Why I watch soccer

Avatar

Will

Will writes from Washington, D.C. (well, Arlington, Virginia). You can reach him at willblogcorrespondence at gmail dot com.

Related Post Roulette

34 Responses

  1. Avatar greginak says:

    I’m not much of a soccer fan but i will watch some of the matches. I’ll admit the constant flow aspect is fun and interesting. I might add that a somewhat American sport, hockey, actually has a lot of that constant flow thing and continuous play.Report

  2. Avatar Scott says:

    Maybe it is the booze that makes watching soccer more enjoyable just as it makes listening to some jam band bearable.Report

  3. Avatar Endevour to Persevere says:

    Maybe I’m just a typical middle class white liberal but I love soccer. Whenever I watch Football I’m bored, baseball is dull, hockey is surreal, and basketball has sucked since they got rid of traveling.

    I thought I was one of those sensitive kids who didn’t like sports. The first time I saw an EPL game the scales fell form my eyes and I knew the glory of sport.Report

  4. Avatar Rob says:

    The only demographic the game appeals to consists of young, worldly, educated types…

    Well, those, plus the largest minority in the United States. (But, otherwise, I agree with your broad generalization about the constant flow of a soccer match; it’s a big part of the appeal for me.)Report

    • Avatar Carsten in reply to Rob says:

      @Rob, yes more thN right. At all game showings here in DC the audience is split by those global hipsters (US peeps with very limited soccer knowledge and ManU shirts), actual euros, and hispanicsReport

  5. Avatar Alan Scott says:

    Yeah, I’d say that the educated worldly liberals are a distinct minority of soccer fans, in fact.Report

  6. Honestly I think what pisses people off globally at the US attitude towards the World Cup is that they don’t give a shit until the finals start. That is: Most everyone else in the world cares about the qualifying matches because they actually have tough regional tournaments to fight through. (The collective national agony that was the Agony of Doha still resonates deeply in Japanese people like me, for example)

    Americans on the whole take qualifying for granted and then suddenly start making noises like they care about the tournament when it’s a month before the finals begin. Honestly it’s partly because CONCACAF is a horrible confederation and the US and Mexico are basically assured of spots unless they send no one to the games, but this attitude of sports entitlement I think is a good reason why soccer scolds probably do have a point. Once you guys start caring about the qualifiers and maybe play against opponents who can actually beat you in the qualifying stages, we’ll take your enthusiasm seriously.

    Until then, I hope the US continually gets crushed in world cup competition.Report

  7. Avatar Clint says:

    I’d just add one thing as a young, poorly educated, and unworldly type- Soccer is the only sport that every single person of my generation participated in. This is not true of any of the big four sports in America. I think this enables people to engage as fans every four years. While I enjoy watching soccer, I am confident that it also has the largest disconnect between playing and watching. When I asked my girlfriend, who played ODP-quality soccer for 10 years, where she wanted to watch the soccer game saturday, she responded: “What soccer game?”Report

  8. Avatar Michael Drew says:

    There’s a good deal more stop-and-start in hockey than soccer, but yeah basically it’s the same idea. But it doesn’t ruin your thesis because hockey is not an American sport by origin or even current primary source of interest. It’s probably one of soccer’s main rivals as the most international game (though of course soccer doesn’t really have any rivals in that category).

    So I do think there is something to your thesis. But I also think you overplay the extent to which basketball is not fluid. It’s really a pretty continuous game, isn’t it, albeit with much more scoring than soccer? One style/strategy of play does lead to frequent moments of physical calm, but in reality there’s still an entirely continuous flow of play going on the whole time. Play isn’t divided into “downs” or “deliveries” as in football or baseball. As you say, some soccer teams’ play style pulls their sport in a similar direction, though not as far.Report

  9. Avatar Graham J. says:

    You’ve exactly nailed it, and I think that’s also reflected in the relative popularity of the ‘Big 4’ American sports (if you count hockey, which I am, grudgingly). The most popular two are football and baseball, which have relatively the most pauses, then basketball, then hockey.

