I gotta say, I’d rather have indifference than this come to pass.
Hehe.
Crap. I forgot to actually make my post.
Why don’t we like soccer? We didn’t grow up with it, so we don’t understand it. I’ve watched some Ronaldinho clips on Youtube, and I don’t get what the big deal is. They look impressive, sure, but I can’t appreciate how hard it actually is. Whereas I grew up watching NCAA and NBA basketball, and I can appreciate an ankle-breaking Allen Iverson crossover or a great Ben Wallace block (even if I hate Ben Wallace). And since I didn’t grow up with soccer, I don’t understand/enjoy it now. And if/when I have kids, I won’t be able to share my (nonexistant) passion and knowledge about soccer in the same way I will be able to in regards to basketball. And since most Americans don’t like soccer, our kids won’t have a chance to learn to love it, nor will their kids, ad infinitum.
Also, soccer sux! 
Totally agree, I’ve heard this many times. Low scoring can make for a boring game. I think that’s one of the reasons they recently switched balls in pro soccer which all the goal keepers are complaining about.
Actually, i’ve read a bunch of articles on the new balls, and not one so far has suggested that they were designed to make scoring higher, unless you count the whining of the goalkeepers. In fact, most articles, like this one, simply note things like:
The maker denies any explicit attempt to make things harder for goalkeepers:
And if it was introduced to make for higher scoring, it hasn’t exactly worked. As of right now (about 2.30pm EST, June 16), there have been 22 World Cup games and a total of 55 goals, or exactly 2.5 goals per game.
Looking at the statistics from the 2002 World Cup reveals that the first 22 games resulted in a total of 58 goals, or 2.64 goals per game.
At the 22-game stage, the 2002 and 2006 World Cups had each had one runaway victory, an 8-0 victory by Germany over Saudi Arabia in 2002, and a 6-0 victory by Argentina over Serbia and Montenegro in 2006. If we remove these aberrant scores, the total goal tally for each World Cup at the 22-game stage is almost identical, 49 in 2006 against 50 in 2002.
Furthermore, some of the excellent saves being made by goalkeepers in this event (did anyone see some of the saves by the Paraguayan goalie in yesterday’s game against Sweden) suggests that the goalkeepers are doing just fine, and that the new ball hasn’t really changed things very much at all.
What a wonderful answer, Omniscient. Have you played soccer? Do you know what you’re talking about? Maybe it is possible to get hurt while doing it. Really hurt, I mean, and not just whining and pretending to flop around in pain.
The referee does stop his watch for incidents he believes are significant, although I’m not sure how anal they are about stopping it for the exact duration of the stoppage. And it’s only for things like injured players etc, not for the build up to a free kick. It doesn’t end up as exactly 3 minutes or whatever, either… it’s a minimum of 3 added minutes. Football doesn’t finish exactly when the 90 minutes are up, the referee has to use his discretion, if an attacking play is taking place, to wait until it has been completed. Therefore, it’s not necessary to know the exact number of seconds remaining. It does sometimes give one team or other an advantage - a few years ago it seemed that Manchester United had some sort of agreement with the refs if they weren’t winning at full time for an added 4 mins or so.
mhendo and RickJay have summed it up for me, so all I have to say is: you get commercials during the game? Can the networks not wait 45 minutes?
Well, so far i’ve only watched games on ESPN (the cable sports network) and they don’t show commercials during either half. They have a bunch of commercials at half-time, but the coverage of the game itself is uninterrupted.
Not sure if the same thing will apply for the games screened on ABC, a regular, free-to-air network. I’ll find out tomorrow when ABC screens the Czech Republic v. Ghana game, and the US v. Italy game.
There won’t be commercials. U.S. networks got smart about this years ago.
Just so no one thinks I invented this, I was referring back to Barbarian’s comment:
Here’s my theory.
The rise in popularity of a sport in America reflects the particular cultural zeitgeist of the era.
For example, from 1900 until WWII, when America was still a rural nation and full-scale urbanization had not yet taken hold, baseball’s popularity soared. Baseball is a pastoral game, set in summer, timeless. Its pace is best described as leisurely. It’s the only game I know where a spectators can carry on conversations without missing the action. The heroes of the game were mythic folk heroes whose personal flaws were swept under the rug, exactly the kind of heroes a nation which regarded itself as innocent adored.
