Soccer anyone???

[nessokman]

I'm playing soccer this year as a freshman.

I played in 4th grade and loved it. MY mom never signed me up again so i didn't play.....Only two people in my family support me playing soccer, my grandma and uncle.The rest think i won;t make it.

Any other soccer lovers?

 

[Chronodiver Lokii]

I played from like...preschool to freshman year of hs (goalie in hs x3)
fun sport. i really miss it a lot

Favorite team is the US Women's team. They're 2gud

 

[~ Gheb ~]

It's football, not soccer.

 

[Veetaak]

I played soccer from when I was 5 till somewhere around 13-14 where I started playing alot of counter strike and didn't feel like I had the time to do both anymore.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

It's football, not soccer.

Touchdown!

 

[The Fail Tracer]

I enjoy soccer too. Got into it in eleventh grade because of Case Closed/Detective Conan.

My friend also likes soccer and CC/DC, so we sometimes play against each other with our own rules (or lack thereof). My favorite part is just kicking it with extreme force and seeing how hard it hits something.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

I used to play soccer a lot when I was in gradeschool.

Apparently I was really coordinated back then, at least enough that me and 2 other people were able to take the rest of our class.

When I got into middle school, the kids started getting ahead of me because I'm short and they started developing muscle faster or something.

But by High School I got tops again.

 

[Teran]

Being small is an advantage in football lol, you're generally more agile and quick on your feet than the big lumbering goons.

Plus being short can always be remedied in muscling contests by just using your studs, just make sure the ref doesn't see.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Being short in football isn't an 'advantage' - it's just not a disadvantage compared to other sports like basketball or american football.

 

[Teran]

Actually it is somewhat of a pattern that the greatest players of all time have been a little short.

Again it's mostly to do with agility and such things which smaller people do generally have more of.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Swimming, anyone?

 

[Beat!]

Actually it is somewhat of a pattern that the greatest players of all time have been a little short.

Again it's mostly to do with agility and such things which smaller people do generally have more of.

Actually, goalkeepers are generally pretty tall.

Pele, Maradona and Messi (I assume those are the "greatest players" you're talking about) are/were all extremely good, but there are other positions in a football team. None of them would make particularly good defenders or goalkeppers, for example. Labelling someone the "best" is, in my opinion, harder than a lot of people make it out to be, because the players are valuable to their team in different ways depending on which position they play on.

All those best player awards and titles are extremely biased, because they almost always go to offensive players, since their performance is directly noticable. A lot of what for example a defender does during a match passes by unnoticed, because they're often trying to position themselves in a way that avoids a dangerous situation entirely, which often makes it look like they didn't do anything at all.

To put the above into an example, I'd argue that Xavi is a much more important player for Barcelona than Messi, but Messi ends up winning all the awards because he's fast, technical and scores all the goals.



If you want to be one of those speedy, super technical players (Messi, Maradona), then yes, not being tall might give you a small advantage, but other than that, it doesn't really make a difference (in fact, it's a bit of a disadvantage if you want to be a goalkeeper, or if you play in one of the more physical leagues, such as the English or Scottish ones).

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

Well, I really hated goal keeping anyway. I found it boring

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I'd replace Xavi with Iniesta in that post but I agree with the point somewhat, although claiming Xavi to be 'much more important' than Messi is a huge exaggeration. They simply cannot but compared like that because they do different things - Xavi's job is to make sure that Barca never loses, Messi's job is to make sure that Barca always wins.

 

[Beat!]

"Much more important" was partly hyperbole. I'm not denying Messi's importance as a player. Just wanted to make a point.

And yeah, Iniesta's extremely good as well. In fact, I think you may be right about him being a better example than Xavi.

Although Manchester United's better than all of them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[R2_GP]

i'm not a very good player myself, but i love it! lol Real Madrid FTW!

 

[Teran]

Actually, goalkeepers are generally pretty tall.

Pele, Maradona and Messi (I assume those are the "greatest players" you're talking about) are/were all extremely good, but there are other positions in a football team. None of them would make particularly good defenders or goalkeppers, for example. Labelling someone the "best" is, in my opinion, harder than a lot of people make it out to be, because the players are valuable to their team in different ways depending on which position they play on.

All those best player awards and titles are extremely biased, because they almost always go to offensive players, since their performance is directly noticable. A lot of what for example a defender does during a match passes by unnoticed, because they're often trying to position themselves in a way that avoids a dangerous situation entirely, which often makes it look like they didn't do anything at all.

