OFF TOPIC: Absolutely hilarious article on Soccer

darkstar81 · Post by **darkstar81** » 01 Aug 2006, 16:47

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/ ... 6998.shtml

(Weekly Standard) This column was written by Frank Cannon and Richard Lessner.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its recent World Cup contest with Italy, the U.S. team played what was widely regarded by the sport's connoisseurs as one of the best games ever played by an American soccer squad on foreign soil.

The historic game with Italy ended in an epic 1-1 tie. But in what was ballyhooed as one of the greatest games ever played by an American team, the United States failed to score. The goal credited to the Americans was scored by an opposing player who — oops! — accidentally kicked the ball into his own goal.

Think about this about this for a moment. It just about sums up everything you need to know about soccer, or football, as it is known elsewhere.

Soccer is the perfect game for the post-modern world. It's the quintessential expression of the nihilism that prevails in many cultures, which doubtlessly accounts for its wild popularity in Europe. Soccer is truly Seinfeldesque, a game about nothing, sport as sensation.

Most soccer matches end in scoreless ties (or nil, nil in soccer parlance), 1-1 deadlocks or 1-0 victories. A final score of 2-1 is regarded as a veritable outburst of offense, an avalanche of goal scoring that leaves exhausted fans shaking their heads and pining for the old days when teams knew how to play strong defense. A score of 2-0 is said to be a crushing victory (or defeat) of Carthaginian proportions rendering national shame and humiliation and potentially resulting in coup d'etat, or even war.

In truth, soccer could be played without using a ball at all, and few would notice the difference. The game consists of 22 men running up and down a grassy field for 90 minutes with little happening as fans scream wildly. When the ball actually approaches one of the goals, the fans reach fever pitch and the cheering becomes a deafening roar.

Of course, these infrequent occurrences in which the soccer ball approaches the end zone — where goaltenders wile away their time perusing magazines, trimming their fingernails or inspecting blades of grass — rarely result in a shot on goal. Most often the ball ends up high over the goal, missing everything by 20 or 30 feet. These "near misses" typically send the fans into paroxysms; TV announcers scream themselves hoarse. Then the players mill about the field for another 20 or 30 minutes or so and the goaltenders return to their musings before the ball returns, like Halley's comet in its far-flung orbit, for another pass in the general vicinity of the goal.

Mostly soccer is just guys in shorts running around aimlessly, a metaphor for the meaninglessness of life. Whole blocks of game time transpire during which absolutely nothing happens. Fortunately, this permits fans to slip out for a bratwurst and a beer without missing anything important. It's little wonder fans at times resort to brawling amongst themselves in the grandstands, as there is so little transpiring on the field of play to occupy their wandering attention. Watching men in shorts scampering around has its limitations. It's like gazing too long at a painting by de Kooning or Jackson Pollock. The more you look, the less there is to see.

Despite heroic efforts of soccer moms, suburban liberals, and World Cup hype, soccer will never catch on as a big time sport in America. No game in which actually scoring goals is of such little importance could possibly occupy the attention of average Americans. Our country has yet to succumb to the nihilism, existentialism, and anomie that have overtaken Europe. A game about nothing, in which scoring is purely incidental, holds scant interest for Americans who still believe the world makes sense, that life has a larger meaning and structure, that being is not an end in itself, being qua being.

Another reason why soccer will never enthrall Americans is that the game is contrary to nature. What is it that is unique to the physical makeup of human beings that sets us apart from the animal world? Two things: Our large brains and our grasping hands with opposable thumbs. Our big brain is why we're called homo sapiens, thinking man. And our ability to use our hands to grasp and manipulate objects is why one of our early ancestors was designated homo habilis, handy man. Human beings are thinking toolmakers. We're able to imagine the arrowhead in the stone and use our hands to carve it out of the rock. These two uniquely human traits have allowed us to become the dominant species on the planet.

Yet soccer flies in the face of nature. In almost all other sports, the head is protected against injury. Players wear helmets and try to avoid contact with sticks, bats, balls, elbows, fists, roadways, goalposts and other things that might inflict injury on that big brain that gives humans the ability to plan ahead, calculate, strategize, coordinate eye and hand movements, anticipate the consequence of actions — in other words, to play the game.

