Bloggers helping bloggers

Nate's most recent entry contained some interesting comments, and certainly some are truer than others. Now I'm not gonna try to win Nate back as some soccer disciple, because it seems that’s a losing battle. I will however point out some pretty serious flaws in his arguments that undermine their credibility. As seemingly the Beautiful Game's only defender on this blog, I gotta respond, if anything for educational purposes, and to help Nate become a better soccer-basher.

Before I get started on the specifics: the fact that Nate took the time to write an article on the US losing and why he is not a soccer fan shows that he was paying attention during the World Cup. To then say that because it was "soccer" and as such he "didn't care" is like repeatedly calling your ex to tell her you are soooooo over her, or like a musical artist writing a song talking about how they haven't sold out. Don't care? Nate evidently cared enough to watch the games and write an article convincing us that he didn't care.

As for Nate’s point on diving, I absolutely agree. Tactics that call for and teams that embrace diving (cough cough Italy) have no place in the game. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say the refs are retarded and can't tell the difference. There simply just aren't enough of them to call the game correctly. In baseball, there are 4 umpires, and 6 for the playoffs. In more situations than not, the ump is right on top of the play, and can make a pretty good call. Same in the NBA: Small court- 3 refs. NFL, big field but a small army of officials (7 if I remember correctly). In soccer, there is only 1 ref, and only 2 linesmen (whose job is not to call fouls) to enforce the laws of the game in between 22 players on a 75 x 110-yard field. So naturally, in a faster-paced game than the NFL, baseball and basketball, the ref is not always going to be on top of the play, and may assume what he saw, or miss an obvious call. Even the addition of one extra ref would likely see a dramatic decrease in diving.

As for the running clock. Why is it that some soccer-haters abhor the idea of a running clock, yet think nothing of time stoppages specifically built into other sports (two-minute warning, tv-timeouts, etc.)? These stoppages seem to be built into the game for no other reason than to sell more commercial space so we can watch the Coors Light love train roll through Gillette Stadium again. As for knowing how much time is left, let's examine. Every game is 90 minutes long. Before or at the 90 minute mark, the 4th official must show how much stoppage time is left. From there, you should have a pretty good idea how much time is left (90+2 minutes of stoppage time = 92 minute game. MLS tried appealing to American sports fans with a downward counting clock that stopped at zero and other Americanizations of the rules in the league's early years. The American sports fan wasn't interested. Changing the clock won't get people who didn't like the game before into it.

Nate’s assertion that soccer is low scoring and has not taken any measures to increase scoring, unlike every other sport, is just plain false. To look for league-mandated rules on how baseball tried to increase scoring, the only reason I could think of would be the designated hitter rule. On the contrary, FIFA actually has taken measures to increase scoring and the level of attacking play. The new adidas ball, commissioned by FIFA has fewer panels, which make for a rounder ball enabling it to travel more accurately where the shooter wants it. Outfield players love the new ball, and goalkeepers hate it for the same reason. Another change is that in the past, World Cup group play only offered 2 points for a win and 1 for a tie. When teams played it safe for a tie rather than push forward and risk a loss, FIFA upped it to 3 points for a win, which in turn has encouraged more attacking soccer. A repeat of FIFA World Cup Italy 1990, where Argentina scored 5 goals in 7 games which was good enough for SECOND PLACE will not be seen again any time soon (Especially since in this World Cup, Argentina has already scored 8 goals in only 3 games.)

I quote Nate here because I’ve heard similar sentiment from many other soccer-haters. "I say let the rest of the world have their futbol. I'm perfectly happy with baseball, football, basketball, hockey, tennis and golf." The stereotypical insular retreat. Soccer-haters seem only happy with sports that either the United States is one of the best (Tennis, Basketball, golf) or is one of maybe 10 countries in the world who play it (Hockey, Baseball, Football). This brings up an interesting set of circumstances. If the Packers win the Super Bowl I have no doubt Nate will proudly proclaim them the "World Champions." Likewise, I see "World Champion Chicago White Sox" gear all over town. How can you call a team "World Champions" if they only play against teams from one or two countries? If the NBA, MLB, NHL and NFL played any kind of meaningful competition against teams not from North America, then there could be some semblance of a “World Championship” or "World Series." The Super Bowl winner is certainly the best football team in the world, but they are not “World Champions.”

As for “Soccer is boring,” this is such a subjective call. I personally think that baseball is largely pretty boring. Next game you watch, take a stopwatch. Keep track of how often the ball is in play, being thrown by the pitcher, or even being thrown from the catcher back to the pitcher. Also keep track of how often nothing is happening. (Time between pitches, pitching changes, etc.) I have not performed this experiment, but I would wager that the amount of time where nothing is happening exceeds the time where something is happening by at least 2-to-1. In soccer, while there may not be a scoring chance every second, the ball is almost always in play, and something in the run of play is almost always happening, (Perhaps a reason for a running clock?)

“And Soccer players are pussies”- (See also: Brian McBride.) The man has about 5 metal plates in his face from past collisions, nearly gets his nose broken against Italy (which with the plates in his face could have caused some serious damage) and then comes back into the game and nearly scores a goal! Kerry Wood and Mark Prior complain of “crankiness” in their shoulders and are on the DL. Barry Bonds goes to the plate dressed in body armor despite the fact that he’s no small guy. In fact, out of the sports Nate listed as his favorites, aside from basketball, every one of them either has its players rarely or never coming into physical contact with each other (baseball, golf, tennis) or sends them out padded to the point where the league and people who follow it start to say “less padding could be better” (hockey, football). Soccer is the only sport I can think of aside from rugby and water polo where the players come in regular physical contact with each other, play a physical game and don’t wear padding. Yes, some soccer players act like pansies, but take a look around other sports and tell me they’re significantly wimpier than players in other sports in relation to the physical activity and force of unpadded collisions at full speed.

Not trying to convert anyone here, because with this crowd, I know I’m preaching to the deaf instead of preaching to the choir. But before soccer-haters lash out, they really should take a look at their own favorite sports and ask themselves if it’s really that different.