If you think soccer players "can squat significantly more than" professional football players, for example, you are even further out of touch with reality than I thought.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
MLS Tied with MLB for Popularity Amongst 12-17 Year-Olds
- Thread starter Toro
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
If you think soccer players "can squat significantly more than" professional football players, for example, you are even further out of touch with reality than I thought.
3. Probably, most soccer players could dunk a basketball btw. .
No, probably most of them cannot.
2. Have you seen the legs of most soccer players? They likely can squat significantly more than the athletes of the other sports..
If you think soccer players "can squat significantly more than" professional football players, for example, you are even further out of touch with reality than I thought.
Actually, I could see linebackers and linemen who are big and need drive with their legs be able to squat more than the average soccer player. But a safety or CB or WR, nah. The point is that athletes build their bodies relative to what they're performing. So, saying so and so can bench this is stupid. And in fact, many NBA players have a terrible bench. Durant probably has a terrible bench.
2. Have you seen the legs of most soccer players? They likely can squat significantly more than the athletes of the other sports..
If you think soccer players "can squat significantly more than" professional football players, for example, you are even further out of touch with reality than I thought.
Actually, I could see linebackers and linemen who are big and need drive with their legs be able to squat more than the average soccer player. But a safety or CB or WR, nah. The point is that athletes build their bodies relative to what they're performing. So, saying so and so can bench this is stupid. And in fact, many NBA players have a terrible bench. Durant probably has a terrible bench.
Let's see the stats. Pull em' up.
3. Probably, most soccer players could dunk a basketball btw. .
No, probably most of them cannot.
Even if not; you don't have any sort of real point (as usual).
If you think soccer players "can squat significantly more than" professional football players, for example, you are even further out of touch with reality than I thought.
Actually, I could see linebackers and linemen who are big and need drive with their legs be able to squat more than the average soccer player. But a safety or CB or WR, nah. The point is that athletes build their bodies relative to what they're performing. So, saying so and so can bench this is stupid. And in fact, many NBA players have a terrible bench. Durant probably has a terrible bench.
Let's see the stats. Pull em' up.
You've went into bo-tard mode.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fJSDm68CB8]Kevin Durant & Lebron James Working Out at the University of Akron! - YouTube[/ame]
Kevin Durant and LBJ are great players; but you'll notice that the amount of weight they're lifting is far from impressive.....Again, what a person lifts in the weight room is often not very relative to a player's performance in his respective sport. If you're still arguing otherwise; well, that's cos you're a moron, and everyone knows it.
Kevin Durant and LBJ are great players; but you'll notice that the amount of weight they're lifting is far from impressive.....Again, what a person lifts in the weight room is often not very relative to a player's performance in his respective sport. If you're still arguing otherwise; well, that's cos you're a moron, and everyone knows it.
3. Probably, most soccer players could dunk a basketball btw. .
No, probably most of them cannot.
Even if not; you don't have any sort of real point (as usual).
I didn't bring it up, you did. You're over-excited.
Actually, I could see linebackers and linemen who are big and need drive with their legs be able to squat more than the average soccer player. But a safety or CB or WR, nah. The point is that athletes build their bodies relative to what they're performing. So, saying so and so can bench this is stupid. And in fact, many NBA players have a terrible bench. Durant probably has a terrible bench.
Let's see the stats. Pull em' up.
You've went into bo-tard mode.
So, you got those stats or what?
Kevin Durant & Lebron James Working Out at the University of Akron! - YouTube
Kevin Durant and LBJ are great players; but you'll notice that the amount of weight they're lifting is far from impressive.....Again, what a person lifts in the weight room is often not very relative to a player's performance in his respective sport. If you're still arguing otherwise; well, that's cos you're a moron, and everyone knows it.
You are also the one who brought up squats and bench press. I know you feel as if your little binky is under attack, but you've got to calm down and try thinking rationally.
The goal is 8 feet high and 24 feet wide. I played keeper in high school using those dimension and while it sounds big, it can get surprisingly small when the action is right in front of it.
