By Spiro Zavos
September 29th 2008 @ 7:33am
Related coverage
Yankee Stadium sport’s most iconic ground? No way
A couple of years ago I went to Yankee Stadium with my sons to see a World Series game. We were seated near the home plate and during the pre-game warm-ups you could hear the players chatting as they belted balls high into the inky-velvet darkness of the night sky.
The facilities at the ancient ground were grotty. Nothing much had changed in the eating places and toilets I guess since 1923 when the ground was opened, after only 234 days of construction. Babe Ruth hit a homer to win the first game in the stadium prompting an excited reporter to dub the venue: ‘The House That Ruth Built.’
Despite its run-down appearance there was an atmosphere about the ground, the buzz of the crowd wearing their NY Yankee caps and the red-white-and blue buntings and the sense of history to be made and having been made with the ghosts of Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio, Yogi Berra, Don Larsen, Micky Mantle (who went within an inch or so of hitting a ball out of the park) and Reggie Jackson …
Part of the mystique of the Yankees, and its ancient stadium, is that the greatest players in baseball history have played for the club and have performed brilliantly on the most important occasions. The club has always had enough stars to make up several galaxies.
As well, the club and its fans have been proud, almost obsessed by its traditions. The one suit style, off-white and navy blue pin-stripes, has been maintained over the decades where other clubs have changed their uniforms by the season to rake in more money from the fans.
Because of this reverence for the traditions of the club and its penchant for winning titles – 26 World Series – the players, even the greatest of them, and the creators of the Yankees legend, always felt honoured to be playing for the Yankees.
As the players made their way from the locker room to their dug-out they could read a sign bearing Joe DiMaggio’ prayer: ‘I want to thank the good Lord for making me a Yankee.’
0n the last night of the stadium’s life Babe Ruth’s daughter, now 92 and still sprightly, threw out the first ball. The champions were paraded and the ground announcer declared that the stadium was ’sport’s most iconic ground.’
This may well be true for baseball fans but not for most of the rest of us. The most iconic ground must have a variety of sports and sporting occasions to be the most iconic I would argue. This rules out Lords, Wimbledon and Twickenham and so on, and the old Yankee Stadium.
My vote goes to the SCG. Don Bradman is the ground’s Babe Ruth and the great players whose home ground it was and memorable occasions are legion: Victor Trumper; Dally Messenger: ‘The Don’ emptying the CBD when he was batting; Walter Hammond hitting a six into the Sheridan Stand to finish off the Bodyline Series; the Empire Games; Bill O’Reilly; the St George run of Rugby League premiership victories; David Brockhoff running around the SCG holding up the Bledisloe Cup to celebrate the first victory in Australia for 48 years; the first ODI under lights between Australia and the West Indies which enabled me to open my report with the words, ‘Under a glittering full moon …” Doug Walters; Shane Warne’s first Test …
I’ve had the privilege to play on the sacred turf. In the early 1970s I captained the press gallery against the politicians in a cricket match played at the SCG. The pitch was like a shining pane of glass with the hard, shiny Bulli soil. A enormous heat came from out of pitch. I had scored 30 or so runs, some of them off the shrewd medium-paced bowling of Ron Mulock, a State Minister and once an opening bowler for Penrith first grade, before I was forced to retire with a fierce migraine.
Whether I had succeeded in scoring some runs or not was immaterial. The SCG has always been the greatest sports arena in the world for me. So when I heard the ground announcer bestow the ‘most iconic’ status on the old Yankee Stadium I almost shouted out to the television screen, ‘Never!
For me, the most iconic sports grounds anywhere is the SCG.
Get Australia's best Cricket opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(43)
Redb said | September 29th 2008 @ 7:44am | Report comment
Spiro,
Sorry, Windy Hill easily.
Redb
old goalie said | September 29th 2008 @ 8:35am | Report comment
A case may be made for Old Wembley
A Football World Cup Final
Countless Fa Cups, 5 European Champions League deciders and many other internationals
the 1948 Olympics
Hundreds of Concerts Including the first Live Aid
True Tah said | September 29th 2008 @ 8:44am | Report comment
Would say the MCG in Australia at least – AFL, cricket, rugby, futbol, it has a long tradition too.
