2010 World Cup Thread

[SpongeWorthy]

The people who don't like college sports cite that they want to watch the best of the best above all other reasons. I can't argue with that reasoning.

[wolf stansson]

We weren't criticizing the criticism. We criticize the attitude behind it. It's drive-by opinion making without caring about the reasoning behind the thing. Just like I'd criticize some foreigner who went on about why baseball sucks because there's foul territory unlike cricket.

 

Basically what I'm saying, and what TT is saying, if you don't care about a sport (not just a sport either, it applies to music, politics etc) then we don't care about your opinion.

 

It's like not liking rap and then complaining about the new Jay Z album because it's just noise or talking over a beat. Your opinion is ignorant and biased, so therefore invalid.

[SpongeWorthy]

That's the sort of echo chamber groupthink that we all get on Joe Morgan types about.

[wolf stansson]

That's the sort of echo chamber groupthink that we all get on Joe Morgan types about.

Actually it's the opposite of that. We want criticism to come from an educated point of view instead of someone who just takes a quick glance and draws conclusion. So basically, jersey is Joe Morgan. If he knew a lot about the sport and still drew the same conclusion, I'd listen.

[jersey cubs fan]

We weren't criticizing the criticism. We criticize the attitude behind it. It's drive-by opinion making without caring about the reasoning behind the thing. Just like I'd criticize some foreigner who went on about why baseball sucks because there's foul territory unlike cricket.

 

Basically what I'm saying, and what TT is saying, if you don't care about a sport (not just a sport either, it applies to music, politics etc) then we don't care about your opinion.

 

It's like not liking rap and then complaining about the new Jay Z album because it's just noise or talking over a beat. Your opinion is ignorant and biased, so therefore invalid.

 

That's still ridiculous. Just because the person isn't as passionate/knowledgeable about the sport as you, you can then decide their opinion doens't matter? At least you aren't hiding your arrogance. People wouldn't be talking about what they'd like to see different if they didn't care about the sport at all. Stop taking criticism of a freaking sport so personally. I don't give a crap if a friend from London hates football. If they actually take the time to say something about what they don't like, other than, I just don't like it, then I take it as a sign that they've actually spent some time watching it and don't just dismiss it out of hand.

[jersey cubs fan]

That's the sort of echo chamber groupthink that we all get on Joe Morgan types about.

Actually it's the opposite of that. We want criticism to come from an educated point of view instead of someone who just takes a quick glance and draws conclusion. So basically, jersey is Joe Morgan. If he knew a lot about the sport and still drew the same conclusion, I'd listen.

 

Screw you. All I did was defend somebody who made criticisms against your arrogant BS. I never once pretended to know more about the sport than anybody else (criteria number 1 for comparing somebody to Joe Morgan).

[wolf stansson]

Stop taking criticism of a freaking sport so personally.

I'm the one taking criticism personally?

 

Screw you. All I did was defend somebody who made criticisms against your arrogant BS. I never once pretended to know more about the sport than anybody else (criteria number 1 for comparing somebody to Joe Morgan).

 

Calm down, cranky pants.

 

If you don't understand something, it's reasonable for someone who does understand it to think you don't know what you're talking about. It's not a hard concept. I'm not going to lecture you about why Jersey sucks. All I've ever done is drive through and watch a few episodes of Jersey Shore. I'm not qualified.

[chuckywang]

Can we all at least just agree that this World Cup didn't present soccer in the best light to people who are making an effort to get into the game?

[wolf stansson]

Can we all at least just agree that this World Cup didn't present soccer in the best light to people who are making an effort to get into the game?

No. It was soccer played at a very high level. If you didn't like it, then stop making the effort; it's not for you. There are always going to be flaws in anything.

[SpongeWorthy]

You have to consider the possibility that something is so dumb that even a superficial observer can see it for what it is. And let's not pretend that the PK = good is some monolithic opinion held by all soccer afficianados. Even an ignorant moron like myself knows that's not true.

[wolf stansson]

You have to consider the possibility that something is so dumb that even a superficial observer can see it for what it is. And let's not pretend that the PK = good is some monolithic opinion held by all soccer afficianados. Even an ignorant moron like myself knows that's not true.

That's not my point. I agree it's not ideal. My point is, what's a better idea? Golden goal/sudden death is not. It's been tried, there's a reason they changed.

[chuckywang]

You have to consider the possibility that something is so dumb that even a superficial observer can see it for what it is. And let's not pretend that the PK = good is some monolithic opinion held by all soccer afficianados. Even an ignorant moron like myself knows that's not true.

That's not my point. I agree it's not ideal. My point is, what's a better idea? Golden goal/sudden death is not. It's been tried, there's a reason they changed.

 

What is the problem with the golden goal/silver goal? And why is it not a better idea than PK?

[wolf stansson]

What is the problem with the golden goal/silver goal? And why is it not a better idea than PK?

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=79259

It's discussed there.

 

Personally, I prefer a longer period of extra time before the pk's.

[chuckywang]

What is the problem with the golden goal/silver goal? And why is it not a better idea than PK?

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=79259

It's discussed there.

 

Personally, I prefer a longer period of extra time before the pk's.

 

It seems to me that golden goals eliminate the need for PKs in some situations. And anything that eliminates PKs is a good thing.

[brinoch]

You have to consider the possibility that something is so dumb that even a superficial observer can see it for what it is. And let's not pretend that the PK = good is some monolithic opinion held by all soccer afficianados. Even an ignorant moron like myself knows that's not true.

That's not my point. I agree it's not ideal. My point is, what's a better idea? Golden goal/sudden death is not. It's been tried, there's a reason they changed.

