Does this mean the sport will now be called Colbert?

I suppose there is a certain interest in watching athletes kick Colbert's balls around.

GrymRpr: He FAILED

A single player can't make a country embrace a sport. And the MLS got it right running the league the way soccer leagues are run everywhere else. That and not claiming they'd revolutionize America.

I've never understood why Americans who like gridiron think that nothing happens in football. Okay I'm not the biggest footy fan in the world (give me rugby any day of the week) but for Christ's sake American Football is just as dull. Everyone stops playing every six seconds to stand around again for hours before running around again for a few seconds. At least footy players move around the whole time.

Oh, and

"I do find it odd that a nation that prides itself on its virility feels compelled to strap on forty pounds of protective gear just to play rugby." --Rupert Giles, resident British dude on Buffy the Vampire Slayer

sunbird: At least footy players move around the whole time.

I was going to give you a serious answer about how loss of offensive position is seen as a failure in american sports, but is basically expected in soccer, but clearly you don't even watch soccer so why bother.

bighasbeen: Really, you should just say linemen, discounting defensive ends and a lot of guards and centers. The only really "fat" linemen you see (I mean fat all over, not just some pudge around the middle which is actually good for the position) are the tackles (nose, defensive and offensive). And even that isn't true enough to be a generality. The average 40 time for an NFL lineman is around 5 seconds, so we're talking about a 6'5" 300+ pound guy covering 10 yards in just a little over a second. That's not slow.

And the post I was replying to said this:

danwinkler: Go to a high school, and look at the football players vs the soccer players (if the school even has a team). Look at, say, a running back, and any soccer player. In my experience, soccer players are generally scrawny runts, with little muscle and who smoked pot all the time.

Do you see the the difference? High School != NFL. I bet the average professional soccer player has more muscle than a HS football player.

-

Infernal Wedgie: How YOU doin'?

/farkette, left striker, left mid

How. YOU doin?

/Then: Stop\Sweep
//Now: Inside Center, Fullback, Scrumhalf, Flanker.

When Lalas said "Haiti" Stephen was about to say, "They all have AIDS." but he held it in and toned it down to, They might be weak."

Hell yes! my first green and it was a good way to get all the trolls


/loves the football
//and by that I mean not the handegg variety.

Bill Frist: sunbird: At least footy players move around the whole time.

I was going to give you a serious answer about how loss of offensive position is seen as a failure in american sports, but is basically expected in soccer, but clearly you don't even watch soccer so why bother.

Okay... at least someone is running around most of the time. Still, I'd really rather have rugby any day of the week. Don't get me started on cricket (which is something like lawn bowls with golf clubs) the only good thing of which could be said is that it presents the spectators with a five day drinking session in the sun (when it is sunny).

danwinkler: Doc danwinkler:

Like most Americans, I played soccer when I was about 9 years old. Then, I got taller, stronger, and started playing baseball and then football. And I am not infatuated with the male anatomy - my point was simply that every soccer player I ever met was a person who didn't have the strength to hack it in any other sport. Go to a high school, and look at the football players vs the soccer players (if the school even has a team). Look at, say, a running back, and any soccer player. In my experience, soccer players are generally scrawny runts, with little muscle and who smoked pot all the time. Granted, that's just my experience, but watching grown men dive on the grass crying because a player came within three feet of them doesn't do much for their image.

I don't know where you went to school but in the Metro Atlanta area you would have had a different experience. The kids I played with and against were good athletes.

My midfield didn't have a kid under 6'. One of our forwards was 6'4" and a beast. Almost impossible for our 5A level of competition to guard for a whole game. He went on to Vandy. My keeper was amazing. Over 6' built and would have been a killer player for the Football team. We all would have done well at positions other than kicker. And of course the pot smoker of the team was a multiple 1st and second team defensive player for Boston U's conference.

Of course if you compare a running back that has been working out since middle school and a soccer player that has been playing for the same amount of time their bodies will be different. That's a pretty weak arguement.

Had we all played both sports our football team would have been much better. Lots of lame dudes played football. Not good at much else and only stuck with it because they had played since middle school.

And of course, this was a public school that didn't recruit good players to their school. The soccer team just had a mix of great talent. Better quality than our football or baseball teams could have put together.

My favorite sport is teh awesome.

Your favorite sport sucks.

Ty Webb: My favorite sport is teh awesome.

Your favorite sport sucks.

Not as much as your favourite team does.

sunbird:

Alright, well I'll give you a serious answer then.

