Why Soccer Sucks

[dumpthemonarchy]

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]

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.

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.

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"

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]

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]

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.

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]

Soccer's number one in terms of popularity, BL.

Basketball is number two, not cricket or rugby.

 

[I think not]

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

Nope, China.

cricket

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

and rugby,

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

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.

The British also invented tennis, too.

You're half right. It's a combination of Raquets (English) and Pelota (Spanish).

 

[gopher]

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]

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]

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]

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??

 

[Tonington]

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.

Meh, the game evolves. The goalies might be taller, but I'll bet players have stronger legs, and the ball certainly has more pop. I'd also bet heavily todays balls are easier to curl and bend around the wall. Personally I enjoy nice saves. I don't want to see players cracking on from well outside the 18 yard box and sneaking it in between the bar and goalies hands. As it is this year, there have been some horrid gaffs by Premiership goalies with goals sneaking under the bar, or mishandling.

 

[gopher]

Not only are the goalies taller, the have much longer arms and greater lateral quickness. This, coupled with the taller and faster defenders makes soccer too much of a defensive game.

Because of that, when a team takes a lead, all too often it sits on that lead because it is so difficult to score. I prefer a game of aggressive offense and drive. A higher post would add a bit more offense but not too much.

Anyway, it's a thought ...

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Plus, I forgot diving. Diving ruins so many soccer games. Because reffing is so bad they are reluctant to call fouls in the penalty box which leads to penalty kicks and certain goals. Soccer has few shots on net that can lead to goals.

hermanntrude. Tis so, scoring the first goal is simply the strategy of many teams because defences are so tough. Anecdotally I feel this to tbe true, does anyone have stats?

The "Korean" soccer fans are around the world are legion.

A. In Euro 2004 in Portugal there were plenty of empty seats, and down low too! The best soccer teams in one place! Shock! I saw this with my own eyes. Shock!
B. During the 2006 Olympics in Turin there were articles about empty seats and they blame corporations for not distributing the seats. Huh? It means people don't want to go, even with free tickets. Last year, the Detroit Red Wings had many empty lower red seats for games because Americans don't like hockey much-even with free tickets. I await the day Canada takes over the hockey world.
C. I watched the 2007 Asian Games in Doha, during the marathon, there were about ten fans cheering the runners on.
D. Watch for the World Hockey Championships in Europe in 2007 and observe the empty seats.
E. I don't hate soccer, but compared to hockey, it's a dud. Soccer has so much room to improve, it has great athletes, but the presentation is early 20th century. Trench warfare.
F. Soccer players go so orgasmic over a goal because it so rarely happens.

 

[gopher]

F. Soccer players go so orgasmic over a goal because it so rarely happens.



I agree with that one. Excessive celebrations are unsportsman like and embarass the opponents. More scoring will discourage such misbehavior. Good sportsmanship is something everyone should practice.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Hockey season has started, soccer may now die.

 

[alexander_37]

Soccer participants are walking advertisements.

The "World" Cup is not the a World's Cup, but a competition among 32 countries, disproportionately allotted to European countries.

Soccer is boring. Soccer is absurdly slow. I've had soccer apologists say with false pride how the average soccer participant "runs" 4 miles in a game. Newsflash: that means they are jogging less than 3 miles per hour. Translation: they are mostly standing around. BORING.

Soccer participants act like they've been shot - what pansies. Meanwhile, real athletes like Donovan McNabb or Bobby Baun play on broken legs.

Penalty kicks. You are determining a winner by a random event that has no relevance to the rest of the game. It would be as stupid as replacing extra innings with batting practice

Ties: 55% of games are ties. Ties suck.
Why not use your hands? Or your brain?
Soccer participants do not bathe.

The correct term for 0 is zero, not nil. Take a math class.

Soccer is not objective. There is no play clock. The game doesn't end after the clock has run down. This adds bias, subjectivism and appeals to lower intellects, and it destroys the drama from last second victories. Contrast such clumsy timekeeping (shame on the Swiss, who should know better) and the lack of any discernable strategy with the strategic precision of the two-minute drill in football.