Euro Cup 2012

[english si]

I think soccer culture in general holds sportsmanship in higher regard than other sporting cultures. Tim Howard's response to his amazing goal is another good example. He was clearly embarrassed and unhappy for the other keeper. Soccer players want a fair game called, even if it doesn't go their way.

I'm not sure, but then I'm used to different sports: "football is a gentlemen's game played by thugs, rugby a thug's game played by gentlemen" and "it's simply not cricket*" still do hold, even though both sports are getting (apparently) worse.

Certainly in the amateur game and from players like Howard there's good sportsmanship, but there's tons of deliberately seeking the foul, going over easily, making a meal of it - more so in recent years (but out are the break-leg tackles by defenders and English football hooliganism - well, mostly gone at least). Gone are the days when a team kicks it out for an injured player, the other team gives the ball back roughly where the ball was kicked out - instead it goes back to the keeper.

*"If someone's behaviour or actions are not cricket, they are not honest or moral" Cambridge Dictionary of British English

[jdb1234]

The goal in the Spain-Croatia match is the reason why I hate playing an offside trap.  In my opinion, it makes it too easy for the other team to score. 

[Truvelo]

England are out having lost to Italy on penalties. We always lose when it goes to penalties but at least it wasn't against the Jerries which is probably what would have happened had we beat Italy.

My money is now on Germany-Spain in the final with the Jerries winning by just one goal. Let's see if I'm right next week.

[Takumi]

Spain-Italy in the final. I didn't catch the Germany-Italy match, but Portugal-Spain was very good.

[english si]

Portugal-Spain was very good.

Err, what?

Dull as ditchwater - lots of midfield cancelling each other out, nothing much very dangerous. 4 shots on target in the whole game, the off-target ones being mostly long range pot shots - not likely to go in in this tournament. That it went to penalties rescued some excitement out of the game.

---

Italy, against expectations of the English media and fans (who said "at least it's them who will get hammered by Germany"), outclassed Germany - not to the extent that they dominated against England, but with far more dangerous play - they could have scored 5 if their strikers were better with their aim, Germany had about as much danger as England did against Italy, if not less.

[Takumi]

Admittedly, I didn't turn it on until well past halftime due to work, so the penalties are what stuck out most to me.

[Special K]

Spain was the real deal.  That first goal in the final was spectacular.

[realjd]

^^^
No kidding. They made the Italians look like an amateur league team.

[english si]

Italy spent so much effort making England and Germany look ordinary that Spain who looked ordinary against Portugal and stayed in third gear against a lacklustre France not only limited expectations but kept themselves well-enough rested to make even more out of the fact that Italy had a day's less rest.

Spain only scored when they stopped trying to tica-taca it into the box - it was through balls and crosses - something they lacked against Portugal.

The game was totally before the hour mark when Italy had that injured player that they could not sub as they had used their limit - I find that rule rather annoying as pretty much every other team sport allows substitutions of genuinely injured players, even if they limit tactical changes.

[realjd]

Italy spent so much effort making England and Germany look ordinary that Spain who looked ordinary against Portugal and stayed in third gear against a lacklustre France not only limited expectations but kept themselves well-enough rested to make even more out of the fact that Italy had a day's less rest.

Spain only scored when they stopped trying to tica-taca it into the box - it was through balls and crosses - something they lacked against Portugal.

The game was totally before the hour mark when Italy had that injured player that they could not sub as they had used their limit - I find that rule rather annoying as pretty much every other team sport allows substitutions of genuinely injured players, even if they limit tactical changes.

Injury subs would be too open to abuse, and if any team were to abuse such a privilege, it would be Italy IMO.

If they were to allow injury subs, they'd have to grant an extra tactical sub to the opposing team for each injury sub to make it fair.

[nexus73]

What I would like to see for soccer is the elimination of the offsides call.  Let's see some fast breaks a la basketball and more scoring! 

Rick

[english si]

Injury subs would be too open to abuse, and if any team were to abuse such a privilege, it would be Italy IMO.

It seems to work in other sports, perhaps make it that the player is considered unfit to play for the next week. That would help in almost everything but major finals - they actually have to be pretty severely injured to do it, as they can't then be picked for the next match.

Certainly, at the very least, extra time brings in another substitution(s) per team.

What I would like to see for soccer is the elimination of the offsides call.  Let's see some fast breaks a la basketball and more scoring!

So it ends up being a team game where a long ball is kicked by the goalkeeper over 81% of the team's heads to a goal hanging striker, who's one-on-one with the keeper. Yawn-fest. If shots are relatively hard to come by, and goals more so, then there's far more passion when one happens.

Basketball is an incredibly boring sport to watch 90% of the time - ball up one end, score, ball up the other, score. There's the occasional interception, block, miss and free-throw, but other than that there's only the 2- and 3-pointer difference to add some mystery, some tactical nuance, some differentiation between the two sides. Basketball is too easy to score in - perhaps remove the backboards and ban dribbling (oh wait, then it becomes netball).

[nexus73]

Basketball shooting percentages are around 50% or less in the NBA for most games.  Ever since Detroit smashed the Lakers for the title a bit over 20 years ago, defense has come of age in pro basketball.

I say let soccer evolve!  Basketball has and the same can be said of American football.  When a matchup of two good teams winds up 0-0 and goes to penalty kicks, it's a sign there's too much D and not enough O in the game.  The NFL's Competition Committee addresses these kinds of situations.  Soccer needs to do the same IMO.

Rick

[english si]

Offside also lets defenders push up and teams be more offensive.

When a game between to good sides ends 0-0, it doesn't mean that it's been a boring one - there could have been lots of attack, but lots of defence as well. It could mean a midfield cancel-out fest, as Spain-Portugal was, with Italy-England being one side attacking with all they'd got and the other defending it like a siege with brief counter-attacks (see also both Chelski-Barca games this season). 2 games in the whole tournament that were 0-0, despite the fact that only two goals were from outside the box.

The problem is Italia 90 was a very defensive tournament, so pass back rules and three-points-for-a-win were pushed for. The offside rule became massively confusing to heavily favour it to the attacking side, while still letting teams push up without fear of some goal hanger scoring.

At the schoolboy level, you get the schoolboy mistakes by defenders that lead to 8-5 or other such scorelines. This is because it's not actually hard to get the ball in the back of the net if the team you are playing is undisciplined and the goalkeeper poor. It's not a test of skill to do so and is more boring for the neutral to see than two well organised teams fight for one to win 2-1 where you have to do something special to score.

Spain in the final - Italy's defence wasn't poor, though there were errors. It took both excellent midfield play and excellent striking to score those goals (less so the last two, but still rather a lot). In fact, Spain's brilliance and dominance doesn't come from scoring lots of goals - it comes from stopping the other team scoring by defensive players pushing up and the saturated middle of the park becoming more so - something that wouldn't happen if there was no offside rule.

Now I know you over that side of the pond, you like to see scorecards rattle up - it's why I don't understand why you like Baseball, but not Cricket (which is a funny one, as the defending team is the one that scores runs by hitting the ball with a bat and running - the attack, like a siege, is trying to get the batters out). Perhaps if you got more than one way of scoring, like Rugby or American Football (both of which can see nervy games where there's few tries/TDs if any, and the points are from kicking), that wasn't worth as much.

[mgk920]

Regarding Cricket, it was the major sport in North America until the 1860s or 1870s, when, for some unknown reason, the guys who ran it here decided to not allow (or at least strongly discourage) professionalism in it while the rest of the UK's World dove headlong into that - leaving an opening that was quickly exploited by Baseball interests.

Essentially, in Cricket, one side tries to score as many runs as they can before ten of their eleven players are made out and then the other side takes its turn (kind of like in baseball where it is three out of nine are made out before the other side's turn).  OTOH, I've heard it described that in Baseball, outs are common while runs are rare while in Cricket, runs are common while outs are rare.  In Cricket, it is not unusual for one side to peel off over 200 runs before their tenth player is out.

Recall that during the American Revolution, Washington's soldiers played Cricket during their free time.

Also recall that the first ever international Cricket match was played in . . . NYC.  It was between a team from the USA v. a team from Canada in 1844.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cricket

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v_Canada_%281844%29

Mike

[english si]

We kept amateurism in Cricket for a long time, though they played with the professionals (I believe that Landed Gentry weren't allowed to be paid). They got around the rule on not being paid for the match by getting given copious amounts of beer (like a barrel a day, and some players drunk that much) - they weren't receiving money.

As for Washington's soldiers, well of course - they were good Brits, of course they played Cricket.

Runs are common/outs are rare and vice-versa is very true. 200 is often nothing in Cricket if you are playing long enough (it does depend on conditions). One player can score 200+, a team 600+ (normally they then declare their innings over, so that they can bowl the other team out before the time ends and win, rather than draw).

