I don't care either way, but this way we have a handy thread to point people to when they wish to debate whether soccer is a good sport or not. Keep this link at your fingertips!

Should have been Ping - Ksyrup/Kodos

So I went over to the World Cup expecting to see some kind of crazy soccer pissing match that inspired this, and there was nothing.

Is there a thread I can bitch about that?

You rang?

So I went over to the World Cup expecting to see some kind of crazy soccer pissing match that inspired this, and there was nothing.

Is there a thread I can bitch about that?

It's in there but it is harder to find there than it is in the IMAGES THREAD

Soccer folks are kinda sensitive. I believe my offense was +1'ing Ksyrup when he said soccer was boring in the images thread. Otherwise, I have had no offenses since my initial complaints weeks ago in the World Cup thread.

Edit: I guess the trouble started at post 6968 in the images thread when Ksyrup posted an image of a cartoon with a cat complaining about how boring soccer is. I said I agreed with the cat, and then a few posts later suggested a bigger net would help.

I am ready for the firing squad now.

Since we have the thread:

How can such a boring sport be the biggest sport in the world? It boggles the mind.

I find the offsides rule very odd. I'm sure someone with alot of knowledge will explain why this is necessary.

I grew up playing soccer at a very high level so I love the sport but I can certainly understand why Americans would hate it. If every NFL game was 10-3 we would hate football also.

My only issue is with the Americans who insist on speaking "soccer" or the queen's English during the the World Cup to sound more knowledgeable.

"Germany were a well organised side."

Who the eff are you, Tommy Smyth?

My only issue is with the Americans who insist on speaking "soccer" or the queen's English during the the World Cup to sound more knowledgeable.

"Germany were a well organised side."

Who the eff are you, Tommy Smyth?

I agree that going with the Queen's English on the verb tense choice is abit much.

That said, "side" is a soccer term used by anyone who follows the sport. Just like "bat" is used in baseball, "net" in basketball.

I don't think the low scores are biggest problem with soccer. The games are much shorter - a 2-1 soccer game is roughly equivalent to a 28-14 football game.

In popular American sports though, things that effect the game's outcome happen throughout the game. That's what we like. A scoreless half-inning of baseball clearly advances the game, putting a zero up on the scoreboard. A touchdown may take a half hour or more of real time to develop, and it may be a direct consequence of a big defensive play/turnover/kickoff return that happened just prior to that. Everything feels connected.

In soccer, you can have huge periods of time that go by, where nothing happens that actually advances the game.

To a non-soccer fan, a game kind of looks like this:

nothing happening...nothing happening...nothing happening..SCORE OFF A DEFLECTION THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT HAPPENED EARLIER....nothing happening....nothing happening....

We like more structure rather than free-flowing play (innings, downs, yards to to go, or failing that, a changing socreboard every few seconds, as in basketball)

That said, "side" is a soccer term used by anyone who follows the sport.

That's sort of my point.

Make the field a quarter of its current size.

I'm not one of the soccer complainers, I just don't pay any attention to it. But I think Molson hits my feelings right there - it's just the fact that there's no *progress* that makes it hard to follow. It feels like if you sat down half way through the match and the score was 0-0 then you wouldn't have missed anything. There's no field position battle or things like that, or rather the positioning is very fleeting. I feel the same about hockey, so I'm not sure why that's popular in the U.S. but not soccer.

That's sort of my point.

So, lemme get this straight. You're upset tthat people who follow the sport are speaking like they follow the sport?

And yes I just posted this mostly as a joke - I've seen the soccer debate not only into the Images thread but a couple of other threads. Figured we could push everyone here instead.

I feel the same about hockey, so I'm not sure why that's popular in the U.S. but not soccer.

Hitting, far more scoring, and far more scoring chances.

i think a bigger net would make the goalie pointless, so I'd rather go with Casey's idea from Sports Night - "Smaller net, no goalie".

So, lemme get this straight. You're upset tthat people who follow the sport are speaking like they follow the sport?

Ya, I don't want to hear a European refer to an NFL field as "the pitch", I expect them to Americanize their terminology when they're talking about an American sport.

So we should try to do the same when talking about soccer.

Hitting, far more scoring, and far more scoring chances.

True, and also, it's not as popular as other sports in the U.S, and I think the free-flowing play is the main reason.

But all those things you mention makes it feel like the game is progressing somewhat. If a team is dominating, they'll probably get a couple of goals and not give up many. A team can dominate in soccer and have nothing to show for it (I get a little confused at halftime of a 0-0 World Cup game when the analyst says something like, "It was a great start for Spain, but in towards the end of the half they started to lose their way." It's 0-0, it doesn't matter how Spain played at that point.

Baseball should have a "pitch clock". 10 seconds from the time the pitcher receives the ball, it must be thrown. If the batter is not in the box, it's a strike. If the pitcher does not throw it, it's a ball.

I feel the same about hockey, so I'm not sure why that's popular in the U.S. but not soccer.

This could be the error in your thinking. Who ever said hockey was popular in the United States?

Not everyone has to like everything that you like, and not everyone has to dislike everything you dislike.

Baseball should have a "pitch clock". 10 seconds from the time the pitcher receives the ball, it must be thrown. If the batter is not in the box, it's a strike. If the pitcher does not throw it, it's a ball.

Try and stay on topic please.

I think another problem is games end in a tie, pretty unsatisfying.

I don't like hockey either. Especially the offsides rule.

Baseball should have a "pitch clock". 10 seconds from the time the pitcher receives the ball, it must be thrown. If the batter is not in the box, it's a strike. If the pitcher does not throw it, it's a ball.
The SEC tournament had one of these this year. It worked pretty well. BTW the clock is only in use when bases are empty.

Baseball would be much more exciting if a guy started on second base every inning.

Baseball would be much more exciting if a guy started on second base every inning.

I think Arkansas's opponents did that this year. It sucked. I hope they repeal that.

Baseball isn't exciting even when you're just watching the highlights.

So, lemme get this straight. You're upset tthat people who follow the sport are speaking like they follow the sport?

Nope. I think I speak for most Americans when I say I can count on one hand (and maybe no hands) the number of soccer conversations I've had between say, July 2006 and June 2010. So, based on that premise, I'm going to assume the in depth discussion about sides, tactics and organisation going on at the water cooler/bar/coffee shop, etc. is not going on between "followers" of the sport, but folks trying to sound hip and snappy.

The FOFC soccer contingent, while seemingly very knowledgeable (to me as an admitted non-soccer fan), I don't think, is the pulse of the American public when it comes to the sport.

Ya, I don't want to hear a European refer to an NFL field as "the pitch", I expect them to Americanize their terminology when they're talking about an American sport.

So we should try to do the same when talking about soccer.

So, we start by not calling it soccer?

So, we start by not calling it soccer?

Actually, the word soccer originated in England.

Nope. I think I speak for most Americans when I say I can count on one hand (and maybe no hands) the number of soccer conversations I've had between say, July 2006 and June 2010. So, based on that premise, I'm going to assume the in depth discussion about sides, tactics and organisation going on at the water cooler/bar/coffee shop, etc. is not going on between "followers" of the sport, but folks trying to sound hip and snappy.

The FOFC soccer contingent, while seemingly very knowledgeable (to me as an admitted non-soccer fan), I don't think, is the pulse of the American public when it comes to the sport.

Well, yea, non-soccer followers who do this are obviously posers.

Next time, in your first post, be more specific with your description of "Americans". It could have been (and was) taken as meaning all Americans, soccer followers or no, not just the johnny-come-latelies the past few weeks.

Actually, the word soccer originated in England.

Beat me to the punch.

Baseball would be much more exciting if a guy started on second base every inning.

Dusty Baker does not approve of this rule change.

Baseball would be much more exciting if a guy exploded on second base every inning.

Fixed this for you.

So, we start by not calling it soccer?

We already have a sport called football, so our hands are kind of tied there.

I find the offsides rule very odd. I'm sure someone with alot of knowledge will explain why this is necessary.

It's exactly like the 3 offensive seconds rule in basketball, to not to allow a player to sit there close to the goal for the whole game and instead of to have to move to find the scoring position, the same way in basketball a player is not allowed to be under the basket not moving for the whole game.

Actually, the word soccer originated in England.

The English were soooo excited by soccer, a gentleman picked the ball up and started running with it. This was the beginning of Rugby. A much more exciting sport. And the 2nd most popular game in the world.
Give me rugby over soccer everyday.

I enjoy soccer, but it is very difficult to get invested in a team. I have enough trouble noticing the nuances of the game without trying to figure out who the players are. With the English Premier League, I might get to watch a game, but then those teams might not be on television for another month. It's difficult to get an attachment to the players. I think that might be why I enjoy the World Cup so much more than league soccer. I know who the US national team players are.

I tried to follow the Philadelphia Union when they started up, but their games are often on against the Phillies, a match they will lose every time.

I really don’t understand the “nothing happens” argument. I’ve got no complaint with someone saying what is happening is boring and they don’t want to watch, but keeping possession of the ball in soccer is extremely difficult and important. If you can force the other team to defend 60% of the time for 90 minutes, fatigue and concentration will get them more often than not. And it’s not as though kicking the ball around in midfield is risk free, any turnover there really puts your backline in a pickle.

Since we are kind of stuck with using analogies of US sports; it’s like a football team with a strong running game. In the first half a simple off tackle run may pick up a few yards, but by the fourth quarter it’s going for 7 or 8. Or another example is putting a base stealer on first. Even if he doesn’t end up stealing second, he’s still putting a lot of strain on the defense just by being there.

I don't think the low scores are biggest problem with soccer. The games are much shorter - a 2-1 soccer game is roughly equivalent to a 28-14 football game.

In popular American sports though, things that effect the game's outcome happen throughout the game. That's what we like. A scoreless half-inning of baseball clearly advances the game, putting a zero up on the scoreboard. A touchdown may take a half hour or more of real time to develop, and it may be a direct consequence of a big defensive play/turnover/kickoff return that happened just prior to that. Everything feels connected.

In soccer, you can have huge periods of time that go by, where nothing happens that actually advances the game.

To a non-soccer fan, a game kind of looks like this:

nothing happening...nothing happening...nothing happening..SCORE OFF A DEFLECTION THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT HAPPENED EARLIER....nothing happening....nothing happening....

We like more structure rather than free-flowing play (innings, downs, yards to to go, or failing that, a changing socreboard every few seconds, as in basketball)

By your logic: How do 3-and-out series in football advance the game?

The eventual touchdowns that are scored have nothing to do with that series.

I enjoy soccer, but it is very difficult to get invested in a team. I have enough trouble noticing the nuances of the game without trying to figure out who the players are. With the English Premier League, I might get to watch a game, but then those teams might not be on television for another month. It's difficult to get an attachment to the players. I think that might be why I enjoy the World Cup so much more than league soccer. I know who the US national team players are.

I tried to follow the Philadelphia Union when they started up, but their games are often on against the Phillies, a match they will lose every time.


1. If you're willing to pay for the additional channel, you can almost always get 9 out of 10 soccer games that are played in the English Premier League each week. All but the worst of the EPL teams are on TV every week.

2. Maybe get a DVR? The one positive about being a follower of a MLS team is that it is very easy to watch the game hours later without having run into any spoilers.

Soccer is considered kind of a joke sport in the San Fran bay area. Like...it's not even a real sport. I look at it like basketball. It doesn't really require any special talent to play. Anybody can grab a ball and kick it around the field. Sure it's played at a higher level with the pro's, but it's one of those sports where if you practice a lot then you get really good. Whereas with Baseball, you could practice every day with the best trainers in the world...but if you don't have world class hand-eye-coordination, you're going to be stuck in the minors (if you're lucky) your whole life. I think that's a big reason that the two big sports, Football and Baseball, are so popular in the States. US citizens are a bunch of elitist assholes, and they wont settle for watching sports on a massive scale that aren't reserved for only truly gifted athletes.

At least that's my take.

It's exactly like the 3 offensive seconds rule in basketball, to not to allow a player to sit there close to the goal for the whole game and instead of to have to move to find the scoring position, the same way in basketball a player is not allowed to be under the basket not moving for the whole game.

http://www.themarinaexperiment.com/wp-content/uploads/no_camping.jpg

Soccer is considered kind of a joke sport in the San Fran bay area. Like...it's not even a real sport. I look at it like basketball. It doesn't really require any special talent to play. Anybody can grab a ball and kick it around the field. Sure it's played at a higher level with the pro's, but it's one of those sports where if you practice a lot then you get really good. Whereas with Baseball, you could practice every day with the best trainers in the world...but if you don't have world class hand-eye-coordination, you're going to be stuck in the minors (if you're lucky) your whole life. I think that's a big reason that the two big sports, Football and Baseball, are so popular in the States. US citizens are a bunch of elitist assholes, and they wont settle for watching sports on a massive scale that aren't reserved for only truly gifted athletes.

At least that's my take.

:popcorn:

US citizens are a bunch of elitist assholes, and they wont settle for watching sports on a massive scale that aren't reserved for only truly gifted athletes.

At least that's my take.

Wait, so the only truly gifted athletes are either:

a) American
b) play an American sport

Wait, so the only truly gifted athletes are either:

a) American
b) play an American sport

Just for the sake of entertainment...

Yes. That's exactly what my post was saying.

:popcorn:

I thought about seeing how many different facepalm gifs I could find for this occasion, but I got lazy.

Just for the sake of entertainment...

Yes. That's exactly what my post was saying.

