tribe_pride wrote:CAA Flagship wrote:
I didn't comment on the "no offsides" thing because I am deferring to your understanding of the game since you think it is so important. I said that I would be satisfied with a replay review since I feel that the call is too difficult to make on the field, and a bad call is terrible for the sport.
I didn't mean to over simplify the role of a goalie. I was just talking about the ability to block a shot. Once the ball is kicked, there is little reaction time. And many times, the goalie guesses in one direction or another to gain what little advantage he can. But it is still a pre-shot guess. The true read and reaction seems to come when he has to decide to go after the pass or stay in the goal.
So why is the scoring so low if the goalies have so little reaction time? Not enough shots on goal. The rules are too defensive minded. The superstars of the sport are the elite strikers. But if there was a way to open up the scoring opportunities, the skills of the "other" players could be put on display, and the elite strikers would shine even brighter. There seems to be so much money being left on the table because of the lack of offense.
Just about every major sport has recognized that more scoring opens up more interest to fans, especially American fans. Basketball added the three point shot, baseball made the ball livelier, hockey now allows the two line pass, and football has adjusted rules to benefit the offensive passing game. If soccer wants to truly gain a foothold in America (and it should because of the economic power this country has), it will need to do something to increase scoring from 3 gpg to 5 gpg. But how?
Got it with the offsides.
As for the ability to block a shot, I would say 90% of it has to do with positioning, 10%, if that, has to do with the rest including reflexes. If you are just guessing, percentages to save drop big time which is why it's rare to see a PK saved. In the normal course of action, the goalie will try to position themselves well (learned by making mistakes). If players are coming off of center (rare to see coming straight in), it's generally better to protect the inside post as that is the quickest and easiest place to score and you have more time to go to the outside if the shot goes that way.
Some shots (like Jermaine Jones' goal) are not going to be saved because they are too good. And Dempsey's goal in the Portugal game was a no chance for the goalie because the goalie has to play the shot there. Otherwise, he is giving the passer (don't remember who that was) an open shot at the goal if he plays the pass.
My question to you though is do you think that soccer has the ability to get to join the Big 4 sports in popularity in the US? If not, I don't think the US will really become the big market to focus on. The big thing the other sports have going for them is that the best players in the world come here to play. That isn't true in soccer and I don't think will ever be true in soccer because we can't afford to pay those salaries. The last US soccer league that tried that became bankrupt.
ManU (who won) had a payroll of about $250 million in 2012-2013. ManCity (who was 2nd) had a payroll of about $300 million. Liverpool (who finished 7th) was about $180 million. Aston Villa (who finished 15th) was about $110 million the same year. Tottenham (who finished 5th) was at $135 million. We can't compete for those players so we won't get the players which does not allow the sport to grow as much here as otherwise.
Yes, but only if the scoring is increased. NASCAR had an incredible rise in popularity (which is now falling off a bit). Look what Tiger Woods did for golf. There is plenty of room at the sports table for soccer. But it needs to evolve a bit (I wish I knew how though) to get scoring up. Like anything, the fans need a team or star players to keep their interest. The addition of Beckham to MLS had no follow through. No other big names followed to be a rival to him and his team. Of course the other thing to have is TV and it appears that the environment is ripe for this. There is a ton of programming time to fill with the addition of new sports channels (FS1, CBS Sports, NBC Sports, Regional sports channels, etc). The problem is that you just can't air the games. There needs to be the buildup that help draw interest from the fence sitters. ESPN does this well. They did it for hockey and they are doing it for the WC. Can Fox, NBC and CBS provide the buildup? Not as easily.
I really think the money can be there to lure the top players. If the MLS can get a solid TV contract and set up a compelling playoff system, the financial returns can happen almost overnight to afford the players. It's just a matter of marketing. I'm the perfect test case. I have no idea when the MLS season starts/ends. I only know a few players and teams. I have no idea what the playoff system is like and what the championship game is called (Basketball = The Finals, Baseball = World Series, Football = Super Bowl, Hockey = Stanley Cup, College Soccer = the College Cup, College Baseball = College WS, College Hockey = Frozen Four, College Basketball = Final Four, Golf = Fed Ex Cup). I probably should be embarrassed that I don't know what the soccer final is called as an avid sports fan, but it tells me that there is not enough marketing to attract avid sports fans, let alone casual ones. Oh, and the players must be full time. Can't take off for various tourneys unless the league pauses like hockey did for the Olympics.
Its funny when you think about popular sports in America. Americans seem to like the quick strike, but also like the graduated/calculated offense:
Football - a team can score from it's own 20 yard line but the chances grow as they march down the field. Fans will stop their conversation at a sports bar when they are inside the opponents 10 yard line.
Baseball - a team can score from a solo home run, but the chances of scoring increase as runners advance from 1st to 2nd to 3rd. Runners in scoring position will capture more attention from the fans at that time.
Hockey - a team can score from a breakaway but more often scores with the offense set up. Odds increase in a power play.
You get the idea here.
Basketball and NASCAR do not have this sort of graduated chance of scoring, so the casual fans wait until the end to "stop the conversation and watch".
Soccer can be somewhere in between. Certainly there is the opportunity of a breakaway. There is enough offensive control of the ball to slide to the edge of your seat when you team has it in the opponents end of the field. The corner kick is a time where you want to pay attention. But I really think the odds of actually scoring is holding back the interest level. I'm not sure Americans want to pay attention for a full 90 minutes in case there is a handball that will set up a gimme PK for a 1-0 lead and then be faced with the leading team playing defense the rest of the way. Give the leading team a reason to go aggressively after a 2 or 3 goal lead by somehow increasing the overall scoring. Even the comments here from avid soccer fans marveled over the up and down action of certain WC games.
