The Problem with soccer

[EnlightenmentHK]

Kind of a pseudo-response to a couple other threads where soccer has inevitably been compared to the likes of baseball, perhaps American football as well as other sports. But I thought it might deserve its own thread. As you can probably tell from the title, this is my own 'American' perspective on the matter. But this is basically my reasoning for why soccer is the least entertaining big TV team sport out there.

There are numerous other factors, but the main thrust of all of it is something I've termed 'proportional relevance'. What I mean by that is asking the question of how often does something relevant to the actual outcome actually occur within the game. I'm not just talking about scoring, but tangible, concrete, and measurable contributions towards actual scoring or even victory vs. defeat. I've concluded that soccer has much less of this than just about every other major sport and as such much more of what you're watching on the field is, if not totally irrelevant, than at the very least much less relevant than the on field action of every other sport.

Basketball is a no-brainer. Scoring happens early and often, all contributing to the final outcome. Every basket is relevant to that outcome, every 30 seconds to a minute there is some concrete and measurable progress towards victory and defeat. Essentially always something relevant going on. Baseball there are a finite amount of outs that each team has. Every out gets one team closer to victory. Every walk or single puts one team on the path of progress towards scoring. A score may not occur that inning, but for every man on base you are contributing towards that goal.

American football is of course all about field position. Every yard gained or lost gets you closer or further away from scoring. A 3 and out may not seem important, but it means the other team is more likely to receive the punt in better field position to score themselves. Literally every play, every yard, every inch matters in the game. They all contribute in some small way to the final outcome.

Soccer has very little of this. Scoring is infrequent, which isn't a problem in itself, but there is very little that you can point to as measurable progress towards scoring. One team may pressure, but a second later as the ball is cleared to midfield or further, nearly everything they just did is rendered moot. Irrelevant. And neutralizing of that pressure, either by clearing or other means, is the outcome 90% of the time or more. Basically one relatively easy kick away from everything you just attempted being in vain. About the only benefit gained from such failed efforts are the potential demoralizing effects of one team often being on the defensive and questions of fatigue and endurance. But both of those exist just as much in every other sport. But in none of those other sports are offensive actions rendered irrelevant so often. Nor is there an absence of measurable progress towards the final outcome, one way or another.

Hockey of course might be the best comparison to soccer since it follows similar rules and flow. But actual scoring is more frequent. The action quicker. And it has the frequent violence (not just fights, but hard checks and such) which is just as big a selling point for the sport as the rest of the game.



The other stuff is the usual litany of typical 'American' objections. The field is too large. Half the game is comprised of players lazily jogging across its wide expanses, passing the ball with very little intensity or clearly aggressive intent. Too many higher up games devolve into one team scoring than playing keep-away for an hour. I repeat, one team is literally trying not to score. Their actual goal is to simply keep possession of the ball for as long as possible and do nothing with it. How can that be interesting? There's the flopping, which is atrocious. And is sadly being imported into the NBA as well. People should be ejected from games for that sort of crap.

Probably some others I can add, but you get the gist of it. I really can't fathom its popularity. By just about every objective measure available, it would seem to be an inferior sport, entertainmentwise. Most of what is happening is simply less relevant to the actual outcome than in every other major sport. And the few moments of actual, measurable relevance (which for soccer would be scoring and not much else) are so few and far between that literally an hour (or more) of the game could have gone by with nothing relevant occurring. World's most popular sport? Sure. But without a doubt I have no real clue why.

 

[Joe Harker]

Some people love a intense game between two teams, sure there are boring matches but that happens in every sport. For example yesterday up until Ryan Giggs scored that was always the chance of Wigan getting one back and handing Chelsea the title, thats what i like.

I also like well worked goals, theres nothing better than seeing a cross get volleyed into the top corner, some of the goals in football are just breath-taking

Also i actually don't particulary like sports with a high score like basketball because you expect it, it's a shock if they don't get it in.
In football the crowd gets excited with just a whiff of goal, hell i heard Tottenham fans shout shoot at Huddlestone when he was a good 40 meters out! It's a great moment when your team scores the winner, and then when they have scored it's very nerve recking and adrendine pumping when your team has to defend that lead, or even just stay in the game, Bolton yesterday shouldn't have got a point, but they did with some last ditch defending and Peter Cech having bit of a wobble.

