One mans crusaide to keep soccer the way its always been

[geordieboy]

America, the land of the good, the land of the free, the land of Landon Donovan, my tip to be one of the greatest players in europe and Claudio Reyna, the only good player at sunderland AFC, not forgetting the legendary Brad Friedel and Kasey Keller who have been brilliant this season and both deserved to be in the team of the year.

However one thing has come to me, during the world cup some brits were cheering for germany in that quarter final against the usa as was most of the world, now why was that? Then i realised it was the same reason i was cheering for the germans. Should the americans have won the game, then went onto the semi finals, firstly the world cup would have been de-valued as either South Korea or USA would have had to play Brazil in the final (a team who are not one of the top 10 in the final of the greatest competition on the planet, think about it) and had the USA have gotten to the final, which they would have, the chances of the USA taking the sport up seriousley would have increased.

This is a bad thing to many followers of the beutiful game accross the world. The proposed changes to americanize soccer include a time out thing, similar to hocky where the red card would mean a 5 minute time out, another change is to make soccer into quarters instead of the 45 minutes a half, another change was unlimited substitutions, and time outs where a boss can call a time out in the middle of a game. Now, i dont know about the americans but the world is used to the game and basically these changes suck.

Soccer has recently obtained the asian and African markets as well as the middle eastern market, the only 2 markets soccer aint captured is the Australian and the American, although the austrailan is almost complete after aussies victory over england. With the MLS soccer is officially the only true global sport with a soccer Association in every country. If these changes are implemented, bye bye the african and asian markets as well as the aussie markets, all 3 hate the american way of doing things as do the Europeans (prime reason football, baseball and basketball aint big in europe). Soccer does not need america to be global, its already global and can still claim to be the biggest sport on the planet with the highest viewing figures week in week out than any sport on the planet by a long way. America however does need soccer to be a global super power, to be a global super power you gotta share something in common with the nations of the world. Soccer is the number one sport in most of the nations, so why should it change to suit america when it dont need the USA.

[boydreilly]

The five minute time out was the idea of FIFA. The rest was made up by you.

[geordieboy]

the unlimited substititions and the time outs were made by an american soccer mag, the quarter's game was made during the world cup by fifa

[Anthony]

You're right -- go back to the old days the way it should be played.

None of this "Nike" ball stuff either. Go back to the orange leather ball, with laces. Even better, we should use a Dane's severed head. That's the way the game was MEANT to be played.

Sorry for being sarcastic, but ALL of the "official" changes in the game over the last 100 years have been through the IB. Yes, some differences exist in MLS, US colleges and the like, but none of these changes have been forced on game as a whole.

The fact is that Europeans, Africans, Latinos, Asians, etc are quite capable of changing the game themselves.

[boydreilly]

Originally posted by geordieboy
the unlimited substititions and the time outs were made by an american soccer mag, the quarter's game was made during the world cup by fifa

You're wrong about time outs. The unlimted subs was made by which mag? And the quarter game was proposed by FIFA? First I've heard of it.

Now, even if all this were true, how is it that it all comes to fruition if the US wins the Cup?

[Anthony]

Originally posted by boydreilly
You're wrong about time outs. The unlimted subs was made by which mag? And the quarter game was proposed by FIFA? First I've heard of it.

Now, even if all this were true, how is it that it all comes to fruition if the US wins the Cup?

The quarter game was proposed by FIFA in the late 80's as a way of increasing t.v. revenue in Europe and South America. In a humorous essay on the 1990 World Cup, Paul Gardner had then FIFA chair Helvange [sp?] answer every question by saying "This would not have happened if the game was played in quarters."

The time outs were tested by FIFA in one of the Women's World Cups, maybe 1995. They did not like them and discontinued them.

Pele even has suggested radical changes to the game (changing offside, using kick-ins).

[Quake Crazy]

Originally posted by geordieboy
America, the land of the good, the land of the free, the land of Landon Donovan, my tip to be one of the greatest players in europe and Claudio Reyna, the only good player at sunderland AFC, not forgetting the legendary Brad Friedel and Kasey Keller who have been brilliant this season and both deserved to be in the team of the year.


This is a bad thing to many followers of the beutiful game accross the world. The proposed changes to americanize soccer include a time out thing, similar to hocky where the red card would mean a 5 minute time out, another change is to make soccer into quarters instead of the 45 minutes a half, another change was unlimited substitutions, and time outs where a boss can call a time out in the middle of a game. Now, i dont know about the americans but the world is used to the game and basically these changes suck.

America however does need soccer to be a global super power.



American followers of the game ARE used to the game as it is. The world (or FIFA) is not going to change the game to suit americans that don't currently follow the game. Thank goodness.

"America however does need soccer to be a global super power."

