or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Beckham signs for LA Galaxy!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Beckham signs for LA Galaxy! - Page 3

post #31 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by edmorel
Fine, I concede . I hope Becks becomes as big a star here as Gary Coleman was.

He's already bigger than GC (and taller). Your antipathy towards the world's most popular sport will backfire once your wife starts asking why you can't dress more like 'that David Beckham'.
post #32 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
If you are not American, you have no idea what I'm talking about, but yes. American football has more "action" than soccer IMO. Why? Because the plays that happen all have a quantifiable result attached to them. The five seconds of action you talk about can move you 30 yards down the field and allow you a better chance of scoring, move you backwards, out of scoring range, or turn into a fumble or interception - thus giving the other team a scoring opportunity. The "constant action" of soccer is basically just kicking the ball for no reason, since a successfull pass, change in possession, or a failed pass, almost statistically NEVER results in a goal. Passing is not action.

See above. Flawed as the attitude may be, that is what the US is about. Scoring. Get used to it.

Hockey is also not a sport with a very large following in the US. BUT hockey also incorporates a bit of smacking about, and when one player collides with another player, they are really smacking into each other, not like in soccer where the collisions, trips, and etc are 99% acting.

If you don't think the boringness of watching televised soccer is why people in the US don't watch it, then you have no idea why sports fans in the US do anything. Soccer is boring to watch, and if you were to poll the majority of the US, 8 out of ten Americans would probably tell you the exact same thing.

I think it is more of a case of people not understanding a sport enough to appreciate it. As a matter of fact, I am American and I find football absurdly boring, as well as baseball, and most of all: NASCAR. If scoring is your criterion, than football and soccer aren't that far apart; there are many soccer games with multiple goals (it isn't always just 1-1); in average football games, you might only have 4-5 actual touchdowns. Now basketball has action, but if Americans are so into their goals and constant movement, then why is it that basketball isn't BY FAR the most popular sport. How about golf? Americans spend billions of dollars playing golf and millions of them watch golf....surely you couldn't have a slower game.

There is narrow-mindedness on both sides. Americans may never understand how the hell someone can watch cricket or soccer, and Europeans may never understand how we can watch football or baseball. Truth be told, I never understood how if Americans are so into their "action, scoring and bashing people" they aren't extremely obsessed with rugby. I think it is because a.) they aren't exposed to it, b.) they don't understand it, and c.) they are pissed that we aren't the best at it.

post #33 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Englandmj7
I think it is more of a case of people not understanding a sport enough to appreciate it.
That is my point. The problem with telling an American that soccer has more action than American football is that, anyone who watches football is going to be dissapointed when they watch their first soccer game, because to them, it is B.O.R.I.N.G. as hell. There is NO DISCERNABLE ACTION. Football's action is very apparent. The ball is snapped and you see the whole team move. They all have a purpose and a job, and the result of the play is generally a quantifiable plus or minus. In soccer you don't have that. A team can sit there and pass the ball back and forth for 90 minutes and not accomplish anything. Even in golf, as slow as it is, you hit the ball, and move it closer to the object (the cup)... I have never seen a pro golfer finish a course without making the ball in the cup. Understanding that the passing is the point of the sport is great, but don't expect anyone in the US who is a "sports fan" to change the way they think about "sports" so that they can understand the beauty of the game. Golf is not a sport, its an activity.
post #34 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
That is my point.

The problem with telling an American that soccer has more action than American football is that, anyone who watches football is going to be dissapointed when they watch their first soccer game, because to them, it is B.O.R.I.N.G. as hell..

The rest of the world says the same thing the first time they make the mistake of watching a football game. They've seen all the 'action-packed' highlight clips and think they're in for a real treat, only to witness the ridiculous spectacle that is American football.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
There is NO DISCERNABLE ACTION. Football's action is very apparent. The ball is snapped and you see the whole team move. They all have a purpose and a job, and the result of the play is generally a quantifiable plus or minus. In soccer you don't have that. A team can sit there and pass the ball back and forth for 90 minutes and not accomplish anything.

