The Perfect Metaphor For Soccer

[ajoknoblauch]

Again with the platitudes about how FOOTBALL is boring. When you say things like this you just show how little you know about the actual sport.

Edit: I'll probably go to a bar and watch a baseball game in an hour or so. I'll need to drink 3-4 Guinesses just to keep from falling asleep.

Merely suggesting that keeping soccer statistics is nothing more than a matter of the simplest arithmetic.

 

[ElQueso]

I've never understood people's desire to take sports so seriously. One can dress it up with whatever kind of philosophical wrangling one desires, but to me it takes about as much importance as fashion shows. I'm not putting it down exactly, just giving the whole thing a fairly low importance in the "life scale". And I wasn't a wimp who always thought this way because I couldn't do it myself - I actually played ice hockey for 17 years, was in first round of tryouts for the 1980 US Olympic team, and played with Kevin Dineen in Houston (amateur - we were on a Midget all-star team together) in the late 70s (his father was coach of the Houston Aeros, a WHA team).

I love playing sports, but I can't stand to talk about them or, really, watch them. Same goes for fashion shows, or what celebrity is doing what to whom (or who is doing it to them), etc. Politics is more interesting and germane to life itself as the process and its results really, really matter. I've known so many people in my life that could memorize (and argue) every damned statistic in the sport of choice, know what each position should do, know every rule, no matter how obscure or even knew when the rule changed, so on and so forth...and yet that same person would not ever really understand what limits, and why, the President of the US (or insert your particular country and political limitation here) was bound by. Or even how, for example, the US Constitution fit into all of that.

And BTW - I've played baseball, football and futbol and all hockey jokes aside, to play hockey really well you have to think on your feet because crap moves a whole lot faster than any of the other sports, including basketball (which I've only played for fun, never organized).

But the video was pretty humorous...

 

[ajoknoblauch]

I've never understood people's desire to take sports so seriously. One can dress it up with whatever kind of philosophical wrangling one desires, but to me it takes about as much importance as fashion shows. I'm not putting it down exactly, just giving the whole thing a fairly low importance in the "life scale". And I wasn't a wimp who always thought this way because I couldn't do it myself - I actually played ice hockey for 17 years, was in first round of tryouts for the 1980 US Olympic team, and played with Kevin Dineen in Houston (amateur - we were on a Midget all-star team together) in the late 70s (his father was coach of the Houston Aeros, a WHA team).

I love playing sports, but I can't stand to talk about them or, really, watch them. Same goes for fashion shows, or what celebrity is doing what to whom (or who is doing it to them), etc. Politics is more interesting and germane to life itself as the process and its results really, really matter. I've known so many people in my life that could memorize (and argue) every damned statistic in the sport of choice, know what each position should do, know every rule, no matter how obscure or even knew when the rule changed, so on and so forth...and yet that same person would not ever really understand what limits, and why, the President of the US (or insert your particular country and political limitation here) was bound by. Or even how, for example, the US Constitution fit into all of that.

And BTW - I've played baseball, football and futbol and all hockey jokes aside, to play hockey really well you have to think on your feet because crap moves a whole lot faster than any of the other sports, including basketball (which I've only played for fun, never organized).

But the video was pretty humorous...

I see sports as a source of entertainment and amusement, and I also prefer participating to watching. Still, I appreciate skilled athletic performances by others.

 

[Bkentfc]

I don't dislike soccer - in fact, I find it a


I don't dislike soccer - in fact, I find it amusing in small doses such as the one in the video. Baseball, though, provides infinitely more complex situations to analyze before, during and after the game. It's even more fun to play it.

Ignorance is bliss; you dont know much about "soccer" so it easier for you to class it as simplistic sport. I was quite ignorant about bout baseball and cricket until I had a constructive conversation with a baseball aficionado. My love or desire to watch baseball did not increase but i got to understand what makes it attractive for others to watch.My point is despite baseball not being up my street, I can appreciate the qualities and its characteristics as a sport.The whole thing about degrees and all of that is something i dont really want to go into the whole degree thing because you are talking up your a** If you are a professional soccer why should i judge your intelligence based on quantum physics.If you dont like a sport leave it as that, dont go about talking about it like you have got a clue.

P.S But if you are a troll i rest my case then lol

 

[Napoleon]

In reality, baseball adopted statistics as a way to evaluate players, and now makes the most sophisticated use of those techniques in any sport: http://en.wikipedia....i/Sabermetrics. This enriches our understanding of each individual game - and one of the sport's strengths is that you can't just run out the clock - and of players' seasonal and career trajectories. Football (which consists of unnaturally large humans giving each other concussions) has attempted to do this, but with far less success. Soccer? Well, what can you say about games that usually end in a scoreless tie?

Just to point out how clueless you are, I'm posting the scores from this weekends' matches in the MLS (the soccer league in the US). Please point out the "0-0 tie". Then I will point out stats that you no doubt won't have a clue as to their meaning, because soccer, its statistics and its strategy, are beyond your comprehension at this present time. Again, that doesn't mean that you should like it. I'm just pointing out how clueless you are on this subject that you profess to know so well.

Major League Soccer

Toronto FC 1 - 2 New England

Vancouver Whitecaps 3 - 2 San Jose

Chicago 2 - 3 Real Salt Lake

Colorado 1 - 0 Los Angeles

Seattle Sounders FC 2 - 1 Philadelphia Union

Chivas USA 1 - 4 Houston

Portland Timbers 3 - 2 DC United

FC Dallas 0 - 1 New York Red Bulls

Kansas City 2 - 0 Columbus


Now I will post a review of the Liverpool vs Norwich game a week or two ago. I don't expect you to understand much more than the final score, but baseball is much the same for well over 6 billion people... where as soccer is this way for roughly about 1 billion to 3 billion people.

