Why USA isn't a world power in soccer (yet)

[3TrueFans]

I'm being totally serious. The variation in types of scores adds a layer of strategy to Football that Soccer just doesn't have.

So is football better because even when you fail in scoring a touchdown you still get a consolation prize of a field goal? Maybe a half a point in soccer for a shot that just goes wide would solve this problem.

 

[tm3308]

People always have a hard time understanding why a country with a relatively huge population isn't a soccer power. IMO it's 2 main things

1) Elite athletes generally play football, basketball, and baseball first. Lot's of reason for this but soccer comes pretty far down the list when it's the opposite in most countries.

2) Development. I grew up in SW Iowa and have seen this change high school soccer first hand. The towns with the best youth programs and participation eventually have the best soccer teams. The US has gotten better about this but still lags behind the world powers.

This, especially #1. The OP said it using far more words than necessary. It's true that soccer just isn't really ingrained in our culture the way it is in other countries, just like baseball/football/basketball/etc. aren't ingrained in other countries like it is here. But that's why our best athletes don't play soccer, and our best athletes playing more traditional American sports is why the U.S. isn't a soccer power.

Highest scoring World Cup in 60 years and still not enough scoring?

Isn't that kind of the point?

 

[twocoach]

The demographics of America are changing rapidly. The 2nd and 3rd generation Americans I work with are crazy about the World Cup. They are young and excited to watch. Work basically stops when their team is playing That bodes well for the health and growth of the sport here. Seems to be a younger person's game.

Factor in the steady influx of Mexicans and we're a soccer crazy country just waiting to happen!

 

[HFCS]

The demographics of America are changing rapidly. The 2nd and 3rd generation Americans I work with are crazy about the World Cup. They are young and excited to watch. Work basically stops when their team is playing

That bodes well for the health and growth of the sport here. Seems to be a younger person's game.

I have a lot of Latino friends who have become huge NFL and nba fans while still following soccer...but even if their country is a baseball country it doesn't seem to compete as we'll for their interest staying here. Most guys I play soccer with are Latinos who are also nfl fans.

 

[twocoach]

So is football better because even when you fail in scoring a touchdown you still get a consolation prize of a field goal? Maybe a half a point in soccer for a shot that just goes wide would solve this problem.

You should lose a point in soccer for shooting and missing the goal entirely. The damn thing is 192 square feet and teams only get single digit shots on goal in 90+ minutes?

 

[3TrueFans]

I think I have the solution, we make all soccer goals worth 100 points. Imagine how much more exciting the Spain-Netherlands game would have been if it ended 500-100 instead of 5-1!

 

[Cycsk]

I like it when people who don't know anything about soccer tell me why I shouldn't like it.

For the record, I'm not telling anyone else that they shouldn't like it. I see lots of reasons why someone might like it.
Incredible athletes going full-out all game.
Fantastic teamwork.
Great defensive stops, especially those by a goalie.
Close matches with exciting finishes.
Crowds going nuts.

For me, I just don't like the fact that the winning score is accomplished on what so often seems to be a "lucky" play, albeit using a high level of skill, but the same high level of skill hasn't been able to score for most of the rest of the game.

 

[Mr Janny]

So is football better because even when you fail in scoring a touchdown you still get a consolation prize of a field goal? Maybe a half a point in soccer for a shot that just goes wide would solve this problem.

I disagree with your phrasing, but yes, it does make it better.

 

[Cycsk]

I'm being totally serious. The variation in types of scores adds a layer of strategy to Football that Soccer just doesn't have.

I agree. For instance, Ferentz chosing to go for 3 in the third OT in 2011 essentially gave us the opportunity to win.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

Here are the scores of the entire World Cup so far:

Belgium -Algeria 2-1
Brazil - Mexico 0-0
Russia - Korea 1-1
Germany - Portugal 4-0
Iran - Nigeria 0-0
US - Ghana 2-1
Switzerland - Ecuador 2-1
France - Honduras 3-0
Argentina - Bosn/Herz 2-1
Columbia - Greece 3-0
Costa Rica - Uruguay 3-1
Italy - England 2-1
Ivory Coast - Japan 2-1
Mexico - Canada 1-0
Netherlands - Spain 5-1
Chile - Argentina 3-1
Brazil - Croatia 3-1

In no game has the loser scored more than 1 point, including Argentina against the allegedly bad defense of Chile.

According to the Wikipedia page for the 2010 World Cup, in only five games did the loser score more than 1 point (and it was always 2 points).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_FIFA_World_Cup

Obviously, the game appeals to a lot of people, but I just haven't been able to get into it. And now that I'm analyzing it, I think I know why. The defenses are too good and the scoring, especially the winning shot, seems too "lucky" too often. If there were higher scoring that reflected the quality of the offenses, not the lower scoring that reflects the quality of the defenses, I think I would find the game to be more compelling.

Chile and Argentina haven't played each other in this world cup... they aren't even in the same group...

 

[3TrueFans]

I disagree with your phrasing, but yes, it does make it better.

I disagree, I mean you could change the rules of soccer and say you get 3 points for a goal, 2 points for a corner kick, 1 point for a shot on goal that misses, does that make it more fun though? I say no because the idea that points = fun is silly.

 

[HFCS]

You should lose a point in soccer for shooting and missing the goal entirely. The damn thing is 192 square feet and teams only get single digit shots on goal in 90+ minutes?

Try hitting a straight worm burner with a 7 iron but with a one second time limit to address the ball and swing.

 

[mctallerton]

For the record, I'm not telling anyone else that they shouldn't like it. I see lots of reasons why someone might like it.
Incredible athletes going full-out all game.
Fantastic teamwork.
Great defensive stops, especially those by a goalie.
Close matches with exciting finishes.
Crowds going nuts.

For me, I just don't like the fact that the winning score is accomplished on what so often seems to be a "lucky" play, albeit using a high level of skill, but the same high level of skill hasn't been able to score for most of the rest of the game.

I dont understand why you keep referring to it as a lucky play.

 

[Cycsk]

Chile and Argentina haven't played each other in this world cup... they aren't even in the same group...

Couldn't read my notes. It was Australia. Fixed in my other post. Thanks.

 

[Mr Janny]

I disagree, I mean you could change the rules of soccer and say you get 3 points for a goal, 2 points for a corner kick, 1 point for a shot on goal that misses, does that make it more fun though? I say no because the idea that points = fun is silly.

if that's what you think I was getting at then you missed the point entirely. The idea is that multiple types of scores = increased strategy = added drama = added excitement.

 

[Mtowncyclone13]

How can you tell who is truly the better team when the scores of whole games are so often 1-0 or 2-1? It may not necessarily indicate parity, but rather that a good offense can't score much more on a good defense than a bad offense can. And everybody seems to have a good defense.

I like this comment. It's like the NCAA tournament starting with the sweet sixteen. Every team is the best of the best yet there are still blowouts and teams that are far superior to their opponent. Excluding the 4-0 Germany score the casual fan has no idea which team is better because the scores are so low.

It honestly depends on the game though. A game that ends 0-0 with both teams having several great opportunities is completely different than a 0-0 game where neither team tries to score.

Same with baseball. Jack Morris threw a complete game, shut out in game 7 of the 1991 World Series. People look at the box score and think the game was a dud because it was so low scoring. A pitcher's duel is so different from two teams that are just terrible at hitting.

If the NFL awarded 2 points for TDs and 1 point for FGs it wouldn't be nearly as high scoring. Most of the time the winning team wouldn't score 10 points. And therein lies the problem - most of the time in the NFL the winning team only scores 3-4 times, but when someone sees 21-28 points on the board and then compares it to a 3-1 soccer game the casual fan says "OMG - they score so many more points in football than in soccer. Soccer must be boring in comparison" when in reality the difference in scoring between football and soccer isn't nearly as dramatic as it's made out to be.

How many times has a football or basketball game gone down to the last play or last possession? That is very exciting. Soccer just doesn't have that "goal line defense" situation that we crave. I really hate the offside rule (and I was a sweeper for 10 years) because it disrupts the flow of the game. It's like basketball not allowing an offense player to make a alley-oop or something.

yes, but don't you see that the differentiation between types/values of scores is exactly what makes Football dramatic/strategic/exciting? Soccer is just 1 point at a time, no matter what.

Agreed. If far away shots were worth two points would it change the dynamics? Take away offside and see if teams prefer the far away 2 pointers or the close up 1 pointers.

 

[KnappShack]

I have a lot of Latino friends who have become huge NFL and nba fans while still following soccer...but even if their country is a baseball country it doesn't seem to compete as we'll for their interest staying here. Most guys I play soccer with are Latinos who are also nfl fans.

The Angels and Dodgers get a lot of love out here. Football is extremely popular even in a town that doesn't have the NFL. Even the Kings have a diverse following

It seems that when soccer gets into ya it will stay with a person. Getting the attention is the hard part. I'm totally a lost cause. I can't wait for the Cup to end so PTI will be back on, but the trends show soccer will continue to grow in popularity

 

[HFCS]

I dont understand why you keep referring to it as a lucky play.

The lucky ones are unearned pks. Maybe the only eqivalent is a really long blown pi flag...other than that replay has taken out a lot of it. An entire series of blown/fixed calls like kings/lakers a decade ago is probably a lot worse than a blown pk call here or there though.

 

[3TrueFans]

I get that, but if you don't think there's excitement or drama in soccer you definitely didn't watch the USA-Ghana match on Monday. Or any of the NHL playoffs this year.

 

[PabloDiablo]

High scoring allows for greater differentiation. Lower scoring increases the odds that a "lucky" play is going to be the deciding factor (e.g. the US win over Ghana). In higher scoring games, the "lucky" plan toward the end is only significant if the score has remained close.

I'm not judging anyone else's preferences, but I think I'm figuring out why I am not as interested in soccer.

I was trying to stay out of this but had to comment here. If you think that John Brooks was doing anything besides trying to head the ball to the keepers feet, which is textbook and taught to many in very early level soccer, then your crazy.

If that was lucky then every home run hit in baseball ever is "lucky" and every ace in tennis is "lucky" and every shot in golf is "lucky".