just a curiosity from a brazilian guy...how big is soccer in US today?

[Handy Man]

i still see in many movies and in well, general atitude of the american people a certain disdain for footb...I mean, soccer in US. i mean, peopls seem to accept it but it feels like if MLS ended nobody would miss it. and I'm not sure if the number of football players - as a hobby - increased in the US.

[we are cured]

there are soccer fans (not as much as the other major sports), but the majority of them watch epl, spanish league, and other leagues over the MLS.

one thing i can say with confidence is that there are many people in this country that grow up playing the game. watching it, however, has not taken off.

[somnambulist]

Football in the US is getting more and more popular, but since the quality of our national team and domestic league are so poor, no one really supports it. They'd rather follow a more established and successful overseas team. People like this are the reason MLS won't improve. A league needs support to grow and get better.

I'm one of these people, definitely. I don't know what it is about American soccer, but it annoys me. Instead of trying to establish our own footballing identity we copy from the Europeans and South Americans. Just the general attitude of most football commentators and the average fan. And youth football is mainly the soccer mom, upper middle class type and that irritates me. Because of all that, I don't really have any support for MLS and watch foreign leagues instead.

I also love France and everything French, and so I feel a huge connection with their national team, way more so than my own. I didn't hesitate to buy a Zidane jersey during the World Cup, but never really looked twice at the US shirts.

[Handy Man]

wow. but there are americans who actually follow european football leagues?

what about south american leagues?

[CarlosLunes]

i have some questions about brazil but most of them are concerning aids and prostitutes

[Spicoli hey bud]

I also love France and everything French
Sorry.

[somnambulist]

wow. but there are americans who actually follow european football leagues?

what about south american leagues?

Yeah, loads of Americans follow European leagues. Mostly the EPL, although a considerable amount follow La Liga and Serie A.

As for the South American leagues, really only the Primera Division in Argentina gets considerable American support. Mainly Boca Juniors and River Plate.

Sorry.

I'll just let this go.

[Handy Man]

i have some questions about brazil but most of them are concerning aids and prostitutes

bring'em on baby..

and you must be argentine...

[CarlosLunes]

guilty as charged!!!

[Handy Man]

hahahaa...gotcha you right on

xeneize o millionario?

[Drew Beringer]

guilty as charged!!!
hhahhahahahah

[Handy Man]

Yeah, loads of Americans follow European leagues. Mostly the EPL, although a considerable amount follow La Liga and Serie A.

As for the South American leagues, really only the Primera Division in Argentina gets considerable American support. Mainly Boca Juniors and River Plate.



I'll just let this go.

i can't blame you. argentine league clubs are able to keep their best players for longer time, making better teams and better seasons. and they're also in sync with every other league in the world (the season starts in a year and ends in the other) while the 'genious' president of our confederation insists with the stupid and stinky idea of keeping the league starting and finishing in the same year.

oh and this is the 5th brazilian league - (20 teams, 38 matches for each one)...until 2002, we had a 'group stage' (much like Argentina's Apertura) and a playoff...in the end the number of games reached almost the same 38 matches per team, but with playoffs which were very exciting...and unfair, too.

Robinho's Santos in 2002 got to be the champion qualifying as 7th and playing their best only in the last matches of the 'group stage'. they beated São Paulo FC - with Kaká - and Gremio until they finally defeated my Corinthians (Dida played there back then)...a shame. Corinthians had Parreira and had a fine campaign, ending up in 3rd in the group stage. that's the way it was and I think the playoffs kinda helped to 'forge' the brazilian player in the past - skillful and decisive because those matches needed that kind of player (and Robinho was that hell kind of player). since 2002, no big young player has appeared here anymore.

[Broken Parachute]

There are a lot of fans, but you'll find a ton of people who would rather follow the top leagues in Europe. I really love the MLS though.

[Scott Weber]

the mls is growing but it's still relatively weak.

if people are interested in soccer and don't live in a city with an MLS team, their primary interest is English or Italian soccer.

[StandMyBrothers]

I'll say this with confidence. USA probably has no doubt the biggest youth soccer program in the world. But once it hits highschool, soccer's popularity drops extremely low.

[Burning Star IV]

I've been a lot more interested in the MLS since the league expanded into Canada.

[Neo Cassady]

My roommate and I watch European football whenever it's on and we have some time to kill, I follow the Crew somewhat, and I'm looking forward to watching it in the Olympics. It's not as big as it should be here.

[eHaMpToN]

not big enough

edit in before dick joke

[Neo Cassady]

not big enough

edit in before dick joke

in before the dick.

that's what she said









had to

[CarlosLunes]

booooooooooooooo

[Baysheep]

A lot of the more athletic kids play football instead of soccer during the fall season. not to say that soccer players aren't athletic, kids just drop it cuz football is way more popular here

[tambo41187]

I try to get up to Toronto as much as possible to see MLS games....amazing atmosphere there with amazing fans. Cannot say that about most of the MLS clubs though. League One games in England were far more intense for the most part than most games in the states.

[eHaMpToN]

in before the dick.

that's what she said









had to

well played my friend

[Handy Man]

A lot of the more athletic kids play football instead of soccer during the fall season. not to say that soccer players aren't athletic, kids just drop it cuz football is way more popular here

by 'athletic' do you mean bulky?

[kbauer]

Ive tried sooooo hard to get into soccer. I watched the Euro, watched the world cup a couple years ago and I'll even watch the occasional MLS Toronto FC game but I just cant get into it. Unlike alot of people I know I do respect the hell out of it as a sport though.

