In one of my favorite books about soccer that’s the thing that the author states is the reason why he feels soccer engenders more passion amongst aficionados of the sport than in any other. I think he may have a point.
That’s one of the things that has definitely turned me off to the sport after YEARS of paying at least some attention to it (I’m half-Chilean and I played the sport as a youngster). That and the fact that club teams in Europe (thanks in no small part to the Bosman ruling) have stockpiled the vast majority of worldwide soccer talent. Not that I have a problem with Europe, in particular, doing that. I just liked it better when players (especially players from South America) tended to play their club soccer at least on their home continent, if not in their home country. But more than that I don’t like that fact that only a select few European club teams are really at the pinnacle of the sport right now (again, thanks in no small part to Bosman). I’ve heard rumors about a European “Super League” being formed but even if one were to be how many teams that would have a realistic of winning it could even be in it? 6? 7? Out of ALL the club teams in the world THAT’S how many can honestly be thought of as being the very best in the world these days? That’s pathetic.
To reiterate a bit on a point I made in a previous soccer thread (and I’m close to giving up at this point, so I’ll try to make it quick): I don’t mind a low-scoring game that happens for a good reason.
Baseball game ends 1-0 because the pitchers are unhittable speed demons and stone cold in a jam? Fine.
Football game ends 6-3 because both defenses are crippling, suffocating, stingier-than-Scrooge wrecking crews and simply getting into field goal range is a titanic struggle? Fine.
Hockey game ends scoreless because both sides are masters of the trap and the league hasn’t figured out what the hell to do about it? Fine.
This only happens if the game is a brutal defensive struggle and the offenses can’t step up or catch a break at any time. That’s a pretty rare combination. Even a team that’s shackled or unlucky for a long time can eventually find an opening and go on a tear. Remember that Super Bowl where the Cowboys went into halftime down 13-6 to the Bills, then put up 24 unanswered points in the second half?
Soccer isn’t like that. Between absolutely no use of hands or arms permitted except by the goalkeeper, no equivalent of icing to prevent the defender from simply blasting off, the half-baked offsides rule allowing all manner of chicanery (DRAW! A! LINE!), defense has it very, very easy. When means that even the most powerful offensive teams have to jump through a dozen hoops just to get any chance. I’m not saying that the game should be geared toward the offense, but it should at least get a fair shake. There should be more 7-1 games, and there should be a LOT more 3-2 and 3-3 games.
And no, widening the goal isn’t the answer…heck, you see how big it is already?
Yeah, that’s one thing that’s always struck me as a bit hypocritical about “Merkan” soccer fans (actually, they’re probably non-fans): that they complain left and right about low-scoring soccer games but they seem to have no problems whatsoever with low-scoring “Merkan” sports games. Smacks of defending what you love (or at least what you are familiar with) while demonizing that which you don’t.
And, of course, soccer games are low scoring for a reason according to fans of the sport - the reason being that the tension that results creates an incredibly exciting sport.
Has anyone suggested adding a couple more balls in the game?
See for instance, the World Cup final last year.
To be fair, I retracted the OP in post 169. Also, I saw a 0-0 match during the group stage of last year’s World Cup that I rather enjoyed.
Penalty shootouts still drive me to distraction though.
I think this betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the sport. It is very evenly balanced between defence and attack, and to think that the defence has it easy is really dismissive. I’ve played in defence and attack at a decent standard and it is by far the harder task to run a solid defence. The choice of top quality, game-changing front men is probably wider than for top-quality game-changing central defenders. As for offside, there is a line drawn, it is called the half-way line.
The most recent notable 7-1 game was between Germany and Brazil in the World cup. Now it was remarkable but to be honest, after the first 20 minutes the game was over, dead. It wasn’t as good a game as the final because the low score (1-0) meant that a game-changing incident was possible from start to finish.
Low scoring is a feature not a flaw. The difficulty of scoring means that each goal is emotionally worth more. Each ends up being etched in the memory as game-defining moments.
If you tinker with the sport to make it easier you will simply guarantee that shock results will happen less often. The better teams will win every time and that removes one of football’s biggest attractions. That for a one-off game anything is possible but when taken in the context of a league, the better teams always come out on top. It allows smaller teams to win the battle even if they lose the war.
Asking for more goals in football is as nonsensical as asking for less baskets in basketball, it is what it is. If it can’t attract an audience on the basis of its entertainment then it’ll adapt or die. With football there is no such crisis as it is the biggest sport in the world. It is attractive, there is absolutely no reason to think that it would have a net increase in audience if the number of goals were to double.