The problem w/ football is that there is NO DISCERNABLE ACTION. Soccer's action is very apparent. The ball is kicked and you see the whole team move. They all have a purpose and a job, and the result of the flow of play is generally a identifiable plus or minus. In football you don't have that. Teams can bash into each other for three downs and not accomplish anything. Punt and repeat da nauseum...

See - it's all a matter of perspective!
post #35 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by romafan
The problem w/ football is that there is NO DISCERNABLE ACTION. Soccer's action is very apparent. The ball is kicked and you see the whole team move. They all have a purpose and a job, and the result of the flow of play is generally a identifiable plus or minus. In football you don't have that. Teams can bash into each other for three downs and not accomplish anything. Punt and repeat da nauseum... See - it's all a matter of perspective!
See now I know you are just making stuff up. I've never seen a soccer game on television where you can see the whole team on camera, the formations they get into, and their reactions to the ball. It would be like watching ants. The game is too spread out to be televised properly IMO. And please explain to me what the identifiable plus or minus is in a scoreless half of soccer. There are no yardage markers, there are no passing or stealing statistics, nobody seems to care. Plus, the bashing into each other three times for no discernable gain and punting happens far less in a standard football game than the passing aimlessly without scoring happens in soccer. In fact, its less than half the time. A team is either almost always moving forward or backwards, in order to score or be scored upon. In soccer the passing and not scoring is 90% of the game.
post #36 of 132
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/s...270849,00.html In the end its true, it all comes down to the lack of scoring, the stupid "tie game" and the fact that at least in our eyes, soccer is basically a lame version of basketball with less scoring. I still think that a three minute shot clock penalized by a penalty kick and not allowing the goalie to use his hands is the way to get a foothold in the US, but then I guess it wouldn't really be the same game, now would it... So basically Soccer is doomed in the US.
post #37 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
See now I know you are just making stuff up. I've never seen a soccer game on television where you can see the whole team on camera, the formations they get into, and their reactions to the ball. It would be like watching ants. The game is too spread out to be televised properly IMO.

And please explain to me what the identifiable plus or minus is in a scoreless half of soccer. There are no yardage markers, there are no passing or stealing statistics, nobody seems to care.

Plus, the bashing into each other three times for no discernable gain and punting happens far less in a standard football game than the passing aimlessly without scoring happens in soccer. In fact, its less than half the time. A team is either almost always moving forward or backwards, in order to score or be scored upon. In soccer the passing and not scoring is 90% of the game.

Not sure what games you have been watching but you sure as hell can see essentially the whole team, formations, etc. without the players looking like ants. There are also a multitude of relevant statistics provided during and after the game, please see below (and that isn't even half of the total available, but rather all I could capture in a screenshot):



In regards to your other comments:

A.) Your description of always moving forward or backwards in order to score or be scored upon is FAR more relevant in soccer. In football, however, they do the same thing but are only ALLOWED to go one direction and they take up to 20 minutes to get there. Don't really see what you're arguing here.

B.) Soccer players do not pass aimlessly; you will find that it is a very mentally intense game as in addition to the physical stress, players must literally be excellent playmakers on their own, without the need for a coach drawing squiggly lines and saying "you stand here and you go this way." There is no talent in that. A soccer player constantly looks for openings and plays are very complex; they literally have milli-seconds to make a play, as opposed to huddling for 5 minutes and looking at a drawing board to tell them exactly what they should do for the next 10 SECONDS. Soccer players don't just pass for shits and giggles, they are trying to find the most direct way to the goal.

C.) A scoreless half is just as amazing as a goal as you are sick with anticipation at each attempt on goal, or the possibility of a great steal...you are witness to miraculous shots, fantastic saves, and amazing passes. It is a game of finesse, not a gang of brute force defenders & speed demons waiting on their QB to make a wise move. Football has no character and no charm. Americans should be envious (as I am) at the passion the rest of the world has for their soccer.

And if you want to talk about talent as being physical athletes, you run an average of 7 miles a game in soccer. There is a reason why in football an obese 300 lb. man can be great at the sport, or that in basketball, a 7'3" 250 lb. man can be great at the sport. In soccer there is no bullshit. Your size doesn't matter: it is 100% skill.

