Americans and soccer (stay with me, I know it's an old topic)

I never hear this mentioned, but it occured to me that one of the reasons I have trouble really following and understanding soccer is that there seems to be no way statistically (other than for strikers and goalies) to quantify the quality of the majority of the players on a given team. You can talk about how many goals Klose or Ronaldo score, or how many saves Robinson or Kingson have, but as for the rest, it seems very difficult to say that so-and-so (place name of random midfielder or defender here) played really well, or really horribly, last season. So much of it seems subjective.

This is true to a lesser extent in hockey as well.

American sports have statistics for everything - except offensive lineman. You can very easily quantify how good a particular player is, and when situations call for intangibles as we like to call them, even those can be measured. For instance, I know that Peyton Manning has lost his team's biggest game of the year each of the last 12 (or is it 13 now?) years going back to his days at Tennessee.

Any other Americans understand where I'm coming from? Do you (Americans) like soccer and find this frustrating as well?

There aren't that many statistics available, that's for sure.

But on the other hand, when you 'really' want to discuss NA sports you also have to look past the statistics (I can only talk from a hockey point of view but I'm sure that goes for basketball, football and baseball as well).
So in that way I think the difference isn't that big.

But I can understand that it's harder to get the feel this way.


That is slowly changing though in soccer. The OPTA stat system is becoming prety well known these days. And on the professional level many coaches already use computer technology to dissect the game into statistics to help them coach their teams.



But in a way it's still easy: trying to put cycling into statistics, now there's a challenge

But in a way it's still easy: trying to put cycling into statistics, now there's a challenge
And we all know how huge cycling is in the states... ;)

I never hear this mentioned, but it occured to me that one of the reasons I have trouble really following and understanding soccer is that there seems to be no way statistically (other than for strikers and goalies) to quantify the quality of the majority of the players on a given team. You can talk about how many goals Klose or Ronaldo score, or how many saves Robinson or Kingson have, but as for the rest, it seems very difficult to say that so-and-so (place name of random midfielder or defender here) played really well, or really horribly, last season. So much of it seems subjective.

This is true to a lesser extent in hockey as well.

American sports have statistics for everything - except offensive lineman. You can very easily quantify how good a particular player is, and when situations call for intangibles as we like to call them, even those can be measured. For instance, I know that Peyton Manning has lost his team's biggest game of the year each of the last 12 (or is it 13 now?) years going back to his days at Tennessee.

Any other Americans understand where I'm coming from? Do you (Americans) like soccer and find this frustrating as well?


You got it spot on mate. I was just talking to an Irish friend of mine about this today. The typical (casual) american sports fan relies on statistics as an iron-clad description of a player or team's performance, many times in lieu of watching actual games themselves. Part of the reason they don't take such a shining to soccer is because in order to really evaluate a player's merit they usually have to have SEEN HIM PLAY (and if this sounds harsh think about the multitudes of NFL fans on the east coast, for example, who would call Boldin and Fitzgerald "stud" receivers because they rock on their fantasy team, even though they have never seen what they can do....).

I think most fans of soccer appreciate that a player's worth is usually open to debate that goes far beyond the statistics. That's the beauty of the sport, and it's why I think the average american fan does not like soccer, because there is never a black-and-white answer to anything. Soccer openly encourages objectivity in their sport, by such things as refusing to use any kind of video replay (the 'human' element), or refusing to address draws as final results. Hockey used to accept draws as results, but has been forced to change in this regard to accomodate the average american fan. They would not be able to wrap their heads around, for example, a bottom side going and getting a crucial away 0-0 draw at Chelsea.

You're spot on, and that's why it will never gain much more ground in this country. To a degree american fans like to have their opinions 'fed' to them through stats stats and more stats, and it will never be that with soccer. That's why all these pop up graphics on the world cup coverage are driving me INSANE......

You got it spot on mate. I was just talking to an Irish friend of mine about this today. The typical (casual) american sports fan relies on statistics as an iron-clad description of a player or team's performance, many times in lieu of watching actual games themselves. Part of the reason they don't take such a shining to soccer is because in order to really evaluate a player's merit they usually have to have SEEN HIM PLAY (and if this sounds harsh think about the multitudes of NFL fans on the east coast, for example, who would call Boldin and Fitzgerald "stud" receivers because they rock on their fantasy team, even though they have never seen what they can do....).