As for your theory that a wider net means more goals should be scored, that's not quite right. Shots must be accurate for that to happen and with the more prolific forwards, this is often the case. For lesser players, this becomes a problem as many of their shots either go off target (missing the goal completely) or get blocked by opposing players or the opposing keeper. This isn't even discounting just how good or bad a defending team is vs how good or bad an attacking team is. If the defense is bad, but the attack is good then yes you're going to get a goalfest. If the defense great, but the attack is poor then yes you're going to be looking at 0-0, 1-0 or something like that. If both defenses and both attacks are good, then you have a thriller on your hands...I'm talking 2-3, 3-1, 4-4 scorelines etc.
As for the ability of the goalkeepers themselves. They rely primarily on their reflexes, just as hockey goalies do. The big difference is that a keeper must command a larger area, not just the goal mouth. They often can be seen higher up just outside of their box, barking out orders to their defenders.
In PK shootouts, it's essentially a guessing game so you're right in that regard. It is a bit more complex than that though. Some keepers are just able to "read" the PK-takers body language and base their guess off of that. This is also something that the PK-taker does as well. If the keeper gives them even the slightest idea of which direction they are going, the attacker can choose to go the opposite direction. So as much as it is a guessing game, it's also a bit of a battle of wits.
I'm not trying to say the keepers aren't good at what they do. I'm just saying that 8 x 24 net means there is only so much that it is physically possible for a person to do. They can cut down angles with positioning, and obviously the rules of where and when a player can shoot, as well as the actions of the defense, come into play. But as shown by the shootouts, when it comes down to it, there is a point at which no amount of speed or quickness of reflexes can help. I am not a soccer fan, so I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that many soccer games end with pretty low scores. I have always found that odd considering the size of the net.
While a hockey goalie has some of the same issues, they are almost always in a position where, if they had quick enough reflexes, it's possible for them to reach the spot the puck is in. In soccer, in the right situation, the goalie simply cannot cover the entire net; as in the shootout.
It doesn't make the sport bad (although I don't like it, it's not based solely on the size of the goals and relatively low scoring) it's just something that seems to put your praise of the shooting skills of soccer players in question. If you were trying to point out the very best, rather than the average, it's a different proposition.
Keepers try to concentrate on where they think the ball will be based on its flight pattern. That's how they're able to cover large spaces within the goal. Tactical anticipation basically. The best in the game, guys like Buffon, Casillas, Neuer etc have mastered this facet of their role and while also commanding their backline. As a result, these guys concede far less goals than other teams. The situation in which a keeper has no chance is with perfectly placed strikes from an attacker to simply unreachable parts of the goal. These types of goals are pretty rare, but very spectacular when scored. The difference though is that they are scored by players of all types of levels from nobodies to Messi.
As for low-scoring...Americans are not used to 1-goal=1-point sports. We're used to multiple points award for singular actions: Touchdowns, 3-pointers, bases-loaded home runs etc. When they take that mentality and try to apply it to soccer, it simply doesn't hash. I will also say that it depends on what teams are playing and what league they're in. The best teams rarely win 1-0 or draw 0-0. They have too much attacking talent for that. Every league has games that are just downright boring, but some have more than others. For instance, the Belgian league is extremely boring and if you base incorrect assertions off of what you see there, of course you'll hate soccer. Watch the right teams, the right leagues and the right players and the game can be seen in a very different light.
I'm a long-time hockey fan, so I am actually used to 1 score = 1 point. And hockey is sometimes low scoring, and those games can still be exciting and fun.
My point about the low score is only in relation to the size of the goal and the fact that there is a single goalkeeper defending it.
As I said, I realize that both the rules of the game and the ability of keepers to play the angles will cut down on the available space for a shooter to use; however, the way you described the accuracy of soccer players kicking the ball, the speed and range, it seems that even with the mitigating factors it would lead to much higher scores than I'm used to seeing in the few cases I pay attention to soccer scores.
