WORLD CUP

[Kelt]

It's my one gripe about soccer. You can watch an entire game without their being a score. That's why I like watching just the highlights.

You can have a great game with no goals... the goalkeepers might be performing well, or the strikers may have no luck... if someone believes points are the only way to have an entertaining game, rather than a fast-paced, physical game, then I believe basketball teams score hundreds of points.... that should be totally fucking exciting.   

...or it could be that so many points are scored that each individual basket is about as exciting as watching grass grow.

In soccer it's about the game itself, not how many hundred points are scored.

Alien concept to (older) Americans... for the time being.

Soccer has already far surpassed Hockey, and will continue to gain an ever-larger fanbase in the United States.

Next to be overtaken will be the terminally dull, slow-paced, spend most of your time looking at your phone or at the concourse bar, Baseball.  How baseball is even in the top three American sports is a mystery, btw.  Only Cricket is more boring.

In 25 years Soccer will be second only to Handegg... and even then it's only a matter of time before that is also eclipsed.

I'm excited to see the players Soccer in America throws up in the next ten years... there's a generation of kids who are growing up and staying with soccer, rather than moving on to Baseball or Football. 

Right now American soccer players are athletic and not much else.  An American Ronaldo would piss off the Europeans like you would not believe.

[coaster]

Handegg...

Oh you are so clever, taking someone else's term from fucking reddit. Are you 12? I saw a clever one too. Soccer should be called grass diving.  All they do is dive into the ground and fake-cry about an injury. Exciting! Honestly, fuck soccer.

[Kelt]

Hmmm. I don't recall trying to take credit for referencing Handegg.

Are you suggesting only the originator of the term can use it?

If so... you're a fucking idiot.

Actually, let's remove the ambiguity, you butthurt tit.. there's no 'if so' about it.



EDIT:   Uh oh.. I used the word Butthurt... fuck me, but I didn't invent that word either.

In fact, let's just clear this up... I'm the originator of exactly zero words in the English language.

You want to go through each word crying about how I'm using someone else's words, fucktard*?


* I didn't invent the word 'fucktard'.

[coaster]

Your grasp of the language is pretty bad if you don't even know the words "American football" you insufferable twat

[albrecht]

You can have a great game with no goals... the goalkeepers might be performing well, or the strikers may have no luck... if someone believes points are the only way to have an entertaining game, rather than a fast-paced, physical game, then I believe basketball teams score hundreds of points.... that should be totally fucking exciting.   

...or it could be that so many points are scored that each individual basket is about as exciting as watching grass grow.

In soccer it's about the game itself, not how many hundred points are scored.

Alien concept to (older) Americans... for the time being.

Soccer has already far surpassed Hockey, and will continue to gain an ever-larger fanbase in the United States.

Next to be overtaken will be the terminally dull, slow-paced, spend most of your time looking at your phone or at the concourse bar, Baseball.  How baseball is even in the top three American sports is a mystery, btw.  Only Cricket is more boring.

In 25 years Soccer will be second only to Handegg... and even then it's only a matter of time before that is also eclipsed.

I'm excited to see the players Soccer in America throws up in the next ten years... there's a generation of kids who are growing up and staying with soccer, rather than moving on to Baseball or Football. 

Right now American soccer players are athletic and not much else.  An American Ronaldo would piss off the Europeans like you would not believe.

I saw this somewhere so don't credit me:
SOCCER- AMERICA'S NEXT BIG THING SINCE 1973

ps: I don't mind draws during the year, too many games to go OT in each game. I don't like "golden goals" and don't like shoot-out but, at some point, you have to get the game to end. I apply this to hockey as well as soccer. I can't stand basketball and just tune in during the last minute because all it is is back-n-forth scoring and no defense (except Spurs), tho the NCAA tourney is fun. Baseball can be slow but also some good radio and exciting mix of individual and team performance.

[Kelt]

You cry more than a chick.

In the spirit of amity, I apologise for being mildly critical of whatever sport it is you have too much of an attachment to.

Presumably Handegg.

You can stop crying now.

Or not... I know how emotional chicks can be.  Go on... let it out.

[coaster]

I apologise

Apology accepted.

[albrecht]

I think, technically, we Americans are more historically correct in calling the sport "soccer" despite what the more pretentious new soccer fans here say. Football used to mean rugby and "soccer" comes from the name "association football" turning into "soccer." I might be wrong, but I think also "soccer" was played more by the working class and riff-raff whereas rugby ("rugby football" one will still hear) and cricket were the sport of the richer and educated classes.

[Kelt]

I saw this somewhere so don't credit me:
SOCCER- AMERICA'S NEXT BIG THING SINCE 1973

ps: I don't mind draws during the year, too many games to go OT in each game. I don't like "golden goals" and don't like shoot-out but, at some point, you have to get the game to end. I apply this to hockey as well as soccer. I can't stand basketball and just tune in during the last minute because all it is is back-n-forth scoring and no defense (except Spurs), tho the NCAA tourney is fun. Baseball can be slow but also some good radio and exciting mix of individual and team performance.

There are a few difference between the NASL years and the MLS years.  The most salient difference being that soccer is no longer a curio, but rather the second most played sport in the United States. It has actually surpassed Football.. sorry AMERICAN Football (don't want anyone thinking I have an atrophied vocabulary) in popularity among kids.  Those kids are now remaining in the sport, rather than it being seen as a means to develop a kid's motor skills before moving on to American Football or Baseball.

The fanbase of the future is in large part affiliated with soccer, and from that fanbase comes the player of the future.  The current generation of American Soccer players are okay, but they're just the first real batch of soccer player.  As the kids of today develop I think we're going to see some outstanding American kids coming through the ranks to replace the current 'Okay' crop.

I coach kids soccer, and one kid in particular is probably the best natural grassdive player I've seen... he's nine years old.  He apparently excels at several sports, not just soccer, and he has chosen to remain in soccer... as have most of the kids in his age group.   In the NASL years there's no doubt he'd have been lost from soccer and gone over to Baseball or Football... but we're reaching, if not have already reached, a tipping point in terms of the sport.

I doubt anyone over 25 appreciates that there has been a sea change in grass roots sports in America... but it's going to become apparent in the next 15 years.

[albrecht]

There are a few difference between the NASL years and the MLS years.  The most salient difference being that soccer is no longer a curio, but rather the second most played sport in the United States. It has actually surpassed Football.. sorry AMERICAN Football (don't want anyone thinking I have an atrophied vocabulary) in popularity among kids.  Those kids are now remaining in the sport, rather than it being seen as a means to develop a kid's motor skills before moving on to American Football or Baseball.

The fanbase of the future is in large part affiliated with soccer, and from that fanbase comes the player of the future.  The current generation of American Soccer players are okay, but they're just the first real batch of soccer player.  As the kids of today develop I think we're going to see some outstanding American kids coming through the ranks to replace the current 'Okay' crop.

I coach kids soccer, and one kid in particular is probably the best natural grassdive player I've seen... he's nine years old.  He apparently excels at several sports, not just soccer, and he has chosen to remain in soccer... as have most of the kids in his age group.   In the NASL years there's no doubt he'd have been lost from soccer and gone over to Baseball or Football... but we're reaching, if not have already reached, a tipping point in terms of the sport.

I doubt anyone over 25 appreciates that there has been a sea change in grass roots sports in America... but it's going to become apparent in the next 15 years.

I know but they have been saying that for a few decades. I think soccer has been biggest, or up there, kid sport for sometime now. But as they get older, esp boys, want to get into football, baseball, etc (or hockey if you live up north) because its cool, that's the big game for the school, and on tv. But with the "concussion situation" and the open-border allowing in countless of Mexicans and Central/South Americans and with better tv coverage of soccer you probably are going to be right. Also in a bad economy soccer is so much easier to play. Don't have to buy/swap much equipment and buy/swap as your child grows.

[maureen]

Pelé pronounces it "footsieball".... have fun!!

[PB the Deplorable]

... Next to be overtaken will be the terminally dull, slow-paced, spend most of your time looking at your phone or at the concourse bar, Baseball.  How baseball is even in the top three American sports is a mystery, btw.  Only Cricket is more boring...

I used to love baseball.  Baseball is 2 1/2 hours, has scores like 1-0, 2-0, 2-1, 3-1, 4-2.  The batter stays in the batters box and the pitcher tries to get him to hit a ground ball or a popup with one of the first 2 or 3 pitches.

When every runner matters, every advanced base, every pitch, along with a certain ebb and flow, baseball is a great game.

What we have now isn't really baseball.  When the games have scores like 13-5 by the 5th inning, the pitchers take every batter to a full count, and the games last 4 and five hours, it's excruciating to watch.  When the batter steps out and goes through his routine after every pitch, when scoring several runs don't really affect the game, it's unwatchable.

[PB the Deplorable]

There are a few difference between the NASL years and the MLS years.  The most salient difference being that soccer is no longer a curio, but rather the second most played sport in the United States. It has actually surpassed Football.. sorry AMERICAN Football (don't want anyone thinking I have an atrophied vocabulary) in popularity among kids.  Those kids are now remaining in the sport, rather than it being seen as a means to develop a kid's motor skills before moving on to American Football or Baseball.

