couple things. In soccer, you're in an Offside Position so it is called Offside (singular) vs. Am Football which is offside[U]s[/U]. Niggling point, but we seem to be seeking accuracy here.
W/regards to quality of play in our country, much of our "travel/premier" youth play is excellent because former players are coaching. Both boys and girls. At the college level, however, at least on the men's side it's all hustle and bustle. Maybe because of some national character issue....we highly value the expenditure of effort (running at full speed, crashing into each other) over more basic soccer ball handling skills. You CAN win a lot of lower/mid level games this way, but when its tried at the Int'l level .... more often you lose possession time, and with it scoring opportunities. Thankfully, the current USMNT is pretty good at passing, holding, distributing...and generally hold their own, despite often being the less skilled "on-the-ball". The MLS sides are not...and the games are hard to watch, even for this soccer fan. The more we add skilled players and better we do internationally... the more interesting to watch the game will become.

interesting conversation.

I am a moderate soccer fan, but I prefer watching live college games. For one, it's a much more free flowing and higher scoring game, and two, all things are more fun/engaging live. I can't watch more than 20 minutes of soccer on TV.

I too am puzzled by the offsides rule. Can you imagine if you had offsides in basketball???

But I don't think the offsides rule is the major problem. As others have pointed out, there are many bigger factors that make the game less exciting.

Besides some of the points mentioned by others, I don't like the fact that the majority of scores are made off of corners or penalty kicks. To me, it's like a football game where all the scores are field goals, or a basketball game where the last five minutes are watching the players shoot free throw shots.

I'm not sure what should change to improve the situation, but the problem is there seems to be zero interest TO change anything. Everyone seems to want to keep it pure and traditional.

Yet in American sports, we are tinkering with the rules all the time (except maybe baseball). The biggest changes are aimed at safety issues AND TO IMPROVE THE OFFENSE/DEFENSE BALANCE. A recent example of that is the emphasis on no hand checking in basketball. That change favors the offense.

tequila4kapp;342377 said:

---

In any case, I see things like corner kicks or little plays where the forwards pass to each other and think to myself "There must be plays or strategies involved here, wonder what they are?" I'm still wondering.

---

You know what? You just need to watch more soccer. It's not the announcers' fault; it's that you're not familiar with the game. I guarantee that if you show American football or baseball to someone who is unfamiliar with the game, they'll be confused as hell too.

Football: "Why do they just stop the play after a guy hits the ground? Seems arbitrary to keep stopping play like that. Why did that catch not count? Pass interference? What the hell is that? Why do those defensive guys get to move before the snap, but the offensive guys don't? It's arbitrary -- this game is stupid."

Baseball: "Why did that guy just get to walk to first base without hitting the ball? How come he had to tag that one runner, but the other runner was out just by touching the base? Infield fly rule? Whaaaaa . . . ? Why such a long wait whenever a new pitcher comes in? Why so long between pitches? This game is boring!"

In watching these World Cup games, I'm getting a feel for it and when a team is clearly controlling the game, even if they haven't scored yet (for example, the USA for the first 90 minutes against Algeria). I bet if you really made the commitment and watched a variety of matches, you'd pick it up too. Comparing sports and saying one is "better" than the other is a silly argument. Nearly any sport is exciting once you've had enough exposure and picked up the nuances . . . except golf.

I'm sorry, but this idea that soccer is so complicated and subtle, but every single soccer fan understands every bit of it is not believable.

I don't disagree with you, I just don't think that US sports announcers are any better. I think ESPN has been trying to do more sophisticated analysis and has the slow mo with the freeze frame/3d sort of effect. They also have the talks about line-ups and formations. But mostly I think we are past trying to persuade americans to like soccer - they either do or don't by now. It just runs counter to too much of American sports culture.

But I think you'd go crazy if every baseball game the commentators explained what a "strike zone" is and how if you get 3 then you are out.

For CAL games, for example, they will make some passing comment about the 3-4 D switch, but no explanation of the technique and tactic differences, they'll just say its easier to recruit LBs.

OTOH, I have have had to search for stats, many of which show how BAD we/US are. A lot of the commentary has been homer fluff. To get any depth would require criticizing the coach and players and we can't do that AND make new US soccer fans.

Bottom line is that soccer is much mroe player driven and the flow and creativity comes on the fly. On set pieces there are "plays" that take advantage of team strengths, but also time and score.

