ways to fix fifa soccer

Good God, where to begin...

1) Countries outside of the United States don't care about flopping/embellishment anywhere near as much as Americans do

2) RBW, your claim that soccer doesn't feature "strategy" is one of the most idiotic posts I've seen. Hell, people who actually know the game could spend an entire day discussing this god forsaken "diamond" look Klinsmann has experimented with during the send-off series.

3) As for the TV argument, MLS and the Barclay's Premiere League are both cashing in on some pretty good TV deals with ESPN and NBC respectively. Two major networks want to air soccer, yet the sport is horrible for TV... Got it.

4) It's the most popular sport in the world. However, since USA isn't the best at it, morons think the sport needs to be "fixed".

dubie7006 wrote:

There is infinitely more strategy in soccer than there is in baseball.  Period.  End of story.

Agreed, the only sport I would say is more strategic would be Football.  New formations with almost every snap of the ball.

RBW Spartan wrote:



I still don't think these rise anywhere near to the level of football or basketball (or baseball), but let's drop this argument. I'll concede it for the sake of the larger point:

It still doesn't address the myriad other issues I listed (let's ignore 2, 4 and 6 for the time being). 1,3,5,7,and 8 are all real issues.

And no, just because it's the world's most popular sport, doesn't mean it can't be 'fixed' or improved.

Ok, I'll bite.  Here are my thoughts:

RBW Spartan wrote:

1. Fake injuries
2. Little to no strategy
3. The running clock and ambiguity of time
4. Excruciatingly boring. And no, it's not low scoring; it's that the vast majority of the time, nothing is happening. It's like watching the devils play back in the day where they controlled the neutral zone.
5. FIFA is wildly corrupt; corrupt to boxing levels.
6. Annoying American soccer fans
7. PKs deciding a game
8. The group stage placement for the WC

What *is* cool about soccer?

1. Relegation and promotion
2. Clubs never moving
3. International competition
4. Pagentry

Note: None of these cool things about soccer have to do with the sport itself; it's having a group of nations near each other play the sport.

1. You win.  There's no defending it.  I think the game would be a lot better if guys actually tied to fight through tackles and not embellish.  This is as much on the officiating as it is the players.  However, that's one of the perils of having only one referee on the pitch.  Some stuff isn't going to get a good look.  Maybe you add a referee or two in addition to the linesmen.

3. I really don't see why this is an issue.  In fact, I like it more.  It adds urgency.  Instead of stopping the clock for every whistle or out of bounds, teams have to react in real time.  Plus, the last 5 minutes of a match takes 5 minutes, instead of 25 like in basketball.  That shit just gets annoying.  And if you can't understand the concept of stoppage time, I can't help you.

5. No argument. I'd argue that all sports are corrupt though, but soccer is one of the most.

7. If you don't want PKs, prepare for a seemingly endless extra time period.  I agree that it sucks, but I think it beats playing for 2 additional hours or something like that.  I think there are things that could improve this.  Take a hint from the NHL and go to fewer men on the pitch or something.  It's not unfixable.

8. I agree that it would be much better with even seeding.  Saw an article posted a couple days ago that outlined what the groups would look like if that happened.  But I think how it's done now creates intrigue and suspense.  Will my country be in the group of death? Will we have an easy route to the knockout? It's built in drama before the first ball is even kicked.  I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing.

I welcome your thoughts.

RBW Spartan wrote:

So you consider there to be strategy in rock/paper/scissors? Cuz I sure as shit don't. Just because I don't think he'll be ready for something doesn't mean that's strategy. If you have a plan and you stick to it, i.e. formations and counterattacking, etc., that's strategy. The basketball defender thinks LeBron is going to drive to the hole, so LeBron takes a jumper. That's an in-game reaction.

dubie7006 wrote:


So you consider there to be strategy in rock/paper/scissors? Cuz I sure as shit don't.  Just because I don't think he'll be ready for something doesn't mean that's strategy.  If you have a plan and you stick to it, i.e. formations and counterattacking, etc., that's strategy.  The basketball defender thinks LeBron is going to drive to the hole, so LeBron takes a jumper.  That's an in-game reaction.

