Watched a couple of World Cup games today.

France v. Switerland = 0-0 tie
Brazil v. Croaia = 1-0 Brazil win.

2 games, 4 teams, 1 goal. Ouch.

I know I sound like the typcial American but darn. That is simply not enough scoring to be fulfilling. After all, the purpose of the game is TO SCORE. It is not simply to appreciate Ronaldhino's footwork. All you hear about is how great these guys are, blah, blah.

Who cares if they are great if they never score?

If the average soccer score was more like 3-2 it would be MUCH more watchable.

Is there any credible effort by FIFA to increase the scoring. Hockey recently implemented several changes to increase scoring so it's not like it is unheard of to tinker with a game.

Seems like it sure would help....

The most exciting game of this cup so far was a 0-0 tie between Sweden and Trinidad & Tobago. There are many, many great plays on both sides of the ball that do not result in a goal. I like the game just fine as it is.

Changing the Offsides Law could increase scoring.

I think most of us agree with tool.

The 0-0 tie between T&T and Sweden was the BEST game of the Cup, so far.

quote:

---

Changing the Offsides Law could increase scoring.

---

Changing it in what way?

Eliminating it would make for a lot less exciting game because everyone would be more spread out and each team would have "pass-through" players standing in front of goal waiting for a pass and an easy score. it would probably look a lot more like a fussball table than a beautiful flowing game out there, as only the midfielders would be free to move around. No, thanks.

By the way, the offside law has been changed slightly in the past couple of years to encourage more attacking play.

[This message has been edited by tool (edited 6/13/2006 5:59p).]

the new ball i think has actually made the game a little more interesting. It makes the ball do some very weird things in the air, and could up the scoring slightly, especially from shots from 30+ yards out.

The thing we as americans need to get used to is that its not the actual scoring of the goal that is the best part of soccer...its the build, the imagination and the passing that makes the game great. The thing that makes scoring a goal so great is that it is not easy. Take baseball...It is a RELATIVELY low scoring game but when a team scores a run most fans stand up and clap and high five but you see like 1000x more emotion when someone scores a goal in soccer. It adds to the atmosphere and the joy of the game.

And to think that scoring more goals would lead to more scoring.

Hopefully we'll show up for the Italy game next.

If goals were worth 7 points would it make it more exciting? Nope

When you see a fullback steal the ball, pass to midfielder, several buildup passes, some great dribbling, dodging defenders, then a great cross, then a header towards goal....

What is more exciting?
A. If ball goes in net or
B. If keeper makes a great save

About the same in my book.

If you're only paying attention to the goals, you're missing 99% of excitement.

Dan: A modest proposal - make the nets bigger.

Followed by:

Casey: How about they make the nets smaller and no goalie.
Dan: I like it!
Casey: That's basketball.

On the bandwagon since birth. Raised in the bleachers of Kyle, Olsen, and G. Rollie White

I missed the T&T game but I thought that Brazil/Croatia last night was a great game and it ended 1-0.

The only way to have higher scoring soccer is to watch indoor soccer, really...

I've tried for years to get my friends into watching soccer (local as well as international). From what I've seen, the low scoring game is bothersome to them, but not as bad as sitting through the game, and then it end without a winner/loser. A tie seems to really frustrate them, and (somewhat) understandably so.

I like it the way it is. However, I would like ther to be no ties(draws) in the WC. All of those "exciting" 0-0 games would become even more exciting with a shootout.

disagree, earning ties makes the WC very exciting in group play or else after a game or two nothing would matter anymore. That is where a lot of emotion and excitement come in. If the US tie Italy we'll experience that for the Ghana game.

disagree, earning ties makes the WC very exciting in group play or else after a game or two nothing would matter anymore. That is where a lot of emotion and excitement come in. If the US tie Italy we'll experience that for the Ghana game.

Ag Since 83

watch the Germany game today, they scored four goals against a pretty good Costa Rica, and without Ballack, who should be back today

I've never figured out why some people feel a score of 10 - 8 is better than 1 - 0. My best guess is that Americans don't like it when it is hard to score. A desire for easy gratification. And a 10 - 8 score would mean that each team pretty much scored on every true goal chance during the game and some that shouldn't have been scored.

But I think soccer is better served in this country if interest is built up slowly and play is done according to the rules used by the elite leagues in the world. Attempts to try and Americanize the game in order to quickly win fans by making it more like other American sports just won't work.

The good news is that I'm seeing a lot more interest in the sport at work and not getting near as many 'I don't get what the fuss is all about' comments as I have in the past.

Soccer will never be the sport here as it is in the rest of the world, but it will probably become bigger than it is now without any forced changes to the rules, etc.

[This message has been edited by An Ag in CO (edited 6/14/2006 11:21a).]

quote:

---

Soccer will never be the sport here as it is in the rest of the world, but it will probably become bigger than it is now without any forced changes to the rules, etc.

---

Of the big three of Baseball, Football & Basketball, only football is doing really well. IMO baseball is dying in the US, esp. with the 'roids scandal. Basketball is down too. Hockey is in the toilet right now.