Dave said | September 29th 2008 @ 8:55am | Report comment
Redb
Back in the early 1970s l would have been with you on that
Stood on the open terrances in all conditions.
Spiro
Obviously a very personal subjective choice and thats fine but…for me it has to be Wembley in London. An Olympics, a World Cup final and WC matches, European Football Championships Incl final 1996, European Cup finals, Cup Winners Cup Final, Rugby League Challenge Cup finals, Rugby Union Tests, FA Cup finals (from 1923) and Semi Finals, League Cup Finals, England Internationals, a record attendance of 123,000 (unofficially 170,000 The White Horse Cup Final 1923), Grey Hound Racing, Schoolboys football are just the events. It is the most expensive ground ever built (twice). The players who have graced the stage in performance are too many to mention in full but a few…Pele, Beckham, Cryuff, Maradona, Eusebio, Charlton, Matthews, Best and many hundreds/thousnads of Olympians, Rugby/League players. It is known not just in Commonwealth countries eg SCG and MCG but the world over. It has to be the most iconic ground in the world.
In Oz easily the MCG takes that honour.
Michael C said | September 29th 2008 @ 9:01am | Report comment
Question -
does the venue need to retain it’s historic ‘buildings’
or
does the history of activity allow a regularly rebuilt venue to retain and perhaps enhance it’s reputation?
That’s simply I guess the SCG vs MCG equation.
I can’t speak too greatly for venues overseas…………as, I figure for each venue has it’s own story and is probably judged by how it has established a place within it’s ‘community’ beyond simply a given sport or sport in general.
Certainly for Melbourne, and the history of the city, it’s ‘home evolved’ footy code and the like – - the ‘paddock that grew’ – - it doens’t matter so much the name of the stands, or the construction date – - it’s the location, that paddock – - in Melbourne that is so important and the parklands surrounding it including trees that stood as goals for some of the original games of Melbourne Rules footy.
Wallythefly said | September 29th 2008 @ 9:20am | Report comment
Can’t believe nobody has mentioned ANZ….
Phil Coorey said | September 29th 2008 @ 10:23am | Report comment
I hate the Yankees and everything about the scumbags. Watching them wave goodbye to the Yankee Stadium and not make the playoffs is only matched by the Red Sox winning two world series since 2004. They say the place has been there since 1923 but it was totally rebuilt in the seventies – so the hype is a little unwarranted in some minds.
However Spiro, you should also remember that Yankee stadium also hosted some very important boxing matches and gridiron games (including the game of the century between Army and Notre Dame in 1946)
Fenway & Wrigley are way better anyway
Go Sox
Dave said | September 29th 2008 @ 10:33am | Report comment
There’s a lot to choose from here, Wembley Stadium to me is untouchable for history, number of big matches held there but the old stadium was a hole and not good for watching games and i’m glad they pulled it down.
Yankee Stadium would be up there but i’d say the MCG would run Wembley close in the ‘iconic’ category
James Ward said | September 29th 2008 @ 10:40am | Report comment
It depends on your own taste for sport – I lob\ve soccer so my vote is for Wembley. The name alone evkes so much history
Millster said | September 29th 2008 @ 11:43am | Report comment
Spiro – while I love the SCG too, surely not. Even in Australia, for reasons of football, AFL and cricket I’d go the MCG.
But both those get comprehensively trumped by:
Wembley (as mentioned before)
the San Siro
Madison Square Gardens
Wimbledon
St Andrews
just to name a few…
and as an architectural icon the Beijing Olympic stadium takes the cake as it will be instantly recognisable even to non sports lovers
Michael C said | September 29th 2008 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
Millster -
don’t forget that the MCG compared to WEmbley -
MCG has hosted the Olympics, Commonwealth Games, Test Cricket (and it’s biggest crowds), Rugby Union, RUgby League (in many cases setting at least at the time records either in Aust or the world), soccer (inc WC qualifiers, Olympic matches and hugely supported one off matches) as well as the AFL/VFL. Concerts to a lesser extent, but I saw Billy and Elton at the ‘G.