  

RBW Spartan wrote:

I understand the importance of the limited subs. Perhaps no strategy was a bit much, but the role of the manager is way less important than in football, basketball, or baseball.

Let's say that if I were a huge soccer fan, I would find it interesting; but that's a tautology. Football is exciting because you can see huge hits, and large men beating the crap out of each other. Hockey is constant action. Basketball involves freaks. Soccer doesn't have the instant "have to watch" cache the other sports do.

Finally, what does the running clock have to do with anything strategy wise? Would it be so hard to stop the clock on booking, out of bounds, injuries, and subs? Literally every other timed sport in existence at a major level does it; why is soccer special?

I kinda mistook what you meant on #3. My bad... Anyway. The running clock is kinda cool. If a team is threatening and time is running down they are going to get the chance to tie/win the game without having to rush and take some prayer miracle type of shot (think a half court shot in bball or a panicked shot in hockey.) The play won't end until the scoring threat is over... Similar to football really.

I love the running clock. I know that a game starting at 12pm will be over by 2pm. For comparison, in baseball, a 9 inning game can last 100 minutes or 240 minutes depending on how many times a batter steps out of the box to adjust himself.

MJ wrote:

3.2 billion people worldwide tuned into the 2010 World Cup - 46.4 percent of the world.
FIFA (The Fédération Internationale de Football Association)  says 909.6 million television viewers watched at least one minute of the 2010 World Cup final.  

619.7 million people watched 20 consecutive minutes of Spain's 1-0 extra-time win.


But it's a terrible sport for TV.  

They don't have other options...Do they have an NFL team in Argentina? Do they have an NBA team in Bosnia? Is there an NHL team in Costa Rica? They don't know any better.

I'm not a huge soccer fan, but there are some things I really love about it.

To me it is by far the best sport to watch on TV.
1st half : 45 minutes no commercials.
15 minute halftime with commercials.
2 half : 45 minutes no commercials.

unless it is one of the rarer games that has extra time / shootouts (again no commercials), I know that it will be done in under 2 hours.

I'm getting to the point where it is a chore to watch football games. They take too long for the amount of time actually spent playing. And waaaaaay too many commercials. Not even worth watching unless you record it and start watching like 30 minutes late and just FF through the commercials.

pulling69 wrote:

They don't have other options...Do they have an NFL team in Argentina? Do they have an NBA team in Bosnia? Is there an NHL team in Costa Rica? They don't know any better.

lol great argument.  

To break it down for you in terms of the US ONLY.

An estimated 111.5 million U.S. viewers watched the 2010 World Cup final.

The 2014 Super Bowl ratings are in! The big blowout of 2014 was the most-watched game ever, bringing in 111.5 million viewers.

Strange, people in the US have options, yet just as many watched the World Cup final in 2010 as the 2014 Superbowl.

MJ wrote:

lol great argument.   

To break it down for you in terms of the US ONLY.

An estimated 111.5 million U.S. viewers watched the 2010 World Cup final.  

The 2014 Super Bowl ratings are in! The big blowout of 2014 was the most-watched game ever, bringing in 111.5 million viewers.

Strange, people in the US have options, yet just as many watched the World Cup final in 2010 as the 2014 Superbowl.  

How many of the world cup viewers were American's aka not illegal or legal immigrants from countries where soccer is the national sport?

pulling69 wrote:

How many of the world cup viewers were American's aka not illegal or legal immigrants from countries where soccer is the national sport?

  

pulling69 wrote:

How many of the world cup viewers were American's aka not illegal or legal immigrants from countries where soccer is the national sport?

  

Just wait until this years ratings come out! You should start counting the immigrants now so we know how many to subtract from the total number.

MJ wrote:


  

Just wait until this years ratings come out!  You should start counting the immigrants now so we know how many to subtract from the total number.  

Should give us a good estimate on how to clean house near the southern border   

MJ wrote:Let's take a look at RBW's list.

