[FostersExport]

The complaint that there isn’t enough scoring I can understand – even if I disagree with it as the low scoring nature of soccer is what makes it so tense.

What I’ve never really understood is the American aversion to draws. In a league format (which the World Cup initially is), what exactly is the problem with a draw? Sport should be an abstraction of life. There isn’t always a clear cut winner in life’s encounters.

[SoothingDave]

Wasn't a World Cup decided by penalty kicks a few years ago?

Any sport that determines its champion by a gimmick is unworthy of consideration.

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.

[1rudeboy]

In a league format (which the World Cup initially is), what exactly is the problem with a draw? Sport should be an abstraction of life. There isn’t always a clear cut winner in life’s encounters.

Back in the day when college football allowed draws, I was listening to a University of Michigan radio broadcast (at work). When the game ended in a tie, one announcer said to the other, "A tie is like kissing your sister." Without missing a beat the other responded, "But at least she's pretty." That comment sticks with me to this day. Thanks everybody for letting me share.