My issues with soccer

[montecristo#4]

Originally Posted by matadorpoeta

if you think brazil is good because they have a lot of open space and no money, well, you have no idea what you're talking about.

I think Brazil is good because they have demographics that are highly favorable to the sport of football.

The same way I think the US military can whup ass because the US has demographics that are highly favorable to the development of preeminent military power.

The same way I think the Chinese are good at textile manufacturing since they have demographics that are highly favorable to that activity.

Etc.

 

[romafan]

Originally Posted by Thracozaag

Imagine the NBA championship settled by a free throw contest, or the World Series by a home run derby, NFL by a FG kicking contest....
I'm sorry, I really really really tried to get into the World Cup this year, and I certainly admire the obvious athleticism and stamina it must take to play the sport at this elite level. Just too many goofy rules and annoying aspects for me to enjoy it.

koji

Yes imagine that...no wait, I can't! You're right - soccer is goofy and annoying, while the NBA, MLB and NFL are such thrilling sports to watch

...someone better inform the rest of the planet before they waste any more time.

No need to apologize - thanks for trying

 

[matadorpoeta]

Originally Posted by romafan

Yes imagine that...no wait, I can't! You're right - soccer is goofy and annoying, while the NBA, MLB and NFL are such thrilling sports to watch

...someone better inform the rest of the planet before they waste any more time.

No need to apologize - thanks for trying

romafan,
i love the sport as much as anyone, and i will be the first to say that PK are the worst way to determine the champion of the world.

when you play on the street, the score is tied, and it's getting late, what happens? somebody shouts, "next goal wins!"

next goal wins...

 

[NavyStyles]

Originally Posted by odoreater

They are too slow-paced for Americans?!? Hah! Are you saying that football, and especially baseball are fast paced? In football it takes them 3 hours to play a 1 hour game. And in baseball they spend more time sitting on the bench or standing around in the field than actually playing the game. Say what you'll say about soccer, but don't say that Americans don't like it because it's too slow-paced when two of America's favorite sports are much slower paced.

I would think when people say they don't enjoy soccer because it's "too slow-paced," they actually mean it's "too low scoring." Now, when those same people would rather watch a defensive showdown between two pitchers as opposed to a home run derby, they simply don't understand soccer. Assuming that's not the case, I'll compare soccer to basketball...

Personally, I do enjoy watching soccer. And I wish I had gotten more opportunities to play it when I was younger (but it wasn't really pushed as much as baseball... and I liked/still like basketball much more than either of the others). Anyway, back to what I was saying.

I really like to watch soccer because it requires a complete athlete -- the same as basketball. It doesn't just ask you to have strength (American football) or good hand-eye coordination (baseball). In both basketball and soccer, you need to have incredible stamina, quickness, strength, accuracy, coordination, teamwork, a certain sports IQ, and spontaneity. I won't argue that baseball and football players also need a combination of these characteristics to be successful. Clearly, they do. But basketball, in my opinion, is the only sport that requires all of these from its stars. Soccer would be the next closest.

The complaint I hear most against soccer is how low scoring it is. True, there's always something happening. And it's very action packed. But... only two or three times a game will that action result in something that will directly determine the outcome of the game: a goal. In basketball, nearly every play matters. If someone's moving the ball down the court, you can almost guarantee that you'll see a basket within the next 24 seconds. With soccer, it could be 24 minutes before you see the first goal.

That said, I know that -- in those 24 minutes -- a lot of plays occur that will eventually affect the outcome of the game (yellow card/red card, fatigue, etc). But I'm playing devil's advocate to those who complain about the low scores. They want the instant gratification of seeing a goal (and would probably prefer a highlight reel instead of the entire game). If that's what they prefer, then it's pretty understandable why they wouldn't like soccer. Not that they shouldn't like it. But I can see where they're coming from. Of course, if they just mean "it's too slow" ... yeah, they're clueless.

Baseball and football (US) are much slower than soccer. But I really enjoy watching baseball. I like the strategy behind each decision a pitcher makes when facing specific batters. I love the ability of outfielders to run like the wind and dive facefirst or slam into a wall to save his team from defeat. And I can tolerate the NFL... it's shoved in my face far too much for me to enjoy it. It's also drawn out beyond belief with way too many stops in play. And the whole having everyone on the field switch places with those on the bench (offense to defense) kinda annoys me. Regardless, I can understand why people like it -- just like I can understand the appeal with soccer.

Well, I've rambled enough. But those are my opinions on the aforementioned sports. Play what you like. Watch what you like. And stop complaining about other people liking other sports. Except cricket.

 

[odoreater]

Navy - excellent post. I think you've hit the nail on the head.

For the record, I'd just like to say that I watch and enjoy watching almost every sport. I watch soccer, basketball (I've seen many many more professional basketball games on television and in person than soccer games and basketball is absolutely my favorite sport to watch), basebell, American football, Australian and New Zealand rules rugby (gotta love Fox Sports) and many others. I watch Devils hockey every once in a while but I can't get into watching it on television because the puck is so small and moves so quickly that it's impossible to really see what's going on most of the time.

 

[montecristo#4]

The problem with soccer isn't that it doesn'thave enough action, or that it is too low scoring. It is that many, if not most (i.e. over 50%) of games are decided by the referee, either on a set play after a penalty, or a penalty kick. And a lot of these calls that are deciding games are questionable or just plain wrong.

