T1B

true, anecdotal evidence isn't conclusive, but it does illustrate the fact things like that are bound to happen when everyone's taking a swipe at your legs, which is wholly different than your own anecdotal experience sitting around the house doing nothing. one isn't necessarily a freak occurrence, while the other is.

there's also the fact to consider that, in most sports, cheap shots become more commonplace the higher the level of competition.

Van wrote:Mgo, I'm sure you're just trolling. You must be. That was way too stupid for you to be serious.

That would summarize my thoughts about every take you've made in this thread. Astonishing amounts of stupidity and ignorance coming from you. It's baffling, really.

Man was designed to use his hand-eye coordination. He wasn't designed to use his head as a precision bludgeoning instrument, and he wasn't designed to disengage his arms during battle or sport.

The goalkeeper doesn't use hand-eye coordination? :?

Comparing battle and a game is just monumentally stupid. Arms are used in hand-to-hand combat because they're wholly necessary. Of course nobody would restrict their arms in battle. It's war, not a game. Nothing needs to be "natural" or "necessary" in a game because a game is what you make of it. If part of the object of a game is to challenge your dexterity by limiting or restricting certain body parts, so be it. Yes, excluding arms and hands in the sports you listed above really wouldn't work. It works for soccer, however. Soccer isn't any "less" of a sport or less natural than others because it limits the use of hands, it's merely different from other sports. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

Soccer is one of the oldest sports around, its roots date back to 2nd Century BC in China, and it's the most globally relevant sport today, and has been for many years. Seriously though, good luck trying to sell that ridiculously stupid take of yours to anyone outside the Southern California vacuum.

M Club wrote:

Van wrote: Mgo, I'm sure you're just trolling. You must be. That was way too stupid for you to be serious. Man was designed to use his hand-eye coordination. He wasn't designed to use his head as a precision bludgeoning instrument, and he wasn't designed to disengage his arms during battle or sport.

the longer a thread goes the more stupid you get. you said soccer is fundamentally flawed because it goes against man's instincts to use his arms.

It is, and I proved it is, by citing a dozen instances of how stupid it is to take away a man's use of his arms and hands while still calling it "sport."

Your cunty prediction was that I'd come up with some culture based reason. Instead, I blew your cunty prediction out of the water by using universal examples, none of which you can even begin to refute.

mgo merely added yet another instance in sport that goes against man's better instincts, which is to stand in a box while someone throws a rock 95 mph to within six or so inches of his head. you should try reading what people actually write rather than what you think they did.

Me?? I clearly addressed both his 95 mph fastball take and his punting and kicking in football take. I addressed them, and ruined them.

In both instances, the natural instinct would be to use your hands, either to hike and catch the football, or to fend off that 95 mph object with a large stick, not your fucking forehead.

I tackled his points head on.

Meanwhile, you gloss over everything, because you have nothing. Maybe you ought to take your own advice and read before commenting, because right now you're coming off as a bitter bitch with nothing but a personal agenda.

all of those examples you provided fail to make any point aside from the fact you come across as a petulant wanker.

Your refusal to take on any of those examples is proof that you have nothing, and you simply won't admit to losing. Instead, you resort to your personal agenda nonsense.

Soccer is a fundamentally flawed sport. Suck on it.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Van wrote:Mgo, I'm sure you're just trolling. You must be. That was way too stupid for you to be serious.

That would summarize my thoughts about every take you've made in this thread. Astonishing amounts of stupidity and ignorance coming from you. It's baffling, really.

Cite one example. I cited yours, and I ruined them.

Man was designed to use his hand-eye coordination. He wasn't designed to use his head as a precision bludgeoning instrument, and he wasn't designed to disengage his arms during battle or sport.

The goalkeeper doesn't use hand-eye coordination? :?

Yes, he does. He's the only one who's allowed to, except for when players are allowed to throw in the ball, from out of bounds.

Imagine how much stupider soccer would look if they also restricted the goalie, the way they restrict everybody else. Whoever designed that game must've been off taking a shit when the goalie part came up. Someone was allowed to sneak in some common sense there.

Comparing battle and a game is just monumentally stupid.

I don't compare them. I included both of them. Sport or war, it's ridiculous to tell a man to use his skull in place of his arms and hands. It's nearly comical, it's so absurd. It sounds like something from Family Guy.

Arms are used in hand-to-hand combat because they're wholly necessary. Of course nobody would restrict their arms in battle. It's war, not a game. Nothing needs to be "natural" or "necessary" in a game because a game is what you make of it. If part of the object of a game is to challenge your dexterity by limiting or restricting certain body parts, so be it. Yes, excluding arms and hands in the sports you listed above really wouldn't work. It works for soccer, however. Soccer isn't any "less" of a sport or less natural than others because it limits the use of hands, it's merely different from other sports. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

Some things are not just different, they're better or worse.

You wanna be all P.C. about it, be my guest. I'll gladly call a spade a spade. Inferior is inferior. Eliminating the use of a man's arms and hands and tasking him to use his skull to perform those same duties makes for a fundamentally flawed game. It's not just different, it's inferior. The game is diminished because of it. It could and should be better. Period.

Soccer is one of the oldest sports around, its roots date back to 2nd Century BC in China, and it's the most globally relevant sport today, and has been for many years. Seriously though, good luck trying to sell that ridiculously stupid take of yours to anyone outside the Southern California vacuum.