1. Fake injuries - Please see the NBA
2. Little to no strategy - We have established he knows nothing about the game.
3. The running clock and ambiguity of time - Which is one of the best parts of the game, everyone looks for the 4th official at the half, end of 90 to know how much time a team spent laying on the ground.  The games are LONGER playing time wise then any other of the regulation timed sports, yet the games are shorter in overall time.
4. Excruciatingly boring. And no, it's not low scoring; it's that the vast majority of the time, nothing is happening. It's like watching the devils play back in the day where they controlled the neutral zone. - Soccer is a game of chances, and yeah, there have been a lot of 0-0 ties this world cup right?
5. FIFA is wildly corrupt; corrupt to boxing levels. - Tim Donaghy on line 1.   And every sport has it to different extents.
6. Annoying American soccer fans - Michigan Fans? NBA Fans? Nascar Fans?
7. PKs deciding a game - NHL has shoot outs?  So that makes the NHL dumb then too right?  I'd prefer golden goal, but 30 minutes of OT before hand helps.
8. The group stage placement for the WC - It's a random draw?  Based on the levels of the teams and making sure teams from the same region aren't in the same group.  Not sure how you could want something better?   I'd love to see the NCAA Tournament seed each team as a 1, 2, 3, 4 - 16 etc and then draw them out of hat.  

1. There is a HUGE difference between fake injuries and flopping. Flopping is a part of the game in hoops, football, and hockey. The difference is that A. The players are punished (with technicals in hoops or diving penalties in hockey), and B. They don't fake and embellish injuries; they merely flop. I realize that occasionally players will fake an injury to slow down Oregon or Auburn, but that is the exception, not the rule. Remember how pissed we all were when Warrick got flagged for that hit on Sandeman? The refs watched the replay and saw he was still down and threw the flag. That's why fake injuries are bullshit.

2. I was wrong in stating there is little or no strategy. I still am not convinced that there is more strategy going on in a soccer game than
the American big 3.

3. I don't buy into the old world charm of an official estimating (even with a stop watch) how much time has elapsed past a certain point. I can't argue that the games are longer while taking shorter periods of time, though with a 'nornal' clock, it shouldn't take any longer.. I will fight to the death that the two hour games are exciting, but to each his own.

4. Like I said, to each his own.

5. So you can point to one NBA ref as your proof that FIFA isn't corrupt? This isn't an argument about which sport is best; it's about what can be done to fix soccer. The NBA took care of the donaghy problem when it came to light.

6. I hate the self righteous, elitist, faux-European American soccer fans; but that's more of a personal problem than anything.

7. The NHL has shoot outs during the regular season; not playoff games. Secondly, and I admit this isn't the strongest argument, but there is far more skill in a shoot out than in PKs.

8. http://grantland.com/the-triangle/group-of-fairness-how-the-world-cup-would-look-with-straight-seeding/ The pot picking of teams is asinine.

Gob Bluth wrote:

#1 - MLS is already retroactively punishing players for diving. Flopping is more frequently met with a yellow card. So many players/managers are calling for retroactive punishment for diving to be standard that it's only a matter of time.

#3 - Time isn't ambiguous at all in soccer. You play two 45-minute halves, one official is in charge of figuring out how much time the ball spends out of play, and adds time at the end of each half accordingly. Watch soccer frequently for a month, and you'll become quite good at guessing how much extra time will be added.

#5 - This is a very valid point. Sepp Blatter is a jackass, and the whole Qatar snafu these past few weeks has exposed the organization's corruption to even the most ignorant fans. Get rid of Blatter, and solve a lot of problems here.

#7 - How else would you decide a knockout match in a tournament? In the WC/Euros, there's not enough time built into the schedule for a replay (which national leagues DO have in early rounds of knockout tournaments). Same with the Champions League. Having the teams keep playing until there's a winner isn't an option either, especially when you consider that by the end of a match that goes to penalties, some players will have been going for 2+ hours. Add more subs you say? Then you'll have to increase squad sizes at all matches, something that many clubs flat out can't afford to do.

#8 - Help me understand your beef with the WC group stage. I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here.

3. You know what sports I don't have to guess how much time is left? LITERALLY EVERY OTHER SPORT IN THE WORLD. Let's say the official is 100% perfect at knowing how much time is left; why not have a stopped clock on plays then? It wouldn't add any time, and it would give the spectator 100% knowledge how much time is left. There are NO upsides to one man being in control of the time if the game is, as soccer fans claim, standardized.

