Bored By Beckham

[GB-Hack]

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........

 

[RedSmithClone]

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

 

[Starman]

The problem with having the count clock down is that professional games have a running clock and the referee on the field keeps track of the injury or stoppage time to make up for the time wasted on deadballs.

What is more confusing a clock stopped at 45 or 90 and play continuing, or the clock stopped at zero and play still happening on the pitch?

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.

 

[Boomer7]

When coaches try to come up with new offensive strategies, they are quickly attacked as "poor fundamental coaches" who want to take "shortcuts to win," and if they don't win, are shouted down by a clucking chorus of sycophants who trumpet, "once again, fundamentals have triumphed."

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.

 

[Angola!]

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.

 

[micropolitan guy]

(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).

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.

 

[Beaker]

The idea that offensive tactics in soccer are rebuffed is just ****ing 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 bull****, 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.

 

[Bubbler]

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.

 

[Angola!]

You may be right Bubbler, but it is still getting butts in the stands.
I know the FC Dallas-Galaxy game sold out because I tried to get tickets recently.
The one thing I will give Beckham credit for is he is generating interest in soccer in the U.S. and that can't be a bad thing.

 

[Beaker]

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.

I agree with most of what you said about Beckham. He certainly is not fast, but his right foot is still as clinical as anyone's. Though the Galaxy will for sure try him in the middle-so he'll have to be more involved than he was for Real or England.

 

[Angola!]

Plus, if the MLS is as bad as a lot of soccer folks like to say, then Beckham may be more than just a guy with a great free kick. He may be even better, because - in theory - he is so much better than the level.
I don't buy that, but I understand it is a possibility.
What I do know, is I am looking forward to finding a way to watch Donovan and Beckham pair up in Dallas later this month.

 

[Beaker]

Plus, if the MLS is as bad as a lot of soccer folks like to say, then Beckham may be more than just a guy with a great free kick. He may be even better, because - in theory - he is so much better than the level.
I don't buy that, but I understand it is a possibility.
What I do know, is I am looking forward to finding a way to watch Donovan and Beckham pair up in Dallas later this month.

I'm not sure that he'll be able to dominate the pitch-but his passes should certainly control the Galaxy's offense.

 

[Boomer7]

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.

Not entirely true -- he can still play a perfect cross with that right foot. The question is whether he can thrive as a central midfielder rather than a wing. Less room to maneuver and the likes of Pablo Mastroeni, Shalrie Joseph and Ricardo Clark hounding him might make for a rude awakening.

 

[GB-Hack]

Bubbs, I'm sorry, but he was the main reason Real Madrid won the Spanish title. His creativity in open play led to numerous goals. In addition, he'll be employed in the center of midfield by Los Angeles, not out wide. If he wasn't playing as well as he is, he wouldn't be back in the English national team, and he wouldn't have had Real trying to find a way for him to get out of his Galaxy deal.

He is going to have a huge impact on Landon Donovan and the rest of the Galaxy attack.

 

[Starman]

When coaches try to come up with new offensive strategies, they are quickly attacked as "poor fundamental coaches" who want to take "shortcuts to win," and if they don't win, are shouted down by a clucking chorus of sycophants who trumpet, "once again, fundamentals have triumphed."

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.

Doesn't matter what you, I or anybody else "wants to believe."

In the elimination rounds of the 2006 World Cup, which should exhibit the sport played at its absolute highest level, there were 26 goals scored in 15 games. Less than one full goal per team, per game.

That's not what anybody "believes" -- it's a fact.

If you think a sport in which the average team at the highest level of competition does not even score one goal per game is legitimately balanced between offense and defense, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

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.

I was around in 1968, in the era of .220 league batting averages and 1.17 ERAs. It was as ridiculous in its own way as the steroid explosion.

The steroid explosion was not a centrally-orchestrated plot to jack up the offensive production of the entire sport. It was a pattern of individual decisions by individual players to cheat their way around the rules, seize an unfair advantage, and make more money.

 

[GB-Hack]

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

I like numbers as much as anyone Starman, but to say that the knockout stages of the World Cup were boring because there weren't enough goals scored is a really weak argument.

Manchester United scored 83 goals in 38 Premier League games last season, including 46 in 19 home games. You think the fans were entertained by the goals and the Premier League title that came with it?

 

[hockeybeat]

P.S. Dont mean to threadjack, but I still dont understand why a great sport like soccer isnt a popular sport here in the states.

And that, C~T, is a good question. Anyone care to elaborate why soccer is on the lower rungs of the American spectator sport food chain?

Besides the knock of being a "communist sport" that many old coaches in the States can recite to you, the fact that it's defense-oriented is the first thing that comes to mind.

Hockey isn't embraced the way American football or basketball is. Note that rules changes for American football usually favor offense. Note that the NBA is being bad-mouthed, in part, because the quality of offense (i.e., scores) has declined.