GB54;342297 said:

---

I'm enjoying the world cup, it is fun but I don't think it will make me either turn on or go to a soccer game.

As far as skills go, I would disagree. I don't see how a game that features one skill-using the feet-requires more skill than sports that permit you to using hands, feet and body in combination. A wide receiver has to run down the field at full speed, catch a ball with his hands while at the same time avoiding being crushed and then has to elude people with his feet and body. I don't see anything like this in soccer.

---

Unless you have a learned passion for the game or actually become emotionally invested in a team you will always remain a casual observer. To your second comment about skill, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I have played the sport for 30 years. When I was at Cal I wasn't quite good enough to become a walk on. I played intramurals all 4 years as well as tournaments outdoor and indoor up until 5 years ago. My first intramural team was put together when I lived at Clark Kerr. We had 5 football players on my squad, none of them had the finesse, power or speed I had on the soccer field. You assume just foot skill is required which is far from the truth. You need vision, you need balance and most of all technique.

As an American that is the frustrating thing for me too - the resistance to change ANYTHING. But I guess that's the point.

I hate that you can win by not winning and that you can play great defense by intentionally NOT playing defense.

I hate that 1 bad call can determine not just that game, but perhaps the next one as well (red cards).

I hate that because calls have have such serious consequences (PKs, red cards) the right call is often not made.

I hate any rule that because of the difficulty of enforcement will be missed 2-3 times PER game and that any one of those misses might and often does determine the game.

But watching good soccer is like Olympic or playoff hockey - even if you don't get everything in the sport you still recognize good stuff when you see it.

tequila4kapp;342377 said:

---

Okay, but the point is to make new soccer fans. Note how many people on this thread say soccer is simplistic and boring. Here's exhibit A.

Sure the other sports have moments of making mundane conclusions. But you also get telestrators, breakdowns of defenses against offenses, explanations for why coaches and players do something and explanations for how / why it worked (or didn't) and what the other team is doing in response. Something simple like the Suns playing zone to negate the Lakers height advantage and how forcing them to shoot from the outside enables the Sun's fastbreak...this is light years ahead of what you get in a soccer telecast. They typical soccer commentator tells you what you just saw and little more ('That was a good try but the kick was too heavy.")

In any case, I see things like corner kicks or little plays where the forwards pass to each other and think to myself "There must be plays or strategies involved here, wonder what they are?" I'm still wondering.

---

I think the person you are responding to made a bit of a poor argument. If you had never seen football before and turned on a game, do you realize how absolutely lost you'd be? Put aside the bland generalities. Think of the terms NFL/College announcers use on a routine basis that, if you were not a fan, you would not get. Play-action. Zone blitz. Cover 2. Cover 3. Cover 1. Stunt. Twist. Pull. Bootleg. Fly. Option.

The list goes on and on. I actually think you have it backwards - soccer is MUCH easier to follow in this regard. It's not hard to figure out what different soccer alignments give you - some are more defensive minded. Some are for ball control. Some are attacking. It doesn't get much simpler than that. And you can infer which is which by simply looking at the numbers. More defenders means a defensive strategy, etc.

Trying to watch football must be a nightmare for a newcomer. Especially as announcers have gotten even MORE technical over the last half decade - I appreciate it, and you appreciate it, but a newcomer won't.

You bring up the Suns/Lakers. Interesting in that, typically, a zone is not a great defense when you are at a height disadvantage because it makes it tougher to control the defensive boards. What happened with the Lakers/Suns had nothing to do with the Suns neutralizing the Lakers height. The Lakers simply forgot how to attack a zone. Simple as that. The announcers never explained what was going on - they simply said it was effective and that the Lakers needed to attack, but weren't, and needed to hit outside shots, but weren't.

Anyways, point is - this is not a fair criticism because every announcer of every sport does the same thing. You just know the sports you watch.

biely medved;342375 said:

---

No offsides when ball played by the D. This ball was a rebound off the keeper. Second, Clint did not play the ball.

---

this might be outside the bounds of your point, but you can still be offside on a play by the D. if you were offside when a teammate's shot caromed off the goalie and you tapped it in, you'd be penalized.

dupdadee;342301 said:

---

They won't even last 30 minutes.

---

But ask a soccer player to hit or throw a pitch, and they'd be hopeless. Go to a playground basketball court and ask yourself if the guys who can run up and down the court all day are the best players? Sometimes, but usually not.