7. This is the exact type of problem that this thread is asking. How would one fix it? PKs are in no way representative of the game. At least shootouts have a semblance of skill; PKs are point and hope the goalie doesn't guess the right direction.

8. http://grantland.com/the-triangle/group-of-fairness-how-the-world-cup-would-look-with-straight-seeding/ My problem with the group stage is that it's determined ass backwards.

CrazySparty wrote:Good God, where to begin...

1) Countries outside of the United States don't care about flopping/embellishment anywhere near as much as Americans do

2) RBW, your claim that soccer doesn't feature "strategy" is one of the most idiotic posts I've seen. Hell, people who actually know the game could spend an entire day discussing this god forsaken "diamond" look Klinsmann has experimented with during the send-off series.

3) As for the TV argument, MLS and the Barclay's Premiere League are both cashing in on some pretty good TV deals with ESPN and NBC respectively. Two major networks want to air soccer, yet the sport is horrible for TV... Got it.

4) It's the most popular sport in the world. However, since USA isn't the best at it, morons think the sport needs to be "fixed".

1. I won't argue for or against this; I just think that it's a major turn off watching these guys roll around in agony; then pop right up when they get their foul/card.

2. As I've said about a dozen times, I was wrong in stating there's no strategy in soccer; that being said, I remain unconvinced there's more strategy in soccer than baseball, football, or hoops.

3. MLS TV deal pales in compairson to any of the American Big 4. As for my argument, it's not that it CANT be broadcast, it's that it's not a sport designed for TV. Football is the perfect TV sport. Soccer and hockey are not.

4. This is a stupid argument trying to say people who don't like soccer are somehow inferior, afraid, or jingoistic. CFB is my favorite sport, but I could list about 100 things to improve the game. The thread title wasn't "Why does Soccer suck"; it was "ways to fix FIFA soccer."

My problem with soccer is the refusal to adapt the game to the talent. All american sports (beside college basketball) strive to continuously improve the product. Soccer flat out refuses and pretends its the bible--already perfect.

Sorry but it's not. Take it from fringe to hockey level popularity in the us and now you did something

MJ wrote:

lol great argument.  

To break it down for you in terms of the US ONLY.

An estimated 111.5 million U.S. viewers watched the 2010 World Cup final.

The 2014 Super Bowl ratings are in! The big blowout of 2014 was the most-watched game ever, bringing in 111.5 million viewers.

Strange, people in the US have options, yet just as many watched the World Cup final in 2010 as the 2014 Superbowl.

Easy solution: hold a super bowl every four years during s sports dead period

All world cup games should be held in areas or stadiums prone to violence or stadium tragedies. I'd watch that shit bro.

It's not the diving that bothers me, it's the over-reacting to every little thing. And the diving.

I think every time a player rolls around on the ground in "pain" they should have to sit on the bench for 10 minutes or the rest of the half so they can "recover" properly.

Blanch32 wrote:My problem with soccer is the refusal to adapt the game to the talent.  All american sports (beside college basketball) strive to continuously improve the product.  Soccer flat out refuses and pretends its the bible--already perfect.

Sorry but it's not.  Take it from fringe to hockey level popularity in the us and now you did something

How much time have people spent bitching about the new college basketball hand check rules? What about targetting in football? What about conversations about how the NBA was better in the 80s rather than now where they just pander to stars? Or conversations about the No Fun League? Or the over protection of quarterbacks? 

Sometimes changing for the sake of changing isn't for the best.

RBW Spartan wrote:

1. There is a HUGE difference between fake injuries and flopping. Flopping is a part of the game in hoops, football, and hockey. The difference is that A. The players are punished (with technicals in hoops or diving penalties in hockey), and B. They don't fake and embellish injuries; they merely flop. I realize that occasionally players will fake an injury to slow down Oregon or Auburn, but that is the exception, not the rule. Remember how pissed we all were when Warrick got flagged for that hit on Sandeman? The refs watched the replay and saw he was still down and threw the flag. That's why fake injuries are bullshit.

2. I was wrong in stating there is little or no strategy. I still am not convinced that there is more strategy going on in a soccer game than
the American big 3.

