One of the most irritating football related articles i've read...

...****ing Americans


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...y-soccer-will-never-matter-in-the-us#comments

 

Agree with point 7

 

I like point 4.

The ladies anyway...

 

Probably the worst sports article I have ever read.

 

Guys like that twerp think it's "cool" to rip on football, but they're never funny, always sound ignorant, and to anyone who knows anything about sports they come off as immature and bitter. How a guy gets off saying there're few highlight moments in a 90 minute match when in 3+ hrs of american football being televised they actually PLAY less than 12 minutes, I don't know?

 

Although I did find the linked article ranking Cattermole as the #1 dirtiest player to look for in the upcoming season pretty funny

 

I agree with points 5 and 7. I hate all the diving about (bar S Taylors comedy efforts), and Americans are turd at football. The rest of it is just guff. My mate had his american cousin over a few years back. He admitted he knew little about the game. He did not understand at all why draws were allowed. He just kept saying "but in the end someone wins right?" He also kept talking about the various "zones" on the football field. Hard work.

 

Honestly think that if this guy had watched the 4-4 Arsenal game he'd have never written that article. For an objective viewer it has evertyhing from excitement in waiting to see if Arsenal get to double figures by half time to cheering on the underdog and amazed laughter when Tiote's equalising screamer goes in. He just hasn't watched it enough and is basing his opinion on the womens world cup, which is sad.

Edit- hell the 4-4 even has a fight on the pitch. What more would he ask for?

 

Funnily enough, Americans tend to forget NFL games can (and do) end in draws too

 

He makes valid points about the diving, refs and added time. We have to be fair we all complain about those too.

But he fails to take into account that all sports have faults so to elevate even the valid faults of football to that extreme is extremely biased. But then the entire article is biased and written by somebody with next to no knowledge or appreciation of the sport.

I won't go into refuting individual complaints of his. What is the point I'd be preaching to the converted! The guy is obviously a twat though and the fact he took the trouble to write the article means he must fear that the sport is taking a hold in the USA and he doesn't like it.

 

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Donkey Toon again.

 

American "journalists" and tv personalities have been making similar jokes and points as these for years now; they don't understand the appeal, and prefer the sports and leagues in which every fan and athlete in the world look to the US as the benchmark -- hockey is treated similarly because they know it'll always be bigger in Canada than there

 

7 reasons why that twat's bitter that Japan beat them in the final (props to the Japanese keeper for stopping two pens even though sh was about 5ft tall)

(p.s. Hope Solo is outrageously hot)

 

What you are saying makes total sense. I think they are defensive about their three main sports (american football, basketball and baseball) and see soccer as a foreign interloper which threatens the harmony of the nation. When I was a kid I thought it strange that it didn't bother them that the rest of the world didn't seem to care about baseball and american football but having been there it is easy to see why. The people of the USA are so incredibly insular many of them probably don't even know that the rest of the world doesn't play those sports and the rest wouldn't care because they think nothing of importance happens outside their borders.

I think they would hate it though if soccer became the nations favourite sport but they weren't very good at it.

 

The field is too big

 

Point 5 is right, but currently that's pretty much the only reason it's not popular. I'm not sure if it was said on here or somewhere else, but the only reason why ESPN don't really show football is 'cos you only get on add break once it begins. In the NFL, you can get a minimum of 3 and often there's one when possession switches.

Point 7 is also true, but if it did come big in America and they got a few good coaches, they'd probably be one of the best in the world

 

Furthermore, commercially it doesn't fit the business model that north american sports broadcasting relies on. American sports broadcasters make their money on advertisements, and during basketball, american football, baseball, hockey, golf, tennis, etc. there are regular commercial breaks, and the games last for at least 2.5-4 hours. Football doesn't offer the same profit margin for ad space, and the consumer demand for football will never grow great enough there that a network like Sky could step in and reap profits from expensive fees

 

That whole article proved 2 things:
1. Never write an article about something you know NOTHING about (I point to the "shrink the field because red cards mean that you still have a chance of winning", which is a stupid point as a large field means 1 player down means more space for remaining players).
2. Football = our sport, Soccer is an American name for something which they have no concept of.

 

We actually invented the word soccer

 

But isn't it ironic that the fact that the sport doesn't fit itself to a format which pleases advertisers and tv networks is condsidered as a negative against the sport. This would only happen in the USA. The rest of the world judges the sport on its merits and considers the advertising to be a pain in the arse which should be avoided at all cost. Personally I hate having to be subjected to the blatant advertising you get at US sporting events and see it as a plus that soccer makes this difficult.

Americans are obviously used to it though. All shows on US tv are the same. It takes about three hours to watch a 90 minute film because there is a five minute ad break after every 10 minutes of the film.