World Cup!

[-TSS-]

I agree that if the final-match ends in a draw after 120 minutes there should at least be a replay 3 days later instead of penalties. If the replay also ends in a draw then have penalties. I can understand that the other knock-out matches can not be replayed because that would mess the schedule but replaying the final would only make the tournament last 3 days longer. I don't think the FA's of the countries in the final would go bankrupt if they had to cancel airline-tickets.

[Boges]

I agree that if the final-match ends in a draw after 120 minutes there should at least be a replay 3 days later instead of penalties. If the replay also ends in a draw then have penalties. I can understand that the other knock-out matches can not be replayed because that would mess the schedule but replaying the final would only make the tournament last 3 days longer. I don't think the FA's of the countries in the final would go bankrupt if they had to cancel airline-tickets.

I don't think so. Often the penalties are the most interesting part of a game that has led to a draw. You'd have to make scheduling provisions for all 16 playoff games to be replayed. That's unrealistic to expect.

Do you oppose using penalties to decide 2-game aggregate qualifying matches?

Edited July 7, 2014 by Boges

[-TSS-]

I think you misunderstood me. I said that only the final should be replayed if it is a draw after 120 minutes.

I'd leave the qualifying as it is regarding penalties but there is one anomaly about the aggregate-matches. Namely, there is the away-goal rule if the aggregate is a draw. For example if two matches end 1-1 and 0-0 the winner is the one who scores the away goal. If the second match goes to extra-time its away team has 30 more minutes to get the away goal. For example if the first match ends 0-0 and the second match goes to extra-time at 0-0 and in the extra-time the away team goes ahead 1-0 the home-team must score twice. Not logical.

I guess it would be the worst nightmare for FIFA if for the third time in a row there was an all-European final. Therefore, if Germany wins tomorrow then Holland won't only have Argentina as their opponents but also the referee.

[Boges]

So you have a final previously scheduled for a Sunday and people will purchase a ticket for the final of the World Cup. But you're not guaranteed to see the World Cup awarded, if the game ends in a tie there will be another game scheduled for the Wednesday and that's the true final.

It's not without some precedent in sports. Golf's US Open has a tiebreaker where an entire round is played the next day, Tiger Wood's last major was won this way, but it was rather anti-climactic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_U.S._Open_(golf)

A World Series between Tampa and Philly was awarded a day later because of inclement weather. They replayed the last few innings the next day.

Because of the rainfall, Game 5 was suspended after the top of the sixth inning. Rain continued to fall in Philadelphia on Tuesday, October 28, and the game ultimately resumed on Wednesday, October 29, at Citizens Bank Park.^[32] Official MLB records will show that even though the game was finished on October 29, the game was officially played two days earlier, and was completed on that date.

This was the first game in World Series history to be suspended.^[33] There had been three tied games in the history of the World Series: 1907, 1912, and 1922, all of them called due to darkness. In general, no ties would be needed under modern rules, which provide for suspension of a tied game and resumption of it at the next possible date. Weather has caused numerous delays and postponements in Series history (notable postponements beforehand coming in 1911, 1962, 1975, 1986, 1996 and 2006), but never any suspended games before 2008.

Still I'd see a World Cup decided 3-days after it was scheduled to be rather anti-climactic. Everyone will remember Baggio kicking a field goal in 1994 against Brazil during that game's penalties.

[-TSS-]

Btw, how is it at the tennis-tournaments if raIn stops play for one day is the ticket for the match still valid the next day?

[Boges]

Btw, how is it at the tennis-tournaments if raIn stops play for one day is the ticket for the match still valid the next day?

Is it? I don't know how Tennis tickets work. I would imagine it would be like buying a day pass for a specific set of courts.

[Shady]

Shady is obviously looking to troll soccer fans. The USA v Portugal game had ratings the NHL would never EVER get in the states. That being said, now the USA is out, I seriously doubt the ratings will match that. The MLS has a similar niche appeal across North America as the NHL gets. Often teams are deemed successful when they can pack a "soccer-only stadium" like the cruddy BMO field for a game. I seriously doubt you could regularly pack a soccer stadium for an MLS game if it was in a 50,000 plus stadium.

A lot of the MLS team that use NFL stadiums for their game see embarrassingly spotty crowds. Seattle seems to be an exception to that rule.

Because there are 4 sports that North Americans largely dominated. The problem with the MLS is that it's not a top league. People do watch EPL etc, but I suspect the ratings don't compare to Big 4 sports.