3. I don't buy into the old world charm of an official estimating (even with a stop watch) how much time has elapsed past a certain point. I can't argue that the games are longer while taking shorter periods of time, though with a 'nornal' clock, it shouldn't take any longer.. I will fight to the death that the two hour games are exciting, but to each his own.

4. Like I said, to each his own.

5. So you can point to one NBA ref as your proof that FIFA isn't corrupt? This isn't an argument about which sport is best; it's about what can be done to fix soccer. The NBA took care of the donaghy problem when it came to light.

6. I hate the self righteous, elitist, faux-European American soccer fans; but that's more of a personal problem than anything.

7. The NHL has shoot outs during the regular season; not playoff games. Secondly, and I admit this isn't the strongest argument, but there is far more skill in a shoot out than in PKs.

8. http://grantland.com/the-triangle/group-of-fairness-how-the-world-cup-would-look-with-straight-seeding/   The pot picking of teams is asinine.



3. You know what sports I don't have to guess how much time is left? LITERALLY EVERY OTHER SPORT IN THE WORLD. Let's say the official is 100% perfect at knowing how much time is left; why not have a stopped clock on plays then? It wouldn't add any time, and it would give the spectator 100% knowledge how much time is left. There are NO upsides to one man being in control of the time if the game is, as soccer fans claim, standardized.

7. This is the exact type of problem that this thread is asking. How would one fix it? PKs are in no way representative of the game. At least shootouts have a semblance of skill; PKs are point and hope the goalie doesn't guess the right direction.

8. http://grantland.com/the-triangle/group-of-fairness-how-the-world-cup-would-look-with-straight-seeding/  My problem with the group stage is that it's determined ass backwards.



1. I won't argue for or against this; I just think that it's a major turn off watching these guys roll around in agony; then pop right up when they get their foul/card.

2. As I've said about a dozen times, I was wrong in stating there's no strategy in soccer; that being said, I remain unconvinced there's more strategy in soccer than baseball, football, or hoops.

3. MLS TV deal pales in compairson to any of the American Big 4. As for my argument, it's not that it CANT be broadcast, it's that it's not a sport designed for TV. Football is the perfect TV sport. Soccer and hockey are not.

4. This is a stupid argument trying to say people who don't like soccer are somehow inferior, afraid, or jingoistic. CFB is my favorite sport, but I could list about 100 things to improve the game. The thread title wasn't "Why does Soccer suck"; it was "ways to fix FIFA soccer."

Like I said earlier about the time thing- they just don't want to create situations where a team has a throw in with 5 seconds left to play and have to completely alter their game to try to score before the clock runs down. Again. It's similar to football. As long as the offense gets the play off before the clock runs down they have until the play is over to score and can go well past when the clock reaches 0. In soccer when the clock gets to 0 the ref is going to let play continue until the scoring threat is over. Not really that much different. Like someone said, watch for a little while and you're going to know exactly when a team is running that "last play."

RBW Spartan wrote:
8. http://grantland.com/the-triangle/group-of-fairness-how-the-world-cup-would-look-with-straight-seeding/  My problem with the group stage is that it's determined ass backwards.

Any article written endorsing straight seeding based on FIFA rankings is, at best, naive.  

There are plenty of articles on how the FIFA ranking system is flawed.  The best examples in the rankings used to seed this World Cup are Switzerland and Brazil.

As the host nation, Brazil was guaranteed a spot in pot 1 of the draw and, therefore, couldn't give a rat's ass about their performance in international competitions for most of the past couple of years.  Do you really want to argue that Brazil deserves the 11 seed in the World Cup?

The Swiss, on the other hand, played a series of friendlies in a very strategic manner that allowed them to slip past the Italians and Dutch into pot 1.  Good for the Swiss, but few who understand international football would have them ranked in the top 7 in the world.   Here is one link on that particular vagary of the seeding.

How the Swiss end up in pot 1

MJ wrote:

Agreed, the only sport I would say is more strategic would be Football.  New formations with almost every snap of the ball.

Technically, that's more tactical changes every play than strategic.

But yeah, soccer is incredibly strategic, and tactical. The limited subs are one thing that makes it very different than other sports in strategy. Not just in terms of choosing a starting 11, but in terms of how that effects your formation and basically your whole philosophy for the better part of the game.

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Technically, that's more tactical changes every play than strategic.

