A question about football (soccer) passion.

Post Reply New Topic

?

(just kidding)

to be honest I'd never heard of the guy until the day we signed him but I got the impression he felt disappointed in Celtic and at least a fair amount of fans agreed with him

Id never heard of wolves till the day they signed jackie. Ha ha. Just joking. I think they are somewhere in birminghams shadow though arent they.

who are 'Birmingham'?

Birmingham city and Aston villa i meant

Believe me, learning to pass/dribble/tackle/keep the ball is a whole new skill. Not to mention off-the-ball aspects like reading the game, positioning, etc.

I've seen people dribble with the ball all the time, and it isn't easy with all the tricks they use from cradling the ball on their shins to moves I can't even name. I've seen kids dribble on the street, grass (fresh cut, or sloppy) on the dirt and even barefoot. They make it look so easy. Then there is the banana kicks and positioning that takes time to read.

------

The game can be pretty frustrating, especially when I hear of games where one team is pretty much in control. It's like you pretty much see only one end of the pitch for the entire half as one team is OUTnumbering the other team in possession, ball movement, corners, free kicks, shots, and with also some strong defense. But they can't seem to capitalize on a goal. Sometimes being a millimeter from a goal to missing a penalty.
Then the other team ends up scoring some fluke goals at the final minutes of play.
So yeah, a team can win 2-0 but yet get whipped. But a win is a win.

Cheap Sarcasm: Why thank you, I am so pleased to start a thread that knocks a few socks off.


Well, I AM an American and I wouldn't know jack about the game (more sarcasm). Actually I probably know more than many anyways.

As I said in the beginning, I am curious about the passion of the sport. So knowing more about the game would help.
When it comes to scoring I do realize that there are matches where teams score 5 or more goals, and it isn't uncommon at all as I see. Just like an Am. football team scoring more than 5 touchdowns and more than 40 pts. though the average is less than 30 pt. range.

I think that Americans and Canadians prefer games with a faster pace than the rest of the world. Look at the popularity of the NBA as exhibit 'A'. American/Canadian style football is also very popular as well due to the fact that they play action can be very intense. Hockey is also particularly popular in most northern states and in Canada. Baseball on the other hand has been slowy declining in popularity, most probably because of the slow pace, and lack of action.

In the US and Canada, Most sports are of a seasonal nature with Baseball being played in the summer, Football in the Fall, Basketball and Hockey being played in the Winter. Europeans, on the other hand seem to have no problem with running around in shorts throughout the winter playing their football.

On another note, It seems that the sports that you followed in the UK (Until recently at any rate) denoted your social Class. Football was for the "Common Man" whilst Rugby,(I may be wrong with Rugby) and Cricket were for the Upper classes.

That being said, I think that Soccer never really caught on here due to the fact that we have hocley, which is somewhat similar in the method of play. We've only begun to pay attention to it for the past 30 or so years.

Conversely American football seems to have an intense and growing following in Germany. That being said, German fans of North American style football get into it almost as much as Soccer.

On the final note, I think it's a good thing that american fans are a bit more sedate that European sports fans. I remember for a period of time during the 80's and 90's where it seemed like what the players did on the field took a back seat to the real action that went on in the stadium, as well as what went on in the streets near the stadium before and after the game.

I know, but unlike many other sports, being able to play the game at all, let alone use proper skills, doesn't require much practise. With every other sport, I can't play wihtout doing something that makes me look like a dil. And anything that's remotely easy for me is considered too easy and wussy/lazy for the jocks.

hey I'm just having a laugh don't worry about it

glad to see some yanks taking an interest is all

it's true, footballers are not renowned for their intellectual prowess but there is a lot of difference between watching Chelsea or Arsenal and some lower league cloggers, really there is

I think the American obsession with points scoring is quite interesting (read: shallow and oriented to instant gratification) but then what about cricket? they score loads of 'points' there ( unless its England of course!)