:popcorn:

Fair enough. After a reread, what you are saying is that sports watched massively by Americans are reserved for truly gifted athletes. Other sports that aren't watched massively by Americans let non-truly gifted athletes in.

Sorry about the confusion.

ETA:

http://foodcourtlunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/miller.jpg

FUCKING LAY OFF THE BIG O

(and to be fair, he did specifically mention basketball as being the same type of thing as soccer)

Fair enough...

You posting a pic of a basketball player is only re-affirming that you only read the words directly before and after "soccer" or "american" in the post. Please re-re-read. Do a Ctrl+F for the words "Basketball" or "practice" if it helps.

1. If you're willing to pay for the additional channel, you can almost always get 9 out of 10 soccer games that are played in the English Premier League each week. All but the worst of the EPL teams are on TV every week.

2. Maybe get a DVR? The one positive about being a follower of a MLS team is that it is very easy to watch the game hours later without having run into any spoilers.

Or if you want to follow a league other than the EPL, Serie A is shown every weekend on FSC. I would say about 90% of Inter, Juve, and Milan matches are shown.

You posting a pic of a basketball player is only re-affirming that you only read the words directly before and after "soccer" or "american" in the post. Please re-re-read. Do a Ctrl+F for the words "Basketball" or "practice" if it helps.

Well fuck me for trying to make a joke. So then it's football and baseball that's reserved for truly gifted athletes?

Edit: I guess the confusion for me is what Americans massively watch. NBA Finals ratings and World Series ratings not that far off.

Beckham sucks. He's made out of glass. So what's with all the hype?

I don't think the low scores are biggest problem with soccer. The games are much shorter - a 2-1 soccer game is roughly equivalent to a 28-14 football game.

In popular American sports though, things that effect the game's outcome happen throughout the game. That's what we like. A scoreless half-inning of baseball clearly advances the game, putting a zero up on the scoreboard. A touchdown may take a half hour or more of real time to develop, and it may be a direct consequence of a big defensive play/turnover/kickoff return that happened just prior to that. Everything feels connected.

In soccer, you can have huge periods of time that go by, where nothing happens that actually advances the game.

To a non-soccer fan, a game kind of looks like this:

nothing happening...nothing happening...nothing happening..SCORE OFF A DEFLECTION THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT HAPPENED EARLIER....nothing happening....nothing happening....

We like more structure rather than free-flowing play (innings, downs, yards to to go, or failing that, a changing socreboard every few seconds, as in basketball)

While I never played soccer growing up, I've become a huge fan of the sport in the past 10 years. And when I first watched, I would agree that it looks like a lot of nothing was going on. And even now, I dread 0-0 (nil-nil) games. So to most casual fans, I would agree that's what it looks like on the surface. I suspect no different than the old adage that you can start watching a NBA game mid-way through the 4th quarter, and not miss much.

But having watched soccer as a fan, I see other things happening on the field. The first thing I pick up on are there are three locations to focus on. Team A's strikers vs Team B's defense, the midfield, and Team B's strikers vs Team A's defense. You can then start to notice the little battles that are taking place. And these little battles begin to build on each other. Let's look at Germany as an example. I thoroughly enjoyed watching their games against England & Argentina. Their defense was solid and allowed few scoring chances. They owned the middle game, and their counter-attack was both open and exciting to watch. But when they played Spain, it didn't work. Spain was much more disciplined than their previous two opponents. Spain was patient. They clogged up the middle and nullified Germany's ability to counter-attack. Spain maintained possession of the ball, minimizing Germany's chance for a quick strike (not unlike the NFL teams of yesterday that ran the ball on most downs and chewed up 8-9 minutes on the clock). As the game went on, you could sense that Germany was starting to push forward more, which then opened themselves up for a quick attack the other way. While there wasn't a single goal in the first 70 minutes, you could see the strategies of two different sides: Spain with it's control & patience. Germany with solid defense and looking to quickly go on the attack. The game is advancing (just not yet on the scoreboard).

You start to see the individuals and how they are interacting. Germany's Klose had very few touches/chances against Spain, but you didn't see him blow a gasket. Compare that to a Wayne Rooney, whose frustration grew more & more intense in England's game against Germany (I know, England got royally screwed, and it DID impact the game, but my point is still the same). The emotional South American teams react so differently than European teams (in general). The physicality of the English Premier League versus the beauty and artistry of Italian/Spanish soccer.

There is an appreciation I have gained of the strategies throughout a soccer match that aren't necessarily visible on the surface. Of course I am still biased and will typically "enjoy" a 3-2 game better than a 1-0 result. But please don't mistake a lack of scoring with nothing going on.

Edit: I guess the confusion for me is what Americans massively watch. NBA Finals ratings and World Series ratings not that far off.

Meh...I think you'd be hard pressed to win an argument where your position is that basketball is followed as passionately as baseball, especially in the states.

Now I'm not trying to come off as a US elitist here. In fact I'm quite the opposite...I don't even believe in patriotism. I'm the guy who stays seated during the national anthem before games, and rolls his eyes when they show some military yuck-yuck on camera.

Still, I think as far as team sports go, professional baseball probably ranks at the top as far as the need for world-class talent/gifts, and soccer/basketball rank near the bottom. I guess a lineman in the NFL could be played by anyone, but even then you have to be 6'3+ to really even be considered. I don't know how many 5'10 - 6'0 pro NBA players there are though.

Getting back on topic...soccer is boring because it's entirely possible to sit there for 3+ hours and literally see nothing happen.

But please don't mistake a lack of scoring with nothing going on.

Hear Hear!

I do come back to what my dad used to say about cricket (my dad was born in India and grew up in Pakistan), "you just weren't raised with it, so you think its boring". Though with cricket the all day test matches is kinda silly, but with 20/20 or even watching a portion of it, and actually looking at the rules and strategy I realized that it definitely is interesting.

I think one of the problems is what we were used to growing up with and how that impacts really studying a new game. The comments about soccer's free flow and lack of deliniated structure is a very key observation.

it's entirely possible to sit there for 3+ hours and literally see nothing happen.

It's entirely possible to sit anywhere and see nothing happen. It doesn't mean nothing happened.

To me Baseball is the ultimate "practice and you get good" sport. Yes at the highest level the hand eye co-ordination is ridiculous and there are a few positions that are true athletes, but at the highest level you can say that about any sport. 99% of the population will never have the natural fitness level or agility to play soccer at the top level either.

Soccer is considered kind of a joke sport in the San Fran bay area. Like...it's not even a real sport. I look at it like basketball. It doesn't really require any special talent to play. Anybody can grab a ball and kick it around the field. Sure it's played at a higher level with the pro's, but it's one of those sports where if you practice a lot then you get really good. Whereas with Baseball, you could practice every day with the best trainers in the world...but if you don't have world class hand-eye-coordination, you're going to be stuck in the minors (if you're lucky) your whole life. I think that's a big reason that the two big sports, Football and Baseball, are so popular in the States. US citizens are a bunch of elitist assholes, and they wont settle for watching sports on a massive scale that aren't reserved for only truly gifted athletes.

At least that's my take.

To be fair, the Bay Area isn't exactly a sports Mecca. No one watches the A's, you have the Raiders, the Giants havent done anything, the 49er's havent been good in decades. The colleges teams are probably the best and no one supports them either

By your logic: How do 3-and-out series in football advance the game?

The eventual touchdowns that are scored have nothing to do with that series.

A three-and-out sets up the defensive team with excellent field position. It advances the story of the game, in that way.

And I think the lower scoring in soccer does come into effect there. A three-and-out earns the defensive team what, a 40-50% chance of scoring? In soccer, an excellent defensive play earns a 3-4% chance of scoring (or less)? So its harder to care about the excellent defensive play in soccer, because odds are, it won't matter to the final result of the game.

I find soccer a very pleasing sport to watch. But I like watching it like I would like looking at a painting, or a track and field event. I can't really get into it as a competition.

While I never played soccer growing up, I've become a huge fan of the sport in the past 10 years. And when I first watched, I would agree that it looks like a lot of nothing was going on. And even now, I dread 0-0 (nil-nil) games. So to most casual fans, I would agree that's what it looks like on the surface. I suspect no different than the old adage that you can start watching a NBA game mid-way through the 4th quarter, and not miss much.

But having watched soccer as a fan, I see other things happening on the field. The first thing I pick up on are there are three locations to focus on. Team A's strikers vs Team B's defense, the midfield, and Team B's strikers vs Team A's defense. You can then start to notice the little battles that are taking place. And these little battles begin to build on each other. Let's look at Germany as an example. I thoroughly enjoyed watching their games against England & Argentina. Their defense was solid and allowed few scoring chances. They owned the middle game, and their counter-attack was both open and exciting to watch. But when they played Spain, it didn't work. Spain was much more disciplined than their previous two opponents. Spain was patient. They clogged up the middle and nullified Germany's ability to counter-attack. Spain maintained possession of the ball, minimizing Germany's chance for a quick strike (not unlike the NFL teams of yesterday that ran the ball on most downs and chewed up 8-9 minutes on the clock). As the game went on, you could sense that Germany was starting to push forward more, which then opened themselves up for a quick attack the other way. While there wasn't a single goal in the first 70 minutes, you could see the strategies of two different sides: Spain with it's control & patience. Germany with solid defense and looking to quickly go on the attack. The game is advancing (just not yet on the scoreboard).

You start to see the individuals and how they are interacting. Germany's Klose had very few touches/chances against Spain, but you didn't see him blow a gasket. Compare that to a Wayne Rooney, whose frustration grew more & more intense in England's game against Germany (I know, England got royally screwed, and it DID impact the game, but my point is still the same). The emotional South American teams react so differently than European teams (in general). The physicality of the English Premier League versus the beauty and artistry of Italian/Spanish soccer.

There is an appreciation I have gained of the strategies throughout a soccer match that aren't necessarily visible on the surface. Of course I am still biased and will typically "enjoy" a 3-2 game better than a 1-0 result. But please don't mistake a lack of scoring with nothing going on.


Sorry, but my eyes kinda glazed over when I hit the underlined passage. I was too bored to carry on. :D

Another problem I have with soccer is, what looks to me, as just absolute horrible passing. I don't know if that's because there's just too many people out on the field or what, but, it seems to be really bad at all levels. Watching part of the Spain/Germany game yesterday, Spain was on Germany's side for almost the whole time it seemed like and when Germany would try and push down field and pass it, it would get intercepted almost every single time.

The players also seem to be really top heavy with how easy the fall down.

For the record, I think soccer is fun to play. It was the only sport outside of track and cross country that I had any skill at in junior high/high school. I was cut from the 7th grade team (had never played organized soccer before then, and couldn't compete against guys who had been playing for years) and thus diverted into cross country. Basically, my only physical gift was endurance. I could run and run and run. In soccer, that meant that other kids in gym would get tired before me, so I could do fairly well once they got tired out.

I really pissed off my friend who was on the soccer team one day. We were playing one-on-one, and I ended up beating him. He complained that my constantly attacking the ball wasn't what real players would do. Sorry for employing a strategy that worked for me, buddy.

To be fair, the Bay Area isn't exactly a sports Mecca. No one watches the A's, you have the Raiders, the Giants havent done anything, the 49er's havent been good in decades. The colleges teams are probably the best and no one supports them either

Oh I agree, I'm just saying that it's like that there, which means (and this is just a guess here) that it's probably like that several other places too. I doubt that baseball or football are considered a joke sport many places though. Then again, they may be considered a joke outside of the states, but that may have more to do with the lack of games being televised there.

Sorry, but my eyes kinda glazed over when I hit the underlined passage. I was too bored to carry on. :D

While you do say that with jest, it is truly a problem with the younger generation. The shorter attention span, ESPN packaged quick clips. The viewer wants it, and wants it now.

One thing I like about soccer is the lack of commercial breaks.

And think about it, in football the action is not constant. They play for a few seconds, whoever makes the play dances around and then they go play grab ass in a huddle before a few more seconds of action resume.

That said, I'm not a huge soccer fan.

Getting back on topic...soccer is boring because it's entirely possible to sit there for 3+ hours and literally see nothing happen.

I would just like to point out that this is actually not possible ;)

You'd either be out after 2 hours or at least see penalties.

Soccer is considered kind of a joke sport in the San Fran bay area. Like...it's not even a real sport. I look at it like basketball. It doesn't really require any special talent to play. Anybody can grab a ball and kick it around the field. Sure it's played at a higher level with the pro's, but it's one of those sports where if you practice a lot then you get really good. Whereas with Baseball, you could practice every day with the best trainers in the world...but if you don't have world class hand-eye-coordination, you're going to be stuck in the minors (if you're lucky) your whole life. I think that's a big reason that the two big sports, Football and Baseball, are so popular in the States. US citizens are a bunch of elitist assholes, and they wont settle for watching sports on a massive scale that aren't reserved for only truly gifted athletes.

At least that's my take.

Yeah even my grandma can do this, no skills required for soccer:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XVCXKj4hXJw&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XVCXKj4hXJw&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

A three-and-out sets up the defensive team with excellent field position. It advances the story of the game, in that way.

And I think the lower scoring in soccer does come into effect there. A three-and-out earns the defensive team what, a 40-50% chance of scoring? In soccer, an excellent defensive play earns a 3-4% chance of scoring (or less)? So its harder to care about the excellent defensive play in soccer, because odds are, it won't matter to the final result of the game.

I find soccer a very pleasing sport to watch. But I like watching it like I would like looking at a painting, or a track and field event. I can't really get into it as a competition.

