Wrestling = Nascar

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Soccer is mind-numbingly boring unless it goes to a shoot-out, and not fan friendly at all. The way international soccer keeps time is absurd. Who cares how long the game has gone on? I want to know how much time is left for someone to break the 0-0 tie!!

I haven't seen MLS games, and I hear that is more exciting with a smaller pitch and more fan-friendly rules. Perhaps I'll give that a try.

That's a pretty closed-minded view. The 0-0 tie thing. As if there aren't low-scoring games in other sports, and as if offense is the only credible way to judge a sport. Why can't solid defence be exciting? Why does a game need a combination of 40 points in it to be exciting?

Hell, some of the best hockey games I watched as a kid ended in a 0-0 tie. Some of the most intense baseball games I've seen have been low-scoring games where only a few runs are scored. Even some of the best football games I've witnessed (both CFL and NFL) have been low scoring. But soccer? Fuck that, right.

The thing about soccer is it may seem as simple as 'pass ball, shoot ball, obtain point'.

But with 11 players on both sides, and a moving offside line (always the last defender), you need to always be aware of what's going on around you. The reason there is a lot of passing back to your own team and playing wide (crossing the ball to the other side of the field) is because you're trying to draw their players away from their net (defensive zone) so you can create an opening to slip a player by. There are so many players back defending that it's almost impossible to simply attack all of the time. And in professional soccer each team only gets 3 subs - so not only would attacking all the time leave your team open for counter-attacks, it would completely deplete your players energy, and by the end of the game they'd struggle to make proper plays.


As for the time thing - really? you find it so hard to subtract a number under 90 from 90 to get how much time is roughly left? I don't really mean that as an attack on you or anything...but...really? The point of the counting up is simply because you're counting how long you've been playing - not down until the game ends. Since there is extra time, there is no way to set a specific amount of time, since a game may go on for only 90 minutes, or it may go on for 96. The ref is the sole 'keeper of the time'. The only reason the game ends is because he wants to end it.


And to say soccer isn't fan friendly is also sort of ignorant. Soccer is one of the only sports that I know of that actually puts the fans first. In interviews (with players/coaches) most of the time a player will say a win is for the fans, or they're upset they couldn't win for the fans, or they're happy to win a championship for the fans. Coaches/Managers have a good friendship with the official supporter groups of the team for the most part. Compare that to another sport. Why do baseball players want to win a World Series? For the fans, or because they grew up wanting to win it for themselves? (Same with every other North American sport). Soccer players understand that they wouldn't be there if not for the fans, and they don't take the fans for granted. They understand they wouldn't be making millions of dollars (depending on league) if not for the fans.

A thing I'll say is that if you want to try get into watching Soccer, start with the English Premier League, and not the MLS (Unless maybe your city has a team, and you plan on going to a game to get into it). Nothing wrong with the MLS, fans are great, buildings are good (The Whitecaps [for example] get about 20,000-21000 fans a game) - but the caliber of skill isn't really too comparable for the most part.



Anyways, personally I like practically all sports. I like competition, not because I want to win (Winning is obviously nice), but I just like the elements of competing, and the small things about each sport that make that sport different and good. Me and my brother pretty much have played every single sport since we were little. Growing up all we did was play sports right after school every day, and then when it was too dark for sports we'd come inside and play video games.

I do have one bone to pick though. Basketball. I do like basketball, but I don't like dunking. I hate dunking. You just have to be tall to dunk, and being tall is not a skill. Learn to consistently shoot 3-pointers, then get back to me. I'll take on a team of Shaqs with my team of Steve Nashs any day.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

That's a pretty closed-minded view. The 0-0 tie thing. As if there aren't low-scoring games in other sports, and as if offense is the only credible way to judge a sport. Why can't solid defence be exciting? Why does a game need a combination of 40 points in it to be exciting?

It's all a matter of taste, but to be specific, it's not necessarily the scoring I dislike but the lack of any real excitement.

Here is what I hate, presented in the form of broadcast play-by-play:

"Jones passes to Smith, Smith passes back to Miller, Miller passes back to Jones, Jones passes to Miller, Miller to Smith, Smith to Jones, Jones to Jenkins, Jenkins to Smith, Miller drinks a Cafe con Leche, Smith to Jones' zombie corpse (died of old age), Jones zombie corpse to Smith...

*fast forward 20 minutes*

Wait... did someone pass the ball near the goal? What? SCORE????

GOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAALLLLLLLL!!!! I'M OVERLY EXCITED BECAUSE SOMETHING ACTUALLY HAAAAPPEEEENNNNNNNNEEED!"

[Typhoid]

I don't mean this as an insult, but what you're talking about, I believe to be the main problem with the general populace of North American sports fans. It's all about constant action (opposed to strategy), and getting as many points as possible (opposed to preventing as many points as possible).

Ironically Unrelated:

That said I like the CFL far more than the NFL. Let's take talent aside, considering that's all relative. Sure the CFL players for the most part couldn't directly compete with NFL players - but since they're not playing NFL players it's not an issue.

The thing I like most about the CFL is the size of the field. Not to mention only having 3 downs makes the game visibly faster.

