why do americans find "soccer" boring?

i interested to know, what is it about soccer* american football fans hate so much? is it the low scorelines? what games have they watched to develop their opinions from? do american football fans generally like other team sports? is it just american sports they like? do they like rugby? i need to understand why the beautiful game is hated so much. i want answers!!!!

*the word "soccer" is used for the benefit of out american friends. if football was called soccer then american football would just be called football. so by calling it american football they are admitting the need to add the word american to differentiate from any other sports around at the time that goes by the name of football. which of coarse is football.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i interested to know, what is it about soccer* american football fans hate so much? is it the low scorelines? what games have they watched to develop their opinions from? do american football fans generally like other team sports? is it just american sports they like? do they like rugby? i need to understand why the beautiful game is hated so much. i wa ther sports around at the time that goes by the name of football. which of coarse is football.

To the second point, Americans do call "American football" just plain "football." No commentator on any NFL game will ever say "Welcome to the Super bowl of American football." Out of respect to Europeans (and others of course), we refer to it as American football in international fora, but amongst Americans, it is always just referred to as football.

As for the initial question, it is almost certainly the low scoring. I have watched hundreds of soccer games on TV. It's an interesting game and I can see why people find it great. I certainly watch the World Cup games (especially when the US is playing) and there are plenty of European games on channels like YES and the lower ESPN channels (there's even an ESPN Soccer channel). We have access to essentially the same games that you do.

The problem is that people just don't want to spend 2 hours watching a game in which there are only going to be a couple of goals (or less). Moreover, it feels as though 95% of the same just doesn't count. There's hardly any progress towards scoring. The play develops in 15 seconds or less and then it's over. If you miss, you're back to square one and it's as though the scoring chance never happened. In the NFL and baseball, progress is usually made towards scoring before you score. Every play either advances you towards the opponents goal line or sets you farther away (or, in the case of baseball, squanders some of your precious 27 outs).

Hockey suffers from some of the same problems of course, which is primarily why it's fourth on the US sports radar. But at least you know that most of the time there are going to be 5 or 6 goals in a game. These 1-0 games are just never going to really pique the interest of the American viewer, no matter how artistic the ball handling is.

Edit: Regarding rugby, I'm sure many US fans would like it in a vacuum, but it's probably too similar to "American" football to make much headway here. Same re: cricket and baseball.

Originally posted by sh76
To the second point, Americans do call "American football" just plain "football." No commentator on any NFL game will ever say "Welcome to the Super bowl of American football." Out of respect to Europeans (and others of course), we refer to it as American football in international fora, but amongst Americans, it is always just referred to as football.

As for ...[text shortened]... "American" football to make much headway here. Same re: cricket and baseball.

I'll tell you why soccer and rugby isn't as popular in the states as they are in a lot of other countries. I think there's two reasons - attention span, Americans want to see action, action, action but they like breaks in-between to talk about the game/gets drinks etc. You've already mentioned that point so i'll leave it.

Advertisements, the way the American TV system is set up the stop/start play of your 4 main sports works perfectly... 45 minutes without at ad? Forget about it, which major network is going to plug a sport with just a limited capacity to promote other things during a game? I can watch a soccer or rugby match and avoid watching a single ad, impossible to do with your top 4 sports in the states.

Cricket is different, i don't expect the test or 1 day form to catch on in America, it's the attention span thing again, 20/20 on the other hand should work, you have all the elements of a popular American sport - high scoring (a lot more so than baseball), a lot more action than baseball, games are finished in about 2 1/2 - 3 hours with some breaks (good for the advertisers) add in the cheerleaders, music and other distractions between overs and you've got yourself an American sport.

It's more than that.

In baseball and football, there's ebb and flow. There's strategy. There's analysis. There are statistics.

80 yards to go, 2:32 on the clock and one timeout, down 4. Do you dump it over the middle? Do you run a draw play? Do you throw only sideline patterns?

Completed over the middle. Now you have 67 yards to go, but now it's the 2 minute warning. Draw play for 7 yards. Do you spike it? Do you run a draw to get a first down or do you throw the ball down the field? Now it's fourth and 1 from the opponent's 37. Do you run it to get the first down and chew up 20 seconds or do you throw it?

