What's Not To Like About Soccer? | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

What's Not To Like About Soccer?

So Be

Active Roster
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
16,572
Reaction score
2,216
Soccer is having a hell of a time in trying to take a foothold with American fans. Why do you think that is?

For myself, I use to think it was boring, and had no interest. My wife is from Cali, sent some time in Mexico on real estate deals, and loved the game. She finally dragged me to a game in Lauderdale to watch the Strikers a team of over the hill guys like Mueller and Cubillias in front of maybe 5,000 fans, not a VG example.

However, after seeing it live, and understanding what was going on, I became a fan, and it became fun to watch on TV. FWIW
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't like it because it's too slow and boring. Cut the field in half and have the goalies kick the ball into the net from their own goal and maybe I'd watch.
 
I think the notion that soccer is "slow" is very overblown. I mean think about it. A football game is 60 minutes and normally takes 3 hours to finish. A soccer game is 90 minutes and takes less than 2 hours to finish. So a sport that is 30 minutes longer takes over an hour less to finish.

I get the buildup in the midfield, and the passing back and forth can be a strategical bore at times, but I think the execution of a team's plan in soccer is easily the most exciting aspect of any sport in the world. It's like chess, you have to look beyond the pieces in the present and see the moves in advance to understand the quality being put on display and I think then people can appreciate the sport more.

I played soccer for roughly 7 years and was one of the top goalkeepers in the FYSA during that period, so maybe I appreciate it more than the average American but it's the ultimate "team" game.

Look I can't convince people into liking something or not. Hell I'm a sports nut, I enjoy watching golf, horse racing, tennis . . . hell I've even put in time watching Tour de France (actually camped out to watch a stage while in Belgium) and Formula One . . . and at times I find these sports more entertaining than American Football.

I love my Dolphins, hell I'm not on a U.S. national soccer board or a Miami Heat board or a Marlins board talking about the World Cup, I'm on the board of the team I love more than any team in the world . . . . but soccer gets a bad rap in this country and I'm glad this country is starting to embrace it.
 
Ugly answer? Most americans dont like it, because the USA isnt very good at it

This is definitely part of the equation, but the great thing is, even though the USA historically has not been very good in soccer . . . bringing in a coach like Jurgen Klinsman will continue to do wonders for the U.S. in finding talent, developing that talent and expanding the overall audience for soccer in this country.

The talent pool for soccer in this country is one of the largest in the world and it's a sport that wouldn't shock anybody see the U.S. finally "get" and start putting out quality teams. I realize this was being said 20 years ago, but I think it remains true.
 
Ugly answer? Most americans dont like it, because the USA isnt very good at it

That's probably part of it but personally not being able to use your hands other than goalie was the reason I never got into it. Hand eye coordination is essential in almost every other sport especially the one's I play like golf now or baseball , football , wrestling in high school. Not to be able to use one's hands is really difficult and for me not much fun.
I do enjoy watching it in the World Cup and Olympics.

Another answer would be as Americans we could give a **** what the rest of the world does sports wise. A game were 3 points is a solid offensive output and ties are celebrated goes against everything we hold dear.

Wonder if any other country has "soccer moms" At least we probably lead the world in that category :up:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Theres really no need to over-think this:

Football: contact
Baseball: fans drink
Hockey: fighting
Basketball: slam dunks
Golf: drinking
Nascar: of course drinking
UFC: fighting
Boxing: fighting

Either people are beating the **** out of each other(or at least a rim) or we drink. As American's we thrive on action. Which is hilarious seeing as how we live in a relatively stable society. We have running water, access to electricity, and no mass-child-abductions. No, the worst thing we have happen is school shootings....err, wait, thats not a big deal, i meant Benghazi. Thats the worst thing ever.
 
Watched the second half of the Germany vs Ghana match today. Was actually pretty fun to watch, though I'm glad I missed the 0-0 first half.
 
Ugly answer? Most americans dont like it, because the USA isnt very good at it

Mia Hamm and her crew put women's soccer on the map,....and they kicked but in the Olympics. So it wasn't that the US wasn't very good at it, it was that the US doesn't promote women's sports. So the team came back to the US, and after a while was dismantled.
 
That's probably part of it but personally not being able to use your hands other than goalie was the reason I never got into it. Hand eye coordination is essential in almost every other sport especially the one's I play like golf now or baseball , football , wrestling in high school. Not to be able to use one's hands is really difficult and for me not much fun.
I do enjoy watching it in the World Cup and Olympics.

Another answer would be as Americans we could give a **** what the rest of the world does sports wise. A game were 3 points is a solid offensive output and ties are celebrated goes against everything we hold dear.

Wonder if any other country has "soccer moms" At least we probably lead the world in that category :up:

You're right on target with this. We like sports in which you can touch the ball, or wield something that touches the ball.

Plus, for men, I can see why other sports became more popular because it utilizes your upper body strength. Biologically, men are a V shape, all upper body, well developed shoulders, arms, etc. It seems natural to invent a sport which takes advantage of that, and not just kick a ball around.

I think football is the most exciting, complex and challenging sport there is, hands down. It also allows for specialization in a much more defined degree than in sports like soccer, which is also part of the appeal.
 
You're right on target with this. We like sports in which you can touch the ball, or wield something that touches the ball.

Plus, for men, I can see why other sports became more popular because it utilizes your upper body strength. Biologically, men are a V shape, all upper body, well developed shoulders, arms, etc. It seems natural to invent a sport which takes advantage of that, and not just kick a ball around.

I think football is the most exciting, complex and challenging sport there is, hands down. It also allows for specialization in a much more defined degree than in sports like soccer, which is also part of the appeal.