I don't need to "sell it." I have no agenda, other than to state the obvious. It's a fact that the game is fundamentally flawed. Cutting a man's arms off and then telling him to go play a game in which the use of his arms would benefit the game is just plain stupid.

That's it.

Also, the popularity of something doesn't prove its worthiness. In fact, it's usually quite the opposite. Usually, the more people love something, the baser it is. You of all people know this, which is why you suck your own dick so much over your Flaming Lips/alternative music scene, rather than being a fan of the much more popular American Idol shlock.

But sure, go ahead and use the popularity argument when it helps you. Absolutely. It doesn't make you look like a weak minded hypocrite. Not at all.

Van wrote:Cite one example.

This shouldn't be too hard, I said "every take." I could quote it all, or you could just go back and re-read all that you wrote. They're all ridiculous, but none more ridiculous than the whole "fundamentally flawed" thing.

I cited yours, and I ruined them.

Of course you did. It's your word against mine.

Seriously though, it's fundamentally impossible for you to ruin anything I've said, as you can't argue beyond your own biased opinion. None of the criteria you laid out against soccer can be backed by any sort of definition of "sport," or really, anything factual at all.

Imagine how much stupider soccer would look if they also restricted the goalie, the way they restrict everybody else.

A lot of things would seem "much stupider" if you applied unreal scenarios to them. But who cares? Soccer doesn't restrict the goalie from such a thing; this is just more pointless blathering from you.

Sport or war, it's ridiculous to tell a man to use his skull in place of his arms and hands.

In war, yes, it is. In sport? Hardly. That's so ridiculous, I won't spend another bout on it.

Some things are not just different, they're better or worse.

No, with sports there are personal preferences based on exposure and culture. As for the sports themselves? They're all just sports at the end of the day, but sports of different kinds.

You wanna be all P.C. about it, be my guest. I'll gladly call a spade a spade.

That's exactly what I'm doing. Soccer is a sport, like any other sport, with its own set of rules and restrictions, just like any other sport. It is impossible for the physical play of a sport to be "fundamentally flawed," when the only guidelines or fundamentals a sport need to follow are the ones set forth by the sport's inventor. Further, and to a greater point, it is impossible for a sport to be fundamentally flawed simply because you don't care for its restrictions.

Also, the popularity of something doesn't prove its worthiness.

The purpose of that tidbit was to strike down your claim that the game is unnatural. It's not unnatural when 99% of the goddamn universe participates in it, and has been for hundreds of years you fucking SIMPLETON.

You of all people know this, which is why you suck your own dick so much over your Flaming Lips/alternative music scene

I do? Seems to me I keep my musical tastes to myself, for the most part. Check the music forum, check CdS. And I'm not the one averaging 20 YouTube clips per week chock full of 10 minute "important" and painfully pretentious lessons on how to jack your dick with a stringed instrument.

Vannie getting kicked square in the nuts over his absurd soccer takes.

I'll have to RACK THAT.

Right, Mgo. Somehow, we all know all about your music rants, because you've kept your musical opinions to yourself. Ummm, for the most part.

Yep, all those pretentious screeds, all those debates with Dins, I guess I just imagined them. Somehow, though, I seem to know how you feel about quite a few bands and genres, including your feelings on popular music, vs all that cool shit you like.

I must be psychic. Either that, or you're full of shit, and you're joyously judgmental and pretentious when it suits you, and I'm not imagining anything.

Yeah. One, or the other.

hahahaha, you fucking sociopath. you should takes your meds, log back in as blueblood or whoever you are today, and save yourself the hassle.

Van wrote:

M Club wrote: the longer a thread goes the more stupid you get. you said soccer is fundamentally flawed because it goes against man's instincts to use his arms.

It is, and I proved it is, by citing a dozen instances of how stupid it is to take away a man's use of his arms and hands while still calling it "sport."

ja, dood, you really made a point here by "citing" the voices in your head. it's too bad you had to spend the 20 minutes thinking up all those funnies about heading a tennis ball somewhere when all it takes to refute pages 10-43 of your latest tome is to say: if my aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle.

Your cunty prediction was that I'd come up with some culture based reason.

i meant to thank you for obliging. too easy.

Instead, I blew your cunty prediction out of the water by using universal examples, none of which you can even begin to refute.

except i did.

mgo merely added yet another instance in sport that goes against man's better instincts, which is to stand in a box while someone throws a rock 95 mph to within six or so inches of his head. you should try reading what people actually write rather than what you think they did.

Me?? I clearly addressed both his 95 mph fastball take and his punting and kicking in football take. I addressed them, and ruined them.

In both instances, the natural instinct would be to use your hands, either to hike and catch the football, or to fend off that 95 mph object with a large stick, not your fucking forehead.

all this "ruin" by fiat, eh. too bad it demands others seeing it your way, .mVan, which no one does.

.mVan: soccer is dumb because it forces man to go against his primal instincts.

mgo and mclub, while playing london bridges with you: most sports require that you overcome your instincts.

the instinctual thing with baseball isn't whether or not to hit the ball with a bat or your forehead, it's to not even be standing in the batter's box in the first place. you may have noticed, though nothing here suggests you have, but man has evolved a capacity to suppress his instincts. what's your next argument, that monogamy is fundamentally flawed because it requires a married man to go against his instincts and not fuck all those women who aren't his wife?

I tackled his points head on.

not very well.