When people say nothing happens in soccer I think what they mean is that nothing of CONSEQUENCE happens 99.9% of the time. Balls move quickly up the field and goals are scored pretty randomly, only a handful of times.

So it isn't like football where even though a team might not score many times, the scoring drive will take a long time (or you will get close enough that your gain field position, etc.) or like basketball where scoring is really frequent, even if the scoring drive doesn't take long.

I think the equivelant would be if every baseball ball game was a pitcher's dual the rules where changed so that only homeruns counted.

People would pretty much hate baseball in that situation too.

You gotta admit that it is pretty weird to have a sport where most of the aftergame discussion is spent talking about shiat that ALMOST happened instead of what actually happened. "We had so many shots on goal!" "We dominated so much more than the score indicated!" etc.

Bill Frist: but is basically expected in soccer

It's also expected in basketball. Indeed in college and pro basketball, it's forced to happen.

WhyteRaven74
Actually in a lot of places, they'd think it's cool the US won.

Usually rooting for the fighting underdog, I initially was all for the US against Brazil - then I thought of Fark's soccer troll brigade and turned neutral.
See, Zapp Brannigan? Fark trolls, that's what makes a man turn neutral!


If just because a decade ago the idea of the US even making the final would've been laughable.

I thought they had a decent chance in 2002.
They lost against Germany - but they played better and could (should?) have won that day.
And South Korea in the semi-finals..well, lets just say you could face stronger opposition in a World Cup semi-finale, even if it was the host nation and had a good run (and maybe a couple of refs as some people claim..).

bighasbeen: bwesb: Fair enough, Dan. Take two 11-man football teams and have them play one regulation soccer match. Just one. No pads beyond pointless shin guards, no timeouts, max 3 subs per game, no oxygen breaks, no scheudled water breaks, and the only person who can use his hands is the keeper. Are they going to last 45 minutes?

I love the NFL but the realistic answer is nope!

Nice try though.

Likewise, take 11 soccer players, put them in NFL equipment and have them smash into each other and see who gets up after 5 minutes.

Different sports attract different body types. In sports like American football and basketball you need a larger variety of body types than you do in soccer or baseball.

I think the more interesting point is that if soccer were the biggest, most lucrative sport in the US, those little boys who grew up to be ridiculous football/basketball/whateverball players would instead have devoted their skills and athleticism to soccer from childhood. That is why the US would probably dominate the sport if it did indeed ever become as attractive as football or basketball in the US--especially when you consider how cheap it is to play as a kid compared to football.

Sure, maybe Ray Lewis, Lebron, Bob Sanders, Kobe Bryant, etc. couldn't play a decent game today, but imagine if they'd been playing since they were five years old. Obviously not all would be as good at soccer as they ended up being at their sport of choice, but many would.

WhyteRaven74: It's also expected in basketball. Indeed in college and pro basketball, it's forced to happen.

It is not expected in basketball that your shot will fail 90% of the time... unless you really really suck.

How come we have to pick between American Football and Football? Might it just be possible to like both?

The Voice of Doom: They lost against Germany - but they played better and could (should?) have won that day.

I remember that game. The German coach after the game look like he had just barely missed getting hit by a truck. Had that "whoa, shiat that was close" look on his face. What I found super cool about him was that when one reporter asked a question that implied the US wasn't a really good team he immediately said that the US is a good team.

Football is only high score because you buttwads MADE it high score. OMG 42 TO 30 who cares? Thats like 4 touchdowns per side.

Let's see how "high scoring" your dumb game is after you only get one point for a touchdown and half a point for a field goal.

Instantly games are like 3 1/2 to 1 matches.

Bill Frist: It is not expected in basketball that your shot will fail 90% of the time... unless you really really suck.

It is however expected you will play lots of defense, the shot clock will see to that.

japantheman: How come we have to pick between American Football and Football? Might it just be possible to like both?

We don't. It's the trolls who keep insisting that the two are exclusive.

I watch teams in this order:
Liverpool
Barca
Cincinnati Bengals

I'd say most soccer fans in the US like both sports. It's the football only crowd who has the problem.

Captain_Jesus: Instantly games are like 3 1/2 to 1 matches.

yes, except as pointed out everything in football matters. Either you are advancing the ball or failing two, either have serious consequences for your offense or defense.

Not so in soccer, outside of the freak play that goes in or results in a free kick.

Captain_Jesus: Football is only high score because you buttwads MADE it high score. OMG 42 TO 30 who cares? Thats like 4 touchdowns per side.

