Why Soccer Sucks


dumpthemonarchy
#1
1. Too few goals, a game for old men (little scoring)

2. Cheering for teams named Mansion, Fly Emirates, Bwin, AIG, Pepsi, Diadora, Samsung, 888

3. Terrible effing reffing

4. Teams that wear white shirts/blue shorts white trim; white shorts/black shirts white trim

5. No names on the back of jerseys
 
Dreadful Nonsense
#2
i think it would be a good game if they used two Balls at the same time
 
thomaska
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by DocDredView Post

i think it would be a good game if they used two Balls at the same time

Most are...
 
Tonington
#4
Why soccer doesn't suck.

No out of shape lardos, everyone is fit.

Cheap to play, your family doesn't need to be affluent to afford the gear.

An emphasis on team play, a team of individuals playing as such is not nearly as good as an unselfish team.

Highly competitive sport across the entire globe.

Fans that make the games much better than our other North American sport.

With a good slide tackle, you can watch your opponent get up with sod in their teeth!
 
Toro
#5
Soccer is awesome.
 
TenPenny
#6
I don't understand the obsession with lots of goals. A good soccer game is incredible, mostly non stop action, with amazing passing and ball control.

I know that people who grew up with American football aren't able to keep up with non stop action, they need the play to stop every 18 seconds, but why is this? Attention span too short?
 
karrie
#7
I'm with you there tenpenny. It seems silly to me to judge it based on a desire for constant scoring.

Some of the best hockey games are the low scoring ones, when the teams are playing their hardest but are just evenly matched. The constant back and forth is AWEsome.
 
lone wolf
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

Some of the best hockey games are the low scoring ones, when the teams are playing their hardest but are just evenly matched. The constant back and forth is AWEsome.

Yea Karrie!
Here's a gal who knows her hockey!...

Wolf
 
Tonington
#9
I'm glad to see we have people who appreciate soccer here. I personally love to see hard fought games with more defense rather than high scoring blowouts. It's much more exciting to see a wonderful set piece where the goalie pulls out an incredible save, than it is to see a striker pass the ball into the net. I'm a bit biased though, as I played full back exclusively
 
hermanntrude
#10
FOOTBALL rules.

But only when it's a game in a knockout tournament. I can't stand it in the leagues when both teams stand to gain from a draw. Thye piss about and knock the ball up and down the pitch for ever and that's giantly boring.

However... when it's germany vs england in the world cup.... phwoar! It's a very interesting game, tremendously exciting.
 
Phil B
#11
I'm absolutely amazed that with the obsession for lots of scoring, lots of breaks in play, numerous bizarre rules, strange positional names and endless amounts of statistics that Cricket is not more popular in North America.
 
Dreadful Nonsense
#12
The sports you like as an adult are the ones you played when you were a kid.

for me soccer wasn't around in Canada when i was a kid...Never played the thing....

When I watch a soccer game i know what they are trying to do....but then something happens in the middle of the field and everyone goes uuuuuuu or shouts....i totally missed it even though i was watching it happen... I don't get the subtlties of the game for i never played it.

The whole last world cup i got one thing out of the game....

When beckham bounced the ball off his head and it went flying perfectly in the reach of another player and that played kicked the ball and scored.....I thne realised why he is considered one of the best....now that play made me happy and i enjoyed it....but so much more of the game is lost on me.
 
hermanntrude
#13
is it the rules you don't understand or just that you miss some of the action because you weren't looking?
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Phil BView Post

I'm absolutely amazed that with the obsession for lots of scoring, lots of breaks in play, numerous bizarre rules, strange positional names and endless amounts of statistics that Cricket is not more popular in North America.

We like our sports to finish in 3 hours or less, not 3 weeks.
 
Dreadful Nonsense
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by hermanntrudeView Post

is it the rules you don't understand or just that you miss some of the action because you weren't looking?

I admit i'm not totally up on all the rules....it's not that i wasn't looking..i've discussed this with people i watched games with.....