The fanbase of the future is in large part affiliated with soccer, and from that fanbase comes the player of the future.  The current generation of American Soccer players are okay, but they're just the first real batch of soccer player.  As the kids of today develop I think we're going to see some outstanding American kids coming through the ranks to replace the current 'Okay' crop...

I doubt anyone over 25 appreciates that there has been a sea change in grass roots sports in America... but it's going to become apparent in the next 15 years.

I've been hearing this almost word for word all my life.  Didn't happen. 

Doesn't mean you're not right this time though.

[Yorkshire pud]

OH BOLLOX

[Kelt]

I used to love baseball.  Baseball is 2 1/2 hours, has scores like 1-0, 2-0, 2-1, 3-1, 4-2.  The batter stays in the batters box and the pitcher tries to get him to hit a ground ball or a popup with one of the first 2 or 3 pitches.

When every runner matters, every advanced base, every pitch, along with a certain ebb and flow, baseball is a great game.

What we have now isn't really baseball.  When the games have scores like 13-5 by the 5th inning, the pitchers take every batter to a full count, and the games last 4 and five hours, it's excruciating to watch.  When the batter steps out and goes through his routine after every pitch, when scoring several runs don't really affect the game, it's unwatchable.

I was brought up with soccer, played it (at what Americans would call Bushleague level, I guess) for about ten years, and now in my infirmity I coach it to kids.   Compared to soccer every other sport is a minority sport, simply by evidence of numbers... it's a global sport... and the World Cup is a glorious coming together of nations from all corners of the globe.  It's like the Olympics, only not full of stupid shit like synchronised swimming and the Walking Race.  I realise I've just alienated the synchronised swimmers and the fast-walkers, but what can you do?

Hockey I can watch start to finish... there's little in the way of players standing around doing nothing while a couple of Umpires talk for ten minutes. It's fast, it's physical, and you can remain involved.

American Football would be decent if it wasn't so stop-start.  It's the antithesis of soccer inasmuch as it is very regimented in its plays and its counters... soccer is largely improvisation. 

Baseball.. been to a few games, Jesus... it's American Cricket.  You just want to scream, "Do something!".. but they don't.

Basketball... so many points the actual baskets become meaningless, and it's a case of, "Right... that team won. Cool beans."

I like some of the Southern sports... I mean, who doesn't want to watch cowboys be cruel to cattle?

[Yorkshire pud]

I was brought up with soccer,

Rugby Union is a better game in my opinion.

[Kelt]

Rugby Union is a better game in my opinion.

Rugby is decent.  Not too stop/start. No lengthy periods of nothing happening.

Played with the hands though...

[Yorkshire pud]

Rugby is decent.  Not too stop/start. No lengthy periods of nothing happening.

Played with the hands though...

You'd assume that, but most of the points these days seem to come from drop kicks and penalty kicks. A game played by gentlemen who act like savages. 

[Kelt]

I remember having Rugby at school... I think the first time I played it I got the ball, ran most of the length of the field, and scored a try.  It was pretty damned easy, just hold onto the ball and make sure no-one decks you.

I was pretty pleased with myself until the teacher announced, "Any fool can run with the ball and every fool does."

Now it seems to me that if the point of the game is simply running to the line and sticking the ball on the ground, as I did, then what I did was actually the POINT of the game as opposed to a foolish tactic utilised by the noob... and I decided my teacher, rather than dispensing sage advice to a young player, was in fact a twat who didn't know what he was talking about.

Jonah Lomu would no doubt have been top of that teacher's shit list. 

You only excelled because you didn't know what you were doing.

I will say I once got into a fight with a rugby player... he made the mistake of talking to my girlfriend in a bar... I punched the guy clean in the chops for his cheek.

Beat the shite out of me, he did.

[Kelt]

I think, technically, we Americans are more historically correct in calling the sport "soccer" despite what the more pretentious new soccer fans here say. Football used to mean rugby and "soccer" comes from the name "association football" turning into "soccer." I might be wrong, but I think also "soccer" was played more by the working class and riff-raff whereas rugby ("rugby football" one will still hear) and cricket were the sport of the richer and educated classes.

Rugby predates football and was first played in Rugby, so I'm going to assume the name Rugby was used for Rugby in Rugby and elsewhere. 

Football is the name for football in pretty much every language, so whatever it was (if different to football) has become archaic. It's like 'gay'used to mean happy, and if a person was happy you might have said, "This is Dave... he's totally gay." But you say that now, if Dave doesn't love the cock, then you can expect a kicking from Dave for casting aspersions on his sexuality.