 

To support what wolf is saying, PK's aren't ideal. No one thinks they are. But if you watch a lot of soccer, as many of us do, you'll see that game in and game out, the bulk of the offensive players are really tired between 75 and 85 minutes into a game. Coaches start using their subs, in general, around 60 minutes into the game -- replacing their tired offensive players. The team's shape and cohesion really breaks down, and in a tie situation, teams really stop taking risks because they don't have the energy to break down a defense and effectively recover if they lose the ball. This is even more so during a tournament like the World Cup. Games are often closer together than during the regular season, and there are no "off" games where you can rest the regulars. So what are the options?

 

1. Golden goal. Didn't work well at all, and doesn't solve the problem.

2. 30 minutes of AET, then PK's. Current.

3. During the FA cup in England, they do replays of games. Not an option in a short tournament.

4. Extra subs. A decent suggestion.

5. Fewer players on the field. No way.

6. AET in 15 minute chunks until a goal is scored. Probably the "purest" soccer, but I just don't think it's realistic given the level of exhaustion players will face and the inevitable card accumulation.

7. How about this: add an extra 45' "half" with an extra sub. Then PK's. I don't know. Probably not.

[shnsajax]

Can we all at least just agree that this World Cup didn't present soccer in the best light to people who are making an effort to get into the game?

No. It was soccer played at a very high level. If you didn't like it, then stop making the effort; it's not for you. There are always going to be flaws in anything.

 

If the two major calls didn't happen against the US and England officiating would not have been a talking point. Outside of that the WC was a major success over here.

[USSoccer]

Having read through all that, I'm not even sure where to begin.

 

Are PK's ideal? No. Every sport has its overtime quirks. Regular season hockey goes 4v4, NFL regular season games often end with only one team touching the ball, college FB overtime is not exactly the same as the regulation time rules-how are any of these any different?

 

That said, FIFA tried golden goal, and when Italy and Sweden got bounced in 2002 by Senegal and South Korea, FIFA scrapped it. I actually liked the rule, but as TT said, watching bunker v bunker is less enjoyable and you usually end up in PK's anyway. You cant have the teams just play endlessly looking for a goal, either.

[shnsajax]

The National team just won the Espy for best moment of the year.

[SpongeWorthy]

Having read through all that, I'm not even sure where to begin.

 

Are PK's ideal? No. Every sport has its overtime quirks. Regular season hockey goes 4v4, NFL regular season games often end with only one team touching the ball, college FB overtime is not exactly the same as the regulation time rules-how are any of these any different?

 

That said, FIFA tried golden goal, and when Italy and Sweden got bounced in 2002 by Senegal and South Korea, FIFA scrapped it. I actually liked the rule, but as TT said, watching bunker v bunker is less enjoyable and you usually end up in PK's anyway. You cant have the teams just play endlessly looking for a goal, either.

 

People complain about those overtime systems too (or did until they were tweaked). I'm open to fixing them.

 

One of my biggest complaints about college OT (which I prefer to the NFL) is that spotting the ball on the 25 yard line is not very representative of football. You're already in FG range, you're closing out sections of the playbook, it leads to gimmicky stats, etc.

[wvcbxl]

The status of soccer in the American sporting landscape is a constant topic for several decades, and therefore the concept of why it's not as popular here, or what makes it less popular is going to come up. You can't try and make a sport more popular without addressing why it isn't yet.

 

I think you've hit the real core of the problem here.

Soccer is the most popular sport in most of the rest of the world, but not in the US. It seems unrealistic to me to expect soccer to adapt its rules/format to the expectations of US television audiences just for the sake of its popularity in that country.

[chuckywang]

Having read through all that, I'm not even sure where to begin.

 

Are PK's ideal? No. Every sport has its overtime quirks. Regular season hockey goes 4v4, NFL regular season games often end with only one team touching the ball, college FB overtime is not exactly the same as the regulation time rules-how are any of these any different?

 

That said, FIFA tried golden goal, and when Italy and Sweden got bounced in 2002 by Senegal and South Korea, FIFA scrapped it. I actually liked the rule, but as TT said, watching bunker v bunker is less enjoyable and you usually end up in PK's anyway. You cant have the teams just play endlessly looking for a goal, either.

 

I have no problem with a gimmicky overtime in a long regular season, because the best teams will shine through over the long haul anyways. So have your 4v4 and shootouts in the NHL regular season. However, in the playoffs, hockey gets serious and plays real 5v5 sudden death hockey. Even the NFL is getting with the program and have now instituted a new overtime rule that may allow both teams to touch the ball (a very important point with the relatively high-scoring, possession-driven game of football). And while college FB overtime is a bit of a gimmick, it still resembles the game of football.

 

I agree PKs are not ideal. However, you can't say that and just accept it due to the fact that other sports have gimmicky overtimes too. At least the overtimes in other sports resembles the actual game. PKs do not resemble soccer in the slightest. It is only slightly more fair than a coin toss.

[Drew Doughty]

olympic hockey would be decided by a shootout if it went that far. seems like a pretty fair point to make.

 

i don't know a lot about soccer, but the reasoning behind having PKs makes sense. they can't have continuous OT like in hockey. in hockey you get a 15 minute break between periods and you have constant line changes to keep players somewhat fresh. short of adding extra substitutions, i don't see a way around that in soccer. even then, you're going to bench players and guys that aren't nearly as good or used to playing with that team. there wouldn't be an end in sight for most of these games, and in a tournament format like the WC's, you need the games to end.

[jersey cubs fan]

This is what is right about soccer