Let's see how "high scoring" your dumb game is after you only get one point for a touchdown and half a point for a field goal.

Instantly games are like 3 1/2 to 1 matches.

It's higher scoring than soccer but truthfully not by very much.

Anyways I think that's missing the point. The amount of "scores" or "points" doesn't directly correlate to the quality of the game.

CaptMacMillian: Anyways I think that's missing the point. The amount of "scores" or "points" doesn't directly correlate to the quality of the game.

It is the soccer fans who are missing the point, no one has ever claimed that higher scoring automatically equals better game.

Bill Frist: Captain_Jesus: Instantly games are like 3 1/2 to 1 matches.

yes, except as pointed out everything in football matters. Either you are advancing the ball or failing two, either have serious consequences for your offense or defense.

No it doesn't. More often than not teams do not score when given possession. There are multiple 3-and-outs and there are many instances where each team is basically punting the ball back and forth to each other.

Now football is certainly more obvious in it's movement given that it's separated into individual plays and possessions which could cause each possession to be considered more "important" than soccer due to the lower number of them. However pretending that every single movement in a football game matters is just plain wrong unless you're willing to say that every pass in a soccer game matters as well.

Bill Frist: CaptMacMillian: Anyways I think that's missing the point. The amount of "scores" or "points" doesn't directly correlate to the quality of the game.

It is the soccer fans who are missing the point, no one has ever claimed that higher scoring automatically equals better game.

Seriously, read the thread and see the amount of times people say things like "Americans won't ever like a game that ends 0-0 or 1-0".

CaptMacMillian: No it doesn't. More often than not teams do not score when given possession.

I know your reading comprehension isn't very good Capt, but that is not what I said at all....

CaptMacMillian: Seriously, read the thread and see the amount of times people say things like "Americans won't ever like a game that ends 0-0 or 1-0".

*sigh*

Pointing out that extremely low scoring games can be problamatic does not mean that higher catagorically equals better. It means that you need a certain level of scoring or else there are problems, not that every game has to end 548 to 340. In fact, really high scoring games tend to have similar problems to low scoring ones I think, such as basketball.

CaptMacMillian: However pretending that every single movement in a football game matters is just plain wrong unless you're willing to say that every pass in a soccer game matters as well.

lolz. Since when does something have to be ABSOLUTELY true to be GENERALLY true.

THe bottom line is this: scoring is hard in football because it is hard to get the ball into scoring range.

Scoring is hard in soccer because it is hard to score, NOT because it is hard to get up the field.

The passes up field don't mean much in soccer because it is easy to get up to the goal. The ball goes back and forth twoards the goal a billion times a game.

Bill Frist: CaptMacMillian: However pretending that every single movement in a football game matters is just plain wrong unless you're willing to say that every pass in a soccer game matters as well.

lolz. Since when does something have to be ABSOLUTELY true to be GENERALLY true.

THe bottom line is this: scoring is hard in football because it is hard to get the ball into scoring range.

Scoring is hard in soccer because it is hard to score, NOT because it is hard to get up the field.

The passes up field don't mean much in soccer because it is easy to get up to the goal. The ball goes back and forth twoards the goal a billion times a game.

So getting the ball within scoring range means something in football but not in soccer?

I mean that isn't what we were talking about, but to a large degree yes.

If a football offense has the ball in the red zone there is a really really strong chance they will score. If they don't score, it is a monumental defensive triumph.

In soccer, if the offense has the ball in scoring range, they are expected to fail to score at least 90% of the time. It is nothing terribly special if the defense prevents them from scoring.

Bill Frist: CaptMacMillian: Seriously, read the thread and see the amount of times people say things like "Americans won't ever like a game that ends 0-0 or 1-0".

*sigh*

Pointing out that extremely low scoring games can be problamatic does not mean that higher catagorically equals better. It means that you need a certain level of scoring or else there are problems, not that every game has to end 548 to 340. In fact, really high scoring games tend to have similar problems to low scoring ones I think, such as basketball.

So you're saying the people who claim that Americans won't like soccer because there isn't enough scoring aren't saying that? They're saying that the problem with soccer is it's lack of scoring thereby saying that the solution is: yup, more scoring.

It has nothing to do with "better" or "worse". You said that no one says that yet there are many in this thread alone. I agree that the level of "score" doesn't determine the quality of the game.

In fact, I'll just requote what I already wrote:
Anyways I think that's missing the point. The amount of "scores" or "points" doesn't directly correlate to the quality of the game.