.

[Mind Flayer Monk]

I'm a baseball person myself, mainly because I love that it is:
1) happens every day
2) is a great radio sport for me.
A lot of this love comes from the fact you could pick up 3 -5 different games on the old AM radio a day with a good antenna.

I go to mainly minor league baseball games these days. They are fantastic.

I hate this crying about soccer not being popular in the US. People are really crying about soccer not making tons of money in the US. If you want that FIFA, you are going to have to spend some money marketing it-don't just expect money to show up at your door.

Soccer/Futbol is a fun sport and even I play a little with friends. Every Sunday morning every park has people playing soccer and out there getting exercise and having fun. That means soccer is successful in the US in my opinion. If I drove around Germany and every Sunday morning millions of Germans were out with their families and friends playing baseball, I would consider baseball a giant success in Germany. I would rather have that situation than baseball be some huge money-making sport and no one playing in Germany.

[Kelt]

America does soccer properly in terms of running the game.

That's one thing Europe can learn from the United States... how to properly run a sport.

Americans are geniuses compared to the Euros in that respect.

[Mind Flayer Monk]

and the games last 4 and five hours, it's excruciating to watch. 

You must be a Giants fan. The Dodgers are the same way, lots of 4+ hour games.

I listen to the A's and Padres games and those are all around 2 1/2 hours-sometimes 3 (Unless they are playing the Dodgers or the Giants).

[albrecht]

Rugby Union is a better game in my opinion.

ELITEST

[Mind Flayer Monk]

I have picked up night time Giant's games on KNBR up in the northern part of Idaho as well.
It has amazing range at night.

From this Wikipedia entry, I guess it reaches as far as the Hawaiian Islands.
"KNBR's non-directional 50 kilowatt (or 50,000 watt) signal can be heard throughout much of the western United States and as far west as the Hawaiian Islands at night."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KNBR

When the batter steps out and goes through his routine after every pitch

They do that because it takes 10 seconds for the image of the ball in your batter's brain to reset from the previous pitch. So an up and in pitch followed by a down and away is so successful because your brain still has in imprint of the ball from your vision. Let me dig around for the book that explains it. I think its John Schuerholz's biography.

[Kelt]

Used to listen to Radio Moscow as a kid. 

Was good to get the Soviet Union's side of things when it came to international news coverage, rather than simply digest the Western viewpoint.

Often they would broadcast 5 hours of tractor factory production statistics, followed by a dramatic reading of state approved Soviet Literature, such as Grigor Sovienski's biting anti-West dialogue "We Have Many Potato" or Tsvetinov's, "Ignore Man Behind Curtain."

Funnily enough the Soviets knew the Taliban was a terrorist organisation 20 years before we in the West ever suspected as much.

[albrecht]

America does soccer properly in terms of running the game.

That's one thing Europe can learn from the United States... how to properly run a sport.

Americans are geniuses compared to the Euros in that respect.

How do you mean? I find the European system much, much better than the US version. Everything from the quality of play, the training of children and academy systems, the different styles of play, to the multiple Cups during the season, and especially relegation.

[Yorkshire pud]

England needed Italy to beat Coata Rica (population 5 million) to give any lifeline so that England could get through the group stages. CR beat Italy by a single goal (denied two penalties) and Italy were shite. Actually that's a diservice to CR, they played like they really wanted it. Enough for England to be taking a flight home after their final match with CR next week.

Anyway I hope USA get through their group and Australia manage to get a miracle in theirs.

[Kelt]

How do you mean? I find the European system much, much better than the US version. Everything from the quality of play, the training of children and academy systems, the different styles of play, to the multiple Cups during the season, and especially relegation.

The game in Europe is designed to gravitate ever-more money to an ever-shrinking number of teams.

Essentially the bigger teams are fast-tracked into competitions where 90% of the prize money is awarded, while the smaller teams are systematically eliminated from ever appearing in the premier competition, ie the Champions League; a closed members only club.

At one time you had provincial teams able to compete and win major competition, now the Champions League is basically a competition to see which super-rich club can shit out another money-spinning final win.

No salary caps means that the larger clubs are guaranteed the best players, meaning these super-rich clubs will just buy up the star players of any club even remotely threatening to them, luring them with massive wages to sit on the bench.

Forcing the smaller clubs to eliminate one another prior to European competition even beginning is another means by which the larger clubs are allowed to dominate. The enforced 'preliminary rounds' serve no other purpose than to get rid of the minnows.

