Posted on 06/26/2014 4:38:05 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana
But, aside from the music, the American contribution to soccer has been minimal, and American interest in it even, er, minimaller. Every four years, the same bien-pensants who urge the Administration to be more "multilateral" and to work through the UN also commend the virtues of the World Cup: the game is supposedly more poetic than American sports, as subtle and nuanced as French foreign policy. But Americans like their international competitions to be international in the sense of the current "international coalition against terror" at Kandahar airbase - that's to say, overwhelmingly American but with a few token Canadians. The World Series extends to the Toronto Blue Jays, but that's it.
Yet for the last couple of weeks the World Cup has been going very oddly. I didn't notice it at first because, like 99.9999 per cent of the US population, I had no idea the World Cup was even on. But once the back-issues of The Daily Telegraph started arriving, I couldn't help noticing the cup's strange approximation of the world beyond footie. No sooner had the Saudi Ambassador to London, Ghazi Algosaibi, hailed the heroism of "martyrdom operations" than his national team heroically martyred themselves eight-nil. Either that or the entire squad are Mossad Jew infiltrators.
Even more unnerving was the success of the American team. What more damning evidence could you have of the global reach of the hyperpower than for the World Cup to go to the one country that has absolutely zero interest in soccer?
[...]
Many famous football faces from Britain have found themselves in demand on US television. 'It's a game of two halves, Larry,' Bobby Charlton said on Larry King Live. 'Is it really?' said Larry. 'Well, you'd know better than I would. And are the helmets expensive?'
(Excerpt) Read more at steynonline.com ...
If you think soccer is dull, try reading a review of a wicket game.....
Wicket? Is that different than cricket?
I look for America’s interest in soccer to gradually expand over the coming years, as the generation of kids from the 1990s (remember the advent of “soccer moms”?) grow up, wussified and antagonistic to competitive, brutal American sports, like real football.
Most sports are boring if you don't know them well enough to understand what is going on. Try taking an Englishman to a baseball game sometime.
that’s a hoot!
Yeah, I think so.. Maybe a wicket is an element of cricket.. See! I am too disinterested to look it up..
Now yesterday I was watching the Argentina-Nigeria game where both teams scored in the first few minutes. I thought to myself, is this going to be one of those transcendent games where the score ends up 10-9? Alas, both teams only scored three more goals together, and the final score was 3-2. That meant once more most of the "action" consisted of players kicking the ball down the field, losing it to the other team (while the announcers got their knickers in a twist), repeated until the end of the game.
Here's the problem....at least for most Americans watching. When there's a decent chance that a player might score, the game gets exciting. Even the soccer haters probably enjoy watching a player like Messi attempt a shot. The single most exciting situation is watching a player attempt a shot on goal where the goalie has to make an excellent play to stop the ball. But the reality is there are so few decent shots on goal compared to the what seems endless kicking (and losing) of the ball. I don't see anyway to fix the problem unless drastic changes are made in the sport...like less players.
p.s. And I didn't even mention the numerous players falling down and grabbing their ankles after being touched by an opponent. Oops!
I think it would e more accurate to say that aside from Brazilians, more people traveled from the U.S. to Brazil for the World Cup. It would also be fair to say than many of those travelling from the U.S. are there primarily to support non-U.S. teams.
I think all of these comments about soccer being a girlie-man sport would end if the commenters were somehow induced to play one game, both the fitness level required and the level of rough body contact would quickly change your minds. That is not to say however that a certain amount of over-dramatized rolling around (it seems to increase as one gets closer to the Mediterranean for some unknown reason) gives the sport a bad name. But that is similar to the long-standing bad name of “Latin soccer” or Latin football in places like the UK. Things were like that half a century back and probably even longer, and it will only disappear with stronger sanctions (the refs can already dismiss players who over-embellish). Nothing funnier than to see a guy go down, look around and hop up quickly when there’s no call and a new chance to score, but such a person should be automatically on the way to the dressing room.
Funny tweet making the rounds: The England soccer team visited an orphanage in Brazil. “It is so sad to see the forlorn look on their little faces,” said Jose, 6.
Good luck later today, USA. Vee haff vays of letting you stay.
Even if you do know them well, they can be boring. Baseball was my best sport growing up. Now, I can barely stand to watch an inning or two. I never played hockey and still don’t know all the rules or intricacies. But I love to watch the Stanley Cup playoffs.
Actually reducing the number of players from eleven to eight would ensure far more shots on goal and scores. I’m curious as to why billions of people, soccer fans, love a sport with so few chances at scoring.
Things that really appeal to me about soccer are the length of the games and lack of timeouts. About 1 hour and 52 minutes every single time, at least for the group stage. No 3 hour baseball snooze-fests or NBA games where the last 2 minutes take half an hour or NCAA games with as many as 18(!) timeouts.
Also, no “competition committees” changing the rules every year like the NFL to favor offense even more, basically turning the game into Arena Football, and aside from crazy biters like Luis Suarez, no idiot “look at me” wide receivers like TO, Keyshawn, etc, etc thumping their chests after every 20 yard completion.
My beef, like most soccer knockers, is that it is simply too low scoring. Not enough shots on goal. But that's the way billions of soccer fans like it, and nothing I say will change that fact. Nevertheless, I doubt many American anti-soccer people care much about that aspect.
They need pads, armor. With armor, you think you’re a bullet and you plow into everything. THAT is exciting.
Soccer has the opposite - you hold your ankle and feign agony. Who wants to be like THAT guy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.