I'm sure different leagues have a different dynamic. There has been at least one 'arena' soccer league if I remember correctly, with a smaller field and smaller goals. I'm still likely to never be a soccer fan. Hockey gives me much of the same type of game, but with hitting and the ability to go faster. And, of course, smaller goals!
I'm not trying to say the keepers aren't good at what they do. I'm just saying that 8 x 24 net means there is only so much that it is physically possible for a person to do. They can cut down angles with positioning, and obviously the rules of where and when a player can shoot, as well as the actions of the defense, come into play. But as shown by the shootouts, when it comes down to it, there is a point at which no amount of speed or quickness of reflexes can help. I am not a soccer fan, so I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that many soccer games end with pretty low scores. I have always found that odd considering the size of the net.
While a hockey goalie has some of the same issues, they are almost always in a position where, if they had quick enough reflexes, it's possible for them to reach the spot the puck is in. In soccer, in the right situation, the goalie simply cannot cover the entire net; as in the shootout.
It doesn't make the sport bad (although I don't like it, it's not based solely on the size of the goals and relatively low scoring) it's just something that seems to put your praise of the shooting skills of soccer players in question. If you were trying to point out the very best, rather than the average, it's a different proposition.
Keepers try to concentrate on where they think the ball will be based on its flight pattern. That's how they're able to cover large spaces within the goal. Tactical anticipation basically. The best in the game, guys like Buffon, Casillas, Neuer etc have mastered this facet of their role and while also commanding their backline. As a result, these guys concede far less goals than other teams. The situation in which a keeper has no chance is with perfectly placed strikes from an attacker to simply unreachable parts of the goal. These types of goals are pretty rare, but very spectacular when scored. The difference though is that they are scored by players of all types of levels from nobodies to Messi.
As for low-scoring...Americans are not used to 1-goal=1-point sports. We're used to multiple points award for singular actions: Touchdowns, 3-pointers, bases-loaded home runs etc. When they take that mentality and try to apply it to soccer, it simply doesn't hash. I will also say that it depends on what teams are playing and what league they're in. The best teams rarely win 1-0 or draw 0-0. They have too much attacking talent for that. Every league has games that are just downright boring, but some have more than others. For instance, the Belgian league is extremely boring and if you base incorrect assertions off of what you see there, of course you'll hate soccer. Watch the right teams, the right leagues and the right players and the game can be seen in a very different light.
I'm a long-time hockey fan, so I am actually used to 1 score = 1 point. And hockey is sometimes low scoring, and those games can still be exciting and fun.
My point about the low score is only in relation to the size of the goal and the fact that there is a single goalkeeper defending it.
As I said, I realize that both the rules of the game and the ability of keepers to play the angles will cut down on the available space for a shooter to use; however, the way you described the accuracy of soccer players kicking the ball, the speed and range, it seems that even with the mitigating factors it would lead to much higher scores than I'm used to seeing in the few cases I pay attention to soccer scores.
I'm sure different leagues have a different dynamic. There has been at least one 'arena' soccer league if I remember correctly, with a smaller field and smaller goals. I'm still likely to never be a soccer fan. Hockey gives me much of the same type of game, but with hitting and the ability to go faster. And, of course, smaller goals!
Professional soccer games actually tend to be boring when they're high scoring. When that occurs, that means that a lot of tactical errors on the back line or giveaways in the midfield have occurred. When played well, there is a lot of nuance and strategy.
2-1 is usually a pretty fun score line. 3-2 and 4-3 can be exciting if it's a matter of just spectacular plays canceling out good defense. But anything over that, as I mentioned, is almost surely due to sloppiness and mental breakdowns.
The question was raised as to whether top-level soccer players are great athletes (when compared to top-level players at other sports).
Obviously, soccer players can run, and they can run for a relatively long period of time, although I dispute the claim that they are running continuously for 90 monutes (45, to be more accurate). Most of that time they are just jogging around. And of course they have big legs. So what? Football linemen have legs that are as big as most soccer players' waists.
