<p>“If soccer could figure out a way to inject a little offense into the game such that a typical final score was say 8 to 6 instead of 1 to 0, or worse yet 0 to 0, soccer would be a lot more popular in the US”.</p>
<p>At the highest levels of professional team sports great defense usually beats great offense. </p>
<p>Are you saying football and basketball would not be as popular if a score counted for only one point?</p>
<p>I think the score does not make the game better or worse, it’s the game, the intensity, the chances… all of those. I don’t think making it a high scoring game would be more interesting. Finding ways to assign points would be really bad. For example: a shot outside the box is 3 points, a regular goal is 2 point, a PK is 1 point … if you hit the bar or the post that’s half point. Something like that. But a goal is a goal. That’s the beauty of soccer the way it is. That makes the goal differential important and the last games of the group stage are more interesting.</p>
<p>I really don’t know the main reason behind not using a quick instant replay. Is it to determine who’s the better referee?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>No, I’m not saying that at all. It’s not the arbitrary number of points awarded for a score that’s important. It’s how feasible it is to actually score and overtake the other team. In soccer a 1 point lead is very big and a 2 point lead is pretty much overwhelming. You could award 10 points for a soccer goal and it wouldn’t be any more exciting. The typical final score would just be 10 to 0 instead of 1 to 0. No difference. </p>
<p>Similarly you could award only one point for an NBA basket and it wouldn’t be any less exciting. A two basket lead would not suddenly become overwhelming the way a two goal lead is in soccer. There would still be 40 to 50 baskets per team per game. With offensive opportunities like that it’s possible to actually come from way behind and win. </p>
<p>In the four games of the World Cup the US managed to score a grand total of 5 goals, and one of those was penalty kick. Imagine if in the first four games of the NBA finals the Lakers had managed to score a grand total of 5 baskets, and one of those was a free throw.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But unlike with the big three sports, the MLS is not the only major soccer league (if it even counts as one). There are a growing number of people that adopt a European club, and competitions like the Champions League are a lot more visible in this country now. And even the MLS is far more popular than track and field or swimming.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a good point. If football awarded one point for a TD and .5 for a FG, the last few Super Bowl scores would be:</p>
<p>4.5-2.5
4-3
2.5-2
4-2.5
3-1.5</p>
<p>It’s a bit more high scoring, but scoring more than 6 TD’s is fairly rare in the NFL.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Under that scoring system that score would represent a minimum 7 scores in the game and a maximum of 14, depending on the mix of FGs and TDs. How many World Cup games did we see this time with that much scoring? </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Right, it is. And this is exactly what I’m saying soccer needs - more high scoring.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>And scoring more than 6 goals in soccer is next to impossible.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>IMO you are short changing Ronaldo (the Brazilian).
62 goals in 97 appearances with Brazil
the 2nd player to score 3 goals in 3 different world cups, and holds the record with 15 WC goals (keep your eye on Klose (GER), he has 12)
also has 42 goals in 46 games with PSV, 34 goals in 37 games with Barcelona, 49 goals in 68 games with Inter, and 83 goals in 127 games with Real Madrid.</p>
<p>I agree that Ronaldo was not a playmaker though. Played a very different role than Zidane.</p>
<p>Ghana is also missing their best player due to injury this WC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>part of the problem is that we have absolutely zero options… Gomez came out of nowhere to make the team, but he is generally a sub in the Mexican league. Jozy played in the [arguably] best league in the world this year (EPL), but only managed 1 goal in 28 appearances. Findley and Buddle play in MLS. No one from MLS is going to scare an opponent at the WC.</p>
<p>No one on the US roster can beat a defender 1 on 1. The guy with the best ball control skills is Adu, and he wasn’t on the team.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>in baseball if you fail 70% of the time you make the hall of fame</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If a team scores that many goals it is the sign of atrocious play on the part of one team, and makes for a game that is less interesting, not more interesting.</p>
<p>Because it is so hard to score in soccer, the game can be won or lost in a few seconds. No other sport is like that.</p>
<p>In football they actually play for about 12 minutes of the 60 minutes of game time. So, that is 12 minutes out of the 180 tv block. In baseball, there is 1-3 seconds of play for every 20 seconds of break, and then longer breaks after every 3 outs. In basketball, they play for the 48 minutes, but there is so much scoring that it is practically trivial when the team scores. There is no reason to get excited in a basketball game before the 4th quarter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Portugal 7 North Korea 0</p>