Meanwhile, you gloss over everything, because you have nothing. Maybe you ought to take your own advice and read before commenting, because right now you're coming off as a bitter bitch with nothing but a personal agenda.

i responded point-by-point.

right now i'm simply coming off as smarter than you.

all of those examples you provided fail to make any point aside from the fact you come across as a petulant wanker.

Your refusal to take on any of those examples is proof that you have nothing, and you simply won't admit to losing. Instead, you resort to your personal agenda nonsense.

what's my personal agenda here?

Soccer is a fundamentally flawed sport. Suck on it.

see, .mVan, this is where you've gone wrong. you can't simply say stupid shit and expect people to buy it. i know you get away with a lot of vacuous comments because they're buried in so much prose, but next time someone calls you out you should have something better than "soccer is g'eh because, like, imagine if you rode a pommel horse, only they didn't let you use your hands. see, i'm sooooo right. "

How on earth does a thread started by someone to tell us that he played some ball with a few Husker football players turn into a soccer sucks-no it doesn't pissing match?

Why don't you all just agree to disagree and then we can all just agree that soccer is lame? Sound good??

All I want is a god damn answer from a soccer fan explaining to me exactly how soccer is ANYTHING but a game of keep away with your feet? What the fuck am I missing here? Please, somebody prove me wrong. Just one fucking time, I want a god damn decent answer from a soccer fan because I've asked this question probably 500 times in my life to soccer fans and never received even the slightest bit of a qualiy rebuttal to my point.

True soccer fans would cut your fucking head off and shit down your throat before you hit the ground. That's how soccer isn't a big game of "keep away." Just like how football isn't smear the queer, although I'm sure you're still on the receiving end of that game, even while owning your own home in Cleveland West aka Gay Moines.

this particular pissing match has more to do with .mVan logging in as an anthropological neuroscientist in an attempt to explain that soccer is inherently flawed because it allows you plenty use of hands and arms but requires that you manipulate the ball with your feet and head.

just about every sport save baseball and cricket resembles keep away.

what's your next argument, that monogamy is fundamentally flawed because it requires a married man to go against his instincts and not fuck all those women who aren't his wife?

I would agree with that, yes. Monogamy is a societal construct. Man is instinctively not monogamous.

Darn tootin'!

the .mVan retreat.

Rack M Club and Mgo.

Van, an inferior game? Really?

From the moment the ball is snapped to the moment the whistle finishes the play, and nothing else, that is not going to equate to thirty five minutes.

Soccer match: 90 minutes plus added time. No timeouts. No huddles. No elaborately orchestrated plays called by a headsetted coach perusing a laminated Denny's menu. Split-second decisions are made on the field by the player with the ball.

Granted not every soccer match is good football. Sometimes it is as dull as it seems. No less dull than the doldrums in a nine inning game. But quite often there is ebb and flow with good attacking and defending.

It's something you would learn to appreciate if given a chance.

socal, how many soccer games do I need to watch, before I've given it a proper chance? 100? 1000?

In my lifetime I've easily watched upwards of 100 games, plus I played soccer here and there when I was a kid.

Swear to god, any time there was a corner kick I always had to restrain myself from batting that ball out with my hands, if I was on offense, or I'd want to catch it, if I was on defense.

The coach didn't appreciate my arguments any more than you lot do.

Screw_Michigan wrote:True soccer fans would cut your fucking head off and shit down your throat before you hit the ground. That's how soccer isn't a big game of "keep away." Just like how football isn't smear the queer, although I'm sure you're still on the receiving end of that game, even while owning your own home in Cleveland West aka Gay Moines.

You'd jizz your mother fucking pants if you could just step inside my home and in my neighborhood for just 10 minutes.

M Club wrote:this particular pissing match has more to do with .mVan logging in as an anthropological neuroscientist in an attempt to explain that soccer is inherently flawed because it allows you plenty use of hands and arms but requires that you manipulate the ball with your feet and head.

just about every sport save baseball and cricket resembles keep away.

True. In a way, other sports do resemble keep away. The difference is there's more to other sports. What more than keep away, save for the once or twice a game goal, happens in soccer?

Basketball......sure, you're trying to prevent the other team from taking the ball away from you, so you are playing keep away. But your main goal is to put the ball in the basket and, unlike soccer, this actually happens quite often. You don't have to sit around for 90 minutes of keep away with absolutely nothing else going on. Another thing is defense......blocked shots and steals are quite entertaining. In soccer, there's none of that. A steal (is that what you call it?) is not entertaining in soccer. So there's more going on than just the game of keep away.

Football........You're not just playing keep away. There's blocking, sweet catches, great throws, spin moves, etc.... Oh, and there's also touchdowns, field goals, safeties, etc.... Much like basketball, nice defensive plays are entertaining. A QB sack gets the crowd going and that has nothing to do with taking the ball away from the opposition.


Think of it this way........

When I go to a baseball game, I am cool with a 2-1 or even 1-0 game. Part of what I love to do as a fan (along with drinking beers and eating hot dogs) is guessing what pitch is coming and giving my opinion on when a team should run/hit and run/bunt/etc. I love seeing a pitchers duel but I also love seeing homeruns, big hits, and high scoring games if they're close. So I'm going to have a good time regardless.

