Um, you specifically quoted and replied to me. Ass. In baseball, you don't have to run all the way down the field to accomplish anything. You only have to run 90 feet (which is about the same as basketball, coincidentally). In football, you also don't have to run all the way down the field to accomplish something, you only have to run an average of 10 feet three times in a row. Soccer doesn't have base runners or first downs. You can move the ball the length of the pitch, and all that can be canceled out by a defender getting the ball (which is much easier in soccer than picking off a base runner in baseball or forcing a turnover in football). In other words, you are comparing apples and oranges. Games similar in nature to soccer, like hockey and lacrosse, have smaller playing areas (80 yards goal to goal in lacrosse, 178 ft goal to goal in hockey). Hockey is further quickened because they are on skates, so they can move faster than runners. To summarize, the problem with the big field in soccer is not the field itself, but that you are often required to move the ball from one end to the other at a running pace the execution of which is far more often than not prevented by the other team (imagine if stealing the ball in basketball where as easy as in soccer to see what I am talking about).
wow, once again I ask, if every reason we give is ignorant, as just about every post in this thread was according to you an others, when someone legitimately posted why they didnt like soccer, then what are we left to say? we just hate soccer because we just do? like I said, that wont sit well either. also, someone else mentioned, you're complaining about people bashing a sport in a thread titled soccerhater.com? are you serious? not only that, you brought it on yourselves by replying to every post for reasons why hating the sport as ignorant. grow a pair if i started a thread about the flyers, it would be about the dayton flyers, not the the philly flyers, seeing as i'm not a hockey fan either.
I think soccerlovers can accept the low scoring point and the point about ties but stuff like there's "no strategy" gets to us. I got no prob. w/ you saying you just hate it, thats cool, to each his own. The main problem is when dudes say how much they hate the sport and then make it a point to get in every soccer conversation and say that the sport sux. ( this thread is the exception due to the nature of it). I got love for the flyers of dayton myself, had a couple of my boys play soccer there.
Please stop criticizing one of the most beautiful games we have today. I don't care what your argument is. Some people are raised with the game and we can't help but love it. <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NBpu-M6kXCk&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NBpu-M6kXCk&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
I was referring to one post early on in this thread in which the poster said that he didn't like soccer because he couldn't see any strategy. Yet, the guy hasn't played the game, doesn't watch the game, has never coached the game, etc., etc., etc. It's akin to me saying, "I hate the University of Dayton. I've never been there. I know nothing about it. I couldn't even tell you where it is. But, damn, I hate those Flyers. Oh, and because I hate it, they should change their mascot to the tigers and their colors should be purple and gold. Then more people would like them because they'd be more like LSU." If that ain't the definition of ignorant, I'm not sure what is. I apologize if I offended you by assuming you were a Philly Flyer fan. Nice win over Louisville...again.
as in actual kids or just players you enjoy watching? Chris Rolfe who plays for the Chicago Fire actually went to my high school which is just about 5 minutes up the road from UD. also, i dont hate people who play the game, i respect what they do. like i said, just not a fan of the game, not my thing i guess.
I get it. You want a sports where there is less running involved? 3, 4 yds every play, stop, repeat? Imagine you explain to a Martian: Hey, Martian dude, we have a fantastic game here on Earth, we carry the ball for 3, 4 yards every time, then we stop, hug each other, chat for a while and then we do it again. 3, 4 more yards ... Actually only 1 of us carry the ball, the rest of us are just out there pushing each other, we are too fat, we can't run very far any how. Some of us can run but we just pretend that we were gonna run down field, but we don't, we just let that one guy carry the ball for 3, 4 yards ... It's a great game, you see !
just put a best of clip with zidane and people will who doesen't like soccer will turn side immediatly
Not less running. Less time between meaningful actions. In football, you have three chances to move the ball ten yards (technically four, but nobody goes for it on fourth down all the time). In soccer, moving the ball ten yards is meaningless. You see guys kick the ball backwards 10 yards without a second thought. You can drive all the way down the field (which takes a while) and then someone will steal the ball or intercept a pass and the whole process starts over often without even a shot being taken. Like I said, think about if it were easier to steal the ball in basketball to understand the point.
I'm with StupidMoniker on this one. I've never been to a live professional soccer game, but did play it past the age of 10 and have seen enough on tv. I DO recognize that there is strategy to the game. I DO recognize that the players are well-conditioned, superior athletes. I DO understand that the field is the size it is because it is, and the rules are the way they are for specific reasons. BUT, I still don't find it exciting, for many of the reasons SM mentions. On strategy, for example. I am sure there is strategy that I am missing. However, the nature of the sport, the size of the field, etc. make it hard to appreciate that strategy, imo. I mean, I understand there is strategy in track & field, too, or long-distance speed skating....but I'm not going to watch those either. I'd find it hard to believe there is significant "play-calling". To that extent, one ca certainly argue baseball is similar (though there is tons of "play-calling" in the pitcher vs. batter match-up). But baseball is my least favorite of the 3 major American sports. To me, soccer strategy looks more like fast-break strategy in basketball. It's less about play-calling and more about understanding how to play the game. Requires thinking, for sure, but not as exciting to me, personally. I'm also not a fan of the low-scoring game. Someone earlier gave 4 different scores after 90 minutes of a game and asked why a 1-0 game where the score is made in the last 10 seconds should be any less exciting then the 0-0 tie. I assume that was a rhetorical question, as it should be pretty clear why the 1-0 game would be more exciting. And to me, personally, the 1000-900 game would be even more exciting. I certainly don't think the rule-changes in American sports over the last few decades should be held against them. Sometimes they don't work, BUT sometimes they do, and makes the game better. Nor do I think the shots at American football make much sense. Run 3-4 yards, stop, do it again, etc., etc. Soccer is not the most or even a hugely popular sport in America. I personally don't think its because Americans hate losing or there's been a secret plot to keep soccer liking down. I do think it's because American's, in general, found or created other sports they liked, and continue to like better. As America continues to become an even bigger melting pot, soccer will get more popular, for sure, and as that happens, and more money goes to the players, and to owners and agents and parents, etc., more and more Americans will play and we will become extremely competitive at the sport. We don't hate soccer because we're bad at it, we're bad at soccer because we don't care about it. that may change. and maybe my opinions about the sport will, too. but for now, I'd rather watch golf, or poker, or something a lot of other people may find boring, than watch soccer. HOWEVER, I will not watch Nascar. Now that's something I find really stupid to watch on tv.