<p>True, North Korea was the worst ranked team in the tournament, but they did hold #1 ranked Brazil to 2-1 before falling apart.</p>
<p>I didn’t think Ronaldo had that great a record. With all his injuries…he fell off my radar. Not that I’m the decider. lol</p>
<p>So thanks for the info on Ronaldo.</p>
<p>Soccer doesn’t need more scoring…I don’t know about all the ties though. One thing I like about the knockout stage is there has to be a winner; therefore, I think teams are more aggressive.</p>
<p>I agree with post # 469 and the other posts by soccerguy315.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Poor analogy as the discussion was on team scoring not individuals. </p>
<p>It’s not that futbol stinks, just that it’s a fundamentally flawed game built on failure. Goals typically are not scored because of some ‘golden goal’ but because of a breakdown or penalty on the defense. At best, of an athletically superior striker beating a defender (who is a defender because he wasn’t good enough to be a striker). The same thing can be said about American football with a wide receiver against a smaller cornerback with bad hands. The DIFFERENCE is that there are no rules as to where in the field the wide receiver can run. If he beats his man, no side judge is calling him off sides because he beat his man before the quarterback released the darn ball. </p>
<p>So, futbol at its heart is a fundamentally flawed game where games typically are won on a defense mistake/penalty rather than an offensive gem. When you have a commentator asking whether there can be another 'miracle goal" in a game with STILL 15 minutes left and the other team winning by a single goal, it makes for a sport crying out for rule changes.</p>
<p>soccer is not a low scoring game. I remember watching the world cup qualifying round where Iran scored 17 goals on Maldives. Australia also scored 31 goals this world cup qualification. The highest game in term of goals was over 100, mostly own goals by players on the same team to oppose referee decisions. So yeah, it can get pretty high. The reason why it’s low in the world cup is because teams are close in talents and the gaps are closer. That’s the reason why it’s interesting, you can use goal differential.</p>
<p>About soccer’s potential as a money sport in the U.S.–I don’t think you can underestimate the impact that the huge level of participation in youth soccer is likely to have. My daughter is 16, plays rec soccer, and is much more interested in soccer than any other sport. I think there are millions more like her. She doesn’t think a low-scoring game is boring.</p>
<p>My prediction is that in 10 years, soccer will be a much bigger deal in the U.S., and the players will be guys who were just a little too short to play basketball and a little too small to play football. We’ll be amazed that a tiny guy like Landon Donovan was ever able to play at a high level.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Right, but unfortunately the game is 90 minutes long. The game has a 30 seconds of excitement and 89 minutes and 30 seconds frustrating, boring failure.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Nothing exciting about a mismatch in any sport. Now if the score had been Portugal 7 North Korea 6, that would have been worth watching.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Exactly.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Same prediction that has been made after every World Cup since the 1970s. Remember when Pele was signed to the old NASL? He was going to bring the glory of soccer to the US and make the American public into soccer fans at last. Three decades later they were predicting the same thing when Beckham signed with LA…</p>
<p>
I felt this way, too, before I was forced to watch a lot of soccer games. Like many sports, it takes some familiarity to be able to enjoy what’s going on. It’s sort of the opposite of basketball, which to me is boring because it’s nothing but run and gun. But hey, people watch golf on TV, so any sport can be interesting to somebody.</p>
<p>And the difference between now and the 70s is the number of kids playing soccer.</p>
<p>I like to watch both NFL games and soccer games.
I will be frustrated that by the end of the first half the NFL game score is 0-0. I’d rather want to see 21-21.
But when watching a soccer game, I don’t mind to see score 0-0 near the end of the second half as long as there are beautiful shots. I love to see the goal keeper bat the ball and survive a not too far and formidable shot. That is the difference in nature between American football game and soccer game.</p>
<p>I would also point out that people seem to like it when a baseball pitcher throws a shutout.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you have followed all of the World Cup games, there have been a good number of games with a better than 1-0 outcome. Lots of excitement is generated by the near misses as well.</p>
<p>Whether or not soccer is a “boring” game is not a matter of fact. It is purely subjective and millions of people in the world find it much more enjoyable to watch than American football. I personally enjoy both games immensely but find basketball and baseball to be torturous in the boring factor.</p>
<p>I don’t have to see a goal scored to enjoy watching a game. I love watching the great skills, ball handling, powerful shots that are blocked by keepers or hit the post, etc. Believe me, once you have spent years and years watching the bumbling efforts of youth soccer players, you can come to really appreciate the game at World Cup levels. At least I have.</p>