But soccer players use their heads, deliberately, to contact the ball. This is contrary to all human instinct, which is to keep the head out of the way of danger. Duck, you idiot! Protecting the head against injury is deeply rooted in our nature. It's an evolutionary survival response. Sacrifice a limb if you must, give up an arm or leg, but protect your head at all costs. Yet in soccer the player is encouraged, no, expected to hit the ball with his head. This is as stupid an action as a human being can undertake.

Secondly, any game which prohibits the use of the hands is contrary to nature. Opposable thumbs allow humans to grasp things (thumbs on other primate hands such as chimps and orangutans are splayed out the side and are not truly opposable.) This is why the games human beings play involve holding things such as baseball bats, golf clubs and hockey sticks, or to grip and throw objects like a ball or a Frisbee.

Soccer denies its players this most basic human ability. Players cannot catch or throw the ball. But they can hit it with their heads. If one were to set out to invent a game fundamentally at odds with human nature, soccer would be it. Place the head with its big brain in constant danger, and prohibit the use of the hands. Soccer denies to its players the very attributes that make human beings, the thinking toolmaker, human.

Actually, the donkey would have a significant advantage over humans in soccer. It has four legs rather than two. The donkey has no hands or opposable thumbs, nor any need of them in order to play soccer. And smashing its head into a soccer ball probably would not cause any diminution of equine IQ. Soccer, then, would appear to be a game better suited to dim-witted quadrupeds than to human beings.

darkstar81 · Post by **darkstar81** » 01 Aug 2006, 16:49

ok i wrote soccer in the subject but it automatically converted to football!

darkstar81 · Post by **darkstar81** » 01 Aug 2006, 16:50

and again lol

bigynzing · Post by **bigynzing** » 01 Aug 2006, 21:48

I hate to stereotype, but the guys who wrote that turd must be Gaylords....It fu*king sickens me.....America must be destroyed.

Bard of Boxrec · Post by **Bard of Boxrec** » 02 Aug 2006, 07:29

'Goaltenders' 'Endzone'

punchers chance · Post by **punchers chance** » 02 Aug 2006, 10:38

The author is in danger of disappearing up his own arse but I do agree with a lot of what he says regarding the entertainment value of the average football match.

Give me a good fight anyday.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 02 Aug 2006, 11:06

This article is absolute tripe. American football has exactly the same conditions. Most of the time a play doesn't result in a touchdown, and they spend as much time inbetween plays with nothing happening as they do playing the bloody game.

Just another Yank prick who doesn't understand the game or the nuances, and has probably hardly watched any outside of the shite teams in the US, yet feels he has the right to write an article on it, who is this dickwad anyway?

RobD · Post by **RobD** » 02 Aug 2006, 11:56

This same guy must think our so called National pastime of baseball is a thrill a minute game. He obviously doesn't understand either that it is much more challenging to just use your feet to pass a ball 30 yards down field to a teammate then throwing it to him to catch in his hands.

yiddo14 · Post by **yiddo14** » 02 Aug 2006, 12:59

He seems to beleive that only Europeans play it also....maybe someone should mention to this twat it's the most popular sport WORLDwide(by far)

Maybe his grieveances lay with the fact that his 'great' nation did'nt invent the most popular sport in the world?

Taki... · Post by **Taki...** » 02 Aug 2006, 14:26

I have suggested in the past that, for the American market, 13 points should be awarded for a goal. This simple change would fulfill the (rather shallow) need for 'big scores'.
I've watched baseball: Shockingly boring and less entertaining than Test Cricket.
Football: Rubgy for jessies, and more stop/start than a bus.
Hockey: Could be played without a puck, mainly because you can't actually see it until the slow motion replay anyway.
Basketball: A sport the everyday man can really aspire to... if he's 7 feet tall.

WayoftheCass · Post by **WayoftheCass** » 02 Aug 2006, 23:10

Hey guys calm down. These guys are grasping at straws. Equating the game to the crushing of the human spirit and it being contradictory to human nature is both unfounded and is a sad attempt to use rather pedantic semantics in order to convince THEMSELVES that the rest of the world is wrong and that American sports will triumph.
As we all know most American sports are both ridiculously boring and at the same time are steeped in a rather mind boggling amount of rules in order to draw one's attention away from the fact that the implementation of such codes are for no other reason than to have another commercial break.
America is the archetypal MTV nation with a 3 second attention span that can not comprehend a 45 minute passage of play unbroken by any intentional excuse to 'go buy some hot dogs and beer'.
Another thing which makes their spines quiver about SOCCER is the whole idea of a season which doesn't last only 3 months. In America the 4 major sports generally climax at different times. This means that there are FOUR and not one sports to market, sell tickets and TV coverage for as well as merchandise. Basically the American sporting year is structured around marketing. Loyalty is another issue. These clubs or 'franchises' have mainly casual 'fans' and not year round, life long supporters. Hence why the LA Raiders now play in Oakland and the Brooklyn Dodgers now play in California. Yeah people were devastated. Some even protested. But was there every actually any real resistance to it.....nah. After all its only a game. And there in lies why football will inevitably (especially with the Hispanic population set to become the dominant one over the next 50 years) become the leading sport in the States as it is already round the world.
As for American sports penetarting the rest of the world. Well why would people in the UK, for example, play Rugby with helmits when they have REAL Rugby? Why rounders (baseball) when they have Cricket? Why would they suddenly take up basketball when netball has been readily available for years? As for Ice Hockey........"Okay son lets go out and buy skates, a stick, shoulder pads and a helmet and teach you how to skate. You know what. F*ck that. Lets grab the ball and go and kick it around down the park. It costs less and its more....fun."
For the gentlemen who wrote the above article I guess change is inevitiable, in this case. They will fight it. But in the end it will succeeds. Why? Because its progress. The rest of the world have been enjoying football for years. America has taken its time but its catching up.

RobD · Post by **RobD** » 03 Aug 2006, 11:06

Taki... wrote:I have suggested in the past that, for the American market, 13 points should be awarded for a goal. This simple change would fulfill the (rather shallow) need for 'big scores'.
I've watched baseball: Shockingly boring and less entertaining than Test Cricket.
Football: Rubgy for jessies, and more stop/start than a bus.
Hockey: Could be played without a puck, mainly because you can't actually see it until the slow motion replay anyway.
Basketball: A sport the everyday man can really aspire to... if he's 7 feet tall.

What exactly does rugby for jessies mean?

Chambers2 · Post by **Chambers2** » 03 Aug 2006, 11:54

Thats the most ridiculous artice I've read since the one about what a nice amiable bloke Hitler was.

If I could be arsed I'd write an article about what dire games basketball, baseball and American Football are.....but I can't.

How many countries in the World series? is it 2 USA and Canada?

How many countries in the World Cup? over 100

Chambers2 · Post by **Chambers2** » 03 Aug 2006, 11:55

RobD wrote:
Taki... wrote:I have suggested in the past that, for the American market, 13 points should be awarded for a goal. This simple change would fulfill the (rather shallow) need for 'big scores'.
I've watched baseball: Shockingly boring and less entertaining than Test Cricket.
Football: Rubgy for jessies, and more stop/start than a bus.
Hockey: Could be played without a puck, mainly because you can't actually see it until the slow motion replay anyway.
Basketball: A sport the everyday man can really aspire to... if he's 7 feet tall.
What exactly does rugby for jessies mean?

Jessies=wimps

RobD · Post by **RobD** » 03 Aug 2006, 12:04

Chambers2 wrote:
RobD wrote:
Taki... wrote:I have suggested in the past that, for the American market, 13 points should be awarded for a goal. This simple change would fulfill the (rather shallow) need for 'big scores'.
I've watched baseball: Shockingly boring and less entertaining than Test Cricket.
Football: Rubgy for jessies, and more stop/start than a bus.
Hockey: Could be played without a puck, mainly because you can't actually see it until the slow motion replay anyway.
Basketball: A sport the everyday man can really aspire to... if he's 7 feet tall.
What exactly does rugby for jessies mean?
Jessies=wimps

Thats what I figured it meant. Why do the vast majority of people from rugby nations think that? Is it because of the helmets and pads?

Now correctly if I'm wrong, but in rugby aren't you only allowed to tackle from the waist down? Unlike American football where the whole body is open game. Also from the rugby I've seen seen it is a close quarter game. I dont see guys getting twenty yard running starts slamming someone. I would also bet that the average American footballer is bigger and faster then there rugby counterparts meaning much more violent collisions. How many 6'2 230lb rugby players run a 4.3 40yd dash? To say American footballers are wimps is absurd.

JC · Post by JC » 03 Aug 2006, 12:12

RobD wrote:
Chambers2 wrote:
RobD wrote: What exactly does rugby for jessies mean?
Jessies=wimps

Thats what I figured it meant. Why do the vast majority of people from rugby nations think that? Is it because of the helmets and pads?