It's funny that people in general think this way. I'd wager over half of a football game revolves around a 3 yard run and 40 seconds before the next play, or an incomplete pass and 40 before the next play. 5 big guys in front trying to block big guys on the other side, many times for a minimal gain. Yea big plays are exciting, but they usually only make up a small portion of the game.

Truth is, football players in general could not play soccer at their current state because they are not "athletic" enough to do it. Football has slowly turned into more of a spectacle rather than a sport, between the rule changes that prohibit the defense from being as aggressive as they need to be to the consistent amount of timeouts/commercial breaks.

As far as challenging, the whole idea that you cannot use your hands and still you are able to create the plays that are made in soccer speaks volumes to the amount of difficulty there is to play this game on an elite level. Football generally is more sided to the natural physical specimens. Sure you will get a short, grind it out type of player in the bunch, but in general, genetics eliminates 90% of the players who are successful in this game. In soccer, anybody can play this game, and it's a game where you can become as skilled as you need to be to be successful.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's funny that people in general think this way. I'd wager over half of a football game revolves around a 3 yard run and 40 seconds before the next play, or an incomplete pass and 40 before the next play. 5 big guys in front trying to block big guys on the other side, many times for a minimal gain. Yea big plays are exciting, but they usually only make up a small portion of the game.

Truth is, football players in general could not play soccer at their current state because they are not "athletic" enough to do it. Football has slowly turned into more of a spectacle rather than a sport, between the rule changes that prohibit the defense from being as aggressive as they need to be to the consistent amount of timeouts/commercial breaks.

As far as challenging, the whole idea that you cannot use your hands and still you are able to create the plays that are made in soccer speaks volumes to the amount of difficulty there is to play this game on an elite level. Football generally is more sided to the natural physical specimens. Sure you will get a short, grind it out type of player in the bunch, but in general, genetics eliminates 90% of the players who are successful in this game. In soccer, anybody can play this game, and it's a game where you can become as skilled as you need to be to be successful.

I mentioned this on the other thread. In soccer, the clock is non stop, but going all out is far from it, it would be physically to do. It was posted that the standing, walking and jogging were done half the time but, I see it as more. Very difficult to sort out an average, with each game having it's own pace, and some players going all out much more than others but, I would guess that it's closer to 25% of the game when players go all out.

A couple of things I don't like are the refs taking players out of the next match for a red card, and especially 2 yellow's. I've seen many an individual game when yellow's were given or not given for basically the same play, and red card should be reviewed by FIFA, same as the NBA, before taking a player out of the next match.

I'm on the fence with ties. I understand the strategy of playing for them in some cases but would like and extra 10 minutes added to resolve them.
 
I mentioned this on the other thread. In soccer, the clock is non stop, but going all out is far from it, it would be physically to do. It was posted that the standing, walking and jogging were done half the time but, I see it as more. Very difficult to sort out an average, with each game having it's own pace, and some players going all out much more than others but, I would guess that it's closer to 25% of the game when players go all out.

A couple of things I don't like are the refs taking players out of the next match for a red card, and especially 2 yellow's. I've seen many an individual game when yellow's were given or not given for basically the same play, and red card should be reviewed by FIFA, same as the NBA, before taking a player out of the next match.

I'm on the fence with ties. I understand the strategy of playing for them in some cases but would like and extra 10 minutes added to resolve them.

Truth be told, what sport requires "going all out"? Not football . . . I agree the padding/helmets add something to that number but I mean outside of baseball, football is the slowest sport there is. On every play, half of the team barely has to move and then they get a 40 second rest before the next play. It's a very slow sport.

Even in basketball, there is a lot of dragging . . . mind you they also play these games in a comfortable arena for 48 minutes (4 12 minute quarters . . half the time of soccer when you factor in time added) If you take into consideration the breaks and timeouts, there are roughly 20 breaks in the NBA, plus the amount of fouls and free throws that are substantial breaks as well. Sure there are fouls in soccer and there can be delays, but many of those fouls also result in quick start ups . . . AND they add time to compensate for any major delays.

Soccer players average over 7 miles a match in distance with midfielders getting up close to 10 miles in a match., by far the most of any of the major sports, including basketball, tennis,etc. Football averages 1.2 miles in a match and it's only that high because of the amount of times a WR has to go out on routes and then come back to the huddle.

In soccer the amount of high intensity bursts range, but tend to average around 150 for the entire match. Combine with these not being scripted, no break in between (timeouts/huddle) . . . it's definitely the most physically demanding sport. I think Lebron has the buildup to be an incredible forward on the pitch, but it would have to be as a 2nd half sub in the 80th minute.

Ties are all apart of the points process . . . . In group play, they are needed. When the knockout round happens, then the sport takes it to another level and you get 2 15 minute overtime periods . . . plus penalty kicks if needed. The system works.

I do agree that the card system has it's flaws and I would be in favor of review . . . AFTER the match, to determine yellow card severity to see if it can be lessened. Just not a fan of losing key players in big matches because of a carding that may have been unjust. At most have confirmation of a justified direct red . . . but it needs to be quick. Direct red's don't happen that often so it's actually not a big deal.

However I am against slowing down the game . . . I've heard rumblings of challenges,etc. I think ref error is essentially part of the game and it just means you have to factor for that . . . fair or not. The thing you can't do is slow down soccer, it would take too much away from the game.
 
No disrespect in any way meant for the great condition of soccer players. However, the world record for running 10 miles is just over 45 minutes, with no one else being close. All times are based on running constantly with no breaks. How are soccer players better than that?

I do not see 150 bursts in the vast majority of matches. For some fun, tell me a game to record and watch the bursts to get a rough count.

*Corrected on the time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top Bottom