Complete to the 22 yard line. 38 seconds left! Do you use your last timeout or quickly run up and spike it? Will they fake the spike and throw the ball in the end zone?

Do you want to try to score with a minute left or milk the clock and try to score with 10 seconds left because you know that if you score with a minute left, you give the ball back to Tom Brady who's standing on the sidelines glaring and just waiting for his chance?

It's 3rd and 7. You're up 3 points with 2 minutes left. Do you throw the ball and risk stopping the clock with an incompletion or do you run it and make the other team burn its last timeout?

You're down 11 with 3 minutes left. 4th and 3 from the 22. Do you kick it to move within 8 and try for a TD and a conversion to send the game into OT or do you go for the TD? You score. Great! Now that? Kick it away and trust your defense to get a 3 and out or onside kick and risk giving the other team great field position?


etc. etc. etc.

In soccer, either the ball goes into the net or it doesn't. It's a dichotomy. A play works to the nth degree or it's a failure. Nothing in between.

You're team is down 2-1 in stoppage time. They're pressing. Deep inside you know they probably aren't going to score and until and unless they do, it's just frustration. They have a great chance but the defender kicks it down the field. Now time's a wasting. Is that as exciting as Joe Montana or Tom Brady or Eli Manning getting the ball deep in his territory with 2 minutes left down 4? Really? How can it be?

Watch Eli Manning's drive to end the Pats' perfect season in the desert a few years back. Or Joe Montana going 96 yards against Cincy in the SB or Elway running all over the place and marching his team 99 yards in the slop against the Browns.

And these things happen every week.

I'm a Jets fan and I have never seen my team go tot he SB. But last year's playoff game at Indy was a dramatic classic. Manning has a 3rd and 8 at the Jets 32 with a minute left. He rolls out to the right and throws but just short of the receiver. Vinatieri comes on and kicks a 50 yd FG to give Indy a 16-14 lead, but everyone in the building knows that though they have the lead, they blew a chance to put the game away. But can the Jets take advantage with 50 seconds and 2 timeouts? Big kickoff return to the 44 by Cromartie. Great first step, but not there yet. Completion to Edwards. Time out. Wait. the play is being reviewed. It's a catch. IT's 3rd down. Run it up the middle. Get the first down, spike it. Completion to Holmes on the left sideline. We're at the 37; kind of at the border of FG range. 30 seconds left and one timeout. How many more yards do we need? 10? 20? Do we have time to go up the middle? Wait. It's a deep pass along the right sideline. Caught insider the 20. Now what? Do you call the timeout and kick with 25 seconds so you can fall on a bad snap and have time for another try? But if you do, you give Peyton 20 seconds even if you hit the FG. So instead you run the clock to 3 seconds and call your last timeout. The whole game rides on this try. Your kicker is a goat or a hero! There's no "well, I tried but the goalie made a great save." Either you make it and win or miss it and lose. It's GOOD! We win!

I'm sorry, but you just don't have that level of excitement and tension and strategy in soccer.


Edit:

YouTube&

If you can watch that and not get chills down your spine, you either have no soul, know nothing about football or are a Pats' fan.

Originally posted by sh76

I'm sorry, but you just don't have that level of excitement and tension and strategy in soccer.

i think you made some good points in your first post as to why most americans dislike soccer. id never thought about the vast constant stream of statistics available.
i also liked the video you put up, who doesnt like a last minute winner? but ive got to strongly disagree with the comment about excitement, tension and strategy. soccer is full of last minute winners and exciting moments my personal favorite is my team middlesbrough, who are a small club which have had very little success, but one season we find ourselves in the europa cup semi-final, weve never been to the final of a european competition. we are the underdogs and go two goals down and now have to score 4 to win the game (due to loosing the first game 1-0)

watch this and tell me the level of excitement is less
YouTube

strategy less? that kinda indicates you dont know much about soccer. to the untrained eye it may look like everybody is just running around kicking a ball. there is a lot more to it than that.
have a look at this
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01927/art18-1_1927022a.pdf
its a basic scouting report for a game. this is only a small part of the tactics and strategy a team do before the game. i could go on all day about different tactical approaches teams use, formations with and with out the ball, marking systems, defensive lines, individual instructions. we even have manager who work out percentages and play to them similar to moneyball.
soccer is full of drama, any fan on here will be able to make a list as long as your arm just on their club of all the amazing moments theyve seen. i cant belive that a--football games have a better atmosphere than anfield or a madrid v barcalona or intimidating feeling of being at Fenerbahce v Galasataray derby.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i think you made some good points in your first post as to why most americans dislike soccer. id never thought about the vast constant stream of statistics available.
i also liked the video you put up, who doesnt like a last minute winner? but ive got to strongly disagree with the comment about excitement, tension and strategy. soccer is full of last ...[text shortened]... ield or a madrid v barcalona or intimidating feeling of being at Fenerbahce v Galasataray derby.

