The Women’s World Cup. And since the US has one of the top women’s teams you’d actually have someone to root for.
I just saw this post. I actually live in the NJ side already, and Harrison isn’t far from me. I will have to check that out. The MLS season is just getting started right?
Are the Red Bulls very good? I went to see a Galaxy Game once back when I was in LA and had a good time. We were right behind the net which was interesting, but made it hard to see what was going on on the other end of the field and I really felt like even when I could see what was happening I was missing about half the game due to lack of general knowledge.
What should I do to help overcome that obstacle? I have read up on the rules, but people keep talking about nuances in the game that I don’t really know that I am able to see. Anything I should watch for to help me start to see that sort of thing?
It is often the movement off the ball that makes the game. When in possession the team-mates are constantly trying to give the ball-carrier options for passes, or trying to commit defenders and pull them out of position to create space for other team-mates to make an attacking run.
It is very rewarding for the spectator to spot such movements and runs, visualise the right pass and then see it get delivered as imagined.
Historically, no. They’re the only original MLS team that hasn’t won a major trophy (either MLS Cup or US Open Cup). However, the current ownership seems to get that the best way to make money on this thing is to put an attractive, winning product on the field. They were by far the best side in the weaker Eastern Conference last year, and so far lead the East again, although points-per-game they’re about 4th or 5th overall in the league.
It’s really something that’s going to come with experience. Obviously talking to those around you about the game is going to help, whether it’s during play or afterward. When you’re new to the game, it’s tempting to just watch the progress of the ball, but try to occasionally look around for players off the ball making runs into space, looking for a pass or cross, or even just to draw defenders away from the man with the ball.
It also might be a good idea to record the game on TV too - that way if there was something you felt like you missed, you’ll be able to play it back from a different angle later.
I am not a big soccer fan, but in response to the OP:
- watch an entire game
- recognize that this is a marathon, not a sprint, although there is a lot of sprinting
- if you think of it as a long, drawn-out strategic analogy, individual plays may be set up over and over again to go one way, just to lure the defense into not being prepared for the one time they go the other way
- read up on the rules, especially for offsides
- recognize that many if not most of the goals happen on corner kicks and unexpected break-aways… that said, one of the areas to focus on is the defense and how they “clear” the ball (e.g., to the side vs. out the back)
hope that is what you were looking for…
Your posts ARE classic threadshitting, Rondembo. If you don’t have information on the subject of the OP (helping someone to appreciate soccer) and are just here to pooh-pooh the whole thing repeatedly, I’m hard-pressed to think of a better example of exactly what threadshitting is.
Don’t do this again.
ETA: I didn’t realize Rondembo was spreading this behavior between multiple threads, so I issued him a warning elstwhere. If problems persist, please report the post or PM me. Thanks all.
Ok, I just finished watching the Manchester United/ Chelsea game. Manchester just dominated the heck out of Chelsea, not nearly as competitive as I expected to see, but it was fun all the same. I watched a couple of other games leading up to this but this is the first game that I watched that I followed well enough to have questions.
My first question, how much contact are the players really allowed to have with each other? I was under the impression that they weren’t really supposed to have a lot of contact, but these guys were all over each other and only a handful of items were called as fouls. Some of that is obviously the refs not seeing things, but others seemed to be legal contact. But it all looked the same to me. What’s the difference?
Second, I noticed that Manchester started 4 defenders, 4 midfielders, and 2 attackers, while Chelsea started 4, 3 and 3. Are these normal variation of offensive formations? What are they supposed to do? Also, what exactly are the midfielders supposed to do? They are the only ones who’s jobs I don’t really understand.
Fouls are usually called only when the contact explicitly gives someone an unfair advantage in being able to play the ball. It’s a huge judgement call on the ref’s part as to what constitutes an unfair advantage, though.
Someone much more knowledgeable than I would be better answering this, but from what I understand, it’s not uncommon. Soccer is fairly freeform in its positioning. (5 2 3 is sometimes used, though not much at pro level. I once played a fullback sweeper in youth league a long time ago. We were running a 4 2 2 1 for that. I think the coach just wanted to throw the other team off their game for a bit.)
Great thread topic. American sports nut here who has always had the stereotypical American reaction to soccer–too low-scoring, boring, etc. I came to acknowledge, though, that this was my shortcoming. I didn’t get it. A few billion non-U.S. fans couldn’t be delusional.
Then my wife and I watched the most recent World Cup, and we actually enjoyed it, in a newbie kind of way. I can barely begin to see plays crystallize, and strategies forming on the field, where before I only saw a bunch of guys running around aimlessly. But I just barely see it.
The above is advice I would welcome–any tips on how teams strategize, plays that are run, basic tactics, etc.–or at least how to start to recognize it. Similar to how I might explain to a new baseball fan how fielders would position themselves in a given situation, or why someone is bunting, or how left-handed / right-handed combinations come into play. That kind of thing.