But in soccer, how can you tell me if you went to the game or watched it on TV it was entertaining when the score is very low (which it is 95% of the time) when there is nothing more to the game than keep away and goals scored. The keep away part of any sport is not the entertaining part. So how can you enjoy watching a 90 minute game of keep away when there really isn't much else to it? I just don't understand how people around the world find that entertaining, but I'm glad nobody here cares about the sport........except for maybe a dozen people or so.

Van wrote:In my lifetime I've easily watched upwards of 100 games

Watching some drunken Mexican and Guatemalan nationals at Sun River Park go shirts vs. skins by rolling two garbage cans four feet apart doesn't make a soccer match.

Confederations Cup starts up this Monday, U.S. vs. Italy. U.S. vs. Brazil on Thursday. You won't have any basketball to watch after the Lakers closeout Orlando Sunday.

:D

plus I played soccer here and there when I was a kid.

You didn't play with your head, hands, or heart. You were too wrapped up in baseball.

Swear to god, any time there was a corner kick I always had to restrain myself from batting that ball out with my hands, if I was on offense, or I'd want to catch it, if I was on defense.

Naturally. You were trying to grab anything in order to throw at Barry's kid.

Headhunter.

The coach didn't appreciate my arguments any more than you lot do.

Oh, don't get me wrong. Your ludicrous arguments are always appreciated here.

I always had to restrain myself from batting that ball out with my hands, if I was on offense, or I'd want to catch it, if I was on defense.

sin,

Vanmed Al Muhamadi
.
.
.

TheJON wrote:True. In a way, other sports do resemble keep away. The difference is there's more to other sports. What more than keep away, save for the once or twice a game goal, happens in soccer?

the actual difference is there's more to other sports that you value and find interesting. scoring goals is remarkably difficult. you can't just play keep away for 85 minutes then go score a goal. tell me you knew. a lot of visiting teams in league play used to do as much in order to play for a tie, which is why they began awarding three points for a win instead of two.

Basketball......sure, you're trying to prevent the other team from taking the ball away from you, so you are playing keep away. But your main goal is to put the ball in the basket and, unlike soccer, this actually happens quite often. You don't have to sit around for 90 minutes of keep away with absolutely nothing else going on. Another thing is defense......blocked shots and steals are quite entertaining. In soccer, there's none of that. A steal (is that what you call it?) is not entertaining in soccer. So there's more going on than just the game of keep away.

again, personal preferences. i'm sure many many soccer fans don't see any reason to get excited about a single basket considering it's not much of an accomplishment if eighty more are going to be scored.

a goalie save is the equivalent of a blocked shot in basketball. you may find it more interesting when dwight howard rotates over as the help defender to send some 6'2" dude's shot into the stands, whereas a soccer fan probably gets more excited about the goalie diving through mid-air to keep out a ball traveling 90 mph.

and while most things are decided by personal preference, i'm going to have to say a steal in soccer is much more entertaining than in basketball. anything that involves a slide tackle is "inherently" better than just tapping the ball out of someone's hands. plus, in basketball, once the ball is stolen from you, you simply turn around and run the other way; in soccer, you have to wipe the grass out of your teeth.

Football........You're not just playing keep away. There's blocking, sweet catches, great throws, spin moves, etc.... Oh, and there's also touchdowns, field goals, safeties, etc.... Much like basketball, nice defensive plays are entertaining. A QB sack gets the crowd going and that has nothing to do with taking the ball away from the opposition.

again, those are just things you value. i value the same things myself. but have you ever watched a soccer match with someone who's a legitimate fan [and not someone who spent a semester abroad in england]? there's plenty of action that appeals to them, things like your spin moves, through passes, juke moves, etc. a soccer fan would probably ask of football what's the point of a sport where four seconds of action are followed by 40 seconds of standing around waiting to reset?

Think of it this way........

When I go to a baseball game, I am cool with a 2-1 or even 1-0 game. Part of what I love to do as a fan (along with drinking beers and eating hot dogs) is guessing what pitch is coming and giving my opinion on when a team should run/hit and run/bunt/etc. I love seeing a pitchers duel but I also love seeing homeruns, big hits, and high scoring games if they're close. So I'm going to have a good time regardless.

sorry, you're going to use baseball to explain to me why soccer is boring? if anything, they're the same sport. anyone who likes baseball becomes defensive when someone says it's boring and then argues it's the tactical aspect of the sport that's so appealing. soccer is extremely tactical. you have to constantly balance the urge to attack with the necessity to defend, and fans love to sit in the stands just as much as you analyzing play and formulating strategy. i might also add that they have a reputation for a having a couple more beers than you probably have.

Keep away can be fun.

M Club, I'd kindly refer you back to my Salvadoran restaurant thread, where I watched in bewilderment as lifer soccer fans from El Salvador nearly shat themselves in excitement over shots on goal which clearly had not a chance in hell of even being on goal. One time, the kick was clearly five yards wide. Another time, it was just a lame duck pooch effort, in the general vicinity of the goal, and the goalie just casually strolled out five yards, camping himself (all alone) under the ball, like a punt returner calling for a fair catch.

This was a tv game, between two national teams. This was somewhat of a big deal game, and these were very experienced fans of soccer. I sat with the owner, who told me about his friends there, and how they all grew up on soccer, so this game we were watching together was really exciting for them.

In both cases, they acted like some outfielder just scaled the wall to deprive the batter of a walk off homerun. In both cases, even the casual layman fan could see that neither shot had a prayer of even being a threat. In both cases, they all let out these huge sighs, as if to exclaim, "Damn! Soooo close!"

The game ended up 0-0. These fuckers were simply that starved for even a chance of a scoring opportunity. Also, unlike 0-0 in baseball, where you're at least seeing killer pitching and the occasional great defensive play, this game involved nothing of note. It really was just a never ending game of keep away, with neither team having to do anything exceptional at all to avoid even being threatened, much less scored upon.

It was simply amazing to see, the way these lifer soccer fans were so easily entertained by so little artistry. It was like watching Lifer Baseball Fan shitting himself with excitement over an infielder catching an infield fly rule pop up, or a batter fouling one off into the club seats, fifty rows out of play.

I was fucking astonished. I felt like I was watching an SNL skit.

this must be more analysis absent cultural bias. you watch some die-hard soccer fans get excited about a game you don't particularly enjoy and the assumption is they're starved for something, anything to happen. it could be the fact that they followed a scoring chance develop and their outburst was a response to the last 30-40 seconds of play rather than just a single kick. or the fact than anyone emotionally invested in any team in any sport assumes their team is the suck and the other team is going to score at will, and that this feeling is only exasperated by the limited perspective a television broadcast provides.

you don't seem very inquisitive.

MClub, we were all watching the same tv telecast. I saw what they saw, and vice versa. There was no fluid play leading to a beautifully executed shot on goal which just happened to curl off target at the last moment.

Nope, there was an ugly scrum, nobody was getting anywhere, a guy broke loose just enough to dribble off a desperate attempt at a shot on goal. From our camera angle the first ball started off left of the goal, it had no pace on it and it clearly was hooking left. It never stood a chance, it was never on goal, and anybody who wasn't blind could see it stood no chance.

Still, those guys were held in breathless anticipation, unable to exhale until the ball literally passed by the goal. Then they all let out exclamations of dismay.

In the second case it was another scrum and one guy managed to loft a moon ball towards the goalie. From our camera angle we could all see that the goalie was alone. No offensive player was anywhere near him, so nobody was under any illusions that maybe an ofensive player might shoot in and head the ball past the goalie.

Nope, the goalie just casually walked forward a couple steps, he waited for the ball to come down and then he caught it, waist high. Of course he did. That was the only possible outcome of that sequence. He didn't leap up to catch it, "at its highest point," as they love to say in the NFL. He didn't even catch it with an overhand grip. He caught it basket style, waist high. He knew he didn't need to hurry the catch. We all knew it, or at least we should've all known it.

These people all let a big groan when he caught it, after breathlessly watching the ball during its flight. Then they made disappointed exclamations to each other.

We all saw the same thing. They responded like the game was hanging in the balance, pending the outcome of those two "shots." I saw those plays as being no different than any ball rolling out of bounds. They were completely predictable, inconsequential plays.

I sure as hell wouldn't have taken the time to create an entire thread about how stunned I was about it, if it hadn't completely blown me away.

Along those same lines, any time I watch a World Cup game I see a lot of the same things. The crowd goes apeshit, over absolutely nothing. Whenever a goalie makes the easiest of saves it's as if he just dunked from the free throw line, judging by the reaction from the crowd. Whenever a guy crosses over his dribble to elude his defender, squirting orgasms occur up in the cheap seats.

It's just fucking baffling. It's an incredibly simple game, with incredibly obvious action. It's not like an NFL telecast where the camera follows the ball and most of us miss the true intricacies and importance of line play. Anyone watching a soccer game ought to know when something really important and/or spectacular just took place, and when it didn't, because the true action in soccer always follows the ball.

Van wrote:MClub, we were all watching the same tv telecast. I saw what they saw, and vice versa. There was no fluid play leading to a beautifully executed shot on goal which just happened to curl off target at the last moment.

-----------------------------------

Along those same lines, any time I watch a World Cup game I see a lot of the same things. The crowd goes apeshit, over absolutely nothing. Whenever a goalie makes the easiest of saves it's as if he just dunked from the free throw line, judging by the reaction from the crowd. Whenever a guy crosses over his dribble to elude his defender, squirting orgasms occur up in the cheap seats.

It's just fucking baffling. It's an incredibly simple game, with incredibly obvious action. It's not like an NFL telecast where the camera follows the ball and most of us miss the true intricacies and importance of line play. Anyone watching a soccer game ought to know when something really important and/or spectacular just took place, and when it didn't, because the true action in soccer always follows the ball.

you're totally right. you saw exactly what they saw so somehow their reaction is the silly one. soccer is so rudimentary and simple that all games end in 87 - 87 ties. it's also the only sport where you can claim the "true" action always follows the ball as a way to account for your lack of understanding.

you're a sociopath, plain and simple. i promise you there's no harm in saying you simply don't like a sport rather than trying to wish away the fact ~4 billion people disagree with you.

I sure as hell wouldn't have taken the time to create an entire thread about how stunned I was about it, if it hadn't completely blown me away.

allow me to roll my eyes.

MClub, do you ever plan on having a take, beyond lobbing personal insults? You haven't offered a single solid statement during this entire thread. All you've done is roll your eyes and act like a cunt.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that I should've been as breathlessly excited by that pooch kick and that way off target shot as they were? Their life long love of the game gave them some extra perception about how thrilling those plays were; some extra perception which I lack, even though I've also watched soccer my whole life and my eyes work just fine?