I think fogman is on to something with his class thing, at least that's the way it used to be: it was a very working class thing and only recently has been taken over by those with more disposable income

Most of the sports i have paticipated in requires very little skill to do on a basic level. Football, boxing and basketball are all easy to do but hard to do well. Anyone who has seen Scottish football and especially an old firm game will see that football can and is fast regularly but using a ball skillfully with your feet obviously slows you down a bit more than running with it in your hand. Once my Dad took me and two of my brothers to trials for a gaelic football club without any warning or practice beforehand and we made a right fool of ourselves and just went back to playing football.

I was just kidding around with the sarcasm too, truce?



So what's more important? A late-season Premiership match between two clubs on the brink of relegation or a League One game to determine its champion and who gets promoted to the Premiership? Or a League 2 game to clinch the championship and promotion to league 1.

Rivalries in Am. Football, especially High School and College, are fun to see if there is a strong enough tradition in it (Usually amongst the alumni). And it doesn't matter if they are contending for championships, if they are mediocre teams, or if they are bottom-feeding clubs with or without a win.

I myself, would rather see a local or a favorite minor league baseball team win a championship, than seeing my preferred major league team finishing in the cellar.



We do have that, and in many ways it can dilute the talent in the game. Some say baseball scores are higher because of diluted talent, thanks to expansion teams. Others thank a little friend, known as the juice (aka steroids), which also shows dllution of true determination.
Or scores are higher because of "sissy rules" which favor the offensive team. Such as zone defense in basketball once being forbidden, in favor of man-to-man coverage.
Football enforcing many pass interference restrictions, allowing receivers to be more open.

Hockey... that can be the exception. All these rules which prohibit clutching and grabbing, obstruction penalties and other rules, have not increased scoring much. Or it may have brought it down.

The formula goes in some cases. You want more revenue, you need more fans. You want more fans in the stands, you need more points on the board. You want more points on the board, you need to put a leash on defense.

There's a development of a cultural stigma right there.



Same here with baseball and basketball. Inexpensive games to play in the neighborhood. All you need is a simple bat and maybe a simple glove, and a ball (Maybe it's not cheap... Baseballs can cost 10 or more dollars). Basketball, a hoop a ball and some sneakers. Except for those who feel the need to by 100-dollar pairs of shoes.

But the greed of players and business makes the game too expensive for the typical sports fan (the middle class, the working class). Many can't afford games like they used too.

I heard Premiership matches can really empty out your wallets depending on who you want to see and which part of the grounds you want to be at.

Football is very expensive but then it is played by low-income people at school.

Hockey is expensive but a lot of poorer Canadians manage to have a chance to play.

Cricket I know is popular in places like India, Pakistan, and the West Indies. And tell me if I am wrong here, but I doubt that many of those players are wealthy. And the grounds don't look like aristocratic facilities (at least from the few matches I saw on TV). Does England have any players who come from the other side of the tracks, or the river?

Oh, and corporate ownership on clubs and franchises is pathetic. It destoys the value of sports. Disney established and owned the Mighty Ducks hockey team, and bought the California Angels baseball team in the 90s, and renamed them the Anaheim Angels. But they sold both.
Now the team is known as the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, and that name sucks. The Angels were established and played in Los Angeles in the early 60s until they moved to Anaheim about 30 miles south a few years later.

News Corporation once owned the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team. But they sold it. I heard they wanted to buy Manchester United, but they didn't. Did they ever try to get their dirty hands on an Aussie football club? I hope not.

Big cities can compete better because they have more people and more money to flow in. Cities like New York and Los Angeles have a big TV market, therefore more money from people for a TV contract. Big businesses means more rich folks allowing more money to be flowed in. So those 2 cities' frachises can spend more money and be able to have more money flowed in.
Smaller cities can spend like crazy, but they are more likely to be in a deficit.

you got it



from my point of view a Championship game to see who gets promoted to the Premiership, as my team is currently in that position! But there's so much money involved these days it really effects things. Getting relegated from the Premiership will really sting a club financially and that's almost more important than the actual status itself. It was very interesting last season:Chelsea had the Premiership pretty much sewn up ahead of time and all the attention switched onto the relegation battle, which was all decided right on the last day and was much more exciting than the top end. Of course it's all about the Champions League these days, I don't think anybody's too bothered about winning the Premiership as long as they finish in Champion's league placings, and that's where the real money is. It's getting so top players won't sign for clubs now who don't regularly qualify for Europe.