At the end of the day, one is by far the most popular sport in the world, and the other (football) is absolutely only popular in the U.S.
post #38 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Englandmj7
Not sure what games you have been watching but you sure as hell can see essentially the whole team, formations, etc. without the players looking like ants.
I saw none or very little of it in the World Cup, which was the last soccer I watched live. Personally I think American football is much better suited to being televised. The camerawork is overall much better, more focused on the action, and the innovations in wire cameras and etc pioneered in football are slowly making their way into soccer, but it isn't all there yet.
Quote:
There are also a multitude of relevant statistics provided during and after the game, please see below (and that isn't even half of the total available, but rather all I could capture in a screenshot):
Ok, so who has the most completed passes in the history of pro soccer? If the passing is so important, who's the best passer ever? Should be an easy question, if quantifiable progress is indeed present, as you say. I can tell you right now that Brett Favre has the most completed passes in NFL history, with Dan Marino second. Peyton Manning might eventually pass them, but it will be a while.
Quote:
In regards to your other comments: A.) Your description of always moving forward or backwards in order to score or be scored upon is FAR more relevant in soccer. In football, however, they do the same thing but are only ALLOWED to go one direction and they take up to 20 minutes to get there. Don't really see what you're arguing here.
I'm arguing that in Soccer, it might take both teams more than 90 minutes to get up the field and score and if nobody scores, then its perfectly alright. Which is baffling. American football offensive players run backwards all the time, and occasionally will pass backwards as well. It's not reccomended due to the nature of the game, but it happens and there are no rules against it per-se. Also the opposing defense causes teams to back up with sacks and etc. Soccer is NOT about scoring. If it were about scoring points, then a tie would be unacceptable. (which in my opinion it is anyways). Soccer is about passing, teamwork, and defense. Which there is nothing wrong with, its just much more boring to watch for 90 minutes than say basketball, where the strategy and creative teamwork actually amounts to points more times than not.
Quote:
B.) Soccer players do not pass aimlessly; you will find that it is a very mentally intense game as in addition to the physical stress, players must literally be excellent playmakers on their own, without the need for a coach drawing squiggly lines and saying "you stand here and you go this way." There is no talent in that. A soccer player constantly looks for openings and plays are very complex; they literally have milli-seconds to make a play, as opposed to huddling for 5 minutes and looking at a drawing board to tell them exactly what they should do for the next 10 SECONDS. Soccer players don't just pass for shits and giggles, they are trying to find the most direct way to the goal.
what you are describing is improvising, which happens in all sports, yes - even American football. American football just happens to be like a chess match, where there are different peices with different jobs that are more clearly defined than in most other sports. Soccer players try to find an empty space to run to so the ball will be passed to them, same as in football, but one is planned, and one is random. And nobody huddles for five minutes, that would be ridiculous. Huddles typically last 5-10 seconds, and there are no drawing boards on the field, because you have to hike the ball before the play clock expires. If you are going to bash the sport, at least get your over generalizations straight. I've watched and played soccer enough to know what it is and what it is not. I've also watched and played American football, and found it to be, in my opinion, a superior sport. It's much more complex than soccer, which is why a lot of people don't like it, but it requires no less stamina, strength, endurance, or intelligence to play.
Quote:
C.) A scoreless half is just as amazing as a goal as you are sick with anticipation at each attempt on goal, or the possibility of a great steal...you are witness to miraculous shots, fantastic saves, and amazing passes. It is a game of finesse, not a gang of brute force defenders & speed demons waiting on their QB to make a wise move. Football has no character and no charm. Americans should be envious (as I am) at the passion the rest of the world has for their soccer.
I have no problem with people who don't LIKE football, but once again, you clearly have no understanding of the game. I know that the anticipation of a great play is why people watch soccer, but the problem that I have with it is that the great plays, shots on goal, great saves, etc. RARELY happen... There were 13 total shots on goal during ENG v POR in 120 minutes during the world cup, not to mention that there were 31 fouls and an ejection which of course, stop play (just like in American football). Final score on penalties 3-1. It takes approximately 1 second to recieve a pass and shoot at the goal. So subtract 13 seconds from 120 minutes, and what is left? Anticipation? Here in the US, we like to try and fill the rest of the time with constructive strategy, not just running around and trying to get open, or trying to steal the ball, which is why there are specific plays on offense and defense to try and counter each other. Its sort of like war, or my earlier analogy of chess. Very similar.
Quote:
And if you want to talk about talent as being physical athletes, you run an average of 7 miles a game in soccer. There is a reason why in football an obese 300 lb. man can be great at the sport, or that in basketball, a 7'3" 250 lb. man can be great at the sport. In soccer there is no bullshit. Your size doesn't matter: it is 100% skill.
If you think that being 300lbs is all it takes to play football, I think thats pretty laughable. As laughable as me saying that anyone who can run seven miles can play pro soccer. Don't cheapen your argument like that. Julius Peppers is 6'-7" 283 pounds, has a 38 inch vertical leap, can squat 575 pounds, and also runs a 11 second 100 yard dash, and could pretty easily run down nearly any soccer player on the planet. I'm not saying that it makes being able to run seven miles and pass a ball well less important, but never underestimate the physical fitness of a football player. Most of them are not as "fat" as you think they are.
Quote:
At the end of the day, one is by far the most popular sport in the world, and the other (football) isn't even the most popular sport in the U.S., which says alot about how exciting it is........
Not sure where you are getting your information from, but American football is by far the most popular sport in the US in just about every way imaginable. More fans, more money, more television audience, etc. The prevailing theory of why its the most popular sport in the world is that it takes so little to play it. You don't even really need a ball, you can make do with a knotted up rag and some tape and a couple of garbage cans. It helps build a large fanbase when your game is that accessable. But that has very little to do with it being a superior sport, which is purely subjective. If you make baseball, football, and basketball as accessable to the world as soccer is, then in 20 years take a worldwide poll of the most popular sport, I think you'd be suprised, but I guess we'll never know.
post #39 of 132
I love how every thread about soccer on this board eventually turns into an argument over whether football or soccer is "better." Personally, I watch both and find them both to be very interesting.

