How to make soccer more exciting?

Get rid of stoppage time? No way! Stoppage time is brilliant for drama! Was there too little? Too much? Nothing spells drama like a winning or equalising goal being scored in 90+4 (or +8 if it's Man United at Old Trafford)!

I used to think they should stop the clock, as in rugby union, as well. But really, it's not as exciting at all.

 

That doesn't seem the likely explanation, since football (US: soccer) is the most popular sport in the rest of the world. Does the rest of the world particularly love sports that they find boring? Eh, I don't think so.

It also doesn't explain why Americans love baseball, which is 10 times more boring than football/soccer.

 

This doesn't make much sense. The team with more counterattacks usually plays a defense-heavy formation.

 

1999 Champions League Final...

Man Utd come from 1-0 down to win 2-1 with 2 goals in stoppage time or Stevie Gerrard 30 yard volley in stoppage time of the 2006 FA Cup Final.

Great drama.

 

I have to agree with these two. I hate ties. I can handle a loss, but ties are just frustrating in my book. As for the clock, I'd much prefer a count down clock, with time out for injuries, etc. But yeah, I don't see it happening.

As for the criticisms about American football taking forever to do anything, blame that on the TV broadcasters. When I was in college, a 2.5 to 3 hour game was easily stretched to 4 hours if it was televised. The TV timeouts really ticked us off, and killed the pace of the game. Want a really fast-paced game? Go watch a high school game or a smaller college.

 

LOL Yeah, glorified sports day events are where it's at. I'm going to nip down to my local High School to watch the sack race.

 

It's true that a non-televised American football game doesn't take anywhere near 4 hours though.

 

I really, really don't understand the discontent with ties. Frustration is part of sport. Sometimes a big team is held to an implausible draw - that's an achievement for a smaller team. Sometimes neither team can prove itself better. Sometimes there's a dramatic late equaliser.

On the flip side I don't have a problem with sports that don't allow drawn games. I just can't believe it's a problem in a league system.

 

Last night, Letterman suggested that the vuvuzela shows even the fans in attendance need something to occupy themselves because the game is so boring.

 

To be honest.. just because it's not very popular in the US the world needs to change the rules to make it more appealing to americans?

It may be a new concept for some but the world doesn't solely revolve around the US. American football is near unheard of in some parts of the world whereas football is played all around.

How about you change some American football rules to make it more exciting for us Europeans?

 

How dare you defy the superpower!

 

They just need to try and score more often. Passing the ball back and forth in the middle of the field instead of driving towards the place you need to be to score just seems like a waste of time to me.

 

Football is not all about the score, it's about the beauty of the gesture.

 

I suggest (if you have the time and will to learn) that you watch football much more often, then you'll realize that this "pointless" passing back and forth is often a tactic to draw the opposing team out of position so that a good pass can create an opportunity. It is at times a tactic to play down the clock, but more often it's the former.


Also, to expand slightly () on my earlier point. I disagree that more goals would make football more exciting. Part of the game is that even if your team has been better for 80 minutes, but couldn't get more than a one goal lead, this means that you always worry about that one devastating attacking play/fluke goal that'll change the result completely. The relatively low scoring nature of football is an essential part of the game (maybe not in its infancy, but it is today).

 

That's not even totally untrue. I've certainly seen many, many awfully boring games and singing/chanting/booing/etc is a good diversion during such games.

 

I don't think soccer (sorry, international fans, I just use it for simplicity's sake) needs to be changed at all. The game in its current incarnation is the world's most popular sport for a reason. While I prefer to see a couple goals scored, myself, sometimes a 0-0 draw can be incredibly exciting.

When Major League Soccer first came about in 1996, they changed some of the standard soccer rules. They used a clock that counted down from forty-five minutes, and stopped during dead ball situations. Each half ended when the clock reached zero. There were no draws early on; if the two teams were still tied by the end of the game, they went to penalty kicks to determine the winner. Those rule changes only lasted a couple of years before MLS realized how stupid they were.

 

I don't have a problem with the game being called soccer in the USA. It's named after 'Association Football' which is the name of the sport. FIFA after all stands for 'Fédération Internationale de Football Association'. I think it's stupid to insist that one variant has a monopoly on the name football.

The only problem for me is when to use football and when to use soccer for clarity.

 

It's also part of the folklore.
http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-3861745402106076394#

(I swear, I SWEAR I didn't chose this video purposely )

 

I don't mind, that's that other, unmentionable club from Vienna.
My club has never played against OM as far as I know.