For me, if I had choose between watching a soccer game or breaking thermometers and playing with the mercury inside, I’d choose the latter.
Couldn’t agree more with Ann.
There have never been any references, by any American military figures in history, using any terms from soccer.
Soccer does not have a ‘hail Mary pass’; a ‘4th down and 10 to go’; or any other terms that can immediately describe the situation.
Soccer is the game of European POW’s, not something Americans need to embrace.
I’ll grant Ann her wittiness...but talk about grabbing the low hanging fruit. It’s easier, as a political writer/novelist, to go after soccer than lets say weak kneed spineless RINOS (oh wait...that’s who she ENDORSES!)
A lot of kids participate in youth soccer...for a number of reasons. In my families case, soccer was where the nonpolitically connected kids (no grand parent on the school board or parent who “volunteer coaches—wink, wink” and just “happens” to own the local batting cage/indoor baseball facility) went to “play.”
All politics is local, correct? And nothing is more “local” than the club mentality of who PLAYS HS sports. I’ve seen a tiny HS QB who could NOT see over the offensive line, but who was ordained (probably back in kindergarten) to play the position “because his dad did.” And our HS baseball players MUST play “travel ball” (ie, here is the flight schedule to Dulles, “we have games in NoVa this weekend) ...so does those politically charged rosters win? No! It’s the secondary team sports (soccer, volleyball) along w/true talent sports (swimming/track—stop watches don’t lie!) that win because they truly get “athletes.”
I get a lot don’t like soccer, but in many cases it’s a “secondary” HS sport or NOTHING for many kids. They play, they have parents that watch, and we learn to ENJOY the game...and in that spirit I’ll say “USA! USA! USA!”
Thank You Ann Coulter!I have been saying the same thing for years,these people cant have their kids playing baseball and strike out! They cant stand the failure! Just go run around and maybe kick a ball once in awhile,its easier than trying to learn to pitch a baseball over the plate,or learn to field a ground ball,throw it accurately,never mind hitting it.
Describe for me a highlight from football, baseball or basketball that does not involve scoring. . .The answer is varied and numerous. . .the catch of a fly ball at the fence, a pick-off play, the double play. . .the intercepted pass, a QB sack, a receiver lays out for a finger tip catch. . .a blocked shot. . a steal, a no look pass. . .Now describe a similar highlight for soccer. . . .crickets, crickets, crickets. . . hello? End of argument.
Watch the "highlights" on ESPN of the day's World Cup matches. . .ball accidentally rolling into the net. . .guy goes nuts. . slides on his knees!!. . .over and over and over!. . The only interesting thing related to soccer EVER was that announcer guy that would scream, "GGGGGGGGGGGGOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL.. GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL every time the ball accidentally went into the net.
I grew up in a baseball family and still consider it the King of sports.
I had no interest in soccer until I was given a pair of tickets to watch Switzerland play Colombia (and Carlos Valderrama) in a knock-out round game of the 1994 World Cup.
In person, I saw how large the field was, could see how plays were being set up, how long passes were curved around defenders, how European soccer differed from South American soccer, and so on.
You won't find me watching college soccer, but at the World Cup or Olympic level? I'll take it over a NBA game, a golf tournament, a NASCAR race, or tennis any day. Personal preference and the right of FReepers and Americans to have differening opinions.
I coached my son’s and daughter’s soccer teams when they we in grade school and I have no great dislike for soccer. I think it’s good physical exercise however it does not seem to build any useable skills. It attempts to foster teamwork and comradery but I didn’t notice it having any lasting effects.
The one thing Ann missed here is the dishonesty built into the games rules. If the ref didn’t see it, it didn’t happen and it seems that the number of ref’s is purposely limited to prevent flagrant violations of the rules from being noticed by the officials. The fans however see all of this and it seems to encourage the players to compete for a shadow game of revenge that plays out behind the officials backs.
All this is a mockery of rightful authority and encourages breaking the rules if you can avoid getting caught, which is not one of the values I was taught as child in America.
I don’t understand people who call soccer boring, but think baseball is exciting.
I agree with Ann. Soccer is subpar. Why watch and inferior product? why regress and go backward to the stone age of sports? In fact, new sports should be created that may be superior to what we already have or improve upon what we already have.
We already have a superior version of soccer, it’s hockey. We have a league and everything. If someone likes soccer, they should like hockey. It’s keep away, but faster and much better!
so many countries like soccer because they don’t have much else.
Get the flopping out of the game and there will be something to talk about.
Who,like Beckel,knows zero about the sport and like so many other topics feels free to pontificate on it. Sounds like Annie may have made "friends" with a pro football player. I hope that he makes enough money to buy her a decent meal or two.
I have only watched maybe half a dozen soccer games on TV all the way through. It’s probably not enough to start to understand the “finer points of the game,” although it doesn’t help that the announcers don’t make any effort to actually explain said finer points. This isn’t blistering-paced hockey; there is plenty of time to educate all those potential new soccer fans that might have happened across a match while channel surfing.
I constantly see this argument that Americans don’t like soccer simply because it’s low scoring, and, in my experience, the people that say that usually are thinly implying (or often flat out saying) that those people are simply dumb for not appreciating a game without the potential for big scores. I have a different take on it. Low scoring games place a huge weight on each goal, which I think leads to some major problems.
1) As seen in the Brazil-Croatia game, flopping/diving is insanely beneficial if you can get away with it. (How the world’s biggest event for a single sport can have clear camera footage of an obvious flop which gave the home team the winning goal and can do nothing about it is beyond me, but that’s another discussion.) Still, since a single goal is so incredibly valuable in soccer, it’s inevitable that players are going to seek that short circuit path to get a chance at scoring with a penalty kick that the keeper has almost no chance of defending if he doesn’t guess right. Flopping happens in basketball, too, of course, but the effect on the overall score is much smaller, so unless it’s done at the end of the game, there are opportunities to compensate for it.
2) Low scores reward random events. I know there’s skill in getting to the opponent’s goal and defending your own, and I’ve actually seen a higher number of impressive assists and goals in these WC games than I’ve ever seen before. However, I’ve seen a ton of goals in soccer where the ball simply bounces in the right place for an attacker who is there in a lucky position to pop it in before the defense and keeper can react. I just watched the U.S. lose to Germany based on a great save by our keeper that just happened to bounce straight to one of the Germans hanging out around the net with no one in front of him. It was a good ricochet for Germany, and it decided the entire game. Now hockey has this same issue, but hockey also many more scoring opportunities for the offense to even it up, while maintaining a much smaller net, so a goalie actually has a chance in hell of fending off multiple attacks in a row. The goaltending in the Stanley Cup finals was breathtaking in this respect. And yet several of the winning goals for the Kings seemed to just come from bad ricochets that the goalie would have had otherwise. I also hate sudden death in sports for reasons like this. Randomness should be minimized as much as possible in sports, so that the athletes and coaches can truly show that their skills are the reasons for winning or losing.
I think this is really the non-articulated core of the American dislike for soccer. It might be considered a matter of fairness in a way. The low scoring really allows for many unearned wins and upsets, and the size of the field and the pace of the game make it difficult to throw a lot of shots on goal to at least try to even things out, such as in hockey. The Big 3 American sports all have legitimate comeback potential at any time and the higher score potential mitigates the devastation of terrible officiating somewhat. I suspect that American fans who care even a little about the sport they’re watching don’t mind seeing a 0-0 pitcher’s duel or low-scoring basketball or football game if the reason for the low scoring is defensive excellence. (If it’s just utter incompetence by both teams, then it IS legitimately terrible.) The reason one can appreciate low scoring in those games is that we all know that it’s very possible to have medium-to-high scores in those games. Randomness and bad calls can only account for so many points/runs in football, basketball, and baseball; there’s always still that chance of overcoming even unfair obstacles through skill and determination. In soccer, one goal against you is basically a knife to your throat and two would probably be a flat out decapitation.
So, my position is that the sport needs higher scoring potential not to make it more exciting, but to make it more fair and less random. If all that American sports fans cared about was the endorphin rush of seeing someone score as soccer evangelists often claim is the case, we wouldn’t give two craps about PEDs, steroids, or anything else along those lines. The real reason, I think, is that it just doesn’t seem truly competitive enough the way it’s currently played.
It’s like watching NASCAR: “Lookie, they’re making a left turn!” “Lookie, they’re making another left turn!” One thing soccer and NASCAR have in common is that you can go to the kitchen and eat a 4-course meal and not have missed a thing when you go back to the TV! To make NASCAR really interesting, they should have someone in a Smart car travelling in the opposite direction of the race cars.
Pingy
It was all Google Doodles and “I’ve always loved soccer!” and “USA! USA!” up to the moment Belgium downed us 2-1.
Now it’s back to vanilla Googles, baseball (”Remember me?”), and “Soccer sucks.”