Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
LittlePinkTricam
Trad climber
Providence, RI
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2005 - 04:45pm PT
|
For the record, that's not the Hemmingway quote at all. I remember feeling gipped when I finally read Death in the Afternoon for myself and found that it was something else almost entirely different, about how it's not a sport because the glory of a sport lies in not knowing who will win and in bullfighting the end is inevitable: the bull dies.
You could, however, draw parallels to his quote about "the emotional and spiritual intensity and pure classic beauty that can be produced by a man, an animal, and a piece of scarlet serge draped on a stick" (or, you know, a rock). He also had a fabulous quote about writing while standing up so he would know when he fell over that he was probably too drunk to continue.
As for ball games, whatever floats your boat. Personally, i like rugby, mostly because it began as an alternative to tribal warfare. Oh, rugby...
|
|
AndyG
climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2005 - 04:59pm PT
|
"Yeah, perhaps there is more precision in basketball for exactly the very reason AndyG said, an opposable thumb, so of course there is more control. Duh."
My point is that, for me the "duh" is - why have opposable thumbs and choose not to use them?
Of course this is all just pointless debate. I have played basketball and soccer and I enjoy both of them, though I suck at both of them. I also enjoy softball (which I still play regularly) and of course, climbing. When it comes to watching I find basketball infinitely more interesting than soccer. But I really don't watch much of either of them anymore. I'd much rather do.
Andy
|
|
Landgolier
climber
the flatness
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2005 - 05:44pm PT
|
Let me be clear here, I like soccer, played it for a lot of years and still do once in a while. Won't sit alone and watch it, but I don't sit alone and watch any sport. Defense at the level of pro/national teams is indeed a beautiful thing, it's one of the most refined strategies in team sports. It's offense that lacks that same precision and execution.
I just want to pose a "What If" about what would happen if the game were played by the same rules but with radically different strategy. Sit down, watch a couple thousand hours of video, and figure out what results in balls in the net and what doesn't. In a 90 minute game that ends 2-1, the winning team had two roughly twenty second windows where things went well. Analyze what happened in that time and forget about the rest; there is almost no situation on a soccer field that can't happen within 20 seconds of any other situation. Put together a team that is willing to play the game a different way, and take what you learned and execute in a style that is absolutely relentless. If you have the ball, you are attacking. No silly ball control duels at midfield where all kind of energy gets expended and then nothing happens, no obviously halfassed moves into the opponent's territory that don't do anything but eat up time and let you reposition at midfield. There is no goal at midfield, so if you have the ball, what are you doing there? Remember, at every point in the game you have 20 seconds to create a situation where foot or head + ball = goal. The team's job at all times is to get from the current second to that point. If your team has the talent and your strategy is good, you will win.
Are you going to have a predictable offense? Maybe, but Jordan driving the lane and either hitting the layup or feeding it out to a forward for a short jumper wasn't exactly hard to see coming, and it still worked a couple thousand times. You don't even need to look at the batter to see a sac bunt coming, just glance at the bases, the number of outs, and the roster and you know what's going to happen, but if it's executed well you still move the runner. Are you going to get called offsides more than most teams? Yup, but you know what happens in soccer when you get called offsides? NOTHING. No penalty box, no 10 yard penalty and a first down, no 5th personal foul, no 1 and 1, NADA. The other team gets the ball on their own side and you get time to set back up, which is actually the best possible outcome of a failed scoring drive.
This of course will never happen, but I think it is an interesting hypothetical. I'm open to any opinon on it, besides "Yanks don't understand football"
|
|
Hootervillian
climber
Rob Field, OB
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2005 - 06:06pm PT
|
dude, the NASL rolled out the professional indoor venue, the MISL had a brief flash. Who could forget the San Diego Sockers, and Julie Veee. Flashy, high scoring, little real D, sorry Kevin. I was there lots of nights but it just couldn't carry the corporate dollars. Why? Just going by what's on the tube these days, I'd say it's got something to do with confrontation.
FTR- I loved the NASL outdoor, Cosmos, Chinaglia. Dug the indoor game while it was around. Still play both outdoor and indoor leagues.
