PDA

View Full Version : Attn: Soccer Fans



Sea Ray
10-16-2007, 04:17 PM
I must say I don't get what people see in soccer. Maybe someone can enlighten me. What do soccer fans talk about? Reds' fans talk about lineups, double switches, bullpens, pitch selection and countless stats.

Football fans talk about play calling, turnovers, 40 times, offensive schemes, quarterbacks, clock management and statistics.

What is there to soccer? Personnel, officiating, coaching? In soccer you don't know when the clock's officially expired so there's no clock management. Are there any soccer stats? Maybe I'm missing something but I wonder what people would be posting here if this was a soccer forum.

God bless American sports!

westofyou
10-16-2007, 04:28 PM
What is there to soccer?

Attacking, ball handling, defense, goaltending, set plays, squares, give an goes, in the box play, corner kick play, what side to you wear down, beat on, exploit, who do you sit and who do sub and when do you use a sub.

Who is explosive, who is not, who plays recklessly who doesn't...what style is the best, what countries style is the best I could go on, but you have to have care and I pretty much already get the jist you don't and won't.

SunDeck
10-16-2007, 04:49 PM
It's tough to get it if you haven't known the game for a long time. Football and baseball, by contrast are relatively easy to understand for the uninitiated. Soccer is a little more like basketball and hockey to me. I understand the point of these sports- putting the ball into a hoop or a goal. However, I never played or paid a whole lot of attention to either, so I can't say much about them other than "Man, that guy can shoot." And not matter how much I watch, I never get beyond a very superficial understanding of each sport.

Doesn't mean they aren't fun to watch and I don't denigrate those sports just because I don't really understand them. Not knowing my way around the court doesn't mean I think there isn't anything more to basketball than running and shooting. Only an ignoramous to say such a thing.

Soccer is the most popular sport in the world and although I know it's our nature here in the last five years to tell the world that we know better, I'd say the popularity of sport speaks for itself. There's plenty to it.

I played the game for 20 years. If I'm sitting next to you in the stands, I see movement of players- you see the ball. I see individual matchups- you don't even know what position people are playing. I see guys make runs that set up a situation in the future- you don't even notice that the guy is suddenly at the opposite end of the field. It's subtle stuff like that. I see it because I move people around the field myself and because I have played in more soccer matches in one year than most Americans see in a life time.

But the point of this thread is to once again point out that soccer is stupid. Whatever.

Sea Ray
10-16-2007, 04:58 PM
But the point of this thread is to once again point out that soccer is stupid. Whatever.


I have a neighbor who is European and loves it. Just thought I'd try to get a perspective on his world a little. I sense a lot of defensiveness among you soccer fans. If folks find that soccer or Nascar or whatever floats their boat, fine. If everyone followed football and baseball like I do I'd never be able to get a ticket.

westofyou
10-16-2007, 05:03 PM
Maybe I'm missing something but I wonder what people would be posting here if this was a soccer forum.


Go have a look

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42793


I sense a lot of defensiveness among you soccer fans.

Golly Gee I wonder why?

Johnny Footstool
10-16-2007, 05:10 PM
I think more Americans would appreciate soccer if there were less flamboyant flopping going on. Americans who are used to football hits and macho, "take a charge for the team" basketball fouls don't take kindly to a guy bumping into a 5' 8", 145 pound midfielder and flopping around like he's been hit with a taser.

Plus there's a stigma that goes with playing soccer. I recently saw a Bernstein Bears book in which the son, too scrawny for football and too short for basketball, takes up soccer instead. Nice message -- "If you're too much of a wimp for real sports, try soccer! Maybe you can pretend to be an athlete and salvage some twisted little modicum of self-worth."

Sea Ray
10-16-2007, 05:43 PM
Go have a look

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42793



Golly Gee I wonder why?


Is there a certain quote you want me to note or do you want me to read all 51 pages?

westofyou
10-16-2007, 05:46 PM
Is there a certain quote you want me to note or do you want me to read all 51 pages?

I thought you just wanted to see what it looked like on a chat board.

I think that suffices.

Sea Ray
10-16-2007, 06:00 PM
I thought you just wanted to see what it looked like on a chat board.

I think that suffices.


That makes sense. I just didn't know what the Gee, wonder why comment referred to.

SunDeck
10-16-2007, 06:13 PM
I have a neighbor who is European and loves it. Just thought I'd try to get a perspective on his world a little. I sense a lot of defensiveness among you soccer fans. If folks find that soccer or Nascar or whatever floats their boat, fine. If everyone followed football and baseball like I do I'd never be able to get a ticket.

Did you holler "God bless american sports!" out your window to your neighbor? That ought to get the conversation going.
Here's a thought- want to know more about the sport? Ask your neighbor.

Betterread
10-16-2007, 06:19 PM
I must say I don't get what people see in soccer. Maybe someone can enlighten me. What do soccer fans talk about? Reds' fans talk about lineups, double switches, bullpens, pitch selection and countless stats.

Football fans talk about play calling, turnovers, 40 times, offensive schemes, quarterbacks, clock management and statistics.

What is there to soccer? Personnel, officiating, coaching? In soccer you don't know when the clock's officially expired so there's no clock management. Are there any soccer stats? Maybe I'm missing something but I wonder what people would be posting here if this was a soccer forum.

God bless American sports!

Soccer is the beautiful game.
In trying to understand football I ask a lot of my friends who are self-professed die-hard football fans about formations, and plays, and they are only marginally better at identifying what goes on on the field than I am. I don't see a lot of beauty in football - I see a lot of violence and power and speed. Its too bad that football seems to get the best athletes - just so they can be ripped up sooner or later playing this "game".

OUReds
10-16-2007, 06:24 PM
There are set plays, turnovers, breakaways, formations, star forwards, time management strategies, and statistics to talk about in Soccer as well.

Your question is far to broad to answer properly, but I'll give one example. In MLB, there is very little little reason to watch a September game between Florida and Pittsburgh. It's just not interesting. In club soccer, the bottom three teams are relegated to a lower division, back to triple A if you will. All late season matches matter in soccer. Matches between two clubs in danger of being relegated (that is to say, between the worst clubs in the league) are often the most brutal and entertaining games of the season.

M2
10-16-2007, 06:32 PM
I think more Americans would appreciate soccer if there were less flamboyant flopping going on. Americans who are used to football hits and macho, "take a charge for the team" basketball fouls don't take kindly to a guy bumping into a 5' 8", 145 pound midfielder and flopping around like he's been hit with a taser.

There's definitely something to that. I'd note that MLS plays a fairly upright version of the game with Shalrie Joseph serving as the league's version of Dick Butkus.

As for the game, it doesn't strike me as all that difficult to grasp. Each team gets 10 guys to try to put the ball in the other team's net and you can't use your hands. It's probably the simplest team game there is. We understand baseball and football because we were raised with them, but they are from from easy to understand - tons of specialized jobs, arcane rules and piles of equipment. Some of the lingo around the game isn't a first language for American fans, but that's about it.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating: most folks under the age of 40 have played the game. That doesn't mean everybody likes it, but as time marches on people who say they don't understand the game will continue to die off only to be replaced by kids who've played it more than any other team sport.

What I dig about it is the constant movement and the creativity required in springing a player. When you get a game played at a furious pace with two teams willing to attack each other, it's really something to behold.

Hoosier Red
10-16-2007, 06:42 PM
When I was in college, my first assignment was to broadcast an IU soccer game. It helped that the two teams playing were pretty good, but I watched the game from the press box, and it made a lot more sense.
Part of the problem of soccer is it's not a great sport on TV. Sitting in a press box, I could see plays developing, I could see matchups being exploited.
It was like seeing a wide receiver getting past the corner back even if the quarterback didn't look his way that time.
And then the goals were spectacular when you could see them coming.
And even more spectacular when you couldn't see them coming.

vaticanplum
10-16-2007, 07:24 PM
What I dig about it is the constant movement and the creativity required in springing a player. When you get a game played at a furious pace with two teams willing to attack each other, it's really something to behold.

That pretty much sums it up.

Soccer is a game extraordinarily like life, more so than baseball I'd say. There's constant movement and constant creativity resulting in very little blatant result. You have to be attuned to the process rather than just the score. It's that part of it that always makes me unsurprised that so many Americans can't get into it -- we're built for result, result, result, number, number, number. You have to go through a looooot and pay attention to a ton of detail in soccer before you can get a number in your favor.

There's a clock in soccer, but only one person truly knows how much time is on it. You have some idea when you're due to be through, but the actual smackdown could come at any time. Also, you mess up badly, you're out. Your team doesn't get moved back a few yards or whatever, you're just slapped off the field -- and your team doesn't get to replace you. You pay for your sins and your loved ones suffer for them too. This is all a lot like life to me.

And then there's that simple part of it that is always overlooked in the basic explanations of love of soccer (although M2 mentioned it): you can't use your hands. It's very unnatural to play an entire game with your feet. And so there's not really a popular game in the world that required much pure skill. One dude on the whole team can use his hands, and he's essentially entreated with guarding the gates of hell. To need that much skilll for that much strategy, I do find it really hard to understand why people don't appreciate it sometimes.

SunDeck
10-16-2007, 09:01 PM
Ah, but you do use your hands. I have played entire games with my thumb in the elastic band of my opponent's shorts, the better to pull him back when he makes a run.

Yachtzee
10-16-2007, 09:13 PM
I think part of the excitement of the game is that 1 goal can change the entire complexion of a game. Momentum can shift in an instant. One team can be dominating, playing suffocating defense and keeping it in the other end. Then the other side sneaks through for a goal and suddenly everyone on the team that was hanging back on defense like a bunch of angry hornets, furiously trying to score the equalizer. What's really great is that, when it gets to crunch time, both teams are tired, but they keep playing their guts out, no stopping the clock to set up at the end. Imagine if you couldn't stop the clock in basketball and both teams had to keep putting up shots and trying to keep the other team from scoring.

MWM
10-16-2007, 11:36 PM
Part of the appeal to me is that the world's best soccer players are perhaps the most skilled athletes in the world. With the exception of QB, there's nothing that happens on the football field that requires the same level of skill and precision required to be a great soccer player. Most pro football players, other than QBs, get by on speed and strength. The ball skills needed to become a world class player take years and years of hard work and determination to develop.

I think hitters in baseball are also some of the most skilled in sports, and maybe that's why I love baseball as well. Although, I think Hockey players might be the best athletes of all of them, and I still can't get into watching too much hockey.

cincinnati chili
10-16-2007, 11:51 PM
I think Hockey players might be the best athletes of all of them, and I still can't get into watching too much hockey.

Likewise, I think cyclists are among the world's greatest athletes, and I respect them.

But it's not compelling to me. I can't enjoy it aside from the cool views of the European countryside.

texasdave
10-17-2007, 12:01 AM
I always thought tennis players were the best athletes. In a five-set match you need endurance. You need lateral movement skills. You need to adjust and change directions on the run. Hand-eye coordination is necessary. Power. And it is also involves a lot of strategy. I suppose there are a handful of players that survive mostly on raw power. But, to me, guys like Roger Federer are simply amazing.

WMR
10-17-2007, 12:10 AM
I must say I don't get what people see in soccer. Maybe someone can enlighten me. What do soccer fans talk about? Reds' fans talk about lineups, double switches, bullpens, pitch selection and countless stats.

Football fans talk about play calling, turnovers, 40 times, offensive schemes, quarterbacks, clock management and statistics.

What is there to soccer? Personnel, officiating, coaching? In soccer you don't know when the clock's officially expired so there's no clock management. Are there any soccer stats? Maybe I'm missing something but I wonder what people would be posting here if this was a soccer forum.

God bless American sports!

:rolleyes:

Soccer is an American sport.

