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

[Autumn]

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

[MrBug708]

Should have been Ping - Ksyrup/Kodos

[molson]

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

Is there a thread I can bitch about that?

[Kodos]

You rang?

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by molson

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

Is there a thread I can bitch about that?

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

[Kodos]

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

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

I am ready for the firing squad now.

[Kodos]

Since we have the thread:

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

[Mustang]

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

[Lathum]

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

[digamma]

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

"Germany were a well organised side."

Who the eff are you, Tommy Smyth?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by digamma

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

"Germany were a well organised side."

Who the eff are you, Tommy Smyth?

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

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

[molson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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

That's sort of my point.

[JediKooter]

Make the field a quarter of its current size.

[Autumn]

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

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by digamma

That's sort of my point.

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

[Autumn]

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

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Autumn

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

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

[larrymcg421]

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

[molson]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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

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

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

[molson]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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

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

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

[illinifan999]

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

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Autumn

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

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

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

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

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

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

Try and stay on topic please.

[Lathum]

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

[Kodos]

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

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

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

The SEC tournament had one of these this year. It worked pretty well. BTW the clock is only in use when bases are empty.

[illinifan999]

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

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

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

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

[Kodos]

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

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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

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

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

[digamma]

Originally Posted by molson

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

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

So, we start by not calling it soccer?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by digamma

So, we start by not calling it soccer?

Actually, the word soccer originated in England.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by digamma

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

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

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

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

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Actually, the word soccer originated in England.

Beat me to the punch.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

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

Dusty Baker does not approve of this rule change.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

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

Fixed this for you.

[molson]

Originally Posted by digamma

So, we start by not calling it soccer?

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

[Icy]

Originally Posted by Mustang

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

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

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Actually, the word soccer originated in England.

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

[dfisher]

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

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

[I. J. Reilly]

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

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

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by molson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by dfisher

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

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

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

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

[Sun Tzu]

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

At least that's my take.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Icy

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

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

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

At least that's my take.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

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

At least that's my take.

Wait, so the only truly gifted athletes are either:

a) American
b) play an American sport

[Sun Tzu]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Wait, so the only truly gifted athletes are either:

a) American
b) play an American sport

Just for the sake of entertainment...

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