Ever find yourself frustrated by the lack of scoring in a game? Ever struggle to share your joy of the game with American cohorts? Maybe this will help.
Prior to the Germans casting off their tradition of dourly efficient footy and gallivanting about like a coked-up Barcelona, none of the results from the first 3 days of World Cup soccer were particularly inspiring. I'm sure hordes of Americans tuning in to see what the fuss was about were turned off by scores like 1-1, 0-0, 1-0, and the uneven, nervy draw against England.
Major American sports are defined by a never-ending stream of recordable micro-events: balls and strikes, first downs, rebounds, completed passes, double plays, blocked shots, and so forth. Box scores for every sport regularly spawn additional columns to satisfy our stats- and fantasy-obsessed fans. From this perspective, watching soccer can seem boring or frustrating - without a bunch of tangible events to track in-game, how can we even be sure something is happening?
I used to think about the sport this way, too. Scoreless soccer felt like watching a chef chop vegetables but failing to prepare a dish. Then, one day, a British announcer tossed off a phrase commonly used across the pond but totally unknown to me over here and everything changed.
I was watching Liverpool dominate possession of the ball against Sunderland, but every time Liverpool advanced into or near the penalty area, they were turned away by the defense. I felt frustrated at the inability of the attackers to deliver a finishing blow (or even get off a good shot) until the commentator said something to the effect of, "Liverpool continue to ask questions of the defense, and each time Sunderland produces an answer."
Maybe that doesn't seem like much of a "wow" moment, but my brain started doing that thing where it goes tingly and spacey. All this time I'd been thinking of soccer like an American sport, awaiting numeric events to be recorded and using that to judge what made a good or bad game. But that's exactly the wrong way to watch it. Soccer's about attackers asking questions and defenses providing answers (and occasionally failing to answer). Instead of basketball or American football, soccer has more in common with:
1) An epic martial arts battle. Who doesn't enjoy watching two opponents poking and prodding each other's defenses, seeking an opening to deliver a strike? Watching a good soccer defense frustrate and foil attackers is like watching a young Jackie Chan deflecting blow after blow from an increasingly angry foe.
Each attempted punch or kick asks a question of Chan's defense, and whenever he fails to answer correctly, he takes one in the grill. It's fun to watch (fake) punches connect, but it's just as exhilarating to watch him repeatedly repel the advances of his opponents. The same can be said of well-constructed soccer defenses that consistently have answers for questions posed by the attack.
2) A cinematic cross-examination. Come on, everybody loves a good legal showdown onscreen, especially a cross-examination. A Few Good Men is corny as hell, but the final courtroom climax is juicy and satisfying melodrama.
Cruise's Lt. Kaffee jabs at Nicholsen's Col. Jessup futilely, unable to find a crack in his armor until he senses the weak spot - Jessup's god complex. Each failure by Kaffee is as compelling as his ultimate success because it's just as fun to watch Jessup swat him away. That's great defense.
When you think about soccer as questions and answers, every move forward becomes a clause, adding to an increasingly threatening query. Will the defense cut off the line of questioning or be stunned by the wordplay? Is the defense happy to allow the offense to talk and talk and talk, letting the blowhards waste energy and then pouncing when they're out of breath? Or do defenders try to deny their enemies the floor, preferring to control an interrogation of their own?
The 'Asking Questions' frame makes the game about process rather than results. The outcome matters, but how you get there, the way you asked and responded, is equally critical. If you're lucky, you find yourself surfing the transfer of energy, of confidence, of control, between the two sides. You're completely in the moment.
This means a 0-0 game can be a blast, but it doesn't mean there's no such thing as bad soccer. When both teams are afraid to ask questions, it gets boring fast. Law and Order becomes Small Claims Court, and even the people in the room start dozing off. Cowardly play drives viewers mad, which is why soccer fans spend as much time debating the style their team ought to play as much as what the results of their season mean. When a team like Spain plays The Beautiful Game, it's like writing brilliant prose with the ball, daring to put themselves out there with every turn of phrase as they ask big questions about life, the universe, and everything. Sometimes they might ask stupid questions, and sometimes opponents have plenty of answers. But at least they're asking. And sometimes they raise a question so profound the whole world hears it.
