Why Don't American's Like Soccer?

[birkenweg42]

Originally Posted by Wadcutter

From Monday's Late Show with David Letterman:

THE TOP TEN REASONS AMERICANS DON'T LIKE SOCCER:

10) Too many foreigners

9) Loud horns make it hard to nap through boring parts

8) Bench clearing brawls not as much fun without bats or sticks

7) No theme song asking if we are "ready for some soccer."

6) Not enough 'roids

5) Lots of players with umlauts in their names

4) Americans too busy reading

3) Doesn't have the heart-pounding action of a 5 hour baseball game

2) No TV timeouts means fewer snack breaks to stuff our fat faces

1) Too much kicking, not enough "rasslin"

Not a big fan of those smiley faces but this deserves one:

[airguitarro]

Things tend to change over time, and if soccer is not yet a major sport professionally speaking in the US, it certainly is the 1000 pound gorilla everywhere else in the world and has been so for a very long time. Somebody has already said that it is the no.1 sport in the US for the young. How many generations of Americans will go through that indoctrination before the tastes of the majority shift to soccer? If the nations are all still around in 30 years time, I wonder if soccer will also be the no.1 sport in the USA then.

[alanmurray]

USA 2 SLOVENIA 2

Well. I Don't know about you lot but this was a game that illustrates the watchability of Football (Soccer). I thought Team USA were magnificent and really won this game. Donavon is an Amazing player and so cool and level headed. The Skill and tenacity they showed was amazing. Never gave up. I'm still tipping Team USA to do well, IMHO they'll only get better....And when you've got International World Champs I'm sure you'll all sit up and take notice.

A; !!


ps: I'm totally ashamed to be English after last night....That was a game that was CERTAINLY not watchable...I could Cringe !!

[The Dude]

If the US fails to get into the next round, yesterday's debacle contains all the reasons why Americans have a hard time getting on board with soccer as a major spectator pastime.

Low scoring and the perceived impossibility of coming back from - GOSH - two goals. I guess if it had been 3-0 in the first half, FIFA would have invoked the mercy rule. Sorry for the sarcasm, but the lack of scoring isn't only about low scores, meaning if you don't think that even a very good team has a fighting chance, then what's the point? In the NFL, MLB, and NBA, teams routinely come back from big deficits. But, in soccer, if a mediocre team gets ahead 2-0 against a good team, it's just not the same.

Unfair officiating. Sorry, but there is a sense in America that international organizations tend to be corrupt. Yesterday's bad calls only reinforce the perception (fairly or not) that the sport is being run like a banana republic with no accountability. When a similar terrible call was made recently in the MLB, the umpire pleaded mea culpa in public, and the commissioner also weighed in. Not everyone was happy with the commissioner's decision, but at least there was a public airing of the laundry and everyone knew what was going on. Just not the case with yesterday's game where FIFA and the ref have gone ostrich.

All that being said, I have very much enjoyed watching the tournament and have had it on almost nonstop. The noise of the horns doesn't annoy me, I love the enthusiasm of the crowd and the players. I can appreciate the great athleticism, fitness and technique of the players. It really is a lot of fun and if I had some friends who were both more knowledgeable about the game and followed some of the international teams, I could see myself getting together to watch some games and learn more about the sport. But, left to my own devices, when it comes to watching a "regular" game, I'll be left with the reality of not enough scoring to keep my interest when all of the juicy extras of the World Cup are not present.

[ewalling]

Originally Posted by The Dude

But, left to my own devices, when it comes to watching a "regular" game, I'll be left with the reality of not enough scoring to keep my interest when all of the juicy extras of the World Cup are not present.

In a way, that's a pity because the World Cup is far from being the best that soccer can offer. The players are not used to playing with each other as a team, there's too much hype, and there's a fear of losing, all of which means that many of the games tend to be especially dull. Soccer can be a great game but we rarely see evidence of it in this competition.

[garywj]

Originally Posted by garywj

Boooooooring!!!

The wife and I ate out yesterday. In the restaurant there was a soccer game playing. I have a new observation. Not only is the game BOOOOOOOORING, but so are the announcers!

[Ells84]

Originally Posted by ewalling

In a way, that's a pity because the World Cup is far from being the best that soccer can offer. The players are not used to playing with each other as a team, there's too much hype, and there's a fear of losing, all of which means that many of the games tend to be especially dull. Soccer can be a great game but we rarely see evidence of it in this competition.

Yeah I pretty much agree. Although there have been a few decent games so far a large percentage of them have been pretty poor and not a particularly good advert for the game. I'm hoping the quality will pick up deeper into the tournament.