Post-WWII America also saw the rise of corporations in the U.S., and no game reflects the corporate hierarchical structure more than football. Like a corporation, the players (employees) did not work as one unit but as several departments (offensive line, skill positions, linebackers, defensive line, secondary, special teams) who all reported to different assistant coaches in charge of each “department” (middle management) who all in turn reported to the head coach (director), who reported to the general manager (president), who in turn reported to the owner (CEO). Football players - like many employees of large corporations - toil in relative anonymity. And, for a nation that had won a world war and bestrode the world like a colossus, it didn’t hurt that football was a metaphor for war (its violence is self-evident, teams march down a field and acquire territory, teams won by both by being strong in the trenches and outflanking defenders, etc.). And finally, with the rise of television, football - with its rectangular field, stoppages in play, inherent violence, and (probably most important of all) the ease with which fans could wager on the outcome - was perfect for the new medium.
The 1980s and 90s were the era of the individual, and no game celebrates individual achievement like basketball. Star individual players can be neutralized in baseball (it’s relatively common to see Albert Pujols bat 0-4) or football (it was somewhat common for Walter Payton to rush for 40 yards), but it’s big news if Michael Jordan only scores 6 points in a game. Individual stars are far more marketable in basketball than any other sport, perfect in a country awash in commercialism. Furthermore, basketball is a game that appealed to oft-ignored women much more than football or baseball because:
- it was easy to understand at the basic level (try explaining the rules of football and baseball to neophytes - it ain’t easy)
- fans can easily see the players’ faces and players wear the least clothing of all sports (apologies if that comes off as chauvinistic)
- it is the most “ballet-like” of all sports with the astonishing athleticism the players display
When viewed as a reflection of societal attitudes and trends, I find soccer fascinating, though I can’t claim to know the sport as well as I know the three aforementioned.
For me, it’s far more interesting observing people watch the game than the game itself. Soccer outside the U.S. seems intimately intertwined with politics. It’s intriguing how fans in the U.K. - especially the leftist intelligentsia - couch their loyalty to their teams as a gesture of solidarity with the working class neighborhoods of Manchester or Birmingham or London. I suppose America has experienced similar sports phenomena (White, working class Boston Celtics vs. Black, flashy, glitzy, glamorous L.A. Lakers; counter-cultural Ali vs. establishment Frazier; Catholic Notre Dame vs. Convict Miami; evil, elitist Duke vs. wholesome, pure UNC [OK, my bias is showing on that last one]), but I don’t think it’s near the intensity seen abroad.
When I was in Europe earlier this year, I read a story about an upcoming match between two Italian clubs - Lazio and Livorno (sp?) - in which the authorities were worried about violence between fans of the two clubs. Fans of Livorno see their club as a symbol of left-wing anti-globalism and view games as an opportunity to engage in political activism while waving red Communist flags at games. Lazio fans are not averse to waving swastika flags at matches. Lazio’s star Paolo di Canio apparently got into trouble for giving a fascist salute to Lazio fans as he came out of a game.
Like I said, fascinating.
With the what now? “Leftist intelligentsia”? What the hell are you talking about?
Football has become very middle class in the last twenty years, which makes sense because most of us are middle class now. The idea that people support Manchester United or Liverpool as part of some class struggle is frankly hilarious.
It would help if the refs weren’t complete idiots.
I’m surprised by the lack of commercials, but this is my first time watching the game in the U.S. The networks in Canada used to squeeze in commercials…
First time I’ve ever seen the word ‘zeitgeist’ in a sports discussion.
Well, perhaps I misspoke (hey, I’m just another clueless American bumpkin, what do you expect?), but I don’t see why it’s ridiculous to argue that soccer and politics are intertwined. I do beg forgiveness for using the term “leftist intelligentsia”; I didn’t mean it as any kind of insult, but I do think Simon Kuper or Nick Hornby or Jimmy Burns or Eamon Dunphy or Jordi Salvador Duch or Franklin Foer might argue that there certainly are connections between particular clubs and the sociological, economic, cultural, and/or political attitudes they espouse.
Besides the fans of Lazio/Livorno in Italy that I mentioned in the previous post, there are plenty of examples of supporters whose loyalties to their teams transcend simple fandom and represent some deeper meaning. Among them are:
- FC Barcelona. Is it not plausible to argue that FC Barcelona is a stirring symbol of Catalan regional identity? Is it not reasonable to assert that the fact the team is owned by its supporters (much like how the Green Bay Packers are owned by individual shareholders) and not by some tycoon adds to a sense that the team is uniquely democratic, a symbol of a people?
