lol. jesus christ. did i have to say i was being sarcastic?

if you missed my point, then i'm not going to spell it out.

obv euro-trolling ITT

.

i hope daryn responds to this.

wtf, why is cross-country running an inferior sport for unathletic kids? No matter how hard I worked at it I guarantee I would never come close to the times of the top runners at my high school, just like they would never stand a chance against me in basketball. Doesn't make them unathletic at all imo

I'd say 90%+ of the people who say ignorant **** like "Soccer sucks" and "Soccer is for ****" have watched <45 minutes of a real match in their life. I used to be one of them. It's merely typical bandwagon American ignorance.

For the apologists who say "Well there are divers who ruin its reputation..."

Who cares? To my knowledge, the NBA has a fair amount of simulation, as well. There is cheating in every sport. Diving is annoying, but it's such a tiny part of the game that it's barely worth talking about.

i play real sports (like slow pitch softball.) i'm not trying to be the best at exercising.

doesn't make those trying to be "good at exercising" unathletic or inferior

tib- you misread me. it's not cross-country that makes them unathletic or inferior. it's being unathletic and inferior that makes them run cross-country. (but obviously i'm not trying to say my bias is correct anyway. i was merely describing it.)

i'm just saying i disagree that unathletic people will be good xc runners

He didnt say that at all

.

A tiny portion of the game? A significant number of WC games were decided on dives. Sorry, NBA has a bit of it, but it very rarely affects the outcome of the game. And people who do it are chastised, not idolized.

The divers are an absolute horrible part of the game and its far worse in soccer than anything else I've ever seen. Also, the crappy ref calls. When soccer welcomes itself to the 20th century, I'll be more likely to enjoy it. It's annoying because it has the potential to be really good, yet a few simple things really hurt it badly. Oh yeah, and the rolling around pretending to be hurt. That's pretty pathetic too.

that post just made me stupider

I've probably watched at least 25 full soccer games in my life. For me, theres just not enough action....notice I didn't say not enough scoring. I have no problem with ice hockey even though theres few goals because at least there are constantly "scoring opportunities" where you get excited because a goal could easily occur any second. In soccer, theres just way too much downtime where neither team is truly threatening to score. I think that most Americans who dislike soccer probably share my feelings.

South American can be pretty bad too.

This.

This.

fknrofl

Aaaaaaahahahahha.

But the scoring opportunities are so much more exciting than scores in other sports, because they are less frequent. Superb play that results in a goal is more vital wrt the scoreline than almost anything that could occur on a basketball court. There is a tension that isn't really present in other sports. I also happen to think that playing a sport without the use of the hands has a certain beauty to it in terms of execution of technical skills other sports can't touch.

To each his own though.

Hurling is still > all.

IMO you have a valid point here. Some games are slow moving and boring. But the same is true in other games, like in baseball if it's 6-0 in the 6th inning, no one really cares, right?

what about superb play that results in a goal but is then overturned because the refs are blind and/or corrupt and officials refuse to use basic technology that wouldn't change anything about the sport aside from the ability of a non-playing individual to control the outcome of the game?

so your point is FIFA suck . . . and?

also that crap probably adds to the entertainment, if not the game proper.

I agree that one score in soccer is more meaningful than in most other sports. I also agree that due to being more meaningful, it increases the excitement factor of each score. However, there are also some major drawbacks to scoring being so rare:

1. If one team gets a big lead early(and then go into an ultra conservative gameplan), there is very little chance of a comeback compared to other sports. This obviously isn't good for viewing pleasure.

2. Way way too many games end in scoreless ties, and in my opinion thats just completely unacceptable.

3. Particularly in a sport in which a ref's decision can lead directly to a goal, the lack of scoring means that a ref's decision can clearly be the deciding factor in a game. This happens way more than in other sports like basketball because in basketball one ref's decision will only influence one(of many) scores.

4. I'm not even sure I fully buy into the "decreased scoring makes each scoring chance more exciting." More often than that, I find myself seeing a possible scoring chance arise, see it goes nowhere, then they do nothing for ~10 minutes, then another possible scoring chance, but it doesn't even result in a shot on goal, etc., etc. I mean, I guess that you're right that when the scoring chance actually does occur its exciting, but I still find a sport like hockey(similarly low scoring, but with many more chances) to be way more exciting.


Completely disagree, and again I'll point to ice hockey(which I believe is a similar but vastly superior sport to soccer). Theres much more tension in ice hockey because goals are rare, yet at any second there could be a scoring opportunity. You're truly on the edge of your seat watching hockey, whereas in soccer theres a ton of "down time" where they're kicking it around and not really threatening much at all.

To give an analogy, I find the 24 second shot clock in the NBA way way more exciting than the 35 second shot clock in college basketball. More frequent scoring chances simply make for better viewing pleasure. Theres down time in every sport(walking up the ball in basketball, time in between pitches, time in between football snaps, etc.) and none of it is good for viewing pleasure imo, so I think minimizing it is in the best interest of the sport.


Some sports can use hands and not feet(boxing, basketball). Others use equipment and aren't allowed to touch the ball with their body(baseball hitter, hockey player except for rare times he quickly catches then drops the puck). And yes some only allow feet(soccer, football kicker).....I really don't see why any is better than the other here.




Well I think baseball is boring too, so thats probably a bad example to use against me. Still though, surely you see how its unfair to compare an average soccer game to a blowout in another sport....obviously blowouts can be boring in any sport- I'd never argue that. But I'm arguing that even close soccer games are often times boring.

Funny. I know the "FIFA spokesman" in that video, and people who play live poker in NYC might as well.

.

a friend of mine once commented that the perfect football game is a 0-0 draw where no one on either side made a mistake.

please meditate on the significance of this assani and other people who specifically take issue with the low scoring character of football.

that makes no sense because the goal of football is to win, so mistakes will have been made if no goals are scored by a team as victory can not be achieved then.

its pretty much impossible to score against a good team who make no midfield or defensive errors.

compare it to chess. a draw is inevitable if no mistakes are made.