The Dude, regarding refereeing mistakes in soccer, unfortunately it's a big part of the game. It's common to see matches decided by controversial decisions by the referee and I agree with you that they should be held accountable and explain their actions, unfortunately though that rarely ever happens. I honestly don't think that corruption plays a part - Soccer hasn't really suffered from that as far as I can remember - I think it's more to do with incompetent officials. If your getting into soccer I suggest you try and watch some European domestic games. I may be biased but the English Premier League is widely seen as the best (or at least one of best) and most exciting leagues in the world. There are often close and high scoring games on show and I'm sure you would enjoy it. The Champions League can also throw up some great matches and is worth a look.

[The Dude]

Originally Posted by ewalling

In a way, that's a pity because the World Cup is far from being the best that soccer can offer. The players are not used to playing with each other as a team, there's too much hype, and there's a fear of losing, all of which means that many of the games tend to be especially dull. Soccer can be a great game but we rarely see evidence of it in this competition.

Very good points. As a fan of track and field, I know the same thing happens in the distance events in the Olympics, so I get exactly what you are saying.

Originally Posted by Ells84

Yeah I pretty much agree. Although there have been a few decent games so far a large percentage of them have been pretty poor and not a particularly good advert for the game. I'm hoping the quality will pick up deeper into the tournament.

The Dude, regarding refereeing mistakes in soccer, unfortunately it's a big part of the game. It's common to see matches decided by controversial decisions by the referee and I agree with you that they should be held accountable and explain their actions, unfortunately though that rarely ever happens. I honestly don't think that corruption plays a part - Soccer hasn't really suffered from that as far as I can remember - I think it's more to do with incompetent officials. If your getting into soccer I suggest you try and watch some European domestic games. I may be biased but the English Premier League is widely seen as the best (or at least one of best) and most exciting leagues in the world. There are often close and high scoring games on show and I'm sure you would enjoy it. The Champions League can also throw up some great matches and is worth a look.

I'll try to check those out. Thanks for the info.

[airguitarro]

TheDude,

Another thing that you can also do to enjoy soccer more is not to bring the same expectations that are on the table for gridiron or basketball. They are different games altogether and if you want the frenetic back and forth action of basketball for example in soccer, then you will miss out on what soccer really offers. Once you take the game on its own terms, IMHO you will begin to appreciate its essential nature more. I had that experience recently while watching rugby on TV - at first, I found it boring but after a while of figuring out what they were doing, I began to enjoy it for what it was.

In club soccer, the most exciting wall to wall sort of play is probably found in English Premiership football. Italian football tends IMHO to be more cautious and tactical and Spanish football is not as relentless as English football in its emphasis on speed, although the level of individual skill may be higher.

On referees, FIFA's logic is that the subjective decisions of the referee ought to be sacrosanct and that human error is part of the game. They resist the use of technology to help the referee for the very reasons that Americans love the use of slow motion replay etc to establish what really happened - because tha would bring in too many stops and starts to the game which they want to be as flowing as possible. Personally, I think that if the technology is used in a restrained and reasonable manner only in the last resort, it can help the referee a lot and prevent unnecessary controversy and feelings of being not treated fairly.

[ewalling]

Originally Posted by airguitarro

On referees, FIFA's logic is that the subjective decisions of the referee ought to be sacrosanct and that human error is part of the game. They resist the use of technology to help the referee for the very reasons that Americans love the use of slow motion replay etc to establish what really happened - because tha would bring in too many stops and starts to the game which they want to be as flowing as possible. Personally, I think that if the technology is used in a restrained and reasonable manner only in the last resort, it can help the referee a lot and prevent unnecessary controversy and feelings of being not treated fairly.

Yes, I think there's a different dynamic in operation, for better or worse. I grew up playing cricket and there is a scenario in that game in which the bowler, in trying to hit the wickets (the 3 sticks the batsman is protecting) hits the batsman's legs in instead. If the bowler believes that had it not been for the batsman's legs the ball would have hit the wickets, the bowler can appeal to the umpire that the batsman is 'out' and should leave the field.

This rule was clearly grounds for mistakes. But the philosophy was that while you may be unlucky one day, you'll be lucky and get away with it the next! Not the most cutting edge accuracy, certainly, and perhaps outmoded in times of big profits and salaries where mistakes can cost someone big-time. But maybe the referee system in soccer is a hangover from less fanatical times.

[airguitarro]

ewalling, yes, I think that must be why FIFA holds to it so strongly. Personally, I think it puts way too much weight on the referee's shoulders - in a game that stirs up so much passion that people have been killed for making mistakes during matches, that is not so good an idea. Also, billions are gambled in illegal syndicates on soccer worldwide, and that creates all kinds of unhealthy opportunities to unscrupulous people. Better for slow-motion to be allowed for difficult decisions where an outside referee disagrees with the on-pitch referee and the slow-motion is played.