I think most fans of soccer appreciate that a player's worth is usually open to debate that goes far beyond the statistics. That's the beauty of the sport, and it's why I think the average american fan does not like soccer, because there is never a black-and-white answer to anything. Soccer openly encourages objectivity in their sport, by such things as refusing to use any kind of video replay (the 'human' element), or refusing to address draws as final results. Hockey used to accept draws as results, but has been forced to change in this regard to accomodate the average american fan. They would not be able to wrap their heads around, for example, a bottom side going and getting a crucial away 0-0 draw at Chelsea.

You're spot on, and that's why it will never gain much more ground in this country. To a degree american fans like to have their opinions 'fed' to them through stats stats and more stats, and it will never be that with soccer. That's why all these pop up graphics on the world cup coverage are driving me INSANE......

Ahhhh, the old Americans aren't sophisticated enough to appreciate soccer in all its glory. :shakehead I am a big fan of soccer and played through high school. I'l give you some incite into why many Americans don't like soccer. They think the players are pansies and so is the sport. Its not pretty its not sophisticasted but there it is. I'm a firefighter in Buffalo and have been watching the games at work with a co-worker who also played growing up and he was a ref after college. We have spent many days at work trying to expalin the game to our co-workers. They have asked many questions about the rules and for the most part marvel at the fitness required to play the game. But where we lose them is when all the diving and acting injured starts happening. We explain that they are trying to draw fouls but most find it annoying to the point that they won't watch any more. I myself can't stand all the diving and faking of injuries either but can understand why someone who doesn't follow the game to begin with would be turned off by it and not want to watch. That and many find the sport boring to watch because of lack of exciting action.

The bottom line is most Americans find it boring. It's as simple as that. And Americans like tough athletes. When we see players take a dive and then roll around crying, it turns us off. It's as simple as that. People are going way too deep to find why Americans don't like soccer.

Ahhhh, the old Americans aren't sophisticated enough to appreciate soccer in all its glory. :shakehead

Just to nip it in the bud before I get accused again of bashing americans, my post refers to the AVERAGE american sports fan. There are certainly fans of all sports, american or foreign who are highly sophisticated in regards to the nuances and subtleties of all sports. With that said, many casual fans will simply revert to statistics and highlights that they see on sportscenter to advance their knowledge of a game and players, which I have no problem with.

As for the 'soccer players are pansies' argument, I think it was mentioned in another thread that in america tough 'gladiator' type athletes are glorified and because there is little of that kind of attitude in soccer (ie. going to ground when tickled) it is received with a certain disdain from the american public.

Honestly I think it's a combination of the two.

I never hear this mentioned, but it occured to me that one of the reasons I have trouble really following and understanding soccer is that there seems to be no way statistically (other than for strikers and goalies) to quantify the quality of the majority of the players on a given team. You can talk about how many goals Klose or Ronaldo score, or how many saves Robinson or Kingson have, but as for the rest, it seems very difficult to say that so-and-so (place name of random midfielder or defender here) played really well, or really horribly, last season. So much of it seems subjective.

This is true to a lesser extent in hockey as well.

American sports have statistics for everything - except offensive lineman. You can very easily quantify how good a particular player is, and when situations call for intangibles as we like to call them, even those can be measured. For instance, I know that Peyton Manning has lost his team's biggest game of the year each of the last 12 (or is it 13 now?) years going back to his days at Tennessee.

Any other Americans understand where I'm coming from? Do you (Americans) like soccer and find this frustrating as well?

After reading the book Moneyball, it's been a passion of mine to find accurate statistical analysis of the sports that I follow, and I believe it has helped me better understand the nature of those sports. In soccer, though, it's very difficult to quantify the contributions of most of the players (hockey is much easier, check out sites like mc79hockey.com). For the average fan, I don't think this aspect of soccer should effect their viewing of the game. Most of the statistics mentioned by North American sports commentators are completely irrelevant and are largely due to distortions caused by small sample size. It's to the benefit of most soccer fans that they aren't bombarded with such gibberish.

Just to nip it in the bud before I get accused again of bashing americans, my post refers to the AVERAGE american sports fan. There are certainly fans of all sports, american or foreign who are highly sophisticated in regards to the nuances and subtleties of all sports. With that said, many casual fans will simply revert to statistics and highlights that they see on sportscenter to advance their knowledge of a game and players, which I have no problem with.

