Saturday, October 30

Another soccer fanboy!

My famous Ten Reasons Why Soccer Sucks article is still drawing mail on both sides of the fence, even now that we're months removed from the World Cup and everyone should have stopped caring about soccer by now. We recently were treated to this gem from Anonymous over on TFB, and now Kyle has dropped by to express his displeasure via comment. And by "comment" I mean drop four comments, which comprise the original comment plus three subsequent ones that break that comment up into smaller parts, which is always my preferred way of leaving blog commentary.

I'll give soccer fans this: they're tenacious fellows and passionate defenders of their preferred game. That having been said, let's deal with Kyle, a young man with a significant reservoir of rage directed my way:

Nothing like making completely generalized, blanket statements towards a sport and it's players.
Nothing like putting apostrophes where they don't belong and writing in sentence fragments. I wouldn't normally stoop to this level (OK, maybe I would), except that Kyle excoriates me later for using a big word. Tit for tat.

Soccer is subjective, it's not objective like baseball and basketball are.
The winner of a soccer match is determined by which team feels like they played the best, not the final score.

I know you NASCAR loving,
Hold on just a second. NASCAR? Sir, you have me mistaken!

baseball gagging sports fans need your ERA's and batting avg's, but soccer isn't like that.
Because they never score. That was item #5 in my original post. Glad we agree.

And can you completely discount soccer as the beautiful game just because a defender makes a great play on a great build up??
No, not just because of that. I provided several arguments in support of my thesis that soccer is no more "beautiful" or "elegant" than other sports I enjoy. Don't reductionize me, son.

Does that not also happen in basketball, football, and even your beloved baseball? A well designed and executed play in football stopped on the goaline with a swatted ball by the DB or stripped from behind on the goaline, most often leading to the ridiculous touchback rule.
Yes, it does. Sometimes in football, the offense wins too.

And how many times have we seen a nicely anticipated steal with great outlet passes end with Bron Bron swatting the lay up into next week?
I forget the exact number - AC and Fred had a count last year, like thirty-something times? Also, the Cavs didn't battle to any 0-0 ties in those games.

You're challenging the very foundation on which all sports depend.
I am doing no such thing! I'm making fun of soccer for being silly. Do not generalize my argument.

One great play/player beating out another great play/player.
Sentence fragment. And for those of you keeping score, I never argued that soccer is lame for this reason. I enjoy great play/player combinations, as well as big-time play/big-time players.

If Torri Hunter were to snag a homerun over the wall, you'd say that was great
It's spelled "Torii," and: the hell I would! I can't stand that dude. At least I've never seen him fake a shin injury, though.

but a defender in soccer stops a great build up and it's the travesty of the century and it completely negates "the beautiful game" moniker. Very logical.
I'll refrain from correcting grammar for a minute and shift my attention to correcting logical fallacies here. For one, ease up on putting hyperbole in my mouth with "travesty of the century." You keep trying to equivocate single events to one another, equating a defensive play in soccer to a defensive play in football. Yet they aren't analogous; you're ignoring the points I make about defense being disproportionately strong in soccer and how that tends to overvalue fluky scores and penalty kicks.

And here, let me explain the aggregate system that is used in soccer.
Kyle never does get around to this.

Unlike your boring 7-game baseball series,
Disagree on the adjective, but continue...

the Champions League and other tournaments use the aggregate system. Do you not see how everything does not have to be done the way Americans and true patriots of freedom do it?
I do see this. For example, I think the US should switch to 24-hour time and the metric system, and I envy Europe's social services.

How about this years World Series that is going into NOVEMBER!
Oh no! Doesn't soccer season seem to last all year? I feel like I'm ignoring soccer scores on the SportsCenter ticker year-round.

Lord knows it could benefit from a shortened series.
Because...less baseball? I'm confused. Maybe less off-days would be good - is that what you're saying?

The aggregate system places emphasis on tactics and how managers create sides for away and home matches.
The US system places emphasis on winning more games than your opponent.

Home field advantage is far more significant in soccer.
I'm not disputing this, just wondering why it would be true. The game is fluid enough to remove most of the effect fans might have in dead-ball situations, there's too little scoring for much crowd momentum to be established, and there's no inherent home edge built into the rules, like batting last in baseball or last line change in hockey.

You are clearly too closed minded
Everyone do a shot! Can't believe it took you this long!

and used to the way good ole Americans do it to even see how this would be beneficial. Your arguments are based on ignorance. Ignorance towards the game, ignorance toward it's fans and especially toward how the game is played.
This is absolute rubbish. Read my response to Kyle's comrade-in-arms for my rebuttal to that. My position is not one of ignorance, and it is not for a lack of having thought about and watched the game. I've considered both sides, and decided that eliminating a team based on tying them twice and advancing because the score was higher in the away game is less optimal than having to defeat your opponent a specified number of times. I'm not calling you ignorant simply because you disagree with me, and you shouldn't do the same.

Also, do you really want to compare soccer fans attire to say football fans?? Can I interest you in an un-tuck of that huge jersey from your dad jeans?
Remember that SNL sketch that was a fake ad for "Mom Jeans"? Hilarious. I liked the tagline "Because you're not a woman anymore. You're a Mom." I stand by my criticism of jerseys prominently featuring advertisements.

And this is coming from a diehard football family. My dad is a 20 yr high school head football coach.
Mine is a manufacturer's representative. He's an awesome guy.

You don't have to hate sports you don't understand to enjoy the ones you do.
Agreed. They are quite separate feelings. This is not a strong argument in favor of soccer, however.

Nice close minded piece.
Thanks! Oh wait, that was sarcastic - you tricked me! I used to not like hockey until I started watching it and now I'm a big fan. Same with curling. On the other side, I played and watched soccer and still don't like it. I clearly have demonstrated the capacity to learn and enjoy new sports. Is that close-minded to you?

There has to be some sort of drinking game we can build out of soccer fans calling people "close minded" just because we don't like their game. Have you noticed that I don't do this? If someone wrote a piece criticizing football, I wouldn't label them as such - I'd instead provide counterarguments where appropriate.

And finally, if you want to sound all proper and use large words like "festooned,"
I like using "festooned"! I also used "infraction" and "stultifyingly" - did you see? Also, lay off my writing until you figure out how to write a fucking sentence that isn't a run-on or a fragment and learn how to use apostophes. "Its" only has an apostrophe when it's (it is) a contraction, not when it's (it is) possessive. Might I suggest that you're "ignorant" of proper grammar, or perhaps even "close minded" with apostrophe usage? You're throwing some serious rocks in that glass house of yours, genius.

maybe your arguments should be equally as tactful and not so devoid of logic.
This, coming from someone lobbing ad hominem attacks at me in lieu of analysis. Disagree with my conclusions if you must, but let's not suggest that I haven't argued my points. They are most certainly not devoid of logic, except the few instances where I just took potshots to amuse myself.

It will keep you from looking like a jackass like you did in this article.
How come you didn't write "close-minded jackass"? I'm a bit disappointed, frankly. The best would have been had you called me a "close-minded jackas's."

No comments: