The Thread for Bitching About Soccer or Arguing Against Bitching About Soccer

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

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

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

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

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

[Icy]

No contact, from today's WC final:

[Icy]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

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

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

[law90026]

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

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

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

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

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by Icy

No contact, from today's WC final:

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

[MrBug708]

Yes

[Kodos]

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

[MJ4H]

Feel free.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

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

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

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

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Kodos

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

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

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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

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

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

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

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

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

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

Feel free.

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

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I blame the Germans

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But it won't happen

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

And that too!

[JHandley]

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

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

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

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

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

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

[ISiddiqui]

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

[Icy]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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

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

I can't remember how did that end.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Kodos

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

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

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

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

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

[Sun Tzu]

Originally Posted by Kodos

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

Hold the phone...

They play sports in Indiana?

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Kodos

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

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

[Kodos]

IU's pretty good in soccer.

[MrBug708]

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

[Sun Tzu]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

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

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

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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

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

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

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

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

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

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

[Sun Tzu]

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

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It would open the midfield too much is the problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

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

Sorry about that Sun Tzu

Maple Leafs there's another one for you.