You obviously haven't thought this through very far. That would be the equivalent of wanting to get rid of holding in football.
Why USA isn't a world power in soccer (yet)
- Thread starter Bewilderme
- Start date
You obviously haven't thought this through very far. That would be the equivalent of wanting to get rid of holding in football.
I think the terminology is arbitrary and has nothing to do with the like/dislike. In American soccer they use field/shoes/uniforms instead of pitch/boots/kits. It has no impact on the understanding of soccer at all.
And as bad as flopping/faking injury is in soccer, it's also done in football, basketball, and hockey, having the same intent as it does in soccer - trying to draw a call or get a free timeout.
It's not that she couldn't, but you are constantly told that if she doesn't play year round, it's going to be tough to play next year and the year after. So yeah, the option is there, but everyone involved with soccer tells you what a bad idea it is and how tough it will be to get playing time.
I know all soccer people want to bash the rest of us for being the bad guys, the idiots who don't appreciate soccer and therefore hate it. Honestly though, I've found the exact opposite to be true. Most parents, coaches of other sports are pretty open and understanding that if a soccer game conflicts with a practice in another sport, that you will be missing the practice. Soccer on the other hand, I'm constantly told how bad it is to miss any practice and she needs to make up her mind on what sport she wants to play, how much of a disadvantage she's at by missing a practice for a Basketball game, etc.
I find most soccer people I have to deal with, being outrageously defensive of the sport. So much so that they seem to think every other sport sucks and only soccer matters. Granted, this is my little world that I live in here in Schaumburg, IL, but I'm not the only one who calls the SAA Soccer officials and coaches "The Soccer Nazi's"
I just feel if soccer were really trying to attract people, they should make it easier to be involved with, not harder.
This is a great example. I know the international game used to use a triangularish-shaped lane. Haven't they switched to a more commonly used rectangular-shaped lane recently? If so, that's direct NBA influence.
I bet while watching the games the past few days I have talked to probably 3-4 people that I work with and they can't understand why the items are called kits, boots, pitch- when I try to explain it to them they just don't get it or want to get it and call it dumb and stupid. You can't say for sure that this doesn't potentially play a role in people in their mind legitimizing the sport of soccer- stupid lingo=stupid game to some people.
As a soccer fan who wants the sport to grow here as a spectator sport and the US national team to keep improving I go out of my way not to use any of these terms even though I'm familiar with them all. We don't want to be little bro to English football.
I know these terms in Italian and Spanish as well but I don't use them trying to look like some informed hipster, in the same way I wouldn't use English terminology over well known American terminology.
Soccer, uniform, field, shoes, zero, nothing...embrace these terms instead of English equivalents that do nothing but turn people off (even if it admittedly turns them off for no good reason).
I respectfully disagree here. Both viewpoints are valid; there is more differentiation in a sport where there are multiple ways to score varying amounts of points, but there is also just as much if not more strategy in a soccer game because of the importance of each goal. I think you're not understanding the complexity of a team's formation, spacing, movement, and positioning. Scoring systems definitely impact the strategy of a game, but to say that there is less strategy in one sport or another is silly. All sports played at a high level have equally detailed and different strategies. Scoring definitely impacts it, but it doesn't mean there is less or more in either respective sport.
I love football, baseball, basketball, and soccer. They all have different strategic elements and can't really be compared well.
Let me start this by saying that I only watch the world cup when I can cheer for the USA.
I think a big reason why Soccer hasn't taken off here is because of the lack of non-stop action. I am not saying that there isn't action, but when you compare it to Football, Basketball, or Hockey (low scoring as well) the amount that happens is relatively low.
Hockey: Really fast paced with big hits to keep you interested
Football: Big Hits and Big plays
Basketball: Fast paced and non stop action (except for the Big 10, I'd rather watch soccer)
Baseball: Slower paced (I think this is why it has had a small decline with the casual sport fan over the years)
Soccer: Not super slow paced, but a lot of the strategy is keeping the ball away when you have the lead. For example heading to corner at the end of the US -Ghana game. Since it's so hard to score it becomes a big game of keep away.
Hockey, Football, and Basketball tend to keep your attention more because if you glance away you may miss something. With Baseball and Soccer you can run and do something because the likely-hood you will miss something is relatively low. The US is a fast paced Society, and I think we like our sports like that too. Just my 2 Cents.
I think a big reason why Soccer hasn't taken off here is because of the lack of non-stop action. I am not saying that there isn't action, but when you compare it to Football, Basketball, or Hockey (low scoring as well) the amount that happens is relatively low.
Hockey: Really fast paced with big hits to keep you interested
Football: Big Hits and Big plays
Basketball: Fast paced and non stop action (except for the Big 10, I'd rather watch soccer)
Baseball: Slower paced (I think this is why it has had a small decline with the casual sport fan over the years)
Soccer: Not super slow paced, but a lot of the strategy is keeping the ball away when you have the lead. For example heading to corner at the end of the US -Ghana game. Since it's so hard to score it becomes a big game of keep away.
Hockey, Football, and Basketball tend to keep your attention more because if you glance away you may miss something. With Baseball and Soccer you can run and do something because the likely-hood you will miss something is relatively low. The US is a fast paced Society, and I think we like our sports like that too. Just my 2 Cents.
This is way off, especially at the college and pro level. Almost every position on the field is making adjustments from the moment they come out of the huddle until the whistle blows. The difference is the play stops and you get prepared for the next play, its very similar to "switching off". I think you can make the argument that Soccer is more of a reactionary sport than football but football is just as (pry more) mental. The slower speed of the game allows it to be.
As far as the US not dominating, its 100 percent about our best athletes playing other sports. Not to say great athletes don't play soccer but when you see our other pro sports, its obvious our biggest, fastest guys are playing other sports. That is changing though, as the "soccer generation" gets old enough to start coaching, teaching and exposing kids to the game, I think we'll see an improvement and rise in popularity of the game.
Not to be a ****** but you don't know what you are talking about here. Imagine a wide receiver starting behind the defense on a play. Same thing you are proposing.
Last edited:
I think this is the sport that is mistakenly compared and competitive with soccer. Soccer is more like any of the other 3 sports you mentioned than football but bc its played on a similar court and has a shared international game it seems like it always comes down to a football vs soccer debate. Soccer and Basketball are much more similar.
Understood. But tell that to the announcers that are calling the games or the analysts that are in studio commenting on the pregame or halftime or post game. I would say a great majority of the people that are announcing the games are of European countries and use these terms all the time- the announcers that are American are probably former players and use those terms all the time.
Right but it's all based on memorizing where you are supposed to be when the opponent is at one place or another on the field because unlike soccer, there is a set playbook, and the other team knows the plays. Also, you have liek 10 coaches over there watching who the other team has in the game and what their tendencies have been in the current game and all previous games.
Soccer has much more flow as you've noted, it's like a WWII battle as opposed to the WWI post mid 1915 battle that is football.
I actually have no problem with people that don't like soccer, I could not care less. I won't try to convince them that they should like it either. What upsets me is whenever there is a post about soccer someone has to come in and tell us why they aren't watching or why they hate the game. If I don't come into your GoT thread, Friday OT, Dark Souls II, or what ever thread I have no interest in and tell you why it is dumb, how it could be made more popular, or that I won't be reading/watching/playing why do people feel the need to do that about soccer threads.
Here is a good article on youth soccer and sports in general.
http://www.parenting.com/article/are-kids-sports-too-competitive
http://www.parenting.com/article/are-kids-sports-too-competitive
My take:
Hockey - almost exactly the same, maybe little more action in game but more stoppage of play evens it, officiating effects it less than other team sports
Baseball - a billion times more boring and less action going on, sleep inducing if it's not your favorite team, MLB officiating quite good and non controversial compared to soccer, football and basketball
Football - slow pace and stoppage of play are the only bad things about it, not a strength. Gotta love as some coaches innovate and speed up play that some teams/programs want new rules to slow it down. That shows how popular football is that Alabama is championing slowing down the sport...that's lunacy for any other sport to have that opinion even somewhat mainstream.
Basketball - closest to an argument of being as much or more non stop action, more stoppage but also more action. Has the same problem of soccer that officiating can really make drastic changes in the game.
I really think the hockey fan that has an issue with soccer pace of play is just an instance of growing up with it or growing up a fan of one and not the other. I have passion for a pro and national soccer team...I get really into it. I have no passion for any hockey team..I don't get into it. If ISU had D1 hockey I'm sure I'd be a fan if I could watch on TV or make it to games.
Last edited:
Of course if it's British/Euro guys they should just speak how they're accustomed, but the ESPN crew of mostly Americans would do the game a service to use the same terms that 90% of Americans use when playing youth and high school soccer. The casual fans in water cooler discussion using English terms definitely isn't a plus for growing the game's fan interest.
What? You think soccer is more comparable to baseball than football? That's what you just said.
Hockey- fast paced. Big hits. Bad: low scoring, fights that stop the game.
football- big hits, fast paced. Bad: long huddles, only 10 minutes of actual game action.
Baseball- American pastime. Bad: long wait between pitches, slow paced, low scoring.
basketball-medium pace, high scoring, exciting plays. Bad: breaks between plays and timeouts.
soccer- most popular sport in the world, no breaks. Bad: slow paced and low scoring.
football- big hits, fast paced. Bad: long huddles, only 10 minutes of actual game action.
Baseball- American pastime. Bad: long wait between pitches, slow paced, low scoring.
basketball-medium pace, high scoring, exciting plays. Bad: breaks between plays and timeouts.
soccer- most popular sport in the world, no breaks. Bad: slow paced and low scoring.