I must admit that I myself have unfairly dismissed some sports as being boring - cricket being the primary example! But looking at it anew when football...sorry, "soccer" ...is seen in such a manner has been enlightening to me personally. Sports seem to touch us deeply and stir allegiances that are not entirely rational, if at all. Every game that is popular in various parts of the world cannot by definition be boring - it is only that people from other places have been "programmed" by their own cultural baggage to see that sport through the lens of their own favorite sport, and therefore are unable to see the beauty of that sport without first allowing that lens to be first removed. The great thing about it is that when we do that, we can understand others better and be understood better, and perhaps also understand ourselves too in the bargain.

[airguitarro]

Originally Posted by garywj

The wife and I ate out yesterday. In the restaurant there was a soccer game playing. I have a new observation. Not only is the game BOOOOOOOORING, but so are the announcers!

You need to watch some South American games on TV then. The announcers are at times more entertaining than the game itself especially s the game gets more exciting and close to a goal!

[The Dude]

Originally Posted by airguitarro

TheDude,

Another thing that you can also do to enjoy soccer more is not to bring the same expectations that are on the table for gridiron or basketball. They are different games altogether and if you want the frenetic back and forth action of basketball for example in soccer, then you will miss out on what soccer really offers. Once you take the game on its own terms, IMHO you will begin to appreciate its essential nature more. I had that experience recently while watching rugby on TV - at first, I found it boring but after a while of figuring out what they were doing, I began to enjoy it for what it was.

I have been doing that with these games and really have gained a greater appreciation of the sport. I especially enjoy how the lack of breaks contributes to a great fluidity in the game itself and allows the spectator to really become absorbed in the action. That being said, I still think low scoring is a big flaw in the game. Part of it is, as you say, my expectations as an American, but part of it is also the sense that there isn't a lot of opportunity for the team playing the best soccer/football to prevail. Just an observation, not a judgment.

In club soccer, the most exciting wall to wall sort of play is probably found in English Premiership football. Italian football tends IMHO to be more cautious and tactical and Spanish football is not as relentless as English football in its emphasis on speed, although the level of individual skill may be higher.

On referees, FIFA's logic is that the subjective decisions of the referee ought to be sacrosanct and that human error is part of the game. They resist the use of technology to help the referee for the very reasons that Americans love the use of slow motion replay etc to establish what really happened - because tha would bring in too many stops and starts to the game which they want to be as flowing as possible. Personally, I think that if the technology is used in a restrained and reasonable manner only in the last resort, it can help the referee a lot and prevent unnecessary controversy and feelings of being not treated fairly.

We have had the same arguments in America about replays - tradition, human errors being part of the game, slowing down the game, etc. My opinion is that the players should decide the game and the refs are there to ensure it is played fairly. Not every call should be second guessed, but questionable calls that can turn the game or an entire tournament should have some recourse in order to maintain fairness. Instant replay in football can and should be done much, much more quickly. It does slow the game down a bit, but the game is already so artificially slowed down by TV commercials that it's a joke to even bring up instant replay as the culprit (not saying you personally are suggesting that). In baseball, the umpires usually get the calls right, but instant replay can help in some situations. Because of what happened recently, it's bound to be used pretty soon. I don't know how to reconcile the desire to keep soccer moving with using instant replay. If it's used sparingly, then the stoppage shouldn't be any different than when a player is injured and needs medical attention.

[Spieler]

Originally Posted by The Dude

We have had the same arguments in America about replays - tradition, human errors being part of the game, slowing down the game, etc.

Is there any equivalent, in any American sport, of a referee or umpire stopping play and/or disallowing whatever event just transpired-- and not having to actually make a call? Granted, in baseball the umpires don't have to explain why a player is out or safe (although they almost always do, even if in pantomime), but anyone with a cursory knowledge of the game understands what is supposed to happen, and knows what call to debate.

Can you imagine if, in a basketball game, one team scored a basket, but the referee blew the basket dead and gave the ball to the other team, without indicating (or ever having to explain) why?

What if, in a football game, a play is blown dead, or a team is given an automatic first down (or penalized 15 yards) and no one, but no one, is ever told why?

I understand the points about human error, potential interruptions of the flow of games, etc., but the above reality-- that no call need be made, on the field or ever-- takes the soccer situation to an alternate universe of understanding (one to which I do not have ready access), and totally boggles me.

What was the call?!

~ S.

[Wadcutter]

Originally Posted by garywj

The wife and I ate out yesterday. In the restaurant there was a soccer game playing. I have a new observation. Not only is the game BOOOOOOOORING, but so are the announcers!

Yeah, and many times the announcers are so heavily accented you can't understand a thing they are saying.