An observation about soccer....

[T-Scorp]

Just a couple of thoughts.....

 

Isn't one of the reasons it is so popular world wide is that it was developed in England and they basically colonized the whole world and brought it with them? I mean wouldn't baseball or basketball be more popular if the US colonized the world? I believe one of the reasons baseball is so popluar in Japan was because of the US occupation of Japan after WW2...

 

My 10 year old is on a travel soccer team so I have actually watched quite a few soccer games lately. While it is a simple sport it does take a lot of athletism. Unlike football where you get to regoup after every play the is constant ebbs and flows.

 

If you think about the scoring a football game that is 21 to 14 is actually 3 scores to 2. Football awards more points per score. You could give 1 point for a FG and 2 points for a TD and you would have "lower" scores but the same amount of scoring plays.

 

I think most of us want to see more scoring chances not just more scores. A great stop is as cool as a great goal.

[Ursa Majoris]

Just a couple of thoughts.....

 

Isn't one of the reasons it is so popular world wide is that it was developed in England and they basically colonized the whole world and brought it with them? I mean wouldn't baseball or basketball be more popular if the US colonized the world? I believe one of the reasons baseball is so popluar in Japan was because of the US occupation of Japan after WW2...

In a word, no. Consider - the British colonized India yet India barely plays soccer at all. It was the Spanish and Portuguese that colonized South America, not the British. And it's a European passion - Britain hasn't had a possession in Europe since roughly the 16th century, except for the odd World War or two.

 

It's an international game, spread by a large number of European countries despite the fact that the British codified it.

[Chief Dick]

If you think about the scoring a football game that is 21 to 14 is actually 3 scores to 2. Football awards more points per score. You could give 1 point for a FG and 2 points for a TD and you would have "lower" scores but the same amount of scoring plays.

 

I think most of us want to see more scoring chances not just more scores. A great stop is as cool as a great goal.

 

This is actually a great point and one I have not thought of before.

[darin3]

This is actually a great point and one I have not thought of before.

+1,000,000,000,000,0003

 

We do see quite a few "low-scoring" football games. And what about baseball? Pitching duels are relished by baseball "purists".

 

I think people just like complaining about shiz.

[Big John]

+1,000,000,000,000,0003

 

We do see quite a few "low-scoring" football games. And what about baseball? Pitching duels are relished by baseball "purists".

 

I think people just like complaining about shiz.

Or 10,000,000,000,000,003 for correct comma placement

[detlef]

This is actually a great point and one I have not thought of before.

It is a great point. However, a 21-14 football game is often seen as a somewhat defensive game. Where 3-2 in soccer is pretty much a shootout. So it's not quite the same.

 

I think a more important point to bring up in comparing the two is that US football has the consolation prize of a FG for a good drive you couldn't quite finish. And those points add up. Meanwhile, a great offensive series that almost, but doesn't quite result in the ultimate goal in soccer ends up with exactly as many points as never even crossing midfield. Think about what the scores in soccer would be if teams got a half point for every time they had a great chance to get the ball in the net but didn't manage.

 

ETA: Not for a second saying that should be the case in soccer, btw.

Edited June 22, 2010 by detlef

[Azazello1313]

I don't really think anyone's fooled by the numbers, thinking football is "higher scoring" because you get 7 points versus 1 for soccer. I mean, go ahead and get back to me if 40% of the NFL games this season end in 7-7 ties.

[Ursa Majoris]

I don't really think anyone's fooled by the numbers, thinking football is "higher scoring" because you get 7 points versus 1 for soccer. I mean, go ahead and get back to me if 40% of the NFL games this season end in 7-7 ties.

It does help that teams only need to cross a line that is 56 yards long in football while in soccer they must not only get the ball into an 8 yard wide slot, it has to be under eight feet at the same time. Football has a ten yard zone to drop the ball into.

