Good grief, where to start? Your assessment is so blinkered that it is hard to take seriously.
You lose all credibility in the first sentence by stating that “kicking and heading just isn’t going to be accurate”. How many games have you watched? how many times have you played with decent players? What on earth do you consider “accurate” to be? When I have the ball at my feet and consider a cross-field pass to my team-mate 70 yards away…what accuracy do you think I’m looking for?
When I’m on the edge of the box and look to shoot what target do you think I’m aiming for?
Ultimately, at the end of a season the best team wins, that is the reward, not the individual game. That you can’t appreciate the long-term nature of the campaign is short-sightedness on your part.
Each game is a skirmish in which the objectively “better” team, may or may not win. The fact that each individual contest offers the possibility of upset provides
interest but the fact that the best teams always win out in the end provides integrity.
I find the best aspect of soccer, at least English club football, not sure if it happens in Spain etc, is the league promotion/demotion thing. In the US with football things always seemed odd when people started wanting their team to fail if they were having a bad season so far because, hey, last place means first draft pick.
It seems to mean more when your team could go down a whole league if they keep failing, and going down a league can mean a lot. The idea that in 15 years, while unlikely Liverpool, Arsenal, and MU could be down in league 2 somewhere and the Swindon Town Robins could be top of the Premiere League.
Not that I’m a huge fan of either sport, but I always felt that last aspect always made a team’s overall performance more exciting and meaningful in soccer.
Not foreign ones, but I think the attitude that Hail Ants and Bremidon are talking about is from domestic soccer fans.
There’s a particular crowd of American soccer lovers who seem to revel in bashing the traditional American sports and holding up soccer as a paragon of excellent sport, and saying exactly what Hail Ants and Bremidon mention as a reason why soccer is better.
It’s really no different than the kid who goes to Europe on a study abroad summer and comes back talking non-stop about how awesome it is in Europe and how we suck over here, only it’s about sports, and not culture.
The question is how tightly does the aforementioned goal relate to the quality of play.
Let’s take a complete crap-ass game developed by someone who doesn’t understand how games work - Quidditch. The game ends when someone catches the snitch, and earns 150 points. This is a battle between two Seekers. The other 12 people on the “field” are knocking each other to bits with bats and iron balls trying to score 10 points by throwing a ball through a hoop. The actions of these 12 players is essentially irrelevant to the outcome of the game. You have to be up 15 scores before being able to win when the other team catches the snitch, which they would never do at that point anyway. The vast majority of the good play on the field doesn’t change the outcome of the game, that sucks.
Ideally, you want the completion of the game’s goal to be heavily influenced by the quality of your play. There is a place for random chance, the tricky bounce, etc, but that should be of limited impact. The lower scoring the game is, the more influence random chance has on the outcome. To me, soccer is skirting the lower limit on the sheer number of scores per game necessary to have a viable sport.
In American sports, we often say that if you didn’t want to have a bad call ruin your game, you should have played better to begin with. It’s a lot harder to build up a 2 score lead to protect yourself from random chance when the sport averages only 3 scores per game.
Would soccer lose its charm if teams scored 5-8 times per game instead of 2-3? Let’s assume for the moment that the gameplay was largely unchanged, but that good play was more likely to result in an actual score than it currently does.
If you want to see some hackles raised, go to an American football board and suggest promotion/relegation. Even the U.S. soccer league doesn’t promote and relegate.
Money and preservation of traditional rivalries are usually given as reasons by opponents but I suspect a big part of it that they’d rather not admit is that they could not bear the thought of their teams’ banishment to a lower level – and the consequent requirement that it earn its way back up.
Well, promotion and relegation wouldn’t really work for American Football, if only because of the lack of a system of lower divisions to be relegated into.
However, I’ve long advocated (since I heard about the Euro soccer system) for promotion/relegation in baseball, hockey, and even basketball.
We’ll never see it happen though, because the player development systems are very different- minor league teams are usually affiliated with a major league team that controls the movement of players through the system, as opposed to the free-agent European system where teams are not affiliated, and players’ contracts are bought & sold freely. That, and the TV contracts are too big, and the major markets almost all have major league teams.
It might actually work best with college football, with its vast number of programs, though there are some very legitimate arguments against it in that sport as well. All of which could be overcome if we wanted to.
At the risk of diverting from your point about the role of chance in the outcome of a game, it’s pretty clear in the Harry Potter series that a) a team of talented Chasers can beat an excellent Seeker (e.g., in the Quidditch World Cup final in book 4), b) the total number of points scored by a team is relevant to the season standings over and above the outcome of the individual match (Hogwarts Quidditch in books 3, 5 and 6) and c) the Beaters’ performance is for the Seeker’s benefit as well as the Chasers’.
