Now that the World Cup has rolled around once again we'll be sure to be inundated with the usual hand wringing queries concerning the fact that while soccer is widely popular the world over most Americans could care less about the upcoming World Cup. On NPR yesterday I caught a few moments of a show devoted to answering the question, "Soccer. Why don't Americans get it?"
Of course in the NPR world, the fact that Americans find watching soccer about as scintillating as a Tom Daischle/Al Gore debate is a sign of our cultural ignorance and inferiority. If the world approves then we must be the heathens who can't appreciate the true beauty of the sport. Leaving aside whether or not the rest of the world liking something necessarily makes it worthy of our attention( the UN and World Court immediately come to mind as examples) let us consider why soccer might not be all that appealing for Americans. Keep in mind that I played soccer as a youth and find the sport to be a great way to keep in shape and learn teamwork. Just don't make me watch it.
Lack of scoring is often cited as a reason for the lack of interest Americans show in the sport. I tend to disagree as abundant scoring in and of itself is not required for an exciting game. I can name a number of 1-0 Stanley Cup playoff or World Series games that kept their audience in rapt attention throughout.
What differentiates them from your typical one nil soccer match is the number of scoring opportunities. In hockey each team usually is able to muster at least somewhere around twenty shots a game. In baseball every at bat is a potential scoring opportunity. But in soccer a good eighty percent of the game is played in areas well beyond reach of the goal for a real shot at scoring. I understand that this is the tactical part of the game that sets up the eventual scoring opportunities but I just don't accept that it is watchable action. Goalies in soccer can often claim a shutout by making as few as three or four saves a game. Wow that's exciting.
Another problem is that even if there is a vast disparity in the talent levels of the two teams the score still will be close. When the US played Brazil in the 94' World Cup the Brazilians completely dominated the match and not for a moment was the result in doubt. The final score? 1-0. This would be like Nebraska beating Florida A&M 7-0 in college football. Americans want the best team to win and if one team is a lot better they want the score to reflect the difference.
Soccer players in the World Cup tend to be prima donnas who capacity to feign injury is only matched by their whining. None of these guys could last two minutes in a Stanley Cup playoff game. We like to see our players get nailed hard and get back up and give some back. How can you respect a guy who lays on the field after a "leg tackle" writhing in pain for ten minutes and when they finally wheel the stretcher out for him he miraculously gets up and starts jumping around?
Finally there is the whole time thing. Yes, part of the beauty of baseball is that there is no clock. But if there are two outs in the bottom of the ninth and the home team is down you know that the next out will end the game. With the added time component in soccer the games last beyond the allotted time for a period known only to the referee. There is no countdown to victory, no last second shot, no Hail Mary desperation pass. One of the great things about watching sports on TV is turning a game on late and catching the last few exciting moments. In soccer you have no clue when the damn thing is going to end. You might flip to another channel, come back, and it's over. Talk about anticlimactic.
Why don't we "get" soccer? I say there ain't nothing there to get to start with.
No comments:
Post a Comment