With 2 lockouts - soccer may become Americas Pastime by default

[Two Thumbs]

I like soccer AND baseball. FuckyouguysI'mloggingoff.

Pussy

 

[Sheldon]

I like soccer AND baseball. FuckyouguysI'mloggingoff.

Pussy

I like that too.

 

[Blagger]

Warning: long incoming post/explaination.


Personally, I'm a Rugby fan. But I still watch the big UEFA cup clashes.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but, in my opinion, the two main reasons that I think that football/soccer will never gain widespread popularity amongst 2nd, 3rd and 4th (etc, etc...) generation Americans is because a) it's regarded as a European sport, and b) the element of required regional tribalism doesn't exist in the United States and Canada to the extent that it does in Europe. Due to our comparatively close proximities, Europeans are inherently tribal, even within our own countries. This is one of the key attractions to football amongst Europeans [fans].

Big regional clashes with the UEFA Champions League (in which only the best clubs in Europe can participate - following a stiff process of elimination in the domestic leagues) are often a massive clash of cultures. It's often a case of North Vs. Southern European teams. The English Premier League, Dutch Topklasse and German Bundesliga are highly respected in Southern European nations, as are the Italian Serie A and Spanish La Liga in Northern Europe, with players from all five leagues transfering amongst each other regularly.

Big European and domestic clashes take advantage of the tribalistic nature of the fans. There's a great deal of hype leading-up to a big clash. Another important factor is past armed conflicts amongst European nations. As a result of which there's also a lot of eye-for-an-eye in European football, a factor unlikely to manifest itself in present American soccer matches - not to mention fatalities that have occured as a result of football related violence. For instance, in 1989 over two hundred fans died on a single day in the Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield, England. With over five hundred serious casualties. The same has happened on the continent over the years, too.

Summing-up. Football is a highly-charged and incredibly volatile spectator sport in Europe. What happens outside of the stadium amongst opposing fans often makes-up for any frustration following a defeat on the pitch. This is yet to happen in America. Though that may change in the near future if more hispanics continue to establish themselves in America.

 

[Big Fitz]

Warning: long incoming post/explaination.


Personally, I'm a Rugby fan. But I still watch the big UEFA cup clashes.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but, in my opinion, the two main reasons that I think that football/soccer will never gain widespread popularity amongst 2nd, 3rd and 4th (etc, etc...) generation Americans is because a) it's regarded as a European sport, and b) the element of required regional tribalism doesn't exist in the United States and Canada to the extent that it does in Europe. Due to our comparatively close proximities, Europeans are inherently tribal, even within our own countries. This is one of the key attractions to football amongst Europeans [fans].

Big regional clashes with the UEFA Champions League (in which only the best clubs in Europe can participate - following a stiff process of elimination in the domestic leagues) are often a massive clash of cultures. It's often a case of North Vs. Southern European teams. The English Premier League, Dutch Topklasse and German Bundesliga are highly respected in Southern European nations, as are the Italian Serie A and Spanish La Liga in Northern Europe, with players from all five leagues transfering amongst each other regularly.

Big European and domestic clashes take advantage of the tribalistic nature of the fans. There's a great deal of hype leading-up to a big clash. Another important factor is past armed conflicts amongst European nations. As a result of which there's also a lot of eye-for-an-eye in European football, a factor unlikely to manifest itself in present American soccer matches - not to mention fatalities that have occured as a result of football related violence. For instance, in 1989 over two hundred fans died on a single day in the Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield, England. With over five hundred serious casualties. The same has happened on the continent over the years, too.

Summing-up. Football is a highly-charged and incredibly volatile spectator sport in Europe. What happens outside of the stadium amongst opposing fans often makes-up for any frustration following a defeat on the pitch. This is yet to happen in America. Though that may change in the near future if more hispanics continue to establish themselves in America.

Oh hey! Yeah. Rugby I'd put in front of Baseblah and Basketblah even though I don't quite understand it.

So, Football (the real stuff not Futbol) Hockey and Rugby would have to be my top three.

 

[Sheldon]

Warning: long incoming post/explaination.


Personally, I'm a Rugby fan. But I still watch the big UEFA cup clashes.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but, in my opinion, the two main reasons that I think that football/soccer will never gain widespread popularity amongst 2nd, 3rd and 4th (etc, etc...) generation Americans is because a) it's regarded as a European sport, and b) the element of required regional tribalism doesn't exist in the United States and Canada to the extent that it does in Europe. Due to our comparatively close proximities, Europeans are inherently tribal, even within our own countries. This is one of the key attractions to football amongst Europeans [fans].