It's like i played hockey and i can see a play and how it works out....stick handling....getting the puck off someone in the boards....checking ......

cause i played the game....
But soccer and it's foot techniques, ball handling beyond kicking and stuff is lost on me....how they set up certain plays....that sort of thing....

my point is a simple one Hermann....unless you played the sport you never will fully understand the subtle moves......


Also it's hard to get excited about a sport one never played.....
 
hermanntrude
#16
I've never really played much footy either but i can appreciate a good game. Although I do know what you mean about not being in-tune with a game. When I watch hockey, there are long periods of time when I can't even see the puck. I suspect Canadians don't have this problem.
 
Tonington
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by hermanntrudeView Post

I've never really played much footy either but i can appreciate a good game. Although I do know what you mean about not being in-tune with a game. When I watch hockey, there are long periods of time when I can't even see the puck. I suspect Canadians don't have this problem.

The trick is to watch the players, instead of following the camera
 
hermanntrude
#18
there was no camera... i was right there in the stadium. I still found it very hard to follow. it's just a matter of familiarity I think. I suggest that any sport requires a certain investment before one can really appreciate it.
 
Tonington
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by hermanntrudeView Post

there was no camera... i was right there in the stadium. I still found it very hard to follow. it's just a matter of familiarity I think. I suggest that any sport requires a certain investment before one can really appreciate it.

Ahh, my bad. I would say you are right with the familiarity. I love watching rugby, but I have a very limited understanding of the rules, so I'm often left wondering, what was that all about?
 
hermanntrude
#20
the rules are relatively simple, i think. Best way to learn is to watch a match and ask questions. You'd only have to do it once
 
dumpthemonarchy
#21
Actually I was looking for a few more soccer haters out there.

Soccer could be much more exciting but the fact is that the team that scores the first goal usually does not lose. It simply encourages dull defensive play and fans do not seem to mind that. But being in Korea now I see that they are not soccer fans but Korean soccer fans. I was told a 2004 World Cup game between South Africa and Spain in Korea had many empty seats. A Korean we spoke to said, "Korea was not playing, so why would we watch it?" Very parochial.

Soccer is in the hand of the purists who think a great game is zero zero. Much like baseball was years ago-a sport where a pergect game has no hits or runs for one side. Low scoring games in hockey are okay, but not very often or fan support would dwindle.

When the World Junior Hockey Championships come to Canada, just about every game is sold out, Canadians are hockey fans, not just Canadian hockey fans. I saw Norway play Finland in front of 8,000 fans at the Pacific Colisium in 2006. We love all hockey.
 
hermanntrude
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

Actually I was looking for a few more soccer haters out there.

Soccer could be much more exciting but the fact is that the team that scores the first goal usually does not lose.

This is simply not true. It might not even be a valid generalisation. I've seen many a game, especially in the international knockout tournaments (refer to my earlier comments about league games), where the losing side comes back and wins outright.

Quote:

It simply encourages dull defensive play and fans do not seem to mind that. But being in Korea now I see that they are not soccer fans but Korean soccer fans. I was told a 2004 World Cup game between South Africa and Spain in Korea had many empty seats. A Korean we spoke to said, "Korea was not playing, so why would we watch it?" Very parochial.

This may be the case in Korea but I know that any world cup game played in Europe is likely to be sold out even before anyone knows who's gonna play it.

Quote:

Soccer is in the hand of the purists who think a great game is zero zero. Much like baseball was years ago-a sport where a pergect game has no hits or runs for one side. Low scoring games in hockey are okay, but not very often or fan support would dwindle.

Many a nil-nil game has been exciting, but you're correct it's more interesting when more goals are scored. I can remember a game where England beat Germany 5-1. The fans were singing "rule brittania" and "two world wars and one world cup, doo-dah, doo-dah"

Quote:

When the World Junior Hockey Championships come to Canada, just about every game is sold out, Canadians are hockey fans, not just Canadian hockey fans. I saw Norway play Finland in front of 8,000 fans at the Pacific Colisium in 2006. We love all hockey.

hockey is a great game, but I don't feel soccer is deserving of your hatred.