Not enough confrontation for 'americans'.
|
|
Landgolier
climber
the flatness
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2005 - 06:18pm PT
|
I wasn't close to all the indoor stuff when it happened -- there's this thing in the water in the Northeast that magically makes people forget about soccer when they get out of college, no matter how nutso they were for it before, and concentrate instead on b!tch teams like the pats and sox, so we didn't get much of it. But that's not what I'm talking about; you say it yourself that there was "little real D." I'm not saying forget how to play defense, just take offense to the same level.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2005 - 06:20pm PT
|
Dingus- which one of the three stooges do YOU most closly resemble?
-missed my chance on the Illinois Nazi thread.
|
|
darod
Trad climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2005 - 08:09pm PT
|
Landgolier, I'm a yankee now, so please, respect!
Seriously now, I honestly think is a cultural thing. I love most sports, I played soccer, basketball, tennis, and things like that growing up in Chile, and I have to say, I was "ok" in most of them. But we just don't have the same "culture" of sports here in the States when it comes to soccer in particular.
Believe me, we don't "breathe" soccer like in other countries, so there. Just my opinion.
And a suggestion to your hipothesis...what about soccer without a goalie?
LIVERPOOL 105-REAL MADRID 98
: )
|
|
mingleefu
climber
Champaign, IL --> Denver, CO
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2005 - 08:49pm PT
|
Landgolier- soccer players have a term for what you are suggesting: Kickball. It goes nowhere. If the game is going to be played by the same rules, including that of "offside", then the first problem with your concept is that the offense cannot have players cherry picking behind the defense. If the attack were to be as agressive as you suggest, National play would resemble the park district coach's vision of "kick and run". Since there are no time-outs and the number of subs is limited (most the players on the field MUST play the whole game), a game full of offensive sprints is just impractical. Restarts can happen quicker (immediately) in soccer since the refs don't have to touch the ball before play can continue.
AndyG's comment, "You can do so much more with your hands than you can with your feet," doesn't hold up either- let's see how basketball would go if the players were walking around on their hands. Or make the basketball players stand on one foot while only using one hand to shoot (stablizing the ball with the other hand is no longer allowed). The crap about "opposable thumbs" and precision of the game is crap. Let's allow goal-tending and see if Jordan can then hit the bucket from 25 yards out, standing on one foot, shooting with one hand, and receiving full body contact in the form of an elbow to the ribs. The stats would change significantly.
back to Landgolier's "Pele managed to work his magic on average once every 95 minutes he played." That is just flat wrong. He worked his magic dang near every time he was on the ball. It's just like Darod was saying, soccer is not merely about scoring- it's about fantastic plays. Those plays come in other forms beside scoring. 95% of the game is played off the ball. Reading the play and recognizing where the play will be next is a bigger part of soccer than scoring.
Now I'm not bashing other sports. Soccer was my first love, and I just can't stand by and see her bashed for no reason. If you don't like the game for what it is, that's fine. But you can't be seriously sitting there and saying that soccer would be better if it were changed entirely to fit your own western myopic paradigm of what makes a "good" sport. It's like saying you think Apples should be more like Oranges because you like oranges better. If you don't like apples, fine- stick your oranges. But stop trying to fit this square peg into your round hole.
|
|
James
Social climber
My Subconcious
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2005 - 10:03pm PT
|
"I find that rock climbing is the finest, most healthiest sport in the whole world. It is much healthier than most; look at baseball, where 10,000 sit on their ass to watch a handful of players" — John Salathé, 1974.
|
|
Landgolier
climber
the flatness
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2005 - 02:04am PT
|
OK, finally we're getting somewhere.
"soccer players have a term for what you are suggesting: Kickball. It goes nowhere."
I'm talking about running a sophisticated offense, not boot-n-chase. I played when I was 8, I know what punting it downfield and trying to catch up to it looks like. Not every attack has to go like that, and most actual goals don't.
"If the game is going to be played by the same rules, including that of "offside", then the first problem with your concept is that the offense cannot have players cherry picking behind the defense."
Again, not necessary. Most goals get scored without anybody really risking offsides. I'm not necessarily talking about "post up low but stay onsides and we'll try to get you a long pass to head in," though I do think playing the way I'm talking about would get you a few more offsides calls. But remember, there's no penalty for being offsides, your opponent just gets the ball in his own backfield, and that's how most attacks end anyway.
