Soccer is a cool sport because of the international play and the passion behind the games.
They need to make some rule changes to open up some more scoring. That will increase the excitement of the game. They need to drop the offsides penalty where play stops on a breakaway because the offensive player was ahead of a defender.
Football is wonderful, the only thing I don't like and would rather see dropped is indeed the offside rule. Without that, there would be way more interesting games and scoring.
Agree it is hard enough to score a goal as it is without that rule making it even harder.
Your watching a long lull in the action with the ball going back and forth at midfield then a breakaway on a long pass and it just gets called back and back to the boring midfield play. They need to change that rule. I know there are purists that are against any rule changes but how can anyone argue against changing that rule and opening up more scoring opportunites.
Perdoname.
Football is great as it is.
If Americans donīt like it, fine.
I still consider it the best sport in the world.
Itīs a cultural thing. I grew up playing and consuming football (soccer). Americans grew up thinking that soccer sucks. You wonīt change their minds.
Some caller on a sports radio morning show in Houston this morning basically repeated Thunder Dan's and my posts. This forum has become a veritable think tank, an artesian spring of the zeitgeist.
This reminds me of the time in sixth grade. My PE teacher, always red in complexion and who seemed to down a few in his office every day, took a class poll to see what we would play that day. Two options: Basketball/other sports outside or indoor soccer. The first option won in a landslide, but to quote him: "Indoor soccer it is".
Just thought I'd like to share. lol
While that may explain some of its popularity, it doesn't explain why soccer is the most popular (or at least among the most popular) for many countries in the G8 (e.g. England, Germany, France, Japan, Italy). Countries like England/Spain have a very vigorous youth soccer program - you can't play for long unless you're really good at it. And if you're phenomenal, you stand out and are often given contracts to play for professional youth academies.
I don't think this argument follows as well if you look at the state of basketball in America. It's not an expensive sport -all you need a ball and a hoop, which can be found in every neighborhood, every ghetto in America. I'm not sure if you would argue that soccer promotes mediocrity as opposed to basketball, which is ironic because the majority of elite basketball players in the US do not represent the middle-class white majority of the country. I fail to see how a 5 v 5 game of basketball would look any different than a game of soccer, with the same youths you are discussing.
Even with all this in mind, the argument that soccer is an exercise for white suburnanites to avoid humiliation has nothing to do with the enjoyability of watching professional soccer, played by athletes that know what they're doing. I don't dislike watching the NBA because I had to play basketball with girls or white guys growing up, considering these two groups obviously don't make up any sizable proportion of the elite basketball players in America.
You're right that soccer's popularity in western Europe has nothing to do with poverty. Maybe it did in 1875.
The reason the point does not follow is because you mixed up the points. There are two points:
1) Soccer is popular in the third world because it is cheap to play.
2) Soccer is a popular choice for American white suburban youth sports because athetically mediocre children can play it without embarrassing themselves.
It is not to say that soccer promotes mediocrity everywhere that it is played. That clearly is not true. It is simply in the context of middle-class suburban white Americans that soccer is the sport of kids who can't play sports.
Basketball in the American ghetto I think parallels the role soccer plays in the third-world slum. Why in America basketball plays that role while soccer fills the role most other places is because some things in the world are just random. Basketball was invented in America and gained a following here; soccer spread around the rest of the world.
They might know what they're doing, but most Americans have no idea, so they can't appreciate it. It's why unathletic kids who have no idea what they're doing can run around aimlessly for 90 minutes without embarrassing themselves -- nobody watching has any idea what they're watching. The U.S. has its sports which are popular here, and they have a certain degree of inertia, and people just aren't going to put a whole lot of effort into learning an unfamiliar sport. Now, if those kids were dropped into a Brazilian youth league, they would be humiliated because the Brazilians would understand exactly how much they suck. The low level of appreciation and understanding of the sport ironically has something to do with its "popularity." But I think it also makes it clear why that "popularity" doesn't translate into any kind of rooting interest for the game as a spectator sport.
There is nothing intrinsically "interesting" or "boring" about a particular sport. It has to do with tastes, and tastes are conditioned, partially in random ways. Lots of Europeans think American sports are just as boring as many of us find soccer to be. Look at baseball. A game consists of large stretches of standing around, where the pitcher and the catcher throw back and forth, punctuated by little bits of action where a ball is put in play and people run around. In American football, people stand around for 45 seconds, then engage in 10 seconds of action, then stand around for 45 more seconds. We find it interesting partly because we were brought up on it and people around us find it interesting.
I think previous points reasonably explain this.
You all do Know that nobody in the "soccer" world gives a about the confederations cup, right?
The funny part is neither do we.
ES did a good job of explaining it. Its appreciated at youth ages here because a vast majority of parents and random spectators have no idea what theyre looking at or what theyre looking for.
All we see is little Johnny running around real hard and not falling flat on his face. Looks like he might be having fun or at least, not embarassing himself.
Because the last time we took Little Johnny to the batting cages, he embarassed himself. In basketball with the black kids...we're still forgetting that experience. He tried out for peewee football, but he cried a lot because getting hit "hurt real bad".
Soccer, in America's version of it, is the safe sport for the youth of this country. I realize that isnt the same case across the globe, to be clear, its probably the exact opposite.
But soccer always has and always will be a youth sport in America. Kids will then quit or play football. Some of the better football players in high school were former soccer players. They could run...fast and for an inordinate amount of time in comparison to their peers. Soccer players were also really good at hackey-sack (obvious reasons). Alarmingly, the most skilled hockey players are mostly European and their skills are off the charts with their ability to take bad passes of their back skate, redirect it in full stride right to their stick. All former soccer players, all kicking a ball around before games to get warmed up. Even the North American players get in on the "game", but the Euros laugh at them and theyre out in the first 30 secs.
Just the way it is. Some of the best athletes in the world play soccer. They run the farthest, they run the fastest, they run the longest. If youre playing pro soccer, youre a finely conditioned athlete of the highest order, period. But it doesnt change the fact that 1-0 games with 70 mins played at midfield is incredibly boring to me.
Im with a couple other guys in this thread...I constantly cheer against the US. The earlier theyre out, the better. Less I have to hear about it.
As I addressed earlier, the influx of large numbers of Latin children who are good enough at soccer to humiliate the Anglos may endanger the primacy of youth soccer in states closer to the border.
Did not know there could be anymore humiliation done. lol
I agree entirely, and agree partially with 2).
I can agree to an extent that the ignorance/unfamiliarity about soccer in American culture may be a reason it is used for this demographic you speak of in order to "boost confidence." That being said, it's not like these unathletic suburban kids are any better at other sports.What would be the difference between these kids playing soccer or playing basketball? Drop these kids in the middle of Rucker Park and they'll get killed. But in reality, who would challenge the level of compe ion amongst these subruban youth such that would make soccer a safer alternative? It's not as if middle-class white America is churning out NBA superstars.
The argument seems to assume that these kids would be any better at excelling in basketball amongst their peers as opposed to soccer - which I don't believe. I think you may be underselling the genuine growth of soccer among all demographics in America. Professional leagues do exist, and there is a legitimate interest outside of Latinos. But maybe that's just my skewed perspective from being in Canada.
I agree.
I agree with most of your points. But what you and Thunder Dan are arguing are not the same (that or he can't write for ). You're not saying "soccer sucks" at all, or trying to denigrate soccer by misrepresenting certain aspects of the sport. To claim "It's the only sport where you can play and not touch the ball all game" is indicative of the level of compe ion, not of the sport itself. I've never seen a real game of soccer where someone doesn't touch the ball. Most arguments in this thread are about the supposed flaws in soccer, not about how the lack of appreciation for a sport that hasn't been fully embraced by a society has affected their interest.
Im the northern Anglo who sees exactly zero Mexicans per day who arent operating lawn equipment. If it werent for their prowess in landscaping, I'd never see them or their influence on American society, be it youth soccer or Latin music.
I believe you, obviously. You grew up in Texas and know your . But I would have never known this to be true if you hadnt said it.
In basketball, if your child gets fouled, he has to shoot free throws. Everybody in the stands is watching him as he shoots two airballs, neither of which comes within two feet of the rim.
In baseball, when he bats, everybody is watching him as he falls down while striking out. The coach might stick him in left field, but if a ball happens to head his way, everybody is watching as he falls down three times trying to run after it, and is watching him as it takes him six throws to get the ball back into the infield since he can't throw further than ten feet, with a highly effeminate throwing motion to boot.
In football, everybody is watching as he drops easy passes or fumbles repeatedly. Or, if he is stuck on the line, the larger kids who would get in trouble if they bullied him in the schoolyard have free reign to beat him to a pulp.
In soccer, he can run around aimlessly all game long and sort of blend in.
What if the kid playing soccer is the goalkeeper? And he allows a basket full of goals? Or the kid whiffs at an attempt to kick the ball? Or kicks the ball into the stratosphere?
And in America nobody gives a about "soccer" period.
I don't understand the argument. Kids can't stick out like sore thumbs when they suck at soccer like they can at other sports? My ass they can't.
There are 11 players on a soccer team. OK, so you need one who isn't a total goof. And the nerds need come nowhere near the ball. It takes some ability to get into a position to receive a pass anyway.
The general level of play is sufficiently low that they can blend in, yes.
Yeah, at the U6 level. Anything above that is flat out wrong. You'd be surprised at the level of play from 8 year olds.
And an uncoordinated kid who can't hit the rim is also capable of tripping over the ball on a PK/direct kick.
Maybe your league is the exception.
The nerds come nowhere near the ball? That sounds like many sports growing up.
In basketball, if you suck, they will never pass you the ball. No one at the youth level cares if you get torched on the defensive end.
In football, if you suck, the QB will ever throw the ball to you.
In baseball, if you suck, you only need to worry about batting (and honestly, only in clutch situations, no different from a penalty kick in soccer). You are rarely involved on the defensive end in baseball.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