Can't we all just agree that to play at the top of any sport requires incredible skill and dedication? These are the best of the best at their sport and that is what makes it compelling.

elpbear;342436 said:

---

But ask them to hit or throw a pitch, and they'd be hopeless. Go to a playground basketball court and ask yourself if the guys who can run up and down the court all day are the best players? Sometimes, but usually not.

Can't we all just agree that to play at the top of any sport requires incredible skill and dedication? These are the best of the best at their sport and that is what makes it compelling.

---

I hear you. Running ability alone doesn't determine one's athleticism. And baseball players are highly skilled and some are very athletic.

GB54 made the point that soccer players are "less gifted athletes" than baseball, football, and basketball players and that was just my quick, lazy rebuttal.

elpbear;342436 said:

---

Can't we all just agree that to play at the top of any sport requires incredible skill and dedication? These are the best of the best at their sport and that is what makes it compelling.

---

Totally agreed. I was simply trying to point out that GB54's argument that soccer players are "less gifted" athletes than those in American sports was, for lack of a better word, stupid.

tequila4kapp;342369 said:

---

One tremendous blow against soccer is that I have never once - literally not once - heard a color commentator explain the strategy of the game in any meaningful way.

---

The sport is a bit of an enigma to the American audience precisely because it is rather difficult to diagnose what is happening beyond guys knocking the ball around to each other. It's basically like basketball with an exponentially larger number of different permutations - which makes it a very tricky thing to 1 - observe LIVE what is actually happening and 2 - convey that information to novice viewers. Similarly, the sport's fluid nature makes things difficult on the announcers themselves. Truthfully, this notion that one team plays a 4-4-2, and another a 4-5-1 has always been kind of silly and useless. Teams end up playing in systems that have them flexing between multiple alignments based on the situations they find themselves in, and different players add all sorts of subtle nuances to those systems. If I say the U.S. plays in a 4-4-2, that doesn't tell you anything about the way the U.S. tends to attack (through the middle with quick short passing, rather than into the corner for the cross, for example.) Nor does it explain what the responsibilities are for each player in that setup - and particularly what the responsibilities may be for the defensive side of the game.

The rest of the world is in better position to delve into this area of the game, because they've watched the sport evolve from its earliest moments - when a mass of players followed the ball all over the field together (ala rugby) to the present day, when there are often 4 defenders, and 1 true center forward. There is a rich tradition throughout the rest of the word, of discussing every little detail of a manager's decisions in bars and coffee houses, and we obviously don't have a similar culture here, yet. The broadcasts reflect the general reality, that Americans are not quite ready for those discussions - but also that the announcers themselves can't pick up all of the details in the heat of the moment. And for the record, broadcasts from around the globe suffer the same deficiencies - even in big soccer countries the telecasts are often void of serious insightful tactical analysis - because it's so difficult to do - and most networks field teams of guys that are there to tell you how great X player is, and to just generally stand in awe of the brilliance of a singular moment from the game on camera, rather than explain a manager's approach to the task at hand.

garjinga;342296 said:

---

+1776

---

In basketball and football they never fake being fouled. Never.

Calcoholic;342246 said:

---

Yes. And there are no more ties. If the game is tied after regulation, there are two 15 minutes overtime halves. After that, SHOOTOUT!!!

---

And some teams do it a lot more than others. Despite some Italian heritage I was glad to see that team get eliminated. Boring strategy, thuggery, and above all that, flopping on a massive scale. Wish the refs called it more. It's becoming a slightly more risky strategy these days, because you can get a yellow card for it.

Excellent, excellent analysis, Belotti! If I was to assist a novice viewer to this top level game, I would encourage them to:
1. Whenever possible, watch what is happening away fr the ball. Hard to do (even for sideline refs!) but see if attacking teams are making runs and looking for crosses, or just hanging back waiting to see what the ball-handler does.
example A: Brazil (and Holland, etc.) will move quickly forward on counterattacks
with lots of midfielders as well as forwards. They are always looking for a dramatic (and often colorful) strike on goal.
2. Check how a team defends. Do they seem to have 15 players back by the penalty area? Tactics fr coach are most likely defend...1st. Attack if opportunity presents itself. How closely do the defenders "mark" their man. European teams tend to stick closely.....African defenders often lose their mark....and suffer the consequences!
Brazil....example 2: Loose defending.....they seem to play a Zone defense....not too tight. When they want to crank it up and get turnovers, you will see a second defender quickly close down on a ball-handler in midfield. They go for the steal and quick counter.
Does a team keep possession with lots of short, accurate passes or do they keep throwing the ball long and running onto it?
Stuff like this might be a help while watching. Just my 2 cents.

dupdadee;342437 said:

---

GB54 made the point that soccer players are "less gifted athletes" than baseball, football, and basketball players and that was just my quick, lazy rebuttal.