Go to www.bigsoccer.com

One of the biggest messageboards on the entire internet. Hundreds of different forums dedicated to every nation, league, and team, from the U.S.A. and MLS to EVERY OTHER COUNTRY AND LEAGUE IN THE WORLD. And they somehow find something to talk about.

SunDeck
10-17-2007, 07:24 AM
I think there is a difference between skill and athleticism. Golfers, for instance, I don't consider to be highly athletic, in the classic sense. They don't have to run, throw, jump, etc. True, today's PGA players are in much better shape physically than golfers of the past, but by and large they don't compare to other professional athletes on the purely physical basis.

However, in terms of skill, I don't think there are any other athletes with more of it than professional golfers. Hitting a ball 285 yards into a target area the size of my living room just doesn't seem possible.

Professional soccer players have to be in tremendous shape. They can run five or six miles over the course of a game and a striker today can unload a shot from a dead run that will top 100 miles an hour in the 90th minute. The precision, athleticism and strength required to do that is about as incomprehensible as what a golfer can do to me. Soccer players have to be able to control a ball with their feet while running as fast as they can. At the same time, they have to be able to look up, see other players and make split second decisions about what to do with the ball to advance it towards the goal. They have to be able to take in and process a wide field of vision at the same time. I like the comparison to hockey players- it seems very similar to me.

texasdave
10-17-2007, 08:32 AM
Another similarity between soccer and ice hockey, IMO, is that neither game translates well to television.

NJReds
10-17-2007, 09:24 AM
Americans who are used to football hits and macho, "take a charge for the team" basketball fouls don't take kindly to a guy bumping into a 5' 8", 145 pound midfielder and flopping around like he's been hit with a taser.


Basketball players flop just as much as soccer players. It's a problem in hockey, as well.

MWM
10-17-2007, 09:32 AM
Another similarity between soccer and ice hockey, IMO, is that neither game translates well to television.

I think soccer translates great to TV.

Roy Tucker
10-17-2007, 09:40 AM
I never played soccer (seriously at least) but all 3 of my kids did. It took a while, but I grew to appreciate and enjoy the sport. Maybe not with the passion that comes from something like World Cup, but I like to watch a well-played match.

The one thing about soccer is that you have to watch the whole field to get a sense of the flow of the game. Kind of like a well-struck baseball heading for the gap with a CF trying to flag it down, it's the anticipation of seeing a play develop across a broad field, seeing players come in from different angles, but all with a sense of purpose and a goal (ha-ha) in mind. In soccer, don't always watch the ball to figure out what's going on.

Soccer doesn't usually come across well on TV, but I've watched some matches in HD and you can see much more of the flow of the action.

Johnny Footstool
10-17-2007, 09:53 AM
Basketball players flop just as much as soccer players.

Sure, but they usually do so after performing the ultra-macho act of standing still in front of a 6 foot 7, 235 pound monster driving towards the basket.

Nugget
10-17-2007, 10:01 AM
OK - I have a question for football fans - which can proabably go in another thread.

Why does it take three hours to go to a football game when the play time is only about 80 mins. And I'd say that there are the same nuances in football and soccer, its just that in soccer you don't get to call a time out and analyse the defensive and offensive tactics of the other team. Its much easier to watch a soccer or even a rugby game than football as its continuous motion - I feel like football has been developed for television so that with all the stoppages they can go to the advertisements.

dabvu2498
10-17-2007, 10:21 AM
OK - I have a question for football fans - which can proabably go in another thread.

Why does it take three hours to go to a football game when the play time is only about 80 mins. And I'd say that there are the same nuances in football and soccer, its just that in soccer you don't get to call a time out and analyse the defensive and offensive tactics of the other team. Its much easier to watch a soccer or even a rugby game than football as its continuous motion - I feel like football has been developed for television so that with all the stoppages they can go to the advertisements.

You're absolutely right that all the stoppages in football have evolved to make it a commercial TV game. To be honest, watching an NFL game on TV, the commercial breaks are almost second nature. However, if you're in attendance, you notice how much time is devoted to "media" timeouts. In some ways, stoppages add to the anticipation of a big play. Late in the game, team going for it on fourth down, calls a timeout to make sure they're running the correct play. However, when you have a 2 and a half minute timeout 3 minutes into the game... well... ugh, especially if you're in the stadium.

As an aside, my (future) wife played college soccer, so I learned just a bit about the sport watching her. Never really grew to "appreciate" it, I think because I never played. Also, she doesn't like the game on TV, either. But every so often she wants to go see a good college game, so we go.

Lacrosse, however, was a game that I did come to appreciate. One of my college roomies was on the club team. We'd pass the lacrosse ball in the quad, him with his stick, me with my baseball glove. Eventually I learned to throw and catch with the stick and decided I wanted to go watch the club team play. Now that, I got into, especially because my roomie was able to explain some of the strategy in basketball terms... zone vs. man-to-man defense, running pattern plays on offense, understanding the roles of the positions. But that's another game I don't care for on TV.

timmario66
10-17-2007, 10:24 AM
Another similarity between soccer and ice hockey, IMO, is that neither game translates well to television.

You must not watch the EPL on FSC. They have the best coverage and puts ESPN's to shame.

IslandRed
10-17-2007, 10:26 AM
Sure, but they usually do so after performing the ultra-macho act of standing still in front of a 6 foot 7, 235 pound monster driving towards the basket.

And there's a big difference between pretending you couldn't help being knocked over and pretending you're injured.

That said, I pay more attention to soccer than I used to, and I can appreciate the skill to play the game. It still doesn't float my boat as a spectator sport but I'll at least watch World Cup.

NJReds
10-17-2007, 10:32 AM
And there's a big difference between pretending you couldn't help being knocked over and pretending you're injured.


Until the league put a stop to it, players in the NFL used to fake injuries in the fourth quarter of games to stop the clock.

