Why America Hates Football (a.k.a. Soccer)

Setana wrote: "Yes, it is the point of this site, which is why i offered mine. I did not charge you with presumption, i simply noted how amusing i find it when this happens. I would be similarly amused by the analysis of the collective psyche of any large group.

I recognize that one cannot speak about an entire nation without generalizing. Attempting to read the psyche of an individual, let alone a group, however, is something of which i remain sceptical.

But, y'all have fun, now, ya hear? "

I agree with your point regarding generalization. My thoughts might have rung more true had I said "many" or "most" or even "some".

And we-all ARE having fun, absolutely !!! Very Happy

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

I contend that you confuse facillity in scoring with defense.

That's the best you could come up with?

Considered in vacuo, it's relatively easy to throw a basketball through a net -- although, as is demonstrated by free-throw shooting, it's still not that easy (just ask Shaq). Indeed, considering the act of scoring itself, probably the easiest sport in which to score is soccer. Really, how hard is it to kick a ball into a 8' x 24' goal?

But there's no point in talking about "facility in scoring" outside the context of the game. Put eleven guys between the shooter and the net and all of a sudden it's not as easy to score in soccer. "Facility in scoring," therefore, means nothing by itself. In the context of the sport as it is actually played, it means the ease by which the offense can dominate over the defense. And that's the only context that matters.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Basketball is very much focused on defense, and the frequency of scoring reflects the facility of scoring and not the degree to which defense plays a part.

If that were the only, or even the most prominent, consideration, then a typical soccer game would end up with a score of something like 54-48.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

That's the best you could come up with?

Perhaps, but given that it's better than what you have I recommend holding off on smug.

joefromchicago wrote:

Considered in vacuo, it's relatively easy to throw a basketball through a net -- although, as is demonstrated by free-throw shooting, it's still not that easy (just ask Shaq). Indeed, considering the act of scoring itself, probably the easiest sport in which to score is soccer. Really, how hard is it to kick a ball into a 8' x 24' goal?

This is a very simplistic approach to accessing the comparative difficulty. One that needs to ignore the context of the game as it is actually played.

The comparative difficulties include the manner of dribbling (hand versus foot) "in the context of the sport as it is actually played" (as opposed to your need to strip it of an entire side to make this point) and the act of scoring is easier in basketball than in football (as it is actually played, not in your stripped example), and is so regardless of how competent the defenders are.

You asserted that the mere frequency with which a basket is made indicates that the sport "is not very defensively oriented at all".

This is a reductionist point of view, as the frequency of the scoring may have more to do with the facility with which it is possible within the parameters of the game than a lacking orientation in defense.

It is true that by the nature of the sports, basketball's "offense", as measured plainly by scoring, dominates more so than in football. What I am asserting is that this has more to do with the nature of the difficulty of each sport's scoring (whether against a mediocre defense or not) than with "defensive orientation".

But do note that the claim I had been addressing was your claim here that basketball "is not very defensively oriented at all".

This statement ignores that in basketball coaching defense plays a bigger part than in football coaching, and that teams primarily known for defense in basketball frequently win, while in football the teams with a forté in offense usually win.

Quote:

In the context of the sport as it is actually played, it means the ease by which the offense can dominate over the defense. And that's the only context that matters.

That is certainly one way to look at it, another would be to access the "defensive orientation" on the degree to which differentiating defensive skill can win championships.

In basketball defence can do so, in football this is less common. And to assert that basketball is not defensively oriented "at all" simply on the basis of frequency of score is to ignore a significant part of how the game is played and a significant part of how the game is won.

But even if we play by your criteria here your argument is flawed. You are measuring "the ease by which the offense can dominate over the defense" exclusively by a single criteria of your choosing (scoring frequency) and while ignoring overarching criteria like winning a game primarily on the basis of the defensive skill.

In football, skilled defense does not win games as often as in basketball.

In football, defense is a way to tie, and not to win (i.e. dominate).

In football, to win means to be "offensively oriented".

In football, as opposed to nearly any other sport, being offensively oriented hampers defensive orientation directly and by the nature of the game an offensively oriented team will suffer in defence.

So in football, as opposed to basketball, teams that win championships generally orient themselves around offense more so than defence, as offence is what dominates (i.e. wins games and championships, as opposed to the "domination" of scoring frequency between sports) and defense is to go for a tie.