Waning interest in baseball plus the large influx of Latin Americans means more people will be playing soccer in the U.S. While it hasn't caught on like predicted, most folks under 35 played soccer at some point in their youth, so their is a familiarity there. Our parent's generation were clueless about soccer.

I didn't play soccer past grade school, but I enjoy watching it more than baseball. Constant action, plus there is no controversy about corked bats and players on juice. The idea of a true world sport is pretty cool too, IMO & no other sport can come close.

I've never liked heading the ball back to the keeper. Might cause some miskicks if thats outlawed?

how about today's games? high enough scoring for ya? 4-0 and 2-2 so far, thats about as good as it gets

Todays second game illustrates what soccer is missing by having so many 0-0 or 1-0 games.

While there can certainly be plenty of drama and great play in a scoreless draw, the dynamic of the game doesn't change very much from start to finish. Contrast that with the Sauid Arabia-Tunisia game, where Tunisia looked like it might make 1-0 standup, then SA comes back to tie, then take the lead, and appeared to have 3 points and a realistic shot at the knockout round wrapped up only to see it snatched away in injury time.

Americans like dramatic storylines. High scores aren't really what turn us on, but closely fought contests in which the momentum swings back and forth are. Soccer could use more of that. What they could do to achieve that without doing more harm than good, I don't know.

BTW: I was forced to stay out of the office this afternoon so I can look after my sister who is recovering from surgery and can't get around without assistance. Pity me, I have to sit here and watch the World Cup live, instead of sitting at my desk billing clients.

I don't think it's the low-scoring nature of soccer that is the big problem getting the casual fan to watch.

My kids played youth soccer in Tulsa, which enjoys much popularity up here, so I know the game, even though I'm too old to have played competitively (no soccer programs around when I was young).

What's more problematic for the casual fan (particularly Americans, who have access to so many other sports), imo, is that once a team gets ahead by a couple of goals, they go into the equivalent of the "four corners offense" that was ruining college basketball until the shot clock was instituted. Sometimes teams will go into complete defensive mode with only a 1 goal lead, particularly if it's in the second half.

In most American sports a team can get out to an early lead and, yet, not go into a defensive crouch to protect that lead. A two or three touchdown lead early in a football (American style) game doesn't significantly change how the remainder of the game is played. The team that is down can easily come back and win (remember our game against itt in '02, for instance?).

In soccer, except for the relatively rare exception, once a team has a two goal lead, the game is effectively over. The leading team goes into protection mode. Most players are not concerned with attacking the opponent's goal - they fall back to insure that few shots on goal will be taken on their goal.

The "four corners offense" in basketball perfected by North Carolina insured that a team that got out to a 4 or 6 point lead would just play "keep away" for the rest of the game. Those "exciting games" that ended in 32-28 scores were causing fans to leave in droves. And the NCAA new it. Watching a team demonstrate its prowess passing and dribbling, while rarely taking a shot, was mind-numbing for most folks.

Soccer has a similar problem. When a team goes into a game playing for a 0-0 tie - not really playing to score, but to keep the other team from scoring - and then does cartwheels off the field after it's over, the casual fan will roll his eyes and not tune in to many games thereafter.

Which is too bad.

[This message has been edited by Hap (edited 6/14/2006 2:47p).]

quote:

---

closely fought contests in which the momentum swings back and forth

---

I don't understand your point, as that is EXACTLY the best way to describe most World Cup games that end 0-0.

quote:

---

Soccer has a similar problem. When a team goes into a game playing for a 0-0 tie - not really playing to score, but to keep the other team from scoring - and then does cartwheels off the field after it's over, the casual fan will roll his eyes and not tune in to many games thereafter.

---

This is generally a US problem and the sport really has no need to cater to fans that don't like the sport by and large the way it is. Most fans don't like playing for tie, but if that's the result that gets you the championship then at least one team's fans appreciate it. And when it back-fires pressure is put on coaches and players.

This is where the problem in the US was in the past: let's kick the ball in play rather than throwing it in, etc. These 'special' rules that have been tried in the US is one of the reasons why the rest of the planet gives so little respect to the sport here.

It seems an increasing number of folks enjoy the game as it is played throughout the known universe and I think it's better to continue this type of growth rather than attempt to snare those who would only like it if it was different.

Too say that "momentum swings" in a 0-0 draw does violence to the English language. It might shift ever so slightly from moment to moment, but the overall dynamic of such a game doesn't change much from start to finish, certainly not enough to justify calling it a "swing" in momentum. Usually, one team is happy with the tie, and playing defense first the entire game, while the other team is attacking more (but not so much as to risk giving up a goal on a counterattack). To be sure, there can be drama in trying to desparately hold onto a draw, and pressure may mount gradually toward the end, but the dynamic of the game usually does not change.

Frankly, looking back at the T&T/Sweden game, the one thing that gave that more drama than it might otherwise have had, and changed the dynamic somewhat, was when T&T had a man sent off. That added some interest, but the overall story of the game was the same in the 90th minute as in the first--Sweden was looking for a goal, and T&T was just looking to escape.

