Originally posted by JamesqtAn occasional upset is good for a sport. Routine upsets are BAD for a sport because it indicates a high degree of luck in the results and because it prevents fans from really being able to feel good about their team's chances. The fact that there are so many playoff upsets in the NHL is a big reason it's not as popular as the other 3 sports in the USA. Personally, I love the NHL, but the routine first round upsets are a major problem for the sport.
You don't have a clue what your talking about!
Your wrong because in real football somethings always happening. Just because someone doesn't score doesn't mean that the oppertunity to score wasn't exciting!
With football theirs so much at stake as one goal could be all that's needed to win. What makes football the most popular sport in the world is the ...[text shortened]... ter team...these surprise results happen more in football then pretty much any other sport!
In "real football" (if World Cup games are any indication), most of the time, there are few real opportunities to score. Also, the fact that there are so few goals lessens the excitement as the ball is moved up the pitch, since you know, deep in your mind, that all this movement is probably not going to amount to anything. If you're rooting hard for one team, I guess it's exciting anyway, but if you're just trying to enjoy the game, the fact that you figure the game is probably going to end up 1-0 or 2-1 or something like that really lessens the excitement of the movement of the play.
Also, in the big matches, like in the World Cup final rounds, you pretty much know that 2 goals is going to win the game. As such, if one team falls behind 2-0 or even, gasp, 3-0, the game is basically over. When you're in the 50th minute and a team is down 2-0, how can you really get exciting watching the team move the ball when you know that, even
if by some miracle, they get a goal, the still need another whole damn goal to tie the game.
Another big problem with football/soccer is the ability of the leading team to play keep away and "freeze" the ball. This is a problem with hockey as well of course. In American football, you have to snap the ball and get first downs or the other team will get it back. In baseball, you need to throw the ball and give the other guy a chance to hit it- there is no clock. In basketball, you have 24 seconds to get off a shot and then you have to give it back to the other team. It makes for much less frustrating watching if your team is losing, at least knowing that your team will get their chance to win the game if they play well.
Finally, the next reason why soccer will never make it big in the US in the near future is the amazing and utter lack of statistics. Americans love numbers in their sports. Compare: contrast. Who's the best? Why? Prove it! Objectively!
Baseball is a math geek's dream (lest there be any doubt, www.sabr.org). On base %, Slugging %, batting average, hits, runs, doubles, RBI, home runs, stolen bases; innings, walks, strikeouts, ERA, more complex stats like VORP OW% RC/27, WHIP etc. etc. etc. We know who the best baseball players are because the proof is in the pudding. the numbers are all right there in black and white. No scout can do much that a reasonably intelligent person with access to www.baseball-reference.com can't do).
Football and basketball don't have stats to the same degree as baseball, but they're still both pretty good at generating stats. All three generate enough numbers to run fantasy leagues that generate interest and allow commentators to drone on for hours without referring to the same number twice.
Hockey is not naturally good at producing numbers, but they have been creative: goals, assists, +/-, PIM, GAA, SV% etc. Enough to at least be able to discuss statistics.
What kind of stats does soccer generate? Goals? Please! That's about it. And the numbers are always low because there are so few goals scores. This fact and this fact alone is sufficient reason I could never get into soccer (and I love following sports). What's to analyze? How do you determine who's a good defender and who's not?
"Player A is great!"
"No, he's not!"
"Yes, he is! I watch him all the time and he's great!"
"I watch him all the time and he sucks. Besides, Player B is better"
"No, player B is slow"
"No, he's not!"
WTF kind of argument is that?
I want:
"Player A led the league in OPS last year; he's the league MVP!"
"No, Player B plays in a bigger park, had a higher VORP, and Player A's OBP was only .393"
"Yeah; well Player A's 410 total bases and 150 RBI were substantially higher than Player B's career high"
"I'll take a guy who gets on base 280 times, steal 60 bases and scores 120 runs over a guy who makes out almost 61% of the times he comes to the plate."
Originally posted by sh76The common mistake of non-football (soccer) fans is to make themselves watch a single game every four years - the World Cup final and conclude that this low scoring sport isn't much fun. But, just as a Super Bowl is often decided well before the half time and is rarely an exciting game, the same could happen in any other sport. To understand any sport you need to know its history, teams, players, standings, rivalries and more. Go watch English, Spanish, German, Italian league games every week to gain some knowledge and only then you can judge. It would help if you play football yourself as well.
An occasional upset is good for a sport. Routine upsets are BAD for a sport because it indicates a high degree of luck in the results and because it prevents fans from really being able to feel good about their team's chances. The fact that there are so many playoff upsets in the NHL is a big reason it's not as popular as the other 3 sports in the USA. Personal ...[text shortened]... t almost 61% of the times he comes to the plate."
As far as statistics go - there are plenty of fantasy football sites where you can choose your team based on the statistical performance of individual players and usually the top players consistently outperform others in objective categories. But, even without any stats, football fans can recognize talented players and argue about their merits based on their skills.
Finally, football is the number one sport in the world and will continue to be so forever (no matter how successful it is in America). No other sport even comes close.
