Regarding the professional games in Latin America and Africa, most of those in attendance don't pay much attention to the games other than championships and WC games.
Most of the people attend them as a social event. They don't have the money for movies, or bowling, or billiards. They--especially the young ones--go to the games to drink, make dates, have sex, etc.
How is this any different than what many Americans do at sporting events? How many times have you been to a game and some moron can't even pronounce a players name correctly or says something completely asinine and has no idea what he or she is talking about?
It still contributes to the popularity of the game.
0
Quote Originally Posted by smarterthanyou:
Regarding the professional games in Latin America and Africa, most of those in attendance don't pay much attention to the games other than championships and WC games.
Most of the people attend them as a social event. They don't have the money for movies, or bowling, or billiards. They--especially the young ones--go to the games to drink, make dates, have sex, etc.
How is this any different than what many Americans do at sporting events? How many times have you been to a game and some moron can't even pronounce a players name correctly or says something completely asinine and has no idea what he or she is talking about?
It still contributes to the popularity of the game.
8 goals in today's game (Germany vs. Brazil) and it really couldn't have been more boring of a match. Scoring doesn't always equal excitement. Hell, they could have scored one less and it would have been a thriller at 4-3. More exciting games have ended 0-0 in this tourney.
On your NHL analogy I understand what you are trying to say (at least I think I do) but it comes across as the NHL got rid of offsides altogether to increase scoring.
I agree--that post was mostly sarcasm to the guy because of his tone. Do not like people in any sport to act like there can be no improving it. Elitist sounding to me. All sports have evolved; don't mind if soccer does some. Maybe that would bring everyone in world on board. Yes--today was great example of boring match with goals. But if it had been 4-4 going into last 10 minutes---maybe different story. Blowouts never interesting
0
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:
8 goals in today's game (Germany vs. Brazil) and it really couldn't have been more boring of a match. Scoring doesn't always equal excitement. Hell, they could have scored one less and it would have been a thriller at 4-3. More exciting games have ended 0-0 in this tourney.
On your NHL analogy I understand what you are trying to say (at least I think I do) but it comes across as the NHL got rid of offsides altogether to increase scoring.
I agree--that post was mostly sarcasm to the guy because of his tone. Do not like people in any sport to act like there can be no improving it. Elitist sounding to me. All sports have evolved; don't mind if soccer does some. Maybe that would bring everyone in world on board. Yes--today was great example of boring match with goals. But if it had been 4-4 going into last 10 minutes---maybe different story. Blowouts never interesting
How is this any different than what many Americans do at sporting events? How many times have you been to a game and some moron can't even pronounce a players name correctly or says something completely asinine and has no idea what he or she is talking about?
It still contributes to the popularity of the game.
Or sits there texting the whole time...
0
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:
How is this any different than what many Americans do at sporting events? How many times have you been to a game and some moron can't even pronounce a players name correctly or says something completely asinine and has no idea what he or she is talking about?
It still contributes to the popularity of the game.
I agree--that post was mostly sarcasm to the guy because of his tone. Do not like people in any sport to act like there can be no improving it. Elitist sounding to me. All sports have evolved; don't mind if soccer does some. Maybe that would bring everyone in world on board. Yes--today was great example of boring match with goals. But if it had been 4-4 going into last 10 minutes---maybe different story. Blowouts never interesting
I don't mind tweaking at all. I really like what they have done with the goal line technology. This could have changed the outcome of some games in the past. I'm glad they are making efforts to get it correct now. I just don't agree with the OP that offsides needs to go or even be tweaked anymore than it already is. What you mentioned earlier about the tweaking in '90 does seem to help the flow of the game. However, I think removing it would completely alter the game altogether and isn't needed.