Well, I just fundamentally disagree. I think like anything people haven't put any real time into, they just can't see it.

Every sport has its merits, and its issues. But the 'nothing happening' is just an invalid argument, IMHO. Or minute 3 of a game having nothing to do with minute 90.

To me Baseball is the ultimate "practice and you get good" sport. Yes at the highest level the hand eye co-ordination is ridiculous and there are a few positions that are true athletes, but at the highest level you can say that about any sport. 99% of the population will never have the natural fitness level or agility to play soccer at the top level either.

I disagree whole-heartedely. Having grown up playing baseball and seen many athletes who I thought were gifted crash and burn, I can tell you for fact that if you don't literally have absolute world-class coordination, you will fail. If you pick up a bat, ball and glove, you may get good enough after a few years to play half-way decent on your local senior league team...that's about it.

I'm also not talking about 99% of the population, and if it came off that way earlier I apologize. I'm talking about athletic people who want to play sports and are already in shape enough to do so. With professional training starting at a very young age, someone who has half-way decent coordination that takes up basketball or soccer will probably turn in a great player, and may even go pro. That's just not the case with baseball or football...there are certain tools/physical traits that you have to have been born with in order to make it.

Well, I just fundamentally disagree. I think like anything people haven't put any real time into, they just can't see it.

Every sport has its merits, and its issues. But the 'nothing happening' is just an invalid argument, IMHO. Or minute 3 of a game having nothing to do with minute 90.

I didn't say "nothing happened". Just that the things that do happen matter a lot less to the eventual outcome of a game than in other sports.

An intercepted pass in football is a much bigger deal than in intercepted pass in soccer, for example.

While you do say that with jest, it is truly a problem with the younger generation. The shorter attention span, ESPN packaged quick clips. The viewer wants it, and wants it now.

I just turned 40, fwiw. :)

On the other hand, I'm tired, have been sick for a couple days, and am working on complicated crap today at work, so my attention span isn't great today.

no skills required for soccer

It's terrible if that's what you extracted from my post...just terrible.

terrible

TERRIBLE!

I would just like to point out that this is actually not possible ;)

You'd either be out after 2 hours or at least see penalties.

Haha...and what the hell is with the cards?

Not to mention the guys falling down acting as if they fractured their skull every time someone bumps into them?

Yeesh!

With professional training, someone who has half-way decent coordination that takes up basketball or soccer will probably turn in a great player, and may even go pro. That's just not the case with baseball or football...there are certain tools/physical traits that you have to have been born with in order to make it.

We'll just have to flat out disagree, I think this is insane. You are telling me that somebody with average height and athleticism has any chance of becoming a pro basketball player?

Soccer, yes the obvious athletic constraints aren't there but still, in Europe or South America (or any country where soccer is a major sport) if you aren't an elite athlete you will not be a pro player. Somebody like Messi or Iniesta might look small and unathletic but I guarantee you their natural fitness, agility, co-ordination and balance are off the charts. Funnily enough, I'd be willing to bet they would be pretty good baseball players if born in the US :D

TERRIBLE!

<a href="http://photobucket.com/images/turrible" target="_blank"><img src="http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i160/xntn/charles-barkley-dui-arrest.jpg" border="0" alt="turrible Pictures, Images and Photos"/></a>

We'll just have to flat out disagree, I think this is insane. You are telling me that somebody with average height and athleticism has any chance of becoming a pro basketball player?

Soccer, yes the obvious athletic constraints aren't there but still, in Europe or South America (or any country where soccer is a major sport) if you aren't an elite athlete you will not be a pro player. Somebody like Messi or Iniesta might look small and unathletic but I guarantee you their natural fitness, agility, co-ordination and balance are off the charts. Funnily enough, I'd be willing to bet they would be pretty good baseball players if born in the US :D

Whoops...sorry I meant to include that they would need to start at a young age. I'll edit.

Are those elite players? I'd be willing to bet that the truly elite guys in soccer could have gone in multiple directions if they started at an early age, but that can probably be said for most truly elite handful of players in any sport.

It's terrible if that's what you extracted from my post...just terrible.

terrible

It took me a while to get that you are discussing "gifts from God" and not "athletic gifts." Essentially your argument is that you have to be some sort of "freak" to be good as baseball/football, if I read you right.

It took me a while to get that you are discussing "gifts from God" and not "athletic gifts." Essentially your argument is that you have to be some sort of "freak" to be good as baseball/football, if I read you right.

More or less, yeah. You have to be special, and not short school bus special either. I'm not religious so the whole "gifts from God thing" doesn't apply to what I'm saying, but I think it's in the same vein. The guys who go pro in baseball/football are almost literally freaks, even compared to other very athletic people.

Are you guys seriously acting as if coordination isn't an issue in placing a soccer ball?

They aren't just randomly kicking it out there, and the average control that these players have is pretty mind-blowing when you actually slow it down.

More or less, yeah. You have to be special, and not short school bus special either. I'm not religious so the whole "gifts from God thing" doesn't apply to what I'm saying, but I think it's in the same vein. The guys who go pro in baseball/football are almost literally freaks, even compared to other very athletic people.

God thing was just shorthand. I guess I'd say that the coordination required to excel in soccer is very similar to that of hitting a baseball, being a RB/WR/CB in football. I imagine we're not going to convince each other either way.

I would have a hard time being convinced that any top-flight athlete in any sport doesn't have exceptional talents. I don't know why I constantly see this argument being made about soccer though. I guess to the untrained eye it's just running.

An intercepted pass in football is a much bigger deal than in intercepted pass in soccer, for example.

Aw c'mon, an intercepted pass in soccer means that someone just lost not only a chance to fail to score but also they lost a chance to fail at generating a scoring chance ;)

I guess to the untrained eye it's just running.

More like running while appearing rather inept at locating a ball within even 10 feet of the intended target (unless of course they meant to kick it to the other team repeatedly, maybe that's part of the deep ultra-secret strategy that eludes the non-diehard), followed by crashing to the ground whenever a mild breeze interferes with their delicate aerodynamics.

See? We really do pay a lot more attention than you think ;)

I imagine we're not going to convince each other either way.

Agreed...I'm happy with agreeing to disagree here. I'm not an extremist for much of anything...so I'm not saying that any Joe Schmoe couch potato can play soccer at a professional level. Hence me saying that it still requires good coordination and potentially even professional training starting at a very young age, but at the same time I'd be willing to bet there are a good number of "pick up game" soccer and basketball players all over the world who could play at a professional level with a bit of technique training...maybe not as a superstar but at the very least as a role-player. I sincerely doubt the same can be said for Baseball. There are probably some people that can play WR out there, but that's the only position that I'd be willing to concede. The DB position may look easy, but I assure you it's very difficult, especially considering the amount of play recognition involved.

More like running while appearing rather inept at locating a ball within even 10 feet of the intended target

Maybe you actually have to play soccer at a competitive level to understand, but its really difficult to hit pin point passes at a distance, especially when another player is barreling down on you.

And as for shots, unless you hit it into the corners, the goalkeepers are too good for you to score goals (unless they make some dumb error). And if you are aiming for a small area, any mishit will carry farther.

I always feel a bit odd when JiMG and I are arguing on the same side in something. :)

Not to mention the guys falling down acting as if they fractured their skull every time someone bumps into them?



I think this is a part of the problem. Americans tend to appreciate grit, think Kirk Gibson or Curt Schilling. I think many see the antics of soccer players and think they are a bunch of pussies.

Maybe you actually have to play soccer at a competitive level to understand, but its really difficult to hit pin point passes at a distance, especially when another player is barreling down on you.

And as for shots, unless you hit it into the corners, the goalkeepers are too good for you to score goals (unless they make some dumb error). And if you are aiming for a small area, any mishit will carry farther.

Bzzt. I didn't even mention anything about relative difficulty, I described what it looked like.

It ain't easy to, I dunno, hit a 13 rail shot playing billiards either, but I'm also not inclined to sit & watch people do that.

I don't like or dislike soccer. I watch some WC games and enjoy them, mostly. What I do hate about soccer are the fans of the sport who will tell you how exciting and how intricate the game play is. It just isn't and that is not a bad thing. It also drives me a little crazy how soccer fans seem to NEED the sport to become successful in the USA. If you enjoy watching it, fine, but why does it matter if Americans accept it or not? You can still watch and enjoy it.

On the other hand, soccer haters are annoying too. I hate skiing, but I don't go around telling skiiers that their sport sucks and it is just going up and down a hill with no point to it.

When did I become so cranky?

Birth?

Whenever I see Marmel on here, I automatically think of Nermal...from the Garfield comics.

I do wish I was more into soccer because I love the structure and format of the whole soccer world. One set of rules, universally applied across hundreds of leagues at verious levels throughout the world, and all of those leagues kind of make up one, greater, global league. Teams, (I'm sorry, "clubs") from one league going to a tournament to play against clubs from other leagues - great stuff.

I don't like or dislike soccer. I watch some WC games and enjoy them, mostly. What I do hate about soccer are the fans of the sport who will tell you how exciting and how intricate the game play is. It just isn't and that is not a bad thing. It also drives me a little crazy how soccer fans seem to NEED the sport to become successful in the USA. If you enjoy watching it, fine, but why does it matter if Americans accept it or not? You can still watch and enjoy it.

On the other hand, soccer haters are annoying too. I hate skiing, but I don't go around telling skiiers that their sport sucks and it is just going up and down a hill with no point to it.

When did I become so cranky?

This is bogus. Soccer is probably the only sport that professional sportswriters professionally deride constantly. I can probably dig up 50 articles since June 1 printed in newspapers that have the equivalent of 'The World Cup is here, Who Cares?' type headlines. Or 'Rule changes that would make soccer interesting'

The sport is constantly ripped by the old guard in sports writing, and there are clearly many average Americans who fall in line with this kind of thinking.

There is literally a real media bias against the sport in this country. We aren't delusional. The degree of bias, and the amount of these absurd articles, may be shrinking over time, but it's still pretty prevalent.

Actually, I have to admit there is one reason I would want to get into soccer.

FM

I hear that shit is dope.

It just isn't

oh ok

Actually, I have to admit there is one reason I would want to get into soccer.

FM

I hear that shit is dope.

:+1:

Actually CM back in the day when I started playing. And my appreciation for soccer grew out of playing that game.

I do wish I was more into soccer because I love the structure and format of the whole soccer world. One set of rules, universally applied across hundreds of leagues at verious levels throughout the world, and all of those leagues kind of make up one, greater, global league. Teams, (I'm sorry, "clubs") from one league going to a tournament to play against clubs from other leagues - great stuff.

One of the only sports that crowns a true World Champion.

One of the only sports that crowns a true World Champion.

Hey, don't forget about the World Baseball Classic!

;)

It also drives me a little crazy how soccer fans seem to NEED the sport to become successful in the USA.

I do agree with this point. I love American football, but I don't particularly care if it catches on over in Europe or elsewhere. I'm content to just enjoy it for myself, and if they're missing out, that's their loss.

I do agree with this point. I love American football, but I don't particularly care if it catches on over in Europe or elsewhere. I'm content to just enjoy it for myself, and if they're missing out, that's their loss.

I understand this, and alluded to it early in the thread, but its not quite equitable.

For a vested soccer fan in the US, if the sport grows in popularity there were be tangible benefits for the fan. An exciting domestic league, perhaps better players in the national team. That's missing in the comparison to you and German football fan. I imagine the German soccer fan feels the same way about soccer in America that you do about football over there.

I wonder if american soccer fans would become bitter if the game suddenly grew wildly popular over here, and everyone they knew was a "huge" soccer fan. Don't you kind of like being "the guy who likes soccer" instead? It's like when you love a band, or a song, and then a year later they hit it big and everyone you knew who could have cared less about them suddenly is bumping them in their car stereo everywhere they go. Maybe I'm crazy.

I wonder if american soccer fans would become bitter if the game suddenly grew wildly popular over here, and everyone they knew was a "huge" soccer fan. Don't you kind of like being "the guy who likes soccer" instead? It's like when you love a band, or a song, and then a year later they hit it big and everyone you knew who could have cared less about them suddenly is bumping them in their car stereo everywhere they go. Maybe I'm crazy.

They'll move on to rugby. And then cricket.

Bzzt. I didn't even mention anything about relative difficulty, I described what it looked like.

"Appearing inept" not only describes what it looks like, but also implies something about relative difficulty. :shrug:

This is bogus. Soccer is probably the only sport that professional sportswriters professionally deride constantly. I can probably dig up 50 articles since June 1 printed in newspapers that have the equivalent of 'The World Cup is here, Who Cares?' type headlines. Or 'Rule changes that would make soccer interesting'

The sport is constantly ripped by the old guard in sports writing, and there are clearly many average Americans who fall in line with this kind of thinking.

There is literally a real media bias against the sport in this country. We aren't delusional. The degree of bias, and the amount of these absurd articles, may be shrinking over time, but it's still pretty prevalent.

Bingo. One of the reasons for possible overreaction by soccer fans is the level of hate from old guard sportswriters is absolutely ridiculous. Of course, I realize that the overreactions spur more hate and around and around we go, but that's part of the reason.

Also another, valid, reason while soccer fans want soccer to be accepted is the quite simple reason that then soccer fans will be able to watch more soccer.... especially in High Definition. For years soccer fans could barely watch the sport (except for World Cup games and a handful of MLS matches) due to the high levels of apathy/hatred for the game.

They'll move on to rugby. And then cricket.