Visualized: Liverpool 3-2 Norwich

Yesterday's first and second goals were Liverpool's 57th and 58th first half goals this season, which accounts for 60% of Liverpool's league goals this season.

[imghttp://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m102/ns0438a/whenlfcscore-01_zps5fbc18e4.png[/img]

That's an amazing amount.

Compare that to 2012-13 or 2011-12, where Liverpool scored 42.9% and 40.5% of the goals in the first half (all competitions). Or 2008-09, where 64 of Liverpool's 106 goals (again, all competitions) came in the second half, including 36 after the 75th minute. So many late comebacks that season.

This is both a good thing and a bad thing. It's a good thing when you blow teams out of the water before they even settle: Arsenal (h), Everton (h), Tottenham (home and away), etc. But it can be a bad thing when Liverpool sits on said lead, inviting teams onto a defense too often prone to mistakes: Stoke (a), Swansea (h), and Norwich yesterday, as well as a fair few more. It'd be a different story if Liverpool could hold onto a lead, could strange the life out of a match when two goals up. But, despite the unbelievable league position, this is still very much a team in progress. And yet, Liverpool somehow keep winning.

It's also easier to get back into a game when you've nothing to lose, as Sunderland demonstrated against both City and Chelsea this week. That's not to take anything away from Neil Adams and Norwich; the tactical changes at halftime most definitely improved the home side, and they were able to take advantages of the weaknesses in Liverpool's system and personnel.

Matching Liverpool's christmas tree with a diamond meant Liverpool's five central midfielders were able to cancel out Norwich's strength in the middle. Liverpool's threat on the counter-attack through Suarez, Sterling, and Coutinho – even with Sturridge absent – helped to restrain Norwich's fullbacks, which is where the width almost always comes from in a 4-4-2 diamond.

But when Norwich switched to a 4-3-3, getting Redmond and Snodgrass into wider positions, pinning Liverpool's fullbacks back and forcing Lucas and Allen to do more defensive work wide, Norwich were the better side. Just as an example, Joe Allen led Liverpool with 10 tackles, but seven of those ten came in the first half. And it's no coincidence that both of Norwich's goals, as well as van Wolfswinkel's chance to equalize in the 83rd minute, came from crosses.

 

[Napoleon]

And then it continues... again, not that I expect you to follow...

From 34.1% possession in the first half to 50.9% possession in the second. The passing chalkboards are even more emphatic, both for Norwich and for Liverpool.

Norwich using more of the pitch in the second half, getting the ball out wide in the final third. Liverpool much more reliant on long balls, and unable to pass across the back to take the sting out of the match.

Norwich did a much better job pressing Liverpool's defenders in the second half, ensuring they couldn't rest on the ball and hold possession as they did in the opening 45 minutes, pressing more effectively with three front players spread across the width of the pitch than with the two out-and-out strikers in the first half. Eight of Norwich's 22 successful tackles and eight of the 17 interceptions came in Liverpool's half. Seven of those eight tackles and four of those eight interceptions came in the second half.

But Liverpool still found a way to win, have found a way to win for the last 11 matches, with six of those wins by a solitary goal (including four of the last five). Liverpool's mentality, Liverpool's resiliency, has been the most amazing facet of this amazing run-in, keeping their just enough of their nerve to do what's required, no matter the set-backs endured in the previous four seasons.

Long may it continue. At least for the next three matches.

That was courtesy of this website: http://ohyoubeauty.blogspot.com.ar/2014/04/visualized-liverpool-3-2-norwich.html

You NEVER see anything that advanced when reading about a baseball report. Even when stats are included.

Again, I can understand how 38 matches of 1 hr 45 mins (including halftime) over the course of a 9 months may bore you. But it is NOTHING compared to 162 games of 3 hrs+ over the course of 6 months followed by another month of up to 19 more games for one particular team.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

If you want to see genuine athleticism, have a look at Mike Trout, and remember that he's running after a ball - small enough to fit it in your hand - that's traveling upwards of 100 mph (160 kph) that started more than 300 feet (nearly 100 meters) from where he was positioned. At the same time he's running, he's keeping his eye on the ball - and he still makes a phenomenally difficult catch look easy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDkBM9VcS4Y

 

[ajoknoblauch]

And then it continues... again, not that I expect you to follow...



That was courtesy of this website: http://ohyoubeauty.b...-2-norwich.html

You NEVER see anything that advanced when reading about a baseball report. Even when stats are included.

Again, I can understand how 38 matches of 1 hr 45 mins (including halftime) over the course of a 9 months may bore you. But it is NOTHING compared to 162 games of 3 hrs+ over the course of 6 months followed by another month of up to 19 more games for one particular team.

Junk numbers fabricated by statistical wannabes. Nothing ever comes of them.

 

[scotttswan]

If you want to see genuine athleticism, have a look at Mike Trout, and remember that he's running after a ball - small enough to fit it in your hand - that's traveling upwards of 100 mph (160 kph) that started more than 300 feet (nearly 100 meters) from where he was positioned. At the same time he's running, he's keeping his eye on the ball - and he still makes a phenomenally difficult catch look easy.

wow he caught a ball.... show me more of this rounders stuff!

 

[scotttswan]

Junk numbers fabricated by statistical wannabes. Nothing ever comes of them.

Yes we get it, you don't understand football or any of the stats.