    A lot of it is definitely tied to the fact that soccer can end in a tie, but more important is the nonstop nature of it. It keeps going, but it also seems like nothing happens. Witness France-Uruguay yesterday, in which two teams played for an hour and a half, and the game ended in a 0-0 tie. To many, what’s the point?

    There’s no opportunity in soccer to savor a situation. It’s not only the ‘short bursts of action’, it’s appreciating what may or may not happen in just a few moments. 4th down, 1 yard to go, down by 3. Two outs, bottom of the ninth, man on first, full count. And here’s the pitch…

    No suspense like that in soccer at all.Report

    • Avatar Michael Drew in reply to Graham J. says:

      @Graham J., Right. Also ther eis the matter of the unexciting scoring. If a team is down by a goal with just a little time left, then the stakes are pretty much either they lose or tie. At least in hockey, if the team ties it up they’re going to a long extra period, and then to a shootout in the NHL. And in basketball and football, depending on the specific deficit, if it is close usually all possible outcomes remain very much alive down to the very last seconds. With baseball, there’s no clock to run out – it’s just a matter of how long a team can keep their chance alive, and once again, scoring in multiples is possible so all the outcomes often remain viable down to the very end.Report

      • Avatar Simon K in reply to Michael Drew says:

        @Michael Drew, Tournament soccer games like the world cup also go to extra time and then to penalties, not unlike hockey. Its league soccer that has the dull score-lines.Report

        • Avatar Michael Drew in reply to Simon K says:

          @Simon K, Boegiboe below makes the point I was trying to in a different way that I think addresses your point. But even still I don’t think hockey and soccer are comparable (okay, comparable yes, but not nearly equal) in the role ties play in determining standings, and especially championships. If we take Nob’s point that the Cup is essentially analogous to a U.S. major sport’s post-season “playoffs,” then your hockey analogy doesn’t hold up. Stanley Cup playoff games (finals or otherwise) can’t end in a tie. Contrariwise, we’ve had three draws in the first six games of this Cup. The contrast is pretty clear. Also, scoring is more frequent in hockey, and the extra periods are greater by proportion to the regular playing time, so even in the regular season, the game is tilted far further against draws than is just about any soccer match. Doesn’t that seem fair?Report

  10. Avatar Boegiboe says:

    The problem Americans have with soccer is that the game, in general, cannot be won suddenly, at the end, by some decision by a coach during an advertizing break. Americans like to watch an exciting game, and then have the end be the most exciting part of the game. That rarely will happen in soccer. Real soccer fans will watch a few minutes of a game and be entertained, whether it’s at the end or at the beginning.
    I love soccer, as the only sport that ever suited me. I haven’t seen a game yet, but while the US tied the UK, I showed my little girl what few moves I have. And she loved em. The whole idea of soccer is the love of actually playing the game. That is fundamentally different from the fandom of all the other American sports (including hockey, over the past decade).Report

  11. Avatar Sam M says:

    Shouldn’t soccer’s global acceptance make it LESS appealing to hipsters? Seems to me that since people play it everywhere and follow the same basic rules, it’s kind of the Olive Garden of athletics. If youy are into buying local and authentic culture or whatever, shouldn’t you prefer local niche sports like… American Football or Aussie Rules?Report

  12. Avatar superdestroyer says:

    Americans like last second come backs, miracle plays, and underdog winning. Why get interested in a massive tournament when everyone knows that Brazil, France, England, Italy, or Germany is going to win it all in the long run.

    Americans like game-time situaitons. Look at the Arizona Cardinals versus the Green Bay Packers in the playoffs in 2009. Several tense game time situations versus soccer kicking the ball off each other and most scores looking more like mistakes instead of intentional.

    Also, if you watch the crowd reactions in soccer, the crowd is always appears detached from the play. Singing. blow horns, bang drums seems more important than paying attention to the play on the field.Report

    • Avatar Frank in reply to superdestroyer says:

      Your opinions about soccer seem unbelievable to me.

      Let me make an introduction first.

      I love sports. (Yes, American sports too). American Football is my second favourite sport (guess which one is the first). I follow MLB, NHL and NBA sometimes.