Two sports I already watch..

Plus probably Aussie Rules.

Rugby and Aussie Rules are awesome. I have no idea what the hell is going on in Cricket but I'm sure I would like it if I did. I'll watch almost any damn thing, honestly. Ragging on a sport about how it sucks or is boring is just a really strange thing to do, to me. But whatever.

Someone said this World Cup is pivotal to soccer making it in the US.

Honestly, the more I think about it, it already is.

We have three networks airing soccer in the US, in English already (ESPN/ESPN2 family, Fox Soccer/Fox Soccer+, GolTV). We have just about every major league being covered. (the only two "major leagues" that aren't on the above, or ESPN3.com are France and Scotland, and Scotland's because the supporters groups for the Old Firm here in the states make so much money off bar subscriptions for games that they literally threatened Setanta with a boycott should they move the games to live).

This season, you will be able to see all 360 English Premier League games, either live, or delayed (when multiple matches are playing at one time). You'll be able to see a good chunk of the Bundesliga, La Liga, Serie A.. if you want to see the Dutch league, Portugese League, or more of the Bundesliga, La Liga, Serie A, etcetera, ESPN3.com will be airing 800+ games this season).

Compare and contrast 10/20 years ago. There was no US league. You actually had to tune into PBS to get one German game every few weeks. ABC Wide World of Sports showed maybe the FA Cup final, or parts of it).

Haters gonna hate.. and not much you can do to change their minds. That's the thing, recognize who's willing to come around and take a look, and who you can't talk to. Otherwise, enjoy the unprecedented access to the Beautiful Game, available in the US.

I think most of USA soccer haters are talking from their ignorance of the sport and just thinking on the topics.

Sun T, i couldn't avoid to smile when i thought what would happen if i show what you said about baseball players being somewhat gifted to any guy in Spain, they would say:

"What? is there any skill on those fat guys full of steroids wearing a pajama and hitting a ball with an stick and then slowly walking around a diamond? how is that even called sport? and how can they say that soccer is slow?"

Of course that would be said based on the topics and ignorance of the sport, same applies to most of USA soccer haters.

Note that i'm a huge USA sports fan, specially football both at college and pro levels and baseball, and took my time to study the rules, strategies and that enjoy discussing with other fans in forums, but i'm in the minority in my country, in fact i can't talk about baseball or football with anybody besides online.

The thing that amuses me (and I'm a HUGE baseball fan, let me say at the onset) is that the same people that decry baseball for being too boring in the context of US sports will defend it to the death against soccer (not saying anyone here).

This season, you will be able to see all 360 English Premier League games, either live, or delayed (when multiple matches are playing at one time). You'll be able to see a good chunk of the Bundesliga, La Liga, Serie A.. if you want to see the Dutch league, Portugese League, or more of the Bundesliga, La Liga, Serie A, etcetera, ESPN3.com will be airing 800+ games this season).

That is much, much more soccer than you can watch in the UK, even if you buy all the tv packages.

Soccer is pretty damn boring, but if I had to watch either baseball or soccer all day, I'd choose soccer easily. I'd easily pick soccer over basketball too. But all three are pretty boring to me.

I remember very clearly wanting to watch the 1990 World Cup and there being literally no option to do so at the time.

I think TNT had the rights, and showed like 8-10 games.. I'll have to confirm that.

edit: Actually, 24 matches.

if you want to see how far the sport has come here in the US in 20 years...

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19900610&slug=1076279

Someone said this World Cup is pivotal to soccer making it in the US.

Honestly, the more I think about it, it already is.

We have three networks airing soccer in the US, in English already (ESPN/ESPN2 family, Fox Soccer/Fox Soccer+, GolTV). We have just about every major league being covered. (the only two "major leagues" that aren't on the above, or ESPN3.com are France and Scotland, and Scotland's because the supporters groups for the Old Firm here in the states make so much money off bar subscriptions for games that they literally threatened Setanta with a boycott should they move the games to live).

This season, you will be able to see all 360 English Premier League games, either live, or delayed (when multiple matches are playing at one time). You'll be able to see a good chunk of the Bundesliga, La Liga, Serie A.. if you want to see the Dutch league, Portugese League, or more of the Bundesliga, La Liga, Serie A, etcetera, ESPN3.com will be airing 800+ games this season).

Compare and contrast 10/20 years ago. There was no US league. You actually had to tune into PBS to get one German game every few weeks. ABC Wide World of Sports showed maybe the FA Cup final, or parts of it).

Haters gonna hate.. and not much you can do to change their minds. That's the thing, recognize who's willing to come around and take a look, and who you can't talk to. Otherwise, enjoy the unprecedented access to the Beautiful Game, available in the US.

And soccer matches do very well attendence-wise in the U.S now. Both MLS (Seattle is averaging something like 36k/game) and interntional exhibition games.

It's arguably already more popular than Ice Hockey and NASCAR here, I think it's a pretty solid #4 sport. And basketball is vulnerable at #3.

I must be in the wrong town if soccer is more popular than NASCAR in the US.

Someone said this World Cup is pivotal to soccer making it in the US.

Honestly, the more I think about it, it already is.

We have three networks airing soccer in the US, in English already (ESPN/ESPN2 family, Fox Soccer/Fox Soccer+, GolTV). We have just about every major league being covered. (the only two "major leagues" that aren't on the above, or ESPN3.com are France and Scotland, and Scotland's because the supporters groups for the Old Firm here in the states make so much money off bar subscriptions for games that they literally threatened Setanta with a boycott should they move the games to live).

This season, you will be able to see all 360 English Premier League games, either live, or delayed (when multiple matches are playing at one time). You'll be able to see a good chunk of the Bundesliga, La Liga, Serie A.. if you want to see the Dutch league, Portugese League, or more of the Bundesliga, La Liga, Serie A, etcetera, ESPN3.com will be airing 800+ games this season).

Compare and contrast 10/20 years ago. There was no US league. You actually had to tune into PBS to get one German game every few weeks. ABC Wide World of Sports showed maybe the FA Cup final, or parts of it).

Haters gonna hate.. and not much you can do to change their minds. That's the thing, recognize who's willing to come around and take a look, and who you can't talk to. Otherwise, enjoy the unprecedented access to the Beautiful Game, available in the US.


I dream about the same with the NFL, MLB and NHL in Spain. Here we only have an expensive USA sports satellite channel that airs 4 NFL games per week (3 live), 7 NBA live games per week, and some random MLB and NHL offline games per week.

Luckily there legal and illegal live internet streams now and everything is available for the "weird" guys like me.

I must be in the wrong town if soccer is more popular than NASCAR in the US.

You might indeed be in the wrong town. It's tough to measure, because NASCAR is incredibly regional in its popularity. It's probably the 15th most popular sport in Massachusetts.

I think most of USA soccer haters are talking from their ignorance of the sport and just thinking on the topics.

Sun T, i couldn't avoid to smile when i thought what would happen if i show what you said about baseball players being somewhat gifted to any guy in Spain, they would say:

"What? is there any skill on those fat guys full of steroids wearing a pajama and hitting a ball with an stick and then slowly walking around a diamond? how is that even called sport? and how can they say that soccer is slow?"

Of course that would be said based on the topics and ignorance of the sport, same applies to most of USA soccer haters.

Note that i'm a huge USA sports fan, specially football both at college and pro levels and baseball, and took my time to study the rules, strategies and that enjoy discussing with other fans in forums, but i'm in the minority in my country, in fact i can't talk about baseball or football with anybody besides online.

May John Kruk live forever...

I personally love soccer. Sure I sometime find the games boring, but no more often than any other sport. I was also one of the oddballs who fell in love via Championship Manager, specifically the 97/98 version which I spent countless hours playing.

The thing that hooked me watching was I first binged on it, watching everything I could find. The interest to me was how vastly different the game was played..one day watching La Liga, then an EPL game, maybe a Serie A match, and maybe a match fromt Argentina or Brazil, and how these styles reflect the nations as a whole. The globalness of the game I guess interests me.

I fully understand people hating it. If I had to point out reasons not already mentioned maybe I'd add the lack of meaningful stats and the fact superstars don't function quite like they do in Baseball or Basketball for instance.

How come none of you assholes made a thread like this about arena football?

Maybe you actually have to play soccer at a competitive level to understand, but its really difficult to hit pin point passes at a distance, especially when another player is barreling down on you.

Barreling down at you?? So what...it's not like he can hit you. All he can do is "try" to take the ball away from you because if he hits you he gets a card flashed at him.

All that fancy footwork Icy linked...sure, it's pretty, but anybody can do that if you aren't concerned about getting your block knocked off. Try doing that on skates with a stick and puck while you have several guys itching to smash you through the boards or receiving a punt with several guys running as fast as they can with the intention of hitting you so hard that you don't get up. All that fancy footwork wouldn't get you much except a ride to the hospital.

There was also a comment earlier, excuse me while I paraphrase, "it make look like nothing is happening but one team is trying to lull the other team to sleep in hopes that they make a mistake"...how the hell is that the basis for a spectator sport?

VIOLENCE FUCK YEAH

Barreling down at you?? So what...it's not like he can hit you. All he can do is "try" to take the ball away from you because if he hits you he gets a card flashed at him.


No, football is not a non-contact sport, contrary to popular misconception. If the ball is being played, incidental contact is not a foul.


All that fancy footwork Icy linked...sure, it's pretty, but anybody can do that if you aren't concerned about getting your block knocked off. Try doing that on skates with a stick and puck while you have several guys itching to smash you through the boards or receiving a punt with several guys running as fast as they can with the intention of hitting you so hard that you don't get up. All that fancy footwork wouldn't get you much except a ride to the hospital.


The bold is extremely lol and the rest is built off of the misconception you have in the first part.


There was also a comment earlier, excuse me while I paraphrase, "it make look like nothing is happening but one team is trying to lull the other team to sleep in hopes that they make a mistake"...how the hell is that the basis for a spectator sport?

Well, the comment isn't a basis for a spectator sport, so I don't know why you are asking the question.

Remember, you are talking to a guy who beat the crap out of Marc Savard

Mj4h...incidental contact?? Is that like getting a shoulder in the chest or helmet to the ribs while you do a jig around the ball trying to razzle dazzle your opponent? Or are you talking about when the defender, in an attempt to put an end to all fancy footwork steps on the other guys foot only to see him go down like he has been but Scott Stevens, Ray Lewis, and Ronnie Lott at the same time?

Spend an hour in your backyard with a soccer ball and you'd be surprised and what you can do by the time you've bored yourself.

Like I said in my post, the gist of a comment earlier in the thread made the argument that while nothing appears to be going on (constant passing back and forth, etc.) The intention is to put the opponent to sleep thus forcing to make mistakes...am I way off base here? If not, does that sound all that appealing do would be fans...bore the other guys too sleep with boring play?

Bhlloy...never happened but that doesn't mean he didn't deserve it on more than one occasion. :)

Mj4h...incidental contact?? Is that like getting a shoulder in the chest or helmet to the ribs while you do a jig around the ball trying to razzle dazzle your opponent? Or are you talking about when the defender, in an attempt to put an end to all fancy footwork steps on the other guys foot only to see him go down like he has been but Scott Stevens, Ray Lewis, and Ronnie Lott at the same time?

Spend an hour in your backyard with a soccer ball and you'd be surprised and what you can do by the time you've bored yourself.

Like I said in my post, the gist of a comment earlier in the thread made the argument that while nothing appears to be going on (constant passing back and forth, etc.) The intention is to put the opponent to sleep thus forcing to make mistakes...am I way off base here? If not, does that sound all that appealing do would be fans...bore the other guys too sleep with boring play?

Bhlloy...never happened but that doesn't mean he didn't deserve it on more than one occasion. :)

No I mean when players collide going for the ball. And, I've played soccer most of my life. I don't think a few hours in my backyard are going to lend any surprises for me.

No I mean when players collide going for the ball. And, I've played soccer most of my life. I don't think a few hours in my backyard are going to lend any surprises for me.

So why don't we see more players laid out with big hits "just going for the ball" not get carded? If it's legit, why bother watching the ball at all and knock the guy off the ball using your body?

So you've played soccer for most of your life and you can't do any of that fancy footwork? I find that hard to believe as I've seen plenty of guys do a lot of that stuff at the playground down the street from my house.

I wish you guys hadn't started this thread guys. I came to the forum to look at the World Cup thread and saw this. That was about an hour ago. I've read every post and sat there mentally answering every one. I could continue now for the next 12 hours and not even begin to cover everything I'd need to say. But I've work to do and so try to be very brief.

To most of the critical posts my response is along the lines of "you don't understand the game". If it were boring, guys, it wouldn't be the most popular game in the world. If great skills were not involved we wouldn't have about 20 levels of the game in the UK with an almost linear degradation of skills as you move down the leagues. If significant parts of the game were irrelevant to the outcome then the 5-a-side, 15 minute each way game would be far more popular (same skills, more goals, less "boredom") but it's a game played by old farts like me that couldn't run the length of a football pitch these days without suffering a heart attack.

I'm a great fan of all football games. Although I played and watched soccer (I have no objections at all to that term) all my lfe, as a kid I lived a quarter of a mile from the Rochdale Hornets Rugby League club and was a big fan of the game. Five nations Rugby Union games are televised every year in the UK and I used to watch those religiously and now it's the All Blacks, Wallabies and Springboks here in Australia. I've also become an Aussie Rules fan since moving to the southern hemisphere. And during the 80s and 90s when Channel Four in the UK played NFL games each week I became an American Football fan.

