Grrr! Imagine if World Cup Soccer Meant Something

FOXNews.com ^ | June 5, 2006 | Mike Straka

[SoothingDave]

From that point of view, the penalty kick endings (which by the way only occur in playoffs or championships ... otherwise it's a draw) are quite a test of personal skill on part of the kicker and the goalie.

Exactly my point. It ceases being the team game and becomes something else. If you're happy with that, fine, but it seems silly to me to decide who the best soccer team is by playing playing extra innings of an individual scoring contest.

My argument against the NCAA overtime football rules would seem to apply here. If a team plays defense so well that it greatly reduces or eliminates good scoring opportunities for the other team, why decide defense doesn't matter all of a sudden?

Much like hockey ... which seems to be one sport you love dearly.

I like hockey and football. Hockey comparisons seem apt for this discussion since hockey is a team, goal-oriented, constant flowing sport.

And they don't decide a champion by a shootout.

SD

[al_c]

But those teams are made up of the individuals in this duel scenario. They are not out there representing themselves, they are representing the team. Try to find that quality in today's NFL.

[SoothingDave]

It's still a different game at that point. If the next World Series game is tied after 9 innings and they hold a home run derby to decide the winner, that would be the parallel.

And it would be an abomination.

SD

[FostersExport]

Skating around on an ice rink when you have rolling subs is not the same as running around a full size soccer pitch in (and this is the important bit) 90 degrees of heat.

Well, if you don’t like soccer don’t watch it then. There will be plenty of us watching it anyway.

[MarineBrat]

Are we too spoiled as a society to recognize the importance of soccer?

The author's very first sentence is an insult to anyone who doesn't think like the author! He/she is telling me that if I don't like soccer I'm "spoiled." It actually makes the author look like a spoiled brat.

I think we Americans do recognize the importance of soccer. Soccer is NOT important. There, I've recognized it.

[SoothingDave]

Skating around on an ice rink when you have rolling subs is not the same as running around a full size soccer pitch in (and this is the important bit) 90 degrees of heat.

I'd rather see them allow substitutions and keep playing the same sport.

In any event, someone will eventually score. Fatigue becomes a part of the game and you deal with it. Not decide "this is too hard" and go have a kicking contest.

SD

[54-46 Was My Number]

Looks like somethin' gay is going on in that picture.

[FostersExport]

The whole article is junk. The reason that most Americans don’t find soccer important is just a quirk of history.

The reason the rest of us find it ‘important’ is not because we live in mud huts and kick rolled up socks around on a dusty backstreet somewhere in the third world as the article implies, because a lot of us don’t. Rather we just like the game and want our team to win (or just do well).

[Petronski]

One theory I read about this is that soccer is a third-world sport: all that is really needed to play is a ball, the rest can be improvised.

The closest one comes to this among US sports is baseball, whose "stickball" variant needs only the most rudimentary tools.

But Americans can afford baseball gloves and bats; and football helmets, pads and cleats; and basketball hoops with a paved surface for dribbling; and used cars to "soup up" and so forth, so we play the more sophisticated sports.

And NASCAR means little to someone who's never owned a car, or even driven one. Baseball means nothing to someone who's never stood in the batter's box or stretched to catch a line drive. Yet with just a simple soccer ball, anyone can try kicking, passing, handling, rolling, etc.

[Petronski]

I watch soccer every four years, to cheer for America, and then to cheer for my substitute team after Team USA's been eliminated.

I still remember clearly routing for Team France in 1998, and almost missing a wedding tuxedo fitting because of the final game.

[FostersExport]

When you start allowing rolling subs you completely change the nature of the contest and probably wreck smaller nations’/teams’ chances of doing well because big established countries or rich clubs can just field more decent players.

The game is fine as it is. Penalty shootouts just happen to be a quirk because no better tie breaker has been thought of. You’re going on about them as if they decide every single match.

Anyway I’ll say it again. There’s no tension like a penalty shoot out in sport, if it’s your dog in the fight. They might not be ideal but they’re entertaining, in a masochistic kind of way.

[Dick Vomer]

[SoothingDave]

But Americans can afford baseball gloves and bats; and football helmets, pads and cleats; and basketball hoops with a paved surface for dribbling; and used cars to "soup up" and so forth, so we play the more sophisticated sports.

It is entirely possible to play American football with just a few kids from the neighborhood, a ball, and some trees to act as boundaries.

SD

[Dick Vomer]

The game is fine as it is.

nah... take one guy off the field and allow no "offsides"...

[FostersExport]

“But Americans can afford baseball gloves and bats; and football helmets, pads and cleats; and basketball hoops with a paved surface for dribbling; and used cars to "soup up" and so forth, so we play the more sophisticated sports.”

I can afford football helmets (I did actually play a bit of American football) and baseball gloves. I’d just rather play with a soccer ball.

Germany is hardly a third world poverty hole either, and they’re second only to Brazil in the number of World Cup wins.

The average rugby union player is not poverty-stricken and that game requires no more equipment than soccer. Cricket requires more equipment than soccer yet very poor kids in India lap it up.

The theory really doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny.

[Petronski]

The theory really doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny.

In that case, please, don't give it too much scrutiny.

;OD

[al_c]

When you start allowing rolling subs you completely change the nature of the contest and probably wreck smaller nations’/teams’ chances of doing well because big established countries or rich clubs can just field more decent players.

So true. I remember playing in a league in Austin where one such powerhouse team was in the mix. Rolling subs were allowed and they beat the crap out of everybody else in the league because they always had fresh players out on the pitch. Smaller teams like ours rarely stood a chance against them.

[SoothingDave]

When you start allowing rolling subs you completely change the nature of the contest and probably wreck smaller nations’/teams’ chances of doing well because big established countries or rich clubs can just field more decent players.

They don't have a limit on how many players can be on the team? Or do you just mean they can find more good players in a larger country? I think that's the case anyway, whether it's a regular game or overtime.

The game is fine as it is. Penalty shootouts just happen to be a quirk because no better tie breaker has been thought of. You’re going on about them as if they decide every single match.

If they've decided one championship, that's one too many. What is the problem that penalty kicks are the solution to? Just play soccer till someone wins. And someone will.

SD

[SoothingDave]

I remember playing in a league in Austin where one such powerhouse team was in the mix. Rolling subs were allowed and they beat the crap out of everybody else in the league because they always had fresh players out on the pitch. Smaller teams like ours rarely stood a chance against them.

I was working under the assumption that each side had an equal number of players on its team. I guess if Luxembourg has 30 players and the US has 200 players on the sideline, this would be a problem.

Is there really no limit to how many players can be on a World Cup team?

And just to be clear, I was suggesting allowing subs only in deep overtime, not all game long.

SD

[discostu]

That's easy, the problem with draws is they're counter to what sports (especially in America) are all about. Sports aren't supposed to be an abstraction of life, sports are a simplification of life, part of what makes sports enjoyable is that when the final whatever (buzzer, gun, whistle, etc) does its thing (buzzes, fires, blows, etc) there is a winner and there is at least one (depending on the sport) loser, someone has been declared better than somebody else (at least on this day and with these rules). There's something innately unsatisfying in spending 3 hours watching a game and in the end nobody won, we have no declaration of superiority. Hockey had the same problem which is why they finally installed the shootout. Sports need winners and losers, without winners and losers it was all just an exercise in sweaty exuberance.