How to make soccer more exciting?

[iguana_tonante]

When you develop the mental capacity to understand them outside of your narrow point of view.

Hmmmm. Nope. Still sounds like bullshit to me.

I've rephrased that, but the point is the same. But I understand you are used to talk about things you know nothing about.

So do we keep this up or will you just accept that it sounds like a line of bullshit to me, oh high and mighty one?

I accept that you know nothing about football and how to play it, so your opinion is more or less irrelevant. Think as you wish: doesn't make it any more correct.

 

[Chaos Descending]

You seem angry.

 

[iguana_tonante]

No patience for smugness?

Carrie made a comment which was factually correct: scoring might be what takes you forward in a tournament, but playing a good game can be as much as important. Winning a match while playing a clearly inferior football is not something you hope for your team. Nobody is trying to say that scoring is not important: but the quality of play is also a factor. As Count Zero noted, team as Brazil are admired by supporters of other teams because of their good football, not just their scoring record. So your smugness about it being "an immense load of bullshit" is not only undeserved, but also very rude.

That said, no hard feelings from me.

 

[Chaos Descending]

EDIT: My post wasn't very constructive.

 

[iguana_tonante]

This play of editing and re-editing is really silly. I stop here, before someone suggest we should get a room.

 

[Chaos Descending]

I agree. I think this has run it's course.

Peace to you, sir.

By the way, thanks for the last edit you made. That's a very good argument in defense of Carrie's comment, and it made me re-think my stance on the matter.

 

[iguana_tonante]

All's well that ends well.

 

[Davros]

Feel free to let me know when I'm supposed to take her comment seriously.

When you are willing to think outside of your narrow point of view, instead of just taking the piss trying to be "badass".

If the point of the contest is to win, and the score determines the winner, how is the score not important?

 

[PlainSimpleJoel]

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

I find rugby union boring in general. The funny thing about how many rugby league players return to the NRL.

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.

Very true. I remember when I was in high school, I had some friends who were interested in the NFL. It use to broadcast on a free to air network. And then channel 9 brought the rights to broadcast it. Only lasted a year or two, as it didn't rate well. I've heard there are some games on paytv.

Yeah, nobody is really saying that they should change the rules for Americans, but they could at least modify them again for the MLS.... and get decent TV coverage. It would be worth a shot

One problem with our A-League is that it on pay tv and it has to compete with high scoring points codes being NRL and AFL.

 

[Canadave]

No patience for smugness?

Carrie made a comment which was factually correct: scoring might be what takes you forward in a tournament, but playing a good game can be as much as important. Winning a match while playing a clearly inferior football is not something you hope for your team. Nobody is trying to say that scoring is not important: but the quality of play is also a factor. As Count Zero noted, team as Brazil are admired by supporters of other teams because of their good football, not just their scoring record. So your smugness about it being "an immense load of bullshit" is not only undeserved, but also very rude.

That said, no hard feelings from me.

Coming from someone who considers himself a soccer fan, though not as much as some other sports (namely hockey and baseball), I have to say I find this baffling. The point of sport, at least at the highest level, is to win. Beauty is something that should and does emerge from a well-played game, but at the end of the day, it's that tick mark in the W or L column that should matter.

 

[Chaos Descending]

On the topic of rugby football, can someone remind me of the main-bullet differences between rugby league and rugby union? I knew once but I forgot.

FWIW, I find the "ball-in-hand" codes of football (rugby, Aussie rules, gaelic, and gridiron) to be much more enjoyable than association football.

Trivia: The various codes of football are called "foot" ball not because they are played with the foot, but rather because they are played on foot (peasant style), as opposed to being played on horseback, like polo and other upper-crust games of antiquity were.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

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.

While I don't disagree, I do wish they made the gesture more often. Too many games have long lulls where little happens. And I don't mean little scoring happens, I mean little efforts to score happen.

BTW, I interpret beauty in the gesture more in the sense of excitement in the opportunity. Correct me if I'm wrong there. Basically, the game can be exciting in the intensity of the suspense when you don't know who can win because a single goal could determine it and that can happen at any second. That's absolutely right and something I love about soccer. But there are plenty of periods when you know nobody's really scoring at the moment, maybe a little later they will.

 

[WHF]

I wonder if one of the reasons that football doesn't catch on in the US is because there are no ready made commercial breaks. Without commercial breaks it isn't very appealing to the American networks and without exposure on network TV the public won't develop an interest in the sport.

 

[HappyDayRiot]

The primary thing that bothers me about soccer is the red card. When a team gets a red card early the game stops being competitive. Why not just make them play a man down for five minutes or until the other team scores and have it cost them a substitution to replace the guy?

PLAYERS would hate that. A red card is supposed to be a hardassed punishment. That's its point.

Some states' high school rules have "hard reds" and "soft reds". All that does is create confusion among HS players, coaches, spectators and referees.

Some teams play better with ten men. Arsenal are pretty good at it (yes, yes, insert Nicklas Bendtner jokes here ) and Germany were supreme against Serbia a couple of weeks ago.

And as for the teams who don't play better with 10... well they're more likely to get overrun and thus concede more goals. You Americans want more of those, right?

As for flooding forward more often to score... well, yes, but the problem is there's another team in the way, who are more often that not better than you, so they'll tackle you easily, take the ball and attack themselves. Hence tactics exist, as demonstrated above.

