# World Cup



## 4aprice (Jun 14, 2010)

I'm not a huge soccer fan but I played it as a youth (played football as well) and I do keep an eye on it, mostly following through the papers, the MLS and the European Leagues.  I've always watched the World Cup.  Its quite an event.  Are people watching it?  

We all know its not an American sport.  Please spare me the "soccer sucks" comments as I can understand your feelings and i'm not pushing the game.  I'm more interested in the reason why you don't like it or find it boring.  My feelings is that Americans don't like the lack of scoring in the game.  

To me the World Cup is facinating.  Even more then the Olympics you see the fanatisim of the rest of the world.  

Yes the horns are annoying.

Alex

Lake Hopacong, NJ


----------



## tjf67 (Jun 14, 2010)

I have been watching it but am having a hard time being interested.  I do have a question though.  What is that annoying sound you hear at all the events.  It sounds like a bunch of buzzng bees


----------



## bvibert (Jun 14, 2010)

I watched a couple of games over the weekend.  I'm not a sports watcher in general, but I enjoyed playing soccer as a kid so I'm giving the world cup a shot.  I think the general lack of scoring probably puts people off.  I do find it funny that it's such a popular sport for kids to play, but it gets largely ignored after the high school level.


----------



## Warp Daddy (Jun 14, 2010)

Some random thoughts :

Soccer goals should be worth 5- 6 pts -- the situation is LACK of scoring value .

American Football would have the same problem if touchdowns were worth only 1 point . 

 If this were changed and say   a  soccer team scored four goals at 6 points each, the scoring VALUE issue is solved and fans need for scoring excitement would be met . 


 Simularly  if Free kicks could be valued similar to a field goal in American Football and i'm sure thaty creative minds could generate the soccer eqivalent of a safety too   more excitement would be generated for AMERICAN audiences 

 --Another observation :  The bounce  direction of the the damn ball is also way too predictable  as it is limited by it's shape whereas as the shape of the  American  football or even a rugby ball adds a dimension of umpredictability  to both the direction an "action" of the bounce  and pass  and adds complexity thus  tension to the game which generates interest


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 14, 2010)

tjf67 said:


> I have been watching it but am having a hard time being interested.  I do have a question though.  What is that annoying sound you hear at all the events.  It sounds like a bunch of buzzng bees



vuvuzela horns..........so annoying


I have been watching more than I expected I would.  wife likes soccer


----------



## 4aprice (Jun 14, 2010)

tjf67 said:


> I have been watching it but am having a hard time being interested.  I do have a question though.  What is that annoying sound you hear at all the events.  It sounds like a bunch of buzzng bees



Did you watch the USA - England game?  A tie was a very good result for the US.  If the US advances will you watch?

The buzzing bee sound are horns.  There has even been talk of a banning them meaning it's annoying more then just the USA.

One of the things that I've always enjoyed is that alot of World Cup games have been broadcast, in the past, and this year too, in the morning.  Soccer can be easily played with the sound down.  Soccer and brunch are a good combination on the weekend.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 14, 2010)

I think the best part about watching soccer is no time outs / commercials.  Except for when ya gotta pee.  I'd hate to miss the one goal scored over the course of 90 minutes. :lol:


----------



## tjf67 (Jun 14, 2010)

4aprice said:


> Did you watch the USA - England game?  A tie was a very good result for the US.  If the US advances will you watch?
> 
> The buzzing bee sound are horns.  There has even been talk of a banning them meaning it's annoying more then just the USA.
> 
> ...





I will watch it as much as possible.  If the rest of the world is fanatical about it so there must be something to it.    Corner kicks are the most exciting part.   

I do notice that 100 percent of the shots that go high or wide don't go in.


----------



## bvibert (Jun 14, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> I think the best part about watching soccer is no time outs / commercials.  Except for when ya gotta pee.  I'd hate to miss the one goal scored over the course of 90 minutes. :lol:



Good call!  :lol:

I found it interesting that they add time on to the end instead of stopping the clock for injuries.


----------



## snowmonster (Jun 14, 2010)

I have followed every World Cup since Espana 82. Played it as a sport (sweeper) and supported clubs and teams that have both depressed and elated me. Played the game in some organized way until my mid-thirties when I went into a sliding tackle and tore a meniscus in my left knee. Gave both ankles (multiple times) and a knee to the sport. When it hurt too much to kick a ball, I drifted into skiing. I think my lower body strength and nimbleness in the feet developed by soccer helped me progress in skiing. It is a beautiful game and I wish more people could open their minds and appreciate it.

I played baseball growing up and I love that sport too. I never really played football, basketball, hockey, cricket, rugby and a bunch of other team sports. But, I know the rules and internal logic of each of those sports and I can appreciate watching them. If you don't understand the rules of a sport, you will find that sport boring. Everything will be so random. A non-footballer watching the Super Bowl may be turned off by the fact that there's so much stoppage of action and the fact that there are so many arcane rules (try explaining the tuck rule). Soccer is a simple game played with few stoppages. As for 0-0 ties, wait 'til the knockout stages of the World Cup.


----------



## Geoff (Jun 14, 2010)

I'm in Amsterdam.  The whole country shut down for today's Holland-Denmark match.  It's a real trip.  No different from Boston when the Sox are in the World Series or the Patriots in the Super Bowl but it's the whole country.


----------



## o3jeff (Jun 14, 2010)

Those horns are probably the reason there are so many riots at soccer games.


----------



## JimG. (Jun 14, 2010)

I've been watching...I enjoy soccer a great deal.

I played in HS and my 2 oldest boys play premier elite travel.

Soccer won't ever be popular in the US for many reasons; low scoring for the most part, no stoppage of play. Mass media will never support soccer for that reason alone...no commercials during matches. 

I think it is the rest of the world's sport because it rewards the team that works harder. The team that hustles to the ball usually wins at any level.


----------



## wa-loaf (Jun 14, 2010)

Big announcement today:

http://www.theonion.com/video/soccer-officially-announces-it-is-gay,17603/


----------



## bvibert (Jun 14, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> Big announcement today:
> 
> http://www.theonion.com/video/soccer-officially-announces-it-is-gay,17603/



That's what you've been waiting all afternoon to post???


