I'll give you that, thank god we don't have endless commercials, video ref reviews, and lot of other stuff that makes me not finish a Football game.
That's just sort of the nature of the game of gridiron though. As a team goes down by two scores, the offense becomes more predictable (pass heavy), the defense can play for the pass, and turnovers/stops happen. It's a strategy that is optimal for overcoming a deficit, but it is also increases the blowout odds. Soccer has the opposite strategy even when trailing because scoring is so infrequent. A 2 goal deficit isn't something where you can play a completely different way with the hope of coming back. A team might make a tactical sub or two, opportunistically press or send an extra player here or there. But the team leading is also playing the soccer equivalent of a gridiron prevent defense. The team that is changing the complexion of the game is the team with the two goal cushion. Gridiron = trailing team changes the game. High risk strategy that challenges the status quo. At least until the leading team goes full blown prevent defense in the last 10% of the game. Soccer = leading team changes the game. Low risk strategy to maintain the status quo. That's why soccer finals can be low scoring affairs. A 1 goal lead is a huge advantage in terms of tactical flexibility. Even in with an early goal, teams can concede a bit of possession wile letting their opponent tire themselves throughout the match. Teams are rightly concerned about conceding first.
Some Super Bowls are boring because the outcome is known well before its over. But more than half of Super Bowls are exciting until the end despite plenty of scoring and action. Whereas every WC final is pretty disappointing. Okay, neither of us ever switch off a World Cup final match midway through because of reasons like the game is important, short, there are no stoppages or commercials, its our favorite sport to watch, etc. All true things, I guess. But I think we can hope for something a little better than "the longer nothing happens in this game the longer the outcome remains 50/50 and the more tense I get". This is not an alcoholics anonymous meeting where we have to dig to find the positives in everything.
The only way to change this would be to reduce the price of conceding the first goal, ie, making goals less scarce. I don't see how we can do that without substantially changing the game. More strict interpretations of defensive fouls would t be sufficient. Not that I'm advocating this, but the easiest way is to make the goals maybe 4 feet wider. That wouldn't appreciably change the underlying laws of the game, but it would undoubtedly increase scoring, and the team who can create more chances would be more likely to win. It is also a ridiculous change IMO. Short of something like this, how do you reduce the cost of conceding first?
Interesting that I watched three finals on Sunday (Nov 13) [although one was taped, the FIFA U-17 Women's], and the three games had two goals total. In the NASL final, it was mildly interesting that Indy held most of the play (but not really dominating) early, but didn't score. But overall, the game was mostly a dud. (At one point late in the game, the commentator says that each goalie was credited with only one save, so "chances" or "half-chances" were extremely rare.) In the one college conference final (the 1-1 tie), a team won in PK's. But.... the team won their third straight conference title, all of them on PK's. So... three matches of differing levels, in both genders, and mostly snoozefests.
...and let's include the American NCAA final four matches: (1-SF) 101:33 for three goals; (2-SF) 110:00 for zero goals; (3-F) 110:00 for zero goals; (4-MLS) 120:00 for zero goals. Total: 441:33 for three goals over four games (average: 147:11 per goal).
Champions league final, 2017. I was disappointed with the result, but it was an eventful game and Juve goal was amazing. It was not a "bad" final.
It goes back to what I have said before. In Club futbol teams can buy the best players in the world and can practice together to form a cohesion and chemistry for many , many hours on end. They also have a calendar full of matches and competitions to help them out in that area as well. International soccer like Euros and the World Cup suffer from less time together along with not being able to purchase players where you have weaknesses. Those are the main reasons why Champions League Finals seem to be more entertaining than National Team finals.
Some get better. Some get better at their tacts to try and grind out a victory. And it doesn't always look pretty since so much is at stake. Then we get the low scores.
Limited improvement can be expected in 7 games (or less). Compare that to club football which is upwards of 50 games. And that's if we just focus on one season. Fact is, many clubs don't change significantly in the summer so they have 50 games together, then a few tweaks here and there to the squad, followed by 50 more games together, followed by modest changes, etc. etc.
It would be interesting to do something like look at the players who started at least half of Barcelona's 2010 Champions League Knockout Round games (using that part of the tournament so that it will span fewer months and won't have a transfer window during it) and see what percent of them started at least half of Barcelona's 2014 Champions League Knockout Round games. Then I could do the same thing for Spain's World Cup 2010 and 2014 players to compare how much the players changed for a club and a national team.
And the other thing to note is that players on NTs are not always together for 7 matches during these int'l tournaments. In many cases its only 3 or 4 matches, and once in a career a player might get to play 5-7 matches. With clubs its pretty much a guaranteed 50 matches (roughly) per season for the same group to play together, even if the team does poorly.
I suppose I should also have mentioned this past FA cup final, I sort of watched it in fits and starts (I was doing an event, watched the first 20 mins of the second half live, and then completed the game as a speed through that evening). That, also, seemed like a decent game. Maybe this thread has fixed the problem! Cue a year of great finals! Gold Cup, then MLS cup, World Club Cup, FA Cup, Champions League, then a spectacular World Cup 2018 final! Actually I also didn't mention last season's World Club Cup final. OK if I remember it correctly, although Real Madrid really dominated. That final is a little different in that competition before is only game (for the European team), so maybe it is a different category.
Yes, the competition before the final is just one game for them. And, I think the format is a good one, I was not criticizing it.
Entering into evidence a thouroughly entertaining final; the 2017 MLS final, won 2-0 by Toronto, was really good. Toronto was all over Seattle but could not put the ball in till halfway through the second half. I enjoyed it.
It was a great final but the Sounders simply didn't show up. It was very one sided. I was at the game and being a TFC fan, I can't complain
Nice! It looked like a great event to be at. It was so one sided, but without the goal, and then without the second goal, still very nerve racking (I hate the Sounders, plus you guys have been fun to watch the last few seasons, so I was in your camp). But yeah, a very good game but perhaps not a great game because only one side showed up.
Um... The Copa América Centenario final was entertaining as all hell: two red cards in the first half, both teams bombing forward at every opportunity, HIGUAIN!!!!!!!! **hits head against a wall**, a perfect Chilean defense stymying arguably the greatest attacker the game has ever known, a penalty shootout with both teams' talismans missing the first kick, Argentina players resigning en masse after the game...it had damn near everything but a goal. There are very few 0-0s that I'd watch again in their entirety without a problem, and that game is on the list.