SO, it doesn’t really pale compared to Wembley which relies mostly upon it’s meaning to Soccer fans………..oh………and Queen fans……
but – just trying to illustrate that the MCG needn’t be considered absolute daylight behind……..but, yes, the Commonwealth countries vs non C’wealth countries is the dividing line.
ohtani's jacket said | September 29th 2008 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
I don’t see how the SCG is iconic outside of Australia and countries that play cricket. Personally I think Madison Square Garden is more iconic than Yankee Stadium, but both venues are more famous than Lords or the SCG.
Mick of Newie said | September 29th 2008 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
And don’t forget dog racing fans!!
What about the Azteca in Mexico, Pele and Maradona won world cups there and Maradona scored both the greatest world cup goal and the most notorious world cup goal.
For me multi use stadiums are usually by necessity compromised. The SCG is not the greatest cricket, rugby or league grounds, it is an icon but only in a myopic world is ti the most iconic.
Redb said | September 29th 2008 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
In terms of pure icon status in Australia it has to be the MCG. Special mention to the SCG and Adelaide Oval both great cricket grounds. Would also throw in Flemington Racecourse as an iconic sporting arena.
In world terms, Wembley or Madison Square Garden.
Redb
Michael C said | September 29th 2008 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
Redb -
on this one, sometimes I figure the test would be to collect all the Googlemaps satellite images of the venues, and make a montage of the 10 or 20 in question, and test out a sample audience,
in Australia, one venue that is instantly recogniseable is Telstra Dome………….I know it’s only one measure,
note – the MCG the last time I looked at C’wealth games runnning track and ‘blue’ decoration!!!!
Yankee Stadium kinda holds up……….for me I recall it via Billy Joel live at Yankee Stadium!!!!
Brad said | September 29th 2008 @ 3:00pm | Report comment
Soccer = Wembly
Rugby = Twickenham
Cricket = Lords
Gladiators = Collesium
The MCG will not be as kindly remembered in 1000 years as these iconic stadiums. In time the Millenium stadium may surpass Twickenham but only if the welsh beat the All Blacks there.
Mart said | September 29th 2008 @ 3:48pm | Report comment
Gents – surely beauty is in the eye of the beerholder on this one ? I’ve been to a fair few of the grounds mentioned above (Wemb, Twick, CAP, Millen, SCG, MCG, Lords etc etc). I’m a member at the MCG and it’s a sensational stadium (as opposed to the run down dump Wembley used to be before rebuilt – akin to how Spiro describes Yenkee). But I’ve had great experiences / memories of all stadiums across a range of sports / entertainment events. Almost impossible to single one out. As a rugger-bugger my 2 personal faves are Bath’s ground in the West Counrty in England (surely one of the prettiest anywhere ? And sadly under threat, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/sep/29/bath.worcesterrugby) and internationally the old Lansdowne Road in Dublin (complete with house in one corner !) which has sadly bitten the dust now. I think I get Spiro’s drift though – most “big” stadiums (Stadium Australia, Wembley, Stade de France, Murrayfield) are indetikit these days and geared for events rather than a specific sport. Hard to combine pretty, compact stadium with multi events these days (for example, there will never be another Bledisloe at the SCG – too few seats for bums to max the revenue).
Phil Coorey said | September 29th 2008 @ 4:20pm | Report comment
It should be remembered that Steinbrenner wore down Yankee Stadium to weasel his way to a new one – like I said – scumbag.
chris said | September 29th 2008 @ 4:42pm | Report comment
Wembley first daylight second.
Parc des princess must also get a mention.
Ian Noble said | September 29th 2008 @ 4:56pm | Report comment
Spiro
I would say Lords “The cathedral of cricket” would get my vote. Whilst others are good calls there are very few which still have an iconic pavilion of the age and stature of the Lords pavilion, with its long room and the old buffers of the MCC falling asleep on the seats.
By the way, Mart , as for cottages, don’t forget Fulham’s ground with the original Craven Cottage still part of the ground. It is now listed and can not be demolished or moved from the site. I would also agree with Bath but it is too small and urgently Bath need to redevelope or relocate away from the centre of Bath.
Dave said | September 29th 2008 @ 9:11pm | Report comment
BTW Forgot to mention in earlier post Wembley also has held NFL regular season fixtures and later this year l believe the Barbarians will be playing there.
As Chris said Wembley 1st and daylight 2nd. MCG in the top 3.
Ian Noble said | September 30th 2008 @ 1:47am | Report comment
Dave
Baa-Baas v Aus, 3rd Dec evening kick off 7.45 am, presumably beamed to OZ early morning 4th Dec (Oz time).
Wembley would not get my vote although I have been there on a couple of occasions , It is a brand new stadium with an excellent design which is replicated in stadia in OZ, afterall OZ architects designed the main stadium with Foster adding the arch.
LeftArmSpinner said | September 30th 2008 @ 5:32pm | Report comment
Wembley cant count ’cause they pulled it down. It was great, no doubt. I watched the RL World Cup final from the corp area in the roof. Two tiers of seating, behind glass, on half way and literally at the field edge of the roof. amazing view of Steve renouf scoring the winning try.
Twickenham is good put not great. Parc De Princes is right up there.
Wallythefly, great humour…… love it.
It is more about those still standing and in close to their original incarnation. Madison Square Garden would be up there.
sheek said | September 30th 2008 @ 9:08pm | Report comment
For putting the fear up opponents, the Sauron Memorial Ground (SMG) in Mordor, was one hell of a scary place.
The Orcs only ever lost once at home, & that was a huge shock to everyone, not least themselves. People say it was the ‘one ring trick’ that did them in.
Mart said | October 1st 2008 @ 10:51am | Report comment
Sheekwise – why was it a huge shock to everyone ? It should be evident to scholars of history by now that ugly looking teams from places where black is the predominant, favoured colour usually lose when they are overwhelmingly expected to triumph. Just look at the All Blacks in the RWC for the last 20 years……that’s the sole reason that Lord of the Rings was filmed in NZ….aledgedly……..humbly yours / Gollum
kick to kick said | October 1st 2008 @ 12:52pm | Report comment
I too love the SCG. It’s probably my favourite place to watch sport. But this is a Sydney-centric view, and one built on the esoteric sports of cricket and rugby league. The Sydney blinkers are there too in the remarkable ommission in Spiro’s praise for the ground’s history, of Tony Lockett kicking the goal at the Paddington end that made him the greatest Australian rules football goal kicker of all time, – as big an Australian sporting moment as any. Internationally neither baseball nor cricket grounds can claim the global passion reserved for football. So the late Wembley stadium probably wins.
Dublin Dave said | October 25th 2008 @ 10:20pm | Report comment
I don’t hold with the premise that a ground has to host several different sports to be considered “iconic”. Such status should not necessarily belong to a Jack of all trade but to a master of one.
I’ve never been to Australia (yet) so I can’t comment on any of those grounds. I also find it interesting to note that most of the people who have actually been to Wembley, especially the old one, say it was a dump and they’re quite right. It was an inaccessible badly appointed dung heap with poor sight lines and which attracted a pretty shoddy clientele. Having a few pretty towers on top didn’t change that. The nearest train station was about half an hour’s walk away and trying to drive to it was a nightmare.
Personal favourites for me would be Parc des Princes in Paris, the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff, the Nou Camp in Barcelona, the Olympic Stadium in Munich and I share a soft and unashamedly parochial spot for Lansdowne Road in Dublin.
The Nou Camp is the most stupendous amphitheatre I have ever seen. Although I haven’t actually attended a match there, what it must be like when full is awesome.
Parc des Princes was small by international standards but a complete bear pit. A uniform oval stadium with magnificent concentrated noise. I was there once to see France absolutely murder Ireland and the crowd were on fire. We like to see close contests; the French love to watch massacres, especially when it’s their boys behaving with the panache of a Parisian dancing troop. I reckon they’d pay to watch a firing squad.