I'm sure there are plenty of other ways to look at soccer that help people detach from the tyranny of recordable events, but the Q&A was the one that did it for me. Once I started looking at the game this way, the viewing experience immediately and radically improved.
Can watching the game through a slightly different lens really transform the soccer experience that much? You bet. And as always, we have only to turn to Luke Skywalker for proof. From the time he started whining to Obi-Wan on Tatooine, all he wanted to do was hook up with Princess Leia. Even after he blew up the Death Star, he never took his eyes off the prize. And when he finally got a smooch on Hoth, Luke gloated like the cockiest anus in the galaxy.
Then he found out she was his sister.
Everything depends on how you look at it. Right, Luke?
I know what questions I'd like her to answer. ..Wait, she's what now?
------
Registration is required! Don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper right menu before starting to write your comment.
15 goals through 9 games (Netherlands-Denmark just finished)... At this pace this is the lowest scoring World Cup. Previous low was 2.1 goals per game.
The point of this post was not to defend the specific soccer played @ this Cup necessarily—like I said, there can definitely be bad soccer. It’s more that the score is not the best indicator of whether the game is good, and in fact obsessing over it (and other numbers) can inhibit the joy of the game.
Now, as for the scoring thus far: everyone is panicking over it, but we’re not even through the first round of group games! Everyone knows teams play a little tentatively in the first game because of the fear of losing out of the gate. Once teams start to sort themselves out in the standings, the tenor of the games will change for the better.
I really enjoyed the NED-DEN game today even though it was sort of a jumbled mess. The questions being asked were sort of disjointed, many of them barely got started, but the enthusiasm for asking them was high, and that always keeps me going. #.02
I’ve seen examples of how obsessing over numbers can give you a completely different view of a game instead of what’s actually happening.
I was working a television camera (for a local cable station) at a hockey game one night and during the break between periods, as we normally did, we wandered over to the commentator’s booth to chat and I mentioned that this was one of the most boring games I’d seen in ages. One of the guys looks at me, wide-eyed, and asks how could I say that? Why there were 20 shots on goal in the first period alone!
And I said yes, there might have been…but did he remember any of them? The vast majority involved the puck sliding toward the general direction of the net and the goalie easily handling them, almost as if they were gentle passes from his own team. Half of them weren’t even shots but the players screwing up passes that ricocheted off the boards or another player and happened to go in the general direction of the net.
Because it was their job, they were adding excitement for the viewing audience and so that was the mindset they were in, but anyone actually at the game would have seen something completely different from what you’d think the game was like if you only read the stats.
Great point, Keith - numbers can definitely obscure the story. I had the fortune to be paid to do web TV about the NFL draft in years past, and I learned how much scouts substitute stats for legitimate evaluation of players and gained a lot of insight into how so many mistakes are made by teams choosing players. I think it’s one of the reasons I’ve fallen in love with int’l football - it’s the anti-stat game.
Box scores for every sport regularly spawn additional columns to satisfy our stats- and fantasy-obsessed fans. From this perspective, watching soccer can seem boring or frustrating - without a bunch of tangible events to track in-game, how can we even be sure something is happening?
Does this mean that soccer is impervious to Fantasy Freaks? A new day, a new reason to follow soccer.
@shakahi - sadly, no. still lots of fantasy games, but there are some pluses: fewer people take it seriously and the games are way less involved. full disclosure: i tend to play them as it helps me learn more about players, but they’re larks. and i used to be one of those people who played fantasy games for a LOT of money. #gladthatsover
Isn’t complete abstinence the method used by 12 step programs to end dysfunctional and/or addictive behaviors and let the healing begin, behaviors such as playing fantasy sports, Marc?
I’m not complaining about low scoring—I’d much rather watch a well played 0-0 draw than a 7-5 sloppy game.
Plus, the teams many people figured were the truly weak haven’t played yet—New Zealand, North Korea, and Honduras. Who knows how many an on-form Brazil can score against North Korea?
Great post Marc, and something I’ve tried numerous times to explain to people who don’t like soccer. Nearly always, they mention the scorelines - “How can a game be exciting when it ends 0-0?” And I try to explain that the final score does not necessarily mean a thing about how the game went - that, yes, no goals might mean no real chances, no good attacks…or it might mean lots of amazing saves by the keepers and shots that slam off the woodwork like the dead ancestors of the other team were guiding them astray.