Big regional clashes with the UEFA Champions League (in which only the best clubs in Europe can participate - following a stiff process of elimination in the domestic leagues) are often a massive clash of cultures. It's often a case of North Vs. Southern European teams. The English Premier League, Dutch Topklasse and German Bundesliga are highly respected in Southern European nations, as are the Italian Serie A and Spanish La Liga in Northern Europe, with players from all five leagues transfering amongst each other regularly.

Big European and domestic clashes take advantage of the tribalistic nature of the fans. There's a great deal of hype leading-up to a big clash. Another important factor is past armed conflicts amongst European nations. As a result of which there's also a lot of eye-for-an-eye in European football, a factor unlikely to manifest itself in present American soccer matches - not to mention fatalities that have occured as a result of football related violence. For instance, in 1989 over two hundred fans died on a single day in the Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield, England. With over five hundred serious casualties. The same has happened on the continent over the years, too.

Summing-up. Football is a highly-charged and incredibly volatile spectator sport in Europe. What happens outside of the stadium amongst opposing fans often makes-up for any frustration following a defeat on the pitch. This is yet to happen in America. Though that may change in the near future if more hispanics continue to establish themselves in America.

League or union?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Warning: long incoming post/explaination.


Personally, I'm a Rugby fan. But I still watch the big UEFA cup clashes.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but, in my opinion, the two main reasons that I think that football/soccer will never gain widespread popularity amongst 2nd, 3rd and 4th (etc, etc...) generation Americans is because a) it's regarded as a European sport, and b) the element of required regional tribalism doesn't exist in the United States and Canada to the extent that it does in Europe. Due to our comparatively close proximities, Europeans are inherently tribal, even within our own countries. This is one of the key attractions to football amongst Europeans [fans].

Big regional clashes with the UEFA Champions League (in which only the best clubs in Europe can participate - following a stiff process of elimination in the domestic leagues) are often a massive clash of cultures. It's often a case of North Vs. Southern European teams. The English Premier League, Dutch Topklasse and German Bundesliga are highly respected in Southern European nations, as are the Italian Serie A and Spanish La Liga in Northern Europe, with players from all five leagues transfering amongst each other regularly.

Big European and domestic clashes take advantage of the tribalistic nature of the fans. There's a great deal of hype leading-up to a big clash. Another important factor is past armed conflicts amongst European nations. As a result of which there's also a lot of eye-for-an-eye in European football, a factor unlikely to manifest itself in present American soccer matches - not to mention fatalities that have occured as a result of football related violence. For instance, in 1989 over two hundred fans died on a single day in the Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield, England. With over five hundred serious casualties. The same has happened on the continent over the years, too.

Summing-up. Football is a highly-charged and incredibly volatile spectator sport in Europe. What happens outside of the stadium amongst opposing fans often makes-up for any frustration following a defeat on the pitch. This is yet to happen in America. Though that may change in the near future if more hispanics continue to establish themselves in America.

I got to see some rugby. It look pleasantly violent, sadly it was one lopsided game.

And considering the tribal nature you talk about, I would think the NFL [football] would have caught on better in the EU.

There is nothing more satisphying to the Philly Eagles phan than seeing the NY Giants QB get folded up like a wet rag.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I like soccer AND baseball. FuckyouguysI'mloggingoff.

Pussy

I like that too.

From your sig line;

"That was not intended to be a factual statement."

 

[Two Thumbs]

Why was softball invented?





B/c someone thought baseball wasn't boring enough.

 

[Montrovant]

Soccer has a tough row to hoe in the United States for one reason.... It's NOT a linear game. Americans are STUPID when it comes to sports. They want nice, simple, linear games that don't require much tactical knowledge or understanding of the sport from the fans and which have a lot of offense and scoring (or at least violence). Soccer is the exact opposite. One must actually understand the game to truly enjoy it, and it's not generally high scoring. The other thing is that American sports fans are used to sports where the officials call everything and where the idea of faking an injury to draw a penalty or advantage is relatively unheard of. Soccer involves some amount of diving and faking. It's a part of the game I'd like to see go away, but it IS part of the game. It's part of the tactics and probably will always be.