"If the attack were to be as agressive as you suggest, National play would resemble the park district coach's vision of "kick and run". Since there are no time-outs and the number of subs is limited (most the players on the field MUST play the whole game), a game full of offensive sprints is just impractical"
You don't have to sprint forever to attack; again, 20 seconds. If you need to go play monkey in the middle at midfield once in a while to catch your wind, fine, we all know how to do that, but do it with a damn purpose and when you're finished doing that go score a goal.
""Pele managed to work his magic on average once every 95 minutes he played." That is just flat wrong. He worked his magic dang near every time he was on the ball."
Having fundamentals never hurt anybody (watch jordan shoot free throws with his eyes closed), but last time I checked, nobody ever won the world cup on style points. This ain't figure skating. You win by putting the ball in the goal more times than your opponent does.
"It's just like Darod was saying, soccer is not merely about scoring- it's about fantastic plays. Those plays come in other forms beside scoring. 95% of the game is played off the ball. Reading the play and recognizing where the play will be next is a bigger part of soccer than scoring."
That's kind of true, and kind of a canard. Of course you have to be able to read the play, that happens in any sport. But again, you win by putting the ball in the goal more times than your opponent does. All I'm saying is figure out what causes that to happen, and then go do it. I defy you to watch pro soccer for 10 minutes and tell me with a straight face that that's how the game is played now. Don't "read the play and recognize where it will be next," make the damn play be where and what you want it to be. You have the ball, and in 20 seconds you can have any field formation you can dream up. If you can't execute based on that, you need to spend less time juggling and working on the bend in your corner kick and more time rehearsing as a team what you need to do to put the ball in the net. You can't control the opponent, but if a flawless defense is impenetrable no matter what the offense does (this is the basis of current pro soccer), why isn't an equally flawless offense a valid aspiration? Develop a game they can't do anything about, and run it till the tires fall off.
"Now I'm not bashing other sports. Soccer was my first love, and I just can't stand by and see her bashed for no reason."
I'm not bashing the sport, just asking questions of it. I started soccer at the same time I started baseball, and I was better at soccer. I played defense, and wasn't the best athlete, but as big as I was they tended to send the attack down the other side. A lot of what I'm saying comes out of the games my U-14 team played against a team that was put together by an after-school program in a black neighborhood. By U-14 we knew what we were doing, maybe didn't always keep the coolest heads on the field but we knew "How the game is played" and played the classic European "infinite defense" game. Play a tight midfield so that any attack tends to be anemic and the ball is easily cleared, avoid giving the opposing side throwins in your own territory, and never really run more than a 3 man attack, instead push a thin incursion and bump your midfield up so that maybe you get to try again if it gets cleared. Strong emphasis on ball control and patience in drills. Not as vertical or precise a game as pro soccer obviously, but a good approximation of it.
Anyway, about twice that season we came up against 15 kids from the hood who had basically had the rules explained to them a couple months ago and told to go at it. Simply put, we got our asses handed to us. These guys had no interest in midfield play. When they got the ball, they headed for the goal, and if you tried to take it from them, they either passed it off and kept running, or simply laid you the f--k out and kept running. It was of course a basketball approach to the game, but in execution it really looked more like lacrosse. The keeper got a lot of their shots, but they were making him work 4 times as hard as he was used to. They also weren't intersted in artful defense. If a guy showed up on their end of the field with the ball, they sent 3 people to go take it from him and left a couple back to watch his buddies. Doesn't 3 on 1 open up other men? Not when you don't have the ball any more. Of course a lot of this was pure athleticism, but still, it was incredibly eye opening to play against guys who only had 2 items on their agenda: scoring, and taking the ball away from us and then heading down field to score. To use footbal terms, they got in the red zone and then they executed.
"If you don't like the game for what it is, that's fine. But you can't be seriously sitting there and saying that soccer would be better if it were changed entirely to fit your own western myopic paradigm of what makes a "good" sport."
I think the game is getting crushed under tradition and conventional wisdom. I don't have any ideas about what a "good" sport is; I like all sports for what they are, and I've played a lot of them. I don't think trying to come up with new strategies or problematizing received ideas is at all myopic, and if Western is a code word for Macho, I ain't biting.
"It's like saying you think Apples should be more like Oranges because you like oranges better. If you don't like apples, fine- stick your oranges. But stop trying to fit this square peg into your round hole."
No, it's like saying maybe a guy with an apple orchard who is getting quality fruit but inconsistent yields could learn something from a guy with an orange grove that produces consistently year after year. Of course this is all hypothetical, but what if somebody did take a whole new approach to the game, and proceed to beat the tar out of the traditionalists with it? People come along in every sport who change the face of how the game is played through a combination of solid mechanics and new strategic thinking. Tiger Woods did it, Chamberlain and Jordan did it, Billy Beane did it, and the list goes on. Why can't it happen in soccer?
|
|
Patrick Sawyer
climber
Originally California now Ireland
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2005 - 08:48am PT
|
Speaking of Tiger Woods, what a shot he made back in April (was it April?). I keep a video of it on my computer's desktop just for inspiration. It may have been a bit lucky, but jaysus, what luck. And I don't play golf, but I can appreciate class. I despise boxing, more or less, but always enjoyed watching Teofilio Stephenson (sp?) in the Olympics. If he had turned pro, what could he haved achieved? Don't know why he wanted to stay in Cuba, except perhaps he loved his homeland (but Castro, yuck).
|
|
426
Sport climber
Nada (yeah. it is), KY
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2005 - 10:37am PT
|
H'Villian: "the NASL rolled out the professional indoor venue, the MISL had a brief flash. Who could forget the San Diego Sockers, and Julie Veee. Flashy, high scoring, little real D"
Chit, I've been a "Quakes" fan forever.
Interesting obz re: 'confrontation'. Last time the Vols and the Tide played to a 6-6 tie, a fight broke out involving 2,000 fans.
Last week, 'Bama-6, T-3.
Roll 'Tide!
|
|
mingleefu
climber
Champaign, IL --> Denver, CO
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2005 - 11:46am PT
|
"But remember, there's no penalty for being offsides"
First, it's "offside" not "offsideS". but it's a common mistake, and that's all you'll hear from me about that.
Under Law 12 of the official FIFA "Laws of the game": A player is cautioned and shown the yellow card if he commits any of the following seven offences...
3. Persistently infringes on the Laws of the Game.
Since Law 11 concerns being in an "offside position", it then stands to reason that persistently being offside will result in a yellow card. Doing it persistently still results in another Yellow and consequent Red card. You cannot continuously break the rules because it disrupts the flow of play. This isn't American football (with 20 second plays). The sport is intended to be played with a certain level of continuity. Disrupting that too often gets you sent to the bench and puts your team one player down.
"Anyway, about twice that season we came up against 15 kids from the hood who had basically had the rules explained to them a couple months ago and told to go at it. Simply put, we got our asses handed to us. These guys had no interest in midfield play. When they got the ball, they headed for the goal, and if you tried to take it from them, they either passed it off and kept running, or simply laid you the f--k out and kept running."
Laying someone out works in street basketball, but in soccer it'll put you on the pine.
I understand that you're talking in U-14 terms here, so there is little room to criticize how your particular team played. But If I know anything about how 13 years olds play, it's that they lack composure. If one person has 3 crashing down on him, that's the time to find one of the two open guys, get that person the ball, and keep cool. If the field is spread, then there must be a time between being matched man to man being covered 3-on-1. Let the fools run themselves ragged. It's possible the hood kids had some massive speed, but it's doubtful they could keep it up for 45 minutes straight.
The other thing that 13 year olds do is mimic their play to the opposition. It is a very rare team of 13 year olds who can stick to their game plan. If you take a group of kids who are used to playing one way, infuse that with a more aggressive style that they haven't seen before, and they'll forget everything they've learned. I might suggest that your team got spanked because you got intimidated, and lost composure.
I suppose I might best try to parrallel what I'm saying by appealing to the climber's sense of ethic. If we merely wanted to get to the top, would could walk around or find a different route or pull on gear or or or... But it isn't simply about the result. There is a certain flare to the means by which it is accomplished. Soccer games are won by the score at the end of 90 minutes. Soccer games are played by tacticly moving the ball around the field.
I can easily concede that teams who are winning the biggest games are the ones who are able to execute offensive plays by competing with a certain sense of urgency. But the game is not won by merely putting the ball many times in your opponents net, it is equally won by not letting them put it in yours.
You can know that soccer isn't only about winning by the fact that it is one of the very few sports that allows a tie-score at the end of regulation play, without going into overtime. (I don't think I need to remind you that four years of play goes by between World Cup tournaments.)
|
|
lagr01
Sport climber
Venezuela
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2005 - 01:10pm PT
|
"And a suggestion to your hipothesis...what about soccer without a goalie?
LIVERPOOL 105-REAL MADRID 98"
darod, you got it wrong, it would be:
REAL MADRID 350-LIVERPOOL 26
|
|
Landgolier
climber
the flatness
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2005 - 02:18pm PT
|
" "But remember, there's no penalty for being offsides"
First, it's "offside" not "offsideS". but it's a common mistake, and that's all you'll hear from me about that.
Under Law 12 of the official FIFA "Laws of the game": A player is cautioned and shown the yellow card if he commits any of the following seven offences...
3. Persistently infringes on the Laws of the Game.
Since Law 11 concerns being in an "offside position", it then stands to reason that persistently being offside will result in a yellow card. Doing it persistently still results in another Yellow and consequent Red card. You cannot continuously break the rules because it disrupts the flow of play. This isn't American football (with 20 second plays). The sport is intended to be played with a certain level of continuity. Disrupting that too often gets you sent to the bench and puts your team one player down."
My bad on the plural/singular, we say offsides in most other sports so I'm in that habit. As for getting carded for getting called offside repeatedly, I'm not talking about being persistently offside, just that if you play more of the game downfield it's going to happen maybe 50% more. I don't think I've ever seen anybody actually get carded for it. What would it take, 3-4 times per player, and then twice more to draw a second yellow? Might happen once a season if you played really aggressively. My point is that there would be no penalty for getting called offsides 2 or 3 times as often as most teams do.
"Laying someone out works in street basketball, but in soccer it'll put you on the pine."
False. There are plenty of ways to legally cream somebody in soccer. If the refs don't like it, tell 'em to show you what rule you broke. Besides, learn to play a physical game and most teams will just retaliate unproductively, which will get them carded, bruised, and frustrated.
"I understand that you're talking in U-14 terms here, so there is little room to criticize how your particular team played. But If I know anything about how 13 years olds play, it's that they lack composure. If one person has 3 crashing down on him, that's the time to find one of the two open guys, get that person the ball, and keep cool. If the field is spread, then there must be a time between being matched man to man being covered 3-on-1. Let the fools run themselves ragged. It's possible the hood kids had some massive speed, but it's doubtful they could keep it up for 45 minutes straight."
Let me go into this a little bit more. The standard play here was to pen somebody in with 2 men 5-10 yards out and good coverage of any available pass out of there/over their heads, and then send in 1 or even 2 guys to mug him, usually from behind. Granted this works better on the sidelines than up the middle where you can really pen a guy in with 2 people, but even driving on 2 guys isn't going to work, and these guys knew how to set picks too so that could also get painful in a hurry. You're not keeping a ball away from 3 guys, and if you can pass it out it's probably going to be either a lucky angle, a back pass (repeat process), or a high looper that everybody has time to get to. I've used this strategy some in college rec games, and it works there too. You get run pretty hard for short periods, but you also play less defense, and if you can outrun the other team it doesn't matter. My bigger point doesn't really have to do with defense, though, so let's drop this.
"The other thing that 13 year olds do is mimic their play to the opposition. It is a very rare team of 13 year olds who can stick to their game plan. If you take a group of kids who are used to playing one way, infuse that with a more aggressive style that they haven't seen before, and they'll forget everything they've learned. I might suggest that your team got spanked because you got intimidated, and lost composure."
Maybe the first time. The second time we were ready for it and still got rolled, and that pretty much happened to every other team in the league. I'm not trying to use this to prove my point, just illustrate the roots of my beliefs.
"I suppose I might best try to parrallel what I'm saying by appealing to the climber's sense of ethic. If we merely wanted to get to the top, would could walk around or find a different route or pull on gear or or or... But it isn't simply about the result."
Again, I was in France in 98 after they won, it sure as hell was about the result then. Besides, I'm not talking about breaking the rules, I'm talking about playing with a different strategy. From a climbing perspective, this is maybe like the evolution toward incredibly athletic sport climbing.
"There is a certain flare to the means by which it is accomplished. Soccer games are won by the score at the end of 90 minutes. Soccer games are played by tacticly moving the ball around the field."
Precisely my point. Say to yourself, "in the next 20 seconds, we are going to put the players and the ball where they need to be to score, and then we're going to execute." This isn't hard. What's hard is getting people to abandon the idea that it takes 5 minutes of midfield wrangling to create a given situation. It takes 20 seconds. If the opponents aren't exactly where you want them, screw it, run the play anyway. What's going to happen if you fail, back to midfield to play pawns and rooks again? So what?
"I can easily concede that teams who are winning the biggest games are the ones who are able to execute offensive plays by competing with a certain sense of urgency. But the game is not won by merely putting the ball many times in your opponents net, it is equally won by not letting them put it in yours."
Again, my argument is based on the idea that pro-level soccer defense is so incredibly refined that the gains to be made in strategy aren't going to come from that element of the game. Scoring only even happens now because of breakdowns in defense. I know this makes what I'm talking about difficult, but I really believe that if teams executed offensively with the precision you see in defense, you would see a revolution in the sport.
"You can know that soccer isn't only about winning by the fact that it is one of the very few sports that allows a tie-score at the end of regulation play, without going into overtime. (I don't think I need to remind you that four years of play goes by between World Cup tournaments.)"
I could give you the American party line on that, which involves a lot of chestnuts about kissing your sister, and where guys who "do their best" end up w/r/t the prom queen. College football is the closest thing we have to soccer here in terms of culture, and it allowed ties until a couple of years ago. It's hard to say how that affected things because long about that time the NCAA taught a chimp sign language, fed him 3 hits of acid, whacked him over the head with a shovel, and had him "make some changes to the structure of the season and the league."
But let's get real. Teams enter the field wanting to win, and win honorably with good play. If a team looks like ass and wins a couple games on flukes, yeah, people will say they have bad style, just like you can have crap technique and still grunt your way up a 10b every once in a while. And of course people will always respect teams who lose gracefully over people that just suck. But show me a team in any sport that has gone on a good solid streak who anyone justly accused of having bad style. People may accuse them of not playing a classical game, but again, if all you care about is style points then take up figure skating.
There will always be some sour grapes people out there, like the ones who accused Tiger woods of bad style for basically not being a white guy with a beer gut and training like Michael Jordan rather than like Babe Ruth. You will always get some people who can't tell the difference between "new" and "bad." But in the end, the people who change the game never get looked down on by history. Again, I'm talking about a Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, or Wilt Chamberlain figure, not a Dennis Rodman (though in a just universe David Beckham would owe Dennis Rodman royalties).
|
|
mingleefu
climber
Champaign, IL --> Denver, CO
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2005 - 09:17pm PT
|
First, I keep thinking Big lebowsky quotes here, so for my own entertainment, I will interject them at the appropriate times with (...).
"let's get real. Teams enter the field wanting to win, and win honorably with good play"
Okay. Let's toss purposeless 'style points' out the window. we're talking strictly winning tactic. I'll buy into that.
As I understand what you're saying, it's simply a more aggressive offense. Basically amp up the attack. Play with a sense of urgency and perpetually look for that opening. Take more risks, Deliver more hits.
(That's a great plan, Walter. That's f-ckin' ingenious, if I understand it correctly. It's a Swiss f-ckin' watch)
If I understand it correctly, it makes great sense on paper. But the problem in practice is that both teams are trying to accomplish the same thing. If you have everybody attacking hard to get the ball from the other team, you're describing a more aggressive Defense.
" "Laying someone out works in street basketball, but in soccer it'll put you on the pine."
False. There are plenty of ways to legally cream somebody in soccer..."
#1 "The standard play here was to pen somebody in ... and then send in 1 or even 2 guys to mug him, usually from behind"
(I f-cks you in the ass, I f-cks you, I f-cks you..)
"tackling an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball" is an infringement penalized by a direct kick. If we minimally consider it being "guilty of unsporting behaviour," it'll get you a yellow.
if we don't like that rule, then Decision 4 of the International FA (Futbol association) Board states "A tackle, which endangers the safety of an opponent [ie. mugging him], must be sanctioned as serious foul play" and according to Law 12's clause on the 'Sending-Off Offences', "A player is sent off and shown the red card if he commits any of the following seven offences: 1. is guilty of serious foul play."
"these guys knew how to set picks too"
Not legal either. "An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player, in the opinion of the referee: impedes the progress of an opponent" This is known as 'obstruction' in laymen's terms. Same thing as a pick.
"If the refs don't like it, tell 'em to show you what rule you broke..."
(Has the whole world gone crazy? Am I the only one around here who gives a sh#t about the rules? Mark it zero!)
See the above.
"My bigger point doesn't really have to do with defense, though, so let's drop this"
Oh, okay.
You've also suggested pushing the boundaries of the offense (into the attacking 3rd instead of lingering in the midfield 3rd). The only problem is that this puts you further in the other team's Defensive 3rd, which only encourages them to work harder to get the ball back. I'm not sure what exactly you're hoping the offense actually does once there, specifically what would offense do beside try harder for a shot on net? No matter how hard you kick the ball, you won't put it through a defender's body. You can't just knock them out of the way (I could list more rules, but they're pretty much the same as on offense as on defense). So you have to wait for openings- which is exactly what you apparently don't want. Okay, so then the strikers have to create openings- but that is all part of how the game is played already. It's the same patience aspect that you don't seem to support.
"I really believe that if teams executed offensively with the precision you see in defense, you would see a revolution in the sport"
Sure, if that were possible. But it's easier to keep the ball out of the net than it is to put it in. Defense requires precise coordination of people, Offense requires the same, with the addition of precise ball control. Again, it's easier to make someone else screw up than to do things right yourself.
It's a good theory, but if we're allowing both teams the same amount of saturation of this strategy, you're pretty much back to square one, yes?
I'm not saying the offense can't be improved. But I am saying that it isn't as simple as you're saying. If world cup teams could say, "Hey- in these 20 seconds, we're going to rally," they probably would. Sometimes they do. But what would they do for the other 89:40? They'd probably knock the rock around the midfield, waiting for that chance to rally, yes?
"Besides, learn to play a physical game and most teams will just retaliate unproductively, which will get them carded, bruised, and frustrated."
Granted, but this already happens. This isn't a new concept, it's just good soccer. If you're provoking the other team though, it can quickly turn to a hack-fest, which is just bad soccer. Although, I agreed not to talk about style... my bad.
|
|
426
Sport climber
Hanging Limb(yeah. it is), TN
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2005 - 11:30pm PT
|
"Obviously you're not a golfer."
|
|
Landgolier
climber
the flatness
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2005 - 03:11am PT
|
Wow, way to cherry-pick what I said. Let me sum it up and then I'm done beating my head against this wall.
1. You can play the game a lot differently from how it's played and still be within the rules. Tackling and picks fall under this (both are legal, you just can't run an on-body pick like basketball and a tackle doesn't have to be dangerous or illegal to be effective), as does remembering that offside isn't the end of the world. I'm not saying you need a more physical game to win, just that there are no rules prohibiting a very different style of play.
2. I'm not calling for a 7 man bum rush offense (but try it some time, you'll be surprised at how breaking it out once or twice a game confuses the sh#t out of your opponent). Most goals have about 3 players involved, plenty have only two. Add a 4th guy to create some confusion and you're running a 4 man offense.
3. THE WHOLE POINT HERE is that maybe there's a better way to run an offense than the conventional wisdom of "rattle around at midfield until you see some mystical alignment of the stars you define as an opening." I'll codify it in one sentence: F#*k waiting for openings, just go score. What else are you going to do with the game time? If your goal is to look pretty sitting around team juggling in the center of a stadium, go join a damn circus. Is this influenced by "American" sports? Of course it is. Is it pure theory? Of course. But "Homers are overvalued, walks are undervalued, and OBP is a better measure than batting average" was pure theory until Billy Beane started winning games with the league's second lowest payroll. I'm not saying this idea is anywhere near this big, just that I'm looking for better counterarguments than just conventional wisdom.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!