[Handy Man]

is it because of the always the same 'american problem' with the scores?

[Zeran]

There are a lot of fans, but you'll find a ton of people who would rather follow the top leagues in Europe. I really love the MLS though.

i follow soccer as much as i possibly can. this includes following several leagues from europe, mls, south america (mainly argentina, brazil, and chile) and japan.

i don't see why people can't follow both european soccer and mls at the same time. it's a self fulfilling prophecy for these people. they look down upon american soccer and mls for not being good enough, yet if they supported them they would become better and thus be worthy of their watching, but since they don't, the progress is slower. of course, many of these people would also just find something else wrong with mls to make them not want to watch it.

the national team has become TONS better since about 15 years ago. regularly making the world cup and winning the concacaf championship, while also getting huge crowds to many of the games is definitely a huge positive. the national team isn't one of the top, elite european teams or like argentina/brazil, but they're definitely capable and solid.

as far as soccer itself in the u.s., i find it to be popular enough, but i don't see why people expect it to "explode" and then are disappointed when it doesn't. in the last couple of years, i think you'd be more likely to see someone wearing a soccer jersey on the street than a hockey jersey, and that's saying something.

[Zeran]

is it because of the always the same 'american problem' with the scores?

what does this mean?

[Zeran]

I try to get up to Toronto as much as possible to see MLS games....amazing atmosphere there with amazing fans. Cannot say that about most of the MLS clubs though. League One games in England were far more intense for the most part than most games in the states.

i don't think it's really fair to compare the two yet. the football culture in england speaks for itself, while the sporting culture in the u.s. in general is not like that. it will take time for things to change though, but there are many games that are being more and more like that atmosphere, with most clubs having fairly large supporters groups.

[Broken Parachute]

i follow soccer as much as i possibly can. this includes following several leagues from europe, mls, south america (mainly argentina, brazil, and chile) and japan.

i don't see why people can't follow both european soccer and mls at the same time. it's a self fulfilling prophecy for these people. they look down upon american soccer and mls for not being good enough, yet if they supported them they would become better and thus be worthy of their watching, but since they don't, the progress is slower. of course, many of these people would also just find something else wrong with mls to make them not want to watch it.

the national team has become TONS better since about 15 years ago. regularly making the world cup and winning the concacaf championship, while also getting huge crowds to many of the games is definitely a huge positive. the national team isn't one of the top, elite european teams or like argentina/brazil, but they're definitely capable and solid.

as far as soccer itself in the u.s., i find it to be popular enough, but i don't see why people expect it to "explode" and then are disappointed when it doesn't. in the last couple of years, i think you'd be more likely to see someone wearing a soccer jersey on the street than a hockey jersey, and that's saying something.Agreed.

[kbauer]

is it because of the always the same 'american problem' with the scores?


im a huge hockey fan so low scoring doesent bother me. i cant exactly put my finger on it but i cant get interested in it.

[emkvetwin]

not even David Beckham has made soccer relevant in LA. you'll see the occasional jersey, but there's more buzz about him in the tabloids then about his sport.

/also a hockey fan
//watches recap videos of European soccer on YouTube
///plays FIFA occasionally

[Handy Man]

what does this mean?

there's a 'rumor' that american people general dislikeness by soccer has to do with the lower scores, while in football, basketball and baseball this is pretty different...and there are no draws in those sports.

[StuGrimson]

Ive definately heard that too, not saying its true, but that Americans generally only get attached to big numbers. I think that kind of is a knock at their intelligence though.

[we are cured]

i dont think thats true, soccer is more popular than lacrosse and lax scores are like 17-14

[StuGrimson]

Or cricket where you have to have like a math degree to even figure out how they keep score

[Zeran]

i think the main thing is that it's not ingrained in the national culture like baseball, football, and basketball are. it's the same problem that the nhl has in the u.s., and it's taken 90 years to get to a point where hockey is clearly the 4th most popular major sport in the u.s. again, these things take time, and i don't see why some people have such outrageous expectations regarding it.

[Broken Parachute]

i dont think thats true, soccer is more popular than lacrosse and lax scores are like 17-14Lax is a more popular HS sport in New York than soccer is, at least near me. Overall I would still say soccer is more popular, but not at the high school level.

Soccer is most popular from ages 8-13 near me. I worked at a soccer store and it was the busiest place I had ever seen during soccer season. There were like 6 different leagues each with 10 teams and that was just at the 7-8 year old division.

[Scott Weber]

Lax is a more popular HS sport in New York than soccer is, at least near me. Overall I would still say soccer is more popular, but not at the high school level.

Soccer is most popular from ages 8-13 near me. I worked at a soccer store and it was the busiest place I had ever seen during soccer season. There were like 6 different leagues each with 10 teams and that was just at the 7-8 year old division.
it's not even close. Lax is non-existent as a legit HS sport (or on any level for that matter) in 90% of America.

[we are cured]

lax is more popular in a few places, but predominantly long island and maryland. that's about it.

[we are cured]

i think the main thing is that it's not ingrained in the national culture like baseball, football, and basketball are. it's the same problem that the nhl has in the u.s., and it's taken 90 years to get to a point where hockey is clearly the 4th most popular major sport in the u.s. again, these things take time, and i don't see why some people have such outrageous expectations regarding it.

also, with hockey the access to play limits a lot of kids. it costs thousands upon thousands of dollars per year to pay for equipment, ice time, touraments, etc, and there are only a select few places in the US where kids can go out to play pick up games for free on a pond.