We're not in disagreement about scoring, only that there are idiots in this thread who think that it is soccer's problem.

Chelle82
if soccer were the biggest, most lucrative sport in the US, those little boys who grew up to be ridiculous football/basketball/whateverball players would instead have devoted their skills and athleticism to soccer from childhood.

If they have the skills, that is. And if there's the infrastructure and the people with experience to spot and develop those talents.

So: maybe, maybe not. Chances would certainly be better.


That is why the US would probably dominate the sport if it did indeed ever become as attractive as football or basketball

I don't know; it's a saying here that "there are almost no 'small' [read: easily beatable] opponents left in soccer".

The number of people to draw from doesn't seem to matter that much if you just find the right people; there are lots of comparatively small countries with strong teams.
Heck, Germany's number of active soccer players registered with club teams (that's not even counting people playing in leisure leagues, school, just for fun,.. ) is with 6.7 million larger than the whole population of some countries that can still kick our asses any day.

CaptMacMillian: We're not in disagreement about scoring, only that there are idiots in this thread who think that it is soccer's problem.

I guess what I"m disagreeing with is that this is really their argument.


As I said, too much scoring can cause the same problem as too little. Look at basketball, many people dislike basketballb ecause it is so high scoring that each score becomes meaningless and the game almost feels like it doesn't start until halfway through the fourth quarter.

I love soccer.

Just say no to Kick Ball.

o5iiawah: Face it..its going to be near nonstop soccer for the next year or so. until football starts

Fixed that for you, after football starts even it pre-season soccer will be dropped like a drunk one night stand.

You have to understand, its the 6th or 7th most popular sport behind hockey, golf, and it may even be behind IRL making it 8th and after the cup its out of the top 10.

Its fun to watch soccer fans get so excited only to be left sitting alone once real football starts.

CaptMacMillian: We're not in disagreement about scoring, only that there are idiots in this thread who think that it is soccer's problem.

No soccers biggest problem is that its farking boring, even to us adults who played it as kids find it dull now. The last time I had fun playing soccer was in an indoor complex that I think has been torn down since then, soccer was fun when it was played indoors like hockey and had action but fark that field they play on now is just too farking big for consistent action to take place.

The Voice of Doom: Chelle82
if soccer were the biggest, most lucrative sport in the US, those little boys who grew up to be ridiculous football/basketball/whateverball players would instead have devoted their skills and athleticism to soccer from childhood.

If they have the skills, that is. And if there's the infrastructure and the people with experience to spot and develop those talents.

So: maybe, maybe not. Chances would certainly be better.

What I'm trying to say is that there are lots of freakishly athletic guys in the US who very likely could have insane soccer skills--and they've probably never kicked a ball outside of third grade gym class.

If our culture were dominated by soccer, chances are the infrastructure, coaches and scouts would be in place for soccer as they are for football now. Many of America's best athletes never even consider soccer because they are so focused on the possible fame and money that other sports can deliver. And I'm not even talking about just the guys who make the pros in other sports. There are plenty of incredibly skilled athletes who just can't pick up the intricacies of American football at the pro level. Maybe if they'd spent their time on soccer instead, they'd be world class. I'm not saying the US would destroy the world every year or anything, but I'd like to see a US team that's actually full of our best possible players. Or "right players" as you put it.

Granted, I'm doing an assload of speculating here. And I have the benefit of never being able to be proved wrong as soccer will probably never take hold in American culture the way football and basketball have. At least not in my lifetime.

Bill Frist: I think this is a true impediment to its popularity in the US. it is just seen as a women's and/or little kid's sport. Will take a lot to overcome that.

I just can't watch the game. Bores me to tears. In the New York-Columbus MLS game this week there was 1 shot on goal from the NY team, 9 total shots. And I don't care to start watching FSC to see "good football" since that costs money. To the game's credit the women's team's success is really remarkable. It will take a lot to overcome that but as long as the pinnacle of your game is some dude named Fabiano writhing in pain and goalies only having to make 1 save in a 90+ min. game, you're just not gonna hit that American sports marketplace. Unfortunately for soccer, it's the most lucrative one in the world.

Chelle82: Granted, I'm doing an assload of speculating here. And I have the benefit of never being able to be proved wrong as soccer will probably never take hold in American culture the way football and basketball have. At least not in my lifetime.

You're from Buffalo -- did you see that the Habs overpaid for Spacek?

Retsam: I love soccer.




