Frank Deford, USA-Today and others sound off about soccer

Re: Frank Deford sounds off about soccer

Mr. Deford doesn't need any defending. I'm only here to help prop up the written word. Perhaps you should put on your goggles of modern conversational American English and give the piece one more read, there, Vinz.

Oh, and soccer was very big here in the States during the late stages of the Nixon/Ford Administrations, what with Pele and the Cosmos and all. FUNNY! how it never really caught on.

 

Re: Frank Deford sounds off about soccer

Because there are no absolutes.

A 1-0 baseball game CAN be boring. In the middle of July, it probably WILL be boring.

But it might not be.

You might have a handful of baserunners, a handful of scoring opportunities, great defensive plays, a runner thrown out at the plate.

And I suppose a 1-0 soccer game CAN be exciting, too.

But in the two games I have watched in the past week, it was 90 minutes (and sometimes 120) of two teams that never even sniffed a goal. The only thing even resembling a SHOT on goal was a desperation try from 30 yards that went about 10 yards over the crossbar.

At least when Albert Pujols steps to the plate in a 0-0 game, there is the expectation that something might happen, and soon.

I just don't get that watching soccer.

 

Re: Frank Deford sounds off about soccer

Or a reason to cry in your beer. I guess it was a hell of a game, but I can't bring myself to watch it. Damnit Ozzie Smith.

 

Re: Frank Deford sounds off about soccer

True, but sometimes the run leading up to a pass into the box is the equivalent of a swing and a miss by a power hitter in extra innings. The shot that goes wide or just over the crossbar is similar to a foul ball that ends up on the wrong side of the foul(fair?) pole in baseball.

True, there are no absolutes. I've seen superb 1-0 baseball games. I've also seen my share mediocre 1-0 soccer matches. But many self-describing seamheads are usually painting their 1-0 baseball games with a general brush like Grantland Rice, whereas anything else with a 1-0 score - be it ice hockey or soccer - is just boring.

It's funny to hear people slam something they clearly don't understand. Soccer isn't alone is this rant, but because the extremists of any sport will force it down the throats of those who don't like it - and there are many - soccer bears the brunt of the verbal salvos. See all these threads when anyone has the slightest bit of criticism, fair or not.

 

Re: Frank Deford sounds off about soccer

Not at all. Our national team was still crap, as the NASL was not a place that developed the American player very well at all. With the best teams full of foreign mercenaries and no local kids to latch onto as American soccer success stories, it had no staying power. There was simply no longterm mandate to grow the sport in the U.S.

As for the rest . . . your efforts to prop up the written word are appreciated . . . in the Writer's Workshop. Here, you're merely (and admirably, I might add, credit where credit is due) defending an idol of yours. As I said, the piece was quite good, a quality analysis of soccer's relative level of popularity in the U.S., despite Mr. deford's efforts to bring it down with his hank Hill impersonation.

 

Re: Frank Deford sounds off about soccer

It's kind of what I said earlier, Sam. A 1-0 soccer game that lacks a good pace and tension throughout (say, one of the England games from early in this WCup) is the equivalent of a 4-2 baseball game with no late-inning dramatics. Nobody's going to say either one is a classic.

A 1-0 baseball game, meanwhile, is a rarity, which makes it special to begin with, and a 1-0 baseball game typically has a lot of drama, especially in the final three innings. But it's also true that baseball, as a whole, has enough scoring/action to keep casual fans (American fans) happy to where a 1-0 game can be appreciated.

Soccer does not do this for casual, American fans, most of whom don't appreciate the sport to begin with. So a 1-0 soccer game, unless it's a special game with a lot of tense action (France-Portugal is an example), is going to be labelled as boring by many people. A 4-3 game in soccer, meanwhile, is a rarity, so casual fans are going to be more excited by that.

I guess that's the best way I can explain it. A 1-0 soccer game seems typical, whereas a 1-0 baseball game seems to be a rarity. Perception is reality.

 

Re: Frank Deford sounds off about soccer

I'll buy that, though part of the problem - which is no one's fault in particular - stems from the fact that more people feel knowledgeable about baseball than soccer, therefore they feel more action. Your point about slow 1-0 soccer matches is valid - England's match against Paraguay earlier in the World Cup is a perfect example. But you may have have hit the point. More baseball fans aren't casual, whereas soccer has a few rabid fans here in the States and many fewer casual fans.

 

Re: Frank Deford sounds off about soccer

JR - If we're trained chimps than you are king of the jungle when it comes to beating things into the ground.

 

Re: Frank Deford sounds off about soccer

Once again, Frank DeFord is rattling on about how soccer is un-American.

Once again, I ask: Who the fuck cares? I, like many others, am secure enough in my soccer fandom that I don't need the approval of DeFord, Jim Rome, the SportsCenter crew, etc., to feel good about my sport.

NASCAR, the NBA and the NFL do absolutely nothing for me, but I'm not about to denigrate people who enjoy them. All I ask is the same respect from those people for whom soccer does nothing. Live and let live -- it's not that hard, really.

 

Re: Frank Deford sounds off about soccer

At leaset he has been consistant.

Here is what he wrote in 2002


Desperately, soccer smug-nuts always fall back on accusing us American yahoos of failing to appreciate the grace and nuance of their superior game. First of all, any sport in which you hit a hard ball with your head is, ipso facto, neither graceful nor nuanced. Even ignoring that ugly idiosyncrasy, any run-of-the-mill 6-4-3 double play is more graceful than the most precious soccer maneuver. And nuance? For pete's sake, every sport has nuance. Hello. That's why Tim McCarver, John Madden and Mary Carillo have jobs. Nuance doesn't make people care. About 99.44% of NFL fans don't have the foggiest what nuances the nickel defense possesses. So what? It's third and three on the 36. Turn up the volume and crack another brewski. The authors also make a big deal out of how many Americans saw the World Cup when it was foisted on the United States in 1994. That argument is specious too. The World Cup has no more to do with ordinary soccer than the Kentucky Derby has to do with Wednesday at Suffolk Downs when 4,500 grizzled septuagenarians drag in off the streets to box exactas. Markovits and Hellerman also salivate over the Women's World Cup of 1999, when the U.S. beat China, 0-0, at the Rose Bowl. The 90,000 attendance is stressed. What is not dealt with is the score, of which there was none--excuse me: nil--till we got to the pinball finale. Why do you think the only image we have of that game is of Brandi Chastain ripping off her shirt? Because there was nothing in the game to remember. Sports authors, beware: Don't read too much into one-shot anomalies. The 1980 victory of the U.S. hockey darlings over the big, bad Commie bullies is, surely, the most lionized American game ever. It did nothing whatsoever for hockey (though it did make Mike Eruzione the Brandi Chastain of 1980). So soccer has been around these colonial precincts for something like 125 years. It has had its game of the century. It has borrowed the player of the century. It has been spoon-fed the globe's biggest tournament. It has had league after league, outdoor and in, bankrolled by well-heeled angels. It is blessed with legions of ready-made fans who immigrate here and millions of suburban children who are indoctrinated from kindergarten on. Still, it never catches on. At a certain point, Markovits and Hellerman, you have to accept the obvious. It ain't our cup of tea. Nothing wrong with that. There's no accounting for taste. The same British sophisticates who call me a parochial rube for not appreciating soccer prefer watching snooker to basketball. Fine. But here's the nasty down-home American reality: Far from being graceful, soccer appears, in fact, awkward. You can't sweetly control a ball using feet and head any more than you can drive a car fast with your nose and knees. We value efficiency in the United States. Soccer is inefficient. Remarkably, Markovits and Hellerman don't offer an in-depth analysis of how other American sports overcame integral problems of tedium. Football added the forward pass. Baseball souped up the old horsehide. Basketball introduced a shot clock. Soccer says bugger off, barbarians, and learn grace and nuance. We prefer offense in the United States. Soccer is defensive. It is not only that soccer lacks scoring, either. It also has no small victories, no cumulative successes. Baseball teams build rallies. Football teams drive down the field, even if they have to settle for a field goal. Soccer is the coitus interruptus of sport. Watching TV, I'm astounded how announcers ooh and ahh over some failed play: "What a magnificent run!" Only the player did not succeed. In the end, the ball was taken from him and he stumbled back the other way. Nonetheless, analysts keep praising pretty disappointment, raving about the glory of almost. We expect satisfaction in the United States. Soccer celebrates frustration. Soccer developed outside the U.S., and unlike most everything else in the world, it lacks our influence. In countries that care about soccer, the point is always made, ad nauseum, that soccer is not a game; it is a way of life. I'm sure that's true. That's the point that eludes Markovits and Hellerman. Ultimately, the reason that we don't care about soccer is that it is un-American. It's somebody else's way of life. So most American kids abandon interest in the game when they realize it's not consistent with what they are finding out about Americanism. The same with immigrants and their children--as soon as they discover more appealing games that reflect American spirit, American values. It's really very simple why most of us nonsocialistic Americans will forever reject soccer.

We are not amused.

 

Re: Frank Deford sounds off about soccer

Well, if you left an offensive player in front of your opponents' goal, they'd leave a defender there too. And vice-versa. So you'd have small pockets of play all over the field -- or at least top, middle and bottom -- with long boots back and forth. Far less appealing than possession and advancing the ball up the field. No?

 

Re: Frank Deford sounds off about soccer

I remember that column. Didn't it come out on the Fourth of July?

Had a pretty good debate over that piece with a former SE of mine.