[Broken Parachute]

it's not even close. Lax is non-existent as a legit HS sport (or on any level for that matter) in 90% of America....I said in New York.

[Scott Weber]

...I said in New York.
Seemed like you were defending it on a national level to me :shrug:

[Handy Man]

now I'm curious...why is football actually called soccer in US?

[Scott Weber]

now I'm curious...why is football actually called soccer in US?
because we already have a better game called football.

[LastPlaceRocks]

because we already have a better game called football.
That should be the end-all answer to the original question as we don't see it being better than football.

[SandManTEND13]

because we already have a better game called football.
Yeah that pretty much sums it up!

[SandManTEND13]

it's not even close. Lax is non-existent as a legit HS sport (or on any level for that matter) in 90% of America.
I disagree, I am sorry but LAX is a legit sport in the college rank levels. DI,DII,DIII are very competative. Its a joke to have pro lacrosse but in the college ranks its def legit. HS level is getting very serious I mean so many states now have it and its growing in popularity kids are playing from everywhere. I mean yeah I will say its not like soccer where there is rec leagues and stuff, but it will grow there lacrosse is a very fast growing sport alot of places now have it England to Australia to Japan. Sorry if I offended anyone in this but I had to state my oppinon.

[LastPlaceRocks]

I disagree, I am sorry but LAX is a legit sport in the college rank levels. DI,DII,DIII are very competative. Its a joke to have pro lacrosse but in the college ranks its def legit. HS level is getting very serious I mean so many states now have it and its growing in popularity kids are playing from everywhere. I mean yeah I will say its not like soccer where there is rec leagues and stuff, but it will grow there lacrosse is a very fast growing sport alot of places now have it England to Australia to Japan. Sorry if I offended anyone in this but I had to state my oppinon.
Lax is a niche college sport that only exists in certain parts of the country (in this case the East Coast) much like hockey. Not to say that it isn't growing or that lax isn't very popular in those areas, but most areas of the country don't care about it or look at it with curiosity (again, much like hockey).

[Scott Weber]

I disagree, I am sorry but LAX is a legit sport in the college rank levels. DI,DII,DIII are very competative. Its a joke to have pro lacrosse but in the college ranks its def legit. HS level is getting very serious I mean so many states now have it and its growing in popularity kids are playing from everywhere. I mean yeah I will say its not like soccer where there is rec leagues and stuff, but it will grow there lacrosse is a very fast growing sport alot of places now have it England to Australia to Japan. Sorry if I offended anyone in this but I had to state my oppinon.
90% of America. I know it's growing in popularity for certain areas of the nation, but it's not even close to popular nationwide.

[SandManTEND13]

Lax is a niche college sport that only exists in certain parts of the country (in this case the East Coast) much like hockey. Not to say that it isn't growing or that lax isn't very popular in those areas, but most areas of the country don't care about it or look at it with curiosity (again, much like hockey).
Ahh I see what your saying your right. Man I am 0 for 2 haha oh well. Yeah I see what your saying, and now I agree with you. Curiosity does play a factor in hockey and lacrosse these days.

[SandManTEND13]

90% of America. I know it's growing in popularity for certain areas of the nation, but it's not even close to popular nationwide.
yeah I see what your saying and the other guy said it to, sorry sorry haha. I will leave this alone

[Zeran]

now I'm curious...why is football actually called soccer in US?

for a serious answer to your question, it's called soccer because it comes from the term association football, which actually started in england, as a way to distinguish it from rugby football.

[Zeran]

I disagree, I am sorry but LAX is a legit sport in the college rank levels. DI,DII,DIII are very competative. Its a joke to have pro lacrosse but in the college ranks its def legit. HS level is getting very serious I mean so many states now have it and its growing in popularity kids are playing from everywhere. I mean yeah I will say its not like soccer where there is rec leagues and stuff, but it will grow there lacrosse is a very fast growing sport alot of places now have it England to Australia to Japan. Sorry if I offended anyone in this but I had to state my oppinon.

mll is a joke, but the nll is a decent league, especially for such a niche sport like lacrosse.

[SandManTEND13]

mll is a joke, but the nll is a decent league, especially for such a niche sport like lacrosse.
I agree the MLL is a joke, i feel bad though cause those guys dont get paid squat. But yeah NLL is a decent league I dont know why people love the MLL, I really like the NLL I think its fun

[teenagetwilight]

meeeeeeeengo.

[Handy Man]

because we already have a better game called football.

hmmm...really, I just can't understand how a sport based on a 'semi-brawl' principle could be better. this is just my opinion, though. i can't get rules and all of the stoppages during a football match. the only cool things about football are those long yard touchdowns which are not exactly frequent. I mean, you got only one really 'technic' guy, the quaterback and the rest is either a bulky guy or a super fast one. in soccer at least, even in a 0-0 draw you may have beautiful moments with tricks, kicks and well, art. playing with the feet is much harder than playing with the body mass and hands, let's face it.

i love basketball though...but i really can't understand a thing about baseball.

and there's volleyball too...such a mistery. one of the coolest sports in the world and never a #1 anywhere...even in countries which are volleyball powers like brazil, russia, usa and italy.

