Non;403342 wrote:I've covered soccer a lot in high school and began understanding the game because I had to.

But I still think so much of time amounts to nothing. People will say you have to understand it and know what all is going on and that you have to watch everything but that's bull crap. The key moments often are few and far between.

And what happens is the fans get restless for some action so they usually complain over every little call. That's a big part of soccer at every level. Just coaches, players and fans crying about the calls.

Non;403342 wrote:But I still think so much of time amounts to nothing.

The key moments often are few and far between.

Just coaches, players and fans crying about the calls.

Laley23;403348 wrote:Yeah, but you dont know when the action is gonna come, so its intense (if you have a rooting interest). I could watch a game for probably 10 minutes and tell you the way a team is going to have to attack to have success in the given game, most people couldnt so they think its boring.

I am a pretty big baseball fan, yet I get extremely bored. I mean shit, the games are 3 hrs if your lucky. I usually watch the early innings and the 8th and 9th. The others Im on my computer just listening to the commentators or watching a different channel all together. Even in 2007 when the Tribe was sensational I couldnt sit through a whole game vs the Royals.

In soccer, I dont really ever find a moment boring. The build up is so important and crucial and its the American way to want action with a result. At least thats what they say. But excuses are always made for low scoring football games or baseball games. Soccer is just as exciting as those sports if you actually understand the movement of all 10 players. The shape of the defense. The triangle passing. The overlapping. The shape of a team moving together so as not to get spread. Choosing when to attack and leave the midfield exposed and when not to. Im not saying you dont get these things, because you said you cover soccer. But most people do not. I mean hell, the biggest thing said is soccer needs to do away with the offside rule which would KILL the game. There would be no scoring, ever. It would be fucking retarded yet people think for some ungodly reason it would actually open things up. When someone tells me that, I pretty much assume they have never played soccer (and if you have never played, its almost impossible to understand the game)

Non;403365 wrote:Baseball has so many different dynamics. Each night you have so many games around the big leagues and all these highlights and scenarios and heroes. Even with the Pirates, my team, they may lose every night but they lose different ways.

Soccer actually does not offer much variety. You end up with a lot of games that are not much different than the others. A few big saves to preserve the win. One team controlled the action and kept the pressure on, dominating 3-0. This team had their chances but missed the opportunities. When there is a controversial call or some type of fight/altercation it helps give the game some added story or it would be pretty dull otherwise.

Laley23;403368 wrote:Well, you can think that, but I will disagree completely. The Netherlands and Spain...and that is even arguable are the only teams left (hell maybe in the whole 32) that even play the same style all the way through.

Just because games end in baseball with a different way to lose, doesnt mean it isnt the same in soccer, despite what you want to believe. Just today, England lost because they were arguing a hand-ball off a free kick and didnt get back on defense. Argentina won because of a retarded Mexican defender. Yesterday, Ghana won because USA missed a ton of chances and got beat on 2 chances Ghana had. Uruguay won because of an unreal effort from Suarez after a game that was up and down the whole time. 4 different games with results. The games were played completely different as well. NONE of those games had the same tempo and pace.

Non;403365 wrote:Baseball has so many different dynamics. Each night you have so many games around the big leagues and all these highlights and scenarios and heroes. Even with the Pirates, my team, they may lose every night but they lose different ways.

Soccer actually does not offer much variety. You end up with a lot of games that are not much different than the others. A few big saves to preserve the win. One team controlled the action and kept the pressure on, dominating 3-0. This team had their chances but missed the opportunities. When there is a controversial call or some type of fight/altercation it helps give the game some added story or it would be pretty dull otherwise.

I Wear Pants;403391 wrote:You definitely don't really understand soccer if you think Baseball is more dynamic. Baseball is terribly boring when people aren't hitting home runs. And even then you only got home runs when every player in the game was a fat steroid user. Now they're just fat.

Edit: Again, ESPN doesn't show soccer highlights constantly throughout the year as much as they do baseball or basketball is for a few reasons. One being that there aren't eight million games in a season. Another being that everytime they show soccer people whine about it. Like you have been doing all day. "Wah...why do they have soccer on my ESPN? I could have been reading interesting articles like "Where is Lebron going? Incite from his barber" or "Brett Farve looked at a football while shopping...confirmation that he's returning for another year".

Non;403416 wrote:unrelated, but I think another thing that hurts soccer is the lack of tradition

that does account for a lot in our other professional and college sports

you really can't compare the greats and go back and rank the top moments and stuff like that, like you get with the other sports

I Wear Pants;403473 wrote:You're a troll. No one can be stupid enough to think that soccer lacks tradition. It has more tradition in it's proverbial finger than most of the sports you're thinking of have at all.

Non;403389 wrote:I don't know about all that. The first two games were pretty much onesided. There are a few plays that are getting blown up to seem more pivotal but there was a lot time after that.

If the game was so great how come the MLS games don't produce news throughout the year? It's not just because ESPN chooses not to promote soccer because they clearly do once in awhile.

Non;403416 wrote:unrelated, but I think another thing that hurts soccer is the lack of tradition

that does account for a lot in our other professional and college sports

you really can't compare the greats and go back and rank the top moments and stuff like that, like you get with the other sports

Laley23;403498 wrote:Hold on a second...you think Uruguay vs South Korea and USA vs Ghana were one sided?????? Today, Germany was by far the better team, but that is whats great. England should have been tied and even after the missed call were ONE play from being tied. England had all the momentum on their side. A free kick from a dangerous position. One of the best free kick takers in the world over the ball. He hits the wall, Germany counters, Germany scores.

Argentina was lucky to have a goal at all until their 3rd. While they dominated (Mexico had the 2 best chances in the first half though, just didnt put it in) Mexico was never completely out of it.


ESPN doesnt show soccer highlights because when they do even the anchors fucking complain....ON AIR....about it. No, they cant just do their fucking job, they literally get angered (outside Josh Elliot, cause he likes soccer). People get way to angry about soccer being shown, and frankly not many people are watching ESPN for their soccer news because we have much better channels for it (FSC, GolTV, Sentana, and ESPNDeportes). But the audience is there, ESPN would be dumb not to try and become the big dog carrying the broadcasting rights. Anyone over 40 hates soccer, and a good number of people under enjoy it immensely. Its no surprise its popularity is rising as the demographic of soccer followers expands.

Non;403513 wrote:
ESPN tries every now and then to push it more but then realizes that it's still a niche sport and they go back to covering it as such.

hoops23;403529 wrote:I Wear Pants, who's your EPL team?

hoops23;403529 wrote:Laley23, who's your EPL team?

Automatik;403528 wrote:Thats why you have Sky Sports, FSC, and Setanta. MUCH better coverage.

I understand if some people don't like it, hell I dislike baseball and cricket. But you don't see me bitching about it. What the anti-soccer people don't realize is that most fans don't really give a shit how big it is or gets in the US....including myself. I'm more into the EPL and CL anyway.....not concerned with the rise of the MLS . It is what it is....a second tier league, yet gaining popularity.

Non you're General Zod from old Huddle are you?

Non;403553 wrote:Yeah I am.

I agree with your last sentence. It's gained popularity but still is a second tier league until they can get more of the best players.