It is true that the most focus does tend to land on offensive players, but to be fair everyoe starts out with aspirations of being a striker. Football revolves around scoring goals and while every player counts, ultimately the ones that capture us the most are creative, brilliant players. It's not always about bias towards offensive players, anchoring midfield players that command the pitch also get the praise because you get to watch them command the pitch.

To put the above into an example, I'd argue that Xavi is a much more important player for Barcelona than Messi, but Messi ends up winning all the awards because he's fast, technical and scores all the goals.

Man you had me actually respecting your opinion but then you had to go and say that.

I'm sorry but it's not even about putting Messi on a pedestal, it's about the fact that Xavi is totally overrated and bloody average. People talk about how "oh he has so many completed passes, he's so reliable", and literally he does is receive the ball, and just give the lamest most useless and inconsequential short ball ever.

If you said Iniesta, a player who actually has the creative flair and brilliance to actually provide a ball of some consequence, then I would have been more receptive, but then you had to go and say Xavi.

Also, Messi is Barcelona, the whole system is tailored around accommodating him.

If you want to be one of those speedy, super technical players (Messi, Maradona), then yes, not being tall might give you a small advantage, but other than that, it doesn't really make a difference (in fact, it's a bit of a disadvantage if you want to be a goalkeeper, or if you play in one of the more physical leagues, such as the English or Scottish ones).

Obviously it's a disadvantage for a goalkeeper, and not great for some positions like central defence, but you're forgetting that everybody wants to be the speedy technial type and nobody wants to be known as a great defender. The glory is in netting a beauty, not running around charging down tricky strikers and wingers.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Actually, the Barca system is tailored around an absurdly overpowering and oversized midfield and a defense that for a good while seemed to be almost completely unbreakable. Messi's freedom to act as he pleases is mainly based around this fact. There's no doubt that Barca needs Messi but people way too often forget how much Messi needs Barca. Sure, if he played in another club he would still be an incredible player but the impact he makes could never be the same anywhere else.

I can't help but agree with Teran about Xavi though. Like four years ago or so I would've agreed with Xavi being brilliant but right now he's not longer in the same league as the very best players in the world - to whom Messi and Iniesta without any doubt belong.

 

[Beat!]

FINE, Iniesta, not Xavi, then.

you're forgetting that everybody wants to be the speedy technial type and nobody wants to be known as a great defender.

I don't think that's true at all. >_>



Also agreed with Gheb regarding Barca's "system". Messi's a GREAT asset to the team, but I think they'd be pretty fine without him as well (obviously not quite as good, but I don't see this collapse you seem to be suggesting).

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

I don't know how sports work in your countries, but here it's the people that get the points that are the famous ones, the ones that get awards, fame and money.

I don't watch sports much, but I know some of the leading point makers in various sports

 

[Dre89]

I've been a die-hard footballing fan for like the last 8 years but now I'm starting to realise how stupid most sports and competitiveness are so I'm gradually losing interest.

It's better to be short, because the lower centre of gravity gives you more agility and speed, and usually better ball control. You can also con the referee into winning fouls much easier. It's only really a disadvantage if you're a keeper or a centre back.

Offensive players get more recognition not just because they're more entertaining but because it does genuinely require more talent. The greatest attacking players have all the technical requirements to be a fullback or centre midfielder, because they're aren't really specific technical requirements. The majority of the skill in those positions is mental, it comes from positioning, reading the game discipline, having good vision etc. Those attributes are accquired much easier and by more players than attacking attributes like having close control on the ball whilst running at pace.

Also, the expectations on attacking players are much higher than defensive ones. A defender or defensive mifielder simply has to avoid making mistakes and he's considered to have a good game. Not only does an offensive player have to do that, he also has to score and create chances.

The reality is most people football enthusiasts aren't sophisticated footballing brains, which is why they place such low expectations on defensive players and think that commiting a lot of fouls as a defensive midfielder makes them a 'ball winner' and 'passionate'.

 

[Teran]

Tbqh after playing a couple matches as full back for my school, I kinda think of it as the most taxing position.

I mean probably because my body wasn't used to that level of continued exertion, but still, full backs are basically wingers and defenders in the modern game, so imo it's definitely a position I have a lot respect for those that play it.

It's so much better being a winger when you only have to cover half the pitch xD

 

[Dre89]

Tbqh after playing a couple matches as full back for my school, I kinda think of it as the most taxing position.

