Argentina, how do you feel? Just wondering...I'm actually a baseball fan watching the WC games on MatchCast™.

Question

I think this is why soccer is not popular in the US. You play your hearts out in a big game like this, just to be tied after 120 minutes. Then the game is decided--of all things--with a goal shootout. In baseball that would be the equivalent of deciding a tie game with...a home run derby! How ridiculous would that be? Who wants to play a hard-fought game just to decide on a flurry of scoring at the end--basically leaving the hopes of the team to chance. I'd say, have an infinite number of extra time, not just two frames, until someone wins. And make the ET sudden-death: whoever scores in extra time first wins--like we do in american football. Make it the "golden goal": the 1st goal in finishes it. That reduces the possibility of ending up tied again after the extra frames. It's a tough loss for Argentina, I know. I'm actually a tolerant soccer fan; I have fun watching these games, unlike many American fans. I suspect it's the finality of the shoot-out that turns off US fans.

Hi Nadiaz888: Great answer, but you misread the question. I am a fan of soccer; I'm just saying other Americans don't like it b/c of this thing that just happened to your team. You play for 120 minutes just to lose on a shootout. I know it's implausible to have a infinite number of extra time--I threw that out there just to draw you into this: it's all the more reason to have a sudden-death "golden goal" in extra time. The way it is now, if a team scores in extra time, play continues until the 15 minutes are over. What if the other team scores before the 15 minutes are done? Guess what--you're tied again. Change it to sudden death--it would be a lot more exciting. And yes, I know it's called football/fútbol everywhere else but here; I was just addressing the American fans. What do you think? Golden goal is better?

And why are you "mad"? Because your team lost on a shootout, right? But if the game wasn't flawed, you wouldn't be angry. If my Oakland A's in baseball played hard in the World Series and wound up tied 0-0 in Game 7--the final game--and then suddenly the game had to be decided on which team could hit the most home runs, I'd be pretty angry too...if we lost. Don't get me wrong--I love fútbol too. I enjoy all these games. When my team--México--lost to yours, I wasn't angry. I wasn't upset that the Mexican player made a header into his own goal--called autogol in Spanish--thus giving Argentina the opportunity to stay tied and eventually win it in extra time. I know it's part of the game. Plus, I have my Oakland A's in baseball to keep me busy. I love soccer/football/fútbol...I just wish the shootout wouldn't be so final. So who are you going for now that Argentina is out? I like Brazil, but I think they've shown some weakness this year. They're the only Latin team left + Italy.

My, my...such negativity, Nadiaz888. American football is "retarded"? How can a sport be retarded? Only people are mentally challenged (I'm being politically correct). And Canadians have nothing to do? What's wrong? Why such a negative outlook? And you wish Germany to lose in the finals? Such bitterness! Are you a sore loser, Nadiaz888? Maybe Argentina should practice their shootout skills for the next Word Cup...see you there!!! =) Come on, it's not that bad...smile! =D

Nadiaz888, have you ever played American football? Actually, as a kid I didn't care for football either...until one day I played it. It's a lot of fun. You should try it. Maybe you'll like it. You can't really understand the game until you play it. A Uruguayan guy told me once that baseball is gay. His reason: He held out his hand like a gay guy..."Because it's played with the hand." (I guess in his twisted logic he meant that real men don't touch the ball with their hands, as in fútbol. But that's wrong too--actually you do touch the ball with your hands in soccer, when you throw the ball back in from the sidelines. And the goalie touches the ball too. And Maradona touched the ball with his hands in World Cup '86 and no one said anything.)

My, my...Hammer. Such negativity. I'll stay in my "yank" of the world and observe negative peeps like you. I would suggest some meditation classes for you; it rilly works. Why so negative? Did something happen today? What happened? Come on, let's talk about it. Who do you like in the World Cup now? I think Brazil will be challenged this year. Maybe England or Germany. Italy is pretty good too, but maybe Ukraine will win today.

Ok, the soccer/football/fútbol fans are being defensive about their sport--but they're not answering the question. What about a sudden-death "golden goal" in the World Cup. That's what I'd like to know about. Try to cut through your defensiveness and answer the question, please, or you might not be chosen as Best Answer (10 points). =)

Batigoooooool, if fútbol is chesslike, maybe the way we could solve a tie after both sets of extra time are expired, is if both opposing coaches play a game of chess in the middle of the field. If the chess game is still declared a draw, then how about both opposing goalies play a set of three thumb wars? It's two out of three; someone has to win.

Honestly, I think fútbol is too susceptible to refereeing in matches pitting evenly matched teams. When someone scores, the other side always complains that it's "the referee's fault." That the score was because of a penalty against their team that shouldn't have been called. Immediately the other side will start saying that the referee was paid off. Case in point: Batigoooooooal's question, "How Much did Germany Pay the Referee for the Calls in the Second Half in the Argentina Game?"

Do you ever see baseball fans crying about umpires deciding a game? Look at the players and managers in baseball. They never say, it's the umpire's fault. In baseball they always say something like this: "There might have been some questionable calls by the umpire, but we should have put ourselves in a position to win." That's the spirit in baseball, and it should be in any sport. Fans should understand that it's the team who wins or loses by performance, or lack thereof, not by bad officiating.

Ok, you guys have converted me.

Soccer/fútbol: Good.
Baseball: Bad.

My new favorite sports team is Brazil....

...ok, I'm just kidding. I'm not convinced, but I appreciate all the long answers in your trying to explain how soccer/fútbol is such a good game.

Don't get me wrong, I love soccer; I played it and was a team captain when I was in school. But for me, for strategy and for sheer fun, baseball is my game. I suspect that those people who autmatically respond, "Who cares about your stupid baseball and American football, ours is the real game," I don't think they've ever played a full baseball game or American football in their lives. I've played all three games, and I love them all. At least try to play the game before you comment on it. When I first played American football (the tackle version, not touch), I was horrified because I thought I would get hurt. But you actually learn something about yourself as you play the game: you learn how to start falling as you...

...are about to get tackled, and lower your head so as not to get hurt as you are hit. After a while it's second nature to get hit and get up again. Of course, occasionally get hit so hard that the air will be taken out of you, or you might even break a collar bone, but it's part of the game. On some cold days I still feel the stiffness in my ankle from the time I was tackled at the same time I was picking up the ball, and the full weight of both the defender and me fell on my ankle. I felt something pop, but I got up again and continued to play. By the time I got home my ankle was the size of an Idaho potato. Sure, it hurt for a long time, but it made me stronger and now it's a warm memory for me. Once, we were a few men short for a game. We asked some Mexican workers who were playing basketball nearby if they wanted to play with us. They just smiled and said, "¿Y luego si nos dan un chingadazo?" (What if someone hits us?) I thought that was an innocent way of seeing the game. =)

Answer 1

I think it's stupid to make your argument "soccer is not popular in the US because of shootouts." If that was a reason for soccer to not be popular, then it wouldn't be popular not ONLY in the US but in other parts of the world as well. Why is it that US fans exclusively can't like soccer because of that? I'm not saying that shootouts are good or that Americans should like football, but it's absolutely ridiculous to limit this reason to why Americans don't like it. There are many other plausible reasons for why the US is not a soccer-dominated country. We have other "American" sports (football, baseball, etc.). It's like why Canada's hockey is so popular while hockey's not so hot in say, France. Also, you can't compare two sports; as the cliche goes, it's like comparing apples and oranges. Baseball and soccer both have their good/bad points, but they are completely different sports played different ways. Baseball is definitely less physical, because you don't see the players running around every single minute of the game; most of the time they stand there and then when making plays, they run around and throw the ball. I don't claim to be a great expert on either sport, but once again, not liking shootouts and thus not liking soccer is not a reason exclusive to American fans for not liking soccer.