Now correctly if I'm wrong, but in rugby aren't you only allowed to tackle from the waist down? Unlike American football where the whole body is open game. Also from the rugby I've seen seen it is a close quarter game. I dont see guys getting twenty yard running starts slamming someone. I would also bet that the average American footballer is bigger and faster then there rugby counterparts meaning much more violent collisions. How many 6'2 230lb rugby players run a 4.3 40yd dash? To say American footballers are wimps is absurd.

These are fair points American football is definately not a game for wimps, but I think you'd be surprised how quick some of the 6' 2'' 230 ruby players are Jonah Lomu comes to mind.

states · Post by **states** » 03 Aug 2006, 13:49

RobD wrote:
Now correctly if I'm wrong, but in rugby aren't you only allowed to tackle from the waist down? .

You're not allowed to tackle above the shoulders in Rugby. Anything below that is fine. Rugby can be a close quarters game, but there are plenty of big hits. Here's one of my favourites, you might appreciate it if you enjoy the 20 yard run up style tackle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IufWNJAX ... h%20lewsey

The whole rugby vs American football argument is daft. They're very different sports. I enjoy both games, and get a bit fed up with Brit's knocking American football, and vice-versa with Americans and Rugby. Bottom line is, you've got to be a tough bastard to play either.

RobD · Post by **RobD** » 03 Aug 2006, 14:44

states wrote:
RobD wrote:
Now correctly if I'm wrong, but in rugby aren't you only allowed to tackle from the waist down? .
You're not allowed to tackle above the shoulders in Rugby. Anything below that is fine. Rugby can be a close quarters game, but there are plenty of big hits. Here's one of my favourites, you might appreciate it if you enjoy the 20 yard run up style tackle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IufWNJAX ... h%20lewsey

The whole rugby vs American football argument is daft. They're very different sports. I enjoy both games, and get a bit fed up with Brit's knocking American football, and vice-versa with Americans and Rugby. Bottom line is, you've got to be a tough bastard to play either.

That was a hell of a hit! Your quite right. Anyone playing either sport is a tough bastard.

Taki... · Post by **Taki...** » 03 Aug 2006, 15:07

C'mon... 'American' Football as tough as Union?! Football players only play half a game and need oxygen after 5 minutes on the field.

Bard of Boxrec · Post by **Bard of Boxrec** » 07 Aug 2006, 05:54

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrNCgljD_ig&NR

sockdolager · Post by **sockdolager** » 07 Aug 2006, 07:57

Chambers2 wrote:Thats the most ridiculous artice I've read since the one about what a nice amiable bloke Hitler was.

If I could be arsed I'd write an article about what dire games basketball, baseball and American Football are.....but I can't.

How many countries in the World series? is it 2 USA and Canada?

How many countries in the World Cup? over 100

I agree the term World Series is a bit of a stretch but the best baseball players in the world do play in MLB. Many Many countries are represented in MLB.

darkstar81 · Post by **darkstar81** » 07 Aug 2006, 12:11

baseball, american football, basketball and ice hockey are popular sports in america and have their merits

the funny thing is how the author so spectacularly misses the point about football. the beauty is in its simplicity. the elation on scoring a goal is because goals are so rare and difficult to get and therefore valuable, unlike points in many other sports. there is so much else to appreciate in football it is mindblowing how some people just don't get it. in what other sport can you go from total despair to unbridled joy in the matter of seconds.

anyway this thread wasn't supposed to be an argument on football, just to laugh at the article. i'd urge everyone to post it in every forum and website they can.

Tony Lumb · Post by **Tony Lumb** » 08 Aug 2006, 12:38

Taki... wrote:C'mon... 'American' Football as tough as Union?! Football players only play half a game and need oxygen after 5 minutes on the field.

Lets not limit it to Union;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9vTHXT8 ... ed&search=

That's a sport.

Taki... · Post by **Taki...** » 09 Aug 2006, 18:09

Tony Lumb wrote:
Taki... wrote:C'mon... 'American' Football as tough as Union?! Football players only play half a game and need oxygen after 5 minutes on the field.

Lets not limit it to Union;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9vTHXT8 ... ed&search=

That's a sport.

Ah league... a game specifically invented for boys not tough enough for Union .

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 10 Aug 2006, 08:25

Americans have some cheak.

If you ever need a cure for insomnia, watch a baseball match....