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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well said. But I still enjoy very much watching your brother play soccer.