let's do this: equate prem w/ american sports

[mattw]

being american i always like to put things that aren't american into american terms so i can explain them to my friends that do (or mostly don't) want to hear about the things i like to pay attention to. this is what americans do. that being said if you want to participate in this try your best to keep an open mind when you're doing your comparisons. also, being a typical american i only know or think i know about the big time stars and clubs in england so that's where i'll start and hope that someone with more depth in these things can fill in the embarrasing blanks. so here goes:

manchester united = ny yankees: they always, always buy big and initially inflate the market for everyone else. they have a their own defined united or yankees way of doing business and they normally have a style of play or means of winning what they set out to do. they even have their own derek jeter (ryan giggs) and jorge posada (paul scholes) the 2 guys who have been there for most of their winnings...they are seen as the cornerstones of their respective franchises. they even have their own version of a-rod in cristiano ronaldo. the primadonna uber-athlete that people either love, hate, or find comedy in...who is undoubtedly the most talented player in their respective sports but both have shortcomings when it comes to a certain thing americans like to call clutch situations. as a quick aside i think fergie's american equivalent is phil jackson...always with the talented team always playing mind games always in full control...and always the question of just how good he would be without a team of such talent.

liverpool = boston red sox: the only thing that doesn't complete this is that liverpool actually have more titles than united so it doesnt fully equate. but almost everywhere else it does...the gritty, loveable(??) style of play with their loveable (again depends on who you are) stars in gerrard, carragher, etc. they also hate united with the same sort of fury that the sox hate the yankees. i can't quite pin down who their stars american equivalents are though. gerrard is the toughest to do this for. jamie carragher to me though is obviously jason varitek...no one is exactly sure how good he is, sometimes he's not good at all...but if he's not there theyre somehow worse...almost always. i also can't quite figure out how rafa fits in.


chelsea = omar minaya era ny mets: always the perennial punchline until! shock! they've gone and bought loads of superstars (pedro, beltran, santana) as to guys like (essien, deco, drogba) but with a solid base of two pretty much homegrown icons in wright and reyes as compared to lampard and terry. another big fault in this one is that chelsea has actually won stuff while the mets are still...the mets.

arsenal = the pittsburgh steelers: everyone respects the steelers even if they hate them. the steelers have long been owned or at least partly owned by one family and i think but this could be embarrassing that arsenal also were long owned by one family and may have someone still on the board there? anyhow. the steelers always play the same whether theyre winning or theyre losing...they run the football they play outstanding defense. they play american football in it's essence...they're smashmouth...purists love it,. arsenal do the same thing in their football...they play with grace and style...letting the ball do the work with intricate passing and goals galore...purists love it. the other thing about these 2 teams is that theyre almost always contenders if not always favorites they are always there for at least a while threatening to win a championship. the players are a little tough to pin down. i think cesc is lebron james...we haven't even seen the full talent unleashed but we know it's coming he's young but already as good as anyone else and he may have to move teams to become a true legend of the sport.


spurs = phoenix suns (or philadelphia eagles): these teams are always good...or at least look good on paper. they always have players that are just below that top tier of true awesomeness...they also never win. the main reason i put spurs here though is because of luka modric and steve nash. they are exactly the same! and i know modric hasn't had but 2 weeks but it's just uncanny. both are perceived as soft for their leagues but both have a ridiculous way of making things happen. true playmakers. both are ridiculous passers as well. but watching them move in their respective sports makes me think that there is some sort of cloning partnership between canada and croatia.


this is already pretty longwinded as is but let me know what you think either way and ADD TO THIS. it's alot easier than you think and especially if you open up the other leagues...like francesco totti and roma being dan marino and his miami dolphins.

[Marlon]

Liverpool are much more like the pre 2007 - 2008 Boston Celtics than the Red Sox.

[NathanielEdwards]

Well, for Serie A:

Juventus = New York Yankees (traditional best, not that good currently, black and white stripes)
Inter = New York Mets (well, uh, the colors match anyway)
Napoli = Atlanta Braves (consistent performers over a decade who suddenly collapsed to nothing in the 90s/2000s)
Roma = Boston Red Sox (Red, not many titles for a big team, top of their game once Juventus/Yankees went down)

That's enough for right now. Sorry, I don't know enough about the Premiership teams to offer an opinion there.

[mattw]

marlon: the celtics thing definitely makes sense in terms of their winning patterns. but the rivalry thing was the main reason i said the sox.

nathaniel would you agree with roma being the marino era dolphins? with totti being marino and the offense that inspires pant shitting terror but ultimately a team that just can't get over that last hump.

[SteroidsAndGuns]

Bill Simmons has already done this: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/st ... ons/060719

Among the highlights:
Chelsea: Like the current NY Knicks, if only they were competent
Manchester United: Yankees (obviously)
Arsenal: Red Sox (mostly because of Fever Pitch)
Manchester City: The LA Clippers
Newcastle: The Oakland Raiders
Liverpool: '86 Celtics with Gerrard being a drug-free Len Bias
Tottenham: Like the Brooklyn Dodgers if they never left Brooklyn (better than the Suns IMO because they've actually won something). Also the number of fans they have is probably closer to the Dodgers than the Suns (i.e., more)

[NathanielEdwards]

marlon: the celtics thing definitely makes sense in terms of their winning patterns. but the rivalry thing was the main reason i said the sox.

nathaniel would you agree with roma being the marino era dolphins? with totti being marino and the offense that inspires pant shitting terror but ultimately a team that just can't get over that last hump.

Yeah, that sounds even better. I don't have a lot of experience outside baseball to draw from for these comparisons.

[sean]

True that Bill Simmons has tried todo it - but he really knows nothing about soccer/football. Great writer - but not even close to his sweet spot.