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

Re: Frank Deford sounds off about soccer

How is "the world" pushing it on us, exactly? Back this paranoic statement up please.

Seems to me TV ratings are up, media coverage is up, and interest is FAR higher in the World Cup than it was 16 years ago, and advertisers have embraced it domestically, not just to get the world-wide audience.

And all of this considering that the World Cup has degenerated into the worst one since Italy '90.

FIFA's marketing department makes MLB's look innovative and quick on their feet in comparison, most of "the pushing" is coming from within. There's two channels devoted to soccer, which has made the domestic audience more sophisticated in its soccer knowledge. Ten years ago, if you said you were a Man U fan, someone would ask if you went to Manchester University. Now you see its jerseys, and that of many others, all over the place.

On top of all of that, I really don't think "the world" gives a shit whether we embrace soccer or not. In fact, I think the world fears the we will embrace soccer, because it could lead to an Americanization of the sport (talk about bigger goals, etc.) that they don't want.

And American companies keen on getting a world-wide audience are going to (and always have) spent advertising dollars over there, so the notion that "they" are after U.S. dollars is dumb. They already have "our" dollars. Ask Coca-Cola how much they've spent on soccer in the last 40 years.

The only nation that makes a concerted effort to push sports on anyone else is, you guessed it, U.S. Only the NBA has made inroads, and it's appeal is not dissimilar to the appeal the English Premier League has here, it has a cult of devoted fans and little else.

The soccer-haters, who are far more annoying than the often-annoying soccer proselytizers and seemingly most of whom -- like DeFord -- are over the age of 35 (I can say that for another five days until I turn 35, so I have to get that dig in, dammit!), can keep going on their bitter quest to deny what's undeniable -- soccer has a significant audience in the U.S.

 

Re: USA Today: Why the United States doesn't take to soccer

I love that line.

 

Re: USA Today: Why the United States doesn't take to soccer

 

Re: Frank Deford sounds off about soccer

Mr Bubbler,

I think you hit on a key pt there. It is to some extent a generational resistance to soccer in the US. In Canada the same thing plays out with basketball. I remember having it out with a very large Old School Edmonton columnist who said he didn't write about basketball (even when he was in a NBA city with time on his hands or when the story of the day was Jordan retirement or Nash MVP). He said high school kids didn't care about basketball out west, they only care about hockey. I can't imagine the last time he was in a high school but I digress. What he was doing was rationalizing his inclination to write something only within his comfort zone. "He doesn't want to do it" became his "they won't read about it." I have a lot of respect for Deford's writing (The Boxer and the Blonde, the toughest-coach story, are canon-worthy) but what he wrote/said about soccer is a rationalization of his not writing about it. What he wrote/said re-inforces a vision of what editors believed to be coverage-worthy in the 60s. (Strangely SI was an exception to this, though it did give boutique coverage to the sporting fringe.)

YHS, etc

 

Re: Frank Deford sounds off about soccer

I'm late 40s.
I think Shotty is in my age bracket.
It's fairly obvious neither of us is down on soccer.
This isn't generational.
This is open mind vs. closed mind. I use "closed mind" not in the pejorative sense, necessarily. Just that some have made up their minds that their plate is full of sports and they're not willing to change. I'm OK with that, if they'd just shut up about it. Instead, we get DeFord and LeBatard and Bayless and Rome and their incessant, shrill reminders of how superior they are because they know better than to like soccer. It is so old, tired and lame.

 

Re: Frank Deford sounds off about soccer

If I remember this right, the Journal had the combined audience for U.S.-Italy at about 10 million on Univision and ABC.
You know how many sports get that many viewers on a weekend afternoon?
If I remember right, it's one.
Now, two.

 

Re: USA Today: Why the United States doesn't take to soccer

I read somewhere that there are more people playing soccer in this country than there are in Europe, so I don't know that I'd agree with the premise that "the US doesn't take to soccer." That german guy, well, yeah, it's part of his family's culture, but soccer has only been played on a widespread basis in the US for a generation or so. Our problems being competitive on an international level aren't exclusive to soccer. We suck at everything else except American football, which is only played seriously here.

 

Re: Frank Deford sounds off about soccer

So every team is always trying to score? No one ever stalls when they get a lead? My buddy who played D1
soccer said that was the problem with Italy in a lot of past World Cups -- they would get an early lead and
just play defense. I'll be sure to tell him he doesn't realize they were always trying to score, but he didn't
realize it because he doesn't like soccer.

 

Re: Frank Deford sounds off about soccer

It is sort of like the prevent defense in the NFL. Teams do sit on leads. However, it should be pointed out that those teams are quick to counter attack should they gain possession with some advantage.

The Italians are notorious for sitting on leads. The Germans did not play that way in this World Cup (part of this was due to their defense being a bit shaky).

Different teams have different strategies. It generally helps to compare it to the NFL with the Colts, a higher powered offense that would keep coming at you, and the Super Bowl winning Baltimore Ravens, who rarely scored an offensive touchdown and was built on defense.

 

Re: Frank Deford sounds off about soccer

Frank's changed.

"It was during a time when this tiny country of Cameroon had pulled a number of World Cup upsets and was the talk of the sporting world," said Deford. "We were in a news meeting with several editors at The NATIONAL and nearly all of them wanted to send me to Milan to cover the event. But one said, "Why waste Deford and send him over to write what 50 other columnists will write? Let's send him to Cameroon. Well, when the photographer and I got there, we found what had to be one of the poorest countries in the world. But the country had united around a sports event and a soccer team.

"They had these places, something like an open bar, with black and white TVs, and there were thousands of people crowded around listening and trying to watch. There was one lady about this tall," said Deford, putting his hand down from his 6-foot-5 frame to around 5-foot, "and she was about as big around. When they scored, she ran over and started hugging me and dancing with me. I've never seen or felt such emotion in one place. The photographer took a picture. I came back and wrote 7,000 words and we received great response. But for me, it became the greatest moment in all the years of doing this. I have only one sports picture in our home and it's right above my desk where I work. It's the little lady dancing with me."

 

Re: Frank Deford sounds off about soccer

Except that the prevent defense is used when it's like 35-21 and the team runs the risk of having the game tied in the closing
seconds. Plus it's different because the other team is trying to move the ball quickly. In soccer the team with the ball can
just keep it for as long as they want, although a lot of times it backfires with the other team gaining possession and then scoring.
But when a team gets a 1-goal lead or even an early 2-goal lead and tries to just stall it can be boring. It's more like NCAA
basketball before the shot clock. I do like soccer, but not everything about it.

 

Re: Frank Deford sounds off about soccer

CJ, I see what you are saying but no team has the ability to hold onto the ball forever. It will always be given up based on the sheer amount of talent on the field.

The thing that I was really getting at was this... You have a 1-goal lead early in the game. You know that in order win the game the other team will need to score two goals.

It becomes incredibly difficult to score if you have only 2-men pushing forward. As such, forcing an attack in order to gain a second goal seems a bit foolhardy. You would risk softening your defense in order to gain a larger advantage that the other team is already pressing to equal.

As such, your strategy would be to sit back and wait. You wait until there is an opening to push forward with a few men. You catch the defense up to far. Now, you can score your second goal.

In baeball, a team goes up by a quite a few runs and the Yankees sub out Bernie Williams for Bubba Crosby due to defense. The team stops stealing. Pitchers throw more strikes and try avoiding the walk. Baseball takes a similar strategy as soccer when someone is winning. It just shows up on much bigger leads.