But yeah, soccer is incredibly strategic, and tactical.  The limited subs are one thing that makes it very different than other sports in strategy.  Not just in terms of choosing a starting 11, but in terms of how that effects your formation and basically your whole philosophy for the better part of the game.  

I can agree with that, but if you are changing formations and personnel on the field. As a coach you may have a game plan to attack a backup DB with a certain route if he hits the field, or to change from a passing formation to a running formation when the D lines up a certain way. I put strategic/tactical in the same group. They completely play off each other.

Blanch32 wrote:My problem with soccer is the refusal to adapt the game to the talent.  All american sports (beside college basketball) strive to continuously improve the product.  Soccer flat out refuses and pretends its the bible--already perfect.

Sorry but it's not.  Take it from fringe to hockey level popularity in the us and now you did something

  Again with the American arrogance.

Globally, soccer's popularity puts every other sport to shame, but you think they should change certain aspects just to appeal to more Americans.

CrazySparty wrote:

  Again with the American arrogance.

Globally, soccer's popularity puts every other sport to shame, but you think they should change certain aspects just to appeal to more Americans.

Could really give a shit. If anything I think mls should be more open to new things given it will never compete with the premiere leagues in Europe

Can not wait until tonight.

CrazySparty wrote:

  Again with the American arrogance.

Globally, soccer's popularity puts every other sport to shame, but you think they should change certain aspects just to appeal to more Americans.

Do euros still only bathe once a week?

MJ wrote:

I can agree with that, but if you are changing formations and personnel on the field.  As a coach you may have a game plan to attack a backup DB with a certain route if he hits the field, or to change from a passing formation to a running formation when the D lines up a certain way.   I put strategic/tactical in the same group.  They completely play off each other.

Yeah, I didn't mean to say that football isn't strategic, just that the individual play calling is more tactical. They definitely go together, as tactics are born from the strategy and you can't have one without the other.

kingstonlake wrote:

Do euros still only bathe once a week?

That gives new meaning to money laundering.

MJ wrote:

Can not wait until tonight.

Not sure why you'd post that beautiful video in this garbage thread.

CrazySparty wrote:

Not sure why you'd post that beautiful video in this garbage thread.

To give all the soccer newbs a taste of what they are missing.

RBW Spartan wrote:
3. You know what sports I don't have to guess how much time is left? LITERALLY EVERY OTHER SPORT IN THE WORLD. Let's say the official is 100% perfect at knowing how much time is left; why not have a stopped clock on plays then? It wouldn't add any time, and it would give the spectator 100% knowledge how much time is left. There are NO upsides to one man being in control of the time if the game is, as soccer fans claim, standardized.

The only people who tend to complain about the clock thing are people who don't watch much soccer in the first place. I guarantee it doesn't impact enjoyment of the game one bit.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
How much time have people spent bitching about the new college basketball hand check rules? What about targetting in football? What about conversations about how the NBA was better in the 80s rather than now where they just pander to stars? Or conversations about the No Fun League? Or the over protection of quarterbacks? 

Sometimes changing for the sake of changing isn't for the best.

And if that's the kind of evolving that people are talking about, then soccer has had it too. Those are basically just an enforcement of the rules and/or protection of players. In terms of major rule changes about how you play the game, soccer has changed as much as other sports. The NHL's removal of the two-line pass rule is the most recent. Before that, the 2 point conversion in the NFL (which goes back much further in college), and before that the 3 point line and shot clock rules in the NBA. As for soccer, they made two big changes in the early 90s. The offsides rule was changed so that even with the second to last defender is onside, as opposed to having to be behind the defender. And they changed the rules so that if you pass the ball to your own goalie with your feet, he can not touch it with his hands. For novices, those may not sound important, but they have a huge impact on every game.

With everything else, in soccer and other sports, I believe the changes were mostly either very minor (i.e., where you kick off from in football) or about enforcement of rules/protection of players (targeting, hand checking, etc.....and soccer has had changes regarding tackles, protecting the goalies, etc.).

If I'm forgetting some major changes, let me know. Those are off the top of my head.