First, the idea that a game isn't boring, it's just too involved or intellectual isn't limited to soccer. You hear the same thing about baseball; people who think it's boring just don't appreciate the chess match, don't understand all that's going on, blah blah blah. It's an excuse. It's saying, "All that time when nothing is going on, something really IS going on, you just can't see it!" even though, really, nothing is going on. Soccer doesn't have all the stops that a game like baseball does, but the concept is the same.

The problem isn't that soccer is low scoring; the problem is that it is low scoring when the goal is huge! I love hockey, and some of the best games are 1-0, I love multiple overtime games in the playoffs. The difference is that the goalie in hockey can actually cover the entire net without having to run from one side to the other. Look at soccer shoot-outs.....the goalie has to just take a guess and jump, hoping he gets lucky and the ball hits him. Why? The goal is so damn big, it's physically impossible to react to a shot and get to the ball in time unless it's kicked almost directly at the goalie. That being the case, there should be more scoring!

As far as needing to understand the sport to enjoy it, I think that's mostly true of all of them. Do you know many people who don't understand, but watch and enjoy any sports?

Pretending to get hurt to draw a penalty is not unheard of in American sports. It's a long-standing practice in hockey and I believe it's done in basketball as well. I think soccer just takes it further.

So, while it is of course just a matter of opinion, soccer sucks!

 

[Anachronism]

Soccer is a chess match with a ball.

Yse, very much it is a chess match with a ball. Of course, like chess most Americans know absolutely nothing about soccer so they disparage it. I would suggest that says more about Americans than about either of those games.

First, the idea that a game isn't boring, it's just too involved or intellectual isn't limited to soccer. You hear the same thing about baseball; people who think it's boring just don't appreciate the chess match, don't understand all that's going on, blah blah blah. It's an excuse. It's saying, "All that time when nothing is going on, something really IS going on, you just can't see it!" even though, really, nothing is going on. Soccer doesn't have all the stops that a game like baseball does, but the concept is the same.

You are correct.... All that time when nothing is apparently going on, many things ARE going on. Unfortunately the average American is too uninformed to be able to see or understand it. Television doesn't help by focusing solely on the ball-handler when much of the time the real game is going on away from the ball.

The problem isn't that soccer is low scoring; the problem is that it is low scoring when the goal is huge! I love hockey, and some of the best games are 1-0, I love multiple overtime games in the playoffs. The difference is that the goalie in hockey can actually cover the entire net without having to run from one side to the other. Look at soccer shoot-outs.....the goalie has to just take a guess and jump, hoping he gets lucky and the ball hits him. Why? The goal is so damn big, it's physically impossible to react to a shot and get to the ball in time unless it's kicked almost directly at the goalie. That being the case, there should be more scoring!

Again, you show the lack of knowledge. The net is actually being defended by up to all 11 players on a side at times. By playing angles, forcing offensive players out of good shooting areas, and closely marking passing options the field players do as much if not more to defend their own net than their keeper does.

As far as needing to understand the sport to enjoy it, I think that's mostly true of all of them. Do you know many people who don't understand, but watch and enjoy any sports?

The aggressive, violent, linear sports. The ones that appeal to the base emotions and animal instincts. Not many people watch baseball or chess matches unless they're into the game either.

Pretending to get hurt to draw a penalty is not unheard of in American sports. It's a long-standing practice in hockey and I believe it's done in basketball as well. I think soccer just takes it further.

It happens, but those players are much more likely to be chastized by the fans and media. Look at the Montreal Canadiens, Tampa Bay Lightning and Vancouver Canucks this post-season. All got hammered in the press for the diving they are so apt to do.

 

[GHook93]

Soccer is making headwinds ..

Soccer is better today than the phoniness of the NASL and the NY Cosmos of the 70s.

Soccer Failed back then.

One reason soccer has failed is that they have been trying to cram it down our throats for the past 50 years.

We still have Hockey and Baseball!!! Also Ultimate Fighting and Boxing. For the rednecks we still have NASCAR! Soccer isn't dominating this country anytime soon!

 

[JWBooth]

Soccer - created so that third world countries could hold their riots in a controlled atmosphere.

 

[rightwinger]

Soccer is a chess match with a ball.

Yse, very much it is a chess match with a ball. Of course, like chess most Americans know absolutely nothing about soccer so they disparage it. I would suggest that says more about Americans than about either of those games.

