusted to fit into a more "modern" style. If you can get to the Alhambra someday, you should check it out. Just don't accept any of the rosemary kindly offered by the nice ladies outside--you can pick your own for free if you really want to, but who wants rosemary, anyway?
Maybe I'm giving the Moors more credit than they deserve. I have this theory that the cities that are really "Moorish" today in Spain were still pretty much Roman cities when the Moors arrived in the early 8th century--cities like Córdoba, Sevilla, Cádiz, and maybe Cartagena and Toledo. If that theory is true (and it must be, since it's my theory), much of what I love about those cities is really just the survival of Roman traditions and ideals. It's probably safe to say that the Moors preserved what would otherwise have been lost forever, at the hands of the Visigoths or whatever the Christians in the northeast of Spain should be called, and I'll even allow for the possibility, at least, that the Moors actually improved on some of what the Romans left behind. Incidentally, I'm not sure what that "left behind" is supposed to mean: surely the Hispano-Romano-Visigoths mostly stuck around when the Moors arrived, eventually mixing with the newcomers to provide a relatively homogeneous group that we refer to today as Spaniards. One of the great things about Spain today is the vast variety the country offers in terms of virtually everything. And that must be due at least in part to the fact that this was a crossroads of cultures throughout its history.
Well, I haven't said much about our trip, and maybe I won't today. It seems that I'm less interested in what we did than in what happened before we got there. I guess that's why I'm an archaeologist and not a sociologist or something like that.
But, speaking of sociology, and more generally of current events, what's the deal with this "swine flu" business? Is it just me, or should we all be mounting class-action lawsuits against the news media? Today's stories on the BBC and CNN illustrate just how far we've come in the 10 or 14 days since this thing hit the fan: we're now referring to this potential pandemic as little different from the standard seasonal flu outbreak. For example, here's what the BBC says in this story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8030365.stm), "Health Minister Jose Angel Cordova [of Mexico] told the BBC that, based on samples tested, the mortality rate was comparable with that of seasonal flu." Really? I'm supposed to be panicking, or so it seemed three days ago. In fact, some mucky-muck at the WHO told us the most troubling thing about this flu is that it's infecting otherwise healthy young people in Mexico (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/25/swine.flu/index.html). Yet, for all the hype, according to all the stories coming out today, the death toll is much lower than initially projected, and as tragic as it still is, is largely limited to people who already had serious underlying health conditions (including the unfortunate case of a toddler brought to the US from Mexico for treatment, the only confirmed death in the US attributed to this flu outbreak). I'm not saying this isn't a serious concern, but I do think that the media have done such a thorough job over-reporting a flu outbreak with fewer than 1000 victims worldwide (and just over 20 deaths confirmed!) that now we're all behaving like the poor souls in that movie Outbreak from the 1990s. I'm pretty sure that the annual flu outbreak in the US, and around the world, claims far more victims than this one ever could, and also receives FAR less attention than this one is receiving. If we panic every time a new strain of the flu hits major cities, we're going to have to just get used to panicking, because the flu mutates so fast it seems there's a new strain popping up every day. Why else are we getting new shots every year, and how is it that those shots are largely ineffective on so many strains of the virus? The flu is a major concern, and we should all avoid putting our fingers in our mouths and coughing in each others' faces. But shouldn't we all be taking those simple precautions anyway? It's gross, isn't it? I mean, I've had this cold or cough or something for a good two weeks now, but you don't see me coughing in people's faces, wiping my phlegm all over doorknobs and the like. I'm pretty sure I don't have the new flu, but if I did have it, I don't see how panicking and going on a world-wide crackdown would really help. More realistically, I should probably drink loads of water, get lots of rest, seek medical advice, and follow through on a full antiviral regimen, as prescribed by a qualified medical professional. I'm prepared to panic over all this if it's still in the news in a week, though....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)