Top 8, tbh.Messi and Ronaldo in the top 50..
But we dont care
Hmm.. what did my first post say:
And follow my argument, winner of American league faces the winner of National league in the "World" series. LOL. Baseball is apparently the world's sport, now.Dumbass, read your own graph, it clearly says "US adults".
Your second post said US males. Good on you to correct.
Who gives a what the MLB calls their final round? We're not even talking about that. And yeah, the name is apt because the best baseball players from around the world play in the MLB and the World Series decides who is the MLB champion. Soccer fans complain about the most inane .
Nah, dude, the history of baseball is that it was trying to compete with soccer hence it called it "world's" series.
Americans tried to create its own sports to differ from the English that's from sociology class.
So the name matters because they failed majorly.
Baseball never tried to compete with soccer. Where you getting this ?
Baseball is also an English game. Americans didn't create it out of thin air to differentiate itself from cricket.
Here:
Already posted the link long ago on a different thread.
I'm not going to watch all of that. If you're familiar with the video, tell me at which point he says Americans chose baseball over soccer because of American Exceptionalism (I can easily debunk that idea).
Around the 29:00 mark, he will talk about how soccer was viewed as an alien sport in America.
America was very nationalist and viewed soccer as European. They wanted their own thing. Anyways, it is not his opinion, rather opinions of writers/historians.
When you have the time, I suggest you watch the entire lecture because it is quite interesting.
This is a commonly held myth that just isn't true.
Read the first paragraph of how this upstart soccer league was rivaling the NFL in popularity.
http://www.slate.com/articles/sports...an_soccer.html
FIFA's mafioso style meddling in our domestic league situation is what killed soccer in the US. Not some xenophobic fear of "foreign things."
Baseball was also long established in the colonies before Association soccer was even invented. Bat-and-ball games have a longer history in England than "foot" ball games.However, the Soccer Wars had permanently crippled the ASL and it collapsed at the end of the 1933 spring season. Ironically, while USFA and FIFA "won" the wars and established their pre-eminence over the ASL, the spectacle of a U.S. athletic association conspiring with a European organization to undermine a U.S. athletic league alienated many U.S. sports fans by creating an image of soccer as a sport controlled by foreigners. These fans turned their backs on soccer, relegating the sport to the position of a minor league, ethnic-based sport for decades to come.
This is an interesting article, but it's pretty obvious how American news writer hate on soccer.
Just watch the entire lecture and the professor will bring many articles/references like yours, always blaming soccer.
This is true of some modern writers, but my point is that "fear of foreign things" isn't what derailed soccer in the US in its early stages. I watched more of the video, and the professor is right that soccer's timing was bad. The US sports landscape already had baseball, american football, boxing, ice hockey and tennis. And then when soccer finally gained some momentum in the 20's, FIFA killed the domestic league.
And a lot of the resistance from sport writers against soccer is because it's been constantly shoved down our throats since the US hosted the 1994 World Cup, with talking heads on the other side of the debate telling American sports fans we need to "love it" because it's the world's game. I had some passing interest in it. It faded. I don't dislike it because it's foreign, I'm indifferent to it because I don't find it all that interesting.
Yes, it is an interesting lecture.
I don't watch either sport unless there's a big game like the world cup semi or finals.
I watched the world series online because it was game 7, or else I wouldn't have. I don't care for baseball anymore, it lost its prestige for some reason. Really boring now.
I could watch a soccer game with a friend or family, but no way can I tough out watching a random baseball game even with friends or family.
I'm of the opinion that no sport is boring if you're open minded and learn the nuances of the sport. I'm not telling you to research baseball or anything so can you "like it," but all of the big sports have something to offer. I just don't have the time to add soccer to my sports consumption and I do very much hate when big matches are decided by either penalty kicks or shootouts. My last hurrah with soccer was the 2014 World Cup. The Mexico vs. Holland match was tightly contested and rather entertaining, then Robben dives in the box and the Netherlands are basically gifted a win. And I usually like watching Mexico lose in anything, but they were screwed.
Now someone might tell me that Robben was indeed fouled, even if he did exaggerate the contact. It still doesn't fix the fact that penalty kicks are disproportionate. Robben wasn't even in a legitimate scoring position.
He was making a move opposite of the goal and lost possession of the ball before he was "fouled." He had no chance at scoring. Yet he gets a free goal.
Just too many instances like this in soccer for me to "embrace" it.
That's nothing, the worse was when Rivaldo faking during corner kick during the Brazil vs Turkey game in 1998 I believe, I don't remember.I'm of the opinion that no sport is boring if you're open minded and learn the nuances of the sport. I'm not telling you to research baseball or anything so can you "like it," but all of the big sports have something to offer. I just don't have the time to add soccer to my sports consumption and I do very much hate when big matches are decided by either penalty kicks or shootouts. My last hurrah with soccer was the 2014 World Cup. The Mexico vs. Holland match was tightly contested and rather entertaining, then Robben dives in the box and the Netherlands are basically gifted a win. And I usually like watching Mexico lose in anything, but they were screwed.
Now someone might tell me that Robben was indeed fouled, even if he did exaggerate the contact. It still doesn't fix the fact that penalty kicks are disproportionate. Robben wasn't even in a legitimate scoring position.
He was making a move opposite of the goal and lost possession of the ball before he was "fouled." He had no chance at scoring. Yet he gets a free goal.
Just too many instances like this in soccer for me to "embrace" it.
Unfortunately, cheating is part of sports. We have this is basketball, PDE in baseball other sports, spying/dirty tactics in football, etc etc
I believe what Jeff van Gundy said that athletes are habitual liars, don't believe them.
1. That was a foul.
2. You have the same in Basketball. Player A tries to steal the ball from Player B midcourt, but gets him on the arm. No legitimate scoring position for B, but Team A is over the foul limit. Player B gets FT's.
Difference is it's not massively difficult to score in basketball, so you can overcome a bad call. One bad call in soccer usually decides a game.
I agree (of course) that it's easier to score in Basetball, but still a "No" overall. You have plenty of bad calls in Football as well. Wrong free kick. Off side or not. And so on. The majority of wrong calls are (or can be) overcome in Football as well.
OTOH you have plenty of bad calls that have decided BB-games. Foul call, which should have been an offensive foul. Wrong Team gets the inbound...
Spurs-OKC in last year's PO...
I agree that end of game officiating in basketball approaches soccer levels of bull , but bad calls in basketball prior to the last minutes of the 4th can usually be overcome. A soccer team faces a mammoth task of overcoming an even 1 goal deficit provided the teams are evenly matched. For the record, I also despise pass interference calls in the NFL. Same . You're rewarding yardage based on an unproven assumption (that the player would've caught the ball). And NFL receivers are starting to "act" a lot more.
I think hockey handles penalties the best as far as goal sports go.
You're assumig the better Team benefits of a bad call. Good Teams suffer their share of bad calls as well and are often able to come back. Bayern for example had ten games where they trailed this season and only lost four of them. Won five and got a draw once.
Still, penalties in other sports aren't as punishing as they are in soccer. This isn't bias on my part. In a clock-based sport in which scoring in low, it's simply mathematically harder to make a comeback. The most common soccer score is 1-0.
Most common score is not 1-0, but I get what you're saying.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...nil-nil-draws/Take the most common final score, for example. In 188,060 league games,2 the final tally was most often 1-0, proof, for Curley, that soccer was as low-scoring as he suspected. This result has occurred in more than 30,000 games — 16 percent of the total. Other common scores: 2-1 (about 27,000 games), 2-0 (about 22,000) and 1-1 (about 22,000).
You're right. Although your link only breaks down the numbers in english Football.
But what I meant to say was the average amount of goals scored in a game is not 1-0.
So 1 out of every 14 games ends 0-0, yet that is the fatbol fan's go to argument on this board. Got it
That's 1 too manySo 1 out of every 14 games ends 0-0, yet that is the fatbol fan's go to argument on this board. Got it
And our go to argument against TicTacTrot is the prevalence of ties, which occur at a 30% rate
But there's running (jogging) around and the game ends in 2 hours, so it's okay.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