Basically i think your analysis is wrong, i agree in pure statistics football doesn't have that many chances compared to some other sports, but it those few chances get more excitment in football than in most other sports, especially the ones you talk about, I have never seen the crowd hold it's breath when their basketball team may score, maybe in the dying seconds but not throughout an entire game, otherwise you would just spill all your popcorn and drink over you!

 

[Lambert Simnel]

World's most popular sport? Sure. But without a doubt I have no real clue why.

Which just shows that your "proportional relevance" argument, though interesting, has no real relevance to why most people enjoy sports.

 

[azzaman333]

Soccer is very dependant on the specific teams playing on how good the quality of the match is. My experience is that international games, especially those involving Italy, have a greater tendancy to result in a keepings-off after scoring a goal, since goal difference has little to no effect.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

Maybe soccer is the most popular sport, because it's not as predictable as some others. Like you said, in basketball you get points very often, so if either team has the ball more often than the other team, they are very likely to win, as they get more chances to score. In baseball you always know which team can get points in which situation. But in soccer, things can change really fast. You don't have to have the ball on your side all the time, you can still win. You never know which team is going to score, or maybe neither is going to score.

 

[Verbose]

I think Enlightenment made a good write up of the way soccer is in some sense "nonlinear". It relies on unpexpected combinations, someone succeeding at doing something unexpected, pulling something out of his hat, and not infrequently pure chance.

And that's why it's known as "the beautiful game".

The big US sports it's contrasted with do have this aspect of measurabilty, they are pretty linear, maybe even "Cartesian" in a way.

Could even be a class and culture aspect.
If so US sports are middle-class and protestant, all about measurable progress and taking a perspective of accumulation over time/the game. If there's a moral to it, it might be that steady work and progress achieves in the end.
Soccer is working class, it relies on the hope of unexpected turnarounds, beating the odds and decisive moments, not much long term planning required. The moral being that there's always a chance of stumbling into success.

But all of this might perhaps help explain why people in the US aren't warming to soccer, but not why so many elsewhere love it.

 

[warpus]

There are numerous other factors, but the main thrust of all of it is something I've termed 'proportional relevance'. What I mean by that is asking the question of how often does something relevant to the actual outcome actually occur within the game. I'm not just talking about scoring, but tangible, concrete, and measurable contributions towards actual scoring or even victory vs. defeat.

Oh, it's all very relevant; you just don't understand soccer so you don't get it.

The thing is that you will not see much that's "tangible, concrete, and measurable". It's far more subtle than that; and the more you are familiar with the sport, the more layers of action you will uncover.

That's the beauty of the game; you will see different things depending on how much you know about the sport.. and how much you understand about the spirit of the sport.

When I'm watching the game, do you think I see it in discrete steps of progress, which is what you are asking of the sport? Nahh.. I see a continuous flow of a dynamic "atmosphere". Every pass, every tackle, every effort by every player contributes to it.

You can't sit down in front of a soccer game and expect to see a game of baseball. That's what you're asking for - and that's why you're dissapointed.

Soccer is an art form as much as it is a sport. You do not ask a piece of art to be measurable!

Half the game is comprised of players lazily jogging across its wide expanses

Lazily? Profesional soccer players are some of the most athletic.. athletes on this planet.

An average player will run around 10km during a game. That's over 100m per minute.

That's lazy?

There's the flopping, which is atrocious. And is sadly being imported into the NBA as well. People should be ejected from games for that sort of crap.

I agree with this; Simulation is a big problem and IMO players should be banned for this sort of behaviour.

Thankfully the Premiership (which is the league that I follow) doesn't have a huge problem with simulation.

World's most popular sport? Sure. But without a doubt I have no real clue why.

It's the reason why you don't understand the sport - you expect the measurable. Stop expecting that and you might start getting it

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

Oh, it's all very relevant; you just don't understand soccer so you don't get it.

If one side pressures the other for 10 minutes straight, than a defender clears the ball to the other side of the field, everything that occurred within those 10 minutes is rendered moot. (outside of the mental/physical exhaustion and demoralization that may occur from spending that long on the defensive. But again, that's evident in every sport to substantially similar degrees. Also the possibility of weaknesses or flaws in the defense being revealed, but again...that occurs in every sport) The thing that separates soccer and most other team sports is of course the proportional relevance. Which soccer sorely lacks.