0 Replies

"In football, defense is a way to tie, and not to win (i.e. dominate)."

My daughter's team two seasons ago came up against the best team in the league, and down a player. The coach that day was my friend, a fill in, who obviously knew what he was doing. He put all 9 girls back on defense to help the goalie, no one was up on the other teams defenders at all. The ball stayed in our half of the field the entire game, but they never scored, and wound up tying 0-0. Needless to say, it was celebrated as a victory and the girls were quite thrilled (the other team wasn't so happy about it).

0 Replies

Yep, that's usually the USA team's strategy as well since they don't know how to shoot on goal.

So the US has a decent record with theor great defensive team, but probably won't win championships until they figure out how to shoot on goal.

Playing a defensive game is often sound strategy for one football match (e.g. the second game of a 2 game series after winning the first 3-0), but not for an overall strategy.

0 Replies

Craven, you are really explaining (quite well) one school of football. But not all football.

Brazilians often have below par defenders (not always, any team would love to have Cafú or Roberto Carlos), very few recoverers (Clodoaldo, of the 70s Verde-Amarelha did all the recovery by himself), and bases it's defense on having the ball and attacking. This later concept is also defended by Dutch football.
It works more often than not. But not always. See what happened to Real Madrid this year. Think about the reasons that have prevented the Netherlands from winning, ever, a World Cup.

And there's the other school, founded by a Brazilian who coached in Italy during the sixties, Helenio Herrera (HH) and invented the so-called "Catenaccio" (Lock).
It purports that the key player is the "libero", the defender who has nobody to mark, is left for coverages (he's the guy behind the defender who marks the player with the ball), and can "order" the game from behind. Italians also invented the concept of "railers": defenders who move all through one side of the field, and -given the opportunity- add themselves on attack.
Sometimes it works (Greece in the recent Eurocup is the best example). Sometimes it doesn't (Italy in the same Eurocup is the best example).

Balance is what is needed. Yet, as in other human activities, balance is hard to achieve.

0 Replies

fbaezer wrote:

Craven, you are really explaining (quite well) one school of football. But not all football.

I don't think I could explain it all here.

Quote:

Brazilians often have below par defenders (not always, any team would love to have Cafú or Roberto Carlos), very few recoverers (Clodoaldo, of the 70s Verde-Amarelha did all the recovery by himself), and bases it's defense on having the ball and attacking. This later concept is also defended by Dutch football.

My favorites!

I will note that while Cafu and Roberto Carlos are great defenders the team strategy is to allow them to advance and play more of an offensive role than a defensive one.

So much so that the only restraint Big Phil had imposed on them is to avoid both advancing at the same time.

Quote:

It works more often than not. But not always. See what happened to Real Madrid this year. Think about the reasons that have prevented the Netherlands from winning, ever, a World Cup.

I haven't paid any attention to football since the Timão won the world championship last century (except for the cup, which I did watch) but I do think that the orange folk don't win because they have a great mid-field and not as spectacular of an attack, they have some good folk but not a tradition of matadores.

They too have had great defenders (Stam).

Quote:

And there's the other school, founded by a Brazilian who coached in Italy during the sixties, Helenio Herrera (HH) and invented the so-called "Catenaccio" (Lock).
It purports that the key player is the "libero", the defender who has nobody to mark, is left for coverages (he's the guy behind the defender who marks the player with the ball), and can "order" the game from behind. Italians also invented the concept of "railers": defenders who move all through one side of the field, and -given the opportunity- add themselves on attack.
Sometimes it works (Greece in the recent Eurocup is the best example). Sometimes it doesn't (Italy in the same Eurocup is the best example).

Balance is what is needed. Yet, as in other human activities, balance is hard to achieve.

Oh I agree completely, and Germany is another good example of a more rigid strategic style (that invariably focuses more on both defense and stopped ball plays).

The Timão used Rincon as a great libero-volante.

Thing is, what I'm trying to get at is that in basketball scoring is so easy to be somewhat of a given.

So an entire strategy can focus on defensive orientation (see the old cleveland cavs) and with no concern at all for offense because some scoring is a given.

So when Joe says that basketball is not very defensively oriented at all, merely on the basis of scoring frequency he ignores this.

And in comparison, a defensive focus has less potential for dominating (as defined by winning, not scoring) in football than in basketball.