----------



## wa-loaf (Jun 14, 2010)

bvibert said:


> That's what you've been waiting all afternoon to post???



lol, it was pretty funny when I first saw it and then I just felt obligated to post.

How about the lego version of the game:
http://deadspin.com/5563011/usa+england-tie-given-the-lego-treatment


----------



## bvibert (Jun 14, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> lol, it was pretty funny when I first saw it and then I just felt obligated to post.
> 
> How about the lego version of the game:
> http://deadspin.com/5563011/usa+england-tie-given-the-lego-treatment



No, it was pretty funny, I was just being a dick.  The Lego one was good too.


----------



## Talisman (Jun 14, 2010)

Soccer was a lot of fun to play, but I liked ice hockey more.  Growing up ina town too small for football, soccer was the fall sport and I enjoyed playing, but not watching.  The view from the side lines was never as good as the view on the field watching a play unfold or get thwarted.  In hockey, only goalies play the entire game, so watching from the bench had a different intensity.  For televised sports, it may be a tie between skiing and soccer for the hardest to watch.  I did watch 5-10 minutes of the UK-US game and I'm set for televised soccer for at least four years.

I would rather do something active than watch most sports on TV.


----------



## BackLoafRiver (Jun 15, 2010)

For the past couple weeks I have been listening to a few talk shows on Sirius debate the importance of the world cup.  More importantly, why America doesn't seem to give a rats ass about soccer.  I have tried to call in a couple times to chime in but the queue has always been 45 minutes or so.  Not sure if any of you catch Opie and Anthony or not but they have been all over the different nationalities that display their countries flag on their car or out the window of their apartment.  They get pretty pissed off when callers voice their support of soccer on an international stage.

I love the World Cup. I can only name 4 active soccer players in the world but that doesn't change the game.  I love that there are no time outs.  The game is fast but more importantly, the athleticism is absolutely amazing.  When you take into account how much the guys on the field are running (some are way over 10 miles) and that they rarely substitute out players, it is pretty unreal.

I watched Italy/ Paraguay yesterday.  A surprising end to it, I thought the Italians were going to keep Paraguay on the defensive most of the game. 

As an aside, I like the horns.  This seems to be a major complaint from a majority of Americans who watch the game. I think it adds to something to the atmosphere. (aside from the sound of a swarm of bees) And, you can't beat the camera guys who, when they go to crowd shots, always find the HOTTEST international women.  Always.


----------



## bvibert (Jun 15, 2010)

BackLoafRiver said:


> The game is fast but more importantly, the athleticism is absolutely amazing.  When you take into account how much the guys on the field are running (some are way over 10 miles) and that they rarely substitute out players, it is pretty unreal.



That's what I find amazing about soccer too.  That's a big field and the guys are constantly running.


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2010)

I love soccer









riots.


----------



## WWF-VT (Jun 15, 2010)

David Letterman’s Top Ten Reasons Americans Don't Like Soccer

10.Too many foreigners
 9.Loud horns make it hard to nap through boring parts
 8.Bench clearing brawls not as much fun without bats or sticks 
7.No theme song asking if we are ready for some soccer 
6.Not enough 'roids
 5.Lots of players with umlauts in their names
 4.Americans too busy reading 
3.Doesn't have the heart-pounding action of a 5-hour baseball game
 2.No TV timeouts means fewer snack breaks to stuff our fat faces 
1.Too much kicking, not enough rasslin'


----------



## powpig2002 (Jun 17, 2010)

capes should not be allowed in sports venues. if i see some soccer loving pansy wearing old glory, he or she is in for an old fashon butt whuppin' (unless they're bigger than me,in which case never mind dammit)


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 17, 2010)

powpig2002 said:


> capes should not be allowed in sports venues.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bvibert (Jun 17, 2010)

ctenidae said:


> I disagree. I think more people should wear capes generally.



x2, it's easier to spot the lunatics if you let them wear capes...


----------



## Geoff (Jun 17, 2010)

ctenidae said:


> I disagree. I think more people should wear capes generally.



No capes!


----------



## snowmonster (Jun 17, 2010)

The boys in green have bundled out Les Blues. The Irish are avenged!


----------



## JimG. (Jun 17, 2010)

snowmonster said:


> The boys in green have bundled out Les Blues. The Irish are avenged!



An excellent match. Mexico played extremely well.

You know, for a sport that allegedly Americans don't care about, I managed to watch alot of the match going from customer to customer today because every place I went had it on TV.


----------



## JimG. (Jun 17, 2010)

BackLoafRiver said:


> For the past couple weeks I have been listening to a few talk shows on Sirius debate the importance of the world cup.  More importantly, why America doesn't seem to give a rats ass about soccer.  I have tried to call in a couple times to chime in but the queue has always been 45 minutes or so.  Not sure if any of you catch Opie and Anthony or not but they have been all over the different nationalities that display their countries flag on their car or out the window of their apartment.  They get pretty pissed off when callers voice their support of soccer on an international stage.
> 
> I love the World Cup. I can only name 4 active soccer players in the world but that doesn't change the game.  I love that there are no time outs.  The game is fast but more importantly, the athleticism is absolutely amazing.  When you take into account how much the guys on the field are running (some are way over 10 miles) and that they rarely substitute out players, it is pretty unreal.
> 
> ...



Well said.

I also believe that most Americans have no idea just how physical the game gets. They see the lame acting (someone gets kicked in the leg and they collapse in a heap holding their head), and they think it is all fake like wrestling. 

Not at all the case. My 16 and 14 year old boys always need some body part iced down after games. And the games are the easy parts of playing. Their practices are intense. I never trained as hard as they do when I played. The fitness level is incredible. These coaches are running Division 1 college practices for over 2 hours at a time.


----------



## dmc (Jun 17, 2010)

JimG. said:


> The fitness level is incredible. These coaches are running Division 1 college practices for over 2 hours at a time.



Yeah... Constant running that much is tough..

I used to play ultimate frisbee and someone would always barf every game...  Lots of times ... me...


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 17, 2010)

one great thing that has come out of the World Cup is a hot new video game


----------



## mondeo (Jun 17, 2010)

BackLoafRiver said:


> I love that there are no time outs. The game is fast but more importantly, the athleticism is absolutely amazing. When you take into account how much the guys on the field are running (some are way over 10 miles) and that they rarely substitute out players, it is pretty unreal.


