Soccer: Can Someone Explain?

Off Topic
61

[quote]gswork wrote:

[quote]Goodfellow wrote:

[quote]ADvanced TS wrote:

butthurt detected?

r u mad cause you only have one sport and it sucks, while we have 4?
[/quote]

LOL, I play american football for my university and I’m probably the most un-patriotic english person you will find. It’s cute that you are using that against me.

I think someone else here is a iddle bid mad because they don’t have much common sense.[/quote]

You should have done better than that, what a lost opportunity, you have no sense of sporting history.

the correct response would have been “I’m sure lots of British ex-colonies have 4 bastardized versions of our other sports that no one else in the world cares about too”

The we could get the U MAD rating on this thread still higher, hey you could have won this thread with a rousing 1-0 victory!!!

see? erm… hut hut hut[/quote]

WELL I THINK THAT I WON AND THATS ALL THAT MATTERS!!!

62

[quote]Goodfellow wrote:

[quote]ADvanced TS wrote:

[quote]Goodfellow wrote:

[quote]ADvanced TS wrote:

[quote]Goodfellow wrote:

[quote]ADvanced TS wrote:

[quote]Goodfellow wrote:

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Why do people find this sport exciting? A majority of the time the games end in 0-0 or 1-1 ties. There are barely ever scoring chances. Luck plays a massive role in who gets the ball when.[/quote]

When there is a goal, that makes the excitment that more intense. Opposed to watching American football when theres many many points scored over the game.

Luck also does not play a massive role in who gets the ball, wtf? Maybe with really shitty non-professional teams. Have you ever watched the Champion’s League? Or brazil/portugal /argentina games? (Those teams are the only ones who are showing top professional quality in the entire world cup at the moment)

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Also, 50% of goals are scored on set pieces. Set pieces that players proceed to dive for every time they’re barely touched.[/quote]

Thats a nice statistic that you totally pulled out of your ass. The players diving is a point, and it’s something I hate.

[quote]Beowulf wrote:
The field is huge. So huge, in fact, that it is impossible to bring the ball from one end to the other without it switching possession or without lots of luck.[/quote]

It’s 100 yards. It’s not that big. Also, thats why passing the ball is important (to keep possession), teams that just boot it down the other end and hope for the best are of shit quality… Very good teams can accurately pass it long distances to their team mates.

Again, your usage of luck shows you barely watch football and it only relates to crappy teams.

[quote]Beowulf wrote:
They spend at least 3/4 of the game playing “passing triangle” in mid field.[/quote]

It’s like a chess game, you keep passing it around making moves hoping for an opportunity to open up.

With professional teams, they spend hours and hours practicing their strategies, and that is why chances rarely open up against good sides. E.g. the portugal/brazil game was 0-0 because their movement/defense/passing was rock solid.

[quote]Beowulf wrote:
Fucking WORLD CUP games look EXACTLY like 12 year olds playing. No different. They kick the ball across the field, it bounces around, and then it goes the other way. This continues until someone gets a lucky break and has a one on one with a goalie, or until someone falls on their butt to draw a yellow card.[/quote]

This just shows you watch with a passing interest, have your own thoughts already made up and can’t look past goals being scored.

Some teams looked like non-professional nobodies off the street (i.e - algeria, england (against algeria), north korea), but again, the teams with top professional quality that I mentioned above, noticeably show their skill.

[quote]Beowulf wrote:
Can someone explain this to me? How to people think this shit is exciting to watch?[/quote]

When you watch a team that you truly want to win in a big game (all the world cup games are big, thats why everyone watches it), then you will find excitement, and when your team scores, then it really is a rush.

I’m sorry football doesn’t spoil you with a constant stream of activity/points scored like american football (which could be considered more boring, because you get so used to it).

[/quote]

Stop calling it football, its soccer. Hence the name of the thread. Football is : huge roided up American monsters trying to kill each other.

Oooooooooooh its like a chess match you say ? I’ll stick to watching real chess instead.
[/quote]

Most of THE WORLD (USA does not = world) knows it as football, since you know… you use your FOOT to kick a BALL.

Foot + ball = football.

Difficult I know.[/quote]

umad?

u sound mad.[/quote]

Yeah, using caps lock really means that I’m shouting and screaming at my computer.

DURP A DURP!!! [/quote]

butthurt detected?

r u mad cause you only have one sport and it sucks, while we have 4?
[/quote]

LOL, I play american football for my university and I’m probably the most un-patriotic english person you will find. It’s cute that you are using that against me.

I think someone else here is a iddle bid mad because they don’t have much common sense.[/quote]

I’m actually just jerkin’ your shit. Soccer/football is cool, I’m just not into it.