Of course, you are right, that balance is a good thing as it nearly always is.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Perhaps, but given that it's better than what you have I recommend holding off on smug.

Me hold off on smug? You ask too much, my friend.

Craven de Kere wrote:

This is a very simplistic approach to accessing the comparative difficulty. One that needs to ignore the context of the game as it is actually played.

Of course it is a simplistic approach. And I suppose if someone were to take my statements out of context (as you have done) one might even come to the mistaken conclusion that I endorse that simplistic approach.

Craven de Kere wrote:

This is a reductionist point of view, as the frequency of the scoring may have more to do with the facility with which it is possible within the parameters of the game than a lacking orientation in defense.

If the parameters of the game allow for greater facility in scoring than in prevention of scoring, then the game favors the offense over the defense.

Craven de Kere wrote:

It is true that by the nature of the sports, basketball's "offense", as measured plainly by scoring, dominates more so than in football. What I am asserting is that this has more to do with the nature of the difficulty of each sport's scoring (whether against a mediocre defense or not) than with "defensive orientation".

See above.

Craven de Kere wrote:

But do note that the claim I had been addressing was your claim here that basketball "is not very defensively oriented at all".

This statement ignores that in basketball coaching defense plays a bigger part than in football coaching, and that teams primarily known for defense in basketball frequently win, while in football the teams with a forté in offense usually win.

Well, I suppose it's all relative. An NBA team may be noted as a "defensive team" if it allows "only" 80 points per game (a level not reached by any NBA in the 2003-2004 season: two teams gave up 84.26 ppg -- Detroit, which went on to win the NBA championship, and San Antonio, which didn't).

But the fact is that the defense in basketball is far weaker, within the parameters of the game, than defenses in other sports. Indeed, in one of the great ironies of sport, the one major innovation to help the defense in basketball -- the shot clock -- actually increased scoring.

The introduction of the shot clock is instructive in this regard. Without a time limit, the offense can hold onto the ball and there is very little that the defense can do to stop it apart from committing intentional fouls (as Dean Smith's teams demonstrated). The shot clock, therefore, was introduced as a means of redressing, to some extent, the imbalance between offense and defense in the game. But, compared with other sports (such as ice hockey), the defense in basketball is still much more passive. That's not because there's no place in the game for defense, it's because the game is still tilted decisively toward the offense.

Craven de Kere wrote:

But even if we play by your criteria here your argument is flawed. You are measuring "the ease by which the offense can dominate over the defense" exclusively by a single criteria of your choosing (scoring frequency) and while ignoring overarching criteria like winning a game primarily on the basis of the defensive skill.

I think that "single criterion" is pretty important. After all, the offense scores points: the defense prevents the offense from scoring points. A valid measure, then, of the relative weight of offense v. defense is the number of points scored.

0 Replies

As you will Joe, if you'd like to think of basketball as not being "defensively oriented at all" then I'll leave you to your opinion (just not interesting enough of a difference of opinion to spend more time on).

0 Replies

Just one aside, the shot clock was not, as you say, introduced to "help the defense" and it should come as no surprise to you that it increased scoring because that was the purpose of its introduction.

I give you NBA.com's History of the Shot Clock for your edification.

The NBA wrote:

Danny Biasone, the late owner of the Syracuse Nationals, invented the shot clock following the 1953-54 season to try to speed up the game and prevent teams from stalling.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Just one aside, the shot clock was not, as you say, introduced to "help the defense" and it should come as no surprise to you that it increased scoring because that was the purpose of its introduction.

I give you NBA.com's History of the Shot Clock for your edification.

The NBA wrote:
Danny Biasone, the late owner of the Syracuse Nationals, invented the shot clock following the 1953-54 season to try to speed up the game and prevent teams from stalling.

I am accustomed to people not reading my posts when they respond, but I am always surprised when they don't even read their own posts.

As I noted, the shot clock was introduced because, without it, the defense could not prevent the offense from holding onto the ball. And now you provide a quotation which states: "Danny Biasone... invented the shot clock following the 1953-54 season to try to speed up the game and prevent teams from stalling." Obviously, he didn't introduce the shot clock to prevent the defense from stalling, since the defense can't stall (a team can only stall if it has possession of the ball). Rather, the shot clock was a way of doing something that the defense, on its own, was incapable of doing: making the offense give up the ball.