The thing is that you will not see much that's "tangible, concrete, and measurable". It's far more subtle than that; and the more you are familiar with the sport, the more layers of action you will uncover.

No amount of familiarity is gonna change the easily observable and largely obvious. Less of what's occurring on the field in soccer directly contributes to the actual outcome of the game than in other sports.

Lazily? Profesional soccer players are some of the most athletic.. athletes on this planet.

Maybe. But its a big field. The players are spread out around it. And most aren't actively engaging the ball at any one time nor are they getting in position for a pass or anything else. A large part of the play consists of waiting for the ball to come somewhere near your section. There is no constant, serious exertion. The camera angles also tend to be a bit wide, making it difficult to appreciate alot of the athleticism involved except on replay. And the wide shots also contribute to the relative sense of 'slowness' within the game.

Basically i think your analysis is wrong, i agree in pure statistics football doesn't have that many chances compared to some other sports, but it those few chances get more excitment in football than in most other sports, especially the ones you talk about, I have never seen the crowd hold it's breath when their basketball team may score, maybe in the dying seconds but not throughout an entire game, otherwise you would just spill all your popcorn and drink over you!

That sounds like alot of unnecessary pleasure denial to me. And alot of frustration and disappointment when your volley of constant, intense attacks are mooted by a simple kick to the other side. I enjoy a bit of payoff here and there when my team is playing.

Maybe soccer is the most popular sport, because it's not as predictable as some others. Like you said, in basketball you get points very often, so if either team has the ball more often than the other team, they are very likely to win, as they get more chances to score. In baseball you always know which team can get points in which situation. But in soccer, things can change really fast. You don't have to have the ball on your side all the time, you can still win. You never know which team is going to score, or maybe neither is going to score.

To me this says that the better team...even more than that, the team that plays better in that game is less likely to win in soccer than in other sports. I hardly find that to be a virtue for the sport. Who wants their team to play better and lose with frequency? Such surprises do happen in other sports, sure, but from what you're saying, its much rarer in those other sports. Which I see as a GOOD thing. The better playing team on the field that day generally SHOULD win.

Could even be a class and culture aspect.

That's possible, but I suspect it has more to do with what you were raised on and exposed to while young. That of course doesn't explain how certain sports arose in some areas and not others, but that question would take some more reading and analysis than I'm sure anyone is up to at the moment.

 

[azzaman333]

If one side pressures the other for 10 minutes straight, than a defender clears the ball to the other side of the field, everything that occurred within those 10 minutes is rendered moot. (outside of the mental/physical exhaustion and demoralization that may occur from spending that long on the defensive. But again, that's evident in every sport to substantially similar degrees. Also the possibility of weaknesses or flaws in the defense being revealed, but again...that occurs in every sport) The thing that separates soccer and most other team sports is of course the proportional relevance. Which soccer sorely lacks.

If they have the pressure on for 10 minutes straight, yet fail to gain a decent shot at goal, you can tell they are being outplayed in that section of the half either through better skills/position from the defense or poor choices made by offense.

No amount of familiarity is gonna change the easily observable and largely obvious. Less of what's occurring on the field in soccer directly contributes to the actual outcome of the game than in other sports.

That makes no sense. Every action on the feild will directly influence the result, however the actions won't have a quantitative measure.

Maybe. But its a big field. The players are spread out around it. And most aren't actively engaging the ball at any one time nor are they getting in position for a pass or anything else. A large part of the play consists of waiting for the ball to come somewhere near your section. There is no constant, serious exertion. The camera angles also tend to be a bit wide, making it difficult to appreciate alot of the athleticism involved except on replay. And the wide shots also contribute to the relative sense of 'slowness' within the game.

The wide shots are great because you can see not only where the players are, but what will unfold.

That sounds like alot of unnecessary pleasure denial to me. And alot of frustration and disappointment when your volley of constant, intense attacks are mooted by a simple kick to the other side. I enjoy a bit of payoff here and there when my team is playing.

