An observation about soccer....

[gbpfan1231]

You couldn't be more wrong.

 

Seattle Sounders are attracting hugh crowd at Qwest field in Seattle and the MLS is a pretty big success - Goin to go out on a limb and guess most of them are casual fans and not wannt-be hipster cake-eating soccer experts

 

I love this argument - the simplest sport ever invented on the planet but you have to have played the game to understand it - comical

 

sophisticated? enlighten me please - soccer is tic tac toe compared to other sports

 

get the f outta here with this nonsense

I was going to ask the same thing but was going to try and ask it a bit nicer.

 

In some other post someone mentioned the intricasies of soccer. Could someone elaborate on that?? I do see that there are set plays from free kicks but the majority of the game seems to be going from end to end with no real strategy??? I am sure that it is more complicated than what I am seeing but I just can't see it??

 

It seems as the defense has 9-10 guys back and the offense has 7-8 guys forward (leaving a couple back as defense) it seems to be just so defensive which I am thinking makes a lot of people say boring.

[untateve]

I was going to ask the same thing but was going to try and ask it a bit nicer.

 

In some other post someone mentioned the intricasies of soccer. Could someone elaborate on that?? I do see that there are set plays from free kicks but the majority of the game seems to be going from end to end with no real strategy??? I am sure that it is more complicated than what I am seeing but I just can't see it??

 

It seems as the defense has 9-10 guys back and the offense has 7-8 guys forward (leaving a couple back as defense) it seems to be just so defensive which I am thinking makes a lot of people say boring.

 

In the first round of the World Cup, teams are more often than not trying not to lose rather than trying to win. This is because the top two teams from each group advance. Once we get past this round, we get to the "knock-out" round where you lose and you go home. Another problem for teams in World Cup play--they don't play together as a team on a regular basis. By way of example, it's kind of like the USA basketball team in the Olympics. Individually, the players are great--as a team, they don't always play great because they don't each other that well.

 

Put simply, soccer is about creating chances. Some teams focus a bit more on the long ball...kick and chase. Some focus more on precise passing and working a ball up the field. Some teams mark tightly, others give more room.

 

As I started typing this, I realized I could type forever.

[Ursa Majoris]

I am sure that it is more complicated than what I am seeing but I just can't see it??

Soccer doesn't really have the strategy that our own football has. Ours is pretty similar to chess in many ways whereas soccer obviously flows more. There are many many reasons soccer is different to American sports - one is the absence of timeouts and the reduced role of the head coach once the game starts.

 

As far as seeing the strategy, you have the same problem I have with hockey and, to a slightly lesser extent, with basketball. The former I just see a bunch of padded goons on skates bashing into each other, the latter I just see freakishly tall men jumping about. Presumably there's more to both sports than that but I am not a big enough fan to really care.

[untateve]

Information about soccer formations:

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/choo...-in-soccer.html

 

Basic Soccer Strategy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soccer_strategy

[Gopher]

I will say this about the game yesterday, which I wasn't able to watch until late last night (recorded it while I was at work)... The two goals that the U.S. did get credit for were pretty impressive. Donovan's was an absolute laser from an incredibly tough angle, and Bradley's was tougher than it first appeared, due to the timing of the kick off the bounce. Both absolutely clutch kicks, given the circumstances. Too bad the third one was taken away due to a phantom call. As bad as the referee was, though, they can only blame themselves for getting down 2-0 early.

 

One thing I don't really understand (and I'll admit that I haven't read anything today that might help explain it), but how does a referee take away what appeared to be a goal, and then give absolutely no explanation as to what happened (or what he thought happened, what he called, etc.)? In other words, when interviewed after the game, coach Bob Bradley apparently had no idea why the goal had been disallowed. That seems very strange to me... I just can't imagine that happening in any other sport. In other sports, a team may totally disagree with the call, but the referee will at least give an explanation as to what was called. In the game yesterday, it seemed as if everyone (coaches, players, announcers, fans) other than the referee himself had absolutely zero idea why the goal didn't count. Yet, they went about their business, almost as if it's fairly normal for that to happen in soccer. Is it normal for a call to be made, yet nobody really knows what that call was, until hours after the fact?

[SEC=UGA]

Penny Lane you all who don"t like soccer.

[Rovers]

First, soccer is the number one sport in the world. That is a fact. It is an international sport that regardless of the why's and why not's, it just is. The numbers prove that out as fact.

 

I think the sport is fun to watch, at least when talking Wolrd Cup. Yes, teams play to tie in the first round, and the format is bad. Then the referees are international, and enforce rules differently. What is a foul in England may not be one in Bolivia.