Other sports have similar issues with bad officiating, but in most of them there is more scoring going on so the outcome of the game rarely hinges on one bad call.

 

[odoreater]

Originally Posted by montecristo#4

The problem with soccer isn't that it doesn'thave enough action, or that it is too low scoring. It is that many, if not most (i.e. over 50%) of games are decided by the referee, either on a set play after a penalty, or a penalty kick. And a lot of these calls that are deciding games are questionable or just plain wrong.

Other sports have similar issues with bad officiating, but in most of them there is more scoring going on so the outcome of the game rarely hinges on one bad call.

Excellent observation. I really think we should petition for the whole "penalty box" thing that hockey has. I think that would be an awesome addition to soccer. Also, getting rid of penalty kicks altogether, whether as a way to end draws or for fouls in the box, might not be a bad idea. I think maybe the only time a penalty kick should be called is when a player is fouled on a clear breakaway.

 

[matadorpoeta]

Originally Posted by montecristo#4

The problem with soccer isn't that it doesn'thave enough action, or that it is too low scoring. It is that many, if not most (i.e. over 50%) of games are decided by the referee, either on a set play after a penalty, or a penalty kick. And a lot of these calls that are deciding games are questionable or just plain wrong.

i agree with this. i would like to see more refs on the field, and i would like to take out the word 'intent' in its various forms out of the laws of the game. the referee is not a mindreader. letting the ref make calls based on intention opens the door to cheating.

 

[tiger02]

Originally Posted by NavyStyles

I would think when people say they don't enjoy soccer because it's "too slow-paced," they actually mean it's "too low scoring."
Why is it that all these criticisims of those of us who don't like soccer, hinge on us either lying or not understanding the game? Soccer is slow-paced for 10-20 minutes at a time; American football is at least punctuated with action (and beer). In those 10-20 minutes, there are rarely more than 2-3 players on a team running all-out at any one time. This is not related to the scoring. Hockey is also a low-scoring game, yet there isn't a moment in 60 minutes when the action is not fast-paced.

Re: strategy, yes I understand that it's there, I understand that there are traps and formations and even the occasional almost-play. Positioning on the field is important, but it's static positioning. In basketball positioning is also important, but the movement to and from those positions is at least equally important. Choosing between having 2 or 3 men forward is not emotionally compelling to me, no matter how important the choice.

Sure, there are compelling aspects, but they are more than overcome by the negatives.

Originally Posted by odoreater

I watch Devils hockey every once in a while but I can't get into watching it on television because the puck is so small and moves so quickly that it's impossible to really see what's going on most of the time.
You just don't understand the game

 

[odoreater]

Originally Posted by tiger02

You just don't understand the game

Yeah you're probably right. Be that as it may, when I was younger I used to play roller hockey (when I wasn't playing soccer of course) and it was fun as hell. Actually, I think the discussion of what sports are fun to play is a whole other discussion.

 

[Mr. Checks]

Gosh, I go away for a few days and all of you are fighting...

Well, here's my wrap-up after watching on-and-off this last month:

I do have some new appreciation for, at the very least, the athleticism of the players. While I bemoan the lack of scoring - or for that matter the lack of shots-on-goal - the footwork of a few of the players is amazing. The goaltending was often excellent and exciting.

In my mind, the sport still suffers in the following ways:
1. Penalty kicks are much too close to the net, resulting in an unfair advantage in favor of scoring, in a game in which scoring is otherwise a rarity. Disconnection there.
2. The diving is obscene. If you go down for more than a few seconds, you ought to be pulled out of the game.
3. The tv camera teams need to develop a method for showing intermediate shots. Right now they focus on the stadium angle and the close-in shots, resulting in, respectively, a lack of speed and action or a lack of context.
4. The penalty kick finish is disappointing, but seems to be a necessary evil because otherwise they'd still be playing the Italy/France match.
5. Stoppage time.
6. It's simply far too easy to defend and, thereby, not allow anything of interest to happen. (see item #4)
7. A tie should get you zero points. At least that way they'd always play to win.

 

[odoreater]

Originally Posted by Mr. Checks

1. Penalty kicks are much too close to the net, resulting in an unfair advantage in favor of scoring, in a game in which scoring is otherwise a rarity. Disconnection there.

Unless you're Switzerland.

 

[matadorpoeta]

Originally Posted by tiger02

Why is it that all these criticisims of those of us who don't like soccer, hinge on us either lying or not understanding the game? Soccer is slow-paced for 10-20 minutes at a time;

it's because of statements like that.

 

[trogdor]

What exactly is it about stoppage time that people don't like? Do you understand why it happens?

 

[Bradford]

Originally Posted by trogdor

What exactly is it about stoppage time that people don't like? Do you understand why it happens?

I understand it, but I think if they refuse to stop the clock during the 90-minutes of play, they ought to at least say how much stoppage time they are adding and have the clock count DOWN that time. That way, the teams would at least be working to get a shot off before the time runs out.

One of the most exciting things about basketball is the buzzer-beater. One of the big problems I have with soccer is that the stoppage time is added, but nobody but the ref knows exactly how much there will be. The players don't seem to have any real motivation to get the ball in the net during that period, because for all they know, they could be about to kick it and the ref will signal the end of the game. If the clock counted down (at least in stoppage time) the teams might actually act they are trying to get a shot off and it might make it more interesting.