Why do Americans not care about Soccer?

Page 17 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

KeithTalent

Elite Member | Administrator | No Lifer
Administrator
Nov 30, 2005
50,235
117
116
Don't forget:

Nonsensical time keeping - why can't we just count down so we know WTF is going on or how much time is left? If there are "penatly minutes" or Whatever the fuck is going on how about stop the clock so we know WTF is going on and how much time is left?

Haha, what? I don't even understand what the hell you are attempting to argue. Why would you need to stop the game? I assume you have 5 fingers on your hand to help youcalculate how many minutes they have added. :D

KT
 

AMDZen

Lifer
Apr 15, 2004
12,639
0
76
Haha, what? I don't even understand what the hell you are attempting to argue. Why would you need to stop the game? I assume you have 5 fingers on your hand to help youcalculate how many minutes they have added. :D

KT

I have no idea how the time keeping works. Maybe its just me but why wouldn't you stop the clock when they are handing out cards or just doing whatever?
 

ShockwaveVT

Senior member
Dec 13, 2004
830
1
0
Don't forget:

Nonsensical time keeping - why can't we just count down so we know WTF is going on or how much time is left? If there are "penatly minutes" or Whatever the fuck is going on how about stop the clock so we know WTF is going on and how much time is left?

Lost this babble is a legit complaint, there's no way to know exactly how much time is left in a match until the referee announces (if its even announced) how much stoppage time will be added.



I wish they would just link the Referee's stopwatch to the scoreboard. Maybe with that crazy new fangled technology called wireless radio? Then everyone would see the clock stop at 71:21 for a couple minutes while an injured player was tended to. Then when the ref restarted play and restarted his stopwatch, voila the end of the game is still in sync with 90:00 on the scoreboard.
 

AMDZen

Lifer
Apr 15, 2004
12,639
0
76
Lost this babble is a legit complaint, there's no way to know exactly how much time is left in a match until the referee announces (if its even announced) how much stoppage time will be added.

I wish they would just link the Referee's stopwatch to the scoreboard. Maybe with that crazy new fangled technology called wireless radio? Then everyone would see the clock stop at 71:21 for a couple minutes while an injured player was tended to. Then when the ref restarted play and restarted his stopwatch, voila the end of the game is still in sync with 90:00 on the scoreboard.

Thank you for explaining it better. If they just stopped the clock when they are supposed to be keeping the so called "stopage time" we would know how much time is left in the game but instead they just let it run and then make some shit up. You know its in stopage time once it gets to 90 minutes but then it just keeps going and the announcers are like, "were in stopage time now". OK so how much time is left in the game?
 

KeithTalent

Elite Member | Administrator | No Lifer
Administrator
Nov 30, 2005
50,235
117
116
I don't understand the timing argument. Every match is going to be between 90 and 95 minutes; final stoppage typically happens when there is no threat to score.

KT
 

AMDZen

Lifer
Apr 15, 2004
12,639
0
76
I don't understand the timing argument. Every match is going to be between 90 and 95 minutes; final stoppage typically happens when there is no threat to score.

KT

How can I explain it any better then in the post above this one added to ShockwaveVT's post?
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
95,036
15,142
126
I don't understand the timing argument. Every match is going to be between 90 and 95 minutes; final stoppage typically happens when there is no threat to score.

KT

Apparently the exact number of milliseconds left is more important than the actual game. Or he has irritable bowel syndrome and can't wait another x min to go to the bathroom.
 

Fingolfin269

Lifer
Feb 28, 2003
17,948
31
91
I've always been a fan of indoor soccer. I wish some wise businessman in the US could figure out how to make that work on TV.
 

AMDZen

Lifer
Apr 15, 2004
12,639
0
76
Apparently the exact number of milliseconds left is more important than the actual game. Or he has irritable bowel syndrome and can't wait another x min to go to the bathroom.

Another reason to hate the game as american's that watch real sports with a real clock that tells everyone exactly how much time is left at any given moment.

Since strategy leading up to the final minutes of the game isn't even important, and its apparently unimportant to even know when the end of the game is supposed to be - why are we supposed to care?
 

ShockwaveVT

Senior member
Dec 13, 2004
830
1
0
I don't understand the timing argument. Every match is going to be between 90 and 95 minutes; final stoppage typically happens when there is no threat to score.

KT

Mainly because the final seconds of any game are dramatic and having some ambiguous amount of time "added" at the end of the match (from the spectator's & scoreboard clock's point of view) serves to dampen any build up in the final moments.

Also, as far as final stoppage happening "when there is no threat to score" is bullshit. The game is supposed to be played for 90 minutes (actual game time, not counting stoppages), not 89:49 or 90:19.

If the losing team takes their sweet fucking time setting up a corner kick in the 90th minute they deserve to have the whistle blow on them while the ball is half way from the corner to the post.
 

gimmewhitecastles

Golden Member
Mar 2, 2005
1,834
0
0
Another reason to hate the game as american's that watch real sports with a real clock that tells everyone exactly how much time is left at any given moment.

Since strategy leading up to the final minutes of the game isn't even important, and its apparently unimportant to even know when the end of the game is supposed to be - why are we supposed to care?

Since scoring a goal is incredibly hard in the first place it doesn't matter how much time there is left. Its up to the team losing to score the equalizer as much as it is up to the winning team to maintain that lead. You'll notice the strategy in the formations. The possession turnover rate is incredibly high in soccer so anything can happen.
 

djnsmith7

Platinum Member
Apr 13, 2004
2,612
1
0
Those of you saying that NFL players (corners & receivers) are slow, must not have watched any parts of the NFL combine highlights (or simply don't know anything about the NFL). I'd like to see how many soccer players can run sub 4.4 in the 40...yea right...