I think sh76 is on to something here -- in the US, people love statistics -- and "soccer" just doesn't have very many. Yes, fans, just by watching, can often recognize that one player is better than another - but statistics allow you to see exactly how much better that player is. And there are always going to be disagreements -- statistics allow the argument to be something more than some variation on "My guy's better than yours!!" "No he's not" "Yes he is" "No he's not" etc.
The low number of goals per game makes it hard to develop statistics since it's hard to find anything that correlates strongly with something that occurs only very rarely. Any statistic that doesn't correlate with scoring or preventing goals is a meaningless number. This would also apply to those guys "everyone knows" are the best players. Just because someone is quick and athletic and makes the occasional dazzling play doesn't mean he's helping his team score or prevent goals any better than the other players.
Similarly, although hockey has more goals (and many more shots on goal), it has similar problems regarding meaningful statistics -- goals are rare and it's hard to find things that correlate with them. Although. like soccer, hockey is much less popular in the US than stat-laden sports of baseball, basketball, and football.
Originally posted by infomastYou're mistaken about how much soccer I watch. I watch a lot of the WC when it's on and I watch the US in international play a lot. I'll even watch an MLS game every once in a while if nothing else is on. I don't mind watching soccer. I love watching sports in general. I just don't think it's nearly as exciting as the big 4 sports.
The common mistake of non-football (soccer) fans is to make themselves watch a single game every four years - the World Cup final and conclude that this low scoring sport isn't much fun. But, just as a Super Bowl is often decided well before the half time and is rarely an exciting game, the same could happen in any other sport. To understand any sport you ...[text shortened]... to be so forever (no matter how successful it is in America). No other sport even comes close.
I understand that soccer is the most popular sport in the World. To me it's an absolute mystery. I was flipping around last night and I caught a few minutes on the NFL network of an Indy-SD playoff game from last year. I don't care about either team and the game was over 6 months ago. But watching it gave me chills. Watching Manning march his troops to the line in the lit up stadium at night with 70,000 delirious fans screaming as Manning barks his signals and sends Wayne in motion as the SD defense bluffs blitz on 3rd and 10 in OT... can't get any better than that... it just can't.
How anyone can think that watching a 0-0 soccer match is as exciting as watching Eli Manning drive his team down the field against the 18-0 Pats in the SB a couple of years back and make that miracle throw to David Tyree with Richard Seymour hanging on his back is utterly and completely beyond me. I guess people must. I'm not arguing the facts. They are what they are. But I am completely flummoxed as to how and why.
One of the good aspects of soccer is the continuous clock. There aren't any stoppages of play - the whole thing is guaranteed to finish within two hours unless it goes into OT. Other sports have all sorts of timeouts and other stoppages of play. NBA games may last up to two and a half hours, NFL and MLB games regularly exceed three hours -- and a good hour or more of this time is spent on commercials.
Originally posted by MelanerpesI don't know. I like the ability to stop the clock; as long as it's reasonable. It makes comebacks more likely and gives you a chance to catch your breath and analyze the situation.
One of the good aspects of soccer is the continuous clock. There aren't any stoppages of play - the whole thing is guaranteed to finish within two hours unless it goes into OT. Other sports have all sorts of timeouts and other stoppages of play. NBA games may last up to two and a half hours, NFL and MLB games regularly exceed three hours -- and a good hour or more of this time is spent on commercials.
I don't mind that the games last a long time. They're entertainment. More of it is good. I agree that sometimes it gets ridiculous when NBA teams foul a zillion times (like the Hack-a-Shaq phenomenon).
In the NFL, I love the idea that you get X chances to stop the clock per half and have to use those judiciously. It's one more way in which a great coach can influence the outcome of the game.
I actually agree for the most part..but there are those little annoyances...
Such as during postseason when each of those stoppages is accompanied by an extra helping of commercials. I don't mind games that are long because there's a lot of stuff happening. I do mind when it's long because we have to see that stupid lizard or those cavemen an extra 25 times.
There should also be a rule banning consecutive timeouts (happens a lot in the NBA when a team can't inbound the ball in time).
There should be some way to stop those timeouts at the end of NFL games when a FG is being attempted. They think they can "freeze the kicker" and the only thing it ever does is greatly annoy everyone watching the game.
There should be more "20-second timeouts" -- if a team just wants to stop the clock, let them stop the clock without forcing everyone to watch someone extol the "drinkability" of lite beer for the umpteenth time.
And none of these "official timeouts" where the only reason is to provide yet more time for some fast food joint to hawk their latest 3000 calorie special.
Originally posted by MelanerpesOne 15 minute phone call can save you 15% of more off your auto...
I actually agree for the most part..but there are those little annoyances...
Such as during postseason when each of those stoppages is accompanied by an extra helping of commercials. I don't mind games that are long because there's a lot of stuff happening. I do mind when it's long because we have to see that stupid lizard or those cavemen an extra 25 ...[text shortened]... de yet more time for some fast food joint to hawk their latest 3000 calorie special.
<snaps out of it>
Sorry. Where am I?