Okay, now to answer the other part of your lengthy question lol. I think shoot-outs are a clean-cut way of determining the winner in a match. You shoot goals; make them, you win. Miss some, you lose, go home. They test the individual skills of the players and while I do regret that they don't test the strength of a team as a whole, they do eliminate one major problem that people have with soccer matches: biased refs. Here, the ref can't call fouls where there are none and if a goal goes in, fans can't complain that somehow the ref was paid off to look the other way. In a sudden death match, the winners' fans would celebrate and the lowers would always see something wrong or corrupted about how they just weren't lucky. While the argument could be made that in a normal round, this happens all the time, so why not just have that determine the end, you have to realize how difficult it is to play such a physically challenging sport as soccer for such long periods of time lol. What if the game went on for a whole day without an end, like in Harry Potter's Quidditch? That may not seem plausible, but it certainly would be possible. Lastly, I think it's only fair that each team knows how much time they have to score a goal rather than just seeing who scores first. In such a case, I can definitely see the match getting increasingly dirtier as each team must not only score/defend, they know that under no condition can they allow the other team to make a goal.

xexect - About your message, sorry if I seemed harsh :/. I'm not trying to insult you yourself, but rather, I felt that your argument was flawed. However, judging by what you have written and your analysis on the other part of the question, I would definitely say that you're not stupid!

Answer 2

I think you're wrong. Why is it that only Americans don't like soccer? Why is it that Americans are the only ones that call it "soccer" when the rest of the world calls it "futbol"? It's because we as a country don't understand the passion behind it. I'm surprised that after watching so many of the games, you still argue that fact. The World Cup is incredible. The entire world gets excited once every four years for a game that the entire world knows how to play, mainly because it's the most inexpensive game in the world. Baseball bores me right from the start - just a bunch of strikes and base-running...nothing exciting. But soccer, it's a continually fast-paced game, and even fans feel like they're on the field.

Not to mention, an infinite amount of extra time is impossible. See, unlike the sport of baseball, the athletes in soccer actually work ALL 90 minutes and then ALL 30 minutes after that. It's physically draining. You couldn't ask for anymore extra time than that. These guys are definately the most fit athletes in the world.

Now I'm a die-hard Argentina fan, and as far as I feel, I feel pretty mad. But it's ok - they played their hardest. And Germany put up a fight, it's in their home. They can't afford to lose. But they will lose in the finals.

And "American football" is another retarded sport that no one but Americans and some Canadians ('cause they have nothing to do) care about.

Answer 3

I think Argentina should have won, they played a better game. They had the control of the ball most of the game and its a shame that Germany won over penalties. That´s like a Russian Roulette....just based on luck. I think they should put more extra times and just play it out, but its true, football is a sport where you are running constantly and you wear out quickly...Which is where penalties come in.
Also, Im sure you´ve watched the game, but that referee was favouring the Germans and its not because like everyone was saying...sore losers...no, there were so many calls against the Argentines and the Germans were constantly trying to provoke the Argentines so they can get a red card, for example when that player bullied Tevez....Also, at the end of the penalties the Germans showed poor sporstmanship, by dissing the Argentines and of course they are going to react, they're not gonna take that from anyone. But, hey, sadly the World Cup is coming to this, to fixed games...What can you do? Money talks...

Answer 4

After WC 94 , FIFA started to use Golden Goal rule , but they reversed that rule for this World Cup .

Back to answer your question . I can't describe the feeling, but it's not that good . I'm not from Argentina, but I'm a big fan of their Players : Riquelme, Messi, Crespo , Heinze , Tevez etc. They are loaded with talents , as a matter of fact , they can have 2 teams that could make it to the Final . Oh well, the best team, the most talented team or the most completed team does not always win in any major sport .


---------

BatiGoooooooal

You are right about the Ref favored the home team . If you followed WC for a long time , you should have known that FIFA wants the Host to go deep in the Tournament . The most recent is with France in 98 , Korea and Japan in 2002 . We all can say it's nothing but a "conspiray" , but if everyone watched Korea in 2002 will know exactly what I'm talking about .

Answer 5

xexect,

Regarding your first question, how do YOU think Argentina feels? Let's say it's October and the A's just lost in the second round of playoffs when half the baseball analysts were saying they were going to win the world series. How would Oakland feel? Like the Yankees for the past two years, probably :-) While the Yankees have the most talent money can buy, the White Sox and Red Sox have won the World Series.

