By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sports Discussion - Why football failed to catch on in certain countries

Oh, you are talking about soccer, not football...😜



Around the Network
NightlyPoe said:
mZuzek said:

It doesn't reward defensive play, in fact it's quite the opposite. By allowing teams to play with a high defensive line, it gives them room to be offensive while still compact - otherwise, teams would have to either be spread all over the pitch, thus hindering team play in general, or close together all in their own half, leading to extremely defensive play, because if anyone dared play a high line, it would automatically mean dumb easy long balls for the opposing team. It also means strikers need to be smarter about making their chances.

But well, what am I doing trying to explain football to an American.

Not reading what the American said obviously.  My statement was that it should be tossed once they get to the top of the box.  Not eliminate the rule altogether.

Like I said, the rule basically exists to eliminate cherry-picking and move the defensive players closer to the action.  Most similar sports have rules with the same intention.  However, the soccer rule is in place beyond its usefulness, when the attacking team has broken past the midfield and is already encroaching on the goal.  There are no downsides to allowing the attacking players to run past the defense in that situation.  Doing so would only result in opening up the game when it is already in an offensive situation.

As I said, it's an easy fix.

Your fix is quite confusing.

Personally, the only thing I find wrong with the offside rule is all the ambiguity and subjectivity regarding the intent of players to go for the ball in certain situations or when certain 'phases of play' are completed or initiated, etc. that lead to many weird calls such as this bullshit.



I'm not nearly as much of a sports fan as in the past but there was once a time that ESPN was basically all I watched. I grew up with American Football and Basketball (mostly college before the NBA) and have always enjoyed both. I didn't watch Baseball as a kid but I learned to like it well enough and appreciate certain aspects a lot. I'd never even seen an NHL game until middle school but when I did, I liked it almost immediately and became a big fan for awhile.

Likewise, when the big push for Soccer started in the US, I turned my attention in that direction. That would have been one of the World Cups, the one with the Vuvuzela. We had it playing all the time at work so I got to see plenty of matches. Unfortunately, in a first for major sports, it failed to capture my attention at all. I found myself hoping for another ridiculous flop or that the cameras would continue to pick out pretty girls in the audience.

When you stack it up against the other prominent sports in the United States and Canada, I think it's simply not as entertaining. All things being equal, I believe that the reason it hasn't caught on here is that the competition offers better options in different ways.



It's not really football who failed. The countries failed their citizens.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Generally I am really interested in sports. However in the last years things changed for me a lot. I am watching less because in many team sports not a lot is happening on the field and I feel like I am wasting my time watching a whole game. I rather would play a video game than watch sports. Often I only watch the highlights.

Soccer in particular can be really boring. In average 80 % of the time is not worth watching. Even worse is Baseball. American Football has way to many breaks so that the game drags out forever.

Basketball and Hockey are both less a pain to watch but I can't stand the last minutes of a close Basketball game when there is a lot fouling happening and in Hockey I wished that the puck would be better visible (the use of a glowing color would help a lot).



Around the Network

We'll Soccer/Football (it's called Soccer not only in the USA and Australia by the way, even in japan it is called soccer hence the game PRO evo soccer.)has lots of flaws and inconsistency especially with the lone referee + assistants to players ratio, in every game there will be an instance where a player makes a fool of the referee.



Farsala said:
NightlyPoe said:
It's more surprising that it's as popular as it is in the world in general. When being a spectator, the main draws of a game are the ability to tell a narrative and for excitement to build with a climax. Of the five biggest sports in the United States I'd rank them as follows.

1. American Football: Easily the best narrative of any sport. The game can be sub-divided into three separate categories mini-dramas on almost every play. The need to get 10 yards in 3 plays to continue a drive, the narrative builds as the make-or-break 3rd down approaches. Where the team is on a drive, the closer to scoring the team is, the more exciting the play, and the overall score within the game. And, of course, there are big plays that happen within the narrative that scramble the whole story.

No other sport comes close to this level of narrative brilliance, and that's why it has eclipsed the others.