MiamiSpartan wrote:
And if that's the kind of evolving that people are talking about, then soccer has had it too. Those are basically just an enforcement of the rules and/or protection of players. In terms of major rule changes about how you play the game, soccer has changed as much as other sports. The NHL's removal of the two-line pass rule is the most recent. Before that, the 2 point conversion in the NFL (which goes back much further in college), and before that the 3 point line and shot clock rules in the NBA. As for soccer, they made two big changes in the early 90s. The offsides rule was changed so that even with the second to last defender is onside, as opposed to having to be behind the defender. And they changed the rules so that if you pass the ball to your own goalie with your feet, he can not touch it with his hands. For novices, those may not sound important, but they have a huge impact on every game.

With everything else, in soccer and other sports, I believe the changes were mostly either very minor (i.e., where you kick off from in football) or about enforcement of rules/protection of players (targeting, hand checking, etc.....and soccer has had changes regarding tackles, protecting the goalies, etc.).

If I'm forgetting some major changes, let me know. Those are off the top of my head.

Whoa! How radical!! totally increased scoring chances right there! Lol

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Like I said earlier about the time thing- they just don't want to create situations where a team has a throw in with 5 seconds left to play and have to completely alter their game to try to score before the clock runs down. Again. It's similar to football. As long as the offense gets the play off before the clock runs down they have until the play is over to score and can go well past when the clock reaches 0. In soccer when the clock gets to 0 the ref is going to let play continue until the scoring threat is over. Not really that much different. Like someone said, watch for a little while and you're going to know exactly when a team is running that "last play."

I understand, and even applaud that they let one final attack happen. That doesn't change the...uniqueness...of having a running clock and the official coming up with how much time has been spent. It could just as easily mimic every other sport with a stopped clock, and let the final attack after it hits zero/45/AET

Zapp Brannigan wrote:

Any article written endorsing straight seeding based on FIFA rankings is, at best, naive.  

There are plenty of articles on how the FIFA ranking system is flawed.  The best examples in the rankings used to seed this World Cup are Switzerland and Brazil.

As the host nation, Brazil was guaranteed a spot in pot 1 of the draw and, therefore, couldn't give a rat's ass about their performance in international competitions for most of the past couple of years.  Do you really want to argue that Brazil deserves the 11 seed in the World Cup?

The Swiss, on the other hand, played a series of friendlies in a very strategic manner that allowed them to slip past the Italians and Dutch into pot 1.  Good for the Swiss, but few who understand international football would have them ranked in the top 7 in the world.   Here is one link on that particular vagary of the seeding.

How the Swiss end up in pot 1

I'm not endorsing straight FIFA seeding. Do it on ELO or something else. Just don't do it in a system that allows artificial manipulation, like you pointed out.

Straight seeding, or any other system proposed, creates a more interesting system. The current system would be akin to having a couple #1 seeds, 3 #3 seeds, and all 5 seeds in one region, but another region only has a 3 seed as the top.

RBW, just want to say what a bummer it is you ignored my response to your list. I feel slighted by the inability to continue this discourse with you. Take a few minutes of your day and consider my reply, too, won't you?

xoxo,

dubie7006

dubie7006 wrote:

Ok, I'll bite.  Here are my thoughts:



1. You win.  There's no defending it.  I think the game would be a lot better if guys actually tied to fight through tackles and not embellish.  This is as much on the officiating as it is the players.  However, that's one of the perils of having only one referee on the pitch.  Some stuff isn't going to get a good look.  Maybe you add a referee or two in addition to the linesmen.

3. I really don't see why this is an issue.  In fact, I like it more.  It adds urgency.  Instead of stopping the clock for every whistle or out of bounds, teams have to react in real time.  Plus, the last 5 minutes of a match takes 5 minutes, instead of 25 like in basketball.  That shit just gets annoying.  And if you can't understand the concept of stoppage time, I can't help you.

5. No argument. I'd argue that all sports are corrupt though, but soccer is one of the most.

7. If you don't want PKs, prepare for a seemingly endless extra time period.  I agree that it sucks, but I think it beats playing for 2 additional hours or something like that.  I think there are things that could improve this.  Take a hint from the NHL and go to fewer men on the pitch or something.  It's not unfixable.

