Bored By Beckham

I see where you're going with this, and much if it makes a lot of sense.

Soccer famously has few rules (it is said they can be written on both sides of an index card), and the main things people say can increase scoring are of the cheesy variety. Like the NHL rules changes that allowed for fewer players during overtime.

If someone wanted to increase the width of the goalposts to assist in field goal accuracy in football, what would you say? If someone wanted to change the rules in football regarding positioning of offensive players before a play is started to allow them to already be downfield, what would you say?

Because the main ways that have been said by some who say "I would be on board with soccer if they did this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" (and were proposed by MLS as it began) were to increase the size of the goals, and to eliminate the offisde rule. An increased goal size other than doubling the size of the goal would likely have a negligible effect, since getting close enough to get a good shot would still be difficult.

And eliminating the offisde rule would render the game a festival of cherry-picking, and of defenses reacting by holding back more players to cover the cherry pickers. We would then end up with an even less pleasing version of the game, with long ball after long ball failing to find its target. AKA, dumping the puck in and hoping for the best.

It's not that the game is perfect as is. No sport is (though a tweak to the pass interference rule on the pro level would make football damn close). But the nature of soccer is that . . . it simply is what it is, a naturally low-scoring game with more buildup than payoff. And no amount of rules changes will change that . . . unless they do something really stupid like cut the field in half and keep the same number of players.

Yes, it is hidebound. But can anyone honestly think of a way to increase scoring that will genuinely improve the game?

Note: I was a fan of the MLS shootout. If they felt like they HAD to get a result from each game, that was a neat and dramatic way to do it; much better than standard PKs.

Now, there are a couple of things I would like to see legislated out of the game. Start with diving, and contine with the fact the head referee has absolute power. A moron ref or one with an agenda can allow a team of divers to ruin the game, as happened when the Czechs beat Japan in the U-20s the other day. (As for NFL diving: ever seen a player lie on the field in the waning minutes of a close game? Be honest, now. You have).

But increasing scoring without completely changing the structure of the game as far as number of players and field size, is impossible.

 

Right, that 3-3 tie between D.C. United and FC Dallas was incredibly defense oriented.

Offense in soccer is glorious. Why does everyone aspire to be Brazil internationally? Why are players like Pele, George Best, Johan Cruyff or Diego Maradona considered the best players of all-time? Why are the arrivals of Blanco, Angel, Beckham or Altidore into MLS heralded? Or players like Landon Donovan and Eddie Johnson the league's most popular players?

Because they play with skill, they run at defenders, they score breathtaking goals. Every team needs defenders, and players who will win the ball in defense and midfield, just like football teams need linebackers or shutdown corners, or baseball needs fleet-of-foot centerfielders, or middle infielders with magic in their gloves.

But in soccer, the attackers are the ones who play "The Beautiful Game".

 

You fail to address the double standard by only addressing the quality of the fall.

 

Dives in football are anecdotal. Dives in soccer are tactical. Huge difference.

 

So gaining a 15-yard penalty for roughing the passer on 3rd-and-12 isn't tactical? Or getting a 55-yard penalty on a downfield pass isn't tactical?

Seriously........

 

I am almost as sick of seeing Beckham stuff as I am with Tiger Woods. Almost!

 

Neither; they're equally confusing.

Of course, it could easily be fixed by official time being kept in the pressbox, and the referee using the time-honored "time-out"/"time-in" signals to indicate when the clock should be stopped and started.

But that's ridiculous. The whole game will be destroyed by teams being able to look at the clock and see 00:10 left to play, rather than just having a vague general feeling the game will be over soon.

 

Throughout the soccer world, perhaps the two most admired styles of play are the Brazilian and the 1970s Dutch versions of the game, which emphasized boundless creativity. Do a search of "Cruyff" and "Clockwork Orange" and find out what people think of teams that thought outside the box when it came to offense. Conversely, Italy tends to play a choking style of defense that has produced plenty of World Cups, ample respect but not so much admiration. But if you want to believe that soccer people are completely enamored with boring, defensive styles of play, by all means, enjoy the delusion.

 

As a baseball fan, I don't understand how baseball fans don't like soccer.
The best baseball games are 1-0 games where the tension is ripe and any given at-bat can change the entire game. That, for me, is why I have become a soccer fan in the last year. There is just so much tension in a soccer game.

And Starman - You said something along the lines of American sports have changed their rules, stadiums, etc. to make the games more offensive and to add scoring.
So, does that mean you support the steroid era of baseball? Because before 1998, I remember a game that relied a lot more on pitching and not a lot on the home run and the big offenses.

 

Sure I have. But about 1/15th the time as a guy takes a dive in soccer. That happens about every 5 minutes or so.

I played soccer as a kid, in HS and on my college club and intramural teams. I still watch a lot of college soccer. But I can't watch the MLS or the World Cup because it just doesn't interest me.

 

The idea that offensive tactics in soccer are rebuffed is just fucking moronic. The coach of Real Madrid, one of the most offensively talented teams already by the way, was just fired after guiding the team to the Spanish title because the team apparently was not playing offensive enough. Their new coach has already been warned that he too will be fired if the team does not play attractive enought. Examples of this are abound-England's last national coach was fired for similar reasons. The idea that football (oh, sorry, soccer) is defense oriented is complete bullshit, and its a cop-out by attention spanless Americans who think that so-called "American" sports are the be all and end all of valid athletic pursuits.

 

Taking a different spin on this, I enjoy the hell out of soccer, but I don't think Beckham is the end-all, be-all and I don't think he's going to help MLS.

The man is the soccer equivalent a one-dimensional, no-field baseball power hitter.

He is amazing at free kicks. But that's ALL he can do at this stage of his career. He is next to worthless in the open field.

Sometimes an amazing free kick from Beckham will win a team a game. More often, he won't. He's Dave Kingman with Dave Kingman's personality from a paralell universe.

I give Beckham credit, he's taken the maelstorm of the British press early in his career when he was the next big thing and when he was boinking a Spice girl, and parlayed that into worldwide fame for very little accomplishment on the pitch.

I have a feeling that anyone whose interest is piqued to check out a MLS match because of Beckham is going to wonder what all the fuss is about.