I will say most of that Costa Rica v Holland game was mind numbingly dull. That being said I didn't really have a strong rooting interest. I find you can deem any sporting even exciting, if you care who wins. All sports can be mocked for their weaknesses, it's all subjective though and anyone who thinks they can definitively identify an exciting sport is arrogant and obviously wrong.

I'm not trying to troll anything, I'm just pointing out some pretty big flaws in the game. The fact that there's no shot clock, or icing type of rule, or over and back like in the NBA makes it so one team can literally hold on to the ball or keep kicking down the field whenever they want, for as long as they want, as many times as they want. And too much of the play is insignificant to the game.

[Boges]

I'm not trying to troll anything, I'm just pointing out some pretty big flaws in the game. The fact that there's no shot clock, or icing type of rule, or over and back like in the NBA makes it so one team can literally hold on to the ball or keep kicking down the field whenever they want, for as long as they want, as many times as they want. And too much of the play is insignificant to the game.

It's often 6 in 1, half a dozen another when it comes to time taken to play. Soccer is more fluid than other sports. You play 90 minutes continuously (where as Hockey and Football play 60 minutes) and if there are a large number of stoppages due to injury you get some of that time back at the end.

BTW Canada was a victim of a ref accusing them of wasting time in the Olympics.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/olympics/canadas-olympic-soccer-squad-in-shock-after-heartbreaking-semi-final-loss-to-us/article4465669/

The work of referee Christiana Pedersen of Norway is the talking point from this one. To say she was inconsistent would offend the word.

She missed a flagrant hand ball in the U.S. box – hey, it happens – but took a direct hand in the match when she awarded the U.S. a free kick in front of the Canadian goal after calling goalkeeper Erin McLeod for time-wasting, claiming she took more than six seconds to put the ball in play.

The kick struck Canadian defender Marie-Eve Nault on the chest and arm, from about five yards out. Any referee would have given the defender the benefit of the doubt from that close, but not Pedersen. Abby Wambach took advantage of the opportunity, burying the penalty to tie the score 3-3.

I can't comment on whether this method is better or worse than the way North American sports have a more precise method using the clock. It's just different. One thing that's nice about Soccer is that you don't get games that go on and on and on (Unless it goes to overtime) Generally the game is done in 2 hours.

[Boges]

Also using the lack of scoring as a main reason Soccer hasn't caught on is a major fallacy. As BD points out, there is a "score" every 30-60 seconds in Basketball. Does that make it so much better a game?

Ironically Basketball is the second most "international" of sports. The Raptors just drafted a kid from Brazil. So people in other countries don't seem to make a similar comparison based on scoring as you're accusing North Americas of, Shady.

The main reason, IMHO, Soccer isn't the juggernaut it is in North America is because the local league is by definition a "Bush League"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bush-league

You won't see the likes of Ronaldo or Messi in the MLS until they can't hack it in Spain, England or Italy at the best of levels. You do see the likes of Jermain Defoe and Michael Bradley, who both would be welcome on a roster in Europe, come to play in Toronto because they'd be the top dogs in the MLS while they'd just be middle of the pack, at best, in Europe.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Boges

[-TSS-]

The main reason why soccer hasn't caught on in North-America is because NA has a saturated sporting-scene and any newcomers would be deemed as intruders and soccer is for most North-Americans (excluding Mexicans of course) a foreign sport.

[Boges]

The main reason why soccer hasn't caught on in North-America is because NA has a saturated sporting-scene and any newcomers would be deemed as intruders and soccer is for most North-Americans (excluding Mexicans of course) a foreign sport.

I don't agree, Soccer has been around longer than, say the NFL. Remember when Pele played for a for the old NASL New York Cosmos?

It's because it's a sport North Americans don't have the best players at.

[Big Guy]

I think the major problem is how the soccer players react during the game. The phoney grimacing, screaming, complaining to the referee, flipping and rolling on the ground etc, is viewed as unmanly to the fan accustomed to North American sports.

We (I) respect the football player who gets hit, flips over losing his helmet, bounces a couple of times and then shakes his head a few times, jumps up and trots off the field. And the basketball player who gets bounced around on a drive to the basket but still manages to make the shot.

I do get tired of the soccer player squirming on the ground in absolute pain, the manager running on to the field and applying the "magic sponge" and miraculously the player jumps up to take the free kick. I think that goes against North American culture.

