Almost none of what you say a WR must do is a "skill" - it's simply a matter of concentration. It's at least not a skill on the level of dribbling a soccerball or passing/shooting a soccerball.

GB54;342285 said:

---

There are more kids playing youth soccer because it is a perfect starter game for kids requiring that they only run around en masse and occasionally kick something. It means nothing. The best athletes turn to the other sports when it matters. Our best athletes are home not in South Africa.

The idea that Americans can't appreciate soccer because it is low scoring and strategic is similar to the argument that men basketball fans can't appreciate the subtleties of womens basketball-like not being able to run jump, shoot, or handle the ball.

Americans don't appreciate it is because it is a more boring, one dimensional game than football, basketball or baseball played by less gifted athletes. I can appreciate some of the athleticism of soccer players but it pales with a centerfielder going back on ball, a running back shedding tacklers or Lebron hitting the lane.

Finally the other drawback is that it is played by wussies. Americans want their athletes to be tough not floppers.

---

I read over on the U$C site that Americans just don't want to compete and can't make the grade on the international stage. :woohoo

Dribbling and passing a soccer ball is what five year olds learn.

CALiforniALUM;342304 said:

---

I read over on the U$C site that Americans just don't want to compete and can't make the grade on the international stage. :woohoo

---

First it will be vuvuzelas, then they will take away our right to bear arms,

GB54;342305 said:

---

Dribbling and passing a soccer ball is what five year olds learn.

---

Running, then catching something thrown to them is what three year olds learn.

BearyWhite;342311 said:

---

Running, then catching something thrown to them is what three year olds learn.

---

Not Europeans.

GB54;342285 said:

---

There are more kids playing youth soccer because it is a perfect starter game for kids requiring that they only run around en masse and occasionally kick something. It means nothing. The best athletes turn to the other sports when it matters. Our best athletes are home not in South Africa.

---

Exactly. I have daughters who have absolutely no inclination toward sports and people have recommended soccer for them for just that reason. Youth soccer in America is extremely popular because AT THAT LEVEL you don't have to have any athletic ability or understanding of the game (at least in America where none of the other kids have any understanding of the game). You run. You kick. You talk to your friends until the ball comes back. I played soccer as a kid and learned nothing about it.

Bottom line - no matter how many kids PLAY soccer, they don't follow soccer or understand soccer in America like they do in other countries. American kids follow football, baseball, and basketball.

I believe soccer players are skilled. I believe it is a great sport. I'm not downgrading it. But the reason Americans don't understand the subtelties of the game is because they don't grow up learning the subtleties, not because they are incapable of following a subtle game.

Take one play in a football game and figure out what is going on with each of 22 guys and how that comes together to make a play. Very specific instructions for every guy on the field, many of which would not necessarily be intuitive. Its a symphony. Football is extremely subtle and the main reason people in other countries don't appreciate it is that they weren't raised with those subtleties.

GB54;342285 said:

---

Finally the other drawback is that it is played by wussies. Americans want their athletes to be tough not floppers.

---

They're not wussies. The flopping is (sadly) a strategic part of the game. That's where I think replay should be added -- whenever a yellow card is given, a couple guys in the booth look to see if actual contact is made. They have 45 seconds to make the call (while gameplay continues) and if there was no contact to the gentleman who just spent sixty seconds rolling around in pain, the yellow switches to the player who flopped and an announcement is made to the fans.

GB54;342305 said:

---

Dribbling and passing a soccer ball is what five year olds learn.

---

you're in over your head arguing comparative skill sets. Open your mind and learn to appreciate good soccer........... like the Brazilians.

i'm 63 - never played it but coached youth soccer for 6 years. By necessity, I learned a lot. I also played and coached baseball for many years. The skills required in soccer are much more difficult to learn. Once MLS starts paying bigger salaries, many more younger players will take up this sport.

A hockey-like blue line would improve the game greatly. As with many others, my biggest issue with soccer is that the rules do not create a game that rewards achievement fairly, ie it is too easy for an inferior team to stay in the game. Additionally, because scoring is so rare, one bad call changes the game more than in any other sport. The foundation of an excellent game exists, but the game is held back from being better because traditionalists rule the sport. I understand that Soccer is immensely popular, but popularity is NOT a good measure of whether or not something is good.

OaktownBear;342313 said:

---

I believe soccer players are skilled. I believe it is a great sport. I'm not downgrading it. But the reason Americans don't understand the subtelties of the game is because they don't grow up learning the subtleties, not because they are incapable of following a subtle game.