And the high-scoring games can be fun, sure, when it’s your team winning…but goals are special, and the more there are, the less special they become. If every baseball game had 5 or 6 home runs, eventually home runs wouldn’t mean much at all.
More to the point, ask a baseball fan if a perfect game or no-hitter is exciting… then ask why the same in soccer is not.
I recall, about 30 years ago, there was a survey about American football that showed a correlation between political orientation and desire for scoring—Democrats preferred the lower scoring defensive contests, and Republicans preferred the higher scoring offensive contests.
More to the point, ask a baseball fan if a perfect game or no-hitter is exciting… then ask why the same in soccer is not.
Ask a baseball fan if the holy grail of baseball, both teams on a perfect game wouldn’t be one of the most talked about ever played in Major League Baseball.
I had the fortune to be paid to do web TV about the NFL draft in years past, and I learned how much scouts substitute stats for legitimate evaluation of players and gained a lot of insight into how so many mistakes are made by teams choosing players.
Because it’s easier. How do you explain to coach or general manager that “Yeah, this guy doesn’t score many points or get any assists, or make huge defensive plays that make the highlight reel but 25% of the time he touches the ball/puck/whatever to set up a play, his team scores” when no one is likely keeping track of that sort of thing.
When I was an umpire, I knew a guy playing league softball who was a tactical genius at the bat. He had a good hitting percentage but generally wasn’t seen as a real threat by opposing teams because he wasn’t a power hitter. What he did do, better than others I’ve seen, was place a hit. He could get the ball moving in almost any direction he wanted. Runner at second? The ball was going down the right field line, giving the runner the best opportunity to make the turn and head home. No one on base? It was going down the left field line to give him the best chance to get to first. One of the outfielders slow running? Almost certainly the ball would land forcing him to make a long run for it. Another one have a weak arm? Long, long fly ball giving the runner the chance to score on the tag. Shortstop not very good moving to his left? Line drive that way. Same shortstop but a left-handed pitcher (the line drive would have been on his gloveside)? The ball is going somewhere else.
I even saw him once comment to the catcher that he should move the right fielder in about 20 feet to give him a chance to catch the hit. Guess where the ball landed? Next at bat he did the same thing, catcher moved the fielder in…and he hit it the other way, driving in a run. Had them completely psyched out.
If you looked at only the stats, or happened upon a single game, he wasn’t a very remarkable player, and based on stats alone would be bench-fodder, but that’s all. But if I had been coaching, I would have picked him in a heartbeat, even if only as a pinch-hitter in a critical situation. You had to watch him for a lengthy bit of time to realize what he was doing.
When the last minute comes, an NFL or NBA coach or MLB manager is the man with the dry-erase board who tells the players what to do, every five seconds if necessary. I hope we aren’t used to this we can’t understand soccer players thinking on their feet, because if we are, the USA will never be “finishing school” for soccer like it is for basketball or baseball. The ceiling on development here will be lowered.
I’d love to see the left-wing/right-wing split on that.
I had the fortune to be paid to do web TV about the NFL draft in years past, and I learned how much scouts substitute stats for legitimate evaluation of players and gained a lot of insight into how so many mistakes are made by teams choosing players.
Now I think it’s gone too far the other way. They put so much emphasis on the character of young men in their early twenties. Why do you think Tebow was drafted at all? His character alone got him drafted. And there’s some racism in there, I think. Especially when a white NFL scout asks a black player if his mother’s a prostitute.
Ever find yourself frustrated by the lack of scoring in a game? Ever struggle to share your joy of the game with American cohorts? Maybe this will help.
Prior to the Germans casting off their tradition of dourly efficient footy and gallivanting about like a coked-up Barcelona, none of the results from the first 3 days of World Cup soccer were particularly inspiring. I'm sure hordes of Americans tuning in to see what the fuss was about were turned off by scores like 1-1, 0-0, 1-0, and the uneven, nervy draw against England.
Major American sports are defined by a never-ending stream of recordable micro-events: balls and strikes, first downs, rebounds, completed passes, double plays, blocked shots, and so forth. Box scores for every sport regularly spawn additional columns to satisfy our stats- and fantasy-obsessed fans. From this perspective, watching soccer can seem boring or frustrating - without a bunch of tangible events to track in-game, how can we even be sure something is happening?