8. I agree that it would be much better with even seeding.  Saw an article posted a couple days ago that outlined what the groups would look like if that happened.  But I think how it's done now creates intrigue and suspense.  Will my country be in the group of death? Will we have an easy route to the knockout? It's built in drama before the first ball is even kicked.  I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing.

I welcome your thoughts.

Sorry Dubie, I thought I had answered this. Regardless, I've answered most of these elsewhere, but I'll continue the discourse.

1. We agree

3. I understand some of the appeal of having 5 minutes take 5 minutes. That being said, I don't see the charm or appeal in a guy determining how much time passed. Not a single person has made a single strong argument that it's better than having everyone be on the same page.

5. We agree

7. I don't see why people are so against OT soccer? If the sport is so great, you should love more of it. That cheap shot aside, what I hate most about PKs is that it has almost no basis in the rest of the sport. It basically comes down to the goalie guessing correctly.

I could probably score > 40% on PKs in the WC. Think about that for a second. At least in shoot outs, it still takes a ton of skill to score (well under half of shots result in goals, and the open area to net size is much smaller in hockey than soccer.

I would absolutely be in favor of reducing the amount of men (remove 1 person every 15-30 minutes). Talk about adding intrigue and strategy.

8. We're in complete agremeent it would be better with even seeding. If you want to add intrigue, seed the top 8 teams, put them in separate groups, and let them pick, playground style, who is in their group. That would be must see TV, and with how serious people take soccer, we might get some riots and wars. Fun Fun.

Basically, we agree the sport is dirty, 'injuries' suck, PKs suck, and the seeding sucks.

While people may disagree about the strategy, TV watchability, or inherent fun of the sport, you're the only one that has addressed these, and you did so in agreement with me.

Now, the thread was entitled "ways to fix FIFA soccer," and I think we can/should engage in serious discussion about these notable flaws in the game.

RBW Spartan wrote:

Sorry Dubie, I thought I had answered this. Regardless, I've answered most of these elsewhere, but I'll continue the discourse.

1. We agree

3. I understand some of the appeal of having 5 minutes take 5 minutes. That being said, I don't see the charm or appeal in a guy determining how much time passed. Not a single person has made a single strong argument that it's better than having everyone be on the same page.

5. We agree

7. I don't see why people are so against OT soccer? If the sport is so great, you should love more of it. That cheap shot aside, what I hate most about PKs is that it has almost no basis in the rest of the sport. It basically comes down to the goalie guessing correctly.

I could probably score > 40% on PKs in the WC. Think about that for a second. At least in shoot outs, it still takes a ton of skill to score (well under half of shots result in goals, and the open area to net size is much smaller in hockey than soccer.

I would absolutely be in favor of reducing the amount of men (remove 1 person every 15-30 minutes). Talk about adding intrigue and strategy.

8. We're in complete agremeent it would be better with even seeding. If you want to add intrigue, seed the top 8 teams, put them in separate groups, and let them pick, playground style, who is in their group. That would be must see TV, and with how serious people take soccer, we might get some riots and wars. Fun Fun.

Basically, we agree the sport is dirty, 'injuries' suck, PKs suck, and the seeding sucks.

While people may disagree about the strategy, TV watchability, or inherent fun of the sport, you're the only one that has addressed these, and you did so in agreement with me.

Now, the thread was entitled "ways to fix FIFA soccer," and I think we can/should engage in serious discussion about these notable flaws in the game.

The only thing I'll say about #7 is that PKs are much more commonplace in soccer than penalty shots are in hockey. That's why I believe PKs are a better option than shootouts in hockey.

RBW Spartan wrote:
7. I don't see why people are so against OT soccer? If the sport is so great, you should love more of it. That cheap shot aside, what I hate most about PKs is that it has almost no basis in the rest of the sport. It basically comes down to the goalie guessing correctly.

I could probably score > 40% on PKs in the WC. 

The players would die. They've already been running for 120+ minutes at that point. They could add free flowing substitutions at a certain point I suppose... But, that would be a totally different game too, though not as drastically as PKs

No, you couldn't. The goalie wouldn't have to do much guessing since I promise that you can't rocket a ball quite the same way as a world class player. Especially without giving away which direction you're going with your body language, which is pretty easy to read in an amateur. (I was a goalie for about 15 years.)