The Problem with soccer

[Hitti-Litti]

^

You don't get a bad self-esteem if you're told every single day that you're very special, like parents do in the USA(Enlightenment, please, don't take that literally, and that way don't steer this to even more off-topic). Or it may be possible that when decades ago people got used to fight in stadiums, they continue to do it, just because older people did it.

 

[kalif]

I respectfully disagree. I believe that, somehow down the line (where are sociologists when one needs them?), our hoodlums have chosen stadiums as their favorite "playground".
Mind Hitti, I agree on the self-esteem issue, but your statement doesn't explain why this, for example, doesn't happen in the USA.

EDIT: I remember a TV debate I saw recently. Someone stated that in Roman times the people of Gaeta took the habit of fighting at the stadium. The response from the authorities was firm: stadium closed... for 13 years!

may i recommend bill buford's book ''among the thugs''?

an autobiographical piece of buford about his time in england, when he joined a "firm".
he is good at describing his lust for violence, sees parallels to young skinheads/neonazis etc. and makes clear, that those hools are in no way outsiders of the society.
he describes the joy of violence like a form of escapism, like drugs.
and he says that the violence around the stadiums is some sort of a substitute/compensation for real wars (ok, sounds farfetched).

but anyway, very recommendable book!

 

[warpus]

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.

How so? The fans get to see one team pressure for 10 minutes, there's chances, nice passes, one team obviously gaining confidence, altering the parameters of the game, etc. A lot is happening.

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.

Yeah, it affects it in indirect ways that you are ignoring. Besides, why is that a 'problem' ?

There is no constant, serious exertion.

Sure there is. Did you not see my stats? 10km in 90 minutes. That's pretty impressive.

Could you do that?

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.

You're looking for the wrong kind of payoff.

When you look at a hot girl walking down the street, do you consider it a "problem" when you don't get to take her to bed?

I hope not.. I hope you observe her luscious curves, her full lips, her perky breasts, tight butt. Once she walks past you and you don't even get to touch her, is that a problem? Well, sure some might consider it a problem, but it's alll about the journey man.

 

[BCLG100]

may i recommend bill buford's book ''among the thugs''?

an autobiographical piece of buford about his time in england, when he joined a "firm".
he is good at describing his lust for violence, sees parallels to young skinheads/neonazis etc. and makes clear, that those hools are in no way outsiders of the society.
he describes the joy of violence like a form of escapism, like drugs.
and he says that the violence around the stadiums is some sort of a substitute/compensation for real wars (ok, sounds farfetched).

but anyway, very recommendable book!

Well theres that or you could just watch Football factory and i guess to a lesser extent green street, though it is hard to take elijah wood seriously.

 

[Sofista]

may i recommend bill buford's book ''among the thugs''?

I'll look for it. Thanks.

Other titles which touch the topic somewhat substantially I have read: Tim Parks' "A season with Verona" (the author, a British writer who married and lives in Italy, follows a season with the local team, whose supporters are nationally known for their reactionary views) and the classic "Fever pitch".

 

[Dell19]

In fenced off sections? What if I'm wearing one teams gear and want to sit in the other team's section? Will I be allowed to? Will I get lynched if I do? Fact is everyone is going there to enjoy a game and root for their team. The fact that they're segregated seems silly. And if they're segregated for safety reasons, well than that's just sad.

Generally fences are not used in English stadiums. You could stand in the wrong section and not get lynched. For instance lots of Man United fans did this at Wigan however their fans were probably not that happy about it and if they had something to play for then there might have been an issue. Ultimately segregation is not silly or sad as there are lots of people in a confined space so even the risk of fights kicking off should be prevented.

I wonder how football hooliganism is reported in the US as FOX blamed the Bradford City fire on fans when it was an accident in an out dated stadium.

 

[El Koeno]

This whole riot discussion is completely off-topic. I don't think it has anything to do with the sport at all, and a discussion on the matter shouldn't be held in the sports talk forum.

