Post history

History for terminator_x

Team Wellington... no longer an association with Ole. Chur

Back to topic

Current version

Posted November 18, 2013 03:15 · last edited November 18, 2013 03:16

alireggae wrote:
Jeff Vader wrote:
alireggae wrote:
terminator_x wrote:
Buffon II wrote:

How would you feel if it was TW who were dominating the league and had the best squad, best staff, best facilites etc?


 Which do you think is the more interesting league to follow a team in?



Easily the ASBP for many reasons.

1) I live in Auckland - Why would I support a team based in Wellington who plays home games in Wellington or more recently one game a year in Auckland and plays in an overseas league. I'm an active supporter not an armchair viewer.

2) The ASBP benefits football fans in the majority of NZ rather than just those in Wellington.

3) The ASBP fosters genuine national rivalries as opposed to an NZ/Aus rivalry. If I want that then I'll watch the All Whites V Australia.

4) I genuinely want the ASBP to succeed so would not give up on it just because more teams have won in the Australian competition. I was born in Scotland where 2 teams have dominated for the last 25-30 years - doesn't mean I give up on it and start supporting an English team.

You cherry picked 1 comment and isolated it to suit your POV.

 

The question was not "Is the ASBP more interesting than the A League". The question was 'Is it more interesting to follow a league where only 2 teams are in it and everyone else is also an ran or is it better to watch a league that has an even playing field and the winner could be any team"


Yes, but I have answered the question within the context it was posed. Term used the examples of the A-league and the ASBP within his question and as such I can't really answer the question without looking at the broader picture.


Actually, you misunderstood the question and despite having it clarified for you twice since then you still haven't answered it.

So to use Jeff's phrasing:  "Is it more interesting to follow a league where only 2 teams are in it and everyone else is an also ran, or is it better to watch a league that has an even playing field and the winner could be any team?".

And I will add: "And do you think a league with an even playing field where the winner could be any team might generate higher attendances overall, and more interest nationally from media, sponsors etc, than a league where only two teams are in it?".


Previous versions

1 version
terminator_x edited November 18, 2013 03:16
alireggae wrote:
Jeff Vader wrote:
alireggae wrote:
terminator_x wrote:
Buffon II wrote:

How would you feel if it was TW who were dominating the league and had the best squad, best staff, best facilites etc?


 Which do you think is the more interesting league to follow a team in?



Easily the ASBP for many reasons.

1) I live in Auckland - Why would I support a team based in Wellington who plays home games in Wellington or more recently one game a year in Auckland and plays in an overseas league. I'm an active supporter not an armchair viewer.

2) The ASBP benefits football fans in the majority of NZ rather than just those in Wellington.

3) The ASBP fosters genuine national rivalries as opposed to an NZ/Aus rivalry. If I want that then I'll watch the All Whites V Australia.

4) I genuinely want the ASBP to succeed so would not give up on it just because more teams have won in the Australian competition. I was born in Scotland where 2 teams have dominated for the last 25-30 years - doesn't mean I give up on it and start supporting an English team.

You cherry picked 1 comment and isolated it to suit your POV.

The question was not "Is the ASBP more interesting than the A League". The question was 'Is it more interesting to follow a league where only 2 teams are in it and everyone else is also an ran or is it better to watch a league that has an even playing field and the winner could be any team"


Yes, but I have answered the question within the context it was posed. Term used the examples of the A-league and the ASBP within his question and as such I can't really answer the question without looking at the broader picture.


Actually, you misunderstood the question and despite having it clarified for you twice since then you still haven't answered it.
So to use Jeff's phrasing:  "Is it more interesting to follow a league where only 2 teams are in it and everyone else is an also ran, or is it better to watch a league that has an even playing field and the winner could be any team?".
And I will add: "And do you think a league with an even playing field where the winner could be any team might generate higher attendances overall, and more interest nationally from media, sponsors etc, than a league where only two teams are in it?".