In my student days of summer working in Munich I would head up to the Olympiastadion to watch Bayern play their early season games. The distinctive spider’s web architecture STILL looks futuristic nearly 40 years after it was built. Sadly it’s inflexibility meant that they couldn’t extend the capacity of the ground and so Bayern have now moved to a larger stadium.
Both the Millennium Stadium and Lansdowne Road have the advantage of being close to their respective city centres which adds a wonderful ambience not just to the stadiums but to the host cities themselves. you cannot be in Cardiff or Dublin the day of a big match and now know that it’s on. The whole town gets swamped with atmosphere.
At present, the Millennium Stadium is by far the better one. Bigger, all seated with a flexible roof and bang in the middle of town. Sadly, it’s accessibility to Cardiff does not match Cardiff’s accessibility to the visiting public. There is a dire shortage of accommodation in the city which means that much of the advantage of the ground, for a visitor anyway, is lost.
The old Lansdowne Road was a ramshackle old place saved by the general good humour of the crowd and the fact that you could tumble out of it into a host of nearby bars. Hopefully the new place, which I’m happy to report as I live within earshot is flying up, will solve some of the nightmarish problems of getting access thanks to railway level crossings and badly situated turnstiles. If it can maintain the atmosphere while upgrading the facilities to the 21st century, helped by its fantastic location it could remain one of the best places to attend a rugby match.
But of course I’m biased.
chris said | November 7th 2008 @ 8:39am | Report comment
Concord Stadium is up there.
danny said | December 2nd 2008 @ 7:06pm | Report comment
i think to call something ’sport’s most iconic ground’, it would have to be iconic to the most people. with that in mind, you’d be hard-pressed to go beyond football, purely in terms of international recognition. wembley, camp nou, san siro, azteca, maracana – these are internationally recognised icons. lords and the ‘g are iconic in cricketing circles (the latter also with afl fans), but unfortunately these circles do not spread far. similarly, while yankee stadium is quite well known (likewise madison square garden), their appeal is limited outside the states.
for my mind, wembley is far and away the most iconic stadium ni world sport. the mcg is right up there, it has an absolutely stellar history. regarding the scg, though, i’m going to have to disagree with you. i can’t imagine it having the iconic status outside australia.
jub jub said | January 21st 2009 @ 3:41pm | Report comment
baseball is played in fewer countries than criket, so yankee stadium does not beat MCG or SCG.
but the euro football sadiums like wembley definately are right up there .. along with a few others around europe and south america. ive always had a soft spot for the pure sardine tin that is the Azteca.
Michael C said | January 21st 2009 @ 3:53pm | Report comment
on this topic – - –
if ’sports most iconic ground’ is within and without the sporting world, then the role of a venue in music is important,
things such as “Queen live at Wembley”, or “Billy Joel, live at Yankee Stadium” etc…..
I still reckon the Flavian Amphitheatre, aka the Roman Coliseum might just nudge the others on a technicality.
Fragglerocker said | February 22nd 2009 @ 4:05pm | Report comment
I’m a bit late to post a comment but I’d say that an intersting hypothetical would be to list the best grounds for individual sports. History is great but I for one much prefer rugby union/league games at virtually any rectangular venue to the SCG or MCG. My personal best grounds for each sport would be:
Test Cricket: SCG
One Day Cricket: MCG
20/20: Docklands
AFL: MCG
Rugby: Millenium Stadium, Cardiff (I haven’t been to Twickenham since the redevelopment)
Rugby League: Suncorp
Soccer: Wembley
Best ground for a crowd of less than 20,000: The Stoop – Twickenham (Gold Coast the best in Australia)
Basketball: Boston
Boxing: Madison Square Garden
NFL: Mile High Stadium Denver
Baseball: PNC Park, Pittsburgh
College Football: LA Colosseum
Horse Racing: Flemington
Phil Coorey said | February 23rd 2009 @ 8:29am | Report comment
Can I ask how PNC is your number one? Most would say Fenway, Wrigley or that other place I don’t feel a need to mention, that is in New York.
jools-usa said | April 8th 2009 @ 12:12am | Report comment
Spiro,
Agree the old Yankee stadium was something out of Slumdog Millionaire, but we endured it happily as the
historic atmosphere overcame all else.