I don't like the diving in soccer, either. FIFA needs to act on it, or it'll keep happening.

westofyou
10-17-2007, 10:37 AM
Folks, flopping is a pain... yes. But you have to recognize that it's more prevalent because a penalty represents perhaps the best way to score in a match. It also enables teams with great set plays to attempt one as well as it gets the whole team down on the offensive side as a unit as opposed to an unorganized break.

I bet that the flopping in the NBA likely occurs more in the 4th quarter, when scoring is at a premium, unfortunately scoring is at a premium in soccer every minute of the match.

M2
10-17-2007, 04:26 PM
Frankly, no sport translates all that well to television. I actually think American football is the worst because the camera rarely catches the action on the line and never looks downfield until the ball heads that way. Also, much as they try, they are never going to capture the speed and impact of the live game.

Televised baseball captures the pitcher-hitter battle just fine, but it misses a ton of what happens in the field and a lot of baserunning has to shown in replay.

Basketball probably translates best to TV, you can see most of the players, the ball and the basket in the same frame. Though, like football, the sheer athleticism is far more impressive live.

Soccer suffers from the same things that hockey does. The ball/puck moves fast, the direction of play constantly shifts and you often don't see the play as its developing. Part of the trick of watching the games on TV is keeping an eye on the weak side, spotting the holes in the defense and knowing that if someone comes through that gap it's going to lead to a goal.

When you watch the games live, you can see the whole play unfold. That's probably the main thing a casual viewer of the game on television needs to "understand" about what's going on, that there's folks you can't always see in motion. Since I grew up watching televised hockey, televised soccer doesn't throw me that much.

WMR
10-17-2007, 04:37 PM
The best way to watch soccer (or any sport), other than live, is in high def. High def is also wide-screen. Widescreen is especially good for soccer, because the more of the pitch you can see at once, the easier it is to see developing play/trends.

texasdave
10-17-2007, 07:34 PM
The breaks between actual plays in baseball and football allow for more replays which I think somewhat makes up for what might be initially missed on a play. With the amount of cameras used today you will see pretty much everything you need to see. It is harder to get those replays into a televised match of a soccer or hockey game. Not impossible, but harder. I would rather watch a baseball or football game on television; and a hockey or soccer game live. JMO.

Ltlabner
10-18-2007, 07:26 AM
I've never been a fan of soccer, and yes, I played the game. It certinalley doesn't translate well to TV. Hockey, on the other hand, is a facinating sport but it also doesn't translate well to TV. Someone else said it, but there's lots of action and always someone moving (which is good) but you never really get a sense of what's happening in the big picture (which is bad). As a result it's a bunch of frantic motion and then suddenly blamo! A score/goal. You had no idea of the context of the play other than either (1) it just suddenly happens or (2) a guy breaks away and you know he is going to take a shot.

I know it sounds horrable, but I can't sit there for a hour hoping to see the 1 score. Especially when I have to invest the energy into following this bee-hive of activity and hoping I catch something. I can't stay amped up and excited like that for an entire match to catch a couple of goals. With baseball I can drift in and out, chat online, work in the garage, etc and still follow the game. And invariably with the faster paced sports, I turn my head and miss whatever action does finally take place, or it's when I run to the bathroom.

All that said, I do recogonize the amount of physical training and skill it takes to run around the soccer field and control/pass/kick the ball. It's not my cup of tea, but I have to tip my cap to those who can master the sport.

westofyou
10-18-2007, 09:49 AM
've never been a fan of soccer, and yes, I played the game. It certinalley doesn't translate well to TV. Hockey, on the other hand, is a facinating sport but it also doesn't translate well to TV.

I find both to be great for TV, but then again I watch enough Hockey that I know the refs in the NHL by first name. As for nothing but frantic action and then a score... I don't see it myself, I see patterns being applied in the offensive rush that break the defense down, if they don't score I still get a pay off, because I don't see just a wall of men surging down the ice or pitch I see the beauty of the play.

BTW watching the USA game yesterday for 80 some odd minutes before they scored, well wort it.

Johnny Footstool
10-18-2007, 10:05 AM
I find the NBA, with its dime-a-dozen scoring and lazy, one-on-one style strategy, incredibly boring.

vaticanplum
10-18-2007, 01:15 PM
I find the NBA, with its dime-a-dozen scoring and lazy, one-on-one style strategy, incredibly boring.

True. dat. I couldn't give a crap about basketball even if a loincloth-clad Michael Jordan personally fed me chocolate covered berries.

WMR
10-18-2007, 01:26 PM
I find both to be great for TV, but then again I watch enough Hockey that I know the refs in the NHL by first name. As for nothing but frantic action and then a score... I don't see it myself, I see patterns being applied in the offensive rush that break the defense down, if they don't score I still get a pay off, because I don't see just a wall of men surging down the ice or pitch I see the beauty of the play.

BTW watching the USA game yesterday for 80 some odd minutes before they scored, well wort it.

What about that back-heel from Freddy Adu? That kid should be regular XI from now on. Wow, did the complexion of that game change when he stepped on the pitch or what?

WMR
10-18-2007, 01:27 PM
True. dat. I couldn't give a crap about basketball even if a loincloth-clad Michael Jordan personally fed me chocolate covered berries.

Now THAT, I struggle to believe.

Sea Ray
10-18-2007, 03:27 PM
One of the major issues I have with Soccer is that games can be decided by penalty kicks. Here you play for 80 minutes or whatever then if the score's still tied they change the rules and it goes from being a team sport to a one on one game--scorer vs goalie--and that determines who wins the game. If that appealed to me I'd suggest we play home run derby to determine baseball games that go past 12 innings. It's a team sport and winning/losing should be determined by the team.

WMR
10-18-2007, 03:32 PM
One of the major issues I have with Soccer is that games can be decided by penalty kicks. Here you play for 80 minutes or whatever then if the score's still tied they change the rules and it goes from being a team sport to a one on one game--scorer vs goalie--and that determines who wins the game. If that appealed to me I'd suggest we play home run derby to determine baseball games that go past 12 innings. It's a team sport and winning/losing should be determined by the team.

