WC 2006: Group E

[classical_hero]

Soccer is a very convenient sport to play. That's one of the reasons why it's so common to see kids playing soccer recreationally (usually organized to some extent). American football requires a specialized ball, and if you play tackle football, you need helmets, pads, etc. Most Americans have played touch football many times, I think. Baseball is now played only with helmets and specialized fields. Hockey requires sticks.

All you need to play soccer is a round ball approximately the size of a soccer ball, and any four markers to mark the goals. Also, everyone is phsyically capable of playing soccer (though most will not be very good), while many people would not be willing to take the pounding of American football, and baseball isn't fun if you suck.

Americans like watching American football because well, there are frequent scores, the battle for field position is visible and tangible (unlike in soccer where a team can dominate and play in the opponent's end of the field, but then be hit with a counterattack if the opponent suddenly gets a surge of energy or a goal kick or whatever, followed by a lucky bounce/touch).

I've watched MLS games from time to time. The level of play/intensity is nothing like the world cup. I would definitely watch soccer (probably casually) if MLS athletes were like that. As of now, the best baseball players in the world play in the US, and so do the best American football players.

More scores does not necessarily make a game better. The problem with Gridiron is that the actual game time is 1 hour and often they run three times than that. With Association football you know exactly how long the game will last for and this is 2 hours, allowing for breaks and time added on.

 

[kingjoshi]

um^x, is exactly right. Television deals increase audience. And fantasy football and gambling also increases the audience. Also, obviously much greater number of females played soccer compared to football, but (at least in the US) relatively few watch sports. More men watched the WNBA then women.

If you get to the high school level, it's hard to compare the # of athletes in either sport. One football team has well over 50 players. A college team can have up to a 100, with 85 being on scholarship. In soccer, you have 23 man teams or smaller. With so many players on a team, you're much more likely to have friends on a team and watch your friend's games. Also, in several states (Ohio, Texas), high school football is BIG. Not to mention college football. It's part of tradition and culture. I bleed Scarlet and Gray about the football team. And I can't believe I still do even though I got rejected to their grad school! It becomes ingrained.

Anyhow, if people want to play either sport, getting one ball versus another is not difficult. You can buy a good cheap football for $5 on sale. (I always have both in my car, including volleyball, etc). People play tackle in the fields all the time without pads. We just don't hit each other like they do in the leagues.

And now, I prefer the breaks in football compared to the non-stop action in soccer. I would prefer a blend, but that's not possible. I like the fact that football is a turn based game then a RTS. I like that I can discuss, analyze and break down every aspect of the play and consider the best option for the next play. People that prefer CIV over Age of Empires/Starcraft (though one can obviously like both) should understand the values of football compared to soccer.

I like that I can use the restroom or go get a snack and in that 10 second break, I won't miss the only score of the game!

 

[dgfred]

I hate to be one of those American sport fans who whine about the refs when things dont go their way...but I'm going to anyways. De Rossi's red..okay, that was an awful foul. The first red for America, (the two legged tackle), I guess could be a red. Eddie Pope did not deserve two yellow cards though. (and why is he playing anyways? The American team is stronger without him.)

There were a few iffy offsides calls as well....but I wish the refs were more CONSISTANT. If you're going to call a "dangerous" challenge, fine. Call ALL of them, and then call all the diving the Italians were doing in the midfield....good grief, what a bunch of pansies.

I think we could have won that match, but I'm okay with a tie....we still have a decent chance to advance now

I agree with you 100% Mr.Brown, especially about Pope's playing
and the diving .

 

[Gladi]

Soccer is a very convenient sport to play.

Bright day
Actually you need only the ball and two legs. I cannot count times when at granparents I drove grandfather to mad rage, bouncing the ball of the car gate.

Also I spoke now with my father about the saturday game, and he added little snippet that he bet 20 000 bucks that we won't make it out of the group. I am soo torn now .

 

[Azale]

Which is hilariously ironic since Americans gobble up Boreball. And even more hilarious, I bet more American children play organized Soccer as oppossed to Baseball or American football.

I think it's more of an issue nationality. America has never been a great football country. They can't stand being inferior to the rest of the world.

Oh shut up, its nothing to do with that. Dont be ignorant.