You can't just try for short yardage all the time since you only get 2 downs before the decision to kick it away.
Plus there are subtle differences I like more. I love the fact a touchback is a point - that makes the reciever have to make a choice of A) Not being a pussy and running out of the endzone, or B) Give up a point to the other team and concede that you are a pussy and just take the ball on the 20. That way you also have 1 other strategic way in the CFL to try and possibly tie up a late game (If for some reason you can't make a field goal). I'm also pretty sure the NFL took the 2 point safety from the CFL.

The other knock on the CFL is the lack of teams - big deal. It's not like in the NFL each team plays everyone once anyways. In the CFL you get huge rivalries since you play each team a handful of times in a single year, opposed to maybe only seeing a team once every few years.


Plus the Grey Cup has been awarded for over 100, that's pretty neat.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

I don't mean this as an insult, but what you're talking about, I believe to be the main problem with the general populace of North American sports fans. It's all about constant action (opposed to strategy), and getting as many points as possible (opposed to preventing as many points as possible).

Well considering the two most popular sports in North America are American Football and Baseball, and they involve more strategy than any other sports I know, I can safely disagree. North Americans like action, strategy, and suspense. All of it, not just one of the three. I prefer to not cheat myself out of entertainment.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Well considering the two most popular sports in North America are American Football and Baseball, and they involve more strategy than any other sports I know, I can safely disagree. North Americans like action, strategy, and suspense. All of it, not just one of the three. I prefer to not cheat myself out of entertainment.

My sloppy point was that BECAUSE of the fact scoring in Football is 6+1/3 points, and scoring in Baseball is so very frequent, and they are the two most popular sports - the average sportsfan will equate low scoring with a boring sport/no action.
Even take Basketball, a game where 80-100 points per team is pretty standard.

Look at hockey in the 90's, before it was big(ger than it is now) in the US. You had a whole lot of 0-0 ties, and 1-0 games. Then they started altering the rules (towards 2000 and on) to garner more scoring so the game would be more advertisable to the American public who valued a high final score over a strategically defensive game. It's a moot point now, but the fact of altering a game to raise scoring for viewership stands.

I'd argue that if the average American fan truly valued strategy, they'd be more appreciative of how much strategy goes into stopping the opposing team from scoring (in any sport, except maybe bowling?), rather than hoping the opposing team doesn't have the proper strategy to stop you from getting a dumb amount of points.


That, I believe is what clouds the judgement of many Americans into jumping into watching Soccer, is that it's so different than a sport they're used to watching because the game is built around defense, rather than primarily offense. Obviously scoring is important, but getting a goal scored on you in soccer is a big deal. Not because "nothing happens" and you just "pass the ball back and forth for 90 minutes", but because it's like a chess match. Every goal you score is like taking off an important piece from the other side, and you want to defend your goal at all costs.

To keep with the chess metaphor, sure - you can all-out-attack sometimes, and sure, sometimes you'll just plow through your opponent. But if you try to simply attack attack attack against a skilled chess player, that motherfucker will pick you apart piece by piece. So you're always trying to subtly get a leg up until you see a major opening that you can slip your Rook into, baby.
Obviously there are some players who play simply to score goals, and never pass - and that is equally as eqciting


All joking aside though, if you're near an MLS team, I would suggest going to a game, despite what I said earlier. I mean, if you legitimately don't like the sport and don't want to actually give it a shot, don't bother. But the game is different than what you think it is, (And the crowd atmosphere is amazing, always chanting, singing, drums beating - although I can't speak for whatever city you might be near.) It's not the Simpsons-style "pass to___, pass to ___, back to ____". Obviously there is a lot of passing. The game is based around passing a ball. That is one of the main things of the game, passing. Definitely expect passing.
Picture it like the NFL. There is passing in the NFL. In the NFL a good pass (I mean a throw, not a lateral/handback, which is also a pass) is highly lauded, give it the same respect in Soccer. Not every NFL pass gets caught for a touchdown, but you can appreciate the effort on behalf of the passer, the passee, and the person trying to block the ball.
Hell, even in Baseball the primary thing is passing a ball. You can call it a throw, but you're passing another dude the ball for a minimum 9 innings. The pitcher passes it to the catcher, the batter tries to block the pass and boot it out to a field, before another player tries to pick it up and pass it to any one various base to try get the pass-blocker out because he's mean for ruining their nice game of pass.


I'd love to hear that version of baseball on TV.

"Halladay passes the ball to the catcher. Ball 1. The catcher passes the ball back to Halladay. Halladay passes the ball to the catcher. Ball 2. The catcher passes the ball back to Halladay. Halladay passes the ball to the catcher. Ball 3. The catcher passes the ball back to Halladay. Halladay passes the ball to the catcher. The batter blocks the pass. Pass block fouled. The Umpire passes the ball to the Catcher who then passes the ball to Halladay. Halladay passes the ball to the Catcher. The Batter blocks the pass out to left field, the fielder grabs the ball and passes it to the first baseman. The pass blocker is out. The first baseman passes the ball to Halladay. The next pass blocker walks in front of the catcher. Halladay passes the ball to the Catcher. Ball 1."