[detlef]

It does help that teams only need to cross a line that is 56 yards long in football while in soccer they must not only get the ball into an 8 yard wide slot, it has to be under eight feet at the same time. Football has a ten yard zone to drop the ball into.

Or, again the fact that, despite how much easier it is to close the deal in football, you get almost half as many points if your drive fizzles out inside the other team's 30 yard line.

[Big John]

It does help that teams only need to cross a line that is 56 yards long in football while in soccer they must not only get the ball into an 8 yard wide slot, it has to be under eight feet at the same time. Football has a ten yard zone to drop the ball into.

53 1/3 yards

[Azazello1313]

It does help that teams only need to cross a line that is 56 yards long in football while in soccer they must not only get the ball into an 8 yard wide slot, it has to be under eight feet at the same time. Football has a ten yard zone to drop the ball into.

 

a basketball hoop is 18 inches. outside the context of the game itself, the size of the goal is totally irrelevant.

[Ursa Majoris]

a basketball hoop is 18 inches. outside the context of the game itself, the size of the goal is totally irrelevant.

The accuracy of some NBA players is truly astounding. I wonder how good it would be if they were not allowed to catch it first but had to divert it while it was moving.

[Ursa Majoris]

53 1/3 yards

My bad.

[T-Scorp]

The accuracy of some NBA players is truly astounding. I wonder how good it would be if they were not allowed to catch it first but had to divert it while it was moving.

 

 

You mean like a tip in???

[Ursa Majoris]

You mean like a tip in???

Every goal a tip in......now that would be something.

[T-Scorp]

Every goal a tip in......now that would be something.

 

 

Every soccer goal is not a redirected ball is it??? I mean some are just kicks aren't they? Granted they can't catch the ball first but high level soccer players can stop the ball and then kick it with some wicked spin!!

[gbpfan1231]

Here is another observation and I will admit I have not played soccer at any real competitive level.

 

It sure seems these guys miss a lot of shots by a huge margin - even some free kicks miss the net by some 20-30 yards. I think the Algerians had 19-20 shots and 4 on target? That is only 20% going where you actually aimed. I know these guys are supposedly great athletes and the best in the world at what they do but it sure seems like it should be a tad easier to get more shots actually on goal????

[Ursa Majoris]

Here is another observation and I will admit I have not played soccer at any real competitive level.

 

It sure seems these guys miss a lot of shots by a huge margin - even some free kicks miss the net by some 20-30 yards. I think the Algerians had 19-20 shots and 4 on target? That is only 20% going where you actually aimed. I know these guys are supposedly great athletes and the best in the world at what they do but it sure seems like it should be a tad easier to get more shots actually on goal????

I think this is more yet another illustration of just how difficult scoring a goal really is.

[Seahawks21]

I think I got my finger on why I don't personally believe that I find soccer to be as exciting to watch as other sports. Basically, I prefer to watch sports to see a bunch of things that I can't do. Tiger's 3-wood around the tree, over the water, up the chute..can't do that. Randy Moss going up over two defenders and coming down with a one-hander..can't do that. Rajon Rondo going over the top of two seven footers for a tip-in, can't do that. Prince Fielder taking a 92MPH splitter on the outer half off the end of the bat and going oppo over the fence, can't do that.

 

I'm not saying there aren't some amazing things in soccer that I can't do, because there are, but they seem to be a lot more rare than in most of the other sports. For nearly the entire soccer game, guys are trapping the ball and kicking it 20 yards to a teammate. The teammate then traps the ball and kicks it to another teammate. I can do these things. There are a few instances where the athlete does something absolutely amazing, some kind of stutter move where he uses his left foot to kick the ball to his right foot over another guy who is sliding for the ball, then goes back to his left foot to get around another defender, then while falling off-balance they whip a bending shot around a defender into the corner of the goal. It happens, but only a handful of times every game. There are only a few instances in a soccer game where a player does something that appears to the untrained eye to be utterly amazing, and would lead me to believe that if I was in good shape, I couldn't do what that guy on tv just did.

