Good to hear. Get someone to have a word with Vince Grella, then…
Not the Britishness of it, but it’s Mancunian status. Despite being a global brand, Man U also remains the local team for half of the city, with fans who’ve followed them for decades and loyalty which is passed on through the generations. The idea of a non-football fan buying up all of that pissed them off. This was coupled with the practical considerations, that Glazer was going to saddle a profitable business with a lot of debt, and lacked a business plan which explained how he would repay it. (One comment I heard summed up the fears - “If Glazer sold tickets at £100, and filled Old Trafford with 70,000 Japanese tourists who know nothing about football, he’d consider it a success”)
This is a cultural difference in the attitude towards referees, and appears in different ways in rugby and cricket. While decisions may be disputed, if not by players then certainly by fans, the result is (nearly) always accepted. There’s a difference between feeling an injustice because of a bad call, and “Waaaaah, I want a replay”.
I’m not sure what you’re saying. Cricket and Rugby fans trust their referees less than Soccer fans? In televised games we get replays whether we cry for them or not.
What I mean is that whether it’s football, rugby or cricket, the feeling of “we was robbed” because of bad decisions doesn’t mean we feel the whole method of ajudication needs to be completely revised. (I’m thinking of things like LBW which are still the umpire’s decision)
Indians - especially commentators and ex-players - want even LBW decisions taken out of the field umpire’s hands and given to the third umpire. At least they do until Tendulkar, Dravid or Kaif will be given out in this way! Of course, the technology is not yet suffuciently advanced and refined to invariably and inerrantly detect a snick, either by vision (deviation) or by sound. Bat-pad decisions face the same kind of problems, but since this is a much more difficult type of decision for an umpire, it’s probable that any experiment with extending the use of technology in International matches will take place in this realm rather than LBW.
Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.
LBW is a bit unique in that the rule obviously needs to be in place, but even after multiple replays it can be hard to tell whether a close decision was right or not, in contrast to “over the line or not” decisions like run outs or stumpings. Goals in Soccer are more frequently in the latter category. I can appreciate why video referrals might take a while to gain acceptance in soccer, if they ever do at all. I just think that the technology and personnel (fourth official) are there now, so why not use them. Especially in Soccer where a single goal is often the deciding factor. With respect to the OP though, I don’t think that using video referees is a factor in whether a sport is popular in a particular country.
My pleasure.
Quite. But try convincing the neanderthals at FIFA.
But the talk about needing more accurate decisions in football seems to not just be about goals. Penalties, offsides etc. are in the same category as LBW, and are far more common causes for contentious decisions.
Agreed. And perhaps even the difference in attitudes to on-the-spot human decision making doesn’t explain it, either - am I right in thinking that baseball relies on it?
Just thought i’d resurrect this thread to link to an article about soccer from the neocons at the Weekly Standard.
So there you have it. Soccer as bellwether of civilizational decline.
Ha! I knew it!
Funny thing is, this section precisely misses the point:
Bolding mine.
In my opinion, scoring goals in soccer is profoundly important. The fact that so few are scored makes each one of monumentally greater importance than a score in football or basketball or even baseball. Far from being incidental, scoring is absolutely central to soccer, because a single score can change the whole match.
I would go so far as to consider it critical for winning the match.
The bit where only Americans are supposed to have any reason to live is amusing, though. “Americans still believe the world makes sense, that life has a larger meaning and structure, that being is not an end in itself, being qua being”.
“Qua”? Pretentious, moi?
I’m sure that this has already been covered but I just wanted to chime in on the aspect of “diving”.
“Diving” happens in other sports as well (the NBA leaps to mind) but not nearly to the extent it does in soccer.
There’s no way that I (and I can’t be the only one) could be a fan of a player that does this or a team that condones it to such a degree.
That being said, go Portugal! 
Maybe the author heard sentiments from soccer fans along these lines:
Or, more directly:
Added to meet post length minimum. VB logic sucks rocks.
I’m sure you’re proud of what you see as a “gotcha” moment, but there is, in fact, no inconsistency in seeing scoring as central to soccer, on the one hand, and arguing that it is not the only reason to watch, on the other.
In fact, the two can quite easily go together. The back and forth of the game is, in my opinion, made more exciting by the fact that any scoring opportunity is so potentially crucial to the outcome. The absence of a goal does not negate the excitement of end to end play and scoring opportunities.
I don’t think that scoring is as essential to sports excitement. American’s are very well entertained watching a pitcher throw a shutout at a baseball game and also watching scoreless innings go by as long as the game is played well.
What I think is missing from soccer is a sense of “progress”. The ball can be kicked to any other point on the field, legally, by any player. What is there to root for between scores? That your team got the ball to the other end of the field? What good is that when one defender can erase all of that progress with a half-hearted kick that sends it all the way back?
In football there’s an obvious progression down the field with stunning and dramatic plays to get there. With baseball there is a progression around the bases (without scoring). With basketball there is less progression but more scoring and even there, the ball can’t be taken back across halfcourt once it is crossed.
In hockey, if the defense sends the puck all the way back down the ice, an icing penalty is called resulting in a faceoff in the defense’s zone.
When I watch soccer (and I know that this is just because I don’t understand it well enough) i simply see the ball ranging all over the field and nothing really gets me excited unless the ball is close to the goal. There’s no “progress” for me to root for otherwise. I have no feel for which team is “winning” in a 0-0 match other than a vague notion of how much time the ball has been on either end of the field on average or maybe keeping a count of shots on goal.
Like I said, i know that I just don’t understand soccer well enough but I’m trying to illuminate more reasons why American’s might not see its beauty.
One of the many things I suggest you look for is when a long pass falls near a player of each team and they battle for position to win the ball and get it back to a teammate. Also look for defenders pushing the ball-handlers out of where they want to go through positioning; defensive play is a fine balance between trying not to give up yardage and trying not to overcommit and get burned. Basically if you like watching basketball and understand the way defense is played in it, look for similar stuff in soccer. Watch for defenders marking dangerous forwards who are seemingly out of the play, and then diffusing a scoring chance by getting in the perfect position to tap away the Killer Assist Pass.
Another easy thing to pay attention to is the actual formation of how many of each position a team plays. The USA played a 4-5-1, with four defensemen, five midfielders and Brian McBride as the lone striker; watch how teams playing the 4-5-1 try to push one or two attacking midfielders up into the action, or use the forwards to distract the defense from a surprising midfield attack and vice versa. Another popular formation, the 4-4-2, has (you can probably figure out) four defenders, four midfielders and two forwards; pay attention to the relative positions the two strikers take, and how certain midfielders will press forward or drop back to turn the formation into kind of an improvised 4-2-2-1 or 4-3-1-1 or even 4-1-3-1. Also watch how the coaches use substitutions to tweak their formation late in the game; for example, subbing a forward in for a midfielder to turn a 4-5-1 into a 4-4-2, and then the other team tries to shift around to accommodate.
Also check out a book called Soccer for Dummies; you’ll gain a much better appreciation of the ins and outs of what goes on between the penalty boxes. I read that book when I was starting to get into the game and it was really helpful; I believe it was written by Alexi Lalas, a former US national team star. (I could be wrong, maybe he just wrote the foreword, but I think he wrote the book itself.)
As to that being a reason it’s not popular in the US, at least as compared to other countries–I think more so than that, the direct reason is because people don’t know what to watch for. We grow up being told what to look for in basketball, football, baseball, hockey (some of us), etc.