Soccer is a beautiful game

>soccer is a beautiful game

Other urls found in this thread:

espn.com/soccer/scoreboard/_/league/all/date/20171128
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

"El fútbol es belleza, nene." - Bambino Veira

yes, watching grown men kick a ball around for 90 minutes is beautiful. you have convinced me

...

>slides finger into another man’s asshole as a tactic

*dives*
*is a manlet*

>cincuenta y seis por ciento hace un hilo

How in the fuck did soccer take over the world? It's so lame

it is, user

You mean soycer.

jejie

...

you can play it with a ball of trash and a single digit iq

nice

really though, I'd have to say skiing is probably the most beautiful sport

>wasting time in your life to edit text on a meme because someone insulted the sport you like

It's only real game poor people can play world wide.

I mean when you objectively look about it with a clean slated mind what is it.

It's 90 minutes of human beings kicking a ball around towards a net. A good game has the ball going into a net 3 times. Other players can't touch other players. Players when touch fall down faking agony.

If aliens came and saw it it that's how'd they view it.

It's.... just so boring and sucks

Are you attempting to bully me?

Poor people play it. Same reason the NBA will replace it.

This

Wow. Actual non-shitpost by a canuck. Gets my vote as well.

Soccer would be a lot more enjoyable if they just cut off 30 minutes and made it 60 for a full match. I don't want to watch some faggots meander around the pitch barely doing anything for 70 minutes .

Poor people can play it. That's all. It's why Basketball takes over when a country makes enough money to buy hoops. Seriously

...

Poor people can play it.

No they should make it 3 hours so that the score isn't 0-0 every time

It's very beautiful if you like seeing refs hand out penalty kicks that succeed 3/4ths of the time and are worth 1 goal in a sport that usually has very low scoring.

It's called poverty ball for a reason

poor people

...

Not everyone can afford to be three sport athlete in football hockey and lacrosse like me. Funny how many Americans I know who have that same background.....................

i jumped on the man city bandwagon desu

much more satisfying than following american sports

can't wait till we win the quadruple this year lads

>three quarterths

>poor people
>It's called poverty ball
>Poor people can play it.
>Poor people can play it.
>Poor people play it.
>It's only real game poor people can play world wide.
>you can play it with a ball of trash
all these shitposts while the amount of posters hasn't changed.

hmmmmm....

here in rural colorado it's baseball in the summer and hockey in the winter. I'm sure it's thousands of dollars in equipment and fees by now when I was growing up.

three fourths

`

I love American soccer fans, so easy just to bring up parity and they get triggered.
[city/united/arsenal/Chelsea] hasn't won in so long though!!!!!

Not knocking your sport euros, but American soycer fans are dangerously insecure

You are so assblasted and I love it

if anyone wants to have a mature and proper discussion about this, please, do tell me how is football "not good".

Maybe it's because you've posted your cringe 4 times with two yous to show for it

It's just not very interesting

>thinks football is just some men running around kicking a ball

why do americans always adress europoors when they talk about football?
you know that pretty much the entire world plays football, right?

two main reasons: the situation pretty much resets every time possession changes, and the scoring is so low that the outcome is inherently random because of (1). if it was a large buildup to get the 1 or 2 goals that decides the game it could be different, but it's at most 1 or 2 minutes before it that affect the goal that often decides the whole game.

come on man, elaborate, that's the same as saying "because it's bad".

Because most Americans hatred of soccer originates in Americans being holier-than-thou about it rather than the game itself

incoherent nonsense

penalty kicks

not him, but it might be fun to play but very boring to watch. If a team is playing for a draw theres no point in watching as it will be just 90 minutes of passing back and forth, while in other sports you have to play for the win which forces action and conflict.

it shouldn't be hard to understand, 1 or 2 non-situational scores per game is not a good show of competition. per game that's highly random and not interesting.

>the situation pretty much resets every time possession changes
this applies to virtually every single team sport on earth.

>the scoring is so low that the outcome is inherently random
this isn't true, there's nothing random about scoring, what are you on about?

>if it was a large buildup to get the 1 or 2 goals that decides the game it could be different, but it's at most 1 or 2 minutes before it that affect the goal that often decides the whole game.
I don't see the problem with that.

>Watching some argie sawker in the dark, while refreshing this thread, and talking to a few whores on kikebook.