Take one play in a football game and figure out what is going on with each of 22 guys and how that comes together to make a play. Very specific instructions for every guy on the field, many of which would not necessarily be intuitive. Its a symphony. Football is extremely subtle and the main reason people in other countries don't appreciate it is that they weren't raised with those subtleties.

---

I think (american) football is intricate but not subtle. Or, the subtleties involved don't need to be recognized in order to understand, enjoy and get excited about the game. (Like how a lineman's block might disguise the actual direction of a running play.) We can appreciate the series of rules (routes and assignments) which govern the action of each player on the field. Soccer is much more fluid and the "rules" which govern player movements are similarly fuzzy and harder to appreciate for people who are accustomed to seeing concrete successes. A 14-7 football game (in other words, a 2-1 soccer game) can be exciting because we understand the significance of an interception or a 45-yard run. Soccer has equivalent successes -- a series of passes that led to a favorable angle on a pass to a streaking player -- but they flow into each other so it's hard to identify and appreciate them. For me, anyway.

Like a friend said after going to see the US/England game at AT&T Park last weekend: "I'm glad someone was out there mowing the outfield so I had something interesting to watch."

So soccer players are better athletes because they have more stamina? I guess extreme distance runners are the best athletes in the world. Then triathletes. Then waterpolo players. Then basketball players. Then soccer players. Then Australian rules football players. Now I understand.

So why wasn't Clint Dempsey called off-sides when Donovan scored the winning goal? He was past the last Algerian defender including the goalie; was straddling the goal line when the shot was made after falling over the goalie.

I know you forgot your sarcasm icon there.

I don't care what sports we are talking about. If someone has a 40-inch waist, you don't normally call that man athletic by most standards.

wallyball2003;342326 said:

---

So soccer players are better athletes because they have more stamina? I guess extreme distance runners are the best athletes in the world. Then triathletes. Then waterpolo players. Then basketball players. Then soccer players. Then Australian rules football players. Now I understand.

---

I disagree - that is because you understand the game of football. Take a European to a football game and see how much they enjoy it.

I also would guess (though here I'm flying blind) that the average soccer fan in Europe probably understands the subtleties of soccer about as well as the average football fan in America understands the subtelties of football. I will bet you there are a lot of fans that know the basics, but basically what gets them jazzed is when a team gets close to scoring and they know it. Offense just doesn't necessarily mean scoring. How interesting do you think a European soccer fan would think the subtleties of a soccer match are where neither team possesses the ball in the other team's end all game long?

clunkyregistration;342319 said:

---

A hockey-like blue line would improve the game greatly. As with many others, my biggest issue with soccer is that the rules do not create a game that rewards achievement fairly, ie it is too easy for an inferior team to stay in the game. Additionally, because scoring is so rare, one bad call changes the game more than in any other sport. The foundation of an excellent game exists, but the game is held back from being better because traditionalists rule the sport. I understand that Soccer is immensely popular, but popularity is NOT a good measure of whether or not something is good.

---

The rare scoring plus the draconian nature of some penalties is a bad combination. Witness Kaka's ejection in Brazil's game against Cote d'Ivoire -- he touches a player's chest, the player falls down grabbing his face like he lost an eyeball, and the resulting yellow card (Kaka's second) meant ejection and his team had to play a man down for the rest of the game. (Brazil won anyway.) In hockey you can lose a guy for five minutes, not the entire game, and once the other team scores you go back to full strength.

CALiforniALUM;342328 said:

---

So why wasn't Clint Dempsey called off-sides when Donovan scored the winning goal? He was past the last Algerian defender including the goalie; was straddling the goal line when the shot was made after falling over the goalie.

---

good question.. reason says that it's a good goal, but I don't know if the rules address a carom like that. perhaps because he's not involved in the goal itself, other than lying there watching it?





edited to add: it's because he didn't touch the ball and wasn't interfering with another player. From FIFA rulebook:

clunkyregistration;342319 said:

---

A hockey-like blue line would improve the game greatly. As with many others, my biggest issue with soccer is that the rules do not create a game that rewards achievement fairly, ie it is too easy for an inferior team to stay in the game. Additionally, because scoring is so rare, one bad call changes the game more than in any other sport. The foundation of an excellent game exists, but the game is held back from being better because traditionalists rule the sport. I understand that Soccer is immensely popular, but popularity is NOT a good measure of whether or not something is good.

---

I played soccer as a kid and have been a fan for some time. However, I have pretty much given up on it ever becoming popular in the US for several reasons, the offside rule only being part of it.

The big issue with soccer is that despite a huge goal and a sizable field, strategies and players have reached the point where a 1-0 victory is all most teams play for. Some people like to characterize is as a chess game on the field, and in many ways it is, but the game does not reward the aggressive team that tries to win quckly. Instead you play for the 0-0 draw and look for 3-4 good scoring chances a game.