I'm afraid pretty much all of that is a foreign language to me. I've been to see Syracuse Sky Chiefs when I've been visiting my brother in NY, pretty much my only contact with American sports.



you better believe it



this is true



cricket is pretty much a middle-class thing and nobody really makes much money at it. They don't even get paid the whole year, in close season they have no income.


you're right, that's a really awful name!

Well it looks like the pro systems there are screwed just like here in the US. People here complain about the Yankees, accusing them of buying the top talents in baseball to win World Series titles and its fans expecting a win almost every year. Well I see it is a lot worse in Europe all the time when the same 2 or 3 teams keep winning their nation's top league title. Looks like a caste system almost. The top countries top clubs seem to always buy the world's top players. Sometimes I look at the rosters and see that some of the clubs have more foreigners than they do nationals.

The Champions League, that's more continental so more money is put in it.
But one thing I don't like is the placement rules.
So Liverpool wins the '05 Champions League, but finished 5th in the Premiership. England only gets to send 4 clubs and only 4 clubs regardless where the CL winner places. They amended the rules for this one time only. The current rules wouldn't be fair for the 4th place team so why should they be kicked out? Isn't the CL tourney meant for teams who did well in their national league the season before? So I say if the CL holders do poor, then they shouldn't join. Why defend a Euro Club title if you can't do well in your own nation? If UEFA really want the holders to join, then have them drop down to a qualifying-round or so, depending on how well they did, and let some other clubs whose nations have higher status move up a round. As long as all of the invited teams and leagues do not lose their spots.





I'm not really good at organizing my thoughts here, sorry about that. I was talking about having too many teams in a league can really cause the talent level for teams to decrease, since having new teams allows them to grab players from other teams, the 90s has seen a radical growth of expansion and in the past few years, leagues have allowed new teams to pick up better players than before. Expansion can dilute talent for a short term amount of time depending on the development of talent. But fewer teams means fewer players and a guarentee that the best talent is playing in the best league.

Steroids is a disgrace to talent, hands down.

Rule changes to increase scoring only disallows defensive teams from using legitimate strategies. But then I can understand the crackdown on strategies that are illegal and unfair in which the tactics becoming annoying (like grabbing players). But some forms of defense can be penetrated by the attack and should be challenged rather than forbidden. Challenging fair strategic forms of offense and defense I believe is good for any sport. Just as much as scoring.


Seeing that you attended a minor-eague baseball game, it seems that there is an advantage to those games than a lower division soccer league.
First the clubs don't rely on money as often, as long as their is backing and support from the fans and city. The teams and the leagues they play in are developmental talent squads, aka the farm system, for Major League teams. This can be a good thing for the Major League teams as they can see their future players, since many players are young; or older players on some kind of rehabilitation assignment to heal from injuries, or are trying to make a comeback talent-wise. As long as the players aren't traded to another Major League organization which can be a setback for any organization that loses a prospect.

One other problem is that the Major teams can end their affiliate with the franchise and that can really put a hurting on the minor league club, unless a different Major League franchise can make an affiliation agreement. There are independent leagues but many don't see any reason to attend those games except for enjoyment. Therefore the minor team folds.

Do you think that European footy leagues should adopt this kind of format? A developmental league of multiple levels for the Premiership or any top division league in Europe?




That's why football sometimes has a separate fundraising program for equipment and facilities, from the rest of the scholastic sports. Some schools are notorious for having the football team hog up all the scholastic sports funds, even though they get their own funds privately or separately - crooks.

The insurance if purchased is a lot more expensive than the other sports.


you're right, that's a really awful name![/quote]

I know of two radio morning show hosts where I live called Rick and Bubba. They called soccer a communist sport in attempt for the Soviets to bring us down. Both were happy when their kids outgrew soccer and wanted to play football.

That's stupid. Were they jealous because the Soviets were actually interested and better in soccer than the US? The USSR did have some good teams during the Cold War days. Not as dominant as the were with hockey but still good.

Besides the FIFA World Cup award for best goalie is named after Soviet national goalkeeper Lev Yashin. Any awards named after Americans? Not that I know of yet.