NationStates Jolt Archive

Just a thought I had from the Super Bowl thread. Why did soccer never catch on north of Mexico?

Idk...I dont think its much of a Spectator Sport....Boring...

Then again, so's baseball..so, IDk...

Hi ferrous! I've missed your presence on NS! Why indeed did Gridiron and Baseball take off in the US? Soccer should have done better because of all the European and Latin American presence.
But maybe America's trying to make up for that now.

Hi ferrous! I've missed your presence on NS! Why indeed did Gridiron and Baseball take off in the US? Soccer should have done better because of all the European and Latin American presence.
But maybe America's trying to make up for that now.

Baseball and gridiron are both American inventions if I'm not mistaken, although gridiron has roots in rugby.

I would have thought that the immigration of Europeans and hispanics would boost soccer in the US, but it never seemed to happen. I've noticed that immigrants to the US seem more willing to drop everything about their culture and integrate completely, than immigrants here.

It did, in many parts. The no-soccer-in-America is largely a myth, I think. Sure, its not as popular as it is elsewhere, but its not absent by any stretch either.

Baseball and gridiron are both American inventions if I'm not mistaken, although gridiron has roots in rugby.

I would have thought that the immigration of Europeans and hispanics would boost soccer in the US, but it never seemed to happen. I've noticed that immigrants to the US seem more willing to drop everything about their culture and integrate completely, than immigrants here.

That's a big part of it. In the early 20th century, many immigrants wanted more to assimilate into the culture they were joining than to preserve their own culture (my own family included). This, therefore, hindered the growth of soccer and other European/Latin sports. This also fostered the growth of "home-grown" sports, like Football, Baseball, and Basketball (and hockey because we felt bad for the Canadians, j/k).

Nowadays, the trend for immigrants is to retain their culture. Thus soccer is seeing a surge in the US.

IMO, I find soccer to be a dull sport to watch. Along with baseball and basketball, actually. But, like I said, that's just my opinion.

Perhaps because soccer players don't slap each other on the ass after a good play and/or match?

Perhaps because soccer players don't slap each other on the ass after a good play and/or match?

Exposing the hidden homoerotic thoughts in us all.

That's a big part of it. In the early 20th century, many immigrants wanted more to assimilate into the culture they were joining than to preserve their own culture (my own family included). This, therefore, hindered the growth of soccer and other European/Latin sports. This also fostered the growth of "home-grown" sports, like Football, Baseball, and Basketball (and hockey because we felt bad for the Canadians, j/k).

Nowadays, the trend for immigrants is to retain their culture. Thus soccer is seeing a surge in the US.

Australia never really had that, immigrants always retained aspects of their own cultures. We still eat ethnic food, and follow the old world's sport, soccer.

IMO, I find soccer to be a dull sport to watch. Along with baseball and basketball, actually. But, like I said, that's just my opinion.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions and feelings. I find basketball to be ass boring, but I enjoy soccer. Each to their own.

Perhaps because soccer players don't slap each other on the ass after a good play and/or match?

I've been wondering, in gridiron, what's with the pants?

I've been wondering, in gridiron, what's with the pants?

There are pads in the pants to protect the hip, thighs, and knees...


Although alot of Running backs and Wide Recieversll just take the pads out for speed/mobility.....then get injured...

There are pads in the pants to protect the hip, thighs, and knees...


Although alot of Running backs and Wide Recieversll just take the pads out for speed/mobility.....then get injured...

Obviously they aren't fast enough then. Time to ditch helmets and shoulder pads.

Obviously they aren't fast enough then. Time to ditch helmets and shoulder pads.

Apparently before the body armour, gridiron was a lot more like rugby.

Soccer never caught on because we have football. Europeans, not having football until the advent of NFL Europe, had to make do and pretend to enjoy soccer as best they could.

Soccer never caught on because we have football. Europeans, not having football until the advent of NFL Europe, had to make do and pretend to enjoy soccer as best they could.

lmao

/thread

Apparently before the body armour, gridiron was a lot more like rugby.

Yes, in its early stages, it was very much like rugby. But the addition of the forward pass, with its devastating impact, changed the game altogether. No longer was the sport about struggling on the ground, now it required speed. And speed means more momentum and harder impact, thus requireing body armour.

As for the difference between immigration to Australia and to America, I couldn't begin to offer anything as an explanation.

Soccer never caught on because we have football. Europeans, not having football until the advent of NFL Europe, had to make do and pretend to enjoy soccer as best they could.

I'd wager that Europeans are more passionate about soccer than Americans are about American football.

One thing I noticed is that the Super Bowl winners didn't seem that blown away by their achievement.

I'd wager that Europeans are more passionate about soccer than Americans are about football.

Cant argue with that, Full scale riots are a bit further than we're willing to go over sporting events...

I'd wager that Europeans are more passionate about soccer than Americans are about football.

But not more so than Canadians and their hockey!

But not more so than Canadians and their hockey!

I see the reaction of a crowd to a goal in soccer many times a week and it never stops amazing me.

I'd wager that Europeans are more passionate about soccer than Americans are about football.


I'd wager that most countries in the world are more passionate about soccer/football than about American Football ;)

I see the reaction of a crowd to a goal in soccer many times a week and it never stops amazing me.

A couple years ago, Oiler fans practically destroyed downtown Edmonton. And we didn't even win the the cup.

Just a thought I had from the Super Bowl thread. Why did soccer never catch on north of Mexico?

Where did it go?

Ah yes...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12298304&postcount=182

Good enough answer for ya?

It's a simple numbers game really. Using data based on a poll in the build up to World Cup 2006, approx. 10% of Americans expressed an active interest in footy. The estimated American population is 300 million people, which then equates to 30 million people who like footy. Comparing this number to the populations of many of the countries in the rest of the world, it is either greater or equal to the vast majority of these countries. Thus it is not that there are not a lot of people who like the beautiful game here in the States, but merely they are outnumbered by those who favor the four home grown sports more.*

* Hockey's orgins are disputed with as many as six countries laying claim to the creation of the sport.

A couple years ago, Oiler fans practically destroyed downtown Edmonton. And we didn't even win the the cup.

That crazy crap used to happen in soccer, they cracked down on it. :rolleyes:

Where did it go?

Ah yes...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12298304&postcount=182

Good enough answer for ya?

See, why would they go and play at Wembley? That's insulting.

Idk...I dont think its much of a Spectator Sport....Boring... Actually in most countries it's the most dangerous Spectator sport around. For the Spectators with all the riots.

See, why would they go and play at Wembley? That's insulting.

To whom?

To whom?

The English, and a lot of other football supporters. Wembley is holy land! They could have played it at the Emirates; it's in London, it has no history, and nobody cares because it's Arsenal's.

Cant argue with that, Full scale riots are a bit further than we're willing to go over sporting events...

So... I'm guessing you didn't hear of the "full scale riots" in Philadelphia after the Phillies won the WS?

Just ask Potarius, I'm sure he'd be more than willing to divulge.

So... I'm guessing you didn't hear of the "full scale riots" in Philadelphia after the Phillies won the WS?

Just ask Potarius, I'm sure he'd be more than willing to divulge.

The question is: who the hell riots when they win?

I think one reason it never caught on is that there are no natural breaks in play where a few adverts could be slotted - hence it never got the TV coverage

I'm sure Gridiron was invented by advertisors

I think one reason it never caught on is that there are no natural breaks in play where a few adverts could be slotted - hence it never got the TV coverage

I'm sure Gridiron was invented by advertisors

That was John Cleese's argument too.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=NgNiryJvdxI

Ignore the colouring.

The English, and a lot of other football supporters.

Talk to whoever owns your historic stadium...they clearly didn't have a problem with it.

EDIT

It is owned by The Football Association (FA)

So they're to blame!

*hands over pitchfork and torch*

The question is: who the hell riots when they win?

If the Cubs ever win the WS again, the city of Chicago may well be ablaze overnight...

Too obese to see their feet?

Talk to whoever owns your historic stadium...they clearly didn't have a problem with it.

EDIT



So they're to blame!

*hands over pitchfork and torch*

The FA are idiots, though.

Too obese to see their feet?

Some of the players in the Super Bowl were pathetic. Looked like they needed to be crane-lifted out of bed each morning.

There's never a good answer. "It's slow." Well, not any slower than baseball. "It's low scoring." Again, so is baseball and hockey. "It's confusing." Seriously, explain the details to Football. Some sort of motion with somebody who is eligible for double coupons on Sunday and something about a crappy rock band in a formation somewhere and six Foot Locker employees throwing their hankies around. "The athletes in America that would be good at soccer go for more profitable sports." Well, this is sort of circular, if soccer was popular it would be a big money US sport. Plus, I don't know that linebackers would ever make good soccer players, and a 6'8" NBA center really is better suited for basketball. I don't know that we're losing that many athletes that would have played soccer if it had competitive exposure and salaries. Maybe receivers, and obviously some kickers.

Major League Soccer exists. Still. I think. There are more kids who grow up playing soccer (I did) who have enough of an understanding of the game to watch. Maybe the sport hasn't had its breakaway in the us, its Vince Lombarti, its Babe Ruth. It had its Pele, which held soccer over long enough to get me to play, apparently, but not enough to build the legend of the sport in the US.

We do have a very crowded sport market with basketball, baseball, football, and for some hockey (not as big on the West Coast), so it might just be that our plate is full. Of those, I only really like basketball, and only kinda (I wish it was more like street ball).

Perhaps because soccer players don't slap each other on the ass after a good play and/or match?

There's nothing homoerotic about American Football. NOTHING, I tell you.

All those tight ends and wide receivers gathering in a huddle in skin-tight lycra before the ball is grabbed from between the legs to start play and players try to wrestle the muscular bodies of their manly opponents to the ground and take naked showers together...

Nothing could be less homoerotic and more masculine, I say.

Soccer is too complicated for Americans.

Btw, several American teams are doing pretty well. They are covered by TV and radio and get their attention in other media as well.

The average attendance of LA Galaxy is about 26,000 people each game. A lot of European teams can only dream of such base.

Frankly, Soccer isn't violent enough to draw the gridiron crowd, or dangerous enough without the fans rioting. It's the choice of Moms in America, because the ball can't break bones when it hits you, and nobody's slamming into you on purpose.

When you look at Baseball, for instance, you sometimes have the phenomena of the "Bean Ball" (where the pitcher strikes the batter with a fastball)-necessitating the wearing of a Helmet. (an eighty mile an hour pitch WILL break ribs, jaws, and other assorted bones), plus the occasional "empty the bleachers" fight between players.

When was the last time you saw Footy players get into a Brawl-not the Fans, the PLAYERS?

Gridiron, for its part, is tactical and violent on purpose-linebacker's job is to smash into someone, a Tackle's job is to grab the ball carrier and slam him into the ground as hard as possible. When a three hundered pound man who isn't fat and can run 440 in 4 hits you, you need that body-armour to not get busted up.

Finally, a Hockey game isn't Hockey unless the ice is at least a light shade of pink from blood spillage by the third period.

Are we beginning to understand why Footy isn't the top sport in the U.S.?

(There's no rational explanation for Basketball. Basketball is like Green Day-it's proof that if you hype something enough, it will become popular, even if it sucks ass.)

Americans are violent people, we're that way, and we like being that way. The last time anyone beat Americans in a war the Americans were actually interested in winning, it was CANADIANS (1812), and guess what sport THEY like? it's not soccer, it's not a bunch of guys in shorts chasing a soft round ball around a green field in summertime. It's Hockey, the only large scale sport more violent than Gridiron.

Soccer's brief popularity in the states (Pele) happened to coincide with Soccer's big era of fan rioting. Once the riots slowed down, Americans lost interest. Do the math.

Soccer never caught on because of the tariff applied by the United States for many years against imports of equipment for 'un-American' sports. To put it simply, the sport never became popular because Americans didn't have the balls for it.

I'll get my coat

Soccer is too complicated for Americans.

Rubbish. I once saw an piece where American football players had trouble answering questions about gridiron rules. Soccer is so stunningly simple in comparison.

The average attendance of LA Galaxy is about 26,000 people each game. A lot of European teams can only dream of such base.

It's not THAT big. Melbourne Victory gets about that, and we're four years old.