It seems to me that all these games are a mix, but different mix, of physicality and skill. In my experience soccer is the one that has the greatest bias toward skill - essentially because controlling a ball with your feet is much less natural than with your hands and because the moment you can grab hold a player with your hands his skill is neutralised. Isn't that why in gridiron and rugby league the game stops there and play resets? In Rugby Union and Aussie Rules, where the tackled player simply has to release the ball, the scrappiest part of any football game follows. And because the game is so free-flowing and players find themselves so often in unfamiliar circumstances then players have to rely much more on instinctive improvisation to succeed.

I'm not saying that because the bias is towards skill - many fans prefer the physical contact - that the game is "better" than the others, merely that it is more skilfull (that I suspect will not go unchallenged :) )

I'm coming to believe however that soccer is resting too much on its laurels now and significant rule changes need to be made. The play-acting is a disgrace, too many bad decisions by officials are destroying the integrity of the game and the much greater physicality of modern players is allowing tactics destructive to the flow of the game to become too effective. This World Cup I think has been a poor one as a result and should not be seen as the game at its best. The club game today, and particularly the Champions League, is now where top quality is to be found. So, unless you're watching that, you're not seeing the game at its very best.

Why do these arguments come down to contact? I don't understand. Should baseball players be looked down upon because they aren't being blindsided by Ray Lewis when catching a fly ball? Should free throws involve a Mississippi count and then the shooter is open game?

Not all sports are about big hits, but having personally made some late in life attempts to play soccer I can say for certain it is a contact sport.

Aussie Rules Football is a great game to watch. I watch it whenever I can find it.

Since the games or so long with no scoring, maybe every 20 minutes if no goals have been scored, each side gets a couple of penalty kicks. If no one scores then, play another 20 minutes, 2 more penalty kicks and so on...

Since the games or so long with no scoring, maybe every 20 minutes if no goals have been scored, each side gets a couple of penalty kicks. If no one scores then, play another 20 minutes, 2 more penalty kicks and so on...

Baseball games can be much, much longer with no scoring.

So why don't we see more players laid out with big hits "just going for the ball" not get carded? If it's legit, why bother watching the ball at all and knock the guy off the ball using your body?

So you've played soccer for most of your life and you can't do any of that fancy footwork? I find that hard to believe as I've seen plenty of guys do a lot of that stuff at the playground down the street from my house.

Why don't we see more? How much do you see? I see plenty.

Of course I can do stupid juggling tricks the guys down the road from you can do. That is not what is in those videos. Those are making world class defenders look silly. And if you think the guys down the block from you can dribble pass and shoot like these guys you are patently insane.

Just because the And1 guys can do ridiculous dribbles and shit doesn't mean they'll work in the NBA.

Baseball games can be much, much longer with no scoring.

They can be, but, it's a different method of scoring though. You can have a pitcher going for a no hitter and that makes it exciting. A scoreless soccer game is a bit different because they are so common. I actually like the corner kicks and the penalty kicks in soccer. Those are fun to watch.

They can be, but, it's a different method of scoring though. You can have a pitcher going for a no hitter and that makes it exciting. A scoreless soccer game is a bit different because they are so common. I actually like the corner kicks and the penalty kicks in soccer. Those are fun to watch.

But you can also have a long scoreless game without the pitcher going for a no hitter. As such, starting each inning with a guy on 2nd would make it a lot more exciting.

But you can also have a long scoreless game without the pitcher going for a no hitter. As such, starting each inning with a guy on 2nd would make it a lot more exciting.

International tie breaker rules! It definitely would add excitement to it.

They can be, but, it's a different method of scoring though. You can have a pitcher going for a no hitter and that makes it exciting. A scoreless soccer game is a bit different because they are so common. I actually like the corner kicks and the penalty kicks in soccer. Those are fun to watch.

That's because, JediKooter, you have a subtle understanding of baseball but not soccer. In soccer you're like a novice Chess player who only sees one or two moves in advance unlike the expert who sees ten moves in advance. When you fully understand the game then you get the same response to yours to a cornerkick etc even as a team moves into the opposition's half because you can visualise the possible consequences. If I'm emotionally involved in a game the anticipation/anxiety starts to kick in as my team/opposition takes up the ball and starts to move forward. The emotion builds until, in the case of a goal or near-goal, it explodes in elation or depression.

It's about the ability to anticipate action early in the piece which only comes from experience of the game.

it wouldn't be the most popular game in the world.

Mac, could the "popularity" be because in many countries, it is the only sport that be afforded to play by the masses and the rules are very simple? I think part of the bias of many US sports fans toward soccer is simply that we have evolved our sports and leagues into something bigger, more elaborate and more complex; as well as more wealthier.

I wonder if american soccer fans would become bitter if the game suddenly grew wildly popular over here, and everyone they knew was a "huge" soccer fan. Don't you kind of like being "the guy who likes soccer" instead? It's like when you love a band, or a song, and then a year later they hit it big and everyone you knew who could have cared less about them suddenly is bumping them in their car stereo everywhere they go. Maybe I'm crazy.

I know I personally don't feel that way. I was literally asked this question by an acquaintance at a BBQ this weekend "So, are you annoyed that all the bandwagon fans are watching soccer in the World Cup right now?" I dismissed it as absurd. I really want more people watching and going to league games. At the very least i'd like to not be literally laughed at when mentioning im a New York Red Bulls season ticket holder.

But someone in this thread hit the nail on the head (Fozzie probably)... not only do most of us want the sport to become popular, but we can actually tangibly benefit from it. David Beckham plays his league soccer here. Thierry Henry is about to announce he's signing with the Red Bulls (5 days from now, by all accounts).

These things were unbelievable unimaginable 10 years ago, maybe even 5 years ago. Now almost every MLS team is playing in their own brand-new stadium. The odds of us hosting the 2022 World Cup are gigantic. TV ratings are at an all-time high.

Still, our domestic league is the equivalent of a AA baseball league right now. That's not to slight it, I'm a season ticket holder and a massive fan. The league is just operating on a shoestring budget and has spent it's first 15 years carving out an existence.

Many of us dream of the day when teams are playing to 40,000+ sellout crowds week in/week out and are right in the discussion of leagues like England, Spain, or Italy as among the best in the world. I look forward to a day when an in-his-prime free agent is seriously considering an offer from the New York Red Bulls. When someone is thinking about coming here at age 26, rather than 32.

Mac, could the "popularity" be because in many countries, it is the only sport that be afforded to play by the masses and the rules are very simple? I think part of the bias of many US sports fans toward soccer is simply that we have evolved our sports and leagues into something bigger, more elaborate and more complex; as well as more wealthier.

I think there are a number of things that contribute to the popularity and the fact that you can play the game with as little as a rolled up rag and that anyone not in a wheelchair can play the game are significant. But the point I'm making there is that if it were genuinely boring it wouldn't be popular no matter what other attributes it had.

As for "more elaborate, complex, wealthier". Don't be fooled by the apparent simplicity of the game. It is a highly technical, tactical game amplified by the fact it's played by many cultures all of whom inevitably bring their own styles to the game.

Mac, could the "popularity" be because in many countries, it is the only sport that be afforded to play by the masses and the rules are very simple? I think part of the bias of many US sports fans toward soccer is simply that we have evolved our sports and leagues into something bigger, more elaborate and more complex; as well as more wealthier.

I'm sure that's a factor in some parts of the world, but I don't think does much to explain why it's wildly popular in Europe. Last I checked they're doing pretty good over there.

I'm sure that's a factor in some parts of the world, but I don't think does much to explain why it's wildly popular in Europe. Last I checked they're doing pretty good over there.

Well, actually they're not ;) but Man Utd is apparently worth $1.5 bn so it's not all paupers that play it.

I wish you guys hadn't started this thread guys. I came to the forum to look at the World Cup thread and saw this. That was about an hour ago. I've read every post and sat there mentally answering every one. I could continue now for the next 12 hours and not even begin to cover everything I'd need to say. But I've work to do and so try to be very brief.

To most of the critical posts my response is along the lines of "you don't understand the game". If it were boring, guys, it wouldn't be the most popular game in the world. If great skills were not involved we wouldn't have about 20 levels of the game in the UK with an almost linear degradation of skills as you move down the leagues. If significant parts of the game were irrelevant to the outcome then the 5-a-side, 15 minute each way game would be far more popular (same skills, more goals, less "boredom") but it's a game played by old farts like me that couldn't run the length of a football pitch these days without suffering a heart attack.

I'm a great fan of all football games. Although I played and watched soccer (I have no objections at all to that term) all my lfe, as a kid I lived a quarter of a mile from the Rochdale Hornets Rugby League club and was a big fan of the game. Five nations Rugby Union games are televised every year in the UK and I used to watch those religiously and now it's the All Blacks, Wallabies and Springboks here in Australia. I've also become an Aussie Rules fan since moving to the southern hemisphere. And during the 80s and 90s when Channel Four in the UK played NFL games each week I became an American Football fan.

It seems to me that all these games are a mix, but different mix, of physicality and skill. In my experience soccer is the one that has the greatest bias toward skill - essentially because controlling a ball with your feet is much less natural than with your hands and because the moment you can grab hold a player with your hands his skill is neutralised. Isn't that why in gridiron and rugby league the game stops there and play resets? In Rugby Union and Aussie Rules, where the tackled player simply has to release the ball, the scrappiest part of any football game follows. And because the game is so free-flowing and players find themselves so often in unfamiliar circumstances then players have to rely much more on instinctive improvisation to succeed.

I'm not saying that because the bias is towards skill - many fans prefer the physical contact - that the game is "better" than the others, merely that it is more skilfull (that I suspect will not go unchallenged :) )

I'm coming to believe however that soccer is resting too much on its laurels now and significant rule changes need to be made. The play-acting is a disgrace, too many bad decisions by officials are destroying the integrity of the game and the much greater physicality of modern players is allowing tactics destructive to the flow of the game to become too effective. This World Cup I think has been a poor one as a result and should not be seen as the game at its best. The club game today, and particularly the Champions League, is now where top quality is to be found. So, unless you're watching that, you're not seeing the game at its very best.

I have no doubt that soccer is a complex, intricate game. But surely it must be accessible to non-experts. It's the world's sport. The masses, internationally, who must include some non-experts, love it too. So I don't think the relative American dislike of the game can be summed up simply as "ignorance". (And I say relative because soccer popularity in the U.S. has grown a ton recently, and it's going to continue to grow - I believe it's the #1 participation sport for kids right now). We do have far more competition for any kind of sport/entertainment here.

Why don't we see more? How much do you see? I see plenty.

Of course I can do stupid juggling tricks the guys down the road from you can do. That is not what is in those videos. Those are making world class defenders look silly. And if you think the guys down the block from you can dribble pass and shoot like these guys you are patently insane.

I don't think I've seen any...all the highlights I ever see with any kind of physical play is some pansy flopping around like a fish out of water after getting his hair ruffled.

Making world class defenders look silly? If you're allowed to play a physical game like you say they can, then I'd hardly call those guys "world class" because that's some awful defending.

Let me put it this way, try that fancy dan crap on the ice and you better have your head up. If you succeed in making a fool of your opponent...do expect to get knocked on your can...one way or another some time in the future.

Yeah...I'm sorry it's hard to respect beating a good defense when the other guy isn't even allow to touch you. It's much different in football or hockey where some of the defenders are literally trying to separate your head from the rest of your body, and if you don't have your head on a swivel they very well may succeed.

In regards to kids participating in soccer, I'd be willing to bet that soccer has always been popular with kids. Well...at least the kids who suck at baseball/football. Here's how it worked when I was a kid.

1.) You play baseball or football...if you're at all good then you're popular...if your hand-eye-coordination is terrible...then you move on to #2
2.) Play AYSO or whatever it's called...you run around wearing shorts and funny looking socks kicking a ball that looks like it's covered with dalmation skin...if you're good, at least people know you exist...if you can't even do this half-way decent...then you move on to #3
3.) Learn to play an instrument and start growing your hair long...if you can't even do that...move on to #4 (the last resort)
4.) Buy dungeons and dragons, and hang out with "those" kids

:)

I don't think I've seen any...all the highlights I ever see with any kind of physical play is some pansy flopping around like a fish out of water after getting his hair ruffled.

Making world class defenders look silly? If you're allowed to play a physical game like you say they can, then I'd hardly call those guys "world class" because that's some awful defending.

Let me put it this way, try that fancy dan crap on the ice and you better have your head up. If you succeed in making a fool of your opponent...do expect to get knocked on your can...one way or another some time in the future.

OK, we have established a couple of things. You don't watch soccer or haven't paid enough attention to it to see any physical play at all and you think it is very important for a sport to enable you to knock the shit out of people with skill for you to get any enjoyment out of it.

For me, with that established, I'm not really sure what the point of continuing is, but go ahead if you'd like. I'm not really interested in continuing to discuss the game with you anymore, nor in discussing the pros and cons of overly physical play.

Just not interesting to me. Maybe someone else can take over for me here?

I grew up playing soccer at a very high level so I love the sport but I can certainly understand why Americans would hate it. If every NFL game was 10-3 we would hate football also.

Every football game is 3-2, they just multiply it by 7. :lol:

OK, we have established a couple of things. You don't watch soccer or haven't paid enough attention to it to see any physical play at all and you think it is very important for a sport to enable you to knock the shit out of people with skill for you to get any enjoyment out of it.