I mean probably because my body wasn't used to that level of continued exertion, but still, full backs are basically wingers and defenders in the modern game, so imo it's definitely a position I have a lot respect for those that play it.

It's so much better being a winger when you only have to cover half the pitch xD

Fullback is the least taxing position, as there usually isn't an obligation on your behalf to get forward, it's just that better fullbacks do it. Good fullbacks will only go forward when there is space, usually by overlapping a winger holding up the ball, or if a midfielder hits a switch pass into space, so the fullback usually has a better time putting in a quality cross or inside ball than the winger does because the winger usually has to create their own space.

Fullbacks also have an easier job defensively than centre backs do. I just wish professional fullbacks would learn to use their other foot. So often they go back to the keeper or centre back when they could have used their weak foot to pass into the midfield.

Defenders and defensive midfielders have the lowest requirements technique-wise, in that all players have the technical capacity to do anything fullbacks can do (unless the fullback is a set-piece specialist, which has nothing to do with being a fullback). They also have less physical requirements than centre-backs, as they don't need to be tall or particularly strong.

I personally think inverted fullbacks are better attack-wise than traditional fullbacks, because apart from cutting in onto your strong foot to shoot and being to put in-swinging crosses (which keepers hate), it gives you a better passing range when you have ball deeper in the field.

 

[Teran]

Fullback is the least taxing position, as there usually isn't an obligation on your behalf to get forward, it's just that better fullbacks do it. Good fullbacks will only go forward when there is space, usually by overlapping a winger holding up the ball, or if a midfielder hits a switch pass into space, so the fullback usually has a better time putting in a quality cross or inside ball than the winger does because the winger usually has to create their own space.

Being a lazy fullback means not having to get forward. This isn't 1999 where a fullback is split into right back or right wing back.

And yes, they only go forward when there is space, kinda like almost any position. Space is rather easy to find on the wings. If they're playing narrow then it's easy to find space on the wings, if they then tweak their positions to deal with the wide threat, you create space through the middle.

So yeah, any fullback worth their salt does a lot of work. I can't believe you said "only good fullbacks". A good fullback is the example which we use. I mean I'm not going to give lessons on being a striker with Emile Heskey as the case study.

Fullbacks also have an easier job defensively than centre backs do. I just wish professional fullbacks would learn to use their other foot. So often they go back to the keeper or centre back when they could have used their weak foot to pass into the midfield.

In some ways that's true but considering the amount of running they do it's not necessarily as easy. A lot of players in general like to play it safe I guess, I mean we all know what happens if you give possession away as a defender, you are nailed to the cross.

Defenders and defensive midfielders have the lowest requirements technique-wise, in that all players have the technical capacity to do anything fullbacks can do (unless the fullback is a set-piece specialist, which has nothing to do with being a fullback). They also have less physical requirements than centre-backs, as they don't need to be tall or particularly strong.

Not necessarily, again fullbacks are generally better at whipping crosses and such things, which if course is a technical skill. Also I think you're forgetting that pristine cardio is a physical requirement too. Lilian Thuram had such a powerful heart that his doctors told him to slack off and stop his cardio, because his systolic pressure had the possibility of rupturing his blood vessels. Lol.

I personally think inverted fullbacks are better attack-wise than traditional fullbacks, because apart from cutting in onto your strong foot to shoot and being to put in-swinging crosses (which keepers hate), it gives you a better passing range when you have ball deeper in the field.

Eh personally I think that's best suited for actual wingers. Unless you're Sergio Ramos, in which case you just do wharever the **** you want and then have sex with Cristiano's girlfriend.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Full back is a very taxing position to play, arguably the most taxing of them all. I've played full back, center back and defensive midfield and I can definitely say that the center back is the most underrated position when it comes to how taxing a position is considered to be. Everybody knows that full back is hard work but few people understand how exhausting it is to play a truly great center back. There's more to football than just the physical side of things. As a center-back you cannot allow yourself to be too late for even a split-second. You always have to be able to keep up with strikers and attacking midfielders in an instant, you have to foresee their next move and you always have to find the best way to intercept their moves without risking a foul. Mentally, that's more taxing than any other position on the field.

I've always liked defensive midfield the best though because it gives you great influence over the game. It's also very taxing [both, physically and mentally] but I for me it requires the right mix of physical endurance and mental awareness.

A defender or defensive mifielder simply has to avoid making mistakes and he's considered to have a good game. Not only does an offensive player have to do that, he also has to score and create chances.

That's absolutely not true.