I agree blowouts are never interesting unless a fight breaks out because of the blow outs. This is an aspect of hockey I appreciate.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
I agree--that post was mostly sarcasm to the guy because of his tone. Do not like people in any sport to act like there can be no improving it. Elitist sounding to me. All sports have evolved; don't mind if soccer does some. Maybe that would bring everyone in world on board. Yes--today was great example of boring match with goals. But if it had been 4-4 going into last 10 minutes---maybe different story. Blowouts never interesting
I don't mind tweaking at all. I really like what they have done with the goal line technology. This could have changed the outcome of some games in the past. I'm glad they are making efforts to get it correct now. I just don't agree with the OP that offsides needs to go or even be tweaked anymore than it already is. What you mentioned earlier about the tweaking in '90 does seem to help the flow of the game. However, I think removing it would completely alter the game altogether and isn't needed.
I agree blowouts are never interesting unless a fight breaks out because of the blow outs. This is an aspect of hockey I appreciate.
I don't mind tweaking at all. I really like what they have done with the goal line technology. This could have changed the outcome of some games in the past. I'm glad they are making efforts to get it correct now. I just don't agree with the OP that offsides needs to go or even be tweaked anymore than it already is. What you mentioned earlier about the tweaking in '90 does seem to help the flow of the game. However, I think removing it would completely alter the game altogether and isn't needed.
I agree blowouts are never interesting unless a fight breaks out because of the blow outs. This is an aspect of hockey I appreciate.
As someone that is used to soccer in its current form I am okay with it. But if it can be tried and experimented with to see if it works--I am open to it. When I try to get people to watch soccer---the complaints are boring---slow---etc. So I am open to new ideas.
You feel no offsides would make it a disaster? Most agree with you---I just would like it to be tried somewhere to see how it affects flow, strategy, etc.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:
I don't mind tweaking at all. I really like what they have done with the goal line technology. This could have changed the outcome of some games in the past. I'm glad they are making efforts to get it correct now. I just don't agree with the OP that offsides needs to go or even be tweaked anymore than it already is. What you mentioned earlier about the tweaking in '90 does seem to help the flow of the game. However, I think removing it would completely alter the game altogether and isn't needed.
I agree blowouts are never interesting unless a fight breaks out because of the blow outs. This is an aspect of hockey I appreciate.
As someone that is used to soccer in its current form I am okay with it. But if it can be tried and experimented with to see if it works--I am open to it. When I try to get people to watch soccer---the complaints are boring---slow---etc. So I am open to new ideas.
You feel no offsides would make it a disaster? Most agree with you---I just would like it to be tried somewhere to see how it affects flow, strategy, etc.
I don't mind tweaking at all. I really like what they have done with the goal line technology. This could have changed the outcome of some games in the past. I'm glad they are making efforts to get it correct now.
Good for you! Haha! I am still somewhat baffled by it and when they opt to use it, etc. But a start.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:
I don't mind tweaking at all. I really like what they have done with the goal line technology. This could have changed the outcome of some games in the past. I'm glad they are making efforts to get it correct now.
Good for you! Haha! I am still somewhat baffled by it and when they opt to use it, etc. But a start.
The tone or undertone was because this isn't the first time many of us (football community) has had to hear these silly and ridiculous "ideas", and nothing against you it's just frustrating. Every four years people come along and try to Americanize the sport, which is football btw but that's a completely different discussion. Every four years someone has their suggestion on how it could be done "better".
If you can't appreciate and understand what all happens leading up to a goal (buildup, long crosses, tiki taka, switching of play, etc), then you probably shouldn't watch this sport honestly. It sounds harsh but really that's what it's all about. So much happens in the buildup to a goal, and it's rarely if ever shown on ESPN and even NBCSN (MLS) at times. They really got the Premier League coverage right though, I mean you want to watch this sport at it's truly highest level, wake up Saturday mornings here in the fall because it gets no better than the EPL. Anyway, there's so much more to a goal than just the 1 or 2 passes leading up to it, you can literally hear the buildup with the crowds too, at least in EPL.
Case in point Germany 7 Brasil 1. The hosts were humiliated like never before, and don't think that this is anywhere near commonplace or even the occasional result. It isn't, nowhere near it, Brasil suffered their worst loss since the 30's I believe, and it was on their home soil to make it that much worse. Anyway 7-1 ft, 5 goals in the first half and 3 in the second and it was one of the most dreadful matches you could really ever watch. Huge letoff for a WC semifinal, unless you're a Germany supporter or just watching to see Brasil's ultimate and spectacular demise. The ripples of this haven't even began to set in yet, in fact the waves are still in motion for Brasil, who might as well be out in the ocean right now. Anyway my point would be that goals do not always produce a great product.