Less time between meaningful actions: You define meaningful action as in moving a ball 3, 4 yards in football. How come you don't consider connecting a 10-15 yard pass to a teammate in soccer a meaningful action? So they pass the ball backward in soccer: Don't they pitch or snap the ball backward in football as well? One step back, 2 steps forward ... changing direction, changin the point of attack ... that is how you play either sports. So it's easier so steal the ball in soccer: When players get better, it's harder to steal the ball from them. It's the same as football, the beginners can play a long time without completing a forward pass. Your line of thinking suggests that you want little rewards along the way you play the game. (i.e. 3, 4 yd gain, pass completion, 1st down ...) You don't enjoy the game for the plays themselves. You travel to get somewhere but you don't enjoy the trip itself. They can change the game of soccer by: 1) Everytime a team connects a pass, everyone stops, moves up and start over from the place the ball was received ... repeat until a team gets to the end zone. 2) or they can make the goal 5 times as big, players will shoot every they get within 30, 35 yards. They can score a goal almost every time. Score of the game 'd probably run in the 10-20 goals for each side. These rules' changes meet with your requirements. Do they make the game better?
I asked the earlier question. 1) You play for 90 minutes, games ends 0-0. 2) You play for 89 minutes, someone scores in the 90th minute, wins 1-0. You said you enjoy the 2nd game. Let me expand that question. You watch both games for 89 minutes, both have no score, do you enjoy the game or do you NOT enjoy the game for those 89 minutes? Why should action in the 90th minute changes everything for you? It should add to your enjoyment but it should not be the entire experience. Like I said before, you have to enjoy the trip and not just the destination. If all you care about is the score, they could just go out have 1 shot PK kick to decide who wins, 30 seconds and everyone goes home happy?! On the other hand, they could make soccer goal easier to score, make the goal bigger, eliminate the goal keeper ... Each side can score a ton. Will it make the game better?
Soccer is all about the flow of the game. If that ain't your thing -- so be it. Just because each play is not stopped, replayed and analysed, doesn't mean it's not meaningful. It's kind of ironic to hear baseball and football fans complain about 'nothing happening' in soccer when in those games they have time to replay, reverse angle replay and analyze each play because of all the time when there actually isn't anything happening on the field. Not to say soccer is 'better.' I like baseball and football. Just the arguements against soccer are nonesense. The game doesn't do it for you, and you don't have any interest in learning its nuances? -- cool. I feel the same way about Nascar. I just won't pretend to know how to 'improve' Nascar when I don't care to understand it in the first place.
I don't define moving the ball three or four yards as a meaningful action, in football, the meaningful action is getting the first down for the offense or forcing the punt for the defense. Soccer has no equivalent. You can be in better field position, and that is about it short of scoring. Plays that end up behind the line of scrimmage are failures. The most you will ever move the ball backward in football is the length of a snap to the punter, and on real offensive plays, only the length of a shotgun snap. Radically different than soccer and hockey where the ball/puck is moved way back to retain possession and start again. I am talking about professionals, not little kids. Count the number of times the ball changes possession without a shot in a soccer match vs a basketball game. There is no comparison. First downs. Football would be like soccer if you weren't limited to 4 downs. You can enjoy the trip, but you don't want every step along the way to have a high probability of starting over. More like require that for every X number of times you kick the ball, you have to advance it Y yards or the other team gets possession. You don't want to make it meaningless to score a goal, maybe make the goal 12 feet wider.
It's obviously a competition. Of course, I enjoy the game a lot more (or worse, depending on which team scores!) if someone scores in the last minute. Do I think the first 89 minutes are pointless. Well, compared to the last minute, sure, but overall, no, because I expected there to be scoring. The cases where there actually is scoring, though, I find a lot more interesting. There experience isn't JUST about the score, but at the end of the day, it is. I understand that soccer fans view the constant back and forth on the field similarly to how I would view a bunch of scoring by either team, in that even without the actual scoring, that back and forth makes it exciting for you. Baseball is similar. I get excited when Lance hits a double...but that doesn't mean he is always going to score. I get MORE excited when he hits a home run, or someone else bats him in. Sure, if there is more scoring in general in the sport it reduces the overall importance of each individual score....BUT, on the other hand, the score is what actually MEANS something at the end of the day. And, to the extent that you never know what's going to happen through the rest of the game, those scores are still very important.