Are you saying YOU would've also gotten all excited about watching a kick sail well wide of the goal; a kick which was clearly always going to be well wide of the goal, and was hooking even wider, even to my "untrained" eye. YOU would've freaked out over a lame pooch kick which the goalie treated with all the urgency of retrieving the morning paper?

Would your soccer culture understandin' eyes have noticed some exciting possibility there which mine missed?

Say something. Anything. Quit being such a cunt about it. If you have nothing to add, just say so.

Here's a newsflash for you: BILLIONS & BILLIONS of people love McDonald's. It's still garbage. So is most pop music, which is equally popular, worldwide. So, save me the "popularity" argument.

Oh, and yes, in soccer the action does follow the ball. When the ball is near the goal mouth nothing of importance is going on at midfield, or on the other side of the field. The other players back there aren't fighting for position, or doing much of anything, not until they move forward and join the action. Until then they're not directly affecting the play. They're also not affecting the next play. They're not like lineman or LBs in football, who create the play, despite never touching the ball, or even being on camera for much of the play.

Van wrote:Oh, and yes, in soccer the action does follow the ball. When the ball is near the goal mouth nothing of importance is going on at midfield, or on the other side of the field. The other players back there aren't fighting for position, or doing much of anything, not until they move forward and join the action. Until then they're not directly affecting the play. They're also not affecting the next play. They're not like lineman or LBs in football, who create the play, despite never touching the ball, or even being on camera for much of the play.

Patently absurd take.

Players often are working off the ball, providing cover and balance defensively, or anticipating and probing with runs for potential offensive exploitation.

Van wrote:MClub, do you ever plan on having a take, beyond lobbing personal insults? You haven't offered a single solid statement during this entire thread. All you've done is roll your eyes and act like a cunt.

and that's a perfect illustration of why you're .mVan.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that I should've been as breathlessly excited by that pooch kick and that way off target shot as they were? Their life long love of the game gave them some extra perception about how thrilling those plays were; some extra perception which I lack, even though I've also watched soccer my whole life and my eyes work just fine?

Are you saying YOU would've also gotten all excited about watching a kick sail well wide of the goal; a kick which was clearly always going to be well wide of the goal, and was hooking even wider, even to my "untrained" eye. YOU would've freaked out over a lame pooch kick which the goalie treated with all the urgency of retrieving the morning paper?

Would your soccer culture understandin' eyes have noticed some exciting possibility there which mine missed?

uh, derelict, this is what i've been saying the entire thread:

...there's no harm in saying you simply don't like a sport...

again, personal preferences. i'm sure many many soccer fans don't see any reason to get excited about a single basket considering it's not much of an accomplishment if eighty more are going to be scored.

...those are just things you value. i value the same things myself.

can't wait for the dissertation on why this isn't an entirely culturally-centric observation.

hmm, not a hard point to pick up.

.mVan wrote:Say something. Anything. Quit being such a cunt about it. If you have nothing to add, just say so.

i've said quite a lot. you're the one who keeps rehashing the same tired argument about soccer not being a real sport because it contains elements present in every other sport.

Here's a newsflash for you: BILLIONS & BILLIONS of people love McDonald's. It's still garbage. So is most pop music, which is equally popular, worldwide. So, save me the "popularity" argument.

i know this was supposed to be your home run point, but it's not entirely relevant. you can argue taste all you want, but you generally have to concede when someone's reasoning is "i like it." in the case of mcdonalds, either that many people genuinely like it, in which case you'll have to allow them their druthers, or else there are other contributing factors to its popularity that have nothing to do with whether or not people enjoy soccer on its own merits. same with pop musak.

Oh, and yes, in soccer the action does follow the ball. When the ball is near the goal mouth nothing of importance is going on at midfield, or on the other side of the field. The other players back there aren't fighting for position, or doing much of anything, not until they move forward and join the action. Until then they're not directly affecting the play. They're also not affecting the next play. They're not like lineman or LBs in football, who create the play, despite never touching the ball, or even being on camera for much of the play.

oh, look, .mVan drew a parallel with 453 holes in it. imagine. players not sitting directly in the path of the ball have absolutely no relevance to the game because there's no such thing as a counterattack. no one ever gives up a goal because of poor positioning, either. and most soccer players are generally of such little consequence that they, as a whole, are generally reputed to be the best-conditioned athletes in the world.

socal wrote:

Van wrote:Oh, and yes, in soccer the action does follow the ball. When the ball is near the goal mouth nothing of importance is going on at midfield, or on the other side of the field. The other players back there aren't fighting for position, or doing much of anything, not until they move forward and join the action. Until then they're not directly affecting the play. They're also not affecting the next play. They're not like lineman or LBs in football, who create the play, despite never touching the ball, or even being on camera for much of the play.

Patently absurd take.

Players often are working off the ball, providing cover and balance defensively, or anticipating and probing with runs for potential offensive exploitation.

Oh really? When the ball is near the goal mouth, and they're back at midfield, or beyond?

They provide positional balance, yes, but they're not deeply affecting the actual play.

MClub, you again dodge the basic question: What did those people see that made them lose their minds over such a nothing couple of plays?

If it's strictly cultural, and a "love of the game" thing, great, explain to me what they saw that got them so excited.

I'm apparently incapable of seeing it.

I saw two hopeless nothings. Neither play offered any chance at a score, or even continued play. One was a ball which was clearly kicked out of bounds. The other was a pooch kick which the goalie was clearly going to catch, well away from the goal. In fact, had the goalie not even caught the ball it would've simply bounced a couple times, well offline from the goal.