Btw, several American teams are doing pretty well. They are covered by TV and radio and get their attention in other media as well.

The average attendance of LA Galaxy is about 26,000 people each game. A lot of European teams can only dream of such base.

26,000? And L.A. is how large a city? 13 million?

Liverpool has an urban population of about 800,000 yet gets that many and more fans to multiple football games at a weekend, and mid-week.

This is not unusual amongst European cities.

link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/6904077.stm)


famous American once said: "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country."
Former United States president John F Kennedy's patriotic plea seems tailor-made to adapt for David Beckham's mission statement: Ask not what football can do for me but what I can do for football.

After all, Beckham is coming to America to save football. Isn't he?

Well, actually, probably not. The perception is that Beckham will do for soccer what Pele could not do and put it right at the heart of sport in the United States.

But the Major League Soccer that greets Beckham is a far different beast than the North American Soccer League that Pele and George Best desperately tried to promote.

Soccer now is far more deeply entrenched in American sport than we might think.


Consider a few facts to dispel the myth that US sports fans do not give a fig about soccer.

The 2006 World Cup final attracted more television viewers than baseball's 2005 World Series pulled in on any single night.

Soccer is the most popular recreational sport for boys and girls in the US. More young people play it than any other sport.

The MLS is the 12th most attended top-flight football league in the world.
So, Americans do like soccer and the MLS has tapped into the market, having learned from the mistakes of the NASL.


German legend Franz Beckenbauer trots out for NY Cosmos

The NASL came into existence in 1968 but almost immediately lost its vital television contract with CBS because of poor ratings.

Any sport wanting to gain a foothold in America needs a strong television presence and back then soccer was effectively trying to wean Americans off mom's apple pie to feed them fish and chips.

The New York Cosmos epitomised the NASL's brash razzamatazz style - with Pele as the poster-child, they averaged gates of 40,000 and topped 70,000 in the Meadowlands stadium they shared with the Giants.

But elsewhere, the national average was 15,000 and some clubs struggled to pull in 5,000.

606: DEBATE
In the US, soccer is the sport of the future, and it always will be
BG

Amid spiralling wages, too quick an expansion and young American players with whom the public might have associated being left on the bench, the NASL folded in 1984.

It might have been different had Fifa awarded the 1986 World Cup to the USA instead of Mexico but, like a Fourth of July firework, the NASL took off, had its moment of glory as it exploded, only to fizzle out.

With that, soccer slipped back into obscurity, kicking around in the novelty emporium of various indoor formats.


In 1986, Fifa rectified its mistake by awarding the 1994 World Cup to the USA, with the stipulation that a proper professional league be founded.

The Americans' love of a big event ensured the World Cup would be a success. The problem was always going to be what happened when the show left town.

MLS was formed on 17 December 1993 but it took until 1996 for the 10-team league to begin and was a sickly child whose chances of survival looked slim. It was not helped by the USA's poor showing at the 1998 World Cup, which only gave fuel to the naysayers and doom-mongers.

A revival came about on the back of committed owners like Lamar Hunt and Phil Anschutz, who through his AEG (Anschutz Entertainment Group) owns LA Galaxy, Chicago Fire and Houston Dynamo, and the building of soccer-specific stadiums.

Home Depot is where the heart is for Los Angeles Galaxy

Slowly and unassumingly - two qualities not normally found in American sport - a new generation of players developed and the USA's romp to the 2002 World Cup quarter-finals rekindled interest at just the right time.

The irony was that US players turned their backs on the league that developed them and left for Europe to improve their game.

The MLS's structure also started to pay dividends, with teams controlled by the league and shared income and player contracts negotiated by the league keeping costs in check, while making clubs more appealing to owners and investors prepared to pay the $30m franchise fee.

Crucially, television is now interested. Every MLS match this season will be screened live, many of them on cable channels.

Although Sportsweek magazine estimates that since its inception MLS's losses have totalled $350m, soccer in the US has turned a corner.

LA Galaxy made a profit in 2003 in its first season at the Home Depot Centre, way before England midfielder Beckham galloped over the horizon from Real Madrid.

FC Dallas are also in profit and MLS commissioner Don Garber expects all clubs to be profitable by 2010 as more build their own, soccer-specific stadiums.

So at the risk of raining on Beckham's tickertape parade, this Hollywood plotline does not involve our hero riding to the rescue of soccer in the States.

But if he can build on what is already there, he might turn the Little House on the Prairie into a mansion.

Sure, but it generally isn't respected in the media, and the MLS could theoretically be the biggest sport league in the world.

Just a thought I had from the Super Bowl thread. Why did soccer never catch on north of Mexico?

1) too many ties

2) the clock moves in the wrong direction

3) No signature cuisine(hot dogs, tailgate parties, etc.)

1) too many ties

Seriously, seriously? That's a bad thing to Americans?

No wonder that Bettman idiot put shootouts in NHL hockey.

Seriously, seriously? That's a bad thing to Americans?

No wonder that Bettman idiot put shootouts in NHL hockey.

Seriously. We don't like ties.

26,000? And L.A. is how large a city? 13 million?

Liverpool has an urban population of about 800,000 yet gets that many and more fans to multiple football games at a weekend, and mid-week.

This is not unusual amongst European cities.

The mass unemployment probably helps. In Liverpool anyway.

Seriously. We don't like ties.

What's inherently wrong with a draw; ashes test at Old Trafford, 2005, was as enthralling a cricket match as any, and was drawn.

What's inherently wrong with a draw; ashes test at Old Trafford, 2005, was as enthralling a cricket match as any, and was drawn.

Because the celebrations are a lot more subdued and the riots a lot harder to justify. :p

Because the celebrations are a lot more subdued and the riots a lot harder to justify. :p

Depends. With all due respect, I suspect the necessity for a definite, statistically quantifiable victor lacks a little sophistication and nuance.

The mass unemployment probably helps. In Liverpool anyway.

If you were unemployed, you wouldn't be able to afford tickets.

The mass unemployment probably helps. In Liverpool anyway.

And as we all know, every single European city is swarming with unemployed people who are able to afford $100 tickets to top-flight football matches every week.

Depends. With all due respect, I suspect the necessity for a definite, statistically quantifiable victor lacks a little sophistication and nuance.

*tackles you*

Seriously. We don't like ties.

LG is correct...this is a big aspect of it as well.

Would you go to a soccer game that you knew was going to end in a 0-0 tie?

LG is correct...this is a big aspect of it as well.

Would you go to a soccer game that you knew was going to end in a 0-0 tie?

Yeah, because I go for the gameplay, not for the scoring.

LG is correct...this is a big aspect of it as well.

Would you go to a soccer game that you knew was going to end in a 0-0 tie?

Potentially, yes. The scoreline does not necesarily reflect the quality of play, and bears no relation to the circumstances; take, for example, Barcelona drawing 0-0 with AC Milan in 2006 at the Nou Camp. Normally, said match would have been tedious, however, having won 1-0 in the first leg at the San Siro, the 0-0 draw to take Barca to the Champions League final was tense in the extreme.

Not boring enough.

Football never caught on because we have gridiron. Europeans, not having gridiron until the advent of NFL Europe, had to make do and enjoy football and pretend they enjoy gridiron

Fixed.

Cant argue with that, Full scale riots are a bit further than we're willing to go over sporting events...

Except for those riots over college football matches of course.

Frankly, Soccer isn't violent enough to draw the gridiron crowd, or dangerous enough without the fans rioting. It's the choice of Moms in America, because the ball can't break bones when it hits you, and nobody's slamming into you on purpose.

Obviously these mums have never seen a game of soccer then.

The rest of your post is probably right.

Seriously. We don't like ties.

Why bother watching the game at all?

You might as well just been told the score.

Would you go to a soccer game that you knew was going to end in a 0-0 tie?

Yes I would, if I knew I was going to see a good game played with plenty of skill and teamwork.

Ok, maybe this will shed some light on it. At least for me, Soccer is kind of fun to play, but I don't quite understand it. Its like watching a news broadcast coming out of the Gaza strip. A bunch of foreign people are running around kicking each other in the shin and as far as I can tell nothing really gets accomplished.

Why bother watching the game at all?

You might as well just been told the score.

We like to watch someone get beat.

We like to watch someone get beat.

I didn't know you were a secret England fan:D

The World Cup is when soccer gets it's biggest exposure in the US, and that's bad; you never see teams at their best in a knockout tournament.

Soccer never caught on because we have football. Europeans, not having football until the advent of NFL Europe, had to make do and pretend to enjoy soccer as best they could.

You have American football. We have football.

Where does 'soccer' come from anyway? You call running around with the ball in your hands, kicking it every full moon, 'football'?

Why would you watching American football anyway? It's like the pansy version of rugby.

No, football is a proper sport. No wonder it's the most popular sport on earth, and the only ones who really care about American football, baseball and basketball are the Americans (well, some others care about them, but it's negligible, even more so than 'soccer' in America).

Football or soccer has its fair shares of horrific injuries:

Example (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUG6Qs7eVIA)

This is a clip of Eduardo, a striker for Arsenal and hailed as one of the upcoming players in the League. This injury meant he was out for almost a year. This is not uncommon with some players unable to return to play due to injury.

Excitement (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEfLpIq_26Q)

The Champions League Final of 2005: Liverpool vs AC Milan.

One of the most exciting matches I have ever seen and I'm a neutral.

Player Anger (http://www.mysoccerplace.net/video/stoke-vs-manchester-city-motd)

Stoke vs Man City: Rory Delap red card. About 1 min 41 seconds in. This is from this weekend and scenes like this are far from uncommon.

To answer the question of why it didn't catch on, I don't know.

Football or soccer has its fair shares of horrific injuries:

Example (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUG6Qs7eVIA)

This is a clip of Eduardo, a striker for Arsenal and hailed as one of the upcoming players in the League. This injury meant he was out for almost a year. This is not uncommon with some players unable to return to play due to injury.

Excitement (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEfLpIq_26Q)

The Champions League Final of 2005: Liverpool vs AC Milan.

One of the most exciting matches I have ever seen and I'm a neutral.

Player Anger (http://www.mysoccerplace.net/video/stoke-vs-manchester-city-motd)

Stoke vs Man City: Rory Delap red card. About 1 min 41 seconds in. This is from this weekend and scenes like this are far from uncommon.

To answer the question of why it didn't catch on, I don't know.

It was not exciting as a United fan. It was depressing...

It was not exciting as a United fan. It was depressing...

That may be the case. Though you got that excitement last year when you beat Chelsea in another incredible Champions Leage Final.

I know I speak for a lot of Americans when I say that we don't like the trend that has permeated through soccer, and is starting to creep into basketball, of absurdly overdramaticizing any and all fouls, no matter how minor.

That may be the case. Though you got that excitement last year when you beat Chelsea in another incredible Champions Leage Final.

Indeed. Superb match; John Terry's face made my week.

I know I speak for a lot of Americans when I say that we don't like the trend that has permeated through soccer, and is starting to creep into basketball, of absurdly overdramaticizing any and all fouls, no matter how minor.

You would have to blame some of the players for that. If a player keeps over exaggerating when tackled then, in my opinion, they should be booked. If it keeps happening then they are off. It's just a time wasting/ get the other player into trouble tactic.

I know I speak for a lot of Americans when I say that we don't like the trend that has permeated through soccer, and is starting to creep into basketball, of absurdly overdramaticizing any and all fouls, no matter how minor.

Really doesn't happen that often in soccer. When it does, the media goes apeshit and you'd think it was an pandemic.

You would have to blame some of the players for that. If a player keeps over exaggerating when tackled then, in my opinion, they should be booked. If it keeps happening then they are off. It's just a time wasting/ get the other player into trouble tactic.

It's endemic in the sport. Players know that they can get calls by overacting, so they do it. The sport has not really done much to combat it, and it's lead to a perception, somewhat earned, of being a particularly un-tough sport. A guy gets brushed up against and suddenly he's torn all three tendons in both knees and had a heart attack. Then when he gets the call, he's back on his feet, right as rain. It's not very fun to watch that.

Why are non-Americans calling it 'soccer'? It's football God damnit!

We like to watch someone get beat.

Yep doesn't matter about how good the game actually was as long as someone is beaten it's alright.

Really doesn't happen that often in soccer. When it does, the media goes apeshit and you'd think it was an pandemic.

