You know, if you want to attack a sport, go for cricket. I never understood cricket, particularly how one team can be ahead in runs, or overs, or whatever, and the game is called a draw? What the fuck is all that about? Follow on? Explain please.
Printable View
You know, if you want to attack a sport, go for cricket. I never understood cricket, particularly how one team can be ahead in runs, or overs, or whatever, and the game is called a draw? What the fuck is all that about? Follow on? Explain please.
Most of the changes in the NHL:
http://www.nhl.com/nhlhq/cba/rules_changes072205.html
are geared towards trying to increase the number of goals scored in a game in the hopes of making it more marketable in the US. Most of the changes I agree with, but for different reasons. Watching a defensive team play the box to a T makes for a very boring game. Goalie pads were getting just stupidly big. And most of the changes will help make the game flow faster, smoother with less stoppage of play and more show of skill.
But increasing the overall goals scored? I could care less, and I really don't get this mentality at all. I've watched some absolutely amazing 1 - 0, edge of your seat screaming the whole way games. The games were fast paced, good hitting, lots of good scoring chances and generally had good calling by the refs. THAT made for good hockey.
This applies to soccer too. I don't see what earthly good it would do to make changes to the game for the sole purpose of increasing the goals. Its already one of the most popular games in the world, and any of the changes I've seen suggested would only serve to alienate its biggest audience. As for bad luck costing you the game, you could easily say the same for any other sport out there. If its close enough that a bad break resulting in a scoring chance costs you the game, that means the other team was good enough to keep it a tight game and not let that happen to themselves. Just because its not a high scoring game, doesn't mean the chances aren't there.. and making that chance just makes it that much cooler. And the game is reasonably fast paced with few stoppages of play.
Compare this to:
American Football: Has to be one of the boringest games for me to watch. Only time I've ever enjoyed it was watching it with someone that knew the game, explained the little details and he was more fun to watch as he screamed at the ref's than the game itself. Oh, and the game was recorded so we only watched the action bits. Not the > 50% with the commentators rambling on or players wandering up and down the field, or whatever else.
Baseball: Same thing. Sure you might get some high scoring games.. but yippee. Half the game is spent watching the players scratch their balls or the pitcher keeping tabs on the first base. There's a simpson's episode where Homer goes to a game sober for the first time, and finally realizes how boring the game is. Sums it up nicely.
I think Kraxe hit the problem on the head with it being a cultural thing. That, and there already is a glut of sports in NA. With everything that has come become popular, there really isn't much room for anything else.
As an aside, if scoring is so important why is something like Nascar racing so hugely popular? Admittedly, I don't understand the mechanics behind the sport.. but how fun can watching a bunch of cars go around a track for a few hours be? Almost all of it is watching the same cars go around the same corners repeatedly and waiting for someone to make a move.
Dropping off offsides completely would just ruin the game. Look at older soccer games and then you will see why the offsides were introduced.
I do agree, however, that the rule needs to be changed in favour of the offense. It's too common for weaker teams to play offside trap and just kill the game.
Regarding the clock, well, this rule has changed a bit because now the ref does say how much time he is adding to the game. From what I know, in the MLS it's a bit different (or at least was in the beginning) that the clock would stop during every injury/foul/offside, and the ref would end the game when 90 min exactly have passed (which I found very silly). I think it's a matter of mentality.
This is untrue.Quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle
Basketball is becoming VERY popular in Europe.
Although the quality of players in Europe has become much better, the popularity of the game has never been so low. During the 90's and before, all the major teams would have sold out all their season-tickets before it ever started, and now the only places where stadiums are full (or anywhere near it) are Spain and Israel. Take Italy or Serbia - while there are great players and great players there, the stadiums are almost always empty. As for Greece and Turkey, which used to have a very "hot" atmosphere, there's nothing left of it. and if the stadium is half full - it's amazing.