Your second question is much more intelligent. Why did FIFA do away with the "golden goal"? You suggest deciding a match on penalty kicks is tantamount to deciding a baseball game on HR derby. As nadiaz888 points out, that is a flawed comparison. The skills and pace of the two sports are not comparable because time is virtually meaningless in baseball, whereas time is a big factor in how Soccer is played. In baseball, the team's chances for running and scoring are limited by the number of at bats and the number of pitches to the batters: in soccer, the team's chances for scoring is limited by time. The "golden goal" in soccer would be like saying that after nine innings, if the game is still tied, teams switch offence and defence after ONE out, instead of three, or each batter is out after only one strike. It just alters the dynamics of the game too much.

You also compare soccer's "golden goal" to american football's OT. While closer, this is not a good comparison either. In American football, one team clearly has possession of the ball and "marches" it down the field until they turn it over or score. If the other team can stop them or make them turn it over, then the offence comes on the field and marches the ball. This is fair because you have set plays, 45 second between downs to regroup and decide what your next play is, time outs, etc. Soccer is played in real time, by the same 11 guys playing offence and defence, no time outs and few set plays. Again, since a set amount of time is such an integral part of the more organig ebb and flow of the game, the abrupt "golden goal" ending alters the game too radically. It was used in the '80 and '90, but abandoned because it radically changed the game.

The closest sport which could be compared to soccer is basketball. Can you imagine a basketball game being decided by a "golden basket"? That's just ridiculous. Imagine Dallas and San Antonio, tied at the end of game seven, deciding the series on a "golden basket"!!

Batigoooooooal is right in saying soccer is like a game of chess. many times, great opponents play a wonderful game to a draw, and it is almost a shame to then have to pick a winner in order to advance, but penalty kicks is better than flipping a coin (which can happen in American football!!!).

Finally, why is soccer not as popular in the US? There are too many people like alwaysbombed who lack the intellectual curiosity to educate himself as much about soccer as he knows about baseball. Perhaps his analytic skills are low in soccer because he is always bombed? Just going by the name...

Another suggestion for making the game more appealing to the US sportsman was to do away with the off-sides rule. This idea was floated in the US back in the late '70, but purists at FIFA would not allow it. While it probably would lead to higher scoring matches (which would be much more interesting to the average uneducated viewer), it would take away from the flair, skill and artistry of the players for getting by defenders.

Sometimes it just sits best with the soccer-wise fan when they see two great teams like Argentina and Germany go at it for 90 minutes and end in a draw. Overtime and penalty kicks are an unfortunate necessity of the championship system.

Answer 6

I'm watching it right now. I also watched part of the Pre-game show. This is a part of history even though it is a sad part. I just can't believe they are going to tear it down. I have a friend who was lucky enough to get a ticket for the game & is at the stadium. I'm not a Yankee fan but I am a baseball fan and I hope the Yankee's win for all you loyal fans.

Answer 7

first of all to say soccer takes no thinking is the most ideotic thing i've ever heard of before. Im not even going to begin to explain it because the infinite amount of space we have for these responses isn't enough to tell you about all of the nuances and chesslike strategy that goes into a game of soccer especially one of this magnitude.

Secondly and more importantly to answer the question, I'm from argentina, and i feal heartbroken to have lost because we deserved that win. I am also a bit angry because i felt that the referee played a huge part in the decision especially in the second half.

Answer 8

No, Americans don't follow "football" soccer because it's boring.

It takes forever to score a goal, and it's just block and run run and block all the way down the field, then up.

It's boring.

I am a baseball fan, many people think baseball is boring, however I do not. Baseball takes some skill, the pitcher controls the game flow, it's more psychological than soccer, you actually have to be a thinker to play baseball.

Soccer, not much thinking goes into it, just run and kick, block and run.

Bo-ooring!

Answer 9

Who really cares about your stupid baseball or American football. The World Cup involves the WHOLE world, unlike your world series. The men participating in the World Cup are real athletes, they are not substituted every five minutes like most of the athletes in your country. So you live in your little yank world and let the rest of the world enjoy the greatest spectacle on earth.

Answer 10

How do you expect us to feel? We just lost on the quarterfinals. Oh, well. LETS GO METS! One out of two ain't bad.