      But soccer for me is by far the most exciting sport in the World. I have to agree that the WC is probably where you watch the most boring soccer (weaker teams are always too defensive because they don’t to lose by many goals). Just try to compare with EPL, Bundesliga, La Liga and Champions League. Those leagues can blow your mind and are responsible for making soccer the most popular sport in the World. WC is great because any country can participate in it in spite of not having a good soccer league.

      Soccer is the most unpredictable (proved) sport in the world. So underdogs always surprise people like for example Uruguay in this WC. (It seems that your guesses weren’t right). Also miracle plays are very common. Yesterday a club in my country for example was winning 2-0 and in just ten minutes it started losing 2-3.

      And that comment about goals seeming mistakes than intentional is just ridiculous.

      So my advice is: You should all watch a good EPL match before talking about soccer.Report

  13. Avatar Sam M says:

    “Also, I wonder about this:

    “‘But American teams usually see action in short, frenetic bursts instead of the slower build-up of a good soccer match.’

    I will admit that I don’t like soccer much. And I don’t understand it. That’s OK, and I don’t go around carping about how stupid it is. I don’t care if other people like it.

    But I do recall that i was in a bar when the US women won the world cup. I watched the game, completely mystified. And bored. Afterwards, a jubilant fan at the bar said, “That was the greatest soccer match I have ever seen.” He didn’t mean that he like just loved the result. The game itself, he said, was awesome.

    But there was no “slow build up” of tension, or a larger narrative. From what I could tell, the ball was in the middle 50 percent of the field for at least 90 percent of the game. Nobody ever seemed to even THREATEN to score. THere were no large swings in momentum, or great goalkeeping that kept it even. Just… soccer. Athletic! I couldn’t do it! But still, to claim that this was a long, slow arc towards a climactic conclusion seems a bit off to me.Report

    • Avatar Will in reply to Sam M says:

      @Sam M, I mean, I wouldn’t point you to a WNBA game to explain the appeal of basketball. I think you just watched the wrong match, Sam.Report

      • Avatar Sam M in reply to Will says:

        @Will,

        I wondered about that, too. It’s the only soccer match I ever watched from start to finish. But all the soccer people there ASSURED me it was an all-time great example of soccer at its finest.

        Since then, I have had this assessment repeated. When I ask for an example of a great match, they tell me to go watch that one.

        Perhaps I am talking to the wrong people. But everyone assures me it was awesome. And again, I admit that it might have been, and I simply don’t get it.Report

        • Avatar Michael Drew in reply to Sam M says:

          @Sam M, If you’re talking to Americans, it’s very likely you’re just getting a reference to their best available soccer memory, it seems to me, even if they think they’re telling you about a truly great game. I do relate to your impression of the game, and I actually have a limited background in it myself. I think you have to watch for a while to begin to come to understand what a team that is playing well is doing that is worth appreciating. The individual successful strikes are too rare to discern what makes them successful, so it appears to be all about either luck or a breakdown of defense. I played in my youth but quit before I got to where they started to teach (or maybe I just didn’t progress that far). I don’t watch a whole lot except during the World Cup, though when it comes around, it gets my full attention usually. And I think I’m just beginning to be able to see how the interplay of attack and defense (on one side) works to define a successful strategy. You have to be watching with some knowledge of what else a team might have done either better or worse to create chances or repel attacks, whether in a given moment or over the course of a half, to evaluate the competition between the teams’ approaches. And for that you need to have watched at least few matches through. One thing you get when you do that is a sense of how managers adjust at half. Otherwise you’re right, it totally looks like they’re just kicking it around the midfield only for there suddenly to be a breakaway or a cross where someone gets free.

          But at the same time, frankly I don’t think it can be denied that there is fundamentally a great deal more randomness to the game than most favorite American sports. Just consider what a major part of baseball a pitcher’s “control” is, or how much sharpshooting guards (or forwards) can dominate a basketball game. I marvel at how off-target strikers at the highest level of soccer can compared to even college quarterbacks or jump-shooters. I’m not sure if that’s a hand/foot thing or what.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *