The reason American sports fans dislike 0-0 ties in soccer (or hockey for that matter) is because we’ve been conditioned to expect a game to end with a winner. And if nobody scores, it seems like we just watched a bunch of people run (or skate) around for nothing. If we wanted this, we could go to our local HS and watch.
That’s a reason you dislike soccer. I’m as American as you are, and I think ties are great and that they should happen more often.
Engi-Quite right that I should’ve stipulated IMO.
– bolding mine.
"Conditioned’? By whom? I should think everyone has a mind of their own. As Enginerd says, I don’t mind ties at all during the regular season. All it means is that on the particular day no one team was better than the other – or else great water- dispenser talk about how “lucky” one team was.
That said, are you going to deny that there are plenty a lucky/undeserved wins?
Possession doesn’t always tell the story, though. If your team is conditioned to play with that tactic (Barcelona), then yes, possession is important. But if your team is conditioned to lump it forward and hit the big man at the top of the box (West Ham, often Liverpool), or to break down a midfield with through-balls (David Silva for Manchester City), possession only accounts for a small percentage of their game plan. I think debating the importance of time possession in the sport is a bit misleading.
Fury-Plenty of “lucky” wins. The 1st that came to mind could also be described as a “choke” the Giants costing the Patriots 19-0.
Well, it’s twice the number I labeled crazy, to be specific. And again, “a possession” isn’t exactly a universal currency.
OK, sure. But the math is about individual player possessions here, which is a different conversation. A one touch pass from teammate to teammate is worlds different from a change in possession. I don’t deny that most touches are brief touches. The ball moves a lot. Some of those touches must be headers and volleys and clearances. On top of that, it’s a big field and there’s a lot of people on it. That doesn’t mean that the flow of the game is being disrupted with all those short touches; it often means the opposite. That’s how the buildup in play is effected: the team with the ball moves it around and probes the defense looking for a way through. I don’t see how this is supporting the original premise that we’re arguing about, which is that every ten seconds the other team gets the ball. It’s like that scene in Hoosiers: how many passes before we shoot? More touches = less time per touch, but it doesn’t mean less control.
If you stop and think about it, even American football isn’t all that high scoring, since a touchdown is worth six points, and then you get the extra point with a field goal. If you go for just a field goal alone, it’s three points. Your average game has what, five touchdowns, maybe?
The NHL did away with tied games after the lockout.
Now THAT is one thing I am glad that the NHL changed. I HATE ties. I know shoot-outs aren’t to everyone’s tastes, but I love them – nothing is more chew-your-nails-down-to-the-bone than a good shoot-out. If the NHL decides to get rid of them, I’d hope they’ll at least keep OT until someone scores.
I am not a soccer fan at all – I find it dreadfully boring. BUT, that has nothing to do with the fact that it’s low scoring. It’s just not my thing.
Leave soccer and hockey the way they are.
“Possessions per team per game” means per team per game.
I don’t understand why you are arguing such a basic fact, especially given the stats that both you and I cited.
If a team, on average has possession of the ball for 19 seconds (using your MLS stats of 140 instead of EPL stats of 212), to me, that is a short duration.
It’s as simple as that.
90 minutes divided by the number of possessions per team=duration of possession, on average.
You are arguing something that is supported by the facts that both you and I cited.
You may think that 19 seconds is not really a short duration and doesn’t negatively impact the fan experience…but you should make that argument instead of arguing the facts that seem pretty clear.
If you’re going to take my responses to one thing and pretend they’re responses to something else, yes, you are probably going to think I should be making a different argument.
I may not be completely representative of all Americans. For the record, I think baseball is boring, too, and I played little league for several years and lots of pickup games when I got older, so I know it cold.
I didn’t pretend anything, I’m thoroughly confused by your response which seemed to take the term “possession” and start applying it to individuals or something.
I don’t get how you jumped from our discussion about rapid change in possession by a team, and the length of those possessions on average, to the post you made.
I mentioned the “per player” amount of time to further support the time per possession (fewer than 10 passes per possession on average and less than 2 seconds per player on average = less than 20 seconds per possession).
Recap:
I claim 10 seconds per possession (based on data from the specific pro games where I tracked it)
You think that’s “crazy”
EPL averages 12 seconds
MLS averages 19 seconds
-
Is my claim still “crazy” now that you’ve seen the data?
-
More importantly, and the question I was really asking, given the fact that soccer does have rapid possession changes on average (assuming we agree that 12 and 19 seconds on average is “rapid”), do you experience that feeling of excitement building during those short duration possessions, or do you get that feeling from some other aspect of the game that isn’t dependent on a possession?
But strategically, posession is measured by team, not player!
Players are supposed to PASS, not hog the ball! Who has the stupid idea that players are supposed to hug the… oh right.
I know you’re poking fun at American Football, but he was calculating the time of possession for the team, not per player.
Not in the post cited, he says “per player”. And I’m not poking fun at American Football (Rugby involves hugging the ball too), but at people who confuse their sports.
Yes, he did. That post continues past the comma.
a) Read the other posts
b) <2 seconds per player * <10 passes per possession = <20 seconds PER TEAM
Good post, Nava. But you never, ever mention Casillas w/out applying his fully earned title of “San” (Saint) prior to his first name: San Iker.
OTOH, I never quite figured out if Khan was fully human – never mind a Saint. 
As to the OP, ridiculous. In football you could have all eleven players line-up on the goal line and even an old fart such as myself could consistently score over their heads even while they jump. There’s a reason goalies are allowed to use their arms/hands: size of the goal and the reach of armless players.
Think of Monty Python’s armless Knight’s “flesh wound.”
Now see? There’s a post I have nothing against. I may kid and rib any number of (mostly Americans admittedly) people that w/out having any real understanding of The Beautiful Game, feel the scoring, rules, tactics, skills etc. are basically pointless/worthless. But the bottom line for me is watch what you damn please and leave the others alone – especially the HUGE MAJORITY of us that find fútbol the world’s most exciting sport.
Only two ways to die: having insane sex with your favorite object of desire or watching your National Team score the winning goal at the World Cup Final in the 120th minute of OT. I came close to the latter in SA 2010. 
Hey, in hockey, considering all the stuff the Lord Stanley’s been through (some we probably don’t even want to know about), I’m guessing there are people who could do both at the same time.