What Soccer (C/Sh)ould Learn From Tennis
Friday, June 25, 2010
This week we saw attention breifly divert from South Africa as the longest tennis match in history spanned over a 3 day period. In a first round match at Wimbeldon, John Isner defeated Nicholas Mahut after a match that lasted for over 11 hours. 
This, in the midst of the World Cup, the proclaimed biggest event in all of sports, grabbed the attention of the sports world. But why? It was only a first round match, so the implications were minimal, right? While this may be true, it's the idea of the competition that made it so appealing, so exciting. We saw two men who refused to budge, playing longer than anyone ever had so they could win, despite it being just a first round match. On the flip side, we've seen a World Cup filled with equality, not victory. In round play alone there were 14 draws. I know that at the end of the day the teams with the most points get into the next round, but should a team like the US really get in after winning only one game? I think it's great that they got in, but they got in because of the way the system is set up, and it's clear to see that the system is seriously flawed. The World Cup is one of, if not the, biggest event in all of sports, yet we're not seeing the true nature of sport when we watch it. The idea of a sport is to determine who is the best, and we saw a tennis match this week that reaffirmed the importance of that determination.
In the World Cup's round of 16 and beyond there are no ties, but rather shootouts. In fact, the final of the 2006 World Cup was decided by a shootout. Does this not seem right to anyone else?
After two teams battle for weeks to get to the final, in arguably the biggest event in all of sports, should the outcome really come down to one shooter and a goalie? I don't think it's fair to the teams or the fans to have it come down to that, and I think the only way you can determine a champion is to simply play the game.
Of course, the World Cup is still a great event with all the ties, but why not play it out? At the 90th minute, why not play sudden death to get a winner? I understand that it's hard to score, but doesn't that make it more exciting? I think the World Cup could appeal to a lot more people, especially here in the US, if there weren't as many draws - it could turn indifference into passion. So even though soccer is in the spotlight right now, maybe it should take a peek out to learn about how to make the sport even better.
This, in the midst of the World Cup, the proclaimed biggest event in all of sports, grabbed the attention of the sports world. But why? It was only a first round match, so the implications were minimal, right? While this may be true, it's the idea of the competition that made it so appealing, so exciting. We saw two men who refused to budge, playing longer than anyone ever had so they could win, despite it being just a first round match. On the flip side, we've seen a World Cup filled with equality, not victory. In round play alone there were 14 draws. I know that at the end of the day the teams with the most points get into the next round, but should a team like the US really get in after winning only one game? I think it's great that they got in, but they got in because of the way the system is set up, and it's clear to see that the system is seriously flawed. The World Cup is one of, if not the, biggest event in all of sports, yet we're not seeing the true nature of sport when we watch it. The idea of a sport is to determine who is the best, and we saw a tennis match this week that reaffirmed the importance of that determination. In the World Cup's round of 16 and beyond there are no ties, but rather shootouts. In fact, the final of the 2006 World Cup was decided by a shootout. Does this not seem right to anyone else?
After two teams battle for weeks to get to the final, in arguably the biggest event in all of sports, should the outcome really come down to one shooter and a goalie? I don't think it's fair to the teams or the fans to have it come down to that, and I think the only way you can determine a champion is to simply play the game. Of course, the World Cup is still a great event with all the ties, but why not play it out? At the 90th minute, why not play sudden death to get a winner? I understand that it's hard to score, but doesn't that make it more exciting? I think the World Cup could appeal to a lot more people, especially here in the US, if there weren't as many draws - it could turn indifference into passion. So even though soccer is in the spotlight right now, maybe it should take a peek out to learn about how to make the sport even better.
Labels:
these are very well written sports articles
1 Tennis grabbed the attention away from the WC because it made history there will never be a tennis match that lasts 10 hours, but lets be honest no one really saw it. It doesn’t matter if it was the first round match, its inhuman to do what they did. Plus im sure the world cup had twice as many ratings that day over tennis.
2 hockey has shoot outs its part of the game. 120 minutes is more than enough time to score and put your team ahead it’s a fair way to end it.
3 soccer is already the best sport in the world usa doesn’t have many fans because 1 its not part of their culture 2 usa sucks at soccer 3 you have other sports to like.
1 Tennis grabbed the attention away from the WC because it made history there will never be a tennis match that lasts 10 hours, but lets be honest no one really saw it. It doesn’t matter if it was the first round match, its inhuman to do what they did. Plus im sure the world cup had twice as many ratings that day over tennis.
2 hockey has shoot outs its part of the game. 120 minutes is more than enough time to score and put your team ahead it’s a fair way to end it.
3 soccer is already the best sport in the world usa doesn’t have many fans because 1 its not part of their culture 2 usa sucks at soccer 3 you have other sports to like.