2. Baseball: Surprised to see this so high? You shouldn't be. Baseball is highly underrated as a spectator sport. Like football, it has a rising narrative and multiple dramas within each pitch. The tone of the game changes based on whether the count is 0-1 or 3-1. Whether someone is on base, how many outs there are. It's more nuanced than football, so it requires a bit more knowledge, which drops it well behind the other sport.

Tied for 3rd: Basketball and Hockey:

Ironically, these are the two fastest-paced games of the five, but they both have huge deficiencies in their design.

Basketball's flaw is that a goal is worth so little. You could watch a player make the most amazing play ever, and it'll still only be worth two points. Roughly 1/50th of what's needed to win a game. You get a lot of them, but there's more of a feeling of watching whose point total can go up faster than a sense of who is really doing better. If a team wins by a typical score of 105-95. What does that make them? 10% better? A few, almost random makes and misses that seemed meaningless when it happened and that score is overturned.

Hockey might well be my favorite, but its flaw is that the scoring feels almost random. It's hard to know when a goal is going to be scored or the goalie is going to make a save. There are a decent number of goals per game, which is good, but outside of powerplays, it's hard to know when to expect them. Spectators are left to cheer when something happens instead of expecting something to happen and occasionally being blindsided by a big play. Instead it's all or nothing.

5. Soccer: Oh boy, this is bad. Take all of hockey's flaws, make the game slower, lower scoring, and toss in the dumbest rule in sports, the soccer offsides rule, which inspires bad defense so that the ref can bail them out (toss the rule out once they get to the top of the box guys), grown men crying on the ground for minutes at a time as a delaying tactic, and a weirdly all or nothing penalty system. 90 minutes and pretty much nothing can happen until it randomly does. Because the goals are spaced so far apart and come so out of the blue, there's really no edge of your seat excitement until just moments before it happens. So you're watching a long, boring game, punctuated by a few moments. It's the worst of all worlds and by far the least exciting sport to watch as a spectator.

Football and Baseball are definitely the best, but the reason they aren't so popular is simple. The chance to pick up and play. Football and Baseball takes a lot of strategy and players, so it is harder to understand for viewers.

In terms of ease it goes like this:

Tied for first: Soccer and Basketball. Can 1v1 and it is still the same or 2v2, 5v5 and etc. for a full game. Just find a field/urban landscape to put 2 goals in.

3rd: Hockey, similar to Soccer and Basketball but requires more equipment.

4th: Football, Requires more people than a 1v1 to actually play football, otherwise you just throwing it back and forth.

5th: Baseball, Similar to Football, but requires more equipment.

THIS , LOL You hit the jackpot 



Well it didn’t catch on in India because every time their teams got a corner, they built a shop on it.



Sony want to make money by selling art, Nintendo want to make money by selling fun, Microsoft want to make money.

jason1637 said:
Farsala said:

Football and Baseball are definitely the best, but the reason they aren't so popular is simple. The chance to pick up and play. Football and Baseball takes a lot of strategy and players, so it is harder to understand for viewers.

In terms of ease it goes like this:

Tied for first: Soccer and Basketball. Can 1v1 and it is still the same or 2v2, 5v5 and etc. for a full game. Just find a field/urban landscape to put 2 goals in.

3rd: Hockey, similar to Soccer and Basketball but requires more equipment.

4th: Football, Requires more people than a 1v1 to actually play football, otherwise you just throwing it back and forth.

5th: Baseball, Similar to Football, but requires more equipment.

I'd say football is easier to pick up than hockey. All you need is the ball, a group of people and then pick two opposite areas as touchdown areas.

Oh hellll yes, and it's not even close. A large number of people don't know how to skate, and of those, a vast majority are like a newborn doe when they try. Hockey is also, easily the most expensive sport to play among those listed. Especially playing the goalie. Then, there's the requirement for a rink and ice to go with it. A bit trickier to find than grass.



- "If you have the heart of a true winner, you can always get more pissed off than some other asshole."

I always hear this "offside rule is stupid" from people from the US. Without offside the game would turn into a million meaningless goals with poachers as forwards and boring long balls to them. Seriously, it's more than the goals, watch the midfield and try to get what happens there.