Shoot-outs determine match results in only very limited circumstances. Usually in tournament finals or in knock-out rounds.

Hoosier Red
10-18-2007, 03:44 PM
One of the major issues I have with Soccer is that games can be decided by penalty kicks. Here you play for 80 minutes or whatever then if the score's still tied they change the rules and it goes from being a team sport to a one on one game--scorer vs goalie--and that determines who wins the game. If that appealed to me I'd suggest we play home run derby to determine baseball games that go past 12 innings. It's a team sport and winning/losing should be determined by the team.

What Wily Mo said.
Plus, after playing 90 minutes, 30 minutes of overtime,(all with only 3 substitutions) How do you propose determining a winner in a fair manner? First one to pass out loses?

Sea Ray
10-18-2007, 03:45 PM
Shoot-outs determine match results in only very limited circumstances. Usually in tournament finals or in knock-out rounds.


That's all the more ridiculous. Who'd want a World Series determined by a Home Run derby? Take that famous Minn/Atl game where Jack Morris pitched 10 shutout innings and Lonnie Smith's baserunning blunder...who'd want that game determined by home run hitters and a pitching machine?

WMR
10-18-2007, 03:46 PM
:lol: What Hoosier said. :laugh:

WMR
10-18-2007, 03:48 PM
It doesn't go straight to a shoot-out, you play two extra times as well. You're allowed only 3 subs. To me, that's what makes shoot-outs so spectacular... you are asking these men to take on a task that requires EXTREME concentration when they are very likely TOTALLY exhausted.

Sea Ray
10-18-2007, 03:48 PM
What Wily Mo said.
Plus, after playing 90 minutes, 30 minutes of overtime,(all with only 3 substitutions) How do you propose determining a winner in a fair manner? First one to pass out loses?


I'd keep playing. If it's so difficult to score that a winner can't be determined, then you've got a serious problem fundamentally with your sport.

westofyou
10-18-2007, 03:52 PM
Until you've actually played a whole game of soccer you can't fathom the endurance it takes to play an extra period. Playing in extreme heat is even worse, ever play a 2 in the afternoon game in 100 degree temp? Or one with humidity so thick you could hardly breath?

It's not exactly a picnic with the Bobbsey Twins.

Sea Ray
10-18-2007, 03:52 PM
It doesn't go straight to a shoot-out, you play two extra times as well. You're allowed only 3 subs. To me, that's what makes shoot-outs so spectacular... you are asking these men to take on a task that requires EXTREME concentration when they are very likely TOTALLY exhausted.


I'm sure it's exciting especially after watching what is often a 0-0 game up to that point, but is it right to change the rules after playing an entire game and two extra times with the original set of rules?

Ltlabner
10-18-2007, 03:52 PM
I find the NBA, with its dime-a-dozen scoring and lazy, one-on-one style strategy, incredibly boring.

Ironically I feal the same way about basketball.

Too much scoring there, too little scoring in scoccer. Baseball is juuuuussst right.

Sea Ray
10-18-2007, 03:54 PM
Until you've actually played a whole game of soccer you can't fathom the endurance it takes to play an extra period. Playing in extreme heat is even worse, ever play a 2 in the afternoon game in 100 degree temp? Or one with humidity so thick you could hardly breath?

It's not exactly a picnic with the Bobbsey Twins.

Who questioned endurance? I'm sure it is very tiring.

NJReds
10-18-2007, 04:01 PM
Shoot-outs determine match results in only very limited circumstances. Usually in tournament finals or in knock-out rounds.

I think they should allow teams 2 additional substitutions after every 15 minute OT. Teams should have their entire 22 man roster available.

Yeah, if it's still tied after an ungodly amout of time, I guess you would have to go to PKs. Or they could do it the "old fashioned" way and replay the game ;).

Roy Tucker
10-18-2007, 04:01 PM
In some tournament games that my kids have been in, they removed the goalies after 2 OTs.

I actually liked that better than a PK shootout.

Yachtzee
10-18-2007, 04:37 PM
Actually, instead of shoot outs, they should do corner kicks. Ball is live until the defending team kicks it out of bounds or past midfield. Then defending team takes a corner. The whole team is still involved that way.

westofyou
10-18-2007, 04:41 PM
Actually, instead of shoot outs, they should do corner kicks. Ball is live until the defending team kicks it out of bounds or past midfield. Then defending team takes a corner. The whole team is still involved that way.

In college (at OU.. where I went briefly) we lost the intramural championship to the middle eastern bloc on a corner kick count, each game had as strict time limit and all ties were decided by CK's. It was grim... best team I ever played on though, bunch of 21 year old hippies and I was only 18.. the opposing team scored on an own goal by my roomate... he still laments about it today.

Ltlabner
10-18-2007, 04:49 PM
...watching the USA game yesterday for 80 some odd minutes before they scored, well wort it.

Guess I missed this the first time. 80 minutes without a single score? Nearly an hour and a half and not one score? That reminds me why I never got too much into soccer.

I don't care how beautiful it is watching the teams run up and down the field and set up plays, there's no way in hell I am investing an hour and a half before something tangiable takes place.

Still, I really admire the athleticisim of those who play. To run around for 80 minutes doing anything would result in my dead carcass and leave you 71 minutes to make a sandwich or something.

RawOwl UK
10-18-2007, 04:50 PM
Great thread :)

There are so many things I could write about this BUT I'm tired and could go on for days....... and days.

I'll leave you with why Football (soccer is our no 1 game in england) Its a clip from the 70's non league Hereford United v Premier league Newcastle United in the FA CUP

David actually did BEAT Goliath.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-ze42I6NEo&mode=related&search=

SunDeck
10-18-2007, 05:22 PM
I don't care how beautiful it is watching the teams run up and down the field and set up plays, there's no way in hell I am investing an hour and a half before something tangiable takes place.



