I’m enjoying the spectacular 4K broadcasts on my new OLED TV. I feel like I am there, except I can have a beer if I want. How we can get soccer games half way across the world broadcast in 4K, yet the NFL “game of the week” or even the Super Bowl are not?
So, I will start by saying I have never known much about Soccer. I am too old to be in the generation where everyone played it. I think we had a round of it (along with many other sports I wasn't that familiar with that seemed more fun to me, like Lacrosse and handball and racquetball) in Junior high school gym. (just saying Junior high instead of middle school dates me already) but kids weren't playing it then. Pele was a star that got American recognition when I was young, but that was about it. I also am a victim of the American thing about not liking ties. I do know those guys have to be in shape. i would like them to wear fitbits so we know how far they have run in a game.
So two questions. The first is that it seems to me that in most sports, the less scoring there is, the most likely for an underdog to win. I know there was a big upset today, but for the most part, that does not seem to be the case in Soccer. The teams everyone thinks will advance and win usually do. There aren't as many Cinderella stories and it is usually a one game story if there is. Why is that?
The second is this: The US Women seemed to almost immediately be good on the World stage, while the Men, despite having a generation of guys that have grown up playing the game, has not been at all a threat. I mean, they tied with a country (not even a country, really) with the population of Nevada today and no one seemed to be surprised or disappointed, just glad they didn't lose. Why is that? Is it because Women are more encouraged athletically here on the Women's side? Is it because we don't identify special guys and train them from childhood as early as other countries do on the Men's side?
Those are just blind guesses from a guy who knows nothing. I wonder if anyone has some insight.
I'm glad that no sport that I absolutely love, namely baseball, has a governing body quite as evil, corrupt, soulless, and disgusting as FIFA. It's very easy for me to boycott the Fox broadcasts where they publicly admit they won't acknowledge the human rights violations of the host country (again).
I really dislike Rob Manfred and pretty much despise Roger Goodell. But they are both saints when compared to Gianni Infantino. To hell with FIFA and to hell with the World Cup.
He learned it all at the feet of the FIFA OG’s, Blatter and Platini, who are responsible for Qatar.
No doubt Infantino was frog marched before the Emir and maybe w MBS quietly standing by in blackout shades and given a very clear directive that he personally dance pretty for them.
"*Am I wrong about this, or isn’t there always a soccer “Captain America”? Like, I can remember pretty clearly people calling Claudio Reyna “Captain America.” And I think Carlos Bocanegra was called “Captain America.” And I seem to remember at least some people called Landon Donovan, “Captain America.” Maybe John Harkes, too? I think there were others."
Yes, and always it seems that the current Captain America is, while the star and the great hope of the U.S. team, in terms of international player quality, at best...pretty good—y'know, for an American.
Are there issues? Have there been from the get go? Of course. But I think there has been some progress in Qatar on a bunch of issues. It’s not all bad.
I don't think thousands of deaths directly resulting from grows human rights violations and slavery are issues that "progress" can be made on, but maybe that's just me.
Great article as always, but enough already of the phrase "modern era".
I sort of get it [USA missed all nine tournaments between 1950 and 1990, which gives a natural definition of "starting with Italia 1990"]. But I don't think other countries discount the early tournaments. Everyone seems to credit Italy with four wins, including two in the 1930s.
So that gives USA another three games won, making 8 in 92 years: the first three were Belgium 3-0 and Paraguay 3-0 in 1930, then England 1-0 in 1950.
That third win is mentioned frequently in English football history. The USA goal was scored by Joe Gaetjens, a Haitian who never acquired American citizenship and was murdered by the Haitian government. There was an assist from Walter Bahr, the father of two of the NFL's top 50 scorers of all time.
I don’t know much about soccer but that 1950 match was-is considered one of the greatest upsets in history, isn’t it? And from I remember reading it pretty much got a small paragraph on page 4 of American newspaper sports coverage- I mean barely mentioned at all.
In most sports, the "modern era" is defined by a change in the game, how it's played, or who is playing it. Is there anything different about soccer in 2022 than it was played in 1922?
The backpass rule, the offside rule, and much more liberal substitutions (up to 5 per game now) come to mind. Tactics too -- read Jonathan Wilson's great "Inverting the Pyramid."
And right on cue after Joe says it is impossible to score goals in the World Cup, we have two of our four games today end in a zero-zero tie, which presumably Bill Belichek loves (yes I am tying in his American football post from yesterday to this one), but no one else.
The impossibility of goals was spoken to me by a European soccer fan during the 1998 World Cup.
As I was marvelling at the foot work of Zidane, she was noting the impossibility of scoring in the NHL.
She noted the stickhandling and flinging a puck off the end of a stick into a tiny night guarded by a huge armored figure who also gets to use his hands. And you have to know how to skate!
Add to this the stifling defensive trapping of the late 90s and I'd say those were harder to come by.
I suppose my point is that goals in either sport aren't impossible it's more a matter of perspective. I pretty much grew up on skates and playing hockey, so even though I don't have pro skills I feel I can relate to what it takes to score. I don't have good foot coordination in a soccer sense.
My Dutch friend grew up playing soccer and couldn't believe the stick handling and skating she was witnessing.
I know scoring in soccer is lower, but when the NHL saw that it's scoring was falling they changed rules in the 2000s. The international level was less stifling because of the larger ice.
Meanwhile, Greece won the Euro 2004 in one of the most stifling ways possible.
I don't know much about the history of soccer, but I feel like rule changes have altered North American big 4 with baseball perhaps the slowest to adapt.
Soccer has such a sense of history and varying global styles. I wonder how changes to the game would be met by fans and players.
Yes, the significantly smaller net in the NHL (compared to soccer) would seem to theoretically make scoring even rarer in hockey (though I guess it really doesn't work that way in reality).
In 2001 or 2002 the Casablanca Derby ended with fans setting fire to the field. Raja and Wydad are the main rivalry in Morocco, and this was my first exposure to "real" sports fandom. American sports have some big fans who paint their bellies and faces and wear wigs to games, but there are no hooligans like football hooligans. There is no equivalent to it in any other sport.
Honestly I think it is a kind of culture that has developed, so when big games occur people just decide "the thing to do after the big game is burn down the city and kill people." So they do. I would rather deal with drunken Raiders fans or angry Philadelphia fans than any run-of-the-mill football crowd in Europe or Africa.
I've been to multiple games at 3 levels in England, from the Prem down to League 1, and never witnessed a hint of trouble. I think it's largely a thing of the past there and in western Europe. Can't say about elsewhere.
Yes, stuff like that does happen occasionally. In 2011 Vancouver was set on fire after the Stanley Cup, and it was kind of a big deal. In 2018 Philadelphia burned after the Super Bowl. It definitely happens here, but it is rare that someone dies. In Europe and Africa people get killed with alarming regularity after games.
Well, I dunno that I developed any more of an appreciation for soccer from reading this, but Imma definitely start ending some arguments with, "You're a national disgrace. Please respond."
The downfall of soccer popularity in the U.S. is just what Joe wrote, it takes magic to score a goal, or a terrible mistake by a defender or keeper. I coached youth soccer for 15 years, and the fun starts to slowly get strangled out of the game starting around age 12, depending on the level of competition, because this is when goals and chances become way too scarce. Just make the net bigger, until the over/under is around six, and the fun will return, and young players will stay with the sport, both as participants and fans.
I don’t think there’s a soccer downfall in the US. The sport is more popular than its ever been.
You make a goal more common, you take away the magic. There are dozens of moments in a match short of a goal, even in youth soccer, that are worthy of praise and admiration and teaching kids to love those moments too is part of being a coach and part of loving the game.
But the sport could be so much more popular with more chances and goals. The moments you speak of can definitely be appreciated by aficionados, along with many other moments, but the casual fan, the ones we're trying to draw in, need something more, as in more goals
I believe Futsal is the game you're looking for. Lots of high-speed play. Lots of goals. Very skilled and technical.
Changing soccer in America to suit American tastes is a non-starter. MLS tried this at the beginning with a stopped clock and no ties. It did not work, and they correctly adjusted to how the rest of the world plays the game.
Soccer in America is way more popular now than it was in 1996.
I mean, that’s like saying baseball would be better if pitchers had to slow pitch because there would be more home runs.
As it is now, goals are common enough that you know you’ll probably get a few in every game and rare enough that the emotional response to each one is extremely high. For me that’s perfect, but certainly your mileage may vary.
Baseball was better because they lowered the mound back in the 60s, but now it's regressing again, time for another change. Basketball was dying due to the stall, some games were ending up in single digits, but then the shot clock was put in place. Football and hockey have made many rule changes, and both are more popular than ever. Time for soccer to adjust to the reality of bigger and faster athletes.