It took a non soccer fan to hit the nail on the head.
There has been an argument that goalkeepers have got bigger in the last few years (Joe Corrigan was considered a giant back in the seventies standing at 6’ 4"), therefore goals should be made bigger to reflect this; However, balls have got a lot lighter in the past few years and move in the air a lot more, making the keepers job more difficult, basically balancing things out.
I suggest that anyone who thinks that the number of scores in soccer is too low might enjoy Cricket.
Either that or play no-holds barred soccer. Kinda soccer/hockey.
Isn’t that exactly the issue under discussion? Professional-level soccer is not as popular in North America as the soccer barons would like it to be. Will the American game adapt?
Every other American sport has tinkered with the rules to find its audience—particularly in the early years. Just a few examples:
Basketball didn’t have the shot clock or the three-point basket until the '70s, I believe.
Baseball started out with nine balls for a base-on-balls. It’s now four.
Football has monkeyed with its rules extensively: A touchdown went from two to six points. A field goal went from five to three points. A post-touchdown “extra point” field goal went from four points to one. There are strict rules about who can throw passes and who can receive them. The two-point conversion is fairly new.
The NASL tried “adapting” - first with its “offside line” (which the English FA tried in an experimental game once, I think in the 1920s; one half used the line, and the other half changed the offside rule from requiring 3 defenders between the ball and the goal, which was the rule at the time, to 2), when with its “shootout” procedure (instead of penalty kicks, the ball was placed 35 yards from the goal, and the shooter had 5 seconds to score).
Remember, pretty much every game called “football” is derived from somebody coming up with a way to “improve” soccer. There was consideration of allowing carrying the ball when the first “universal” soccer rules were being developed in England; rugby branched out from this, and from there to American football.
Trying to make soccer “fan-friendly” would be a mistake. The only real fans are the ones who want things done the way they are done everywhere else. Case in point: when MLS started, the game clock started at 45:00 and counted down (which is how the NCAA does it), but the fans were so used to the official time being kept by the referee that it was changed to counting up from zero.
Why bother? Changing the rules merely puts US teams at a disadvantage in international play (since FIFA is obviously not going to rewrite its rulebook to conform to MLS’.) Adding a couple of goals a game is not going to turn soccer into the top sport here. It’s just too different from what American sports fans expect and American advertiser need - that is, regular breaks.
International play is not important for professional baseball or football or basketball or ice hockey in terms of making money hand-over-fist in the domestic market. Why should it matter for American soccer?
Because it’s an integral part of the sport’s appeal to American fans. The one thing it offers that other US sports do not (other than a test of stamina) is its worldwide appeal. Changing the rules also likely spells the end for MLS teams looking to recruit high-profile foreign players.
You can’t double the amount of scoring in game of football without making it a fundamentally different beast.
Have any of the changes made to American popular sports lead to a doubling or halving of the rate of scoring?
Consider what it would take to make that happen and then consider whether it would be a wise move to make those changes when there is no guarantee that it would have any positive net effect on audience numbers.
Tinkering with minor aspects of the game is fine. happens all the time but nothing done thus far has radically improved the scoring rate. To double it? ain’t going to happen without it ceasing to be the game that appeals to billions already.
Nudging it up by a goal a game? possible but surely just one extra goal isn’t going to drastically change the appeal to the uninitiated.
As mentioned the international game is integral in the popularity of the sport. The last World Cup and the big ratings for US games makes that readily apparent.
In addition, the popularity of soccer is already growing. NBC is getting far better ratings for Premier League games than it thought. MLS just signed a lucrative deal with ESPN. It’s not where they want it to be, but growth is coming. After all, it has only been 22 years since the World Cup was held in the US (which, btw, an international game event that helped jump start everything).
I’m not a baseball fan but I understand that MLB’s “powers-that-be” are considering some rule changes to speed the game up. Apparently it’s gotten through to someone, somewhere, that baseball games are just too darned slow-paced and that baseball, if not actually LOSING fans, isn’t really gaining any, either. Personally I think baseball is one of the most boring excuses for a sport in existence so speeding the game up won’t attract me (or people like me) but in an effort to attract some people I suppose doing so can’t hurt.
I actually find these complaints about baseball to be silly and it’s been said for like 10-15 years. The game has been getting longer, but it’s still far shorter than an NFL game. I don’t necessarily mind “pitch clocks”, but to think that it’s going to attract new fans is silly.