As for the 'soccer players are pansies' argument, I think it was mentioned in another thread that in america tough 'gladiator' type athletes are glorified and because there is little of that kind of attitude in soccer (ie. going to ground when tickled) it is received with a certain disdain from the american public.

Honestly I think it's a combination of the two.

I actually agree with you that the casual sports fan in the US has to rely on stats to get a gauge on certain players in certain sports. But I would also say that is because no other country has anywhere near the sporting landscape that the US does. How many domestic leagues for other sports are there in many of the countries that love soccer. In the US there are so many sporting leagues and events its hard for any non-traditonal US sport to make any headway. You have the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, Nascar, PGA Tour. Not to mention College Basketball and Football which in some areas is bigger than the pro leagues. Right now you have the College World Series going on. Various college sports like hockey and volleyball have huge regional followings. Many of the World Cup stadiums being used in Germany hold about 40,000 fans, that would be considered pretty small when compared to many pro football and even college stadiums.
With that sporting landscape as the backdrop IMO its pretty impressive that the MLS has the TV deal and exposure that it has and The World Cup has every game televised in the US as well. It has gotten pretty good ratings to boot(no pun intended). Now its not on the level it is in other countries but considering the situation, soccer has carved out a decent niche for itself.

A big reason why I love soccer....it is not as stats oriented as the other sports because it is one of the most team oriented of all sports AND each athlete's ability should be able to fill in on some part of the field if need be.

Lord knows I find 'merican football boring as all hell because of all the specialization and stoppages in play...hell, you'll never be able to mistake a 320 guard with a wideout during a post pattern.

The beauty of a game like baseball is that the numbers don't lie. The teams with high OPS numbers are scoring runs, the pitchers with the best WHIP and ERA+ are preventing the most runs. Since Kevin Youkilis went to the top of the Red Sox lineup, they've been driving in runs left and right. Coincidence? I doubt it.

That said, these stats weren't developed until Bill James and SABR came about in the late 70s, and didn't come into the public mind until the early 2000s. Hell, several bigshots in the media still discredit them(Joe Morgan :shakehead).

I'm sure there could be a way to judge a midfielder's worth with a % of succesful tackles or challenges, pass interceptions, turnovers cause, rushes defended, crosses cleared, etc. They just have to be developed, refined, and published for everyone to see and understand.

ACR,

Good idea. If FIFA was truly interested in marketing the game here in America (I'm not sure they are), or if MLS could do the development, I bet that would be a large hurdle cleared toward getting MLS at or near the top of the second tier sports - after baseball, basketball and football - in this country.

ACR,

Good idea. If FIFA was truly interested in marketing the game here in America (I'm not sure they are), or if MLS could do the development, I bet that would be a large hurdle cleared toward getting MLS at or near the top of the second tier sports - after baseball, basketball and football - in this country.

Will never happen from FIFA. They are too stuck in the old 'quaint' way of the game. Perhaps the MLS can adopt the OPTA stats somehow and enhance them. As BF said, the opta stats are used in europe, but they are in no way as complex as some of the stuff you get for sports here. I agree that probably that will be one of the ways to help the profile here, as well as introduce the shootout to decide games in the regular season. No. Seriously.

I actually agree with you that the casual sports fan in the US has to rely on stats to get a gauge on certain players in certain sports. But I would also say that is because no other country has anywhere near the sporting landscape that the US does. How many domestic leagues for other sports are there in many of the countries that love soccer. In the US there are so many sporting leagues and events its hard for any non-traditonal US sport to make any headway. You have the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, Nascar, PGA Tour. Not to mention College Basketball and Football which in some areas is bigger than the pro leagues. Right now you have the College World Series going on. Various college sports like hockey and volleyball have huge regional followings. Many of the World Cup stadiums being used in Germany hold about 40,000 fans, that would be considered pretty small when compared to many pro football and even college stadiums.
With that sporting landscape as the backdrop IMO its pretty impressive that the MLS has the TV deal and exposure that it has and The World Cup has every game televised in the US as well. It has gotten pretty good ratings to boot(no pun intended). Now its not on the level it is in other countries but considering the situation, soccer has carved out a decent niche for itself.

Dude I'm with you. Sports like basketball or baseball, where I am nowhere near as passionate as I am about soccer or hockey, I usually just follow stats and it keeps me in the loop. I agree with s3por2d that in order to get soccer to the 'sportscenter' audience it will need some statistical refinement here, which will be decried by the 'purists' of the game.

I agree with much of what people said.