I’ll take the bait here and say as a strong soccer/football fan, the sports has regressed IMO due to changes in making the offsides call stricter and delaying the actual flag raise til the end of ‘the move’.
The rule has been redefined so that ANY BODY PART that can be used to score a goal, meaning anything that is not an arm, cannot be behind the last defender when the ball is played. 90% of your body can be even but if you have a toe poking behind the defender when the ball is played -ZAP offsides. Argentina lost 2 goals on incredibly tight calls today and while I am not an ARG fan it seemed just wrong to wave them off over such a minuscule advantage.
Think if you turned it around to be you cannot be COMPLETELY behind the last defender. Wow. That would revolutionize the game. Even allowing a head or from knee down would make a major difference.
Scoring a goal should be hard and a cause for celebrating in the streets. Not a polite cheer for a Sac Fly or a made FG
I'd like to see it more like a hockey goal, lots of celebration, but the over/under is about six for most games. Not sure what the over/under is for soccer between evenly matched teams, but I suspect it's about two.
Yeah, I agree with this. I think most of the issue lies with VAR, or at least the hyper-pedantic way VAR can be used. It feels like most of the big leagues have figured out a reasonable way to use it over the last couple years but now at the World Cup we're subject to the most literal and infuriating interpretation all over again.
Seem like a regular guy, so permit me to say you and I have waaaaay more in common than one of the few folks over there you might equate as your ‘drinking buddy’. If you don’t understand or believe that, spend some time there. You’ll figure it out.
I plan on continuing to set my personal record for World Cups not watched.
I’m enjoying the spectacular 4K broadcasts on my new OLED TV. I feel like I am there, except I can have a beer if I want. How we can get soccer games half way across the world broadcast in 4K, yet the NFL “game of the week” or even the Super Bowl are not?
So, I will start by saying I have never known much about Soccer. I am too old to be in the generation where everyone played it. I think we had a round of it (along with many other sports I wasn't that familiar with that seemed more fun to me, like Lacrosse and handball and racquetball) in Junior high school gym. (just saying Junior high instead of middle school dates me already) but kids weren't playing it then. Pele was a star that got American recognition when I was young, but that was about it. I also am a victim of the American thing about not liking ties. I do know those guys have to be in shape. i would like them to wear fitbits so we know how far they have run in a game.
So two questions. The first is that it seems to me that in most sports, the less scoring there is, the most likely for an underdog to win. I know there was a big upset today, but for the most part, that does not seem to be the case in Soccer. The teams everyone thinks will advance and win usually do. There aren't as many Cinderella stories and it is usually a one game story if there is. Why is that?
The second is this: The US Women seemed to almost immediately be good on the World stage, while the Men, despite having a generation of guys that have grown up playing the game, has not been at all a threat. I mean, they tied with a country (not even a country, really) with the population of Nevada today and no one seemed to be surprised or disappointed, just glad they didn't lose. Why is that? Is it because Women are more encouraged athletically here on the Women's side? Is it because we don't identify special guys and train them from childhood as early as other countries do on the Men's side?
Those are just blind guesses from a guy who knows nothing. I wonder if anyone has some insight.
Pulisic is talented and a great player and...just lacks magic. Give me Gio Reyna any day.
I'm glad that no sport that I absolutely love, namely baseball, has a governing body quite as evil, corrupt, soulless, and disgusting as FIFA. It's very easy for me to boycott the Fox broadcasts where they publicly admit they won't acknowledge the human rights violations of the host country (again).
I really dislike Rob Manfred and pretty much despise Roger Goodell. But they are both saints when compared to Gianni Infantino. To hell with FIFA and to hell with the World Cup.
He learned it all at the feet of the FIFA OG’s, Blatter and Platini, who are responsible for Qatar.
No doubt Infantino was frog marched before the Emir and maybe w MBS quietly standing by in blackout shades and given a very clear directive that he personally dance pretty for them.
"*Am I wrong about this, or isn’t there always a soccer “Captain America”? Like, I can remember pretty clearly people calling Claudio Reyna “Captain America.” And I think Carlos Bocanegra was called “Captain America.” And I seem to remember at least some people called Landon Donovan, “Captain America.” Maybe John Harkes, too? I think there were others."