I don't know if he's saying that he doesn't enjoy it if there isn't a chance of the ball/puck carrier getting knocked out, I think he's comparing the difficulty levels of doing what people do on the soccer field to what people do on the ice.

I don't know that you could win an argument stating that beating a couple defenders who aren't allowed to touch you is harder than beating a couple defenders who are allowed to break your neck almost however they see fit.

Just not interesting to me. Maybe someone else can take over for me here?
Please, somebody take over and keep fucking that chicken.

I don't know if he's saying that he doesn't enjoy it if there isn't a chance of the ball/puck carrier getting knocked out, I think he's comparing the difficulty levels of doing what people do on the soccer field to what people do on the ice.

I don't know that you could win an argument stating that beating a couple defenders who aren't allowed to touch you is harder than beating a couple defenders who are allowed to break your neck almost however they see fit.

:confused::confused::confused:

This is one of the many reasons why I'm done here. Good grief.

:confused::confused::confused:

This is one of the many reasons why I'm done here. Good grief.

Maybe instead of "aren't allowed to touch you" I should have said "aren't allowed to impede your movement."

But seriously...in competitive sports is that not the same thing?

Please, somebody take over and keep fucking that chicken.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y257/Gorgonian14/emot-allears.gif

I think I have a different definition of impede also. Soccer definitely allows that.

That's because, JediKooter, you have a subtle understanding of baseball but not soccer. In soccer you're like a novice Chess player who only sees one or two moves in advance unlike the expert who sees ten moves in advance. When you fully understand the game then you get the same response to yours to a cornerkick etc even as a team moves into the opposition's half because you can visualise the possible consequences. If I'm emotionally involved in a game the anticipation/anxiety starts to kick in as my team/opposition takes up the ball and starts to move forward. The emotion builds until, in the case of a goal or near-goal, it explodes in elation or depression.

It's about the ability to anticipate action early in the piece which only comes from experience of the game.

That I definitely understand. But, yes, it's hard for me to see plays develop when watching soccer unless one team is near the other teams goal.

That elation or depression is there for sure, especially when a player has an opening to score a goal and his kick goes over the net or is wide of the net. You want to strangle the dude. It's all the stuff that happens in the middle of the field that I don't understand.

As I'm watching some of the world cup games, I'm thinking, why aren't they getting themselves into a position to get a pass and then break loose down the field towards the goal? I do understand staying in your position and all that, but, they seem content to keep the defender as close to them as possible and if the pass is intercepted, oh well. :)

The other things that bother me are the complete lack of consistency on the awarding of yellow/red cards and the lack of balance these prime athletes seem to have. They can do all these fancy things with the ball using their feet and never fall, but, the second an opposing player gets close, they fall down. The theatrics of the flopping around and acting like they just got a bazooka to the face is beyond ridiculous. I find it actually worse than when an NFL player show boats after scoring a touchdown, which I can't stand by the way. I know it's a very small part of the game, but, it is so blatant, that it actually eclipses the good parts at times.

I don't hate the sport and don't understand a lot of it and I would like to see some changes, but, I also know those will never happen. It seems to be a sport with a long history of traditions (much like baseball), which will make changes slow and rare to come by. Oh, and get some scantily clad ladies on the sidelines. :)

Yeah...if soccer ever made it big in the states, I think it would require some cheerleaders. I'm not talking NFL cheerleaders either, I'm talking the kind of cheerleaders from the movie The Replacements.

You're allowed contact, hell you can take a guys legs out provided you get the ball first.

You're allowed contact, hell you can take a guys legs out provided you get the ball first.
But after you a guy's legs out, sometimes he gets right back up. THIS SPORT IS SHIT

What if you hit his balls first? Legal?

OF COURSE YOU CAN HIT THE BALLS FIRST, HAVEN'T YOU BEEN PAYING ATTENTION? HIT HIS BALLS AND THEN YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT

Soccer/footie is the shiznit.. NBA sucks.

My turn. I played football/basketball/baseball until high school where I started playing lacrosse as a freshman.

My favorites were football and lacrosse because of the collision aspect of the physicality instead of just a contact aspect. During my lacrosse years soccer ended up being something I did in my downtime to increase endurance/stamina.

I concur that soccer can be physical, that there is contact, but it is not nearly as physical as the more violent collision sports and definitely takes a different type of toughness. The big drawback continues to be the little buttweasles that dive all over the place, the complete unwillingness of the governing bodies to make obvious, necessary changes, and the massive corruption of the FIFA dirtbags that makes David Stern's NBA look legitimate.

Soccer has the potential to be as big in the US as anywhere else but it won't happen until the garbage aspect of the game disappears. No more quitting on a play to raise your hand and beg for an offside. No more rewarding little polesmokers for grabbing their ankle and rolling around like they were shot. No more surrounding officials and begging for cards every freaking time you don't sucker him into buying your crap on a dive.

Get rid of the effiminate, pathetic, weasely, worthless crap that no real man would ever do and you'll have a successful US sport.

I can't really disagree with anything in this post and I love the game.

What is all this, you can't respect a players skill in breaking down a defense unless they are allowed to rape your corpse bullshit?

So, what, basketball and baseball are pussy sports with no skill either?

And if so, then basically you aren't really into competition, just violence. In that case, just watching boxing or MMA, you goon. :p

OK, we have established a couple of things. You don't watch soccer or haven't paid enough attention to it to see any physical play at all and you think it is very important for a sport to enable you to knock the shit out of people with skill for you to get any enjoyment out of it.

For me, with that established, I'm not really sure what the point of continuing is, but go ahead if you'd like. I'm not really interested in continuing to discuss the game with you anymore, nor in discussing the pros and cons of overly physical play.

Just not interesting to me. Maybe someone else can take over for me here?

I don't know if he's saying that he doesn't enjoy it if there isn't a chance of the ball/puck carrier getting knocked out, I think he's comparing the difficulty levels of doing what people do on the soccer field to what people do on the ice.

I don't know that you could win an argument stating that beating a couple defenders who aren't allowed to touch you is harder than beating a couple defenders who are allowed to break your neck almost however they see fit.

Sun Tzu is on the right track...that fancy footwork is what most sporting enthusiasts call showing the opponent up. It's disrespectful to do that kind of crap...where I come from, at least. In a contact sport (where more than "incidental" contact is allowed) you can try that fancy ass crap all you want but you're more than likely going to end up on your ass than you are scoring a goal or TD. If you happen to pull it off, well if you don't get popped right after scoring then you'll get what's coming soon enough.

But then again, when you get guys diving all over the field begging for penalties then class and respect, for themselves and their opponents, have obviously been checked at the door on the way into the stadium.

Sun Tzu is on the right track...that fancy footwork is what most sporting enthusiasts call showing the opponent up. It's disrespectful to do that kind of crap...where I come from, at least. In a contact sport (where more than "incidental" contact is allowed) you can try that fancy ass crap all you want but you're more than likely going to end up on your ass than you are scoring a goal or TD. If you happen to pull it off, well if you don't get popped right after scoring then you'll get what's coming soon enough.


So when Kobe does a head fake on a drive to the basket, it's showing an opponent up? What about when a running back does a spin move to dodge a tackle? That's pretty fancy footwork as well? But I guess where your from, that IS just showing off...?

And you are allowed a lot of contact in soccer. Much more then is allowed in baseball and basketball.

Why don't they allow slashing in hockey? Chop Blocking in football? Because someone could get hurt.

What is all this, you can't respect a players skill in breaking down a defense unless they are allowed to rape your corpse bullshit?

So, what, basketball and baseball are pussy sports with no skill either?

And if so, then basically you aren't really into competition, just violence. In that case, just watching boxing or MMA, you goon. :p

A fastball in the ribs from 60 feet hurts, I assure you. Because of that fact, if you happen to knock one out on a guy then you put your head down and run around the bases...show some respect.

Basketball, not a fan.

So basically unless there is violence, you don't care. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, because if you aren't then you arguments sound even dumber than I thought possible, and yes I am somewhat channeling JIMG, but it is deserved.

You are a goon then. Go ahead and root for brawls and fights and don't complain when a game breaks out in the middle of them.

So when Kobe does a head fake on a drive to the basket, it's showing an opponent up? What about when a running back does a spin move to dodge a tackle? That's pretty fancy footwork as well? But I guess where your from, that IS just showing off...?

Did you even watch that clip of highlights? Most of that clip was elaborate crap that was completely unnecessary and likely not seen very often while you'll see a common spin move multiple times in every game by several players. A better football related example would be somebody trying to hurdle a would be tackler...and I'm not talking about a guy who's already going down low on you...I'm talking about basically high jumping a guy. It rarely works and the ball carrier usually ends up on his head and gets up pretty slowly...but when it does work you can bet that the guy you made a fool of will be looking to take your head off the next time you have the ball.

So basically unless there is violence, you don't care. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, because if you aren't then you arguments sound even dumber than I thought possible, and yes I am somewhat channeling JIMG, but it is deserved.

Not at all...I love baseball and we can all agree that it isn't a violent sport...but the moment you show disrespect then it could become very violent. I'm not saying I can't wait for those moments to happen, in fact, I'd love for them not to happen at all, but what I really hate is to see assholes show up a pitcher by standing at home plate and watching the ball leave the park and then saunter around the bases like he's in some Thanksgiving Day parade.

You are a goon then. Go ahead and root for brawls and fights and don't complain when a game breaks out in the middle of them.

Never been in a fight in my life...not on the ice, not on the diamond, not even on the playground. I've plunked a few douches in the back with a fastball and I've crosschecked a few "fancy dans" in front of the net...but they knew they had it coming and that was the end of it. That's the way it should be.

Show respect, get respect.

Hard to find that attitude on the soccer pitch...in my experience, at least.

I'm not the complete moron who decried skilled play because there wasn't the threat of getting plowed under.

And now you are calling it a respect thing, which is, quite possibly, the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I realize you are trying to backtrack, but try something less utterly stupid, please. Before it was "anyone could do it" because you aren't getting your block knocked off... now it's a respect thing... because of course they aren't trying the footwork to get past a player 1 v 1.

Please. I respect intellectually honest dissent (say you tried and found it dull because you couldn't get into it, fine), but not the bullshit you are peddling.

Glad you soccer fans can keep things civil. :) (odd coincidence, i guess, I just finished watching Green Street Hooligans...lol)

Not backtracking at all, MJ4H said himself that he can dribble and juggle like those guys so they aren't using any smoke and mirrors in those clips. My contention is, and always has been, that guys would be much less apt to do that crap if defenders could give opponents a reason to think twice about trying to make them look like 5 year olds. What man wants to be made a fool of in front of millions?

But, again, like I said before, if guys are willing to roll around on the ground after getting their shoelace stepped on and get carried off on a stretcher when they were complaining about a sore wrist then I guess I should not expect them to understand respect.

Glad you soccer fans can keep things civil. :) (odd coincidence, i guess, I just finished watching Green Street Hooligans...lol)

Not backtracking at all, MJ4H said himself that he can dribble and juggle like those guys so they aren't using any smoke and mirrors in those clips. My contention is, and always has been, that guys would be much less apt to do that crap if defenders could give opponents a reason to think twice about trying to make them look like 5 year olds. What man wants to be made a fool of in front of millions?

But, again, like I said before, if guys are willing to roll around on the ground after getting their shoelace stepped on and get carried off on a stretcher when they were complaining about a sore wrist then I guess I should not expect them to understand respect.

No I didn't. I said I can do the stupid juggling tricks the guys down the road from you can do. Don't put words in my mouth for your stupid arguments.

No I didn't. I said I can do the stupid juggling tricks the guys down the road from you can do. Don't put words in my mouth for your stupid arguments.

Right, and I said the guys down the street could do a lot of what was in that clip...so......

Ah, nevermind....I don't like soccer...I'm sorry you don't like my reasons why.

I promise not to post those reasons in the thread for bitching about soccer ever again.

Did you even watch that clip of highlights? Most of that clip was elaborate crap that was completely unnecessary and likely not seen very often while you'll see a common spin move multiple times in every game by several players. A better football related example would be somebody trying to hurdle a would be tackler...and I'm not talking about a guy who's already going down low on you...I'm talking about basically high jumping a guy. It rarely works and the ball carrier usually ends up on his head and gets up pretty slowly...but when it does work you can bet that the guy you made a fool of will be looking to take your head off the next time you have the ball.

You talk about showing a team up but you completely ignore the TD celebration in football yet chastise baseball players for doing the exact same thing.

You talk about showing a team up but you completely ignore the TD celebration in football yet chastise baseball players for doing the exact same thing.

Can't stand the TD celebrations and am glad that they are flagged for doing them now.

facepalm

The big drawback continues to be the little buttweasles that dive all over the place, the complete unwillingness of the governing bodies to make obvious, necessary changes, and the massive corruption of the FIFA dirtbags that makes David Stern's NBA look legitimate.
I think that's a big drawback but I don't think it's the only drawback. I've been trying for the past few weeks to articulate this in sociopolitical terms. I think one reason soccer is big elsewhere and not so much in America has to do with some of the social and philosophical aspects of the game. I think that most of the world takes soccer seriously whereas Americans take winning seriously.

Here's the nickel version of my view: Americans are obsessed with winning, yet soccer is one of the few sports that recognizes the nobility of a tie. In fact, if you're playing a team better than you, a tie is considered a victory. I've watched way too much soccer where one or both teams were playing for a tie rather to win, and for lack of a better word that is "un-American." I don't think Americans will ever embrace a sports where winning isn't the goal for everyone.

