They do still have a big cult following. What that article seemed to be saying is that a large % of British NFL fans are stuck in the 80s, which is true.

The fanbase has expanded since then though, so obviously there are more fans into different teams but I'd still expect to see a helluva lot of 40-something Dolphins fans at a London NFL game, even if they aren't actually playing.

—Paul Westerberg, 1991

On the Dolphins thing again, I did some more checking and they apparently have the 2nd biggest fanbase in the UK after the Patriots. Considering how successful the Patriots have been since the 80s compared with the Dolphins that's pretty remarkable. I don't know how popular they are in the US but I'd be amazed if they're anything like the 2nd most popular team there.

"Of NFLUK.com site users who have registered and selected their favorite team, 7.1 percent said that the Dolphins were the favorite team. Only the New England Patriots had more fans on the site with 9.5 percent."

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/he...ngland-6526446

Patriots have only been successful since the early 2000s..

as to Dolphins, even when Dan Marino was balling it up they have never been a nationally popular team. its largely because Marino never won a championship. Dolphins were like the Cleveland Browns, a very successful team that just could never get it done. Same was true of Denver Broncos until Elway finally won in late 90s. the national audience knew of these teams because of their failures not their success

really Lebron was the first guy to finally put Miami on the map as a national team, previously Miami teams had been successful and were known but actual fans across the country were more of a cult following unlike teams like Steelers, 9ers, Cowboys, or Raiders who are definitely teams with significant national fanbase and a certain sense of NFL heritage.

Today Dolphins of the past five or six years have been one of the laughing stock teams, a punchline rather than a team that punches back. Indeed most Americans actually think NFL sends Dolphins to London because they suck since a lot of the teams on London schedule sucked. i used to think that until you explained the Dolphins fanbase in UK

Miami sports in general are usually mediocre because of bad management and a generally shallow sports culture there.. The MLB Marlins are one of the worst teams in baseball.

I remember the laughing stock team when I 1st got into it (we're talking early-mid 80s) was the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Those who knew a bit more about it and had been into it a bit longer seemed to like the 49ers and the Redskins but kids like me seemed to be equally split between the Dolphins and the (LA) Raiders. I remember some Bears fans emerging after their Superbowl win but me and my friends wrote them off as newbies (haha). I didn't notice any Patriots fans until much later.

I love remembering those times. My dad (a rugby fan) refused to have it on at our house so every week I'd go to my friend's to watch the highlights and beat up his little brother, who decided he liked the Jets.

I've heard the same thing about Beckham's ongoing attempt to create a MLS franchise there.

sounds about right.

Since American sports don't relegate losing teams out of the top leagues these teams have no incentive to win. even worse they can more or less make $ and survive as a kind of local showcase of the more successful teams that will come to town to play them. so Miami sports for example generally exist and make money by hosting games against otherwise marquee franchises.

these teams literally advertise "come and see (the other team) play"

they changed formations but used the same modality-- possession and short passes

but no, you're right, he brought in coman (fail) and costa (win) to open up the wings a bit. and had to depend on ribery and robben for winning. not sure if those hires were his or the board's though.

but under pep they were never able to win through physicality. maybe he had the tools available (xabi alonso, vidal) but never used them to overwhelm the opponent like heynckes did which is why atletico mowed them down like a bunch of porcelain dolls last year. whereas with heynckes they overpowered barcelona like they were gifted , but ultimately small, children.

that was an edge lost, i swear. the glory and danger of overspecialization. this is why apes took over beautiful beautifule felines at the top of the food chain-- less specialized, a lot more flexible.

haaaaa haaaa yes. the genius of randomness. everyone was expecting that john woo shit and blam. dead on the floor laughing. his diarrhea face probably helped with the acting-- his face really was the funniest thing.

I take your point about them maybe becoming a bit less physical but, in terms of them going out to Atletico, they were hardly mowed down. They went out on an away goal and could've just as easily gone through. The margins at that level are usually far too fine to draw any absolute conclusions. If Heynckes's Bayern could somehow play Pep's Bayern ten times in a row, I imagine the honours would be about even. Beyond that it just comes down to the style of football we prefer to watch. I know lots of people find Pep's style frustrating just as many others love it. It certainly isn't perfect, but then no team or manager ever have been. Again, playing around with history, it'd be fascinating to see how Heynckes would've dealt with a defensive machine like Simeone's Atletico.

bayern-koln had a really fun 2nd half today and ended 1-1

dortmund game about to start!

so, a bit rushed: didn't meant mowed down in goals but physically mowed down every time they wanted to play. i remember complaining of ref calls and pep fielding his tiniest men. this is a year later though so i can't say objectively but i remember my frustration at bayern being overpowered.

chicharito praying on his knees haaa haaaa haaaa. whistle!

catching 2nd half of italy-spain, looks like i didn't miss much on the 1st?
--
oh man! buffon! what was that!
as the vikings had it, even the gods are mortal

Ecuador vs Chile in 50 minutes.

oh hell-- in quito! chile is bound to suffer

what a penalty kick by de rossi!

No kidding. Last couple of games were a loss to a mediocre Paraguay in Asunción and a sad incapability to score in Santiago against Bolivia, the Faroe Islands of South América.

no no. bolivia has la paz. the faroe islands are at sea level.

OK, so Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, take your pick...

there's no european capital that matches the altitude of la paz.

and that's the thing-- la paz is almost at 4,000 meters altitude.

bolivia is extremely hard to beat at home for that reason

quito is like 3,000-- a little easier, but still a bitch for those who aren't adapted to playing there