And, considering how the team does all it can to play up its Catalan identity, (the blue and red colors, the senyara on the uniform, its fierce matches with Real Madrid - which, when Franco was in power, was one of the few acceptable and legal ways Catalans could express their group identity and distinct language), it seems at least plausible to argue that its fans see the team in terms of regional pride and a vehicle for autonomous aspirations. After all, isn’t the official motto of the squad “Barça is more than a club”?
-
The Amsterdam-based team Ajax. Throughout its history, Ajax has prided itself for its association with the Jewish middle class and a symbol of resistance to the anti-Semitic abuse from other team’s fans, especially Feyenoord. Many of its fans go so far as to tattoo themselves with Stars of David, and chant “Jews, jews” to inspire the team. Many of Ajax’s rivals’ fans make “Ssssss” hissing sounds (referring to sending the Jews to the gas chambers) and chant all sorts of terrible anti-Jewish songs and slogans inspired by Hamas.
-
Speaking of Man U, if Man U doesn’t represent anything more than a really good team, then what was all that fuss about Malcolm Glazer taking control of the team about, anyway? Didn’t many Manchester United fans see the American billionaire Glazer taking over the team as a blow to the unique “Britishness” the team represents? At least a little bit?
Anyway, that was my point, and I submit my apologies for expressing it poorly in my first post.
Soccer is neanderthal compared to other sports, including the ones you mention, such as cricket and rugby. I think it’s a thin end of the wedge thing in soccer, though. Introduce it for “Did the ball cross the goal-line”, then there’d be questions about why it’s not used for going out of play; then for who had the last touch before it went out for a throw or a corner, etc. etc. Another factor that must be given consideration is betting on soccer, which is huge. Once you start tinkering with some variables, then the punters may vote with their wallets (at least for an interim period) or go and spend their cash on other sports or gaming activities.
Regarding the use of video replays in rugby (this time union), in a recent match I watched on TV, a try was scored (everyone was agreed with that - it was clear to any rugby person, even though one couldn’t see the ball being grounded from the angle the player went in at, the momentum provided by team mates pushing, etc). As a result of the decision being sent up to the stands the wrong decision was given. Food for thought.
Possession isn’t nearly as important in European football as it is in other sports, though, because turnovers are common. Scoring, on the other hand, is rare and important enough to warrant video replay.
As far as video replays, in the NFL they’ve made similar bone-headed calls, and if anything they’ve created more buzz because controversy is more interesting. As always, one fans horrible decision is the others great call. Nobody has quit betting because they’re worried a video replay might make a difference in the game.
Betting and “thin edge of the wedge” both apply to other sports though. If we compare the most common video assisted decisions in rugby and cricket, with goals in soccer, there are some differences that might explain why soccer has been slow on the uptake.
Run out attemps and tries occur far more often in their respective sports than goals do in soccer. The former two often happen multiple times in a single match. The chances of them being disputed is higher too, due to the nature of the decisions.
The umpire judging a run out has to tell whether the bails were removed prior to the bat sliding over the crease or not. This is a split second decision and if it’s close can be very hard to tell at full speed with the naked eye.
The referree judging a try in rugby has multiple decisions to make regarding the play leading up to the try, and whether or not the ball was grounded cleanly and in one movement, all of which is often heavily obstructed by other players. It is not uncommon to see the video ref consider four or five different angles and parts of the play before making a decision.
In soccer, usually either the goal is in the back of the net or it isn’t. Disputed goals happen, (a close offside call, a foul on the goalkeeper, the goalkeeper stepping over the line with the ball, etc) but nowhere near as often, and certainly not in every game.
The “flow of play” is more of a consideration in soccer than it is in Rugby or Cricket too. Cricket is very stop start. Rugby is less so, but once a try has been attempted, everyone needs to get into another position whether the try is awarded or not. Soccer is much quicker to resume play after a stoppage.
I still think they should use video replays in some cases in soccer, I’m just giving reasons why I think they’ve been a slow adopter. It won’t guarantee a correct decision in every single case, but if implemented correctly it dramatically decreases the chances of a game being decided on the whim of the referree. Not all fans like it when their teams victory is in dispute. Some of us just want a fair game 