 

My problem with soccer is not the low scoring, or the idiotic belief that these are not incredibly gifted athletes, it is simpler than that.

 

They only play the world cup every 4 years. The best players, playing for the world title. With the NFL, NBA, MLB or NHL, these sports have the best players in the world, and they play for a title very year. So what if Manchesater United wins the English soccer championship? That might be like winning a division title in the National League, or a division title in he NFL East. Nice, but NOT world championships.

 

In this country, we only pay attention to soccer during the world cup. Why? Because it is for the world championhship. The NBA finals are for the wolrd championship, so is the world series and the super bowl. The best in their sport playing every year for the WORLD championship. Soccer only plays for the world championship every four years. All these other leagues are like playing minor league baseball. Who cares who might win the title in the USA's soccer league? Only the players. It isn't a WORLD championship.

 

That is IMO the reason soccer has never gained the populaitry here that it enjoys elsewhere. Americans want to see their sports teams play against the best, beat the best, and win a WORLD title. If FIFA got a regular world league together, and played for the world cup every year, I thinkl soccer in this country would expolode. Who follows olympic sports between the time they play the olympics? We don't care. We wasnt to see the best players play for the world title. FIFA needs to create an international league, with the world cup on the line every year.

[detlef]

One thing I don't really understand (and I'll admit that I haven't read anything today that might help explain it), but how does a referee take away what appeared to be a goal, and then give absolutely no explanation as to what happened (or what he thought happened, what he called, etc.)? In other words, when interviewed after the game, coach Bob Bradley apparently had no idea why the goal had been disallowed. That seems very strange to me... I just can't imagine that happening in any other sport. In other sports, a team may totally disagree with the call, but the referee will at least give an explanation as to what was called. In the game yesterday, it seemed as if everyone (coaches, players, announcers, fans) other than the referee himself had absolutely zero idea why the goal didn't count. Yet, they went about their business, almost as if it's fairly normal for that to happen in soccer. Is it normal for a call to be made, yet nobody really knows what that call was, until hours after the fact?

That is a good point. It's nice to see the ref in Football mic'd up in the middle of the field breaking down his take on what went down. As opposed to, "well something went down that I didn't like but I'm not saying." Of course, one of the nicer things about soccer than US football is the fact that they don't stop the damned game so freaking often and having the refs explain every freaking call would do that.

[Miner]

They only play the world cup every 4 years. The best players, playing for the world title. With the NFL, NBA, MLB or NHL, these sports have the best players in the world, and they play for a title very year. So what if Manchesater United wins the English soccer championship? That might be like winning a division title in the National League, or a division title in he NFL East. Nice, but NOT world championships.

 

In this country, we only pay attention to soccer during the world cup. Why? Because it is for the world championhship. The NBA finals are for the wolrd championship, so is the world series and the super bowl. The best in their sport playing every year for the WORLD championship. Soccer only plays for the world championship every four years. All these other leagues are like playing minor league baseball. Who cares who might win the title in the USA's soccer league? Only the players. It isn't a WORLD championship.

 

Until the NBA champs play the champs from leagues in South America, Europe, China, etc. they are not world champions. Granted they would wipe the floor with any of them but they've only won the US domestic league title. The only basketball competition that truly involves all those around the world is the Olympics.....every 4 years. The same thing can be said about baseball (insert World Baseball Classic for the Olympics).

 

In soccer there is a Club World Cup every year for the champions of each of the 6 continental confederations (UEFA Champions League, Copa Libertadores, etc.). It's not really a huge deal to the big European clubs, but there is, essentially, a Club World Champion every year.

Edited June 20, 2010 by Miner

[Gopher]

That is a good point. It's nice to see the ref in Football mic'd up in the middle of the field breaking down his take on what went down. As opposed to, "well something went down that I didn't like but I'm not saying." Of course, one of the nicer things about soccer than US football is the fact that they don't stop the damned game so freaking often and having the refs explain every freaking call would do that.

I'm not even saying that the ref should have stopped play to explain what happened. But, did he even make any sort of signal, as to what he was calling? It just seemed very strange to me... No signal, the announcers not really sure what was called, and even after the game, it seemed as if everybody still had no idea why the goal had been disallowed. To make it worse, although there was a lot of contact both ways (as there usually is in front of the box), the replays actually indicated that Slovenia might have been the team that should have been called for something, not the U.S. Now there is apparently an investigation, involving the referee and whether or not he is going to work any more WC games. Crazy.

[darin3]

Donovan's was an absolute laser from an incredibly tough angle, and Bradley's was tougher than it first appeared, due to the timing of the kick off the bounce.