I'd also like to add that soccer as a professional sport is still relatively new here. I wouldn't compare an expansion hockey team to, say, the Montreal Canadiens in terms of popularity, history, etc. because the one team has been around much longer than the brand new team. Just as easily, I don't see what the big deal with America not being into soccer like other countries where soccer has been the top sport for decades (or centuries).

Patience is a virtue.

For me, the hurdle is not being able to see high quality soccer in person. The MLS is fine and all, but it doesn't compare to the World Cup. And if you check out US TV ratings, World Cup watching is up a ton. So, a fan gets interested and goes to watch their local MLS team, and the quality and atmosphere aren't at all what was expected.

It's hard to be a huge fan of a sport when all the best players and most exciting games are being played in leagues across the ocean. When I'm looking at my sports options, I have available the best football, baseball, basketball, and hockey players in the world playing right here. For me, soccer will only be an every four year event.

I like soccer, but in the U.S. it's never going to fly. It's really a question of cultural mentality Americans like structure and organization in their games, because we feel a need for "control" to ensure that the competition is fair and the best team wins.

This is something that is fairly unique in the world, in other nations there is more of a relaxed attitude towards the relative "fairness" of things and a more natural acceptance of "fate" or "luck" or whatever you want to call it.

JMO.

I like soccer, but in the U.S. it's never going to fly. It's really a question of cultural mentality Americans like structure and organization in their games, because we feel a need for "control" to ensure that the competition is fair and the best team wins.

This is something that is fairly unique in the world, in other nations there is more of a relaxed attitude towards the relative "fairness" of things and a more natural acceptance of "fate" or "luck" or whatever you want to call it.

JMO.
I guess that's why most of the US ignores hockey and just LOVE the mindnumbing structure of NASCAR and such things...

The game of soccer itself is uninspiring to me. There are too few scoring chances, and far too often those scoring chances result in nothing. It's like "blue balls"...you think you're gonna score but there's always something that gets in the way. ;)

Still, the World Cup is exciting to watch. It's the passion of the fans and the nationalism that gets me. It's like the action on the field ( er...pitch ) is actually secondary to the environment in the stands. Just a fun spectacle overall.

For me, the hurdle is not being able to see high quality soccer in person. The MLS is fine and all, but it doesn't compare to the World Cup. And if you check out US TV ratings, World Cup watching is up a ton. So, a fan gets interested and goes to watch their local MLS team, and the quality and atmosphere aren't at all what was expected.

It's hard to be a huge fan of a sport when all the best players and most exciting games are being played in leagues across the ocean. When I'm looking at my sports options, I have available the best football, baseball, basketball, and hockey players in the world playing right here. For me, soccer will only be an every four year event.

Well us europeans face the same obstacles for hockey...
However, I agree with your point.
When I travelled to Pittsburgh and went to see Mario, Jagr, Kovalev, Straka, Lang and co, it was just a huge moment for me.

I like soccer, but in the U.S. it's never going to fly. It's really a question of cultural mentality Americans like structure and organization in their games, because we feel a need for "control" to ensure that the competition is fair and the best team wins.

This is something that is fairly unique in the world, in other nations there is more of a relaxed attitude towards the relative "fairness" of things and a more natural acceptance of "fate" or "luck" or whatever you want to call it.

JMO.

??? Fate and luck plays as much of a role in any N.American sport as they do in soccer.

The beauty of a game like baseball is that the numbers don't lie. The teams with high OPS numbers are scoring runs, the pitchers with the best WHIP and ERA+ are preventing the most runs. Since Kevin Youkilis went to the top of the Red Sox lineup, they've been driving in runs left and right. Coincidence? I doubt it.

That said, these stats weren't developed until Bill James and SABR came about in the late 70s, and didn't come into the public mind until the early 2000s. Hell, several bigshots in the media still discredit them(Joe Morgan :shakehead).

I'm sure there could be a way to judge a midfielder's worth with a % of succesful tackles or challenges, pass interceptions, turnovers cause, rushes defended, crosses cleared, etc. They just have to be developed, refined, and published for everyone to see and understand.

Excellent points acr. I think it will be possible to one day quantify soccer as other sports, but it's going to take some imagination to develop different kinds of statistics, and then a lot of work needs to be done to see which statistics correlate with the final outcome (winning games). The fundamental problem, though, is that most of the stats that you describe (and that can be imagined) are fairly subjective in nautre--what exactly defines a tackle, or a cross? It'll take a lot of man power to generate useful statistics for soccer (for stats to be generated in real time, multiple recorders will have to watch any given game), and a lot of care needs to be taken to ensure inter-rater reliability.