As for the lovely game itself; have tried playing it yourself, Enlightenment? I don't think you'll talk about players jogging lazily around the pitch if you're defender knowing that any moment the opposing team can play a long ball forcing you in a race with your direct opponent. Those "lazy players" are 100% focused on the game. They have to be, as one moment of distraction could cost them the match. That's what makes the game so intense. It's actually so intense that many European men (perhaps women too, who knows) will die of heart problems coming summer, during the knock-out stage of Euro 2008.

Having said that, there's lots of Europeans who don't like football. So I doubt it's an American thing. It's a matter of taste, and perhaps you still won't like it, even after playing it a few times. But too say that "you don't have a clue why it's the most popular sport in the world" displays at least some level of ignorance IMHO.

 

[SenhorDaGuerra]

"The great fallacy is that the game is first and last about winning. It's nothing of the kind. The game is about glory." Danny Blanchflower

 

[Lambert Simnel]

But too say that "you don't have a clue why it's the most popular sport in the world" displays at least some level of ignorance IMHO.

Yep. The insane level of tension that I felt through the match tonight was shared by millions, maybe tens of millions, over the world. To fail to perceive the level of excitement, drama, triumph and despair is to be willfully blind.

 

[GinandTonic]

Yep. The insane level of tension that I felt through the match tonight was shared by millions, maybe tens of millions, over the world. To fail to perceive the level of excitement, drama, triumph and despair is to be willfully blind.

Wouldnt that be in the hundreds of millions of viewers?

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Yes. You're probably right, G&T.

 

[MilesGregarius]

@Enlightenment

As a fellow Yank, I've got to call you on a couple things.

If you think we've never had riots following major sporting events, think again. Detroit fans nearly burnt down their own city when the Tigers won the '84 World Series. Fan violence has nothing to do with the sport, or Major League Soccer should see DC United fans slugging it out with LA Galaxy supporters. Fan violence, both in Detroit in '84 and in the darkest eras of English soccer hooliganism were closely related to prolonged periods of economic hardship and sporting events offering people a chance to indulge in extremely anti-social ways of venting their frustration. As much as improved policing may have reduced fan violence in England, stronger economic conditions have had even more to do with reducing hooliganism by reducing the number of angry, idle young men itching for a fight.

The argument that the lack of metrics to display the progress, or lack thereof, of two teams towards scoring shows as much misunderstanding of soccer as European soccer and rugby fans denigrating football for resetting the line of scrimage between plays. Soccer is a game of near misses. The adrenalin rush of watching a soccer drive whiz inches past the post is not dissimlar to that which comes from watching a receiver at full stretch just miss pulling in a fade in the corner of the endzone. To appreciate the excitement in any sport requires an understanding of the nuances involved and the buildup required to get to the payoff. If you lack such an understanding, it's not an indication that the sport itself is not a highly enthralling contest of skill. (This applies equally to all the American football hating Euros and Aussies out there).

Simply having metrics to measure the supposed progress one team or another in the field doesn't add to the excitement. Two crap offenses marching back and forth from redzone to redzone - trading field goals, turnovers, and four-and-outs - is utterly mindnumbing. But even here the true fan can get his fix of excitement by the periodic spectacular play. The same applies to soccer; two skilled teams throwing everything they've got into it can produce nail-biting excitement while two ho-hum teams going through the motions can swiftly induce coma. And one area where European league structures provide excitement that American leagues don't, regardless of sport, is the relegation battle where the crap teams are fighting for their lives, not racing to the bottom and a high draft pick.

 

[El Koeno]

@Miles: That was quite a good argument, I couldn't agree more.

 

[MadScotsMan]

The problem with soccer is....well, I don't like watching. I've watched, and liked watching some games, but those games are few.

 

[Will9]

On Americans being able to not kill eachother over sports, I shall cite the following game:

2006 AFC Divisional Round Game Indianapolis Colts @ Baltimore Ravens

Baltimore has hated the Colts ever since they left city and didn't tell anyone until they were already halfway to Indianapolis. To give you an idea of how strong this hate is, before the game any Colts fan (which Colts fans are well known to wear Colts cloths a lot) walking into a bar would be instantly greeted by everyone in the bar booing. The scoreboard in Baltimore says the teams nickname except with Colts when the scoreboard just say "Indy" refusing to acknoledge that the Colts are another city's team. Some Baltimore fans had signs such as "Robert Isray (the fomer Colts owner who brought the Colts to Indy and father of the current owner), rot in hell" or "1985 Colts leave in trucks. 2007 (the game was played in 2007, but the 2006 season) Colts leave in body bags" During football, the cheering tendency is that you should remain relatively silent when your team is on offence except after good plays, first downs, or scoring. When your team is on defence, the you keep up the cheering the whole time. In this game, while the Ravens were defending, instead of cheering for their defence, there was a chant of "Peyton Manning Sucks!" Anyway the Colts won 15-6 and the Colts fans all survived.