I don't necessariy buy the whole "Americans don't watch soccer because it lacks action" argument considering the fact that baseball is wildly popular in the US and it is by far the least "action packed" sport of all the popular sports (hockey, soccer, basketball, football, and baseball). This argument basically says that Americans like sports with action while the rest of the world doesn't care for action. That's just stupid.

I would say that the reason soccer is not popular in America is because soccer is considered "foreign" while basketball, baseball and football are considered "American." Basically, America doesn't like soccer for the same reasons that it doesn't use the metric system. This attitude is fueled by the media. Anytime soccer is discussed on radio or television sport shows, you will inevitably get the retard that argues that "soccer is not a sport" and that "soccer is for homos" and whatnot. Kids who watch/listen to this end up buying into it and as they get older they tend not to play soccer. Also, a good number of kids can't play soccer at the high school level, but can play sports like baseball or football. Kids that can't run can play baseball, but not soccer. Kids that are fat can play football, but not soccer. Considering the number of slow fat kids we have in this country, it's no suprise that soccer isn't that popular.
post #40 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by odoreater
I love how every thread about soccer on this board eventually turns into an argument over whether football or soccer is "better." Personally, I watch both and find them both to be very interesting.
Its mostly me, I just love arguing this particular point, along with why Apple sucks, why you should tip well, and why Jennifer Connelly is hot. These are things I know well. Some people are shoe experts, I'm a football, pc, tipping, and Jennifer Connelly expert.
post #41 of 132
Tokyo Slim, excellent arguments in favor of football. I always appreciate that kind of reasoning.

I think a major reason for the structure of American sports, particularly football, as they are is that basketball and football became popular at the same time as television. Our sports are DESIGNED to be played on TV, and TV viewers want digestible, action-packed bites. Soccer doesn't lend itself to American-style programming, and the game hasn't really changed since the late 1800s, whereas football changes its rules almost every year to get more exciting. Our leagues are moneymakers, primarily, with sport being second priority, so they are more willing to work with television networks to make the games more accessible.
post #42 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by odoreater
Kids that are fat can play football, but not soccer. Considering the number of slow fat kids we have in this country, it's no suprise that soccer isn't that popular.