I have noticed that during the World Cup, Lionel Messi gets hacked pretty good but still fights through some questionable tackles to set up or take good shots.

[Boges]

I think the major problem is how the soccer players react during the game. The phoney grimacing, screaming, complaining to the referee, flipping and rolling on the ground etc, is viewed as unmanly to the fan accustomed to North American sports.

We (I) respect the football player who gets hit, flips over losing his helmet, bounces a couple of times and then shakes his head a few times, jumps up and trots off the field. And the basketball player who gets bounced around on a drive to the basket but still manages to make the shot.

I do get tired of the soccer player squirming on the ground in absolute pain, the manager running on to the field and applying the "magic sponge" and miraculously the player jumps up to take the free kick. I think that goes against North American culture.

I have noticed that during the World Cup, Lionel Messi gets hacked pretty good but still fights through some questionable tackles to set up or take good shots.

This is why I kind of think Neymar getting his back broken is a bit of Karma.

[Black Dog]

Shady is obviously looking to troll soccer fans. The USA v Portugal game had ratings the NHL would never EVER get in the states. That being said, now the USA is out, I seriously doubt the ratings will match that. The MLS has a similar niche appeal across North America as the NHL gets. Often teams are deemed successful when they can pack a "soccer-only stadium" like the cruddy BMO field for a game. I seriously doubt you could regularly pack a soccer stadium for an MLS game if it was in a 50,000 plus stadium.

BMO? Cruddy? Complete nonsense (TM.)

That aside, I didn't realize a sport had to achieve NFL like levels of popularity to have actually made it.

A lot of the MLS team that use NFL stadiums for their game see embarrassingly spotty crowds. Seattle seems to be an exception to that rule.

There's only four MLS teams still using football stadiums. Seattle, as you mentioned, Vancouver, D.C. and New England.

Because there are 4 sports that North Americans largely dominated. The problem with the MLS is that it's not a top league. People do watch EPL etc, but I suspect the ratings don't compare to Big 4 sports.

None of those sports aren played in any serious way outside of NA (maybe hockey is the exception).

[Black Dog]

I think the major problem is how the soccer players react during the game. The phoney grimacing, screaming, complaining to the referee, flipping and rolling on the ground etc, is viewed as unmanly to the fan accustomed to North American sports.

We (I) respect the football player who gets hit, flips over losing his helmet, bounces a couple of times and then shakes his head a few times, jumps up and trots off the field. And the basketball player who gets bounced around on a drive to the basket but still manages to make the shot.

I do get tired of the soccer player squirming on the ground in absolute pain, the manager running on to the field and applying the "magic sponge" and miraculously the player jumps up to take the free kick. I think that goes against North American culture.

North American sport culture has plenty of ridiculous norms itself. Like fighting in hockey or the macho insistence on playing through injuries no matter what. Compared to to those things which can cause serious health problems for players, faking an injury for tactical advantage is actually pretty smart.

[Boges]

BMO? Cruddy? Complete nonsense (TM.)

That aside, I didn't realize a sport had to achieve NFL like levels of popularity to have actually made it.

It is when we're talking about competing with the Big 4. Interestingly NFL has seen some dips in attendance because the TV product is so good.

None of those sports aren played in any serious way outside of NA (maybe hockey is the exception).

Basketball is a big sport in many parts of the world. Baseball is huge in Latin America and Japan.

Football is a uniquely North American sport, though it does seem to have some interest in the UK, they have regular season games at Wembley. It's not surprising considering, what we know as American Football, has it's origins in Rugby.

There is also lots of thoughts about the NFL, NBA or NHL expanding to Europe.

[Boges]

North American sport culture has plenty of ridiculous norms itself. Like fighting in hockey or the macho insistence on playing through injuries no matter what. Compared to to those things which can cause serious health problems for players, faking an injury for tactical advantage is actually pretty smart.

Tactically perhaps. But it's annoying to see someone act like they've torn up their ACL just to see them get up and play again. I suspect they do this to get a rest for the team, which might lend credence to actually have to clock stop during stoppage in plays (a la Western sports)

[Black Dog]

It is when we're talking about competing with the Big 4. Interestingly NFL has seen some dips in attendance because the TV product is so good.

The NFL is the most successful entertainment product in the world. Every other sport is niche by comparison.

Basketball is a big sport in many parts of the world. Baseball is huge in Latin America and Japan.