Feels comfy lads.

what about them?

if a team is playing for the draw that means that the opposition will dominate an play for the win, sure, there are boring games, like in every sport, but that's not the reason behind them.

it's 2:30 am here, what the fuck are you even watching?

>this applies to virtually every single team sport on earth.
not at all, for example scoring in baseball is usually preceded by getting runners on and moving them over, setting up situations where you can score. in football there are sometimes 13+ play drives to move the ball down the field to score, or a good defensive hold can give you better field position to score.

>this isn't true, there's nothing random about scoring, what are you on about?
there's nothing random about scoring, which is why in a league it might not be random but per game it is. consider the true probability of a team scoring against another team, say there's a .1% chance they score and a .5% chance the other team scores against them in each possession, the other team may be truly 5 times better but with a low amount of scoring the chance that the .1% occurs and the .5% doesn't is much higher, than in a sport like hockey or baseball where the scoring is usually 5-10 per game between both teams.

>I don't see the problem with that.
it's simply not interesting watching the same situation occur over and over hoping the very rare situation occurs of scoring. there is no team good enough that you can expect them to score with possession, they might make no mistakes but still can't score just because the scoring is so low. they weren't doing anything wrong, no wrong setup or anything, just no score because it just didn't *happen*. that doesn't happen in our sports, because the situation changes.

> 1 -2 non-situational scores per game
It's maybe because its 5am here or this is some american term. But I generally have no idea what you're talking about

Action is sparse and when it does happen, I just don't care

>what about them?
I feel that they should be attempted from a greater distance, or reffing should be improved somehow. The fact that PKs go in 3/4ths of the time makes it so that ref decisions have too much of an impact on the game.

I'm not watching any game, just check this
espn.com/soccer/scoreboard/_/league/all/date/20171128
it's full of 0-0, 0-1, 1-1, 3-0, 2-0, etc. that's how scoring is in soccer because that's how the sport is balanced, scoring is just so rare with an n so low, there will always be random outcomes. nobody wants to watch a "sport" that doesn't show who played better.

Based

Nvm its shortened replays of San Lorenzo vs random teams on tyc sports.
Why are they sucking this teams dick so hard

it's a game that fundamentally favours defence

the best soccer team in the world can have a scoreless draw against an inferior team, not saying it's bad, but that's the biggest argument against it

americans love scoring, look at
>nba
>nfl removing defence
>nhl popularity varying based on scoring

Maybe because your eyes aren't trained to see which team is on top. Its usually incredibly easy to see which team is playing at a higher level/looks most likely to win the game. There's a reason the same teams win the champions league every year

baseball also fundamentally favors defense, while cricket favors offense but we play baseball

O jogo bonito

I know it's easy to see which team is playing better, the score doesn't always reflect that which is the point. same teams win the champions league because in a league the true probability plays out (central limit theorem). I'm not arguing that, just saying per game it's random from low n which is why it's a shit sport.

Consider yourself bullied nerd

its 1030pm here and I have no idea what he is talking about either.

Americans making extremely intelligent posts. Ball is in Europe's court now.

>not at all, for example scoring in baseball is usually preceded by getting runners on and moving them over, setting up situations where you can score. in football there are sometimes 13+ play drives to move the ball down the field to score, or a good defensive hold can give you better field position to score.
I don't really know what any of those things mean, but I was talking compared to handegg, basketball and ice hockey, situation resets with change of posession.

>there's nothing random about scoring, which is why in a league it might not be random but per game it is. consider the true probability of a team scoring against another team, say there's a .1% chance they score and a .5% chance the other team scores against them in each possession, the other team may be truly 5 times better but with a low amount of scoring the chance that the .1% occurs and the .5% doesn't is much higher, than in a sport like hockey or baseball where the scoring is usually 5-10 per game between both teams.
I really can't tell what you're on about, scoring isn't random at all, I don't understand why high scoring is so important to you.

>t's simply not interesting watching the same situation occur over and over hoping the very rare situation occurs of scoring.
this is something a person with ADD would complain about, how are all of the "almosts" not entertaining, why exactly do you need high scoring to feel entertained?

reminder that amerimutt meme sports will never be globally popular no matter how much you try to shove them into every movie, no one cares. and no one also cares about your abhorrent opinions on "soccer". now go back to watching niggers disrespect your anthem while mr. noseberg gives them millions of dollars.

the anti-soccer autists here are so weird. They will spend so much energy hating on the sport. Just don't watch it, who the fuck cares

there's action literally all of the time though.

theres video ref now, if a penalty is awarded they deserve it.
also, penalties are not a quintessential part of the game, they are merely used in very extreme occasions.