What exciting thing did those people see, since they all saw it. Tell me where I was wrong to be stunned at their level of excitement over two such nothing plays. Tell me where the nature of the game dictated that yes, they were justified in being so excited over those two plays.

those people saw the same pointless, boring play you did. the reason they were so excited was the same reason you could have distracted them with a big shiny ball long enough to steal their women.

most of us who witness an entire group of people get excited over something we ourselves find inconsequential generally assume there's just something we just don't get, or aren't attenuated to; not: they're soooo fucking vacuous. unless you're autistic, of course, which could explain things here. that or an anecdote about the time i explained to my mother the importance of a missed extra point and her response: oh, i have to vacuum the living room. or the time my 8-year-old brother spent an hour explaining to me his pokemon universe and my response to him about reality.

So, what was this shared observation to which I was apparently not attenuated to? That's what I keep asking you. It certainly wasn't some anecdotal thing, not when it happened twice, with two different types of plays; not when the entire room (five people) reacted the same way.

Van wrote:They provide positional balance, yes, but they're not deeply affecting the actual play.

And a wideout is deeply affecting a qb sneak?

The ball can be played back to a midfielder or defender when the situation dictates it primarily because that is the way the player with the ball is facing and there's pressure coming from behind. Balls are often switched from one side to the other stretching the defense. Transitions are very quick in soccer. There the most dangerous moments when counterattacks occur.

All this blathering about "what didn't I see". What match were you watching? When did you visit your Honduran eatery? Do tell.

Presumably one of the nations was Honduras. Here is a list of matches they've had since June '08.

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/preliminar ... sults.html

Right now they're third in qualifying meaning if they hold on they'll get an automatic spot in South Africa 2010. If they finish fourth, they'll have a two-legged playoff with the fifth place South American representative. That would be a long-shot.

Odds are they won't make it so long as Mexico gets their shit together in time.

So this may explain partly why Honduran restaurant employees and patrons sans one were geeked over what they saw on the tube. Might they have been rooting with their hearts and not their heads? Sure. MIght you have been maw deep in papusa to care?

socal wrote:

Van wrote:They provide positional balance, yes, but they're not deeply affecting the actual play.

And a wideout is deeply affecting a qb sneak?

Not often, no, but if it's a QB sneak in a situation which doesn't normally call for one then putting a receiver in motion can at least draw a defender or two's attention away from the play.

When the ball is snapped, however, the camera won't stay on him and action won't follow him.

If the ball is near the goalmouth on one side of the field and a defender is back on his side of the field and he feints towards the far goal, no, he won't affect the play at all.

The ball can be played back to a midfielder or defender when the situation dictates it primarily because that is the way the player with the ball is facing and there's pressure coming from behind. Balls are often switched from one side to the other stretching the defense. Transitions are very quick in soccer. There the most dangerous moments when counterattacks occur.

That's all well and good, but it requires that midfielder or defender move up and become a potential player in the action.

I already allowed for that. I said unless he moves forward, he's not part of the play. If he stays back at the midfield stripe, or back in his own half of the field, no, he won't be a factor. He needs to at least get close enough to the ball to become a viable part of play.

All this blathering about "what didn't I see". What match were you watching? When did you visit your Honduran eatery? Do tell.

It was El Salvador vs somebody, either Mexico or Honduras, I believe. I don't know. It was a month or so ago.

The point is it wasn't just a few Mexicans playing in the park, like you joked earlier. It was a high level game, on tv. All of us there in that restaurant were watching the same tv feed. We all saw the first ball was clearly headed out of bounds and we all saw the second ball was clearly going to be caught by the goalie.

Somehow, however, we didn't all see it the same way. I saw dribblers back to the pitcher. They saw diving stops in the hole, with the shortstop scrambling to his knees and making the long throw, snuffing the rally.

Van wrote:If the ball is near the goalmouth on one side of the field and a defender is back on his side of the field and he feints towards the far goal, no, he won't affect the play at all.

Of course not. His job is to defend the strikers on the opposing team.

That's all well and good, but it requires that midfielder or defender move up and become a potential player in the action.

WHIFF!

You're under the misimpression that you have to be directly in front of the goal mouth to be part of the attack. The ball can be played back to the keeper (or midfielder or defender) who could send a long ball over the top to the defense playing a high line resulting in a goal scoring opportunity. That's an assist. That's being a "factor", no?

It was El Salvador vs somebody, either Mexico or Honduras, I believe. I don't know. It was a month or so ago.

I thought your restaurant review was more that a month ago...

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/preliminar ... sults.html

In the last month El Salvador has played:
June 10th lost to Honduras 1-0
June 6th beat Mexico 2-1

Prior to that:
April 1st lost to Costa Rica 1-0
March 28th tied the U.S. 2-2

That Mexico match was a huge win for them. It won't mean much if all they do is draw or lose the rest of the way though.

The point is it wasn't just a few Mexicans playing in the park, like you joked earlier. It was a high level game, on tv. All of us there in that restaurant were watching the same tv feed. We all saw the first ball was clearly headed out of bounds and we all saw the second ball was clearly going to be caught by the goalie.

Goals are precious. If a player has the ball, time, and space any strike has a chance. Some more than others. Might have been wishful thinking on their part. Might be you are blinded to some of the intricacies of the game that your Salvadoran or Honduran restaurant pals are privy to. Things you wouldn't know not having played the game. And your six games as a defender booming the ball first time as an 11 year old trying to score a goal from the center circle doesn't count.