Baseball is low scoring like soccer, doesn't mean it's not boring (all sorts of other reasons why that is)  - though if we go by nexus' view that low scores are boring, perhaps they ought to bring the bases in, or change the rule on foul balls?

[realjd]

I've seen plenty of exciting 0-0 soccer games and plenty of boring 3-1 blowouts. The problem is that most Americans don't know what to look for. If you watch only the ball, it will look boring. You have to watch the offensive and defensive formations much like American football. I don't really get baseball for similar reasons; I see a guy hitting a ball, while my baseball-savy friends are able to see tactical subtleties like the infield players playing close in for certain players.

I've never understood the low score complaint from other Americans. As pointed out, baseball also has low scoring games, as does American football if you count actual point-scoring events. A 14-3 football game can often be considered highly entertaining even though the actual scoring event tally is 2-1.

Basketball is a defensive game. The exciting events (for the most part) aren't when your team scores, it's when your team prevents an opposing score.

I've seen cricket before on TV and had an Indian friend in college who tried to teach it to me. It's incomprehensible as far as I'm concerned.

[nexus73]

@english si: Back in the 1968 MLB All Star Game, the score was a 1-0 affair.  What happened to break the pitchers' dominance?  The mound was lowered!  See, even tradition-bound baseball can change!  So when will futbol/soccer do the same and thus open up the game?

I liked Paraguay's D in the 2010 World Cup and Uruguay's strikers on O too.  If those two tiny countries had combined as one team, they would have had something special.  However it seems mighty hard to come up with the kind of talent on one team that explodes into action in soccer for all the game's facets like we see in pro or even collegiate US sports. 

We have about 320 million people here, MLS and plenty of ways to feed pro soccer but I'll be dipped if we can come up with one or two top notch strikers like Uruguay's.  We should have dozens of them given our population and emphasis on sports!  On D, the US team sucks rutabagas.  No positional discipline at all compared to Latin American or Euro teams.  One would think we would hire better coaches from the nations who do well at soccer to at least make sure we don't go down 1-0 in the first minutes of a match more often than not!

That being said, soccer does need to improve the scoring and get the game fully opened up IMO.  No offsides rule would certainly help that cause!  Allow unlimited subs too.  That will increase the pace of the game and allow for specialized substitutes.  Get behind?  Bring in an extra striker.  Want to stay ahead?  Bring in a defensive specialist.  Change the OT rules so the game goes to penalty shootout right away and end the ties.  I promise, a more exciting game will get more eyeballs in this planet's #1 sports nation and it would not surprise me to see the rest of the world's soccer audience appreciate the increase in action.  After all, what does Hollywood do best these days?  Slam bang action movies with no letup in pace!  There's a reason over $100 million gets put into making them.  People eat that stuff up and buy the tickets, DVD's and BluRays like crazy! 

It's the 21st century.  Let's bring soccer into it.

Rick         

[english si]

So when will futbol/soccer do the same and thus open up the game?

1990, when pass back was banned? Before that when professional fouls got instant red cards? More recently with the offside rule changes? All of which are more recent than 1968.

I liked Paraguay's D in the 2010 World Cup and Uruguay's strikers on O too.  If those two tiny countries had combined as one team, they would have had something special.

Uruguay is World Number 3 on FIFA rankings (though they aren't perhaps the best measure of a team's greatness - England are 4th as we get points for going out on penalties), semi-finalists at the last World Cup and holders of their Federation Cup. Sure they had some fallow years between 1950 (beating Brazil in the world cup final in Brazil) and recent years (Forlan, Suarez, etc), meaning that they aren't big names like Brazil or Argentina, but at the moment, they are better than any other South American team.

On D, the US team sucks rutabagas.  No positional discipline at all compared to Latin American or Euro teams.

And why might that be? Could it be because the paying public in America want to see goals goals goals but haven't acquired a more subtle palate (a bit like beer - mostly mass produced swill that's designed for volume, not taste).

However, the truth is somewhat different - the US aren't a bad side actually, though not a top side. Certainly they are close to being able to compete at fairly high levels of the game. Like beer again, there's a growing appreciation for decent stuff.

That being said, soccer does need to improve the scoring and get the game fully opened up IMO.  No offsides rule would certainly help that cause!

Not really - the defense won't push up as they can't then defend, so will remain deep as the strikers will be goal hanging in the penalty area for the whole match. Long balls over midfield, simple matters of height and heading ability. Bore fest with little technical ability needed.