>handegg, basketball and ice hockey, situation resets with change of posession.
basketball yes, hockey there's power plays, football it only resets when someone scores.

>I really can't tell what you're on about, scoring isn't random at all, I don't understand why high scoring is so important to you.
scoring isn't random, the chance of it occurring is, which is why good teams can lose to bad teams in any sport.

>this is something a person with ADD would complain about, how are all of the "almosts" not entertaining, why exactly do you need high scoring to feel entertained?
when I watch a sport I want to see better play rewarded, with low scoring that doesn't always happen because of clt, nothing to do with attention span, hence I have no problem watching baseball. I don't like super high scoring either since a little randomness makes it more exciting when they do score, which is why I don't watch basketball.

>poor people play it
every single time

>I know it's easy to see which team is playing better, the score doesn't always reflect that which is the point.
literally just your opinion.
if a team wins 1-0, they win, they deserved it.

No, the ball is in play all of the time, but there isn't much going on most of the time

/thread

>team plays worse and wins 1-0
no they don't deserve it, they got lucky

Can someone explain to me the rationale for ending a game on penalty kicks? That's the only major complaint I have with it.

Do you want them to play 20 minutes more, a coin toss, dick measuring, a cook-off, what?

>no they don't deserve it, they got lucky

a cook off would be cool

Penalty shootouts are fun all hell and suspenseful as fuck. Why don't you like it?

I mean that's objectively the reason why it's popular.

That's why basketball/soccer is the youth's preferred sport while American football is declining. Hockey is declining for the same exact reason. Almost every day walking to work in the city I'd see either a soccer match or a pickup basketball game. Also much easier to go and shoot hoops or kick around with a soccer ball rather than find a bunch of kids to play two hand touch with.

Don't know why euros think this is a bad thing, lots of people playing makes sports grow and stay relevant.

I know it isn't easy for you to understand but playing worse and winning actually happens in soccer. in our sports if you lose

>if you lose
you actually played worse. scoring in soccer is such a low probability that the true probability isn't reflected.

*as

think a non situational goal would be a highlight of going through 5 defenders and then scoring as opposed to a corner kick header goal

>can't afford arthroscopic surgery so you can injure yourself again playing a violent game

in baseball being good defensively doesn't preclude being good offensively

Fucking your mom is also something that comes in handy to poor people, but you don't see 3rd worlders forming a queue on your lawn. Handball, basketball, volleyball are similar and besides basketball(even that only in certain countries) they are not popular at all.

>hockey there's power plays, football it only resets when someone scores.
pls explain

>scoring isn't random, the chance of it occurring is, which is why good teams can lose to bad teams in any sport.
but you see, if you're ranked 1st and can't score, and concede a goal against saudi arabia it doesn't matter that they're ranked 63, they beat you.
nothing random about that.

>when I watch a sport I want to see better play rewarded
how does this not happen in football?
they get rewarded when they score.
if you don't score then it's not a " better play"

What constitutes "playing worse"?

>team plays worse and wins 1-0
yeah, see, this doesn't happen.

Its unironically the main reason people do call it the 'beautiful game' is because people in poverty can play it and make something of their lives. Its americans that use this a tool for bashing the sport

Everyone plays beach volleyball in the summer, South Americans love it too.

Again, don't know why you're being insecure about this. Anyone from any class and any location can play soccer. That's why it's a good sport.

I want the best team to win. How can you measure the best team based on penalty kick? That's like measuring 5% of a sport. That's like measuring baseball based on home runs.

If it takes 3 hours of a tie to get there it was not a journey worth traveling. End the game on the actual metrics and rules of the sport. It's cheap.

I'm not insecure you utter twat, I'm saying that's not the reason.

That's news to me. I thought it was mostly about the finesse/creativity involved

you mean to tell me ugly or 'lucky' wins don't happen in 'our' sports? Sometimes that shit happens in sports, refs alone fuck up plenty of games.

Still something to be said about putting yourself in a spot to where you can get a lucky win, or keeping the lucky lead you got, etc.

But you're delusional if you think that is a majority of the games in soccer.

Oh you're absolutely right, ease of access to play has no relation to popularity, that's why skiing is the world's most popular sport