But being able to run and kick a ball is only one part of being athletic. Great soccer players can do amazing things WITH THEIR LEGS AND FEET, but they are only amazing because they are done with their legs and feet. I fthey were doing the same things with their hands it would be no big deal. Nothing a soccer player does requires as much skill as playing tennis, pitching baseball, golfing, or playing basketball at the top levels. They are kicking a fucking ball, for goodness sake.
As far as upper body strength, the fact that it is not required to have strong arms to play soccer is irrelevant; it is required to be a top athlete. If a bowler has a giant, strong right arm does that make him a great athlete? Of course not.
The reason why soccer will never have mass appeal in the U.S. is because the higher the level of competition, the fewer goals will be scored. You could show all of the highlights of the entire World Cup tournament in a fifteen minute video - the championship game in 30 seconds, tops.
Wake me up when it's over.
Obviously, soccer players can run, and they can run for a relatively long period of time, although I dispute the claim that they are running continuously for 90 monutes (45, to be more accurate). Most of that time they are just jogging around. And of course they have big legs. So what? Football linemen have legs that are as big as most soccer players' waists.
But being able to run and kick a ball is only one part of being athletic. Great soccer players can do amazing things WITH THEIR LEGS AND FEET, but they are only amazing because they are done with their legs and feet. I fthey were doing the same things with their hands it would be no big deal. Nothing a soccer player does requires as much skill as playing tennis, pitching baseball, golfing, or playing basketball at the top levels. They are kicking a fucking ball, for goodness sake.
As far as upper body strength, the fact that it is not required to have strong arms to play soccer is irrelevant; it is required to be a top athlete. If a bowler has a giant, strong right arm does that make him a great athlete? Of course not.
The reason why soccer will never have mass appeal in the U.S. is because the higher the level of competition, the fewer goals will be scored. You could show all of the highlights of the entire World Cup tournament in a fifteen minute video - the championship game in 30 seconds, tops.
Wake me up when it's over.
- May 20, 2009
- 145,687
- 68,507
- 2,330
Baseball is so fucking boring. This is great news!
World Cup right around the corner too!
World Cup right around the corner too!
Last edited by a moderator:
- May 20, 2009
- 145,687
- 68,507
- 2,330
When I can't sleep I turn on a baseball game, between the commercials and overall lack of activity it puts me right out
A lot of people can't appreciate baseball, and that's fine. No one is going to pretend you are supposed to be pulling your hair out every minute of the game, or incessantly blowing on some plastic horn, or burning down the stadium, etc.
- Thread starter
- #97
A lot of people can't appreciate baseball, and that's fine. No one is going to pretend you are supposed to be pulling your hair out every minute of the game, or incessantly blowing on some plastic horn, or burning down the stadium, etc.
That's because all the fans coming out of the baseball stadium are comatose.
Kidding! Kidding!
Last edited:
A lot of people can't appreciate baseball, and that's fine. No one is going to pretend you are supposed to be pulling your hair out every minute of the game, or incessantly blowing on some plastic horn, or burning down the stadium, etc.
That's because all the fans coming out of the baseball stadium are comatose.
Kidding! Kidding!
Your point is null and void to Unko, as Jim Rome hasn't yet given him orders to hate on baseball.
That's great, I guess, I won't watch soccer.....
- May 20, 2009
- 145,687
- 68,507
- 2,330
A lot of people can't appreciate baseball, and that's fine. No one is going to pretend you are supposed to be pulling your hair out every minute of the game, or incessantly blowing on some plastic horn, or burning down the stadium, etc.
Yeah. I had the misfortune of being a rabid Yankee fan right after Mantle and Maris retired.
I remember when they didn't have to bring out a new baseball for every pitch.
Baseball today is just unwatchable
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 12
- Views
- 867
- Replies
- 66
- Views
- 2K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 9K
- Views
- 64K
- Replies
- 20
- Views
- 63
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 1
- Replies
- 3K
- Views
- 43K
- Replies
- 13
- Views
- 29
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8295
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 477
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-