SACTOBILLSFAN Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 I have always said that Rick Jennerette (SP not even close but its 4am) could make watching paint dry seem exciting. I wonder if he did soccer games if it would be exciting? (Brian McBride breaks in on goal he shoooots he scoooooooores!!! Top shelf where mama hides the cooookies!!!) I have watched very few soccer games in my life...because its boring, however I watched every USA game in the 02 cup and will watch every US game in this cup. Why? Because international competition is incredible, and the US has always been looked upon as that one "special" kid in gym class who the teacher has to let play the game, and one day I hope we win the thing just so I can sit back and watch the rest of the world piss and moan about it and come up with excuses for why it happened. It will be awesome to win the "world's" game because american's don't give 2 sh**s about the damn sport. The reason we don't dominate this game (yet) is simple: capitalism. We have money therefore we play and dominate sports that take money to participate in. We aren't a nation of malnutritioned poor people who make a ball out of whatever it is they find in the trash and kick it with bare feet, and call it an amazing game with "intricacies" that we cannot understand. There are more "intricacies" in a single pitch in a baseball game, or single down of (real) football than there is in an entire 90 minute soccer game, and we cannot understand it? Bullsh*t. As Americans, we like to watch people do things we ourselves KNOW we cannot do. Like hit a baseball 500 feet or throw 95 MPH or run over a 270 lb linebacker or dunk a basketball in some 7 footers face, and when we watch soccer and all its passing back and forth 60 yards from the goal (one of the aforementioned intricacies, which blows my feeble mind ) we get bored because I can do that in my front yard with a group of guys. Another thing, soccer players come off as pus***s. I watched 10 minutes of the Costa Rica game the other day and a guy fell down after getting tripped by another player like he was f-ing shot in the leg, the trainers carried him off on a goddamn STRETCHER and no more than 3 minutes later he was running and playing again like nothing happened. That being said, I will watch America's games because I love rooting for my country in international competition, because everyone hates (in reality is jealous of) our country, and want nothing more than to see us fail, and I want to see it live when all the soccer idiots er hooligans kill themselves when we do win even if its not this time around. Even if we are eliminated I'll probably turn on one of the other games and watch it, but only if I need to take a nap and can't fall asleep on my own, I know that announcer who screams goooooooooooooooooallllllll will only wake me up an average of 1.5 times during a game. USA! USA! USA!
nick in* england Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Interesting concept PTR- but look how successful NFLE has been. Basically a failure everywhere except Germany. A US outpost for the Premier League, Serie A, La Liga, etc would not be wanted or welcome. The US should continue to follow the MLS model - build a respectable home competition and bring on it's own talent. Eventually you'll become a world force, because when Americans want something they eventually get it (through hard work, nothing sinister), and the MLS will grow in popularity and support. Don't forget - the MLS is trying to do what has taken centuries in England and Europe. DO NOT expect US soccer to be the greatest thing you have ever watched after 10 years of domestic competition...
PromoTheRobot Posted June 12, 2006 Author Posted June 12, 2006 Interesting concept PTR- but look how successful NFLE has been. Basically a failure everywhere except Germany. A US outpost for the Premier League, Serie A, La Liga, etc would not be wanted or welcome. The US should continue to follow the MLS model - build a respectable home competition and bring on it's own talent. Eventually you'll become a world force, because when Americans want something they eventually get it (through hard work, nothing sinister), and the MLS will grow in popularity and support. Don't forget - the MLS is trying to do what has taken centuries in England and Europe. DO NOT expect US soccer to be the greatest thing you have ever watched after 10 years of domestic competition... 707010[/snapback] MLS is certainly not a total failure. Teams draw an average of 15,000 to 20,000 a game. Though TV ratings are negligible (like hockey!) I just see how the World Cup does pique peoples interest in soccer because it is the stage where the world's best play. PTR
ajzepp Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 MLS is certainly not a total failure. 707038[/snapback] It's not ANY sort of failure....it's a success
PromoTheRobot Posted June 12, 2006 Author Posted June 12, 2006 It's not ANY sort of failure....it's a success 707043[/snapback] Let's not get carried away. PTR
ajzepp Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Let's not get carried away. PTR 707045[/snapback] MLS is exactly where they wanted to be. They are a viable, growing pro soccer league that is operating in the black. By their definition, they are a success.
