"If we had not been taught how to interpret the story of the Passion, would we have been able to say from their actions alone whether it was jealous Judas or the cowardly Peter who loved Christ?"
- Graham Greene, The End of the Affair
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Like the fans of anything I don't really understand, soccer fans can be very annoying. When the World Cup rolls around, soccer fans become nearly insufferable. It isn't the enthusiasm for their chosen team (by the way, if you're an American, and you rooted for England last weekend, you're a jerk). It isn't the hullabaloo and buzz, or the 24 hour coverage. What makes soccer fans positively unbearable this time of year is the daily insistence that soccer is, without a doubt, the greatest sport in the universe. Arguments over sports are almost always useless, but nothing is more futile than trying to convince a true believer that soccer might not be THE greatest achievement in human history. Besides not listening, the soccer fan will often go on to defame all other sports, and will usually take a few pot shots United States (the only country that doesn't seem to "get" soccer).
I won't argue that soccer is a stupid sport. I have trouble understanding how a 90-minute game that frequently ends in scores of 1-0 or 2-1 (or a TIE?!?!?!?) can be all that exciting, but I've watched my little brother long enough to recognize some of soccer's nuances, and I think I have cultivated a modest appreciation of the sport. So, this post isn't about how soccer is horrible, or how it isn't a great sport. This post is simply a blanket response to a few of the most common arguments used by soccer-is-the-best-sport types. If anyone is offended, the problem is most likely yours.
Argument #1: Soccer is THE Global Sport
It's the same argument baseball fans use when they say "Baseball is the American pastime" (something, by the way, that isn't true anymore), just on a larger scale. Besides being an informal fallacy, the argument doesn't carry much weight with me because I have a generally low opinion of humanity. It wasn't so long ago when public executions, Gladiatorial games, and mass ritual slaughter were favorite pastimes all over the world. Nobody today would argue that watching slaves fight to the death in a piping hot stadium of bloodthirsty Romans was a particularly fine moment in human history, let alone that Gladiatorial games were the best sport of the classical era.
"Most popular" does not necessarily equal "best." Apply that line of thinking elsewhere and Back in Black is the second best album of all time.
Argument #2: Soccer Takes More Skill Than Other Sports
This argument is absolutely unprovable, but it's true that soccer players are highly skilled. It's truly amazing to watch. I'm impressed by my little brother, and he's 12. But even supposing they are right, and soccer really does require more skill than any of the major team sports, it doesn't follow that I should appreciate a midfielder more than, say, a defensive tackle. Who watches decathlons for fun? Are the qualifying heats in Olympic speed skating more exciting than the college football National Championship or the NBA Finals?
Argument #3: Soccer is Constant Action
This argument doesn't carry much weight with American audiences, because all of our major sports have a lot of stops. A baseball game can go on for 4 hours and have maybe 20 minutes of real action. A soccer game is 90+ minutes, and almost all of it is constant motion. The stops are quick, relatively infrequent, and don't leave enough time for commercial breaks. The problem, though, is that so much of the "action" is spent in places where scoring is virtually impossible. In football and baseball, every single play has a realistic possibility of ending in points. The fact that a game can go on for 93 minutes of constant motion and still end in a 0-0 tie is absolutely baffling to anyone who has ever watched a Basketball game.
Argument #4: Soccer is a True Team Sport
This is true, and I would actually argue that soccer is probably the most team-oriented of all the major sports. Baseball is probably the least-team oriented, as the Yankees basically buy World Series rings year after year. In one sense, it's very attractive. Soccer has its stars, but the emphasis is on the club. It isn't a sport driven by statistics. People in America were really puzzled when they learned that David Beckham isn't really a scorer. He was, for a few years, one of the most popular athletes in the world, and yet he didn't put up huge numbers.
Americans like dominance. Good teams excite us, too, but our legendary performances are ones in which individuals have performed amazing feats with their backs against the wall. We like names, we like numbers. Maybe to a fault, but I don't think there's ground to say either side is necessarily wrong or right.
Argument #5: Soccer Brings People Together
So did Jim Jones.
Even with these feelings, I'll still be paying attention to the World Cup from afar with moderate interest.
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://andrewroberts.outofthebloo.com/bloo.trackback.php/987.
Comments on "Contra Several Popular Arguments For Soccer's Supremacy":
4. Shrode
- 06/16/2010 11:22 pm CDT
Write more posts like this!
I like the tone. Fun to read.
I think it's hard to argue that Soccer is more of a team sport than American Football. Well, yes, there are certain positions that get more publicity. (the running back, the wide receiver, the quarterback) But the way the game is played, it is all about the team, and the players know that. And people who really understand the game know that. The team has to work together in unbelievable ways and every part is important. For example, if the Left Tackle can't protect the quarterback, it doesn't matter how good he is. And if your defense is lousy, you can have the best running back in the world and you are still going to lose the game.