/jk

Bill Frist
As I said, too much scoring can cause the same problem as too little. Look at basketball, many people dislike basketballb ecause it is so high scoring that each score becomes meaningless and the game almost feels like it doesn't start until halfway through the fourth quarter.

That's a thought similar to one that I had when I heard someone here mention something how soccer sucks because if you go and fetch a beer, you might have missed "the only entertaining bit".
And how soccer should get rid of ties and do best-of-fives or something because it's unfair that the better team gets "robbed" because an outplayed team is lucky.

I think the problem with soccer for most Americans is the lack of "action", not scoring.
Basketball, American Football and Ice Hockey are more reliable in delivering quick action while soccer is a lot more about..I don't know, suspense?
About the (consequence of the) moment you happened to miss when you were fetching beer, the knowledge that one little mistake can cost you everything, that one little thing can turn everything upside-down (btw: that's why I really like the away goals rule).

But that's also why it can be pretty boring if you don't really have your heart in it for one side or if it's a really important game.
I rarely watch soccer if I don't care for one of the teams or it's an unimportant game and I would just be hoping to see some great moves or nice goals - that might happen while I'm in the kitchen.

Stephen Colbert is Canadian, isn't he?

That polite little bastard.

/all right, so i looked up his wiki and found out he is American Irish Catholic. Close enough.

Bill Frist: sunbird:

Alright, well I'll give you a serious answer then.

When people say nothing happens in soccer I think what they mean is that nothing of CONSEQUENCE happens 99.9% of the time. Balls move quickly up the field and goals are scored pretty randomly, only a handful of times.

So it isn't like football where even though a team might not score many times, the scoring drive will take a long time (or you will get close enough that your gain field position, etc.) or like basketball where scoring is really frequent, even if the scoring drive doesn't take long.

I think the equivelant would be if every baseball ball game was a pitcher's dual the rules where changed so that only homeruns counted.

People would pretty much hate baseball in that situation too.

You gotta admit that it is pretty weird to have a sport where most of the aftergame discussion is spent talking about shiat that ALMOST happened instead of what actually happened. "We had so many shots on goal!" "We dominated so much more than the score indicated!" etc.

Oh I see. Were I feeling uncharitable I'd suggest that scoring a goal in footy is hard work, harder than a touchdown, and Americans are apparently workshy. :P But its actually all about personal preferences and where you are from. Were an American adopted by a Cameronian version of Madonna and raised in Africa he would think that football was great. A New Yorker by birth raised in Kentucky he'd think NASCAR was the bee's knees.

And I love Formula 1, and even I'll admit some races are worse than paint drying.

I really want to like Soccer, really, but it's so boring. I cannot even fathom how the entire world watches it and loves it so much. But I guess it's even like NASCAR to me, everyone around me watches and loves it but I just cannot justify watching cars make left turns for like 5 hours straight. The only reason I'd watch is for the crashes, but those don't happen often enough and even if they did, they'd be on the news.

Oh well, maybe one day I'll enjoy it but today is not that day. I really would like to enjoy it though.

The Voice of Doom
..for one side or if it's a really important game.
..for one side or if it is NOT an important game.

sunbird: Oh I see. Were I feeling uncharitable I'd suggest that scoring a goal in footy is hard work, harder than a touchdown, and Americans are apparently workshy. :P

Well, were I feeling uncharitable I'd suggest that scoring a goal too often involves a free kick or pure blind luck and that takes the fun out of it.

Roger Arseways: Chelle82: Granted, I'm doing an assload of speculating here. And I have the benefit of never being able to be proved wrong as soccer will probably never take hold in American culture the way football and basketball have. At least not in my lifetime.

You're from Buffalo -- did you see that the Habs overpaid for Spacek?

I will miss doing impressions of him, but what the hell is up with the Habs this week? Are they paying these guys with IOUs?

/That's just as good as money, sir. Those are IOUs!
//and to keep it on topic, what are Canada's feelings on soccer? I really don't know, but I didn't think they cared much more than we did.

Bill Frist
I'd suggest that scoring a goal too often involves a free kick

Now that's something an American Football fan should appreciate:
the only moments in soccer where it's obvious that you really can prepare a number of different plays to pick from.
One could see American Football's downs as a long sequence of nothing but free kicks and corners. ;)

The Voice of Doom: the only moments in soccer where it's obvious that you really can prepare a number of different plays to pick from.
One could see American Football's downs as a long sequence of nothing but free kicks and corners. ;)

I actually do find the corner kicks fairly interesting.

But penalty kicks....