ACor58 Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 If every U.S. city followed soccer like Rochester, it would be the #1 sport in the country. It is a weird phenomenon that has this community extrememly divided. Soccer lovers vs. Soccer haters. Not much room in the middle. 706252[/snapback] I am a "Soccer Sam" hater. That guy is a freaking tool.
inkman Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 I am a "Soccer Sam" hater. That guy is a freaking tool. 707124[/snapback] I spit on Salvatores...
Alaska Darin Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 I have always said that Rick Jennerette (SP not even close but its 4am) could make watching paint dry seem exciting. I wonder if he did soccer games if it would be exciting? 706907[/snapback] No.
Hardy Pyle Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Personally, since the World Cup is so big, the US get all of the athletes from our "major" sports and just dominate one time. You're telling me if we rolled out Kobe Bryant and Brian Urlacher (with proper training) out there, we wouldn't dominate? 706505[/snapback] To play soccer well, you have to start playing when your 5 years old. This isn't NFL football where you take a basketball player and convert him to a TE. Your statement indicates that you have very little grasp of how difficult soccer is to play. Also, I'm sure many of the soccer players are far superior to NFL players. Just look at the African players who are very athletic.
Pete Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 To play soccer well, you have to start playing when your 5 years old. This isn't NFL football where you take a basketball player and convert him to a TE. Your statement indicates that you have very little grasp of how difficult soccer is to play. Also, I'm sure many of the soccer players are far superior to NFL players. Just look at the African players who are very athletic. 707201[/snapback] are you familiar with the term "soccer moms"? Soccer is by far the biggest youth sport in the USA. Give us time and the USA will be a very formidible team
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Simple fact.... World likes soccer, U.S. really does not. U.S. like Baseball and Football, but the World does not.
ACor58 Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 I spit on Salvatores... 707131[/snapback] You are too kind. I wouldn't waste my spit on that P.O.S. pizza.
Hardy Pyle Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 I agree Pete. USA will one day have a very good soccer team. USA has a few of the key ingredients: 1) Population at 10 times that of Canada (but look at T&T, so population is no excuse!) 2) Warm climate for long playing seasons or year round soccer! 3) Large hispanic influence in southern states 4) $$$$ In Canada, it's become a right of childhood to play soccer and I've heard a number of my collegues say, I don't know much about the world cup, but my kids are going crazy about it, so I'm going to try to watch it. The good news for Canada is that we've produced two world class players. Our problem is that they don't want to play for Canada and opt to play for their mother land. (ie. the Lennox Lewis problem) US will have a good team at some point in the future, but this is not that point, I see it still being a bit off in the horizon. You need your top players playing in Europe not MLS until the MLS becomes better. Really, the US team is becoming a bit of a victim of its own success in the 2002 World Cup. It wasn't really a quality team, but played with heart and desire, and probably got results it didn't deserve and now the bar has been raised too high.
C.Biscuit97 Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 To play soccer well, you have to start playing when your 5 years old. This isn't NFL football where you take a basketball player and convert him to a TE. Your statement indicates that you have very little grasp of how difficult soccer is to play. Also, I'm sure many of the soccer players are far superior to NFL players. Just look at the African players who are very athletic. 707201[/snapback] What I meant is, if these guys chose to play soccer instead of their sport, the US would be one of the best teams in the world. If Kobe Byrant, who grew up playing soccer focused on soccer completely, he probably could be a dominant player. Whether you like he or not, he is a freak athlete. The US has the most diverse collection of athletes in the world. If our country had one main sport instead of 5 or 6, we would dominate every sport. It's like when I was in Austraila and the World Cup of Rugby was going on. A lot of the people I met were good-naturely ribbing me about how bad the US team was. I just thought that if TO or Brian Urlacher decided to play rugby, we would be the best team in the world. Same with soccer and many other sports. Call me patriotic (and like upset that the US got beat 3-0 ), but the US has the best athletes in the world bar none. Ours just play a wide range of sports rather than just soccer.