It happens on virtually every foul. Either that, or soccer players are built like glass.

It's endemic in the sport. Players know that they can get calls by overacting, so they do it. The sport has not really done much to combat it, and it's lead to a perception, somewhat earned, of being a particularly un-tough sport. A guy gets brushed up against and suddenly he's torn all three tendons in both knees and had a heart attack. Then when he gets the call, he's back on his feet, right as rain. It's not very fun to watch that.

Much as I hate to say it, I fear you've imbibed too much from certain players; Ronaldo, Figo, Raul, Inzaghi etc. Such cases are focused on by the footballing media, especially in the UK, disproportionate to their regularity. In any case, I fail to see the merits of determing the "toughness" of a sport; it strikes me as steeped in anachronistic masculinity.

Frankly, such cynicism happens in every sport anyway; cricket, with failure to walk, appealing for patently stupid wickets, and claiming grounded catches, is no different. Nor is rugby.

Football or soccer has its fair shares of horrific injuries:

Example (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUG6Qs7eVIA)

This is a clip of Eduardo, a striker for Arsenal and hailed as one of the upcoming players in the League. This injury meant he was out for almost a year. This is not uncommon with some players unable to return to play due to injury.

Every time I see that clip and his foot looking as though it is being completely snapped off I wince.

Stoke vs Man City: Rory Delap red card. About 1 min 41 seconds in. This is from this weekend and scenes like this are far from uncommon.

To answer the question of why it didn't catch on, I don't know.

I never saw this but yeah seen that (and been involved in these sort of things before) Wright-Phillips is lucky the ref didn't see his reaction.

Every time I see that clip and his foot looking as though it is being completely snapped off I wince.


This one is also nice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBanEscH7aU

It happens on virtually every foul. Either that, or soccer players are built like glass.

Rubbish. I watch the game every week, and you'd probably see diving once a game if you've (un)lucky.

Soccer isn't like rugby and gridiron; in those sports, you're meant to hit other players, so you can regulate how much power you put into a tackle. In soccer, you aim for the ball, which means if you miss, all the power of that tackle is going into your opponent's shin.

Much as I hate to say it, I fear you've imbibed too much from certain players; Ronaldo, Figo, Raul, Inzaghi etc. Such cases are focused on by the footballing media, especially in the UK, disproportionate to their regularity. In any case, I fail to see the merits of determing the "toughness" of a sport; it strikes me as steeped in anachronistic masculinity.

Frankly, such cynicism happens in every sport anyway; cricket, with failure to walk, appealing for patently stupid wickets, and claiming grounded catches, is no different. Nor is rugby.

I only get to watch international play, because European league play is on television here at absurd hours.

It's not about the "toughness" of the sport. I do not like to watch players deliberately manipulate the rules and the officials for petty, minor gains. Perhaps you'll dismiss this as "anachronistic masculinity", but I find nothing entertaining about players taking dives just to get calls. I find it's contrary to the spirit of honest competition to feign an injury just to get a call, and I find it completely disturbs the flow of the game to stop it every time someone gets sneezed on.

It happens on virtually every foul. Either that, or soccer players are built like glass.

They don't train and condition for a high degree of physical contact.

Plus, it's harder to balance when trying to dribble or control the ball. Player just go over easier.

Soccer is dumb because you never know when it ends. The clock reaches 0:00 and they just keep playing for awhile then just suddenly stop and its game over. We have had the technology to transfer official time from a timeskeeper to a scoreboard since the 1940s for crying out loud.

I only get to watch international play, because European league play is on television here at absurd hours.

It's not about the "toughness" of the sport. I do not like to watch players deliberately manipulate the rules and the officials for petty, minor gains. Perhaps you'll dismiss this as "anachronistic masculinity", but I find nothing entertaining about players taking dives just to get calls. I find it's contrary to the spirit of honest competition to feign an injury just to get a call, and I find it completely disturbs the flow of the game to stop it every time someone gets sneezed on.

International football is, by and large, awful.

In any case, I find the belief many have in "Corinthian" sporting values a little tedious and simplistic; there is a difference between outright simulation, and simply accentuating the severity of what was a foul anyway. Simulation as outright diving is rare, and most domestic European leagues regularly book players for doing so. Overacting for emphasis is hardly immoral, and, if the tackle was a foul anyway, why not aid the referee in discerning as such?

Moreover, you're hardly helping your case with such phrases as "every time someone gets sneezed on". Strikes me as the lament of the "real man" who at once tolerates good old fashioned violence in sport, and seeks "honest competition".

Soccer is dumb because you never know when it ends. The clock reaches 0:00 and they just keep playing for awhile then just suddenly stop and its game over. We have had the technology to transfer official time from a timeskeeper to a scoreboard since the 1940s for crying out loud.

So does football. Congratulations.

Soccer is dumb because you never know when it ends. The clock reaches 0:00 and they just keep playing for awhile then just suddenly stop and its game over. We have had the technology to transfer official time from a timeskeeper to a scoreboard since the 1940s for crying out loud.

That's... not true at all. The clock counts upwards to 45 minutes, and then the referees add on more time for the stoppages.

Soccer is dumb because you never know when it ends. The clock reaches 0:00 and they just keep playing for awhile then just suddenly stop and its game over. We have had the technology to transfer official time from a timeskeeper to a scoreboard since the 1940s for crying out loud.

Maybe you will enjoy it more when you learn to tell the time.

Maybe you don't know when it ends, but everyone else who is watching the timer is. It lasts 90 minutes + overtime. The clock starts at 0:00, it doesn't count down.

So does football. Congratulations.

No when the clock runs out in football, after the play is finished its game over. Soccer can run another 5 or 10 minutes and no one has any idea just how long.

No when the clock runs out in football, after the play is finished its game over. Soccer can run another 5 or 10 minutes and no one has any idea just how long.

They really do; the 4th official announces as such on a board, which is then appended to the electronic scoreboard.

No when the clock runs out in football, after the play is finished its game over. Soccer can run another 5 or 10 minutes and no one has any idea just how long.

... Yes, we do. The referees let you know a few minutes before the end of the half, how much time they intend to add on. Once that time is up, the half ends.

No when the clock runs out in football, after the play is finished its game over. Soccer can run another 5 or 10 minutes and no one has any idea just how long.

Wrong again. They will hold up a sign on the sideline stating how long the overtime will be, and if you listen to the commentators, they said it as well.

5 minutes overtime is rather unusual. It has to be a lot of free kicks and other incidents claiming time. I have never ever seen 10 minutes overtime, and I don't know how many thousand matches I've seen it.

Plus, it's harder to balance when trying to dribble or control the ball. Player just go over easier.

You know I am sure that any body regardless of the sport will trip when someone shoves their foot across their leg. But FeO there are a fair amount of players from the top to the bottom that will fall at the smallest little touch. Just look at Grosso for example.

Soccer is dumb because you never know when it ends. The clock reaches 0:00 and they just keep playing for awhile then just suddenly stop and its game over. We have had the technology to transfer official time from a timeskeeper to a scoreboard since the 1940s for crying out loud.

lol, anyway I thought the clock reached 90:00.

Wrong again. They will hold up a sign on the sideline stating how long the overtime will be, and if you listen to the commentators, they said it as well.

5 minutes overtime is rather unusual. It has to be a lot of free kicks and other incidents claiming time. I have never ever seen 10 minutes overtime, and I don't know how many thousand matches I've seen it.

You're not a Man United fan then?

5 minutes overtime is rather unusual. It has to be a lot of free kicks and other incidents claiming time. I have never ever seen 10 minutes overtime, and I don't know how many thousand matches I've seen it.

I saw a match in which there was 10+. Can't remember why, but I remember that there was good cause.

It may have been this one: http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/26052008/58/championship-windass-seals-hull-promotion.html

I saw a match in which there was 10+. Can't remember why, but I remember that there was good cause/

Yeah, if memory serves, giving United enough time to score the 2 goals needed to win the league.

You're not a Man United fan then?

Liverpool since I was 7.

I saw a match in which there was 10+. Can't remember why, but I remember that there was good cause/

Sure it can happen, but extremely rare. Must have been a very good cause, like a mass-fight or something.

You know I am sure that any body regardless of the sport will trip when someone shoves their foot across their leg. But FeO there are a fair amount of players from the top to the bottom that will fall at the smallest little touch. Just look at Grosso for example.

There are always a few morons. They're not liked for it, and when they're caught, they get booked like everybody else.

There are always a few morons. They're not liked for it, and when they're caught, they get booked like everybody else.

Some are booked some aren't.

If you're caught, you're booked, and that's that. A good referee follows the rules and books divers.

International football is, by and large, awful.

In any case, I find the belief many have in "Corinthian" sporting values a little tedious and simplistic; there is a difference between outright simulation, and simply accentuating the severity of what was a foul anyway. Simulation as outright diving is rare, and most domestic European leagues regularly book players for doing so. Overacting for emphasis is hardly immoral, and, if the tackle was a foul anyway, why not aid the referee in discerning as such?

Moreover, you're hardly helping your case with such phrases as "every time someone gets sneezed on". Strikes me as the lament of the "real man" who at once tolerates good old fashioned violence in sport, and seeks "honest competition".

Frankly, I don't give a good god damn if I'm "helping [my] case" in your meaningless eyes. The thread asks for reasons why soccer has not caught on in the US, I provide mine, and I'm ridiculed for that. It has been my perception that soccer is riddled with diving, overacting, and generally improper behavior regarding fouls. It creates needless stoppages and disturbs the flow of the game. If you feel the need to mischaracterize that as some sort of masculinity fetish in order for you to feel intellectually superior, then so be it. I'm not about to apologize for my own opinion of soccer.

3) No signature cuisine(hot dogs, tailgate parties, etc.)

Pies.

As in: 'Who ate all the pies?'

Pies.

As in: 'Who ate all the pies?'

Frank Lampard.

Liverpool since I was 7.



Sure it can happen, but extremely rare. Must have been a very good cause, like a mass-fight or something.

Generally when we need a late equaliser or winner I believe.:tongue:

Pies.

As in: 'Who ate all the pies?'

Bovril too.

Frank Lampard.

Ten men went to lift!

Frank Lampard.

I think you'll find the correct answer is: "you fat bastard, you fat bastard, you ate all the pies."

Frankly, I don't give a good god damn if I'm "helping [my] case" in your meaningless eyes. The thread asks for reasons why soccer has not caught on in the US, I provide mine, and I'm ridiculed for that. It has been my perception that soccer is riddled with diving, overacting, and generally improper behavior regarding fouls. It creates needless stoppages and disturbs the flow of the game. If you feel the need to mischaracterize that as some sort of masculinity fetish in order for you to feel intellectually superior, then so be it. I'm not about to apologize for my own opinion of soccer.

Wonderful. However, since there is no necessity to be overtly rude, I might as well interpret your outrage and ire as that which it is; representative of the collective qualities of the US sporting demographic.

Your opinion of the zenith of sport, test cricket, should be entertaining.

If you're caught, you're booked, and that's that. A good referee follows the rules and books divers.

Yes FeO that is right if you are caught, notice the emphasis on caught. And yes a good referee does follow the rules shame that not all referees are good many are mediocre.

I think you'll find the correct answer is: "you fat bastard, you fat bastard, you ate all the pies."

Still Lampard.

American Football, Australian, Canadian Football, Football (aka Soccer), Gaelic football and Rugby are all about the same age, and all are basically the same game. Kind of like how tennis and badminton are pretty much the same thing.

That one caught on in a particular area is due to regional differences that are similar to beer: the Czechs came up with pilsner while the Belgians made lambics, the English made stouts and the Germans developed bocks while the Japanese came up with sake.. etc.

To say that one is better than another is a matter of taste, really.

Wonderful. However, since there is no necessity to be overtly rude, I might as well interpret your outrage and ire as that which it is; representative of the collective qualities of the US sporting demographic.

Your opinion of the zenith of sport, test cricket, should be entertaining.

Right. I express my opinion, you mock me for having some outdated view on masculinity that you completely prescribed to me without evidence, and I'm the one who is rude.

My opinion on cricket is that I've never once watched a match, nor do I have any particular desire to. Your opinion that it is the "zenith of sport" is laughable and mockable, but unlike you, I shall not deride you for your clearly misguided taste in sport.