The angle of Donovan's blast was wicked. I was never much of a Donovan fan, but man, he seems to always be right in the thick of things when it comes to American soccer. He's quickly becoming one of the best - if not the best - American soccer players ever.

 

And on Bradley's goal, you gotta give some credit to the absolute money, on-point header assist from Altidore. That was sick.

[montster]

I'm not even saying that the ref should have stopped play to explain what happened. But, did he even make any sort of signal, as to what he was calling? It just seemed very strange to me... No signal, the announcers not really sure what was called, and even after the game, it seemed as if everybody still had no idea why the goal had been disallowed. To make it worse, although there was a lot of contact both ways (as there usually is in front of the box), the replays actually indicated that Slovenia might have been the team that should have been called for something, not the U.S. Now there is apparently an investigation, involving the referee and whether or not he is going to work any more WC games. Crazy.

 

just going by espn's coverage of the non-goal, fifa does not require referees to explain their calls. and this particular referee didn't. so no one really knows what he saw.

[Gopher]

First, soccer is the number one sport in the world. That is a fact. It is an international sport that regardless of the why's and why not's, it just is. The numbers prove that out as fact.

I don't think anybody is disputing that. But, when people infer that soccer is the holy of holies, compared to all other sports, simply because of the fact that it's the most "popular" sport in the world, I can't help but scratch my head. Most played sport in the world, no doubt. But, most popular? I guess that's a matter of how you define popularity... A big chunk of the world has no other options, at least in terms of what we consider to be the major sports. If you don't find it a bit curious as to why it's so popular in some countries, yet not so much here, so be it. I do, and felt that it might be worth "discussing."

 

All I'm saying is this... We live in the country that is arguably more advanced and diverse than any other, in terms of how many sports are played, on a national/league level. Soccer is not as popular here as it is in many other countries... I think we can all agree to that. Yet, as others have stated, it's still as popular as ever in many other parts of the world. I find that interesting... Are we (the U.S.) ahead of the rest of the world, in terms of our sporting "diversity"? Or, are we Americans simple-minded in the sense that we need more action/scoring to really get into a sport? I don't really buy either one of those explanations, to be honest, but that doesn't mean that I don't still wonder what the real reason is. I do agree with you that playing the World Cup more often than every four years MIGHT help its popularity here in the U.S., but there's got to be more to it than just that.

[Gopher]

The angle of Donovan's blast was wicked. I was never much of a Donovan fan, but man, he seems to always be right in the thick of things when it comes to American soccer. He's quickly becoming one of the best - if not the best - American soccer players ever.

 

And on Bradley's goal, you gotta give some credit to the absolute money, on-point header assist from Altidore. That was sick.

No doubt. The pass was great. All I was saying was that the kick was more difficult than it seemed at first glance. Tough kick to time, and I've seen similar opportunities in this WC botched by ill-timed kicks.

 

Donovan's was amazing... I still can't believe he found a hole to get that one through. It didn't hurt that it was an absolute missile... the goalkeeper had no chance.

[Gopher]

just going by espn's coverage of the non-goal, fifa does not require referees to explain their calls. and this particular referee didn't. so no one really knows what he saw.

Strange. That would be like an NBA ref waiving off a basket, but not explaining why.

 

Player - Did I travel? Offensive foul? Three seconds in the lane? Shot clock violation?

 

Ref - No basket, son.

 

Player - What happened?

 

Ref - White ball. Here we go....

 

Player - But, what did you call?

 

Ref - No basket.

 

[Ursa Majoris]

I'm not even saying that the ref should have stopped play to explain what happened. But, did he even make any sort of signal, as to what he was calling?

Yes he did signal it. He extended his arm just above the horizontal, pointing in the direction Slovenia were attacking. That was the referee's signal for a foul on the US. We can all dispute the call for sure but he did signal what he was giving.

 

FIFA disapprove of any signals whatsoever other than those mandated in the laws. They are very rigid on this and they do it, ironically, because the game is so international. Sticking to one set of signals with no divergence avoids confusion between countries and continents.

[Gopher]

Yes he did signal it. He extended his arm just above the horizontal, pointing in the direction Slovenia were attacking. That was the referee's signal for a foul on the US. We can all dispute the call for sure but he did signal what he was giving.

 

FIFA disapprove of any signals whatsoever other than those mandated in the laws. They are very rigid on this and they do it, ironically, because the game is so international. Sticking to one set of signals with no divergence avoids confusion between countries and continents.