Yankee tradition (i.e. winning) is up there with Man U, Liverpool, OZ cricket, etc., and a walk in Monument Park
is holy grail to many fans
Jools-USA
Carl U said | May 10th 2009 @ 4:21pm | Report comment
“in Australia, one venue that is instantly recogniseable is Telstra Dome………….I know it’s only one measure”
What does Telstra dome look like?
Might be instantly recogniseable by those who live there.
Matt said | May 15th 2009 @ 11:49pm | Report comment
I’ve been to Wembley. It may have history but you wouldn’t know it. Its extremely sterile and much like an airport whilst the atmosphere (perhaps cause the history is gone) is sub-par. Its a bit of an ANZ stadium really.
I think this is very personal though. I would have to say the best sporting venue I have been to is Centre Court at Wimbledon.
Cocky Moose said | September 24th 2009 @ 8:18am | Report comment
Yankee stadium isn’t even the most iconic stadium in baseball. Nor, would I say, is the SCG the most iconic cricket ground either within or outwith Australia.
Wrigley Field I’d say was the most iconic, though Fenway is my favourite. For football I’m surprised that Old Trafford hasn’t been mentioned for it’s iconic status – Celtic Park is the best I’ve attended for atmosphere especially on a European night, and Tynecastle in Edinburgh is the best I’ve been to for crowds with less than 20k. It’s hard to go passed Wembley for it’s iconic status – unless you’ve been there. And for rugby/league, it’s obviously sitting on the hill at Leichhardt Oval on a sunny day.
dave said | October 7th 2009 @ 7:22pm | Report comment
@jub jub: “baseball is played in fewer countries than criket, so yankee stadium does not beat MCG or SCG.”
False.
ICC: 104 countries.
IBAF: 112 countries.
Factually, you are wrong. Sure, if you broke the Windies up into their constituent nations, the ICC and IBAF would be about equal in member countries. But that’s not how the ICC is organized, so, it doesn’t count: the West Indies in cricket terms is one country, so in fact there are more baseball countries than there are cricket countries.
Maybe cricket has more players and/or fans than baseball has, worldwide, or maybe it doesn’t. That is a different question, and a very hard one to answer objectively since it is a very hard thing to measure. On the whole, I’d say cricket and baseball are about equal, worldwide, in terms of fan interest and in terms of numbers of players. Any statistics you care to cite are dubious at best: too many interested parties are going to be busy at work spinning or fudging the numbers.
You people in the British Commonwealth countries do have some odd ideas about North American sports (as do we of you, looking in the opposite direction); baseball hasn’t been dominated by the USA (except in the sense that MLB dominates the professional game) in a long time; MLB is full of professional players from Latin America and East Asia. Baseball was an Olympic sport for a long time, and lost that position due to politics – MLB refused to stop play during the Olympics to allow its players to play in the Olympics – whereas cricket is still not an Olympic sport – you would think that if cricket was really “played in more countries” than baseball, cricket would have been an Olympic sport, and not baseball.
The fact is baseball has not been “an American (ie, strickly USA) game” for well over half a century. Baseball has very firm footholds in Latin America and the Caribbean (Mexico, Nicaragua, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Dutch East Indies, etc.) and East Asia (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc) and is growing fast as an amateur sport in lots of countries you wouldn’t expect.
20/20 cricket is probably the only thing that might allow cricket to grow beyond where it is now, worldwide; but that will probably only allow cricket to keep pace with baseball in terms of world popularity; cricket is unlikely to exceed baseball’s worldwide popularity any time in the foreseeable future. In terms of worldwide popularity baseball and cricket are about equal, ie, equally obscure; it is rather silly and ill-informed to make statements like “baseball is played in fewer countries than criket, so yankee stadium does not beat MCG or SCG” (as you put it).
Some of you Brits/Aussies/Commonwealth types tend to do this with basketball, too: alleging it is derived from netball (false: basketball came first) then dismiss it as “an American game” when it is in fact a worldwide game now, far more popular than any British game except for proper football (ie, association football). Maybe basketball’s worldwide popularity has sunken in now so that fewer people make this mistake, but I do hear it occasionally on online forums from Brits/Aussies/etc.
No worries about American gridiron football, though: it isn’t going to spread beyond the USA in any significant way any time soon, in spite of some small popularity worldwide as an amateur game to play and some slight interest in watching the Super Bowl. Gridiron football is too much like modern war: an expensive, time consuming, equipment-and-technology intensive money-sink that few countries can afford, or want to afford if they have their wits about them. The NFL is the only sport league in the USA today that doesn’t import significant numbers of foreign players from around the world. That’s no accident.
Going in the reverse direction, American sports parochialism has been broken up somewhat by the slow but steady march of “soccer” up from obscurity to major league status (not quite there yet, but making progress). Our American yahoos moan and shriek that “soccer is gay/foreign/communist/terrorist/un-American” but more Americans play and watch it every year. EPL has a strong following amongst Americans and MLS continues to grow, build soccer specific stadiums, and survive in spite of a hostile sporting media that constantly predicts its imminent demise. Rugby union has a modest amateur presence in the USA, but is still too tiny in total numbers of players and fans for anyone to take notice; whereas we have two or three soccer networks on cable/satellite TV, rugby in almost unknown on American TV. There are tiny amateur cricket, rugby league, and aussie rules footholds in the USA, spurred on by Aussie (or in the case of cricket, Indian/Pakistanti/Caribbean) expats, but these are so obscure they are effectively invisible in the larger US sporting scene.
As far as stadiums, I don’t know about “iconic”, but in terms of intimacy, it’s hard to beat the old stadiums and parks that have been torn down and replaced by modern facilities: Ebbets Field in Brooklyn and the Polo Grounds in New York, for example, or any number of old Football League grounds in England that are no more. Fenway in Boston is nice, but a bit old and cramped; I’ve never been to England but judging from what I see on TV, Craven Cottage looks like it would be a lot of fun to watch a match at: fans very close to the pitch, and the park itself is not too large (say about 20,000 seats or so) to spoil the intimacy. Size may help make something “iconic” but it seldom makes for an intimate venue.
Phil Coorey said | October 8th 2009 @ 10:33am | Report comment
Well written dave .
You watching the Yankee game? CC was on the ropes early but the Twins let him off – Liriano left a terrible pitch up and over the plate for Matsui. The Twins are going to get mauled in this series I think
FWIW, I have been to Fenway, Wrigley and a few old stadiums – they are as wonderful as any cricket icon.
The biggest problem with myself following baseball heavily, is as you alluded to – people dismiss you too quickly when they simply don’t know the facts.
ziggy said | October 13th 2009 @ 3:33pm | Report comment
It has to be Wembley or MCG
SCG is a very poor third.
Jaredsbro said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:23pm | Report comment
No you’re all wrong it’s got to be…Waikato Stadium. Why you ask? One must hear those mooloo bells to believe them. However I think many would agree the premise behind this thread is dubious: Australians don’t follow just one sport (on avg) and the only ones who genuinely have ‘theatre of dreams’ are those who are monomaniacally into only one sport
Jean-Pierre LeGuerre said | December 3rd 2009 @ 11:15pm | Report comment
seriously………. only an Australian (or American) site could have suggested a non-football (soccer) ground as sports most iconic stadium.
Football is bigger than cricket, rugby and baseball combined, and affects the soul of communities the world over.
The Nou Camp in barcelona jumps out at me, but to be honest, there are probably 20 strong candidates from the football world.
Sydney Cricket Ground? Has anyone outsouide of the British Oceanic Colonies (and a few english people) ever even heard of the place?
Get real.
umm no said | March 15th 2010 @ 4:51pm (3 days ago) | Report comment
The SCG is a dinky little ground of no consequence, that relatively few people are even aware exists, in a city that doesn’t even have a notable sporting culture. I can’t believe that is a serious suggestion.