I’ve tried to get into the game before, because I figure I’m the flawed one. It’s probably even a very fun and engaging sport to play, but not so much to watch at home. When I see YouTube clips about great goals or great plays, they very often look like things that I could do. I suppose that’s also some of the allure of it? To be fair, some of these same accusations can accurately be made at basketball, hockey, or football as well.
Soccer is non-stop running and action in that sense, and Football has been so changed with the level of violence and TV time outs, and general game stoppages that it can be disengaging to get into it. Again, the same goes for basketball, especially late in close games.
You mean something like if a team’s at the bottom in the Big-12, they get relegated to the Sun Belt Conference or something like that, and some team from there gets promoted? And so on, down the line?
I think part of the reason that might not work is because the schools are more or less segregated by size- there are outliers, I know, but typically the biggest schools are also in the top conferences, and the lowest divisions are composed of the smallest schools.
The first thing we have to do is quit thinking in terms of conferences. The conferences are blowing themselves apart without anyone’s help and forming temporary alliances based mostly on financial potential. Location is increasingly less important. Fans may think that Neighbor State University is the big rivalry that must be maintained at all costs but the proliferation of games on TV and the online interaction of fans from everywhere makes it one big seething pool of national interest, one that is too big to revolve around Oklahoma-Texas or Alabama-Auburn. Everyone will watch but those games will just be part of a large pie.
So we might as well organize into something that recognizes geography but isn’t enslaved by either it or by anachronistic conference affiliations. Those larger schools can go play in one division but the failures among them should be replaced by the successful teams of the lower divisions. Down with the aristocracy, encourage class mobility instead. Hello, Boise, nice to see you in the big time; you’ve earned it. Good-bye, Maryland, see you later, Wake Forest. If you can start whipping Central Florida and Marshall on a regular basis, we’ll keep the light on for you.
In everyone else’s defense, there are maybe seven football fans in the nation that think like I do. Seven that haven’t been institutionalized yet, anyway.
Novelty Bobble - Well, you’re right in that I have absolutely no idea how good you are. I did play in a youth league for several years, though, on a very powerful squad, and if any of us ever got anything that could conceivably be considered an easy goal, I sure as hell didn’t witness it.
I’ll concede that it’s possible for most young players to get a goal if they have a reasonably large gap and time to set up the shot. That’s why no defense with half a brain allows this. Oh, you’ll see it at the peewee level, but not AYSO. A gap or time, maybe, but not both. So he’s covered, he needs to move around and find an opening, and he rushes the shot, or he hastily passes to another attacker and he has to run around and rush the shot, etc. Even if the defender is an out-of-shape, stumbling, unmotivated clod (never any shortage of those in AYSO, present company most definitely included), even if he couldn’t steal a Brussels sprout from a 3-year-old, he can still put his body in there and make things uncomfortable, and that’s often enough. If the shot barely clips his shoulder and sails one inch above the crossbar, goal successfully prevented. Yeah, yeah, corner kick…which, in my experience, generally leads to either 1. another corner kick or 2. the goalkeeper snagging it. Furthermore, while the attacker needs to hit a specific space, however large, to get the goal, all the defender has to do is rear back and blast it. If it goes out of bounds or straight to an opposing player, who cares, scoring threat averted.
Defense. Has. It. Too. Easy. Not digging this. Ever.
(And just so there are no further misunderstandings, I don’t like it when offense has it too easy either, with basketball being the perfect example.)
Feigning injury is the lowest of the low, I don’t need any other reason to not hate soccer other than the game is filled with, and promotes, diving. Half of these should deserve a lifetime ban from all sporting competition:
Because cheating is pretty much existent in all sports. And believe it or not, these incidents are considered exceptional, not the rule. I have watched many a game without them.
[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
When I see YouTube clips about great goals or great plays, they very often look like things that I could do. I suppose that’s also some of the allure of it?
[/QUOTE]
Have you tried playing? Because a guy who played says:
[QUOTE=DKW]
Defense. Has. It. Too. Easy.
[/QUOTE]
Seriously though, DKW, can I ask when you played? I’m curious because one of the criticisms I’ve read about US (and sometimes even English) soccer is that they put kids on competitive teams way too early which stunts their development. Kids face well organized defenses (which are easy to teach/drill) before any of them have the skills to beat them.
I’ve honestly never had the opportunity to do so. Its in my blood, though. Apparently, I have a relative that was supposedly an amazing soccer player in Scotland.