After all, it's not like cricket, where a four-day game can end with different scores and still be declared a draw....
 
Toro
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

Soccer could be much more exciting but the fact is that the team that scores the first goal usually does not lose. It simply encourages dull defensive play and fans do not seem to mind that.

In the NHL, something like 95% of the time, the team leading at the end of the second period will not lose the game. So you'd apply the same standards then, right?

That's why, at least until a few years ago, the NHL had become very boring.
 
Blackleaf
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

1. Too few goals, a game for old men (little scoring)

2. Cheering for teams named Mansion, Fly Emirates, Bwin, AIG, Pepsi, Diadora, Samsung

Although "soccer" names certainly aren't as stupid as their counterparts in North American sports, such as Anaheim Mighty Ducks, Toronto Maple Leafs and Utah Raptors.

Quote:

5. No names on the back of jerseys

You're wrong -



This is the shirt that David Beckham wore for England against Greece in 2001. England needed a draw or a win to qualify for the 2002 World Cup and were losing 2-1 with a minute to go. A fantastic free kick from Beckham from the edge of the box made it 2-2 and sent England fans in raptures.

In fact, thousands of pounds must be spent every year by the British to put their favourite players' names, or even their own name, on the back of their replica shirts.

Another reason why "soccer" doesn't suck is, of course, the fact that it is by far the most popular team sport in the world, being played in 200 countries.

In fact, the British invented the three most popular team sports in the world: "soccer", cricket and rugby, each of which is played by vastly more people than ice hockey, baseball or basketball.

The British also invented tennis, too.
 
Toro
#25
Soccer's number one in terms of popularity, BL.

Basketball is number two, not cricket or rugby.
 
I think not
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

In fact, the British invented the three most popular team sports in the world: "soccer",

Nope, China.

Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

cricket

Yep, you got one right, but I would rather watch flies phuck than watch a cricket game.

Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

and rugby,

Rugby yes, but it has it's origins in football, and you're far and away with inventing football.

Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

each of which is played by vastly more people than ice hockey, baseball or basketball.

Ice Hockey and Baseball you would be right, Basketball, I highly doubt it.

Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

The British also invented tennis, too.

You're half right. It's a combination of Raquets (English) and Pelota (Spanish).
 
gopher
#27
Soccer is the King of sports as it involves great team work, stamina, unmatchable skill, great strategy, quick thinking, and improvisation. I agree that lower scoring makes it a better game but it would be OK if the cross bar at the top of the goal was heightened just a bit:

In the late 1800s the average goalie was only about 5'9"; today he is well over 6' tall. Therefore, it is virtually impossible to score a goal over his head or because of his long reach. On a free kick, the height of the defensive wall makes a direct goal difficult to achieve as well.

Therefore, the ideal solution is to increase the height of the cross bar as it would lead to a slight increase in socring and encourage more aggressive offensive strategy.
 
Fingertrouble
#28
Quote:

The sports you like as an adult are the ones you played when you were a kid.

I am a football (soccer) fanatic and I understand what you are saying, as I grew up in England playing the game. But I also love HOCKEY (Go FlamesGo!!!!).....and I have never played a minute of it in my life, so I guess it doesn't always run true that you have to grow up with a sport to like it....
 
Fingertrouble
#29
[quote=I think not;873820]
Quote:

Nope, China.

If you are going to use wikipedia, then you probably should provide all the facts, not just what you want....the Chinese developed the game of "cuju". Football (to most of the world, Soccer in North America) as it is played today WAS codified by the English.


p.s......how does it feel to know that all those major sports played in the States were invented by Canadians????
 
gopher
#30
how does it feel to know that all those major sports played in the States were invented by Canadians????



That certainly is true of basketball, but what is your basis for saying this about the other sports??
 

Similar Threads

499
Quebec Sucks
by Anonymous | May 19th, 2011
5
England Sucks!
by Toro | Mar 29th, 2007
1
Videotron SUCKS A**
by Vincent_2002 | Nov 26th, 2004
no new posts