[Handy Man]

meeeeeeeengo.

timãããããão eôôô, timãããããããão, eôôô

[Scott Weber]

hmmm...really, I just can't understand how a sport based on a 'semi-brawl' principle could be better. this is just my opinion, though. i can't get rules and all of the stoppages during a football match. the only cool things about football are those long yard touchdowns which are not exactly frequent. I mean, you got only one really 'technic' guy, the quaterback and the rest is either a bulky guy or a super fast one. in soccer at least, even in a 0-0 draw you may have beautiful moments with tricks, kicks and well, art. playing with the feet is much harder than playing with the body mass and hands, let's face it.

i love basketball though...but i really can't understand a thing about baseball.

and there's volleyball too...such a mistery. one of the coolest sports in the world and never a #1 anywhere...even in countries which are volleyball powers like brazil, russia, usa and italy.
Well, it's obvious that you're going to have a major bias. I'm a big fan of soccer, I love it, so you don't have to convince me of the appeals of the sports. We love football because of the action. Each play is very involved, with each player having a specific job to do, routes to run, tacklers to shed, yards to gain. The game is incredibly complex, moreso than soccer, actually. And while it may never touch the "beauty" of soccer, the action and depth of the game is amazing. I know you don't really get the game by saying the quarterback is the only technical player, but yeah, it's different than you think.

[CarlosLunes]

timãããããão eôôô, timãããããããão, eôôô

ok enough with the argentina jokes!!!

[Zeran]

hmmm...really, I just can't understand how a sport based on a 'semi-brawl' principle could be better. this is just my opinion, though. i can't get rules and all of the stoppages during a football match.

i like watching the nfl, i just get annoyed every now and then at how many fucking commercials there are.

[Handy Man]

ok enough with the argentina jokes!!!

argentina jokes? how dare you? we are corinthians, as our anthem says 'the most brazilian club'

but we'll be forever thankful to carlitos. please come back, carlitos!

[Handy Man]

Well, it's obvious that you're going to have a major bias. I'm a big fan of soccer, I love it, so you don't have to convince me of the appeals of the sports. We love football because of the action. Each play is very involved, with each player having a specific job to do, routes to run, tacklers to shed, yards to gain. The game is incredibly complex, moreso than soccer, actually. And while it may never touch the "beauty" of soccer, the action and depth of the game is amazing. I know you don't really get the game by saying the quarterback is the only technical player, but yeah, it's different than you think.

of course I can't convince you - soccer doesn't need that really, either you like or you hate it, there's no grey.

however, because as you very adequately put, I know little of football, it seems to me that the excitement over it is much more based on the statitistics that every match makes rather than the game itself. as for myself too, I don't really get what's fun of carrying a 'ball' over a long long field. we use our hands every day, it's our basic 'tool'. doing it with the feet, however, it's something else. well, this is how I feel about it, just that. I do respect football because of the huge bagage behind it. I know NFL is pretty old and is just amazing to see those black and white films, back in the 40's or 50's, showing snowy pitchs and crowded stadiums for a match. the rivalry, the excitement...it pretty much resembles soccer.

[Scott Weber]

of course I can't convince you - soccer doesn't need that really, either you like or you hate it, there's no grey.

however, because as you very adequately put, I know little of football, it seems to me that the excitement over it is much more based on the statitistics that every match makes rather than the game itself. as for myself too, I don't really get what's fun of carrying a 'ball' over a long long field. we use our hands every day, it's our basic 'tool'. doing it with the feet, however, it's something else. well, this is how I feel about it, just that. I do respect football because of the huge bagage behind it. I know NFL is pretty old and is just amazing to see those black and white films, back in the 40's or 50's, showing snowy pitchs and crowded stadiums for a match. the rivalry, the excitement...it pretty much resembles soccer.
that's some weird reasoning.

[thatsignant]

black and white films, back in the 40's or 50's, showing snowy pitchs

We call them "fields"

[we are cured]

hmmm...really, I just can't understand how a sport based on a 'semi-brawl' principle could be better. this is just my opinion, though. i can't get rules and all of the stoppages during a football match. the only cool things about football are those long yard touchdowns which are not exactly frequent. I mean, you got only one really 'technic' guy, the quaterback and the rest is either a bulky guy or a super fast one. in soccer at least, even in a 0-0 draw you may have beautiful moments with tricks, kicks and well, art. playing with the feet is much harder than playing with the body mass and hands, let's face it.

i love basketball though...but i really can't understand a thing about baseball.

and there's volleyball too...such a mistery. one of the coolest sports in the world and never a #1 anywhere...even in countries which are volleyball powers like brazil, russia, usa and italy.

pretty understandable, you can comprehend the sports that have a good deal of flow but the two (american football and baseball) that are relatively slow and require immediate strategic thinking don't really make an impression. i'm not saying you're at fault for that.

i just don't see how you could compare the merits of a sport you clearly understand (and are particularly fluent in), with a game like american football which you obviously do not.

[Handy Man]

We call them "fields"

haha yea right...I'm just influenced by England's footb...I mean...soccer vocabulary

[Handy Man]

pretty understandable, you can comprehend the sports that have a good deal of flow but the two (american football and baseball) that are relatively slow and require immediate strategic thinking don't really make an impression. i'm not saying you're at fault for that.

i just don't see how you could compare the merits of a sport you clearly understand (and are particularly fluent in), with a game like american football which you obviously do not.

i dunno, it's just that soccer speaks to you right on. i mean, the essence of it, a glimpse of it goes straight into your heart. if you're attracted by this art - the harmony of a well assembled team, dribbling and passing - you're on it, it's magnetic. the way soccer shows itself even in a boring game alone buys you. or maybe i'm just influenced by my continent's culture.