Football is all about capitalising on your chances IMO. If all your efforts are being shut down even when you're constantly pressuring the defense, you definately aren't playing better than your opposition. You might be playing more creative and attacking football, but looking good on the field doesn't neccesarlily translate itself into victory.

To me this says that the better team...even more than that, the team that plays better in that game is less likely to win in soccer than in other sports. I hardly find that to be a virtue for the sport. Who wants their team to play better and lose with frequency? Such surprises do happen in other sports, sure, but from what you're saying, its much rarer in those other sports. Which I see as a GOOD thing. The better playing team on the field that day generally SHOULD win.

Again, football is all about capitalising on your chances. If you can't capitalise on any chances, and the other team can, you didn't play better.

 

[Grisu]

Maybe. But its a big field. The players are spread out around it. And most aren't actively engaging the ball at any one time nor are they getting in position for a pass or anything else.

this compared to the constant break-neck pace of Baseball or American Football, eh?

That sounds like alot of unnecessary pleasure denial to me. And alot of frustration and disappointment when your volley of constant, intense attacks are mooted by a simple kick to the other side. I enjoy a bit of payoff here and there when my team is playing.

Imagine the sheer euphoria if your team is under pressure for some time and then by a swift, craftily executed counter you punish the pressuring team for their lack of efficiency...there's not many things better in sports
It's an underdog thing, which is maybe why so many americans can't relate to it

To me this says that the better team...even more than that, the team that plays better in that game is less likely to win in soccer than in other sports. I hardly find that to be a virtue for the sport. Who wants their team to play better and lose with frequency? Such surprises do happen in other sports, sure, but from what you're saying, its much rarer in those other sports. Which I see as a GOOD thing. The better playing team on the field that day generally SHOULD win.

and the better team generally WILL win. it's just that upsets are a bit more common than in other sports, but most of the time the better team will still end up winning. It makes the game more unpredictable, more exciting, because at no time can you be sure that your team will leave the field as winners even if you're the clear favorite...and even more important vice versa.



That's possible, but I suspect it has more to do with what you were raised on and exposed to while young. That of course doesn't explain how certain sports arose in some areas and not others, but that question would take some more reading and analysis than I'm sure anyone is up to at the moment.[/quote]

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Kind of a pseudo-response to a couple other threads where soccer has inevitably been compared to the likes of baseball, perhaps American football as well as other sports. But I thought it might deserve its own thread. As you can probably tell from the title, this is my own 'American' perspective on the matter. But this is basically my reasoning for why soccer is the least entertaining big TV team sport out there.

There are numerous other factors, but the main thrust of all of it is something I've termed 'proportional relevance'. What I mean by that is asking the question of how often does something relevant to the actual outcome actually occur within the game. I'm not just talking about scoring, but tangible, concrete, and measurable contributions towards actual scoring or even victory vs. defeat. I've concluded that soccer has much less of this than just about every other major sport and as such much more of what you're watching on the field is, if not totally irrelevant, than at the very least much less relevant than the on field action of every other sport.

Basketball is a no-brainer. Scoring happens early and often, all contributing to the final outcome. Every basket is relevant to that outcome, every 30 seconds to a minute there is some concrete and measurable progress towards victory and defeat. Essentially always something relevant going on. Baseball there are a finite amount of outs that each team has. Every out gets one team closer to victory. Every walk or single puts one team on the path of progress towards scoring. A score may not occur that inning, but for every man on base you are contributing towards that goal.

American football is of course all about field position. Every yard gained or lost gets you closer or further away from scoring. A 3 and out may not seem important, but it means the other team is more likely to receive the punt in better field position to score themselves. Literally every play, every yard, every inch matters in the game. They all contribute in some small way to the final outcome.

Soccer has very little of this. Scoring is infrequent, which isn't a problem in itself, but there is very little that you can point to as measurable progress towards scoring. One team may pressure, but a second later as the ball is cleared to midfield or further, nearly everything they just did is rendered moot. Irrelevant. And neutralizing of that pressure, either by clearing or other means, is the outcome 90% of the time or more. Basically one relatively easy kick away from everything you just attempted being in vain. About the only benefit gained from such failed efforts are the potential demoralizing effects of one team often being on the defensive and questions of fatigue and endurance. But both of those exist just as much in every other sport. But in none of those other sports are offensive actions rendered irrelevant so often. Nor is there an absence of measurable progress towards the final outcome, one way or another.

