I gained about fifty pounds my freshman year in college (from ~190 lbs in high school to ~240 labs by the end of the year), owing to taking up rugby and a beer-heavy diet. Since then, people who meet me generally assume that I played football in high school-- in fact, that was probably the biggest indicator of the weight gain (other than, you know, clothes fitting differently)-- people stopped asking me whether I played basketball, and started asking what position I played in football.
In fact, I never played organized football-- basically because the coach when I was in Jr. High was a jerk, and I wanted no part of that program. Instead, I played soccer. That experience has left me with enough appreciation of the game to feel some anticipation for the World Cup starting in a couple of weeks.
I was channel-suurfing last night, and caught the second half of the US's final tune-up game before leaving for Germany, a 1-0 victory over mighty Latvia. Some observations on the game below the fold, so only people who, you know, care about soccer need to read them:
1) It might just have been the specific people in this game, but it always seems to me that international-level soccer coaches are about the most detached coaches in all of sports. They had dozens of shots of US coach Bruce Arena last night, and he mostly just looked bored.
Of course, I suppose it's only to be expected-- there's not much for them to do, after all. I mean, it's hard to work the refs when they're usually fifty yards away, and it's hard to really fire up a team on that basis, too. The play never stops, so it's not like you can signal in set plays for different situations. And you're only allowed something like six substitutions a game, so there's no personnel management to do. You might as well bring a magazine and buy some popcorn.
2) On the flip side, is there a more theatrical group of world-class athletes than soccer players? Every single tackle seems to be accompanied by an Oscar bid for "most agonizing performance of a leg injury." Guys flop around like landed trout, and clutch at their shins and ankles as if trying to hold the crushed bones together. And then, as soon as the ref bows the whistle (or it becomes clear that he's not going to blow the whistle), they spring back off and sprint down the field like nothing was ever wrong.
In most other sports, guys are expected to act tough, and pretend that injuries are no big deal. In soccer, the rule seems to be to ham it up as much as humanly possible. I'm not sure why that is (Mediterranean influence?), but it probably contributes to the American idea that it's a game for wusses.
3) Damn, but American soccer announcers are bad. ESPN's coverage was barely competent, and the announcers just sort of blathered over the top of it, as they cut from one camera to another for no clear reason. I really need to check out when and where the Spanish-language broadcasts will be playing, because they're so much better.
ESPN really needs to either decide to go with the Spanish-language approach, and find someone who can treat it as if the slightest tap of the ball is the most exciting event in the history of sports, or opt for the British model, and hire a couple of really snide announcers to just harsh on the players constantly. The middle-of-the-road approach is just dull.
Anyway, the World Cup starts June 9th, and the ritual slaughter of the US team begins on the 12th. Should be fun, in Spanish, at least...
- Log in to post comments
One of the attractions of soccer for me, as a player and as a fan, is the detachment of the coaches during games. I think that U.S. football and college basketball are vastly overcoached - I'd like to see a limit to substitutions, timeouts, etc. so that the players can play the game without the incessant meddling of the coaches.
I agree with your comments about the announcers. I hope ABC and ESPN come up with some decent teams.
Ritual slaughter? - I don't know. 3 losses may happen, but there is a chance that a win and a tie may get into the final 16. They have to nail those scoring chances though.
re: #2 Flopping is a well established practise around the world -- it's not limited to a certain geographical location, although some nationalities seem to do it much less. To me, it's the most off-putting aspect of the sport. I grew up watching North American team sports, particularly hockey and football. I've seen players get up from literal bone-cruching hits, knocked completely senseless, barely staggering over to their locker rooms, just to avoid the indignity of being carried off on a stretcher. That is part of the North American jock ethic: never let them know they've hurt you.
In other parts off the world, a different jock ethic rules, one which rewards cunning, which I suppose is how flopping is regarded. No one watching a game, who sees player go down in a heap after sustaining that near-life-threatening brush on the upper arm -- no one could possibly think that player is actually hurt. Yet they (the fans, the officials, his teammates) tolerate his antics. I have to assume they approve of his attempt to gain a competitive edge by trying to draw a penalty. If that type of stuff happened in, say, a hockey game, that player would be hounded out of the league for being a pussy. Chacun à son goût.
Agree about the announcers. Having grown up watching English football (soccer) and listening to English commentators, American commentators were a rather nasty surprise.
Also, only three substitutions are allowed for World Cup games, and in fact for most other competitive games. They allow more substitutions for friendlies so that coaches can try out more players. It's kind of strange that you would describe that as "not much" personnel management -- they often make a huge difference.
And I think the apparent detachment has to do with Arena's personal style and the fact that it was just a friendly. The referee being fifty yards away doesn't stop many coaches from yelling their heads off at him, and often they take it out on the fourth official instead, who is usually by the dugouts. Many orders are also given during the game, during pauses like when the ball goes out of play, or when play is stopped for a foul, etc. Even when the ball is in play, there can be a lot of communication between coaches and players -- Liverpool's [long-nosed] assistant coach Phil Thompson, for example, is on his feet yelling at the players for so much of the game that opposition fans have taken to chanting "sit down Pinocchio" at him.
Play-acting is not looked on that well in England either. You can get booked for diving (though it doesn't happen as often as it should), and there is a perception amongst the English that diving is something that only wussy foreigners do. It is true that play-acting is more theatrical in the Italian leagues than in the English leagues, but with the international flow of players, the habit is "spreading" everywhere. In reality fans, being fans, usually condone or ignore play-acting from their own team while condemning it for opposition players.
Matt: I agree with your comments about the announcers. I hope ABC and ESPN come up with some decent teams.
I'm not sure they have much of a pool to draw from...
I should probably check whether the BBC channel we've got will have games, too. I doubt it (it mostly seems to be sitcome reruns), but it'd be nice to have decent announcers in English. I do enjoy the Spanish-language coverage, though-- Andreas Cantor rules.
Ritual slaughter? - I don't know. 3 losses may happen, but there is a chance that a win and a tie may get into the final 16. They have to nail those scoring chances though.
I don't hold out a great deal of hope, but they have been getting better in recent years, so maybe. They didn't look all that impressive last night-- it took a great save by Keller in the closing seconds of normal time to prevent a 1-1 tie-- but it's not clear that they were trying all that hard, either.
Wowbagger: Also, only three substitutions are allowed for World Cup games, and in fact for most other competitive games. They allow more substitutions for friendlies so that coaches can try out more players. It's kind of strange that you would describe that as "not much" personnel management -- they often make a huge difference.
I knew it was six for last night, but couldn't recall whether that was the usual number or not. As for whether that counts as "not much" personnel management or not, you should watch more American football, where they swap the whole team in and out every few plays...
(I do agree that the impact of the decisions can be much larger than the raw number might lead you to believe. But still, compared to the coaches in most North American sports, soccer coaches have it easy...)
If any of the above commenters complaining about "diving" are American, they have no reason to complain. You want to see "diving", watch NBA basketball. Those guys could beat out Greg Louganis.
As for "soccer" itself: 40 years ago, before it caught on in this country, I was in France one summer, made a great effort to go to a match. I found it the most boring sport to watch I'd ever seen. Since it has become popular in this country, and, thus is on TV occassionally, I watch every once in a while. I still find it to be the most boring sport to watch. It may be fun to play, and may be exciting for hometown fans who closely identify with a team, but for someone who grew up with football, basketball and tennis, futbol is slow, dull and unexciting.
"But still, compared to the coaches in most North American sports, soccer coaches have it easy."
I would argue that it is the other way around.
Seen as a economic asset, the substitution is a much more scares good in soccer than in the "American" sports.
For example is it very expensive to ajust to the opposite tactic by substitution. Not so in football.
It may be fun to play, and may be exciting for hometown fans who closely identify with a team, but for someone who grew up with football, basketball and tennis, futbol is slow, dull and unexciting.
For someone who is accustomed to soccer, the same can be said of American football, or at least the few times I've tried to watch on TV. It was on the same level of XV de Jaú vs. Avaà (obscure Brazilian 3rd division teams).
I'm the same as Karl. I can watch football and basketball with no problems but get really bored with watching soccer, for some reason. I can even watch golf on TV and be fine, which I find weird.
Personally, I find both Association football ('soccer') and American football dull. I prefer adrenaline sports, like cricket.
Agree with Mads, with less substitutions, each choice of substitution is more crucial.
But in any case, even if they allowed more than three substitutions, most teams would not use more than that (unless forced to by injuries), simply because most teams do not have enough good players on the bench to make that many substitutions worthwhile -- substitutions would tend to destroy cohesiveness rather than add quality (in friendlies, of course, the emphasis is on giving players a run out rather than winning, so substituting first team players is desirable). It is normal to use one or two substitutions tactically, and leave the last one for a time-wasting tactic near the end or as a backup for injury. Using all three substitutions early on is a sign that your game plans have gone horribly awry.
But in any case, even if they allowed more than three substitutions, most teams would not use more than that (unless forced to by injuries), simply because most teams do not have enough good players on the bench to make that many substitutions worthwhile -- substitutions would tend to destroy cohesiveness rather than add quality (in friendlies, of course, the emphasis is on giving players a run out rather than winning, so substituting first team players is desirable). It is normal to use one or two substitutions tactically, and leave the last one for a time-wasting tactic near the end or as a backup for injury. Using all three substitutions early on is a sign that your game plans have gone horribly awry.
This is largely a function of the current limits on substitutions, though. If there were more subs allowed as a matter of course, teams would keep more good players on their roster, and players would get used to adjusting to line-up changes and the like. There's nothing inherent in the game that forces you to play with minimal subs-- that's just the way it's done at the moment.
It might be a very different game with more subs, but there's no reason it wouldn't work. I'm not advocating that, mind, I'm just talking in the abstract.
Ritual slaughter? - I don't know. 3 losses may happen, but there is a chance that a win and a tie may get into the final 16. They have to nail those scoring chances though.
In a group with the Czech Republic, Italy and Ghana?
I think it's highly unlikely.
One of the things I found hard to get used to in US intramural league games was the infinite substitution rule, and allowing people subbed out to sub back in.
Completely changes the nature of the game, in real football pacing is very important and substitutions are usually late or for serious injury.
Diving and theatrics are very tiresome and historically frowned on in the northern Europe leagues (though less so in the last 10-20 years). People do it because it works, and because getting clipped or kicked at those speeds really hurts. A lot. The impact is usually very concentrated and high speed, so it is painful but not disabling (well, there's the famous incident in the West German league where this one guy got his leg kicked off...).
My very limited impression of US commentators is that most of them have never played football and have no feeling for the game or understanding of the action.
So most of them suck.
I've watched many a high school game in the States, and the "overacting" seems to be gaining favor. Though, strangely, it always seems to be the visiting team that dives a little too much ...
I find most US sports announcing, regardless of the sport, at one boring, annoying and distracting. What is wrong with just letting people watch the bloody game? Network people, of course, detest dead air, but at least fill the air with intelligent and knowledgeable remarks not drivel.
Don't get me started on our coverage of the Olympics.
I am right now watching the (REAL) football world cup on ESPN and the commentary is just awful. And ESPN starts coverage only seconds before the kick-off. I am actually thinking of getting Univision even though I dont understand a word of Spanish!