You just have to compere the world wide viewing figures for football (soccer to americans ) and any American sporting game ie ,american football ,baseball etc . That tells you everything ,the world watches football and the americans watch american football ,baseball etc .

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i think you made some good points in your first post as to why most americans dislike soccer. id never thought about the vast constant stream of statistics available.
i also liked the video you put up, who doesnt like a last minute winner? but ive got to strongly disagree with the comment about excitement, tension and strategy. soccer is full of last ...[text shortened]... ield or a madrid v barcalona or intimidating feeling of being at Fenerbahce v Galasataray derby.

Well, okay. It's all a matter of perspective, I guess. I'm sure there's loads of strategy to soccer, but I can't imagine it's anything like the NFL, where there are so many permutations on everything, starting even with which players come in on each play. In soccer, you get two substitutions a game. In the NFL, you might average 2 substitutions per play.

Anyway, about the 4 goal game, yes, but that doesn't happen all that often, does it?

And incidentally, I hate the idea of the score determining the outcome of a championship. A win is a win is a win. For a team to be up 3-2, but need another goal to win 4-2 strikes me as being against the very nature of competitive sports.

To quote the great Herm Edwards "You play to WIN the game" (YouTube)

I also can't stand that penalty shots decide the outcome of the world cup, but that's another story. It's not like I have a better solution, but that it has to come to that is an indictment of the sport.

Edit: Actually, I do have a solution to that. Play the game until someone puts the ball in the net! I'm sorry; it's just got to kill a real soccer fan when they decide the world cup on penalty kicks.

Originally posted by sh76
It's more than that.

In baseball and football, there's ebb and flow. There's strategy. There's analysis. There are statistics.

80 yards to go, 2:32 on the clock and one timeout, down 4. Do you dump it over the middle? Do you run a draw play? Do you throw only sideline patterns?

Completed over the middle. Now you have 67 yards to go, but now it's the 2 ...[text shortened]... have no soul, know nothing about football or are a Pats' fan.

There's few people, certainly on this forum who follow both 'American' football and 'soccer', i'm one of them. To say there isn't strategy, analysis or stats in soccer shows a lack of understanding of the game.

Flow. i would debate but i'm not going to bother, it depends on what you mean by 'flow'.

It all comes back to attention span, just because points are not being scored doesn't mean the game is lacking something, hell in baseball i prefer the low scoring pitching duels, look at a low scoring soccer match in the same light as you would a low scoring baseball game, it's not that it's boring (although it can be like in baseball) at the top level it's more likely to be two quality defenses doing battle.

In soccer, either the ball goes into the net or it doesn't. It's a dichotomy. A play works to the nth degree or it's a failure. Nothing in between.

And this is the reason why you don't have no right to be in this discussion, a simple lack of understanding of the game, you can't compare football to a game you clearly don't understand.

I'm sorry, but you just don't have that level of excitement and tension and strategy in soccer.

Again, because you simply don't get it. A soccer fan who doesn't get football could come on here and say the exact reverse of what you've said as an argument against football. Does that mean one of you is right and the other is wrong? No. It mean neither of you understand the other game.

I find basketball boring to watch, does that make it a boring sport? No, i just don't get it... that's my problem not the sport or its millions of fans.

Originally posted by sh76
Well, okay. It's all a matter of perspective, I guess. I'm sure there's loads of strategy to soccer, but I can't imagine it's anything like the NFL, where there are so many permutations on everything, starting even with which players come in on each play. In soccer, you get two substitutions a game. In the NFL, you might average 2 substitutions per play.

An ...[text shortened]... just got to kill a real soccer fan when they decide the world cup on penalty kicks.

Well, okay. It's all a matter of perspective, I guess. I'm sure there's loads of strategy to soccer, but I can't imagine it's anything like the NFL

Lack of understanding again, this is like a European asking where is the strategy in football? You either throw the ball to someone or you give it to someone to run, where's the strategy?

I'm not saying which has more or less strategy as the other, i'm just saying soccer will have more than you think, just like football will have more than the majority of non-American on this forum think. It would be unfair for me to tae a guess at which has more, they're just two very different sport with very different strategy involved.

In soccer, you get two substitutions a game

You get 3, just in case you were going to debate the understanding of the game point, just don't because you quite simply don't.

And incidentally, I hate the idea of the score determining the outcome of a championship. A win is a win is a win. For a team to be up 3-2, but need another goal to win 4-2 strikes me as being against the very nature of competitive sports.

What? Give example so i can make you look stupid 😛

Originally posted by Trev33
[b]Well, okay. It's all a matter of perspective, I guess. I'm sure there's loads of strategy to soccer, but I can't imagine it's anything like the NFL

Lack of understanding again, this is like a European asking where is the strategy in football? You either throw the ball to someone or you give it to someone to run, where's the strategy?

I'm not say ure of competitive sports.[/b]

What? Give example so i can make you look stupid 😛[/b]

<yawn>

You don't understand.


You don't understand.


You don't understand.


You don't understand.


You don't understand.


You don't understand.


Gee, that was constructive.

And incidentally, I hate the idea of the score determining the outcome of a championship. A win is a win is a win. For a team to be up 3-2, but need another goal to win 4-2 strikes me as being against the very nature of competitive sports.

What? Give example so i can make you look stupid 😛[/b]

stellspalfie gave an example.

It was constructive because you don't understand and never will... hence your involvement in a thread comparing soccer and football is mute.

Soccer? Los Angeles Galaxy. Football? Green Bay Packers. It is you that uses that American term.

Originally posted by Trev33
It was constructive because you don't understand and never will... hence your involvement in a thread comparing soccer and football is mute.

The OP specifically asked for American sports fans take on this question. The OP can correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe he was looking solely for people who appreciate soccer as much as football.

I laid out my answer in as much detail and depth as I could. All you did was respond that I don't understand. Then you went so far as to break up my post into points and to each one respond in some variation of "you don't understand." Your reaction was just plain daft. Your tone was arrogant and all of your posts were completely devoid of any substance whatsoever.

If anyone has cause to be ashamed of his involvement on this thread, it is you. I certainly hope, though doubt, that you are properly ashamed.

Edit: Oh, and of course, your one substantive contribution to this thread about "attention spans" is, of course, condescending and bigoted nonsense.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i interested to know, what is it about soccer* american football fans hate so much? is it the low scorelines? what games have they watched to develop their opinions from? do american football fans generally like other team sports? is it just american sports they like? do they like rugby? i need to understand why the beautiful game is hated so much. i wa ...[text shortened]... ther sports around at the time that goes by the name of football. which of coarse is football.

For me, the sports I enjoy watching as an adult have a lot to do with what I played while growing up.

I played a lot of baseball, football, basketball, and (some) soccer growing up. Those are the sports I enjoy watching the most (in that order). I grew up in Texas and so never played hockey or other winter sports, so I have almost zero interest watching those sports -- especially hockey...no matter how many times someone tells me how exciting hockey is. I think people have more interest in sports they can relate to...and playing them as a child or teenager is a pretty intimate way to "relate" to a sport.

I imagine that the next generations of Americans will enjoy soccer much more as we see the kids are playing the game much more now than they were 20 years ago.

I don't think it's the low scorelines...as trev mentions, a low scoring baseball or football game can be a thing of beauty. (not hockey though...booooooring.)

Originally posted by sh76
To the second point, Americans do call "American football" just plain "football." No commentator on any NFL game will ever say "Welcome to the Super bowl of American football." Out of respect to Europeans (and others of course), we refer to it as American football in international fora, but amongst Americans, it is always just referred to as football.

As for ...[text shortened]... "American" football to make much headway here. Same re: cricket and baseball.

Actually, to be technical, American football should be just football while soccer is a nickname for association football. The nick "soccer" was given by europeans as well.