(A common chant often used by soccer crowds, fed up with watching boring, scoreless games.)

by Graham Ramsay

 

How many ways can we shoot the game in the literal foot? There might be the SARS disease in Asia, but youth soccer in the United States in producing another strain of S.A.R.S.G. – Shoting Aversion Resulting in Scoreless Games. This trend can only set the sport back years. What is this cancerous beast? It’s when teams want to win by the lowest form of play – play half court defense and wait for the other team to make a mistake. They capitalize on that error with a goal, and then close up shop, defending for the rest of the game. The final score: 1 – 0. Such games seem to be appearing more and more. Sadly, some of the most boring games I have seen in the were at the USYSA National Championship last year. It’s an effective fix and covers up the cracks in average teams and/or players. In the short term, the coach wins and such teams gain some success; however, in the long haul, the game and the players are big losers.

If you asked the average sports fan what they think about soccer, you would probably get the same answers – boring and lack of scoring. Now, if coaches actively promote such play, don’t they understand the damage they are inflicting on a great game. It reinforces the anti-soccer lobby to say, “I told you so,” pointing the finger to these stop-start games of free kicks for petty fouls, passing around the back forever, and generally, putting the fans (and the game) to sleep. Rumor has it that these games have attracted a new type of fan -- the ones suffering from insomnia have now found a cure for their sleeplessness. Find one of these games, and you’ll be asleep within minutes. When I see a team use this as a major tactic for a prolonged time, then I know we’re in trouble.

When two teams both resort to counter attacking games, or half-court press defending, you know you are in for top class boredom. On an exciting day, you might see five or six shots total in a whole game. Talk about watching paint dry!

I can understand using this tactic mixed with more offensive ideas to surprise their opponents, or on a hot, humid day when you cannot attack, attack, attack as it might have the same result of performing Hari-Kari. The teams that do are fun to watch in the first half, and even more fun for their opponents to destroy in the second half. You can often recognize these teams as they suffer from “sun-burnt tongue” syndrome as they wilt in the heat. They have nothing left in their tank to offer. They just stand there, tongues gasping for water. At least they came out in a positive frame of mind, but their enthusiasm went off the Richter scale – seeing mirages of the opposing penalty area like an oasis. Sun burnt tongues! Here we come! There needs to be a balance.

There are a number of factors that might influence a coach to play that way, such as when a tournament packs two to three games into a sweltering, summer day, often close to 100 degrees. That’s not the coach’s fault in protecting their players, but the total lack of understanding by administrators to exposing youngsters to extreme conditions. I don’t see the administrators standing outin the glare of the sun and heat for a couple of hours. They are off in the shade of a tree or under an umbrella. They forget the players are totally exposed to the heat, not to mention the competitive mode of running, tackling, etc. Then, they do it again, later that day! USYSA and State Associations need to do a rethink to the structure of these competitions. If they do not understand the physiological stress involved, then they need to research and learn why many countries only allow one game per day (or two shortened ones). In addition, the games would be played early in the morning, resting between 11:30 AM and 3:00 PM, with games resuming in the late afternoon and evening, to avoid the midday heat. At present, the end results is a devalued level of play favoring the fittest and more physical teams. Skill and player development loses once again.

To those coaches who enjoy inflicting this boring game of dropping off and defending in their own half as their mantra, please go and ruin another sport. We need positive play, be it attacking or defending attitudes from top to bottom of the sport. We need to feed the great American habit of going for the goal, as it breeds the most positive forms of attacking play. Lothar Matthaus, after years of playing in Europe for Bayern Munich, Inter Milan, and winning the World Cup with West Germany, spent a season in MLS. He thought this attitude to attack was refreshing, especially in basketball and American Football. In Europe, they often play not to lose, this breeds caution and playing defensively. Luckily, in the U.S., the optimism to attack is part of the culture, and needs to be promoted as often as possible. This is the only country I know where youngsters talk about “shooting goals and baskets!” This optimism needs to be nurtured and encouraged. Where skill is king, those countries, in whatever sport, produce great players. We need that spirit throughout the sport of soccer, especially at the junior levels.

In many of the elite countries in Europe, they encourage youth programs of clubs to play a positive game. They know winning alone is a poor substitute for developing talent. Look at countries like Denmark and The Netherlands, they see the game as an educational vehicle first, and then to win when it matters, in the late teens onwards. They know the cancer of negative play only produces low standards. The coach wins and the players lose when the result is more important. Look at the programs where the coach wins all the awards, and then track where all the players finish up. Too many of them drop out of the sport before they are out of their teens. The system has cheated them, as they won when it did not matter, between the ages of seven and sixteen. They won tons of trophies, but never learned how to play the game. They competed and did what the system demanded of them – to win, but they never learned the basics well enough. Denmark and The Netherlands nurture and plan long-term; whereas, here in the U.S., trophies and the scoreboard are the only measuring sticks from day one. Band-aid thinking for band-aid play!

Hopefully, both administrators and coaches will give this problem a long and hard look, as too many tournaments are starting to see the majority of scores end up 1-0, 0-0, etc. Just go and look at scoreboards to see the damage. Let’s stop the disease before it becomes an epidemic, and think of ways to force teams to play positive soccer. It’s our future we’re dealing with, and not next week’s plastic trophy.

What can we do to change this mindset? Are there remedies on tap? Try this for a starter, the North American Soccer League (NASL), years ago in a number of pre-season games, experimented with a 35-yard off-side line to open up the play. To my mind, this would do wonders for the youth game, as it promotes space in the midfield and helps players, coaches, referees, and fans learn more about the sport. Not only would it be easier to educate everyone about off-sides, but they would also be learning zones – defense third, midfield, and attacking third. Another way of fostering attacking play, if a game ends in a tie, then the team that scored first would be credited with the victory. An additional means to accomplish this goal can be derived from other sports like basketball – a goal scored from outside the penalty area would be worth two goals, similar to the three-point shot. This would encourage a skill we desperately need – quality long-range shooting, especially with these lightweight balls that bend and dip. These shots and, hopefully, goals, are the ones that stick in the memory, together with the great saves demanded from these bullets. Why can’t we encourage a few budding Roberto Carlo’s to ply their lethal trade? It would not only make the sport more exciting, but open up the inside game. For soccer, that’s more space in the penalty area. So what’s wrong with skill and excitement?

 

Postscript –