I know someone will point out how upset people in other countries get when their national team loses in the World Cup. That's why I say other countries take soccer more seriously but we take winning more seriously. They are upset because soccer is their identity, not because they lost. We don't have that identification with soccer, and I seriously doubt we ever will.

There's clearly alot going on all throughout a soccer match, so I never understood that complaint. I really think part of the problem with soccer is the constant frustration. Americans like to see their superstars succeed. And in soccer, there's constant failure except for a couple brief moments throughout the 90 minutes.

Imagine if basketball were setup like soccer and Jordan was considered a superstar because he scored about one basket per game (see: Pele's 643 goal in 656 matches). I doubt Americans would tolerate that.

Fair enough. After a reread, what you are saying is that sports watched massively by Americans are reserved for truly gifted athletes. Other sports that aren't watched massively by Americans let non-truly gifted athletes in.

Sorry about the confusion.

ETA:

http://foodcourtlunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/miller.jpg

I'll raise you 100 lbs

http://romanisburning.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/050425garces.jpg

There's clearly alot going on all throughout a soccer match, so I never understood that complaint. I really think part of the problem with soccer is the constant frustration. Americans like to see their superstars succeed. And in soccer, there's constant failure except for a couple brief moments throughout the 90 minutes.

Imagine if basketball were setup like soccer and Jordan was considered a superstar because he scored about one basket per game (see: Pele's 643 goal in 656 matches). I doubt Americans would tolerate that.

Meh, I disagree with this. Jerry Rice is undoubtedly the greatest Wide Receiver to ever play the game, and arguably the greatest player to ever set foot on the field. Rice started 284 games in his career and scored 207 touchdowns...that's means if you were watching him play you had less than a 75% chance of seeing him score. I agree with a lot of the things said in this thread, but I don't think this one quite works.

If you want to see bitching about soccer, let my lunch plans be ruined by someone having the volume turned up on the vuvazela concert that'll surely be on the restaurant TV.

The next Athens Banner-Herald headline you see might involve a well-known FOFC'er if that turns out to be the case.

Meh, I disagree with this. Jerry Rice is undoubtedly the greatest Wide Receiver to ever play the game, and arguably the greatest player to ever set foot on the field. Rice started 284 games in his career and scored 207 touchdowns...that's means if you were watching him play you had less than a 75% chance of seeing him score. I agree with a lot of the things said in this thread, but I don't think this one quite works.

Yeah, but they see him succeed by getting numerous key catches for first downs which is a quantifiable measure that you're not going to get for that Winger who keeps making great cross passes to set up scoring opportunities that hardly ever get finished.

Meh, I disagree with this. Jerry Rice is undoubtedly the greatest Wide Receiver to ever play the game, and arguably the greatest player to ever set foot on the field. Rice started 284 games in his career and scored 207 touchdowns...that's means if you were watching him play you had less than a 75% chance of seeing him score. I agree with a lot of the things said in this thread, but I don't think this one quite works.

His team failed to score more than once in only 21 of the 298 games he appeared in during his career.

Find a soccer player above rec league age who the same can be said about.

The analogy used was regarding single superstar athletes and individual success via scoring, not team glory. Of course Rice made numerous key catches throughout games, but I imagine this Pele fellow must have had numerous key moments throughout his games too.

Yeah, but they see him succeed by getting numerous key catches for first downs which is a quantifiable measure that you're not going to get for that Winger who keeps making great cross passes to set up scoring opportunities that hardly ever get finished.

the great crosses are the success.

The analogy used was regarding single superstar athletes and individual success via scoring, not team glory. Of course Rice made numerous key catches throughout games, but I imagine this Pele fellow must have had numerous key moments throughout his games too.

I imagine he did, and if I picked up the paper the next day to read abotu a game where he scored zero goals, how do I find out about these other moments?

But I think Rice was a bad example anyways. Wide Receivers, even the best one ever, will never be the biggest superstars. It all comes down to QB's. And yes, if the best QB in the league could only lead their team to one score per game, then people would not be wild about football. This is why the NFL has constantly changed their rules to benefit the offense.

I imagine he did, and if I picked up the paper the next day to read abotu a game where he scored zero goals, how do I find out about these other moments?

But I think Rice was a bad example anyways. Wide Receivers, even the best one ever, will never be the biggest superstars. It all comes down to QB's. And yes, if the best QB in the league could only lead their team to one score per game, then people would not be wild about football. This is why the NFL has constantly changed their rules to benefit the offense.

Rice, IMO, has gone beyond the "only QB's are superduperstars" idea. The guy has become the Jim Brown/Barry Sanders of his position. You could argue that Terrell Owens or Tim Brown might suffer in popularity because of their position, but not Rice.

Rice, IMO, has gone beyond the "only QB's are superduperstars" idea. The guy has become the Jim Brown/Barry Sanders of his position. You could argue that Terrell Owens or Tim Brown might suffer in popularity because of their position, but not Rice.

Jerry Rice was never NFL MVP, while Joe Montana won it twice.

the great crosses are the success.

Right, I understand that, but the average American sports fan won't. They view success as scoring points. If the cross passes led to as much success as Jerry Rice's catches or Magic Johnson's behind the back pass, then maybe you'd have something.

Jerry Rice was never NFL MVP, while Joe Montana won it twice.

Alright...well if your argument is going to morph into something else right in the middle, I'll do the same.

There is absolutely no possible way you can compare the position of quarterback, in any way, shape or form, to anything involving the sport of soccer. The level of difficulty involved in playing QB on a professional level surpasses that of an entire nations soccer team combined.

period.

Just mentioning the quarteback position in a thread that is directly comparing the two sports is argument suicide if you ask me.

Alright...well if your argument is going to morph into something else right in the middle, I'll do the same.

The hell? I directly answered what you said. You claimed Rice transcended his position and I responded by showing that he didn't even transcend it on his own team.

There is absolutely no possible way you can compare the position of quarterback, in any way, shape or form, to anything involving the sport of soccer. The level of difficulty involved in playing QB on a professional level surpasses that of an entire nations soccer team combined.

period.

Just mentioning the quarteback position in a thread that is directly comparing the two sports is argument suicide if you ask me.

Okay, well I started with basketball and you brought up football. I could care less how well the positions match up across sports. My point is American sports fans like seeing their superstars succeed, whether that is by scoring points themselves or doing things that lead to points being scored. You don't really have that in soccer, and I think that is one roadblock preventing Americans from embracing the sport.

My point is American sports fans like seeing their superstars succeed, whether that is by scoring points themselves or doing things that lead to points being scored. You don't really have that in soccer, and I think that is one roadblock preventing Americans from embracing the sport.

Although this isn't really something I'm bitching about in terms of soccer, your comment brings another issue to mind. Americans also tend to like watching dynastic teams, either as bandwagon fans or as bandwagon haters. Once you get beyond the national team level, how many people can actually name a top club? i.e. I suspect a Family Feud question like "Name a top soccer team" could get a decent number of Brazil or even Argentina answers, but how many Man U's would they get from surveying 100 Americans?

I mean, I think it's safe to say that I know a good bit more about soccer than the average American (thanks largely to CM) and I don't even like watching it, so how well could that many people figure out what bandwagon to climb on/off?

Yeah...I'm sorry it's hard to respect beating a good defense when the other guy isn't even allow to touch you. It's much different in football or hockey where some of the defenders are literally trying to separate your head from the rest of your body, and if you don't have your head on a swivel they very well may succeed.

In regards to kids participating in soccer, I'd be willing to bet that soccer has always been popular with kids. Well...at least the kids who suck at baseball/football. Here's how it worked when I was a kid.

1.) You play baseball or football...if you're at all good then you're popular...if your hand-eye-coordination is terrible...then you move on to #2
2.) Play AYSO or whatever it's called...you run around wearing shorts and funny looking socks kicking a ball that looks like it's covered with dalmation skin...if you're good, at least people know you exist...if you can't even do this half-way decent...then you move on to #3
3.) Learn to play an instrument and start growing your hair long...if you can't even do that...move on to #4 (the last resort)
4.) Buy dungeons and dragons, and hang out with "those" kids

:)

I played soccer and hockey. Would you still try and tape my butt cheeks together?

No contact, from today's WC final:

http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/5853/10ylz86jpg.gif

Yup, looked like a poorly delivered kick on the undercard of a Strikeforce event. I'll take that over a free safety bringing helmet and shoulders into my chest while I'm fully extended trying to catch a football.

I'm not sure, that kick with he aluminum claws from the boot to your nude chest when you are at full speed must hurt for sure, I wouldn't want either anyway:)

The argument that soccer is a non-contact sport is way overrated.

Is it as physical as a sport like American Football, Rugby or Ice Hockey? Nope. But to call it non-contact is kinda silly, especially since a good hard tackle is a skill in itself.

A non-contact sport doesn't tend to lend itself to situations where a player ends up with a broken leg, ankle, etc (just using Arsenal's injury history as an example: Ramsey's leg broken in 2 places this year, Eduardo's broken ankle). When played at a high pace, the game is a physical one.

I think the real complaint is that soccer players really do dive around too much and contact is exaggerated. I would love to see bookings being given to players who do such things .. not just diving when there is no contact but behaving as if they have been shot and then running at full speed moments later.

No contact, from today's WC final:

http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/5853/10ylz86jpg.gif

Just curious, was there a free kick awarded as a result of the play?

Yes

Guys! Guys! Can't we just get back to ignoring soccer entirely for 4 more years?

Feel free.

Can't stand the TD celebrations and am glad that they are flagged for doing them now.

By your moronic argument, shouldn't they not be doing TD celebrations since they will get "punished for it" later? Isn't that not showing respect, which you tend to claim is enforced in the NFL because of violence?

All this of course still falls under the mistaken impression that those tricks were done to show up the opposing player, other than the acknowledgment that beating a defender 1 v 1 is difficult, and skilled tricks make it easier. None of those moves in the clips were close to showing the opposing player up.

Guys! Guys! Can't we just get back to ignoring soccer entirely for 4 more years?

Don't worry, that process has already resumed for much of the WC audience in the U.S. No different really than the audience for Olympic sports for a couple of weeks versus the rest of the year(s).

By your moronic argument, shouldn't they not be doing TD celebrations since they will get "punished for it" later? Isn't that not showing respect, which you tend to claim is enforced in the NFL because of violence?

And the king of TD celebrations is who?? Likely the most hated NFL player of all time...and the guy defensive players don't pull up for after the whistle...T.O. His teammates don't even like him. So what's your point?

And the king of TD celebrations is who?? Likely the most hated NFL player of all time...and the guy defensive players don't pull up for after the whistle...T.O. His teammates don't even like him. So what's your point?

His point is everyone celebrates a TD in the NFL, not just TO.

I think I've got the arguments down. When we are discussing how physical soccer isn't, we compare it to the NFL. But when we talk about showing off, we disregard the NFL showmanship and point out how baseball players get beaned when they look at a HR. It's hard to keep the sport straight with how often the comparisons jump from one sport to another.

Feel free.

To be fair, he is an Indiana fan so he's speaking mostly out of jealous. Every four years looks like heaven from his POV

That elation or depression is there for sure, especially when a player has an opening to score a goal and his kick goes over the net or is wide of the net. You want to strangle the dude. It's all the stuff that happens in the middle of the field that I don't understand.

Yes. And the level of elation is down to the rarity of goals. I watch Aussie Rules where there are 25 or so goals a game and there's nothing like the excitement when a goal is scored. I guess basketball illustrates this even better - I tend to look for the misses rather than the scores.

The consequence of the low scoring is that the game is on a knife-edge for large parts of the game. At any moment you're only one score away from winning the match and one score can come to either side within seconds at almost any point. That means that a committed fan is on the edge of his seat from beginning to end unless his team is 3 or more goals up/down (2 up is often said to be the most dangerous lead to have) oscillating between elation and anxiety.

As I'm watching some of the world cup games, I'm thinking, why aren't they getting themselves into a position to get a pass and then break loose down the field towards the goal?

In that case you understand the game more than you may think. One of the world's best players of a few years ago, Ruud Gullitt, commenting on a game for the BBC once said "This game is very simple. Just get the movement right and it very easy."

The Spanish team is seen as the best passing team but if you watch carefully it is in fact the best "moving" team. The players are constantly on the move constantly positioning themselves to receive a pass. Many of the passes are simple because they're made simple by the receiving player getting into space and making himself available.

It's something many players don't seem to understand (one reason the England midfielders Gerrard and Lampard are not as good as claimed is because both of them are guilty of poor movement off the ball and a disaster together). It tends to be instinctive and difficult to coach.

The other things that bother me are the complete lack of consistency on the awarding of yellow/red cards and the lack of balance these prime athletes seem to have.

Contact in soccer is supposed to be incidental only - you're not really supposed to deliberately contact another player - but there is still considerable contact. But it's difficult for the referee to judge motive, particularly in such a free flowing game which requires instant judgement, and the level of contact so variable. Just how much the ref sees is also variable. It makes it a very subjective judgement.

It's very easy for us to see a foul and its severity when we see it from 3 different angles and have slow motion replays. In such circumstances you're bound to have considerable variations in response from the ref.

It wasn't so obvious before televised games and instant replay

They can do all these fancy things with the ball using their feet and never fall, but, the second an opposing player gets close, they fall down. The theatrics of the flopping around and acting like they just got a bazooka to the face is beyond ridiculous.

Most soccer fans despise it as well - until their team wins a penalty :)

It begins with the players making sure that the ref sees a foul by exaggerating the fall. Unfortunately it has moved on form there.