But maybe they mean "everyone's equal". Yeah, OK.
I hear Lacrosse is really gaining in popularity in New England. My cousin plays and apparently its becoming a pretty big deal up there.
5. Andrew
- 06/16/2010 11:44 pm CDT
I think it's hard to argue that Soccer is more of a team sport than American Football.
American Football is probably the most team-centered sport of all the major American sports. I don't know if it's "more" of a team sport than soccer, but I think there's a good case to be made that they are at least on the same level.
I would say Baseball is the least team-oriented. There are plenty of situations where cohesiveness matters (double plays, for instance), but there are also a lot of circumstances where it doesn't come into play at all. If you have a bunch of good players, you are going to have a good team. Alex Rodriguez is going to hit well regardless of who follows him in the batting order, and a center fielder's catching a fly ball has nothing to do with what the first baseman is doing.
I think the most telling fact about the sport is what people remember. It's a sport that is driven by statistics. What immortalizes a player is what he did on the field. Nobody remembers or cares how many rings Hank Aaron got during his career, but his 755 home runs is something people will always remember. Dimaggio's 56 game hit streak is a bigger number than his nine rings.
In football, people remember rings. Dan Marino may own the record books, but that legacy is severely tarnished by the fact that he never one the big one. Joe Montana doesn't own a single significant record, but he is considered by many to be the best quarterback of all time because he won four super bowls.
To me, those things indicate that while championships are obviously important in baseball, they don't define a player's career. In football - at least when it comes to the major positions - championships are the most important thing. The greatest players win them.
7. Shrode
- 06/21/2010 11:30 am CDT
And then of course, there's this news story...
http://www.theonion.com/video/soccer-officially-announces-it-is-gay,17603/
Couldn't insert the hyperlink. Drat, now you know what it's about. Oh, watch it anyway.
8. III
- 06/28/2010 9:24 pm CDT
In response to point #3:
You said "The problem, though, is that so much of the "action" is spent in places where scoring is virtually impossible"
I would strongly disagree with you there, and as evidence I would present the US-Algeria game. On that goal that the US scored in the 92nd minute, only 12 seconds elapsed between when our goalie threw the ball to when Donavan scored. 12 seconds, from end to end. So my point is that no matter where the ball is on the field, if you look away just long enough to read a text, by the time you look back up someone might be shooting. And since goals are such a big deal, you don't want to miss any shots that are even close (if you're into the game, that is). So soccer is very much an on-the-edge-of-your-seat kind of game, perhaps more so than any other sport. Or rather, it's comparable to the last 5:00 minutes of a football game, or the last 30 seconds of a basketball game, or the last at-bat of a baseball game when there are runners in scoring position. But that's what the game is like the entire time. At any time, a goal could be scored in a span of less than 15 seconds from first pass to shot, and that one goal could be the equalizing or winning point.
9. Andrew
- 06/29/2010 2:31 pm CDT
I was watching the U.S.-Algeria game, and I agree that was very exciting. I jumped out of my seat when Donovan scored. Unfortunately, moments like that are pretty rare. That's not to say that soccer can't be exciting, but it's hardly "edge-of-your-seat" all the time (no sport is). On the international level, if one team goes up two goals, you can pretty much assume the game is over.
You're right that the game can change at any moment, but so much of a match is spent in places where a score is basically out of the question. The U.S. scored because they somehow got behind the defense, got a lucky bounce, and were in the right place at the right time. Had they been playing a possession game, that goal never would have happened. They were very aggressive, and it payed off. But circumstances pushed them there. Normally, soccer is a game of extreme patience. It's like a chess match. You try to control the pace of the game, wait for your opponent to make a mistake and try to capitalize on it. It's very different from American sports that way. I'm not arguing that American sports are "better" (in fact, I think one of the fundamental assumptions of my argument is that there is no objective way to say that any sport is better than another). I'm just arguing that soccer fans sometimes make arguments that don't hold up to the reality of the game.
My point is, to be a real soccer fan, you have to learn to love the little things. Nobody falls in love with soccer because it's high scoring. It's not, and if it was, I don't think it would be as beloved as it is.
10. Allison
- 07/09/2010 1:33 am CDT
Personally, one my most favored and admired aspect of soccer is the athlete's stamina. Soccer players have to be able to run around 90+ minutes. Crazy. Also, professional leagues allow 3 substitutions per game.
Yeah, marathon runners can do that, but I'm comparing to sports such as American Football and Basketball.
Final note though, I'm really biased. I love soccer.
Leave a Comment:
Well said. But I still enjoy very much watching your brother play soccer.