That's your prerogative, completely. But saying that nothing tangible happens without a goal being scored is just wrong.
Let's use a baseball comparison. The score is 0-0, two pitchers are both throwing a no hitter through 8 innings. Is that not worth watching?

WMR
10-18-2007, 05:24 PM
That's your prerogative, completely. But saying that nothing tangible happens without a goal being scored is just wrong.
Let's use a baseball comparison. The score is 0-0, two pitchers are both throwing a no hitter through 8 innings. Is that not worth watching?

:clap:

Great analogy, SD!!

Ltlabner
10-18-2007, 05:38 PM
Let's use a baseball comparison. The score is 0-0, two pitchers are both throwing a no hitter through 8 innings. Is that not worth watching?

Sure it is. From the 8th inning on. That's when the "tangible" payoff becomes who will break first, who might get the shut-out, etc.

Innings 3 through 7 I'm out mowing the yard if nothing is happening.

M2
10-18-2007, 05:41 PM
In college (at OU.. where I went briefly) we lost the intramural championship to the middle eastern bloc on a corner kick count, each game had as strict time limit and all ties were decided by CK's. It was grim... best team I ever played on though, bunch of 21 year old hippies and I was only 18.. the opposing team scored on an own goal by my roomate... he still laments about it today.

In a youth league game back in the '70s my team a rain-drenched 1-1 tie that went to double overtime. Apparently ties weren't allowed. Finally the refs tried to award a victory to the other team based on the fact that they got a corner kick opportunity. Didn't even have to take the kick, just gave them the win.

We went nuts. Nine- and ten-year-old kids had to be restained. We were screaming bloody murder over losing an epic game on a made up rule. Our coaches and parents actually had to stop laying into the refs to contain us. The refs took that opportunity to hightail it. Turns out we were right and the league ordered an official continuation (which we won in about a minute).

I can only imagine what college guys would have been like on a corner kick aggregate loss.

WMR
10-18-2007, 05:41 PM
Sure it is. From the 8th inning on. That's when the "tangible" payoff becomes who will break first, who might get the shut-out, etc.

Innings 3 through 7 I'm out mowing the yard if nothing is happening.

How do you know there isn't going to be a HR hit at any moment? You don't. That's why you watch. Sure, if you knew it would be scoreless in the 8th you could go mow the lawn, but it's not like you can plan on that happening. Just like in soccer.

westofyou
10-18-2007, 05:43 PM
Innings 3 through 7 I'm out mowing the yard if nothing is happening.

Problem is, there is never *nothing* happening.

Ltlabner
10-18-2007, 05:49 PM
How do you know there isn't going to be a HR hit at any moment? You don't. That's why you watch. Sure, if you knew it would be scoreless in the 8th you could go mow the lawn, but it's not like you can plan on that happening. Just like in soccer.

Obviously you can't fortell the future, but for the most part you can get a good sense when a game is going to be a snooze fest. Sure, I might miss a home run but chances are pretty good I'll see another one the following night.

Usually I'll hang into a baseball game until about the 5th inning or so. If it's a total bore I'm gone and might check back in later in the game. If there's been some action then I'll stick around.

Sorry. I guess I'm not a purest for baseball but I vary rarely sit through all 9 innings unless I'm at the ball-park.

M2
10-18-2007, 06:04 PM
Best baseball game I ever saw (even better than game 6 of the 1975 World Series) was The Twins' 1-0 game 7 World Series victory over the Braves.

Best football game I ever saw was BC-Miami, but in general I like low-scoring slugfests.

Best hockey game I saw was either the Easter Epic between the Islanders and Caps (3-2, 4 OTs) or the Mattheau Miracle between the Rangers and Devils (3-2, 2 OTs).

In general, I find the tension of a well-played low scoring game is vastly superior to a scoring parade. The points seem to count more. Maybe that's why I dig soccer.

SunDeck
10-18-2007, 06:28 PM
Sure it is. From the 8th inning on. That's when the "tangible" payoff becomes who will break first, who might get the shut-out, etc.

Innings 3 through 7 I'm out mowing the yard if nothing is happening.

That just makes me want to cry for you, Ltlabner.

Hoosier Red
10-18-2007, 06:44 PM
Best baseball game I ever saw (even better than game 6 of the 1975 World Series) was The Twins' 1-0 game 7 World Series victory over the Braves.

Best football game I ever saw was BC-Miami, but in general I like low-scoring slugfests.

Best hockey game I saw was either the Easter Epic between the Islanders and Caps (3-2, 4 OTs) or the Mattheau Miracle between the Rangers and Devils (3-2, 2 OTs).

In general, I find the tension of a well-played low scoring game is vastly superior to a scoring parade. The points seem to count more. Maybe that's why I dig soccer.

With Hockey and especially soccer, I definately like low scoring games, but not no scoring games.
It's always exciting to me to see a quick score followed by a team playing defense for 40 minutes, followed by giving up a score and the first team has to turn it back on.
Great theater.

Ltlabner
10-18-2007, 07:25 PM
Best baseball game I ever saw (even better than game 6 of the 1975 World Series) was The Twins' 1-0 game 7 World Series victory over the Braves.

In general, I find the tension of a well-played low scoring game is vastly superior to a scoring parade. The points seem to count more. Maybe that's why I dig soccer.

Well a WS game is different. The stakes are so much higher that there's a payoff to the tension created by a low scoring game. Now, a game in the middle of July on a Wednesday night that is 0-0 in the 5th....ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz

But your take on things makes total sense to me. That's what makes the world go round.

Sorry to hijack a thread.

Ltlabner
10-18-2007, 07:26 PM
That just makes me want to cry for you, Ltlabner.

Don't cry for me SunDeck. I've survived since the mid 70's on my approach to baseball.

:D

TeamSelig
10-18-2007, 07:50 PM
I've never been a soccer fan, but one thing I do like is the energy and craziness from the fans. Could you imagine if baseball was like that? If it were, we would seriously murder Cubs fans for coming into our GABP and cheering the Cubs.

SunDeck
10-18-2007, 08:00 PM
Don't cry for me SunDeck. I've survived since the mid 70's on my approach to baseball.

:D

And you've probably gotten a lot more done than I have in the process.

WMR
10-18-2007, 09:03 PM
Awesome soccer game example: Yesterday France played Lithuania in a Euro 08 qualifier... tightly played, no-scoring for 80 minutes, the Henry nets TWO goals in the span of a minute. It's a home game for France and the crowd is going bonkers. BUT, the entire game was such a tightly played affair... the Lithuanians ran their ASSES off trying to keep pace with the French and both sides hit woodwork at least once... it was a GREAT game the whole time.

NJReds
10-19-2007, 09:24 AM
The pace of playoff baseball is so slow that it's difficult to watch. There have been times during this year's playoffs where I've flipped to a football game, watched a series, and gone back to the baseball game and the same hitter is up.

They really have to enforce the rule that keeps batters in the batters box.

Johnny Footstool
10-19-2007, 12:32 PM
Best baseball game I ever saw (even better than game 6 of the 1975 World Series) was The Twins' 1-0 game 7 World Series victory over the Braves.

Best football game I ever saw was BC-Miami, but in general I like low-scoring slugfests.

Best hockey game I saw was either the Easter Epic between the Islanders and Caps (3-2, 4 OTs) or the Mattheau Miracle between the Rangers and Devils (3-2, 2 OTs).

In general, I find the tension of a well-played low scoring game is vastly superior to a scoring parade. The points seem to count more. Maybe that's why I dig soccer.

True. It's all in how the game is played.

If it's 1-0 because each pitcher has 10 strikeouts and you've seen half a dozen highlight-reel defensive plays, then yes,it's exciting.

If it's a 1-0 game because each team has hit 20 ground balls to shortstop, ugh.

Sea Ray
10-19-2007, 04:12 PM
How do you know there isn't going to be a HR hit at any moment? You don't. That's why you watch. Sure, if you knew it would be scoreless in the 8th you could go mow the lawn, but it's not like you can plan on that happening. Just like in soccer.

You bring up an interesting difference between soccer and other sports such as football and baseball. In baseball you can see a score at any moment. There's a chance that any given pitch can be hit out of the yard. In football there's a chance that on any given snap someone might take it to the house. In soccer rarely is the ball close enough to the goalie where there's a snowballs chance of a goal being scored. I'm not entertained by players battling for the ball at mid field because chances are the battle will be for naught.

That chance of a score happening at any moment is an excitement that soccer lacks.

WMR
10-19-2007, 04:18 PM
You bring up an interesting difference between soccer and other sports such as football and baseball. In baseball you can see a score at any moment. There's a chance that any given pitch can be hit out of the yard. In football there's a chance that on any given snap someone might take it to the house. In soccer rarely is the ball close enough to the goalie where there's a snowballs chance of a goal being scored. I'm not entertained by players battling for the ball at mid field because chances are the battle will be for naught.

That chance of a score happening at any moment is an excitement that soccer lacks.

:lol:

Sea Ray, my friend, you just haven't watched enough soccer.

France scored two goals in under a minute yesterday, off of lightning quick through-balls played from near midfield.

Scoring can come lightning fast and totally unexpectedly, just like in any other sport.

vaticanplum
10-19-2007, 04:32 PM
Sea Ray, you began this thread by stating that you wanted to be enlightened as to why people like soccer, but you've been debating every point. If you're really interested, that's one thing, but if you're not, why bother? You don't have to like soccer. Different strokes, etc.

Sea Ray
10-19-2007, 04:36 PM
:lol:

Sea Ray, my friend, you just haven't watched enough soccer.

France scored two goals in under a minute yesterday, off of lightning quick through-balls played from near midfield.

Scoring can come lightning fast and totally unexpectedly, just like in any other sport.


You're right I haven't watched much soccer and that's the reason why. If what France did was commonplace I'd be more interested. Surely you're not telling me that a guy can kick the ball from mid field and somehow avoid the goalie? My limited experience has been that when a guy kicks it towards the goal from midfield next a whistle blows and the call is offsides.

I don't know why you're using the comeback "oh yeah, it could happen." Be reasonable. There is a much greater chance that a run will be scored in baseball with two outs, bases empty as compared to a soccer game where the ball is being kicked around at mid field. That's my point.

Such a dearth of scoring leads to dumb rules like shootouts and makes comebacks very, very rare. Don't you like seeing baseball teams come from 6 runs down or a football team from 21 pts? In soccer 2-0 is a commanding lead.

WMR
10-19-2007, 04:37 PM
Nevermind.

Sea Ray, VP's advice is right: Don't watch soccer. You don't get it. And that's fine.

NJReds
10-19-2007, 04:40 PM
You're right I haven't watched much soccer and that's the reason why.

When we have taken friends and family from Europe to baseball games, they usually ask why it takes so long with so many breaks. Basically, different people like different things. Billions of people love soccer. You're not one of them, and it's okay.

WMR
10-19-2007, 04:43 PM
You're right I haven't watched much soccer and that's the reason why. If what France did was commonplace I'd be more interested. Surely you're not telling me that a guy can kick the ball from mid field and somehow avoid the goalie? My limited experience has been that when a guy kicks it towards the goal from midfield next a whistle blows and the call is offsides.

I don't know why you're using the comeback "oh yeah, it could happen." Be reasonable. There is a much greater chance that a run will be scored in baseball with two outs, bases empty as compared to a soccer game where the ball is being kicked around at mid field. That's my point.

Such a dearth of scoring leads to dumb rules like shootouts and makes comebacks very, very rare. Don't you like seeing baseball teams come from 6 runs down or a football team from 21 pts? In soccer 2-0 is a commanding lead.

But to answer your question, a "through ball" is a ball that is passed from a midfielder, past the defender, to spring the forward on a "fast break" (breakaway). The goals weren't scored directly from midfield, they were played from midfield and led to breakaways where the goals were subsequently scored 1 v. 1 versus the goalkeeper.

Sea Ray
10-19-2007, 04:49 PM
Sea Ray, you began this thread by stating that you wanted to be enlightened as to why people like soccer...

Yep, that's exactly what I've been doing. I'm asking what do you see in this sport? I'm pointing out areas I struggle with and asking if I'm missing something.


You don't have to like soccer. Different strokes

I agree 100%. I covered this point earlier. You must have missed it:



If folks find that soccer or Nascar or whatever floats their boat, fine. If everyone followed football and baseball like I do I'd never be able to get a ticket.

Yachtzee
10-19-2007, 06:01 PM
I had an assist once from the sweeper position. I was standing at midfield on a goal kick and it just happened to come right at me. I headed it back to our center midfielder who cracked a long shot into the net.

westofyou
10-19-2007, 06:07 PM
I had an assist once from the sweeper position. I was standing at midfield on a goal kick and it just happened to come right at me. I headed it back to our center midfielder who cracked a long shot into the net.

Love those... I was lucky enough to spend about 10 years playing year round in an adult league in Palo Alto, being flush in the center of the valley and having so many other cultures there because of Stanford and so forth really exposed me to a varying array of styles of play. However the pitch was always hard as a rock, I once bounced one from midfield over the charging goaltender. bounced of the ground like concrete and he misjudged it and it skipped into the corner. The league was pretty loose and we could go there and game jump if there wasn't enough guys, on Monday it was painful to move sometimes.

paintmered
10-19-2007, 06:17 PM
I had an assist once from the sweeper position. I was standing at midfield on a goal kick and it just happened to come right at me. I headed it back to our center midfielder who cracked a long shot into the net.

As a keeper, that situation makes for a bad day at the office. Oh to have a set of midfielders willing to play the ball in the air...

Betterread
10-19-2007, 08:11 PM
You bring up an interesting difference between soccer and other sports such as football and baseball. In baseball you can see a score at any moment. There's a chance that any given pitch can be hit out of the yard. In football there's a chance that on any given snap someone might take it to the house. In soccer rarely is the ball close enough to the goalie where there's a snowballs chance of a goal being scored. I'm not entertained by players battling for the ball at mid field because chances are the battle will be for naught.

That chance of a score happening at any moment is an excitement that soccer lacks.
You are categorically wrong. Nearly all professional players can kick the ball the length of the field. So a goal can be scored can occur in about 5 or 6 seconds - about the same time as a home run.
I don't think you are interested in this information, though I hope I'm wrong. You seem to be trying to make the point that you don't understand soccer, but in a rather patronising manner that belies your stated intention of being curious about the sport's qualities.
All I ask is that If you don't like the game, don't make a big deal about your personal animus. It comes across as rude.

M2
10-19-2007, 09:28 PM
I watched Real Madrid play Valladolid earlier this year. Real spent most of the game getting stymied before they could take a quality shot. The team was down 1-0 with just a few minutes left and there seemed to be no way through to the net. Then Guti took what seemed like a completely innocuous play, kept his cool as five defenders closed in on him and threaded a pass that completely exploded the Valladolid defense. Bam! One moment of subtle genius and an impregnable defense was breached.

Here's a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhupz_114Tk) of the play.

MWM
10-19-2007, 09:34 PM
This is one of the sickest goals I've ever seen. You have to wait for the replay from behind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceFtwgSe3PM&mode=related&search=

Slyder
10-19-2007, 10:07 PM
I think more Americans would appreciate soccer if there were less flamboyant flopping going on. Americans who are used to football hits and macho, "take a charge for the team" basketball fouls don't take kindly to a guy bumping into a 5' 8", 145 pound midfielder and flopping around like he's been hit with a taser.

Plus there's a stigma that goes with playing soccer. I recently saw a Bernstein Bears book in which the son, too scrawny for football and too short for basketball, takes up soccer instead. Nice message -- "If you're too much of a wimp for real sports, try soccer! Maybe you can pretend to be an athlete and salvage some twisted little modicum of self-worth."

See thats why America has a problem making a dent in the world stage...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=v5e7FqHLbsU

Compare that to http://youtube.com/watch?v=vF4iWIE77Ts&mode=related&search=

And you see why Some Americans look at soccer the way they do.

Yachtzee
10-19-2007, 10:33 PM
Love those... I was lucky enough to spend about 10 years playing year round in an adult league in Palo Alto, being flush in the center of the valley and having so many other cultures there because of Stanford and so forth really exposed me to a varying array of styles of play. However the pitch was always hard as a rock, I once bounced one from midfield over the charging goaltender. bounced of the ground like concrete and he misjudged it and it skipped into the corner. The league was pretty loose and we could go there and game jump if there wasn't enough guys, on Monday it was painful to move sometimes.

The pitch we played pick-up games on in Salzburg, Austria was a clay surface. It was murder sliding the first week. Then an English guy (named Guy) told us about putting Vaseline on our legs. After a few slides your legs get caked in dirt and it keeps you from ripping the skin open.

Sea Ray
10-20-2007, 12:19 PM
All I ask is that If you don't like the game, don't make a big deal about your personal animus. It comes across as rude.

Forums such as this one are set up so people can exchange differing opinions. That's what makes them go. If you can't handle differing opinions don't join in. You might be one of those that loves posts like "gee, I wish I could give you rep points" or "that was the post of the year!" I don't know but these forums are at their best when people can put their own insecurities aside and exchange opinions without calling the other rude for doing the same. I'm merely giving my opinions on soccer and for some reason you can't handle it. I have no idea why you're so defensive.

I love baseball but if someone tells me they don't like it 'cause it's too slow or whatever I do not tell them to keep quiet. I welcome their opinion and discuss it further. You do just the opposite with statements like "you're wrong" or "you're rude" or calling my opinions my "animus". Let's leave the commentary of this thread to soccer and not what you think of me. No one cares what you think of me. We'll never meet.