Or wait, maybe I just did.

If you're caught, you're booked, and that's that. A good referee follows the rules and books divers.

Unless your name happens to be Steven Gerrard :p

Right. I express my opinion, you mock me for having some outdated view on masculinity that you completely prescribed to me without evidence, and I'm the one who is rude.

My opinion on cricket is that I've never once watched a match, nor do I have any particular desire to. Your opinion that it is the "zenith of sport" is laughable and mockable, but unlike you, I shall not deride you for your clearly misguided taste in sport.

Or wait, maybe I just did.

Test Cricket is the finest form of the finest game on the planet, and the only in which, in 99% of cases, those who deserve to win, and those of greater quality, do. The emotionally incontentince that characterises shorter sports, in which a minnow, can be resolve and fortune, repel a patently side for 90 minutes or so and are then praised, does not exist in test cricket. Only those with the maturity, motivation and drive to succeed over 5 days and perhaps 40 hours of competition can win.

It also happens to be the only sport I know of in which Blowers, Bearders, Johnners et al. could commentate with such enduring charm and humanity, without the need to sensationalise and appeal to the animalistic crudities of the average football fan. Listen to Christopher Martin-Jenkins opine on other sports if you want elaboration.

Unless your name happens to be Steven Gerrard :p

God I hate Gerrard. How on earth he isn't sent off every match I'm unsure.

It has been my perception that soccer is riddled with diving, overacting, and generally improper behavior regarding fouls. It creates needless stoppages and disturbs the flow of the game.
Such behaviour is almost entirely a development of the last few decades, so even if it's as prevalent as you suggest (which is highly disputable) that would hardly explain why Association Football never became the dominant form of Football in the USA at an earlier date...

God I hate Gerrard. How on earth he isn't sent off every match I'm unsure.

One of life's mysteries, alonside the lack of punishment for the amount of dirty hacking and persistent fouling by John Terry in the box. Maybe its something to do with referees having too much respect for the 'big' players in the national team to punish them when they do something wrong.

One of life's mysteries, alonside the lack of punishment for the amount of dirty hacking and persistent fouling by John Terry in the box. Maybe its something to do with referees having too much respect for the 'big' players in the national team to punish them when they do something wrong.

Too true. Incidentally, Carrick instead of Lampard for England?

Incidentally, Carrick instead of Lampard for England?

Carrick should be hit with a large stick until he learns to tackle. A footballing equivalent of a quarter-back is of no use in a 4-man England midfield.

Too true. Incidentally, Carrick instead of Lampard for England?

Yes. Carrick has really grown as a player over the last couple of seasons while Lampard is failing at what he used to be good at. Carrick can get forward when needed but also hold midfield.

Carrick should be hit with a large stick until he learns to tackle. A footballing equivalent of a quarter-back is of no use in a 4-man England midfield.

Carrick doesn't need to tackle; that, for me, is the whole point. His tactical acuity, and the quality of Vidic and Ferdinand, permit him instead channel attackers into tackles, collect the ball, and then pass with a vision and accuracy I see in no other English player bar Scholes.

Carrick is an excellent defensive, and offensive, midfielder, in a 4 man United midfield which is far more progressive and attacking than that of England. If he can then handle himself defensively in such an attacking team, I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to do so similarly for England.

Too true. Incidentally, Carrick instead of Lampard for England?

I think you mean Jermaine Jenas.
...
...
...
Yeh, I'm kidding, I'm a Spurs fan, and I'd never want to inflict 'Mr. awesome in 1 out of every ten games, shit in the other 9' on the national team.

I've no qualms about Carrick's passing abilities, which rival that of Gerrard's (the 60 yard cross-fielders in particular), but defensively I have yet to see him make any sort of impact in a football match ever.

Perhaps because against United most teams put ten men behind the ball, or because he has such a good defence behind him anyway, he's never tested correctly in that regard. He never did it for Spurs, he's never done it for England, he doesn't need to for United.

Instead Lampard - sure why not, it might free up Gerrard to do what he does properly. But with those two in midfield, we'd need someone who can actually tackle, in place of a second striker. Basically, I don't think he fits, and unless you build a team around him - which I wouldn't because he's not exactly Zidane - then don't bother with putting him in the XI.

I think that both Football and Baseball have such an important tie to culture in America that there's no way they could be separated from it now. It's like Hockey in my country, Canada. It's something that, at least to some extent, they invented for themselves, and in ways it's representative of their identity.

I like the NFL and the CFL, and I can dig Rugby, but it's true, Soccer leaves me flat. I do appreciate some really killer goals I see on highlight shows, but it's the dragging chunks in the middle that turn me off, as well as how little it takes for a player to go down clutching his shin like he was shot (this most likely stems from my exposure to, and love of, Hockey, where every single player, barring a goalie, can expect to be hit on any shift - and the goalies get knocked over plenty too.) I usually equate Soccer with Baseball in terms of excitement. Just the highlights, please.

Apparently before the body armour, gridiron was a lot more like rugby.

Of course, the reason for the "body armor" is that people were dying during games.

The question is: who the hell riots when they win?

Michigan State University. But it's more an excuse than a reason.

Soccer is too complicated for Americans.

I know, Americans are stupid, aren't they? Canadians don't like soccer either, so they're pretty dumb as well. It must be something in the water in North America that makes everyone so dumb.

Why would you watching American football anyway? It's like the pansy version of rugby.

Americans are such pansies, aren't they? If they weren't such pansies they'd take off that body armor and play like real men!

No, football is a proper sport. No wonder it's the most popular sport on earth, and the only ones who really care about American football, baseball and basketball are the Americans (well, some others care about them, but it's negligible, even more so than 'soccer' in America).

Mexicans love American football. There is talk of putting an NFL expansion team in Mexico City. Also, Canadians have a very similar sport called Canadian football. Which, I'll have you note, is more popular in Canada than soccer.

Why are non-Americans calling it 'soccer'? It's football God damnit!

Canadians call it soccer too. Why isn't everyone lambasting them about not loving soccer?

Canadians call it soccer too. Why isn't everyone lambasting them about not loving soccer?

Because no one cares what Canada thinks. As for the padding really NW you guys should stop being soft and man up.

Why are non-Americans calling it 'soccer'? It's football God damnit!

No, it's either. The English people who bang the "It's football God damnit!" drum usually have memories short enough to not remember it being called Soccer or Football interchangeably in England.

It's only since Americans - who have their own rules for a game they call 'Football' too - have started calling it Soccer that the English anti-soccer terminology brigade have piped up. Association Football, American Football, Rugby Football, Aussie Rules Football... they're all Football, just different codes. Soccer is as useful a term as any.

Canadians call it soccer too. Why isn't everyone lambasting them about not loving soccer?

Because we like them.

Because no one cares what Canada thinks. As for the padding really NW you guys should stop being soft and man up.

If no one cares what we think, no one will notice what we're doing. If no one notices what we're doing, we've already won. Count yourselves lucky that Hockey championships are all we take from this frail world.

Of course, the reason for the "body armor" is that people were dying during games.

Except it didn't work, and now the game is much more violent.

No, it's either. The English people who bang the "It's football God damnit!" drum usually have memories short enough to not remember it being called Soccer or Football interchangeably in England.

It's only since Americans - who have their own rules for a game they call 'Football' too - have started calling it Soccer that the English anti-soccer terminology brigade have piped up. Association Football, American Football, Rugby Football, Aussie Rules Football... they're all Football, just different codes. Soccer is as useful a term as any.

1. The 'ball' in American football isn't a ball. It's egg shaped.
2. You use your hands in American football. You kick it what, every 20 minutes?

It's not football. You use your feet in football.

I'm not even English, I'm just a neutral bystander which fails to see the logic of calling carrying a ball around 'football', and calling the sport where you actually use your feet for 'soccer'.

Rubbish. I once saw an piece where American football players had trouble answering questions about gridiron rules. Soccer is so stunningly simple in comparison.

I'll take note of the 'once'.

American Football, Australian, Canadian Football, Football (aka Soccer), Gaelic football and Rugby are all about the same age, and all are basically the same game. Kind of like how tennis and badminton are pretty much the same thing.

That's really not true at all. The rugbys, gridiron and Canadian football are all from a common root. Soccer and Australian football are completely different games altogether.

Unless your name happens to be Steven Gerrard :p

He got booked for diving last weekend. Although I don't think it was a dive.

26,000? And L.A. is how large a city? 13 million?

Liverpool has an urban population of about 800,000 yet gets that many and more fans to multiple football games at a weekend, and mid-week.

This is not unusual amongst European cities.


Liverpool isn't competing with football, basketball, baseball and Paris Hilton.

Without soccer, Liverpool would only have the beatles, which died almost 40 years ago.

1. The 'ball' in American football isn't a ball. It's egg shaped.
2. You use your hands in American football. You kick it what, every 20 minutes?

It's not football. You use your feet in football.

I'm not even English, I'm just a neutral bystander which fails to see the logic of calling carrying a ball around 'football', and calling the sport where you actually use your feet for 'soccer'.

Ball's about a foot long. Distance increments are in yards and feet.

Without football, Liverpool would only have the beatles, which died almost 40 years ago.

Ehm, what else do you need?

I'll take note of the 'once'.

This was the article:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?section=magazine&id=3737653&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab2pos1

1. The 'ball' in American football isn't a ball. It's egg shaped.
2. You use your hands in American football. You kick it what, every 20 minutes?

It's not football. You use your feet in football.

I'm not even English, I'm just a neutral bystander which fails to see the logic of calling carrying a ball around 'football', and calling the sport where you actually use your feet for 'soccer'.

1. That's because it's a development of Rugby Football, in which an ovoid ball is used.
2. See 1.

'Soccer' comes from the 'Association' part of 'Association Football', shortened to Assoc., and then simply Soccer.

1. That's because it's a development of Rugby Football, in which an ovoid ball is used.
2. See 1.

'Soccer' comes from the 'Association' part of 'Association Football', shortened to Assoc., and then simply Soccer.

1. It's still not a ball.
2. They still don't use their feet.

He got booked for diving last weekend. Although I don't think it was a dive.

Trust me to miss the highlights the one time he gets booked. Gah.

26,000? And L.A. is how large a city? 13 million?

Liverpool has an urban population of about 800,000 yet gets that many and more fans to multiple football games at a weekend, and mid-week.

This is not unusual amongst European cities.


Liverpool isn't the only team in the Premier league, other UK teams would be happy to see 26.000 people at every game. And I'm silent about Holland, Belgian, French and even Italian teams.

Because we like them.

Is that what all this is about?

Except it didn't work, and now the game is much more violent.

People don't really die during games anymore, but you're right in that it did become much more violent. The players today are much bigger and much faster than they were 50 years ago.

Because no one cares what Canada thinks.

Why do you care what Americans think?

As for the padding really NW you guys should stop being soft and man up.

It would definitely make NFL players earn their salaries.

2. They still don't use their feet.

Avoiding your odd attachment to balls being perfectly spherical, is there anything to prohibit American Footballers from a 'chip & chase' style punt to kick, recover and continue their drive down the field?

Other than the ease with which they might lose the ball and suffer a turnover, it's just like passing backwards (or throwing 'laterally'), in that they don't do it because they haven't got the skills, rather than are not allowed.

It would definitely make NFL players earn their salaries.

And subsequently spend them on catastrophic medical bills.

People don't really die during games anymore, but you're right in that it did become much more violent. The players today are much bigger and much faster than they were 50 years ago.

It's also that the armour gives them an excuse to hit harder. Ironically, it doesn't make the think them any more manly; I think Australian football and rugby players are tougher.

Australia never really had that, immigrants always retained aspects of their own cultures. We still eat ethnic food, and follow the old world's sport, soccer.

Heh. Not according to most Aussies I know, and I know a heap. Cricket, Rugby, and Aussie Rules are what the Aussies I know follow.

Obviously they aren't fast enough then. Time to ditch helmets and shoulder pads.

And go back to the murderous sport before it was nearly banned, where large numbers of players were killed on the field?

Apparently before the body armour, gridiron was a lot more like rugby.

Except more violent. Gridiorn's variations on Rugby and Association Football rules (it's about 2/3rds to 1/3rd) allow protecting the ball carrier via blocking, which woulkd be a serious penalty in Rugby?