The problem for soccer in the USA is that we have 5 leagues competing with it. NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, and now NASCAR. Not to mention golf is relatively popular.

Its not a problem of patience either. As that person above has pointed out, baseball is incredibly popular in the US and its scores are often below 5 for each team. Football games can be low scoring too and many fans enjoy those games. Hockey scores are usually low as well, and golf is THE slowest game I can think of.

Just because soccer is not the dominant sport in the USA does not mean something is wrong with us.

btw Im predicting an American loss to Ghana....dont know why, I just dont feel good about it. At all.

 

[TimTheEnchanter]

My theory: the majority of the American audience has learned to like...no, expect, games where there is tangible, measurable progress toward victory throughout. Football has measurable yards of progress and controlled possession of the ball. Baseball has discreet bases earned - they don't always end up in runs, but they show some progress toward a goal. Both have more scores per game than soccer, Racing/Nascar has very clear placement - you know who is winning and losing at all times and how far they must go. Golf keeps score for 72 holes. The closest thing to a fluid game in the US is basketball, and there the scoring is so frequent that one can see and measure the progress.

And don't underestimate the importance of bathroom breaks in most of these sports. Folks are complaining about commercials in US football - that's when we exchange old beer for new.

A friend at work was complaining about the low scores and boredom of the games. I basically said he was nuts and that there is far more action than his beloved baseball. He made the comment that he doesn't find shots on goal, or good ball control to be interesting, yet he likes baseball because men are getting on base with regularity. I tried to point out just how ironic this viewpoint was, but he just mumbled something about it being boring. (Frankly, I have gotten to the point where I can hardly stand baseball, although I will still watch part of the post-season because the intensity does tend to ratchet up a bit when there aren't 162 mind-numbing games to slog through and you get down to true elimination, but it's still a grind)

 

[kingjoshi]

For those that like strategy, the more you understand of any sport, the more you can appreciate it. The pitch by pitch strategy of baseball is unique among the sports mentioned. You have a pitcher who has studied the batter and vice versa and both have their strengths and weaknesses. You have to consider the guys on base, the outs, the next guy up at bat, score, inning, etc as well. I think general managers have less to do though compared to other sports.

In basketball, you have contrasts of coaches like D'Antoni who lets Nash be the coach on the court and decide and run the plays. And the team is free willing and high scoring. You then have coaches like Carlisle who calls the play for his team on almost every possesion. You have tactics in regards to size and speed, not to mention the plays themselves.

Of course there is room of soccer in the US. But baseball has lost it's title as "America's pastime". NFL is as dominant as a sport can be, but there are many college football fans that don't watch the pros (and vice versa). I'm a sports junkie, but I can understand there is too much going on. This year, I haven't been had time to watch the NHL playoffs!

 

[Louis XXIV]

You just reminded me that the Stanley Cup finals was on tonight (Carolina won, apparently).

I think some of the problem with interest in Soccer is that the United States isn't really exposed to good soccer. The lack of progress is a good point, but hockey has the same flaw and can still be interesting (although I guess not interesting enough, since I didn't watch it ). If there was steady access to good soccer, it might be able to beat out Hockey, but I don't think it could beat out American Football or Basketball.

BTW, what's up with that whole counting up thing. Why can't the clock show how much time is left like every other sport does? I know its a minor thing, but it always bugs me.

 

[ThERat]

BTW, what's up with that whole counting up thing. Why can't the clock show how much time is left like every other sport does? I know its a minor thing, but it always bugs me.

I don't think it is overly complicated to follow the clock until it hits 45min/90min. Or are you trying to say that this is asking for too much?

 

[kingjoshi]

BTW, what's up with that whole counting up thing. Why can't the clock show how much time is left like every other sport does? I know its a minor thing, but it always bugs me.

MLS tried that. It's pretty silly counting to zero and then adding more time. Anyhow, change for changes sake isn't necessarily a smart thing.

 

[ummmm........]

How do they do commericals in racing?

 

[kingjoshi]

How do they do commericals in racing?

It's not like you missed much if you don't see guys complete a couple laps. And you always have replays if necessary.