I like soccer, but in the U.S. it's never going to fly. It's really a question of cultural mentality Americans like structure and organization in their games, because we feel a need for "control" to ensure that the competition is fair and the best team wins.
This is the best I've ever heard it put. Well done sir :clap:

I never hear this mentioned, but it occured to me that one of the reasons I have trouble really following and understanding soccer is that there seems to be no way statistically (other than for strikers and goalies) to quantify the quality of the majority of the players on a given team. You can talk about how many goals Klose or Ronaldo score, or how many saves Robinson or Kingson have, but as for the rest, it seems very difficult to say that so-and-so (place name of random midfielder or defender here) played really well, or really horribly, last season. So much of it seems subjective.

This is true to a lesser extent in hockey as well.

American sports have statistics for everything - except offensive lineman. You can very easily quantify how good a particular player is, and when situations call for intangibles as we like to call them, even those can be measured. For instance, I know that Peyton Manning has lost his team's biggest game of the year each of the last 12 (or is it 13 now?) years going back to his days at Tennessee.

Any other Americans understand where I'm coming from? Do you (Americans) like soccer and find this frustrating as well?

That is why football is so beautiful. You can't look at a sheet of paper and tell what's going to happen like you can in baseball or American Football. Football is the most unpredictable game in the world. There are thousands of ways to tell who is playing well or who is the better player but NOBODY agrees on them!

I never hear this mentioned, but it occured to me that one of the reasons I have trouble really following and understanding soccer is that there seems to be no way statistically (other than for strikers and goalies) to quantify the quality of the majority of the players on a given team. You can talk about how many goals Klose or Ronaldo score, or how many saves Robinson or Kingson have, but as for the rest, it seems very difficult to say that so-and-so (place name of random midfielder or defender here) played really well, or really horribly, last season. So much of it seems subjective.

This is true to a lesser extent in hockey as well.

American sports have statistics for everything - except offensive lineman. You can very easily quantify how good a particular player is, and when situations call for intangibles as we like to call them, even those can be measured. For instance, I know that Peyton Manning has lost his team's biggest game of the year each of the last 12 (or is it 13 now?) years going back to his days at Tennessee.

Any other Americans understand where I'm coming from? Do you (Americans) like soccer and find this frustrating as well?

This is a pretty good point, and your example with offensive linesmen is spot on, because for casual fans they are easily the most underappreciated position in football.

I went to an MLS game tonight, wasnt bad. Except the 40,000 seats that were tarped off. :help:

the MLS is still going? Even during the World Cup? I'd have thought it would have been like Sweden, taking a break for a month or so.

the MLS is still going? Even during the World Cup? I'd have thought it would have been like Sweden, taking a break for a month or so.
That would make sense, wouldn't it? We have a funny climate here. A number of the places MLS plays are too cold (Massachussettes, Ohio, Chicago) for them to follow the European schedule. They play from late spring (April) to mid-fall (last regular season games are usually the last weekend in October). MLS can't really afford to take a month off when the season is just getting into the thick of things. Besides, there aren't many MLS players on any side but America's.

That would make sense, wouldn't it? We have a funny climate here. A number of the places MLS plays are too cold (Massachussettes, Ohio, Chicago) for them to follow the European schedule. They play from late spring (April) to mid-fall (last regular season games are usually the last weekend in October). MLS can't really afford to take a month off when the season is just getting into the thick of things. Besides, there aren't many MLS players on any side but America's.
too cold may be the public excuse but the actual reason surely has to do that if they played in winter they would have been out of business years ago due to the direct competition with the major winter sports. And many teams would be without stadiums.
I am a little surprised they don't take time off because when compared with other domestic leagues that play now (brazil argentina etc) there is a much higher concentration of locally based players. The WC doesnt affect the brazilian league because their national team is based in europe basically.

I like soccer, but in the U.S. it's never going to fly. It's really a question of cultural mentality Americans like structure and organization in their games, because we feel a need for "control" to ensure that the competition is fair and the best team wins.

Giving the top seeded team home advantage (which very often proves to be decisive) is hardly trying to ensure "fair" competition. In contrast that kind of thing is alien to European soccer.

