<p>Yea so I guess cricket is still the best.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How so? Having everybody play both offense and defense and no offsides rule is exactly what we have in basketball, and the game has not deteriorated into a bunch of back and forth full-court passes. </p>
<p>Basketball has every bit as much in the way of offensive and defensive strategies as does soccer, plus it has the added bonuses of fast breaks, many scoring opportunities, and excitement - three things that are in very short supply in soccer.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're comparing basketball to soccer? The floor is much much much much smaller than a field, thus every player has to contribute on defense. Ever seen a striker play defense? I think not. It's impractical.</p>
<p>A more apt comparison would be between hockey and soccer, and in hockey, they too have an offside rule that prevents cherry-picking.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>...and in hockey, they too have an offside rule that prevents cherry-picking.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Yeah, and hockey would also be improved by getting rid of that rule, and for the same reason - to open up the offense and prevent the advent of ridiculous things like an "offsides trap" defense. But I'll give hockey credit - thanks to the smaller court and the greater speed they can achieve by skating, they can still manage to generate a modicum of offense despite being hobbled by the offsides rule. With its huge field and players on foot instead of skates, soccer is not so lucky. The offsides rule hurts soccer a lot more than it hurts hockey.</p>
<p>My two cents:</p>
<p>The problem with comparisons between basketball and soccer is that in basketball, there are only 5 players on a team, meaning that everyone has to stay back on defense. If a basketball player were to cherry pick on the other side of the court while his team is on defense, all he's doing is leaving an opposing player open to score. Counterattacking is not an integral part of basketball strategy, so a player who just waits for a fast break oppurtunity is just hurting his team.</p>
<p>Fast breaks in basketball occur on steals, where it's usually the person who stole the ball or a guy guarding a player up high leaving his mark and making the fast run down the court after the steal, or on a rebound, where a high defender breaks quickly.</p>
<p>In soccer, an offensive player behind the defense is constant counterattack threat, one turnover and long ball and he's one on one with the keeper--defenses would never allow (at least I wouldn't if I were on the field) that and would stay back, preventing them from being involved in the offense at all. The offsides rule allows defenders to push up while their team is on offense, which makes their offense more effective. The exciting goals in soccer don't usually come from fast breaks, but from the quick passes and touches through a set defense (Klose's little pass to Podulski against Sweden or Germany's goal against Argentina--just amazing). So the offsides rule does more to help soccer than hurt it.</p>
<p>um...go France? :)</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>The exciting goals in soccer don't usually come from fast breaks....<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Yeah, because the rules work to prevent fast breaks. Unfortunately, the exciting goals in soccer usually don't come at all.</p>
<p>I can't figure out if America is uninterested in the WC because we suck or if we suck b/c we aren't interested enough. It's like the chicken and the egg.</p>
<p>
[quote]
runnings, In this situation the American Greenback isn't necessary to the mix. I know it sounds unbelievable but my point was they already have marketing established in places where there isn't alot of extra income lying around. </p>
<p>Would it be nice to bring more American dollars in? yes. However think of it as oil production, if you produce too much the price goes down and costs rise, which means less profits. They'll bring America into the mix as cheaply as possible as they have an effective business model that works now for them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ummm, I guess I wasn't clear in my post... it was more satirical than serious.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is nothing about strikers' skills that prevents them from learning to play good defense.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ever see how exhausted the players are after matches? </p>
<p>I'm done arguing with you. No offsides... Honestly.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>No offsides... Honestly<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>People say they want soccer to be more popular in the US -- I'm just trying to help. Go ahead and cling to your no offense/ 0-0 final score game as it curently exists, and at the pro level it will never be more than a niche sport in the US. Sorry, but that's the reality, and it's going to take some thinking outside the box to change it.</p>
<p>Soccer is doing fine in America. What most don't recall is all sports have gone through long periods of little to no interest on their way up. All of the popular pro sports leagues have had periods of little to no growth in popularity. Just cause it doesn't happen in a decade or two doesn't make it a failure.</p>
<p>The real fact that soccer is making inroads is that fact that so many are upset about how the US faired in 06. Twenty years ago nobody cared a bunch of college kids got their lunches handed to them. Now there's alot complaints... that's actually progress.</p>
<p>Baseball and football are better sports to watch.
Watching soccer is like watching golf.</p>
<p>I don't think that soccer can be fully appreciated in all its beauty without offsides. Good defense is just as exciting as flashy offense. (Anyone see the two chest blocks by Germany in the Germany v Portugal game? I was amazed. And that must have hurt like hell.)</p>
<p>Soccer is a fun sport to watch. Cricket trumps all though.</p>
<p>Don't you think it's ridiculous that the World Cup finals, the epitome of the sport, was stuck in a 1-1 tie and was then decided by penalty kicks? Wouldn't you have rather seen it decided by actually playing soccer? Like I said, that's like deciding the NBA championship by a free throw shooting contest rather than playing basketball.</p>
<p>The only way to avoid this kind of nonsense in the future is to open up the game and inject a little offense. It's silly that scoring such a rare event that you can't decide the outcome by actually playing the game.</p>
<p>Except that basketball and football are not the same game. Its more fun to see the amazing footwork, passing skills, etc, than a million 3 pointers.</p>
<p>Except that discounting offside shots is "playing the game."</p>
<p>
[quote]
Soccer is a fun sport to watch. Cricket trumps all though.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Cricket makes baseball look like super crazy happy fun time.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Except that basketball and football are not the same game. Its more fun to see the amazing footwork, passing skills, etc, than a million 3 pointers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>LeBron James, Steve Nash, and Dwyane Wade do not have "amazing footwork, passing skills, etc"? Please tell me you're joking.</p>
<p>They can't hold a candle to football's elite players. Football requires more skill and stamina, no doubt. Cricket is still awesome. Although players don't exert themselves as much as football, they have to stay sharp and focused. Watch a game of cricket. The athleticism the players display in a game would give bball or baseball players a stunning revelation about their shortcomings. Don't compare it to baseball. Baseball is based on a game that English girls play during their play breaks.</p>
<p>Comparing athletes of different sports is stupid. A soccer player will obviously have amazing feet and endurance, while a basketball player will have wizard hands and the explosive power of a rocket. </p>
<p>Cricket might be the most ludicrous popular sport on the planet. Tea breaks? A bat that looks like a hazing paddle? I can't believe some idiots want to take out baseball and make this an Olympic sport. I guess the Welsh and Sri Lankans need some medals too; the Americans, Cubans, and Japanese have too many.</p>