I ran track (100 & 200) & played football (receiver) & never lost a foot race to a soccer player.

Soccer players do run fast, but they aren't the fastest. The top 10 fastest soccer players would be left behind in a foot race (100 or 200) against the NFL's to 10.

Don't forget, a lot of NFL athletes ran track in HS & college.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,656
687
126
Yes but then it wouldn't be football would it...

Instead, it would actually become something worth watching.

I believe the game will become popular in the US as your economic/military dominance of the last 50 years fades away and American isolationism becomes less tenable. At the moment Americans love American sports BECAUSE no other countries play them - after all why would you want to compete with other countries when you are so demonstrably superior to them in every way? The British Empire used to think like that - we refused to enter the World Cup in 1930 because we didn't believe other countries could possibly compete with us. As Britain became 'just another European power' though we began to see the value of sending sportsmen to other countries rather than gunboats. I suspect the US will go the same way.

:rolleyes:

Americans find soccer boring. That is the reason, not the ridiculous reason above.
 

Anubis

No Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
78,716
417
126
tbqhwy.com
Those of you saying that NFL players (corners & receivers) are slow, must not have watched any parts of the NFL combine highlights (or simply don't know anything about the NFL). I'd like to see how many soccer players can run sub 4.4 in the 40...yea right...

I ran track (100 & 200) & played football (receiver) & never lost a foot race to a soccer player.

Soccer players do run fast, but they aren't the fastest. The top 10 fastest soccer players would be left behind in a foot race (100 or 200) against the NFL's to 10.

Don't forget, a lot of NFL athletes ran track in HS & college.

i think some of them are faster then you think, but its kind of a dumb point, football players train for burst speed and soccer players train more for endurance
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,929
142
106
Another reason to hate the game as american's that watch real sports with a real clock that tells everyone exactly how much time is left at any given moment.

Since strategy leading up to the final minutes of the game isn't even important, and its apparently unimportant to even know when the end of the game is supposed to be - why are we supposed to care?

Yep, I agree with this. Clock management is huge in the NHL, NFL, and NBA. It adds so much more to the game.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,656
687
126
For the first point I actually doubt that is the case, but even it was true, that is what, maybe 1% of the NFL versus the multitudes of Soccer players?

Take the top 10 NFL players and top 10 soccer players and make them run a 40 or 100. I'd place my bet on the NFL players.


Saying Soccer is too simple is a silly argument though.

Not sure that I said it was simple, except for maybe saying it was simply boring. :)

The simple argument goes both ways. Soccer advocates discuss strategy and act like their game is the most strategic game in the world and dismiss American football as a simple "brute" sport. That is assinine, as the NFL is second to none when it comes to strategy and planning.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,656
687
126
i think some of them are faster then you think, but its kind of a dumb point, football players train for burst speed and soccer players train more for endurance

It is probably a dumb point, but we were responding to the soccer fans calling NFL players "fat" and "slow."
 

djnsmith7

Platinum Member
Apr 13, 2004
2,612
1
0
I agree that we are comparing apples to oranges in the sports themselves & how they're played & the style of running they do, but, the soccer players, IMO, would not beat the NFL players in a 100 or 200m foot race. Now, if we increase that to the 400 or 800, I'd say it would be a different ballgame, which would go along with your point.
 

Anubis

No Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
78,716
417
126
tbqhwy.com
what do thefastest football players run in the 100? do they even run it, or just the 40

ronaldo ran a 10.3 100 which IMO is pretty god damn fast IMO
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,656
687
126
eh some centers are fat, but that doesn't mean they are out of shape or slow, they are just huge walls of flesh

A poster earlier implied cornerbacks were fat. Obviously, some NFL players are huge but they have to be for their position.
 

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
9,015
578
126
Yes but then it wouldn't be football would it...

I believe the game will become popular in the US as your economic/military dominance of the last 50 years fades away and American isolationism becomes less tenable. At the moment Americans love American sports BECAUSE no other countries play them - after all why would you want to compete with other countries when you are so demonstrably superior to them in every way? The British Empire used to think like that - we refused to enter the World Cup in 1930 because we didn't believe other countries could possibly compete with us. As Britain became 'just another European power' though we began to see the value of sending sportsmen to other countries rather than gunboats. I suspect the US will go the same way.

Why don't you just say that Americans like gridiron football because it's like a series of battles and we're all a bunch of war-mongers? :rolleyes:
 

djnsmith7

Platinum Member
Apr 13, 2004
2,612
1
0
what do thefastest football players run in the 100? do they even run it, or just the 40

ronaldo ran a 10.3 100 which IMO is pretty god damn fast IMO

In the NFL, they only time in the 40, but as I mentioned, many of the corners, recievers & safeties ran track in college. For those that did, I'm sure they ran 10.3 or faster.

For reference, Deion Sanders ran a 10.21 in the 100 & Darrell Green ran a 10.08 & Ted Ginn Jr. ran a 10.02 & a 4.2 in the 40. I'd like to see a soccer player do that.

Anubis, not directed at you personally, but by comparison, a 10.3 really isn't all that fast, but it is fast for a soccer player.

Those of you calling out corners & receivers, you still want to engage in this part of the discussion?
 
Last edited: