G. Keenan wrote:My English buddy and I have an inside joke about soccer we call "shoot the goal." He's a huge, lifelong soccer fan and when we watch games together I joke that on every possession the players should just kick the ball at the goal, no matter how unlikely a shot, and hope it goes in. It's all based on that Simpsons' parody "holds it...holds it...holds it....HOLDS IT." He's like, "you're right, over the last hundred years these teams playing the sport at the highest level have been doing it all wrong, haven't thought about tactics or figured out the most effective technique, they should just shoot the goal." I try to annoy him by watching a handful of games a year and then telling him how the sport should really be played.
I saw the summary of the Japan game today, 12 total shots between two teams. 3 from Japan. One went in.
I don't know if this supports your theory or not? But just because people have been playing for 100 years doesn't mean they have all the tactics and strategy worked out perfectly. Baseball was played 100 years before there was a position dedicated to the 9th inning. Sometimes things stick just cause...like that abomination in the AL about a DH.
G. Keenan wrote:My English buddy and I have an inside joke about soccer we call "shoot the goal." He's a huge, lifelong soccer fan and when we watch games together I joke that on every possession the players should just kick the ball at the goal, no matter how unlikely a shot, and hope it goes in. It's all based on that Simpsons' parody "holds it...holds it...holds it....HOLDS IT." He's like, "you're right, over the last hundred years these teams playing the sport at the highest level have been doing it all wrong, haven't thought about tactics or figured out the most effective technique, they should just shoot the goal." I try to annoy him by watching a handful of games a year and then telling him how the sport should really be played.
I saw the summary of the Japan game today, 12 total shots between two teams. 3 from Japan. One went in.
I don't know if this supports your theory or not? But just because people have been playing for 100 years doesn't mean they have all the tactics and strategy worked out perfectly. Baseball was played 100 years before there was a position dedicated to the 9th inning. Sometimes things stick just cause...like that abomination in the AL about a DH.
I agree. There have been and will continue to be innovations/changes/evolutions in soccer just like in every game. My point is that as someone who doesn't watch it often and doesn't know much about it when I watch it I'm mainly seeing the most obvious part of the game, shots on goal and scoring or not scoring. I'm missing a lot of the subtleties involved. Like when you watch baseball with someone who isn't really a fan or doesn't know much about the game. All they see is getting a hit or not and as a result the rest of the game is "boring." They don't enjoy subtleties like pitch selection based on the count, or a great at bat that still ends in an out, or defensive shifts based on a hitter's spray chart, etc.
G. Keenan wrote:I agree. There have been and will continue to be innovations/changes/evolutions in soccer just like in every game. My point is that as someone who doesn't watch it often and doesn't know much about it when I watch it I'm mainly seeing the most obvious part of the game, shots on goal and scoring or not scoring. I'm missing a lot of the subtleties involved. Like when you watch baseball with someone who isn't really a fan or doesn't know much about the game. All they see is getting a hit or not and as a result the rest of the game is "boring." They don't enjoy subtleties like pitch selection based on the count, or a great at bat that still ends in an out, or defensive shifts based on a hitter's spray chart, etc.
I gotcha, I just meant that because the game has been played for hundreds of years doesn't mean that strategy wouldn't work/can't work. I guess I'd liken it to a laymen watching baseball and seeing say Zumaya go out in the 7th, throw a dozen 100 MPH fastballs to a few hitters and make them look silly. Then asking, 'Why don't they use him for the whole game?' - it's a valid strategy and if a pitcher could throw 100 MPH for 9 innings he'd likely be very good, but it's impractical.
But right, you nor I understand the subtleties of the game. It does seem like if you keep kicking it towards the goal you're gonna get a goalie blunder, a good bounce or nice rebound to set up for an easier shot.
Anyone who blames Dempsey's goal on the ball is a crazy person. It happened because Green was lazy and went to a knee(which is galactically stupid to do on your line unless the ball is rolling to you) instead of moving his feet and smothering it. He was either lazy, misjudged the flight of the ball, or both.
As far as keeper gloves go, as someone who has played a lot of goalkeeper at levels that are nowhere near the strength of professional soccer, I can assure you that they are necessary. Shots don't always come from 25 yards away. Sometimes people get free and you have to throw yourself at the shot when you're inches away. At the professional level you'd break fingers like they were french fries without the protection that gloves provide, never mind the improved ability to catch, parry, and punch the ball. The wide receiver comparison is terrible. QBs want WRs to catch the ball, shooters in soccer don't want the keeper to touch the ball.
Transmogrified Tiger wrote:Anyone who blames Dempsey's goal on the ball is a crazy person. It happened because Green was lazy and went to a knee(which is galactically stupid to do on your line unless the ball is rolling to you) instead of moving his feet and smothering it. He was either lazy, misjudged the flight of the ball, or both.
As far as keeper gloves go, as someone who has played a lot of goalkeeper at levels that are nowhere near the strength of professional soccer, I can assure you that they are necessary. Shots don't always come from 25 yards away. Sometimes people get free and you have to throw yourself at the shot when you're inches away. At the professional level you'd break fingers like they were french fries without the protection that gloves provide, never mind the improved ability to catch, parry, and punch the ball. The wide receiver comparison is terrible. QBs want WRs to catch the ball, shooters in soccer don't want the keeper to touch the ball.
Seems to me that 3B is a closer analogy to playing goalie. The keeper got sloppy.
jim wrote:I would think they would wear what a WR would wear, so you get the grip while still keeping the feel. So the goalie gets an ouchie when the ball hits his hands.
Considering soccer has been played professionally and making a ton of money for the parties involved from the owners to the players to the equipment companies for over 150 years, I think it's safe to assume that in the millions of hours of game action, practice, testing and research, the parties involved have refined a piece of equipment ideal for the job. They aren't just putting on gardening gloves as an afterthought.
So while you may feel like after watching about an hour and 45 minutes of soccer you have a better idea for what kind of equipment they should be wearing, I'll respectfully suggest that you have no clue
I'm not arguing the glove thing, but it is kind of funny they can't come up with a ball people like for the most important tournament of any kind in the world.
I like soccer a little bit more than the American masses, but has the World Cup been a little on the lame side so far? Hopefully Spain and Brazil will pick me up, because I can only see so many 'chances' before I want to see some good old fashioned goals--especially in the group stage. France, England, Argentina, Italy... ok, England gets a pass here, but come on, guys.
(I missed the Germany game.)