Allow unlimited subs too.  That will increase the pace of the game and allow for specialized substitutes.

Substitions take time (they are often used as a time wasting ploy by a winning team seeking to run down the clock), or do you mean rolling subs? Fresh legs would enliven a flagging game between two tired teams, but then no one but goalies would play 90 minutes and we'd see moneyed teams like City, United, Liverpool and Chelsea win lots - not because they have the best players (certainly not in Liverpool's case), but because they have the most and so have the least tired players.

Get behind?  Bring in an extra striker.  Want to stay ahead?  Bring in a defensive specialist.

That's what typically happens now.

Change the OT rules so the game goes to penalty shootout right away and end the ties.

No, that sucks. Better (if you are to change it) is that penalties are at full time and the winner gets half a goal, then you play half an hour (the losers of the shoot out have to come and attack). They tried all sorts of fiddling with extra time - golden goal at several major tournaments, then silver goal coming out for one or two tournaments. They scrapped them as there was a bad reaction to them from genuine fans, rather than fair weather ones.

I promise, a more exciting game will get more eyeballs in this planet's #1 sports nation and it would not surprise me to see the rest of the world's soccer audience appreciate the increase in action.

The question is - is that the aim, to win Australia from Rugby, Cricket, Aussie Rules, etc?

Certainly FIFA think not - hence Qatar (over Australia) - and these are very very smart at trying to milk the most money possible for the game, especially themselves.

Oh, you meant the US - replace references to Australia with US, and Rugby, Cricket, Aussie Rules = Basketball, Baseball, American Football.

It's the 21st century.  Let's bring soccer into it.

Indeed, and thankfully FIFA are allowing goal line tech.

The 21st century, however, doesn't mean pandering to American (poor) tastes and ruining the game for everyone else. It also doesn't mean pandering to the money interests and spoiling what was good - World Cup in Qatar (and to some extent Russia, though at least they are a footballing nation, despite having a poor bid compared to the bids further west in Europe), 24 teams in Euro2016 killing the group stage as it becomes a formality - a Croatian goal against Spain (which was likely) would have knocked out Italy or Spain (the latter if Spain didn't score) - the two finalists: with 24 teams, all three would have got through, ditto Denmark and the Netherlands (the latter as they wouldn't have been in such a group of death), at least one of the co-hosts, and Russia.

[english si]

Actually, thinking about it, my dislike of watching Baseball and Basketball come from a similar symptom - I've not learnt the nuances of the game. I might want things no backboard, no dribbling, etc in Basketball, but that's just my ignorance showing. Ditto wanting shorter distances between plates, a wider range of places to play your shot without it becoming a foul ball.

Personally I'd want basketball to be much more like netball, baseball to be rounders. You can see that I shouldn't be involved in the game. Same with football and trying to make more American.

[nexus73]

@english si: Thank you for a fine discussion!  It has been most entertaining to read your side of the story.  I think we have both made our points here and now I'll leave it to the rest of the 7 billion-plus on the planet to make up their own minds on sports...LOL!

Rick

[english si]

Absolutely, I always enjoy discussions between different culture's viewpoints, where both sides are coming from radical different starts.

This quote from the Metric thread says it all

I'm always fascinated by the small cultural differences like this, especially in cultures as similar as ours are.

Now to get realjd to understand cricket (the second biggest sport in the world by participation) - I gather from that metric thread post he usually stays in Marylebone - perhaps a piss up at trip to Lords next time he's in London is called for - it's certainly not that hard for me to get to, and is right round the corner from him...

[realjd]

Now to get realjd to understand cricket (the second biggest sport in the world by participation) - I gather from that metric thread post he usually stays in Marylebone - perhaps a piss up at trip to Lords next time he's in London is called for - it's certainly not that hard for me to get to, and is right round the corner from him...

I'm not sure I can convince my wife to spend an entire day watching one third of a cricket match while we're on vacation... or three days watching the entire thing!

But yes, Marylebone is where we normally stay. We like the fact that it's quieter than much of London but also only blocks from Oxford Street, has easy tube access (Bond. St. is our usual one), and is full of pubs and restaurants. My only complaint is that it's not easy to get to from Heathrow - the tube sucks with luggage and the HEX is overpriced and requires a £10 cab ride to/from Paddington Station. We're very much looking forward to Crossrail taking us straight from LHR to Bond St. in a few years.