Hockey of course might be the best comparison to soccer since it follows similar rules and flow. But actual scoring is more frequent. The action quicker. And it has the frequent violence (not just fights, but hard checks and such) which is just as big a selling point for the sport as the rest of the game.



The other stuff is the usual litany of typical 'American' objections. The field is too large. Half the game is comprised of players lazily jogging across its wide expanses, passing the ball with very little intensity or clearly aggressive intent. Too many higher up games devolve into one team scoring than playing keep-away for an hour. I repeat, one team is literally trying not to score. Their actual goal is to simply keep possession of the ball for as long as possible and do nothing with it. How can that be interesting? There's the flopping, which is atrocious. And is sadly being imported into the NBA as well. People should be ejected from games for that sort of crap.

Probably some others I can add, but you get the gist of it. I really can't fathom its popularity. By just about every objective measure available, it would seem to be an inferior sport, entertainmentwise. Most of what is happening is simply less relevant to the actual outcome than in every other major sport. And the few moments of actual, measurable relevance (which for soccer would be scoring and not much else) are so few and far between that literally an hour (or more) of the game could have gone by with nothing relevant occurring. World's most popular sport? Sure. But without a doubt I have no real clue why.

I agree 100%. Id only add that I think this is why theres so much violence among spectators at soccer matches. There are limits to how long people can watch guys jog back and forth before their frustration level at the sheer boredom drives them to lash out.

 

[Joe Harker]

I agree 100%. Id only add that I think this is why theres so much violence among spectators at soccer matches. There are limits to how long people can watch guys jog back and forth before their frustration level at the sheer boredom drives them to lash out.

Such an ignorant responce, like you Americans are any better,
sure in the 80s we probably were the worst nation in that respect and football in general was hit by that reputation with hooligans, but since then it is so much better, the only serious riots i can remember was in 2000 involving England fans in Holland. I feel entirely safe working from Wembly after an England game, or Anfield after a Liverpool game and at an actual match i have yet to see any form of a riot. (i have been to +20 games)

Here's quite a good article on sport riots in the US (i know it's from a British paper, but a respected one)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2005/dec/07/ussport.football

If one side pressures the other for 10 minutes straight, than a defender clears the ball to the other side of the field, everything that occurred within those 10 minutes is rendered moot.

And if you lose the ball 5 yards from a touchdown, how is that any different?

Maybe. But its a big field. The players are spread out around it. And most aren't actively engaging the ball at any one time nor are they getting in position for a pass or anything else. A large part of the play consists of waiting for the ball to come somewhere near your section. There is no constant, serious exertion. The camera angles also tend to be a bit wide, making it difficult to appreciate alot of the athleticism involved except on replay. And the wide shots also contribute to the relative sense of 'slowness' within the game.

No, most players, particulary the midfield and attackers will be looking for space, just like in American football the players look to find gaps and run into them, its the same princple

That sounds like alot of unnecessary pleasure denial to me. And alot of frustration and disappointment when your volley of constant, intense attacks are mooted by a simple kick to the other side. I enjoy a bit of payoff here and there when my team is playing.

Turn it the other way, the defending team will enjoy the long kick upfield, after moments of will they finally score or won't they, and then there is the enjoyment of the attacking team putting in a good move and scoring a good goal. For one set of fans disappointment the other set enjoy it so i don't see your arguement of it just being about diappointment.

To me this says that the better team...even more than that, the team that plays better in that game is less likely to win in soccer than in other sports. I hardly find that to be a virtue for the sport. Who wants their team to play better and lose with frequency? Such surprises do happen in other sports, sure, but from what you're saying, its much rarer in those other sports. Which I see as a GOOD thing. The better playing team on the field that day generally SHOULD win.

But thats what we love, an unpredictable game, especially as a fan watching the games. It would be boring if the team we expected to win won most of the time. That is probably the main reason why England isn't in Euro 2008 is because we underestimate the opposition to often.