If you're still in doubt that the shot clock helps the defense, ask yourself: would the offensive team prefer to have the shot clock or not?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

I am accustomed to people not reading my posts when they respond, but I am always surprised when they don't even read their own posts.

I read my post, and really Joe, you should save the cheap quips for people on whom they will have an effect.

Quote:

As I noted, the shot clock was introduced because, without it, the defense could not prevent the offense from holding onto the ball.

The revision is better than the original, where you claimed that it was introduced to "help the defense" and called it a great irony that it increased scoring.

Since it was introduced with the aim of increasing scoring the fact that it did should come as no surprise to you. Laughing

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Since it was introduced with the aim of increasing scoring the fact that it did should come as no surprise to you.

No, it was not introduced with the aim of increasing scoring. I give you NBA.com's History of the Shot Clock for your edification.

The NBA wrote:

Danny Biasone, the late owner of the Syracuse Nationals, invented the shot clock following the 1953-54 season to try to speed up the game and prevent teams from stalling.

Note: nothing in there about increasing scoring. Rather, as I pointed out (several times), the shot clock was introduced to stop the offense from stalling -- and that was a direct benefit to the defense. Really, Craven, your claims that you read your own posts would be a lot more credible if you didn't contradict your own posts.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Note: nothing in there about increasing scoring.

Wrong Joe.

Unless you are of the opinion that stimulating shots and forcing them is not going to be reflected in the score..

NBA.com wrote:

Biasone chose the unusual number of 24 seconds by figuring that the average number of shots two teams would take during a game was 120. He divided that number into 48 minutes or 2,880 seconds, the length of a game, and ended up with the magical number of 24.

You claimed it was introduced to help the defense. It was introduced to speed up the game. This can help the defense by denying the "sit on the ball" tactic but it also helps the fast breaking offensive teams.

Either way you look at it the "great irony" that it increased scoring is hardly a surprise or irony at all as this was an aim of the introduction of the shot clock.

Quote:

Really, Craven, your claims that you read your own posts would be a lot more credible if you didn't contradict your own posts.

I don't contradict my own posts, and frankly Joe it's not credible that you actually believe I don't read them and it is quite obviously just your attempt to get a dig in through lame quips.

Either way, I'll not waste time arguing with your silly notion that I do not read my own posts, as this is contradicted by basic mechanisms of writing that you are no doubt aware of.

So if this is your stock and store I'll have to leave you to it. When you're wrong, you quip (not that being right would stop quips though) and while it can be fun it's not edifying when it's one's only stock and store.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Note: nothing in there about increasing scoring.

Wrong Joe.

Unless you are of the opinion that stimulating shots and forcing them is not going to be reflected in the score..

Of course it will be reflected in the score. I was the one who first pointed that out. That's why I noted that it was ironic that a rule, designed to assist the defense, ended up increasing scoring.

Craven de Kere wrote:

You claimed it was introduced to help the defense. It was introduced to speed up the game. This can help the defense by denying the "sit on the ball" tactic but it also helps the fast breaking offensive teams.

The only reason that the games were in need of "speeding up" is because of the offensive stall. Fast-breaking offensive teams are not aided by the shot clock -- if anything, they are a response to the shot clock.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Either way you look at it the "great irony" that it increased scoring is hardly a surprise or irony at all as this was an aim of the introduction of the shot clock.

Nice bit of revisionism there, Craven. Before, you stated: "... it should come as no surprise to you that it increased scoring because that was the purpose of its introduction." Now you state that increasing score was an aim of the introduction of the shot clock. Make up your mind.

Craven de Kere wrote:

I don't contradict my own posts, and frankly Joe it's not credible that you actually believe I don't read them and it is quite obviously just your attempt to get a dig in through lame quips.

Either way, I'll not waste time arguing with your silly notion that I do not read my own posts, as this is contradicted by basic mechanisms of writing that you are no doubt aware of.

Fair enough. I'll concede that you probably read your own posts. I am not convinced, however, that you actually understand them. Otherwise you wouldn't have linked to a site that contradicted your position.

Craven de Kere wrote:

So if this is your stock and store I'll have to leave you to it. When you're wrong, you quip (not that being right would stop quips though) and while it can be fun it's not edifying when it's one's only stock and store.

And when you're wrong you leave in a pout.

0 Replies

<smiles>

As you will Joe.

0 Replies

Why America Hates Football (a.k.a. Soccer)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know