Last I checked the US has been a global super power for a long time, soccer has nothing to do with it, however as soccer slowly makes inroads in the US we will become a global soccer super power and the rest of the world will have one more reason to hate us. :rolleyes:

[BlueMeanie]

Originally posted by geordieboy
However one thing has come to me, during the world cup some brits were cheering for germany in that quarter final against the usa as was most of the world, now why was that?
Perhaps because you daft twats were resentful of the fact the USA was still alive in the tournament and you lot were done for the next four years?
Then i realised it was the same reason i was cheering for the germans. Should the americans have won the game, then went onto the semi finals, firstly the world cup would have been de-valued as either South Korea or USA would have had to play Brazil in the final (a team who are not one of the top 10 in the final of the greatest competition on the planet, think about it)
So, in a different thread, you predicted Wales would beat the USA in the friendly this month. Using your "logic," this will also be bad for soccer.
and had the USA have gotten to the final, which they would have, the chances of the USA taking the sport up seriousley would have increased.
Perhaps, but I think you're overestimating the effect of the success. The USA could have made it to the WC final, and most sports radio pundits and TV sports anchors would still have ridiculed soccer. During the tournament, most of them just used parts of it (like Rivaldo's little incident with Turkey) to point out how much they hate the beautiful game.
This is a bad thing to many followers of the beutiful game accross the world. The proposed changes to americanize soccer include a time out thing, similar to hocky where the red card would mean a 5 minute time out, another change is to make soccer into quarters instead of the 45 minutes a half, another change was unlimited substitutions, and time outs where a boss can call a time out in the middle of a game. Now, i dont know about the americans but the world is used to the game and basically these changes suck.
Someone else already pointed this out, but the red card timeout wasn't suggested to appease Americans, and the rest of the changes you're whinging about were shot down years ago.
Soccer does not need america to be global, its already global and can still claim to be the biggest sport on the planet with the highest viewing figures week in week out than any sport on the planet by a long way.
So? Nobody over here is saying soccer "needs" America. It's not even mainstream here. We fans are more of a cult. Only insane internet wankers who are trying to get a rise out of gullible folks like you seriously make such a statement.
America however does need soccer to be a global super power, to be a global super power you gotta share something in common with the nations of the world. Soccer is the number one sport in most of the nations, so why should it change to suit america when it dont need the USA.
Oh, shut up. We'd be a global superpower with or without soccer, or the support of our staunchest ally (England). Over time, America has slowly dropped all the American bastardizations of the game (like the shootout and the 35-yard offside line), and there's a movement underway to remove overtime from MLS matches altogether, since almost all the games that go to OT seem to end tied anyway.

Get over yourself.

[Ringo]

has there ever been a more pathetic thread?
seriously, if you want to start an arguement just say america sucks or something and save yourself from typing in 300 words on nonsense. nobody is changing your precious game. now take a deep breath and go lay down for a nap.

seriously, there has GOT to be something better for you to complain about than this.

[skipshady]

Originally posted by geordieboy
Should the americans have won the game, then went onto the semi finals, firstly the world cup would have been de-valued as either South Korea or USA would have had to play Brazil in the final (a team who are not one of the top 10 in the final of the greatest competition on the planet, think about it).So... the World Cup would have been dev-. No, wait, you're an idiot.
Soccer has recently obtained the asian and African markets as well as the middle eastern marketRecently? Obtained? You really are an idiot.

[Noah Dahl]

13 posts. Doesn't take long for an English person to figure he's got it all "sussed" and shoot his mouth off, does it?

Remember how you were welcomed here with open arms? We should've known better.

Originally posted by geordieboy
America, the land of the good, the land of the free, the land of Landon Donovan, my tip to be one of the greatest players in europe and Claudio Reyna, the only good player at sunderland AFC, not forgetting the legendary Brad Friedel and Kasey Keller who have been brilliant this season and both deserved to be in the team of the year.

Ah yes, Landon Donovan (saw he scored three goals in the World Cup) is briwyant, as are the lads who play in England.

"Fog over Channel - Europe Isolated."


However one thing has come to me, during the world cup some brits were cheering for germany in that quarter final against the usa as was most of the world, now why was that?

Of course, we heard much of the world was cheering for the US because they were playing GERMANY, but why would anyone harbor resentment toward them?


Then i realised it was the same reason i was cheering for the germans.

You miserable f***.


Should the americans have won the game, then went onto the semi finals, firstly the world cup would have been de-valued as either South Korea or USA would have had to play Brazil in the final (a team who are not one of the top 10 in the final of the greatest competition on the planet, think about it)

Wait a minute, Franz Beckenbauer and most neutral obeservers said the US was clearly the better team. We played the ball and got jobbed by a bad British ref. Germany dove for restarts.



and had the USA have gotten to the final, which they would have, the chances of the USA taking the sport up seriousley would have increased.

Which is pretty much everyone of this board's greatest dream. Carry on...



This is a bad thing to many followers of the beutiful game accross the world.

Ahh, the beutiful game...