Somehow, however, we didn't all see it the same way. I saw dribblers back to the pitcher. They saw diving stops in the hole, with the shortstop scrambling to his knees and making the long throw, snuffing the rally.

Yes, indeed. Somehow. Your perception of Lakers championship victory celebrations might be a hair different than mine so why not soccer matches?

:D

The Master Of Redundancy wrote:WHIFF!

You're under the misimpression that you have to be directly in front of the goal mouth to be part of the attack. The ball can be played back to the keeper (or midfielder or defender) who could send a long ball over the top to the defense playing a high line resulting in a goal scoring opportunity. That's an assist. That's being a "factor", no?

For the THIRD time, I said those defenders need to at least come forward. I didn't see they need to join everyone in the goalmouth. They do however need to cross midfield. If the ball is in the vicinity of the goalmouth then re-setting the attack by kicking the ball all the way to midfield or beyond isn't going to do squat.

Those defenders at least need to move up a bit, to become truly involved in the action. What they do when they're back at the midfield stripe or beyond is of no consequence, not when the ball and the action is in and around the goalmouth.

As for which game we were watching, like I said, I don't know. It feels like it was about a month ago.

Okay, here's the original thread....

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=31667&hilit=El+Salvadorean

So, April 29th; a month and a half ago. Looking at my calender, that was a Wednesday. So, either it was a mid-week game or we were watching an old game, I don't know. El Salvador was one of the two teams playing, that much I know for certain, because everyone in the restaurant was Salvadoran (it was a Salvadoran restaurant and they were apparently all from El Salvador, and at least two of 'em had Salvadoran flags on their table) and the owner told me they were rooting for the team on offense, El Salvador.

I wana say the other team was Honduras, but I really don't know. Both teams were wearing blue and white, so that rules out Mexico being one of the teams. It was probably Honduras. The Honduran flag even looks similar to El Salvador's, with identical shades of blue and white set to similar striping.

It was definitely El Salvador who was on offense, in both instances. In the forty or so minutes I sat there watching the game the other team never managed a shot on goal, or even a shot that wasn't on goal.

this is ripe: some autistic .mVan troll, who admittedly understands little about soccer, is now arguing game theory with someone who does.

basis for arguments set forth: that the players are no further than five yards away from the ball at any given moment, less they be deemed irrelevant my .mVan. irrelevance is also due to not being on the tv at that point in time because you are no doubt picking flowers.

basis for logic: a wideout in motion away from the qb during a called sneak is part of the strategy but the constant striker/defender issue has no relevance to the action 30 yards away because no one can probably kick it that far.


let me play coach for you, .mVanker:

For the THIRD time, I said those defenders need to at least come forward. I didn't see they need to join everyone in the goalmouth. They do however need to cross midfield. If the ball is in the vicinity of the goalmouth then re-setting the attack by kicking the ball all the way to midfield or beyond isn't going to do squat.

Those defenders at least need to move up a bit, to become truly involved in the action. What they do when they're back at the midfield stripe or beyond is of no consequence, not when the ball and the action is in and around the goalmouth.

defenders generally do cross midfield during an attack, dipshit. they just can't go running into the 18-yard box recklessly since the offsides rule doesn't go into effect until you're in the offensive side of the field; the fear of counterattack always hovers. but if they happen to do just that, the attacking defender tends to bring along a defending striker since you can't just let some guy run in unchecked. but then again, strikers are generally faster than defenders, so it isn't to the defender's benefit to turn a manageable 40-yard race into one that's 80. that's a lot to consider about the match-ups you've been calling inconsequential to the play at hand.

as far as re-setting the attack, now you're just making up stupid scenarios. i'm surprised you didn't say they're all retarded since none of them just picked up the ball and ran it into the goal.

soccer players generally aren't shy when it comes to pulling the trigger. if they pass the ball back to re-set it's because they understand they're not going to score and, rather than just give the other team a goal kick, they try the attack again from a different angle. it's really no different than in basketball when you pass out of the post and get the ball right back. if there's as much action near the goal as you've been describing then the defenders are probably up at 40, 35 yards. kicking it back out to the point just allows someone with a better perspective to decide which direction the play should flow. it's not a hard concept to grasp for the non-autistic.

MClub wrote:basis for arguments set forth: that the players are no further than five yards away from the ball at any given moment

Like I said, you've got nothing, you're never going to address the specifics of what I said and you're just being a cunt. Now you're resorting to stupid strawmen, which bare no resemblance to anything I said.

I get it. When you have nothing your response is to become a smarmy, spinning cunt.

Good enough.

i've full on addressed every stupid thing you've said on this thread. point me to something i haven't.

you're simply in over your head.

aren't you generally logged in as blueblood this time of day?

Van wrote:MClub, do you ever plan on having a take, beyond lobbing personal insults? You haven't offered a single solid statement during this entire thread. All you've done is roll your eyes and act like a cunt.

As a completely impartial observer (well, not really... I despise soccer and hockey as much as anyone)...

Van, dude... you're getting smoked. Badly. I have no idea why you like football so much since the concept of PUNTING has never occurred to you. Then again, you'd have to use your foot and I guess you'd think that's un-natural, but you're doing a fine job of sticking that foot in your mouth whilst also KYOA.