Travelling fans generate revenue only for our competitors whilst their presence (or lack thereof) has no impact either way on results.
I guess it's an intangible impact that cannot be measured, but the size and noise of a support, at home or away, can have small influences on passages of play and results.
If one studied the correlation between away support and away results, one would probably find a meaningful relationship but I seriously doubt if there is any causation.
The best-supported teams (home or away) are generally the richest clubs relative to their competitors. The richest clubs outperform because wages/transfer budgets are the single most important determinant of a club's success.
Obviously in the near-term the level of away support will be impacted by short-term form, for example Burnley had unusually high away support this season because their results improved (not the other way around).
Anyhow as others have rightly noted, the club's location and the location of the vast majority of its core fanbase in SE London/Kent is the single most important explanation for the level of our travelling support both in absolute numbers and relative to our home gates.
It takes 2.5 hours even without traffic to get to the Midlands (let alone the North) - in a way I'm surprised our travelling support is as high as it is.
Why does anyone care whether we are well supported away from home?
Travelling fans generate revenue only for our competitors whilst their presence (or lack thereof) has no impact either way on results.
By way of supporting evidence from this season, our six League away wins took place at Blackburn, Birmingham, Leeds, Forest, Blackpool and Sheff Weds, and in the FA Cup at Oxford, Huddersfield and Sheff Weds. Our away following at these games would surely have been lower than average.
Meanwhile when we showed up in numbers (Millwall, Brighton, Sheff Utd, QPR, Watford, Bournemouth), we failed to register a single win and scored just one goal from open play.
Maybe we should turn up even less?
Just my explanation for this:
You are only looking at two thirds of the picture. You are looking at revenue, and you are looking at results. Clear tangible outputs.
What you are not seemingly appreciating is football 'culture and identity'. The belonging, the togetherness, the tribal. The sense of identity, and where you sit in football's differing pecking orders.
That stuff comes from mainly from supporters, not from results, and certainly not from balance sheets.
Superb explenation AFKA - could not have put it better myself.
Orient alone would probably put 100 on the average. We haven't played at Cardiff's new ground on a Saturday, so unless it's midweek I'd expect that to be four figures.
But why is it 'embarrassing'? It is what it is - no need to be embarrassed by it.
I won't go to away games any more. I'm so embarrassed by the fact that other people (most of them complete strangers) don't turn up, that I daren't turn up myself ;-)
Comments
The best-supported teams (home or away) are generally the richest clubs relative to their competitors. The richest clubs outperform because wages/transfer budgets are the single most important determinant of a club's success.
Obviously in the near-term the level of away support will be impacted by short-term form, for example Burnley had unusually high away support this season because their results improved (not the other way around).
Anyhow as others have rightly noted, the club's location and the location of the vast majority of its core fanbase in SE London/Kent is the single most important explanation for the level of our travelling support both in absolute numbers and relative to our home gates.
It takes 2.5 hours even without traffic to get to the Midlands (let alone the North) - in a way I'm surprised our travelling support is as high as it is.
It is what it is - no need to be embarrassed by it.