The transfer system is also completely fucked up, where a bigger club can pay a derisory sum for a smaller club's player, then sell him on for many times what they paid for him.

There is no protection for small clubs, and now you have a class system where the smaller clubs have no chance of winning lucrative competitions, and where the gulf in finances even for a club like Ajax means the days of true competition in European football are gone.

To put that into perspective.  In the 80s clubs like Aberdeen, Ipswich, and Forest were not only able to compete for European trophies, they were WINNING European trophies.  Since then UEFA has made absolutely sure that the larger clubs have multiple chances to win European trophies at the expense of the smaller clubs, allowing defeated Champions League clubs into the lesser competitions just because. 

There are a couple of condescending 'throw the poor teams a bone' programs in operation, where governing bodies will distribute a laughably small quantity of spare cash amongst the smaller teams, but these are merely plausible deniability plans intended to give said bodies an out when they are criticised for giving the larger teams preferential treatment.

EDIT: If the kind of Draft System that is in effect in American sports were to be implemented in Europe, the bigger clubs would have first pick of the star college athletes, while the smaller clubs would be offered the services of the one-legged, wall-eyed kids who didn't even want to play sports.   The rationalisation would be that the bigger clubs deserved the best players and could pay them the highest wages.  The idea of balance or equity wouldn't enter into the equation.

[albrecht]

The game in Europe is designed to gravitate ever-more money to an ever-shrinking number of teams.

Essentially the bigger teams are fast-tracked into competitions where 90% of the prize money is awarded, while the smaller teams are systematically eliminated from ever appearing in the premier competition, ie the Champions League; a closed members only club.

At one time you had provincial teams able to compete and win major competition, now the Champions League is basically a competition to see which super-rich club can shit out another money-spinning final win.

No salary caps means that the larger clubs are guaranteed the best players, meaning these super-rich clubs will just buy up the star players of any club even remotely threatening to them, luring them with massive wages to sit on the bench.

Forcing the smaller clubs to eliminate one another prior to European competition even beginning is another means by which the larger clubs are allowed to dominate. The enforced 'preliminary rounds' serve no other purpose than to get rid of the minnows.

The transfer system is also completely fucked up, where a bigger club can pay a derisory sum for a smaller club's player, then sell him on for many times what they paid for him.

There is no protection for small clubs, and now you have a class system where the smaller clubs have no chance of winning lucrative competitions, and where the gulf in finances even for a club like Ajax means the days of true competition in European football are gone.

To put that into perspective.  In the 80s clubs like Aberdeen, Ipswich, and Forest were not only able to compete for European trophies, they were WINNING European trophies.  Since then UEFA has made absolutely sure that the larger clubs have multiple chances to win European trophies at the expense of the smaller clubs, allowing defeated Champions League clubs into the lesser competitions just because. 

There are a couple of condescending 'throw the poor teams a bone' programs in operation, where governing bodies will distribute a laughably small quantity of spare cash amongst the smaller teams, but these are merely plausible deniability plans intended to give said bodies an out when they are criticised for giving the larger teams preferential treatment.

EDIT: If the kind of Draft System that is in effect in American sports were to be implemented in Europe, the bigger clubs would have first pick of the star college athletes, while the smaller clubs would be offered the services of the one-legged, wall-eyed kids who didn't even want to play sports.   The rationalisation would be that the bigger clubs deserved the best players and could pay them the highest wages.  The idea of balance or equity wouldn't enter into the equation.

And US Soccer isn't? They don't have relegation or any Cup competitions in which small, local teams play the Portlands. Even when they lose at least the Grinsby Towns or the world have a chance to play a ManU, at least for a day. And, as I said before, have a chance to kick a millionaire prima dona in the shins. And the system of training players is much, much better than the American way of just playing game and after game risking injuries and learning bad skills. Having said that it is a little scary in a system that moves a 12 year to some Academy in a far away place to play football or even families moving based on their son's skills.

UEFA is trying to reign in the disparity in finances and some countries (and UEFA) is thinking about making a certain % of player in league must be from country. But, ultimately, some top teams (AJAX, PSV, etc) have resigned themselves (in a way) to dominate Dutch FB and make their money by player development and trades because they cannot compete for television, advertising and the millionaires and oligarchs in charge of the ManU, Chelsea, RM, etc of the world.

But in all US sports you don't even get a CHANCE to move up to a top-tier league (either by hard work by money or both.) You can be just plain awful (think Astros last year) and still make money and be in the top league. And there aren't multiple Cups and tournaments. Just one Stanley Cup, WS, Superbowl, etc.