I blame the Germans ;)

I don't hate the sport and don't understand a lot of it and I would like to see some changes, but, I also know those will never happen. It seems to be a sport with a long history of traditions (much like baseball), which will make changes slow and rare to come by.

It suffers the flaws of the afluent (the opposite of the hungry boxer syndrome). Outside of the USA (and Australia for that matter) the game is so popular that there is simply no need to change it. The answer to demands for change is always that you could spoil the game and why should you when it's so popular.

But personally I would like to see several changes. Simple things - the handball stopping the ball entering the net should be a penalty goal and a yellow card for example.

I think red cards should be far less frequent - reducing a team to 10 men has such a massive impact on the game and often spoils the spectacle - and I would have the manager instructed to replace a red-carded player and have him dealt with in a dsiciplinary tribunal when the event can be assessed from video evidence and severe punishment handed out when necessary. A red card is usually an individual violation not a team one and the individual should be punished not the team and certainly not the fans who have paid to see an genuine 11 v 11 game.

But the change I would love to see tested out is more radical : get rid of the off-side rule.

Why?

1) It's impossible to get right and result of match after match is being significantly affected by bad off-side calls (both ways).

2) The athleticism of modern players has destroyed the original relationship between pitch size and number of players. That was established over a hundred years ago when players were amateurs, relatively unathletic and couldn't cover the ground with anything like the ease of modern players. Today it is far too easy to prevent a quality team playing flowing football by stifling their play. This World Cup has illustrated this perfectly. It may temporarily make us feel good to see "plucky" New Zealand survive but when a team of players, no one of whom could hold down a regular place in a mid-table side from the English third tier, can resist, not one but three, top quality teams then the game is in trouble.

It is far too easy to cancel out superior skill by choking the game.

You could simply reduce the teams to 10 players or even 9 perhaps and reproduce the space to play that existed when the rules were first formulated. That certainly won't happen - putting 20% of players on the dole would be a national disaster for any country and the government would fall in all places but the US :)

But, by removing the off-side rule the game would now be played in 90% or so of the pitch at any one time not the 60% that occurs because of the ability of the defence to cut out large parts of their own territory by pushing forward and denying the opposition attackers space.

3) The off-side rule simply serves no purpose in soccer. It's a hangover from the pre-soccer times when two teams faced up to each other with a dividing line between the two sides with players "on side" when they were on their own side of the line and "off side" when on their opponents. Much the same as exists at the snap of gridiron and in the various rugby codes.

However, once the ball can legitimately be passed to a forward colleague then the line becomes meaningless and attempts to create a new one arbritrary.

At first they drew the line at the third last defender. That's was impossible to officiate. So it was dropped to the second last defender. We need to admit that also is impossible to get right.

Just write it off! No more bad calls and no more compressed midfields cancelling out the quality players.

But it won't happen :(

Oh, and get some scantily clad ladies on the sidelines. :)

And that too!

A fastball in the ribs from 60 feet hurts, I assure you.

Just curious, was there a free base awarded as a result of this play?

To be fair, he is an Indiana fan so he's speaking mostly out of jealous. Every four years looks like heaven from his POV

As opposed to UCLA fans, who enjoy football championships regularly.

If you were to get "rid" of the offsides rule, how do you prevent forwards from always hanging out around the opponents 18 yard box all game long, waiting for long passes, turning into that dull, dull old English game of long ball?

If you were to get "rid" of the offsides rule, how do you prevent forwards from always hanging out around the opponents 18 yard box all game long, waiting for long passes, turning into that dull, dull old English game of long ball?

There were some tests in the past about adding a new line on the field to divide each team half in two, or the whole field on 4 quarters, with offside only being called if in the quarter more close to goal, that way there wouldn't be offsides called in midfield while still not allowing a forward to sit in the 18 yard box.

I can't remember how did that end.

As opposed to UCLA fans, who enjoy football championships regularly.

Huh? I'm not bitching about a sport that people think is relevant once every four years

Huh? I'm not bitching about a sport that people think is relevant once every four years

I thought your post was about to Indiana's lack of success in sports recently. I was merely pointing out that your team hasn't exactly been tearing it up of late either.

I thought your post was about to Indiana's lack of success in sports recently.

Hold the phone...

They play sports in Indiana?

I thought your post was about to Indiana's lack of success in sports recently. I was merely pointing out that your team hasn't exactly been tearing it up of late either.

It was in comparison to your complaining about soccer and the notion that it's only relevant every four years. If I was on your side of the argument then yes, it would apply to UCLA football, but I never specified football

IU's pretty good in soccer. :)

Unfortunately, I saw them beat UCSB a few years back with Vince. But UCLA is also a top 5 soccer school :)

Unfortunately, I saw them beat UCSB a few years back with Vince. But UCLA is also a top 5 soccer school :)

Is anybody else brainwashed to the point where they can't see the name "Vince" without thinking of professional Wrestling?

If you were to get "rid" of the offsides rule, how do you prevent forwards from always hanging out around the opponents 18 yard box all game long, waiting for long passes, turning into that dull, dull old English game of long ball?

I think hockey-style offside rule would be the way they would go if this happened. So they'd need some new lines on the field.

Of course I can imagine immediate problems in terms of long-ball play, etc. It would definitely change the game in unexpected ways.

If you were to get "rid" of the offsides rule, how do you prevent forwards from always hanging out around the opponents 18 yard box all game long, waiting for long passes, turning into that dull, dull old English game of long ball?

What's wrong with forwards playing much further forward where they can best hurt the opposition? Currently their position on the pitch is dictated by the opposition defence rather than their own desire to attack the opposition goal.

The idea that it results in the long ball game doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. In fact I can give you two very good reasons why the offside rule invites the long ball:

1) Imagine a fullback has just dispossessed his winger about five yards out from his own penalty area. The ref didn't see his shirt tug that left the winger on the ground :) and he's now looking to move the ball forward.

He sees an opposition back line about 5 yards inside their own half with his own striker(s) up against them. There's a forty yard gap between these defenders and their 'keeper. Is this not an open invitation to thump the ball into the gap in the hope a striker can get onto it? He probably won't - there's 4 of them to the one of him - but it's worth a try particularly as my own midfielders are crap.

But with no offside rule the defensive back line wouldn't be within 5 yards of the halfway line because if they were the opposition strikers would be 20 yards further on just waiting for the ball and a one-on-one with the 'keeper.

Instead the defensive line would be 5 yards or so from their own penalty area preventing the striker having such an advanatage and the open invitation to go long is no longer there.

2) Again, the defender has the ball close to his own area. Because of the offside rule the ten midfield players are crammed into a 35/40 yard stretch of the field pushed into that by the opposition defence playing high up the pitch. It's very crowded and getting the ball to a midfield player before he's closed down is very difficult. You just can't work your way through the midfield. What the hell, bypass the midfield with a long ball up front in the hope your striker will be able to collect and hold.

With no offside rule the defenders are way further back and the 10 midfielders are distributed in a area of about 60 metres and much thinner on the ground. There's much more space for movement and for a midfielder to have the time to receive the ball, control it an move on.

The goal-hanging striker argument fails because it ignores the fact that the defenders don't allow the striker to find space up front. They drop back and cover him. This opens up the midfield and creates room for the quality players to play and are no longer crowded out.

Now, why do I know this? Well since coming to Australia I've started watching Aussie Rules. It's the handball game that comes closest to soccer because the ball can be passed forward,either by hand or foot, and you have the same free-flowing, end to end game you have in soccer.

Aussie Rules has no offside rule. And, despite that you virtually never see an attacker in what would be an "offside" position in soccer. The defenders simply don't allow it any more than a safety will allow a wide receiver to get beyond him and take a pass if he can help it in gridiron.

Despite the fact there are some 25 goals or so in an Aussie Rules game (because a goal is scored simply by going through the uprights at any height) you very seldom see a goal scored with an attacker up there on his own. Doesn't happen because defenders don't let it happen. And if you achieve it then that needs some good play.

What you do get is lots of open midfield play - lots of passing, lots of running with the ball. The best midfielders in Aussie Rules are more like wide receivers in gridiron because of the space they have to run - because defenders are where defenders should be - defending their goal.

Removing the offside rule would open up the midfield precisely because attackers will stay much further up field - which, if you think about it, is where you want them. Defenders stay with them, midfielders stretch out and the midfield is open for the passing and dribbling game. The Messis, Ronaldos, Robbens of the game won't simply operate from the flanks but will move through the midfield in exciting running - which we see far too litle of these days.

It's not a coincidence that attacking teams like Man Utd, Barcelona etc play on the biggest pitches (soccer pitches can be different sizes). It's not a coincidence that weak clubs will deliberately mark their home pitch narrower for the visit of a superior team in order that the smaller pitch will allow them to frustrate the better football. It's not coincidence that the time of most open play occurs in the last 20 minutes of a game when the players are fatigued and unable to cover the ground and close down the skillful players as effectively.

With no offisde rule, the attackers will certainly play much closer to the opposition goal but then so will the opposition defenders. That opens up the pitch for the skillful player to enjoy and exploit and works against sides that merely wish to close the game down and frustrate the quality game.

Currently, it is now far too easy to kill the attacking game by clogging up midfield or defence.

Now I'm not suggesting that it will stop the bad teams hoofing the ball up field in route one as they do now but it will prevent them from suffocating the good teams and allow those to play an expansive attacking game.

It also gets rid of the repeated bad calls that currently corrupt game results and bring the game into disrepute.

Course, it might just be because I was a striker as a player and got sick of being called offside - always incorrectly of course ;)

Removing the offside rule would open up the midfield precisely because attackers will stay much further up field - which, if you think about it, is where you want them. Defenders stay with them, midfielders stretch out and the midfield is open for the passing and dribbling game. The Messis, Ronaldos, Robbens of the game won't simply operate from the flanks but will move through the midfield in exciting running - which we see far too litle of these days.

It would open the midfield too much is the problem. The Messis, Ronaldos, and Robbens would be exciting running through the first half and basically die in the second half, as the amount of running for MF players increases exponentially, as the strikers and defenders are at the far ends of the pitch for the vast majority of the game.

Maybe you can experiment with a 35 yard line offsides start, but eliminating it would be a disaster. There is a reason the rule was there in the first place.

I need a Maple Leafs truncated version of the latest Mac Howard posts.

It would open the midfield too much is the problem.

Make your mind up, ISiddiqui. First the ball's going to be punted from end to end in one great punt and now there's going to be too much midfield play for midfielders to last the 90 minutes. You're really only trying to rationalise your objection to change ;)

In truth we don't know what tactics will emerge until the situation is checked out. In fact I suspect you'll finish up with the same level of variation that you have now. Footballing sides will take advantage of the increased space and inferior sides look for ways to stop them playing. The second, however, will be more difficult than today where it has become far too effective.

But it needs to be tried out in a lower level competition though I think initially the attackers will take advantage more quickly until the defenders have worked out how to deal with the greater threat that the change produces.

The Messis, Ronaldos, and Robbens would be exciting running through the first half and basically die in the second half, as the amount of running for MF players increases exponentially, as the strikers and defenders are at the far ends of the pitch for the vast majority of the game.

They would learn to pace themselves much as they do now. You can run yourself out now in 60 minutes if you don't conserve energy.

Maybe you can experiment with a 35 yard line offsides start, but eliminating it would be a disaster. There is a reason the rule was there in the first place.

The reason was related to the idea of "your side" and "my side" that exists with the idea of two sides simulating warfare. But once the players can be distributed forward of colleagues that becomes meaningless and just where the line lies is arbitrary. Just as in gridiron, once the snap has taken place and the wide receivers can move forward of the snap position any idea of "offside" is dropped because it has no real meaning anymore.

The equivalent to the current offside rule in soccer would be to call "offside" if a wide receiver went beyond the last two safeties at the time the QB released his pass (I'm not an expert in gridiron but I assume that isn't currently the case). With such a rule the safeties would push up to within 20 yards or less of the snap, the wide receivers would not be able to take off downfield and you'd have numerous (wrong) offside calls and touchdowns cancelled if the wide receiver did try to get downfield to accept a pass. The passing game would be destroyed with the defence cramping play into the same limited 20 metres or less you currently get when playing for the endzone. Even if he timed his run correctly (having two safeties beyond him as the pass was delivered) you'd never get more than a 30 yard or so pass and half of the successful passes would be declared illegal for being "offside" - many of them wrongly!

Legitimising the forward pass renders the offside idea irrelevant and introducing something for the sake of it becomes arbitrary.

The 35 yard line would achieve some improvement in terms of opening up the midfield but it would double up on the bad offside decisions. Having to take the line into account as well as the relative positions of players would only amplify the difficulty of getting the decision right. We would now have errors on whether the player was over the line or not.

I come back to what I began with - the offside rule serves no purpose in the game. It causes errors that have officials deciding the results of games and in the main works against attacking football (most bad decisions are offside given incorrectly not denied despite the instruction to give attackers the benefit of the doubt). The definition and/or interpretation of the rule is modified every two or three years in an attempt to make it acceptable but it merely becomes more complex to assess and more subjective. Generally the changes are towards giving the attackers a better deal against a rule that significantly diminishes their ability to carry out their scoring duties.

Forget all the confusing modifications, bite the bullet and retire the rule and have done with it.

I need a Maple Leafs truncated version of the latest Mac Howard posts.


Sorry about that Sun Tzu :)

Maple Leafs there's another one for you.