I ran 8 miles in 70 minutes a couple weeks ago. I'm not a professional athlete. Being able to average 7 mph for 90 minutes isn't that big a deal. Yeah, there are bursts of energy, but if it's your job, it's not really all that impressive. At least not to me.

It has the pace of baseball with the tension of chess. It may be a lot of running, but all that's in the middle 50% of the field where nothing actually happens. Just pass, pass, pass, then every few minutes someone actually gets close enough to the goal to make things slightly interesting.

It's a fun game to play, I'll give it that. I did for about 10 years as a kid, and would still consider an informal league if the opportunity arose. But even when the MLS first started up (meaning I actually had the chance to watch it) and I was at the peak of my interest in soccer, I couldn't bring myself to watch it. It has got to be the most boring spectator sport of any that I've been a participant in (baseball, basketball, soccer, lacrosse, skiing, volleyball.)


----------



## powpig2002 (Jun 18, 2010)

no singing. no sir. if you are not at fenway singing sweet caroline,shut the f#^@ up. i mean it. SHUT THE F#^@ UP. thank you


----------



## SkiDork (Jun 18, 2010)

powpig2002 said:


> no singing. no sir. if you are not at fenway singing sweet caroline,shut the f#^@ up. i mean it. SHUT THE F#^@ UP. thank you



you prefer vuvuzelas?


----------



## Geoff (Jun 18, 2010)

SkiDork said:


> you prefer vuvuzelas?



I got a free Heinekin plastic helmet with an integral vuvuzela when I was in Amsterdam on Monday.   I gave it to a buddy of mine yesterday who runs and coaches the local girls soccer league.   He didn't think he wanted to give it to his 12 year old daughter.


----------



## SkiDork (Jun 18, 2010)

Germany loses 1-0


----------



## wa-loaf (Jun 18, 2010)

Not looking good for USA at halftime down 2-0


----------



## drjeff (Jun 18, 2010)

:flag: they pull that one out for sure!  :flag:  

1 point is better than none, thats for sure!


----------



## bvibert (Jun 18, 2010)

That 3rd goal should have counted...


----------



## drjeff (Jun 18, 2010)

bvibert said:


> That 3rd goal should have counted...



I'm going to try and stay politically correct and NOT add in my comments/feelings about the roll that the refs played in that game  :uzi: :smash:   :uzi: :uzi:


----------



## snowmonster (Jun 18, 2010)

England turned into a turnip. USA should have won that game (effin' ref). Germans miss a penalty.

What a strange day of football.

USA controls its destiny. A win against Algeria and it's hello second round!


----------



## bvibert (Jun 18, 2010)

I was surprised to hear that England tied 0-0 when I got home today.  Very good news for USA!


----------



## JimG. (Jun 20, 2010)

I watch these  World Cup games and the refereeing and it makes me see my boys playing soccer because the same things happen.

It used to make me nuts but now I'm a very rational sideline father.

US got robbed.


----------



## snowmonster (Jun 20, 2010)

How can the last World Cup champion, a country that obsesses over soccer, lose to a country that prefers rugby? At this rate, I'm looking at North Korea to shock the world -- again.


----------



## Geoff (Jun 21, 2010)

snowmonster said:


> How can the last World Cup champion, a country that obsesses over soccer, lose to a country that prefers rugby? At this rate, I'm looking at North Korea to shock the world -- again.



Technically, Italy didn't lose to the Kiwis.   They tied.


----------



## powpig2002 (Jun 21, 2010)

how about mvpedroia pulling it out from under manny. and he didn't run around and yank his shirt off after. that is american, dammit


----------



## 4aprice (Jun 23, 2010)

What a nerve racking win by the US.  On to the 2nd round.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## bvibert (Jun 23, 2010)

4aprice said:


> What a nerve racking win by the US.  On to the 2nd round.
> 
> Alex
> 
> Lake Hopatcong, NJ



I was watching the commentary on Gamecast, I didn't think they were going to pull it off!  I may have to watch the game on ESPN.com when I get home today.


----------



## snowmonster (Jun 23, 2010)

We were crowding around the set in the office and people were yelling when the US scored. Whew! My friend in New York is saying that firetrucks and sanitation trucks are going around their neighborhood blasting their horns with people yelling "USA! USA!" Who says this isn't a soccer nation?


----------



## Geoff (Jun 23, 2010)

snowmonster said:


> We were crowding around the set in the office and people were yelling when the US scored. Whew! My friend in New York is saying that firetrucks and sanitation trucks are going around their neighborhood blasting their horns with people yelling "USA! USA!" Who says this isn't a soccer nation?



I was on a conference call from my sofa with the 50" plasma going on ESPN.   I saw the goal but it's not quite the same with the volume muted.


----------



## JimG. (Jun 23, 2010)

As usual I was watching the match going from one customer to the next.

Was at Beekman Country Club at the 89th minute and saw the winning goal.

One thing is clear after the US had another goal waved off for dubious reasons...they will not get any help winning games. To the contrary, the US clearly has no political pull here.


----------



## mondeo (Jun 23, 2010)

snowmonster said:


> We were crowding around the set in the office and people were yelling when the US scored. Whew! My friend in New York is saying that firetrucks and sanitation trucks are going around their neighborhood blasting their horns with people yelling "USA! USA!" Who says this isn't a soccer nation?


This isn't a soccer nation until people stop celebrating just making it out of the group round. The expectation for sports in this country should be to win.

They beat a team that didn't score a single goal in three games. Whippee!


----------



## snowmonster (Jun 23, 2010)

^ Excuse me for being happy that Team USA is going into the knockout phase of the World Cup. I'd rather be doing that than wondering what happened to the national side like what the French are doing now or why my national side is not in South Africa like other FIFA nations who didn't qualify. And yes, Donovan and Co. beat a team that hasn't scored a goal but, along the way, they played well enough to lock down England, and, as far as I am concerned, won against Slovenia.