I think the difference is in the fans, in England, you get appreciated for working your socks off, every ball saved from going over the sidelines is appauded for the hard work, every good long ball played to the front man is cheered, in America it seems, except in American football (correct me if i am wrong) that you only sound your appreciation for when their team scores. There seems to be a emphasis on hard work and performance rather than the actual result in England, hell why do you think Derby fans have sticked by their team all season long, they haven't turned up for the goals (well not Derby's goals!)

 

[holy king]

enlightenement, your main concern with football seems to be that in the end you cant say exactly who rushed for how much yardage and and who caught the most interceptions during the season. (and how those were then turned to scores on the particular drives)
but just because something's benefit (or malefit) cant be exactly measured doesnt make it moot.

it's like life, you wander around, do things that wont lead anywhere and experience "story lines" that wont ever get wrapped up neatly like in a hollywood movie.

life isnt a straight course to the endzone and while it's your turn the others can actually make their offensive moves too in reality, that's why football is so much greater than american football.
(but i do like american football, it's just much more like chess. fun, but with no real connection to reality.)

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

Such an ignorant responce, like you Americans are any better,

We are. The worst crap that Guardian article could pull up isn't half as bad as some of the stuff we 'Mericans' have read about Euro soccer riots and hooligans. Nor is every American Football town like Philly. (they're a bit of a special breed) And British hooliganism is in control largely because the fricken national government was forced to intervene. American football 'festivities' never required an act of Congress to keep under control. We also don't have all the ugly racism characteristic of games in various places.

And if you lose the ball 5 yards from a touchdown, how is that any different?

Because you're on the 5 yard line and not the 15 or the 30 or 50 or even further back. That 95 yard distance means the other team is that much less likely to score with their possession. It changes the range of options, plays and formations they can use. The aggressiveness or lack thereof of the strategy employed. It also makes it that much likelier that you'll recover a punt in better field position at the end of that series. As I said above, every yard matters and contributes to the ultimate outcome. It is immensely different than soccer because the whole effort is not negated...the other team is still 1st and 10 from their own 5 instead of 1st and 10 from the 50. A world of difference.

For one set of fans disappointment the other set enjoy it so i don't see your arguement of it just being about diappointment.

Because more often 90% of the time, the culmination of offensive efforts in any given 'attacking sequence' will amount to nothing. No matter which side you're on. And your efforts can and usually are rendered moot with one leisurely kick.

But thats what we love, an unpredictable game, especially as a fan watching the games. It would be boring if the team we expected to win won most of the time.

You might be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that the better team should win. But the team that plays better that day, that game generally should. In sports, displaying superior skill and effort in a given contest is generally rewarded and should be. Doesn't always work out that way, but that should usually be the case. And I just have to question a sport where that is much less likely to be the case.

that you only sound your appreciation for when their team scores.

Baseball will generally cheer any hit. Any particularly impressive defensive play. Strike outs if you've got an Ace on the mound wracking them up. Pick offs are always fun and cheered as they tend to be infrequent. Stolen bases to some extent too. Football of course just about every 1st down or otherwise impressive play. Basketball every late go-ahead score, impressive rally, flashy basket, dunk, blocked shot, steal, and 3 point shot tends to get significant cheers. Hockey? There's always the hard checks and violence. So...its pretty frequent for every sport in question and not strictly limited to scoring.

which is maybe why so many americans can't relate to it

We invented the 'underdog wins the big game' and 'geek gets the girl' movie. We think we're the scrappy, likable underdog in every situation. Even when we're stomping the skulls of 3rd world nobodies. Have you seen Rocky 4? It doesn't get any clearer than that. Rocky training down on the farm with the 'real people' (working class peasants), climbing mountains and lifting rocks while Ivan Drago juices surrounded by scientists, using all the most high tech equipment in existence. We can absolutely relate.

But another thing we can relate to are tangible rewards for hard work, skill and perseverance. Things that occur less often and tend to be much less obvious in soccer.

Again, football is all about capitalising on your chances. If you can't capitalise on any chances, and the other team can, you didn't play better.

One word for capitalization is execution. Of course another word for it is luck. You can be on the attack for most of the game, dominate possession and shots on goal, clearly play better...but be unlucky and lose. This can happen in any sport of course. Though going by what I'm reading here, its much more likely to occur in soccer than in other sports. Not good.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

enlightenement, your main concern with football seems to be that in the end you cant say exactly who rushed for how much yardage and and who caught the most interceptions during the season. (and how those were then turned to scores on the particular drives)
but just because something's benefit (or malefit) cant be exactly measured doesnt make it moot.

