WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

home | about | tracker | comics

*the* place for collaborative e-snowboarding
Posted by bizquig3000 on 2005-06-05 16:46:09 +0000

Soccer thought

So yesterday, I was watching a World Cup qualifying match (okay, okay, stop laughing). USA vs. Costa Rica (European board members, stop laughing). Got me thinking. US critics say soccer won't catch on because the scores are too low and the game too slow (how the hell does this arugment only apply to soccer? Can't we make the same argument against baseball?). Got me thinking further that all the international basketball leauges have fucked up rules with different 3-point lines, diferent rulings on fouls, et al. Why doesn't Major League Soccer fuck with the rules a wee bit so that we have a more offensive game? Make the goals bigger or the pitch slightly smaller or something like that? Go back to international (read: FIFA) rules for things like World Cup. FWIW: FIFA here's the top ten ranked teams as of today [list=1] [*] Brazil [*] Czech Republic [*] Argentina [*] France [*] Netherlands [*] England [*] Mexico [*] Spain [*] Portugal [*] Italy & USA (tied) [/list] Costa Rica, Korea and Croatia all tied at 21.

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-05 16:52:44 +0000
USA wins 3-0 to boot (no pun intended). I thought aloud, just yesterday, that the Revolution might be worth checking out. Undefeated this season (with a few tied games, like yesterday).

Posted by frame609 on 2005-06-05 16:59:23 +0000
My first baseball game of the year was totally dull- the Sox got a bunch of runs early and wound up beating the Mariners 7-2, with absoluetly zero excitement past like the fourth inning. Still, though, I sit through the dull ones because I know exciting the good ones are. I guess I kinda feel the same way with soccer. Having said that, though, the MLB has tinkered with the height of the pitchers mound and the size of the strike zone. Making the goal a little bit bigger or the field a little bit smaller sounds reasonable to me. I wish we had some soccer purists to argue with about this. Anyone?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-06-05 23:24:02 +0000
Formulating an argument... which is going to be tough because when the idea of enlarging the soccer goal was being thrown around a decade ago, I was all for it. Soccer players are the best athletes in the world. We've already had the argument here at rs.n that hitting a baseball is the hardest thing in sports, and I will continue to disagree. There is a slight chance that a decathlete might be in better shape based on the various running, but when it comes to body/eye coordination the javelin, discus, and shot put just doesn't cut it for me. There's an argument that Gretzky was the greatest althete of all time: he was in great shape, had unbelievable vision physically and mentally, and uncanny touch with a stick and his skates. Still so few people get to play hockey, that your base of world players is much too low. Gretzky ruled, no question, but the caliber of the average player just makes the professional soccer player the winner here. My dad tells a story when he took a collegiate buddy skiing for his first time. This guy was a football and lacrosse player at Brown, and my dad said he was a better skier than him by the third run down the hill. And my dad got a huge kick just watching him, and he wasn't even that good. Sometimes it's just fun to watch incredible athletes playing ping-pong, shooting hoops, or whatever. There was Jon Atherton at Middlebury, who played 4 years of soccer, hockey and lacrosse. Not being able to play soccer, when he came back for a 9th semester (my 2nd), he was an all-star for the football team as a strong safety. It was fun to watch "Johnny Brah" play beer pong. Further watching a professional soccer player, play soccer, is joy. That said, soccer is an abosolute success in the US. It does not have the money that the others do, but it continues to be most often played; it was never a rich man's game. But why won't 30,000 people go to see the first place Revolution play? Good question. I guess the love isn't there yet. All the TV endorsements, NBC Sports news deals, or Super dupper CEOs ML Soccer chooses, will take time. The scoring is low, like 1-0 low. but hey NASCAR gets 400,000 people to races and most of them don't even watch it live. Should the game even need to be fun to watch?

Posted by tgl on 2005-06-06 03:35:36 +0000
High scores do not an interesting spectacle make. . . . Strong with the Force, is he.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2005-06-06 15:29:36 +0000
Soccer is like sex. It's true. Think about it. I'll take soccer any day of the week over any other sport - ever. For serious.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2005-06-06 17:18:48 +0000
First: hitting a baseball isn't that hard, I did it a couple of times yesterday in my game. </brag> Next: don't you all mean football? What is this gay Americanized "soccer" bullshit. Third: Baseball and American Rules Football are made for TV, with all of the natural breaks in play in which to insert commercials. The action in "soccer" is too fast and uninterupted. This makes Americans nervous, and sometimes induces seizures. Finally: Football is the cheapest game per person, all you need is a ball. You don't need a stick, you don't even need a field. It will forever be the most popular game to play in the world for that reason alone. I will start watching Football, when my I drive my kid there in my wagon. (bought a Passat this weekend </brag>) Until then I'll stick to sports that don't make me feel fat and lazy when I watch them.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-06-06 18:10:09 +0000
4WD Passat, or AWD, or whatever they call it?

Posted by tendiamonds on 2005-06-06 19:54:27 +0000
4Motion

E-mail to tgl@rideside.net to add your tumblr.
Find me on github.