----------



## drjeff (Jun 24, 2010)

For all you soccer afficiando's out there.  The science of the penalty kick, as figured out by a doctoral student at my alma matter, Rensselaer Polytichnic Institute

http://news.rpi.edu/update.do?artcenterkey=2745


----------



## JimG. (Jun 25, 2010)

mondeo said:


> This isn't a soccer nation until people stop celebrating just making it out of the group round. The expectation for sports in this country should be to win.
> 
> They beat a team that didn't score a single goal in three games. Whippee!



They did win...their bracket. Which they were certainly not favored to do. 

And instead of looking at the glass as half empty (beating a team that scored no goals), how about looking at it from the angle that they won the bracket despite being clearly robbed out of 2 scores by poor refereeing.

Oh, and by the way they totally dominated the Algerians, more so than other opponents did.

I'm sure the last finalists, Italy and France, wish they were in the US postion instead of going home.

You and I can have a long debate over this topic and I'm sure you are game. This country is FULL of closet soccer fans who are only now coming out. I suspect you are one who just needs some more convincing.

Hey, anyone want to talk about that ridiculous tennis match at Wimbledon that went on forever? That one was won by an American too.


----------



## bvibert (Jun 25, 2010)

JimG. said:


> Oh, and by the way they totally dominated the Algerians, more so than other opponents did.



I kept an eye on the gamecast while the game was going on, which basically showed the stats, had some commentary, and some animations of the shots on goal.  It made the game seem pretty even, or even that the US was struggling.  When I got home I watched the whole game replay and was amazed at how strong the US looked throughout the game, the stats didn't reflect that to me.



> Hey, anyone want to talk about that ridiculous tennis match at Wimbledon that went on forever? That one was won by an American too.



http://forums.alpinezone.com/showthread.php?t=78892


----------



## mondeo (Jun 25, 2010)

JimG. said:


> They did win...their bracket. Which they were certainly not favored to do.
> 
> And instead of looking at the glass as half empty (beating a team that scored no goals), how about looking at it from the angle that they won the bracket despite being clearly robbed out of 2 scores by poor refereeing.
> 
> ...


I was off point in my post a bit. I've got nothing with individual soccer fans being happy with unexpected success. I do contend that the win was not historic, and that the U.S. is not a soccer country.

Reaching the next level for the first time qualifies as historic, along with stuff like repeats, domination, etc. Qualifying into the 1990 WC was historic. Knockout round in 1994, historic. Quarters in 2002. But at this point, merely making the knockout round isn't really anything new, and if the program is on the rise as many contend, should be expected.

As far as being a soccer country, no way. Compare England-US vs Canada-US in the Olympics for hockey. Similar national overtones. Similar underdog status. Both weekend games. US-England had a 6.1 rating with 10.8 million viewers, US-Canada a 4.3 with 8.2 million. US-Canada was on MSNBC, the Olympics aren't hockey's biggest stage, and there were other Olympic events going on at the same time. I'd call viewership fairly similar, and eliminates the closet aspect. And the U.S. isn't a hockey country. There are hockey regions, but it isn't a hockey country.

I'm a fan of sports, I played soccer for about 10 years, it's a fun game (just boring as golf to watch.) But as a fan of sports overall, I think its rise in the U.S. is overblown. Yes, increasingly popular, but not yet a competitive program nationally, MLS is not on par with other leagues, and it still doesn't rank in popularity with basketball, football, baseball, or NASCAR.

And I already covered tennis: http://forums.alpinezone.com/showthread.php?t=78892

That was historic. :lol:


----------



## JimG. (Jun 25, 2010)

mondeo said:


> I was off point in my post a bit. I've got nothing with individual soccer fans being happy with unexpected success. I do contend that the win was not historic, and that the U.S. is not a soccer country.
> 
> Reaching the next level for the first time qualifies as historic, along with stuff like repeats, domination, etc. Qualifying into the 1990 WC was historic. Knockout round in 1994, historic. Quarters in 2002. But at this point, merely making the knockout round isn't really anything new, and if the program is on the rise as many contend, should be expected.
> 
> ...



Huh...

Only a few points I would argue.

I agree the MLS sucks and the level of play is poor compared to World Cup soccer. I can't watch it.

I agree that reaching the knockout round is not historic, but it is a stepping stone to something like reaching the semis which would be.

I don't agree that the US is not a soccer country. Do you realize how many kids play soccer? Far more kids play soccer than just about any other sport including baseball and football. I do not rate a sport's success by commercial/TV exposure, I rate it by participation. Soccer, like hockey, will never be a commecial success because both games are too fast paced with too few interruptions in play to satisfy potential sponsors. Yet I consider soccer and especially hockey to be the sports where you will find the very best athletes because they are both so physically demanding. 

And I really disagree it is boring to watch. It may be boring to watch for those with very short attention spans (most Americans I guess) because it does not translate well to TV, much like hockey. In both sports, the true beauty of the game is the movement and flow of the players which cannot be captured on TV which tends to follow the ball/puck. I think this is why most Americans don't understand the strategy of the game. 

And as much as I enjoy motorsports, NASCAR's popularity baffles me. Racing on oval tracks is the epitomy of boring to me. But then again, I love drag racing which I guess is even more boring. I guess the sudden burst of intense power and danger is the attraction there.


----------



## mondeo (Jun 25, 2010)

JimG. said:


> I don't agree that the US is not a soccer country. Do you realize how many kids play soccer? Far more kids play soccer than just about any other sport including baseball and football. I do not rate a sport's success by commercial/TV exposure, I rate it by participation. Soccer, like hockey, will never be a commecial success because both games are too fast paced with too few interruptions in play to satisfy potential sponsors. Yet I consider soccer and especially hockey to be the sports where you will find the very best athletes because they are both so physically demanding.
> 
> And I really disagree it is boring to watch. It may be boring to watch for those with very short attention spans (most Americans I guess) because it does not translate well to TV, much like hockey. In both sports, the true beauty of the game is the movement and flow of the players which cannot be captured on TV which tends to follow the ball/puck. I think this is why most Americans don't understand the strategy of the game.
> 
> And as much as I enjoy motorsports, NASCAR's popularity baffles me. Racing on oval tracks is the epitomy of boring to me. But then again, I love drag racing which I guess is even more boring. I guess the sudden burst of intense power and danger is the attraction there.