Thanks for the clarification. So, it sounds like he did signal what the call was, but isn't necessarily obligated to say who (which player) the call was against. Either way, it didn't seem like anybody really knew for sure what the call was, other than that it was a foul against the US (even though one of their players was in a headlock, and another in a complete bear hug).

[Big John]

Until the NBA champs play the champs from leagues in South America, Europe, China, etc. they are not world champions. Granted they would wipe the floor with any of them but they've only won the US domestic league title. The only basketball competition that truly involves all those around the world is the Olympics.....every 4 years. The same thing can be said about baseball (insert World Baseball Classic for the Olympics).

Until 1986, the NBA called their finals the NBA World Championships, but isnow the "NBA Finals".

[Big John]

Now there is apparently an investigation, involving the referee and whether or not he is going to work any more WC games. Crazy.

He is the "4th Referee" in the current match.

[Ursa Majoris]

Thanks for the clarification. So, it sounds like he did signal what the call was, but isn't necessarily obligated to say who (which player) the call was against. Either way, it didn't seem like anybody really knew for sure what the call was, other than that it was a foul against the US (even though one of their players was in a headlock, and another in a complete bear hug).

I completely agree about the bear hugs, etc. Those were clear penalty offenses as soon as the ball was kicked. That said, you see similar offenses in most games (though, IMO, these were particularly egregious). I'm not trying to make excuses for the ref but it's possible he was screened from what was going on (refs always go to round about where he was) and he saw only some contact between Edu and a defender.

 

Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, FIFA has absolutely no right of appeal for match results and does at least show consistency in it's adherence to the referee being the final arbiter of all things, including (uniquely for a major sport), time management. Whether that's as it should be, it is the case.

[Seahawks21]

The EPL champion would be just as much of a world champion as the NBA Champ, Super Bowl Champ, or World Series champ.

 

It is funny, about a week ago I was having a conversation with myself about why it is that I just can't get into soccer. I, like most of the other detractors, came to the conclusion that my dislike was caused by a lack of scoring. Then I tried to think of ways to raise the scoring. The first thing I thought of was this offsides debate. I knew purists wouldn't like that a whole lot. So, how about this one...how about we take two players off the pitch? They almost need to make two versions of the game. One for the purists and one for Americans and people from other countries like the Philippines, where they won't even acknowledge soccer as a real sport because they think it is too boring. If you don't want your sport to become big in the USA, fine. If you want it to ever become a big deal here, you need to make it more exciting.

[Ursa Majoris]

The EPL champion would be just as much of a world champion as the NBA Champ, Super Bowl Champ, or World Series champ.

While I think the domestic habit here of calling the league champions world champions is not only laughable but embarrassing (except in football), there is no way on Earth the English Premier League champions can be confused with world champions. To achieve that, you need to win the European Champions League and then go on to win the tournament that Unta described earlier.

 

In any case, soccer fans consider only one world champion and that is at a national level, not a club level. The existence of a genuine world champion who has won a tournament that actually involves teams from other countries (which our domestic leagues do not, apart from a token from Canada) differentiates soccer (and rugby and cricket) from our sports. If we ever shake off our parochialism sufficiently to take more notice of the world basketball championships and the world baseball classic, we can start talking real world champions. It is necessary to play teams from other countries first.

[gbpfan1231]

I also want to add - why do these gheys wear those hair band things??

 

Miley Cirus called and wants her hair band thingys back.

[Big Country]

So, how about this one...how about we take two players off the pitch? They almost need to make two versions of the game.

 

They already have this with indoor soccer. There are a number of professional leagues throughout the US and the world. Smaller field, less players and much higher scoring. It is basically the Arena Football League of soccer.

[detlef]

So, I was thinking a bit more about offsides, in particular to why the fixed line works in hockey and started wondering why it wouldn't work in soccer. See, I actually haven't played the game with the exception of the occasional rec league since I was about 8. So, like others here, I'm a bit of an outsider. I just happen to like the game (though admittedly, I don't follow it all the time). To me, it's like hockey. Entertaining when I watch it but not enough to make me turn on a game unless there's something at stake.

 

At any rate, for most of the play of the game, a hard line, would likely be enough to prevent much of what the rule is intended to prevent. With one very major exception. Set plays. See, in hockey, there's no situation where a team is awarded a free pass. Every time there is a stoppage, even if that stoppage is the result of a penalty, play is resumed with a face off. If, in soccer, offsides worked the same way as hockey, then every time there was a free kick inside that line, the offensive teams could camp out a bunch of dudes right in front of the goalie and a really high number of those free kicks would result in goals. As it is, the D can prevent that by setting it's back line far enough from the end line to allow the goalie a bit of space.