 

[Deckerd]

Football is exciting. It doesn't need anything.

(Well, I'm starting to think that electronic goal sensors and some kind of video-replays to aid the referee in case of close calls could be nice, but that's about it.

I agree with everything. The Iguana is wise.

The Spain v Portugal match last night was a cracker even if there was only one goal. Ronaldo did nothing, although that wasn't all his fault but my, he's cute.

 

[Starkers]

The primary thing that bothers me about soccer is the red card. When a team gets a red card early the game stops being competitive. Why not just make them play a man down for five minutes or until the other team scores and have it cost them a substitution to replace the guy?

PLAYERS would hate that. A red card is supposed to be a hardassed punishment. That's its point.

Some states' high school rules have "hard reds" and "soft reds". All that does is create confusion among HS players, coaches, spectators and referees.

Some teams play better with ten men. Arsenal are pretty good at it (yes, yes, insert Nicklas Bendtner jokes here ) and Germany were supreme against Serbia a couple of weeks ago.

And as for the teams who don't play better with 10... well they're more likely to get overrun and thus concede more goals. You Americans want more of those, right?

As for flooding forward more often to score... well, yes, but the problem is there's another team in the way, who are more often that not better than you, so they'll tackle you easily, take the ball and attack themselves. Hence tactics exist, as demonstrated above.

As my dad always used to say; ten men fight harder than 11.

I really don't get this obsession with draws being wrong somehow as well. Maybe it's a cultural thing but to me if you got rid of the draw, if you insisted that games had to have a winner, that's another nail in the coffin of the smaller clubs competing. One of the great things about football is that even if you're a small club, even if you couldn't imagine going to Old Trafford and winning, well getting a point is actually possible (although as Burnley proved last year so's getting all three)

Plus there's an issue of fairness at times. How often have we heard/said "A draw was a fair result."

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Why doesn't soccer have any traction in the United States as a spectator sport? Frankly, it's because we think it's BORING. The games can last for 3 friggin' hours without anyone scoring anything! Granted, baseball can be pretty low scoring sometimes too. But still, when a baseball team scores 8 runs in one game, it's a pretty regular occurence, whereas a soccer game with 8 goals is one for the record books!

How do we make soccer a more aggressive, high scoring affair without fundamentally changing the spirit of the game?

Personally, the 1st thing I'd change is get rid of some of the offsides rules. Recently, I was watching a PBS documentary about one of the FIFA club championships games. Liverpool seemed to score a couple of goals but were suddenly declared offsides. It seems like these kinds of rules prevent teams from being more aggressive in attacking the goal. Eliminate these rules and you'll start seeing the soccer equivalent of basketball's "fastbreak." I mean, each team already has a goalie. That doesn't make it hard enough?

What else could soccer do to amp up the adrenaline?

Strangely enough for you, I'd say that the most boring game ever is American football (closely followed by baseball). Jesus, it's people jumping on top of people, then they call it off. Rinse and repeat. There's no flow in this game. An American teacher of mine always says that in America, no sport could ever become popular that doesn't allow for a gazillion commercial breaks.

And football can be very, very exciting. Did you see the Germany vs England match?

And why the hell is American football (some strange offsping of rugby) called football at all? They carry the ball around in their arms...like Brazilian football star Luis Fabiano on the pitch.

 

[flemm]

As an American who grew up on baseball/football/basketball, soccer is a taste I've acquired since I started living in Europe. It took some time for me to develop an interest, but since that happened, I have to say there is no contest: soccer is more exciting than any of the major American sports.

This is not entirely or even mostly due to innate interesting-ness or exciting-ness or whatever (basically seeing any of these sports played at a high level can be pretty exciting as long as you are reasonably informed of the rules and understand the game and so on), but rather due to the fact that American tv advertising cannibalizes its sporting events to the point that they become almost unwatchable at times.

American football is currently the most popular sport in the US and would probably be deemed by many as a model for excitement. LoL? Not that football can't be exciting, but watching an NFL game is like watching three hours of commercials with occasional game breaks that largely involve people standing in a huddle.

Soccer is boring because the ball spends a certain amount of time in the mid-field while each team tries to find ways to break down the other? Basically it's commerical + huddle time, but 10x better. A soccer game that lasts 90 min can reliably be watched in two hours approximately. A 60 minute American football game can take three hours to actually complete.

Basketball? Occasionally an NBA game can be watchable if there aren't too many fouls called, at least until the last few minutes if the game is close, at which time it will grind to a halt as the teams call timeout after timeout so that 30 seconds takes half an hour (including commerical breaks, of course).

Baseball? My favorite American team sport traditionally, at least it keeps a basic rhythm of sorts, despite commercials, due to the inning structure. Though once you start getting into multiple pitching changes, oh man can it start to drag. And it is a game where not much happens a lot of the time to begin with.

Obviously opinions is opinions is opinions, so take it for what it's worth, but my feeling is that soccer makes for a better spectator sport than any of the popular American sports as currently presented. It would be a closer contest if you just got to watch the fucking game , as with soccer.

 

[Starkers]

Actually new question. How to make American Football more exciting?

I propose getting rid of the girly body armour...

And possibly giving players guns...

 

[Deckerd]

Snipers would be good too.