I think the reason it'll never be as popular in the U.S. as it is in the rest of the world is that basketball fills its role in the U.S. It might not be organized, but basketball is the sport of the masses here. All you need is a ball, and find the nearest playground. Same reason baseball got to its popularity level (stickball.) I don't think soccer will ever really displace basketball on the streets. It might (most likely in the south under influence of immigration,) who knows. And I'm betting participation rates are a bit misleading. At least the ones I found (http://www.nsga.org/files/public/2009_Participation-Total_Participation_4Web_100521.pdf) list softball and baseball seperately, skiing and snowboarding seperately, and football only gets 50% of the population to begin with.

I've tried watching soccer. I really have. But so much of the time is spend in the midfield, and the field is so big that there aren't really legitimate scoring chances all the time. That's the big distinction (to me) of soccer relative to the major 4 sports. Very little time in hockey is played between the blue lines for more than just a transition, and when there's a lot of it it's a terrible game to watch. Football, there's always the chance of a big play. Baseball, the home run threat.  Basketball, there's so much scoring that it's just as boring as soccer to me, it's to the point that the game's either a blowout or the first 45 minutes are meaningless.

And I can't stand watching NASCAR, for the same reason as I can't stand watching soccer. 30 minutes of meaningless passes, then somebody wrecks, the pit lanes open, and the meaningful passes happen because one pit crew is a second faster than another. Give me road racing any day, where there's fewer passes but they actually count.

I was probably in a bit of a flamewar mood (due to people calling a victory over a scoreless team historic) when I had that first post. For the most part, I'll make fun of soccer fans, but it's all in good fun and because they're an easy target. I personally find it a fun sport to play, but boring to watch, but hey, that's just me.


----------



## bvibert (Jun 26, 2010)

There's no way that you can tell me that Soccer is more boring to watch than Baseball.  There is always something going on in Soccer, in Baseball they spend most of the time standing around scratching themselves.  I'll watch even a 'boring' Soccer game over any Baseball game any day of the week.

BTW you should have watched the US vs Algeria game, there was very little time spent in midfield.


----------



## wa-loaf (Jun 27, 2010)

This Germany - England game rocks!


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 27, 2010)

mondeo said:


> This isn't a soccer nation until people stop celebrating just making it out of the group round. The expectation for sports in this country should be to win.
> 
> They beat a team that didn't score a single goal in three games. Whippee!



What about women's soccer?

That's one thing I don't understand.  US men's soccer pretty much sucks internationally, yet our women's team has been one of the best in the world for the past 20 years.


----------



## midd (Jun 27, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> What about women's soccer?
> 
> That's one thing I don't understand.  US men's soccer pretty much sucks internationally, yet our women's team has been one of the best in the world for the past 20 years.




women's team was in at the ground floor of the game's development and growth. 

men's team chasing half of a century of experience and expertise by the rest of the world.


----------



## bvibert (Jun 27, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> This Germany - England game rocks!



Not so much if you're from England, or otherwise rooting for them...


----------



## wa-loaf (Jun 27, 2010)

bvibert said:


> Not so much if you're from England, or otherwise rooting for them...



LOL, I wrote that when it was 2-1 and looked like England was going to make it a game. Very happy with the result however. Snowmonster? not so much ...


----------



## bvibert (Jun 27, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> LOL, I wrote that when it was 2-1 and looked like England was going to make it a game. Very happy with the result however. Snowmonster? not so much ...



It certainly went from bad to worse very quickly for England there didn't it?  I watched from like 55 minutes on.  Like you said it looked like a game for a little bit there.


----------



## mondeo (Jun 27, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> What about women's soccer?
> 
> That's one thing I don't understand.  US men's soccer pretty much sucks internationally, yet our women's team has been one of the best in the world for the past 20 years.





midd said:


> women's team was in at the ground floor of the game's development and growth.
> 
> men's team chasing half of a century of experience and expertise by the rest of the world.


This. Also, its growth has coincided with increased athletic participation by girls in general, and so doesn't have the same built-in competition from other sports. Plus daddy doesn't live vicariously though little Susy, so parents aren't as likely to push girls into the traditional sports.

But this is the men's world cup.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 27, 2010)

mondeo said:


> This. Also, its growth has coincided with increased athletic participation by girls in general, and so doesn't have the same built-in competition from other sports. Plus daddy doesn't live vicariously though little Susy, so parents aren't as likely to push girls into the traditional sports.
> 
> But this is the men's world cup.



I understand that it's men's.

One thing I think is a big difference is that top girl athletes stay in soccer where as athleticly gifted boys tend to gravitate towards sports in high school that the pros have bigger pay days.  If a teenager plays both soccer and baseball and pro baseball scouts tell him he's got a chance of making the major leagues, the focus shifts to baseball even if he might like soccer more.  

Girls don't have the same $$$ opportunity in athletics so they continue to play the sport they like best.


----------



## snowmonster (Jun 28, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> LOL, I wrote that when it was 2-1 and looked like England was going to make it a game. Very happy with the result however. Snowmonster? not so much ...



GROAN...Have to hand it to the Germans though. Even if THAT goal was counted, England would have eventually lost because of a porous and slow defense and shaky goalkeeping. Time to let go of 4-4-2 and install a sweeper. Die Manschaft played to its strengths -- tight defense and quick precise counterattacks. They were actually a joy to watch. My only wish was for the final score to be 4-2 to complete the parallels to the '66 game. 

Germany v. Argentina will be one helluva match. 

P.S., I think technology will eventually aid the referees. Too many controversial calls/non-calls in this WC. The speed of the modern game and the availability of technology (and the possibility that officiating mistakes will discredit the WC) will make it inevitable.


----------



## 4aprice (Jun 28, 2010)

My $.02.  While I agree that MLS is not up to European standards, I believe the quality of game has improved over the last few years.  With the building of some of these soccer only venues (example the new Red Bull Arena here in NJ) I think it will improve even more.  The performance of the US team despite the loss will help.  I watched some of the Philadelphia Union - Seattle game Sunday and it wasn't bad.  I definitely think I'll go catch a Red Bull game one evening this summer.   It will never catch the more popular US sports but It can form its own niche much like the NHL (another of my favorite sports). 