C.Biscuit97 Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 I agree Pete. USA will one day have a very good soccer team. USA has a few of the key ingredients: 1) Population at 10 times that of Canada (but look at T&T, so population is no excuse!) 2) Warm climate for long playing seasons or year round soccer! 3) Large hispanic influence in southern states 4) $$$$ In Canada, it's become a right of childhood to play soccer and I've heard a number of my collegues say, I don't know much about the world cup, but my kids are going crazy about it, so I'm going to try to watch it. The good news for Canada is that we've produced two world class players. Our problem is that they don't want to play for Canada and opt to play for their mother land. (ie. the Lennox Lewis problem) US will have a good team at some point in the future, but this is not that point, I see it still being a bit off in the horizon. You need your top players playing in Europe not MLS until the MLS becomes better. Really, the US team is becoming a bit of a victim of its own success in the 2002 World Cup. It wasn't really a quality team, but played with heart and desire, and probably got results it didn't deserve and now the bar has been raised too high. 707240[/snapback] Quite simply and no offense intented, but our best soccer players probably don't play soccer.
Hardy Pyle Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 isn't Kobe African? Wouldn't one of the many millions in Africa be as equally as athletic. Just because you haven't heard of him I wouldn't assume he's not out there. For example, Drogba is extremely strong and athletic and very muscular. I also don't agree that if Urlacher or anyone else played Rugby they would be good. Urlacher tackles people. That's it. Not alot of skilled involved. Rugby requires alot more skill in my opinion. It's an interesting topic though, because more and more, soccer is becoming an athletic game where speed merchants (and physical size) are more valued than creative midfield/strikers. (ie. Riquelme, Zidane, etc.). It will be interesting to watch what wins out in the world cup athletics or technique. I'm a firm believer that in soccer, technique wins out over athletics, but the value right now is being placed on athletics and size(ie. Owens, Henry, Crouch, Koller). Then you have those rare athletes that have both ie. Ronaldinho.
PromoTheRobot Posted June 12, 2006 Author Posted June 12, 2006 are you familiar with the term "soccer moms"? Soccer is by far the biggest youth sport in the USA. Give us time and the USA will be a very formidible team 707207[/snapback] Uhhhh...we're still waiting for that formidable team to show up. By the way, we got skunked 3-0 today. The whole "kids playing soccer" arguement is brought up every four years, and we still don't have a enough US-born players to field a World Cup team. Face it. They're never coming. PTR
PromoTheRobot Posted June 12, 2006 Author Posted June 12, 2006 The number one reason soccer will never catch on in the USA was made very clear today by the Czech Republic. We stink at soccer. Americans hate being bested by anyone, so we tend to minimize things we aren't good at. Case closed. PTR
PTS Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Americans are used to watching the best play in their sports leagues. MLB: best baseball. NFL: best football. NHL & NBA: tops in their sports. MLS? Somewhere below English beer leagues. I can prove it. Check the ratings for World Cup in the USA. It's not NFL ratings but it's a lot better than MLS. Why? Best soccer in the world and a rooting interest in Team USA. I suggest instead of the MLS, have just two teams. New York and L.A. The New York team would play European teams. L.A. plays latin teams. Recruit top soccer talent and pay them obscene bucks to play here. I bet you'd get some interest then. Don't you think the European and Latin leagues would love to have teams in the USA? PTR 706199[/snapback] New York's MLS team just offered Ronaldo 100 million over 10 years and he turned it down.
Recommended Posts