I'm sold for basketball too, and who wouldn't? NBA was a fantasticly well sold product back in the 90's, but marketing and business aside, no one could resist the view of those dunks and passings and last second points. it's amazing, makes you love the game. and I feel football is lacky of it. once in a while, maybe in the super bowl, you'll eventually have a fantastic touchdown...but that's too little for me, in my case. i don't really see the fun about it relaying either on strategy or statistics. and soccer or basketball, well, the guys really give it, they deliver it. they have to. they do it with their bodies and skills, nothing more. and you can put two empty cans in front of your garage door or hang a basket there and play and have fun. i mean you can bring it to your backyard. it's helpless to feel in love with it always and everywhere - tv, your home...an amateur field near your house...

[we are cured]

i dunno, it's just that soccer speaks to you right on. i mean, the essence of it, a glimpse of it goes straight into your heart. if you're attracted by this art - the harmony of a well assembled team, dribbling and passing - you're on it, it's magnetic. the way soccer shows itself even in a boring game alone buys you. or maybe i'm just influenced by my continent's culture.

bingo.

[Scott Weber]

i dunno, it's just that soccer speaks to you right on. i mean, the essence of it, a glimpse of it goes straight into your heart. if you're attracted by this art - the harmony of a well assembled team, dribbling and passing - you're on it, it's magnetic. the way soccer shows itself even in a boring game alone buys you. or maybe i'm just influenced by my continent's culture.

I'm sold for basketball too, and who wouldn't? NBA was a fantasticly well sold product back in the 90's, but marketing and business aside, no one could resist the view of those dunks and passings and last second points. it's amazing, makes you love the game. and I feel football is lacky of it. once in a while, maybe in the super bowl, you'll eventually have a fantastic touchdown...but that's too little for me, in my case. i don't really see the fun about it relaying either on strategy or statistics. and soccer or basketball, well, the guys really give it, they deliver it. they have to. they do it with their bodies and skills, nothing more. and you can put two empty cans in front of your garage door or hang a basket there and play and have fun. i mean you can bring it to your backyard. it's helpless to feel in love with it always and everywhere - tv, your home...an amateur field near your house...

LOL what??

[Handy Man]

ok, since you're a football fan teach me which other moments of a football match are worth watching. I'm serious, I only know the surface.

[Scott Weber]

ok, since you're a football fan teach me which other moments of a football match are worth watching. I'm serious, I only know the surface.
The entire game. But exciting moments happen in every single game. There's at least a game every week (football is played once a week) where somebody wins on the last play of the game. You have to put together a drive with very little time left to march down the field and get yourself in position to kick the winning field goal or get in the end zone for a touchdown. Football is exhilarating, due to the limited number of plays, each play has a massive impact, especially down the stretch in a close game. Crazy catches, huge defensive plays, amazing stuff happens every game in an NFL game. Shit, even this happened in preseason.

Ck_R8nfHSCo

Other sweet stuff off the top of my head:
a9jgP1brUn8
JyTvYupNxOI
XOILhzumRHQ

[lucasfcosta]

american football basics are so much easier to understand once you play madden or some other game. that's how i learned it and became a fan anyway.

it is indeed exciting. the only thing that bothers me watching the game is how it is clearly formatted for tv broadcast, same thing with nba. it repels new fans. you can't watch it for 5 minutes straight without having to watch a handful of commercials.

i can understand people that don't like regular football though. it can be a little slow at times, and if i'm watching a particularly untalented bunch of players, i'll change the channel without thinking twice. but watching a good team play is really special. it's a cultural thing really. people watch american football for it's excitement and clutch plays and players throwing themselves at each other. you might not expect those things in regular football (although they exist), but we watch it expecting to see a beautiful play, a beautiful goal... both are great for different reasons.

[Scott Weber]

i wasn't aware that games created before television existed were formatted for TV broadcasts. There's a natural delay when teams change possessions, there's always been timeouts in basketball. it's not like they totally changed the style of the game to fit onto tv broadcasts.

[StuGrimson]

I think its the timeout structure of football and especially basketball that ruin it for the casual fan. Though it doesnt bother me in football the last few minutes of a basketball game are dreadful. But I have friends who are really into both sports and say when you appreciate the sports more the timeouts dont bother you because you are entrenched in trying to strategize what should happen along with the teams.

[Zeran]

that's true, but why is it that a game that's supposed to last 60 minutes ends up going for 4 hours? they didn't create the sports with the aim of television and marketing and money, but that's how it is now.

[Scott Weber]

that's true, but why is it that a game that's supposed to last 60 minutes ends up going for 4 hours? they didn't create the sports with the aim of television and marketing and money, but that's how it is now.
uh....going out of bounds and incomplete passes have always stopped the clock to my knowledge. the timeouts and breaks only add so much time. it's not designed to be a continuous game, time management has always been a major part of football. college football is even worse.

[we are cured]

hockey and american football have nothing to do with each other in terms of flow

[LastPlaceRocks]

Football is by far the best sport in the world.

American football and Hockey are decent but are a little stop start.

Basketball is boring/predictable and seems more like a game you'd play in a park than a serious sport.

Baseball is the more boring than Curling.

My opinions.
Explain how hockey is a "little stop start."

[StuGrimson]

You dont stop the clock for line changes so Im not sure what you are getting at

[StuGrimson]

I do not like how you can have several teams playing in one game. It defeats the purpose of picking your best "team" as opposed to players because you can freely play whoever you want all the time anyway.

I have no idea what you just said

[lucasfcosta]

i wasn't aware that games created before television existed were formatted for TV broadcasts. There's a natural delay when teams change possessions, there's always been timeouts in basketball. it's not like they totally changed the style of the game to fit onto tv broadcasts.

i didn't mean to say the sport was designed to fit tv's interests, but it's really annoying for someone trying to understand the sport having to watch a commercial every 15sec stop in the game. there's absolutely no need for that. if they kept the transmission going with anything thats's fine, but EVERY pause is a commercial.

[thatsignant]

It wasn't hard to get. Basically in football you pick 11 players and you are stuck with them aside from 3 changes. Therefore you live and die by your decisions as a manager and a tactician. You have formations that are built into your selection etc.. and you have to hope that it works out for you and you made the right call.

In hockey because you are free to change all the time so it completely removes such an engrossing and important tactical element out of the game.

For example.

Liverpool play Man Utd.

Liverpool chose to play without wingers in order to cramp the midfield but they conceed anyway. Liverpool are then bound by that decision and have to make the best they can. Hence it being a more tactical game and requiring far more forward planning.

In Hockey the second anything's not working the coach can change absolutely everything all the time and I do not like that at all.

Or in hockey a coach has to continually make match up decisions on the fly based on what the other team has put out on the ice, once a soccer coach puts a team on the field the game is basically out of his hands.

[LastPlaceRocks]

It wasn't hard to get. Basically in football you pick 11 players and you are stuck with them aside from 3 changes. Therefore you live and die by your decisions as a manager and a tactician. You have formations that are built into your selection etc.. and you have to hope that it works out for you and you made the right call.

In hockey because you are free to change all the time so it completely removes such an engrossing and important tactical element out of the game.

For example.

Liverpool play Man Utd.

Liverpool chose to play without wingers in order to cramp the midfield but they conceed anyway. Liverpool are then bound by that decision and have to make the best they can. Hence it being a more tactical game and requiring far more forward planning.

In Hockey the second anything's not working the coach can change absolutely everything all the time and I do not like that at all.
The thing is that they're two different games. Soccer is an aerobic sport where you don't burn as much energy in one time, while hockey is an anaerobic sport where you go at 100% for sixty-ninety seconds. You can't compare the two based on tactical decisions for a lack of subs - plus hockey coaches make those decisions on the fly.

[thatsignant]

and sorry for calling it soccer, it was a mistake.

[StuGrimson]

Ya if you were to leave the same 5 guys out for a 60 minute hockey game not only would you have an awful product but you would probably have 5 dead players.

[deadstar]

Well he's a little off on understanding some of the strategy to line changes in hockey, but thats to be expected. Its hard to grasp for a very very casual observer.

[LastPlaceRocks]

I don't know about dead, but that'd be a shitty third period.

[Scott Weber]

It wasn't hard to get. Basically in football you pick 11 players and you are stuck with them aside from 3 changes. Therefore you live and die by your decisions as a manager and a tactician. You have formations that are built into your selection etc.. and you have to hope that it works out for you and you made the right call.

In hockey because you are free to change all the time so it completely removes such an engrossing and important tactical element out of the game.

For example.

Liverpool play Man Utd.

Liverpool chose to play without wingers in order to cramp the midfield but they conceed anyway. Liverpool are then bound by that decision and have to make the best they can. Hence it being a more tactical game and requiring far more forward planning.

In Hockey the second anything's not working the coach can change absolutely everything all the time and I do not like that at all.
I don't see how sending the same players out for the entire game is somehow more tactical than choosing when to substitute and what matchups to exploit. I think that the lack of substitution in soccer removes a tactical element from sports in general, if anything it's more limiting. Depending on your background the logic will differ.

[houstoncalls!]

once a soccer coach puts a team on the field the game is basically out of his hands.It's out of his hands in a sense that he can't make the players perform, but it's not as if he can't change the team's formation or give different instructions to the players as the game goes on.

[KStrat]

down here futbol is pretty popular. most of the smaller state and private colleges that don't have football teams have kickass soccer teams (i've gone to two such schools). i'll always sit and watch an MLS game, and follow the league but not too closely (i'll watch man-u or england national any day of the week).

now that the beckham effect has worn off most americans don't care (except the ones who play or follow)

i'm sure i haven't brought anything new to the thread but its my perspective from way down south.

oh yeah theres always a hispanic pick-up game going on somewhere in naples (where i live) i dunno how many of them are legal/count as americans tho

[StuGrimson]

I don't know about dead, but that'd be a shitty third period.

I thought exageration would get my point across but fuck that would be awful to watch. Just look at how bad players are after like a 2 minute shift.

[thatsignant]

It's out of his hands in a sense that he can't make the players perform, but it's not as if he can't change the team's formation or give different instructions to the players as the game goes on.

I agree with that, but the same things happen in hockey plus the extra variable of new shifts and new players constantly coming on and leaving the ice which involves a whole new set of strategies for a coach and players to worry about.

[Chris M.]

It wasn't hard to get. Basically in football you pick 11 players and you are stuck with them aside from 3 changes. Therefore you live and die by your decisions as a manager and a tactician. You have formations that are built into your selection etc.. and you have to hope that it works out for you and you made the right call.

In hockey because you are free to change all the time so it completely removes such an engrossing and important tactical element out of the game.

For example.

Liverpool play Man Utd.

Liverpool chose to play without wingers in order to cramp the midfield but they conceed anyway. Liverpool are then bound by that decision and have to make the best they can. Hence it being a more tactical game and requiring far more forward planning.

In Hockey the second anything's not working the coach can change absolutely everything all the time and I do not like that at all.

if anything, that makes hockey even more tactical

[LastPlaceRocks]

I thought exageration would get my point across but fuck that would be awful to watch. Just look at how bad players are after like a 2 minute shift.

It's bad, that's what happens when you go full-out for an extended period of time.

[lucasfcosta]

I don't see how sending the same players out for the entire game is somehow more tactical than choosing when to substitute and what matchups to exploit. I think that the lack of substitution in soccer removes a tactical element from sports in general, if anything it's more limiting. Depending on your background the logic will differ.

not trying to get into the discussion about which one is best, more tactical and what not

3 subs is not limiting. if anything it makes the coach put more versatile players in the field, giving him more options to change his gameplay throughout the match. if the changes need to be drastic, he still has his 3 subs to do that. and although i think injury related substitutions should not count as one of the three, it ads excitement to the match (e.g. in case some line player has to play in the goal), so that's fine i guess.

[Scott Weber]

not trying to get into the discussion about which one is best, more tactical and what not

3 subs is not limiting. if anything it makes the coach put more versatile players in the field, giving him more options to change his gameplay throughout the match. if the changes need to be drastic, he still has his 3 subs to do that. and although i think injury related substitutions should not count as one of the three, it ads excitement to the match (e.g. in case some line player has to play in the goal), so that's fine i guess.
It is a limit of three subs, is it not? I understand the tactical side to it, I just think that managing and unlimited amount of subs has far greater possiblities for tactical decisions.

[LastPlaceRocks]

not trying to get into the discussion about which one is best, more tactical and what not

3 subs is not limiting. if anything it makes the coach put more versatile players in the field, giving him more options to change his gameplay throughout the match. if the changes need to be drastic, he still has his 3 subs to do that. and although i think injury related substitutions should not count as one of the three, it ads excitement to the match (e.g. in case some line player has to play in the goal), so that's fine i guess.
How often does that happen?

[lucasfcosta]

It is a limit of three subs, is it not? I understand the tactical side to it, I just think that managing and unlimited amount of subs has far greater possiblities for tactical decisions.

maybe. in football not all tactical decisions rely on substitutions. a good coach could change dramatically the way his team plays just reassigning some orders.

but again, there's not much point in discussing which one is more tactical or not. the amount of substitutions allowed is certainly not a measure of that. the rules and objectives in each sport are entirely different.

How often does that happen?

not that often, but it's not rare. it usually happens when the goalkeeper commits a foul, gets expelled and the 3 substitutions have already been made. then the line player that enters the goal has to face a penalty kick against him right away. when he catches it it's really something.

[LastPlaceRocks]

not that often, but it's not rare. it usually happens when the goalkeeper commits a foul, gets expelled and the 3 substitutions have already been made. then the line player that enters the goal has to face a penalty kick against him right away. when he catches it it's really something.
Okay, I'll take your word for that because I've never seen it occur. But that would make for interesting drama.

[lucasfcosta]

Okay, I'll take your word for that because I've never seen it occur. But that would make for interesting drama.

here's a recent one.
(crappy video, but it's the only one i found that shows the entire play, not just the foul or the kick)

iIlhvWFLN3A

[somnambulist]

Here it is in better quality.

You have to give Rio some credit for at least going the right way.


rQwd1KGQ1B4

[tambo41187]

He has done it before, that was not his first time filling in like that. That was a tough call.....for sure a penalty but not a red card.


Still cannot believe Man U did not score in that game, they had about a billion chances.

[LastPlaceRocks]

I can appreciate that, I just don't think it makes for as enjoyable a sport. It's all cultural.
That's fine, it's also one of the reasons why soccer is not big in the United States. But you really don't understand hockey if you're going to say that it's not a tactical game.

[Scott Weber]

I can appreciate that, I just don't think it makes for as enjoyable a sport. It's all cultural.



Not true. It makes it more intelligent because rather than having every option avaliable to you at all times you can completely revamp your framework within the limited scope of your initial formation as opposed to being able to do anything you want making a coaches life far easier. Football is a much more subtlely tactical game than Hockey and American football. American football has it's plays but Hockey seems to lack tactics because of their only being 5 guys to play around with and every team plays the same formation and there's way fewer things you can do with a puck on a small rink than a ball on a big pitch.

Football is a massively tactical sport, far more so than almost any other sport because it's so free flowing but it's definitely something the casual observor wouldn't notice.
Your logic is so twisted. Having less options and being forced to make more "subtle" tactical decisions does not make something more intelligent. It may make each decision more impactful, but at the end of the day, the amount of plays/defenses/play calling is massively more complicated and tactical than soccer. That's not even debatable, that's just fact. The scope is massively bigger and the coaching is much more involved. I'm very familiar with english football, I follow it well enough and am extremely familar with the game in general, having played it for more than a decade. I don't even want to talk about hockey, I'll let one of the hockey mega fans talk about that, but the amount of formations/play combinations/audibles in football makes the possibilities for each side on any given play of hundreds per game endless. Each individual snap must have at least 10 million given combinations of offensive tactic/defensive/tactic/formations/plays. While I can certainly appreciate the subtle tactics and beauty of soccer, to say it is more tactical than American football is absolutely ridiculous and completely unfounded, even from a sheer mathematical standpoint, outside of common sense.

[LastPlaceRocks]

It is a tactical game just less so than Football. It's more tactical to me than Rugby, Basketball and Cricket (aside from Bowling in test matches).

I have seen two Hockey games live by the way when I've been to Canada.
Two games does not make one an expert, let alone understand the many small things and tactics that go on in a fast-paced game. It takes time, as with any other sport.

[Scott Weber]

And the combinations of formations, individual instructions to each player, marking systems, instructions for opposing players both defensively and offensively, passing systems, set piece layouts, who gets forward, how wide you play, how high the defence plays, how deep/advanced the midfield sits, who do the team want to get on the ball in what scenario etc.. aren't endless in football?

When you're playing football I'm sure you don't bother with that stuff but in terms of proffessionals hours and hours go into what every single player is to do in every single match and that will always be subtely or even completely different based on who they are playing and changes all the time in the match itself.

Managers are always out of their dugouts giving instructions for the entire ninety minutes.
Ah, still can't manage to post without being condescending, haha. I'm well aware of the difficulty of soccer, there's no debate over that, but to say it is more tactical than american football is pretty foolish, for the reasons I've already posted (if you can't respond it's probably because you don't know enough about the game, I assume, and I mean no offense by that.)

[LastPlaceRocks]

Obviously I'm just pointing out I'm not someone who knows absolutely nothing about the sport and has never even watched a match live or on tv.
I know, which is why I'm not commenting about the tactics of soccer (all I know about it comes from following the EPL from afar and playing pick-up on occasion) or making vast generalizations about it like "Hockey seems to lack tactics because of their only being 5 guys to play around with and every team plays the same formation and there's way fewer things you can do with a puck on a small rink than a ball on a big pitch."

By the way, all of the tactics you stated in another post can be translated over to hockey.

[Scott Weber]

I'm not any kind of expert but I know all the rules, I know how to play the game and so on.

When you're playing football I'm sure you don't bother with that stuff but in terms of proffessionals hours and hours go into what every single player
k.

[lucasfcosta]

Also English football is by far the least tactical major league in the world so it would be a poor league to both your judgement on.

i don't think so. just to stay in an european example, spanish teams rely much more on the individual skill of the players (as opposed to tactics) than premiere league teams. and i'm not even counting brazilian or argentinian leagues (which wouldn't make much sense since nobody here watches them), but the gap would be even bigger.

the only big league in europe that is clearly more tactical than the english to me is the italian. maybe bundesliga too.

[lucasfcosta]

When I move into my new house in three weeks I will have the channel that shows South American football so I'll be following it for the first time.

nice. i feel obliged to convert you then.

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

football season here ends in december, so you'll get to watch the second half of our championship.

[Handy Man]

oh no. I feel obliged to convince you:

yes, we're relegated now. but juventus (italy) was too. and they were still big. we'll be back to Série A next year

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

dammit...do I have to take bambis even here??!!

[+thecalisonme]

i have some questions about brazil but most of them are concerning aids and prostitutes
wow where have you been all my life

[Broken Parachute]

I'm excited about getting FSC in my dorm room. I'm really looking forward to seeing the differences between the sport in the big leagues (like the difference in pace and technical ability in EPL vs. La Liga vs. Serie A).

[StandMyBrothers]

FSC is ok. I watch the Soccer Report when there's nothing on at 3 AM.

[SeanEBoy2686]

i still see in many movies and in well, general atitude of the american people a certain disdain for footb...I mean, soccer in US. i mean, peopls seem to accept it but it feels like if MLS ended nobody would miss it. and I'm not sure if the number of football players - as a hobby - increased in the US.

I rather watch soccer (football) over the NBA, but not more than baseball and american football. But if I ever watch soccer its european games.

[lucasfcosta]

oh no. I feel obliged to convince you:

yes, we're relegated now. but juventus (italy) was too. and they were still big. we'll be back to Série A next year

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

dammit...do I have to take bambis even here??!!

i'm sure he's gonna make the right decision for himself. they don't even show 2nd division games outside brazil, so what's the point even arguing.

nem vem aqui discutir os vila nova, barueri e brasiliense da vida... sai gambá sai :)

[Handy Man]

you don't come around with your poor jokes, three-coloured. we're making 2nd division even brighter, you can't deny. will you tell me that you don't check Rede TV games at saturdays? yeah right. you'd be my kind of my liar.

and I'm preparing a protest against feminine soccer natinonal team, no matter what. if they get gold, if they get silver, I don't care. I'm pissed because they didn't take Richarlysson...ehehehehe


'there's a band of crazy here, crazy for you Corinthians
for those who think this is little, I shout for you Corinthians'

'Don't stop, don't stop, don't stop
don't stop, don't stop, don't stop,
don't stop, don't stop, don't stop,
Ahead Big Team!'


ehehehehhee...

[teenagetwilight]

up, this thread is so interesting.
lunchforthesky, which leagues are/were you following?

[J.C.]

You're going to have to wait a little for your answer. Ben is not with us at the moment.

[StandMyBrothers]

this isn't the thread where lunchforthesky said there was zero tactics in American Football is it? and football was soo much more tactically complicated then American Football, because all you do is throw the ball, catch it, and run. :-|

[Scott Weber]

this isn't the thread where lunchforthesky said there was zero tactics in American Football is it? and football was soo much more tactically complicated then American Football, because all you do is throw the ball, catch it, and run. :-|
hahahahaha. yeah.