For the arguement that football can be unpredictable, I cite,

2007 Divisional Round Game San Diego Chargers (aka Bolts) @ Indianapolis Colts.

The Colts, the reigning Super Bowl Champions, are favored by a touchdown. The Bolts' tight end (one of the best tight ends in the NFl) is the playing with an injury. The Bolts' quarterback gets an injury late in the second half and has to sit the rest of the game. The Bolts' running back, the season's leading rusher, gets and injury in the 3rd querter. So the Bolts' offence are left with a backup quaterback, a backup running back, and the best player remaining on offense has an injury. The Chargers end up winning with the winning score being made with conditions I just described.

 

[Stapel]

I'm the type of guy that watches almost any sport. I've been up until 4am on several occasions to watch NFL or MJB. However, my affection towards football (as in the game where the ball is played with your foot), will always remain bigger!

I think there are two factors that are responsible for the enormous popularity of football, around the world:
-The simplicity. Nothing is more simple than trying to kick a ball between two posts. That's it, basically. No other team-ball-sport is so basic. They're all the results of strong development over the years.
-The difficulty of controlling a ball and the result of that: unexpectancy. Controlling a ball with your feet is a 100 times more difficult than controlling it with your hands. Even controlling a ball with a stick or bat, is easier than controlling it with your feet. Apart form the exceptionally talented players, most players need time to control a ball, thus giving time for an opponent to come near and cause a dule for the ball.

 

[Rhye]

EnlightenmentHK, I'd see the matter from another point of view.
Consider that scoring (and preventing from scoring) is the only thing that matters.
There are many philosophies about the way that leads to the success. The Spanish love possession (and south americans too). English and Germans like phisical play. The Italian way, it's worldwide known. "Defending and backstabbing". Kinda like a scorpion.
There's no best way, that's why you can't measure the progress.

We riot and stab people...because we care? Nice try.

This is actually true. Some people here in Italy live for their team. They're completely dedicated, 7 days a week. A true faith.
A recent survey showed that a good percentage of Brits prefer football to sex.

 

[Rhye]

EDIT: I remember a TV debate I saw recently. Someone stated that in Roman times the people of Gaeta took the habit of fighting at the stadium. The response from the authorities was firm: stadium closed... for 13 years!

this is what you mean

It was Pompeii vs Nocera. The amphitheatre was disqualified after the incidents
So, yeah, we invented it

Sub idem tempus levi initio atrox caedes orta inter colonos Nucerinos Pompeianosque gladiatorio spectaculo, quod Livineius Regulus, quem motum senatu rettuli, edebat. quippe oppidana lascivia in vicem incessente probra, dein saxa, postremo ferrum sumpsere, validiore Pompeianorum plebe, apud quos spectaculum edebatur. ergo deportati sunt in urbem multi e Nucerinis trunco per vulnera corpore, ac plerique liberorum aut parentum mortes deflebant. cuius rei iudicium princeps senatui, senatus consulibus permisit. et rursus re ad patres relata, prohibiti publice in decem annos eius modi coetu Pompeiani collegiaque, quae contra leges instituerant, dissoluta; Livineius et qui alii seditionem conciverant exilio multati sunt.

 

[Sofista]

Hee hee, we must add "stadium rioting" to the list of national accomplishments.

"Defending and backstabbing".

Wouldn't you mean "defending and counterattacking"? That is, if you meant contropiede.

 

[Rhye]

not necessarily. Free kicks, corners, personal inventions...lots of weapons to kill the opponent with a single, deadly, strike.
But yeah, after verifying on the dictionary, the term is not appropriate.