If there was nothing wrong with the game, FIFA would have adjusted the offsides rule, eliminated the goalkeepers right to handle backpasses from his teamates with his hands, or used this funky ball. The question is, what can you do that helps scoring but doesn't ruin the game? I'm not sure there is a good answer for that.

Well, you're right, CO, and I'm not arguing that point.

The rest of the world can, indeed, enjoy the game and its rules any way they want.

But, when soccer fans, both foreign and domestic, decry the "ignorant" Americans for not becoming invested in soccer, as the rabid soccer fans are, perhaps those soccer afficionados should understand why so many casual sports fans find the game boring.

If the rest of the world wants to keep the game the way it is - great. That's their perogative. But, then the rest of the world shouldn't ***** because Americans find their game to be lifeless in comparison to other sports they enjoy playing and watching.

The NHL found this out recently, too. Far too many NHL games devolved into a contest wherein the puck was "dumped" into the corners and both sides rushed in trying to dig it out. The game became a bore. The NHL tweaked the rules after their recent lockout and allowed two-line passes, opening the game up and reclaiming some of their lost fan base.

Years ago, hockey was exported from Canada to Europe, where they widened the rink and instituted rules to allow two-line passes. The "international" game was much more exciting than the traditional hockey game devised by the originating country. Many fans, who found NHL hockey to be boring, enjoyed watching Olympic hockey.

Soccer will never, ever (imo) be hugely popular in the States, as it is in many foreign countries. Too many other great sports vying for the attention of our homegrown athletes and fans. But, it certainly doesn't help when a 2-0 lead midway through the first half means game-set-match, to put it into tennis parlance.

A soccer fan who enjoys watching the defensive play that ensues for the remainder of the game is like a rabid basketball fan that enjoyed watching the basketball team dribble and pass for 10 or 15 minutes, while running the clock by performing the "four corners offense" in the days before the shot clock was instituted.

[This message has been edited by Hap (edited 6/14/2006 3:23p).]

[This message has been edited by Hap (edited 6/14/2006 3:25p).]

Yes, I do believe there are huge momentum swings in a 0-0 draw. Sometimes you get that score because at least one of the teams was playing for a draw the whole time, but that is usually not the case. Most of the time, each side has several periods of pressing for a goal. It's exciting.

The Sweden v. T&T game was the most exciting match in the tournament until maybe the second half of the SA v. Tunisia match this morning, which I haven't seen yet.

If you can't see that, it's probably because you simply have a different mentality than the rest of the soccer-watching world. I'm not making a judgment on which one is better, but I do know that we will do no service to soccer by changing to rules to suit American sensibilities.

I and millions of others like it the way it is.

quote:

---

If the rest of the world wants to keep the game the way it is - great. That's their perogative. But, then the rest of the world shouldn't ***** because Americans find their game to be lifeless in comparison to other sports they enjoy playing and watching.

---

I'm not sure that is much of an issue. Like I said, I think what has hurt the US reputation is the attempts to change the game to appeal to folks who don't find the sport interesting to begin with and not the lack of interest.

Soccer will never be the big sport, at least not in my lifetime, and if the powers that be realize this they can focus on developing talent and slowly expanding the professional league here without the bizarre efforts to secure television revenue by making changes to the rules.

But that's just me.

Well, they've been saying that for 30 years or more. And relatively few Americans have turned into rabid soccer fans, even those who grew up playing in youth soccer leagues.

Maybe 100 years from now most Americans will be huge soccer fans.

Then again, perhaps soccer interest in the rest of the world will weaken over time, as American basketball continues to take hold on foreign soil.

Who knows?

Was the Germany-Poland match exciting enough for you? If anyone could watch that or Sweden-TT and say with a straight face that it was boring because there wasnt enough scoring then you need to stop watching the game, because you will never get enjoyment from it.

Seriously. The Germany-Poland match was incredibly exciting. Maybe Univision will replay it later this evening. Watch it. That was one awesome 1-0 game. Serious electricity in the air at that game.

It's tough to say if soccer will ever catch on in America, but it sure seems like the other spors are allowing them to do just that...

The strikes in hockey, the steroids in baseball.. A lot of these sports are just shooting themselves in the foot and soccer has a chance to step in. Really, it boils down to winning. The USA women won and people realized that we had a team. If the USA men start winning, it will get big.

Ag Since 83

quote:

---

Really, it boils down to winning. The USA women won and people realized that we had a team. If the USA men start winning, it will get big.

---

You may, indeed, be correct.

But many soccer buffs predicted big things after the women won the WC. Supposedly, it guaranteed that the women's professional league would be financially viable and a firestorm of activity would occur in the women's youth, high school, and college programs.

I read an article a few months ago that indicated soccer officials have been surprised that the women's WC championship hasn't yet had the positive effects that everyone expected - at least not to the degree predicted.

Even though two American men have won 9 or 10 of the Tour de France championships in recent years, cycling, although it has increased in popularity in the US somewhat, hasn't gained much traction yet. Certainly, cycling events don't draw US fans like European events do. And that's after our guys have dominated the most prestigious cycling competition in recent years.

Again, I think there are just too many currently popular sports options for American athletes and fans for any "foreign" sport, like soccer or cycling or team handball etc., to become wildly popular here.