Wow mate, there's so much hitting going on in basketball and baseball right. Whateva, stop making ridiculous excuses, if u don't like something you don't like it but at least come up w/ something reasonable as a reason. So much hitting going in basketball and baseball. Plus, if you played soccer beyond the age of 13, you'd know how physical the game is. When you play around w/ the ball and then get slide tackled by a defender and feel as if all the ligaments in your knee just got messed up, then you'd know how physical the game is. When you go up for a header with an opponent and feel him headbutt you as you both go for the ball, then you'd know how physical the game is. Take those ***** reasons for why you don't like the sport out of here. I mean i could understand if you had a good reason not too like the game and if you had no reason at least just state you don't like the game and nothing else, but you're trying to give rubbish reasons.
How to fix soccer: 1. Make the field much smaller, like the size of a hockey rink. It takes too long to advance the ball and is too difficult to even get a shot, let alone a goal. 2. Make the nets bigger (or smaller with no goalie). Once there is a shot on goal, it is too hard to score. This could be less important after implementing #1, but people don't generally like to watch things when the chance of success is in the 5% or less range. 3. Play until there is a winner. If 1 and 2 are implemented, this would be less of an issue because there can be a greater disparity of scores. Even if the number of ties were reduced, ties would still suck. Play overtime, either a series of overtime periods like in basketball or sudden death. Don't use a lame tiebreaker like shootouts. The whole game is about getting scoring opportunities, so they decide ties by giving free shots on goal? That makes absolutely no sense. It would be like deciding NBA games with a slam dunk contest. Just making those 3 changes would make a world of difference. I probably still wouldn't watch it, but at least it could be as entertaining as hockey.
I guess those ideas would be helpful if the game of soccer was broken but last i checked its still numero uno in the world despite not having #1 status in the US and A. So i guess when the sport has plunged to depths like the NHL among its viewers world wide, then perhaps these ideas and others by many other Americans who despite indifference or hatred for the sport, still feel the need to input how to 'fix' the sport.
Soccer is the most popular sport in the world because it doesn't take much equipment or setup to play. As a result, third world countries that are over-populated with bazillions of people are more apt to play soccer than any other sport. Any group of bums with a ball can get in a field and play soccer. Those bums don't have to have any talent, don't have to have any equipment, all they need to do is throw down a ball and kick it around. Soccer isn't the most popular because it's the best. Soccer is the most popular because it's the cheapest and most convenient. It's the McDonald's of sports: Biggest global presence. Most popular. Most convenient.... but lousy product. I agree with StupidMoniker's comments - they would help make soccer more appealing, but I still don't think I'd like it.
They have already done that: Indoor soccer/ Futsal where they score a tons. Is it better? It's fun but I don't think it's better. They could and have, there are league/ cup/ elimination rounds that they play to break a tie. It's good, so what? It still does not change the game so as to make haters come around. Hater like this! Really, if you really think soccer is boring. What about the game of football, baseball? Look at football, the game is 60 minutes long, yet they only play for 10, 20 seconds at the time before they come to hug each other for minute(s) and repeat ... Football is a sports to maybe 10 guys on the team, the QB, RB, WR. Those other dudes who weight 300 lbs and could not run 20 yards can not be called atheletes. Yes, they are big and they can hit like a tank but don't call them athletes. What about the game of baseball where it's slower than watching grass grow. Where 20 dudes sit on the bench doing nothing, waiting their turn to take 1 swing of the bat. Even the guys on the field with gloves in hand, most of the time, they just stand around looking bore or worse, grabbing their crotch or spitting to pass the time ?
No, I haven't. And I didn't say there were guys standing around in soccer. I said there were just a bunch of guys running around. Running around with no set style trying to get yourself in a position to receive or send a pas s doesn't constitute a team offense strategy IMHO. In American football, runners and receivers actually run VERY specific patterns to get themselves places a specific spot in the field to catch a pass, or run through an intentinoally-created gap in the offense. That's team strategy. In soccer, it's "There's no plan as to who will have the ball, how long they'll have the ball, who they'll pass to, where the pass will occur, etc. ". No team strategy. I answered honestly at the request of some of the posters here. The field is too big. It makes it way too difficult to score, resulting in low-soring games. It doesn't make for good TV viewing: too much panning around and it's hard to tell how far down field the ball is. When the score is 1 - 0, I spend most of the game not-celebrating. This goes for baseball, hockey, and soccer (and I like none of those). Football games can end with scores that low, but they usually don't. You didn't respond to my 4th reason. Thsi was a response to my 5th reason, not 4th. In basketball, baseball and football, there are more dunks, first-downs, base hits to celebrate. They are frequently an indicator that a team is having some sort of success or is making progress. Soccer doesn't have that. There is no indicator of progress. A team can drive the ball to the other end of the field only to have it kicked way back just one second later. No sense of progress. note: I am responding because there seem to be people here don't understand why others (like me) hate soccer.
Soccer is not low scoring, it is just that the goals only count for 1 point, unlike American football where a Touchdown is worth 6+1.... A 3-2 soccer game equates to a 21-14 football game. Soccer is wonderful to play and watch, and the crowds are fantastic. I love soccer, and it is not just becuase my 5 year old averages 5.2 goals a game either. DD
I'm with you. Soccer has the best fans, hands down (Rugby fans are second). Before these pics, I pictured passionate fans singing the entire match when I thought about soccer fans. Now huge-boobed latin women will be in my impression. Goal! By the way, there are some great nip-slip pics of that same Brazillian girl HERE. (of course, nip-slips are NSFW).
Football: point-after-touchdown = 1 point saftey in a point-after-touchdown = 1 point two-point-conversion = 2 points safety = 2 points field goal = 3 points touchdown = 6 points total: 6 different ways to score in different amounts Soccer: goal = 1 point total: 1 way to score in one amount. Summary: Football's scoring methodology facilitates A LOT of different team strategies. Soccer's doesn't. In soccer, that element is completely absent. There is no equivalent to deciding if they should go for it on a 4th down or play it safe and kick a field goal. Again... little or not team offensive strategy. Soccer is not a thinking-man's game.
You think football is a thinking-man's game?! Maybe it is ... for 1 man, the coach. A 40 -70 yr old man who can't play but can talk a good game. For the rest, this is what they do: - Line up on a line and hit the guy opposite to you. - Line up wide on the right, run 10 yd down the sideline, cut across the field then open your hands and wait for a pointed ball to hit them. ... A thinking man game ... ? Not !
I didn't say football was a thinking-man's game. I said soccer wasn't. I do, however, see more strategy and thinking in football that in soccer. Football In a given play, the quarterback must read the defense and think about how to adjust the play to exploit the defense's weakness. The QB will know a designed play and will know whether or not to run or pass, and where to pass it. The running back must know where his offensive linemen intend to create a gap for him to run through. When he runs, he must know where the defenders are likely to be attacking him from. Receivers know that they can't just run to anywhere on the field. They know that they must run a very specific pattern in order to catch a pass at a very specific place. I could go on, but it's not necessary. Soccer: Guys kick the ball around, trying to control it and kick in the goal.
Wow, you know absolutely nothing about soccer. Soccer players don't just run around aimlessly. Soccer attacks are just at tactically planned as American football's, as are the defenses.
The problem with soccer in the US is that it has never attracted the best athletes. In high schools across the country, the top athletes play football, basketball and baseball. The leftovers play soccer. Where I grew up, the soccer players were the skinny sissies who couldn't hack it on the football, basketball or baseball fields because they weren't strong/physical enough. I think this perception is pretty common across the US.
While this was true in the past, it's slowly starting to change. The US is starting to produce some very fast and physically gifted soccer players for their youth teams.
I'm not going to compare soccer to football or basketball or even baseball...its inferiority speaks for itself--it in no way compares to the three. However, I think there are some parallels to hockey that one can draw, since the games are somewhat similar...except that hockey has all of the things that I wish soccer did. Hockey is FAST. I mean, it is by far the fastest game of any of them, IMO. It is more physical and there is generally more scoring (especially since eliminating the two-line pass). But the biggest way that soccer loses to hockey is the crying. The fall-down and grab your ankle or whatever like you're dying--all to get a call. Yes, basketball has flopping and whining too, but not like soccer. It's why american football and hockey are great. You may not love either of the two, but there's definitely no crying. Those are men's games.
This guy thinks a little but it's limited to a few things the coach told him: 1) Look at the guy running down the sideline, if he is covered, 2) Look the TE standing just in front of the opposing LB. 3) Throw the ball into the tuff or over everyone's head ... As simple as that and they mess up all the time . In some play all the QB does is pull the ball from the C's ass and hand it to some dude ... that hardly takes any thinking. Really? What is so hard about running to places where there are nobody? Hey dude, remember don't run into their guys, they'll kill you, run into empty space .. How is that thinking? If you are told specifically to run an exact route, you are nothing but a robot!
i am not trying to offend you or anything. but i think it's because you never actually played the game. take a great singer, a good drummer or pianist...only someone who knows how hard it is to be good at something can appreciate it. all art work looks the same to me. 1. a common person doesn't see strategy because they are not looking for it. in basketball do you notice every screen set by other players? not really. you kind of focus on the ball and unless you are lookin for it you won't see it. 2. but thats the difference of the game. and if you have actually ran a soccer field 5 times you will know how hard it is to do it for 90 minutes. and the size of the court is in relation to how far a pass or kick can go in a sport. you can only throw a basketball so far. or punt the football etc 3. that's just a personal choice. it builds excitement when someone does score. because you never know if thats the only one for that game. in basketball you don't run across the room starting in the first quarter. but when dynamo scored the first goal in the finals couple of weeks ago i went nuts. 4. if a sport where we get to use hands has 25 turnovers ...imagine where we use our feet. and here's an upside to soccer...continuous action for 45 minutes! i watch all sports but baseball moves sooo slow. it takes like 2 minutes between each pitch! it takes me 3 hours to watch 60 minutes of football. the countless breaks between downs, punts, halftime, quarter, 2 minute warning. 3.30 hours to watch to 9 innings of baseball 3 hrs to watch 60 minutes of football 2.30 hrs to watch 48 mins of basketball. 2 hrs to watch 90 minutes of soccer. and also unless you have a favorite team you can't watch soccer. all that said i would say i like basketball, soccer, football, baseball in that order. but i just watch what's on tv..so now it's basketball and football.
have you ever watched or played football? i just think it's a complete waste of time sitting through a 90 minute soccer game that ends 0-0
Being the most popular sport in countries where they don't play other sports is not much of an achievement. In most countries where succor did not have an established base before other sports were introduced, succor is not the most popular, and other sports like football, rugby, cricket, and hockey are king. It's nice for soccer fans that poor Latin American and African countries (and the PRC) where they don't have other sports allow them to say succor is the most popular, but given the choice it seems people prefer other sports.
