I’ve posted about this over in this thread, but some of the most exciting matches I have witnessed have ended up in draws that feel like wins. When you’re the underdog and you’re desperately holding on at 1-0 down and you smash in a last minute equaliser that gives you a vital point (and deprives them of two) - it’s just magic.
And I think the rest of your post says a lot about the different attitudes on either side of the Atlantic towards going to a match. For many, many people it’s not a case of “scoring” a ticket - die hard supporters have season tickets, and many, many teams don’t dream of selling out their stadium (unless the big guys come a-calling). It’s usually not a case of needing time off work, because football should be played at 3pm on a Saturday. And the match only lasts 90 minutes, because it doesn’t stop and start every few seconds, and it’s not padded out by advertising. And it’s not beer and a sausage - it’s a pie and a bovril, but that’s another story.
But you see, if the US ‘lost’ like everyone expected them to, then the end result would have been that much clearer, at least to me. The fact that you get a point for doing just as well as your opponents seems to inspire mediocrity. I don’t have to do BETTER, I just have to do equally as well, in order to get somewhere. Seems to run counter to the inherent nature of sport.
In US football, the best from each division play to be the best in their division, then the best of the divisions become the best in their conference, the conference champions play to represent their conference at the super bowl. By this point, two seemingly equal teams face off against one another to become the best of the best, or, the team with most wins. Same, really, with basketball, hockey or baseball.
As physically demanding as US football is, each team playing every other team would do even more serious damage to the players than the current schedule already does, not to mention extending the season into hockey finals AND baseball seasons.
Aptly, I think there’s a place for all of it, but because of the black and white view of Americans in general, I truly don’t believe that Soccer will ever be as popular as our current major league sports are. Now, 20 years from this point, when the kids of the soccer moms grow up into adults, perhaps the need to be the best at something will be ground out of them, but until then, I suspect that we’ll never give up winning for the draw.
Who cares about hockey or baseball? This thread is for watchable sports. :dubious:
I’m also not sanguine about the odds of footsoccer even becoming truly popular in the US. People have been trying to make it happen for decades, and it just doesn’t.
Inspiring mediocrity? Please. The goal of the group stage is to advance. Granted if you win all your games, you’re advancing, but earning a point … and as Scougs pointed out … depriving your opponent of two points is very important. In this case, the ends does justify the means. You’re not trying to show the world the size of your balls, you’re trying to advance to the knock-out rounds … where all Americans will, of course, roundly embrace soccer because ties aren’t allowed past the group stage.
But if all you want is clear victories and nothing else, how do you put up with the Series system of playoffs in baseball, hockey, basketball? Why, a baseball team can lose 8 times during the playoffs and still take home the big enchilada. Totally un-American if you ask me.
I’m not going to get into a soccer vs. other sports argument - I just don’t care enough. I did want to point out that there are no ties in basketball. You can have ties at the end of regulation, but they’re resolved by overtime, which is how it works in most sports.
My point is that I think that’s how Americans think of the sport.
Yeah, well, Americans eat reconstituted BBQ pork rinds and shop for jewelry at Wal-Mart too. I don’t see what that has to do with the nature of the sport.
Maybe so - I don’t know how it works in rugby or cricket. In golf, they resolve ties with extra play. And I think basketball and baseball are played in enough countries that they can be considered international sports and avoid the provincial tag that gets applied to football.
In cricket a tie is the rare result where everyone’s out and the scores are level (simplified). A draw is when time’s up and no-one has won - typically the side batting last hasn’t overtaken the other side’s score but isn’t all out either. In many one-day competitions you have only a limited time at bat and if scores are level when both sides have had their turn then there is a tie-break (typically, the side with fewer men out wins).
In Rugby, if it’s a knock-out competition then extra time will be played, and sometimes if scores are still level then the side scoring more tries will be counted the winner. But league competitions, such as the Six Nations, do allow for draws. There was once the possibility of the World Cup final going to a drop-kicking shoot-out, but to date all finals have been resolved without such desperate measures.
A perfect example of why I am completely baffled by America’s hatred of soccer – and it’s the haters I have issues with … the ones who couldn’t care less, well, waddayagonnado?
Cricket. I do not understand Cricket one whit. I know there are bowlers and batsmen and wickets, but beyond that I have virtually no knowledge of the game. But because of that I’m more fascinated by it than filled with hatred for it. I wouldn’t in a million years tell someone that Cricket is a stupid sport just because I don’t get it.
Even if I watched a match (or whatever they call it) and I decided it wasn’t something I ever wanted to watch again, I wouldn’t go off on endless screeds about “where’s the double-play? Why don’t they get to slide? How come there isn’t 9 innings?” or whatever the case may be.
I do love to hear Cricket jargon. It’s like another language even though I recognize all the words being used.
Even after living in England for three years and sort of trying to play it, I never really got cricket. I got some of the form (the basic idea of the bowling and batting rules and some of the scoring), but never really comprehended all of it. Talk about complicated rules. It’s like three dimensional chess with a flat bat
You want to talk complicated? There is no sport more comlicated than North American football. Just to coach a team requires a team of coaches. But to me , there is no more exciting game to watch and second guess the coaching.
But I get enthralled by the European and world cup soccer tournaments. Its my Dutch heritage and the Dutch are always serious contenders. Most Americans and Canadians will never feel that connection with a soccer contender unless they have a recent ethnic connection.If you happen to get to that point, you can open your mind to the finer points of the game and appreciate what most of the rest of the world appreciates, even if you have to put up with that god awful South African noise.
This is true for soccer, rugby, cricket, in fact, virtually every team sport that’s played at a competitive level. American football isn’t special in this respect. See all the guys sat down (apart from the substitutes) in the dugouts in the World Cup? They’re all assistant coaches, goalkeeping coaches, offence coaches etc.
