Good but he had the advantage of being surrounded by world class players. Not something one could say about MLT’s career at the Dell…
What bollocks. If after seven games, and four bajillion scores, the teams are only seperated by four points, then its because one of two evenly matched teams caught a lucky break. That break could have went either way, so what does that tell you about the “relative skills” of the two teams?
And why the hell is it a good thing that the “goal” is more achieveable? Points are so easy to come by in American sports a score essentially means fuck all.
“Fuck yeah, I got a basket! :)”
“Thats the sixty-third time today somebody got a basket.”
“Damn, I thought I was special :(”
As opposed to:
“Fuck yeah I just scored a goal! :)”
“You probably just won the game for your team!”
“:eek::):D:D:cool:”
Football is all about scoring goals. You don’t score goals, you don’t win. You don’t put the ball in net more times than the opposing team, you don’t win. Name one team who has won the world cup without scoring any goals. You’re analogy is flawed.
So tell me, how many games in a series does it take to separate the skill level of two teams? You’re telling me seven isn’t enough – and you might be right – but you’re apparently OK with soccer reducing that number to one. But help me out for non-soccer games: should teams play best of 13? 27? What?
All I’m saying is that a best-of-seven series (basketball) is more likely to lead to the better team winning than a best-of-one game (soccer). I don’t even know how to rebut those of you who disagree, because it’s so fucking obvious. (And it’s just slightly less obvious that the reason you’re disagreeing has nothing to do with thought, logic, or statistics, but rather a dread aversion to anything even bordering on criticism of your sacred cow).
My point is proven by this ignorant statement.
Football is about winning the competition you are in and in league matches that can mean anything from winning to not getting beaten too severely. It certainly involves playing for a draw. As it did for teams in the group stage and the group qualifiers for the World Cup.
So, if you are saying that a team can win a tournament without scoring a single goal, then soccer is truly the stupidest game on the planet in addition to being the most boring.
Tard, he’s saying a team can win a tournament without having to win every single game.
What I absolutely hate about football is the utter lack of skill involved in playing it.
Except that one hole does not decide a golf tournament, just as one game does not decide a football league or tournament. I’ve seen plenty of golf tournaments be tied at the end of four rounds, often with multiple players on the same score, which sends them on to playing extra holes to decide a winner - just think of that as being like football’s extra time/penalty shootout.
As for your second paragraph, I thought this board was about fighting ignorance, not propagating it.
I really don’t see why people are replying to this shite by slagging off other sports.
The OP doesn’t like football and he’s being a loud fuckwit about it. Grand, fuck him. Slag him off for the way he seems to think he’s superior in some way because of it.
Going after basketball, baseball or American football isn’t going to help. In fact it just turns the thread into a pissing match between sport fans.
I don’t like football at all. I don’t like most sport. I’ve had to listen to people banging on about sport all my life and not caring about it. I just try to get by without much sport talk. I could be like the OP and start thinking I’m great because I’m not liking what other people do and so feel superior in some way but I don’t.
I do love events though, so I look at most of the world cup as it’s much more than just sport. It’s countries coming together and competing. I love looking at people and cities reacting to events (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgWkJcjgJ7o). I remember what Ireland was like in 1990 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v24UKqJIKm8&feature=related) when we got to the last eight. The team didn’t win one match in normal time and a lot of the performances were flat but nobody cared. When the team came back 1/4 of the population of the whole country came out to greet them back. It was an amazing moment in my country’s history and one that nobody who was alive at the time is ever going to get. A boring game gave us that feeling and for that I’m ever grateful.
UP HOLLAND!!!
Thanks for this, yojimbo. I’ve had a hard time analyzing why I love the World Cup (and other similar sporting events) so much when generally I don’t give two rips about any type of sport, and you’ve put your finger on it.
Fucktard, he was slagging golf based upon a stupid analogy. Keep up.
And this has exactly what to do with his analogy? My response to him was directly to his analogy, not to comment on tournaments, but on specific aspects of play.
What? That watching golf and soccer is boring? Compared to playing them, yes they are. What is there to debate?
Re-fuckwittardspecialneedsdouchebag, your hyperbole about not needing to score a goal and still winning a tournament states nothing about any analogy, but goes a long way toward proving your fuckwittery.
You’re absolutely right. Let’s just cancel the whole thing NOW. Go home the lot of you.
The overtime sipke in NBA is an interesting article about scoring. The videos are great.
You’ve gone past special needs right into intensive needs.
Never argue with an idiot because it is hard to tell the difference. But, I’m a glutton for punishment. One hole in golf doesn’t necessarily win a tournament. One goal in soccer doesn’t necessarily win a tournament. One hole = one goal. To say that the hole in golf needs to be bigger to allow for more holes in one is equal to me saying that something needs to be done in soccer to allow for more goals at kick off. But neither has any fucking thing to do with winning tournaments either in soccer or in golf. Fucking morons!
News flash, dipshit, golf is not soccer. Analogy schmanalogy … what the fuck does one have to do with another?
Listen, it’s okay to admit you’re too stupid to understand soccer. I get that you’re trying to cover your mental deficiencies by poo-poo-ing the sport as a whole, but let’s grow up a little and admit that when it comes to soccer, you really don’t have an effing clue what you’re talking about.
OMG! Tagos made the analogy defending his lameoid game!
There is no relation between soccer and golf, duh! We agree. Now go and slag Tagos for bringing it up in the first place! And I’m the dipshit:rolleyes:.
Yes, I’ve seen similar in hockey. Guys who can flip a puck around at will. Luckily, you don’t see it much in play because some guy standing there fooling around like that would usually get flattened in short order. Rightly so, as it keeps the game moving rather than having to spend time excess time watching some showboat play keep away. If you really want to improve soccer introduce the shoulder check.
Seems odd the the millions (billions?) of people watching the World Cup would all be so masochistic as to watch such a “boring” game. Has it ever crossed your mind that what you find boring does not necessarily match what the rest of the world finds boring.
At least they don’t throw temper tantrums and behave like six year olds beating each other up like in hockey (OK - not as much as in hockey).