. . . . . . The Daily Soccer . . . . . .

Bostrom Writes:

A common complaint about soccer in the United States is that there's not enough scoring to make it interesting. Soccer fans respond to such complaints with arguments such as:

* An NBA game ends with a 71 - 67 final and everyone bemoans the lack of offense...so how much scoring do you want?

* The NFL awards six points for each "score" so their final totals are actually inflated.

* There's a lot of action in a 0-0 soccer game...it's like a pitchers' duel and I don't hear anyone complaining when Clemens and Pedro duel late into the night.

One problem with the arguments above, aside from the fact that they are more than a bit first gradeish in tone, is that they try comparing soccer to other sports that naturally have more scoring.

* A 71-67 Knicks-Jazz game is usually unwatchable because the shooting percentages are likely well below what's considered a standard performance.

* The NFL does award seven points for a touchdown, but they also give three for a field goal, two for a safety, etc. There are multiple ways to score.

* A 0-0 baseball game undoubtedly means that two pitchers are performing well above average and both defenses are likely turning in great performances. In either case, there's a good bit of "action" to keep the fan interested. A 0-0 soccer game can lack action if both teams pack in the defense and play more of a chess match than an attacking strategy.

We've even tried selling indoor soccer and all its inherent action but that's proven even less popular than a Martha Stewart reality show.

Embrace The Game As It Is

I have come to realize that once an observer gets beyond the perceived lack of scoring in soccer, entry into the fan club becomes much easier. In other words, I don't try to make excuses for the lack of 5-4 games. Rather, I portray soccer's iffy scoring propensity as a positive aspect of the game. And I really believe it is.

When I think about why I love the game a lot of it is because I played it as a youth and still play it today (although that's arguable). But when I boil down my love of the game, it stems from the fact that I'm always hoping for a goal. And hoping for a goal is almost as exciting as a goal itself, in its own way. Bear with me here a minute as I explain that seemingly ludicrous last sentence...

When I attend an NBA game (and I still do), I know that I'll see dunks and three-pointers and a clever assist or two. When I watch a soccer game, I'm guaranteed nothing in the way of goals, or action for that matter. So I fervently watch the action, dissect the players' performances and try finding where the goals will come from...just as the players are doing themselves. And once fans have crossed the bridge from needing goals to excitedly following the action in hope of goals, they're likely fans of the game for life. They won't need eye candy as a prerequisite to keep them coming back.

Naivete

I fully understand that not everyone is going to embrace the idea of hoping for goals as a partial replacement for an abundance of goals. That's why soccer is not for everyone. And soccer fans will also tire of tedious soccer that doesn't take chances and doesn't showcase highly skilled performances. But the underlying truth remains...soccer fans have a fervor that is created in some measure by the lack of goals.

Goals are not guaranteed. Goals are usually only the result of individual or collective brilliance. That's got me hooked for life. And that bodes well for the long-term health of soccer as it doesn't have to market itself as all-action-all-the-time. And it doesn't have to compete head on with a myriad of other sports that have found themselves chasing success with more high-flying dunkers and more prolific home run hitters.

George writes:

I don’t want to turn our blog into one that is obsessed with ESPN, but I can’t let this pass without comment. As everyone knows, the World Baseball Classic is starting this week and ESPN has committed programming time for it. Unfortunately, many of the games are running at the same time as the mid-week Champions League matches. So, given ESPN’s commitment to soccer with their exclusive coverage of the World Cup this summer, one would think that they would make an effort to make sure that these games are still shown somewhere.

But if you thought this, you would be dead wrong. They have decided to show them on tape delay airing them at 12:30 AM EST, a full ten hours after their original start time. Now to me, this is ridiculous. ESPN has several outlets where they could air these games live. We’re not talking prime-time programming here, this is afternoon TV! Why couldn’t they just show these games live on ESPN Classic? I’m sure that it would pull at least the same or better ratings than what is scheduled to be shown. If anyone thinks that the Arsenal-Real Madrid match would not get comparable ratings as an episode of Classic Wide World of Sports and Sports Century would, they’re nuts. Plus, it would show that ESPN is really committed to soccer and hopefully, continue to spread the word of the beautiful game. This would have to help their ratings this summer.

Champions League nights are very special, especially on the back half of a match-up. The tension, drama and possibility of extra time or penalty kicks are too much to pass up. So unless you subscribe to Setanta Sports, you are shut out of watching CL matches which is a shame.