Boy FIFA is going to be under the gun after this World Cup.  They seem to relish in the controversy but its kinda of a stain.  They could give an award to the most hosed team.  It was the US till that England non goal.  The Mexicans got hosed too.   I really hope the final doesn't go to penalty kicks.  Still some interesting and good soccer to be watched.  The European - South American angle is always interesting to watch. Ger - Arg will be fun to watch Saturday at brunch.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## Warp Daddy (Jun 28, 2010)

Not a soccer fan but the Germans were fun to watch -------------I can't understanf FIFA's reluctance to use technology to determine IF a gosl was scored -- seems to be a no-brainer unless the governing board are Luddites


----------



## snowmonster (Jun 28, 2010)

Seems we have a healthy amount of interest in the World Cup among AZers. Let me know if any of you in the Boston area want to watch a game at a pub. I was with madpadraic (he doesn't post as often anymore) yesterday for the England-Germany game. Good times!


----------



## JimG. (Jun 28, 2010)

Wow, busy weekend with my 14 year old...playing soccer of course.

Recap...Germans kicked ass. Always a strong team. Germany/Argentina will be an excellent match.

Brazil destroyed Chile today...another top team. 

US fell in love with the attack and left themselves open to too many counterattacks which the Ghanians are really good at executing. That and giving up early goals in every match led to their downfall. 

Soccer is a tough sport to play when you are behind in the score most of the time.


----------



## 2knees (Jun 28, 2010)

I think people try to present opinion as fact.


this thread was entertaining to read though.


----------



## bvibert (Jun 28, 2010)

2knees said:


> I think people try to present opinion as fact.



That never happens.


----------



## JimG. (Jun 28, 2010)

2knees said:


> I think people try to present opinion as fact.
> 
> 
> this thread was entertaining to read though.



That's your opinion.


----------



## JimG. (Jun 28, 2010)

4aprice said:


> Boy FIFA is going to be under the gun after this World Cup.  They seem to relish in the controversy but its kinda of a stain.  They could give an award to the most hosed team.  It was the US till that England non goal.  The Mexicans got hosed too.   I really hope the final doesn't go to penalty kicks.  Still some interesting and good soccer to be watched.  The European - South American angle is always interesting to watch. Ger - Arg will be fun to watch Saturday at brunch.
> 
> Alex
> 
> Lake Hopatcong, NJ



The refereeing reminds me of judging during the figure skating at the Olympics. Unabashed politics and nationalism.

It's funny because the refs at the youth level here mimic World Cup to a T. Watching it on TV when it's for real makes it easier for me to watch with my kids.

I hate the penalty kick tie breaker...as much as I hate the penalty shot tiebreaker in hockey.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 29, 2010)

This maybe the dumbest thing I've ever heard.  FIFA will no longer even show replays of goals in the stadium due to the Mexican team becoming upset when they saw Argentina offsides during their 1st allowed goal of the game.

http://www.boston.com/sports/soccer/articles/2010/06/29/fifa_to_pull_plugs_on_replays/

:blink:

I really can't get behind an argument of not using instant replay technology to get calls right.  Soccer might be the the one sport where it makes the most sense due to goals being so infrequent.  

........but to censor replays on the Jumbotron?  :blink:


----------



## SkiDork (Jun 29, 2010)

I thought they had chip technology available to verify goals?  Wouldn't that be better than replay?


----------



## bvibert (Jun 29, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> This maybe the dumbest thing I've ever heard.  FIFA will no longer even show replays of goals in the stadium due to the Mexican team becoming upset when they saw Argentina offsides during their 1st allowed goal of the game.
> 
> http://www.boston.com/sports/soccer/articles/2010/06/29/fifa_to_pull_plugs_on_replays/
> 
> ...


Wow, they're going the wrong way!

I've been trying to figure out how using instant replay to validate goals would work out in soccer.  It seems like it would interrupt the flow of game too much, which is one of the good things about soccer, the game (and the clock) keep going.


----------



## SkiDork (Jun 29, 2010)

bvibert said:


> Wow, they're going the wrong way!
> 
> I've been trying to figure out how using instant replay to validate goals would work out in soccer.  It seems like it would interrupt the flow of game too much, which is one of the good things about soccer, the game (and the clock) keep going.



thats why chip technology is better


----------



## bvibert (Jun 29, 2010)

SkiDork said:


> thats why chip technology is better



Please elaborate.


----------



## SkiDork (Jun 29, 2010)

bvibert said:


> Please elaborate.



they put a sensor in the goal plane and the ball has a chip in it.  If the ball crosses the plane it sounds an alarm


----------



## bvibert (Jun 29, 2010)

SkiDork said:


> they put a sensor in the goal plane and the ball has a chip in it.  If the ball crosses the plane it sounds an alarm



That's not the issue at hand, the most prevalent problem that I've seen has been with off-sides.  Whether it's been a player that was called for off-sides when they weren't, disqualifying a legit goal, or a player being off-sides and the ref missing it, meaning a goal was counted that shouldn't have been.


----------



## SkiDork (Jun 29, 2010)

oh yeh. it'll only work for goals.  Off sides needs replay


----------



## tjf67 (Jun 29, 2010)

SkiDork said:


> oh yeh. it'll only work for goals.  Off sides needs replay



Or they could get rid of the off sides.  That would make the games much much better.


----------



## wa-loaf (Jun 29, 2010)

bvibert said:


> That's not the issue at hand, the most prevalent problem that I've seen has been with off-sides.  Whether it's been a player that was called for off-sides when they weren't, disqualifying a legit goal, or a player being off-sides and the ref missing it, meaning a goal was counted that shouldn't have been.





SkiDork said:


> oh yeh. it'll only work for goals.  Off sides needs replay



I guess there's a ref who's only job is manage the substitutions (which hardly happen) on the sideline. I was listening to a sports show and it was suggested that to maintain the flow of play, this ref could simply review the call while the game continues and make a change if necessary. Thus avoiding time-outs for replays.