---

a quicker, lazier (but still accurate) rebuttal would have been "that's dumb."

BearyWhite;342488 said:

---

a quicker, lazier (but still accurate) rebuttal would have been "that's dumb."

---

That's dumb

Calcoholic;342246 said:

---

Yes. And there are no more ties. If the game is tied after regulation, there are two 15 minutes overtime halves. After that, SHOOTOUT!!!

---

Just like in basketball, where tied games are decided by a free throw shooting contest.

GB54;342490 said:

---

That's dumb

---

hm.. ok I don't like it so much

NASCAR is very popular.

Scottski51;342482 said:

---

Excellent, excellent analysis, Belotti! If I was to assist a novice viewer to this top level game, I would encourage them to:
1. Whenever possible, watch what is happening away fr the ball. Hard to do (even for sideline refs!) but see if attacking teams are making runs and looking for crosses, or just hanging back waiting to see what the ball-handler does.

---

Hard to do b/c of how the game is televised. All we can see is the camera that the producers decide to show us.

Hockey telecasts have the same problem. You'd be surprised how much more you can see and understand when you go to the arena and watch the whole rink at once instead of just what they show us on TV (i.e. the area around the puck).

BearSD;342550 said:

---

Hard to do b/c of how the game is televised. All we can see is the camera that the producers decide to show us.

---

American football can have this same problem too -- because of how it's televised, you often can't see routes or blocking schemes because of the camera angles. Unfortunately, in all sports, the camera tends to follow the ball rather than take in the whole field/court.

However, as I've said, once you've watched it enough, you can pick up a feel for what the team is doing away from the ball even without seeing everything.

This is a fun thread. One of my favorite pastimes is speculating why soccer isn't popular as a spectator sport in america, even though it's wildly popular as a playing sport. I feel qualified to comment because I played competitively for 10+ years and don't really enjoy it as a spectator either.

First, with respect to offsides- I think the rule should stay but I think that there should be no offsides if there's a defender in the goal box. I would be in favor of adding a new line somewhere in the penalty box, maybe half way to the goal box which extended this area further. In either case, there wouldn't be any cherrypicking.

But that's not my main point here, so without further ado, here's why I think soccer is tough to sell in America:

1. The best team doesn't win all the time. Most of the time? Maybe. When 2 teams are relatively closely matched, I think luck becomes the predominant factor because there really are so few scoring opportunities. The US basically dominated Algeria but Algeria could have won if they had made their first scoring opp - which they almost did - and the US was about 2 minutes away from just tying the game. In sports that are popular in America, there are sufficient scoring opportunities so that luck/circumstance can be diminished in importance somewhat. Now in close games, you still have problems but the better team wins a very high percentage of the time. Note that by "better team" I mean the team that is playing better. In soccer, the outcome is tied to superiority, but the correlation isn't strong enough.

2. Precision. Most popular american sports are very precise. Hockey is the one counter-example, and it's the reason I can't watch hockey. I don't mean this to be critical, but the free flowing nature of soccer and hockey comes across as imprecise. Kicks go astray, the ball is bouncing everywhere. The players are extremely skilled - I completely understand that - but by the nature of the sport there are shanked balls, poor headers, and missed traps. It's not like baseball where a pitch is bad if it's 6 inches off the plate.

3. Tough to televise. They are getting better, but there is no built-in time to show replays, which all other American sports have. The clock never stops and the ball is almost always in play. Basketball, football and baseball each have ample time for analysis and to show replays from multiple angles with zero chance of missing game play. The same can't be said for soccer.

Unit2Sucks;342570 said:

---

3. Tough to televise. They are getting better, but there is no built-in time to show replays, which all other American sports have. The clock never stops and the ball is almost always in play. Basketball, football and baseball each have ample time for analysis and to show replays from multiple angles with zero chance of missing game play. The same can't be said for soccer.

---

I actually think soccer TV producers have turned this limitation into an art form -- they're generally very good at flashing to a quick replay or two of a recent play of significance, then jumping back to live action. Basketball, in contrast, has a ton of standing-around time and we're usually shown all of it. I think a soccer producer could make a basketball broadcast a lot more interesting by showing lots of quick clips of moments of significance -- a screen that got someone open, a boxout that enabled a rebound -- throughout the game.

Unit2Sucks;342570 said:

---

This is a fun thread. One of my favorite pastimes is speculating why soccer isn't popular as a spectator sport in america, even though it's wildly popular as a playing sport. I feel qualified to comment because I played competitively for 10+ years and don't really enjoy it as a spectator either.

First, with respect to offsides- I think the rule should stay but I think that there should be no offsides if there's a defender in the goal box. I would be in favor of adding a new line somewhere in the penalty box, maybe half way to the goal box which extended this area further. In either case, there wouldn't be any cherrypicking.

But that's not my main point here, so without further ado, here's why I think soccer is tough to sell in America:

1. The best team doesn't win all the time. Most of the time? Maybe. When 2 teams are relatively closely matched, I think luck becomes the predominant factor because there really are so few scoring opportunities. The US basically dominated Algeria but Algeria could have won if they had made their first scoring opp - which they almost did - and the US was about 2 minutes away from just tying the game. In sports that are popular in America, there are sufficient scoring opportunities so that luck/circumstance can be diminished in importance somewhat. Now in close games, you still have problems but the better team wins a very high percentage of the time. Note that by "better team" I mean the team that is playing better. In soccer, the outcome is tied to superiority, but the correlation isn't strong enough.

2. Precision. Most popular american sports are very precise. Hockey is the one counter-example, and it's the reason I can't watch hockey. I don't mean this to be critical, but the free flowing nature of soccer and hockey comes across as imprecise. Kicks go astray, the ball is bouncing everywhere. The players are extremely skilled - I completely understand that - but by the nature of the sport there are shanked balls, poor headers, and missed traps. It's not like baseball where a pitch is bad if it's 6 inches off the plate.

3. Tough to televise. They are getting better, but there is no built-in time to show replays, which all other American sports have. The clock never stops and the ball is almost always in play. Basketball, football and baseball each have ample time for analysis and to show replays from multiple angles with zero chance of missing game play. The same can't be said for soccer.

---

You make some interesting points.

A tie is not an attractive default but it is for a lot of teams playing. Even Algeria yesterday seemed perfectly content not to try and win. To me it's like basketball before the shot clock was instituted. It allowed bad teams to compete with good teams but the game suffered.

Scoring and scoring opportunities in soccer are exciting but there are not enough of them. 95% of the game is without opportunity. Contrast this with hockey where despite being low scoring you are entertained by the back and forth nature, the hitting, the saves, the speed, etc at a much higher frequency. A bad hockey team would still muster 20 shots on goal. The back and forth in soccer otoh is mostly just back and forth.

I actually think hockey players are much more precise. A hockey player can shoot a puck in a corner of a net within 6" while on the fly from most angles. In yesterday's US-Algeria game, half those guys couldn't kick the ball into Lake Tahoe. I also think the goaltending to a casual observer is mostly mediocre and often terrible.

To me soccer on television is a big plus. Baseball and let's face it football too are interminably boring on TV because of commercials. Soccer is a revelation -90 minutes and done.

BearyWhite;342409 said:

---

this might be outside the bounds of your point, but you can still be offside on a play by the D. if you were offside when a teammate's shot caromed off the goalie and you tapped it in, you'd be penalized.

---

That's correct - the last "controlled" play of the ball was by the attacking team, so there could still be a player in an offside position - but, if the Keeper from the other team kicked the ball to an attacking player, there's no offside because the other team was the last to play the ball.

Dempsey did not touch the ball as was pointed out - he still could still be called for offside if he PARTICIPATED in the play of Donovan - and that could be called even if he didn't touch it. How? Example - He would have "participated" if he were screening the Keeper or blocking the Keeper's potential play on the ball.

Also, you are NEVER offside if you are behind the ball, and many forget that part of the offside rule. Example - On a 2 on 1 break, two attackers moving towards the Keeper, the "trailing" attacker can take a pass from their teammate and won't be offside as long as they are no closer to the goal than the ball, or "behind" the ball when it is played or passed to them, even though they are past the second to last defender. Another example is when a teammate is dribbling along the end line towards the goal (Donovan on his goal vs. Slovenia was coming in that position) - it's almost impossible to be offside since every teammate is going to be behind the ball, unless they are on the line.

Sorry to give you all a headache.

goldenokiebear;342595 said:

---

That's correct - the last "controlled" play of the ball was by the attacking team, so there could still be a player in an offside position - but, if the Keeper from the other team kicked the ball to an attacking player, there's no offside because the other team was the last to play the ball.

Dempsey did not touch the ball as was pointed out - he still could still be called for offside if he PARTICIPATED in the play of Donovan - and that could be called even if he didn't touch it. How? Example - He would have "participated" if he were screening the Keeper or blocking the Keeper's potential play on the ball.

Also, you are NEVER offside if you are behind the ball, and many forget that part of the offside rule. Example - On a 2 on 1 break, two attackers moving towards the Keeper, the "trailing" attacker can take a pass from their teammate and won't be offside as long as they are no closer to the goal than the ball, or "behind" the ball when it is played or passed to them, even though they are past the second to last defender. Another example is when a teammate is dribbling along the end line towards the goal (Donovan on his goal vs. Slovenia was coming in that position) - it's almost impossible to be offside since every teammate is going to be behind the ball, unless they are on the line.

Sorry to give you all a headache.

---

I think this is a good and accurate explanation of the rule. I think you can even be called for an offsides by 'participating' in situations where the player 'draws' or effects the defender he is behind....e.g. if the defender has to more a little toward the direction of the attacker it could be called offsides.

In the US situation, if the attacker caused the defender to drop back a little farther to 'cover' him, or caused the defender to pause for a moment instead of charging the ball handler, it could theoretically be called offsides.

Unit2Sucks;342570 said:

---

This is a fun thread. One of my favorite pastimes is speculating why soccer isn't popular as a spectator sport in america, even though it's wildly popular as a playing sport. I feel qualified to comment because I played competitively for 10+ years and don't really enjoy it as a spectator either.

First, with respect to offsides- I think the rule should stay but I think that there should be no offsides if there's a defender in the goal box. I would be in favor of adding a new line somewhere in the penalty box, maybe half way to the goal box which extended this area further. In either case, there wouldn't be any cherrypicking.

But that's not my main point here, so without further ado, here's why I think soccer is tough to sell in America:

1. The best team doesn't win all the time. Most of the time? Maybe. When 2 teams are relatively closely matched, I think luck becomes the predominant factor because there really are so few scoring opportunities. The US basically dominated Algeria but Algeria could have won if they had made their first scoring opp - which they almost did - and the US was about 2 minutes away from just tying the game. In sports that are popular in America, there are sufficient scoring opportunities so that luck/circumstance can be diminished in importance somewhat. Now in close games, you still have problems but the better team wins a very high percentage of the time. Note that by "better team" I mean the team that is playing better. In soccer, the outcome is tied to superiority, but the correlation isn't strong enough.

2. Precision. Most popular american sports are very precise. Hockey is the one counter-example, and it's the reason I can't watch hockey. I don't mean this to be critical, but the free flowing nature of soccer and hockey comes across as imprecise. Kicks go astray, the ball is bouncing everywhere. The players are extremely skilled - I completely understand that - but by the nature of the sport there are shanked balls, poor headers, and missed traps. It's not like baseball where a pitch is bad if it's 6 inches off the plate.

3. Tough to televise. They are getting better, but there is no built-in time to show replays, which all other American sports have. The clock never stops and the ball is almost always in play. Basketball, football and baseball each have ample time for analysis and to show replays from multiple angles with zero chance of missing game play. The same can't be said for soccer.

---

I think the problem with soccer (and hockey) is not only are they low scoring, but they also do not have readily identifiable intermediate goals--in baseball it is at bats, hits and runners on base, in American football it is "good plays" and first downs.

However, the World Cup is great for hanging out in a bar with fans, eating food, drinking, talking and then paying closer attention when it looks like there may be a scoring opportunity.

calumnus;342659 said:

---

I think the problem with soccer (and hockey) is not only are they low scoring, but they also do not have readily identifiable intermediate goals--in baseball it is at bats, hits and runners on base, in American football it is "good plays" and first downs.

However, the World Cup is great for hanging out in a bar with fans, eating food, drinking, talking and then paying closer attention when it looks like there may be a scoring opportunity.

---

Very good point. There are nice passes and tackles, etc. which are exciting to watch and move the game forward, but not in the same way as in the sports you mention.

I think instant gratification is embedded in our culture and we expect it in sports. I like riding bikes, but don't enjoy watching cycling.

I can't explain Nascar though.

UrsaMajor;342518 said:

---

NASCAR is very popular.

---

Yes, and while it doesn't float my boat, who are we to say it's not "good".

Unit2Sucks;342570 said:

---

This is a fun thread. One of my favorite pastimes is speculating why soccer isn't popular as a spectator sport in america, even though it's wildly popular as a playing sport. I feel qualified to comment because I played competitively for 10+ years and don't really enjoy it as a spectator either.

First, with respect to offsides- I think the rule should stay but I think that there should be no offsides if there's a defender in the goal box. I would be in favor of adding a new line somewhere in the penalty box, maybe half way to the goal box which extended this area further. In either case, there wouldn't be any cherrypicking.

But that's not my main point here, so without further ado, here's why I think soccer is tough to sell in America:

1. The best team doesn't win all the time. Most of the time? Maybe. When 2 teams are relatively closely matched, I think luck becomes the predominant factor because there really are so few scoring opportunities. The US basically dominated Algeria but Algeria could have won if they had made their first scoring opp - which they almost did - and the US was about 2 minutes away from just tying the game. In sports that are popular in America, there are sufficient scoring opportunities so that luck/circumstance can be diminished in importance somewhat. Now in close games, you still have problems but the better team wins a very high percentage of the time. Note that by "better team" I mean the team that is playing better. In soccer, the outcome is tied to superiority, but the correlation isn't strong enough.

2. Precision. Most popular american sports are very precise. Hockey is the one counter-example, and it's the reason I can't watch hockey. I don't mean this to be critical, but the free flowing nature of soccer and hockey comes across as imprecise. Kicks go astray, the ball is bouncing everywhere. The players are extremely skilled - I completely understand that - but by the nature of the sport there are shanked balls, poor headers, and missed traps. It's not like baseball where a pitch is bad if it's 6 inches off the plate.

3. Tough to televise. They are getting better, but there is no built-in time to show replays, which all other American sports have. The clock never stops and the ball is almost always in play. Basketball, football and baseball each have ample time for analysis and to show replays from multiple angles with zero chance of missing game play. The same can't be said for soccer.

---

One rather minor point I'd add to your list: Timekeeping in soccer is just so different from any American sport that has a clock. You've got two forty-five minute halves, but when exactly the game ends is anybody's guess because of penalty time. Is there a good reason why they can't just stop the clock for penalties so that everyone knows the game is over when the clock shows "00:00"?

TorBear;342683 said:

---

Is there a good reason why they can't just stop the clock for penalties so that everyone knows the game is over when the clock shows "00:00"?

---

Probably the same reason they don't do a lot of other things: tradition.

dupdadee;342437 said:

---

I hear you. Running ability alone doesn't determine one's athleticism. And baseball players are highly skilled and some are very athletic.

GB54 made the point that soccer players are "less gifted athletes" than baseball, football, and basketball players and that was just my quick, lazy rebuttal.

---

I wouldn't argue that soccer players arent gifted athletes at the World Cup level. You have to be athletic to play at that level.

However, its hard to argue that the 18 member of our current national team would place more than one or two members into the list of "Top 50 American Athletes" at this time. Young men of clear athletic talent in the US tend to be encouraged to play other sports.

Actually I was talking to a coworker at work and he liked my point. Basically you have to consider how high school pecking orders work. Soccer is at best the #4 sport at most schools behind football, basketball and baseball, and to make it worse for soccer, boys' soccer plays in the fall so its up against football.

And therein lies the reason that the top US atheletes don't often end up playing soccer. Consider your basic high school freshman with athletic ability. For the fall he can play soccer, where perhaps 50 people will watch, mostly parents, maybe the girl's team if they decide to watch, but most likely not many, or... that same athlete can join the football team and probably end up as an RB or WR, getting chances to score both touchdowns and with that cute blond cheerleader who wouldn't be seen dead with a soccer player.

Guess what most young men choose?

TorBear;342683 said:

---

Is there a good reason why they can't just stop the clock for penalties so that everyone knows the game is over when the clock shows "00:00"?

---

They don't want there to be the equivalent of the kneel-down. Yes, the team in the lead can still use stalling tactics, but they have to do so in a way that actively controls the ball and keeps it in play in a way that prevents a quick counterattack.

College soccer, which does not use pure FIFA rules, uses a scoreboard clock, and you can often see both teams let up in the last 15-30 seconds when they know the game is effectively over.