First, the idea that a game isn't boring, it's just too involved or intellectual isn't limited to soccer. You hear the same thing about baseball; people who think it's boring just don't appreciate the chess match, don't understand all that's going on, blah blah blah. It's an excuse. It's saying, "All that time when nothing is going on, something really IS going on, you just can't see it!" even though, really, nothing is going on. Soccer doesn't have all the stops that a game like baseball does, but the concept is the same.

You are correct.... All that time when nothing is apparently going on, many things ARE going on. Unfortunately the average American is too uninformed to be able to see or understand it. Television doesn't help by focusing solely on the ball-handler when much of the time the real game is going on away from the ball.



Again, you show the lack of knowledge. The net is actually being defended by up to all 11 players on a side at times. By playing angles, forcing offensive players out of good shooting areas, and closely marking passing options the field players do as much if not more to defend their own net than their keeper does.

As far as needing to understand the sport to enjoy it, I think that's mostly true of all of them. Do you know many people who don't understand, but watch and enjoy any sports?

The aggressive, violent, linear sports. The ones that appeal to the base emotions and animal instincts. Not many people watch baseball or chess matches unless they're into the game either.

Pretending to get hurt to draw a penalty is not unheard of in American sports. It's a long-standing practice in hockey and I believe it's done in basketball as well. I think soccer just takes it further.

It happens, but those players are much more likely to be chastized by the fans and media. Look at the Montreal Canadiens, Tampa Bay Lightning and Vancouver Canucks this post-season. All got hammered in the press for the diving they are so apt to do.

What's to know?

Kick the ball to one side of the field and the other team will get the ball and kick it to your side of the field. After an hour and a half of this they will declare a shoot out and teams take turns making the goalie look like an idiot

Zuzuvuelas make a nice racket though

 

[HUGGY]

Here's a simple concept to help solve the feud between frank and manifold:

There are boring soccer matches and there are exciting, heart-stopping soccer matches.

The USA Brasil in 94 was a phenomenal match.

KrustyFrank....You are definitely GAY!!!!!

Just sayin.....

Not that there is anything wrong with that....

 

[Sheldon]

Soccer is a chess match with a ball.

Yse, very much it is a chess match with a ball. Of course, like chess most Americans know absolutely nothing about soccer so they disparage it. I would suggest that says more about Americans than about either of those games.

First, the idea that a game isn't boring, it's just too involved or intellectual isn't limited to soccer. You hear the same thing about baseball; people who think it's boring just don't appreciate the chess match, don't understand all that's going on, blah blah blah. It's an excuse. It's saying, "All that time when nothing is going on, something really IS going on, you just can't see it!" even though, really, nothing is going on. Soccer doesn't have all the stops that a game like baseball does, but the concept is the same.

You are correct.... All that time when nothing is apparently going on, many things ARE going on. Unfortunately the average American is too uninformed to be able to see or understand it. Television doesn't help by focusing solely on the ball-handler when much of the time the real game is going on away from the ball.



Again, you show the lack of knowledge. The net is actually being defended by up to all 11 players on a side at times. By playing angles, forcing offensive players out of good shooting areas, and closely marking passing options the field players do as much if not more to defend their own net than their keeper does.

As far as needing to understand the sport to enjoy it, I think that's mostly true of all of them. Do you know many people who don't understand, but watch and enjoy any sports?

The aggressive, violent, linear sports. The ones that appeal to the base emotions and animal instincts. Not many people watch baseball or chess matches unless they're into the game either.

Pretending to get hurt to draw a penalty is not unheard of in American sports. It's a long-standing practice in hockey and I believe it's done in basketball as well. I think soccer just takes it further.

It happens, but those players are much more likely to be chastized by the fans and media. Look at the Montreal Canadiens, Tampa Bay Lightning and Vancouver Canucks this post-season. All got hammered in the press for the diving they are so apt to do.

I seem to remember the Bruins having some kind of connection to the comish's office, and that's why they've gotten leeway on so much shit. BWGD, right?

 

[Montrovant]

Again, you show the lack of knowledge. The net is actually being defended by up to all 11 players on a side at times. By playing angles, forcing offensive players out of good shooting areas, and closely marking passing options the field players do as much if not more to defend their own net than their keeper does.

I'm just going to respond to this part of your post.

Of course other members of the team other than the goalie help to defend. That's a given. As I said before, I watch hockey, and the goalie certainly isn't the only one defending the net. Blocked shots are a huge part of the game.