I know that ESPN has started doing more split screen commercial/game during the MLS games. I think that will continue to increase. As long as they show the game, I can put up with it. It's better than when they show their stupid graphics which covers up the game they're trying to show. The ESPN production of these games have been terrible. Commentators have been horrible. The recaps of other games are brief and almost non-existent. Even the game itself is barely talked about instead of US this, US that. It's just a shame.

On the other end, Univision has done a much better job. And I don't even speak Spanish! Plus, during the Brazil game, the ladies in the studios were hot!

 

[Hitro]

My theory: the majority of the American audience has learned to like...no, expect, games where there is tangible, measurable progress toward victory throughout. Football has measurable yards of progress and controlled possession of the ball. Baseball has discreet bases earned - they don't always end up in runs, but they show some progress toward a goal. Both have more scores per game than soccer, Racing/Nascar has very clear placement - you know who is winning and losing at all times and how far they must go. Golf keeps score for 72 holes. The closest thing to a fluid game in the US is basketball, and there the scoring is so frequent that one can see and measure the progress.

Interesting, as the absence of that is exactly what makes me like sports more than others. A slightly different angle on this is the structure of Basketball and Handball. While, like in American football, balls can be "stolen" generally they follow a much more clear pattern of attack and defense than football and hockey. And those attacks are in far more cases completed with scoring. Thus a clear lead ten minutes from time is, when played out tactically well, not really possible to swing around. You can at any point calculate the chances for who is winning or as you said "you know who is winning and losing at all times". Those sports are less dynamic and thus more easy to calculate through.
Probably a matter of taste, but if I want to calculate things through I could just do some work.

 

[Hitro]

It's not like you missed much if you don't see guys complete a couple laps. And you always have replays if necessary.

Also in American racing there are ridiculous amounts and especially lengths of full course yellows...

 

[woodelf]

Calling NASCAR a sport isn't right IMO. I know it's covered on Sportscenter so it must be, right?

 

[Rhye]

BTW, what's up with that whole counting up thing. Why can't the clock show how much time is left like every other sport does? I know its a minor thing, but it always bugs me.

How many other sports do that, except American ones?

 

[woodelf]

Personally I like the counting in football. How would you do extra time, negative numbers?

 

[Rik Meleet]

How many other sports do that, except American ones?

I know (field) hockey has that as well.

 

[TimTheEnchanter]

Personally I like the counting in football. How would you do extra time, negative numbers?

There's a couple ways to handle this - you can just roll the clock back to 2 or 3 minutes and count them down again. You end up playing "2 minutes left in the half" twice, but this isn't much different than essentially playing the 47th minute twice (once at the end of the first half and again at the start of the 2nd). You just call it "2 minutes left in extra time" like you might say "the first minute of extra time" now.

However, the more likely "American" answer would be that the referee signals when a stoppage occurs and you just stop the clock! If the referee has decided the game is stopped, why is the clock still moving? This makes the timekeeping transparent: It's all up on the board and everyone playing and watching knows exactly how much time remains. The current system seems to allow the referee the opportunity to manipulate things with how he tracks and awards stoppage time.

Edit to add: But there are a lot of other things the referees can manipulate that have far greater impact than this

 

[Marla_Singer]

BTW, what's up with that whole counting up thing. Why can't the clock show how much time is left like every other sport does? I know its a minor thing, but it always bugs me.

That's because football is made as a sport being played continuously. That's the big difference between US sports and football actually.

US sports such as base-ball or NFL are found boring by Europeans because of all the breaks. Obviously, the tensions in those sports are concentrated on very short periods of intensity. Out of those periods of high intensity, nothing happens, players simply shew gums.

On the other side, football is a game played continuously, with players jogging during an important part of the game. That means that the game is still on when there are moments of low intensity, and that's what Americans find boring. I think that's just a cultural difference between both continents, it's simply about what we are used to and what we consider as sport. However, what I personally like in football is that moments of high intensity can take you by surprise, something which is a lot less true in games where the chronometer is stopped during breaks.

As I've said, it's a cultural difference, with pros and cons in both cases. I personally think that there's room for all sports in their diversity, and that they should simply be accepted as different, without necessary trying to find a system superior to the other one. It's all a matter of taste after all. And that's because tastes are different that diversity is so enjoyable.