"Soccer" is destroying America!

[-A-]

As people have already mentioned, superficially, baseball is just as boring as football. If we're talking about cowardly non-violent sports about basketball? Holy shit, non-contact, it's for pussies.

[britneyspearsisgod]

I'm sorry, but that is the best Wiki edit for an article I've seen in a long time.

The article is bullshit. Baseball is more demanding? You can be fat and still play baseball. You can't be fat and run down the wing as a credible pace in "soccer". Baseball takes only hand-eye co-ordination at the very most. Football is more than that.

But then, I am apparently the tool of Satan for daring to use my legs. Who knew being a cripple would bring you closer to God?

[JStarr]

You can be fat and still play baseball.

Reminds me of the immortal story about John Kruk. Look him up, he's the fat-ass baseball analyst on ESPN, used to be a first baseman. Some woman sitting behind the dugout yelled at him during a game for having a wad of chewing tobacco in his mouth, and how as an athlete, he needed to set a better example for the children. He looked right at her and yelled back, "Lady, I'm not an athlete, I'm a baseball player."

[LL!]

Man, America sucks. Wow. America is awful. This one guy writes an article about how he hates Soccer. Fuck America.

[Zaz]

This is why good 'ol America is such a shit country tbf.

Yeah, that was what I was afraid this would turn into. *sigh* Have a warning, Zaz.

At least I don't live in America.

[rocksta]

This is why good 'ol America is such a shit country tbf.

Yeah, that was what I was afraid this would turn into. *sigh* Have a warning, Zaz.

At least I don't live in America.

QFE.

All Americans are ignorant pigs. Keep going Zaz.

[Summers]

This is why good 'ol America is such a shit country tbf.

Yeah, that was what I was afraid this would turn into. *sigh* Have a warning, Zaz.

At least I don't live in America.

Ahahaha.

[Your Mom]

USA! USA! USA! USA!

[Summers]

Ho.

er, I mean..

HOOOOOOO.

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

USA! USA! USA! USA!

What? Has Kozlov entered the thread?

[Dynamite]

Wait, did I misunderstand it or did that guy seriously suggest 'soccer' was bad because it "burns calories"?

And the whole 'soccer is boring because they don't score many points' argument is bullshit as well. I would much rather watch Man United beat Stoke 1-0 with a goal in the last minute than watch the Lakers beat the Celtics 112-109 where they score points every 35 seconds. In my opinion, 'soccer' is the most rewarding sport for the fans because goals don't always come so regularly. It's frustrating when your team misses/concedes but the feeling of a last-minute winner after you've been trying for 90 minutes is amazing and something Americans dont understand when talking about 'boring soccer'.

[SeanDMan]

This is why good 'ol America is such a shit country tbf.

Yeah, that was what I was afraid this would turn into. *sigh* Have a warning, Zaz.

At least I don't live in America.

Oh Zaz, you dick.

He's right though, soccer is fucking boring.

[The Third Dukes]

Part of the problem those I've talked to have with the "beautiful game" is just because of the low scoring, but not because of its tedium. To me, basketball will produce the correct outcome more often than football -- by which I mean association football. In football, you can utterly dominate the game for the entire time and still not only not win, but LOSE because of a daft decision by the official in your penalty box. In basketball, the referees often have to make hundreds of score-altering calls per game, and very rarely do their decisions affect the outcome as far as wins and losses.

That's the real reason that wasn't even touched on in this article: in sports such as gridiron or basketball, the team that plays better that day wins much more often than not. (And by the way, don't diss basketball -- last I checked it's the #2 sport in the world and Great Britain's the one behind the times. Or if you want to mock gridiron football, we'll mock cricket. Or snooker.) It's not just that upsets happen in football -- those are understandable. It's that unfair results happen. And that drives Americans up the wall.

[DMN in the House]

Fuck soccer, its a shitty version of the awesomeness that is hockey. LRN 2 SK8!

[Crybaby Bunting]

He's probably right in the sense that the American game plays like the Scottish second division, it hasn't developed enough yet to be vaguely interesting because most of the decent players still think that Notts County is a better place to go to than Seattle Sounders.

Give it ten years or so and that mentality might be broken down enough for bigger players to want to play in the USA

It's pretty much like the United Arab Emirates's league: it has loads of money, huge stadiums but no-one wants to touch it with a barge pole bar some Brazilian kids

[Regia]

What other game, to put it bluntly, is so boring to watch?

Baseball, for one.

I found that quite funny, talking about how football is boring to watch, yet says nothing about a game that is 'throw ball, hit ball, run'

Also there is nothing better than watching a penalty shoot-out when there's everything to play for, sitting there with your heart in your throat.

And something else I got from this is that he doesn't like the sport because the scores aren't really high all the time.

[HailtotheYo]

Also there is nothing better than watching a penalty shoot-out when there's everything to play for, sitting there with your heart in your throat.

So then why not play for it ?

In my experience this is part of the issue that Americans (ie - the casual fan, or the sports fan that doesn't actually know the game) have with soccer. After all is said and done, you can have a match come down to nothing more than luck. American Football, Baseball, Basketball, and even Hockey now all actually finish the game/match by PLAYING. The concept of a tie/draw is lost on the majority of Americans. Our sports finish the game. Soccer doesn't.

Winning the ultimate prize in soccer (the World Cup) by the luck of a shootout as opposed to actual play ? Flat out bullshit. The sport itself doesn't lend to the mindset of Americans outside the "understanding" of the game. Other sports all have the same general format.

He's probably right in the sense that the American game plays like the Scottish second division, it hasn't developed enough yet to be vaguely interesting because most of the decent players still think that Notts County is a better place to go to than Seattle Sounders.

Maybe ten years ago they'd rather play in the bottom FA division than at home in the MLS. Take a look where the 'decent' players are not only going, but who's picking them up. Bradley is at M'Gladbach, Onyewu is at Standard, we know the deal with American keepers in the EPL, Convey was at Reading, Beasley and Edu are at Rangers ... etc. The list of American players that are 'decent' certainly doesn't fall into the Notts County category.

[therockbox]

Penalty shootouts aren't luck, it's just an excuse thrown up by people whose teams are shit at them. There's a reason why Liverpool have won something like 19 out of the last 20 shootouts, and why England have been gash at them for donkeys years.

[Clawson]

Part of the problem those I've talked to have with the "beautiful game" is just because of the low scoring, but not because of its tedium. To me, basketball will produce the correct outcome more often than football -- by which I mean association football. In football, you can utterly dominate the game for the entire time and still not only not win, but LOSE because of a daft decision by the official in your penalty box. In basketball, the referees often have to make hundreds of score-altering calls per game, and very rarely do their decisions affect the outcome as far as wins and losses.

When you try and make a serious point about reffing altering a game, do not mention basketball. There is no sport in the world that has such unreliable and inconstinent reffing than basketball.

[-A-]

EDIT: Argh, keeps cutting off my posts.

Part of the problem those I've talked to have with the "beautiful game" is just because of the low scoring, but not because of its tedium.

Things like 'tedium' and 'boring' are totally subjective. You might as well say you don't like something because it's 'bad' - come on, be more descriptive. If you want to talk about low-scoring, then that's a valid opinion.

To me, basketball will produce the correct outcome more often than football -- by which I mean association football. In football, you can utterly dominate the game for the entire time and still not only not win, but LOSE because of a daft decision by the official in your penalty box. In basketball, the referees often have to make hundreds of score-altering calls per game, and very rarely do their decisions affect the outcome as far as wins and losses.

That's the real reason that wasn't even touched on in this article: in sports such as gridiron or basketball, the team that plays better that day wins much more often than not.

But you don't deserve to win because you have more possession. You don't deserve to win because you string together more passes or have the most shots on goal. You deserve to win because you score more goals, and that's the only reason. In the NFL, if a team is doing particularly well you often see their opponents having far more time in possession. If a team is particularly ineffective, they have often have more unsuccessful trips to the red zone ... they are worse and probably don't deserve to win. A clinical NFL team gets the ball, moves up the pitch swiftly and scores, then gives the ball to the opposition who might manage to keep it but don't necessarily progress up the field quickly or score heavily. The worse team has more time in possession, more first downs and potentially even more total yardage, but, just like football - those stats mean absolutely nothing. They're encouraging signs, but you win because you score more, that's it. If you don't score more than the opposition, you don't deserve to win.

(And by the way, don't diss basketball -- last I checked it's the #2 sport in the world and Great Britain's the one behind the times. Or if you want to mock gridiron football, we'll mock cricket. Or snooker.) It's not just that upsets happen in football -- those are understandable. It's that unfair results happen. And that drives Americans up the wall.

If you're talking about my comment, are you serious? I was trying to refute his point about pansy football being one of the most pussy sports around when clearly basketball as a non-contact sport takes that honour.

Your point about 'the best team should win' seems to have two elements that I gather from this post - you can dominate the game and still lose and that you think referee decision too often decide the game. I've already made my counter-point to the first - you don't deserve to win for having more possession and you don't deserve to win for creating chances but missing them. Upsets happen when the weaker team scores more goals than the stronger team - they are legitimate results. If you think the weaker team wins too often, that's really a matter of opinion and not a fundamental criticism of the sport.

I can totally agree with the latter argument, though. Football refereeing is behind the times and it's only now that things are starting to be rectified. The tide seems to be turning - public opinion is in favour of goal-line technology and FIFA are trialling a system where there's an extra referee behind each goal to supervise decisions in the penalty area.

Edited March 14, 2009 by -A-