That said, the goal in soccer is still HUGE. It is large enough that, if a person were accurate enough, it seems possible to score almost at will once you get in range if you can get it to the net. The net is tall enough that, if a shot is not blocked, it will be hard for a goalie just to get the elevation to stop it if it's at the top; add in the 23 feet! from one side to the other and I find it ridiculous.

I think soccer is a larger, slower, less violent, poorer version of the same type of game as hockey. Hockey is also not a popular sport in the US, although I think more so than soccer. Now, you can deride the violence or speed or linear nature of various games all you want, but I think the important thing to remember is we are talking about spectator sports. Soccer (and baseball, IMO) are games that while as fun to play as any other sport, and much easier for the average kid to get into because of the lack of violence which leads to much less need for protective equipment, are not great as spectator sports. Perhaps more accurately, they are not great as televised spectator sports (baseball can be fun to watch in person, I imagine soccer is the same). They are slow, there is too much dead-time (far more in baseball), there is little violence, and in the case of soccer, little scoring. These things might not be so bad taken individually, but when you add them together it doesn't make for an appealing production to a large portion of the population when there's a game like football available. Football is made to appeal to the most possible people, by design and/or circumstance. Often fast while the action is going, certainly violent, few games so that the importance of each is much greater, fairly easy to follow. Perhaps soccer is more complex, perhaps it has more going on, but for a spectator sport, those are probably not the best qualities. It doesn't necessarily have to do with lack of intelligence, either; I think most people watch sports as an intentionally non-intellectual entertainment.

If you enjoy watching soccer, more power to you. There are far worse sports to watch (NASCAR, golf, or during olympic season, how about curling?) and while it's certainly not my cup of tea, I can understand at least some of the attraction. I don't think you'll ever convince me that having a bunch of low scoring games with a goal that large is a good thing, though!

 

[rightwinger]

Why was softball invented?





B/c someone thought baseball wasn't boring enough.

Softball is an excuse to drink beer

 

[rightwinger]

Again, you show the lack of knowledge. The net is actually being defended by up to all 11 players on a side at times. By playing angles, forcing offensive players out of good shooting areas, and closely marking passing options the field players do as much if not more to defend their own net than their keeper does.

I'm just going to respond to this part of your post.

Of course other members of the team other than the goalie help to defend. That's a given. As I said before, I watch hockey, and the goalie certainly isn't the only one defending the net. Blocked shots are a huge part of the game.

That said, the goal in soccer is still HUGE. It is large enough that, if a person were accurate enough, it seems possible to score almost at will once you get in range if you can get it to the net. The net is tall enough that, if a shot is not blocked, it will be hard for a goalie just to get the elevation to stop it if it's at the top; add in the 23 feet! from one side to the other and I find it ridiculous.

I think soccer is a larger, slower, less violent, poorer version of the same type of game as hockey. Hockey is also not a popular sport in the US, although I think more so than soccer. Now, you can deride the violence or speed or linear nature of various games all you want, but I think the important thing to remember is we are talking about spectator sports. Soccer (and baseball, IMO) are games that while as fun to play as any other sport, and much easier for the average kid to get into because of the lack of violence which leads to much less need for protective equipment, are not great as spectator sports. Perhaps more accurately, they are not great as televised spectator sports (baseball can be fun to watch in person, I imagine soccer is the same). They are slow, there is too much dead-time (far more in baseball), there is little violence, and in the case of soccer, little scoring. These things might not be so bad taken individually, but when you add them together it doesn't make for an appealing production to a large portion of the population when there's a game like football available. Football is made to appeal to the most possible people, by design and/or circumstance. Often fast while the action is going, certainly violent, few games so that the importance of each is much greater, fairly easy to follow. Perhaps soccer is more complex, perhaps it has more going on, but for a spectator sport, those are probably not the best qualities. It doesn't necessarily have to do with lack of intelligence, either; I think most people watch sports as an intentionally non-intellectual entertainment.

If you enjoy watching soccer, more power to you. There are far worse sports to watch (NASCAR, golf, or during olympic season, how about curling?) and while it's certainly not my cup of tea, I can understand at least some of the attraction. I don't think you'll ever convince me that having a bunch of low scoring games with a goal that large is a good thing, though!

I don't think the problem is the size of the goal but the number of players on the field. The area around the goal is too congested to allow shooting angles. This leads to teams playing not to lose

Cut the number of players down to nine and watch scoring increase