I used to think about the sport this way, too. Scoreless soccer felt like watching a chef chop vegetables but failing to prepare a dish. Then, one day, a British announcer tossed off a phrase commonly used across the pond but totally unknown to me over here and everything changed.
I was watching Liverpool dominate possession of the ball against Sunderland, but every time Liverpool advanced into or near the penalty area, they were turned away by the defense. I felt frustrated at the inability of the attackers to deliver a finishing blow (or even get off a good shot) until the commentator said something to the effect of, "Liverpool continue to ask questions of the defense, and each time Sunderland produces an answer."
Maybe that doesn't seem like much of a "wow" moment, but my brain started doing that thing where it goes tingly and spacey. All this time I'd been thinking of soccer like an American sport, awaiting numeric events to be recorded and using that to judge what made a good or bad game. But that's exactly the wrong way to watch it. Soccer's about attackers asking questions and defenses providing answers (and occasionally failing to answer). Instead of basketball or American football, soccer has more in common with:
1) An epic martial arts battle. Who doesn't enjoy watching two opponents poking and prodding each other's defenses, seeking an opening to deliver a strike? Watching a good soccer defense frustrate and foil attackers is like watching a young Jackie Chan deflecting blow after blow from an increasingly angry foe.
Each attempted punch or kick asks a question of Chan's defense, and whenever he fails to answer correctly, he takes one in the grill. It's fun to watch (fake) punches connect, but it's just as exhilarating to watch him repeatedly repel the advances of his opponents. The same can be said of well-constructed soccer defenses that consistently have answers for questions posed by the attack.
2) A cinematic cross-examination. Come on, everybody loves a good legal showdown onscreen, especially a cross-examination. A Few Good Men is corny as hell, but the final courtroom climax is juicy and satisfying melodrama.
Cruise's Lt. Kaffee jabs at Nicholsen's Col. Jessup futilely, unable to find a crack in his armor until he senses the weak spot - Jessup's god complex. Each failure by Kaffee is as compelling as his ultimate success because it's just as fun to watch Jessup swat him away. That's great defense.
When you think about soccer as questions and answers, every move forward becomes a clause, adding to an increasingly threatening query. Will the defense cut off the line of questioning or be stunned by the wordplay? Is the defense happy to allow the offense to talk and talk and talk, letting the blowhards waste energy and then pouncing when they're out of breath? Or do defenders try to deny their enemies the floor, preferring to control an interrogation of their own?
The 'Asking Questions' frame makes the game about process rather than results. The outcome matters, but how you get there, the way you asked and responded, is equally critical. If you're lucky, you find yourself surfing the transfer of energy, of confidence, of control, between the two sides. You're completely in the moment.
This means a 0-0 game can be a blast, but it doesn't mean there's no such thing as bad soccer. When both teams are afraid to ask questions, it gets boring fast. Law and Order becomes Small Claims Court, and even the people in the room start dozing off. Cowardly play drives viewers mad, which is why soccer fans spend as much time debating the style their team ought to play as much as what the results of their season mean. When a team like Spain plays The Beautiful Game, it's like writing brilliant prose with the ball, daring to put themselves out there with every turn of phrase as they ask big questions about life, the universe, and everything. Sometimes they might ask stupid questions, and sometimes opponents have plenty of answers. But at least they're asking. And sometimes they raise a question so profound the whole world hears it.
I'm sure there are plenty of other ways to look at soccer that help people detach from the tyranny of recordable events, but the Q&A was the one that did it for me. Once I started looking at the game this way, the viewing experience immediately and radically improved.
Can watching the game through a slightly different lens really transform the soccer experience that much? You bet. And as always, we have only to turn to Luke Skywalker for proof. From the time he started whining to Obi-Wan on Tatooine, all he wanted to do was hook up with Princess Leia. Even after he blew up the Death Star, he never took his eyes off the prize. And when he finally got a smooch on Hoth, Luke gloated like the cockiest anus in the galaxy.
Then he found out she was his sister.
Everything depends on how you look at it. Right, Luke?
I know what questions I'd like her to answer. ..Wait, she's what now?
15 goals through 9 games (Netherlands-Denmark just finished)... At this pace this is the lowest scoring World Cup. Previous low was 2.1 goals per game.