----------



## snowmonster (Jun 29, 2010)

I can understand the logic behind not showing controversial plays in the stadium screens. The last thing you want is a hostile crowd and soccer crowds aren't a bunch of choirboys. Besides, don't we have the same rule in football, baseball and basketball games here? My guess is that after this World Cup, FIFA will start moving towards having some sort of chip technology in the ball to see if it crossed the goal line or went out of touch. Getting offsides will be more difficult (not to mention fouls). I don't think they'll ever warm up to stopping the play to do a video review. Part of the game is running time and constant flow.


----------



## bvibert (Jun 29, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> I guess there's a ref who's only job is manage the substitutions (which hardly happen) on the sideline. I was listening to a sports show and it was suggested that to maintain the flow of play, this ref could simply review the call while the game continues and make a change if necessary. Thus avoiding time-outs for replays.



It would have to be something like that, even still it would get a bit tricky.


----------



## bvibert (Jun 29, 2010)

snowmonster said:


> I can understand the logic behind not showing controversial plays in the stadium screens. The last thing you want is a hostile crowd and soccer crowds aren't a bunch of choirboys. Besides, don't we have the same rule in football, baseball and basketball games here? My guess is that after this World Cup, FIFA will start moving towards having some sort of chip technology in the ball to see if it crossed the goal line or went out of touch. Getting offsides will be more difficult (not to mention fouls). I don't think they'll ever warm up to stopping the play to do a video review. Part of the game is running time and constant flow.



I can definitely see your point about not showing it in the stands I suppose.  No need to incite any more riots than normal.  I also think you're right about them not stopping play to do a video review, I wouldn't want to see that happen anyway.  If they were going to do it they would have to find a way to keep the action moving, like wa-loaf suggested.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 29, 2010)

tjf67 said:


> Or they could get rid of the off sides.  That would make the games much much better.



this I agree with.  I make the same anolgy I always make with football.  Offsides in Soccer would be like telling a WR in football that they can't run past the safeties. 

I can understand how some might not like the 'long ball' where theoretically, a goalie could just kick the ball as far as he could to a streaking forward.  Perhaps just limit make that only possible once half field is crossed.

The goal in contention for Argentina while offsides was still a fantastic play.  Wasn't 'cherry picking' so to speak.


----------



## snowmonster (Jun 29, 2010)

^ It's more like allowing the WR to line up behind the defensive line so he has a few extra steps on the defense. The better analogy would be getting rid of offside in hockey. The center could just camp beside the goal and wait for long passes. That's actually the rationale beside the offside in soccer: to prevent the opposing team from just camping beside the goal. I would not get rid of the offside rule in soccer. As a defenseman, it's actually a weapon against the offense and allows you to shorten the field on attack.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 29, 2010)

maybe a better solution would be to add an additional line on the field and disallow two line passes as an offsides rule like hoskey?  I just feel that in order for the game to gain popularity in the states, additional scoring chances are needed.  I look at the play in the Argentina vs. Mexico game with the passing and shooting player being so close to the goal, it would make sense to me to consider that a legitimate play.


----------



## 2knees (Jun 29, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> maybe a better solution would be to add an additional line on the field and disallow two line passes as an offsides rule like hoskey?  I just feel that in order for the game to gain popularity in the states, additional scoring chances are needed.  I look at the play in the Argentina vs. Mexico game with the passing and shooting player being so close to the goal, it would make sense to me to consider that a legitimate play.




Its funny when we try to take a game that has worldwide appeal and massive popularity and declare the changes neccessary to suit our tastes.  Seems to me, the game is just fine and really doesnt need to be "Americanized".

This isn't pointed directly at you DHS, its just that the sentiment of more scoring/altering the game comes up a ton on sports radio, cooler talk etc. At times it makes us seem arrogant and self absorbed as a nation.

wait, we are......:lol:


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 29, 2010)

We do it in our own country with our own sports; especially if your name is Bill Polian.


----------



## 2knees (Jun 29, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> We do it in our own country with our own sports; especially if your name is Bill Polian.



when you get beat over and over by the same team, the rules MUST change!!!!!


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 29, 2010)

2knees said:


> Its funny when we try to take a game that has worldwide appeal and massive popularity and declare the changes neccessary to suit our tastes.  Seems to me, the game is just fine and really doesnt need to be "Americanized".



That's a good point, there.


----------



## mondeo (Jun 29, 2010)

'99 Stanley Cup. Soccer fans know nothing of bad reffing.


----------



## JimG. (Jun 29, 2010)

snowmonster said:


> ^ It's more like allowing the WR to line up behind the defensive line so he has a few extra steps on the defense. The better analogy would be getting rid of offside in hockey. The center could just camp beside the goal and wait for long passes. That's actually the rationale beside the offside in soccer: to prevent the opposing team from just camping beside the goal. I would not get rid of the offside rule in soccer. As a defenseman, it's actually a weapon against the offense and allows you to shorten the field on attack.



Totally agree...getting rid of the offsides would really cheapen the game.

My boys have played a few teams with superb offside traps on defense. Those teams are the toughest to play against because all offensive threats have to be more possession attacks. Long passes to the inside or flanks play right into that defensive strategy.


----------



## JimG. (Jun 29, 2010)

2knees said:


> Its funny when we try to take a game that has worldwide appeal and massive popularity and declare the changes neccessary to suit our tastes.  Seems to me, the game is just fine and really doesnt need to be "Americanized".
> 
> This isn't pointed directly at you DHS, its just that the sentiment of more scoring/altering the game comes up a ton on sports radio, cooler talk etc. At times it makes us seem arrogant and self absorbed as a nation.
> 
> wait, we are......:lol:



Agree here too.


----------



## bvibert (Jun 29, 2010)

2knees said:


> Its funny when we try to take a game that has worldwide appeal and massive popularity and declare the changes neccessary to suit our tastes.  Seems to me, the game is just fine and really doesnt need to be "Americanized".
> 
> This isn't pointed directly at you DHS, its just that the sentiment of more scoring/altering the game comes up a ton on sports radio, cooler talk etc. At times it makes us seem arrogant and self absorbed as a nation.
> 
> wait, we are......:lol:



Yes, this!


