Soccer Questions.

[JunkBarMan]

Why doesn't the clock ever seem to stop in this sport? Doesn't this take away a whole area of strategy from the teams by not allowing them to time out at key points to devise an attack or defense.


Also, a player is allowed to step or run out of bounds with the ball as long as the ball stays in bounds? Please explain.

Liverpool seems to be pretty good, at least on this day. They have scored 2 goals within the first 14 minutes of the match.

[Peerzy]

Time is added on at the end of each half. If the team delay time to much they get yellow cards. Added time is the time that has been wasted by injuries and such. Usually it's about 3 or 4 minutes.

Yeah a player can go anywhere it just matters where the ball is.

Liverpool arn't playing a great team to be honest and should be expected to win by a good 2 or 3 goals.

[manker]

Why doesn't the clock ever seem to stop in this sport? Doesn't this take away a whole area of strategy from the teams by not allowing them to time out at key points to devise an attack or defense.

All that sort of stuff is done in team talks before the game - or in the fifteen minute half time break.

They're full time professional players so there is no need to disrupt the spectacle for the fans when they've all week to learn how to react to the nuances of the opposition and possible game scenarios. A sense of how to think on their feet without being spoon-fed by a coach is instilled into soccer players from an early age.

The only reason American sports have time-outs and extra breaks is for commercials. Which kinda sucks if you're a fan, but is great if you're a marketing executive ... I guess.

[Busyman]

Why doesn't the clock ever seem to stop in this sport? Doesn't this take away a whole area of strategy from the teams by not allowing them to time out at key points to devise an attack or defense.

Also, a player is allowed to step or run out of bounds with the ball as long as the ball stays in bounds? Please explain.

Liverpool seems to be pretty good, at least on this day. They have scored 2 goals within the first 14 minutes of the match.

Soccer is a little more anarchistic than others but the bouts of finesse that seep through are sweet.

I can't say whether or not it takes from the strategy but keep in mind that it's a low scoring sport but so is NFL football sometimes. (recently the Redskins scored just 3 field goals and Chicago scored 1 touchdown )

Soccer and hockey are similar in their anarchy.

Soccer players still try set plays but they are called on the fly.

[manker]

I can't say whether or not it takes from the strategy but keep in mind that it's a low scoring sport

It's the strategy and finesse that makes it low scoring, as odd as it sounds. While the aim is to score and strategy is developed for just this purpose, defensive strategy is just as important.

The less organised the soccer (less strategy and finesse), the more goals are scored. For example, in the league I play in, scores in excess of ten goals are not that uncommon, when kids play, you get a goal every five minutes or so.

[Busyman]

I can't say whether or not it takes from the strategy but keep in mind that it's a low scoring sport

It's the strategy and finesse that makes it low scoring, as odd as it sounds. While the aim is to score and strategy is developed for just this purpose, defensive strategy is just as important.

The less organised the soccer (less strategy and finesse), the more goals are scored. For example, in the league I play in, scores in excess of ten goals are not that uncommon, when kids play, you get a goal every five minutes or so.

That is weird.

Although basketball is a different, pee wee basketball (and a little older) tend to be low scoring. This might be in part 'cause basic basketball mechanics are a little harder to pick-up than soccer. I could ask a younger fella to shoot a three-pointer with no defensive player on him and make it and he probably won't. If I asked a younger soccer player to kick a ball (20 feet away) into the goal under the same conditions, he'll most likely make it.

Ironically, I'm teaching my 4 year-old soccer and basketball. Unfortunately, the only thing she can pick up on basketball is shooting into the hoop with limited success.

In soccer, she's picking up dribbling pretty good (no real finesse yet) and striking.

[Peerzy]

The games are different through, in basketball you don't have a goalkeeper do you, plus even with a man infront of you a lot of the time you can still score as the hope is above head height. Football has a goalkeeper who has an advantage over other players as he could use his hands. So unless your a young budding Frank Lampard or Wayne Rooney is you hit it from 20 yards chances are the keeper is going to get something on it, if not catch it.

[JunkBarMan]

The only reason American sports have time-outs and extra breaks is for commercials. Which kinda sucks if you're a fan, but is great if you're a marketing executive ... I guess.

Every chance you get to see a negative about America, huh manker? Just keep on trolling. Your statement is so inane, it's ridiculous.

No one denies marketing is a big part of American sports these days, but damn when your payroll is over $200 million, someone has to pay for it.

But time outs are not there solely for Pepsi ads, sorry to ruin your day mankar.

What seemed strange to me, hence my curious question, was that when there was a "corner kick", (not sure if that is the correct term even), it seemed pretty obvious what the attacking team was going to do.

And, with the fact that Liverpool is a superior team, it would seem to me that for 30 seconds time, Betis would benefit from a short time out to go over a play other then the normal stack 4-5 guys in front of the goal and kick it to one and hope he heads or kicks it in. Betis had few scoring chances up until this point, so to me it seemed logical to take advantage while your chances were limited.

40 scoring chances or 2, if you make 2 of 40 or 2 of 2 and win, what's the difference? When you get your chances, make the most of them. So take a 30 second time out, let another Pepsi add run that pays your supporting team marketing fees, and increase your chances to score a bit.

While this would give the defense a chance to go over a defense, it would still leave them in the dark as to what set play your were running.

[manker]

Yeah, I threw that in there because I was replying to you. I knew you'd bite. Clearly time-outs weren't devised soley for Pepsi but the marketing execs have perpetuated the fragmentation of the sport(s).

A 30 second time out would do nothing with regard a corner kick, as I said earlier - the players are already well drilled in this facet. They don't need a coach to tell them what to do. No need to break the continuity.

There are basically four options from a corner; play it short, play it to the far post, play it to the near post and play it to the edge of the box. A time-out where the TV coverage goes to an advert would be annoying for those watching on TV and would spoil the atmosphere for the fans in the stadium.

No-one likes breaks in the sporting action. Not even Americans -- or am I wrong, I mean, it would give a great opportunity to grab a hot dog and a pretzel or twelve.

[manker]

It's the strategy and finesse that makes it low scoring, as odd as it sounds. While the aim is to score and strategy is developed for just this purpose, defensive strategy is just as important.

The less organised the soccer (less strategy and finesse), the more goals are scored. For example, in the league I play in, scores in excess of ten goals are not that uncommon, when kids play, you get a goal every five minutes or so.

That is weird.

Although basketball is a different, pee wee basketball (and a little older) tend to be low scoring. This might be in part 'cause basic basketball mechanics are a little harder to pick-up than soccer. I could ask a younger fella to shoot a three-pointer with no defensive player on him and make it and he probably won't. If I asked a younger soccer player to kick a ball (20 feet away) into the goal under the same conditions, he'll most likely make it.

Ironically, I'm teaching my 4 year-old soccer and basketball. Unfortunately, the only thing she can pick up on basketball is shooting into the hoop with limited success.

In soccer, she's picking up dribbling pretty good (no real finesse yet) and striking.

I guess it's easier in soccer to train people to stop goals, there is no restriction on double teaming and the contact thing ... ya know.

Offensive talent is there right from the start (dribbling, shooting) and cannot be taught, as such, you'll either be good at that when you're a kid, or you never will - but defensive tactics are easy to teach (tackling, positioning) and get taught with greater proficiency the higher up the football ladder you get, hence the abundance of goals at lower levels.

A mediocre defender coached at a high level can prevent a highly skilled attacker from dribbling the ball around him 9 times out of ten. [See John Terry and Ronaldo for an example of this. ( @ Peerzy)] This is also a reason for the lower scoring as coaching gets better.