The offside rule is perfect, exceptional even if it weren't for the
borderline incompetent at times referee's assistants. Each season, and
each tournament passes with the hopes that "they'll get it right" and it
hasn't happened yet. Better and more extensive training is needed,
period, because it is unacceptable to have both a man a foot offside
score a goal that stands, and a man 2 feet onside score a goal and it be
disallowed. But the answer is certainly not to do away with the rule.
As far as MLS goes, the product, attendance and viewers have all consistently been growing in the last 5 years at least. We might not have the best domestic league, but at the moment we don't even get a chance to compete with any. The only competition MLS can play in (at the moment) is CONCACAF Champions League, which the winner of earns a spot in the FIFA Club WC, and there's been opportunities but so far no MLS team has won CCL(in it's current format) So, you can make the argument that we don't deserve to play with the top sides. I do feel there should be a tournament or competition with some of the mid to lower leagues in the world but we're not allowed in Europe or elsewhere at the moment. MLS is just about both attendance and quality wise level with Championship football (English 2nd tier) as it stands. I'm sure that can be argued as well, MLS is definitely improving though.
0
The tone or undertone was because this isn't the first time many of us (football community) has had to hear these silly and ridiculous "ideas", and nothing against you it's just frustrating. Every four years people come along and try to Americanize the sport, which is football btw but that's a completely different discussion. Every four years someone has their suggestion on how it could be done "better".
If you can't appreciate and understand what all happens leading up to a goal (buildup, long crosses, tiki taka, switching of play, etc), then you probably shouldn't watch this sport honestly. It sounds harsh but really that's what it's all about. So much happens in the buildup to a goal, and it's rarely if ever shown on ESPN and even NBCSN (MLS) at times. They really got the Premier League coverage right though, I mean you want to watch this sport at it's truly highest level, wake up Saturday mornings here in the fall because it gets no better than the EPL. Anyway, there's so much more to a goal than just the 1 or 2 passes leading up to it, you can literally hear the buildup with the crowds too, at least in EPL.
Case in point Germany 7 Brasil 1. The hosts were humiliated like never before, and don't think that this is anywhere near commonplace or even the occasional result. It isn't, nowhere near it, Brasil suffered their worst loss since the 30's I believe, and it was on their home soil to make it that much worse. Anyway 7-1 ft, 5 goals in the first half and 3 in the second and it was one of the most dreadful matches you could really ever watch. Huge letoff for a WC semifinal, unless you're a Germany supporter or just watching to see Brasil's ultimate and spectacular demise. The ripples of this haven't even began to set in yet, in fact the waves are still in motion for Brasil, who might as well be out in the ocean right now. Anyway my point would be that goals do not always produce a great product.
The offside rule is perfect, exceptional even if it weren't for the
borderline incompetent at times referee's assistants. Each season, and
each tournament passes with the hopes that "they'll get it right" and it
hasn't happened yet. Better and more extensive training is needed,
period, because it is unacceptable to have both a man a foot offside
score a goal that stands, and a man 2 feet onside score a goal and it be
disallowed. But the answer is certainly not to do away with the rule.
As far as MLS goes, the product, attendance and viewers have all consistently been growing in the last 5 years at least. We might not have the best domestic league, but at the moment we don't even get a chance to compete with any. The only competition MLS can play in (at the moment) is CONCACAF Champions League, which the winner of earns a spot in the FIFA Club WC, and there's been opportunities but so far no MLS team has won CCL(in it's current format) So, you can make the argument that we don't deserve to play with the top sides. I do feel there should be a tournament or competition with some of the mid to lower leagues in the world but we're not allowed in Europe or elsewhere at the moment. MLS is just about both attendance and quality wise level with Championship football (English 2nd tier) as it stands. I'm sure that can be argued as well, MLS is definitely improving though.
As someone that is used to soccer in its current form I am okay with it. But if it can be tried and experimented with to see if it works--I am open to it. When I try to get people to watch soccer---the complaints are boring---slow---etc. So I am open to new ideas.
You feel no offsides would make it a disaster? Most agree with you---I just would like it to be tried somewhere to see how it affects flow, strategy, etc.
No offsides would absolutely be a disaster and I completely disagree with the OP that teams wouldn't leave a forward or two just outside of the opponents 18 yard box to cherry pick goals. I agree with Kinkaid that the build up through the midfield is the more successful strategy to scoring goals as well. The thing that makes goals like Madadona's in '86 and Baggio's in '90 so special is that they rarely ever happen at the professional level, i.e. one guy dribbling through an entire defense. Which, by eliminating offsides, you are essentially trying to do. Just playing a long ball to a single forward (or maybe two) and having them beat whoever is left back on the defense. I think you would see more fouls, clutching, grabbing, by defenders in an effort to allow their midfielders and other defenders to fall back. This would run opposite to the theory that it would increase flow and offense. I think it would just turn into one giant game of low percentage long balls which wouldn't increase offense much at all.
Also, looking at the OP's other points, I would say he really doesn't know the game as well as he thinks he does.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
As someone that is used to soccer in its current form I am okay with it. But if it can be tried and experimented with to see if it works--I am open to it. When I try to get people to watch soccer---the complaints are boring---slow---etc. So I am open to new ideas.
You feel no offsides would make it a disaster? Most agree with you---I just would like it to be tried somewhere to see how it affects flow, strategy, etc.
No offsides would absolutely be a disaster and I completely disagree with the OP that teams wouldn't leave a forward or two just outside of the opponents 18 yard box to cherry pick goals. I agree with Kinkaid that the build up through the midfield is the more successful strategy to scoring goals as well. The thing that makes goals like Madadona's in '86 and Baggio's in '90 so special is that they rarely ever happen at the professional level, i.e. one guy dribbling through an entire defense. Which, by eliminating offsides, you are essentially trying to do. Just playing a long ball to a single forward (or maybe two) and having them beat whoever is left back on the defense. I think you would see more fouls, clutching, grabbing, by defenders in an effort to allow their midfielders and other defenders to fall back. This would run opposite to the theory that it would increase flow and offense. I think it would just turn into one giant game of low percentage long balls which wouldn't increase offense much at all.
Also, looking at the OP's other points, I would say he really doesn't know the game as well as he thinks he does.
The tone or undertone was because this isn't the first time many of us (football community) has had to hear these silly and ridiculous "ideas", and nothing against you it's just frustrating. Every four years people come along and try to Americanize the sport, which is football btw but that's a completely different discussion. Every four years someone has their suggestion on how it could be done "better".
I understand---even agree to a point---but to out of hand dismiss as silly that ANY changes could be even looked at?
0
Quote Originally Posted by KinKAID:
The tone or undertone was because this isn't the first time many of us (football community) has had to hear these silly and ridiculous "ideas", and nothing against you it's just frustrating. Every four years people come along and try to Americanize the sport, which is football btw but that's a completely different discussion. Every four years someone has their suggestion on how it could be done "better".
I understand---even agree to a point---but to out of hand dismiss as silly that ANY changes could be even looked at?
The offside rule is perfect, exceptional even if it weren't for the borderline incompetent at times referee's assistants. Each season, and each tournament passes with the hopes that "they'll get it right" and it hasn't happened yet. Better and more extensive training is needed, period, because it is unacceptable to have both a man a foot offside score a goal that stands, and a man 2 feet onside score a goal and it be disallowed. But the answer is certainly not to do away with the rule.
As far as MLS goes, the product, attendance and viewers have all consistently been growing in the last 5 years at least. We might not have the best domestic league, but at the moment we don't even get a chance to compete with any. The only competition MLS can play in (at the moment) is CONCACAF Champions League, which the winner of earns a spot in the FIFA Club WC, and there's been opportunities but so far no MLS team has won CCL(in it's current format) So, you can make the argument that we don't deserve to play with the top sides. I do feel there should be a tournament or competition with some of the mid to lower leagues in the world but we're not allowed in Europe or elsewhere at the moment. MLS is just about both attendance and quality wise level with Championship football (English 2nd tier) as it stands. I'm sure that can be argued as well, MLS is definitely improving though.
Just very hard to watch 2-3 things moving at the same time when you have 1 brain and 2 eyes. Maybe a better way to call the offsides would be nice.
Yes---I actually like MLS more and more---some good rivalries are developing. Maybe because it is the last soccer of the day and I am up late so get to see it.
Also not sure how I feel about FIFA monopoly, etc.
0
Quote Originally Posted by KinKAID:
The offside rule is perfect, exceptional even if it weren't for the borderline incompetent at times referee's assistants. Each season, and each tournament passes with the hopes that "they'll get it right" and it hasn't happened yet. Better and more extensive training is needed, period, because it is unacceptable to have both a man a foot offside score a goal that stands, and a man 2 feet onside score a goal and it be disallowed. But the answer is certainly not to do away with the rule.
As far as MLS goes, the product, attendance and viewers have all consistently been growing in the last 5 years at least. We might not have the best domestic league, but at the moment we don't even get a chance to compete with any. The only competition MLS can play in (at the moment) is CONCACAF Champions League, which the winner of earns a spot in the FIFA Club WC, and there's been opportunities but so far no MLS team has won CCL(in it's current format) So, you can make the argument that we don't deserve to play with the top sides. I do feel there should be a tournament or competition with some of the mid to lower leagues in the world but we're not allowed in Europe or elsewhere at the moment. MLS is just about both attendance and quality wise level with Championship football (English 2nd tier) as it stands. I'm sure that can be argued as well, MLS is definitely improving though.
Just very hard to watch 2-3 things moving at the same time when you have 1 brain and 2 eyes. Maybe a better way to call the offsides would be nice.
Yes---I actually like MLS more and more---some good rivalries are developing. Maybe because it is the last soccer of the day and I am up late so get to see it.
Also not sure how I feel about FIFA monopoly, etc.
No offsides would absolutely be a disaster and I completely disagree with the OP that teams wouldn't leave a forward or two just outside of the opponents 18 yard box to cherry pick goals. I agree with Kinkaid that the build up through the midfield is the more successful strategy to scoring goals as well. The thing that makes goals like Madadona's in '86 and Baggio's in '90 so special is that they rarely ever happen at the professional level, i.e. one guy dribbling through an entire defense. Which, by eliminating offsides, you are essentially trying to do. Just playing a long ball to a single forward (or maybe two) and having them beat whoever is left back on the defense. I think you would see more fouls, clutching, grabbing, by defenders in an effort to allow their midfielders and other defenders to fall back. This would run opposite to the theory that it would increase flow and offense. I think it would just turn into one giant game of low percentage long balls which wouldn't increase offense much at all.
Also, looking at the OP's other points, I would say he really doesn't know the game as well as he thinks he does.
Maybe he does understand it very well...and these are things he doesn't like. If this is your main sport I think you are more accepting of the nuances, as with anything. But if you are used to open, action sports you automatically will question soccer's perceived lack of this.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:
No offsides would absolutely be a disaster and I completely disagree with the OP that teams wouldn't leave a forward or two just outside of the opponents 18 yard box to cherry pick goals. I agree with Kinkaid that the build up through the midfield is the more successful strategy to scoring goals as well. The thing that makes goals like Madadona's in '86 and Baggio's in '90 so special is that they rarely ever happen at the professional level, i.e. one guy dribbling through an entire defense. Which, by eliminating offsides, you are essentially trying to do. Just playing a long ball to a single forward (or maybe two) and having them beat whoever is left back on the defense. I think you would see more fouls, clutching, grabbing, by defenders in an effort to allow their midfielders and other defenders to fall back. This would run opposite to the theory that it would increase flow and offense. I think it would just turn into one giant game of low percentage long balls which wouldn't increase offense much at all.
Also, looking at the OP's other points, I would say he really doesn't know the game as well as he thinks he does.
Maybe he does understand it very well...and these are things he doesn't like. If this is your main sport I think you are more accepting of the nuances, as with anything. But if you are used to open, action sports you automatically will question soccer's perceived lack of this.
On your NHL analogy I understand what you are trying to say (at least I think I do) but it comes across as the NHL got rid of offsides altogether to increase scoring.
No--sorry was not clear---I am saying maybe you remove it closer to goal, like in an attacking type zone, etc.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:
On your NHL analogy I understand what you are trying to say (at least I think I do) but it comes across as the NHL got rid of offsides altogether to increase scoring.
No--sorry was not clear---I am saying maybe you remove it closer to goal, like in an attacking type zone, etc.
l. The thing that makes goals like Madadona's in '86 and Baggio's in '90 so special is that they rarely ever happen at the professional level, i.e. one guy dribbling through an entire defense.
One of my earliest memories of WC!
So, how would you suggest being able to open play up for something like this to happen more often?
0
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:
l. The thing that makes goals like Madadona's in '86 and Baggio's in '90 so special is that they rarely ever happen at the professional level, i.e. one guy dribbling through an entire defense.
One of my earliest memories of WC!
So, how would you suggest being able to open play up for something like this to happen more often?
The qualification process alone takes at the very least 2 years, maybe more I'm not 100% sure but it's a long and grueling cycle. That's why countries in Europe have the EURO every 4 years as well, it's a major tournament that fills the gap between WC cycles.
Our equivalent to that would be Copa America and for whatever reason, may very well be Gulati's fault but for lack of a better explanation, they just won't let us play. Mexico gets an invitation consistently and in 2015 Jamaica is even being invited after China declined. USA will host Copa America 2016 however, which is indeed strange because it's not a tournament we're generally invited to, but in 2016 we will play and we will host.
CONCACAF's tournament is the Gold Cup (every 2 years) and it really couldn't matter less. Still nice to play in a tournament though, and of course I'll take any excuse to play Mexico. Win the Gold Cup and you earn a spot in the Confederations Cup (smaller tournament year before WC) Actually now instead of having to win the Gold Cup on a particular year like in the past, the winners (if more than one) play each other for the Confed spot. (US MNT Gold Cup winners 2013)
0
The qualification process alone takes at the very least 2 years, maybe more I'm not 100% sure but it's a long and grueling cycle. That's why countries in Europe have the EURO every 4 years as well, it's a major tournament that fills the gap between WC cycles.
Our equivalent to that would be Copa America and for whatever reason, may very well be Gulati's fault but for lack of a better explanation, they just won't let us play. Mexico gets an invitation consistently and in 2015 Jamaica is even being invited after China declined. USA will host Copa America 2016 however, which is indeed strange because it's not a tournament we're generally invited to, but in 2016 we will play and we will host.
CONCACAF's tournament is the Gold Cup (every 2 years) and it really couldn't matter less. Still nice to play in a tournament though, and of course I'll take any excuse to play Mexico. Win the Gold Cup and you earn a spot in the Confederations Cup (smaller tournament year before WC) Actually now instead of having to win the Gold Cup on a particular year like in the past, the winners (if more than one) play each other for the Confed spot. (US MNT Gold Cup winners 2013)
Yes, improvement may mean they should find another sport to improve.
I didn't say there couldn't possibly be any improvement but as always you only want to hear what you want to hear. you sound too much of a know-it-all.( maybe, maybe not/ agree without agreeing.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
Yes, improvement may mean they should find another sport to improve.
I didn't say there couldn't possibly be any improvement but as always you only want to hear what you want to hear. you sound too much of a know-it-all.( maybe, maybe not/ agree without agreeing.
The tone or undertone was because this isn't the first time many of us (football community) has had to hear these silly and ridiculous "ideas", and nothing against you it's just frustrating. Every four years people come along and try to Americanize the sport, which is football btw but that's a completely different discussion. Every four years someone has their suggestion on how it could be done "better".
If you can't appreciate and understand what all happens leading up to a goal (buildup, long crosses, tiki taka, switching of play, etc), then you probably shouldn't watch this sport honestly. It sounds harsh but really that's what it's all about. So much happens in the buildup to a goal, and it's rarely if ever shown on ESPN and even NBCSN (MLS) at times. They really got the Premier League coverage right though, I mean you want to watch this sport at it's truly highest level, wake up Saturday mornings here in the fall because it gets no better than the EPL. Anyway, there's so much more to a goal than just the 1 or 2 passes leading up to it, you can literally hear the buildup with the crowds too, at least in EPL.
Case in point Germany 7 Brasil 1. The hosts were humiliated like never before, and don't think that this is anywhere near commonplace or even the occasional result. It isn't, nowhere near it, Brasil suffered their worst loss since the 30's I believe, and it was on their home soil to make it that much worse. Anyway 7-1 ft, 5 goals in the first half and 3 in the second and it was one of the most dreadful matches you could really ever watch. Huge letoff for a WC semifinal, unless you're a Germany supporter or just watching to see Brasil's ultimate and spectacular demise. The ripples of this haven't even began to set in yet, in fact the waves are still in motion for Brasil, who might as well be out in the ocean right now. Anyway my point would be that goals do not always produce a great product.
The offside rule is perfect, exceptional even if it weren't for the borderline incompetent at times referee's assistants. Each season, and each tournament passes with the hopes that "they'll get it right" and it hasn't happened yet. Better and more extensive training is needed, period, because it is unacceptable to have both a man a foot offside score a goal that stands, and a man 2 feet onside score a goal and it be disallowed. But the answer is certainly not to do away with the rule.
As far as MLS goes, the product, attendance and viewers have all consistently been growing in the last 5 years at least. We might not have the best domestic league, but at the moment we don't even get a chance to compete with any. The only competition MLS can play in (at the moment) is CONCACAF Champions League, which the winner of earns a spot in the FIFA Club WC, and there's been opportunities but so far no MLS team has won CCL(in it's current format) So, you can make the argument that we don't deserve to play with the top sides. I do feel there should be a tournament or competition with some of the mid to lower leagues in the world but we're not allowed in Europe or elsewhere at the moment. MLS is just about both attendance and quality wise level with Championship football (English 2nd tier) as it stands. I'm sure that can be argued as well, MLS is definitely improving though.
If my memory serves me correctly, I believe Holland used the "off-side trap" to a perfection in 1982 to advance all the way to the Finals. "Totally football" as its finest!!
0
Quote Originally Posted by KinKAID:
The tone or undertone was because this isn't the first time many of us (football community) has had to hear these silly and ridiculous "ideas", and nothing against you it's just frustrating. Every four years people come along and try to Americanize the sport, which is football btw but that's a completely different discussion. Every four years someone has their suggestion on how it could be done "better".
If you can't appreciate and understand what all happens leading up to a goal (buildup, long crosses, tiki taka, switching of play, etc), then you probably shouldn't watch this sport honestly. It sounds harsh but really that's what it's all about. So much happens in the buildup to a goal, and it's rarely if ever shown on ESPN and even NBCSN (MLS) at times. They really got the Premier League coverage right though, I mean you want to watch this sport at it's truly highest level, wake up Saturday mornings here in the fall because it gets no better than the EPL. Anyway, there's so much more to a goal than just the 1 or 2 passes leading up to it, you can literally hear the buildup with the crowds too, at least in EPL.
Case in point Germany 7 Brasil 1. The hosts were humiliated like never before, and don't think that this is anywhere near commonplace or even the occasional result. It isn't, nowhere near it, Brasil suffered their worst loss since the 30's I believe, and it was on their home soil to make it that much worse. Anyway 7-1 ft, 5 goals in the first half and 3 in the second and it was one of the most dreadful matches you could really ever watch. Huge letoff for a WC semifinal, unless you're a Germany supporter or just watching to see Brasil's ultimate and spectacular demise. The ripples of this haven't even began to set in yet, in fact the waves are still in motion for Brasil, who might as well be out in the ocean right now. Anyway my point would be that goals do not always produce a great product.
The offside rule is perfect, exceptional even if it weren't for the borderline incompetent at times referee's assistants. Each season, and each tournament passes with the hopes that "they'll get it right" and it hasn't happened yet. Better and more extensive training is needed, period, because it is unacceptable to have both a man a foot offside score a goal that stands, and a man 2 feet onside score a goal and it be disallowed. But the answer is certainly not to do away with the rule.
As far as MLS goes, the product, attendance and viewers have all consistently been growing in the last 5 years at least. We might not have the best domestic league, but at the moment we don't even get a chance to compete with any. The only competition MLS can play in (at the moment) is CONCACAF Champions League, which the winner of earns a spot in the FIFA Club WC, and there's been opportunities but so far no MLS team has won CCL(in it's current format) So, you can make the argument that we don't deserve to play with the top sides. I do feel there should be a tournament or competition with some of the mid to lower leagues in the world but we're not allowed in Europe or elsewhere at the moment. MLS is just about both attendance and quality wise level with Championship football (English 2nd tier) as it stands. I'm sure that can be argued as well, MLS is definitely improving though.
If my memory serves me correctly, I believe Holland used the "off-side trap" to a perfection in 1982 to advance all the way to the Finals. "Totally football" as its finest!!
I'd like to know where you got your 45% stat from, if you don't mind.
Also China has two professional soccer leagues and India has one and India is also partnering with the BPL to form a super league. So I actually do believe they have an interest in soccer and an interest in competing, despite a lack of success at the world level.
Yes, I know the people in China love the sport , they just aren't very good at it due to a lot of reasons(another topic). Constructive criticism is always good but some people just want to find ways to downplay the popularity of the Sport.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:
I'd like to know where you got your 45% stat from, if you don't mind.
Also China has two professional soccer leagues and India has one and India is also partnering with the BPL to form a super league. So I actually do believe they have an interest in soccer and an interest in competing, despite a lack of success at the world level.
Yes, I know the people in China love the sport , they just aren't very good at it due to a lot of reasons(another topic). Constructive criticism is always good but some people just want to find ways to downplay the popularity of the Sport.
Unlike MLB, NBA and NFL, the World Cup really mean what it is. The tournament has over 100 countries to begin with so it is not much you can do time-wise.
0
Quote Originally Posted by gfinger:
Shorten the qualification process then too.
Unlike MLB, NBA and NFL, the World Cup really mean what it is. The tournament has over 100 countries to begin with so it is not much you can do time-wise.
I didn't say there couldn't possibly be any improvement but as always you only want to hear what you want to hear. you sound too much of a know-it-all.( maybe, maybe not/ agree without agreeing.
I was agreeing with you? I am okay with some tweaking. Was saying If folks want wholesale changes maybe soccer is not for them. Thought you were saying that. Not a know it all by any means. But you always sound defenisive.
0
Quote Originally Posted by bunny651:
I didn't say there couldn't possibly be any improvement but as always you only want to hear what you want to hear. you sound too much of a know-it-all.( maybe, maybe not/ agree without agreeing.
I was agreeing with you? I am okay with some tweaking. Was saying If folks want wholesale changes maybe soccer is not for them. Thought you were saying that. Not a know it all by any means. But you always sound defenisive.
My thing is I am not sure it is ref asst fault lotta times. It is hard to see 3 things at once? Ball and at least 2 guys? Maybe a better way to gauge it? I asked somewhere else. I think here. Why not a non offside like attacking zone area closer to goal also? Maybe someone answered and I didn't see. But maybe something like that would work? Thanks. Not trying to be smart. Just curious on thoughts on these two.
0
My thing is I am not sure it is ref asst fault lotta times. It is hard to see 3 things at once? Ball and at least 2 guys? Maybe a better way to gauge it? I asked somewhere else. I think here. Why not a non offside like attacking zone area closer to goal also? Maybe someone answered and I didn't see. But maybe something like that would work? Thanks. Not trying to be smart. Just curious on thoughts on these two.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Yes, improvement may mean they should find another sport to improve. 
Hot Forum Topics