Ah, soccer formations. I shouldn’t really be commenting on this, because I harbour a suspicion that 90% of discussion about soccer tactics/strategy is bullshit, but anyway 4-4-2 and 4-3-3 are indeed very commonly used to describe teams’ formations. These days it seems that having three numbers is not sophisticated enough for some analysts, and instead people talk about 4-3-1-2 or 4-4-1-1 or whatever. Just about any combination of numbers that adds up to ten will do, with the proviso that there be more defensive players than offensive.
Plenty of info at Formation - Wikipedia, but I think it’s typical of the vagueness of these concepts that the England national team is given as an example in both the 4-3-3 and the 4-4-2 sections.
Where do you live? Mls isn’t la liga, but it’s perfectly respecAble soccer. If you live near an mls city head out to a game. The atmosphere at most grounds is superb.
The 4-4-2 formation, up until a couple of decades or so ago, could be considered the default, almost expected English football formation. Over time the influx of foreign players and managers (the usual term for “coach”) has changed that, so now you’ll see all sorts of formations and different tactics, which does generally make for a much more exciting game, plus allows for teams with particularly talented players to use them more (a team with a spectacular forward might well have him solely playing upfront, for example). 4-4-2 and 4-3-3 are very popular because, by and large, they’re well-rounded, with no particular emphasis on any one area of the field. It’s worth saying that you’ll sometimes see a single forward, but the defense will never dip below 3 players. By and large, an offensive formation will have more players towards the opponent’s end of the pitch, and defensive the opposite; a 5-4-1 formation would be very defensive, and 3-4-3 very offensive.
What do midfielders do? The problem with the question is that by and large they can do many things. The forwards are primarily there to be upfront, threaten the defense, and score. The defense are there to, well, defend. Your average midfield player will be expected to help with both aspects of the game; dropping back into more defensive positions when the opposition have the ball, and moving up into attacking positions when they have it. They’re there to link the defense and attack, receiving the ball from the defense or goalkeeper, and attempting to get the ball upfield such that either a forward or a midfielder is in a good place to attack the goal.
And that’s just the most basic job. Some midfielders will play almost as a defender, staying back in the field and working to anchor the defense. Or they’ll play as a designated attacking midfielder, playing almost as another, slightly “deeper” forward. Or run up the wings to cross the ball into the goal area. So by and large, a midfielder might well perform almost any job.
[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
The above is advice I would welcome–any tips on how teams strategize, plays that are run, basic tactics, etc.–or at least how to start to recognize it. Similar to how I might explain to a new baseball fan how fielders would position themselves in a given situation, or why someone is bunting, or how left-handed / right-handed combinations come into play. That kind of thing.
[/QUOTE]
The most important thing probably is the same as with any sport; a good team plays to their opponent’s weaknesses, and tries to cover their own. So if you note a team packing their midfield with players, that might well be a sign that they consider their opponents to have some notable players there; or that they believe that their own players are weak. By and large, these things will change considerably with different tactics, players, and so on, but the amount of men in a particular part of the field is a useful indicator of their confidence there. A lone striker, even if it is expected that a large midfield contingent will support him, is a sign of considerable confidence in that player.
Teams will also play to particular player’s unique strengths. Have a look at how the players get the ball up the field - a team that’s concerned about their skills man-on-man might well try long, flying passes. A team that thinks the opposite, or who wants lots of players up the field to make up for a deficient attacking force, might well try short passes so they have as many men upfield as possible.
I think that a lot of posts have ignored the biggest thing, how to watch a game. Someone with no experience with the sport at all will often just watch the ball. That’s not going to be fun for you. Soccer is about space. Creating it for your team, and denying it for the other team. When a player has the ball, watch what the players around him do. What does a run do to the defense? Does it pull a player out of position? How does the defense step up? Does it force the player into rushing a pass, into passing to their defense, into turning the ball over?
Your best bet is to go to a game with someone that knows the sport and asking a lot of questions.
Drinking a lot and standing in the supporters section is fun no matter if you have any idea what’s going on.
Hoo boy. After reading this post I got all :mad:
Then I saw the BANNED tag under his name and I got all <phew> 
I played soccer when I was younger. I was sent to some summer camps for a few weeks which were run by former US World Cup player Peter Vermes. It was a boatload of fun then, and a heck of a great workout. As I got older I began to appreciate the sport a bit more. I always played defender or goalie, and I would pay special attention to those positions, and see how they followed the ball on it’s way into their territory, how the shots were blocked, or how an incoming offense could be totally lured into a turnover trap. It gets to be very exciting once you know what you’re looking at.
If this advice hasn’t already come up in this thread: Try playing the game with some friends. Try talking to some people, or even playing with some people who really know how to play. It’ll sink in then why it’s the most popular sport in the world, and why whole nations go absolutely ape-$#it when their team is in the World Cup.
It’s a very mind intensive game which requires the most intense physical stamina you can imagine. To relate it to a more popular american sport:
Picture a basketball game but:
with a court the size of a football field
then imagine you can’t touch the ball with your hands and
there’s a guy sitting in the opposing net waiting to cherry pick every score attempt.
It’s fun.
That’s highly variable. If you tackle someone to get the ball, get the ball, then scythe through the player’s leg on the other side of the ball, that’s perfectly acceptable, as long as the stubs of the boot aren’t showing and it isn’t a two-footed tackle and the foot isn’t too high. If you go through the leg first, that’s a foul, as is tackling from behind, pushing someone out of the way (although not if it’s shoulder-to-shoulder), going out of your way to stop someone else getting to the ball (although not if you have possession of the ball or are deemed to be acting reasonably). In other words physical contact is incidental, it’s mostly about possession of the ball.
Yeah, 4-4-2 and 4-3-3 are the most common at the moment. 4-3-3 is meant to provide domination over the midfield by outnumbering the central two in the opponent’s four man midfield, and is reliant on having a good centre-forward as he’ll be playing as a lone-striker (the other two in the front 3 being wide-players). The four-four-two is the standard, providing adequate support for the main striker, a decent level of width and proper cover for the defence, if it’s got the right players in it.
They allow the other players to play. Their main role is winning the ball in the middle of the park and distributing it to other players, out wide or up front. They’re also supposed to provide support for the strikers and fill-in at the back when defenders choose to attack, especially for full-backs and at set-pieces. They’re box-to-box players, do a bit of everything and their own job besides. Some specialise in helping their defenders, winning the ball from the opposition midfield, and other defensive tasks, others specialise in scoring goals from midfield by moving ahead of the strikers, or in creating goals for others, or running with the ball. Their basic job, however, is to keep control of the middle of the pitch so they can win the ball their and move it forward while the opposition can’t.
I have a couple questions too, mainly about the business side of the game.
I often see news blurbs about a player being sent to another team for a transfer fee. I assume this means a team is allowed to sell their players? Also, do soccer teams ever trade players for different players. Plus, are clubs allowed to sell players to teams in different leagues. IE an English team to a Brazil or Spanish team.
How do players get signed originally? In North America we are used to the draft system that’s used by almost all sports. I’ve never heard mention of a draft in soccer, so how does that work?
And lastly, is there free agency in soccer like we our used to?
Yes to everything. You may find this interesting:
Before the ruling a player was still tied to a club even when their contract ran out, meaning if a club decided not to play a player they could still stop them moving elsewhere to, for example, a rival team. Because of this it is now quite common to see players sold when they have a year left on their contract as if they play out that season they won’t make any money on selling him as he will become a free agent. My team, Coventry City, took that risk this season with their goalkeeper as, frankly, we were doing very badly and he was one of the few people that made an effort.
For going between countries, a current good example is Zlatan Ibrahimovic. He started in Sweden, then moved to the Netherlands, then to Italy, then to Spain and now plays in Italy on loan from his Spanish club.
“He also currently holds the record for the second highest transfer fee in football history, with a total of €69 million for his transfer from Internazionale to Barcelona.”
Usually they are spotted by scouts when they are at a school age and are then nurtured through a team’s youth system. It is quite common to see seventeen and eighteen year olds play. An example from my team, Coventry City:
“Thomas joined the Coventry City Academy after being spotted playing for local side Christ The King FC. He made his professional debut as a substitute on 8 January 2011 in a 2–1 FA Cup win over Crystal Palace, coming on to replace Gary McSheffrey after 72 minutes[2] and made his full debut for the club on 25 January, again during an FA Cup tie, against Birmingham City F.C..”
Players are usually tied to a club at the highest levels. Lower down - or maybe with aging players - it gets a bit weird sometimes. If someone has a history of injury problems they may end up on a pay to play basis, where they get money only for the games the play.
There’s an international registration system so that players a registered to play with a single club. That registration, and the player with it, can be lent, swapped or sold. The registration used to remain binding even after a contract ended, so a player could only sign for another club if his previous club approved, even though no longer employed by the former club, but that’s no longer the case, now players can (with certain very limited restrictions) go anywhere that will take them when out of contract. The transfer system is worldwide, although transfers can now only be made at certain times of the year, so players are very regularly seen to move from obscure African clubs to Europe, for example. If they’re from outside the EU, though, they may require a work permit from the government.
No, clubs run scouting networks looking for youth talent in their local area, and for the biggest clubs also around the world. They sign the most promising young players to play in their youth teams, and some of them are good enough to get into the first team, or to get sent on loan or sold to some other team. Each team is therefore responsible for developing young talent, rather than getting to pick from a central pool. Some teams are very enthusiastic about it, as it’s often cheaper that buying good players and can be very profitable if you develop some real talent and sell it to the highest bidder.
According to wikipedia, free agency is players who are out of contract and can sign for whoever they like, so yes we have them, although most clubs with a prized asset who won’t sign a new contract seek to cash in while they can.
Damn you wikipedia! That’s quite a bit less than Cristiano Ronaldo’s fee from Man U to Real Madrid.
Well, it does say “second highest”.