The proposed changes to americanize soccer include a time out thing, similar to hocky where the red card would mean a 5 minute time out, another change is to make soccer into quarters instead of the 45 minutes a half, another change was unlimited substitutions, and time outs where a boss can call a time out in the middle of a game. Now, i dont know about the americans but the world is used to the game and basically these changes suck.

Okay, you don't know what the f*** you're talking about. Joao Havelange, the f****** Pope of soccer, suggested quarters for advertisers. US delegates shot him down. England has done its fair share of experimentation. QPR and Luton played on plastic fields. For better or worse, the whole game has been changed to make it a better spectator sport, i.e. to make more MONEY. Those changes have come from FIFA. You twat.

English soccer has bent over for TV $$$. The Premier League was created for $$$ - screwing the lower leagues. Man United skips the freakin' FA Cup for $$$. They sell nine jerseys for $$$. EPL clubs raised their ticket prices to attract a more upscale crowd, but just end up taking more punters $$$. Bayern's talking about leaving the Bundesliga for $$$. Player skip borders and switch club allegiances for $$$ and they're lured to do so by clubs like Newcastle so Newcastle and the EPL can make more $$$. Non-champions make-up the champions league because of $$$.

Would it be any different in the US if soccer was a big successful sport? Of course not. But in MLS, players risk their neck every week for blue collar salaries and our World Cup success was a product of that league. Therefore, F*** England, the EPL, Germany, you.



Soccer has recently obtained the asian and African markets as well as the middle eastern market,

So your objection is not to western cultural imperialism, apparently...



the only 2 markets soccer aint captured is the Australian and the American, although the austrailan is almost complete after aussies victory over england.

Of course. They beat England. It must be the biggest thing that's ever happened to their country - and the best they ever played.


With the MLS soccer is officially the only true global sport with a soccer Association in every country.

Pale dude, soccer in this country arrived a long time ago. We have a pro cup competition that's almost a century old, we came in third in the first world cup before england had even played in one - in fact we knocked your asses out of your first one in 1950. We were the first country to sell out all the seats in a World Cup, in huge stadiums. Jillions of Americans play the sport. Our World Cup team has made it to the Finals six or seven times anyway, most recently finishing in the quarterfinalists. Our teams qualify for the finals in every age level and category, every time. Shall I go on?




If these changes are implemented, bye bye the african and asian markets as well as the aussie markets, all 3 hate the american way of doing things as do the Europeans (prime reason football, baseball and basketball aint big in europe).

Yup nobody in those countries knows who Britney Spears is, or Jack Nicholson, or ever bought a Michael Jackson record, or ate a Big Mac. And nobody's heard of the Lakers. Modern Democratic republics don't stand a chance either.



Soccer does not need america to be global, its already global and can still claim to be the biggest sport on the planet with the highest viewing figures week in week out than any sport on the planet by a long way.

Yup, FIFA has shown no interest in the American sports dollar. Neither has Man U.




America however does need soccer to be a global super power, to be a global super power you gotta share something in common with the nations of the world.

Oh you mean like the Arts and Sciences? Or do you mean the American food, entertainment, fashion and everything else the world consumes insatiably.

Then there's that other reason Tony Blair kisses our ass so tenderly.

Soccer is the number one sport in most of the nations, so why should it change to suit america when it dont need the USA.

Good question. By the way, there's no "i" in "crusade." It's English. Don't worry, you guys'll pick it up.

[Naco]

Doesn't this belong in World Rivalries?

Sean

[Albion + England]

Originally posted by geordieboy
America, the land of the good, the land of the free,Claudio Reyna, the only good player at sunderland AFC, not forgetting the legendary Brad Friedel

Stopped reading after this bit.

[RichardL]

To be honest, it doesn't matter how good the US is, was, or will be, it won't make them more influential in deciding rule changes. You hardly see Brazil dictating the rules of the game to the world.

[Roehl Sybing]

I could almost take this half-baked argument seriously if the twit could just properly spell "crusade."

[skipshady]

You'd think someone from England and ranting about the proper use of the language would be able to write in coherent English.

[Ringo]

Originally posted by RichardL
To be honest, it doesn't matter how good the US is, was, or will be, it won't make them more influential in deciding rule changes. You hardly see Brazil dictating the rules of the game to the world.

and we have a winner folks ... always nice to see somebody making sense around here.

[Roehl Sybing]

Originally posted by Ringo1725
and we have a winner folks ... always nice to see somebody making sense around here.
Though it is even nicer to know that the English certainly feel threatened by American soccer. :)

[usscouse]

I don’t know which was the worse.
The illiterate wanker who posted the original,
Or the idiots who took it seriously.

I got a kick out of a couple though.
Blue Meanie got in a couple of good licks.
Skipshady was more to the point.
And RichardL, succinct

[Maczebus]

Originally posted by Ekelund4life
Doesn't this belong in World Rivalries?

Sean

No it belongs in the bin.