FIFA World Cup 2010 (1 Viewer)

[The_Doc_Man]

I have to admit that whether we are talking about what the USA calls soccer or what the USA calls football, low-scoring games frequently mean that neither offense is playing well enough to sustain an attack. Which usually means an end-to-end game. I don't find that to be so enjoyable. Actually, the same problem occurs in ice hockey.

I'm glad that others have confirmed my opinion on the aggressiveness of the Spanish side. I think I see what you mean about what happens when a team plays outside of their style / comfort zone. I recall that the Nederlands team was pretty aggressive earlier. I regret that I'm not enough of an expert to recognize whether the overall quality of Soccer has gone down this year.

 

[ChipperT]

Unfortunately I thought this was another game of "I don't want to lose" rather than "I want to win". Yes, I agree with all of you who were dismayed with the hack and slash of the match. No, I absolutely disagree with PNGBill and Doc Man about the low scoring aspect. To me, the easier the goal becomes in a game of any kind, the less excitement and interest there is.

All that said, not only did both teams go out with a "don't lose" attitude but the officials had a definite "don't make a BAD mistake" attitude that actually changed the match for the worse. A deliberate kick to the chest with no red card??? An arm around the throat in the box to prevent a breakaway goal with no red card??? 11 cautions with only one send off??? Call the game the way it should be called, by the laws. It does not matter if it is a World Cup Final or a team of 16 year olds playing.

And yes, I am an American who loves football/futball/soccer.

 

[Pauldohert]

I know a lot of soccer enthusiasts will not like this but I always have a problem when two teams can play for nearly two hours and the result is decided by one lucky shot - sometimes.
Very sad outcome when the lucky shot can be from the perceived less skilled team.

A win is a win, I know.

How about reducing the number of players or widening the goal mouth?
Or some other way to have a result like 6 2 rather then 1 0.

With a higher score, you reduce the effect of a "bad" ref call which is always on the cards when humans are involved.

England had a bad ref call but as the result was more then one point difference the effect didn't lose the game for them but what if it had been 1 0 ? as it often is.

I'd have to disgree - that it is somewhat the beauty of the game - ie the major underdog can still have a chance.
If you were the major favourite and couldn't kill it off in 2 hours then too bad - and if you were the underdog - who managed to stay in it for 2 hour till getting a lucky break - well done.

If we gave the game to the most skillful team - well theres no point in playing the game is there.

The last thing I would want is an artificial highering of the scoring - each goal really means something, and goals change games. Sounds daft - but its not the case in something like basketball, to take it to the other extreme.

So every chance of a goal means something. So if you suspect its going to be a tight game - every time the ball is at one end of the pitch or the other - its a real possibility that it could become a goal that could be the games decider. So every piece of play becomes critical - That can only happen if its rather low scoring.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

If we gave the game to the most skillful team - well theres no point in playing the game is there.

I absolutely agree with this point of view in ANY sport. It is why I used to play a lot of tennis (before the knees started complaining). I knew I was often outclassed, but I am not without some skills, so I gave it a shot to see how far I could go - and maybe even learn something useful in the process.

I am not saying that a nil-nil score at the end of regulation time would represent a totally bad game if there were many scoring opportunities and/or some brilliant defensive play. Sadly, that ending situation, as least in my experience, isn't usually the result of such brilliance. It is more often the result of mediocrity.

I surely wouldn't want soccer to have scores like USA football (or worse, basketball). Soccer and ice hockey are both expected to be low-scoring affairs. When good pitchers are involved on both sides, USA baseball will also be a low-scoring affair. However, perhaps I am jaded but I would rather see some well-played scores now and then, rather than a nearly perfect defensive game. I guess that's just me.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

ChipperT, on a separate note, I don't want soccer goals to be as common as basketball goals. As you pointed out, the teams were playing "don't lose" rather than "win" - and the Nederlands suffered more than the Spanish (by one goal) because of that strategy shift.

The point occurs to me that when you "play to not lose" you pass up scoring opportunities that a "play to win" strategy would have taken. Perhaps it is tied into a risk and reward strategy. However, I think if you can't take a risk at all, you would never be rewarded except by accident.

I would prefer to play to win - but lose, rather than play to not lose - and win because of conditions not within my control. There is no satisfaction in winning DESPITE your play. That's just a gift. And there actually IS some satisfaction in losing by a respectable score that showed you were in the match. When you are playing a sport as it was intended to be played, it isn't about the destination, it's about the journey.

Perhaps the commercialization of winning at that level has damaged the game to some degree. I don't know. But I suspect it has.