Speaking of jerkin’ your shit, I was attracted to your avatar and I just wanted to get you to post moar so I could see it. You big English roughian,

63

[quote]gswork wrote:

[quote]Goodfellow wrote:

[quote]ADvanced TS wrote:

butthurt detected?

r u mad cause you only have one sport and it sucks, while we have 4?
[/quote]

LOL, I play american football for my university and I’m probably the most un-patriotic english person you will find. It’s cute that you are using that against me.

I think someone else here is a iddle bid mad because they don’t have much common sense.[/quote]

You should have done better than that, what a lost opportunity, you have no sense of sporting history.

the correct response would have been “I’m sure lots of British ex-colonies have 4 bastardized versions of our other sports that no one else in the world cares about too”

The we could get the U MAD rating on this thread still higher, hey you could have won this thread with a rousing 1-0 victory!!!

see? erm… hut hut hut[/quote]

Hockey, Basketball and Baseball are global.

You’re right about football (American) though, it has yet to develop as significant of a global presence.

64

damnit.

65

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]belligerent wrote:
I don’t care about soccer, but I like watching clips of gifted players like Ronaldo.

I think Americans are just conditioned not to care about soccer. Given its popularity in the hardest regions on Earth (Africa, the middle east, etc.) I have a hard time believing that it’s a pussy sport.
[/quote]

They play it in Europe.

Europe includes France and Italy. And sometimes Canada, if we’ve decided we really don’t like them.

Does this affect your conclusion?[/quote]

I live in Canada, and this is the first time I’ve heard of Canada being in Europe.

Secondly, how does Canada (which isn’t a football nation at all) somehow make the sport more wussy? You do know our national sports are hockey and lacrosse right?

66

did anyone else know soccer is the most watched sport in america.

67

[quote]Marzouk wrote:
American sports are so long and boring that people just go to eat I guess, hence the 66% obesity rate.

They should make American Football players play a season of Rugby then find actually know what it’s what its like to play a man’s sport. [/quote]

Butt hurt much?

Nobody is talking about rugby. Stay focused here and on topic… Rugby IS a man’s sport. I don’t think anyone will debate the brutalness that is rugby.

What some of us are saying, however, and staying on topic, is that SOCCER is Bo-ring-2-watch.

68

[quote]Kerley wrote:
did anyone else know soccer is the most watched sport in america.[/quote]

What? Where did you hear that? Maybe right now, 'cause the World Cup is on, but American football is by far the most watched sport here. Maybe you read “football” and got confused?

69

[quote]sevenmoist wrote:

[quote]captaincalvert wrote:

When you guys call it soccer it disqualifies you from having an opinion in the first place. No-one with a half-measure of knowledge about the game would stoop to calling it that. What the hell does soccer mean anyway? Who came up with such a lame ass word?[/quote]
Paradoxally, the origin of the word soccer comes fromâ?¦you guessed, England.

The date of October 26th 1863 is to soccer what March 4th 1787 is to the United States. It’s the day that several soccer clubs all around England gathered up in London and formed The Football Association, the first soccer organization up to that date.

The reason I compared this date to the day the United States Constitution was adopted because the Football Association organized the game into a sportive “constitution” called the Laws of Football. The term “soccer” appeared shortly after, being an abbreviation from “Football Association” (from assoc.) and although not as heavily used as soccer, it was a short, light form to describe the phenomenon.

Reportedly, the man who stands at the origin of the word soccer is Charles Wreford Brown, an Oxford student who always preferred shortened versions of words, such as brekkers for breakfast, or rugger for rugby.
[/quote]

That’s all interesting, but someone shoulda told ol’ Charlie Wref that “ruggers” is actually longer than “rugby”. Silly English people.

70

[quote]captaincalvert wrote:

When you guys call it soccer it disqualifies you from having an opinion in the first place. No-one with a half-measure of knowledge about the game would stoop to calling it that. What the hell does soccer mean anyway? Who came up with such a lame ass word?[/quote]

I am mostly certain that my SOCCER resume and knowledge is far superior to yours and I will not call it football. More so on the fact that I live in Canada and its called SOCCER here, not football. Who cares? In conversation both parties know what sport you’re speaking of anyways.

71

[quote]ADvanced TS wrote:

You’re right about football (American) though, it has yet to develop as significant of a global presence.
[/quote]
Maybe if they got rid of those gay tights more men around the world would want to play it.

I can’t see one male from Latin American wanting to be caught wearing leggings.

72

[quote]ADvanced TS wrote:

[quote]gswork wrote:

[quote]Goodfellow wrote:

[quote]ADvanced TS wrote:

butthurt detected?

r u mad cause you only have one sport and it sucks, while we have 4?
[/quote]

LOL, I play american football for my university and I’m probably the most un-patriotic english person you will find. It’s cute that you are using that against me.

I think someone else here is a iddle bid mad because they don’t have much common sense.[/quote]

You should have done better than that, what a lost opportunity, you have no sense of sporting history.

the correct response would have been “I’m sure lots of British ex-colonies have 4 bastardized versions of our other sports that no one else in the world cares about too”

The we could get the U MAD rating on this thread still higher, hey you could have won this thread with a rousing 1-0 victory!!!

see? erm… hut hut hut[/quote]

Hockey, Basketball and Baseball are global.

You’re right about football (American) though, it has yet to develop as significant of a global presence.
[/quote]
I like to watch a bit of any sport now and then, in terms of popularity though it seems the world cup wins - but the viewing figures for all sports get exagerrated. Found an article from a few years ago:

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/why-fifas-claim-of-one-billion-tv-viewers-was-a-quarter-right-438302.html

the table itself:

Sport/Event/Claim/Verifiable*

Football, Italy v France World Cup final, 715.1m/260m

American football, Super Bowl Steelers v Seahawks, 750m-1bn/98m

Winter Olympics, Torino 2006 opening ceremony, 2bn/87m

Football, Champs League Arsenal v Barça, 120m/86m

Formula One, Brazilian Grand Prix, 354m/83m

NASCAR, Daytona 500, n/a/20m

Baseball, World Series game five, n/a/19m

Golf, US Masters (final day), n/a/17m

Tennis, Wimbledon men’s singles final, n/a/17m

Basketball, NBA finals game six, up to 1bn/17m

Cycling, Tour de France (final stage), n/a/15m

Golf, US Open (final day), n/a/10m

Golf, Ryder Cup (final day), up to 1bn/6m

Commonwealth Games, Melbourne opening ceremony, 1.5bn/5m

Cricket, ICC Champions Trophy final, n/a/3m

73

[quote]Marzouk wrote:
This thread makes me laugh. Football is exciting game if anyone has bothered watching it, I guess most Americans don’t like it because the game doesn’t stop for long enough to go and get a pizza, a hot dog, some nuts, a burger another pizza and whatever shit can be bought it at a stadium. American sports are so long and boring that people just go to eat I guess, hence the 66% obesity rate.

They should make American Football players play a season of Rugby then find actually know what it’s what its like to play a man’s sport. [/quote]

  1. Check your statistics. 66%? Where did you get that number from?
  2. We’re not talking about rugby here.
74

450×525 62 KB

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]ADvanced TS wrote:

You’re right about football (American) though, it has yet to develop as significant of a global presence.
[/quote]
Maybe if they got rid of those gay tights more men around the world would want to play it.

I can’t see one male from Latin American wanting to be caught wearing leggings.
[/quote]

a deadman says what?

75

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Maybe if they got rid of those gay tights more men around the world would want to play it.

I can’t see one male from Latin American wanting to be caught wearing leggings.
[/quote]

caught you. please don’t compare the rampant faggotry of soccer to american…borderline homoeroticism.

76

the fact that you guys like NFL gives you no right to comment on other sports. jesus its a slow game, lets get 10 thousand players and dress them in fucking armour and play for 3 hours, terrible.

77

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
the fact that you guys like NFL gives you no right to comment on other sports. jesus its a slow game, lets get 10 thousand players and dress them in fucking armour and play for 3 hours, terrible.

[/quote]

spoken like every girl i’ve ever met who didn’t understand the rules.

78

608×640 65.5 KB

[quote]thefederalist wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Maybe if they got rid of those gay tights more men around the world would want to play it.

I can’t see one male from Latin American wanting to be caught wearing leggings.
[/quote]

caught you. please don’t compare the rampant faggotry of soccer to american…borderline homoeroticism. [/quote]

shit, now fed’s here.

79

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]ADvanced TS wrote:

You’re right about football (American) though, it has yet to develop as significant of a global presence.
[/quote]
Maybe if they got rid of those gay tights more men around the world would want to play it.

I can’t see one male from Latin American wanting to be caught wearing leggings.
[/quote]
Why would you want to wear a uniform that makes you easier to tackle?

80

1034×800 399 KB

[quote]ADvanced TS wrote:

[quote]thefederalist wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Maybe if they got rid of those gay tights more men around the world would want to play it.

I can’t see one male from Latin American wanting to be caught wearing leggings.
[/quote]

caught you. please don’t compare the rampant faggotry of soccer to american…borderline homoeroticism. [/quote]

shit, now fed’s here.
[/quote]