Probably as big in those places as soccer is here.

Football is a uniquely North American sport, though it does seem to have some interest in the UK, they have regular season games at Wembley. It's not surprising considering, what we know as American Football, has it's origins in Rugby.

There is also lots of thoughts about the NFL, NBA or NHL expanding to Europe.

Point stands: none of those sports have much footprint outside NA.

[-TSS-]

FIFA is obsessed about the USA because of all the potential money there is to be made. It is just not foreseeable that Americans would ever view soccer else as a nice sport played every four years and cheer for the US-team until they get crashed out and after that those same people revert to old US-sports.

I must say that while I understand that many Americans view soccer as boring I must likewise say that American football is unbelievably boring to watch. A game lasts 2-3 hours out of which only a miniscule proportion of the game there is actual game not to mention the commercial breaks.

But perhaps it is a cultural thing. I didn't grow up watching American football therefore I just can't appreciate its glamour and glory.

Edited July 7, 2014 by -TSS-

[Black Dog]

Tactically perhaps. But it's annoying to see someone act like they've torn up their ACL just to see them get up and play again. I suspect they do this to get a rest for the team, which might lend credence to actually have to clock stop during stoppage in plays (a la Western sports)

Once you accept and realize it's part of the culture of the sport, it's easy to move past. Like I said, at least there's an actual tactical advantage to be gained by diving etc. Not so much hockey fights.

[Boges]

Probably as big in those places as soccer is here.

Point stands: none of those sports have much footprint outside NA.

Both those points agree with my assertion that the main reason Soccer isn't as big here is because North America doesn't have the best Soccer league in the world.

If the NHL had KHL level players and the KHL was where all the best hockey players went then I'd imagine hockey support would tank.

[Black Dog]

Both those points agree with my assertion that the main reason Soccer isn't as big here is because North America doesn't have the best Soccer league in the world.

Ah so that was your point. I agree. MLS is still relatively new here. It's starting to attract a higher calibre of player (mostly guys at the end of their careers, but also guys like Bradley and Dempsey). The games are fun and accessible experiences. It's a start.

(I should make a point here of mentioning that soccer is also really popular in Spain, Italy and England despite those places not having the best league in the world).

[Boges]

Ah so that was your point. I agree. MLS is still relatively new here. It's starting to attract a higher calibre of player (mostly guys at the end of their careers, but also guys like Bradley and Dempsey). The games are fun and accessible experiences. It's a start.

(I should make a point here of mentioning that soccer is also really popular in Spain, Italy and England despite those places not having the best league in the world).

What's the best league in the world? Can it be defined? UEFA as a whole contain the best "leagues". Spain seems to attract the best players next to England.

But the best teams in each league play each other in the Champions League. You'll never see the Stanley Cup winner play the KHL winner or the World Series winner play the Best Baseball team in Japan.

Also the "ringers" in the MLS are more an indication of players looking for a pay day. That's why the MLS caps the number of top level players a team can sign. It's an admission that the MLS is ultimately a bush league.

Jermaine Defoe is 6th in the MLS in scoring. He couldn't make England's National team.

[-TSS-]

I must say that I have no idea whatsoever who are the current baseball-, basketball-, American football champions. Perhaps it is something of general knowledge on the American continent to know those or otherwise you would make yourself seen as rather ignorant.

I know the current NHL-champions though but that's only because I am from Finland which is the only country together with Canada where hockey reigns supreme as spectator sport.

Btw, Selänne's wife has made it clear that the family won't move to Finland now that Selänne's career is over. Perfectly understandable and for once in some context it is the woman who has the brains.

[Black Dog]

What's the best league in the world? Can it be defined? UEFA as a whole contain the best "leagues". Spain seems to attract the best players next to England.

Best league is the Bundesliga.

But the best teams in each league play each other in the Champions League. You'll never see the Stanley Cup winner play the KHL winner or the World Series winner play the Best Baseball team in Japan.

Another point for soccer.

Also the "ringers" in the MLS are more an indication of players looking for a pay day. That's why the MLS caps the number of top level players a team can sign. It's an admission that the MLS is ultimately a bush league.

Players can sign for big money pretty much anywhere. China and the UAE for example. Also, aren't all athletes looking for a pay day? I don't see how that's a concession that the league is bush.

Jermaine Defoe is 6th in the MLS in scoring. He couldn't make England's National team.

Not sure what your point is here.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Black Dog