Outside of those minor intangiables I already mentioned (moral, probing weaknesses, possible fatigue), yeah it pretty much does make it moot. The second that ball gets cleared to the other side of the field, that previous however many minutes of attacking as good as never happened if you didn't get a goal out of it. Said clearing (or possession change of some sort) is the eventually outcome the vast majority of the time. Which all told makes far too much of the game comparatively meaningless compared to other major sports. Maybe you can applaud athleticism and effort, but again that's evident in most other sports in far greater measures. (at least the eye-pleasing, highlight real sort of athleticism.) Its not about stats, thought those are nice, its about the time I invested into watching a particular chunk of the game actually mattering for something.

life isnt a straight course to the endzone and while it's your turn the others can actually make their offensive moves too in reality, that's why football is so much greater than american football.

Soccer is superior because its closer to real life...is a bit of an incredulous thesis I think you'll admit yourself. But even if true, for most people life is 1/3 slogging through some monotonous crap day in and day out at someone else's command for a paycheck that ain't near big enough for the hell you endure, 1/3 sleep, and the other 1/3 trying to enjoy yourself to justify all the time you waste on the 'working third'. Part of that 'enjoyment' is inevitably derived from entertainment, of which sports constitutes a significant portion for the males of the species. (and some females) And since we hate 1/3 of life and are oblivious to the other 1/3, it doesn't make much sense for the remaining third to mirror 'life'.

But I do agree that Chess is the perfect comparison for American Football. And I love it for it.

 

[azzaman333]

One word for capitalization is execution. Of course another word for it is luck. You can be on the attack for most of the game, dominate possession and shots on goal, clearly play better...but be unlucky and lose.

True. However, this could also highlight that your team is unable to maintain pressure on the opposition, or are weak on a counter attack from the opposition, or don't have a reliable striker, or simply are over-rated in the first place.

This can happen in any sport of course. Though going by what I'm reading here, its much more likely to occur in soccer than in other sports. Not good.

The game is weighted in favour of preventing a high scoring game unless both teams are pretty much going all out for a goal. Anyway, you make your own luck by presurring the other team with good offensive plays. You may not get anything from the first or second attempts, but if you keep doing the right things the opposition will make a mistake sooner or later. And when they do, you have to take full advantage.

 

[Joe Harker]

We are. The worst crap that Guardian article could pull up isn't half as bad as some of the stuff we 'Mericans' have read about Euro soccer riots and hooligans.

Key word, in that, READ about it, the since the 1980s there has been no really big deveastating riots in mainland Britain due to football, in America you have them quite regulary. We haven't seen one in years in Britain, alright the matches are policed, maybe you should do it with yours then. (BTW i am commenting on Britain alone, my experience from the conitient is limited)

You might be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that the better team should win. But the team that plays better that day, that game generally should. In sports, displaying superior skill and effort in a given contest is generally rewarded and should be. Doesn't always work out that way, but that should usually be the case. And I just have to question a sport where that is much less likely to be the case.

But if you play better on the day then you should convert your chances and if you don't, well thats that teams fault. It's is one of the best things to watch a team being outclassed yet still win or draw, see Bolton on sunday or, Liverpool coming back from 3-0 down to win on penalties against AC Milan. It should have never happened, but it did, and those to me at least (not to Chelsea and AC Milan fans) are the best sought of matches. I look forward to the FA Cup Third round, not because loads of small teams will be whack, but one or two maybe more might somehow hang on to win the match.

Most importantly
EnlightenmentHK, if you don't like football then thats fine, it isn't your cup of tea, like a lot of other people, I don't like American football because the play is to stop start for me, i like a flowing game (Rugby when played well is the best sport in that respect in my opinion), i don't particulary like basketball because the result of each attack has a seemingly predictable outcome, either it will go in the net or it won't, i just don't appreciate the work behind that pass, behind that shot or tackle. With American sports to me it just seems that the same thing happens again and again but actually things are different each time, i just don't know the game well enough to notice them. Thats what i think is what is happening to you as you watch football, you just an attack that gets stop and hoofed out the area and to you thats a waste, but i see the central midfield running into the box for the through pass to spilt the defence and score, but it was stop very well by the defence.

 

[scy12]

So basically you don't like football because you don't understand what is football. That is because it requires some commitment to do so. You are perfectly cable to understand football but to do so you must sit down and watch several games.It is one of the most complex sports and for this reason is loved worldwide. If you have started young in the world where football was more popular you would undoubtedly also love the best sport invented by man. While all different sports have different elements that allows us to appreciate each different element of each , you appear to not to see which are the different elements that provide football such advantage.

but the main thrust of all of it is something I've termed 'proportional relevance'. What I mean by that is asking the question of how often does something relevant to the actual outcome actually occur within the game. I'm not just talking about scoring, but tangible, concrete, and measurable contributions towards actual scoring or even victory vs. defeat. I've concluded that soccer has much less of this than just about every other major sport and as such much more of what you're watching on the field is, if not totally irrelevant, than at the very least much less relevant than the on field action of every other sport.

Actually what you are trying to say is that there are many more parameters that play a role regarding victory or defeat in football rather than in other sports. Possession alone for example can not give you a victory. Thinking about it however you may see that a team may have other qualities other than keeping possession. What does this mean ? It means that Football is a sport that requires a bigger variety of skills from both teams and players than other sports.

 

[Nylan]

This is simply a conflict of instant gratification and predictability.

 

[TheLastOne36]

There are numerous other factors, but the main thrust of all of it is something I've termed 'proportional relevance'. What I mean by that is asking the question of how often does something relevant to the actual outcome actually occur within the game. I'm not just talking about scoring, but tangible, concrete, and measurable contributions towards actual scoring or even victory vs. defeat. I've concluded that soccer has much less of this than just about every other major sport and as such much more of what you're watching on the field is, if not totally irrelevant, than at the very least much less relevant than the on field action of every other sport.

Basketball is a no-brainer. Scoring happens early and often, all contributing to the final outcome. Every basket is relevant to that outcome, every 30 seconds to a minute there is some concrete and measurable progress towards victory and defeat. Essentially always something relevant going on. Baseball there are a finite amount of outs that each team has. Every out gets one team closer to victory. Every walk or single puts one team on the path of progress towards scoring. A score may not occur that inning, but for every man on base you are contributing towards that goal.

American football is of course all about field position. Every yard gained or lost gets you closer or further away from scoring. A 3 and out may not seem important, but it means the other team is more likely to receive the punt in better field position to score themselves. Literally every play, every yard, every inch matters in the game. They all contribute in some small way to the final outcome.

Soccer has very little of this. Scoring is infrequent, which isn't a problem in itself, but there is very little that you can point to as measurable progress towards scoring. One team may pressure, but a second later as the ball is cleared to midfield or further, nearly everything they just did is rendered moot. Irrelevant. And neutralizing of that pressure, either by clearing or other means, is the outcome 90% of the time or more. Basically one relatively easy kick away from everything you just attempted being in vain. About the only benefit gained from such failed efforts are the potential demoralizing effects of one team often being on the defensive and questions of fatigue and endurance. But both of those exist just as much in every other sport. But in none of those other sports are offensive actions rendered irrelevant so often. Nor is there an absence of measurable progress towards the final outcome, one way or another.

I think i know the problem.

a couple days ago, my uncle from the netherlands was visiting poland, and at the airport, there were american tourists unhappy because several flights were delayed. They were yelling and stuff, while others weren't.

So from that, i think the problem is, Americans are to Impatient. They can't wait 20 minutes to see a goal. Something BIG has to happen every so often to appeal to them.

That's why Basketball is so appealing. It is a fast moving sport, that scores alot. Baseball is similar because at every moment, someone's batting, or running to the next base, or trying to get the Ball. I'm not sure about American football because i don't know much about it, (i ain't a big rugby fan either) and to me it seems like a boring version of Tackle soccer, that allows you to use your hands. Maybe someone can clarify it for me.

Hockey is the closest thing to soccer in terms of scoring. I always though of Canada as more european in terms of culture, and maybe the extra patience allows them to watch and wait for someone to come and score.