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

NightlyPoe said:
DonFerrari said:

Seems like you don't understand soccer at all if you can't get the expectation of the game at every play.

Also one of the few sports where upsets are so common.

I'm aware you can watch a play develop.  You can do the same in hockey, which, as I said, might well be my personal favorite, and almost any sport where you wish to put an object into a goal past a keeper.  And in pretty much all the other ones, the pace is faster and there are more goals.

My point was that the outcome is binary.  Either a goal is score, or an effort is wasted.  Usually an effort is wasted and maybe there's a corner kick as a consolation prize.  So when a goal is scored, it's a near-sudden thing that doesn't have the same build-up as third and goal or getting a hit with runners in scoring position.  Yes, baseball has its instant offense with a homerun and football has pick sixes that come out of nowhere, but that potential is a spice, not the whole game.  There's a ratcheting up of the narrative that doesn't exist in soccer.

You are pretty much showing you have 0 understanding of soccer.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

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 favorite sport is a sequence of stop motion ball with no attacking people behind the defense, and you talk about how the rule on soccer that basically have this same rule but more dinamic. It isn't about breaking through the midfield, it's much more about very long pass and having the players spread out.

To me it doesn't need to exist and if an offensive player stays near the goal the defense decides if want to keep guarding him or not. But people are used to the rule



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

S.Peelman said:
COKTOE said:

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.

Ha. Not sure if serious, but that's obviously a different type of hockey than is being discussed in the thread. Even the blurb in the video mentions "Ice Hockey". It totally IS a fair point you've made though, in the sense that in most parts of the world that don't know, care much about, or have much to do with hockey, the the game depicted in the image you posted is as as much.....hockey as hockey. Not where I live. Where I live, the game played on ice, the seasonal, cost prohibitive, difficult to play sport is called hockey, and what you posted is called "Field Hockey'. Without exception. Well, close to it.

Last edited by COKTOE - on 24 July 2018

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

NightlyPoe said:
pastro243 said:
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.

Read the actual comment.  Once again, I said the rule should be dropped when it gets carried to a certain point on the field.  Call it an attacking zone or whatever.  It wouldn't change the midfield game at all really.  It would just stop the defense from getting bailed out next to the goal.

As for telling us to watch the midfield game.  It's really not that hard to follow, nor is it all that interesting.  That sentiment is almost a demonstration of why soccer is such a lousy sport to watch.

It isn't about bailing out bad defense.

It's a battle of positioning and wits... similar to power forward and center in basketball that fight for position in the paint with their force, offense and defense play for positioning and part of it is being aware of players in your back or if you are to advanced and your are being careless. It is more punishing to dumb offensive than saving weak defense. But you would know that if you watched or played.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

I can't speak for everyone else, but for me, soccer's just never grabbed my interest because so much of the game feels like it's just spent in vain. Watching teams trade possessions consistently for large scoreless periods of time just gets boring very quickly. Part of what I feel football (American football, that is) has over it is that there's a tangible sense of progress at every point. When one team reaches the other's side of the field, it's a big deal. They're likely to score, and even if they don't, they've altered field position in such a way that provides them with an obvious and distinct advantage that they are likely to capitalize on at some point. Watching soccer, that just doesn't appear to be the case. Even with possession of the ball on your opponent's side of the field, scoring is still very unlikely, and it doesn't appear that you're particularly likely to maintain any sort of positional advantage past maybe a minute or so of play.

Part of what makes American football so appealing, at least to me, is that it's very easy to get a sense of progress for every action taken. Most plays readily appear meaningful and you can easily discern what impact they can have on the final outcome. With soccer, it's not so easy, which makes it less enjoying as a spectator sport imo.



Around the Network

Will say very easily for americans to understand why soccer is so popular around the world.

To play soccer you don't need ANYTHING at all. You may pick a rag cloth and make a ball of it, or use a soda can, socks, etc... you can make goals of flip floppers, construction block, etc... and you can play alone, 1x1 2x2, 1 goalie and 1x1, 1 goalie and 2 cooperative and other infinite uses.

It make it very popular fun play on countries that doesn't have the money and structure to play very expensive sports.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

MTZehvor said:
I can't speak for everyone else, but for me, soccer's just never grabbed my interest because so much of the game feels like it's just spent in vain. Watching teams trade possessions consistently for large scoreless periods of time just gets boring very quickly. Part of what I feel football (American football, that is) has over it is that there's a tangible sense of progress at every point. When one team reaches the other's side of the field, it's a big deal. They're likely to score, and even if they don't, they've altered field position in such a way that provides them with an obvious and distinct advantage that they are likely to capitalize on at some point. Watching soccer, that just doesn't appear to be the case. Even with possession of the ball on your opponent's side of the field, scoring is still very unlikely, and it doesn't appear that you're particularly likely to maintain any sort of positional advantage past maybe a minute or so of play.

Part of what makes American football so appealing, at least to me, is that it's very easy to get a sense of progress for every action taken. Most plays readily appear meaningful and you can easily discern what impact they can have on the final outcome. With soccer, it's not so easy, which makes it less enjoying as a spectator sport imo.

The main reason you don't like soccer is that you haven't played or watched as a kid so you just get lost



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
MTZehvor said:
I can't speak for everyone else, but for me, soccer's just never grabbed my interest because so much of the game feels like it's just spent in vain. Watching teams trade possessions consistently for large scoreless periods of time just gets boring very quickly. Part of what I feel football (American football, that is) has over it is that there's a tangible sense of progress at every point. When one team reaches the other's side of the field, it's a big deal. They're likely to score, and even if they don't, they've altered field position in such a way that provides them with an obvious and distinct advantage that they are likely to capitalize on at some point. Watching soccer, that just doesn't appear to be the case. Even with possession of the ball on your opponent's side of the field, scoring is still very unlikely, and it doesn't appear that you're particularly likely to maintain any sort of positional advantage past maybe a minute or so of play.

Part of what makes American football so appealing, at least to me, is that it's very easy to get a sense of progress for every action taken. Most plays readily appear meaningful and you can easily discern what impact they can have on the final outcome. With soccer, it's not so easy, which makes it less enjoying as a spectator sport imo.

The main reason you don't like soccer is that you haven't played or watched as a kid so you just get lost

Neither of those statements are true. I played soccer through middle school, and I followed the US national team up until the end of high school, when I had a lot more time to watch sports on my hands.

I'd appreciate it if you kept your baseless assumptions to yourself, especially when I'm simply trying to respectfully engage in discussion.



It's the most popular sport in the world 



I played soccer from "kiddie kickers" through High School, and spent all but the first two seasons playing as center forward. Soccer is my favorite sport, but I must agree that it's not as entertaining to watch as many other sports. I preferred playing indoor soccer, as using the walls as a way to pass the ball to yourself and dribble around opponents was a lot of fun. I grew up in a small town so I wasn't always part of the best team, but it was nice because it was the same group of kids for ten years that I played with.

Edit: I live in America, so I actually thought this thread was about American football when I read the title. Especially considering soccer is the most popular sport in the world; it would make more sense to make a thread about American football. Also, the USA was one of the countries you listed where soccer hasn't "caught on". I certainly wouldn't say that soccer hasn't caught on here. It's not as big as football, but that doesn't mean it's irrelevant.