Yes, in its early stages, it was very much like rugby. But the addition of the forward pass, with its devastating impact, changed the game altogether. No longer was the sport about struggling on the ground, now it required speed. And speed means more momentum and harder impact, thus requireing body armour.

Actually the padding came in around the same time as the opening up of the game. The flying wedge was not about speed but brute force...

Cant argue with that, Full scale riots are a bit further than we're willing to go over sporting events...

Never seen the aftermath of certain college rivalrys, eh? Riots are part and parcel of OU-UT games...

Rubbish. I once saw an piece where American football players had trouble answering questions about gridiron rules. Soccer is so stunningly simple in comparison.

Indeed.

link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/6904077.stm)

Excellent. :)

Association Football, or Soccer for short, never caught on because we have Gridiron Football.Fixed.

Properly fixed.

Obviously these mums have never seen a game of soccer then.

Could Association football ever have been described as being more dangerously murderous than London Prize Ring bare knuckle boxing, like John Sullivan did (http://wesclark.com/rrr/yank_fb.html)?

You have American football. We have football.

What sort of football would that be: Rugby Uniuon, Rugby Laeague, Association, Gridiron, Aussie Rules, Gallic, Canadian Rules, or one of the other sorts?

Where does 'soccer' come from anyway?

From the name Association Football that distinguishes it from all the other sorts of football out there?

]-snip-

:rolleyes:

They don't train and condition for a high degree of physical contact.

Indeed. Rugby comes closer, but as I mentioned above the rules allow for a different sort of contact.

It's been a while since I've seen one of these, and even longer since I've ducked my head into one.

But I've seen enough of them to know how they go.

<start gratuitous exagerationns here>

1) OMG! Association Football's not popular in the states! WTF???

2) No it's not, you Euro Panzy!

3) Ignorant bickering about related various sports by people who don't know shit interspersed with some attempts to clear things up by people who have looked into the real answers, followed by a forum fire.

If no one cares what we think, no one will notice what we're doing. If no one notices what we're doing, we've already won. Count yourselves lucky that Hockey championships are all we take from this frail world.Ice hockey, in hockey we kick your asses.

Avoiding your odd attachment to balls being perfectly spherical, is there anything to prohibit American Footballers from a 'chip & chase' style punt to kick, recover and continue their drive down the field?

Other than the ease with which they might lose the ball and suffer a turnover, it's just like passing backwards (or throwing 'laterally'), in that they don't do it because they haven't got the skills, rather than are not allowed.

Yeah, I thought that Arizona should have put on Ben Graham and switched to Australian football tactics.

Football = Chess Soccer = checkers

Without soccer, Liverpool would only have the beatles, which died almost 40 years ago.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Capital_of_Culture) disagrees with you.

Liverpool isn't competing with football, basketball, baseball and Paris Hilton.

Liverpool isn't the only team in the Premier league, other UK teams would be happy to see 26.000 people at every game. And I'm silent about Holland, Belgian, French and even Italian teams.

You seem to have a problem of perspective. L.A. is ten or more times bigger than almost all European football towns, so the popularity of soccer is still much smaller, just the scale is different. A European city of a similar size, like London, has upwards of 10 major football clubs, the majority of which will get over 26k attendance weekly.

Football = Chess Soccer = checkers

Wow. Just... wow.

John Cleese said it best: American football is played like a series of advertising jingles, while soccer is played like jazz.

Liverpool isn't the only team in the Premier league, other UK teams would be happy to see 26.000 people at every game. And I'm silent about Holland, Belgian, French and even Italian teams.

There are a lot more teams per capita over there. When I lived in France I used to go to Angers SCO (Ligue 2) games quite often and there were a lot more people there than would be at a game in an equivalently sized US city. As for the LA Galaxy, it's not just people from LA that would go to that, it'd likely be people from all over California or even the Southwest. For example, the attendance records for the Detroit Pistons may be impressive but then you need to remember that people will regularly drive five or six hours to go to a game, so you've got a larger potential fan pool to draw from.

And subsequently spend them on catastrophic medical bills.

Or extravagant funerals.

It's also that the armour gives them an excuse to hit harder. Ironically, it doesn't make the think them any more manly; I think Australian football and rugby players are tougher.

Personally, I'm not all that concerned about how "manly" or "tough" they are. What I am concerned about is that with the way the game is currently played people would be seriously hurt or dead without the pads and helmets.

Wow. Just... wow.

John Cleese said it best: American football is played like a series of advertising jingles, while soccer is played like jazz.

Except most jazz concerts nor NFL games dont have a neo nazi section of the stands like a southern European soccer match does calling black players monkeys.

Except it didn't work, and now the game is much more violent.

Polar opposite. See the article I linked above.

More from same said:
One English spectator, after watching a game, allowed that football "is quite different than soccer and Rugby. In soccer, you kick the ball. In Rugby, you kick the man when you can't kick the ball. In American football, you kick the man."

At the end of the 1905 season, the Chicago Tribune reported some frightening news: 18 FOOTBALL PLAYERS DEAD AND 159 SERIOUSLY INJURED! This report, coming weeks after he had seen photographs of the bloodied combatants in a contest between Swarthmore and the University of Pennsylvania, led President Theodore Roosevelt to proclaim: "I demand that football change its rules or be abolished. Brutality and foul play should receive the same summary punishment given to a man who cheats at cards! Change the game or forsake it!"

The president immediately appointed a rules committee and pressured football coaches across the country to come up with a solution. John Heisman, Georgia Tech's coach, proposed that a passing play might be a good way to open up the game and help disband massing plays. He hoped that the forward pass would change football's emphasis from brute force to the kind of clever ball-handling that would please crowds and, more importantly, save players' lives.
http://wesclark.com/rrr/yank_fb.html



And I'll put in here now that I'm froim Texas, where Gridiron Football is as much a religion as Association Football in many European locales, but I'm not largely a fan of either, prefering Ice Hockey. ("Ice" inserted to avoid another minor squabble over which sort of hockey is the "real" sort...)

Liverpool isn't the only team in the Premier league, other UK teams would be happy to see 26.000 people at every game. And I'm silent about Holland, Belgian, French and even Italian teams.Spectator average in the previous season of football in Holland was 19.090, with a combined total of 5.841.463.

Idk...I dont think its much of a Spectator Sport....Boring...

Then again, so's baseball..so, IDk...

blasphemy.

Personally, I'm not all that concerned about how "manly" or "tough" they are. What I am concerned about is that with the way the game is currently played people would be seriously hurt or dead without the pads and helmets.

And we can shortly exepect the usual comments about how barbaric gridiron is because the rules are such that without padding people would be killed, implying that the game needs to basically be morphed into Rugby of one flavor or another....

Polar opposite. See the article I linked above.

Less people die now, that doesn't mean it's less violent.

Except most jazz concerts nor NFL games dont have a neo nazi section of the stands like a southern European soccer match does calling black players monkeys.

How does that have anything to do with the code?

And we can shortly exepect the usual comments about how barbaric gridiron is because the rules are such that without padding people would be killed, implying that the game needs to basically be morphed into Rugby of one flavor or another....

So we should therefore ban all motorsports and restrict drivers to remote-controlled cars - safer that way, unless you count Nintendo Thumb as a major medical emergency.

blasphemy.

Indeed.

And we can shortly exepect the usual comments about how barbaric gridiron is because the rules are such that without padding people would be killed, implying that the game needs to basically be morphed into Rugby of one flavor or another....

Apart from playing forward, it actually pretty much is rugby league.

How does that have anything to do with the code?

The question is of why did soccer not catch on in the US and part of the answer is its image of being frequented by alot of racist rubes and morons who riot and set fire to the stands and whos behavior would not be tolerated in the US. I mean some drunken US sports fans are no joy to be around granted, but if fans started to throw bananas on a field in the US yelling racist insults, both coaches would refuse to even get on the field with their teams until security made it all stop.

Less people die now, that doesn't mean it's less violent.

Standard play pre-1905 was to hold up the ball carrier in a mass of men and slam him head first through another mass of men. That's significantly more violent. See the "flying wedge play" I referred to above.

So we should therefore ban all motorsports and restrict drivers to remote-controlled cars - safer that way, unless you count Nintendo Thumb as a major medical emergency.

Such is what one would expect those who argue gridiron's barbaric to argue. Do note that I'm not arguing the point.

The question is of why did soccer not catch on in the US and part of the answer is its image of being frequented by alot of racist rubes and morons who riot and set fire to the stands and whos behavior would not be tolerated in the US. I mean some drunken US sports fans are no joy to be around granted, but if fans started to throw bananas on a field in the US yelling racist insults, both coaches would refuse to even get on the field with their teams until security made it all stop.

You seriously believe that actually happens, don't you?

if fans started to throw bananas on a field in the US yelling racist insults, both coaches would refuse to even get on the field with their teams until security made it all stop.

I know someone who was ejected from a baseball match for shouting "Hey Ump! You suck!" and "Hey Ump! If you had one good eye you'd be a cyclops!"

I don't think police of any nation could cope with throwing out two-thousand fans simultaneously chanting something as simple and oft-used as "The referee's a wanker", "Who's the bastard in the black?", or something similar.

Polar opposite. See the article I linked above.

When he said "more violent" I wasn't thinking in terms of more injuries sustained, I was thinking in terms of how hard people get hit.

And we can shortly exepect the usual comments about how barbaric gridiron is because the rules are such that without padding people would be killed, implying that the game needs to basically be morphed into Rugby of one flavor or another....

The details are unimportant, what's important is that Americans are dumb for liking American football (which is also dumb) and should change to fit the rest of the world.

Apart from playing forward, it actually pretty much is rugby league.

Except that protecting the ball carrier, one of the most violent aspects of gridiron, is entierly legal in gridiron but not in Rugby.

Except that protecting the ball carrier, one of the most violent aspects of gridiron, is entierly legal in gridiron but not in Rugby.

That too. But year, apart from those things, the rules seem pretty similar.

That too. But year, apart from those things, the rules seem pretty similar.

Right......and except for you know different rules Cricket and Baseball are basically the same sport, as are football(soccer) and hockey.

The details are unimportant, what's important is that Americans are dumb for liking American football (which is also dumb) and should change to fit the rest of the world.

Indeed. :rolleyes: :::wanders off to watch a really dangerous, "dumb USAmerican sport like PBR (http://www.pbrnow.com/about/sportinfo/basics.cfm):::

Right......and except for you know different rules Cricket and Baseball are basically the same sport, as are football(soccer) and hockey.

Union and league are more different than gridiron and league, and they're both called rugby.

What sort of football would that be: Rugby Uniuon, Rugby Laeague, Association, Gridiron, Aussie Rules, Gallic, Canadian Rules, or one of the other sorts?

Football is football. We have football.

The question is of why did soccer not catch on in the US and part of the answer is its image of being frequented by alot of racist rubes and morons who riot and set fire to the stands and whos behavior would not be tolerated in the US.

I seem to recall that you lot are quite fond of ice hockey. Part of ice hockey is beating each other senseless with bare knuckles for no apparent reason. You are such a peaceful nation.

I mean some drunken US sports fans are no joy to be around granted, but if fans started to throw bananas on a field in the US yelling racist insults, both coaches would refuse to even get on the field with their teams until security made it all stop.

I know that episode. Samuel Eto'o while playing in Barcelona, and the persons behind it got their punishment. One incident, like this has never happened in America? Besides, unlike America, Europe consists of a number of countries, we're not one homogenous mass. Spain is well known for racist chanting. It would never have happened in for example England, Norway, Sweden etc. without (loads more) serious repercussions.

Europe consists of a number of countries, we're not one homogenous mass.

Neither is the US. More homogeneous than Europe yes, but certainly not "one homogeneous mass".

Football is football. We have football.

But what sort of football? There are many...

I seem to recall that you lot are quite fond of ice hockey. Part of ice hockey is beating each other senseless with bare knuckles for no apparent reason. You are such a peaceful nation.

Unlike Norway, which doesn't play ice hockey at all... (http://hockey.no/t2.asp?p=4991)

You seriously believe that actually happens, don't you?

Are you serious? They even invented a word to describe the phenomena.

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

""Hooliganism" is a term used by security officials in Europe, where soccer inspired violence is a well know phenomena. It is used to describe those that use a soccer game as an excuse to commit act of unmitigated violence against fans of the other teams, or for no reason at all. In fact, crowd violence is almost a commonplace occurrence in England, Ireland, German, and other countries where soccer is the national game. Numerous injuries and even deaths have occurred all too frequently in recent years in Europe."

Officers death in Italian soccor riot 2007

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=406446&&cc=5901

"It was the second soccer-related death in less than a week, after a fourth-division team manager died last Saturday from injuries he received when he tried to stop a brawl during a game"

Some video- Dozens hurt in Peru soccer riot http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7elHnJd4oDM

80 people injured and 18 stabbed
http://www.faniq.com/blog/Video-Video-Of-The-Colombian-Soccer-Riot-That-Left-80-Injured-Blog-7177

http://www.extremesportclips.com/video/806/Soccer-Riot-Gets-Lethal.html

Here we have 500 italian soccer fans attacking 3 police stations , http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-11/12/content_7058950.htm

As for the racism, this from last year

"Racism also has dogged France's national team, which plays Romania in the opening Group C match Monday in the European Championship. France captain Patrick Vieira, who is black, once said he'd "think twice before setting foot" again at PSG's Parc des Princes stadium after fans howled monkey chants."

"On that day, about a dozen black passengers had to flee up an escalator as PSG fans coming down the other way doused them with beer, hurled bottles, and several started to give chase.

"One color, white power!" shouted some, thumping the roof of the train.

When the doors opened at the Chatelet Station on the Right Bank, monkey chants and insults were aimed at black passengers on the platform."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/soccer/2008-06-06-1968891505_x.htm

From the NYTimes: SOCCER; England Battles The Racism Infesting Soccer

"The bananas would come flying out of the stands and land on the soccer field. Brendan Batson can still recall the monkey chants, with fans grunting in unison every time he and his two black teammates touched the ball."

"But almost every country in Europe has racist signs, chants and even violence at soccer stadiums, particularly from rightist groups that single out blacks, Jews, Muslims or other ethnic groups. Some demonstrators say they do it only to unsettle the opposing team, but the evidence is that the hatreds go much deeper.

The latest wave of racism in stadiums is particularly strong in Eastern Europe. Earlier this season, Slovakia was punished after the monkey chant was heard in Bratislava during a match with England's national team."

''When I went to pick the ball up a couple of times, even the stretcher staff were making monkey chants,'' said Cole, who plays for Arsenal of London."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F01E0DD1238F931A35751C0A9659C8B63


These are all from the first pages of simple google searches. Need any more evidence?


Now google the number of times Yankee Stadium has been set on fire from crazed fans? Or any stadium in the NFL NBA MLB etc.

But what sort of football? There are many...

Unlike Norway, which doesn't play ice hockey at all... (http://hockey.no/t2.asp?p=4991)

Only one type of football: football.

Never said we didn't play ice hockey. But it's a small sport which not many people play, and unlike where you live, fighting is not allowed in any form.

Remember Michael Phelps just blew his marketable image (rightly or wrongly) over a bong pipe picture. Imagine what the image of riots, fires, racists and deaths does to the promotion of the sport of soccer in the US?

Imagine what the image of riots, fires, racists and deaths does to the promotion of the sport of soccer in the US?

They probably wonder why they're missing out on all the controversy and excitement.

I seem to recall that you lot are quite fond of ice hockey. Part of ice hockey is beating each other senseless with bare knuckles for no apparent reason. You are such a peaceful nation.

Actually, fighting generally happens in Hockey for two reasons. The first is when a team (usually the home squad) is down by a few points and is really dragging along, and the fans aren't really into it anymore. The fight is then a vehicle to get the fans interested again, and to wake up the rest of the team.

The second, and more important instance of fighting is when the opposing team decides to take a run at one of your best players. Your enforcers stick up for the skill guys and let the other team know that NO, you're not going to let them walk all over you in the physical game.

Only one type of football: football.

So you play gridiron football? That's one type...

Never said we didn't play ice hockey. But it's a small sport which not many people play, and unlike where you live, fighting is not allowed in any form.

Ole-Kristian Tollefsen learned how to fight before he played for the NHL...

They probably wonder why they're missing out on all the controversy and excitement.

Sorry i go to a game to have a good time, not get burned or trampled or have to listen to people chant white power.

snip

Yeah, and you're trying to make it seems like these things happen at every game. They happen very, very rarely.

Sorry i go to a game to have a good time, not get burned or trampled or have to listen to people chant white power.

Alright, you're a troll. It's blatantly obvious that you're incredibly ignorant about soccer and have never been to a game in your life. Don't feed the troll, people.

Alright, you're a troll. It's blatantly obvious that you're incredibly ignorant about soccer and have never been to a game in your life. Don't feeding the troll, people.

Trolls dont post 20 cites to back their statements lmao Thats instead called someone with an opinion and facts to support it but nice try.

Trolls dont post 20 cites to back their statements lmao

Trolls do, however, try to generalise, which what you're doing.

Alright, you're a troll. It's blatantly obvious that you're incredibly ignorant about soccer and have never been to a game in your life. Don't feeding the troll, people.

It's NSG, troll-famine doesn't exist as there are far too many charity-minded people willing to donate food packages.

Sorry i go to a game to have a good time, not get burned or trampled or have to listen to people chant white power.

And as such things are not allowed to happen in US stadia under any circumstances, I fully expect you to be supporting <your local soccer team> at every match from now on. Hooray for them, enjoy your time there!

BTW, fluids: most soccer ultra groups are left wing.

Alright, you're a troll. It's blatantly obvious that you're incredibly ignorant about soccer and have never been to a game in your life. Don't feeding the troll, people.

Ironic post is ironic, guys.

Remember Michael Phelps just blew his marketable image (rightly or wrongly) over a bong pipe picture. Imagine what the image of riots, fires, racists and deaths does to the promotion of the sport of soccer in the US?

That still doesn't explian why Association Football didn't become a major sport in the USA before television...
Umm, you do know that it pre-dates the invention of television by quite a few decades, I hope?

Are you serious? They even invented a word to describe the phenomena.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_hooliganism
"invented"? No. It's actually a pre-existing term for a brawler, originally an Irish one...

I think a big problem is that all of these scoccer mad countries need other sports options so they dont become so overly invested in one team/sport.

In the US, you have the Pro Football season, you have your favorite team and you do your thing. As football winds down, you still have the NBA and then college basketball starts to wind up. As college basketball winds down, then MLBaseball starts up and NHL hockey pops in there sometime too. In a nutshell there are only 2 days the whole year where there is no NBA NFL MLB OR NHL game being played(bonus points if you can guess the days)

In a nutshell, we dont get quite so worked up over one single team in one single sport.

England has the right idea with cricket, i dont know alot about it but i dont hear much on the news about cricket riots so its a step in the right direction.

England has the right idea with cricket, i dont know alot about it but i dont hear much on the news about cricket riots so its a step in the right direction.Unfortunately the Soccer season in England has been lengthened considerably over the years, so that it now overlaps the Cricket season quite a bit... :(

I've no qualms about Carrick's passing abilities, which rival that of Gerrard's (the 60 yard cross-fielders in particular), but defensively I have yet to see him make any sort of impact in a football match ever.

Perhaps because against United most teams put ten men behind the ball, or because he has such a good defence behind him anyway, he's never tested correctly in that regard. He never did it for Spurs, he's never done it for England, he doesn't need to for United.

Instead Lampard - sure why not, it might free up Gerrard to do what he does properly. But with those two in midfield, we'd need someone who can actually tackle, in place of a second striker. Basically, I don't think he fits, and unless you build a team around him - which I wouldn't because he's not exactly Zidane - then don't bother with putting him in the XI.

All of the above is correct if England continue to play in the defensive manner they do, which has always been a source of surprise to me given that we possess the defensive resources to play such attacking football without being hammered regularly. Shame Hargreaves is perenially unfit, what with his being the best English midfielder except Scholes.

Perhaps because soccer players don't slap each other on the ass after a good play and/or match?

Ehm...

Beware that some of the following vids might be a bit on the X-rated side of it! ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=969p4hZJask
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9cRHk9eaZE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgykSff_BIk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzYBGYuqar4

:D

Never said we didn't play ice hockey. But it's a small sport which not many people play, and unlike where you live, fighting is not allowed in any form.

Fighting isn't allowed in hockey in the US either. It happens, but it's against the rules.

Test Cricket is.
The sporting version of a picnic:tongue:

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Capital_of_Culture) disagrees with you.
Co-capital, along with Stavanger and Sandnes. I may be doing these places a disservice, but a quick glance around the internet doesn't suggest them as exactly bursting out with extraordinary levels of culture.Playing Devil's advocate here


Fighting isn't allowed in hockey in the US either. It happens, but it's against the rules.
It pretty much is allowed, since they don't even really make an attempt to stop it.


Now google the number of times Yankee Stadium has been set on fire from crazed fans? Or any stadium in the NFL NBA MLB etc.
I think people have already mentioned examples of american riots, esp in college sports. And that article describing hoolganism is either exaggerating heavily or thinking of a couple of decades ago, in regards to England certainly

It pretty much is allowed, since they don't even really make an attempt to stop it.

It's still punished. Besides, what are the officials going to do, drag the hockey players off each other?

It's still punished. Besides, what are the officials going to do, drag the hockey players off each other?

It's not punished seriously, and is generally seen as part of hockey. See whoever referred to it earlier in this thread as part of a 'physical game'.

Yes. Referees seem to manage it well enough in other sports. Should be even easier given the players are on ice skates and so are less firmly planted than other sports.

It's not punished seriously, and is generally seen as part of hockey. See whoever referred to it earlier in this thread as part of a 'physical game'.

Yes. Referees seem to manage it well enough in other sports. Should be even easier given the players are on ice skates and so are less firmly planted than other sports.

Refs do manage it, as in, they step in when there's a clear winner, or if the players lock up and nothing more is coming of it, or if they just kinda hang around waiting for the other guy to move first. As for players being firmly planted: Zdeno Chara is 6'9" tall, about 6'11" on skates. I don't think that two refs and two linemen would move him very much at all.

In a nutshell there are only 2 days the whole year where there is no NBA NFL MLB OR NHL game being played(bonus points if you can guess the days)


Before and after the All Star game.

I have no fucking idea why I know that.

Ummm... I can't remember who said la galaxy get 26k every week and that's great, but seriously... that's poor.

Man united get 70k people every week, arsenal, chelsea, newcastle, tottenham, aston villa, liverpool, all get in excess of 30k people every week, and these are just english teams, italian, german, spanish and french top teams also achieve this, and none of these cities have the amount of people living there that L.A do, so really, l.a's "huge fanbase" is quite pathetic....

Before and after the All Star game.

I have no fucking idea why I know that.

You have games on Christmas day?

You have games on Christmas day?

Yes. The Los Angeles Lakers traditionally play at home on Christmas Day, and then there's usually one or two other games on that day, all nationally broadcast.

And the Detroit Lions always play on Thanksgiving, to give everyone indigestion.

I think the reason soccer doesn't catch on is because the scoring is so rare and seems kind of random when it does happen. Most of the time a "good play" in soccer doesn't actually mean anything, has no long-term consequences.

Frankly, Soccer isn't violent enough to draw the gridiron crowd, or dangerous enough without the fans rioting. It's the choice of Moms in America, because the ball can't break bones when it hits you, and nobody's slamming into you on purpose.

When you look at Baseball, for instance, you sometimes have the phenomena of the "Bean Ball" (where the pitcher strikes the batter with a fastball)-necessitating the wearing of a Helmet. (an eighty mile an hour pitch WILL break ribs, jaws, and other assorted bones), plus the occasional "empty the bleachers" fight between players.

When was the last time you saw Footy players get into a Brawl-not the Fans, the PLAYERS?

Gridiron, for its part, is tactical and violent on purpose-linebacker's job is to smash into someone, a Tackle's job is to grab the ball carrier and slam him into the ground as hard as possible. When a three hundered pound man who isn't fat and can run 440 in 4 hits you, you need that body-armour to not get busted up.

Finally, a Hockey game isn't Hockey unless the ice is at least a light shade of pink from blood spillage by the third period.

Are we beginning to understand why Footy isn't the top sport in the U.S.?

(There's no rational explanation for Basketball. Basketball is like Green Day-it's proof that if you hype something enough, it will become popular, even if it sucks ass.)

Americans are violent people, we're that way, and we like being that way. The last time anyone beat Americans in a war the Americans were actually interested in winning, it was CANADIANS (1812), and guess what sport THEY like? it's not soccer, it's not a bunch of guys in shorts chasing a soft round ball around a green field in summertime. It's Hockey, the only large scale sport more violent than Gridiron.

Soccer's brief popularity in the states (Pele) happened to coincide with Soccer's big era of fan rioting. Once the riots slowed down, Americans lost interest. Do the math.

This gives me an idea.

*Brings back Roman Gladiatorial fights and makes $$$$*

Baseball and gridiron are both American inventions if I'm not mistaken,

No, baseball's an English game.

And the Detroit Lions always play on Thanksgiving, to give everyone indigestion.

I think the reason soccer doesn't catch on is because the scoring is so rare and seems kind of random when it does happen. Most of the time a "good play" in soccer doesn't actually mean anything, has no long-term consequences.

This is probably true. part of Gary Bettman and the NHL's efforts to garner new fans has been a lot of "increase scoring" plans, but I think in this area, Soccer is beyond this kind of patchwork "fix". It's not like they could make the nets much bigger. I wonder if there's something that could be changed about Soccer (seriously, just asking, don't jump on me for this) that would make it more appealing. What would you choose?

Before and after the *Baseball* All Star game.

I have no fucking idea why I know that.

The only reason i knew is i had a friend who was a bookie and those were his only days off.

Idk...I dont think its much of a Spectator Sport....Boring...

It's really not. Not when you're watching decent teams play each other. Also, it's not nearly half as boring as American Football.

Unfortunately the Soccer season in England has been lengthened considerably over the years, so that it now overlaps the Cricket season quite a bit... :(
Add to that the fact that football is the only sport with the £££ to get anywhere near television that isn't Sky or Setanta and to invest in merchandise (I can buy a Juventus shirt at uni, but not a Yorkshire one!) and you have a problem getting out there. Also, unlike America, there are far more major football teams, rather than one in each major city, and aren't franchised, so teams stay put and get to build generations of loyal fans.

That's not to say that county cricket (thanks to Twenty20, no matter what the naysayers think), rugby and ice hockey don't have their respective niche markets though.

I wonder if there's something that could be changed about Soccer (seriously, just asking, don't jump on me for this) that would make it more appealing. What would you choose?

Create 2 secondary targets on each player half. Hitting them earns the team a penalty.

Introduce a rule that says that being in possession of the ball on your own half is only allowed for 60 seconds, or the other team gets a free kick.

Put a stripper on a plateau above each goal. For each ball that goes in, she removes a piece of clothing.

Create 2 secondary targets on each player half. Hitting them earns the team a penalty.

Introduce a rule that says that being in possession of the ball on your own half is only allowed for 60 seconds, or the other team gets a free kick.

Put a stripper on a plateau above each goal. For each ball that goes in, she removes a piece of clothing.

That last one may result in some lonely keepers throwing the match.

Refs do manage it, as in, they step in when there's a clear winner, or if the players lock up and nothing more is coming of it, or if they just kinda hang around waiting for the other guy to move first. As for players being firmly planted: Zdeno Chara is 6'9" tall, about 6'11" on skates. I don't think that two refs and two linemen would move him very much at all.

Exactly. Two guys square up for a fight. Ref turns up for a front row seat and watches them until they're done and then acts.

I'm talking relatively, there are big guys in all sports. I'd say that a guy wearing studs on a field is more planted than a comparable guy on ice skates. And the referees in other sports don't seem to need to wait for the fighters to finish before trying to stop them.

Exactly. Two guys square up for a fight. Ref turns up for a front row seat and watches them until they're done and then acts.

I'm talking relatively, there are big guys in all sports. I'd say that a guy wearing studs on a field is more planted than a comparable guy on ice skates. And the referees in other sports don't seem to need to wait for the fighters to finish before trying to stop them.

Well, that's because fighting is a part of hockey, I guess. Gets you a five minute major penalty. In other sports it's against the rules (and I mean the overall rules, including what's governed by penalties). It works for Hockey, because for the most part the two guys fighting know why they're fighting, and there's a degree of respect between most such enforcers. Comparatively, in other sports, fighting is either the result of perceived or actual wrongs against an individual (baseball, charging the mound) or total brawls that spill into the stands and embarrass the league as a whole (basketball). Seeing a basketball brawl is often hilarious. Lots of slapping and running.

Well, that's because fighting is a part of US hockey, I guess. .

That was my original point (or rather, the point of Glorious Norway whose cause I took up).

That last one may result in some lonely keepers throwing the match.

Solution 1:
She should be positioned in such a way that the keeper can not see her.
He will however be able to see the opponents stripper, albeit from afar

Solution 2:
All keepers must be gay.

Solution 2:
All keepers must be gay.
They aren't??

They aren't??

Some might not be. Sad for them of course, but hey. They should love the sport more anyway.

Add to that the fact that football is the only sport with the £££ to get anywhere near television that isn't Sky or Setanta and to invest in merchandise (I can buy a Juventus shirt at uni, but not a Yorkshire one!) and you have a problem getting out there. Also, unlike America, there are far more major football teams, rather than one in each major city, and aren't franchised, so teams stay put and get to build generations of loyal fans.

That's not to say that county cricket (thanks to Twenty20, no matter what the naysayers think), rugby and ice hockey don't have their respective niche markets though.

Boo! Hiss! As a genuine test cricket and 4 day fan, I just do not see the attractions of 20/20. Highly unsophisticated, sensationalised form of the game which, to me, seems wholly at odds with the lustre and charm embodied in Johnners, Blowers, Boycs, Trueman, Aggers et al. on TMS. On that note, I'd like to record the death of Bill "the bearded wonder" Frindall, TMS scorer of 45 years, and wholly against crash bang wallop cricket.

Boo! Hiss! As a genuine test cricket and 4 day fan, I just do not see the attractions of 20/20. Highly unsophisticated, sensationalised form of the game which, to me, seems wholly at odds with the lustre and charm embodied in Johnners, Blowers, Boycs, Trueman, Aggers et al. on TMS.

It has its place, the attraction is for those who believe their should be excitement in sport. The one is richer for the others existance and vice versa. A bit of variety is good.

It has its place, the attraction is for those who believe their should be excitement in sport. The one is richer for the others existance and vice versa. A bit of variety is good.

There is excitement in test cricket; for that matter, the genuinely, sensationally exciting moments (Harmison dismissing Katich at Edgbaston, Sharma's spell to Ponting etc.) are the greater for the periods of relative inactivity, defence and accumulation.

Technically, 20/20 is an abomination anyway; whereas the longer formats necessitate technical rectitude, and punish its absence, any basher or dasher with a half-decent eye and big bat can thrive in 20/20. Take Yuvraj Singh as an example; undoubted talent and ability, but lacks the technique or obduracy a test player requires, and will, despite limited overs fame, be remembered as a failure.

At best, 20/20 is a vehicle to attract the unitiated, however, I fear it may simply destroy what is, to many, the finest and most rewarding sport.

Just a thought I had from the Super Bowl thread. Why did soccer never catch on north of Mexico?
For the same reason baseball hasn't caught on in Australia.

Because we here in the USA like to kick balls off the field. Everyone here knows LG is an American, right?;)

There is excitement in test cricket; for that matter, the genuinely, sensationally exciting moments (Harmison dismissing Katich at Edgbaston, Sharma's spell to Ponting etc.) are the greater for the periods of relative inactivity, defence and accumulation.

Yes, but many people don't want to sit through 5 days of solid watching (and often can't) in order to catch rare moments of excitement.


Technically, 20/20 is an abomination anyway; whereas the longer formats necessitate technical rectitude, and punish its absence, any basher or dasher with a half-decent eye and big bat can thrive in 20/20. Take Yuvraj Singh as an example; undoubted talent and ability, but lacks the technique or obduracy a test player requires, and will, despite limited overs fame, be remembered as a failure.
It requires different talents. Given some very skilled test players have failed miserably in shorter formats.


At best, 20/20 is a vehicle to attract the unitiated, however, I fear it may simply destroy what is, to many, the finest and most rewarding sport.
At best, it's the best long term potential source of cash for a financially-strapped game. It's the saviour rather than the destroyer. Even if test matches may eventually become secondary and the Yuvraj Singh example eventually reverse, without it professional test matches could well decline in quality and viability. Even more so in club cricket.

Yes, but many people don't want to sit through 5 days of solid watching (and often can't) in order to catch rare moments of excitement.


It requires different talents. Given some very skilled test players have failed miserably in shorter formats.


At best, it's the best long term potential source of cash for a financially-strapped game. It's the saviour rather than the destroyer. Even if test matches may eventually become secondary and the Yuvraj Singh example eventually reverse, without it professional test matches could well decline in quality and viability. Even more so in club cricket.

Yes and no. "Club" cricket is, in the UK, thriving; the domestic, county game is weak, but amateur participation remains strong. For that matter, attendance at Test matches in the UK is at an all time high.

Regarding skills and technique, it is simply undeniable that the brevity of 20/20 can compensate for inferiority and inequality; the lesser international teams, with lesser players of inferior technique, ability and obduracy, win more matches against patently superior teams the shorter the format. There is little doubt that technique will, put bluntly, suffer from the rise of 20/20; both for bowlers and batsmen.

It just isn't, to be a little cliched, cricket. Many things it is; exciting, brash, loud and thoroughly "modern", but it is as far removed from the cricket most would conceive of in romantic terms as is Basketball.

Yes and no. "Club" cricket is, in the UK, thriving; the domestic, county game is weak, but amateur participation remains strong. For that matter, attendance at Test matches in the UK is at an all time high.
I'll bow to your superior knowledge on the matter. But I'd suggest if the county game goes down the tubes then Test cricket would suffer. See the West Indies


Regarding skills and technique, it is simply undeniable that the brevity of 20/20 can compensate for inferiority and inequality; the lesser international teams, with lesser players of inferior technique, ability and obduracy, win more matches against patently superior teams the shorter the format. There is little doubt that technique will, put bluntly, suffer from the rise of 20/20; both for bowlers and batsmen.

Then why do successful test players not all do wonderfully in the shorter format?

Test cricket prizes mental ability over physical. One of the main requirement s is to be able to wait for a bad ball to hit and defend the good ones. In the shorter version the emphasis is on being able to score off good balls as well as bad. You need greater physical ability to be able to play the shots against good balls, but lesser mental ability since you're playing at more balls and not just waiting for the bad ones.


It just isn't, to be a little cliched, cricket. Many things it is; exciting, brash, loud and thoroughly "modern", but it is as far removed from the cricket most would conceive of in romantic terms as is Basketball.
It's cricket. The romantic side is in the eye of the beholder only. I'm sure there's those out there complaining that ending after 5 days and the resulting pressure from an approaching end to the match detracts from the pure test of skill of the thing.

So... I'm guessing you didn't hear of the "full scale riots" in Philadelphia after the Phillies won the WS?

Just ask Potarius, I'm sure he'd be more than willing to divulge.
Or the riots in Boston following the Patriots and Red Sox victories...

Btw, several American teams are doing pretty well. They are covered by TV and radio and get their attention in other media as well.

The average attendance of LA Galaxy is about 26,000 people each game. A lot of European teams can only dream of such base.
So Americans are stupid because we don't like soccer, but have fan bases that many European teams "can only dream of"?
I smell contradiction.

If no one cares what we think, no one will notice what we're doing. If no one notices what we're doing, we've already won. Count yourselves lucky that Hockey championships are all we take from this frail world.
Not since 1992 ;)

I think a big problem is that all of these scoccer mad countries need other sports options so they dont become so overly invested in one team/sport.

In the US, you have the Pro Football season, you have your favorite team and you do your thing. As football winds down, you still have the NBA and then college basketball starts to wind up. As college basketball winds down, then MLBaseball starts up and NHL hockey pops in there sometime too. In a nutshell there are only 2 days the whole year where there is no NBA NFL MLB OR NHL game being played(bonus points if you can guess the days)

In a nutshell, we dont get quite so worked up over one single team in one single sport.

England has the right idea with cricket, i dont know alot about it but i dont hear much on the news about cricket riots so its a step in the right direction.Day before and after the World Series, no?

It pretty much is allowed, since they don't even really make an attempt to stop it.You don't watch NHL hockey frequently, do you? In the vast majority of situations, the refs make every attempt to prevent or break up fights, particularly when there are mobs of bodies.

The only fights allowed to go are fights that are one on one, and then, only untill one person gains clear advantage. Fights are not usually broken up before this point for the safety of the linesmen. Players are then given a 5 minute major. Anyone who leaves the bench to fight or uses any weapon is ejected from the game and faces possible suspension.

There are plenty of rules in place to prevent fighting, and it is punished.

It's not punished seriously, and is generally seen as part of hockey. See whoever referred to it earlier in this thread as part of a 'physical game'.

Yes. Referees seem to manage it well enough in other sports. Should be even easier given the players are on ice skates and so are less firmly planted than other sports.
Hockey players are massive. Chara is 6'9, 255 lbs. Lucic is 6'4, 220 lbs. Hell, Krejci (the smallest guy on the Bruins) is still 6', 177 lbs. While they are required to drop their gloves and sticks, those are still in reach. Yes, they are less firmly planted, but they also have what equates to two 8" long razor blades attached to their feet, which makes it significantly more dangerous. What, should the refs, who don't have on pads and probably weigh 100 lbs less than many of these guys, try to tackle them to break up a fight? Should they get between the two?

You don't watch NHL hockey frequently, do you? In the vast majority of situations, the refs make every attempt to prevent or break up fights, particularly when there are mobs of bodies.
Not really. But posters who do seemed to suggest so upthread.


The only fights allowed to go are fights that are one on one, and then, only untill one person gains clear advantage. Fights are not usually broken up before this point for the safety of the linesmen. Players are then given a 5 minute major. Anyone who leaves the bench to fight or uses any weapon is ejected from the game and faces possible suspension. There are plenty of rules in place to prevent fighting, and it is punished.

Ah, so only certain types of fights are allowed to finish. And the punishments are comparably lesser. American football players on the field would be ejected. As would soccer players. Rugby players would get either 10 minutes.



Hockey players are massive. Chara is 6'9, 255 lbs. Lucic is 6'4, 220 lbs. Hell, Krejci (the smallest guy on the Bruins) is still 6', 177 lbs. While they are required to drop their gloves and sticks, those are still in reach. Yes, they are less firmly planted, but they also have what equates to two 8" long razor blades attached to their feet, which makes it significantly more dangerous. What, should the refs, who don't have on pads and probably weigh 100 lbs less than many of these guys, try to tackle them to break up a fight? Should they get between the two?

Yes. Other sports have equally large players and referees try to break it up. You're trying to justify fighting hockey. I'm saying it shouldn't be there. If the referees can't stop it when it happens then you rack up the punishments to stop it.

Not really. But posters who do seemed to suggest so upthread.

There's not much a ref can do to stop a fight. As you said, stability on the ice is an issue and it's not all that safe for a ref to get in the middle the way it is in football or basketball.

Of course, I'll readily admit that fighting is ingrained into hockey's culture.

So Americans are stupid because we don't like soccer, but have fan bases that many European teams "can only dream of"?
I smell contradiction.

That's the point, Americans are dumb.

Also, check your TGs, I finally checked mine after a thousand years or so.

It did, in many parts. The no-soccer-in-America is largely a myth, I think. Sure, its not as popular as it is elsewhere, but its not absent by any stretch either.

I can honestly vouch for this since I officiate high school and middle school soccer in PA. There is always a good crowd on hand to watch it.

So Americans are stupid because we don't like soccer, but have fan bases that many European teams "can only dream of"?
I smell contradiction.

We already pointed out that that's just not true. Most of the biggish European clubs get at least that.

Of course, I'll readily admit that fighting is ingrained into hockey's culture.

Honestly, it has to be. If you take a cheap shot at someone, there's not going to be any kind of restraint from the other team. If there wasn't fighting, you'd either see animosity taken off of the ice or lots of cheap shots each way on it.

This goes for (certainly) baseball and (to a lesser extent) football and basketball as well.

We already pointed out that that's just not true. Most of the biggish European clubs get at least that.

And the Americans have pointed out that it's not true that we don't fawn over soccer just because we're stupid.

I don't care what the fan base is for soccer in Europe. I care about Hairless Kitten's frequent bashing of all Americans, and the blatant contradiction.

There's not much a ref can do to stop a fight. As you said, stability on the ice is an issue and it's not all that safe for a ref to get in the middle the way it is in football or basketball.

Of course, I'll readily admit that fighting is ingrained into hockey's culture.
Though, the debate is open again thanks to Sanderson's death. I hardly see fighting as a central tenant of hockey, but it's defiantly a part of the game.



That's the point, Americans are dumb. Clearly. If I was smart, I wouldn't have posted in this thread.

Also, check your TGs, I finally checked mine after a thousand years or so.
Done and thanks.
Honestly, it has to be. If you take a cheap shot at someone, there's not going to be any kind of restraint from the other team. If there wasn't fighting, you'd either see animosity taken off of the ice or lots of cheap shots each way on it.

This goes for (certainly) baseball and (to a lesser extent) football and basketball as well.
Consider the game between Dallas and Boston this season. The refs weren't allowing anything...they called every minor hook, to the point where even the most questionable calls that would ordinarily be ignored were being called. A few small fights sparked, and the refs promptly broke them up and handed out the penalties.

What happened? Tension built. There ended up being a couple of very big fights that were much worse than if they had just permitted the smaller ones earlier and gotten the tension out. It is to the point that, in the post game interview, players stated "I'm not going to forget" when asked if this could carry over to next season.

None of this would have been an issue if the players had been allowed to deal with some of the minor things.

Honestly, it has to be. If you take a cheap shot at someone, there's not going to be any kind of restraint from the other team. If there wasn't fighting, you'd either see animosity taken off of the ice or lots of cheap shots each way on it.

This goes for (certainly) baseball and (to a lesser extent) football and basketball as well.

Then why is hockey the only sport we see this in? Why not rugby for example?

The simple facts as it seems to my uneducated eyes is that fighting is still seen as part of hockey culture, hell a quick google on 'hockey violence' and you find articles that are generally split over whether they should allow it or not. I'd theorise that tension built in that game because players were used to being allowed to fight.

If (and I suspect this isn't the case) hockey wanted to get fighting out of the game they'd have to stamp on it hard and consistently, not just in one game where the players are not used to it. Eject them, fine them, suspend them and make it clear it's not going to be tolerated. Or continue to only make show attempts at cracking down on it. Which is what (in my knowledge lacking view) they do at the moment.

Day before and after the World Series, no?


Nope World Series is in October/November, well into the NFL season. But someone already mentioned the correct answer earlier in the post.

The simple facts as it seems to my uneducated eyes is that fighting is still seen as part of hockey culture, hell a quick google on 'hockey violence' and you find articles that are generally split over whether they should allow it or not. I'd theorise that tension built in that game because players were used to being allowed to fight.

If (and I suspect this isn't the case) hockey wanted to get fighting out of the game they'd have to stamp on it hard and consistently, not just in one game where the players are not used to it. Eject them, fine them, suspend them and make it clear it's not going to be tolerated. Or continue to only make show attempts at cracking down on it. Which is what (in my knowledge lacking view) they do at the moment.

Fights are started either to get retribution for a cheap shot or to get a team fired up and back into the game at hand. For the sake of post length, I'm going only talk about retribution fights.

These take place when one team or another player feels like his teammate has been wronged. For example, if we were playing hockey, and I tripped and injured your best shooter, possibly taking away your team's chance for victory, merely penalizing me wouldn't do anything. And, if I were only penalized, a teammate of yours would probably take his own sort of cheap shot on one of my players, possibly injuring them. And so on and so forth.

The reason why fights are allowed is because it allows players to basically police themselves as to what cheap shots are or aren't. Take away fighting, and I assure you, you would see something in the order of what happened between the Buffallo Sabres and Ottawa Senators last year.

EDIT: Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAPhqXj_24I

1. Location. In England every town has a soccer team in the same manner that every American town has at least some level of football team, even down to High School. But in America, when it comes time for me to watch a soccer game, the nearest MLS or USL (American equivalent of the Championship/1st division) team is a 6 hour drive.

2. Image. Soccer, for better of for worse in America is tied to it's image. And in America the prevailing view is that only two groups of people care about Soccer. Group 1 are 'soccermoms' and children under the age of fourteen, not exactly a group you can build a sport with. The other group are Mexicans, who aren't desirable for other reasons.

3. Quality. Americans are obsessed with the idea of being "the best in the world". We'll rather play a sport that no one else cares about and win handily, than to sponsor other people's sports. It goes with the innate arrogance of being a superpower. Even though there are 26,000 fans at the Home Depot, MLS is somewhere around 10th to 20th in terms of important leagues. Serie A, La Liga, EPL, French League, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Holland, Scotland, Portugal....the list goes on and on. And unlike other sports, soccer teams love to poach talent from other countries, making America more of a minor/feeder league. No one wants to watch minor league teams, especially when we have...

4. Options. My semi-local team (Atlanta Silverbacks) closed up shop because they weren't profitable. But look at what they were competing against.

Atlanta Braves (Baseball)
Gwinnett Braves (2009 - Baseball)
Atlanta Hawks (Basketball)
Atlanta Falcons (Football)
Georgia Tech Yellowjackets (Football / Basketball / Baseball)
Georgia Bulldogs (Football / Basketball / Baseball)
Georgia State Panthers (Basketball)
Atlanta Thrashers (Hockey)
Gwinnett Gladiators (Hockey)
Georgia Force (Arena Football)
plus about 100 or so local High Schools.

I think a lot of these answers have merit, but one thing seems to be missing:

When was the last time a soccer game had over 10 points?

Americans care about only numbers.

Ice Hockey, Hockey, Soccer, Lacrosse, Field Hockey, etc have low scoring systems.

Baseball, Basketball, Football have high scoring mechanisms...

It's always about the points.

Uh...I've been to lacross games where the score was high!

I think a lot of these answers have merit, but one thing seems to be missing:

When was the last time a soccer game had over 10 points?

Americans care about only numbers.

Ice Hockey, Hockey, Soccer, Lacrosse, Field Hockey, etc have low scoring systems.

Baseball, Basketball, Football have high scoring mechanisms...

It's always about the points.

Not exactly true. A 1-0 baseball win can be a classic game, especially if it goes into extra innings. Hockey has plenty of 1-0 games that are fun. Where I do agree with the numbers game is that soccer does not open itself of sheer geekery in the way a lot of other sports can. In baseball you have stats like batting average, WHIP, ERA, Slugging percentage. Football has things like YPC, Yards after catch, QB Rating...

Soccer, seems like you have to watch it. And it's more a sport that has to be explained through visual terms than being able to be broken down into numbers.

Georgia Tech Yellowjackets (Football / Basketball / Baseball)
Georgia Bulldogs (Football / Basketball / Baseball)
Georgia State Panthers (Basketball)

I'll never understand that. If you were here and you said "I'm going to university to play FOOTBALL", they'd laugh at you.

I'll never understand that. If you were here and you said "I'm going to university to play FOOTBALL", they'd laugh at you.

It serves the same role that going to a minor league club would have in other sports. A place to get experience while dealing with players at your same relative skill level. Also in American football it gives players a couple extra years to mature physically before being thrown to the wolves.

If the Atlanta Falcons = West Ham or Chelsea.
Then Georgia Tech = Crystal Palace
and smaller places are even lower...
West Georgia = Leyton Orient for example...

Even though there are some Division 2 clubs that can take on teams from the Division 1 level.

It serves the same role that going to a minor league club would have in other sports. A place to get experience while dealing with players at your same relative skill level. Also in American football it gives players a couple extra years to mature physically before being thrown to the wolves.

If the Atlanta Falcons = West Ham or Chelsea.
Then Georgia Tech = Crystal Palace
and smaller places are even lower...
West Georgia = Leyton Orient for example...

Yeah, but... at university? Way to get your education priorities in order.