I think you're probably right on the second point.. Americans do prefer to see the best team (on paper) win.. an underdog getting by on pure luke, fluke, mistake or technicality is a scandal rather than fun.

As for ACR's ideas on statistics - it is happening as with the OPTA stats which do produce some interesting results. But these stats are open to subjective opinion and too often throw up weird rankings such as Lampard being better than Ronaldinho. It's like using the RTSS stats in hockey (hits, giveaways, takeaways etc..) Doan might be rated the best RW in the game because of his huge hitting ability. Or the Phoenix RTSS rater may be awarding too many hits.

...they would have been out of business years ago due to the direct competition with the major winter sports. And many teams would be without stadiums.
Maybe you're right. I don't know though. Playing in the summer, they're in direct competition with baseball and they only get two months off between the end of baseketball and hockey and the beginning of American football.

Maybe you're right. I don't know though. Playing in the summer, they're in direct competition with baseball and they only get two months off between the end of baseketball and hockey and the beginning of American football.
yes but competition with baseball is one thing, competition with the 'contact' sports is another altogether.

I think that by playing during summer, they can go 'some' way towards satiating those who are looking for more of a contact sport to follow in the summer

I went to an MLS game tonight, wasnt bad. Except the 40,000 seats that were tarped off. :help:

I caught that game on the tube. Funny, the Red Sox are playing against Pedro Martinez, there's an NBA Draft going on, and I'm watching the Revs game. I've seen practically every World Cup match. I guess I've had the soccer bug since the early 80's when I started watching "Soccer Made In Germany". It's weird how an American like me can become engrossed in soccer and hockey while becoming blase about baseball and totally ignorant of basketball.

I caught that game on the tube. Funny, the Red Sox are playing against Pedro Martinez, there's an NBA Draft going on, and I'm watching the Revs game. I've seen practically every World Cup match. I guess I've had the soccer bug since the early 80's when I started watching "Soccer Made In Germany". It's weird how an American like me can become engrossed in soccer and hockey while becoming blase about baseball and totally ignorant of basketball.

I think that what MLS was hoping for. Right now, the World Cup is when many more Americans follow soccer. MLS is banking on that, hey, they're watching some soccer now, maybe when the WC isn't on they'll check us out. It's not a bad idea, but I don't know if it has helped. It hasn't here in NJ or NY, but that's more due to the fact that the Red Bulls suck (and they sucked as the MetroStars).

Bill Simmons weighs in on why World Cup soccer's cool.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/060705

Bill Simmons weighs in on why World Cup soccer's cool.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/060705

I didn't like that article. He seems to treat football like it's a highlight show that you only need to glance at. Some of his reasons for liking the WC are kind of dumb too. Number 4 is a little creepy and he's completely missed the point of the jersey ritual. In a country where sportmanship like that is rare, I'm disappointed that he didn't appreciate it more.

He also completely misses the point that one of the reasons that the WC is so special is because it is a rare event that only does happen every 4 years. I don't think anyone would appreciate it as much if it happened every year. Besides, the players would probably revolt.

I'm sure there could be a way to judge a midfielder's worth with a % of succesful tackles or challenges, pass interceptions, turnovers cause, rushes defended, crosses cleared, etc. They just have to be developed, refined, and published for everyone to see and understand.

I don't think so. There are so many things that make a good midfielder. How well they move. How quick they recieve the ball. How quick they pass the ball. Making runs that open up a running/passing lane for an opponent. There are a lot of things that show up in stats. In fact many quite average players would have decent stats (high pass % etc) simply because they don't do the things great players do. What stats would you use that accurately describe the use Gattuso has for a team? Tackles - sure. But the absurd running he makes would be hard to show. His positioning the same.

As annoying as it may be for people who like stats, football isn't a game that is easily captured that way. There is simply no way to get a mental image of a player from reading stats. There really isn't in hockey either, but there the stats give a better hint.

I love stats but they are just stats.

I didn't like that article. He seems to treat football like it's a highlight show that you only need to glance at. Some of his reasons for liking the WC are kind of dumb too. Number 4 is a little creepy and he's completely missed the point of the jersey ritual. In a country where sportmanship like that is rare, I'm disappointed that he didn't appreciate it more.

He also completely misses the point that one of the reasons that the WC is so special is because it is a rare event that only does happen every 4 years. I don't think anyone would appreciate it as much if it happened every year. Besides, the players would probably revolt.
Simmons' articles are often very sarcastic. I can understand how that might not come through.