Soccer is a great game. Probably the most exciting sport in the world. US soccer has advanced decades in the last 10 years. It is exciting to watch us compete on the international stage.
To attempt to knock US soccer on the grounds that we can't beat Brazil is a hollow criticism of a team that has shown it can play and compete with the best in the world.
The MLS has gotten much better in the last 4 years. An exciting league that plays a much more sophisticated game than many people both here and abroad realize.
Within the next generation, Soccer will become the #1 sport in the US.
American football is a great game. But anyone who argues it doesn't have too many commericals is fooling themselves. The internet will fundamantally change the way porfessional football is presented in the US. Generation Y isn't going to sit around for two hours on a sunday afternnon to watch an hour and a half of commercials.
Rugby is more of a vestigal cultural phenoman than anything else. Comparing the racial demographic of the RSA rugby team with that of it's Soccer team is striking. As the world embraces diversity, rugby will increasing become the last bastion of those who resist that change.
Cricket is a relic of a by gone era when english gentry could sit around for three days in starched linen pants sipping tea and waiting to see if either side could win....and then it was "Tally HO" off to the chase the foxes.
Baseball is a cultural institution in many parts of asia, latin america, and north america. The game will remain so.
Basketball is played competively in almost every country in the world except England. The low cost, fast pace, and excitement of this game will cause it to continuously grow throughout the world.
Originally posted by sh76First of all not every football game is low scoring. Last season Liverpool played two consecutive important games with a score of 4-4.
You're mistaken about how much soccer I watch. I watch a lot of the WC when it's on and I watch the US in international play a lot. I'll even watch an MLS game every once in a while if nothing else is on. I don't mind watching soccer. I love watching sports in general. I just don't think it's nearly as exciting as the big 4 sports.
I understand that soccer i ...[text shortened]... g the facts. They are what they are. But I am completely flummoxed as to how and why.
Secondly, there are lit up stadiums with 70,000+ fans in football too (you can easily find highlights of incredible goals in the Internet). And thirdly, good luck just trying to explain what's going on in a baseball game to a non-baseball fan.
Of course, it all depends on what sport you grew up with. Personally, I love hockey as well, and basketball is OK (especially in Olympics). But if you ever score a goal in football you'll remember the feeling and appreciate it when you see it on TV.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 19047
Originally posted by Red Nighthow many? 😵
US soccer has advanced decades in the last 10 years.
basketball is played in england...just not very well, hell even ireland has a team of little white guys. not very good at all. hate basketball though, most boring sport i can think of that doesn't involve a motor. (i'm looking at you nascar)
agree what the person said about americans and stats but just like hockey you can generate stats in soccer if you really want to....and not just goals...we've got 'assists' as well 😵 seriously though, pass completion percentage, no. of tackles per game, plus success rate, shot on target percentage, no of shots per goal, distance ran in each game (important to determine work-rate) no. of yellow and red cards...we have loads of stats if you want them. we just don't care about them as much as americans do, we would rather sit and enjoy the game for what it is than worry about individual player stats.
soccer is one of those sports were club games are better than international matches, not by a lot in some cases but for the majority they are. specially if you compare the cl to the world cup. so if you're just watching the world cup or mls (reminds me of french football) you're not seeing the best of soccer.
it all some down to a cultural thing, soccer is never going to be as big in the states than it is in s. america or europe simply because there's too much to rival it. that's not to say it won't get bigger because it will. and people are fickle if usa starts doing well in soccer people will start to watch it.
Originally posted by trev33I think soccer will continue to grow in the US.
how many? 😵
basketball is played in england...just not very well, hell even ireland has a team of little white guys. not very good at all. hate basketball though, most boring sport i can think of that doesn't involve a motor. (i'm looking at you nascar)
agree what the person said about americans and stats but just like hockey you can generate stats in ...[text shortened]... d people are fickle if usa starts doing well in soccer people will start to watch it.
more an more immigrants come to this country and bring their love of the game
more and more kids play the game
football is still huge, but the kids are almost as likely to grow up playing soccer or lacrosse these days as football.
The MLS is actually a pretty sophisticated league these days. They play real matches. Europeans would recognize it as such. Obvioulsy, it is not as good as the EPL. But it is much better than just 4 years ago and we're building soccer specific stadiums.
Most nights there is at least one game on TV. I remember watching the 1982 World Cup on the spanish channel and thinking it was a miracle that I could see it at all.
A major strength for soccer is that it is probably one of the easiest sports for a bunch of kids (or middle-aged adults for that matter) to play - all you need is an area of flat ground and a ball. Put a couple of sweatshirts on the ground to mark out the goal area, and play. Most other sports require a certain amount of equipment and-or specialized courts or fields.
Originally posted by MelanerpesWhen you look at the sports that have grown worldwide, like soccer and basketball, they have in common a certain economy.
A major strength for soccer is that it is probably one of the easiest sports for a bunch of kids (or middle-aged adults for that matter) to play - all you need is an area of flat ground and a ball. Put a couple of sweatshirts on the ground to mark out the goal area, and play. Most other sports require a certain amount of equipment and-or specialized courts or fields.