Yes, and always it seems that the current Captain America is, while the star and the great hope of the U.S. team, in terms of international player quality, at best...pretty good—y'know, for an American.
It's probably silly, but I'm little dissapointed Joe is even covering this.
If the situation in Qatar hasn't been enough for the global community to just ... not watch a sport for a month, I don't know what would be.
Are there issues? Have there been from the get go? Of course. But I think there has been some progress in Qatar on a bunch of issues. It’s not all bad.
I don't think thousands of deaths directly resulting from grows human rights violations and slavery are issues that "progress" can be made on, but maybe that's just me.
Great article as always, but enough already of the phrase "modern era".
I sort of get it [USA missed all nine tournaments between 1950 and 1990, which gives a natural definition of "starting with Italia 1990"]. But I don't think other countries discount the early tournaments. Everyone seems to credit Italy with four wins, including two in the 1930s.
So that gives USA another three games won, making 8 in 92 years: the first three were Belgium 3-0 and Paraguay 3-0 in 1930, then England 1-0 in 1950.
That third win is mentioned frequently in English football history. The USA goal was scored by Joe Gaetjens, a Haitian who never acquired American citizenship and was murdered by the Haitian government. There was an assist from Walter Bahr, the father of two of the NFL's top 50 scorers of all time.
I don’t know much about soccer but that 1950 match was-is considered one of the greatest upsets in history, isn’t it? And from I remember reading it pretty much got a small paragraph on page 4 of American newspaper sports coverage- I mean barely mentioned at all.
In most sports, the "modern era" is defined by a change in the game, how it's played, or who is playing it. Is there anything different about soccer in 2022 than it was played in 1922?
The backpass rule, the offside rule, and much more liberal substitutions (up to 5 per game now) come to mind. Tactics too -- read Jonathan Wilson's great "Inverting the Pyramid."
And right on cue after Joe says it is impossible to score goals in the World Cup, we have two of our four games today end in a zero-zero tie, which presumably Bill Belichek loves (yes I am tying in his American football post from yesterday to this one), but no one else.
The impossibility of goals was spoken to me by a European soccer fan during the 1998 World Cup.
As I was marvelling at the foot work of Zidane, she was noting the impossibility of scoring in the NHL.
She noted the stickhandling and flinging a puck off the end of a stick into a tiny night guarded by a huge armored figure who also gets to use his hands. And you have to know how to skate!
Add to this the stifling defensive trapping of the late 90s and I'd say those were harder to come by.
I suppose my point is that goals in either sport aren't impossible it's more a matter of perspective. I pretty much grew up on skates and playing hockey, so even though I don't have pro skills I feel I can relate to what it takes to score. I don't have good foot coordination in a soccer sense.
My Dutch friend grew up playing soccer and couldn't believe the stick handling and skating she was witnessing.
I know scoring in soccer is lower, but when the NHL saw that it's scoring was falling they changed rules in the 2000s. The international level was less stifling because of the larger ice.
Meanwhile, Greece won the Euro 2004 in one of the most stifling ways possible.
I don't know much about the history of soccer, but I feel like rule changes have altered North American big 4 with baseball perhaps the slowest to adapt.
Soccer has such a sense of history and varying global styles. I wonder how changes to the game would be met by fans and players.
But the speed the puck can reach on a shot offsets the smaller net- it can go so much faster then a soccer ball.
Yes, the significantly smaller net in the NHL (compared to soccer) would seem to theoretically make scoring even rarer in hockey (though I guess it really doesn't work that way in reality).
I always said half the scoring in hockey is an accident (puck deflects off a skate, or the net frame).
Over here in Argentina you can still feel defeat in the air. 🇦🇷😅
In 2001 or 2002 the Casablanca Derby ended with fans setting fire to the field. Raja and Wydad are the main rivalry in Morocco, and this was my first exposure to "real" sports fandom. American sports have some big fans who paint their bellies and faces and wear wigs to games, but there are no hooligans like football hooligans. There is no equivalent to it in any other sport.
Honestly I think it is a kind of culture that has developed, so when big games occur people just decide "the thing to do after the big game is burn down the city and kill people." So they do. I would rather deal with drunken Raiders fans or angry Philadelphia fans than any run-of-the-mill football crowd in Europe or Africa.
I've been to multiple games at 3 levels in England, from the Prem down to League 1, and never witnessed a hint of trouble. I think it's largely a thing of the past there and in western Europe. Can't say about elsewhere.
Have a look at some of the rioting after OSU-Michigan games in the early 2000's.
Agreed that American fandom is more cosplay than violence though. That's a good thing.
Yes, stuff like that does happen occasionally. In 2011 Vancouver was set on fire after the Stanley Cup, and it was kind of a big deal. In 2018 Philadelphia burned after the Super Bowl. It definitely happens here, but it is rare that someone dies. In Europe and Africa people get killed with alarming regularity after games.
Well, I dunno that I developed any more of an appreciation for soccer from reading this, but Imma definitely start ending some arguments with, "You're a national disgrace. Please respond."
The downfall of soccer popularity in the U.S. is just what Joe wrote, it takes magic to score a goal, or a terrible mistake by a defender or keeper. I coached youth soccer for 15 years, and the fun starts to slowly get strangled out of the game starting around age 12, depending on the level of competition, because this is when goals and chances become way too scarce. Just make the net bigger, until the over/under is around six, and the fun will return, and young players will stay with the sport, both as participants and fans.
I don't really agree, but I appreciate the opportunity to break a favorite clip of mine from Sports Night:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaT-L3q3i3s
I don’t think there’s a soccer downfall in the US. The sport is more popular than its ever been.
You make a goal more common, you take away the magic. There are dozens of moments in a match short of a goal, even in youth soccer, that are worthy of praise and admiration and teaching kids to love those moments too is part of being a coach and part of loving the game.
But the sport could be so much more popular with more chances and goals. The moments you speak of can definitely be appreciated by aficionados, along with many other moments, but the casual fan, the ones we're trying to draw in, need something more, as in more goals
I believe Futsal is the game you're looking for. Lots of high-speed play. Lots of goals. Very skilled and technical.
Changing soccer in America to suit American tastes is a non-starter. MLS tried this at the beginning with a stopped clock and no ties. It did not work, and they correctly adjusted to how the rest of the world plays the game.
Soccer in America is way more popular now than it was in 1996.
I mean, that’s like saying baseball would be better if pitchers had to slow pitch because there would be more home runs.
As it is now, goals are common enough that you know you’ll probably get a few in every game and rare enough that the emotional response to each one is extremely high. For me that’s perfect, but certainly your mileage may vary.
Baseball was better because they lowered the mound back in the 60s, but now it's regressing again, time for another change. Basketball was dying due to the stall, some games were ending up in single digits, but then the shot clock was put in place. Football and hockey have made many rule changes, and both are more popular than ever. Time for soccer to adjust to the reality of bigger and faster athletes.
I’ll take the bait here and say as a strong soccer/football fan, the sports has regressed IMO due to changes in making the offsides call stricter and delaying the actual flag raise til the end of ‘the move’.
The rule has been redefined so that ANY BODY PART that can be used to score a goal, meaning anything that is not an arm, cannot be behind the last defender when the ball is played. 90% of your body can be even but if you have a toe poking behind the defender when the ball is played -ZAP offsides. Argentina lost 2 goals on incredibly tight calls today and while I am not an ARG fan it seemed just wrong to wave them off over such a minuscule advantage.
Think if you turned it around to be you cannot be COMPLETELY behind the last defender. Wow. That would revolutionize the game. Even allowing a head or from knee down would make a major difference.
Scoring a goal should be hard and a cause for celebrating in the streets. Not a polite cheer for a Sac Fly or a made FG
I'd like to see it more like a hockey goal, lots of celebration, but the over/under is about six for most games. Not sure what the over/under is for soccer between evenly matched teams, but I suspect it's about two.
Yeah, I agree with this. I think most of the issue lies with VAR, or at least the hyper-pedantic way VAR can be used. It feels like most of the big leagues have figured out a reasonable way to use it over the last couple years but now at the World Cup we're subject to the most literal and infuriating interpretation all over again.
Again, soccer is also more popular than ever, which suggests that such changes are unnecessary.
And so nice to have interaction with reasonable people, this site is one of the few sports-related sites where this is possible
Seem like a regular guy, so permit me to say you and I have waaaaay more in common than one of the few folks over there you might equate as your ‘drinking buddy’. If you don’t understand or believe that, spend some time there. You’ll figure it out.
Would it kill football to put just one more referee on the field (maybe one to cover each half of the pitch)?