In many ways I look at hockey and see that hockey wins in my mind when compared. Look at hockey, the field is smaller, the players are on skates, the goals are much smaller and some goalies pretty much fill the goal, but you still see a lot of scoring.

The traditionalists won't allow any changes, but in my mind they need to make a few.

First - the flopping needs to be much mroe strongly discouraged and preferablly stamped out permanently.

Second - either the goal needs to be bigger, or they need to reduce the number of players on the field. Right now most teams will have 8-9 player coming back on defense with at most 2 players staying forward. Most times you see 5-6 on the attack against 8 defenders plus a goalie, and the crowd that results around the penalty area makes scoring nearly impossible. Reduce the teams to 9 a side and you will see more scoring.

Third - teams can play pack the penalty box on defense. Limit teams on how many players they can have in their own defensive penalty box, especially on free kicks. Make teams play more of a man defense instead of zone.

But that's my feeling. I agree that when you get a team with a good midfield that's capable of making great passes, like Brazil has had at times, there is a great beauty in the game. However right now there is too much pass around the defense looking for the one strike and the game tends to bog down.

------

Now as to why the US isn't better at soccer, that's pretty simple. For an American teenager, the adulation and monetary prospects are much better in just about any other sport. Someone who has the speed and coordination to be good at soccer also probably has the athletic ability to be a great outfielder in baseball or a WR/RB in football all positions that pay more. And if he's just a bit out of shape, but has a great kick, he can always try to go out for the position of kicker. A kicker in the NFL makes more than any MLS player, and for far less effort.

And while soccer is easy to pick up since all it takes is a ball and some space, as others have pointed out, the "legions" of kids playing it mean little. I have a coworker who's son used to play soccer, but he's decided he rather play basketball in the future. He just didn't see the excitement some of the mroe ardent soccer fans here feel.

I really doubt Soccer will ever become big in the US, its competing against too large a pool of potential rivals, from the "big 4" of the NBA, MLB, NFL, and NHL, to tennis, golf and the myriad of other sports available pro, college and participatory.

CALiforniALUM;342328 said:

---

So why wasn't Clint Dempsey called off-sides when Donovan scored the winning goal? He was past the last Algerian defender including the goalie; was straddling the goal line when the shot was made after falling over the goalie.

---

Because there are 3 defenders (including a goalie) in front of Donovan when he's shooting.

It's the location of the ball that determines how many defenders are "in front."

BearyWhite;342332 said:

---

The rare scoring plus the draconian nature of some penalties is a bad combination. Witness Kaka's ejection in Brazil's game against Cote d'Ivoire -- he touches a player's chest, the player falls down grabbing his face like he lost an eyeball, and the resulting yellow card (Kaka's second) meant ejection and his team had to play a man down for the rest of the game. (Brazil won anyway.) In hockey you can lose a guy for five minutes, not the entire game, and once the other team scores you go back to full strength.

---

Not always true. You do get the player back when a goal is scored if its a 2 minute "minor" penalty, but a player serving a 5 minute Major is out for the full 5 minutes, no matter how many goals are scored.

mvargus;342336 said:

---

Not always true. You do get the player back when a goal is scored if its a 2 minute "minor" penalty, but a player serving a 5 minute Major is out for the full 5 minutes, no matter how many goals are scored.

---

right, sorry.

dupdadee;342335 said:

---

Because there are 3 defenders (including a goalie) in front of Donovan when he's shooting.

It's the location of the ball that determines how many defenders are "in front."

---

no, has nothing to do with the location of the ball or the shooter.

again, from the rulebook -- this is offsides:

mvargus;342334 said:

---

The big issue with soccer is that despite a huge goal and a sizable field, strategies and players have reached the point where a 1-0 victory is all most teams play for. Some people like to characterize is as a chess game on the field, and in many ways it is, but the game does not reward the aggressive team that tries to win quckly. Instead you play for the 0-0 draw and look for 3-4 good scoring chances a game.

---

It's more like playing fifty chess games, and each time you move a few pieces, try to get an advantage then reset and start again, seldom playing a complete game.

mvargus;342334 said:

---

In many ways I look at hockey and see that hockey wins in my mind when compared. Look at hockey, the field is smaller, the players are on stakes, ...

---

that sounds painful..

There are a lot of things that conspire against soccer being popular in the U.S. I think 2 of the biggest factors are:

1) American Football is a vastly superior game and is played during the same time of year.
2) The quality of professional soccer in the U.S. is poor, so we get to see a bad game played poorly.

You're just overcomplicating things.

When a player touches the ball, you check to see how many defenders are in front. That's it.

When Donovan touches the ball (in this case shooting) -- the location of the ball is where Donovan is shooting--, there are 3 defenders in front of Donovan. That's it.

BearyWhite;342345 said:

---

no, has nothing to do with the location of the ball or the shooter.

again, from the rulebook -- this is offsides:

---

dupdadee;342349 said:

---

You're just overcomplicating things.

When a player touches the ball, you check to see how many defenders are in front. That's it.

When Donovan touches the ball (in this case shooting) -- the location of the ball is where Donovan is shooting--, there are 3 defenders in front of Donovan. That's it.

---

ok, now I get what you're saying. the question wasn't why Donovan wasn't offsides, it was why Dempsey wasn't offsides. the reason is that he didn't touch the ball (and wasn't interfering with a defender.)

edited to add: you're not quite right anyway -- if I pass the ball ahead to you, you only need to be onsides at the moment I pass the ball, not once it gets to you.

BearyWhite;342354 said:

---

ok, now I get what you're saying. the question wasn't why Donovan wasn't offsides, it was why Dempsey wasn't offsides. the reason is that he didn't touch the ball (and wasn't interfering with a defender.)

---

dang. looks like i misread californialum's original question. :rollinglaugh:

you're absolute right about why dempsey is not offside.

BearyWhite;342354 said:

---

edited to add: you're not quite right anyway -- if I pass the ball ahead to you, you only need to be onsides at the moment I pass the ball, not once it gets to you.

---

And yes, if we are talking about passing to a teammate instead of shooting, that's correct.

I see. Athleticism is dependent on waist size. No outstanding athletes with waists over 40 inches. Now I understand. Thx.

Soccer is not popular in America because we have other options, including sports that have more action on a regular basis. The rest of the world doesn't have those other options (largely because the sports require equipment, which is often cost prohibitive) and default to soccer.

I hate the argument that soccer is too intellectual or subtle or strategic. America's pasttime is baseball, another sport that is accused of being slow and boring. I enjoy soccer at its highest level. You can begin to appreciate the artistry of the game. But I'm still left with this nagging sensation that I'm watching a game where you arbitrarily are not allowed to use part of your body...what's next diving where you can't stand on your feet? Bowling where you can't use your eyes? It is silly.

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. Take Ghana v. Germany today. The teams employed different alignments (4-3-2-1 vs. 4-2-1-2-1, I think). Why? What's the advantage of either alignment? How does each team think they gain an advantage? What does that say about each teams' personnel? Well, the novel spectator has ZERO idea because the commentators are incapable or unwilling to explain these strategies. The same thing happens with substitutions, roster decisions ... everything. Seriously, you get more analysis in 30 seconds of an NFL, NBA or MLB game than you get in an entire world cup telecast. At some point you start to wonder if they don't explain these wonderful strategic subtleties because they don't exist. At a minimum the sport is never going to gain a following when it fails at this most basic requirement - you can't just keep telling the audience the game has some element to it without explaining those elements in a way the audience understands.

clunkyregistration;342319 said:

---

A hockey-like blue line would improve the game greatly. As with many others, my biggest issue with soccer is that the rules do not create a game that rewards achievement fairly, ie it is too easy for an inferior team to stay in the game. Additionally, because scoring is so rare, one bad call changes the game more than in any other sport. The foundation of an excellent game exists, but the game is held back from being better because traditionalists rule the sport. I understand that Soccer is immensely popular, but popularity is NOT a good measure of whether or not something is good.

---

Great post, though I disagree with the last sentence. When it comes to sports, I don't think there is a better measure of "good" than popularity.

OK. How about allowing a replay challenge for games with tv capabilities - WC, Championsleague, Big leagues -EPL, Serie A, La Liga.

Say you lose a sub if you lose the challenge or something. 1-3 per game.

Agree perhaps, but soccer fans know. How many times do you hear a football analyst saying that team A has to make halftime adjustments or made 1/2 time adj, but will never tell you what they should be or what they were. Instead its "have to run the ball more consistently" or "tighten up on D" Hell, I listen to half time talks and the NBA huddles and am pretty sure I could step right in and do just as well.

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

biely medved;342373 said:

---

Agree perhaps, but soccer fans know. How many times do you hear a football analyst saying that team A has to make halftime adjustments or made 1/2 time adj, but will never tell you what they should be or what they were. Instead its "have to run the ball more consistently" or "tighten up on D" Hell, I listen to half time talks and the NBA huddles and am pretty sure I could step right in and do just as well.

---

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.