Not really. As TS said, those kids are not as fat as you think. You've obviously never jacked up a true butterball. I'll tell you something, there's nothing like it. It's like a big sack of grain with legs. Provided you are strong enough to move that much weight, the sack of grain is either going to go backwards or fall down. The truly fat kids don't last in football.

I have said this before, but I would take the top american athletes in football vs any of the euro's. Our average player would be Desailly in size and faster yet. DeMarcus Beazley was electric a few years ago and he would qualify as slow and small in American football.

But back on topic. I don't think becks is the right guy for the US market. He just doesn't run enough anymore. He's a Carlos Valderrama today without El Pibe's brilliance. I'd much prefer an older player with more creativity in the midfield and still had wheels ala Nedved, Figo or Zidane.
post #43 of 132
I actually really love arguing this one as well, as someone who tried for a long time to enjoy soccer, and just couldn't do it. Even when I thought that disliking soccer was just American provincialism, I still couldn't get myself to like it. And I think Slim's exactly right. Whether it should be or not, soccer is, for most Americans, quite simply an incredibly boring game to watch. My personal favorite sport is basketball, followed by American football. Soccer, in theory, could be much the same game as basketball, on a grander scale and with more players. Unfortunately, the reality is that what I truly love about basketball is entirely lacking in soccer. You cannot have any meaningful strategic depth in a game where, as far as I can tell, something very close to a majority of passes *aren't even completed*. Seriously. When you see a basketball team that can pass well--take the Phoenix Suns for instance--it's a thing of beauty. It's fast, it's exciting, and it usually ends in a definite tactical advantage, like a shot in open space or an open lane to the basket. But this is all predicated on the ability to control the ball. Soccer will never hold my interest until there's some way for a team to realistically control the ball for the length of time, and across the necessary distance, to make a serious play with the goal in mind when it has the offense. Until then, it's just foosball with players that can't do 1440 degree head-over-heels flips, and less drinking. To take another analogy: football is like poker, basketball is like, say, blackjack, and soccer is like a slot machine. In football, like poker, every move is made for a reason, and while chance and improvisation will always be a huge part of the game, nevertheless every play and every risk is considered. Basketball has more chance and more improvisation, and not as much design, but nevertheless, if you're paying attention you can find the order in the seeming chance by paying attention to the composition of the deck, etc. Soccer has so much chance--e.g. what's the chance that even this middling little pass five yards up the field will reach its intended target?--that basically you're just pulling the lever over and over, waiting for three cherries to show up. I understand that lots of people like slot machines. Hell, they're always the most popular game in the casino, because they're unintimidating, not particularly complex, and don't require much of the gambler. I just think the table games are more exciting. What can I say?
post #44 of 132
I like football because of its clearly defined goals, I.E. "I need three more yards for the first down, I need another fifteen to get in field goal range, I need to pin the opposing offense inside the 20 on this punt, I need a touchdown on this drive, I need to get out of bounds to stop the clock, I need to strip the ball out of their hands, I need to give my QB enough time to get rid of the ball, etc. " It makes EVERY play meaningful and a small battle in the larger war of the game.
post #45 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by countdemoney
But back on topic. I don't think becks is the right guy for the US market. He just doesn't run enough anymore. He's a Carlos Valderrama today without El Pibe's brilliance. I'd much prefer an older player with more creativity in the midfield and still had wheels ala Nedved, Figo or Zidane.

It has been well documented that Beckham possesses superb stamina. In fact, his ability to run around the field a lot (albeit often lacking in tactical purposes) convinced RM coaches to switch him to a central midfielder. So I would say he still is just as mobile as Nedved, and probably more so than Figo or Zidane. Of course, Beckham doesn't really hold a candle to the latter two in term of field vision/creativity/playmaking skill, that's a known fact.

Carlos Valderrama had his moments, but you must be on some serious dope to think he is of Beck's caliber.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Beckham signs for LA Galaxy!