[i_am_the_swammi]

For nearly the entire soccer game, guys are trapping the ball and kicking it 20 yards to a teammate. The teammate then traps the ball and kicks it to another teammate. I can do these things.

 

Much harder than you think. If you aren't a soccer player, try this: go outside, and have some drive a soccer ball at you from 20 yards away, and you try to trap it under control close to your body. I bet you can do it 1 out of 15 times, at best. Then try the opposite: hit a target the width of a man from 20 yards away in the air, most times while that target is moving. I bet you can do it 1 out of 25 times, at best. Put them togheter, and you have an exceptionally difficult pass for the average person.

 

Maybe it just seems easy because the guys on the field doing it are so skilled? I watch basketball, and marvel at how well the guys can dribble, pass, shoot and dunk. I can't do any of those things anywhere close to the pros. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate what they are doing, though.

[Azazello1313]

I think I got my finger on why I don't personally believe that I find soccer to be as exciting to watch as other sports. Basically, I prefer to watch sports to see a bunch of things that I can't do. Tiger's 3-wood around the tree, over the water, up the chute..can't do that. Randy Moss going up over two defenders and coming down with a one-hander..can't do that. Rajon Rondo going over the top of two seven footers for a tip-in, can't do that. Prince Fielder taking a 92MPH splitter on the outer half off the end of the bat and going oppo over the fence, can't do that.

 

I'm not saying there aren't some amazing things in soccer that I can't do, because there are, but they seem to be a lot more rare than in most of the other sports. For nearly the entire soccer game, guys are trapping the ball and kicking it 20 yards to a teammate. The teammate then traps the ball and kicks it to another teammate. I can do these things. There are a few instances where the athlete does something absolutely amazing, some kind of stutter move where he uses his left foot to kick the ball to his right foot over another guy who is sliding for the ball, then goes back to his left foot to get around another defender, then while falling off-balance they whip a bending shot around a defender into the corner of the goal. It happens, but only a handful of times every game. There are only a few instances in a soccer game where a player does something that appears to the untrained eye to be utterly amazing, and would lead me to believe that if I was in good shape, I couldn't do what that guy on tv just did.

 

dumb post.

[Gopher]

Here's a question I have... From the standings, it appears as though Japan only needs a tie (or win) to advance. The only way they can not advance would be to lose today to Denmark. Meanwhile, Denmark has a worse goal differential than Japan, and MUST win to advance. In a situation like that, does the team (Japan) drastically change their approach to the game? In other words, I know they're going to play more conservatively, knowing that they can advance with a tie, while their opponent must win to advance. But, will their strategy change completely, where they just sit back in defense mode all game? In football, we say that a team must play to win, not play "not to lose." Does that apply to soccer as well, or does the strategy of playing "not to lose" definitely have it's place in the World Cup, given the format/point system?

 

I think I know the answer to this (which is that, yes, playing not to lose definitely does have it's place in this event). But, does that mean that Japan will likely shrink back to their side of the field/pitch, and essentially make very little effort to score? Or, will their strategy adjustments be more minimal, where they still play to score, but with taking less chances that may cost them? It seems like soccer is somewhat similar to boxing/MMA, strictly in the sense that a lot of opportunities are generated off of the "counter-punch"... in other words, you get scoring opportunities as a result of your opponent being aggressive, offensively, themselves. Knowing this, will Japan make any aggressive attempts to score, given that it may come back to bite them? Or will they play today's match like Thales Leites or Damian Maia vs. Anderson Silva, and just do the soccer equivalent of laying on the ground, in order to avoid being knocked out?

[Seahawks21]

Much harder than you think. If you aren't a soccer player, try this: go outside, and have some drive a soccer ball at you from 20 yards away, and you try to trap it under control close to your body. I bet you can do it 1 out of 15 times, at best. Then try the opposite: hit a target the width of a man from 20 yards away in the air, most times while that target is moving. I bet you can do it 1 out of 25 times, at best. Put them togheter, and you have an exceptionally difficult pass for the average person.

 

Maybe it just seems easy because the guys on the field doing it are so skilled? I watch basketball, and marvel at how well the guys can dribble, pass, shoot and dunk. I can't do any of those things anywhere close to the pros. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate what they are doing, though.

Come on, it isn't that difficult. If I practice for three hours I doubt I'd have much trouble trapping and passing the ball. I do concede that it is much more difficult to do with your feet than with your hands, but leading a moving target isn't exclusive to soccer. You have to do the same thing with every football pass and most basketball passes, you just get to use your hands instead of your feet. A halfway decent athlete can trap the ball and pass it again without too much trouble. Not at the level of the guys in the world cup obviously, but much more closely to their level than you would be able to get to if you were at bat against a major league pitcher, blocking a defensive end, or trying to score on Ron Artest. I've got about zero shot at any of those things. I've got a much higher chance at being able to trap and pass the ball. Again, I could never claim to do some of the freakish things that you see on the pitch, but I just don't think they happen all that often.

 

I actually have a tiny bit of personal experience with this. Granted, this is a little kids story, so it has to be tempered tremendously, but when I was ten years old, I had never played a minute of soccer in my life, other than a little bit at recess. There was a national skills contest that you could compete for in your local youth league. My next door neighbor was one of the people in charge of coordinating this, so I got to enter for free. She thought I was the same age as her son, so she put me in the U-12 group. There were about 500 soccer players in the group, all two years older than me, most of whom had played soccer since they were about five. I ended up getting third in the skills contest and was invited to the regional competition, but was unable to compete because I wasn't affiliated with a team. My point being that a decent athlete can do most of the things that occur in soccer. I'm not sure you can say that about many other sports.

 

I watch an American Football game, and there are at least a few dozen times every game when I say "wow, that was amazing!". Same with basketball and to a lesser extent baseball. It seems with soccer, I only say that a handful of times per game. I understand that there is a small amount of the game that I don't understand fully, but this isn't my first rodeo. I've watched hundreds of soccer matches over the years, so I'm not completely oblivious either. Just my two cents as to why the average American sports fan is a bit bored by soccer. I'd gladly entertain other theories.

Edited June 24, 2010 by Seahawks21

[i_am_the_swammi]

does that mean that Japan will likely shrink back to their side of the field/pitch, and essentially make very little effort to score? Or, will their strategy adjustments be more minimal, where they still play to score, but with taking less chances that may cost them? It seems like soccer is somewhat similar to boxing/MMA, strictly in the sense that a lot of opportunities are generated off of the "counter-punch"... in other words, you get scoring opportunities as a result of your opponent being aggressive, offensively, themselves. Knowing this, will Japan make any aggressive attempts to score, given that it may come back to bite them? Or will they play today's match like Thales Leites or Damian Maia vs. Anderson Silva, and just do the soccer equivalent of laying on the ground, in order to avoid being knocked out?

 

I'd compare it very similarly to ice hockey, when a team plays defensively while protecting a lead, and generates its offense when their opponent over-commits while trying to score. I definitely don't think you'll see many Japanese defenders or midfielders making an overlapping run to create offense while potentially leaving their side of the field weakened.

 

Japan will likely play a 4-4-2, or a 4-5-1, just to ensure they have more of a defensive posture, and pack in the midfield to try to ensure Denmark can't control the flow for the entire 90 mintues.

[Ursa Majoris]

Much harder than you think.

There are a couple of other things that aren't apparent to the casual watcher - speed and power. I once by accident found myself in goal against a German Bundesliga player and the power with which that professional hit the ball was a universe away from what Joe Schmoe can produce in the back yard. Also, the game is amazingly fast down at pitch level even if it doesn't appear to be so from the armchair.