----------



## MR. evil (Jun 29, 2010)

2knees said:


> Its funny when we try to take a game that has worldwide appeal and massive popularity and declare the changes neccessary to suit our tastes.  Seems to me, the game is just fine and really doesnt need to be "Americanized".
> 
> This isn't pointed directly at you DHS, its just that the sentiment of more scoring/altering the game comes up a ton on sports radio, cooler talk etc. At times it makes us seem arrogant and self absorbed as a nation.
> 
> wait, we are......:lol:



Agreed 100%


----------



## snowmonster (Jun 29, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> maybe a better solution would be to add an additional line on the field and disallow two line passes as an offsides rule like hoskey?  I just feel that in order for the game to gain popularity in the states, additional scoring chances are needed.  I look at the play in the Argentina vs. Mexico game with the passing and shooting player being so close to the goal, it would make sense to me to consider that a legitimate play.



I think that would actually slow down the game since that would take away the long pass. No more kick and rush (which might actually be good). The offside rule is not the problem. It's all this diving and acting that's ruining the sport (but that's another topic altogether). 

I think the game will gain popularity here regardless of how we tinker with it. There's a whole generation underneath us that's playing the game and actually liking it. I take the Chinese view of development: you don't measure things in years but in generations. 



2knees said:


> Its funny when we try to take a game that has worldwide appeal and massive popularity and declare the changes neccessary to suit our tastes.  Seems to me, the game is just fine and really doesnt need to be "Americanized".
> :



Agree. I remember that the MLS tried to Americanize the game. They had the clocks set at 45:00 then counted down each half. Foreigners thought the idea was silly and people here thought it was dumb. MLS eventually abandoned it. I think it only served to highlight how undeveloped soccer was in the country. As it is now, with rules the same throughout the world, the US team is doing fine. By any measure, the team has been doing well.


----------



## 4aprice (Jul 2, 2010)

Brazil out, no tears here.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## wa-loaf (Jul 3, 2010)




----------



## JimG. (Jul 4, 2010)

4aprice said:


> Brazil out, no tears here.
> 
> Alex
> 
> Lake Hopatcong, NJ



Germany looking very strong.

Uruguay/Ghana game the best of the tournament so far. Total drama.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 4, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


>



Dutch looking good too!


----------



## JimG. (Jul 6, 2010)

Dutch looking even better as one of the finalists, 3-2 winners over Uruguay.

Game was not as close as the score may indicate.

My call is for Germany to beat Spain to become the other finalist.


----------



## 4aprice (Jul 7, 2010)

JimG. said:


> Dutch looking even better as one of the finalists, 3-2 winners over Uruguay.
> 
> Game was not as close as the score may indicate.
> 
> My call is for Germany to beat Spain to become the other finalist.




I only saw 1st half.  Both goals were awesome shots.  Not surprised Holland won.  I just feel it's Spains year.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## wa-loaf (Jul 7, 2010)

4aprice said:


> I just feel it's Spains year.



Germany!


----------



## 4aprice (Jul 7, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> Germany!



 Great team, great game, but the Spanish train still rides.   Spain is just so gifted offensively.

Alex


Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## wa-loaf (Jul 7, 2010)

4aprice said:


> Great team, great game, but the Spanish train still rides.   Spain is just so gifted offensively.



Not having Mueller really hurt them. Go Holland!


----------



## snowmonster (Jul 7, 2010)

It was not our World Cup, wa-loaf. At least the German side is young and talented. I expect them to go far in Euro '12 and Brasil '14!


----------



## JimG. (Jul 7, 2010)

4aprice said:


> Great team, great game, but the Spanish train still rides.   Spain is just so gifted offensively.
> 
> Alex
> 
> ...



Defensively too...they shut the Germans down cold.

Very impressive.

I think it will be a hard fought final...don't know who to pick.


----------



## snowmonster (Jul 7, 2010)

Good to know that a new country will lift the World Cup on Sunday.


----------



## bvibert (Jul 11, 2010)

Yay Spain!

Interesting game, lots of guys getting physical and the resulting yellow cards to prove it.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 11, 2010)

thought there were too many cards.  world cup finals, let em' play.

spain was clearly the better team.  Netherlands didn't seem to have much of a plan outside of get the ball to Robben and let him run.....almost worked a couple of times.

.....and actually one of the times, the commentator was saying if he had taken a dive, he would've drawn a red card......that pisses me off that the rest of the world views diving as strategy.


----------



## wa-loaf (Jul 11, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> Netherlands didn't seem to have much of a plan outside of get the ball to Robben and let him run.....almost worked a couple of times.



Doesn't he look exactly like Jean Luc Picard?


----------



## bvibert (Jul 11, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> Doesn't he look exactly like Jean Luc Picard?



Yes


----------



## snowmonster (Jul 11, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> .....and actually one of the times, the commentator was saying if he had taken a dive, he would've drawn a red card......that pisses me off that the rest of the world views diving as strategy.



That worked for West Germany in the 1990 Final.

Dutch strategy seemed to be to mark tightly and hack the Spanish to frustrate their possession game. Thus, the record number of cards. In the end, the team that played less cynically won. Good.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 12, 2010)

The best team won.

Spain's possession offense was supreme.

Very impressive.


----------



## 4aprice (Jul 12, 2010)

Well I enjoyed watching the tournement.  The US was fun and interesting to watch and most of the games after their elimination were entertaining as well.  Was pleased at the reaction of US fans too.  Of course we were subjected to the same tired voices of derision that we are every 4 years by commentators that think they know it all and what we should and shouldn't watch.

While not being an avid supporter I will watch the Red Bulls from time to time and The English Premier League game of the week when I can.  Red Bulls play Tottenham Hot Spur later this month at Red Bull Arena and I may try to catch that game live.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## SkiDork (Jul 13, 2010)

is the hooligan thing over?  I didn't hear about any of that stuff.


----------



## 4aprice (Jul 13, 2010)

SkiDork said:


> is the hooligan thing over?  I didn't hear about any of that stuff.



They were really worried about the crime factor in South Africa and I didn't hear anything about that.  Maybe as time passes we will hear some stories but for the most part seems like everything went very smoothly. (even with the blown calls) Of course there was the tragedy in Uganda (I think it was Uganda) where world cup fans were attacked.

Reports I saw said this was the most watched World Cup ever worldwide.  Look forward to Brazil in 2014.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------