Casual fans don't tend to have much patience for 1-0 games unless they understand what they're watching. Because many people claim to be baseball fans - and think they know baseball - they can tolerate a 1-0 pitcher's duel. But a soccer match with great possession, a few set pieces that just miss their mark and a few nice saves that ends 1-0 or even 0-0 doesn't go over well with anyone but the hardcore fans. Much of the same thing can be said for ice hockey.

Soccer is not "defense-oriented." It is defense-suffocated, defense-strangled, defense-dominated-to-complete-paralysis. (Hockey is following close behind.)

See, there's a common myth that runs through every sport that "offense" is selfish, greedy, egotistical, stupid, lazy and evil, while "defense" is unselfish, generous, hardworking, breathtakingly intelligent, and noble.

Coaches, in every sport, have had this drummed into them since the first day they toddled onto the kiddy practice field. If you want to score, you're a selfish stupid pig. If you like defense, you're a courageous unselfish genius.

Therefore, almost all coaches in almost all sports spend the majority of their practice time on defense, because they believe deep within themselves it makes them a better person and a better representative of their sport. The message is repeatedly drummed into them by the cliche-bound and imperceptive media.

As a result, over a period of time, given no significant changes in rules, playing equipment or facilities, all sports tend to evolve to become more and more defense-dominated. Coaches figure out new defensive strategies to neutralize offensive advances. When coaches try to come up with new offensive strategies, they are quickly attacked as "poor fundamental coaches" who want to take "shortcuts to win," and if they don't win, are shouted down by a clucking chorus of sycophants who trumpet, "once again, fundamentals have triumphed."

Most American sports have combatted this phenomenon by rules changes, new arenas or stadiums which are more conducive to scoring.

Soccer, of course, is the most hidebound of all hidebound sports, still playing for all intents and purposes under the same rules that were in effect in 1907. Anyone proposing any changes to boost scoring is shouted down as a heretic and simply "not understanding the game."

If football, basketball and baseball were still playing under the same rules as 1907, then a 10-3 football game would be a romp, a 2-1 baseball game a blowout, and a 20-15 basketball game an offensive shootout.

Starman, it's not that coaches are anti-offense. It's just easier to teach defense.

 

[Angola!]

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.

I was around in 1968, in the era of .220 league batting averages and 1.17 ERAs. It was as ridiculous in its own way as the steroid explosion.

The steroid explosion was not a centrally-orchestrated plot to jack up the offensive production of the entire sport. It was a pattern of individual decisions by individual players to cheat their way around the rules, seize an unfair advantage, and make more money.

One - You are a lot older than I previously thought.
Two - It doesn't matter if it was orchestrated to be an offensive explosion, it happened and baseball was more "popular" because of it. I am just saying, how can you be a baseball fan and not appreciate soccer? It is the same general principle: Pitching and defense wins games in baseball, which generally results in low scoring baseball games - hence the playoffs.
So, what is the difference in soccer? Americans seem to like baseball, so why can't they like soccer even with the low-scoring games?
The only problem I have with soccer, so far, is the tie. I don't like the tie, it is too anticlimatic.

 

[Boomer7]

Doesn't matter what you, I or anybody else "wants to believe."

In the elimination rounds of the 2006 World Cup, which should exhibit the sport played at its absolute highest level, there were 26 goals scored in 15 games. Less than one full goal per team, per game.

That's not what anybody "believes" -- it's a fact.

If you think a sport in which the average team at the highest level of competition does not even score one goal per game is legitimately balanced between offense and defense, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

You're changing the subject. You had a theory ("When coaches try to come up with new offensive strategies, they are quickly attacked as "poor fundamental coaches', etc.) that was total nonsense, and several people who actually know a little about the game called you on it.

And I think you'll find that most people were a little disappointed with the 2006 World Cup -- not a lot of memorable games, reduced goalscoring, few breakout stars. All valid points. On the other hand, I can say without a doubt that the most exhilarating sporting event I've ever attended was the Germany-Poland game at that tournament, in which Germany knocked on the door all game and kept narrowly missing, and each miss was pure torture to the home crowd. Then, the Germans scored on basically the last kick of the game, and the celebration in Dortmund was like nothing I've ever heard.

Point is, you can't reduce any game's appeal to "they scored x goals in y games." Best soccer game I've been to finished 1-0. Best baseball game I've been to also finished 1-0 (Pedro Martinez beat Bartolo Colon). Arguably the best Super Bowl, XXXVI in New Orleans, featured just four touchdowns in over three hours. No one asked for their money back.

 

[MN Matt]

The champions league semi-final (arguably the highest level of club soccer on the planet) two years ago between Villareal and Arsenal ended 0-0 and yet it was one of the most tense, exciting, and utterly enjoyable sporting events I have ever seen. The same can be said of Celtic's 1-0 win over Manchester this past year where I witnessed soccer fans, non-soccer sports fans, and soccer haters alike cringing and holding their breath every time the ball came within 18 yards of the goal. So to say that a low scoring game is by definition boring is just plain wrong.